&
oH
II
THE LIBRARY
of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto
ftltofti
CHRISTIANITY
TALMUD AND MIDRASH
CHRISTIANITY
IN
TALMUD AND MIDRASH
BY
R. TRAVERS HERFORD, B.A.
LONDON
WILLIAMS & NORGATE
i4 HENRIETTA ST., COVENT GARDEN
1903
BM
503 C5
BHUNUa
I <l into
TO THE MEMORY OF
ABRAHAM KUENEN
SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN
THIS BOOK IS
GRATEFULLY DEDICATED
BY
ONE OF HIS OLD STUDENTS
PREFACE
The great host of books which have been written upon the early history of Christianity have, amidst all their differences, one characteristic in common. They are almost entirely based upon the study of Christian documents. This of course is natural, and no investigation which should neglect those docu- ments would lead to results of any value. But the field of inquiry is not exhausted when the Christian literature has been thoroughly explored. There is a Jewish literature which also needs to be examined. Considering that, historically, Christianity is an out- growth from Judaism, and that the Judaism with which the origin of Christianity was contemporary was the Judaism not of the prophets but of the Rabbis, it is obvious that the Rabbinical literature must also be consulted if a thorough investigation into the origin of Christianity is to be made. The necessity of examining the Rabbinical literature is of course denied by no scholar who has written on early Christian history, but such examination cannot be said to have been as yet thoroughly carried out. For the most part a few references are given to passages in the Mishnah and the Gemaras, or a line
vii
viii PREFACE
or two translated. Few readers have at hand the means of verifying these references ; and thus even the careful and accurate scholarship of writers like Keim and Schiirer does not prove very helpful, since their readers cannot go to the sources which are pointed out. And even Keim and Schiirer indicate but a small proportion of the material which is avail- able in the Rabbinical literature. Edersheim does know that literature as none but a Jew can know it, and makes abundant reference to it ; but the value of his work as a historical study is much diminished by a strong theological bias, apart from the fact already mentioned, that it is usually impossible for the reader to verify the quotations. No blame of course attaches to these and many other scholars, who have made incidental reference to the Rabbinical literature, for the incompleteness and scantiness of such reference. It can hardly be said to come within the scope of any of the works referred to above to give in full the Rabbinical material to which reference is made.
It is the object of this book to try and present that material with some approach to completeness, in order to put within the reach of scholars who have not access to the Rabbinical literature the full text of the passages bearing on the subject, together with translation and commentary. It is hoped that this may be the means of supplying a want that as yet remains unsatisfied, viz., of a work that shall let the Christian scholar know what the Rabbinical literature really does contain bearing on the origin and early history of Christianity. It would be rash to say that the collection of passages contained in this book is
PREFACE ix
exhaustive ; in a great wilderness like the Talmud and the Midrashim one can never be sure that some passage of interest and importance has not been over- looked. But I believe it will be found that the chief material available for the purpose has been gathered together ; and though it should not be quite com- plete, it will yet suffice to throw light upon several points of interest. Even if the reader should be of opinion that, after all, the Rabbinical literature does not add much to what is known of Christian history from other sources, he may at least reflect that now he does know what that Rabbinical literature contains.
The period covered by the passages cited extends to the middle of the fourth century a.d., i.e., roughly speaking, the period for which the Talmud is avail- able. No reference whatever will be made to medi- aeval polemics between Jews and Christians. My object is to put before the reader all that I can find which illustrates the relation between Jews and Christians during the first four centuries of the common era, and to do this solely from the Jewish side. I shall make no attempt whatever to present the case from Christian documents, because this has already been thoroughly done. Further, I wish to write solely from the point of view of historical scholarship, with no bias towards either of the two great religions whose representatives are mentioned in the passages dealt with. My only aim is to present facts, in the shape of statements contained in ancient Jewish writings, and to extract from those state- ments whatever information they may afford bearing on the historical problem of the early history of
x PREFACE
Christianity. As a Christian who has for several years found his chief and absorbing intellectual interest in the study of the Rabbinical literature — so far as other and more pressing claims on his time would allow — I offer this book as a contribution to Christian scholarship, and I trust that the great Jewish scholars, whose works have been of so much help to me, will not frown on my small incursion into their domain.
I have only to add an expression of cordial thanks to the Rev. S. Alfred Steinthal for his kindness in reading the proofs.
Stand, Manchester, October 1903.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction,
PAGE
1
DIVISION I.
Passages from the Rabbinical Literature, .
35
A. PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS
Birth and parentage of Jesus, . |
35 |
Mary the mother of Jesus, |
41 |
Jesus alleged to be a " Mamzer," |
43 |
Covert reference to Jesus, |
45 |
Ancestry of the Mother of Jesus, |
47 |
Alleged confession by the Mother of Jesus, |
48 |
Jesus and his Teacher, .... |
50 |
Jesus a Magician, .... |
54 |
Jesus burns his Food, .... |
56 |
The claim of Jesus denied, |
62 |
The voice of Balaam, .... |
68 |
Jesus and Balaam, . . . |
64 |
Jesus and Balaam in Hell, |
67 |
The age of Balaam, .... |
72 |
Balaam and the Name of God, . |
75 |
The Chapter concerning Balaam, |
76 |
The Trial of Jesus, .... |
78 |
The Execution of Jesus, .... |
83 |
The Disciples of Jesus, .... |
90 |
Ben Netzer, ..... |
95 |
xi |
Xll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B. PASSAGES RELATING TO MINIM, MINUTH
Section i. Descriptions and Definitions of Minim and Minuth.
Gehazi (Paul ?), ....
Ben Damah and Jacob the Min,
The grandson of R. Jehoshua and a Min,
R. Abahu and Jacob the Min, .
A Contest of Miracles, .
Miracles by Jews and Minim, . [
The Fate of the Minim hereafter,
The Formula against the Minim,
R. Eliezer arrested for Minuth, .
Books of the Minim; Imma Shalom and a Christian
Judge, ....
How the Books of the Minim are to be treated Books of the Law written by a Min, The Books of the Minim do not defile the hands The Books of the Be Abidan, Be Nitzraphi, The Nazarene Day, Gentile and Min,
No dealings to be had with Minim, Jewish origin of the Minim, Haggadah against Minuth, Minim and Circumcision, The Principle of Minuth, Scriptural Indications of Minuth, Signs of Minuth ; liturgical variations, Signs of Minuth ; liturgical omissions, The Kingdom turned to Minuth, Rome pretending to be the true Israel,
97 103 108 109 112 115 118 125 137
146 155 157 160 161 171 173 177 181 182 191 192 195 199 204 207 210
Section ii. Polemical encounters between Jews and Minim.
The Minim of Capernaum and Hananjah, The Minim and R. Jonathan, The Minim and R. Jehudah ben Naqosa, R. Jehoshua, Caesar and a Min, .
211 215 218 221
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xm
R. Jehoshua and a Min ; " Thou brier ! "
R. Jehoshua, R. Gamliel, R. El'azar and R. Aqiba and a
Min ; God keeps Sabbath, R. Gamliel and the Minim : Resurrection, R. Gamliel and a Min ; God and Israel, . Beruria and a Min ; children of Hell, R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh and a Min ; unity of God, R. Ishmael ben Jose and a Min ; unity of God, . R. Hanina and a Min ; Israel and the Gentiles, R. Hanina and a Min ; Rejection of Israel, R. Hanina and a Min ; Land of Israel, . R. Jannai, R. Jonathan and a Min ; grave of Rachel, R. Simlai and the Minim ; Two Powers, R. Abahu, R. Saphra and the Minim, R. Abahu and the Epiqurosin ; Enoch, . R. Abahu and the Minim ; anachronisms in Scripture, R. Abahu and the Minim ; souls of the departed, R. Abahu and a Min ; God a jester, a priest, R. Abahu and a Min ; the coming of the Messiah, R. Abahu and a Min ; Sason, R. Ami and a Min ; Resurrection, Gebiha ben Pesisa and a Min ; Resurrection, R. Tanhuma, Caesar and a Min, . R. Idi and a Min ; Metatron, R. Abina and a Min,
226
228 231 235 237 239 245 247 250 251 253 255 266 270 272 274 275 276 277 278 281 282 285 290
Section Hi. Polemical allusions to Minim, Minutk.
Unity of God ; |
man created solitary, |
291 |
Unity of God ; |
texts appealed to by Minim, |
293 |
Unity of God ; |
" an offering to JHVH," |
297 |
Unity of God ; |
Two Powers, |
299 |
Unity of God ; |
" He who will err," |
301 |
Unity of God ; |
God has no Son, |
302 |
Unity of God ; |
God has no Son, |
303 |
Unity of God ; |
son of the harlot, |
304 |
Unity of God ; |
a second God, |
306 |
The "carping' |
' of the Minim, . |
308 |
Immortality, |
. |
315 |
XIV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section iv. Miscellaneous Passages referring to Minim
Ground of departure of the Minim,
" Do not give place to the Minim,"
A Canon of Minuth,
A chance for the Minim ; Pharaoh,
Four classes of Minim, .
Words of the Minim,
" They that hate me " ; the Minim,
A reply to the Minim ; Genealogies,
The Minim and the New Moon,
The Minim and Alexander the Great,
Minim ; casual references,
Jacob of Chephar Neburaia,
The Priesthood of Melchizedek,
315 316 319 320 323 325 325 326 327 331 332 334 338
DIVISION II.— GENERAL RESULTS
Chap. I. The Jesus-Tradition,
II. The Minim, ....
§ i. Etymology of the word Min, § ii. Who were the Minim ? § iii. The Place of the Minim in History, Conclusion,
344 361 362 365 381 396
APPENDIX CONTAINING ORIGINAL TEXTS OF PASSAGES TRANSLATED ....
401
INDICES |
|||
I. |
Index |
of Subjects, . . . . |
. 438 |
II. |
t> |
Persons mentioned, |
. 439 |
III. |
3i |
Places mentioned, |
. 443 |
IV. |
>> |
O.T. Passages referred to, |
. 443 |
V. |
» |
N.T. Passages referred to, |
445 |
VI. |
»> |
Rabbinical Passages referred to, |
. 446 |
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
M. =Mishnah; thus, M. Gitt. ix. 10 means Mishnah, treatise Gittin, chapter ix., section 10.
T. = Tosephta; thus, T. Sanh. viii. 7 means Tosephta, treatise Sanhedrin, chapter viii., section 7.
O.T. = Old Testament.
N.T. = New Testament.
R. = Rabbi, or Rab; thus, R. Jehoshua means Rabbi Jehoshua.
Passages from the Rabbinical literature are cited by the leaf and the page, or the leaf and the column, following the name of the treatise. Passages from the Jerusalem Talmud are distinguished by the letter j before the name of the treatise, those from the Babylonian Talmud by the letter b similarly placed ; thus j. Hag. means Jerusalem Talmud, treatise Hagigah ; b. B. Mez. means Babylonian Talmud, treatise Baba Mezia.
The names of the several treatises, which are the same for Mishnah, Tosephta, and both Talmuds, also the names of the Midrashim, are abbreviated as follows : —
Ab.
A. d. R. N.
A. Zar.
Bamm. r.
Bechor. Ber. Ber. r. Bice.
B. Q. B. Mez. B. Bathr. Debar, r. Dem. Der. er. z. Ech. r. Erach. Erub. Esth. r. Hag. Hor. Hull. Jad. Jeb.
Aboth.
I Aboth de Rabbi [ Nathan.
Abhodah Zarah. [ Bammidbar Rab- [ bah. Bechoroth. Berachoth. Bereshith Rabbah. Biccurim. Baba Qama. Baba Mezia. Baba Bathra. Debarim Rabbah. Demai.
Derech Eretz Zuta. Echah Rabbah. Erachin. Erubhin. Esther Rabbah. Hagigah. Horaioth. Hullin. Jadaim. Jebamoth.
Jom. |
Joma. |
Kail. |
Kallah. |
Kil. |
Kilaim. |
Keth. |
Kethuboth. |
Kidd. |
Kiddushin. |
Meg. Menah. |
Megillah. Menahoth. |
M. Qat. Nedar. |
Moed Qatan. Nedarim. |
Nidd. |
Niddah. |
Par. |
Parah. |
Pesah. |
Pesahim. |
Qoh.'r. R. ha-Sh. |
Qoheleth Rabbah. Rosh ha-Shanah. |
Sanh. |
Sanhedrin. |
Shabb. |
Shabbath. |
Shebhu. |
Shebhuoth. |
Shem. r. |
Shemoth Rabbah. |
Sh. ha-Sh. |
j Shir ha-Shirim r' \ Rabbah. |
Soph. Sot. |
Sopherim. Sotah. |
Succ. |
Succah. |
Taan. |
Taanith. |
Vajiq. r. |
Vajiqra Rabbah. |
xvi LIST OF CHIEF WORKS AND EDITIONS
LIST OF CHIEF WORKS AND EDITIONS REFERRED TO
Mishnah. Amsterdam, 1685.
Talmud Jerushalmi. Krotoschin, 1 866.
Talmud Babli. Wilna, 1880-85.
Hesronoth ha-Shas. No date.
Rabbinowicz, R. Diqduqe Sopherim, Variae Lectiones in Mishnam
etTalm. Babylonicum, 1867-1886. Tosephta. Ed. Zuckermandel, 1881. Siphri. Ed. Friedmann, 1864. Siphra. Ed. Weiss, 1862. Mechilta. Ed. Friedmann, 1870. Pesiqta de R. Kahana. Ed. Buber, 1 868. Pesiqta Rabbathi. Ed. Friedmann, 1880. Tanhuma. Ed. Buber, 1885. Midrash Rabboth. Wilna, 1887. Jalqut Shimoni. Warsaw, 1875. Frankel, Z. Darke ha-Mishnah, 1859.
„ Mebo ha-jerushalmi, 1870.
Levy, J. Neuhebraisches Worterbuch, 1876-1889.
„ Chaldaisches Worterbuch, 1867.
Sepher ha-Aruch. Basel, 1599.
Hamburger, J. Realencyclopadie fiir Bibel u. Talmud, 1870-1901. Zunz, L. Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden, 1 832. Jost, J. M. Geschichte des Judenthums, 1857. Gratz, H. Geschichte der Juden.
Weiss, J. H. Geschichte der Judischen Tradition, 1871. Weber, F. System der Altsynagogale Palestinensische Theologie,
1880. Bacher, W. Agada der Tannaiten, 1884-90.
„ Agada der Babylonischen Amoraer, 1878.
„ Agada der Palestinensischen Amoraer, 1892-1899.
Laible H. Jesus Christus im Talmud. Berlin, 1891. Friedlander. Der vorchristlichejiidische Gnosticismus. Gdttingen,
1898.
Christianity in Talmud and Midrash
INTRODUCTION
The passages from the Talmud and other Rabbinical
works which will be considered in the following pages
are excerpts from a literature of enormous extent, in
which the intellectual energy of the Jewish nation
during many centuries found ample and varied
expression. To give a detailed account of this
literature would lead me far from my main subject,
and would, moreover, need a considerable volume for
its full description. All that seems necessary here is
to give in a few words a general account of the
Rabbinical literature, so that the reader may be able
to judge of the kind of evidence furnished by the
passages which will be quoted, from some knowledge
of their origin.
The details of date, authorship and contents of the
several writings may be found in works of reference
accessible to scholars, such as Zunz' " Gottesdienst-
liche Vortrage der Juden," Hamburger's " Real-En-
cyklopadie fur Bibel und Talmud," or, for English
readers, the " Introduction to Hebrew Literature "
1
2 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
of Etheridge, a work of considerable value, in spite of the strong theological bias of the writer.
In an often quoted passage (Aboth, i. 1 sq.) the Talmud declares that " Moses received Torah x from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Syna- gogue. Simeon the Just was of the remnants of the Great Synagogue .... Antigonos of Socho re- ceived from Simeon the Just .... Jose ben Joezer of Zereda, and Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem received from them."2 Then follow the names of successive pairs of teachers down to Hillel and Sham- mai, who were contemporary with the beginning of the Christian era; and after these are mentioned singly the leading Rabbis of the first two centuries. The treatise, ' Pirqe Aboth/ as its title indicates, is a collection of ' Sayings ' by these ' Fathers ' of Israel. Now, whatever may be thought of the historical accuracy of the statement just quoted, it expresses clearly enough the view which the great founders of the Rabbinical literature held concerning their own work. It gives the keynote of the whole of that literature; it indicates the foundation on which it was built, and the method which its builders one
1 Torah, literally ' Teaching.' The usual translation 'Law ' is too narrow- in its meaning. Torah denotes the whole of what, according to Jewish belief, was divinely revealed to man. As the Pentateuch contained the record of that revelation, the Torah denotes the whole contents of the Pentateuch, whether narrative or precept ; and further, it includes not merely the written contents of the Pentateuch, but also the unwritten Tradition, the so-called Oral Law, which finally took shape in the Talmud.
2 There is a gap between Antigonos and the first Pair, as is pointed out by Strack in his edition of the Pirqe Aboth, 1882, p. 9. The Pairs of teachers are technically known as Zugoth (niJIT).
INTRODUCTION 3
and all adopted. The foundation is the Decalogue, and the method is Tradition.
The foundation is the Decalogue. More exactly, it is the famous declaration, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut. vi. 4, 5), a declaration enshrined in the Jewish liturgy as the very soul of Judaism.1 The Rabbinical literature is an attempt to furnish a complete answer to the ques- tion, " How shall a man love the Lord his God with all his heart and soul and might?" And even those Rabbinical writings which seem to have least reference to this main subject are dependent on it to this extent, that they would not have been written unless there had been in the minds of their authors the con- sciousness of this great fundamental principle.
The links in the chain of development are easily dis- tinguished, according to the Rabbinical theory. Upon the Decalogue (of which the Shema' is the summary) rests the Pentateuch. The Ten Commandments were expanded into greater detail ; and the historical and legendary parts, as we should call them, were included, or rather were expressly written with the same object as the legal parts, viz., for instruction in the right conduct of life. Moses was regarded as the author of the whole, unless with the exception of the last eight verses of Deut. (b. B. Bathr. 14b).2
Upon the Pentateuch rested the whole of the
1 It is known as the Shema\ from its first word in Hebrew. The Shema', as recited, includes some other texts.
2 See the Talmudic theory of the authorship of Scripture in Traditio Rabbinorum Veterrima de Librorum V. Test*1 ordine atq. origine illustrata a Gustavo Arminio Marx. Theol. licentiato. Lipsise, 1884.
4 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
other scriptures, according to the Rabbinical theory. That is to say, they were to be interpreted in confor- mity with the Pentateuch, or rather with the Torah, or Teaching, of which the Pentateuch was the written expression. The Rabbis held that the Torah, or teaching, which Moses was commissioned to give to Israel, was partly written and partly oral. It is the written Torah which is found in the Pentateuch, and developed in the other scriptures. The oral Teaching was said to have been handed down, from one genera- tion to another, as the key to the interpretation of the written Teaching. That the Pentateuch was regarded as the standard to which the other scriptures must conform is shown by the well-known discussion as to whether the books of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were to be included in the Canon. The reason alleged against them was that they contradicted the Torah ; and it was only after this contradiction had been explained away that they were recognised as canonical (b. Shabb. 13b, 30b). What may be the value of this statement for the critical history of the O.T. Canon is a question which does not arise here.
The Rabbinical theory thus regarded the O.T. scriptures as a body of instructions based upon the Torah of Moses ; and when it is said, in the passage above referred to, that the prophets delivered the Torah to the Men of the Great Synagogue, this probably means that the Rabbis traced their own system to Ezra and Nehemiah, and thus could regard it as the continuation of the Teaching handed down by the Prophets from Moses himself. It is certain that they did thus regard it, even to the extent of believing that the whole of the Oral Law was given
INTRODUCTION 5
to Moses, and by him handed down along with the written Torah. The question here again is not as to the historical facts of the development of the Rabbin- ism out of the O.T., but only of the view which the Rabbis themselves held of the connexion between them. And that view was, that after the time of the men of the Great Synagogue, those whose names are recorded as teachers taught by word of mouth the Torah as it was now written, together with such interpretation of it — not written, but handed down — as would serve to apply it to cases not distinctly provided for in the scriptures. It was, as always, the Torah of Moses that was taught and expounded ; and the object was, as always, to teach men how they ought to "Love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul and strength and might." Historically, we distinguish between the prophetical and the legal elements in the contents of the O.T. The Rabbis made no such distinction. In their religious instruc- tion they distinguished between * halachah ' (precept) and ' haggadah ' (edification), terms which will be more fully explained below. For the purposes of ' halachah ' they interpreted the whole of Scripture from the legal standpoint ; and, in like manner, for the purposes of 'haggadah' they interpreted the whole of Scripture from the didactic standpoint, in neither case making any difference between the several books of the O.T., as legal, historical or prophetic.
On the legal side, the task to which Rabbinism, from the days of Ezra to the closing of the Talmud, devoted itself with all its strength and ingenuity and patience, was to develop a set of rules for the right conduct of life, a code of laws, wherein the original
6 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
teaching of Moses should be applied to every con- ceivable event, act and duty of daily life. Histori- cally, the founder of Jewish Legalism was Ezra, to whose mind was ever present the supreme necessity of guarding the national religion from those corruptions and laxities which had brought about the exile, and who saw no better protection against the recurrence of such a danger than an authoritative code, which should state — either in speech or writing — the divine com- mands which the Jewish people were to obey. If by the " Men of the Great Synagogue " we are to under- stand Ezra and those who worked on his lines, with him and after him, then we can understand the saying ascribed to that ancient assembly, " Make a hedge for the Torah" (Aboth, i. 1). The Torah is the divine teaching given to Moses and handed down by him ; and the hedge is the Legalism, the outward form of law and precept, in which henceforth it was to be pre- served. The Talmud indicates its view of the work of Ezra, and also of the connexion between his work and that of the Rabbis by saying (b. Succ. 27a) : " In the beginning, when the Torah was forgotten, Ezra went up from Babylon and founded it; again it was forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian1 went up and founded it; again it was forgotten and Babbi Hija and his sons went up and founded it." In other
1 Hillel was no doubt the founder of Rabbinism in the stricter sense, for he introduced the exegetical rules on which the Kabbinical casuistry is founded. But Ezra is the true founder of that Legalism, of which Talmudic Rabbinism is the logical result. To compare Hillel with Jesus on the ground of their gentleness is to ignore the fact that Hillel did more than anyone else had done to organise that Tradition of the Elders which Jesus denounced. In their conception of the form of religion, Jesus and Hillel stood at opposite poles of thought.
INTRODUCTION 7
words, both the Legalism of Ezra, and the Rabbinism of which Hillel was the first representative, are the outward form of the Torah, the divine teaching given to Moses ; and in every detail, every minutest pre- cept which Rabbinical ingenuity developed, there is assumed as the ground of all the primal religious duty, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and might."
Whether the form of definite precept and precise rule is the best adapted to promote the living of a righteous life is not here the question. Right or wrong, better or worse, it is the form which the Rabbis chose for the expression of their conception of the religious life. And the whole system of Rabbinism is misjudged, unless it be carefully and constantly borne in mind that it is all an expansion of the idea of human service of God, under the form of precept. What is usually called ( empty formalism,' 1 solemn trifling ' and the like, deserves a nobler name ; for it is — -whether mistaken or not — an honest effort to apply the principle of service of God to the smallest details and acts of life. That, in practice, such a con- ception of religious life might lead to hypocrisy and formalism is undeniable, and the Talmud itself is perfectly well aware of the fact. But that it necessarily leads to hypocrisy, that it is impossible on such lines to develop a true religious life, the whole history of Judaism from the time of Hillel down- wards is the emphatic denial. The great Rabbis whose work is preserved in the Talmud were not hypocrites or mere formalists, but men who fully realised the religious meaning of what was expressed in the form of legal precept and apparently trivial
8 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
regulation. They were under no mistake as to what it all meant ; and the heroism which has marked the Jewish people through all the tragic history of eighteen Christian centuries has found its divine in- spiration in the Torah as the Rabbis interpreted it. To them it was the word of God, in all its fulness and depth ; and no Jew who thoroughly entered into the spirit of the Rabbinical conception of religious life ever felt the Torah a burden, or himself bound as by galling fetters. Paul doubtless spoke out of the depths of his own experience ; but he does not represent the mind of the great leaders of Rabbinism. And the system of thought and practice which bears that name is unfairly judged if it is condemned on the witness of its most determined enemies. Judged on its own merits, and by the lives and words of its own exponents and defenders, it is a consistent and logical endeavour to work out a complete guide to the living of a perfect life, and whatever verdict may be passed upon that endeavour, the right word is not failure.
The foundation, then, of Rabbinism is the precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy might. The method is tradition. This is indicated by the names which the Rabbis themselves gave to the mass of religious precept which they taught, viz., Massoreth (jtodd), and less frequently Qabbala.1 The same fact
1 Massoreth, or Massorah, from "1DD to hand over, deliver ; more fully, D^pTH 'D, vapd$o<Tis rwv irpeff&vTepav (Mark vii. 5). Qabbala, from ^3p to receive, cp. Mark, ib. 4, & ira.p4\a&ov Kparw, which they have received to hold. The term Massorah is also used in a special sense to designate the apparatus criticus devised by the Jewish Grammarians for the fixing of the text of Scripture. The term Qabbala likewise has a specialised meaning when used to denote the system of Theosophy or secret doctrine, set forth in the books ' Jetzirah ' and ' Zohar.'
INTRODUCTION 9
is shown by the formula to be found on every page of the Talmud, in which a precept is expressed, " Rabbi A. says, in the name of Rabbi B," or, " Rabbi A. says that Rabbi B. says that Rabbi C. says, etc." Some authority must confirm the dictum of every teacher, the authority, viz., of some previous teacher, or else the authority of the Torah interpreted accord- ing to some recognised rule. No teacher could base his teaching merely on his own authority; and the fact that Jesus did this, was no doubt one of the grievances against him on the part of the Jews. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time . . . . but I say unto you, etc. (Matt. v. 21, 22), implies the disavowal of the Rabbinical method ; and the statement (Matt. vii. 28, 29) that Jesus taught them as one having authority and not as their scribes, was certainly cause sufficient that the people should be astonished at his teaching, and that the scribes should be incensed and alarmed.
The question naturally arises here, How could new teaching find a place where, in theory, nothing was valid unless it had been handed down? That new teaching did find a place is evident, if only from the fact that the modest volume of the O.T. was ex- panded into the enormous bulk of the Talmud, to say nothing of the Midrash ; while, on the other hand, the principle of receiving only what rested on the authority of tradition was jealously upheld and resolutely enforced. For want of a clear understanding of the relation between the new and the old in Rabbinism, that system has been condemned as a rigid formalism, crushing with the dead weight of antiquity the living forces of the soul, and preventing
10 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
all growth and expansion of thought. It is doubt- less true that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life; but the truth of that great saying is not the condemnation of Rabbinism, any more than it is of Christianity j and it might have been spoken with no less right by Aqiba than by Paul, for the one, no less than the other, was an originator within the lines of his own form of religious thought.
The answer to the question, ' How could new teach- ing find a place in a system based exclusively on tradition ' ? admits of a simple statement. The Torah as given to Moses, and by him handed down, was regarded as containing the whole of divine truth, not merely so much as might at any given time have been discerned, but all that in all future ages might be brought to light. This divine truth was partly explicit, partly implicit. That which was explicit was stated in Scripture, more particularly in the Mosaic laws, and also in that oral tradition which furnished the interpretation and application of the Scripture. That which was implicit was the further, as yet undiscovered, meaning contained in the Torah. And the whole task of Rabbinism was to render that explicit which had been implicit, to discover and un- fold more and more of the divine truth contained in the Torah, so as to make it available for the perfecting of the religious life. When, therefore, a Rabbi taught some new application of a religious precept, what was new was the application ; the precept was old.1 He was not adding to the Torah, but showing
1 This is clearly stated in the Talmud (j. Hag. i. 8. 76c) : " Even that which an acute disciple shall teach in the presence of his Rabbi has already been said to Moses on Sinai."
INTRODUCTION 11
for the first time some hitherto unknown contents of it. The sum total of Torah was unaltered ; but part of it had been transformed from implicit to explicit. Thus a new teaching could not but rest upon Tradition, because it was merely the un- folding into greater clearness of meaning what the Torah had all along contained. And it was only new, in so far as such and such a Rabbi had been the first to declare that development of the original principle. Rabbinism never did, because it never could, reach the logical end of its own method ; but the complicated and minute legislation embodied in the Talmud, is, on the Rabbinical theory, merely the unfolding of what was contained in the original Torah — rendered explicit instead of implicit. Thus it appears that even in that department of the Rabbini- cal system where the principle of Tradition was most strictly maintained, there was ample room for the expansion and adaptation of the original principle to the varying needs of practical religious life. In other departments, perhaps rather the other chief depart- ment of the Rabbinical system, there was little or no attempt at restraint upon individual liberty of teaching. These two departments, or main divisions of Rabbinical teaching, are called respectively Halachah and Haggadah (or Agada, as it is often, though perhaps less correctly, given).1 The distinc- tion between these two has often been explained ; but a few words upon them here may serve to bring out a fact which has not always been duly recognised. Halachah (from ~\bn to go) denotes that which is
1 See an article by W. Bacher, " On the origin of the word Haggada (Agada)," in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1892, p. 406 fol.
12 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
recognised as a valid and therefore binding law of religious practice. The connexion between this, its undoubted meaning, and that of the root from which it is derived, is uncertain, and has been variously explained. The etymological question need not de- tain us here. Halachah is therefore that system of rule and precept to which the religious life of the Jew must conform. The several rules and precepts, indi- vidually, are called Hdlachoth (plural of Halachah). The Torah of Moses was, first and foremost, Hala- chah ; what it taught was, above all things, how a man should love the Lord his God with all his heart and soul and might ; in other words, how he should serve God most perfectly (see above, p. 7). The task of Rabbinism was to ascertain and determine Halachah, in its fullest extent, to discover the whole of what divine wisdom had decreed for the guidance of man. And it was in regard to Halachah that the principle of Tradition was most rigorously upheld, because it was above all things essential that Hala- chah, the law of right conduct binding on every Israelite, should be accurately defined and based upon ample authority.
The other main division of Rabbinical teaching, known as Haggadah, differed from Halachah both in its object and its method. Haggadah denotes illus- trative teaching ; and it includes all that can help to build up religious character otherwise than by the discipline of positive command. It includes theo- logical speculation in its widest range, also ethical instruction and exhortation ; and its object is to throw all the light of past thought and experience upon the present duty. It is thus the necessary
INTRODUCTION 13
accompaniment of Halachah ; both have the same general purpose, viz., to teach a true service of God ; but the one proceeds by way of direct command, and rests upon divine authority, the other by way of exhortation and explanation, with no other authority than the wisdom and knowledge of the individual teacher. This is said without forgetting the fact that the great teachers of Haggadah were looked upon with the deepest reverence, and their teaching re- ceived with great deference. Moreover, the Hagga- dah was considered to be contained in the Scripture, and to be deducible thence by regular rules of infer- ence. But nevertheless it is true that the teaching and development of Haggadah was under no such strict restraint as was required for Halachah. And Haggadah served as the outlet for the creative ima- gination of the Rabbinical mind, which could find no scope in the severe logic of Halachah. The teacher of Haggadah gave free rein to his thought; his object was edification, and he made use of everything — history, legend, anecdote, fable, parable, speculation upon every subject from the most sublime to the most trivial — which might serve to teach some religious lesson, and thereby develop religious char- acter. The Haggadist made no scruple of altering not merely the narrative but the text of Scripture, for the sake of drawing out a religious or moral lesson ; and where Scripture was silent, the Hagga- dist freely invented incidents and traits of character in regard to Scripture personages, not stopping short of the Almighty Himself. Frequent appeal is made to the example of non-biblical Fathers in Israel, and it is to the Haggadah that we owe nearly all our
14 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
information as to the personal character and life- history of the Rabbis. Anecdotes and historical reminiscences abound in the Haggadah, which is the chief reason why to non- Jewish readers the Haggadah is so much more interesting than the dry and difficult Halachah. It is hard for any one but a Jew to realise the direct personal concern, and therefore intense interest, of Halachic discussions ; while in the Haggadah, the human interest never fails, nor the charm — at least for those who have sufficient sym- pathy and insight to enter into a form of thought widely different from their own.
Having thus briefly indicated what is meant by Halachah and Haggadah, and before going on to describe their mutual relation in the Rabbinical literature, I pause for a moment to draw a com- parison, or rather a contrast, between the develop- ment of Rabbinical and Christian thought. The contrast is certainly a sharp one, yet there is a con- siderable likeness. Both have a Tradition of the Elders, and rest a part of their teaching upon authority presumed to be divine. This has been already shown in regard to Rabbinism. In regard to Christianity the same fact appears in connexion with dogmatic theology. What is of faith is taught on the authority of creeds or decrees of councils, or the writings of the Church Fathers, or of Scripture as expounded by competent and accredited interpreters. The Roman Catholic Church definitely places Tra- dition among the sources of the teaching which she gives ; and if Protestantism repudiates Tradition to take her stand upon the Bible only, she never- theless admits the authority of ancient expositions
INTRODUCTION 15
of Scripture and definitions of faith. Both Rab- binism and historical Christianity alike recognise that to set forth the contents of the word of God is the supreme object of religious thought ; and they have jealously guarded the Torah, or the True Faith, from the interference of unauthorised ex- ponents. The verbal expression is different in the two cases, as the matter of thought is different ; but in both the liberty of individual opinion was con- fined within strict and definite limits, and to overstep those limits was in each case heresy.
In like manner both Rabbinism and Christianity have a department of religious teaching where no restraint is put upon the freedom of the individual to hold and teach his own opinions, whatever they might be. In Rabbinism this is Haggadah ; in Christianity it is all that helps to the right conduct of life, moral teaching, encouragement to good works, and the like. There is in regard to these subjects nothing to prevent the Christian teacher from teach- ing out of his own heart and conscience whatever seems good and right. And while the great Christian teachers, in this department, are deeply reverenced, and their teaching received with the deference due to their wisdom and experience, there is no such authority attaching to their words as there is in the case of those who have helped to define the Faith. Their teaching is " not to establish any doctrine, but for example of life and instruction of manners," and no heresy is implied by divergence of opinion.
While there is thus a considerable likeness be- tween Rabbinical Judaism and historical Chris-
16 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
tianity, in regard to both principle and method, the contrast between them is the more striking from the fact that each system applies restriction to what the other leaves free, and each allows liberty where the other imposes restraint. Rabbinism prescribes what a man shall do, and defines his service of God in precise rules, while it leaves him perfectly unfettered in regard to what he shall believe. Such a thing as a doctrinal creed is foreign to Rabbinism— Maimonides notwithstanding. Historical Chris- tianity prescribes what a man shall believe, and defines the True Faith in precise creeds; while it leaves him perfectly unfettered in regard to what he should do— unfettered, that is, except by his own conscience. Christianity never set up a moral creed ; she did not make sin a heresy, but heresy a sin. To sum up this comparison in a single sentence, while historical Christianity is based on the con- ception of orthodox, Rabbinism rests on the con- ception of what I venture to call orthopraxy. The one insists on Faith, and gives liberty of Works ; the other insists on Works, and gives liberty of Faith.
It would be interesting and instructive to pursue this line of thought still further, and endeavour to form an estimate of the comparative value of the two contrasted systems as theories of religious life. I refrain from doing so, however, as my purpose in making the comparison has been sufficiently attained if I have succeeded in explaining and illustrating the answer of Rabbinism to the two great questions of Duty and Belief. That answer is given in the Halachah and Haggadah respectively; and I go on to show how these two elements are combined and
INTRODUCTION 17
distinguished in the Rabbinical literature. For this purpose I will briefly refer to the chief representa- tive works of that literature.
Pre-eminent among them all stands the Talmud ; and after what has been already said, it will not be difficult to explain the general nature of this colossal work. Bearing in mind that the main task of Rabbinism was to ascertain and define Halachah, it will be evident that in the course of years, and by the labours of many contemporary and successive Rabbis, a large number of decisions upon questions of Halachah gradually accumulated. Some of these, dating from far - off antiquity, were undisputed ; others were subjected to keen examination and scrutiny before being pronounced to be really Halachah. But, while many decisions were rejected, for want of a sufficient basis of authority, the number of those that were accepted increased with every generation of teachers. More than once, during the first two centuries of our era, attempts were made to codify and arrange the growing mass of Halachah, the confusion of which was increased by the fact that the whole was carried in the memory alone, not put down in writing. The work of codifi- cation, attempted by Aqiba and others, was finally completed by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Qadosh (the Holy), usually known as Rabbi par excellence; and the collection which he formed is known as the Mishnah. The date of its completion is usually given as 220 a.d., or thereabouts. Mishnah denotes both 'teach- ing ' and ' repetition ' ; and the work so called pro- fessed to be the repetition, in enlarged form, of the
Torah of Moses. The Mishnah is a collection of
2
18 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Halachoth — presumably of all the Halachoth whose validity was recognised so far as known to the compiler; and it deals with every department of practical conduct. Under six main divisions ('Sgdarim,' or orders), and sixty -three treatises (' Massichtoth '), the duties of the faithful Israelite are set forth, as positive or negative commands. But the Mishnah contains Haggadah as well as Halachah. Along with the precepts, and the discussions in which they were defined, there are illustrative and explanatory notes, historical and personal remini- scences, designed to show the purpose or explain the meaning of some decision. These are Haggadah ; and they occur in the midst of Halachah, with not the slightest mark to distinguish the one from the other. The amount of Haggadah in the Mishnah, however, is not great compared with that of Halachah. And, in consequence, while the Mishnah is easier to read than the Gemara in point of language, it is far less interesting owing to the scantiness of the human element provided in the Haggadah.
As above stated, the Mishnah was completed somewhere about the year 220 a.d. ; and though at first it only existed as oral teaching, it appears to have been very soon written down. From hence- forth it was the standard collection of Halachoth, though other collections existed of which mention will be presently made. As the standard collection of Halachoth, it naturally became in its turn the subject of study, since many of its precepts were of uncertain meaning. To mention only one reason for this, the destruction of the Temple, and
INTRODUCTION 19
the consequent cessation of all the ritual and cere- monial of worship, reduced the precepts connected therewith to a branch of archaeology; while on the other hand, it increased the need of defining with the utmost precision the right practice in those matters, so that it might not be forgotten if ever the time should come for the resumption of the Temple services. And, if some are inclined to think lightly of the time and thought spent upon questions which could have no practical outcome for those who de- bated them, there is still a pathetic and even a heroic aspect in the toil which preserved a sacred memory so that it might keep alive a no less sacred hope.
The Mishnah, then, became in its turn the subject of commentary, interpretation and expansion. The name given to this superadded commentary is Gemara, which means 'completion.' But, whereas there is only one Mishnah, there are two Gemaras. The Mishnah was studied not only in the schools of Palestine, but also in those of Babylonia. And by the labours of these two groups of teachers there was developed a Palestinian Gemara and a Babylonian Gemara. In course of time the same need for codification of the growing mass of Tradition began to be felt in regard to the Gemaras which had previously led to the formation of the Mishnah. The Gemara of Palestine was ended, — not com- pleted,— towards the close of the fourth century; while it was not until the sixth century that the Gemara of Babylonia was reduced to the form in which we now have it. The name Talmud is given to the whole corpus of Mishnah plus Gemara; and thus it is usual to distinguish between the Palestinian
20 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Talmud (otherwise known as the Talmud of Jeru- salem) and the Babylonian Talmud.1
To give any account of the multifarious contents of either Talmud, even of that of Jerusalem, which is much shorter and simpler than that of Babylon, would be a work of great length and difficulty, al- most amounting indeed to a translation of the huge work with the commentaries upon it. Briefly, it consists (in both Talmuds) of a series of discussions upon the several Halachoth contained in the Mish- nah. In the course of these discussions, all manner of digressions interrupt the argument, — personal anecdotes, speculations upon points of theology or philosophy, fragments of history, scraps of science, folklore, travellers' tales — in short, anything and everything that could be supposed to have even the remotest connection with the subject under discussion are brought in, to the grievous perplexity of the reader. To add to the difficulty, this chaotic mass is printed in an unpointed text, with no stops except at the end of a paragraph, and no sort of mark to distinguish the various elements one from the other. And, finally, the language of the two Gemaras (based
1 The Hebrew names are ' Talmud Jerushalmi,' and CT. Babli' re- spectively. I do not know why the former is called T. Jerushalmi; because, of the various schools in which it was developed, probably none, certainly none of any importance, had its seat in Jerusalem. It is usually understood that residence in Jerusalem was forbidden to Jews after the last war, in 135 a.d. Yet it is stated (b. Pes. 113a) that K. Johanan, one of the founders of the Palestinian Gemara, cited a tradition " in the name of the men of Jerusalem." On the whole, however, it seems to me most probable that the Palestinian Talmud was merely called after the name of the capital city, as indeed the T. Babli may be said to have been called after the name of the capital city of the land where the chief Rabbinical schools of the East nourished for centuries.
INTRODUCTION 91
upon eastern and western Aramaic respectively) is far more difficult than that of the Mishnah, being, as it is, concise to a degree that Thucydides might have envied, and Tacitus striven in vain to imitate. It is full of technical terms and foreign words, which are the despair of the reader who knows only his Hebrew Bible. Yet there is order and method even in the Talmud, and it is a great mistake to suppose that its contents may be treated as a series of un- connected sentences, whose meaning is clear apart from their context, and without reference to the deep underlying principles which give vitality to the whole. The passages which will presently be cited from the Talmud may serve as illustrations of what has been said, so far as mere translations, how- ever literal, can represent an original text so peculiar and so bizarre ; and, in presenting them apart from their context, I trust I have not been unmindful of the caution just given.
The twofold Talmud is by far the most important work of the early Rabbinical literature. Yet there are others, dating from the same centuries, which can by no means be passed by unnoticed. It was stated above that the Mishnah was not the only collection of Halachoth, though it was adopted as the standard. To say nothing of the fact that the Gemaras contain many Halachoth not included in the Mishnah (hence called ' Baraitha,' i.e. external), there exists at least one independent collection of Halachoth, as a sort of rival to the Mishnah. This is known as Tosephta, a name which means ' addition ' or ■ supplement,' as if it had been intended merely to supply what was wanting in the standard work. Yet
22 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
it is not improbable that the existing Mishnah and the existing Tosephta are only two out of many contemporary collections great or small, two com- pilations founded upon the works of many previous teachers, and that of these two, " one was taken and the other left." The two collections might almost have exchanged names, so that what is now known as the Mishnah might conceivably have come to be looked upon as Tosephta to the other. And, al- though the one enjoys a sort of canonical authority not recognised in the other, yet for historical pur- poses they are both of equal value, since both con- tain traditions dating from the earliest centuries of the common era. The contents of Tosephta are, as will* have appeared above, mainly Halachah ; but Haggadah also is found, as in the case of the Mish- nah, and in greater abundance.
The works above described, viz., Mishnah, Gemaras, and Tosephta, have for their common purpose the development and definition of Halachah as the rule for the right conduct of life, the expansion into minute detail of the principle, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and strength. But the Rabbinical literature includes another very extensive class of works, in which the same principle is dealt with in a somewhat different manner. The generic name for works of this class is ' Midrash,' i.e. exposition ; and the common character- istic of them all is that they are free commentaries upon books or portions of books of the O.T. Perhaps commentary is hardly the right word; for the Midrash does not profess to explain every point of difficulty in the text with which it deals, and, as
INTRODUCTION 23
a rule, it makes no reference to grammatical and linguistic questions. The purpose of the Midrash is to expound the Scriptures with a view to edifica- tion and instruction, from the standpoint not of the scholar but of the preacher. And probably the con- tents of the various Midrashim are collected extracts from the sermons, as we might call them, of the Rabbis to their hearers, either in the synagogues or the schools. The general plan of a Midrash is to take a book or selected passages of a book of the O.T., and to arrange under each separate verse in order the expositions of several Rabbis. The connexion between the text and the exposition is often very slight ; and, just as in the case of the Gemaras, digressions are frequent, as opportunity offers for bringing in some interesting but irrelevant topic. The method of Tradition is followed in the Midrash, though not with the same strictness as in the Talmud. Most of the expository notes are given in the name of some Rabbi, and of course the whole body of Midrash is now Tradition. But a good deal of the contents of many Midrashim is anonymous, and therefore presumably due to the compiler. In no instance in the Rabbinical litera- ture can we say that any individual Rabbi is the author of such and such a work ; at most he is the editor. But a nearer approach is made to individual authorship in the Midrash than in the Talmudic literature.
Midrash, then, is homiletic exposition of Scripture. And it will be seen from what has been said above, that the distinction between Halachah and Haggadah is applicable no less to the Midrash than to the
U CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Talmud. That is to say, there can be Midrash whose chief purpose is to connect Halachah with Scripture, and again Midrash which chiefly aims at connecting Haggadah with Scripture. Of these two classes, the Halachic Midrashim are the more ancient, the Haggadic by far the more numerous. Of the Halachic Midrashim, the chief works are Siphra, on the book of Leviticus; Siphri, on Numbers and Deuteronomy ; and Mechilta, upon parts of Exodus. These were compiled, according to Zunz, at a later date than the Mishnah, but contain in part older material. And while they do not exclude Haggadah, where the text suggests it, they are prevailingly Halachic, since a great part of the text dealt with is concerned with the cere- monial law. Siphra and Siphri are frequently made use of in the Talmud.1
The Haggadic Midrashim are very numerous, and the period of their production covers several cen- turies. Even the earliest of them is much later as regards date of compilation than the earliest Halachic Midrash. There is more need, on this account, of caution in using their statements as historical evidence. Yet, since those statements rest on tradition, and refer to many well-known names, there seems no reason why they should — other reasons apart — be denied all historical value. I have therefore made use of what the Midrash offered for my purpose, with, I trust, due critical caution. Of the Haggadic Midrashim, the most important in point of extent is the so-called Midrash Rabbah (or M. Rabboth), a collection of expositions upon the
1 See Zunz, " Gottesd. Vortr. d. Juden," pp. 46-48.
INTRODUCTION 25
Pentateuch and the five Megilloth (i.e. Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). The ten Midrashim are of very various date, and were not gathered into one great collection till as late as the thirteenth century. Other Midrashim, of similar character, are Tanhuma, or Jelam'denu, on the Pentateuch, Pesiqta on selected passages, and Jalqut Shim'oni on the whole of the O.T., being a vast collection of extracts from earlier Midrashim. For details concerning these and many similar works, I refer the reader to the books of Zunz, Hamburger, and others mentioned above. My object in this introduction is not to give a biblio- graphy of Rabbinical literature, but to indicate the general scope and method of that literature, so that the reader may have some idea of the sources whence the passages, which will presently be given, have been extracted.
It will now be possible, as it is highly desirable, to attempt an answer to the question, What is the value, as historical evidence, of the Rabbinical literature? Can any reliance be placed upon state- ments found in works whose main purpose was not to impart exact knowledge of facts, but to give religious and moral teaching ?
Nothing is easier than to pick out from the Talmud and the Midrash statements in regard to historical events, which are palpably and even monstrously false, and that, too, when the events referred to were not very far removed from the lifetime of the author of the statements. And the conclusion is ready to hand, that if, in regard to events almost within living memory, such error was
26 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
possible, reliance cannot be placed upon statements concerning events more remote. Yet that hasty conclusion is refuted by the fact that the statements referring to historical events are sometimes confirmed by external testimony, such as the writings of non- Jewish historians, and sometimes, when not directly confirmed, are still in accordance with such external testimony. No one would dream of accepting as true all the historical statements of the Talmud and Midrash ; but they are certainly not all false. And it ought not to be, and I believe is not, beyond the power of a careful criticism, to distinguish with some degree of probability the historically true from the historically false.
It must be borne in mind that the whole of the literature under consideration is a collection of Traditions. Now, while such a method of retaining and transmitting knowledge is exposed to the dangers of omission, addition, and alteration in a greater degree than is the case with written documents, yet on the other hand the fact that such a method was alone employed implies that the power of memory was cultivated and improved also in a greater degree than is usual with those who only or chiefly make use of writing. The Talmud and Midrash afford illustrations of both these propositions ; for while we find that varying forms are handed down of one and the same tradition, the difference in the form shows that the tradition was the subject of remembrance in several minds and over considerable periods of time. It must also be borne in mind that the Talmud is not "a dateless book," as it has been called, but that the main points in its chronology
INTRODUCTION 27
are well known, being determined by the biographical data of the leading Rabbis. The researches of W. Bacher1 have shown beyond dispute that these biographical data are, on the whole, mutually con- sistent ; and thus we are provided with a firm foundation on which to rest a case for the credibility of the Rabbinical records. If the whole were a mere tissue of extravagant inventions, there would be no such consistency ; and further, it is often possible to mark where the historical tradition leaves off and the legendary invention begins. Thus, R. Jehoshua b. Levi is a perfectly well-known historical figure, and one whose name occurs numberless times in the Talmud and Midrash ; of him various facts are related which there is no reason to call in question, while in addition other stories are told — such as his conversation with the Angel of Death (b. Keth. 77b) — which are plainly imaginary.
In judging, then, of the reliability, as historical evidence, of the Rabbinical records, we must take as our guide, in the first instance, the chronology of the lives of the Rabbis themselves, and note whether their statements refer to matters nearly or quite contem- porary. Thus, when Rabbi A. says that on a certain occasion he walked with Rabbi B. who told him so and so, or again, that when he was a boy he re- membered seeing Rabbi C. who did so and so, he is presumably speaking of things well within his know-
1 " Agada der Tannaiten," " Ag. der Palestinensischen Amoraer," " Ag. d. Babylonischen Amoraer." Bacher is not the only scholar who has dealt with Rabbinical biography ; but so far as I know, his work is much more thorough and complete than any other on the same subject ; and I would here express my very great obligation for the help I have derived from the invaluable works I have named above.
28 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
ledge. And though these incidental remarks may refer to things in themselves very trivial, yet they serve to extend the region of credibility. Indeed, it is perhaps in these incidental remarks that the largest harvest of historical fact is to be gathered. Because they are usually the illustration, drawn from the actual knowledge and experience of the teacher who mentions them, of the subject with which he is dealing. A Rabbi, especially one who was skilful in Haggadah, would permit himself any degree of exaggeration or invention even in regard to historical persons and events, if thereby he could produce a greater impression. Thus, an event so terribly well known as the great war, which ended with the death of Bar Cocheba and the capture of Bethar in 135 A.D., was magnified in the description of its horrors beyond all bounds of possibility. And probably no one was better aware of the exaggeration than the Rabbi who uttered it.1 But then the purpose of that Rabbi would be, not to give his hearers an exact account of the great calamity, but to dwell on the horror of it, and to burn it in upon the minds of the people as a thing never to be forgotten. Yet there are many incidental remarks about the events of the war which are free from such exaggeration, and being in no way improbable in themselves, are such as might well have been known to the relater of them. The long passage b. Gitt. 57a-58a contains a variety of state- ments about the wars of Nero, Vespasian, and Hadrian ; it is reported to a considerable extent by R. Johanan, whose informant was R. Shim'on b.
1 Cp. what is said below, p. 252, as to Eabbinical statements concerning the former population of Palestine.
INTRODUCTION 29
Johai, who himself took part in the last war. No one would dream of crediting the assertion that for seven years the vineyards in Palestine needed and received no other manure than the blood of those slain in the war. But the story that young Ishmael b. Elisha was carried captive to Rome, and discovered there and released, is in every way probable. Ishmael b. Elisha was the name of two very well-known Rabbis, one the grandson of the other, and the younger being the contemporary and rival of Aqiba. Nothing is more likely than that stories of the lives and adventures of these men should have been told amongst their friends and remembered in later times. Such stories must of course be judged on their own merits. But if they are in themselves reasonable and probable, there is nothing to discredit them in the mere fact that they are found in works like the Talmud and Midrash, embedded in a mass of Haggadic speculation. Neither Talmud nor Midrash were intended primarily to teach history; but from the manner of their origin and growth, they could hardly fail to show some traces of contemporary history. Therefore, in place of condemning as apo- cryphal all and sundry of the allusions to historical personages and events contained in the Talmud and Midrash, we may and ought to distinguish amongst them. And perhaps we may make some approach to a general canon of criticism on the subject, if we say that in the literature referred to, the obiter dicta are of most value as evidence of historical fact ; or, in other words, there is more reason to suspect exaggera- tion or invention in statements which appear to form part of the main line of the argument, than in those
30 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
which appear to be merely illustrative notes, added to the text and embedded in it. The purpose of Haggadah (to which all these historical references belong) is homiletic ; it aims at building up religious and moral character by every means other than the discipline of positive precept (see above, p. 12). Reference to historical fact was only one, and by no means the most important, form of Haggadah. Since it is in Haggadah that the Rabbinical mind found the outlet for its instinct of speculative inquiry, and the play of its fancy and imagination, as already explained, it is natural to expect that these will be most promi- nent and most abundant in Haggadic passages because most in accordance with the genius of Haggadah. When, accordingly, we find in the midst of such fanciful and exaggerated passages occasional state- ments which appear to be plain, sober matter of fact, there is the more reason to accept the latter as being historically reliable (at least intended to be so), because the author (or narrator) might have increased their effect as illustrations by free invention, and has chosen not to do so. I say that such statements may be accepted as being at least intended to be histori- cally reliable. They must be judged on their merits, and where possible tested by such methods as would be applied to any other statements professedly historical. The narrator who gives them may have been wrongly informed, or may have incorrectly remembered ; but my point is that in such statements he intends to relate what he believes to be matter of fact, and not to indulge his imagination.
I have made this attempt to work out a canon of criticism for the historical value of the Rabbinical
INTRODUCTION 31
literature, because such a canon seems to me to be greatly needed. So far as I am competent to judge, it appears to me that Jewish historians — as is only- natural — make a far more legitimate and intelligent use of the Rabbinical literature for historical purposes than is generally to be observed in the writings of Christian historians who have dealt with that litera- ture. Even in the works of Keim and Schurer, whose scholarship is above reproach, I do not remem- ber to have found any attempt to set forth the principles on which they make use of the Rabbinical literature for historical purposes. And it is perhaps not too much to say that in most Christian writings that touch upon the Rabbinical literature there is little or no appearance of any such principles ; some- times, indeed, there is a mere reproduction of state- ments from previous writers, which the borrower has not verified and not always understood.
The principle which I have stated above will, of course, find its illustration in the treatment of the passages from the Rabbinical literature to be presently examined. That is to say, an attempt will be made to estimate the historical value of the statements contained in them. But it should be observed that for historical purposes they may be valuable in one or both of two ways. Whether or not they establish the fact that such and such an event took place, they at least establish the fact that such and such a belief was held in reference to the alleged event, or the person concerned in it. Thus we shall find that several instances are mentioned of miracles alleged to have been worked by Jews or Christians. The mere statement does not prove that these were actu-
S2 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
ally performed, any more than the mere state- ment of the N.T. writers proves that the alleged miracles of Jesus and the Apostles were actually performed. But in the one case or in the other, the record of alleged miracles, made in all good faith, is clear proof of the belief that such events did take place and had taken place.
So also we shall find many instances of discussion upon topics chiefly scriptural, between Jewish Rabbis and certain persons called Minim.1 Now the record of such discussions may be, in a given case, inaccurate ; but it is proof positive of the belief that such discus- sions had actually occurred, and indeed may be said to establish not merely the belief but the fact that they had occurred. Therefore, whatever may be the amount of actual historical fact established by the passages from the Rabbinical writings examined in the present work, they will at least have the value (and it is no slight one) that belongs to records of opinion and belief upon the subject for the illustration of which they have been chosen.
To the consideration of those passages I will now proceed, having given what I trust may be a sufficient, as well as a reliable, explanation of their nature and origin. I merely premise one word as to the classifi- cation of them, and the method by which I shall deal with their contents. The subjects referred to in them are so various that an exhaustive classification would involve a great deal of repetition, since one passage might be appropriately placed under each of several heads. This might be avoided by arranging them
1 The whole question of the interpretation of the word Minim will be dealt with hereafter.
INTRODUCTION 83
in the order of their occurrence in the Talmudic treatises and the several Midrashim. But such an arrangement would not afford the slightest help to the reader who wished to find what was said upon a given subject, e.g. the Christian scriptures. The same objection would apply to a chronological classi- fication, according to which the passages should be arranged under the dates of the several Rabbis responsible for them.
I have thought it best to make a classification accord- ing to the main subject dealt with in each passage. I place first of all the passages referring to Jesus ; then, the much larger group of those relating to followers of Jesus. Each passage or series of passages will have its title, indicating the main subject to which it refers; and an index of all the titles will be found in the table of contents. Under each title will be given the trans- lation of one or more passages, bearing upon the particular topic, together with sufficient commentary to explain its meaning and its connexion with the main subject. The Hebrew and Aramaic texts, numbered consecutively to correspond with the trans- lated passages, will be collected in an appendix. Following upon the translations and commentaries, a concluding chapter will sum up the general results of the inquiry, under the two main heads of the Tradition concerning Jesus and the Tradition concern- ing the Minim.
PASSAGES FROM THE RABBINICAL LITERATURE,
ILLUSTRATING THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY CENTURIES
DIVISION I
A.— PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS
Birth and Parentage of Jesus
(1) b. Shabbath 104b. (The passage in [ ] occurs also b. Sanh. 67a.) "He who cuts upon his flesh." It is tradition that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Wise, ' Did not Ben Stada bring spells from Egypt in a cut which was upon his flesh?' They said to him, 'He was a fool, and they do not bring a proof from a fool.' [Ben Stada is Ben Pandira. Rab Hisda said, 'The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira.' The husband was Pappos ben Jehudah, the mother was Stada. The mother was Miriam the dresser of women's hair, as we say in Pumbeditha, ' Such a one has been false to her husband.'] Commentary} — The above passage occurs in a
1 I would here express generally my indebtedness to the work of Heinrich Laible, " Jesus Christus im Talmud," Berlin, 1891. In the section
35
36 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
discussion upon the words in the Mishnah which forbid all kinds of writing to be done on the Sabbath. Several kinds are specified, and among them the making of marks upon the flesh. The words at the beginning of the translation are the text, so to speak, of the Mishnah which is discussed in what follows. To illustrate the practice of marking or cutting the flesh, the compilers of the Gemara introduce a tradition (Baraitha, not included in the Mishnah, see above, p. 21) according to which It. Eliezer asked the question, ' Did not Ben Stada bring magical spells from Egypt in an incision upon his flesh ? ' His argument was that as Ben Stada had done this, the practice might be allowable. The answer was that Ben Stada was a fool, and his case proved nothing. Upon the mention however of Ben Stada, a note is added to explain who that person was, and it is for the sake of this note that the passage is quoted. First I will somewhat expand the translation, which I have made as bald and literal as I could.1
Ben Stada, says the Gemara, is the same as Ben Pandira. Was he then the son of two fathers ? No. Stada was the name of the husband (of his mother), Pandira the name of her paramour. This is the opinion
of my work relating to Jesus I have made constant use of his book, and can hardly claim to have done more than rearrange his material and modify some of his conclusions. If it had not been my purpose to extend my own work over a wider field than that which he has so thoroughly explored, I should not have written at all.
1 In all the translations which I shall give, I shall make no attempt to write elegant English ; I wish to keep as closely as possible to a word for word rendering, so that the reader who does not understand the original text may have some idea of what it is like, and what it really says. A flowing translation often becomes a mere paraphrase, and sometimes seriously misrepresents the original.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 37
of Rab Hisda,a Babylonian teacher of the third century (a.d. 217-309). But that cannot be true, says the Gemara, because the husband is known to have been called Pappus ben Jehudah. Stada must have been not the father but the mother. But how can that be, because the mother was called Miriam the dresser of women's hair? Miriam was her proper name, con- cludes the Gemara, and Stada a nickname, as people say in Pumbeditha S'tath da, she has gone aside, from her husband.
The two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira evidently refer to the same person, and that that person is Jesus is shown clearly by the fact that we sometimes meet with the full name 'Jeshu ben Pandira ' — thus T. Hull, ii. 23, " in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira " ; and also the fact that ' Jeshu ' is sometimes found as a variant of ' Ben Stada ' in parallel passages — thus b. Sanh. 43a says, "On the eve of Pesah (Passover) they hung Jeshu," while in the same tractate, p. 67% it is said, "Thus did they to Ben Stada in Ltid, they hung him on the eve of Pesah. Ben Stada is Ben Pandira, etc." Then follows the same note of explanation as in the passage from Shabbath which we are studying. (See below, p. 79).
There can be no reasonable doubt that the 1 Jeshu ' who is variously called Ben Stada and Ben Pandira is the historical Jesus, the founder of Christianity. It is true that the name Jeshu'a, though not common, was the name of others beside Jesus of Nazareth ; and even in the New Testament (Col. iv. 11) there is mention of one Jesus who is called Justus. It is also true that the Jewish com-
38 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
mentators on the Talmud try to prove that another Jesus is referred to, who is described in various passages as having been contemporary with R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, about a century B.C. These passages will be dealt with hereafter.1 But when it is said, as in the passage referred to above (T. Hull, ii. 23), and elsewhere, that certain persons professed to be able to heal the sick in the name of " Jeshu ben Pandira," it is impossible to doubt that the reference is to Jesus of Nazareth.
Various conjectures have been made in explana- tion of the epithets Ben Stada and Ben Pandira. In regard to the first, the explanation of the Gemara that Stada is a contraction of S'tath da is certainly not the original one, for it is given as a common phrase in use in Pumbeditha, a Babylonian town where there was a famous Rabbinical College. But the epithet Ben Stada in reference to Jesus was well known in Palestine, and that too at a much earlier date than the time of R. Hisda. This is shown by the remark of R. Eliezer, who lived at the end of the first century and on into the second. The derivation from S'tath da would be possible in Palestine no less than in Babylonia ; but it does not seem to have been suggested in the former country, and can indeed hardly be considered as anything more than a mere guess at the meaning of a word whose original significance was no longer known.2 It is impossible to say whether Stada originally denoted the mother or the father of Jesus ; we can only be sure that it implied some con- tempt or mockery. I attach no value to the sug-
1 See below, p. 54, No. 8.
2 See below, p. 345, for a possible explanation of the name B. Stada.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 39
gestion1 that Stada is made up of two Latin words, ' Sta, da,' and denotes a Roman soldier, one of the traditions being that the real father of Jesus was a soldier.
Of the term Ben Pandira also explanations have been suggested, which are far from being satisfactory. Pandira (also written Pandera, or Pantira, or Pantiri) may, as Strauss suggested (quoted by Hitzig in Hilgenfeld's Ztschft, as above), represent 7rev0ep6s9 meaning son-in-law ; but surely there is nothing dis- tinctive in such an epithet to account for its being specially applied to Jesus. The name Pandira may also represent irdvO-qp (less probably 7rav6t]pa9 the final d being the Aramaic article, not the Greek feminine ending) ; but what reason there was for calling Jesus the son of the Panther is not clear to me.2 Again, Pandira may represent wapOevcx;, and the obvious appropriateness of a name indicating the alleged birth of Jesus from a virgin might make us overlook the improbability that the form irapOevos should be hebraized into the form Pandira, when the Greek word could have been reproduced almost unchanged in a Hebrew form. It is not clear, moreover, why a Greek word should have been chosen as an epithet for
1 Hitzig in Hilgenfeld's " Ztschft.," 1865, p. 344 fol.
2 I know that the name TldvOrjp is mentioned in this connexion by Christian writers. Origen (ap. Epiphanius, Hser. 78, cited by Wagenseil)
says, Ovros fiey yap 6 laxr^cp a.S(\<pbs Trapayiverai rod K\uira. ?jv 84 vibs rod Ia/cot>)8, iirlKKriv 5e Udvdyjp KaKov^iivov. b.fi<p6npoi ovtoi curb rov UduOvpos 4riK\t}V
ytvvwvr ai. Origen doubtless knew that the Jews called Jesus 'Ben Pandira ' ; but, as he does not explain how Jacob, the father of Joseph, came to be called udvdijp, he does not throw any light on the meaning of the term as applied to Jesus. And as there is no trace of any such name in the genealogy given in the Gospels, it is at least possible that the name Ben Pandira suggested ndvdnp, instead of being suggested by it.
40 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Jesus. I cannot satisfy myself that any of the suggested explanations solve the problem ; and being unable to propose any other, I leave the two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira as relics of ancient Jewish mockery against Jesus, the clue to whose meaning is now lost. Pappos ben Jehudah, whom the Gemara alleges to have been the husband of the mother of Jesus, is the name of a man who lived a century after Jesus, and who is said to have been so suspicious of his wife that he locked her into the house whenever he went out (b. Gitt. 90a). He was contemporary with, and a friend of, R. Aqiba ; and one of the two conflicting opinions concerning the epoch of Jesus places him also in the time of Aqiba. Probably this mistaken opinion, together with the tradition that Pappos ben Jehudah was jealous of his wife, account for the mixing up of his name with the story of the parentage of Jesus.
The name Miriam (of which Mary is the equiva- lent) is the only one which tradition correctly pre- served. And the curious remark that she was a dresser of women's hair conceals another reminiscence of the Gospel story. For the words in the Talmud are 'Miriam m'gaddela nashaia.' The second word is plainly based upon the name ' Magdala ' ; and though, of course, Mary Magdalene was not the mother of Jesus, her name might easily be confused with that of the other Mary.
The passage in the Gemara which we are examin- ing shows plainly enough that only a very dim and confused notion existed as to the parentage of Jesus in the time when the tradition was recorded. It rests, however, on some knowledge possessed at one
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 41
time of the story related in the Gospels. That story undoubtedly lays itself open to the coarse interpreta- tion put upon it by Jewish enemies of Jesus, viz., that he was born out of wedlock. The Talmud knows that his mother was called Miriam, and knows also that Miriam (Mary) of Magdala had some con- nexion with the story of his life. Beyond that it knows nothing, not even the meaning of the names by which it refers to Jesus. The passage in the Talmud under examination cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine.
Mary the Mother of Jesus
(2) b. Hag. 4b. — When Rab Joseph came to this verse (Exod. xxiii. 17), he wept, There is that is destroyed without justice (Pro v. xiii. 23). He said, Is there any who has departed before his time ? None but this [told] of Rab Bibi bar Abaji. The Angel of Death was with him. The Angel said to his messenger, ' Go, bring me Miriam the dresser of women's hair.' He brought him Miriam the teacher of children. He [the Angel] said, ' I told thee Miriam the dresser of women's hair.' He said, ' If so, I will take this one back.' He said, 'Since thou hast brought this one, let her be among the number [of the dead].'
(2a) Tosaphoth. — " The Angel of Death was with him: he related what had already happened, for this about Miriam the dresser of women's hair took place in [the time of] the second
42 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
temple, for she was the mother of a certain person, as it is said in Shabbath, p. 104." Commentary, — This passage, like the preceding one, is centuries later than the time of Jesus. R. Bibi bar Abaji, as also R. Joseph, belonged to the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century, and both lived in Babylonia. R. Joseph was head of the college at Pumbeditha, in which office Abaji, the father of Bibi, succeeded him. As the story is told it involves a monstrous anachronism, which is noted by the authors of the Tosaphoth (mediaeval com- mentators on the Talmud). The compilers of the Gemara can scarcely have believed that Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, was still living in the time of R. Joseph and R. Bibi ; for, as the preceding passage shows, she was thought to have been the mother of Jesus. So far as I know, this is the only reference to the Miriam in question which brings down her life- time to so late a date ; and, if we do not accept the explanation of the Tosaphoth, that the Angel of Death told R. Bibi what had happened long ago, we may suppose that what is described is a dream of the Rabbi's. Of the Miriam who, according to the story, was cut off by death before her time, nothing what- ever is known. The passage merely shows that the name of Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, was known in the Babylonian schools at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century. The incident of the fate of the two Miriams is merely brought in to illustrate the text that some are cut off without justice. And this again forms part of a discussion on the duty of appearing three times in the year before the Lord. This passage adds nothing
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 43
to our knowledge of the Rabbinical belief concerning the mother of Jesus ; it is only given because it refers to her, my object being, as already explained, to pre- sent as complete a series as I can of Rabbinical passages bearing upon Jesus and Christianity.
There is, in j. Hag. 77d, a reference to a certain Miriam the daughter of 'Eh, whom, on account of the name (cf. Luke iii. 23), one might be tempted to connect with the story of Jesus ; but there seems to be no suspicion on the part of the Talmud of any such connexion, and what is told about her does not seem to me to point in that direction.
Jesus Alleged to be a 'Mamzer'1
(3) M. Jeb. iv. 13 [b. Gemara, Jeb. 49b, same
words ; j. Gemara does not mention the
passage]. Rabbi Shim'on ben 'Azai said, • I
have found a roll of pedigrees in Jerusalem,
and therein is written A certain person spurius
est ex adultera [natus] ; to confirm the words
of Rabbi Jehoshua.'
Commentary. — This passage is from the Mishnah,
and therefore (see Introduction) belongs to the older
stratum of the Talmud. R. Shim'on ben Azai was
the contemporaiy and friend of Aqiba, about the end
of the first and beginning of the second century.
They were both disciples of R. Jehoshua ben
Hananiah (b. Taan. 26a), of whom frequent mention
will be made in these pages. R. Jehoshua, in his
early life, had been a singer in the Temple (b. Erach.
llb), and his teacher, R. Johanan ben Zaccai, was old
1 "ITDD, of spurious birth.
44 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
enough to have seen and remembered Jesus.1 The Rabbis mentioned here were amongst the leading men of their time, and on that account must have been much concerned with the questions arising out of the growth of Christianity. R. Jehoshua is ex- pressly mentioned as having been one of the chief defenders of Israel against the Minim ; and, whatever may be the precise significance of that term, it will be shown subsequently that it includes Christians, though it may possibly include others also. R. Aqiba also is said to have been a particularly zealous opponent of the Christians. Indeed, according to one of the two conflicting opinions represented in the Talmud, Jesus was actually a contemporary of Aqiba, an anachronism which finds its best explanation in a pronounced hostility on the part of Aqiba towards the Christians. When, therefore, Shimon b. 'Azai reported that he had found a book of pedigrees, in which it was stated that ' a certain person ' (peloni) was of spurious birth, it is certainly probable that the reference is to Jesus. Unless some well-known man were intended, there would be no point in referring to him ; and unless there had been some strong reason for avoiding his name, the name would have been given in order to strengthen the argument founded upon the case. For it is said that Shim'on ben 'Azai made his statement 'in order to confirm the words of R. Jehoshua.' And R. Jehoshua had laid it down that a bastard is one who is condemned
1 It has been suggested that the John mentioned in Acts iv. 6 is the same as Johanan ben Zaccai ; but there is no evidence for this identification except the similarity of name. Since the Kabbi was a Pharisee, it is not on the face of it probable that he should be "of the kindred of the High Priest."
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 45
to a judicial death,1 i.e. one born of a union which was prohibited under penalty of such a death. Now Jesus undoubtedly had been condemned (though not on account of his birth) to a judicial death, as the Talmud recognises (see passages given subsequently, pp. 80, 83) and Shimon ben 'Azai brings the evidence of the book which he had discovered, to show that in the case of a notorious person the penalty of a judicial death had followed upon unlawful birth.
The alleged discovery of a book of pedigrees in Jerusalem may be historical ; for the Jews were not prohibited from entering Jerusalem until the revolt of Bar Cocheba had been suppressed by Hadrian, a.d. 135, and ben 'Azai was dead before that time. What the book was cannot now be determined. The title, Book of Pedigrees, is quite general. It is worth noticing, however, that the present gospel of Matthew begins with the words, The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It is just possible that the book to which ben 'Azai referred was this Gospel, or rather an Aramaic forerunner of it, or again it may have been a roll containing one or other of the two pedigrees recorded in Matthew and Luke.
Covert Reference to Jesus
(4) b. Joma. 66d.— They asked It. Eliezer, 'What of a certain person as regards the world to come'? He said to them, 'Ye have only asked me concerning a certain person.' 'What of the shepherd saving the sheep from the lion ' ? He said to them, ' Ye have only asked
46 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
me concerning the sheep/ 'What of saving the shepherd from the lion ' ? He said, * Ye have only asked me concerning the shepherd.' 'What of a Mamzer, as to inheriting' ? 'What of his performing the levirate duty ' ? ' What of his founding his house ' ? ' What of his founding his sepulchre ' ? [They asked these questions] not because they differed on them, but because he never said anything which he had not heard from his teacher from of old. [See a somewhat similar series of questions, T. Jeb. iii. 3, 4.] Commentary. — This passage is full of obscurities. I record it here because of its reference to 'peloni,9 ' a certain person,' the same phrase which occurred in the preceding extract. R. Eliezer was a very well- known teacher at the end of the first century ; and later on will be given a passage which describes how he was once arrested on a charge of heresy, presum- ably Christianity (see below, p. 137). The words translated are a Baraitha (see above, p. 21), i.e. they belong to a period contemporary with the Mishnah, though they are not included in it. Moreover the style of the language is that of the Mishnah, not that of the Gemara. Further, a set of questions addressed to the same R. Eliezer, and including some of those translated above, is found in the Tosephta (T. Jeb. iii. 3, 4). Among the questions given in Tosephta are those about ' peloni,' and about the ' Mamzer.' It is evident that the authors neither of the Gemara nor of the Tosephta understood the full meaning of the questions. The explanation is that the questions were asked ' not because there was any difference of
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 47
opinion, but because R. Eliezer never said anything which he had not heard from his teacher.' The same explanation is given in reference to another set of questions addressed to Eliezer (b. Succ. 27b, 28a), and from the latter passage it appears to be Eliezer 's own declaration concerning himself. But it has no bear- ing on the questions and answers translated above, unless it be this, that as Eliezer was known to have had some connexion with Christianity, his questioners tried to get at his own opinion concerning Jesus, and that he fenced with the questions, not caring to answer directly, and perhaps not being able to answer on the authority of his teacher. The particular point of each question I am unable to explain ; but one can see an opportunity for allusion to Jesus in the questions as to the fate of * peloni ' in the future life, as to the * Mamzer' founding a house (i.e. a family), or a sepulchre, if it were known that Jesus was not married, and that he was buried in the grave of a stranger. I can throw no light upon the ' saving the sheep (or the shepherd) from the lion.' That this passage contains a covert reference to Jesus is the opinion of Levy, N.H.W., iv. 54% s.v. wbfc and also of Edersheim, L. &. T. of J. M., ii. 193, who ventures a comparison with John x. 11. Is it likely that the con- tents of that Gospel, supposing it to have been in existence at the time, would be known to Eliezer or his questioners ?
The Ancestry of the Mother of Jesus
(5) b. Sanh. 106a. — It. Johanan said [concerning Balaam], * In the beginning a prophet, in the end a deceiver.' Rab Papa said, * This is that
48 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
which they say, She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.' Commentary. — It will be shown subsequently that Jesus is often referred to in the Talmud under the figure of Balaam, and the words just translated occur in the middle of a long passage about Balaam. No name is mentioned to indicate what woman is meant. But the context suggests that the mother of Jesus is intended ; and the suggestion is borne out by the statement that the woman mated with a carpenter.1 The passage, as it stands, is of a late date ; for It. Papa, who said the words, was head of the college at Sura from 354 to 374 a.d. Possibly it arose out of some imperfect acquaintance with the genealogies in the Gospels, these being regarded as giving the ancestry of Mary instead of that of Joseph. The mistake might naturally arise ; for if Joseph were not the father of Jesus, and if Jesus were alleged to be the son of David, or of royal descent, as the Talmud itself (b. Sanh. 43a) is by some thought to admit,2 then evidently his royal ancestry must have been on his mother's side.
Alleged Confession by the Mother of Jesus
(6) b. Kallah. 51a. — Impudens : It. Eliezer dicit spurium esse, It. Jehoshua menstrua? filium, It. Aqiba et spurium et menstruse filium. Sedebant quondam seniores apud portam,
1 The Munich MS. has in the margin "QJ instead of ^"QJ, i.e. the singular, not the plural.
2 This at least is one interpretation of the expression ni3?&? 2)1py see below, p. 89.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 49
prseterierunt duo pueri quorum unus caput operuit, alter revelavit. Dixit R. Eliezer, de illo qui caput revelaverat, * Spurius est • ; R. Jehoshua ' Menstrua? Alius ' ; R. Aqiba ' Spurius, et menstrua? films.' Responderunt illi, 'Quomodo cor te inflat, ut verbis sociorum contradixeris ! ' Dixit eis 'Rem confirmabo.' Abiit ad matrem pueri, quam vidit in foro sedentem dum legumina vendebat. Dixit ei 'Filia mea, si mihi id de quo rogabo respondeas, in seculum futurum te ducam.' Respondit illi ' Jura mihi.' Juravit R. Aqiba ore, sed corde irritum fecit.' Dixit ei * Filius hie tuus, qualis est ? ' Respondit ' Quum thalamum introivi menstrua eram, et separavit a me conjux; paranymphus autem venit ad me, quapropter hie puer et spurius est et menstrua? filius.' Responderunt (Rabbini) 'Magnus erat R. Aqiba, quum magistros suos refutaret.' Ilia hora dixerunt 'Benedictus Deus Israel, qui R. Aqiba? secretum suum revelavit ! ' Commentary. — I give the above passage with some hesitation, because I doubt whether it has anything to do with the legendary history of Jesus. There is nothing to point him out as the child in question, and the few details which the story contains do not agree with what we have gathered hitherto as the Rabbinical account of the parentage of Jesus. So far as I know, this passage stands by itself, without being mentioned or referred to in any other Talmudic tractate ; and the tractate Kallah, in which it is found, is of later origin than the main body of the Talmud.
50 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
If, as is possible, it may have been suggested by the story in Luke ii. 41 fol., it can in no case be evidence for opinion concerning Jesus in those centuries with which we are concerned. And my chief reason for inserting it is that I do not wish to leave out any passage to which reference has been made as having a supposed bearing on the subject. At the same time, the fact that use has been made of the story in the book called the ToVdoth Jeshu (ed. Huldreich, p. 22, ed. Wagenseil, p. 12), shows that it was regarded as having reference to Jesus. In the work "J. C. im Talmud," p. 34 fol., Laible argues that the original author of the passage had no thought of Jesus in his mind. It is possible that the story is a free invention to explain the words of Shimon b. 'Azai (quoted above, p. 43), which refer to a • certain person ' as having been ' spurius et men- struae filius.' If so, Laible would be justified in saying that while the original author of the story had no thought of Jesus in his mind, nevertheless the real reference was to Jesus.
Jesus and his Teacher
(7) b. Sanh. 107b.— Our Rabbis teach, Ever let the left hand repel and the right hand invite, not like Elisha who repulsed Gehazi with both hands, and not like R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, who repulsed Jeshu (the Nazarene) with both hands. Gehazi, as it is written . . . .*
1 The passage referring to Gehazi will be dealt with under another head, ie below, No. 27, p. 9V fol.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 51
What of R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah ? When Jannai the king killed our Rabbis, R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah [and Jesus] fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace, Shim'on ben Shetah sent to him, "From me [Jerusalem] the city of holiness, to thee Alexandria of Egypt [my sister]. My husband stays in thy midst and I sit forsaken." He came, and found himself at a certain inn ; they showed him great honour. He said, ' How beautiful is this Acsania ! ' x (Jesus) said to him, ■ Rabbi, she has narrow eyes.' He said, • Wretch, dost thou employ thyself thus ? ' He sent out four hundred trumpets and excommunicated him. He [i.e. Jesus] came before him many times and said to him, ■ Receive me.' But he would not notice him. One day he [i.e. R. Jeh.] was reciting the Shema', he [i.e. Jesus] came before him. He was minded to receive him, and made a sign to him. He [i.e. Jesus] thought that he repelled him. He went and hung up a tile and worshipped it. He [R. Jeh.] said to him, 'Return.' He replied, 'Thus I have re- ceived from thee, that every one who sins and causes the multitude to sin, they give him not the chance to repent.' And a teacher has said, ' Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led astray and deceived Israel.' Commentary. — The above passage occurs in almost exactly the same words in b. Sotah. 47% and the incident of the escape to Alexandria and the letter
1 fcWDDK denotes both inn and innkeeper. K. Jeh. uses it in the first sense ; the answering remark implies the second meaning, ' hostess.'
52 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
from Jerusalem is mentioned in j. Hag. ii. 2 ; j. Sanh. vi. 9.1 The passage j. Hag. ii. 2 gives a very- brief account of the dissension between the Rabbi and " one of his disciples," but does not give the name of the latter. This is probably the basis of what was afterwards expanded in the Babylonian Gemara.
The passage before us is the locus classicus for the second Talmudic theory as to the time when Jesus lived. ( Jannai the king ' is Alexander Jannseus, who reigned from 104 to 78 B.C., thus a full century before Jesus lived. Shimon b. Shetah, the king's brother- in-law, and Jehoshua b. Perahjah (as also Jehudah b. Tabbai of the Palestinian version) were leading Pharisees of the time; and the massacre of the Rabbis, which led to the escape of one of them to Alexandria, is a historical event. The question is, how did the name of Jesus come to be introduced into a story referring to a time so long before his own?2 Bearing in mind that the Rabbis had
1 Where, however, the fugitive is not Jehoshua ben Perahjah but Jehudah ben Tabbai.
2 The name of Jesus is found in this passage in the codices of Munich, Florence, and Carlsruhe, used by Rabbinowicz, also in all the older editions of the Talmud. In the edition of Basel, 1578-81, and in all later ones, the censor of the press has expunged it. See Rabbinowicz Variae Lectiones, Sanh. ad loc. Here is perhaps the best place to refer to the epithet ha-Notzri (H¥13n) as applied to Jesus. It is well known that the name of Nazareth does not occur in the Talmud, and indeed first appears in Jewish writings so late as the hymns of Qalir (a.d. 900 area), in the form Natzerath. This is probably the correct Hebrew form ; but there must have been another form, Notzerath, or Notzerah, to account for the adjective Notzri. Perhaps Notzerah was the local pronunciation in the dialect of Galilee, where the sound 6 or u frequently represents the a or a of new Hebrew ; thus, •■Dip for *Dpb K3TW for fTT* (Jordan), K^MID for lA*MO (Magdala). With this corresponds the fact that the Syriac gives Notzerath and Notzerojo for the name of the town and of its inhabitants. That from Notzerath or Notzerah could be formed an adjective Notzri is shown by the examples
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 53
extremely vague ideas of the chronology of past times, we may perhaps find the origin of the story in its Babylonian form in a desire to explain the con- nexion of Jesus (Ben Stada, see above, No. 1), with Egypt. The connecting link may, perhaps, be found in the fact of a flight into Egypt to escape the anger of a king. This was known in regard to R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, and the Gospel (Matt. ii. 13 fol.) records a similar event in regard to Jesus. The short Pales- tinian story in j. Hag. vi. 2 shows that there was a tradition that the Rabbi had excommunicated a rebellious disciple, whose name is not given. As the story now stands in the Babylonian version, there are several details in it which appear to have reference to Jesus, and which probably were due to some confused remembrance of tradition about him. In addition to the flight into Egypt, there is the fact that Jesus was known to have set himself against the authority of the Rabbis, and to have been the founder of a false religion. And the rebuke, " Dost thou thus employ thyself," i.e. with thinking whether a woman is beautiful, may be based on a gross distor- tion of the fact that the Gospel tradition gives a prominent place to women as followers of Jesus. Moreover the final answer of the banished disciple in the story, that ' one who sins and causes the multi- tude to sin is allowed no chance to repent,' points
Timni from Timnah, Jehudi from Jehudah. The adjective Nafrpeuos (Acts xxviii. 22) would seem to imply an alternative form Natzara, the second a being replaced by o in the Galilean dialect, as in N5tzri for Natzri. The form Natzara indeed is adopted by Keim as the more correct ; but I do not see how to avoid recognising both Notzerah (Nazerah) and Natzara as equally legitimate, that is as representing variations in the pronunciation, not original difference in the formation of the name.
54 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
clearly to the historical Jesus ; for the simple act of idolatry mentioned in the story cannot be called a * causing of the multitude to sin.' What the point may be of the statement that Jesus hung up a tile, a burnt brick, and worshipped it, I cannot explain.
This passage is found in its full extent only in the Babylonian Gemara, and is probably of very late date. It is introduced as an illustration of the saying, " Let the left hand repel and the right hand invite." But there was already an illustration of that saying in the case of Elisha and Gehazi, and the whole passage is brought in, where it occurs in the tractate San- hedrin, as belonging to the subject of Gehazi. I sug- gest that the mention of R. Jehoshua and Jesus was an addition founded on the Palestinian tradition and prompted by the mention of Elisha and Gehazi ; and further that this addition was made in the schools of Babylonia, upon uncertain authority. It is not cited under the name of any Rabbi ; and the last sentence of it, which distinctly refers it to Jesus, only does so on the authority of ' a teacher/ whose name, presum- ably, was not known. The glaring anachronism, of making Jesus contemporary with R. Jehoshua b. Perahjah, is more easy to understand on this theory, than if we suppose the story to have originated in Palestine at a time nearer to that when Jesus actually lived.1
Jesus a Magician. (See also (1) above.)
(8) T. Shabb. xi. 15. — * He that cuts marks on his flesh ' ; R. Eliezer condemns, the wise permit.
1 As to the other anachronism, which makes Jesus contemporary with R. Aqiba, a century after his own time, see above, p. 40.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 55
He said to them, 'And did not Ben Stada
learn only in this way ? ' They said to him,
Because of one fool are we to destroy all
discerning people ? '
Commentary. — The extract (1) above, and the
parallel passage j. Shabb. 13d, contain almost the same
words. I repeat them here because of their reference
to the character of Jesus as a magician. In the
earlier quotation the main reference of the passage
was to the parentage of Jesus.
It has already been shown that Ben Stada denotes Jesus. (See above, p. 37 fol.) What is the meaning of the statement that he brought magical charms from Egypt concealed in an incision in his flesh ? I do not know of anything related about Jesus which could have given rise to the detail about the cutting of his flesh. The charge that he was a magician is no doubt based on the belief that he did many miracles, a belief which found ample support in the Gospel records. We shall see later on that miracles, whether done by Jews or Christians, were ascribed to magic, and were not on that account despised. Now Egypt was regarded as the especial home of magic, an opinion expressed in the Talmud, b. Qidd. 49b : — " Ten measures of sorcery descended into the world, Egypt received nine, the rest of the world one." To say that Jesus learnt magic in Egypt is to say that he was a great magician, more powerful than others. And as we have seen in the preceding extract (7) there was a tradition that he had had something to do with Egypt. As to the manner in which he is alleged to have brought away with him Egyptian magic, a curious explanation is given by Rashi (b.
56 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Shabb. 104b) to the effect that the Egyptian magi- cians did not allow anyone to carry away magical charms from their country ; and therefore, since Jesus could not take them away in writing, he concealed them in the manner described, or perhaps tattooed magical signs on his flesh. Whether Rashi had any authority for his statement, or whether he only devised it to explain the passage before him, I do not know. The date of the passage under considera- tion is to some extent determined by the fact that it is taken from the Tosephta (see above, p. 21), a collec- tion which represents an earlier stratum of tradition than that embodied in the Gemara. The Eliezer who is mentioned is of course the same as the one men- tioned in (1) above, and we may take it that the reference there, p. 36, to a ' Baraitha,' is a reference to the present passage. The answer, that 'Ben Stada was a fool,' does not perhaps imply any censure on Jesus, but merely that any one would be foolish who should act as Ben Stada was said to have done.1
Jesus ' Burns His Food '
(9) b. Sanh. 103a. — For Rab Hisda said that Rab Jeremiah bar Abba said, ' What is that which is written: There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling
[Ps. xci. 10] Another explanation:
There shall no evil befall thee, [means], ' that evil dreams and evil thoughts may tempt thee not/ and neither shall any plague come nigh
1 But see below, p. 345 n., for a possible alternative to the foregoing explanation-
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 57
thy dwelling [means] 'that thou mayst not
have a son or a disciple who burns his food in
public like Jeshu the Nazarene.'
[The concluding phrase is found in another
connexion, b. Ber. 17b, see below, p. 61.] Commentary. — This passage is Gemara, and the R. Hisda who cites the exposition of the Psalm is the same as the one mentioned in (1) above. He was a Babylonian, and lived a.d. 217-309. R. Jeremiah bar Abba, from whom he quoted, was his contem- porary, and apparently of much about the same age.
The point of interest in the above extract is the phrase which I have translated literally, ' burns his food, like Jesus the Nazarene.' What did Jesus do that could be so described? It is clear that as applied to him, it must have a figurative meaning. It is sometimes, however, intended quite literally. Thus, b. Betz. 29a : " The cook measures spices and puts them into his dish, that they may not burn [i.e. spoil] his food." This is evidently literal, except that in English we should not use the word ' burn ' in this connexion. The phrase occurs in the Mishnah, Gitt. ix. 10, and the question has often been discussed, whether there it is intended literally or figuratively. The words are, "The School of Shammai say that a man may not divorce his wife unless he find in her a matter of shame, for it is said [Deut. xxiv. 1], because he hath found in her a sJmmeful matter. The School of Hillel say [he may divorce her] even if she burn his food, for it is said, and R. Aqiba says, Even if he have found another [woman] more beautiful than she, for it is said, Ij she sJuxll not find favour in thine eyes'' This passage
58 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
has often been cited as showing the laxity of the Rabbinical views on the question of divorce, especi- ally as held by the school of Hillel. And the charge has been met by maintaining that the phrase * burns his food' means, 'brings dishonour upon him,' 'brings his name into disrepute.' Whether or not the phrase may have some such figurative meaning, there is good ground for taking it literally in this famous passage of the Mishnah. It has been well shown in a recent work,1 by Amram, that Hillel and Aqiba, and the school in general who sided with them, were declaring not what was their ethical ideal, but what in their view the law permitted. They had to declare the law, not to make it ; and the reason why they did not — as they probably could have done — lay down an interpretation of the law more in accordance with their own ethical view, was that the ancient custom of Israel assumed the absolute liberty of a man to divorce his wife at his will, and without giving reasons for his action. The law could not attempt more than slightly to restrict that liberty, except at the cost of remaining a mere dead letter. Hillel, in this passage, declares that, as a matter of fact, the law, in his opinion, does allow a man to divorce his wife, even for such a trivial offence as burning his food. But Hillel and his school, did not, on that account, approve of such liberty of divorce. On the very same page of the Gemara, where this Mishnah is explained, b. Gitt. 90b, a Rabbi of the school of Hillel says, " He who divorces his first wife, the altar of God sheds tears thereat." To the above argument in favour of the
1 The Jewish Law of Divorce. London, 1897, p. 33 fol.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 59
literal meaning of the phrase 'burns his food' in this disputed Mishnah, may be added that Rashi and other Jewish commentators interpret it quite literally, and give not the slightest hint of a figurative mean- ing. Also the fact that, whatever Hillel may have meant, Aqiba's dictum is evidently literal,1 so that it is unlikely that Hillel's words were figurative.
But while this is quite true, it is also true that the literal meaning of the phrase will not apply in all cases where it occurs. When it is said, as in the extract from b. Sanh. 103% under consideration, and also in b. Ber. 17b, " that there may not be a son or a disciple who burns his food in public," something much more serious must be intended than a literal 'burning of food.' The clue to this figurative meaning is given in the Talmud itself, b. Berach. 34a. The Gemara in this place is commenting on the following words of the Mishnah : " He who says 'The good shall bless thee,' lo, this is the way of heresy. He who goes before the Ark, if he makes a mistake, another shall go in his stead, and let there be no refusal at such a time." To 'go before the Ark ' is to stand at the lectern to recite the prayers in the Synagogue. And the Mishnah has just remarked that some liturgical phrases are signs of heresy in the reader. Therefore the Mishnah directs what is to be done when a reader makes a mistake. Another man is to take his place and there must be no refusal on the part of the second man. That is the Mishnah. The Gemara says : " Our Rabbis have taught ' He who goes before the Ark ought [at first]
1 See Edersheim, " L. and T. of J. the M.," ii. 333 n2, where he success- fully proves the literalness of the phrase in Gitt. ix. 10.
60 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
to refuse. He who does not refuse is like food without salt. He who refuses too much is like food of which the salt has burnt (or spoiled) it.' . The meaning of this is clear. One who refuses too much is open to the suspicion of heresy, and he is like food that is spoiled or burnt by too much salt. The point of the comparison may perhaps be that as too much salt spoils good food, so the disciple, by too much self-will and conceit in his own wisdom, spoils the sound teaching that is given to him, which would have been his mental food.1 When, therefore, it is said "a son or disciple who burns his food," that means "one who is open to the suspicion of heresy." It has already been mentioned that the phrase, 1 a son or disciple who burns his food ' occurs in two passages, b. Ber. 17b, and b. Sanh. 103a (translated above). In the former, the Gemara, in an exposition of Ps. cxliv. 14 : ' There is no breaking in and no going forth, and no outcry in the streets,' says : 6 There is no breaking in,' that our company be not as the company of David from which Ahitophel went out, and ' there is no going forth ' that our company be not as the company of Saul, from which Doeg, the Edomite, went forth, and 'no outcry,' that our company be not as the company of Elisha from which Gehazi went out, and ' in our streets ' that there be not to us a son or disciple who burns his food in public like Jeshu the Nazarene.2 Now we shall see,
1 With this figurative meaning of 'salt/ denoting 'independence of mind,' may be compared Mark ix. 49, 50, " For every one shall be salted with fire. . . . Have salt in yourselves. . . ."
2 The printed text does not mention 'Jeshu ha-Notzri.' The reading, however, is found in all the older editions and the MSS. See Kabbinowicz on the passage. Note that this exposition of the Psalm is said to have been
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 61
hereafter, that Ahitophel, Doeg and Gehazi, are all, in the view of the Talmud, tainted with heresy (Minuth). These three, along with Balaam, the chief infidel, are said in the Mishnah, Sanh. x. 1, to have no part in the world to come. And the same Mishnah makes a similar declaration in regard to Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh. The passage in b. Ber. 17b, as quoted in the Aruch (s.v. mp) reads thus, "burns his food in public, like Manasseh." And this has probably led the author of that work to explain the meaning of ' burns his food in public ' by ' sets up idols in public,' establishes false worships. But, as Rabbinowicz has shown, not "Manasseh," but " Jeshu ha-Notzri," is the original reading ; and this fact is conclusive against the explanation of the author of the Aruch. It is absurd to say of Jesus that he set up idols. I conclude, therefore, that in the passage before us the reference to Jesus is intended as an example of one who inclined to heresy.1
It is worthy of note that the Palestinian Gemara does not make the reference to Jesus, either in Ber. or Sanh., nor does it use the phrase 6 burns his food '
spoken by the disciples of R. Hisda (or, according to another tradition, K. Shemuel b. Nahmani), when they left the lecture room. This tends to confirm the connexion of the phrase under discussion with R. Hisda.
1 Jost, " Gesch. d. Judentums u s. Sekten," i. p. 264 n., says, speaking of the literal interpretation of • burns his food,' " sie wird, aber, genugend widerlegt durch die in jener Zeit bekannte Bedeutung des Wortes, ib^nn nnp», b. Ber. 17b, b. Sanh. 103% wo es geradezu in dem Sinne : den eigenen oder des Hauses guten Ruf preisgeben, angewendet wird,— wie schon Zipser, Orient 1850, s. 316 nachgewiesen hat." I do not know on what authority he says that the phrase was so understood at the time, in view of the quite different interpretation given by the Talmud itself in b. Ber. 34a.
62 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
in either passage. The same is true of the Tosephta, so far as I can observe. We may, perhaps, infer that the figurative use of the phrase originated in the Babylonian schools, where, as we have already seen (see above (1) (2) (7)), the Rabbis speculated a good deal about Jesus. Possibly R. Jeremiah bar Abba, who used the phrase in the passage we have been studying, was himself the author of the figurative application of it, and also of the explanation of its meaning, b. Ber. 34a. He and R. Hisda were con- temporaries and friends, and the latter claimed (p. 37 above) to know something about Jesus. To one or other of them the origin of the phrase as denoting a tendency to heresy may with great probability be ascribed.
The Claim of Jesus Denied
(10) j. Taanith 65b. — R. Abahu said: If a man say
to thee * I am God,' he is a liar ; if [he says, ' I
am] the son of man,' in the end people will
laugh at him ; if [he says] ' I will go up to
heaven,' he saith, but shall not perform it.
Commentary, — So far as I know, this saying occurs
only here. That it refers to Jesus there can be no
possibility of doubt. R. Abahu, the speaker, was a
very well-known Rabbi, who lived in Caesarea, at the
end of the third and the beginning of the fourth
century ; and we shall see hereafter that he had a
great deal of intercourse, friendly and also polemical,
with heretics, who, in some instances at all events,
were certainly Christians. It is not necessary to
assume an acquaintance with any of the Gospels to
account for the phrases used by R. Abahu. The
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 63
first and third do indeed suggest the Gospel of John, but it is enough to admit a general knowledge of what Christians alleged concerning Jesus from the Rabbi's own discussions with them.
The saying is based upon Num. xxiii. 19 : God is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent. Hath he said and shall he not do it?, or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? Various interpretations of these words, by Rabbis of Babylonia, are given, and then follows the sarcastic application of the text by Abahu.
Although this saying is not quoted elsewhere, nor even referred to, so far as I know, yet it belongs to a somewhat extensive group of Haggadic passages, of which the common foundation is the story of Balaam, Num. xxii.-xxiv. It will be shown presently that in the Talmud Balaam is regarded as a type of Jesus. We thus have an additional reason, beside the internal evidence furnished by the words themselves, for regarding the saying of Abahu as an anti- Christian polemic. Here may be best introduced a passage in the Jalqut Shim'oni, in which is found an amplification of Abahu's words. I give it according to the Salonica edition, as it is expunged from the later ones.
(11) Jalq. Shim. § 766.— R. El'azar ha-Qappar says, God gave strength to his [Balaam's] voice, so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the peoples that bow down to the sun and moon and stars and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and beheld that there was a man, son of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the
64 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to his voice that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake, ' Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for it is written (Num. xxiii. 19), God is not man that he should lie, and if he says that he is God he is a liar, and he will deceive and say that he departeth and cometh again in the end, he saith and he shall not perform. See what is written (Num. xxiv. 23) : And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this. Balaam said, 'Alas, who shall live, of that nation which heareth that man who hath made himself God.'
It. El'azar ha-Qappar, who is reported to have said all this, was earlier than Abahu, for he died about 260 a.d. Bacher (Ag. d. Tann. ii. 506 n.2) shows that only the first clause of the passage in Jalqut is to be ascribed to El'azar ha-Qappar, i.e. the statement that the voice of Balaam resounded from one end of the world to the other. All the rest is probably of much later date ; but it may very well have been suggested by Abahu's words. It will be observed that Balaam is not identified with Jesus, but is made to prophesy his coming. That, however, Jesus is referred to is even more evident than in the shorter saying of Abahu. It is curious that this later Haggadah is attached to the words not of Abahu but of El'azar ha-Qappar.
Jesus and Balaam
(12) M. Sanh. x. 2. — Three kings and four private men have no part in the world to come ; the three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 65
.... the four private men are Balaam, Doeg,
Ahitophel and Gehazi. Commentary. — The famous chapter of the Mishnah from which these words are taken begins by saying that, ' All Israel have part in the world to come,' and then enumerates the exceptions. The three kings, Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh are all mentioned in the O.T. as having introduced idolatry, per- verted the true religion. And, as the four private men are named in close connexion with the kings, it is reasonable to infer that they were condemned for the same offence. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the preceding paragraph of the Mishnah in this chapter excepts from the privilege of the world to come, ' those who say the resurrection of the dead is not proved from the Torah, and that the Torah is not from heaven, also the Epicuros. R. Aqiba says, He who reads in external books, also he who whispers over a wound, and says, None of the diseases which I sent in Egypt will I lay upon thee, I the Lord am thy healer. Abba Shaul says, He that pronounces the Name according to its letters.' These are all, unless perhaps the last, aimed at heretics who can hardly be other than Christians. For it will be seen hereafter that the opinions and practices here condemned were the subject of dis- pute between Jews and heretics (Minim). Therefore we naturally expect that the four private men, who are singled out for exclusion from the world to come, are condemned on account not merely of heresy but of actively promoting heresy. Now this is not true in any especial sense of any one of the four. Balaam,
certainly, according to the story in Num. xxii.-xxiv.
5
66 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
did lead the people astray ; but so far as religion was concerned, he acknowledged and obeyed the God of Israel. Moreover, Balaam was not an Israelite, and therefore could not logically be included in a list of exceptions to a rule which only affected Israelites. It is evident that Balaam here does not mean the ancient prophet of Num. xxii. fol., but some one else for whom that ancient prophet could serve as a type. From the Jewish point of view there was considerable likeness between Balaam and Jesus. Both had led the people astray ; and if the former had tempted them to gross immorality, the latter, according to the Rabbis, had tempted them to gross apostasy — not unaccom- panied by immorality, as will appear from some of the passages relating to Christians. This was the great charge against Jesus, that " he practised magic and deceived and led astray Israel" (see above (7) last line). It should not be forgotten that even in the O.T., unfaithfulness in the covenant-relation be- tween Israel and God is symbolised under the form of unfaithfulness in marriage, so that Balaam, the chief corrupter of the morality of Israel, might naturally be taken as a type of Jesus, the chief corrupter of its religion. I am well aware that this does not amount to a proof that Balaam is a type of Jesus. But it establishes a probability, which is strengthened by the consideration that the animus displayed against Balaam in the Talmud would be very artificial if its object had been really the ancient prophet, while it is very natural and intelligible if it was really directed against Jesus, who had dealt a blow at the national religion such as it had never re- ceived. To show the violence of the hatred against
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 67
Jesus, and also to strengthen the above contention that Balaam is a type of Jesus, I will give a passage in which they are mentioned together. By being mentioned together, it is true that Balaam is not in this case exactly a type of Jesus, i.e. we are not for 6 Balaam ' to read ' Jesus ' ; but the symbol is ex- panded into a comparison, to suggest the conclusion, ' What Balaam was, such also was Jesus/ The passage is as follows : —
Jesus and Balaam in Hell
(13) b. Gitt. 56h, 57*.— Onqelos bar Qaloniqos, sister's son of Titus, desired to become a proselyte. He called up Titus by necromancy. He said to him, * Who is honoured in this world ? ' He replied, ■ Israel.' ■ What about joining them ? ' He replied, ' Their words are many and thou canst not fulfil them. Go, join thyself to them in this world and thou shalt become a leader, for it is written [Lam. i. 5], Her adversaries have become the head. Every oppressor of Israel is made a head.' He said to him, 'What is the punishment of this man ? ' [i.e. ' what is thy punishment ' ?] He replied, 'That which he determined for himself. Every day they collect his ashes and judge him, and burn him and scatter him over seven seas.'
He called up Balaam by necromancy. He said to him, ' Who is honoured in this world ? ' He replied, ' Israel.' • What about joining them ? ' He replied [Deut. xxiii. 6], ' Thou
68 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
shalt not seek their peace or their prosperity all [thy] days.9 He said to him, ' What is the punishment of this man ? ' He replied, 6 Per semen fervens.'
He called up Jesus by necromancy. He said to him, ' Who is honoured in this world ? ' He replied, ' Israel.' ' What about joining them ? ' He replied, ' Seek their good, seek not their harm. Every one who injures them, [it is] as if he injured the apple of his eye.' He said, 'What is the punishment of this man?' He replied, ' By boiling filth.' For a teacher has said, 'Every one who mocks at the words of the wise is punished by boiling filth.' Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the peoples of the world who serve a false religion. Commentary. — This extract forms part of a long Midrash chiefly concerned with the war against Ves- pasian and Titus, and reported by It. Johanan (200-279 a.d.). The story of Onqelos b. Qaloniqos, nephew of Titus, is introduced immediately after the descrip- tion of the death of the latter. Whether Onqelos the Proselyte, who is mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud, really was the nephew of Titus, I do not know, and the question is of no importance for the present purpose. The object of the gruesome story contained in this passage is to show the fate of the three chief enemies of Israel, i.e. Titus, Balaam and Jesus. Each suffers the punishment appropriate to the nature of his offence.
The modern editions of the Talmud, which have been subjected to the censor of the press, do not
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 69
mention the third criminal by name. They read that Onqelos called up ' the sinners of Israel ' (plural), which is obviously absurd.1 The older editions have ' the sinner of Israel,' which is gram- matically correct, but the reading ' Jeshu ' is vouched for by the work that contains all the expurgated passages of the Talmud.2 It is evident that some individual person is referred to, and that this person is not Balaam, since his case has just been disposed of. Moreover, it was some one who had 'mocked against the words of the wise,' i.e. the Rabbis. Internal evidence alone would suffice to show that Jesus was meant; and as there is authority for the reading 'Jeshu,' we may rest assured that he is the person referred to.
The passage has been introduced here, as stated above, in order to establish the fact that in the Talmud, Balaam and Jesus are classed together, and that therefore Balaam serves frequently as a type of Jesus. I do not mean that wherever Balaam is mentioned Jesus is intended, or that everything said about the former is really meant for the latter. I mean that wherever Balaam is mentioned, there is a sort of under-current of reference to Jesus, and that much more is told of Balaam than would have been told if he and not Jesus had really been the person thought of.3 I shall henceforth assume this close
1 * The sinners of Israel ' may, however, be the right reading in the last line of the passage, because there the comparison is general between 'the sinners of Israel ' and • the prophets of the heathen.'
2 I have used the one published at Konigsberg, 1860, nii<W> W\W\p D"K>n niillDH- The invaluable work of Eabbinowicz is unfortunately not available for the tractate Gittin.
3 There is a suggestive remark in b. Sanh. 106b (immediately after
70 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
connexion in the Rabbinical mind between Jesus and Balaam ; and if it proves a guide to the mean- ing of other passages where Balaam is referred to, it will be to that extent confirmed and made more probable. These other passages will be mentioned presently. For the moment I return to the passage (12), quoted above, from M. Sanh. x. 2, where it is said that Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel and Gehazi are shut out from the world to come. Having seen that Balaam here denotes Jesus, it is natural to enquire into the meaning of the other three names. That they merely denote the three persons mentioned in the Books of Samuel and Kings is not probable ; for there is nothing in the facts there recorded to show why just these three should have been so severely condemned. Following immediately after Balaam-Jesus, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that the three O.T. names denote three of the Apostles, as having shared in the work of heresy which Jesus began. Each of the three is elsewhere mentioned in the Talmud as being tainted with heresy, as will be shown hereafter (see below, pp. 99, 192). Which of the Apostles are referred to, if this hypothesis be accepted, is a question of which the answer must remain uncertain. One thinks, naturally,
the passage about the age of Balaam, to be given below) : — (14) Mar bar Rabina said to his son, * Do not multiply Midrash, in regard to all these except in regard to Balaam, the wicked ; whatever you find in him, expound of him.' * In regard to all these,' i.e. the four men, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel and Gehazi. Rashi, in his note on the passage, says that the multiplying of Midrash means doing so "'fcOJ 7, with malicious intention. The son of Mar bar Rabina, mentioned above, was the younger Rabina, contem- porary with and colleague of Ashi the redactor of the Babylonian Gemara Ashi, of course, was responsible for the inclusion in the Gemara of the anonymous passages concerning the excommunication of Jesus (see p. 51).
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 71
of Peter, James and John. But it seems to me at least highly probable that Gehazi, at all events, means Paul. It would certainly be strange if the man who more than all elsq except Jesus ' troubled Israel ' (cf. Acts xxi. 27 fol.) should have been left out of this black list. A passage will be given presently where the story of Gehazi and Elisha is told in such a way as strongly to suggest Paul the renegade disciple of Gamaliel. (See below, No. (27), p. 97, b. Sotah. 47a).
As for Doeg and Ahitophel, I do not know of any evidence for a particular identification. May not, however, Doeg the Edomite, who betrayed David (1 Sam. xxii. 9), possibly denote Judas Iscariot, the traitor? And the high honour in which Ahitophel was held (2 Sam. xvi. 23) suggests him as a type of Peter. These are only guesses, and as regards the proposed identification of Doeg with Judas Iscariot, I must allow that it would be more likely that the Talmud should exalt the betrayer of Jesus into a hero than condemn him to exclusion from the world to come. At the same time, I would submit that the three names which are most prominent in the list of the Apostles, the three figures which would be most likely to dwell in the memory as connected with Jesus, are Peter, Judas Iscariot, and Paul. And therefore, in spite of difficulties, I am inclined to hold that these three are denoted by Ahitophel, Doeg, and Gehazi, in the passage we have been considering.
72 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
The Age of Balaam (Jesus)
(15) b. Sanh. 106b. — A certain heretic said to R. Hanina, ' Have you ever heard how old Balaam was ? ' He replied, ' There is nothing written about it. But from what is written (Ps. lv. 23), Men of blood and deceit shall not live out half their days, he must have been thirty-three or thirty-four years old.' He [the heretic] said, • Thou hast answered me well. I have seen the chronicle of Balaam, and therein is written " Balaam, the lame, was thirty-three years old when Pinhas the Robber killed him." ' Commentary, — R. Hanina lived in Sepphoris at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century (died 232 a.d.). The story of this conver- sation with a heretic was reported in Babylonia prob- ably by Rab, who, like Hanina, was a disciple of Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Qadosh. See above, p. 17). The heretic — Min — was in all probability a Christian, as will be shown later when the passages dealing with the Minim come under review. And while there is no apparent reason why a Christian should inquire as to the age of the ancient Balaam, he might well have inquired — especially in Galilee — about the age of Jesus. It would seem, however, that he was not asking for information, but had a desire to find out whether R. Hanina knew anything about Jesus. For he confirmed the Rabbis answer by facts known to himself. The • Chronicle of Balaam ' probably de- notes a Gospel, though none of the known Gospels
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 73
states in so many words that Jesus was as much as thirty-three years old. If, however, it was believed that his ministry lasted three years, and that he was ■ about thirty years old ' when he began to preach, the statement of the Christian is sufficiently borne out, though not verbally correct. R. Hanina must have had fairly good grounds for his opinion as to the age of Jesus, or he would not have quoted a text which would only apply to the case of a man about thirty-three or thirty-four years old.
It is curious that Balaam is here called ' the lame,' and that this epithet is mentioned, not by the Rabbi but by the Christian. It was, however, a Rabbinical opinion that Balaam was lame, and also blind of one eye. This is stated in the Gemara, b. Sanh. 105% in the same chapter from which is taken the extract at present under notice. This opinion about Balaam is taught by R. Johanan, on the strength of a fanciful interpretation of two texts — Num. xxiii. 3, xxiv. 15. It is quite possible that this is simply a fancy, without any reference to Jesus. But we may at least com- pare Mark. ix. 45, 46.
There remains to be noticed Pinhas the Robber, or 1 Pinhas Listaah,' who is said to have killed Balaam. It has been suggested by Perles (Gratz, Monatsch., 1872, p. 267, quoted by Bacher) that, assuming Balaam to represent Jesus, Pinhas Listaah is a cor- ruption of Pontius Pilatus.1 The corruption is, it
1 Of. the story given below (p. 87), according to which a certain person, presumably Jesus, ■ took to robbery ' (listaia), and further, p. 95, where it is suggested that the allegation of robbery in reference to Jesus is due to a con- fusion of him with a certain robber chieftain Ben Netzer. It is worth noting that according to Matt. xxvi. 55, Jesus said, Are ye come out as against a robber (its ivl Ap<rrV) ; Apo-T^s is in the Talmud D^DD?, listis.
74 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
must be admitted, a somewhat violent one, if the author who had written the one name was aware of the other. But he may have found a name to him unintelligible, and by the help of Num. xxxi. 8 have transformed it into Pinhas Listaah. Talmudic tradition did not, so far as I am aware, know the name of Pontius Pilate, or ascribe the death of Jesus to a non-Jewish tribunal. But it is certainly strange that a Jew should call Pinhas [Phinehas] a robber, being, as he was, a highly honoured hero of tradition. Bacher seeks to show (Jew. Quart. Rev., iii. p. 356) that the reference is to the historical Phinehas and the historical Balaam, as against the theory of Perles. And if it were not for the word Listaah, I should agree with him. He explains its use in connexion with Pinhas by assuming that the heretic quoted from some apocryphal work about Balaam of an anti- Israelite tendency. But was there such a work? Was Balaam of any special interest to either Jews or heretics, except as a type of Jesus? With all deference to Bacher's great authority, I cannot help thinking that under this mention of Pinhas Listaah there lies concealed a reference to Pontius Pilatus. The difficulty that the heretic, if a Christian, would not call Jesus by the name of Balaam, may be met by the considera- tion that the whole conversation comes to us in a Jewish form. As for the historical value of the incident, there is nothing to make it impossible. Such conversations were frequent, and R. Hanina was a well-known man. That the story only occurs in the Babylonian Gemara is not surprising, since we have already seen that there was considerable
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 75
interest taken in the Babylonian schools in the traditions about Jesus. The Palestinian Gemara contains much less than the Babylonian of such digressions from its proper subject. But that the story is a pure invention I see no reason whatever to believe.
As it has already been suggested (see above, p. 71) that Doeg and Ahitophel represent two of the Apostles, perhaps Judas Iscariot and Peter, it is interesting to note that the text quoted above to determine the age of Balaam is also applied to these two. On the same page of b. Sanh. 106b it is said by R. Johanan, 'Doeg and Ahitophel did not live out half their days. It is thus taught (Ps. lv. 23), Men of blood and deceit do not live out half their days. All the years of Doeg were but thirty-four, and of Ahitophel only thirty-three.' It is but fair, however, to admit that, as Doeg and Ahitophel had been mentioned together with Balaam in the Mishnah, the inference as to the age of the one might naturally be extended to the other, since it is only a haggadic deduction from a text of Scripture.
Balaam (Jesus) and the Name of God
(16) b. Sanh. 106a. — And he [Balaam] took up his
parable, and said, Alas, who shall live when
God doeth this? It. Shim'on ben Laqish
said: 'Woe unto him who maketh himself
to live by the name of God.'
Commentary. — The text quoted is Num. xxiv. 23,
and the application of it by R. Shim'on b. Laqish
is a mere distortion of the original words. What
76 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
precisely is the meaning of bx WD is open to question, and is for the O.T. commentators to decide. But by no rules of grammar or syntax could the words be made to mean, 'Who maketh himself live by the name of God.' This is a haggadic variation of the text, such as the Rabbis often per- mitted themselves to make (see above, p. 13) for a homiletic purpose. And it is hard to see what purpose there could be, in the present example, other than that of making a covert allusion to Jesus, who had declared — according to the Gospels — that he should rise from the dead, of course by the power of God. The words do not apply to Balaam, at least there is nothing recorded about him that would give occasion for any such remark. Rashi, in his note on the passage, does indeed refer it to Balaam, but seems to be well aware that some one other than Balaam is really intended. He says, " Balaam, who restored himself to life by the name of God, made himself God." With this passage should be compared the saying of Abahu, (10) above, which is a somewhat similar haggadic variation of a text of Scripturei
R. Shim'on ben Laqish, often called Resh Laqish, was the colleague and friend of R. Johanan already mentioned. He died somewhere about 279 a.d.
The Chapter Concerning Balaam
(17) b. B. Bathr. 14b. — Moses wrote his book and the section [Parashah] about Balaam.
Commentary. — The book which Moses wrote is, of course, the Pentateuch, with the exception of the last eight verses, which the Talmud attributes to
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 77
Joshua. As the section about Balaam, Num. xxii.- xxiv., forms part of the Pentateuch, the question arises, Why was it necessary to state expressly that Moses wrote it? Rashi answers that Moses went out of his way to include the prophecies of Balaam, which did not properly belong to his own subject. Marx (Traditio Veterrima, p. 42) accepts this, and quotes a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud to show how much importance was attached to the Balaam section. As this passage seems to me to suggest more than Marx finds in it, I quote it here, adding some preceding words which did not come within the scope of his reference.
(18) j. Ber. i. 8 (3C).— For Rab Mathnah and Rab Shemuel bar Nahman says, both say, It would be proper that the Ten Words should be read every day. And why are they not read? Because of the misrepresentation of the Minim, that they might not say, • These [i.e. the Ten Words] only were given to Moses on Sinai.' Rab Shemuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jehudah bar Zebuda says, 'It would be proper that the Parashah of Balak and Balaam should be read every day. And why is it not read ? In order not to weary the congregation.' Rab Huna says, 'Because there is written in it Lying down and rising up ' [Num. xxiii. 24]. Rabbi Jose bar Rabbi Bun says, ' Because there is written in it the going forth [out of Egypt], and the Kingdom' [Num. xxiii. 21, 22]. Rabbi El'azar says, 'Because it is written in the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.'
78 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
The first part of this passage will be mentioned in another connexion subsequently (p. 308) ; I quote it here because it refers to the Minim, heretics, whose false interpretation made it desirable not to introduce the Decalogue into the daily service. Coming im- mediately after this statement, may not the mention of the Parashah of Balak and Balaam, and its exclusion from the daily prayers, have also some reference to the misrepresentations of heretics? From the parallel passage, b. Ber. 12b, it appears that the various reasons given by the Rabbis are reasons for the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Parashah from the daily prayers. And the exclusion is justified on the ground that, the passage being very long, the recital of it would weary the con- gregation. The Babylonian Gemara distinctly says that it was proposed to include the Parashah, and that the proposal was not entertained.
There is, I admit, hardly anything in this passage to connect it directly with anti-Christian polemic; but yet I think there is enough to show that a special interest attached to the Parashah of Balaam ; and we may, with a fair degree of probability, define that special interest by what we have already learnt as to the connexion between Balaam and Jesus.
The Trial of Jesus
(19) T. Sanh. x. 11. — In regard to all who are worthy of death according to the Torah, they do not use concealment against them, except in the case of the deceiver. How do they
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 79
deal with him ? They put two disciples of the wise in the inner chamber, and he sits in the outer chamber, and they light the lamp so that they shall see him and hear his voice. And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lud ; two disciples of the wise were chosen for him, and they [brought him to the Beth Din] and stoned him.
(20) j. Sanh. vii. 16 (25c, d).— The deceiver ; this denotes a private man. Not a Sage ? [i.e. a Rabbi]. No. From the time he deceives he is no longer a Sage. And from the time he is deceived he is no longer a Sage. How do they deal with him to work craftily against him? They conceal (in his case) two witnesses in the inner chamber and make him sit in the outer chamber, and they light a lamp over him that they may see him and may hear his voice. Thus did they to Ben Stada in Lud, and they concealed in his case two disciples of the wise, and they brought him to the Beth Din and stoned him.
The Babylonian Gemara has the following version of this incident : —
(21) b. Sanh. 67a. — [The passage of which the ex- tract No. 1 above (the part enclosed in [ ] ), forms the conclusion.]
For it is tradition that in regard to the rest of all who are worthy of death according to the Torah, they do not use concealment except in this case [i.e. of the deceiver]. How do they deal with him ? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and set witnesses
80 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
in the outer chamber, so that they may see him and hear his voice, but he does not see them. And one says to him, " Say to me what thou saidst to me in private," and he says it to him. And another says to him, "How shall we forsake our God who is in heaven, and practise false worship?" If he repents, it is well. If he says, " Such is our duty and thus it becomes us to do," the witnesses, who hear from outside, bring him to the Beth Din and stone him. And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lud, and they hung him on the eve of Pesah. Commentary. — The legal procedure to be used in the case of a deceiver, who has tempted others to apostasy, is set forth in the Mishnah almost in the same words as in the first of the above extracts. These are from the Tosephta and the Gemaras, the passage (20) being contained in the Palestinian Gemara, while (21) is from the Babylonian Gemara. The Mishnah does not contain the reference to Ben Stada ; but it is important to notice that the Tosephta (19) does contain the name, and thus establishes the fact that the curious and exceptional legal procedure to be followed in the case of a deceiver was associ- ated with the case of Ben Stada (Jesus, see above (1)), at a time before the Tosephta was completed. This fact lends some support to the hypothesis of Laible, (J. C. im Talmud, p. 76), that the legal procedure referred to was really based upon the case of Jesus, as traditionally reported. In all the passages given above, it is stated that the concealment of witnesses, in order to trap the accused, is only practised in the
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 81
one case of a man who has tempted others to apostasy, which was of course the charge against Jesus (see above, p. 51). However that may be, and I do not feel competent to pronounce opinion on the question of the origin of this law, the point that concerns us here is this, that as early as the time when the To- sephta was compiled, there was a tradition that the condemnation of Jesus had been obtained by the fraudulent means described above. Presumably the Tosephta (19) represents the oldest form of the tradi- tion now extant ; but there is no material difference between the three passages (19), (20), (21), so far as they refer to Ben Stada. They agree in saying, first, that two witnesses were hidden in a room adjoining the one where the accused sat ; second, that a lamp was lit over the accused, so that the witnesses could see as well as hear him ; third, that in the case of Ben Stada, the witnesses brought him to the Beth Din1 and stoned him ; fourth, that this took place in Lud (Lydda). (21) makes the important addition that " they hung him on the eve of Passover." As to the place of concealment, (19) and (20) say that the two witnesses were in the inner chamber and the accused in the outer, (21) reverses the position. It is not clear in regard to the cross-examination described in (21) whether the questioners are the two witnesses. If they are, the concealment would seem to be use- less ; if not, there is nothing to show who they are. The uncertainty on this point, which the compiler of the Gemara seems to feel, may be understood if there
1 Beth Din, literally house of judgment, an assembly of Rabbis and their disciples sitting as a court of justice. The term does not denote any special tribunal.
6
82 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
really was no law on the subject except what could be recollected in connection with the trial of Jesus. As in the passages previously examined, we have here only scanty remnants of a tradition about that trial, combined perhaps with hearsay information derived from Christians. There is no ground, as Keim rightly says (Jesus of Nazara, vi. 47 n., E.T.), for correcting the Gospel account by the help of the Talmud. Rather it is the Gospel account which throws light upon the Talmudic tradition. From the Gospel story are derived the two witnesses (Matt. xxvi. 60. In Mark xiv. 56, 57, several witnesses are mentioned). The Gospel speaks of ' false ' witnesses, and this is perhaps the origin of the Talmudic asser- tion that the witnesses were concealed in order to entrap the accused. From the Talmudic point of view the witnesses were not false, in the sense of un- truthful, but were justified by their zeal for the true religion in acting deceitfully against a heretic. The mention of the outer and the inner chamber (of what building is not said) recalls Matt. xxvi. 69, where it is said that Peter was sitting without in the court, while the trial was going on within the house of the High Priest. The lighted lamp may have been suggested by the mention of the fire kindled in the outer court, Luke xxii. 55. And finally the state- ment that the witnesses carried the accused to the Beth Din may have its origin in the fact that there was, according to the Gospels, a second sitting of the council after the one at which the witnesses had been present (Mark xv. 1). The Talmudic tradition differs from the Gospel in saying that the trial took place at Lud (Lydda), and that Jesus was stoned. These
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 83
statements, as well as the remark that Jesus was hung on the Eve of Passover, belong rather to the question of the execution of Jesus, which will form the subject of the next extract. They tend, however, to confirm what has already been pointed out, that the Talmud has preserved only a very vague and confused recollection of Jesus. His name was doubt- less held in abhorrence as that of a dangerous heretic and deceiver ; but extremely little was known of him, and that little is mentioned more by way of casual remark than as being of importance on its own account.
The Execution of Jesus
(22) b. Sanh. 43a.— And it is tradition: On the eve of Pesah they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying), '[Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practised magic and deceived and led astray Israel. Any one who knoweth aught in his favour, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found naught in his favour. And they hung him on the eve of Pesah. Ulla says, • Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favour ? ' He was a deceiver, and the Merciful hath said (Deut. xiii. 8), Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene], for he was near to the kingdom.
84 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
[The whole of this passage is expunged
from the later editions. It is given here on
the authority of the MSS. and early editions
set forth by Rabbinowicz. The words in [
are from MSS.]
Commentary. — To the statements contained in the
foregoing passage must be added those given in Nos.
(19), (20), (21), viz., that Jesus was stoned, and that
his death took place in Lud (Lydda). It is remarkable
that the fact of the crucifixion in Jerusalem should
have been so completely forgotten, even by the
compiler of the Tosephta, to say nothing of the
compilers of the Gemara. This is the more curious
because there are to be found in other passages, to be
given presently, allusions to a crucifixion and to a
death in Jerusalem, which are probably those of
Jesus. The explanation of the statement that Jesus
was put to death in Lydda is probably the following :
After the destruction of Jerusalem, Lydda gradually
became an important centre of Rabbinical activity.
In the early years of the second century, Rabbis
Eliezer, Tarphon and Aqiba held their colleges there,
and Lydda quite outshone Jabneh, which had been
the seat first of Johanan ben Zaccai, and then of the
Patriarch Gamliel II. after the fall of Jerusalem.
Aqiba took a very active part in the insurrection
under Bar Cocheba (a.d. 132-135), and Lydda was
probably the headquarters of the insurgents. The
name " Martyrs of Lydda " (n£ win, b. B. Bathr. 10b),
was applied to some of the distinguished Rabbis who
were executed at the close of the insurrection. Now
we have already learnt (see above, p. 44) that the
Talmud regards Jesus as having been a contemporary
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 85
of Aqiba ; and it is further to be observed that the Christians were persecuted by the adherents of Bar Cocheba, presumably for not acknowledging him as the Messiah.1 Now it is quite certain that in the Talmud the insurrection of Bar Cocheba and its tragic end is remembered with much greater clear- ness than the fate of Jesus a century before. And the suggestion is that the more recent and important event has gathered to itself the tradition of the earlier period. Aqiba, the apostle of the insurrection, became thereby the persecutor of Christians ; the place where he was most active against them was Lydda, and thus a later tradition could naturally arise that Jesus was a contemporary of Aqiba, and had been executed in Aqiba's own city of Lydda. This is in the main Laible's explanation ; but I differ from him in holding that Aqiba's hostility towards the Christians was chiefly due to his own connexion with Bar Cocheba, and not so much to his hatred of Christians as such. No doubt he felt such a hatred, as did other Rabbis, e.g. Tarphon and Meir ; but I do not know of any special evidence of his hostility except on the ground that I have mentioned.
The passage before us further states that Jesus was hung. With this must be combined the evidence of the passages, Nos. (19), (20), (21), that he was stoned. The connexion between the two statements is that Jesus was stoned, and his dead body then hung upon a cross. This is clear from the Mishnah, Sanh. vi.
1 Justin Mart., Apol. i. C. 31, ical yap iv t$ vvv yeytvr\ix4vcp 'lou8at/c<p iro\4fi(p Bapx<»X€&as> & T^s 'lovSaiwv airo(rrd<rta)S opx777*T1?s> Xpiariavohs fxSvovs (Is Tipaplas Seivds, §1 fi^j apvoivro 'Ir}(rovv rby Xpiffrbv ko\ f}\a<r<prnxo?ev, eKiKtvtv fardyeo-dai.
86 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
4. (23) ' All who are stoned are hung, according to Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say None is hung except the blasphemer and he who practises a false worship.' * The corpse was hung to a cross or else to a single beam, of which one end rested on the ground, the other against a wall (same Mishnah). It is worth noting that the technical word for a cross (n^s) is not used here. The Gospels, of course, say nothing about a stoning of Jesus, and I suggest that the Talmudic tradition is an inference from the fact that he was known to have been hung. The inference would be further strengthened by the application of the text, Deut. xxi. 23, He that is hanged is accursed of God, a text which Paul had to disarm in reference to Jesus (Gal. iii. 13). The Talmud knows nothing of an execution of Jesus by the Romans, but makes it solely the act of the Jews.
Here may be mentioned a passage which seems to show that there was a tradition that Jesus had been crucified.
(24) T. Sanh. ix. 7. — Rabbi Meir used to say, What is the meaning of (Deut. xxi. 23), For a curse of God is he that is hung ? [It is like the case of] two brothers, twins, who resembled each other. One ruled over the whole world, the other took to robbery. After a time the one who took to robbery was caught, and they crucified him on a cross. And every one who passed to and fro said, ' It seems that the king
1 Literally a worshipper of stars and planets. This is constantly used in the Rabbinical literature as a technical term for the adherent of a false religion, without any implication that the stars are the actual objects of worship. Idolater is not always an equivalent term ; but, with this explana- tion, it is the most convenient to use.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 87
is crucified.' Therefore it is said, A curse of God is he that is hung.
Commentary. — R. Meir lived in the second cen- tury, and we shall see that he had some knowledge of the Gospels (see below, p. 163). It is hardly to be doubted that the above passage contains a reference to Jesus. ' One ruled over the whole world,' that is God. ' They resembled each other ' suggests He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. The men- tion of the cross (ni^v) obviously accords with the Gospel story. The scornful gibe of the passers-by suggests Matt, xxvii. 37 and 39, and esp. 42, 43. The curious remark that the second 'took to robbery' (listaia) I cannot explain, but it should be noted in connexion with what was said above (see p. 73), about Pinhas Listaah (Pontius Pilatus). It. Meir's interpretation of the text in Deut. is somewhat obscure ; so far as I understand it he seems to mean that the raillery of the bystanders was a cursing of ♦God, because they said ' the King is hung,' which would be the case if Jesus were supposed to be God.
To this passage may be appended another where there is also a reference to crucifixion. It is con- tained in the Midrash on Esther ix. 2, and is as follows : — Zeresh, the wife of Haman, is advising him how to kill Mordecai, so that he shall not be de- livered by miracle as so many had been, and she says, W9D anwan *ioy \o nn propa irfn mh* by rw sb% " Crucify him on a cross, for we do not find one out of his nation who has been delivered from it." The refer- ence seems to be to the fact that Jesus was not saved from the cross even though it was claimed
88 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
for him that he was the Messiah ; cp. Matt, xxvii. 40.
To return now to the Gemara in Sanh., at the head of this section. It is stated there that Jesus was put to death on the eve of Passover ; the Florence codex adds that it was also the eve of Sabbath. This is probably dependent on the Gospel story, and it is interesting to note that it agrees more with the Gospel of John than with the Synoptics. From what we have already seen, however, of the vagueness and uncertainty of the Talmudic tradition concerning the death of Jesus, it is unwarrantable to use this as independent evidence.
In like manner we may ascribe to a confused knowledge of Christian teaching the statement that a herald went forth, during forty days before the death of Jesus, calling upon all who could bear witness in his favour to come and do so. The herald is, of course, fictitious ; but the forty days may have been suggested by the forty days which are said to have elapsed between the crucifixion and the ascen- sion, i.e. before the final disappearance of Jesus. Laible suggests the forty days of fasting ending with Easter, and Dalman hints at the forty days' fast of Jesus in the wilderness (Matt. iv. 2). All that can be said with any safety is that the number forty may have its origin in the Gospel.
The Gemara, having described the death of Jesus, adds a remark about the statement that a herald invited evidence in favour of Jesus, and found none. Ulla, a Palestinian Rabbi of the end of the third century, a disciple of R. Johanan, says, ' Would it be thought that anything could be said in favour
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 89
of Jesus, a revolutionary ? He was a deceiver, and the Merciful hath said (observe the irony of appeal- ing to God as "the Merciful" in this case), Thou shalt not spare nor conceal such a one' But, says the compiler of the Gemara, or perhaps Ulla, who raised the question, ' It was different with Jesus, because he was near to the kingdom.' Is this a reference to the supposed Davidic descent of Jesus ? The suggestion is tempting; but I doubt whether it is warranted. The phrase " near to the kingdom " occurs elsewhere, and is applied to the family of the Patriarch Gamliel II., of whom it is said (b. B. Q. 83a), that they were allowed to learn Greek because they were "near to the kingdom." The Patriarch was the official representative of the Jews, and since as such he must have had frequent intercourse with the government, the knowledge of Greek was necessary. Of course, Jesus stood in no such official relation to the government ; but the Gospels record a remarkable hesitation on the part of Pontius Pilate to put him to death, and such hesitation might well be explained by saying that Jesus must have had friends at court, or at least that there must have been political reasons for wishing to spare him. If this suggestion, which is made by Laible (J. C. im Talmud, p. 80), be thought somewhat far-fetched, as implying a greater knowledge of the Gospel story than is probable, it may be simplified by supposing that the phrase, " near to the kingdom," was an in- ference from the fact that Jesus frequently spoke of "the kingdom." In this case there would be no need to bring in Pontius Pilate, and in fact the Talmudic story of the execution of Jesus does not
90 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
implicate the civil government at all. Laible appears to me to credit the Talmudic Rabbis with a much clearer memory of the life and death of Jesus than is warranted by the evidence. That they knew of the existence of the Gospel (or Gospels) is certain (see below, p. 163) ; and that they had some acquaint- ance with the contents of the Gospel is probable; but the frequent discussions between Jews and Christians, of which we shall meet with many ex- amples, lead me to think that the Rabbis gained most of their information about Jesus from such intercourse, and that the real tradition concerning him amounted to hardly more than the fact that he had been a deceiver of the people and had been put to death.
The Disciples of Jesus
(25) b. Sanh. 43a. — Our Rabbis have taught, Jesus had five disciples — Matthai, Neqai, Netzer, Buni, and Thodah. They brought Matthai [before the judges]. He said, ' Must Matthai be killed? For it is written [Ps. xlii. 2]: Mathai [ = when] shall (I) come and appear before God' They said to him, 'Yes, Matthai must be killed, for it is written [Ps. xli. 5]: Mathai [ = when] shall (he) die and his name perish' They brought Neqai. He said to them, • Must Neqai be killed ? For it is written [Ex. xxiii. 7] : The Naqi [ «■ inno- cent] and the righteous thou shalt not slay.9 They said to him, ' Yes, Neqai must be killed, for it is written [Ps. x. 8] : In secret places
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 91
doth he slay Naqi [ = the innocent].' They brought Netzer. He said, 'Must Netzer be killed ? For it is written [Isa. xi. 1] : Netzer [ = a branch] shall spring tip from his roots' They said to him, 'Yes, Netzer must be killed. For it is written [Isa. xiv. 19]: Thou art cast forth out of thy grave like an abominable Netzer [ = branch].' They brought Buni. He said to them, 'Must Buni be killed ? For it is written [Ex. iv. 22] : Bni [ = my son], my first born, Israel" They said to him, ' Yes, Buni must be killed. For it is written [Ex. iv. 23] : Behold, I slay Bincha [ = thy son] thy first born' They brought Thodah. He said to them, ' Must Thodah be killed ? For it is written [Ps. c. 1] : A Psalm for Thodah [ = thanksgiving].' They said to him, 'Yes, Thodah must be killed, for it is written [Ps. 1. 23] : Whoso sacrificeth Thodah [ = thanksgiving] honoureth me? Commentary. — This passage is the continuation of the preceding one, and I have only divided the two for convenience of separate treatment. It is probable that the passage already considered, No. (21), which in the editions of the Talmud is found on p. 67a of Sanhedrin, also forms part of the same paragraph about Jesus. Thus it would con- tain, first, the description of the witnesses, then the execution, and lastly the account of the five disciples. If this is so, then it is clear why the place of exe- cution (Lydda) is not mentioned in the second and third passages (22), (25), since it has already been mentioned in (21). This is Laible's suggestion. The
92 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
reason for their being divided in the Talmud would be that the division of subject required it, the account of the death of Jesus being introduced in a discussion about the stoning of certain criminals, and the description of the manner of concealing witnesses finding its proper place later in a discussion upon deceivers of the people. The passage which we have now to consider is merely a pendant to the account of the death of Jesus, describing with a certain ferocious humour the fate of five of his disciples. These are said to have been condemned to death ; and when they quoted Scripture texts as a plea for their lives, they were met with other texts demolishing their plea. That any tribunal of justice, or of arbitrary violence, ever conducted its business in such a manner, it is hard to believe ; and we can only regard this fencing with texts as a jeu (Tesprit, occasioned no doubt by some actual event. That event would naturally be an execution of Christian disciples, if such took place. The dialogue as given in the Talmud can certainly not be taken as historical ; but it may yet give some in- dication of the historical circumstances under which it was composed. Little or nothing can be learnt from the names of the five disciples ; only the first, Matthai, has any close resemblance to a name in the list of the twelve (Matt. x. 2-4). The last, Thodah, is not unlike Thaddseus ; but in Hebrew that name would be Thaddai, not Thodah. The others, Naqi, Netzer, and Buni,1 have no parallels in the list of the
1 It is, however, worthy of note that in b. Taan. 19b, 20a, is related a story of Naqdimon b. Qorion, a rich citizen of Jerusalem, and it is added in a note that his real name was not Naqdimon, but Bum. Now Naqdimon is
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 9$
Twelve ; indeed, it is doubtful whether they, and Thodah, were ever names of persons at all. At most they may have been nick-names, and they certainly raise the suspicion that they have been chosen for the sake of the texts. I suggest that the case stands thus : — five disciples of Jesus, i.e. five Christians, were on some occasion condemned to death, that their real names, if known, were not mentioned, that one of them was designated Matthai with reference to the name attached to the first Gospel, that the play upon his name suggested a similar device in the case of the others, and that for them other names were invented, each of which had some reference to Jesus, as regarded of course by Christians. Thus Naqi, the innocent, is obviously applicable to Jesus from the Christian point of view, and is as obviously satirical from that of the Rabbis, as already shown. Netzer, the branch, is the Hebrew word occurring in the two texts quoted from Isaiah, of which the former was interpreted Messianically, and would therefore be applied to Jesus. But perhaps more probably there is a reference to the name Notzri, the Nazarene, which we have already met with as an epithet of Jesus (for the derivation of the word Notzri, and its meaning, see above, p. 52 n.). Buni, as used in both the texts, is taken to mean 'my son,' a frequent designation of the Messiah, and therefore applicable by Christians to Jesus. For the name Thodah, 'praise,' I do not know any connexion with Jesus ; but it is possible that the apt retort of the second text, whoso sacri-
equivalent to Nicodemus. There may, therefore, be an allusion to Nico- demus, who came to Jesus by night (John iii. 1).
94 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
ficeth Thodak honoureth me, may have suggested the whole series, and thus that the name Thodah was a pure invention.
It is natural to infer from the passage that all the five disciples were condemned on the same occasion, and this at once excludes the possibility that any of the original Twelve are referred to. At least no Christian tradition exists which specifies any five out of the Twelve as having met with such a fate. But the fact that the five were called disciples of Jesus only implies that they were Christians, not that they were contemporaries of Jesus. Therefore we may look for them, if necessary, at some later period. The fact that the prisoners quoted texts of Scripture, and were met with other texts, suggests that the trial took place before a Jewish and not a Roman tribunal. Not, of course, that such a thrust and parry of texts really took place anywhere, but that it would be impossible in a Roman court and only a witty travesty of what would be possible in a Jewish one. Laible (J. C. im Talm., p. 68 fol.) makes the very probable suggestion that the story refers to the persecution of Christians under Bar Cocheba, already mentioned. It is a fantastic account of some incident of that persecution. The reasons for taking this view are, that the story occurs in the same passage as that which describes the death of Jesus, and that we have found the key to the understanding of the statements there made about Jesus in the anti- Christian hatred of Bar Cocheba, and more especially of Aqiba, his chief supporter. So far as I know, there is no other period than this (132-135 a.d.) at which Christians were persecuted and even put to death by Jews.
PASSAGES RELATING TO JESUS 95
The Christians would, of course, be of Jewish extraction.
Other persons who are described as disciples of Jesus will be mentioned subsequently. I do not mention them here, in the division dealing with Talmudic references to Jesus, because the passages where they are alluded to are more conveniently grouped together as referring to Minuth (heresy) and Minim (heretics), and will therefore be treated separately in another main division.
I shall close this division, of which the main subject is Jesus, by a reference to the name Ben Netzer, which has been held by some to denote Jesus.
Ben Netzer
Levy (N. H. W., i. 240% s.v. p) says that the name Ben Netzer (to a) is probably an allusion to Jesus the Nazarene. Keim, (J. of N., ii. 15, Eng. Tr.) says that the Talmudists call Jesus, Ben Netzar. This is also the view of Edersheim (L. and T. J. M., i. 222). The authority for this appears to be Abarbanel, whose work nvwn wjns is quoted by Buxtorf (Lexicon Talmudicum, ed. Fischer, s.v. to ) as follows : Speak- ing of the " little horn " in Dan. vii. 8, he says (26), " See, yea see, how they interpret that other ' little horn ' to mean Ben Netzer, who is Jeshua ha-Notzri, and according to the context they join in the reference to him the wicked kingdom, which is Edom, for that was his nation." What reason Abarbanel had for making this identification I do not know ; but there is nothing in the passages where Ben Netzer is
96 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
mentioned (b. Keth. 51b, J. Terum. 46b, Ber. r. sec. 76) to suggest Jesus. Ben Netzer is described as a sort of robber chieftain, " a robber amongst kings, a king amongst robbers," as the Talmud says. The correct explanation, as it seems beyond question, is that of Gratz (G. d. J., iv. 295, and n. 28), who shows that Ben Netzer is Odenathus, the founder of the shortlived kingdom of Palmyra, a.d. 260 circa. Jost (G. d. J., ii. 145 n. 4) says that this hypothesis is without evidence to support it ; and if it were not for a re- ference in the same context to Gratz' work, it would be hard to believe that Jost had read the long note (n. 28) in which Gratz presents the evidence. It appears to me clear that Gratz is right, and if so, there can be no question of an allusion to Jesus in the name Ben Netzer. Even Jost does not allege any such allusion, though he rejects the proposed identi- fication with Odenathus.
B.— PASSAGES REFERRING TO MINIM AND MINUTH
This division will include a much larger number of passages than the one just completed, and the greater part of them will be concerned with those Minim whose identification is one of the problems of the Talmud. It will be necessary, for the sake of clear- ness, to sub-divide the material in this division, with the result, as I hope, of lessening the amount of com- mentary upon each passage.
SECTION I.— DESCRIPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF MINIM AND MINUTH
I place first of all what I believe to be a reference to the most distinguished disciple of Jesus, viz., Paul.
Gehazi (Paul?)
(27) b. Sotah. 47a.— Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand repel and the right hand invite. Not like Elisha, who repulsed Gehazi with both his hands, and not like Jehoshua ben Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus the Nazarene with both his hands. What about Elisha? It is written (2 Kings v. 23), And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents, and
97 7
98 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
it is written (ib. v. 26), and he said to him, 1 Went not my heart [with thee] when the man turned from off his chariot to meet thee2. Is it a time to receive silver, and to receive raiment and olive gardens and vineyards and sheep and cattle and men-servants and maid-servants?' But had he indeed received all this? Silver and raiment was what he received. R. Jitzhaq said, ■ In that hour Elisha was occupied with [the law concerning] the eight [kinds of] creeping things (Lev. xi. 29, 30]. He said to him [Gehazi], ' Wretch, the time has come to receive the punishment [for having partaken] of the eight creeping things, and the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever' And there were four leprous men (2 Kings vii. 3), R. Johanan said these were Gehazi and his three sons. And Elisha went to Damascus (ib. viii. 7). Why did he go to Damascus ? R. Johanan says that he went to turn Gehazi to repentance, and he did not repent. He said to him 'Repent,' and he answered, 'Thus have I received from thee, that everyone who has sinned and caused the multitude to sin, they give him not the chance to repent.' What did he do ? Some say he set up a loadstone according to the sin of Jeroboam and made it stand between heaven and earth. And some say he wrote the Name upon its mouth, and it used to say " I " and "Thou shalt not have." And some say he drove our Rabbis from before him, as it is written (2 Kings vi. 1), And the sons of the
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 99
prophets said to Elisha, Behold the place where
we sit is too strait for us, whereas up till that
time it had not been too small.
What of R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah ? [See
the continuation (7) above, p. 50.] Commentary. — It must be borne in mind that this passage is continuous with that describing the excom- munication of Jesus by R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, No. (7) above, p. 50. The whole passage occurs in b. Sotah 47a and b. Sanh. 107b. The story of Jesus has been given according to the latter version, for the sake of being able to use the various readings of Rabbinowicz, which are not available for the treatise Sotah. The story about Gehazi is given according to the version in Sotah, because it is somewhat fuller, and omits nothing of importance that is found in the version in Sanhedrin.
The connexion of a story about Jesus with a story about Gehazi suggests that there may be, under the figure of Gehazi, a covert reference to some person associated with Jesus. It will not be forgotten that Gehazi is one of the four men expressly excluded from the world to come, and that the other three are Balaam, Doeg and Ahitophel. We have already seen reason to believe that Balaam is a type of Jesus (see above, p. 64 fol.), and that Doeg and Ahitophel are else- where said to have been heretics (Minim), a term which in some cases certainly denotes Christians. It is natural, therefore, to look amongst the followers of Jesus for the man of whom Gehazi is the type. I suggest that the man referred to is Paul. In what is said about Gehazi, in the passage before us and elsewhere, there are several points of likeness to
JOO CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Paul ; and it would certainly be strange if the man who, more than any other except Jesus, was the foe of the traditional Judaism, and who, moreover, had been in his youth a strict Pharisee, should be passed over in silence by the defenders of that Judaism when they had occasion to refer to Christianity.
In the passage before us, the subject under discus- sion is the duty of attending on or accompanying a man walking forth from a town ; and a chance mention of Elisha is made the excuse for introducing a long haggadah about him, of which our passage forms part. The story translated above is, of course, a haggadic enlargement of the story in 2 Kings v. of the dismissal and punishment of Gehazi for covetousness. The curious statement that Elisha was studying the law about the eight kinds of creep- ing things is only a fantastic explanation of the punishment of Gehazi. Elisha said, ' Is this a time to receive silver and raiment and olive-gardens.' etc., mentioning eight things. And the objection is made that Gehazi had not received all these, but only the first two. R. Jitzhaq explains this by saying that Elisha was studying the law about the eight creeping things forbidden for food. The connexion is not, however, simply the number eight. The punishment, according to this fanciful exposition, is inflicted upon Gehazi for having broken the law about eating the creeping things. The absurdity of this explanation is somewhat diminished when we remember that it was Paul more than anyone else who repudiated the Jewish laws of clean and unclean food. In reference to the real Gehazi the explanation has no point, but in reference to Paul it has a good deal.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 101
Significant also is the fact that Gehazi was a renegade disciple of a great master; and although this is, of course, found in the O.T. story, and is not a haggadic invention, it is none the less applicable to Paul, the disciple of Gamaliel. So, too, the fact that Gehazi went to Damascus (not stated, but implied in the statement that Elisha went thither to try and bring him to repentance) has its parallel in the fact that Paul went to Damascus, and was there as a Christian (Acts ix. 22). The answer of Gehazi to Elisha, that one who has sinned and caused the multitude to sin is allowed no chance to repent, has no meaning in reference to the real Gehazi, but harmonizes well with the case of Paul. It should be noticed that this answer is exactly the same as that which, in the companion story, Jesus makes to It. Jehoshua ben Perahjah.1
Further, the accounts of what happened afterwards to Gehazi deserve notice. ■ Some say that he set up a loadstone according to the sin of Jeroboam.' The sin of Jeroboam consisted in setting up the calves in Bethel and Dan ; and Rashi, in his comment on this passage, says that he did so by means of a loadstone which will lift metal from the earth. What may be the meaning of a loadstone in reference to Paul will be seen presently ; but he so far followed the example of Jeroboam as to establish centres of worship other than Jerusalem. ■ Some say that he wrote the Name upon its mouth, and it used to say " I " and " Thou
1 The words of the answer are, however, a general Rabbinical maxim, not peculiar to this passage. The origin of the maxim is fonnd in 1 Kings xiv. 16 ; and the Rabbinical aphorism occurs in T. Joma v. 11, b. Joma 87a, Aboth. v. 18 (in connexion with * disciples of Balaam').
102 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
shalt not have." ' What is referred to here is again the loadstone, and it would seem that a statue is intended. The Name that he wrote, or carved, upon the mouth of the figure is the name of God, the Name which was forbidden to be pronounced. And the words which the figure uttered are the opening of the Ten Commandments. The meaning seems to be that Paul set up some figure representing a person whom he asserted to be equal with God. That images of Christ were to be seen in Christian churches in the time of Paul is not to be supposed ; but that they were well known to the Rabbis of the time to which our passage belongs, is certain. And considering how much the doctrine of the Deity of Christ owes to the teaching of Paul, it would not be unnatural for a Jew to charge him with setting up images of Christ to be worshipped as God. Pos- sibly the clue may be found in John xii. 32 : And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto myself,
6 Some say that he drove our Rabbis from before him.' This is explained by Rashi to mean that the Rabbinical academies were crowded by the disciples whom Gehazi drove away. Whether there is here any reference to Paul I am not prepared to say.
As to the date of this passage, nothing can be precisely determined. It is found only in the Baby- lonian Gemara, and no Rabbi is mentioned as an authority except for some small portions. R. Johanan belongs to the third century (d. 279 a.d.), and R. Jitzhaq was a younger contemporary. Both lived in Palestine. The passage about Gehazi is perhaps older than that about Jesus, as suggested above,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 103
p. 54, and served as the introduction to that story. But, on the other hand, the story about Jesus had a foundation in Palestinian tradition, as the story of Gehazi (Paul) had. And in both cases, what we have is a product of the Babylonian schools. Both are probably of very late date, and though one may have preceded the other, there seems no reason to place any considerable interval between them.
It is curious, by the way, that in neither story is any further reference made to that repulsion by both hands, which each story is quoted to illustrate.1
Ben Damah and Jacob of Chephar Sama (Sechanja).
(28) T. Hull, ii. 22, 23.— The case of R. El'azar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit. There came in Jacob, a man of Chephar Sama, to cure him in the name of Jeshua' ben Pandira, but R. Ishmael did not allow it. He said, ' Thou art not permitted, Ben Damah.' He said, • I will bring thee a proof that he may heal me.' But he had not finished bringing a proof when he died. R. Ishmael said, ■ Happy art thou, Ben Damah, for thou hast departed in peace, and hast not broken through the ordinances of the wise ; for upon every one who breaks through the fence of the wise, punishment comes at last, as it is written [Eccl. x. 8]: Whoso breaketh a fence a serpent shall bite him.
(29) j. Shabb. 14d. — Almost word for word the same as (28), then follows: — The serpent only bit
1 For the phrase, see Mechilta, Jithro, 58b.
104 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
him in order that a serpent might not bite him in the future. And what could he [B. Damah] have said ? (Lev. xviii. 5) : Wliich, if a man do, he shall live in them [i.e. not die in them].
(30) j. A. Zar. 40d, 41a.— Same as (29), except that after the words " came in to cure him," is added, " He said, We will speak to thee in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira."
(31) b. A. Zar. 27b. — A man shall have no dealings with the Minim, nor be cured by them, even for the sake of an hour of life. The case of Ben Dama, sister's son of Rabbi Ishmael, whom a serpent bit. There came Jacob the Min of Chephar Sechanja to cure him ; but R. Ishmael would not allow him. And he [B. Dama] said to him, ' R. Ishmael, my brother, allow him, that I may be cured by him, and I will bring a text from the Torah that this is permitted.' But he had not finished his discourse when his soul departed, and he died. R. Ishmael pro- nounced over him, 'Happy art thou, Ben Dama, for thy body is pure and thy soul hath departed in purity, and thou hast not trans- gressed the words of thy companions, who have said [Eccl. x. 8]: Whoso breaketh through a
fence, a serpent shall bite him.' It is different
in regard to Minuth, which bites a man, so
that he comes to be bitten afterwards.
Commentary. — A fifth version of this story is given
in the Midrash, Qoheleth Rabba, i. 8, along with a
good deal else referring to Minuth, of which use will
be made subsequently. The story of Ben Damah
there given, however, does not add anything to what
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 105
is contained in one or other of the four versions already cited.
We have here to deal with an event separated by no long interval of time from the date at which it was first recorded. R. Ishmael was one of the most distinguished Rabbis whose teaching is contained in the Mishnah and Tosephta ; he lived in the first half of the second century, and there is reason to believe that he did not die in the war of Bar Cocheba, or im- mediately afterwards (a.d. 135), but survived it some years [see below, p. 131 fol]. R. Ishmael spent the greater part of his life in Chephar Aziz, a village in the extreme south, on the borders of Idumea (M. Qid. vi. 4, Khethub. v. 8). It is not likely that he would there be brought into contact with a Galilean, and Jacob of Chephar Sama (or Sechanja) was of course a Galilean. But it is said that R. Ishmael was present at an assembly of Rabbis at Usha, in Galilee (b. B. Bathr. 28% b),x and although the date of that meeting cannot be precisely determined, it seems probable that it took place not long before the out- break of the rebellion of Bar Cocheba, say 130. a.d. or thereabouts. Two assemblies at Usha are distinctly mentioned (b. R. ha Sh. 31% b), the second being immediately after the close of the rebellion. It is probable, then, that the incident of Ben Damah and Jacob of Chephar Sama (Sechanja) took place on the occasion of the first assembly at Usha. Ben Damah is elsewhere (b. Menah. 99b) said to have asked
1 The assembly at Usha, here mentioned, is probably the second of the two, as that was certainly the more famous. But if R. Ishmael attended the second, there is every reason to suppose that he also attended the first. This is all that matters as far as his presence in Galilee is concerned.
106 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
permission from his uncle, R. Ishmael, to study Greek philosophy. Permission was refused by the quotation of Josh. i. 8, Thou shalt meditate thereon [the book of the Law] day and night, and the command, ' Go, seek a time when it is neither day nor night, and therein study Greek philosophy.'
Jacob of Chephar Sama or Sechanja is evidently a Christian ; but, no less evidently, he cannot have been a contemporary of Jesus, still less identical with James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus, as has been suggested. The latter was put to death somewhere about the year 44 a.d. ; and R. Ishmael was only a boy when Jerusalem was captured in a.d. 70. Jacob was an extremely common name, and no identification with any known Christian is possible. The place to which this Jacob belonged is called variously Chephar Sama and Ch. Sechanja. The first is thought to be the modern Khefr Sumeia, and the second the well-known Sichnin (modern Suchnin) ; as these two places are only nine miles apart, Jacob may quite well have been associated with both. In a passage which will be examined presently, this same Jacob is said to have talked with R. Eliezer b. Horqenos, in the High Street of Sepphoris, and to have communicated to him a saying of Jesus. [See below, p. 138 and especially p. 143]. If we suppose that Jacob was, roughly speaking, about the same age as R. Eliezer, he would belong to the third generation of Christian disciples, hardly to the second.
As to the details of the story, there is little variation among the several versions given above. In all, the Christian proposes to heal the sick man in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira, i.e. as the Palestinian Gemara (30)
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 107
says, by pronouncing that name over the sufferer (cp. Acts iii. 6, ix. 34 ; Mark xvi. 17, 18). R. Ishmael refused to allow the cure to be performed, although his nephew pleaded that he had scripture warrant for it. He died while speaking; but the Palestinian Gemara (29) supplies what he had not time to say, by referring to Lev. xviii. 5. Ben Damah would have argued that since a man was to live by doing the things commanded in the Torah, he would be justified, for the sake of them, in saving his life.
The quotation of Eccl. x. 8 is ambiguous. It appears to have been suggested by the mere fact of B. Damah having been bitten by a serpent. But, on the other hand, according to the text, the bite of a serpent was a punishment for having " broken through a fence," i.e. "transgressed the ordinances of the Rabbis," according to the Rabbinical interpretation. Now Ben Damah had not done this, and therefore R. Ishmael praised him ; but he had been bitten by a serpent. Tosephta (28) does not attempt to get over the difficulty; the Pal. Gemara (29) explains that the bite of the serpent, which killed Ben Damah, was to prevent him from meeting a worse fate hereafter ; for if he had " transgressed the ordinances of the wise," he would have been a heretic, and in the world to come would have suffered the fate of a heretic. In other words, Jacob the heretic would have infected him with the venom of heresy, if allowed to cure his wound, and thus the literal serpent saved him from the figurative serpent.
The word translated 'heresy' is Minuth, the abstract noun from Min ; and there can be no ques- tion but that here the heresy intended is Christianity.
108 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
This is evident from the mention of Jacob as a dis- ciple of Jesus, and it is important as helping to decide the real significance of the terms Min and Minuth. The next extract will afford evidence of a similar kind.
The Grandson of R. Jehoshua ben Levi and a Christian Doctor
(32) j. Shabb. 14d.— The grandson [of R. Jehoshua ben Levi] had something stuck in his throat. There came, a man and whispered to him in the name of Jeshu Pandera, and he recovered. When he [the doctor] came out, he [R. Jehoshua] said to him, 'What didst thou whisper to him ? ' He said to him, < A certain word.' He said, * It had been better for him that he had died rather than thus.' And it happened thus to him, as it were an error that proceedetkfrom the ruler (Ecc. x. 5).
j. A. Zar. 40d gives the passage in the same
words as above, this page of the treatise being,
indeed, to a considerable extent a repetition of
that in the treatise Shabbath. The story is
found also in the Midrash Qoh. rabbah, on
x. 5, in a shorter form.
Commentary.— Jehoshua ben Levi is one of the
best known of the Talmudic Rabbis. He lived and
taught for the most part at Lud (Lydda), where he
followed his own teacher Bar Qappara, a.d. 260.
But he was in close association with the two great
teachers, Johanan and Resh Laqish, whose college
was in Tiberias. It is probable that it was in Tiberias
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 109
that the incident took place which is described above. For the grandson referred to was probably the son of R. Joseph (son of R. Jehoshua) who had married into the family of the Patriarch Jehudah II., and Tiberias was the latter's place of residence. A Christian doctor might be met with elsewhere, as in the case of R. Abahu, in the next extract.
The main outline of the story resembles that of Ishmael and Ben Damah, except that in the passage before us the Christian was not prevented from doing what he came to do. R. Jehoshua had not been present to interfere, but apparently only met him as he was coming away. The meaning of the quotation from Ecc. x. 5, I suppose to be, that the fact of the child having been cured by a Christian was a deplor- able evil which could not be undone, as the command of a ruler given in error, and implicitly obeyed, may result in mischief which cannot be afterwards put right. This is on the lines of the explanation given by Rashi and Aben Ezra in their commentaries on Ecclesiastes. It is characteristic of the feeling of Jews towards Christians in the third century in"\ Palestine.
That feeling is further illustrated by the following :
R. Abahu, and Jacob the Min
(33) b. A. Zar. 28a.— And yet, R. Abahu was an eminent man, and Jacob the Min applied a drug to his leg, and if it had not been for R. Ami and R. Asi, who licked his leg, he would have cut his leg off.
Commentary. — The above occurs in the midst of a
110 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
discussion on the question whether in cases of sick- ness the help of non- Jewish physicians might be used. R. Johanan laid down the rule that in cases for which the Sabbath might be profaned, i.e. in very dangerous cases, such help might not be used, but that in slighter cases it might; the meaning of which seems to be that all risk was to be avoided of a man dying under non-Jewish treatment. This rule is given immedi- ately after the story of Ben Damah, already discussed, and is repeated just before the present passage re- ferring to Abahu. The connexion is this, that an exception might be made to Johanan's rule if the patient were an eminent man, "and yet, R. Abahu was an eminent man, etc."
Abahu lived in Caesarea at the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century. He had very frequent intercourse with Christians, as will be seen hereafter, and such intercourse was not always un- friendly. The Gemara in recording the above inci- dent seems to suppose that Jacob the Min intended to kill his patient by putting poison into a wound in his leg, and says that if Abahu's two friends had not licked the poison off (or rather perhaps sucked it out) Abahu would have cut off his own leg rather than be saved by a Christian. And the Gemara supports its view by quoting Jud. xvi. 30, where Samson says, * Let me die with the Philistines? to show that the Christian was bent on killing Abahu though he should lose his own life in consequence. But this can hardly be the real meaning of the incident. Abahu was * an eminent man,' closely associated with the court of the Roman governor, and would therefore be attended by a physician of his own choice. Indeed, the whole
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 111
point of the story, in reference to Johanan's rule about calling in non-Jewish physicians, implies that Abahu must himself have called in Jacob the Min, knowing him to be a Min. If so, he cannot have felt any such dislike towards his physician, as would make him cut off his own leg rather than allow the Christian remedy to be applied. His two friends, however, appear to have felt as R. Ishmael and R. Jehoshua felt, as de- scribed in the preceding passages. They licked off, or sucked out, the drug applied by the Christian ; and whether they supposed it to be poison, or only dis- liked a Christian remedy, their antipathy to the Christian is equally apparent.
The commentary of Tosaphoth on the passage explains, rather needlessly, that the Jacob the Min who is mentioned here cannot have been the same as the Jacob of Chephar Sama (Sechanja) who attended Ben Damah. There was a period of some 170 years between them.
In b. Hull 84a occurs a reference to a certain Jacob the Min, who is said to have discussed a point of Halachah with Raba, a Babylonian teacher in Mahuza, early in the fourth century.1 As far as chronology is concerned this might be the same Jacob as the one who attended Abahu; but I do not know what he should be doing in Mahuza. Jacob was a very common name, and there must have been many Jewish Christians who were so called.
tt! °<P; ^ thtK T: W?ere "a oertain Min" has an a***** with Raba. The Jacob Minaah' who met Raba is hardly identical with the 'Jacob
^rfi.7 h0TTVe™d *** R* Jehudah <b- MeS- 23a), if this be R Jehudah ben Jehesq'el, since the latter died about the time (a.d. 292) when Raba was born. N '
112 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
A Contest of Miracles
(34) j. Sanh. 25d. — For example, R. Lazar and R. Jehoshua and R. Aqiba went up to bathe in a certain public bath in Tiberias. A certain Min (heretic) saw them. He said something, and the arched roof held them fast. It. Lazar said to It. Jehoshua, < What ! Jehoshua ben Hananjah, see what thou canst do.' When that Min went forth, R. Jehoshua said some- thing, and the door held him fast, and every- one who entered gave him a blow, and every one who went out gave him a thrust in the back. He said, 'Undo what ye have done.' They said, ' Undo, and we will undo.' They each did so. When they had gone forth, R. Jehoshua said, ' Well, how clever thou art ! ' He said, ' Let us go down to the sea.' When they had gone down to the sea, the Min said something, and the sea was divided. He said to them, < And did not Moses your master do thus in the sea ? ' They said to him, ' Wilt thou not agree with us that Moses our master walked in the midst of it ? ' He said to them, 1 Yes.' They said to him, ' Then do thou walk in the midst of it.' He walked in the midst of it. And R. Jehoshua commanded the Prince of the Sea, and he swallowed him up. Commentary. — The foregoing tale is given as an illustration in a discussion upon magic and witch- craft, arising out of the text (Exod. xxii. 18), Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. The three Rabbis
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 113
mentioned are very well known characters. R. Lazar * is R. El'azar ben Azariah. R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah was the contemporary, and, in a sense, rival of R. Eliezer ben Horqenos whom we have already met with (see above, No. 4). Aqiba has also been frequently mentioned. All three were living at the beginning of the second century a.d. The Christian might, so far as chronology goes, have been the same Jacob of Chephar Sama who came to cure Ben Damah ; but there is nothing to identify him. The story itself needs little explanation. The Rabbis go to a public bath and apparently enter a room with a vaulted roof. Levy (N. H. W., ii. 322, s.v. rmo) says that what is meant is the arched recess where an idol stood ; but the quotation which he gives in sup- port of this view (b. A. Zar. 16a) does not seem to me to show this. However, it was evidently some small arch, under or in which a man could stand. The Min, whom here we may safely call a Christian (after the example of Jacob the Min, who was a dis- ciple of Jesus), pronounced a spell, literally ' said what he said,' and the arch held them fast. Jehoshua retaliated by a spell which caused the door to hold the Christian fast, so that he blocked the way, and people as they tried to go in or out struck him. After releasing each other they all went down to * the sea/ i.e. the lake of Galilee. By another spell the Christian divided the water, to show that he could do what Moses did. He incautiously admitted that Moses also walked in the midst of the divided water, and he was challenged to do the same. He fell into
1 Lazar is the shorter form of Eleazar, and appears in the N. T. as Lazarus.
8
114 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
the trap ; and when he was in the midst of the water, Jehoshua commanded the 'Prince of the Sea,' the angel or spirit in charge of the lake, and the water swallowed him up.
This story is anonymous, and there is nothing to indicate its age or origin. It is certainly not con- temporary with the Rabbis who figure in it, unless we admit that Jehoshua ben Hananiah enjoyed during his lifetime the reputation for magical power which was afterwards attributed to him. It should be noted that the miracles of the Christian are admitted to be as real as those of his opponent. There is complete faith in miracles all through the story. I use the term ' miracle,' though the Talmud speaks of magic, because it is well to remind the reader that what the N.T. calls a miracle (at least in English, the Greek has 0-77/xeia or Swa/xeis), the Talmud — reflecting current belief — regards as magic, i.e. as the result of superhuman agency employed by men who know how to call it forth. Without expressing any opinion on the reality of the alleged miracles of Jesus, I would remark that the Jews admitted them as genuine, no less than the acts performed by their own Rabbis, the difference being not in the character of the deeds, but in that of the persons who performed them. So in the story above, the rival enchanters perform exactly similar acts; and since the story is told from the Jewish side, naturally the victory remains with the Rabbi. The fate of the Christian may perhaps contain an allusion to the story told in the Gospels, of Peter trying to walk on the water. If that story had its origin in Galilee, it might well continue to be remembered on the shores of the lake.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 115
On the same page in which the passage above translated occurs are some further remarks on Jewish and Christian miracles, which may throw light on the probable date of the story. They would have to be included in any collection of Talmudic references to Christianity, but are hardly of sufficient importance to be treated by themselves under a separate head. They will therefore be given here.
Miracles by Jews and Minim
(35) j. Sanh. 25d. — R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah said, ' I can take cucumbers and melons and make them into kids and goats, and they really are made into kids and goats/ R. Jannai said, ' I was walking in a certain street of Sepphoris, and I saw a certain Min take a bird, and he cast it up and it fell down and was made into a calf.' But it is not so. R. Lazar said in the name of R. Josd ben Zimra, ' If all who come into the world were assembled together, they would not be able to create a gnat and put breath in it.' Let us say, not that this Min took a bird and cast it up and it came down and was made into a calf, but that he called to his prince [familiar spirit] and he stole a calf from the herd and brought it to him. R. Hanina ben R. Hananiah said, ' I was going along a certain place near the gate of Sepphoris, and I saw a Min take a skull and cast it up and it came down and was made into a calf. And I went and told my father. He said, * If thou
116 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
hast eaten of it, it is a real one ; if not, it is an
illusion.' Commentary. — R. Jannai lived in Sepphoris about the end of the second and the beginning of the third century. He was one of the teachers of R. Johanan, to whom is traditionally ascribed the codification of the Palestinian Gemara. R. Jannai's remark about the miracle which he saw is given without the support of any later teacher who vouched for it. It is simply quoted by the compilers of the Gemara as a detached saying. R. Jose b. Zimra was contemporary with R. Jannai, possibly an inhabitant of the same town. He is quoted by R. Lazar (i.e. El'azar b. Pedath), a Babylonian who migrated to Palestine about the middle of the third century. Apparently the compilers of the Gemara felt some misgiving at the assertion that animals had been produced by magic, and they quote R. Jose* b. Zimra in support of the view that no human being can create even the smallest living creature; but they do not on that account reject the miracle. They explain it by saying that it was done by the help of superhuman beings, who brought what was wanted, in place of the thing that was apparently changed. A similar doubt as to the reality of the miracle is expressed in the story about R. Hanina b. R. Hananiah, where his father told him that unless he had actually eaten of the calf which he said he had seen made, he could not be sure it was a real one.
All these sayings and stories about magic seem to belong to a late period, and to be merely fragments collected by the compilers of the Gemara, by way of illustration, rather than duly recorded tradition.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 117
That the real R. Jehoshua b. Hananiah, a very well- known personage, should have said that he had the magical power ascribed to him above, is less likely than that such power should have been attributed to him in later times. He had indeed the reputation of being a great opponent of the Minim (heretics), and that may account for the part which he played in the contest with the Christian in the first story.
It is remarkable that nearly all the incidents men- tioned above are located in Sepphoris, and that the same place was the scene of a much more important event, the meeting of JR.. Eliezer b. Horqenos and Jacob of Chephar Sama. It would be very inter- esting to know whether the Jewish Christians of Galilee possessed an original Galilean, as distinguished from the Judaean, tradition of the ministry of Jesus.
The above passages serve to show that miracles were accepted as genuine, whether done by Jews or Christians, and that they were all alike regarded as magical.
It has been impossible to avoid mentioning the word Min x in the above remarks, since it occurs in the texts to be translated. And 1 have translated it 6 Christian ' because the connexion with Jesus seemed to be clearly shown. But I do not wish to take it for granted that in all cases ( Min ' denotes a Christian. I will therefore present here several passages in which the Talmud attempts to indicate what is a Min. And although this will still leave something to be said by way of general discussion of the question, after all the Rabbinical passages referring to ' Minim ' have been given, yet a provisional definition by the Rabbis
1 Min, plural Minim ; abstract noun Minuth, the state of being a Min.
118 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
themselves will be of much use in dealing with subse- quent passages. I proceed to give
DEFINITIONS OF MIN, MINUTH
The Fate of the Minim Hereafter
(36) T. Sanh. xiii. 4, 5.— The sinners of Israel, and the sinners of the nations of the world descend into Gehinnom in their body, and they are judged there twelve months. After twelve months their soul perishes and their body is burnt, and Gehinnom casts it out, and they are made dust and the wind disperses them and scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is said (Mai. iv. 3), And ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be dust under the soles of the feet of the righteous, fCh)l)' ll< in the day that I do make, saith the Lord of Hosts. But the Minim, and the apostates and the betrayers and Epiqurosin, and those who have lied concerning the Torah, and those who depart from the ways of the congregation, and those who have lied concerning the resur- rection of the dead, and everyone who has sinned and caused the multitude to sin, after the manner of Jeroboam and Ahab, and those (Ezek. xxxii. 24) who have set their fear in the land of the living, and have stretched forth their hand against Zebul, Gehinnom is shut in their faces and they are judged there for generations of generations, as it is said (Isa. lxvi. 24), And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of tJie men who sin against me, for their
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 119
worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. Sheol fails, they fail not, as it is said (Ps. xlix. 14), Their beauty shall be for Sheol to con- sume, who hath caused them to stretch forth their hand against Zebul, as it is said {ibid,), that there be no Zebul for him, and Zebul means nothing else but the Temple, as it is said (1 Kings viii. 13), J have surely built thee an house of habitation (Zebul), a place for thee to dwell in for ever. Commentary. — A sharp distinction is here made between Jewish and Gentile sinners on the one hand, and Minim, betrayers and Epiqurosin on the other. The Jewish sinners remain Jews though they sin. The Gentile sinners have not sinned against the Torah of Israel, because they are not bound by it. They are punished merely qua sinners ; and twelve months in Gehinnom suffices to punish their offence. Far greater is the guilt of those who, being Jews, have sinned against the fundamental principles of the Jewish religion. Apostasy in some form or another is implied in the terms 'Minim,' 'apostates/ 'be- trayers,' ' Epiqurosin.' These are not interchangeable. Reserving for the moment the first, the betrayers (Masoroth) are explained by Rashi to mean "slan- derers, who betray the wealth of Israel into the hands of Gentiles." More particularly they are Jewish 'delators,' informers, spies, acting against Israel in the interest of the Roman government. Epiqurosin (plur. of Epiquros) is plainly borrowed from the personal name Epicurus ; but it contains also a play on the word 'paqar' ("ipa), which means 'to be free
120 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
from restraint.' The name denotes, in general terms, a freethinker, one who disregards the restraints of traditional authority. An Epiquros was not neces- sarily a Jew, he might be a Gentile. Thus it is said (b. Sanh. 38b), " They teach there [in Palestine] R. El'azar said, 'Be careful to learn Torah, and know what thou shalt answer to an Epiquros.' R. Johanan said, 'They taught not so except concerning an Epiquros of the Gentiles.' But all the more concern- ing a Jewish Epiquros, for he is more defiant (>bb nps)." 1 In other words the Jewish Epiquros was the more dangerous opponent because he was an enemy within the camp. The term does not, so far as 1 know, imply the holding or rejecting of any specific doctrines, but merely the assertion of liberty of thought upon all subjects, and consequent disregard of external authority. A Gentile Epiquros would be one who, in controversy, did not from the first admit the authority of Jewish tradition as upheld by the Rabbis, a Jewish Epiquros would be one who, having formerly acknowledged the Rabbinical authority, afterwards rejected it. But a man is only an Epiquros, if I \\ rightly understand the term, when he is considered *» as having relation with the Jewish religion. A Greek philosopher, teaching in Rome or Athens, would not, merely as such, be an Epiquros ; but if he had a con- troversy with a Jew upon some question affecting Judaism, then he would be a Gentile Epiquros. A Jew became an Epiquros as soon as he showed a disposition to despise the Rabbinical authority and go his own way. Thus it is said (b. Sanh. 99b) that an Epiquros is like those who say, ' What are these
1 See below, p. 294 fol.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 121
Rabbis to us ? ' And on the same page they are compared to "one who sits before his Rabbi, and there has come to him a tradition from another place, and he says, ' Thus we teach there,' instead of saying, 'Thus the teacher (Rabbi so-and-so) hath said.'" Compare with this, Matthew v. 21, 22 : It was said to them of old time .... but I say unto you. We may then provisionally assume that Epiquros denotes a free-thinker in the widest sense of the word.
It will be evident that the term Min denotes some- thing similar to Epiquros, since they are both in- cluded in the passage before us, along with apostates and betrayers. The various details of apostasy — denial of the resurrection of the dead, of the Torah, etc. — are not specified as being characteristic of one class of apostates more than of another ; and we may take them as applying to Minim no less than to Epiqurosin, while on the other hand there must be some difference to account for the use of two terms where one would have sufficed. The difference between Min and Epiquros is much the same as the difference between 'heretic' and 'free-thinker.' The heretic usually is a free-thinker ; but not every free- thinker is a heretic. From the standpoint of Judaism a Gentile might be a free-thinker, but not a heretic ; since, being a Gentile, he had never professed the
1
heretic without being also a free-thinker. The term Min_jdeno_tes, I believe, invariably a Jewish heretic, i i.e. one who, having been trained in the principles^of the Jewish religion, departs from them and is un- faithful towards them, violates the covenant between
Jewish religion. Only a Jew could be a heretic as regards Judaism; and he could scarcely be a
122 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
God and Israel.1 This I believe to be the root sig- nificance of the term Min, and if so it would be practically equivalent to Jewish Epiquros. But I think that Min, more often than Epiquros, implies not merely freedom of thought, but the holding or re- jecting of specific opinions. It does not always do so; but it does sometimes, while I believe that this is hardly ever the case with Epiquros. We have already met with several instances of the word Min, and have judged from the context that the persons referred to were Christians. So far as I know, the Talmud seldom, if ever speaks of a Christian as Epiquros. And I infer that the term Min carried with it the denial of certain doctrines, as the expression of the unfaithfulness in which his heresy consisted. A Min, as such, was not necessarily a Christian ; but, as a / matter of fact, most of the heretics who came into strained relations with Jews were Christians, and more particularly Jewish Christians. If they had been Gentile Christians they would probably have been called Epiqurosin. And thus it often happens that ' Jewish - Christian ' is a correct equivalent of 'Min,' while yet it remains true that Min does not properly signify 'Jewish-Christian,' but only ■ heretic' 2 This, at all events, is the meaning which
1 For the probable etymology of the word Min, see below, p. 362 fol.
a Friedlander (der Vorchristliche jiidische Gnosticismus ; Gottingen, 1898) attempts to prove that the Minim were in all cases Gnostics, and more particularly of the Ophite sect His work will be more fully noticed in the concluding division of this book, when having the whole of the Talmudic evidence before us, we shall be able to judge of the value of his conclusions. His treatment of the Rabbinical authorities is far from satisfactory, if only because he bases his theory upon a comparatively small number of passages not always fairly presented. For a glaring omission, hardly to be ex- cused, see below, p. 145 n.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 12S
I provisionally adopt of the term Min. I should have preferred, if possible, to have presented all the passages referring to Min and Minuth before at- tempting to fix the significance to be attached to the words ; but in that case it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have given any clear idea of the bearing of each passage upon my main subject. It will be necessary to compare this provisional meaning with the context in each case, and to attempt a more precise identification of the class of persons referred to. It remains now to remark upon the details of the passage which has led to this discussion. It should be noted that it is contained in the Tosephta, and is thus not later than the end of the second or the be- ginning of the third century. " Who have lied con- cerning the Torah." The particular point of the denial is not stated ; but a comparison with M. Sanh. x. 1 makes it probable that the heretics denied that the Torah was from heaven. It is not stated that they denied the Torah, but that they lied concerning it, a charge which might cover a variety of offences. Similarly, " who have lied concerning the resurrection of the dead" does not necessarily imply that re- surrection itself was denied, but that some falsehood was taught concerning it ; probably, that it could not be proved from the Torah (M. Sanh. loc. cit). " Everyone who has sinned and caused the multitude to sin." We have already met with this phrase in connexion with both Jesus and Paul, (see above, pp. 51, 101), and may fairly conclude that it is here directed against preachers of heresy, of whom, no doubt, Christians were the most important. "Who have set their terror in the land of the living " is a
124 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
quotation from Ezek. xxxii. 24, 26, and as such, the precise point of the present application of the words remains doubtful. As used in Ezekiel, the words refer to the great nations — Asshur, Elam, Tubal, Meshech, and Edom — -who had at various times op- pressed Israel: and it is possible, especially in view of the following clause " Who have stretched forth their hands against Zebul (the Temple)," that the reference is to the Roman Empire, the oppressor above all others. If this is so, then it must be ad- mitted that these two last clauses do not in any way serve to describe Minim, or heretics. But, on the other hand, it seems forced and unnatural to pass so suddenly from heretics to political enemies; and further, the Talmud nowhere else, so far as I know, threatens the Romans, or even the Roman Emperor, with the fate here described. The date of the passage forbids us to think of a time when the Roman Empire had officially become Christian, and there is no reason to suspect an interpolation in the text. The political reference seems then to be excluded, and " those who have set their fear in the land of the living," must be J understood of some class of heretics. The explanation of R. Hisda (b. R. ha-Sh. 17a), that the reference is to " the steward, d:iq, of the synagogue, who makes himself too much feared by the congregation," does not seem adequate, in view of the severity of the punishment which is threatened. " Those who have stretched out their hands against Zebul." It is ex- plained in the Tosephta itself that Zebul (habitation) denotes the Temple. But it does not follow that the reference is to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. And since the whole passage seems to be
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 125
directed against heresy in some form, we may perhaps interpret this clause of those who, like the Christians, repudiated the claim of the Temple to be the place where alone worship could be duly and perfectly offered. Of course the Temple ceased to exist, when Titus destroyed it ; but this was only de facto, not de jure.
The sentence pronounced on all these offenders, heretics, apostates, betrayers, free thinkers, all who in their various ways sought to undermine the founda- tions of Rabbinical Judaism, is punishment during generations of generations in Gehinnom. When it is said that Gehinnom is shut in their faces, that can only mean that they cannot escape, though the natural meaning of shutting a door in the face of some one is that thereby his entrance is barred.
On the Rabbinical conception of Gehinnom, see Weber, System der Altsynag. Theologie, p. 326, 374. His translation (p. 375) of the passage which we have been studying is not sufficiently exact.
The Formula against the Minim
(37) j. Ber. 9C. — Shemuel ha-Qaton went before the Ark [to recite the prayers]. He forgot "That casteth down the proud" at the end- He paused and tried to remember them. They said to him, " The wise have not framed it thus."
Commentary. — See the commentary on the much fuller passage which follows.
(38) b. Ber. 28b, 29a.— Our Rabbis teach : Shim'on the cotton-seller arranged the Eighteen Benedictions in the presence of Rabban
126 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Gamliel, according to their order, in Jabneh. Rabban Gamliel said to the Wise, " Is there anyone who knows how to compose a Benedic- tion of the Minim?" Shemuel ha-Qaton stood up and composed it. The following year he forgot it, and sought [to recall it] for two and even three hours, and they did not call him up [from the pulpit]. Why did they not call him up ? For Rab Jehudah said, that Rab said, " If a man makes a mistake in all the Benedictions, they do not call him up; but in the Benediction of the Minim they call him up." They suspect that he is a Min. It was different with Shemuel ha-Qaton, because he had composed it, and it was thought perhaps he would recover himself.
[The first sentence of this passage occurs in
b. Meg. 17b, where follows a sort of running
commentary on the Eighteen Benedictions.
An incidental reference to the Minim occurs
(according to the reading of Rabbinowicz) ;
but nothing is stated beyond what is contained
in the other passage quoted in this section.]
Commentary. — This is an extremely important
passage, because it records the official condemnation
of the Minim by the Rabbis ; and it will be necessary
to determine as accurately as possible the date of the
incident here narrated.
Before entering upon that investigation, I will notice the details of the story which call for remark. The Eighteen Benedictions1 are a series of short
1 For a full account of them, see Hamburger, Eeal Encykl. f. Bibel u. Talmud, ii., s.v. Schemone-Esre\
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 127
prayers still to be found in the Jewish liturgy. The word translated Benediction serves equally for male- diction, and it is rather in that sense that it is used in regard to the Minim. In the modern liturgy the Benediction referred to runs thus : — mpn wi fen psufafr, 94 May there be no hope for the slanderers," where the word for * slanderers ' has been put in place of the ancient word Minim.1
These Eighteen Benedictions are said to have been arranged in order by Shim'on the cotton-seller, at Jabneh, in the presence of Rabban Gamliel. This was Gamliel II., who held the position of Patriarch (unw) after the death of Johanan ben Zaccai, some- where about the year 80 a.d. Of Shemuel ha-Qaton more will be said presently. He is said to have • com- posed' the Benediction; but perhaps it would be more correct to say ' adapted,' altered some previous formula so as to apply to the Minim. The formula drawn up by him was taken into use ; and the following year it fell to the lot of its author to recite it in the public service. He forgot the words, but tried for three hours to recall them, while the congregation waited, and did not " call him up " from the pulpit, i.e. cause him to leave it. The pulpit or reading-desk was below, not above, the general level of the seats of the congregation. According to later usage, a reader who made a mistake in reciting this benediction would have been made to leave the desk, because he would be suspected of being a Min.2 The reason given why this was not done in the case of Shemuel ha-Qaton
1 The form pWD suggests the transposition p*D h&. Hamburger thinks that p*6??D is the original which was altered into WO.
2 See j. Ber. 9C, which will be translated and explained below (p. 204).
128 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
was that as he was the author of the formula he might be expected to remember it.
It is curious that this incident is only given in detail in the Babylonian Gemara. It is quoted there as a Baraitha, i.e. it belongs to the stratum of Tradi- tion contemporary with that embodied in the Mishnah and Tosephta. So far as I know, the Mishnah does not expressly mention the "Benediction of the Minim." In Tosephta the story is not given, but the Benediction is referred to in a discussion of the question how the number eighteen is to be completed (T. Ber. hi. 25). A similar discussion is found in the Palestinian Gemara (j. Ber. iv. 3). As these do not throw any light on the story before us, the text of them will be deferred till the end of the commentary on this passage.
The incident has every appearance of being historical; the explanation of Rab, quoted by R. Jehudah, plainly shows that he knew of the story, and as he was a disciple of R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, the grandson of the Gamliel referred to, he is a sufficiently good witness.
To determine the date of this incident, which is important as marking the official breach between the synagogue and the Minim, it is necessary to examine carefully the chronology of the life of Shemuel ha- Qaton. The date of his death will obviously afford a terminus ad quern for the date of the composition of the formula against the Minim. The death of Shemuel ha-Qaton is mentioned in several passages of the Talmud and Midrash, with but slight variations in the text. These are as follows : —
(39) T. Sotah xiii. 4. — Also, in the hour of his
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 129
death, he [Sh. ha-Q.] said, " Shim'on and Ishmael to the sword, and their companions to slaughter, and the rest of the people to plunder, and many troubles will come after- wards " ; and he said this in the Aramaic tongue.
(40) j. Sotah 24b. — The same words, with the addition, however, of the following, after 'in the Aramaic tongue,' "and they knew not what he said."
(41) b. Sotah 48b.— Same as (39).
(42) b. Sanh lla.— Same as (39).
The question is, to whom did the dying man refer as " Shim'on and Ishmael " ? One thinks most naturally of Shim'on ben Gamliel and Ishmael ben Elisha, who were executed after the capture of Jerusalem a.d. 70. And, in spite of difficulties, I believe that this is the right interpretation. The detailed account in Ab. d. It. Nathan, c. 38, distinctly implies that the two men executed were the elder Shim'on b. Gamliel and the elder Ishmael b. Elisha. For Ishmael there says to Shim'on, "When thou didst sit and teach on the Mount of the House [i.e. the Temple], and all the multitude of Israel sat in thy presence, etc."
Moreover, Ishmael speaks of himself as a priest
and son of a high priest. But, if Shemuel ha-Qaton
was a member of the assembly at Jabneh over which
Rabban Gamliel presided, must not his dying words
have referred to someone whose death took place
later than the year 70 ? The period during which
Rn. Gamliel presided at Jabneh is usually given as
80-110 a.d. or thereabouts, so that Shemuel could
9
130 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
not have died before 80 a.d. It is therefore held, amongst others, by Jost, Gratz, Weiss and Bacher, that the Ishmael referred to was Ishmael ben Elisha the younger, grandson of the one already mentioned and contemporary with Aqiba. (See Jost, Gsch. d. Jdtums., ii. p. 74 ; Gratz, G. d. J., iv. 175 ; Weiss, G. d. j. T., ii. 102 ; Bacher, Ag. d. Tannaiten, i. 243). This is also the view of Rashi, at least in so far that he explains the ■ companions ' of Shimon and Ishmael to be "such as R. Aqiba and R. Hanina ben Teradjon" (Rashi on b. Sanh. lla). Of course, these two were companions of the younger Ishmael. Moreover, it is said (and this is the strongest evidence in favour of this view), in Mechilta (Mishpat. c. 18, p. 95b), that Aqiba uttered a solemn warning to his disciples after the execution of R. Ishmael and Shimon. This is repeated in the late Treatise Semahoth c. 8, where, however, it is distinctly said that the Shim'on in question was Shim'on ben Gamliel. The passage in Mechilta is strong evidence, because that Midrash originated amongst the disciples of the younger Ishmael, who may be supposed to have known the circumstances of his death.
Yet, in spite of the above evidence, supported as it is by the great authority of Jost, Gratz, Weiss, and Bacher, there is a difficulty in the way of accepting this interpretation ; because there is evidence to show that both the younger Ishmael and the younger Shim'on ben Gamliel survived the persecution of Hadrian, and died a natural death. This is un- questionably true in the case of Shim'on ben Gamliel, who died somewhere about a.d. 166. The historians above mentioned see clearly that he cannot have been
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 131
the person referred to by Shemuel ha-Qaton, and ac- cordingly state that Ishmael was executed along with H a certain Simeon," whom they do not try to identify. But there is reason for believing that R. Ishmael also died a natural death, as is shown by Hamburger (R. EncykL, ii. 526) and Frankel (Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 106). It is said (M. Nedar., ix. 10), "When [R. Ishmael] died, the daughters of Israel raised a lament and said, 'Ye daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Ishmael.' " (T. Nedar., v. 6, much the same.) In the Gemara (b. Nedar. 66b) it is said, « When R. Ishmael lay dying? the word being ' shechib ' (wr) not ' meth ' ( no). Now the word no used in the other passages does not imply a violent death, while the word i^t? does imply a natural death.1 The R. Ishmael here referred to is undoubtedly R. Ishmael ben Elisha the younger, for he is the R. Ishmael of the Mishnah and Tosephta. And in view of the fact that a lamentation was raised for him, compare what is said (b. Sanh. lla), ptsdd p« nvbn wwi *&> " They do not make lamentation for those slain by the kingdom " [i.e., political prisoners executed as rebels, and more particularly those executed after the rebellion of Bar Cocheba]. If this can be taken as a correct statement, then R. Ishmael ben Elisha was not one of those executed at that time. Further, the view that R. Ishmael survived the persecution, or, at all events, lived some time after it had begun, is confirmed by what is recorded in b. B. Bathra 60b : " It is tradition, R. Ishmael ben Elisha said . . . . ' from the day when the wicked kingdom
1 3*26? is from the root 2D 8?, to lie, and it i.* used of persons who are dangerously ill. Cp. b. B. Qam. 38a, 47b, and especially lllb, where Raba eays, " When I was very ill (&02*2fc>), etc."
132 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
prevailed, which decrees against us wicked and hard ordinances, and prevents us from fulfilling Torah and commandments, and does not allow us to assemble to circumcise a son, etc' " This certainly refers to the edicts which were made by Hadrian, after the sup- pression of the rebellion under Bar Cocheba, a.d. 135 ; and if so, R. Ishmael must have survived at all events the beginning of the persecution. The form of the expression, " from the day that the wicked kingdom prevailed," leads to the conclusion that some time, probably years, had elapsed since the decrees had come into force. Finally, if there be any truth in the extraordinary tale (b. A. Zar. lla) that the skull of R. Ishmael was preserved among the Imperial treasures in Rome, that could refer quite as well to the older Ishmael, who undoubtedly was executed by the Romans, a.d. 70, as to the younger Ishmael. It is, in any case, no proof that the latter was executed.
If these considerations are well founded, then it is clear that the dying speech of Shemuel ha-Qaton did not refer to the younger Ishmael and Shimon, unless on the assumption that the words contain a prophecy which was not fulfilled. The Talmud does not say that they were a prophecy, and does regard them as referring to persons who actually died a violent death.
There seems to me to be a quite simple explanation, which will meet all the difficulty of identifying the Ishmael and Shim'on, and which will also throw light upon the incident of Shemuel ha-Qaton's mistake in the recitation of the formula concerning the Minim. Let us suppose that Shemuel ha-Qaton was a very
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 133
old man at the time of his death. In that case he would be contemporary with the elder Ishmael ben Elisha and Shimon ben Gamliel, who were executed a.d. 70, and no doubt friendly with them. On his own deathbed, his thoughts may very well have gone back to the dreadful memories of the war, and have recalled the tragic fate of his two old friends — "Shim'on and Ishmael to the sword." All that he said found ample illustration in the slaughter and plunder that followed the capture of Jerusalem ; and it is not at all necessary to suppose that he prophesied the final catastrophe of the persecution under Hadrian.1 Now if he was a very old man at the time of his death, it is easy to understand how such a failure of memory might have happened to him, as is described in the incident of the Minim-formula. Such forgetfulness is certainly much more natural to an old man than to a young one. Now the question is, Was he an old man at the time of his death ? It is generally assumed that he died young ; but, as it seems to me, the available evidence does not prove this. If it does not, on the other hand, prove that he reached an advanced age, it at least allows the possibility of his having done so. A curious story is told (j. Sanh. 18c and elsewhere) as follows : — " It happened that Rabban Gamliel said, 'Let seven elders meet me in the upper room,' and eight entered. He said, 'Who is it that has entered without leave?' Shemuel ha-Qaton stood up upon his feet and said, P I have come without leave; 1 wanted [to know] the halachah, and I have come to ask concerning it.'
1 Observe the curious remark (j. Sotah. 24b), that the hearers did not understand what the dying man said.
134 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Rabban Gamliel said to him, * O, Eldad and Medad ! [Num. xi. 26] ; for all Israel know that if there are two such [as they] I say that thou art one of them,' etc." The Babylonian Gemara (Sanh. lla), which also tells this story, says : " It was not Shemuel ha-Qaton who did this [i.e. entered without leave], but another." And Hananel, in his commentary on the passage, says that he did it to screen the real culprit. This is adopted by Bacher (Ag. d. Tann., i. p. 88 n. 3, where the whole incident is admirably discussed). Now, if Shemuel ha-Qaton was an old man, and held in high esteem by Rabban Gamliel, he could rely on his age and position to shield the real offender much more confidently than if he had been only a young man. And when Gamliel says to him, "All Israel know that if there are two such, thou art one of them," that seems to imply that the character and standing of Shemuel were well known, and thus goes to confirm the view that he was not young. Gamliel would, so far as we can judge from his character, as elsewhere described, have been much less tolerant of a young man who had disobeyed his orders. There is nothing in the epithet "ha-Qaton," "the small," to prove that he was young. The distinguishing feature of his character is said to have been humility, and the epithet ' ha-Qaton " was supposed to have reference to that. This virtue of humility caused a comparison to be made between him and Hillel, so that he was sometimes called a disciple of Hillel. To suppose, however, that he actually had been a disciple of Hillel, would be to stretch the hypothesis of his advanced age beyond all probability ; for Hillel died about a.d. 4, and if Shemuel had been his disciple, he
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 185
could hardly have been so at less than twenty years of age, which would make him at least ninety-six at the time when Gamliel began to preside over the assembly of Jabneh.1
Summing up the result of this chronological inquiry, I recognise that there is not evidence sufficient positively to decide the question whether Shemuel lived to an advanced age or not. But I submit that all the facts recorded about him, and mentioned above, not only are consistent with, but find their best explanation in, the hypothesis that he was already a very old man at the time when Gamliel began to preside at Jabneh, and I accordingly suggest that his death, and, a fortiori^ the composition of the formula concerning the Minim, must be dated very near the year 80 a.d.
It remains only to say a word with regard to the formula itself. It was not exactly a malediction, but, as Gratz (iv. 105) well says, a kind of test- formula, for the purpose of detecting those who might be secretly inclined to heresy. The words ran, "May there be no hope for the Minim."
As already remarked, the Mishnah does not mention the formula. The passages in Tosephta
1 In j. Hor. 48c it is said that when the wise were assembled in the house of Gorion, in Jericho, they heard a Bath Qol saying, ■ There are two of you upon whom the Holy Spirit may worthily rest> and Hillel is one of them.' They fixed their eyes upon Shemuel ha-Qaton. In the earlier version of this story, T. Sotah. xiii. 3, Shemuel ha-Qaton is not mentioned in connexion with Hillel. But the next paragraph narrates how he, in like manner, was indicated at Jabneh. The authority for connecting Shemuel with Hillel in the same incident is R. Jehoshua ben Levi, quoted by R. Jacob bar Idi (j. Sot. 24c). So late a witness can certainly not establish the fact of their having been contemporaneous ; but his testimony may indicate a traditiom that Shemuel was an old man when he died.
136 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
and the Palestinian Gemara which refer to it are the following : —
(43) T. Ber. iii. 25.— The Eighteen Benedictions which the wise have said, corresponding to the eighteen Invocations [mentions of the divine Name] in [Ps. xxix.], Give unto the Lord, O ye sons of the mighty. The bene- diction concerning the Minim is included in that concerning the seceders, and that con- cerning strangers in that concerning elders, and that concerning David in that concerning Jerusalem. And if they said these on their own account, that would be valid.
(44) j. Ber. 8a. — R. Huna said, If a man saith to thee, They [the benedictions] are seventeen, say to him, ' The Wise in Jabneh have before now appointed that concerning the Minim. ' R. Elazar ben It. Jose1 objected in the presence of It. Jose' 'But it is written [Ps. xxix. 3], The God of glory thundereth ' [i.e. that the divine name is mentioned nineteen, instead of eighteen, times in the Psalm]. R. Jose replied, But it is taught, The bene- diction concerning the Minim and the sinners is included in 'casteth down the proud,' and that concerning elders and strangers in 'the refuge for the righteous,' and that concerning David in 'who buildeth Jerusalem.'
I reserve for the concluding chapter the discussion
■ R. Jose is R. Jos6 ben Halaphta, whose father was intimate with R. Gamliel of Jabneh. R. Jose himself may possibly have been one of the assembly at Jabneh ; but, as he was only ordained after a.d. 135, he would be very young when R. Gamliel died, a.d. 110 or thereabouts.
I
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 137
of the bearing of the "formula concerning the Minim" upon the relations between Jesus and heretics, only remarking here that Jewish Christians would probably be those who would feel most of its J force as a means of detecting heresy.
R. Eliezer arrested for Minuth.
(45) T. Hull. ii. 24.— The case of K. Eliezer, who was arrested for Minuth, and they brought him to the tribunal (non, fifjua) for judgment. The governor (p»:n, rjyefjicov) said to him, 'Doth an old man like thee occupy himself with such things ? ' He said to him, ' Faithful is the judge concerning me.' The governor supposed that he only said this of him, but he was not thinking of any but his Father who is in Heaven. He [the governor] said to him, 'Since I am trusted concerning thyself, thus also I will be. I said, perhaps these societies1 err concerning these things. Ztimissus, Behold thou art released.' And when he had been released from the tribunal, he was troubled because he had been arrested for Minuth. His disciples came in to console him, but he would not take comfort. It. Aqiba came in and said to him, Rabbi, shall 1 say to thee why thou art perhaps grieving? He said to him, ' Say on.' He said to him, ' Perhaps one of the Minim has said to thee a word of Minuth and it has pleased thee.' He said, 'By Heaven,
1 Read nil^n with b. A. Zar 16b, in place of P*W1 which makes no
138 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
thou hast reminded me ! Once I was walking along the street of Sepphoris, and I met Jacob of Chephar Sichnin, and he said to me a word of Minuth in the name of Jeshu ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. And I was arrested for words of Minuth because 1 trans- gressed the words of Torah (Pro v. v. 8), Keep thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house (vii. 26), for she hath cast down many wounded' And R. Eliezer used to say, ■ Ever let a man flee from what is hateful, and from that which resembles what is hateful/ (46) b. A. Zar. 16b, 17a.— Our Rabbis teach, When R. Eliezer was arrested for Minuth they took him up to the tribunal (orra, gradus) to be judged. The governor said to him, 'Will an old man such as thou busy himself about these vain things ? ' He said, 'Faithful is the judge concerning me.' The governor supposed he said this in reference to him ; but he only said it in regard to his Father in Heaven. He (the governor) said, • Since I am trusted concerning thee, Dimissus, thou art released.' When he came to his house his disciples came in to comfort him, but he would not take comfort. R. Aqiba said to him, ' Rabbi, suffer me to say some- thing of what thou hast taught me.' He said to him, ' Say on.' He said to him, 'Rabbi, perhaps there has come Minuth into thy hand and it has pleased thee, and on account of that thou hast been arrested for
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 139
Minuth.' He said to him, ■ Aqiba, thou hast reminded me. Once I was walking in the upper street of Sepphoris, and I found a man of the disciples of Jeshu the Nazarene, and Jacob of Chephar Sechanja was his name. He said to me, ' It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc. [Deut. xxiii. 18]. What may be done with it ? Latrinae for the high priest [may be built with it].' And I answered him nothing. He said to me, ' Thus hath Jeshu the Nazarene taught me, For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return [Micah i. 7]. From the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go.' And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth; and I transgressed against what is written in the Torah [Prov. v. 8], Keep thy way far from her, this is Minuth ; and come not nigh the door of her house, this is the Government.
[The remainder of the passage in A. Zar. 17a will be given below in another connexion. See p. 182.]
The same story is found in the Midrash, Qoh. Rabb. on i. 8, also in Jalq. Shim'oni on Micah i., and Prov. v. 8. These versions add nothing to what is contained in the above passages, except that (47) Qoh. Rabb. gives the dialogue between the Rabbi and Jacob more fully, as follows: — (47) ■ It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not
140 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
bring, etc., What of these?' I said to him, 1 They are forbidden.' He said to me, ' They are forbidden as an offering: it is permitted to destroy them.' I said to him, 'If so, what shall one do with them?' He said to me, 'He shall make with them bath-houses and latrinae: I said to him, < Thou hast well said.' And the halachah was concealed from me for the moment. When he saw that I agreed with his words, he said to me, < Thus hath .... taught me, They come from filth and they go to filth, as is said [Mic. i. 7], For of the hire of a harlot, etc. They shall make seats for the public,' and it pleased me. For this I was arrested, etc. Commentary.— We have to distinguish two events in this story, the arrest of R. Eliezer and his inter- view with Jacob the Min. First as to the arrest. R. Eliezer lived at the end of the first and the be- ginning of the second century of our era; but the dates of his birth and death are not known. His usual residence was in Lud, but he travelled about the country. He was arrested, according to the story, ' for Minuth,' i.e. on a charge of being a Min. Rashi is certainly wrong when he says that Eliezer was arrested by the Minim. From the context it is clear that Minuth denotes the Christian heresy. We have therefore to inquire whether there was in Palestine, at a period within the lifetime of Eliezer, a persecution of Christians, or if not a persecution, at all events an official search for them. The so-called persecution under Nero was probably confined to Rome, and is besides too early in date (a.d. 64).
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 141
It. Eliezer must have been quite a young man at the time. But there is mentioned in Eusebius (Ecc. Hist., iii. 32), on the authority of Hegesippus, a persecution of Christians in Palestine, during which Simeon the aged bishop of Jerusalem was crucified. This took place in the year 109, during the reign, therefore, of Trajan. The charge against the bishop was that he was of the lineage of David, and also that he was a Christian. Probably it was his alleged Davidic descent rather than his Christianity which brought him under the sentence of the civil tribunal. Because already Domitian had caused inquiry to be made for descendants of the ancient royal line of David, fearing presumably lest among them might be some pretender to his own throne. It does not appear that Simeon was the only victim, though doubtless he was the most eminent. Eusebius says (loc. cit.) that the Christians were persecuted, or rather sought for, Kara TroXeis, which implies a general search throughout the country. The popular risings, which are said to have accompanied the search, would be the expression of Gentile rather than of Jewish hostility to Christianity, though no doubt the Jews might take the opportunity of assailing Chris- tians, as they did in the case of Simeon, who is said to have been accused by certain heretics. But, on the whole, it was in the interest of the Jews to keep quiet ; because, to the Gentile mind, there was too much likeness between Jews and Christians to make it safe for the former to be conspicuous while the latter were being persecuted.
It appears to me probable that the arrest and trial of It. Eliezer took place during this official search
142 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
after Christians, and is therefore to be dated a.d. 109 or thereabouts.1 How he came to be arrested is not said, because the explanation which he gives, viz., his former close association with a Christian, was a fact which he himself had forgotten until his pupil Aqiba suggested it. Yet it is possible that some popular opinion connected him with the Christians ; and we have already seen that his Rabbinical com- panions, by their questions to him, seemed to have acted on some such suspicion (see above (4) p. 46). And it is curious to observe the embarrassment of R. Eliezer when on his trial. One would have thought that he could have saved himself by declaring that he was not a Christian, whereas he only made a skilful evasion, and owed his escape to the vanity of his judge. It is certain from all the recorded words of R. Eliezer, which are very numerous, that he was by no means a Christian ; but it is none the less possible that damaging facts might be brought against him in court, connecting him with Chris- tianity, so that his wisest course was to stave oft inquiry altogether.
It is not stated where the arrest and trial took place; but it may well have happened in Cassarea, whither Eliezer seems to have gone after his ex- communication by the Rabbis of Jabneh.2 This
1 Note the fact that the judge calls him an old man. It is said (A. d. R. N., c 6) that Eliezer was twenty-two years old when he ran away from home to learn Torah under Johanan ben Zaccai in Jerusalem. He appears, from this same story, to have become a distinguished pupil, if not already a Rabbi, while still in Jerusalem, therefore before the war a.d. 68-70. He must thus have been born not later than a.d. 40, probably earlier. At the time of his arrest he would be about seventy years old.
2 He died in Caesarea, and his body was brought thence to Lud. — b. Sanh. 68*.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 143
is to some extent borne out by the fact that the judge is called by the title ' hegmon ' (rjyeficov), which usually, I believe, implies high rank, and in the present instance may denote the governor of Syria.
On being dismissed from the tribunal, Eliezer returned to his house, greatly troubled, because he had been accused of being a Christian. His disciples came in to console him, amongst them Aqiba. The latter suggested, as the reason why R. Eliezer had been arrested as a Christian, that perhaps at some time he had come in contact with that heresy and approved of it. R. Eliezer, thus reminded, recalled an interview he had once had with a certain Min called Jacob, of Chephar Sechanja, one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene. Jacob had ex- pounded to him a text from Scripture, and the interpretation pleased him. Whereupon the Chris- tian added that he had learnt it from Jesus the Nazarene.
I do not see any reason to doubt the genuineness of this incident, at all events of its main features, although Edersheim declares it to be plainly apocry- phal [L. and T. of J. M., i. 537]. It may not be true that Jesus himself gave the rather unsavoury interpretation of Deut. xxiii. 18 and Mic. i. 7. And even if he did, it is certain that Jacob the Christian did not get it direct from Jesus ; because, as we have already seen, he belonged to the second or, perhaps, third generation of disciples (see above, p. 106). But I do not see on what ground we can reject the evidence of a man so well known as R. Eliezer, especially as it tells against himself. The story
144 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
is well authenticated ; for, if it does not appear in the Palestinian Gemara, where we should naturally expect to meet with it, it is given in the Tosephta, which is not only Palestinian, but represents an older stratum of tradition than the Gemaras (see Intro- duction, p. 21).
We have already met with Jacob of Chephar Sechanja, or Ch. Sama (see above, p. 106), and we have to inquire when the interview between him and Eliezer took place. The data are few and inade- quate.1 From the way in which R. Eliezer begins the story, " Once on a time [nna Dya] I was walking, etc.," it would seem as if the incident had taken place some years before. At least that is always the im- pression made on my mind by the story. Gratz (G. d. J., iv. 47 fol.) associates the incident much more closely with the subsequent arrest and trial. He says that by reason of his intercourse with Christians R. Eliezer was looked upon as a member of the Christian community, and therefore accused as a heretic. The only objection that I see to this view is, that if R. Eliezer had met Jacob only a short time previously, he would scarcely have forgotten the incident. Also, Aqiba reminds his teacher of what he had been told on a former occasion. Still, these facts do not exclude the possibility of a com-
1 It is probable that the interview with Jacob the Min took place after Eliezer had been excommunicated. Before his excommunication he appears to have lived in Jabneh or Lud, and the interview took place in Sepphoris. Moreover, a banished man would be more likely to venture upon intercourse with a heretic than one who was in close fellowship with the Rabbis. From the account of his excommunication, b. B. Mez. 59b, it appears that this took place shortly before R. Gamliel started on his voyage to Rome, there- fore in or about the year 95 a.d.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 145
paratively short interval only — perhaps a few months or a year or two — between the interview with Jacob and the arrest of R. Eliezer. And a short interval suits the chronology better. For we have already seen reason to believe that this same Jacob of Chephar Sechanja was living in Galilee a.d. 130, thus twenty years after the arrest of Eliezer. We cannot, therefore, safely set back the earlier date much beyond a.d. 110. It is possible, of course, but it is not likely, that there were two persons each known as Jacob of Chephar Sechanja.
As to the conversation between the Christian and the Rabbi, the interpretation of the texts quoted has nothing that is characteristic of Jesus as he is known from the Gospels.1 It is evidently a thoroughly Jewish exposition, and therefore pleased the Rabbi ; there were Jewish Christians in plenty who adhered to Rabbinical modes of thought and exposition ; and seeing that Jacob was most certainly not a con- temporary of Jesus, his statement, ' thus hath Jesus taught me,' means no more than that 'such is current Christian teaching.' Whether there is any parallel to this interpretation in any Jewish- Christian work I do not know.
1 Friedlander (der Vorchristliche jiidische Gnosticismus, p. 74) rightly points out that there is nothing Christian in the exposition of Jacob, and accordingly claims the fact in support of his theory that Jacob was not a Christian but a Gnostic. But he has most strangely ignored the words — very inconvenient for his theory — 'thus hath Jesus the Nazarene taught me,5 whereby Jacob the Min puts the fact of his Christianity beyond dispute. Friedlander has much scorn for those shallow interpreters who hold that the Minim are Jewish Christians. Until he deals with his evidence more carefully, not to say more honestly, his scorn is hardly justified.
10
146 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
BOOKS OF THE MINIM
Under this head I collect all the passages I can find in which reference is made to heretical writings, and their treatment by Jews.
Imma Shalom and a Christian Judge
(48) b. Shabb. 116% b. — Imma Shalom was the wife of It. Eliezer and sister of Rabban Gamliel. There was in her neighbourhood a ' philosoph,' who had got a name for not taking a bribe. They sought to make fun of him. She [Imma Shalom] sent to him a lamp of gold. They came before him. She said to him, ' I desire that they divide to me the property of the women's house.' He said to them, ' Divide it.' They said to him, * For us, it is written, "Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit." He said to them, 'From the day when ye were exiled from your land, the Law of Moses has been taken away, and the law of the Evangelion has been given, and in it is written, " A son and a daughter shall inherit alike." ' The next day he [R. Gamliel] in his turn sent to him a Lybian ass. He [the judge] said to them, 'I have looked further to the end of the book, and in it is written, "I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses and I am not come to add to the Law of Moses," and in it [the Law of Moses] is written, " Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit."' She said to
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 147
him, ' Let your light shine as a lamp ! ' R.
Gamliel said to her, ' The ass has come and
trodden out the lamp.' Commentary. — This striking story only occurs, so far as I know, in the Babylonian Gemara, and, therefore, is open to suspicion from the want of con- temporary evidence. On the other hand there seems no reason to account for its being invented, if there were no historical fact at the bottom of it. The story may well have been told as a family anecdote by the descendants of R. Gamliel, and have been repeated in Babylonia by Rab, who transplanted thither so many of the Palestinian traditions, and whose teacher was R. Jehudah, grandson of R. Gamliel. In the Gemara the story is tacked on to a passage dealing with written scrolls and especi- ally with heretical writings ; but there is not a word of introduction to say on whose authority it was told. The preceding passage will be given presently ; I have placed the story here, because the incident which it records carries us back to an earlier date than other references to heretical scriptures.
The R. Eliezer is the same whom we have already several times met with. Rabban Gamliel is Gamliel of Jabneh, under whose direction the formula con- cerning the Minim was arranged [see above, p. 127]. The incident took place, therefore, within the closing years of the first or the opening of the second century. The place was probably Jabneh.
As the purpose of Gamliel and his sister was to expose the judge to ridicule, it is hardly likely that they would appeal to him to decide a real difference.
148 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
In a very interesting discussion of this story,1 Nichol- son argues that the Rabbi and his sister found a pretext for their law-suit in the death of their father Shim'on, and the consequent inheritance of his pro- perty. This may be so ; but if there were no real dispute (and it is evident there was not), the case might have been trumped up at any time. Nicholson gives a.d 71-3 as the probable date; and the best evidence for so early a date is the saying of the judge, " From the day that ye were exiled from your land," which can only refer to the confiscation of Jewish property in a.d. 72. I do not see much force in the contention that R. Gamliel would not have conde- scended to such a trick as that described in the story, after he had become president of the Sanhedrin. That dignity was probably but little known or recog- nised outside of Jewish circles. Still we may admit that the conduct of R. Gamliel and his sister was more appropriate to youth than to maturer years, and therefore we may accept the date a.d. 71-3 as being on the whole probable.
The judge is called a ' philosoph,' and there is no reason to read some form of ' episcopos,' as is proposed by Lowe (quoted by Nicholson, op. cit, p. 146). The term ' philosoph ' or ' philosophos ' occurs several times in the Talmud, and seems to denote a trained speaker. It is quite likely that in the present case the * philosoph ' was a bishop ; but the term ' philo- soph' has nothing ecclesiastical about it. So far as I know, there is no attempt in the Talmud to reproduce the term ■ episcopos ' in a Hebrew form. The judge, whether bishop or not, was probably a Jewish not a
1 See The Gospel According to the Hebrews, by E. B. Nicholson, p. 146 n.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 149
Gentile Christian. That he was a Christian is beyond question, seeing that he based his decision on a quotation from a Gospel. R. Gamliel would not be likely to play a trick on a Gentile judge; and a Gentile judge would scarcely have appealed to a Gospel in a Jewish suit. He would have decided the case on the lines of Roman law.
Now let us examine the details of the story in order. Imma Shalom,1 the sister of R. Gamliel, and wife of R. Eliezer, applied to the court to divide for her ' the property of the women's house,' in other words to give to her the share in her father's property which she ought to bring to her husband at her mar- riage. R. Gamliel pleaded against this, that his sister had no title to any part of her father's property, because he, as son, inherited it all. He supported his plea by an appeal to the Law of Moses, though the words which he cited do riot occur in the Pentateuch. His plea is an inference based upon Num. xxvii. 8. The judge, mindful of the bribe he had received from the complainant, decided against the defendant, on the ground that the Law of Moses had been super- seded by the law ' of the Evangelion,' according to which a son and daughter inherit alike. I believe that ■ of the Evangelion ' is the right reading in this passage ; but at the same time I doubt whether the judge actually used the term. We shall see presently (p. 162) that R. Meir and R. Johanan, in the second and third centuries, made jests on the word Evan- gelion ; and since the story, as we have it, was written down long after their time, it is not safe to conclude that the term ■ Evangelion ' was known and used as
1 Imma Shalom, i.e. Mother Salome.
150 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
early as a.d. 72. Jesus must have used some Aramaic term, at least if he used any equivalent word at all ; and it would be natural to expect that a Jewish Christian, in speaking to Jews, would also have used the Aramaic term rather than the Greek equivalent. I regard the words ' of the Evangelion ' as a later gloss, though earlier than the written text of the Talmud.
There is no passage in any known Gospel which states that a son and daughter shall inherit alike. Unless some text, hereafter to be discovered, shall furnish a parallel, we can only regard the statement as a general inference from Christian principles. It is worth noting, by the way, that if there were such a rule of Christian practice, the state of things described in Acts iv. 32-37 had already ceased to exist in the year 72.
The sentence of the court having been given against him, It. Gamliel so to speak applied for a new trial by sending a bribe to the judge, a present of a Lybian ass. The next day, accordingly, the judge had reconsidered his decision. He said, 'I have read further in the end of the book, and therein it is written, " I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses, neither to add to the Law of Moses am I come," and in it [the Law of Moses] it is written, " where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit." ' There is an obvious parallel here with Matt. v. 17, though the quotation is not exact. It would be too much to infer from this that the present Gospel of Matthew was in existence at this time. But it seems probable that the judge had some written text, and was not merely quoting from memory. If there had at the time been no written text at all, it would not
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 151
have occurred to the judge to say that he had • read in the book." If he had had some collection of ' Logia,' such as that of which a fragment was published by Rendell and Harris in 1897, he would have had as much as the story implies. Indeed, a collection of 6 Logia,' sayings of Jesus, would better come under the description of a ' new law ' than would any work in the fuller form of one of the known Gospels. It is evident that the book, whatever it was, did not pre- sent the sayings of Jesus in anything like the same order as is found in the canonical Gospel of Matthew. For the words, / am not come to destroy but to fulfil, occur near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount [Matt. v. 17], and far from the end of the Gospel. The • Logia ' fragment, already referred to, shows, where comparison is possible, an arrangement differing from that of any of the canonical Gospels. There is nothing improbable in supposing the exis- tence of written collections of Logia in the year 72. It has been well suggested by J. E. Odgers (Jewish Quarterly Review, 1891, p. 16), that the first impulse to the writing down of the sayings of Jesus was given by the dispersion of the Christian community in Jerusalem, owing to the siege of the city, a.d. 69-70. The Christians did not all take refuge in Pella, as the presence of the Christian in the story plainly shows ; and written * Logia ' may well — we may almost say must — have found their way to other places, includ- ing Jabneh, the probable scene of the story.
The reversal of the sentence naturally disappointed the original complainant, and she gave the judge a significant reminder of her present in the words, " Let your light shine as a lamp." Here, also, there
152 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
seems to be a partial reference to a text now found in Matt. v. 16,1 " Let your light shine before men." How the Jewess came to know the words, unless by report, is not easy to see ; as it is not very likely, on the face of it, that she would read a Christian writing. The retort is so apt, that we cannot suppose it to have been merely invented, with no knowledge of the words of Jesus. By quoting them she convicted the judge out of his own law, as well as reminded him of the bribe he had taken.
R. Gamliel, the successful pleader, made rejoinder in a curious saying, which may have been a popular proverb, but which also may have been his own original remark, " The ass has come and trodden out the lamp." The meaning of the retort is obvious, and equally so its purpose in exposing the shameless venality of the judge. But just as the retort, " Let your light shine," was aimed at more than the mere fact of bribery, and had a sting for the Christian as a Christian, so perhaps it may be in the case of the saying about the ass and the lamp. The phrase occurs elsewhere, and a brief study of the subject may throw some light on a very obscure but not unimportant point.
The phrase is found in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 122b, also in j. Joma 38c, Vajiqr. r. c. 21. In all these cases the phrase is used to describe the frustra- tion of one bribe by a larger bribe from the opposite party in a suit. The passage in Pesiqta is more detailed than the others, and is as follows : — " The case of a certain woman who presented to a judge a lamp of silver ; but her opponent went and presented
1 In fact Matt. v. 15, 16, and 17 seem to underlie the story.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 153
to him an ass of gold. On the morrow the woman came and found the judgment reversed. She said, ' My lord, let justice shine before thee like a silver lamp.' He said to her, 'What shall I do for thee ? The ass has trodden out the lamp.' "
Bacher (Ag. d. Pal. Amor., ii. 424 n.) holds that this story is founded upon the story of Imma Shalom and R. Gamliel. And I think he is right in this opinion, even though the Pesiqta should be, as it possibly is, earlier in date than the completion of the Babylonian Gemara. At all events the evidence of the Pesiqta places the story on Palestinian ground. If we may conclude that the phrase originated with Gamliel, then we are free to inquire whether there is anything significant in the mention of a lamp and an ass as the bribes to the judge. It is, of course, easy to discover symbolism where none is intended; and quite possibly the ass and the lamp were costly gifts and nothing more. But there is evidence elsewhere to show that there was some obscure connexion in thought between Jesus and an ass, so that the latter served as a kind of symbol of the former. In the Midrash Qoh. r. on i. 8, a passage which will be given below (see p. 211 if.), R. Jehoshua b. Hananiah says to his nephew, who had been led astray by the Minim of Caper- naum and rescued from them, " Since the ass of that wicked one is roused against thee, thou canst no longer dwell in the land of Israel," etc. The plain meaning is that the young man had been damaged in character and repute by contact with Christianity; and this would hardly have been described by a metaphor so peculiar unless there was
154 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
an implied reference to Jesus in the mention of the ass.1 What may have suggested this reference I cannot positively say. But possibly it is an allusion to the alleged Messianic dignity of Jesus. In Ber. r. c. 75 § 6, it is explained that the ass is a symbol of the Messiah. And the passage just quoted from Qoh. r. i. 8 tends to confirm this suggestion, because the young apostate had been made by the Christians to ride on an ass on the Sabbath. These are nothing more than slight and obscure hints, and there may be nothing in them ; but they are worth collecting and recording, on the chance that their meaning may be more clearly understood in the light of future researches.
If there really was, in contemporary thought, some association of an ass with Jesus, then the story of R. Gamliel and his bribe to the judge gains additional point. The object of the whole plot was to expose the venality of this Jewish Christian, by bribing him to alter his own decision. The rectitude of the Jew had been corrupted by the spirit of Christianity, the
1 In this connexion may be mentioned the caricature found on a wall in Rome, where there is shown a crucified figure having an ass's head ; a soldier kneels before the cross, and underneath is written, " Alexamenos worshipping his God." This brutal parody of Christian belief evidently shows that in the mind of the ' artist ' there was an association of Jesus with an ass. The charge of worshipping an ass was brought against the Jews, as is shown by the well-known passages in Josephus (c. Apion, ii. 7) and Tacitus (Hist., v. 3, 4). The Jews in their turn tried to pass it on to the Christians. See an article by Rbsch, on the Caput asininum, in the Stud. u. Kritik., 1882, p. 523, where the origin and development of this fable are described. Rosch makes no mention of the Rabbinical allusions, though he refers to the Talmud for another purpose. I think the passages mentioned in the text may fairly be connected with the fable of the ass-worship.
For another possible reference to the association of Jesus with an ass, see below, p. 224 n.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 155
light of the true religion had been extinguished by a mischievous heresy, and the witty Rabbi expressed both these facts by saying, " The ass has come and trodden out the lanip."
How the Books of the Minim are to be Treated
(49) T. Shabb. xiii. 5. — The margins1 and books of the Minim they do not save, but these are burnt in their place, they and their ' memorials ' [i.e. the sacred names in the text]. It. Jose' the Galilean says, 'On a week-day one cuts out the memorials and hides them and burns the rest.' R. Tarphon said, ' May I lose my son ! if they come into my hand I would burn them and their memorials too. If the pursuer were pursuing after me, I would enter into a house of idolatry, and I enter not into their houses. For the idolaters do not acknowledge Him [i.e. God] and speak
1 The word f 1 vJ means the unwritten portion of a book, the margin. But, as in modern books, the margins of ancient MSS. were used for annotations ; and it is reasonable to suppose that these annotations would include texts of Scripture, quoted as illustrations. Hence the question would arise whether, although the corpus of the book was heretical, the marginal citations of Scripture were to be regarded as sacred. Jost (Gsch. d. Jdtums. ii. 40 n.) says that JV?3 (giljon) plainly denotes ' evangelion ' in the passage before us. No doubt the Gospels are included amongst the ' Books of the Minim ' ; but I do not think it can be shown that 'giljon' by itself ever means a Gospel. If that were the case, there would be the less occasion for the plays on the word ' Aven-giljon ' and ■ Avon-giljon ' which will be mentioned below (s. p. 162). Friedlander (d. Vorchr. jiid. Gnosticismus, p. 83 fol.) identifies the ' giljonim ' of the Minim with the Diagramma of the Ophite sect of the Gnostics. This may be correct ; but as the Talmud never gives any indication of what the ■ giljonim ' contained beyond * memorials,' the guess is hazardous.
156 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
falsely concerning Him ; but these [i.e. the Minim] do acknowledge Him and speak falsely concerning Him. And concerning them the Scripture says [Isa. lvii. 8], And behind the door and the door-post thou Jiast set thy memorial.1 R. Ishmael said, ' Whereas, in order to make peace between a man and his wife, God says [cp. Num. v. 23], Let my name which is written in holiness be blotted out in water, how much more the books of the Minim, which put enmity and jealousy and strife between Israel and their Father who is in Heaven, should be blotted out, and their memorials too. And concerning them the Scripture says [Ps. cxxxix. 21], Do I not hate them, O Lord, which hate thee, and I loathe them that rise up against thee. I hate them with a perfect hatred, and they have become to me as enemies' And even as men do not save them [the books] from burning, so they do not save them from falling, nor from water, nor from anything which destroys them. (50) (51) No important variation. See Appendix. Commentary. The Rabbis whose words are cited here lived in the early part of the second century. Tarphon1 is well known as a bitter opponent of Christianity. Ishmael is the same whom we have
1 Tarphon is often identified with Tryphon, the interlocutor in Justin Martyr's Dialogue. Beyond some resemblance of name, there is little, if anything, on which to found such identification. It is possible that Justin may have heard of, or perhaps even met, Tarphon, though certainly not in Ephesus. But no one who knows Tarphon in the Talmud would recognise him in the feeble Jew who serves Justin as a man of straw. Tarphon, not Tryphon, is the proper form of the name.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 157
previously seen, protesting against the cure of his nephew by a Christian doctor. It is evident then, from their strong denunciations, that the Books of the Minim included Christian writings. But the phrase is indefinite, and cannot be fairly restricted to writings explanatory of the Christian religion. We shall see, in another passage (p. 158), that copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes written by Minim, in the ordinary way of business, and the question arose whether such copies might be used by Jews. In the present passage that question is not directly raised ; but one of the difficulties which it suggested is mentioned, viz., the fact that in heretical writings the name of God often occurred, whereby the reader was placed in the dilemma of having either to destroy the divine Name along with the book, or to preserve the heretical book for the sake of the divine Name. It. Jose the Galilean enjoins the quaint device of cutting out * and keeping the divine Name wherever it occurred, and burning the rest. What was to be done with the collected scraps is not said. R. Tarphon and It. Ishmael were at least consistent, in deciding that heretical books were to be destroyed, no matter what they contained.
Books of the Law written by Minim
(52) b. Gitt. 45b. — Rab Bodia said to Rab Ashi, 1 " At more than their price," this is why " they do not receive them." At their price they do
1 1 follow here the reading of the Vienna Codex, and the early printed text, also Siphre, p. 6a, as against the Erfurt Codex, which has instead of TNpi K"rtp, i.e. ' reads ' the name instead of ' cuts out ' the name.
158 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
receive them.' Learn from this, that one may read in a Book of the Law which is found in the hand of an idolater. Ought it, perhaps, to be concealed ? Rab Nahman said, • We have received [tradition] that a Book of the Law, if written by a Min, is to be burnt ; if written by an idolater, it is to be concealed.' If found in the hand of a Min, it is to be concealed ; if found in the hand of an idolater, some say it is to be concealed, some say it may be read. [In regard to] a Book of the Law written by an idolater, one [teacher] teaches that it is to be burnt, another [tradition] is that it is to be concealed, and another that it may be read. There is no contradiction. Commentary, — Apart from the difficulties in con- nexion with books written by Minim for their own use, there was the difficulty of deciding whether a book of the law might be used if written by, or found in the possession of, some one other than a Jew. Such a book might have been written in order to be sold to Jews for their own use. Or, if found in the posses- sion of a non-Jewish person, it might still have been written by a Jew, and therefore might be lawful for a Jew to use. The text in the Mishnah, of which the passage before us is the commentary, says, " We do not receive books, tephillin,1 and mezuzoth2 from idolaters at more than their price." R. Bodia explains, what is surely obvious, that books, etc., might be received from
1 Tephillin, phylacteries, small parchment boxes, containing certain texts, and worn on the arm and the head.
2 Mezuzoth, similar small boxes, containing texts, but fastened to the door- post of the house. Mezuzoth may be called the ' tephillin ' of the house.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 159
idolaters, only that more than their proper price must not be given for them. As a contemporary of R. Ashi (the editor of the Babylonian Gemara), R. Bodia lived at the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth. R. Nahman, whose explana- tion is more to the purpose, is Nahman bar Jacob, a Babylonian teacher who died a.d. 300. x A clear distinction is made between an idolater and a Min, in deciding how to deal with books of the law whose origin was doubtful. It should be noticed that the Mishnah text does not say anything about Minim in this connexion. The distinction is made against the Min and in favour of the idolater. The Min is not in this case necessarily a Christian, but is certainly a Jewish heretic. Therefore a book written by a Min was condemned outright, and must be burnt. If found in his possession, even though it might have been written by a Jew, it was considered as tainted with heresy, and must be ' concealed,' i.e. withdrawn from use, treated as an Apocryphon. On the other hand, a book if written by an idolater must be 6 concealed ' ; but, if found in his possession, according to some authorities it must be ' concealed,' according to others it might be used.
A few lines further down on the same page of the Talmud (b. Gitt. 45b) are two more references to Minim. I do not translate the whole passage, because it is chiefly taken up with technical questions having no bearing on the subject of heresy ; and, further, it is exceedingly difficult to render into intelligible English. The first reference occurs in a dictum of R. Hamnuna,
1 He received several Palestinian traditions from R. Jitzhaq, a disciple of R. Johanan, who visited him in Nehardea.
3
160 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
son of Raba of Parshunia. He says, ' Rolls of the Law, tephillin and mezuzoth, written by a Min, a betrayer, an idolater, a slave, a woman, a child, a Samaritan or an apostate Israelite, are ceremonially unfit for use ' ( |fa* ). This also occurs b. Men. 42b. The second reference is merely the following : — " Con- cerning a proselyte who reverts to his wickedness : [he will revert] to his wickedness much more if he be a Min."
These references are added merely to make the list of references to Minim as complete as possible. They are of very late date, and add nothing new to what is contained in other more important passages.
The Books of the Minim do not Defile the
Hands
(53) T. Jad. ii. 13.— The rolls and books of the Minim do not defile the hands.
The books of Ben Sira and all books which have been written from that time onward do not defile the hands. Commentary. — There is hardly anything to be said on this passage, which is a mere statement that the books of the Minim are not to be regarded as sacred. It may seem strange that such a statement should be necessary, especially in view of such denunciations of them as those uttered by R. Tarphon and R. Ishmael (see above, pp. 154-5). The reason probably is, that the books of the Minim, though heretical, made mention of sacred names and things, and might there- fore be supposed to be themselves holy.
It is remarkable that the Mishnah does not mention
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 161
the books of the Minim either in the parallel passage M. Jad. iii. 5, or, so far as I know, in any other place. The 'external books' referred to in M. Sanh. x. i. are understood by the commentators to be, or to include, the books of the Minim ; but they are not so called in the Mishnah.
On the same page of T. Jadaim, a few lines below the passage just cited, there is an apparent reference to Minim which ought to be noticed, if only to guard the reader from a mistake, and myself from a charge of omitting an important passage. Mention is there made (ii. 16) of p»D nir^n, 'halachoth concerning the Minim ' ; and for some time I was under the delusion that the reference was to ordinances concerning heretics, made at Jabneh. A comparison, however, with j. Bice. iii. 6 (p. 65d) shows conclusively that the word p»» denotes here not ' heretics,' but simply ' kinds ' or • sorts,' and the reference is to the seven ' kinds ' of fruit for which Palestine was famous. The word po is a common noun as well as a proper noun ; and to a non-Jewish reader it is not always easy to distinguish between the two usages. (See below, p. 364).
The Books of the Be Abidan (and Be Nitzraphi
(54) b. Shabb. 116a. — R. Joseph bar Hanin asked
R. Abahu : ' Those books of the Be Abidan,
does one save them from burning or not ? '
Yes and no ; he was undecided. Rab did not
go to the Be Abidan, much less to the Be
Nitzraphi. Shemuel did not go to the Be
Nitzraphi ; but he did go to the Be Abidan.
11
162 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
They said to Rab, ' What is the reason thou didst not come to the Be Abldan ? ' He said to them, ■ There is a certain palm tree by the road, and it is an offence to me ; if it were uprooted, the place of it would be an offence to me.' Mar bar Joseph said, 'I have been amongst them, and I was not respected by them.' On one occasion he went and they sought to endanger him. It. Meir called it Aven giljon, It. Johanan called it Avon giljon. Commentary, — This passage forms part of a longer one, of which we have already examined two portions. It follows immediately after No. (51) and immediately precedes (48) ; I have broken it up for convenience of treatment. It obviously comes under the general head of 'Books of the Minim,' but the portion at present under examination is interesting on its own account, because it mentions the Be Abldan and the Be Nitzraphi. These are of sufficient importance to be treated separately. And having in the previous sections dealt with all the passages that I know of which refer to the Books of the Minim, I shall present here those which mention the Be Abidan and the Be Nitzraphi. What these names mean is not certain, and I shall endeavour to explain them presently. Meanwhile I will consider the rest of the passage.
It. Abahu we have already met with (see above, No. 10). He lived in Caesarea at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century. This is evidence that the question put to him referred to things in Palestine. The printed text in the modern editions give the name of his questioner as Joseph bar Hanin,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 163
and this is correct, although the Munich MS. gives 6 Joseph bar Hama.' The latter, the father of Raba, was a Babylonian, who, so far as I know, never came in contact with Abahu. Joseph bar Hanin, or Hanina, was the teacher of Abahu ; his name in this passage is vouched for by the Oxford MS. See Rabbinowicz, ad loc. Mar bar Joseph, if the reading be correct, would be the son of Joseph b. Hanin. Whatever the books of the Be Abldan may have been, it is clear that they included books which were heretical, and distinctly Christian. That they were heretical is shown by the context, because the books of the Minim have just been mentioned (see No 51). And that they were Christian is shown unmistakably by the concluding words, which contain plays upon the name Evangelion. This concluding sentence is not found in the modern editions, but is contained in the MSS. and early editions, and is here given on the authority of Rabbinowicz. Probably both witticisms are reported by R. Abahu, who was a disciple of R. Johanan, the author of one of them. And R. Johanan must have been aware of the saying of R. Meir, since his own jest is only a variation of the older one. ' Aven giljon' means 'a worthless thing of a book [roll],' or, since ■ Aven ' in the O.T. generally has some reference to idolatry, 'a book of idolatry.' In like manner Avon giljon may be rendered 'a book of iniquity.' R. Meir, to whom belongs the credit of the original jeu (T esprit, lived in Palestine in the latter half of the second century. His teachers were R. Aqiba, whom we have already met with as a fierce opponent of Christianity, and Elisha ben Abuja, him- self inclined to heresy, and well acquainted with the
164 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
books of the Minim. The gibe of R. Meir is clear proof that in his time the term Evangelion was in common use, and we may perhaps conclude from the passage before us that it was a generic term for the 6 Books of the Minim,' or, at all events, that it in- cluded more than one book. After referring to 'books' in the plural, the passage reads, 'R. Meir called it Aven giljon.' I have already (p. 149) pointed out that the use of the word Evangelion in the story of R. Gamliel and the Christian judge (a passage which forms the continuation of the one at present under examination) is probably a later gloss. It would at all events be unsafe to rely upon its authenticity in that story.
Now what are the ' Be Abidan ' and ' Be Nitz- raphi ' ? ' Be ' is a shortened form of Beth, house. Neither ■ Abidan ' nor ' Nitzraphi ' are regular Aramaic, still less Hebrew, words. They are hybrids, and contain some polemic allusion. 'Abidan' is apparently connected with the root 'abad' (m«), to destroy, and both form and derivation may be com- pared with 5A/3a8So>i/ (Rev. ix. 11). Nitzraphi [the vocalization is uncertain] is almost certainly con- nected with the word Notzri, Nazarene, while the form suggests a niph'al from the root tzaraph (*ps), to unite. It is tempting to infer for Be Nitzraphi the meaning 'house where Nazarenes assemble.' And whether or not this be the intention of the inventor of the word, it suits the sense in the few passages where the word occurs. These passages I will intro- duce here, so that we may have all the available evidence for an answer to one of the minor prob- lems of the Talmud. In addition to the passage
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 165
already translated, we have the following, which I will translate successively and comment on to- gether : —
(55) b. Shabb. 152a. — Caesar said to R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah, ' What is the reason that thou comest not to the Be Abidan ? ' He said to him, 'The mountain is covered with snow [my head is white, I am too old], its slopes are frozen [my beard is white], its dogs do not bark [my voice is feeble], its grinders do not grind [my teeth are gone].'
(56) b. A. Zar. 17b.— They said to him [El'azar ben Perata], 'What is the reason that thou comest not to the Be Abidan ? ' He said to them, ' I have become an old man, and I am afraid lest ye should trample me with your feet.'
(57) b. Erub. 79b, 80a.— What is an Asherah in general? Rab said, 'Every [tree] which priests guard and do not taste of its fruits.' And Shemuel said, 'Like those who say, These dates are for the wine of the Be Nitzraphi, which they drink on the day of their feast.'
[b. A. Zar. 48a has substantially the same.] These are, so far as I know, all the passages which mention either the ' Be Abidan ' or the ' Be Nitzraphi.' Whatever these places were, it is plain that they were to be found in Palestine. This is shown by the fact that all the Rabbis mentioned in the fore- going passages lived in Palestine during the whole or part of their lives. The extraordinary explanation of Hamburger (R. Encykl., ii. 95, 96) may therefore
166 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
be dismissed, viz. that 'Be Abidan' is Bezabde, a town on the west side of the Tigris, and 'Be Nitzraphi ' is Nicephorium on the Euphrates ! Why- should R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah, who never was in Babylonia in his life, be taken to task because he had not gone to Bezabde on the Tigris ? And was it only in these two remote and little known cities that, as Hamburger says, "theological disputations were held between Ormuzd priests, Christians and Jews ? "
Jost (Gsch. d. Jdtums., ii. 40 n.) says that the term 4 Be Abidan ' belongs to the Persian time, and means place of assemblage. But why should a Persian word be used to describe an institution which R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah and R. El'azar ben Perata, both Palestinians of the second century, were in a position to attend ? Jost seems to feel some doubt of his own assertion, for he adds the suggestion that perhaps • Be Abidan ' is a corruption of ' Be Ebionim ' (house of the poor). This is better, but scarcely convincing. His suggestion that Be Nitzraphi is a corruption of 1 Be Nitzranin ' (pnva I pvu) is unintelligible to me ; perhaps it involves a printer's error.
I have not been able to discover that Gratz in his history makes any allusion to either of the two names, still less gives any explanation of them. Nor, so far as I know, does Bacher explain them in his three works on the Agada.1 I have not found anything bearing on the subject in Weiss' G. d. j. T. Levy (N. H. W., i. p. 8) suggests that p™ may be con-
1 The only reference, so far as I know, made by Bacher, is in A. d. Pal. Am., ii. 97, n. 4, where he says, that the meaning of Be Abidan has never yet been explained, but that in any case the ' Books of the B. Abidan ' are equivalent to the ' Books of the Minim,' so far as Abahu is concerned.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 167
nected with pT3j which is the rendering in the Targums of the Gk. ttvOmv (ventriloquist, fortune- teller). Such persons, he says, were seldom, in the later Grecian period, absent from popular merry- makings, and might have been conspicuous in a place of public debate. Yet something more serious is surely implied than this ; an Emperor would hardly ask an eminent Rabbi why he had not come to listen to a ventriloquist; nor would it be carefully noted that some Rabbis did, and some did not, go to the place where such persons were to be met with. It should be noted also (as Levy admits) that the word irvOoiv is rendered in the Mishnah by mrva (Sanh. vii. 7).
I venture to suggest that (Be) Abldan represents the word coSeiov, odeum, a species of theatre for musical performances, frequently used as a law-court or as a place for philosophical disputations} Such buildings were erected in several of the cities of Palestine,2 as is shown by the existing ruins (see Schurer, G. d. J. VoJkes, ii. 24, and elsewhere). Hadrian built one in Rome, and of course the original 'QiSeZov was in Athens. Now there are various accounts in the Talmud and Midrash of disputations between R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah, the Emperor Hadrian, and ' the men of the Be Athina,' i.e. literally the 'House of Athens' (see b. Bechor. 8b, Qoh.
1 €i 5e <f>-f)(rei ris '6ri Z6%av ovtoi Kal ti/xos l^peuov, iirl robs <ro<pobs i\de teal ras ffocf>as 'A6T)vr)<n <rx<>\as Kal Siarptfids' avaircfjaraffai ras iv Aujeefy ras iv'AKaSruxla, tV Stooi/, rb Ila\\d$iov, rb 'HSeToy. (Plut. De ExiL, p. 602 B.)
2 Gratz (G. d. J., iv. 313 n.) quotes from Malala (Histor., x. p. 261) the following words, showing that Vespasian built an Odeum in Caesarea : —
Centre yap Kal iv Kai(rapela £k rrjs 'lovdaiKrjs irpaiSas 6 avrbs
Ovc<rira<Tiav6s <^St?ov peya iravv Qtdrpov %xov SidffrTifia fieya ovros Kal avrov rod t6ttov trp<#i)v ffvvaydyrjs rav 'lovSaiwv.
168 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
r. i. 7, and elsewhere). It is not recorded that R. Jehoshua was ever in Athens ; but he visited Rome (see below, p. 228), where there was an 'ABiqvaiov founded by Hadrian. The Athenaeum was not the same as the Odeum ; but in both institutions philo- sophical disputations were held, and a Jew would not be likely to make any careful distinction between the two. May not the debates between R. Jehoshua and the men of the ■ Be Athina ' represent what really took place in an Odeum, either in Palestine or Alexandria ? The Rabbis living in Palestine must certainly have heard and known the name cpSeiov in the common speech of the Greek inhabitants of the towns, where such buildings existed. Further, the study of Greek philosophy was looked upon with disapproval amongst the Rabbis, who regarded it as a danger to their religion (see above, p. 106). There- fore it was natural that they should not willingly encounter Greek philosophers, though sometimes obliged to do so. The term 'Be Abidan,' though only a hybrid word, may be translated ' House of Destruction ' ; and I suggest that it is a play on the word (phelov or odeum, nearly alike in sound,1 though not intended as a transliteration. I venture to think that this explanation of ' Be Abidan ' meets the re- quirements of the references to it in the passages quoted above. An (oSelov was a place to which a Jew might on occasion go, because it was not a heathen temple. It was a place where philosophical disputa-
i )T2K and ^5e7ov seem at first sight somewhat far removed from each other in sound. But, for the first syllable, compare DWplK and u>Keav6s, bearing in mind that 2 and 1 are frequently interchanged. And, for the termination, compare jD^D and <nj^7ov, an exact parallel.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 169
tions were held, such as we know that R. Jehoshua did engage in ; and it was a place where books (in- cluding Christian books) would most naturally be found. Finally, it was a place well known in several Palestinian cities, and not, so far as I am aware, familiar to the Babylonian Rabbis.
There remains to be considered the term Be Nitz- raphi. What this means, we can only infer from the two passages quoted above (54), (57). It is evident that the ' Be Nitzraphi ' was considered to be a worse place to go to than the Be Abldan ; for while Rab would not go to the latter, much less to the former, Shemuel went to the latter, but would not go to the former. Moreover, while the 'Be Abidan' is first mentioned in connexion with R. Jehoshua and R. El'azar (first half of the second century), the 'Be Nitzraphi ' is only mentioned in connexion with Rab and Shemuel, whose sojourn in Palestine occurred in the beginning of the third century. It appears from (57) that the ' Be Nitzraphi ' was a place where wine was used for religious purposes, while at the same time it could not have been a heathen temple, because no Rabbi would have entered such a place or have had any inducement to do so ; and thus the fact that he did not go there would call for no remark. More- over, the ' Be Nitzraphi ' was a Palestinian institution, although the fact of its being mentioned only in con- nexion with Rab and Shemuel, both chiefly known as Babylonian teachers, might suggest that it was a Babylonian institution. This cannot indeed be said to be impossible, owing to the scantiness of the evidence upon which any conclusion can be based. But it is not likely, because a comparison is made
170 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
between the Be Abidan, which we have seen to be purely Palestinian, and the Be Nitzraphi ; and it is stated that Shemuel went to one but not to the other. Evidently he could have gone to both. It appears to me most probable that the ' Be Nitzraphi ' is a synagogue or meeting-place of Christians, more particularly Jewish Christians or Nazarenes, Notzrim. In this case the wine which " they drank on the day of their feast " would be the wine of the Lord's Supper. While a Jew would certainly not enter a place where Gentile Christians assembled, we know, and shall see in passages to be quoted hereafter, that Rabbis of undoubted orthodoxy, such as Abahu, had close intercourse with Jewish Christians ; and not only so, but that a Rabbi (Saphra) was actually appointed by the Jewish Christians of Caesarea to be their teacher on the recommendation of this same Abahu. If any- thing, this proves too much, because the * Be Nitzraphi,' or Jewish Christian place of meeting, might seem to be not such a terrible place after all. Yet Abahu, with all his readiness to hold intercourse with Jewish Christians, was a stout opponent of their teaching, and had many a debate with them. I rest, therefore, in the conclusion that ' Be Nitzraphi ' de- notes a meeting-place of Jewish Christians ; and I would explain the name as a hybrid, combining a reference to Notzrim, Nazarenes, with the notion of assembly (root, tzaraph). I do not know that Nitzraphi is the correct form ; as the word is only found in an unpointed text, it is difficult to say what the proper vowels are.
In conclusion it should be pointed out that there is no mention of books in connexion with the ' Be
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 171
Nitzraphi.' That institution is only referred to because the mention of the ■ Be Abldan ' suggested it. Also, if my explanation of ' Be Abldan ' be correct, the books referred to would not be exclusively Christian books. But undoubtedly Christian books would be included, perhaps even as early as the time of R. Jehoshua, certainly in the time of Rab and Shemuel, and afterwards. Because, by the middle of the second century, Christian writers had composed Apologies for their religion in answer to the argu- ments of Gentile opponents ; and the Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Tryphon the Jew, though probably fictitious in substance, may nevertheless represent a fact ; for the dialogue form would scarcely have been chosen, unless such disputations were already familiar by common usage to those who would read the book. That a Jew, to say nothing of Tarphon, would have spoken as Justin makes his Jew speak, is not likely ; but in other respects the Dialogue may be taken as a representation, from the Christian side, of what went on in a ' Be Abldan.' There was no great difference, from this point of view, between an cpSeiov and the £wrds, where Justin says that he conversed with the Jew.
The Nazaiiene Day
(58) b. A. Zar. 6a (ib. 7b).— For R. Tahlipha bar Abdimi said that Shemuel said : * The Nazarene day, according to the words of R. Ishmael, is forbidden for ever.'
(59) b. Taan. 27b.— On the eve of Sabbath they did not fast, out of respect to the Sabbath ;
172 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
still less [did they fast] on the Sabbath itself.
Why did they not fast on the day after
Sabbath ? R. Johanan says, ' Because of the
Nazarenes.' Commentary. — There is little to be said upon these two meagre references to the Christian Sunday. It is curious that both occur in the Babylonian Gemara, and that the Palestinian tradition does not appear to contain any allusion to the 'Nazarene day.' It is true that R. Johanan was a Palestinian teacher ; but his dictum (in 59) is quoted only by a Babylonian, i.e. by the compiler of the Gemara, presumably R. Ashi, in the fourth century. In (58) the ' words of R. Ishmael' have no reference to the Sunday, but are a general declaration concerning heathen festivals. Shemuel, a Babylonian (a.d. 180-250), merely asserts that, according to the rule of R. Ishmael, the ' Nazar- ene day ' is forbidden for ever. The context shows that what is forbidden on that day is intercourse with those who observe it as a festival. In (59) the subject under discussion is the reason for certain fasts, kept by the idsjd hwk, men appointed to be present and to repeat prayers while sacrifices were offered, of course in the time when the Temple was still in exis- tence. In Sopherim, c. 17, § 5, the passage (59) is referred to, and R. Johanans explanation is given, though without his name. Then follows his remark, " but the sages have said that in the days of the nncwD [the assistants at the sacrifices] men did not pay any attention to the idolaters." R. Johanan transferred to the time of the Temple a feature of the religious life of his own totally different time. It should be observed that the word nsu, ' Nazarene/
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 173
and not the word Minim, is used to designate the obnoxious day.
Having examined the passages which, so far as they go, describe Minim, I proceed to give those which attempt to define Minim and Minuth. I am aware that in so doing I am not following the logical order ; but I trust that the reason given above (p. 123) may be a sufficient justification.
Gentile and Min (i.)
(60) T. B. Mez., ii. 33. — Gentiles, and those that keep small cattle and those that breed the same, are neither helped out [of a pit] nor cast into it. The Minim and the apostates and the betrayers are cast in and not helped out.
This passage is included and discussed in the following.
(61) b. A. Zar. 26a, b. — R Abahu taught, in presence of R. Johanan, Idolaters and shepherds of small cattle are neither helped out nor cast in ; but the Minim, and the betrayers and the apostates (mumarim) are cast in and not helped out. He [R. Johanan] said to him, 1 1 teach every lost thing of thy brother [Deut. xxii. 3] to include the apostate, and thou hast said, they are cast in.' He [R. Joh.] excludes the apostate. Then did he mean to teach this both of the apostate who eats nebheloth from desire, and of the apostate who eats neblieloth to offend ? [Because] some suppose
174 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
that he who eats nebheloth to offend is a Min,
some say an apostate. Rab Aha and Rabina
are divided. One says, ' he who eats nebheloth
from desire is an apostate, he who eats nebheloth
to offend is a Min.' The other says, • even he
who eats nebheloth to offend is an apostate.'
Then what is a Min? He who serves false
gods [lit. gods of the stars]. It is rejoined,
1 If he eat a single flea or fly, he is an apostate.'
Now here [i.e. in R. Abahu's dictum] it is a
case of eating to offend, and therefore he
includes the apostate ; there [i.e. in R.
Johanan's dictum] he [the apostate] wished
to taste what is forbidden [and is therefore
excluded].
Commentary. — The foregoing passage is a fair
specimen, both in matter and style, of a halachic
discussion. To make the meaning clear, considerable
explanation of detail is necessary. " Idolaters,"
literally, worshippers of stars, are the ordinary
heathen, Gentiles, and I have used the term Idolaters
for convenience. "Are neither helped out nor cast
in," i.e. out of or into a pit. Gentiles are not to be
endangered or delivered from danger. On the other
hand, Minim, betrayers and apostates, are to be
endangered and not to be delivered from danger. As
regards Minim and betrayers, i.e. political informers,
delatores, this is not disputed. The question is raised,
however, in regard to the apostate (mumar), whether
he ought to be included in the severer treatment
dealt out to Minim. R. Abahu taught that he should
be included, R. Johanan on the other hand maintained
that he should not. And the point to be settled
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 175
accordingly is whether there is a distinction between a Min and an Apostate. An Apostate (mumar) is one who deliberately transgresses the ceremonial law, especially in regard to food, by eating forbidden things. Nebheloth means the flesh of an animal that has died of itself, which flesh is forbidden as food [Lev. vii. 24]. A man who eats nebheloth is un- deniably a mumar. But, says the Gemara (in reference to the dictum of R. Johanan, who excluded the mumar from the severer treatment), a mumar may eat nebheloth either from desire, because he is hungry, or in order to offend, i.e. from wilful defiance of God. Does R. Johanan apply his words to both of these ? Because some say that the latter is a Min, while some say that he is still only a mumar. The discussion between R. Johanan and R. Abahu must have taken place not later than a.d. 279, the year of R. Johanan's death. The point raised was discussed by R. Aha and Rabina, Babylonian teachers during the early years of the fourth century. The former (R. Aha bar Jacob) held that a mumar who ate nebheloth from desire was only a mumar > while one who did so to offend was a Min. The latter (Rabina the elder) held that a mumar in either case was only a mumar, and that a Min was a heathen idolater. The Gemara decides, as between R. Johanan and R. Abahu, that even if a man eat a single flea or fly (both of which are forbidden food), he is a mumar ; but that R. Abahu had in view the mumar who ate in order to offend, and therefore declared that such mumar was to be severely dealt with, like a Min or an informer ; on the other hand, R. Johanan had in view the mumar who only ate because he wished to taste forbidden
176 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
food, and therefore declared that such mumar should be excluded from the severer treatment.
It should be observed that this whole discussion arises upon two Baraithas, i.e. decisions contemporary with, but not included in, the Mishnah. One is that already quoted at the head of this passage, from T. B. Mez. ii. 33. The other is found in T. Horai. i. 5, and is to the effect that everyone who eats reptiles (lintpe) is a mumar} These two passages are con- siderably earlier than the period of R. Johanan and R. Abahu, and yet more so than that of Aha and Rabina. The discussion upon them may therefore be considered as academic rather than practical, so far, at all events, as regards the difference between a mumar and a Min. And a comparison of the two discussions seems to show that whereas R. Johanan and R. Abahu knew well what a Min was, R. Aha and Rabina did not know, except as a matter of speculation. Rabina would not have said that a Min was an ordinary Gentile if he had had actual knowledge of the Minim.
So far as regards the subject of Minim, the passage we have just studied is of very little value, being concerned only with the subject of the mumar. It was necessary, however, to deal with it because of its mention of Minim, and it could not be made intelligible without the dry and tedious explanation just given.
It may be sufficient to refer, without translation, to a short passage b. Hor. 11% where the same question concerning the mumar and the Min is discussed and decided in the same way as in the passage just ex-
1 Cod. Erfurt reads ' Meshummad,' HOI^D.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 177
amined. Nothing fresh is added, and the explanation of the one passage suffices for the other.
The following extract is hardly less dry and difficult than the foregoing ; but it must be included, since it brings out a somewhat different aspect of the subject.
Gentile and Min (ii.)
NO DEALINGS WITH THE MINIM
(62) T. Hull. ii. 20, 21.— Flesh which is found in the hand of a Gentile (>u) is allowed for use, in the hand of a Min it is forbidden for use. That which comes from a house of idolatry, lo I this is the flesh of sacrifices of the dead, because they say, 'slaughtering by a Min is idolatry, their bread is Samaritan bread, their wine is wine offered [to idols], their fruits are not tithed, their books are books of witch- craft, and their sons are bastards. One does not sell to them, or receive from them, or take from them, or give to them ; one does not teach their sons trades, and one does not obtain healing from them, either healing of property or healing of life.' Commentary. — The ordinary Gentile is here dis- tinguished from the Min, and the latter is judged more severely, presumably on the ground that the ceremonial law in regard to food is unknown to the former, and wilfully violated by the latter. The argument is, 'flesh found in the hand of a Min is
forbidden for use, because that which is slaughtered
12
178 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
by a Min is [for] idolatry, and that which comes from a house of idolatry is the flesh of sacrifices of the dead' [cp. Ps. cvi. 28]. The various statements about the Minim rest upon anonymous authority — 'they say' — and perhaps only represent current opinion in the time when the Tosephta was compiled. The context of the passage shows that the Minim here described are, or at all events include, Jewish Christians. The passage does not occur, so far as I know, either in the Mishnah or the Gemaras ; but in b. Hull. 41% b there is a parallel to some sentences of Tosephta preceding the portion just translated. The Mishnah on the page just mentioned (M. Hull. ii. 9., b. Hull 41a) says that a hole to catch the blood of slaughtered animals is not to be made in the street, p*on npn* *S*% * that one may not imitate the Minim.' (See also j. Kil. 32a, where the same statement occurs.) T. Hull. ii. 19 has >pin ns nrw una p w vh pro , " he shall not do so because he would be doing the statutes of the Minim." Rashi and the other commentators explain the Minim to be idolaters, ordinary Gentiles. If this were the meaning, it is not evident why the usual term for a Gentile was not used. The reference must be to heretics, possibly, though not necessarily, Jewish Christians ; but I do not know of any heretical practice such as that described.
Here may be added a passage which seems to show that the distinction between Min and Gentile was scarcely understood in the Babylonian schools.
(63) b. Hull. 13b. — A teacher said, <a thing slaughtered by an idolater is nebhelah (see above, p. 175) and he is suspected of being a
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 179
Min. Rab Nahman said that Rabah bar Abuha said there are no Minim among the idolatrous nations. But we show that there are. Say that the majority of idolaters are not Minim. He [R. Nahman] thought of this that R. Hija bar Abba said that R. Johanan said, Foreigners outside the land are not idolaters, but follow the custom of their fathers. R. Joseph bar Minjomi said that Rab Nahman said * there are no Minim among the idolaters.' In reference to what ? Do you say, In refer- ence to slaughtering ? Here we have * sl thing slaughtered by a Min': if he be an Israelite, it is forbidden. What if he be an idolater? But [if you mean] in reference to ' casting- down ' [into a pit], we have, * They cast down a Min who is an Israelite ' ; what if he be an idolater? Commentary. — In addition to what has been said on the preceding passages in the present group, it is only necessary to say that, the foregoing seems to be a purely academical discussion amongst teachers who had no practical experience of Minim. R. Nahman bar Jacob (died 300 a.d.) taught in Nehardea till a.d. 258, then at Shechanzib till his death. He was the son-in-law of Rabah bar Abuha, the Resh Galutha after 250 a.d. R. Hija bar Abba was a pupil of the Palestinian R. Johanan, he lived in the latter half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth. R. Joseph bar Minjomi was an otherwise unknown pupil of R. Nahman. The purpose of the discussion seems to be to reconcile the dictum that there are no Minim among idolaters with the statements of the
180 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
teacher who said that an idolater who slaughtered an animal for sacrifice was suspected of being a Min. From this latter it would follow that a Min was only a particularly zealous idolater, and this is the view generally taken by Rashi (see his comment on the present passage, and elsewhere). The Gemara accounts for the opinion that there are no Minim amongst idolaters, by a reference to the saying of R. Johanan that there is no idolatry outside the Holy Land. This means that the worship of gods other than the God of Israel is only idolatry, false worship, when practised in the Holy Land, by those who might be supposed to know the true religion. There might therefore be, in foreign countries, persons who in Palestine would be called Minim; but they are not so called, because the name implies a dis- tinction which only holds good in Palestine.1 The Gemara, however, does not accept the dictum that there are no Minim amongst idolatrous nations, and proves their existence by showing that it is implied in certain ordinances referring to Minim who were of Jewish origin. But it is quite plain that the discus- sion does not rest upon any real knowledge of, or personal contact with, Minim. This will be of im- portance when we come to gather up the evidence so as to present a general account of the use of the term Minim.
1 But the same Kabbi Johanan says (b. A. Zar. 65a), * A proselyte who lets twelve months go by without being circumcised is like a Min among the idolaters.' From which may be inferred that Johanan did not hold the opinion that there were no Minim among the idolaters ; and, further, that he would define a Min as one who professed to hold the Jewish religion with- out observing the ceremonial law.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 181
The Jewish Origin of the Minim
(64) j. Sanh. 29c. — R. Johanan said, * Israel did
not go into exile until they had been made
twenty-four sects of Minim.' What is the
reason ? Son of man, I send thee to the
children of Israel, to the rebellious peoples
that have rebelled against me [Ezek. ii. 3]. It
is not written here, to the rebellious people,
but to the rebellious peoples which have rebelled
against me, they and their fathers have sinned
against me, unto this day.
Commentary. — This is a little bit of haggadah,
not at all a strict exegesis of the text of Ezekiel.
So far as I know it does not occur elsewhere in the
Gemaras or the Midrashim. It forms part of a
long chapter upon that section of the Mishnah which
enumerates those persons who shall have no part in
the world to come. Amongst these, according to
R. Johanan, in a passage immediately preceding the
one before us, are to be included the followers of
Johanan ben Kareah [Jer. xliii.]. This opinion is
based upon an exposition of Hos. v. 7, not because
that text distinctly refers to the son of Kareah, but
merely because it might be applied to him. This
dictum of R. Johanan appears to serve as an excuse
for introducing the one before us, which in like
manner is only a fanciful deduction from a text in
Ezekiel. The prophet speaks of the children of
Israel as ■ rebellious peoples ' instead of 'people.' And,
whether or not the Hebrew text is correct in giving
the plural form, and whatever the prophet may have
meant if he did use the plural, it is out of the
182 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
question that he should have meant what R. Johanan deduced from his words. Probably the Rabbi was quite aware of this. His object was not to expound Ezekiel, but to find a Scripture basis, however slight, for an opinion of his own concerning heretics. He knew the Minim, of his own day and earlier, as heretics who disregarded the true religion of Israel as summed up in the Torah. They were rebellious against the God of Israel ; and thus, as the word used by Ezekiel was applicable to them, haggadic logic inferred that the rebellion denounced by Ezekiel was that of the Minim. The twenty-four sects of Minim are arrived at by the simple calcu- lation that each of twelve tribes was divided into at least two sections. Hence twenty-four. (This, at all events, is the explanation of the anonymous commentator on the passage in the Palestinian Gemara.) The only point worth noticing is that R. Johanan's dictum implies the Jewish origin of Minim. They were not Gentiles, but unfaithful Jews. The passage therefore, while entirely worthless as a com- ment on Ezekiel, is valuable as evidence for the historical definition of the term Minim, coming from a contemporary authority.
Haggadah against Minuth
(65) b. A. Zar. 17a. — Keep thy way far from her [Prov. v. 8], this is Minuth; and come not near the door of her house, this is the Govern- ment. Some say, Keep thy way far from her, this is Minuth and the Government ; and come not near the door of her house, this is harlotry.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 183
How near [may one come] ? R. Hisda said, Four cubits. How do our Rabbis expound this : ' The price of a harlot ' ? According to R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said, Every harlot who begins by being hired ends by hiring, as it is said [Ezek. xvi. 34], Whereas thou givest hire and no hire is given to thee and thou art contrary. He differs from R. Pedath, for R. Pedath said, The Torah only forbids approach for uncovering nakedness, as it is said [Lev. xviii. 6], None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness. Ulla, when he came from the college, used to kiss the hands of his sisters. Some say he kissed their breasts. He [Ulla] contradicts himself ; for Ulla said, Approach in general is forbidden on the ground of [the maxim], 'Away, away, Nazirite, they say, approach not the fence round the vineyard.' The horseleach hath two daughters [crying], Give, give [Pro v. xxx. 15]. What is • Give, give? ' Mar Uqba said, ' It is the voice of two daughters who cry from Gehinnom, saying in this world, Give, give.' And who are they? Minuth and Government. Some say that R. Hisda said that Mar Uqba said, The voice of Gehinnom crying out and saying, ■ Bring me my two daughters who cry and say in this world, Give, give.' None who come to her return, neither do they attain the paths of life [Prov. ii. 19]. But if they do not 'return,' how should they ' attain V Here is a diffi- culty. If they do 'return,' they do not
184 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
'attain' the patlis of life.' It is to be inferred that everyone who departs from Minuth dies. But [there is the case of] a certain woman who came before R. Hisda and said, that the lightest of the lightest sins she had done was that her youngest was begotten by her eldest son. And he [R. Hisda] said, 'Make ready her shroud ! ' But she did not die. From her saying, 'the lightest of the lightest sins she had done,' presumably Minuth was still in her; and because she had not thoroughly turned from it she did not die. Some say [one who turns] from Minuth dies, [one who turns] from sin [does] not. But [there is the case of] the woman who came before R. Hisda, and he said, ' Make a shroud for her ! ' and she died. From her saying, ' the lightest of the lightest sins she had done,' presumably Minuth was still in her, and she died [in parting] from it and not from her sin. But it is tradition, they said, concerning El'azar ben Dordaia . . . . * he bowed his head between his knees and groaned with weeping until his soul departed. And there went forth a Bath Qol [voice from heaven], saying, 'Rabbi El'azar ben Dordaia is summoned to the life of the world to come.' Here he was in sin, and died [in parting from it]. There [referring to the incident omitted], so long as he clave to the woman, it was like Minuth. Rabbi wept and said, ' One man earns heaven in how many
1 Here follows an obscene story to show how a great sinner may repent and yet die.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 185
years ! and another in a single hour. It is not enough for repentant sinners that they should be received, but they must also be called Rabbi!' Commentary. — This passage forms the continua- tion of No. (46), where is related the arrest of R. Eliezer for Minuth. But whereas that famous incident is mentioned no less than five times in the Talmud and Midrash, the present passage (with the exception of the first few sentences) occurs, so far as I know, only here.
The haggadic interpretation of Prov. v. 8 would seem to be due to R. Eliezer himself.1 For he says (see above, p. 139), ' I transgressed that which is written in the Torah, Keep thy way far from her, this is Minuth ; and go not near the door of her house, this is the Government.' R. Eliezer's misfortune was due to both these evils ; he had been con- taminated with heresy, and was a prisoner in the power of the state. The variation, according to which the first half of the verse refers to both Minuth and the Government, while the second denotes harlotry, is probably much later, and seems to belong to a time when Minuth and the Empire were blended by the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. That this great change did not pass unnoticed in the Rabbinical literature we shall have evidence later on.
R. Hisda, whose opinions are cited more than
1 According to Bacher, A. d. Tann., ii 310 n., the application of Prov. v. 8 to Minuth ia ascribed to R. Jehoshua ben Qorha, in " the second version of the Aboth de R. Nathan 7b." This reference I have not been able to verify. R. Eliezer was considerably earlier in date than R. Jeh. b. Qorha.
186 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
once, was a Babylonian whom we have already several times met with. In conjunction with R. Huna, he presided over the college at Sura. He was born a.d. 217, and died a.d. 309. He was a pupil of Rab, and also of Mar Uqba, whose name occurs in the present passage. R. Pedath, probably the elder of two who bear the same name, was a Babylonian contemporary with Rabbi in Palestine. He is scarcely known except as the father of the more distinguished R. El'azar ben Pedath. Ulla is Ulla ben Ishmael, of Palestinian origin (see Bacher, Ag. d. Bab. Amor., p. 93, n. 3), who afterwards migrated to Babylonia. He was not liked in the country of his adoption, a fact which perhaps may account for the rather uncivil reference to him.
The maxim, 'Away, away, Nazirite, they say; approach not the fence round the vineyard,' is quoted b. Shabb. 13% b. Pes. 40% b. Jeb. 46% b. B. Mez. 92% b. A. Zar. 58% Bamm. r. x. 8 p. 38c. It means, 'Keep away from temptation,' the Nazirite, of course, being forbidden to taste wine. The earliest authority for it is R. Johanan (b. A. Zar. 58% 59a), who, however, refers to it as a familiar saying. It is indeed called a proverb (i6no, fcw>) in the last of the above-mentioned passages, and prob- ably occurs elsewhere ; but I have not been able to find it.
The explanation of the text Pro v. xxx. 15 is not very clear, except to this extent, that it is interpreted of Minuth and the Empire, as in the case of the former text [Prov. v. 8]. This interpretation appears to be due to Mar Uqba (see above), and to have been handed down in more than one form, for one of
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 187
which the authority is R. Hisda, a disciple of Mar Uqba. It should be noted that R. Hisda was also the authority in the Babylonian schools for the story about the mother of Jesus (see above, No. (1), p. 36), and for the remark about Jesus in reference to 'burning his food' (see above, No. (9), p. 56). Further, in b. Ber. 12a (a passage which will be examined hereafter, p. 308), the same R. Hisda mentions the Minim. These facts serve to show in what direction R. Hisda was looking when he en- dorsed Mar Uqba's interpretation of the text in Prov. xxx. 15. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that this interpretation was of Palestinian origin ; at all events, hostility against both Minuth and the Empire would naturally be more bitter in the west than in the east. At the same time it must be admitted that there does not seem to be any trace of this particular haggadah in the Palestinian Midrash. R. Hisda improved on Mar Uqba's interpretation of the text. The earlier teacher said that the 'two daughters' who cried 'give, give' were Minuth and the Empire. This left it uncertain what was meant by the 'horseleach' whose daughters they were. R. Hisda said that the horseleach meant Gehinnom [Gehenna, which in this case may be fairly rendered Hell], 'who cries and says, Bring me my two daughters who cry and say in this world Give, give ' ; in other words, Heresy and the Empire are the rapacious offspring of Hell, and Hell cries out for them.
Following on this text is an interpretation of Prov. ii. 19, on similar lines, None who come to her return, neither do they attain the paths of life. Like
188 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
the preceding haggadah, it is introduced without any mention of a Rabbi as its author. But in this case the source can be traced in the Palestinian tradition. In the Midrash Qoh. r. [on i. 8, a long passage of which use will be made hereafter], occurs the follow- ing, which will be seen at once to be a close parallel to the incident at present under consideration.
(66) Qoh. r. i. 8. — The case of a woman who came
to R. Eliezer to become a proselyte. She said
to him, ■ Rabbi, receive me.' He said to her,
1 Relate to me thy deeds.' She said, ' My
youngest son is by my eldest son.' He
stormed at her. She went to R. Jehoshua
and he received her. His disciples said to
him, 'R. Eliezer drove her away and thou
receivest ' ! He said to them, ' When her
mind was set on becoming a proselyte she
no longer lived to the world [?], as it is
written [Pro v. ii. 19], None that go unto her
return again, and if they return, they do not
attain the paths of life'
Commentary, — This passage occurs in the midst of
a long series of references to Minuth, all of which,
moreover, are concerned with Palestinian personages.
It is, on the face of it, much more likely that a
woman desiring to abjure Minuth — in this instance
Christian heresy — should go to a Palestinian Rabbi
rather than to a Babylonian like Hisda. At the same
time it is true that the Midrash on Qoheleth is later
than the Babylonian Gemara, and occasionally quotes
from it (see Zunz, G. Vortr., p. 265). But, in the
present instance, the Midrash gives the shorter form
of the story; and the version in the Babylonian
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 189
Gemara, at present under consideration, is not only longer, but appears to be introduced as merely a case for discussion. Bacher (Ag. d. Tann., i. 188 n. 4,) regards the version in Qoh. r. as the original. If so, then this haggadic interpretation of Pro v. ii. 19 is traced back to the second century. And seeing that the haggadah on Prov. v. 8 is due to R. Eliezer, the contemporary of R. Jehoshua, it is at least probable that the interpretation of Prov. xxx. 15 also dates from the same period, and from one or other of the two famous Rabbis already named. In that case R. Hisda merely added his own comment upon each text to a tradition brought from Palestine.
We resume now the discussion of the passage in the Babylonian Gemara. The object of the argument is to decide whether they who recant from Minuth die or not. The Gemara says, " It is to be inferred that they die." Then by way of proof to the contrary is introduced the case of the woman who came before R. Hisda, accusing herself of gross crimes. It is to be observed that the Gemara does not know whether this woman really died or not, and it attempts to prove its point on either supposition. It seems likely that what came before R. Hisda was not the woman herself, but the story of the woman who had gone to R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, mentioned merely as a case in point, and submitted to him for his opinion. He gave his opinion (viz. that she would die) in the words, ' Make ready her shroud ! ' If, as a matter of fact, she did not die, then, says the Gemara, she was still unrepentant ; if she did die, then she died in parting from her heresy and not from her sin. This uncertainty as to whether she died or not can be traced to the original story in
190 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Qoh. r. There R. Jehoshua, when asked why he received her, said, ' When her mind was set on becom- ing a proselyte, she no longer lived to the world' (D^y1?). I have translated these words literally, but I do not feel certain what exactly is meant by ' to the world.' The Rabbinical literature does not recognise, so far as I know, the sharp distinction between • the world ' and the spiritual life which is common in the N.T., especially in the Fourth Gospel. So that possibly here, as elsewhere, thvh should be translated 'for ever.' But still I believe that the sense which R. Jehoshua intended is given by the translation 'to the world,' ix. he meant that the woman by her repentance died to her past life and would never live in it again. This is the opinion of Hamburger (Encykl., ii. 514). Apparently this was not understood in the Babylonian schools, hence the uncertainty as to whether or not the woman really died.
The story about R. El'azar ben Dordaia (which I have not transcribed or translated because it is gross and has no bearing on the main subject) is introduced by way of an objection to the argument that the woman did not die because of her sin. El'azar ben Dordaia, it is urged, sinned no less grievously, and was forgiven, but yet he died. The objection is met by saying that while he was in his sin it was, as it were, Minuth to him, and he died in parting from it, not merely in repenting of his sin. This is mere hair- splitting, and shows that in the Babylonian school where this discussion was carried on there was only a vague notion of what Minuth was, and an inclination to identify it with sexual immorality.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 191
Note that El'azar ben Dordaia was not, strictly- speaking, a Rabbi, but was only greeted with that title when summoned by the divine forgiveness to heaven. And note finally the jealousy of Rabbi, i.e. R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, whose epithet of ' The Holy ' would lead one to expect something different.
Minim and Circumcision
(67) Shem. r. xix. 4, p. 36d. — Because Israelites who are circumcised do not go down to Gehinnom. R. Berachjah said, ■ That the Minim and the wicked of Israel may not say, "We are circumcised, we shall not go down to Gehinnom," what does the Holy One, Blessed be He, do? He sends an angel and effaces their circumcision, and they go down to Gehinnom, as it is said [Ps. lv. 20], He hath put forth his hand against such as be at peace with him, he hath profaned his covenant ; and when Gehinnom sees that their circumcision is a matter of doubt, it opens its mouth and swallows them alive and opens its mouth with- out measure' [Isa. v. 14]. Commentary. — R. Berachjah was a younger con- temporary of Abahu in the early years of the fourth century, and, like him, lived in Palestine. There were indeed two Rabbis of this name, of whom the elder lived perhaps half a century earlier. The one who is the more frequently mentioned (especially in the Midrash) is probably the younger.
The passage before us is of no great importance
192 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
in itself, except that it implies the Jewish origin of the Minim. Circumcision would not concern any Gentile. The Minim are evidently Jewish heretics, and, though not necessarily in every case Christians, must certainly have included some. If so, then it is important to notice that as late as the fourth century there were Jewish Christians who were circumcised. The conclusion is either that the practice was kept up amongst Jewish Christian families, or else that the Jewish Christian community received very numerous proselytes. The former is the more likely, because the term Minim, whatever it may denote, must at least refer to the main body of heretics, so called, whoever they were, and not to those who joined them from time to time.
The Principle of Minuth : The House of Straw
(68) Bamm. r. xviii. 17, p. 75d. — R. El'azar said, There was in them [i.e. Doeg and Ahithophel] the principle of Minuth. What were they like? Like a house filled with straw, and there were openings in the house, and the straw entered them. After a time that straw which was inside those openings began to come forth. But all knew that that had been a house [full] of straw. So Doeg and Ahithophel. From the beginning no Mitzvoth [precepts of the Law] were in them ; although they had been made Sons of the Law, they were as in their beginning, for wickedness was in the midst of them, within them [cp. Ps. lv. 11].
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 193
Commentary. — The Midrash on Exodus dates,
according to Zunz (G. Vortr., p. 261), from the twelfth
century, but contains material that is much earlier.
The passage before us is part of such earlier material.
It is not indeed to be found in exactly the same words
in the older literature ; but the substance of it is
contained in the Palestinian Gemara, and there are
traces of it in that of Babylon. In j. Sanh. 27a is
the following: —
(69) The Epiquros: R. Johanan and R. Lazar,
one said, '[He is] like one who says These
Scribes ' ! ; the other said, ' [He is] like one
who says These Rabbis ' ! R. El'azar and R.
Shemuel bar Nahman, one said, ■ [He is] like
an arch of stones ; as soon as one stone is
loosened all are loosened.' The other said,
1 [He is] like a house full of straw. Although
you clear away the straw from it, the chaft
inside [clings to and] loosens the walls.'
This latter passage carries us back to the third
century. R. Lazar is the same as R. El'azar, and
both names denote R. El'azar ben Pedath. He was
a Babylonian who came to Palestine and taught in
Tiberias, where he died in a.d. 279, about the same
time as R. Johanan. R. Shemuel bar Nahman was a
Palestinian (see Bacher, A. d. Pal. Amor., i. 477),
contemporary with R. Johanan and R. El'azar, though
perhaps somewhat younger, as he appears to have
been living in a.d. 286 (Bacher).
In both passages the subject of discussion is the
heretic or the freethinker (on the relation of Epiquros
to Min, see above, p. 121 fol.). A Jewish Epiquros
was practically the same as a Min. The point of
13
194 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
comparison between the heretic and the house full of straw is this, that the original character of each remains unchanged in spite of changes in outward appearance or condition. Though the straw be removed, the chaff remains ; though the heretic put on an appearance of piety, the taint of heresy is in him still. Thus Doeg and Ahithophel are said to have in them the principle of Minuth, the taint of heresy, in spite of the fact that they were made ' sons of the Torah,' i.e. brought up in the Jewish religion. In b. Hag. 16b it is said of these two that there was *a gnawing passion in their heart' (nJ?2 KK)), i.e. a secret desire to rebel, in spite of outward conformity. We have already seen (above, p. 70) that Doeg and Ahithophel are treated in the Rabbinical literature as types of heresy, and that there is probably some covert reference to Christianity in the condemnation of them. The present passage does not contradict, though it does not confirm, the latter supposition. The Gemara does not explain in what the ' principle of Minuth ' consisted, but leaves it to be inferred, or rather takes it for granted as being generally known, on the strength of other references to it elsewhere. The simile of the arch of stones is used by R. Johanan, j. M. Qat. 83c, though for a different purpose. The simile of the house of straw is ascribed, in the second passage above (j. Sanh. 27d), to R. Shemuel bar Nahman, and that of the arch of stones to R. El'azar. It is probable that these two should be interchanged, in which case the version in Bamm. r. would be in harmony with that in the Palestinian Gemara.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 195
Scriptural Indications of Minuth
(70) Siphri, § 115, p. 35a. — And ye shall not walk after your heart [Num. xv. 39], this is Minuth, according as it is said [Ecc. vii. 26], And I find a thing more bitter than death, even the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are bands, and the king shall rejoice in God [Ps. lxiii. 11.] Commentary. — The book Siphri is almost contem- poraneous with the Mishnah (see Zunz, G. Vortr., p. 46). It was compiled, or rather edited, somewhat later ; but parts of its contents are older. It may be dated about the middle of the third century. The above passage is the earliest authority for the inter- pretation of the phrase after your heart in the sense of heresy. This really amounts to a definition that Minuth consists in following the dictates of one's own selfish nature, as against those of the lawful authority. The result of so doing is, indirectly, the rejection of beliefs and practices enjoined on those who hold the true religion. A Min, accordingly, disregards the authority of the Rabbis as teachers of religion and expounders of the Torah, both written and unwritten, and also maintains doctrines and practices which are not those of the true religion. This dictum, that ' after your heart ' denotes Minuth, became a sort of canon of exegesis in the later litera- ture. In support of it Siphri quotes two texts, Ecc. vii. 26 and Ps. lxiii. 11. The first of these does not appear to have any reference to heresy ; but the cita- tion of it may be explained either on the ground
196 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
of the symbolism common in the O.T., which repre- sents religious unfaithfulness under the figure of fornication, or on the ground of the immorality with which heretics, and particularly Christians, were frequently charged. The second text needs to be given in full in order that its bearing on Minuth may be understood. It runs : But the king shall rejoice in God ; everyone that swear eth by him shall glory, for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped. A verse of which the learned editor of Siphri rather naively says that it clearly refers to Minuth.
The above passage is referred to in b. Ber. 12b, where, however, the text cited in support of the inter- pretation is Ps. xiv. 1, The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.1 This gives at least one of the implications of Minuth, for, if the Minim did not theoretically deny the existence of God, it was quite sufficient (as later Christian history abundantly shows) that they should be heretics in order to be at once branded as atheists. Rashi, on the passage in Ber. 12b, says : — Minuth : those who turn the sense of the Torah into an exposition of falsehood and error.
There is a further reference to this interpretation of the phrase ■ after your heart ' in the Midrash Vajiq. r. as follows : —
(72) Vajiqr. r., § 28, p. 40c, d.— R, Benjamin ben Levi said they sought to withdraw the Book Qoheleth because they found in it things that
1 Cp. also (71) Siphri, § 320, p. 137b top : [Deut. xxxii. 21], J will provoke them with a foolish nation. These are the Minim. And he said thus [Ps. xiv. 1], The fool hath said in his hearty There is no God.
In b. Jebam. 63b the same occurs : the application of Ps. xiv. 1 is ascribed to K. Eliezer, i.e., probably, K. Eliezer ben Horqenos in the first century. He had already applied Prov. v. 8 to Minuth. See above, p. 139,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 197
lead to Minuth. They said, Ought Solomon to have said thus? [Ecc. xi. 9], Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth ; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth. Moses said [Num. xv. 39], And ye shall not walk after your heart ; and Solomon said [Ecc., ut supra], Walk in the ways of thy Jteart, and in the sight of thine eyes. But the band is loosed, and there is no judgment and no judge. As soon as he [Solomon, in the same verse] said, But know, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment, they said, Solomon hath spoken well.
R. Shemuel bar Nahmani said they sought
to withdraw the Book Qoheleth, because they
found in it things that lead to Minuth. They
said, Ought Solomon to have said thus ? Wlmt
profit is there to a man of his labour [Ecc. i.
3]. Perhaps he means even of his labour in
hearing Torah ? They said again, If he had
said Of all his labour, and had then been
silent, we should have said he does not say this
except in reference to his labour which does
not benefit ; but the labour of hearing Torah
does benefit.
Commentary. — Little needs to be added to what
has already been said. R. Benjamin ben Levi was a
Palestinian of the fourth century (see Bacher., Ag. d.
PaLJAmor., iii. 661 fol.). R. Shemuel bar Nahmani
is written by mistake for R. Shemuel bar Jitzhaq (see
Bacher, as above, p. 662, n. 2), who was contemporary
with R. Abahu, and thus lived at the beginning of
the fourth century. The proposal to withdraw the
198 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
book of Ecclesiastes, i.e. to declare it uncanonical, is referred to in b. Shabb. 30b. ' They ' who desired to do this are ' the Wise/ i.e. the Rabbis. In the passage in b. Shabbath the reason given is merely the alleged contradiction of certain texts in the book, not any tendency to Minuth. In the Mishnah, Jad. iii. 8, the discussion which ended in the retention of the book is said to have taken place " on the day when R. E'lazar ben Azariah was made Nasi," i.e. at Jabneh, about 100 a.d. (see below, p. 386 n.). It is worth noting that R. Gamliel II., who was temporarily deposed in favour of R. Elazar ben Azariah, was the same who ordered the composition of the formula against the Minim (see above, No. 38, p. 126 fol.). It is thus at least conceivable that an alleged heretical tendency in the book of Ecclesiastes may have been one reason in favour of declaring it uncanonical. The fact at all events remains, that though the book was admitted, the suspicion of its orthodoxy was not wholly quenched, as is seen in these references and explanations in the later literature.
The passage just translated appears in a slightly different form in the Midrash Qoh. r., on i. 3 (p. lc), and also in Pesiqta 68b and Pesiqta r., § 18, p. 90b. These add nothing of importance to what has already been given.
(73) b. Sanh. 38b.— R. Jehudah said that Rab said the first man was a Min, as it is said [Gen. iii. 9], And God spake unto the man and said, Where [art thou]? Whither hath thy heart inclined ?
Commentary. — The meaning of this haggadah is that the sin of Adam, in disobeying the command of
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 199
God, was the same in kind as that of the heretic, who rejects the divinely-appointed authority.
This saying does not occur, so far as I know, any- where else, not even in Ber. r., which mentions and comments on the text R. Jehudah is It. Jehudah ben Jehesq'el, a disciple of Rab, already frequently mentioned.
Immediately following on the passage are two other sayings, one that Adam effaced his circumcision, the other that he denied God. Both of these may be taken as expansions of the statement that he was a heretic.
In Ber. r. xix. 1, p. 42b, it is said that the serpent [Gen iii.] was also a Min. The idea is the same.
In Shem. r., p. 73c, d, Moses is accused of being a Min, because he expressed a doubt as to the resurrec- tion of the dead. This passage will be dealt with later (see p. 315).
Signs of Minuth; Liturgical Variations
(74) M. Meg., iv. 8, 9. — He that saith I will not go before the Ark in coloured garments, shall not do so in white ones. [He that refuseth to do so] in sandals, shall not do so even barefoot. And he that maketh his tephillin round, it is danger, and there is no [fulfilling of] commandment in it. If he place it [the tephillin] upon his forehead or upon the palm of his hand, lo, this is the way of Minuth. If he cover it with gold, and place it on his robe, lo, this is the way of the Hitzonim.
If one say, ■ The good shall bless thee,' lo,
200 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
this is the way of Minuth. [If one say], ' Thy mercies reach to the nest of the bird,' 1 Let thy name be remembered for good,' 'We praise, we praise,' they silence him. Commentary. — This is one' of the few passages in which the Mishnah refers directly to Minuth. It is also one of the most obscure. To ■ go before the ark' is to stand up to read the prayers in the synagogue. The Mishnah enumerates several signs by which a reader, who is inclined to heresy, can be detected. The difficulty is to identify the form of heresy referred to. Those who desire to wear white garments when reading the prayers may be the Essenes, who are said to have always worn a white robe. This explana- tion, however, will not apply to those who desire to be barefoot when they read. It is again quite uncer- tain what heretics are censured in the reference to those "who make their tephillin round.' Of those who wear the tephillin on the forehead or on the palm of the hand, it is said ' this is the way of Minuth.' It is remarkable that the Gemara, the earliest com- mentary on the Mishnah, can give no explanation of these allusions. It only says (b. Meg. 24b) that the reason for the prohibition is ■ lest Minuth should be propagated,' a reason which is obvious in itself, and does not throw light on the difficulty. The Gemara is altogether silent on the last clause, 'he who covereth his tephillin with gold, lo, this is the way of the Hitzonim.'1 The name Hitzonim means simply 6 outsiders,' and whether or not it refers to the Essenes,
1 In b. Gitt. 45b, and b. Menah 42b, the phrase, * cover the tephillin with gold,' occurs and is understood quite literally. Nothing is there said about the Hitzonim. Such tephillin are simply said to be not according to the halachah.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 201
it is surely not, as Edersheim suggests, the origin of that name (see L. and T. J. M., i. 333). He explains 'cover the tephillin with gold' as equivalent to * praying at sunrise,' which is a somewhat strained in- terpretation. I do not think it is possible to identify the various forms of heresy, or even to say with certainty that separate forms of heresy are referred to. It is conceivable that the Mishnah only meant to point out that certain practices were not in accordance with the accepted usage, and therefore that those who adopted those usages laid themselves open to sus- picion of heresy. Yet, on the other hand, considering how many points of ritual were, if not open questions, at least subjects of discussion between the Rabbis, it is noteworthy that the practices referred to in this passage are condemned without qualification ; so that the conclusion can hardly be avoided, that the Mishnah had some particular, and not merely general, intention in its reference.
It is not, however, only in aberrations from pre- scribed ritual that signs of Minuth were, according to the Mishnah, to be detected. Certain liturgical formulae were also branded as heretical. The first of these is, ■ The good shall bless thee.' The Baby- lonian Gemara in Megillah does not notice this formula. The Palestinian Gemara gives only the brief comment, ' two powers ' (nvusn *ri£>). This is a phrase of which several instances will be pre- sented later. It denotes the heretical doctrine that there are two divine powers in heaven ; in other words, the denial of the unity of God. If this is the inten- tion of the words in the Mishnah, * the good,' which is plural, refers to God, and, of course, implies more
202 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
than one. 'Thee' in this case refers to the wor- shipper. But since, in all the other formula quoted, it is God who is addressed, it seems likely that it is so in this phrase as well, and that ' the good ' are the human beings who bless God. The heresy would seem to consist in the implication that God is blessed only by the good, and not by all his creatures, in- cluding the bad. This is the explanation of Rashi {ad loc.)9 who, however, does not say in what way the wicked bless God. Tosaphoth accepts this, but gives the alternative view of the Palestinian Gemara. It is worthy of note that only in connexion with this formula is it said, 'lo, this is the way of Minuth.' In connexion with the others it is said merely, ' they silence him ' [who uses them]. The next formula is, 6 Thy mercies extend over the nest of the bird ' [or extend * to ' the nest, etc.]. The Palestinian Gemara explains this to imply either an expression of jealousy, ' God has mercy on the birds but not on me ' ; or secondly, a limitation of the mercy of God, as if it extended only to the nest of the bird ; or thirdly, a misrepresentation of the purpose of God, by saying that what are really the decrees of God are only acts of mercy. The Babylonian Gemara gives the same alternatives. (See also Mishnah Ber. v. 3, and the two Gemaras thereupon, where these heretical formulas are mentioned in a passage almost identical with the one under consideration.) Of the three alternatives, the last is probably the right explana- tion, and the heresy consists in saying that God acts towards his creatures not as one who com- mands, but as one who loves. When we remember the Pauline antithesis of Law and Grace, or, in-
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 203
deed, the general N.T. doctrine that God is love, it is easy to understand why such an innocent and beautiful phrase should be deemed heretical.
The third formula is, ' Let thy name be remem- bered for good,' or 'on account of what is good.' This is explained by saying that a man ought to thank God for the ill as well as for the good that befalls him. Whether heresy or only want of piety is condemned here, I do not know. The Gemaras agree in the explanation.
The fourth formula is, 'We praise, we praise.' Here the ground of objection is the repetition of the word, as implying that there are two who are to be praised. The Gemaras agree that the refer- ence is to the doctrine of 'two powers.' And the Palestinian Gemara adds, in the name of R. Shemuel bar Jitzhaq, the reason why those who use the formula are to be silenced, ' That the mouth of those who speak lies may be stopped,' Ps. lxiii. 11. (For the application of this text to Minuth, see above, p. 196.)
The formulae above mentioned are heretical varia- tions introduced into the liturgy; and they must date back to a time when Jews and Jewish Chris- tians worshipped together in the Synagogue, or, at all events, to a time when the presence of such heretics might reasonably be feared. I say Jewish Christians, because they were the class of heretics most likely to be affected by regulations concerning the liturgy to be used in worship. No doubt other heretics would be detected if any such were present ; but the Jewish Christians were the most important. We may reasonably connect the censure of these liturgical formulae with the enactment of the
204 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
* formula concerning the Minim' (see above, p. 125 fol.), and refer them, or rather the Mishnah enumer- ating them, to the end of the first century. This may account for the fact that the Gemara cannot explain the reasons of the various censures upon ritual, and can only partially explain those upon the liturgical formulae. When the Gemaras were com- piled, Jewish Christians had probably ceased to worship with Jews in the synagogues. Their aberrations in ritual were wholly forgotten and un- known, and only some knowledge of their aberrations in doctrine remained.
Signs of Minuth; Liturgical Omissions
(75) j. Ber. 9C. — R. Aha and R. Judah ben Pazi were sitting in a certain synagogue. There came one and went before the Ark, and left out one benediction. They came and asked R. Simon. He said to him [sic], in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi, " When a servant of the congregation omits two or three bene- dictions, they do not make him turn back. There exists difference of opinion.1 In general, they do not make any one turn back, except him who has omitted ' that makest the dead to live,' 'that bringest down the proud/ 'that buildest Jerusalem.' I say that [such a one] is a Min."
Commentary. — The incident here related belongs to the beginning of the fourth century, or possibly
1 3*751 "JD rDfc^K- • One is found teaching and differing.' I have not found this technical phrase explained anywhere, and only give what seems to me to be the meaning.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 205
the end of the third. R. Simon is R. Simon bar Pazi, who was a disciple of R. Jehoshua ben Levi, and younger contemporary of R. Johanan. He owned land in the south of Palestine (j. Demai 25a, b), and lived and taught there. R. Judah ben Pazi was his son — Pazi being the general family name, and not that of the father alone (see Bacher, A. d. P. A., ii. 438, n. 2]. R. Judah b. P. and R. Aha both dwelt in Lud (Lydda) (j. Sanh. 18c, d), and there, no doubt, was the synagogue referred to in the story. In reciting the liturgy, the reader omitted a single one of the [eighteen] benedictions. The question arose whether he ought to be made to turn back and recite what he had left out. R. Simon was consulted, presumably after the service was ended, and he gave in answer a dictum of his teacher R. Jehoshua b. Levi, that when a servant of the con- gregation omits twro or three benedictions, he is not to be turned back. It is not clear to me whether what follows is part of R. Simon's answer, or part of R. Jehoshua's opinion, or the opinion of the com- pilers of the Gemara. But, whichever it be, the opinion is clearly expressed that if a man leaves out the benedictions referring to ' the raising of the dead,' 'the casting down of the proud,' and 'the building of Jerusalem,' that man is a Min. It will be shown hereafter that the doctrine of the resurrec- tion was one of the main points in dispute between Jews and Minim. The words 'that bringest down the proud ' are the conclusion of the formula against the Minim (j. Ber. 8C, see p. 136 above). The formula concerning the 'building of Jerusalem' in- cluded the prayer for the restoration of the throne
206 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
of David ; but it is not clear to me why the omission of that prayer should be characteristic of a Min. So far as I know, the point is never raised in the polemical discussions of Jews with Minim.
It does not appear that the reader in this story was suspected of being a Min on account of his omissions, at least, if he were so suspected, nothing came of the suspicion. The incident is made the occasion for remarking that certain omissions do point to heresy. On the whole, I am inclined to believe that the opinion to this effect is the opinion of It. Simon, and that his reply might be paraphrased thus : — ' It. Jehoshua's decision does not wholly meet the present case. As to that, there is a difference of opinion. In general, I should say that a reader ought not to be stopped except he leave out the three bene- dictions specified, because in that case I say he is a Min.' It should be observed that this does not imply that Jews and Minim were still in the habit of worshipping together, and therefore does not con- tradict what was said above (p. 204). The Minim had their own places of assembly, and did not mix with the Jews. But, of course, it might happen, and probably did happen from time to time, that a Jew inclined gradually towards heresy and joined the Minim. His heresy might show itself in the recital of the liturgy before he finally broke with the Synagogue. There was, accordingly, reason for keeping up the use of the detective formula (see above, p. 135) ; and it would seem that two other prayers, of the eighteen, were made use of for the same purpose.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 207
The Kingdom Turned to Minuth
(76) M. Sotah, ix. 15.— R. Eliezer the Great says .... When the Messiah is at hand, insolence will abound .... and the King- dom will be turned to Minuth, etc.
[The latter phrase occurs also b. Sanh. 97b, Shir. r. on ii. 13, p. 17c, and Der. eretz zuta, c. x. In these cases it is ascribed to R. Nehemjah. In b. Sanh. 97 b it is repeated by R. Jitzhaq.] Commentary. — This passage forms part of a piece of haggadah appended to the tractate Sotah in the Mishnah. Bacher (A. d. Tann., ii. 222, n. 4) seems to regard it as not properly belonging to the Mishnah, an opinion which I do not venture to call in question. The first part of the haggadic appendix contains re- flections on the deaths of several Rabbis, ending with that of Jehudah ha-Qadosh, the editor of the Mishnah. Then follows a retrospect of the religious decline which set in after the destruction of the Temple. By a natural transition, there follows a forecast of the troubles that will immediately pre- cede the coming of the Messiah.1 And one of the signs of his coming will be that the Kingdom, i.e. the Roman Empire, will be turned to Minuth. As the text stands, the author of the saying about the Kingdom is R. Eliezer the Great, i.e. R. Eliezer ben Horqenos, who has been already frequently
1 On the doctrine that the advent of the Messiah will be heralded by woes and calamities, see Weber, System d. Altsyn. Theologie, 336 ; Drummond, Jewish Messiah, p. 209 fol. Matt. xxiv. is almost entirely on the lines of current Jewish belief.
208 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
mentioned as one of the leading teachers at the end of the first century. No other Rabbi is named until the passage containing the forecast of future trouble is completed. But it is extremely doubtful if the whole passage is from R. Eliezer. The sudden changes of language, from Hebrew to Aramaic and back again, seem to show that different traditions are combined. Probably only the words in Aramaic are his, and perhaps not even those. The reference to the Kingdom occurs in the Hebrew part. It is to be observed that although the remark about the Kingdom occurs elsewhere (see references above), it is nowhere ascribed to R. Eliezer, except in the present instance. In all the other instances it is given as the dictum of R. Nehemjah, who was a disciple of R. Aqiba, in the middle or latter half of the second century. Even as the text stands in the Mishnah, it is allowable to argue that the words are not expressly ascribed to R. Eliezer, though at first sight they seem to be. The most probable explana- tion is that of Bacher (loc. cit.)9 viz., that the saying is due to R. Nehemjah, that it, along with other similar sayings of his, was incorporated with the references to the destruction of the Temple (which may have been said by R. Eliezer), and the whole passage added to the haggadic conclusion of tractate Sotah. That the addition is a very late one is shown by the fact that allusion is made to the death of Rabbi, i.e. R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh who edited the Mishnah. Thus the passage, although included in the received text of the Mishnah, is really, as Bacher says, a Baraitha (see above, p. 21). It is curious that the Palestinian Gemara does not comment on either
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 209
the reference to the destruction of the Temple or the forecast of the advent of the Messiah ; certainly not in connexion with the end of tractate Sotah, and I believe not elsewhere. The same is true of the Babylonian Gemara.
As to the statement itself that the kingdom shall be turned to Minuth, there is here no reference to the proclamation by Constantine the Great in favour of Christianity, a.d. 313. R. Nehemjah lived con- siderably more than a century before that event. There is not the slightest reason to suspect so late an addition to the text of the Mishnah as this would imply, nor to father it on R. Nehemjah if it had been made. The conversion of the Empire to Minuth is merely a way of saying that the spread of heresy and the consequent decay of religion will be universal. R. Jitzhaq, who also mentions the conversion of the Empire to Minuth as a sign of the advent of the Messiah, probably lived till the time when Constan- tine the Great, by his successive edicts, virtually adopted Christianity as the religion of the state. But R. Jitzhaq, if he knew of the event, makes no special reference to it. He merely repeats the words as R. Nehemjah had said them. All, therefore, that can be learned from the passage is, that Minuth was in the second century sufficiently known and dreaded, that it could serve as an illustration of the calamities which were to herald the coming of the Messiah.1
1 Bacher (A. d. P. Am., ii. 481, n. 5) gives a saying of R. Abba b. Kahana : " When thou seest in the land of Israel the seats in the schools filled with Minim, then look for the feet of the Messiah," Shir. r. on viii. 9 ; Ech. r. on i. 13. The present texts in these places have, not ' Minim ' but ' Babliim,' i.e. Babylonians. Bacher, on the authority of Perles, says that this is an ancient gloss, and that ■ Minim ' is the original reading. Yet he shows some hesita-
14
210 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Here may be added a reference to Christian Rome.
Rome Pretending to be the True Israel
(77) j. Nedar. 38a.— R. Aha in the name of R. Huna: Esau the wicked will put on his 6 tallith ' and sit with the righteous in Paradise in the time to come; and the Holy One, blessed be He, will drag him and cast him forth from thence. What is the meaning? Though thou mount on high as the eagle, and though thy nest be set among the stars, I will bring thee down from thence, saith the Lord [Obad. 4]. The stars mean the righteous, as thou sayest [Dan. xii. 3], They that turn many to righteousness [shall shine] as the stars for ever and ever. Commentary. — The R. Huna here mentioned was R. Huna of Sepphoris, a disciple of R. Johanan, and must not be confounded with the earlier Baby- lonian R. Huna, head of the college at Sura about the middle of the third century. R. Aha lived at Lydda in the first half of the fourth century. He was therefore contemporary with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The above passage contains an unmistak- able allusion to that event. ■ Esau the wicked ' is a stock phrase in the Talmud to denote the Roman Empire. That Esau should wrap himself in his tallith (the scarf worn by a Jew when praying) means
tion ; and, indeed, it is easier in this connexion to understand a reference to Babylonians than to Minim. I have therefore not included this passage in my collection.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 211
that the Roman Empire, now become Christian, pretended to be the true Israel, in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Gal. iii. 7. The claim of the Christian Church to be the true Israel must have been very exasperating to Jews, perhaps all the more that the first to teach it had once been a Jew himself.
I proceed now to give a series of passages which may be grouped together under the head of
SECTION II. POLEMICAL DISCUSSIONS WITH MINIM
I will take, in the first place, some passages which mention or describe encounters between Jews and Minim. Afterwards, passages containing discussions of special doctrinal points.
The Minim of Capernaum and R. Hananjah, Nephew of R. Jehoshtja
(78) Qoh. r., i. 8, p. 4b. — Hanina, son of the brother of R. Jehoshua, came to Chephar Nahum, and the Minim worked a spell on him, and set him riding on an ass on the Sabbath. He came to Jehoshua his friend, and he put ointment on him and he was healed. He [R. Jehoshua] said to him, * Since the ass of that wicked one has roused itself against thee, thou canst no longer remain in the land of Israel.' He departed thence to Babel, and died there in peace.
Commentary. — This story occurs in the middle of a long passage containing abundant references to
212 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Minim. The story of the arrest of R. Eliezer for Minuth (see above, p. 139 fol.), the attempted cure of Ben Damah by a Min (p. 104 fol.), and the story of the woman who desired to become a proselyte (p. 188 fol.), precede the present story. Those that follow it will be given afterwards (p. 218 fol.).
The Midrash known as Qoheleth Rabbah, on the book of Ecclesiastes, is of very late date, but never- theless contains abundance of ancient material. The present story I believe to be ancient, in spite of traces of late date in the style, for two reasons. First, the motive that suggested it was one that would lose its force if the man of whom the story was told had been dead for a long time. Second, the references to the Minim of Capernaum only occur in connexion with persons of the first or second century. At a later time they seem to be quite unknown. If, therefore, the story had been made up at some considerably later date than the time of R. Jehoshua and his nephew, it is probable that his alleged intercourse with Minim would have had a different historical setting. The R. Jehoshua of the story is R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah, who has already been frequently mentioned, and who lived at the end of the first and the beginning of the second century. Hananjah (not Hanina as in the text) his nephew, was a well- known teacher, though by no means so distinguished as his uncle. He did remove from Palestine to Babylonia, probably before the outbreak of the war of Bar Cocheba. And there he finally established himself, although he once at least returned to Palestine (b. Succ. 20b). Even in the time of R. Gamliel II., before he left Palestine, Hananjah
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 213
appears to have been a Rabbi, and to have enjoyed a considerable reputation as such (b. Nidd. 24b). By his residence in Babylonia ! he escaped the perse- cution which followed upon the defeat of Bar Cocheba ; and it would seem that he took advantage of the confusion and weakness of the Palestinian schools to assert the independence of his own and other Babylonian seats of learning. After order had been restored in Palestine, and the scattered Rabbis had gathered under the leadership of R. Shimon ben Gamliel, a sharp controversy took place between the latter and R. Hananjah. Messengers were sent to Babylonia to demand the submission of R. Hananjah to the authority of the Palestinian Patriarch. The story of the dispute is given in j. Nedar. 40a, j. Sanh. 19% b. Berach. 63% b, and is admirably discussed by Bacher, Ag. d. Tann., i. 390 n. 4. The date of this dispute may be roughly given as 150 a.d., possibly somewhat earlier.
Now it was evidently the interest of the Pales- tinian Rabbis to depreciate the authority of R. Hananjah if they could ; and the suggestion of his intercourse with the Minim would answer their purpose. Here we find the motive for the story contained in the passage translated above. Whether true or not, it is evident that there was a reason for telling the story. Also it would seem natural that the story should become current at a time not long after the dispute just mentioned, possibly even while it was going on. It does not appear that R.
1 The name of the place where he lived was Nahar Paqod (or Nahar Paqor) ; Bee Neubauer, Geogr. d. Talm., 363 ff. Also, for the name Paqod, cp. Schrader, Keilinschrift. d. A. T. 423 (E.T. ii. 117).
214 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Hananjah ever made any formal submission; but there is no doubt that the authority of the Nasi in Palestine was successfully asserted as against the schools of Babylonia. R. Hananjah was left in peace, having failed to realise his ambition. The story before us ingeniously presents him as a man for whom allowances had to be made. No one disputed his learning or his eminence as a teacher, but he had unfortunately permitted himself to be tainted with heresy, and therefore was obliged to leave the country. Such seems to be the intention of the story.
In its details the story is very interesting. That the Minim here denote Christians there can be no possible doubt. The phrase ' the ass of that wicked one' contains an unmistakable reference to Jesus. And the mention of Chephar Nahum, i.e. Capernaum, confirms the reference, that city having been the headquarters, so to speak, of Jesus during the earlier part of his public career. If Christians were to be found anywhere in Galilee in the second century, Capernaum was the most likely place to contain them.1
The story represents Hananjah as having been the victim of magic. With this may be compared the stories given above (p. 112 ff.) of Christian miracles. He was made to ride on an ass on the Sabbath,
1 I do not go into the question whether Capernaum is now represented by Tell Hum or Khan Minyeh. The fact that Minim are associated, in the story under consideration, with the city of Capernaum, goes to confirm the theory that Khan Minyeh marks the true site. This theory seems to me to be, on other grounds, preferable to the one which identifies Capernaum with Tell Hum. Is it not possible that ancient Capernaum included both sites ?
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 215
presumably as a sort of imitation of Jesus. With the mention of the ass in this connexion, compare what is said above (p. 154 n). Whether the story is based on a real incident in the life of R. Hananjah there is not sufficient evidence to show. But the case of R. Eliezer, discussed above (see p. 144) is a well-authenticated instance of intercourse between a Rabbi and a Min, and thus makes it quite possible that R. Hananjah also had some dealings with the Minim. If he had, then they must have taken place before the year 130 a.d.
It should be observed that this story is not con- tained in either the Palestinian or the Babylonian Gemara, nor in any of the older Midrashim, although R. Hananjah is several times referred to as a well- known teacher. In the Midrash Qoheleth rabbah, which is the sole authority for the story, there is nevertheless a passage which to some extent confirms its antiquity. It is said (on vii. 26) that R. Isi of Csesarea (fourth century) expounded this verse in reference to Minuth, and gave several examples of the good who escaped, and the bad who were ensnared. Amongst his instances are El'azar ben Damah and Jacob of Chephar Sechanja, and also Hananjah and the Minim of Chephar Nahum. This shows that the story is not necessarily of late date, although it now occurs only in an almost mediaeval midrash (see below, p. 219).
The Mintm and R. Jonathan
(79) Qoh. r., i. 8. — R. Jonathan — one of his disciples ran away to them [i.e. the Minim]. He came and found him in subjection to
216 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
them. The Minim sent after him, saying thus unto him, ' And is it not thus written [Prov. i. 14], Thou shalt cast in thy lot with us; one purse shall there be for us alV He fled, and they fled after him. They said to him, * Rabbi, come and show kindness to a girl.' He went and found them .... with a girl. He said, * Is it thus that Jews act ? ' They said to him, 6 And is it not written in the Torah, Thou shalt cast in thy lot with us ; one purse,' etc. He fled and they fled after him, till he came to the door [of his house] and shut it in their faces. They said, ' Rabbi Jonathan, go, prate to thy mother that thou hast not turned and hast not looked upon us. For, if thou hadst turned and looked upon us, instead of our pursuing thee, thou wouldst have pursued us.' Commentary, — R. Jonathan, here mentioned, is R. Jonathan ben El'azar, a Palestinian Rabbi of the third century, contemporary with and associate of Johanan and Resh Laqish. He lived in Sepphoris. The Minim with whom he had the unpleasant adven- ture described in this passage may have been those of Capernaum, as the present passage follows, without a break, after the story about R. Hananjah. The connexion is so close that the present story begins by saying that the disciple of R. Jonathan ran away 1 to them/ suggesting that the Minim of Capernaum are still referred to. I do not feel certain that this connexion is anything more than literary. But it is at least probable that Christians of Galilee are referred to, and certainly possible that Capernaum is the city where they dwelt. If not Capernaum, then Sepphoris
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 217
is probably intended, because Jonathan, when he escapes from the Minim, appears to take refuge in his own house, since he shuts the door in their faces.1
As regards the details of the story little needs to be said. It is plain that the words 'And is it not written .... fled after him ' should be omitted, on their first occurrence, to avoid a break in the story. The reference to alleged immorality practised by Christians in their secret assemblies does not need to be enlarged upon. It should be noted that the Rabbi, in rebuking the Minim, implies that they are Jews, or at least of Jewish birth. The pursuit of the Rabbi by the Minim is curious, and perhaps indicates the dread as well as dislike felt by Jews towards the heretics.
This story, like the preceding one, is found only in the Midrash Qoheleth rabbah, a compilation of very late date. Thus much, however, can be said in support of the authenticity of the story, that R. Jonathan is known to have had polemical discussions with Minim, as will be shown subsequently (see below, p. 254). Moreover, the fact that he took the trouble to lay down a canon of interpretation of Scripture referring to Minuth (Ber. r. 48, 6, see below, p. 319), shows that he had had occasion to study the subject. With the incident of the flight of a disciple and the attempt of his teacher to bring him back, may be compared a story quoted by Eusebius from Clemens Alexandrinus (Euseb., Hist., iii. 23). The conclusion of the story, however, is quite different from that of the Jewish one.
1 See above, p. 115, on Sepphoris as the scene of several incidents in which Minim were concerned.
218 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
I proceed to give the conclusion of the passage in Qoheleth rabbah, from which the three preceding anecdotes have been taken.
The Minim and R. Jehudah ben Naqosa
(80) Qoh. r., i. 8. — R. Jehudah ben Naqosa — the Minim used to have dealings with him. They questioned him and he answered ; they ques- tioned and he answered. He said to them, * In vain ! ye bring trifles. Come, let us agree that whoever overcomes his opponent shall split the brains of his opponent with a club.' And he overcame them, and split their brains, till they were filled with wounds. When he returned, his disciples said to him, ' Rabbi, they helped thee from heaven and thou didst overcome.' He said to them, ' And in vain ! Pray for this man and this sack; for it was full of precious stones and pearls, but now it is full of black ashes.' Commentary. — R. Jehudah ben Naqosa was a younger contemporary of Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Qadosh), and disciple of R. Jacob, and of R. Hija. Very little is known of him, and the story just translated occurs, so far as I am aware, nowhere else. That the duel between R. Jehudah and the Minim really was of the savage character described cannot be accepted, though it is not clear why a polemical debate should be described by such a violent metaphor. The remark of the disciples to the Rabbi, and his reply, are inter- esting. They ascribed his victory to heavenly assist- ance. According to the commentators on the passage, R. Jehudah had transgressed the commandment,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 219
' Come not near her ' (i.e. have nothing to do with Minuth ; see above, p. 182 ff.), and thus, if he escaped, it was owing to divine protection. The Rabbi replied that his deliverance was in vain. ' Pray for this man/ i.e. ' for me,' and for ' this sack,' i.e. ' my head,' which was formerly like a sack full of jewels and now is like a sack full of ashes. Apparently his mind had been contaminated with heresy, and was filled with evil thoughts in place of its former learning and piety.
The three stories which have now been given from Qoheleth rabbah form one continuous passage, together with the story of the arrest of R. Eliezer for Minuth, the story of El'azar ben Dama, and that of the woman who came to R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua to be received as a convert. All the six are given as illustrations of Minuth, and form a haggadic exposition of the words, Eccl. i. 8, All things are full of weariness. Now, in this same Midrash, on vii. 26 (p. 21d) it is said
(81) "R. Isi of Ceesarea expounded this verse (' whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her, but the sinner shall be taken by her ') in reference to Minuth. * The good is R. El'azar, the sinner is Jacob of Chephar Neburaia. Or, the good is El'azar ben Dama, the sinner is Jacob of Chephar Sama. Or, the good is Hananjah, nephew of R. Jehoshua, the sinner is the Minim of Chephar Nahum. Or, the good is Jehudah ben Naqosa, the sinner is the Minim. Or, the good is R. Jonathan, the sinner is his disciple. Or, the good is R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua, the sinner is Elisha.' " Tt is evident at a glance that there is a strong
220 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
likeness between this list of examples of Minuth and the series of stories contained in the earlier part of the Midrash. Placed side by side, the likeness becomes still more apparent.
(A.) R. Isi's Series (B.) Series of Stories
(Qoh. r. on vii. 26). (Qoh. r. on i. 8).
1. El'azar and Jacob of Ch. 1. Eliezer's arrest.
Neburaia.
2. El'azar ben Dama, and Jacob 2. El'azar ben Dama and Jacob
of Chephar Sama. of Chephar Sama.
3. Hananjah and the Minim of 3. Eliezer and Jehoshua and the
Capernaum. would-be convert.
4. Jehudah ben Naqosa and the 4. Hananjah and the Minim of
Minim. Capernaum.
5. Jonathan and his disciple. 5. Jonathan and his disciple.
6. Eliezer and Jehoshua and 6. Jehudah ben Naqosa and the
Elisha. Minim.
It will be seen that four stories are common to both lists (A 2, 3, 4, 5, and B 2, 4, 6, 5). In A 6 Eliezer and Jehoshua are both concerned with a heretic. So they are in B 3, though the heretic is not the same. The only marked discrepancy is between A 1 and B 1. It should also be observed that neither series extends beyond the six examples, and that the series B is given anonymously where it occurs in the Midrash on Eccl. i. 8. Now, since the series B is substantially the same as the series A, I suggest that R. Isi of Cgesarea is really the author of B, and that B gives the substance of what he said in his exposition on Minuth, while A only gives the heads of his discourse. R. Isi lived in the fourth century, probably about the middle of it. And although not himself an eminent teacher, he moved in the same circle in which Abahu had moved, and
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 221
was thus in a position to hear much concerning the Minim and their intercourse with Jews. The slight discrepancies between A and B may be explained in this way. The compiler of the Midrash preferred to take the famous case of R. Eliezer 's arrest rather than the obscure one of Jacob of Ch. Neburaia1 (a con- temporary of R. Isi, of whom more will be said below). His object was not to illustrate the teaching of R. Isi, but to expound the verse Eccl. i. 8 in reference to Minuth ; and for this purpose, R. Isi's series was ready to his hand. The difference between A 6 and B 3 may rest only on a scribal error. The opponent of Eliezer and Jehoshua is said in A 6 to be Elisha, in B 3 the woman who desired to be received as a convert. The latter version is probably correct. Elisha is supposed to be Elisha ben Abujah, who certainly did become a heretic ; but he had little if anything to do with Eliezer and Jehoshua, being much younger. He was contemporary with Aqiba and Meir. Moreover, it is very unusual to speak of him simply as Elisha. I suggest that wh* may be a corrup- tion due to similarity of sound, of nwxn, ' the woman.'
R. Jehoshua, Caesar and a Min
God has not cast off Israel
(82) b. Hag. 5b. And I will hide my face in that day [Deut. xxxi. 18]. Raba said, The Holy
1 Friedlander (Vorchr. jtid. Gnosticismus, p. 108), says that this is " offenbar Jacob von Kephar Sechanja," an assumption for which there is no warrant. Jacob of Ch. Neburaia was a very well known character, contemporary, or nearly so, with R. Isi, who here mentions him (see below, p. 334 fol.). Friedlander does not give the text of the passage, and he leaves the reader to suppose that the last clause contains the full name ' Elisha ben Abujah.* This is not the case, and the fact ought to have been stated.
CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
One, Blessed be He, saith, Though I have hidden my face from them, yet in a dream I will speak with him [Num. xii. 6]. R. Joseph said His hand is stretched out over us, as it is said [Isa. li. 16], In the shadow of my hand have I covered thee. R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah was standing in the house of Caesar. A certain Min1 showed him [by signs] a nation whose Lord hath turned away his face from them. He [R. Jehoshua] showed him [by signs] His hand stretched out over us. Caesar said to R. Jehoshua, ' What did he shew thee V ' A people whose Lord hath turned away his face from them, and I showed him His hand stretched out over us.' They said to the Min, 'What didst thou show to him V 'A people whose Lord hath turned away his face from them.' ' And what did he show to thee V ' I do not know/ They said, ' A man who does not know what is shown him by a sign, one shows it to him before the King.' They took him out and slew him.
When the soul of R. Jehoshua was passing away, our Rabbis said, ■ What will become of us at the hands of the Minim ? ' He said to them [cp. Jer. xlix. 7] ' Counsel hath perished from the children, their wisdom is corrupted/ when counsel hath perished from the children [of Israel] the wisdom of the peoples of the world is corrupted. Commentary. — This is one out of several examples to be found in the Talmud and the Midrash of con-
1 The modern texts read D1")1p*DK ; Rabbinowicz gives po throughout.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 223
versations between R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah and a Roman emperor, the particular emperor being Hadrian. These stories are doubtless in some cases overlaid with legendary matter ; but there is, beyond reasonable question, some historical fact at the bottom of them. Not only is it known that Hadrian was in the habit of conversing with learned men wherever he met them, but he actually mentions in a letter that he conversed in Alexandria with a patriarch of the Jews. (See the passage quoted by Gratz, Gsch. d. J., iv. p. 450, from Vopiscus.) This patriarch of the Jews can be no other than R. Jehoshua, who is known to have gone to Alexandria. Gratz and Bacher both accept the general fact of intercourse between Hadrian and R. Jehoshua, and admit the genuineness of this particular story. (Gratz as above ; Bacher, Ag. d. Tann., i. 176).
As related in the Talmud, in the present passage the story is introduced to illustrate the doctrine that although God might have hidden his face from his children, nevertheless he had not withdrawn his favour ; he still held communion with them and still protected them. The latter is the statement of R. Joseph, who is presumably the authority for the story which then immediately follows. R. Joseph was a Babylonian, head of the school of Pumbeditha (b. 259, d. 322 or 333). Where he got the story from is suggested by a remark in b. Bechor. 8a, in intro- ducing a marvellous tale (also about Hadrian and R. Jehoshua) with the words ' R. Jehudah said that Rab said,' etc. R. Jehudah (ben Jehezq'el) was the teacher of R. Joseph (Bacher, Ag. d. Bab. Amor., p. 101). Rab, of course, as the disciple of R. Jehudah ha-
224 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Qadosh (Rabbi), came in the direct line of the Palestinian tradition. The story in Bechoroth lies too far off the main line of my subject to justify me in translating it.1
The story before us needs little explanation. R. Jehoshua and the Min stood in the palace, in the presence of the emperor. The Min made a panto- mimic sign to the Rabbi, intended to signify that God had turned away his face from the Jews. The Rabbi replied with another gesture implying that God's hand was still stretched out over his people. The Min must evidently have been acquainted with the O.T. scriptures, since both the sign and the countersign are dramatized texts (Deut. xxxi. 18, and Isa. li. 16). Probably therefore he was a Christian, though not necessarily a Jewish Christian, as the incident took place in Alexandria. A Jewish Christian would scarcely have taunted a Jew with the great disaster which had befallen the Jewish people. The exchange of pantomimic signs between the Jew and the Min attracted the attention of the emperor and the other bystanders, who asked for an explanation. The Rabbi explained both the gestures. The Min professed ignorance of the answer which the Rabbi
1 Two allusions to Christianity have been suspected in this passage (see Bacher, loc. cit). One is the saying, " If the salt have lost its savour, where- with do men salt it ? " cp. Matt. v. 13. The other is a reference to a she-mule which bore a foal, the allusion being, presumably, to the birth of Jesus from a virgin. As regards the first, the saying about the salt may have been a proverb quoted by Jesus no less than by R. Jehoshua. And as regards the second, there would be more point in it if It. Jehoshua was speaking to Christians. His opponents in the story appear to be heathen philosophers in Rome. Still, in view of the curious association of Jesus with an ass (see above, p. 154), there may be something in the reference to the foal of & mule.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 225
had made to his sign. They said to him that if he had not understood it, he should be shown the meaning in the presence of the emperor ; whereupon they took him out and put him to death. This appears to mean, that as he had not understood that the Jews were protected by their God, this should be proved to him by the imperial sentence, condemning him to death for having insulted a Jew. Whether Hadrian would ever have acted so is open to question. Certainly, the incident took place before the revolt of Bar Cocheba had broken out, at a time when Hadrian was well disposed towards the Jews. More- over, R. Jehoshua himself appears to have enjoyed in a high degree the favour of the emperor, who might on that account resent an insult offered to him, while perhaps taking no notice of one offered to any other Jew. Of course the story is told from the Jewish side. It is given as an instance of the success of R. Jehoshua in repelling the attacks of the Minim. Accordingly, there follows a sort of obituary notice of R. Jehoshua, regarded as a defender of the faith. When he was dying, the Rabbis said, 'What will become of us by reason of the Minim ? ' The dying man replied by an ingenious perversion of the text Jer. xlix. 7, Is counsel perished from the prudent ? Is their wisdom vanished? He rendered it thus, 1 (When) counsel is perished from the children, (then) the wisdom of them [i.e. the Gentiles] is corrupt/ The children (D^n = also the prudent, the under- standing) are of course the children of Israel. That 1 their wisdom ' means ' the wisdom of the Gentiles ' is the Rabbi's own interpretation. His meaning
appears to be, that the power of the Gentiles to
15
226 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
molest ceases with the power of the Jews to defend. A somewhat roundabout way of saying that the Jewish religion would never want a defender so long as it was attacked.
The date of the death of R. Jehoshua is not known with certainty ; but it must have taken place before the outbreak of the war in 132 a.d., as he is never mentioned in connexion with any of the incidents of the war. He must therefore have been an old man at the time of the above incident. And it is probable that it was during this visit to Alexandria that the conversation took place in which the emperor (Hadrian) asked him why he did not visit the Be Abldan (see above, p. 165).
R,. Jehoshua and a Min
(83) b. Erub. 101a. — A certain Min said to R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah, ' Thou brier ! for it is written of you [Mic. vii. 4] The best of them is a brier' He said to him, ' Fool, look at the end of the verse, for it is written [ibid.], The upright is (from) a thorn hedge, and a fence.' What is [meant by] The best of them is a brier ? Just as these briers are a protection to the gap in the wall, so the good amongst us are a protection to us. Another explanation, The best of them is a brier, because they thrust the wicked down to Gehinnom, as it is said [Mic. iv. 13], Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion. For I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass. And thou shalt beat in pieces many peoples, etc.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 227
Commentary. — I give the above passage here because it is associated with R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah. The classification of the numerous passages dealing with the controversies between Jews and Minim is not easy. On the whole it seems best to give first those in which a discussion takes place between a Jew and a Min, and then those in which some text is interpreted polemically against the Minim. The passages which describe actual dis- cussion between opponents will be arranged, as far as possible, in the chronological order of the Rabbis who took part in them.
Of the present passage little need be said by way of explanation. It is found, so far as I am aware, nowhere else, and is anonymous. As the preceding words are those of R. Jehudah (ben Jehezq'el), it is possible that he is the authority for the story. We have seen that other stories concerning R. Jehoshua are due to him (see above, p. 223). There is nothing to show when or where the incident took place. Neither is there anything especially heretical in the taunt of the Min. The repartee only serves to show how the Rabbi turned aside the scornful gibe of his opponent. The thorn hedge serves as a protection where there is a gap in the wall, so as to prevent intrusion. So the righteous amongst Israel serve to defend the people against their enemies, especially heretics. The second interpretation, which brings in the idea of the thorns thrusting the wicked down to Gehinnom, may be later than R. Jehoshua, as it is more ferocious in its sentiment than his sayings generally are.
228 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
R. Jehoshua, R. Gamliel, R. El'azar ben
AZARIAH, R. AQIBA AND A MlN
God keeps the Sabbath
(84) Shem. r., xxx. 9, p, 53cd.— The case of Rn Gamliel, R. Jehoshua, R. El'azar ben Azariah, and R. Aqiba, who went to Rome and preached there that the ways of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are not as [the ways of] flesh and blood. For [a man] decrees a decree, and tells others to do, and himself does nothing. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so. A Min was there. After they had gone forth, he said to them, ' Your words are nothing but falsehood. Did ye not say, God saith and doeth ? Why does He not observe the Sabbath?' They said to him, 'O most wicked ! is not a man allowed to move about in his dwelling on the Sabbath ? ' He said to them, 'Yes.' They said to him, 'The upper regions and the lower are the dwelling of God, as it is said [Isa. vi. 3], The whole earth is full of his glory. And even a man that sins, does he not move about to the extent of his own stature on the Sabbath?' He said to them, 'Yes.' They said to him, ' It is written [Jer. xxiii. 24], jDo I not Jill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord.' Commentary. — The journey to Rome of the four Rabbis here named is an incident often mentioned in the Rabbinical literature. It took place in the
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 229
year a.d. 95.1 Rn Gamliel is Gamliel II., grandson of the Gamliel of Acts v. 34, and president (Nasi) of the assembly called the Sanhedrin of Jabneh (see above, p. 127). R. Jehoshua has been mentioned several times. R. El'azar ben Azariah was one of the members of the assembly of Jabneh, and during the temporary deposition of Gamliel was elected president in his place. R. Aqiba has often been mentioned previously (see above, p. 84).
The scene of the ' preaching ' of the Rabbis would be one of the synagogues in Rome, where of course the Min had been amongst their hearers. It is not easy to define the form of heresy of this Min. From the fact of his being a listener to the preaching of the Rabbis, it would seem that he was of Jewish jzg^ traction — like all the Minim whom we have hitherto met. ThijTl<r borne out by the quotation of texts from" scripture, which would have no authority for a Gentile. On the other hand, the point of this argument is that God does not keep the Sabbath; and a Jewish Christian would not be likely to hold an anti- Jewish doctrine of the Sabbath. It should, how- ever, be borne in mind that, while the term ' Jewish Christian' is usually applied to those Christians of Jewish origin who continued to observe the Jewish law, nevertheless the possibility always remained that Jews, on being converted to Christianity, entirely ceased to observe the Jewish law. Paul himself is an example of a Jew who became a Christian but by no means — in the technical sense — a Jewish Christian. It is not, indeed, certain that the Min, in the passage
1 Bacher, Ag. d. Tann., i. 84, n. 2, where will be found a useful collection of references to the event in the Rabbinical literature.
230 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
before us, was a Christian at all. But it is probable that he was, since a Christian would be more likely than a heathen to be familiar with the O.T. scriptures, and to take an interest in the preaching of Jewish Rabbis, especially if he himself was of Jewish origin.
The argument of the Min, that God does not him- self observe the Sabbath though he has commanded men to observe it, may perhaps be compared with the thought expressed in John v. 17, My Father worketh even until now, and I work; though it by no means follows that the Fourth Gospel was in existence at this time. The idea that God never ceases from working is found in Philo.1
The reply of the Rabbis is ingenious, but it only amounts to saying that God's ceaseless energy is no proof that he does not keep the Sabbath. The answer serves to refute the Min, but not to establish the contention of the Rabbis.
It is curious that, in this story, the four Rabbis are grouped together, and it is not said who was the spokesman. All four preached, and apparently all four replied to the heretic. It is impossible to determine which of the four is especially referred to, since Gamliel, Jehoshua and Aqiba all had contro- versies with heretics at various times, and thus any one of the three might have done so in the present instance.
The abusive term, 'O most wicked,' is, literally, ' wicked of the world,' i.e. * most wicked man in the world.'
1 Philo., de AllegOr.,i. 3. iratJeTat yap otSeirore irotwv 6 6e6s, &A\' &srrep ttiiov rb Kaitiv irvpbs kclI \i6vos rb tf/t^ew, ovrw teal deov rb iroie?v ' Kal iro\6 76 fj.aA\ov, Zay Kal rots &\\ois atcaffiv apxh tov dpav 4<rriv.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 231
R. Gamliel and the Minim
The Resurrection of the Dead
(85) b. Sanh. 90b.— The Minim asked Rabban Gamliel, 'Whence [do ye prove] that the Holy One, Blessed be He, revives the dead ? ' He said to them, ' From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings.' And they did not accept his answer. ' From the Torah,' as it is written [Deut. xxxi. 16], Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and arise' They said to them [the Minim to Rn Gamliel], ' But is it not said, and this people shall arise ? ' etc. 1 From the Prophets,' as it is written [Isa. xxvi. 19], Thy dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the shades. ( But are there not the dead whom Ezekiel raised?' 'From the Writings,' as it is written [Cant. vii. 9], and thy mouth like the best wine, that goeth down smoothly for my beloved, causing the lips of them that are asleep to speak. ' But, do not their lips move in this world ? ' Commentary. — Rabban Gamliel appears as the representative of Judaism in several dialogues with non- Jews. In another part of the treatise from which the present passage is taken (b. Sanh. 39a), five such dialogues are given, in which R. Gamliel replies to the questions of an opponent. In the common text this opponent is called a liar, is-d ; but Rabbinowicz
232 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
(D. Soph, on the passage), shows that the true reading is -id»p, Caesar, an emperor; and he connects these dialogues with that visit of Gamliel and the other Rabbis to Rome, mentioned in the preceding section (see above, p. 228). The reading 'Min' is found, according to Hamburger, in the versions of the stories in the Midrash and the Yalqut ; but the authority of Rabbinowicz is decisive on the point. I therefore exclude the dialogues referred to, as having no bearing on my subject.
In the passage under consideration there is nothing to show when or where the dialogue took place. But, judging from the context, where there follows immediately a dialogue between 'the Romans' and R. Jehoshua, it is not unlikely that the Minim put their question to R. Gamliel in Rome, at the time of the journey already mentioned, a.d. 95. This is Bacher's suggestion (A. Tann., i. 87, n. 4). The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was one of the most frequent subjects of controversy between Jews and Minim, as will be seen from several passages to be presented below. Neither side disputed the fact of resurrection. The question was whether there was proof of the doctrine in the O.T. scriptures. The Jews of course maintained that there was, while the Minim maintained the contrary. The controversy could have no interest unless both parties were concerned with the Hebrew scriptures ; so that it is clearly Christians who are referred to as Minim, when the doctrine of resurrection is the subject of discussion. The Christian position was that the resurrection of the dead was consequent on the resurrection of Christ (cp. John xiv. 19, and 1 Cor.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH
xv. 20 fol.) And that position would be weakened if a valid proof of the doctrine could be produced from the O.T. ; because, in that case, the resurrection of Christ would be shown to be unnecessary, at all events as an argument for the resurrection of men in general.
In the passage before us the Minim challenged R. Gamliel to give a proof from the O.T. scriptures of the doctrine of resurrection. He replied by quoting three texts, one from each of the three divisions of the O.T. His opponents did not accept his proof. ,
The proof from the Torah was founded on Deut. xxxi. 16, where the Rabbi reads the text thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and arise contrary to the plain sense and the grammatical construction. His oppon- ents immediately detected the fallacy and pointed it out. The words " and arise " belong to the second half of the text, and refer, not to Moses but, to this people.
The proof from the prophets was based on Isa. xx vi. 19, where God calls on the dead to arise. The rejoinder of the opponents was to the effect that the prophet Ezekiel had called the dead to life by special command from God, and that therefore the special command did not establish the general principle.
The proof from the writings was a far-fetched application of Cant. vii. 9, where the point is that the lips of the dead move, thus showing that they live after death. The Minim reply that this movement of the lips takes place in the grave, and belongs to this world, not to the next. The Gemara adds, in support of the view of the Minim, the saying of R. Johanan that the lips of the dead move in their graves
234 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
when anyone quotes a halachah which they have taught.
The Minim, it is said, did not accept these answers as amounting to a proof. R. Gamliel therefore strengthened his case by quoting Deut. xi. 9, the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give them. The land was to be given to " your fathers" not " to you" Hence the ' fathers' must live after death. An- other tradition says that R. GamlieFs final answer was (Deut. iv. 4), Ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive, every one of you, this day. This is explained to mean that ' as ye stand up, everyone of you, this day, so ye will stand up in the world to come.'
It would appear that the Minim accepted the final answer of the Rabbi ; at least the Gemara says that they did not accept his answer until he had quoted his final text. On the whole, however, it cannot be said that a strong case was made out on the Jewish side. If the Minim did admit the force of the appeal to Deut. xi. 9, with its reference to the patriarchs, it is just possible that they did so with the recollection that Jesus himself had founded an argument for the doctrine of resurrection upon a somewhat similar reference to the patriarchs (Matt. xxii. 31, 32). I do not press this point, because the Talmud would not, in any case, allow the Minim to be the victors in the discussion ; therefore we cannot assume that they really confessed themselves overcome. At most the debate came to an end. It would not have been difficult to have refuted even the last argument of the Rabbi, by showing that the land promised to the fathers was not, as a matter of fact, given to them but to their descendants.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 235
R. Gamliel and a Mtn
God has Departed from Israel
(86) b. Jeb. 102b.— A certain Min said to R.
Gamliel, 'A people whose Lord has drawn
off [departed] in regard to them, as it is written
[Hosea v. 6], They shall go with their flocks
and with their herds, to seek the Lord, and
they shall not find Him; He hath drawn off
from them' He said to him, 'Fool, is it then
written drawn off in regard to them2. It
is written drawn off from them. If [in the
case of] a childless widow [the phrase were]
' the brothers draw off in regard to her,' there
would be some ground for your argument.'
Commentary. — In the foregoing translation I have
used the phrase 'draw off' to represent the double
meaning of the word halatz (ybn). This word, in
addition to its ordinary meaning of ' depart,' has also
a technical meaning in connexion with the law of
the deceased brother's widow (Deut. xxv. 5-10).
If a man die leaving no children, one of his brothers
shall do the duty of a husband towards her. And if
such brother refuse, then the widow shall perform a
ceremony expressing contempt of him. She shall
publicly 'draw off' (halatz) his shoe from his foot,
spit in his face, and say, Thus shall it be done unto tJie
man that doth not build up his b?~other's house. In
this case the widow 'draws off in regard to the
brother,' performs the ceremony in regard to him
(n^ yhn); but she does not 'depart from' him; he
rejects her by refusing to do the duty required of
him. This is the technical use of halatz, and it
236 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
requires the preposition 'le,' b9 'in regard to.' The non-technical use of halatz, in which the meaning is ' depart,' requires the preposition ' min,' |o, ' from.'
Now the argument of the Min, and the answer of Gamliel, will be more intelligible. The Min says, * A people whose Lord has rejected them,' halatz ' in regard to them' (technical use), for it is said, Hosea v. 6, he hath departed from them. R. Gamliel at once replies that the text does not bear out the construction put upon it. The text reads 'halatz min,' 'depart from,' which is neutral, and only implies estrangement, not that God had rejected his people. Even if, as the Min assumed, 'halatz min ' were equivalent to ' halatz le,' that would only imply, in the text, that the people had rejected God. For the purpose of the Min's argument, the text ought to read that the people ' haletzu lo ' (technical term), implying that God had rejected his people. It might be true that there was estrangement between God and Israel ; but it was not true that He had re- jected his people, they had rather rejected him. If, added It. Gamliel, the technical term ' halatz le ' was used of the brothers and not of the widow, then the argument of the Min would be valid ; because, in that case, it would prove that God had rejected his people.
The above explanation is, I believe, correct in sub- stance; at all events it brings out the point of R. Gamliel's reply, viz., that God had not cast off his people. As to the date and place of this dialogue, no hint is given in the text. The alleged rejection of Israel refers of course to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus in a.d. 70. After that
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 237
great disaster, it might well seem that God had re- jected his people ; and we shall find that in several controversial dialogues the non-Jewish opponent taunts the Jew with the loss of the divine protection (cp. the story given above, p. 222). In the present instance there seems to be no reason for locating the incident elsewhere than in Palestine. A knowledge not merely of the O.T. scriptures but of the Jewish Law is implied on the part of the Min, to whom, otherwise, the answer of R. Gamliel would have been unintelligible. Probably the Min was some Christian of Jabneh, where R. Gamliel dwelt ; though whether he was a Jewish Christian is open to question, on the ground that one who was himself a Jew would scarcely have taunted a Jew with the calamity that had befallen the nation.
Beruria and a Min
(87) b. Ber. 10a. — A certain Min said to Beruria, 'It is written [Isa. liv. 1], Sing, O barren that didst not bear. Sing, because thou didst not bear.' She said to him, * Fool, look at the end of the verse, for it is written [ibid.], For more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. But what is meant by O, barren that didst not bear, sing ? The congregation of Israel, which is like a woman who hath not borne children for Gehenna, like you.' Commentary. — Beruria was one of the famous
women of the Talmud. She was the wife of R.
Meir, and daughter of R. Hanina ben Teradjon.
238 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Her father was one of those who were executed during the persecution of Hadrian after the sup- pression of the revolt of Bar Cocheba. Her husband, Meir, had been a disciple of Aqiba ; and after his death, during the same persecution, Meir was virtually, though not officially, the leader of the Rabbis who carried on the Tradition. The date of the dialogue is therefore the middle, or the latter half, of the second century. The place cannot be determined, except that it was somewhere in Palestine. Meir lived at one time near Liid (Lydda), at another near Tiberias, perhaps also in Sepphoris. (See b. Erub. 53b, j. Sota 16b, j. Ber. 5b). Beruria, whose name is said to re- present Valeria, was almost unique amongst Jewish women in being learned in halachah. She might, in fact, have been a Rabbi, if she had been a man. An opinion which she gave, on a point of halachah, is mentioned with approval, T. Kelim ii. 1. The dialogue before us shows at least that she knew her scriptures well.
The Min quoted to her part of the verse Isa. liv. 1., not applying it indeed to her, because she had children, but apparently referring — as the prophet had referred — to Zion, as representing the Jewish people. Why, he asked, should one that was barren sing for joy ? Apparently he meant, why should the Jewish people, crushed and decimated by persecution, nevertheless rejoice? Beruria answered by bidding him first look at the conclusion of the verse, where it is said that the children of the barren are more than the children of the married wife. Then she re- torted by accepting his interpretation of the text and turning it against him, 'You say that Israel is like
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 239
a barren woman, and ask why then should she re- joice ? Because she does not bear children for Hell, such as you.' Her answer shows clearly enough the hostility felt by Jews towards the Christians, in the second century, at a time when the latter were steadily increasing in numbers. R. Meir, the husband of Beruria, was the inventor of the nickname Aven- giljon to denote the Gospels, which is of course a play upon the word evayyikiov, (see above, p. 163). Beruria, probably, had no thought in her mind except abhorrence of the Minim, when she gave her rather severe answer. The expression " children for Hell " (Gehenna) suggests a comparison with the phrase Matt, xxiii. 15. And while it is exceedingly doubtful whether the contents of the Gospel were known to the Rabbis, except very imperfectly through hearing them referred to or quoted by Christians, nevertheless it is not unlikely that Christians should occasionally address Jews in the terms of that terrible denuncia- tion in Matt, xxiii. And in any case Christians could not complain if the terms of the Gospel were cast back at them, being as much, or as little, deserved on the one side as on the other. Beruria probably had never seen the passage in Matthew's Gospel, but she may well have heard language not unlike it from Christians.
Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Qadosh) and a Min
(88) b. Hull. 87a.— A certain Min said to Rabbi, 1 He who formed the mountains did not create the wind. And he who created the wind did not form the mountains, as it is written [Amos
240 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
iv. 13], For, lo9 he that formeth the mountains and [he] that createth the wind.' He [Rabbi] said to him, 'Fool, look at the end of the verse, The Lord of Hosts is his name' He [the Min] said to him, • Give me time, three days, and I will refute you.' Rabbi sat three days fasting. When he was about to eat, they said to him, ■ The Min is standing at the gate.' He said [Ps. lxix. 21], They gave me also gall for my meat. He [the Min] said to him, 'Rabbi, I bring thee good tidings. Thine enemy hath not found an answer, and hath fallen from the roof and he is dead.' He [Rabbi] said to him, 'Wilt thou dine with me?' He said 'Yes.' After they had eaten and drunk, he [Rabbi] said to him, ' Wilt thou drink the cup of blessing or receive forty gold pieces ? ' He said, ' I will drink the cup of blessing.' There went forth a Bath Qol and said, ' The cup of blessing is worth forty gold pieces.' R. Jitzhaq said, ' Even yet that family exists among the great ones of Rome, and they call it the family of Bar Livianos.' Commentary. — This curious anecdote is introduced by way of illustration into a halachic discussion, and is not intended as a haggadic invention. The question debated was suggested by the mention of an act re- corded of Rn Gamliel II. On one occasion a man had slain an animal, and before he could fulfil the commandment to cover the blood which had been shed [Lev. xvii. 13], another man forestalled him, thus depriving him of the merit of fulfilling the commandment. Rn* Gamliel ordered that the second
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 241
man should pay to the first ten pieces of gold, as being the equivalent of a commandment. The Gemara asks the question whether this sum is the equivalent of a commandment or of a blessing (benediction), and says that in the case of the "cup of blessing " after a meal, if this be regarded as the fulfilling of a commandment then the equivalent is ten gold pieces ; but if it be regarded as a blessing, then the equivalent is forty gold pieces, since there are four separate benedictions. The story is intro- duced in order to prove that the equivalent of the ' cup of blessing ' is forty gold pieces ; and the proof is given by the fact that Rabbi ( Jehudah ha-Qadosh) named that sum to his guest, and also by the assertion that a Bath Qol (voice from heaven) de- clared that sum to be the equivalent of the 'cup of blessing.'
That is the purpose of the story from the point of view of the Gemara. There was no occasion for the introduction of a Min, as the guest of the Rabbi, if the story had been invented to solve the halachic problem. And although the question of the Min to Rabbi which opens the story, is the same as a question asked of Rn. Gamliel by Caesar (b Sanh. 39*, see above, p. 231), yet the conclusion of the story is quite different. The Min quoted the text Amos iv. 13, He thatformeth the mountains and [he that] createth the wind, and argued, from the use of two distinct verbs, that two distinct creative beings were referred to. The Rabbi answered by telling him to look at the end of the verse, The Lord of Hosts is his name, implying that the Creator was one and not two. The Min was not satisfied, and asked for time in which to
16
242 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
think of a rejoinder. The Rabbi gave him three days, and himself spent the time in fasting, being apparently in fear of his antagonist. At the end of the time, however, another Min comes to his house, bringing the ' good tidings ' that the Rabbi's opponent had destroyed himself, having been unable to think of the rejoinder he desired. In return for his welcome news, he was pressed to stay to dinner ; and at the end of the meal his host offered him his choice between drinking the cup of blessing and receiving forty gold pieces. The Rabbi supposed that being a Min, he would not care to act as a Jew by making the responses after the benedictions, and might prefer to receive a reward in money. The Min, however, chose the former, whereupon, so the story goes, a voice from heaven proclaimed that the equivalent of the ' cup of blessing ' was forty gold pieces.
A curious note concludes the story, to the effect that ' that family,' presumably that of the Min who brought the ' good tidings,' was well known amongst the great ones of Rome, and that it was called the family of Bar Livianos.
The Jew in this story is R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, the compiler of the Mishnah, who died a.d. 220, so that the incident belongs to the end of the second, or the beginning of the third, century. Where it took place, there is no evidence to show. Rabbi (as Jehudah ha-Q. is usually called) spent the greater part of his life in Galilee ; at various times he lived in Usha, Shefaram, Beth Shearim and Sepphoris. The last-named city may be regarded as especially his place of residence, since he dwelt there seventeen years and died there. We may suppose that the
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 243
incident of the story before us took place in Sepphoris ; and with this agrees the fact that, as we have already seen, many of the stories about Minim are located in Sepphoris.
In the story itself, nothing turns upon the particular question of the Min to Rabbi. And since this is identical with a question addressed to Rn Gamliel by Caesar, it is possible that it has been borrowed from the earlier incidents, the actual question of Rabbi's opponent not being known. The interest of the story before us is contained in its dramatic development. It is certainly surprising that a man should commit suicide because he could not refute the argument of an opponent. The second Min, however, is more interesting than the first ; and the remark of R. Jitzhaq, at the end of the story, seems to indicate that he was not an unknown man. The words in which he delivered his message, WI bring you good tidings' (nuio -ikod), might seem to suggest evayyekiov ; but the phrase is common in New Hebrew, as the N.T. term is in Greek. We cannot therefore infer' a reference to the Gospel in the language of the Min, though the phrase is certainly appropriate, if he was a Christian. He must have been a Jewish Christian, since he was evidently familiar with the Jewish ceremonial of the benediction after the meal, and was willing to take part in it as j if he had been a Jew. The friendliness shown towards a Min by a Jew in this instance is in sharp contrast to the feeling indicated in most of the stories concerning the Minim.
The historical note about the family of this Min is a riddle which I have not been able to solve. R.
244 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Jitzhaq, the authority for it, is, indirectly, the authority for the story itself, although it is given anonymously. He evidently knew about it, since he knew the Min who is mentioned in it. R. Jitzhaq was a Babylonian by birth, but spent the greater part of his life in Palestine, chiefly in Tiberias (where he studied under R. Johanan), and in Csesarea. He belonged therefore to the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century. The name ' Bar Livianos ' is written in most of the MSS. and early texts, 'Bar Lulianos' (see Rabbinowicz on the passage), and in one MS. ' Ben Ulianos.' The name Lulianos usually represents Julianus. R. Jitzhaq said that the family called by this name existed in his own time, amongst the great ones of Rome,1 and that the Min was a member of it. It is not clear how a Jewish Christian should be a member of a great Roman house. Some light is thrown on the question by the fact that R. Jitzhaq had a disciple whose name was Luliani bar Tabrinai, i.e. Julianus bar Tiberianus (see Bacher, Ag. d. Pal. Am., ii. 210, n. 7). This man was a Jew, since he was a Rabbi ; and his Roman name does not imply Gentile birth. Many Rabbis had Greek or Roman names. The remark of R. Jitzhaq may accordingly be explained thus: the name of the Min was Julianus (or Lulianos), a name simply borrowed from a great Roman family. R. Jitzhaq's disciple, Luliani, may have been a relative of the Min in a younger genera-
1 This term, however, is sometimes applied to distinguished Komans living in Palestine, as in b. A. Zar. 18% where "the great ones of Home" attended the funeral of R. Jose b. Qisma, probably in Coesarea, certainly in Palestine. The Min in the story is more likely to have been associated with a Roman family in Palestine than in Rome.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 245
tion, and perhaps had the vanity to assert a connexion with the Roman family.
R. ISHMAEL BEN JOSE AND A MlN TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN
(89) b. Sanh. 38b. — A certain Min said to R.
Ishmael ben R. Jose', ' It is written [Gen. xix.
24], And the Lord rained upon Sodom and
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord.
It ought to have been from himself V A
certain fuller said [to R. Ishmael], ■ Let him
alone; I will answer him. For it is written
[Gen. iv. 23], And Lamech said to his wives,
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice, ye wives
of Lamech. It ought to have been my
wives. But the text reads so, and here also
the text reads so.' He said, * Whence did
you get that ? ' ' From the saying of R.
Meir.'
Commentary. — This anecdote forms part of a long
passage containing many polemical discussions
between Jews and non-Jews. These will be dealt
with, so far as they relate to Minim, in reference to
the various Rabbis who took part in the dialogue.
It would have been interesting to present the whole
passage at once ; but for convenience of explanation
it is better to break up the material into its component
parts. R. Ishmael ben Jose was the son of R. Jose
ben Halaphta, and belonged to the circle of Rabbi
(Jehudah ha-Qadosh) mentioned in the preceding
section. He lived, probably in Sepphoris, at the end
246 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
of the second century and the beginning of the third. This serves to fix the date of the incident within rather wide limits indeed, but otherwise is of no importance ; because, although the Min addressed his question to R. Ishmael, he was answered, not by that Rabbi, but by a bystander who heard the question.
The Min quoted Gen. xix. 24, and drew attention to the fact that in that text the name of the Lord was mentioned twice, The Lord rained .... from the Lord. He suggested that this implied the existence of more than one divine being.1 A fuller, who heard the remark, asked to be allowed to answer the Min. He quoted Gen. iv. 23, where a similar grammatical peculiarity occurs in reference to Lamech. The inference was that as Lamech was only one being, so God was only one. As for the form of the phrase, the scripture (or rather the author of the scripture) chose to say so, in the one text as in the other. On being asked, as it would seem by R. Ishmael, where he learned his answer, the fuller replied that it was from the teaching of R. Meir. Probably R. Meir had used the argument in a public address in the synagogue.
R. Jitzhaq (see above, p. 244), a century later, strengthened the argument (Ber. r., § li., p. 105a, b) by quoting 1 Kings i. 33 and Esther viii. 8 in addition to Gen. iv. 23. He did not refer to the use of Gen. xix. 24 by the Minim ; but unless this text were made use of by heretics, there would have been no object in strengthening the counter argument.
1 On the doctrine of Two divine Powers, see below, p. 261 fol.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 247 R. Hanina, R. Hoshaia, and a Min
ISRAEL AND THE GENTILES
(90) b. Pes. 87b.— R. Hoshaia said, ' What is that
which is written [Judg. v. 11], The righteousness
of his rule in Israel The Holy One, Blessed
be He, did righteousness in Israel in that he
" scattered " them amongst the nations.' And
this is what a certain Min said to R. Hanina,
'We esteem ourselves better than you. It
is written concerning you [1 Kings xi. 16],
He dwelt there six montfis, etc. This refers
to us. You have been in our midst these
many years and we do nothing to you.' He
said to him, 'Wilt thou allow a disciple to
join in [the discussion] with thee ? ' R. Hoshaia
joined in with him. He said to him, ' Because
ye did not know how ye might destroy us.
Not all of them [the Jews] are amongst you.
As for those that are amongst you [if ye
destroyed them] ye would be called a broken
kingdom.' He said to him, ' By the Temple
of Rome ! we are always thinking so.'
Commentary. — R. Hoshaia belonged to the
younger generation of the disciples of Rabbi
(Jehudah ha-Qadosh), and there is some reason to
believe that the latter, and not R. Hanina, was the
one to whom the remark of the Min was addressed.
Rabbinowicz (D. Soph, on the passage) gives a
reading, 'Jehudah Nesiah' in place of R. Hanina.
This would naturally denote the grandson of Rabbi ;
but Rabbi himself is sometimes so called. R. Hoshaia
248 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
is described as a disciple. This would suggest Rabbi, rather than R. Hanina, as his teacher, and would exclude Jehudah Nesiah. Since, however, the question is answered by R. Hoshaia, it is of no great importance to whom it was addressed. The date of the incident may be placed in the first half of the third century. The scene wras probably Caesarea, where R. Hoshaia seems to have spent most of his life.
The story occurs in the middle of a haggadah upon the dispersion of Israel among the nations. R. Hoshaia explained the text, Judg. v. 11, The righteousness of his rule in Israel, by slightly altering the word 'his rule,' pirzono, so as to make it read as if it were derived from the root pazar, to scatter. Whence he drew the moral that God had shown his righteousness, had done good to Israel by scattering them amongst the nations. In illustration of this striking interpretation, the dialogue with the Min is added, in which R. Hoshaia virtually explains his meaning. The Min quotes the text 1 Kings xi. 16,1 He dwelt there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom. Edom, said the Min, refers to us (i.e. the Romans, according to a very common identifi- cation in the Talmud and the Midrash). The argu- ment of the Min is this : — Israel showed cruelty to Edom in the days of old ; but Edom, i.e. Rome, has done nothing to Israel, though for many years Jews have been living in the midst of the Gentile nations in the Roman empire. Therefore the Romans are
1 I give this in full. The Talmud often gives only a few words of a quotation, although the whole verse is necessary to establish the point with a view to which the quotation was made.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 249
more generous than the Jews. The answer to this challenge is given, not by the person addressed, whether R. Hanina or Rabbi, but by R. Hoshaia. Instead of denying, as he might well have done, the alleged forbearance of the Romans towards the Jews, he boldly declared that the Romans would have killed all the Jews if they had known how. But Israel was scattered abroad, and in that fact lay their safety. This was the blessing of God in scattering Israel, according to the exposition of Judg. v. 11 already given. If, continued R. Hoshaia, the Romans had killed the Jews who were in their midst, their empire would be called a broken kingdom ; the reason apparently being that the Jews were good citizens and also numerous, so that the destruction of them would have been a loss to the empire. The Min admitted the justice of the retort.
There is nothing in this dialogue to distinguish the Min from any heathen citizen of the empire, except the fact that he was aquainted with the O.T. scrip- tures. He could hardly have been a Jew; for, as remarked in connexion with another anecdote (see above, p. 224), a Jew, even though he were a Jewish Christian, would hardly have taunted another Jew with the misfortunes or the faults of Israel. The Min was probably a Christian ; but as opposed to the Jew, it is remarkable that he speaks as a Roman citizen, not as a Christian. I need hardly remind the reader that the date of this incident must be nearly a century earlier than the time when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. It is impossible to identify this Christian. There is some reason to believe that Hoshaia met and con-
250 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
versed with Origen, who was, like himself, resident in Caesarea. But there is nothing in the present instance to suggest that the Min was a Christian bishop. Whatever a layman might do, a bishop would hardly swear by the great temple of Rome. As Cassarea was the seat of the government, the Min may have been some official in the city who happened to be a Christian.
R. Hanina and a Min
THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL
(91) b. Joma 56h. — A certain Min said to R.
Hanina, ' Now are ye unclean children, for it
is written [Lam. i. 9], Her uncleanness is in
her skirts.' He said to him, ' Come, see what
is written concerning them [Lev. xvi. 16],
That dwelleth with them in the midst of their
uncleanness; at the very time when they are
unclean, the Shechinah dwelleth in the midst
of them.'
Commentary. — There is very little that needs
explanation in this fragment of dialogue. We have,
as in other cases, quotation of scripture by a Min,
with an anti-Jewish purpose. The Min accordingly
was probably a Christian not of Jewish extraction.
The point of the taunt to the Jew was the apparent
abandonment of Israel on the part of God. The
previous extract (90), shows one way in which the
Jews met and refuted the insinuation. R. Hanina
*
in the present instance gives another. The challenge of the Min and the answer of the Rabbi are little
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 251
better than mere word-fencing. The incident only serves to show how both Jews and their opponents were conscious of the change in the national status of Israel since the destruction of the temple by Titus, and the final overthrow under Hadrian. The Jews were by no means disposed to gratify either Christian or heathen by the admission of defeat ; and though the sorrow was heavy in his heart, the Jew would turn a proud face to the Gentile and meet scorn with scorn.
R. Hanina has already been mentioned, not merely in the preceding section, but earlier (see above, pp. 72, 73). He was of Babylonian origin, and only came to Palestine comparatively late in life. He lived in Sepphoris, and is thought to have died about the year 232. He was more than eighty years old at the time of his death. No doubt the interview with the Min took place in Sepphoris, a place which has already been very frequently mentioned in connexion with Minim.
R. Hanina and a Min
THE LAND OF ISRAEL
(92) b. Gitt. 57*. — A certain Min said to R. Hanina, 'Ye speak falsely' [in reference to the alleged enormous population of Palestine in former times]. He said to him, 'A dear land it is written of her [Dan. xi. 41]. Whereas in the case of this deer, its skin does not contain it, so the land of Israel while the people lived in it was wide, and now that they are now longer living in it, is contracted.'
252 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Commentary. — This can only be regarded as a jeu (Tesprit of R. Hanina. It occurs in a famous haggadah concerning the land of Israel, where several Rabbis utter the wildest exaggerations as to its former fertility and the population of its cities. No Rabbi seriously believed that there were " 600,000 cities on the King's mountain, each of which con- tained as many people as came out from Egypt, while three cities contained each twice as many." A too literal Min, prototype of other Minim in later days, was shocked at the monstrous exaggeration, and exclaimed to R. Hanina, " Ye lie ! " The Rabbi gave him an answer worthy of the occasion, being only a witty play upon words. It is written, he said, in Daniel xi. 41, a dear land.1 Now the skin of this deer, when it is stripped off, is no longer large enough to hold the carcase of the animal; it shrivels up. In like manner, the land of Israel was large enough to hold all those people while they lived in it. Since they have gone, it has shrivelled up, and is no longer large enough. You behold it in its shrunken state.
I have expanded R. Hanina's answer in order to bring out the point of it; and I leave it, without further comment, as a piece of Rabbinical wit, genuine haggadah in its sportive mood. It would be ridiculous to treat it seriously, and found upon it a charge of falsehood against the Rabbis.
In b. Kethub. 112a is a reference to this same repartee of R. Hanina, but the play upon the word
1 More correctly, 'a glorious land.' I have used the word 'dear' in order to reproduce the pun. Tzebi means * glory,' and also ' a gazelle ' or deer. Thus the words quoted may be rendered either 'a dear (glorious) land,' or 'the land is a deer' (gazelle).
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 253
'tzebi' is expanded into a series of similes; and although R. Hanina is mentioned, the Min only addresses to him a remark upon the actual fertility of Palestine. On the same page of b. Kethub. is a remark make by a Min to R. Zera, which is found in a somewhat different form in b. Shabb. 88a.
R. Jannai, R. Jonathan, and a Min
THE GRAVE OF RACHEL
(93) Ber. r., § 82, p. 155b. — And Rachel died and was buried [Gen. xxxv. 19]. Burial followed close on death, in the way to Ephrath (the same is Bethlehem).
R. Jannai and R. Jonathan were sitting. There came a certain Min and asked them, * What is that which is written [1 Sam. x. 2], When thou art departed from me this day [thou shalt find two men by Rachels tomb, in the border of Benjamin at Zelzaft]? Is not Zelzah in the border of Benjamin, and the tomb of Rachel in the border of Judah ? As it is written [Gen. xxxv. 19], and she was buried on the way to Ephrath, and it is written [Mic. v. 2], Bethlehem Ephrathah' R. Jannai said to him [Isa. iv. 1], • Take away my reproach' \ [R. Jonathan] said to him '[the text means], When thou departest from me this day by Rachels tomb, thou shalt find two men in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah' Others say [that the answer of R. Jannai was] ■ When thou departest from me this day in tJie border
254 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
of Benjamin in Zelzah, thou shalt find two men by the tomb of Rachel,' and this is the correct answer.
Commentary. — The difficulty which prompted the question of the Min was as to the locality of Beth- lehem. According to Mic. v. 2 [v. 1 Hebr.] Beth- lehem Ephrathah is in the land of Judah. According to Gen. xxxv. 19, Rachel was buried in the way to Ephrathah, which is Bethlehem. But it is said in 1 Sam. x. 2, Rachels tomb in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah. Whence it would seem that Bethlehem Ephrathah was also 'in the border of Benjamin/ This contradiction is several times referred to in the Rabbinical literature, and various solutions of it given. Bacher [A. d. T., ii. 50, n. 5] mentions one by R. Meir, but does not give the reference. There is also one in T. Sot., xi. 11, where no author's name is mentioned.
In the story before us a Min came to where R. Jannai and R. Jonathan were sitting, and asked them to explain the difficulty. R. Jannai apparently was unable to do so, and turning to R. Jonathan said, in the words of Isaiah [iv. 1], ' Take away my reproach? i.e. ' Help me out ; do not let me lie under the re- proach of being unable to answer.' (This is the inter- pretation of the commentary ' Japheh Toar ' upon the passage.) R. Jonathan accordingly explained the verse, in one or other of two ways, both of which are given. The point of his answer is that ' in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah ' denotes a different place from that where Rachel's tomb was. Therefore, there was nothing to prove that Bethlehem Ephrathah, the site of the tomb, was not in the land of Judah.
The interest of the dialogue, for the purpose of this
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH S60
work, lies in the fact that a Min should come and consult a Rabbi upon a question of interpretation of scripture. This shows that the relations between the Jews and the Minim were not always hostile.
R. Jannai and R. Jonathan both lived in Sepphoris, and were contemporary with R. Hanina mentioned in the preceding sections. R. Jonathan is the same whom we have already met with as having an un- pleasant adventure with the Minim (see above, p. 215). The Min in the present instance is evidently a Jewish ~ Christian, since no one else (except a Jew) would be interested in the interpretation of the texts about Bethlehem. The importance of these texts was the same both for Jews and for Jewish Christians, since upon them depended the question of the birthplace of the Messiah. The prophecy Mic. v. 1 was inter- preted of the Messiah, as is shown by the Targum on the passage,1 and also by the quotation in Matt. ii. 4-6. It was therefore a difficulty for Jewish Chris- tians as well as for Jews, that the text in 1 Sam. appeared to contradict the prophecy in Micah. That the interpretation of R. Jonathan was contrary to the plain meaning of the text is of small importance.
R. SlMLAI AND THE MlNIM THE DOCTRINE OF TWO POWERS IN HEAVEN
(94) j. Ber., 12d, 13a.— The Minim asked R. Simlai how many gods created the world ? He said to them, Do ye ask me? Go and ask the first man, as it is written [Deut. iv. 32], Ask
1 Targum on Mic. v. 1 :— KTWD p1D> Wp "|3D.
256 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
now of the former days which were before thee, since God created man upon the earth. It is not written here (they) created, but (he) created. They said to him, It is written [Gen. i. 1], In the beginning God created. He said to them, Is it written (they) created ? It is only written (he) created.
R. Simlai said, * In every passage where the Minim go wrong, the answer to them is close
by.'
They (the Minim) returned and asked him, ' What of that which is written [Gen. i. 26], Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' He said to them, * It is not written here [ib. 27], And they created man in their image, but And God created man in his image.' His disciples said to him, 'Rabbi, thou hast driven away these men with a stick. But what dost thou answer to us?' He said to them, ' At the first, Adam was created out of the dust, and Eve was created out of the man. From Adam downwards [it is said] in our image according to our likeness. It is im- possible for man to exist without woman, and it is impossible for woman to exist without man, and it is impossible for both to exist without the Shechinah.'
And they returned and asked him, 'What is that which is written [Josh. xxii. 22], God, God the Lord, God, God the Lord, he knoweth. He said to them, ' It is not written here (they) know, but it is written (he) knoweth.' His disciples said to him, 'Rabbi,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 257
thou hast driven these men away with a stick. But what dost thou answer to us ? ' He said to them, ' The three [names] are the name of one, just as a man says, Basileus, Caesar, Augustus.'
They returned and asked him, 'What is that which is written [Ps. 1. 1], God, God tlte Lord hath spoken and he called the earth.' He said to them, * Is it written here (they) have spoken and have called? It is only written, (he) hath spoken and hath called the earth.' His disciples said to him, 'Rabbi, thou hast driven these men away with a stick. But what dost thou answer to us ? ' He said to them, 'The three [names] are the name of one, just as a man says, labourers, masons, architects.'
They returned and asked him, 'What is that which is written [Josh. xxiv. 19], For he is a holy God' [where the word 'holy' is plural]. He said to them, ' It is written there not they are holy, but he [is holy], (He is a jealous God.)' His disciples said to him, ' Rabbi, thou hast driven these men away with a stick. What dost thou answer to us ? ' R. Jitzhaq said, ' Holy in every form of holiness." For R. Judan said, in the name of R. Aha, ' The way of the holy One, Blessed be He, is in holiness. His word is in holiness, his sitting is in holiness, the baring of his arm is in holiness. He is fearful and mighty in holiness. His ways are in holiness [as it is written, Ps. lxxvii. 13], Thy way, O God, is
17
258 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
in the sanctuary. His footsteps are in holiness [Ps. lxviii. 24], The goings of my King, my God, in the sanctuary. His sitting is in holiness [Ps. xlvii. 8], God sitteth upon the throne oj his holiness. His word is in holiness [Ps. cviii. 7], God hath spoken in his holiness. The baring of his arm is in holiness [Isa. lii. 10], The Lord hath made bare his holy arm. He is fearful and mighty in holiness [Exod. xv. 11], Who is like thee, glorious in holiness [fearful in praise] ?
They returned and asked him, ■ What is that which is written [Deut. iv. 7], For what great nation is there that hath a God, so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God, whensoever we call upon him% ' He said to them, ' It is not written here call upon them, but call upon him.' His disciples said to him, 'Rabbi, thou hast driven away these men with a stick. What dost thou answer to us ? ' He said to them, 1 He is near in every manner of nearness.'
The above passage is contained, with but slight variations, in Ber. r., viii. 9. Parts of it are found in Shem. r., xxix., Debar, r., ii. Commentary. — R. Simlai, of Babylonian origin, lived in Palestine, and for the most part in JLydda. He spent some time, however, in Galilee, where he became the friend and attendant of R. Jannai. He thus belonged to the same circle as the Rabbis men- tioned in the sections immediately preceding the present one. The date of the story may be given as | about the middle of the third century. I am inclined to think that R. Simlai lived in Lydda after his so-
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 259
journ with R. Jannai in Galilee. He is referred to in the Babylonian Gemara, A. Zar. 36% as R. Simlai of Lydda. It seems natural to suppose that he was head of an academy after, and not before, being the disciple and attendant of R. Jannai. But the data for fixing the chronology of his life are scanty and somewhat contradictory (see Bacher., A. d. Pal. Am., i. 552 fol. ; also Gratz, G. d. J., iv. 265).
The long passage translated here contains the fullest account of the discussions between R. Simlai and the Minim. Moreover, as it is given in the Palestinian Gemara, it is the nearest in time to the date when the incidents related took place ; and not only so, but R. Simlai was the associate of the Rabbis who represent the main line of tradition embodied in the Palestinian Gemara. We may therefore infer that the series of dialogues here recorded contains the substance of actual discussions between R. Simlai and the Minim. That is to say, we may be certain that the doctrinal question which forms the basis of all the dialogues was really debated, that the texts quoted were really those used by the Minim, and that the replies of R. Simlai contain the actual arguments used in refutation of the heretical exegesis. It need not be supposed that all the six dialogues took place in immediate succession. This is unlikely, from the fact that some of the answers are mere repetitions. R. Simlai probably had several encounters with the Minim at various times; and the passage before us may be considered as a list of these, arranged accord- ing to the texts made use of. The phrase, 'the Minim returned and asked,' hardly means more than that ■ on another occasion they asked.'
260 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
It will be observed that in every dialogue but the first the disciples of R. Simlai asked him to give them a reply other than that which he had given to the Minim. In each case the curious phrase occurs, 'Rabbi, thou hast driven these men away with a stick.' This appears to mean, ' thou hast put them off with a mere quibble,' instead of dealing seriously with their question. So, at all events, the disciples seem to have intended the phrase. Yet the answers which the Rabbi gave to the Minim were surely more to the point than those which he gave to his disciples. Those who argue from plural nouns are adequately refuted with singular verbs. And it must be remem- bered that the written text of Scripture was, for both parties in the controversy, the final authority. The time is, even now, not so far distant when similar questions were decided by appeal to texts. The intention of the disciples in asking for other explana- tions was perhaps that they wished for an interpreta- tion of the text without reference to its polemical use, an indication of what it did mean rather than of what it did not mean. R. Simlai did not always succeed so well in positive exposition as he did in controver- sial negation. His explanation of the words, let us make man, etc., is no explanation. The words were used before the creation of Adam and Eve, and could not gain their meaning from what was only possible after that event. If this be dismissed as absurd, then the alternative seems to be that R. Simlai regarded the account of the creation in Gen. ii. as a record of events prior to those related in Gen. i., so that Adam and Eve were already in existence when God said, Let us make man, etc. I suspect that R. Simlai was
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 261
quite unable to explain the use of the plural in let us inake man, etc., and escaped from the difficulty by a piece of haggadah, striking but irrelevant.
His answers to the argument from the triple de- signation of God are reasonable enough. It is curious that the interpretation of the phrase con- cerning the holiness of God is ascribed, not to R. Simlai, but to R. Jitzhaq, a younger contemporary, and not impossibly one of R. Simlai's own disciples. It is nowhere said indeed, so far as I know, that there was this relationship between the older and the younger man ; but it is noteworthy that, in the last of his explanations, R. Simlai uses the same idea as that which R. Jitzhaq had used in reference to 4 holiness,' a fact which would seem to suggest that R. Simlai took up the idea, on hearing his disciple expound it, having himself been unable to explain the text to which Jitzhaq applied it. If this be thought to be too far-fetched, then the con- clusion is that R. Simlai's own explanation had been forgotten, or that he never gave one, and that the compilers of the Gemara inserted the later explana- tion of R. Jitzhaq in this appropriate place.
The question, so often asked in preceding sections, Who are the Minim referred to in the passage? is of special importance here, because the controversy recorded turns upon a great theological subject. It is known, and frequently referred to in the rab- binical literature, as the doctrine of 'Two Powers in Heaven.' And as the present passage is the longest which treats of that subject, here will be the best place to discuss it. Other passages having reference to this doctrine will be given later, and
262 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
mention has already been made of it. But it will be convenient to inquire here, once for all, what is the doctrinal implication of the phrase, ' Two Powers in Heaven.' We shall then have a means of deciding in other passages, as well as in the present one, Who were the Minim who held the doctrine ?
The phrase itself, ' Two Powers in Heaven,' occurs in Siphri, § 329, p. 139b. More often it occurs in the shorter form ' two powers,' as in Mechilta 66b, and elsewhere. But in every case it is implied that the two powers are supposed to be in heaven. It is evident, therefore, that the doctrine referred to is not that of a dualism consisting of a good and an evil power, hostile to one another. The doctrine of the Two Powers cannot be that of the Persian, or the Manichgean dualism ; because, according to those systems, the evil power certainly did not work in conjunction with the good power in the creation of the world or in anything else. The Persian dualism, comprising Ahuramazda and Ahriman, is referred to in the Talmud, in a polemical discussion, b. Sanh. 38b, and it is worth notice that the opponent of the Jew is there called a Magus and not a Min. There are, it is true, instances where the term Min is used, and where a Persian is almost certainly intended (see b. Ber. 58a), but this does not occur in reference to the doctrine of the Two Powers.
The various Gnostic systems maintained a dualism, or rather a plurality, of superhuman Powers ; and the Jews of Palestine were more likely to come into contact and collision with Gnostics than with the adherents of the forms of religion just mentioned. Is the doctrine of the Two Powers, then, a Gnostic
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 263
doctrine? It was one of the main tenets of most Gnostic systems that the world was created by the Demiurgus, an inferior God, regarded as an emana- tion from the supreme Deity, and far removed from him. The Demiurgus was, by some Gnostics, identified with the God of the Jews; and the superiority of Christianity over Judaism was ex- plained by saying that the latter was the religion whose object of worship was the Demiurgus, while the former was the revelation, through Christ, of the supreme God. Neither Christ, nor the supreme God, according to Gnostic teaching, had any share in creating the world. Christ certainly not; and the supreme God only so far as he willed it, and dele- gated the task to the inferior being, the Demiurgus. The whole point of the Gnostic doctrine was that the supreme God should be thought to have no immediate contact with the world of matter.
Now the doctrine of the Two Powers in Heaven, which is ascribed in the Talmud and the Midrash to the Minim, is almost always mentioned in con- nexion with the creation of the world. And the texts which are urged against it are such as to show that not only did the supreme God himself create the world, but that he did so alone, without any associate. And the refutation is always directed especially to the second point. The Gnostics cer- tainly did not teach that creation was the work of the supreme God ; but equally they did not teach that it was the work of two deities acting together. Hence it would seem that the doctrine of the Two Powers is not a Gnostic doctrine; and the only exception is perhaps this, that where the two powers
264 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
are referred to in connexion with some other subject than the creation of the world, there may be — I do not say there is — a reference to Gnosticism.
There remains the question whether the doctrine of the ' Two Powers in Heaven,' associated in creation, was a Christian doctrine? And in answering that question it must be borne in mind that we are not at liberty to range through all the various forms of Christianity taught in the first three centuries, but must confine our attention to those which may reasonably be supposed to have been familiar to the Christians of Palestine. Now a doctrine of two powers in heaven, associated in creation, is clearly taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The opening words of that epistle are (Heb. i. 1) : God .... hath, at the end of these days, spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. Whatever may be the precise meaning of ' worlds ' (alwvas), it certainly includes that of the world of which God, according to the O.T., was the creator. The relation of Christ to God in the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews was quite different from that of the Demiurgus to God, in the Gnostic systems. And the difference consists in the fact that the Demi- urgus was placed as far off from God as was con- sistent with his retaining a spiritual nature, while Christ was regarded, in the epistle, as in closest possible union with God, short of actual identity of person or complete equality of rank. The theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews might, from the Jewish point of view, be naturally described as a doctrine of Two Powers in Heaven, or even as a
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 265
doctrine of two Gods. The same might be said of the purely Pauline and the Johannine theologies, from the Jewish point of view. It is therefore evident that the doctrine of Two Powers, which is ascribed to the Minim in the Talmud, is a Christian doctrine.1
Of the three types of Christian theology just mentioned, the one most likely to be found amongst the Christians with whom the Jews of Palestine came into contact, is, beyond question, that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whatever may be the place of origin, or the destination of that Epistle, it was addressed to Jewish Christians ; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that it would become generally known amongst Jewish Christians where- ever they might be, whether in Rome or in Palestine. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was known, not merely to the Jewish Christians of Palestine, but to the Rabbis, is indicated by a polemical reference (b. Nedar. 32b) to the priesthood of Melchizedek, upon which is founded one of the characteristic doctrines of the Epistle to the Hebrews. [The passage will be translated (139) and explained below, see p. 338.] This polemical reference was made by R. Ishmael, whom we have already met with several times as an opponent of Minim [see above, pp. 105, 130, 156], and dates from the early years of the second century.
We may, therefore, conclude that the theology of
1 This is shown clearly by a passage (95) in Pesiqta. r., ixi. pp. 100b, 101% "If the son of the harlot [i.e. Jesus] say to thee, ' There are two gods,' say to him, * I am He of the Red Sea, I am He of Sinai ' " [i.e. there are not two gods but one], A few lines further down, the same argument is met by the text, ' God spoke ' [sing, not plur.]. See below, p. 304.
266 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
the Epistle to the Hebrews was known to, and accepted by, the Jewish Christians of Palestine early in the second century, and that the doctrine of the Two Powers in Heaven is the Jewish description of the doctrine of that Epistle, concerning the relation of Christ to God. Whether all Jewish Christians, in Palestine or elsewhere, adopted the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, must remain an open question. It is quite likely that some of them adhered to the primitive doctrine as to the person of Jesus, which did not in any way trench upon the Jewish conception of the Unity of God. There were certainly different sects or parties amongst the Jewish Christians, as is shown by the names Ebionite and Nazarene. And it is possible that the former term denoted those who did not accept the Christ- ology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The solution of this question I leave to New Testament scholars.
As regards the main subject of this book, it may now be taken that the term Minim includes Jewish Christians holding a theology similar to that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the concluding division of this work I shall endeavour to place this fact in its proper relation to the general history of the Jewish Christians.
R. Abahu, R. Saphra, and the Minim.
(96) b. A. Zar. 4a.— R. Abahu commended R. Saphra to the Minim as being a great man. They remitted to him thirteen years' tolls. One day they found him. They said to him, 6 It is written [Amos iii. 2], You only have I
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 267
known, of all the families of the earth, therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. One that hath anger, would he vent it against his friend ? ' He was silent, and said to them nothing at all. They put a towel over his head and railed at him. R. Abahu came and found them. He said to them, ' Why do ye rail at him ? ' They said to him, ' And didst not thou tell us that he was a great man? Yet he does not know how to tell us the explanation of this text.' He said to them, 'I said this to you of him as a Talmudist. Did I ever say so of him as a Scripture- teacher?' They said to him, 'Why are ye different, and know [how to explain scrip- tures]?' He said to them, 'We, who live in your midst, give our minds to it and examine [the scriptures]. They [i.e. the Babylonians] do not examine them.' They said to him, 'Do thou tell us.' He said to them, 'I will make a parable of what the thing is like. [It is like] a man who lends to two men, one his friend and the other his enemy. He recovers [payment] from his friend little by little, but from his enemy all at once.' Commentary. — The date of this very curious incident is the beginning of the fourth century. R. Abahu, already mentioned, was the disciple of R. Johanan, and lived in Caesarea. R. Saphra was a Babylonian, on a visit to Palestine, and is well known, though not prominent, in the history of the Talmudic tradition. No doubt was ever expressed of his entire
268 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
i
loyalty to the Jewish religion. Yet here we find
him, and that, too, on the recommendation of It.
Abahu, accepted by the Minim as a teacher. From
the fact that they remitted to him thirteen years' tolls,
it would seem that they engaged him as their teacher,
offering him at least an honorarium if not a salary.
This fact is important for the history of the Minim,
as bearing on their relation to Judaism. There is, so
far as I know, nothing in the scanty notices of R.
Saphra, to be found elsewhere in the Talmud, that
throws any light upon the incident here related. He
was held in high esteem in Babylonia, where it was
triumphantly reported (b. Gitt. 29b) that he had, in
a judicial decision, proved three ordained Rabbis of
Palestine to be in error. He was intimate with
Abahu, and it is perhaps worthy of note that it was
he who reported in Babylonia, on the authority of
Abahu, the account of the abortive schism of
Hananjah, nephew of R. Jehoshua, concerning whom
the allegation of Minuth had been made (see above,
p. 211). It does not appear, however, that R. Saphra
knew anything of the story about Hananjah's
adventure with the Minim of Capernaum. There
is something so strange in the assertion that a Rabbi
so well known as Saphra should become a teacher
amongst the Minin, that one is inclined to suspect a
confusion between the well-known Saphra and some
obscure man of the same name. But there is no
evidence for this. Abahu speaks of Saphra as a great
man, and a Babylonian. And there is no hint of any
other being intended than the R. Saphra elsewhere
mentioned, who, moreover, is known to have been an
associate of Abahu. There is no ground whatever for
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 269
dismissing the story as a fiction. The time in which Abahu lived was not so remote but that the traditions of his school were well known when the Babylonian Gemara was compiled; The incident under discussion would not be less strange even if the Rabbi concerned were not the well-known Saphra. What is remarkable is that any Rabbi should have become a teacher amongst the Minim. And if such an occurrence had never been known, it is not likely to have been invented. If it had been invented, and related by way of a jest against R. Saphra, the story would have done more justice to the jest and not have mentioned the alleged fact as a mere matter of course.
Bacher (A. d. Pal. Am., ii. 96 f.) suggests that R. Saphra was engaged by the Minim not as a teacher but as an assistant in collecting the Imperial revenue, which they farmed. This is on the strength of the phrase, " remitted to him thirteen years' tolls." But this suggestion, even if it be deemed a fair inference from the phrase just quoted, does not solve the difficulty. For the Minim were annoyed with him on account of his ignorance of Scripture, not of his blundering in finance. If they had engaged him as an accountant, they could not have charged Abahu with having given a misleading recommendation, when R. Saphra failed as an interpreter of Scripture. It is possible that the collection of the tolls in Csesarea was in the hands of a Christian ; but it is not clear what is meant by the remission of * thirteen years' tolls.' All that can be said is that the Minim made some sort of a present to R. Saphra, in return for the benefit which they hoped to derive from his services.
270 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
I see no alternative but to accept the story as showing that the relations between the Minim and the Jews, at all events in the beginning of the fourth century, were not always hostile. That the Minim here mentioned were Jewish Christians, and of a strongly Jewish type, is evident from the fact that a Jewish Rabbi of unquestioned orthodoxy could be acceptable to them. That they were heretics is plain from Abahu's answer to them. The story itself needs little further explanation. The Minim were dissatisfied with their new teacher, and asked R. Abahu why it was that the stranger could not explain the Scriptures, while Abahu and the Jews of Csesarea were able to do so. The answer was that the necessity of refuting the Minim in controversy made them study the Scriptures very closely. The Babylonian Jews, who did not encounter Minim, had no inducement to such close study. This is of some importance as showing that the Minim were confined to Palestine, or, at least, were not numerous elsewhere.
R. Abahu, at the request of the Minim, gave his own interpretation of the text (Amos iii. 2) in the form of a parable. The Jews, being favoured by God, received the punishment of their sins by instalments, so that they might not be too severely dealt with. The other nations will receive their punishment once for all and will suffer in proportion.
R. Abahu and the Epiqurosin. Enoch
(97) Ber. r., xxv. 1, p. 55°. — The Epiqurosin asked R. Abahu, they said to him, ' We do not find death in the case of Enoch.' He said to them,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 271
1 Why ? ' They said to him, ' There is men- tion here [Gen. v. 24] of "taking," and there is mention elsewhere [2 Kings ii. 5], to-day the Lord taketh away thy master from thy head,' He said to them, ' If ye are arguing from the idea of "taking," there is mention here of " taking," and there is mention elsewhere [Ezek. xxiv. 16], BeJiold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes.'' R. Tanhuma said, *R. Abahu has answered them well/ Commentary. — The Epiqurosin, here mentioned, are no doubt the same as the Minim. Bacher (A. d. Pal. Am., ii. 115 n. 4) gives * Minim,' but does not mention the edition of the Ber. r. from which he quotes.
The point of the dialogue is obvious. The Minim seem to have wished to show that Enoch was a type of Jesus, as regards his ascension into heaven. In support of their contention, that the words (Gen. v. 24), and God took him, did not imply death, they quoted 2 Kings ii. 5, where the same word is used of Elijah on his ascent into heaven. R. Abahu refuted the argument by giving an instance (Ezek xxiv. 16) where the use of the word clearly implied death. It is true that there is here no direct allusion to Jesus, but unless such an allusion was intended there would seem to be no reason why the Minim should contend that Enoch did not die, nor why R. Abahu should have refuted their contention. At the same time, it is not easy to see why Elijah should not have served as the type of Jesus, since even Abahu admitted the fact that he did not die and that he did ascend to heaven. I leave it to those who are familiar with
272 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
the early Christian writings to say whether Enoch is ever regarded as a type of Jesus in reference to his ascension. In Ep. Hebr. xi. 5, a writing which was, as we have seen, known to the Minim (above, p. 265), Enoch is mentioned, but only as an instance of faith. It is there stated, however, that Enoch did not die. It is possible that in the dialogue before us there is no reference to Jesus, but merely a defence of a Christian text against a Hebrew one.1
R. Tanhuma, who is reported to have approved the answer of Abahu, lived in Palestine in the fourth century, and had, himself, an adventure with the Minim (see below, p. 282).
It. Abahu and a Min. Anachronism in Scripture
(98) b. Ber. 10a. — A certain Min said to R. Abahu, ' It is written [Ps. iii. 1], Psalm of David, when he fled before Absalom his son. And it is written [Ps. lvii. 1], Of David; Michtam, when he fled before Saul, in the cave. Was the incident [of Absalom] first? Yet since the incident of Saul was first, it ought to have been written first.' He said to him, 'To you, who do not interpret "contexts," there is a difficulty ; to us, who do interpret " contexts," there is no difficulty.'
1 It is worth notice that the LXX., in Gen. v. 24, render npb (took) by /x€T€0tj/c6, 'translated,' and that the latter word is used in Heb. xi. 5. Both R Abahu and the Minim understood Greek ; and thus the discussion may have turned on the question whether the Hebrew word was correctly rendered in the text in the Ep. to the Hebrews.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 273
Commentary. — Rabbinowicz (D. Soph, ad loc.) gives a variant according to which the question of the Min is :onp ^ikbh pibwd ik nnp ubtr&n nvvo cnp irw» vt This is the reading of the Munich MS. I do not adopt it, however, because it appears to be intended as a gloss, in explanation of the question of the Min. The reading of the Agadath ha-Talmud, also quoted by Rabbinowicz, is :*ma fcitn nvyn nA kb»-q mn nt?yD *n, which seems to confirm the reading of the printed text. The difficulty raised by the Min is obvious ; the Psalm which refers to the earlier event comes after that which refers to the later one. R. Abahu replied that the difficulty was only felt by those who did not interpret 'contexts.' He meant that there were reasons, apart from succession or priority in time, why the Scripture mentions one event in connexion with another. The Scriptures were regarded as con- taining the whole of revealed truth, and therefore as being much more than a mere historical record. Re- ligious and moral lessons were taught in it, for the sake of which historical consistency was disregarded. The principle of deduction from 'contexts,' pioo to which R. Abahu referred, was followed in the Rabbinical schools long before his time. R. Eliezer, in the first century, made use of it, as did also R. El'azar ben Azariah, his younger contemporary. R. Aqiba appears to have been the first to formulate the principle into a canon of interpretation, in the form ruo»n msh rvronb hdiod pnv mrm ^d, i.e. ' every section is explained by the one that stands next to it' (Siphri, on Num. xxv. 1, § 131, p. 47a). In the third century, R. El'azar ben Pedath gave a Scripture proof of the principle, or at least warrant for it, from
18
274 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Ps. cxi. 8, They are established (d'oidd) for ever and ever, i.e, ' The d^didd are for ever and ever ' ; they are eternally true. This dictum of R. El'azar ben Pedath is mentioned in the Gemara, immediately after the answer of R. Abahu to the Min. The printed text wrongly ascribes it to R. Johanan. Rabbinowicz shows, on the authority of the Munich MS., that the true reading is 'El'azar.' R. Abahu did not explain to the Min how he would apply the principle in the case of the two texts quoted. The illustration given in the Gemara, in connexion with the saying of R. El'azar, refers to a different pair of texts. That the Minim did not follow this prin- ciple in their interpretation of Scripture is evident, not merely from R. Abahu's statement, but from the fact that, as he pointed out, the difficulty would not have been felt by them if they had followed the principle.
R. Abahu and a Min. The Souls of the Departed
(99) b. Shabb. 152b.— A certain Min said to R. Abahu, 'Ye say that the souls of the right- eous are stored up under the Throne of Glory. How did the necromancer call up Samuel by witchcraft?' [1 Sam. xxviii. 12]. He said to him, 'That happened within twelve months [from death]. For it is tradition, that during twelve months a man's body remains, and his soul goes up and comes down; after twelve months the body perishes, and his soul goes up and does not come down again.'
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 275
Commentary, — It will be noticed that in the pre- ceding passage, as well as in the present one, there is no polemical intention in the question of the Minim to R. Abahu, but only a desire for instruction. This helps to make clearer such a friendly attitude of both parties to each other as is implied in the story of R. Saphra already discussed (see above, p. 266). On the other hand, the passage does not throw any light upon the theology of the Min ; the question is not in itself heretical, but merely an inquiry by one who was a heretic.
R. Abahu and a Min. God a Jester ; God a Priest
(100) b. Sanh. 39d.— A certain Min said to R. Abahu, ' Your God is a jester, for he said to Ezekiel [Ezek. iv. 4], Lie upon thy left side, and it is written [ib.9 6], and thou shalt lie on thy right side.' There came a certain disciple and said to him [Abahu], ■ What is the mean- ing of the Sabbath-year ? ' He said, ' I will say to you a word which will answer both of you. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel [Exod. xxiii. 10, 11], Sow six years, and refrain the seventh, that ye may know that the land is mine.' But they did not do so, but sinned, and were carried away captive. It is the custom of the world that a king of flesh and blood, against whom a city is re- bellious, if he is cruel will slay all the people, if he is merciful he will slay half, and if he is full of mercy he chastises the great ones among
276 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
them with chastisement. Thus did the Holy One, Blessed be He, chastise Ezekiel, that he might wipe away the sins of Israel.'
A certain Min said to R. Abahu, 'Your God is a priest, for it is written [Exod. xxv. 2], That they take for me a heave-offering. When he buried Moses, wherewith did he purify [bathe] himself? If you say, 'with water,' then see what is written [Isa. xl. 12], Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand' He said to him, ' With fire did he purify himself, as it is written [Isa. lxvi. 15], For behold the Lord will come with fire' [He said], 'Does then purification by fire avail ? ' He said, ' The very essence of puri- fication is in fire, as it is written [Num. xxxi. 23], All that abideth not the fire, thou shalt make to pass through the water' Commentary. — There is little to be said upon these two anecdotes. The questions contain nothing characteristic of Minuth, and only serve to illustrate the relations between It. Abahu and the Minim. They occur in the middle of a long passage, contain- ing many references to Minuth, and several instances of dialogues between Jewish Rabbis and Minim. These have been, or will be, dealt with in connexion with the several Rabbis mentioned.
R. Abahu and a Min. The Coming of the Messiah
(101) b. Sanh. 99a. — And this is what a certai Min said to R. Abahu, ' When will the Messial
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 277
come ? ' He said to him, ' When darkness hath covered these men [i.e. covered you].' He said, ' Thou art cursing me ! ' He said, • The text is written [Isa. lx. 2], For behold darkness shall cover the earth and gross dark- ness the people ; but the Lord shall arise upon thee and his glory shall be seen upon thee' Commentary. — The reference in the opening words is to an anonymous parable of a cock and a bat who were waiting for the dawn. The cock said to the bat, I am waiting for the light, for the light is mine ; but what have you to do with light ? In other words, none but Jews have any concern with the coming of the Messiah. This, says the Gemara, is the point of the answer, made by R. Abahu to a certain Min, etc., and then follows the above passage. The only interest in it is that it is, so far as I know, the only passage where a Min refers to the Messiah. If the Minim are, or include Jewish Christians, one would naturally expect that the alleged Messiahship of Jesus would be a subject of controversy. This, however, is not the case ; and the fact might be used as an argument in support of the theory that the Minim are not Christians. In the present instance the Min can hardly have been a Jewish Christian, because Abahu by his answer implies that he is a Gentile. But the incident is too slight to serve as the foundation for any argument.
R. Abahu and a Min (Sason)
(102) b. Succ. 48b. — A certain Min, whose name was Sason, said to R. Abahu, Ye will draw
278 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
water for me, in the world to come, for it is written [Isa. xii. 3], With joy [sason] shall ye draw water, etc. He said to him, ■ If it were written for joy, it would be as you say. But . it is written, with joy [with sason] ; we shall make a waterskin of the skin of this man [i.e. of your skin], and draw water from it.' Commentary. — This is only a piece of witty repartee and needs no comment. The name Sason occurs elsewhere ; there was a Rabbi 'Anani bar Sason, as Bacher points out, who appears to have been a contemporary of R. Abahu. There is nothing to imply that Sason was a Min, beyond the mere state- ment of the text.
This concludes the series of dialogues in which R. Abahu was concerned. Several are of but small im- portance, and are only given here for the sake of completeness. It is my endeavour to present to the reader every passage in the Talmud in which Minim and Minuth are referred to.
R. Ami and a Min. The Resurrection of the Dead
(103) b. Sanh. 91a. — A certain Min said to R. Ami, • Ye say that the dead live. But, lo, they are dust ; and how shall dust live ? ' He said to him, ' I will tell thee a parable. Unto what is the thing like ? Unto a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants, Go, build for me a great palace in a place where there is neither water nor dust. They went and built it. After a time it fell. He said, Build
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 279
it again, in a place where there is dust and water. They said to him, We cannot. He was angry with them, and said to them, Ye have built it in a place where there was neither water nor dust; how much more in a place where there is water and dust.
6 But, if thou dost not believe [that dust can live], go into the valley and see the mouse, which to-day is half flesh and half earth, and to-morrow has crept out and is become alto- gether flesh. And, lest thou say, This is through length of time, go to the hill and see that to-day there is but one snail ; to-morrow the rains have fallen, and the place is filled with snails.' Commentary. — R. Ami was a disciple of R. Johanan, and thus a contemporary of R. Abahu. The Min would seem to have been an unbeliever in resur- rection altogether. If so, of course, he cannot have been a Jewish Christian. The argument of the Minim against the resurrection was usually a denial that the doctrine could be proved from the Torah. This appears from the passage already quoted (see above, p. 232), where Rn. Gamliel tries to refute their argument. The Mishnah at the head of this section of Sanhedrin is the famous one [M. Sanh. x. 1], already several times mentioned, which enumerates those who have no portion in the world to come. Amongst others, it specifies those who say that there is no resurrection from the dead. The common text adds the words, nroim p, f according to the Torah ' ; but Rabbinowicz, on the passage, shows that these words are an interpolation. This is confirmed by the
280 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Tosephta (T. Sanh. xiii. 5), which condemns "those who lie concerning the resurrection of the dead," but does not allude to a denial of scripture proof for the doctrine. The words interpolated are probably from the Gemara, a few lines further down (p. 90b), where the question is raised 'what is the proof of the resurrection according to the Torah ? ' The scripture proof of the doctrine is merely a special branch of the general subject. Accordingly, the Gemara, here and elsewhere, deals with the subject, sometimes in reference to the general, sometimes to the special question. The Minim ask Rn. Gamliel for a proof of the resurrection of the dead, and he gives them texts from Scripture (see above, p. 231, No. 85). A few lines further down, on the same page of Sanhedrin, the ' Romans ' ask R Jehoshua b. Hananjah the same question, and he also answers them by quoting texts. Then follows a passage in which, according to the received text, it is alleged that the ' Books of the Minim ' contain denials of the scripture proof of the doctrine of resurrection. But the correct reading is not Minim, but Cuthim (Samaritans), as is shown by the parallel passages, Siphri, p. 33b, cp. 87% also by the MS. authority cited by Rabbinowicz. On the last line of p. 90b of Sanhedrin is a passage in which an Emperor (io>p)9 puts to Rn. Gamliel the very same question which the Min puts to R. Ami in the passage at present under consideration. The answer is different in the two cases, but in both it is addressed to an opponent who denies the doctrine of resurrection in general, not merely the scripture proof of it. The denial is natural enough coming from a heathen emperor (presumably Hadrian). But I do not know
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 281
what class of heretic — Min — denied that doctrine. In the time when R. Ami lived, the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century, there were no Sadducees. The denial of the resurrection of the dead was not a Gnostic tenet.1 I am inclined to think that the opponent of R. Ami was really a heathen, incorrectly or inadvertently called a Min in the Gemara.
The passage is evidently introduced merely for the sake of R. Ami's answer. His parable of the building of the palace is easily explained. If God could form man out of nothing, much more could he form again a living being out of dust. The Rabbi's curious illustrations from the natural history of the mouse and the snail rest upon what in his time were accepted facts.
Gebiha B. Pesisa and a Min. The Resurrection of the Dead
(104) b. Sanh. 91a. — A certain Min said to Gebiha ben Pesisa, ' Woe to you guilty who say that the dead live. If the living die, how shall the dead live ? ' He said, ' Woe to you guilty who say that the dead do not live. If those who were not, live, those who have been, live all the more.' He said to him, ' Thou callest me guilty. Suppose I prove it by kicking thee and tearing thy scalp from thee.' He said, 'If thou doest thus, thou shalt be called a faithful physician, and shalt receive a great reward.'
1 The resurrection of the body, however, was denied by the Gnostics.
282 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Commentary. — This passage follows immediately after the one about R. Ami, just translated. I have included it here, because it deals with the same sub- ject, not because it belongs chronologically to this place. Gebiha ben Pesisa is a legendary character, traditionally contemporary with Alexander the Great. Two anecdotes are given on the same page of Sanhedrin, describing how Geb. b. Pesisa acted as advocate for the Jews before Alexander the Great. I can throw no light upon him. The repartee about the resurrection of the dead was connected with his name, and for that reason presumably he is mentioned by the compiler of the Gemara immediately after R. Ami.
The meaning of his further answer to the threat of violence is, that if the Min killed him, he would confer immortality and thus prove himself a great physician by giving life by means of death. A rather dangerous doctrine for physicians.
R. Tanhuma, Caesar and a Min. All one People
(105) b. Sanh. 39a. — Csesar said to R. Tanhuma, 1 Come, let us all be one people.' He said, ' So be it. But we, who circumcise ourselves, cannot become like you. Do ye circumcise yourselves and become like us.' He said to him, 'Thou hast spoken well. Nevertheless, everyone who prevails over a king, they cast him into the vivarium' They cast him into the vivarium, but [the beast] did not eat him. A certain Min said to him (Caesar), ' The
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 283
reason why [the beast] did not eat him is that it was not hungry.' They cast him [the Min] [into the vivarium] and [the beast] ate him. Commentary. — R. Tanhuma lived in Palestine, in the generation after R. Abahu, thus about the middle of the fourth century. Bacher (A. d. Pal. Am., hi. 467) admits that this anecdote rests upon a historical event, and supposes that the emperor referred to must have been a Christian. The emperors con- temporary with R. Tanhuma were, with one notable exception, Christians. That exception was Julian the Apostate (a.d. 361-363), and I suggest that the Emperor in the story is intended for Julian, rather than for one of the Christian emperors. It is true that Julian is nowhere mentioned by name in the Talmud (unless the reading mho DU&&, j. Ned. 37d, be preferred to the reading » Ptttyfrpn in the parallel passage, j. Shebhu. 34d). There is, however, no a priori reason why he should be entirely ignored, at all events in the Babylonian Gemara. It is known that Julian was disposed to be friendly towards the Jews, even to the extent of offering to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. His friendship was, no doubt, influ- enced in part by his dislike of the Christians, in part, perhaps, also by his desire to have the Jews on his side in his contemplated war with Persia. No Christian emperor would be described as suggesting to a Jew, in a friendly conference, that he and his countrymen should forsake their religion and become one people with their sovereign. There is extant a letter to the Jews in which Julian speaks of his desire to see their holy city rebuilt, and to join with them in offering praise there to the All-Good (/cat «/ avrfi Sd£w S(oao>
284 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
jxeff vfxcjp to* KpeLTTovi, cited by Gratz, iv. n. 34). This hope was never realised, and the projected re- building of the Temple was abandoned. The Jews do not appear to have been greatly in favour of the project, perhaps because it was due to a pagan emperor in the interests of pagan rather than of Jewish religion.
The story before us seems to reflect such a relation between the emperor and the Jews. Julian actually was in Antioch in the year 362 ; and R. Tanhuma, though not the Nasi, was one of the few eminent representatives of his people in Palestine. He was therefore a likely personage for the emperor to con- verse with if he held any intercourse with Jews, as he certainly did. I do not mean to suggest that the story refers to anything so definite as the project of rebuilding the Temple, only that it describes an incident made possible by such an intention on the part of Julian. If this be so, then the reply of the Rabbi would reflect the view which the Jews took of the overtures of a heathen emperor, viz., that they would not purchase his friendship at the cost of their religion, even for the sake of seeing their Temple rebuilt. The emperor would naturally be mortified at such a rebuff; but it is in keeping with the character of Julian, the philosopher, that he should have admitted the force of the Rabbi's argument, while punishing him for his rashness in opposing the imperial will. The story goes on to say that the Rabbi was cast into the vivarium,1 to be devoured by a
1 Vivarium ; this is evidently the equivalent of "Q'Q, although vivarium in classical Latin does not mean a den of wild beasts, such as is clearly implied in the story.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 285
wild beast, and that for some reason the beast would not touch him. Amongst the bystanders was a Min, who explained the reason of the Rabbi's safety by the suggestion that the beast was not hungry. Whereupon he was sent to prove the worth of his own suggestion by being himself cast into the den, where he was immediately devoured. If the Min were a Christian, it is conceivable that Julian should have so dealt with him ; or, if not that, it is not unnatural that the author of the story should have so expressed his own dislike of the Christians under cover of the known antipathy towards them of Julian. This anecdote does not, of course, throw much light, if any, upon the general subject of the Minim ; but, if the suggestion made above be warranted, it is at least interesting as affording a glimpse into a period of Jewish history concerning which the Rabbinical literature is almost silent.
R. Idi and a Min : MetatrOn
(106) b. Sanh. 38b.— R. Nahman said, 'He who knows how to answer the Minim like R. Idi, let him answer; if not, let him not answer.' A certain Min said to R. Idi, ' It is written [Exod. xxiv. 1], And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord. He ought to have said, Come up unto me.' He [R. Idi] said, 1 This is Metatron, whose name is as the name of his Master. For it is written [Exod. xxiii. 21], For my name is in him.' ' If so, worship him.' ■ It is written \ibid.\ Provoke him not [i.e. Do not mistake him for me].' ■ If so,
286 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
what have I to do with [ibid.'] he will not pardon thy transgressions ? ' He [R. Idi] said to him, ■ Be sure of this, that even as a guide we would not receive him ; for it is written [Exod. xxxiii. 15], If thy presence go not [with us, carry us not up hencey Commentary. — Rab Idi1 is classed by Bacher (A. d. P. A., iii. 704) amongst the Palestinian Amoras of the fourth century, though without any indication of the place where he lived. R. Nahman, who refers to him, is R. Nahman bar Jitzhaq, a Baby- lonian, president of the College at Pumbeditha, who died a.d. 356. R. Idi appears to have travelled in Babylonia, and may there have met with R. Nahman. His dispute with the Min probably took place in Palestine, as it is said, b. Hull. 13a, that there are no Minim amongst the Gentiles, and b. Pesah., 56h9 that there are no Minim in Nehardea.
The dialogue between R. Idi and the Min belongs, in any case, to the fourth century. Friedlander, in his work der Vorchristliche judiscJie Grnosticismus, p. 103 fol., makes some use of the passage before us, and begins by transferring it to the Tannaite period, thus ante- dating it by nearly two hundred years ! In accordance with his theory, he regards the Min as a Gnostic, on the strength of the identification which he proposes between ' Metatron ' and the Gnostic ' Horos ' ("Opos, Metator). But he overlooks the fact that it is the Jew, and not the Min, who mentions Metatron. And the Rabbi's argument surely is that the Min is
1 'Idi' is the correct reading. The form 'Idith,' as in the text, occurs only here, and the evidence of the authorities quoted by Rabbinowicz shows that even here the name should be read ' Idi.'
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 287
wrong in hinting at a second God, because the reference is to Metatron, and not to a second God. If the Min was a Gnostic, and if Metatron were identical with Horos, then the Rabbi would merely have been playing into the hands of the Min.
The point in dispute is the doctrine of the Two Powers in Heaven, which we have already met with in other polemical discussions (see above, p. 262 fol.). The Min quoted a text, which appeared to imply the existence of more than one divine being, And he said unto Moses, come up unto tJie Lord. If it were God himself speaking, then He ought to have said, Coine up unto me. Who was it to whom Moses was told to go up ? The Jew was ready with his answer. The reference was to Metatron, a recognised personage in the Rabbinical theology, where he always appears as the chief of the angels, nearest to God but subject to God, acting as his messenger and representative, but never regarded as being in any sense himself God. Metatron is so far from being identical with the Logos of the Jewish Alex- andrine philosophy, or with the Horos of Gnosticism, that he may be regarded as the expression of the Rabbinical rejection of those conceptions. In other words, the doctrine of Metatron is the reply of the Rabbinical theology to the doctrine of the Logos and to the Gnostic systems. No doubt there is common to all three conceptions the idea of a delega- tion of divine power ; but, in the case of Metatron, the line is sharply drawn between sen ant and Master, creature and Creator. This is shown, in a curious way, in a passage (107) [b. Hag. 15a], which describes how Elisha ben Abujah entered
288 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Paradise, and there " saw Metatron, to whom was given power to sit and write down the merits of Israel. He [Elisha b. A.] said, ' It is taught that on high there is no sitting, no strife, no parting and no joining. Can there be, heaven forbid, two powers ? ' They brought out Metatron and gave him sixty lashes of fire" This was done, as Tosaphoth rightly explains, to show that Metatron was not superior in kind to the other angels, however much he might be in degree. Friedlander, in the work already referred to (Vorchr. jud. Gnosticismus, 102), quotes, or rather paraphrases, this passage ; " Bei seinem Eindringen in das Paradies sah Acher [El. b. Abujah], wie berichtet wird, zu seinem schrecken eine zweite Gottheit im Himmel, den Metatron." Friedlander, however, does not mention the concluding words, translated above, which expressly contradict the assertion that Metatron was a second God. Elisha ben Abujah may have believed that Metatron was such ; but the Talmud stamps that belief as a heresy. And it is quite clear that the Rabbinical theology recognised Metatron, while it certainly did not admit the Gnostic conception with which Friedlander would identify Metatron.
I now return to the dialogue between R. Idi and the Min. The former has explained that the reference|in the text quoted by the latter, Come up unto the Lord, is to Metatron, for his name is as the name of his^Master, as it is written [Exod. xxiii. 21], For my name is in Him. The Min rejoins, ' Then why do you not worship him?' If, that is, the name and by implication the power of God is com- mitted^ Metatron, why should he not be worshipped \
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 289
A question very much to the point, if the Min, as sug- gested above (p. 265 fol.), be a Jewish Christian whose theology was that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Jew meets the argument by a rather strained interpretation of the text : Provoke him not. The word translated ' provoke ' he derives from another root, meaning • to change ' ; and he translates, * Do not mistake him for me.' His object is to emphasise, as much as possible, the intrinsic difference between God and the inferior being (Metatron), which was already clearly marked in the original text. The Min replies that if there be such a marked difference between the two, why is it said he will not pardon your sins ? Does not this imply that he, of whom this is said, has power to pardon or withhold pardon ? And if so, can he be only a subordinate, to whom worship must not be offered ? The answer of the Rabbi is rather obscure, ' Be assured of this, that even as a guide we would not receive him, for it is written, If thy presence go not with us, carry us not up hence.' The connexion of this with the argument of the Min is suggested by the remark of Rashi, in his commentary on the verse in Exodus, that it was not the function of the angel to pardon sins ; he was to be a guide, and nothing more. He will not pardon your sins, because that is out of his depart- ment. The Rabbi seems to have interpreted the words in a similar way. Metatron was sent as a guide, with no power to pardon sins. 'But even as a guide,' he goes on, ' we would not receive him.' The promised guide, to whom the words in Exod. xxiii. refer, was never sent. For it appears from Exod. xxxiii. 12-17 that Moses prayed that God
19
290 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
himself would lead his people, and that his prayer was granted. Thus, from the Jewish point of view, the argument of the Min was completely met. So far from there being, as suggested, a second God, there was only an angel, supreme amongst angels perhaps, but by more than a little ' lower than God.'
Friedlander makes the needless remark (op. cit.9 p. 104) that the Rabbi, driven into a corner, only extricated himself by a violent exegesis that made nonsense of the text. The real matter in dispute was not a point of exegesis, but a fundamental theological doctrine. And even if exegesis had been in question, the Rabbi was only following the usage of the schools in applying exegetical methods which were haggadic and not scientific. This will already have appeared, from the numerous examples we have seen of Rabbinical interpretation of Scripture.
R. Abina and a Min
(108) b. Sanh. 39a.— A certain Min said to R. Abina,
6 It is written [2 Sam. vii. 23], Who is like thy
people, like Israel, one nation in the earth ?
What is their excellence ? Ye also are
mingled with them, for it is written [Isa. xl.
17], All the nations are as nothing before
him' He said to him, ' Your own [prophets]
bear witness concerning us, for it is written
[Num. xxiii. 9], It sliall not be reckoned among
the nations'
Commentary. — Abina is the name of two Rabbis,
both Palestinian, and both living in the fourth
century, though not in the same generation. Bacher
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 291
holds that the Abina of this passage is the elder of the two.1 The passage is of little importance. The Min sought to show that Israel had no claim to pre- eminence over the other nations, on the ground that all the nations were as nothing before God. The Rabbi retorted by quoting the words of a heathen prophet, viz., Balaam, to the effect that Israel was not to be reckoned amongst the nations. The Min evidently was a Gentile, and therefore probably a Christian, since no other Gentile would be able to quote from the O.T. scriptures. It is possible that the reference to Balaam has something of the anti- Christian animus noted above (p. 66 fol.). But if this were the inten- tion, we should expect the reference to be made more prominent.
This concludes the series of passages in which Jewish Rabbis meet Minim in controversy. I shall next present a further series of passages containing polemical allusions to the Minim. To some extent I have classified them, according to their subject matter; but I shall have to include several in a miscellaneous group, having little or nothing in common except the allusion to Minim. I give, first, a group of texts referring to the doctrine of the Unity of God and the opposed doctrines of Two Powers in Heaven.
SECTION III. POLEMICAL ALLUSIONS TO THE MINIM
Man Created Solitary
(109) M. Sanh. iv. 5. — For this reason man was created solitary [for various reasons], and in
1 A. d. P. Amor., iii. 539.
292 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
order that Minim might not say there are
several Powers in Heaven. (110) T. Sanh. viii. 7. — Man was created last.
And why was he created last? That the
Minim might not say there was a companion
with Him in the work. Commentary, — I have omitted from ( 109 ) a few lines, in which are suggested several rather fantastic reasons why man was created solitary. My object, of course, is not to expound Haggadah, but to examine references to Minim. It should be noticed that in (109) the Minim are charged with believing in several Powers in Heaven; in (110) they are charged with asserting the existence of a being who aided God in the work of creation. The commentators on (109) explain the passage thus, that, if several men had been created at once, the Minim might say one deity had created one man, another another, and so on. It is not evident what doctrine is aimed at in (109). At first sight it would seem to be that of mere Gentile polytheism ; but the ordinary Gentiles are never, so far as I know, called Minim. The Gnostics did, it is true, believe in 'several Powers' in Heaven, but not several creators, and the argument of the Mishnah has no point, unless the doctrine combatted be that of several creators. It is possible that the word translated 'several' may only imply 'more than one,' in which case the passage would be in harmony with most of the others where the doctrine of the Minim touching the creation is alluded to.
In the second passage (110) it is clear that only two Powers are alleged. Man is said to have been created last in order that the Minim might not say
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 293
that He, i.e. God, had a companion in the work of creation. That ' He ' refers to God and not to man is evident from the sense of the passage, and is more- over explicitly stated in the Gemara [b. Sanh. p. 38a]. If it were in the power of the Minim to show that a being, other than the Supreme God, had shared in the work of creation, then that would have been a strong argument in their favour, supposing them to have been, as suggested above (p. 265 fol.), Jewish Christians of the type represented by the theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The two passages (109) and (110) are reproduced in the Babylonian Gemara (b. Sanh. 38a), but not in that of Palestine. There is no discussion of either passage in the Gemara. There is, however, in the same context a further reference to the denial of the Unity of God by the Minim. Indeed, this part of b. Sanhedrin is full of allusions to heresy, several of which have already been examined.
The Unity of God. Texts appealed to by the Minim
(111) b. Sanh. 38b.— We teach there R. Eliezer says, ' Be careful to learn Torah, and know what thou shalt answer to an Epiquros.' R. Johanan said, 'They only taught this concerning a Gentile Epiquros, but [it applies] all the more to a Jewish Epiquros, for he is more defiant.'
R. Johanan said, ' In every place [i.e. text of Scripture] which the Minim misinterpret, the context refutes them. [Gen i. 26], Let us make man in our image; [ib. 27], And God
394 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
created [sing.] man in his image. [Gen. xi. 7], Go to, now, let us go down and there confound their language [ib. 5]; And the Lord went down [sing.] to see the city and the tower. [Gen. xxxv. 7], For there God was [plur.] revealed to him ; [ib. 3], unto God who answered [sing.] me in the day of my trouble. [Deut. iv. 7], For what great nation is there that hath a God so nigh [plur.] unto them as the Lord our God is whensoever we call upon him [sing.]. [2 Sam. vii. 23], And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went [plur.] to redeem unto himself [sing.] for a people. [Dan. vii. 9], Until thrones were set, and one that was ancient of days did sit. What do these words mean, according to [the theory] of R. Johanan ? For R. Johanan said, 'The Holy One, Blessed be He, doeth nothing except he have taken counsel with the family above, as it is said [Dan. iv. 17], The sentence is by decide of the watchers and the demand by the word of the holy ones. All this may be admitted ; but what is to be said of until thrones were set ? One for Him and one for David; for it is tradition, 'One for Him and one for David ; the words of R. Aqiba.' R. Jose said to him, 'Aqiba, how long wilt thou make the Shechinah profane? It is One for justice and one for righteousness.' He [Aqiba] received it [i.e. the correction] from him, or he did not receive it. Come and see. For it is tradition, ' One for justice and one for righteousness; the words of R. Aqiba/
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 295
R. El'azar ben Azariah said to him, 'Aqiba, what hast thou to do with Haggadah ? Be off to 'wounds' and 'tents/ It is 'One for his throne and one for his footstool. A throne to sit on and a footstool for the support of his feet.' Commentary, — The first part of this passage, re- ferring to the Epiquros, has been dealt with already (see above, p. 120 fol., where the meaning of the term Epiquros is examined). The advice of R. Johanan concerning the Jewish Epiquros is usually understood to mean that such an opponent was to be shunned as dangerous. This is not what R. Johanan said. He adopted the words of R. El'azar b. Arach, ' Know what to answer to an Epiquros,' and said, ' This was spoken in reference to the Gentile Epiquros ; but it applies all the more to the Jewish one.' In other words, the Jew was to be especially careful how he replied to a Jewish Epiquros, because he was more dangerous. But that is not the same as saying that the Jew was not to meet the Jewish Epiquros in argument. And, since a Jewish Epiquros was practically a Min, we have already met with many examples of such polemical encounters.
The connexion between Epiquros (freethinker) and Min (heretic) is indicated in the present passage by the word *peqar' (npo), which means in general 'to be free from restraint, thence to act as a freethinker,' and (in relation to Scripture) 'to interpret heretically.' The name Epiquros, borrowed, of course, from the Greek, was adopted for the sake of the play upon the word ipeqar.' R. Johanan said that the Jewish Epiquros 'p'qar* more than the Gentile one; also
296 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
that the Minim ' peqaru' in their interpretation of Scripture.
The examples given of texts relied on by the Minim and refuted by the context have, with the exception of the last, been already dealt with. The last is Dan. vii. 9, Until thrones were set, and one that was ancient of days did sit. The Gemara asks what is the ex- planation of this, according to the theory of R. Johanan (i.e. that the context refutes the heretical misuse of the text). The refutation is found, hardly in the context, but so far away as Dan. iv. 17. R. Johanan, accordingly, understood that the ' thrones,' which the heretics said were intended for, and im- plied the existence of, more than one God, were for the use of the ' family above,' the angels with whom God was said to take counsel. It is not surprising that this text caused some perplexity to the Rabbinical interpreters of Scripture. In addition to the explana- tion of R. Johanan, the Gemara gives three earlier interpretations. R. Aqiba said that the thrones were for God and David; whereupon R. Jose [ha-Galili] rebuked him for 'making the Shechinah profane,' in other words, associating a man with God in equality of dignity. Possibly David stands for ' the Son of David,' i.e. the Messiah ; and Aqiba may have been thinking of Ps. ex. i., T/ie Lord said unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand. R. Jose* felt the danger of such an explanation, in admitting the possibility of other divine beings associated with God. His own explanation, a very forced one, was that both thrones (assuming them to have been only two)were for the use of God. He sat on one to dispense justice, on the other to do righteousness, or rather to show mercy.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 297
R. Aqiba, according to one tradition, adopted this explanation. Another contemporary, R. El'azar ben Azariah, rebuked him as R. Jose' had done (probably on the same occasion), and in his turn suggested the explanation that one throne was for God to sit on, the other to serve as a footstool. This, again, was a forced interpretation, evidently intended ,to guard against the danger involved in that of R. Aqiba. It is remarkable that R. Aqiba, who was sufficiently alive to all danger of heresy, should not have detected the fault in his own interpretation of the text. The rebuke that he knew nothing of Haggadah, but only of Halachah, was unduly severe ; though it is no doubt true that he was greater in the latter depart- ment than in the former. The reference to ' wounds ' and ' tents ' denotes the halachahs concerning injuries and ceremonial uncleanness. R. Aqiba, as a master of Halachah, was virtually one of the founders of the Mishnah. His work, in beginning the codification of the halachahs, was made use of by R. Jehudah ha- Qadosh, to whom the completion of the Mishnah is due.
77. The Unity of God. An Offering to JHVH
(112) Siphri, § 143 p. 54a. — Shim'on ben Azai says, Come and see : In all the offerings [mentioned] in the Torah, it is not said, in connexion with them, either ' God ' or ' thy God ' or 1 Almighty ' or ' of Hosts,' but ■ JH,' a singular [not plural] name. So as not to give to the Minim an occasion to humble us.
(113) b. Menah. 110*.— Tradition : R. Shim'on
298 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
ben Azai said, Come and see what is written in the chapter on offerings, viz., that it is not said, in connexion with them, either God [El] or 'God' [Elohim], but JHVH, so as not to give to the adversary an occasion to distinguish. (114) Siphra. 4C. — The same, in substance, as (112), but ascribed to R. Jose [ben Halaphta], instead of to Shimon ben Azai.
The saying is also found in Jalqut Shim'oni, § 604. Commentary. — Shim'on ben Azai was a younger contemporary of R. Aqiba, in the early years of the second century. The point of his remark, in the above passages, is that all offerings prescribed in the Torah are mentioned in connexion with the individual name of God, i.e. JHVH, and not with the generic names for God, which are mostly plural in form. The older texts, Siphri and Siphra, have * Minim,' as the opponent against whom Ben Azai directed his remark. The Gemara in b. Menahoth reads merely ' the adversary,' and it is remarkable that Rabbinowicz gives no variant in support of the reading ' Minim.' There can, however, be no doubt that 'Minim' is the original reading, whatever may be the explana- tion of the alteration in the Gemara. Bacher (A. d. Tann., i. 422) says that the Minim here are the Gnostics. This may be so, but I venture to sub- mit that Bacher does not quite accurately represent the argument of Ben Azai. Bacher regards the names ■ God,' ■ Almighty,' ' Hosts,' as being intended to refer to the divine power, whereas the name JHVH refers to the divine goodness. The Gnostics held that the laws concerning offerings were given
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 299
by the Demiurgos, who was powerful but not good. But if this had been the argument of Ben Azai, the Gnostics would have met it by denying that the name JHVH implied the divine goodness. The point is, that the name JHVH is an individual name, which could not possibly be applied to more than one divine being ; whereas the other names might be, and were, so interpreted. Siphri ex- pressly says, that the name JHVH is an individual name. And that the Gemara evidently took the same view, is shown in the concluding words of (113), "so as not to give the adversary an occasion to distinguish" i.e. to distinguish between a plurality of divine persons. The argument is directed merely against the doctrine of Two Powers, already familiar from previous discussions. The term Minim, as used here, might certainly include the Gnostics ; but there is nothing to prove that the Minim, in this passage, are in any way different from the Minim who have been already considered.
In Echa. r. on i. 1, p. 10a, is a Haggadic inter- pretation by Ben Azai, founded on the word Echa (.-d>k) (115) : " Israel did not go into exile until they had denied the one only [God], the practice of circumcision, the ten commandments and the five books of Torah." The Minim are not mentioned here, but are probably intended. With the form of the expression, cp. the saying of R. Johanan quoted above, p. 181 fol.
The Unity of God. Two Powers
(116) Siphri, § 329, p. 189b.— [Deut. xxxii. 39], See now, that I, even I, am He. This is the
300 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
answer to them that say there is no power in heaven. He that says there are two powers in heaven, they answer him, and say unto him [Deut., ibid,], And there is no God with vie. And, lest [one should say], He cannot make alive or kill, or do evil or do good, learn to say [Deut., ibid,], I kill and I make alive. And Scripture says [Isaiah xliv. 6], Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, ' I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God" (117) Mechilta, p. 66b.— Scripture says [Dan. vii. 9], J beheld, until thrones were set, and it says [ib. 10], A fiery stream issued and came forth
from before him. So as not to give to the peoples of the world an opportunity to say, ' These are two powers.' But / am the Lord your God. I am [God] on the sea and on the dry land, in the past and in the future, in this world and in the world to come. As it is said [Deut. xxxii. 39], See, now, that I, even I, am He; [Isa. xlvi. 4], Even to old age I am He; [ib. xliv. 6], Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel and his redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, ' / am the first and I am the last.' And it says [ib. xli. 4], Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations
from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, etc. R. Nathan says, Hence is an answer to the Minim who say, 'There are two powers.' For when the Holy One, Blessed be He, stood up and said, < I am the Lord thy God,' who stood up and protested ?
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 301
Commentary, — For the general question of the doctrine of Two Powers in Heaven, see above, p. 262. These two passages belong to the stratum of tradition contemporary with the Mishnah. The Minim are not mentioned in (116), but are clearly in- tended, as is shown by (117). In (117) 'the peoples of the world* may be an error for 'the Minim,' caused by the fact that in the same context there are several polemical allusions to 'the peoples of the world/ where the ordinary Gentiles are intended.
R. Nathan was a Babylonian, settled in Palestine, contemporary with R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh.
In Mechilta, Beshallach, § 4 p. 37b, there is another allusion to the doctrine of two powers, based on the text [Dan. vii. 9] about the thrones. The doctrine is ascribed to the ' peoples of the world,' not to ' the Minim.'
The Unity of God. "He who will Err, let him Err "
(118) Ber. r. viii. p. 22d.— R Shemuel bar Nahman, in the name of R. Jonathan, said, When Moses was writing the Torah, he wrote the deeds of each day [of creation]. When he came to this verse, as it is written [Gen. i. 26], And God said, let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, he said, ' Lord of the world, how thou art giving a chance to the Minim ! I am astonished ! ' He said to him, ' Write ; and he who will err, let him err ! ' Commentary. — R. Jonathan has already been mentioned several times in connexion with Minim ;
802 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
(see above, p. 216) R. Shemuel bar Nahman was one of his disciples.
The grim humour of the reply to Moses is some- what spoiled by a feeble explanation added on to it. The explanation is the same as that given by R. Johanan (see above, p. 296), that God took counsel with 'the family above,' i.e. the angels. In the present passage, the explanation is contained in a second speech, beginning, " And the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses," etc. I have ven- tured to regard this merely as a gloss, and to leave R. Jonathan's daring invention untouched. It is by far the best retort which the Rabbis made to the Minim on this text.
The Unity of God. God has no Son
(119) j. Shabb. 8d.— [Dan. iii. 25], Like a son of God. Reuben said, In that hour, an angel descended and struck that wicked one [i.e. Nebuchadnezzar] upon his mouth, and said to him, Amend thy words : Hath He [i.e. God] a son? He turned and said [v. 28], Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed- nego, who — it is not written, hath sent his son, but — hath sent his angel, and hath delivered his servants who trusted in him. Commentary. — This is part of a haggadic inter- pretation of the story, in Dan. iii., of the three men cast into the furnace. The fact that, in v. 25, Nebuchadnezzar uses the phrase ' son of God J while in v. 28 he speaks of a • messenger,' not of a * son,' of God, is ingeniously turned to account as an argument
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 303
against the Christian doctrine. There can be no question that the polemic here is anti- Christian. Of Reuben, the author of this haggadah, nothing is cer- tainly known. Probably he is the same as Reuben ben Aristobulos, who belonged to the generation after the war of Bar Cocheba, and of whom one or two sayings are recorded.
The Minim are not alluded to in this passage.
With this reference to Christian doctrine may be connected another, equally unmistakable, upon the same subject.
The Unity of God. God has no Son
(120) Shem. r. xxix. 5, p. 51b. — Another explanation
[Exod. xx. 2], / am tJw Lord thy God. R.
Abahu said, A parable of a king of flesh and
blood ; he reigns, and he has a father or a
brother. The holy one, blessed be He, saith,
I am not so [Isa. xliv. 6], / am the first, I
have no father ; and I am the last, I have no
son, and beside me there is no God, 1 have no
brother.
Commentary. — For other anti-Christian sayings of
R. Abahu, see above, p. 266 fol. The Minim are not
mentioned. There can be no question that the
Christian doctrine is here attacked ; and it is worth
noticing that the text made use of by R. Abahu [Isa.
xliv. 6] is one which we have met with already as
an argument against the Minim (see above, p. 300).
This goes to strengthen the contention that the
Minim are — or include — Jewish Christians. But
hitherto, as will have been observed, in the passages
304 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
where the doctrine of the two powers is ascribed to the Minim, there has been no decisive proof that Christians were referred to. The following passage appears to supply that proof.
The Unity of God. The Son of the Harlot
(121) Pesiq. r. xxi. p. 100b. — R. Hija bar Abba
said, If the son of the harlot shall say to
thee, ' These are two Gods,' say unto him, ' I
am He of the Sea ; I am He of Sinai,' ....
[another explanation], R. Hija bar Abba
said, If the son of the harlot shall say to
thee, 'These are two Gods,' say unto him
[Deut. v. 4], Face to face the Lord spake
[sing, not plural] with you.
Commentary. — This is part of a haggadah on the
Ten Commandments, and more particularly on the
words, ' I am the Lord thy God.' In the course of
the discussion many texts are introduced which we
have already met with in connexion with the doctrine
of Two Powers. R. Hija's remark was occasioned
by the quotation of [Dan. vii. 9], Until thrones were
set, a text which gave a good deal of trouble to
the Rabbinical interpreters (see above, p. 296 fol.).
Those who deduced from this text the doctrine of
Two Powers were the Minim. In the present
passage the doctrine of two Gods 1 is ascribed to the
1 son of the Harlot.' This phrase can refer to none
1 The terms ( Two Powers ' and ' Two Gods ' are interchangeable, though the former is the more usual. The Minim, who are credited with holding the doctrine of ' Two Powers,' asked R. Simlai, c How many Gods created the world V (see above, p. 255).
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 305
other than Jesus, the story of whose birth was thus coarsely represented in the Rabbinical tradition (see above, p. 41 fol.). Hence the inference that the Minim included Christians, though it does not follow that all Minim were Christians. Friedmann, in the edition of Pesiqta, from which I quote the above passage, has a suggestive note (p. 101a), " Son of the harlot: this is to be interpreted 'son of Minuth.' 'Min' is rendered in the targum 'zan,' see Aruch. s.v. jt. And perhaps the reference here is to what is suggested in Midrash Tillim on Psalm xxii. 1, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ' ; i.e. the God of the Red Sea, and the God of Sinai. The Midrash, perhaps, had in view him who prayed, ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. ' " ' Minuth, ' according to this view, is closely akin to 'zanuth' (fornication), even etymologically. If this is correct, it throws light on the real significance of the term 'Min,' and shows that the fundamental idea of heresy in the Rabbinical theology is the same as in that of the prophets, viz., spiritual unfaithfulness symbolised as conjugal unfaithfulness. This subject will be more fully dealt with in the concluding section of this work.
The Midrash in Ps. xxii. 1 appears to explain the double use of 'my God' by the twofold revelation of God to his people, first at the Red Sea, second on Sinai. The Psalmist accordingly is not appealing to two Gods, but to one and the same. Friedmann adds, that the Midrash probably had in mind the utterance of Jesus on the Cross [Matt, xxvii. 46], which is a quotation of Ps. xxii. 1 in the Aramaic, not in the Hebrew.
There can be no doubt that in the passage before us, the reference is to Jesus ; and this, in connexion
20
306 ■ CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
with passages previously considered, establishes the close association of Minuth with Christianity.
R. Hija bar Abba was a Babylonian settled in Palestine; he belonged to the group of disciples of R. Johanan, and may thus be placed in the latter half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth.
The Unity of God. Two Powers: A Second God.
(122) Debar, r. ii. 33, p. 104c.— [Prov. xxiv. 21], ; Meddle not with them that are given to change. Meddle not with those who say there is a second God. R. Jehudah bar Simon said [Zech. xiii. 8], And it shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die. The mouths that say, There are two powers, shall be cut off; and die. And who will remain in existence ? [Zech., ibid.\ And the third part therein shall be left, these are Israel, who are called thirds, for they are threefold, Priests, Levites, Israel- ites, from three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Another explanation, because they praise the Holy One, Blessed be He, with three ' holies ' — holy, holy, holy. R. Aha said, The Holy One, Blessed be He, was angry with Solomon, because he had said this verse [Prov. xxiv. 21]. He said to him, ' In the matter of hallowing my name, thou hast spoken in terms of " Notariqon," * Meddle not with them that are
1 * Notariqon,' a species of cipher, or cryptogram, usually formed by reading the initials of several words as one word. In the present instance nothing more seems intended than a play upon the words DOE?, two, and DOIC, ' given to change.'
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 307
given to change.' Immediately he [Solomon] turned and made the matter plain [by saying, Ecc. iv. 8], There is one and there is no second; he hath neither son nor brother. He hath neither brother nor son, but [Deut. vi. 4], Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
The above passage occurs, almost in the same words, in Bamm. r. xvi. 14, p. 66c. Commentary. — It is only needful to point out that here the doctrine of Two Powers is usefully para- phrased as the doctrine of a second God. This con- firms what has been said in explanation of the doctrine under previous heads. The Minim are not mentioned, but are clearly intended.
R. Jehudah bar Simun was a Palestinian, of the fourth century. If the interpretation of the text in Zechariah may be taken literally, it would show that the Minim as compared with the Jews were in a majority. But it is more probable that the 'two parts ' (lit. the ' two mouths ') are only used to serve as the basis for the interpretation " the mouths which say there are two Gods." In like manner the word translated ' given to change ' (nvw) is connected with the word meaning ' second ' (ws>).
In Pesiqta r., p. 98a, there is a passing reference to the doctrine of Two Powers. Moses charges the angels with holding that doctrine, and refutes them with the text, / am the Lord thy God [Exod. xx. 2}
308 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
The Torah. The ' Carping ' of the Minim
(123) j. Ber. 3C. — And they recited the 'Ten Words,' 'Hear [O Israel],' 'And it shall be if them hearest; ' And he said: R. Ami in the name of Resh Laqish [said], ' This shows that the benedictions do not hinder.' R. Ba said, 'That proves nothing; we do not learn any- thing thence. For the " Ten Words," these are the very essence of the Shema'.' R. Mathnah and R. Shemuel bar Nahman both said, ' It was sought that they should recite the " Ten Words " every day. And why do they not recite them? Because of the mis- representation of the Minim, that they might not say, "These alone were given to Moses on Sinai."'
(124) b. Ber. 12a.— And they recite the 'Ten Words,' ' Hear [O Israel]: ' And it shall be if thou Iwarest; ' And he said: 'True and stead- fast,' ' Service,' and the ' Blessing of the Priests.' R. Jehudah said that Shemuel said, ' Even in the surrounding districts [of Jerusalem] they sought to recite thus; but they had already discontinued it because of the carping of the Minim.' For it is tradition also, R. Nathan said, ' In the surrounding districts they sought to recite thus, but they had already discon- tinued it because of the carping of the Minim.' Rabah bar Rab Huna thought to establish it in Sura; but R. Hisda said to him, 'They have already discontinued it, because of the carping of the Minim.' Amemar thought to
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 309
establish it in Nehardea ; but R. Ashi said to him, 'They have already discontinued it, because of the carping of the Minim. ' (125) b. Pesah. 56\ — Our Rabbis have taught, How did they connect [the words of] the Shema'? They said, ' Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one,' and they did not divide [the words] : the words of R. Meir. R. Jehudah said, They did divide (them), but not so as to say, ' Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever.' And we, on what ground do we say it ? [i.e. Blessed be the name, etc.]. According to the exposi- tion of R. Shim'on ben Laqish. For R. Shim'on ben Laqish said [Gen. xlix. 1], And Jacob called together his sons, and said. Gather yourselves together and I will declare ; Jacob sought to reveal to his sons the end of the days, but the Shechinah departed from him. He said, • Perhaps, Heaven forbid, there has been a defect in my marriage-bed, as there was to Abraham, from whom proceeded Ishmael, and to Isaac my father, from whom proceeded Esau.' His sons said to him [Deut. vi. 4], Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one. They said, ' Even as in thy heart there is but One, so in our heart there is but One.' In that hour Jacob our father began to say, 'Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever.' Our Rabbis said, ' How shall we act ? If we say it [i.e. Blessed, etc.], Moses our master did not say it. If we do not say it, Jacob did say it.' They ordered
310 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
that men should say it in a whisper. R.
Jitzhaq said (some say that one of the school
of R. Ami said), A parable of a king's daughter
who smelt spices [and desired them]. If she
said so, she would be disgraced ; if she did
not say so, she would suffer. Her servants
began to bring them to her silently. R. Abahu
said, They ordered that men should say it in a
loud voice because of the carping of the Minim ;
but in Nehardea, where there are no Minim,
they even now say it in a whisper.'
Commentary. — The three passages translated above
are connected together by their subject-matter, the
main point in them all being some peculiarity in the
recital of the daily prayers, which was said to be due
to the 'carping' of the Minim. In (123) and (124)
it is explained that this was the reason why the
Decalogue was not recited every day. In (125) an
explanation is attempted of the origin and varying
method of recital of the liturgical response, " Blessed
be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and
ever." The Shema', which is mentioned in all three
passages, is the central point of the liturgy, and
consists of three groups of verses from Scripture, viz.,
Deut. vi. 4-9, ib. xi. 13-21, and Num. xv. 37-41.
The term Shema' is used in a stricter sense, to denote
the opening words of the first of these groups, i.e. the
words, Hear [Shema', vow], O Israel, the Lord thy
God, the Lord is one. The second group is referred
to, from its opening words, as, 'And it shall be ,' and
the third, in like manner, as, 'And he said.' In the
liturgy, the response, 'Blessed be the name,' etc.,
comes immediately after 'Hear, O Israel,' etc., and
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 311
is thus seen to be an interpolation into the Scripture text. The Decalogue was intended to be recited immediately before the Shema'.1
It is clear, from the contents of the above passages, that nothing was certainly known concerning the omission of the Decalogue, or the addition of the response, except the fact that both were due to the \ carping of the Minim.' In other words, both gave to the Minim the opportunity to misrepresent the Jewish religion and to advance their own heretical opinions. If the Decalogue were repeated every day, it was thought that the Minim would say that only the Ten Commandments [Hebr., the Ten Words] were given to Moses, and that all the rest was un- inspired. Of more importance is the addition of the response, " Blessed be the name," etc. This follows immediately after "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" This text is the watchword of the Divine Unity ; and it was in connexion with this that the misrepresentation of the Minim was most to be expected. In (125) it is said by one Rabbi that in the recital of this text the words were divided by a pause, so that presumably the meaning would be, "The Lord is our God; the Lord is one." By another Rabbi it is said that the words were not divided by a pause, and that the response was not added. In this case the text would read, " The Lord our God the Lord, is one " ; and perhaps this form
1 In the Jewish Quarterly Reviewy April 1903, p. 392 ff., there is a very interesting account of a papyrus fragment in Hebrew, containing the Deca- logue immediately followed by the Shema\ The fragment appears to date from the first century of our era, and the text shows slight divergencies from the Massoretic text The papyrus is now in the Cambridge University Library.
312 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
would lend itself to heretical misrepresentation, by those who denied the Divine Unity, more than the first form. However this may be, the addition of the response after the word ' one ' would be much more likely to lead to misrepresentation, especially if, as is stated in (125), it was originally said in a whisper. The effect would be that, in the recital of the liturgy, after the declaration of the Divine Unity followed a pause during which something was whispered. The reason why it was whispered at first is no doubt truly indicated in the fantastic haggadah of (125), viz., that it was an extra-biblical interpolation into a Scripture text. But it appears that this practice of whispering the response was misrepresented by the Minim ; and consequently it was ordered that the response should be said aloud, so that there might be no uncertainty as to the words really used. Apart from that reason, the older method of whispering the response was preferred ; and accordingly, in places where there were no Minim, the practice was kept up. This is expressly stated by R. Abahu, who explains why it was ordered that the response should — where there were Minim — be said in a loud voice.
The attempts described in (124) of several Rabbis to introduce in Babylonia some practice already dis- continued owing to the Minim, refer, I think, to the recital of the Decalogue before the Shema', and not to the response after it.
It remains to inquire into the date at which the order was made in regard to the recital of the response in a loud voice. With this object in view, 1 include here another passage, in which mention is made of ordinances directed against the Minim.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 313
(126) M. Ber. ix. 5. — All who concluded benedic- tions in the sanctuary used to say 'from the world ' [i.e. from of old]. After the Minim corrupted [religion] and said that there was only one world, they ordered that they should say * from world to world ' [i.e. ' from age to age,' ' for ever and ever ']. And they ordered that a man should greet his companion with the Name, as it is said [Ruth ii. 4], And, behold, JSoaz went, etc. This passage is from the Mishnah, and thus older than the three previous ones. Although the Minim are here mentioned, it is doubtful whether they are really intended. The mention of the change in the liturgy, by the substitution of the fuller doxology ' from world to world,' may be nothing more than an inference from Neh. ix. 5, and the reason for it a recollection of the Sadducees. It is true that the Minim are said to have denied the doctrine of Immortality ; but, as has been already shown (see above, p. 232 fol.), what they really denied was the Scripture proof of the doctrine. Moreover, the liturgical alteration referred to in (126) seems a rather feeble counterblast against a denial of Immortality.
Gratz (G. d. J., iv. 458) suggests the revolt of Bar Cocheba, 135 a.d., as the date when the two ordinances referred to in (126) were made. This is possible, and perhaps not improbable ; but I cannot find any sufficient evidence for the suggestion. It is remarkable that the Mishnah passes over in silence the famous change in the liturgy made by Gamliel II. at Jabneh, when the ■ formula concerning the Minim ' was drawn up (see above, p. 125 fol.), and incorpor-
314 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
ated in the Eighteen Benedictions. If the ordinance about greeting with the Name, i.e. the sacred name JHVH, had any reference to the Minim, it is at least possible that it was made at the same time as the formula against the Minim. Liturgical precau- tions against Minuth seem to imply a time when Minim might be expected to be present in the syna- gogues where the liturgy was recited. Thus the regulations referred to in (123), (124), and (125), the origin of which was clearly unknown to those who recorded them, may, with some probability, be referred to the same period. But certainty on the point is unattainable ; and it should be noted that in regard to (125), R. Hananel, in his commentary on the passage, appears to have read in his text of Pesahim that the ordinance was made in Usha. If this rests on anything historical, then the date would be that of the famous assembly at Usha, held after the suppression of the revolt of Bar Cocheba, say about 140 a.d. But in the references to the decrees of that assembly, no mention is made of liturgical changes, or of the Minim. The attention of the assembly seems to have been mainly given to questions affect- ing property and family life, in view of the disorders resulting from the war and the subsequent persecution by the Romans. No manuscript authority is quoted by Rabbinowicz in favour of the reading which men- tions Usha. On the whole, while disclaiming any certainty, I think it is probable that the liturgical changes referred to in the passages under considera- tion were made by the assembly at Jabneh, in the time of Gamliel II., say about the end of the first century.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 315
For some other liturgical peculiarities deemed heretical, see above, p. 199 fol.
Immortality
(127) Shem. r. xliv. 6, p. 73c, d.— Another explana- tion [Exod. xxxii. 13]: Remember Abraham [Isaac and Israel]. Why does he mention the three Fathers? R. Levi said, 'Moses said, Lord of the world, are the dead living ? He said to him, Moses, thou art become a Min,' etc.
Commentary. — This passage is of interest only as showing that to deny the Scripture warrant for im- mortality is a sign of Minuth. For the attitude of the Minim to the doctrine of Immortality, see above, pp. 232, 280. The rest of the passage quoted has nothing to do with Minuth. R. Levi was a younger contemporary of R. Johanan.
SECTION IV. MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES REFERRING TO MINIM, MINUTH
The Ground of Departure of the Minim
(128) T. Meg. iv. 37.— Hence R. Shim'on ben EFazar used to say, One man alone is not competent to reply to a corrupting speech; for the Minim take their ground of departure from the answer that Aaron gave to Moses.
Commentary. — The reference is to Exod. xxxii 22-24, in which Aaron excuses himself to Moses for having made the golden calf. The Erfurt MS. of Tosephta reads, ' The answer which Moses gave to
316 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Aaron,' which is obviously an error. The 'ground of departure' of the Minim would seem to be the rejection of the authority of Moses implied in the act of making the calf. R. Shim'on ben El'azar was a disciple of R. Meir, in the second half of the second century. There is nothing to identify the Minim with Christians in this passage; what is said would apply to all Jewish heretics.
In (129) b. Meg. 25b there is a somewhat differ- ent version of the above passage. R. Shim'on ben El'azar says, 'Let a man always be careful in his answers ; for from the answer which Aaron gave to Moses, the Minim [so ace. to the MSS.] have gone astray ; for it is said [Exod. xxxii. 24], I cast it in the fire, and there came out this calf.* The commentators explain this to mean that the Minim inferred from the answer of Aaron that there was some truth in so-called false religion.
Do not give Place to the Minim
(130) T. Par. iii. 3. — They said, in the presence of
R. Aqiba, in the name of R. Ishma'el, Cups of
stone were hung on the horns of the oxen ;
when the oxen stooped to drink, the cups
were filled. He said to them, 'Do not give
occasion to the Minim to humble you.'
Commentary. — The phrase, ' Do not give occasion
to the Minim to humble you,' occurs also in the
following passages : (i) M. Par. iii. 3, where the
speaker is R. Jose, and the printed text has D>pm' in
place of p>» ; (ii) T. Joma iii. 2, where the speaker
is R. Aqiba. The subject-matter in every case is
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 317
different. The Mishnah in Joma does not contain the phrase ; but in the Babylonian Gemara, Joma 40b, it is quoted in a Baraitha apparently from the Tosephta. Here the printed text has D*pm in place of p*o ; but the latter is the reading of the MSS. and of the early editions, as shown by Rabbinowicz.
The literal meaning of the phrase is clear; but the application of it is very difficult to understand. In every instance where it occurs, the matter under discussion is a minute detail of ritual, connected with either the killing of the red heifer [Num. xix. 1-13] or the casting of lots for the scape-goat [Lev. xvi. 8 fol.]. In the time of R. Aqiba (or R. Jos£, i.e. probably R. Jose' ben Halaphta) the ritual in question was no longer practised, having ceased to be possible when the Temple was destroyed. The discussion upon them was therefore purely academic. Accord- ingly the difficulty arises, What reason was there to fear the Minim? From all that we have learnt hitherto, it does not appear that the Minim took part or interest in the discussions upon halachah in the Rabbinical assemblies. The frequent controversies between Minim and Jewish Rabbis turned chiefly upon the interpretation of texts of Scripture, and were concerned with doctrine rather than with ritual. If the ceremonies referred to had been actually per- formed in the time of R. Aqiba, it would be more easy to understand that the Minim might have found occasion to criticise, and in some way to 'humble/ the Jews. But the ceremonies had long been dis- used, together with all else that depended upon the existence of the Temple.
Since, then, the discussion related to the manner
318 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
in which these ceremonies had once been performed, or ought to have been performed, we may interpret the phrase about the Minim as a suggestion that the opinions of those to whom R. Aqiba (or R. Jose) addressed the remark were heretical, or at least would support the contentions of the Minim. I can offer no better explanation than this, and am aware that it is not complete. I cannot show in what way the opinions put forward tended to favour heresy. The commentators on the passage in b. Joma 40b, where the discussion refers to the scape-goat, explain that the Minim will say that Azazel, for whom the scape-goat was intended, was a second God, and thus will taunt the Jews with admitting the doctrine of Two Powers. But that criticism on the part of the Minim, if it were made at all, would be applic- able to the original text in Lev. xvi., not merely to one small detail of the ritual connected with the scape-goat. And as for the reference to the 'cups of stone ' hung on the horns of the oxen, it is hard to see what this has to do with Minuth, or why the Minim should object to it more than to the whole series of ceremonies of which it was a small part. If it were alleged that the Minim did object to, or rather deny the validity of, the whole procedure in reference to the red heifer and to the scape-goat, then it might be pointed out that these two are mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a writing with which we have seen reason to believe the Minim were familiar. It is, of course, possible that such a reference underlies the phrase we are considering, but in itself it is quite too slight and vague to serve as the foundation for any such conclusion.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 319
An alternative explanation is that the reference is not to the Minim but to the Sadducees. This is supported by the printed text of the Mishnah, and by the fact that in two other passages of b. Joma, 19b and 53b, the Sadducees are undoubtedly referred to in a discussion upon certain matters of ritual. It is true that the Sadducees passed out of history along with the Temple, at least it is probable they did so. But there might, and indeed did, remain the tradition of Sadducean practice and theory ; and the phrase under consideration would, in this case, mean that the opinions against which Aqiba pro- tested were, in his judgment, Sadducean. But there is nothing to establish any connexion between the opinions put forward and the teaching or practice of the Sadducees. And if there were, it is a ques- tion whether it would have been worth while for R. Aqiba to have referred to a virtually extinct opponent. The Minim, whoever they were, were by no means extinct in the time of R. Aqiba ; and although it be now impossible to explain the precise force of his remark, there can be little doubt that he intended it to guard against a danger which he felt to be real.
A Canon of Minuth.
(131) Ber. r. xlviii. 6, p. 97b, c.— R. Jonathan said, Everywhere that ■ hypocrisy ' (pibupi) occurs in a verse, the Scripture speaks of Minuth ; and the common element in them all is [indicated by Isa. xxxiii. 14], The sinners in Zion are afraid ; trembling hath seized the hypocrites.
Commentary. — This is really only an obiter dictum
320 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
founded on the text in Isaiah. It never was applied as a regular canon of interpretation. It amounts to little more than the assertion that the essence of Minuth is ' hypocrisy.' The word so translated has the root-meaning of * change,' ' substitution,' and thence 'pretence.' It is most frequently used in reference to religion, and implies either the pre- tence of being religious, or the fact of being irre- ligious ; thus, either ' hypocrisy ' or * godlessness.' R. Jonathan accordingly declared that Minuth consisted in hypocrisy, an outward profession of religion, i.e. the Jewish religion, together with the denial of the substance of it. The text in Isaiah was intended as a convenient reminder of the alleged connexion between hypocrisy and Minuth, but probably R. Jonathan's remark about Minuth was suggested to him by the occurrence of the word 'hypocrites,' when he was expounding the text in Isaiah. For R. Jonathan, see above, pp. 216, 254.
A Chance for the Minim. "I have hardened Pharaoh's Heart"
(132) Shem. r. xiii. 3, p. 24b. — Another explana- tion : For I have hardened his heart [Exod. x. 1]. R. Johanan said, ' Here is an " opening of the mouth " for the Minim to say, It was not in his [Pharaoh's] power that he should repent, as it is said, For I have hardened his heart.' R. Shimon ben Laqish said to him, ' Let the mouth of the Minim be shut ! But [Prov. iii. 34], Surely he scorneth the scorners ! For the Holy One, Blessed be He, warns a
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 321
man once, twice, thrice ; and [if] he does not turn, then He closes his [the man's] heart against repentance, so as to punish him for the sin which he committed. Even so [of) Pharaoh the wicked. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, had sent to him five times, and he had not taken heed to His words, then the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Thou hast stiffened thy neck, and thou hast hardened thine heart. Lo, I add to thee un- cleanness to thy uncleanness.' Commentary. — R. Johanan and his colleague R. Shim on ben Laqish have been frequently mentioned. They lived in Tiberias in the latter half of the third century. Who are referred to as the Minim in this passage is not clear. Bacher (A. d. P. A., i. 258 n. 1) says that "the Minim here are Gnostics, who held that the God of the O.T. did not desire the good," and therefore did not allow Pharaoh to repent. 1 do not presume to say that this inter- pretation is incorrect. Yet the argument of R. Shimon ben Laqish seems to show that the point in dispute was, not the goodness or otherwise of God, but the possibility of repentance on the part of Pharaoh. The Minim are charged by R. Johanan with saying, ■ It was not in the power of Pharaoh to repent, because God hardened his heart/ The rejoinder to that is that Pharaoh could have repented, and was given five opportunities to repent, and that only when he had neglected all these did God close his heart against repentance, so that Pharaoh might be justly punished for his sins. That many Gnostics
thought that the God of the O.T. did not desire the
21
322 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
good, is perhaps true. But if the Minim are to be identified with such Gnostics, then we should expect that the question of the goodness of God would be frequently debated between Minim and Jews ; and this we have not found to be the case.
An alternative interpretation is not impossible. We have already found reason to connect with the doctrines of the Minim the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see above, pp. 265 fol.). Now, in that Epistle, vi. 6, there is a remarkable saying about repentance, It is impossible to renew them to re- pentance. The writer of the epistle applies this to those who were once enlightened .... and fell away. And, of course, such a case as that of Pharaoh does not come within the range of the principle laid down. But that would not prevent an opponent from saying that the Epistle to the Hebrews taught the im- possibility of repentance. And if, further, such impossibility was held to be not merely on the part of man but on the part of God, then R. Johanan might with justice say that the text which he quoted, / have hardened his heart, bore out the doctrine which he supposed the Minim to hold. R. Shim'on ben Laqish agreed with him in supposing that the Minim held such a doctrine ; but he sought to show that the text quoted did not support it, and that if a man did not repent, it was his own fault. God did not prevent him from repenting, but only, after repeated warning, accepted the fact and inflicted punishment.
It is worth notice that this very case of Pharaoh is mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, ix. 17, 18, For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh [cp. Exod. ix.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 323
16], ' For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be publislied abroad in all the earth" So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom lie will he hardeneth. That the Epistle to the Romans was known to the Rabbis is extremely doubtful. But it may have been known to the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and if not that, there is at least so much of connexion of thought between the two epistles as to make it probable that the idea of the unconditional sovereignty of God would be accept- able to the readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews. On the whole, therefore, while admitting that the Minim in the present passage may represent Gnostics, I think it more probable that, as elsewhere, so here they denote Jewish Christians holding the doctrines of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Four Classes of Minim
(133) Jalq. Shim., Ps. lx. 9 (7). — Another ex- planation [Ps. lx. 9], Gilcad is mine. R. Shim'on ben Laqish said, ' If the Minim say to thee that the Holy One, Blessed be He, doth not revive the dead, say to them, Behold Elijah, who was of Tishbi in Gilead, testifying that I have revived the dead by his hand. And Manasseh is mine. If they say to thee that the Holy One, Blessed be He, doth not receive repentance, say to them, Behold Manasseh, testifying that I received him in repentance, as it is said [2 Chron. xxxiii. 13], And he prayed to the Lord; and he was
324 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
intreated of him and heard his prayer. Ephraim is the defence of my head. And if they say unto thee that the Holy One, Blessed be He, doth not visit the barren, Behold Elkanah of whom it is written [1 Sam. i. 1], A son of Tohu, a son of Zoph, an Ephraimite, testifying that I visited Hannah. Judah is my sceptre. And if they say unto thee that the Holy One, Blessed be He, doth not deliver from the fire, Behold Hananiah and his com- panions testifying that He delivered them from the fire ; as it is said [Dan. i. 6], Now among them were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah. Commentary. — The above passage occurs, with no important variations, in Bamm. r. xiv. 1 ; and in Tanhuma, Nissa, § 30. The author is undoubtedly R. Shimon ben Laqish, as Bacher points out.
The text of Ps. lx. 9 is not interpreted, but is forced by sheer violence to suggest a refutation of four heretical doctrines, which are ascribed to the Minim. It is only indeed in connexion with the first heresy, viz., the denial of the resurrection of the dead, that the Minim are mentioned ; but they are clearly intended in all four instances of alleged heresy. Moreover, the heresy that God does not receive a penitent is expressly ascribed to the Minim in the passage translated above (p. 320), where the refutation is given by R. Shim on ben Laqish. I do not know of any ground for ascribing, either to Gnostics or to Jewish Christians, the doctrines that God does not give children to the barren women, and that he does not save men from the fire. Who,
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 325
therefore, are meant by the Minim in these two instances, I am unable to suggest.
Words of the Minim
(134) Siphri, § 48, p. 84a.— R. Shimon ben Menasja says [Prov. v. 15], Drink waters out of thine own well, drink the waters of thy creator; and do not drink foul waters, lest thou be drawn with the words of the Minim.
Commentary. — R. Shim'on ben Menasja was a contemporary of R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, in the beginning of the third century.
The application of the text in Prov. v. 15 to the Minim is chiefly of interest because it is found in an early Midrash. In itself it contains nothing new. We have already seen that this chapter of Proverbs was by other Rabbis interpreted in reference to Minuth (see above, p. 185).
92. "They that hate Me." The Minim
(135) Siphri, § 331, p. 140a.— {Deut. xxxii. 41], / will render vengeance to mine adversaries, these are the Cuthiim [Samaritans] ; as it is said [Ezra iv. 1], And the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity were building the Temple. And I will recompense tliem that hate me, these are the Minim ; and thus He [i.c God, in Scripture] saith [Ps. cxxxix. 21, 22], Do I not hate them which liate thee, O Lord ? and am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee ? I hate
826 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
them with a perfect hatred ; they have become
as enemies to me.
Commentary. — Observe that the Minim are here
distinguished from the Samaritans. In a few
passages the reading varies between Minim and
Cuthiim.
For the application of Ps. cxxxix. 21, 22 to the Minim, see above, p. 156, where R. Ishmael cites the same text in reference to the books of the Minim.
A Reply to the Minim. Genealogies
(136) b. B. Bath. r. 91a. — And R. Hanan bar Rabba said that Rab said, The mother of Abraham was Amathlai bath Carnebo ; the mother of Haman was Amathlai bath Orbathi ; and thy signs are, ' Unclean, unclean,' ' Clean, clean/ The mother of David was Nizzebath bath Adael, the mother of Samson was Zelal- ponith, and his sister Nesiin. To what does this tend? To an answer to the Minim. Commentary. — R. Hanan b. Rabba was a son-in- law of Rab, the disciple of R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, who carried to Babylonia the tradition embodied in the Mishnah. Rab is the sole authority for the names of personages in the above list. He may have invented them. Only one, Zelalponith, is found in the O.T., and that, in a slightly different form, 1 Chr. iv. 3. Whether Rab intended them to serve as an 'answer to the Minim,' there is nothing to show. The Gemara does not explain how they could serve such a purpose. Rashi says, "The Minim asks us concerning these more than concern-
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 327
ing other women, and we reply that [the names] have been handed down to us, orally, by the prophets." Why the Minim, whether Gnostics or Jewish Christians, should have been curious on the subject, I do not know. Possibly the reference to 'endless genealogies,' 1 Tim. i. 3, may have some bearing on the point.
The Minim and the New Moon
(137) M. R. ha-Sh., ii. 1.— If they do not know him, they send another with him to vouch for him. Formerly they used to receive evidence as to the new moon from anyone. Since the Minim acted perversely, they ordained that they should not receive evidence except from such as were known. Commentary, — This passage is from the Mishnah, and its extreme terseness of style requires some expan- sion. The subject under discussion is the question of determining the time of new moon, the time upon which depended the date of the festivals in the suc- ceeding month. The beginning of the month was the day on which the new moon was first seen after conjunction with the sun. Evidence was therefore taken from those who had seen the new moon. Such witnesses must of course be trustworthy; therefore (and here our passage begins), if a witness was un- known to those appointed to receive evidence, another man accompanied him, in order to vouch for his credibility. Formerly anyone might give evidence. But from the time that the Minim introduced some mischievous practice, it was ordered that only the
328 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
evidence of such witnesses as were personally known should be received.
This is an interesting as well as an obscure passage ; and though both the Gemaras make some reference to it, they do not give a complete explanation.
In the first place, there is no doubt that the read- ing ' Minim ' [p*o] is the correct one. It is the read- ing of the Mishnah, as printed separately, and of the text of the Mishnah incorporated in the Gemaras. (See Rabbinowicz on b. R. ha-Sh. 22b.) The verse of the Mishnah immediately following (R. ha-Sh., ii. 2) mentions the Samaritans [D*n»], as having intro- duced some corrupt practice. Thus the Mishnah is aware that the Samaritans are not the same as the Minim, and therefore the mention of the Minim is intentional. When we turn to the Tosephta and the Gemaras, we find a source of confusion in a story about certain people called Baithusin [^Din^n] who also introduced corrupt practices. The Tosephta gives this story [R. ha-Sh., i. 15], and does not say anything about the Minim. It says, " Formerly they used to receive evidence from any man. On one occasion the Baithusin hired two witnesses to come and deceive the Wise ; because the Baithusin do not admit that Atzereth [Pentecost] should be on [any day] except the day after a Sabbath." [There- fore they sought to influence the calculation upon which the day of the feast ultimately depended.]
The Palestinian Gemara R. ha-Sh. 57d, in its com- ments upon the alleged corrupt practices, appears to depend upon the notice in Tosephta just mentioned. The Minim are not referred to by name. It is stated that the ' corrupt practice ' consisted in keeping Pente-
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 329
cost on the day after a Sabbath, and assuming that that day had been consecrated as the feast day ; whereas the right day, according to the view of the Talmudic Rabbis, the fiftieth day from the first Paschal day, might fall later in the week. After this explanation has been given there follows the story about the Baithusin and their false witnesses. It is possible, therefore, that the explanation about the fiftieth day being kept on a Sunday does not refer to the Baithusin, but to the Minim.
In the Babylonian Gemara, R. ha-Sh. 22b, the printed text has the following: — (138) "Formerly they used to receive evidence concerning the new moon from any man. [This is the quotation of the Mishnah.] Our Rabbis have taught : What corrupt practice did the ■ Baithusin ' commit ? On one occa- sion," etc., and then follows the story about the false witnesses. Now the correct reading in this passage is not ' Baithusin,' but ' Minim ' (see Rabbinowicz on R. ha-Sh. 22b). The alteration has no doubt been made on account of the mention of the Baithusin in the story which follows. That story, a graphically- told anecdote, seems to me to have obscured the re- ference to the Minim, and led to the belief that the Mishnah, in its charge against the Minim, was really referring to the Baithusin; accordingly the story is quoted in explanation. Who the Baithusin were is not certain, probably the name indicates more than one religious party at different epochs. The story of their false witnesses implies Jerusalem for the scene of it, and, if historical, is thus earlier than a.d. 70. But the ' corrupt practices ' which had to be guarded against continued long after that date. In the
330 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Palestinian Gemara, R. ha-Sh. 57d, it is stated that R. Nehorai once went to Usha * to corroborate a wit- ness for the new moon. Thereupon follows immedi- ately the explanation already given about the day of Pentecost being kept on a Sunday.
Now, whether the Minim are identical with the Baithusin or not, it is quite possible that the Minim may have had their own reasons for holding a similar view with regard to the proper days of Passover and Pentecost. If the Minim were Jewish Christians, it is easy to understand that they would have an interest in the date of Pentecost, and the corresponding fiftieth day previous to Pentecost. The Jewish Christians kept the Jewish feasts, but read into them a Christian meaning, and connected with Passover and Pentecost the death of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Jesus was crucified on a Friday, and, according to the Gospels, rose again on the Sunday following. The first Christian Pentecost was likewise on a Sunday. Now, according to the Jewish usage, the fourteenth day of Nisan, the day of Passover, might fall upon any day of the week. The Jewish Christians would naturally prefer that it should fall on a Friday, so that the fast and feast days should correspond with those of the original Passion-week and the subsequent Pentecost. Since it was the custom, according to the Mishnah, to fix the appear- ance of the new moon by the evidence of eye-wit- nesses, and to determine the days of the month accordingly, Jewish Christians could give evidence as
1 The Sanhedrin, or at least the Nasi and his colleagues, met at Usha a.d. 130 circa, and again in a.d. 140 circa. Probably the visit of R. Nehorai took place at the earlier date.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 331
well as others. And, whether or not they ever attempted to influence the determination of the days of the month, their evidence would be open to sus- picion, because they were known to be biassed in favour of a particular day of the week for the four- teenth of Nisan.
If, then, according to the reading of the Mishnah, the Minim are really referred to in connexion with the subject of the new moon witnesses, there is some amount of ground for identifying them with Jewish Christians. That the Minim in this instance can be Gnostics is out of the question. The Gnostics did not pay any regard to the ' set feasts ' of the Jewish religion, and would not care what might be the day of the week on which they fell.
The Minim and Alexander the Great
In Vajiqr. r. xiii. 5, p. 19c, it is related that Alexander the Great showed honour to the High Priest, Shim'on ha-Tzaddiq, and that the 'Minim' remonstrated with him for doing so. The story occurs in Josephus, Antiq., xi. 8, 5, and is repeated in b. Joma 69d, and Pesiqta d. R. Kahana, Parah, p. 41a. Neither of the two Hebrew texts mentions the word 1 Minim.' The text in Joma has simply ' they said to him ' ; the text in Pesiqta has ■ his courtiers said to him.' The reading 'Minim,' or rather ■ Minai,' in Vajiqr. r. may be explained as being, at the late date of the compilation of this Midrash, merely a general term for enemies of the Jews. It is sufficient to mention this passage without going to the trouble of translating it.
332 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
In like manner it will be sufficient to mention, without comment, some few passages which merely allude to Minim, but contain nothing of importance for the study of them. These passages are as follows : —
Minim, Casual References
(i) b. Ber. 7a, Sanh. 105b, A. Zar. 4b.— R. Jehoshua ben Levi is annoyed by a Min, who lived near him. The fact is mentioned on account of the device which the Rabbi made use of, unsuccessfully, to draw down a curse upon his enemy.
(ii) b. Ber. 5V — The Minim say there is only one world. See above, p. 313 fol. The reading 1 Minim ' is correct, yet it is possible that the original reference was to the Sadducees.
(iii) lb., 56b. — A Min asks R. Ishmael to interpret certain dreams. There is no reference to Minuth.
(iv) lb. 58a. — A Min converses with R. Shesheth. There is no reference to Minuth. Probably the Min in this instance was a Persian, and a fire- worshipper. If so, 'Min' may re- present ' Mani.'
(v) b. Meg. 23a. — Jacob the Min asks a question of R. Jehudah. There is no reference to Minuth. Tosaphoth doubts whether Jacob was a Min at all.
(vi) b. B. Bathra 25a.— R. Shesheth would not turn to the east because the Minim teach con- cerning it. Here, as in No. (iv), Minim
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 333
probably denotes fire-worshippers. It should be added, however, that Rashi believes the reference to be to ' the disciples of Jesus.'
(vii) b. Sanh. 37a.--R. Kahana answers the question of a Min concerning a woman who is ma. No reference to Minuth.
(viii) M. Jad. iv. 8. — 'A Min of Galilee' said to the Pharisees, etc., see Geiger, Urschrift, p. 146 ; Schurer, G. d. J. V., ii. 318. The Min here is a political rather than a religious partisan. Probably a follower of Judah of Galilee is meant. The date of the passage is uncertain, probably not earlier than the codification of the Mishnah by Rabbi. Therefore it cannot be quoted as the earliest instance of the use of the term Min. The printed text of the Misnah reads Tzadduqi in place of Min; but the latter reading is shown by Schurer to be the right one.
As the printed texts of the Talmud are subject to the censorship of the press, it is frequently the case that the word Min (Minim) is struck out and re- placed by Tzadduqi, Cuthi, Romi, or some other innocent word. This defect is found in most of the printed texts since the edition of Basle, 1578. The comparison of manuscripts, and early editions, as performed by Rabbinowicz,1 has made it possible to correct these mischievous errors. A few passages
1 The invaluable work of Rabbinowicz, entitled Diqduqe Sopherim, is unfortunately incomplete. It extends over perhaps three-fourths of the Talmud, including the most important of the treatises.
834 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
remain, in which the reading Tzadduqi, or Cuthi, is the right one. I subjoin a list of references to such passages as I have met with where this is the case. There are probably others. My purpose, however, is not to collect references to the Sadducees, or to the Samaritans, but to give a list of the references to the Minim as complete as I can, and also as free as possible from the intrusion of what does not belong to it.
In the following passages, the reading Tzadduqi is correct, and the reference is to the Sadducees.
(A.) Mishnah (collected by Schiirer, op. cit., ii. 317 fol.); Erubh. vi. 2 (uncertain); Mace. i. 6; Parah. iii. 7; Nidd. iv. 2; Jad. iv. 6, 7, 8. (B.) Talmud. Joma 19b, 53a ; B. Bathr. 115b; Mace. 5b ; Nidd. 33b. (C.) Tosephta ; Hagg. iii. 35.
97. JacoB of Chephar Neburaia
A passage has already been quoted (see above, p. 219) from the Midrash Qoh. r. (on vii. 26, p. 21d), in which it is stated that "R. Isi of Csesarea expounded this verse in reference to Minuth : The good is R. El'azar, the sinner is Jacob of Chephar Neburaia," etc., after which follows a list of five other examples of contrasted saints and sinners. There can be no possible doubt that the intention of R. Isi was to pronounce Jacob of Ch. N. a Min. It is therefore desirable to ascertain what may be known about this Jacob. I have not included him in the list of those Minim who had polemical discussions with Jews, because no such controversies are ascribed to him. Controversies he certainly had, but in the records
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 335
of them he is not called a Min. Moreover, certain sayings of his are mentioned with approval, and the Babylonian Gemara does not seem to have any suspicion of his * Minuth.' I have therefore thought it best to deal with him in a separate section, and to put that as an appendix to the main body of evidence collected on the subject of Minuth.
Jacob of Chephar Neburaia lived in the fourth century, and is most frequently mentioned in con- nexion with Tyre and Cassarea. The site of the village from which he took his name has not been identified. He 'targumed' Hagg. ii. 19, in the synagogue Maradta in Caesarea, and his exposition was approved by the Rabbis (j. Bice. iii. 3. 65*, b. Sanh. 7% and Midr. Samuel c. 7 (6) *). He expounded Ps. lxv. 2 at Tyre ; and his exposition is quoted in j. Ber. 12d. In b. Meg. 18a it is quoted, but is ascribed to R. Jehudah of Chephar Neburaia. This is the result of a confusion between Jacob of Ch. N. and R. Jehudah bar Nahmani, who had been inter- preter (pnn») of R. Shimon ben Laqish.
Further, Jacob of Ch. N. was involved in con- troversy with R. Haggai of Tyre upon questions of halachah. Two instances of this are given, and appear together in several passages in the Rabbinical literature. The two halachic decisions which he gave were, first, that the son of a Gentile woman might be circumcised on the Sabbath; and second, that the rules relating to the killing of cattle for food applied also to fishes. For both these decisions he was called to account by R. Haggai, who ordered him on each
1 This reference is given by Bacher, A. d. P. A., iii. 710, 3. I have not the means of verifying it.
336 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
occasion to come and be scourged for having given a wrong decision. Jacob asked R. Haggai by what authority he scourged him? The Rabbi quoted texts to show that Jacob's teaching was wrong, after which Jacob lay down and submitted to be scourged. The first of these two incidents is described in j. Kidd. 64d, j. Jebam. 4a. The two together are found in Ber. r. vii. 2, Bamm. r. xix. 3, Pesiqta d. R. Kahana, § Parah., 35b, 36% Tanhuma, Huqqath, 56\ 57a.
In b. Kethub. 65a a halachic decision by Jacob of Ch. N. is mentioned and debated, with no hint that any suspicion attached to him. In j. Shabb. 17b there is the following : — Jacob of Chephar Neburaia asked R. Haggai, ' Is then a child that is born in the twilight circumcised in the twilight ? ' He said to him, * If thou and I were entering in at one door, perhaps we might be able to decide the point.' The meaning of this plainly is, that Jacob was no longer considered by the Rabbi to be in fellowship and thus open to conviction on Jewish principles. It is no- where said that Jacob was excommunicated, but it seems reasonable to infer that in some way he was excluded from the community of Israel and regarded as a heretic. His question to R. Haggai may in- dicate that he still regarded himself as being a member of the community.
In the passage already mentioned, Qoh. r. vii. 28, 21d, he is charged with Minuth, in contrast with a certain El'azar otherwise unknown.
The above passages contain, I believe, all that is known of Jacob of Chephar Neburaia. They are too scanty to be of much use, and for that reason I have not translated them. Scanty as they are, how-
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 337
ever, they prove that Jacob of Ch. N. was a real person, and that he became a heretic. It is there- fore needless, and unwarranted, to say, as Friedlander says (Vorch. jud. Gnosticismus, p. 108), that in the list of contrasted saints and sinners, Qoh. r. vii. 26, Jacob of Ch. N. is plainly Jacob of Ch. Sechanja (see above, p. 221 n.) We may also perhaps infer that the distinction between Jew and Min was not regarded, from the side of the Minim, as being a very sharp one. Here may be compared the very curious story of R. Saphra and the Minim of Caesarea (see above, p. 266 fol.). There the Minim, strange as it seems, actually engaged a Jewish Rabbi to be their teacher. It is true he did not suit them ; but that was owing to his defective knowledge of Scripture, not to the fact of his being a Jew. Is it possible that Jacob of Ch. N. stood in some similiar relation towards the Minim, and that less staunch than R. Saphra, he was perverted by those to whom he ministered? That he did become a Min is shown not merely by the passage in Qoh. r., but also by that in j. Shabb. 17b, where R. Haggai speaks of himself and Jacob as not entering at the same door. But it is worthy of note that his apostasy does not appear to have been known outside of his own country. He is mentioned in the Babylonian Gemara, Kethub. 65\ and an opinion given by him is debated without any reference to his being a Min. Further, if I am right in supposing that the passage j. Shabb. 17b refers to a time after he had become a Min, then it would seem that he still kept up his interest in halachah. If so, he might be a Jewish
Christian, but scarcely a Gnostic. There is, however,
22
338 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
nothing to show what was the change which turned him from a Jew into a Min. He remains a shadowy figure, tantalising by its vagueness, the ghost of an ancient heretic.
The Priesthood of Melchizedek
(139) b. Nedar. 32b. — R. Zechariah said, in the name of R. Ishmael, The Holy one, Blessed be He, sought to cause the priesthood to go forth from Shem. For it is said [Gen. xiv. 18], And he was priest of God Most High, As soon as he put the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of God, he caused it to go forth from Abraham, as it is said [ib. 19], And he blessed him and said, 'Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High' Abraham said to him, ■ Do they put the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his owner ? ' Immedi- ately it was given to Abraham, as it is said [Ps. ex. 1], The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies the footstool for thy feet. And further down it is written [ib. 4], The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, according to the saying of Melchizedek. And this is what is written [Gen. xiv. 18], And he was priest of God Most High. He was priest; his seed were not priests. Commentary. — The point of the above haggadah is that the priesthood was taken away from
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 339
Melchizedek and given to Abraham. God, it is said, had at first intended that the priesthood should 'go forth from Shem,' i.e. should be handed down along the line of his posterity. Melchizedek is here identified with Shem, as elsewhere in the Midrash. The divine purpose, however, was changed, and the priesthood was caused to descend in the line of Abraham. Tosaphoth points out that Abraham himself was one of the descendants of Shem, and gives the explanation that the priesthood was taken away from all the other descendants of Shem, and given to Abraham and his posterity. In any case it was taken away from Melchizedek. Now Mel- chizedek was the subject of a great deal of specu- lation in the early centuries of the common era. There was a Gnostic sect who called themselves after his name, regarding him as an incarnation of the divine power. Also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Melchizedek is represented as a type of Christ, and the comparison is worked out in detail [Heb. vii.]. Evidently the intention of R. Ishmael, in his haggadah, was to destroy the foundation for this exalted conception of Melchizedek, by showing that the priesthood was taken away from him. This R. Ishmael is the same whom we have already met with several times as an opponent of Minim. It was he who forbade the attempted cure of his nephew, Ben Damah, by a Min who was beyond question a Christian (see above, p. 103 fol.). It was he, also, who severely condemned the Scriptures of the Minim (see above, p. 156 fol.). He lived in Palestine at the end of the first, and well on into the second century. The depreciation of Melchizedek would serve as
40 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
an argument against both the Gnostic sect and the Christian readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but 1 see no reason to restrict the reference to the first. The Melchizedekites do not appear to have been a very important or very aggressive sect, certainly not more prominent than the Jewish Christians. It has been suggested above (p. 265) that the doctrine of Two Powers in Heaven, ascribed to the Minim, is the Jewish version of the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. I take the present passage to be additional evidence in support of the view that the teaching of that Epistle was known to the Rabbis, and that the Minim were, or at least included, Jewish Christians whose theology was represented in that Epistle. It should be noticed that R. Ishmael, as well as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, made use of Ps. ex. 4 in support of his argument. The Rabbi interpreted the words >n-m by (Eng. version, After the order of), to mean according to the saying of Melchizedek. That is, Melchizedek himself, by what he had said, forfeited the priesthood so that it passed to Abraham. The citation of Ps. ex. may, however, be due not to the Rabbi's acquaintance with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but merely to the fact that Melchizedek is mentioned in the Psalm. That his argument does impugn the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews there can be no question.
This completes the series of passages in which I have found a reference to Christianity, in the person of its Founder or of his followers. That the whole material is exhausted I do not venture to affirm.
REFERENCES TO MINIM AND MINUTH 341
The Rabbinical literature is enormous, and, moreover, has never been indexed, so that I dare not claim to have overlooked nothing. Nevertheless, I believe I have gathered all the important passages, and nearly all the less important ones. A few I have in- tentionally left out, which have been thought to have some polemical reference, but in which I could find no allusion, however remote, to Christianity. Also, I have omitted passages where a mere verbal likeness might be traced to some phrase in the New Testament. The subject of parallel passages did not come within the limits which I had marked out for my work.
It remains now to collect the general results of the mass of evidence presented in the foregoing pages ; and to this task I shall devote the concluding section of this book.
DIVISION II
GENERAL RESULTS
I have called this book by the title of " Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," and have offered to the reader a number of passages from the Rabbinical literature of the first four centuries containing what I believe to be references to Christianity, either in the person of its Founder, or of his followers. In doing so I have been unable to avoid giving provisional answers to questions which cannot be fully answered until all the evidence has been presented, and have thus, to some extent, taken for granted what ought to be proved. In this concluding section I shall try to complete my case by a general review of the evi- dence, and shall show first that Jesus is referred to in the Rabbinical literature ; and second, that the Minim, who are so often mentioned, are, or at all events include, Jewish Christians. Under the first head I shall, after proving as I hope that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is referred to, sum up the main heads of the traditions concerning him, and inquire into their origin and value. Under the second head I shall in like manner, after presenting the case for the Chris- tianity of the Minim, collect the evidence for their
342
GENERAL RESULTS 343
theology, their relation to Judaism, and whatever else may serve to give clearness and distinctness to the picture. The problem of the Minim has often been discussed, for it is one of the riddles of the Talmud. The solution of that problem attempted here may claim at least the merit of being based upon a larger body of evidence than has, so far as I know, ever been collected before. If the reader is dissatisfied with that solution, he has now before him the materials for a better.
\
CHAPTER I
Jesus in the Talmud and Midrash
Is the historical Jesus of Nazareth mentioned in the Rabbinical literature ? Or, to state the question somewhat differently, are the persons variously named Ben Stada, Ben Pandira, Jeshu', Jeshu ha-Notzri, one and the same individual, and he, Jesus of Nazareth ? The answer to this question is clearly given by a comparison of parallel passages. Thus : —
(a) T. Sanh. x. 11 (see above, p. 79, No. (19)), " And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lud, .... and they brought him to the Beth Din and stoned him."
(b) b. Sanh. 67a (see above, p. 79, No. (21)), "And they bring him to the Beth Din and stone him ; and thus they did to Ben Stada in Lud, and they hung him on the eve of Pesah."
(c) b. Sanh. 43a (see above, p. 83, No. (22)), " On the eve of Pesah they hung Jeshu ha-Notzri." . . . " Jeshu ha-Notzri goeth forth to be stoned because he hath practised magic, tpo , and deceived and led astray Israel."
(d) b. Shabb. 104b (see above, p. 35, No. (1)), "And did not Ben Stada bring magic spells, d^sdd, from Egypt?"
344
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 345
There can be no reasonable doubt that Ben Stada is here equivalent to Jeshu ha-Notzri.1 Next, let us compare Ben Pandira with Jeshu ha-Notzri. We have
(e) T. Hull ii. 24 (see above, p. 138, No. (45)). R. Eliezer said, "Once I was walking in the street of Sepphoris ; I found Jacob of Chephar Sichnin, and he said a word of Minuth in the name of Jeshu ben Pantiri."
if) b. A. Zar. 16b, 17a (see above, p. 138, No. (46)). It. Eliezer said, " Once I was walking in the upper street of Sepphoris, and I found a man, one of the disciples of Jeshu ha-Notzri, and Jacob of Chephar Sechanja was his name," . . . . " and he said to me, Thus hath Jeshu ha-Notzri taught me."
The name Jeshu ben Pantiri in (e) is, on the same
1 Note that the form Jeshu ben Stada does not occur. Ben Stada is clearly identified with Jeshu ha-Notzri ; but the possibility remains that originally they were not identical. R. Eliezer, who mentions Jeshu ben Pandira, mentions also Ben Stada, with no indication that the two names denote one person. I venture to suggest, as worth consideration, the hypo- thesis that Ben Stada originally denoted " that Egyptian " [Acts xxi. 38 : Josephus Antiqq., xx. 8, 6 ; B. J., ii. 13, 5], who gave himself out as a prophet, led a crowd of followers to the Mount of Olives, and was routed there by the Procurator Felix. This man is called a sorcerer ; at least he promised that the walls of Jerusalem "should fall at his approach. Now R. Eliezer said of Ben Stada that he brought magical spells from Egypt ; and the Rabbis, to whom he made this remark, replied that ' Ben Stada was a fool.' This verdict is more appropriate to the Jewish-Egyptian impostor than to the much more dangerous Jeshu ha-Notzri. In later times the two might easily be confused together. If there is anything in this suggestion, the name Stada, the pronunciation of which is guaranteed by the explanation 'Stath da,' might have some connexion with avda-raros, * seditious,' or at least with some cognate form from the root • sta.' It should be observed that R. Eliezer does not say that Ben Stada was put to death at Ltid, and that according to Josephus the Egyptian himself escaped. The execution of Ben Stada at Lud is the result of identifying Ben Stada with Jeshu ha-Notzri.
346 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
page a few lines higher up, given in the form Jeshua ben Pandiri. The passages (e) and (f) clearly prove the identity of Jeshu ben Pandira with Jeshu ha- Notzri.
For the identification of Ben Stada with Ben Pandira, which indeed would logically follow from the passages given above, we have the explicit state- ment.
b. Shabb. 104b (see above, p. 35, No. (1)), "Ben Stada is Ben Pandira."
So far as the identification of the names is con- cerned the case is clear. Do these names denote the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the Founder of Chris- tianity ? The following passages supply the answer.
{g) b. Sanh. 107b (see above, p. 51, No. (7)). "Jeshu ha-Notzri practised magic and deceived and led astray Israel."
(h) b. Sanh. 43a (see above, p. 84, No. (22)), " It was different with Jeshu ha-Notzri, for he was near to the kingdom."
(i) Ibid, (see above, p. 90), " Jeshu [ha-Notzri] had five disciples."
(j) T. Hull. ii. 22, 23 (see above, p. 103, No. (28)), " There came in Jacob a man of Chephar Sama to cure him in the name of Jeshua ben Pandira."
(k) j. A. Zar. 40d, 41a (see above, p. 104, No. (30)). " He said, We will speak to thee in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira."
Taking all these passages together, we find that the person named in them was one who ' deceived and led astray Israel,' who was tried and executed for doing so, who had disciples, and in whose name those disciples performed, or sought to perform, cures of
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 347
sick persons. Finally, since the person here named is called Jeshu ha-Notzri, the conclusion follows that he was either the historical Jesus of Nazareth, or else some otherwise totally unknown man of the same name and dwelling-place. There can be no question that the first of the two alternatives is the right one.
This conclusion is arrived at strictly from the evi- dence as given above, and takes no account of the a priori probability that a man, so important in Jewish history as Jesus, would be mentioned in the Talmud. That probability certainly strengthens the conclusion. Yet it is remarkable how very little the Talmud does say about Jesus, although there be no longer any room for doubt that he is referred to.
The conclusion here arrived at is sufficient to dispose of the arguments founded on chronological grounds, which are intended to show that there are in the Talmud two persons called Jesus, neither of whom is the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The earlier of these is the one mentioned in (7) above (p. 52 fol.) as the disciple, and therefore contemporary, of R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah, who lived a century before the Christian era. The second is the Ben Stada who was put to death at Lud, and who was supposed to be contemporary with R. Aqiba, a century after that era began. It is quite possible that the com- pilers of the Talmud were not aware of the identity of these two ; it is certain that chronology was not a science in which the Rabbis excelled, or one in which they laid stress upon accuracy.
Having now established the fact that the historical Jesus of Nazareth is referred to in the Talmud and
348 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Midrash, I proceed to collect the scanty traditions therein contained, so as to show what was the extent of the Rabbinical knowledge or belief concerning him, and what were the probable sources of that knowledge.
Jesus, called ha-Notzri, Ben Stada, or Ben Pandira, was born out of wedlock (p. 43). His mother was called Miriam [Mary], and was a dresser of women's hair (pp. 35, 41). Her husband was Pappus ben Jehudah (p. 35). Her paramour was Pandira (p. 35). She is also said to have been descended from princes and rulers, and to have played the harlot with a carpenter (p. 48).
Jesus had been in Egypt and brought magic thence (pp. 35, 51). He was a magician (p. 51), and led astray and deceived Israel (ibid, and p. 83). He sinned and caused the multitude to sin (p. 51). He mocked at the words of the wise (ibid, and p. 68), and was excommunicated (p. 51). He was tainted with heresy (p. 57).
[He] 1 called himself God, also the son of man, and said that he would go up to heaven (p. 62). [He] 1 made himself to live by the name of God (p. 75).
He was tried in Lud as a deceiver and as a teacher of apostasy (p. 79). Witnesses were concealed so as to hear his statements, and a lamp was lighted over him, that his face might be seen. He was brought to the Beth Din (p. 79).
He was executed in Lud, on the eve of Pesah, which was also the eve of Sabbath (pp. 79, 88). He was stoned (p. 79) and hung (p. 80), or crucified (p. 87). A herald proclaimed that he was to be stoned, and
1 Jesus is not mentioned by name, but is evidently referred to. See the commentary on the passage.
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH
invited evidence in his favour; but none was given (p. 83).
He [under the name of Balaam] was put to death by Pinhas the robber [Pontius Pilatus] (p. 72), and at the time of his death was thirty-three years old (ibid.).
He was punished in Gehinnom, by means of boil- ing filth (p. 68).
He was a revolutionary (p. 83). He was near to the kingdom (p. 84).
He had five disciples (p. 90).
Under the name of Balaam he is excluded from the world to come (p. 65 fol.).
In the foregoing paragraphs we have, I believe, all that refers to Jesus in the Rabbinical literature of the first four centuries. The reasons for asserting the fact of this reference will be found in the commentary on the several passages.
It is remarkable that no mention is made of the alleged Messiahship of Jesus, even as a reason for putting him to death.
What are the sources of this tradition concerning Jesus ? And, especially, do they imply a knowledge of the contents of a Gospel or Gospels ? First let us investigate the authorities for the tradition, i.e. the various Rabbis who made the statements containing it, as presented in the passages successively translated in the earlier pages of this book.
It has been explained in the Introduction that the Talmud consists of two parts, Mishnah and Gemara, related to each other as text and commentary. The close of the Mishnah is usually dated at about a.d. 220. The Palestinian Gemara covers the period from the close of the Mishnah down to the middle
650 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
or end of the fourth century ; while the Babylonian Gemara was not completed till the end of the fifth, or possibly even the beginning of the sixth, century. Both the Gemaras, however, contain a great deal of material handed down from the period covered by the Mishnah. These two main periods, represented by the Mishnah and Gemaras, are known as the period of the Tannaim and of the Amoraim respec- tively. To the earlier period belong, not only the Mishnah, but the Tosephta, and the chiefly halachic Midrashim, Siphri, Siphra and Mechilta. There are no works holding a quite similar position in relation to the Gemaras ; but while such Midrashim as Pesiqta, Pesiqta Rabbathi, Midrash Rabbah, are for the most part of much later date, even extending down to the eleventh or twelfth century, they also contain traditions from the period of the Amoraim and even of the Tannaim. The closing of the Mishnah thus marks a division in the Rabbinical literature which is of great importance. Many traditions recorded in the Amoraite collections may date from very early times. But traditions recorded in works of the Tannaite period have an additional warrant of authenticity.
Of the traditions concerning Jesus, the following are contained in the literature of the Tannaite period : —
(A.) Mishnah : [Jesus] born out of wedlock (p. 43). Balaam [Jesus] excluded from the world to come (p. 65).
(B.) Tosephta: Ben Stada [Jesus] a magician (p. 54). [Jesus] crucified (p. 87).
Healing in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira (p. 103).
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 351
A word of heresy in the name of Jeshu ben
Pantiri (p. 138). Ben Stada [Jesus] tried at Lud (p. 79). (C.) Baraithas (i.e. traditions of the Tannaite period, and distinguished as such in the Gemaras) : Ben Stada [Jesus] brought magic from Egypt
(p. 35). Ben Stada tried and hung at Lud on the eve
of Pesah (p. 80). A herald announced that Jeshu ha-Notzri was to be stoned, and invited evidence in his favour ; but none was given. He was hung on the eve of Pesah [and eve of Sabbath] (p. 83). Jeshu had five disciples (p. 90). The remaining traditions are found in the Gemaras, and to a very small extent in the later Midrashim.
Considering, for the present, the traditions of the Tannaite period, it will be noticed that the Mishnah does not contain the names Jeshu, or Ben Stada, or Ben Pandira. Tosephta contains all three, but not the form Jeshu ha-Notzri. Neither Siphri, Siphra, nor Mechilta contain, so far as I know, any allusion to Jesus. Tosephta further contains a covert reference to Jesus in certain questions put to, and answered by, R. Eliezer ben Horqenos (p. 46). These scarcely add any details to the tradition, because they are so obscure that their meaning is very uncertain. But they help to carry back the Tradition to an early date ; and not only so, but they lend additional probability to the suggestion that the Tradition concerning Jesus really started with the aforesaid R. Eliezer. It was he who referred to Ben Stada as a magician, and said that
352 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
he brought magic from Egypt (p. 35). It was he, also, who said that he had conversed with a disciple of Jeshu ben Pandira, who had repeated a saying which the latter had taught him. And the reader will be reminded in the following chapter that this same R. Eliezer was arrested on a charge of Minuth, which he ascribed to his intercourse with the disciple of Jesus just referred to ; also, that he was the author of two interpretations of texts bearing upon Minuth, which were often appealed to by later Rabbis. Now R. Eliezer was the disciple of R. Johanan ben Zaccai ; and the latter must certainly have seen and heard Jesus ; for he died, an old man, before a.d. 80, and his life was mainly spent in Jerusalem. We may, there- fore, take it as probable that R. Eliezer was the chief original authority for the Tradition about Jesus ; and, if this be so, then it becomes easier to understand why the series of questions (p. 46) referring to ' a certain person' should have been addressed to R. Eliezer. The answers to these questions show a reluctance to speak openly of the person concerned, and a similar reluctance may be discerned in the Mishnah, which, as we have seen, does not mention Jesus by name.
If the Tradition concerning Jesus began with R. Eliezer, we may with much probability assign the next stage in its development to R. Aqiba. It is true that no recorded saying of his mentions Jesus. But R. Aqiba was a disciple of R. Eliezer ; and not only so, but when R. Eliezer was grieving over his having been arrested on the charge of Minuth (p. 137), R. Aqiba said to him (ibid.), "Rabbi, suffer me to say something of what thou hast taught me. . . .
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 353
Perhaps there has come Minuth into thy hand and it has pleased thee." Evidently R. Eliezer had told R. Aqiba something about Minuth, and more par- ticularly about his encounter with Jacob the disciple of Jeshu ha-Notzri. It is further to be observed that Shimon ben Azai, who discovered in Jerusalem the book of pedigrees (p. 43), was the intimate associate of R. Aqiba. Another disciple of R. Aqiba was R. Meir, who told the parable about the crucified King (p. 86).
Thus we have a well-marked line of descent of the Tradition concerning Jesus, coming down virtually to the end of the Tannaite period ; for the Mishnah is chiefly based upon the work of R. Aqiba and R. Meir.
With this line of descent may be connected the remaining references to Jesus in the Tannaite period. R. Gamliel, who uttered the famous gibe against the Christian judge (p. 147), " The ass has come and trodden out the lamp," was the brother-in-law of R. Eliezer. And, although this story is not found in the Tannaite literature, but in that of the Amoraite period, it dates, if genuine, from the first century. R. Gamliel was the grandfather of R. Jehudah ha-Qadosh, who completed the Mishnah. Thus we have another line of descent from R. Eliezer down to Rabbi, who in his turn was the source from which nearly all the Amoraite tradition was derived.
Having now examined the Tradition concerning Jesus as contained in the Tannaite literature, I pro- ceed to investigate that Tradition in the Gemaras. The Tradition at once divides into a Palestinian and
a Babylonian form. At the head of each line stands
23
354 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
a disciple of Rabbi. The Palestinian Tradition comes for the most part through R. Johanan, directly or indirectly. The Babylonian Tradition was begun by Rab, who founded the school at Sura.
The Palestinian Tradition, in the Amoraite period, adds extremely little that is new concerning Jesus. R. Abahu, a disciple of R. Johanan, uttered the famous saying (p. 62), " If a man say, ' I am God,' he is a liar," etc. A saying by a Rabbi of uncertain date, Reuben, is also recorded, " God has no son," etc. (p. 302). Beyond these, we have only repeti- tions of the earlier statements about Ben Stada, and healing in the name of Jeshu ben Pandira. A second instance of the latter is recorded in connexion with R. Jehoshua ben Levi, a contemporary of R. Johanan (p. 108). But, on the whole, it would seem as if the Palestinian Rabbis, in the Amoraite period, ceased to take any interest in the Tradition concern- ing Jesus. We shall see, however, that this is not the case in regard to the development of the Christian heresy.
When we turn to the Babylonian Gemara, we find several additions to the Tradition concerning Jesus. And we are clearly right in placing R. Hisda next after his teacher Rab in the line of descent. It was R. Hisda who tried to explain the relation of Jesus to Stada and Pandira (p. 35). His explanation was wrong as regards the first, but right as regards the second. Also it was R. Hisda who quoted from R. Jeremiah bar Abba the saying that "Jeshu ha-Notzri burned his food in public" (p. 56). We shall see, in the next chapter, that R. Hisda uttered several sayings about Minuth.
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 355
The explanatory note concerning Ben Stada (p. 35) suggests another stage in the line of descent. R. Hisda's theory that Stada was the husband in the case is rejected, and the explanation is given, "the husband was Pappus ben Jehudah, the mother was Stada. The mother was Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, as we say in Pumbeditha, such a one hath gone aside from her husband." Evidently this tradition comes from Pumbeditha ; and the college at this place was founded by R. Jehudah ben Jehezq'el, a disciple of Rab and contemporary with R. Hisda. The successor of R. Jehudah was R. Joseph bar Hija. Now this R. Joseph vouches for the story about Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, told by R. Bibi bar Abaji, his son-in-law (p. 41). I suggest that the remark above, " as we say in Pumbeditha," points to R. Joseph as the author of the explanation that Stada was the mother, and that while her real name was Miriam, the dresser of women's hair, Stada was a nickname derived from her unfaithfulness to her husband. The explanation of the name Stada may possibly be original to R. Joseph ; but the name * Miriam, the dresser of women's hair,' — Miriam megaddela nashaia — clearly is traditional, since it represents the name ' Miriam magdalaah,' i.e. Mary Magdalene. The line of tradition here accordingly is, Rabbi, Rab, R. Jehudah, R. Joseph.
Another addition is the statement of Ulla that Jesus was a revolutionary and that he was * near to the kingdom ' (p. 83). Ulla was a Palestinian Rabbi, a disciple of R. Johanan ; but he removed to Baby- lonia, where he was closely associated with R. Jehudah and with R. Hisda. It is possible that the
356 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Jesus-Tradition may have reached the two Babylonian teachers through Ulla, not through Rab.
A further trace of the descent of the Jesus-Tradi- tion is to be seen in the saying of R. Papa (p. 47), " She, who was descended from princes and rulers, played the harlot with a carpenter." R. Papa re- ceived some of his teaching from Abaji, the disciple of R. Joseph of Pumbeditha, already mentioned. The remaining steps of the general Talmudic tradition, including, of course, that relating to Jesus, are R. Papa, R. Kahana, R. Ashi, the last being the redactor of the Babylonian Gemara.
What remains of the Jesus-Tradition in the Gemara is anonymous. Such are, the story of Jeshu ha- Notzri and his excommunication by R. Jehoshua ben Perahjah (p. 50) ; the story of Balaam and Jesus in Hell (p. 67) ; the age of Balaam (p. 72). The story about the birth of Jesus (p. 48) is also anonymous, and later than the Gemara.
Outside the Gemara, very few references to Jesus in the Amoraite period are found. R. Hija bar Abba refers to the " son of the harlot " (p. 804) in Pesiqta r. This Rabbi was contemporary with R. Johanan. R. Abahu, another disciple of R. Johanan, uttered a parable on the subject, 'God has no son' (p. 303). But these add nothing new to the Jesus-Tradition.
We have traced, so far as the evidence allows, the line of descent of the Jesus-Tradition during the period covered by the Mishnah and the Gemaras. The question remains, What were the sources of this Tradition? Did the Rabbis, who made the several statements concerning Jesus, base their assertions upon oral information, derived ultimately from actual
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 357
recollection of the career of Jesus ? Or did they, to any extent, obtain their knowledge from acquaintance with the written Gospel, in any of its forms ? The latter question belongs partly to the following chapter, where the ' Books of the Minim ' will be discussed ; but it cannot be wholly omitted here.
If the summary of the Jesus-Tradition, given above (pp. 348-9) be examined, it will be found to contain little, if anything, which would imply the knowledge of a Gospel, or Gospels, on the part of the Rabbis. The general outline of the Tradition is sufficiently like the outline of the story in the Gospels to show that the same person is referred to ; but the differences are hard to explain, if a knowledge of the Gospels be assumed. And since the Gospels themselves rest upon an oral tradition, it is more natural to suppose that some of that Christian tradition may have been known and repeated in Jewish circles than that the Rabbis should have read the written record of that tradition. In the beginning, the Jesus-Tradition was propagated by Jews amongst Jews ; and while it was carefully preserved amongst the disciples of Jesus, it would not be wholly forgotten amongst those who were hostile to him, though there would be no induce- ment to them to remember it with accuracy. This applies to that part of the Tradition which related to the birth and parentage of Jesus. Of his public career, and of his trial and death, there would naturally be an independent Jewish tradition, however vague and defective it might be.
In regard to the birth and parentage of Jesus, the earliest tradition (p. 43) merely indicates that he was born out of wedlock. This is, obviously, only a
358 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
coarse interpretation of the statement in the Christian tradition that Jesus was not the son of his mother's husband. There is a trace of this view of the origin of Jesus in the questions to R. Eliezer (p. 45), " What of a ' Mamzer ' (bastard) as to his inheriting ? " Whether the name of * Miriam megaddela' (Mary Magdalene), as that of the mother of Jesus, passed into the Jewish tradition at this early stage I do not know. I am inclined to think that it did ; for, although it does not appear till the time of R. Joseph (p. 355), in the fourth century, yet he cannot have derived it from a Gospel, since the same Gospel which recorded the name would have shown that Mary of Magdala was not the mother of Jesus. If this be allowed, then the further detail, that the mother of Jesus mated with a carpenter (p. 47), may be explained in the same way, i.e. as an early tradition not recorded till a late date. The earliest tradition knows the name Ben Pandira as an epithet of Jesus ; but the explanation that Pandira was the name of the paramour of the mother of Jesus is not given till the time of R. Hisda (p. 354), in the third century. It is at least possible that the name Pandira, whatever it may have meant, was not originally intended to de- note the father of Jesus, and that Ben Pandira was a descriptive epithet, like the name Boanerges, ' sons of thunder,' applied to James and John [Mark iii. 17]. In any case, the ascription to Jesus of the name Ben Pandira does not imply any acquaintance with a Gospel.
In regard to the tradition of the public career of Jesus, such acquaintance with a Gospel is even less to be assumed. The scanty and imperfect notices of
JESUS IN THE TALMUD AND MIDRASH 359
the ministry and the death of Jesus, contained in the Rabbinical literature, are only what one would ex- pect in reference to a person whose deeds and whose fate were of no immediate importance to the Rabbis, and whom they knew only as a renegade Jew, a troubler of Israel in former times. I think it is a mistake to suppose that the Rabbis took much interest in Jesus, or cared to know much about him. And for the mere fragments of tradition which, in connexion with legal questions, they recorded about him, no other foundation need be looked for than such oral communication as might have been made by those who saw him ; communications not intended as explicit teaching, but merely as casual remarks in conversation. In this way most if not all of the tradition concerning the public life and the execution of Jesus may be reasonably accounted for. The statements about Jesus in Hell (p. 67), and of his * burning his food ' (p. 56), and of his exclusion from the world to come (p. 65), are not to be regarded as parts of the tradition concerning him, but merely as haggadic inventions, based on the subject-matter of the tradition.
As to the historical value of the Jesus-Tradition in the Rabbinical literature, little need be said. It will have become evident, both from the consideration of the several passages in the earlier part of the book and from the analysis of them just made, that they add nothing new to the authentic history of Jesus, as contained in the Gospels. In general, though not in detail, they serve to confirm the Christian tradition, by giving independent, and indeed hostile, evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, a fact which
360 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD.
has by some been called in question. But if, beyond this, the Rabbinical Jesus-Tradition has no value for the history of Christianity, it does throw some light upon the attitude of Judaism, as represented by the Rabbis, towards Jesus. It shows how the violent hostility directed against him during his life left only the vague and careless memory of a deceiver and an apostate. Of the great personality of Jesus not a trace remains, no sign of recognition that the ' Sinner of Israel ' had been a mighty man. His birth, which Christian devotion had transfigured into a miracle, Jewish contempt blackened into a disgrace ; and his death, which has been made the central point of Christian theology, was dismissed as the mere execution of a pernicious criminal. Judaism went on its way, but little troubled in mind at the thought of the man whom it had cast out. And this is natural, because Rabbinical Judaism was in some respects so fundamentally different from the religion of Jesus that no real recognition of him, or assimilation of his teaching, was possible. This is by no means to say that Judaism stands condemned by its rejection of Jesus. It is merely to say that Rabbinical Judaism and the religion of Jesus stand at opposite poles of religious thought; they are mutually exclusive, but have equal right to exist ; and each is proved, by the witness of history during nineteen centuries, to be capable of all the functions of a living religion.
CHAPTER II
The Minim
In this final chapter I shall try to collect the general results to be obtained from the mass of evidence already presented, in the hope of being able to answer the questions, Who were the Minim? Why were they so called ? What relation did they bear to the Gnostics? What is their place in the history of the Christian Church? In answering these questions, some repetition is unavoidable of what has been said in the earlier parts of this book, in relation to separate passages. In like manner, it was not practicable there to avoid provisional con- clusions upon some points which can only be fully dealt with when the whole of the material has been collected. The very title of the book, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, contains such a provisional conclusion, so far, at all events, as relates to the identi- fication of the Minim with Christians. I wished the title to indicate the final result obtained (if my argu- ments are sound) from the evidence presented, not the process by which it was obtained. I trust I have sufficiently guarded myself against the charge of having begged the question that I set out to answer.
361
362 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
I proceed now to deal with the several problems already indicated which are suggested by the study of the Minim.
§. i. The Name Min (Minim, Minuth)
The word Min (po), as the term applied to a heretic, is derived by Levy (N. H. W., hi. 104a) from an Arabic root, ' man/ meaning to lie, speak falsely. He also compares the Syriac, 'mania,' 'madness.' The Syriac word, however, is plainly borrowed from the Greek fMavia, and throws no light upon the Hebrew word. I have no knowledge of Arabic ; and if it be really necessary to go to that language for the ety- mology of the word j»d, I cannot criticise Levy's hypothesis. But I suggest that it is not necessary to go beyond the limits of Hebrew, or, at all events, Aramaic. Levy's explanation implies a similarity in form and sound between two words derived from different roots. I would rather explain the word po, denoting heretic, as a special use of the ordinary and familiar word po, denoting ' sort ' or ' kind.'
po occurs frequently in the O.T., always in the adverbial phrase wo1?, Gen. i. 2, or the cognate forms ; here its meaning is ' kind,' ' species,' ' sort.' There is also found in the O.T. another word meaning ' kind,' ' species,' viz. : — the word ft (zan). It is found, Ps. cxliv. 13 and 2. Chron xvi. 14. It is the same as the Aramaic word *u?, which is used in the Targum to translate the word }^d . Thus, in Gen. i. 2, wnb is rendered rrofo
Now there is also in Hebrew the word rut (Aram. ri?), which means ' to commit fornication ' ; and
THE MINIM 363
although the word \i, just mentioned, is probably from the root pt, it was believed to be connected with the root rut, as is shown by the punctuation, n>;\ not D% 2 Chron. xvi. 14. A curious illustration of this supposed connexion is found in the Talmud, b. B. Qamma 16b, in a comment upon the verse in 2 Chron. The passage is as follows : — TPW mpm jnuain
trm n^ &o jna nnon W OW3 tok s:£ru in (In place of hot, the Aruch has ma, which is probably the correct reading, as it undoubtedly expresses the correct meaning. )
Translation. — They buried him in a bed that was
filled with spices and ■ z'nim" What are spices and
z'nim ? R. El'azar said, ' Different kinds [of spices]/
R. Shemuel bar Nahmani said, ' Spices such that he
who smelt them was tempted to fornication.'
We have then the word |t, supposed to be con- nected with n:r ; and |i is equivalent to \^. A further step in the argument is that, according to the well-known symbolism of the O.T., unfaithful- ness towards the covenant-relation with the God of Israel was represented under the figure of conjugal infidelity. The word rut is used both in the literal and in the figurative sense of ' being unfaithful.' This usage is frequent in the O.T. ; in the Talmud the literal meaning is much more common. I suggest that as pe = ;t = * kind,' ' species,' * sort,' the association of |t with put led to an extension of the meaning of yn in the same direction ; and that whereas n:i in the Talmud usually denotes literal unfaithfulness, pe referred almost exclusively to figurative unfaithfulness, i.e. some form of apostasy
364 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
from the national religion. That is unquestion- ably the connotation of pb, whatever the denota- tion may be. The theory worked out here is based on the suggestion of Friedmann in his note to Pesiqta 101a, quoted above, p. 304. If it is correct, then it explains why, in several of the passages which have been examined in the earlier part of the book, there is a secondary reference to fornication in the mention of the Minim and of Minuth. The inter- pretation of Prov. v. 8, Keep thy way far from her, and of Ecc. vii. 26, the woman whose heart is snares and nets, in reference to Minuth, lies ready to hand, if Minuth be spiritual unfaithfulness ; while, on the other hand, the way is open for the suggestion that Minuth led to actual immorality. This appears plainly in the story of R. Jonathan and the Minim (see above, p. 215). Further, this explanation of the term Min is in close agreement with the fact that those to whom the name was applied were of Jewish origin. None but a Jew could be guilty of unfaith- fulness towards the covenant-relation between God and Israel. Hence, if the above etymology be correct, a Min must be an unfaithful Jew ; and, in examining the various instances where the term is used, we have found that in almost every case the Jewish origin of the Minim is either implied or not contradicted. In a few instances the term appears to be applied to Gentiles, in the sense of 'enemies of Judaism' (see above, pp. 248-9, and elsewhere).
Finally, if the explanation here given be correct, it accounts for the fact that the word po in the Talmud is often used in its common and original meaning of 1 sort ' or * kind ' (see above, p. 161).
THE MINIM 365
Other suggested derivations of the word are —
1st. That it is contracted from p&Mp, a ' believer,' and denotes a ' believer in the doctrine of Two Powers.' This is to give to the word * believer ' a specialised meaning which is without warrant. No doubt the Minim did hold this particular belief; but that is no reason for calling them ' believers ' par excellence. If the idea of 'belief is introduced at all into the meaning of the word, then there would be more reason for approving the explanation that,
2nd. The word po is composed of the initial letters of n¥ti iK" i^dkd , i.e. ' believer [in] Jesus the Nazarene.' This is ingenious, but nothing more.
3rd. The derivation from the name Manes, the founder of the Manichaean system, is merely a guess based on some resemblance in form, and some sup- posed resemblance between the tenets of the Manichaeans and those of the Minim. How the form Min is to be derived from Manes is not explained.
4th. A better derivation is that from the root |*q, to deny, cp. wi from Bwn. This alone has any pre- tension to etymological soundness ; and I only reject it because the derivation given above seems to me to be etymologically no less sound, and more in accordance with the usage of the word, as shown in the various passages considered above.
§ ii. Who were the Minim
We have seen that the term 'Min' denotes an unfaithful Jew, one who was not loyal at heart to the principles of the Jewish religion, and who either in thought, word, or deed was false to the covenant
$66 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
between God and Israel. We have now to inquire whether the term was applied to all Jews tainted with heresy, or whether it was restricted to the adherents of one particular heresy and, if so, which heresy ?
A passage has been given above (see p. 118 fol.) in which a severe censure is passed upon four classes of offenders, Minim, Meshummadim ( apostates ) , Masoroth (betrayers), and Epiqurosin (T. Sanh. xiii. 4, 5). If Minim were a general term for all unfaithful Jews, there would have been no need of four descriptive names. And the construction of the sentence forbids us to assume that Minim is the genus, of which Meshummadim, Masoroth, and Epiqurosin are the species. All four seem to be placed on the same footing. The distinction between their several meanings seems to be as follows : — ' Masoroth ' denotes ' delators,' political betrayers. ' Epiqurosin ' are free- thinkers, whether Jewish or Gentile. 'Meshum- madim ' are those who wilfully transgress some part of the ceremonial law, and thereby proclaim their apostasy from the Jewish religion. The Minim are ( those who are false at heart, but who do not necessarily proclaim their apostasy. They are the more dangerous because more secret. They do not withdraw from the community of Israel, but have to be cast out. This is the end to be attained by the various devices for the detection of Minim, which we have met with in passages cited from the Talmud and Midrash. These are, the Formula against the Minim (p. 125 fol.), and the references to liturgical and ritual variations (pp. 199, 204). We do not find any such precautions taken against Meshummadim, Masoroth or even Epiqurosin. The result of such a policy of
THE MINIM S67
exclusion would be that the Minim would form communities of their own, and thus hold a position of independence as regards Jews ; but the possibility would always remain that Minim might be found in the Jewish synagogues. Hence, the Talmud speaks of the Minim as a definite and distinct body or sect, 'the Minim said, or did so-and-so.' And, in the curious story about R. Saphra (p. 266 fol.), it clearly appears that the Minim had a separate organisation of their own, while at the same time they regarded themselves as being so little different from Jews that they could ask for, and obtain, a Jewish Rabbi of unimpeachable orthodoxy to be their teacher.
The Minim, then, are unfaithful Jews condemned as such, but not admitting themselves to be such. Therefore the name applied to them was a term of abuse, not merely a descriptive epithet such as ' apostate,' ' betrayer,' or * freethinker.' A Min might be an apostate, or a betrayer, and could hardly fail to be a freethinker ; but the real nature of his offence was rather that of a moral taint than an intel- lectual perversity. This is shown by the interpreta- tion of Num. xv. 39, Ye shall not walk after your heart ; as a definition of Minuth (see p. 195 fol.). This is to find in the prompting of selfish passion and lust, and not in the dictates of reason, the ground of departure from the true way in religion prescribed by authority. And it should be observed that this interpretation, which is contained in Siphri, § 115, p. 35\ is the earliest indication of the meaning of the term Min. It is in close accordance with the ety- mology of the word, as already explained.
The question who were the persons called Minim
368 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
practically resolves itself into the choice between Jewish Gnostics and Jewish Christians. That they were Jews is beyond dispute. A Gentile is never called a Min, unless in one or two instances through ignorance or inadvertence (pp. 249, 332). A Gnostic might, of course, be or claim to be a Christian, and therefore the terms are not strictly exclusive ; but the Jewish Christian, generally speaking, was sufficiently distinct from the Gnostic to make it possible, and therefore necessary, to ascertain whether the Minim are to be identified with the first or the second. To the discussion of this important question I now pro- ceed, and I shall examine first the arguments in favour of the theory that the Minim are Gnostics.
The latest advocate of this view is Friedlander, in the work already several times referred to, JDer vor- christliche jiidische Gnosticismus. The conclusion reached in this book is the definite statement (p. 68) that the Minim are Gnostics of the Ophite sect, one branch of which sect were further known as Cainites. Friedlander rejects the theory commonly held, that the Minim are Jewish Christians, as being based upon a merely superficial study of the Rabbinical literature, and fortifies his own theory with abundant citations. With the first half of his work, in which he illustrates the subject of Gnosticism from Philo and the early Christian Fathers, I have nothing to do. For any- thing I know, his statements may be accurate, and his conclusions sound. In the second portion he deals with the evidences of Gnosticism in the Rabbinical literature, and sets up his proof of the identification of the Minim with the Gnostics.
The most ancient Gnosticism, he says, was con-
THE MINIM 369
cerned with the two main topics of Cosmology and Theosophy ; and he has no difficulty in showing that such speculation was well known amongst the Rabbis of the first and second centuries. They referred to it under the names of ' Maaseh Bereshith ' and ■ Maaseh Mercabah,' i.e. ' The Work of Creation,' and < The Work of the Chariot,' the latter name being an allusion to the vision of Ezekiel. The study of these subjects is mentioned in the Mishnah, and the restric- tions named under which alone it might be pursued. The text of the Mishnah and of the Gemara upon it are to be found in b. Hag. llb, certainly a most instructive passage for the study of Jewish Gnosti- cism. Further, he describes the well-known case of Ben Zoma, a proficient in such studies, who appears to have lost his reason in consequence. He quotes from the Talmud a saying by R. El'azar of Mod'in [Aboth. iii. 15], " He who profanes the Sabbaths, and despises the set feasts, and makes void the covenant of Abraham our father, and gives interpretations of the Torah which are not according to the halachah, even though he have Torah and good works, he has no portion in the world to come." Then he says (p. 68), "When we look closer at this antinomian Gnosticism, as it filled Palestine with its noise in the time of Jesus, we are struck at the first glance by its relationship to Ophitism. If we examine more thoroughly the Talmudic passages bearing on the subject, we soon come to the conclusion that the heretics so often opposed by the Rabbis, the so-called Minim, belonged to the Ophite sect." That Fried- lander is right in concluding that Gnosticism is referred to in the passages about the ■ Chariot ' and
24
370 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
* Creation,' in the story of Ben Zoma, and the saying of It. El'azar of Mod'in, is probable enough. But if the Minim are the Gnostics in question, it is at least remarkable that the term Min is never used in con- nexion with those persons who are said to have pursued such studies. The long passage, b. Hag. llb fol., which may be called the locus classicus for Gnosticism in the Talmud, makes no reference to Minim or Minuth.1 Ben Zoma is never called a Min, or even said to have been in danger of becoming one. Ben Azai, who was another great student of theosophy, is in like manner never even remotely associated with Minuth ; in fact, as we have seen above (p. 297), he was the author of a haggadah directed against the Minim. And, most striking of all, the arch-Gnostic of the Talmud, Elisha ben Abujah, known by the nickname of Aher, is never once called a Min. In the case of Ben Zoma and Ben Azai, their orthodoxy was never disputed ; but Elisha ben Abujah did become an outcast from the community of Judaism, and if Min was the proper term to apply to him, as a Gnostic, it must surely have been once at least applied to him. The most that is said of him is that he used to read books of Minuth. And if it be said that this at once proves him to have been a Min, the answer is that he also read his Bible without on that account being an orthodox Jew. In any case the fact remains that he is nowhere in so many words said to have been a Min. When, therefore, Friedlander says that " Acher was the Min /car' Ifox^V (p. 110), the phrase is his own, not that of the Talmud.
1 Except the statement that Elisha b. Abujah read books of Minuth.
THE MINIM 371
Having then stated his thesis that the Minim are Gnostics, Friedlander proceeds to support it by citing passages where Minim are referred to ; all of which he makes use being included in the collection we have already examined. On p. 71 fol. he gives the story of R. Eliezer who was arrested for Minuth (see above, p. 137 fol.). Then he says (p. 74), "We would ask, What is there in this passage which in the remotest degree points to Christianity ? Nothing ; absolutely nothing. Rather the other way. If our Talmudists had been able to read the Talmud with less conceit and more impartiality, they would never have made the mistake of imagining Christianity in this and similar passages." No one would guess from the foregoing extract that in the text of the Talmud, as Friedlander must have had it before him, the Min says to the Rabbi, nvun w *wch P, " thus hath Jesus the Nazarene taught me." Friedlander has no right to find fault with the treatment of the Talmud by other scholars when he himself can be guilty of such an omission. To have given the passage in full would have damaged his theory, but it would have been more honest. Unfortunately, most of his readers will not be in a position to verify his refer- ences. The result of this correction is to show that, whatever Minuth may be, a notorious Min was, on his own showing, a Christian disciple. This fact does much to weaken the force of the arguments which Friedlander founds upon other references to Minim. Whatever likeness there may be between Minuth and Gnosticism, still the fact remains that in one instance, rightly called by Friedlander " sehr lehr- reich," Minuth is expressly associated with Christianity.
372 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
On p. 80 he quotes the passage about the " Giljonim and the books of the Minim" (b. Shabb. 116a; see above, p. 160 fol. I have translated from the version in T. Shabb. xiii. 5, which, however, is almost the same as that in the Gemara). Friedlander asserts that the Giljonim (properly margins of written scrolls) are identical with the Diagramma of the Ophite Gnostics ; and his best argument is the application of Isa. lvii. 8, Behind the doors and the posts thou hast set up thy memorial. The Talmud, however, does not say what was in the Giljonim, except nrDTK, sacred names, so that the identification of them with the Diagramma is at best only con- jectural. But Friedlander, in his translation of the passage, again misleads his reader by manipulating the text. The Talmud says, comparing idolaters with Minim, fntfon proe p* Mm pawi p*DD Mn, i.e. " These [viz. the Minim] acknowledge [God] and lie ; those [the idolaters] do not acknowledge [Him] and lie." Friedlander translates "denn diese, die Minim namlich, sind Wissende und leugnen ; jene aber leugnen aus Unwissenheit." By using the word ' Wissende,' which he emphasises, Friedlander allows it to be thought that the Talmud uses a word corre- sponding to 'Gnostic.' If it did, that would be a strong argument in support of his theory. But the Talmud does not say anything about ' knowing.' The word to express that would be pjn*. The word actually used is proo* ' acknowledge,' ' recognise.' The Minim, being Jews, acknowledged the God of Israel while they spoke falsely. The idolaters, being Gentiles, did not acknowledge him, and spoke falsely. Here again it is not fair to the reader who may be
THE MINIM 373
unable to consult the original text to deal with it as Friedlander does, nor does it increase one's respect for Friedlander himself as a reliable exponent of the Talmud. The text of the passage is indeed printed in a footnote ; but the mistranslation is allowed to stand, and is repeated with emphasis on p. 82. As to the identification of the Giljonim with the Dia- gramma there is not sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. Very possibly the Diagramma was included in the condemnation pronounced upon heretical writings in the present passage. But ' Giljonim ' does not mean ' tables/ ' tafeln,' as Fried- lander says it does, p. 83.
On p. 100 fol. Friedlander deals in detail with the case of Elisha ben Abujah (Aher) and the story of the four men who entered Paradise. He has no difficulty in showing that all this refers to Gnosticism. But here again he makes changes which tell in favour of his theory. He suppresses words in the original text which contradict his interpretation of the pas- sage b. Hag. 15a about Aher and Metatron, as has been shown (see above, p. 288). And, in his discus- sion of the doctrine of Metatron (p. 103 in Friedl.), he says, " Very instructive in regard to the position ascribed to Metatron in the haggadic literature of the first two Christian centuries, is the following dialogue, contained in the Talmud, between R. Idi and a Min," etc. The reference is to b. Sanh. 38b (see above, p. 286). Now R. Idi did not live in the second century, but in the fourth, a fact of which Friedlander ought to have been aware, and which makes the passage referred to useless as evidence in support of his theory.
374 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
On p. 108 (Friedl.) is another instance of misre- presentation of the text. The passage is quoted (Qoh. r. on vii. 26, see above, p. 219), in which R. Isi of Csesarea expounded Ecc. vii. 26 in reference to Minuth. Six pairs of names are mentioned, of which the first in each pair represents those who " please God and escape" from Minuth, the second the "sinners who are caught." The first pair is ' R. Eliezer and Jacob of Chephar Neburaia.' Friedlander says that this is plainly meant to be Jacob of Chephar Sechanja. But Jacob of Ch. Neburaia was a well-known person, and possibly contemporary with R. Isi, who mentions him. The last pair, according to Friedlander, are "R. Elieser and R. Jehoshua, and (the sinner is) Elisha ben Abuja." Now the original text does not say this. It gives the last name simply as 'Elisha.7 Even if this be the correct reading, the fact remains that nowhere else does 'Elisha' mean 'Elisha ben Abujah.1 That man is always referred to either by his full name, or else by his nickname of Aher. It might be argued that in this instance Elisha does mean E. b. Abujah. But Friedlander does not argue it; he simply takes it for granted, and allows his reader to suppose that he is supported by the original text.
Here then are no less than five instances in which Friedlander supports his theory by misrepresentations of the evidence, as contained in the original texts. A theory which rests upon such arguments cannot look for much favour. Previous Talmud scholars, who have held a different theory, and upon whose ignorance and superficiality Friedlander pours scorn,
1 Except for brevity, when he has already been mentioned previously in the same passage. This is not the case here.
THE MINIM 375
may have been mistaken in their opinion ; but at least they dealt fairly both with their text and with their readers, and did not descend to such methods as those here exposed.
Bereft of its false witnesses, the theory of Fried- lander does not amount to much. Gnosticism, be- yond a doubt, was known to the Talmudic Rabbis, and Elisha ben Abujah was the chief representative of it. In some instances the practices ascribed to the Minim are such as are associated with Gnostics, and especially Ophite Gnostics. And, if there were no other evidence, it would be reasonable enough to identify the Minim with the Gnostics. But, if we are at liberty to assume that what is true of one Min is true of all Minim (and Friedlander rests his whole argument upon this assumption), then the evidence connecting Minuth with Jewish Christianity is suffi- cient to disprove the alleged identity of the Minim with the Gnostics. Neither Friedlander nor anyone else would propose to identify the Jewish Christians with Gnostics, which is the only alternative. This much, however, may be conceded as a possibility, not as a certainty, that the Rabbis did not so sharply distinguish between Jewish Christians and Gnostics but that they occasionally attributed to the one what was really to the discredit of the other. In this way may be explained the unsavoury stories about the Minim, and the allegations against them of immoral conduct, of which we have met with several examples. Finally, there is to be reckoned in favour of Fried- lander's theory the a priori probability that the Gnostics, rather than the Jewish Christians, would come into hostile relations with orthodox Jews. The
376 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Gnostics gave much trouble to the Christian Church as well as to the Jewish. Whereas the Jewish Christians, if they adhered to the ceremonial law, as they are usually supposed to have done, and differed from the main body of Jews only in regard to the Messiahship of Jesus, might seem to be comparatively harmless. This is, indeed, the strongest argument in favour of Friedlander's theory; and it is to be regretted that he did not give more attention to it, instead of damaging his case by less respectable attempts at proof.
The view has usually been held that the Minim were, or included, Jewish Christians. That this is the right view seems to me to be put beyond dispute by the evidence of the passages in which the Minim are mentioned, at all events if we are at liberty to assume that what is said of Minim in one instance is true of Minim in general. In many of the passages examined there is nothing distinctive in what is said concerning the Minim, certainly nothing definitely Christian. But in a few of the passages a connexion between Minuth and Christianity is so definitely stated that it cannot be excluded from neutral passages except on the ground of an equally definite statement to the opposite effect. There is nowhere to be found, so far as I know, a definite statement connecting the Minim with some persons other than Christians.
The evidence for the connexion of Minim with Christians may be briefly summed up as follows: —
1st. In the passage already often referred to, b. A. Zar. 16b fol. (see above, p. 137), it is related how R. Eliezer was put on his trial for Minuth. He accounted
THE MINIM 377
for this, in conversation afterwards, by saying that he had once met 'one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene, by name Jacob of Chephar Sechanja,' who told him an exposition of a text which he said he had learnt from Jesus. In the version in T. Hull. ii. 24, it is said that this Jacob ■ said a word of Minuth in the name of Jeshu ben Pantiri.' Also in b. A. Zar. 27b (see p. 104) this same ' Jacob of Chephar Sechanja' is called 'Jacob the Min,' and he is described as proposing to heal a sick man ; according to the version T. Hull. ii. 22, 23, he wished to do this ' in the name of "Jeshua" ben Pandira.' This is the locus classicus for the identification of Minim with Christians.
2nd. In b. Shabb. 116a (see pp. 146, 156, 161) there are mentioned in close connexion the books of the Minim and the Evangelion.
3rd. Qoh. r. on i. 8 (see above, p. 211) gives the story of the Minim of Capernaum and their treatment of Hananjah, nephew of R. Jehoshua. The Rabbi says to his nephew, ' Since the ass of that wicked one has roused itself against thee,' etc. Here there is an unmistakable allusion to Jesus. The mention of Capernaum points in the same direction.
4th. The doctrine of Two Powers in Heaven is in many passages ascribed to the Minim (see above, p. 262 and elsewhere). In one place, Pesiqta r. xxi. p. 100b (see above, p. 304), is the phrase, ' If the son of the harlot saith to thee, there are two Gods,' etc. The ' son of the harlot ' clearly indicates Jesus. The con- nexion of the doctrine of Two Powers in Heaven with Christianity is further shown by internal evi- dence, as the doctrine in question appears to rest upon
378 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see the discussion, p. 264 fol.).
The combined force of all these separate arguments seems to me to be very great, and to decide the question at issue in favour of the identification of Minim with Jewish Christians.
A remarkable confirmation of this view is found in a passage of Jerome (Ep. 89 ad Augustin : quoted by Gieseler, Ecc. Hist, i. 98 n. 4, Eng. Tr.), "Usque hodie per totas Orientis synagogas inter Judaeos haeresis est, quae dicitur Minaearum, et a Pharisaeis nunc usque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum, filium Dei, natum de virgine Maria, et eum dicunt esse qui sub Pontio Pilato passus est et resurrexit ; in quern et nos credimus, sed, dum volunt et Judaei esse et Christiani, nee Judaei sunt nee Christiani." I have not till now referred to this interesting passage, because I wished to decide the question of the identity of the Minim from the evidence of the Rabbinical literature. Having done so, it is fair to call in this unimpeach- able witness who can speak of the Minim out of his own personal knowledge. He says that they are a sect of the Jews who profess to be both Jews and Christians, and are, in fact, neither. This agrees exactly with what we have already ascertained, viz., that the Minim are secretly unfaithful Jews, claiming to be Christians, but yet remaining in communion with Jews.1 Hence they were objects of suspicion and hatred to the Jews, while not acknowledged by
1 Note that, according to Jerome, the Minim are to found 'per totas Orientis synagogas ' ; they needed, therefore, to be detected by such devices as the 'formula against the Minim.'
THE MINIM 379
the great body of non-Jewish Christians. It is also interesting that Jerome says that the Minim are ' commonly called Nazaraei,' the equivalent of Notzri. This identification is not found expressly stated in the Talmud, though it is implied.1 It is worth mentioning here that the term Ebionite (p*3k), is nowhere used in the Rabbinical literature to designate heretics, whether Minim or any other.
The theory that the Minim are intended to desig- nate Jewish Christians I regard as having been now conclusively proved. This may be otherwise ex- pressed by saying that wherever the Talmud or the Midrash mentions Minim, the authors of the state- ments intend to refer to Jewish Christians. The possibility is still open that the Rabbis attributed to Minim opinions or actions which in fact were not held by Christians, or that they occasionally used the term Min as a name for enemies of Judaism, and applied it to Gentiles. These are exceptional cases, and do not affect the main argument.
It must, however, be admitted that the theory which identifies Minim with Jewish Christians is not free from difficulties, which would be serious if the evidence in favour of the theory were less decisive. It will have struck every reader who has gone through the long series of polemical discussions examined in the earlier part of the book, that the subjects of debate are not what we should have ex- pected in the controversies of Jews with Christians. Most remarkable is the absence of all reference to the alleged Messiahship of Jesus. That Gentile
1 The Notzrim are mentioned by R. Johanan (p. 171), and the Christian Sunday is called the Nazarene day (ibid.).
380 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
Christians should have ignored this might be under- stood ; but that neither Jews nor Jewish Christians should have a word to say about it seems very strange. Even in the passages where Jesus himself is mentioned there is no allusion to his alleged Messiahship, though it is perhaps implied in the statement that he was a deceiver. And in the passage in b. Sanh. 97-98, where a good deal is said about the ' coming of the Son of David/ there is no reference to the alleged fulfilment of the prophecy in Jesus. I can only account for this by supposing that the Minim were Jewish Christians whose Christ- ology was developed beyond the point at which the Messiahship was the chief distinction of Jesus. In support of this view it is important to recall the evidence of likeness between the doctrines of the Minim and the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (see above, pp. 264, 272, 322, 340). The identification of the Minim with Jewish Christians, vouched for as it is by the explicit statements already quoted, cannot claim the support of anything very distinctive in the evidence furnished by the polemical references. For the most part such evidence is hardly more than neutral. It must be remembered, however, that it was no part of the purpose of the Talmud to supply a full description of the Minim. They are only mentioned casually, where there was opportunity or need for marking them off from the faithful Jews.
I answer the question, then, ' Who were the Minim ? ' by adopting the common view that they were Jewish Christians, and add only these two qualifications — first, that the name may occasionally
THE MINIM 381
denote other heretics, but most often refers to Jewish Christians ; second, that the Jewish Christians desig- nated by the name Minim held a Christology similar to that of the Epistle to the Hebrews.1
§ iii. The Place of the Minim in History
This is perhaps a too ambitious title, seeing that the notices of the Minim are so fragmentary as we have found them to be. All that I can hope to do is to try and bring the scanty facts recorded about them into connexion with the history of their times, and particularly to inquire if any light can be ob- tained upon their relation to the Christian Church. I repeat here what I said in the preface, that I make no attempt to give a complete illustration of the sub- ject from the side of the early Christian literature. If I can provide material that may be useful to students in that field, I shall be well content.
The first historical fact recorded in connexion with the Minim is the composition of the formula against them, known as the Birchath ha-Minim (see above, p. 125 fol.). This liturgical addition was introduced when R. Gamliel II. was president of the assembly at Jabneh, and it marks the first official recognition of the existence of the Minim. Why was it intro-
1 This is virtually the same view as that of Gratz (G. d. J., iv. pp. 90-93, and especially Note ii. p. 433). I am the more glad to find myself in agree- ment with so distinguished a scholar, because I have worked out my case independently. His book presents the solution of the Minim-problem with admirable clearness, but with the brevity demanded by the other claims of his vast subject. There is therefore room for a discussion of the problem in minute detail such as I have attempted in this book.
382 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
duced at this time, and not earlier or later? The factors which determine the date are three, viz., the presidency of R. Gamliel, who ordered the formula ; the death of Shemuel ha-Qaton, who composed it, and lived at least a year afterwards ; and the de- struction of the Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. The first and second of these factors are sufficient to fix the date, at all events approximately. The third is necessary, however, because it points to the reason why a formula against the Minim was needed.
The chronology of the period immediately after the fall of Jerusalem is extremely obscure in regard to the lives of the leading Rabbis. R. Johanan ben Zaccai made Jabneh the headquarters of Rabbinical Judaism, having, according to tradition (b. Gitt. 56a), obtained from Vespasian the gift of that city 'with its wise men.' Evidently there was an assembly of some kind at Jabneh even before the capture of Jerusalem. R. Johanan ben Zaccai presided for a time at Jabneh, but probably not for more than two or three years. He was not there when he died, for it is said that his disciples after his death went to Jabneh. He is said to have had a school (Beth ha- midrash) at Berur Hail (b. Sanh. 32b), and no doubt that is where he died. After his death R. Gamliel II., as chief of the descendants of Hillel, took the lead, and was acknowledged apparently even by the Roman government (M. Edu. vii. 7) as the official head of the Jews. But when this took place, and whether immediately after the death or retirement of Johanan, cannot be determined. There is no certain evidence which would warrant us in dating
THE MINIM 383
the beginning of Gamliel's presidency much earlier than a.d. 80.
The death of Shemuel ha-Qaton can hardly be placed later than that year, if the reasons given above (p. 129 fol.) are valid.
The bearing upon the question before us of the destruction of the Temple is this, that to Jewish Christians no less than to Jews the cessation of the Temple services and all connected therewith was an event of profound significance. As long as the Temple yet stood, the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem appear to have taken part in the ritual observances equally with the non- Christian Jews, while at the same time they formed a community to some extent separate from the Jews. But when the Temple was destroyed, and the ceremonial law thereby became a dead letter, there was ground for a divergence of opinion as to the real meaning of that event and the practical lesson to be drawn from it. The Jews maintained the validity de jure of the whole cere- monial law, though de facto its operation was sus- pended. But it was equally possible to maintain that de jure also the ceremonial law was abrogated, and that henceforth its meaning was to be regarded as symbolic instead of literal. That the Jewish Christians as a whole took this view cannot be shown, and is indeed unlikely. But that many of them did so can hardly be doubted. For this is precisely the link which connects the original Jewish Christians with the Minim. If I am right in ascribing to the Minim a theology akin to that set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, then the infer- ence lies ready to hand that it was the symbolic
384 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
interpretation of the ceremonial law which opened the way for a Christology more highly developed than that of the orginal Jewish Christians. I do not intend to say that this change of view was the result of the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. I would rather say that the epistle was the result of the change, and that the real cause was the cessa- tion of the ritual of the Temple. The epistle, wher- ever it may have been written and to whom- soever addressed, reflects the change by which the original Jewish Christians became the Minim. Gratz (G. d. J., iv. p. 433) even holds that the Epistle to the Hebrews is a sort of declaration of independence on the part of the Minim, by which they marked their severance from Judaism. I would not go so far as that; because, as we have seen, the Minim did not sever themselves from Judaism, but claimed to be Jews no less than Christians.1 It was their secret, not open, disloyalty to Judaism which made them the object of distrust and fear on the part of the Rabbis. But that there is a very close connexion between the Minim and the Epistle to the Hebrews is beyond question; and it is worth observing that Harnack (Chronologie, p. 479), arguing on quite other
1 In this connexion cp. Rev. ii. 9, The blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Also Rev. iii. 9, where almost the same words occur. Vischer, in his famous monograph, in which he shows that the Apocalypse is a Jewish work edited by a Christian, allows that cc. L— iii. are of Christian origin. No doubt for the most part they are. Yet it is hard to understand why a Christian should blame other Christians for saying that they are Jews when they are not. Is it not possible that in these phrases (and also in the references to Balaam ii. 14 and the Nicolaitans ii. 6, 15), however they may have been interpreted by the Christian editor, there is a trace of original Jewish hostility to the Minim ? I can only suggest the question, and leave the solution of it to N.T. scholars.
THE MINIM 385
lines, places the date of the Epistle between a.d. 65 and 95. We cannot, therefore, be far wrong in assigning the formula against the Minim to the year 80, or thereabouts. The formula represents the official condemnation by the Rabbis of the spurious Judaism which was growing secretly in their midst, and at the same time furnished a means of detection.
The formula against the Minim was only one out of several liturgical phrases which served as means of detecting heresy. These have been examined already (see above, p. 199 fol.). When these were first associated with Minuth cannot be exactly de- termined. The Gemara which comments on the Mishnah containing them throws no light on their origin, and very little on their interpretation. This of itself, however, implies a considerable antiquity; and although certainty on the point is not attainable, it is at least a reasonable theory that they are due to the same assembly at Jabneh which adopted the formula against the Minim. We have also seen (above, p. 197 fol.) that the book of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) was by some deemed heretical, and that on that account the Rabbis sought to withdraw it, i.e. pronounce it uncanonical. The allegation of heresy, Minuth, rests, it is true, only upon the evidence of R. Benjamin b. Levi and R. Shemuel b. Jitzhaq, who both lived in the fourth century. But the Mishnah (Jad. iii. 8) states expressly that the question of withdrawing the book was debated in the assembly at Jabneh, and that this took place on the day when R. Gamliel was temporarily deposed
and R. El'azar b. Azariah elected Nasi in his stead.
25
386 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
The Mishnah does not give Minuth as the reason why the withdrawal of Ecclesiastes was proposed, nor is that assigned as the reason in b. Shabb. 30b, where the proposal is referred to. On that account I do not venture positively to affirm that an alleged tendency to Minuth was one of the reasons. But at least the passage in the Mishnah (with the context before and after), does show that a considerable amount of attention was bestowed by the assembly at Jabneh on questions affecting Scripture; and it is certainly not improbable, still less impossible, that the existence of Minuth, which had led to the drawing up of the formula against the Minim should have been one of the causes which shaped the de- cisions of the Rabbis. The assertion that the debate on the book of Qoheleth, and on the other points mentioned, took place on the very day of the deposition of R. Gamliel can hardly be accepted literally, if only because no one day would suffice for such a varied discussion, to say nothing of the stormy scene which no doubt accompanied the deposition of R. Gamliel. May we not refer the decisions which are said to have been made 'on that day ' to the time during which the degradation of R. Gamliel lasted? The year in which his deposition took place cannot be exactly determined, but was probably about a.d. 100.1
1 I obtain the date suggested in the text from the following considerations. When E. Gamliel was deposed, R. Eliezer was already excommunicated, for his name does not occur amongst those present on the occasion (b. Ber. 27b, 28a) ; and, further, the report of what was done " on that day" was carried to him in Lud, by one of his disciples (T. Jad. ii. 16). The excommuni- cation of R. Eliezer took place probably in or about a.d. 95 (see above, p. 144 n.). R. Gamliel, shortly afterwards, made his journey to Rome, and
THE MINIM 387
In the absence of more decisive evidence, it may be taken as fairly probable that the various regula- tions, liturgical and scriptural, concerning the Minim were made by the assembly at Jabneh, under the presidency of R. Gamliel, and thus dated from the end of the first century. The alternative is that they were made at Usha, where an assembly (Sanhedrin) was twice held. But very little is known of what was done at either of these assemblies, and that little does not refer to liturgical matters; there is, therefore, nothing beyond the bare possibility to warrant the theory that the regulations mentioned above were framed at Usha.
Of the practical effect of these detective formulas nothing is known. No instance is recorded of any heretic having been discovered through their means. We can only assume that the general result was to widen the breach between Jews and Minim, and make it more difficult for the latter to remain in open association with the former. Yet, as we have seen (above, p. 378), according to Jerome the Minim were in his day to be found 'per totas Orientis synagogas.'
The consideration of the Formula against the Minim, and the liturgical variations connected there- with, leads naturally to the subject of the mutual relations between Jews and Minim. I go on, there- fore, to inquire what general conclusions may be drawn from the evidence presented in the earlier part of the book upon that subject. In this con- must have been absent at least some months. I do not know of any evidence for fixing the date of his deposition immediately after his return, and therefore give it only approximately as a.d. 100.
388 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
nexion the story of the arrest of R. Eliezer (see above, p. 137 fol.) is of great importance and de- serving of further study. It will be remembered that R. Eliezer was arrested and tried on a charge of Minuth, and that after his acquittal he accounted for his having been accused on such a charge by recalling an encounter which he had once had with a Min, by name Jacob of Chephar Sechanja, a disciple of Jesus. The date of the arrest I have given as a.d. 109. That he was arrested for Minuth is, of course, the Jewish way of describing the affair. The Roman government knew nothing of Minim as such, but only of adherents of Jesus, as distinct from Jews, with whom they did not interfere. R. Eliezer evidently felt the charge of Minuth as a worse calamity than his arrest and trial. After his acquittal he went home in great trouble and refused to be comforted, a thing he certainly would not have done merely for having escaped with his life from a Roman tribunal. It was not merely that he had been tried for Minuth, but that, as he was reminded by the question of R. Aqiba, he had actually compromised himself by intercourse with a Min. The story shows that the existence of the Minim was recognised by the Jews as an actual source of danger to Judaism, and that the Minim, however much they desired to be regarded as Jews, were, as Christians, known as a distinct body of people, and were regarded as such not only by Jews but also by Gentiles. R. Eliezer himself, having suffered through Minuth, uttered many warnings on the subject. He interpreted Pro v. v. 8, Keep thy way far from her, and come not near the door of her
THE MINIM 389
house, in reference to Minuth. Also, probably, Prov. ii. 19, None that go to her return again ; and If they return they do not attain the patlis of life (see above, pp. 188-9). Also Ps. xiv. 1, The fool hath said in his heart there is no God (p. 196 n.). Also Ecc. vii. 26, For she hath cast down many wounded (p. 138), and he used to say, "Ever let a man flee from what is hateful, and from that which resembles what is hateful." It should be remembered, in this connexion, that R. Eliezer is the original authority for the tradition concerning Jesus (p. 351). This attitude of hostility towards, and dread of, the Minim finds expression in the rule laid down in T. Hull, ii. 20, 21, " Slaughtering by a Min is idolatry ; their bread is Samaritan bread, their wine is wine offered to idols, their fruits are not tithed, their books are books of witchcraft, and their sons are bastards. One does not sell to them or receive from them or take from them or give to them. One does not teach their sons trades, and does not obtain healing from them, either healing of property or healing of lives " (above, p. 177). This is not a halachah, an authoritative legal decision, but it represents a consensus of opinion amounting almost to a law. Therefore the instances are mentioned in which it was not observed. Such was the famous case of Ben Damah (above, p. 103), which is recorded immediately after the passage just quoted, in T. Hull. And it is followed by the case of R. Eliezer's arrest. The rule laid down about having no intercourse with the Minim may be fairly ascribed to the Rabbis of Jabneh, possibly owing to the mis- fortune of R. Eliezer. In the case of Ben Damah, the danger which was said to threaten him, if he let
390 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
himself be healed by Jacob the Min, was that he would thereby transgress the words of the Wise, i.e. the Rabbis. The reference is clearly to some such rule as is here laid down.
Intercourse between Jews and Minim was thus hindered as far as possible, but it could not be altogether prevented. And one especial source of danger was to be found in the books of the Minim, lest they should find their way into the hands of Jews and be read by them. So the rule just mentioned says that the books of the Minim are books of witchcraft. Another rule, contained in T. Jad. ii. 13, states that ' the Rolls (or margins) and books of the Minim do not defile the hands,' in other words, are not to be regarded as sacred (see above, p. 160). It would not have been necessary to make this rule un- less such books contained sacred names and citations of texts from the Hebrew scriptures. It can hardly be doubted that amongst the books of the Minim were included Gospels, but there is no definite state- ment on the point. The story of Imma Shalom, R. Gamliel, and the Christian judge (p. 146) shows that, perhaps as early as a.d. 72 or 73, texts were known to the Jews which are now found in one of the canonical Gospels. But the earliest authentic use of the term Evangelion is to be found in the witticism of R. Meir, the date of which is the middle of the second century (p. 162). The only evidence that the Gospels were actually known to the Jews is the merely negative evidence of the strong prohibition of the books of the Minim. The strongest de- nunciations of the books of the Minim are those of R. Ishmael andiR. Tarphon (p. 155), in the early
THE MINIM 391
part of the second century. With this reprobation of the writings of the Minim may be associated the doubts as to the canonicity of the book of Ecclesiastes, on the ground that it contained words which led to Minuth. This probably was one of the grounds on which the proposed decanonization of the book was based ; but it is not distinctly stated to have been so until the fourth century (p. 197).
That the Jews, besides hating the Minim, could not afford to disregard them, is shown by the state- ment that certain proposed modifications of the liturgy were not carried out because of the ' carping ' of the Minim, in other words, because they would give to the Minim an opportunity to deride the religious observances of the Jews (p. 308 fol.). With this may be connected the counsel of R. Aqiba (p. 316), 'Do not give occasion to the Minim to humble you.' The same words are also ascribed to R. Jose ben Halaphta. What the precise bearing of the advice was I am unable to say, but it clearly points to a fear as well as a dislike of the Minim. The same is true of the story about the false witnesses and the new moon (p. 327 fol.).
The Rabbinical literature nowhere gives a complete account of the Minim. It relates many anecdotes about Minim, and also records dialogues between a Min and a Rabbi. Both classes of statement show the Minim in an unfavourable light ; but the former do so much more than the latter. The anecdotes about the Minim show them as grossly immoral in their lives, and also as practising magical arts. Ex- amples of such allegations are found in the stories about the Minim of Capernaum (p. 211), and the
392 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
adventures of R. Jonathan (p. 215) and R. Jehudah ben Naqosa (p. 218), of which Capernaum may have been the scene. Compare also the story of the woman who desired to be received as a proselyte (p. 188). We have here an echo of the charges of immorality against which the Christian Apologists had to defend their co-religionists. For the allegation of magical powers the evidence is found in the stories (pp. 112, 115), of ' signs and wonders ' done by Minim. And with these must certainly be classed the stories of attempts by Minim to heal sick persons in the name of Jesus (pp. 103, 108). The Talmud draws no distinction between such deeds done by Minim and similar deeds done by the Rabbis. And it is noted that R. Jehoshua ben Hananjah was more than a match for the Minim in respect of power to do such deeds.
When, however, we turn to the records of dia- logues between Jews and Minim, we find no trace of such repulsive characteristics. The conversation usually turns upon disputed interpretations of Scrip- ture, often, but not always, with a hostile intention on the part of the Min. R. Eliezer, indeed, on his own showing, was pleased with what Jacob the Min said to him. And in many of the dialogues which have been presented in the earlier part of this book there is hardly more than a civil exchange of opinion, certainly nothing answering to the strong language used against the Minim by R. Tarphon and R. IshmaeL There is, however, no real contradiction between these two representations of the Minim. The one indicates what the Rabbis thought of the Minim, the other what they said to them. And it
THE MINIM
may be further remarked that relations between Jews and Minim were probably most hostile at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, and that gradually they became more friendly as the Minim proved to be less dangerous and less powerful. For, in the first century, even at the close of it, when the official condemnation of the Minim was made, it was not evident to the Jews that the development of the Christian Church would proceed on Gentile lines, and would leave the Minim, i.e. the Jewish Christians, behind. The Jewish dread of Minuth was really dread of the Christian heresy ; and as it gradually appeared that the Minim did not represent the strength of the Christian movement, the danger of Minuth became less ; because there was obviously less danger to Judaism from a mainly Gentile Christianity than from a Jewish form of it, connected at so many points with pure Judaism. Of J Gentile Christianity the Rabbinical literature takes scarcely any notice at all. We have met, indeed, with a polemical reference to Christian Rome (p. 210) by R. Aha, who lived in or after the time of Constantine the Great. Beyond this one instance, n I do not know of any further allusion to Gentile Christianity.1 The references to the ' kingdom being turned to Minuth' (p. 207) only indicates the hos-
1 There are a few cases, noted as they occurred, where the Min was prob- ably a Gentile, not a Jew ; but nothing turns on the Christianity of the Min in such cases. He is merely an opponent of the Jews. When it is said (p. 179) that there are no Minim among the Gentiles, that means that a Gentile could not be a Min, although he might be a Christian. It does not imply that Minim were never to be found in Gentile countries. At least, if that were implied, it is not true, for we have met with Minim in Rome (p. 228), Alexandria (p. 221), and probably Antioch (p. 283).
394 CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
tility to Minuth already mentioned. The increase of that deadly heresy is not stated as a fact, but noted as one of the signs of the future advent of the Messiah.
It is in accordance with this view of the diminish- ing hostility between Jews and Minim that the curious story about R. Saphra and the Minim of Caesarea (p. 266) becomes intelligible. There we find that R. Abahu, an unimpeachable Jew, re- commended R. Saphra, another unimpeachable Jew, to the Minim as their teacher, and that they accepted him as such. Even if, as Bacher suggests, R. Saphra was engaged not as a teacher but as an accountant, the fact would still remain that a Jew entered the service of the Minim upon the recommendation of another Jew. That would have been impossible in the first century, or even the second. R. Abahu himself had frequent intercourse with the Minim. The case of Jacob of Chephar Neburaia (p. 334 fol.) also goes to show the diminished hostility of relations between Jews and Minim in the fourth century. And the general conclusion may be drawn that the Minim, or Nazarenes, were by that time recognized to be a comparatively harmless body, though possibly numerous. They had no share in the vitality either of Judaism or Christianity, being rejected by the adherents of both religions. As Jerome says (p. 378), " They profess to be both Jews and Christians, while in fact they are neither Jews nor Christians." They had no inherent power of progress, and appear to have gradually died out.
Of a history of the Minim, or Nazarenes, there can be no question, since the data are far too incom-
THE MINIM 395
plete. From the collection of passages, examined in the earlier part of this book, we gain a number of passing glances at them, and learn a few facts, some of great importance, some of little or none. They are represented as a kind of spurious Jews, vainly- claiming fellowship with the true Judaism, and re- jected because of their connexion with Christianity. They were in Judaism, but not of it. They fre- quented the synagogues, where suspicion of them found expression in liturgical devices for their de- tection, and in the noting of various phrases and gestures which were thought to betray their heresy. In their theology, so far as it can be ascertained, they departed from the strict monotheism of Judaism, and held the doctrine of the relation between God and Christ which is set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Apparently they did not go any further along the line subsequently followed by Christian theology. There is, so far as I know, only the slightest trace of any reference to the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the Rabbinical allusions to Minuth.1 The Talmud knows of Gnostics and Gnosticism ; but it does not identify these with Minim and Minuth, although it is possible that the line between them was not always clearly marked. In the early days of the separation of Christianity from Judaism, the Minim were hated and feared.
1 See above, p. 256, where the Minim ask R. Simlai to explain the three- fold designation, ■ God, God, the Lord.' This can hardly be other than an allusion to the three Persons of the Trinity ; but it is remarkable that there is no further allusion. The question most frequently debated was that of Two Powers or One. If the Jewish doctrine of the Divine Unity were to be maintained, it mattered nothing whether the alternative was a doctrine of Two Powers or of three, or of several.
CHRISTIANITY IN TALMUD
This hostility gradually diminished ; and, in any case, it was chiefly in Palestine that the existence of Minuth was felt to be a danger. In the Babylonian schools there was hardly more than a vague know- ledge of what Minuth was and why it was dangerous.
I have now reached the end of my task, which was to present, in as full detail as possible, all the refer- ences which I could find in the Rabbinical literature of the first four centuries to the origin and develop- ment of Christianity. Looking back on the miscel- laneous collection of extracts which we have examined, it is interesting to observe how the two main groups into which it is divided have but slight connexion with each other. One group contains the evidence for the Jesus-Tradition, the other the notices of the Minim. These two groups stand apart not merely because they have been dealt with separately, but by reason of the curious fact that in the passages which mention Minim and Minuth there is seldom any direct mention of Jesus. There is only enough to justify the identification of Minim with some form of Christians. In other words, the Jesus-Tradition was apparently handed down within the Rabbinical schools mainly as a tradition, and received little or no additions from the intercourse between Jews and Minim, of which so many instances have been given.
The general result of the whole study in which we have been engaged is to show, in two ways, how Judaism released itself from what it considered to be the danger of Christianity. It preserved only a careless and contemptuous tradition about Jesus, and resolutely resisted all attempts on the part of his
THE MINIM 397
Jewish-born disciples to come to terms with Jewish belief and practice. Judaism fought the enemy within her gates; of the rival outside, growing in power with every century, she took no notice. She went on her way, and on the line she chose for herself worked out her own salvation through centuries of noble and most tragic history. In like manner, though on other lines, Christianity went on its way and forgot its Jewish origin. In the land of its birth, and amongst the people who furnished the first disciples, Christianity was represented by a discredited and dwindling sect, claiming kinship with Jews and Christians, and disowned by both.
In the hope that this study of an obscure field of history may be of service to scholars, in spite of the scantiness of the harvest which has been gathered, and that it may awaken in perhaps one or two readers something of the same deep interest which it has given to me during my labours upon it, I finish this book ; and, in parting from it, take regretful leave of what has been to me a friend and companion through many years.
APPENDIX
CONTAINING THE ORIGINAL TEXTS TRANSLATED
AND COMMENTED ON IN THE COURSE OF
THE WORK
26
TEXTS OF PASSAGES TRANSLATED IN THE FOREGOING PAGES.
(1) p. 35.
b. Shabb. 104b:— "ft*** Wp* ntia Khflfl :lira b* tftDttl
mi b*« nomoa onnta ertibo (rwi a-rao p abm trasrib p rrao p] dnswn pa n^n pr«w fm rr»n now ib man
p diss b*n an^s b^m fcnao b*n anon "1 toa Kin tf-n-ws p-totf-D irm k^ed ab-w£ D*n£ iek *nt:o ies »in rmrr»
: [nbrao *n nt3D ar-matron
The passage enclosed in [ ], which occurs also in b. Sanh. 67a, is not found in the modern Editions; it is supplied from Rabbi- nowicz, Diqduqe Sopherim, on the authority of the Munich and Oxford Mss, and the older Editions.
(2) p. 41.
b. Hagg. 4b aba nsoD wm "»aa sip ^nb nwa *o cio^ an m tro am an ■o f* mnoi aba bn&n a^a m iti» tssi^ta wa bn nwb©b rrt ton rron ^ab* rroa main mn *«* ■»pTn Kbi>£ s'nti rrt mi bra n*»ta w» aba-na D*na ^b Wi w rrt ton ^b vKfti MFW tr»« ab-ftfc d^-ie aoa rrt -i£« :as^Eb vimb ninww b^m rrt -usa nmn«
(2a) ibid. Tosaphoth on same passage: ^abtt ma* rTOE ITin
a^tw ab-M o^ltti marop "Wi naa ib ?-pa© rra n&o^n man : (ip sp) nam arroro vftto b» niaa run^m rm w n*oa
26 :
402 APPENDIX
(3) p. 43.
M. Jeb. IV. 13:— Jlb>E ^nK2E iKT* p JW3» W -|tt«
tr*fb e^k n«KB inafld v&fc B*» nn wtn tffrffrna font*
(4) p. 45.
b. Joma 66b Kb y» Knn obiyb ijto iyfca t&Qm 'n n* ^bK© onb -rta» ffjin p NKfi nym bwib *ftj ^iba by aba Whw onbnEK *nKn p nymn b^snb ma fflttsn by aba w6*« Kb mt> on* wa «n* Kin n* itee nyinn by KbK ^inbKB Kb KbK D'ncna p,4wt» "WP Kb top dk -nob irna irra h* nob :'iai Dbiya in wo W* Kb© nm iek Kb© i»b
(5) p. 47.
b. Sanh. I06a:— 'i "itiK ooip Cjionbi K^is nbnra pm^ h IttK **to 'nnab ir^K ''Kin nrt»i *mwb *w* "n^Ki ir>in kbs
(6) p. 48.
b. Kallah 51a 2HDW W TTtttt n£1K W6» Wl D^D T*
Wi nnK oys :msn pi -imo w« Kmpy w msn p wik mk noD -iHK mpi^n w tarrafib i-Dyi vm o^tm ta^pr -ieik wbK w i»ki n» nb^ra nr i»m n« rib*** inKi iek-i msn pi itm ieik Kmpy w rrar p ieik y»w w "flrwo •Tv»an ,nai by ninyb pb ^Kba ^n Kmpy imb ib rtaai rotti^ nrrvne nm piw bin iek b^K ibn -iD^pK ^k pb iek lom im * rrvaiK nK dk ira nb -iek -pirn nroap rroitti w n^n • ^b ya»n ib n-i£K Knn obiy ^nb ^m ^k ^bKifc niBK wb na nr !» nb *m* inbn bran m«fi ynra i&p? nyovno ^y Km ^b$i xton rwi wn rro nsmb ^mosci) ib wi bra rw * man 711 nrao pirnnn ksed nr p * n^ni ^nbK 'n linn ii^k ny» nniKa ■ i^nini rat wmnvn Ki^py ^a-i
:Kmpy ^rb mo nb^a n©K bKi©^
APPENDIX 403
(7) p. 50.
b. Sanh. i07b tarpn ywi firm bara© ann Dbisb pan isn n^ms p *wini wi' sbi d^t ^mra vmb ifim» :w*b»3 ab
*ibw '-i awi *tra o^t ^nion Cnrwn) iwb ism©
WWr* w bra pa* »Db» ■wr vtrtept? s^n nw n^nis p n^b nb© XEb© Kin 'o n^istt bo ir»TDC0bl6 [wn] mrfife p K^-nsoDbK "o^b ©iipn w [bbfcw] WB nt:© p |WWD np 'WW* rwn *»M»n iDUta *r* *** [vnn»] piitisb© ib« ^nit: mp* mb tt» irrwil avjwta) [n^b] nstrm ana n^b ibk mtmt: n'w w (w) n^b iia« ir k^sodk W n*n ana mrasn *w** msia wn» p^sa pow nna pa Wi *w rrta m©ta up mn *6 ibnp rrt iM fw* nfio mtipfr inb ■nrm ^biapb iao rrapb ana sra© irnp np xp mn -in nb ninm»nn aro^ab qpT brx n^b ^i mrtm iao «in rmrai a^msi aainn bD ^m ^baipfc p n^b itt« p tin rrt i«» ■nrwi w» to nttKi nai©n ni©*b rra "pp^ott pa cram n«
:bKi©^ na rrnin ci©ia
(8) p. 54.
T. Shabb. XL 15. DTOam a^na ir^ba '-i vntt b* onpferi Yta* pa aba i^b xb rm p tfbm wbK *i nnb tok fncftft
jpnp^sn bD na iaw ma ntn© *amo *
(9) p. 56.
b. Sanh. 103a WQ SIX 11 rWTf '1 TOK tfion '1 TOSH
k"i Tbnxa sip-' ab aei n*i *pba namn nb a^nai
D^n amnini twn mtnbn "preai **b© ran fb* nsian a6 ibi©an rrnpa« Trtti m p *7b am ab© ^bnaa aip^ »b wi
rrtrcn i©^ pad o^aia
(10) p. 62.
j. Taan. 65b:— ITDtt W b^ Dl» lb IttX^ DK ina« '1 113*
iwm mnn D^ti»b nbi^ laws in mnnb ibid ^dx aix p man
insEy1 xbn
404 APPENDIX
(11) p. 63.
Jalq. Shim. § 766, HD Dmbsn )tM Iff* TftpM 1T*bs th
wrt\ nsi* nmo b'oon i&io tfi Dbi5?rr cpott nbi* wn ibipn rtrn nasi psbi pbi D'ODiDbi ni^bi oaob oimnotto ttmtii rntorti nibs 1TQS5? rrwwS opn^o -n wb i w» nos p dis o^o •pi obisn RWtti bD thMNJ ibipn no -jre ■p'fcb *1D obi*n bs o^s Kb 'so o^sn irtni 'nns ni*ob sbo ddwi ■» w* mn mm* tw wn dtdb sin bs smo wtn dsi dtd^i bs airo na nsi nw» 161 its» owpb sm pbnoa smo wfri i* ^is osbn ies bs ieioe nm^ *c tm fcieirn ibo» so^i : nibs ita* no*o o^sn mis +im nsiaoo ntns nrnwa nw
(12) p. 64.
M. Sanh. X. 2:— pbn onb p» rrafnn *msi mata nobo
*ms nowi nsns o*aii Q'rtia nobo sin obi*b
jnmi bainmsi asu D*ba niamn
(13) p. 67.
b. Gitt. 56b. 57a. oit:^i nmns in oip^ibp in oibpDis ■jstt n^b i*s msoa owob n^pos brs nwm6 va nin rrti tok inn yo-pkb ima bsio^ st4 ies s*b* smnn n^on sab* smnn inn ■nam bn inawipb ni»o sbi ?mto w6*b no5?D bsio^b i^an bn lai osib n*ni im n^roi so^i rwn n^ocis piotn ^s*n b"s ^s^n sina sinm rwn n^b itjs osi nos maw n^b ibpi rnb ^"ni ifw»pb rrt ^osd* hot bD sttb* smnn n^on "js* n^b ies irooa o*bnb n^pos bTs *w bD annual Dttibo ointi sb b"s inn ipinTsb m» bsio^ b"s brs rwtn *tr nnDon b"s ^s^n sina sinm ran b"s bww b"s sab* smnn n^on pro b"s bsio^ **oisb imaa n^pos ww bn ointi sb own oin orate b"s inn ^pimsb vna bsio-< nsisa b"s ^s^n sina sinm n^m b"si^y nnnn wiDib^sD pn nnnii msn )TP5 DTodti 11m b5? avbtin bD itt nasi nnnn :r"^ "nav obi^n rmis wxb bsio^ ^oifi pa n* nn sn
* So the older Editions; the moderns read "WIS. The DlBSIp reads nur1^.
APPENDIX 405
(14) p. 70. n.
b. Sanh. i06b:— ab inbisi m-iib worn rrnsj TO b"«
: mi rm mi nnifctti ntjn *©in D*biE nab wrmh t^an
(15) p. 72.
b. Sanh. I06b D*bi lb y^w ^ K^an trt norm ^"inn b"« maitn D*»tn *&* a'wro aba i^m Kb im^e b"« mn rrai n b"« *i-iki frth -a ia pa» nbm pnbri -in on^i ism sb
in mi i^ro mm D*bn mopa& ^b im ifnb ma^p -pbe jn^tDD^b ome mm b^p id s-n>n orbs p© nbni pnbn
(16) p. 75.
b. Sanh. 106a:— - bx tGtttt mm ^E ^1K 113*01 lb«E «©"n
[bs dbi nat* mna© in ■na b"i©i ton]
The passage in brackets was struck out by the Censor, but is vouched for by Rabbinowicz, on the authority of Mss. and the older Editions.
(17) p. 76.
b. B. Bathr. 14b:~ :D*bl MWl HDD 1M rtOT
This is repeated, in almost the same words, in j. Sotah. 20d.
(18) p. 77.
j. Ber. I. 8. (3°) ftWtl IBM fOm 11 btflTO 111 ItTtt m
pa ™ ^fiiai ffv bn nun iw v^p im© mn p-b p-iaa isms 'iib iba tern im xb« panan na*t3 *ara }nia rmp pii anur ii nw ^m ma parti 11 ban*© *i : ^oi no^b pnip pa ma tann Bp boa o*bn pbi tuna pup im« mn rwa» avw ijm 'ti» mm '1 -tiawi by "norib Kb© ami i"k rrehm m* pi a*»ro« wo nan pa '1 ia m '1 mnpi itravcbi tmoft rmna mini© wa -wba
(19) p. 78.
T. Sanh. x. 11. pnbjp pram* pa mini© rnrna w»n bi oroin mabii w ib pioitJ3 ib poi*2 ■wo rmn pa fin
406 APPENDIX
•no nsn nx ib |y6Wi ptmi man a»ii xini TOSta maa
-nba x-jbd pb4 ito pi ibip nx fW0\ mix pirn im« :imbpoi5 droan yyitfari ^» t^ wa
Cod. Wien fWB 3 (C. Erfurt) om. 2 (Cod. Erfurt) fTftn « inxwn add ■ (ed. Venice 1522) -mx \D\Hb (C. Wien.) tfVJO niab 4
(Cod. Wien) J*i n*cb
(20) p. 79.
j. Sanh. VII. 16. p. 25e- d. DDJl xn * 'ID UH* tfUJ HT mottn
nr !ptR rwi xin© frea *DDn m f« rr*ofc ms jro* -xb
"W Q*tl tU i^b* i^ttDia i^b* d'nynb lb ^©v itfa *dDn
■hd i^aa by -on nx ffrtrari )wm rv»aa irtu ywihwi nm
nba hbio pb iw p ibip nx •p*tti»i mix pam iw©
: inibpoi i"ab vrorcam on»nn unAri *w i** tfltorn
[The same passage is found j. Jeb. 15d with no material variation.!
(21) p. 79.
b. Sanh. 67a p x mina© mwna w ba ix©i xwr nr»aa nan nx ib •pp^b-ra ib ptw wd ira fin pib* jwoao mix *piri p w© *hd jwrm n^aa dt* ib pawtji wiwi
pro TtoK ib -mix nbm pix nxn i^x xini ibip nx fWiH nx n^s ^n -nam nbm ib n£ix xini twa ^b rwoiWB on ataita in inn ax d^aaia rrna* -nawi Dnaaw i^nbx •jx'Ofc -pnatt ■pSEi©© d'nyn lib ns^ pi wotti x^n p -mx imxbni -nba xido pb iw pi mix "pbpw pi n^ab mix
: *wi x-jao p : nos a-tta
(22) p. 83.
b. Sanh. 43a:— mam2 i©^b inixbn noan atto* x^nm nx nTm n^ni qo^D© by bpo^b xm3 dv '£ i^sb xtr mar ib ixttt xbi i^b* -rab^i xa^ mar ib *-ni© *m bD bx-i©-» xin miDT4 ^Disn -ia3 xiaoni [xbi* -iex] nos a-tta1 imxbni w ■**» i^b* noDn xbi biisnn xb -ibx xaiami xin n^ott
:mn mDbttb niipi'2
(Cod. Monac.) add i-iSian 2 (Cod. Flor) nos a-isai nn\a nn5?n «
(Cod. Monac.) add n^b 4 (Cod. Mon.) add i-isian IUJ-i 3
APPENDIX 407
(23) p. 86.
M. Sanh. VI. 4.:— D^ttsnm gWT*H •*! ^Ot|4W F&pttttta
:d"*d navni spattn aba nbna i^a JsrnBrm
(24) p. 86.
T. Sanh. IX. 7:— nbbp ^ -na* lAn na *WW T*tti 'n n^n
bs by ib» ins nrb nr |n?n BWnw d*™ i3©b *6n Dinba x^wo^bb »ii© nr csna isr -inab a^BCbb atti -man ibiD nbiyn IbfcniD swn 'i« Ml n:ny bs iron nibtn by inia fsh/n Wh
1*411 mnba nbbp *q 1&kj TDb nibs
(25) p. 90.
b. Sanh. 43a itfpD mapfia W»b lb W Di-pfcbn niman n"n ^n^ n^nsn y*r* ina inb -i£a in*b rmm n-nni isini -ixa nw ^rva n^nm snm in* pa ib rwm oipba ia& nxnxi am p*m ipai mn snrn laps mb -iiaa iap& rtm tw nam m^na V3 a"iJt1 B'nnotja nvoi arrn i»pa j** ib ttwi mnn ba n* vflaa mp iitonma -iS3i n^riDi aw isd mb niaa -irb nvna awrfi nm *paptt nobi&n nnai afwi aw ntt pa pa nb rraa bnrw» rasa itt a^nan jrw Wi mb t&M iDinb ■raa n-nnb m*nft tvm Tpa na jhn iDDa ran *wi aw w awi aw rmn pa b"a nrnrt tnsna a^nan aw nun n*
:i3W n-nn nair
(26) p. 95.
Abarbanel, TWWTl WE, on Dan. VII. 8.:— n«n oa niO
nrtti yn©i am© ma p by a-pyr i-ina "ppn vnn wro T* ■q ana arms ny»nn niabE ainan 7»ian n» m isnsi
"iai iwoia aon
(27) p. 97.
b. Sotah 47a:— yw hrm ba*tt ann Dbiyb pan isn p yn»WD abi irp in»a nroi iwrw y^baa ab ranpa
n^nD- K^n i^tt y»ib» vni in«n +xrm i»ib ism© ninns
408 APPENDIX
Tbn *bb Kb T4n TtaiM awi 6*w np bKin ptt itiHD
g|0Dn n* nnpb ran iriK-ipb want) b?tt »i« fan i©kd n*i rvms>©i d^wi npm pn bnroi own d'hsq nnpbi nniKn pmi *i iek b^p©i Kin d'Hsai qos ^kh ^bis b^p© W yw swn lb to* d^*i© mca pen* *©^bK mn n*© dbvb Tanni p pmn p*D n*n*i d^s-i© nD£© -is© bwb n©b©i irm nr prwi w tok dwi» tt! d^©dk waiKi wmnb ^brr© pm* *> "WH Tbn rifcb p©*i *©^bK ■£*! to ^bnipfc p ib "tm p inn ib toa nm Kbi nnwro vmb r™*b rwi vp1&D* P* awn na unsrw-n Kt>n© ^ bs toe awr« riKanb * nbn nnK© p» ■man kd^k -o* ^ke roiun jieisk nb ppn d© 'nttKi kd^ki pKb d^B© Vs tTWWl rrnspia nm pen *teiri kdw *|b m$ »bi ^k rrm r*wt) •uroK -i©k Diptan ks rtsn *©^bK bK d^K^n ■» rrwrfi ?wi :p^m inn Kb aorswi 15H bbDtt wo ns T** Q© D'wn
[Part of this passage occurs in b. Sanh. I07b and forms the beginning of the extract given as (7) p. 49 above. To give the text of the version in Sanh. is needless, as it contains nothing of any importance beyond what is contained in the much fuller version in Sotah now before us.]
(28) p. 103.
T. Hull II. 22, 23.:— ©H3 1D©D© rtfcl p lT*bK '-Q fi©?E
*bi K^-isa p y«r» di©a vrwtonb keo nto ©*<k nipsn von ^k ib nttK mrr p ^k©*i rrnK ik lb nttK bKjra©"' *i wan '-i TDK now if >TKn K^anb p^oan abi ^KS-n© mK-i lb k*ok b© frd nrr* Kbi Dib©n inKi^© mn p ^i»» bK*a©^ w rtf id rwr* cpob Dnasn b© yvna pram bs© awn
:©H3 15D«i TO pTlfe
(29) p. 103.
j. Shabb. 14d: — Almost word for word the same as (28), then follows Kinb TWb ©H3 IDD©^ Kb© KbK 1D©5 ©MD MJh
:Dnn im omK n©*i i©k itj^b rrt nin ?wi
APPENDIX 409
(30) p. 104.
j. A.Zar.40d, 41a: — Same as (29) except that after the words WW* M9T1 is added:— : »TB)D p W Dtta lb W lb 1£tf
(31) p. 104.
b. A. Zar. 27b:— JWVtt pm ftfOT D* D1K pim Ktt^ 8b
ba?E©^ *i b« irvma p sei pa nwa nw *nb ib^sa piti abi imas-ib undo i^d tr^« dots mp:^ »m tsna www tan we Kfi-ttn ib mn ^na ba*w H b"in biew* H irwi trm na *tm6 p^son «bi ftna mra ntwi pa inpo *ons yrato arm p the* buttrtr *i t*» xip ran inttiw wfwc i* in© v^an *tn by mn* «bi nintjn ^nfciw nr-tt'n Tina 7»^Eb ^nan *OTBxn rwtt W «ns ^d©^ via pisn D'nEis
nnvnnn
(32) p. 108.
j. Shabb. i4d:— fl» -a in ana *bn mb nin n^-Q m
i«tt b"a p^fis id DW«h xn^iDB wh rfw& pa n^b ambi
n^tt mn iba n^b n^n ms b"x ^b© nb^ b"a n^b nn«nb
:t3^b»n wba WTO '»«» p n^b Bun p abi
(33) p. 109.
b. A. Zar. 28a:— n^b imarfi mri nii»n dian insx w am imsnbT ^os wi ^tt« ^m xb im n^p«« bed nwtt mpj^
:n^pfcb nrSpOD nv»b
(34) p. 112.
j. Sanh. 25d:— "pb2 «n^py "Yi *«W *T) "Wb '1 Kfcbl
•rai na tdk "«wo m firan -"na^i ^owi jnw ^no^b ren mm p sew na stow 'nb nreb Yk "s^d "pri^sm tot na *i»w 'i "toa rwa p» p^sa nj *w nan m in n^b aw mn b^bsi pm ba nw ;n:nn nw tt&m inn» lib n*« -np^nsn n^b nw mn p^so-j faa bsi npimr* pa "pbw fib1^ pm» -vn« pan *n» n*h from ^rnisi n^ rnn^D -ies ■ DDn nxi nti an a i^fc Kinnb y^in^ i"a ppttn
410 APPENDIX
«e*> wscpm i£*n ntt **wb ainn i^a xwb fftnri pa a*rb
mitt na mb rrt Tn*« • 'tt'o fiam nana in* p abi yh iek
fftwi mb -pitta ym lib KM iii^taei pi n»tt *pbni ^b
:m*bm awi niE by SMDW *i "in W3Q ^bn 'rt*ttb
(35) p. 115.
j. Sank 25d:— p^ip n^OD *«tf iW WJWl p 2TTW 1"S
sfaoi V*** rtw p$T>ft l^ntan pb^a pb mn*i pmtDiai •^tt in rwn ^-ii^s-i atnoa Kinn fcwnn fbntt w i"k i"a p abi -bay mnsntti nm mm attiib mb pin Tins n^oD p^a abi^n^so bD *jn fH»tw M aittt in ^oi^ 'i atn ir*b am nnoa ab itt^D -nttiM in piitbi mat ©im niannb •pbw sip miob aba b** mnsmai Kttinb mpin mi in ao^tt nrwi wa »»in i"a • trt w*a annpn pa b3# mb nwi Kin nos iwo in rnttm "pin^n ansia pb'wn a^in b^stt mittai mna *bJ# amsntti anna mm attiib mpm ababia : iw DWP nnna ab ^«i sin n©*tt nxm ribna pa ^b itta • anab
(36) p. 118.
T. Sanh. XIII. 4. 5.:— nittIK "WW! plJQ b81©^ ^TB1£>
inabi Bim ib* d*w nn "parwi rami pw pirn dbi*n y*wi inabis Damn sp»a pun nbn fniESfl mn nwp ow 'a© n^isn *by\ men nnn imrstti pr« miT mini i*>» uk Di^b d^is iban man nnn i&a w "o trwi brrtfcn ■povnpwi miiottm pitti»ttm p^ttn bna : mans ^i ua» n©i* s^nsn n^nnn iisdei nn^i tama p»inwi nuna musvt •orwi a»n«n n^ni^ ^iiD cmn ra iwanm stsrno tp ton emaKi rfews tarn bwa omm iut&b^i D^rni po omn^n D^wapn a^tussn ^i^sn isii uiem w mm ^inb nn parmn ■wa bDb iixn m nnsn xb wm rrmn »b on^bin ^d ^ pb oti ^ bi»» nibab dusi w pia pnu vm nba bi«© '3» oiptin nta xbs bmr pin ib biiT^ w binta nmi^ teton jD^biy ^nnob hdb *|b bmr in^a ^msn ma
The above occurs in b. R. ha. Sh. 17a almost in the same words.
APPENDIX 411
(37) p. 125.
j. Ber. 9C:— 2i3Dtt TWWH Kmi^n *Wp XB "jTdpn bKIE©
r*p D^sn W* Kb n^b fn^a 'jwb* :pp«a ito nsnon d"ht
(38) p. 125.
b. Ber. 28b. 29a:— tVlD-Q rt** -VHOfi ^bipsn 'pyE© n"n DibD t^EDnb yi onb iek n^n -non b* bKibfc> pn ^3fib ropm iii:pn bKiE© -je? swan ro-Q ipnb *tw oik »i imbsn Kbi m*E rfttn ta^ra nn sppttm nnD© mnK nDttb nis-n ban n*o ffi tbk mw nn n^Km inib^n Kb wok Kta& )sw«n ima pbw mhm nmnn ini» i*yts pa jte : rra rin KEb^n nrrtA napn wm ptspn buna© ^kb mn fnp
(39) p. 128.
T. Sotah. XIII. 4.:— yiWflP wwo wroa wik Kin 5|K •pK^o ipyi «pab ke* HWpl Kbttpb "WOHl Kainb bK^Etfii
:p£K ma-iK pttbai kdi *nnK JW
(40) p. 129.
j. Sotah 24^, Same as (39) except that after the words ftOR tl^TM IWbai, there follows ; 1£K ntt im *bl
(41) p. 129. b Sotah 48b, same as (39).
(42) p. 129. b Sanh. lla same as (39).
(43) p. 136-
T. Ber. III. 25:— 1X6 DTQDn WOKE tTOHl tTtVP tWOO
b»a awo bto bbiD a^bK « rb lira© rtrbw nnw mitra •ntsK a*n abim-p b«a tyi bn a^pr b©a b*nji b«n ewr*
:«r* pa**b V5K
(44) p. 136.
j. Ber. IV. 3. (8a):- M *ntt D1K fj nttK^ DK W*l Y'K
in k"t n^nn rwa twaan i*np to jwa b© ib man t^k tiftm b"K awi -nnsn bK ainam w» nn wp W *i
412 APPENDIX
p*«i b»i a^apr b*n firm ftism owa b»i own b© bbis
(45) p. 137.
T. Hull. II. 24.:— mana 'nan by osnafc wba "ft m&yta pioy^ TmfcD ipr ritttti irna * -nan Jrtb «oab irm "torn nfctf ab© fittth ima linos ^by f*i paw ib nfca ibbn ovinia ■iawfemw b>inn ib is* onavM it** i*a aba fwe «bi ib aba ibbn n^imn ta^yra ibbn in^on© i©jdx imaa *p ^a 5j» ^by osna© nydstt n-ri raran pa idsaiBDi trap rem ■nn own twi anipy i oasa bnp *i itanab wrt rooaM rrana "nan by "iti« tfDK ib taw ns^tt rjna pn «£© nm fatf ieik 1 ib trcoan ibk twn two b» in ib ies pawi pa trm xnv ib ^nasia i-n^s bo ^msio^s ^brm vrai nna dys ^rnoiti nttca p w ditro hwa b» nm n^ai jraoo ia:a trw nipy pmn rmc\ i-oi by irw» nia^a *nm by TO&wri ,«bm nb^n d^bbn dw ^ wra nn& ba n-ipn bin isrt rr»by» pai Tiy^n pa mm dia asr dbiyb toi« -wba n mra w
:wbb nann
(46) p. 138.
b. A. Zar. I6b. I7a: ai-nab mibyn nwob K"n osnaiTD Vn fiibtas d*nn-D pw ishede ipr Tnan vf« ib -nan pri wia »in i^by ywxn mix iinon pm ^by pa*a ib to* ibbn wttam b^in ib -yok D^vas to« tod aba nfca ab rtn idnab ibsa i*n^abn loasa in^nb 'xn»D nnx iitjs own ytep -jna nai -iaib ^tnn w y"n ib nta» Twnan T*? ^P ^ 7Tb bO rw* ket& mi ib n^x nittx ib nia» ^armaib* n^^ nna dys ^arrotn an^py ib tea [ms^b] nosinD i^byi tiem ■nnibWD] inx [tr»] ^waiai wj b* p^byn piM ibn^a m^n dDniinn ninD ^b nti« itt« k^dd ^bd »i» mpy^i [*r.iiia>i w» Kbi 5i"Db o"Dni i^^n mizjyb imj 'iSn nsir prm aonn nth nsir pinna [^niiin w*] iaw* *p 4 "nan dibD ib ttwn iDb^ nsiat:n dipfcb lie nsi3dn diptiti law nsir pn« tn n$np
APPENDIX 413
trtra ninD« ns b* w6*i rrart inotnD nr *ti b* mm w»ti : trm it nrrfe nns ba nipn bai rwt: •» inn rrttta pmn
[ ] add. cod. Monac. teste Rabbnowicz. (47) p. 139.
Qoh. r. on I. 8. p. 4a:— nair "pntf a^on ab DDrmro niro pnab i^iica pipb "4 ifctf ^tid** lb MrTOMl in n£ lbs -rrmi iro pi ntt2i ^b ies nnn nirtfi na $"m ib ^rmsa tt» nsbn ^ee n£b?im r™« nsi * ■'mas maos tdi rmtnifc
[hiatus in printed text] *>b 1£S ^-Qlb Wnn© naitt |TO n?Eb
prm i*i nsnp n3iT lanatt ■o '3© lati naiibi isn namia Dinb ^n©3Dn3 inn irna bn mirb pioniD i»yi law rent
(48) p. 146.
b. Shabb. H6a-b: n^nna w4k Sam inn^m D*» KfciS b^pE mrh n^tronM «aioibia Kinn nin ^in b^b£* pm annrr *wi© rrt »b^v» m* ^mnab tto *nmi& bnptt abi ke© ■raa i»3 wi ^oaaa * xbvtri mspm nib man mqpi 5mn ran pa b"a nwn Kb atms am Diptm ]b n^ns b"« ivibs inb arenas nswnw n«£i xn^tx mbtttnitf iiD*itf£ iwban b^y tw inab pmn anna amni am rra awi *Trba ii*i nm otw aiscn wVKh n^s© mb ies amb aian m n^b nrrwYm by wiab abi 'twin toot ar.^na pa nna^b Kb «dk mb nnfca nmi ab »mn am Dipaa nm n^nDi wr« niDOT ivanxh tosh ai^n ana b*ob£3> pi b"a Rantta fWb iins
* Cod. Oxford, Rabbinowicz.
(49) p. 155.
T. Shabb. XIII. 5. pftK 1^2£ p* pana 113DD1 DWban
binn fcu ib^ban w 'i in^rrrawi ]n pahpto in ,p£>i©3 Kbx nsp« T*fiD 'i itttf iK«n nK sp^W Hftth rYraran n« nip quin ib*tt ininiiDT^i in isii© r»«J ii^b ixin^ d»» ^:n n« *TTWD pvab D3DD idixi nir mm* n^nb imddm ^inx cirn
414 APPENDIX
f*m\ ima f*tm ttm ia piaini ima proa p* n6* wra*
"i iek "pfxsfl raft nnnam nbin -ipiki -naiK mrorr BH4sft in •»»» Dipfcfi TOR irittKb OW pn D^tt tfWi bk n^ai bK*ttc nK3pi nn^K pb^E© |Wb "nan wan b* nnw RtUpa nran inm©2 nam nan nnK b* DW» tarroKb ban»i fa nnnrn ksek •* "pasM irfth will won arrtiri pwdtki jn dtbdi ^b f*i '1Kb D*>nK3© fiK3© mbnn tstaipriK TTOttpwn ■wa Kb iniK pb^a pit td np^bin ^s>& piK pb$rg p*» ^ptwah nan bDE Kbi D^n TOD Kbi (rrttton
1 Cod. Vienna, and b Shabb. 116a. 2 Cod. Vienna.
(50) p. 156. j. Shabb. 15c almost the same words.
(51) p. 156. b. Shabb. 116a almost the same words.
(52) p. 157.
b. Gittin 45b:— TO b* If^ ^IBK nnb tfTTO 5H rrt nEK
n"o nDtt see rnpib "pwi "naa k* pnpib pin Kin "jn^i pans nn iek n»b k^i ta piip D^nnin -m* -pn K*d»
K2E3 W D^nDlD T3t* IllTD Sn^ pfc mro© JTVin "ISO pt3p3
nb •naan ot nb ■nEK n^bsco mi* -nn kses w ptt to
rem qn»^ k-jh ^n D^nnm mi* mro© n-nn -iso in pup
jljn awp «b in p-rtp Tt« awi rav» Tro
(53) p. 160.
T. Jadaim II 13:— niKtitttt pK py»tt 'HBOI DWbafi
pK Tb^Ki i*Dtj mro3i& di-bdo bsi an^o p *n£>o twn ™
D^Tfi mk putswa
(54) p. 161.
b. Shabb. ii6a:— innK 'to pan nn qoi*» nn nwo ?*a pb^xti p* ik np^b-in ^3£>b piK pb^sE fro* tn *nfio W itw ■ab p» bm pr»n» "tob bva Kb m n*TO r#fl iKbi p» taMtj nib • rrt in^K bvK pnan ^nb b^K Kb *t*d ^nb bKi^c ^b »i»pi wrma kd^k irsto Kbpi mb n^K p»»n» ^nb IW Kb
APPENDIX 415
abi kdk wots to» cioy* -in iti ^b ^©p rrron rmpj^b2
■Hp two w rwobb va b*w *nn ast^r **»wa wcnott
: fl** yw n^b "Hp pn^ *i prta fttl rrt
1 Cod. Monac. pro N3^b. 2 Cod. Monac. pro rrnpS^a.
(55) p. 165.
b. Shabb. 152a:— »b tt"E OTtfl p Jttim *4 ID^p b"a
•pnsi «b im&3 y*vb* wino abn nits b"a itok iab rv*n»
(56) p. 165.
b. A. Zar. 17b:— 11* ntt» pWW "Si mfltf Kb tD"fc b"a
jo^bjpa *gwift kee 15$ antral wri pt
(57) p. 165.
b. Erub. 79b. 80a:— bD nn -»£« DfiO mEtf KVi 1t^
•pso n^a baratn n^nin^Bti inarm p»i ran* pttyiB dviapte :dt»» Di^n mnb imrn *tnx* w jw»b *itri w ■naam
(58) p. 171.
b. A. Zar. 6a (ib. 7b):— to* nsnttl -Q KS^blnn m TOTl :-noa abisb bwm4,i ^nn "na-tb "TOIS tffi btfifctt
(59) p. 171.
b. Taan. 27b:— TOtTi 1113 W fWltt TO **b TOE an*a
: D^-iMn wia pni^ 'n tok ab d"s raw thuo jib** toed rp
(60) p. 173.
T. B. Mez. II. 33:— Kb rr«fcwi ftpi flora QWiSH d^wi abi "p-miti rTniown D^-rowtim i^an pr-nt abi pbtfB
: fini
(61) p. 173.
b. A. Zar. 26a- b: *13OTl pW tTH "**p IfDK W "Wl
Twan baa fi*rai Kbi plana Kb npi nana wn d^did bsb mv ^k Vk piw Kbi y*mm w yttrium rvmoiam
27
416 APPENDIX
■jkde ^ao "p-mra rai maa nan nanan na tva-ib *pna riT^a naian i«d pna*>nb rnb^os bam naian pes mb ^ibi naia -rama bw fm ownb mb^ra bDia -mop DW6 mb'oa bsna -ptj owrib naia "pna^nb toa in aawi ana nn ^bs nana •dwi nr T»n w« aba -ram ^ D^anfe *■** naa -im *nn ht ■nn inx trim na -ina w» bna ^i^ti d^did ^ba bwrt vn ttrtrt w ^npi ain onwfci «Dn am Wfla
tttrwan awa
(62) p. 177.
T. Hull. II. 20. 21: TO SiaMTS irvia ^ TO axaSE 1C1
WQ D^na ^nir m»n nr "nn tm* tm **Nrt ni&o -noa *pan yrtwrai ids p eowi **P ri*> ins r* "p*5"1 ra^n© n&MrtJ lim pb ynaroa f* : pros* jmai pwwp "nsp Jim** rbna na i^Tob pm pb ■parte T^ I™3 p*W f<w pa "pnpib : rnwo wi abi fitna *wn ab pa painr-ia pai rmi ftm
[Note. Here follow the stories of Elazar ben Dama who wished to be healed by Jacob of Chephar Sama, a Min, and of R. Eliezer's arrest on the charge of Minuth; see above
n08 28, 45.]
(63) p. 178.
b. Hull. I3b:— ttnmr ribas o^nDis tiv ntnn© na naa maian p^a "P* *™a "& W ">*** 1*™ ^n ^^ ^n V* **a© rrnDiD ^-m* mi "pa aa'w aD'w pmap am kefd i-nv c-iD3 ■pn'n n"a ana -a a^n "i "iaa- an 'd nb -qo wn p^mna ansa aba p D'ODia n-ra* 'nwb pab nsinn© maiaa "pta pa Pn- ^ "»*** wra -a Qtm nn -raa p*r»a ba-i©*>- "pa ™^n© anion nt^nfcb aa^a ^aab D^aw iiai* bamm an©n fnTftfe aba a^na D^aois -ni*- a-noa maa
:a^na oiaaia ini^i y*r»ttb
(64) p. 181.
j. Sanh. 29°:— D^W 1W3t? 1^ baitt?^ iMi ab prTfi T'a
ba f^« ■*« ^bi» ma p atma na :n^^a b« mn^D ^n-iai
APPENDIX 417
•pa irmrt *tt b8 #la itto n©» Qi-mttn n^a b8 ban©1* *aa onininxi man ^n i-nta n©8 B*nPtnan cm 8b8 pta 3*na
:nrn Di\n -# ^n i*©5
(65) p. 182.
b. A. Zar. I7a:— mpn b8i nis^fc ir "pvi n^b** prnn it ^d-ii mb*tt pmn "maKi 8^81 ni©nn it nn^n nns ba n-i iatt nsani ww it nn^n nns b8 nnpn b«i rwum tram nvo rra "»«tt mw nan? pnatt ^n pn-n nitt8 *nn8 8-ion -itt83© ifoit) **rt cponb n-o©3© hfltt bD 8-jonm -iE8i 8ion 1*111 ma an arbsi T&nb ^nni ^b ins 8b "jDinxi yftM tNftn ©*>8 '83© -nbn n^n* vftj b© m*np 8b8 mm mo8 8b ms m« nm ■$ »bi* tunc* nibab innpn 8b im 18© bD b8 ©i» Wi "08 nb ■n^ai vt*T "08 nmn«b inb p©3£ mn ah *ott 7b di©e iiD8 «iab*n m^p iftv iE8i mfmi rt^rn 8^b*n ma m© npibsb mpn 8b mshsh mno -nno irwa fhaw "7b nipsns© m3n m© bip 8npi? -i* iti* an an ^8£ an an nwa ttot ^i 8an 8nn nrn abvn mwari Dsn^E wrw bip 8api* ta to* 8-ion an n*8 vnan 8d^8 nrwnm nTn a!wa rmtron mpjns© msa m© ->b i#an irtpim np*i2 nn8t3 w o^n mmia ^©*> 8bi "pan©^ 8b n^8a bD 8an 8an n^n mn-na iw 8b law* Dtfi p"n law p1^ in© 8b© an n^iapb ">8n8-j 8^nn am n^fc FWW ©man ban vnwzb bran nsa^a ppn nsn nn©3? nibpn© nbp n^b mE8i 8ion nip nnti«pitt nntt 8bi wmo nb m-it: 8ion m nb npn i^b© 8-nn 8b-j 8inn nn 8^n np WWi bbr« nn©y nibpa© 8^nn «ni 8b n-i^n^^ ^8 trowa "nasi 8d^8 nr« 8b n^tnsi nn»i 8miiT nb rniT n"n b"8i 8-on an wnp ^8n8i 8b n-psjw nn ^*in ^^ msw bbDtt rnbpn© nbp rmaxpTti
msi ^mrttn p 8"i by i^b? v«oi« irwn
bip nn nn:^ mia©3 nm^© t» rroaa n^ai i^-a i^i i©8n nn^n^n 8Dn Mm 8nn Dbi^n ^nb ftfira iwiTfri p 8"n mom *an nrn r^i twnaa i^ra nn p^i8- p^a « onn smn arm
27*
418 APPENDIX
nnK n*©n ifcbi* wip «*»i d^t» nasn iabi* nsip ©*• i£Ki •pmp© KbK piK pbnptt© nm©n ^b?nb p*i Kb W niaKi
j*wi tan imK
(66) p. 188.
Qoh. r. I. 8.:— wft* 1 b2K fiKn© nnK n©an n©*E mtt» fW* na ima nb "to* ^mp W * ni£K n^Mnnb vn» nbnpi *»w *i bsK nsbn nn qra iron ,wo iiapn iaa nana© pa Dnb tb« n-ipE nnKi pni£ w6» *i i^Tttbn ib d»i paw «b man bn ainm obisb rr»n ra* T?»wjb nwn
sarin ninniK iaw^ Kb imtn
(67) p. 191.
Shem. r. XIX 4. p. 36d:— DTO D^binfcn bK1©^ pK©
d^toik birwi wri awon w? Kb© i-d n^nn *i iek tarrtb n©i* nnMpn n& aarrab pw ^a p* pbina iidki b^ain W nb© nfcas© Bomb pTtti Dm "jfibn* frrai ^abfc nb©E ann mibn nbnsb rami aarrw pwi win bbn YiaibM :pm *a ms maw iin onia rombi st* nnms
(68) p. 192.
Bamm. r. XVIII. 17. p. 75d:— Wn iW* Wt* IT^ba l"a
pun mnn mm pn abia Kin© rrob pan W nth jna 7inn mn© pnn inia b^nnn ana1* mab ann o»a pnh tt*n 7D pn b© hW inia rr*i in ban W* am pimn fma niin 13a i©25© s"*a nbnintt ms£ inn to Kb baimnai arfi jonnpn aiiran misn in *irt inbnro tti
(69) p. 193.
j. Sanh. 27d pD -iaa in iT*b inn pnii inn • anyfran '11 irsba *3i paai pbia n»»i pn taa nnm aiao pa i^ai nnK raamr&a pha aisna b© n^nb nt* in pro in baitt© n* b* cik pn ab£ Kin© mnb fan ly« ibin itititm p^
jK^bns sNrna Kin rftttri ksixj jh« nwd rrt 'n^a jhk-
APPENDIX 419
(70) p. 195.
Siphri. § 115. p. 35a:— tWtt IT DDllb +*m TtWl »bl
'use ir»n ii&k nttitn na ttftwa i» *»3» armi ibme "pyi jnvibai rw Tbiani rm'' DTtfa nib onnm
(71) p. 196.
Siphri. § 320. p. 137b:— pi 'p^ttfi lb» DTODtt blD 1130
:D^nba pa iibi bis ies ieik am
(72) p. 196.
Vajiqr. r. § 28. 1. p. 40c- d:— Ittpl *6 p pfciaa 1 IttK
tusk nwia lib bwq on© p*nan in ixsee nbnp iso rtai n*o lib p^tm -rnnb^i wo rra« i&ib rftito -nan n^n in nEbtn oi^y *nnai nuib ■nwi ininn abi it>» nm "prnnm Vi rrt win mrvm aba »pwf naian pS wo ibm ie» es^ei o^nban law nba bi by 13 yn itt»» p*o pn rrti iso n»b ittpi ^tiro ia bai»» '1 iiaa nfcbtf rat hfe* ma* n^n *p iiek nwo isb anaii on© d^w in i»»a» nbnp rmn bw nb^yi cm bi^ di*6 jw rna itrib th* nab© si* b*w* i^n pww b*y ban iiaa ** mean Ytm y£«fci fctp ban aba rwni »m «h Kin tfmw nun b» nb^yi J biyna nun bfc ib^yi bis !m WW mn ib^yi
(73) p. 198.
b. Sank 38b:— ptt pair*! D18 11 ltt« HTW 11 ltt»
rna "jk W»* ib taitri w*n bat n^nba 'n aip^i iw&» n^n
i'Wi 71b
(74) p. 199.
M. Meg. IV. 8. 9 cf. M. Ber. V. 3:— i»b 1115? V* WttW
sirr* qM iar» tnn biDoi my «b 'o^ibi &|* pares* raw by rans nisia m pm nsio nbiay inbsn rrtWtn niy »b rna by nsnsi inr i^t rtttnan 711 it t*i it od by i» in«o
rwmi Tii it *n ib« ibpana
420 APPENDIX
fwn ww t*i ip b* m^ian ttt 1? **i d^ib TEW iwww j*tti im» pp*Wfi D^-nti d'hib TtstD w nit: b*i
(75) p. 204.
j. Ber. 9C (v. 4):— ina •jiatT* n)D p rtW Wl an** W
•pb^ttn "pna • nana in nmn iirwn nnp in na* to snara tcwi 'ib» *6 p *»w tn ai&a p^o w * -tea p»» trt • yten ^an nDi»« * wk TmnE ym r»wa ttb© d^™ nwrw ysatti D^n^n mma iia* ab« w fih win pwma pa bsb rmri p» tati r» -Dbttrvi woi anr
(76) p. 207.
M. Sotah. IX. 15:— rnapya ■ w«* bran w£» w
: "iai rtf^ft i&nn rrDbwri awo^ MBann iwnwa
(77) p. 210.
j. Nedar. 38a:— Wirt TO* W Win W DttQ tfntf W
©iipm aiab iwb p* pa aipi-on a* a»*i wba 5no*b a«i n»3D maun as wsra na dee ur>*wi rms rm iro
tfbtf D^DID "pm '** D*0 TTHW BOT *7Dp BTO OWE fQ
:in abisb n^aaiaa n^ain ip-ntti itt« nan n*a aipiis
(78) p. 211.
Qoh. r. on I 8. p. 4b:— minb bra row 'n ina p wan anat&a aton a^ai mm ■pban nbfc ■we mb pwi sins -©a •W»tfi jr© b"a win nwo iiby arm ma-an row frtoab bra nna baiim »*T»a •n© bw nx mb »*i»-i mnm aian p
:m*bra pan wi baab pan p mb
(79) p. 215.
Qoh. r. on! 8 (p. 4b):— ■ jwaab ^wabn fg in phji jrwfr.l f*ito» p smna bwo pub* -niwt»» p -d* mnrom bw mm labiab W ma o*o liaina bwi ^ffii a^na p »bi mb anon bitia wtnn ^ni mb ftem imrtt ^nis ywri ms
APPENDIX 421
jfirww p Jib iek nna na^na Deploy faanan i?n anba *nnb wjha b^n ^b-m nmna yw p abi rrt pna* "p™ >rwn
-ntai y-inb ataisi iy mnna "pma ywvn rn& mm '*iyi d'o r.bDno^ I6i roan abi 7*3*6 anbai bva irw 1 "pisa •■pmsan *pna rnnfi pirn n* p -im** p rtaraw rwn ibisn p
:pro mis min
(80) p. 218.
Qoh. r. on I. 8:— B*>pE*n£ yW3tl Y*1 KOlpa p mW '"I
by "jib tq» -a^msi imx pfctftt a^Mi inia a^baiE W toy man nan ©a "^ bm pr^a -paya "pri* "pa^ta pna pta -y pmnifc y»n pb nsa mrri oaiipa nrnam rvrra yas ittf
inia by ibbsnni xb pta byi ffc tdk rraai ^jm pi lp**,o ban rtnbantai n^aita s^aaa nabB nmm& rann nma San OTtti
: ytanto nabia t»iw
(81) p. 219.
Qoh. r. VII. 26 p. 21d:— MOT$J m'np nn& pypl "V"H 1
nr aita xHi vrtGB nso »i« aipy^ nr ataim -iryba 1 nr nit: nr aita a"i aiaao -isa fl^a aipy nr msttm a^i p "iryba nr ait: a"-r nma -i&d « iba nm y©im 1 ina p nwi jit ataim ina 'n m ana a"i awon iba msnm aoipa p nw jjrtrta nr ataim y©im *m iry^ba i nr ait: a"i i-pBbn
(82) p. 221.
b. Hagg. 5b:— VQT\ ntSK KOT1 DI^O ^3D -WlO» inon *oaai
an ia naia Dibna ama ^a& imnontt ^s by 3a na"pn toa p ww 'i -pmoD *n bsai 'wt> ia^by smtaa rp -ma qoii wviran k& wna amn rrt ^in» -io^p ^a i»p mn n^aan 'nb id^p n^b itiK na^by mica rr* n^b ^n» rrwa rr*ub rwa »a^i rwna WW6 m-to 'Wimari «»y lb ^n» vm ycm^ n^nje >*ma M8to ainnb n^b in^x la^by n^itaa it rrt xa^nta ibrf »b ib *w» imwi nwa (n^sb) rrnfc ■wnrimni K^y n^b
422 APPENDIX
asbtt ^ttp w annttn tfb lima i«ti *t abi anna i-nast ™» rran p mrp vn rr»tw ams ap * imbtopi imp&a matt fis* man onb it* Juttw njp jb* *iw*i ikb pan rrt
maia b» Dnfcnn nmos B'tttt ns* mn»» ft*a Drnann nmoa
: abi*ri (83) p. 226.
b. Emb. ioia: — man p sww ^mb *wn] awi b"K
^npi n^ob bw *W rrt n£« piro Kilo "da a*»nm nap-in ibbn D^pimn deo pinn DniD *»»ti »b«i tomato nv a^nm ami: in« "in i^b* "paiya ttt& d-oib p rtrrowi by i^tt tj "pi* na wn top **» earnib Dv*nn na "pp-irmt? p-ra : "fti taw ana* iryirri roirw Q^s Tfiimsi bra d^»k 73np
(84) p. 228.
Shem. r. XXX. 9. p. 53c- d:— Sttim ID b^btta pin fitttttt
wn "pa de> wm TOib inbnfc sn^p? *ti smr* p »ktl rnwb ainrotb wik aim rms nna »in» mi -irann nn"pn b» in» in» pti de mi -p i^« nn"pm Dibs ntw ira «im ■ro» D^nba srntta sb nrn aba wnm "p« Dnb n*a ik^e ■pa Dbi*n» wi ib 1113^ nn©n tiK ieee ir» n»b tow owbiwi ib ytb» p b"s nnrcn wsn ^inn bDbtsb ^oi dik ib^s«i maa yn^n bn ab£ n^«3® nn"pfi bE w*n D^mnnm n^nn ib iieh p btt» irrop «bia btabtMa i^a srva* nm* Qis
:*qk aba pan nai oifc»n n» abrt
(85) p. 231.
b. Sanh. 90b:— ©UpTO "p^£ bfcObtt* pi rw "py»tt lb»»
pn Dwasn pi minn p nnb -i^k n^ma wra Kin 71m rwn b« 'n -uaaoi n^nsi nmnn p laiatt ibn^p »bi diainDn nsn nrn o^n Dpi K^b^i ib in^K Dpi Trims d^ aaw i^n iaaio 135-11 wpsi iiiaipi ^nbna •jinta 1W a^nDi tfwaan p rrmw wra iw*ni b*wi o^iem f i«i Tbta rmni bD ^ wt D^ntD^b ^inb 7bin aitan i^d ^dhi n^nsi D^ainsn p b^pmi :Ktib5?n nwiM? n»nnia i»mi Kttb^ii B^wn *»md» aan
APPENDIX 423
(86) p. 235.
b. Jebam. 102b:— fbm WOSP *** K^£ MM >rt IKK
Kbi ti n* Epab **■! tnpoai WKaa awi nwfi ma tfb
era fin Dnb fin n^ro ^ rraw rrt itttt aroa pbn ikwt
: rro tm k©«e "n^B j*rtn nb i*brn nw "Wfrt a*1*^
(87) p. 237.
b. Ber. 10a:— JTip* "tfl a^fO K^-Ob K^E KWl nb 1£K
rwob yw *iw mb mM w mb^ Kbi nicia rnS1* Kb i«tt aba 'n n£K nbi*a isafla nnn'M xa ow ia a^roi Knpi rrtfi »b» mp* ni&Kb mrw b*rw noaa w rrfr" Kb mp*
iWrtfi dsrrob n^a
(88) p. 239.
b. Hull 87a:— Kna Kb ram mi ^ *arb k^e Kinn b"K *?oi ffnn ns^ nan ^ a^-j tfnn -^ Kb mi k-d» to mn rrt i»» ibid maa* 'n K-ipi j-rsnob b^» nemo rrt tbK m-i nbn w aw Knaw ^b m\ mm >»y» Knbn nam ^b oipa KnnK ^Kp aero rrt iiek TW va Kp rem ■* anwia jw ■rtaiK ^k niais nvYflsa w ib -iek *w «n woa wi iek ■won© ^pin ib toh rwi wn p bssi ^ik rawn two Kb *jb nriK nana b© did b"K wi ibaK© nnKb pi * n^K ^bSK ^k nana bio did ib -iEK btaia nnK ownr Di*niK ik nmti D^ainr nnsa-iK mtP nana b» did mtjin bip na nnsi nnw ■p-npi wi ^b™ pa rms»fc nmKb rw -pii* pn*i 'n to«
jcoarnb na nn&ttti nniK
(89) p. 245.
b. Sanh. 38b:— Wi 'na bK*£tn 'lb K^tt Mm H* "YaK
inana n nKtt tan wHbbdi nnia^ byi diio by TitMan 'm a^ns torn aewn rrt nornrw ksk ^pzw oniD Kinn b"K rrt w»b KbK rrt vai ^»3 ^^b ^«3 ^bip iana» nbsi my TOfi ^b kh lb KDti b"K wi Knp wm *Ba KDn ^n Kip vn»i3
424 APPENDIX
(90) p. 247.
b. Pesah. 87b:— WiS) npll arthffl ^att WV*m *1 tea
*d*W nwarr Tab i-ihdib banana na"pn nw np-js banana ids a^na idpwq p^ia "pa itoon wd a^a mwi b"a-i ^»- stoa pa isawK pa ibai *tti de atn liwin n»« ^2 bWD ina TEbn Tb bst:^ Ufnri lb -tea »HWifl lab piajfrp abn iribia pban ro*n "Wi w»W abi oiwa ¥* wdmi *i mb naa ansnap aniabtt iab **$ was »dw ^a£ "d*o» man* : ppbo lew p*t& ana to aa* rrt
(91) p. 250.
b. Joma 56b. 57a-.— 1*0 anttfi VGm ** IBmj KW! ttb 1tt»
a^na nxs nn an tth n£a rrtwa fina^ia a^nai fina ywm ns-o© jntttt )trto xao ib^aa Dnattit: Tina ona pWrt TO
(92) p. 251.
b. Gitt 57a:— wipima ^-vip© »a^an wi lona ainn *tt:a na pnma iw pa nr *»as to na a^na ias pa rrt "112a ■ps© ftitai anm mb* pattm© pra banttn p» qa "n»a
: jntfl mb* ■pntm
(93) p. 253.
Ber. r. § 82. p. I55b:— rrrap wvnA 71*30 napni bm ntttil ana pan^ tin jwt» wi ikf ^a*i dnb tv*a a^n nnsa fna abm *ai i-we d^n ^naba a^nai ^aa wba© wna ainrr fro napni a^nai mw» biaaa bm n-napi •ptna biaaa nibs ^an b"a win :poa ^a^ va nn-isa onb n^a awi nn-isa biaaa dto* 'a nasfci bm rmap d* ■nwtt m*n ^naba iti» Twaa biaao i-tob wn ^naba itDsn n^ai nabsa "pE^a :*pm ^m bm n-iiap d* dim* 'a naiftai nsbsa
(94) p. 255.
j. Ber. i2d. I3a:— niniba nrco ^abtt© "i na iba© jwon Dia na iba»i lab pbaw ana ibi pb -i^a Dbi*n na ^.ana
APPENDIX 425
mb* is-d i®« tn d^ies-i EFirt sd bisrc ^ '3» iittsin g-js D\nbs sin -iibs BWi pft sbs isd ama rs psn b* dis *an p* -itis D*>nbs ihfii rrosin avem rrt litis psn b* lips© oipti bD ^sbtit? *i *»* sin sbs antD "pat nmn una dis nwa men ps nti mis ibstn 11m Tfaa nm©n fOTBH ■jsn nmn "ps Gtibsn aisn ns una*] jrtb itis iDmitiin imtibsn nnmi ibsb tnnftn * ttb* itibsn Di^n ns arrtu ma*] aba i£#n it] sins dis m?Eb pnb itis n^ttti nns nti lib nspn iDmitiin wrtsa f*m [?isnti] oisti Disn pa nsma mtti sbn imajbb s"s irnsn sbn mwwi *"*] n»j<n sbn tnsb s"s n^nbs bs 'n ambs bs nmm pn nti mix ibstn pmi htftrc mi sin aba -j»d aina f»» DWV on pb itis rm sin 'n n^ttti nns nti 13b nspn nim ibsb *i wtahn * TttH mro oimzrus ioip oinbioa tori ©sisn ins M p«ib» pb itis ps sipii ia*n 'n ombs bs amm ima vr* ibs»i nm mp*i t^i sbs nmn ps isn mo isipii ran *&\ pb itis itis ai©ti nns nti isbi nips nim ibsb iai witibn * rfl» iim papisms pta pstiis itisi ttftfia ins D« pttbE pb ni»np pb itis sin Di©np ambs in amm inti mis ibsan i^iitibn ib litis sin ssp bs sin sbs ^sd n^ro ps ntin »np pnt^ w -itis a^»ti nns nti isbi mpz rwrn ibsb ^nn wnpa iDm nn"pn sns ^i em pi^ h itisi ntcnp wq bDn D^nbs rwnpa wnr riD^inn yiynpa lawi ntrnpa i-iim iDibxn *jDm ©Tipa o\nbs rnrnpa syn n©npa n^isi s-iid b^ n©^ D^nbs nwiipa inciti tnipn ^bti *» 'i^bn ntrnpa nvnpa wvr ns^©n ■o'n D^nbs rtfnpa rwn i»ip «od TWtt nDitiD to wnpa TW^ >mp .wip smr ns 'n 5|«?n n»s bn> ^a ^ti a*»«Di ps inti mis ibs»i nm »iipa nn^bs la^sip ban ismbs 'ns pb ton i^bs D^imp D^nbs ib w i^i^tibn ib litis i^bs i^sip ban sbs ^sd a^ro ps ^^ti b^a mip pb itis n^©ti nns nti vb nspn rwn ibsb
jninnp
426 APPENDIX
(95) p. 265, 304.
Pesiqta. r. XXL p. 100b. 101a: — dS ana -Q S^n h *H3S
san sin sds n^b ioti ii^s d^nbs jnn nrren ira 7b -ras^ s-d Tb ^as^ ds sns *o **n *n -ies s"-; — "wi sin sds n^nn ^S nai d^sn d^s n* S^S "JI^S d\nbs inn WffOfi
:dD£* 'n im sbs ^sd
(96) p. 266.
b. A. Zar. 4a:— dis-j snso n-Q web inns *i inb nnntttt tum* wow in *w tw no^rn son-ia rrt ipa» sin bna
upas p by n*nsn tmttm bD£ wr» dnns p-i n^nn n^b n^b p^o£ nnsma awo n^b rtnri i»ti kww bn ns dn^b* spi nnsitn smo h*4 Ttn *f»fc sbi inb -i£s sbi p^nte^s irvnttna wtti* inb ies m^nn©s inns in sns rrt "WXtJ ■jb ittnft rn sbi sin bra disi ib nn*s sbi rrt nm n^b •na ^snpn ^ssnn inb ■mtsm w» inb -itts spies m »«w» pwatti ps inb tos jirwrn "pns »#t n^b nfcs inb nt» »»* rr»b vnaa w«i sb w* pw fmott jaw tdim rmtm disb mm imn n»b bans dDb bittnaa inb ies ns f> oflwa tana 12^13 *tm mms i»3iw -insi mms -ins s"Dn m
: tins nnn mwa *nw isdie
(97) p. 270.
Ber. r. XXV. 1. p. 55c:— 11ES inns imb ibStt 'pomp^S
mtae lb ma» n*b onb ntts ^lanb wwa i^siia iss -pa lb f«m b*£ 73ns ns npib 'n di^n ia ibnb m&sii nmpb i»d •jbnb toaoi nn^pb "jsn tom airm dns nmpbb ds dnb ies w p^»n nsn sttinsn n"s ■psv -ponti ns inn npib ^^n
: inns
(98) p. 272.
b. Ber. io*:— tiete aw inns 'lb S^tt sinn lb "Ml ^D&tt mnnn snnfc mb n^nm ia dib»ns WA m-an -inb wma nm bis« man rwi *wna nin nir#i3 sn rnraa bistD
APPENDIX 427
■pa iab x^top "parao prp»-n Kb-j pna rrt lEtf wnn aiinab
:"jb *OEp ab d^aitto p«vn
(99) p. 274.
b. Shabb. I52b: — jrflatta irvniaa inaa "nb kfe a-inn b"a rppoa aa^n s^tio aia iiaan aoa nnn rnrm d^-ji b» ba urern mri Ann io ow ytro dinn b"a rrtaa bunstfe Bftth ©in a*i nnab HTWI fibi* iiroawi d^p ims ©in a'"*
:nw fiff* awi nbi* intrtwi bt>a
(100) p. 275.
b. Sanh. 39a:— pm daifiba 1TOK Wi MftB XlJin b"X
b^ naa©i atta ibatowi Tis by aa© bapm^b rrt n^api sin »n«n b"a artpatn t:"£ b"a rrakti kwi ana wtFH Tis »» inr binr% na"pn n^a wnrti irwi arfrng iab graft aba p iw «b pi aon *» f nan© wn» rp ya» WttBni rpTfi Y4* nmo» tin -nra ^bE dbi? b« waq ibai istan pm d^ d^sn awi am pm da fbia na mi am *nraa da na"pn p oa •ptioia pa© D*6ron noina mn vnarn »bts binr« b© dmrm* ptab **} baprm na np^Ma * mpii atrial *yi pa damba inaa ,crt ntm **ti ¥* m airom a^a a^n w biap ^a^a nwtjb rmap ia mmn W sen rcaa 'n nan ■* a^nai b^ats aniDa b"a D^ts ib*»a Yitt iiri msa areata ipv na-na b"a amaa anibiaa apbo rianja wa*h «aa aa^ ab ni&» bai a^nai
(101) p. 276.
b. Sanh. 99a:— iritis max Wb a^E aififi b"ai W>Wl
xp tabula b"a TO1* wrtb aaittn irt ^n ^ab b"x n^©^ ■»«■« DTOKb bsnyi p» m 7©inn nDn ^a a^na xnp b"« ^b nt:^b
: nxn^ i^by iTaai 'n rnn T^byi
(102) p. 277.
b. Succ. 48b:— inaa *6 ii»» mnh w» aim b"«
428 APPENDIX
rpm»E ywm a^na- xnion r™ap-ja ywtb a^na mn -»a b"a j*»tj rra p*tfi a-m mb piuns ana* srmm
(103) p. 278.
b. Sanh. 91a:— *m *OaiTH Witt* ^fca 'lb 83^*) aiHfi b"a
nam nnb bvn 7b biEEa b"a *m ap ^ mwn a-is# Yin am mp^a Bf^TO "p-itabfi ^b 1531 nab Ynayb -naatt c-n i©a ^btsb wn iaai nm onb iJpn ibso wrt irna iasi nabn nwn d^ p*» an^b* oso ^w iaa ya ib itoa twi itt> m mptn ima nam dNfl i&i» Y^a* DTTCfii nsjn n^ ya© Diptsa pb tcai ■oa* mrri r&psb at yaafc nna ^a can n^ai n^a nna by -n&a "fro nwai •pni&n irrab mrw Y*»fi nraa ^in oiito yrbn aba ia ya DW» nail inb nb? rtama fttA i^an a£» :nwbn ibia abanai trws rrf inttb ma
(104) p. 281.
b. Sanh. 9ia:— fob *n ao^DB p jttWMfe i»na amn b"a
fob Ti b"a yin mnn wd ym y*n WB yrrmaan rm «>"a ab ^n 11m ^n Tin abi yn ab we prmftan a^a^n '(trinpyb aot^ww ia swot aKnaitp ^a ^b n*np a^a^n b"a : bitan nam -ottn a-ipn pi* awn p WW nna na b"a v**
(105) p. 282.
b. Sanh. 39a:— yia iwb an atnnsn 'ib -ioip mb -nsa
yna la^rnia wia psa ab pbntn ya ^nb toa m a^yb
aabttb wi ba w»ta rrraap n^© we b"a imia 11m wbnB
abi ^an wna ainn b"a nibaa abi na^ab mnw "la^ab nrnttS
irrtoin n^nb n^b wi© ann yto abi Dim mbaa
The same story is told in Jalq. Shim, on Zeph III. 9, with no essential variation.
(106) p. 285.
b. Sanh. 38b:~ DWob »vnrtt6 ^"i^i pKU ^an "j^n: a-i 112a rv-na1 a-ib imQ ainn -rtaa Tirrt ab ab in tirr* n^i^a1 ana inr b"a w* ^^a^ ^ba ri& *n ba nb* ntsa m»r bai a*vo
APPENDIX 429
inbss2 wi ^ impn ^e© *3 n*nm inn a©D is©© pitrjE rrab an?©sb «ttn ab p as in iqrtnan bs in -ran bs n^nn rnb awi n^np4 sb nsniparmKi ib^san p-a3 xniD^n b"*ob
:'im a^nbin "pss pa ax rtn -ie*oi
1 ■*!•* Cod. Monac. apud. Rabbcz. 2 in^tj idem. 3 -p^n idem. 4 h^yfrap idem.
The above is contained also in Jalq. Shim., Mishpat. § 359. (107) p. 287.
b. Hagg. i5a:— armab am©i rrt> ipffwun rnwo'na am
ra^an ab *m ab nb*t>b-j a-v^a 'ton btftrn aniinr nnn^b
pi ni-n©-; 'n aib©i on se© wr abi q-n* «6l rvnnn abi
iirten ^obifi prw wrm fnop'nA impsa
(108) p. 290.
b. Sanh. 39a:— *n tto fc^ns *>nnb «o*nq ainn rrt 1E8 wni* na pn» nr*rrcn mna pan ins *a bvntro *pa*n •p* two* irnto mb -iek YEA pan o^iarr bn iwi pm
:n©nrp «b a^iani n^nm
(109) p. 291.
M. Sanh. IV. 5.: im «b©1 'W* DTK anni *p^b
janste rmi©-i nenn obtain JWB
(110) p. 292.
T. Sanh. VIII. 7.: rorma anna nabi minnaa area di« jwm iw n**i GfrTp D*ntfw prw w ab©
(111) p. 293.
b. Sanh. 38b:— mm iittbb up© ivi wi* «"i ann pn oi-iip^a aba 13© ab pni^ 1 tan oimp^ab n^©n© ™ jhi pm1* "V'a is© ipsn ©*n b*n©i ompifia bna a^nnin i-ni* b© bwi xtsbsa bth n©TD pisn inm©n cwtan rtpw aipro bn msnb 'n -nil dumb a© nbnai rmfl nan ittbtn a-an na ainba irrw nsisn bab aifiban iiba ibw a© in bia»n mn wn nx
430 APPENDIX
f6 ^ba wz*\~\p D\nb« ib n©a bna *fl *>* ■« im* dyo i»» f nan -ina *fl bihro 7**d to i^ba i5»np ban wrbp aw ?w pwn i^n frfcrd *1 i* t#b ft ifrirt D^nba iDbn raw ain Tins ttnpn ra prm n"ai prm "cmD *>b rab 7nn attar* 1W* WTN&3 n^a^E rib*fc bra a^bfc&n fbiaD d"^^ -qi Kb* i»a man twto *h -& ^nbiD n^snn MriNito •ptriip itawjn yi i*th trfe tfttft ib in^ awn Tfft -mai ib -ma wnab aba bin wd» m«r nna ^ra -t? anip* ■** *i b"a an^p^ ©"n mwa nbnp ab ia mm nbnp npisb mai f^b ina p nr*ba 'n b"a a^p* *i "nan npisb -mai ^-ib -ina a^m ina aba nibnai OTMB bsa 7bD rmi bsa 7b sma anip* avw rrton Biinb q-ifc-nci rt« nt^b aoD rpsnfcb -mai aosb
(112) p. 297.
Siphri § 143. p. 54a:— bDD nail ain TTfia WV p "plttD©
niansi i-m abi Triba abi D^nba ab ann TD*a ab rnina© mnnpn tttrrb o^tib ns> •jinrao fmb ab» wia DO a"n yy aba
(113) p. 297.
b. Menah. 110a:— nail ail W* p JWD» *1 ilea IJW
n^nba abi ba ab ona n^ai ab« niDmp rw*a smt rra jpibnb *pi bsob n& "pirns ir^b abfc 'n aba
(114) p. 297.
Siphra 4C: Same in substance as (112), but ascribed to R. Jose [ben Halaphta] instead of to R. Shim'on ben Azai. The saying is also found in Jalq. Shim. § 604.
(115) p. 299.
Echah. r. I. 1. p. 10a:— TO1WI TflDDID "CP ba-fl&i iba ab
rrtnarai rmain mwn ruin D*nwb rtarcm rbvosn obi* b»
jrniri tw
(116) p. 299.
Siphri § 329. p. 139b:— nar am ^a ^a ^D nn* nn OTaw rrrwi *nfc -man erava m«i ^a BfhBrwfe nawn
APPENDIX 431
bw ■pa k»» IK *W n^nba "pai "6 D*nBi8i vrtm pn^iTa mna'i rvnaa ^a bti a*t»ib abn ynnb ab r™>ib «bi nwinb •o«i ITOan ^a ttuoi H ibKian b*n«n Tbtt 'n tdk sin ifciai
:D*>nba pa •nybatii *pnna
(117) p. 300.
Mechilta Jithro § 5. p. 66b:— *1 1$ WT1 rim K«fUH
jrv» »b» 'iai imoip pa psai to wn nni wwn i*>ttn ftwo ** ''DDK aba p rrpwi tie toib dbvn nitt'iab hid yinns ^a asb -j^n^b *oa -oyBb i» nttm by •»» dm by ^» tpvAh nipt is sin *w ^a ^ nriy nn to«b» an"yb *m nrn Dbiyb wi iitan ^k mans "* ibawi b»w» ^bfc 'ii •«* no una ^k Vmtr\ ^a *■ ^a tttfTa wwin snip ntn bys na towi jinn* p rvrnfln me ointiiKto pweb TOi»n |ipta -tola jft *i
(118) p. 301.
Ber. r. VIII. 8. p. 22d:— W DM pfiD *Q b81E© W
n©y£ nniD rem nnwi na atto Hotb tprt* tom n^a ^tfn
nw^i DMb» nttiw tow© nrn piosb y»an© frcs di^i dii bs
•pri** inia nr« ma abwr fen i^b tos WWD lifcbsn dia
iwtji myob wron biro ib -wn vntti owrib ne
(119) p. 302.
j. Shabb. 8d:— n* to© nm^a pun to» vnba nab nn rrt n*»« iai Tb^fc ppm b"a v* by y©n tfinnb *wi labia sma nb© *i iaa iayi iirta Tn© "n ?innb* T*ta wi nrn wmrti "h vtrtak xwwn maabd nb© *i aba po a*«tp ri^b
: ^mby
(120) p. 303.
Shem. r. XXIX. 5. p. 51b:— 1TOS n"X T^^ tl "»D3» a"l
^5« TO"pn n^^ n» i« na * vn ^bitj dti nos fbrt b»»
:n» ••b p»» D^nbK v»
432 APPENDIX
(121) p. 304.
Pesiq. r. XXI. p. 100b: same as (95) above.
(122) p. 306.
Debar, r. II. 33. p. 104c:— DiWlMJ iba D* ai2in]n ba DtW 02
pan ban wn jwo is rrrtri n"a a^nn bx lw n-iba r«
in m^n ^n© eMfihirtb m^n twi vrtn na mn ■* 'n Das *6tt na irnri h'lr'Viati o^p rvmb -pn* im tram ima^ p» u*j* OT n^ib D^na •pEbiiBfc on© prflfc impw ba-n*n 'aa na"pnb v^P* F& •"^ aipm ?*& wrw maa 'Ma nab© b* na"pn o*a ana 'n hwu tmp rnp «mp rwnp ■pita nana nm tost »Tp bio nai b"a nrn piosn n^atta -ins ©*» nam na rf#i nrn "wa a-^nn ba dw an yphgtt b«hir« *w& aba p abi n» ib ■pn nb p» nm p ds ^b vai
:ma 'n trv&fi 'n
(123) p. 308.
j. Ber. 3C:— 21tt© DM n'ffl *b» nimi mw impl an va ttusan rviron 'pas? maia nar b"n dm nam *i w see b© nana in p mnain mw« nibs &"© rpb am p 'pa w» mn via rnaa prw^ to* pro T* baiEE in nana nm iaw vrtu ynnp p* ™ ^s*tt W baa rnwri rnw "pip twaa n»ttb ib wo iab iba D^wia irn aba? itrnan n»o
(124) p. 308.
b. Ber. i2a:~ yna» Da wfi *eb trna-in rnw pttpn bffltro n»» nw V* -owa nanai n-nayi aim rraa -torn
ntronn t«B Dibaa naa» aba p rmpb wpa "pbiaaa qa aba p rmpb iBpa -pbiafia wra -jro *i wi to »w pwon
wroprt nao *n"aa nan p^n rmijnn xva Dibaa ^aa© nao ntt^a ywom nmnn w Dibtaa naa aion an b"a amoa ntttnn i»tt nibtaa -iaa i»» an b"a n> r tftu w^apqb
* »5in 3"» *»n Rabbcz.
APPENDIX ' 433
(125) p. 309.
b. Pesah. 56a:— B*fMl 2tt© DX |WO *»H 1S"0 Vn
n^i^a *an "nai vp^ose Wi *^ "f™ 'n W*« fri ban©1' *b© d© i^na ffnsrtt t*i ab© aba fti ppow tew rrrw w
*i m-re rrt p-raa a£2tt in pm tn fiWA imabti -ma isoan ^am raa ba aipy* anpvi b"a©n 'ton V»pi p jurw idee npbinon ptwi J p 1XOS! nibab aipyi ©p^a Dab nrasn man vetw amaaa bios mora •* Bribn on mm to» nra© 'n bran *£© toj ib ma» to xm *rv» pnr» ^ai Mtitaw laaba ^» *p ina aba Tibs pa© n©a niaa ma ft tmbM -naa o© linn na*i iraa aipy nna n*© nmaa ina aba ywmu »b irmtaw tost wi pn "nan -cri obvb irrota mix Detain w» naipnn aipji maa wrttMp ab rah m 7b» nib b©tt nan w w ■n'aa pn& w tan ^a©na nb ©^ -naan xb ia:a nb ©^ n^an aa rrmp ipi* rornn© w» nrpnn nnaa ^an tdk im a^ai-ib nma* ib^nnn -or* aa^bi amroai "p^w HOThn ^wa on bipa ima d*wpi»
: ^a©na nb tiaa «n»n is )wn
(126) p. 313.
M. Ber. IX. 5:— nnaia *nn ©ip»a m mro rorw ba
wpnn Ttw aba obv pa fltth T*tDrt ibpbp©*> obwi yn
na bai© cna ari^© wpnm Dbwi iyi DbWi pa d*i»» w»
:*oi r*a aa rem tmb» o©a ton aib©
(127) p. 315.
Shem. r. XLIV. 6. p. 73c- d:— Tom mab DSVOab TOT a"l
b"a Dentin on o^n pbwi pan n©tt *vaa *6 n"K max ■*
(128) p. 315.
T. Meg. IV. 37:— pa ntiix *iT*ba p ivtt© 'n n^n pro ■ji-inxb n»ia* ia^©n© nai©na© nbpbpn b$ a^©nb ik©i iwn
fprt i©n& d©«
* Cod. Vienn. nwab ininx.
28*
434 APPENDIX
(129) p. 316.
b. Meg. 25b:— D18 8!T tkttib W1K Wbtf p ©""I *^n
•paiwi* mpB ni&Eb Tnna "OMBtw mwtriittab wgnbttai'v^ :rim ba*ri am Ban w*mi *na»ai&
* So the Mss.; text has fc^STOo.
(130) p. 316.
T. Par. IIL 3:— blttflWP 1 DIM N3$9 1 i»b TTD*
in© ppnmw fre bww wp* jwftn t*i pa b» moid -j-nb iwob Q^P* ^nn Sn onb IBM moiDn labiaro rnnttb
: or-ina
(131) p. 319.
Ber. r. XL VIII. 6. p. 97b- c:— tomb rtfiWl bD ftW V*
D^tsn fwa nrflD ibinn© na prt ta-na arowi rrono anpwa
(132) p. 320.
Shem. r. XIII. 3. p. 24d:— "tt6 fttt mm « *0 «"l
WD t»t] wm Kb nt* jwA ns> pnwD peia pw V*
or* nrio^ «^pb p o'h b"a tab na •^rrtDn -o 'hod ratm DUO in mm nn"pn© pV* »in a^sbb da aba DWd b» ■pa iab by« aim ta inn ■omn tw4*i m» rowsn d*s> fro *mn nr* p tpt atDnt? rra latna yns>b na nsngm nnx nn"pn b"« y»w b* mm »bi onj*fc 'n myn tm by na^ia *?b spans wn pb ra man yen* rv»»pn
: inwaia
(133) p. 323.
Jalqut Shimoni. on Ps. LX. 9 [Hebr.; 7. Engl.]:— ^b 8"f
m*pn pn» piian 7b inw dk [•»*]* p ffrw V* "ttb* •WW* twa -ttb* tmrna m** ■nn osib -mai D^n* rrma nanm bnp£ nn"pn ,p«w ib mam ds man *i .it by
bbsm toast? nawra won ^nbips: T» Mm ^n tinb tek
* Bacher corrects *b into ©ipb. A. d. P. A. I. 372. n.
APPENDIX 435
tnap a«i noun r*£ a^neai .mbsn w»^ ib *wn 'n ba in mroTB nspb» *tni [anb -nriK] rvnp* np» ra"pn •pa© 7b ippinti rrw .nsnb "Wpw TWO im&» (fa p *f*i p wnm n^an *ti »an pa b^ro nn"pn "p«» Twaa1* on rrw ^nta unawn ie^de m pa oft* b^in© er^-rana
:rran b*on
(134) p. 325.
Siphri § 48. p. 84a:— ttm TIRO Wl* IPtKO p p*WD '1
ay 7T»^Qjn*i D*to» nn»n ban firto b© mfe nn» ffo»
:dwq "nm
(135) p. 325.
Siphri § 331. p. 140a:— TWOT D^rVD *» "mi Dp5 n*>»S
■wMnabi "tn bn^nn OTfO nbian >kj "na ptwai *iw "ns w#*i
■praiprai kd»k Ti TKHta abn w* mn pi man iba ob»x
: ^b wi a^n*»i«b a^naw© naaiD mbnn aaipna
(136) p. 326.
B. Bathr. 91a:— mm T\ ttt* ipn "Q pn in TaKI
ww mn iKbrnaa pm nmaa ms-o nn mbnw nmasn [ma«] ban* nn mm tm rrw nina -vinta aaa «eb yw nnii&nb n^ta apitt •wttb "pro rrnnai nw&bbs pan una*
: i won
(137) p. 327.
M. R. ha-Sh. II. 1.:— nUK pnbwa Wl* 'pTOtl p» BK
ibpbpwtt aia bna «nnn rrm pbnpB rti reroana wawib w tyvwi pa aba pbnp* w ab» wpnn iwon
(138) p. 329.
b. R. ha-Sh. 22b:— bntt mnn rvn* ftoftn rtt fiDlttana
:'w nna a*a pcwwi ibpbp bipbp ma pan wi "lai ana
(139) p. 338.
b. Nedar. 32b:— ©p^a bx*12W tn BITDtt rmDT W "09*
pna p*»b* bab pn mrin ■ydhstd bee rare mnnb na"pn
436 APPENDIX
TOM DirQKE raratti nipttn romb Dmna nana D^ipno Tnai pai pwe wip ^b* bab ama fn* i£*oi WW XNp romb -n* nam v*^Pti W cin^ax * iek jrt* ba rrn&a i* wp* w ■tfwb ti Q»d iimm nmnab nsns tna pte nna dh^ abi 'n *ied s^ro rmwn Tbsnb arm t^ik n^riDi lyitm pis ■oho b© Tturn by pis ^b£ inw by Db^b :pD i*it -pan pa «m rrt* bab po aim
INDICES
I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. II. INDEX OF PERSONS.
III. INDEX OF PLACES.
IV. INDEX OF O.T. TEXTS REFERRED TO.
V. INDEX OF N.T. TEXTS REFERRED TO.
VI. INDEX OF RABBINICAL PASSAGES REFERRED TO.
29
I.— INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Angel of Death, 41.
Ark, to go before the, 59, 125,
199. Ascension, the, of Christ, 76,
271. Asherah, 165. Ass, associated with Jesus, 154,
211.
worship of, 154 n.
and lamp, 146, 152 f.
Athenaeum, 168.
Baithusin, 328. Baraitha, 21.
Bath Qol, 135 n., 184, 240. Be Abldan, l6l, l64f.
Athina, 167.
Nitzraphi, l6l, l69f.
Beth Din, 81 n.
Books of Minim, see headings of sections.
Cocheba Bar, War of, 28, 45, 84, 94, 131, 212, 225, 238,303, 313.
Contexts in Scripture, 273 f.
Deity of Christ, 76, 102. Demiurgus, 263, 299. Deposition of R. Gamliel, 386 n. Diagramma (Ophite), 155 n.,
372, 3. Divorce, law of, 58. Dualism, 262.
Ebionites, 266, 379-
Ecclesiastes, book of, 4, 197, 385, 391.
Empire, Roman, adopted Chris- tianity, 124, 185, 209, 249.
Epiquros, 119, 295, 366.
Essenes, 200.
Evangelion, 149, 163-4, 239, 390.
Food, burns his, phrase ex- plained, 57-60, 187.
Gehinnom, 118, 125, 187, 191,
226. Gemara, 19, 349. Giljonim, 155 n., 373, 390. Gnostics, 321, 368-70, 374. Gospel, 72, 357-9, 390.
of Matthew, 45, 150-2, 239.
Greek Language, 89.
Haggadah, 12-14, 24.
Halachah, 11-12.
Halatz, 235 f.
Healing, in the name of Jesus,
103 f., 108 f. Hebrews, Epistle to the, 265 f.,
272, 289, 293, 318, 322, 339,
378, 380-1, 395. Horos, see Metatron, 286. Horseleach, daughters of the,
183. Hitzonim, 200.
438
INDEX
439
Jalqut Shim'oni, 25. Jelam'denu (Midrash), 25.
Kingdom, near to the, 48, 89. turned to Minuth, 209.
Loadstone, 101-2. Logia, 151.
Masoroth (delatores), 119, 174, 366.
Massoreth, tradition, 8 n.
Mechilta (Midrash), 24.
Meshummad, 366.
Metatron, 286-8, 373.
Mezuzah, 158.
Midrash, 22-5.
Rabbah (Rabboth), 25.
Min, Minim, Minuth, see head- ings of sections, and last chapter of conclusion, passim.
Miracles, 31-2, 114 f.
Mishnah, 17.
Mumar, 174-5.
Nazirite, proverb concerning
the, 186. Nebheloth, 174. Notzri, Notzrim, 52 n., 164, 170,
172, 344 f., 379.
Odeum, 167.
Pedigrees, book of, 43. Pentecost, 328.
Persecution of Christians, Q4 141. '
Pesiqta (Midrash), 25. Philosoph, 146, 148. Philosophy, Greek, 106, 168.
Qabbala, 8 n.
Qoheleth, see Ecclesiastes.
Rabbah, 212.
Rabbinical literature, 17-31. Rabbinism, central idea of, 7. Repentance, 322. Resurrection of the dead, 232 279, 313, 322.
Sadducees, 319, 334. Serpent, the, a Min, 199. Shema', the, 3, 310. Siphra (Midrash), 24, 350. Siphri (Midrash), 24, 350. Soul after death, 274. Synagogue, the Great, 4, 6.
Talmud, 17-21.
of Jerusalem, 20 n.
Tanhuma (Midrash), 25. Temple, destruction of, 129 382-3.
rebuilding of, 283-4.
Tephillin, 158, 200. Torah, 2-7, 15. Tosephta, 21-2. . Tradition, 8-14.
Zugoth, 2.
II.— INDEX OF PERSONS
th™rr\ A th% IannAaite Peri°d (See P- 350>' are distinguished thus (T.), those of the Amoraite period thus (A.) after the name.
Abahu (AA 62, 109 f., 161 f„ 173, 176, 266 f„ 270, 278, 303, 310.
Abarbanel, 95.
Abba bar Kahana (A.), 209 n Abba Shaul (T.), 65. Abina (A.), 290. Adam, 199.
4*0
INDEX
Aha (A.), 174, 204, 210, 257,
306, 393. Ahitophel, 60, 65, 70-1, 75,
192. Alexander the Great, 282, 331. Amemar (A.), 308. Ami (A.), 109, 279, 308. Amram, D. W., 58. Antigonos of Socho, 2. Aqiba (T.), 10, 17, 40, 43, 45,
57, 65, 84, 112, 130, 137, 208,
228, 273, 296, 316. Ashi (A.), 70 n., 157, 172, 309. Asi (A.), 109.
Ba (A.), 308.
Bacher, W., 1 1 n., 27 n., 64, 74, 130, 134, 153, 166 n., 185 n., 189, 193, 197, 205, 207, 208, 209 n., 213, 223, 229 n., 232, 254, 259, 269, 271, 283, 286, 290, 298, 321, 335 n.
Balaam, 63-78 passim, 29 1.
Bar Livianos (Julianos), 244.
Qappara (T.), 108.
Ben Azai, Shim' on (T.), 43 f., 50, 297-9, 353, 370.
Damah El'azar, 103 f.
Netzer, 73 n., 95-6.
Pandira (Pantiri), 35 f.,
103 f., 138, 344 f.
Stada, 35 f., 55, 79 f., 344 f.
Zoma (T.), 370.
Benjamin ben Levi (A.), 196.
Berachjah (A.), 191.
Beruria (T.), 237 f.
Bibi bar Abaji (A.), 41 f., 355.
Bodia (A.), 157.
Buni, disciple of Jesus, 91 f.
Caesar, 165, 222, 282.
Damah, see Ben Damah. Doeg, 60, 65 I, 70-1, 75, 192. Domitian, 141. Drummond, J., 207 n. Edersheim, A., 47, 59 n., 95, 143, 201.
El'azar ben Azariah (T.), 113,
228, 273, 295 f.
ben Jose (T.), 136.
ben Pedath (A.), 77, 115
193, 273.
ha-Qappar (T.), 63-4.
of Mod'in(T.), 369.
Eliezer ben Horqenos (T.), 35 f., 45 f., 48, 54, 84, 106, 137 f., 140, 143, 185, 196 n., 207, 219, 273, 293, 351, 386 n., 388.
Elisha, the prophet, 60, 96 f.
ben Abujah (T.), 163, 219,
221, 288, 370, 373.
Etheridge, J. W., 2.
Eusebius, 141, 217.
Ezra, 4.
Frankel, Z., 131.
Friedlander, M., 122 n., 145 n.,
155 n., 221 n., 286 f., 337,
368-76. Friedmann, M., 305, 364.
Gamliel II. (T.), 84,89, 127 f., 144n., 147 f., 198, 212, 228 f., 231 f., 235 f., 240, 280, 313, 353, 381, 385.
Gehazi, 60, 65, 71, 97 f.
Geiger, A., 333.
Gratz, H., 96, 130, 135, 144, 223, 259, 284, 313, 381 n., 384.
Hadrian, 45, 132, 167, 223, 225. Haggai (A.), 335 f. Hamburger, J., 1, 126 n., 131,
165, 190. Hamnuna (A.), 159. Hanan bar Rabba (A.), 326. Hananel, 314. Hananjah, nephew of R.
' Jehoshua (T.), 211 f., 268. Hanina bar Hama (A.), 72 f.,
" 247 f., 250, 251 f.
bar Hananjah (A.), 11 6.
ben Teradjon (T.), 237.
INDEX
441
Hamack, A., 384.
Hija bar Abba (A.), 6, 179, 306,
356. Hillel(T.)} 2, 6n., 57 f„ 135. Hisda (A.), 37, 57, 60 n., 124,
187 f., 308, 354-5. Hitzig, 39 n. Hoshaia (A.), 247 f. Huna (A.), 77, 186, 210.
Idi (A.), 286 f.
Imma Shalom, 146 f.
Ishmael ben Elisha (T.), 29,
103 f., 129 f., 156 f., 172,
339.
ben Jose (T.), 245.
Isiof Csesarea (A.), 215, 219 f.,
334.
Jacob of Chephar Sama (Sech-
anja), 106f., 138 f.
the Min, 109, 111.
Jannai (A.), 115, 253, 258.
the King, 52.
Jehoshua ben Hananjah (T.),
43 f., 48, 115 f.', 117, 153, 165,
188, 211 f., 221 f., 226 f., 280.
ben Levi (A.), 108, 332, 354.
ben Perahjah, 38, 52 f., 97,
347. Jehudah II. (Nesiah) (A.), 109. ben Jehesq'el (A.), 126,
223, 227, 30*8, 355.
ben Naqosa (T.), 218 f.
ben Tabbai, 52.
bar Zebuda (A.), 77.
ha-Qadosh (Rabbi) (T.),
17, 128, 184, 208, 218, 223,
240 f., 297, 353. Jeremiah bar Abba (A.), 56 f. Jerome, 378. Jesus, 9, 37-96 passim, 102, 117,
143, 150, 214, 224 n., 234,
305, 330, 344-60 passim;
see also heads of sections in
Division I. A. Jitzhaq (A.), 100, 159 n., 209,
240, 244, 246, 26l, 310.
Johanan (A.), 20 n., 28, 47, 68, 73, 75,98, 108, 110,120, 149, 162, 172, 174-5, 179, 180, 186, 193, 216, 279, 315, 321, 354.
ben Zaccai (T.), 43, 84,
142 n., 352, 382.
Jonathan ben El'azar (A.), 216 f.,
254 f., 301, 319. Jose bar Bun (A.), 77.
ben Halaphta (T.), 136,
245, 317.
ben Joezer, 2.
ben Johanan, 2.
ben Zimra (A.), 115.
Jose ha-Galili (T.), 155, 296 Joseph, father of Jesus, 48.
bar Hija (A.), 42 f.,
358.
bar Hanin (A.), 162.
bar Jehoshua ben
(A.), 19.
bar Minjomi (A.), 179.
355,
Levi
Josephus, Flavius, 345 n. Joshua, 2.
Jost, J. M., 61 n., 96, 130, 166. Judah ben Pazi (A.), 205 f.,
307. Judan (A.), 257. Judas Iscariot, 71, 75. Julian the Apostate, 283 f. Justin Martyr, 85 n., 156 n.,
171.
Kahana (A.), 333, 356. KeimTh., 31, 53 n., 82, 95.
Laible, H., 35-94 passim. Levi (A.), 315.
Levy, J., 47, 95, 113, 166, 362. Livianos, see Bar Livianos.
Mar bar Joseph (A.), 162.
bar Rabina (A.), 70 n.
Uqba(A.), 183, 186.
Marx, G. A., 3 n., 77. Mathnah (A.), 77, 308. Matthai, disciple of Jesus, 92 f.
442
INDEX
Meir(T.), 86-7, 149, 162-4, 238,
246, 254, 309, 353. Melchizedek, 265, 339 f. Miriam (Mary), 37 f., 41 f., 355,
358. Moses, 2, 4, 5, 12, 77, 301, 307,
309, 316.
Nahman bar Jacob (A.), 158, 179.
bar Jitzhaq (A.), 286.
Nathan (T.), 301, 308.
Nebuchadnezzar, 302.
Nehemjah (T.), 208 f.
Nehorai (T.), 330.
Neqai, disciple of Jesus, 93.
Nero, 140.
Netzer, disciple of Jesus, 93.
Neubauer, A., 213 n.
Nicholson, E. B., 148.
Odenathus, 96. Odgers, J. E., 151. Onqelos bar Qaloniqos, 68. Origen, 39 n., 250.
Pandira (Pantiri), see Ben Pan-
dira. Papa (A.), 48, 356. Pappos ben Jehudah, 37 f. Paul, 10, 71, 86, 99 f., 229. Pedath (A.), 186. Peter, 71, 75, 114. Pharaoh, 321. Philo, 230 n. Pinhas Listaah (Pontius Pilatus),
73, 87, 89.
Rab (A.), 72, 126, 162, 165, 169, 186, 198, 223, 326, 354.
Raba (A.), Ill n., 131 n., 221.
Rabah bar Abuha (A.), 179.
bar R. Huna (A.), 308.
Rabbinowicz, R., 52 n. and passim.
Rabina (A.), 70 n., 174.
Rachel, 253.
Rashi, 55, 59, 70 n., 76, 109, 1 19, 140, 178, 180, 289, 326.
Resh Laqish, see Shim' on ben
Laqish. Reuben ben Aristobulos(T.),303. Rosch, 154 n.
Saphra (A.), 170, 267 f., 337,
394. Sason, 277. Schrader, E., 213 n. Schurer, E., 31, 167, 334. Shammai (T.), 2, 57. Shemuel (A.), l6l, 169, 171,
308.
bar Jitzhaq (A.), 197, 203.
bar Nahmani (A.), 6l n.,
77, 193, 197, 302, 363. ha-Qaton (T.), 128-35.
Shesheth (A.), 332.
Shim' on ben El'azar (T.), 316.
ben Gamliel (T.), 130 f.
ben Johai (T.), 28.
ben Laqish (Resh Laqish)
(A.), 75, 108, 216, 308, 309,
320, 324.
ben Menasja (A.), 325.
ben Shetah, 52.
Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem,
141.
the Just, 2.
Simlai (A.), 258 f.
Simon bar Pazi (A.), 205.
Solomon, 306.
Stada, see Ben Stada.
Strack (H.), 2 n.
Tahlipha bar Abdimi (A.), 171.
Tanhuma (A.), 271, 283.
Tarphon (T.), 84, 155, 156 n.,
171. Thodah, disciple of Jesus, 93. Titus, 67.
Tryphon (see Tarphon). Ulla(A.), 83, 88, 186, 355. Vespasian, l67n., 382. Vischer, E., 384 n.
Weber, F., 125, 207 n.
Zacharjah (A.), 338. Zunz (L.), 2, 25, 188.
INDEX
443
III.— INDEX OF PLACES
Alexandria, 51, 52, 168, 223,
224. Antioch, 284. Athens, 167-8.
Babylonia, 20 n., 62, 72, 147, 186,
212, 268, 326. Berur Hail, 382. Bethar," 28. Bethlehem, 253. Beth Shearim, 242. Bezabde, 166.
Caesarea, 62, 110, 142, 162, 215,
244, 250, 267, 269, 337. Capernaum, see Chephar Nahum. Chephar Aziz, 105.
Nahum, 153, 211, 214,
216, 391. - Neburaia, 221, 334.
Sama (Sechanja), 105, 106,
139, 143, 219. Damascus, 98, 101. Egypt, 36} 53, 55, 348. Galilee, 72, 113, 333.
Jabneh, 127, 135 n., 144 n., 147,
237, 313, 382, 385. Jericho, 135 n. Jerusalem, 20 n., 45, 84, 106,
151.
Lud (Lydda), 37, 81, 85, 108, 140, 142 n., 144 n., 258, 351, 386 n.
Machuza, 111. Magdala, 40.
Nahar Paqod, 213 n. Nazareth, 52 n. Nehardea, 159 n., 179, 309. Nicephorium, 166.
Palmyra, 96.
Pella, 151.
Pumbeditha, 35, 37, 223, 286, 355.
Rome, 29, 132, 140, 154 n., 168,
210. journey of Rabbis to,
144 n., 229, 232, 386 n.
Sepphoris, 72, 115, 117, 138, 144 n., 216, 242, 245, 251, 255.
Shechanzib, 179.
Shepharam, 242.
Sinai, 77, 308.
Sura, 48, 186, 210, 308, 354.
Tiberias, 108, 113, 193, 244. Usha, 105 n., 242, 313, 330, 387.
Zelzah, 253.
IV.— INDEX OF O.T. PASSAGES REFERRED TO
Gen. i. 1 11
26, 27 iii. 9 iv. 23 v. 24
256
362
256, 293, 301
198
245
271
xi. 5, 7 294
xiv. 18, 19 338
xix. 24 245
xxxv. 3, 7 294
19 253
xlix. 1 309
444 |
INDEX |
||||
Exod. iv. 22, 23 |
91 |
Deut. xxxi. 16 |
231, 233 |
||
ix. 16 |
322 |
18 |
221, 224 |
||
x. 1 |
320 |
xxxii. 21 |
196 ft. |
||
XV. 11 |
258 |
39 |
299-300 |
||
xx. 2 |
303, |
307 |
xxxii. 41 |
325 |
|
xxii. 18 |
112 |
Josh. i. 8 |
106 |
||
xxiii. 7 |
90 |
xxii. 22 |
256 |
||
10-11 |
275 |
xxiv. 19 |
257 |
||
17 |
41 |
Jud. v. 11 |
247 |
||
21 |
285 |
xvi. 30 |
110 |
||
xxiv. 1 |
285 |
Ruth ii. 4 |
313 |
||
xxv. 2 |
276 |
1 Sam. i. 1 |
324 |
||
xxxii. 13 |
315 |
x. 2 |
253 |
||
22-24 |
315 |
xxviii. 12 |
274 |
||
xxxiii. 15 |
286 |
2 Sam. vii. 23 |
290, 294 |
||
Lev. vii. 24 |
175 |
xvi. 23 |
71 |
||
xi. 29, 30 |
98 |
1 Kings i. 33 |
246 |
||
xvi. 8 |
317 |
viii. 13 |
119 |
||
16 |
250 |
xi. 16 |
247 |
||
xvii. 18 |
240 |
xiv. 16 |
101 n |
||
xviii. 5 |
104 |
2 Kings ii. 5 |
271 |
||
6 |
183 |
v. 23, 26 |
|||
Num. v. 22 |
156 |
vi. i. |
98 |
||
xii. 6 |
222 |
vii. 3 |
98 |
||
xv. 39 |
195, |
197 |
viii. 7 |
98 |
|
37-41 |
310 |
1 Chron. iv. 3 |
326 |
||
xix. 1-13 |
217 |
2Chron. xvi. 14 |
362 |
||
xxiii. 9 |
290 |
xxxiii. 13 |
323 |
||
19 |
63 |
Ezra iv. 1 |
325 |
||
21-24 |
77 |
Esther viii. 8 |
246 |
||
xxiv. 23 |
64, 7 |
5 |
Ps. iii. 1 |
272 |
|
xxvii. 8 |
149 |
x. 8 |
91 |
||
xxxi. 23 |
276 |
xiv. 1 |
96 n. |
||
Deut. iv. 4 |
234 |
xxii. 1 |
305 |
||
7 |
258, ! |
294 |
xxix. |
136 |
|
32 |
255 |
xli. 5 |
90 |
||
v. 4 |
304 |
xlii. 2 |
90 |
||
vi. 4 |
307, J |
309 |
xlvii. 8 |
258 |
|
8,9 |
310 |
xlix. 15 |
119 |
||
xi. 9 |
234 |
1. 1 |
257 |
||
13-21 |
310 |
23 |
91 |
||
xiii. 8 |
83 |
lv. 11 |
192 |
||
xxi. 23 |
86 |
lv. 20 |
191 |
||
xxii. 3 |
173 |
23 |
72, 75 |
||
xxiii. 6 |
67 |
lvii. 1 |
272 |
||
18 |
139 |
lx. 9 |
323 |
||
xxiv. 1 |
57 |
Ixiii. 11 |
195, 203 |
||
xxv. 5-10 |
235 |
Ixv. 2 |
335 |
INDEX |
44^ |
||
Ps. lxviii. 24 |
258 |
Isa. 17 |
290 |
lxix. 21 |
240 |
xli. 4 |
300 |
lxxvii. 13 |
257 |
xliv. 6 |
300, 303 |
xci. 10 |
56 |
xlvi. 4 |
300 |
c. 1 |
91 |
li. 16 |
222 |
cviii. 7 |
258 |
lii. 10 |
258 |
ex. 1 |
296, 338 |
liv. 1 |
237 |
4 |
338, 340 |
lvii. 8 |
156, 372 |
cxi. 8 |
274 |
lx. 2 |
271 |
exxxix. 21, 22 |
156, 325 |
lxvi. 15 |
276 |
cxliv. 14 |
60 |
24 |
118 |
Prov. i. 14 |
216 |
Jer. xxiii. 24 |
228 |
ii. 19 |
183 |
xlix. 7 |
222, 225 |
iii. 34 |
320 |
Lam. i. 5 |
67 |
v. 8 |
138, 182 |
9 |
250 |
15 |
325 |
Ezek. ii. 3 |
181 |
vii. 26 |
138, 219 |
iv. 4, 6 |
275 |
xiii. 23 |
41 |
xvi. 34 |
183 |
xxiv. 21 |
306 |
xxiv. 16 |
271 |
xxx. 15 |
183 |
xxxii. 24, 26 |
118 |
Eccles. i. 3 |
197 |
Daniel i. 6 |
324 |
iv. 8 |
307 |
iii. 25, 28 |
302 |
vii. 26 |
195, 215, 219 |
iv. 17 |
294 |
x. 5 |
108 |
vii. 9 |
294, 300, 304 |
8 |
103-4 |
xi. 41 |
251 |
xi. 9 |
197 |
xii. 3 |
210 |
Cant. vii. 9 |
231 |
Hosea v. 6 |
235 |
Isa. iv. 1 |
253 |
Amos iii. 2 |
266 |
v. 14 |
191 |
iv. 13 |
240-1 |
vi. 3 |
228 |
Obad. 4 |
210 |
xi. 1 |
91 |
Micah i. 7 |
139 |
xii. 3 |
278 |
iv. 13 |
226 |
xiv. 19 |
91 |
v. 2 |
253 |
xxvi. 19 |
231, 233 |
vii. 4 |
226 |
xxxiii. 14 |
319 |
Zech. xiii. 8 |
306 |
xl. 12 |
276 |
Mai. iv. 3 |
118 |
V.— INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES REFERRED TO
Matt.
i. 1 |
45 |
ii. 4, 6 |
255 |
13 f. |
53 |
iv. 2 |
88 |
v. 13 |
224 n. |
15-17 |
150, 152 n. |
21, 22 |
9, 121 |
Matt.
vii. |
28, 29 |
9 |
X. |
2-4 |
92 |
xxii. |
31, 32 |
234 |
xxiii. |
13-39 |
239 |
xxiv. |
207 n. |
|
xxvi. |
55 |
73 |
69 |
82 |
446 Mark |
xxvii. 37-43 |
INI 87 |
>EX Acts |
ix. 22 |
101 |
46 |
305 |
34 |
107 |
||
iii. 17 |
358 |
xxi. 38 |
345 n |
||
vii. 5 |
8 n. |
Rom. |
ix. 17, 18 |
322 |
|
ix. 45, 46 |
73 |
lCor. |
xv. 20 f. |
233 |
|
ix. 49, 50 |
60 |
Gal. |
iii. 7 |
211 |
|
xiv. 56t 51 |
82 |
13 |
86 |
||
XV. 1 |
83 |
Col. |
iv. 11 |
37 |
|
xvi. 17, 18 |
107 |
Heb. |
i. 1 |
264 |
|
Luke |
xxii. 55 |
82 |
vi. 6 |
322 |
|
John |
v. 17 |
230 |
vii. |
339 |
|
x. 11 |
47 |
xi. 5 |
272 |
||
Acts |
xii. 32 iii. 6 |
102 107 |
Rev. |
ii. 6, 9, 14, 15 |
l384n |
iv. 6 |
44 n. |
iii. 9 |
ibid. |
||
32 |
150 |
ix. 11 |
164 |
||
v. 34 |
229 |
VI.— INDEX OF RABBINICAL PASSAGES REFERRED TO
Texts transcribed and translated in full are indicated thus (*).
1. MlSHNAH
Ber. |
v. 3 |
202 |
*Sanh. |
vi. 4 |
85-6 |
ix. 5 |
313 |
j) |
vii. 7 |
167 |
|
*R. ha-Sh. |
ii. 1 |
327 |
* >> |
x. 2 |
64 |
*Meg. |
iv. 8, 9 |
199 |
Aboth |
i. 1 |
2,6 |
*Jeb. |
iv. 13 |
43 |
»j |
iii. 15 |
369 |
Qid. |
vi. 4 |
105 |
j> |
v. 18 |
101 n. |
Kheth. |
v. 8 |
105 |
Hull. |
ii. 9 |
178 |
*Sotah |
ix. 15 |
207 |
Eduioth |
vii. 7 |
382 |
Gitt. |
ix. 10 |
57 |
Parah |
iii. 3 |
316 |
Nedar. |
ix. 10 |
131 |
Jad. |
iii. 8 |
198, 385 |
*Sanh. |
iv. 5 |
291 2. Tos |
>> EPHTA |
iv. 8 |
333 |
*Ber. |
iii. 25 |
136 |
*Sotah |
xiii. 4 |
128, 135 n. |
*Shabb. |
xi. 15 |
54 |
Nedar. |
v. 6 |
131 |
* |
xiii. 5 |
155 |
*B. Mez. |
ii. 33 |
173 |
Joma |
iii. 2 |
316 |
*Sanh. |
viii. 7 |
292 |
3) |
v. 11 |
101 |
* |
ix. 7 |
86 |
R. ha-Sh. |
i. 15 |
328 |
* |
x. 11 |
78 |
*Meg. |
iv. 37 |
315 |
* |
xiii. 4, 5 |
118 |
Jeb. |
iii. 3, 4 |
46 |
Horai. |
i. 5 |
176 |
INDEX |
447 |
||||||
Hull. |
ii. 19 |
178 |
♦Par. |
iii. |
3 |
316 |
|
* |
ii. 20, 21 |
177 |
*Jad. |
ii. |
13 |
160 |
|
ii. 22, 22 |
► 103 |
jj |
16 |
161, 386 |
|||
* |
ii. 24 |
137 |
|||||
3. SlPHRI |
|||||||
Num. |
§ |
112 p. 33b |
280 |
♦Deut. § 329 |
139 |
b 262, 299 |
|
* >> |
§ |
115 35* |
195 |
* n § |
331 |
140 |
a 325 |
* JJ |
i |
131 47a |
273 |
4. SlPHRA |
4C |
298 |
|
* JJ |
f |
143 54a |
297 |
5. Mechilta |
37b |
301 |
|
*Deut. |
§ |
48 84a |
235 |
JJ |
58b |
103 n. |
|
jj |
§ |
56 87a |
280 |
* JJ |
66h |
300 |
|
* >> |
§ |
320 1371 |
196 n. |
tl |
95h |
130 |
|
6. Talmud Jerushalmi |
|||||||
*Ber. |
3C |
77, 308 |
Jebam. |
4a |
336 |
||
JJ |
5b |
238 |
» |
15d |
8 (Appx.) |
||
JJ |
8a |
136 |
Kidd. |
64d |
336 |
||
* |
9C |
125, 204 |
Sotah. |
l6d |
238 |
||
JJ |
12d, 13a |
255 |
jj |
24b |
129, 133 n. |
||
Demai |
25a, b |
205 |
jj |
24c |
135 n. |
||
Ter. |
46b |
96 |
Nedar. |
37d |
283 |
||
Kilaim |
32a |
178 |
* |
38a |
210 |
||
Bice. |
65* |
161, 335 |
jj |
40a |
213 |
||
*Shabb |
8d |
302 |
Sanh. |
18c |
133, 205 |
||
>j |
13d |
55 |
jj |
19a |
213 |
||
* JJ |
14d |
103 |
jj |
23c |
52 |
||
* JJ |
14d |
108 |
jj |
25c, |
i |
79 |
|
JJ |
15c |
156 |
* jj |
25d |
112, 115 |
||
JJ |
I7b |
336 |
* jj |
27d |
193 |
||
Joma |
38c |
152 |
* jj |
29c |
181 |
||
R. ha-Sh |
. 57d |
328 |
Shebhu. |
34d |
283 |
||
*Taan. |
65h |
62 |
Horai. |
48c |
135 n. |
||
M. Qat. |
83c |
194 |
A. Zar. |
40d, |
41a |
104 |
|
Hag. |
76d |
10 n. |
jj |
40d |
108 |
||
jj |
77d |
52 7. Talmi |
jd Babli |
||||
Ber. |
7a |
332 |
Ber. |
54a,56b,58a332 |
|||
* jj |
10* |
237 |
jj |
63a, |
b |
213 |
|
* j> |
10* |
272 |
Shabb. |
13a |
186 |
||
* jj |
12a |
308 |
jj |
13b, |
30b |
4 |
|
jj |
12b |
196 |
>j |
88a |
111, 253 |
||
jj |
I7b |
61 |
* >j |
104b |
35, 56 |
||
jj |
27b, 28a |
386 |
* |
ll6a |
j 146, 156 } 161 |
||
jj |
28b, 29a |
125 |
jj |
||||
>j |
34a |
59 |
* jj |
152a |
165 |
448 |
INDEX |
||||||
*Shabb. |
152* |
274 |
Gitt. |
56a |
382 |
||
Erubh. |
53b |
238 |
* |
jj |
56\ |
57a |
67 |
* |
79b, 80a |
165 |
* |
jj |
57a |
28, 251 |
|
* |
101a |
226 |
jj |
90a |
40 |
||
Pesah. |
40b |
186 |
jj |
90b |
58 |
||
* |
56* |
309 |
*Nedar. |
32b |
338 |
||
jj |
56* |
286 |
jj |
66* |
131 |
||
JJ |
87b |
247 |
*B |
. Qama |
. 16* |
363 |
|
1) |
113a |
20 n. |
jj |
38a, |
47a, |
i 131 |
|
Joma. |
19b, 53b |
319 |
lllb |
||||
)j |
40b |
317 |
jj |
83a |
89 |
||
* |
56* |
250 |
B |
. Mez. |
59b |
144 n. |
|
* |
66* |
45 |
jj |
92a |
186 |
||
n |
87a |
101 n. |
*B |
. Bathr. 14b |
3, 76 |
||
R. ha-Sh |
. 17a |
124 |
j> |
25a |
332 |
||
* |
22b |
329 |
>j |
28% 1 |
> |
105 |
|
>j |
31a, b |
105 |
jj |
60b |
131 |
||
Succ. |
20b |
212 |
* |
jj |
91a |
326 |
|
?> |
27a |
6 |
Sanh. |
7a |
335 |
||
>} |
27b 28a |
47 |
jj |
lla |
129 |
||
* |
48b |
277 |
jj |
32b |
382 |
||
Beza. |
29a |
57 |
jj |
37a |
333 |
||
Meg. |
I7b |
126 |
■* |
38b |
/ 120, 198, 245, \ 285, 293 |
||
jj |
18a |
335 |
jj |
||||
5) |
23a |
111, 332 |
* |
JJ |
39a |
275, 282, 290 |
|
JJ |
24b |
200 |
* |
JJ |
43a |
37, |
48, 83, 90 |
* J) |
25b |
316 |
* |
JJ |
67a |
35, |
37, 79 |
Taan. |
19b |
92 n. |
JJ |
68a |
142 n. |
||
j> |
26a |
43 |
* |
11 |
90b |
231 |
|
* II |
27b |
171 |
* |
11 |
91a |
278, 281 |
|
*Hag. |
4b |
41 |
11 |
97b |
207 |
||
5b |
221 |
* |
11 |
99a |
276 |
||
n |
llb |
369 |
11 |
99b |
120 |
||
* |
15a |
287 |
* |
11 |
103a |
56 |
|
M |
l6b |
194 |
11 |
105b |
332 |
||
Jeb. |
46a |
186 |
♦ |
11 |
106a |
47, 75 |
|
n |
49b |
43 |
* |
11 |
106b |
(69 |
n.), 72, 75 |
ii |
63b |
196 n. |
* |
11 |
107b |
50, (99) |
|
ii |
87a |
101 n. |
*A |
» Zar. |
4a |
266 |
|
* >> |
102b |
235 |
jj |
4b |
332 |
||
Kethub. |
51b |
96 |
* |
jj |
6a |
171 |
|
>j |
65a |
336 |
jj |
lla |
132 |
||
a |
112a |
252 |
* |
jj |
l6b, ] |
L7a |
138 |
Qidd. |
49b |
55 |
* |
jj |
I7a |
182 |
|
*Sotah. |
47a |
51,97 |
* |
jj |
I7b |
165 |
|
a |
48b |
129 |
* |
jj |
26a, ' |
> |
173 |
Gitt. |
29b |
268 |
* |
jj |
27b |
104 |
|
* |
45b |
157 (200 n.) |
* |
jj |
28a |
109 |
INDEX
449
A. Zar. |
36a |
j> |
58b, 59a |
)? |
65a |
A.d.R.N. |
c. 6 |
j) |
c. 38 |
Soph. |
xvii. 5 |
Der. Er. Z. |
X. |
*Kall. |
51a |
Hor. |
lla |
Menah.
42b
259
186
180 n.
142 n.
129
172
207
48
176
160
200 n.
Menah. Hull.
Bechor.
Erach.
Nidd.
99b |
105 |
110a |
297 |
13a |
286 |
13b |
178 |
41a |
178 |
84a |
111 |
87a |
239 |
8a |
223 |
llb |
43 |
24b |
213 |
MlDRASHIM
8. Ber. Rab. vii. 2p.20c
viii. 8
9
xix. 1
xxv. 1
xlviii. 6
li. 2
lxxv. 6
lxxvi. 6
lxxxii. 9
22d
23a
42b
55c 97b
105a,b246 145a 154 146a 155b
336 301 258 199 270 319
9. *ShemothR.xiii. 3 24b
96
253
320
191
9.*
10. *Vajiqr. R
ll.Bamm. R.
xix. 4 36b xxix. 1 50d 258 5 51b 303 xxx. 9 53c,d228 xliv. 6 73c,d
199, 315
xiii. 5 19c 331
xxi. 9 30c 152
xxviii. 1 40c,d196
xiv. 1 56h 324
xvi. 14 66h 307
xviii. 17 75d 192
xix. 3 79a 336
12. *Debar. R. ii. 33 104c
258 (306)
13. *Echa. R. i. 10* 299
14. *Esther R. ix. 2 14b 87
15. Sh.ha-Sh.R.ii. 13 17C 207
16. *Qoh. R. i. 8 3d-4c
139, 153, 188, 211,
215, 218, 336 vii. 26 21d219
17. Pesiqta.
35h 68b
* 122b
18. Pesiqta. R. 90b
98a
* „ ioobj
19. Tanhuma § 30
56^
20. Jalqut. Sh. § 359 §551 §604 §766 §779 §937
336
198
152
198
307
265 n.
304
324
336
31 (Ap.)
139
30 (Ap.)
63
323
139
PKINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.
&*
KX. *-