ceptions of sainthood there is some difference. It may be summed up in the phrase "Original virtue", which is the title of a valuable book by S. Levy, in which he shows that sainthood becomes, in Judaism, the counterpart to original sin. It is well to recall that the Hebrew words so rendered by Levy are ^ekhuth Aboth, literally, the merits of the patriarchs: but there is a parallel phrase of hardly less importance, ^ekhuth Banim, the merits of the children, who can redeem their parents.* For Pharisaism looked far more to the future than to the past. Generally speaking there was to be no Second Coming; IV Esdras is almost exceptional.f Once the

* Thus, Korah was redeemed by the prayer of Hannah, whose husband, Elkanah, was descended from Korah, when she interceded for him, saying, "It is the Lord Who taketh down to Sheol but Who bringeth up" (I Sam. 11, 6), see T.B. Sanh. f. 109b (Germ. trs. G. vn, 493): A.R.N, version I, ch. 36, f. 54a; Num.R. xvm, 13 (in some texts, 11) (Germ. trs. W. p. 446); Midr. Shoher Tobh, Ps. xlv, § 4, ed. Buber, f. 135^ (Germ. trs. W. p. 291).

It is stated in Num. xxvi, 11, that" the sons of Korah died not". On this see ibn Ezra's commentary, in loc., also Targum and Rashi. The Midrash Num.R. (xvm, 5 (Germ. trs. JV. p. 438)) illustrates this by Jacob's dying request (Gen. xlix, 6) that his name be not connected with the secret sins and plots of Levi's descendants: "'Sovereign of the Universe!' Neither in the matter of the spies nor in the schism of Korah let my name be mentioned, [hence, in Num. xvi, 1 Korah's pedigree stops at Levi], but when let it be mentioned? When they [the 'Sons of Korah', the Psalmists] claim kinship with me and take their stand on the Temple platform. Then it says (I Chron. vi, 22-3) '... the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel'." It will be noted that the foregoing differs somewhat from JV.'s version.

See also the comment on the "descendants " of Noah (Gen. vi, 9) in Tanh.y Noah, f. 15a (Germ. trs. Sin. p. 38). For an interesting reference to the "Merits of the Patriarchs", as promoting divine revelation in the diaspora, see Mekh.2 1, 5 (with Eng. trs.).

Messianic age was reached, its power would be supreme and evil would be dead. Of this there would be no doubt, since the earth would be full of the fear of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. The Messianic ideal was often conceived as coming gradually, not cata-strophically ;* universally and imperceptibly, not necessarily associated with a person. One often hears the ridiculous statement that the Pharisaic conception of a Messiah implied the advent of a victorious leader

* Cf. "There will be no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah, except that the subjection (of Israel) by heathen kingdoms will come to an end", T.B. Ber. 34b (Eng. trs. C. p. 231). Cf. also T.B. Sank. 98¿>, for a statement that the Messiah had come already in the days of Hezekiah (Germ. trs. G. vii, 429). On the other hand, opposite views, of a catastrophic change, called " the birth-pangs of the Messiah", occur often, e.g. T.B. Sank. 97a and 98 b (Germ. trs. G. vii, 419 and 428). See also above, p. 26.

The Sanhedrin passage is sometimes taken—I think wrongly— to refer to a Hezekiah redivivus. J. Klausner's excellent book, Messianische Vorstellungen d. Jiid. Volkes im Zeitalter d. Tannaiten has, I regret, not been available to me.

There are several passages which seem to imply a gradual improvement of human nature or fidelity to Torah, which will bring about the Messianic era. E.g. "If Israel kept but two Sabbaths properly they would be redeemed": this is said by Simeon b. Yohai who was a fugitive from persecution in the time of Hadrian (see T.B. Sabb. 118 b (Germ. trs. G. 1, 604): and parallels). The citation, just given, from T.B. Ber. 34& is very often repeated. Such a phrase as "As for the King Messiah, whether he be among the living or the dead" (T.J. Ber. 11, § 4, f. 4a, line 11 (Eng. trs. S. p. 44)) is significant. But in any case the "Messiah" is not the same as the "Messianic age". Thus, T.B. Sabb. 113b (Germ. trs. G. 1, 591) speaks of "This world, the days of the Messiah (Yemoth ham-Mashiah) and the future to come ('Athidh Labho)." The resurrection of the dead has also to be fitted into an eschatological scheme. The "days of the Messiah" are differentiated from the "World to come" (*Olam hab-BcC) in T.B. Sanh. gib (Germ. trs. G. vii, 388) and 99a (G. vii. 431). In the latter passage, the "days of the Messiah" are 7000 years, as the period from "the creation of the world until the present".

and no more. This is a vicious half-truth. Naturally, when evil reigned supreme there were those who thought that evil must be overthrown before good could triumph. But the overthrow was but pars pro toto. Antichrist defeated could never, by himself, be a substitute for Christ regnant, even though his preliminary defeat was an essential to the coming of the Kingdom. It would be very unfair to urge, on the basis of I Cor. xv, 25, that the words " He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet" mean that the Christian doctrine of the Messiah implies that only an earthly conqueror was expected. Yet this line of argument is frequently used about the Jewish Messiah in some not yet antiquated theological books. The evidence usually given is Akiba's regarding Bar Kochba as a Messiah, as though this stamped the entire Pharisaic eschatology. How many Christian sects have believed in an imminent Second Advent! Eccentric some of them may certainly have been, but it would be wrong to maintain that their ideals were necessarily debased because these sects thought that their expectations would soon be realized. It is well to recall that Akiba was not followed by all his colleagues.* But sin must pass away before good can come. Is it possible to make peace with Satan? "God says, CI and the proud man cannot live together in the world 5 55 is a well-known Pharisaic adage.39 But this was not all: the prophetic vision of the golden age to come was ever

* Cf. Jer. Ta'an. iv, § 8, f. 68 d9 1. 48 (French trs. S. vx, 189). Eschatological calculations were deprecated, cf. Tank., vay-Yera, §6, f. 34a (Germ. trs. Sin. p. 122). An interesting passage in T.B. Meg. 3 a (Germ. trs. G. ni, 536) shows that the Targum of the Hagiographa was disliked in some quarters because it •'revealed the end". For Islam, see below, p. 177*)*.

before them, and it has been the sustaining force of their descendants through centuries of persecution.

The belief that the ultimate future would mean the reconciliation of man to man tended to stress the growth of universalism. If in the future, why not now? It would be too much to expect this ideal completely to subjugate the evils of particularism, especially in any age of fierce theological strife, persecution and war. We must not, however, over-emphasize particularism and see it everywhere. To some people, Jewish particularism is an idée fixe. The name of Nehemiah, for example, at once evokes this conception in them. They cite his divorce law as a typical instance of Jewish exclusiveness. Yet this law had, with great reluctance, to be enforced as a vital need, if religion was to be preserved.* Was England particularist because the sanctity of marriage and the suitability of the wife was the paramount issue between people and King in December 1936? Jews think of Nehemiah otherwise. Of the average congregation, probably not one man in fifty has read the last chapter of Nehemiah and is aware of the divorce law. But every Synagogue attendant, man, woman and child, knows, almost by heart, Nehemiah's great prayer in chapter ix, for it occurs in the daily morning service, before the Song of Moses.72 This prayer is addressed to God as the Creator of the universe, to whom every human being owes his life (ix, 6). It is of this universalist theme and the recognition of Jewish sinfulness (ix, 16, 17, etc.) that the Jew is most conscious, when he hears the name of Nehemiah mentioned.

* This is implied in Num.R. xix, § 3 (Germ. trs. W. p. 463) : "lest intermarriage promote idolatry."

According to some views, even the Messiah himself was to be a proselyte, i.e. a Gentile. I am reminded by Rabbi Rabinowitz of the remarkable eschatological passage in T.B. Sukkah,* where the "Four Smiths" of Zech. ii, 3 are interpreted by R. Hana bar Bizna, in the name of Simeon the Saint, as "The Messiah, son of David; the Messiah, son of Joseph; Elijah; the Righteous Priest." These four "smiths" are to rebuild the Temple, thus Elijah was chosen as a mason, or "smith for stones", because he built the altar on Carmel (Rashi). The "Righteous Priest" is, according to Rashi, Melchizedek, and the Munich MS. actually has this reading, instead of Kohen Sedek. Melchizedek was one of the favourite types of Gentile proselytes. Kohler (J.E. vra, 450) holds that Gen. xiv, 19 is the basis for Ps. cx, 4, where Melchizedek is mentioned as the type of the true king who unites royal and priestly dignity. Like the Messiah, he pre-existed and he is eternal (Heb. vn, 2, 3). According to Midr. Ps. xxxvii (f. 126 Germ. trs. W. p. 271), Abraham learnt from him the practice of charity. So Melchizedek, the Gentile, comes fourth and last of all, the summit of the eschatological ladder. Then the passage in Sukkah continues with the "Seven Shepherds " and the "Eight Principal Men" of Micah v, 5. The "Seven Shepherds" have David in the centre. On his right are three Gentiles: Adam, Seth, Methuselah. On his left are three Israelites: Abraham, Jacob, Moses. The "Eight Principal Men" are Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, the Messiah and Elijah, a curious list which Rashi cannot explain.

One is instinctively reminded of thec' Nine Worthies'5:

on this subject see Abrahams5 article in the Israel Lewy Festschrift (Breslau, 1911).

This does not mean that Rabbinic literature is free from particularisms.

But it is pleasant to note many instances of universa-listic tendency. Certain isolated sentences attained, as time went on, to a greater importance than might be imagined. Among such well-known utterances are "The righteous among the Gentiles are priests of God.* The saints of all nations have a share in the world to come.5540 "He who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew55:41 "A non-Jew who busies himself in the Torah is equal to the High Priest'5:42 "Gentiles outside Palestine are not idolaters; they are but following the customs of their fathers55:43 "The poor of the Gentiles, their sick and their dead must be relieved, healed and buried just as though they were Jews, for the sake of peace.5544 Naturally, social intercourse with Gentiles was governed by such circumstances as persecution or the standard of morality prevailing, which varied in time and place. This would explain the different

* T. de B.E. Zuta> ed. Lublin, 1897, end of chapter xx. The passage is not in the Venice edition nor in Friedmann's. The same idea is to be found in a comment on Ps. cxxxn, 16, " Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness." This is interpreted of righteous Gentiles, such as Antoninus, who are God's priests; see Yalkut> on Isa. xxvi, 2, § 429 end (cited in vol. 1, p. 118).

This verse in Isaiah is similarly used in T.B. Sab. 119b (Germ, trs. G. 1, 608) in a universalistic sense. "Whoever it be that answers 4 Amen'... his decree (for punishment) is rent (by God) ": R. Yohanan adds, that even if such a man has a (slight) taint (1Shemes, Job iv, 12= whisper, but in allusion to Shimsah, Exod. xxxii, 25, referring to the filth, Shem So'ah, of idolatry), God pardons him.

See also the passages cited in vol. 1, p. 114, and, for later times, p. 212 below.

attitudes which the Mishnah and Tosefta of 'Abhodhah Zarah display. Thus, the Mishnah45 deprecates social intercourse. Yet R. Dosetai of Kokaba, a contemporary of R. Me'ir, participated in a feast given by a Gentile and even played a practical joke, which might, to present-day manners, seem of doubtful taste.46 The Tosefta speaks of greetings and gifts to Gentiles, and of commercial and agricultural partnerships.47 Such intercourse tended to promote the spirit of universa-lism. Nor was universalism checked by love for Palestine. To-day patriotism and support for Geneva go hand-in-hand, and a man is no enemy to another's country because he loves his own. In the same way, the Jews5 love for Palestine was combined with deep attachment to Babylonia, their older, ancestral home.48 Palestine was a nucleus of Judaism, spread over the Diaspora. But the very purpose of the Diaspora, declared the Pharisees, was to gain proselytes,*49 and to win one they compassed land and sea.50 The Synagogue was open to all, and just because any worshipper might lead in prayer, test-benedictions were needed to prevent heretical doctrines from being proclaimed from its pulpit, f Full membership involved

* For what was asked of a proselyte and what was the minimum of conformity demanded, see A. Büchler, Studies in Sin..., London, 1928, pp. 94 sqq.; see passages quoted in footnotes 2 and 3 on p. 96. Notice that "commands" rather than beliefs are discussed, but the rejection of idolatry PHT PlTQJD tacitly implies acceptance of the beliefs of Judaism.

f These formulas would be inoffensive to the ordinary worshipper but a schismatic would refuse to utter them and would, in consequence, not be granted permission to lead in prayer. If one can envisage a service conducted on the lines of the Society of Friends, where anyone present can speak, one can picture what took place in the primitive Synagogue. Thus, the formula on P.B.S. p. 45

circumcision and acceptance of the Torah, but there were many who frequented the Synagogue without undertaking the complete obligations of the Jew.* This bare sentence is inserted only to call attention to this highly important aspect of Pharisaism: its adequate treatment would demand more than a lecture to itself and no more can now be said. It is bound to enunciates the belief in the future life, and this would prevent a Sadducee from officiating without conforming. Similarly, the blessing for Jerusalem (p. 49) was intended to check Samaritans and the denunciation of slanderers on p. 48 was, for a short period, about the time of Paul, directed against the Jewish Christians. The contemporary wording should be studied in Finkelstein's Studies of the Amidah in J.Q.R. (N.S.), xvx, 1, for 1925. Abrahams (P.B.A. p. lxiv) makes it clear that this was not an imprecation against Christians in general, but against antinomian Jews, within the Synagogue. This seems to have been in Justin Martyr's mind when he wrote (xvi, 4) of Jews "cursing in your synagogues them that believe on Christ". On this see Dr Lukyn Williams's excellent note, on p. 33 of his edition of Justin (S.P.C.K. 1930), where a mass of valuable material is collected.

* E.g. the "seven commands of the Sons of Noah", see J.E. s.v. "Laws, Noachian". See also ib. s.v. "Proselyte". For Antoninus, as a Get Sedek, see J.E. 1, 657; see also vol. 1, p. 119. For Ger Toshabh there are many references, e.g. T.B. Bab. Kam. 113^ (Germ. trs. G. vi, 423), T.B. £Ab. £ar. 65a (Germ. trs. G. vn, 1013).

Significant is the comment of Midrash Lekah Tobh (f. 93 b, on Exod. xxvii, 20) on Cant. 1, 3, "therefore the maidens ('alamoth) love Thee". "Even the Gentiles who are secluded ('alumim) from miswoth love Thee, saying 'Holy is the Lord our God'."

A proselyte, in his prayers, may use the phrase " God of our fathers" (T.J. Bikk. 1, §4, f. 64a, 1. 16 (French trs. S. in, 362 foot)). See p. 56, note 42, below.

For many passages about proselytes see Montefiore and Loewe's forthcoming Rabbinic Anthology, index, s.v. Proselytes.

For the question whether circumcision was essential for a proselyte and whether it could be postponed, see T.B. Teb. 46a (Germ. trs. G. iv, 156), T.B. 'Ab. %ar. 65 a (Germ. trs. G. vn, 1013), T.J. Teb. vni, § 1, f. Sdy 1. 28 (French trs. S. vn, 111 oot). See also p. 42*.

come up later. See the extract from the Talkut, cited on p. 57, Addenda.

The Synagogue, already mentioned, was the creation of the Pharisees; Ps. lxxiv, 8, generally ascribed to the Maccabaean age, deplores the burning of all the Mo'adhe 'El, the Assemblies of God in the land. For the Pharisees strove to make religion general and to weld the Synagogue to the Temple. The ecclesiastical system was of divine origin but it needed supplementing.* So well did the Pharisees accomplish their task, that when the Temple fell, the Synagogue was firmly established: the shock was barely perceptible, conditions adjusted themselves easily. Certain Temple rites were carried over, others were modified, some were dropped. Sacrifice was over. But its memory was preserved by historical reading. The Synagogue had grown out of the Temple and the services corresponded to the offerings. So the Temple days were not suffered to be forgotten, but the prayer of the lips made up for bullocks. Christianity has preserved but radically changed the sacrificial idea. When you enter

* It must not be forgotten that the Rabbis, as did the Prophets and Psalmists, regarded sacrifices as subordinate to prayer. The following passage is in no way exceptional:

"God said to Israel: 'Be steadfast (Zehirin) in prayer, for no quality (Middah) is fairer than prayer, it is greater than all the sacrifices' (Isa. i, 11-15): yet this passage ends, 'yea, though ye multiply prayer, I will not hearken, for your hands are full of blood': hence prayer which comes last in the list, is superior to sacrifice. And even if a man be unworthy that his prayer should be answered and that loving-kindness be wrought for him, yet, if he pray and supplicate much, I will, nevertheless, grant him lovingkindness, as it says 4 All the ways of the Lord are loving-kindness and truth' (Ps. xxv, 10). I have put lovingkindness before truth and righteousness before justice, for 4 righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne' (Ps. lxxxix, 15)." (Tank., vay-Yera, § 1, f. 316 (Germ. trs. Sin. p. no).)

a Synagogue, the first thing that you see is a lamp burning before the Ark of the Torah. The first sight that strikes your eye in a Church is the Cross and the Altar, symbols of sacrifice. And just as the celebration of the Eucharist in the Church of England, in its more ordinary and traditional Anglican form, reminds a Jew, in certain aspects, of the modern Synagogue and Kiddush, so, his impressions of the Roman Catholic Mass will carry his mind back to the Temple ritual and the Sacrifices.

The main purpose of the Pharisaic brotherhoods was the promotion of social service* and the stimulation of public and private worship, f The Synagogue was the centre of much communal activity: it was called the Beth 'Am> house of the people, and the fact that we read that this title was sometimes deprecated61 indicates that occasionally social needs impinged too far on the strictly devotional side. But usually each phase was kept in proper equipoise. Attached to the Synagogue was a hostel. J From the Synagogue went forth the collectors of the Tamhui,52 or dish, which gave relief in kind, that is to say, food, and of the Kuppah shel sedakah53 or poor box. Self-respect was inculcated: he who had a week's food was encouraged not to seek charity.54 It is well known that in the

* E.g. such purposes as are specified on p. 5 of P.B.S.

f The "Men of the Great Synagogue" (see vol. 1, p. no) are said to have restored the ancient formulas of prayer. See Midr. Ps. xix, 1, f. 82 a (Germ. trs. W. p. 171); T.J. Ber. vn, mish. 4, f. 11c, 1. 31 (Eng. trs. S. p. 134); T.B. Ber. 33 b (Eng. trs. C. p. 226); T.B. Meg. 25a (Germ. trs. G. m, 638).

X See S. Klein's exhaustive and well-documented articles in M.G.W.J. lxxvi, 545-57, i932> 603ff., *933> lxxvii, 81-4. According to J.E. vi, 479, the Hostel served also as a hospital for the sick. See also below, p. 245.

Temple there was a "Chamber of the secret ones", Lishkath Hasha"irriy where donors and recipients of alms never saw each other. But this provision for the Bene Tobhim, whom we may call "decent folk", was copied in other cities.55 It is interesting to observe that in Amsterdam the Communal Charity Board sits at night, in a building approached by an unlit lane. The Synagogue was the home of religious instruction, where sermons were delivered as well as in the House of Study, often mentioned in connexion with the Synagogue. Of the literary activity of the school, nothing need now be said, either of the teaching and preaching tours conducted by its leaders and agents, or of the books which contain the record of their teaching.

Mention must be made of thecAm ha-ares. This term does not denote the bulk of the people, nor does it refer to pious simple folk.* We read that the cAm ha-ares

* The alleged antagonism between "the Wise" and the 'Am ha-ares must neither be minimised nor exaggerated. In T.B. Sank. 99 b (Germ. trs. G. vn, 436), the man who mocks at the wise is an Epicurean, not one of the 4Am ha-ares. In Aboth 11, 15 (Eng. trs, P.B.S. p. 189), Eliezer b. Hyrcanus warned his disciples against the "bites", "stings" and "hisses" of the Wise. Yet, in the same breath, he bade his disciples attend the lectures of the Wise. Moreover, Eliezer, himself of the Wise, was of no gentie disposition and he was excommunicated. Again, in Num.R. hi, § 1, init. (Germ. trs. W. p. 35), where the "stings" etc. are mentioned, the £Am ha-ares are declared to be an essential component in Israel. Cf. the parable of the "Four species and sinners" in Lev.R.y 'Ernor, xxx, 12 (Germ. trs. W. p. 214), also Pes.K. 1850 (Germ. trs. W. p. 269); the similar parable of the frankincense and sinners, in T.B. Ker. 6 b (Germ. trs. G. ix, 484). 'Akiba's bitter reminiscence of his unregenerate days (T.B. Pes. 49b (Germ. trs. G. n, 494)) and the other, bitter remarks on that page must not be given undue weight: they are hyperbolical. When we read (ib.) "Greater is the hatred of the often was the man who gambled, whose word was untrustworthy and whose sensual appetite was unbridled. He evaded his dues.56 The taxes of the government were collected by the publicans: these could not be evaded. But the whole religious charitable system stood and fell by the conscientious payment of tithes and other imposts. The Pharisees strove to arouse a sense of national honour. The proper maintenance of religion was bound to suffer if men neglected or repudiated their moral dues. The Pharisees strove to make everyone scrupulous: they put no burdens on others which they themselves refused to shoulder.*

'Amme ha-ares towards the Wise than is that of the idolators towards Israelites: the hatred borne by their wives is more vehement than their own", we must remember examples—of which there are not a few—on the other side. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees were popular and possessed authority and that the people sided with them (Ant. xm, ch. x, 5, § 288; ib. 6, § 298). "Authority" here suggests Rabbis and not laymen. The Baraita which ends the discussion in Pes. (loc. cit. supra) is more sober, and also more natural in character, than the individual marks that precede it and which do not carry the same conviction as it bears. See Targ. to Cant, iv, r.

And on the other side, the feelings of the Wise towards the 'Am ha-ares also show, upon occasion, love and not hatred. These two voices are just what one would expect; for they indicate a desire to win the 6Am ha?ares, to raise his moral and intellectual standard but to condemn, with outspoken earnestness, the shortcomings to which he was prone. Thus, "Take care of the children of the 'Am ha-ares, for from them shall Torah come forth" (T.B. Sank. 96a (Germ. trs. G. vn, 414 foot)); "Do not say, 4love the scholars but hate the 'Am ha-are§'; love them all" (A.R.N., vers. I, xvi, f. 32b foot); "The Lord will annul every misfortune decreed for a man, if he teaches the son of an 'Am ha-ares" (T.B. Bab. Mes. 85a (Germ. trs. G. vi, 777)). See also H.L. p. 499.

* Cf. "No decree may be imposed on the Community which is intolerable to the majority", T.B. Bab. Bat. 60b (Germ. trs. G. vi, 1102): see below, p. 302*.

Indeed, in many respects they lightened the obligations rather than increased them.

Social service took many forms—visiting the sick, redeeming the captives, burying the dead, educating the young, above all popular preaching; all these objects were the aim of the Haburoth, or brotherhoods. The preachers were often humble craftsmen, like the followers of Wesley.57 The Haburoth were open to all. They were not removed from the world but very much in it and of it. The development of these groups—we may almost use the modern word and think of the Oxford "groups53—shows in some features a certain similarity to monasticism, but two great differences are noteworthy. The Haburoth, as stated, were not eremites and they were not ascetic. If John's followers kept more than the scriptural fasts, the Pharisees did not imitate them. He who observes such extra fasts is impeding the work of heaven, they said.* The characteristic of the Haburoth was joy,f in many phases of their religion this is strikingly discernible. They gave the festivals a new lease of life by adding motives from history to the ancient nature feasts. J They succeeded in mitigating the severity of the old penal laws.§ They

* According to T.B. Ttfan. 11 a (Eng. trs. M. p. 77), he is called even a sinner.

f On this joy in religion, Simhah shel miswah, see vol. 1, pp. 138-40, and see below, p. 175.

J Thus, for example, Pentecost became the feast of the giving of the Law. The double nature of the festival is mentioned in Jub. vi, 21. On the whole question see Ch. Albeck, Buck d. Jub. und die Hal. (Beilage z> Jahresber. d. Hochschule f. d. Wiss. d. Jud Berlin, 1930) p. 16. See also S.J.W. p. 42.

§ Thus, the Lex talionis was commuted to compensation, see T.B. Bab.K. 83b (Germ. trs. G. vi, 301): also ib. 840 (G. vi, 303). See also Sifra (on Lev. xxiv, 20), xx, § 7 (ed. Weiss, f. 104^).

insisted on kind treatment of animals.58 A man must feed his beast before himself,59 and the ritual slaughter of animals for food was rigidly circumscribed by law to make death humane and, as far as possible, painless.60 After (?) the destruction of the Temple a system of elementary education was instituted throughout the land.61 Children were cared for. Family life was seen to be on a high level. Above all, charity and almsgiving were practised on a large scale: the recipient's self-respect must not be impaired.62 Greater is one who lends than one who gives.63

The position of women was also remarkable: * mono-

In Megillath Ta'anith, iv, it is stated that mourning was forbidden on Tammuz 4 (or 14) because " the book of decrees was removed". This is usually explained as the supersession of the sterner Sad-ducaean code by the milder Pharisaic ordinances. But Sol. Zeitlin (Meg. Tcfanith,, Philadelphia, 1922, p. 83) maintains that the holiday was instituted because of the concessions which Alexander Balas and Demetrius granted, whereby the decrees of the Greeks were annulled (I Macc. x). The question is, however, far from settled. It is admirably discussed by Hans Lichtenstein in "Die Fastenrolle", H.U.C.A. vni-ix, 296. See vol. 1, p. 146.

For Lex talionis in Islam, see below, p. 179.

* The well-known adage Betho zu Ishto, "A man's wife is his home" (Torna 1, 1 (Eng. trs. D. p. 162)) shows the central position occupied by the wife and her prominence in social life and social work. Her charity is more "direct" than her husband's (see the stories of the charity of Mar Ukba's wife, T.B. Keth. 67 b (Germ, trs. G. iv, 680); of Barbohin, Esther R. 11, 3 (Germ. trs. W. p. 18); of Hanina's wife, T.B. Keth. 68a (Germ. trs. G. rv, 681)). In T.B. Ta'an. 24 b and 250 (Eng. trs. M. p. 187), other stories of her are narrated. R. Yose said: " Never in my life have I called my wife 4 wife', always 'my home'." (This was a term of endearment and a tribute to her competence, T.B. Gitt. 52 a (Germ, trs. G. v, 529).) The positive precepts, fulfilled at a definite time, and from which women are exempt, are enumerated in T.J. Kidd. 1, § 8, f. 61 c, line 11 (French trs. S. ix, p. 233).

A man loves his wife and honours her more than himself (T.B. Sanh. 76b (Germ. trs. G. vn, 325); T.B. Teb. 62 b (Germ. trs.


Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment