Tanukkah

TAkkANAH By : Wilhelm Bacher Schulim Ochser

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Takkanot of Moses, Solomon, and Others.
Takkanot of Ezra.
Takkanot of Simeon ben Shetah.
Priestly Ordinances.
Takkanot of Johanan ben Zakkai.
Ordinances of the Last Tannaim.
Ordinances "for the Sake of Peace."
Business Takkanot.
Ordinances on the Oath.
Post-Mishnaic Ordinances.
Geonic Takkanot.
Takkanot of R. Gershom.
Takkanot of Synods.

An enactment which (1) revises an ordinance that no longer satisfies the requirements of the times or circumstances, or which (2), being deduced from a Biblical passage, may be regarded as new. It is, therefore, the antithesis of the Gezerah. Takkanotwere framed even in the time of the Second Temple, those of unknown origin being ascribed to earlier leaders, and they have been promulgated at all subsequent periods of Jewish history. The term is applied also to the institution provided for in the enactment.

Among the earlier takkanot are especially noteworthy the institutions ascribed to Moses (see also Sinaitic Commandments): (1) the observance on holy days of the ceremonies peculiar to the festivals in question (Meg. 32a; comp. Tosef., Meg. vii.); (2) reading aloud from the Torah on the Sabbath, on holy days, on New Moons, and on the semifestivals (Meg. 28a; Yer. Meg. iv. 1); (3) the first blessing in the grace after meals (Ber. 48b); (4) the eight watches of the priests, four by Eleazar and four by Ithamar, which Samuel and David increased to twenty-four (Ta'an. 27a); (5) the seven days of wedding festivities for a virgin, and seven days of mourning for the dead (the festivities for a widow's wedding were later ordained to last three days; Yer. Ket. i. 1; comp. Ket. 3a, b). Other takkanot were ascribed as follows:

To Joshua: (1) the second blessing in the grace after meals (Ber. 48b); (2) ten regulations which, however, are not takkanot in the strict sense of the term (B. k. 80b, 81b, 114a; Tosef., B. M. xi.; comp. Bloch, "Institutionen des Judenthums," i. 54-68).

To Boaz, the ancestor of David: the salutation in the name of God (Ber. 54a).

To David: (1) increase of the eight watches of the priests to twenty-four (see above); (2) the recitation of a hundred benedictions daily (Num. R. xviii., but comp. Men. 43b); (3) the third blessing in the grace after meals (Ber. 48b).

Takkanot of Moses, Solomon, and Others.

To Solomon: (1) the practise regarding the 'Erub (Shab. 14b; 'Er. 21a; Yalk., Cant. 23); (2) the washing of the hands before kiddush, which Shammai and Hillel made obligatory for Terumah as well, while later authorities extended it to still other occasions (Shab. 14b; 'Er. 21b); (3) the regulation regarding entrance upon another's fields after the harvest (possibly enacted by Joshua also; B. k. 80b).

To the Earlier Prophets: (1) the singing of Hallel on every important occasion, and especially after escape from danger (Pes. 117a); (2) the introduction of twenty-four divisions of laymen, corresponding to the twenty-four watches of the priests (Ta'an. 27a).

To the Prophets before the destruction of the Temple: (1) the payment of terumah and tithes in Babylon as well as in Palestine (Yad. iv. 3); (2) the payment of the second tithe ("ma'aser sheni") in the seventh year (ib.); (3) payment of it in Egypt, Ammon, and Moab likewise (ib.); (4) payment of the tithe for the poor ("ma'aser 'ani") even in the seventh year (ib.).

To the Prophets after the destruction of the Temple: fasting on the Seventh of Tammuz, Ninth or Ab, First of Tishri, and Tenth of tebet ("Yede Eliyahu," ed. Constantinople, 1728, xl. 14).

Takkanot of Ezra.

To Ezra: (1) the reading of ten verses of the Torah by three men on Monday and Thursday (Men. 82a); (2) the reading of Lev. xxxiii. 14-46 before the Passover, and of Deut. xxvii. 15-69 before New-Year (Meg. 31b); (3) sessions of the courts on Monday and Thursday (B. k. 82a); (4) the washing of clothes on Thursday (ib.); (5) the eating of garlic on Friday (ib.); (6) early rising on Friday morning for the purpose of baking (ib.); (7) the wearing of a girdle by women for reasons of modesty (ib.); (8) the obligation of the ritual bath (ib.); (9) the regulation obliging pedlers to traverse the city in case they deal in articles necessary for women (ib.); (10) ritual baths for those who have become unclean (ib.).

To the 120 elders, including the Prophets (the "men of the Great Sanhedrin"): (1) the recitation of the "Shemoneh 'Esreh" on week-days; (2) the insertion of the prayer against heretics in the time of Gamaliel, and, much later, of the "Adonai Sefatai" before the "Tefillah," and of the "Yiheyu le-RaZon" after it (Meg. 17b).

To Ezra and his court: the use of the words "min ha-'olam we-'ad ha-'olam" as the conclusion of the blessings in the morning prayer.

To the "men of the Great Synagogue": (1) the reading of Megillat Esther in the villages and unwalled cities on the Fourteenth of Adar and in walled cities on the following day; banquets on those days; and the giving of alms (Meg. 2a); (2) the introduction of seven blessings into the "Tefillah" on the Sabbath and on holy days; the addition of nine benedictions to the musaf for the New Moon and for the semifestivals, and of twenty-four on fast-days (Ber. 33a); (3, a) recitation of a number of prayers, (b) period of duration of each prayer, (c) the offering of prayer daily, (d) three times on week-days, (e) four times on the Sabbath, festivals, fasts, and New Moons, and (f) five times on the Day of Atonement; later addition of the "Magen Abot" from the "Tefillah" on Friday evening, and the genuflection before and after the first blessing ("Abot") and before and after the penultimate "hoda'ah" (Ber. 26b); (4) introduction of Benediction, prayer, kiddush, and Haddalah (Ber. 33a).

To John Hyrcanus (135-106 B.C.): (1) decree forbidding the recitation of the prayer of thanksgiving, "Widdui Ma'aser" (Deut. xxvi. 5-10), by any who have not paid the proper tithes at the end of the third year (Yer. Sotah ix. 11); (2) the appointment of officials to collect the tithes (Tosef., Sotah, xiii.; Ma'as. Sh. v. 16); (3) the use of rings in the shambles to force the animals to stand still (Sotah 47a); (4) prohibition of blacksmithing on semifestivals (ib.; M. k. 11a).

In his "Hodegetica in Mischnam" Frankel considers the first generation of the Tannaim as the true period of the takkanot; but only a few of the extant ordinances of this period are ascribed to Simeon b. Shetah or to John Hyrcanus, the remainder being attributed to the court of the Hasmoneans or to the "court of the priests." The following ordinances were instituted in the first century B.C.:

By the court of the Hasmoneans: (1) the solemn celebration of the hanukkah festival, beginning on the 25th of Kislew (Meg. Ta'an.; Shab. 21b); (2) insertion of the name of God in legal documents (R. H. 18b; subsequently abrogated).By the court of the priests: (1) the daughter of a priest to be entitled to 300 zuzim under her marriage contract, and the widow of a priest to 100 zuzim (Ket. 12a); (2) the ketubah of a woman about to contract a levirate marriage to form a lien on the property of her first husband; and if he had no property, that of the levir to be appropriated (Yeb. 39a; Ket. 82b); (3) the ketubah of a virgin to be of the value of 200 zuzim, and that of a widow or divorcée, 100 zuzim (Ket. 10a).

Takkanot of Simeon ben Shetah.

By Simeon b. Shetah: (1) all the real estate of the husband to be entered in the marriage contract in favor of the wife (Shab. 14b; Ket. viii., end), but the former may employ the dowry in his business; (2) compulsory attendance at school (ib.); (3) the declaration that foreign glass is impure (ib.).

By Hillel (75 B.C.-5 C.E.): (1) introduction of the Prosbul (Sheb. x. 3, 4; Git. 36a); (2) the purchase-money of a house to be deposited in the Temple; the original owner may seize it by force in order to prevent its payment to the seller before the expiration of a year ('Ar. 31b; Git. 74b).

By Gamaliel I. (middle of 1st cent.): (1) the condemnation of 2,000 (subsequently increased) ells of ground in which the New Moon witnesses might freely move on the Sabbath (R. H. 23b); (2) the full names of the husband and the wife to be inserted in a bill of divorce (Git. 34b); (3) the signatures of witnesses to the bill of divorce (ib.); (4) a widow may take the portion secured to her by her marriage contract only after all claims of the orphans have been fully satisfied (ib.); (5) a bill of divorce may be declared invalid only in the presence of the messenger who has brought it, or in the presence of the wife before she has received it (Git, 32a).

The following takkanot date from the last century before the common era and the first century of that era:

Priestly Ordinances.

Enactments concerning the priestly office: (1) the casting of lots by the priests for taking the ashes from the altar (Yoma 21a); (2) the exact determination of the time of the daily sacrifice (Pes. 58a); (3) the festal sacrifice ("hagigah") on the day of the Passover (Pes. 69b); (4) the distribution of the skins of the sacrificial victims (Tosef., Yeb. xi.); (5) the expense of the drink-offerings to be defrayed by the communal treasury from the "lishkah" (Shek. vii. 4, 5); (6) the same ordinance for the sacrifice by a Gentile (ib. vii. 6); (7) the same for a dead proselyte (ib.); (8) in case of the death of a high priest, his sacrifice to be offered at the expense of the community (ib.); (9) the priestly usufructs of the salt and wood given to the Temple (ib.); (10) abrogation of the sacrifice for the use of the ashes of the red heifer (Men. 51b); (11) a pair of doves which have become unfit for sacrifice to be replaced at the expense of the community (Shek. vii. 7); (12) those who guard the after-growth in the fields during the Sabbatical year to receive their wages from the "terumat ha-lishkah" (Shek. iv. 1; B. M. 118b; Men. 84a); (13) the priest who burns the red heifer becomes unclean (Parah iii. 7), and (14) must pass the period of his uncleanness in a certain hall of the Temple (ib. iii. 1); (15) the mezuzah at the door of the antechamber in which the priest spends the time before the Day of Atonement (Yoma 10a); (16) promulgation of rules concerning the shekels on the First of Adar (Ex. xxx. 11 et seq.); the reading on New Moon in case it falls on a Sabbath (Ex. xxx. 11; Shek. i. 1); (17) exhortation to caution against sowing mixed seed (Shek. i. 1); (18) men must be sent on the Fifteenth of Adar to repair the public highways, grounds, and cisterns, to repaint tombstones, and to perform similar duties (ib.); (19) each man must have the "widdui bikkurim" (see Deut. xxvi. 3) recited, or repeat it himself, in the presence of the person whom it concerns (Bik. iii. 7); (20) double separation of the hallah, once for the heave-offering and once for the priest (hal. iv. 8); (21) for this purpose a housewife gives one part in twenty-four, and a baker one in forty-eight (hal. ii. 7); (22) the great heave-offering, when given by a generous person, amounts to one part in forty; when given by an avaricious man, to one in sixty; and when given by one who is neither, to one part in fifty (Ter. iv. 3); (23) an ox, corresponding in value to the terumah, may be brought to the priest (hal. 134b); (24) every one must have the Lulab in the house on the first day of Sukkot, in case this festival falls on a Sabbath (Suk. 42); (25) the lulab and the "'arabah" preponderate in the Temple on the Sabbath in case that day coincides with the seventh or last day of Sukkot (Suk. 42b); (26) testimony relating to the New Moon may be received only from those who are properly qualified (R. H. 22a); (27) the reading of Ex. xxx. 11, Deut. xxv. 18, Num. xix. 1, and Ex. xii. 1 on the four special Sabbaths before the Passover; (28) regulations governing the reading of the Torah (Meg. 21a); (29) permission to import vegetables in the Sabbatical year (Sheb. vi. 4); (30) concerning the collection of wood and stones in a neighbor's field.

Ordinance ascribed to Joshua b. Gamla (c. 65 C.E.); appointment of teachers in all the cities of Judea for children between six and seven years of age (B. B. 21a).

Takkanot of Johanan ben Zakkai.

Most of the ordinances of Johanan b. Zakkai were promulgated before the time of the destruction of the Temple, and were consequently modified after the year 70. Frankel enumerates eleven of these decrees in his "Hodegetica," although Bloch lists nine only (comp. R. H. 31b), which are as follows: (1) the New Moon witnesses must go to the place where the court assembles (R. H. 31b); (2) the testimony of such witnesses to be received at any time during the day (ib. 30b); (3) they may not desecrate the Sabbath by traveling, except in Nisan and Tishri, the most important two months (ib. 21b): (4) the shofar to be blown even on the Sabbath (R. H. 29b); (5) the lulab to be swung on all the seven days of the festival (ib. 30a); (6) the consumption of new grain is forbidden during the entire day of the waving of the 'Omer (ib.); (7) priests may not wear sandals when they ascend the "dukan," or platform, to pronounce the benediction (Sotah 40a; R. H. 31b); (8) a proselyte must deposit a quarter-shekel in the treasury to be able to bring his sacrifice when the Temple shall be rebuilt(this was repealed by Johanan b. Zakkai himself; Ker. 9a; R. H. 31b); (9) abolition of the ritual governing trials for adultery (Sotah 47a).

Ordinance ascribed to Gamaliel II. and the court of Jabneh: agriculture is permitted until the first day of the Sabbatical year (Tosef., Sheb. i.).

Takkanah ascribed to the court of Jabneh: the fourth benediction in the grace after meals in memory of those who fell at Bethar (Ber. 48b).

After R. Gamaliel's death the Sanhedrin of Jabneh seems to have gone to Usha (the modern AlUs) for reasons which are no longer known, and the grounds of its takkanot are equally obscure. In view of their ethical import, however, these enactments soon became binding. They were as follows: (1) a man must support his minor children; (2) if a man transfers his property to his sons, both he and his wife enjoy a life income from it; (3) the gift of more than one-fifth of one's property for alms is forbidden; (4) a father must deal gently with his son until the latter reaches the age of twelve; but after that age he may be severe with him; (5) after a wife's death the husband may sell the property included in her dowry; (6) one who attacks an old man must pay one pound of gold for the injury; (7) elucidation of the seven doubtful reasons through which the terumah becomes unfit for use and must be burned (Ket. 49a, 50b; Yer. Ket. iv. 28b; M. k. 17a; Yer. M. k. iii. 8; Shab. 15b). These ordinances were enacted by the rabbis of the second generation of tannaim, R. Ishmael being especially mentioned (B. B. 28b; Niddah 14b).

An ordinance is also extant which dates from the time called the period of religious persecution ("shemad"). When Hadrian issued his decree forbidding the Jews to observe their religion, the teachers, including R. Akiba, R. tarfon, and R. Jose the Galilean, met in council and agreed that during the time of the persecution the Law might be transgressed in all respects, except as regarded the commands relating to idolatry, chastity, and morality, although this regulation was observed only superficially and only when necessary in order to deceive the Roman spies.

Three ordinances have been preserved which were promulgated by R. Jose b. halafta of Sepphoris, of the third generation of tannaim, who flourished about the middle of the second century. They are as follows: (1) during a funeral the mourners must remain standing while those who console them pass by (Sanh. 19a); (2) women living in lonely places must associate with one another, so as not to attract the attention and evil desire of any man (ib.); (3) a child accompanied by its mother must not lag behind on the road, lest it come to harm (ib.).

Ordinances of the Last Tannaim.

The following ordinances are ascribed to the last generation of tannaim (end of the second and beginning of the third century): To R. Judah I., ha-Nasi: (1) messengers must be sent every month to announce the new moon to the Diaspora (R. H. 22b); (2) concerning the purchase of fields among the Sicarii (Git. 55b); (3) on menstruation (Niddah 66a).

Ordinances from the period of the Mishnah and relating to women are as follows: (1) an orphan girl married during her minority may leave her husband without a bill of divorce on attaining her majority (Ket. 46b); (2) the permission to marry a feebleminded girl (Yeb. 112b); (3) a virgin should be married on a Wednesday (Ket. 1a); (4) various laws of purification (Niddah 11a); (5) the earnings of the wife belong to her husband (Ket. 46a); (6) the husband must pay all bills for his wife's illness (Ket. 51a); (7) a husband must ransom his wife from captivity (ib. 76b); (8) a husband must defray the expenses of his wife's burial (ib. 76a); (9) whatever is found by the wife belongs to her husband (B. M. 12a); (10) a widow is entitled to remain in the house of her deceased husband and to share in the income (ib. 52b); (11) orphan girls share the income from their father's estate until they reach their majority (ib. 52b); (12) male heirs succeed to the property of the mother, even after their father's death (ib. 52b); (13) the daughter is entitled to a certain portion of her father's estate as her dowry (ib. 67a); (14) a bill of divorce must be written and signed in the presence of the messenger who is to deliver it (Git. i. 1); (15) the date must be given in all legal documents (ib. 17a); (16) in a bill of divorce the date must be given according to the state calendar (Git. 79b; later it was also dated according to the era of Creation); (17) witnesses must sign a bill of divorce in the presence of each other (ib. 10a); (18) introduction of the "get mekushshar" to make divorce more difficult (B. B. 160a); (18) a woman becomes free even though only a single witness testifies to her husband's death (Yeb. 87b).

Ordinances "for the Sake of Peace."

The more the Jews came in contact with the Romans and the Persians, the more they were obliged to modify the letter of their laws, and to introduce ordinances of the class characterized as necessary (a) "for the preservation of the order of the world," or (b) "for the sake of peace." The regulations of this type, like those already mentioned, date from the mishnaic period, and were promulgated for the sake of morality. In addition, there were other takkanot designed (c) to facilitate repentance and (d) to contribute to "the interests of the market" or of business.

(a) Takkanot "for the preservation of the order of the world":

(1) a servant who is half free may compel his master to manumit him entirely; but he must give a note for one-half his value; and this debt must be paid (Git. 41a);

(2) the ransom paid for prisoners must not exceed the usual sum (ib. 45i);

(3) prisoners must not be allowed to escape (ib.);

(4) phylacteries and other sacred articles must not be taken from any who are not Gentiles (ib.);

(5) if land in Palestine is sold to a Gentile, the first-fruits must be forfeited (ib. 47a);

(6) if one divorces his wife for immorality, he may never take her back again (ib. 45a);

(7) on demand, one who has suffered injury is to receive reimbursement from the best of the estate; a creditor, from the medium; and a wife, with her marriage contract as security, from the worst (ib. 48b);

(8) if there is any property without encumbrance, nothing may be taken in payment of a debt from a field which has been mortgaged (ib.);

(9) the least desirable portion of the real estate of orphans may be taken in payment of debts (ib.);

(10) mortgaged property may not be applied to the pleasure or support of the wife (ib.);

(11) one who finds anything shall not take an oath (ib.);

(12) a guardian may not be compelled to take an oath (ib. 52a);

(13) accidental defilement of holy vessels either by a layman or by the priest in the Temple is punishable (ib. 52b).

(b) Ordinances "for the sake of peace":

(1) the call to the reading of the Law to be made in a definite order (Git. 59a);

(2) the "'erub" may be arranged even with unoccupied houses (ib.);

(3) the cistern nearest the river is to be filled first (ib.);

(4) hunting includes robbery (ib. 59b);

(5) things found in the possession of one to whom they would not normally come imply theft (ib.);

(6) the poor are permitted to pluck fruit from a neighbor's tree, but taking what remains on the ground is theft (ib.);

(7) even the Gentile may share in the harvest gifts to the poor (ib.).

(c) Ordinances facilitating repentance:

(1) one who steals a beam and builds it into his house need pay for the damage to the beam only (Git. 55a);

(2) if a robber or a usurer wishes to restore goods or money taken, they or it shall not be accepted (ib.);

(3) purchase and sale by persons not regularly dealing in the wares in question are valid, in case such persons have reached years of maturity, in order that they may support themselves (Git. 59a);

(4) if one brings a stolen animal as a sin-offering before the theft is known, the sacrifice is valid (ib. 55a).

(d) Takkanah in "the interests of the market" or of business: if one unwittingly purchases stolen goods, the owner must refund the money paid for them (B. k. 114b).

Business Takkanot.

Ordinances relating to legal proceedings, like those which governed the religious life, were highly important so long as the Jews retained their own judicial system in the Diaspora. These regulations fall, according to Bloch (l.c.), into three categories: ordinances relating (a) to commerce; (b) to civil law; and (c) to the oath.

(a) Ordinances relating to commerce:

(1) it is permissible to take possession of real estate under certain conditions (B. M. 10a, b);

(2) movables may be acquired only by actual possession, not by purchase (ib. 44a);

(3) movables when together with immovables are acquired by purchase or contract (kid. 26a);

(4) acquisition by a verbal conveyance of the three parties concerned is legal (Git. 13b; kid. 48a; this is not, however, expressly declared to be an ordinance);

(5) a verbal conveyance of property by one who is moribund is legally binding (B. k. 146b);

(6) a proselyte may be the heir of a Gentile father (kid. 17b); even before taking possession a son may dispose of a part of his deceased father's property to defray the funeral expenses (B. M. 16a; Tosef., Ned. vi.).

(b) Ordinances relating to civil law:

(1) in actions for debt testimony may be accepted without further investigations (Sanh. 3a, 32a);

(2) actions for debt may be tried even by judges who have not yet received the "semikah" (ordination; Sanh., beginning);

(3) a contract may be authenticated only by the witnesses who have signed it (Ket. 18b);

(4) on the strength of his contract a creditor may collect his debts either from the heirs or from those who purchase from the debtor (B. B. 176a).

Ordinances on the Oath.

(c) Ordinances relating to the oath:

(1) if a laborer demands his wages and his employer asserts that he has paid them, the former must take an oath before he can obtain payment (Shebu. 44b);

(2) one who has been robbed must take an oath before he can recover his property (ib. 44b);

(3) one who asserts that he has been injured by another person must take an oath before he can recover damages (ib.);

(4) if a manager asserts that he has paid an employee, and the latter denies it, both parties take the oath, and the employer pays them both (ib);

(5) if a contract is falsified by the wife or by the creditor, they must each take an oath before they can receive payment (Ket. 87a);

(6) if an employer has only one witness to testify to the payment of a contract, the claimants must take an oath before they can receive their money (Ket. 97a);

(7) money due from the property of orphans may be paid only under oath (ib. 87a);

(8) the payment of debts from mortgaged property may be made only under oath (ib.);

(9) payment in the absence of the debtor may be made only under oath (ib.);

(10) liquidation of a debt by means of property dedicated to the sanctuary may be made only under oath (Shebu. 42b);

(11) expenses incurred in behalf of the wife's property may be recovered only under oath (Ket. 79b);

(12) if two parties each claim to have received the same piece of property at the same time, they must take oath to that effect (B. M. 2a);

(13) if one asserts that a piece of property entrusted to him has been stolen from him, he must take an oath to that effect (B. M. 34b);

(14) one who has unwittingly purchased stolen property must take an oath before he can recover his money (B. k. 114b);

(15) if one has unintentionally damaged the property of another, he must take an oath to that effect before he can be released from the payment of damages (B. M. 82b).

Other ordinances dating from the mishnaic period were as follows: Ordinances relating to the Passover: (1) leaven must be sought with a light on the eve of the 13th of Nisan (Pes. 2a); (2) on Passover eve bitter herbs, mixed with "haroset," must be eaten (ib. 120a); (3) four cups of wine must be drunk (ib. 99b); (4) those who partake must recline while eating, in token of freedom (ib.).

Miscellaneous ordinances: (1) if a Sabbath follows a holy day, an "'erub tabshilin" is made in order that food for the Sabbath may be prepared on the holy day (BeZah 15b); (2) on the Sabbath and on holy days one may move freely within a radius of 2,000 cubits ('Er. 49b); (3) the owner of lost property must bring witnesses to testify that he is not dishonest, and he must then describe his property before he is entitled to recover it (B. M. 28b); (4) lost articles to be announced in the synagogue (ib. 28a).

Post-Mishnaic Ordinances.

The privilege of making new ordinances did not end with the completion of the Mishnah: enactments were promulgated also in the amoraic, saboraic, and geonic periods, although their exact dates are no longer known. The post-mishnaic ordinances which belong in this category are as follows: (1) the dowry of a wife and the movables of orphans may be taken in payment of debt (comp. Mordecai onKet. 10; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, 15); (2) movables may be attached for the dowry of orphan girls (tur Eben ha-'Ezer, 112, 113); (3) an oath is valid in cases involving real estate ("Halakot Gedolot," xxii.); (4) no oath may be taken on the Bible ("Sha'are Zedek," v. 4, § 22); (5) criminal cases may be tried in Babylon (ib. iv. 1, § 62); (6) the property of orphans may be taken for the marriage portion of the wife ("hemdah Genuzah," p. 60a); (7) the debtor must take an oath if he is unable to pay (tur hoshen Mishpat, 61, 2); (8) the debtor must take an oath if he has obliged the creditor to do so (ib. 87); (9) a widow is obliged to take an oath only in case the property bequeathed to her by her husband is insufficient to discharge her marriage contract ("Sha'are Zedek," iv. 59); (10) in legal trials both the principals and the witnesses must remain seated (Maimonides, "Yad," Sanhedrin, xxi. 5); (11) Mohammedan wine is not "issur" (responsa, "Ge'onim kadmonim," xlvi.); (12) the priest to be the first one called up to the reading of the Law, he preceding even the nasi (tur Orah hayyim, 135); (13) permission to trade with Gentiles on their holy days (tur Yoreh De'ah, 149); (14) the fast-day on the Thirteenth of Adar (Abudarham, ed. Prague, p. 78d); (15) an apostate may draw up a bill of divorce ("hemdah Genuzah," li., lxxxvi.); (16) if a Samaritan betroths a Jewess, she must have a bill of divorce before any one else can marry her (tur Eben ha-'Ezer, 44); (17) the passage Ex. xxxii. 11-14 must be read on fast-days ("hemdah Genuzah," iv.; Masseket Soferim xvii.; Meg. 31b; Tosef., Ber. xix.); (18) the interruption of the first and last three benedictions of the "Tefillah" by the supplications ("hemdah Genuzah," cxii.; "Halakot Gedolot," p. 9a); (19) the recitation of the morning benediction in the synagogue (tur Orah hayyim, 46); (20) the recitation of the prayer "Ahabah Rabbah" in the morning and of "Ahabat 'Olam" in the evening ("hemdah Genuzah," cxxv.); (21) the recitation of the Biblical passage "Praised be the Lord in eternity, Amen and Amen" (Ps. xli. 13) in the daily evening prayer before the "Tefillah" (tur Orah hayyim, 236); (22) the insertion of the passage I Chron. xxix. 10-13 in the morning prayer (ib. 51); (23) the recitation of the "Shema'" in the "kedushshah" (Abudarham, p. 53c); (24) introduction of the prayer beginning with the words in the "kedushshah" of the musaf, and the prayers beginning with the words and in the "kedushshah" of the Shaharit Tefillah of Sabbath (tur Orah hayyim, 221); (25) the recitation of Ps. cxix. 142 at the Minhah prayer on the Sabbath, in memory of the death of Moses (ib. 292); (26) the benediction for the bridal night (Abudarham, p. 115a); (27) "Parashat ha-Musafim" (tur Orah hayyim, 283).

The following are ordinances of the ninth century, chiefly directed, according to Weiss, against Karaite teachings: (1) the benediction when the Sabbath candles are lit (earliest source of the "Siddur Rab 'Amram"; Maimonides, "Yad," Shab. v.; ROSH on Shab. ii., § 18); (2) the counting of the "'omer" in the evening ("Halakot Gedolot," p. 101c); (3) the ring in the marriage ceremony ("Sha'are Zedek," i. 3, §§ 12, 16); (4) the Mishnah "Ezehu Mekoman" in the morning prayer (tur Orah hayyim, 50).

Geonic Takkanot.

Only the following five ordinances, so far as known, bear the name of a gaon: (1) of Rab Rabbah of Pumbedita and R. Huna of Sura (7th cent.): if a woman demands a bill of divorce, it must be drawn up for her immediately (Weiss, "Dor," iv. 5, 9, 37; "Sha'are Zedek," iv. 4, § 15); (2) of R. Huna at Pumbedita and Mar Rab Bibai of Sura (8th cent.): a debt and a marriage portion may be recovered even from the property of orphans (ib. iv. 28, 37, 41, 45); (3) of Mar Rab Zadok of Sura (9th cent.): in suits relating to real estate the defendant must take an oath (controverting Shebu. 45a; Weiss, l.c. pp. 43, 123); (4) of R. Nahshon of Sura (end of 9th cent.): the introduction of "Amen" before the "Tefillah" ("Seder ha-Eshkol," ed. Halberstadt, 1867, i. 9; Weiss, l.c. p. 124); (5) of Hananiah b. Judah of Pumbedita (1000): abrogation of the "ketubat benin dikrin" ("Sha'are Zedek," iv. 4, 17; Weiss, l.c. pp. 162, 203).

Takkanot of R. Gershom.

Although the succeeding ordinances belong to the same period, their place of origin is Europe instead of the East. The first to promulgate enactments in Europe was R. Gershom; and, while it is no longer possible to determine how many rules he authorized, their number was doubtless considerable, since the renewal of old takkanot in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries seems to have been due to him. The following ten ordinances by Gershom are found in a manuscript in the possession of N. Brüll: (1) one who wittingly enters a thoroughfare against the orders of the court is liable to punishment; (2) the prohibition of bigamy; (3) respect for the privacy of letters; (4) services in the synagogue must not be interrupted on account of a quarrel; (5) the owner of a synagogue may not refuse admission to any one on the score of a personal grievance; (6) services may be interrupted to search for a lost object, and he who finds it without reporting the fact is liable to excommunication; (7) a majority may refuse to obey a regulation of the communal directors only with the consent of the court; (8) property held in trust may not be retained maliciously; (9) no case may be carried before a secular court except one involving heavy damages; (10) a divorce may not be forced upon a woman (comp. Meïr of Rothenburg, Responsa, p. 111d; "Kol Bo," ed. Fürth, Appendix, 1a).

The following takkanot also are ascribed to R. Gershom: (1) no one ought to leave the synagogue if only ten are present; but if one should leave, the service may be continued; (2) a Jew is forbidden to rent to another Jew who lives with a Gentile; (3) if absence or poverty renders it impossible for a man to support his wife, the community must provide for her; (4) in case of an altercation with serious consequences, both parties are liable to punishment; and if one of them falls ill a second time in consequence of the brawl, he may bring the matter into court; (5) one who is summoned to court by a messengermust attend (Meïr of Rothenburg, l.c. pp. 112d-113a).

Takkanot of Synods.

During the twelfth century rabbinical synods were convened for the first time in the post-Talmudic period in the chief cities where fairs were held. The object of these synods was to promulgate new ordinances as circumstances required and to harmonize Talmud law with the conditions obtaining in Christian Europe, from a religious, legal, and moral point of view. R. Tam seems to have acted as the chairman of several synods, although the precise ones over which he presided are uncertain. The chief scholars mentioned as members of these bodies were RaSHBaM, Isaac b. Solomon of Sens, Solomon b. Jacob of Auxerre, Isaac b. Nehemiah of Drôme, and Menahem b. Perez of Joigny. Seven ordinances are ascribed to these conventions, although their exact provenience is no longer known. One of the earliest of the enactments seems to have been that governing commercial relations with Christians, which was promulgated as a result of the persecutions during the Second Crusade. The ordinances in question are as follows: (1) no Jew may purchase crucifixes, ecclesiastical vessels, vestments, ornaments, or prayer-books; (2) cases may be tried in the national court only with the mutual consent of plaintiffs and defendants; (3) if the case of either party has been prejudiced by this procedure, the plaintiff must make amends according to the judgment of the seven directors of the community; (4) no one may accept an appointment from the government; (5) if a wife dies within a year of her marriage, her husband must return her dowry; (6) if the dowry was payable at a later date, the husband has no claims upon it; (7) a bill of divorce, when once drawn up, may not be questioned or criticized ("Kol Bo," ed. Fürth, 1782, § 117; "Sefer ha-Yashar," No. 579; Grätz, "Gesch." [Hebr. ed.] iv. 235-236).

When the representatives of the Jews convened at Mayence in the early part of the thirteenth century (1220 or 1223) to regulate the taxes and imposts to be paid to the emperor, they promulgated new ordinances which were accepted throughout Judaism, and they also revised earlier enactments. Among the members of the first synod were David b. Kalonymus of Münzenberg, Baruch b. Samuel of Mayence, Hezekiah b. Reuben of Boppard, Simhah b. Samuel of Speyer, Eliezer b. Joel ha-Levi of Cologne, and Eleazar b. Judah of Worms. These ordinances have been preserved under the name of "takkanot Shum" ( = Speyer, Worms, and Mayence), and are indicative of the status of the German Jews of the period. Six of the enactments may be ascribed with some degree of certainty to the first synod, and are as follows: (1) no Jew should be guilty of bad faith toward a Christian, or of counterfeiting; (2) one who has caused harm by lodging information must make amends for it; (3) court Jews are not to be exempt from the communal taxes; (4) quiet and devotion must rule in the synagogue; (5) a brother-in-law must enter upon the levirate marriage without raising any objections; (6) controversies must be decided by the rabbis of Mayence, Speyer, and Worms (Meïr of Rothenburg, l.c. p. 112a; Moses Minz, Responsa, No. 202; Luria, "Yam shel Shelomoh" on Yeb. iv., No. 18).

In 1245 in one of these same three cities another synod of rabbis convened, at which David b. Shaltiel, Isaac b. Abraham, and Joseph b. Moses ha-Kohen were present. The ordinances of the earlier synod were confirmed, and two new ones were promulgated: (1) the rabbi may not excommunicate any one without the consent of the community, nor may the congregation do so against the will of the rabbi; (2) if rabbis from other cities should endeavor to induce a local rabbi to excommunicate any person, the must refuse to do so unless he gains the consent of the community concerned (Meïr of Rothenburg, l.c. end; Moses Minz, l.c. No. 102, p. 153b).

The German rabbis again assembled at the time of the Black Death, to renew the ancient ordinances, their enactments referring chiefly to the dissolution of levirate marriages and to the division of an estate between the widow and the levir. Other synods convened toward the end of the fourteenth century (at Weissenfels) and in the middle of the fifteenth century (at Nuremberg and Bingen), but no record of their ordinances has been preserved. A single takkanah by Jacob Weil, however, is extant, and reads thus: "The following is one of the many enactments which we have promulgated at Nuremberg: if one of the two parties wishes to use the German language in court, the other party must do likewise" (Weil, Responsa, No. 101). The ordinances which Seligman Oppenheim issued at the Bingen synod were originally intended to be enforced only in the district of the lower Rhine; and when he attempted to enforce them for the upper Rhine, a controversy resulted which destroyed the permanent validity of his enactments.

To these synods must be ascribed also the following ordinances of uncertain date which have been preserved under the name "takkanot ha-kehillot me-ashkenaz": (1) no Jew may wear a garment or cuffs after the Christian fashion, nor may he have his beard cut with a razor; (2) no wine made by Christians may be used by Jews; (3) no Jew may cause a jar to be filled with water by a non-Jew on the Sabbath; (4) a Jew may not gamble with a Christian; (5) the punishment of guilt by solitary confinement in an apartment of the synagogue in enjoined; (6) entertainments and banquets are prohibited; (7) Jews who were recipients of charity had to give tithes of same; (8) all persons must wear the "kittel" in the synagogue; (9) the margins of a book must not be cut (Moses Minz, l.c. No. 102; "Codex Halberstadt," No. 49).

At the end of the fifteenth and at the beginning of the sixteenth century takkanot were issued at Toledo; and after the expulsion from Spain others were promulgated at Fez by the scholars of Castile. Additional enactments seem to have been made by Isaac b. Sheshet (RIBaSH) and Simeon b. Zemah Duran (RaSHBaZ). Twelve ordinances were promulgated at Toledo, and thirty-two at Fez, the latter including four concerning the taking of a second wife in the lifetime of the first; five dealing with the attitude of a husband toward his wife when the latter has deserted him; and fourteen devoted to lawsuits ("Kerem hamar," ii. 34a-36b).Various takkanot were also promulgated from time to time by the Council of Four Lands. Some of these ordinances, which were binding on all Polish Jews in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, were published in a volume bearing the name of Joshua ben Alexander Falk ha-Kohen, and entitled "kontres 'al Dine Ribbit" (Sulzbach, 1692; Brünn, 1775).

Bibliography: Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam, pp. 3, 4, 28, 29 et passim;
Rapoport, 'Erek Millin, s.v. Usha, Prague, 1852;
Jakob Brüll, Mebo ha-Mishnah, pp. 1-52, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1876;
Bloch, Sha'are Torat ha-Takkanot, Budapest, 1879-1902;
Brüll, Jahrb. viii. 61;
Aronius, Regesten, p. 115;
Rosenthal, Die Judengemeinde in Mainz, Speier, und Worms, p. 44, Berlin, 1904;
Kohut, Gesch. der Deutschen Juden, p. 121, Berlin, 1898;
Güdemann, Gesch. i. 44, 138, 243, note i.;
Weiss, Dor, iv., v., passim;
Perles, in Monatsschrift, 1865, pp. 84 et seq.;
Sefer ha-Eshkol, i. 9. Halberstadt, 1867;
Rosenthal, in Hildesheimer Jubelschrift, pp. 37-53, Berlin, 1890;
Neubauer, in R. E. J. xvii. 69;
Kerem hamar, ii. 34a-36b, Leghorn, 1869;
Grätz, Gesch. iii. 111, 140, 212, 350; iv. 132, 157, 161; v. 336; vi. 180-182; vii. 21, 102; viii. 14, 49, 211, 268; ix. 451; x. 51, 69, 386.W. B.

Judaic - Mile Chai - Menorahs - Seder Plates

Hebrew Bilbe Exegesis

BIBLE EXEGESIS. By : Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. Wilhelm Bacher Kaufmann Kohler J. Frederic McCurdy

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Jewish:
Beginning of Jewish Exegesis.
Midrash, Halakah, and Haggadah.
Mikra.
Traditional Literature.
Tannaitic and Amoraic Exegesis.
Early Bible Translations.
Philo.
Josephus.
Midrash: Peshat; Masorah.
Karaite Exegesis.
Period of the Peshat.
Saadia.
The Geonim.
School of Kairwan.
Philology in Spain.
Abulwalid ibn Janah.
Exegetics in Spain.
Poetry; Philosophy of Religion.
The "Darshanim."
Rashi.
Exegesis in Northern France.
Abraham ibn Ezra.
His Exegetic Method.
The kimhis.
Moses Maimonides.
Philosophical Exegesis.
Mystic Exegesis.
"Pardes."
From the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century.
Sixteenth Century to Middle of Eighteenth Century.
Moses Alsheik of Safed.
hiddushim and Peshatim.
Mendelssohn and His School.
The Biurists.
Nineteenth Century.
—Modern and Non-Jewish:
Impulses, Principles, and Results.
1. Period of the Reformation:
Exegetical Merits of the Reformers.
2. Period of Confessionalism or Dogmatism:
Effect of Dogmatics.
The Polyglots.
Semitic Scholars and Archeologists.
Obstructive Dogmatism.
Harbingers of Progress.
3. Period of Criticism:
Esthetic Appreciation.
Lowth and Herder.
Beginnings of Higher Criticism.
Precursors of the Higher Criticism.
Chief Points in the Line of Progress.
Summary of Theories.
Comparative Philology.
Textual Emendation.
New Vitalizing Conceptions.
Results of the New Exegesis.



—Jewish:

1.

Israel has been called "the People of the Book"; it may as fitly be called "the people of Scripture exegesis," for exegesis in the largest sense of the word is in a way the one indigenous science which Israel has created and developed, after having produced, during the first long period of its history, the actual subject of this science, the Bible itself. During the thousand years following the collection of the different books of the Scripture, the intellectual activity of Judaism was directed almost exclusively to the exegetic treatment of the Bible and the systematic development of the Law derived from it. When, through contact with Hellenic and Arabic learning, the Jewish intellect was led into new channels, Bible exegesis still retained its position of chief interest; it was the first to feel the influence of the new thought; and it gave birth to auxiliary Hebrew philology, the only science which originated in the Judaism of the Middle Ages. That other great production of medieval Judaism, the philosophy of religion, likewise developed into Bible exegesis in order to take on a Jewish character, although it substantially reproduced alien views. Finally, the younger sister of the philosophy of religion, the mysticism of the Cabala, also assumed the form and character of Bible exegesis.

During the centuries of decadence and increasing ignorance the exposition of the Bible in its various aspects still remained the most popular and assiduously cultivated occupation of the Jewish mind. The epoch known as the Mendelssohnian begins with a renaissance in the field of Bible exegesis. And modern Judaism is especially characterized by two reforms founded on the study and exposition of the Bible; viz., the reinstatement of the Bible in its legitimate place in the instruction of the young, where it had long been secondary to the study of the Talmud; and the sermon in the synagogue, based as it is on the Biblical text. Corresponding with this importance of Bible exegesis in the intellectual life of Israel, sketched here in a few words, is the maguitude of the exegetical literature, which will now be briefly reviewed in its chief phases and products.

Beginning of Jewish Exegesis.

2.

The beginnings of Jewish Bible exegesis go back to a period when a part of the books collected later on into the Biblical canon did not yet exist. The original designation for the expositor's function, the verb "darash"(), from which the original name of Scriptural exegesis, the noun "midrash" (), was formed, is used in the well-known reference to Ezra (Ezra vii. 10) that he "prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord." The verb denotes "to investigate," "to seek," and, in connection with the Bible, meant, therefore, to examine the text, to search into what it means. This reference to Ezra is the earliest mention of Scriptural exegesis, and its history dates from his activity. Ezra, who by his endeavors placed the Pentateuch on the pinnacle of its importance for the new Jewish community of the Second Temple, and hence for the subsequent ages of Judaism, may also be regarded as the founderof Scriptural exegesis, which latter was confined at first to the Pentateuch as representing the entire sacred writings. Two institutions that originated in this period, the synagogue and the academy, assured a lasting home to the intellectual activity concentrated upon the examination and exposition of the Bible. In the synagogue the sacred text of the Pentateuch, and later that of the Prophets, were read and expounded; in the academies and schoolhouses the same texts were used for teaching the young and for investigation and in the instruction of adults. Thus, in harmony with its origin and the character of these two institutions, exegesis became a matter of oral instruction and oral tradition; hence any written exegetical literature of the Bible during those first formative centuries is out of the question.

Midrash, Halakah, and Haggadah.

3.

There are no contemporary accounts of the development of the academy and the method of instruction among the Palestinian Jews during the time of the Second Temple: the historic records speak of them only after they had been firmly established and recognized. Frequent references in traditional literature, traceable down to the decades immediately preceding the Christian era, show that the national science, as developed by the Pharisees since the time of the Maccabees, was divided into twogroups, Bible and tradition ("Mikra" and "Mishnah"), and that the latter comprised three branches, in which the work of traditional literature originated. These three branches were: (1) Midrashot (in the singular, "Midrash"); (2) Halakot (or Halakah); (3) Haggadot (or Haggadah). This order of the constituentsof Mishnah in its most comprehensive sense corresponds with the historical development of these branches. First in time was the Midrash, i.e., the exposition of the Scripture, especially of the Pentateuch and more particularly of its legal portions. From this branched off, on the one hand, the Halakot—the statutes derived exegetically from the written law, to which were added other statutes, which had been transmitted orally, and which the teachers endeavored to connect exegetically with the Biblical text—and, on the other, the Haggadot, which included the exegesis not connected with the Law, with its manifold material derived from the sacred writings. Through this differentiation the branch designated as "Midrash" was specialized into exposition of the Law or halakic exegesis. The derivation of the Halakah from the Biblical text was also called "Talmud," so that "Talmud" originally meant the same as "Midrash" in the above-mentioned stricter sense.

Mikra.

The Mikra, the fundamental part of the national science, was the subject of the primary instruction, and was also divided into three parts; namely, the three historic groups of the books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. The intelligent reading and comprehension of the text, arrived at by a correct division of the sentences and words, formed the course of instruction in the Bible. The scribes were also required to know the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the text. The Targum made possible an immediate comprehension of the text, but was continuously influenced by the exegesis taught in the schools. The synagogues were preeminently the centers for instruction in the Bible and its exegesis. The reading of the Biblical text, which was combined with that of the Targum, served to widen the knowledge of the scholars learned in the first division of the national science. The scribes found the material for their discourses, which formed a part of the synagogue service, in the second division, the several branches of the tradition; the Haggadah, the third of these branches, especially furnished the material for the sermon.

Traditional Literature.

4.

The tannaitic traditional literature is derived from the three original branches of the traditional science, as taught in the schools of both Palestine and Babylonia. Although part of this literature has been lost, its most important products are still extant. The Mishnah, in its strict sense, and its supplement, the Tosefta, as well as a mass of other Halakic sentences (Baraitas, see Baraita), preserved in the two Talmuds, are derived from the second of those branches. This part of the tannaitic literature retains many traces of its descent from the Midrash, in the many Biblical exegetical details which it contains. The branch of the Midrash preserved as its documents the Midrashim to the last four books of the Pentateuch; viz., Mekilta, on Exodus; Torat Kohanim, or Sifra, on Leviticus; and Sifre, on Numbers and Deuteronomy. These works, which are running commentaries on the Biblical text, and as such the earliest of their kind, contain also the exegetics belonging to the third branch.

But there are also tannaitic Haggadah collections, such as were produced in great number in the post-tannaitic period, preserving those haggadic traditions of the tannaitic time which continued in existence. One of these Haggadot, for instance, is the "Seder 'Olam," a chronology of Bible history based on haggadic exegesis. In the period of the Amoraim, beginning with the redaction of the Mishnah, the method of instruction was changed in that the Mishnah became the text-book for lectures and discussions in Palestine as well as in Babylonia. The two Talmuds, which drew their material chiefly from the Halakah and halakic exegesis (the Midrash in the exact sense), but gave a considerable place also to the Haggadah, are the result of these lectures and discussions. The haggadic exegesis was cultivated especially in Palestine, leading to the haggadic Midrash collections on the Pentateuch, the pericopes ("Pesiktas"; see Pesikta), and other Biblical books, which were based principally on the sermons. The final editing of these collections belongs to the post-amoraic time, though they represent chiefly the exegesis of the Amoraim. Side by side with the writings here sketched, which were always connected in some way with Biblical exegetics, there came to maturity during the time of the Tannaim and Amoraim the Targum literature, originating in the institution of reading the Targum at divine service. This Targum was extended to the whole Bible, as was also the Masorah, which latter is the determination of the rules and principles governing the text of the Bible. These were the two branches of study which transmitted to later generations the knowledge and correct reading of the Bible text.

Tannaitic and Amoraic Exegesis.

5.

The products of the traditional literature described above have this trait in common, that they are not the exclusive work of certain writers, but are the outcome of a long series of oral traditions, that were finally given a certain form in a written work. Therefore the exegesis found in these works does not belong to one single epoch, but to different epochs extending over a number of centuries. From the days of Hillel (30 B.C.) the names of the compilers of the traditional exegesis were also handed down; so that the originators of a large part of that early Bible exegesis and many of the Tannaim and Amoraim are known as more or less important exegetes. An old tradition reports of Hillel's teachers, Shemaiah and Abtalion, that they were great exegetes ("darshanim"). Hillel himself marks an epoch in halakic exegesis, since he formulated the seven rules according to which the Bible text must be explained. Hillel's pupil, Johanan b. Zakkai, followed a kind of symbolic exegesis.

The period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Hadrianic war was the most fruitful and important epoch for early exegesis, and its representativeswere Johanan b. Zakkai's pupils and their disciples. Chief among these in the field of halakic exegesis are Ishmael b. Elisha and Akiba ben Joseph, between whose teachings there existed a fundamental opposition which extended to the Haggadah. Ishmael expanded Hillel's rules into the well-known thirteen rules for exegesis, and postulated, besides others, that of the human mode of expression in Scripture, a thesis that was to have an important influence on later Jewish exegesis. Akiba, imbued with the incomparable importance of the Biblical text, successfully defended the opinion he derived from his teacher, Nahum of Gimzo, that not even what might seem to be the most insignificant word of the text was without its especial meaning; hence everything contained in the text must become the subject of interpretation. Akiba's work was continued by his pupils, the leaders in the post-Hadrianic time, who were voluminous exegetes. One of them, Eliezer, son of the Galilean Jose, formulated thirty-two rules for haggadic exegesis. The great teachers of the Law (halakists) of the tannaitic period were also eminent Biblical exegetes, although there were also some tannaites whose preeminence lay solely in the domain of exegesis; as, for instance, Eleazar of Modiim in the pre-Hadrianic period, and the above-mentioned Eliezer b. Jose in the post-Hadrianic period.

The Halakists and Haggadists were more sharply distinguished during the time of the Palestinian Amoraim. Although even then some eminent heads of academies were at the same time masters of the Haggadah, e.g., Johanan, Simeon b. Lakish, Eleazar b. Pedat. The most important Bible exegetes were mostly haggadists by profession, as Samuel b. Nahman, Simlai, Isaac, Levi, Judah b. Simon, Huna, Judan, Judah b. Shalom, Tanhuma. These students of the Haggadah, as they were called, preserved also the old exegetic traditions, and produced in the post-amoraic times the above-mentioned Midrash collections. In Babylonia the haggadic exegesis was cultivated in a less independent spirit, being mostly under the influence of the Palestinian schools. There were, however, eminent haggadists among the great teachers, as Rab in the third and Raba in the fourth century.

The exegetics of the traditional literature that was not transmitted with the names of the authors, especially the anonymous portions of the tannaitic Midrash, originated in part at a very early date. It is a noteworthy fact that the exegetic phraseology of the tannaites, and consequently the earliest terminology of Bible exegetics as a whole, were already in existence when the historic period of Jewish Bible exegesis began with Hillel; that terminology may therefore be considered as a monument of the period before Hillel.

Early Bible Translations.

6.

These sources of Jewish Bible exegesis, belonging to the first period, which ended with the final redaction of the Talmud (500 C.E.), were supplemented by others of an entirely different nature. These complete the account that has to be given of the exegesis of that period. First in order are the old translations of the Bible; they, like the Aramaic Targum, were intended to spread the knowledge of the Bible and naturally reflected the exegesis of the school from which they proceeded. The Septuagint demands especial attention, being the earliest literary translation as well as a source for early exegesis. Aquila's translation represents the school of Jabneh, especially Akiba's. But the other Greek versions are also based on Jewish exegesis, and so is, in great part, the Peshitta. Jerome in turn endeavored to establish the "Hebrew truth" in his Latin version, on the basis of oral instruction received from Jewish exegetes of Palestine.

Philo.

Philo, the great representative of the Alexandrian exegesis, takes a foremost place; his writings are, in part, comprehensive and explanatory paraphrases of the stories and ordinances of the Pentateuch, and, in part, a running allegorical commentary on the Bible text. Philo's allegorical exegesis was the first and most consistent attempt to prove by means of Biblical exegesis that Greek philosophy underlay the superficial meaning of the words of the Bible.

Josephus.

In Palestine, too,—indeed as early as the time of Philo—opinions and speculations on God and the Creation, in part of extraneous origin, were connected with two chapters of the Bible (Gen. i. and Ezek. i.); and their exegesis was the real subject of the esoteric doctrine called after those sections, "Ma'ase Bereshit" and "Ma'ase Merkabah." The chief work of the historian Josephus may also be considered as a source of the Bible exegesis of this time; the first part of his "Antiquities" being a running commentary on the narrative portions of the Scripture. Finally, the Bible exegesis contained in the books of the New Testament must be mentioned. It proceeded from the exegesis current at the time, and belongs to the same class as the other products of the early Haggadah. It became the actual foundation for the new faith, just as the Biblical exegesis, the Midrash of the Palestinian schools, may be considered the basis for the reshaping of Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.

Midrash: Peshat; Masorah.

7.

The Bible exegesis of the Tannaim and the Amoraim, which may be best designated as exegesis of the Midrash, was a product of natural growth and of great freedom in the treatment of the words of the Bible. But it proved an obstacle to further development when, endowed with the authority of a sacred tradition in the Talmud and in the Midrash collections edited subsequently to the Talmud, it became the sole source for the interpretation of the Bible among later generations. The traditional literature contains, indeed, an abundance of correct explanations that are in harmony with the wording and the context; and it bears everywhere evidence of a fine linguistic sense, good judgment, and an acute insight into the peculiarities and difficulties of the Bible text. But side by side with these elements of a natural and simple Bible exegesis, of value even to-day, the traditional literature contains an even larger mass of expositions far removed from the actual meaning of the text. In the halakic as well as in the haggadic exegesis the expounder endeavored not so much toseek the original meaning of the text as to find authority in some Bible passage for the concepts and ideas, the rules of conduct and teachings, for which he wished to have a Biblical foundation. To this were added, on the one hand, the belief that the words of the Bible had many meanings, and, on the other, the importance attached to the smallest portion, the slightest peculiarity of the text; hence the exegesis of the Midrash strayed further and further away from a natural and common-sense interpretation.

Again, it must be remembered that the Midrash exegesis was largely in the nature of homiletics, expounding the Bible not in order to investigate its actual meaning and to understand the documents of the past, but in order to find religious edification, moral instruction, and sustenance for the thoughts and feelings of the present. The contrast between the simple natural explanation of the literal sense and the Midrash, that did not feel bound to follow the mere words, was recognized even by the Tannaim and the Amoraim, although their idea of the literal meaning of a Biblical passage may not be allowed by more modern standards. The above-mentioned tanna, Ishmael b. Elisha, even said once, rejecting an exposition of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus: "Truly, you say to Scripture, 'Be silent while I am expounding!'" (Sifra on Lev. xiii. 49). The tannaitic exegesis distinguishes principally between the actual deduction of a thesis from a Bible passage as a means of proving a point, and the use of such a passage as a mere mnemonic device, a distinction that was also made in a different form later in the Babylonian schools. The Babylonian Amoraim were the first to use the expression "Peshat." () to designate the primary sense, contrasting it with the "Derash," the Midrashic exegesis. These two terms were later on destined to become important features in the history of Jewish Bible exegesis. And, again, in Babylonia was formulated the important principle that the Midrashic exegesis could not annul the primary sense. This principle subsequently became the watchword of the common-sense Bible exegesis; but how little it was known or recognized may be seen from the admission of Kahana, a Babylonian amora of the fourth century, that while at eighteen years of age he had already learned the whole Mishnah, he had only heard of that principle a great many years later (Shab. 63a). Kahana's admission is characteristic of the centuries following the final redaction of the Talmud. The primary meaning is no longer considered, but it becomes more and more the fashion to interpret the text according to the meaning given to it in traditional literature. The ability and even the desire for original investigation of the text succumbed to the overwhelming authority of the Midrash. It was, therefore, providential that, just at the time when the Midrash was paramount, the close study of the text of the Bible, at least in one direction, was pursued with rare energy and perseverance by the careful Masorites, who set themselves the task of preserving and transmitting the pronunciation and correct reading of the text. By introducing punctuation (vowel-points and accents) into the Biblical text, in the seventh century, they supplied that protecting hedge which, according to Akiba's saying, the Masorah was to be for the words of the Bible. Punctuation, on the one hand, protected the tradition from being forgotten, and, on the other, was the precursor of an independent Bible science to be developed in a later age.

Karaite Exegesis.

8.

Karaism gave the first impulse toward an independent investigation of the Bible and a denial of the autocratic authority of the Midrash. The "Bene Mikra" (Sons of the Scripture), as the sect founded by Anan (eighth century) called itself, rejecting the Talmudic tradition, posited as first principles the duty to investigate the Bible itself and to draw from it the foundations for religious knowledge and rules of conduct by means of an exegesis independent of tradition. But Karaism exerted a lasting influence on the further development of Jewish Bible exegesis not so much by its own achievements as by its reaction on the large majority of the Jews who remained faithful to tradition. For undoubtedly Saadia, the great originator of the new Jewish knowledge, was stimulated by the Karaitic movement to enter upon his pioneer activity. He proved his genius as a Bible exegete in the first instance in polemics against the Karaites; and they, in turn, were stimulated by Saadia and his partly polemic, partly positive work, to a richer and more significant activity in their own field than that which obtained before his appearance. The Karaite leaders in exegesis and Hebrew philology were accordingly either Saadia's contemporaries or belonged to the post-Saadian times.

In the century and a half between Anan and Saadia, Karaism produced no exegete of lasting importance. But the numerous exegetes and founders of sects mentioned in clear and unmistakable terms by the Karaites themselves, though they often disapproved of them, demonstrate the vigorous intellectual activity of Eastern Judaism after Anan. Not long after him Benjamin of Nahawendi, one of the fathers of Karaism, applied the allegoric method of exposition in a way reminding one of Philo. Yudghan of Hamadan (Judah the Persian) laid down the principle that the Torah had an exoteric as well as an esoteric significance. hivi of Balkh, of the middle of the ninth century, proposed a rational criticism of the subject-matter of the Bible, at the same time finding two hundred reasons against the authenticity of the Pentateuch, mainly on historical, but also on legal grounds. Most of the Karaite exegetes, either Saadia's contemporaries or following immediately after him, wrote commentaries on the Pentateuch and on other Biblical books, under Saadia's influence and controverting him. Among these may be mentioned Solomon b. Yeroham, Sahal b. MaZliah, Abu Yusuf Ya'kub al-kirkisani, and the prolific Karaite exegete, Japheth b. Ali, frequently cited by Abraham ibn Ezra.

As the exposition of the sacred text was not possible without philological explanations, the commentaries of the Karaite exegetes contain, of course, many grammatical and lexical explanations. But even here they were not originators, and were only stimulated by Saadia's example and instruction to more penetrating philological research into Hebrew. The earliest Karaite grammarians of whom anythingdefinite is known, as well as David ben Abraham, the earliest Karaite lexicographer, were all subsequent to Saadia. The earlier Karaites contributed to the development neither of Hebrew philology nor of exegesis, which began to flourish about the tenth century among the Eastern and Western Jews still clinging to tradition. But contemporaneously with the later golden age of Rabbinitic exegesis, and influenced by it, exegetic literature flourished among the Karaites, its chief representatives being Abu al-Fara'i Harun (at the beginning of the eleventh century), Jeshua b. Judah (at the end of the eleventh century), Jacob b. Reuben, Levi b. Japheth, Japheth b. Sa'id, and Judah Hadassi (contemporary of Ibn Ezra). At the end of the thirteenth century Aaron b. Joseph wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch ("Sefer ha-Mibhar"), in imitation of Ibn Ezra and using Nahmanides; and not long after Aaron b. Elijah, the younger, who was influenced by Maimonides, wrote his commentary on the Pentateuch ("Keter Torah"), a work that worthily ends the exegetic literature of the Karaites.

Period of the Peshat.

9.

The new epoch in the history of Jewish Bible exegesis beginning with Saadia may fitly be characterized as "the period of the Peshat." As already mentioned, this phrase signified among the Babylonian Amoraim the primary sense of the Bible text, in contradistinction to its interpretation as found in the Midrash. Now the phrase became the watchword for the exegetes who broke away from the authority of the Midrash and went direct to the Bible text without regard to traditional exegesis. The authors writing in Arabic also use the phrase in this sense; and Ibn Janah calls Saadia the representative of the Peshat. It was a matter of no little importance for the new method of exegesis that its founder held the highest position in the gift of the tradition-loving Jews of his age; for the fact that it was the "Gaon of Sura" who opened up new paths for exegesis facilitated the recognition and further development of this method among the large majority of the Jews who still held by tradition. But the genuine merit of Saadia's labors also assured their success. His most important work in the field of Bible exegesis is his Arabic translation of the Bible, which chiefly aimed to bring about a right understanding of the original text by means of the Arabic reproduction. In his version Saadia leaves nothing obscure. Although he does not paraphrase, he translates freely; disregarding the syntactical character of the original, and connecting the verses and parts of the verses in a way to make them at once comprehensible.

Saadia.

Saadia's translation shows the same characteristic as his Bible exegesis, as far as it is known from the extant fragments of his commentaries, and from his chief religio-philosophical work. This characteristic is his rationalism: reason is for him the basis even in Scriptural exegesis; and in accordance with it the exposition of the text must contain nothing that is obscure or that contradicts logical thought. He does not confine himself to reproducing the exact meaning of the single words and sentences, but he takes a general view of the context, the whole chapter, the whole book, and explains their interrelation. Saadia's rationalism, which became the standard for the following centuries, accorded with his belief in the divine origin of the Bible and in the Biblical miracles; these, he thinks, serve as witnesses to the veracity of the Prophets and of Scripture. Saadia's rationalistic exegesis is systematized in his book on religious doctrines and beliefs, "Emunot we-De'ot." This is largely exegetic, and harmonizes the anthropomorphic figures of speech employed in Scripture passages referring to God and His works with philosophic speculation in a way that has become the pattern for later exegetes (see Anthropomorphism).

In addition to the authority of reason, Saadia recognizes also the collateral authority of the Scripture itself as a source for exegesis; and as he is familiar with the Bible, he makes copious use of its contents for the purposes of illustration and exposition.

Saadia's third authority is tradition. This he uses in his Bible exegesis as far as he finds necessary and practicable; and he recognizes its influence on exegesis, pioneer of an independent exegesis though he was.

Saadia created Hebrew philology, the most important prerequisite for a sound exegesis. His grammatical and lexical works were as epoch-making for a scientific knowledge of the Hebrew language as his Bible exegesis for the exposition of Scripture, and his religio-philosophic works for all philosophic speculation on the doctrines of Judaism. In these three branches, which all belong in the larger sense to Bible exegesis, Saadia was a pioneer; and his labors were of lasting influence because of the great authority which he rightly enjoyed.

The Geonim.

10.

The work of Saadia as the originator of Hebrew philology and of rational Bible exegesis was not carried toward completion in the Orient, where he himself had been active; the leadership in this field passed, soon after Saadia's death, into the hands of Western Judaism, the Diaspora of North Africa and Spain. In the East, as noted above, Saadia's literary activity stimulated in the first instance his Karaite opponents; but he found no successors for his work among the Rabbinite Jews at the academies. It was not until many years after his death that a worthy successor to Saadia was found in Samuel b. Hophni (died 1034), another gaon of Sura, whose Arabic version and commentary on the Pentateuch, as well as his exegesis, closely followed Saadia both in its comprehensiveness and in details. Hai Ben Sherira, Samuel b. Hophni's son-in law (died 1038), the last famous gaon of Pumbedita, devoted himself to Bible exegesis in his lexicon, and also in his commentary on Job. It is characteristic of Hai, who was also a great Talmudist, that he consulted the Koran in order to explain Biblical passages; and once he sent to ask the Syrian Catholicos how a certain difficult passage in the Psalms was explained in the Syriac translation of the Bible.

School of Kairwan.

Long before the splendor of the Gaonate faded after Hai's death, Kairwan (in Tunis) had become a seat of Jewish scholarship. The physician and philosopher Isaac Israeli, the elder contemporary of Saadia, was active here; he wrote a somewhat diffusecommentary on the first chapter of Genesis. His pupil, Dunash ibn Tamim, was one of the first to introduce the comparative study of Hebrew and Arabic as a fruitful source for Bible exegesis. Already before him another North African, Judah ibn Koreish, had written a work in which he systematically carried out a comparison of Biblical Hebrew with Arabic, Aramaic, and Neo-Hebrew, and warmly recommended, for linguistic reasons, the study of the Targum, that had been neglected. In this curious piece of work, which is still extant, there is also a long excursus on the anthropomorphisms and the anthropopathisms of the Bible, in which for the first time the important tannaite postulate, that the Torah speaks in human language, uses human forms of speech, is applied in a sense which deviated from the postulate's original meaning, but which thereafter became paramount. The oldest representative of Jewish learning in Italy, Shabbethai Donolo, also interpreted this adage (which is not found in Saadia) in the same way; his commentary on the book YeZirah (written in 946) was prefaced by an exegetic treatise on the Biblical account of the creation of man. Another eminent exegete, who was honored by posterity as the representative of the Peshat, was the great Talmud commentator Hananeel b. hushiel in Kairwan, a contemporary of Hai. Only fragments of his commentary on the Pentateuch and on Ezekiel are extant: he, however, largely admitted Midrashic elements into his exegesis.

Philology in Spain.

11.

The most solid foundations of Jewish Bible exegesis were laid in Spain through the development of Hebrew philology, which reached its highest point in this new home of Jewish learning, from the middle of the tenth to the beginning of the twelfth century; although its products belong primarily to the domains of grammar and lexicography, they yet can be included in exegetic literature. It was only after philologic literature had reached its culminating point in the works of Abulwalid ibn Ganah, that the classic literature which marks the golden age of medieval literary activity was enriched by Bible commentaries. In the beginning of this period a commentary on the Psalms by the celebrated Joseph ibn Abitur (Ibn Satanas) is mentioned; but the existing fragments of this commentary show its method to have been that of the Midrash, and reveal nothing else concerning the method of exegesis (see Abitur). The Bible exegesis of the Spanish Jews, which was pursued with unusual ardor, was directed, in the first instance, to the investigation of the Biblical language. From the time of hasdai ibn Shaprut to that of Samuel ibn Nagdela (second half of the tenth to first half of the eleventh century), eminent and gifted scholars vied with one another in placing the science of Hebrew grammar on a firm basis—a basis that has not been overthrown even by the philology of the nineteenth century. They also developed Hebrew lexicography to a point far in advance of all preceding endeavors.

Abulwalid ibn Janah.

Menahem ben Saruk's dictionary; Dunash ibn Labrat's critical work; the polemics of the pupils of Menahem and Dunash; Judah b. David hayyuj's work, that came like a revelation; Abulwalid's critical work; the literary controversy between him and Samuel ibn Nagdela; and the writings of both as well as of others belonging to their circle; and finally Abulwalid's chief work, composed of a grammatical and a lexical part—all these works mark the development of the philologic literature in Spain. Those of hayyuj and Abulwalid especially furnished a firm basis for a Bible exegesis that, on its linguistic side at least, was free from gross errors and mere guesswork. But all these compositions contain more than simple grammatical and lexicographical contributions to Bible exegesis; and especially Abulwalid's chief work—which is generally designated by its separate parts, "Luma'" (Hebr., "Rikmah") and the "Book of Roots"—is so rich in multifarious exegetic material that these works may be considered as equivalent to a continuous Bible commentary.

Abulwalid's exegesis draws largely upon rhetoric, and regards the Biblical expressions from the point of view of the metaphors and other tropes familiar to him from Arabic literature. Many textual difficulties he cleared away hermeneutically, being led by his method to the same results as are obtained by modern textual criticism, although he accepted the authority of the Masorah without question. He assumes a sweeping transposition and interchange of letters, and proceeds in many Biblical passages on the theory that the Biblical author himself by mistake put one word for another that he really had intended. He recognizes traditional exegesis as the true and authoritative criterion in much that is unascertainable or doubtful in Scripture; but he does not hesitate to contradict tradition if the natural and literal sense requires it.

Exegetics in Spain.

12.

Nothing has been preserved of Bible exegesis proper in the form of commentaries from the period preceding Abulwalid. His younger contemporary, the poet and philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, perhaps embodied in a special work his allegorical exposition of individual Biblical passages; for the examples of his exposition quoted by Abraham ibn Ezra would seem to have been taken from such a work. Ibn Ezra is also the only source of information concerning a curious example of early Pentateuch criticism by one of the grammarians of the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, who asserted that Gen. xxxvi. 31-43 was written at the time of King Jehoshaphat. Ibn Ezra also controverted another unnamed critic of the same period, who, applying Abulwalid's above-mentioned method, explained almost two hundred Scriptural passages by substituting other words for those that seemed to him incorrect. In the golden age of Jewish culture in Spain two eminent philologists also directed their attention to Bible exegesis proper, parts of whose commentaries, written in Arabic, have been preserved—namely, Moses ibn Gikatilla of Cordova and Judah ibn Balaam of Toledo. Moses ibn Gikatilla endeavored to explain the Biblical miracles rationalistically; while Ibn Balaam attacked these attempts, and otherwise bitterly criticized Ibn Gikatilla's exegesis. Ibn Gikatilla's commentary on Isaiah and on the Psalms, from which Ibn Ezra copiouslyquoted, was the first sustained attempt to explain those books historically. Thus, he refers the predictions of the second part of Isaiah to the time of the Second Temple, and in the same way he assumes that some psalms are exilic. Judah ibn Balaam's commentary on Isaiah is extant in full, and a comparison of this work with Saadia's translation shows the advance made by Bible exegesis during the century lying between them.

Poetry; Philosophy of Religion.

In addition to Hebrew philology, so closely related to exegesis, two special fields of intellectual activity, Hebrew poetry and philosophic speculation, were likewise influenced, and in turn promoted the advance of Bible exegesis during this golden age of Jewish-Spanish culture. Through the introduction of Arabic prosody, poetry had indeed been led into forms foreign to the genius of the old Biblical poetry; but in consequence of the definite knowledge of the forms of speech and the better comprehension of the words of the Bible, the new Hebrew poetry that blossomed into unexpected luxuriance on Spanish soil was marked by a certain classical perfection and finish. Love of poetry and the practise of riming likewise sharpened the perception for the poetic beauties and other literary qualities of Scripture. One of the most renowned poets of this period, Moses ibn Ezra, devoted a long chapter of his work on rhetoric and poetics to Biblical rhetoric; applying to it, in a much more specific way than Abulwalid had done, the terminology and definitions of Arabic rhetoric. As for the relation of the philosophy of religion to Bible exegesis, it is sufficient to mention the names of Bahya ibn Pakuda, Solomon ibn Gabirol, Abraham ibn hiyya, Moses ibn Ezra, Joseph ibn Zaddik, Judah ha-Levi, and Abraham ibn Daud. The works of these thinkers embody the principle, first logically enunciated by Saadia, that on the supreme questions of religious knowledge the Scriptures teach nothing beyond human reason. Allegory was used only to a limited extent. As a result of this conviction of the necessity for agreement between the postulates of reason and the Bible, a high-handed freedom of treatment of the Biblical word became current, that was often imposing in its daring. In consequence the elements of a new form of Midrash found their way into Bible exegesis, made subservient to philosophic speculation. The Peshat exegesis, which had been freed from the fetters of the early Midrash contained in the traditional literature, found itself now confronted by a new enemy—the philosophic Midrash.

The "Darshanim."

13.

While the system of the Peshat was nearing its complete development in the countries influenced by Arabian culture, the Midrashic exegesis had remained paramount among the Jews of Christian countries. The Midrash literature was enriched by new compilations; and the exegetes also, striving for a certain independence, found the material for their commentaries mostly in the traditional literature. These exegetes are called "Darshanim" in the history of Jewish literature. To them belong Moses ha-Darshan in Narbonne (middle of eleventh century), Tobiah b. Eliezer in Castoria, Bulgaria (end of eleventh century), and Menahem b. Solomon in Rome (first half of twelfth century). Here must also be named the compiler of the "Yalkut Shime'oni," the most complete Midrash compilation on the whole Scripture, dating perhaps from the beginning of the thirteenth century. In this field represented by the Darshanim there arose quite unexpectedly in northern France a school of Bible exegesis, which, in entire independence of the Spanish-Arabian school, endeavored to search into the Peshat, the simple, natural, primary sense, in avowed contrast to the Midrash, without, however, severing its connection with the latter.

Rashi.

The founder of this school was Solomon ben Isaac (Rabbi Solomon YiZhaki), commonly called Rashi (died 1105); his commentary on the Talmud is for all time an indispensable aid to the study of that work; and his commentary on the Bible, especially on the Pentateuch, has never been surpassed in enduring popularity and large circulation. Rashi's commentary has in many respects the character of a compilation of Midrash collections; but he takes from the traditional literature chiefly those explanations that he can best harmonize with the wording and the connection of the Biblical text; and he expressly rejects those that he can not bring into such agreement. Besides this, he endeavors to arrive independently at the meaning of the Scriptural words, guided by the, Talmudic principle, everywhere emphasized, that no Biblical verse may be deprived of its plain, self-evident meaning, no matter what varied interpretations are put upon it by the Midrash. In addition, he pays constant attention to the linguistic side of exegesis; showing an acute and often intuitive sense of language, and supplementing by these means, as well as by his complete command of diction, the inadequacy of his sources.

Exegesis in Northern France.

Joseph kara and Samuel b. Meïr were still more pronounced representatives of the Peshat. Joseph Kara was a nephew of Menahem b. helbo (an elder contemporary of Rashi, who even before him had followed the same tendency); the title "kara" (compare "Mikra," Scripture), found already in the Talmud, marks him as a Bible exegete. He was a prolific writer, and more independent in his exegesis than Rashi. He was given to postulating general rules of interpretation, and to explaining the chapters of the Bible as a whole. Nor did he hesitate to differ from tradition in regard to the time of composition of the Biblical books; ascribing, for instance, the Book of Samuel, on account of I Sam. ix. 9, to a later period than that to which it was generally assigned. He posited the principle that Scripture must be interpreted by itself, without the help of the traditional literature. This principle was especially applied by Rashi's learned grandson, Samuel b. Meïr, whose commentary on the Pentateuch may be regarded as the foremost production of the exegetic school of northern France. His brother, Jacob Tam, wrote no Bible commentary, but showed interest and aptitude for linguistic research in Hebrew in his Responsa, in which he defends Menahem ben Saruk against Dunash ibn Labrat. Jacob Tam's pupil, Joseph Bekor Shor, was the last important representative of the Peshatof northern France. His commentary on the Pentateuch is marked by acumen and deep insight into the continuity of its meaning. Anticipating later Biblical criticism, he assumed duplicate accounts in the Pentateuch. The Bible exegesis of the school of northern France, which was supplemented neither by scientific research into the Hebrew language nor by mental training in philosophical or other scientific studies, may be designated as the exegesis of plain, clear common sense; its products are in many ways equal to those of the Spanish-Arabian school.

Abraham ibn Ezra.

14.

All Biblical lore in the countries of the Mohammedan culture, which developed in such fulness after Saadia, was confined, on account of the language in which it was written, to those circles where Arabic was spoken. Abraham ibn Ezra was the first one to disseminate it on a large scale in the Christian countries of Europe. A mature man, who had absorbed the whole culture and learning of Spanish Judaism in the flower of its intellectual development, he left his home and spent nearly three decades (1140-67) in different cities of Italy, Provence, northern France, and England; everywhere, as he says, "writing books and revealing the secrets of knowledge." The chief products of his astonishing many-sided activity are his exegetic works. His commentaries, although written faraway from Spain, are the most important product, in the field of Bible exegesis, of the golden age of Spanish Judaism, not only on account of the opinions of many representatives of this period, which are therein cited and disseminated, but because their whole spirit, import, and material are the outcome of the extraordinary learning and insight that he took from home with him. These commentaries, written in Hebrew, also display throughout Ibn Ezra's originality and his mastery over both subject and material; and they are especially attractive not only on account of their form—combining clearness and vivacity, wit and profundity—but also because of the author's consummate handling of the Hebrew language, which had already been abundantly displayed in his classical poems.

His Exegetic Method.

Ibn Ezra's Pentateuch commentary has always been, side by side with Rashi's, one of the most popular works of Jewish exegetical literature, and both in their turn became the subjects of numerous supercommentaries. Ibn Ezra explained his own exegetical method in his introduction to the Pentateuch commentary by characterizing and criticizing the various methods employed hitherto by the exegetes, such as the exegesis of the Geonim, the exegesis prevalent in Christian countries depending on the Midrash, the exegesis of the Karaites, hostile to tradition, and the typological-allegorical exegesis customary among Christians. As regards Ibn Ezra's conception of the relation between the traditional and the Peshat exegesis, he sees in the traditional exegesis—derived by the oral teaching (Halakah) from the words of the Biblical text, and which so often contradicts the natural literal sense—not an actual exegesis of the Bible text, but only a "suggestion," a "reminder" (mnemonic device). In the same way he distinguishes between the "word of the Derash," the homiletic manner of haggadic exegesis, and the Peshat, by which only the literal signification of the Biblical text is arrived at. He knows nothing of the principle of the multiplicity of meanings of Scriptural words, which the leaders of the exegetic school of northern France acknowledged in order to justify the haggadic Midrash. Through this clear separation of the Peshat from the Derash he accords only a limited place in his exegesis to the new Midrash, which introduces philosophy into the Bible text. He connects his philosophic speculations either in longer passages or in brief allusions, with the explanation of the names of God (especially the Tetragrammaton), of the divine attributes and the Biblical precepts, and with single suitable passages. Ibn Ezra's endeavors to defend the Biblical text against everything that might injure its integrity, may also find mention here. But he is nevertheless regarded, since Spinoza wrote his "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," as the precursor of the literary Pentateuch criticism of to-day. To judge from certain allusions, rather than from positive statements, he seems to have held that the Pentateuch, although undoubtedly composed by Moses, received in later times a few minor additions. He also obscurely alludes to the later origin of Isaiah, ch. xl.-lxvi.

The kimhis.

Ibn Ezra's contemporary, Joseph kimhi, was similarly active in Narbonne as propagator of the Spanish-Jewish science; he also was of Spanish origin and knew Arabic. He wrote a Hebrew grammar in Hebrew, and also commentaries on different Biblical books. His work was continued by his sons Moses and David (see kimhi, David). The fame of the latter very soon eclipsed that of the father and brother. In the introduction to his chief exegetical, work, the commentary on the Prophets, he based the privilege, or rather the duty, of exegetic research on religious motives. The kimhis do not differ from Ezra in their search for the natural meaning of Scripture; and they, too, consider grammar and rationalism to be essential in exegesis. David kimhi, whose didactic talents appear in his grammar as well as in his Bible commentary, recognizes also the Midrash exegesis, as well as Maimonides' philosophic opinions; and, like the latter, he does not hesitate to pronounce certain Biblical stories to be visionary accounts. His commentary on the Psalms is especially interesting by reason of its polemics against Christian exegesis.

Moses Maimonides.

15.

It fell to the lot of Moses Maimonides, Ibn Ezra's younger contemporary, to represent, like him, the high intellectual culture of the Spanish Jews outside of Spain, and to bring it to a fuller development than Ibn Ezra. Living in the midst of the Arabian culture in North Africa and in Egypt, his activity was a natural continuation of the Jewish intellectual impulse which was so highly developed in Moorish Spain. But his influence extended far beyond the boundaries of the Arabic language; and he became a teacher for the whole Diaspora, as no one had been since the days of the Geonim. Maimonides' activity marked an epoch not only in the history of Judaism, but also in that of Jewish Bible exegesis. He enriched exegetic literature by nocommentary, but his chief philosophical work, written in Arabic, the "Moreh Nebukim" (Guide of the Perplexed), contains much exegetic material. The "perplexed" for whom the work was to be a "guide" are those readers of Scripture who are harassed by doubts because of the contradictions between the Biblical text and the postulates of rational speculation. The "Moreh Nebukim" strives to clear away such contradictions by a correct explanation of the text. The author, therefore, places at the head of his work a number of explanations of Biblical expressions to serve as a key for ascertaining the true meaning of Scripture.

A fundamental principle of Maimonides' Bible exegesis is that the Bible makes use of all the resources of language that have been invented by the human mind; in order to reveal or to conceal thought; and in his expositions he almost devotes more space to what the language of the Bible conceals than to what it has undisguisedly made known. He holds that the metaphoric and the figurative modes of speech, as forms of expression, are founded in the very nature of prophecy, and that to this fact is due their important place in Scripture. In regard to the statements of Scripture concerning the Deity, the old postulate of the human mode of speech of the Bible becomes with Maimonides an important canon, by which everything unsatisfactory and obscure is removed from the idea of God. The ruling principle of his exegesis is the assumption of the exoteric and the esoteric sense. The "secrets of the Law" hidden in the Biblical words are found by investigation into the esoteric meaning. But such secrets, as sought by Maimonides, have nothing to do with mysticism; he undertakes the investigation with absolute rationalism, as may be seen particularly in his explanation of certain Bible stories and his exposition of the reasons for the Law. He finds the teachings of the Aristotelian physics and metaphysics in the chapters on Creation (Gen. i.) and in that of the Heavenly Chariot (Ezek. i.). His rationalism, however, halts at the facts of prophecy and of the Bible miracles, though here, too, rational investigation comes into play. One of his most original and daring aids to exegesis is evolved by his doctrine concerning prophecy—namely, the theory of visions—whereby he transfers a number of Bible stories from the realm of fact into the realm of psychic experience. The principle of the exoteric and the esoteric sense of Scripture leads him to allegorical exegesis, with the theory of which he prefaces his "Guide"; but his allegory remains within the bounds prescribed to it by his rationalism on the one hand, and by his faith in tradition on the other. Yet there appear certain traces of that extensive allegorization that not long after him appears among his disciples, as, for instance, in his exposition of Canticles, of the adulterous woman in Proverbs, and of the prologue to Job.

Philosophical Exegesis.

16.

Through Maimonides' "Guide of the Perplexed," which, even during his life, was circulated in Hebrew translations, Aristotelian philosophy found an abiding-place in Jewish thought, and became a chief factor also in Bible exegesis. During the following three centuries many Bible commentators were primarily concerned with finding the tenets of philosophy in Scripture. Especially the Biblical Wisdom books—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job—lent themselves to such study; so also did the Song of Solomon, an ancient and a most fruitful field for allegorization. Philosophic allegory had already been applied to the last-mentioned book, and rejected by Abraham ibn Ezra. Maimonides' pupil, Joseph ibn Aknin, now wrote a philosophico-allegoric commentary on it; Samuel ibn Tibbon, the translator of Maimonides' work, commented on Ecclesiastes; his son Moses, on the Song of Solomon. Samuel ibn Tibbon's son-in-law, Jacob b. Abba Mari Anatolio, collected his sermons on the pericopes of the Pentateuch in a work entitled "Malmad ha-Talmidim," which is the most important monument of the philosophic Scriptural exegesis current in Provence in the century following Maimonides—an exegesis that allegorized even Biblical personages in the manner of Philo. This allegorization, which detected abstract philosophic concepts and postulates in the personages and occurrences of the Pentateuch stories, and which even forced itself into the Sabbath sermons of the preachers, led at the beginning of the fourteenth century to the second great controversy between the Maimonists and anti-Maimonists in Provence and northern Spain. This controversy, suddenly terminated by an external event, did not bring philosophic Bible exegesis to an end. Its most eminent representative was Levi Ben Gershon (died 1344), a strict Aristotelian, who wrote commentaries on most of the Biblical books. In those on the Pentateuch and the historical books he exhaustively summed up the ethical and other maxims (practical applications) deducible from the Bible narrative. The philosophic commentary on the Pentateuch by Nissim b. Moses of Marseilles, written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, was less well known. A similar commentary was written by Samuel ZarZa of Valencia in the fourteenth century. The last great exegetic work written in Spain before the expulsion was the "'Akedat YiZhak" (Offering of Isaac) by Isaac Arama, consisting of sermons in a philosophic setting and partly philosophical in nature. The commentaries of Isaac Abravanel also give a large place to religio-philosophic discussion.

Mystic Exegesis.

17.

Side by side with the philosophical mode of exegesis another was developed, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, that was based, like it, on the fundamental conception that there must be a deeper meaning in the Scriptural word than is implied in the literal sense. This conception, together with the assumption that all truths about God and creation, the universe and man, which are cognizable by the human mind, and which have been so cognized, must be found in Scripture, was most clearly laid down in the introduction prefixed by Moses Nahmanides to his thoughtful commentary on the Pentateuch (written about 1268). Although the mystical exegesis is here secondary, and confined to a small number of guarded allusions, the new esoteric doctrine is here first openly promulgated, and powerfully supported by the authority of thewriter, who was one of the foremost personalities of his time. This doctrine, "hokmah Nistarah" (Secret Wisdom), was first formulated in Gerona, Nahmanides' home. It was also called "Cabala" (i.e., tradition). In its chief tenets, consisting of originally formulated philosophic theorems, such as the neo-Platonic doctrine of emanation, it connected with the remnants and reminiscences of a much earlier mysticism.

"Pardes."

Contemporaneously with these beginnings of the Cabala in northern Spain, another kind of mysticism connected with Scripture arose in Germany, in the writings of Eleazar b. Judah of Worms, his exegetic method consisting in the interchange and combination of the letters of the Scriptural text, and in computing their numerical value (see Gematria). The exegetic method of the Cabala is founded on the foregoing, combined with the allegoric (and also typologic) exegesis. Cabalistic exegesis is given full recognition, together with the other methods of exegesis, in the Pentateuch commentary of Bahya ben Asher of Saragossa (1291), which became one of the most popular exegetic works. Four methods of exegesis are enumerated in the introduction to this commentary, each of which is to be applied to Scriptural passages: (1) the way of the Peshat, (2) the way of the Midrash, (3) the way of Reason (i.e., philosophic exegesis), and (4) the way of the Cabala, "on which the light dwells—a path for the soul that refuses to be illumined by the light of life." Contemporaneously with Bahya's Pentateuch commentary there also appeared in Spain a book which was destined to become the basic work of the Cabala, and which owed its unprecedented success to the fact that it purported to be a relic of the earliest mysticism and a work of the same school of sages that had produced the old traditional works, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrash. This book is the Zohar, in its form a running Midrashic commentary on the Pentateuch, but interrupted by many and various digressions, and supplemented by original additions. Like Bahya b. Asher's book, but on a different basis, the Zohar also assumes four kinds of exegesis, or rather a fourfold meaning: Peshat, Remez (allusion, typological sense, allegory), Derash, and Sod (secret, mystical sense). In formulating this doctrine of a fourfold meaning, the Christian mode of exegesis (which was well known to the Spanish Jews) probably served as a model; in this the fourfold sense (historical or literal, tropological or moral, allegorical, and anagogical) had long since been formulated (by the Venerable Bede in the eighth, and by Rhabanus Maurus in the ninth century). The initial letters of the words Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod, forming together the word "Pardes" (), became the designation for the four-fold meaning, in which the mystical sense given in the Cabala was the highest point. The tenet of the fourfold meaning and its designation, "Pardes," have been erroneously ascribed to the beginning of the Jewish Bible exegesis, the Tannaite time, on account of the expression "Pardes" (pleasure garden), which is used metaphorically in an account of the mysticism of the Tannaites (hag. 14b); but in point of fact the designation "Pardes" marks the arrest, for a long time, of the development of the Jewish Bible exegesis.

From the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century.

18.

The four methods of Scriptural exposition, as applied side by side by Bahya b. Asher in his Pentateuch commentary, characterize all the numerous works in the field of Jewish Bible exegesis during the three centuries following Maimonides. The Peshat was more or less recognized and appreciated above the other methods, and even the Zohar borrowed much from Rashi and Ibn Ezra, both of whom were more and more regarded as the greatest exegetes, their Pentateuch commentaries being frequently commented upon. But new commentaries in harmony with the Peshat were also written. The Peshat did not supplant the Midrash; and side by side with it the ancient sources of the traditional exegesis were held in high estimation and employed. The extent to which the philosophic mode of exegesis was used has already been stated; henceforward the mystical exegesis also gained in favor. An Italian, Menahem of Recanate (beginning of the fourteenth century), wrote a cabalistic commentary on the Pentateuch, in which the Zohar was freely drawn upon. The chief personalities of the exegetic literature of this period (which ended with the expulsion of the Jews from the Pyrenean peninsula), that have not been mentioned above, are as follows: In the East, Tanhum Yerushalmi (thirteenth century) wrote a commentary in Arabic on the greater part of the Scripture, prefixing to it a general and pithy introduction. Eleazar Ashkenazi, otherwise unknown, who calls himself a son of the Babylonian ("Bagdados") Nathan, wrote in 1364 a commentary in Hebrew on the Pentateuch, that contains original views, and rationalistically explains away many miracles. Exegetic writings of this period, both from southern Arabia and by the Persian Jews of Central Asia, have recently come to light. Simon b. Zemah Duran (1361-1444) of North Africa wrote a commentary on Job. Jacob b. Asher (1280-1340) of Spain wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, of which the interpretations of letters and numbers are well known. Samuel b. Nissim wrote at the same time in Toledo commentaries on Job and on other books, which he himself called "Midrash." The prolific and many-sided Joseph Caspi (d. 1340) of southern France must also be mentioned, who explained many of the Hagiographa, as also Isaac Nathan b. Kalonymus, author of the first Hebrew Bible concordance (c. 1440). In northern France a lively interest in Bible exegesis was sustained, especially by the polemics against the Christian manner of exegesis. The Tosafists, so-called, who continued the labors of Rashi and his grandsons in the field of Talmudic study, contributed isolated remarks also to Bible exegesis, especially to the Pentateuch, which were collected in different compilations. Hezekiah b. Manoah and Eliezer of Beaugency wrote special commentaries. In Germany may be mentioned Menahem b. Meïr of Speyer, author of a cabalistic commentary on the Pentateuch (fifteenth century), and Lipmann of Mühlhausen in Prague (about 1400), author of the "NiZZahon." InItaly a voluminous exegetic literature was developed in the second half of the thirteenth and the early decades of the fourteenth century, its representatives being Isaiah of Trani the Younger, Benjamin b. Judah, Zerahiah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel, and especially the poet Immanuel b. Solomon of Rome. The last-named wrote commentaries on the greater part of the Scriptures, mostly of a grammatical and rationalistic nature, but also philosophic or mysticoallegoric. He also wrote an interesting text-book on Biblical hermeneutics. From the fifteenth century may be mentioned: Aaron b. Gerson Abulrabi of Catania in Sicily, who, in a supercommentary on Rashi, propounded very original and often daring expositions; Johanan Alemanno, author of a philosophic-cabalistic commentary on the Song of Solomon; and Judah Messer Leon, who applied Cicero's and Quintilian's rhetoric to the Bible.

Sixteenth Century to Middle of Eighteenth Century.

19.

The days of the Epigoni, as the centuries after Maimonides may be called, were followed by an epoch of stagnation and degeneracy which ended with the appearance of Moses Mendelssohn (middle of the eighteenth century). This epoch was characterized by a decline in general culture and science, by a one-sided study of the Talmud that became more and more involved in an extravagant dialectic, by a minute and servile development of the ritual law, and by the increasing authority of the Cabala. Although many Bible commentaries were added to the exegetic literature, nothing of real importance and lasting influence was produced. Isaac Abravanel, standing on the threshold of this epoch, still belonged to the preceding period. He was a Bible exegete on an extensive scale, who prefaced his commentaries on the several books with introductory remarks, made use of his experience as a statesman in explaining the historical books, and also drew upon Christian exegesis. In Italy, where Abravanel completed his commentary, Elijah Levita also wrote his epoch-making work on the Masorah, "Masoret ha-Masoret." There, too, Solomon Norzi wrote his important Masoretic commentary on the Bible, and Menahem Lonsano also displayed activity in the same direction. Italy was the home of Azariah dei Rossi, who treated of questions of Biblical chronology in his critical work, "Me'or 'Enayim," and of Abraham de Portaleone, the first Biblical archeologist in Jewish literature. Commentaries were written in Italy by Obadiah Sforno; Reuchlin's teacher; Joseph b. David ibn Yahya; and Moses hefeZ (Gentile), whose interesting Pentateuch commentary draws also upon the principles of secular science. New centers of Jewish learning were formed in the East through the numerous settlements of the exiles from Spain: Solomon b. Melek of Constantinople was here the representative of the Peshat, though his work, "Miklal Yofi" (Perfection of Beauty), contains mostly extracts from kimhi.

Moses Alsheik of Safed.

Moses Alsheik of Safed (sixteenth century) was the most prolific exegetical author, writing exhaustive commentaries—partly homiletic in character—on most of the Biblical books. Other Eastern Bible commentators of the sixteenth century are: Joseph TaitaZak, Isaac b. Solomon Kohen, Baruch ibn Yaish, Samuel Laniado. In Holland in the seventeenth century Manasseh ben Israel wrote a work in Spanish, "El Conciliador," to reconcile the contradictions in the Scriptures. Isaac Aboab wrote a Spanish commentary on the Torah, Isaac Akosta (1722) one on the Former Prophets. Baruch Spinoza had already passed beyond the pale of Judaism when he laid down in his "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus" his opinions on prophecy and on the origin of the Biblical books, opinions that became momentous in Biblical learning (see Bible Exegesis, Modern and Non-Jewish).

hiddushim and Peshatim.

Among Jews using the German language those of Poland were the leaders during this period. The study of the Talmud was pursued by them with renewed ardor, and gradually supplanted the study of the Bible itself. Abraham b. Judah Kremnitz (end of sixteenth century) wrote a commentary on the Prophets and the Hagiographa. The physician Eliezer Ashkenasi (died 1586 in Cracow), a man of philosophic attainments, explained the Pentateuch narrative in a special work ("Ma'ase Adonai"). The extravagant attempts to find a multiplicity of interpretations for one Biblical passage are characteristic of this Polish exegesis. Nathan Spira (1630) explained the words of Deut. iii. 24 et seq. in two hundred and fifty ways; Elijah Oettinger, in three hundred and forty-five ways. The mania for finding the new and unexpected, fostered by the pilpulistic methods of Talmudic study, thus dominated Bible exegesis and produced the literature of the "hiddushim" (novellæ) and "peshatim" (explanations) on the Pentateuch, that flourished especially in the eighteenth century.

The picture of the exegetic literature of this period would be incomplete without a reference to the Bible translations that it produced. Mention may be accordingly made of Abraham Usque's Spanish version (Ferrara, 1553), Jekuthiel Blitz's Judæo-German version (1676-78), revised by Josel Witzenhausen. The picture is completed in another direction by the literature of the "derashot" (sermon), that flourished especially in this period. The chief material for them was taken from the haggadic or cabalistic literature, the Bible text being used only in connection with it.

Mendelssohn and His School.

20.

The new intellectual epoch in the history of Judaism inaugurated by Moses Mendelssohn marks also an epoch for Jewish Bible exegesis. Mendelssohn exerted his great and reshaping influence on his German coreligionists and on the German-speaking Jews of other countries in the first instance through his translation of the Pentateuch, that acted as a mighty and enduring leaven for culture. But this influence was equaled by his importance as an exegete. The Hebrew commentaries on the Pentateuch written by him and his collaborators mark the return to the simple, natural Bible exposition, the restitution of the Peshat to its rights. Mendelssohn himself referred to the classic writers of the Peshat, Rashi, Samuel b. Meïr, Ibn Ezra, and Nahmanides, as models for true Bible exegesis. Hand in hand with this exegesis went the renewed study of Hebrewgrammar and the formulation of a new Hebrew style aiming at correctness and simplicity. Mendelssohn, who combined in his person Judaism and Jewish scholarship with the intellectual culture—the literary, esthetic, and philosophic learning—of his time, combined in his Bible interpretation the traditions of Jewish exegesis with the elements of that developing in new directions outside of Jewish circles. The Biblical science of Protestant Germany that became paramount in the second half of the eighteenth century strongly influenced this reawakening Jewish exegesis even in Mendelssohn; and subsequent generations could not escape its influence.

The Biurists.

The work of Mendelssohn, who had issued (1773) a Hebrew commentary on Ecclesiastes even before the appearance of his version of the Pentateuch (1783), and who had published also a German version of the Psalms, was sedulously continued after his death. His collaborators on his Pentateuch commentary (written in Hebrew) were the eminent grammarian Solomon Dubno, the linguist and poet Naphtali Hartwig Wessely, Aaron Jaroslaw, and Herz Homberg. From its name, "Bi'ur" (exposition), the authors who similarly translated and annotated the other books of the Bible were called Biurists. These men were in a way the rediscoverers and reconquerors of the Bible; for large sections of European Judaism that had become estranged from the Bible, through a one-sided study of the Talmud and through the decline of culture, had lost the perception for its simple meaning and its literary beauties. The first Biurists were, like the above-mentioned collaborators on the Pentateuch commentary, pupils and personal followers of Mendelssohn, and they were joined by other enthusiastic disciples in the early decades of the nineteenth century. Next to Germany, Austria was the home of the Biurists' activity. The most complete editions of the whole Bible, with German translation printed in Hebrew characters, and Hebrew commentary by different Biurists, appeared in Vienna and (in a different arrangement) in Prague, and were frequently reprinted with new additions by later authors. These Biurist Bibles, that perpetuated Mendelssohn's work on the Pentateuch, were important factors in the process of intellectual transformation taking place among a large section of European Judaism in the first half of the nineteenth century. The activity of the Biurists prepared the soil for the new science of Judaism as the most important fruit of that transformation.

Nineteenth Century.

21.

Moses Mendelssohn and the Biurists had provided for students and teachers, as means for the revived study of the Bible, translations printed in Hebrew characters, and commentaries, written in Hebrew, on the Biblical books; to these were added in the course of the nineteenth century similar works on the Bible, with the substitution, however, of German type in the translations, and with German annotations in conformity with the progressing conditions of the time. These works, consisting of the mere translation, or sometimes offering longer or shorter comments, were primarily intended not for specialists, but for general students of the Bible, for the school, and for the congregation. But they were compiled chiefly by specialists, who continued the activity of the Biurists, while paying due regard to the advances in Biblical science. One of these translations is known by the name of Leopold Zunz, who edited the versions of the several books by H. Arnheim, Michael Sachs, and J. Fürst; translating himself one book only, that of Chronicles. Besides this, similar works by Herxheimer, Philippson, and J. Fürst were widely circulated. Aside from these works, dealing with the entire Scriptures, single portions also were thus treated; and commentaries were also written in Hebrew after the manner of the Biurists, the latter especially in eastern Europe.

Similar aims were pursued outside of Germany; and translations of the Bible by Jews and for Jews were produced in the different European languages. The French, English, Italian, Dutch, Hungarian, Polish, and Russian Jews thus received their own translations of the Bible; the necessity for these increasing toward the middle of the nineteenth century with the growing number of the Jews unable to read the Bible in the original text. Among the non-German versions the Italian one by S. D. Luzzatto deserves especial mention, as well as the French work of Samuel Cahen, which contains, in addition to the translation, a commentary and valuable literary notes.

Although the endeavors sketched above were intended primarily for the unlettered, Bible exegesis as a scientific study was included in the science of Judaism, which rapidly advanced from the second decade of the nineteenth century. It reached, however, no important independent development. The leaders of Jewish science contributed little to that great progress in Bible exegesis and its auxiliary studies which was one of the signal achievements of the last century. Various causes contributed to this. In the first place, the history and literature of the Judaism of the post-Biblical and ensuing periods engaged the creative and pioneer activity of Jewish scholars; since in this department there was little collaboration to be expected from other quarters. Moreover, during the last period Jewish science suffered from the lack of that organization which the universities and learned societies offered to the development and steady pursuit of the various branches of human knowledge, and by means of which Biblical science attained to its eminent position and flourished so richly in German Protestantism. The founding of the rabbinical seminaries was an insufficient substitute; and the lack of organization referred to above was acutely felt in the whole field of Jewish science, and stood in the way of a methodical and continuous cultivation of the correlated branches of Bible study. At the same time the number of Jewish scholars who devoted themselves to study voluntarily dwindled, for well-known reasons; while the rabbis of the communities, who by virtue of their position were naturally students, were increasingly diverted from Jewish studies by the changing conditions and the various duties imposed by their office.

Finally, many Jewish scholars hesitated to applyruthlessly the higher criticism to the Scriptures, especially to the Pentateuch, lest they should offend the traditions that formed part and parcel of the whole religious life of Judaism. Although the Jewish contributions to Bible study during the nineteenth century were limited in number, for the reasons mentioned above, yet some of the founders and leaders of the new Jewish science turned their attention also to Bible exegesis and to the multiform Biblical problems. Zunz, Rapoport, and Nachman Krochmal dealt with various questions of Biblical criticism with much acumen. Geiger, in his chief work, "Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel," is extremely radical. In his lectures he left an introduction to the Scriptures, which, however, is but a sketch. Graetz, after finishing his history, which included also Biblical times, devoted himself entirely to Bible exegesis, especially to textual criticism. Luzzatto was a highly gifted Bible exegete, with a rare insight into the niceties of the Hebrew language. Many other scholars could be mentioned who contributed important works to Biblical isagogics, Biblical archeology, textual explanations, and criticisms. It is primarily due to Jewish scholars that the works of the early Bible exegetes were recovered from obscurity and appreciated as aids to modern exegesis. Indications are not lacking that Jewish scholars increasingly devote their attention to Biblical science; leading to the hope that the sons of Jacob will duly take part in the researches into the sacred documents of Israel.

Bibliography: Leopold Löw, , Praktische Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift und Gesch. der Schriftauslegung, part i.;
Allgemeine Einleitung und Gesch. der Schriftauslegung, Nagy-Kanisza, 1855;
L. Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l'Exegése Biblique Jusqu'a nos Jours, Paris, 1881;
Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, § 17, London, 1857.
To §§ 1-7; W. Bacher, Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung: Ein Wörterbuch der Bibelexegetischen Kunstsprache der Tannaiten, Leipsic, 1899;
L. Dobschütz, Die Einfache Bibelexegese der Tannaiten, Breslau, 1893;
H. S. Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese, Berlin, 1840;
idem, Die Hagadische Exegese, Berlin, 1847. For literature on Talmud and Midrash, see Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud, 3d ed., 1890.
To §§ 8-18: W. Bacher, Die Jüdische Bibelexegese vom Anfange des Zehnten bis zum Ende des Fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts, Treves, 1892;
reprint from Winter and Wünsche, Die Jüdische Litteratur seit Abschluss des Kanons, ii. 239-339, containing also a bibliography on the whole period.
To §§ 20-21: Kayserling, Die Jüdische Litteratur seit Mendelssohn, in Winter and Wünsche, ib. iii. 741-751.E. C. W. B.

—Modern and Non-Jewish:

The history of modern Bible interpretation divides itself best into: (1) the Reformation period, to the end of the sixteenth century; (2) the Confessional or Dogmatic period, to the middle of the eighteenth century; and (3) the Critical period, to the present time.

Impulses, Principles, and Results.

The influences that have chiefly promoted modern exegesis are: broadening culture; the art of printing; theological discussion; philological progress; historical research; discoveries in Bible lands; philosophical conceptions of the order of revelation; the doctrine of human development, or evolution. The chief notes of the progress of modern exegesis are: changes in methods of Biblical study, in principles of interpretation, and in theories of the degree and nature of Scriptural authority. The main practical results are seen in: a redivision of the contents of the Bible; changed opinions as to the authorship of many of the books; altered views as to their unity or literary form; a rearrangement of the books or their contents in the true order of their composition; and a comparative treatment of the Biblical institutions in the order given by the rearranged texts.

1. Period of the Reformation:

The chief pre-requisite to a progressive study of the Old Testament was a general knowledge of the language in which it was written. The impulse to the study of Hebrew in the influential centers in Europe came in part from a deeper interest in religious questions. The study of Greek, as the classical idiom of science and philosophy, seemed to involve the study of Hebrew as the ancient language of the true religion, in which, moreover, the greater portion of the current Christian Scriptures was originally written. It was naturally from Jewish scholars that most help could be obtained: Reuchlin (1455-1522), the founder of modern Hebrew science, though not the earliest Christian Hebraist, was as a humanist second only to Erasmus in influence. He obtained nearly all his knowledge of the language from his Jewish teachers, and the grammar contained in his epoch-making "Rudimenta Linguæ Hebraicæ" (1506) was based chiefly on David kimhi. His friend and (in these matters) his disciple, Martin Luther, was the first great Christian exegete: his University of Wittenberg had been founded in 1502 partly for the purpose of promoting the new learning.

Exegetical Merits of the Reformers.

What distinguished Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and the other reformed expositors was their fundamental exegetical principle that Scripture is to be taken in its literal sense. Thus, Luther's "Observationes in Psalmos" (1519) has, on this ground, been called the first scientifically exegetical book of the Reformation. In his comments on Gen. iii., xv., and xxx. he deals severely with the time-honored allegorizing method. In Calvin's commentaries on Isaiah (1551) and the Psalms (1564) the high-water mark of the exegesis of the sixteenth century is reached; the advance being shown chiefly in an increased regard for philological accuracy and for the historical setting of the sacred writings. Thus, though the Reformers were themselves no great Hebraists, their expositions are the most enduring mark of the revival of Hebrew and Biblical learning in their time.

A surer grammatical and historical exegesis was made possible in this age by the publication of the original texts of Scripture. From the earliest days of the art of printing the text of the Old Testament had been circulated under Jewish auspices; and soon the current Vulgate version was compared with the original, the first simple step in that process of textual criticism which has been the surest foundation of modern interpretation. Two great undertakings are the monuments of this era of text publication. One was the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes (1514-17) in six volumes, four of them devoted to the Old Testament, the Septuagint, the Targums, and the Vulgate appearing side by side with the original. The other was the Hebrew and Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg (Venice, 1518-26), in which the chief help was given by R. Jacob benhayyim of Tunis. Finally, the publication of texts facilitated the translation of the Bible into the vernaculars of the various countries of western Europe, upon the basis of the Hebrew and not of the long dominant Latin Vulgate—a process which was itself an exercise in the exegetical art.

2. Period of Confessionalism or Dogmatism:

Effect of Dogmatics.

It can not be said that any great advance was made in the understanding of the Bible during the following century and a half. It is true that neither the study of Hebrew nor that of the sacred text was neglected; but the ends sought were mainly theological, or rather confessional, in the narrowest sense. There is only here and there a trace of any desire to find out the inner connection of the parts of Scripture and the progress of its teaching from step to step in the development of revelation. In Germany, especially, little advance is to be noted until the middle of the eighteenth century. There theological controversy and the framing of sectarian symbols were most assiduously practised; and it is a melancholy indication of the barrenness of such pursuits that there is no evidence in the whole history of exegesis that the larger understanding of the Bible has ever been promoted by dogmatic discussion.

The Polyglots.

Probably the most valuable work of these later "Middle Ages" of Christianity was the labor that went to the making of the great polyglots. That of Cardinal Ximenes, referred to above, had already in the sixteenth century been followed by the Antwerp Polyglot (1569-72), four of whose eight volumes were devoted to the Old Testament. This work, executed under the auspices of Philip II. of Spain, was superintended by the learned Spaniard Arias Montanus. Its improvement upon the Complutensian is shown partly in its greater accuracy and partly in its fuller reproduction of the Targums. An essential advance is shown in the Paris Polyglot (1629-45), published under the auspices of the advocate Le Jay, in which were given the Syriac and Arabic versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch and Targum. The London Polyglot (1654-57) was further enriched by the Ethiopic version and valuable prolegomena by the chief editor, Brian Walton.

Semitic Scholars and Archeologists.

Many of the contributors to these monumental works were among the foremost scholars of their time. Thus, Edmund Castell (Castellus), who wrote the "Lexicon Heptaglotton" (1669), was the chief linguistic authority in the making of the last-named polyglot, and his dictionary has scarcely ever been surpassed as an effort of independent scholarship. It served as the basis of most of the lexicons of the individual languages until the nineteenth century. The Buxtorfs, father and son (died 1629 and 1664, respectively), in Basel, by their lexicons and hand-books, were largely instrumental in bringing the treasures of rabbinical and Talmudical literature within the reach of the Christian world. It was also no slight service that was performed by the Arabists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Edward Pocock (1604-91), another contributor to the London Polyglot, and Albert Schultens (1686-1750) employed their Arabic erudition in the work of Scripture exposition and illustration. Nor must the achievements of Job Ludolf (1624-1704) in the more remote sphere of the Ethiopic be overlooked. All study of the Semitic languages and literatures in the days before the rise of comparative linguistic and historical science was made directly in the interest of the Bible and Biblical literature.

Help scarcely less important was afforded by those scholars who devoted themselves to Biblical and Oriental archeology. The works of Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) on sacred geography and zoology ("Phaleg et Canaan," 1646, and "Hierozoicon," 1675) are replete with knowledge not yet antiquated. John Selden (1584-1654), "the Coryphæus of antiquaries," left in his "Syntagmata de Dis Syris" (1617) a work of enduring value, as did John Spencer of Cambridge in his great work, "De Legibus Hebræorum Ritualibus" (1685), and Adrian Reland also in his "Palestina" (1716). These proved to be basic works in their respective spheres of research.

Obstructive Dogmatism.

But in the more specific work of interpreting the sacred text in detail the Christian Church, taken as a whole, had forgotten the spirit and maxims of Luther and Calvin, and was hopelessly fettered by the dogma of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Inasmuch as this doctrine necessarily implies the absence of any inner development in the Bible, it paralyzed the search for historic truth. Stagnation reached its climax when the "Formula Ecclesiarum Helveticarum" (1675) declared, as the doctrine of the Church, that the Masoretic vowel-points and accents were divinely inspired. Elias Levita (1472-1549) had made it plain to intelligent Jews and Christians alike that the points were introduced about the sixth century of the common era; and when Louis Cappel (Cappellus), "Reformed" professor at Saumur (1585-1658), vindicated the same opinion in his "Critica Sacra" (1650), the orthodoxy of the time was left without excuse or defense, and the error gradually died out of itself. This book was the real beginning of textual criticism in the Christian Church. Moreover, the mysticism of Böhme (1575-1624) and the pietism of Spener (1635-1705) had an effect far beyond the spheres of religious sentiment and of philosophy, in liberating the minds of many from the tyranny of formalism.

Harbingers of Progress.

Also, the original and independent John Koch (Cocceius, 1603-69), in pointing out the progressiveness of the divine revelation, gave, notwithstanding his extravagances as a typologist, a lasting impulse to earnest inquiry into the essential meaning of the Bible. His legitimate successor was Vitringa (1659-1722), the famous commentator on Isaïah, a striking combination of the grammarian and the allegorist, whose diligence in seeking first of all the primary sense of the text was stimulated by the example of the common-sense literalist Grotius (1583-1645) and of the ingenious but cautious philologist De Dieu (1590-1642). All of these were ofthe Reformed Church in Holland, where almost the only great commentators of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were trained and labored.

3. Period of Criticism:

Esthetic Appreciation.

The ideas that were most germinal and potential in interpretation came, however, not from Holland (concerning Spinoza, see later on), but from England and, above all, from Germany. They can be traced succinctly along the lines of esthetic appreciation, literary criticism, philological research, and philosophical constructiveness. It is with the middle of the eighteenth century that the unbroken advance begins. Up to that time the theologians, by their unsympathetic treatment, had done their best to consign the Bible to the rubbish-heap of creeds and confessions; and they seem to have almost succeeded.

Lowth and Herder.

The first essential to a correct estimate was to observe the form and structure of the sacred writings. Robert Lowth (1710-87), an Englishman, has the distinction of having pointed this out. His "De Sacra Poesi Hebræorum" (1753) and his translation of Isaiah (1778) set forth and illustrated the several forms of Parallelism in Hebrew poetry, and showed how they could be traced out in the original, and how they could be reproduced in any properly made version. In this exposition he rightly professes to have applied largely the principles of Azariah dei Rossi (1513-77). This was the opening of a new world to Christian readers, who were now enabled to discern the poetic structure of a large part of the Old Testament. Lowth's esthetic taste and spirit were more than matched by the German Herder (1744-1803), whose enthusiasm for Oriental antiquity had been in large measure kindled by Hamann (1730-88). Herder's "Geist der Hebräischen Poesie" (1782) did most to imbue his age with admiration for Hebrew literature. But the Bible was the main inspiration of his literary and philosophical writings, in all of which he strove mightily for the uplifting and enlarging of the spirit of humanity. What has been gained since Herder's time in the literary appreciation of the Bible is due in the main to a more accurate knowledge of details.

Beginnings of Higher Criticism.

Bible exegesis came to its rights when scientific literary criticism was combined with accurate philological methods and more complete historical and archeological knowledge. The year 1753 is the natal year of what, in distinction from textual criticism, is called "higher criticism." Then appeared along with Lowth's "Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews" a still more epoch-making book by Jean Astruc (1684-1766), physician to Louis XIV. of France, entitled "Conjectures sur les Mémoires Originaux dont il Paroît que Moyse s'est Servi pour Composer le Livre de la Génèse." The book was published with an apologetic aim—to save the consistency of the sacred writers—and nobly has this purpose been justified in the final result of the critical inquiry thus begun. It had long been maintained by some of the more daring spirits, as by Abraham ibn Ezra (1093-1168) and the philosophers Hobbes (1588-1679) and Spinoza (1632-77), that there were many portions of the Pentateuch which could not have been written by Moses, on the ground that their statements refer to events which occurred after his time. Of these Spinoza advanced furthest, following up the dicta of Ibn Ezra and Isaac de la Peyrère (1592-1676).

Precursors of the Higher Criticism.

In his "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus" (1670) Spinoza not only disputed the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, but asserted that in the historical books as far as Kings much of the contents pointed to a late authorship. His sagacity was further shown by his putting Chronicles long after the time of Ezra and in perceiving the composite character of several of the prophetical books. Richard Simon, a father of the Oratory in Paris (1638-1712), the most acute critic of his day, while denying that the Pentateuch in its final form could have come from Moses, propounded the theory that the Old Testament was compiled with considerable freedom from the works of inspired historiographers.

Chief Points in the Line of Progress.

Astruc made the beginning of progressive criticism by observing the distinction in usage of the two names for God, Elohim and Yhwh. It had already been conjectured by Vitringa and others that Moses made use of earlier documents. Astruc hit upon the thought that these two names, running through separate sections of Genesis, marked a distinction of authorship. He assumed also nine smaller documents distinguished by other marks. J. G. Eichhorn, along with other hypotheses, showed in 1779 that this distinction was further justified by peculiarities of linguistic usage. In 1798 K. D. Ilgen declared his belief that the Elohim sections in Genesis were not the productions of a single author. De Wette demonstrated in 1805 that Deuteronomy differed in essential character from the other books of the Pentateuch. Friedrich Bleek in 1822 pointed out that the Book of Joshua was a direct continuation of the Pentateuchal narrative, and therefore must have been included in the same historical framework now known as the Hexateuch, including the Pentateuch and Joshua. Ewald in 1831 showed that the Elohim document and the Jehovah document were separately traceable throughout the Pentateuch. In 1853 Hupfeld developed the happy conjecture of Ilgen, made more than half a century before, into a demonstration that there were two independent Elohistic sources, one of which was very closely related to the Jahvistic.

Summary of Theories.

Thus, in a round century after 1753, the fundamental analysis of the first six books of the Old Testament was completed. The few facts just given indicate merely the general line of assured progress, leading to the establishment of the hypothesis that the Hexateuch was made up of a series of independent documents. Other theories, such as that the Pentateuch was a late composition made up of a collection of fragments (the "Fragmentary" hypothesis), or that it consisted of one fundamental (Elohistic) work, others having been attached for the purpose of completing it (the "Supplementary" hypothesis), grew out of the original impulse towardanalysis and construction. They were long defended by able scholars, but have now practically disappeared from the arena of discussion.

Meanwhile a great awakening of what may be summarily called the historic interest had taken place in the world of criticism, and Bible study has been perhaps the principal gainer by the whole movement to which that awakening has given vitality and permanence. The dominant influences are, moreover, still operative a century and a half after the date of Lowth and Astruc.

Comparative Philology.

Comparative philology has been influential in two main directions. It has called attention to the contrasts as well as to the resemblances of distinct families of mankind, and has compelled men to find out characteristic types of thought and modes of expression in their literary monuments. It has also provoked a rational and scientific study of words and sentences, so that the modifications of their usages from age to age are made a key to unlock the meaning, or shades of meaning, which they have expressed. Hence, on the one hand, the impulse to the literary study of the Bible given by Lowth and Herder was continued by highly endowed men of various schools, of whom it may suffice to name Eichhorn, De Wette, Goethe, Ewald, Coleridge, and Matthew Arnold. On the other hand, the grammatical and lexical study of Hebrew was placed upon a new and ascending grade. Witness the successive productions of Gesenius (whose practical linguistic work is the most vital and persistent known to modern times), Ewald, Olshausen, Stade, and König.

Textual Emendation.

To the demand for verbal accuracy, as well as to the search after the form of the original text, are due the many attempts that have been made to amend the Masoretic text. That emendation is often needed was long ago felt by independent inquirers. But no great advance was made in method from the days of Cappellus and Lowth to those of Ewald and Hitzig, except in connection with a critical study of the ancient versions and a wider collation of manuscripts. This was resumed with better efforts in the monumental works of Holmes and Parsons, of Field and Lagarde, who enforced stricter principles of textual correction.

New Vitalizing Conceptions.

But all these influences combined will not account for the tremendous revolution which Bible criticism and exegesis have undergone since the middle of the eighteenth century. Two new forces have been applied to Biblical study which may fairly be called vitalizing and regenerative. The one has come from the now ruling conceptions of the history of human thought and experience; the other, from the prevalent views as to the actual growth of human society. The one is chiefly philosophical; the other, mainly empirical. The practical result of the cooperant workings of the two conceptions is a rearrangement of the Old Testament books in the order of the natural development of their ideas, and in accordance with the growing capacity of ancient Israel for apprehending or receiving them.

The chief points on which the representatives of modern Biblical exegesis are agreed are:

Results of the New Exegesis.

1.

In the Hexateuch four authors at least were concerned, besides a redactor or redactors. Of these Moses is not one, though it is not proved that he contributed no materials. One of the sources appears in Deuteronomy (D); another (P) in Leviticus and in large portions of the other books; while two others (J and E) often inseparably combined (J E) form the remainder. J (Jahvist) and E (formerly called the second Elohist) give a sort of historical résumé of the early history of Israel from the standpoints of southern and northern Israel respectively, and are dominated by the prophetic movement. They were completed in the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. The groundwork of D was the "Book of Instructions" found by Hilkiah in the Temple in 621 B.C. It ministered both to the prophetic spirit and to the cultus, and served as directive for the reformation of Josiah. P was composed for the promotion of the ceremonial code which it contains, and treats besides of the early history from the point of view of the priesthood. While including earlier elements, it was essentially the work of writers that were concerned with the ritual of the Second Temple, being substantially the law-book of Ezra. J E therefore precedes D, and D precedes P. The mode and time of the redaction are not so clear.

2.

The aims or tendencies of these several productions—prophetic, deuteronomic, and priestly—do not stop with the Book of Joshua, but run through all the historical literature. In brief, while Judges, Samuel, and Kings are mostly of the prophetic or deuteronomic spirit, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, all of which three came from one hand near the close of the canon, are controlled by the priestly tendency, so prominent in P of the Hexateuch.

3.

The prophetical books have also been rearranged and readjusted in accordance with their ascertained historical order. Moreover, many of them have been found to contain prophecies which did not proceed from the principal authors. The portions thus separated are usually later than the genuine prophecies. Isaiah and Zechariah, for example, have each been credited with more than one important work in addition to their own proper utterances.

4.

The titles of the Psalms are not original or reliable. Psalm-composition with a high spiritual intent and content began after the time of David, and, like hymn-writing in every age, flourished chiefly in times of religious and social stress and trial.

5.

The writings ascribed to Solomon are, in their present form, of very late date. Ecclesiastes is wholly, and Proverbs largely, the product of the Persian or Grecian period. The Book of Daniel belongs to the time of the Maccabees.

6.

Not only have the history of Israel and its historical records been arranged anew, but the whole career of Israel in Palestine now appears, in the light of the archeological disclosures of the last half-century, to have been, in its external incidents, but an incident in North-semitic history, which began several thousand years before the Hebrews became a nation.

7.

The development of the religious conceptions and institutions of ancient Israel can be traced in a rational order and illustrated by similar phenomena elsewhere.

Bibliography: History of Modern Exegesis: G. W. Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifterklärung seit der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, 1802-09;
Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Test. in der Christlichen Kirche, Jena, 1868;
F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (Bampton Lectures, 1885). General views, partial sketches, or bibliographical outlines may be found in many writings, among them Horne, Introduction to the Holy Scriptures (1st ed., 1818; 7th ed., 1834), vol. ii., part 2;
Reuss, Gesch. der Heiligen Schriften, 1890;
Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung in das Alte Test., best in the 4th ed., 1878;
Strack, in Zöckler's Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften in Encyklopädischer Darstellung, vol. i., part 2;
Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the O. T. 1891 et seq.;
Cornill, Einleitung in das A. T. 4th ed., 1896;
W. R. Smith, The O. T. in the Jewish Church, 1st ed. 1881;
Briggs, Methods of Biblical Study, 1883;
Cheyne, Founders of O. T. Criticism, 1893;
idem, Prophecies of Isaiah, Appendix, Essay x., 4th ed., 1886;
Franz Delitzsch, Commentar zum Psalter, 4th ed., 1883, Introduction, p. ix.;
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, vol. i., London, 1900.K. J. F. McC.

Jewish Soferim

SOFERIM By : Wilhelm Bacher Ludwig Blau

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Position Among the "Smaller Treatises."
Contents: Ch. i.-ix.
Ch. x.-xxi.
Divisions.
Date of Composition.
Peculiarities of the Treatise.

Position Among the "Smaller Treatises."

Talmudic treatise dealing especially with the rules relating to the preparation of the holy books, as well as with the regulations for the reading of the Law. It belongs to the so-called "smaller treatises," a term applied to about fifteen works in rabbinical literature, each containing all the important material bearing on a single subject. While they are mishnaic in form and are called "treatises," the topics discussed in them are arranged more systematically; for they are eminently practical in purpose, being, in a certain sense, the first manuals in which the data scattered through prolix sources have been collected in a brief and comprehensive form. Ancient authorities mention especially seven such treatises, which are doubtless the earliest ones; and among these the tractate containing the rules on the writing of the "books" occupies a particularly prominent place on account of the importance of its contents. The name as well as the form of the smaller treatises indicates that they originated in the period of oral tradition which was dominated by the Talmud and the Midrash; so that these treatises are doubtless of great antiquity, some of them having been compiled in their main outlines before even the final redaction of the Talmud in the sixth century. This theory holds good with regard to the treatise Sefer Torah also, to which the treatise Soferim bears an especially close relation.

Soferim consists of twenty-one chapters, containing 225 paragraphs ("halakot")in all. The contents may be summarized as follows:

Contents: Ch. i.-ix.

Ch. i.: On parchment and other writing-material; language, and translation of the Scriptures; the Septuagint; persons who are qualified to prepare books; leaves and pages; open and closed paragraphs. Ch. ii.: Spaces between letters, words, lines, pages, and books; space-lines; number of columns to the leaf, and lines to the column; width and height of the scrolls; rollers; sewing; mending; final letters. Ch. iii.: Writing several books on a single scroll; verse-marks in the scroll of the Law; superscriptions; palimpsests; procedure in regard to incorrectly written scrolls; rolling and unrolling; manner of rolling and reading; respectful handling of the scroll of the Law; careful use of food as a gift of God. Ch. iv.: The names of God and the interdiction against erasing them; Masoretic enumeration of such names; the sinfulness of profanely using any of them. Ch. v.: Sacrosanct writing of the names of God; scribal errors in such and in the lines of the sacred scroll; the Divine Name on vessels and utensils; preservation of scrolls and other writings which have become useless; use of loaned writings. Ch. vi.: Points and the in the Torah; textual variations in the ancient scrolls used in the Temple at Jerusalem; Masoretic textual and orthographical variants. Ch. vii. Masoretic combination of the "kere" and "ketib." Ch. viii.: Textual variants in Ps. xviii. and II Sam. xxii., and in Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. and II Kings xviii.-xx. Ch. ix.: Capital letters in the Torah; written words for which others must be substituted in reading; passages which are neither read nor translated.

Ch. x.-xxi.

Ch. x.: General regulations for reading; number of readers; number of persons requisite for public religious functions; "kaddish" and "bareku." Ch. xi.: Order of reading and of the translations to be read; errors in reading the Torah. Ch. xii.: Method of reading the curses, the songs, and the Decalogue; lesson at the New Moon of hanukkah; mode of writing the songs in Ex. xv., Judges v., and Deut. xxxii., as well as the order of reading the last-named. Ch. xiii.: Method of writing the Hagiographa in general and the scroll of Esther in particular; benedictions in connection with the Maftir and the reading of the Torah. Ch. xiv.: Benediction on reading the Hagiographa in general and the scroll of Esther in particular; liturgical observances prefatory to the reading; persons authorized to read and to officiate as hazzanim; individuals qualified to read the scroll of Esther; reading the other smaller scrolls; sanctity of the scroll of the Law; phylacteries and mezuzot. Ch. xv. Sanctity of other religious writings; diversity of the rabbinical sciences; occupations to be taught to children. Ch. xvi.: Value of the study of the Torah; the Haggadah; manifold interpretations; scholarship of the ancient teachers; sections of the Pentateuch; chapters of the Psalms; the Trisagion. Ch. xvii.: General regulations on the sections prescribed for the festivals; assistants at the sacrifice and their prayers; lessons and psalms for New Moon. Ch. xviii.: Daily and festival psalms; order of prayer for the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem; observances for the Day of Atonement. Ch. xix.: Further regulations regarding the psalms for festivals; formulas of prayer for the festivals; eulogy on announcing the new moon; benedictions for weddings and funerals. Ch. xx.: Eulogy on first beholding the new moon; lighting the hanukkah lamp; benedictions and lesson for hanukkah; the Trisagion at festivals; "Hallel." Ch. xxi.: Nisan, the month of rejoicing; the Feast of Purim and its observances; the benedictions of the Torah and the Megillah at Purim; Haggadah of the Patriarchs (Müller, "Masseket Soferim," etc., pp. 37 et seq.).

According to Zunz ("G. V." 2d ed., p. 100), "the little work is now badly disarranged, as is shown by the confusion of the two principal themes [i.e., the preparation of the scrolls, and the ritual of lessons and prayers], and the position and character of the haggadah," a statement which he defends as follows: "Rules for writing and for the Masorah are found in i. 1-6, 9-14; ii.; iii. 1-9, 10a, 11, 12, 13 (in part), 14-16; iv.-viii.; ix. 1-7; xii. 8b, 9-12; xiii. 1-4, 6a, 7; xv. 1-5; xvii. 1; synagogal ritual in ix. 8-11; x.; xi.; xii. 1-7, 8a; xiii. 5, 8-14; xiv.; xv. 12, end; xvii. 2-11; xviii.-xx.; xxi. 1-8; haggadah in i. 7-8; iii. 10b, 13 (in part); xiii. 6b, 10; xvi. 1-11, 12a; xxi. 9" (ib. notes a, b). Zunz likewiseshows the relationship existing between this work and later haggadot.

This lack of system, however, is not the result of careless copying or other negligence, but is due to the nature of the treatise's redaction; for it is a composite of at least three works, and the systematic order of the earlier part has evidently been disarranged by interpolations. In its present form the treatise is intended more for the readers and hazzanim than for the scribes: it is in great part confined to ritual precepts, although it must be borne in mind that the same person doubtless combined the functions of scribe and reader.

Divisions.

Soferim may be divided into three main divisions: i.-v., vi. -ix., and x.-xxi., the last of which is subdivided into two sections, x.-xv. and xvi. 2-xxi. The treatise derives its name from its first main division (ch. i.-v.), which treats of writing scrolls of the Law, thus conforming to the ancient custom of naming a work according to its initial contents (comp. Blau, "Zur Einleitung in -die Heilige Schrift," pp. 31 et seq., Strasburg, 1894). This first part is the earliest component of the work, and is extant also as an independent "smaller treatise," entitled "Masseket Sefer Torah" (edited by Kirchheim); in this form it is a systematic work, but as incorporated in Soferim, although its division into chapters and paragraphs has been retained, its order has been disarranged by interpolations. A comparison of the two texts shows in an instructive way how ancient Jewish works developed in the course of time. The small treatise Sefarim, edited by Schönblum, is not earlier, as he assumes, but is later, than the Masseket Sefer Torah, from which it is an extract. The name "Sefarim" (= "books") is merely the plural of "sefer," designating the Torah as "the book" par excellence.

Chapters vi. to ix. constitute a separate part, containing Masoretic rules for writing, the first four paragraphs of ch. vi. and some passages of ch. ix. being of early date. This portion was undoubtedly added by Masorites of Tiberias; and the main portion of the modern Masorah, which also contains the passages in question, likewise originated in the same school. The first two parts of Soferim are acknowledged to be Palestinian, and were intended for the scribes; the last three halakot are a kind of appendix relating to the reading of certain words and passages.

The third division is chiefly devoted to rules concerning the order of the lessons, together with liturgical regulations. It is not a uniform composition, although the first section (ch. x.-xv.) is concerned almost entirely with the sequence of the lessons, while the remaining part (ch. xvi.-xxi.) contains liturgical regulations. The contents of xvi. 1 apparently form the conclusion of the portion of the work which precedes it. The third part of Soferim is likewise Palestinian in origin, as is shown by its sources; nor is this view contradicted by the phrases "our teacher in Palestine" (, x. 8) and "the men of Palestine and Babylonia" (x., end; xiii. 10), since either a Palestinian or a Babylonian might have used such expressions, although these passages may be interpolations.

The second section of the last portion (xvi. 2-xxi.) was added latest of all. It contains passages from the Babylonian Talmud, mentioning the "teachers of the land of Israel" (no longer , as in xxi. 1) in xvii. 4, and speaking of the Nazarenes ( = Christians) in xvii. 6, while a passage from Pirke R. Eli'ezer (xvii., end) is cited on the authority of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (ib. xix. 22). These peculiarities indicate that its date is relatively recent, even though these last passages are in the main also Palestinian in origin, as is shown by the use of the name "Nazarene." The customs of Jerusalem are also mentioned (xviii. 5, xxi. 6) in a way which indicates an acquaintance with them and points to an author who may have been from Tiberias, but was not from Jerusalem. The names of the school, teachers, and countries also confirm this view. Hai Gaon knew nothing of the liturgical observance mentioned in xix. 11 (Müller, l.c. p. 277, note 67); and the controversy regarding the mode of reading (xxi. 7) is taken from Yer.Ta'an. iv. 3, end, and Meg. iv. 2, not from Babli, where (Meg. 22a) Rab and Samuel discuss the same question. A long passage is furthermore cited from Yerushalmi; and such an intimate knowledge of this Talmud and so decided a preference for it can be ascribed only to a Palestinian. It is likewise characteristic of a Palestinian origin that the Babylonian amora Joseph is designated as "Rabbi," and not as "Rab" (xiii. 7); and the assumption that there are weekly sections which do not contain twenty-one verses (xi. 4) applies only to the triennial cycle of the Palestinians. The hypothesis that Soferim is based on Palestinian sources (comp. xiii. 3-4 with Yer. Meg. 74b, below) agrees with the ancient tradition (Nahmanides and others) that all the small treatises are Palestinian in origin ("Orient," 1851, p. 218); and modern scholars, with the exception of Weiss, also accept this view (Rapoport, in "Kerem hemed," vi. 247; Zunz, "G. V." 2d ed., p. 322; Steinschneider, "Jüdische Literatur," pp. 369 et seq., and Malter's Hebrew translation, "Sifrut Yisrael," p. 44, Warsaw, 1897; Kirchheim, preface to his edition of Masseket Soferim; Brüll's "Jahrb." i. 4). There were scholars in Palestine even after the final redaction of Yerushalmi (Zunz, l.c. p. 322, note a); and the Bible was still the chief subject of study.

Date of Composition.

The evidence of all these facts makes it very probable that this treatise was finally redacted about the middle of the eighth century, an assumption which is supported by the statement of R. Asher (c. 1300, in the "Hilkot Sefer Torah") that Soferim was composed at a late date. At that period written prayer-books were doubtless in existence and were probably produced by the scribes, who combined the offices of communal hazzan and reader. It was but natural, therefore, that in treatises intended for the scribes all the regulations should be collected which concerned books, the Masorah, and the liturgy. It is practically certain that few copies of the Talmud were made at that time, and those without special rules; consequently no allusions to them are found in Soferim.

The fact that no sources are given for a number of the regulations in the first part points to an earlydate of composition (comp. i. 3, 13; ii. 4, 6, 8; iii. 4, 6-9a, 10-12a; iv. 4, 5, 8, 9; v. 1, 2; in i. 7, also, Müller cites no authority; comp., however, Shab. 115a and Meg. 18a, and see Blau, l.c. pp. 70 et seq.). Similarly, in the third part (x.-xxi.), which is later, no sources are assigned for a number of halakot (xv. 3 may, however, be based on Yer. Shab. 15c, 25); so that care must be taken not to assign the compilation of this longest portion to too recent a date. Both the form and the content of those passages in which authorities are not mentioned point to a Palestinian origin; they may have been derived from the lost portions of Yerushalmi and various midrashic works, which, indeed, they may be regarded as in part replacing. Only certain interpolations, as well as the haggadic passage at the end of the treatise (or, in several manuscripts, at its beginning), may have been added much later. The division of the last part into sections ("perakim") seems to have been intended to secure a uniform size for the several sections; for xvi. 1 belongs to the end of xv., and xix. 1 to the end of xviii., their separation being due to external reasons.

Peculiarities of the Treatise.

As the substance of the treatise has been incorporated in later works on orthography, the Masorah, and the liturgy, only a few points peculiar to it need be mentioned here. In i. 13 occurs the maxim "He who can not read is not allowed to write." Custodians seem to be mentioned in ii. 12 (based on Yer. Meg. i. 9; comp. the Vitry Mahzor, p. 689, note). The first notice in Jewish literature of the codex in contradistinction to the scroll occurs in iii. 6 (comp. the Vitry Mahzor, p. 691), a passage which is to be translated as follows: "Only in a codex [may the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa be combined]; in a scroll the Torah and the Prophets must be kept separate"; while the following section describes a scroll of the Law as being divided into verses (doubtless by means of blank spaces), or as having the initial portion of its verses pointed. Among the ancients the beginning ("resh pasuk") of a verse rather than the end ("sof pasuk") was emphasized, since the former was important mnemonically. There were scribes, therefore, who marked the initial of the verse, although there is no trace of such points in the present Masorah and system of accentuation.

The earliest passage referring to "dyed leather" (parchment) is iii. 13, although it is possible, in view of ii. 10, that originally stood in place of . Even if that be true, however, this is still the first reference to colored parchment for synagogal scrolls; for nothing else could be implied by these words in the received reading. The skin of game was a favorite writing-material; so that while it was forbidden to use half leather and half parchment, half leather and half skin of game were allowable (ii. 10). It was forbidden, moreover, to cut the edges of books (v. 14). A scribal term which does not occur elsewhere is found in v. 1, 2 (, variant reading ). There were generally seventy-two lines to the column in a scroll of the Law (xii. 1). The passage xiii. 1 refers to the stichic writing of the Psalms; Job, and Proverbs; and the remark "A good scribe will note" shows that the passage was written at a time when this detail was no longer generally observed (comp. Müller, ad loc., and the Vitry Mahzor, p. 704).

Soferim is the first work to distinguish between the three grades of inspiration in the Bible (xviii. 3, end), namely, that of Torah (the Law), of Cabala (tradition of the holy prophets), and of Hagiographa (words of holiness).

Bibliography: Vitry Mahzor, ed. Hurwitz, pp. 686-717, Berlin. 1889-93;
Wilna (Romin) edition of the Talmud (Soferim as an appendix to Ab. Zarah with variants and commentaries);
Brüll's Jahrb. i. 1 et seq.;
Joël, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des Zweiten Christlichen Jahrhunderts:
I. Der Talmud und die Griechische Sprache, part i., pp. 1 et seq., Breslau, 1880 (on the Greek translation in Soferim, i. 8);
Kirchheim, Karme Shomeron, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1851;
Müller, Masseket Soferim, der Talmudische Traktat der Schreiber: eine Einleitung in das Studium der Althebräischen Graphik, der Masora, und der Altjüdischen Liturgie, Vienna, 1878;
Schönblum, Sheloshah Sefarim Niftahim, Lemberg, 1877;

Mezuzah

MEZUZAH By : Cyrus Adler I. M. Casanowicz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Origin and Significance.
Superstitious Conception.

Name given to a rectangular piece of parchment inscribed with the passages Deut. vi. 4-9 and xi. 13-21, written in twenty-two lines according to the same rules as those for the Torah and tefillin. The parchment is rolled up and inserted in a wooden or metal case or tube. This is affixed, in a slanting position, to the upper part of the right-hand door-post, so that the upper part is inward and the lower part outward, and about a handbreadth from the outer edge of the door-post. On the outer side of the top of the parchment is inscribed the name of God, ; and an opening is left in the case opposite this word, which opening is protected by a piece of glass. The material on which the mezuzah may be written is as carefully prescribed as is that for a scroll of the Law (Massek. Soferim i. 1; Asheri to Alfasi, "Sefer Torah"; Shulhan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 271; Yer. Megillah i. 9; Shab. 108a; MS. Mezuzah, ed. Kirchheim, i. 1); but while a scroll must always be written from a copy, the mezuzah may be written from memory (Men. 32b). Both selections mentioned above must be contained therein; and if even one letter is missing the mezuzah may not be used (Men. 28a). Generally the text is written in twenty-two lines equally spaced. The pious touch and kiss this part of the mezuzah as they pass through the door. The mezuzah is obligatory for every building used as a residence; and its fastening to the doorpost is accompanied by the usual formula of benediction: "Blessed art Thou our God, King of the world, who hast sanctified us by Thy commandments and hast commanded us to fasten the mezuzah." On entering and leaving the house the pious touch the mezuzah (at "Shaddai") with the hand, and recite the prayer: "May God keep my going out and my coming in from now on and ever more."
(see image) Mezuzah Scroll.

The mezuzah brings blessings to him that touches it; but it must not be touched with unclean hands. It is inspected from time to time to make sure of itscorrectness. It may not be given to a non-Jew, lest it be not treated with due respect (see Men. iii. 7, 33b; Maimonides, "Yad," Tefillin, i., v., vi.; Yoreh De'ah, 285-291).

Origin and Significance.

The obligation of the mezuzah is derived from the words: "And thou shalt write them on the doorposts of thy house and within thy gates." The Rabbis considered the mezuzah of equal importance with the tefillin and ZiZit (Men. 43b; Pes. 113b; comp. Shab. 23b, 32b). The antiquity of the mezuzah is attested by Josephus (c. 37-100 C.E.), who speaks of its employment ("Ant." iv. 8, § 13) as an old and well-established custom. Inscribed with passages of the Torah which emphasize the unity of God, His providence, and the resulting duty of man toward Him, the mezuzah is an emblematic representation of Israel's belief and practise. Thus Josephus says in speaking of the mezuzah (l.c.): "The greatest benefits of God are to be written on the doors . . . in order that His benevolent providence may be made known everywhere"; and Maimonides adds ("Yad," Tefillin, vi. 13): "By the commandment of the mezuzah man is reminded, when coming or going, of the unity of God, and is aroused to the love of Him. He is awakened from his slumber and his vain worldly thoughts to the knowledge that nothing endures in eternity like the knowledge of the Rock of the World. This contemplation brings him back to himself and leads him on the right path."
(see image) Wooden Case for Mezuzah.(In the possession of F. David, Cassel.)

Superstitious Conception.

In Talmudic times a protective power, especially in warding off evil spirits, was attributed to the mezuzah. This appears in such anecdotes as those of Artaban and Abba Arika (see Artaban V.; comp. Yer. Peah i. 1, 15d; Gen. R. xxxv. 3) and of Onkelos ('Ab. Zarah 11a; comp. also Targ. to Cant. viii. 3; Men. 32b, 33b). In the Middle Ages, under the influence of the Cabala, not only passages from the Bible treating of God's watchfulness over His people (Ps. cxxi. 7 et seq.), but also various names of angels were added to the original contents of the mezuzah. was explained to represent the initials of ( , after a cabalistic interpretation of Job xxii. 17, 25 (comp. "Kol Bo," 101, 4). At the bottom of the blank side the words are written, which, according to , i.e., every letter standing for the next preceding, reads: . Some, when leaving home on business bent, invoke God by the mysterious words "Kozo bemuksaz Kozo," declaring that in His name they are about to go forth, and petitioning for success. Against the additions to the mezuzah Maimonides raised his voice. He says ("Yad," Tefillin, v. 4): "There is no harm in writing on the outside; but those who write on the inside the names of angels, or holy names, or verses, or other formula, are of those who will have no share in the future world. For these fools not only defeat in this manner the fulfilment of a great commandment which has for its end the remembrance of the unity of God, and the love of Him and worship of Him, but turn it into an amulet for their selfish interest, believing in their foolish hearts that it can be made to serve the preservation of transitory worldly goods." Maimonides' view prevailed, and the additions were eliminated.
(see image) Glass Cylinder Containing Mezuzah.

The Mohammedans likewise place over the doors and windows of their dwellings as well as of their shops the name of God, or their profession of faith, or some maxim, or a verse of the Koran, or a short invocation (comp. Lane, "Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians," 3d ed., i. 7, 22, 320); and a similar custom seems to have prevailed among the ancient Egyptians (comp. Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," 1878, i. 361; and Huetius, "Demonstratio Evangelica," p. 58).

Hanukkah Books

Tefillin / Phylacteries

PHYLACTERIES By : Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. Julius H. Greenstone Joseph Jacobs Ludwig Blau Emil G. Hirsch

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Legal View:
Details of Manufacture.
Contents.
Arrangement of Passages.
Mode of Writing.
How Put on.
The Blessings.
Name and Origin.
—Historical View:
Epoch of Introduction.
Earliest Form.
Tefillin and Magic.
In the Diaspora and Post-Talmudic Times.
Figurative Expressions.
—Critical View:

—Legal View:
(see image) Phylactery-Bag.(In the British Museum.)

The laws governing the wearing of phylacteries were derived by the Rabbis from four Biblical passages (Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18; Ex. xiii. 9, 16). While these passages were interpreted literally by most commentators (comp., however, Ibn Ezra and RaShbaM on Ex. xiii. 9), the Rabbis held that the general law only was expressed in the Bible, the application and elaboration of it being entirely matters of tradition and inference (Sanh. 88b). The earlier tannaim had to resort to fanciful interpretations of the texts in order to find Biblical support for the custom of inscribing the four selections in the phylacteries (Men. 34b; Zeb. 37b; Sanh. 4b; Rashi and Tos. ad loc.). There are more laws—ascribed to oral delivery by God to Moses—clustering about the institution of tefillin than about anyother institution of Judaism (Men. 35a; Yer. Meg. i. 9; Maimonides, in "Yad," Tefillin, i. 3, mentions ten; Rodkinssohn, in "Tefillah le-Mosheh," p. 20, ed. Presburg, 1883, mentions eighteen; comp. Weiss, "Dor," i. 74-75). Thus, even if most Jewish commentators are followed in their literal interpretations of the Biblical passages mentioned above, rabbinic interpretation and traditional usage must still be relied upon for the determination of the nature of the tefillin and the laws concerning them (see Phylacteries—Historical, and Critical Views).

Details of Manufacture.
(see image) Phylacteries and Bag.(In the United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.)

Phylacteries, as universally used at the present time, consist of two leathern boxes—one worn on the arm and known as "shel yad" (Men. iv. 1) or "shelzeroa'" (Mik. x. 3), and the other worn on the head and known as "shel rosh"—made of the skins of clean animals (Men. 42b; Sanh. 48b; "Yad," l.c. iii. 15). The boxes must be square (Men. 35a); their height may be more or less than the length or the width ("Yad," l.c. iii. 2); and it is desirable that they be black (Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 32, 40). The boxes are fastened on the under side with square pieces of thick leather (; Men. 35a) by means of twelve stitches made with threads prepared from the veins of clean animals (Shab. 28b), and are provided with loops (; Men. 35a) at the ends, through which are passed leathern straps () made of the skins of clean animals (Shab. 28b) and blackened on the outside (Men. 35a; comp. "Sefer hasidim," ed. Wistinetski, § 1669). The strap that is passed through the head-phylactery ends at the back of the head in a knot representing the letter ?; the one that is passed through the hand-phylactery is formed into a noose near the box and fastened in a knot in the shape of the letter W (comp. Heilprin, "Seder ha-Dorot," i. 208, ed. Maskileison, Warsaw, 1897, where a wonderful story in relation to the laws governing the making of these knots is told). The box containing the head-phylactery has on the outside the letter W, both to the right (with three strokes: W) and to the left (with four strokes: W; Men. 35a; comp. Tos., s.v. "Shin"; probably as a reminder to insure the correct insertion of the four Biblical passages); and this, together with the letters formed by the knots of the two straps, make up the letters of the Hebrew word "Shaddai" ( = "Almighty," one of the names of God; Men. 35b; Rashi, s.v. "kesher"). The measurements of the boxes are not given; but it is recommended that they should not be smaller than the width of two fingers ('Er. 95b; Tos., s.v. "Makom"; Men. 35a; Tos., s.v. "Shin"). The width of the straps should be equal to thelength of a grain of oats. The strap that is passed through the head-phylactery should be long enough to encircle the head and to allow for the knot; and the two ends, falling in front over either shoulder, should reach the navel, or somewhat above it. The strap that is passed through the hand-phylactery should be long enough to allow for the knot, to encircle the whole length of the arm, and then to be wound three times around the middle finger ("Yad," l.c. iii. 12; Orah hayyim, 27, 8, 11).

Contents.

Each box contains the four Scriptural passages Ex. xiii. 1-10, 11-16; Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21 (comp. Zohar, ed. Amsterdam, 1789, to Bo, p. 43a, b), written with black ink (Yer. Meg. i. 9) in Hebrew square characters (; Meg. 8b; Soferim xv. 1) on parchment (Shab. 79b; Men. 32a) specially prepared for the purpose (Orah hayyim, 32, 8; comp. "Be'er Heteb" and "Sha'are Teshubah," ad loc.) from the skin of a clean animal (Shab. 108a).

Arrangement of Passages.

The hand-phylactery has only one compartment, which contains the four Biblical selections written upon a single strip of parchment in four parallel columns and in the order given in the Bible (Men. 34b). The head-phylactery has four compartments, formed from one piece of leather, in each of which one selection written on a separate piece of parchment is deposited perpendicularly. The pieces of parchment on which the Biblical selections are written are in either case tied round with narrow strips of parchment and fastened with the thoroughly washed hair of a clean animal (Shab. 28b, 108a), preferably of a calf ("Yad," l.c. iii, 8; Orah hayyim, 32, 44). There was considerable discussion among the commentators of the Talmud (Men. 34b) as to the order in which the Biblical selections should be inserted into the head-phylactery. The chief disputants in this case were R. Solomon YiZhaki (Rashi) and R. Jacob b. Meïr Tam (Rabbenu Tam), although different possible arrangements have been suggested by other writers ("Shimmusha Rabba" and RABaD). The following diagram shows the arrangements of the Bible verses as advocated respectively by Rabbenu Tam and Rashi (comp. Rodkinssohn, "Tefillah le-Mosheh," p. 25):
see table

The prevailing custom is to follow the opinion of Rashi ("Yad," l.c. iii. 5; comp. RABaD and "Kesef Mishneh" ad loc.; Orah hayyim, 34, 1), although some are accustomed, in order to be certain of performing their duty properly, to lay two pairs of tefillin (comp. 'Er. 95b), one prepared in accordance with the view of Rashi, and the other in accordance with that of Rabbenu Tam. If, however, one is uncertain as to the exact position for two pairs of tefillin at the same time, one should first "lay" the tefillin prepared in accordance with Rashi's opinion, and then, removing these during the latter part of the service, without pronouncing a blessing lay those prepared in accordance with Rabbenu Tam's opinion. Only the specially pious wear both kinds (Orah hayyim, 34, 2, 3).

Mode of Writing.

The parchment on which the Biblical passages are written need not be ruled ("Yad," l.c. i. 12), although the custom is to rule it. A pointed instrument that leaves no blot should be used in ruling; the use of a pencil is forbidden (Orah hayyim, 32, 6, Isserles' gloss). The scribe should be very careful in writing the selections. Before beginning to write he should pronounce the words, "I am writing this for the sake of the holiness of tefillin"; and before he begins to write any of the names of God occurring in the texts, he should say, "I am writing this for the sake of the holiness of the Name." Throughout the writing his attention must not be diverted; "even if the King of Israel should then greet him, he is forbidden to reply" ("Yad," l.c. i. 15; Orah hayyim, 32, 19). If he omits even one letter, the whole inscription becomes unfit. If he inserts a superfluous letter at the beginning or at the end of a word, he may erase it, but if in the middle of a word, the whole becomes unfit ("Yad," l.c. ii.; Orah hayyim, 32, 23, and "Be'er Heteb," ad loc.). The letters must be distinct and not touch each other; space must be left between them, between the words, and between the lines, as also between the verses (Orah hayyim, 32, 32, Isserles' gloss; comp. "Magen Abraham" and "Be'er Heteb" ad loc.). The letters where they occur in the selections are adorned with some fanciful ornamentation (Men. 29b; see Tos., s.v. "Sha'atnez"); some scribes adorn other letters also (Orah hayyim, 36, 3, and "Be'er Heteb," ad loc.). In writing the selections it is customary to devote seven lines to each paragraph in the hand-phylactery, and four lines to each paragraph in the head-phylactery (Orah hayyim, 35).

How Put on.

In putting on the tefillin, the hand-phylactery is laid first (Men. 36a). Its place is on the inner side of the left arm (ib. 36b, 37a), just above the elbow (comp. "Sefer hasidim," §§ 434, 638, where the exact place is given as two fist-widths from the shoulder-blade; similarly the head-phylactery is worn two fist-widths from the tip of the nose); and it is held in position by the noose of the strap so that when the arm is bent the phylactery may rest near the heart (Men. 37a, based on Deut. xi. 8; comp. "Sefer hasidim," §§ 435, 1742). If one is left-handed, he lays the hand-phylactery on the same place on his right hand (Men. 37a; Orah hayyim, 27b). After the phylactery is thus fastened on the bare arm, the strap is wound seven times round the arm. The head-phylactery is placed so as to overhang the middle of the forehead, with the knot of the strap at the back of the head and overhanging the middle of the neck, while the two ends of the strap, with the blackened side outward, hang over the shoulders in front (Orah hayyim, 27, 8-11). On laying the hand-phylactery, before the knot is fastened, the followingbenediction is pronounced: "Blessed art Thou . . . who sanctifieth us with His commandments and hast commanded us to lay tefillin."

The Blessings.
(see image) Phylacteries and Their Arrangement.A. For the arm. B. As adjusted on the arm. C. For the head. D. Jew wearing phylacteries.(From Picart, 1725.)

Before the head-phylactery is fastened the blessing is repeated with the substitution of the phrase "concerning the commandment of tefillin" for "to lay tefillin." Some authorities are of the opinion that the blessing on laying the head-phylactery should be pronounced only when an interruption has occurred through conversation on the part of the one engaged in performing the commandment; otherwise the one blessing pronounced on laying the hand-phylactery is sufficient. The prevailing custom, however, is to pronounce two blessings, and, after the second blessing, to say the words, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever," lest the second benediction be pronounced unnecessarily. If he who lays the tefillin has talked between the laying of the hand-phylactery and that of the head-phylactery, he should repeat both blessings at the laying of the latter (Men. 36a; "Yad," l.c. iv. 4, 5; Orah hayyim, 25, 5; Isserles' gloss, 9, 10; comp. ib. 206, 6). Then the strap of the hand-phylactery is wound three times around the middle finger so as to form a W and the passages Hos. ii. 21 and 22 are recited. The seven twistings of the strap on the arm are then counted while the seven words of Deut. iv. 4 are recited. A lengthy prayer in which the significance of the tefillin is explained and which containstraces of cabalistic influence is recited by some before putting on the tefillin. After the tefillin are laid Ex. xiii. 1-16 is recited. In removing the tefillin the three twistings on the middle finger are loosened first; then the head-phylactery is removed; and finally the hand-phylactery (Men. 36a). It is customary to lay and to remove the tefillin while standing; also to kiss them when they are taken from and returned to the phylactery-bag (Orah hayyim, 28, 2, 3).

Originally tefillin were worn all day, but not during the night (Men. 36b). Now the prevailing custom is to wear them during the daily morning service only (comp. Ber. 14b). They are not worn on Sabbaths and holy days; for these, being in themselves "signs," render the tefillin, which are to serve as signs themselves (Ex. xiii. 9, 16), unnecessary (Men. 30b; 'Er. 96a). In those places where tefillin are worn on the week-days of the festivals (see Holy Days), and on New Moons, they are removed before the "Musaf" prayer (Orah hayyim, 25, 13).

The duty of laying tefillin rests upon males after the age of thirteen years and one day. Women are exempt from the obligation, as are also slaves and minors (Ber. 20a). Women who wish to lay tefillin are precluded from doing so (Orah hayyim, 38, 3, Isserles' gloss); in ancient times this was not the case ('Er. 96a, b). A mourner during the first day of his mourning period (M. k. 15a; Suk. 25b), a bridegroom on his wedding-day (Suk. l.c.), an excommunicate, and a leper (M. k. 15a) are also exempt. A sufferer from stomach-trouble (hul. 110a), one who is otherwise in pain and can not concentrate his mind ("Yad," l.c. iv. 13), one who is engaged in the study of the Law (R. Jonah to Alfasi on Ber. ii. 5, s.v. "Le-Memra"), and scribes of and dealers in tefillin and mezuzot while engaged in their work if it can not be postponed, are also free from this obligation (Suk. 26a; Orah hayyim, 38, 8-10). It is not permitted to enter a cemetery (Ber. 18a) or any unseemly place (ib. 23a; Shab. 10a), or to eat a regular meal or to sleep (Ber. 23b; Suk. 26a), while wearing tefillin. The bag used for tefillin should not be used for any other purpose, unless a condition was expressly made that it might be used for any purpose (Ber. 23b; Sanh. 48a).

Maimonides ("Yad," l.c. iv. 25, 26) concludes the laws of tefillin with the following exhortation (the references are not in Maimonides):(Isa. xxxviii. 16, Hebr.; comp. A. V.; Men. 44a)

"The sanctity of tefillin is very great (comp. Shab. 49a; Masseket Tefillin, toward the end; Zohar, section "Wa'ethanan," p. 269b). As long as the tefillin are on the head and on the arm of a man, he is modest and God-fearing and will not be attracted by hilarity or idle talk, and will have no evil thoughts, but will devote all his thoughts to truth and righteousness (comp. Men. 43b); "Sefer hasidim," § 554). Therefore, every man ought to try to have the tefillin upon him the whole day (Masseket Tefillin, l.c.; comp. Sifre to Deut. v. 9); for only in this way can he fulfil the commandment. It is related that Rab (Abba Arika), the pupil of our holy teacher (R. Judah ha-Nasi), was never seen to walk four cubits without a Torah, without fringes on his garments ("ZiZit"), and without tefillin (Suk. 29a, where R. Johanan b. Zakkai and R. Eliezer are mentioned; comp. Meg. 24a, where R. Zera is mentioned). Although the Law enjoins the wearing of tefillin the whole day, it is especially commendable to wear them during prayer. The sages say that one who reads the Shema' without tefillin is as if he testified falsely against himself (Ber. 14b, 15a). He who does not lay tefillin transgresses eight commandments (Men. 44a; comp. R. H. 17a); for in each of the four Biblical passages there is a commandment to wear tefillin on the head and on the arm. But he who is accustomed to wear tefillin will live long, as it is written, 'When the Lord is upon them they will live'".
(see image) Phylactery for Arm.(From the Cairo Genizah.)
Bibliography: Masseket Tefillin, published by Kirchheim in his edition of the seven smaller treatises of the Talmud, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1851;
Rosh, Hilkot Tefillin, in Halakot ketannot, and Shimmusha Rabba, published with Menahot in most editions of the Talmud;
Kol Bo, § 21, Fürth, 1782;
Hamburger, R. B. T. ii., s.v. Tephillin;
Hastings, Dict. Bible;
Friedländer, The Jewish Religion, pp. 331-334, London, 1900;
Rodkinson, Tefillah le-Mosheh, Presburg, 1883;
Zunz, G. S. ii. 172-176, Berlin, 1876.E. C. J. H. G.

Name and Origin.

—Historical View:

The only instance of the name "phylacteries" in Biblical times occurs in the New Testament (Matt. xxiii. 5), whence it has passed into the languages of Europe. In rabbinical literature it is not found even as a foreign word. The Septuagint renders "totafot" (A. V. and R. V. "frontlets"; Ex. xiii. 16 and Deut. vi. 8) by ?sa?e?t?? (= "something immovable"); nor do Aquila and Symmachus use the word "phylacteries." The Targumim (Jonathan, Onkelos) and the Peshitta use "tefillin" (Ex. xiii. 9, 16; xxviii. 37; Deut. vi. 8, xxviii. 10; Ezek. xxiv. 23; Cant. viii. 1) or "totafot" (II Sam. i. 10; Ezek. xxiv. 17 et seq.). The terms "tefillah," "tefillin" only are found in Talmudic literature, although the word "totafah" was still current, being used with the meaning of "frontlet" (Shab. vi. 1). The conclusions in regard to the tefillin which are based on its current name "phylacteries," therefore, lack historical basis, since this name was not used in truly Jewish circles.

In regard to their origin, however, the custom of wearing protecting coverings on the head and hands must be borne in mind. Saul's way of appearing in battle, with a crown on his head and wearing bracelets, is connected with this idea. The Proverbs reflect popular conceptions, for they originated in great part with the people, or were addressed to them. Prov. i. 9, iii. 3, vi. 21, and vii. 3 (comp. Jer. xvii. 1, xxxi. 32-33) clearly indicate the custom of wearing some object, with or without inscription, around the neck or near the heart; the actual custom appears in the figure of speech. In view of these facts it may be assumed that Ex. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18 must be interpreted not figuratively but literally; therefore it must be assumed that the custom of wearing strips inscribed with Biblical passages is commanded in the Torah. "Bind them as signs on thy hand, and they shall be as totafot between thy eyes" assumes that totafot were at the time known and in use, but that thenceforth the words of the Torah were to serve as totafot (on signs see also I Kings xx. 41; Ezek. ix. 4, 6; Psalms of Solomon, xv. 9; see Breast-plate of the High Priest; Cain).

Epoch of Introduction.

It is not known whether this command was carried out in the earliest time, and if so, in what manner. But from the relatively large number of regulations referring to the phylacteries—some of them connected with the names of the first tannaim—and also from the fact that among the fifty-five "Sinaitic commands" ("halakah le-Mosheh mi-Sinai") eight refer to the tefillin alone and seven to the tefillin and the Torah together, it follows that they were used as early as the time of the Soferim—the fourth, or at least the third, century B.C. The earliest explicit reference to them that has been preserved—namely, in the Letter of Aristeas (verse 159; see Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," ii. 18)—speaks of them as an old institution.
(see image) Phylactery-Bag.(In the possession of Maurice Herrmann, New York.)

Josephus ("Ant." iv. 8, § 13) also regards them as an ancient institution, and he curiously enough places the tefillin of the head first, as the Talmud generally does (comp. Justin, "Dial. cum Tryph." ed. Otto, ii. 154). The tefillin are mentioned in connection with Simeon b. Shetah, brother-in-law ofAlexander Jannæus (Yer. hag. 77d); and Shammai produces the tefillin of his mother's father (Mek., Bo, § 17 [ed. Friedmann, 21b]; the parallel passage Yer. 'Er. 26a reads "Hillel"). The date here given is the seventh decade of the first century B.C. Schorr (in "He-haluZ," vol. iv.) assumes that they were introduced in the Maccabean period, and A. Krochmal regards the reference to Elisha's "wings" (Shab. 44a; Yer. Ber. 4c) as indicating that he was one of the first of the high priests to wear the tefillah ("'Iyyun Tefillah," pp. 27 et seq.). Johanan b. Zakkai never went four ells without tefillin; neither did his pupil Eliezer (Yer. Ber. 4c). Gamaliel II. (c. 100 C.E.) gives directions as to what shall be done with tefillin found on the Sabbath, making a distinction between old and new tefillin ('Er. x. 1), a fact that clearly indicates the extent to which they were used. Even the slaves of this patriarch wore tefillin (Yer. 'Er. 26a). Judah b. Bathyra refers, about 150 C.E., to the tefillin which he inherited from his grandfather; these were inscribed to the dead awakened by Ezekiel (xxxvii.; Sanh. 92b). In the following centuries they were used to an increasing extent, as appears from the numerous sentences and rules referring to them by the authorities of the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds.

Earliest Form.

Tefillin resembled amulets in their earliest form, strips of parchment in a leather case, which is called either "bag" or "little house." Tefillin and "keme'ot" are, in fact, often mentioned side by side (Shab. vi. 2; Mik. vi. 4; Kelim xxiii. 9; et al.), and were liable to be mistaken one for the other ('Er. x. 1 et al.). As in the case of the Torah roll, the only permissible material was parchment, while the "mezuzah" was made of a different kind of parchment (Shab. viii. 3 et al.); for this reason a discarded tefillah could be made into a mezuzah, but not vice versa (Men. 32a). It was made square, not round (Meg. iv. 8). The head-tefillah consisted of four strips in four compartments, while the hand-tefillah consisted of one strip. The former could be made out of the latter, but not vice versa; and they were independent of each other (Kelim xviii. 8; Men. iii. 7, iv. 1, 34b; Yer. hag. 77d et passim). The heretics had a way of covering the tefillah with gold, wearing it on the sleeve and on the forehead (Meg. iv. 8). The straps (Yad. iii. 3) were made of the same material as the boxes, but could be of any color except blood-red; they were sometimes blue or of a reddish purple (Men. 35a).

The most important tefillah was the head-tefillah (Kelim xviii. 8 et passim). It was put on according to rule (Sheb. iii. 8, 11; Men. 36a) and was worn from morning until night, with the exception of Sabbath and feast-days (Targ. to Ezek. xiii. 10; Men. 36b); some wore tefillin also in the evening, as did Akiba ('Er. 96a), Abbahu (Yer. 'Er. 26a), Rabba and Huna (Men. 36b) during the evening prayer, and Ashi (beginning of 5th cent.).

The head-tefillah was the principal one, because the tefillah worn on the arm was not visible (Men. 37b). A Jew was recognized by the former, which he wore proudly, because, according to Deut. xxviii. 10, all peoples knew thereby that the Name of the Eternal had been pronounced over him (Men. 35b; Targ. Esth. viii. 15; comp. Cant. viii. 1; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23). Jerome says (on Galatians iv. 22) that the Jews feared to appear in the cities, because they attracted attention; probably they were recognized by the tefillah. It was not worn in times of danger ('Er. x. 1). The law in regard to tefillin, therefore, which did not demand obedience at the peril of life, had not taken such a deep hold upon the people as other laws (Shab. 130a; R. H. 17a; Yer. Ber. 4c; Pesik. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 111b). However, it must not be inferred from this statement that the tefillah was not worn to any great extent (Rodkinson, "Ursprung und Entwickelung des Phylacterien-Ritus bei den Juden," p. 5), but merely that it was not generally worn.

Tefillin and Magic.

The tefillin have been connected with magic, as the name "phylacteries" primarily indicates. Friedländer takes the tefillah to be a substitute for the "signum serpentinum" of the antinomistic Gnostics. The tefillin, however, originated at a time prior to that of the Gnostics, as has been shown above. Although the institution of the tefillin is related in form to the custom of wearing amulets, indicating the ancient views regarding that means of protection, yet there is not a single passage in the old literature to show that they were identified with magic. Their power of protecting is similar to that of the Torah and the Commandments, of which it is said, "They protect Israel" (Blau, "Altjüdisches Zauberwesen," p. 152). One of the earliest tannaim, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (b. 70 C.E.), who laid great stress upon the tefillin, actively advocating their general use, derives the duty of wearing them from Josh. i. 8, "Thou shalt meditate therein day and night" (treatise Tefillim, near end). In conformity with this view they contain chiefly the Shema', the daily reading of which takes the place of the daily study of the Bible.

The tannaitic Midrash, indeed, takes pains to prove that the Decalogue has no place in the tefillin (Sifre, Deut. 34, 35; Ber. 11b). Jerome, therefore (to Matt. xxv. 3), is not correct in saying that the tefillin contain also the Ten Commandments; although this may have been the case among the "minim," or heretics. The newly discovered Hebrew papyrus with Shema' and Decalogue belonged, perhaps, to the tefillah of a "min." The Samaritans did not observe the command to wear the tefillah (Men. 42b, above). They are ranked with the pagans, therefore, as persons not fit to write them (ib.).

In the Diaspora and Post-Talmudic Times.

Although the tefillin were worn throughout the day, not only in Palestine but also in Babylon, the custom of wearing them did not become entirely popular; and during the Diaspora they were worn nowhere during the day. But it appears from the Letter of Aristeas and from Josephus that the tefillin were known to the Jews of the Diaspora. At this time it may have become customary to wear them only during prayer, traces of this custom being found in Babylon (Men. 36b). In France in the thirteenth century they were not generally worn even during prayer (Rodkinson, l.c., quoting Tos. Shab. 49a; comp. "Semag," CommandmentNo. 3; Grätz, "Gesch." vii. 71). The difference of opinion between Isaac (Rashi; d. 1105) and his grandson Jacob Tam (d. 1171) in regard to the arrangement of the four sections indicates that no fixed custom in wearing them had arisen. Rashi and Tam's tefillin are referred to; scrupulously pious persons put on the tefillin of R. Tam after prayer (Men. 34b; Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 34). There were differences of opinion between the Spanish and the German Jews in regard to the knot in the strap (see illustrations in Surenhusius, cited below). At the time of the Reform movement, in the first half of the nineteenth century, especially in Germany, the custom of wearing the tefillin, like other ritual and ceremonial ordinances, was attacked, calling forth the protests of Zunz.

Bibliography: The chief works are: Klein, Die Totaphot nach Bibel und Tradition in Jahrb. für Protestantische Theologie, 1881, pp. 666-689, and M. L. Rodkinson, Ursprung und Entwickelung des Phylacterien-Ritus bei den Juden, Presburg, 1883 (reviewed in R. E. J. vi. 288);
idem, History of Amulets, Charms and Talismans, New York, 1893. For description and illustrations see Surenhusius, Mishnah, vol. i., Amsterdam, 1698 (before p. 9), and Bodenschatz, Kirchliche Verfassung der Heutigen Juden, iv. 14-19;
see also Winer, B. R. 3d. ed., i. 56, ii. 260;
Hamburger, R. B. T. ii. 1065, 1203-1206;
Hastings, Dict. Bible, iii. 869-874;
Z. Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinischen Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hermeneutik, pp. 90 et seq., Leipsic, 1851;
M. Friedländer, Der Antichrist in den Vorchristlichen Jüdischen Quellen, pp. 155-165, Göttingen, 1901;
M. Grünbaum, Gesammelte Aufsätze, pp. 208 et seq., Berlin, 1901;
Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iii. 223-225, Nordhausen, 1857;
A. Krochmal, 'Iyyun Tefillah, pp. 24 et seq., Lemberg, 1885;
S. Munk, Palestine, p. 268;
O. H. Schorr, in He-haluZ, vol. iv.;
Schürer,Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 484 et seq.;
Zunz, G. S. ii. 172-176 (Tefillin, eine Betrachtung). See earlier Christian bibliography in Schürer, Gesch.J. L. B.

Figurative Expressions.

—Critical View:

The etymology of the term—from the Greek ???a?t?????, itself derived from ????sse?? (= "to guard against evil," "to protect")—indicates the meaning, in the Hellenistic period, to have been "amulet" (an object worn as a protection against evil). The language of the four passages in which a reference occurs to "sign upon the hand" and "frontlets," or "memorials," "between the eyes" (Ex. xiii. 9, 16; Deut. vi, 8, xi. 18, Hebr.) proves that among the Hebrews the practise of wearing objects of this kind around the forehead and on the hand must have prevailed. Later rabbinical exegesis regarded the figurative reference and simile in Deut. vi. 8 and xi. 18 as a command to be carried out literally. Comparison with Ex. xiii. 9, 16, where the same terminology is employed, suffices to demonstrate that in Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18 the writer expressed himself figuratively, with allusion, of course, to a popular and wide-spread custom. It is plain that a sound construction of the Deuteronomic passages must reject the interpretation which restricts the bearing of the phrase "ha-debarim ha-elleh" (Deut. vi. 6) to the immediately preceding Shema', or of "debarai elleh" of Deut. xi. 18 to the preceding verse. In the phraseology of Deuteronomy, "these my words" embrace the whole book, the Torah, and it would have been as impossible to write the whole book on one's hand as it was to carry the sacrifice of the first-born (Ex. xiii.) as "a sign on one's hand." Prov. i. 9, iii. 3, vi. 21, vii. 3, and Jer. xvii. 1, xxxi. 33 illustrate in what sense the expressions "write" or "bind" in this connection are to be taken. As a matter of fact, phylacteries as described by the Rabbis did not come into use before the last pre-Christian century; the Samaritans knew nothing of them.

That amulets and signs were in use among the ancient Hebrews is evident from Gen. iv. 15 (Cain's sign), I Kings xx. 41, and Ezek. ix. 4-6 (comp. Rev. vii. 3; xiii. 16; xiv. 1, 9; Psalms of Solomon, xv. 10). Originally, the "sign" was tattooed on the skin, the forehead ("between the eyes") and the hand naturally being chosen for the display. Later, some visible object worn between the eyes or bound on the hand was substituted for the writing on the skin.

But the original practise is still discernible in the use of the word "yad" (hand) to connote a "token" (Ex. xvii. 16) with an inscription, the "zikkaron," which latter is the technical term, appearing in Ex. xiii. and Deut. xi. 18. This fact explains also the original value of the word "yad" in the combination "yad wa-shem" (hand and name; Isa. lvi. 5). The passage from Isaiah just quoted plainly shows that such a yad wa-shem was effective against that the Semite dreaded most—oblivion after death. The words "ot," "shem," and "zeker" are often used interchangeably (e.g., Isa. lv. 13 and Ex. iii. 15), and it is probable that originally they designated visible tokens cut into the flesh for purposes of marking one's connection with a deity or a clan (see Circumcision; Covenant; Totemism). The common meanings of these words, "sign," "name," and "memorial," are secondary. The phrase "to lift up the name" in the Decalogue indicates fully that "shem" must have been originally a totemistic sign, affixed to a person or an object.

The etymology of "totafot," which, probably, should be considered singular and be pointed "totefet," is not plain. The consensus of modern opinion is that it designates a round jewel, like the "netifot" (Judges viii. 26; Isa. iii. 19), therefore a charm, though others believe its original meaning to have been "a mark" tattooed into the flesh (Siegfried-Stade, "Lexicon"). It is to the habit of wearing amulets or making incisions that the law of Deuteronomy refers, as does Ex. xiii., advising that only God's Torah, as it were, shall constitute the protecting "charm" of the faithful.

See: Basic Judaism - Aryeh Kaplan - Challah Borards

Judaism

Judaism

• Unity of Mankind
• Israel's Mission
• Character of Judaism
• Justice to All
• Purity and Truth
• The Religion of Joy, Hope, and Love
• National Character of Judaism
• The Jews a Separate People
• Judaism in Its Relation to the Gentile World
• Its Attitude Toward Proselytism
• Judaism as Law
• Purpose of the Law
• Orthodox and Reform Judaism
• Historic Principles and Forces of Judaism
• Chain of Tradition
• The Prophetic Spirit

The religion of the Jewish people (II Macc. ii. 21, viii. 1, xiv. 38; Gal. i. 13 = , Esth. R. iii. 7; comp. , Esth. viii. 17); their system of beliefs and doctrines, rites and customs, as presented in their sacred literature and developed under the influence of the various civilizations with which they have come in contact, widening out into a world-religion affecting many nations and creeds. In reality the name "Judaism" should refer only to the religion of the people of Judea, that is, of the tribe of Judah, the name "Yehudi" (hence "Judean," "Jew") originally designating a member of that tribe. In the course of time, however, the term "Judaism" was applied to the entire Jewish history.

Definition.

A clear and concise definition of Judaism is very difficult to give, for the reason that it is not a religion pure and simple based upon accepted creeds, like Christianity or Buddhism, but is one inseparably connected with the Jewish nation as the depository and guardian of the truths held by it for mankind. Furthermore, it is as a law, or system of laws, given by God on Sinai that Judaism is chiefly represented in Scripture and tradition, the religious doctrines being only implicitly or occasionally stated; wherefore it is frequently asserted that Judaism is a theocracy (Josephus, "Contra Ap." ii. 16), a religious legislation for the Jewish people, but not a religion. The fact is that Judaism is too large and comprehensive a force in history to be defined by a single term or encompassed from one point of view.

Extending over thirty-five centuries of history and over well-nigh all the lands of the civilized globe, Judaism could not always retain the same form and character. Judaism in its formative period, that is, in the patriarchal and prophetic times, differed from exilic and post-exilic Judaism; and rabbinic or pharisaic Judaism again presents a phase quite different from Mosaic Judaism, to which the Sadducees, and afterward to some extent the Karaites, persistently clung. Similarly Judaism in the Diaspora, or Hellenistic Judaism, showed great divergences from that of Palestine. So, too, the mysticism of the Orient produced in Germany and France a different form of Judaism from that inculcated by the Arabic philosophy cultivated by the Jews of Spain. Again, many Jews of modern times more or less systematically discard that form of Judaism fixed by the codes and the casuistry of the Middle Ages, and incline toward a Judaism which they hold more in harmony with the requirements of an age of broader culture and larger aims. Far from having become 1900 years ago a stagnant or dried-up religion, as Christian theology declares, Judaism has ever remained "a river of God full of living waters," which, while running within the river-bed of a single nation, has continued to feed anew the great streams of human civilization. In this light Judaism is presented in the following columns as a historic power varying in various epochs. It is first necessary to state what are the main principles of Judaism in contradistinction to all other religions.

I. The Essence of Judaism:
Unity of God.
(a)

Judaism is above all the religion of pure monotheism, the proclamation, propagation, and preservation of which have been the life-purpose and task of the Jewish people. "God is One, and so should Israel be of all nations the one vouching for His pure worship" (Josephus, "Ant." iv. 8, § 5; Ber. 6a, with reference to I Chron. xvii. 20, 21; Deut. vi. 4, xxvi. 17-18; Sifre, Deut. 31; and Sabbath afternoon liturgy: "Attah eḥad"). Judaism is not the mere profession of belief in the unity of God which each Jew is enjoined to make every morning and evening by reciting the nullShema' ("Ant." iv. 8, § 13; Sifre, Deut. 34; Ber. i. 1 et seq., ii.). It is the guardianship of the pure monotheistic faith; and this implied the intellectual and spiritual elaboration as well as the defense of the same throughout the centuries against all powers and systems of paganism or semipaganism, and amidst all the struggles and sufferings which such an unyielding and uncompromising attitude of a small minority entailed (see Jew. Encyc. vol. vi., s.v. God).

Judaism did not begin as an abstract or absolute monotheism arrived at by philosophical speculation and dogmatic in its character. Its God was not selected out of many, and invested with certain attributes to suit the requirements of an age or of a class of thinkers. Judaism at the very outset was a declaration of war against all other gods (Ex. xx. 3). Yhwh, its Only One, from Sinai, spoke at the very birth-hour of Israel, His first-born, the words: "Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord" (Ex. xii. 12); and to Babylon went forth His word: "The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens." "They are vanity, the work of error" (Jer. x. 10, 15). "All the gods of the nations are things of nought ["elilim"; A. V. "idols"]: but the Lord made the heavens" (Ps. xcvi. 5). The contrast between the living God and everlasting King, the only true God, and the idols worshiped by brutish man (Isa. xliv. 9-19; Jer. x. 8-15; Ps. cxxxv. 16-18) was too striking to allow Judaism to regard heathenism and all its folly otherwise than with sarcastic contempt; while the heathen, on their side, were at a loss to comprehend the Jew worshiping an unseen God and without any images (Tacitus, "Historiæ," ii. 5, 9; Juvenal, xiv. 97). But idolatry, as well as idolaters, was consigned to relentless extermination by Judaism, not so much on account of its intrinsic error as because of the abominable rites connected with it, which led to the degradation and moral depravity of man (Ex. xx. 5; xxiii. 24, 33; Lev. xviii. 24-30; Deut. iv. 24, vii. 2-5, 23; ix. 3; xiv. 16; xx. 17-18). From the days of Moses (Num. xxv. 1) down to the time of Philo and the rabbinic schools (Philo, "De Humanitate"; Döllinger, "Heidenthum und Judenthum," 1857, pp. 682 et seq., 700-718; see also Jubilees, Book of; Sibyllines), pagan cults were steeped in vice and cruelty, rendering them "an abomination" unto "Israel's God, who hateth lewdness" (Sanh. 106a), wherefore rigid intolerancetoward every form or snare of idolatry became the characteristic feature of the rabbinical law (ib. vii. 6 et seq., x. 4; Maimonides, "Yad," 'Akkum, ii-vii.; ib. Melakim, vi. 4; see Worship, Idol-, Judaism brooks no compromise with polytheism or idolatrous heathenism. Indeed, it enjoins the Jew to give up his life rather than to act disloyally toward his pure monotheistic faith (Dan. iii.; I Macc. i. 63; II Mace. vii.; Sanh. 74a). As soon as the Jewish people were scattered among other nations, and thereby found the opportunity of drawing comparisons between other beliefs and their own, it was inevitable that they should be so impressed with the superiority of their faith as to look forward with perfect confidence to its ultimate triumph, like Abraham, conscious of their mission to proclaim the only God everywhere and to establish His kingdom throughout the earth (Isa. ii. 2, xv., xlvi., xlix.; Zech. viii. 23; Gen. R. xxxix.; see also Polemics and Polemical Literature); and this hope for the final victory of pure monotheistic truth over all pagan error found powerful utterance in the daily prayer of the Jew (see 'Alenu), and especially in the solemn New-Year liturgy (see Liturgy).

Universality of God.

However tribal or exclusive the idea of the God of Israel may have been originally, Judaism boldly assumes that its God was the God of man from the very beginning; the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Ruler of the world from eternity to eternity, who brought the Flood upon a wicked generation of men, and who established the earth in righteousness and justice (Gen. i.-x.). In the light of this presentation of facts, idolatry or the worship of other gods is but a rebellious breaking away from the Most High, the King of the Nations, the universal God, besides whom there is no other (Deut. v. 39; Jer. x. 7), and to whom alone all knees must bend in humble adoration (Isa. xlv. 23, lxvi. 23). Judaism, accordingly, has for its sole object the restoration of the pure worship of God throughout the earth (Zech. xiv. 9); the Sinaitic covenant, which rendered Israel "a kingdom of priests among the nations"—itself only a renewal of the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants for all time—having been concluded for the sole purpose of giving back to mankind its God of old, the God of the Noachian covenant, which included all men (Gen. ix. 17, xviii. 18-19; Ex. xix. 3-6; Isa. xlix. 6-8). Surely there is nothing clannish in the God of the Prophets and the Psalmist, who judges all men and nations alike with justice and righteousness (Amos i.-ii., ix. 7; Jer. xxvi.; Ezek. xl.; Ps. xcvi. 13, xcviii. 9; and elsewhere). Judaism's God has through the prophetic, world-wide view become the God of history, and through the Psalms and the prayers of the Ḥasidim the God of the human heart, "the Father," and the "Lover of souls" (Isa. lxiii. 16; see Wisdom, xi. 26, and Abba). Far from departing from this standpoint, Judaism in the time of the Synagogue took the decisive forward step of declaring the Holy Name (see Adonai) ineffable, so as to allow the God of Israel to be known only as "the Lord God." Henceforth without any definite name He stood forth as the world's God without peer.

Spirituality of God.

Judaism at all times protested most emphatically against any infringement of its pure monotheistic doctrine, whether by the dualism of the Gnostic (Sanh. 38a; Gen. R. i.; Eccl. R. iv. 8) or by the Trinitarianism of the Church (see Jew. Encyc. iv. 54, s.v. Christianity), never allowing such attributes as justice and pardoning love to divide the Godhead into different powers or personalities. Indeed, every contact with other systems of thought or belief served only to put Judaism on its guard lest the spirituality of God be marred by ascribing to Him human forms. Yet, far from being too transcendental, too remote from mortal man in his need (as Weber, "Jüdische Theologie," 1897, pp. 157 et seq., asserts), Judaism's God "is ever near, nearer than any other help or sympathy can be" (Yer. Ber. ix. 13a); "His very greatness consists in His condescension to man" (Meg. 31a; Lev. R. i., with reference to Ps. cxiii. 6). In fact, "God appears to each according to his capacity or temporary need" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, iv.; see Schechter in "J. Q. R." vi. 417-427).

Judaism affirms that God is a spirit, above all limitations of form, the Absolute Being who calls Himself "I am who I am" ("Eheyeh asher Eheyeh"; Ex. iii. 14), the Source of all existence, above all things, independent of all conditions, and without any physical quality. Far, however, from excluding less philosophical views of the Deity, so ardent a Jew as R. Abraham b. David of Posquières contends against Maimonides that he who holds human conceptions of God, such as the cabalists did, is no less a Jew than he who insists on His absolute incorporeality (Haggahot to "Yad," Teshubah, iii. 7). Indeed, the daily prayers of the Jew, from "Adon 'Olam" to the "Shir ha-Yiḥud" of Samuel b. Kalonymus, show a wide range of thought, here of rationalistic and there of mystic character, combining in a singular manner transcendentalism and immanence or pantheism as in no other faith. While the ideas of the various ages and civilizations have thus ever expanded and deepened the conception of God, the principle of unity was ever jealously guarded lest "His glory be given to another" (Isa. xlii. 8; see God).

Ethical Monotheism.

But the most characteristic and essential distinction of Judaism from every other system of belief and thought consists in its ethical monotheism. Not sacrifice, but righteous conduct, is what God desires (Isa. i. 12-17; Amos v. 21-24; Hos. vi. 6; Micah vi. 6-8; Jer. vii. 22; Ps. xl. 7 [A. V. 6], 1. 8-13); the whole sacrificial cult being intended only for the spiritual need of man (Pesiḳ. vi. 57, 62; Num. R. xxi.; Lev. R. ii.). Religion's only object is to induce man to walk in the ways of God and to do right (Gen. xix. 19; Deut. x. 12), God Himself being the God of righteousness and holiness, the ideal of moral perfection (Ex. xx. 5-6, xxxiv. 7; Lev. xix. 1; Deut. vii. 9-10). While the pagan gods were "products of fear," it was precisely "the fear of God" which produced in Judaism the conscience, the knowledge of a God within, thus preventing man from sin (Gen. xlii. 18; Ex. xx. 20; Deut. x. 12; Job i. 1). Consequently thehistory of mankind from the beginning appeared as the work of a moral Ruler of the world, of "the King of the nations of whom all are in awe" (Jer. x. 7; Ps. lxv. 13, xcvi. 10; Dan. ii. 21), in whom power and justice, love and truth are united (Ps. lxxxix. 15 [A. V. 14]). As He spoke to Israel, "Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev. xix. 1, Hebr.), so "He said unto man, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding" (Job xxviii. 28; comp. Micah vi. 8; Isa. xxxiii. 15; Ps. xv., xxiv. 4: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"). Quite characteristic of rabbinical Judaism is the fact that the names used for God are chiefly taken from His ethical attributes: "The world's Righteous One" ("Zaddiḳo shel 'olam," Gen. R. xlix.; Yoma 37a); "The Merciful One" ("Raḥmana"); and most frequently "The Holy One, blessed be He!" ("ha-Ḳadosh baruk hu"). Before Cain killed his brother, he said: "There is no divine judgment and no Judge" (Targ. Yer. to Gen. iv. 8). "The first question put to man at the Last Judgment will be: 'Didst thou deal honestly with thy fellow man?'" (Shab. 31a; see God).

Unity of the Cosmos.

(b)

The unity of the world is a corollary of the unity of God. The many gods of heathendom divided the world into many parts and domains, and made it appear as the battle-ground of hostile powers. The One God of the Bible renders earth and heaven, light and darkness, life and death one—a universe ruled by everlasting wisdom and goodness, the work of one great Designer and Ruler who foresees in the beginning what will be in the end, who arranges everything according to His sublime purpose (Gen. i. 1-31; Isa. xlv. 5-7, xlvi. 9-10, lv. 8-9; Ps. civ. 24; Prov. iii. 19, 20; Job xxviii. 24-27, xxxviii.). Therefore God's covenant with the world which He created makes night and day and the seasons of the year maintain their order. He has given earth and heaven and everything therein their laws which they can not transgress (Gen. viii. 22; Jer. xxxiii. 20; Job xxxviii. 33; Ps. civ. 9, cxlviii. 6). At the same time God is ever present in the world watching and sustaining everything (Isa. xl. 28, xli. 4; Ps. civ. 27-30, cxxxix. 16, cxlv. 15-16; see Providence). Every single act of God is part of His wondrous work (Job v. 9, xxxviii.; Ps. lxxvii. 15 [A. V. 14], xcvi. 3). Accordingly all miracles are manifestations of His omnipotence (Gen. xviii. 14; Ex. ix. 16; Num. xvi. 30). The grand conception of an all-controlling Power and Wisdom creating order everywhere, and working after one great design, attainable only upon the basis of Jewish monotheism, finally paved the way for the idea of an empire of law in nature. How far this unity and immutability of the laws of nature, fixed by the will of the Creator, are compatible with miracle is a question the difficulty of which was felt by the rabbis of the Mishnah (Ab. v. 6; and Gen. R. v.). "God at Creation fixed the conditions for certain creatures under which they should change their nature" (the passage was misunderstood by Weber, l.c. p. 202, as well as by the medieval Jewish philosophers; see Miracles).

No Power of Evil.

At any rate, Judaism, while insisting upon the unity of God and His government of the world, recognizes alongside of God no principle of evil in creation. God has no counterpart either in the powers of darkness, as the deities of Egypt and Babylon had, or in the power of evil, such as Ahriman in the Zoroastrian religion is, whose demoniacal nature was transferred by the Gnostic and Christian systems to Satan. In the Jewish Scriptures Satan has his place among the angels of heaven, and is bound to execute the will of God, his master (Job i. 7); and though sin and death are occasionally ascribed to him (see Satan), he can seduce and harm only as far as God permits him, and in the end must work for good (B. B. 16a). "God is the Creator of light and darkness, the Maker of peace and of evil" (Isa. xlv. 7). Everything He made was found by Him to be very good (Gen. i. 31); "also death," says R. Meïr (Gen. R. ix.). "What the Merciful does is for the good" (Ber. 60b). Whatever evil befalls man has disciplinary value: it is intended for his higher welfare (Deut. viii. 5; Ps. xciv. 12; Ta'an. 21a: "Gam zu leṭobah").

Because the Lord saw that the world could not stand to be measured by strict justice, He mingled the quality of mercy with that of justice and created the world with both (Gen. R. xii.). In striking contrast to the pessimistic doctrine that the world is the product of mere chance and full of evil, the Midrash boldly states that the world was (or is) a process of selection and evolution: "God created worlds after worlds until He said, 'This at last pleases Me'" (Gen. R. ix.; see Optimism).

Man as the Son of God.

(c)

Next to God's unity the most essential and characteristic doctrine of Judaism is that concerning God's relation to man. Heathenism degraded man by making him kneel before brutes and the works of his hand: Judaism declared man to be made in the image of God, the crown and culmination of God's creation, the appointed ruler of the earth, and vicegerent of God (Gen. i. 26, 28). In him as the end of Creation the earthly and the divine are singularly blended. This is the obvious meaning of the childlike Paradise story (Gen. ii.-iii.). The idea is summed up in the Psalmist's words: "Thou hast made him a little lower than godly beings [A. V. "angels"]" ("Elohim"; Ps. viii. 6 [A. V. 5]); "Thou hast made him ruler over the work of Thine hand" (ib. verse 7 [6]). This twofold nature of man, half animal, half deity, is frequently alluded to in Job (iv. 17-19, vii. 17, x. 9-12, xxv., xxxii. 8). The original meaning of "The Lord made man in the image of Elohim" is somewhat doubtful, though clearly some kind of "godly beings" is intended (Gen. i. 27, v. 1); the old translators have "angels"; see Book of Jubilees, xv. 27, and Mek., Beshallaḥ, vi.; Ex. R. xxx. 11, xxxii. 1; Gen. R. viii.; and Targ. Yer. to Gen. i. 27; Symmachus and Saadia translate: "God created him in a noble, upright stature" (see Geiger, "Urschrift," pp. 323, 324, 328). However this may be, R. Akiba, as spokesman for Judaism, takes it to signify that man is born free likeGod, able to choose between good and evil (Mek., l.c.). According to others (see Naḥmanides and Ibn Ezra, ad loc.), it is his intelligence which renders him "the image and likeness of God" (Gen. ii. 7; Isa. xlii. 5; Ps. civ. 29; Prov. xx. 27; Job xxxii. 8; Eccl. xii. 7). At any rate, it is the affinity of the human soul to God which is expressed in the words "image of God." The Rabbis say, "He is made for two worlds: the world that now is, and the world to come" (Gen. R. viii.; Tan., Emor, ed. Buber, p. 21).

The body makes man cherish sensual desires, and thus incline to sin (Gen. vi. 3-5, viii. 21; see Yeẓer Hara'); but it by no means forces him to commit sin. Judaism refutes the idea of an inherent impurity in the flesh or in matter as opposed to the spirit. Nor does Judaism accept the doctrine of original sin. The Paradise story (Gen. iii.) asserts in parabolic form man's original state of innocence (see Original Sin). "The soul that Thou hast given me is pure, Thou hast created it, Thou hast fashioned it, and Thou hast breathed it into me, and Thou preservest it within me, and at the appointed time Thou wilt take it from me to return it within me in the future." These are the words recited by the Jew every morning in his prayer (Ber. 60b). The belief of some, borrowed from Plato, that the body is "a prison-house of the soul" (Wisdom, ix. 15; Josephus, "B. J." ii. 8, § 11), never took root in Judaism, though the idea that Adam's sin brought death into the world (Wisdom, i. 13-16, ii. 21-24) is occasionally voiced by the Rabbis (see Death). Judaism knows of no "law of sin in the body" of which Paul speaks (Rom. vii. 23-25). Some commentators have found the doctrine of original sin in Ps. li. 7 (see Ibn Ezra and Delitzsch, ad loc.); but the view receives in general no support from rabbinical literature (see Lev. R. xiv. 5), though R. Johanan speaks of "the poison of the serpent" ('Ab. Zarah 22b; comp. Shab. 55b; Naḥmanides on Num. xix. 2; Zohar i. 52; Eccl. R. vii. 13).

Man's Freedom of Will.

The fundamental principle of Judaism (see Maimonides, "Moreh," iii. 17) is that man is free; that is to say, the choice between good and evil has been left to man as a participant of God's spirit. "Sin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be its desire; but thou shalt rule over it" (Gen. iv. 7, Hebr.) says God to Cain; and herein is laid down for all time the law of man's freedom of will. Accordingly Moses says in the name of God: "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; . . . therefore choose life" (Deut. xxx. 15, 19); and Ben Sira, commenting upon this, says: "God hath made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his counsel. . . . He hath set fire and water before thee; thou mayest stretch forth thy hand unto whichsoever thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whichsoever he liketh, it shall be given him" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xv. 14-17). Similarly R. Akiba declares: "All is foreseen; but the mastery [that is, free will] is granted" (Ab. iii. 15). Another rabbinical saying is, "Everything is determined by Heaven save the fear of Heaven" (Ber. 33b). Freedom of will constitutes man's responsibility; and his heavenly prerogative would be impaired were there an inheritance of sin. "Every man shall be put to death for his own sin," says the Law (Deut. xxiv. 16). It is the principle for which the prophet Ezekiel fought (Ezek. xviii. 20). Accordingly the Rabbis say: "The wicked are under the power of their hearts; the righteous have their hearts in their power" (Gen. R. lxvii.). Also, "Man is constantly led along the way he wishes to go. If he wishes to pollute himself by sin, the gates of sin will be opened for him; if he strives for purity, the gates of purity will be opened to him" (Yoma 38a; Mak. 10b; Nid. 30b). Regarding the difficulty of reconciling free will with divine omniscience, see Free Will. Notwithstanding man's propensity to sin, caused by the Yeẓer Ha-Ra', "the leaven in the lump" (Ber. 17a; comp. I Cor. v. 7), and the universal experience of sinfulness (Eccl. vii. 20; Ex. R. xxxi.), rabbinical Judaism denies that sin is inherited from parents, pointing to Abraham the son of Terah, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, and others as instances to the contrary (Tan., Ḥuḳḳat, ed. Buber, p. 4, with reference to Job xiv. 4), and insists on the possibility of sinlessness as manifested by various saints (Shab. 55b; Yoma 22b; Eccl. R. i. 8, iii. 2).

Sin and Repentance.

Sin, according to Jewish teaching, is simply erring from the right path, owing chiefly to the weakness of human nature (Num. xv. 26; I Kings viii. 46; Ps. xix. 13, lxxviii. 39, ciii. 14; Job iv. 17-21); only in the really wicked it is insolent rebellion against God and His order ("pesha'" or "resha'"; Isa. lvii. 20; Ps. i. 4-6, xxxvi. 2; and elsewhere). And there is no sin too great to be atoned for by repentance and reparation (Ezek. xviii. 23; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Ḳid. 40b). The whole conception, then, of mankind's depravity by sin has no place in Judaism, which holds forth the reintegrating power of repentance to Gentiles and Jews, to the ordinary and the most corrupt sinners alike (Pes. 119a; R. H. 17b; Sanh. 103a, 108a; Yoma 86a, b). "Before God created the world, He created repentance for man as one of his prerequisites" (Pes. 54a; Gen. R. xxi., xxii.; see Repentance; Sin).

Unity of Mankind

Unity of Mankind.

(d)

The doctrine by which Judaism exerted the greatest influence upon the history of the world is, however, that of the unity of the human family. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, whatever the origin of the narrative may be (see Babylonia and Genesis), teach that all the tribes of men have descended from one parent, Adam (= "man"), and that consequently the various races constitute one family. This doctrine is the logical consequence of the other, the unity of God. The theology of Judaism shaped its anthropology also. Childlike as the story of the confusion of tongues at the building of the Tower of Babel may appear (Gen. xi. 1-9, probably based upon an old Babylonian myth relating to the battle of the giants with the celestial gods), the Jewish genius made it convey a great truth, namely: God dispersed men in order to cause the whole earth to be the habitation of the human race, and thus to found and establish the higher unity of man upon the greatest possible diversity. Accordingly the end of history is that the Lord shall "turnto the nations [A. V., incorrectly, "the people"] a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent" (Zeph. iii. 9; comp. Gen. ix. 1).

Here is foreshadowed the world-plan of salvation, the Kingdom of God, an idea peculiar to Judaism. As Creation is centered upon man, so is the perfection of humanity, through the unfolding of all the powers of man in the world, the aim of the world-drama of history (Gen. i. 28; Isa. xlv. 18). "The world was created for man" (Ber. 6b). "Abraham, the true type of humanity, would have been the first-created man had God not seen the necessity of making him the restorer of a world corrupted by sin since Adam's day." "The Torah given to Israel on Sinai was originally intended for Adam as the first man; but, seeing that the six Noachian commandments—that is, the unwritten laws of humanity—were kept by him, God reserved the Torah for the descendants of Abraham" (Eccl. R. iii. 11; comp. Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5). By their non-observance of the Noachian laws (Gen. R. xxiii., xxxviii.) the early generations of men all failed to fulfil the design of the Creator; Abraham was therefore selected to bring men back to the way of righteousness (Gen. xviii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 3), and thus to reunite the world by making the God of heaven God of the earth also (Gen. R. xxxix. 13, lix. 11).

The Ten Words of Sinai, too, were intended for every nation; but when all the others refused to accept them and Israel alone merited the priesthood by promising "What the Lord sayeth we will do," the Owner of the whole earth rendered Israel "His peculiar treasure among the nations, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. xix. 1-8, xxiv. 7; Mek., Yitro, Bahodesh, 5; Sifre, Deut. 343; Pesiḳ. R. xxi.). In fact, the Ten Words of Sinai were promulgated in seventy languages in order that they might be understood by all of the seventy nations (Shab. 88b). "Had Israel not accepted the Law, the world would have been turned into chaos" (Shab. 88a).

Israel's Mission

Israel's Mission.

Israel, then, has been chosen, like Israel's ancestor Abraham, the descendant of Shem (Gen. ix. 26-27), to be a blessing to all nations on earth (ib. xii. 3, xix. 18); and the name by which the Lord calls him at the Exodus (Ex. iv. 22), "My first-born son," betokens in the language of the time his mission to be that of the priest and teacher in the house-hold of the nations, leading the rest by his precept and example to the worship of the Only One (ib. xix. 6; Isa. lxi. 6). "A people dwelling in solitude and not counted among the nations" (Num. xxiii. 9; Deut. vii. 7), but watched over by divine providence with especial care (Deut. xxvii. 18-19, xxxii. 8-12), the standard-bearer of incomparable laws of wisdom and righteousness in the sight of the nations (ib. iv. 5-8), Israel has been created to declare God's praise to the world, to be "His witnesses" (LXX., "martyrs") testifying to His unity, "the light of the nations," and the "covenant of the people to establish the earth" (Isa. xliii. 10, 21; xlix. 6-8). "To Israel's house of God the nations shall flock to be taught of His ways and to learn to walk in His paths." This is to bring humanity back to its normal condition, peace and bliss on earth, because righteousness will then prevail everywhere and the whole "earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord" (Isa. ii. 2-4, ix. 6, xi. 4-9, lxv. 25; Micah iv. 1-4). Israel, who when redeemed from Egypt proclaimed God as King (Ex. xv. 19; Lev. R. ii. 4), received the truth of Sinai as a trust; he is never to rest until his God shall become king of the whole earth, until all men and nations shall bend the knee before Him (Zech. xiv. 9; Isa. xl. 5, xlv. 13, xlix. 19; Ps. xxii. 29 [A. V. 28], xlvii. 9 [8], lxxvii. 5 [4], xcvi.-xcix.). "Israel, who proclaims God's unity, is proclaimed by God as His unique people" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 3). Israel, as the people of the saints of the Most High, is to establish the kingdom of God to last forever (Dan. ii. 44, vii.). But as teacher and guardian of mankind's purest faith and loftiest hope, he is dealt with more severely by God for every transgression (Jer. ii. 21; Ezek. xx. 33-41; Amos iii. 2). Nay more, as the servant of God he has been chosen for continual martyrdom in the cause of truth and justice; he, therefore, is the "man of sorrows" whose affliction is to bring healing to the world and to lead many to righteousness (Isa. lii-liii.; see Servant of God).

Whether the expectation is that the universal kingdom of God on earth will be brought about by an ideal king from the house of David, the Messiah, as Isaiah and his followers depict the future of Israel (Isa. xi. 1 et seq.; Ezek. xxxiii. 24), or by the dispersed people of Israel itself, as the seer of the Exile (Isa. lvi.-lxvi.) indicates (see Messiah); whether or not the great day when all flesh shall worship the Lord will be preceded by a day of divine judgment when all the wicked "shall be stubble" (Mal. iii. 19, 21 [A. V. iv. 3]; see Day of the Lord; Eschatology; Gog and Magog), Judaism by its idea of a divine kingdom of truth and righteousness to be built on earth gave to mankind a hope and to history a goal for which to live and strive through the centuries. Other nations beheld in the world's process a continual decline from a golden age of happiness to an iron age of toil, until in a great catastrophe of conflagration and ruin the end of all things, of men and gods, is to be reached: Judaism points forward to a state of human perfection and bliss to be brought about by the complete unfolding of the divine in man or the revelation of God's full glory as the goal of history. And herein lies its great distinction also from Christianity. Judaism's scope lies not in the world beyond, the world of the spirit, of which man on earth can have no conception. Both the hope of resurrection and that of immortality, in some form or other familiar and indispensable to all tribes and creeds, seem evidently to have come to the Jews from without—the one from Persia or Babylonia, the other from Greece. Judaism itself rests on neither (see Eschatology; Immortality; Resurrection). Its sole aim and purpose is to render the world that now is a divine kingdom of truth and righteousness; and this gives it its eminently rational, ethical, and practical character.

Character of Judaism

II. Character of Judaism:

Judaism has a twofold character: (1) universal, and (2) particular or national. The one pertains to its religious truths destined for the world; the other, to its national obligationsconnected with its priestly mission. Upon the former more stress is laid by the Prophets and by most of the sacred poets, by the Alexandrian propagandists and the Palestinian haggadists, as well as by the medieval philosophers and the modern Reform school; whereas the Mosaic law, the Halakah, and the Talmudic and cabalistic schools dwell almost exclusively upon the latter.

(1)

As a universal religion Judaism differs from all other religions in that it is not a creed or a system of beliefs upon the acceptance of which redemption or future salvation depends (see Articles of Faith). It is a system of human conduct, a law of righteousness which man should follow in order to live thereby (Lev. xviii. 5); that is, according to R. Meïr, the law of humanity, since "man" is spoken of and not Israel nor priest nor Levite (Sifra, Aḥare Mot; 'Ab. Zarah 3a; comp. Sanh. 59a, where the meaning of R. Meïr's words is altered). It is a law "for life and not for the depriving of man's life" (Sifra, l.c.). When, in answer to a heathen mocker, Hillel summed up the entire Law in the Golden Rule: "What is hateful to thee do not unto thy neighbor" (the Targumic translation of "Love thy neighbor as thyself"; Lev. xix. 18; Shab. 31b; see Ab. R. N., Recension B, xxvi., ed. Schechter, p. 53, where the answer is ascribed to R. Akiba instead; comp. Sifra, Ḳedoshim, iv.), he simply voiced the truth of which Abraham and Job are set up as types, and which is expressed by lawgiver (Deut. iv. 8) and prophet (Isa. i. 10-17, xxxiii. 15; Hos. vi. 6; Amos v. 21-24; Micah vi. 6-8; Zech. viii. 16-17), by the Psalmist (Ps. xv., xxiv., xxxiv. 13-15) and the Book of Wisdom, as well as by the Rabbis (Mek. 23b-24a). Whereas heathenism by its cults of Moloch and similar gods fostered cruelty, the Torah enjoined man "to walk in the ways of a righteous and merciful God, and be righteous and merciful like Him" (Deut. xi. 22; Sifre, Deut. 49; Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah); to love the stranger and protect the fatherless and the widow as He does (Deut. x. 17-20).

Justice to All

Justice to All.

Judaism is, above all, the law of justice. Whereas in heathendom, except in the case of some exalted philosopher like Plato, might was deified, and the oppressed, the slave, and the stranger found no protection in religion, the declaration is everywhere made throughout Scripture that injustice committed by man against man provokes the wrath of the world's Ruler and Judge (Ex. xxi. 22-23; Gen. vi. 13, xviii. 20; Deut. xxvii. 15-26; Amos i. 3-ii. 8; and elsewhere), and that righteousness and compassionate love are demanded for the oppressed, the slave, the poor, the fatherless and homeless, the stranger, and for the criminal as having a claim on the sympathy of his fellow men; even for the dumb creature compassion is required (Ex. xxii. 20-26, xxiii. 5-6; Deut. xxii. 6; xxiv. 6, 10-xxv. 4; Job xxxi.). This is the "Torah" of which Isaiah speaks (Isa. i. 10), the "commandment" put by God upon every human heart (Deut. xxx. 11-14). And this spirit of justice permeates the Talmudic literature also. "For righteousness is one of the pillars of the world" (Ab. i. 18). "Where right is suppressed war comes upon the world" (ib. iv. 8). "The execution of justice is one of the Noachian laws of humanity" (Sanh. 56b). "Justice is demanded alike for the Gentile and the Jew" (Mak. 24a; B. Ḳ. 113a; and other quotations in Baḥya b. Joseph's "Ḳad ha-Kemaḥ," ch. "Gezelah"). To have due regard for the honor of all fellow creatures ("kebod ḥaberiyyot"; Tos., B. Ḳ. vii. 10) is one of the leading principles of rabbinic law (Shab. 94b).

Purity and Truth

Purity and Truth.

Judaism furthermore is the law of purity. Heathenism by its orgiastic cults of Baal-peor, Astarte, and the like, fostered impurity and incest (Lev. xviii. 3, 24-30; Num. xxv. 1-9; Deut. iv. 3). The Torah warns against fornication, and teaches purity of heart and of action (Num. xv. 39; Deut. xxiii. 18-19, xxiv. 15; Prov. vii. 5-27; Job xxxi. 1), because God is too pure to tolerate unchastity in man or in woman (see Holiness; Purity). Judaism resents every act of lewdness as "nebalah" = "villainy" (Gen. xxxiv. 7, 31; Deut. xxii. 21; Judges xix. 24; II Sam. xiii. 12; see Folly), and most severely condemns lascivious talk (Isa. ix. 16; Shab. 33a).

Judaism is, moreover, the law of truth. Its God is the God of truth (Jer. x. 10). "The seal of the Holy One is truth" (Gen. R. lxxxi.; see Alpha and Omega). Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Job, and Ḳohelet wrestled with God in doubt until He revealed Himself to them in a higher form (Gen. xviii. 25; Ex. xxxii.-xxxiii.; Jer. xii. 1; Job xxxi. 35). And as the Prophets had perfect faith in God as the God of truth and therefore shrank from hypocrisy (Yer. Ber. vii. 11c), so did all the Jewish philosophers show perfect confidence in truth while boldly expressing their lofty views concerning the Deity and divesting God of every trace of Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism and of every attribute infringing upon the spirituality and unity of God. It was, says the Talmud, the last will of Canaan that his children should not speak the truth and should love lasciviousness (Pes. 113b). "The Torah of Moses is truth" and "desires men to speak the truth and assent to the truth, even as God Himself assents to the truth when honestly spoken"; for "Upon truth rests the world" (B. B. 74a; Ps. xv. 2; Ab. R. N. xxxvii.; Ab. i. 18). This honest search for truth made Judaism, indeed, the world's great power for truth as well as for righteousness.

Judaism promotes and fosters education and culture. In contrast to such systems of faith as foster ignorance of the masses, it renders it a duty for the father to instruct his children and for the community to provide for the general instruction of old and young (see Education; Philosophy). It sanctifies labor, and makes the teaching of a trade whereby a livelihood may be earned a duty incumbent upon the father or upon the municipal authority (see Labor, Holiness of). It makes the systematic care of the poor a duty of the community with a view to the dignity and self-help of the recipient (See Charity). It denounces celibacy as unlawful, and enjoins each man to build a home and to contribute to the welfare of human society (see Marriage). The high priest in Israel was not allowed to officiate on the Day of Atonement unless he had a wifeliving with him (Yoma i. 1; comp. Ta'an. ii. 2). It enjoins love of country and loyalty to the government, no matter how unfriendly it be to the Jew (Jer. xxix. 7; Ab. iii. 2; Ket. 111a; see Patriotism).

Judaism is a religion of joy, and it desires that man should rejoice before God and gratefully enjoy all His gifts, at the same time filling other hearts with joy and thanksgiving. Especially are its Sabbath and festal days seasons of joy with no austerity about them. Judaism discourages asceticism (see Asceticism; Joy).

The Religion of Joy, Hope, and Love

The Religion of Joy, Hope, and Love.

Judaism is a religion of hope. It teaches men to recognize in pain and sorrow dispensations of divine goodness. It is optimistic, because it does not defer hope merely to the world to come, but waits for the manifestation of God's plans of wisdom and goodness in the moral and spiritual advancement of man. While the present world is, in comparison to the future one, declared to be "like the vestibule wherein one prepares for the palace," it is nevertheless stated that "one hour devoted to repentance and good works in this world is more valuable than the entire life of the world to come" (Ab. iv. 16-17); for "to-day is the time for working out one's destiny, while to-morrow is the time for receiving compensation" ('Er. 22a).

As its highest aim and motive Judaism regards the love of God. Twice every day the Jew recites the Shema', which contains the words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. vi. 5); this verse is understood to enjoin him to willingly surrender life and fortune whenever the cause of God demands it, while it at the same time urges him to make God beloved by all his fellow creatures through deeds of kindness, as Abraham did (Sifre, Deut. 32). This love of God implies the most unselfish devotion and the purest motive of action; that is, acting not from fear, but rather for God's sake alone (Sifre, Deut. 32, 48; Ab. ii. 12); doing good not in view of any reward in the world to come (Ab. i. 3), but for its own sake (see Schreiner, "Die Jüngsten Urtheile über das Judenthum," 1902, pp. 145-151); and it also implies the love of man (Deut. x. 12-19; see Love).

Judaism, finally, is a system of sanctification of life. It teaches that the whole of life is holy, because God is manifested in it: "Be holy, for the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. xix. 1, Hebr.). Even in the functions of animal life the presence of a holy God should be realized (Deut. xxiii. 15); and when the perfect state of humanity shall have been attained, every road will be a holy road free from impurity (Isa. xxxv. 8), and "In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holy unto the Lord" (Zech. xiv. 20, R. V.).

National Character of Judaism

National Character of Judaism.

(2)

The striking feature of Judaism, however, is that, while containing the highest spiritual and ethical truths for humanity, it is bound up with the Jewish nation. The One and Only God, Yhwh, is Israel's God in particular (Sifre, Deut. 31); and the separation of Israel from the rest of the nations in order to distinguish it as God's people is the express purpose of the Torah (Lev. xx. 24, 26), and the characteristic trait of Judaism from the time of Ezra (Ezra vi. 21; Neh. x. 21) and of the Scribes or Pharisees (see Pharisees). This national distinctness or aloofness of the Jew has brought him all the hostility, persecutions, and bitter attacks of a surrounding world from the days of Haman (Esth. iii. 8) and of Apion in Alexandria down to the most recent times (see Anti-Semitism; Apion). Even such historians as Mommsen ("Rümische Gesch." 1885, v. 487), Ed. Meyer ("Gesch. des Alterthums," iii. 167-236), Harnack ("Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums," 1902, p. 16), and Bousset ("Wesen der Religion des Judenthums," 1903, pp. 128-157) see in Judaism only a national religion, in Israel's God a national God. Nay, it may be affirmed without exaggeration that a just and unprejudiced estimate of Judaism is found nowhere in modern Christian writings (see Schreiner, l.c.). The fact of the matter is that Judaism, while representing the guardianship of the universal religious truths for humanity, surrounded the Jewish people, as the priestly people of the world's Only God, with laws and rites of a specific national character in order to keep these very truths forever intact and at the same time to invest the guardians of them with the sanctity of the world's priesthood. "The people of Israel have from the beginning sworn fidelity to God and have recognized Him as the world's Ruler" (Ber. 6a; Ḥag. 3a); therefore have they been called "the sons of God" (Deut. xiv. 1; Ab. iii. 13). Yet their especial sonship of God implies that they should be faithful to Him unto death, and by continued self-surrender and martyrdom should glorify His name before the world throughout the ages (Sifra, Emor, iv., on Lev. xxii. 32-33; comp. Ps. xliv. 18-23; Dan. iii.; II Macc. vii.; and Ḳiddush ha-Shem).

The Jews a Separate People

The Jews a Separate People.

The Sinaitic covenant which rendered Israel "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. xix. 6) became, the Rabbis say, "a source of hatred to the nations" (Shab. 89a: a play upon words, "Sinai"—"Sin'ah"), because it separated it from them by statutes and ordinances such as the dietary and the Levitical purity laws and others intended to prevent idolatrous practises. Like the priest in the Temple, whose garments and mode of life distinguished him from the rest in order to invest him with the spirit of greater sanctity and purity (I Chron. xxiii. 13), so Israel was for all time to be impressed with its priestly mission by all those ceremonies which form so prominent a feature in its religious life (see Ceremonies; Circumcision; Commandments; Dietary Laws). Particularly the Mosaic and, later on, the Pharisaic laws had for their object the separation of the Jewish people from all those influences prevalent in heathendom which led to idolatry and impurity; wherefore not only intermarriage, but also participation in any meal or other festive gathering which could possibly be connected with idol-worship was prohibited (see Worship, Idol-; Intermarriage; Jubilees, Book of.) This persistent avoidance of association with the Gentiles on the part of the Pharisees, which in the time of the Maccabees was termed ἀμξία = "keepingapart from the surrounding nations" (comp. II Macc. xiv. 38), became the chief cause of the accusation of a "hatred of mankind" which was brought against the Jews by the Greeks and Romans, and which has ever since been reiterated by the anti-Semites (see Schürer, "Gesch." iii. 3, 416).

In reality these very laws of seclusion fitted the Jew for his herculean task of battling for the truth against a world of falsehood, and enabled him to resist the temptations and to brave the persecutions of the nations and the ages. They imbued him with a spirit of loyalty unparalleled in human history; they inculcated in him the principle of abstinence, enabling him to endure privation and torture; and filled him with that noble pride which alone upheld him amidst the taunts and sneers of high and low. They brought out those traits of manhood which characterized Abraham, who, according to the Rabbis, was called '"Ibri " (Hebrew) because his maxim was: "Let all the world stand on the one side ["'eber eḥad"]—I side with God and shall win in the end" (Gen. R. xlvi.). But these laws also fostered a conception of the sanctity of life unknown to other creeds or races. By investing the commonest act and event with religious obligations, they made the whole of life earnest and holy with duty. Instead of being "a yoke of servitude," as Schürer and others have it, they "filled the home and the festal seasons with higher joy" (see Schechter and Abrahams in "J. Q. R." iii. 762 et seq., xi. 626 et seq.).

Judaism in Its Relation to the Gentile World

III. Judaism in Its Relation to the Gentile World:

Notwithstanding its unmitigated severity against heathenism with its folly and vice, and against every mode of compromise therewith, Judaism does not, like other creeds, consign the non-believer to eternal doom. It judges men not by their creed, but by their deeds, demanding righteous actions and pure motives, since "fear of God" signifies fear of Him who looketh into the heart (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, iii. 2). It declares through R. Joshua b. Hananiah, whose opinion is generally accepted, that "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come"; the Shammaite R. Eliezer in consigning all heathen to Gehenna bases his argument on the Scriptural verse Ps. ix. 18 (A. V. 17), into which he reads, "The wicked are turned to Sheol because all heathen forget God"—not as R. Joshua does, "all those heathen that forget God" (Sanh. 105a). It is the moral depravity ascribed to the heathen, owing to his unchaste and violent habits, which is the cause of all the harsh haggadic expressions—such as "the people that resemble the ass" (Ket. 111a)—and halakic injunctions found in the Talmud against the heathen (Gentile or 'Akkum; see Jubilees, Book of). The latter is always under grave suspicion (see 'Ab. Zarah ii. 1; Yeb. 98a), yet, no sooner does he solemnly discard idolatry than his association is invited and he has a claim on protection (Giṭ. 45a).

Its Attitude Toward Proselytism

Its Attitude Toward Proselytism.

On the contrary, Judaism waits for "the righteous nation that keeps the faith" (Isa. xxvi. 2), and opens wide "its gates that the righteous from among the heathen world may enter" (Ps. cxviii. 20; Sifra, Aḥare Mot, xiii.), calling the Gentiles that serve God in righteousness "priests of the Lord" ("Otiot de-R. Akiba," letter "Zayin"). It declares that the Holy Spirit may rest upon the righteous heathen as well as upon the Jew (Tanna debe Eliyahu R. ix.). It pays due homage to the wise among the heathen (Ber. 58a; Soṭah 35b; Bek. 8b; Gen. R. lxv.). It recognizes the existence of prophets among the heathen (B. B. 15b: "Fifteen prophets God sent to the heathen world up to the time of Moses: Balaam and his father, Job and his four friends," etc.; comp. Lev. R. i. 12, ii. 8; Tanna debe Eliyahu R. xxvi.; ib. Zuṭa xi., etc.). The assertion made by Max Müller, Kuenen, and others, that Judaism is not a missionary religion, rests on insufficient knowledge. There existed an extensive proselyte propaganda literature, especially in Alexandria (see Didache; Propaganda); and, according to the Midrash, "the heathen world is saved by the merit of the one proselyte who is annually won" (Gen. R. xxviii.; comp. Matt. xxiii. 15; Jellinek, "B. H." vi., Introduction, xlvi.). Abraham and Sarah are represented as devoting their lives to making proselytes (Gen. R. xxxix.); and as the Psalmist accords to the proselytes—"those that fear God"—a special place (Ps. cxv. 11), so does the daily prayer of the Jew in the "Shemoneh 'Esreh" contain a special blessing for the proselytes ("Gere ha-Ẓedeḳ"). Only in later centuries, when the Church interfered through apostates and by edicts, was the proselyte declared to be a plague instead of a desired accession to the house of Israel (Isa. xiv. 1); the ancient Halakah endeavored to encourage the heathen to come under the wings of the Shekinah (Yeb. 47a, b; Mas. Gerim; Lev. R. ii.). In order to facilitate the admission of Gentiles, Judaism created two classes: (1) "proselytes of righteousness," who had to bring the "sacrifices of righteousness" while submitting to the Abrahamic rite in order to become full members of the house of Israel; and (2) "proselytes of the gate" ("gere toshab"), who accepted only the seven Noachian laws (ten and thirty are also mentioned) of humanity. Occasionally the necessity of undergoing circumcision is made a matter of controversy also in the case of the full proselyte (see Circumcision). But proselytism as a system of obtaining large numbers is deprecated by Judaism.

However, the Messianic age is regarded as the one when "the fulness of the heathen world" will join Judaism (Isa. xiv. 1; Zech. viii. 23; 'Ab. Zarah 3a). Especially characteristic of the cosmopolitan spirit of Judaism is the fact that the seventy bullocks brought as sacrifice during the Sukkot festival at the Temple were taken to be peace-offerings on behalf of the supposed seventy nations representing the heathen world (Suk. 55b), a view shared by Philo ("De Monarchia," ii. 6; idem, "De Septenario," p. 26; see Treitel in "Monatsschrift," 1903, pp. 493-495). Throughout the entire ethical literature of the Jews, from Tanna debe Eliyahu R. down to the various Ethical Wills of the Rabbis, there is voiced regarding the non-Jewish world a broadly human spirit which stands in strange contrast to the narrowness with which Judaism is viewed by Christian writers, even those of high rank (see Zunz, "Z. G." pp. 122-157). The same cosmopolitan attitude was taken by Judaism whenever its representativeswere called upon to act as intermediaries between Moslem and Christian; and the parable of the three rings, put by Lessing into the mouth of Nathan der Weise, was actually of Jewish origin (see Wünsche in "Lessing-Mendelssohn Gedenkbuch," 1879, pp. 329 et seq.).

Judaism as Law

IV. Judaism as Law:

Owing to the Paulinian antithesis of law and faith or love (see Löwy, "Die Paulinische Lehre von Gesetz," in "Monatsschrift," 1903, pp. 332 et seq., 417 et seq.), the Torah, the basis and center of Judaism since Ezra, has been persistently placed in a false light by non-Jewish writers, undue stress being laid upon "the burden of the Law." In reality, the word "Torah" signifies both "law" and "doctrine"; and Judaism stands for both while antagonizing Paul's conception of faith as a blind dogmatic belief which fetters the mind. It prefers the bondage of the Law to the bondage of the spirit. It looks upon the divine commandments as a source of spiritual joy ("simḥah shel miẓwah") and as a token of God's special protection (Ber. 31a), for which it enjoins the Jew to offer Benedictions and to display zeal and enthusiastic love (Ab. v. 20). "God has given the children of Israel so many commandments in order to increase their merit [Mak. iii. 16] or to purify them" (Tan., Shemini, ed. Buber, p. 12). Every morning after having taken upon himself the yoke of God's kingdom, the Israelite has to take upon himself the yoke of the divine commandments also (Ber. ii. 2); and there is no greater joy for the true Israelite than to be "burdened with commandments" (Ber. 17a). "Even the commonest of Jews are full of merit on account of the many commandments they fulfil" (ib. 57a.)

The Law was accordingly a privilege which was granted to Israel because of God's special favor. Instead of blind faith, Judaism required good works for the protection of man against the spirit of sin (ib. 32b). The Law was to impress the life of the Jew with the holiness of duty. It spiritualized the whole of life. It trained the Jewish people to exercise self-control and moderation, and it sanctified the home. It rendered the commonest functions of life holy by prescribing for them special commandments. In this sense were the 613 commandments regarded by Judaism.

Purpose of the Law

Purpose of the Law.

Some of these are understood to be divine marks of distinction to separate Israel from the other nations—statutes ("ḥukkot") which are designated as unreasonable by the heathen world, such as laws concerning diet, dress, and the like (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, xiii.). Others are called "'eduyot" (testimony), in view of their having been given to make Israel testify to God's miraculous guidance, such as the festive seasons of the year; while still others are "signs" ("ot"), being tokens of the covenant between God and Israel, such as circumcision, the Sabbath (Gen. xvii. 11; Ex. xxxi. 13), the Passover (Ex. xii. 13, xiii. 9), and, according to the rabbinical interpretation, the tefillin (Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18).

Of sacraments, in the sense of mysterious rites by which a person is brought into a lifelong bodily relationship to God, Judaism has none. The Sabbath and circumcision have been erroneously called thus by Frankel (in his "Zeitschrift," 1844, p. 67): they are institutions of Judaism of an essential and, according to the generally accepted opinion, vital character; but they do not give any Jew the character of an adherent of the faith (see Ceremony; Commandments). At the same time the Sabbath and the festival seasons, with the ceremonies connected with them, have at all times been the most significant expressions of Jewish sentiment, and must be regarded as the most important factors of religious life both in the Synagogue and in the home (see Ab, Ninth of; Atonement, Day of; Ḥanukkah; New-Year; Passover; Purim; Sabbath; Shabuot; and Sukkot).

While the immutability of the Torah, that is, the law of Moses, both the written and the oral Law, is declared by Maimonides to be one of the cardinal doctrines of Judaism, there are views expressed in the Talmud that the commandments will be abrogated in the world to come (Nid. 61b). It is especially the dietary laws that will, it is said, be no longer in force in the Messianic time (Midr. Teh. on Ps. cxlvi. 4).

Dreidels - Dreidels - MileChai - Judaic

Orthodox and Reform Judaism

Orthodox and Reform Judaism.

On the question whether the laws concerning sacrifice and Levitical purity have ceased to be integral parts of Judaism, Reform and Orthodox Judaism are at issue (on this and other points of difference between the two extreme parties of Judaism see Reform Judaism). Between the two stands the so-called "Breslau school," with Zacharias Frankel as head, whose watchword was "Positive Historical Judaism," and whose principle was "Reform tempered with Conservatism." While no longer adhering to the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch (see Grätz in "Gesch." ii. 299-318, and Schechter in "J. Q. R." iii. 760-761) and the divine character of tradition (see Frankel, "Darke ha-Mishnah"), it assigns the power and authority for reforms in Judaism only to the Jewish community as a whole, or to what Schechter calls "catholic Israel." The latter author desires "a strong authority," one which, "drawing inspiration from the past, understands also how to reconcile us [the Jews] with the present and to prepare us [them] for the future" ("J. Q. R." iv. 470). Grätz goes so far as to reduce Judaism to two fundamental principles: (1) "the religious element, which is mere negative monotheism in the widest acceptation of the term," and (2) the ethical, which offers the ideal for the moral life: "Be ye holy even as I am holy"; at the same time declaring that "prophets and Talmudists did not regard sacrifice or ritual as the fundamental and determining thing in Judaism" (Grätz, i. 9). This leads to a final statement of the principles and forces of Judaism.

V. Historic Principles and Forces of Judaism:

V. Historic Principles and Forces of Judaism:

The Shema', "the proclamation of God's unity, requires an undivided Israel" (Mek., Yitro, Baḥodesh, i.). "One God, One Israel, and One Temple" is the principle twice stated in Josephus ("Ant." iv. 8, § 5; "Contra Ap." ii. 28); "One God, One Israel, and One Torah" is the principle upon which Orthodox Judaism rests. "It was an evil day for Israel when the controversies between the schools of Shammai and Hillel began, and the one Torah appearedto have become two Torot" (Sanh. 88b; where the plural "Torot" occurs, it refers to the written and oral law; Yoma 28b, with reference to Gen. xxvi. 5; comp. Shab. 31a). This Torah, both written and oral, was known to and practised in all its details by the Patriarchs (Yoma 28b; Gen. R. lxiv.; comp. Jubilees, Book of, and "Attah Eḥad" in the liturgy). "Whosoever denies that the whole Law, written as well as oral, was given by God to Moses on Sinai is a heretic" (Sanh. 99a; Sifra, Behar, i. 1).

Chain of Tradition

Chain of Tradition.

The trustworthiness of the divine behest until the final codification of the Law, from this point of view, rests upon the continuous chain of tradition from Moses down to the men of the Great Synagogue (Ab. i. 1), and afterward upon the successive ordination of the Rabbis by the elders with the laying on of hands (probably originally under the influence of the Holy Spirit; see Semikah). Accordingly the stability and the immutability of the Law remained from the Orthodox standpoint one of the cardinal principles of Judaism (see M. Friedländer, "The Jewish Religion," 1891; Samson Raphael Hirsch, "Horeb," 1837).

Independent research, however, discerns evolution and progress to have been at work in the various Mosaic legislations (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19; Deut. xii.-xxi. 13; and Leviticus together with Num. xv., xviii.-xix. 22), in the prophetic and priestly as well as in the soferic activities, and it necessarily sees in revelation and inspiration as well as in tradition a spiritual force working from within rather than a heavenly communication coming from without. From this point of view, ethical monotheism presents itself as the product not of the Semitic race, which may at best have created predisposition for prophetic inspiration and for a conception of the Deity as a personality with certain moral relations to man, but solely of the Jewish genius, whose purer and tenderer conception of life demanded a pure and holy God in sharp contrast to the cruel and lascivious gods of the other Semitic races (see M. Joël, "Religiös-Philosophische Zeitfragen," 1876, pp. 82-83).

The Prophetic Spirit.

The Prophetic Spirit.

It was the prophetic spirit of the Jewish nation embodied in Abraham (not the Midianite, as Budde thinks, nor some Babylonian tribe, as the Assyriologists would have it) which transformed Yhwh, an original tribal deity localized on Sinai and connected with the celestial phenomena of nature, into the God of holiness, "a power not ourselves that maketh for righteousness," the moral governor of the world. Yet this spirit works throughout the Biblical time only in and through a few individuals in each age; again and again the people lapse into idolatry from lack of power to soar to the heights of prophetic vision. Only in the small Judean kingdom with the help of the Deuteronomic Book of the Law the beginning is made, and finally through Ezra the foundation is laid for the realization of the plan of "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

But while thus the people were won, and the former propensity to idolatry, the "yeẓer ha-ra'," was banished forever by the power of the men of the Great Synagogue (Yoma 69b), the light of prophetic universalism became dim. Still it found its utterance in the Synagogue with its liturgy, in the Psalms, in the Books of Jonah and Job, in the Books of Wisdom, and most singularly in the hafṭarah read on Sabbath and holy days often to voice the prophetic view concerning sacrifice and ritual in direct antagonism to the Mosaic precepts. Here, too, "the Holy Spirit" was at work (see Inspiration; Synagogue). It created Pharisaism in opposition to Sadducean insistence upon the letter of the Law; and the day when the injunction "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was abrogated, and the rationalistic interpretation of the Scribes was substituted therefor, was celebrated as a triumph of reason (Megillat Ta'an. iv. 1). While the legalists beheld God's majesty confined to "the four ells of the Halakah" (Ber. 8a), the Haggadah unfolded the spirit of freedom and progress; and when mysticism in the East threatened to benumb the spirit, philosophy under Arabian influence succeeded in enlarging the mental horizon of Judaism anew.

Thus Judaism presents two streams or currents of thought ever running parallel to each other: the one conservative, the other progressive and liberal; the one accentuating the national and ritualistic, the other the cosmopolitan and spiritual, elements; mysticism here and rationalism there, these together forming the centripetal and centrifugal forces of Judaism to keep it in continuous progress upon its God-appointed track.

Judaism, parent of both Christianity and Islam, holds forth the pledge and promise of the unity of the two ("Yad," Melakim, xi. 4; "Cuzari," iv. 23; see Jew. Encyc. iv. 56, s.v. Christianity), as it often stood as mediator between Church and Mosque during the Middle Ages (see Disputations and Judah ha-Levi). In order to be able to "unite all mankind into one bond" (New-Year's liturgy and Gen. R. lxxx viii.), it must form "one bond" (Lev. R. xxx.). It must, to use Isaiah's words, constitute a tree ever pruned while "the holy seed is the substance thereof" (Isa. vi. 13); its watchword being: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts" (Zech. iv. 6).

Shema

Initial word of the verse, or chapter, recited as the confession of the Jewish faith. Originally, the "Shema'" consisted only of the one verse, Deut. vi. 4 (see Suk. 42a; Ber. 13b); the regular "Shema'" in the liturgy, however, consists of three portions: Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21, and Num. xv. 37-41. The first verse, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord," has ever been regarded as the confession of belief in the One God. The first of the three portions of the "Shema'" contains the command to love God with heart, soul, and might; to remember all commandments and instruct the children therein; to recite the words of God when retiring or rising; to bind those words on the arm and the head, and to inscribe them on the door-posts and on the city gates. The second portion contains the promise of reward for the fulfilment of the laws, and the threat of punishment for their transgression, with a repetition of the contents of the first portion. The third portion contains the law concerning the ẓiẓit, as a reminder that all the laws of God are to be obeyed, as a warning against following the evil inclinations of the heart, and, finally, in remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. The commandment to read the "Shema'", twice daily is ascribed by Josephus to Moses ("Ant." iv. 8), and it has always been regarded as a divine commandment (see, however, Sifre, Deut. 31 [ed. Friedmann. p. 72b. note 17]).

"Shema'" Ritual.

The reading of the "Shema'" morning, and evening is spoken of in the Mishnah (Ber. i. 1-2) as a matter of course, and rests upon the interpretation of ("when thou liest down, and when thou risest up"; Deut. vi. 7). The school of Shammai takes it literally, saying that the evening "Shema'" shall be read in a reclining or resting posture, and that the morning "Shema'" shall be read standing; the school of Hillel asserts that it refers not to the posture, but to the times of reclining and rising. The time for reading the evening "Shema'" begins with twilight and ends four hours after, according to R. Eliezer, or at midnight, according to the "ḥakamim" (the majority of rabbis); or it lasts till the rise of the morning star, according to R. Gamaliel (Ber. i. 1-3). This difference of opinion, rests on the interpretation of "lying down," as to whether it means the regular or the latest hour of retiring, or the whole time during which people usually sleep—that is, all night. Similarly, the time of reading the morning "Shema'" is fixed by the ḥakamim to begin at daybreak, when there is sufficient light to distinguish between purple and white, or to recognize a person, after a short acquaintance, at a distance of four ells, and to last until the sun's rays are seen. R. Joshua, however, extends the time until three hours of daylight have passed, because princes and men of leisure do not rise till then (ib.). Queen Helen of Adiabene fixed a gold candelabrum in front of the Temple, which reflected the first rays of the sun and thus indicated the time of reciting the "Shema'" (Yoma 37b).

Accompanying Benedictions.

The Benedictions preceding and following the Shema'" (Ber. i. 4) are credited to the members of the Great Assembly. They are of Essene origin (see Rapoport in his biography of Ḳalir), and were first instituted in the Temple liturgy (comp. Tamid v. 1). The composition of the "Shema'" itself developed gradually. R. Judah b. Zabida, in explaining why the portion regarding ẓiẓit was incorporated, says that the Rabbis had proposed to add the chapter of Balak (referring especially to Num. xxiii. 18-24), but that they finally decided not to do so, because they thought the "Shema'" already sufficiently long, and they did not care to overburden the congregation (Ber. 12b).

According to the Talmud, the reading of the "Shema'" morning and evening fulfils the commandment "Thou shalt meditate therein day and night" (Josh. i. 8; Men. 99b). As soon as a child begins to speak his father is directed to teach him the verse "Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4), and teach him to read the "Shema'" (Suk. 42a). The reciting of the first verse of the "Shema'" is called the acceptance of the yoke of the kingship of God" (Ber. ii. 5). Judah ha-Nasi, being preoccupied with his studies, put his hand over his eyes and repeated the first verse in silence (Ber. 13a).

The response "Baruk Shem" ("Praised be the name of His glorified kingdom forever and ever") is ascribed to the patriarch Jacob by R. Joshua b. Levi, who says: "Jacob, just before he died, was about to reveal the 'end of days' to his children, when the Shekinah suddenly turned away from him. Jacob feared that perhaps some one of his children was unworthy. But they all exclaimed, 'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One,' by which they meant, 'In God we are all one'; whereuponJacob responded, 'Baruk Shem'" (Pes. 56a; comp. Gen. R. xcviii.).

Cabalistic Views.

The first verse of the "Shema'" is recited aloud, first by the ḥazzan and then by the congregation, which responds with "Baruk Shem" in silence. Only on Yom Kippur is this response said aloud (comp. Zohar, Terumah, p. 133b). The remainder of the "Shema'" is read in silence. This custom was approved by R. Hai Gaon and R. Solomon b. Adret (Moses b. Isaac Alashkar, Responsa, No. 10, Sabbionetta, 1553); it is the Ashkenazic custom; but the Sephardim recite aloud the whole of the "Shema'" except the "Baruk Shem." Pronouncing the evening "Shema'," however, is not obligatory, though it is meritorious. The evening "Shema'" is based on the verse "Commune with your own heart upon your bed" (Ps. iv. 4). R. Isaac said: "Whoever reads the 'Shema'' on his couch is as one that defends himself with a two-edged sword." "Let them sing aloud upon their beds . . . a two-edged sword in their hand" (Ps. cxlix. 5-6). Rabina said: "Though one that is affrighted [in the night-time] sees nothing himself, his star [guardian angel] sees the apparition; his recourse is to read the 'Shema''" (Meg. 3a).
The Zohar, with reference to Num. xxviii. 24, says, "One shall, before lying down, sanctify the High Name with the 'Shema' Yisrael'" (Zohar, Balaḳ, p. 211a). R. Simeon b. Yoḥai said the "Shema'" preserves Israel from a foe. It was the battle-cry of the priest in calling Israel to arms against an enemy (Deut. xx. 3; Soṭah 42a). It is the last word of the dying in his confession of faith. It was on the lips of those who suffered and were tortured for the sake of the Law. R. Akiba patiently endured while his flesh was being torn with iron combs, and died reciting the "Shema'." He pronounced the last word of the sentence, "Eḥad" (one) with his last breath (Ber. 61b). During every persecution and massacre, from the time of the Inquisition to the slaughter of Kishinef, "Shema' Yisrael" have been the last words on the lips of the dying. "Shema' Yisrael" is the password by which one Jew recognizes another in every part of the world. Eldad the Danite, in describing the wars which his tribe had waged with its Gentile neighbors, said that on the flag of the tribe was inscribed the words "Shema' Yisrael" (Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 9; A. Epstein, "Eldad ha-Dani," pp. 26, 27, Presburg, 1891). See Prayer.

The Shabbat Table - Parctical Guide Video

The Shabbat Table
A Practical Guide

56K - 100K - 300K

The rituals and customs that we have practiced for centuries at the Shabbat table; from lighting candles to eating delicious Challah.

Judaism

Jewish belief, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Jewish people, and revealed his laws and commandments to them in the form of the Torah. The practice of Judaism is devoted to the study and observance of these laws and commandments, as written in the Torah.