There repeatedly occurs in the Mishna the assertion of the equivalence of all religious commands and duties. The maxims of Rabbi, its compiler, might fitly be placed on the first page as an inscription:
"Which road should man choose? One which is creditable to the traveler, and honorable in the eyes of mankind. Be as exact in thine observance of the minor precepts as of the most important, for thou knowest not what reward is attached to each command. Balance the (temporal) loss sustained in consequence of the performance of a duty with its (spiritual) reward, and the gain of a transgression with its disadvantages. Bear always three things in mind, so that thou commit no offense: There is an Eye that sees all, an Ear that hears all, and a Hand that inscribes all thy deeds in a book."
The Mishna is pervaded with these views from beginning to end. The reward of a conscientious observance of the precepts of the Law will be the participation in a future world, which awaits every Israelite unless he refuse to believe in a resurrection, or in the revelation of the Torah by God, or unless he live (or think) as an Epicurean. But pious conduct is also rewarded in this world. He who conscientiously fulfils one religious duty will be favored by Heaven, his life will be lengthened, and he will be allowed to enjoy a share of the Holy Land. At the same time the attempt is made to establish a reconciliation between the worldly promises held out by the Bible and the reward of the world to come, a dogma which first assumed a distinct form in the period following the Captivity. The discharge of certain duties secures the enjoyment of reward on earth and in the world to come; such are the veneration of parents, charity, timely attendance at the school, hospitality, the endowment of (indigent) brides, the accompanying of corpses to the grave, devout prayer, peace-making, and especially the pursuit of religious studies (Talmud Torah). As to future punishment, the Mishna is unacquainted therewith, as also with a hell. For crimes and transgressions, mention is made of judicial punishment during this life only, varying of course with the seriousness of the offense; thus there were scourging, and execution by the Synhedrion in four degrees (by sword, by the rope, by fire, and by stoning), and finally a premature death at the hand of God (Kharat). The most heinous and atrocious sins were expiated by death, and lesser ones by repentance and the Day of Atonement, while pardon was obtained for sins of negligence by sacrifice. Of course, crimes committed against persons were not expiated until their victims were indemnified, satisfied, and appeased. Every righteous and moral deed, as well as every misdeed, possessed its religious importance; but the religious point of view was not predominant over, but subordinate to, the secular.
The Mishna regarded as the greatest virtue the study of the doctrines of Judaism and the knowledge of the Law or of the Halachas (Talmud Torah). Occupation in these subjects possessed peculiar merit or justification (Zechut Torah); it protected and advanced a person here and hereafter. "He who is acquainted with the Bible and tradition, and is careful of his behavior, will not easily fall into sin." The learning, appropriation, retention, and theoretical comprehension and advancement of the existing principles of religion—that is to say, the conservation and furtherance of Judaism in the path of orthodoxy—gave the direction to the ideas and tendencies of that period. For this reason, he who is learned in the Law holds a very high rank, and although he be a bastard, takes precedence of a high priest who is ignorant of it. A disciple must honor his teacher even more than his father, or in case of conflict in his duty to one or the other, must first fulfil his duty to the former; for a wise teacher brings man to life in the world to come. It is incumbent on a father to teach his son the Torah, or to provide for his instruction in it. The Mishna does not decide the question as to whether a father ought to instruct his daughters in the Torah, but advances two opposite views on this subject: one advocated by Ben-Azai, who is in favor of the practice, or at least considers it permissible; the other, defended by the austere Eleazar ben Hyrcanus, who condemns it; "to initiate one's daughters in the Torah is as good as to initiate them in prostitution." This latter theory, which finally prevailed, exercised a most pernicious influence in after-times; for while every community was careful to provide elementary and advanced schools for its boys, the girls were systematically kept in complete ignorance.
But although great weight was laid by the Mishnaic code on the exact observance of the letter of the Law, a something higher than this observance of the Law was recognized as piety; namely, the possession of a certain elevation of mind, of which the boundaries were far more widely extended than those of the Law. A conscientious man should keep his word in questions relating to property, although he be not bound thereto by the terms of the written law. He who pays his debt in the year of release, although not under a legal obligation to do so; he who pays to the heirs of a proselyte the debt due to the latter, without being legally compelled to satisfy their claim; and generally he who abides by his word—these are the men in whom the sages delight. It is true that there are certain prescribed forms of prayer, but it is lawful, nevertheless, to pray in any language; the principal thing is to pray with devotion and earnestness. Men ought to thank Heaven for bad fortune as well as for good. The Mishna displays altogether a tendency to emphasize the spiritual value of religion. The sounding of the cornet on the New Year, the Festivals, and the Atonement Day of the year of Jubilee, as prescribed by the Law, ought not to remain an outward, material deed, but ought rather to create a certain frame of mind which raises the soul to God. As illustrations of this view the following instances are cited: it was not the fact of Moses lifting up his hands which gave the Israelites the victory over Amalek, nor the erection of a brazen serpent in the wilderness which cured them of the bites of the scorpions, but the turning of their hearts to God. But this tendency of the Mishna remains only a tendency, and received no wide development; more confidence is placed in an obligatory law than in a conscience which creates its own standard.
Besides the juridical feature, and perhaps as a consequence of it, the Mishna possesses another peculiarity which is more formal than essential; it is characterized by a desire to devise and group together all possible sorts of cases, however remote they may be, in order to apply the most dissimilar laws to their decision (a species of casuistry). This peculiarity, which in after-times exerted an influence at once favorable and prejudicial to advancement, and which was conducive at the same time both to logical acuteness and to sophistry, seems to have first made its appearance in the public academies of Jabne and Usha, and in the numerous other schools. It was probably the ingenious Meïr and his disciples who most contributed to its cultivation. As if it were not sufficient to consider and decide such cases as really occurred, according to the already existing laws and principles of the Pentateuch and tradition, teachers occupied themselves in depicting fantastic and intricate situations, simply to show, for example, that it was occasionally possible for several laws to apply to a single act. The Mishna admitted all these hypothetical cases constructed by the schools, and perhaps added to their number. This casuistic peculiarity was especially employed in order to give a clear idea of certain cases where cumulative punishments or atonements were incurred.
It is noteworthy that the Mishnaic compilation contains no Halachas of a character hostile to the Jewish professors of Christianity; it does not touch on this subject in any place, not even declaring whether it is allowed or prohibited to eat meat cooked by the Minæans. It appears that the danger with which Judaism had been threatened by the Jewish Christians, since the destruction of the Temple until the Bar-Cochba war, had already been averted, and that danger was now no longer to be dreaded. On the other hand, and in order to avoid the least appearance of participation in idolatry, the Mishna contains numerous laws directed against heathenism and intercourse with the heathens. The teachers of Christianity immediately experienced the want of some such protective laws for the preservation of the Christian communities, and Tertullian, one of the Fathers of the Church (a younger contemporary of Judah the Patriarch, and the first Christian author who wrote in Latin), expressed a desire that the Christians should be kept apart from the heathens just as strictly as the Jews were by the prescriptions of the Mishna; the reason for this was that heathenism had continued to make its way into Palestine since the Bar-Cochba war, and had gained possession not only of coast towns, but even of inland places. It was necessary, therefore, to regulate the conduct of the people accordingly. The Mishna devotes a special treatise (Aboda Zara) to this subject; it prohibits the intercourse with heathens for three days before their principal public festivals, such as the kalends of January, the Saturnalia, the anniversary of the accession or the death of the emperor. It also commands the people not to frequent such of the shops of the heathens as are decorated with laurel wreaths. The Jews are forbidden to sell ornaments or other objects for the use of idols to the heathens, or to let to them any houses in Palestine, because they would be desecrated by the introduction of images of idols. On account of the hatred entertained against them by the heathen inhabitants of Palestine, the Jews are further commanded not to allow themselves to be attended during any illness by the heathens, or even to allow their beards to be shaved by the latter; and in particular are ordered not to remain alone with them in any lonely spot, lest they should be secretly murdered by them. The Roman heathens having introduced the barbarous custom of setting men to fight with wild beasts, the Mishna interdicts the sale to them by the Jews of bears, lions, and all other animals by which any injury can be caused, and further prohibits the Jews from building their basilica, places of execution, or stadia, because they serve to promote the shedding of innocent blood. In order not to pander to the unnatural vices (sodomy) of the heathens, the Jews are commanded not to commit any animals to their charge; the Mishna even forbids the Jewish midwives or nurses to offer their services to the heathen women, because they would thereby help to bring into the world a new child of idolatry. All enjoyment derived from objects of reverence to the idolaters is interdicted, and the Jews are not even allowed to sit in the shade of an image of an idol, and are particularly forbidden to drink of the wine of which a portion has been, or may have been, offered by a heathen to his gods. Most of the laws relative to the separation of the Jews from the heathen world, introduced with great zeal and precipitancy shortly before the destruction of the Temple, are retained and extended by the Mishna. Notwithstanding all its hatred of the heathens generally, and especially those in Palestine (the Mishna paid but little attention to foreign countries), the Jewish legislation was unable to entirely belie the distinctive trait of Judaism, its universal love of mankind. Together with these hostile laws, there was also adopted one which was favorable to the heathens, due probably to the initiative of Rabban Gamaliel I: their poor were given access to the fields, and possessed, equally with the Jews, the right of gleaning. A special treatise, called "The Sayings of the Fathers" (Pirke Aboth), is devoted to the teachings of a higher morality, and contains the maxims and short sentences of the sopheric teachers and sages from the earliest times. These laws of morality, however, are concealed, and, as it were, overgrown by a mass of law relating to the ritual.
With the completion of the Mishna and the almost equally important Boraïtas, the Tanaites had accomplished their task of imparting a settled form and lasting shape to the hitherto uncertain and transitory matter of tradition; they had called it to life, and presented it to the Jewish nation as common property. After completing their task with noble assiduity, untiring zeal, and unexampled self-denial, they disappeared from the scene, leaving to future generations the result of their efforts, from which to receive their education and imbibe a love of their religion and nationality.
Judah II.—Friendliness of Alexander Severus towards the Jews—Joshua ben Levi—Hillel instructs Origen in Hebrew—The Hexapla—The Palestinean Amoraim—Chanina—Jochanan—Simon ben Lakish—Joshua, the Hero of Fable—Simlai, the Philosophical Agadist—Porphyry comments on the Book of Daniel.
219–280 C. E.
After the extinction of the Tanaites and the death of the younger contemporaries of the compiler of the Mishna and of his son Gamaliel III, a happier period commenced: happy abroad by reason of the favorable political situation brought about by the friendly attitude assumed towards the Jews by one of the best of the Roman emperors; happy at home through the agency of a series of vigorous-minded men, who imbued the ancient customs and manners with a new and healthy spirit. The most prominent men and the lights of this epoch were: in Judæa, the Patriarch Judah II, son of Gamaliel; Jochanan, the principal authority of these times; and Simon b. Lakish, the Teacher, robust of hand and brain; and in Babylonia, Abba-Areka and Samuel. These men were the pioneers of a new movement, connected, it is true, with the labors of the Tanaites, inasmuch as it was grounded upon their work, but yet went beyond it in range. A sketch of the leading personalities of this period will not perhaps be considered superfluous.
But little is known of the early life and training of Judah the Patriarch. His youth was passed in a time when religious strictness had acquired so predominant an importance, that the family of the Patriarch himself was open to censure in case any of its members acted contrary to prescribed law. Judah was walking one Sabbath-day, with his brother Hillel, in Biri, wearing a pair of shoes decorated with golden buckles, which seems to have been prohibited in that town. They were sharply censured by the populace on this account, and, not daring to explain that the act was not contrary to the Law, they were obliged to take off their shoes and give them to their slaves. On another occasion, when the two sons of the Patriarch were one day bathing together in Kabul, the people called out to them "that in their city it was not lawful for two brothers to bathe together." When Judah succeeded his father in the office of Patriarch (about 225) he transferred the seat of this dignity from Sepphoris to Tiberias, and this city, formerly avoided on account of its uncleanliness, was thus invested by him with considerable importance; it outlived all the other cities of Judæa, however rich in memories, and was the last retreat of the ancient traditions. The announcement of the appearance of the new moon, which on account of a certain preference shown to the south of Judæa had formerly been made there, was now ordered by Judah to be made at Tiberias. The south of Palestine, formerly the principal scene of historical events, was henceforward bereft of its supremacy, and was obliged to abandon its rôle to the once-despised Galilee. Like his grandfather, Judah II was held in great reverence by his contemporaries, and was also called simply Rabbi or Rabbenu. He likewise was often severely censured, but accepted the blame more patiently than his ancestor.
It was probably the second Judah, as the Jewish narratives positively assert, that was beloved by a Roman emperor, from whom he received numerous marks of favor. Accident, which in the guise of the Prætorian guards generally gave the casting vote at the election of the emperor, elevated Alexander Severus (222–235), an unknown Syrian youth in his seventeenth year, to the position of ruler of the world. In public, he gave evidence of a more pronounced friendliness to Judaism than any of his predecessors. In his private apartment there was placed, next to the representations of Orpheus and Christ, a picture of Abraham. This emperor was so deeply impressed with the truth of the golden rule of pure philanthropy, "Do not unto others what thou wouldst not they should do unto you" (esteemed as the essence of the whole Jewish religion before the time of Jesus), that it was always on his lips, and was placed by him as a motto on the imperial palace and the public buildings, and proclaimed by a herald to the soldiers whenever he desired to reprimand them for attacks on the property of foreigners. On all occasions he set up the Jews and Christians as patterns to the depraved Romans, and was desirous of seeing the highest dignities of the state awarded upon the same principles as those which governed the admission of Jewish and Christian religious leaders to ordination. He was well disposed towards the Christians, but seems to have possessed a greater predilection for the Jews and Judaism. The inhabitants of Antioch and Alexandria, whose frivolous character caused them to be better pleased with immoral emperors than with an austere ruler like Alexander Severus, derided him in epigrams, and gave him the nicknames of the "Syrian Head of the Synagogue" (Archisynagogus, that is, Rabbi) and "High Priest." The emperor's mother, Mammæa, however, had a preference for Christianity, and was a protectress of Origen, one of the Fathers of the Church. For these reasons, the Patriarch Judah possessed during this period an almost royal authority, and was even able to exercise anew criminal jurisdiction; not quite openly, it is true, but still with the prior knowledge of the emperor. The latter seems to have made the acquaintance of the Jewish Patriarch during his frequent visits to Antioch on the occasion of his campaign in Persia (231–234). Judah probably prevailed upon him to protect, or rather to revive, the privileges of the Jews. Among these was the right of again entering the city of Jerusalem, and of filling the office of judge, both of which rights had been denied to them by Hadrian. Jewish fable relates many things concerning the sincere attachment of the Emperor Severus (Asverus), son of Antoninus, or simply Antoninus, to Judaism and the Jews. But although much of this is doubtless exaggerated and embellished, the Talmud contains many narratives concerning the relations existing between the Patriarch and the Emperor which are certainly historical. Thus it is related of him that he presented a golden candlestick to a synagogue (probably that of Tiberias), and granted the Patriarch a field in the district of Gaulanitis, most likely for the support of the disciples.
It is quite in the spirit of this emperor of Syrian origin, prepossessed as he was in favor of foreign religions, that he should have requested the Patriarch, as the story runs, to recommend to him a learned man to aid him in building an altar on the model of that in the Jewish Temple, and in the preparation of incense according to the rules of the Jewish code, for which purpose Judah is said to have recommended his intimate friend Romanus. The thirteen years during which the Roman world submitted to the rule of a good emperor were a happy time for the Jewish nation, for the sovereign conferred many marks of favor upon this people, lately despised and persecuted. The position of the Jews was indeed so favorable that the opinion was commonly expressed that Daniel, who had cast a prophetic glance on the succession of the empires of the world, had predicted this state of things in the words: "When they (the Jews) succumb, some small help will still be extended to them," which were considered to refer to Severus Antoninus, who manifested a love for the Jews. This favorable situation contributed towards the substitution of a more friendly spirit in place of the variance with and profound dislike of the Romans which had prevailed for centuries.
The Christians complained at this time that the Jews were much more favorably disposed towards the heathens than towards themselves, although possessing much more in common with themselves than with the heathens. The barrier erected by the Jews, in consequence of their hatred of the Romans, was partly overthrown, and the rigor of the separation of the two nations was relaxed. The family of the Patriarch were permitted, on account of their association with the highest dignitaries of the state, to dress their hair according to the Roman fashion, to learn Greek, and to do various other things which had formerly been prohibited. The life of the Jews assumed altogether a happier aspect: they began to decorate their rooms with paintings, and religious scrupulousness took no exception.
To the influence exercised by these friendly relations with the rulers must probably also be ascribed the fact that the Patriarch abolished, or intended to abolish, many of the stricter rules which had formerly been carried out with the utmost severity. In the stormy days of the first rebellion against the Romans, when the wave of racial hatred ran high between Jews and Græco-Roman heathens, a Synod, in order to put a stop to all intercourse with the heathens, had forbidden the Jews to purchase or make use of their oil and various other articles of food. In Palestine, this restraint did not fall heavily on the Jewish inhabitants, as the land produced all that was necessary to satisfy the daily wants of the people, and the oil exported from Galilee afforded a sufficient supply to the neighboring countries. But the war of Hadrian devastated Judæa and deprived it of all its oil plantations; the daily need of oil thus gradually compelled this strict prohibition to be disregarded. But the legal permission was still wanting, and, although numbers had dispensed with it, there still remained many who complied strictly with the law, as yet unabolished. Judah II therefore used his best endeavors to obtain a majority favorable to the abrogation of this law, and prided himself greatly on accomplishing his purpose; it is probable that he had to sustain a severe conflict in order to gain his object. When Simlaï, the Patriarch's assessor, who was constantly traveling between Galilee and Babylon, brought the news that permission had been granted to the Jewish inhabitants of countries bordering on the Euphrates (who had always been restive under restraints imposed upon them) to make use of the oil of the heathens, this innovation appeared so daring to Abba-Areka (the principal Babylonian authority), that he refused to believe the report. Samuel, however, who desired to see the authority of the Patriarch generally recognized even in Babylon, compelled him to make use of this permission.
Another alleviation proposed by the Patriarch, according to which the onerous marriage with a deceased brother's widow was to be evaded in certain cases by a bill of divorce, to be given before death, was not agreed to by his College. He was also desirous of permitting the use of bread made by the heathens. Finally, he proposed to abolish the fast of the month of Ab, instituted in commemoration of so many catastrophes, according to some authors in totality, according to others in certain cases only. The contemporary teachers of the Law, however, were opposed to these alterations; but, on the other hand, they agreed with him in abolishing a mark of affliction introduced during the period of adversity under Hadrian: henceforward it was allowable for brides to ride in state-litters on their wedding-day.
In spite of the reverence felt by the teachers of the Law for the Patriarch Judah, they were not blind to his weaknesses, and he was obliged to submit to numerous attacks on their part. The Patriarchate had acquired in his hands an almost royal power, and was even entitled to a body-guard, ready to enforce the commands of the Patriarch. This power, although not abused by Judah, was all the more displeasing to the teachers of the Law, since he, on his side, conferred no particular favors on the learned classes, but rather exerted himself to abolish the distinction between the learned and illiterate in all civil relations. He further subjected the teachers of the Law to a share of the communal burdens. Simeon ben-Lakish, one of those outspoken men who carry their love of truth even to the length of disrespect of persons, was especially opposed to this leveling policy, and gave vent to offensive sallies against the Patriarch. Once, in the lecture-hall, he put forward the proposition: That in case the Patriarch should render himself guilty of a crime, it would be necessary to sentence him, like any ordinary man, to the punishment of scourging. Upon this it was observed by Chaggai, that in such a case he would have to be absolutely deposed, and debarred from taking office again lest he should employ his power in revenging himself upon the authors of his disgrace. This discussion was manifestly an attack upon Judah's possession of extraordinary power. Angry at these remarks, and carried away by his first impulse, he immediately despatched his Gothic slaves to seize the fault-finder; but Jochanan, the Principal of the school, succeeded eventually in appeasing his wrath. Once the Patriarch complained to Ben-Lakish of the rapacity of the Roman authorities, which prevailed for a lengthened period in all the provinces of the Roman empire during the reign of anarchy which followed after the death of Alexander Severus. In most of the provinces there had arisen emperors, anti-emperors, and usurpers, who, during the short span of their reign, assumed the character of ruler of the world, and conducted themselves in the countries subject to their sway with true Roman rapacity. "Pray for me," said Judah to Ben-Lakish, "for the rule of the Romans is evil." To which the latter replied: "If thou take nothing, nothing will be taken from thee." This remark was probably intended as a rebuke for the covetousness of which it is impossible to acquit Judah.
The Patriarchs seem to have commenced about this time to draw a revenue from the communities. This had become a necessity, as the impoverishment of Palestine had followed in the wake of its heavy taxation. A great part of the pasture lands had fallen into the hands of the heathens dwelling in the country, to whom the Jewish proprietors had been obliged to sell. Through this impoverishment the means of maintaining the school-houses and the pupils were greatly diminished. The income of Judah, unlike that of his grandfather, proved insufficient for the purpose, and he was therefore obliged to open up new sources of income in order worthily to support the dignity of Patriarch. He sent messages abroad to make collections amongst the rich Jews. One of the most important teachers of the Law in Lydda, named Joshua ben Levi, made a special journey to Rome for this purpose. In Rome some wealthy Jews were known to live. These willingly contributed to the support of the institution which replaced the Synhedrion, and which was the last remnant of an independent state, and the representative of which was supposed to be descended from or connected with the royal house of David. It is related that the Jewish ship-owners and merchants gave up the tenth part of their gains to the support of the disciples in the school of Tiberias. This grant was called the Patriarch's tax, and the mission-tax (Apostole), also crown money (aurum coronarium).
Meanwhile, however greatly Judah's avarice may have been blamed, he still stood high in the favor of the populace, by reason of the simplicity of his manners and attire, which caused his proud and almost royal dignity to be forgotten. He was accustomed to wear linen clothes, and to dispense with all etiquette in his reception of ceremonious visits, thereby calling down upon himself the reproaches of his friends, who expressed their opinion that a ruler ought to appear in magnificence, and to maintain an imposing demeanor.
How great a reverence was felt for Judah may be seen from the fact that, on his death, no less honors were paid to his body than had been shown to his grandfather, Judah I. In direct opposition to the Law, a descendant of Aaron was compelled to take charge of his corpse; it being alleged that it was permissible in this instance to lay aside the holy character of his priesthood.
Hillel II., the brother of the Patriarch, was possessed of great skill in the Agadic exposition of the Scriptures, and seems to have been a profoundly moral man. Among the many maxims said to have been uttered by him, the following is especially worthy of note:
"Separate not thyself from the rest of the community; put not overmuch trust in thyself (in thy piety) before thy death; judge not thy neighbor until thou hast been placed in his position."
It was probably owing to Hillel's profound knowledge of the Scriptures that he was visited by Origen, the philosophical Father of the Church, who desired to consult him concerning certain difficult passages in the Bible. Origen called him the Patriarch Jullos.
The spirit of investigation awakened by the Fathers of the Church, Pantæus and Clemens of Alexandria, in the Christian school of Alexandria, which sought to connect the Old and the New Testament, revived the necessity of an acquaintance with the Hebrew language, in order to explain by the help of the knowledge of the original text, the glaring contradictions existing in many places between the views of the Old Testament and the now inflexible dogmas of Christianity. It was Origen who felt most the need of this knowledge, and he was unremitting in his efforts to acquire the Hebrew tongue, and in his recommendations to others to study it. He regarded the Jews as his masters in the knowledge of Hebrew and the correct exegesis of the Scripture: he admitted having learnt from Jews the exact sense of various difficult passages in the Bible, during his long but intermittent residence in Judæa (from about 229 to 253). Being desirous of writing a Commentary on the Psalms, he took the trouble to have them explained to him by a Jew, according to the traditions. At that time the study of the Halachas had not yet superseded that of Biblical exegesis.
Besides Hillel and Simlaï there were other Jewish teachers well acquainted with the original text, who confuted the Christian teachers, and laughed at them for the absurdly childish arguments which they drew from their corrupt Greek translation, the Septuagint. They were especially diverted at the credulity of the Christians, by whom every apocryphal book was invested with the garb of antiquity. Such books as the histories of Tobias, of Judith, and of Susannah were admitted into the collection of the Holy writings, upon which loose foundation was erected the fragile fabric of their religion.
In order to protect the creed of the Church from this ridicule, Origen undertook the gigantic task of revising the Septuagint version, mutilated and crowded as it was with errors of all kinds. His immediate object was to afford the Christian teachers an insight into the differences existing between the translation and the original text, and so better to enable them to conduct their discussions with the Jews. To this end, he compared the translations of Akylas, Symmachos, Theodotion, and three others which had appeared in the meantime; and in order to allow of a convenient survey, he placed them in columns, the Hebrew text, with its pronunciation in Greek letters, figuring at the head. These parallel texts were known by the name of the Hexapla (sixfold). It was labor lost, however, to compare the wretched and intentionally corrupt Greek translation with the original Hebrew text. The Septuagint continued to exist in its mutilated form, and was even worse confounded by reason of Origen's industry, for many passages belonging to other translations were often accidentally introduced into its text.
The activity of the Palestinean teachers was directed to another object; their cares were bestowed neither on the study of the Bible nor on the establishing of the doctrines of faith; both these subjects lay outside their sphere of activity. Their chief energies were devoted to the study of the oral law in its definite form, the Mishna. This work had been composed in a brief and laconic style, and, besides, it contained many passages which were incomprehensible, the words or subject-matter having passed out of everyday use. For these reasons the comprehension of the Mishna required peculiar study and erudition. The principals of the schools applied themselves, in the first place, to the elucidation of the terse and frequently obscure text of the Mishna. From this aspect of their labors they received the name of Amoraim (Amoraï, Expounder). But far from being satisfied with this arid work, or with remaining contentedly in this dependence, they gradually emancipated themselves, made new departures, and believing in good faith that they were standing on the ground of the Mishna, went far beyond its boundaries. As the Tanaites had treated the text of the Bible, so also did the Amoraim treat that of the second code; they dissected it, and resolved it into its constituent parts, so that under their hand it was dissipated, becoming new matter and acquiring a new form.
The first generation of the Amoraim, following immediately upon the Tanaites and semi-Tanaites, constitutes in many points a parallel with the second generation of the Tanaites. Like the latter it consisted of a series of talented teachers, who attained a great age, and whose labors were continued during half a century. Like the latter, again, it possessed different schools and systems, and was divided into various opinions concerning the explanation of the Law. But it does not afford the spectacle of violent controversies; for it already possessed a common and recognized formula, a settled standard, to which all authorities subordinated themselves. The oldest of the Amoraim was Chanina b. Chama, of Sepphoris (from about 180 to 260). He was descended from an ancient and noble family, and followed the profession of physician; the science of medicine, inborn in the Levites, being generally cultivated by teachers of the Law. The method of teaching adopted by him was very simple. He was an Amora in the fullest sense of the primitive meaning of the term; he expounded the Mishna or the Boraitas with the help of such comments only as had been handed down to him by tradition, without allowing himself to make any independent deductions. If new cases occurred which were not indicated in the Mishna, he did not decide them according to his own lights, but took counsel with learned colleagues, or even with disciples, however obvious the decision may have been. Chanina occupied the same position among the Amoraim as Eleazar b. Hyrcanus among the Tanaites; he was entirely receptive, never creative. This point of view, however, according to which the Mishna was regarded as dead stock, was not acceptable to the younger and more zealous men; Chanina was therefore deserted, even by his own disciples, who proceeded to found new academies.
Notwithstanding this, Chanina was regarded with great veneration both by Jews and Romans, on account of his piety. Once, when he went, with Joshua b. Levi, a younger contemporary, to visit the Proconsul (Anthypatos), in Cæsarea, the latter rose respectfully at their approach, replying to his friends, who expressed astonishment at his behavior, that "they appeared to him like angels." He reproved more boldly and fearlessly than any other teacher, the deeply-rooted faults of his community, and tried to rid it of that erroneous belief which willingly accepts the most incredible miracles, in order to be relieved of all responsibility. Chanina's unsparing utterances concerning the people of Sepphoris present at the same time a faithful picture of the customs of the period. On one occasion Sepphoris and the surrounding districts had been so devastated by the plague that many of the inhabitants of all parts of the town had been carried off by it; the only quarter not visited by it was that in which Chanina resided. The men of Sepphoris wished to make him responsible for this plague, on the ground that he had not performed any miracle to avert it; whereupon he replied: "In the time of Moses there was only one Zimri (who debauched a heathen woman), and yet twenty-four thousand fell by the plague; ye, however, possess many Zimris, and complain notwithstanding." Another time, Judæa was visited by a continued drought and lack of rain. Chanina had arranged the prescribed fasts and offered up public prayers, yet the much desired rains did not set in; whereupon the people complained anew, and referred to Joshua b. Levi, the envoy to Rome, whose prayers for rain for the south of Judæa had been crowned with success. On the next opportunity Chanina sent for Joshua from the south, and united with him in prayer, but again without success. Seizing upon this occasion, he reprimanded his fellow-countrymen for their superstitious belief in the power of a human being to work miracles; "Thus do ye see," exclaimed he, "that it is neither Joshua who causes rain, nor Chanina who hinders it; the inhabitants of Lydda are kind-hearted and humble, therefore heaven sends them rain; ye, however, are hard-hearted and callous, and therefore heaven withholds rain from you." Chanina retained his modesty and self-denial all through his life, and justly recognizing the merits of others, rejoiced in his later years over the fame of those who had surpassed him. He attained an extreme old age, and saw three Patriarchs—the elder Judah, his teacher; Gamaliel, Judah's son, and Judah II.
In opposition to the conservative Chanina stands Jochanan bar Napacha (born 199, died 279). Deprived of both father and mother, who died in his early youth, he used to say in later life, that he ought to be thankful for this misfortune, as he would not have been able to fulfil the strict duties of filial love in the manner required by the Law. He was so handsome of figure that the Talmudical source, usually so sober, involuntarily becomes poetical in trying to describe his beauty: "Let him who desires to form an idea of Jochanan's beauty take a newly-wrought silver goblet, fill it with ruddy garnets, crown its brim with a wreath of red roses, and place it between light and shadow; its peculiar reflection of light will then represent the glory of Jochanan's dazzling beauty." This beauty, however, partook more of a feminine character, for he possessed no beard, the expression of manly dignity. His eyebrows were also so long as to overshadow his eyes. When he was grown up he attended the school of the elder Judah, but admitted that he had understood but little of the profound Halachic discussion, by reason of his youth. As he was not rich, possessing only a small plot of land, he applied himself to business, in conjunction with Ilpha, a fellow-disciple, when a warning was given to him to devote his whole energies to the study of the Law, in which it was asserted that he would acquire great distinction. For this reason he abandoned his trade, and again followed the lectures of celebrated teachers of the Law. He sold his little plot of ground in order to obtain the wherewithal to study, exhibiting no concern with regard to any provision for his old age. It seems, however, that later on he was maintained at the expense of the Patriarch, Judah. Jochanan frequented the company of the teachers of various schools, in order to acquire a diversified knowledge of the subject-matter of the Law. He became the principal assistant of the Patriarch, Judah II, and was the most productive Amora of his time. Through the influence of a large body of disciples, his sayings form a considerable element of the Talmud. His method of teaching was to search deeply into the meaning of the Mishna, to subject every paragraph to severe analysis, and to compare each maxim with the others; he arrived by these means at the inference that the Mishna was not possessed throughout of legal force. He also laid down certain rules concerning the manner of arriving at a definite decision in those cases where two or more Tanaites were of different opinions.
Through his influence Tiberias, with its mild air, its fertility and its curative waters, became the meeting-place of a numerous body of disciples, who flocked to him from far and wide. His academy was even attended by mature and finished scholars from Babylon, although the newly-founded schools of that country possessed excellent masters. Over a hundred Amoraim are known who accepted Jochanan's decisions as of full legal force, and who taught them in their schools.
An intimate friend of the Patriarch, he supported him in his endeavors to modify certain ancient usages. Jochanan was himself not very particular on this head, and by far less strict than the Babylonian school, which came into existence during his lifetime. In opposition to the existing custom, he permitted the acquirement of Greek: by men, because they were thereby enabled to protect themselves against traitors, and by women, because the Greek language was an ornament to the sex. He entertained great esteem for Greek civilization in general, and ranked it on an equality with Judaism. He expressed himself beautifully on this subject: "For that Shem and Japhet, the two sons of Noah, did cover their father's nakedness with a mantle, Shem (symbol of Judaism) hath obtained a shawl with fringes (Talith), Japhet (the type of Greek civilization) the philosopher's mantle (Pallium)." It was Jochanan who permitted the innovation of decorating rooms with paintings. He was never able to reconcile himself to the Roman rule, and was unsparing in his denunciation of the insolent arrogance and heartless violence of the authorities. He regarded as symbolical of the Roman Empire, the fourth beast in Daniel's vision of the four empires of the world, which was a perennial mine of discovery for the Biblical exegete, and was even more diligently explored by the Christians than by the Jews. The small horn which grew out of the fourth beast represents, according to his explanation, wicked Rome, which annihilated all previous empires; the eyes resembling human eyes, which were visible in this horn, indicate Rome's envious glances at the wealth of others. If any one is rich, the Romans immediately elevate him to the office of president of the council charged with the supply of provisions, or make him a member of the municipal senate, in order that his fortune may be answerable for everything. Another striking maxim of this sort uttered by Jochanan was the following: "If thou art proposed as a member of the senate, choose rather as thy dwelling the desert of the Jordan." He permitted people, in exceptional instances, to emigrate from Judæa, in order to escape from the heavy burden of the municipal offices.
Jochanan's character was marked by a profound morality; the slave who waited upon him was allowed to partake of all the dishes prepared for his master. He had the misfortune to lose his ten sons; the unfortunate father carried about with him a small bone of his last son, in order to console all such as had to bewail a similar disaster, by the relation of his extraordinary misfortune. "Behold all that now remains of the last of my ten sons," he was wont to explain to them. A daughter alone was left to Jochanan; thus, an orphan from his birth, he died almost childless. He is said to have had periods of insanity in his extreme old age, occasioned by grief at the death of his friend and brother-in-law, Ben-Lakish, of which he believed himself to be the cause.
Simeon Ben-Lakish, Jochanan's contemporary friend, brother-in-law and opponent, was in many ways his counterpart, and was altogether a peculiar personage, in whom were united the most opposite qualities; rough physical strength was coupled with tenderness of sentiment and acuteness of mind. Resh-Lakish, for such was his abbreviated name, seems to have been born at Bostra, the capital of the Saracens, about the year 200, and to have died in 275. As Jochanan's constant comrade, he had seen the Patriarch Judah I. in his youth, and had been brought up in the school of his successors. The sources of the Talmud are never tired of dilating on his gigantic strength and enormous size. He once engaged himself at the Circus in the capacity of slaughterer of wild beasts, his duty being to protect the spectators of these highly popular combats from the fury of the animals. Ben-Lakish probably only chose this low and dangerous occupation out of necessity. Tradition is at some pains to reconcile and to transform into a beautiful picture the glaring contrasts existing in Resh-Lakish, his rude strength and his study of the Law. But his scrupulous integrity is even more renowned than his enormous physical strength. It is related that he used to avoid the company of persons of whose honesty he was not fully convinced, for which reason unlimited credit was usually accorded to all whom Ben-Lakish honored with his society, without any further inquiry. His earnest and gloomy countenance was never brightened by a smile, for he considered cheerfulness to be frivolous, so long as the holy people were subject to the power of the heathens. We have already noticed his love of truth and his candor, which he carried almost to insult in his animadversions on the abuses of the Patriarch. In Biblical exegesis he adopted the method of finding ingenious explanations, in which study he surpassed his older comrade and brother-in-law. "When he considered Halachic questions," says a source of the Talmud, "it was as though he were grinding the mountains against one another." Ben-Lakish possessed a certain originality in the study of the Agada, and advanced peculiar views, which were only estimated at their proper worth in later times. It was often questioned in the schools at what period the sufferings of Job had occurred, the other circumstances of this remarkable drama were also debated, and the most contrary views found expression. Resh-Lakish seems to have come to an accurate conclusion in advancing the opinion that Job had existed at no period, that he had never lived, and was simply an ingenious moral creation (Mashal). This view appeared very strange to his contemporaries, who were unable to comprehend such a conception. The names of the angels were regarded by Ben-Lakish as not having been originally Jewish, but as being a foreign element transplanted into Judaism, which had, in fact, been brought by the Jewish nation from Persia. He was wont to contradict the assertions of those who extolled the past at the expense of the present, who declared hyperbolically "that a nail of the ancients was worth more than the whole body of their descendants"; or, in another form, "that if the ancients were angels, we, on the contrary, are only asses"; he used to say that the existing generation possessed greater merit, for the reason that although heavily oppressed, they still pursued the study of the Law. Although a friend of Jochanan from his youth, and drawn still closer to him by the ties of family alliance, Ben-Lakish was nevertheless at variance with him during his last years.
The name of Joshua ben-Levi, who formed, with Jochanan and Ben-Lakish, the triumvirate of the Palestinian Amoraim, is more renowned in the world of legend than in history, where, indeed, but little is related of him. The son of Levi ben-Sissi, he conducted a school at Lydda, in the south of Judæa. It is true that the inhabitants of Lydda were not in over-good repute with the Galileans, who pronounced them proud and superficial. But Joshua's reputation in no way suffered from this circumstance, and his authority was greatly respected. To his opinions on the Halachas was accorded for the most part the force of law, even in those cases where the other two members of the triumvirate entertained different views. Joshua himself admits, however, that he forgot many traditions during the period in which he was occupied with the organization of the communities of Southern Judæa. The situation of the communities of this district had, in fact, been so unsettled ever since the catastrophe in the time of Hadrian, that Jochanan and Jonathan were obliged to journey thither in order to restore peace and order. Joshua also on one occasion visited Rome, in the capacity of collector of revenues for the Patriarch. He had there an opportunity of observing a fact which exhibited in strong relief the contrasts existing in the capital of the world. He saw a statue enveloped in drapery, in order to protect it against heat and cold, while near by sat a beggar who had hardly a rag to cover his nakedness. He is said to have expected the Messiah to appear in the capital of the world, where he supposed that he existed in the guise of a servant, waiting among the beggars and cripples at the gate, and expecting every moment to be called upon to effect the deliverance of Israel. According to the legend, Joshua ben-Levi was regarded as one of those choice spirits who were admitted to the most intimate intercourse with the prophet Elijah, and over whom death itself was obliged to relinquish its power. He wrested the sword from the angel of death, went to Heaven alive, measured the expanse of the Heavens, of Paradise, and of Hell, and forwarded the results of his investigation to Gamaliel through the medium of the destroying angel himself, who was obliged to submit to his orders.
An original path in the explanation of the Agada was struck out by Simlaï; he it was who first considered this collection worthy of profounder study. Born at Lydda, he had quitted this desolate region, and had settled down at Nahardea, where the new school of the Babylonian Amoraim was first coming to its prime. He entertained the most friendly relations with the Patriarch Judah II. He possessed but small weight in questions relating to the study of the Law, and his Halachic attainments were not esteemed in Palestine. He was the first to collect together all the commands contained in the Jewish Law, numbering 613, of which 365 are prohibitions, and 248 affirmative precepts. David, according to Simlaï, reduced these 613 commands to the following eleven virtues: honesty, justice, truthfulness, abhorrence of calumny, of malice and of injuring one's neighbor, despising the wicked, reverence of the worthy, sanctity of oaths, unselfish lending without interest, and forbearance from bribery. Isaiah summed them up in six, as follows: to be just in our conduct, honest in our speech, to despise self-interest, to keep our hand from bribery, our ear from wicked insinuations, and our eye from base desires. The Prophet Micah reduced the commands of the Law to three leading principles: the exercise of justice, love of charity, and humility; while the second Isaiah brought them down to two, which are, to cherish justice and to exercise charity. Finally, the Prophet Habakkuk expressed them all in a single formula: "The just man lives by his faith." This was the first attempt to reduce the whole Law of Israel to principles. A beautiful parable, in which Simlaï indicates the part played by every nation in the history of the world, affords evidence both of the wide extent of his views and of his poetical talent.
Possessed of a profound knowledge of the Scripture, and gifted with an elevated mind, Simlaï was especially qualified to enter into discussion with the Fathers of the Church, and to shake the arguments which they drew from the Old Testament in support of the dogmas of Christianity. In these discussions Simlaï gave evidence of a sound exegesis, free from misinterpretations. During the time of the first generation of Amoraim, Christianity had entered upon a new stage; in opposition to the tendency of the primitive Christians (Ebionites and Nazarenes), a universal Catholic Church had come into existence, whose fundamental doctrines (dogmas), collected from all quarters, some Pauline, others anti-Pauline, others heathen, were generally assented to by the majority of Christians. The various sects of primitive Christians and Gnostics were vanquished, being either embodied in the incorporated Catholic Church or rejected as heretical. This creation of a Catholic Church and the unification of the Christian religion, accomplished in the midst of all this diversity and schism, were largely brought about by the Bishops of Rome. These arrogated to themselves, on the strength of their seat in the capital of the world, the supremacy over all the other bishops and patriarchs, expelled them from the community for unorthodox opinions (as in the case of the discussion concerning the celebration of the Passover), and gradually obtained recognition as chief-bishops and Popes. After the completion of this work the spirit of research also made its appearance among the Christians, and the traditions of the Church were subjected to a thorough investigation.
New dogmas had made their appearance, which the authorities sought to establish and secure. The rigid doctrine of the Unity of God, derived by Christianity from the parent religion, had in course of time, and in proportion as the new Church glorified the Messiahship of Jesus, given rise to a doctrine of duality: Father and Son, or the Creator of the World, and the Logos. To these was soon added a third. The primitive Jewish view of the inspiration by God of the Prophets and other pious persons, which was, in this signification, characterized as holy inspiration (Ruach-ha-Kodesh), crystallized in Christianity into the dogma of the Holy Ghost considered as a person, and regarded as an equality with God and Christ and as having originally co-existed with them. Without being aware of the fact, Christianity, which considered itself a truly spiritual and refined Judaism, had adopted an entirely different idea of God, in fact, a sort of tritheism. The more the Christian dogma of the Trinity was at variance with the very essence of Judaism, the more trouble was taken to establish that it was supported by the Old Testament, in order to give it thus the stamp of antiquity. This proof, however, was not to be furnished by straightforward means, and thus the Fathers of the Church of the Palestinean and Alexandrian schools, being acquainted with Hebrew, were obliged to take refuge in all sorts of allegorical interpretations. Wherever the Scriptures contained several denominations for God, they professed to see an indication of the Trinity in the letter of the text itself. Even the simple opening words of the Pentateuch, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," were interpreted by this Christology in proof of Christ's co-operation in the creation of the world; for "the beginning" was interpreted to mean "wisdom," or the "Word" (Logos), being synonymous with Christ, and this sentence was thus found to contain the profound secret that "God created the world in Christ"! As long as the leading spirits of Christianity remained ignorant of the Hebrew sources, they were not in a position to hold any serious conference on matters of religion. It was only when the Fathers of the Church applied themselves, like Origen, to the acquirement of a clearer Hebrew text, that polemical discussions on Christological themes became more frequent.
Simlaï, in particular, defended the doctrine of the unity of God against the Christian dogma of the Trinity, and adduced the proofs for his contention with consummate skill. His opponent in this theoretical dispute was perhaps Origen, who was for a long time a resident in Palestine. By the help of a sober method of interpretation Simlaï established the fact that all the passages of the Holy Scripture which appear to afford an argument in support of the Trinity, in reality bring out and emphasize so strongly the unity of God, that any misconception appears impossible. Jew and Christian who, like quarrelsome brothers, had cherished feelings of animosity to each other during the time they had lived under one roof, now contented themselves with carrying on religious controversies.
The attacks upon Christianity during this period had the effect of producing a certain acquaintance with Jewish literature even in the heathens, who turned it to account in their efforts to restrain the growth of Christianity. In Daniel, the Christian dogmatists had discovered a Sibylline book, with vague insinuations and mystic numbers, which they contended contained prophecies relating to the Christian economy and to the appearance of Christ on the Day of Judgment. In opposition to these views the heathen philosopher Porphyry wrote a polemical commentary on the book of Daniel, which is certainly the only Biblical commentary composed by a heathen. This neo-Platonist, who was possessed of moderate but mystic views, bore the oriental name of Malchus, and was a native of Batanea, formerly a Jewish province. He asserted in his commentary that the book of Daniel is the work of an author who lived during the time of the persecution of Judaism and the Jews by the Syrian monarch, Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the ambiguous expressions in which it abounds are only allusions to that period, and in nowise prophecies, still less oracular proofs of the facts of Christianity.
Increasing importance of the Jewish Community in Babylonia—The Prince of the Captivity—The Babylonian Amoraim—Abba Areka (Rab) and his royal friend Artaban—Samuel and King Shabur—Important Political Changes under the Neo-Persians—Anarchy in Rome—Zenobia and the Jews.
219–279 C. E.
During the Patriarchate of Judah II. many important events occurred in the Jewish community of Babylonia, which contributed to place that country in the foreground of Jewish history. After the loss of their mother, the children of Israel had found a second in Babylonia, and had never yet experienced a stepmother's treatment at her hands. Babylonia, the Italy of the East, whose capital had in ancient times, like Rome, first been the ruler of the world, and then the point of attack of uncivilized tribes in their migrations; whose name still exercises a certain magic in the distance, even after its fall; Babylonia, which had already been the temporary abode of the Jewish race, now became for a long period the permanent scene of Jewish activity. Judæa, on the other hand, gradually fell into the background. The peculiar formation of the country between the Euphrates and the Tigris facilitated the separation of Judaism from its primitive scene of action, and brought about the transplantation of Jewish genius into a foreign zone; by reason of the abundant opportunities of employment which the land afforded, similar to those to which they had been accustomed, it became a second fatherland for the homeless nation. The great number of the Jews who had inhabited this district time out of mind; their independence, which had suffered no restraint at the hands of the Parthian and Persian rulers; the luster imparted to their situation by the possession of a political chief; their inherent, self-contained vitality, unweakened by suffering and petty annoyances, all these things contributed to invest their character with a peculiar quality and to further the evolution of new parts and tendencies. The sojourn in Babylonia imbued the Jewish mind with that particular form of keen intelligence which discovers an answer to every question, a solution to every riddle, and is discouraged by no difficulties. The Jews of this country acquired studious, plodding, energetic habits; the successive leaders and principals of the schools showed them the paths of profound wisdom and impressed on them the seal of elevated thought.
The word Babylonia, as used in Jewish history, is capable of a broad and a narrow interpretation, and possesses, in fact, three different meanings. In the broadest sense in which it occurs it includes the whole district between the Zagros mountains and the Euphrates, from the sources of the twin-river Tigris-Euphrates to the Persian Gulf. In a narrower sense it signifies the strip of land enclosed between the two rivers, where their beds begin to converge towards each other and at last actually unite, and where numerous canals formerly intersected the country and connected their streams: the southern part of Mesopotamia, the ancient province of Babel, and a portion of the former kingdom of Chaldæa. Babylonia, as understood in this narrow sense, was principally inhabited by Jews, and for this reason was also known by the name of "the land of Israel." Finally, in its most limited sense, Babylonia designates a small district on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, of which the center-point seems to have been the town of Pumbeditha. This district extends from Nahardea in the north to Sora in the south, a distance of twenty-two parasangs (sixty-eight miles). The fixing of the boundaries of Jewish Babylonia is not a matter of indifference for history, as in former times it constituted a matter of conscience. Even in Judæa the natives of Babylonia of Jewish origin were admitted to possess the most unsullied purity of descent, and to have refrained from all intercourse with heathens, slaves, or persons born out of wedlock; Judæa was far behind Babylonia in this respect. An old proverb says: "In the matter of descent, the Jewish population of the (Roman) countries is to that of Judæa, as adulterated dough is to pure meal, but Judæa itself is only as dough when compared with Babylonia."
The Jewish province in Babylonia was divided into several smaller districts, each of which was known by the name of its capital. Thus there existed the districts of Nares, Sora, Pumbeditha, Nahardea, Nahar-Pakod, Machuza, and some others, all of them possessed of some characteristic, such as a peculiar dialect, or particular customs or manners, or even distinct weights and measures. Four of these towns were distinguished as prominent centers, each having in turn been at the head of the entire province. The first place was occupied by Nahardea (also called Naarda, of which name there were both a town and a district); this was a fortified city situated on the Euphrates and a canal called the Naraga, and was entirely inhabited by Jews; it lay on the boundary-line of Jewish Babylonia. During a certain period Nahardea was a Babylonian Jerusalem; here were situated, in the time of the continuance of the Temple, the treasure-chambers of the Babylonian communities for the reception of the gifts to the Temple, which it was customary to convey to Jerusalem under a strong escort. A few miles to the south of Nahardea lay Firuz-Shabur (afterwards Anbar), a fortified and thickly-populated town, and the most important in the country after Ctesiphon, the capital.
Near by lay Pumbeditha, situated on one of the numerous canals of the Euphrates, and adorned with many palaces. Pumbeditha was none the less a thoroughly Jewish town, with a Jewish congregation, and was regarded as the capital of Jewish Babylonia. Within its territory lay several smaller towns and fortified castles, which nestled in the shadow of the capital. The inhabitants of Pumbeditha were considered acute and cunning, and were even notorious for their deceit and dishonesty. "If a man of Pumbeditha accompany thee," said a proverb, "change thy lodging."
Sixteen geographical miles (twenty-two parasangs) south of Pumbeditha was situated the town of Mata-Mechassia. It lay on the shore of a broad lake, Sora, which was in reality the Euphrates, widening out over the low-lying country; from its position on this lake the town also derived the name of Sora. It was inhabited by a mixed population of Jews and heathens. The region round Sora was one of the most fruitful parts of the whole country; by reason of its low situation it was inundated every year by the Euphrates and its tributaries and canals, and the overflow produced an Egyptian fertility. Pumbeditha was distinguished for its magnificent buildings and the cunning of its population, while Mata-Mechassia was noted for the poverty and honesty of its inhabitants. A proverb expresses this contrast in the following words: "It is better to live on the dunghills in Mechassia than in the palaces of Pumbeditha."
With these three towns of the Euphrates, Nahardea, Pumbeditha, and Mata-Mechassia, a fourth contested the supremacy: this was Machuza, situated on the Tigris, at a distance of hardly twelve miles from Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthians. Machuza, also called Machuza-Malka, from the King's Canal (Nahar Malka) which flows in proximity to the Tigris, was situated on an eminence, and was fortified with two strong walls and a moat. Close by stood a castle, called Akra di Coche, which served as a bulwark to the capital, Ctesiphon. In spite of the importance which Machuza and its castle must have possessed for the Parthian and Persian rulers, it was, nevertheless, entirely inhabited by Jews, and an Amora expressed his surprise that the gates of its fortress were not provided with the prescribed Mezuzas.
The most noted families of Machuza were descended from proselytes, for which reason their features differed from those of the remainder of the Jewish population of Babylonia. They are described as having been very frivolous, addicted to pleasure and good cheer, and more devoted to the affairs of this world than to those of the next; they were called on this account "candidates for hell." It is related of the women of Machuza that they indulged in pleasure and idleness. Once, when a Palestinean teacher of the Law brought from Judæa to Nahardea a Halacha allowing women to wear golden head-bands set with precious stones on the Sabbath, it was remarked that only four-and-twenty women in that town availed themselves of this permission, while in one quarter alone of Machuza there were eighteen who appeared with most costly head-bands. The proximity of Ctesiphon, and its wealth, had probably some influence on the luxurious propensities and the manners of the inhabitants of Machuza. This city also, which was the residence of the king, and the newly-built town of Ardashir, which lay close by, were thickly populated with Jews. The entire district of Babylonia, with its numerous canals, resembled an island, and its wonderful fertility made of the whole country one extensive garden. There was so great a multitude of date plantations that it used to be said proverbially of the Babylonians: "A basketful of dates for a denar, and yet they do not apply themselves to the study of the Law!"
The occupations followed by the Babylonian Jews were agriculture, trades of all descriptions, and, what is of course natural in a country dependent on its canals for irrigation, the digging and cleaning of these artificial waterways; they also bred cattle, carried on commerce, undertook voyages, and cultivated certain of the fine arts.
The greatness of their numbers invested the Babylonian Jews with a certain amount of independence, and they seemed in this country almost as if in a land of their own. Their situation with regard to the rulers of the land was very favorable, as they were only called upon to pay a poll-tax (Charag) and a land-tax (Taska); there was at this period much vacant ground in the region of the Euphrates, and any one could take possession of a plot on becoming answerable for the land-tax in respect thereof. The Jews possessed their own political chief, who was called the Prince of the Captivity (Exilarch, Resh-Galutha); he was a dignitary of the Persian empire, and the fourth in rank from the king. His position with regard to the Persian kings was that of a feudatory. The Resh-Galuthas were, in fact, vassals of the Persian crown, but were simply confirmed, not chosen, by the monarch. Their badges of office were a silken cloak and a golden girdle; in later times they were surrounded by a princely luxuriousness, rode in a state carriage, possessed their own train of attendants, and an outrider to announce their approach. When they were received in solemn audience by the king, the royal attendants showed them the greatest respect, and they treated with the ruler on a footing of equality. According to the usage of Eastern princes, they were entertained with music at the moment of rising from or going to bed, a custom which was severely censured by the strict teachers of the Law, on account of the mourning for Jerusalem.
The Princes of the Captivity were descendants of the house of David, for which reason the people gladly acknowledged their sway, since it honored itself and felt honored in its princes. An old chronicle gives the full details of their names and numbers. They traced back their descent as far as Zerubbabel, the grandson of the Jewish King Jojachin, who is supposed to have returned to Babel, and to have become the ancestor of a long line of descendants. It is not until the second century that a Resh-Galutha, by name Achiya, is visible through the deep obscurity of antiquity. Another, Mar-Huna, in the time of Judah I, commanded that his body should be brought to Palestine, in order to be buried in holy ground. From that time forward, however, the succession of the Princes of the Captivity can be traced in an unbroken chain till the eleventh century. They exercised considerable influence upon the development of Jewish history in Babylonia. Their relations with the people are indicated in a few occasional passages only.
The Resh-Galutha was the supreme judge of the Jewish communities, both in civil and in criminal cases; he either administered justice in person, or delegated his office to judges of his own nomination. The ordinary coercive measure employed in cases of disobedience was the bastinado, according to Eastern custom. The princes were also entrusted with the police of the cities, the control of weights and measures, the inspection of canals, and the guardianship of public safety, to all of which various charges they appointed their own officers. It is nowhere indicated what revenues the Princes of the Captivity derived from the people; it is most probable that the primitive Asiatic custom of making presents to the sovereign obtained. It is not until later times that mention is made of regular yearly revenues drawn by them from certain regions and cities. They enjoyed an honorable public distinction which was only conferred upon such rulers as were descended from David; this consisted of having the scrolls of the Law brought to them when they had to read a portion of the Torah aloud, whereas every one else was obliged to go to the scrolls. Wealthy by reason of the income accruing from their extensive lands, they also possessed many slaves and a numerous suite of attendants; even free men placed themselves under their patronage, wearing, as sign of their fealty, the arms of their masters on their garments. The Princes of the Captivity were most sensitive with regard to these distinctive marks, refusing to pardon even the scholars whom they themselves supported, if they laid aside or even only covered over these badges. There was too much power in the hands of the Prince, and this power was too little restrained or regulated by law or tradition, for cases of arbitrariness and abuse of authority not to be forthcoming. Numerous complaints were made of the arrogance, arbitrary encroachments, or violent deeds of many of the Princes of the Captivity or their servants; they deposed the principals of the schools, appointing others in their places who were often without merit. But what power has ever restrained itself within the bounds of justice and equity? In prehistoric times, that is to say, before the knowledge of the Law had been carried to Babylonia and there domesticated, the ignorance of the Princes of the Captivity in matters of religious practice appears to have been so profound, that it was possible to transgress the laws relating to food in their house with the greatest impunity. But history tells also of meritorious persons among their numbers, who in later times combined a knowledge of the Jewish law with the possession of Jewish virtues, and whose names became a source of glory to the nation. The Princes of the Captivity often united with their political power the authority of teachers of the Law, equaling in this respect the Palestinean Patriarchs. As certain of these latter attempted to acquire political influence, in order not to be inferior to the Resh-Galutha—in which attempt, however, they were not always successful—many of the Princes of the Captivity endeavored in turn to obtain the dignity of teacher. All these various circumstances, the great number of the Jewish population of Babylonia, their independence, and the concentrated power of the Princes, stamp the history of the Jews of this region with a peculiar character; new needs arose in this country which were unknown in Judæa; new needs produced new regulations and Halachas, and thus the Law entered upon a new development in which, as already intimated, Babylon played the most important part.
During the patriarchate of Judah I, the young students of Babylon had crowded in greater numbers than in former times to the academies of Galilee, as if desirous of catching the last rays of the setting sun of religion in the mother-country, in order to enlighten therewith the land of their birth. Chiya of Cafri and his two wonderful sons, his relatives Abba-Areka and Chanina-bar-Chama, Abba and his son Samuel, were all celebrated disciples of Judah's school; they were either directly or indirectly the instructors of Babylonia. It is true that Chiya and his sons, Judah and Chiskia, did not return to their native country, but died in Galilee, where they were honored as saints; but Chiya exercised the greatest influence on the education of his disciple and nephew, Abba-Areka. Before the return to Babylonia of Abba-Areka and Samuel from the academy of Judah I in Judæa, an otherwise unknown person, Shila by name, occupied the post of principal of the school (Resh-Sidra) in Nahardea. But with the appearance of these two men, who were endowed with all the qualities requisite in order to become the founders of new schools, extensive alterations were introduced; they initiated a new departure, and raised Babylonia to the level of Judæa.