Kosher Torah

In the Beginning: The Torah

2009-12-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

The Torah (תּוֹרָה) is the most important document in Judaism, revered as the inspired word of God, traditionally said to have been revealed to Moses. The Torah, or Law, comprises the first five books of the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible.

The five books of the Torah are:

Genesis (בראשית, Bereshit: "In the beginning...")
Exodus (שמות, Shemot: "Names")
Leviticus (ויקרא, Vayyiqra: "And he called...")
Numbers (במדבר, Bamidbar: "In the desert...")
Deuteronomy (דברים, Devarim: "Words", "Discourses", or "Things")
The Hebrew names are taken from initial words within the first verse of each book. See, for example, Genesis 1:1.

Jews have revered the Torah through the ages. It is traditionally accepted as the literal word of God as told to Moses.

Title

The word Torah means "teaching," "instruction," "scribe", or "law" in Hebrew. It is also known as the Five Books of Moses, the Book of Moses, the Law of Moses (Torat Moshe תּוֹרַת־מֹשֶׁה), Sefer Torah in Hebrew (which refers to the scroll cases in which the books were kept).

Other names current in Judaism include Hamisha Humshei Torah (חמשה חומשי תורה, "[the] five fifths/parts [of the] Torah") or simply the Humash (חוּמָשׁ "fifth"). A Sefer Torah is a formal written scroll of the five books, written by a Torah scribe under exceptionally strict requirements. The term is sometimes also used in the general sense to also include both Judaism's written law and oral law, encompassing the entire spectrum of authoritative Jewish religious teachings throughout history, including the Mishnah, the Talmud, the Midrash, and more.

Structure

The five books contain both a complete and ordered system of laws, particularly the 613 mitzvot (613 distinct "commandments", individually called a mitzvah), as well as a historical description of the beginnings of what came to be known as Judaism. The five books (particularly Genesis, the first part of Exodus, and much of Numbers) are, primarily, a collection of seemingly historical narratives rather than a continuous list of laws; moreover, many of the most important concepts and ideas from the Torah are found in these stories. The book of Deuteronomy is different from the previous books; it consists of Moses' final speeches to the Children of Israel at the end of his life.

According to the classical Jewish belief, the stories in the Torah are not always in chronological order. Sometimes they are ordered by concept (Talmud tractate Pesachim 7a) — Ein mukdam u'meuchar baTorah "[There is] not 'earlier' and 'later' in [the] Torah". This belief is accepted by Orthodox Judaism.

Sanhedrin

2009-12-03T08:51:00.000-08:00

SANHEDRIN By : Wilhelm Bacher Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
The Great Sanhedrin.
I. The Political Sanhedrin:
The Gerusia.
Place of Meeting.
Functions and Position.
II. The Religious Sanhedrin:
The Great Bet Din.
Influence of the Pharisees.
Appointment and Promotion of Members.
Functions and Authority.
The "Zugot."
Order of Business.

Hebrew-Aramaic term originally designating only the assembly at Jerusalem that constituted the highest political magistracy of the country. It was derived from the Greek συνέδριον. Josephus uses συνέδριον for the first time in connection with the decree of the Roman governor of Syria, Gabinius (57 B.C.), who abolished the constitution and the then existing form of government of Palestine and divided the country into five provinces, at the head of each of which a sanhedrin was placed ("Ant." xiv. 5, § 4). Jerusalem was the seat of one of these. It is improbable, however, that the term "synhedrion" as a designation for the chief magistracy was used for the first time in connection with this decree of Gabinius; indeed, from the use made of it in the Greek translation of the Proverbs, Bacher concludes that it must have been current in the middle of the second century B.C.

The Great Sanhedrin.

In the Talmudic sources the "Great" Sanhedrin at Jerusalem is so called in contradistinction to other bodies designated by that name; and it was generally assumed that this Great Sanhedrin was identical with the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem which is mentioned in the non-Talmudic sources, in the Gospels, and in Josephus. The accounts in the two different sets of sources referring to the Sanhedrin, however, differ materially in their main characteristics. The Great Sanhedrin is designated in the Talmudic sources as "Sanhedrin Gedolah hayoshebet be-lishkat ha-gazit" = "the Great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone"(Sifra, Wayikra, ed. Weiss, 19a). The mention of "sanhedrin" without the epithet "gedolah" (Yer. Sanh. i. 19c) seems to presuppose another body than the Great Sanhedrin that met in the hall of hewn stone. For neither Josephus nor the Gospels in speaking of the Sanhedrin report any of its decisions or discussions referring to the priests or to the Temple service, or touching in any way upon the religious law, but they refer to the Sanhedrin exclusively in matters connected with legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a political nature; whereas the Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stone dealt, according to the Talmudic sources, with questions relating to the Temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and matters of a kindred nature. Adolf Büchler assumes indeed that there were in Jerusalem two magistracies which were entirely different in character and functions and which officiated side by side at the same time. That to which the Gospels and Josephus refer was the highest political authority, and at the same time the supreme court; this alone was empowered to deal with criminal cases and to impose the sentence of capital punishment. The other, sitting in the hall of hewn stone, was the highest court dealing with the religious law, being in charge also of the religious instruction of the people (Sanh. xi. 2-4).

I. The Political Sanhedrin:

The Gerusia.

This body was undoubtedly much older than the term "sanhedrin." Accounts referring to the history of the pre-Maccabean time represent a magistracy at the head of the people, which body was designated Gerusia. In 203 Antiochus the Great wrote a letter to the Jews in which he expressed his satisfaction that they had given him a friendly reception at Jerusalem, and had even come to meet him with the senate (γερουσία; "Ant." xii. 3, § 3). Antiochus V. also greeted the gerusia in a letter to the Jewish people. This gerusia, which stood at the head of the people, was the body that was subsequently called "sanhedrin." The date and the manner of its origin can not now be determined. Josephus calls it either συνέδριον or βουλή, and its members πρεσβΎτεροι (="elders," i.e., ) or βουλευταί (="councilors"), whose number was probably the same as that of the members of the Sanhedrin in the hall of hewn stone, namely, seventy or seventy-one. There are no references to indicate whence the Sanhedrin derived its authority or by whom it was elected, unless it be assumed that the convocation of that body by the high priest and at times by the Jewish king, as mentioned in the sources, refers to the manner of its election. This Sanhedrin, which was entirely aristocratic in character, probably assumed its own authority, since it was composed of members of the most influential families of the nobility and priesthood (comp. Sanh. iv. 2, where there is an allusion to the composition of this body). The Pharisees had no great influence in this assembly, although some of its members may have been friendly to them at various times. Though there are no definite references to gradations in rank among the several members, there seems to have been a committee of ten members, οὶ δέκα πρῶτοι, who ranked above their colleagues (comp. Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., ii. 201-202).

Place of Meeting.

The meetings took place in one of the chambers of the Temple in order that the discussions and decrees might thereby be invested with greater religious authority. According to a passage in the Mekilta (Mishpaṭim, 4 [ed. Weiss, p. 87a]), the Sanhedrin, which was empowered to pass the sentence of capital punishment, sat "in the vicinity of the altar," i.e., in one of the chambers of the inner court of the Temple. It was called "the hall of the βουλευταί" because the latter sat there. Subsequently it was called "lishkat parhedrin" = "the hall of the πρόεδροι" (Yoma 8b). In this hall there was also a private room for the high priest (Yoma 10a; Tosef., Yoma, i. 2). The βουλευταί or the πρόεδροι assembled in this private room (comp. Matt. xxvi. 57; Mark xiv. 63) before they met in the hall.

The Sanhedrin did not, however, always retain this place of meeting; for, according to Josephus, the βουλή was in the vicinity of the xystus ("B. J." v. 4, § 2), hence beyond the Temple mount, or, according to Schürer (l.c. ii. 211), on it, though not within the inner court. In the last years of the Jewish state, therefore, to which the account in Josephus must be referred, the Sanhedrin left its original seat, being compelled to do so perhaps by the Pharisees, who, on gaining the upper hand, would not permit the secular Sanhedrin to sit in the sanctuary. Indeed, while the Sanhedrin still sat in the Temple, it was decreed that a mezuzah was to be placed in the hall of the πρόεδροι. This was not required in any of the other apartments of the Temple; and R. Judah b. Ila'i, who was otherwise thoroughly informed as to the earlier institutions of the Temple, was unable to assign a reason for the decree (Yoma 10a). It may be explained only on the assumption that it was intended to secularize the sittings of this Sanhedrin. It may have been for the same reason that the body was subsequently excluded entirely from the Temple, inasmuch as the latter and its apartments were intended for the cult and matters connected with it, while the discussions and decrees of this Sanhedrin were political and secular in nature.

Functions and Position.

The extant references to the Sanhedrin are not sufficient to give an exact and detailed idea of its functions and of the position which it occupied. It is certain, however, that the extent of its power varied at different times, and that the sphere of its functions was restricted in various ways by the Roman government. One of these restrictions was Gabinius' above-mentioned division of the Jewish territory into five provinces, each with a sanhedrin of its own, whereby the authority and the functions of the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem were materially diminished. Its power was insignificant under Herod and Archelaus. After the death of these rulers its authority again increased, the internal government of the country being largely in its hands. It administered the criminal law, and had independent powers of police, and hence the right to make arrests through its own officers of justice. It was also empowered to judge cases that did not involve the death penalty, only capital cases requiring the confirmation of the procurator.

The high priest, who from the time of Simeon wasalso the head of the state, officiated as president of the Sanhedrin. He bore the title "nasi" (prince), because the reins of government were actually held by him. Subsequently, when they were transferred to other hands, the high priest retained the title of nasi as president of the Sanhedrin. The powers of the latter official were restricted under the procurators, without whose permission the body could not be convened ("Ant." xx. 9, § 1). This Sanhedrin, since it was a political authority, ceased to exist when the Jewish state perished with the destruction of Jerusalem (70 C.E.).

II. The Religious Sanhedrin:

The Great Bet Din.

This body, which met in the hall of hewn stone and was called also "the Great Bet Din" or simply "the Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone" (Tosef., Hor. i. 3; Tosef., Soṭah, ix. 1; Yer. Sanh. i. 19c), was invested with the highest religious authority. According to Talmudic tradition it originated in the Mosaic period, the seventy elders who were associated with Moses in the government of Israel at his request (Num. xi. 4-31) forming together with him the first Sanhedrin (Sanh. i. 6). The institution is said to have existed without interruption from that time onward (comp. Yer. Sanh. i. 18b, where, in a comment on Jer. lii. 24 et seq. and II Kings xxv. 18 et seq., it is said that Nebuzar-adan brought the Great Sanhedrin to Riblah before Nebuchadnezzar); but the fact that no passage whatever in the pre-exilic books of the Bible refers to this institution seems to indicate that it was not introduced before the time of the Second Temple. Originally it was probably not a regularly constituted authority, but merely a synod which convened on special occasions for the purpose of deliberating on important questions or of issuing regulations referring to religious life. The first assembly of this nature was that held under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. viii.-x.), which was called "the Great Synagogue" ("Keneset ha-Gedolah") in Jewish scholastic tradition. Subsequently, at a date which can not be definitely determined, this occasional assembly was replaced by a standing body. The latter, which was called "Sanhedrin" or "Bet Din," was regarded as the continuation of the synods which had previously been convened only occasionally.

Influence of the Pharisees.

It further appears from Ab. i. 2-4 that the Great Bet Din was regarded as a continuation of the Keneset ha-Gedolah; for the so-called "zugot" who were at the head of the Great Bet Din are named after the men of the Great Synagogue, which was regarded as the precursor of the Great Bet Din. This explains why the latter is sometimes called also "synagogue" (; Meg. Ta'an., in Neubauer, "M. J. C." ii. 16). Originally the members of this bet din also were priests belonging to prominent families, probably under the presidency of the high priest. The Pharisees, however, held at various times more or less prominent positions in this body, according as they were the victors or the vanquished in their conflict with the Sadducees. When John Hyrcanus toward the end of his reign turned from the Pharisees ("Ant." xvi. 11, § 1), he seems to have effected their dismissal from the Sanhedrin or bet din and to have formed a Sadducean bet din (Sanh. 52b), or a Sadducean Sanhedrin, as it is called in another passage (Meg. Ta'an. l.c. p. 17). Under Alexander Jannæus, Simeon b. SheṭaH succeeded in ousting the Sadducean members from the bet din and in reorganizing it so that it was composed only of Pharisees. But the latter lost their prestige in the subsequent quarrel with Alexander, gaining the upper hand again only under his successor, Salome Alexandra, from which time the Great Bet Din was composed exclusively of Pharisees. According to the Mishnah (Sanh. i. 5; Sheb. ii. 2), the bet din, at least during the last years of its existence at Jabneh, where it had been reorganized, consisted of seventy or seventy-one members, according as the president was included in or omitted from the list. Simeon b. 'Azzai (first half of the 2d cent.) says that seventy-two elders ("zekenim," i.e., members of the Sanhedrin) were present when R. Eleazar b. Azariah was elected president together with Rabban Gamaliel II. (Zeb. i. 3; Yad. iii. 5, iv. 2); this was one more than the usual number, and included probably, besides the seventy other members, the two presidents, Gamaliel and Eleazar b. Azariah.

Appointment and Promotion of Members.

According to R. Jose b. Halafta, the members of the Great Bet Din were required to possess the following qualifications: scholarship, modesty, and popularity among their fellow men (Tosef., Hag. ii. 9; Sanh. 88b). According to an interpretation in Sifre, Num. 92 (ed. Friedmann, p. 25b), they had also to be strong and courageous. Only such were eligible, moreover, as had filled three offices of gradually increasing dignity, namely, those of local judge, and member successively of two magistracies at Jerusalem (Jose b. Halafta, l.c.). R. Johanan, a Palestinian amora of the third century, enumerates the qualifications of the members of the Sanhedrin as follows: they must be tall, of imposing appearance, and of advanced age; and they must be learned and must understand foreign languages as well as some of the arts of the necromancer (Sanh. 19a).

Functions and Authority.

The hall of hewn stone ("lishkat ha-gazit") in which the bet din sat was situated on the southern side of the inner court of the Temple (Mid. v. 4). It was used for ritual purposes also, the priests drawing lots there for the daily service of the sacrifices, and also reciting the "Shema'" there (Tamid ii., end, to iii., beginning; iv., end, to v., beginning). The larger part of the hall was on the site of the court of laymen. There were two entrances: one from the court of the priests, which was used by the latter; the other in the Water gate, used by the laity. The Great Bet Din sat daily, except on the Sabbath and on feast-days, between the morning and evening sacrifices (Tosef., Sanh. vii. 1). On the Sabbath and on feast-days, on which there were no meetings in the hall of hewn stone, the members of the bet din assembled in the schoolhouse on the Temple mount (ib.). According to the accounts given in the Talmudic sources, the Great Bet Din had the following functions, which it exercised in part as a body and in part through committees of its members: It had supervision over the Temple service, which was required to be conducted in conformity with theLaw and according to Pharisaic interpretation. It decided which priests should perform the Temple service (Mid., end). It supervised especially important ritual acts, as the service on the Day of Atonement (Yoma i. 3). It had in charge the burning of the Red Heifer and the preparation of the water of purification (Tosef., Sanh. iii. 4). When the body of a murdered person was found, members of the Great Bet Din had to take the necessary measurements in order to determine which city, as being the nearest to the place of the murder, was to bring the sacrifice of atonement (Soṭah ix. 1; Tosef., Sanh. iii. 4; comp. Soṭah 44b-45a). It had also to decide as to the harvest tithes (Peah ii. 6). It sat in judgment on women suspected of adultery, and sentenced them to drink the bitter water (Soṭah i. 4; see Ordeal). It arranged the calendar (R. H. ii. 5 et seq.), and provided correct copies of the Torah roll for the king, and probably for the Temple also (Tosef., Sanh. iv. 4; Yer. Sanh. ii. 20c). In general it decided all (doubtful questions relating to the religious law (Sanh. 88b) and rendered the final decision in regard to the sentence of the teacher who promulgated opinions contradicting the traditional interpretation of the Law ("zaken mamreh"; Sanh. xi. 2-4; see Elder, Rebellious).

The "Zugot."

Two persons were at the head of the bet din: one, the actual president with the title "nasi"; the other, the second president or vice-president, who bore the title "ab bet din" (father of the court). The existence of these two offices is well authenticated from the time following the Hadrianic persecution. R. Johanan (3d cent.) says that in the college which was regarded as the continuation of the Great Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone R. Nathan officiated as second president ("ab bet din") side by side with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II., who was president ("nasi"; Hor. 13b). In a mishnah (Hag. ii. 2) five pairs of scholars are enumerated who were at the head of the Great Bet Din at the time of the Second Temple; and it is stated that one of each pair was nasi and the other ab bet din. These five pairs of scholars, who collectively are also designated "zugot" (Peah ii. 6), were at the same time the most prominent representatives of the tradition (Ab. i. 1 et seq.) and at the head of the Pharisaic school. There is therefore no reason to doubt the statement that from the time the bet din came under Pharisaic influence these Pharisaic teachers stood at its head. The fact that the high priest had formerly been the president of this bet din explains why there were two presidents. Since the high priest was probably frequently prevented from presiding at the meetings, or was perhaps not competent to do so, another officer had to be chosen who should be the actual director of the body. The double office was retained when, with the growing influence of the Pharisees, the nasi of the bet din was a scribe and no longer the high priest. The title "nasi," which the president of the bet din bore, may have originated at the time when the high priest—the real prince and the head of the state—acted as president. The following reason also may have determined the retention of the title, even after the high priest no longer officiated as president: The bet din, which, as shown above, was called also (corresponding to the Hebrew ), was identified with the Biblical "'edah" (comp. Sifre, Deut. 41 [ed. Friedmann, p. 59b]; Sifra, Wayikra, ed. Weiss, 19a, where it is expressly stated that the Great Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone is the 'edah); and, since only a director of the 'edah is called "nasi" in Ex. xvi. 22 and Num. iv. 34, it may have seemed desirable to retain the title "nasi" for the president of the bet din.

Order of Business.

Business at the meetings of the bet din was transacted according to a certain order. Reliable traditions describing the procedure and the balloting have been preserved in the Mishnah; but it is impossible to distinguish between the regulations obtaining in the bet din at the time of the Second Temple and those obtaining in the school of Jabneh, which was regarded as a continuation of the Sanhedrin. The following are some of these regulations: The members of the bet din sat in a semicircle in order that they might see one another (Sanh. iv. 2; Tosef., Sanh. viii. 1). The president sat in the center (Tosef., l.c.). Two secretaries recorded the various opinions expressed by the members; according to one tradition there were three secretaries (Sanh. l.c.). When a question was raised and a member of the college declared that he was in possession of a tradition according to which the question might be decided, such tradition was decisive. When no member knew of any tradition relating to the question at issue, discussion followed and a ballot was taken (Tosef., Sanh. vii. 1). Three rows of scholars sat in front of the bet din, and filled vacancies in the latter when necessary (Sanh. iv. 4; Tosef., Sanh. viii. 2). This regulation, however, refers only to the school of Jamnia and not to the bet din of the time of the Second Temple; for only such men were appointed to membership in the latter as had previously sat in less important bodies.

After the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and the downwall of the Jewish state, the Academy of Jabneh was organized as the supreme religious authority, being therefore regarded as the continuation of the Great Bet Din in the hall of hewn stone. The later Jewish academies under the presidency of the patriarchs of the family of Hillel—hence, down to the end of the fourth century—were also regarded as the continuation of that institution (this is the meaning of the sentence "The bet din of the hall of hewn stone went on ten journeys until it finally settled at Tiberias"; R. H. 31a, b); they accordingly retained its organization, and the president bore the title of nasi, the second president officiating side by side with him as ab bet din.

Essenes

2009-12-03T07:08:00.000-08:00

ESSENES By : Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
The Essenes in History.
Origin of the Essenes.
"The Ancient hasidim."
The "Zenu'im," or Chaste Ones.
The "Hashsha'im," or Secret Ones.
"Watikim" and "Holy Ones."
Survivals of the Hasidim.
Philo's Account of the Essenes.
Study of the Law.
Their Communism.
The Essenes Advanced in Years.
Josephus' Account.
Hippolytus' Description Compared with Josephus'.
Essenes Travel Constantly.
Prayers and Meals.
The Law and the Prophets.
Discipline of the Essene Order.
Sabbath Observance.
Zealots Also Essenes.
Essene View of Resurrection.
Purpose of the Essene Brotherhood.
Types of Essenes.
Traces of Essenism and Anti-Essenism.
Relation of Essenism to Christianity.

A branch of the Pharisees who conformed to the most rigid rules of Levitical purity while aspiring to the highest degree of holiness. They lived solely by the work of their hands and in a state of communism, devoted their time to study and devotion and to the practise of benevolence, and refrained as far as feasible from conjugal intercourse and sensual pleasures, in order to be initiated into the highest mysteries of heaven and cause the expected Messianic time to come ('Ab. Zarah ix. 15; Luke ii. 25, 38; xxiii. 51). The strangest reports were spread about this mysterious class of Jews. Pliny (l.c.), speaking of the Essene community in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, calls it the marvel of the world, and characterizes it as a race continuing its existence for thousands of centuries without either wives and children, or money for support, and with only the palm-trees for companions in its retreat from the storms of the world. Philo, who calls the Essenes "the holy ones," after the Greek ?s???, says in one place (as quoted by Eusebius, "Præparatio Evangelica," viii. 11) that ten thousand of them had been initiated by Moses into the mysteries of the sect, which, consisting of men of advanced years having neither wives nor children, practised the virtues of love and holiness and inhabited many cities and villages of Judea, living in communism as tillers of the soil or as mechanics according to common rules of simplicity and abstinence. In another passage ("Quod Omnis Probus Liber," 12 et seq.) he speaks of only four thousand Essenes, who lived as farmers and artisans apart from the cities and in a perfect state of communism, and who condemned slavery, avoided sacrifice, abstained from swearing, strove for holiness, and were particularly scrupulous regarding the Sabbath, which day was devoted to the reading and allegorical interpretation of the Law. Josephus ("Ant." xv. 10, § 4; xviii. 1, § 5; "B. J." ii. 8, §§ 2-13) describes them partly as a philosophical school like the Pythagoreans, and mystifies the reader by representing them as a kind of monastic order with semi-pagan rites. Accordingly, the strangest theories have been advanced by non-Jewish writers, men like Zeller, Hilgenfeld, and Schürer, who found in Essenism a mixture of Jewish and pagan ideas and customs, taking it for granted that a class of Jews of this kind could have existed for centuries without leaving a trace in rabbinical literature, and, besides, ignoring the fact that Josephus describes the Pharisees and Sadducees also as philosophical schools after Greek models.

The Essenes in History.

The Essenes, as they appear in history, were far from being either philosophers or recluses. They were, says Josephus ("Ant." xv. 10, §§ 4-5), regarded by King Herod as endowed with higher powers, and their principle of avoiding taking an oath was not infringed upon. Herod's favor was due to the fact that Menahem, one of their number who, excelling in virtuous conduct and preaching righteousness, piety, and love for humanity, possessed the divine gift of prophecy, had predicted Herod's rise to royalty. Whether Sameas and Pollio, the leaders of the academy (Abot i. 11), who also refused to take an oath ("Ant." xv. 10, § 4), belonged to the Essenes, is not clear. Menahem is known in rabbinical literature as a predecessor of Shammai (hag. ii. 2). Of Judas the Essene Josephus relates ("Ant." xiii. 11, § 2; "B. J." i. 3, § 5) that he once sat in the Temple surrounded by his disciples, whom he initiated into the (apocalyptic) art of foretelling the future, when Antigonus passed by. Judas prophesied a sudden death for him, and after a while his prediction came true, like everyother one he made. A similar prophecy is ascribed to Simon the Essene ("Ant." xvii. 13, § 3; "B. J." ii. 7, § 4), who is possibly identical with the Simon in Luke ii. 25. Add to these John the Essene, a general in the time of the Roman war ("B. J." ii. 20, § 4; iii. 2, § 1), and it becomes clear that the Essenes, or at least many of them, were men of intense patriotic sentiment; it is probable that from their ranks emanated much of the apocalyptic literature. Of one only, by the name of Banus (probably one of the Banna'im; see below), does Josephus ("Vita," § 2) relate that he led the life of a hermit and ascetic, maintaining by frequent ablutions a high state of holiness; he probably, however, had other imitators besides Josephus.

Origin of the Essenes.

To arrive at a better understanding of the Essenes, the start must be made from the hasidim of the pre-Maccabean time (I Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13; II Macc. xiv. 6), of whom both the Pharisees and the Essenes are offshoots (Wellhausen, "Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte," 1894, p. 261). Such "overrighteous ones," who would not bring voluntary sacrifices nor take an oath, are alluded to in Eccl. vii. 16, ix. 2, while the avoidance of marriage by the pious seems to be alluded to in Wisdom iii. 13-iv. 1 (comp. II Macc. xiv. 6, 25). The avoidance of swearing became also to a certain extent a Pharisaic rule based on Ex. xx: 7 (see Targ.; Ned. 8b; Yer, Ned. iii. 38a; Sotah 9b; Ber. 33a); and the rule (Matt. v. 37, R. V.) "Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," is also Talmudic (B. M. 49a). As a matter of fact, the line of distinction between Pharisees ("Perushim") and Essenes was never very clearly drawn (see "Perishut" in Abot iii. 13; Sotah iii. 4, xi. 15; Tosef., Sotah, xv. 11; toh. iv. 12; B. B. 60b).

Thus the more than six thousand Pharisees who claimed to be "highly favored by God" and to possess by "divine inspiration foreknowledge of things to come," and who refused to take an oath of fealty to Herod, predicting his downfall while promising children to Bagoas, the eunuch (Josephus, "Ant." xvii. 2, § 4), were scarcely different from those elsewhere called "Essenes" ("Ant." xv. 10, § 4).

"The Ancient hasidim."

About the organization of the ancient hasidim little is known; but each Pharisee had to be admitted by certain rites to membership in the association ("heber" or "haburah"), receiving the name "haber" therefrom (Dem. ii. 3; Tosef., Dem. ii. 2; Bek. 30b); these fraternities assembled not only for worship but also for meals (see Geiger," Urschrift," pp. 122 et seq.). The Pharisaic and Essene system of organization appears to have been at the outset the same, a fact which implies a common origin. A remnant of this hasidean brotherhood seems to have been the "Nekiyye ha-Da'at" (the pure-minded) of Jerusalem, who would neither sit at the table or in court, nor sign a document, with persons not of their own circle (Git. ix. 8; Sanh. 23a). They paid special reverence to the scroll of the Law in the synagogue (Masseket Soferim, xiv. 14).

But tradition has preserved certain peculiarities of these "ancient hasidim" (hasidim ha-rishonim) which cast some light on their mode of life. (1) In order to render their prayer a real communion with God as their Father in heaven, they spent an hour in silent meditation before offering their morning prayer (comp. Didascalia in Jew. Encyc. iv. 593), and neither the duty of saluting the king nor imminent peril, as, for instance, from a serpent close to their heels, could cause them to interrupt their prayer (Ber. v. 1; Tosef., Ber. iii. 20; Ber. 32b). (2) They were so scrupulous regarding the observance of the Sabbath that they refrained from sexual intercourse on all days of the week except Wednesday, lest in accordance with their singular calculation of the time of pregnancy the birth of a child might take place on a Sabbath and thereby cause the violation of the sacred day (Niddah 38a, b). Peril of life could not induce them to wage even a war of defense on the Sabbath (I Macc. ii. 38; II Macc. v. 25, xv. 4). (3) They guarded against the very possibility of being the indirect cause of injuring their fellow men through carelessness (Tosef., B. k. ii. 6; B. k. 30a, 50b; comp. Git. 7a: "No injury is ever caused through the righteous"). (4) Their scrupulousness concerning "zizit" (Men. 40b) is probably only one instance of their strict observance of all the commandments. (5) Through their solicitude to avoid sin (whence also their name "Yire'e het" = "fearers of sin": Shek. vi. 6; Sotah ix. 15) they had no occasion for bringing sin-offerings, wherefore, according to R. Judah, they made Nazarite vows to enable them to bring offerings of their own; according to R. Simeon, however, they refrained from bringing such offerings, as they were understood by them to be "an atoning sacrifice for the sins committed against the soul" (Num. vi. 11, Hebr.). This aversion to the Nazarite vow seems to have been the prevailing attitude, as it was shared by Simeon the Just (Sifre, Num. 22; Ned. 10a). (6) Especially rigorous were they in regard to Levitical purity ('Eduy. viii. 4; Tosef., Oh. iv. 6, 13, where "zekenim ha-rishonim" [the ancient elders] is only another name for "hasidim ha-rishonim"; see Weiss, "Dor," i. 110); they were particularly careful that women in the menstrual state should keep apart from the household, perform no household duties, and avoid attractiveness in appearance (Sifra, Mezora', end; Shab. 64b; Ab. R. N. ii.; "Baraita di Masseket Niddah," in Horowitz's "Uralte Tosefta," 1890, i. 5, p. 16, iii. 2-3, pp. 24-27; "Pithe Niddah," pp. 54 et seq.). (7) This, however, forms only part of the general hasidean rule, which was to observe the same degree of Levitical purity as did the priest who partook of the holy things of the Temple ("okel hullin be-tohorat kodesh"); and there were three or four degrees of holiness, of which the Pharisees, or "haberim," observed only the first, the hasidim the higher ones (hag. ii. 6-7; Tosef., Dem. ii. 2). The reason for the observance of such a high degree of holiness must be sought in the fact that Levites who ate "ma'aser" and priests who ate "terumah" and portions of the various sacrifices had their meals in common with the rest of the people and had to be guarded against defilement.

The "Zenu'im," or Chaste Ones.

Upon the observance of the highest state of purity and holiness depended also the granting of the privilege, accorded only to the élite of the priesthood, of being initiated into the mysteries of the HolyName and other secret lore. "The Name of twelve letters [see God, Names of] was, after the Hellenistic apostasy, entrusted only to the 'zenu'im' [the chaste ones] among the priesthood. The Name of forty-two letters was entrusted only to the 'zanua'' and ''Anaw' [the chaste and the humble] after they had passed the zenith of life and had given assurance of preserving it [the Name] in perfect purity" (kid. 71a; Eccl. R. iii. 11; Yer. Yoma 39d, 40a). There was a twofold principle underlying the necessity of perfect chastity. When God revealed Himself to Moses and to the people of Israel they were enjoined to abstain from sexual intercourse, Israel for the time being, Moses for all time (Shab. 87a; Pes. 87b; Ab. R. N. ii., based upon Ex. xix. 15; Deut. v. 27). Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse as well as other impurity (comp. Rev. xiv. 4; Enoch, lxxxiii. 2).

But there was another test of chastity which seems to have been the chief reason for the name of "zenu'im" (Essenes): the Law (Deut. xxiii. 10-15; comp. Targ. Yer. ad loc.; Sifra, 258; Ber. 62a) enjoins modesty in regard to the covering of the body lest the Shekinah be driven away by immodest exposure. Prayer was prohibited in presence of the nude (Ber. 24b), and according to the Book of Jubilees (iii. 30 et seq., vii. 20) it was a law given to Adam and Noah "not to uncover as the Gentiles do." The chastity ("zeni'ut") shown in this respect by King Saul and his daughter (I Sam. xxiv. 4; II Sam. vi. 16) gave him and his household a place in rabbinical tradition as typical Essenes, who would also observe the law of holiness regarding diet and distribute their wealth among the (poor) people (Pesik. R. 15; Midr. Teh. vii.; Num. R. xi.; Meg. 13b; Yer. Suk. v. 55c). Every devotee of the Law was expected to be a "zanua'" (Abot vi. 1; Niddah 12a; Derek Erez Zuta vii.), such as were Rachel and Esther (Meg. 13b), Hanan ha-Nehba, the grandson of Onias the Saint (Ta'an. 23b), R. Akiba (Ket. 62b), and Judah ha-Nasi (Yer. Meg. i. 72b).

The "Hashsha'im," or Secret Ones.

The name "zenu'im," which is replaced or explained by "Kesherim" (the blameless ones), another name for "hasidim" (Yer. Dem. vi. 25d; Yer. Yoma iii. 40d; comp. Tosef., Dem. vi. 6; Ned. i. 1; Ab. R. N., text B, iv., ed. Schechter, p. 14, and comp. note on p. 15), is also applied, like the term "hashsha'im" (see below), to those reticent ones to whom a secret may be confided; e.g., secret scrolls concerning the Temple service were entrusted to them (Tosef., Yoma, ii. 7; Yer. Yoma iii. 41a). It is not always clear, however, whether the name denotes the Essenes or simply the modest ones as a class (see Dem. vi. 6; Ma'as. Sh. v. 1; Tosef., Sotah, xiii. 6). R. Simeon the zanua', who, while disregarding the Temple practise, shows a certain contempt for the high priest (Tosef., Kelim B. B. i. 6), appears on all accounts to have been an Essene priest. In an old Armenian version of Philo's dictionary of Hebrew names "Essene" is explained as "in silence" (Philo, "De Vita Contempla tiva," ed. Conybeare, p. 247). The suggestion may be made that the hashsha'im, "the observers of secrecy," designated also "the sin-fearing," who "had a chamber called 'lishkat hashsha'im' in the Temple, where they deposited their gifts of charity in secret and whence the respectable poor drew their support in secrecy," were the same Essenes from whom "the Gate of the Essenes" in Jerusalem (Josephus, "B. J." v. 42) derived its name. According to Tosef., Shek. ii. 16, these hashsha'im had in every city a special chamber for their charity-box, so that money could be deposited and taken in secret, a thing that could only be done upon the presumption that the money belonged to all alike; and since each city had its administrative body consisting of its best men, who took charge of the collection and distribution of charity (Tosef., Peah, iv. 6, 16; Tosef., Sheb. vii. 9), it is probable that these Essene-like ascetics ("zenu'im": Tosef., Peah, ii. 18) followed their own traditions, though they probably also came under the general administration.

The explanation of ?ss???? given by Suidas (= ?e???t???? = "men of contemplation," or "mystics") suggests that the name "hashsha'im," like "zenu'im," denoted men entrusted with the secret lore given in a whisper "(hag. 13a, 14a; Gen. R. iii.).

"Watikim" and "Holy Ones."

Another name denoting a class of pietistic extremists showing points of contact with the Essenes is "Watikim," (men of firm principles: Sifre, Num. 92; Sifre, Deut. 13; Müller, "Masseket Soferim," 1878, p. 257, who identifies them with the Essenes). "The Watikim so arranged their morning prayer as to finish the Shema' exactly at the time when the sun came out in radiance" (Ber. 9b; comp. Wisdom xvi. 28; II Macc. x. 28); the Watikim closed the prayers "Malkiyyot, Shofarot" and "Zikronot" with Pentateuch verses (R. H. 32b). As holders of ancient traditions, they placed their own custom above the universally accepted halakah (Masseket Soferim, xiv. 18). Still another name which deserves special consideration is "kadosh" (saint). "Such is he called who sanctifies himself, like the 'Nazir,' by abstaining from enjoyments otherwise permissible" (Ta'an. 11a, b; Yeb. 20a; comp. Niddah 12a, where the word "zanu'a" is used instead). Menahem bar Simai is called "son of the saints" because he would not even look at a coin which bore the image of the emperor or pass under the shadow of an idol (Pes. 104a; Yer, 'Ab. Zarah iii. 42c, 43b, where he is called "Nahum, the most holy one"). In Jerusalem there existed down to the second century a community by the name of "The Holy Congregation" ('Edah kedoshah, or kehala kaddisha), which insisted on each member practising a trade and devoting a third part of the day to the study of the Torah, a third to devotion, and a third to work: probably a survival of an Essene community (Eccl. R. ix. 9; Ber. 9b; Tamid 27b).

In this connection mention should also be made of the "Banna'im" (builders: Mik. ix. 6; Shab. 114a), whom Frankel ("Zeitschrift für die Religiösen Interessen des Judenthums," 1846, p. 455) with great plausibility identifies with the Essenes. Originally applied to a gild of builders belonging to the Essenes (see "Polistes," below; comp. Abba kolon "the Builder," Cant. R. i. 6; Abba Joseph the Builder, Ex. R. xiii.; the "Bannai" [Builder] in the companyof R. Gamaliel, who was to hide in the walls the Targum to Job, Tosef., Shab. xiii. 2), their name was given the meaning of builders of a higher world and afterward applied to the Rabbis in general (Ber. 64a; Yer. Yoma iii. 40; Yer. Git. vii. 48d; Ex. R. xxiii.; comp. ????d?µe?? in the "Didascalia" and the Pauline writings). Each hermit built his house himself; hence the names "Banus" and "Bannaia," adopted by men whose type was the legendary Benaiah ben Jehoiada (Ber. 4a; 18a, b).

Survivals of the Hasidim.

The name of the hasidim of olden times is coupled with that of the "Anshe Ma'aseh" (men of miraculous deeds: Suk. v. 4), a fact which shows that both belonged to the same class. hanina b. Dosa is called the last of "the miracle-workers" (Sotah ix. 15). But the hasidim remained wonder-workers in Talmudic times (Ber. 18b; Lev. R. xxii., where "ish hama'aseh" is translated into "'askan bi-debarim"). In fact, there existed books containing miraculous stories of the hasidim, a considerable number of which were adopted by Talmud and Midrash (see Eccl. R. ix. 10), just as there existed secret scrolls ("Megillot Setarim") and ethical rules of the hasidim ("Mishnat" or "Megillat hasidim") to which allusion is made here and there in the Talmud (Yer. Ter. viii. 46b; Yer. Ber. ix. 14d), and the contents of which have found their way into the pseudepigraphic and early non-Talmudic, literature (see Horowitz, l.c.). The hasidim mentioned in old baraitas like Temurah (15b) and Sotah (ix. 15), and in Abot de-Rabbi Natan (viii.), who spent their time on works of charity, are none other but survivals of the ancient hasidim. The hasidean traditions may, therefore, be traced from Jose ben Joezer, the martyr-saint and hasidean leader of the Maccabean time (II Macc. xiv. 37, where "Razis" is a corruption of the name; Gen. R. lxv.; Frankel, in "Monatsschrift," lii. 406 [1851], down to Phinehas b. Jair, who was both in theory and in practise a disciple of the hasidim (see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." ii. 594 et seq.); indeed, there is little in Essene life which does not find its explanation in rabbinical sources.

Viewed in the light of these facts, the description of the Essenes given by Philo and Josephus will be better understood and appreciated. Philo describes them in his earlier work, "Quod Omnis Probus Liber," § 12, as

Philo's Account of the Essenes.(comp. Ex. R. xii.: "Moses should not pray to God in a city full of idols").

"a number of men living in Syria and Palestine, over 4,000 according to my judgment, called 'Essæi' (?s???) from their saintliness (though not exactly after the meaning of the Greek language), they being eminently worshipers of God (?e?ape?ta? Te??)—not in the sense that they sacrifice living animals (like the priests in the Temple), but that they are anxious to keep their minds in a priestly state of holiness. They prefer to live in villages and avoid cities on account of the habitual wickedness of those who inhabit them, knowing, as they do, that just as foul air breeds disease, so there is danger of contracting an incurable disease of the soul from such bad associations"

This fear of contamination is given a different meaning by Philo ("De Vita Contemplativa," ed. Conybeare, pp. 53, 206). Speaking of their occupations, he says:(comp. kid. iv. 11; Tosef., kid. v. 15; Masseket Soferim, xv. 10; all these passages being evidences of the same spirit pervading the Pharisaic schools).

"Some cultivate the soil, others pursue peaceful arts, toiling only for the provision of their necessary wants. . . . Among all men they alone are without money and without possession, but nevertheless they are the richest of all, because to have few wants and live frugally they regard as riches [comp. Abot iv. 1: "Who is rich? Who is contented with his lot? for it is said: 'When thou eatest the labor of thy hands happy art thou and it shall be well with thee'" (Ps. cxxviii. 2, Hebr.)]. Among them there is no maker of any weapon of war [comp. Shab. vi. 4], nor any trader, whether huckster or dealer in large merchandise on land or sea, nor do they follow any occupation that leads to injustice or to covetousness"

"There is not a single slave among them, but they are all free, serving one another; they condemn masters, not only as representing a principle of unrighteousness in opposition to that of equality, but as personifications of wickedness in that they violate the law of nature which made us all brethren, created alike." [This means that, so far from keeping slaves, the Essenes, or hasidim, made it their special object to ransom captives (see Ab. R. N. viii.; Ta'an. 22a; hul. 7a); they emancipated slaves and taught them the Law, which says: "They are My servants (Lev. xxv. 42), but should not be servants of servants, and should not wear the yoke of flesh and blood" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxiii. 16-17; Tosef., B. K. vii. 5; kid. 22b.; comp. 38b; Abot i. 10: "Hate mastership!" Abot vi. 2. In regard to their practise of mutual service comp. kid. 32b; Luke xxii. 27; John xiii. 1 et seq.).]

Study of the Law.(comp. the name of "doreshe reshumot," allegorists, B. k. 82a).

"Of natural philosophy . . . they study only that which pertains to the existence of God and the beginning of all things ["ma'ase merkabah" and "ma'aseh bereshit"], otherwise they devote all their attention to ethics, using as instructors the laws of their fathers, which, without the outpouring of the divine spirit ["ruah ha-kodesh"], the human mind could not have devised. These are especially taught on the seventh day, when, abstaining from all other work, they assemble in their holy places, called synagogues, sitting in rows according to their age, the younger ones listening with becoming attention at the feet of the elder ones. One takes up the holy book and reads aloud, another one from among the most learned comes forward and explains whatever may not have been understood—for, following their ancient traditions, they obtain their philosophy by means of allegorical interpretation"

"Thus they are taught piety, holiness, righteousness, the mode of governing private and social affairs, and the knowledge of what is conducive or harmful or indifferent to truth, so that they may choose the one and shun the other, their main rule and maxim being a threefold one: love of God, love of manhood (self-control), and love of man. Of the love of God they exhibit myriads of examples, inasmuch as they strive for a continued, uninterrupted life of purity and holiness; they avoid swearing and falsehood, and they declare that God causes only good and no evil whatsoever [comp. "kol de-abed Rahmana le-tab 'abed," "What the Merciful does is for the good," Ber. 60b]. Their love of virtue is proved by their freedom from love of money, of high station, and of pleasure, by their temperance and endurance, by their having few wants, by their simplicity and mild temper, by their lack of pride, by their obedience to the Law, by their equanimity, and the like. Of their love for man they give proof by their good will and pleasant conduct toward all alike [comp. Abot i. 15, iii. 12: "Receive every man with a pleasant countenance!"], and by their fellowship, which is beautiful beyond description.

Their Communism.(comp. B. M. ii. 11).

"No one possesses a house absolutely his own, one which does not at the same time belong to all; for in addition to living together in companies ["haburot"] their houses are open also to their adherents coming from other quarters [comp. Aboti. 5]. They have one storehouse for all, and the same diet; their garments belong to all in common, and their meals are taken in common. . . . Whatever they receive for their wages after having worked the whole day they do not keep as their own, but bring into the common treasury for the use of all; nor do they neglect the sick who are unable to contribute their share, as they have in their treasury ample means to offer relief to those in need. [One of the two hasidean and rabbinical terms for renouncing all claim to one's property in order to deliver it over to common use is "hefker" (declaring a thing ownerless; comp. Sanh. 49a); Joab, as the type of an Essene, made his house like the wilderness—that is, ownerless and free from the very possibility of tempting men to theft and sexual sin—and he supported the poor of the city with the most delicate food. Similarly, King Saul declared his whole property free for use in warfare (Yalk.,Sam. i. 138). The other term is "hekdesh nekasim" (consecrating one's goods; comp. 'Ar. vi. ; Pes. 57: "The owners of the mulberry-trees consecrated them to God"; Ta'an. 24a: "Eliezer of Beeroth consecrated to charity the money intended for his daughter's dowry, saying to his daughter, 'Thou shalt have no more claim upon it than any of the poor in Israel.'" Jose ben Joezer, because he had an unworthy son, consecrated his goods to God (B. B. 133b). Formerly men used to take all they had and give it to the poor (Luke xviii. 22); in Usha the rabbis decreed that no one should give away more than the fifth part of his property ('Ar. 28a; Tosef., 'Ar. iv. 23; Ket. 50a).] They pay respect and honor to, and bestow care upon, their elders, acting toward them as children act toward their parents, and supporting them unstintingly by their handiwork and in other ways"

Not even the most cruel tyrants, continues Philo, possibly with reference to King Herod, have ever been able, to bring any charge against these holy Essenes, but all have been compelled to regard them as truly free men. In Philo's larger work on the Jews, of which only fragments have been preserved in Eusebius' "Præparatio Evangelica" (viii.), the following description of the Essenes is given (ch. xi.):

The Essenes Advanced in Years.

"Our lawgiver, Moses, has trained thousands of disciples who, on account of their saintliness, I believe, are honored with the name of Essæi. They inhabit many cities and villages, and large and populous quarters of Judea. Their institution is not based upon family connections, which are not matters of free choice, but upon zeal for virtue and philanthropy. There exist no new-born children, and no youth just entering upon manhood, in the Essene community, since the dispositions of such youth are unstable on account of their immaturity; but all are full-grown men, already declining toward old age [compare the meaning of "zekenim"], such as are no longer carried away by the vehemence of the flesh nor under the influence of their passions, but are in the enjoyment of genuine and true liberty." [This is the most essential feature of Essenism (comp. Pliny, l.c.), and has been almost entirely ignored. The divine command to marry and preserve the race is supposed to have been obeyed by every young man before the close of his twentieth year (kid. 29b), and he has not discharged his obligation until he has been the father of at least two children, two sons according to the Shammaites, according to the Hillelites one son and one daughter (Yeb. vi. 6). It was therefore only at an advanced age that it was considered an act of extreme piety "to leave children, wife, and friends behind in order to lead a life of contemplation in solitude" (Philo, "De Vita Contemplativa," ed. Conybeare, p. 49).]

Philo says here also that the Essenes have no property of their own, not house or slave or farm, nor flocks and herds, but hold in common everything they have or obtain; that they either pursue agriculture, or tend to their sheep and cattle, or beehives, or practise some handicraft. Their earnings, he continues, are given in charge of an elected steward, who at once buys the food for their meals and whatever is necessary for life. Every day they have their meals together; they are contented with the same food because they love frugality and despise extravagance as a disease of body and soul. They also have their dress in common, a thick cloak in winter and a light mantle in summer, each one being allowed to take whichever he chooses. If any one be sick, he is cured by medcines from the common stock, receiving the care of all. Old men, if they happen to be childless, end their lives as if they were blessed with many and well-trained children, and in the most happy state, being treated with a respect which springs from spontaneous attachment rather than from kinship. Especially do they reject that which would dissolve their fellowship, namely, marriage, while they practise continence in an eminent degree, for no one of the Essæi takes a wife. (What follows regarding the character of women probably reflects the misogynous opinion of the writer, not of the Essenes.) Philo concludes with a repetition of the remark that mighty kings have admired and venerated these men and conferred honors upon them.

Josephus' Account.

In his "Antiquities" (xiii. 5, § 9), Josephus speaks of the Essenes as a sect which had existed in the time of the Maccabees, contemporaneously with the Pharisees and Sadducees, and which teaches that all things are determined by destiny (e?µa?µ???), and that nothing befalls men which has not been foreordained; whereas the Pharisees make allowance for free will, and the Sadducees deny destiny altogether. This refers not so much to the more or less absolute belief in Providence (comp. the saying, "Ha-kol hi-yede shamayim" = " All is in the hands of God": Ket. 30a; Ber. 33b; and R. Akiba's words, "Everything is foreseen, but free will is given," Abot iii. 15), which the Sadducees scarcely denied, as to the foreknowledge of future (political) events, which the Essenes claimed (comp. Josephus, "Ant." xv. 10, § 5, et al.); the Pharisees were more discreet, and the Sadducees treated such prophecies with contempt. In "Ant." xviii. 1, §§ 2-6, Josephus dwells at somewhat greater length on what he assumes to be the three Jewish philosophical schools. Of the Essenes he says that they ascribe all things to God, that they teach the immortality of the soul, and that the reward of righteousness must be fought for (by martyrdom).(comp. Strabo, vii. 33).

"When they send gifts to the Temple they do not offer sacrifices because of the different degrees of purity and holiness they claim; therefore they keep themselves away from the common court of the Temple and bring offerings [vegetable sacrifices] of their own. [This certainly does not mean that they opposed animal sacrifices on principle, but that they brought no free-will offerings for reasons of their own; see above.] They excel all men in conduct, and devote themselves altogether to agriculture. Especially admirable is their practise of righteousness, which, while the like may have existed among Greeks or barbarians for a little while, has been kept up by them from ancient days [?? pa?a???]; for they, like the Spartans of old and others, have still all things in common, and a rich man has no more enjoyment of his property than he who never possessed anything. There are about 4,000 men who live in such manner. They neither marry, nor do they desire to keep slaves, as they think the latter practise leads to injustice [comp. Abot ii. 7: "Many men servants, much theft"], and the former brings about quarrels; but, living to themselves, they serve one another. They elect good men ["tobim"; See Charity] to receive the wages of their labor and the produce of the soil, and priests for the preparation [consecration?] of their bread and meat. They all live alike, and resemble most the [holy unmarried] city-builders [pioneers] of the Dacæ"

The chief information concerning the Essenes is given in "De Bello Judaico" (ii. 8, §§ 2-13). But this account seems to have been taken from another source and worked over, as the description preserved in Hippolytus' "Refutatio Omnium Hæresium" (ix. 18-28) presents a version which, unobserved by most writers, differs in many respects from that of Josephus, being far more genuinely Jewish, and showing greater accuracy in detail and none of the coloring peculiar to Josephus (see Duncker's ed., Göttingen, 1859, p. 472, note). The following is Hippolytus' version, the variations in Josephus' being indicated by brackets with the letter J:

Hippolytus' Description Compared with Josephus'.(comp. Eccl. ix. 8)

"There are three divisions [sects, a??et?sta? = "philosophical divisions"] among them [the Jews]: the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Essenes. These [last] practise a holier life [J: "Jews by birth"] in their display of love for one another and of continence [comp. zenu'im, above]; they abstain from every act of covetousness [J: "pleasure as an evil deed"] and avoid even listening to conversation concerning such things. They renounce matrimony, but they take children of strangers [J: "when they are still easily instructed"; but comp. Abraham in Gen. R. xxxix. and Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxiii. 17], and treat them as their own, training them in their own customs; but they do not forbid them to marry. Women, however, though they may be inclined to join the same mode of life, they do not admit, as they by no means place the same confidence in women." [This referssimply to questions of Levitical holiness and to the mysteries entrusted to the zenu'im. Josephus has this sentence twisted into the following crude and unjust statement: "They do not forbid marriage and the procreation of children, but they guard against the lasciviousness of women and are persuaded that none preserves fidelity to one man."] Hippolytus continues: "They despise wealth, and do not refrain from sharing what they have with those in need; in fact, none among them is richer than the other; for the law with them is that whosoever joins their order must sell his possessions and hand the proceeds over to the common stock [Josephus adds here remarks of his own]; and the head [archon] distributes it to all according to their need. The overseers who provide for the common wants are elected by them. They do not use oil, as they regard anointing as a defilement, probably from fear that the oil was not kept perfectly pure. They always dress in white garments".

Essenes Travel Constantly.

"They have no special city of their own, but live in large numbers in different cities, and if any of their followers comes from a strange city everything they have is considered as belonging equally to the newcomer; those who were never known before are received as kindred and friends." "They traverse their native land [as "sheluhe mizwah," sent for charitable and for politico-religious purposes (comp. Apostles)], and whenever they go on a journey they carry nothing except arms. They find in every city an administrator of the collective funds, who procures clothing and food for them.

Prayers and Meals.

"Their way of dressing and their general appearance are decorous; but they possess neither two cloaks nor two pairs of shoes [comp. Matt. x. 10, and parallels]. At early dawn they rise for devotion and prayer, and speak not a word to one another until they have praised God in hymns. [Josephus has here: "They speak not a word about profane things before the rising of the sun, but they offer up the prayers they have received from their fathers facing the sun as if praying for its rising"; comp. the Watikim, above.] Thus they go forth, each to his work until the fifth hour, when, having put on linen aprons to conceal their privy parts [comp. Ber. 24b], they bathe in cold water and then proceed to breakfast, none being allowed to enter the house who does not share their view or mode of holiness [see hag. iii. 2]. Then, having taken their seats in order amid silence, each takes a sufficient portion of bread and some additional food; but none eats before the benediction has been offered by the priest, who also recites the grace after the meal; both at the beginning and at the close they praise God in hymns [comp. Ber. 21a, 35a, in regard to the saying of grace; see, M. k. 28b; Meg. 28a]. After this they lay aside their sacred linen garments used at their meal, put on their working garments left in the vestibule, and betake themselves to their labor until the evening, when they take supper.

The Law and the Prophets.[comp. Wisdom vii. 20]

"There are no loud noise and vociferation heard [at their assembly]; they speak gently and allow the discourse to flow with grace and dignity, so that the stillness within impresses outsiders with a sense of mystery. They observe sobriety and moderation in eating and drinking. All pay due attention to the president, and whatever he orders they obey as law. Especial zeal they manifest in offering sympathy and succor to those in distress. [Josephus here adds a sentence of his own.] Above all they refrain from all forms of passion and anger as leading to mischief [see Anger]. No one among them swears; a word is regarded as more binding than an oath; and one who swears is despised as one not deserving of confidence. They are very solicitous in regard to the reading aloud of the Law and the Prophets [J: "the writings of the ancient ones"], and of any [apocalyptic?] scroll they have of the Faithful Ones [comp. Tan., Wa'era, ed. Buber, 4; and Eschatology; J: "and they select such as are for the salvation of soul and body"]. Especially do they investigate the magic powers of plants and stones.

"To those desirous of becoming disciples they do not deliver their traditions [pa?ad?se??; comp. Cabala] until they have tested them. Accordingly they set before the aspirant the same kind of food, outside the main hall, where he remains for a whole year after having received a mattock, a linen apron, and a white robe [as symbols of zeni'ut (Essene, modesty and purity)]. After having given proof of self-control during this period, he is advanced and his ablutions are of a higher degree of purity, but he is not allowed to partake of the common meal until, after a trial of two years more, he has proved worthy to be admitted into membership. Then oaths of an awful character are administered to him: he swears to treat with reverence whatever is related to the Divinity [compare Blasphemy and God, Names of]; that he will observe righteousness toward men and do injustice to none; that he will not hate any one who has done him injustice, but will pray for his enemies [comp. Matt. v. 45]; that he will always side with the righteous in their contests [this proves, if anything, that the Essenes were fighters rather than mere quietists]; that he will show fidelity to all and particularly to those in authority; for, say they, without God's decree no one is given power to rule [this refers not to political rulers, as has been claimed with reference to "Ant." xv. 10, § 5, but to the head of the order, whose election is not made without the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Sifre, Num. 92: Ber. 58a, "min ha-shamayim"; comp. Didascalia, in Jew. Encyc. iv. 590a)]; that, if himself appointed to be ruler, he will not abuse his authority, nor refuse to submit to the rules, nor ornament himself beyond what is customary; that he will ever love the truth and reprove him who is guilty of falsehood; that he will neither steal nor pollute his conscience for the sake of gain; that he will neither conceal anything from the members of the order nor disclose anything to outsiders, even though tortured to death. He swears besides that he will not communicate the doctrines differently from the manner in which he received them himself. [Here Josephus has two conditions omitted in Hippolytus: "that he will abstain from robbery (which in this connection probably refers to the teachings which might be misappropriated and claimed for oneself; the rabbinical rule, which has, therefore, an Essene coloring, being: "He who tells a saying in the name of the author brings about the redemption," Abot vi. 6, based upon Esth. ii. 22), and "that he will with equal care guard the books of the order and the names of the angels." These oaths give a better insight into the character and purpose of the Essene brotherhood than any other description, as will be shown later.]

Discipline of the Essene Order.

"If any of them be condemned for any transgression, he is expelled from the order, and at times such a one dies a terrible death [see Anathema and Didascalia], for inasmuch as he is bound by the oaths taken and by the rites adopted, he is no longer at liberty to partake of the food in use among others. [Here Josephus: "and being compelled to eat herbs, he famishes his body until he perishes."] Occasionally they pity those exposed to dissolution ["shammata"], considering punishment unto death sufficient. In their judicial decisions they are most accurate and just; they do not pass sentence unless in company with one hundred persons [this is possibly a combination of the higher court of seventy-two ("Sanhedrin gedolah") and the smaller court of twenty-three ("Sanhedrin ketannah")], and what has been decided by them is unalterable. After God they pay the highest homage to the legislator (that is to say, to the Law of Moses), and if any one is guilty of blasphemy against him (that is, against the Law), he is punished [J: "with death"]. They are taught to obey the rulers and elders [J: "the majority"].

Sabbath Observance.

"When ten [the number necessary to constitute a holy congregation; See Minyan] sit together deliberating, no one speaks without permission of the rest [the rabbinical term is "reshut"; see the Talmudic dictionaries, s.v. ]. They avoid spitting into the midst of them [hag. 5a; Ber. 62b], or toward the right [the right hand is used for swearing; see Brand, "Mandäische Religion," 1889, pp. 110 et seq.]. "In regard to Sabbath rest they are more scrupulous than other Jews, for they not only prepare their meals one day previously so as not to touch fire, but they do not even remove any utensil [rabbinical term, "mukzah"]; see Sabbath]; nor do they turn aside to ease nature. Some do not even rise from their couch [comp. Targ. to Ex. xvi. 27; Mek., Beshallah, 5], while on other days they observe the law in Deut. xxiii. 13. After the easement they wash themselves, considering the excrement as defiling [comp. Yoma iii. 3]. They are divided, according to their degree of holy exercises, into four classes."

The following paragraph, omitted by Josephus, is alluded to, in his "Ant." xviii. 1, § 6, as "the philosophy of a fourth sect founded by Judas the Galilean."

Zealots Also Essenes.

"For some of these observe a still more rigid practise in not handling or looking at a coin which has an image, nor will they even enter a city at the gates of which statues are erected [comp. Yer. 'Ab. Zarah iii. 42b, 43b]. Others again threaten to slay any Gentile taking part in a discourse about God and His Law if he refuses to be circumcised [comp. Sanh. 59a, Ex.R. xxxiii.]. From this they were called 'Zealots' [kanna'im] by some, 'Sicarii' by others. Others again will call no one lord except God, even though they be tortured or killed.

"Those of a lower degree of discipline [holiness] are so inferior to those of the higher degree that the latter at once undergo ablution when touched by the former, as if touched by a Gentile. [These are the four degrees of holiness mentioned in hag. ii. 7: "ma'aser," "terumah," "tohorot," and "hattat," or "most holy." Another division is: ?????ß?a = = "common meal," and "tohorot" = "priestly meal Tosef., Dem. ii. 11.] Most of them enjoy longevity; many attain an age of more than a hundred years. They declare that this is owing to their extreme piety [comp. the frequent question: "Ba-meh ha'arakta yamim" (By what merit didst thou attain an old age? Meg. 27b, 28)] and to their constant exercise of self-control. [Josephus instead rationalizes.] They despise death, rejoicing when they can finish their course with a good conscience, they willingly undergo torment or death rather than speak ill of the Law or eat what has been offered to an idol." (Here Josephus adds something of his own experience in the Roman war.)

This leads Hippolytus, exactly as in the "Didascalia," to the Essene view of the future life, a view in which, contrary to the romantic picture given by Josephus, the belief in Resurrection is accentuated:

Essene View of Resurrection.

"Particularly firm is their doctrine of Resurrection; they believe that the flesh will rise again and then be immortal like the soul, which, they say, when separated from the body, enters a place of fragrant air and radiant light, there to enjoy rest—a place called by the Greeks who heard [of this doctrine] the 'Isles of the Blest.' But," continues the writer, in a passage characteristically omitted by Josephus, "there are other doctrines besides, which many Greeks have appropriated and given out as their own opinions. For their disciplinary life [?s??s??] in connection with the things divine is of greater antiquity than that of any other nation, so that it can be shown that all those who made assertions concerning God and Creation derived their principles from no other source than the Jewish legislation. [This refers to the hasidean "ma'aseh'merkabah" and "ma'aseh bereshit."] Among those who borrowed from the Essenes were especially Pythagoras and the Stoics; their disciples while returning from Egypt did likewise [this casts new light on Josephus' identification of the Essenes with the Pythagoreans: "Ant." xv. 10, § 4]; for they affirm that there will be a Judgment Day and a burning up of the world, and that the wicked will be eternally punished.(comp. Horwitz, "Baraita di Nidda," i. 2).

"Also prophecy and the foretelling of future events are practised by them. [Josephus has in addition: "For this purpose they are trained in the use of holy writings, in various rites of purification, and in prophetic (apocalyptic?) utterances; and they seldom make mistakes in their predictions."] Then there is a section of the Essenes who, while agreeing in their mode of life, differ in regard to marriage, declaring that those who abstain from marrying commit an awful crime, as it leads to the extinction of the human race. But they take wives only after having, during three years' observation of their course of life, been convinced of their power of child-bearing, and avoid intercourse during pregnancy, as they marry merely for the sake of offspring. The women when undergoing ablutions are arrayed in linen garments like the men in order not to expose their bodies to the light of day"

Purpose of the Essene Brotherhood.

A careful survey of all the facts here presented shows the Essenes to have been simply the rigorists among the Pharisees, whose constant fear of becoming contaminated by either social or sexual intercourse led them to lead an ascetic life, but whose insistence on maintaining the highest possible standard of purity and holiness had for its object to make them worthy of being participants of "the Holy Spirit," or recipients of divine revelations, and of being initiated into the mysteries of God and the future. "Wo to the wives of these men!" exclaimed Zipporah, the wife of Moses, when she heard that Eldad and Medad had become prophets, for this meant cessation of conjugal intercourse (Sifre, Num. 99). Abstinence from whatever may imply the use of unrighteous Mammon was another condition of initiation into the mystery of the Holy Name (Yer. Yoma iii. 40d; comp. hul. 7b; Phinehas b. Jair; Midr. Teh. xxiv. 4, cxxviii. 2; hul. 44b, with reference to Prov. xv. 27). The purpose of their ablutions before every meal as well as before morning prayers, which practise gave them the name of "tobele Shaharit" ( = Morning Baptists, ?µe??ßapt?sta?), was to insure the pronunciation of the Name and the eating of holy things in a state of purity (Tosef., Yad. ii. 20; Ber. 2b, 22a). The existence of large numbers of Levites (Yeb. xv. 7) and Aaronites, the original teachers of the Law, whose holy food had to be eaten in holiness, was instrumental in the creation of a state of communism such as the Law prescribes for each seventh year (Peah vi. 1). Fear of defilement led Judas Maccabeus as hasidean leader to live only on herbs (II Macc. v. 27).

A glance at the Essene oath of initiation confirms the statement of Philo that love of God, or reverence for His Name, love of man, or pursuit of righteousness and benevolence, and love of virtue, or humility and chastity, were the chief aims of the Essene brotherhood. Successors to the ancient hasidim who instituted the liturgy (Midr. Teh. xvii. 4: "hasidim ha-rishonim"), they laid all possible stress on prayer and devotion, opposing the priesthood in the Temple out of mistrust as to their state of holiness and purity rather than out of aversion to sacrifice (Tosef., Ned. i. 1; Ker. 25a). They claimed to possess by tradition from the founders of the Synagogue ("anshe keneset ha-gedolah") the correct pronunciation and the magic spell of the Holy Name (Midr. Teh. xxxvi. 8, xci. 8), and with it they achieved miracles like the men of old (Midr. Teh. lxxviii. 12, xci. 2). They taught Jews and Gentiles alike to cleanse themselves in living streams from their impurity of sin, and return to God in repentance and prayer (Sibyllines, iv. 164; Luke iii. 3; comp. Tan., ed. Buber, Introduction, 153). Ever alert and restless while in hope of the Messianic time, they formed a strong political organization scattered through the Holy Land; and, in constant touch with one another, they traveled far and wide to organize Jewish communities and provide them with the three elements of Judaism: instruction, worship, and charity (Abot i. 2); and they were especially assiduous in pursuit of benevolent work (Ab. R. N. iii., viii.). Each community had its seven good men, called "the Good Brotherhood of the Town" (heber 'Ir be-tobah: "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; Meg. 27a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 16; Sheb. vii. 9).

Types of Essenes.

Standing under the direction of the "mishmar," or "ma'amad" (the district authority: Tosef., Peah, iv. 7), the Essenes claimed, as direct successors to the hasidim, Mosaic origin for their brotherhood (see Philo and Josephus, l.c., in reference to Ex. xviii. 21; comp. Targ. Yer.; B. M. 30b; Mek., Yitro, 2). Whatever their real connection with the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.) was, they beheld in Jonadab, the founder of the sect of the "Water-Drinkers," as well as in Jabez (I Chron. ii. 55, iv. 10; see Targ.) and in Jethro the Kenite, prototypes, and possibly founders, of the Jericho colony (Mek., Yitro, 2; Sifre, Num. 78; Shek. v. 48c; Nilus, "De Monastica Exercitatione,"iii.; "J. Q. R." v. 418); likewise in Jesse, the father of David, regarded as sinless and deathless in their tradition (Shab. 55b; Derek Erez Zuta i.); and in Obed, Boaz, and his father Salma (Tan., Wayehi, ed. Buber, 4; Targ. to I Chron. ii. 54 et seq., iv. 22 et seq.). In this manner Ahijah and Ahithophel became types of Essenes (Midr. Teh. v. 8), as well as King Saul, as mentioned above; but, above all, the Patriarchs and protoplasts. Other Essenic types were Abraham, called "Watik," the prototype of the Anawim and hasidim because "he rose early" for prayer (Ber. 6b, after Gen. xix. 27; Shab. 105a; Gen. R. liii.); Shem-Melchizedek as teacher of benevolence and true worshiper of God (Midr. Teh. xxxvii. 1, lxxvi. 3); Job as philanthropist and as teacher of mystic lore (B. B. 15a, b; see Kohler, "Testament of Job," in Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 265 et seq.); Enoch (see Enoch, Books of); and Adam ('Er. 78b; Pirke R. El. xx.). A passage in the Tanhuma reads: "Only when Abraham separated from Lot and Jacob from Laban did God communicate with them as perushim" (Wayeze, ed. Buber, 21). The claim of antiquity for Essene tradition is, accordingly, not the invention of Pliny or Philo; it is essential to the Essene traditional lore. In truth, Abraham, as "'Anaw" (= "the humble one"), and all doers of works of benevolence, learned it from God, "their Father in heaven" (see Yalk. Mekiri to Ps. xviii. 36; Yalk. to II Sam. xxii. 36; comp. Sifre, Deut. 49). They are "the lovers of God" (B. B. 8b; Yoma 28a). God unites with the brotherhoods of the humble ("haburot ha-nemukin": Tan., Wa'era, ed. Buber, 3). He provides each day's food for them as He provided the manna for Israel (Mek., Beshalalh, 2, ed. Weiss, pp. 56 [note] et seq.; Sifre, Deut. 42; kid. 82b; Matt. vi. 25). "When men ceased to hate men's gifts [the Essene] longevity ceased" (Sotah 47b, based on Prov. xv. 27).

In regard to Sabbath observance the rabbinical tradition traced the more rigid laws, comprising even the removal of utensils, to Nehemiah's time, that is, to the ancient hasidim (Shab. 123b), and the Book of Jubilees (1. 8-12) confirms the antiquity of the Essene view. As the best characteristic of the Essene view the saying of Phinehas ben Jair, the last Essene of note, may be quoted: "The Torah leads to conscientiousness; this to alertness ["zerizut"] for holy work; this to blamelessness ["nekiyyut"]; this to 'perishut' [Pharisaic separation from common things]; this to purity; this to 'hasidut' [Essene piety?]; this to humbleness; this to fear of sin; this to holiness, or to the possession' of the Holy Spirit; and this finally to the time of the Resurrection; but hasidut is the highest grade" ('Ab. Zarah 20b).

Traces of Essenism and Anti-Essenism.

Essenism as well as hasidism represents that stage of religion which is called "otherworldliness." It had no regard for the comfort of home life; woman typified only the feebleness and impurity of man. In their efforts to make domestic and social life comfortable and cheerful, the Pharisees characterized the Essene as "a fool who destroys the world" (Sotah iii. 4), and their ethics assumed an anti-Essene character (see Ethics). Exceptionally, some tannaim, such as R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (Shab. 153a; Ned. 20b) and Jose ben halafta (Shab. 118b), favored the ascetic view in regard to conjugal life, while some amoraim and tannaim gave evidence of Essene practise or special Essene knowledge (see Frankel in "Monatsschrift," ii. 72 et seq.). Traces of Essenism, or of tendencies identical with it, are found throughout the apocryphal and especially the apocalyptic literature (see Kohler, "Pre-Talmudic Haggada," in "J. Q. R." v. 403 et seq.; Jellinek, "B. H." ii., Introduction, vii., xviii., et al.), but are especially noticeable in the Tanna debe Eliyahu, above all in the Targum Yerushalmi, where the Essenic colonies of Jericho and of the City of Palms are mentioned as inhabited by the disciples of Elijah and Elisha (Deut. xxxiv. 3); the sons of Levi are singled out as forming brotherhoods for the service of God (Gen. xxix. 34); Joseph, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron, as well as the Patriarchs, are called "hasidim" (Targ. Yer. on Gen. xxix. 13, xlix. 22; Ex. vi. 18, 20; Num. xxi. 1); priest-like and angelic holiness is enjoined upon Israel (Ex. xxii. 30; Lev. xx. 7; Num. xvi. 40); angels are expelled from heaven for having disclosed divine mysteries (Gen. xxvii. 12); the Holy Name and the Holy Spirit play throughout a prominent rôle; and God's own time, like that of the Essenes, appears as divided between studying the Law, sitting in judgment, and providing for the world's support and for the maintenance of the race (Deut. xxxii. 4).

The Essenes seem to have originally consisted, on the one hand, of rigorous Zealots, such as the Book of Jubilees looks for, and such as were under the leadership of men like Abba Tahna hasida and Abba Sicara (Eccl. R. ix. 7); and, on the other hand, of mild-tempered devotees of the Law, such as were the Essenes at En Gedi (Yer. Sotah ix. 24c; Pliny, l.c.) and the Therapeutæ of Egypt. Rabbinical tradition knows only that under the persecution of Rome (Edom) the Essenes wandered to the south (Darom: Gen. R. lxxvi.; comp. Pes. 70b; Yeb. 62b; Midr. Teh. xix. 2), and occasionally mention is made of "the brethren" ("habbarayya"), with reference to the Essene brotherhood (Lam. R. iv. 1; see also Levy, "Neuhebr. Wörterb." s.v. and ; Geiger's "Jüd. Zeit." vi. 279; Brüll's "Jahrb." i. 25, 44). It is as charitable brotherhoods that the Essenic organization survived the destruction of the nation.

Relation of Essenism to Christianity.

John the Baptist seems to have belonged to the Essenes, but in appealing to sinners to be regenerated by baptism, he inaugurated a new movement, which led to the rise of Christianity. The silence of the New Testament about the Essenes is perhaps the best proof that they furnished the new sect with its main elements both as regards personnel and views. The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking: There were the same communism (Acts iv. 34-35); the same belief in baptism or bathing, and in the power of prophecy; the same aversion to marriage, enhanced by firmer belief in the Messianic advent; the same system of organization, and the same rules for the traveling brethrendelegated to charity-work (see Apostle and Apostleship); and, above all, the same love-feasts or brotherly meals (comp. Agape; Didascalia). Also, between the ethical and the apocalyptic teachings of the Gospels and the Epistles and the teachings of the Essenes of the time, as given in Philo, in Hippolytus, and in the Ethiopic and Slavonic Books of Enoch, as well as in the rabbinic literature, the resemblance is such that the influence of the latter upon the former can scarcely be denied. Nevertheless, the attitude of Jesus and his disciples is altogether anti-Essene, a denunciation and disavowal of Essene rigor and asceticism; but, singularly enough, while the Roman war appealed to men of action such as the Zealots, men of a more peaceful and visionary nature, who had previously become Essenes, were more and more attracted by Christianity, and thereby gave the Church its otherworldly character; while Judaism took a more practical and worldly view of things, and allowed Essenism to live only in tradition and secret lore (see Clementina; Ebionites; Gnosticism).

Ma'aseh Bereshith

2009-12-03T06:54:00.000-08:00

MA'ASEH BERESHIT; MA'ASEH MERKABAH By : Joseph Jacobs A. Biram

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Creation Mystery.
Chariot of Fire.
Practical Applications.
Source of Doctrines.

Talmudic terms for the esoteric doctrine of the universe, or for parts of it (comp. Cabala). Ma'aseh Bereshit, following Gen. i., comprises the cosmogony of the Talmudic times; Ma'aseh Merkabah, based on the description of the Divine Chariot in Ezek. i., and on other prophetic descriptions of divine manifestations, such as that in Isa. vi., is concerned with the theosophic views of those times. The secret doctrine might not be discussed in public. Ecclesiasticus (iii. 21-22) inveighs against its study: "Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee, think thereupon with reverence; for it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes the things that are in secret." hag. ii. 1 says: "Ma'aseh Bereshit must not be explained before two, nor Ma'aseh Merkabah before one, unless he be wise and understands it by himself"; hag. 13a then goes on to explain that the chapter-headings of Ma'aseh Merkabah may be taught, as was done by R. hiyya. According to Yer. hag. ii. 1, the teacher read the headings of the chapters, after which, subject to the approval of the teacher, the pupil read to the end of the chapter. R. Zera said that even the chapter-headings might be communicated only to a person who was head of a school and was cautious in temperament. According to R. Ammi, the secret doctrine might be entrusted only to one who possessed the five qualities enumerated in Isa. iii. 3. A certain age is, of course, necessary. When R. Johanan wished to initiate R. Eliezer in the Ma'aseh Merkabah, the latter answered, "I am not yet old enough." A boy who recognized the meaning of (Ezek. i. 4) was consumed by fire (hag. 13b), and the perils connected with the unauthorized discussion of these subjects are often described (hag. ii. 1; Shab. 80b).

Creation Mystery.

hag. 11b states that it is permissible to inquire concerning the events of the six days of Creation, but not regarding what happened before the Creation. In no case, then, is the entire cosmogony included in the term "Ma'aseh Bereshit," but only its more mystic aspects, nor can all the passages of the Talmud and the Midrash dealing with these problems be considered as parts of the doctrine. Thus, ideas like those regarding the ten agencies by means of which God created the world, or questions as to whether heaven or earth was first created, or concerning the foundations of the world, or as to whether there are two heavens or seven (all these problems being mentioned in connection with the interdiction against teaching the Ma'aseh Bereshit to more than one person), do not belong to the doctrine itself, for such arguments are forbidden by the dictum, "Thou mayest speak of the seven heavens, but of the things thereafter thou mayest not speak." The views which are found scattered throughout the Talmud, and especially in Gen. R. i.-xii., are generally haggadic in character; indeed the question arises whether anything more than mere allusions may be expected therein regarding the Ma'aseh Bereshit in so far as it is esoteric in content. Some information seems to be given, though only by intimation, in the well-known story in hag. 14b-15b of the four scholars that entered paradise (that is, penetrated the mysteries of the secret doctrine), of whom only R. Akiba remained uninjured. R. Akiba's words at the beginning of the story (14b), "When ye reach the shining marble stone do not cry out 'Water, water,'" seem to point to those theories of Creation which assume water to be the original element.

Ben Yoma is represented as interested in the determination of the space between the upper and lower waters. hag. ii. 1 also indicates this in the story of R. Judah b. Pazzi, who opened his discourse on Ma'aseh Bereshit with the words, "In the beginning the world was water in water." Thus the question of the primal elements undoubtedly belongs to this field. Here again one must distinguish haggadic and devotional from mystic and philosophical thought, and must not teach views such as that the world was created out of "tohu" and "bohu" and "hoshek," or that air, wind, and storm were the primal elements, as component parts of the doctrine of Creation. In like manner the cosmogonic conceptions of the Apocrypha and of geonic mysticism must not be considered as indications of the secret teachings of the Ma'aseh Bereshit.

Chariot of Fire.

Somewhat simpler is the question regarding the nature of the Ma'aseh Merkabah, which is designated as "an important matter" in the Talmud (Suk. 28a) and which, perhaps, occupies on the whole a more prominent position than the Ma'aseh Bereshit. Just as in the case of the latter, the purely haggadic explanations of Ezek. i., as found, for instance, in hag. 13b, must not be taken into consideration. Thischapter of Ezekiel, it is declared, may be studied even by young pupils, because a boy can seldom recognize the doctrines implied therein. The object, therefore, was to find special secrets in these verses. R. Akiba is said (hag. 15b-16a) to have gathered his mystic deductions from Deut. xxxiii. 2 ("and he came with ten thousands of saints"), Cant. v. 10 ("the chiefest among ten thousand"), Isa. xlviii. 2 ("The Lord of hosts is his name"), and I Kings xix. 11, 12 (Elijah's great theophany). The Ma'aseh Merkabah, therefore, dealt with esoteric teachings concerning the visible manifestations of God, and hence with angelology and demonology, though not to the same degree as in Talmudic literature. As the story of R. Akiba indicates, the other theophanies mentioned in the Bible were used in the Ma'aseh Merkabah; hag. 13b shows, e.g., that this was the case with Isa. vi.

Practical Applications.

The Ma'aseh Merkabah seems to have had practical applications. The belief was apparently current that certain mystic expositions of the Ezekiel chapter, or the discussion of objects connected with it, would cause God to appear. When R. Eleazar b. 'Arak was discoursing upon the Ma'aseh Merkabah to R. Johanan b. Zakkai, the latter dismounted from his ass, saying, "It is not seemly that I sit on the ass while you are discoursing on the heavenly doctrine, and while the Divinity is among us and ministering angels accompany us." Then a fire came down from heaven and surrounded all the trees of the field, whereupon all of them together began to recite the hymn of praise. R. Jose ha-Kohen and R. Joshua (according to Yer. hag. ii. 1, R. Simon b. Nathanael) had similar experiences. The belief in the appearance of God is indicated also in the popular idea that all who inquire into the mysteries of the Ma'aseh Merkabah without being duly authorized will die a sudden death. Such a divine interposition is expressly mentioned in connection with the "story of the Creation" in Sanh. 95b. Rab Hananiah and Rab Hoshaiah studied the "Sefer Yezirah" and the "Hilkot Yezirah" respectively every Sabbath evening and succeeded in creating a calf as large as a three-year-old ox.

This esoteric tendency, originating in pagan conceptions in connection with certain Bible stories, must have led often to pessimistic and nihilistic views, as is shown by the accounts of Aher or Elisha b. Abuyah (hag. 15a, b), and the Mishnaic passage, "He who speaks of the things which are before, behind, above, and below, it were better he had never been born."

According to a tradition handed down by Jose b. Judah, a tanna of the second half of the second century (Tosef., hag. ii. 2; hag. 14b; Yer. hag. ii. 1), Johanan b. Zakkai was the founder of the secret doctrine. In the same passage, in both Talmuds, it is said, however, that he refused to discuss it, even in the presence of a single person, although, as already stated, R. Eleazar b. 'Arak discoursed on it with him and was extravagantly praised by him; two other pupils of his, R. Joshua and R. Jose ha-Kohen, also discussed it with him. According to tradition, the second one to give instruction in these matters was R. Joshua, vice-president of the Sanhedrin under R. Gamaliel. He was succeeded by R. Akiba, and the last to teach them was R. Nehunya b. ha-kanah. R. Jose the Galilean and Pappus discussed the subject with R. Akiba (hag. 14a; Gen. R. xxi.). The tradition, quoted above, of the four who studied the secret doctrine mentions, besides Akiba, Simeon b. 'Azzai, Simeon b. Zoma, and Elisha b. Abuyah. The fate of the last-named, who was driven from Judaism by his experience, is said to have given rise to restrictive measures. The study of profane books was forbidden (Sanh. 100), and an interdiction of the public discussion of these subjects was issued, only R. Ishmael objecting. In the time of R. Judah, R. Judah b. Pazzi and Bar kappara delivered public discourses on these mysteries (Yer. hag. ii. 1; Gen. R. i.). R. Levi regarding this as inadmissible, R. hiyya declared that the chapter-headings might be taught. R. Judah ha-Nasi was at this time the authority to whom, as formerly to R. Johanan, such matters were referred. In later times the interdiction against public discussions of the story of the Creation was accepted without protest, but by way of warning this saying (hag. 16a) of Resh Lakish was added: "His eyes shall be dull who looketh on three things—the rainbow [because it resembles Ezekiel's vision], the king [because he resembles God in majesty], and the priest [because he utters the name of God]."

Source of Doctrines.

This Talmudic doctrine may well be connected with the old Jewish esoteric teachings of the time of the Second Temple, as partly preserved in the Apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha; but the theosophic and cosmogonic portions of this literature can not with certainty be regarded as the source of the Talmudic doctrine, nor can the literature of the so-called geonic mysticism, crystallized in the Ma'aseh Bereshit and the Ma'aseh Merkabah and designated in its literary form by these names, be regarded as the immediate continuation of Talmudic mysticism. Although much of the material found in the former may belong to the Talmud, yet the entire doctrine of the heavenly halls, angelology, and the doctrine of the Creation as it is found, for instance, in the "Sefer Yezirah," must not be regarded as Talmudic in origin. The very fact that there are so many Talmudic and midrashic parallels to the conceptions of the geonic period leads to the conclusion that they contain only a limited amount of original material from the ancient esoteric teachings. It may be mentioned, finally, that Maimonides interprets Ma'aseh Bereshit as referring to physics and Ma'aseh Merkabah as referring to metaphysics. See also Merkabah.

Merkabah

2009-12-03T06:53:00.000-08:00

MERKABAH By : Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Symbolic Significance.
In the Enoch Literature.
Origin of the Conception.

The Heavenly Throne; hence "Ma'aseh Merkabah," the lore concerning the heavenly Throne-Chariot, with especial reference to Ezek. i. and x. The conception of Yhwh riding upon cherubim, or fiery cloud-birds, upon the heavens or the clouds, is certainly genuinely Hebrew (see Ps. xviii. 11 [A. V. 10]; Deut. xxxiii. 26; Ps. lxviii. 5 [A. V. 4]; Isa. xix. 1); hence His "war-chariot" (Hab. iii. 8 and Isa. lxvi. 15, Hebr.) and the name "chariot" for the ark with the cherubim (I Chron. xxviii. 18). Just as the Assyrian sunchariot with its horses is employed in the legend of the ride of Elijah to heaven (II Kings ii. 11; comp. Enoch lxx. 2, lxxii. 5, lxxiii. 2), so did the prophet Ezekiel in his vision, probably suggested by Babylonian sculpture, see Yhwh riding on the Throne-Chariotwhen leaving the doomed Temple at Jerusalem (see Müller, "Ezechielstudien," 1895, pp. 8-11; Bertholet, "Das Buch Hezekiel," 1897, p. 12). To a later age Ezekiel's picture became a sacred mystery known by the term "Merkabah" as early as the time of Ben Sira (Ecclus. xlix. 8). The ancient Mishnah lays down the rule: "The Ma'aseh Merkabah should not be taught to any one except he be wise and able to deduce knowledge through wisdom ('gnosis') of his own" (hag. ii. 1). Job beheld the throne of God, and his daughters sang the doxology of the Ma'aseh Merkabah (according to the Testament of Job, ed. Kohler, vii. 39, xi. 25; see Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 282, 288). Quite characteristic is the story given in Tosef., hag. ii. 1; hag. 14b; Yer. hag. ii. 77a:(p?e?µat????; see Joël, "Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte," 1880, pp. 133-135).

"R. Eleazar ben 'Arak was riding on a mule behind R. Johanan b. Zakkai, when he asked for the privilege of being initiated into the secrets of the Merkabah. The great master demanded proof of his initiation into the gnosis, and when Eleazar began to tell what he had learned thereof, R. Johanan immediately descended from the mule and sat upon the rock. 'Why, O master, dost thou descend from the mule?' asked the disciple. 'Can I remain mounted upon the mule when the telling of the secrets of the Merkabah causes the Shekinah to dwell with us and the angels to accompany us?' was the answer. Eleazar continued, and, behold, fire descended from heaven and lit up the trees of the field, causing them to sing anthems, and an angel cried out, 'Truly these are the secrets of the Merkabah.' Whereupon R. Johanan kissed Eleazar upon the forehead, saying, 'Blessed be thou, O father Abraham, that hast a descendant like Eleazar b. 'Arak!' Subsequently two other disciples of R. Johanan b. Zakkai walking together said to each other: 'Let us also talk together about the Ma'aseh Merkabah'; and no sooner did R. Joshua begin speaking than a rainbow-like appearance [Ezek. i. 28] was seen upon the thick clouds which covered the sky, and angels came to listen as men do to hear wedding-music. On hearing the things related by R. Jose, R. Johanan b. Zakkai blessed his disciples and said: 'Blessed the eyes that beheld these things! Indeed I saw myself in a dream together with you, seated like the select ones [comp. Ex. xxiv. 11] upon Mount Sinai; and I heard a heavenly voice saying: "Enter the banquet-hall and take your seats with your disciples and disciples' disciples, among the elect, the highest ('third') class"'"

Symbolic Significance.

Obviously this is a description of an ecstatic state in which the pictures that the mind forms are beheld as realities (comp. Tosef., Meg. iv. 28 and Meg. 24—"Blind ones saw them"). The study of the Merkabah was theosophy; to the initiated the hayyot and the Ofannim around the Heavenly Throne became beings that lived and moved before their eyes (see Joël, l.c. p. 152). It was in fact considered perilous to penetrate into these mysteries. "A youth who studied the 'hashmal' [Ezek. i. 27, Hebr.] was consumed by the fire which sprang forth from it" (hag. 13a; comp. Shab. 80a). Only the older men dared to be initiated into those mysteries. "I am not old enough," said R. Eleazar when R. Johanan b. Nappaha wished to instruct him in them. They were to be imparted in suggestions ("initial sentences," "rashe perakim") rather than in complete chapters (hag. 13a). "The bird that flew over the head of Jonathan b. Uzziel as he studied them was consumed by the fire surrounding him" (Suk. 28a; comp. Meg. 3a). "Ben 'Azzai was seated meditating on the Torah, when, behold, a flame encircled him; the people told R. Akiba, and he went to Ben 'Azzai, saying, 'Art thou studying the mysteries of the Merkabah?'" (Cant. R. i. 10; Lev. R. xvi.). "In the future Ezekiel will come again and unlock for Israel the chambers of the Merkabah" (Cant. R. i. 4).

Glimpses of the mysteries of the Merkabah may be discerned in such rabbinical sayings as the following: "The angel Sandalfon towers above the rest of the angels the length of a five hundred years' journey; his feet touch the earth while his head reaches the holy hayyot. He stands behind the Throne-Chariot binding wreaths for his Master" (hag. 13b). To R. Ishmael b. Elisha is ascribed the saying that when offering the incense in the Temple as high priest he beheld the angel Akatriel ("the wreath-binding one"; Sandalfon?) seated on the Throne and asked him for a blessing (Ber. 7a; comp. Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 267). One of these great archangels is said to equal in size a third part of the world (Ex. R. iii.). Concerning the lion, the ox, the eagle, and the man as the four faces of the hayyot, see hag. 13b; on account of these four, which carry God's Throne-Chariot, the latter is called also "Tetramoulon"="Quadriga" (Ex. R. iii. 3; comp. Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 92-95).

In the Enoch Literature.

The Merkabah mysteries, which remained the exclusive property of the initiated ones, the "zenu'im" or "hashsha'im" (see Essenes), have been preserved chiefly in the Enoch literature of the pre-Christian centuries, and in the "Hekalot" of the geonic time, known also as the "Merkabah" and "Enoch Books" (see Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 40-47, 114-117, and Introduction xiv.-xvii., xxx., xxxii.; iii. 83-108, 161-163, and Introduction xx.-xxv.; v. 170-190 and Introduction xli.-xliii.; Wertheimer, "Batte Midrashot," ii. 15-28; see Hekalot). Part of it has been embodied in the "payyetan-kedushshah" literature and has found its way also into other ancient apocrypha, such as the Testament of Abraham, the Ascensio Isaiæ, etc. Besides the descriptions of the seven heavens with their hosts of angels, and the various storehouses of the world, and of the divine throne above the highest heaven, the most remarkable feature is that the mysteries rest on the belief in the reality of the things seen in an ecstatic state brought about by ablutions, fasts, fervent invocations, incantations, and by other means. This is called "the Vision of the Merkabah" ("zefiyat ha-Merkabah"), and those under this strange hallucination, who imagine themselves entering the Heavenly Chariot and floating through the air, are called "Yorede Merkabah" (= "those that go down into the ship-like chariot"; Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 90, 94 et seq.). In this chariot they are supposed to ascend to the heavens, where in the dazzling light surrounding them they behold the innermost secrets of all persons and things, otherwise impenetrable and invisible.

Particularly significant is the warrior-nature of the angels surrounding the Throne-Chariot; flames dart forth from their eyes; they ride upon fiery horses (comp. Zech. vi. 1-8) and are armed with weapons of fire (Jellinek, l.c.). In order to be allowed to pass these terrible beings the Merkabahrider must provide himself with amulets or seals containing mysterious names ("Hekalot," l.c.xvii.-xxii., xxx.), and in order to be able to step before the Throne he must recite certain prayers until God Himself addresses him, if he be worthy. The "Hekalot" mention especially either R. Akiba or R. Ishmael, and their associates of the Bar Kokba time, as types of the "Yorede Merkabah."

The central figure and chief actor in the theophany, however, is the "Prince of the Face," Metatron, the one next to the Throne, whose name, or whose seventy names, are like God's, and who is none else than Enoch translated to heaven and transformed into the highest angel. He is the one who imparted to man all the knowledge of heaven and of the past and the future (see especially Jellinek, l.c. v. 170-176), exactly as Enoch did in the Ethiopic and Slavonic Books of Enoch.

Origin of the Conception.

Concerning the origin of the Merkabah-ride, Jellinek ("B. H." iii. p. xxii.) expressed the opinion that Persian Sufism gave rise to its peculiar notions, and Bloch ("Monatsschrift," 1893, pp. 18-25, 69-74, 257-266, 305-311) endeavored to trace them all back to Arabic mysticism. But recent researches concerning the Mithra worship and the Mithra liturgy have cast altogether new light on the whole Merkabah lore. Mithra, the heavenly charioteer, with his Quadriga, a chariot drawn by four horses, who was worshiped in ancient Persia as the god of light and regarded in early Roman times as the prime mover of the world, formed of the four elements (Dio Chrysostomus, "Oratio," xxxvi.; see Cumont, "Die Mysterien des Mithra," 1903, pp. 87-88; Windischmann, "Zoroastrische Studien," 1863, pp. 309-312), was invoked under mysterious rites as the mediator between the inaccessible and unknowable Deity, in the ethereal regions of light, and man on earth (Cumont, l.c. pp. 95, 122). These rites bear such a striking resemblance to those by means of which the Merkabah-riders approached the Deity that there can scarcely be any doubt as to the Mithraic origin of the latter (see Dieterich, "Eine Mithrasliturgie," 1903, pp. 7-15). The only difference between them is that while the Mithra-worshipers, at least those of Roman times, had the coming forth of Mithra as the highest god their aim, the Merkabah-riders have the seeing of the Lord on high as their goal, Meta-tron-Mithra, the archangel, being the divine charioteer who ushers them into the presence of God. Otherwise there is the same hallucination at work which makes the ecstatic imagine that he is lifted up from the earth to heaven to see the sun, stars, and winds come forth from their places; to behold the sun (or sun-god) and the entire celestial household, the seven rulers of the celestial poles, or the archangels; and finally to gaze at the luminous youthful Mithra in all his beauty—the youthful Metatron of the Jewish mystics (see Cumont, l.c. pp. 117, 151, et al.).

Such spiritualistic experiences through mystic rites had their origin in Egypt rather than in Persia. Jamblichus ("De Mysteriis," iii. 4, 5) describes the optic and acoustic illusions under which the Egyptian mystic labored as if they were realities, and at the same time he states that in the ecstatic state brought about by magic songs and proper environment the soul is encompassed by a chariot of light and ether (a??e???d?? ?a? a???e?d?? ???µa), on which it beholds the heavenly things in the light reflected from above (iii. 14; see Von Harless, "Das Buch von der Aegyptischen Mysterien," pp. 53-54, 65-66). Neoplatonic ideas, accordingly, aided in rendering the Mithra worship the center of the mystic belief in which the world of antiquity sought relief during the period when the gods of classical antiquity were losing their authority and divinity; and Jewish wisdom, following the tendency of the age, embodied it, under the name of Enoch Metatron, as secret lore in its system (see Metatron).

Philo took the idea of the Merkabah with its charioteer Metatron and applied it to his Logos ("De Somniis," i. 25; "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," §§ 42, 48; "De Profugis," § 19; "De Confusione Linguarum," § 28; "De Monarchia," i. 1; comp. Plato, "Phædrus," ii. 46). Maimonides ("Moreh Nebukim," iii. 1-7), in his antagonism to mysticism, went so far as to dissolve the whole Merkabah theophany of Ezekiel into mere physics, notwithstanding the rabbinical warning against disclosing these mysteries (see Pes. 119a). All the stronger, therefore, grew the zeal of the mystics, as is evidenced in the renewed form of the Cabala, which lent to the Merkabah lore and all the ecstatic visions and mystic operations connected therewith new life and vigor; of this the Book of Raziel and the later Cabala are ample proof. See Ma'aseh Bereshit.

Kosher Birds

2009-12-03T06:52:00.000-08:00

BIRDS. By : Morris Jastrow Jr. Wilhelm Nowack Louis Ginzberg Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:

Domesticated Birds.
Birds of Prey.
Mode of Capture.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Classes of Birds.
In Jewish Folk-Lore.
Birds as Souls:

—Biblical Data:

The general designation for winged animals is "'of" (, Hosea ix. 11; Isa. xvi. 2) or "'of kanaf" (, Gen. i. 21), "zippor" (, Gen. xv. 10), or "zippor kanaf" (, Deut. iv. 17; Ps. cxlviii. 10), or "ba'al kanaf" (, Prov. i. 17). The expression "zippor," however, denotes an individual bird in distinction from "'of," the generic term. "'Ayit" (, Isa. xviii. 6; Gen. xv. 11) denotes birds of prey; compare "ayyah" (, Lev. xi. 14; Deut. xiv. 13).

Domesticated Birds.

The frequent mention of birds in the Bible shows that they abounded in Palestine, in which country many birds are found at the present time. The only domesticated birds among the Israelites were the dove ("yonah," ) and the turtle-dove ("tor," ). Endeavors were probably made to lure the shy rock-pigeon to the neighborhood of dwellings and tame it by providing suitable nesting-places. Neither the Hebrews nor the Egyptians knew of poultry until the contact with the Medes and Persians, who in their advance toward the west introduced the breeding of chickens. At the time of Jesus chicken-breeding was quite common in Palestine (compare Matt. xxiii. 37, xxvi. 75; Luke xiii. 34).

Though representations of ducks are found on Egyptian monuments, it is doubtful whether the Israelites knew of them; and the meaning of "barburim abusim" (, I Kings v. 3 [A. V. iv. 23]), "fatted fowl," which is sometimes explained as "ducks," may be questioned. Sparrows evidently were as numerous in olden times as today, although the term "zippor," by which they were designated, also means small birds in general (compare st???????, Tobit ii. 10). Then, as now, the sparrow was used as food (Matt. x. 29; Luke xii. 6). The partridge ("kore" [], I Sam. xxvi. 20; Jer. xvii. 11) also abounded, or, to be more exact, the ptarmigan, a species of the red-legged partridge which lives in mountains and waste places.

The following migratory birds are mentioned (1) The swallow ("sus," , perhaps , Isa. xxxviii. 14, for which Jer. viii. 7 has . Since in the Septuagint is missing in both passages, the word is perhaps only an explanatory gloss. It may also be questioned whether "deror" (, Ps. lxxxiv. 4; Prov. xxvi. 2) means the swallow. Whenever the latter is mentioned as a migratory bird, the swift is probably meant. (2) The quail ("selaw," ), which in September and October gathered in immense flocks on the shores of the Mediterranean, in order to migrate to the warmer regions of Asia and Africa. In early spring it returned northward, flying mostly with the wind (Ex. xvi. 13; Num. xi. 31; Ps. cv. 40). (3) The stork ("hasidah," ), mentioned as a migratory bird (Jer. viii. 7) which nests on the cypress-tree (Ps. civ. 17; compare Job xxxix. 13 et seq.; Zech. v. 9). (4) "Anafa" (, Lev. xi. 19; Deut. xiv. 18), which means perhaps a heron, or is a generic name for the different species of heron.

Birds of Prey.

The following birds of prey ("'ayit") are mentioned: (1) "Shahaf" (, Deut. xiv. 15), according to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, the gull (larus), which abounded in different species. But perhaps a kind of hawk or falcon is meant, which the Arabians call "sa'af." (2) The eagle ("nesher," ), which is often mentioned because of the lightning-like rapidity with which it pounces upon its prey (Hosea viii. 1; Hab. i. 8). Sometimes the word "nesher" includes also the vulture, which is as large as an eagle, and which in the East is found much oftener than the eagle. Micah i. 16 refers probably to the vulture, perhaps to the carrion kite (Vultur percnopterus; compare Matt. xxiv. 28; Luke xvii. 37), distinguished from the eagle by its bald head and neck. The lammergeier is perhaps meant by (3) "peres" (, Deut. xiv. 12; compare Tristram, "The Fauna and Flora of Palestine," p. 94). Some take it to signify the sea-eagle, which the Septuagint and the Vulgate identify with (4) "'azniyyah (, ib. 12), also a species of eagle or vulture. (5) "Raham" (, Lev. xi. 18), "rahamah" (, Deut. xiv. 17), which is certainly the carrion-kite (Vultur percnopterus). (6) "Da'ah" (, Lev. xi. 14) or "dayyah (), which is possibly the kite, chiefly the black kite (Milvus migrans). (7) "Ayyah" (, Job xxviii. 7) which denotes probably the falcon. (8) "Nez" (, Lev. xi. 16), perhaps a name for a hawk, including probably some species of falcon (compare Job xxxix. 26). (9) "'Oreb" (, Gen. viii. 7), the raven or birds of that order, as the hooded crow, roller, daw, magpie, etc. (10) "Yanshuf" (, Lev. xi. 17; Deut. xiv. 16), probably a species of owl, perhaps the eagleowl. (11) "Tinshemet" (, Lev. xi. 18; Deut. xiv. 16), probably also a species of owl. (12) "Kus" (, Lev. xi. 17; Deut. xiv. 16), which likewise belongs to the owl order; it is perhaps the wood-owl or the little owl, which lives among ruins. (13) "Shalak" (, Lev. xi. 17; Deut. xiv. 17), probably the cormorant, which pounces upon itsprey from cliffs or rocks or from a height in air. (14) "kat" (, Lev. xi. 18; Deut. xiv. 17), which, according to the translators, is the pelican; but this is doubtful (see Isa. xxxiv. 11; Zeph. ii. 14). Among the birds was also included the "atalef" (), the bat, of which several species are found in Palestine, where it abounds, as it does generally in the south.

Since some of these birds were eaten, the Law naturally separated them into clean and unclean (compare Lev. xi. 13 et seq.; Deut. xiv. 20 et seq.). For the sacrifice the dove ("yonah" or "tor") only was used (compare Lev. v. 7; xii. 8; xv. 14, 29). Whether, however, the Israelites, like the Chaldeans, practised Augury, we have no means of knowing.

Mode of Capture.

Birds were caught in two ways: either by (1) a spring-trap ("pah") or by (2) a sling with a wooden or stone projectile, by which the bird was brought down (compare Amos iii. 5; Hosea vii. 12, ix. 8). Seven different kinds of bird-snares are referred to in the Old Testament, the chief of which are the throw-stick, springe, clap-net, the trap, and the decoy-bird. All are used at the present day.

The people had a genuine fellow-feeling for birds as well as for the domestic quadrupeds (Deut. xxii. 6 et seq.); and the many references to bird-life testify to the interest taken in it. The eagle that "stirreth up her nest . . . fluttereth over her young," becomes the prototype of Yhwh's protecting love of Israel (Deut. xxxii. 11; Ex. xix. 4; compare Isa. xxxi. 5). In Prov. xxvii. 8 the homeless wanderer is compared to the "bird that wandereth from her nest" (compare Isa. xvi. 2). In Hosea xi. 11, people returning from Egypt and Assyria are compared to the doves returning to their dove-cotes. Jeremiah viii. 7 contrasts the people that "know not the judgment of the Lord" with the birds that "observe the time of their coming." Proverbs xxvi. 2 compares the unjust curse to the birds flying away. Israel's enemies are often compared to the birds pouncing upon their prey with lightning-like rapidity (Deut. xxviii. 49; Isa. xlvi. 11; Hosea viii. 1; compare Jer. xii. 9). The complete annihilation of man is often metaphorically expressed by the idea of giving his flesh up to the birds; compare Gen. xl. 19; Deut. xxviii. 26; I Sam. xvii. 44, 46; I Kings xiv. 11, xvi. 4, xxi. 24; Jer. vii. 33, xvi. 4, etc. These and similar references show how numerous and manifest the birds must have been; in fact, passages like Job xli. 5 and Bar. iii. 17 display their intimate connection with the life of the people.J. Jr. W. N.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The general name for birds in rabbinical literature is . They are said to have been created from water mixed with sand, being thus intermediate between mammalia (), created from earth, and fishes, created from water (hul. 27b). The eagle (hag. 13b) is the king of birds, while the rooster is the most obstinate (Bezah 25b).

The numerous species are divided into the clean and the unclean, both minutely described by the Talmud (compare Clean and Unclean); but it should be noticed that while there are only twenty-nine classes of unclean birds, the number of the clean is unlimited (hul. 63a, b). It happens, however, that the unclean birds sometimes hatch the eggs of the clean, and vice versa. Among partridges the male sometimes sets on the nest (hul. xii. 2, 138b). Some of the eggs are not fertile; such are those produced by the hen when she sits in the warm sun, these being, however, better for food (Bezah 7a). The formation of the chick begins at the broad, flat end of the egg (hul. 64b; compare Rashi on the passage). In addition to their production of eggs (referring only to those of the clean species, hul. l.c.), birds are useful for other purposes. The meat, though less desirable than beef (Me'i. 20b), is esteemed as a delicacy among the rich, while the poor seldom eat it (Bek. 10a; Ket. 5a), the flesh of poultry being considered particularly good for old people (Yer. Peah viii. 21a).

The wings (Kelim xvi. 19), claws (hul. 25b; compare Rashi on the passage), and eggs of birds are put to various uses, the last being sometimes covered with a glaze (Kelim l.c.). Blown egg-shells are used to hold oil for lamps (Shab. ii. 11, 29b); and even as early as Talmudic times the strength of an egg-shell placed on end was recognized, for sometimes an egg is placed under the foot of a bedstead to make the latter stand even (Bezah 4a). The use of quills for writing was unknown in Talmudic times, and in the twelfth century the casuists questioned whether it was lawful to use them for the writing of Torah scrolls (Löw, "Ha-Mafteah," p. 349; Lewysohn, "Die Zoologie des Talmuds," p. 161).

Classes of Birds.

The Talmud names about one hundred classes and varieties of birds, but it is extremely difficult to identify them. For example, it mentions two varieties of the bird (probably a Persian term; Kohut, "Aruch Completum," s.v., suggests "darpash" = finch), one of which bears the royal by-name "Shapur" and was clean, while the other, also called after a Persian king, the "Firuz," is unclean (hul. 62b). Mention is also made of a bird (= ???µa, color), found in the neighborhood of Babylonia, which becomes iridescent at sunrise (Ber. 6b; Lewysohn [ib. p. 183] refers to the pajaro del sol, "sun-bird"). A similar many-colored bird is the ("many-colored"), which shows not less than three hundred and sixty-five hues (Gen. R. vii. 4), "zabua'" being the Hebrew name for peacock, which in rabbinical literature is usually designated by its Greek name , T???, as shown from a parallel passage in the Midrash cited (Tan., Tazria', ed. Buber, iii. 33).

The Talmud describes many birds, giving details of their natures and uses. The falcon () is used in the chase. The hunter, seated on his horse, has the falcon at his side, releasing it at sight of another bird (Shab. 94a; Sanh. 95a). The keen sight of the vulture () is indicated in the following passage: "It can be in Babylon and see a corpse in Palestine" (hul. 63b). The strong, piercing cry of the crane () originated the saying: "Cry like a crane" (kid. 49a). The heron (, "quarreler") in the Bible is a cruel bird that quarrels () constantly with its companions, as its name suggests. It belongs to the family of vultures, its real namebeing ("angry dayah"). Another member of this family is the stork, or white dayah, called also "the pious one" ("hasidah"), because it shares its food with its mates (hul. 63a, b). The stork's gall is an antidote for the sting of the scorpion (Ket. 50a). In addition to the dayah family, of which there are said to be no less than one hundred varieties (hul. l.c.), the Talmud mentions the numerous varieties of the raven family (see Raven in Rabbinical Literature). Hens, geese, and doves are considered domestic poultry, and the wild varieties are also named. Some birds, particularly song-birds, and those of beautiful plumage, are kept as pets by the wealthy, and there is an allegory about a free bird which envies a friend in a cage its rich food, forgetting that the friend has paid for the food with its freedom (Pesik., ed. Buber, xxv. 164a, b). The social life of birds originated the proverb: "Every bird dwelleth according to his kind, and so doth man according to his like" (B. B. 92b; the passage quotes verses from Ecclus. [Sirach] xiii. 16, xxvii. 9, as if they were from the Scripture).

In Jewish Folk-Lore.

Among Jews, as among most nations (Gubernatis, "Zoological Mythology," on Birds), birds were thought to possess supernatural knowledge, because they soared in the air. Thus in rabbinical literature, both Babylonian and Palestinian, there are numerous references to the folk-lore on birds (see Augury; Zohar, "Balak," iii. 148b et seq.). In Noah's Ark only the clean ones dwelt in the part with Noah and his family; the others dwelt elsewhere (Sanh. 108b). King Solomon knew the bird language (see Solomon in Rabbincal Literature and Legend).

Parts of the body of some birds were used as remedies (Joel Heilprin, "Mifa'lut Elohim"; David Tevel Ashkenazi, "Bet David"). Compare Bar Yokni, Cock, Dove, Eagle, Goose, Pigeon, Raven.

Bibliography: Lewysohn, Die Zoologie des Talmuds, pp. 15-16, 159-218.L. G.

Birds as Souls

Moses Ben Maimon

2009-12-03T06:51:00.000-08:00

MOSES BEN MAIMON By : Joseph Jacobs Isaac Broydé Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

In Egypt.
Philosophical Works.
Philosophy and Religion.
The Divine Attributes.
Motekallamin.
Proofs of the Existence of God.
Aristotelian Principles.
Denies Eternity of Matter.
Reconciliation of Bible and Aristotle.
The Requisites of Prophecy.
Origin of Evil.
God's Providence and Omniscience.
The Object of the Commandments.
Ethical Views.
Objections to the "Moreh."
His Death.
Works on Philosophy and Theology.
Works on Halakah.
Scientific Works.
Correspondence.
Maimonides as Halakist:
Object of the Precepts.
Commentary and Code.
Commentary on the Mishnah.
Practical Purpose.
Attitude Toward Predecessors.
"Sefer ha-Mizwot."
The "Mishneh Torah."
His Sources.
Omissions.
Opposition of RABaD.
Maimonides' Reply.
Influence of the "Yad."

(see image) Traditional Portrait of Moses ben Maimon, with Autograph.

Talmudist, philosopher, astronomer, and physician; born at Cordova March 30, 1135; died at Cairo Dec. 13, 1204; known in Arabic literature as Abu 'Imran Musa ben Maimun ibn 'Abd Allah. The history of the "second Moses," as Maimonides came to be called, is overlaid with fable. According to some of his biographers, he evinced in boyhood a marked disinclination for study. This, however, is highly improbable, for the works produced by him in his early manhood show that their author had not passed his youth in idleness. Moses ben Maimon, or Maimonides, received his rabbinical instruction at the hands of his father, Maimon, himself a scholar of high merit, and was placed at an early age under the guidance of the most distinguished Arabic masters, who initiated him in all the branches of the learning of that time. Moses was only thirteen years old when Cordova fell into the hands of the fanatical Almohades, and Maimon and all his coreligionists there were compelled to choose between Islam and exile. Maimon and his family chose the latter course, and for twelve years led a nomadic life, wandering hither and thither in Spain. In 1160 they settled at Fez, where, unknown to the authorities, they hoped to pass as Moslems. This dual life, however, became increasingly dangerous. Maimonides' reputation was steadily growing, and the authorities began to inquire into the religious disposition of this highlygifted young man. He was even charged by an informer with the crime of having relapsed from Islam, and, but for the intercession of a Moslem friend, the poet and theologian Abu al-'Arab alMu'ishah, he would have shared the fate of his friend Judah ibn Shoshan, who had shortly before been executed on a similar charge. These circumstances caused the members of Maimonides' family to leave Fez. In 1165 they embarked, went to Acre, to Jerusalem, and then to Fostat (Cairo), where they settled.

In Egypt.

During the first years of his residence in Egypt Maimonides experienced many misfortunes. After the death of Maimon, Moses' brother David supported the family by trading in precious stones. David perished at sea, and with him was lost not only his own fortune, but large sums that had been entrusted to him by other traders. These events affected Maimonides' health, and he went through a long sickness. Compelled now to work for a living, and considering it a sin to earn a livelihood from religion, he adopted the medical profession. After several years of practise Maimonides' authority in medical matters was firmly established, and he was appointed private physician to Saladin's vizier Al-ka?i al-Fa?il al-Baisami, who recommended him to the royal family and bestowed upon him many distinctions. According to the Arabic historian Al-kitti, Maimonides declined a similar position offered to him by "the King of the Franks in Ascalon" (Richard I. of England). The method adopted by Maimonides in his professional practise was to begin with a simple treatment, endeavoring to cure by a prescribed diet before administering drugs. Speaking of his medical career in a letter addressed to his pupil Joseph ibn 'Aknin, Maimonides says: "You know how difficult this profession is for one who is conscientious and exact, and who states only that which he can support by argument or authority." In another letter, addressed to Samuel ibn Tibbon, he describes his arduous professional duties, which occupy him the whole day and very often a great part of the night. Nevertheless, Maimonides' powerful genius and indefatigable industry enabled him, amid his numerous occupations, to produce monumental works, answer hundreds of questions on various subjects addressed to him from various parts of the world, and administer the affairs of the community of Cairo, in which, soon after his arrival, he took a leading part, apparently becoming its recognized official head by 1177.

Philosophical Works.

Between the years 1158 and 1190 Maimonides produced, besides several minor writings (see the list of works below), a commentary on the Mishnah entitled "Kitab al-Siraj," a book on the precepts, "Kitab al-Fara'i?," the code Mishneh Torah (called by Maimonides' admirers "Yad ha-hazakah"), and the philosophical work "Dalalat al-ha'irin" ("Moreh Nebukim"). The first three works are the chief concern of the supplementary article following, while here is outlined the philosophical system expounded in the introductions to the Mishnah of Pirke Abot and of helek, in the first book of the "Yad ha-hazakah," entitled "Sefer ha-Madda'," and especially in the "Dalalat al-ha'irin," which became of extraordinary importance, not only for the rational development of Judaism, but for the history of philosophy in the Middle Ages. The object of the work last mentioned is explained by Maimonides in the following terms:

"I have composed this work neither for the common people, nor for beginners, nor for those who occupy themselves only with the Law as it is handed down without concerning themselves with its principles. The design of this work is rather to promote the true understanding of the real spirit of the Law, to guide those religious persons who, adhering to the Torah, have studied philosophy and are embarrassed by the contradictions between the teachings of philosophy and the literal sense of the Torah."

Philosophy and Religion.

According to Maimonides, there is no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed and the truths which the human mind, a power derived from God, has discovered. In fact, with few exceptions, all the principles of metaphysics (and these are, for him, those of Aristotle as propounded by the Arabic Peripatetics Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina) are embodied in Bible and Talmud. He is firmly convinced that, besides the written revelation, the great prophets received orally revelations of a philosophical character, which were transmitted by tradition to posterity, but which were lost in consequence of the long periods of suffering and persecution the Jews experienced. The supposed conflict between religion and philosophy originated in a misinterpretation of the anthropomorphisms and in the superficial readings of Scripture, which are to the inner or allegorical interpretations what silver is to gold. Maimonides' predecessors, Saadia, Bahya, and Judah ha-Levi, in treating of anthropomorphism, contented themselves with the statement that any term under consideration must be regarded as a metaphor. Maimonides, however, set up the incorporeality of God as a dogma, and placed any person who denied this doctrine upon a level with an idolater; he devoted much of the first part of the "Moreh Nebukim" to the interpretation of the Biblical anthropomorphisms, endeavoring to define the meaning of each and to identify it with some transcendental metaphysical expression. Some of them are explained by him as perfect homonyms, denoting two or more absolutely distinct things; others, as imperfect homonyms, employed in some instances figuratively and in others homonymously.

The Divine Attributes.

From the anthropomorphisms Maimonides passes to the much-discussed question of the divine attributes. As in the case of the anthropomorphisms, it was, according to him, the misinterpretation of certain Biblical passages that caused some to admit divine attributes. Against this admission Moses argues (1) that an attribute expresses some quality or property which is not inherent in the object described, in this case being an "accident," or (2) that it denotes a property consistent with the essence of the object described; in the latter case the fact of the coexistence of such an attribute would, if applied to God, denote a plurality in the divine essence.
(see image) Holograph (?) Draft of the "Dalalat al-ha'irin" of Maimonides, Arabic in Hebrew Characters.(From the Cairo Genizah.)Maimonides divides all the positive attributes into five classes: (1) Those that include all the essential properties of an object. This class of attributes can not be applied to God, because, as all philosophers agree, God can not be defined, inasmuch as definition can be established only by giving genus and differentia. (2) Those that include only a part of the essential properties. Neither can these attributes be applied to God, who, being incorporeal, has no parts. (3) Those that indicate a quality. These are also inapplicable to God, who, having no soul, is not subject to psychical analysis. (4) Those that indicate the relation of one object to another. At first thought it would seem that this class of attributes might be employed in reference to God, because, having no connection with His essence, they do not imply any multiplicity or variety in Him; but on closer examination their inadmissibility becomes evident. A relation can be imagined only between two things of the same species, but not between two things of different species, though they may belong to the same class. For example, between wisdom and sweetness, meekness and bitterness, there can be no relation, although in their general signification they come under the head of "quality." How, then, could there be any relation between God and His creatures, considering the great difference between them? the creature having only a possible existence, while His existence is absolute. (5) Those that refer to the actions of the object described. Attributes of this kind, inasmuch as they are distinct from the essence of the thing and do not imply that different elements must be contained in the substance of the agent, are most appropriate to the description of the Creator. Indeed, with the exception of the Tetragrammaton, all the divine names are explained by Maimonides as descriptive of His actions. As to His essence, the only way to describe it is negatively. For instance, He is not non-existent, nor non-eternal, nor impotent, etc. These assertions do not involve any incorrect notions or assume any deficiency, while if positive essential attributes are admitted it may be assumed that other things coexisted with Him from eternity.

Maimonides completes his study of the attributes by demonstrating that the philosophical principle that God is the "intellectus" (), the "ens intelligens" (), and the "ensintelligibile" (), does not imply a plurality in His essence, because in matters of the intellect the "agens" (which acts in the formation of the notions), the action, and the object of the action, are identical. Indeed, following the theory of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Maimonides considers that the intellect is a mere disposition, receiving notions by impulse from without, and that consequently ideas are at the same time subject, action, and object.

Motekallamin.

The last chapters of the first part of the "Moreh" are devoted to a criticism of the theories of the Motekallamin (see Arabic Philosophy). These theories are embodied in twelve propositions, from which they derived seven arguments in support of the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo." This once established, they asserted, as a logical consequence, that there is a Creator; then they demonstrated that this Creator must be one, and from His unity deduced His incorporeality. Maimonides exposes the weakness of these propositions, which he regards as founded not on a basis of positive facts, but on mere fiction. Contrary to the Aristotelian principle that the whole universe is "one" organized body, every part of which has an active, individual relation to the whole, the Motekallamin deny the existence of any law, organization, or unity in the universe. For them the various parts of the universe are independent of one another; they all consist of equal elements; they are not composed of substance and properties, but of atoms and accidents (see Atomism); the law of causality is ignored; man's actions are not the result of will and design, but are mere accidents. Maimonides criticizes especially the tenth proposition of the Motekallamin, according to which everything that is conceivable by imagination is admissible: e.g., that the terres-trial globe should become the all-encompassing sphere, or that this sphere should become the terres-trial globe.

Proofs of the Existence of God.

The second part of the "Moreh" opens with the enumeration of the twenty-six propositions through which are proved the existence, the unity, and the incorporeality of the Primal Cause. For the existence of the Primal Cause there are four proofs: (1) no motion can take place without an agent producing it, and the series of causes leading to a certain motion is finite; (2) since some things both receive and impart motion, while other things are set in motion without imparting it, there must exist a being that imparts motion without being itself set in motion; (3) as existing beings are partly permanent and partly transient, there must be a being whose existence is permanent; (4) nothing can pass from a state of potentiality into that of actuality without the intervention of an agent; this agent requires for its own transition from potentiality to actuality the help of another agent, and the latter, again, of another; and so on until one arrives at an agent that is constant and admits of no potentiality whatever.

The unity of God is proved by the following arguments: (1) Two gods can not be assumed, for they would necessarily have one element in common by virtue of which they would be gods, and another element by which they would be distinguished from each other; further, neither of them could have an independent existence, but both would themselves have to be created. (2) The whole existing world is "one" organic body, the parts of which are interdependent. The sublunary world is dependent upon the forces proceeding from the spheres, so that the whole universe is a macrocosm, and thus the effect must be due to one cause. The incorporeality of God can be proved by the preceding arguments and by the principle that every corporeal object consists of matter and form, and that every compound requires an agent to effect its combination.

Aristotelian Principles.

As there is no disagreement between the principles of Aristotle and the teachings of Scripture as to God, or the Primal Cause, so there is none between their systems of natural philosophy. As "Primum Motum" of this world there are, according to Aristotle,the heavenly spheres, each of which possesses a soul, the principle of motion, and is endowed with an intellect. They move in various senses through unmoved immaterial beings, or Intelligences, which are the cause of their existence and their motion in the best possible way, namely, a uniform rotary motion. The first Intelligence, which is the agent of motion for the uppermost or the all-encompassing sphere, is a direct emanation of the Primal Cause; the others emanated one from the other. There were altogether nine spheres, namely, the all-encompassing sphere, that of the fixed stars, and those of the seven planets; nine Intelligences correspond to the nine spheres; a tenth Intelligence, which is attached to the lowest sphere, the one nearest to the center, the sphere of the moon, is the Active Intellect. This last causes the transition of man's intellect from a state of potentiality to that of actuality.

The earth, which is spherical, reposes unmoved at the center of the world, and any changes that happen thereon are due to the revolutions of the spheres, which, as animated and intellectual beings, are acting in full consciousness. God does not act by means of direct contact. When, for instance, He destroys anything with fire, the fire is set in motion through the movements of the spheres, and the spheres by the Intelligences.

All these theories are, according to Maimonides, supported both by Holy Writ and by post-Biblical Jewish literature. That the spheres are animated and intellectual beings is clearly expressed by the Psalmist. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps. xix. 2 [A. V. 1]) can not be taken as a mere figure of speech. The angels mentioned in the Bible are identical with the Intelligences. There is, however, one point on which Maimonides differs from his master. According to Aristotle, these spheres, as well as the Intelligences, coexisted with the Primal Cause, while Maimonides holds that the spheres and the Intelligences were created by the will of God. Maimonides asserts that he was prompted to reject the doctrine of the eternity of matter not because certain passages in Scripture confirm the "creatio ex nihilo," for such passages could easily be explained in a manner that would leave them in harmony with the former doctrine, but because there are better arguments for the "creatio ex nihilo" than for the eternity of the universe.

Denies Eternity of Matter.

Moreover, Aristotle himself was well aware that he had not proved his thesis. The adherents of the doctrine of the eternity of the universe rely on the following seven arguments, partly founded on the properties of nature and partly on those of the Primal Cause: (1) Motion is eternal, for if it had a beginning there must have been motion when it came into existence, because transition from non-existence to existence—that is, from potentiality into actuality—always implies motion. (2) The first substance underlying the four elements must be eternal. "To become" implies taking on form; but first substance means a formless substance; hence it has never "become." (3) As the spheres are indestructible because they do not contain opposing elements, which is evidenced by their circular motion, they must be without a beginning. (4) Suppose the universe had a beginning; then either its creation was possible, or necessary, or its previous existence was impossible; but if it was necessary, it could never have been non-existent; if impossible, it could never have come into existence; and if possible, then there must have been a subject with attributes involving the possibility. (5) The assumption that God has produced a thing at a certain fixed time would imply that He has changed from the condition of a potential creator to that of an actual creator. (6) The supposition that the world was created would mean that God's will had undergone a change, or that He must be imperfect, for either God did not will previously to create the world, or, if He did, He had not the power. (7) The universe being the result of God's wisdom, it must, like the latter, be eternal.

Against these arguments Maimonides argues that though the properties of nature are thus at present, when the universe is in actual existence and fully developed, it does not follow that things possessed them at the moment when they were produced; it is even more than probable that these properties themselves came into existence from absolute nonexistence. Still less conclusive are the arguments based upon the properties of the Primal Cause, for it is impossible to obtain a correct notion of the heavenly spheres and their Intelligences; the incorrectness of the views of Aristotle on the subject has been proved by Ptolemy, although the system of that astronomer is likewise far from being faultless.

Reconciliation of Bible and Aristotle.

However, Maimonides is fully aware that he did not give positive proofs for the "creatio ex nihilo," and he warns his pupil Joseph ibn 'Aknin, to whom the "Moreh" was dedicated, to beware of the opposite doctrine; for if, as Aristotle taught, everything in the universe is the result of fixed laws, if nature does not change, and if there is nothing supernatural, it would be absurd to believe in miracles, in prophecy, and in revelation. But as Maimonides recognizes the authority of Aristotle in all matters concerning the sublunary world, he proceeds to show that the Biblical account of the creation of the nether world is in perfect accord with Aristotelian views. Explaining its language as allegorical and the terms employed as homonyms, he summarizes the first chapter of Genesis thus: God created the universe by producing on the first day the "reshit," or Intelligences, from which the spheres derived their existence and motion and thus became the source of the existence of the entire universe. This universe consisted at first of chaos and the four elements; but, through the influence of the spheres and more directly through the action of light and darkness, its form was developed. In the five subsequent days came into existence the minerals, plants, animals, and the intellectual beings. The seventh day, on which the universe was for the first time ruled by the natural laws that still continue in operation, was blessed by God, who designed it to proclaim the "creatio ex nihilo." The account of Adam's sin is interpreted by Maimonides as an allegorical exposition of the relation between sensation,intellect, and moral faculty; the three sons of Adam are an allusion to the three elements in man—the vegetable, the animal, and the intellectual.

The Requisites of Prophecy.

With the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo" prophecy becomes possible; but what are the requisites of prophecy? Maimonides cites three different opinions on the subject: (1) the opinion of those who believe that any man, whether wise or stupid, young or old, provided he be to some extent morally good, can be inspired by God with the spirit of prophecy and entrusted with a mission; (2) the opinion of the philosophers who, considering prophecy the highest expression of mental development, assert that it can be attained by study only; and (3) his own opinion, which he considers to be the view of Scripture. He agrees with the philosophers in regarding the prophetic faculty as natural to man and in accordance with the laws of nature; in holding that any man whose physical, mental, and moral faculties are in perfect condition may become a prophet; but he holds also that, with all these qualifications, man may still, by divine, miraculous interference, be prevented from prophesying.

The last chapters of the second part of the work are devoted to the explanation of the Biblical prophecies and visions, showing the part taken therein by imagination, which is, according to Maimonides, an essential element in prophecy.

Origin of Evil.

After having given, in the first seven chapters of the third and last part of the "Moreh," the exposition of the vision of Ezekiel, which he explains as an allegorical description of the sublunary world, the spheres, and the Intelligences, Maimonides endeavors to show that evil has no positive existence, but is a privation of a certain capacity and does not proceed from God; when, therefore, evils are mentioned in Scripture as sent by God, the Scriptural expressions must be explained allegorically. Indeed, says Maimonides, all existing evils, with the exception of some which have their origin in the laws of production and destruction and which are rather an expression of God's mercy, since by them the species are perpetuated, are created by men themselves.

God's Providence and Omniscience.

The question of evil is closely connected with that of Divine Providence. As is well known, Aristotle asserted that humanity as a whole, but not the individual, is guided and protected by Divine Providence. The reason which led Aristotle to adopt this view is that Providence implies omniscience, while, according to him, God's knowledge is limited to universals, for if He had knowledge of particulars He would be subject to constant changes. Maimonides rejects this theory and endeavors to show that belief in God's omniscience is not in opposition to belief in His unity and immutability. "God," he says, "perceives future events before they happen, and His perception never fails. Therefore no new ideas can present themselves to Him. He knows that a certain individual will be born at a certain time, will exist for a certain period, and will then cease to exist. The coming into existence of this individual is for God no new fact; nothing has happened that He was unaware of, for He knew this individual, such as he now is, before his birth." As to the objections advanced by the Peripatetics to the belief in God's omniscience—namely, that it is inconceivable that God's essence should remain indivisible considering the multiplicity of knowledge of which it is made up; that His intelligence should embrace the infinite; that events should maintain their character of contingency in spite of the fact that they are foreseen by the Supreme Being—these objections, according to Maimonides, are based on an error. Misled by the use of the term "knowledge," men believe that whatever is requisite for their knowledge is requisite for God's knowledge also.

The fact is, no comparison whatever is possible between human knowledge and God's knowledge, the latter being absolutely incomprehensible to human intelligence. But omniscience implies predestination; how, then, can man's will assert itself freely? Does not the very fact of God's knowledge compel man to act in accordance with it? To refute this objection Maimonides endeavors to show that "the fact that God knows things while they are in a state of possibility—when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not affect that realization."

The Object of the Commandments.

The discussion of the question of Divine Providence is followed by another question: What is the purpose of the divine precepts? According to Maimonides, ethics and religion are indissolubly linked together, and all the precepts aim either directly or indirectly at morality. As in the "Yad ha-hazakah," he divides the laws of the Pentateuch into fourteen groups, and discusses the principal object of each group and the special object of each law. Thus, for instance, the object of the laws concerning the sacrifices lies in the accompanying prayers and devotions; as to the sacrifices themselves, they were only a concession to the idolatrous habits of the people.
(see image) Page from the First Edition of Maimonides' "Moreh Nebukim," Rome (?), Before 1480.(From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)As in metaphysics, Maimonides closely follows Aristotle's ethical system, which he expounds in his introduction and commentary to Abot, in various passages of the "Sefer ha-Mizwot," and in his "Yad ha-hazakah," especially in the "Hilkot De'ot" and the "Hilkot Teshubah." According to Maimonides, the final aim of the creation of this world is man; that of man is happiness. This happiness can not consist in the activity which he has in common with other animals, but in the exercise of his intellect, which leads to the cognition of truth. The highest cognition is that of God and His unity; consequently the "summum bonum" is the knowledge of God through philosophy. The first necessity in the pursuit of the "summum bonum" is to subdue sensuality and to render the body subservient to reason. In order that man should be considered the aim and end of the creation of this world he must be perfect morally and intellectually. Virtue and vice have their source in the five faculties of the soul: the nutritive, the sensitive, the imaginative, the appetitive, and the deliberative. The soul is to intellect what matter is to form: it is susceptible to both good and evil, according to the choice made by the deliberative faculty.

Ethical Views.

Human excellence is either of the appetitive faculty (moral virtues) or of the deliberative faculty (intellectual virtues). The vices of the appetitive faculty are the opposite of the appetitive virtues; for instance, cowardice and rashness are the opposite extremes of courage, and both are vices. Virtue is a proficiency in willing what is approved by reason, developed from the state of a natural potentiality by action. The development of virtue requires exercise and intelligence. Ethical virtue is that permanent direction of the will which maintains the mean of conduct, as determined by the reason of the intelligent. Courage is the mean between cowardice and temerity; temperance, the mean between inordinate desire and stupid indifference.

In the field of personal ethics Maimonides established rules deduced from the teachings of the Bible and of the Rabbis. These rules deal with man's obligations to himself and to his fellow men. To the former belongs the obligation to keep oneself in health by regular living, by seeking medical advice in sickness, by cleanliness, by earning a livelihood, etc. The conditions essential to the soundness of the soul are contentment, and moderation in joy and grief. Pity is a generous quality of the soul; to develop this sentiment the Law forbade cruelty to animals. Mutual love and sociability are necessary to men. The sentiment of justice prescribed by the Law consists in respecting the property and honor of others, even though they be one's slaves.

Objections to the "Moreh."

The "Moreh" was completed by Maimonides at the age of fifty-two. It was the climax of his literary career in the field of Judaism. After having in his previous works systematized all the Biblical and rabbinical laws and ceremonies and drawn up the thirteen Articles of Faith in which every Israelite is bound to believe, he shows, in the "Moreh," that Judaism is the very expression of human intelligence and that there is nothing in Scripture or rabbinical literature, if properly explained, that contradicts true philosophy. As might be expected, the adversaries of Maimonides' code declared war against the "Moreh." His views concerning angels, prophecy, and miracles, and especially his assertion that he would have had no difficulty in reconciling the Biblical account of the Creation with the doctrine of the eternity of the universe, had the Aristotelian proofs for it been conclusive, provoked the indignation of the orthodox. Maimonides' theory of the unity of souls (comp. Alexander of Aphrodisias) was declared by them to be an outright denial of the immortality of the soul.

Maimonides disdained these attacks and continued his laborious life, enriching medical literature with some valuable works and enlightening his admirers and disciples upon a multitude of questions. Among these was an inquiry concerning astrology, addressed to him from Marseilles. In his answer Maimonides says that, in his opinion, man should believe only what can be supported either by rational proof, by the evidence of the senses, or by trustworthy authority. He affirms that he has studied astrology and that it does not deserve to be described as a science. The supposition that the fate of a man could be dependent upon the constellations is ridiculed by him; he argues that such a theory would rob life of purpose and would make man a slave of destiny.

With the completion of the "Moreh," Maimonides was at the zenith of his glory. He had the satisfaction of seeing his work translated into Hebrew and received with great admiration by enlightened Jews; even Mohammedans studied it and admired the genius of its author. The renowned Arabic physician and theologian 'Abd al-Latif of Bagdad confessed that his wish to visit Cairo was prompted by the desire to make the acquaintance of three men, among whom was Musa ibn Maimun. The latter's greatness as a physician was no less recognized, and the Arabic poet and cadi Al-Sa'id ibn Surat al-Mulk sang it in ecstatic verse, which, translated into English, reads as follows:

Galen's art heals only the body, But Abu Imram's [Maimonides'] the body and the soul. With his wisdom he could heal the sickness of ignorance. If the moon would submit to his art, He would deliver her of her spots at the time of full moon, Cure her of her periodic defects, And at the time of her conjunction save her from waning.

His Death.

The last years of Maimonides' life were marked by increasing physical ailments; he died in his seventieth year, mourned by many congregations in various parts of the world. In Fostat both Jews and Mohammedans observed public mourning for three days. In Jerusalem a general fast was appointed; a portion of the "Tokahah" was read, and the history of the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines. His body was taken to Tiberias, and his tomb became a place of pilgrimage.

With the death of Maimonides the "Moreh" became the occasion for a long and bitter fight between conservative and liberal Jews in France and Spain. So bitter, indeed, was the contest that fierce invectives were speedily followed by anathemas and counter-anathemas, issued from both camps. Finally, about 1234, the dispute was referred to the Christian authorities, who ordered Maimonides' works to be burned. However, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the orthodox, perhaps because of this opposition, the "Moreh" became the "guide" of enlightened Jews for many generations, and its study produced philosophers like Spinoza, Solomon Maimon, and Moses Mendelssohn. Nor was its fame confined to the narrow pale of Judaism; as early as the thirteenth century portions of it were translated into Latin, and many Christian scholastics, like Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales, etc., drew from this inexhaustible well of learning.

The following is a classified list of Maimonides' works:

Works on Philosophy and Theology.

Philosophy and Theology: "Dalalat al-ha'irin." Translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon, in 1204, under the title "Moreh Nebukim."The Hebrew translation was first published somewhere in Italy before 1480; since then it has been frequently published with commentaries. Another Hebrew translation, by Al-harizi, was published by Schlossberg (vol. i., London, 1851; vols. ii. and iii., Vienna, 1874 and 1879). There are two Latin translations of the "Moreh," by Aug. Justinianus (Paris, 1520) and by Buxtorf, Junior (Basel, 1629); the earlier is based on the Hebrew version of Al-harizi and is a mere copy of an older Latin translation; the later is based on that of Ibn Tibbon. The Arabic original, with a French translation entitled "Guide des Egarés," was published by Salomon Munk (3 vols., Paris, 1856-66). The work was translated twice into Italian, by Jedidiah ben Moses of Recanati (1580) and by D. J. Maroni (1870). The first part was translated into German by Fürstenthal (Krotoschin, 1839); the second, by M. E. Stein (Vienna, 1864); and the third, by Scheyer (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1838). Part iii. was translated into English, under the title "The Reasons of the Laws of Moses," by Townley (London, 1827). A complete English translation, in three volumes, was published by M. Friedländer (London, 1889).

"Makalah fi-?ina'at al-Mantik," on the terminology of logic, in fourteen chapters; written at the age of sixteen. It was translated into Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon under the title "Millot ha-Higgayon," and was first published, with two anonymous commentaries, at Venice in 1552; it has since passed through fourteen editions. A Latin translation was published by Sebastian Münster (Basel, 1527); German translations were made by M. S. Neumann (Venice, 1822) and Heilberg (Breslau, 1828). Among the numerous commentaries written on this work the most noteworthy is that of Moses Mendelssohn.

"Makalah fi al-Tauhid," an essay on the unity of God. Translated into Hebrew by Isaac ben Nathan, in the fourteenth century, under the title "Ma'amar ha-Yihud."

"Makalah fi al-Sa'adah," an essay, in two chapters, on felicity (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, No. 7193). Published for the first time in Hebrew, under the title "Perakim be-Hazlahah," in 1567.

An essay on forced conversions. Translated anonymously into Hebrew under the title "Iggeret ha-Shemad," or "Ma'amar kiddush ha-Shem." It sets forth (1) the extent to which a Jew may yield and the extent to which he must resist when under compulsion to embrace another religion, and maintains (2) that Mohammedanism is not a heathenish religion. Maimonides wrote this essay in reply to a certain rabbi who asserted that compulsory converts to Islam, though they may secretly observe all the Jewish precepts, can not be considered as Israelites. It is generally held that in this case Maimonides preached "pro domo sua," he and his family having been themselves forced to embrace Islam. This, however, is contested by some scholars, who, on very good grounds, even doubt Maimonides' authorship of this essay. The "Iggeret ha-Shemad" was published by A. Geiger in his monograph on Maimonides (Breslau, 1850).

Letter to Rabbi Jacob al-Fayyumi, on the critical condition of the Jews in Yemen (1172). It was translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon, Abraham ibn hisdai, and Nathan ha-Ma'arabi. Ibn Tibbon's translation was published under the title of "Iggeret Teman" (Vienna, 1857); that of Nathan ha-Ma'arabi, under the title "Petah Tikwah" (1629); that of Abraham ibn hisdai is still extant in manuscript.

An essay on resurrection. Translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon and published under the title "Ma'amar Tehiyyot ha-Metim" (1629). A Latin translation, still extant in manuscript, was made by Mithridates.

Works on Halakah.

Halakah: Commentaries on the Mishnah, entitled "Kitab al-Siraj." They were translated into Hebrew by several scholars: on Berakot, Peah, Demai, Shebu'ot, by Judah al-harizi; the remainder of Seder Zera'im and Seder Mo'ed, by Joseph ben Isaac ibn al-Fu'al; Seder Nashim, by Jacob ben Moses of Huesca; Seder Nezikin—with the exception of Abot, which was translated by Samuel ibn Tibbon—by Solomon ben Jacob of Saragossa; Seder kodashim, by Nethaneel ben Joseph of Saragossa; Seder tohorot, by an anonymous scholar; various other parts, by Israel Israeli. The Hebrew translations were first published at Naples (1492). Of the original were published: the general introduction and the prefaces to seder v. and vi., and to the treatise Menahot, with a Latin translation by Pococke (Oxford, 1654); the introduction to Abot ("Shemonah Perakim"), with a German translation by M. Wolf (Leipsic, 1863); the Seder tohorot, with a Hebrew translation by Joseph Derenbourg (Berlin, 1886-92); various treatises, some with Hebrew and some with German translations, published as university dissertations in the last twenty years. The Hebrew translations were rendered into Latin by Surenhusius; into Spanish by Reuben ben Nahman Abi Saglo.

"Kitab al-Fara'i?." Twice translated into Hebrew, first by Moses ibn Tibbon, and then by Solomon ben Joseph ibn Ayyub. Ibn Tibbon's translation was printed first in Italy and then in Lisbon in 1497, and frequently since. Part of the original, with a German translation, was published by M. Peritz (Breslau, 1882), and a complete edition, with a French translation entitled "Le Livre des Préceptes," by Moses Bloch (Paris, 1888).

Commentary on hullin and on nearly all of three sections—Mo'ed, Nashim, and Nezikin. Of these commentaries, which Maimonides cites in the introduction to the Mishnah, only that on Rosh ha-Shanah is known; it was edited by J. Brill in the periodical "Ha-Lebanon" (viii. 199 et seq.).

"Mishneh Torah," or "Yad ha-hazakah." The earliest edition appeared in Italy about 1480; the second at Soncino, 1490; the third at Constantinople, 1509; the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh editions at Venice, 1524, 1550, 1550-51, and 1574-75; the eighth at Amsterdam, 1702-3; the most recent and complete edition is that of Leipsic, 1862. Parts of an Arabic translation of the "Mishneh Torah" and an Arabic commentary on the "Sefer ha-Madda'" are still extant in manuscript. Extracts from the "Mishneh Torah" were translated intoEnglish by H. Bernard and E. Soloweyczik (London, 1863).

Halakot, extracted from the Talmud of Jerusalem; cited by Maimonides in his commentary on Tamid (v., infra).

Scientific Works.

Astronomy and Medicine: An essay on the Jewish calendar, based on astronomical principles. It is divided into two parts: on the "Molad" (conjunction of the moon), and on the "Tekufah" (seasons of the year). It was translated into Hebrew by an anonymous writer and was inserted in the "Dibre hakamim" of Eliezer of Tunis (Metz, 1849), and also in "kobez Teshubot Rambam" (Leipsic, 1859).

"Fi al-Jama'ah," on sexual intercourse, in three parts, dedicated to Malik al-Mustafir, Sultan of Hamat and nephew of Saladin. It was twice translated into Hebrew: under the title "Ma'amar 'al Ribbui ha-Tashmish," by Zerahiah ben Isaac, and under the title "Ma'amar ha-Mashgel" (anonymous). Both original and translations, as well as a Latin version, are extant in various manuscripts.

"Al-Sumum wal-Mutaharriz Min al-Adwiyyah al-kitalah" (also called "Al-Makalah al-Fa?iliyyah"), on various poisons and their antidotes, in two volumes. Translated into Hebrew, under the title "Ha-Ma'amar ha-Nikbad," or "Ha-Ma'amar be-Teri'ak," by Moses ibn Tibbon; extant in various manuscripts. A Latin translation of this work was made by Armengaud Blasius of Montpellier. A French translation from the Hebrew version was made by M. Rabbinowicz under the title "Traité des Poisons" (Paris, 1865), and a German translation by M. Steinschneider entitled "Gifte und Ihre Heilungen" (Berlin, 1873).

"Fi al-Bawa?ir," on hemorrhoids, in seven chapters. Translated into Hebrew under the title "Ha-Ma'amar bi-Refu'at ha-tehorim," and into Spanish under the title "Sobre los Milagros." Original and translations are found in manuscript.

"Fu?ul Musa," an imitation of the aphorisms of Hippocrates. Translated into Hebrew by Zerahiah ben Isaac and by Nathan ha-Me'ati ("Pirke Mosheh," Lemberg, 1804; Wilna, 1888). A Latin translation was published in 1489.

"Makalah fi al-Rabw," on asthma. Translated into Hebrew by Samuel ben Benveniste and Joseph Shatibi.

Commentary on Hippocrates' aphorisms. Extracted from the commentary of Galen; translated into Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon and anonymously.

Essays on hygiene, or consultations with Malik al-Fa?l, son of Saladin. Translated into Hebrew by Moses ibn Tibbon, and published first in "Kerem hemed" (iii. 9-31), and later by Jacob Safir ha-Levi (Jerusalem, 1885). A Latin translation was published at Venice (1514, 1518, 1521) and Leyden (1531). Another Latin translation was made from the Hebrew by John of Capua; a German translation was published by D. Winternitz (Venice, 1843).

"Makalah fi Biyan al-A'ra?," on the case of the Prince of Rikka. Translated into Hebrew anonymously under the title "Teshubot 'al She'elot Peratiyyot." A Latin translation was published in 1519 under the title "De Causis Accidentium Apparentium."

Correspondence.

Maimonides' correspondence and some consultations appeared at first without place or date, and later, under the title "Teshubot She'elot we-Iggarot," at Constantinople (1520). His responsa were translated from the Arabic into Hebrew by Mordecai Tammah, and published at Amsterdam, 1765, under the title "Pe'er ha-Dor," and at Leipsic, 1859, under the title "kobez Teshubot Rambam."

Bibliography: Modern: Peter Beer, Leben und Wirken des Maimonides, Prague, 1834;
Geiger, Jüd. Zeit. i. 97 et seq.;
idem, Moses ben Maimon, Breslau, 1850;
Jost, Annalen, 1839, pp. 308 et seq.; 1840, pp. 32 et seq.;
idem. Allg. Gesch. iv. 116 et seq.;
idem, Gesch. des Judenthums, ii. 430 et seq.;
Munk, Notice sur Joseph ben Jahoudah, Paris, 1842;
idem, in Arch. Isr. 1851, pp. 319 et seq.;
Bukofzer, Maimonides im Kampf mit Seinen Neuesten Biographen, Berlin, 1844;
F. Lebrecht, Ueber die Apostasie des Maimonides, in Magazin für Literatur des In-und Auslandes, 1844, No. 62;
A. Baruch, Two Lectures on the Life and Writings of Maimonides, London, 1847;
Wüstenfeld, Gesch. der Arabischen Aerzte, p. 110;
Carmoly, Histoire des Médecins, p. 52;
Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. cols. 1861-1942;
idem, Hebr. Uebers. passim;
idem, Die Arabische Literatur der Juden, § 158;
idem, Sammlung Gedichten über Maimonides, in kobez al-Yad, Berlin, 1885 and 1886;
Weiss, Bet Talmud, i., No. 6;
Scheyer, Das Psychologische System des Maimonides, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1845;
Joël, Die Religionsphilosophie des Moses ben Maimon, Breslau, 1876;
Kaufmann, Die Attributenlehre, passim;
idem, Zur Biographie Maimonides, in Monatsschrift, 1896, p. 460;
M. Friedländer, Introduction to the Guide of the Perplexed;
Hermann Kahan, Hat Maimonides dem Krypto-Mohammedanismus Gehuldigt? 1899;
Berliner, Zur Ehrenrettung des Maimonides, in Israelitische Monotsschrift, 1901, No. 6;
J. Friedländer, Der Arabische Sprachgebrauch des Maimonides, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1902;
Abrahams, Maimonides, Philadelphia, 1903;
Grätz, Gesch. vi. 310.J. I. Br.

Maimonides as Halakist:

Object of the Precepts.

The fundamental purpose of all the halakic works of Maimonides was to bring system and order into the tremendous mass of traditional law and to promote the knowledge thereof by presenting it in a comparatively clear and brief form. This self-imposed task was the necessary consequence of his views regarding the mission and the purpose of the Jews and their relation to the revealed law; for in his eyes the Law, which the Jew was bound to follow, was not confined to the written code, but, in accordance with the traditional view (see Oral Law) adopted by Maimonides, embraced oral explanations, regulations, and provisions that had been given to Moses. These precepts and regulations were of equal validity with the written law, as were all those which scholars had deduced from the Bible by rules of logic or hermeneutics. There were, moreover, precepts set forth by prophets and sages which had no connection with the written law, although they were accepted by the entire people and were obligatory (Commentary on the Mishnah, Introduction). A necessary condition for the observance of the Law was a knowledge of it, and the Jew was obliged to enter upon scientific studies that he might rightly understand the truths contained in the Torah and attain spiritual perfection; thus he was unable to devote his entire time to the investigation of the commandments of the Law.

A fixed code, therefore, became necessary if each man was to know the Law and its precepts, and in it the rules and regulations must be contained with pregnant brevity. The Mishnah of Judah ha-Nasihad once been such a code, but it then had no commentary, and the Talmud, designed to fill this want, fell short of its object. The treatment of the Mishnah in the Talmud was often unintelligible, as when it asserted that a given mishnah contained this or that when such was not stated in the Mishnah itself, or that one mishnah was incomplete, while another required correction. Nor was the general plan of the Talmud as a commentary satisfactory, for it frequently explained a mishnah by discussions which were too detailed and too involved, while the language employed was unintelligible to the majority. It was often impossible to interpret a mishnah except by statements scattered through two or more treatises, so that a thorough knowledge of the entire Talmud, which few could attain, was necessary to determine the exact ruling of the mishnah in practical matters. It was impossible, moreover, to regard even the mishnaic code as complete, since it did not contain the many rules and regulations which were developed and elaborated in the later Talmudic period; and the Jewish people consequently lacked the body of law which was so requisite (Letter to Ibn 'Aknin, in the collection of responsa and letters of Maimonides, p. 30b, Leipsic, 1859).

Commentary and Code.

Maimonides set himself the task of meeting this want. This he sought to do by commenting on the Mishnah and making it available as a code, from which decisions of practical bearing might be deduced without the necessity of working through many involved disquisitions (Introduction). He planned also a new and more comprehensive body of law which, based upon the written Torah, should contain all that a faithful Jew must know, so that he need not spend his entire time in Talmudic controversies and disputations (Letter to Ibn 'Aknin, l.c. p. 31b). The two methods of commentary and codification were, in the opinion of Maimonides, the only ones open to every author to follow, the model of the one being the Talmud and of the other the Mishnah (Responsa, No. 140, Leipsic, 1859). It thus becomes possible to distinguish between the commentatorial and the codificatory contributions of Maimonides to the religious law.

Commentary on the Mishnah.

Commentatorial Activity: In a survey of the activity of Maimonides as a commentator only his gloss on the Mishnah comes under consideration, for while it is true that Maimonides wrote commentaries on the Talmud, especially on the three orders of Mo'ed, Nashim, and Nezikin, as well as on the treatise hullin (Introduction), they have all been lost, while the gloss on Rosh ha-Shanah (ed. Brill, Paris, 1865) is of doubtful authenticity. These are of importance in this connection only in so far as it must be assumed that many decisions in the works of Maimonides that apparently contradict the meaning of the Talmud were probably based on divergent interpretations which he had adopted in his lost Talmudic treatises. Very different is it with his commentary on the Mishnah, which has been preserved in its entirety, and in which may be seen the combination of gigantic plan and detailed method that Maimonides adopted. In his mishnaic gloss Maimonides was for the most part a commentator, seeking to expound the Mishnah to those who studied it and giving them the general rules by which they might understand its true meaning. These principles, which afford a correct interpretation of many passages of the Mishnah, are scattered through his commentary, and he urges the reader to impress them on his memory that there may be no need of repeating them (Commentary on the Mishnah, B. B. v. 2 and Nazir ix.).

The gloss itself was designed to enable the layman to understand the Mishnah, since he could not work through the involved disquisitions of the Talmud, and was in many cases unable even to understand the language (comp. "Yad," Preface). And even Talmudic scholars might receive great aid from the commentary, since it removed the difficulties of many mishnaic passages and explained them correctly; for numerous passages in the Mishnah were not understood even by the Geonim and leading authorities (Commentary on the Mishnah, 'Ab. Zarah v. 8 and Ket. i. 6). The entire mishnaic order kodashim was unintelligible alike to scholars and laymen, since the great majority had little knowledge of the laws relating to sacrifice, so that his commentary on this portion of the Mishnah was designed to be of assistance to teacher and pupil alike (Introduction to kodashim). In addition to this purely commentatorial service, the gloss was designed to give rulings in religious law of practical importance, which the layman would be entirely unable to deduce from the Talmud, while even to an expert their deduction would be difficult and precarious. After Maimonides' explanation of the meaning of each mishnaic passage, therefore, he states how the practical halakic decision is determined.

Practical Purpose.

Wishing his commentary to serve for instruction both in religious and in moral matters, he frequently omitted a detailed discussion of the view of a tanna where it was not accepted practically (comp. Frankel, "Hodegetica," p. 324). He did not limit himself, consequently, to an explanation of the Mishnah and a statement of the definitive halakic decisions, but rather seized every opportunity to expose abuses, superstitions, and errors, even in cases where his remarks have only a slight connection with the content of the Mishnah, or, indeed, none at all (comp. his polemic against those who wrote amulets, in the Commentary on the Mishnah, Sotah vii. 8, and against those who used learning as a means of gain, ib. Ned. iv. 3 and Bek. iv. 6).

In the majority of cases Maimonides gave the Talmudic interpretation of a mishnah with the omission of all subtle explanations and disquisitions, and to that extent his commentary serves as an introduction to the Talmud, inasmuch as, after the reader or the student has acquired, with the help of this gloss, a knowledge of the Mishnah and is acquainted with the results of Talmudic exposition contained in it, he is able successfully to venture on the sea of the Talmud itself (Introduction). He did not, however, follow Talmudic interpretations everywhere, for in many places where the mishnaic exegesis of the Talmud did not seem to him tobe correct, regardless of its authority he stated his own views (comp. Schorr in "He-haluz," 1860, v. 43-49). This he did even in cases where another view of the Halakah as regards practical decisions resulted from his interpretation (Schorr, ib.; comp. Lipmann Heller, "Tosafot Yom-tob," on Naz. iv. 4 and Sheb. iv. 10). In passages in which the Talmud gave two contradictory mishnaic explanations, one of which was received as valid for a halakic decision while the other was rejected, he, apparently, did not hesitate to accept the latter (comp. his interpretation of B. k. x. 8 and Gemara ib.).

Attitude Toward Predecessors.

Maimonides likewise employed the works of his predecessors, although he cited them but seldom, since he deemed it superfluous to mention the name of his authority in every instance. Thus he says in the preface to the eight chapters which he prefixed to his commentary on Abot: "I have not invented this explanation, or myself framed these assertions, but I have taken them from the words of the wise and gathered them from the works of others. Though I do not name them, I do not claim, by my silence, the learning of others as my own, for I have just admitted that much is taken from other sources." He was, however, entirely independent with regard to his precursors, and he frequently refuted the explanations of the Geonim, stating in the letter to 'Aknin (p. 3lb) that many errors in his commentary were due to his adherence to his predecessors, including Rabbi Nissim.

Maimonides interpreted the language of the Mishnah according to the rules of Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, and employed the "'Aruk" in his explanations of words, although he often fell into the error of regarding Greek loan-words in the Mishnah as Hebrew and explaining them accordingly (comp. Weiss, "Mishpat Leshon ha-Mishnah," p. 11, Vienna, 1867). Toward a better interpretation, he frequently cited the principles of other sciences, such as mathematics and physics, while he attained his object of bringing system and order into the mass of tradition by detailing, before each important discussion, the general principles upon which it rested. Maimonides provided several treatises and orders with prefaces, and prefixed to his entire commentary a general introduction, in which he discussed the origin, plan, and arrangement of the Mishnah and gave an account of the transmission of the oral law. In this introduction and in his preface to the "Yad," as well as in his letters and in numerous scattered notes in his commentary, Maimonides gave coherent and comprehensive information regarding the origin of the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the halakic midrashim, and both Talmuds, in which he evinced a knowledge of literary history superior to that of all his predecessors.

As a commentator Maimonides attained but half his aim, although he had reduced his interpretation of the halakic code to the smallest possible compass. He was, therefore, obliged to plan a new and more comprehensive system of law. It was by no means necessary, however, in his opinion, that this should follow the older mishnaic code; it should rather be arranged according to its subject-matter. All legal regulations, consequently, were to be divided into groups, but before the precepts could be classified it was necessary to enumerate them and to determine what regulations were to be considered as commandments. Many a passage in the Torah which is a commandment or a prohibition in form is not one in reality. Some ordinances, Maimonides declared, are mere foundations for other laws and can not be regarded as independent.

"Sefer ha-Mizwot."

In the enumeration of all the commandments of the Torah, which, according to tradition, numbered 613, great confusion existed before the time of Maimonides, since no principle of classification was established, and consequently the various systems conflicted in many respects. As a sort of introduction to his new code, Maimonides prefixed to it a work containing a dry list of all the commandments of the Torah. In the "Sefer ha-Mizwot" he systematized the commandments by deducing them from fourteen self-evident principles, enumerating the 613 commandments on this basis. This work was generally accepted, and formed the foundation of the majority of subsequent lists. It must be admitted, however, that Maimonides himself frequently deviated from his own rule and cited individual commandments which, according to his system, could not be regarded as precepts, a point to which attention was called as early as the time of Nahmanides (Weiss, l.c. pp. 197-199). See Commandments, The 613.

Codificatory Activity: After establishing the list of all the injunctions of the Torah in his "Sefer ha-Mizwot," Maimonides proceeded to write his great work, the "Mishneh Torah," on which he labored for ten successive years. In this book he planned a complete legal system which should give in a brief but clear form the final decision in the case of each law, so that, by the omission of long discussions and demonstrations, every regulation, law, and custom of religious life might be learned without any other manual. He named the work, therefore, the "Mishneh Torah," or the "Second Law," since it was only necessary to read first the written Torah and then this work in order to acquire the entire body of the so-called "oral law." The book contains all definitions of the Law together with all traditional explanations, statutes, and regulations, as well as the traditions and explanations of the Geonim and the customs which were given, introduced, or recognized from the time of Moses to the conclusion of the Talmud (Preface to the "Mishneh Torah"). It includes also the ethical ideas, the moral teachings, and the doctrinal principles which were traditional or which had been established by the sages or adopted by general consent.

The "Mishneh Torah."

In the "Mishneh Torah" the commandments of the Law are divided into fourteen coherent groups. This forms the first complete classification of the Mosaic and rabbinical laws; each group constitutes a book, and each book is subdivided into sections, chapters, and paragraphs.

The first book, called "Madda'" (Knowledge), treats of the articles of faith and such essential verities as the unity of God and His incorporeality; itdeals also with the study of the Law and the prohibition against idolatry. The second book contains the precepts which must be observed at all times if the love due to God is to be remembered continually; wherefore it bears the name of "Ahabah" (Love). The third book discusses those laws which are limited to certain times, such as the Sabbath and the festivals, and is therefore termed "Zemannim" (Times). The fourth book, "Nashim" (Women), treats of marriage laws. The fifth book contains laws concerning forbidden sexual relations and forbidden foods, and as Israel was distinguished by these commandments from the other nations and was hallowed thereby, it bears the name of "kedushshah" (Holiness). The sixth book is concerned with the law regarding vows and oaths, and since he who makes a vow is separated by his vow from others, this section is called "Hafla'ah" (Separation). The seventh book, "Zera'im" (Seeds), treats of the laws and precepts connected with agriculture. The eighth book, "'Abodah" (Divine Service), is concerned with regulations pertaining to the Temple and its worship and the offerings of the community. The ninth book, "korbanot" (Offerings), contains laws for offerings, excepting those of the whole community. The tenth book, "tohorah" (Cleanness), discusses the rules of cleanness and uncleanness. The eleventh book, "Nezikin" (Injuries), is concerned with criminal law. The twelfth book, "kinyan" (Acquisition), is devoted to purchase and sale; the thirteenth, "Mishpatim" (Rights), to civil law; and the fourteenth, "Shofetim" (Judges), to the prescriptions concerning the magistrates, the Sanhedrin, the king, and the judges, as well as the duties which they must fulfil and the prerogatives which they enjoy.

His Sources.

The utmost brevity was sought by Maimonides in his "Mishneh Torah," as in his commentary on the Mishnah, and he therefore continued his method of avoiding citation, thinking it sufficient to name in the preface the works he had used, and the sages, links in the chain of tradition, who had transmitted the Law from Moses (Preface to his "Sefer ha-Mizwot"). In addition to the Babylonian Talmud, he drew upon the Jerusalem Talmud, the halakic midrashim, and the Sifra, Sifre, and Mekilta. Therein he surpassed all his predecessors, none of whom made so extensive a use of the Jerusalem Talmud and the halakic midrashim; he occasionally preferred these works to the Babylonian Talmud (comp. Malachi ha-Kohen in "Yad Mal'aki," p. 184b; Weiss, l.c. p. 232). These Talmudic and midrashic works form the basis of most of the material contained in this book without special mention of the sources (Responsa, No. 140).

One of the chief authorities of Maimonides was the written Torah itself, and there are many regulations and laws contained in his work which are not mentioned in Talmudic or midrashic works, but which were deduced by him through independent interpretations of the Bible (comp. Abraham de Boton, "Lehem Mishneh" on "Yesode ha-Torah," ix. 1; "Yad Mal'aki," Rule 4; Weiss, l.c. p. 231, Note 234). The maxims and decisions of the Geonim are frequently presented with the introductory phrase "The Geonim have decided" or "There is a regulation of the Geonim," while the opinions of Isaac Alfasi and Joseph ibn Migas are prefaced by the words "My teachers have decided" (comp. "Yad," She'elah, v. § 6; "Yad Mal'aki," Rule 32). Maimonides likewise refers to Spanish, French, and Palestinian authorities, although he does not name them, nor is it known to whom he refers. He furthermore drew from Gentile sources, and a great part of his researches on the calendar, contained in "Yad," kiddush ha-hodesh, was based upon Greek theories and reckonings. Since these rules rested upon sound argument, he thought that it made no difference whether an author was a prophet or a Gentile (ib. xvii. 25). In a like spirit he adopted principles of Greek philosophy in the first book of the "Mishneh Torah," although no authority for these teachings was to be found in Talmudic or midrashic literature.

Omissions.

Maimonides did not surrender his originality or his independent judgment even when his views were in conflict with those of all his authorities, for it was impossible, in his opinion, to renounce one's own reasons or to reject recognized truths because of some conflicting statements in the Talmud or the Midrash. Thus he made a ruling on his own authority and based upon his medical knowledge without being able to establish it by any statement of the older authorities ("Yad," Shehitah, viii. 23; comp. Responsa, No. 37, addressed to the scholars of Lunel). He likewise omitted many regulations contained in the Talmud and Mishnah because they did not coincide with his views—e. g., those precepts which depended on superstitious views or on the belief in demons—and in a similar spirit he passed over much that was forbidden in the Talmud as injurious to health, since his medical knowledge led him to consider these things harmless.

In his choice of language, also, Maimonides deviated from custom, being averse to the Talmudic Aramaic, with its mixture of many elements drawn from other languages, since it was known only to those who were specially interested in it and had acquired it solely for the pursuit of Talmudic studies (Preface to the "Mishneh Torah"). He therefore preferred to write in the later Hebrew of the Mishnah, which was his precedent also for his brevity, his avoidance of discussions, and his scanty citations of the sources from which he had drawn his laws and his decisions.

Opposition of RABaD.

This great work of Maimonides was bitterly attacked as soon as it appeared, and from every side its author was assailed with questions and refutations. Many attacked the work from mere envy and because of their failure to understand certain things in it, and accused the author of wishing to destroy all study of the Talmud (Responsa, No. 140). He had, on the other hand, many sincere opponents, one of the most important being Abraham ben David of Posquières. These antagonists were especially bitter against the new methods which he had employed, and the very peculiarities which he had regarded as merits in his work failed to please his opponents simply because they were innovations. Thus they reproached him because he wrote inHebrew instead of in the customary Talmudic idiom (comp. RABaD on "Yad," Shebu'ot, vi. 9); because he departed from the Talmudic order and introduced a division and arrangement of his own (RABaD on "Yad," Nedarim, iii. 5, and on "Yad," Shofar, ii. 8); because he dared to decide according to the Tosefta and the Jerusalem Talmud as against the Babylonian (RABaD on "Yad," Ma'aser Sheni, i. 8).

Maimonides' Reply.

Especially sharp was the blame heaped upon Maimonides because he neglected to cite his sources; this was considered an evidence of his superciliousness (RABaD, in his notes on the preface of Maimonides), since it made it difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for scholars to verify his statements, and compelled them to follow his decisions absolutely (ib.). Maimonides, of course, defended himself. He had not composed this work for glory; he desired only to supply the necessary but lacking code (Letter to 'Aknin, p. 30b), for there was danger lest pupils, weary of the difficult study, might go astray in decisions of practical importance (Letter to Rabbi Jonathan of Lunel, in which he thanks the latter for certain corrections; Responsa, No. 49). It had never been his intention, furthermore, to abolish Talmudic studies, nor had he ever said that there was no need of the "Halakot" of Alfasi, for he himself had lectured to his pupils on the Gemara and, at their request, upon Alfasi's work (Responsa, No. 140). His omission of his sources was due solely to his desire for brevity, although he regretted that he had not written a supplementary work citing his authorities for those halakot whose sources were not evident from the context. He would, however, should circumstances permit, atone for this error, however toilsome it might be to write such a supplement (Responsa, No. 140). RABaD was forced to acknowledge, despite his attacks and refutations, that the work of Maimonides was a magnificent contribution (note on "Yad," Kilayim, vi. 2), nor did he hesitate to praise him and approve his views in many passages, citing and commenting upon the sources (comp. Weiss, l.c. p. 259).

Influence of the "Yad."

Thus the work of Maimonides, notwithstanding the sharp attacks upon it, soon won general recognition as an authority of the first importance for ritual decisions. A decision might not be rendered in opposition to a view of Maimonides, even though the latter apparently militated against the sense of a Talmudic passage, for in such cases the presumption was that the words of the Talmud were incorrectly interpreted ("Yad Mal'aki," Rule 26, p. 186, cited in the name of several authorities). One must, in like manner, follow Maimonides even when the latter opposed his teachers, since he surely knew their views, and if he decided against them he must have disapproved their interpretation (ib. Rule 27, cited in the name of Samuel of Modena). Even when later authorities, like Asher ben Jehiel, decided against Maimonides, it became a rule of the Oriental Jews to follow the latter, although the European Jews, especially the Ashkenazim, preferred the opinions of Asheri in such cases (ib. Rule 36, p. 190). But the hope which Maimonides expressed in his letter to 'Aknin, that in time to come his work and his alone would be accepted, has been only half fulfilled. His "Mishneh Torah" was indeed very popular, but there was no cessation in the study of other works, with which his own had to endure comparison.

The object which Maimonides had sought in his "Mishneh Torah," the facilitation of the study of the Talmud through brevity and system, was not attained. His words and expressions were regarded as so precisely and accurately selected that they were themselves treated as carefully as the Talmud itself, and became material for interpretation and exegesis ("Yad Mal'aki," Rule 3). In this manner every word and every sentence of the "Mishneh Torah" was made the object of repeated commentaries and casuistic hermeneutics. As it had been hitherto impossible to deduce any decision from the Mishnah without a knowledge of the involved discussions and interpretations of the Talmud, so now no ruling of full validity in practise can be inferred from the "Mishneh Torah" unless due regard is paid to the commentaries upon this work, as well as to their discussions, investigations, and comparisons with other codes.

Bibliography: Geiger, Moses ben Maimon, in Nachgelassene Schriften, iii. 34-96;
Malachi ha-Kohen, Yad Mal'aki, pp. 182a-187b, Przemysl, 1877;
Weiss, Tolcdot ha-RaMBaM, in Bet Talmud, vol. i.;
idem, Dor, iv. 290-303

Scribes

2009-12-03T06:49:00.001-08:00

SCRIBES By : Isidore Singer M. Seligsohn Wilhelm Bacher Judah David Eisenstein

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

Origin and Meaning.
Range of Activity.
Used Square Hebrew Characters.
Artistic Work.
"Tikkun Soferim."
Colophons.
Notary and Secretary.

Origin and Meaning.

1. Body of teachers whose office was to interpret the Law to the people, their organization beginning with Ezra, who was their chief, and terminating with Simeon the Just. The original meaning of the Hebrew word "soferim" was "people who know how to write"; and therefore the royal officials who were occupied in recording in the archives the proceedings of each day were called scribes (comp. II Sam. viii. 17; II Kings xix. 2, passim); but as the art of writing was known only to the intelligent, the term "scribe" became synonymous with "wise man" (I Chron. xxvii. 32). Later, in the time of Ezra, the designation was applied to the body of teachers who, as stated above, interpreted the Law to the people. Ezra himself is styled "a ready scribe in the law of Moses" (Ezra vii. 6). Indeed, he might be correctly so called for two reasons, inasmuch as he could write or copy the Law and at the same time was an able interpreter of it. The Rabbis, however, deriving from (= "to count"), interpret the term "soferim" to mean those who count the letters of the Torah or those who classify its contents and recount the number of laws or objects belonging in each group; e.g., five classes of people that are exempt from the heave-offering, four chief causes of damages, thirty-nine chief works which are forbidden on the Sabbath, etc. (Yer. Shek. v. 1; hag. 15b; kid. 30a; Sanh. 106b). While this may be only a haggadic interpretation of the term "soferim," it is evident that these scribes were the first teachers of the Torah and the founders of the oral law.

Range of Activity.

The activity of the scribes began with the cessation of that of the Prophets. In fact, after the Israelites who came back from Babylon had turned their hearts to God, there was greater need of men to instruct the people, and to assist them in obtaining a clear understanding of the Law. This body of teachers is identified by Zacharias Frankel ("Darke ha-Mishnah," p. 8) and Nachman Krochmal Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman," ch. xi.) with the "men of the Great Synagogue" (comp. the expression s??a???? ??aµµat??? in I Macc. vii. 12), of which Simeon the Just was the last member (comp. Ab. i. 2). If this identification is correct, the organization of the scribes lasted from the time of Ezra till the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great, a period of about 200 years. It must be said, however, that the term "soferim" was sometimes used, particularly in the post-Maccabean time, to designate teachers generally. Thus Moses and Aaron are styled the "soferim of Israel" (Targ. of pseudo-Jonathan to Num. xxi. 19; Targ. to Cant. i. 2). Besides, in certain passages it is quite evident that "soferim" refers to Talmudists of a later period, as, for instance, in Yer. Ber. i. 7 and R. H. 19a, where the expression "dibre soferim" (= "the words of the scribes") seems to refer to the school of Hillel. But as a general rule the term refers to the body of teachers the first of whom was Ezra and the last Simeon the Just. It seems that after Simeon the teachers were more generally styled "elders" ("zekenim"), and later "the wise ones" ("hakamim"; Shab. 64b; Suk. 46a), while "soferim" was sometimes used as an honorific appellation (Sotah 15a). In still later times "soferim" became synonymous with "teachers of little children" (ib. 49a).Although, as will be shown later, the activity of the scribes was manifold, yet their main object was to teach the Torah to the Jewish masses, and to the Jewish youth in particular. It was they who established schools, and they were particularly enjoined to increase the number of their pupils (Ab. i. 1). Their mode of teaching is indicated in Neh. viii. 8: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." This passage is explained by the Rabbis as meaning that they first read the Hebrew text and then translated it into the vernacular, elucidating it still further by dividing it into passages ("pesukim"; Meg. 3a; Ned. 37b). Moreover, the scribes always connected with the text the laws which they deduced from the Biblical passages; that is, they read the passage, explained it, and then deduced the law contained in it; they did not in general formulate abstract halakot apart from the Biblical text. The halakot were the work of (1) the "Zugot" (duumvirates), who immediately followed the scribes, and (2) the Tannaim, who treated the law independently of the Biblical text. There are, however, some mishnayot which, from their style, seem to have emanated directly from the scribes (comp. Neg. ii. 5-7). The latter seem not to have departed from the literal interpretation of the text, although they adapted the laws to the requirements of the times, sometimes instituting by-laws ("seyagim"), this, according to Abot (l.c.), being one of the three main duties of their office (comp. R. H. 34a; Yeb. ii. 4; Sanh. xii. 3).

Used Square Hebrew Characters.

From the time of Ezra, however, the scribes occupied themselves also with plans for raising Judaism to a higher intellectual plane. They were, consequently, active in reviving the use of Hebrew, which had been to a great extent forgotten during the exile in Babylon, and in giving it a more graceful and suitable script. As to the latter, it is stated that the Torah had first been written in Hebrew characters; then, in the time of Ezra, in characters called "ketab ashshuri" (probably = "ketab suri" = Syrian or Aramean script; comp. Kohut, "Aruch Completum," s.v. ), the present square type, the former script being left to the "Hedyotot," that is, the Cutheans or Samaritans (Sanh. 21b-22a). It is evident that the scribes, in making this change, wished to give the Torah a particularly sacred character in distinction to the Samaritan Pentateuch. The term "ketab ashshuri" is explained by one authority as meaning "the even writing" (Yer. Meg. i. 71b), as contrasted with the forms of the ancient Hebrew or Samaritan characters.

The scribes are still better known for their work in connection with the liturgy and in the field of Bible emendation; for, besides the many benedictions and prayers which are ascribed to them, they revised the Hebrew text of the Scriptures, their revisions being called "tikkune soferim." The number of these scribal emendations is given as eighteen (in Mek., Beshallah Shirah, 6, and in Tan., Yelammedenu Beshallah, ed. Vienna, 1863, p. 82b), of which the following may be cited: "but Abraham stood yet before the Lord" (Gen. xviii. 22), substituted for the original text, "but the Lord stood yet before Abraham" (see Gen. R. xlix. 12); "and let me not see my wretchedness" (Num. xi. 15), an emendation of the original text, "and let me not see thy wretchedness"; "to your tents . . . unto their tents" (I Kings xii. 16), instead of "to your gods . . . unto their gods." Other traces of the scribes' revision of the text are dots above certain words the meaning of which seemed doubtful to them, the original marks being ascribed to Ezra (Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, pp. 97-98; Num. R. iii. 13). For the "tikkune soferim" see Masorah, and for the institutions ("takkanot") established by the scribes, Synagogue, Great; Takkanah.

Bibliography: Bacher, Ag. Tan. Index, s.v. Lehrer;
J. Brüll, Mebo ha-Mishnah, pp. 7-9, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1876;
Z. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, pp. 3 et seq.;
Grätz, Gesch. 1st ed., ii., part 2, p. 125; 4th ed., iii. 86 et seq.;
Hamburger, R. B. T. ii., s.v. Sopherim;
Jost, in Zeit. für Historische Theologie, 1850, pp. 351 et seq.;
Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., ii. 313 et seq.;
Weiss, Dor, i. 50 et seq.S. M. Sel.

2. The professional scribes, known also as "liblarin" ("liblar" = "libellarius"). There were two kinds of professional scribes: (a) one who was engaged in the transcription of the Pentateuch scroll, phylacteries, and mezuzot, and who was called "sofer STaM" (= , the initials of "Sefer Torah," "Tefillin," and "Mezuzah"); (b) one who acted as notary public and court secretary.

(a) The productions of the sofer being the principal religious paraphernalia, he was a necessity in a Jewish community. A learned man was prohibited from residing in a town in which there was no scribe (Sanh. 17b). The sofer was so indispensable that, according to R. Joshua b. Levi, the men of the Great Assembly observed twenty-four fast-days on which they prayed that the soferim might not become rich and therefore unwilling to write. A baraita confirms the statement that writers of the Torah scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzot, and those that deal or trade in them are not blessed with riches (Pes. 50b; Tosef., Bik. ii., end). Even to this day the vocation of the sofer is the worst paid of all Jewish professions.

Artistic Work.

The Talmud, quoting the passage "This is my God, and I will beautify Him" (Ex. xv. 2, Hebr.), says: "Serve Him in a beautiful manner . . . prepare a beautiful Sefer Torah, written in good ink with a fine pen by an expert sofer" (Shab. 133b). The ink must be indelible, and the parchment specially prepared; the lines, traced and squared so that the writing may be straight and uniform. The Talmud declares that the rule regarding lines must be observed, in the case of the mezuzah, which is written on one roll, but does not apply in the case of the tefillin-rolls. Both, however, may be copied from memory, the wording being familiar to the sofer (Meg. 18b). The tracing is done with a ruler and a style (comp. Git. 6b; Tosef., Git. s.v. ).

There were artists among the soferim. The Alexandrian scribes especially were noted for their skill in illumination. They used to gild the names of God found in the Pentateuch; but the rabbis of Jerusalem prohibited reading from such scrolls and ordered them to be placed in the genizah (Masseket Soferim i; Shab. 103b).The utmost care and attention were bestowed upon spelling, crowning certain letters (Taggin), dotting others, copying abnormalities, and upon the regulations as to spacing for parashiyyot and sections. Some soferim were careful to begin the columns of the Sefer Torah with a word commencing with a "waw," allowing an equal number of lines to every column. Such columns were known as "wawe ha'ammudim" or "waw-columns." The preparation of phylacteries and mezuzot required a similar exercise of watchfulness. R. Ishmael said to a sofer: "My son, be careful in thy work, as it is a heavenly work, lest thou err in omitting or adding one iota, and so cause the destruction of the whole world" ('Er. 13a). The sofer was required to copy the text from a model form made by an expert, and was not permitted to rely on his memory. "Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee" (Prov. iv. 25) is the advice given to a sofer. R. hisda, finding R. Hananeel writing a Sefer Torah from memory, said to him: "Indeed thou art able to write the whole Torah by heart; but our sages have forbidden the writing of even one letter without an exemplar" (Meg. 18b).

"Tikkun Soferim."

The model from which the sofer copied the Pentateuch was called "tikkun soferim" (which must not be confounded with tikkune soferim = "changes in the text"). An ancient fine copy of a tikkun soferim, written on vellum, and vocalized and accented, with "waw-columns" of sixty lines each, was found in the old synagogue of Cracow ("Ha-Maggid," xii. 6, Feb. 5, 1868). Among the printed model forms are: "Tikkun Soferim," by Solomon de Oliveyra, Amsterdam, 1666; "'Ezrat ha-Sofer," with wawe ha-'ammnudim, edited by Judah Piza, ib. 1769; "'En ha-Sofer," with wawe ha-'ammudim, by W. Heidenheim, 10 parts, Rödelheim, 1818-1821. The modern "Tikkun Soferim," without vowels or accents, was first published in Wilna, in 1874, with wawe ha-'ammudim in two half-columns of forty-two lines. This edition has been reprinted several times and is now the standard copy.

Moses hagiz, in his "Mishnat hakamim" (§§ 227-228, Wandsbeck, 1733), urges scrupulous carefulness as to the qualification of the sofer, and refers to Moses Zacuto, who complained of the malpractises of the soferim in their work. He refers also to Zacuto's letter enumerating ten rules for the guidance of the sofer and addressed to the rabbis of Cracow, who had requested the information. A copy of this letter is among the manuscripts of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It contains cabalistic rules by Moses Zacuto for the writing of a Pentateuch roll according to Luria; but it is addressed to Isaac, rabbi of Posen, and includes Isaac's answer copied in the year 5438 = 1678 (Neubauer, "Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS." cols. 1871, 2, and 1890).

Colophons.

The ordinary Bible for study was usually vocalized, accented, and sometimes illuminated (see Bible Manuscripts). In most cases the sofer would only write upon the order of a patron; and he would append his signature at the end of his work as a guaranty of its correctness, with the date, place of production, and sometimes the name of his patron also, as an identification in case of loss. These colophons are interesting from an antiquarian and historical point of view. Probably the earliest is that of Moses ben Asher's Bible, which was ordered by Jabez b. Solomon and given to the Karaite congregation in Jerusalem, and of which Jacob Saphir saw the Prophets in the possession of the Karaite congregation at Cairo ("Eben Sappir," i. 14b, Lyck, 1868). It was written in Tiberias and dated in the year 827 from the destruction of the Second Temple (= 896 C. E.); the colophonic matter appearing at the end of the Minor Prophets. Some colophons are written in letters of gold with an illuminated border, giving the date according to the era of the Creation, the Seleucidan era, and that of the destruction of the Temple; a blessing for the patron follows; and the closing words are: "May salvation [or "the redeemer"] speedily come." In rare instances the scribe acknowledges the receipt of his compensation in full; in others he apologizes for any error or shortcoming and pleads for God's forgiveness.

Expertness in writing was highly developed during the existence of the Second Temple. Ben kamZar was able to manipulate four pens between his five fingers and to write a four-lettered word at one stroke. He was blamed for not teaching his art to others (Yoma 38b). The vocation of the sofer was a regular profession; and many Talmudists were known by the appellation "Safra." The scribe was recognized in the street by the pen behind his ear (Shab. i. 3; 11a).

Notary and Secretary.

(b) The other kind of sofer was employed in the preparation of bills of divorce requiring special care. He acted also in the capacity of a public notary, and as a recording clerk in the court-house ("bet din"). There were two clerks: one recording the charge of the accuser; the other, the answer of the accused (Sanh. 17b). The sofer was, moreover, the public secretary. It is stated that the nasi Rabban Gamaliel in his official seat on the Temple site had before him Johanan the sofer, to whom he dictated three letters:

(1) "To our brethren residing in upper and lower Galilee";

(2) "To our brethren in the South"; and

(3) "To our brethren in exile in Babylon and Media and other exilic countries of Israel. Peace with you shall ever increase. We inform you," etc. (Sanh. 11b).

In later times the scribe of the community (= "sofer hakahal") was the recording; secretary of the Pinkes, and acted as notary as far as legal documents were concerned. The community had the power to consider as valueless all contracts not written by the appointed sofer (Shulhan 'Aruk, hoshen Mishpat, 61, 1).

The sofer's fee was not fixed, nor might he make any charge except for loss of time. It was advisable therefore to make a bargain with him before-hand (ib. Eben ha-'Ezer, 154, 4). The question by whom the sofer shall be paid is settled for almost every possible case. The underlying principle is that the one who is in duty bound to give the document, or who receives the most benefit from the transaction, shall pay the scribe; otherwise the parties share the expense. Those responsible for the sofer'sfee are enumerated thus:

(1) The purchaser of property (hoshen Mishpat, 238, 1).

(2) The borrower of money; but if the lender loses the note and desires a duplicate, he must pay for it. The lender pays for writing the receipt against a note; but when there is no note, and the borrower wishes to have a receipt, he must pay for it (ib. 39, 14; 54, 1).

(3) The bridegroom, for the betrothal contract; but if the bride desires a duplicate, she must pay for it. The groom pays for the ketubah (Eben ha-'Ezer, 51, 1).

(4) The husband, for a bill of divorce and the receipt for the dowry (ib. 110, 1; 120, 1).

(5) Both parties, for writing arbitration papers (hoshen Mishpat, 13, 6).

The plaintiff and defendant share alike the cost of writing their pleas and briefs for submission to a higher court (ib. 13, 3; 14, 2). The person who is in contempt of court must pay the expense incurred in issuing the summons (ib. 11, 4).

See Bible Manuscripts; Get; Ink; Manuscripts; Mezuzah; Paleography; Phylacteries; Scroll of the Law; Tagin.

Bibliography: Masseket Soferim. ed. Joel Müller, Leipsic, 1878;
Sheba' Masseketot, Sefer Torah, ed. Raphael Kirchhelm, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1851;
Ginze MiZrayim, Sefer Torah (credited to Judah Barcelona), ed. E. N. Adler, Oxford, 1897;
Vitry Mahzor, pp. 686 et seq.;
Aaron Mirels, Bet Aharon, Berlin, 1829;
Samuel ha-Levi, Nahalat Shibe'ah, No. 1, Amsterdam, 1667;
Joseph Ganzfried, keset ha-Sofer, Ofen, 1835;
Samson b. Eliezer, Baruk She-Amar, with appendix by Lipmann-Mülhausen, Shklov, 1804;
Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne, Sefer ha-Eshkol, ed. Abraham Auerbach, vol. ii., Halberstadt, 1868;
Löw, Graphische Requisiten;
C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pp. 241 et seq., London, 1897;
Hartwig, Beihefte zum Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesens, 1897. No. 19;
Ludwig Blau, Studien zum Althebräischen Buchwesen, i., Strasburg, 1902;
Louis H. Levin, The Sopher, in Jewish Comment, 1903, xvii.

Scroll of the Law

Aharon's Jewish Books and Judaica
600 South Holly Street Suite 103
Denver, Colorado 80246
303-322-7345

JERUSALEM

2009-12-01T14:12:00.000-08:00

JERUSALEM By : Richard Gottheil Gotthard Deutsch Martin A. Meyer Joseph Jacobs M. Franco

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

—Modern:

Divisions.
Weather and Water.
Population.
Jews of Jerusalem.
Occupations.
Institutions.
Synagogues and Yeshibot.

Typography:

Messiah

2009-11-30T10:14:00.000-08:00

MESSIAH (print this article)

By : Joseph Jacobs Moses Buttenwieser

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
The Ideal in Isaiah.
The "Immanuel" Passage.
In Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Ideal of the Second Isaiah.
In the Apocrypha.
Alexander as Messiah.
Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.
Development of Conception.
In the Older Apocalyptic Literature.
In the Psalms of Solomon.
In the Testaments of the Patriarchs.
The Heavenly Messiah.
In Rabbinic Literature.
Heavenly Preexistence.
Earthly Preexistence.
Messiah ben Joseph.

The Name. The name or title of the ideal king of the Messianic age; used also without the article as a proper name—"Mashiah" (in the Babylonian Talmud and in the midrash literature), like xxxx in the Gospels. The Grecized ?ess?a? of the New Testament (John i. 41, iv. 25) is a transliteration of the Aramaic form, Aramaic being the spoken language of Palestine in the time of Jesus [Fasle Messiah]. "The Messiah" (with the article and not in apposition with another word) is, however, not an Old Testament expression, but occurs for the first time in apocalyptic literature. Similarly, in all probability the use of the word "Mashiah" to denote the Messianic king is not found earlier than the apocalyptic literature. In the Old Testament the earliest use of the word is with Yhwh (or with a pronominal suffix referring to Yhwh) as a title of the ruling sovereign Meshiah Yhwh ("God's anointed one"; I Sam. ii. 10, 35; xii. 3, 5; xvi. 6; xxvi. 9, 11, 16, 23; II Sam. i. 14, 16; xix. 21; II Chron. vi. 42; Ps. xviii. 51 [A. V. 50]; xx. 7 [A. V. 6]; cxxxii. 17 [applying to David]; Lam. iv. 20). In post-exilic times, the high priest, filling the place formerly occupied by the king, is spoken of as "ha-Kohen ha-Mashiah" (the anointed priest; Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vi. 5), also (Dan. ix. 25, 26) as "Mashiah Nagid" (an anointed one, a ruler) and simply "Mashiah" (an anointed one), referring to Onias III. As the anointing of the high priest consecrated him above all his brethren to God's service and gave him immediate access to God (comp. Lev. viii. 12, xxi. 10-12; Zech. iii. 7), so the anointing of the king made him Meshiah Yhwh, placed him in a special relationship to God, and established him as the one chosen by God to represent His rulership in Israel and to bear witness to His glory before the nations (comp. II Sam. vii. 8-11, 14; Isa. lv. 4; Ps. lxxxix. 4, 21-29). As "God's anointed one" the king was sacrosanct and inviolable (comp. I Sam. xxvi. 9). Hence the later applications of the title "Meshiah Yhwh" in the Old Testament.

In Isa. xlv. 1 Cyrus is called "God's anointed one," because God has called him and given him victory after victory for the distinct purpose of putting an end to the Babylonian kingdom and the worship of idols, of setting free exiled Israel, and thus introducing the new era of God's universal dominion. In Ps. cv. 15 the Patriarchs are called "God's anointed ones" because they are under the special protection of God and therefore inviolable. Finally, in Hab. iii. 13, Ps. xxviii. 8, lxxxiv. 10 (A. V.9), and possibly in lxxxix. 39, 52 (A. V. 38, 51), the title is applied to Israel, God's chosen people. See Anointing.

"Mashiah" (anointed one of God) in Ps. ii. 2, which was formerly thought to have Messianic reference, is now taken as referring either to a Hasmonean king or to Israel. The latter interpretation is that prevailing in the Midrash (comp. Midr. Rabbah and Tanhuma, Emor; Yalkut, Toledot, near end; Midr. Shoher tob, ad loc.), though the Messianic interpretation occurs in the eschatological description (Pesik. Zutarta, Balak).

The Ideal in Isaiah.

But though the name is of later origin, the idea of a personal Messiah runs through the Old Testament. It is the natural outcome of the prophetic future hope. The first prophet to give a detailed picture of the future ideal king was Isaiah (ix. 1-6, xi. 1-10, xxxii. 1-5). Of late the authenticity of these passages, and also of those passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel which give expression to the hope in a Messiah, has been disputed by various Biblical scholars (comp. Hackmann, "Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaiah"; Volz, "Die Vorexilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias"; Marti, "Gesch. der Israelitischen Religion," pp. 190 et seq.; idem, "Das Buch Jesaia"; Cheyne, "Introduction to Isaiah," and edition and transl. of Isaiah in "S. B. O. T.").

The objections of these scholars, however, rest principally on the hypothesis that the idea of the Messiah is inseparably bound up with the desire for universal dominion, whereas, in reality, this feature is not a characteristic of the Messianic hope until a later stage of its development. The ideal king to whom Isaiah looks forward will be a scion of the stock of Jesse, on whom will rest the spirit of God as a spirit of wisdom, valor, and religion, and who will rule in the fear of God, his loins girt with righteousness and faithfulness (xi. 1-3a, 5). He will not engage in war or in the conquest of nations; the paraphernalia of war will be destroyed (ix. 4); his sole concern will be to establish justice among his people (ix. 6b; xi. 3b, 4). The fruit of his righteous government will be peace and order throughout the land. The lamb will not dread the wolf, nor will the leopard harm the kid (xi. 8); that is, as the following verse explains, tyranny and violence will no longer be practised on God's holy mountain, for the land will be full of the knowledge of God as the water covers the sea (comp. xxxii. 1, 2, 16). The people will not aspire to political greatness, but will lead a pastoral life (xxxii. 18, 20). Under such ideal conditions the country can not but prosper, nor need it fear attack from outside nations (ix. 6a, xxxii. 15). The newly risen scion of Jesse will stand forth as a beacon to other nations, and they will come to him for guidance and arbitration (xi. 10). He will rightly be called "Wonderful Counselor," "Godlike Hero," "Constant Father," "Prince of Peace" (ix. 5).

The "Immanuel" Passage.

This picture of the future fully accords with Isaiah's view, that the judgment will lead to a spiritual regeneration and bring about a state of moral and religious perfection; and it agrees also with the doctrine, which, in his bitter opposition to the alliances with Assyria and Egypt, he preached to his people—the doctrine, namely, that their sole concern should be God and their sole reliance be on Him, for thus, and thus only, might they endure (vii. 9; comp. also v. 4, viii. 13, xxx. 15). The prophets advocated a government which would be in conformity with God's will and be regulated by His laws of righteousness. In connection with Isaiah's Messianic hope it remains to be observed that the "Immanuel" passage, Isa. vii. 14, which is interpreted in Matt. i. 23 as referring to the birth of Jesus [False Messiah, has, as Robertson Smith ("The Prophets of Israel," pp. 271 et seq., 426 et seq.) and others have pointed out, no Messianic import whatever. The name has reference merely to events of the immediate present. He means to give a token by which the truth of his prophetic word may be tested, saying that any young woman giving birth to a son in the near future will call him "Immanuel" (= "God with us"), in remembrance of the withdrawal of the Syrian-Ephraimitic armies from the country (v. 16). "'Almah" does not mean "virgin" (as given in A. V. and other versions; the only word meaning this is "betulah"), but "a young woman sexually mature," whether married or unmarried; the article "ha-" of "ha-'almah" is the generic article.

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The idea of a personal Messiah is not met with again until the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (the Messianic picture of Micah v. 1, 3-8, as is proved by the fact that in it Israel and the Messiah hold dominion over the nations, according to this view can not be a pre-exilic product of prophecy; in fact, it must have originated late in post-exilic times). Jeremiah's picture of the Messiah is not a detailed one; but, like his future hope in general, it agrees in all essentials with that of Isaiah. The Messiah will be "a righteous sprout of David," who will establish just judgment and wise government in the country, and whose name will be (= "God is our salvation"; xxiii. 5, 6; these two verses recur in almost the same form in xxxiii. 15, 16, but in the latter verse the name is applied to Jerusalem, an application which did not originate with Jeremiah. Ch. xxx. 9 et seq., 21 does not claim consideration here, as it is of later origin).

In Ezekiel, the Messiah is a purely passive figure, the only personal reference to him being in xvii. 23—"he will become a mighty cedar" (Hebr.). The regeneration of the people, like their restoration, is exclusively the work of God.

But in xxxiv. 23 et seq., xxxvii. 24 et seq., which passages date from exilic times, there is an entirely new feature—the prophecy that David will be the king of the future state. As after the decline of the Holy Roman Empire the saga arose of the return of the emperor-hero Barbarossa, so, after the fall of the nation, the Jews of the Exile dreamed of the coming of a second David, who would reestablish them as a glorious nation. So Ezekiel lays emphasis on the fact that the future Israel is to be a united nation as it was under David of old. The hope in the return of David is expressed also in the spurious passage mentioned above (Jer. xxx. 9) and in the gloss to Hos. iii. 5 ("and David their king"), and ismet with sporadically also in Neo-Hebraic apocalyptic literature (see below).

In post-exilic prophetic literature the hope in a Messiah is found only in the first two prophets of the post-exilic community, Haggai and Zechariah, and in Deutero-Zechariah, ch. ix., which, probably, dates from the time of the Seleucids. Haggai and Zechariah see in Zerubbabel the promised "sprout of David"; but they state merely that he will rebuild the Temple and attain great eminence as a ruler (Hag. ii. 23; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12).

Deutero-Zechariah's Messiah has much in common with Isaiah's. He is described (Zech. ix. 9, 10) as a righteous Prince of Peace, who will rise from the ranks of the pious and oppressed, who will ride into Jerusalem not in military splendor, but on an ass. For, unlike worldly rulers, he will not maintain his dominion by the sword—he will destroy all the instruments of war (if, instead of , is read in accordance with the LXX. , 3d s. m.); but, by his jurisdiction, which will extend to the ends of the earth, he will establish peace among the nations. Thus Deutero-Zechariah's conception of the Messiah combines Isaiah's conception with the hope of world-dominion cherished by his own age.

Ideal of the Second Isaiah.

The personal Messiah does not figure at all in the future hope of Deutero-Isaiah, whose lofty universalism marks the final step in the development of the religious ideas of the Prophets. The salvation of mankind is the goal of history, and Israel's prerogative becomes but the privilege of suffering for the good of the whole world. God has called Israel for the realization of His purpose toward man. Israel, and not an individual, is "the servant of God" (Isa. xlii. 1-6, xlix. 1-6, l. 4-9, lii. 13-liii. 12), through whom the regeneration of mankind will be accomplished, who will spread the true religion among all nations, convert all men into willing servants of God, and lead all tongues to confess Him (xlv. 23). Naturally, not the actual Israel of the present is meant, but the ideal Israel of the future, risen to spiritual heights in consequence of his wonderful deliverance by God. For this high destiny Israel has been especially fitted by reason of the religious experience which God has stored up in him in the course of his history; and, by submitting, in accordance with God's will, to suffering and ignominy, he fulfils his mission and advances toward his final goal. In Isa. ii. 1-4 and Micah iv. 1-4 there is the same picture of the Messianic future as in Deutero-Isaiah—Jerusalem as the religious center of the world, whence salvation will radiate to all men—but contain the additional promise that universal peace will ensue in consequence thereof. In like manner the post-exilic prophets Trito-Isaiah, Malachi, and Joel, and the post-exilic Apocalypse of Isaiah, xxiv.-xxvii., have no personal Messiah. According to them, God Himself, without the instrumentality of a man, will redeem Israel from his present misery and bring about the new era of salvation. The conclusion, however, of Malachi (the authorship of which is doubtful) speaks of a messenger, Elijah, whom God will send to convert men and thus pave the way for His own coming.

In the Apocrypha.

As in the prophetic writings just enumerated, so in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament the figure of the Messiah has no prominence whatever. In I Maccabees there is a brief general reference to the promise given to David, that his throne would be reestablished (ii. 57), but Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, II Maccabees, and the Wisdom of Solomon contain no mention of the Davidic hope. The Hellenistic author of the Wisdom of Solomon is so thoroughly universalistic that the idea of a Messiah is precluded. His eschatological picture shows no nationalistic feature whatever.

Alexander as Messiah.

The natural deduction from the facts thus far outlined is that while from the time of the Prophets the belief in an ideal future determined the character and tendency of Jewish religious life and thought to such an extent that this belief may be called the special characteristic of the Jewish genius, still, in the periods thus far covered, the idea of a personal Messiah is far from having that general prominence which one would, at first, be inclined to assume. Further, it has been seen how Deutero-Isaiah heralded Cyrus as the favorite of God, the hero called by God to introduce the new era of universal bliss. In like manner, no doubt, as Kampers has shown in his "Alexander der Grosse und die Idee des Weltimperiums in Prophetie und Sage," the Jewish contemporaries of Alexander the Great, dazzled by his glorious achievements, hailed him as the divinely appointed deliverer, the inaugurator of the period of universal peace promised by the Prophets. Proof of this is: (1) The legend related in Josephus ("Ant." xi. 8) and in the Talmud (Yoma 67b) of the audience of the high priest Jaddua (in the Talmud it is Simon the Just) with Alexander the Great in Gaza. Alexander recognizes in the high priest the man who had appeared to him in a dream, urging him to the conquest of Asia and promising him that he himself would lead his army and deliver the Persian kingdom into his hands; he prostrates himself to worship God, whose name he sees inscribed on the plate of gold on the high priest's cidaris, accompanies the high priest to Jerusalem to sacrifice to God in His Temple, and is there shown the Book of Daniel, in which it is written that the Persian kingdom will be conquered by a Greek—a prophecy which Alexander applies to himself. (2) The various sagas which sprang up about Alexander, chiefly among the Jews in Alexandria, and out of which the Alexander romance of pseudo-Callisthenes grew, the only explanation of which is that Alexander had once been the central figure in their future hope. (3) The apocalyptic traditions about Alexander the Great in medieval apocalyptic literature and also in the midrashic literature—for example, the tradition (mentioned by Josephus) of Alexander imprisoning Gog and Magog behind the mountains of darkness in the far north. The version of this legend given by Jacob of Serug (521 C.E.) and in the Koran, sura 18 (comp.Kampers, l.c. pp. 73, 76 et seq.) leaves no doubt that it was purely of apocalyptic origin.

But while all these hopes centering in Alexander the Great bear witness to the liberality and broad-mindedness of the Jews of that time, they, on the other hand, corroborate the conclusion, expressed above, that the hope in the Messiah had, as yet, no definite form and can not have been commonly an article of faith. This is true, not only of the time of Alexander the Great, but even as late as the first period of apocalyptic literature, and is proved by the absence of a personal Messiah in the oldest apocalyptic writing, the Book of Daniel, as well as in the oldest part of the Book of Enoch ("The Apocalypse of the Ten Weeks") and in the Book of Jubilees, which also date from the Maccabean period, apart from the fact, pointed out above, that in the contemporaneous apocrypha there is but vague reference to the Messiah. The "one of the likeness of man" ("ke-bar enash") of Dan. vii. 13 (Hebr.), to whom the rulership in the divine world-monarchy will be entrusted, is, according to the author's own explanation (vii. 18, 22, 27), the nation of God's holy ones (i.e., the faithful Jews). These constitute the earthly representatives of God in the "civitas Dei," and in contrast to the other nations of the world, who are represented under the figures of animals, they are represented under the figure of a man in order to signify that in them the divine ideal of manhood has preserved itself most faithfully.

Rise of Popular Belief in a Personal Messiah.

Not until after the fall of the Maccabean dynasty, when the despotic government of Herod the Great and his family, and the increasing tyranny of the Roman empire had made their condition ever more unbearable, did the Jews seek refuge in the hope of a personal Messiah. They yearned for the promised deliverer of the house of David, who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, would put an end to the impious Roman rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place. In this way their hopes became gradually centered in the Messiah. As evidence that in the Roman period the Messianic hope had become universal among the Jews may be adduced: (1) Jesus' conviction that he was the Messiah, a conviction inspired in him by the current belief in a Messiah, as is shown by the fact that on his entry into Jerusalem the populace hailed him as such; (2) the testimony of Josephus ("B. J." vi. 5, § 4), Tacitus ("Hist." v. 13), and Suetonius (Vespasian, iv.) regarding the Messianic belief of the Jewish people at that time; (3) the fact that even in Philo's picture of the future, in spite of its moralistic tendency, the Messianic king has a place (comp. "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 16). It may be noted in this connection that the "Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," as the version of it given both in the Babylonian and in the Palestinian recensions of the Shemoneh 'Esreh shows (see Nos. 14 and 15 respectively), can not have become an integral part of the daily prayers later than the time immediately following the destruction of the Temple, for in that period the "Shemoneh 'Esreh" received its present form. Hillel's assertion (Sanh. 98b) that there would be no future Messiah for Israel since the latter had had its Messiah in the days of Hezekiah, can have no weight as a contrary argument, as Hillel lived in the reign of Herod the Great, at the beginning of the period which marks the development of the popular belief in the Messiah.

Development of Conception.

As the future hopes of the Jews became Messianic in character the figure of the Messiah assumed a central and permanent place in apocalyptic literature; and as apocalyptic literature in general, so the Messiah-concept in particular, embodies a multitude of bizarre fantasies which can not possibly be reconciled or woven into anything like a connected picture. There are many factors which contributed to this manifold and variegated imagery. Not only was all the Messianic and quasi-Messianic material of the Scriptures collected, and out of it, by means of subtle combinations, after the manner of the Midrash, a picture of the Messiah sedulously drawn, but everything poetical or figurative in the Prophets' descriptions of the future was taken in a literal sense and expounded and dogmatized accordingly. Many foreign elements, moreover, crept in at this time and became part of the general potpourri of imagery relating to the Messiah. This being the case, an exceedingly complex and difficult question arises—where, in the Messiah-pictures, and, indeed, in the pictures of the future in general, presented by apocalyptic literature, has one to deal with organic development from prophetic ideas, and where with foreign religious elements? At present it is not possible to form a final judgment in regard to the place of origin of these foreign ideas. The material from the Assyro-Babylonian religion and mythology which has been offered in recent years by Assyriologists shows what an involved question is presented in this one point, and that a series of preliminary and exhaustive studies is necessary before a final decision can be reached regarding it or the various questions bound up with it. The one thing safe to maintain in this connection is, perhaps, that, according to the time at which the heterogeneous character of the conceptions becomes noticeable in the literature, Alexandria must have had a prominent part in the fusion of the native and foreign elements, since that city had been from the time of Alexander the Great the seat of religious syncretism as well as the intellectual metropolis of the civilized world.

For the better understanding of the Messianic pictures in apocalyptic literature it is important to point out that, although frequently interlaced, two distinct sets of ideas may be traced—the one set concerned with this world, hence realistic and national; the other directed to the world to come, hence transcendent and universalistic. The Messiah presents a correspondingly double character. Side by side with the traditional idea of an earthly king of the house of David is the new conception of a heavenly preexistent Messiah, from which it follows that in regard to the question of the Messiah the older apocalyptic literature, as well as the younger rabbinical branch, falls naturally into two groups.

In the Older Apocalyptic Literature.

In the older apocalyptic literature the first book to be mentioned in which the Messiah figures as an earthly king is "The Vision of the Seventy Shepherds of the Book of Enoch" (ch. lxxxv.-xc.) of the time of John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.). The Messiah appears under the figure of a white bull at the conclusion of the world-drama (xc. 37 et seq.) and commands the respect and fear of all the heathen, who eventually become converted to God. Yet he does not take any actual rôle. It is God Himself who wards off the last attack of the heathen against Israel, gives judgment, and establishes the world-dominion of Israel. Second in this group come those parts of the Sibylline Books whose date, as Geffken's recent critical analysis has established ("Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina," pp. 7-13), is about the year 83 B.C. The Messiah is pictured (verses 652-666) as a king sent by God from the rising of the sun, who will put an end to war all over the earth, inasmuch as he will destroy some peoples and make permanent treaties with the others; in all his actions he will be solicitous not to follow his own counsel, but to obey the commands of God. The writer then describes at length the attack by the heathen nations on the magnificent Temple of God and on the Holy Land, and the annihilation of the nations by God; the Last Judgment, with the ensuing conversion of the heathen to God; the establishment of God's eternal kingdom over all men and the reign of universal peace; but, strange to say, throughout the description there is no mention of the Messiah. In fact, in verses 781 et seq. the Israelites are spoken of as the prophets of God, the judges of mankind, and the just kings who will put an end to the sway of the sword upon earth.

In the Psalms of Solomon.

"The Vision of the Seventy Shepherds" and Sibyllines, iii. 652 et seq. say nothing whatever about the lineage of the earthly Messiah, but in the Psalms of Solomon (xvii.), which were called forth by the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 B.C.), he is designated as the "son of David," who will appear at a time known only to God. These Psalms (l.c.) contain a more detailed description of his personality and of his reign than any other writing of that period. The Messiah will first crush the unjust rulers and rid Jerusalem of, and destroy, the impious heathen. Then he will gather the scattered ones of Israel, distribute them through the land according to their tribes, and found his own kingdom of peace and justice. No wicked person will be tolerated in his kindgom nor will foreigners be allowed to dwell there. He will subject the heathen nations to his rule, glorify the Lord before the whole world, and make Jerusalem pure and holy as of old, so that the nations will come from the ends of the earth to witness God's glory. The description which follows of his righteous reign shows the influence of Isa. xi. 1 et seq. Free from sin, strong in the divine fear, and filled with the spirit of God, of valor, and of justice, he will tend the flock of the Lord faithfully, hold the higher officers in check, and make sinners cease by the power of his word, so that injustice and tyranny will not be practised in the land. He will not rely upon horses and warriors, nor heap up gold and silver to wage war, nor keep armies. In God alone will he place his trust, and his strength will be in Him.

In the Apocalypse of Baruch (70-100 C.E.) the earthly Messiah will appear at the close of the fourth (i.e., the Roman) world-empire and destroy it. The last ruler of the empire will, after his hosts have been destroyed, be brought in chains before the Messiah on Mount Zion, and there, after the impiousness of his rule has been pointed out to him, he will be put to death by the Messiah's own hand. Of the other nations, those hostile to Israel will be put to the sword and the remainder subjected to the rule of the Messiah, who will establish himself on the throne of his kingdom, inaugurate the reign of morality and bliss, and hold dominion until the end of time, that is, until the consummation of the present world (xxix. 3, xxxix. 5-xl. 3, lxxii.-lxxiii. 4. Ch. xxx. 1 is to be taken, with Volz ["Jüdische Eschatologie," pp. 37, 203], as Christian interpolation).

In the Testaments of the Patriarchs.

The Testament of Levi (ch. viii. and xviii.) shows a unique conception of the Messiah. He is not, as in the Testament of Judah (see below) and according to the popular belief, a descendant of David, but a priestly king of the tribe of Levi. His character and activity are altogether spiritual. The pouring out of the spirit and knowledge of the Lord over all mankind and the cessation of sin and evil will be the fruit of his ideal priesthood, which will last for all eternity. He himself will open the doors of paradise, cast aside the sword threatening Adam, and give the saints to eat of the tree of life. He will chain up Belial and will give his children power to trample on the evil spirits. The picture of the Messiah in the Testament of Judah (ch. xxiv.), although far more brief, resembles, in its spiritual character and in its universalistic tendency, that in the Testament of Levi. The sole mission of the Messiah will be the regeneration of mankind, and his kingdom will be one of justice and salvation for the whole world. If, as Bousset sought to prove ("Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft," i. 193 et seq.), the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs date mainly from the time of the Maccabees, then the Messiahconception of the Testament of Levi is easily accounted for; the author expects that the future Savior will be a prince of the reigning priestly house of the Maccabees.

The Heavenly Messiah.

The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called "the Son of Man," and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man's, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, "under the wings of the Lord of spirits." In ch. xlviii. 3, 6, xlix. 2b it is stated that "His name was called before the Lord of spirits before the sun and the signs of the zodiac were created, and before the stars of heaven weremade"; that "He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and will remain in His presence forevermore" (comp. also lxii. 6); and that "His glory will last from eternity unto eternity and his might from generation unto generation" (that "his name" in xlviii. 3 means really "son of man" is evident from verse 6; comp. the similar use of "Shem Yhwh" for "Yhwh" in Isa. xxx. 27). He is represented as the embodiment of justice and wisdom and as the medium of all God's revelations to men (xlvi. 3; xlix. 1, 2a, 3). At the end of time the Lord will reveal him to the world and will place him on the throne of His glory in order that he may judge all creatures in accordance with the end to which God had chosen him from the beginning. When he rises for the judgment all the world will fall down before him, and adore and extol him, and give praise to the Lord of spirits. The angels in heaven also, and the elect in the Garden of Life, will join in his praise and will glorify the Lord. "He will judge all hidden things, and no one will be able to make vain excuses to him"; he will judge also Azazel, with all his associates and all his hosts. The wicked ones of the earth, especially all kings and potentates, he will give over to damnation, but for the just and chosen ones he will prepare eternal bliss, and he will dwell in their midst for all eternity (xlv. 3, 4; xlvi. 4-6; xlviii. 4-10; xlix. 4; li. 3; lv. 4; lxi. 7-lxii. 14).

It is worthy of special note that in the appendix to the Messiological section of Enoch, the latter himself is the Son of Man = Messiah (lxxi. 14), and, as in the Slavonic Book of Enoch and the Hebrew Book of Enoch (see Jew. Encyc. i. 676, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature), as well as throughout rabbinical literature, Enoch is identical with Metatron = ?et??????? or ?etat??a??? (i.e., the highest, ministering spirit, who stands next to God and represents His rulership over the universe), so there is an important connecting-link between the conception of the Son of Man = Messiah, and the Logos, which appears repeatedly in Philo in place of the earthly future king (comp., e.g., his interpretation of "zemah," Zech. vi. 12, in "De Confess." § 14; see Memra). The Fourth Book of Ezra (about 100 C.E.) presents both the pre-existent and the earthly Messiah. The latter is seen in ch. vii. 28, xi. 37-46, xii. 31-34, where the Messiah is represented as the Lion "who will spring from the seed of David," will destroy the fourth (i.e., the Roman) world-monarchy, will rule 400 years till the end of the Messianic interim, and then will die, together with all men. The former appears in the vision of the man rising from the sea (ch. xiii.). Here, as in the Messiological section, the Messiah is described as "one resembling a man" and is called "ille homo" or "ipse homo" (verses 3, 12). The statement is made also (under the influence of Dan. vii. 13) that he "flew with the clouds of heaven." Other points of contact with the Messiological Book are: the statement that "he is the one whom the Most High has reserved for many ages to deliver creation" (verse 26); the reference to his being hidden with God (verse 52)—"Even as no one can fathom nor learn what is in the depths of the sea, so none of the inhabitants of earth can see My son nor his escort [i.e., the host of angels who will accompany him when he appears upon earth], unless it be at the appointed hour"; and, finally, the obvious reference to his preexistence in heaven, where the promise is given to Ezra, "Thou wilt be taken from among men [to heaven] and wilt dwell with My son and with thy comrades until the end of time" (xiv. 9).

In Rabbinic Literature.

Whether the Messiah in Sibyllines v. 415-430, where he is called "a blessed man coming from heaven," is the preexistent or the earthly Messiah can not be determined. In the Assumptio Mosis, however (c. 4 B.C.), it may be concluded, on the ground of the identification of the Son of Man = Messiah with Enoch = Metatron in Enoch lxxi. 14, that it is the preexistent Messiah who is referred to (x. 2), for it is stated that, at the end of the last tribulation, when God's dominion will be established over all creation, "the hands of the angel who stands in the highest place will be filled, and he will immediately avenge them [Israel] on their enemies." As the author of the Fourth Book of Ezra (xiii.), as well as the author of the Messiological Book, evidently had Dan. vii. 13 in mind when he described the preexistent Messiah, it may be mentioned here that, while the Messianic interpretation of this passage prevails in the rabbinic literature (the oldest example is the Messianic tradition in Sanh. 98a, for which Joshua b. Levi is mentioned as authority), the Greek text of Dan. vii. 13 presents not only the Messianic interpretation of "Bar Nash," but unmistakably also, in ?a? ?? pa?a??? ?µe??? pa??? added after ?? ???? ?????p?? ???et?, the conception of the preexistent Messiah. Moreover, contrary to the view held by many that all the passages concerning the Son of Man = Messiah in the Book of Enoch and IV Ezra are of Christian origin, it may be pointed out that the phrase "Bar Nash" (= "Son of Man") must have been a common name for an angel of the highest order among the Palestinian Jews of the first Christian centuries. Yer. Yoma v. relates that, when reference was made in the bet ha-midrash to Simon the Just's having, every year of the forty during which he was high priest, been accompanied into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement by an "aged one," veiled and garbed in linen (i.e., by a heavenly being; comp. the "labush ha-badim" in Ezek. ix. 1, 3 et al.), R. Abbahu objected: "Does not the prohibition, 'No man shall be present in the Tabernacle when the high priest enters the sanctuary,' extend to those of whom it is said, 'the appearance of their countenance was that of a man's countenance'?" (Lev. xvi. 17; Ezek. i. 10). Whereupon the rejoinder was made, "Who says that that being was Bar Nash? It was the All Holy Himself." It may be noted in passing that this haggadah is of importance for the Greek text of Dan. vii. 13 as well as for the identification of the Son of Man = Messiah with Enoch = Metatron.

In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism. As proof of this may be given: (1) "The Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," mentioned above, inwhich the Messiah is called "descendant of David." (2) The information given in the second century by Justin ("Dialogus cum Tryphone," ch. xlix.) and by the author of "Philosophumena" (ix. 30). Both writers state expressly that, contrary to the belief of the Christians, the Jews emphasize the human origin of the Messiah, and the author of "Philosophumena" adds that they expect him to be descended from David. (3) The liturgy of later times, which, like the Daily Prayer, calls him the descendant of David throughout. His mission is, in all essential respects, the same as in the apocalypses of the older period: he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy his hosts, and set up his own kingdom of peace (comp. the descriptions of him in Jew. Encyc. i. 675, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature, Neo-Hebraic).

Heavenly Preexistence.

The conception of the preexistent Messiah is met with in Pesik. R. xxxiii., xxxvi. (pp. 152b, 162, ed. Friedmann; comp. Yalk. i. 339). In accordance with the Messiological section of Enoch the former of these two passages says: "At the beginning of the creation of the world was born the King Messiah, who mounted into God's thoughts before the world was made"; and in the latter passage it is related that God contemplated the Messiah and his works before the creation of the world and concealed him under His throne; that Satan, having asked God who the Light was under His throne, was told it was the one who would bring him to shame in the future, and, being then allowed, at his request, to see the Messiah, he trembled and sank to the ground, crying out, "Truly this is the Messiah who will deliver me and all heathen kings over to hell." God calls the Messiah "Ephraim, my righteous Messiah."

The preexistent Messiah is presented also in the Haggadah (Pes. 54a; Ned. 39a; Yalk. i. 20; et al.), where the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was made, and where he is called "Yinnon," reference being made to Ps. lxxii. 17 (which passage probably was in the mind of the author of the Messiological section of Enoch when writing xlviii. 3). That, contrary to the view of Weber ("Jüdische Theologie," 2d ed., p. 355) and others, it is actual preexistence which is meant here, and not predestination, is evident from the additional remark—"According to another view, only the Torah and the Throne of Glory were [actually] created; as to the other [five] things the intention was formed to create them" (Yalk., l.c.; in regard to "the name of the Messiah" compare the comment above to Enoch, xlviii. 3). Finally, the preexistence of the Messiah in paradise is minutely described in "The Revelation of R. Joshua b. Levi" (see Jew. Encyc. i. 680), in Midrash Konen (Jellinek, "B. H." ii. 29), and in "Seder Gan Eden" (ib. iii. 132 et seq., 195). In the first two, regardless of the apparent anomaly, the preexistent Messiah is called "Messiah ben David."

Earthly Preexistence.

The conception met with in the rabbinical literature of an earthly preexistence of the Messiah must be distinguished from that of his heavenly preexistence. It occurs in various forms, representing, probably, different stages of development. First, he is expected to lead a hidden life and then to step forth suddenly. (On this conception of the sudden, unexpected appearance of the Messiah comp. Matt. xxiv. 27, 43-44, where it is said that the Messiah will come like a thief in the night or like a flash of lightning.) This is the conception of him in Ex. R. i. and in Tan., Shemot, both of which say that as Moses, the first deliverer, was reared at the court of Pharaoh, so the future deliverer will grow up in the Roman capital; in agreement with this, in the Agadat ha-Mashiah (Jellinek, l.c. iii. 142) it is said that the Messiah will suddenly be revealed to Israel in Rome. Then, again, the Messiah is represented as born, but not yet revealed. This conception appears as early as the second century in Justin Martyr's "Dialogus cum Tryphone" (ch. viii.), and in accordance with it is the passage Sanh. 98b, where R. Joshua ben Levi is quoted as saying that the Messiah is already born and is living in concealment at the gates of Rome. In Targ. Yer. to Micah iv. 8 the Messiah is on the earth, but because of the sins of the people he is still in hiding. Finally, the Messiah is thought of as born at a certain time in the past. This is the case in Yer. Ber. ii., which states that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem on the day the Temple was destroyed, and in the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel (see Jew. Encyc. i. 682), which declares he was born in the days of King David and is dwelling in Rome.

The notion, traceable to Ezek. xxxiv. 23 et al., that David himself is the Messiah, is another variation of the conception of earthly preexistence. It occurs in the apocalyptic fragment of the "Siddur" of R. Amram (see Jew. Encyc. i. 678, s.v. Apocalyptic Literature, 2) and in Yer. Ber. ii. The latter states that whether the King Messiah belongs to the living or to the dead, his name is David.

Messiah ben Joseph.

Finally, there must be mentioned a Messianic figure peculiar to the rabbinical apocalyptic literature—that of Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority. In the last of these statements only his name is mentioned, but the first two speak of the fate which he is to meet, namely, to fall in battle (as if alluding to a well-known tradition). Details about him are not found until much later, but he has an established place in the apocalypses of later centuries and in the midrash literature—in Saadia's description of the future ("Emunot we-De'ot," ch. viii.) and in that of Hai Gaon ("ta'am Zekenim," p. 59). According to these, Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David; he will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion. Thereupon Armilus, according to one group of sources, or Gog and Magog, according to the other, will appear with their hosts before Jerusalem, wage war against Messiah b. Joseph, and slay him. His corpse, according to one group, will lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem; according to theother, it will be hidden by the angels with the bodies of the Patriarchs, until Messiah b. David comes and resurrects him (comp. Jew. Encyc. i. 682, 684 [§§ 8 and 13]; comp. also Midr. Wayosha' and Agadat ha-Mashiah in Jellinek, "B. H." i. 55 et seq., iii. 141 et seq.).

When and how this Messiah-conception originated is a question that has not yet been answered satisfactorily. It is not possible to consider Messiah b. Joseph the Messiah of the Ten Tribes. He is nowhere represented as such; though twice it is mentioned that a part of the Ten Tribes will be found among those who will gather about his standard. There is a possibility, however, as has been repeatedly maintained, that there is some connection between the Alexander saga and the Messiah b. Joseph tradition, for, in the Midrash, on the strength of Deut. xxxiii. 17, a pair of horns, with which he will "strike in all directions," is the emblem of Messiah b. Joseph (comp. Pirke R. El. xix.; Gen. R. lxxv.; Num. R. xiv.; et al.), just as in the apocalyptic Alexander tradition in the Koran (referred to above) the latter is called "The Double-Horned" ("Dhu al-karnain"). See also Eschatology; Judaism.

The Life-Transforming Diet

2007-12-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Life-Transforming Diet

based on Health and Psychological Principles of

Maimonides and other Classical Sources

Best Price click here: The Life-Transforming Diet

Ancient

2001-12-03T14:37:00.000-08:00

—Ancient:

(see image) Cross-Sectional View of Jerusalem (West to East) as Seen from the South.(After Heyck, "Die Kreuzzüge.")

Capital at first of all Israel, later of the kingdom of Judah; chief city of Palestine; situated in 31° 46′ 45″ N. lat. and 35° 13′ 25″ E. long., upon the southern spur of a plateau the eastern side of which slopes from 2,460 ft. above sea-level north of the Temple area to 2,130 ft. at the southeastern extremity. The western hill is about 2,500 ft. high and slopes southeast from the Judean plateau. Jerusalem is surrounded upon all sides by valleys, of which those on the north are less pronounced than those on the other three sides. The principal two valleys start northwest of the present city. The first runs eastward with a slight southerly bend (the present Wadi al-Joz), then, deflecting directly south (formerly known as "Kidron Valley," the modern Wadi Sitti Maryam), divides the Mount of Olives from the city. The second runs directly south on the western side of the city, turns eastward at its southeastern extremity, then runs directly east, and joins the first valley near Bir Ayyub ("Job's Well"). It was called in olden times the "Valley of Hinnom," and is the modern Wadi al-Rababi, which is not to be identified with the first-mentioned valley, as Sir Charles Warren (in his "Recovery of Jerusalem," p. 290, and in Hastings,"Dict. Bible," s.v.) has done. Easy access to Jerusalem could be had only on the north and northwest. In olden times there were other valleys which divided up this complex; but these are now filled in by the accumulated rubbish of centuries. A third valley, commencing in the northwest where is now the Damascus Gate, ran south-southeasterly down to the Pool of Siloam, and divided the lower part into two hills (the lower and the upper cities of Josephus). This is probably the later Tyropœon ("Cheese-makers'") Valley, though it should be mentioned that W. R. Smith, Sayce, Birch, and Schwartz identify the Tyropœon with the Valley of Hinnom (Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bib.]." ii. 2423; Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 387). A fourth valley led from the western hill (near the present Jaffa Gate) over to the Temple area: it is represented in modern Jerusalem by David street. A fifth cut the eastern hill into a northern and a southern part. Later Jerusalem was thus built upon four spurs (see frontispiece map of physical features of Jerusalem).

Jerusalem

In the El-Amarna Tablets

2001-12-03T14:35:00.001-08:00

In the El-Amarna Tablets.

The earliest historical notices respecting Jerusalem come from the El-Amarna tablets. Before the fifteenth century B.C. Babylonian influences must have been present. There was a city called "Bit-Ninib" (Temple of the God Ninib) in the "district of Jerusalem "(Letter 180, 25). In the fifteenth century Amenophis III. had extended Egyptian rule so as to include Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Assyria. This empire, however, became disrupted through its own weight. The individual districts in Palestine and Syria had been first under native princes ("amelu") with an Egyptian resident ("rabiz"), and then under a "Hazzanu," who was in reality a viceroy of the Pharaoh. Jerusalem was the chief seat of one of the districts, in consequence of which it may at one time have changed its name ("the king has placed his name upon Jerusalem," Letter 180, 60). The four El-Amarna letters from Jerusalem were written by itsHazzanu, one Abdi Heba. The whole district was sorely pressed by the Habiri. The chief conspirators against him were Milki-il, his father-in-law Tagi, Shuardatu, the Banu Lapaya, the Banu Arzawa, and Adaya, a military chief; they prevented him from personally reporting to his sovereign, upon whom he impressed the fact that if reenforcements were not sent, the whole "land of the King" would be lost. He protested his loyalty, and mentioned the presents he had sent to the king by the latter's officer Shuta. How long the conspiracy had lasted is not known. Before that, an Egyptian special officer (rabiz) had been sent to Jerusalem.
(see image) One of the El-Amarna Tablets Mentioning Abdi Heba of Jerusalem.(From Ball, "Light from the East.")

The Kash (?) had also entered Abdi Heba's dominions; and one city had gone over to the Kilti. From another of the El-Amarna letters (182, 5) it appears that Jerusalem itself was in the hands of rebels, and that Egyptian troops which had been sent under Haya had been detained in Gaza. It was evidently a period of general anarchy, due to the break-up of the Egyptian power.

Jerusalem

The Name

2001-12-03T14:35:00.000-08:00

The Name.

The name "Jerusalem" is written in the Old Testament and upon most of the old Hebrew coins defectively , though punctuated "Yerushalayim" as a "kere perpetuum" (with the exception of five places where the "yod" is added; Frensdorff, "Massora Magna," p. 293). The Aramaic form, "Yerushlem" (Ezra iv. 8, 20, 24, 51), the Syriac "Urishlem," the Septuagint transcription 'Ιερουσαλημ, the Assyrian "Urusalim" (El-Amarna tablets) and "Ursalimu" (Sennacherib), point to an original pronunciation "Yerushalem"; the ending "-ayim" either being due to a diphthongization or representing a dual formation (König, "Lehrgebäude," ii. pt. 1, p. 437). A shortened form is perhaps to be found in "Shalem" (Gen. xiv. 18; Ps. lxxvi. 3; comp. Josephus, "Ant." i. 10, § 2), known also to the Arabs ("Shallam," in Yakut, "Geographisches Wörterb." iii. 315). Several etymologies for the word have been suggested; e.g., = "possession of peace" or "of Salem"; "foundation of peace" or "of Shalem [God of peace]"; according to the Midrash it is made up of "Shalem," the name given to the city by Shem, and "Yir'eh," that given to it by Abraham (Gen. R. lvi. 10; Midr. Teh. to Ps. lxxvi. 3). A more plausible derivation makes it the equivalent of "Uru-shalim" (="City of [the god] Shalim"; comp. the Assyrian god Shalman or Shulman, the Phenician [Greek Σαλαμαν], and the Egyptian Sharamana [Zimmern, in "K. A. T." 3d ed., pp. 224, 475; Praetorius, in "Z. D. M. G." lvii. p. 782), "Uri" having become "Yeru" by metathesis (see Haupt in "Isaiah," in "S. B. O. T." Eng. transl., p. 100). In the Greek period the name was Hellenized into Ιεροσόλνμα (Sibyllines, x. 103, New Testament, Josephus, Philo, and the classical writers). Following the New Testament, the Vulgate has both "Hierusalem" and "Hierosolyma" (or "Ierusalem," "Ierosolyma"). Philo uses the name Ιερόπολις (ed. Mangey, ii. 524). Under Hadrian (135) the city was renamed "Ælia Capitolina," from which Ptolemy took his Καπιτολιας. The Arabs at times preserved the ancient forms "Urishalam," "Urishallam," "Uraslam" (Yakut, l.c. i. 402), or "Iliya" (ib. 423), or more commonly "Bait al-Makdis" or "al-Mukaddas" (ib. iv. 590); in modern parlance, "Al-kuds al-Sharif" or simply "Al-kuds" = "the Sanctuary."
(see image) Sketch Showing Topographical Features of Jerusalem.(After Fulton, "The Beautiful Land.")

Jerusalem

Resists the Israelites

2001-12-03T14:34:00.000-08:00

Resists the Israelites.

In Hebrew annals Jerusalem is first mentioned in connection with Melchizedek, King of Salem (Gen. xiv. 18), then with the incursions of the Israelites after the taking of Ai. It was one of the five cities of the Amorites, who seem to have succeeded to the Egyptian power in southern Palestine. Each of these cities had its prince ("melek"), that of Jerusalem being Adoni-zedek, who took the lead against the city of Gibeon (Josh. x. 1 et seq.). All the princes were taken, slain, and hanged at Makkedah (see, also, the list, ib. xii. 10). The relation of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to the Jebusites can not now be determined. They may themselves have been Jebusites; at least, the latter were not completely driven out at the time (ib. xv. 63). In fact, Jerusalem is expressly called a "foreign city," not belonging to the Israelites (Judges xix. 12); and the Jebusites are said to have lived there for very many years together with the Benjamites (ib. i. 21; according to Josh. xv. 63, "with the children of Judah"), in whose territory the city lay. At one time the city seems to have been called "Jebus" (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 28; Judges xix. 10). It was at Jerusalem that Adoni-bezek died (Judges i. 7). Finally the Judahites took the place, burned it, and killed its inhabitants. It must have been soon rebuilt; for in the early history of David (I Sam. xvii. 54) it is again called by its old name, "Jerusalem." Perhaps only the "lower city" had been taken (Josephus, "Ant." v. 2, § 2)—just as in Maccabean times the Acra or citadel was held for twenty-six years by the Syrian garrison—which would explain the apparent contradiction between verses 8 and 21 of Judges i. (Moore, "Judges," p. 21). The name "Zion" seems already to have been attached to a portion of the city; at least the "Mezudat ziyyon" is mentioned (II Sam. v. 7; I Chron. xi. 5). But the place was renamed by David "'Ir Dawid" (= "City of David"), in the same manner as Assyrian rulers were wont to give their names to captured cities. Though dignified by the name "'Ir," the town need not necessarily have been large. In addition to the fortress, it must have contained some place of worship, besides houses for the people and the soldiers. What the "zinnor" (II Sam. v. 8) was is not known. The word is usually rendered "watercourse" (LXX. παραξιφις (?); Aquila, κρουνισμος = "stream"; Symmachus, ἐπαλξις = "battlement," "parapet"; according to later Hebrew usage, "canal," "aqueduct").

Jerusalem

Situation of Zion

2001-12-03T14:32:00.001-08:00

Situation of Zion.

The exact situation of these early settlements has always been a matter of dispute. The author of I Macc. iv. 37 says expressly that the Temple was built upon Mt. Zion; and the presence of St. Mary's Well and the Siloam Pool seems to show that the natural position of the ancient fortress was upon the edge of the southeastern hill, where, as the excavations of Guthe and Bliss have shown, the level of the ground was much higher than at present. It is true that later tradition, both Jewish and Christian, agrees in placing Zion upon the southwestern hill; but even the latest attempts of Karl Rückert ("Die Lage des Berges Sion," Freiburg, 1898), Georg Gatt ("Sion in Jerusalem," Brixen, 1900, and "Zur Topographie Jerusalems," in "Z. D. P. V." xxv. 178), and C. Mommert ("Topographie des Alten Jerusalems," Leipsic, 1902) have not been successful in harmonizing this theory with the Biblical data. The theory is based chiefly upon (1) the direction of the old north wall, ending at the Haram, as described by Josephus ("B. J." v. 4, § 2), and south of which Zion must (?) have stood, and (2) the place of David's burial, which, according to tradition, is usually placed on the southwestern hill (see "Z. A. P. V." xxiv. 180-185).

There were only two natural water sources near Jerusalem, En-rogel and Gihon, respectively east and southeast of the city. The first (II Sam. xvii. 17; I Kings i. 9) has generally been identified withSt. Mary's, or the Virgin's, Spring, largely because the flight of steps running from the spring to Silwan is to-day called "ZaHwayleh," i.e., "Zoheleth" (I Kings l.c.). But the distance is too great; and the application of the term to these particular steps is not certain. En-rogel, according to tradition ("Ant." vii. 14, § 4), was in the king's garden; and Mitchell's identification of it with the Bir Ayyub is worthy of acceptance ("Jour. Bib. Lit." xxii. 108). The well Gihon (I Kings i. 33, 35, 38; II Chron. xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14) is the so-called "Virgin's Spring." In addition, there were several pools: the "old pool" (Isa. xxii. 11), now called the Patriarch's Pool, northwest of the city; the "lower pool" (Isa. xxii. 9), now known as the Birkat al-Hamra; and the "upper pool" (ib. vii. 3, xxxvi. 2; II Kings xviii. 17), probably the Mamilla Pool, west of the Jaffa Gate, which fed the "old pool." In regard to the "Serpents' Pool," see below.

Jerusalem

City of David

2001-12-03T14:32:00.000-08:00

City of David.

The city at this epoch may have extended to the southwestern hill; but it is not clear what enlargements were due to David. In II Sam. v. 9 it is said that he built "round about from Millo and inward." The Millo, however, was built by Solomon (I Kings ix. 15, 24); and the reference at the time of David may be to the place where in later times the Millo was. Whether the latter was part of the wall or a citadel (LXX. ή ăκρα) is not known. It was, however, part of the defense of the city, and is mentioned in connection with the walls (ib.). It was strengthened by Hezekiah upon the approach of Sennacherib (II Chron. xxxii. 5); and may have been an artificial terrace (comp. the Assyrian "Mulu" and "Tamlu").

A palace of stone and of cedar-wood from Lebanon was built for David by Tyrian workmen (II Sam. v. 11, vii. 2). It must have stood somewhere between the Temple and the Siloam Pool, from the latter of which steps led up to the city of David (Neh. iii. 15). Some sort of tabernacle must also have been erected for him, (, II Sam. vi. 17; , ib. vii. 2); for he brought the Ark from the house of Abinadab in Gibeah, first to the house of Obed-edom, and then to the city of David (ib. vi. 3, 11). It was here that he deposited the gold and the silver that he had taken from the Aramean princes and from the Moabites and Ammonites, whom he had subdued (ib. viii. 11 et seq.). The plague that appeared in the land toward the end of David's reign does not seem to have touched Jerusalem. It was supposed to have been stayed mysteriously at a threshing-floor on Mt. Moriah, north of the city of David, belonging to one Araunah or Aranyah, which place was then bought by David, who erected an altar there (II Sam. xxiv. 14 et seq.; I Chron. xxi. 15 et seq.). David was buried "in the city of David" (I Kings ii. 10). The site of the tomb is unknown; but it was situated probably in the rocks of the southeastern hill ("Z. D. P. V." iii. 210, v. 330). It is mentioned in Neh. iii. 16 as being near to the steps (see above)

Jerusalem

Improvements by Solomon

2001-12-03T14:30:00.001-08:00

Improvements by Solomon.

Under Solomon the city took on a much grander aspect. There is now definite reference to a wall surrounding it (I Kings iii. 9, ix. 15), a part of which seems to have been the Millo mentioned above. This wall must have enclosed some portion left open by David (ib. xi. 27). Solomon erected a palace made up of various buildings (ib. iii. 1), which took thirteen years to build (ib. vii. 1). The Temple was commenced in the month Ziv (ib. vi. 1; see Temple); it occupied seven years in construction, and was finished in the month Bul (ib. vi. 38). With the help of a Tyrian, the two pillars Jachin and Boaz were fashioned out of bronze (ib. vii. 13 et seq., ix. 11). The Temple was made up of a forecourt, the Holy Place (40 × 20 × 30 ells), the Holy of Holies (a cube of 20 ells), and various smaller buildings adjoining. To this Temple the Ark was removed from the city of David on the Feast of Tabernacles (ib. viii. 1). With the assistance of Hiram of Tyre (I Kings v. 15 et seq.), Solomon built a palace for Pharaoh's daughter (ib. vii. 8), and the "house of the forest of Lebanon" ("bet ya'ar ha-Lebanon," ib. vii. 2), which measured 100 × 50 × 30 cubits, and the top part of which was used as an armory (ib. x. 16). All these buildings, constructed of stone and wood, seem to have stood in a sort of court ("Hazer"), around which was a wall of three courses of stone (ib. vii. 12). Smaller courts surrounded the individual buildings. Solomon is said to have embellished Jerusalem with silver and costly wood (ib. x. 27). In later years he built, also, a "bamah" to Chemosh and to Molech "in the Mount that is before Jerusalem" (ib. xi. 7, R. V.).

The extent of the city at this time might be gaged by tracing the probable line of the wall, if that line were at all certain. Some scholars believe that Solomon enclosed the western hill; the wall would then be the first of the three, which had sixty crenelations, mentioned by Josephus ("B. J." v. 4, § 2). It would accordingly have commenced at what was later the tower Hippicus, near the present Jaffa Gate; running eastward to the Xystus, it would then have encircled the greater part of the Temple mount; bending south and southwest, it would have skirted Ophel, though not including the Siloam Pool (Josephus says "above the fountains"); and, enclosing the present Jewish and Protestant cemeteries, it would then have turned north again, meeting the other end at the Jaffa Gate. Upon this supposition, the remains found in the excavations of Maudslay in 1865, successfully followed by Bliss in 1896-97, are parts of this wall. Where the towers Hananeel and Ha-Meah or Meah stood can not be ascertained. They are mentioned in Jer. xxxi. 38; Zech. xiv. 10; Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39. The former seems to have marked the northeast corner of the city; the latter, to have been on a wall leading westward from this corner.

Jerusalem

2001-12-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

As Capital of Judah.

After the partition of the kingdom Jerusalem suffered many vicissitudes. It was taken by Shishak of Egypt at the time of Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings xiv. 25-26); and Jehoash of Israel destroyed 400 cubits of the wall from the Ephraim Gate to the corner gate (II Kings xiv. 13). It seems probable that the wall was repaired under Uzziah; at least, according to II Chron. xxvi. 9, he built towers over three of the gates. The Ophel wall was further repairedor enlarged by Jotham (ib. xxvii. 3); and a gate, called in Jer. xxxvi. 10 the "new gate," was built in the north wall of the Temple court (II Kings xv. 35). The coming of Sennacherib (701) caused the rebuilding of some portion of the wall which in the course of time had become ruined; but Sennacherib withdrew and Jerusalem was spared a siege (see Nagel, "Der Zug des Sanherib Gegen Jerusalem," Leipsic, 1902; and Jensen in "Theol. Lit. Zeitung," 1904, 4, col. 103). Hezekiah is mentioned as having done this repairing. He also rebuilt the Millo, and especially erected "another wall outside" (Isa. xxxii. 10; II Chron. xxxii. 5). This is probably Josephus' second wall, which "took its beginning from that gate which they called Genneth, which belonged to the first wall: it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city and reached as far as the tower Antonia," the northwest corner of the Temple mount ("B. J." l.c.). This indicates the growth of the city to the north; the additional part being called "Mishneh" ("second city"; II Kings xxii. 14; Zeph. i. 10). Whether the Maktesh (Zeph. i. 11), in which the Phenician traders lived, was a part of the city can not be ascertained (Neh. xiii. 16; Zech. xiv. 21).

Jerusalem

Water-Supply

2001-12-03T14:28:00.000-08:00

Water-Supply.

To Hezekiah was due also the regulation of the water-supply in Jerusalem, so that the city might be prepared for a siege. The only natural spring of real value is Gihon on the southeastern side in the Kidron Valley (now called "Virgin's Spring" or "Spring of the Steps"), which from early times seems to have been used to provide the city with water. Undoubted traces have been found of an early conduit, partly open and partly underground, which conducted the water from the spring around the hill into the city of David (perhaps the earlier "Shiloah" of Isa. viii. 6; see Schick in "Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement" [hereafter cited as "P. E. F. S."], 1886, p. 197). In 1867 a rock tunnel was discovered by Warren that brought the water westward into a basin cut in the rocks; to this access was had by a shaft from above (perhaps the "king's pool," Neh. ii. 14), from the top of which a series of corridors led to an exit on the Hill of Ophel. Hezekiah cut off the flow of water to the north and had a conduit excavated through the rock, thus leading the water within the city limits to the Siloam Pool (II Chron. xxxii. 30; II Kings xx. 20). This Siloam conduit, which was discovered in 1880, is 1,757 feet in length. At about 19 feet from the Siloam end was found the famous inscription detailing the manner in which the undertaking had been carried out (see Siloam Inscription). The usefulness of this work may be gaged by the fact that it is specially mentioned to Hezekiah's honor by Ben Sira (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlviii. 17). It seems probable also that this king built a special fortification around Siloam ("wall of the pool of Siloah," Neh. iii. 15; "between the two walls," Isa. xxxii. 11; Jer. lii. 7). The graves of the common people (Jer. xxvi. 23, xxxi. 40) were probably in the Kidron Valley. The wall built by Manasseh (II Chron. xxxiii. 14) encompassed Ophel; starting west of Gihon, it must have been an additional protection for the southeastern fortifications. Its position can not be accurately determined.

Jerusalem

Taken by Nebuchadnezzar

2001-12-03T14:27:00.000-08:00

Taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

In the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his first invasion into Palestine. There is no trace of a siege of Jerusalem at this time; but some of the Temple vessels were carried off (ib. xxxvi. 7). In 597 B.C., however, an encircling wall was built by the invaders, and the city invested. At the time of Jehoiachin (Jer. lii. 6) famine raged in the city. The rebellion of Zedekiah caused a second invasion in 587; and after a siege of a year and a half Jerusalem was taken on the ninth day of the fourth month (Ab), 586. The beauty and the strength of the city were destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar's general, Nebuzar-adan, burned the Temple, carrying away all the brass and the vessels; he burned also the king's palace and the larger houses of the city. The walls were razed, and a large number of the inhabitants (10,000, according to II Kings xxiv. 14) were deported and settled in various parts of Babylon; a number probably at Nippur, to judge from the names found by Hilprecht in the business documents of that city ("P. E. F. S." 1898, pp. 54, 137; Batten, "Ezra and Nehemiah," p. 57, in "S. B. O. T."). Even before this the city must have been depleted through the flight of many to Egypt (Jer. xlii. et seq.). The seat of government was removed to Mizpah (II Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xli. 1 et seq.).

Jerusalem

Rebuilt 537-516 B.C.

2001-12-03T14:26:00.001-08:00

Rebuilt 537-516 B.C.

There are no materials for a history of Jerusalem during the period of the captivity, or even during the centuries following the return. The view advanced by Kosters and supported especially by Wildeboer and Cheyne will be criticized elsewhere (see Zerubbabel); but there seems to be no really valid ground for doubting the tradition reported by the chronicler in Ezra iii. of a first return under Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in 539, during the reign of Cyrus; though Kosters may be right in pointing out that the Judahites who had been left in the city must have continued the worship of Yhwh in some manner or other. In the seventh month of that year there was a great gathering in Jerusalem, and the altar of burnt offering was again set up—presumably upon the place it had formerly occupied. The reconstruction of the Temple was begun in the second month of the second year (537; Ezra iii. 8 et seq.). Though this was attended with great ceremony (ib. verses 10-11), it is entirely ignored by the accounts in Ezra v. 2; Hag. i. 14, ii. 15; and Zech. viii. 8, which place the commencement of the building seventeen years later, in 520, during the reign of Darius Hystaspes, under the same Zerubbabel and the high priest Jeshua. But as nothing is said in Ezra iii. of the amount of building done, it may be surmised that it did not extend beyond the mere foundations, the work being interrupted by the evil devices of the Samaritans (ib. iv.), who made complaint to the suzerain in Babylon. Even the erection of the building of the year 520 was not uninterrupted, Tatnai, governor of Cœle-Syria and Phenicia, making a second reference of the matter to Babylon necessary (Ezra vi.). It was at lengthfinished in 516 (ib. verse 15). For the Temple building itself see Temple.

It is possible that the Birah or fortress was built at this time, though it is first mentioned in Neh. ii. 8. It was twice rebuilt in later times: once ("Ant." xv. 11, § 4, "Baris") by the Hasmonean kings, and a second time by Herod, who renamed it "Tower of Antonia." It was a strong, square building in the northwestern corner of the Temple mount, of some extent, as it had several gates. It was here that the high priests' vestments were kept (ib. xviii. 4, § 3), if the tower "built" by the high priest Hyrcanus is to be identified with Antonia, as is done by Josephus.

Jerusalem

The Night Ride of Nehemiah

2001-12-03T14:26:00.000-08:00

The Night Ride of Nehemiah.

The population of the city was further augmented by the expedition under Ezra in the year 458, which comprised 1,496 men, besides women and children. It was through Ezra and Nehemiah that the new community was organized. It is difficult to estimate accurately the relation of these two to each other; but the material building up of the city seems to have been due to the latter. Whatever theories may exist regarding the composition of the Book of Nehemiah, the data there given are old and trustworthy. Nehemiah's night journey around the walls (Neh. ii. 13 et seq.), the account of the building operations (ib. iii.), and the route of the processions (ib. xii.), would give definite information as regards the extent of the city if the identification of the gates were in every case certain. A thorough exposition of the archeological data to be gotten from Nehemiah's accounts will be found in Ryssel's commentary ("Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch"). The most recent study of the subject has been commenced by H. Vincent in "Revue Biblique," 1904, pp. 56 et seq. In his night ride Nehemiah starts from the Valley Gate; goes in the direction of the well 'En-Tannin, then to the Dung Gate, the Fountain Gate, and the Pool of the King; passes through the valley; and returns to the Valley Gate. The location of these various places depends upon the position assigned to the Valley Gate. The word "Gai" undoubtedly stands for "Gai ben Hinnom"; and this must be identical with the Wadi al-Rababi on the south and its continuation northward on the west. Bliss has uncovered a line of wall starting southwest of the old Pool of Siloam and running in a northwestern direction, as well as remains of a gate 600 feet from what was the southwestern corner of the ancient city. This was probably the Valley Gate, although many identify the latter with the present Jaffa Gate, on the western side of the city. From the Valley Gate Nehemiah, taking the direction of the Serpents' Pool ("'En-Tannin"; sometimes identified with the pool of that name mentioned by Josephus ["B. J." v. 3, § 2]; by Caspari and Schick ["Z. D. P. V." xiv. 42], with the aqueduct which led the water from the Pools of Solomon; by Stade and Mitchell, however, with En-rogel ["Jour. Bib. Lit." 1903, p. 114]), proceeded to the Dung Gate, 1,000 cubits from his starting-point, and possibly the Harsith Gate of Jer. xix. 2, which in turn may be identified with a second gate, discovered by Bliss, 1,900 feet east of the first. He then went east, crossed the Tyropœon below the present Birkat al-Hamra, and came to the Fountain Gate near the Siloam Pool (here called the "pool of the king"), perhaps the "gate between two walls" through which King Zedekiah fled (II Kings xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 4, lii. 4), traces of which have also been found by Bliss. Nehemiah was then in the Kidron Valley, and, being unable to proceed farther along the walls, he returned to the city through the Valley Gate. It seems therefore that he examined only the southern and the southwestern walls of the city.

(see image) Southern Wall of Jerusalem at Various Times.(After Bliss.)

Jerusalem

The Gates

2001-12-03T14:25:00.000-08:00

The Gates.

The walls and gates as rebuilt under Nehemiah's directions are succinctly noticed in Neh. iii.; and their order is partially assured by the reverse enumeration, ib. xii. 38 et seq. The Sheep Gate is naturally to be sought for north of the Temple area. It is identified by some with the "gate of Benjamin" (Jer. xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 7). The Fish Gate was so named after Tyrians who brought fish to Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 16), and was situated on the northwestern side near the present Damascus Gate (II Chron. xxxiii. 14; Zeph. i. 10). The latter, which was strengthened by Manasseh, is sometimes called the "middle gate" (Jer. xxxix. 3). The "old gate" or "gate of the old pool"—referring perhaps to the Patriarch's Pool northwest of the city—is called also "Sha'ar ha-Rishon" (Zech. xiv. 10) and "Sha'ar ha-Pinnah" (II Kings xiv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 38; "ha-Poneh," IIChron. xxv. 23; "ha-Pinnim," Zech. xiv. 10). The Ephraim Gate led to the chief road to the north, where the throne of the Persian governor was placed; which throne can not have been in another place, Mizpah, the residence of the governor, as Ryle and Mitchell suggest. Where the "broad wall" was can not now be determined. In connection with it, reference is made to the "tower of the furnaces" (Neh. iii. 11), mentioned before the Valley Gate, and which was probably somewhere along the Tyropœon Valley. Schick, however ("Z. D. P. V." xiv. 51), places it near the Tower of David; Stade, about the middle of the western wall; and Mitchell (ib. p. 128), at the southwestern corner of the ancient city, where the remains of a tower whose base was hewn out of the native rock have been found ("P. E. F. S." 1875, p. 83). Then came the Dung Gate and the Fountain Gate mentioned above, a wall or a dam enclosing the Siloam Spring (i.e., the "lower pool," Birkat al-Hamra), in the neighborhood of which were the king's gardens (II Kings xxv. 4), the king's wine-presses (Zech. xiv. 10), and the steps leading down from the city of David on the eastern side of the hill ("Z. D. P. V." xi. 12), an artificial pool (Neh. iii. 16), and the "house of the warriors," either a tower or a species of barracks. The line of wall then turned ("angle," ib. verse 19) apparently to the northeast. Here two corners were found by Guthe ("Z. D. P. V." v. 298), between which turning and Ophel were the houses of the high priest and the dwelling-places of the Nethinim (Neh. iii. 21-23). Then came the upper royal palace, a projecting tower the ruins of which have been found, the "court of the guard" (ib. 25, 26), and the Water Gate (ib. iii. 26, xii. 37), near which there must have been an open space (ib. viii. 1, 3, 16); it was probably so called because a road led from it to the Virgin's Spring. The Horse Gate (ib. iii. 28) was probably toward the southeastern corner of the Temple. In former times it was directly connected with the palace (II Kings xi. 16; II Chron. xxiii. 15; comp. Jer. xxxi. 40). The other gates of the Temple wall on the east were the "gate of Benjamin" (Jer. xx. 2; R. V. "upper gate of Benjamin"; Zech. xiv. 10); the "gate of the Guard," generally located at the northeastern corner of the Temple area, though Schick and Mitchell are inclined to place it south of the Temple; and the "gate Miphkad" (Neh. iii. 31). The Sheep Gate on the north ended the work.

In addition to the walls, Nehemiah did much for the rebuilding of the city itself. A house for the high priest is mentioned (Neh. iii. 20), as are also dwellings for the other priests near the Horse Gate (ib. iii. 28); while, as stated above, the Nethinim had residences on Ophel, west of the Water Gate (ib. iii. 26), where there was also an outlying tower. The king's palace seems still to have been standing, or to have been rebuilt (ib. iii. 25), and was also flanked by a tower. It has been computed that the whole city thus included within the walls (Temple mount, the old city, and its southern additions) occupied about 200 acres, and covered both the eastern and the western hills. It is said to have been "large and great" (ib. vii. 4); but there were few houses built for the common people.

Jerusalem

Seized by the Persians

2001-12-03T14:24:00.000-08:00

Seized by the Persians.

No events during the Persian period are recorded with any certainty. Josephus has a story that one Bagoses (Bagoas), "the general of Artaxerxes' army," used a quarrel between the high priest John and his brother Jesus (in which the latter was slain) as a pretext to enter the Temple with his Persian soldiers and to "punish the Jews for seven years" ("Ant." xi. 7, § 1; Eusebius, ed. Schoene, ii. 112). This Bagoas is supposed to be the general of the same name under Artaxerxes Ochus (357-338), who with Memnon put down an Egyptian revolt. The identification is quite uncertain, in spite of the authority of Nöldeke ("Aufsätze," p. 78), Wellhausen ("I. J. G." p. 146), and Cheyne ("Introduction to Isaiah," p. 360). Winckler places the occurrence under Cambyses (Schrader, "K. A. T." 3d ed., pp. 120, 291).

Jerusalem

Under the Seleucids

2001-12-03T14:23:00.001-08:00

Under the Seleucids.

Whether Alexander the Great was really in Jerusalem after the siege of Gaza in 332 is a matter of dispute, though it is hardly to be supposed that he was in Palestine without visiting the capital. The Talmud (Yoma 69a, etc.) has a reminiscence of such a visit, which may be true despite the legendary character of the details in Josephus (Grätz, "Gesch." ii., 2d. ed., p. 221). The latter says ("Ant." xi. 8, §§ 4 et seq.) that Alexander exempted its inhabitants from the payment of tribute in the seventh year (see Jew. Encyc. i. 341, s.v. Alexander the Great). But the city naturally suffered during the wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids which followed the disruption of Alexander's Asiatic empire. Ptolemy Soter seized Jerusalem (in 320 or 305) on a Sabbath-day, as Josephus says ("Ant." xii. 1, § 1) on the authority of Agatharchides of Cnidus, and the priests probably paid tribute to him. In 203 the city was taken by Antiochus; but it was retaken in 199 by the Egyptian general Scopas. The Jews inclined to the Seleucids. According to Josephus ("Ant." xiii. 3, § 3), they even assisted Antiochus when in 198 he seized the (Egyptian?) garrison which was in the citadel of Jerusalem, and admitted him and his soldiers into the city. The Syrian king showed his gratitude by assisting in the rebuilding of various places which had fallen into decay, by repopulating the city, by supplying material for the sacrifices, and by removing part of the heavy taxes. It seems probable that Simon, the high priest, using the permission to offer sacrifices, had the Temple repaired, a cistern dug, the wall for the Temple ("hekal melek") built, and the city fortified; for all of which he is praised by Ben Sira (Ecclus. [Sirach.] l. 1-4).

Jerusalem

Described by Aristeas and Hecatæus

2001-12-03T14:23:00.000-08:00

Described by Aristeas and Hecatæus.

If the letter of Aristeas dates from about 200 B.C., as Schürer and Abrahams hold, it gives a fair description of the appearance of the city and especially of the Temple at that time. The city comprised 40 stadia, and the wall had towers. The narrator expresses his especial astonishment at the many canals that carried off the blood and the water from the Temple, and at the magnificence of the service. A similar description of Jerusalem at this time occurs in the fragments ascribed to Hecatæus of Abdera (cited by Josephus,"Contra Ap." i. 22), who speaks of the city as being 50 stadia in extent, with 120,000 inhabitants; of the wall surrounding the Temple area (150 miles in length, 44 miles wide); and of the altars and priests in the Temple (Reinach, "Textes," p. 232). The "flagrant mistakes" which the letter of Aristeas is supposed to contain (Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," ii. 12, note b) are not apparent. This view rests upon his description (§§ 100-104) of the Acra or citadel, which was the chief defense of the Temple area. That such an Acra existed is evidenced, in spite of Wendland, Willrich, and Wellhausen, by the presence of the Syrian garrison left there by the Egyptian general Scopas (II Macc. iv. 27; "Ant." xii. 3, § 1), which garrison was driven out by Simon Maccabeus (I Macc. xiii. 49). Where the Acra stood is doubtful, as the word is applied by Josephus in a general sense to various citadels. Under the Hasmoneans this defense was finally razed, the hill on which it stood being leveled, in order that the Temple might rise high above all other buildings, and to prevent the occupation of the citadel by an enemy ("Ant." xiii. 6, § 7). The northwestern part of the Temple mount can not be meant, as the rock upon which the Antonia was built still exists. In addition, I Maccabees speaks repeatedly of the Greeks fortifying themselves in the "city of David" (i. 33, ii. 31, vii. 32, xiv. 36), which overlooked the Temple ("Ant." xii. 9, § 3; 10, § 5).

The spread of Hellenism was in many ways fatal to the Jews of Jerusalem. It introduced factions into the life of the people; and the contests between the brothers Jason and Menelaus for the high-priestly office occasioned the presence of Antiochus Epiphanes (170 B.C.), who plundered the Temple of its treasures and killed a large number of the inhabitants (I Macc. i. 20; II Macc. v. 12; "Ant." xii. 5, § 3; "B. J." i. 1, § 1). Two years later his general and farmer of the taxes, Apollonius, attacked Jerusalem with a large army; took the city, also killing a large number; set fire to many of its buildings, razed some of its walls, and carried away many captives. The altar of the Temple was desecrated; and the Temple itself was given over to heathen worship. Apollonius built a strong wall around the Acra, which he evidently enlarged (I Macc. i. 29; II Macc. v. 24), and in which he entrenched the Syrian garrison. Jerusalem must, however, have commenced to take on the appearance of a Hellenic city. There was a gymnasium built on the hill west of the Temple (I Macc. i. 14; "Ant." xii. 5, § 1); probably the Xystus (Colonnade), which was joined to the Temple plateau by a bridge.

Jerusalem

Recaptured by Judas Maccabeus

2001-12-03T14:22:00.000-08:00

Recaptured by Judas Maccabeus.

In 165 Judas Maccabeus was at length successful in driving the Syrians out of the Temple and out of the greater part of the city, in honor of which the Feast of Hanukkah was instituted. The Temple mount was fortified with high walls and strong towers (I Macc. iv. 60, vi. 7). The citadel, however, was not freed until the time of Simon (142). In 163 Jerusalem was once more besieged, by Antiochus V., Eupator. Failing to take it, he feigned a peace; and, entering the city, he caused the wall around the Temple area to be razed (I Macc. vi. 60 et seq.; "Ant." xii. 9, §§ 5-7). It was rebuilt by the Maccabean Jonathan with rectangular stones, and he also repaired the walls of the city (I Macc. x. 10, 11). In 143 he raised the wall still higher, rebuilding a portion called "Caphenatha," which led down to the Kidron Valley, and which had fallen into decay (ib. xii. 36, 37). Finally, he built a wall to separate effectually the Acra from the rest of the city (ib.). This work was completed by his successor, Simon (ib. xiii. 10), who as related above expelled the Syrian garrison and leveled the hill of the Acra. The author of I Maccabees, however, knows nothing of this leveling; in xiv. 37 he speaks of Simon's fortifying the citadel, and in xv. 28 he mentions it as still existing. Wellhausen ("I. J. G." p. 227) supposes that the work was done at the time of John Hyrcanus. No certainty can be reached on this subject; but that the leveling occurred is proved by the various groundlevels as they exist to-day (Schürer, "Gesch." i. 195, note 14). Under Hyrcanus the city was once again besieged, by Antiochus VII., Sidetes (134 B.C.). Towers were raised by him opposite the northern wall; and great suffering ensued. On this occasion Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David and took out 3,000 talents ("Ant." vii. 15, § 3; "B. J." i. 2, § 5). A truce was made and, while the Syrian garrison was not admitted, some part of the fortifications around the city was leveled ("Ant." xiii. 8, §§ 2-4); it seems, however, to have been soon rebuilt (I Macc. xvi. 23).

Jerusalem

Captured by Pompey

2001-12-03T14:21:00.001-08:00

Captured by Pompey.

The Roman power was hovering not far from Judea. It was soon to fasten its claws upon Jerusalem, in consequence of the fratricidal war between Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus had fortified himself on the Temple mount, where he was besieged by Hyrcanus, aided by the Idumean Aretas. Pompey was appealed to by both combatants; and, not wishing to decide in favor of either, he moved against the city (66 B.C.). The war party had entrenched itself behind the walls in the northern part of the Temple area, and day after day Pompey raised a bank on which the Roman battering-rams were placed. These finally broke down one of the towers and made breaches in the wall (Tacitus, "Hist." v. 9; Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 16). Josephus ("Ant." xiv. 4, § 4; "B. J." i. 7, § 12) says that 12,000 Jews perished, and that many houses were fired by the Jews themselves. Though the Temple was not touched, the bridge crossing the Tyropœon to the Xystus was destroyed; this, however, was rebuilt later ("B. J." ii. 16, § 4). Jerusalem thus became (in the autumn of 63) the capital of one of the five provinces into which Palestine was divided ("Ant." xiv. 5, § 4; "B. J." i. 8, § 5); but this arrangement was not of long duration. The Syrian proconsul M. Lucinius Crassus despoiled the Temple, taking 2,000 talents of money and all the golden objects he could find ("Ant." xiv. 7, § 1; "B. J." i. 8, § 8). Permission to rebuild the walls was given by Julius Cæsar ("Ant." xiv. 10, § 5). More blood was shed in the conflicts between Antigonus, Phasael, and Herod, the sons of the Idumean Antipater; and in the year 40 the Parthians, under Pacorus and Barzapharnes, occupied Jerusalem and plundered it and the surroundingcountry ("Ant." xiv. 13, § 9). The city itself was beleaguered by Herod (37 B.C.) and the Roman general Sosius, the attack coming again from the north. After forty days the first wall was taken; after fifteen more, the second; finally, the Temple and the upper city were captured and a terrible slaughter ensued ("Ant." xiv. 16, § 3; "B. J." i. 18, § 2).

Jerusalem

Buildings of Herod

2001-12-03T14:21:00.000-08:00

Buildings of Herod.

With the accession of Herod the city entered on a period of outward brilliancy. He was the great building king, and is renowned especially for the palace that he erected and for the Temple that he restored. The palace was built (24 B.C.) upon the extreme western part near the present Jaffa Gate, where to-day are the barracks and the Armenian Garden. It was walled in to the height of 30 cubits; it had towers, many porticos in which were pillars, and large chambers; and outside were groves of trees, a deep canal, cisterns, and brazen statues, all of which excite the admiration of Josephus. Herod's restoration of the Temple, begun in 20 B.C. (finished in 62-64 C.E.), was carried out with great magnificence. He built also a theater, and in the plain ("P. E. F. S." 1887, p. 161) an amphitheater covered with "inscriptions of the great actions of Cæsar" ("Ant." xv. 8, § 1; a hippodrome, according to "B. J." ii. 3, § 1), as well as a town hall, near the present maHkamah; and in the northeast he erected a monument to himself ("B. J." v. 12, § 2), which can not be exactly located. He enlarged the Baris commanding the Temple on the north, and renamed it "Antonia." It was connected with the Temple by a flight of stairs (Acts xxi. 35). He does not seem to have added to the walls, but to have strengthened and beautified them to the north of his palace by four towers called respectively "Psephinus" (an octagon 70 cubits high), "Hippicus" (a square of 25 cubits), "Mariamne" (a square of 40 cubits), and "Phasael" (a square of 30 cubits). In these towers were reservoirs and living-rooms; and they had battlements and turrets ("B. J." v. 4, § 3). Of the other features of the city at this time may be mentioned the κολυμβήθρα Аμύγδαλον ("B. J." v. 11, § 4), which, if it represents the Hebrew "Berekat ha-Migdalim," must have been in the neighborhood of the four towers. Where the "Lishkat ha-Gazit," in which the Sanhedrin sat, was situated is not clear. According to the Mishnah, it was in the inner court of the Temple. If it is the Vcyουλή of Josephus, or rather the Vcyουλευτήριον, it must have been on the western side of the Temple mount not far from the Xystus, of which word the Hebrew "Gazit" would be a translation (Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., ii. 211). The city, largely extended as it was to the north, was indeed magnificent in appearance, but with a strangely Roman character imprinted upon an Oriental background.

Jerusalem

Growth of Northern Suburb

2001-12-03T14:20:00.000-08:00

Growth of Northern Suburb.

Very little change was effected in Jerusalem during the years between Herod and the destruction under Titus. Pilate increased the water-supply by building a conduit 200 furlongs in length; whence the water came, Josephus does not state ("Ant." xviii. 3, § 2). If this conduit was one of those which carried the water from the Pools of Solomon south of Bethlehem, it is probable that Pilate only repaired what already existed (Baedeker, "Palestine and Syria," p. 132). The friction between Jews and Romans increased, especially as a garrison of the latter was permanently stationed in the Antonia. The northern suburb had grown to such an extent that in the year 41 of the common era Agrippa I. repaired its walls, making them broader and higher ("Ant." xix. 7, § 2). Josephus says that the work was stopped by Emperor Claudius, and that the people completed it, probably not in as magnificent a style as had been contemplated ("B. J." v. 4, § 2). According to Schick, this work is represented by the present northern wall ("Z. D. P. V." xvii. 87). Most of the original wall has in course of time been carried off for building purposes; but as late as 1869 about forty or fifty yards were still visible (Merrill, in "P. E. F. S." 1903, p. 159). This new part of the city was over against the Antonia, but was divided from it, as a precaution, by a deep valley. Josephus calls this "Bezetha" ("B. J." v. 5, § 8), which he interprets as "New City," but which in Aramaic ought to be "Bet-Hadta." It is called "Bezeth" in I Macc. vii. 19; "Bezetho" in "Ant." xii. 10, § 2; "Bethzatha" in John v. 2 (R. V., margin; "Bethesda," A. V.; in Palestinian Syriac; see Grätz, "Gesch." iii., note 11).

The beauty of the city was enhanced by several palaces erected toward the south by the royal family of Adiabene: one by Monobaz near the wall running east from Siloam ("B. J." v. 6, § 1); another for Queen Helena ("in the middle of the Acra," "Ant." vi. 6, § 3); and a third built by Grapte, a relative of Izates ("B. J." iv. 9, § 11). A family burial-place was erected by Helena three furlongs north of the city in the form of a triple pyramid ("Ant." xx. 4, § 3). Agrippa II. built an addition to the Hasmonean palace near the Xystus, which, however, gave offense to the priests, as from it all the doings in the Temple courts could be observed. It was also a menace in time of war. They, therefore, erected a wall which effectually shut out the inner court even from the western cloisters, in which a Roman guard was kept ("Ant." xx. 8, § 11). The Antonia was also a constant menace to the Temple itself. In the time of Florus the Jews destroyed the cloisters between the two buildings ("B. J." ii. 15, § 6); but subsequently they were rebuilt.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem Before the Fall

2001-12-03T14:19:00.000-08:00

Jerusalem Before the Fall.

A picture of Jerusalem shortly before its final destruction can be drawn from the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, and the New Testament. The varied character of its population must have been quite evident, made up, as it was, of different parties of Jews, notably Zealots and Hellenists, on the one hand, and of Romans on the other. At the time of the great festivals, the city and its surroundings must have been filled with Jews from other towns and villages, and even from the farthest portions of the Diaspora ("Ant." xvii. 9, § 3). Josephus says that at one time 2,565,000 offered the Passover sacrifice ("B. J." vi. 9, § 3; comp. Johnxii. 20; Acts ii. 5-11; and "Z. D. P. V." iv. 211), and that at the similar festival in the time of Florus 3,000,000 were present ("B. J." ii. 14, § 3)—as evident an exaggeration as the Talmudic reckoning of 12,000,000 (see Chwolson, "Das Letzte Passamahl Christi," p. 48), though Tacitus ("Hist." v. 13) states that the number of the besieged was 600,000. According to Josephus ("B. J." v. 6, § 1) there were 10,000 soldiers in Jerusalem at the time of the final rebellion in addition to 5,000 Idu-means. The Roman procurator had his court in the Pretorium (Mark xv. 16 et seq.). It seems likely that this was part of the Antonia, where the Roman garrison was situated (Acts xxi. 34) and where the procurator's judgment-seat is said to have been (Matt. xxvii. 19).

Jerusalem

The Walls

2001-12-03T14:18:00.000-08:00

The Walls.

The account of Tacitus ("Hist." v. 8-12) is meager. He mentions the walls with towers 120 feet high, part of which height was that of the natural elevation upon which they were built. He mentions also a perennial fountain of water. Further details, especially of the walls, are given by Josephus ("B. J." v. 4). He says that the city lay upon two opposite hills, with a valley between: the one containing the upper city was much higher and longer, and was called in his day the "upper market-place"; the other hill, called "Acra," was ἀμφίκυρτος ("gibbous"), referring, no doubt, to the city of David of the Old Testament, i.e., Zion. Over against this was a third hill, lower and separated from it by a valley, evidently the Temple mount. In addition to this there was the "new city" (for another, novel but unacceptable, view of these designations see Gatt in "Z. D. P. V." xxv. 178). This would give the city an extent of about 33 stadia or 6 square kilometers; though Eusebius gives only 27 stadia. The walls were three in number. That on the north was a triple one, on account of the vulnerable condition of the city from that direction. The southern-most wall encompassed the upper and the lower city and Ophel. It started at Hippicus, ran south to the Gate of the Essenes at the southwest corner of the city, then east, curving as it approached the Kidron Valley, from which it ran north-northeast, joining the Temple enclosure at its southeastern extremity. Bliss supposes that this wall did not include the Siloam Pool, as Josephus ("B. J." v. 9, § 4) speaks of the pool as being in the hands of the Romans. On the north it ran from Hippicus directly east to the northern edge of the southwestern hill, near the Xystus, where it joined the western porch of the Temple. The second wall to the north has been partly retraced by the excavations of Schick. It must have started near Hippicus and the gate Gennath, running slightly northward, enclosing the Amygdalon Pool, and then east; thence it ran north-northeast until it reached the Antonia. Schick supposed that it did not include the place where now the Church of the Sepulcher stands; but, according to Mitchell, he made a wrong estimate of the material found by him in 1887, and the wall included this space ("Jour. Bib. Lit." xxiii. 142). The third wall was that built by Agrippa I. It started also at Hippicus, ran northwest, then northeast, over against the monuments of Helena, passed by the tomb of the kings, and joined the old wall in the Kidron Valley. It seems probable that this coincided with the present northern wall of the city. See frontis-piece, map of Jerusalem (time of destruction).

Jerusalem

Under the Christian Emperors

2001-12-03T14:17:00.001-08:00

Under the Christian Emperors.

With the advent of Constantine the Great the city became thoroughly Christian. In 336 the Church of the Anastasis was built over the Holy Sepulcher, and the Pool of Siloam was surrounded by a portico. There is a tradition that the emperor Julian, called "the Apostate," in 362 gave the Jews, of whom Rabbi Hillel was nasi, permission to rebuild the Temple, but that the plan was not carried out because of an explosion (Socrates, "Hist. Eccl." iii. 20; see Hanauer in "P. E. F. S." 1902, p. 389). Valentinian commenced to rebuild the walls, but died before the work was accomplished. In 450the empress Eudoxia, widow of Theodosius II., restored them, enclosing within them the Pool of Siloam. Under the Council of Chalcedon (451) Jerusalem became an independent patriarchate. Additional Christian buildings were erected by Justinian in 532. In 614 the Persian Chosroes II. attacked Jerusalem. He is reported by the "Chronicon Paschale" to have been aided by 24,000 Jews ("P. E. F. S." 1898, p. 36). At the time of the emperor Maurice there were several earthquakes in Palestine; one of these caused the destruction of the building which had been erected on the site of the Temple. It is said that Jews were sent to rebuild it. In 629 Heraclius made peace with Siroes, the son of Chosroes, and reentered the city. He renewed the edict prohibiting the Jews from dwelling in Jerusalem. In 637 Omar and the Arabs appeared before Jerusalem, and the city came under the power of the Moslems. Omar erected a wooden mosque west of the Rock, and ordered that no new churches were to be built.

Jerusalem

Destruction of the City (70)

2001-12-03T14:17:00.000-08:00

Destruction of the City (70).

The city, however, was doomed to destruction, partly because of the dissensions among its inhabitants and partly because of the exactions of the Roman procurators. Among the latter was particularly Gessius Florus (66 C.E.), who inflamed the multitude by taking 17 talents out of the treasury of the Temple, and by bringing his soldiers to Jerusalem, where they plundered the upper market-place and robbed many houses; though in the end he was forced to retire again to Cæsarea ("B. J." ii. 14-15). Cestius Gallus tried to retrieve the lost fortunes of Florus: he burned the new city Bezetha, stormed the inner wall, and had commenced to undermine the Temple wall when he was repulsed. Under Vespasian (70) was commenced the great siege of Jerusalem, which lasted from the 14th of Nisan until the 8th of Elul, 134 days. The war party, the parties of Simon and of John of Giscala, the Idu-means, and the peace party rent the city in pieces. Simon held the upper and lower cities; John, the Temple and Ophel; and they did as much destruction from within as the Romans did from without ("B. J." ii. 6, § 1). Vespasian was succeeded by his son Titus, who came with four legions. On the fifteenth day of the siege the wall of Agrippa was taken; on the twentieth and twenty-fourth, the second wall; on the seventy-second, the Antonia; on the eighty-fourth, the daily sacrifice in the Temple was stopped; on the ninety-fifth, the northern cloisters of the Temple were destroyed; on the one hundred and fifth, fire was set to the Temple and the lower city was burned; finally, the greater part of the city went up in flames. The Jews commemorate the Ninth of Ab as the day of the destruction of the Temple, though this seems to have taken place on the 10th of the month (Schürer, "Gesch." i. 530). Josephus says ("B. J." vii. 1, § 1) that orders were given to allow the towers Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne to stand, and "so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the western side," but that all of the remaining walls were leveled, and even their foundations were dug up. How far this is to be taken literally is not clear: recent excavations seem to show that it is only partially true. There is no proof that even the altar of burnt offering in the Temple was left, and that some sacrifices were still offered there; the explicit statement (Ta'an. iv. 6) that on the 17th of Tammuz the daily offering ceased is proof against the notices in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Clement of Rome, and Josephus (see discussion in Schürer, "Gesch." i. 548 et seq.). The suffering in the city must have been terrible. Many of the inhabitants were carried off and sold as slaves in the Roman markets. According to Josephus ("B. J." v. 13, § 7), as many as 115,880 dead bodies were carried out through one gate between the months of Nisan and Tammuz; and even before the siege was ended, 600,000 bodies had been thrown out of the gates. The 10th Roman legion was left in the city, for whosepurposes the towers mentioned were allowed to stand. Bricks marked "leg. X Fret." (i.e., Fretensis) have been found in numbers both in and outside of the city proper. Cæsarea, however, remained the capital of the Roman province (see Church, "The Last Days of Jerusalem," 1903).

The emperor Hadrian attempted to erect a Roman city upon the ruins of Jerusalem, and even to turn the Temple into a place of worship of Jupiter Capitolinus. A stone from the foundation of the statue of the latter, with a Roman inscription, is still to be seen in the southern wall of the Haram (Luncz, "Jerusalem," v. 100). The Jewish legend (Gen. R. lxiv.), mentioned also by Chrysostom, Cedrenus, and Callistus, that the Jews themselves attempted to rebuild the Temple, seems untrustworthy; and the "Chronicon Paschale" says expressly that it was actually rebuilt by Hadrian (Schürer, l.c. i. 564). This may or may not have been the direct cause of the Bar Kokba war (see Jew. Encyc. ii. 508, s.v. Bar Kokba); at any rate, during the Bar Kokba revolt Jerusalem suffered still further. It seems probable that the leader and his insurgents did occupy Jerusalem for a while; his restruck Greco-Roman tetradrachms have as symbol a portico with four columns, evidently representing the Temple (Reinach, "Jewish Coins," p. 51), with the inscription "Of the Freedom of Jerusalem." When the rebellion was put down, in 134, the city was further destroyed (Appian, "Syria," p. 50), and the plow was drawn over the Temple mount by the governor-general Tinnius Rufus (Ta'an. iv. 6; Jerome on Zech. viii. 19). The new city was finally built and was named Ælia Capitolina after Hadrian and Jupiter Capitolinus; heathen colonists were introduced, and the Jews were prohibited from entering—a decree of Hadrian which was in force certainly up to the time of Eusebius, 312 ("Hist. Eccl." iv. 6). After a while the walls were repaired; but the city does not seem to have had the same extent as before. The new wall did not include part of Ophel and Mount Zion, and seems to have stood on the south where the present wall is found. Various public buildings were erected: a temple to Venus in the northern quarter, and a sanctuary to Jupiter on the site of the Temple. Statues to Hadrian and Jupiter were placed on the Temple area. The Antonia was rebuilt, but on a smaller scale, the ground to the north being turned into a covered market-place on which a triumphal arch was erected to Hadrian, part of which is the present so-called "Ecce homo" arch. The above-mentioned edict does not seem to have been strictly observed; for the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333) states that the Jews were allowed to visit annually "the pierced stone," which they anointed, and at which they bewailed their fate ("Palestine Pilgrim Text Soc. Publ." i., v. 22), a fact corroborated by Jerome (on Ezek. i. 15) and by the rabbinical writings (Eccl. R. xi. 1; Cant. R. i. 15; Lam. R. i. 17; Yer. Ber. 13b, above; "LuaH Erez Yisrael," v. 16). Stone ossuaries ("osteophagi") containing bones of both Jews and Jewish Christians and dating from the second to the fourth century have been found in the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

(see image) The Hereford Mappa Mundi, 1280, Showing Jerusalem in the Center of the World.

Jerusalem

Rabbinic References

2001-12-03T14:16:00.000-08:00

Rabbinic References.

For the whole of the Talmudic period very little information in regard to Jerusalem is to be obtained from the Jewish sources. What became of the Temple utensils carried off by Titus, and figured upon the arch erected to him in Rome, can not be ascertained, despite the various legends that have gathered around them (see, e.g., Naphtali b. Isaac, "'Emek ha-Melek," p. 14a, Amsterdam, 1648). It is interesting to note that a picture on colored glass dating from the third century and representing the Temple at Jerusalem has been found in the Jewish catacombs of Rome ("Archives de l'Orient Latin," ii. 439). Jerusalem was supposed by the Rabbis to be the center of the habitable world (see the passages in FarHi, "Kaftor wa-FeraH," p. 18a), a view adopted by medieval Christendom (see Bevan and Philroth, "Medieval Geography," p. xiii.); and the earthly Jerusalem () was believed to be paralleled by the Jerusalem above (), which had been prepared before the creation of the world (Apoc. Baruch, iv. 3). The same idea is found in the Apocrypha (II Esdras vii. 26; viii. 52, 53; x. 44-59) and in the New Testament (ύ ăνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ, Gal. iv. 26; Heb. xii. 22; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 10; see Weber, "Lehren des Talmuds," p. 356; Charles, "Apoc. of Baruch," p. 6, note 3; and Jew. Encyc. v. 215).

The Rabbis count seventy different names for Jerusalem in the Bible (Midr. ha-Gadol, ed. Schechter, p. 678; "Agadat Shir ha-Shirim," 1. 125, and Schechter's note in his ed. p. 50, Cambridge, 1896; see also Ta'an. v.; Midr. ha-Ne'elam, in Zohar Hadash, section "NoaH"). They are of course extravagant in their praise of the city: "Whoever has not seen Jerusalem in its glory has never seen a delightful city" (Suk. 51a; Midr. Teh. on Ps. xlviii.); "Ten measures of beauty descended upon the world: Jerusalem took nine, and the rest of the world one" (kid. 49b; Esther R. i.); "There is no beauty like that of Jerusalem" (Ab. R. N. § 28); "No serpent or scorpion ever did harm in Jerusalem" (Ab. v. 48); "nor was there ever a destructive fire or ruin in Jerusalem" (Ab. R. N. xxxv.).

Jerusalem

Synagogues and Schools

2001-12-03T14:15:00.001-08:00

Synagogues and Schools.

Of the city itself the following data may be mentioned: There were 480 synagogues (Lam. R., Preface, 12) and 80 schools (Num. R. xviii.), among them the bet ha-midrash of Johanan b. Zakkai, all of which were destroyed by Vespasian. Each bet ha-midrash contained an elementary and a high school (Pesik., ed. Buber, p. 121b, and note). Mention is made of a synagogue of the (Naz. 52a), which was sold to Rabbi Eliezer b. Zadok (Meg. 26b). This may refer to a synagogue of the Jews of Tarsus, though Tosef., Meg. iii. 6 reads: "Synagogue of the Alexandrians." In Midr. Tadshe xxii. (Epstein, "Beiträge," p. xliv.) occurs the following: "Jerusalem originally was made up of two cities: the upper one, which fell to Judah's lot; and the second, to that of Benjamin. Upon Joshua's death, the Judahites took their portion, fired the city, and made it waste. The lower city remained until the time of David, who commenced to rebuild the upper one and to surround both with a wall. In the upper one was the threshing-floor of Araunah; in the lower one (Mt. Moriah) the Temple was situated." Ten peculiarities are mentioned in connection with Jerusalem: its houses could not have balconies or extensions; neither ashpits nor potters' ovens were allowed, nor gardens, other than those of roses; chickens were not to be raised; a corpse was not to remain over night; a house might not be irredeemably sold; the ceremony of the "beheaded heifer" was not performed to atone an unknown murder committed in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Deut. xxi. 1-8); it could not be declared "a city led astray" (Deut. xiii., xiv.); nor could any house in it be made unclean by reason of a plague (see Lev. xiv. 34 et seq.; see also B. k. 82 and parallels). There were twenty-four squares in Jerusalem, each having twenty-four porticoes (Lam. R. 1). The following market-places are mentioned: , for those that fattened animals: explained by some to be either a meat- or poultry-market or the market of the apothecaries (Yer. Sotah viii. 3); it was closed on the Sabbath-day ('Er. x. 9); , that of the wool-dealers (ib. 101a); , where the non-Jewish washers dwelt (Shek. viii. 1); and the (Tosef., 'Eduy. iii. 3), the wood-market, or, perhaps, a chamber in the Temple area where wood for the altar was kept (Zeb. 113a). There was also a large court, Bet Ya'zek, in which the witnesses to the new moon collected (R. H. 23b); a Lishkat Hashsha'im (Shek. v. 6), where the charitable made their contributions in secret and the poor received them also in secret; the Eben ha-to'im (or to'en), where found articles were brought and returned to their owners (B. M. 28b); the Shokat Yehu ("Water-channel of Jehu"), cut in the rocks (Mik. iv. 5; Yeb. 15a); the Kippah shel Heshbonot, a vaulted place immediately outside of the city, in which business accounts were settled; it was placed there so that no one might sorrow in Jerusalem on account of a money loss (Ex. R. lii., end). Courts were built over the rocky ground; in the hollows below were born those children who were to assist the high priest in offering the red heifer (Num. xix. 2; Suk. 21a and parallels). Very peculiarly, Shiloh (Siloam) is said to have been in the middle of the city (Yer. Hag. 76a). The trees of Jerusalem were cinnamon-trees,and gave forth an odor over the whole land (Shab. 63a). All sorts of pictures ("parzupot") except those of human figures were in Jerusalem (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, vi.). There were no graves there except those of the house of David and of Huldah the prophetess (Tosef., Neg. vi.).

Jerusalem

Old Customs

2001-12-03T14:15:00.000-08:00

Old Customs.

Certain customs peculiar to Jerusalem are mentioned in the rabbinical writings. A man invited to a meal turned up one of his sleeves as a sign of the receipt of the invitation (Lam. R. iv. 2); a flag ("mappah") was displayed at the door of a house where a feast was being held; after it had been taken away no one could enter (Tosef., Ber. iv. 8; comp. Yer. Demai iv. 4). Jerusalemites were accustomed to bind their lulabs with golden bands (Suk. 36b). Certain women habitually provided the narcotic which was given to a condemned man in order to blunt his sensibilities (Sanh. 43a; comp. Matt. xxvii. 48 and parallels). On the Fifteenth of Ab and on the Day of Atonement the maidens went abroad in borrowed white garments and danced in the vineyards, saying to the young men, "Lift up thy eyes and see whom thou wouldst choose" (Ta'an. 26b). In writing deeds in Jerusalem it was customary to state not only the day but also the hour of execution (Ket. 94b). A man approaching the city recited, "Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation" (Isa. lxiv. 10), and made a rent in his garment (M. k. 26 and parallels)—a custom observed to this day. As a congregation, the Jews of Jerusalem are called specifically (Ber. 9b) and (Yer. Ma'as. Sh. ii. 10).

The Rabbis further held that the western wall, the Gate of the Priests, and the Huldah Gate were not and never will be destroyed (Cant. R. § 2), and that whether the Temple was standing or not the Shekinah was not removed from it; it still dwelt near the western wall (Tan., Shemot, x.; Cant. R. ii. 9). God will bring back all the former joy to Jerusalem; and every one that on earth bewails its destruction will in the future world rejoice at its restoration (Pes. 28 and parallels). It will not be rebuilt until all the Diaspora is gathered together (Tan., ed. Buber, NoaH, 17); then it will reach to the Gate of Damascus (Cant. R. § 7; Sifre ii. 1); and people will come borne on clouds (Pes. 1). God and His angels will be a wall around the city (Yalk., Zech. 569), which will be a "metropolis for all countries" (Cant. R. i., § 37); it is even said that all nations will be collected therein (Ab. R. N. xxxv., end), and that the city will then have a new name (Isa. lxii. 2; Pesik. § Sosa Asis). The passages from the Talmudical writings will be found in Jehiel zebi Hirschensohn, "Sheba' Hokmot sheba-Talmud," pp. 128 et seq., Lemberg, 1883; Judah Idel Zisling, "Sefer Yalkut Erez Yisrael," Wilna, 1890; David b. Simon, "Sha'ar ha-Hazer," Jerusalem, 1862; see also FarHi, "Kaftor wa-FeraH," ed. Edelmann, p. 14a, and Neubauer, "G. T." pp. 134 et seq.

Jerusalem

Under the Arabs

2001-12-03T14:14:00.000-08:00

Under the Arabs.

After the conquest of Jerusalem by the Arabs the city soon took on a Mohammedan aspect. In 688 the calif 'Abd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock; in 728 the cupola over the Akṣa mosque was erected, the same being restored in 758-775 by Al-Mahdi. In 831 Al-Ma'mun restored the Dome of the Rock and built the octagonal wall. In 1016 the Dome was partly destroyed by earthquakes; but it was repaired in 1022. The chief Arabic histories of Jerusalem are those by Al-Makdisi, "Mutir al-Ghanam" ("J. R. A. S." xix. 297); Al-Suyuti, "ItHaf al-AHissa" (1470, p. 258); and Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaimi, "Ins al-Jalil" (1496), ed. Cairo, 1866 (partly translated in H. Sauvaire, "Histoire de Jerusalem," Paris, 1876). Mujir al-Din relates that when 'Abd al-Malik built the Dome, he employed ten Jewish families, who were freed from all taxes. They increased so quickly in number that they were removed by the calif Omar (c. 717). He relates further: "And among the servants of the sanctuary, too, was another company of Jews, who made the glass plates for the lamps and the glass lantern-bowls and glass vessels and rods. No poll-tax was demanded of them, nor from those that made wicks for the lamps." Another tradition, reported by a number of Arabic writers, says that the original position of the Temple was pointed out to Omar by the apostate Ka'b ("Z. D. P. V." xiii. 9 et seq.). This tradition is referred to also in an anonymous Hebrew letter ("Ozar tob," 79, 13) and by Isaac Helo (1333), who says that the place was pointed out by an old Jew to the Mohammedan conqueror on condition that he preserve the western wall (Carmoly, "Itinéraires de la Terre Sainte," p. 237). Bar Hebræus ("Chronicum Syriacum," p. 108) asserts that it was specially stipulated between Omar and Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, that the Jews should not live in the city—a statement which can not be verified.

The geographer Al-Mukaddasi, writing in 985, does not speak highly of Jerusalem; he complains that the Christians and the Jews "have the upper hand" (ed. De Goeje, p. 167). He adds that in Palestine and Syria most of the minters, dyers, tanners, and money-changers were Jews (ib. p. 183). The later complaints about the burdensomeness of the taxes were evidently not unwarranted; for, according to Al-Mukaddasi, the tax on Palestine was 259,000 dinars (ib. p. 189). The Persian traveler Nasir i-Khusrau (1047) says that both Christians and Jews came up to Jerusalem to visit the church and the synagogue there (Guy le Strange, "Palestine under the Moslems," p. 88). According to the Ahimaaz Chronicle (Neubauer, "M. J. C." ii. 128, 25), Paltiel, the vizier of Al-Mu'izz in the second half of the tenth century, presented, among other gifts, 1,000 dinars to the (l.c. 128, 25), otherwise called the (ib. 130, 13). These are the usual designations for the Karaites in Jerusalem ("R.E.J." xxxii. 149; "Monatsschrift," xl. 535).

The Karaite Sahl b. MazliaH of the eleventh century gives a picture of the Jerusalem of his day. There were very few Jews there to bewail her fate, and Sahl begs his fellow Jews wherever they may be to return to the city. He speaks of the wailing women who lamented the city's state in Hebrew, Persian, and Arabic; especially on the Mount of Olives in the months of Tammuz and Ab. Zion, he says, is in the hands of Esau; Jerusalem, in the hands of the Arabs (Harkavy, "Meassef NiddaHim," No. 13, in "Ha-Meliz," 1879, No. 31, p. 639, and inBerliner's "Magazin," 1878, p. 181). There seems to be some support even for the view that there were German Jews in Jerusalem at this time. The story is told, on the authority of Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm, that a young man named Dolberger was saved by a Jew in Palestine who knew German, and that out of gratitude one of his family who was among the Crusaders saved some of the Jews in Palestine and carried them to Worms ("Seder ha-Dorot," ed. 1878, p. 252). In the second half of the eleventh century halakic questions were sent from Germany to Jerusalem (Epstein, in "Monatsschrift," xlvii. 344).

Jerusalem

During the Crusades

2001-12-03T14:13:00.001-08:00

During the Crusades.

It is said that Harun al-Rashid sent the keys of Jerusalem to Charlemagne, and that under Harun various Christian buildings were erected. In 969 Mu'izz al-Din of Egypt took the city; and under Hakim (1010) certain buildings were destroyed, which were restored in 1048 by the patriarch Nicephorus. In 1077 the Seljuk Turks, under Isar al-Atsis, drove the Egyptian garrison out of Jerusalem, and 3,000 of the inhabitants of the city were slain. During the First Crusade (1098) the Turks were expelled by Egyptians after a siege lasting forty days. The walls were rebuilt, and the city was taken by the Crusaders July 15, 1099. The latter built extensively and repaired the walls in 1177. The Franks were defeated in Jerusalem in 1187 by Saladin, who is said to have invited the Jews to return to Palestine. The Haram area was reconverted into a mosque, the Dome rebuilt, and in 1192 the city walls were repaired. There are very few notices of the Jews in the city during all this time. Abraham b. Hiyya says that in his day (1136) it contained no Jew ("Monatsschrift," xlvii. 450). Yet there must have been some there, as the street in which they lived is called "Judairia" in Latin documents of the times ("Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani," ed. Röhricht, p. 109). A Petrus Judæus is mentioned as swearing allegiance to Baldwin III. on Feb. 11, 1056; and the same name occurs in a document of 1160 (ib. pp. 77, 78, 89, 95). That a yeshibah existed or was reinstituted during the first half of the tenth century is proved by the title "Rosh ha-Yeshibah" given to Ben Meïr, perhaps by Saadia himself (Schechter, "Saadyana," p. 18, lines 11, 17). He seems, also, to have had about him both a large and a small Sanhedrin ("R. E. J." xliv. 239; "Zeit. für Hebr. Bibl." vii. 147).

It was in the first half of the eleventh century that the attempt was made to revive the gaonate in Palestine. The yeshibah in Jerusalem is mentioned in the year 1031 (see also Schechter, "Saadyana," p. 18, 1. 10 [comp. "J. Q. R." xv. 96]); and in 1046 Solomon b. Judah was at its head; but upon the coming of the Seljuks it was removed to Tyre (see Jew. Encyc. v. 572a, s.v. Gaon).

A letter from Jerusalem dated 1188 seems to relate to the dire straits of the Jews, perhaps after Saladin had recaptured the city, to which event a certain passage in the letter ("Ozar tob," p. 79, 12) may refer. It is partially an alphabetic acrostic, and was given to R. Jonah b. Judah the Sephardi, who was sent out to collect money. He mentions the yeshibah, which at his time had practically ceased to exist. The Jews, though very few in number, were bound to pay the same tax which was originally laid upon them (see Berliner's "Magazin," iii. 217, iv. 233; "Ozar tob," p. 77). A fragmentary letter, referring probably to the same time, is published in Luncz, l.c. v. 67. A letter of 1137 mentions not only the assembling of the Jews in their synagogue ("Midrash Me'at"), but also their gathering together with Jews from other places on the Mount of Olives on the festivals of Sukkot and Hosha'na Rabbah, a custom otherwise attested (see Schechter, l.c. 22, 5; according to 21, 12, the dates of the festivals were promulgated on the Mount of Olives; "Sefer ha-Hasidim," p. 169, §, 630; "R. E. J." xlii. 181; Luncz, l.c. i. 65). Abraham ibn Daud (Neubauer, "M. J. C." i. 79, 7) also mentions the custom, but adds that the "Minim" (Karaites) were in tents opposite the other Jews.

Jerusalem

Medieval Jewish Visitors

2001-12-03T14:13:00.000-08:00

Medieval Jewish Visitors.

About the year 1140, Judah ha-Levi visited Jerusalem and was inspired, as legend says, to compose his "Zionide" before its walls. In 1173 Benjamin of Tudela visited Jerusalem. He describes it as a small city full of Jacobites, Armenians, Greeks, and Georgians. Two hundred Jews dwelt in a corner of the city under the Tower of David. He mentions especially the two buildings of the Hospitalers and of the Templars; the four gates of Abraham (Khalil), David, Zion, and "Gushpat" (Jehoshaphat); the Gate of Mercy; the house and stable of Solomon; the Pillar of Absalom; and the grave of Uzziah. In front of Jerusalem is Mt. Zion, upon which there is only a Christian church, and where are the graves of the princes of the house of David ("P. E. F. S." 1894, p. 294). It is curious that Pethahiah of Regensburg (p. 11) mentions only one Jew in Jerusalem, a certain R. Abraham the dyer, who had to pay a heavy tax for permission to remain (ed. Benisch, p. 60). Pethahiah recalls (p. 64) the tradition connected with the Gate of Mercy; namely, that it could not be opened until the Shekinah returned to the gate by means of which it had left the city. Though often spoken of as one, this was really two gates in the eastern wall of the Temple enclosure (now called the "Golden Gate")—the Gate of Repentance and the Gate of Mercy, the first of which was for happy people, the second for the unhappy (see "Ozar tob," p. 35; Carmoly, l.c. pp. 237, 239, 458; Gurland, "Ginze Yisrael," pp. 13, 39, 49; "ShibHe Yerush." p. 19b; Luncz, l.c. v. 242; "LuaH Erez Yisrael," vii. 95, 106; ix. 8). The later Arabs had the same designations for these gates ("Z. D. P. V." vii. 163; Guy le Strange, l.c. pp. 161, 177, 184), and many tales are told in Jewish writings of the futile attempts of the Arabs to open them (see, e.g., Gurland, l.c. p. 39; "Sammelband," Mekize Nirdamim, 1888, pp. 27, 47; Obadiah of Bertinoro, ed. Neubauer, p. 65; and Jehudah, in Luncz, l.c. v. 240 et seq.). Reference to a gate separating the blessed from the damned is made in the Koran, sura lvii. 13.

In 1210 a certain Samuel b. Simon made a pilgrimage to Palestine as the forerunner (Berliner's "Magazin," iii. 158) of the 300 and more rabbis from the south of England and from France who went to the Holy Land in 1211 ("Shebet Yehudah," p. 113). His account has been published in "Ozar tob," p. 35;transl. in Carmoly, l.c. p. 127. He mentions the custom of praying on Sabbaths on the Mount of Olives. In 1218 Al-Harizi visited Jerusalem and saw the English and French rabbis mentioned above. Among them were Samuel b. Simon, Joseph b. Baruch, his brother R. Meïr, and Samson b. Abraham. According to Grätz ("Gesch." vi. 404), this migration was the consequence of the Albigensian persecutions. Al-Harizi speaks of the Jews coming to Jerusalem in large numbers; but he bewails the spirit of discord he found there (see "TaHkemoni," ch. xxvii., xxviii., xlvi., and xlvii.; and M. Schwab in "Archives de l'Orient Latin," 1881, pp. 231 et seq.). In 1219 the walls of the city were taken down by order of the Sultan of Damascus; in 1229 by treaty with Egypt Jerusalem came into the hands of Frederick II. of Germany. In 1239 he began to rebuild the walls; but they were again demolished by Da'ud, the emir of Kerak.

In 1243 Jerusalem came again into the power of the Christians, and the walls were repaired. The Kharezmian Tatars took the city in 1244; and they in turn were driven out by the Egyptians in 1247. In 1260 the Tatars under Hulaku Khan overran the whole land, and the Jews that were in Jerusalem had to flee to the neighboring villages.

Jerusalem

Nahmanides in Jerusalem

2001-12-03T14:11:00.000-08:00

NaHmanides in Jerusalem.

On Aug. 12, 1267, NaHmanides visited Jerusalem. He found there only two Jews, brothers, who were dyers, and who on Sabbath and at festivals gathered Jews from the neighboring villages (see his letter to his son in "Sha'ar ha-Gemul"). He reorganized the community, and on New-Year's Day, 1268, service was held in a new synagogue, later called , in a court to the right of the present synagogue. It was near the Zion Gate, which led down to the traditional graves of the kings of Judah ("YiHus ha-Abot," in Carmoly, l.c. p. 440), and seems to have been called "Midrash ha-Ramban" (Conforte, "kore ha-Dorot," p. 19a). Palestine at this time was under Egyptian rule. This rule was clement and the congregation grew. NaHmanides also founded a yeshibah and planted in Jerusalem the study of the Cabala. Pupils came to him from all parts of the Diaspora, among the most famous being the commentator and lexicographer R. TanHum, who may, however, have been there even before NaHmanides, as he was perhaps an eye-witness of the Tatar raids (see Bacher, "Aus dem Wörterbuch des TanHum," 1903, p. 11). NaHmanides died in 1270, and the yeshibah lost its attraction.

In the year 1322 Estori FarHi was in Jerusalem; and his "Kaftor wa-FeraH" (ch. vi.) gives an archeological description of the city (Eng. transl. in "Itinerary" of Benjamin of Tudela, ii. 393; German, in Zunz, "G. S." ii. 268). According to FarHi, Jerusalem was three parasangs long. He mentions the entrance to the Cave of Hezekiah (B. k. 16b), within the walls of Jerusalem to the north; the tent erected by David for the Ark, which was supposed to be still in a place called "David's Temple," south of Mt. Moriah (comp. "YiHus ha-Abot," p. 25); northwest of this was a place near which were a synagogue and the Jewish quarter (see David b. Zimrah, Responsa, No. 633). The city of Jerusalem is, according to him, higher than Mt. Moriah, and of course higher than the above-mentioned synagogue. A further description of the city is obtained from a letter written by Isaac Helo of Aragon in the year 1333 (Luncz, l.c. v. 55). He describes the community as a large one, most of its members having come from France (probably referring to the rabbis mentioned above); they lived at peace and in seeming tranquillity. Many were dyers, clothiers, and shoemakers; others were engaged in commerce and shopkeeping. A few were busy with medicine, astronomy, and mathematics; but most of them were students of the Law and were nourished by the community. It was an old institution that the Talmudic scholars should be exempt from all taxes except the poll-tax. This was reenforced by Isaac Cohen Sholal, and is mentioned in 1535 by Moses de Rossi ("J. Q. R." ix. 498, 23). Isaac Helo describes four gates of the city: Ha-RaHamim to the east, leading to the Mount of Olives, where the Jewish cemetery is; David's Gate, leading to the Valley of Rephaim on the west; the Gate of Abraham to the north, leading to the tombs of the kings and to the cavern of Ben Sira, the grandson of Jeremiah; and the Zion Gate to the south, leading to Mt. Zion, the Hinnom Valley, and Siloah. He places David's fortress upon Mt. Zion, but the temple upon Mt. Moriah. He enumerates seven remarkable things in Jerusalem: the Tower of David, where the Jews used to live, but which at his time was only a fortification; the Palace of Solomon, in Christian times a hospital, but at his time a market-place; the tomb of Huldah on the Mount of Olives; the sepulchers of the kings of Judah, the exact location of which was unknown to him; the tombs of the kings; the Palace of Helena, used in his day by the Mohammedan officials; the Gate ha-RaHamim and the western wall of the Temple.

Jerusalem

Ashkenazim and Sephardim

2001-12-03T14:10:00.001-08:00

Ashkenazim and Sephardim.

The number of Ashkenazim in Jerusalem grew rapidly, and a certain Isaac ha-Levi (Asir ha-Tikwah) founded a yeshibah for them. R. Samuel Schlettstadt had come from Strasburg (c. 1390), but had returned after a short while. Though the Sephardim formed a separate congregation, all the Jews worshiped in one synagogue. In 1434 the plague broke out in the city and ninety Jews perished. A short while after this the Italian Talmudist, Elijah of Ferrara, came to Jerusalem; and in 1437 he was chosen chief rabbi and head of the bet ha-midrash, his decisions having validity in Syria on the one hand and in Egypt on the other. He seems also to have been a physician (for his letters see Jew. Encyc. v. 131, s.v.). He relates that the Jewish women manufactured silk, which the men then sold.

If Isaac zarfati's letter (Jellinek, "kontres Tatnu," p. 14) belongs to this period (end of the fifteenth century; Grätz, "Gesch." viii. 446), it would seem that the report had been spread in Germany that the Jews had bought Mt. Zion, had destroyed the buildings upon it, and had also bought the Holy Sepulcher. For this reason Jews were not allowed on Venetian ships, but had to travel to Jerusalem by the land route (mentioned also by Obadiah of Bertinoro, ed. Neubauer, p. 68). Probably in connection with a similar rumor, the Jews of Calabria were mulcted in a large sum, owing to the vexationscaused by Jerusalem Jews to the Minorite convent on Mount Zion (Jorga, "Notes . . . pour l'Histoire des Croisades," ii. 255, Paris, 1899). The conditions in Jerusalem grew so bad that within six years more than 100 families left the city, among them that of R. Nathan Cohen Sholal. A contributing cause was another famine which in 1441 came upon the city. In addition to this, the Mameluke sultan ka'it Bey (c. 1450) demanded of the Jews 400 ducats a year, besides the 50 ducats which they had to pay to the city authorities for the privilege of making wine. For the collection of this sum, a sort of "vice-nagid" was established in Jerusalem, who together with five others was responsible for the tax. The consequent hardship was so great that the community was forced to sell its books, the holy ornaments, and even the scrolls of the Law (see the letter of the Jerusalem congregation, dated 1456, in "Sammelband," Mekize Nirdamim, 1888, p. 46). The attitude of the Sephardim toward the Ashkenazim in this matter was not calculated to increase the good-will between the communities, the latter feeling that they were being made the scapegoat (see the complaint of Israel Isserlein in "Pesakim," No. 88; Grätz, "Gesch." viii. 294). It was at this time that the well-known "takkanah" was laid down "that if a man die without issue his property (with the exception of real estate) shall go to the community unless he shall have made an arrangement with the leaders during his lifetime." As many old people came to Jerusalem, this brought in a considerable sum of money (Moses Hagiz in his "Sefat Emet" says that in his time it was as much as 2,000 francs a year); but it also led to abuses, as the old people were not properly cared for. The decree therefore created much discussion and opposition, and had to be renewed every ten or twenty years. In 1720 it was enforced by a haskamah from the rabbis in Constantinople (Luncz, l.c. v. 121).

Jerusalem

Meshullam of Volterra

2001-12-03T14:10:00.000-08:00

Meshullam of Volterra.

In 1481 Meshullam of Volterra visited the city (see his letter in Luncz, l.c. i. 202). He found there 10,000 Mohammedan and about 250 Jewish families (Brüll's "Jahrb." vii. 123). The Gate ha-RaHamim, he says, is 4 cubits above the earth and 2 cubits below; and he solemnly records that on every Ninth of Ab, when the Jews go to pray near where the Temple was situated, the lights go out of their own accord. Of the twelve gates in the Temple area, five were closed: the two Ha-RaHamim mentioned above and three others which had been built up by the Moslems, but the traces of which could still be seen. He speaks of the buildings in Jerusalem as large and beautiful; and it is interesting to note that he gives the name "Mt. Zion" to the hill on which the Temple stood (pp. 202, 207). He mentions as parnas R. Joseph de Montaña Ashkenazi, and as vice-parnas R. Jacob b. Moses. The chief rabbi was R. Shalom Ashkenazi. It seems probable that the custom of regularly sending out "sheliHim" commenced at this time. The first of them seems to have been R. Moses Twenty-four (). The two letters of Obadiah of Bertinoro, dated respectively 1488 and 1489 (ed. Neubauer, Leipsic, 1863), give an interesting picture of the Jerusalem Jews at this time. Among the 4,000 inhabitants he found seventy Jewish families, all in poor circumstances, and in the ratio of seven women to one man. The community was in debt to the extent of 1,000 gold pieces. Even the ornaments on the scrolls of the Law had been sold. Jews lived not only in the Jews' street, but also on Zion. He was especially interested in the Ashkenazic Jews, to whom all the houses around the synagogue belonged.

Jerusalem

Effect of Expulsion from Spain

2001-12-03T14:09:00.000-08:00

Effect of Expulsion from Spain.

The expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal in 1492 sent large numbers of Jews to the East. In a few years 130 families were added to those already in Jerusalem, and the community numbered 1,500 souls. The anonymous writer who came to Bertinoro in Jerusalem in 1495 (Neubauer, "Zwei Briefe Obadjahs," pp. 80 et seq.) could hardly find a dwelling-place in the city. With the exception of the goldsmiths, it was difficult for workmen to make a living. The Jews had to pay a poll-tax of 1½ ducats. Near the Jews' quarter there was a gate of which they had the key. The houses were made of stone and brick, no wood being used; they contained five or six rooms each. He mentions the Midrash of King Solomon (i.e., the Akṣa Mosque), near the synagogue, and states that the Jews were not allowed to enter it. This midrash is also mentioned by Isaac b. Meïr Latif (see his letter in "Ozar tob," p. 33). He says that Jerusalem was twice the size of Ancona, and that it took him six hours to make the tour of the city. He found the Jews living on good terms with the Moslems, which had not always been the case, at least as regards the Ulemas. A significant example of their fanaticism is given in connection with the synagogue of NaHmanides. It is said that a woman out of spite had sold a piece of property near the synagogue to the Mohammedans, who had built there a mosque and who desired to make a street leading directly to it. The Moslems wished to buy a courtyard for this purpose, but the Jews refused to sell. The rain had washed away part of the wall and disclosed a door in this courtyard west of the mosque. The matter was carried before the sultan in Egypt. It was held that the synagogue was a new one and that therefore, according to the Pact of Omar, it had no right to exist. It was closed for a time, and though the Jews paid a large sum of money, it was pulled down by the fanatical religious leaders. The case was again brought before the sultan; the ringleaders were punished; and the synagogue was eventually rebuilt (1478; see the account by Mujir al Din in Luncz, l.c. iii, 72; Grätz, "Gesch." viii. 295; Obadiah of Bertinoro, p. 60; Kolon, Responsa, No. 5; Schwarz, "Tebu'ot ha-Arez," ed. Luncz, 1900, p. 465).

The exiles from Spain commenced to form a new congregation ('Adat Sefardim), which caused the Ashkenazim to form one also; the North Africans instituted a third ('Adat ha-Ma'arabim); and the old inhabitants were thus left to themselves ('Adat ha-Moriskos or Musta'ribim). These communities, however, still seem to have used one and the same synagogue. In course of time the Arabic-speaking Jews drew together again and joined the Sephar dim, the result being the establishment of two mainclasses, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. The first set of takkanot for the community seems to have been laid down by the nagid of Egypt, Isaac Cohen Sholal, in 1509, and accepted by tHe Jerusalem yeshibah. In 1517 a further series of takkanot was drawn up, approved by the nagid, engraved on a plate, and affixed to the wall of the synagogue.

Jerusalem

Takkanot

2001-12-03T14:08:00.000-08:00

Takkanot.

In the same year the Ottoman Turks captured Syria. Salim I. abolished the office of nagid in Egypt; and Sholal came to Jerusalem. The latter did much good in the city, spending his own money and founding two new yeshibot, so that many scholars flocked thither from other parts of Palestine. He also laid down some further takkanot; namely, that a Jew should not cite a fellow Jew before a Mohammedan court, unless he had previously cited him three times before a bet din; that no unseemly drinking should take place at the tomb of Samuel the prophet; and that disputes should not be held in the synagogue. He seems to have commenced to regulate the Halukkah and to have instituted vigils ("mishmarot"), for which in 1521 he drew up special rules. It is said that on the first day of these vigils there was a heavy rainfall, and lightning damaged the dome of the Great Mosque (see letter of the Jerusalem rabbis, published by Neubauer in "Ha-Lebanon," 1868, v. 26).

Jerusalem

Jacob Berab and Ibn Habib

2001-12-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

Jacob Berab and Ibn Habib.

In 1527 Sulaiman I. began to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. He also improved the water-supply, bringing water from a distance into three basins near the Haram area. The Tower of David was also restored, the walls being finished in 1542. Sulaiman gave the Jews permission to do whatever work they wished, and the Jewish accounts take cognizance of his action; e.g., the author of the "YiHus ha-Abot" (ed. Hottinger, 1659; ed. Baruch, Leghorn, 1785; transl. Carmoly, l.c. p. 453), who in 1522 came to Jerusalem from Venice. He relates that there were four covered market-places: one for Mohammedans selling wool and flax; a second for Jews selling spices; a third for the sale of vegetables; and a fourth for the sale of fruit. The most beautiful street was that leading from a gate in the Temple area. He himself lived "in the house of Pilate." He refers to the twelve gates of the Haram area, ten of which, he says, were open; and seven gates of the city, of which he mentions only Bab al-Ṣabt, Bab al-'Amud, and Bab al-Kuttan, and three gates on the side of Zion. He gives a description of the NaHmanides Synagogue with its beautiful marble columns. The only window was in the door on the west side, so that lights had to be used even during the daytime. There were 300 Jewish families in the city, among which were more than 500 widows. In addition to Isaac Sholal, he mentions R. David ibn Shoshan, the physician, as head of the Sephardic yeshibah, and a R. Israel as head of the Ashkenazic yeshibah. In 1523 David Reubeni was in Jerusalem for five weeks. He affirms (Neubauer, "M. J. C." ii. 145) that the Moslems showed him the cave below the rock in the Great Mosque. He speaks of two hills; one being Zion, where David was buried, and the other, Jerusalem. The same year a severe drought afflicted the city so that many fled; among them the nagid, who died in 1525. He was followed as head of the community by Levi ibn Habib, who was active in promoting harmony among the various Jewish parties in the city. A certain disturbance was wrought in 1529 by the coming of Solomon Molko. Many people commenced to fast, awaiting the end of time. His influence, however, was effectually nullified by Ibn Habib. In 1538 Jacob Berab attempted to reestablish the old practise of ordination ("semikah") in Palestine; and although Ibn Habib himself was one of those ordained by him, he resented the ordination, and Berab was obliged to fly to Egypt.

The inhabitants, especially the scholars, had largely increased in number; and though the former were well-to-do because of the many merchants that came from Italy, the scholars languished. Debts were contracted; and some of the houses used for charitable purposes had to be sold. This is especially dwelt on in two letters written by a certain R. Israel to Abraham of Perugia ("Sammelband," Mekize Nirdamim, 1888, p. 26). In his day there were two yeshibot, one of David Shoshan; but the scholars had to leave and seek sustenance elsewhere. Only goldsmiths, silversmiths, weavers, and shoemakers could make a living (ib. pp. 25, 26); the rest of the Jews hawked their wares in the neighboring villages. Most of the learned men were Sephardim; but two German scholars had recently arrived (ib. p. 30, below). Attempts had been made at various times to force the scholars to contribute to taxes other than the poll-tax. In order to prevent this, a takkanah had been laid down in 1509 by the Bene ha-Yeshibah (20 in number); this was renewed toward the end of 1547 and again in 1566 (according to Avila) or 1596 (Steinschneider, "Hebr. Bibl." xvi. 58; "Centralanzeiger für Jüdische Literatur," i. 51).

Ibn Habib died in 1553, and was succeeded by David ibn Abi Zimra. Even he was unable to lighten the burden of the taxes levied by the Turks; and with many others he left the city in 1567 and went to Safed. In addition to Ibn Habib the following prominent men deserve mention: Menahem di Lonsano (1562), Moses Alshakar of Egypt, Aaron b. Hayyim, Simon ha-Levi Innsburg of Frankfort, and Moses Najjarah of Damascus. In 1586 trouble was occasioned by the Moslems: the mufti declared that the synagogue of NaHmanides had previously been a mosque; and it had to be vacated. The Sephardim then built a synagogue, now the K. K. Talmud Torah; the Ashkenazim, one near the closed synagogue, supposed to be the present MenaHem ziyyon. In 1587 additional takkanot were issued, and after seven months had to be reaffirmed. In 1594 and 1599 the community was further depleted by plagues. In addition to the takkanah of 1596, Herem was placed upon all those who should reveal the names of rich scholars to the authorities. Moses Alshech, rabbi in Safed, intervened and secured aid for the Jerusalem Jews from Venice and other places.

For a number of years no further complaints are met with; and in spite of the plague, which reappeared in 1618 (Azulai, "Hesed le-Abraham," Introduction), the Jews prospered. In 1621 Isaiah Horowitz (Sheloh) went to Jerusalem as head of theAshkenazim, who had become very important in the community. Through him assistance came to Jerusalem from the Jews of Prague; but five years later he and others were obliged to flee to Safed on account of the extortions of the pasha. In 1623 an attempt was made to separate the Sephardic from the Ashkenazic Halukkah; but it was vetoed by the authorities, who reissued the takkanah referring to it (Luncz, "Jerusalem," ii. 147). In 1625 Mohammed ibn Farukh became governor of Jerusalem; and he oppressed the people with such onerous taxes that they fled to the rocks and caverns around the city and had hardly sufficient clothing to cover themselves. His brother-in-law Ottoman Agha took Ibn Farukh's place for a short time while the latter went on a pilgrimage. It was Ottoman who imprisoned Horowitz, Isaac Habillo, Moses Cordovero, and others (Luncz, l.c. iii. 38), and demanded heavy ransoms. Ibn Farukh returned and did worse than before. Complaint was made to the authorities in Damascus; and a cadi was sent to watch Ibn Farukh. Even this resulted in no change. Some of the leaders were tortured, e.g., Samuel Tardiulah, Moses Romano, and especially Abraham Ustiral, brother of Isaac Aboab, who had laid the complaint before the vali of Damascus. The cadi of Jerusalem joined in the oppression. He extorted money by threatening to turn one of the synagogues into a mill. In 1627 Ibn Farukh was deposed. He extorted in all 50,000 piasters from the Jews. An account of these persecutions, under the title "Horbot Yerushalayim," was drawn up by the rabbis of Jerusalem, and sent to Venice (printed in 1636; see Steinschneider, "Cat. Bodl." No. 3547, who has given a German translation in Pascheles, "Sippurim," 1856, iv. 49). A special deputy was sent to Europe to collect funds in aid of the community, the Ashkenazic congregation having been practically broken up by the flight of Horowitz, and the few who were left having joined the Sephardim. A letter was also sent to the Jews of Persia (Luncz, l.c. v. 262) complaining that only 144 Jews were to be allowed to reside in the city as poll-tax for only that number was being paid.
(see image) Plan of Jerusalem, Circa 1600. 1. Jewish Quarter. 2. Bethlehem. 3. Pool of Siloam. 4. Tomb of Rachel. 5. Tomb of the Kings. 6. Palace of Herod. 7. Mosque of Omar. 8. Tomb of Absalom.(From Bernandino Amico, "Trattato della Terra Santa," Florence, 1620.)

A letter written about this time by an unknown traveler from Carpi to his son (ib. v. 74) has been preserved. He found in Jerusalem many members of well-known Italian families, e.g., Moses Finzi, David Moscato, Mattathias Rieti, and Benjamin b. Moses of Orbino. The Jews were compelled to wear the same clothing as the Turks, except that they wore a bonnet resembling a "cappello." The community was deep in debt. Several times it had had to pay a sum of 6,000 piasters. There were two synagogues: a small one for the Ashkenazim, at whose head was Horowitz; another, a large one,for the Sephardim, near to which was a bet ha-midrash. There was also a small Karaite synagogue, the congregation of which numbered 20. He estimated the Jewish population at 2,000 souls. The city had eight gates, the walls having been built 100 years before his time. He describes at length the city and its monuments, especially the western wall where the Jews were allowed to congregate in times of peace. He speaks of the prayers prepared for the visits to this wall—an early reference, since the present prayers were arranged only at the beginning of the nineteenth century, by R. Samuel (author of "MinHat Shemuel") under the title "Sha'are Dim'ah."

Jerusalem

Solomon al-Gazi's Description

2001-12-03T14:05:00.001-08:00

Solomon al-Gazi's Description.

In 1635 Solomon al-Gazi came to Jerusalem from Smyrna. He was the progenitor of a large and important family. Of the scholars of that time may be mentioned Samuel Garmizon, Moses Galante, and Jacob Hagiz. A special bet ha-midrash had been founded for Hagiz by the Vega brothers of Leghorn; and among his pupils may be mentioned Moses ibn Habib and Joseph Almosnino. In 1641 Samuel b. David, the Karaite, visited Jerusalem (Gurland, l.c. pp. 12 et seq.). He gives an account of the Karaite synagogue, founded, he says, by Anan, which was built so low down that it had to be reached by twenty steps; he also states that there were fifteen houses provided for the poor, in which twenty-seven persons (families?) were maintained. He mentions six gates of the city, and a hill near the Mount of Olives, where Abraham had caused his attendants to wait, and where the Jews were accustomed to pray. In 1654 another Karaite, Moses b. Elijah ha-Levi (Gurland, l.c. p. 36), visited the city. He describes the same synagogue as very beautiful, and has much to say of the wonderful cave under the sanctuary, mentioned above in connection with David Reubeni. In 1645 the chief rabbi of Jerusalem was Jacob Hayyim zemaH, a physician from Portugal. The important rabbis of the time were Nathan Spira of Cracow, Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Meïr Poppers. In 1650 appeared the "Darke ziyyon" of Moses b. Israel Naphtali Porges (Moses Präger; transl. by Steinschneider in "Z. D. P. V." iii. 225). At the gate of Jerusalem Moses had to pay a tax of 2 löwenthaler (60 paras; see Gurland, l.c. p. 12). He mentions the synagogue in the court of the Temple, which was closed to the public after the evening prayer, and the two yeshibot. The poll-tax amounted to 3 löwenthaler for each householder. The community, he found, had been in great want, especially since the Chmielnicki disasters in Poland, from which country much money had usually come. Near the Jewish burial-ground were two holes in the earth popularly supposed to lead to Gehenna (see Steinschneider, "Hebr. Bibl." 1864, p. 105).

(see image) Pool of Hezekiah, Jerusalem.(From a photograph by the American Colony, Jerusalem.)

Jerusalem

In the Eighteenth Century

2001-12-03T14:05:00.000-08:00

In the Eighteenth Century.

In 1665 the chief rabbi was Moses Galante, and among his associates were Abraham zemaH, Joseph Hagiz, and Aaron Padro (Pardo?). Shabbethai zebi, though in Palestine at this time, does not seem to have visited Jerusalem. Galante was followed by Moses ibn Habib in 1689; while the head of the Ashkenazim was Moses ha-Kohen. In 1690 a large number of Hasidim, at whose head was R. Judah he-Hasid of Shidliz near Grodno, came to Jerusalem and took up their abode in Dair Siknaji, which onthat account was afterward called "Hurbat Rabbi Judah he-Hasid." Judah, however, died three days after their arrival. They were so poor that, in order to meet the exactions of the authorities, they had to hypothecate all their buildings, and Moses ha-Kohen, head of the Ashkenazim, went, together with Isaac of Slutsk, to Europe to gather money in their behalf. Frankfort-on-the-Main alone sent 128,000 piasters (25,600 gulden), and Metz 5,000 gulden. Especially helpful were Samson Wertheimer and his son Wolf of Vienna, who not only sent large sums, but through court influence exercised through the Austrian representative at Constantinople tried to prevent the Jews in Jerusalem from falling still further into debt (see Kaufmann in "R. E. J." xxi. 140, and in "Jerusalem," iv. 25 et seq.). In 1695 Moses Hayyun was chief rabbi. Among other prominent rabbis were Samuel Tanuji and Moses Hagiz, while the head of the Ashkenazim was Nathan Nata of Mannheim. In 1715 the chief rabbi was Abraham YizHaki, whose successor for two years was Benjamin ha-Kohen Ma'ali.

In 1716 appeared the "Sha'alu Shelom Yerushalayim" of Gedaliah of Semiecz (transl. by Steinschneider in "Z. D. P. V." iii. 226). Gedaliah had come with Judah heHasid. He describes the synagogue built by the Hasidim in a courtyard in which were forty houses. When a new pasha came, the Jews paid him 500 löwenthaler for three years, and an extra bakshish whenever any additional building was to be erected. To meet these requirements, money had to be borrowed from the Turks at 10 per cent. The Jews were forbidden to sell wine or other liquor to the Turks. Few of them had shops; and they were in general very poor. In 1703 the people of the city had revolted against the pasha and had shut the gates of the city upon him. His successor was allowed to enter only for the purpose of receiving the taxes; but in 1705-6 he put down the rebellion, and demanded much money from the richer Jews. Another pasha forbade the Jews to wear white garments on Sabbath or iron in the soles of their shoes. Their turbans were to be large and black; and on the street Jews were always to pass on the left of Moslems. In 1721 the Moslems fell upon the synagogue of the Ashkenazim; burned all the woodwork and the books; took the Jews prisoners; and occupied all the dwelling-places in Dair Siknaji.

In 1730 the chief rabbi was Eleazar b. Jacob Nahum, and his associates were Isaac ZarHi, Israel MizraHi, and Menahem Habib. In 1738 Emanuel Hai Ricci came to Jerusalem, and in 1742 Hayyim ibn 'Attar, who became president of one of the yeshibot. In 1745 Nissim Hayyim Moses MizraHi was chief rabbi. He was followed by Israel Jacob al-Gazi, and in 1754 by Isaac ha-Kohen of the Rapoport family in Lublin. Prominent in Isaac's day were Hayyim Joseph Azulai, Jonah Nabon, and Joseph b. Aaron Hason. Isaac was followed in 1762 by Raphael MeyuHas Bekor Samuel, and in 1786 by Yom-tob al-Gazi, in whose day there lived the noted cabalist Shalom MizraHi (called ) of Yemen.

Jerusalem

Taxation and Income

2001-12-03T14:04:00.001-08:00

Taxation and Income.

There is a short account of Jerusalem during this period in Moses Hagiz's "Parashat Ele Massa'ai" (cited in "Hibbat Yerushalayim," pp. 37a et seq.). The taxes were paid from the sum gathered by the congregation from those who had died in Jerusalem, which produced an income of 3,000 piasters. There were then about 9,000 Mohammedans and Christians in the city, and 1,000 Jews, most of whom were Sephardim. In 1758 there were eight Sephardic yeshibot, each with a definite income: (1) that of R. Jacob Ferrara of Holland (1,200 pi. a year); (2) Newe Shalom, founded by R. Isaac Dimayo of Constantinople (700 pi.); (3) Pe'er 'Anawim, founded by the Franco family of Leghorn (600 pi.); (4) Hesed le-Abraham (1,000 pi.); (5) Damesek Eliezer, founded by Eliezer Ashkenazi (450 pi.); (6) Keneset Yisrael, founded by Hayyim ibn 'Attar (600 pi.); (7) that of Mordecai Taluk of the Maghreb (400 pi.); and (8) that of Abraham MeyuHas (1,000 pi.). In addition, there were a cabalistic yeshibah, Bet-el, founded by R. Shalom, and three private yeshibot. There were only a few Ashkenazim at this time; and these had no separate congregation (see letter of the rabbis of Constantinople in "Jerusalem," v. 45).
(see image) The Ashkenazic Synagogue, Jerusalem.(From Schwarz, "Descriptive History of Palestine," 1850.)

In 1782 some trouble arose in regard to the burial-ground on the Mount of Olives, the site of which the Mohammedans wished to use. They were bought off with a large sum of money ("Jerusalem," vi. 43). In 1785 Benjamin b. Elijah, the Karaite, visited Jerusalem (Gurland, l.c. p. 48). He mentions six gates: the Western, David, Hebron, Damascus, Pillar, and Lion. He speaks of two burial-places: a new one under the wall near the Midrash of Solomon, and the old one separated from this by a valley.

2001-12-03T14:04:00.000-08:00

In the Nineteenth Century

2001-12-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

In the Nineteenth Century.

When Napoleon came to Palestine in 1798, the Jews were accused of assisting him, and were threatenedwith death by the Moslems. Led by Mordecai al-Gazi they assembled at the Wailing-Wall for prayer. Napoleon, however, did not come near the city. The condition of the Jews at this time was so bad that the chief rabbi, Yom-tob al-Gazi, went to Europe in their behalf, returning in 1801. He was followed in office by Mordecai Joseph MeyuHas (1802), who was succeeded by Jacob Moses 'Ayish of the Maghreb (1806). In his day lived Zechariah Zamiro and Solomon Isaac MeyuHas. On account of the plague in Safed a number of Jews came thence to Jerusalem, at times clothing themselves as Sephardim in order to escape the hatred of the Mohammedans. Two of them, R. Menahem Mendel and R. Abraham Solomon Zalman, founded the 'Adat Ashkenazim Perushim, consisting of about twenty persons. They had a private synagogue in the house which had been the yeshibah of Hayyim ibn 'Attar, where they worshiped on weekdays. On other days they prayed in the synagogue of the Sephardim, whose cemetery also they used. By the year 1817 they had a yeshibah of their own (see letter in "Jerusalem," v. 112); but they were in continual dread that the taxes left unpaid by former Ashkenazim would be demanded of them, and an attempt was made in 1816 to settle the matter in Constantinople. The chief rabbi of the community in 1807 was Jacob koral; in 1813, Joseph b. Hayyim Hazzan of Smyrna; and in 1822, Yomtob Danon. The position was vacant for a year, when it was filled by Moses Sozin, and in 1826 by Moses Jonah Nabon. In 1825 Syria and Palestine revolted against Turkish rule, and in 1832 the country was taken by Mohammed Ali of Egypt. In 1840 Jerusalem was restored to the Turks. During this time a number of Ashkenazim had come from Russia. Great distress prevailed among the learned men; messengers were sent out to all parts of Europe and to the United States; and the Halukkah was organized. In 1827 Moses Montefiore visited Jerusalem for the first time. Occasional aid came through the European powers; e.g., in 1829, through an Austrian representative, Prokesch Osten, who had been sent from Vienna to look after the Austrian subjects.
(see image) The Great Ashkenazic Synagogue at Jerusalem.(From a photograph.)

Ashkenazim continued to come in large numbers, from Lithuania, White Russia, and other European countries; often whole families arrived, e.g., Shemariah Luria with forty persons. Luria did much for the Ashkenazim; but after a short while he returned to Russia (1834). In order to establish a betha-midrash, Akiba Leeren of Amsterdam gave a certain sum of money to be used for this purpose by Rabbi Isaiah . This was called "Sukkat Shalom," or more popularly "Bet ha-Midrash of R. Isaiah." This produced a split in the Ashkenazic community; but after ten years the Hurbah was victorious. R. Abraham Solomon zoref went to Egypt in order to obtain authority to rebuild the "Hurbat R. Yehudah he-Hasid." He was helped by the Russian and Austrian consuls, and received the necessary permission. The new bet ha-midrash, called "MenaHem ziyyon," or popularly "Bet ha-Midrash ha-Yashen," was inaugurated in 1837.

The same year there was a slight earthquake in Jerusalem, which, however, was very severely felt in Safed and Tiberias. This caused many families to remove from these places to Jerusalem, where the anniversary of the event is still observed. The plague appeared in Jerusalem in 1838 and 1839, as many as fifteen persons dying in one day. England was the first European power to send a consul to Jerusalem (1839); by the year 1844 Austria, Sardinia, Prussia, France, and Russia were similarly represented. The Damascus Affair of 1840, by bringing Crémieux, Albert Cohn, and Montefiore to Palestine, made the wretched condition of the Jerusalem Jews known to their brethren. The idea had arisen among the Ashkenazim and Sephardim of Jerusalem that it was necessary to induce the Jews to till the soil again. Montefiore took up this idea, and was assisted by R. Aryeh b. Jerahmeel, who had taken the place of Menahem Mendel (d. 1847) as head of the Ashkenazic Jews.

(see image) Tower of Antonia, Jerusalem.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)

Albert Cohn and Ludwig Frankl

2001-12-03T14:02:00.000-08:00

Albert Cohn and Ludwig Frankl.

(see image) Bird's-Eye View of Jerusalem.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)

Moses Nabon had been followed in 1841 as chief rabbi by Judah Bekor Raphael Nabon, and he in 1842 by Abraham Hayyim Gagin. He seems to have been the first who was called "Hakam Bashi." When he walked out a man holding a staff in his hand preceded him; and ten soldiers were allotted to him to keep order and to protect him. There were at this time several assemblies: the general assembly () of eighty learned and lay members, under the presidency of the vice-Hakam bashi; the spiritual assembly () of seven learned men, elected by the general assembly; and the "material" assembly () of eight members, also elected by the general assembly (see the firman, rules, and a list of the Hakam bashis in "Jerusalem," v. 188 et seq.). In 1854 Albert Cohn was in Jerusalem as almoner for the Rothschilds and other rich Jews of Europe. He gave his attention especially to the efforts of the missionaries and to the Halukkah system. He founded a hospital, a society of manual workers, a girls' school, and a loan society. In 1856 Montefiore, who visited Jerusalem in 1827, 1839, 1840, 1855, 1866, and 1875, made it possible for 500 Jews to take up agriculture; he also laid the foundation for a hospital, and founded a girls' school, against which, however, a Herem was issued. The Sephardic congregation was now decreasing in numbers, and so poor that in 1854 it had to sell its bet ha-midrash; while in 1857 the Ashkenazim received permission to build a new synagogue (finished in 1864), which was called "Bet Ya'akob." Some statistics of the year 1856 are due to the visit of Ludwig August Frankl, who went from Vienna to Jerusalem to found the Frau Elise von Herz-Lämel School. A section of the community was violently opposed to this foundation, fearing that a modern school would be inimical to Orthodox observance. Placards were put on the houses, lamentations recited, and prayers offered up at the Wailing-Wall. Frankl, however, was successful, being assisted by the Austrian consul, Pizzamano, and by Kiamil, the pasha of Jerusalem. Of the 18,000 inhabitants of the city 5,137 were Jews; and of the latter 1,700 were under Austrian protection. Frankl gives the following details: Sephardim, 3,500; Ashkenazim Perushim, 770; Hasidim, 430; Austrians, 145; Warsawers, 145; Habad, 90; Germans, 57; total, 5,137 (see "Monatsschrift," 1856, p. 330; in his "Nach Jerusalem," ii. 11, Leipsic, 1858, he gives the number of Jews as 5,700). The Sephardim were so well organized that at their head was a Hakam bashi. For worldly affairs, the "Hakamim" chose three "pekidim," under whom there were three other chiefs. Three "mashgiHim" (observers) examined the accounts of the leaders. The community had 36 yeshibot. The Perushim had no head in Jerusalem, the seat of authority being in Wilna. The Hasidim, mostly from Volhynia, had at their head Nissim Bak, who with the aid of Moses Montefiore (l.c. p. 22) was the first to establish a printing-press in the city. The Habad were Hasidim who got their name from the initial letters of the words "Hokmah," "Binah," and "De'ah." The Warsawers were made up of Perushim and Hasidim. They had separated from the other Ashkenazim about the year 1850. The Germans, or as they called themselves "Anshe Hod" (i.e., men of H[olland and] D[eutschland]), had separated a year later. Zion, the large synagogue of the Sephardim, was really made up of four synagogues, which together occupied considerable space. According to tradition it had been built 460 years before Frankl's time. Thesynagogue of the Ashkenazim (Hurbat R. Yehudah he-Hasid) was rebuilt about 1856, a man named Ezekiel of Bagdad contributing 100,000 piasters for the purpose ("Nach Jerusalem," p. 53). Frankl estimates the money sent every year in charitable gifts to Jerusalem at 800,000 piasters.

Jerusalem

Further Benefactions

2001-12-03T14:01:00.000-08:00

Further Benefactions.

In 1856 the Turkish authorities gave permission to all persons to visit the mosques; and this brought more Europeans, who commenced to build churches and hospices. The American Mission had been established in the city in 1821; the English, in 1826. In 1845 the seat of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch had been moved from Constantinople to Jerusalem; and in 1847 the Latin Patriarchate had been renewed. In 1849 the Jerusalem Literary and Scientific Society had been formed, out of which the Palestine Exploration Fund developed. The Jews also continued to increase in numbers. In 1854 the American Judah Touro gave $60,000 for the purpose of founding hospices for them; these were built on the road to Hebron, and were called , or "Montefiore Homes," because the money was expended partly through that philanthropist and partly through the "North American Relief Society for the Indigent Jews of Jerusalem." In 1864 the Rothschilds of London established the Evelyn de Rothschild School for Girls.
(see image) Jerusalem as Viewed from the North.(From a photograph by the American Colony, Jerusalem.)

In 1865 there was an epidemic of cholera, and many Jews were victims. The poverty in the city was very great; flagrant abuses of the Halukkah system having ruined the Jewish banking business there, and the gifts of the charitable Europeans having been in the hands of the Kolel ("Ben Chananja," 1867, p. 45). In the same year the water-works were rebuilt, and water was brought to the city from 'En 'Etam and from the Pools of Solomon. In this year Montefiore made his fifth visit, and contributed £300 on condition that the water should be led into the Jewish quarter. A Jewish manual school was founded by Baron Franchetti of Turin. In 1867 Albert Cohn of Paris commenced the work later continued by the Paris Rothschilds and the Alliance Israélite Universelle, and laid the foundation for a Jewish library (ib. p. 174). A serious attempt was made to provide better dwellings for the Jews, who lived in miserable huts; this was largely due to the munificence of the brothers Hirsch in Halberstadt (ib. pp. 459, 659). In 1870 Prof. H. Grätz and M. Gottschalk Lewy of Berlin were in Jerusalem, and, seeing the sad plight of the orphans left by recent Jewish immigrants, founded the Verein zur Erziehung Jädischer Waisen in Palästina, the seat of which was in Frankfort-on-the-Main. The work was taken up by M. Herzberg. Despite the strongest possible opposition, a certain R. Kuttner having put the ban on the learning of foreign languages, a school was established in which Arabic, Hebrew, German, French, and English were taught. The Württemberg Templars (a Christian sect) founded a colony in Jerusalem in 1873 and introduced the soap-manufacturing industry. In 1878 the hospital Misgabla-Dak was founded for the Jews, without distinction of party. In 1879 the English Mission Society founded, specifically for Jews, a hospital, a pilgrim-house, and schools at an expense of £10,000 a year, but the results of these missionary efforts were inconsiderable. In the same year the colony PetaH Tikwah was founded by Jerusalem Jews, as well as an orphan asylum for the Ashkenazim, together with a school which was afterward joined to the Lämel School. In 1881 the number of Jews had grown to 13,920; in 1891, to 25,322. In 1882 the London Society for the Assistance of Persecuted Jews, founded by the Earl of Shaftesbury, bought a piece of property called "Abraham's Vineyard," in which Jews were employed. The colony of Artuf was bought by Jews in 1896. The School for Boys (Bet Sefer), founded by the Alliance, dates from 1882. The British Ophthalmic Hospital was founded and is maintained by the Knights of St. John.

Jerusalem

Customs of Jerusalem Jews

2001-12-03T14:00:00.001-08:00

Customs of Jerusalem Jews.

Peculiarities in the customs of the Jerusalem Jews are mentioned in various accounts; only a few can be cited here. It was the custom to put on tallit and tefillin during the afternoon; to recite seliHot also in the afternoon; and on SimHat Torah to deck the synagogues with hangings ("Z. D. P. V." iii. 225). Reference has already been made to the custom of reciting Isa. lxiv. 10 and of making a rent in one's garments when approaching the city (ShulHan 'Aruk, OraH Hayyim, 561). The Sephardim were accustomed to have two wives; Nathan Spira was the first German rabbi to follow this custom ("Gannat Weradim"; ShulHan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 9). Only very small tombstones, with no inscriptions, are set over the graves, because they are apt to be stolen by the non-Israelites (Naphtali b. Jacob, "'Emek ha-Melek," p. 14a). To-day the Jews are wont to throw rough bits of stone, on which are written names and prayers, into the Tombs of the Judges, the same as is done through holes in the walls of the Haram of Hebron ("Jour. Bib. Lit." xxii. 172). For further peculiarities, see Luncz, l.c. v. 82; "Sammelband," Mekize Nirdamim, 1888, p. 26; Obadiah of Bertinoro, ed. Neubauer, p. 61. Joseph b. Mordecai ha-Kohen wrote a series of hymns to be sung in praise of Jerusalem ("Sha'ar Yerushalayim," Venice, 1707).

Jerusalem

Spread of Modern Jerusalem

2001-12-03T14:00:00.000-08:00

Spread of Modern Jerusalem.

A change for the better came with the Russian Jews (1881-91), who brought with them more modern ideas of life. It was impossible to find room for all in the old Jewish quarter between the traditional Zion and the Temple mount. New portions were built up north and west of the city, especially by building societies such as MaHaneh Yehudah, Sha'are zedek, and Oholeh Mosheh. In 1891 there were eighteen such societies, owning 400 houses in front of the Jaffa and Damascus gates, and 15 houses on the Mount of Olives. Other societies were founded to enable Jews to acquire landed property, e.g., Elef She'arim, NaHalat Ya'akob (1886), Hibbat ha-Arez, and Yishshub Erez Yisrael (1896). These were aided by similar societies in Europe, among them the Lema'an ziyyon, founded by Israel Hildesheimer in Berlin, the Moses Montefiore Testimonial Fund, and the Esra in Germany. In addition to the Jews, the Russians and the French Catholics have done a great deal to build up modern Jerusalem. The Russian buildings are nearly all in a walled quadrangle on the Jaffa road. They contain an insane asylum, mission-and pilgrim-houses, and a cathedral. On the Mount of Olives also the Russians have built a church and a hospice for pilgrims. A Mrs. Spofford, who claimed prophetic powers, came from America and formed a community in Jerusalem. A few years later 117 Swedish-Americans, mostly from Chicago, joined her. Visitors commenced to come in larger numbers with the opening on Sept. 26, 1892, of the narrow-gage railway from Jaffa, which was built by a French company. Bokharian Jews commenced to settle in the city in the year 1893.
(see image) Towers of David and Hippicus, Jerusalem.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)
(see image) The Wailing-Place, Jerusalem(After the painting by Bida.)On Nov. 1, 1898, the German emperor William II. visited Jerusalem in state. One of the three arches built on the Jaffa road was erected by the Jews, a deputation of whom was received by the emperor. On the following day a deputation of Zionists, with Dr. Theodor Herzl at the head, had an audience. In connection with the emperor's visit, many of the old roads had been repaired and new ones built, especially up to the Mount of Olives; and a portion of the city wall to the right of the Jaffa Gate had been torn down to make the entry to the city commodious ("P. E. F. S." 1899, p. 117). In order to assist the German colonists, the Deutsche Palästina Bank was established. This was followed in 1903 by the Anglo-Palestine Co., founded by the Zionists in connection with the Jewish Colonial Trust.

For some hundreds of years a small community of Karaites existed in Jerusalem. According to their own tradition, in 1586 they numbered 200; but on account of the plague most of them wandered away. An anonymous Italian writer of the year 1625 (Luncz, l.c. v. 86) says that their number in his day was 20, most of whom were gold-smiths. About the year 1830 there were none to be found in the city; their dwellings had been appropriated by the other Jews; but the latter were forced by the Damascus Karaites to give them up again ("Jerusalem," vi. 239). Their synagogue, to which a number of steps led down, is still standing. The oldest gravestone dates from the year 1716. In 1856 they numbered 32 (Frankl, "Nach Jerusalem," ii. 63; and see Fürst, "Gesch. des Karäerthums," iii. 129 et seq.).

Jerusalem

Remains and Inscriptions

2001-12-03T13:59:00.000-08:00

Remains and Inscriptions.

(see image) Citadel of Zion, Jerusalem.(From a photograph by the American Colony, Jerusalem.)

(see image) PANORAMA OF MODERN JERUSALEM FROM THE MOUNT OF OLIVESArcheological research in Jerusalem was really commenced in 1838 by the American Edward Robinson, who was followed by Count de Vogüé, Sir Charles Wilson (1864-67), and Lieutenant Warren (1867), the latter two working in the service of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Of recent years much has been done by Clermont-Ganneau, Baurath C. Schick, Frederick J. Bliss, and the Jesuit fathers. In 1900 the "American School of Oriental Research in Palestine" was founded by the Society of Biblical Literature in conjunction with the "Archeological Institute of America." On Nov. 15, 1903, the German Palestine Archeological Institute was opened at Jerusalem. The English Palestine Exploration Fund has a museum and library in the Bishop's Buildings near the Tombs of the Kings. The débris is sometimes 100 to 125 feet deep; and excavations usually uncover some antiquities. Among the more important may be mentioned Robinson's Arch on the western side of the Haram, 39 ft. from the southwestern angle. Warren found the remains of the other end of the arch, which had a span of 42 ft., and which was probably part of an aqueduct carrying water to the Temple area. The remains called "Wilson's Arch" were found in front of the present Gate of the Chain. It also had a span of 42 ft. The southern wall of Jerusalem, partly laid bare in 1875 by Henry Maudslay, on the property of the English School, was accurately determined 1894-97 by F. J. Bliss. In 1871 Clermont-Ganneau discovered a stone from Herod's Temple with an inscription in both Greek and Latin (comp. Acts xxi.). The Siloam inscription was found in 1880 by the Rev. Mr. Klein. An unfinished pillar, probably intended for the Herodian Temple, is still to be seen in the Russian quarter. A second pillar has been discovered 1 ¼ miles northwest of the Jaffa Gate ("P. E. F. S." 1899, p. 213). On a rock-cut wine-and olive-press found in "Abraham's Vineyard," northwest of Jerusalem, see ib. 1902, p. 398. A number of Hebrew gravestone inscriptions have been found, mostly in the outskirts of the city, and of a period not earlier than the Roman. These are mostly inscriptions upon ossuaries (see Chwolson, "C. I. H." p. 76; Lidzbarski, "Ephemeris für Sem. Epigr." i. 187, 312; "Repet. d'Epigr. Sém." i., Nos. 374, 382, 421, 422, 429-435). Special reference may be made to that of the Bene Hazir at the entrance to the socalled St. Jacob's grave (Chwolson, l.c. p. 64); the inscription in Syriac and Hebrew of Queen Helena in the Tombs of the Kings ("C. I. S." ii. 156); the inscription upon a lintel ("Repet. d'Epigr. Sém." l.c. No. 373); and that of a somewhat later date found below the Al-Akṣa Mosque (Chwolson, l.c. p. 96).

Reference must be made also to the large subterranean quarry called the "Quarry of Solomon" or "The Cotton Grotto," about 100 paces east of the Damascus Gate and 19 ft. below the wall. It is about 100 ft. long and 150 ft. deep. From this quarry was obtained much of the stone of which Jerusalem was built. The cavern is supposed to represent the "Royal Caverns" of Josephus ("B. J." iv. 2; see Cyrus Adler in "J. Q. R." viii. 384 et seq.). Remains of an aqueduct have been found which formed part of a remarkable system of water-works extending about 15 kilometers south of Jerusalem. The Arabs call it "kanat al-Kuffar." It contains a peculiar siphon constructed partly, as the Roman inscriptions show, in 195 during the reign of Septimius Severus ("P. E. F. S." 1901, p. 118).

Jerusalem

Tombs

2001-12-03T13:58:00.000-08:00

Tombs.

(see image) Exterior of the Golden Gate, Jerusalem.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)

The valleys lying north and east of the city were from the earliest times used as burial-places. A number of the latter, hewn out of the rock, still exist; though the assumption of their use for the burial of judges and prophets is not founded on any real tradition. The Tombs of the Judges, north of Jerusalem, were called by the Jews the "Tombs of the Seventy" and were connected with the Sanhedrin (Carmoly, l.c. pp. 387, 430, 443). They have been accurately described by Robinson and Tobler. Formerly a court existed, which measured nearly 10 m. x 9 m. The tombs are made up of a series of rooms, the first being 6 m. square and 2.52 m. high. On the northern side there are two tiers of loculi ("kukim"), 2 m. long, 0.81 to 0.90 m. high, and 0.47 to 0.62 m. wide. Above these are three arched recesses each with two loculi. A door leads from this room to the second room, which contains 21 niches, and to a third, with 9 niches. At the end of the series of rooms is a small chamber used for depositing bones removed from the ossuaries in order to secure space for other bodies. Another, similar tomb, south of the Tombs of the Judges, on the road to Nabi Samwil, was very finely conceived, but apparently was not finished (see Barton in "Jour. Bib. Lit." xxii. 164 et seq.). About 1,500 ft. northeast of the Tombs of the Judges another series of tombs was found; they have been described in the "Mittheilungen" of the GermanPalestine Assoc., 1898, p. 39; in the "Revue Biblique," 1899, p. 297; and in the "P. E. F. S." 1900, p. 54. They are like the Tombs of the Judges in their internal decoration and elaborate workmanship. They are said to date from the Hasmonean period, though their use by Christians at a later time is evidenced by the crosses scratched on the walls. The "Tombs of the Prophets" or the "Small Labyrinth" on the Mount of Olives is very extensive and very old. A few steps lead under a low arch into a rotunda, lighted from above. From this rotunda passageways radiate into rooms cut farther into the rocks, and these again are intersected by semicircular passages. In the wall of the outermost circular passage are 24 loculi (see "P. E. F. S." 1901, p. 309, and Baedeker, l.c. p. cxiii.). Other tombs are to be found on Mt. Scopus, close to the road leading to Anata ("P. E. F. S." 1900, p. 75), and a few of the Roman period opposite the southwestern corner of the city wall ("Z. D. P. V." xvi. 202).

A series of tombs somewhat differently arranged was found some years ago on the northern extremity of the Mount of Olives, now called "Karm al-Sayyid," but formerly "Viri Galilæ," because the Galileans who came to the festivals spread their tents here. The general plan is that of a road with rooms lying on either side; but there seems to be no definite architectural arrangement. The entrance was originally closed by a stone; and in many of the chambers the center was scooped out to catch the rain that ran down the walls. Though many of the rooms were used by Christians, the tombs are evidently of Jewish origin. The Jewish graves are farther apart from each other than the Christian ones. This series is supposed by Schick to be the "Peristereon" mentioned by Josephus ("B. J." v. 12, § 2). Roman bricks with the mark of the 10th Legion and Jewish coins have been found there ("Z. D. P. V." xii. 193). The oldest Jewish gravestones near and in Jerusalem date from about the year 1690 ("Jerusalem," v. 53). To be buried in Jerusalem was always considered a special favor; see the passages cited in "Yalkut 'Erez Yisrael," pp. 78 et seq. Among the prominent men supposed to be buried in and around the city may be mentioned: the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; Mordecai, Simon the Just, Johanan b. Zakkai, NaHmanides, Obadiah of Bertinoro. See "YuHasin," p. 228b, ed. London; Conforte, "kore," p. 19a; Carmoly, "Itinéraires," passim; the list in Pinner's Catal. p. 7 (Fragment, 1861 ?); and Basset, "Nédromah," pp. 158 et seq., Paris, 1901.

The climate of Jerusalem has been carefully studied since 1883 by Dr. Thomas Chaplin. The mean annual temperature is 62.8°; maximum 112°; minimum 25°. See the résumé by Kersten in "Z. D. P. V." xiv. 93 et seq. The mean annual rainfall is 26.06 in.; see the result of observations made from 1861 to 1892 by James Glaisher in "P. E. F. S." 1894, p. 39.
(see image) Plan of the Tombs of the Judges, Upper Level.(From the "Journal of Biblical Literature.")

The following chronological table gives a list of the more important incidents that had a direct or indirect bearing on the history of the Jews of Jerusalem:

B.C.

1500. Earliest historical mention of Jerusalem, found in the El-Amarna tablets.

1048. David takes possession of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, calling it "Ir Dawid."
(see image) Sectional View of the Tombs of the Judges.(From the "Journal of Biblical Literature.")

1007. Solomon's Temple completed after seven years' labor.

972. Shishak of Egypt takes the city from Rehoboam.

713. Sennacherib advances toward Jerusalem.

700. Hezekiah perfects the water-supply.

586. (Ab 9.) Captured by Nebuzar-adan.

516. Rebuilt during reign of Darius.

350. Seized by the Persians.

332. Visited by Alexander the Great?

320 or 305. Seized by Ptolemy Soter.

170. Plundered by Antiochus Epiphanes.

165. (Kislew 25.) Judas Maccabeus recaptures Jerusalem and reconsecrates the Temple.

66. Pompey enters Jerusalem.

37. Besieged and taken by Herod the Great.

20. Restoration of the Temple begun by Herod the Great.

C.E.

29. (April.) Jesus of Nazareth executed at Jerusalem.

70. (Nisan 14.) Siege commenced by Vespasian, lasting 134 days.
(see image) Plan of the Catacombs on the Mount of Olives, East of Jerusalem.(After Schick.)
(see image) Cave Leading to the Traditional Tombs of the Judges, near Jerusalem.(From a photograph of the Palestine Exploration Fund.)

70. (Ab 9.) Jerusalem destroyed by Titus.

135. Hadrian rebuilds the city.

136. Jerusalem called Ælia Capitolina.

362. Restoration of the Temple undertaken by Julian the Apostate.

614. Jews aid the Persian Chosroes II. in attack on Jerusalem.

628. Retaken by Heraclius; Jews forbidden to enter the city.

637. Omar puts Jerusalem under Moslem power.

688. 'Abd al-Malik builds the Dome of the Rock.

1046. Solomon ben Judah head of the yeshibah at Jerusalem.

1077. Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem.

1099. (July 15.) Crusaders put 70,000 infidels to the sword, and found a new Christian kingdom.

1100. "Assize of Jerusalem" established by Godfrey of Bouillon.

1140. Judah ha-Levi visits Jerusalem.

1173. Benjamin of Tudela visits Jerusalem.

1187. (Oct. 2.) Saladin defeats the Franks and takes Jerusalem.

1211. Several hundred English and French rabbis settle in Jerusalem.

1218. Al-Harizi visits Jerusalem.

1267. (Aug. 12.) NaHmanides visits Jerusalem.

1437. Elijah of Ferrara made chief rabbi.

1492. Jews expelled from Spain settle in Jerusalem.

1517. Capture by Ottoman Turks.

1580. NaHmanides synagogue closed by the Moslems, claiming that it had previously been a mosque.

1621. Isaiah Horowitz and a number of his friends settle in Jerusalem.

1627. Ibn Farukh, governor of Jerusalem and persecutor of the Jews, deposed.

1705. Jews subjected to certain vexatious restrictions in matters of attire.

1798. Napoleon visits Palestine; Jewish community of Jerusalem accused of assisting him and its members threatened with death.

1827. First visit of Moses Montefiore.

1838. Edward Robinson commences archeological research in Jerusalem.

1840. Crémieux, Montefiore, and Albert Cohn visit Jerusalem.

1841. (Nov. 7.) S. M. S. Alexander, convert to Christianity, consecrated first Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem.

1854. Albert Cohn establishes many charitable institutions.

1862. (Sept. 5.) Treaty to preserve the Holy Sepulcher signed by Russia, France, and Turkey.

1880. Siloam Inscription discovered.

1892. (Sept. 13.) Railway from Jerusalem to Jaffa, built by a French company, opened.

1898. (Nov. 1.) William II. of Germany visits Jerusalem in state and receives a Jewish deputation.

1900. Abarbanel Library founded.

Jerusalem