Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A STUDY
IN
THE
JACOB
Z:
LAUTERBACH,
PROFESSOR
PH.D.
O.
NEW YORK
THE BLOCK PUBLISHING COMPANY
1916
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
TO THE MEMORY
OF
MY FATHER
HALAKAH
I
THE
the tannaitic
have been
literature,
given
by teacher to
Midrash Torah
the
Halakah
Torah.
It
as an
1
,
represents
interpretation
its
scriptural
proof, that
in
is,
Mekilta, but
1
The term
some
also found in
it is
m?D
from
min
to
and
means
Midrash Torah
and
is
K>Tlft
(b.
Kiddushin 49 b) where
it
As we
now
The more
Torah.
to
designate
article
specific
a halakic
Midrash Halakah
L.
interpretation
in the
is
of the Torah.
therefore
now
used
Midrash-Baraitot scattered
Babylonian Talmud.
The
in
many
so-called
sents the
For
written law.
Halakah
as
is
that
is,
merely
2
parts of our halakic Midrashim.
some
Zur
many
This form
also designated
collections of the
found in
is
Halakot
or in the plural
rules or decisions.
Mishnah
it
is
also
Talmud and
in
(See D. Hoffmann,
1887, p.
Of
3.)
these two
Midrash
is
times,
of
forms
original form,
Mishnah the
and was used
later.
of the Halakah.
The
dicta
was
of the
The
in the earliest
the
This
is
Halakah had
their
The
i.e.
new
As
many
in the halakic
proofs are also found in the Mishnah and Tosefta without scriptural proofs
as independent Halakot.
to
The Book
of the
Law,
them
to
therefore, as read
the
accept.
and the
practices
if
timethere
Law
in order to
The
meaning.
Law
Law or
contained in
its fuller
so as to include in
it
or derive from
it
all
those
customs and
(for all
had to be represented as an
This,
interpretation or an exposition of the written Law.
the Halakah)
constituted
as
we have
It is
Torah
interpreted the
heart
interpret
(Ezra
the
it,
(c
nii>)
and to teach
We
7. 10).
Book
give to
search
to
of the
the
and that he
meaning
of
in Israel statutes
the
set his
Law,
to
and judgements
Law
it.
to the people,
They gave
Book of
the Law.
them because
it
characterized their
to
manner of teaching.
This
*
all their
teachings upon
interpreted
this
it
book excluB 2
Dor,
p. 3,
and Weiss,
p. 47).
I,
Mischnam,
in
this
is
confirmed by reliable
is
report
One such
mm
Who
b
)
ruw bs -IK
may ^nx nwK-n
rnr^n
niyi
One who
83
III, 7,
?nan Yc^
n>pm
IDN
to be considered a scholar
is
JINI
Kin
Hezekiah
says,
What
earlier times
8
The term
iyi
Yiyi
milTl
means
Is
it
addition
as, for instance, in the phrase:
necessary to mention the custom in Judea as an
,
e.
(b.
additions
Kiddushin 6
a).
It is
Erubin 83
a).
The
(b.
expression
i.
min
nmVl
in the
*1iyi
Torah from which they are derived. In almost the same sense
by the commentator Pne Mosheh, ad loc.
it is
also interpreted
It
Halakot.
b.
enough
the p. Talmud.
From
it is
is
had become popular, the Midrash was considered the proper form to be
used by advanced scholars. See Guttmann, Zur Einleitung in die Halakah,
Budapest, 1909,
p. 20.
as an addition to
Law,
that
is
and
in
therefore,
Halakah,
i.
become a
e.
the
for
Midrash,
knowledge
scholar, except
good
very
In those days,
reason
of
the
by learning the
the
that
halakic
that
reliable sources
M. .7., ch.
I, p.
15)
and
Sifra
scholars
Sifre
that
is,
in the
Midrash-form. 4
it
Modern
as an established
form
which
in
all
some
Midrash-form, that
in
is
to
in
The
Gaon reads
thus
OP tnpm
"on
prf?
them
i.
i.e.
HBD1
N"\DD1
i&npn
tnn
They taught
the Halakot. only in the form used in our Sifra and Sifre,
Midrash.
e.
6
Toledot ha-Mishnah
II
D. Hoffmann, Die
erste
in
Beth Talmud,
and others.
corollary or modification.
Book
written
of the
Law
text-book in teaching.
in
However,
may be
some
All of this
laws.
could
to be in exclusive
course
came
include
to
latter, in
the
and
laws
traditional
in their capacity as
religious authorities.
The Mishnah-form, on
later
It was introduced a
date.
Midrash-form
6
long
onipo
p.
iv,
onn
n^
time
after
it.
ibba
*opi>
much
of a
is
ppwi mnan
the
At
DSVPBI
Although the instance mentioned by him as proof for his statement is not
a teaching of the Soferim (see below, note 55), yet the statement as such
is
correct.
The Soferim
or those
who
only taught
by themselves as
scriptural laws.
religious
authorities,
in
the Midrash-form
decrees, issued
it
rarely
happened
that they
manage
of the written
law.
See N. Krochmal,
37.
Compare
7
Georg Aicher (Das Alte Testament
pp. 165
if.)
op.
tit.,
p. 167.
and
in der
Mischnah,
Fr.-i.-Br., 1906,
is
older than
method
did
the
to be
in
exclusive
never ceased
use.
At
what date
just
is
to say, just
first
this
when
time, to
my
how
Neither
is
this
that,
form was
first
introduced
Shammai, but he
To my
literature
fails
in
the
knowledge, there is no
for the views ascribed
Geonim.
the Midrash.
days
of
Hillel
and
Hoffmann bases
his
foundation
theory
in
by Hoffmann
gaonic
to
the
on the spurious
His statement
(p.
64) that
was due
hardly
needs any refutation. The many Halakot in the Midrash form given by
teachers in the time of the Temple as well as the disputes between the
Sadducees and Pharisees, hinging upon different interpretations of scriptural
,
passages as bases for their respective Halakah, ought to have shown Aicher
to what extent Midrash was used before the year 70.
8 We must
emphasize this fact against the theory advanced by Weiss
and Oppenheim and also by Jacob Bassfreund in his Zur Redaction der
Mischnah (Trier, 1908, pp. 19-24), that there was a time when the Midrash-
form was altogether abandoned, and the teachings of the Halakah given
shall see that this theory is untenable
exclusively in Mishnah-form.
We
See
to
rw
IBS
mo
ohyn pDDrm
nw
I
rn
jpm
-J^KI
&n
rayona
^en
&6tf
Know,
w vn
&"i
yn
n":i"n
rrnna
until
Moses on
However, from
on the world became impoverished, and
to
Law was
ny
pi wi npoi?
upn N^ mm ^
just as
i?i>n
Sinai.
in
it
is
apparently
Hagigah 14
a,
and
is
Aside from
this, the passage does not say what Hoffmann has read
It does not even deal with the origin of the
into it.
Mishnah-form.
sum
that
its
If anything,
we can
see
from
Moses on
10
this respon
Sinai.
He
11
it
was given to
This responsum had been added by some later hand to the responsa
Comp. Harkavy, Studien
und
Mitteilungen,
IV, p. xiv.
The
report
is
repeated in
make
it
more
authors of
all
reliable character
than
mo
II
mKD &
The belief
rw
that the
rrni
run THM.
to
Moses on Sinai
is
repeatedly
were
to
in his opinion
till
when the
Hoffmann
diminished.
the
1
six
He
when
Mishnah
in
the
he
Gaon speaks
is
Gaon speaks
of the reduced
of
when
extant in the
six orders
Mishnah
in the
the remark
Mishnah introduced
were, like
b.
Berakot 53 and
xlvi,
it
is
p.
Hagigah
I, 8,
76
d.
which Moses spent on the mountain, receiving the Law, he studied the
(tOpD) in the daytime and Mishnah at night. In Pesikta
Scriptures
Rabbati
(Friedmann,
p. 14 b)
it
was
told
it
him
is
said that
Moses wished
to
have the
it
to
Israel
for themselves.
See also Tanhuma, Ki-Tissa (Buber, pp. 58 b and 59 a), and p. Hagigah, /. c.
The author of our responsum had as his authority such haggadic sayings
when he spoke
of the Mishnah
to
Moses on
Sinai.
10
And
own.
Thus we
of the time
when
is
talmudic
or gaonic
We
innovation.
in
gaonic literature,
no mention
Neither
sources
not told
are
any report
about the
why
new form
desirable to introduce a
form of teaching
there
is
13
cause
in
of this
was necessary or
it
of teaching Halakah
Modern
questions
both to
have
scholars
fix
method of
without solid
12
There
is
by
However,
teaching.
all
mere guess-work
proof or valid foundation. It will be shown
They
no doubt
which
187,
tells
us that
when
the six orders of the Mishnah of the days of Hillel and Shammai, which had
is
See
S. D. Luzzatto,
Beth
new
to
in the
collection,
Hillel
Mishnah-form.
it
characteristic
before.
which distinguished
For, as
we
it
into tractates
14
in the
Talmud
stating until
when
the Midrash-form
was
in exclusive use.
This talmudic report has been overlooked or else not correctly understood,
for not one of the scholars dealing with the problem of fixing the date of
the beginning of the Mishnah-form has referred to
it.
some
them
are based
II
all
of
facts.
We
it
maintained. 15
first
In the
is,
place,
there
were
collections
Mischnah, Erster
Mishnah-
Shammai,
as
In the
new
It
(op. cit., p.
pendent Halakot
in)
Accordingly,
if
we assume with
in the
its
scriptural proof
and teach
it
independently, as Mishnah.
Not only
15
is
this theory of
Hoffmann wrong
in respect to
Compare also Bassfreund (op. cit. pp. 18 ff.) who likewise seeks to
Hoffmann s theory. Some of Bassfreund s arguments, however, are
t
refute
not sound.
Hillel
He
is
altogether
the Mishnah
was
wrong
in
assuming that
Halakah, and that Hillel was the first to reintroduce the Midrash-form.
He confuses the development of the Midrash methods which were furthered
by
Hillel
12
but
it
is
innovation.
However, it is difficult
to see how the teachers could have considered the new
form of greater aid to the memory than the old form.
This new form is on the contrary quite apt to make it
more
the Midrash-form.
it.
On
seems to us that
it
is
based upon
It
memory.
less
in
the
difficult for
is
it
all
halakic
is
it
teachings
much
harder
keep
in
in the earlier
Mishnah
mode
collections.
This,
we must
of arrangement used
17
felt
was
is
also given
They
all
seem
to
generations.
17
(op.
cit.,
that simultaneously with the separation of the Halakot from their scriptural
came the grouping of such detached Halakot into orders and treatises,
have them. But this is absolutely wrong. The earlier Mishnah went
was finally arranged
through many different forms of grouping before it
basis
as
we
retracted.
13
and altogether
to this
was
first
The purpose
by minimizing the
differences of opinion
and
arose
among
These
disputes,
Hoffmann
tells us,
were
in
many
Shammai.
cases only
Midrash or the
The
traditional
The
however,
teachers,
scriptural passages
and
often
did
disagree
as
to
the
their interpretations
whereon these
One
teacher would
derive a certain
in a certain
and support.
anxious
to
unanimity
The
maintain
harmony among
the Halakah
themselves
and
decided to separate
it
inde
In other
14
the differences
of
By
established
in
this innovation
Thus uniformity
was restored
the Halakah
among
harmony was
the teachers.
Mishnah even
introduction of the
Consequently,
in
this
respect
it
later
is
than the
refuted
first
by
first
much
We
theory.
the
in
same
theory.
Mishnahearlier
date.
the
Halakah, as
It
such, were
older than
their midrashic
unanimous
in
is,
This
line of
reasoning contradicts
itself.
It sets
out to find
in
Mishnah-form.
was
In other
really not a
first
in
15
evil results
been impossible
decision,
and
scriptural
Halakah
for
at
Since
proof.
disagree about
to
teacher
every
received
in the
is,
its
each
as an
in
in
which he received
it,
that
is,
the scriptural
It
is
passage on which
who remembered
this
did
the right
If he
back to
his
by his
memory.
colleagues
It is evident
its
Halakah
taught as a
18
commentary
as long as the
to
For, as
tyDO
nK>rf>
of the so-called
laws
is,
if
we
ITD^R, that
Shammai, such
Scriptures.
traditional laws
The mental
was not
in the direction
l6
as
Quite
Z. Frankel
(Hodegetica in
the
is
unsatisfactory
theory advanced by
Mischnam^ pp.
6, 7,
and
10).
last
In
difficult.
the
dicta
Halakah made
its
which
they had for centuries been connected. This would have remained their
attitude even if they had realized that such a connexion was merely artificial
how
It
(p. x,
so-called
Seder Nezikin
Talmud the
N. Krochmal
last
of
Darkah
in
There
is,
to
Krochmal extends the period of the Soferim until about 200 B. c.,
assuming that the Simon mentioned in Abot as one of the last survivors
dates.
is
Simon
II,
II.
Krochmal
first
of the
According to Frankel,
member of the Great Synagogue was Simon the Just I about 300 B. c.
p. 166).
was introduced
(loc. cit.,
last
of the Soferim in
memorizing
IJ
many
As
different places.
the laws on
for instance,
any one
subject.
subject,
each decision
all
connexion with
in
For
scriptural basis.
its
Soferim
decided
scriptural bases
to
from
Halakot
the
separate
in the
their
new Mishnah-
The
later date.
This,
must have
collections
as
we have
seen,
is
in
topical
It
Mishnah
Mishnah
collections.
Frankel him
Halakah according
to topics
(op.
cit.,
p.
He
115).
also
concerning
the
Soferim
Halakah according
and
their
to subjects
arrangement of the
have stated in the
We
teaching
[of the
Halakah]
all
[the
to
one
l8
to
strictly
it
theme
halakic
drift
but]
to
to another
its
20
it
belonged.
proper place
If,
however,
and
strictly
if
some
Frankel
in the
another subject.
to
belonging
own
However, according to
defect was inherent
to
realize
together with
done
in the
work
all
the
why
it
seems
the Halakot
is
of the
student.
20
s
*po ^ nnn
n^yn
ISDN}
nr
pxn
s"y
DIE D
11
!*!
D^
opoyn D oya
rvoi?nn
1
"
1"13V
nmm
p2D
/IPIK
Vlfcl
i?n
uam
133 rum
QnaiDn
/
nnn ins py
S?K
5>3K
IQ
is
arbitrary
different
were
modes of arrangement.
often
Examples of these
preserved even
for
instance,
in
in
earlier
the so-called
Number-Mishnahs or the
The Midrash-form
En-ben-Mishnahs.
certainly established
The mere
that
to
one
same passage
them than
all
be presented
Aside from
all
of the halakic
material could
of form.
Midrashim,
Sitra, Sifre,
in the
far
in
Midrash-
greater in
volume
Thus we
see
20
that
all
Frankel
the teachers
admission that
own
is
of his
If the
if
use?
p. 66, is
I,
la-Mekilta,
somewhat of an
Like Frankel, he
In the
first
place,
he does
the form
latter
according to subjects.
Midrash-form continued
the
arrangement of the
Nor does he assume that
use, after
in
the
Mishnah-
According
form was abandoned because it proved inadequate. It
was hard for the student to remember the great mass
Halakot
of
in
that
existed
The
the Midrash-form.
at
that
teachers,
time,
when taught
therefore,
felt
the
Op.
cii.,
p. 7,
nn
he says
DJ
pjyn DDSJ&
ra^n bix
n:6
"pi
DPO
mU^
WKin TH
PJN
SHI
ntv *6 ra^n.
memory
number
21
of halakic teachings.
This help
memory they found in separating the
Halakot from their scriptural bases and in expressing them
for the
in
concise
short,
phraseology, and
in
The
them
arranging
saying of
Simon
the Just,
things, &c.
(Abot
I, 2),
in
according
a number-formula.
to
which according
to
Weiss
are
soferic
Eduyot VIII,
4,
Halakot, merely
expressed
concise
in
Halakot
according to
superior to
memorized, had
the
many
other disadvantages.
return to the
older
As
form of the
22
they had abandoned it for a time.
This admission of Weiss that the advantages expected
Midrash
22
after
had
for a
in
It is
scholars cannot account satisfactorily for one change that really took place,
namely, from the exclusive use of the Midrash to the admission of the
Mishnah-form, they assume another change which never took place, namely,
a return from a supposed temporary exclusive use of the
old Midrash.
We
Mishnah
to the
in
it.
was
Midrash-form and the extension of the use of the Mishnah-form (see below,
notes 72 and 73).
22
argument
is
Further,
we have
words of the
Mishnah-form.
The
We
sufficient
seen above
memory
a strong
in itself
realized,
in
help to
the days
The Soferim
in
except
They
in the
way
We
as the other
wisdom
As
it
as to the form of
Halakot
Oppenheim
23
a theory that
offers
is
in
reality
but
However,
first
As
Maccabean
uprising.
incident to
?3
Toldot Ha-Mishnah
Ha-Zuggot we-ha-Eshkolot
in
in
a result
Beth Talmud,
of the
II, p.
145,
persecutions
and also
in his
23
Mishnah
Beth Talmud,
in
They chose
II, p. 145).
this
or
remembered the
The
first
the
they,
teachers
no
themselves,
is
longer
Halakot.
many
one
in
not plausible.
For,
if
scriptural
teachers could
it
is
hardly
possible
them the
felt
He
in the
which
sufficient to solve
is
a problem.
is
the
recalled
there
that
remember the
former.
to
bases,
is
Mishnah,
DT
n:
mtapEn swan
irTOn
&6 ITD^nn
ITHN -K?K
<Ha-Zuggot
onsion
"a
pso ?i p
we-ha-Eshkolot
I.e., p.
114.
24
[i.e.
According to
We need not
no problem at all.
any change in the form of teaching Halakah or
statement there
account for
then
had independent or
He
is
The two
forms,
by
way
of
its
adoption
It
is
all difficulties.
is
is
it is
contradicted
that
The only
Midrash-form only.
tioned
in the
Palestinian
by Sherira Gaon.
expressly mentioned
the
harmony with
25
This
is
generally accepted
men
I,
It is also
opinion
is
out of
that
the
our Mishnah had already been composed and arranged by the Soferim, but
he does not prove his statements. At the most, his arguments could only
prove that there had been many Halakot and decisions in the days of the
Soferim, and that the earliest Tannaim in our Mishnah in their discussions
seek to define and explain these older Halakot and decisions. But it does
not follow that these Halakot and decisions were already in the days of the
Soferim composed
in
the Mishnah-form.
and Halakot became separated from the Midrash, they were arranged
in
the
Mishnah-collections
as
25
Soferim, as the
only
is,
in
further,
against
an
as
we
in
the
us
not
only that the older form of teaching the Halakah was the
was
in exclusive use.
Thus we
see that
all
None
we come
in
its
authority.
us
to
problem.
in this
of teaching independent
it
Halakot was
make
so radical a change.
And
in
propound.
This theory
shall
now
II
WE have seen
a class of people
Soferim designates
occupied themselves with the Book
who
Book
alone.
they imparted
Book of
all
commentary on
Midrash.
their teachings in
This,
it,
that
we have
is
to
seen,
is
say
in
asserted
or as a
it
the form
by
of the
tradition
and
method of
teaching.
As
Tannaim
of Rabbi
Abahu 26
Yerushalmi Shekalim V,
(in
and Oppenheim
i,
27
48
c)
which Weiss
cite as
It
all.
who
in
Chronicles
2.
It refers to
the
Shim
the
and Sukatim.
atim,
In
names the
these
all
Haggadah
some of
Shim
Numbers 78 (Friedmann 20
preted in Sifre,
Oppenheim advances
still
a).
been transmitted
have
that
Oppenheim)
ditional
laws
in
convincing.
these
not
it
follows
independent
This is not at
taught
were
there
many
The passage
w<?
rbm
in p.
such
D^TTI
Weiss (Dor,
I,
tnm
p.
minn ns
these
traditional
-iDib
iii^n no
3TD
all
and that
it
does
teachings
IfON
"1
py wv
n^En icnn* vb
onaio
n
^IIIDD nrnao minn.
ipy
(so
tra
unwritten
to the Soferim,
DnaiD
i>K
that
follow
of
Soferim,
Mishnah-form.
that
^D
Since
26
by
as
the
Soferim
the
Granted
laws handed
R. Abahu
name Soferim
manner as the
cating
DnaionBr (D^p^
words
"i3i
of the
methods
of the Soferim
28
had some
sort of relation,
from them. 27
still
came
the Soferim
B.C.
In
Simon
to an end with
Abot
i,
2 he
is
desig
men
of the
last of
Synagogue
the Soferim.
who
about 300-270
nated as being
great
is
in
change
It
this
I,
We
no Mishnah.
I,
that
is,
after
We
ad
We
have now to
find the
terminus
way would be
is,
If.
in
the Mishnah-form.
its
Halakah men
scriptural
proof,
when
thongs and
the form of the knot of the phylacteries were traditional laws given to Moses
(Mena^ot 35
is
6. 8.
The teachers
29
mined the date when the change in the form had already
been made and the Mishnah-form was already in use.
This seems to be the simplest and only logical method
of procedure. Strange as it may seem, this method has
been
not
by any of the
followed
scholars
who have
The
Halakot
The
3,
Jose b. Joezer,
is
28
sayings of
and
are
3)
teachings.
we have
VIII,
i.e.
proof,
scriptural
4).
doubted.
28
teacher in whose
first
They
Frankel
in
statement, 1&O
DEK>
T^N* D
W&nn
by Jose ben
DH
Nrpnaai r02 D2 rW^n, that Hillel and Shammai were the first teachers in
whose name Halakot are mentioned in the Mishnah and Baraita (Hodegetica,
p. 38)
is.
We
find
Halakot from
all
the four
Halakot
which
(p.
in
Hillel
is
said to
b.
in the
of Jose b. Joezer
we
4).
instigation of
Alcimus
(i
Mac.
I,
7. 16).
332-3).
30
30
30
Jose
b.
Joezer
given by Jose
Joezer
of Zeredah.
und
der Cultus,
teacher whose
is
p.
63)
first
questioned by
name was
likewise Jose
There
is,
b.
to
some
later
mentioned
to
Jose
The
our sources.
in
b.
difficulty
who
b.
Joezer of Zeredah,
Jabneh about
on that memorable day when Gamaliel II was deposed from the
presidency, and when according to a talmudic report (Berakot 27 b) the
100
B. c.,
have
c. E.
read
mnX
B"N
WP p
DV
""I"!
DV^
TjJil
at that
It
To
assembly.
Composition der
1895).
It
und
is
not
necessary to assume, as Klueger (/. c., p. 84) does, that these decisions had
been found in written form in the archives. These Halakot were simply
known to the
were known
heart,
and
to them.
at the
time
when
the Eduyot-collection
The
it.
was composed or
Compare
also
redacted,
Hoffmann
in
loc.
themselves.
when we come
Halakot
after his
any
31
we
cordingly
is,
Ac
the Mishnah-form.
in
ad quern
for the
We
(\&OUtJt) lb
B,C.
pass to a consideration of the particular point
now
We
of Jose are
likelihood the
reliable
first
report
indications
in
introduced.
only the
first
mentioned,
decisions
but
the
in
well
as
Talmud,
in
all
Indeed,
as
certain
when
the time
of Jose as
which
tradition
follows
31
:
np
Wll
mm p^
nB>E3
pi>
vn -uyv
who
reads
It
<I
as
DV
arose in Israel
Torah as Moses
did, but
The
Talmud endeavours to
Here we learn that
mean that the teachers
time of Jose
they were
all
death were
Nor was
in possession of as
The
report, so
no doubtful or
W
is
The
rilE 1
correction suggested
iy
till
very plausible.
by Graetz
many
it
Halakot.
disputed
in
the
instead of
flDP iy
till
Jose died
32
same manner
We
means
in
To
this
it
is
what
all
give
word means
all
Moses
all
Assuming,
did.
definitions
of the
the
people
the
written
and
of each
meaning
word of the Torah.
manner
of
Moses
laws
and
is
the
interpreted
full
Johanan by quoting a
to
it.
scriptural
R. Johanan,
thinking that
Moses
Simon
b.
studies in the
manner of
Torat Kohanim, as it
our Sifra (Tazria* I, Weiss 58 b). We
indeed found in
done
of
in
our Sifra,
Moses
study or teach
is
in
in the
Midrash-form, as
characterized as being
The
report in
in the
is
manner
Temurah
15 b,
33
Jose
called
manner
in the
This seems
also to
Geonim, though
of
Moses
own they
We
This report
in the
is
32
in the
Among
the
(i
Mace. ch.
i,
and
we
I7b-i8a, compare Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 4, pp. 154 ff.). On the contrary,
learn from the saying of Jose b. Joezer, who lived at that time, that no
such prohibition was enacted. For Jose said, Let thy house be a meeting-
we
sit
I,
4).
feet,
fire,
and that the king s command was that those people with whom the
of the Law would be found should be put to death (i Mace. i. 56-7
Book
them was
is,
sufficient to
correct surmise.
that
256).
that to take
away
the
religious instruction.
Books of the
It
was
to
meet
Book
Law meant
of the
Law,
it
followed
to effectually prevent
any
Jose uttered
wise saying.
and as
it
without books.
in
to
accustom
L.
Book
34
describing the
in
period
how long
However, we
second Temple
this
shall arrive at a
more exact
this
of R.
statement occurs
D3n
Dty
12
rvn
irn
DDD
interpretation of
in a
33
responsum
the following
tfh
lasted.
is
bi
here
used
in
its
enp3
cannot include
Many names
in
as
Temple
R.
refer to the
b.
This responsum
and more
discuss
that
it
is
We
fully in Jellinek s
in detail later
Eldad
on
Zemah s statement
when they taught the
old
Halakah without mentioning the names of individual teachers, finds corroboration in the manner in which the halakic teachings as quoted by Eldad
were
introduced.
According to Eldad
rHHJn
mUJH
IJ
Q"^
n^D3, would
IB
all
the halakic
nfc*ID
teachings
Sfl?irp
and
"1CK.
were
This
miD pID^
name of Moses,
i.e.
all
as interpretations of the
35
Mishnah-form, was
of Jose b. Joezer. 34
We
We
b. Joezer.
|. flftpU^D
B-C
|>5"~
new form
duction of a
Having
we must now
find in
tion
of the
under
consideration
changes
had
taken
We
community.
the
reveals
place
notice
An
examina
that
conditions
we cannot
if
the
fact
the
in
that
life
presence
of
of
many
the
great
Judean
new
various
The people
s
outlook upon life and their
had
Even
considerably changed.
regard
among the teachers and leaders we find new and diver
tendencies.
law
the
for
Law
It
of Jose
in
is
perhaps for
were
this
TUTOR S
called
that each
man spoke
Jose
b.
Joezer,
The
71
in the
that the
viz.
group
^OfftKfl
"fel
"W
<I
DV HEPD, means
and
therefore
after
him
36
Greek
to
rule.
body of
tative
teachers.
Simon, the
last
member
led to a departure
new method
the
prove
this,
prevailed
we must
first
review
in
the
of teaching
In
order to
conditions
that
As
the
said
above,
the Soferim
and explanations as they could give to it. Their exegetical rules and Midrash-methods, simple as they were,
were nevertheless sufficient for their purpose, which was to
all
give
halakic teachings
the
written Law.
in
connexion
with
the
Under
the Persian
community,
head of which stood the high-priest, 35 who was the
The conditions which pre
highest religious authority.
at the
vailed
in
this
Persian rule
first
This was the case, at any rate, in the second half of the Persian
period.
pp. 198
ff.,
Geschichte,
3rd edition,
who
37
The Book of
Law
the
ac
it
the needs
all
by the
of the
Of
These changes
religious customs.
new laws
same
the
in
all
easily
read
into
of interpretation, or even
Book by means
the
of
some
Law
could
the Soferim
Law by means
written
practices.
few
some of the
embody
slight indications
the
in
the
Book of
the
whose business
copies of the
Book
of the Law.
If
was
it
to prepare
it
could not
Book
of the
Law, they
by some
slight
change
be found
in,
would cause
the text. 36
36
it
For
As we have
textual form in
to be indicated
instance,
by
in
which they
cast
it
(not considering
some
slight
changes and
may have been made in the period after the Soferim, see below,
is impossible now to ascertain the full extent of the changes and
additions that
note 43),
it
corrections
there
is
which they
originally had.
The Rabbis
the
correc-
38
or
peculiar spelling of a
by the
or
DHD1D
rUpfi (Leviticus
r.
XI,
5).
r.
LIX,
and Exodus
r.
XIII,
i)
in
the Scriptures which in their present form represent the corrected readings
introduced by the Soferim (Sifre Numbers,
84, Friedmann, p. 22 b, and
Mekilta, Beshallahj
Exod.
15 (on
is
it
15. 7)
In
a).
all
Tanhuma, Beshallah
were
these corrections
made by the Soferim, the Men of the Great Synagogue, i^N DnDID ppTl
nbnan HDJD also, i^p: -ph r6ran now *vn$ ita n^pios irat? $*?**
D HDID. Even if it should be granted that these statements in the Tanhuma
;
identified
by the
as
with the
Men
DnDID
same
corrections
who was
which
is
correct.
This
is
confirmed
corrections,
in the
JpTl
pt>D
"
),
first
of the Soferim.
tradition, as
R. Azariah de Rossi
views.
"O^pTl
was
is
a despiser of the
word
DHD1D
If this tradition
For
it
was
changes were made in the text but merely to avoid too frequent mention of it.
When forced to mention the fact they pointed to a few harmless changes
and omitted
(as in Sifre
as the authors
Mekilta, p. 46 b).
It
in
Tanhuma,
in
Men
was omitted
The statement
in the
Men
Tanhuma expressly
The omission
Although the corrected passages pointed out by the Rabbis do not deal
with the Law, we may safely assume (notwithstanding Weiss, /. c.} that the
Soferim corrected even the legal portions of the Pentateuch. A correction
of the Ketib
N?
into the
Kere
IP (Levit.
n.
Law.
desired
result.
37
not
did
They
do
so,
to
it.
hesitate
in
any way
The changes and
allowed themselves to make in
understood
39
the
meaning of the
Law
all
Even
if
the Soferim
religious practice or to
interpretation of the
Law
as an
They
could
still
Torah.
in the written
commanded
some
its
Midrash
Book
of the
and nothing
That the
Law
with
its
interpretation
else.
activity of the
Soferim as an authoritative
This change, like most of the Kere and Ketib, originated with the Soferim,
The later teachers,
according to the talmudic tradition (Nedarim 37 b).
for obvious reasons,
in the
reflections
37
For
Halakot
Law and
method of the
earliest
ff.
Midrash to indicate
Midrash Halakah
in the
40
that caused
brought about
and
many
in the
life
of the people.
These,
upon the
activity
life
in turn,
institutions,
and authority of
the teachers.
government
and had
The change
life
of the
com
It
was through
Simon the
Just,
Soferim as an
great personality.
teachers,
their
influences of the
The
new order
of
of things
made themselves
felt.
body
Even the authority of the High-priest was under
mined. He was no more the highest authority of a religious
activity
ceased.
who had
as
government
much
influence
among
as the High-priest,
Other people
Laymen
arose
leaders.
new views
of
life,
in
new
rich
became
ideas and
name
The
41
and
of the law
influential classes
The
accepted
leaders of
The
the Torah.
upon
life
of the people
solely
in
all
matters of
fathers as contained
teachers were no
life,
as they
longer consulted
had been
former days,
in
developments
in
provided
in
The changed
life.
new
questions
the
laws
for
of the
in the inter
of the
in
of the Law.
authorities,
usage,
The
decisions in
and answers
became
to
new
in the course of a
new
cases, given
questions, fixed
by
ruling
by popular
from the
Law by
42
To
fathers.
who
archaeological
by
popular usage.
in
in
Book
the
made
and
practices.
No
new
for these
Law
of the times.
life
were the
this
harmonization.
the
attempt was
Law some
in
By means
the
Book of
disregarded by
official
authority
by a
large part
of the people.
The
fact
that there
was no
official
activity
is
of the
Simon the
given in
Abot
I.
The Mishnah,
despite
its
anxiety to
yet finds
itself
unable to
fill
Simon the
43
Just
sible if there
in
official activity
of the teachers
those years.
38
It is
the successor of
Halevi
Joses.
not convincing.
As such they
I,
a.
We
was an uninterrupted
make of Jose b. Jonanan
If Antigonos
Joezer.
as Halevi
two
(/.
c.}
We
Joses.
when
the
B. c.,
died,
the date
and 180
their activity.
it is
when
B. c.,
In spite of
all
assuming that Antigonos did not directly succeed Simon the Just I
If we still desire to consider the report in the Mishnah
(Hodegetica, p. 31).
is
right in
as correct,
we
must interpret
it
I,
mean
to
p.
that
member
of the Great
the
first
Dnft
v^p. The
pHn
specific
evidently shows
as the one
that
who preceded
At any
rate,
was no
official activity
it
is
it
Antigonos.
we
is
pVE^D t^p
here referred to
Even the
have
name
and Simon
between Simon
statement
Simon
of the teachers.
in the period
in the
later
when
tendency
II..
there
to recon
Mishnah
(see p. 116).
44
Even
in
who
teachers
Law.
the
Law
in
faithful to
among them
had
it
no
official
authority.
It
who wished
follow them.
However, absence of
to
authority not
official
only did not prevent but even helped the activities of the
teachers to
become
ments.
It
became the
Halakah and
text
of
the
which resulted
In the second
Book
of
the
Law
place,
in
it
preserved
fixed
form,
unchangeable
character.
his leadership
formed an
official
The
mostly,
if
Compare
it,
who
Law
Law was
Schiirer,
Geschichte,
II 4 ,
and
R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin, 1906), p. 346. Smend,
however, goes too far in assuming that even as late as the beginning of the
second century B. c. all the teachers of the Law were priests. This is not
correct.
Simon
On
who were
45
in possession of the
They would
therefore
Law
become
their
teachers. 40
own
lay people a
On
the
in curtailing
which
priests are
other hand,
the
Law
seek the
at his
mouth
But
when the
community
all
concerning
the
of
questions
life.
Law was
the Just
knowledge
second century
B. c.
statement.
among
educate
them
It
the priests
many
pupils in a
knowledge of the
make
was
authoritative teachers.
However,
it
is
them
their
own
democratic
the
Law among
46
of the
gave
Law and
the traditions
its
At
of the community.
ministration
head of the
the
The study
of the
it
a matter of private
priests
On
priests.
interest in
knew
priests, in
or taught the
They
therefore
Law
had no
the
to
among
On
the people.
the
other hand, the lay people were now more eager than
formerly to acquire such knowledge. Since there was no
official
body
had to be
his
own
man who
religious
cared
authority.
for
He
all
the
re
Law
therefore
50.
47
religious authority
the priests.
priests
of
conditions
changed
They
life.
contented
therefore
with
Law and
the
merely preserving
traditions that were left to them from the past, without
trying to develop them further or add to them new
themselves
the
Law
Book
tions given to
it
by
of the
Law.
They
42
teachings of the Soferim.
of the
to
as
Law
in
Soferim.
4Z
inserted
was
many
text nor
as
sacred, so
must emphasize
its
peculiarities
that no
came
to be con
that in the time of persecution they forgot the teachings of the Soferim
and
began
to teach
independent Halakot.
The troublesome
times might have hindered original activity and the development of the
teachings, but could not have
teachings.
If
48
introduce textual
to do,
43
for the
changes,
Thus we
the
as
I,
community and
Soferim.
There prevailed a
on
in
an
life
of religious
anarchy,
fathers as interpreted
were the
official
state
by the
religious
way by an
authoritative
body.
This
laymen was again established. This new Council or Sanhedrin assumed religious authority to teach and interpret
Law and
the
life
of the
com
3, 8),
his general
Ptolemaeus an
epistle
in
by Josephus, the
following para-
We
of Judah ha-Nasi
I.
As
was
fixed.
grew
in influence
142)
And
of that nation
live
the
let
the
priests
and
singers
be discharged from
senate
the
and
all
let
49
(yepovvia)
the
scribes
of
We
poll money and the crown tax and other taxes also.
learn from this that the Jews under Antiochus III were to
live according to their own laws, and that there was,
besides the priests, another authoritative body, a
or a
of which
Gerousia,
mention
Otherwise the
of the senate
is
some
true that
and
details in
the priests
by Antiochus.
not written
members.
also
sense. 44
laymen were
senate
It
was evidently
It
originated at a
much
later
some
Hellenistic
Btichler,
writer
whom
followed
Josephus
(see
How
seq.).
the
ever,
in
Buchler
(op.
ctf.,
p.
who
it
lived
senate
was composed
of priests.
While
this
made the
may
explain
This
difficulty is
that
it
why
the author
it
One
or the other
exclusively of
body not
T
He
priests.
50
of this
and
epistle,
in
his
opinion
it
and a renewal
life
in
the community
From
community an
As
Jews.
It
is
community.
As
political leaders,
tion
it
composed of
in
weakened the
it
made
priests
it
new organiza
And when
Josephus found
an
it
epistle, ascribed
to
to
of the
renewed
religious
activity
by an
authoritative
Fragments
of a Zadokite
(Documents of Jewish
Work
published by Schechter
Sectaries, vol.
I,
Cambridge, 1910).
stated (Text
is
it
A,
p. i)
51
390
years after
586
B.C.),
God made
B.C., i.e.
grow a plant
to
God
hands of
(i.e.
an
They sought
Law
way
back
of God]. 45
to the
men
of understanding from
and from
priests)
45
The passage
vm
en
nb
nniK irvnb
^n
nx
amya
Israel wise
the text A,
in
Ta
nyoo
DWK
o
Aaron
teachers
p. i,
lines 5
owni
D.TPJJO bs
e.
(i.
rntfo
-a
ijrri
btf
p^i
nw
*
Dp^i.
pin ppai
on^a aa
inciN aisa
PID^I
u^n
osijn
&M
w?
sT^o
onpy
non-priestly
reads as follows
ff.,
EHIS? pntfoi
n v^s*
(i.e.
And
i"n
at the
D u^ac
ai
end of the
wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had delivered them into
the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He remembered them and
Israel
to inherit
to
good of His earth. And they meditated over their sin and
they knew that they were guilty men and they were like the blind groping
rejoice in the
way twenty years. And God considered their deeds, for they sought
Him with a perfect heart, and He raised for them a teacher of righteousness
in the
to
Schechter).
in
the
way
of His heart
(Translation, as given by
the formation of
(p. 5)
has
it,
this sect.
The
wrath
period of
is
was
passage
between
acquired Palestine.
(about 196
Aaron.
Genesis
B. c.,
Plant
r.,
LIV,
390 after 586) that God raised up a plant from Israel and
here is a designation for an assembly or Sanhedrin (comp.
6,
pTlHJD
HT ?5?K
^VK Wl,
and Hullin 92
a,
52
Israelitic teachers)
priests
it
of
way
Law
for
prescribing
that
as an
is
the
and lay
the
religious
needs of
their time.
The same
is
also
Mishnah.
in the
at
According to
that time was Anti-
priest,
We
said to
for the
two
parties,
Sadducees
and Pharisees, there also arose a third partjr or sect, composed both of
priests and Israelites who differed from the two other groups, the PriestThis third group acknowledged the
rights of the lay people to be like the priests, but would otherwise not
follow the tendencies of these lay teachers who formed the nucleus of the
Pharisaic party. This third group formed a special sect under a teacher
of righteousness and emigrated to Damascus.
further learn from this report that for about twenty years there was
We
way
tried to find a
with the
46
Law
of arranging the
of God, as handed
The passage on
D s D3n
DyBB*l
":-:-
in this
life
down
to
them from
their fathers.
blWDl. Th e
that they
phrase Q^Dan
0*0123
^JO^EI
pHNJO
Pip"
reminds one of
the term
was
^Slty *D3n
Lay teachers of
Israelitic descent
which
later
on
See
my
them
like
DVH DN
^KB>
SW^,
Sam.
15. 4.
53
Hagigah
in
II, 2).
Of
we have them,
late date
are of a comparatively
historical. 47
They
Jose
b.
This
where we read
may be
as follows
Then
were the
first
peace of them.
among
justice.
Now
(i. e.
in
Mace.
7.
12-16,
men
of Israel
e.
We
already scribes
descent,
reorganized Sanhedrin,
were
distinct
who were
in that
They
they were
merely concerned with the religious liberty and were therefore willing
to recognize Alcimus if they could obtain from him peace and religious
freedom. Jose b. Joezer was among this group, and probably was their
leader (see above, note 29).
In the
leaders of the
mind of the
whole Sanhedrin.
Its
who were
in the
For
who
members
of the
members
and were the actual leaders of the Sanhedrin are regarded as intruders and
usurpers.
54
out
all
some
be,
some
known
authoritative assembly
may
This
kernel of truth.
composed
was
the
later
of which
teachers
They ignored
leaders
real
teachers
of the
the
as
elaborated
to
fit
into
their
scheme.
all
of
these
Sanhedrin, and
that
traditional
those
represented
real
party.
at that time
priests
the religious
affairs of
the people.
The members
of this
and
But
in their
with the
great
life
own
some
difficulties.
It is true,
the teachers
of the
of the
Book
of the
transmitted to
teachings
all
the tradi
the
latter
But
Pentateuch.
by the Soferim
teachings given
Law
of the
were not
for all
all
Book
based
or
55
in
the traditional
all
sufficient to
situation.
could not
people.
For,
the result of
these
all
new
conditions of
life
now
prevailing in Judea,
Soferim.
old laws
This
difficulty
now
to find in the
questions and
arose.
fact that
during
many new
practices
religious practices,
and no
distinction
Many an
old law
of that law.
Many
new
different
years
as
religious authority
56
spected
by the people
much
as
It
and
practices.
These
Law and
no basis
because
and
customs,
now considered
more.
life
They had
of the people.
by the people
them as
to recognize
But
in order to
gious
Law,
the
members
them some
members
The
reli
They had
and
some
means
Law.
be
some
new
as
new laws
in
the text
by
could be
made
in
it.
of interpretation
furnish
Law
life.
methods were
these simple
57
reorganized Sanhedrin,
because their de
insufficient
development
Law.
Law
harmonizing the
life
of the
people.
We know
realized
until the
From
It
Fragment
we
Different solu-
years there
new
that Sanhedrin.
reign
so
It
was only
after the
is,
under the
marked as
distinct from
one another.
where we read
as follows
This
l
:
is
groups
And when
in
that
became
Sanhedrin as
Assumptio Mosis
6. 2
who
This
whom
We
are
accordingly told that in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after the year
175 B.C., there was a division among the Jews themselves in regard to
58
that Sanhedrin
which
ulti
and Sadducees.
was
This breach
in the
unanimity of opinion
ben Joezer and Jose
Sadducees to
The
Pharisees.
is,
Compare
who
later
also
the
Book
Enoch
of
parties,
90. 6,
Sadducees and
groups, the nucleus of the two parties, are referred to as appearing first
at that time.
This also agrees with the report in 2 Maccabees, that in the
days of Onias
strictly
Law
49
ch.
owing
III,
goodliness of Onias
to the
X, Schechter,
p.
Antigonos.
who was
d.
the
(3. i)
(4. 2).
into
tells
us
that
among
two groups.
the disciples
differences of opinion
in
The complete
mind
that
separation
of the two groups and their formation into two distinct parties took place
later
on
note
2).
in the time of
John Hyrcanus
(see
D1
in the story of
Abot
d.
p. 8,
R. Nathan,
*
they separated refers to the pupils
This would refer to the time of Joshua
"OS"!
Perahiah, the successor of Jose b. Joezer, who was the pupil of Antigonos.
This explanation will answer the objections raised by Halevi (Doroth
b.
Harishonim,
I c,
VIII, 169
Sadducean party
ff.)
Antigonos.
communal and
administration of the
59
50
had
religious affairs,
Book
of the
and
them according
They maintained
8-13.
rulers
to authority given to
them
in
Deut.
For
deem
17.
it
necessary that
all
the
this
new laws
members
feel
Law.
written
Thus the
priestly
Law
with
all
laws, or of forcing
They
declared the
However, as
rulers of the
period,
when
authority.
were
Their families
influential leaders.
still
they were
become accustomed
Their influence
of the
Law
in
official
In the
thus
still
As
priests
was
Law.
its
service.
60
members
of that
body.
knowledge
the priests.
of the
They
had proven
entrust to
them the
many
of the priests
life
of the
people.
to
them
of
Law.
of the
The same
teachers of the
Law
down
in
new laws
principles
Law
the
people
controlled
or decide religious
entire
life
authority,
decisions
Law
and
61
see
as inter
51
now had
to
find
of the
Acknowledging the
in the
Law.
They
life
also
all
the
of their
had to
For further details about the attitude of each group towards the
my
laid
The
They had
Law
Law
now
6l
all
those
new
universally observed
as part of the
new
Law, and
The
practices.
other
method was
of the Fathers
In other words,
down
in the
by
Law
of the term
exegetical rules,
all
so as to
Law
it
with
all
its
possible
meant a declaration of
some
At
some of the
for
some
Law.
sufficient
authority for
all
62
by the
Law.
after
origin
the Soferim.
of
these
reasoned thus
laws
It is
and
They
by the
fathers
and transmitted to
fol
Such
all
the
new
practices.
They
is
to say
in
the Mishnah-form.
with which
still
it
even in
idea that
first
become
tradition,
by
the latter.
*
63
in authority to
Traditional
Law
custom pointed
in
the case of
it
was only as
them inde
They
preferred to resort to
new and
also a departure
of doing so,
bility
for
these
possi
traditional
the words
laws.
of the
Torah
could
They
thus
is
in the
Midrash-form, as of old.
Only
in a
very few
same
is
to say, in
52
It might perhaps be said that the theory grew and forced itself
upon
the teachers without any intention on their part to formulate it. They
It
step,
almost an unconscious one, from this to the declaration, that the fathers
received their traditional laws together with the written Law.
64
the Mishnah-form. 53
made
more general
when
Once
application.
use
it
was conceded
that,
first
of the Mishnah-form.
However,
its
it
To some
Mishnah-
teachers, the
by
all
the teachers.
Some
It often
or because
it
These other
Mishnah-form.
Fortunately,
we
to teach
is,
in
the
in the
53
Accordingly the Midrash always remained the main form of teaching
and the Mishnah only gradually came to be used alongside of it (see above,
notes 8 and 22).
65
As
teachers
will
by the
as
in their
support
share
them.
pi
by\
DV
as follows
Nine?
in the
M
sscp ^N by nT-ra D N* ityv
mpm
iri>
Mishnah, EduyotVIII,4,
p^i (p^an)
Tj?n
NTQED M
Kamsa [a certain
as clean
liquids
it is
to be considered
(i.e.
of the
slaughtering
place,
that
they are to
him
difficulties in
we
can
be
come
And
get at their
full
we must
meaning and
The
first
They
language.
in
which
54
There
strange
all
is
feature
are given in
in
these
in the
by
Hillel
saying
it
L.
two sayings
in
was
their
is
in
Hebrew,
54
Mishnah are o
o;iven.
Aramaic language.
uttered
Halakot
it
was addressed
given in Aramaic
The
latter
in the
Aramaic language.
66
Weiss
tries to
55
all
their teachings in
(Introduction to Mekilta, p.
iv).
upon
In the
false premises.
first
place, if the
Aramaic
we ought
Mishnah
in the
to
find
Aramaic language.
in
the
is
He
himself mentions
many
that
He
Aramaic.
pressed
in
their form
in
and
in his
in their
he can only
they
Soferim.
Haaeman, X, pp. 52-3) that the language of the people in the time of
Ezra was Aramaic. Both Krochmal and Weiss seem to have been misled
by the haggadic interpretation of the passage in Neh. 8. 8, given in b. Nedarim
37 b, D13~in HT EniEJD, which they understood to refer to an Aramaic
Following this Haggadah, they assume that as early as the
time of Ezra the Torah had been translated inf.o the Aramaic (see Krochmal,
translation.
/.
c.j
Wien,
1896, p. 58).
I,
p.
54
compare
Hence they
and Akylas,
an Aramaic translation was
argue,
if
necessary, then the language of the people must have been Aramaic.
this is a mistake.
in
in the
But
time of
Why
is it
67
56
Further
more, the whole premise that the Soferim gave their teach
ings in Aramaic, declared
Mekilta, ibid.) to be
by Weiss (Introduction
beyond doubt,
is
absolutely
to the
false.
All
The
exiles
who
some
of the
language, that
Hebrew.
is
It certainly
the Jewish
cannot be assumed
use
among
their
own. 57
the people in
According
radical
fix
57
Weiss himself says (Dor, I, p. 54) that Nehemiah and the earlier
Soferim endeavoured to keep up the Hebrew, and only some of the people
did not understand Hebrew perfectly.
But if so, why did the Soferim give
all
their teachings in
Aramaic?
58
Schurer points out that the Aramaic of Palestine could not have been
brought along by the returning exiles, as the Aramaic spoken in Palestine
was the Western Aramaic and not the Eastern Aramaic spoken in Babylon.
Friedmann
(op.
tit.,
p. 57)
was the Babylonian Aramaic, but that in the course of time this language
was changed and influenced by the Aramaic of Palestine. This assumption
is without proof. The proofs cited by Friedmann for the use of the Aramaic
language do not prove anything with regard to the time of the Soferim.
F 2
68
II 4
Even
pp. 23-6.
after the
literature,
in
Hebrew.
Aside from
of the Soferim,
all
it
is
altogether
wrong
They
to,
second difficulty in
term
means
Yj?n
Some
Tjjn
in
it
Mishnah
this
mean
to
scholars have
in
this
very
testified
and
This
As we have
practices.
But
absolutely incorrect to
is
it
take the term Tjjn here in the sense that Jose merely
testified
much
The
and decisions.
Jews
As
far
(7. c.,
p.
58)
Jews began
to
neglect
(i. e.
While
he certainly
to
is
his date
is
based upon a
wrong
Hebrew and
speak Aramaic.
that
it
was only
after
we know,
the
69
regard to
some
testimony alone.
was
rule or practice
They
testimony
to consider the
or
it,
if
for
VIII, 3
Sanhedrin VII,
Nowhere do we
IX, n).
find that
testi
59
fying teacher responsible for the decision which he reports.
59
The
whom
"
the other
teachers held responsible for the decisions which he stated before them,
cannot be cited as an instance against this statement. It is doubtful, to say
the
least,
in mystery.
what was accepted by others as traditional laws, and that harsh means
were used to silence such protests. The knowledge of these facts would
unfavourably upon the validity of the traditional law. For this
reason one of the later teachers also denied the fact that Akabiah was put
under ban (ibid.}. From the meagre reports preserved in our sources it is
reflect
difficult to
what
actually took place between Akabiah and the other teachers. It is, however,
very probable that Akabiah was the author of these four decisions, and that
is
stated
and not
testified
This
is
From
"IftlN
JVTK?,
it
is
merely
demand
Akabiah was
him
to retract,
them.
his
"p
own
authority in these
Again,
son
to>
70
Here,
tfnt?
the Permitter
If Jose
-decisions.
however,
or whoever
*
permitted
Permitter
This
K^
is
we
norm of
shall see,
60
practice
It is therefore
D OIIDH
and
"""O^H
linxbl
from
(i. e.
whom
words
Tyn, were
TITH
It is
teacher
as
many
From
(ibid., 7).
these words
it is
We
TlTOm TTOV ^N
D^n^n DD TOD:? ^H
S
(ibid. 7),
which
appear as if there had always been perfect harmony among the teachers,
and that only in this case each had a different tradition which he had to
follow.
This, however,
is
It
it
only
how
to the
time
same
later author
Wit,
who
to introduce
thus attempted to
Akabiah
s decision,
Akabiah had.
60
Levy erroneously states (Ozar Nehmad, III, pp. 29-30) that Jose s
were ignored by the other teachers. From the talmudic discussion
Pesahim i6a (comp. also Maimonides, Yad. Tum at Oklin, X, 16) and
decisions
7!
own
permitted
Talmud who
Samuel
Jose
s,
in
the one
who
This
Wit?.
is
Amoraim in
decisions.
Rab and
by
opinion
He was
further confirmed
the
teachings.
And
Nm
in
his
rb
Thus we
own
or
stated
is
nated.
by the comparatively
It is
we have them,
in the
in
which
by
late date at
which they
These
origi
decisions, as
s
own
words,
form
decisions in
in
The Aramaic
rather
in
The
for
teachers, however,
reasons of their
own
who
(to
trans
be stated
in
That Jose
72
had
fact
that the
these
Amoraim
in the
or reasons.
proofs
evidenced by the
is
Talmud endeavour
Evidently the
to find
Amoraim were
them.
By
Amoraim, whose
the
following
we
in
will
We
must
human
is
corpse
(Num.
19.
n)
as well as
or a reptile
Permitter
Furthermore, Jose
(ibid., 31).
evidently because
in
three
all
called
the
decisions
he
is
decision, concerning
forbidden.
decision
61
We
arrive
at
the
correct
G1
Frankel (Hodegetica,
p.
meaning of this
and interpreting
decision
of Jose to
mean
who
3KDD, which
is
wrong.
he could
could
also
he makes unclean
But
ex
this explanation
In the
still
mean
his
not said
first
place,
if
the
]"IEQ
V313
73
it to mean
(of a
[only] he who touches a dead body
human being or an animal or a reptile) becomes unclean
but one who touches a thing or person that has itself
,
62
become unclean by contact with a corpse (i.e. mpH2
*!)
does not become unclean. This interpretation of Jose s
third decision is given in the Talmud (Abodah zarah 37 b)
1
Hip"
and
is
Talmud
(ibid.),
As
by Raba.
before and during the time of Jose were of the opinion that
Secondly, as Weiss (Dor,
is
I,
p. 100,
was
makes unclean
but simply
UNDO.
is
unclean
Moreover,
1
Jose
The
lIpHU
2"1pH,
Q"IN
2")p"n2
niNELD V3D2
in
was
Sifra,
to
it
in
Jose, then,
stone, and
wood.
it
unclean.
contact with a
meant
corpse can
to
make
exclude earth,
Halakah seems
to be expressed in the
however, Ginzberg
It
then,
is
Work
15-17). Compare,
mp Hi
another person
Such an
Fragments of a Zadokite
schrift,
3*1
pH
clean,
even a person
who
touches
74
Num.
Talmud
in the
19. 22,
what
or,
(ibid.)
Lev.
NDB NDDH
in
5. 2, NDtt
13
yr T^N
more
is
wn
bs, as stated
passage
literally
i>33
from the
likely,
in
is
which
unclean.
theory.
ently, so that he
3npH3
3"ipH,
Indeed,
Sifra,
rrn
passage
differ
we
Hobak, XII,
IM
this scriptural
ed.
w&nn
rtan
3N pN^
h"r\
"131
Weiss 22
.NED
n^prn
"nn
w HINDU
2"n
NX
There we read
d.
yjron
HUN
HNDlUn
D3
yjn
DTN
D.T^
in
as follows
T.?N
ON
"
expression
that even
if
"]
a person has
The
mentioning]
whether
it
it
by
which are
their contact
make
is
original
man
not an
refute.
is
63
viz.
Jose,
We
people,
view of
by ^W
actually held
by some
that only
As
75
unclean, the
by those who
Jose, or
name
the
im
Accordingly we have
first
n.
And
if
we
S.
by
64
is
The
D OlBWin D
Horowitz
seems
if it
is
doubtful,
64
Jose or
JpT is also
assumed by Professor
I.
as quoted
Levy
to
me
For,
/i>3
of the
It
ps* trial
nDra nfem
rrn
them.
name
defined
^33, is
like
D*)23^
in Sifra
IN
new
view
the
to
refers
nNDIDH JTQN
315?N"in
pirTPO
fill?
D Op), but a
1>N
TO
later addition.
had been a part of the Midrash of the older teachers, then R. Akiba s
it would not have added
anything and would have
D^n
b"T\.
To
is
however,
we
this
pN. They
R. Akiba added another Midrash
not an
HNDIDH
nNDIDn niUN
is
used by them
sources of uncleanness
usually to
op.
cit.,
designate
in
and not
certain
is
^32
nKDlEH 3N
HUN
fJIP
is
excluded.
plWO
we must assume
degree of uncleanness
in
term
the original
which
(see
If,
HD
that the
lfK
it is
used
Horowitz,
p. 8).
That the
DWfcOn
D\Dpt
excluded
even
so-called
HKDIDn
JTl-N
is
76
the
D\Dic\x-\n
n^pr
the rule
bn yv
IN as
man pya K!?N p nns*
DiK nNBiB
IE>N
i>b
\\*
fei
&,
c-iai
and accord
From
first
decision in
reached by
^31
tnai
Abodah
we
learn that
5>5>3
Jose
we
decision.
Even the
opinions regarding
later
its
meaning.
meaning of
different
and not
Samuel
com
become
Rab
this
pn
in
themselves
may
Pesahim 17 a).
be more plausible
(see
by means
of the
BHpO
WZ
Rabed
^V
DH^V
But
herein.
pl"n
it
is
|W.
Levy, as
was not
If a
at all unclean.
D121
Ni^
^m
which
nnc
T^K
drinkable
is
721
npcr
is
is
n.
Lev.
in
spoken
Jose saw
which
or
For
rule.
of liquids
77
rw
the words
24,
said
is
of, it
TJ-
in
tfTQBtD
npsrio
which
out of a vessel
In
nno
nppD.
is
not drinkable
the
or
not drunk
is
(in
Sifra,
exclude
65
Thus we
from
These
interpretations were according to new methods.
new methods, however, were rejected by his contemporaries,
because they were novel. The teachers of the next genera
tion
new
which
Jose used.
65
It is
NTDOD
ilp ^ D, while the older Halakah as represented by R. Eliezer
formulated the same decision in a general way, so as to apply it to all
undrinkable liquids, HHD PIp^D.
Accordingly, the statement of Rab
the
biblical
"ODp,
is
not
which made
more
it
is
difficult to
pl"n?0
p-plPDp iTTU.
the laws of pp^
meaning of Jose
harmonize
it
It
should
D HND1D,
s decision,
the
78
proofs given to
them by
therefore
They
merely
mentioned them as decisions given by Jose. They would
not even teach them in Hebrew, the language in which
they taught all their Halakot connected with the Scripture
in
Jose.
Midrash-form.
in the
Aramaic
by secular
popular customs
refer to
For
this reason
Jose
or
these decisions;
stated
i.
e.
Jose
is
07
Yjjn,
On
would
DV,
by Jose ben
An
uncleanness.
i>y
nxEitt
nw
when
There
is
no reason
commentary
(Shabbat 15
a).
on the Hebrew text, the use of the Hebrew language especially recommended
itself.
In
many
cases the
in
emphasizing the
made it very difficult to use another language than Hebrew. In this manner
Hebrew remained the D TOSH ftfSVj the language of the school. It con
tinued to be used for teaching Halakah even when the latter was separated
from the
Hebrew
text
independently
in
Mishnah-form.
67
See above, note 30. There is no doubt that the introductory formula
added by a later teacher. It may be that in the case of Jose,
the case of Akabiah (see above, note 58) the later teacher who added
YVH was
as in
to
4
Graetz, Gesclnchte, III p. 707,
,
glassware to Simon
is
The
b.
Joezer.
Simon
of
b.
W HN^D
JVDIST
Shetah,
b.
Babylonian
79
fpnn Kim.
c,
He
bases his
where it is said
The correctness
of this statement
be correct.
may
explanation
The hesitancy on
may have
his decree
He
which he based
Simon
other
b.
Shetah.
think so.
to
ignoring
There
is
no reason whatever
for
the other reports which ascribe the decree to the two Joses
all
and accepting this one which ascribes it to Simon b. Shetah. This is all
the more incorrect as it is apparent that this one report is based on
a mistake.
Simon b. Shetah decreed against metal-ware, ni^Hto V3
(Shabbat 14 b, comp. Graetz, I.e., pp. 706, 708). In a report about this
decree of Simon some one probably made the mistake of substituting
JT313T *^3 for JTlSnE) *hl. R. Jonah s saying cited there in the Talmud
(p.
Ketubbot,
/.
is
c.)
It is
The decree
JTOnD v3 and
Simon
v3.
reported repeatedly
in p.
Shabbat
I,
3 d,
p.
is
Amora Zeera
contrary
is
wrong
is
true.
Talmud, however,
are
as
many such
if
in
this Baraita is
they were the sayings of the Amoraim (see Frankel, Mebo ha-Jentshalmi,
pp. 26-7).
80
was
decision
(as
is
of
like D~n
of
then
is
it
If glass
D"in
^3
why
in all respects
Talmud
(ibid.) finds
was
raised.
Amoraim
difficulty in
experienced
From the discussion
evident that they
in
this case.
against part of this tradition, viz. the report about the decree of
They show
D^J/H ptf
that there
The two
is
?y JINDID
it
to
But
they could not find any contradictory report about the decree against
rrast ^3.
The reading rP313T
r\2& D*01ECH
Hamaor
is
given in regard to
of the
TV?
?Jfl
From
loc.
313T
v3
DWJH pm
in
it is
p3"l
in
is
missing in
Shabbat, ad
to
^3
pN
of the people
yet there
were
may
at least
some
rich people
It
was
who
8r
they were aware of the basis upon which Jose founded his
To
decision.
point
Talmud we may
disclose another weak
will
If this decision
by
as an arbitrary decree, a
Why then
was
mere
above and
remove the
will
talmudic teachers
in
difficulties
understanding
made
a vessel
of
included in
it
respects like
D^n
experienced by the
Jose and
this decision.
term Din
*i>3
mean
to
TV313T
*73.
The younger
teachers, however,
in all
would
^3 so
^3
in all respects.
some of
mnn.
in
also.
For
this reason
Out of
^3
as to include JV313T
it
TV313T
^3 only
D*m
^3.
passage
teach
it
D~in *fe
5>31,
as Jose no
doubt
did.
They would
upon the
82
The motive
for accepting
may be
by the younger
a teacher
decision without
found either
in
the respect
was
in possession of
a tradition
had no
unknown
to them. 69
In
it is
younger contemporaries
them
in his
attitude,
common among
its
despite
inconsistency,
practice
is
them.
to be
was
quite
The most
found in the
In this account
scriptural proofs
we
advanced by Hillel
in
and
from
last,
But when, at
his teachers Shemaiah and Abtalion.
he told them that he had received the decision itself
in
the saying:
DTQ
iT3?n rUTH
"p
a^pfion run
*?y
Jose
70
in their
VIII, 3 and M. Keritot III, 9) which clearly shows that they were ready
to accept a Halakah although rejecting the proof offered for that Halakah.
ny u
tav
p^O3K1 rvyEE D
vb DIM bs
*p
TO>
enm aw
;r6
We
^v
fro*
83
"IDNB>.
we may be
*JK
to say the
is,
doubtful.
very
least,
by
account,
iTnp
sure that
its
name
from
this
account that
of older teachers.
its
may
given
in the
name
evident
It is
in the habit of
accepting decisions
name
of that teacher.
71
for
the
Whether
this actually
Batyra is
from this report that
certain teachers
who
in
the time
of Hillel
there were
new methods
own
same
which
71
Compare Bassfreund
(op.
cit.,
name
p. 19,
of these
note
3).
two
authorities.
He
was
new methods
of interpretation
which kept
them from attending the schools of Shemaiah and Abtalion, and not
their negligence, as one might judge from Hillel s reputed remark
JlvXy
:
inn ^TH ^
DD2W
tibw D33
nnW.
84
in
When
Joezer.
first
to
follow him,
of these
new methods.
may
it
appear.
To
method by which
that
new methods,
at.
way
Against
For
this
reason they would often accept the decision but reject the
proofs.
In the above,
making
we have
methods
We
by Jose
s disciples
who
felt
his
methods of
interpretation.
Accordingly,
it
Mishnah-form was
may
first
in
connexion with
the-
i.e.
Scripture,
Mid rash-form.
the
those
teach
85
The Mishnah-form
traditional
and
laws
to derive from
the Mid rash- form, others, and by far the majority, rejecting
the
Finding no
the decisions.
such laws
in
them independently of scriptural proof, i.e. in the Mishnahform. These two motives for teaching Halakot in the
Mishnah-form are really one and the same. Whether no
midrashic proof could be found for a decision, or whether
deemed unconvincing,
the Mishnah-form was the same the
the
motive
for
To
this first
Certain considerations
even to such
Halakot as
scriptural proofs
with the
had,
in
their
opinion,
Scripture
in
the
its
Midrash-form.
in
use
good
connexion
These other
They became
stronger and
the
with
breach
between
the two
ever-widening
stronger
factions.
As
the
dispute
mm,
86
it
the traditional
Book of
the
it
some
Law and
or traditional law,
it
To
was
thus to present
As
Law and
it
contained
as
thus recognized as an
sented
halakic
by
decision based
teachers,
on a
and repre
only was there no more need for teaching all the Halakot
together with the written Law in the Midrash form, but
there were also sufficient reasons for the Pharisaic teachers
to teach
Halakah as
to connect the
is,
For, in so
nnin TIP;
religious teaching,
of
87
Of course
Law.
The Halakot
thus
Midrash-form.
latter,
in
the
adopted.
of
using
the
Law.
the written
meant
to connect all
Law by means
of the
Halakot with
there was
acknowledge
only one Law,
namely, the one contained in the Book. They would
thus have conceded to the Sadducees the disputed point
to
that
authority
with
the
na
written
i>y3B>
forms,
Midrash and
Mishnah,
alike.
By
be derived from
the written
Law and
taught
in
the
made
it
of little consequence
88
make more
teachers to
and
some
in
same
to the Midrash-
form.
For
in the
new
interpretations
The new
rules
and methods
to
But among
the Sadducees the objection to these new methods was
very strong and they absolutely denied their validity. If
furnish a Midrash for almost every Halakah.
by
it.
did not
mean what
it.
The
raised
upon the
Pharisaic teachings.
some
The
their opponents
sound.
any
It
72
all,
that
89
to say, to use
is
it
that
To
the
had for their teachings. Hence among the advanced students the use of the
Midrash-form was prevalent (see above, note 3).
A few talmudic sayings may be cited here to prove that it was the
tendency among the teachers to withhold from the students while young
the arguments and reasons for the laws and to keep them from disputes with
their opponents.
Simon
b.
Halafta says
5P|M D ODp
DTD^niW rWl
Dn^si?
As long
they are
(p.
Abodah zarah
pBO
D1K
"OH
II,
<JBb
41 d).
tikx
Simon
min
b.
"im
Johai says
You
"pxy
HlttH
PpB^
pK
a deep discussion of the words of the Torah except in the presence of pious
(ibid.}.
b.
Halafta and
at the
same purpose,
Simon
fHKO D1S
"02
According
aim
By
who
b.
to the
Gemara
(ibid. }
Johai go together.
There
is
a subtle
viz.
by refuting
We see from these two sayings that even as late as the middle of the
second century c. E., when the followers of the Sadducean doctrines were
no more so strong, neither in numbers nor in influence, the Rabbis were still
anxious to avoid disputes with them, and would therefore not tell the young
pupils all their arguments and reasons for the laws, lest the opponents
b. Halafta, nn"6
beliefs of the
pmS>
young
DIpD
unn
pupils.
i>K,
Compare the
M. Parah
III, 3,
90
who
The
pupils would
D^DDH
R. Eliezer:
1^n
p2
^"D
DU^Hl jWnn
of
0^31 1JB
fO
(Berakot 17 b), probably expresses this tendency to make the young pupils
study more the traditional law at the feet of the teachers, and keep them
A very
tional laws.
teachers
is
he persists
in
demanding an explanation.
simply ignores the question, drops the subject, and begins to discuss another
3^6
He
lips
tron
^N1 1T3
It
Close your
TTIBG? p1T!
to argue
new law
until at least
one year
after
was decreed. They feared that some people, not approving of the reason,
would disregard and treat lightly the law itself: K$n BO N
ND^H
These words are significant. There was only
PQ *Mti^ Tlfcfl
it
WK
b"D.
one
class of people
these
who
want
did not
that
to
to give
young Ishmael
Joshua
for this
new
r. I,
2},
and R. Joshua
who
law was
insufficient.
(Compare
taught.
91
what
were unable to
proofs the Pharisees offered for them, they
on
these Pharisaic
attacks
Their
them.
argue concerning
teachings would then consist of mere negations without the
As mere negations are not con
force of strong argument.
vincing, such attacks
not greatly
The
by
harm
teachers, all
another consideration.
still
The tendency
to teach
only
bins*
can,
i.e.
In the
conflict
What
become
will
teachers
of the
Torah
TO^i N^
even
liW>
if
73 It
all
b rwt,
it
makes very
its
little
details or not.
difference
It
are
whether
this story
remain,,
is
historically true
As we
Torah would
killed. 73
tained.
that the
could study
in
rrenn
for the
preservation
may be
moved them.
92
Law.
teachers of the
If,
and the
it
all
Law was
Thus the
and to show
the Mishnah-form.
to their
if
thought
it
in
every case.
By
indispensable.
Law
made themselves
were
in
therefore be supplanted
was an
by
who
Dan,
who
could
not
others.
The
Law,
who
received the
from Moses.
They
insisted that
their decisions
93
it
and to maintain
any petty
its
motive
it.
They
developing the
Law
forced
upon
it
according to
fetters
of
by
its spirit.
make
Midrash-form
form to
still
memory,
as the written
all
word
in
i.
e.
in the
Mishnah-
time, the
number
form grew
in
In the course of
94
will
The
methods
won
recognition with
all
number
new
who approved
of
all
in
different
forms.
Those
the
Midrash-form.
is,
who
still
were com
without any
pelled to teach them in the Mishnah-form,
scriptural proof.
We
these
find
we
many such
Of
Zaw XI
(ed.
shall
95
in Sifra,
requires half a
him
said to
log
of
oil.
Even
if
The
decision that a
nwJ?
*
jfl^t?
*]b
requires half a
oil is to
mini?
roi>n
will
will
"Todah "-offering
74
"UO
The emphatic
|DB>.
method of
^K
statement of
Akiba
of
nnt*
expression
in the
iN
"log"
objected to
interpretation,
law,
74
term
It
is
"O^DD
n^D/
i"12?n
to
in Studies in
said
merely that
teacher,
who
the words
this rule
was
b.
There
p. 58).
is
more
of R. Eleazar.
^DD
WK
say 7H
sufficient to
rDS"!
to
mean
A later
n3/H.
Sinaitic
words
R. Eleazar
Law
added
this sense.
i"Opn
explains
(ibid.").
it
merely
to
mean simply
is
b,
interpreted by R. Johanan
b.
Kiddushin 38 b-sg
a),
to
mean
while Samuel
H3HD
96
is
law. 75
it
support by
Another example
is
as a traditional
it
however, declared
im
This passage,
"any
used
according to
One
willows.
it
in
from
Abba
Saul,
speaks
is
it
of
two
Lulab,
The
in
this interpretation.
traditional law,
of course, taught
75
It is
np5>
it
in
the Mishnah-form.
The contrary
R. Eleazar rejected
rDPil,
i.
law was
that
e.
It
may
though not
mere
"O^DE
R. Akiba tried
to give
it
to teach it
statement in Niddah 73 a in regard to another law which R. Akiba derived
from a scriptural passage, while R. Eleazar b. Azariah preferred to teach
it
as a
mere Halakah,
NroSl nHiy
J3
97
"JIDJ,
ceremony of the
which R. Akiba, by means of
The
considered
it
the Mishnah-form.
in
it
They
rtt^fl (ibid.},
In this
them
in
in use
Thus
The
life
of the people,
The Mishnah-
interpretations of the
NEPjn,
rabbinical
for
or
traditional
declare scriptural
supports,
WDDDN
II,
pp.
13-14),
shows
that
must have been frequent among the Tannaim to consider some inter
pretations as mere artificial supports and not real proofs.
Otherwise, the
it
that the
some
tannaitic interpretations
Perhaps
and
were merely
Amoraim dared
artificial
declare that
supports.
rf>jn
It
frOpl
plTtD
harmonization
on the part of the Amoraim for the purpose of explaining away the differ
ences of opinion between the older teachers. They mean to tell us that
to find
an additional
of connecting
artificial
traditional character.
L.
TT
98
reason for
Mishnah-form adhered to
retention
its
Mishnah-form
new
lent itself to
which gave
it
may
had
itself
in
be found
An
it.
in
them
additional
It
principles of
it
a desirable form of
77
who helped
Mishnah-form by improving
it
and
to retain the
introducing therein
Halakot
form
collection
of
topically.
in
independent
arranged
halakic Mid-
commentary on
77
This
the
may seem
as
we
its
This, of course,
wrong, as the
Ill
its
we know
its
first
its
use,
we may be
extensive adoption,
Now
that
able
to
explain
for
the
change
in the
all its
important consequences.
For
points
this
in
this
We
had cause
for
about them.
remaining
silent
pendent Halakot
in
theories of the
shall
We
upon the
first
and
when
came
to be
practices
them
existed.
99
100
of the
traditional law, or as
from
in
of the people
reality
unfavourably upon
in general.
other,
We
the
law
laws.
artificial
them
them
forced
find
in
scriptural
as traditional
This disagree
later
talmudic teachers,
One is
min, handed down from
Torah. The second is
the belief in the validity of the laws which the wise teachers
Mn Bm.
new
interpreta
were
traditional.
Therefore they
felt
new
who
objected
constrained to seek
On
from Scriptures.
They pinned
character of these
laws.
Thus these
earlier
differences
Again, we have
the Mishnah-form
by the
IOI
later teachers.
seen, that
This
bility.
is
of the Talmud,
viz.
Moses
until the
succession of teachers
whose
direct
assert
their
This
fact, as
we have
were
the
originally
authoritative
teachers,
whom
the
real conditions
which accompanied
upon the
many
unfavour
upon
facts which,
theories.
They
if
We
They
to
refer
Rabbis
misunderstood, would
hesitated
by the
too
reflect
on their
frequently
to
78
R. Joshua
b.
Hananiah)
in
Hagigah 3 b
tf
njPBJ
HD DWBJ nnCDOSl
nrn PJN ro~n ma
mm
102
facts, as
facts.
They would
They deemed
them.
unwise to discuss
it
minn
in
regard
ppoisn
ifcti pi?Dia
i:ru
also
Num.
r.
XIV,
4).
We
have
in this
contain
more than
its
traditions.
all their
Against this
teachings
come from
name
the same source, the same leader, D31S, Moses gave them in the
of God.
We
see from this that such arguments were raised against the
might say
is
to certain people
^n
rpaiD
who
A heavenly voice
of Hillel and the
DTK
was heard
nm
"lEX^
&D&
Lest some
in a hypothetical sense.
liwi
Compare
mEKi
It
refers
the saying
inp
re
nm
%t|
their disagree
ments] are the words of the living God, but the practical decision should
be according to the words of the School of Hillel (Erubin 13 b). Compare
also the passage in Gittin 6b, where Elijah is reported to have said that
God
to
made
were
103
I
to
still
deemed unsafe
to
communicate
it
was animated by no
it
was
pursued for the sake of the cause which the Rabbis wished
a time
struggles
of the
disputes
therefore
was once
these teachings
as authoritative.
their
upon the
teachings
Pharisaic
with
their
teachers for
recognition,
opponents, they
dwelt
and
more
members
Pharisaic party,
of the
whom
the fact
They
quite
assumed the
late
date of so
many
traditional
The
result
was that
to
most of the
to
to
their
chosen
pupils
Kiddushin 71 a). The same was the case with certain ineffable names
of God which they communicated only to a few chosen pupils, lest the
(b.
(ibid.}.
104
caused
The
later
earlier
Just
i.
e.
They had
to
i.
e.
their authority
and
However,
(Der
it
the people.
among
galiltiische
Am Jia-Arcz, Wien
They
disappeared.
altogether
continued,
if
not as an
peculiar
of the Rabbis
We
law.
entire
so
who were
have evidence of
tannaitic
R. Jose
b.
80
period.
their existence
Many
sayings
throughout the
of
the
later
cases
the
following:
pri
nnci D lMni?
UN p^pl
Dill ^H |D nnV
D^DH^ DT
We are
FIPNB
nrvnw
nnN
UTuiaBa
nn nn&nn xbv
niN"l
|i"Q
105
They
show
all
wise
teachers
e.
(i.
the Rabbis).
saying of R. Jose to be merely another version of what the high priest s wife
told her husband.
Such an interpretation of R. Jose s saying is absolutely
unwarranted.
He
that,
women by
own
day.
the information
i. e. about the middle of the second century c. E., there still were Sadducees.
Their wives, however, would, in most cases, be guided by the decisions of
the Rabbis in regard to the observance of the laws about menstruation.
Do
argument)
who
Parah
III, 3),
D ptt*i DlpD
T\Tl~b
and
this again
shows
flin
i>K
e.
controvert us in
were Sadducees
(i.
Num.
He
one
who
to such
people
exception
nt
mw
m3>Dn
He
who would
to a single
rW J D
UW
word
one
a) to refer to
^D, that
Thus
15. 31,
of the Lord
is
to say,
is
it
who
is
stated
applies even
rrvwio nt iDirn /p
pnpi
pn
D^KTI
?D
"OXH
minn.
\D rrha
An anonymous
passage,
X? DX
by the teachers
The saying continues and speaks of people who
despise and hate the teachers although they accept the laws given on Sinai.
All these utterances
were
certainly not
made without
the Torah
provocation.
and
There
disputed
the
rabbinical laws.
if
living in the
Demai
II,
106
Amoraim. 81
Amoraim
Throughout
must have been Jews who rejected the rabbinical laws. Therefore it could
it was possible to become a Jew without
accepting
This
also evident from the following story told in Jerushalmi, Shebiit IX,
is
a.
certain
batical
asked him
why
is biblical,
The law
having originated with R. Gamaliel and his colleagues, nTlD "DID n?n
IHOm btf*tea pl-HB JTyaiy. This shows beyond any doubt that there
who
(first
D^IP!
c. E.),
TD^D
Amoraim
of the
first
generation
ilDCn
who
(b.
the third generation (second half of the third century), characterize the
Epicures as one
frOED
p:i")
who
JIN IDfrO
p^N
(p.
who
fro, or as one
Sanhedrin X, 27
That teacher
Those Rabbis
"1EN1
frp
d).
says,
refer to
a priest
who
Am
p. 187).
This
is
to a class of people
pm
f?
ttHK \SD
nDNn ^n
p:O
(ibid.}.
Raba, an
Amora
of the fourth
laws being clear enough. These people lived according to the Law,
in the Talmud (ibid.} would occasionally consult Raba con
and as stated
cerning some ritual question. Their ridiculing remark about the Rabbis
was evidently the expression of their peculiar attitude towards the teachings
of the Rabbis and of their opposition to the latter s authority.
107
were
They
as
designated
Epicureans
as
law
Knowing,
period
secret
of the
we can
advocates,
readily
understand
why
the
details
of the
all
all
Pharisees and
The talmudic
about
literature.
this
Only
fact
is
in
the talmudic
historic conditions,
seem
to have
82
&c.,
Compare Friedmann
Wien
in his
had a purpose
When
in
in
the
occasionally
and
explicit
The Geonim,
why no
explained
ff.
Znr Entstehung
des Karaismus,
108
much
as
by
awkward pause
in
their very
We
facts.
the
by
of R. Sherira
letter
Gaon.
In
He
Mishnah.
We
merely that
this
of the
letter.
evident
83
This, however,
that R.
is
Sherira broke
thought, because he
deemed
it
is
improbable.
off
in
the
almost
middle of a
in addition to
the
Midrash.
Zemah Gaon
Eldad.
a reason
for
Zemah answered
doubting the
law
in the
Eldad and
his
time of the
character of
that in the
traditional
9.
Now,
PNI
fan nnK
pniD>
the
one.
It is
embodied
in
said
it is
The Torah
2).
It is
It is
Why
not advisable
the glory of
this
God
mysterious
The account
of the
of the
origin
Mishnah-form, given
secret.
Geonim denied
time of the
words
nns minni
ton
pa:
ensi>
But
here.
following significant
would seem to be a
R.
this
109
that
The
the
Karaites in the
teachings of the
true tradition.
They
Talmud.
They
tion
among
among them
argued,
How
the teachers
when
We
of the
Pharisaic teachings.
This was
the reason for the talmudic silence about the origin of the
Mishnah-form.
the
same
reason.
state exactly
84
85
See, for instance, the arguments used by Sahl ben Mazliah (Pinsker,
35".
110
use, for
it
its
When
compelled to
cnpD2
Temple times
the
in
refer to the
Zemah and
This, however, as
in
we have seen,
can refer only to the time before the division of the parties. 86
80
It is
CHpDl
in the
passage
*inK
in the
vbx
r^-iy
D/1JJH njn
is
reading
ITU?
CnpD3
D^DW ViW
DxWn
D*pnH
A. Schwartz, Tosifta
fWO
|D
^DJTn
nnew
the
13
lation,
i.
e.
In the
Temple evidently
i.
e.
who
a future world.
belief in
i>3
vn
uTDH
The
ID
Mishnayot reads
of the
The
Pharisaic regulation
reported in this passage originated in the very early days of the differences
between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and not as Buechler (Priesler itnd
Cultus, p. 176) assumes, in the last decade of the existence of the Temple.
is evident from the fact that in the same paragraph the Mishnah reports
another regulation which no doubt originated in the early days of the
This other regulation
differences between the priests and lay teachers.
This
prescribed that a
man
name
of
God
in
This was either a reaction against the religious persecution under Antiochus
when it was forbidden to mention the name of God (comp. b. Rosh ha-Shanah
107
comp. also
Urschrift, pp.
264
second
parties.
at the
regulation originated in
From
same
this
time.
we may
It is
ff.)
God
it
was
to
Anyhow,
this
first
III
easily avoid
state.
He
limited
was
careful,
told
refrain
He
Temple.
also
from stating
why
for
did not
know
them about
sary to enlighten
R.
was the
the Mishnah-form
that
Zemah found
himself
result
of
neces
it
this point.
a more
in
difficult position.
He
in
our Talmud
many names
of debating
This
He
R.
first
Zemah had
admits that
written Torah
tions of the
teachers, the
mentioned.
all
and not
as opinions
of the
He
in
Temple times
in the
However, he
same paragraph
to
still
denote
112
He
in
it.
no
Torah and
his
Zemah Gaon
of R.
It
day.
is
same character
of the
is
This admonition
littered
The
the warning
as
b) against the
The
may
be
summed up
early Pharisaic
in
teachers
its effects
opponents,
The
Sadducees.
the
later
talmudic
who
The Geonim,
Sadducean doctrines.
in
manner,
re
weapons
87
hands of
in the
At the end of
Zemah
repeats his
D^
zJ?
neW
minn
0:6
TiD^rai
s
neN
i>y
&J?
nira
"l^N
penn
pp
nmn
BBPC-n
^V1
G2rw
proves that
is
nnN
bz
htoen
pjw
\w ion iw
5>an
"jl^-
nan iprnnm
Zemah aimed
113
IV
SAADYA
first
this conclusion.
Saadya Gaon
in
his Sefer
Hagalnj
a Karaitic
also
quoted by
Harkavy, Studien und Mitteilungen, V,
This statement of Saadya places the time
(Schechter, Saadyana, p. 5
I refer
writer, see
p.
194).
for
the
apparently a
much
earlier date
b.
Joezer.
to
is
Talmud and
the statements of R.
Zemah and R.
Sherira.
We
must
keep
in
Olam and
Talmud.
least in so far as
in
the
114
it
relates
is
absolutely incorrect.
time to
Temple,
which Saadya
date
refers,
we must
first
point
It is
an
artificial
it
is
sufficient
to
know
chronology, constructed
its
by
is
and
leaders,
Hence
all
the
all
nm
Olam Rabba,
By D^n are
or
more
XXX
This
is
confirmed by
115
Thus
mentioned.
Jadayyim
II, 16,
Mishnah Peah
in
we
teachers,
The same
Abot
I,
and Tosefta
II,
received
D\xun
is
to say,
traditional
laws
Mishnah
from the
last
For,
in
cluded the
However,
in stating the
received the
DTO
I,
the
first
pair
i^p
that the
whom
authority from
first
Law
from the
last
members
sidered
to
to
the last
last
Zuggot or D^an,
i.
Law and
e.
the
the earliest
Pharisaic teachers.
Law by
the
rise
Il6
(Seder
chronology finds no
Zutta,
difficulty in
/.
Empire
This
c.}.
rabbinic
For by
last
some
peculiar error,
to account for,
They assume
was
Temple
built,
traditions
their
successors,
Law
over the
the
D DSn,
or
and the
wise
lay-
How
D^n
Zuggot,
could be considered the direct recipients of the
the
is
last
not
with the
Law
from
B. C.,
difficult to explain.
a tradition that
the
little
before or
century
Great Synagogue
who
lived
117
Pharisaic party.
of the fact
official
According
or
the
first
pair,
Jose
Joezer and
b.
last
Jose
members
b.
Johanan,
of the Great
the
by Alexander
that
is
much
to say, not
And
later
than the
actually this
Temple.
time, i. e. the time of the two Joses, that Saadya fixes for
the beginnings of the Mishnah. The meaning of the passage
in
Saadya
Sefer Hagaluj
is
now
clear,
it
is
and
its
date fully
The passage
pm
reads as follows
Qinnn
}iBnn
no
irotaa
Dwajn
nx wnin ms-a ny
^s nfe
120x^1
wn &W
-in
Dyron
niHD^ ixhn
"a
TM
srb tprbxn
ww
irran
nuni>
nun pxn
We
may,
begun
therefore,
in
But, misguided
first
pair,
first
The
Il8
all
mn
gotten, Kjnn ^y
psn
5>33
paa
Law
might be for
ponn nx w-nn niK^n
we
and were
be found
to
Geschichte, III
4
,
p. 4).
in
all
B. c.
Schurer,
I,
p. 99).
nn.
who
first
be
so, if
If this
the
Talmud
however, inclined
term HUN
(p.
(edition
fathers.
ment
we
Saadya
find
it
who
are called
ohyn nUK.
d)
term DUN
in
Zuggot,
Hagigah 77
to think that
in
Karaitic writer
translated this
who
Saadya probably
the
Hebrew
quotes Saadya
am,
The
of
text
fore
state
the Arabic
refers to the
time
Jose
119
b.
I.e.)
it
b.
Mishnah
is
faulty
that
i.
e.
Having
our Mishnah
was
completed
150 years
Saadya had
after
the
to extend
For, according
Temple existed
The
by Saadya,
as
copyist, however,
instead of
S>*pn=53t>
(see
years,
quoted
by the Karaitic
Harkavy,
DINE WDn
note
6).
assigned to the
1XM
TORONTO LIBRARY