Encyclopedia Judaica

Role of wine in Jewish holidays and rituals

2009-12-17T16:03:00.000-08:00

Role of wine in Jewish holidays and rituals

Almost all Jewish holidays, especially the Passover Seder where all present drink four cups of wine, on Purim for the festive meal, and on the Shabbat require obligatory blessings over filled cups of kosher wine that are then drunk. (However, if no wine is present, the blessing over challah suffices). At Jewish marriages, circumcisions, and at Redemption of First-born ceremonies, the obligatory blessing of Borei Pri HaGafen ("Blessed are you O Lord, Who created the fruit of the vine") is almost always recited over kosher wine (or grape juice).

Also see: On-line Kosher Wine Store

According to the teachings of the Midrash, the "forbidden fruit" that Eve ate and which she gave to Adam was the grape from which wine is derived, though many would contest this and say that it was in fact a fig. The capacity of wine to cause drunkenness with its consequent loosening of "inhibitions" is described by the ancient rabbis in Hebrew as nichnas yayin, yatza sod ("wine enters, [and one's personal] secret[s] exit"), similar to the Latin "in vino veritas". Another similarly evocative expression relating to wine is: Ein Simcha Ela BeBasar Veyayin—"There is no joy except through [eating] meat and [drinking] wine".)

Mevushal wines

2009-12-17T14:06:00.000-08:00

Mevushal wines

As mentioned above, when kosher wine is mevushal מבושל("cooked" or "boiled"), it thereby becomes unfit for idolatrous use and will keep the status of kosher wine even if subsequently touched by an idolater. This style of wine is frequently used in kosher restaurants and by kosher caterers. Traditionally, this edict was followed literally. The boiling process killed most of the fine mold or "must" on the grapes, and greatly altered the tannins and flavors of the wine. Later, the process was modified to require only that wine be heated to 194°F (90°C). (At this temperature, the wine is not bubbling, but it is cooking, in the sense that it will evaporate much more quickly than usual.) This managed to reduce some of the damage done to the wine, but still had a substantial effect on quality and aging potential.

Kosher California Wines on line

Recently, a process called flash pasteurization has come into vogue. This method avoids causing the juice of the grapes to simmer or boil, and is said to have a minimal effect on flavor, at least to the casual wine drinker. Indeed, the non-kosher winery Château Beaucastel flash pasteurizes[citation needed] and its wines are considered among the world's finest, although few others have copied this technique. In most territories, the bulk of kosher wine is supplied by wineries producing both kosher wine and wine for the general market. However, irrespective of the method, the pasteurization process must be overseen by mashgichim to ensure the kosher status of the wine. Generally, they will attend the winery to physically tip the fruit into the crush, and operate the pasteurization equipment. Once the wine emerges from the process, it can be handled and aged in the normal fashion.

History of Kosher Wine

2009-12-16T16:17:00.000-08:00

History

Also see: On-line Kosher Wine Store

The use of wine has a long history in Judaism, dating back to biblical times. Archeological evidence shows that wine was produced throughout Israel until at least 636 AD when the area came under Muslim control which prohibited alcoholic beverages. The traditional and religious use of wine continued within the Jewish diaspora community. In the United States, kosher wines came to be associated with sweet Concord wines produced by wineries founded by Jewish immigrants to New York. Beginning in the 1980s a trend towards producing dry, premium quality kosher wines begun with the revival of the Israeli wine industry. Today kosher wine is produced not only in Israel but throughout the world including premium wine areas like Napa Valley and the St-Emilion region of Bordeaux.

Megillah

2009-12-11T06:16:00.000-08:00

MEGILLAH: By : Solomon Schechter Jacob Zallel Lauterbach

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

Interpolations and Digressions.
Variations in MS.
Tosefta and Gemara.

Name of a treatise in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta, as well as in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. It is the tenth treatise in the mishnaic order Mo'ed, and includes four chapters, containing thirty-three paragraphs in all. Ch. i. 1-4 treats of the portion of the month Adar in which the Megillah is to be read, and, in case of a leap-year containing two months of Adar, it designates which month is to be chosen. The 15th of Adar, or in a leap-year the same day of the second Adar, is the day appointed for walled cities, and the 14th of Adar for unwalled cities and for villages. The inhabitants of the latter, however, when livingin districts where they meet weekly in the neighboring city, may read the roll on the 13th, 12th, or 11th of Adar, if the gathering takes place on one of these days. Since this distinction is made between the two months of Adar of a leap-year, while both months are alike in all other respects, ch. i. 5-11 notes several other groups of objects and cases which differ from one another in one point only; one such group, e.g., consists of the sacred books, the tefillin, and the mezuzah, the first two of which may be written in any language and script, but the last only in Hebrew and in square script. Greek is given the preference over all other foreign languages, since, according to R. Gamaliel, even the sacred books may be written in it.

Ch. ii. deals with the proper manner of reading the Megillah; with the language (mishnah 1), stating that those who do not understand Hebrew may read it in their own tongue; and with the problems whether it shall be read in whole or in part, which portions are to be read (mishnah 3) and at what time of the day. The statement that it may be read during the entire day is supplemented by the enumeration of many other regulations and customs which may be observed throughout the day if they are assigned to the daytime, or throughout the night if assigned to the night (mishnayot 5-6).

Ch. iii. discusses the sale of sacred objects, the synagogue and its furnishings, and the sacredness which still attaches in many respects to the ruins of a synagogue which has been destroyed (mishnayot 1-3). It further discusses the sections which are to be read on the Sabbaths in Adar in addition to the customary weekly sections, and what is to be read on each feast-day (mishnayot 4-6.). From the stand-point of contents this chapter does not belong to the treatise Megillah, being connected with it only by its fourth paragraph.

Interpolations and Digressions.

Ch. iv. begins with certain rules concerning the reading of the Megillah (mishnah 1a); then follow rules referring to other ritual readings from the Law and the Prophets (mishnayot 1b-2). One of these regulations holds that ten persons must be present at each reading; and in this connection many other religious ceremonies are enumerated as requiring the presence of ten persons (mishnah 3). Mishnah 4 defines the relation of the reader to the translator; mishnayot 5-7 determine who may read, who may lead in prayer, and which priest is entitled to lift up his hands for the blessing; mishnah 8 discusses unseemly dress of the prayer-leader and unseemly behavior regarding the tefillin; mishnah 9 enumerates incorrect expressions in prayer, designates the persons who must be silenced in public prayer, and contains various allusions to the views and customs of the sectarians ("minim") of the time; mishnah 10 enumerates the passages in the Torah which may be read but not translated, and the passages in the Prophets which may not be read as haftarot.

Variations in MS.

The sequence of chapters here given is that of the Palestinian Talmud in the manuscript of the Mishnah edited by Lowe, and is also the one found in most of the editions of the Mishnah, in the Tosefta, and in the codices of the Babylonian Talmud at Munich (MS. No. 140) and Oxford (Neubauer, "Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS." No. 366). The sequence of chapters in the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, corresponds with that of MS. Munich No. 95. Here the chapter cited above as the fourth, "Hakore et ha-megillah 'omed," precedes the chapter which has been designated as the third, "Bene ha-'ir." R. Hananeel offers a sequence differing from both; making "Ha-kore et ha-megillah 'omed" the second chapter, "Ha-kore et ha-megillah le-mafrea'" the third, and "Bene ha-'ir" the fourth.

The Tosefta to this treatise omits many of the passages contained in the Mishnah, but, on the other hand, it discusses in full detail much that is not found therein. Noteworthy is the enumeration of the passages in the Bible in which a euphemistic word is read instead of an objectionable one (iv. 39), while the condemnation of any translation of the Scriptures is also a striking feature (iv. 41).

Tosefta and Gemara.

The Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud contains in its first chapter, besides explanations of the various mishnayot, many important comments, of which the most interesting are: (1) on the origin of the final letters ך, ם, ן, ף and ץ (pp. 2b-3a); (2) on the origin of the targumim, that of the Torah being ascribed to the proselyte Onkelos, and that of the Prophets to Jonathan b. Uzziel (p. 3a; no targum of the Hagiographa seems to have been known at that time); (3) on the origin of Purim, which is said to have been originally merely a local festival at Shushan; the objections raised to its introduction that it might rouse the hatred of the Gentiles against the Jews; the hesitation at including the Book of Esther in the canon, and the reasons why it was finally admitted (p. 7a). The Gemara contains also the legend of the origin of the Septuagint (p. 9a, b). King Ptolemy called together seventy-two elders, assigned each one a separate house, and had them translate the Torah individually and without consultation. All these translations were found to agree absolutely, even to the changes made in certain passages. Pages 10b to 17a of the Gemara form a haggadic midrash to Esther.

The second chapter of the Gemara discusses the several mishnayot, gives an account of the origin of the Shemoneh 'Esreh prayer, and explains the sequence of the several benedictions. In the Gemara on ch. iii. the most noteworthy feature is the remark on the pronunciation of Hebrew current among the inhabitants of Bet-She'on, Bet-hefa, and Tibonin, who confounded "alef" with "'ayin," and "he" with "het." The Gemara to ch. iv. contains, in addition to the notes on the mishnayot, some important regulations regarding public worship. The Gemara of the Palestinian Talmud mentions certain other feast-days in the month of Adar, which were similar to Purim, including the Day of Trajan (), the 12th, and the Day of Nicanor, the 13th (i. 5). Especially noteworthy is the remark on the origin of square script and on the translation of Aquila (i. 9). The passage in the Palestinian Talmud on Aquila's version compels the assumption that "Onkelos" in the Babylonian Talmud (3a) ismerely a corruption of "Aquila," and that the reference in this latter Talmud also is to the Greek and not to the Aramaic translation.

Scroll of Eshter

2009-12-11T06:12:00.000-08:00

Scroll of Eshter: By : Emil G. Hirsch Carl Siegfried

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

Editions and Critical Helps.
The Dream of Mordecai.
The Destruction of the Jews Decreed.
Mordecai's Prayer.
The Prayer of Esther.
Esther Before the King.
The New Edict.
Interpretation of Mordecai's Dream.

The canonical Book of Esther undoubtedly presents the oldest extant form of the Esther story. In times of oppression the Jews found comfort in this narrative, for it presented an example of sudden divine salvation in the days of distress (Esth. ix. 22, 28), and it strengthened their hope of being liberated from their desperate condition, especially in the days of the Maccabees. Naturally, the Jews' well-known skill in transforming and enriching traditional narratives was applied especially to those incidents which were touched but lightly in the Biblical Book of Esther. Such variations and additions have been preserved in Greek, but the assumption that they were based on a Hebrew original has been proved erroneous (comp. Scholz, "Kommentar über das Buch Esther mit Seinen Zusätzen," 1892, pp. 21 et seq.), the difficulty of translating many of these additions into Hebrew being especially significant (Fritzsche, "Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments," 1851, p. 71; Wace, "The Apocrypha," in "The Speaker's Commentary," i. 361-365). The additions were probably made in the time of the Maccabees, when the people were hoping for another sudden liberation by divine intervention. They aimed chiefly to supply the religious element signally lacking in the canonical book (comp. Reuss, "Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments," 2d ed., §§ 470 et seq.; Bleek-Wellhausen, "Einleitung in das Alte Testament," 5th ed., § 120; J. S. Bloch, "Hellenistische Bestandtheile im Bibl. Schriftum," 2d ed., p. 8; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, "Die Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments," i. 197). Fritzsche (l.c. p. 73) has pointed out linguistic similarities between the additions and the second Book of the Maccabees.

Editions and Critical Helps.

The latest date that can be given to the additions is the year 30 B.C., when the Ptolemaic rule came to an end (comp. B. Jacob in Stade's "Zeitschrift," 1890, p. 290). These additions are contained in the uncial manuscript of the Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Alexandrinus (A). Among the printed editions may be mentioned those of R. Holmes and J. Parsons, Oxford, 1798-1827; E. Nestle, "Vet. Test. Græce Juxta LXX. Interpretum," Leipsic, 1850; H. B., Swete, "The Old Testament in Greek," 2d ed., Cambridge, 1895-99; O. F. Fritzsche, "Libr. Apoc. V. T. Græce," 1871. The text of the additions has been preserved in two forms, namely, that of the Septuagint, and that revised by Lucian, the martyr of Antioch (comp. B. Jacob, l.c. pp. 258-262). Lagarde has published both texts with complete critical annotations in his "Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum," 1883, i. 504-541; and later on A. Scholz ("Kommentar über das Buch Esther," pp. 2-99, Würzburg and Vienna, 1892) published a small edition in four parallel columns, showing side by side the Hebrew text of the canonical book, the two Greek texts, and Josephus' text (comp. Ryssel in Kautzsch, l.c. pp. 198, 199).

For textual criticism there are, also, the two Latin translations; not so much the Vulgate—in which Jerome translated very freely, and in part arbitrarily—as the Old Latin, which, in spite of its arbitrariness and incompleteness, and its additions, probably made in part by Christians, has preserved a few good readings of the Codex Vaticanus (comp. Fritzsche, l.c. pp. 74 et seq.; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, l.c. p. 199; B. Jacob, l.c. pp. 249-258). On the forthcoming new edition of pre-Jerome texts of Esther, comp. Ph. Thielmann, "Bericht über das Gesammelte Handschriftliche Material zu einer Kritischen Ausgabe der Lateinischen Uebersetzung Biblischer Bücher des A. T." Munich, 1900; "Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Bayerischen Academie der Wissenschaften," ii. 205-247. For an explanation of the Greek additions to the Book of Esther see Fritzsche, l.c. (the older interpreters, p. 76; the later, pp. 69-108); F. O. Bissel, "The Apocrypha of Old Testament," New York, 1880; Fuller-Wace, l.c. i. 361-402; O. Zöckler, "Die Apocryphen des Alten Testaments," Munich, 1891; Ball, "The Ecclesiastical, or Deuterocanonical, Books of the Old Testament," London, 1892; V. Ryssel, in Kautzsch, l.c. i. 193-212.

The Dream of Mordecai.

The dream of Mordecai precedes in the Septuagint, as i. 11-17, the canonical story of Esther, and corresponds in the Vulgate to xi. 2-12 and xii. (Swete, "The Old Testament in Greek," ii. 755 et seq.). This version contradicts the account in the canonical book, for, according to the apocryphal version (i. 2), Mordecai is already in the service of King Artaxerxes, and has this dream inthe second year of that king's reign, whereas in the canonical version (ii. 16) Esther was not taken into the royal house until the seventh year of his reign, and Mordecai did not sit "in the king's gate"—that is, enter the king's service—until after that event (ii. 19-20). The author of the apocryphal Esther speaks of two conspiracies against Artaxerxes, and says that Mordecai preceded Esther in coming to court. His account is as follows: Mordecai as a servant in the palace sleeps with the courtiers Gabatha and Tharra (Esth. ii. 21, "Bigthan" and "Teresh"; Vulg. "Bagatha" [whence "Gabatha"] and "Thara"), and overhears their plot against the king. He denounces the conspirators, who are arrested and confess. The king and Mordecai write down the occurrence, and Mordecai is rewarded. As the conspirators are condemned to death (according to B. Jacob in Stade's "Zeitschrift," x. 298, the words of Codex B, διότι ἀνέρήθησαν, are to be added here; comp. Jerome: "qui fuerant interfecti"), Haman, who evidently was in league with them, plans to take vengeance on Mordecai (Apocr. Esth. ii. 12-17).
(see image) Olive-Wood Case for Scroll of Esther, from Jerusalem.(In the U. S. National Museum, Washington., D. C.)

There is a second conspiracy after Esther has been made queen, in the seventh year of the king's reign (Esth. ii. 21 et seq.). Mordecai in his dream (Apocr. Esth. i. 4-11) sees two dragons coming to fight each other (representing Mordecai and Haman, ib. vi. 4); the nations make ready to destroy the "people of the righteous," but the tears of the righteous well up in a little spring that grows into a mighty stream (comp. Ezek. xlvii. 3-12; according to Apocr. Esth. vi. 3, the spring symbolizes Esther, who rose from a poor Jewess to be a Persian queen). The sun now rises, and those who had hitherto been suppressed "devoured those who till then had been honored" (comp. Esth. ix. 1-17).

The Destruction of the Jews Decreed.

The second addition contains an edict of Artaxerxes for the destruction of all the Jews, to be carried out by Haman (Apocr. Esth. ii. 1-7; it follows Esth. iii. 13; comp. Swete, l.c. pp. 762 et seq.). The mere mention of the fact that an edict for the destruction of the Jews had gone forth, was a temptation to enlarge upon it. The "great king" (verse 1), as in Esth. i. 1, sends a letter to the governors of the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of his kingdom—that extends from India even unto Ethiopia—saying that although personally he is inclined toward clemency, he is bound to look to the security of his kingdom.

In a conference on the matter, he said, Haman, the councilor ranking next to him in the kingdom, had pointed out that there was one evilly disposed class of people in his realm, which, by its laws, placed itself in opposition to all the other classes, persisted in disregarding the royal ordinances, and made a unified government impossible. Under these circumstances, he said, nothing remained but to adopt the suggestion of Haman, who, having been placed in charge of the affairs of the state, could in a sense be called the second father of the king; this suggestion was to destroy by the sword of the other nations, on the fourteenth day of Adar (thirteenth of Adar in Esth. iii. 13, viii. 12, ix, 1), all those designated as Jews, together with their wives and children. After these disturbers of the peace had been put out of the way, the king believed the business of the realm could again be conducted in peace.

Mordecai's Prayer.
(see image) Scroll of Esther as Fixed in Olive-Wood Case.(In the U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.)

The remaining additions are closely connected with this affair. The next in order is Mordecai's prayer for help (Apocr. Esth. iii. 1-11; Vulg. xiii. 8-18); in the Septuagint it is added to iv. 17 (Swete, l.c. pp. 765 et seq.). It follows the story of Esth. iv. 1-16, according to which Esther commanded Mordecai to assemble all the Jews for a three-days' fast before she herself interceded for them before the king. The prayer begins with the usual praise of divine omnipotence. Heaven and earth are a paraphrase for the idea τὸ πᾶν(verse 2; comp. Gen. i. 1;Isa. xlv. 18). The plight of the Jews was occasioned by the refusal to kiss Haman's feet (comp. Esth. iii. 2-5), a refusal caused not by pride, but because honor as high as that which such an act implied belongs to God alone (comp. the refusal of the προσκύνησις of the Greek ambassadors to Darius). "This scrupulousness is characteristic of post-exilic Judaism; in ancient Israel the honor was unhesitatingly accorded to every nobleman (I Sam. xxv. 23 et seq.; II Sam. xviii. 21, 28): even Judith (x. 23 [21]) honored Holofernes in this way in order to allay his suspicions.

But, Mordecai continues, this refusal was merely a pretext to destroy God's chosen people (κληρονομία, verse 8; comp. Apocr. Esth. iv. 20; vii. 9 = Hebr. ; Ps. xxviii. 9, xciv. 5, etc.; μερίς, verse 9; comp. LXX. on Deut. xxxii. 9; κλῆρος, verse 10 = , Deut. iv. 20), and he implores God to protect them now as He had their fathers in Egypt (comp. in Deut. ix. 26). The prayer closes with the supplication to save His people and turn their mourning into gladness (really "feasting"; comp. vi. 22 et seq.; see also Esth. ix. 17-19, where the prayer also ends in feasting and in the sending of gifts of food to one another). Here, as in Ps. vi. 6 (A. V. 5), xxx. 10 [9], cxv. 17; and Ecclus. (Sirach) xvii. 25, the reason for harkening to the prayer is the desire ascribed to Yhwh of hearing songs of praise and thanks, which only the living can offer (verse 10, where the reading στόμα is preferable to αιμα; Swete, l.c. p. 765). Finally, emphasis is laid on the people's loud calling and crying to God (ἐξ ἰσχύος αὐτῶν . . . ἐκήκραξεν; comp. Dan. iii. 4, ; Isa. lviii. 1, ) when they stood face to face with death (ἐν ὀφϑαλμοῖς αὐτῶν).

The Prayer of Esther.

Closely connected with this is the prayer of Esther (Apocr. Esth. iii. 12-30; Septuagint, xiii. 8-18, xiv. 1-19; Swete, l.c. pp. 766 et seq.; Vulg. xiv. 1-19): she takes off her royal garments (τὰ ἱμάτια τῆς δόξης αὐτῆς [in Esth. i. 11, ii. 17 only the royal crown is mentioned]), and, putting on mourning-robes (, Judges viii. 5 [6]; Neh. ix. 1), strews ashes on her head (comp. Isa. iii. 24; Mal. ii. 3; II Sam. xiii. 19, commonly ; Job ii. 9). She winds her hair about her (verse 13) and takes off all adornments (ἐ;ταπείνωσεν comp. , Lev. xvi. 29, 31; Isa. lviii. 3). In this way the pity of God would be aroused and His anger allayed (I Kings xxi. 21-29).

The prayer refers to the threatening danger (comp. iii. 11): as God once released Israel's ancestors from the Egyptian yoke (verse 16), so Esther beseeches him now to save the Jews from their impending fate, though they deserve it for having participated in Persian idolatry (verses 17, 18 refer to this, and not to the preexilic idolatry; comp. II Kings xvii. 29-33, 41). Following Lagarde and Ryssel, the reading in verse 19 is ἔθηκαν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν επῖ τὰς χεῖρας τῶν εὶδώλων ("they put their hands in the hands of the idols"; on , to confirm an agreement by clasping of hands, see Ezra x. 19). This means: "The Persian oppressors have vowed to their gods [verse 19] to make vain the divine promise, to destroy Israel [i.e., the divine heritage], to close the mouths of those that praise God, and to extinguish the glory of the house and the altar of God [verse 20]. Furthermore, they swear that the mouth of the heathen will be opened in praise of their impotent [gods], and their mortal king [the Persian] will be for ever admired" (verse 21). Hence God is besought not to give His scepter into the hands of the "non-existing" (τοῖς μὴ οὖσιν; comp. I Cor. viii. 4), and not to make the Jews a laughing-stock to the heathen, but to let the plans of the latter turn against themselves. "Mark him [παρλδιγμάτισον; comp. Heb. vi. 6] who began [to act] against us."

In verse 24 Esther adds a prayer for the success of the petition which, according to Esth. iv. 16, she intends to make to the king. "Put orderly speech into my mouth in face of the lion" (the Persian king is thus called also in the Aramaic version of Mordecai's dream; see Merx, "Chrestomathia Targumica," p. 164, 3; comp. Ecclus. [Sirach] xxv. 16, 19). The object of her petition—to turn the anger of the king against Israel's persecutors—anticipates the events of Esth. vii. 9. She prays God to help her, the desolate one (τῇ μόνῃ; corresponding to in Ps. xxv. 17 [A. V. 16], where it occurs next to , "lonely and deserted," differing from verse 14, σὺ εἶ μόνος, referring to the singleness of Yhwh), who has no one else to turn to (verse 25). She refers to the fact that Yhwh knows the splendor of her royal position did not tempt her to yield to the king (in Esth. ii. 7-20 this is not mentioned), but that she submitted to the force of circumstances (verse 25). She continues by affirming that she hates the glitter of the lawless ones (δόξαν ἀνόμων the ἀνόμων here are the heathen; their δόξα is their power), and abhors the bed of the uncircumcised (verse 26). Yhwh, she says, knows her distress in being forced to be the king's wife. She abhors the symbol of pride on her head (i.e., the royal crown she wears in public); she abhors it like a filthy rag (ὡς ῥάκος κλταμηνίων= ; Isa. lxiv. 5 [A. V. 6]), and does not wear it when sitting quietly at home (verse 17). Finally, she has not sat at table in Haman's house, nor graced by her presence the banquet of the king (according to the canonical version [ii. 18], Esther kept her own feast); nor did she drink any of the sacrificial wine of the heathen gods (οῦνον σπονδῶν; comp. LXX. Deut. xxxii. 38; Fuller, in Wace, l.c. p. 390, verse 28). Since her arrival there, God, she says, has been her sole joy. The phrase ἀφ' ἡμήρας μεταβολῆς refers to the change in her dwellingplace (comp. Merx, "Chrestomathia Targumica," p. 163, 11 [Ryssel]), not to the day of her reception into the royal palace (Esth. ii. 16), as Zöckler and Fuller (in Wace, l.c. p. 390) have it. The prayer closes with a petition for a confirmation of faith and a release from all fear (comp. Judith ix. 11).

Esther Before the King.

Esther's reception by the king (iv. 1-15; Swete, l.c. pp. 767 et seq.) follows in the Septuagint immediately upon the prayer (xv. 4-19; Vulg. xv. 1-19). Here the events told in Esth. v. 1, 2 are amplified. In xv. 1 (Septuagint) the "third day" corresponds to Esth. v. 1. According to Septuagint v. 1 she took off the garments she had worn at divine service; in the apocryphal version (iii. 13) she had put them on. Divine service consistedin fasting, according to Esth. iv. 16; in praying, according to Apocryphal Esther iii. 12. In iv. 1 (Apocr. Esth.) she puts on her royal apparel, to which the crown probably belongs, according to ii. 17. After a supplication to God, she appears (iv. 1) accompanied by two handmaidens (ἅβραι= "favorite slaves"; comp. Judith viii. 33); according to Esth. ii. 9, she had seven handmaids. In Apocryphal Esther iv. 2 it is said she was escorted to the king by two maidens, "and upon the one she leaned, as carrying herself daintily" (verse 3: ῶς τρυφευομήνη); "and the other followed, bearing up her train." In the canonical Book of Esther no mention is made of this escort.

iv. (Apocr. Esth.) describes the impression her beauty produced: she was ruddy through the perfection of her beauty, and her countenance was cheerful and love-kindling; but her heart was heavy with fear of the danger of appearing uncalled before the king (comp. Esth. iv. 11). Having passed through all the doors, she stood before the king, who sat upon his throne clothed in the robes of majesty (see Fuller in Wace, l.c.; compare the representation of the king on his throne in the picture of Persepolis according to Rawlinson). Verse 7: Then, lifting up his countenance (that shone with majesty), he looked very fiercely upon her; and the queen fell down, and was pale, and fainted; after she had regained consciousness she bowed herself upon the head of the maid that went before her. Verse 8: Then God changed the spirit of the king into mildness. In concern he leaped from his throne, and took her in his arms till she recovered her composure, comforting her with loving words. In Verse 9 he asks: "Esther, what is the matter? I am thy brother," thereby placing her on the same level with him. In verses 10 et seq. he assures her that the death penalty is meant to apply only to the unauthorized entrance of the king's subjects (comp. Esth. iv. 11), and that it does not apply to her: "Thou shalt not die. . . ." Touching her neck with his golden scepter, he embraced her, and said, "Speak unto me." Then said she unto him, "I saw thee, my lord, as an angel of God [comp. Ezek. viii. 2], and my heart was troubled for fear of thy majesty." And as she was speaking, she fell down for faintness. Verse 16: Then the king was troubled, and all his servants comforted her.

The New Edict.

The king now issues an edict canceling the former edict, and decreeing protection to the Jews (Apocr. Esth. v. 1-24; Vulg. xvi. 1-24; Septuagint addition to viii. 12; comp. Swete, l.c. pp. 773-775, the amplification of the edict mentioned in Esth. viii. 13). The first edict against the Jews is revoked; its instigator, Haman, is accused of conspiracy against the king; and every aid is ordered to be given to the Jews. Verses 2-4: "Many, the more often they are honored with the great bounty of their gracious princes, the more proud they are waxen, and endeavor to hurt not our subjects only, but, not being able to bear abundance, do take in hand to practise also against those that do them good, and take not only thankfulness away from among men, but also, lifted up with the glorious words of lewd persons that were never good, they think to escape the justice of God, that seeth all things, and hateth evil." Verses 5-6: "Oftentimes, also, fair speech of those that are put in trust to manage their friends' affairs [comp. Jacob in Stade, l.c. x. 283, note 2] hath caused many that are in authority to be partakers of innocent blood, and hath enwrapped them in remediless calamities [comp. I Sam. xxv. 26; II Sam. xvi. 4], beguiling with the falsehood and deceit of their lewd disposition the innocency and goodness of princes." Verse 7: "Now ye may see this, as we have declared, not so much by ancient histories, as by observing what hath wickedly been done of late through the pestilent behavior of them that are unworthily placed in authority." Verses 8-9: "We must take care for the time to come that our kingdom may be quiet and peaceable for all men, by changing our purposes and always judging things that are evident with more equal proceeding." Verses 10-14: The king had accorded this gentle treatment to Haman, but had been bitterly deceived by him, and was therefore compelled to revoke his former edict. (According to Dan. vi. 9, 13 this was inadmissible, but Fuller, l.c. pp. 397 et seq., cites a number of cases in which it was done. Verse 10 is about Haman, called in i. 17 "the Agagite," here "the Macedonian"; in verse 14 he is accused of having betrayed the Persian empire to the Macedonians.) "For Aman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadatha, being indeed a stranger to the Persian blood [comp. Vulg. "et animo et gente Macedo"], and far distant from our goodness, and a stranger received of us, had so far obtained the favor that we show toward every nation that he was called our 'father,' and was continually honored of all men, as the next person unto the king. He had also been bowed down to [comp. Esth. iii. 2-6]. But he, not bearing his great dignity, went about to deprive us of our kingdom and life; having, by manifold and cunning deceits, sought of us the destruction, as well of Mordecai, who saved our life, and continually procured our good, as of blameless Esther, partaker of our kingdom with the whole nation. For by these means he thought, finding us destitute of friends, to have translated the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians." According to these verses Haman was guilty of a threefold sin, since he tried to wrest from the king wife, kingdom, and life.

v. 15-16, 18-19: "But we find that the Jews, whom this wicked wretch hath delivered to utter destruction, are no evil-doers, but live by most just laws; and that they are children of the Most High and Most Mighty God, who hath ordered the kingdom both unto us and to our progenitors in the most excellent manner. Therefore, ye shall do well not to put in execution the letters sent unto you by Aman, the son of Amadatha; for he that was the worker of these things is hanged [ήσταυρωσθσι = "impaled"] at the gates of Susa with all his family [according to Esth. vii. 10, viii. 7, Haman alone was hanged; according to Esth. ix. 10, the Jews killed his ten sons; in Dan. vi. 25 the wives and children were thrown into the lions' den], God, who ruleth all things, speedily rendering vengeance to him according to deserts. Therefore he shall publish the copy of this letter in all places [ἐκτιθήναι; Stade, l.c. x. 282, a phrase used in the promulgation of royal commands], that the Jews may live after their own laws" (comp. Ezra vii. 25 et seq.; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 3, § 3, xvi. 6, § 2).

v. 20-24: "Ye shall aid them, that even the same day, being the l3th day of the 12th month Adar, they may be avenged on them who in the time of their affliction shall set upon them [comp. Esth. ix. 1; but see above Apocr. Esth. ii. 6, where the 14th day is fixed upon; according to Esth. iii. 13, Haman had appointed the thirteenth day for exterminating the Jews]. For Almighty hath turned to joy unto them the day wherein the chosen people should have perished. Ye shall therefore, among your solemn feasts, keep it an high day with all feasting [following Grotius, Fritzsche, and Ryssel κλήρων (sc. ὴμιν) is to be added after; according to this the Persian king instituted the Jewish Feast of Purim, as a day to be celebrated also by the Persians], that both now and hereafter there may be safety to us [the reading here should be ὑμιν instead of ἡμιν] and the well-affected Persians, and that it may be, to those which do conspire against us, a memorial of destruction. Therefore every city and country whatsoever which shall not do according to these things, shall be destroyed without mercy with fire and sword, and shall be made not only impassable for men, but also most hateful for wild beasts and fowls forever."

Interpretation of Mordecai's Dream.

In the Septuagint the interpretation of Mordecai's dream is separated from the dream itself, which forms the beginning of the additions, and constitutes the end of the whole apocryphon (vi. 1-10), with verse 11 as subscription (Swete, l.c. pp. 779 et seq.). In the Vulgate the passage stands at the end of the canonical Book of Ezra (x. 4-11), preceding all other apocryphal additions as well as the dream itself, which here occupies xi. 2-11. Neither dream nor interpretation is found in Josephus. The expression "God hath done these things" (comp. Matt. xxi. 42) refers to the whole story of the Book of Esther. Verse 2 refers to the dream told in the beginning of the book, which has been fulfilled in every respect. "The little fountain that became a river" (vi. 3) signifies the elevation of Esther (see i. 9), who became a stream when the king married her and made her queen. The light and the sun (see i. 10) signify the salvation and joy that Esther brought to the Jews (comp. Esth. viii. 16). The two dragons are Mordecai and Haman. The nations that assembled to destroy the name of the Jews (see i. 6) are theheathen (comp. Esth. iii. 6-8). "And my nation is this Israel, which cried to God and were saved" (vi. 6; comp. iii. 11). "Therefore hath he made two lots, one for the people of God, and another for all the Gentiles" (vi. 7; comp. Esth. iii. 7). "And the two lots were drawn [ἦλϑον; lit. "they came, sprang out at the right time"]: one for his people [Fritzsche and Ryssel add τῷ λαῶ αὐτοῦ], the other for all the other peoples." "So God remembered his people and justified [decided in its favor; compare Deut. xxv. 1; I Kings viii. 32; Ecclus. (Sirach) xiii. 22; Vulg. freely rendered, "misertus est"; compare old Latin "salvavit"] his inheritance" (vi.9). "Therefore those days shall be unto them in the month of Adar, the fourteenth and fifteenth day of the same month, with an assembly, and joy, and with gladness before God, according to the generations forever among his people" (vi. 10; comp. Esth. ix. 18, 21). In II Macc. xv. 36 the fourteenth day is called ἥ Μαρδοχαικὴ ἡμέρα.

The subscription, verse 11 (in Swete, ii. 780, inserted in the German Bible between Esther's reception by the king and Ahasuerus' second edict), refers to the whole Book of Esther together with the apocryphal additions, as does also the expression τὴυ προκειμέυηυ ἐπιστολὴυ τῶυ φρουραί (Swete), meaning "the above letter on Purim" (compare Esth. ix. 20, 29).

This letter was taken to Egypt by Dositheus—who called himself a priest and Levite (?)—and his son Ptolemy, who maintained that it was the original (Apocr. Esther). Lysimachus, Ptolemy's son, an inhabitant of Jerusalem, translated the letter in the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra (according to some in 455; see Fritzsche, l.c. pp. 72 et seq.). Four Ptolemies had wives by the name of Cleopatra (Epiphanes, Philometor, Physkon, and Soter). Soter II. lived about that time; but all these notices are untrustworthy; compare, on the date of the letter, Jacob in Stade's "Zeitschrift," x. 274-290, especially p. 279.

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

Rosh Ha Shanah

2009-12-11T06:07:00.000-08:00

ROSH HA-SHANAH: By : Wilhelm Bacher Ludwig A. Rosenthal

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

The Shofar.
The Tosefta.

Eighth treatise of the order Mo'ed; it contains (1) the most important rules concerning the calendar year together with a description of the inauguration of the months by the nasi and ab bet din; (2) laws on the form and use of the shofar and on the service during the Rosh ha-Shanah feast.

Contents.

The old numerical Mishnah commences with an account of the four beginnings of the religious and the civil year (i. 1); it speaks of the four judgment-days of the pilgrim festivals and Rosh ha-Shanah (i. 2); of the six months in which the messengers of the Sanhedrin announce the month (i. 3); of the two months the beginnings of which witnesses announce to the Sanhedrin even on the Sabbath (i. 4), and even if the moon is visible to every one (i. 5); Gamaliel even sent on the Sabbath for forty pairs of witnesses from a distance (i. 6); when father and son (who as relatives may otherwise not witness together) behold the new moon they must set out for the bet din (i. 7), since they do not absolutely belong to those that are legally unfit for this purpose (i. 8). The weak and sick are borne on litters, and are protected against the attacks of the Sadducees; they must be provided with food, for witnesses are bound to journey even on the Sabbath (i. 9). Others went along to identify the unknown (ii. 1). In olden times bonfire-signals on the mountains announced to all as far as Babylon that the month had been sanctified. The custom of having witnesses and messengers was introduced after the Sadducees had attempted to practise deception (ii. 2, 3, 4).

The large court called "Bet Ya'azek" was the assembly-place for the witnesses (ii. 5); bountiful repasts awaited them, and dispensations from the Law were granted to them (ii. 6); the first pair of witnesses was questioned separately concerning the appearance of the moon, and other witnesses cursorily (ii. 7). Then the ab bet din called out to a large assembly, "Sanctified!" all the people crying out aloud after him (ii. 8). Gamaliel II. had representations of the moon which he showed to the witnesses. Once there arose a dispute between him and Joshua regarding the Tishri moon; the latter, in obedience to the nasi, came on foot to Jamnia on the day which he had calculated to be the Day of Atonement, and the two scholars made peace (iii.). There were various obstacles to the sanctification of the months, as when time was lacking for the ceremony, or when there were no witnesses present before the bet din. In the first case the following day became the new moon; in the second case the bet din alone performed the sanctification.

The Shofar.

The Mishnah treats also of the shofar (iii. 2); the horn of the cow may not be used (iii. 3); the form of the trumpet for Rosh ha-Shanah, the fast-day, and Yobel is determined (iii. 5); injuries to the shofar and the remedies are indicated (iii. 6); in times of danger the people that pray assemble in pits and caves (iii. 7); they pass the house of worship only on the outside while the trumpets sound (iii. 8); they are exhorted to be firm by being reminded of Moses' uplifted hands in the war with the Amalekites. In such times the deaf-mutes, insane, and children are legally unfit for blowing the trumpets.

Even if the festival fell on the Sabbath, Johanan ben Zakkai had the trumpets blown at Jamnia, while at one time this was done only in the Temple and the surrounding places (iv. 1); he also fixed the lulab outside of the Temple for seven days, and forbade the eating of new grain on the second day of Passover (iv. 2); he extended the time for examining witnesses until the evening, and had them come to Jamnia even in the absence of the ab bet din (iv. 3). The Mishnah then treats of the order of the prayers (iv. 4), of the succession of the Malkuyot, Zikronot, and Shoferot, of the Bible sentences concerning the kingdom of God, Providence, and the trumpet-call of the future (iv. 5), and of the leader in prayer and his relation to the teki'ah (iv. 6); descriptions of the festival are given in reference to the shofar (iv. 7); then follows the order of the traditional trumpet-sounds (iv. 8); and remarks on the duties of the leader in prayer and of the congregation close the treatise (iv. 9).

The Tosefta.

Curious as is the order of subjects followed in this treatise, in which several mishnaic sources have been combined, the Tosefta follows it, adding comments that form the basis of the Gemara in both Talmuds. The contents of the Mishnah with the corresponding sections of the Tosefta are as follows: General calendar for the year, i. 1-4 = Tosef. i. 1-13. Regulations concerning the months' witnesses, i. 5-ii. 1 (connecting with i. 4) = Tosef. i. 15-ii. 1 (abbreviated). Historical matter regarding fire-signals and messengers and their reception on the Sabbath, ii. 2-6 = Tosef. ii. 2 (abbreviated). The continuation of the laws of ii. 1 concerning witnesses (ii. 7, 8), and the questioning of witnesses, and the sanctification of the months are entirely lacking in the Tosefta. Historical data concerning Gamaliel and the disputewith Joshua, ii. 8-9 = Tosef. ii. 3 (a mere final sentence). Continuation of the laws of ii. 7 concerning witnesses, iii. 1 = Tosef. iii. 1, 2. Regulations regarding the shofar and its use, iii. 2-5 = Tosef. iii. 3-6a. Haggadic sentence on devotion = Tosef. iii. 6b. Final remarks on the shofar and on its obligations, iii. 6-end = Tosef. iv. 1. Ordinances of Johanan ben Zakkai concerning Rosh ha-Shanah and the Sabbath, and other matters = Tosef. iv. 2. Order of worship, iv. 5-end = Tosef. iv. 4-end. Mishnah ii. 7 seems to have been transposed according to Tosef. iv. 3, but it belongs there according to its contents.

In quoting many of Gamaliel's ordinances the Mishnah emphasizes the authority of the patriarchal house by recounting the dispute between the patriarch and his deputy Joshua and showing how the latter was forced to yield. The Tosefta omits the ordinances of Gamaliel and of Johanan ben Zakhai, and the dispute of the two leaders of the school-house, nor does it mention anything of the power of any tannaitic dignitary; the Tosefta is here a product of the time of the Amoraim. The dignity of the nasi is not emphasized, because acumen and scholarship prevailed in the schoolhouse, and there was no desire to let old precedences (see 'Eduyot) come to the fore again. Even the Mishnah contains some additions from the time of the Amoraim (see, for example, iv. 2, where a gap must be filled from the Tosefta).

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

Purim

2009-12-11T06:05:00.000-08:00

PURIM: By : Kaufmann Kohler Henry Malter

ARTICLE HEADINGS:

Non-Religious Character.
Reading of the Megillah.
The Megillah—How Read.
Social Customs.
Feasting.
Masquerading.
Songs.
Boisterousness in the Synagogue.
Burning of Haman's Effigy.
Fasting Before and After Purim.
Purim katan.

Jewish feast celebrated annually on the l4th, and in Shushan, Persia, also on the 15th, of Adar, in commemoration of the deliverance of the Persian Jews from the plot of Haman to exterminate them, as recorded in the Book of Esther. According to that book the feast was instituted as a national one by Mordecai and Esther. For a critical view of Purim see Esther. In the present article are treated only the various features of the feast as developed after its institution.

Non-Religious Character.

Aside from the much-mooted question whether Purim is of Jewish or of heathen origin, it is certain that, as it appears in the Book of Esther, the festival is altogether devoid of religious spirit—an anomaly in Jewish religious history. This is due to the worldly spirit of the Book of Esther. The only religious allusions therein are the mention of fasting in iv. 16 and ix. 31, and perhaps the expression of confidence in the deliverance of Israel in iv. 14. This secular character has on the whole been most prominent in this festival at all times. Like hanukkah, it has never been universally considered a religious holy day, in spite of the fact that it is designated by the term "yom-tob" (Esth. ix. 19, 22.). Accordingly business transactions and even manual labor are allowed on Purim, although in certain places restrictions have beenimposed on work (Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 696).

Nevertheless Purim has been held in high esteem at all times and in all countries, some even maintaining that when all the prophetical and hagiographical works shall be forgotten the Book of Esther will still be remembered, and, accordingly, the Feast of Purim will continue to be observed (Yer. Meg. i. 5a; Maimonides, "Yad," Megillah, iii. 18; comp. Schudt, "Jüdische Merkwürdigkeiten," ii. 311). It is also claimed that Purim is as great as the day on which the Torah was given on Sinai ("Mordekai" on B. M. ix., end; comp. Lampronti, "Pahad Yizhak," s.v. "Purim"). In Italy the Jews, it seems, have even used the word "Purim" as a family name, which also proves the high esteem that the festival enjoys among them (Vogelstein and Rieger, "Gesch. der Juden in Rom," ii. 420; but comp. Steinschneider in "Monatsschrift," 1903, p. 175).

The Book of Esther does not prescribe any religious service for Purim; it enjoins only the annual celebration of the feast among the Jews on the 14th and 15th of Adar, commanding that they should "make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor." It seems, therefore, that the observance of Purim was at first merely of a convivial and social nature. Gradually it assumed religious features.

Reading of the Megillah.

The first religious ceremony ordained for the celebration of Purim is the reading of the Book of Esther in the synagogue, a regulation ascribed in the Talmud (Meg. 2a) to the "Men of the Great Synod," of which Mordecai is reported to have been a member. Originally this enactment was for the 14th of Adar only; later, however, R. Joshua b. Levi (3d cent.) prescribed that the Megillah should be read on the eve of Purim also. Further, he obliged women to attend the reading of the Megillah, inasmuch as it was a woman, Queen Esther, through whom the miraculous deliverance of the Jews was accomplished (Meg. 4a; see, however, Yer. Meg. ii. 5, where this law is reported in the name of Bar kappara; comp. "R. E. J." xxxii. 42).

In the Mishnah there is a difference of opinion as to how much of the Megillalh one must read in order to discharge one's duty. According to R. Judah, the portion from ii. 5 to the end suffices; others considered the portion from iii. 1, or even from vi. 1, to the end sufficient; while R. Meïr demanded the reading of the entire scroll, and his view was accepted in the Talmud (Meg. 19a). In some congregations it was customary to read the first portion of the Megillah, i.-vi., at the "outgoing of the first Sabbath" in Adar and the rest on the outgoing of the second Sabbath of that month. In other places the whole Megillah was read on the outgoing of the second Sabbath (Soferim xiv. 18). In some places it was read on the 15th of Adar also (ib. xxi. 8), for example, at Tyre (comp. Zunz, "Ritus", p. 56). According to the Mishnah, the "villagers" were permitted for the sake of convenience to read the Megillah on the Monday or Thursday of the Purim week, on which days they came to the towns for divine service.
(see image) Purim Players.(From Leusden, "Philologus Hebræo-Mixtus," 1657.)

In the Mishnah the recitation of a benediction either before or after the reading of the Megillah is not yet a universally recognized obligation. The Talmud, however, prescribed three benedictions before and one after the reading (comp. Meg. 21b; Yer. Meg. iv. 1; Masseket Soferim xiv. 5, 6, where the formulas for the closing benediction differ; comp. also Shulhan 'Aruk, Orah hayyim, 692, 1). The Talmud added other provisions also in connectionwith the reading of the Megillah. For example, the reader was to pronounce the names of the ten sons of Haman (Esth. ix. 7-10) in one breath, to indicate their simultaneous death (Meg. 16b; Orah hayyim, 690, 15). The congregation was to recite aloud with the reader the verses ii. 5, viii. 15-16, and x. 3, which relate the origin of Mordecai and his triumph (Abudarham, ed. Amsterdam, 1726, p. 76; Orah hayyim, l.c.). This rule is of geonic origin (see Brück, "Pharisaische Volkssitten," p. 158). Saadia Gaon demanded that only the first two verses of the four mentioned above be read aloud; and this was the custom in Spain (Abudarham, l.c.).
(see image) "Haman Klopfers" Used on Purim Feast by Jewish Children of Russia.(From "Globus.")

The Megillah—How Read.

The Megillah is read with a traditional chant differing from that used in the reading of the pericopes or the Pentateuch. In some places, however, it is not chanted, but is read like a letter, because of the name "iggeret" (epistle) which is applied (Esth. ix. 26, 29) to the Book of Esther (comp. Judah 'Ayyash, "Bet Yehudah," No. 23, Leghorn, 1747). For the same reason it has been also customary since the time of the Geonim to unroll the whole Megillah before reading it, in order to give it the appearance of an epistle (Orah hayyim, 690, 17; comp. Brück, l.c. p. 159).

Finally, it is to be mentioned that the Megillah may be read in any language intelligible to the audience. In Hebrew and also in Greek it may be read even when not understood (Meg. 18a; Orah hayyim, 690, 8-12; see, however, Soferim xxi. 8, where it is said that all Israel is in duty bound to read the Megillah in Hebrew). In Saragossa the Megillah was read in Spanish, a practise against which Isaac ben Sheshet (Responsa, Nos. 388-391) and Nissim Gerondi protested (see Grätz, "Gesch." viii. 35; Abrahams, "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages," pp. 345 et seq.; Steinschneider, in "Monatsschrift," 1903, p. 178). Talking during the public recitation was prohibited (Orah hayyim, 692, 2). According to the Mishnah (Meg. 30b), In addition to the Megillah Ex. xvii. 8-16, the story of the attack on the Jews by Amalek, the progenitor of Haman, is to be read.

Purim gave rise to many religious compositions, some of which were incorporated into the liturgy. For the large number of hymns intended for the public service as well as other writings (dramas, plays, etc.) intended for general edification, both in Hebrew and in other languages, see the exhaustive study by M. Steinschneider, "Purim und Parodie," in "Monatsschrift," xlvi.-xlviii., Index, especially xlvi. 279 et seq., 372 et seq.; for Karaitic rites see ib. pp. 373 et seq.

Social Customs.

As pointed out above, the Book of Esther prescribed "the sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor." This became in the course of time one of the most prominent features of the celebration of Purim. Jews sent gifts of food, especially dainties, to one another; and the poor were made recipients of charity. In the synagogue, too, regular collections were made on the festival, and the money so procured was distributed among the needy. No distinction was to be made among the poor; any one who was willing to accept, even a non-Jew, was to be allowed to participate (Orah. hayyim, 694). It was obligatory upon the poorest Jew, even on one who was himself dependent on charity, to give to other poor—at least to two (ib.). In some congregations it is customary to place a box ("kuppah") in the vestibule of the synagogue into which every one may put the half of the unit coin ("mahazit ha-shekel") of the country, corresponding to the half-shekel which, had been given to the Temple in Adar (ib.). The general provision is for every one to give three halves; but some give according to the number of persons in the family (comp. Jehiel Epstein, "kizzur Shene Luhot ha-Berit," p. 105b, Amsterdam, 1701). The amount of money thus distributed on Purim by wealthy members of the community often reached very large sums (see Steinschneider, l.c. xlvi. 180 et seq.). Dedications of works appear among the various forms of Purim presents (ib. and xlvii. 174 et seq., Nos. 5, 7, 19)
(see image) Purim Players at Prague, Early Eighteenth Century.(From a contemporary drawing.)

Feasting.

The national rather than the religious character of the festival made it appear appropriate to celebratethe occasion by feasting. Hence it was the rule to have at least one festive meal, called "se'udat Purim," toward the evening of the 14th (Meg. 7b; Orah hayyim, 695, 1). In this connection it may be mentioned that for the celebration of Purim there developed among the Jews a special kind of baking. Cakes were shaped into certain forms and were given names having some symbolic bearing on the historical events of Purim. Thus the Jews of Germany eat " Hamantaschen" and "Hamanohren" (in Italy, "orrechi d'Aman"), "Kreppchen," "Kindchen," etc. (comp. Steinschneider, l.c. xlvii. 177, 360 et seq.). The jovial character of the feast was forcibly illustrated in the saying of the Talmud (Meg. 7b) that one should drink on Purim until he can no longer distinguish "Cursed be Haman" from "Blessed be Mordecai," a saying which was codified in the Shulhan 'Aruk (ib.), but which was later ingeniously explained as referring to the letters occurring in the sentences and , in each of which the numerical value of the letters amounts to 502 (comp. Abudarham, l.c.; Lewin, "Gesch. der Juden in Lissa," p. 212, Pinne, 1904). While the Jews have always been noted for abstemiousness in the use of intoxicants, drunkenness was licensed, so to speak, on Purim, to comply with the command which seemed to lie in the Biblical term "mishteh" (drink) applied to Purim (Abudarham, l.c.). It is, therefore, not surprising that all kinds of merry-making, often verging on frivolity, have been indulged in on Purim, so that among the masses it has become almost a general rule that "on Purim everything is allowed" (comp. Steinschneider, l.c. p. 186), even transgressions of a Biblical law, such as the appearance of men in women's attire and vice versa, which is strictly prohibited in Deut. xxii. 5. This went so far that if through exuberance of spirits a man inflicted damage on the property of another on Purim he was not compelled to repair it (Orah hayyim, l.c., and the references there given).

Masquerading.
(see image) Observance of Purim in a German Synagogue of the Eighteenth Century.(From Bodenschatz, "Kirchliche Verfassung," 1748.)

One of the strangest species of merrymaking was the custom of masquerading, which was first introduced among the Italian Jews about the close of the fifteenth century under the influence of the Roman carnival. From Italy this custom spread over all countries where Jews lived, except perhaps the Orient (Steinschneider, l.c. p. 181; xlvii. 469, No. 9). The first among Jewish authors to mention this custom is Judah Minz (d. 1508 at Venice) in his Responsa, No. 17, quoted by Isserles on Orah hayyim, 696, 8. He expresses the opinion that, since the purpose of the masquerade is only merrymaking, it should not be considered a transgression of the Biblical law regarding dress. Although some rigorous authorities issued prohibitions against this custom (comp. Isaiah Horowitz, "Shene Luhot ha-Berit," 261b, Amsterdam, 1653), the people did not heed them, and the more lenient view prevailed (comp. Isserles, l.c., and Lampronti, l.c.). The custom still obtains among the Orthodox Jews of the eastern parts of Europe. Boys and girls walk from house to house in grotesque masks and indulge in all kinds of jollity. As a rule, they sing some comic doggerel, e.g., "heut' is Purim, morgen is aus, gebt mir a Kreuzer, und werft mich hinaus"; and theyare often given a few coins (comp. Steinschneider, l.c. xlvi. 176, 182).

Songs.

Purim songs have even been introduced into the synagogue. For the children's sake certain verses from the Book of Esther have been sung in chorus on Purim (Abrahams, l.c. p. 33).

Boisterousness in the Synagogue.

Indeed, Purim was an occasion on which much joyous license was permitted even within the walls of the synagogue itself. As such may be reckoned the boisterous hissing, stamping, and rattling, during the public service, at the mention of Haman or his sons, as well as the whistling at the mention of Mordecai by the reader of the Megillah. This practise traces its origin to French and German rabbis of the thirteenth century, who, in accordance with a passage in the Midrash, where the verse "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek" (Deut. xxv. 19) is explained to mean "even from wood and stones," introduced the custom of writing the name of Haman, the offspring of Amalek, on two smooth stones and of knocking or rubbing them constantly until the name was blotted out. Ultimately, however, the stones fell into disuse, the knocking alone remaining (Abudarham, l.c.; Brück, l.c.; see, however, Löw,"Lebensalter," p. 297, also p. 291, No. 10). Some wrote the name of Haman on the soles of their shoes, and at the mention of the name stamped with their feet as a sign of contempt; others used for the same purpose a rattle—called "gregar" (= Polish, "grzégarz"), and producing much noise—a custom which is still observed by the Russo-Polish Jews. Some of the rabbis protested against these uproarious excesses, considering them a sinful disturbance of public worship (comp., for example, Isaiah Horowitz, l.c. pp. 260a, 261a, below), but often in vain (see Brück, l.c., and Zunz, "Ritus," P. 69).

Burning of Haman's Effigy.

Outside the synagogue the pranks indulged in on Purim by both children and adults have been carried even to a greater extreme. Some of them date from the Talmudic period (see, e.g., the tale in Meg. 7b; Sanh. 64b and Rashi ad loc.; comp. also "'Aruk," s.v. and Abudarham, l.c.). As early as the fifth century (see Schudt, l.c. ii. 309), and especially in the geonic period (9th and 10th cent.), it was a custom to burn Haman in effigy on Purim. This is described in the "'Arnk" (l.c.) as follows: "Four or five days before Purim the young men make an effigy of Haman and hang it on the roof. On Purim itself they make a bonfire into which they cast the effigy while they stand around joking and singing, at the same time holding a ring above the fire and waving it from side to side through the fire" (see Ginzberg in "J. Q. R." xvi. 650; Abudarham, l.c.; Brück, l.c.). In Italy the Jewish children used to range themselves in rows, and pelt one another with nuts; while the adults rode through the streets with fir-branches in their hands, shouted, or blew trumpets round a doll representing Haman and which was finally burned with due solemnity at the stake (Abrahams, l.c. p. 260; and especially Güdemann, "Gesch." p. 211, Vienna, 1884). In Frankfort-on-the-Main it was customary to make a house of wax wherein the figures of Haman and his executioner, also of wax, were placed side by side. The whole was then put on the almemar, where stood also the wax figures of Zeresh, the wife of Haman, and two guards—one to her right and the other to her left—all attired in a flimsy manner, and with pipes in their mouths. As soon as the reader began to read the Megillah the house with all its occupants was set on fire to the enjoyment of the spectators (comp. Schudt, l.c. ii. 309; S. Cassel, "Juden," in Ersch and Gruber, "Encyc." section ii., part 27, pp. 78 et seq.).

It must be mentioned here that these customs often aroused the wrath of Christians, who interpreted them as a disguised attempt to ridicule Jesus and the cross and issued prohibitions against them; e.g., under the reign of Honorius (395-423) and of Theodosius II. (408-450; comp. Schudt, l.c. ii. 309, 317, and Cassel, l.c.). Moreover, the Rabbis themselves, to avoid danger, tried to abolish the obnoxious customs, often even calling the magistracy to their aid, as in London in 1783 (see Mahamad).

Fasting Before and After Purim.

Finally, it must be stated that the Fast of Esther, celebrated before Purim, on the 13th of Adar, is not an original part of the latter, nor was it later instituted "in commemoration of the fasting of Esther, Mordecai, and the people" (Hastings, "Dict. Bible, " i. 854, col. 2), since this fasting fell, according to rabbinical tradition, in the month of Nisan and lasted three days. The first who mentions it is R. Aha of Shabha (8th cent.) in "She'eltot," iv.; and the reason there given for its institution is based on an arbitrary interpretation of Esth. ix. 18 and Meg. 2a, "The 13th was the time of gathering," which gathering is explained to have had also the purpose of public prayer and fasting (comp. Asheri on Meg. i., beginning; Abudarham, l.c. p. 94; Brück, l.c. pp. 56 et seq.; and Berliner, in "Kaufmann Gedenkbuch," p. 270, Breslau, 1900). Some, however, used to fast three days in commemoration of the fasting of Esther; but as fasting was prohibited during the month of Nisan (see Soferim xxi. 2) the first and second Mondays and the Thursday following Purim were chosen (ib. xvii. 4, xxi. 1; Orah hayyim, 686, 3). The fast on the 13th is still commonly observed; but when that date falls on a Sabbath the fast is put back to Thursday, Friday being needed to prepare for the Sabbath and the following Purim festival (Abudarham, l.c. p. 94b; Orah hayyim, 686).

Purim katan.

In leap-years Purim is celebrated in the second Adar, but by the Karaites in the first; the respective days of the first Adar being then called "Purim katan" (Little Purim), for which there have been set forth certain observances similar to those for Purim proper, with the exception of reading the Megillah, sending gifts to the poor, and fasting on the 13th of the month. The distinctions between the first and the second Purim in leap-years are mentioned in the Mishnah (Meg. i. 46b; comp. Orah hayyim, 697).

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

Flavius Josephus - Antagonism of John of Giscala

2009-12-09T06:30:00.000-08:00

Antagonism of John of Giscala.

John's next scheme was to have Josephus accused before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The most influential members, being convinced of Josephus' guilt, sent four of their number with a force of 2,500 men to depose him. He, however, pretended to be occupied with preparations for war; and the delegates could not see him. Several Galileans went voluntarily to Jerusalem to demand the recall of the envoys. The latter then ordained a day for general fasting and prayer in Tiberias, but Josephus fell upon his opponents with his armed guards. A few days afterward messengers from Jerusalem brought letters in which the leaders of the people confirmed him in his position as governor of Galilee. He sent the Sanhedrin delegates back to Jerusalem in chains, and subdued by force the inhabitants of Tiberias, who were in revolt against him ("B. J." ii. 21, § 7; "Vita," §§ 38-64). They, however, still refused to recognize Josephus; but by a ruse he again overcame them ("B. J." ib. §§ 8-10; "Vita," §§ 32-34; comp. §§ 68, 69).

Sepphoris now asked for and received a Roman garrison in order to be safe from the rebels. Josephus, who was obliged to heed the insistence of his followers, tried to punish the city before the Romans arrived; but hearing that the last-named were on the way he beat a retreat. When the troop sent by Cestius Gallus had entered Sepphoris, it was no longer possible for Josephus to storm the city. A few days later the Romans made a sortie, and Josephus was defeated ("Vita," §§ 67-71). He was more successful against Sylla, a lieutenant of King Agrippa, whom he put to flight beyond the Jordan (ib. §§ 72, 73).

In the spring of 67 the Romans under Vespasian and Titus began the war. Josephus was encamped near the village of Garis, not far from Sepphoris; but he was forced to draw back upon Tiberias because his men had fled at the approach of the Romans (ib. § 71; "B. J." iii. 6, §§ 2-3). He demanded of Jerusalem whether or not he should treat with Vespasian, and asked for reenforcements. The Sanhedrin was unable to comply with his request; and Josephus entrenched his troops at Jotapata (May, 67), which place was besieged by Vespasian on the following day. Josephus had recourse to all possible stratagems; but in spite of these and of marvelous deeds of valor performed by the defenders, the Romans, after a siege of forty-seven days, forced their way into the city, which with the fortifications was razed to the ground (July, 67). Josephus escaped into a cistern connected with a cave in which he found forty soldiers. Their hiding-place was discovered; and Josephus, whose life had been assured to him by the Romans through the intervention of a friend named Nicanor, escaped only by playing a trick on his companions. He persuaded them to kill each other after drawing lots, but arranged to be the last, and then surrendered to the Romans with one companion ("B. J." iii. 8, §§ 1-8). Led before Vespasian, Josephus, asserting earnestly that he possessed the prophetic gift, prophesied that that general would become emperor (ib. § 9). According to the Talmud, Johanan b. Zakkai had made the same prophecy, and heathen priests had foretold the accession of Vespasian and Titus to the imperial throne (see Schürer, "Gesch." i. 613). Josephus' actions from this time on do not cover him with glory; and the suspicion of treachery rests heavily upon him.

Josephus

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

Chattels

2009-12-08T11:42:00.002-08:00

CHATTELS:

By : Marcus Jastrow Lewis N. Dembitz

In English and American law property is divided into two kinds: real or landed, and personal or chattels; in Continental law, into immovable and movable. Jewish law speaks of "karka'ot" (ground) and "mittaltelin" (movables). Slaves are included in the former; demands on other persons, in the latter, though in many respects the law governing the ownership and incidents of bonds ("shetarot") or other demands differs from the law of tangible, bodily chattels, as has been shown in the article Alienation. Lands and slaves are sometimes joined together under the name of "property which has responsibility" ("sharayot"), chattels, bond, and, other demands as property having none; because, under the Talmudic law (see Deeds), a properly written and attested bond became as soon as delivered a lien on all of the debtor's lands, but not on his chattels and effects, and because, moreover, after the death of the debtor, only lands and slaves, not chattels or demands, were liable to his creditors. During the Middle Ages, however, as a matter of necessity, goods, moneys, and effects were made liable for the decedent's debts (see Debts; compare hoshen Mishpat, 107, 1).

Since the non-observance of the Jubilee there has been no difference in the laws of descent (see Agnates) between landed estate and chattels. They form together one mass, as they do in countries having a system of civil law. The modes of Alienation and Acquisition are different, as has been shown in the article under that caption. Moreover, a sale of chattels can be set aside or corrected for Overreaching on the sole ground of inadequacy or excessive price, while the law of overreaching ("ona'ah") does not apply to either lands or bonds. These broad distinctions are readily found in the Mishnah kid. i. 1-6, and B. M. iv. 1-9; for details see the articles under the captions indicated above.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Chattels

2009-12-08T11:42:00.001-08:00

Duress

2009-12-08T09:11:00.000-08:00

DURESS

By : Louis Ginzberg Lewis N. Dembitz

In law, the use of such unlawful force against a contracting party as will entitle him to rescind a contract. The rabbinical law on this subject goes back to the wars of Vespasian and Titus, when many Jews, in order to save their lives, gave up their lands to armed robbers ("sikarikin" = daggermen; Git. v. 6).

From several Talmudic passages (compare B. B. 40b, 47b; B. k. 62a) the standards have drawn the following rules:(Maimonides, "Yad," Mekirah, x.; much to the same effect is Shulhan 'Aruk, hoshen Mishpat, 305).

"If one has been put under duress until he sells, and takes the purchase-money, even if they hang him up till he sells, yet the sale is valid, whether of movables or of lands, and this though the price has not been accepted before witnesses. Hence he should make his protest before two witnesses, and say to them: 'Know ye that I sell this field [or this article] under compulsion.' If the seller does this, the sale may be set aside after many years' possession, and the buyer must make restoration. But the witnesses must know of their own knowledge that force was used; and when the protest is written out to be signed by them, it should recite such knowledge on their part. This refers only to a sale of property or to the compromise of a claim; but a gift of property, or the free release of a claim, is void whenever the donor or releasor protests his unwillingness at the time, though he be not under duress at all. Beating or other bodily violence is not the only form of duress; duress may consist in the threat of any harm which it is in the power of the other party to inflict. . . . But no protest is necessary to prevent the possession of land which is taken by sheer violence from ripening into a title by prescription. An admission made by the seller after the protest does not estop; for it is presumed that he was forced to make it"

What has been said as to deeds or other acts of conveyance would, with proper changes, apply to bonds or promises of payment made under compulsion; but the case of sale under duress, being that which occurs most frequently, has been especially treated here.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Sale

2009-12-08T09:10:00.000-08:00

SALE.

By : Joseph Jacobs Lewis N. Dembitz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Of Land:
Inclusive Sale.
General Rule.
Measures.
Sales of Vacant Lots and of Tombs.
—Of Chattels:
Inclusive Sale.
Dispute as to Price.

—Of Land:

The steps by which the title to land is changed in a gift or sale have been shown under Alienation. The conveyance might be by deed ("shetar"), for the requisites of which see Deed. It remains to be shown how the object conveyed is described, and how the words describing it are construed.

It was so usual for the ownership of houses to be divided (mostly among coheirs), one man owning the rooms on the ground floor and another the upper story, that the maxim of the Roman law "cujus estsolum, ejus est usque ad cœlum" was not applied to buildings. Two chapters of the Mishnah (B. B. iv., v.) define the meaning of words applied to the objects of a sale. Such of these definitions as refer to land or to things annexed thereto are here given, though most of them are only of archeologic interest.

Inclusive Sale.

(1)

He who sells a house ("bayit") does not sell the separate wainscot walls, nor a movable interior closet, nor a roof with a railing more than ten hands in height, nor a dug cistern, nor a walled cistern. In order to include these, the words "from the abyss below to the sky above" are necessary, "depth and height" not being sufficient.

According to the prevailing opinion of R. Akiba, the purchaser, if the cistern is included, has the exclusive right of way to it; and where the cistern alone is sold, the right of way to it passes to the purchaser by implication. He who sells a house sells the door, but not the key; he sells a mortar attached to the ground, but not a movable one; he sells also the base for a mill, but not the hollow stone receptacle, nor the baking-oven or cooking-hearth (all these being considered personalty); but where the seller says "the house and all that is in it," all these things pass in the sale. Where one sells a "court" he sells the houses, cistern, pit, and cellar, but not the movables; however, if he sells "the court and all that is in it," everything is sold excepting the bath-house and the oil-press in the court. He who sells an oil-press (let into the ground) sells the "sea" (the hollow stone which receives the olives), the stone roller, and the "maidens" (the cedar frame on which the beams rest), but not the planks (for weighting down the olive-bags), nor the wheel (for turning the press), nor the cross-beam; but if the seller says "the oil-press and all within it" everything passes.

He who sells a bath-house does not sell the shelves (for clothes), nor the benches, nor the curtains (? bathing-wrappers). If he says "the bath-house and what is in it," these things are sold, but not the pipes which conduct water to the bath, nor the stock of fuel on hand.

He who sells a town sells the houses, cisterns, pits, and cellars, the bath-houses and dove-cots, the olive-presses and the "gardens and orchards" (?), but not the movables therein; but if he says "the town and all that is in it," even the slaves and cattle that may be in the town are regarded as having been included in the sale.

He who sells a field or a vineyard sells the stones that are there for its needs, and the canes in the vine-yard (necessary to prop the vines), and the crops still standing, and a cane fence enclosing less than a "quarter" (see Weights and Measures), and a watchman's lodge not made of mud, and carob-trees that have not been grafted, and the young, uncut sycamores; but he does not sell stones not needed for the field, nor canes not in use in the vineyard, nor the crop that has been cut. If, however, he says "the field and all that is within it," everything is sold with the exception of the following: a place fenced about with cane and of more than a quarter's contents (this being considered a separate field), a watchman's lodge built of mud (it being deemed a house), grafted carob-trees or improved sycamores, a cistern or an oil-press, whether dry or in use, and a dove-cot. And, according to the prevailing opinion of Akiba, the seller must obtain from the buyer a right of way (to reach the cistern and oil-press), with the same incidents and exceptions as in the sale of a house.

All these rules apply to the terms of a sale; but a gift is construed more liberally, so as to comprise everything in and upon the ground. Where brothers divide an estate, he who receives a named field for his share is entitled to everything upon it.

General Rule.

The rules here given for special cases may be generalized thus: Where a house, field, etc., are sold simply, nothing passes which bears a special name, whether real estate in itself or not, nor anything that is not attached bodily to the ground. If the words "and all that is in it" or "on it" are added, such parts as are always known by a separate name, and such movables as are not permanently on the place but are changed from day to day, are still excluded.

The dispute between Akiba and his contemporaries about the right of way turns on the question (ib. 64b) whether the seller sells "with a kindly eye" or "with an evil eye"; that is, whether his words are to be interpreted so as to enlarge the scope of the sale or so as to restrict it. The former view prevails.

(2)

So far the Mishnah deals with the incidents of a house, court, town, field, etc. But B.B.v., § 4 presents the inverse case of the sale of single trees (this includes grape-vines), which may carry with them the underlying and surrounding land—an idea not strange in Syria, where even to-day single fruit-trees are often owned separately. With the aid of the comments in the Talmud (ib. 81-83) the law may be stated thus: "He who buys two trees in the midst of another man's field does not thereby buy the soil [R. Meïr says he does]. If the branches spread out too far, the owner of the soil must not trim them, though they shade his land; for by selling the trees he has put a servitude on his land. What grows out from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree; whatever shoots come above the ground out of the roots belong to the land-owner; and, if the trees die, their owner has no further right to the soil. But when a man buys three trees, not less than four cubits and not more than sixteen apart, and placed in a triangle, he acquires the soil under them and a path around them wide enough for a fruit-gatherer with his basket. If the branches spread beyond this space, they should be trimmed. If the trees should die, the soil belongs to their owner, who may plant others in their places.

(3)

Executory sales, in which land is sold by measure, and has to be laid off, or buildings are contracted for by name, to be put up thereafter, have still to be considered (see ib. vi., vii.).

Measures.

"When one says to his companion 'I sell thee a named measure of soil,' and there are holes ten palms in depth, or rocks rising more than ten palms in height, these are not counted in the measure. Smaller holes or lower rocks are measured as part of the soil sold; but if the words are 'I sell about such a measure,' then holes and protruding rocksare all measured along with the rest" (thus the Mishnah; but in the Gemara this statement concerning smaller holes or standing rocks is limited as to quantity and position). When one says "I sell thee a named quantity [e.g., enough for a kor of seed, i.e., 75,000 square cubits) chain measure," the seller, if he gives any less, no matter how little, must make a rebate; if he gives any more, the buyer must return it. But if one sells a named quantity "more or less," should there be a deficit of as much as one part in thirty, the contract is filled; if the difference is greater, an account must be taken. It seems that the naming of a quantity without adding "chain measure" is of the same import as if the words "more or less" were added (ib. 104a).

Where an excess is to be corrected the buyer may return the surplus land; but where the excess is small (the Mishnah names the measure of nine kabs for a field, and a half-kab for a garden) the returned land would do the seller no good; hence the sages require the buyer to rectify the mistake in money. In case of deficit, the seller, of course, returns a part of the price pro rata.

Where both the expressions "chain measure" and "more or less" are used, according to the eminent lawyer Ben Nannos, the expression used first in the contract should prevail, the other falling to the ground; but the prevailing opinion is that the doubt is resolved against the buyer. Where the sale is made according to monuments and metes and bounds, and the quantity stated disagrees with the description, if the discrepancy is more than one-sixth it must be corrected; if less, the sale, stands (see Ona'ah).

Where one says "I sell thee half my field," one-half in value is meant; but the seller has the privilege of choosing the smaller portion from the best land. If the proposition is "I sell thee the southern half," the southern half by area is estimated. The seller may then give to the buyer the equivalent of that area from any part of the land; and the buyer takes in his part the space for dividing fence and ditch.

Sales of Vacant Lots and of Tombs.

(4)

He who sells to another a place whereon to build a house, or he who contracts with another to build a house for his son-in-law or his widowed daughter, must make it at least eight cubits in length by six in width (the opinion of R. Ishmael, which here seems to prevail over that of R. Akiba, who says six by four); a stall for oxen means one at least six by four; a large house, eight by ten; a banqueting-hall, ten by ten; and the height half of the sum of length and breadth. These measurements are evidently meant to be "in the clear." The word "house" ("bayit") in the Mishnah seems to mean one with a single room, a house of several rooms being known as a "birah."

He who sells a lot for a family tomb, or contracts with another to make a tomb for him, has to furnish a vault with a clear space of six cubits by four, with eight actual graves ("kukin") opening into it, three on each side, and two opposite the entrance, each grave being four cubits in length, six palms in width, and seven palms in height. Another opinion (which did not prevail) made the vault eight by six cubits, and surrounded it with thirteen graves, requiring, moreover, that two such vaults should open from a "court," six by six cubits, on the surface of which the bier and the grave-diggers might rest.

—Of Chattels:

The modes by which and the precise time at which the ownership of movables passes from the seller to the buyer are set forth under Alienation; the rescission of a sale and purchase, for Fraud and Mistake or for Duress is treated under those heads; and the right to rescind for inadequacy or excess of price is dealt with under Ona'ah. It remains to indicate, as under Sale of Land, how the words denoting the movable object sold are construed by the Mishnah (B. B. v.) and Gemara (ib. 73a-81), and to speak of some incidental points.

Inclusive Sale.

He who sells a ship sells with it the mast and sail (others render "flag"), the anchor, and the oars and tackle, but not the slaves (employed in navigation), nor the bags (to hold the cargo), nor the cargo, nor the boats; but when the seller says "the ship and all that is in it" all of these things are included. He who sells a wagon does not sell the horses (unless they are harnessed to it); he who sells the horses does not sell the wagon to which they are attached; he who sells the yoke (and appendages) does not sell the oxen (though they be attached); he who sells the oxen does not sell the yoke; he who sells an ass does not sell the harness. R. Judah's opinion, that the price should indicate what was meant to be sold, is disallowed, because the rule Ona'ah offers sufficient protection.

He who sells a suckling ass sells her colt; but he who sells a suckling cow does not sell the calf, for the milk of the cow is of value. He who sells a beehive sells the bees in it. He who sells a dovecot sells the pigeons; he who buys from another the "fruits" (i.e., the next brood) of a dove-cot leaves to the seller the first two chicks for each mother bird, to keep her from deserting the nest. He who buys the next brood of a beehive takes the first three swarms that come out of the hive, and then stops impregnation, to save the honey for the seller. He who buys the cakes of honey leaves two behind (as winter food for the bees). He who buys olives, to cut them (from the tree), leaves two twigs full (to the seller). Unless there is a local custom to the contrary, the sale of the head of a beef does not include the feet, nor vice versa; the sale of the liver does not include the lungs, nor vice versa; but in the case of sheep and goats the sale of the head carries with it the feet, and the sale of the lungs includes the liver.

In measuring out oil or wine the seller (unless he is a retail merchant) must give the buyer three extra drops, to make up for that which adheres to the measuring vessel; but any that adheres to the bottom of the measure when it is tipped belongs to the seller.

Where grain is sold the buyer must accept as much dirt as one part in thirty; in buying figs, ten that are worm-eaten in a hundred; in a row of wine-jars, ten that are below the prescribed grade in a hundred. Where one sells wine to another and itsours, he is not liable on an implied warranty; but if the seller's wine is known to be apt to sour, it is a "mistaken purchase" (see Fraud and Mistake). If the seller says, "I sell thee spiced wine," it must keep good till Pentecost; if he sells it for "old wine," it must be of the previous year; if for "aged," it must be in its third year.

Dispute as to Price.

If seller and buyer disagree about the price, and if when they meet again the buyer takes the goods away unasked, he is supposed to take them at the seller's price; but if the seller tells the buyer to take his goods, they are sold at the price which is offered by the buyer.

The Mishnah treats the duty of keeping scales, weights, and measures in proper order in connection with the law of sales of goods (B. B. v. 10, 11), Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel being the principal authority therefor. The rules deduced in the Talmud and found in the codes stand thus: A wholesale seller should wipe his hollow measures for liquids once in every thirty days; a householder need not do it more than once a year; the retailer should wipe them twice a week, and he should wipe his scales after every weighing. The patriarch named says that hollow measures for dry foodstuffs need not be wiped; and this (the opinion of Maimonides, "Yad," Genebah, viii., to the contrary) seems to be the accepted rule. In using scales the merchant must allow the meat or other goods weighed to sink down a palm's width below the level; or if he brings the scales to a dead level, he should give the customer the usual overweight, that is, 1 in 100 in the case of liquids, and 1 in 200 in that of solids. Where the custom is to deal out by small measures, the merchant must not use larger ones, as the customer would thereby lose part of the heaping; nor the contrary, where he buys. In like manner local custom must be followed as to heaped or level measure; and it is no excuse that deviation is compensated for by difference in price. A baraita (B. B. 89a) derives this rule from Deut. xxv. 15 ("a perfect and just weight," etc.). On the moral aspect of wrong weights and measures see Jew. Encyc. v. 500, s.v. Fraud and Mistake, I. 4.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish War

2009-12-08T09:09:00.000-08:00

WAR.

By : Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. M. Seligsohn

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Details.
—Biblical Data:
The War-Priest.
Raids.
Fortresses.
Treatment of Captives.
Conditions of Peace.
Attitude of the Prophets.
—In Rabbinical Literature:

Details.

—Biblical Data:

The earliest war recorded in the Old Testament is that of the Elamitic king Chedorlaomer and his allies against the five kings of Sodom and its adjacent cities (Gen. xiv. 1et seq.). The result of the conflict was the destruction of the vanquished army in the field and the captivity of all the non-combatants, whose possessions became spoils of war. In the battle the troops were arranged in order (Gen. xiv. 8, R. V.), and the King of Sodom and his four allies displayed a certain degree of strategy by fighting in a valley, although their plan proved unsuccessful. Some modern scholars infer from the obscure passage II Sam. xi. 1 that wars were regularly begun in the spring. In many instances negotiations were carried on through messengers or ambassadors to avert bloodshed (Judges xi. 12-28; I Sam. xi. 1-10; I Kings xx. 2-11); and the Hebrews were expressly forbidden to make an attack without first demanding the surrender of the enemy (Deut. xx. 10 et seq.). The only instance in which war was declared without previous negotiations was that of the war between Amaziah, King of Judah, and Jehoash, King of Israel (II Kings xiv. 8).

In addition to the various modes of Divination employed by all the nations before setting out for war (comp. Ezek. xxi. 26 et seq.), the Israelites consulted Yhwh, who was not only their divinity, but also the war-god par excellence (comp. Ex. xv. 3, and the frequent phrase ), deciding whether they should begin the war and whether they would be successful (Judges i. 1; xx. 18, 23). In these passages the manner of consultation is not indicated, but from other sections and from the Septuagint it may be inferred that the priest put on the ephod and stood before the Ark to consult the Urim and Thummim (Judges xx. 27-28; I Sam. xiv. 18, xxviii. 6, xxx. 7). Occasionally the divinities were consulted through dreams or prophets, or even through familiar spirits evoked by a witch (Judges vii. 13; I Sam. xxviii. 6 et seq.; I Kings xxii. 15). Troops were generally summoned by the blowing of a trumpet or the warhorn, which was likewise the signal that warned the people of an enemy's approach (Judges iii. 27; II Sam. xx. 1; comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 2-11), although sometimes banners were placed on the tops of high mountains or messengers were sent through the different tribes of Israel (Judges vii. 24; I Sam. xi. 7; Isa. xiii. 2). Occasionally extraordinary means were used to arouse a popular feeling of indignation which would ultimately impel the nation to make war, as in the case of the Levite who cut the body of his concubine into twelve parts and sent them to the other tribes of Israel, thus kindling between them and the Benjamites the war which resulted in the destruction of the latter tribe (Judges xix. 29 et seq.; comp. also I Sam. xi. 7).

The War-Priest.

The army of the Israelites was always accompanied to the field by a priest, Phinehas having this post in the battle with the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 6). It was the duty of the priest to care for the spiritual welfare of the soldiers and, before the attack, to encourage them and to inspire martial enthusiasm in them (Deut. xx. 2-4). Sometimes, however, the high priest himself went upon the field, where he attended the Ark, which was carried into action quite as idols and images were borne into battle by the Philistines (I Sam. iv. 3-4; II Sam. v. 21, xi. 11). Like other Semites, the Israelites began a war with burnt offerings and fasting (Judges vi. 20, 26; xx. 26; I Sam. vii. 9, xiii. 10), this explaining the frequency of the phrase "to sanctify war," and the epithet "sanctified" as applied to warriors (Micah iii. 5; Isa. xiii. 3; Jer. vi. 4, xxii. 7). A single instance is recorded, though in obscure terms, of a human sacrifice as a burnt offering in a time of extreme danger (II Kings iii. 27). According to a passage of D, furthermore, the officers of the Hebrew troops were required to proclaim before a battle that whosoever had betrothed a wife and had not taken her, or had built a house and had not dedicated it, or had planted a vineyard and had not eaten of it, or was fearful and faint-hearted, should return home (Deut. xx. 5-9). This regulation was actually carried out under the Maccabees (I Macc. iii. 56), which shows that the document is of a post-exilic date.

Raids.

From the geographical condition of Palestine, the raid was the favorite mode of warfare both among the Hebrews and among the other Semites (Gen. xlix. 19; I Sam. xiii. 17, xxvii. 8; II Sam. iii. 22; II Kings xiii. 20), although in the course of time regular battles were fought, and in certain cases tactics of modern warfare were employed. The first instance recorded was in the battle of Gibeah between the tribes of Israel and the Benjamites (Judges xx. 30 et seq.). After laying an ambush behind the city, the Israelites pretended to flee from the Benjamites, thus enticing the latter from their fortified positions. Suddenly the Israelites wheeled, and the Benjamites found themselves outflanked on all sides. It is also probable that in the battle of Gilboa between the Philistines and the army of Saul, the Philistines resorted to strategy by striking northward at the plain of Esdraelon instead of attacking the Israelites by the shorter route from the southwest. By this device, which proved completely successful, the Philistines lured Saul's army from the valleys, where a stout defense could be offered, to the open plain, where the Israelites might be overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers (I Sam. xxviii. 1-xxxi. 7). A strong army was sometimes divided so that the enemy might be attacked from different directions (Gen. xiv. 15; II Sam. xviii. 2), and ambuscades were often used with success (Josh. xiii. 10-28; Judges xx. 30-44; II Kings vi. 8-9). Night marches were particularly in favor with the Hebrews; thus Joshua marched at night, Gideon assailed the Midianites about midnight, and Saul attacked the Ammonites before dawn (Josh. x. 9; Judges vii. 19; I Sam. xi. 11). It may be noted that night marches were made by other Semites as well, for Nebo was captured from the Israelites by Mesha, King of Moab, after such a march (Moabite Inscription, line 15). An instance is likewise recorded in which the Philistines chose a champion who challenged one of the opposing army to a duel to decide the fate of both forces (I Sam. xvii. 4 et seq.). Such proceedings were afterward much in vogue among the Arabs in their pre-Islamic tribal conflicts.

Fortresses.

Fortresses played an important part in war, especially in defense. In early times the Israelites were unable to reduce the fortified cities of the inhabitants of the land, and consequently had no meansof defense except to hide themselves in caves or mountains (Judges vi. 2; I Sam. xiii. 6; comp. Isa. ii. 21); but in the regal period they became so proficient in the art of warfare that they not only reduced the fortresses of the enemy, beginning with Jerusalem (II Sam. v. 7 et seq.), but also built many fortified cities. The chief method of reducing one of these towns seems to have been to throw up around the walls a bank, from which the archers might shoot their arrows into the place; while an instance is recorded from an earlier period in which the gates of a city were set on fire (Judges ix. 48 et seq.). According to a marginal note on I Kings xx. 12, R. V., the Syrians used engines in their effort to reduce Samaria, while similar machines were frequently employed in addition to the battering-ram for breaching walls in the time of Ezekiel (Ezek. iv. 2, xxvi. 8-9). The strength of the walls and the efficiency of the beleaguering army naturally conditioned the length of a siege. Thus Jericho, which fell in consequence of a miracle, was taken after a continuous onslaught of seven days (Josh. vi. 3 et seq.), but the Syrian sieges in Samaria were doubtless lengthy since they entailed terrible famines, and Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians only after a siege of two years, despite the systematic operations of Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings xxv. 1-4). In their sieges the Hebrews were forbidden to fell fruit-trees for use in building bulwarks against the fortified city (Deut. xx. 19-20).

Treatment of Captives.

The accounts of wars in the patriarchal period show that the conquered peoples were reduced to captivity and their property was taken as spoils of war. In the case of the Shechemites, all the males were massacred by the sons of Jacob, while the women and children and all their possessions were carried off as booty (Gen. xxxiv. 25-29). Later, according to a document belonging to D (Deut. xx. 10-17), the Hebrews were commanded to make a wide distinction between the inhabitants of the land whom they were to replace and the Gentiles outside the land. Mildness was to be shown the latter in case they surrendered without fighting and submitted to pay tribute. If they were subdued by force of arms, however, every man was to be slain, while the women, children, cattle, and all else should belong to the victors. Far different was to be the treatment of the inhabitants of the land, who were to be slaughtered without exception, not even the cattle being left alive. If this passage is of early date, it is evident that the command with regard to the inhabitants of the land was only partially executed, since, excepting the thirty-one kings enumerated in Josh. xii. 9-24, the greater part remained unconquered, and the Israelites were obliged to live with the very Gentiles whom they had been bidden to exterminate (comp. Josh. xviii. 2-3; Judges i. 21-35). Even when the Israelites proved victorious, they often granted the inhabitants their lives, and subjected them only to tribute (Judges i. 28, 30, 33, 35). At a later period, however, gross cruelty was practised both by the Hebrews and by the other nations. After having defeated the Moabites, David cast them down to the ground and measured them with a line, putting to death two lines and keeping one alive (II Sam. viii. 2), while he put the Ammonites under saws, harrows, and axes of iron and made them pass through the brick-kiln (ib. xii. 31). Menahem, King of Israel, the Syrians, and the Ammonites are charged with the massacre of pregnant women (II Kings viii. 12, xv. 16; Amos i. 13); and Amaziah is described as causing ten thousand Edomite captives to be hurled from a cliff (II Chron. xxv. 12), while in some instances children were dashed against rocks (Ps. cxxxvii. 9).

Conditions of Peace.

There are instances of treaties of peace in which conditions were imposed by the victors on their defeated foes. The first treaty recorded is that which Nahash, King of Ammon, proposed to the people of Jabesh-gilead, and which was marked by the savagery of the Ammonite king, the terms being that the right eye of every inhabitant of the city should be put out (I Sam. xi. 2). A treaty which might almost have been made in modern times, on the other hand, was drawn up between Ben-hadad and Ahab; by it the cities previously captured from Israel were to be restored, while Ahab had the right of making streets in Damascus, the same conditions having been previously imposed on the father of Ahab by Ben-hadad's father (I Kings xx. 34). Sennacherib, in the treaty with Hezekiah by which he withdrew his army from Judah, exacted a heavy indemnity from the Jewish king (II Kings xviii. 14). The victors generally returned home in triumphal processions and celebrated their victories with songs and festivals (Judges v. 1 et seq., xi. 34, xvi. 23; comp. Prism Inscription, col. 1, line 53, in Schrader, "K. B.," ii. 141 et seq.).

Attitude of the Prophets.

The wars in the earlier period were religious in character and thus had the sanction of the Prophets. Deborah herself urged Barak to make war on Sisera and accompanied him into the field (Judges iv. 6 et seq.), while Elisha exhorted Joash, King of Israel, to prosecute the war with Syria and advised the allied kings to avail themselves of stratagem against the Moabitish army (II Kings iv. 16 et seq., xiii. 14-19), and an anonymous prophet encouraged Ahab to battle with Ben-hadad (I Kings xx. 13-14). Naturally the Prophets were opposed to war among the tribes of Israel, and when Rehoboam wished to resort to arms to recover his lost sovereignty over the ten tribes, he was prevented by the prophet Shemaiah (ib. xii. 21-24). In later times the Prophets considered war from a political point of view, and Jeremiah, seeing that hostilities against the Babylonians would be to the detriment of the Israelites, always advised the latter to submit to the stronger people and live in peace with them (Jer. xxvii.12 et passim). War in general was represented by the Later Prophets only in its horrible aspect, and many of them, particularly Isaiah, longed for the time when there would be no more war, and when weapons should be transformed into agricultural implements (Isa. ii. 4; Micah iv. 3; and elsewhere). See Army; Fortress.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The Rabbis laid special stress on the distinction between obligatorywar ("milhemet mizwah," or "milhemet hobah") and voluntary war ("milhemet ha-reshut"). The former category comprised the campaigns against the seven nations who inhabited the land, the battles against Amalek, and the repulse of an enemy attacking an Israelitish city; while the latter class denoted any war waged for the extension of Jewish territory. Obligatory war had the priority, nor was it necessary for the king to ask the permission of the Sanhedrin to levy troops, since he could compel the people to take the field. Voluntary war, on the other hand, could be declared only by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one members. Although certain persons were permitted by Deut. xx. 5 et seq. to leave the field before a battle began, this was allowed, according to rabbinical opinion, only in case of a voluntary war. No such leave of withdrawal was granted in an obligatory war, but, on the contrary, even a bridegroom and bride were obliged to leave their nuptial chamber and join the army (Sotah 44b; Sanh. 2a, 20b; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, v. 1-2). The Rabbis differed greatly regarding the terms of peace to be offered the inhabitants of a beleaguered city (Deut. xx. 10 et seq.). According to Sifre, Deut. 199, which was followed by Rashi (on Deut. l.c.), peace might be proposed only in a voluntary war, while in an obligatory war no terms should be allowed. It would appear, however, from Lev. R. xvii. 6 and Deut. R. v. 13 that peace might be offered even in an obligatory war, and this was established as a law by Maimonides (l.c. vi. 1; comp. Nahmanides on Deut. l.c.). According to both Maimonides and Nahmanides, the command of extermination which was imposed regarding the seven nations (Deut. xx. 16-17) was applied only in case the beleaguered people refused to surrender. The submission in consideration of which the conquered were granted their lives had to be complete, since they were required to accept the seven commandments of the Noachidæ, and were obliged to pay tribute and to recognize their condition of servitude (Maimonides, l.c.).

In direct opposition to the obvious interpretation of Deut. xx. 5-9, the Rabbis declared that all the proclamations contained in that passage were made by the priest anointed as the chaplain of the army ("meshuah milhamah"), and the verses were interpreted as meaning that the priest made the proclamations and the officers repeated them to the troops, who could not hear the priest (Sotah 43a; Maimonides, l.c. vii. 1, 4; comp. Sifre, Deut. 193). A Jewish army was forbidden to begin the siege of a Gentile city less than three days before the Sabbath, but it might continue its operations on that day even in a voluntary war. The army was permitted to encamp in any place, and the slain soldiers were to be buried in the place where they had fallen, since the combat had made it their own.

The Jewish soldiers enjoyed four privileges: they might take wood anywhere without incurring the charge of robbery; they were permitted to eat fruit even though it was not certain that it had been properly tithed ("demai"); and they were exempt from washing their hands and from "'erube hazerot" (Shab. 19a; 'Er. 17a; Tosef., 'Er. iv. [iii.] 7; see also 'Erub). In besieging a Gentile city, the troops were commanded to invest it on three sides and to leave one side free so that any one who wished might escape from the town (Maimonides, l.c. vi. 7). During the seven years consumed by Joshua's conquest of Palestine the Israelitish soldiers were allowed to eat any food which they found in the houses of the Gentiles, even though such provisions were forbidden under all other circumstances (hul. 17a; Maimonides, l.c. viii. 1)

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Altar

2009-12-08T09:08:00.001-08:00

ALTAR

By : George A. Barton Kaufmann Kohler

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
Altar in Tabernacle.
Altar in Solomon's Temple.
Ezekiel.
Postexilic Days.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Metaphorical Meaning of Name.
Altars in the Temple.
Its Archetype in Heaven.
Forms of Altar.
—Critical View on Forms and Origin:
Origin and Development.
Fire-Altars.
Bronze and Stone Altars.
Horns of Altar.

—Biblical Data:

In the book of Genesis it is often said that altars were erected (viii. 20, xii. 7, xiii. 8, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20, etc.). These altars were usually heaps of stones such as Laban and Jacob built to sacrifice upon (Gen. xxxi. 52 et seq.), for they are said to be "built" () in several instances (e.g., viii. 20, xii. 7, etc.). Once (xxxiii. 20), the Altar is said to have been "erected" () and hence must have been a "pillar" (). Dillmann (Com. to Gen. xxxiii, 20), believes that here mizbeaḦ has been substituted for mazzebah. In the law of Ex. xx. 24 et seq., the Altar which is preferred is an Altar of earth. Probably it is this kind of Altar which is referred to in Gen. xxxv. 1, 3, which was said to be made (). The same law permits stone altars (Ex. xx. 25), but provides that they shall be made of unhewn stone and prohibits (v. 26) that they be ascended by steps. According to this law also altars may be built (or earthen altars made, ) wherever there is a theophany. Those referred to in Genesis mention as a rule no special theophany, though the pillar at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 18-22), which was closely allied to an Altar, was erected in consequenceof such a theophany; and hence all were thought probably to be so built.

The Altar for the tabernacle (Ex. xxvii.) was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze. It was five cubits square and three cubits high. It had a grating or network below (v. 4) and a ledge (v. 5), intended perhaps for the priests to stand upon. It had horns at the corners and also four brazen rings in which to insert poles for carrying it. The utensils for it are also described—pans for clearing away ashes, shovels, basins or saucers for catching blood, flesh-hooks and fire-pans for removing coals. According to Lev. vi. 12, fire was to burn on it perpetually.

Altar in Tabernacle.

An Altar of incense, also for the tabernacle, is described in Ex. xxx. It, too, was to be made of acacia wood and overlaid with gold. It was to be square, a cubit each way, and two and a half cubits high. There was a molding () around it, and four rings at the corners for the insertion of poles for transportation—all overlaid with gold. The tabernacle was also provided with a table for showbread, made of acacia wood, with a crown or molding of gold around it (Ex. xxv. 23 et seq., xxxvii. 10 et seq., Lev. xxiv. 6, Num. iv. 7). In Deut. xii. the liberty of building altars in more than one place is withdrawn, but the form of the Altar which is favored is not specified.

In the period covered by the books of Judges and Samuel sacrifice was offered in many places as in the book of Genesis; especially where a theophany occurred (Judges, vi. 11 et seq., xiii. 3 et seq.; II Sam. xxiv. 16 et seq.). These sacrifices were in the first instance offered on the natural rock (Judges, vi. 20, xiii. 19). A rock might do also when in stress for want of a better Altar (I Sam. xiv. 33, 34). Altars were afterward built on such spots (Judges, vi. 26; I Sam. xiv. 35; II Sam. xxiv. 18 et seq.). The altars of the period were probably for the most part made of stone (see I Kings, xviii. 31, 32) and also had horns (I Kings, i. 50, 51).
(see image) Assyrian Altar.(Now in the Louvre.)

Altar in Solomon's Temple.

The principal Altar in Solomon's Temple appears to have been of bronze (I Kings, viii. 64; II Kings, xvi. 14; II Chron. iv. 1 et seq.). If we may trust the chronicler it was of immense size—twenty cubits square and ten high (II Chron. iv. 1). If these dimensions are not exaggerated (Benzinger, "Archäologie," p. 388, accepts them), an ascent of steps must have been necessary for this structure. It was made, like all the furniture of Solomon's Temple, by workmen sent from Phenicia, and doubtless represented an innovation. The Temple seems also to have contained an Altar or table of show-bread (I Kings, vi. 20 et seq., vii. 48 et seq.), as did an earlier temple (I Sam. xxi. 6, 7), and the tabernacle. Ahaz modified the arrangements (II Kings xvi. 10 et seq.). While at Damascus he saw an Altar that pleased him, and he sent the pattern of it to Urijah, the priest, commanding that one like it be made for the Temple—a command which was carried out. It is inferred that this Altar was of stone since it was built (v. 11), and since the chief Altar of the temple was ever after of stone. Upon this Altar the daily sacrifices were offered thereafter, while the bronze Altar was reserved for the king. This stone Altar is called "the great Altar" (II Kings, xvi. 15). At the time of Josiah all the altars in the land but this were abolished, and the Temple became the sole place of sacrifice (II Kings, xxiii.), so that the history of the Altar is merged in that of the Temple.
(see image) Persian Portable Fire-Altar.(From Justi, "Gesch. der Alten Perser.")

Ezekiel.

In Ezekiel's ideal Temple the Altar of burnt offering was to be built as follows: a base eighteen cubits square and a cubit high to be surmounted by a platform sixteen cubits square and two high; on this another platform fourteen cubits square and four higharose. Above this was the Altar hearth (), twelve cubits square and four high. This at each corner was surmounted by a horn a cubit in height (see Toy's "Ezekiel," S. B. O. T. p. 191). In the opinion of many scholars this description holds good for the Temple of Jerusalem, in which probably Ezekiel had served; perhaps therefore it was such an Altar as this which Ahaz saw at Damascus. Ezekiel is also in like manner a witness to the presence of the table-altar of showbread in the Temple (Ezek. xli. 22).

Postexilic Days.

In the postexilic temple the principal Altar was of stone (Hag. ii. 15, I Macc. iv. 44 et seq.), while the table of showbread or "golden" Altar and Altar of incense also found places (I Macc. i. 21, iv. 49 et seq.; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 4; "Contra Ap." i. 22). When these implements were defiled by the heathen sacrifice of Antiochus Epiphanes they were replaced by new ones (I Macc. iv. 44 et seq., 49 et seq.).

All these formed a part of Herod's temple. The main Altar was of stone, and according to Josephus ("B. J." v. 5, § 6), fifty cubits square and fifteen high, though the dimensions are differently given in the Mishnah (Middot, iii. 1). It was approached by a gradual ascent.G. A. B.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

"The Altar is the means of establishing peace between the people of Israel and their Father in heaven; therefore, iron, which is used as an instrument of murder, should not be swung over it. What a guaranty for those that endeavor to establish peace between man and man, and between nations and nations, that no evil shall befall them!" said Johanan ben Zakkai (Mek., Yithro, 11; Tosef., B. k. vii. 6). And in the same spirit he said: "If the altar of the Lord must be built of whole stones (according to Deut. xxvii. 6), all the more should the men that perform the peaceful work of divine instruction be whole-souled and peaceful" (ib. 7). In a similar strain: "If the very stones of the altar are to be treated with respect and with decorum, how much more living man!" (Mek. l.c., end).
(see image) Bronze Altar of the Temple, Restored.(After Calmet.)

Metaphorical Meaning of Name.

The Hebrew name for Altar () is explained as signifying, "It wipes away sin; it nourishes the higher man; it fosters love for God; and it atones for all guilt" (Ket. 10b): its four letters (initials of meḦilah, zekut, berakah, Ḧayyim), point to Forgiveness, Justification, Blessing, and Life (Tan., Terumah, 10). It was considered a miracle and a proof of the manifestation of the Shekinah that the continual fire upon the Altar did not destroy the copper with which the stones were overlaid (Lev. R. vii.; Tan., Terumah, 11).

The Altar was made a special object of venerationon the seventh day of the festival of Tabernacles, when the people made a circuit around it seven times, and addressed it on departing: "To thee belongeth beauty, O Altar! To Him, the Lord, and to thee, O Altar!" (Suk. iv. 5). The belief was that the Altar on Mount Moriah was the same that Noah built, and that Adam had already brought his first sacrifice to this identical spot (R. Ishmael, in Pirke R. El. xxxi.; Targ. Yer. Gen. viii. 20; xxii. 9). For "upon sacrificial worship rests the world" (Ab. i. 2; Ab. R. N. (A) iv.; (B) v.; Yer., Ta'anit, iv. 68a; Bab., Ta'anit, 27b; Meg. 31b).

Still this regard for the Altar was not universal among the Jews. A version to it was manifested not so much by the hasidim (Essenes), whose opposition was directed rather against the illegally appointed high priests than against sacrifices in general, as by the priests themselves, among whom the cry was raised by Miriam, the daughter of Bilgah (who became an apostate in the time of the Syrian invasion of the Temple): "O thou wolf who swallowest all the wealth of Israel, and yet failest to give relief in time of need!" (Suk. 56b; Yer., Suk. end; Tosef., Suk. iv. 28). But this very expression "wolf," applied to the Altar, came into later popular use without any allusion to its voraciousness (Gen. R. xcix.; Targ. and Jerome on Gen. xlix. 27).

Altars in the Temple.

Of the two Altars in the Temple, the golden one for the incense is said to symbolize the devotion of the soul, whose nourishment is of a finer nature; the bronze Altar for animal sacrifice, that of the body, which is fed on flesh (Midr. Tadsheh xi.).

When the destruction of the Temple with its Altar filled the people with alarm as they thought of their unatoned sins, Johanan ben Zakkai comforted them saying: "You have another means of atonement as powerful as the altar, and that is the work of charity, for it is said: 'I desired mercy and not sacrifice'" (Hosea, vi. 6); and he referred to Daniel x. 11, "the man of desirable virtues" (ish Ḧamudot, translated also by the Codex Sis. Eleeinos, "the merciful one"), who served God by almsgiving and prayer (Ab. R. N. (A) iv. after Dan. x. 11). The Altar being called, also, the "table before the Lord" (Ezek. xli. 22; Mal. i. 7, 12), the Altar of incense placed before the ark of the covenant is said to be only the symbol of the study of the Law by the wise, while the Altar of sacrifice represents the charity offered by the rich, who spread their bounties for the poor on the table in front of their houses (Targ. Yer., Ex. xl. 5, 6; compare Ab. iii. 3; Men. 110a; Ber, 55a; hag. 27a; Yoma 71a). Paul applied the same idea of the Altar as the table of the Lord to the Communion meal (I Cor. x. 18-21). And while among the rabbis indigent and non-resident students of the Law were the chief ones chosen as partakers of the meal in order to render it a "table of the Lord" (see Ber. 10b), according to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 26, iv. 3), widows and orphans were called "the altars of the Lord," the widows representing the Altar of burnt-offering, and the virgins the Altar of incense. Even the law concerning the exclusion of impure gifts from the Altar of God (Deut. xxiii. 19) was applied to the Church charity. In striking contrast to the Church view of the superior merit of virginity, Tan. (WayishlaḦ, 6) says: "The pious wife, remaining modestly within her domestic circle, is like the altar, in that she is an atoning power for her household."

But the Altar was also taken as symbolic of the sacrifice of one's life in the cause of God. The celebrated mother who saw her seven sons die a martyr's death (according to the Talmudic legend, in Hadrian's time, and not in that of Antiochus Epiphanes), cried out: "O my sons, go forth and tell Abraham your ancestor (supposed to sit at the Gate of Gan Eden): 'Thou didst build one altar whereon to offer thy son as sacrifice: I have built seven altars!'" (Git. 57b). In IV Macc. vi. 29, xvii. 22, we also read that the blood of these saintly martyrs (the seven sons) was an atonement for Israel's sins; an idea often repeated in the Talmud (M. k. 28a). The death of the righteous has the same atoning power as the Red Heifer. On this idea rests Paul's doctrine of the atoning power of Jesus' death (Rom. iii. 25, and elsewhere) and the identification of Jesus with the Altar in Heb. xiii. 10.

Its Archetype in Heaven.

The Altar with its sacrifices on earth has, according to the ancient Gnostic view, its archetype in heaven; Michael, the archangel, as high priest offering (the souls of the saints) upon that Altar (hag. 12b, Zeb. 62a, Men. 110a; Seder Gan Eden, and Midr. 'Aseret ha-Dibberot in Jellinek's "B. H." iii. 137). The same heavenly Altar is referred to constantly in the Church liturgy. Under this heavenly Altar the saints rest after death (Ab. R. N. (A) xxvi. and xii.). Similarly the souls of those slain for the word of God are said in Rev. vi. 9, viii. 9, to rest under the heavenly Altar.K.

Forms of Altar.

—Critical View on Forms and Origin:

A glance at the above material makes it clear that in form the simplest Altar was a natural rock or stone. A stone with a large flat top, in which were natural depressions for receiving the blood and natural channels to act as conduits for it, was usually selected. Several such have been identified (see "Biblical World," ix. 229 et seq.). The first advance toward complexity was the substitution of a heap of earth or of stones for the simple rock. This heap was sometimes surrounded by a trench (I Kings, xviii. 32), evidently for the purpose of carrying off water and blood, as was the case with the ghabghab in the sanctuary at Mecca (Wellhausen, "Reste des Arabischen Heidenthums," p. 105). A great departure from this is found in the Altar of Solomon's Temple and the Altar of the Tabernacle. The former was of bronze and of Phenician workmanship. Its form is in doubt. The Chronicler (II Chron. iv. 1) makes it an enormous square ten cubits in height, but there is no mention of it among the utensils of the Temple in I Kings, vii. It is mentioned in I Kings, viii. 64 (a late insertion, see Kittel in Nowack's "Hand-Kommentar"). Wellhausen ("Proleg," 5th ed., p. 45), and Stade ("Gesch." i. 333) hold that it was omitted by a late redactor, who thought that the bronze Altar of the Tabernacle must have been moved into the Temple by Solomon. Robertson Smith ("Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 487) objects that no separate bronze Altar is mentioned as having been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings, xxv.), and seeks to show that the pillars Jachin and Boaz had ariels or fire-pans in them, in which fire was kept burning by fat of the sacrifice. Thus they became huge candlesticks or cressets (compare also Toy, "Ezekiel," in Haupt's "S. B. O. T." p. 186, who accepts this view). If this be so, the two ariels of Moab which Benaiah smote (II Sam. xxiii. 20, Heb.) were similar pillars before a shrine (compare "C. I. S." i. 281, for a cippus on which pillars or posts before a shrine are figured). We learn from the inscription of Mesha (lines 11, 12, 17 et seq.), that an ariel was a structure which could be carried off. Most scholars, however, hold that the Altar ofSolomon was a real bronze Altar (compare Benzinger, "Arch.," p. 388; Nowack, "Arch." ii. 41, and Stade, "Gesch." i. 333), and that Wellhausen's explanation of its excision from I Kings, vii. is correct. In favor of this rather than the view of Smith is the fact that according to Ezekiel (xliii. 16), an ariel was part of a very different structure. Probably the reason that it was not carried away by Nebuchadnezzar is that in times of stress it had been previously disposed of (compare II Kings, xvi. 17, 18). A large channel in the Temple rock at Jerusalem is thought by some to mark the site of the Temple Altar, and to have acted as a conduit for the blood from the Altar (see Nowack's "Hebräische Archäologie," ii. 41).

That the form of the Altar of the Tabernacle differed still further from the primitive type than that in the Temple is evident from what has been said already of its form. The form of Altar introduced by Ahaz is probably given in Ezekiel's description (xliii. 13 et seq.), already noted. The later altars in the Temple were evidently built on this general plan, though they differed in detail and in size.
(see image) Altar of Incense, Restored.(After Calmet.)

Origin and Development.

Among the early Semites deities were identified with natural rocks or trees, and when an offering was presented to them it was placed upon the rock or suspended from the tree (see W. Robertson Smith, l.c., pp. 185, 209 et seq., and Doughty, "Arabia Deserta," ii. 515). This custom of sacrifice prevails in all essential features in parts of Arabia to the present time (Doughty, op. cit. i. 449 et seq.). Natural rocks, in which were channels and depressions for conducting and receiving the blood, served as Altars in Israel, at least in places, till the period of the Judges (compare Judges, vi. 21 et seq.; xiii. 19 et seq.; "Biblical World," ix. 328 et seq.). A great advance was made over the religious thought of this early period when it was considered possible to persuade the god to come and reside in an object selected by the worshiper. Such objects among the Semites were usually stones, and were called by the Arabs ansấb (sing. nusb), and the Hebrews mazzebot (sing. mazzebah). They served not only as a residence of the deity (a beth-El, Gen. xxviii. 17), but also as an Altar. Oil was poured on the Altar (Gen. xxviii. 18), and the fat of sacrifices was smeared on it to bring it as closely as possible into contact with the deity (see Anointing and Mazzebah, also W. Robertson Smith, l.c. pp. 204 et seq., and Wellhausen, "Reste des Arabischen Heidenthums," 2d ed., pp. 101 et seq.). The conception of sacrifice at this time was, as Smith has shown, commensal (see Sacrifice), and the god was able to dispose of his portion if thus brought into physical contact with it.

Fire-Altars.

The transition to fire-altars came, first, from the custom of cooking the meal, and, secondly, from a more elevated conception of the deity which made men believe that the god inhaled the smoke of the burning offering and so took his part in that way. This necessitated the addition of a fire-hearth to the mazzebah. This transitional form has actually been found in Abyssinia in monoliths with fire-hearths attached (see Theodor Bent's "Sacred City of the Ethiopians," pp. 180 et seq.). Where sacrifice was offered on a natural rock, it could easily be burned there. After a heap of stones had been substituted for a natural rock the addition of a fire-hearth as in the Altar of Ezekiel would be necessary. Naturally it was placed at the top of the structure in imitation of the natural rock, and not at the side as in case of those which grew out of the mazzebot.

Bronze and Stone Altars.

Solomon's bronze Altar was an innovation of civilization and gave way later, through the revival of an earlier form, to the stone Altar.

The Altar of acacia wood overlaid with bronze is mentioned only by the Priestly writer and those dependent upon him. It would not have endured a sacrificial fire, and it is the opinion of modern scholars that it never had actual existence.

The Altar of incense belongs to the secondary elements or additions to the Priestly writer, and its existence before the time of Ezekiel is even more problematical.

The table or Altar of showbread is a survival in a different way of the commensal idea of sacrifice. The story of Bel and the Dragon in the Greek book of Daniel shows that the idea that the god actually consumed the food lay at the bottom of this part of the ritual. With advancing civilization the table increased in splendor till it was called the golden Altar.

Horns of Altar.

The origin of the horns of the various kinds of altars is shrouded in obscurity. Stade ("Gesch." i. 465) suggests that they arose in an attempt to carve the Altar into the form of an ox, while Robertson Smith held ("Religion of the Semites" 2d ed., p. 436), that they were substituted for the horns of real victims which had at an earlier time been hung on the Altar. At all events they were regarded as a most sacred portion of the Altar (I Kings, i. 51; ii. 28, and Lev.viii. 15; ix. 9; xvi. 18).

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Asherah

2009-12-08T09:07:00.001-08:00

ASHERAH

By : Morris Jastrow Jr. George A. Barton

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Asherah the Name of a Syrian Goddess.

A Hebrew word occurring frequently in the Bible (R. V.) and signifying, except in a few late passages noted below, a wooden post or pole planted near the altars of various gods. In the Authorized Version the word is rendered "grove."

It has often been inferred from Deut. xvi. 21 that the Asherah was originally a tree, but the passage should be translated "an asherah of any kind of wood" (compare Moore, "Ency. Bibl." and Budde, "New World," viii. 734), since the sacred tree had a name of its own, el, elah, elon, and the Asherah was sometimes set up under the living tree (II Kings xvii. 10). This pole was often of considerable size (Judges vi. 25), since it could furnish fuel for the sacrifice of a bullock. It was found near the altars of Baal, and, down to the days of Josiah, near those of Yhwh also, not only at Samaria (II Kings xiii. 6) and Beth-el (II Kings xxiii. 15), but even at Jerusalem (II Kings xxiii. 6). Sometimes it was carved in revolting shapes (I Kings xv. 13), and at times, perhaps, draped (II Kings xxiii. 7). It is most often associated in the Bible with the pillars ("mazzebot") that in primitive days served at once as a representation of the god and as an altar (W. R. Smith, "Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 204). It was proscribed in the Deuteronomic law and abolished in Josiah's reform (II Kings xxii. 23).

In a few passages (Judges iii. 7; I Kings xviii. 19; II Kings xxiii. 4) Asherah appears to be the name of a goddess, but the text has in every case been corrupted or glossed (compare Moore and Budde, as cited above). In the first of the three passages the name Ashtaroth should stand, as it does elsewhere, in the case of similar charges of defection from Yhwh (compare Judges ii. 13, x. 6; I Sam. vii. 4, xii. 10). In the other two passages, the term Asherah is superfluous. These passages may indicate, as Moore suggests, that the Asherah became in some localities a fetish or cultus god.

Asherah the Name of a Syrian Goddess.

Asherah was also the name of a Syrian goddess. In the El-Amarna tablets of the fifteenth century B.C. her name appears with the determinative for deity as a part of the name Arad-Ashirta (or 'Ebed-Asherah). It also appears in a Sumerian hymn published by Reisner ("Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen," p. 92), on a hematite cylinder ("Zeit. f. Assyr." vi. 161), and in an astronomical text of the Arsacide period (ib. vi. 241). She appears to have been the consort of the god Amurru, a Baal of the Lebanon region (compare Jensen, "Zeit. f. Assyr." xi. 302-305). Arad-Ashirta in the El-Amarna tablets represents not only a sheik, but a clan, and is possibly the one which afterward became the tribe of Asher. Possibly a trace of this goddess is to be found in an inscription from Citium in Cyprus, which dedicates an object to "My lady mother Ashera" (compare Schröder, "Z. D. M. G." xxxv. 424). Many scholars, however, interpret the passage otherwise (compare Moore, l.c.). Hommel has recently announced ("Expository Times," xi. 190) that he has discovered in a Minæan inscription a goddess Athirat. phonetically equivalent to Asherah. This would indicate that Asherah was a name for an old Semitic goddess long before the fifteenth century B.C.; but for the present this must be regarded merely in the light of a possibility. The relation of this goddess to the pole called Asherah in the Bible is a difficult problem. The name in the Bible is masculine; the plural "Asherim" occurring sixteen times, and the plural "Asherot" but three times. The latter is clearly an error. Asherah must be a nomen unitatis. G. Hoffmann has shown ("Ueber Einige Phönizische Inschriften," pp. 26 et seq.) that these posts originally marked the limits of the sacred precincts, and that in the Ma'sub inscription it is the equivalent of "sacred enclosure." Moore finds in this fact the explanation of the use of the word in Assyrian (ashirtu, ashrâti; eshirtu, eshrâti), in the sense of sanctuary. Hommel fancies that he sees in the original form of the ideogram for Ishtar (compare Thureau-Dangin, "L'Ecriture Cunéforme," No. 294), a post on which hangs the skin of an animal.

Quite apart, however, from Hommel's somewhat imaginary conjecture, the Assyrian and Phenician use of the word in the sense of "sanctuary," taken in connection with the Arabian and Syrian use of it as the name of a goddess, indicates that the posts were used at the sanctuaries of the primitive Semitic mother-goddess, and that in course of time their name attached itself in certain quarters to the goddess herself, and has survived in South Arabia and Syria. When, therefore, the late editors of the Old Testament books made of the Asherah a fetish or cultus god, history was but repeating itself (see Ashtoreth; Worship, Idol; Mazzebah; Phenicia).

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Levites

2009-12-08T09:05:00.000-08:00

LEVITES (Temple Servants).

By : Emil G. Hirsch George A. Barton

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
—Critical View:
Earlier Accounts.
After Josiah.

—Biblical Data:

Of the Levites, Aaron and his sons were chosen for the priestly office (Ex. xxviii. 1 et seq.); the menial services of the Tabernacle were assigned to the rest of the tribe (Num. i. 47 et seq.). The Kohathites were to bear the sacred furniture of the Tabernacle; the Gershonites, its curtains; and the Merarites, its boards, pins, and poles (Num. iv. 4-16, 22-28, 29-33). It is distinctly stated that the Levites shall not approach the most holy things (Num. iv. 19)—that is, they shall not act as priests, a function which the context reserves for Aaron and his sons.

In Deuteronomy the representation is quite different; "priests" and "Levites" are there synonymousterms, and the one is regularly placed in apposition with the other. In Deut. xviii. 1, apparently, every Levite is a potential priest. In Joshua, as in Numbers, the Levites consist of the clans of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari, and to each clan a large number of cities is assigned (comp. Josh. xxi.; see Levi, Tribe of). The Levites, as the servants of the Temple, appear next in I Chronicles, where David is represented as dividing them into "courses" to wait on the sons of Aaron by doing the menial work of the Temple because they were no longer needed to carry the Tabernacle (comp. I Chron. xxiii., especially 26-28). He also appointed some to be doorkeepers of the Temple, some to have charge of its treasure, and some to be singers (I Chron. xxv.-xxvi.).

Ezekiel, however, gives a somewhat different impression of the personnel of the Temple service in pre-exilic times. In ch. xliv. 9-13 he declares that in future no uncircumcised foreigner shall enter the Temple, and that the Levites who have served at idolatrous shrines shall be deposed from the priesthood and perform the menial services of the sanctuary, such as keeping the gates and slaying the offerings. This seems to imply that before the Exile this service had been performed not by Levites, but by foreigners (an impression which Josh. ix. 23 deepens), and that those who were accounted Levites in this subordinate sense had formerly exercised a priesthood, of which Ezekiel did not approve.

After the Exile the Temple organization, as reflected in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, is the same as that portrayed in Chronicles. The plan of Ezekiel was not altogether carried out, for the Nethinim, who were descended from slaves whom David had given to the Temple (Ezra viii. 20), shared with the Levites the subordinate work of the sanctuary (Ezra vii. 24). In later times it would seem that the distinction between Levites and Nethinim gradually disappeared; present information on this point consists solely of the fact that the Nethinim were given genealogies along with the Levites (Ezra ii. 40 et seq.). At the beginning of the common era the Levites were an important class of religious officials (comp. Luke x. 32; John i. 19).

—Critical View:

The Biblical data thus present two inconsistent views. According to Leviticus, Numbers, the greater part of Joshua, and Chronicles, the priesthood was confined to the house of Aaron from the first, and the Levites existed as a menial class for the performance of the subordinate work of the sanctuary from the time of Moses. The portions of Leviticus, Numbers, and Joshua which contain this point of view are all from the P stratum of the Hexateuch—a post-exilic document, as the Graf-Wellhausen school believes. Chronicles, too, is a work written some time after the Exile.

Earlier Accounts.

In the older books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings the priestly offices are represented as not exclusively performed by Levites, who, however, were from the first preferred for these services and gradually monopolized them (see Levi, Tribe of). These services were not confined to any one sanctuary, but were performed in temples all over the land (comp. Judges xviii. 30). This condition of affairs apparently continued until Josiah, in 621 B.C., instituted a reform on the basis of the Deuteronomic law (II Kings xxiii.), when all sanctuaries except that at Jerusalem were abolished. This, left a large number of priests without a vocation, and they were consequently recommended to the charity of their brethren along with the widow, the fatherless, and the resident alien (Deut. xii. 18, 19; xiv. 27, 29; xvi. 11, 16). In this code every Levite is still regarded as a possible priest, however, and it is distinctly stipulated that if one of them goes to Jerusalem he shall have the same privileges in the exercise of the priestly office as are enjoyed by any other-Levite (Deut. xviii. 6-7). But the influence of the Jerusalem priesthood seems to have been so great that even Josiah could not enforce this provision, and the provincial priests were never accorded in fact the privileges in the Temple on Zion which Deuteronomy had granted them (comp. II Kings xxiii. 9). Ezekiel's plan for the reorganization of the Temple services proposed to utilize these men for the menial work of the sanctuary; this proposal was actually embodied in the legislation of P and became a part of the post-exilic religious organization.

After Josiah.

The view of the Graf-Wellhausen critical school is that last outlined—that the cleavage between priests and Levites was not begun until the time of Josiah, that it received a further impetus from Ezekiel, and that it became a real feature of the permanent religious organization after the return from Babylon. This view is strengthened by the fact that J in Josh. ix. 23 represents Joshua as presenting the foreign Gibeonites to the Temple as slaves, "hewers of wood and drawers of water," and that Ezekiel shows that foreigners continued to fill the menial offices down to the time of the Exile. Van Hoonacker ("Le Sacerdoce dans la Loi et dans l'Histoire des Hébreux," 1899) contends that Chronicles records pre-exilic conditions (comp. Baudissin in "Theologische Literaturzeitung," 1899, cols. 359-363). The picture of the Levites given in Leviticus, Numbers, the P portions of Joshua, and Chronicles is thought by others to be a projection by the writers of the institutions of their own times into the distant past.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Prodecure in Civil Causes

2009-12-08T09:04:00.000-08:00

PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CAUSES:

By : Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. Lewis N. Dembitz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
No Judgment by Default.
Sittings of Court.
Cause List.
Days of Court.
In Person or by Attorney.
Status of Parties.
Oral Pleadings.
Oath as Alternative to Payment.
Oath by Plaintiff.

No Judgment by Default.

Jewish jurisprudence, both in Biblical and in Talmudic times, attached the greatest importance to the laws of property and to their faithful administration by the judges. In regard to the manner of conducting civil suits the Pentateuch contains very few hints. But in Deut. i. 16 the judges are told, "Hear . . . between your brethren"; and Deut. xix. 17 declares, "Both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord." These and other passages support the Talmudic rule that judgment can be pronounced only against a defendant who has appeared; there is no such thing as "judgment by default"—condemnation of the accused because he has not appeared before the court to make defense. This seems in modern times a great defect in procedure, leading to much needless friction; but less than a hundred years ago the English court of chancery had the same disadvantage to contend with: it acquired jurisdiction over the defendant only by his answer, and the latter was compelled to answer the complainant's bill, even though he had nothing to say in defense. But an exception to this rule has been shown under the head of Foreign Attachment—proceedings by a bond creditor against the property of an absent defendant, an innovation arising from the necessities of a later age. In fact, the Talmud suggests (B. k. 112b) that at least upon bonds and in action for the recovery of deposits there should be judgment and execution without appearance. However, there could not well be a judgment by default, as there was no written complaint.

Job's wish (xxxi. 35), "Oh that . . . mine adversary had written a book"—meaning a "libellus" or formal complaint—indicates that in his day there were written pleadings. But in the procedure known to the Talmud the allegations of plaintiff and defendant are made by word of mouth in the presence of the judges, and are recorded by the clerk, much as were the pleadings in the Anglo-Norman courts in the days of the Plantagenets. The codes deduce from the Mishnah the rule that no written pleadings can be required: "All judicial writings may be written only in the presence of both parties, both to pay the fees of the writers; R. Simeon ben Gamaliel declared that two copies should be made, one for each" (B B. x. 4). For the choice of the court which shall try a civil case see Jurisdiction.

Sittings of Court.
(see image) Printers' Marks.(From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)
(see image) Printers' Marks.(From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)As to the time of holding court, the ordinance of Ezra, which appoints Monday and Thursday for that purpose, was recognized by the Mishnah (Ket. i. 1) and by the Gemara (B. k. 112b, 113a); but the custom has long since fallen into disuse. The courts should not sit on Sabbaths or during festivals (Bezah iv. 1); for, as the Talmud explains, there would be temptation to write; but if the court does sit and pronounce a judgment, it is binding (Shulhan 'Aruk, hoshen Mishpat, 5, 1). The rule not to begin a session in the afternoon is made in order that the afternoon prayer should not be neglected by judges and others concerned (Shab. 9b); but if the cause is taken up in the forenoon it may proceed not only during the afternoon, but after nightfall, the judgment then rendered being valid. No one can be compelled to attend a civil trial in the month of Nisan, on account of the (barley) harvest, nor in Tishri, on account of the vintage; and a summons may not be served on Friday or on the eve of a festival (B. k. 113a). The vacations in Nisan and Tishri were continued in later times, when farming was no longer the occupation of the Jewish people, in order to give litigants leisure to prepare for the festivals.

Cause List.

When the proper time comes for hearing causes, the general rule is that the cause first begun should be first heard; but certain classes of plaintiffs are privileged. Thus, according to hoshen Mishpat, 15, 1, seemingly based on a remark of the Talmud (Shebu. 30), the suit of a scholar, though begun later than that of another, should have priority. This is denied by some authorities; but the suit of an orphan must always be heard first; next, that of a widow (following Isa. i. 17—"judge the fatherless, plead for the widow"); and a woman's cause must be heard before that of a man (hoshen Mishpat, 15, 2).

The place always mentioned by the Bible in connection with the hearing of civil causes is the city gate—the wide space left in the broad city wall at the entrance to the town. The gate as a place of trial is not mentioned in the Mishnah, but the Palestinian Talmud mentions the sittings of a court at the gate of Cæsarea. Not much space was needed for civil trials, and they generally came to be held in the house of the rabbi sitting as principal judge. However, there have been Jewish "town halls," such as the "Jüdisches Rathhaus" in Prague, in very recent times.

Days of Court.

The first written document issued in a civil suit is the summons ("hazmanah" = "time-fixing"), which is obtained, upon the verbal application of the plaintiff, from the ordinary judges and is signed by them or by one of them. It is served on the defendant by the "messenger of the court" (see B. k. 112b, where it is said that, issued on Tuesday and served on Wednesday, the court may fix the time of trial for Thursday of the same week). The messenger reports the fact of service, or that the defendant has avoided the service.

According to B. k. 112b, the messenger is accredited for the purpose of pronouncing the ban, but not for the purpose of delivering the "petihah," that is, the formal document of excommunication, which can be made out only upon further proceedings showing the defendant's contumacy (see Contempt of Court).

If the defendant, when first brought into court, desires time to gain a better understanding of his case, or to await an absent witness, or if he asks for time in which to raise by private sale the means of paying the debt, the Talmud (l.c.) permits him a delay of as much as ninety days. In the Talmudic age the Jews were farmers. The modern rule, adapted to a trading people, is less liberal; the hoshen Mishpat (16, 1) will not allow more than thirty days, even when a material witness is absent; it argues that if defendant's witness should appear after judgment it is open to the defendant to bring suit to vacate the judgment and to recover what he has been unjustly compelled to pay.

In Person or by Attorney.

In general, both parties should appear in person to carry on their pleadings. The reason is that each may thus be restrained by a sense of shame from denying the true allegations of his opponent, or from asserting what both parties know to be untrue. Yet where a demand belongs to several persons jointly (e.g., to the several heirs of a creditor), in the nature of things one must speak for all (see Agency, Law of, where an attorneyship ["harsha'ah"] for the plaintiff was worked out from this consideration). Upon this theory the plaintiff could appoint an attorney only where his demand was assignable, as in an action for the recovery of land, or upon a bonded debt, or on an undisputed deposit. Such, it seems, was the Talmudic rule; but the Geonim extended to almost all cases the right of the plaintiff to plead by attorney (hoshen Mishpat, 123). The defendant, however, could not divide his liability; moreover, with him the temptation to deny his adversary's assertions is stronger; hence he could not plead by attorney. The only concession made to "honored women" and to "scholars" was that the clerks of the court might call on them at their houses, and there take down, in writing, their statements of fact (ib. 124).

Status of Parties.

In the nature of things some parties can not plead for themselves. Infants, boys under thirteen or girls under twelve, the deaf and dumb, and lunatics can plead only through a guardian; and it is the duty of the court to appoint a guardian for such, if they have none, whenever they become parties to a suit. Again, the husband is the natural attorney for his wife as to "property of the iron flock," which he has taken possession of and for which he is liable, but not as to "fluid property" ("nikse melug"); yet where land of this kind bears fruit, the husband, being entitled to the latter, can sue for both land and fruit (ib. 122, 8). A part-owner, such as one of several heirs, can sue for himself and his fellows without letter of attorney, and his fellows are bound by a judgment for the defendant, unless they live in another place, in which case the defendant can tell the acting plaintiff, "Either bring a letter of attorney or sue only for thy own share."

Oral Pleadings.

The plaintiff whose attorney has lost a case can not avoid the result by showing that he had before the hearing revoked the power of attorney, unless notice of the revocation had been brought home to the court (ib. 3). Both parties being before the judges, they plead in person; the plaintiff sets forth the facts on which his claim is based, and the defendant answers; when the latter introduces new affirmative matter the plaintiff may reply; and there may be a rejoinder. Where either party admits a fact stated by his opponent, the admission, inthe words of the Talmud, is "better than a hundred witnesses." It will be seen that in certain cases a denial can be made, or affirmative matter pleaded, only under oath, Scriptural or rabbinical.

When an issue is raised by mere denial, the proof is made by the evidence of witnesses in the manner described in the article Evidence. The production of deed or bond ("shetar"), unless it has been "established" before a court or judge, must be made by the attesting witnesses, though it is said (Git. 3a et al.) that under the Mosaic law an attested deed proves itself (i.e., is presumably genuine), and that the obligation of bringing the witnesses into court is only rabbinical. A "note of hand" ("ketab yad") may be set up by witnesses proving the maker's handwriting.

The very narrow limits within which weight is given to circumstantial evidence has been shown under Evidence, and some of the presumptions which may guide the judges are given under Burden of Proof and in the article Maxims, Legal. To these may be added the maxim "no one pays a debt before it is due" (B. B. 5b; see, for its application, Debts of Decedents). Hence, such a payment can be proved only by the direct testimony of two witnesses: There is a slight presumption that a man does not go to law without having some ground for it; and there are some cases, known as Miggo, in which the defense is favored, because if the defendant had not been a truthful man he could have introduced more plausible arguments. The discretion which the judges enjoy in certain cases, to decide according to the weight of evidence and the probabilities, is known as "the throw of the judges" ("shuda de-dayyane").

Oath as Alternative to Payment.

A solemn oath is imposed on the defendant as an alternative to payment in four cases, the first being provided in the Mosaic law itself (Ex. xxii. 8, 9): (1) a proceeding by the owner of chattels against the gratuitous depositary; (2) where the defendant admits the assertion of the plaintiff in part ("modeh be-mikzat hayyab bi-shebu'ah"; the most common case); (3) where the plaintiff establishes by the testimony of two witnesses his assertion as to part of his demand; (4) where the plaintiff has the testimony of one witness for his assertion. In these cases the court declares to the defendant, "You must either pay or clear yourself by the solemn oath."

The rules as to the oath of the depositary are given in the article Bailments. Here the Mishnah is very explicit:

(1)

In order to justify a sworn denial of a part of a claim, where the other portion thereof is admitted, the amount demanded must be at least equal to two small silver coins each equal to one-sixth of the "denar," and the amount admitted must be at least one "perutah." Next, the admission must be of the same kind as the demand; thus, to admit a claim to a perutah, which is of copper, is not a partial admission of having two of the plaintiff's silver pieces; but this rule holds good only when the demand is specific, e.g., if a claim is made for the silver coins, not for the sum of money. Where the demand is for two silver pieces and a perutah, the perutah being admitted, or for a mina, fifty denars being admitted, an oath is due. The claim being "My father has a mina in thy hand," and the answer, " I owe thee fifty denars," no oath is necessary, "for the defendant is like a man who returns lost goods." So where demand is made for a "litra" (in weight) of gold, defendant admitting a litra of silver; for grain, beans or lentils being admitted; for wheat, barley being admitted. In these cases, and in other similar ones, no oath is required.

(2)

The oath is not required in an action for slaves, bonds or deeds, or lands, nor for things consecrated; and land in this connection includes everything belonging to it, even ripe grapes. But when movable property and land are included in the same demand, and the defendant makes denial in regard to part of the movable property, he must swear as to the land also.

(3)

One who confesses a debt in the presence of two witnesses and thereafter denies it in open court is not admitted to swear, being disqualified as a "denier" ().

(4)

The defendant can avoid denying the rest of the demand if he at once pays over or delivers to the plaintiff the part confessed; for then the suit for that part is at an end, and he stands on the same footing as if he denied the whole cause of action.

By some sort of analogy a widow, or divorced wife who has "lessened" her jointure by admitting the receipt of a part thereof, must, to recover the rest, take an oath (Sheb. vii. 7). This position, taken by R. hiyya, is mentioned only in a late baraita (B. M. 3a). An opinion is expressed by some that proving part of the demand by witnesses calls only for the lesser or rabbinical oath in denial of the rest; but later authorities demand here also the "solemn" or Biblical oath (Maimonides, "Yad," to'en, iii. 10). Proof by one witness, as the Talmud points out (Sheb. 40a), is by the Law declared only insufficient to convict of crime, but not to require an oath for its contradiction in money matters. The third and fourth (see above) occasions for the oath occupy but little space in Talmud and codes, while the "admission of part" covers a large field. In general, the oath is never required in denying the demand of a deaf-mute, of a person of unsound mind, of an infant, or of the Sanctuary; nor where the plaintiff states his grounds of action as being only probably true (), instead of asserting them to be certainly true ().

Oath by Plaintiff.

While generally the judicial oath is taken by the defendant to clear him from liability, in a few cases the plaintiff may recover upon his oath (Sheb. v.-vii.): (1) A hired man: Where the amount earned is established by witnesses, and the employer says he has paid it, and the workman denies it, the latter may swear and recover. (2) One who has been robbed: Where witnesses have established that the defendant entered the plaintiff's house to make an unauthorized distraint, and the plaintiff says, "Thou hast taken such an object," but the defendant denies it, the former swears and recovers. (3) One who has been injured: Where witnesses prove that the plaintiff went to the defendant uninjured and left him wounded, the plaintiff swears and recovers. (4) One who is unworthy of belief: A professional dicer (see Evidence) or a flier of pigeons, for instance, cannot, to discharge himself from a liability, take the usual oath. The plaintiff swears and recovers also in other cases in which the defendant may be discharged by oath; but where both are disqualified the defendant takes the oath which the law imposes on him. (5) The shopkeeper as to his tablet: This does not mean that by his mere oath he can make the charges written thereon stand good against his customer; but where the latter has given an order ("Give my son two bushels of wheat"; "Give my laborer change for a 'sela''"), and the shopkeeper, who has the charge on his tablet, says, "I have given it," though the customer denies it—in that case the shopkeeper may, on his oath, recover from the party giving the order. The Mishnah says that both the shopkeeper and the son or laborer should swear; but to this Ben Nannos objects that if they swear against each other there must needs be perjury, and the outcome of the discussion will be obscure (Sheb. 47b). The later authorities, as Maimonides, hold that both the shopkeeper, swearing that he has delivered, and the laborer, swearing that he has not received, can recover from the employing customer.

The Torah knows nothing of an oath to be taken by the plaintiff; yet in most of the cases in which the Mishnah imposes the oath upon him, the solemn or Biblical oath is to be taken. For the necessity of an oath by him who sues the heirs of his debtor, see Debts of Decedents.

The principal occasion for the rabbinical oath ("shebu'at heset") is the assertion, not founded upon an attested bond, of payment of a debt. Where a loan is made or credit is given otherwise than upon the security of such a bond, and there is no stipulation that payment can be made only before witnesses, the debtor may plead payment (), and make his assertion good by the lesser oath. The weight of authority ("Yad," Malweh, xi. 3; hoshen Mishpat, 69, 2) puts the holder of a note of hand in the same position as a creditor by word of mouth only; but some of the late authorities gainsay this opinion.

Where the defendant denies the facts on which his obligation is based (i.e., denies the loan), and these are proved against him by witnesses, he can not thereafter plead an affirmative defense (i.e., that he has paid) and sustain that defense by the rabbinical oath; for not only has he, as a "denier," lost his credibility, but he can not be admitted to prove such a defense by witnesses; for to say, "I have not borrowed," is an admission that he has not paid (B. M. 17a). Where the defendant admits that the plaintiff counted out and handed to him a sum of money, he can clear himself by alleging that it was in payment of a debt due to him (the defendant), taking the rabbinical oath to support the allegation; but if he denies the delivery of the money he will not be permitted to make such a defense, for if none was delivered, there could be neither gift nor payment.

Where either party was admitted to take the oath, and took it, this ordinarily led, as a matter of course, to a decision in favor of that party. But in those civil suits which were decided upon testimony of witnesses or upon written proof, or upon the pleadings and admissions of fact, the true course (Sanh. 30a) is based on the custom of the "pure-minded" at Jerusalem—to remove the parties, their witnesses, and everybody else from the court-room, so that the judges might discuss the case among themselves () and "finish" the matter (i.e., give their judgment). Careful and slow deliberation was recommended by the men of the Great Sanhedrin (Abot i. 1). When judgment is rendered by a majority the judges are forbidden to disclose how the vote was divided. If one of three judges will not give an opinion for either side there is no court, and new judges, two at a time, should be cooptated until a majority declares for one of the parties. If a majority can not be obtained judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant. (For the corresponding rule in criminal cases see Acquittal.) The judgment need not be made out in writing, unless the successful party demands a transcript.

The Gemara quotes approvingly the saying, "Let the judgment pierce the mount" (Sanh. 6a, b)—a saying paralleling the familiar "Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum"; that is, the judges can not "split" the matter in controversy, but must act upon the law that fits the case, no matter how much hardship will be entailed, for to decide correctly is a duty laid upon them by the Torah: "They shall judge the people with just judgment," and "The judgment is God's" (Deut. xvi. 18, i. 17). Yet a "splitting" is highly recommended when it occurs as a compromise ("pesharah") between the parties, and the judges should advise such a course, for thus only will they fulfil the words of Zechariah the prophet (viii. 16): "Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates." But in later times, when in the countries of the Dispersion it became increasingly difficult for the Rabbis to enforce their decrees against unwilling litigants, their efforts were directed more and more toward inducing the disputants to agree among themselves, and skill in bringing about a compromise before giving a decision on the law of the case was deemed the highest qualification of the rabbi or dayyan (hoshen Mishpat, 12, 2). The compromise made before the judges is like any other contract, and becomes binding only when the formalities are complied with which change the title to property. See Alienation and Acquisition; Execution; Judge; Set-Off.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Sanhebrin

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

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 (Mishpatim, 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., Sotah, 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. Shetah 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 (Sotah ix. 1; Tosef., Sanh. iii. 4; comp. Sotah 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 (Sotah 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.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Governments

2009-12-08T08:56:00.000-08:00

GOVERNMENT.

By : Emil G. Hirsch Immanuel Benzinger Executive Committee of the Editorial Board. Lewis N. Dembitz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
Settlement in Canaan.
Origin of the Kingdom.
Officials.
Constitution.
Constitution Under Persian Rule.
Hellenic Time.
Roman Period.
—In Rabbinical Literature:

—Biblical Data:

The only kind of political institution extant among the Israelites before the time of the Kings was the division into tribes, according to tradition twelve in number corresponding to the sons of Jacob, who were regarded as the respective progenitors of the tribes. Organized, therefore, like the modern Bedouins, the pastoral Hebrews held the theory, also found in the genealogies of the ancient Arabs, that the family grows into the clan by natural accessions; the clan develops into the tribe; and the tribe becomes a people and splits up into several constituent tribes. This theory is based among the Hebrews and Arabians on the correct assumption that the tribe is not held together by some external bond of union, but primarily by the sense of blood relationship. "Our blood has been spilled," they say when one of them has been slain; and the duty of avenging the blood was originally not confined to the next of kin, in the true sense of the word, but was incumbent upon all the members of the tribe. Blood relationship, however, was not necessarily natural; it was regarded as existing also among persons that had entered into the "blood covenant."

The family also enlarges through the acquisition of slaves, the accession of freedmen, and the absorption of isolated families; all these "artificial" adoptions, taking the tribal name, regard and revere the father of the tribe as their progenitor. Tribes having their fixed pasture districts entertain close relations with neighboring clans and families that share with them the privileges of watering their flocks at certain wells. Moreover, a permanent or accidental community of other interests occasionally unites entire tribes into one body, called "hilf," existing for a longer or shorter period. A tribe of this kind has no actual organized government; its head is a sheik, whose authority, however, is largely moral. In case of war only, the sheik assumes command, and determines, together with the divan of the heads of families, when and where the tents shall be pitched or camp broken. But the sheik is without authority in time of peace. The members of the tribe listen to his counsel because he is respected, and he is called upon to decide disputes because his wisdom is recognized; but his decision is final only if both parties are willing to submit to it; he can not enforce it against the will of either, since there is no executive body to carry out his commands. The family one of whose members commits any offense must judge in the matter. Furthermore, each family is perfectly free and independent, as regards the tribe, in time of peace, and may at any time secede from it. But in time of war it is a measure of security to remain within the tribe.

The tribes of Israel were probably organized along these lines at the time of their entry into Canaan. The bond that united them more strongly than any sense of a common origin could was the worship of Yhwh and his cult (see Theocracy), which endured notwithstanding all differences of secular interests. The sense of unity among all the worshipers of Yhwh was more or less strong; the wars that Israel waged were Yhwh's wars, and hence a matter of common concern (Judges v. 23). This common religion held the tribes together, even after the period of settlement and the resultant wars.

Settlement in Canaan.

Many things connected with the settlement in Canaan tended to increase the difficulties of this tribal union, and to favor its final dissolution. The idea of blood relationship became more and more secondary. As the Canaanites continued to live among the new settlers (Judges ii. 3 et seq.), many mixed marriages occurred, and the two peoples were at last peaceably fused into one. Naturally the sense of community of interest among the inhabitants of a given locality asserted itself and led to the instituting of local governments; in fact, the Canaanites had developed such before the Israelitish invasion. The heads of the most prominent families of a city constituted its administration as elders of the city ("zikne ha-'ir"; Judges viii. 14). The fact that cities and villages are frequently designated in their interrelations as "mother" and "daughter," and that cities and "their" villages are mentioned (Num. xxi. 25, 32; Josh. xvii. 11; II Sam. xx. 19), indicates that the beginnings of the territorial organization of Israel go back to the earliest time, and were adopted from the Canaanites. The surrounding smaller villages were in some way dependent on the cities that in time of need offered protection behind their walls to those who dwelt in the open country. This, in time, resulted in a closer political organization, but tended to weaken the national consciousness, since local interests divided the country into separate communities. The physical features of the country were more favorable to segregation, as, for instance, in the case of the tribes in the east-Jordanic districts, where, owing to the character of the land, the dwellers remained nomadic herdsmen to a greater extent and for a longer period of time than their neighbors across the stream, which was difficult to cross. These circumstances contrived to loosen the bond of union between the tribes on each side of the river (comp. Judges v. 16 et seq., viii. 4 et seq., xii. 1 et seq.). But among the tribes in the country west of the Jordan the feeling of union also weakened greatly after their settlement, and even a war of Yhwh like that to which Deborah summoned the people did not unite them all (Judges v. 16 et seq.).

Notwithstanding the fact that the bond that united the several tribes was the common worship of Yhwh, there was great danger that Israel might split up into a number of small "kingdoms," such as existed among the Canaanites. The El-Amarna tablets show that before the advent of the Israelites a number of these petty princes recognized the King of Egypt as their common overlord, though they waged wars among themselves frequently. The story of Gideon illustrates the prevalence of similar disintegrating tendencies in Israel. For the fact is emphasized that he succeeded in retaining rulership over his tribe even in time of peace, while other so-called "judges" were leaders only in time of war.

Origin of the Kingdom.

The check to this disintegrating tendency was due mainly to external influences. So long as the Israelites had to contend only with the nomadic hordes on the east and south, the Midianites, Amalekites, etc., as in the wars in the time ofthe Judges, the strength of a single tribe or of several united tribes sufficed for repulsing the enemy. But the scattered forces of the Israelites were not a match for the organized armies of the Philistines advancing upon them from the west. After the battle of Aphek, many of their districts fell under Philistine control (I Sam. passim). These reverses evoked a decided feeling in favor of a stronger national union, and when Saul, a nobleman from the tribe of Benjamin, had been presented by Samuel to the people as a suitable chief of the state, and had proved his fitness in the war with the Ammonites, the people unanimously elected him king. In its origin, therefore, the Israelitish national kingdom does not differ essentially from the tribal kingdom established by Gideon, for the people primarily demanded from the king aid against a foreign enemy (see King). But Saul in time of peace acted also as judge for his subjects. Under the oak at Gibeah he judged the controversies that they brought before him. In order to assure the security of the throne it became necessary that the power of the old family and tribal chiefs, and hence that of the tribes themselves, should be broken; for the rivalry among the tribes did not die out, even when the idea of nationality became dominant for the nonce and resulted in the establishment of the kingdom. This rivalry flashed up in the refusal of the Judahites to recognize the Benjamite house of Saul, and the uprising of Ephraim together with the other tribes against the Judean family of David.

Under David and Solomon the government was put on a firmer basis, for now there were a small standing army, officials, taxes, etc. (see Army).

Officials.

There is little information regarding the king's officials ("sarim"). A list of them, preserved in II Sam. xx. 23 et seq., is headed by the general of the army ("sar 'al ha-zaba") or the commander of the royal bodyguard. Among the administrative officials the "mazkir" occupies the first position; as the title implies ("who brings into remembrance"), he was a kind of chief councilor, corresponding to the modern grand vizier in the Oriental states (II Kings xviii. 18, 37; Isa. xxxi. 3, 22; II Chron. xxxiv. 8). His assistant was the secretary of state ("sofer"), who had to attend to the king's correspondence. The overseer of labor is also mentioned in the list of David's officials (II Sam. viii. 15 et seq., xx. 23 et seq.). The high priest likewise belonged to the royal officials. It appears from other allusions that there was also a minister of the palace (I Kings iv. 6; II Kings xviii. 18; Isa. xxii. 15), who is perhaps identical with the "soken" (Isa. xxii. 15). "'Ebed ha-melek" (servant of the king) also seems, according to II Kings xxii. 12, to have been the title of a high dignitary, perhaps the chief eunuch. Among the inferior officials were the prefects ("nezibim") of the 12 provinces (I Kings iv. 7); and at the court itself, the cupbearer ("mashkeh"; I Kings x. 5), the keeper of the robes (II Kings x. 22), the treasurer ("sar ha-rekush"; I Chron. xxvii. 25 et seq.), and the chamberlain ("saris"; I Kings xxii. 9; II Kings vii. 6, ix. 32 et seq.).

With the exception of the first ministers of the king, no such difference was made in assigning work to the officials as obtains in modern times. The government was not divided into different departments. Every official was in his district a sort of representative of the king, exercising the latter's prerogatives as military commander, governor, tax-collector, and judge. According to the Prophets, it appears that these officials often abused the power placed in their hands; they combined bribery, oppression, and cruelty toward their subordinates with servility toward their superiors (II Sam. xi. 14 et seq.; I Kings xii. 10 et seq.).

The details that are known regarding the administration of internal affairs relate almost entirely to the collection of taxes. David made a census of the people evidently for the purpose of having a basis for apportioning the taxes and for recruiting (II Sam. xxiv. 1 et seq.). Solomon divided the country into districts; in the passage referring to this measure (I Kings iv. 7), it is expressly connected with the imposts for the court. In the list of the twelve districts Judah is omitted; it is uncertain whether because Judah was exempt, as the tribe to which the royal house belonged, or because the narrator made a mistake. It is in any case noteworthy that the ancient division into tribes was ignored in this new division. The amount of these taxes is unknown; under Solomon the people regarded them as an oppressive burden. The tithe is apportioned to the king in the so-called "King's Law" (I Sam. viii. 17); this "King's Law," however, may be of later origin. Crown lands, which the king eventually gave to his servants as fiefs, are mentioned at an early date (I Sam. viii. 13). Traders' caravans had to pay toll (I Kings x. 15); lands of the condemned were seized in some cases by the king (I Kings xxi. 1 et seq.). The first cut of fodder went to the support of his chariot-horses (Amos vii. 1). Poll and income taxes seem to have been levied only in times of special need (II Kings xxiii. 35).

Constitution.

There was no regular constitution determining the rights of the king and his subjects. The so-called "King's Rights" which Samuel laid before the people (I Sam. viii. 10 et seq.) is not a legal document determining the rights and prerogatives of the king, but a somewhat prejudiced account of what the kings actually did. The "King's Law" (Deut. xvii. 14-20). on the other hand, contains moral and religious precepts rather than legal enactments: the king shall diligently study the Law, and shall not possess much silver or gold, many wives, or many horses. The principle of heredity, also, was not legally established, although from the beginning it was accepted as a matter of course. When the Judeans raised David upon the shield, in opposition to Eshbaal, and when the northern tribes chose Jeroboam, these acts were considered as rebellions against the legitimate royal house. On the other hand, it is evident that for a long time the people retained the idea that the king existed for the sake of the people, and not vice versa.

The communal government was at all times nearly unrestricted. The royal government had a greater sway only at Jerusalem, the capital, where of necessityit coincided with the city government, and where a royal officer was appointed as governor of the city (1 Kings xxii. 26). Otherwise the royal officers do not seem to have interfered much officially in the affairs of the communities so long as the taxes were promptly paid. The zikne ha-'ir (see above), the elders of the community, constituted the local government, and still retained their judicial functions (Deut. xix. 12, xxi. 2 et seq., xxii. 15 et seq.); no details, however, are known regarding this local council. The number of its members corresponded to that of the prominent families of the place; e.g., the 77 elders of the small city of Succoth are mentioned (Judges viii. 14).

Constitution Under Persian Rule.

The ancient tribal constitution was revived during the Exile, after the national kingdom had perished; and the heads of the families appear again as the representatives of the community (Ezra viii. 1, x. 1). The return to Palestine was also a matter of the various families or communities (comp. Ezra i. 5); and after the Exile this democratic family organization naturally was revived among the Jews. The Persian king did not intend to restore national autonomy; the country remained with the Persian empire as a part ("medinah"; Neh. vii. 6; Ezra ii. 1) of the west-Euphratic province (Ezra v. 3). There was, at least part of the time, a special Persian governor ("pehah," "tirshata") for Judea, under the satrap of the province. Nehemiah speaks of himself as being such a governor (Neh. v. 15 et seq.), but no mention is made of any of his successors. The Persian officer, who resided at Samaria, seems to have had a representative at Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 24).

These Persian satraps in any case did not interfere greatly in the internal affairs of the people, having no reason for doing so as long as the tribute-money and their salaries were paid regularly. They gave attention only to the building of temples and walls. The freedom of worship granted to the Jews entailed necessarily great freedom in the government, and especially in the administration of justice. The courts and the police were in the hands of the Jewish provincial authorities, designated as "sabe Yehudaye" (elders of the Jews), who represented the people before the Persian governor (Ezra v. 9 et seq., vi. 7 et seq.); it is not known whether this body is identical with the frequently mentioned "seganim" (prefects). In addition to them, the ancient local form of government was revived under the elders of the towns, who administered justice as in olden times. In relation to them the so-called college of the "elders of Judah" at Jerusalem may have constituted a certain supreme authority. It is noteworthy that the priests and the Levites did not belong to this body (comp., e.g., Neh. viii. 9, 38; x. 37).

Hellenic Time.

The development of the government from Ezra to the Greek period is shrouded in darkness. But the basis on which it rested was the law that came into force in 444 B.C. through Ezra-Nehemiah. It is not known how much time elapsed before this constitution was completely enforced; in the Hellenic period affairs were arranged as prescribed by that law. The high priest was the head of the entire community; he was the president of the gerusia, the ancient aristocratic senate, the assembly of the elders. The Ptolemies and Seleucids recognized him as ethnarch. He was empowered to levy taxes, and was responsible for the tribute of the people (Josephus, "Ant." xii. 4, §§ 1 et seq.). In view of this importance the Ptolemies and Seleucids claimed the right of appointing and dismissing the high priest. But otherwise these overlords, like the Persians, so long as their supremacy was recognized, interfered little in the inner affairs of the people.

The rise of the Hasmonean house marked no change in government. From the time of Jonathan, except during war, when the Maccabees exercised a sort of dictatorship, its members took their places at the head of the people as high priests (I Macc. xi. 27), for which, however, they did not have the legal qualifications. The gerusia continued to exist in the meanwhile (I Macc. xi. 23; xii. 6, 35; xiii. 36, etc.), although its influence was greatly diminished. Nor was the constitution actually changed when Aristobulus (105-104 B.C.) took the title of king; the fact that the Hasmoneans called themselves kings was merely an external indication that the spiritual implications of their office had long since become for them a minor matter. The gerusia had little power under rulers like Hyrcanus and Jannæus, but its authority under Alexander was very great. It is not known when the term "Sanhedrin" first came into use.

Roman Period.

Under the Romans the high priest, excepting for a short time, was also ethnarch, and again shared his functions with the gerusia. But it soon became apparent that strong rulers like Antipater and Herod had complete control of this body; Herod simplified matters for himself by removing his opponents in council (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 9, § 4; comp. xv. 1, § 2).

Soon after Herod's death Archelaus was deposed as King of Judea and the country changed into a Roman province under a procurator, who in some instances was under the governor of the province of Syria, but had entire control of military and civil affairs. The Romans left the Jews full freedom in their internal affairs. The Sanhedrin then had more power than it had formerly possessed under the native princes. The office of high priest was no longer hereditary after the time of Herod. He as well as the Romans appointed and deposed high priests in quick succession, and thus this office lost more and more its political importance, as did the gerusia (the Sanhedrin), over which the high priest continued to preside. See Sanhedrin.

Bibliography: Saalschütz, Mosaisches Recht, and Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht; also the histories of Israel by Wellhausen, Kittel, Klostermann, Stade, Guthe, Graetz; the archeologies by De Wette, Ewald, Keil, Nowack, Benzinger;
Benzinger, art. Government, in Cheyne and Black, Encyc. Bibl.;
Selden, Synedria Veterum Hebrœorum.E. G. H. I. Be.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The Mishnah (B. B. i. 5) says: "They force him [any citizen] to build for the town walls, gate, doors, and bolts. How long must one have been there to become liable as a citizen? Twelve months; but one who buysa dwelling-house in the town becomes a citizen at once." Thus there is a local authority which can and should levy taxes in money or work for the common defense. The Talmud (ib. 7b-11a) throws no light on the question whence the judicial body which enforces the tax derives its appointment or upon whose initiative it acts. It says that the "disciples of the wise" should be free from all taxes for the security of the place; but that all are bound for the cost of wells or aqueducts, and of paving the streets and squares. It also speaks of a tax for poor-relief; but this must not be imposed on the estate of fatherless minors. It shows that some at least of the burdens of the citizen must be borne by all who have dwelt within the town for thirty days.

There is no trace in the Mishnah or Talmud of any popular elections for local purposes, nor is there any of elections of kings or high priests by the body of the people. It is probable that the administrative offices, corresponding to those of the mayor and council and taxing officers of modern towns, the non-judicial elders, as distinguished from "the elders of the court" (Sotah ix. 6), were handed down in certain families from father to son (Keritot 5b). Upon the measure or method of taxation which the king might employ for the purposes of the state the Mishnah is silent; the Talmud intimates that it might be in the nature of a tithe on the products of the soil (Sanh. 20b). In connection with the exemption from taxes claimed by the learned class (B. B. 8a) these imposts are cited as the supposed equivalents of those mentioned in Ezra vii. 24; namely, gifts to the king, which were of Persian institution; a capitation tax; and the "arnona" (Latin "annona"), a contribution in grain, fruits, etc., in the nature of a tithe.E. C. L. N. D.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Kings

2009-12-08T08:55:00.000-08:00

KING:

By : Emil G. Hirsch Joseph Jacobs Solomon Schechter

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
Functions.
Selection and Anointing.
Officers.
Revenue.
—In Rabbinical Literature:

Chief ruler of a nation.

—Biblical Data:

In Jewish history the first ruler called "king" was Saul, son of Kish, but in Palestine almost every chieftain bore this title. According to Josh. xi. 1-2, the country contained numbers of kings, and in the Song of Deborah (Judges v. 19) reference is made to the "kings of Canaan." These can have had little more power than a modern sheik. Some of them, doubtless, held more extensive sway than others, and the ruler of the federation of the five cities of the Philistines might more deservedly be dignified with the name. The special need of a military leader in primitive times was due to the constant warfare in which even the more settled population of the country passed its existence, and while in the nomad state the Israelites needed a warrior chief like Moses or Joshua to keep them united and under discipline. As soon as the Israelites were settled in the Holy Land decentralizing tendencies became paramount, and the local jurisdiction of the elders superseded the earlier régime, This led to various attempts at reconstruction under the Judges. In two cases, those of Gideon and Abimelech, attempts were made to found petty kingdoms. Similarly, Jephthah seems to have established a minor kingdom east of the Jordan, in Gilead (Judges xi. 6-11); but none of these attempts were sufficient to unite the whole of the Israelitish tribes for warlike purposes against their enemies in plain and mountain.

In the time of Samuel, however, the tribes were for a time united. The manifest advantages of thisunion led Samuel himself to arrange later for a secular head of the Israelite forces, who should be sanctified by the choice of the oracles of God; Saul, therefore, became, by election, the first King of Israel. Dissatisfied with Saul's conduct, the imperious Samuel selected David to replace him, who, after Saul's death, immediately succeeded in ruling over Judah, and some years later was acknowledged king of all Israel. David had taken possession of the great fortress of Jerusalem, and, possibly influenced by the career of the king-maker Samuel, attempted to combine the ecclesiastical and the military headship by making his chapel royal, or Temple, the center of the national worship. This policy was carried out by his son Solomon, who attempted further to break down the old tribal divisions by dividing the whole country into twelve or thirteen districts (I Kings iv. 7), severally presided over by one of his officers; each of these officers, it has been conjectured, was required to supply the court or the army with provisions during one month of each year. But this attempt proved premature, and after Solomon's death his kingdom was divided into two parts (see Israel; Judah). The advantages of a rallying-point for the national forces was nevertheless thenceforth clearly recognized, and both divisions were ruled by kings till the superior forces of the surrounding nations destroyed for a time the national independence.

Functions.

As indicated by the sketch above, the chief duty of the king was to act as war-lord and commander-in-chief of the army. One result of the establishment of the kingship was the foundation of a standing army, which began with the three thousand men kept by Saul in the field against the Ammonites (I Sam. iii. 2). The "Gibborim," or the mighty men who formed the body-guard of the king, constituted the nucleus of this force. War being regarded by the Hebrews as a sacred occupation (see Schwally, "Kriegsaltertümer," 1901), the king was intimately connected with the religious organization of the people, and it is possible that at an early stage he was regarded as the center of it, though there are no such traces of taboos around Hebrew royalty as are found among other primitive nations (see Frazer, "Golden Bough," i., passim). It is certain that the king performed priestly functions. Saul offered sacrifices (I Sam. xiii. 9-11), and David wore the ephod (I Sam. vii. 19); Solomon addressed the people in the Temple (I Kings viii. 14); the high priests received their appointment from the king, at any rate in the earlier stages of the monarchy (II Sam. viii. 17; I Kings ii. 26-27). The fact that Solomon built a temple and dedicated it shows the intimate relation of the king with the national sanctuary, which was attached to his palace. In addition to their military and ecclesiastical functions, the Jewish kings, like all Oriental monarchs, discharged those of judges (comp. I Kings iii. 16 et seq.), and in the palace there was a special porch for judgment (I Kings vii. 7). How far the king had the right to originate laws is doubtful. Later legislation required him to agree to abide by the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. xvii. 18, 19), but he must have had considerable latitude in interpreting it.

Selection and Anointing.

In the cases of Saul and David, the fact that they had already proved themselves redoubtable leaders in warfare was doubtless the reason why Samuel chose them for the kingly office when he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that such a head for the nation was necessary. When once the kingship had been established, the hereditary principle arose naturally. For nearly eight years. Saul's son Ishbosheth retained the position of his father among the more northern tribes. The king appears to have had the right to select his successor from his descendants, as was done by David in the case of Solomon (I Kings i.), who seems to have been the youngest among his sons (see Junior Right). Although the act of selection was the monarch's, the priestly caste seems to have had some voice in the (decision, while the elders and the people generally expressed by acclamation their satisfaction at the result (II Kings xiv., xxi., xxiii.; see also Josephus, "B. J." i. 33, § 9).

The chief ceremony by which a ruler was consecrated king was that of anointing, mentioned in the cases of Saul (I Sam. x. 1), David (II Sam. ii. 4), Jehu (II Kings ix. 6), and Joash (II Kings xi. 12). In all these cases, excepting the last, the function appears to have been a private one, and hence it has been suggested that it was performed with the beginning of a new dynasty. The general reference to the king as "the anointed one," or "the Lord's anointed" (I Sam. ii. 10; Ps. ii. 2; Lam. iv. 20), seems to show that anointing was the normal and characteristic part of a king's inauguration, though it occurred also in the appointment of a high priest (see Anointing; Messiah; see also Wellhausen in Archiv für Religionswissenschaft," 1904).

The chief external signs of dignity were the crown (II Kings xi. 12), which was worn by Saul even on the battlefield (II Sam. i. 10; see Crown), and the scepter (Ps. xlv. 7 [A. V. 6]). It is doubtful whether the spear, so often mentioned in connection with Saul (I Sam. xx. 33, xxii. 6, xxvi. 7), was used by him as a sign of his dignity; it is not mentioned elsewhere in connection with the kings, though modern sheiks use it for that purpose (Tristram, "Land of Israel," p. 59). Naturally, the king's house was of larger dimensions and of more pretentious architecture than that of any of his subjects, and special accounts are given of the palaces of Solomon (I Kings vii.), Jehoiakim (Jer. xxii. 13, 14), and Ahab (I Kings xxii. 39). The king's seat was known as the "throne" or "judgment-seat." An elaborate description is given of that of Solomon I Kings x. 18 et seq.; see Throne).

Officers.

The chief officer of the king was the "captain of the host" (II Sam. ii. 8). Another high military officer was the captain of the body-guard (II Sam. viii. 16, xx. 23), who, for prudential reasons, was not placed under the orders of the commander-in-chief. Of the officials connected with the royal household the chief appears to have been the high chamberlain, or the officer "over the household" (II Kings xviii. 18). Next come the "sofer," or scribe, who acted as secretary of state (ib.), and the "mazkir," or historiographer (ib.). An official less frequently mentionedwas the "king's servant" (II Kings xxii. 12); a seal that belonged to one of these king's servants, whose name was Obadiah, has recently been discovered. Besides these, several minor officials, as "keeper of the wardrobe" (II Kings xxii. 14) and "chamberlains" II Kings xxiii. 11), were connected with the royal household. Other titles, like those of "king's friend" and "counselor," can scarcely be regarded as official.
(see image) Seal of Obadiah, "Servant of the King."(After Benzinger.)

Revenue.

The means by which this state was maintained were various, and doubtless differed with the period. The royal domains and flocks (partly obtained by escheat) must have contributed much to its support (I Chron. xxvii. 25-28). The kings may have claimed a tithe of the produce of the land (I Sam. viii. 15-17), but no later evidence is given of this, and such a claim would conflict with the similar claims of the priesthood. Regular presents, doubtless, were made by the king's chief vassals (I Kings x. 25), and tributes were brought in by conquered tribes (I Kings iv. 21; II Chron. xxvii. 5). Solomon probably derived some profit from his trading ventures (I Kings ix. 28), as well as from the customs levied on the foreign merchants trading in Palestine (I Kings x. 14). Resources such as these enabled the king to keep up considerable state. He dressed in royal robes (I Kings xxii. 10; II Chron. xviii. 9), drank from gold vessels (I Kings x. 21), and possessed a large harem (II Sam. xvi. 21). All who approached him bowed down and touched the ground with the forehead (I Sam. xxiv. 8; II Sam. xix. 24). After the destruction of the monarchy, memories of its glory still remained in Israel, and Ezekiel regarded royalty as inseparable from the ideal Jewish state (Ezek. xlvii.). The term "king" was applied symbolically to any great leader, even to death (Job xviii. 14); but above all it was applied to God as the "King of Kings" (see Theocracy). It is likewise applied to a crocodile (ib. xxiv. 34).

Bibliography: Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie, pp. 303-315;
K. Budde, Schätzung des Königtums im Alten Testament, Marburg, 1903.E. G. H. J.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

In Talmudic times every official position on earth was regarded as of divine appointment, and the rule of the king was compared with that of God (Ber. 58a). One had, therefore, to pray for a good king (Ber. 55a) and for the good of the king (Abot iii. 2). The office was regarded as hereditary (Hor. 11b; comp. Zeb. 102a). There was a special benediction to be pronounced on seeing a king, and no one should avoid greeting him appropriately (Ber. 58a). Even prayers may in certain cases be interrupted to answer a king (Ber. 32b). Intriguers against the royal majesty lost in certain cases their property and were put to death (Sanh. 48b), while any disrespectful gesture was punished (Pes. 57b). To defraud the customs was a great crime against the king (Ned. 28a), and he received one-thirteenth of all booty captured in war (B. B. 122a). The anointing of the king was done with balsam before he was crowned (Hor. 12a).

But a king must stand during the reading of the Law (Sotah 41b), and must not arise from his knees until he has finished his prayer (Ber. 34b). The glory of a king is truth (Ta'an. 32a), and, therefore, his word must be irrevocable (B. B. 3b). He should set an example to all in his obedience to the Law (Suk. 30a).

The relations of a king to his courtiers was a favorite subject of the Rabbis in their parables. I. Ziegler has collected no less than nine hundred and thirty-seven parables of this kind, scattered through Midrashic literature, but it is clear from the descriptions of the king's regalia that the model before the Rabbis was the Roman emperor with his purple mantle, laurel crown, and curule chair. These parables, though interesting in their way, seldom throw light upon the rabbinical views about kings, being more of the nature of folk-tales.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Elder

2009-12-08T08:54:00.000-08:00

ELDER

By : Solomon Schechter Julius H. Greenstone

In primitive times age was a necessary condition of authority. Not only among the ancient Jews, but also among other nations of antiquity, the elders of the nation or of the clan constituted the official class. The institution of elders existed among the Egyptians (Gen. 1. 7), among the Midianites (Num. xxii. 7), and later among the Greeks (γέροντοες or πρεσβντεροι) and Romans ("patres" or "senatus"). Although the Talmud (Yoma 28b) points to the existence of such an institution in the time of Abraham, no distinct mention is made of it in the Bible until the period of the Exodus. Moses is commanded to assemble the elders of the people, and to assure them of a speedy redemption from Egyptian bondage (Ex. iii. 16, 18). Afterward the elders occupied an important position in the communal as well as in the political affairs of the Jewish people. It is not certain that they were elected by the people, although they were considered their representatives, and were frequently identified with the "'am" (people) itself in the Bible (Ex. iv. 29; xix. 7, 8; xxiv. 1; Josh. xxiii. 2 et al.).

The position and function of the elder are nowhere clearly defined. "What there was of permanent official authority lay in the hands of the elders and heads of the houses; in times of war they commanded each his own household, and in peace they dispensed justice each within his own circle" (Wellhausen). They were the defenders of the interests of their constituents, and were especially powerful in local or municipal affairs (Deut. xix. 12, xxi. 2, xxii. 15, xxv. 7: Josh. xx. 4; Ruth iv. 2). Together with the priests, they sometimes participated in certain sacrificial rites (Lev. iv. 15, ix. 1). In national affairs they held a very important position. It was at the request of the elders that Samuel consented to a monarchical form of government in Israel (I Sam. viii. 4). It was through their intervention that Abner succeeded in appointing David king over Israel (II Sam. iii. 17). The elders were accomplices in the conspiracy of Absalom (II Sam. xvii. 4); to them Rehoboam first turned for advice (I Kings xii. 6), and they were also a prominent factor in the proceedings brought against Naboth by Jezebel (I Kings xxi. 8-13).

It is not known whether all the officers of the commonwealth were chosen from the body of elders (compare Ex. xviii. 25 and Num. xi. 16). As judges, however, and as the chief representatives of the people, the elders enjoyed their authority for a long period. The Mishnah speaks of the elders as the recipients of the oral law from Joshua (Abot i. 1), and as the forerunners of the Sanhedrin (Sanh. 2a). The institution of elders flourished during the period of the Babylonian Exile (Ezek. viii. 1, xiv. 1, xx. 1), and continued in Palestine during the Persian and Greek periods (Ezra v. 5, 9; vi. 7, 14; x. 8; 1 Macc. vii. 31; xii. 6, 35; xiii. 36; Judith vi. 21, vii. 23, viii. 33, x. 6; and in Susanna). See Judge; Patriarchal Family and Authority; and especially Sanhedrin.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Manuscripts

2009-12-08T08:53:00.001-08:00

MANUSCRIPTS:

By : Joseph Jacobs Ludwig Blau Richard Gottheil G. Margoliouth

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Writing Material.
Parchment.
Scroll and Codex.
Size, Compass, and Distribution.
Book-Trade.
Oldest Codices.
I. Materials Used to Receive Writing.—
Earliest Papyri.
Examples of Old Vellum.
Karaite Manuscripts.
Paper in Egypt.
II. Writing-Fluids, etc.:
Kinds of Ink.
Kinds of Pens.
III. Forms of Books:
Size of Rolls.
Size of Books.
Ruling of Manuscripts.
IV. Styles of Writing:
Copying from Printed Forms.
Specimens of Cursive.
V. Illuminations:
Comparative Frequency of Illuminations.
VI. Palimpsests:
Palimpsests and Colophons.
VII. Colophons:
Methods of Dating Manuscripts.
"Minyan Shetarot."
Multiple Dating.
VIII. Owners, etc.:
IX. Censors:

Writing Material.

The first materials used for writing were such substances as stone, wood, and metal, upon which the characters were engraved with a stylus. At a very early time, however, animal substances were employed, and letters were written upon them with various liquid preparations. The usual word for a written document, "sefer," which occurs 182 times in different forms in the Bible, and is to be supplied in many places, as, for instance, with "Torah," designates the skin of an animal, the writing material anciently employed by the Orientals, and not papyrus. The usual word for writing, "katab," the fundamental meaning of which is "to place signs in succession," is found in the Bible 220 times (Blau, "Studien zum Althebräischen Buchwesen," pp. 9 et seq.). For private writing in the first centuries of the common era various materials were used, including clay tablets for bills. Books might be written only on skins of animals, of which three kinds were prepared—"gewil," "kelaf," and "doksostos." Gewil is the plain hide with the hair scraped off (i.e., leather); kelaf is parchment, made by paring away the skin, and which received the writing upon the flesh side (i.e., a membrane); doksostos is another form of parchment (ib. pp. 22 et seq.).

Parchment.

Copies of the Bible were, as a rule, made from whole skins, as at the present day, which were prepared from clean animals. To this the copyist ("sofer") himself generally attended. A gaon says, "We have never seen a Torah scroll which was written on parchment." There is a possibility, however, that in ancient times there were Biblical books written on papyrus; in regard to non-Biblical writings this supposition is even probable. The skin used for writing was ruled, and there were special regulations for margins and for the number of lines. Only black, effaceable ink, which was renewed when necessary, might be used for Biblical works. Metallic ink was known, but was forbidden. The Letter of Aristeas (§§ 176-179), however, relates that the copy of the Bible sent by the high priest to the Egyptian king Ptolemy was written in gold, and the Talmud also speaks of gold-writing, which may have been a Jewish invention (Blau, l.c. pp. 13, 150 et seq.; see Index).

Scroll and Codex.

Both the Jewish and the non-Jewish world in antiquity had books in the form of scrolls (Isa. xxxiv. 4; Job xxxi. 35-36; Jer. xxxvi.; Ezek. ii. 8-9; Ps. xl. 8; Zech. v. 1). In post-Biblical times the employment of such scrolls may be traced for a thousand years, and in copies of the Pentateuch for the synagogue this usage has survived until the present time. Both the Letter of Aristeas (l.c.) and I Macc. iii. 48 speak of scrolls. On the arch of Titus a man is depicted carrying on his back a long roll, undoubtedly a representation of the Torah scroll of the Temple of Jerusalem, which was taken to Rome (see Josephus, "B. J." vii. 5, § 5). The Talmud and Midrash know books only in this form (Blau, l.c. pp. 40-43), and the Christian documents of the first three centuries testify also to the use of rolls (Schulze, in "Greifswalder Studien Hermann Cremer Dargebracht," pp. 148-158). When and where the codex form first appeared among the Jews is as yet unknown. It is not impossible that the word "diftera," in Soferim iii. 6, designates a codex. The oldest complete and dated manuscript of the Bible, the codex of the Prophets at St. Petersburg, was written in 916. In ancient times school children had tablets for their first lessons in reading and writing, while wax tablets (πίναξ) were in general use among citizens, so that the prototype of the book was familiar from a very early period. There is, therefore, no need to assume foreign influence, whether Greco-Roman or Oriental and Christian, to explain the development of the scroll into the codex. The transition probably began in the seventh century and proceeded gradually, since no distinct mention of a codex has yet been discovered in the Talmud and Midrash.

Size, Compass, and Distribution.

The books of antiquity were always of small size (II Kings xxii. 8-10; II Chron. xxxiv. 15 et seq.; Neh. viii. 1 et seq.; see references from the Talmud, Midrash, and classic literature in Blau, l.c. pp. 72 et seq.), and people sat cross-legged when reading them.The largest scroll, the official copy of the Torah, which was used in the Second Temple had at most a height of six and a diameter of two handbreadths (ib. pp. 76 et seq.). The smallness of the books was compensated by the minuteness of the characters (ib. p. 79 et seq.). The contents of a manuscript might be very small, as, for example, one of the Book of Obadiah, or the original roll of fasts (c. 100 C.E.), while the normal size probably never exceeded that of the collection of the Twelve Prophets. At the time of the first selection of the canon (c. 4th cent. B.C.) large scrolls could not have been popular, as is shown by the division of the Torah into five parts, by the division of the Book of the History of the Kings into the books of Samuel and Kings, by the separation of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah from the Chronicles, and by other instances. About the year 100 C.E., however, there were certainly collective scrolls which contained the three sections of the Bible in one roll each, while there were even some which included all the books of the Scriptures in one large roll. Such a one, probably, was the Hexapla of Origen. There was, moreover, no lack of copies of single portions, which contained a section of a book, such as the Roll of Jealousy (= Num. v. 11-23, etc.; Blau, l.c. pp. 46-70).

Book-Trade.

The preparation of books has had an eventful history. At the time of the chroniclers (c. 3d cent. B.C.) Bible copies were rare; they had been almost entirely destroyed by the Syrians before the Maccabean revolt. Afterward, however, their number increased steadily, since it was made incumbent on every one to write a copy of the Torah for himself, and each congregation owned at least one. In the Talmudic period there was an enormous number of copies, especially as it was customary to wear portions of the Bible (chiefly Torah rolls) around the arm as amulets. Manuscripts of the Bible were found also in heathen families, and pagans even liked to trade in these books, which they were able to write themselves. Christians converted from Judaism or paganism owned many Hebrew writings (ib. pp. 84-97). In consequence of the ever-increasing demand a kind of book-trade developed as early as the first century. In general, however, people ordered their manuscripts direct from the copyist, according to ancient custom. The Apocrypha, the original of which has been lost, and other non-Biblical Hebrew books, were not in special demand and did not circulate in large numbers.

Oldest Codices.

The high value placed upon the Scriptures is evidenced by the great care taken for their preservation. The scrolls were wound on a stick, the Torah on two sticks. Coverings of various kinds served to protect them, and cases of various forms were used for keeping them. The rolls were firmly tied with a cord, and sometimes they were sealed to prevent any one from reading them without permission (ib. pp. 173-188 et seq.). When worn out the manuscripts of the Bible were protected against profanation by being placed in the coffins of dead scribes. In consequence of this custom not a single Biblical manuscript has been preserved from ancient times, nor is there any hope that one will ever come to light. Nevertheless, a few archetypes which existed in antiquity are mentioned. In the first rank among these stands the copy of the Torah of the Second Temple, already noted (I Macc., Introduction; II Macc. ii. 14; Josephus, "Ant." v. 1, § 17; Blau, l.c. pp. 99 et seq.). "The Book of the Court" (M. k. iii. 4a et al.) was the copy from which the high priest read on the Day of Atonement and which served as a model (Blau, l.c. p. 107).

Three other codices from the Temple court are mentioned: "Sefer Me'on," "Sefer Za'atute," and "Sefer Hi," and they still served as models at the beginning of the fourth century (ib. p. 104). After the destruction of the Temple the Torah of the celebrated copyist R. Meïr, the codex of Emperor Severus, and others (ib. p. 111) are mentioned, while from post-Talmudic times date the codices of Hillel, Sanbuki, and others. The most celebrated was the codex of Ben Asher, used by Maimonides (H. L. Strack, "Prolegomena Critica in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum"). See Bible Manuscripts.

Bibliography: L. Löw, Graphische Requisiten bei den Juden, Leipsic, 1870-71;
L. Blau, Studien zum Althebräischen Buchwesen und zur Biblischen Litteratur- und Textgeschichte, Budapest and Strasburg, 1902 (where a full bibliography is given);
idem, Ueber den Einfluss des Althebräischen Buchwesens, in Berliner Festschrift, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1903 (also printed separately).J. L. B.

It is now necessary to inquire how the Hebrew manuscripts collected in various public and private libraries were written, and in what form the material of which they consist was presented. The time over which the inquiry extends ranges, roughly speaking, from about the year 900 of the common era down to the present day, though in some instances, notably in the case of papyri, an earlier period is referred to. For inscriptions on stone, metal, and other hard substances see Paleography.

I. Materials Used to Receive Writing.—

Earliest Papyri.

Papyrus(Greek, πάπυρος, from the ancient Egyptian word "p-apa"; but in Herodotus always βύβλος, no doubt also from an Egyptian term; Hebrew, "neyar," apparently representing the Arabic "naur"): The number of Hebrew papyri hitherto discovered is quite insignificant as compared with the numerous classical papyri recently brought into Europe from Egypt. There is the small number of Egyptian-Aramaic papyri belonging to the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period, of which the British Museum papyrus No. cvi.*is a good representative specimen (see the first specimen of writing on Plate I.; also "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch." xxv., parts 4 and 5). Some pieces dating from the sixth to the ninth century have been described by Steinschneider, Chwolson, and others (for references see bibliography below). The Cambridge University Library possesses a mutilated liturgical codex assigned to the ninth century. The papyrus of the Decalogue in the same library, first described by S. A. Cook ("Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch." xxv., part i.; see Jew. Encyc. iv. 493, s.v. Decalogue), may be assigned to the sixth or seventh century (see Pl. III., No. 59). A few Oxford fragments, probably of the sixth century, have beendescribed by A. Cowley in "J. Q. R." Oct., 1903 (see Pl. I., No. 2).

Skins (Hebrew, "'or," known also as "gewil"; Greek, διφέρα, a term which in early times was transferred to papyrus, and was later on applied to vellum also): None of the skin was peeled off, but the hair was carefully rubbed away; for it was the hair side that was used for writing upon. The ancient rule of using only skins for Torah rolls has not, however, been universally followed in the period under consideration. The Yemenite rolls (Pentateuch, Esther, and ) are indeed all of red skin; and the Pentateuch rolls written in the eighteenth century for the Jews of K'ai-Fung-Foo, China (e.g., Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 19,250), are of white leather. The oldest Pentateuch roll (14th cent., Spanish origin) in the British Museum is also of leather; but there are many specimens on vellum belonging to the sixteenth century and onward. Of the forty-seven Karaite Pentateuch rolls in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg, only five are of leather, the remaining forty-two being of vellum. This proportion no doubt represents the greater deviation among the Karaites from the old synagogue rolls. For the Book of Esther vellum appears to have been more largely used than for the Torah. A roll of the Haftarot on leather, written in Corfu in 1560, found its way into Europe a few years ago. For manuscripts in book form skins would in early times have been naturally superseded by parchment or vellum as material fitted for receiving writing on both sides.

Parchment and Vellum (Hebrew, "kelaf" and "doksostos," for the exact meaning of which see above): For practical purposes, that is to say, so far as the manuscripts now under consideration are concerned, it is enough to remark that "kelaf," not unlike the term "parchment" in its more restricted sense, signifies the rougher article, while by "doksostos," as by the term "vellum," the finer variety is meant. The Jews were no doubt at all times adepts in the art of producing parchment and vellum, as they had so much need of the materials, and as a religious intention during the manufacture was considered important; but their art would naturally be conditioned, to a large extent at any rate, by the degree of perfection attained in it in the countries where they were domiciled. The finest kinds of vellum used for Hebrew manuscripts were of Spanish and Italian origin. As examples of the former may be mentioned Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5866 (liturgy, middle of 15th cent.: thin vellum, delicately worked, smooth surface), and Brit. Mus. MSS. Or. 2626-2628 (Bible, 1482-1483: stout, crisp, and pretty smooth). A fine specimen of Italian vellum of about the middle of the same century is furnished by Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 19,444-19,445 (Florentine liturgy: material very carefully prepared and slightly tinted). Rougher sorts of material were to be found by the side of the finer kind in both countries.

Examples of Old Vellum.

Among representative codices of earlier times, the British Museum Pentateuch dating from the ninth century (MS. Or. 4445, apparently of Babylonian origin) consists of strong, crisp, and very smooth vellum. Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 5720 (probably of early part of 12th cent.; also of Eastern origin) is hard and strong, with surface not very smooth. The British Museum copy of the Mahzor Vitry (MSS. Add. 27,200-27,201: 12th cent.; French origin) is written on a very inferior sort of material. French as well as German vellum employed for Hebrew in the Middle Ages is, in fact, as a rule coarse as compared with the Spanish and Italian kinds; but Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 11, 639 (collection of works, 12th cent.), from the south of France, is an example of exceedingly fine, smooth vellum. The vellum used for Hebrew charters in England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (note especially the large collection belonging to Westminster Abbey) is fairly good, though fineness of manufacture can not be expected in material used for this particular purpose. Some of the early examples of vellum (11th and 12th cent.) found in the Cairo Genizah are stout and smooth; other specimens are of a rougher manufacture. No example of purple-stained vellum, of which there are fair numbers among Greek and Latin manuscripts, has so far come to light among Hebrew ones. On the comparative use of vellum and paper see below.

Paper (Greek, πάπυρος, name taken over from "papyrus"; called also "charta bombycina," "charta Damascena," etc.; Hebrew, , also taken over from the Hebrew name for papyrus): This material was known to the Chinese at a very early period; and the Arabs are said to have first learned its use at Samarcand about the middle of the eighth century (for an account of recent researches on this matter see "J. R. A. S." Oct., 1903, first article, where further references will be found). A Judæo-Persian document lately brought from Khotan, written (in Persian in Hebrew characters) on paper, appears to belong to the eighth century (see "J. R. A. S." Oct., 1903, fifth article). Another extant example of a Judæo-Persian document is dated 1020 ("J. Q. R." 1899, pp. 671 et seq.).

Karaite Manuscripts.

The Karaites, standing as they did in very close connection with the Arab world, and being also less tied by this kind of conservatism, appear to have used no other material than paper for their manuscripts in book form. Karaite collections of manuscripts are, therefore, an excellent means of studying the kinds of paper made in Palestine, Egypt, and Turkey during a practically uninterrupted period from the tenth century onward. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2540 (Exodus: Hebrew text in Arabic characters; see the first two specimens on Pl. IV., col. 2) belongs to the tenth century. Among the dated Karaite manuscripts are found specimens belonging to 1004, 1024, 1027, 1211, 1331, 1564, 1614, 1700, 1744, and 1869. Like early Oriental paper generally, the older kind of Karaite paper (apparently made for the most part of fine linen rag) is stout, of a yellowish tint, and with a glossy surface. In later times the yellowish tint gradually disappears, the texture becomes rougher, and the surface less smooth. The early specimens of paper used by the Karaites are, moreover, much finer than the Khotan Hebræo-Persian document (probably Chinese paper) already referred to. An early dated example of a Rabbinite manuscript on paper is Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 73 (1192; Rashi's commentaryon Baba Mezi'a, written in the East). A British Museum copy of the "Tahkemoni" (MS. Add. 27,113; Spanish Oriental writing) is dated 1282. The last-named two manuscripts show the same kind of slight yellowish tint; but the paper of the second is thicker than that of the first. A specimen of Italian paper of 1363-64 is furnished by Cambridge University Library MSS. Dd. 11, 12; and Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,293 (also of about the middle of the 14th cent.) is a specimen of fairly early Spanish paper.

The European Jews were slow in allowing paper to displace vellum; for though several paper-factories are known to have existed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (indeed, the earliest known mention of paper made in Europe occurs in the tract of Peter, Abbot of Cluny, 1122-50), there are comparatively few Hebrew paper manuscripts of the fourteenth century. There is a fair number of the following century; and the proportion kept on growing until the use of paper became quite common among the Jews from the seventeenth century onward.

Paper in Egypt.

Egypt as a center of Arab life would naturally abound in paper manuscripts fairly early; and the contents of the Cairo Genizah accordingly include specimens dated 832 (in the possession of E. N. Adler), 977, 1005, etc. (at the British Museum and elsewhere). In Yemen paper was used by the Jews pretty freely side by side with vellum from the fifteenth century and probably earlier. The older specimens of Yemenite paper often show an exaggerated kind of yellow tint. For the rest, the Jews of the different countries would naturally depend on the paper manufactured there; and the information contained, e.g., in Sir E. M. Thompson's "Greek and Latin Palæography," will, therefore, be found to apply to Hebrew manuscripts also in so far as vellum can be shown to have in some degree given place to paper.

II. Writing-Fluids, etc.:

Kinds of Ink.

The ink (Hebrew, "deyo"; Arabian variety, "hibr") used by the Jews during the period here considered would naturally be much the same as that used by their Gentile neighbors in different countries. On the manufacture of ink generally see Thompson, l.c. pp. 50, 51. The ink sanctioned by Maimonides, and no doubt used by him for writing his own scroll of the Law, was, according to a responsum discovered a few years ago, made of oil, pitch, resin, gum arabic, etc. By burning these substances a soot was formed which was mixed with gum and honey, and the thin slices formed of it were finally dissolved in an infusion of galls (see "J. Q. R." July and Oct., 1899). Vitriol (; χάλκανΘος) is expressly excluded by Maimonides, though he does not absolutely forbid it. His point is that the ink should cleave firmly to the vellum, but that, at the same time, one should be able to erase it (on this point, as on the preparation of ink generally, see Löw, "Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden," p. 145; and Ink).

With regard to the appearance of the ink actually used in the manuscripts now under observation, it should be noted that Torah rolls are all written with black ink (though early Samaritan scrolls are written with ink of a reddish hue). Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4445 (9th cent.) and in fact many of the early manuscripts written in the East are in black or bluish black. Several of the finest Spanish codices show a yellow tint, while the finer sort of Italian manuscripts present a more or less violet one. German ink is generally black, though not very pronouncedly so. Early Cairo Genizah fragments often show a yellow tint; but Yemenite ink is usually black.

Red ink is sometimes, though but rarely, used alternately with the usual writing-fluid. Pigments of different kinds, though generally red, are sometimes used for initial words, etc. On the use of gold as a writing-fluid see p. 313 under "Illuminations."

Kinds of Pens.

With regard to writing-instruments, only the reed ("kulmos"; κάλαμος) and the quill pen need be considered here. It is difficult to say when the quill came into use, and for how long the reed was used alongside of it. Syrian scribes are known to have used the quill as far back as 509 (Wright, "Cat. Syriac MSS. in Brit. Mus." p. xxvii.); and the Ostrogoth Theodoric (c. 454-526) is reported to have used a quill for writing his name. The reed, on the other hand, continued in use to some extent through the Middle Ages, and appears to have survived in Italy into the fifteenth century (Thompson, l.c. p. 49). Several early Hebrew codices of Eastern origin appear to have been written with a reed; but the greater suitability of the more flexible quill pen could not have been overlooked by Jewish scribes even in comparatively early times.

III. Forms of Books:

Apart from contracts of small size ("get," "shetarhalizah," etc.), which would naturally be preserved flat, there call for consideration (1) the roll and (2) manuscripts in book form.

Size of Rolls.

The Roll (Hebrew, "megillah"; Latin, "volumen"; used only for the five scrolls, the Torah roll itself being always called "Sefer Torah"): This consists of a number of strips of leather or vellum sewed together to form a continuous whole. It is, at one end, fixed to a stick round which it is rolled; and it is usually provided with a flat, round border-piece at top and bottom to keep the roll even. The number of columns to a strip varies considerably; and there is also great diversity in the height of rolls. Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 7619, which is about 26¾ ins. high, is probably one of the largest extant. Esther rolls are sometimes of very diminutive dimensions. A very remarkable and perhaps unique specimen of a roll is Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 26,883 (containing cabalistic prayers written in Italy in the 15th cent.), which, though measuring about 125 ins. from end to end (the height being about 4½ ins.), is all of one piece instead of consisting of strips sewed together. The vellum of this roll is very fine; and the workmanship in straightening out so long a piece must have been exceedingly elaborate. Rolls of Ruth, Lamentations, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes are far less frequent than those of Esther. The Yemenite rolls of the (to which the haftarah for the Ninth of Ab is found attached), as also a leatherroll of 1560 containing the haftarot, have already been mentioned. For Karaite Torah rolls consult Harkavy and Strack, "Catalog der Hebräischen Bibelhandschriften zu St. Petersburg," Nos. 1-47. For Samaritan rolls see Harkavy, "Catalog der Hebräischen und Samaritanischen Handschriften der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek" (in Russian), St. Petersburg, 1875.

Size of Books.

Manuscripts in Book Form: Manuscripts in book form date from the whole period under consideration, and were doubtless in use for a number of centuries before. Most of the early codices that have been preserved are very large. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4445 measures about 16½ ins. by 13 ins.; the St. Petersburg codex of 916, about 14¾ ins. by 12⅙ ins.; the Vatican codex of the Sifra, dating from 1073, about 12¾ ins. by 10 ins.; the British Museum copy of the Mahzor Vitry, about 15½ ins. by 12 ins. Small sizes are, however, not wanting. German codices of the Bible and liturgy written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are generally very large. Among manuscripts written in Italy the quarto and octavo sizes are much more common than in Germany. Spanish Bible codices of the thirteenth to the fifteenth century are as a rule handsome quartos; but the comparatively few Spanish service-books extant are usually very small, probably on account of the proscription under which Jewish worship lay in Spain, and owing to the fact that small volumes could be more easily hidden away. North-African manuscripts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are more often octavos than quartos. Yemenite Bible codices are generally folios, and liturgies either folios or quartos. The Karaites had a great predilection for the octavo size.

In the arrangement of quires (generally 8 or 10 leaves to a gathering), etc., Hebrew manuscripts do not differ from contemporary Latin and Greek ones; and the student may, therefore, be referred to general works on paleography. When a Hebrew vellum manuscript is opened, "the two pages before the reader have the same appearance, either the yellow tinge of the hair side or the whiter surface of the flesh side" (Thompson, l.c. pp. 62-63). There is usually at the end of each quire a catchword indicating the first word of the next quire. Signatures in Hebrew letters—in the case of Hebrew-Arabic works, sometimes in either Arabic letters or numerals—were generally placed in the left-hand lower corner on the last page of a quire, but occasionally in the right-hand upper corner of the first page. In some cases both methods were adopted. In Karaite manuscripts the signatures are often in the left-hand upper corner of the first page.

Ruling of Manuscripts.

The ruling of Hebrew manuscripts is not different from that observable in contemporary classical ones. There are usually perpendicular lines to mark off the columns, besides the horizontal ruling. The prickings in the margin made to mark the distances between the horizontal lines have in many cases been cut away in the process of binding. The writing sometimes depends from the ruled line instead of standing on it; so, e.g., Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4445 (9th cent.; comp. Blau, "Studien zum Althebräischen Buchwesen," p. 147).

The earlier codices of large size have usually either two (e.g., St. Petersburg codex of the year 916) or three columns (e.g., Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4445) (see Blau, l.c. pp. 138-139). Manuscripts of small size generally exhibit but one column to a page. In later times the single column became much more frequent even in manuscripts of larger size.

IV. Styles of Writing:

Copying from Printed Forms.

The style of writing Hebrew has in each country been influenced more or less by causes similar to those which produced what may fairly be called national differences in calligraphy generally. So far as Europe is concerned, Hebrew penmanship most probably was brought first to the countries of the southern coast, more especially to Spain and Italy; and spread thence into France, Germany, and divers other countries, assuming various modifications in its course. The locality in which a manuscript was written is, however, not always a safe guide to the kind of calligraphy used, as it sometimes happened that a scribe belonging to one part of the world prosecuted his profession for a longer or shorter time in a different country. It should also be remarked that after the introduction of printing there arose a tendency to copy from printed forms; so that, in Europe at any rate, the square character has for several centuries past been almost everywhere conforming to one particular form of calligraphy. The earlier printed books were, it is true, set up in types that were cut differently in different countries (compare especially the early Spanish with the early Italian printed books); but the Spanish forms soon superseded all the others, and they have on account of their greater regularity ever since maintained their ground both in printing and in writing.

In the following observations the specimens of writing given in the accompanying four plates are referred to their sources and localities, and attention is occasionally directed to some peculiarities of penmanship. As a rule, however, the specimens are left to speak for themselves.

A.

Square Writing: This series is, for the sake of completeness, preceded by two lines taken from the above-mentioned British Museum papyrus No. cvi.* (belonging to the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period), as the Hebrew-Aramaic writing then used exhibits a close affinity with the Palmyrene character, and thus forms an important link in the transition to the square character. Then follow specimens of:Plate I.
(see image) Plate II.
(see image) Plate III.
(see image) Plate IV.
(see image)

Early Oriental (Nos. 2-8): No. 2 is taken from an Oxford papyrus belonging to the sixth or seventh century ("J. Q. R." xvi., No. 61); No. 3, from the Hebræo-Persian document (apparently of the 8th cent.) lately brought from Khotan in central Asia and already referred to; No. 4, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4445 (9th cent.); No. 5, from the St. Petersburg codex of the Later Prophets (dated 916); No. 6, from Codex Gaster No. 150 (belonging to about the same period); No. 7, from a contract (dated 980) on vellum, brought to the British Museum from the Cairo Genizah; No. 8, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 1467 (Persian origin, probably 11th cent.). With regard to No. 3 it should be noted that though the final "nun" (of which, however, no instance appears in the specimen) is long in the document, this is no mark of later date; for the long form of the letter appears in early papyri (as in specimen No. 2). In Nos. 4-6 the final "nun" is uniformly short. No. 8 shows the superlinear punctuation combined with the ordinary mode of accentuation.

Syro-Egyptian (Nos. 9-11): No. 9 is taken from a Hebrew letter, dated 1055, brought to the British Museum from the Cairo Genizah; No. 10, from the text of the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), also from the Cairo Genizah (11th-12th cent.); No. 11, from Pl. I. of Neubauer's portfolio of facsimiles (referred to hereafter as "Neubauer") printed to illustrate his catalogue of Oxford manuscripts (12th-13th cent.). In No. 9 note the peculiar combined form of (which is really Rabbinic). The mark over the second word of line 2 in No. 10 refers to a marginal note in the original. In No. 11 both the punctuation and the accentuation are superlinear.

Spanish (Nos. 12-15): No. 12 is taken from the Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 5720 (11th cent.); No. 13, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2201 (dated 1246); No. 14, from a Bible codex belonging to the Earl of Leicester (13th cent.; see C. D. Ginsburg, "Facsimiles," London, 1898); No. 15, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2626 (dated 1483). No. 12 may fairly be described as representing a transition stage from the early Oriental square writing to the Spanish.

Italian (Nos. 16-18): No. 16 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Arundel Or. 2 (dated 1216); No. 17, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2736 (dated 1390); No. 18, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 18,692 (handwriting of Abraham Farissol, dated 1478). It should here be remarked that instead of the square writing in the proper sense of the word, Italian scribes often employ for Bible codices the semi-Rabbinic character exemplified in No. 45 (see below).

Franco-German (Nos. 19-21): No. 19 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 10,455 (dated 1310); No. 20, from Cambridge University Library MSS. Ee, 8, 9 (dated 1347; see the "Oriental Series of the Palæographical Society" [hereafter referred to as "O. S."], Pl. XLI.); No. 21, from Neubauer, Pl. XI. (written before 1471). Note especially the sloping character of No. 20, a peculiar mark of German writing.

Greek (Nos. 22-24): No. 22 is taken from the Carlsruhe codex of the Prophets (dated 1105-6; "O. S." Pl. LXXVII.); No. 23, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,205 (dated 1179); No. 24, from Neubauer, Pl. XXI. (written before 1263).

Yemenite (Nos. 25-28): No. 25 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2373 (13th-14th cent.); No. 26, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2370 (dated 1460-61); No. 27, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2210 (dated 1468); No. 28, from Neubauer, Pl. XXXI. (dated 1561).

Varia (Nos. 29-31): No. 29 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2496, showing Karaite square writing of apparently the thirteenth century; No. 30, from a Pentateuch roll written for the Jews of K'ai-Fung-Foo, China (18th cent.; Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 19,250; showing the dependence of Chinese on Persian writing); No. 31, from Neubauer, Pl. XXXIX. (see Harkavy, "Neuaufgefundene Bibelhandschriften," Table II.—perhaps a forgery).

B.

Square Rabbinic or Semi-Rabbinic Writing: This series shows an approximation in greater or less degree to the freer Rabbinic style of writing.

Syro-Egyptian (Nos. 32-38): No. 32 is taken from an Oxford papyrus of the sixth or seventh century (see "J. Q. R." xvi., No. 61); No. 33, from a manuscript of the above-mentioned Hebrew Ecclesiasticus (perhaps 9th cent.) belonging to E. N. Adler; No. 34, from the Genizah document Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5538 (dated 1003); No. 35, from the Genizah document Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5536 (dated 1015); No. 36, from the Genizah document Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5545 (dated 1089); No. 37, from the Genizah document Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5551 (dated 1151); No. 38, from Neubauer, Pl. IV. (signature of Maimonides). The Rabbinic tendency in No. 35 is only slight; but the ח is written freely, and the general appearance of the specimen shows affinity with semi-Rabbinic. It is necessary to note the slighter approximation of the square to the freer Rabbinic forms.

Spanish and North-African (Nos. 39-42): No. 39 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 5530 (13th cent.); No. 40, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5866 (middle of 15th cent.); No. 41, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5600 (15th cent.); No. 42, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 19,780 (17th cent.). No. 40 appears to be of decidedly Spanish origin, the remaining three numbers being North-African (No. 42 can be definitely located as Algerian).

Italian (Nos. 43-46): No. 43 is taken from the Leyden copy of the Talmud Yerushalmi (dated 1281; see "O. S." Pl. LVI.); No. 44, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 18,690 (written between 1332 and 1350); No. 45, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 19,944 (dated 1441); No. 46, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 1081 (dated 1390). No. 46 appears to show French characteristics combined with Italian ones.

Franco-German (Nos. 47-50): No. 47 is taken from the Vatican copy of the Sifra (dated 1073; see "O. S." Pl. XC.); No. 48, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,214 (dated 1091); No. 49, from Brit. Mus. MS. Arundel Or. 51 (dated 1189); No. 50, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5466 (dated 1690). In Nos. 47-49 the tendency to semi-Rabbinic is but slight.

Greek (No. 51): This specimen is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 5583 (15th-16th cent.).

Yemenite (Nos. 52-53): No. 52 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 4837 (a fine copy of Ibn Janah's "Kitab al-Usul," 14th cent.); No. 53, from Neubauer, Pl. XXXII. (dated 1491).

Karaite (Nos. 54-56): No. 54 is taken from Neubauer, Pl. XXXIV. (13th-14th cent.); No. 55, ib. Pl. XXXV. (written before 1353); No. 56, ib. Pl. XXXVI. (dated 1747).

Persian (Nos. 57-58): No. 57 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5446 (Pentateuch in Persian; dated 1319); No. 58, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2451 (dated 1483).

C.

Rabbinic Writing: This series exhibits various styles of writing of a decided Rabbinic character.

Early Oriental (Nos. 59-60): No. 59 is taken from the Decalogue papyrus referred to above (probably 6th or 7th cent.); No. 60, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 73 (perhaps written at Mosul; dated 1190).

Syro-Egyptian (Nos. 61-63): No. 61 is taken fromBrit. Mus. MS. Or. 5519 (12th cent.); No. 62, from Neubauer, Pl. III. (13th-14th cent.); No. 63, ib. Pl. VI. (14th cent.?).

Spanish (Nos. 64-65): No. 64 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 14,763 (dated 1273); No. 65, from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5866 (middle of 15th cent.; for semi-Rabbinic forms from the same manuscripts see No. 40).

North-African, etc. (Nos. 66-68): No. 66 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,113 (dated 1282); No. 67, from Neubauer, Pl. VII. (dated 1480; described as Syrian Rabbinic Maghrebi character); No. 68, ib. Pl. XIII. (15th cent.; described as Oriental Provençal).

Italian (No. 69): Specimen taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 5024 (dated 1374).

Franco-German (Nos. 70-72): No. 70 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 17,049 (dated 1394); No. 71, from Cambridge University Library MS. Add. 560 (dated 1401; see "O. S." Pl. LXVIII.); No. 72, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,199 (Elijah Levita's autograph; dated 1515).

Greek (Nos. 73-74): No. 73 is taken from Neubauer, Pl. XXIII. (written before 1184); No. 74, ib. Pl. XXV. (dated 1375).

Specimens of Cursive.

D.

Cursive Writing: This series is preceded by two specimens (Karaite) of writing in which the Hebrew text is written in the Arabic character and provided with Hebrew punctuation. No. 75 is taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2540 (10th cent.), and No. 76 from Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2549 (11th cent.). No. 77 (Neubauer, Pl. XIX.; dated 1506) is Oriental. No. 78 (ib. Pl. X.; handwriting of Jacob b. hayyim, early 16th cent.) is a specimen of Spanish cursive. Nos. 79-83 are Italian. No. 79, from Neubauer, Pl. XXIX., is old Italian; No. 80, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,096, is Mordecai Dato's writing (16th cent.). No. 81, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,148, is Judah Modena's autograph (1648); No. 82, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 26,991, is Solomon Portaleone's autograph (17th cent.); and No. 83, from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,103, is Joseph Almanzi's autograph. Nos. 84 and 85 are German, the former being taken from Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 18,695 (a Mahzor in a Judæo-German translation, dated 1504), and the latter from Neubauer, Pl. XVII. (Heidenheim's autograph). No. 86 is Karaite German cursive writing, dated 1826 (Neubauer, Pl. XXXVII.).

Here may fitly be added a specimen of writing from V08p313001.jpg Codex Gaster 80, fol. 23b, which contains forms rarely found elsewhere. Remarkable is the abbreviation of in line 2. The manuscript contains Maimonides' "Sefer ha-Madda'," and may belong to the fourteenth or to the thirteenth century. The writing appears to combine Yemenite with Persian characteristics (perhaps displaying the former more than the latter).

V. Illuminations:

Comparative Frequency of Illuminations.

Illuminations in Hebrew manuscripts are far from being rare. Roughly speaking, the proportion of illuminated codices in a large and representative collection of Hebrew manuscripts would probably be found to be about seven or eight, if not more, in every hundred. On some early Eastern illuminations of Biblical codices (mostly in gold) see M. Gaster, "Hebrew Illuminated Bibles of the IXth and Xth Centuries (Codices Gaster 150, 151)." A fair specimen of early Persian chain-like ornamentation can be seen in "O. S." Pl. LIV. (Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 1467). Fine specimens of arabesque border illumination are found, e.g., in Brit. Mus. MSS. Or. 2626-2628 of the year 1483-84, and in Brit. Mus. MSS. Harley 5698 and 5699, a page of which has been reproduced in colors for the present article (see frontispiece). In this instance, however, the arabesque form has been much modified. On Haggadah illuminations see Haggadah.

Spain and Provence seem to have been foremost in the last-named branch of illustration. Fine German illuminations are comparatively rare. The ornamentations, or what were meant for such, found in German copies of the Bible, etc., are as a rule grotesque rather than appropriate. Very interesting specimens of French illuminations, however, are found in Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 11,639 (12th and 13th cent.), containing a collection of Biblical, liturgical, and other texts. A finely ornamented page of an early Karaite Biblical text (10th cent.) has been reproduced in colors in G. Margoliouth, "Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan MSS. in the British Museum," vol. i, Pl. V. (Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 2540).

VI. Palimpsests:

Palimpsests and Colophons.

Hebrew palimpsests, i.e., manuscripts showing Hebrew written over erased or partly erased earlier writing, are rare. The Jews, as was only natural, did not, as a rule, like to utilize for sacred purposes material that had been used for other objects. Some notable examples of Hebrew palimpsests have, however, been found in the Cairo Genizah. From this source come the Oxford fragments containing Hebrew writing of apparently the twelfth century over Palestinian Syriac of the sixth and seventh, and eighth and ninth centuries (see Gwilliam and others in "Anecdota Oxoniensia," Semitic Series, 1893-96). More interesting still are the Cambridge palimpsests which contain Hebrew of the eleventh and twelfth centuries written over portions of Aquila's Greek version of the Old Testament and Origen's Hexapla (see F. C. Burkitt, "Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila," 1897; and C. Taylor, "Hebrew-Greek Cairo-Genizah Palimpsests," 1900). A page of palimpsest in which a Hebrew liturgical text of 1179 was written over Latin writing of the tenth century can be seenin "O. S." Pl. LXXVIII. (Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,205); see also Jew. Encyc. s.v. Aquila.

VII. Colophons:

At the end of a manuscript, and sometimes also at the conclusion of parts of the same, a colophon (Greek, κολοφών) or "finishing stroke" is often found. In its fullest form the colophon contains (1) the title of the work, (2) the name of the scribe, (3) the name of the person for whom the manuscript was written, (4) the place of writing, (5) the date, and (6) precative and benedictive sentences, usually taken from the Bible (see Colophon).

The mention of the title in a colophon is, in the case of unknown or little-known works, helpful for identification, if, as not infrequently happens, the beginning of the manuscripts has been lost. The entries of scribes' names at times reveal long genealogies of families among which the profession of copying had descended from father to son for a number of generations. Scribes sometimes mark off their names also in the initial letters of one or more pages of the manuscripts. The complimentary epithets lavished by the scribe on his rich, or comparatively rich, employer are often conspicuous enough; but the more important references to descent and position are not wanting. There are also cases in which the scribe writes his manuscript for himself or for one or other of his children. The mention of the place of writing is, of course, useful for localizing the different styles of writing, though, as has already been mentioned, caution has to be exercised in this respect.

The manner of dating a manuscript demands special notice. For some points connected with the subject see Chronology and Era. Mention should be made first of the two specifically Jewish modes of dating, and then of eras borrowed from other nations.

Methods of Dating Manuscripts.

(1)

The era of the Creation is in common use in manuscripts written in most parts of Europe; and as it appears to have been generally adopted about the middle of the tenth century of the common era, it was used in the entire period here dealt with. If the full number of years from the Creation is given, the reckoning is styled "perat gadol" (abbreviated ); and the year of the common era is obtained by subtracting the number 3760 (or 3761, if the manuscript was written, or rather finished, in the first three months of the Jewish year). But the thousands are often omitted; and the reckoning is then called "perat katon" (abbreviated ). In such cases the number 1240 (or 1241) has to be added in order to obtain the date of the common era.

(2)

Dating from the destruction of the Second Temple (i.e., from the year 68) is comparatively rare in manuscripts, but it is not, as has been thought, strictly confined to Greece; for this mode of dating is found not only in the Carlsruhe copy of the Prophets, which was written in a Greek Ashkenazic hand in 1105-6 ( = 4866 of the Creation or 1038 from the destruction of the Temple), but also in the Vatican copy of the Sifra written in a French hand in 1073, and (see below) in a manuscript from Yemen.

"Minyan Shetarot."

A very common mode of dating manuscripts written in the East is

(3)

by the Seleucidan or Greek era ("le-heshbon ha-Yewanim," "le-minyan shetarot," or simply "li-shetarot"; sometimes considered to synchronize with the cessation of prophecy). In order to obtain the corresponding C.E. date, 311 (or 312 if the manuscript is dated within the first three months of the Jewish year) has to be subtracted. This era is by far the most common in Hebrew manuscripts written in Yemen, though the era of the Creation as well as the Mohammedan era is also occasionally met with, one era being sometimes followed by another. The Karaites use also the Greek era; but the reckoning from the Creation is more common in their colophons. The Karaites add the Mohammedan era more frequently than do the Jews of Yemen.

(4)

The Mohammedan era just referred to is generally introduced under the designation "heshbon ha-Yishme'elim"; but the expression "le-keren ze'era" (in allusion to Dan. vii. 8) is also found.

(5)

The common era is of very rare occurrence in Hebrew colophons; and it then only follows the year of the Creation previously given. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Harley 5704 (containing a unique copy of the Yalkut Makiri on the Minor Prophets, written for Cardinal Ægidius) is dated "Tuesday, the 16th day of Ab, in the year 274 of the 'small reckoning' [: this being at the same time an example of utilizing the numerical value of a Scriptural phrase for dating], and according to their reckoning 1514" (the term "li-yezirah" being then added by mistake). There are some instances where the Christian month is given side by side with the year of the Creation.

Multiple Dating.

A remarkable instance of multiple dating (though given at the beginning of the manuscript, and, therefore, not in the form of a colophon) is found in Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,294 (containing an Arabic commentary in Hebrew characters on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, ch. i.-iv.; see "J. Q. R." xiii. 488), which was written by the scholarly Yemenite compiler Sa'id ibn Daud. It contains the following datings: (1) (1889 years since the destruction of the First Temple); (2) (1398 since the destruction of the Second Temple); (3) . . . (date of Exodus no longer legible); (4) (1778, according to the era of contracts); (5) . . . (date of the Creation no longer legible); (6) (1778 since the cessation of prophecy; the same as No. 4).

It should here be remarked that the date of a manuscript may, in the absence of a colophon, be computed from the table of calendar cycles of nineteen years that is sometimes (more especially in liturgical manuscripts) added to the text. Thus Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 27,205 must have been written about 1180; for the table of cycles commences with , the two hundred and sixty cycles past yielding 260 × 19 = 4940 A.M. = 1180 C.E. In manuscripts containing digests of Talmudical law, the date maysometimes be gathered from the year given in the form of the letter of divorcement ("get"), etc.

A curious addition, sometimes attached to colophons (in certain cases standing by itself), is the precative phrase that the scribe should suffer no injury () "until an ass should mount on the ladder [dreamed of by Jacob]" ( []; see "O. S." description of Pl. LXVIII).

VIII. Owners, etc.:

A large number of manuscripts contain the names of those who at one time or another owned them. These are generally found on fly-leaves at the beginning or at the end, but sometimes also in the margin of inner leaves. Occasionally owners record the births of their children on the fly-leaves, more rarely deaths and other events. In a number of instances manuscripts are marked as having been obtained by an owner at the division of his late father's or another testator's property. Contracts of transfer of manuscripts by sale are also often found; and occasionally the pawning of a manuscript is recorded on one of its fly-leaves. The money value that was at the time attached to the manuscript is sometimes stated in the notices of sale.

IX. Censors:

On this subject see Censorship of Hebrew Books. The following few remarks may, however, be added to what is said in that article: An instance of self-imposed censorship in France, about 1291, is found in a Hebrew manuscript at the British Museum (Add. 19,664). Brit. Mus. MS. Add. 17,050 contains (in the form of a fly-leaf) a document, dated Lugo, Feb. 16, 1610, by which permission was given to carry the codex to Modena. Brit. Mus. MS. Or. 74 contains an entry made for the censor by his notary. Very often the entries of several censors are found on the same page, the manuscript having been from time to time subjected to fresh examinations.

Bibliography: In addition to the sources given in the article the following may be cited: On papyri: Steinschneider, in Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache, xvii. 93;
Chwolson, C. I. H. cols. 120-125;
Erman and Krebs, Aus den Papyri des Königlichen Museums, p. 290;
Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung des Erzherzog Rainer, i. 38-44. Catalogues: See list in Jew. Encyc. iii. 618 et seq. Facsimiles: Neubauer, Facsimiles of Hebrew MSS. in the Bodleian Library, Preface, 1886 (which has been largely drawn upon in the accompanying plates);
C. D. Ginsburg, Series of XVIII. Facsimiles of MSS. of the Hebrew Bible, London, 1898;
The Haggadah of Sarajevo, Vienna, 1898;
and The Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus, Oxford and Cambridge, 1901.G. G. M.

The following list gives the number of known Hebrew manuscripts in existence with the names of libraries or private owners possessing them. The dates in parentheses are those of the printed catalogues of the collections.
see table

Besides these there are other collections not yet catalogued; some in private hands, e.g., those of Dr. M. Gaster of London, and of the late D. Kaufmann at Budapest, others in public libraries, as, for example, the Alliance Israélite Library. The fragments of the Cairo Genizah, numbering many thousands, and scattered in Cambridge, Oxford, London, and Paris, are not included. Many libraries, as the Bodleian and Bibliothèque Nationale, have received notable accessions since their catalogues were printed.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Music and Judaic Musical Instruments

2009-12-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS:

By : Emil G. Hirsch Wilhelm Nowack

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Occasions for Music.
Singing in the Temple.

Occasions for Music.

The development of music among the Israelites was coincident with that of poetry, the two being equally ancient, since every poem was also sung. Although little mention is made of it, music was used in very early times in connection with divine service. Amos vi. 5 and Isa. v. 12 show that the feasts immediately following sacrifices were very often attended with music, and from Amos v. 23 it may be gathered that songs had already become a part of the regular service. Moreover, popular festivals of all kinds were celebrated with singing and music, usually accompanying dances in which, as a rule, women and maidens joined. Victorious generals were welcomed with music on their return (Judges xi. 34; I Sam. xviii. 6), and music naturally accompanied the dances at harvest festivals (Judges ix. 27, xxi. 21) and at the accession of kings or their marriages (I Kings i. 40; Ps. xlv. 9). Family festivals of different kinds were celebrated with music (Gen. xxxi. 27; Jer. xxv. 10). I Sam. xvi. 18 indicates that the shepherd cheered his loneliness with his reed-pipe, and Lam. v. 14 shows that youths coming together at the gates entertained one another with stringed instruments. David by his playing on the harp drove away the spirit of melancholy from Saul (I Sam. xvi. 16 et seq.); the holy ecstasy of the Prophets was stimulated by dancing and music (I Sam. x. 5, 10; xix. 20); playing on a harp awoke the inspiration that came to Elisha (II Kings iii. 15). The description in Chronicles of the embellishment by David of the Temple service with a rich musical liturgy represents in essence the order of the Second Temple, since, as is now generally admitted, the liturgical Temple Psalms belong to the post-exilic period.

The importance which music attained in the later exilic period is shown by the fact that in the original writings of Ezra and Nehemiah a distinction is still drawn between the singers and the Levites (comp. Ezra ii. 41, 70; vii. 7, 24; x. 23; Neh. vii. 44, 73; x. 29, 40; etc.); whereas in the parts of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah belonging to the Chronicles singers are reckoned among the Levites (comp. Ezra iii. 10; Neh. xi. 22; xii. 8, 24, 27; I Chron. vi. 16). In later times singers even received a priestly position, since Agrippa II. gave them permission to wear the white priestly garment (comp. Josephus, "Ant." xx. 9, § 6). The detailed statements of the Talmud show that the service became ever more richly embellished.

Singing in the Temple.
(see image) Egyptian Musicians.(From Ball, "Light from the East.")

Unfortunately few definite statements can be made concerning the kind and the degree of the artistic development of music and psalm-singing. Only so much seems certain, that the folk-music of older times was replaced by professional music, which was learned by the families of singers who officiated in the Temple. The participation of the congregation in the Temple song was limited to certain responses, such as "Amen" or "Halleluiah," or formulas like "Since His mercy endureth forever," etc. As in the old folk-songs, antiphonal singing, or the singing of choirs in response to each other, was a feature of the Temple service. At the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah formed the Levitical singers into two large choruses, which, after having marched around the city walls in different directions, stood opposite each other at the Temple and sang alternate hymns of praise to God (Neh. xii. 31). Niebuhr ("Reisen," i. 176) calls attention to the fact that in the Orient it is still the custom for a precentor to sing one strophe, which is repeated three, four, or five tones lower by the other singers. In this connection mention may bemade of the alternating song of the seraphim in the Temple, when called upon by Isaiah (comp. Isa. vi.). The measure must have varied according to the character of the song; and it is not improbable that it changed even in the same song. Without doubt the striking of the cymbals marked the measure.

What Western peoples understand by harmony is still incomprehensible to the Arabs. They consider it "a wild and unpleasant noise, in which no sensible person can take pleasure." Niebuhr refers to the fact that when Arabs play on different instruments and sing at the same time, almost the same melody is heard from all, unless one of them sings or plays as bass one and the same note throughout. It was probably the same with the Israelites in olden times, who attuned the stringed instruments to the voices of the singers either on the same note or in the octave or at some other consonant interval. This explains the remark in II Chron. v. 13 that at the dedication of the Temple the playing of the instruments, the singing of the Psalms, and the blare of the trumpets sounded as one sound. Probably the unison of the singing of Psalms was the accord of two voices an octave apart. This may explain the terms "'al 'alamot" and "'al ha-sheminit." On account of the important part which women from the earliest times took in singing, it is comprehensible that the higher pitch was simply called the "maiden's key," and "ha-sheminit" would then be an octave lower.

There is no question that melodies repeated in each strophe, in the modern manner, were not sung at either the earlier or the later periods of psalm-singing; since no such thing as regular strophes occurred in Hebrew poetry. In fact, in the earlier times there were no strophes at all; and although they are found later, they are by no means so regular as in modern poetry. Melody, therefore, must then have had comparatively great freedom and elasticity and must have been like the Oriental melody of to-day. As Niebuhr points out, the melodies are earnest and simple, and the singers must make every word intelligible. A comparison has often been made with the eight notes of the Gregorian chant or with the Oriental psalmody introduced into the church of Milan by Ambrosius: the latter, however, was certainly developed under the influence of Grecian music, although in origin it may have had some connection with the ancient synagogal psalm-singing, as Delitzsch claims that it was ("Psalmen," 3d ed., p. 27).
(see image) Assyrian Representation of Harpers.

(In the British Museum.)

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Hebrew Alphabet

2009-12-08T08:48:00.000-08:00

Hebrew Alphabet

The characters of the Hebrew Alphabet are derived from the so-called Phenician or Old Semitic letters, to which almost all systems of letters now in use, even the Roman, can be traced.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Temple

2009-12-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE OF:

By : Joseph Jacobs Judah David Eisenstein

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
Officers.
Priestly Guard.
The Judiciary.
Local Divisions and Water-Supply.
Order of Service.
The Tamid Sacrifice.
The Abattoir.
The Incense Service.
Honor to the High Priest.

Officers.

The affairs of the Second Temple were managed by a board of fifteen appointed officers ("memunnim"). The Mishnah records the following names of officers of the Temple without stating their respective periods of activity; but it is presumed they were those appointed in the time of Agrippa: (1) Johanan b. Phinehas, in charge of the seals given in exchange for money to purchase sacrifices; (2) Ahijah, of libations; (3) Mattithiah b. Samuel, of allotments (i.e., the selection of priests for the day); (4) Pethahiah, of the nests of fowls (for sacrifices); (5) Ben Ahijah, of the health department (treating especially a disease of the bowels caused by the bare feet touching the cold marble pavement); (6) Nehunya, of the digging of wells (for the pilgrims on the highways leading to Jerusalem); (7) Gebini (Gabinimus), of announcements (the Temple crier); (8) Ben Geber, of the gates (opening and closing them); (9) Ben Babi, of the wicks for the candlestick ("menorah"); (10) Ben Arza, of the cymbals (leading the music of the Levites); (11) Hugras (Hugdas) b. Levi, of the musical instruments; (12) the Garmu family, of the preparation of the showbread; (13) the Abtinas family, of the incense; (14) Eleazar, of the curtains; and (15) Phinehas, of the vestments (Shek. v. 1; comp. Maimonides, "Yad," Kele ha-Mikdash, vii. 1).

Seven trustees ("amarkelim") and three cashiers ("gizbarim") had charge of the Temple treasury. In the courts were thirteen contribution-boxes in the shape of shofarim, with narrow necks and broad bases (Shek. vi.). The half-shekel contribution for public sacrifices, etc., was demanded on the first of Adar and was payable by the twenty-fifth of the same month (ib. i. 1, 3). There was a special room, called "Lishkat hashsha'im" (Secret Chamber), for anonymous donations, out of which fund the worthy poor were supported. Into the Vessel Chamber the people threw donations of silver and gold vessels. Every thirty days this chamber was opened by the cashiers; who selected such vessels as could be utilized in the Temple, the rest being sold and the proceeds applied to a fund for repairing the Temple building ("bedek, ha-bayit"; ib. v. 4).

The priestly officials were: the high priest, his deputy ("segan"), and his two attendants ("katolikin" = "catholicus").

Priestly Guard.

A strict watch over the Temple was maintained, the guard being composed of three priests and twenty-one Levites. The priests were stationed one at the Chamber of the Flame ("Bet ha-Nizoz"), one at the Chamber of the Hearth ("Bet ha-Moked"), and one at the Chamber (attic) of Abtinas (see diagram, page 95). The Levites kept guard as follows: one at each of the five gates of the mount entrances; one at each of the four corners within the mount enclosure; one at each of the five important gates of the courts; one at each of the four corners within the court; one at the Chamber of Sacrifice; one at the Chamber of Curtains; and one behind the "Kapporet" (Holy of Holies). The captain of the guard saw that every man was alert, chastising a priest if found asleep at his post, and sometimes even punishing him by burning his shirt upon him, as a warning to others (Mid. i. 1).

The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "hel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1). The elder priests kept the keys of the Temple, putting them at night under a marble slab in the floor; to this slab a ring was attached for lifting it. A priest watched over or slept on the slab until the keys were demanded by the officer in the morning.

The king when visiting the Temple had no rights beyond those of the ordinary Israelite; only the kings of the house of David were privileged to sit down in the 'azarah (Sotah 41b; Tamid 27a).

The Judiciary.

The major Sanhedrin, composed of 71 members, sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone ("Lishkat ha-Gazit") on the extreme north of the priests' hall. Two tribunals of minor Sanhedrin, each composed of twenty-three members, sat one by the south gate of the mount and one in front of the hall on the north side. The sessions were held from the morning sacrifice till that of the afternoon. On Sabbaths and holy days, to facilitate increased business the major Sanhedrin sat outside on the hel (Sanh. 88b), and the minor Sanhedrin assembled in the bet hamidrash situated on the mount (Tosef., hag. ii.).

Local Divisions and Water-Supply.

Entrance within the enclosure of the mount was permitted to any one who was decently attired and who carried no burden. Israelites when ritually unclean and Gentiles were not allowed to pass beyond the "soreg," a fence which surrounded the courts at a distance of ten cubits. The outer court, called "'Ezrat Nashim" (Women's Hall), was for the use of ordinary Israelites. The priests' hall was reserved for the priests and Levites; occasionally, however, men and women presenting sin-offerings, sacrifices on which they were required to place the hands ("semikah"), made use of it. At the festivals, to accommodate the large crowds, all Israelites were permitted to enterthe priests' hall, on which occasion the curtain of the vestibule was raised to show the people the interior of the "Hekal" ( see Pilgrimage). The people, though tightly packed, were able to find sufficient space in which to prostrate themselves, this being one of the miracles associated with the Temple. The people crowded to within eleven cubits behind the Holy of Holies (Yoma 21a).

Another phenomenon was the water-supply. A spring rising below the Holy of Holies from an opening as narrow as the antennæ of a locust increased when it reached the entrance to the Hekal to the size of a warp-thread; at the entrance to the vestibule it assumed the size of a woof-thread; and at the house of David it became an overflowing brook (Yoma 77b, 78a). This spring is referred to in the passage "And behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house . . . at the south side of the altar" (Ezek. xlvii. 1, 2); it was the mysterious spring that filled the bath of Ishmael the high priest, situated by the attic of Abtinas on the south of the court, at the water-gate. There was another bath, in a passage under the Chamber of the Hearth, for the use of any ordinary priest who might become ritually unclean. This was reached by a winding staircase. The priest, having bathed, dried himself by the fire; he then dressed and returned to his comrades above, with whom he waited until the gates were opened, when he left the 'azarah, being unfit for service till sunset of the same day.

Order of Service.
(see image) The Temple at Jerusalem.(From a Passover Haggadah, printed at Amsterdam, 1695.)
(see image) Utensils of the Temple.(From an illuminated Hebrew manuscript of the 13th century in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.)The order of the priests' daily service in the Temple was as follows: One of the priests arose early and bathed before the arrival of the officer, who usually came about cockcrow. The officer knocked at the door of the Chamber of the Hearth, and the priests opened it. He called for the priest who had bathed, and ordered him to decide by lot which of the priests should serve that day. The officer then took the keys and entered through the wicket ("pishpush") of the door to the 'azarah, followed by the priests who formed the patrol, each holding two torches. The patrol was divided into two sections; one going through the colonnade on the east, and one on the west, the sections meeting on the south side at the chamber where they prepared the "habittin" (the baked cake for the meal-offering). The priests now asked one another "Is all well?" and received the answer "All is well." The officer assigned by lot the making of the habittin. Similarly he selected a priest to clean the altar of ashes, his comrades uttering the warning: "Be careful not to touch the sacred vessels before thou sanctifiest [by washing] thy hands and feet at the laver; and see that the coal-shovel ["mahtah"] is in its place [near the "kebesh," the inclined plank or bridge leading to the altar]." Proceeding without any light save that of the pyre ("ma'arakah") on the altar, he disappeared below, and was next heard operating the machinery for raising the laver from the well. This consisted of a wooden wheel and shaft and a chain, a device designed by the high priest Ben kattin. The noise caused by this operation fixed the time for washing hands and feet. The priest took the silver "mahtah" and ascended the altar; pushing the large coals aside, he took a shovelful of ashes and charred wood, and, descending, turned northward and deposited the ashes in a heap on the floor three handbreadths from the "kebesh," where also the ashes from the golden altar and the candlestick were placed. The authorities disagree as to the disposition of the ashes: some say they fell through a grate in the floor; others, that they were removed later. Observing his act, the priest's comrades hurried to wash their hands and feet at the laver. They then took large shovels ("magrefot") and made a heap ("tappuah") of the ashes of the altar in the center, other priests meanwhile using flesh-hooks to place aside the portions of the sacrifices that had not been consumed during the night. When the heap of ashes was sufficiently large it was removed outside the city. The priests now brought pieces of all kinds of wood except olive and vine, and built a new pyre, on which they replaced the unconsumed portions of the sacrifices. For a second pyre, intended for the burning of incense, they selected the best fig-wood. Having lit the two pyres, they descended from the altars.

The Tamid Sacrifice.

The officer then ordered the priests to decide by lot who should slaughter the sacrificial victim, who should sprinkle the blood, who should clean the ashes from the golden altar and from the golden candlestick, and who should attend to the sacrifices in detail. This being done, the officer commanded: "Go ye and see if it is time to commence the sacrificial service!" Mounting to an eminence of the Temple, they looked toward the east, till at length one shouted, "Barkai!" (the morning light has appeared). Mattithiah b. Samuel said they asked him, "Has the light in the east reached Hebron?" and he answered, "Yes." The mention of Hebron was made to honor the memory of the patriarchs buried there. The officer then said: "Go and fetch a lamb from the Chamber of the Lambs" (situated at the northeast corner of the 'azarah). The priests entered also the Vessel Chamber and took therefrom ninety-three vessels of silver and gold. The lamb was now examined by the light of torches to see whether it was free from blemishes; and water from a golden cup was given it to drink. The priest selected by lot then dragged the animal to the abattoir, north of the altar. Meanwhile other priests advanced with the "teni," a gold dish in the shape of a basket of a "tarkab" measure; the "kuz," a gold pitcher; and two keys wherewith to open the Hekal, one from the outside and one from within through the wicket or lattice of a cell on the north side of the vestibule. The bolt was thrown back and the doors unlocked, causing a noise which was heard a long distance and which was the signal for the shohet to slaughter the perpetual morning sacrifice ("tamid shel shaharit.") at the abattoir, while the priest in the Hekal carefully gathered up all the ashes of the golden altar into the teni, put this on the floor, and went out. The priest with the kuz cleared the candlestick of ashes, leaving the two lights nearest to the east to burn till the evening. If he found them extinguished he renewed and relighted them, after which he trimmed the other lamps. In front of the candlestick were three marble steps, on the top one of which the priest stood to trim and light the lamps. When he had finished he put the kuz on the second step and went out. On the first step the tongs and snuff-dishes were placed (Maimonides, "Yad," Bet ha-Behirah, iii. 11). The teni was removed by the priest chosen to remove the ashes of the altar after the incense had been offered; the kuz, by the priest who in the afternoon attended to the two lights of the candlestick that had been burning all day.

The Abattoir.

The slaughter of the lamb was effected as follows: The front legs were bound to the hind legs, the head pointing south with its face toward the west. The shohet stood facing the west. The morning tamid was slaughtered at the northwest corner, that of the afternoon at the northeast corner, of the altar at the second ring. There were twenty-four rings, in four rows, fixed to the floor on hinges; in these the heads of the animals were held in position. The priest who received the blood in a basin stood facing the south. He sprinkled the blood on both sides of the northeast and south west corners of the altar. The removal of the hide and the dissection of the carcass were shared by the priests, and were followed by the meal-offering (Lev. vi. 13). This accomplished, the priests went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone. There the officer directed them to recite one benediction ("Ahabah Rabbah") and to read the Ten Commandments and the "Shema'," after which they blessed the people. On Sabbaths they blessed also with "love, brotherhood, peace, and friendship" the patrol that was about to go off duty.

The Incense Service.

Finally, the priests drew lots for the incense service, and the various assignments were made, only those who had not been previously selected being admitted to the ballot. The priests that were not to share in the service of the day now removed their priestly garments and then, having delivered them to an attendant who placed them in the proper lockers, dressed themselves in their secular clothes and retired from the 'azarah till their next turn.

During the sacrifice the Levites were at their stations on the steps leading to the priests' hall, and in front of the dukan; but they did not commence their music until the libation at the conclusion of the service. The musical instrument called the "magrefah," somewhat similar to the organ, stood between the altar and the vestibule. Its tones, which could be heard a long distance, were the signal for the priests to prostrate themselves: this took place after the incense-offering.

Honor to the High Priest.

Special honor was paid to the high priest. He was attended by three priests: one on his right, one on his left, and one holding up the breastplateadorned with precious stones. The high priest entered the Hekal alone, and after the curtain was lowered, he prostrated himself and retired. The officer who waited in the vestibule, on hearing the sound of the bells on the hem of the high priest's garment, raised the curtain. After the high priest had left, the officer who acted as sagan entered the Hekal and prostrated himself; and on his retirement the other priests entered and followed his example. In case the high priest desired to offer the incense he was assisted by the officer and two attendants.

At the conclusion the priests bearing the five empty vessels—the basket, pitcher, ladle, spoon, and cover—used in the service of the altar, and those carrying the candlestick and incense, stood in line on the staircase of the vestibule, and, raising their hands as high as their shoulders, recited the priestly benediction.

The high priest then offered the libation of wine ("nesakim"). The officer stood in the corner with kerchief (flag) in hand, and two priests; with silver trumpets by the table, the cymbals meanwhile playing between them. The trumpeters sounded "teki'ah, teru'ah, teki'ah"; the high priest commenced the ceremony of the libation; the officer unfurled the kerchief; the cymbals clashed; and the Levites sang hymns accompanied by music. During the pauses the trumpet sounded "teki'ah," and the people in the 'azarah prostrated themselves; at every pause a teki'ah and a prostration. The order of the daily Psalms from Sunday to Saturday was as follows: Ps. xxiv., xlviii., lxxxii., xciv., lxxxi., xciii., xciv.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Jewish Sacrifices

2009-12-08T08:40:00.000-08:00

SACRIFICE:

By : Emil G. Hirsch Kaufmann Kohler M. Seligsohn Isidore Singer Jacob Zallel Lauterbach Joseph Jacobs

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
Place of Sacrifice.
The Paschal Sacrifice.
Private Sacrifices.
Attitude of Prophets.
The Mosaic Sacrifices.
The Materials of Sacrifices.
Qualities of Offerings.
Liquid Sacrifices.
Times of Sacrifice.
The Blood.
Waving and Heaving.
Compound Sacrifices.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Acts of Sacrifice.
Preparation of Minhah.
Haggashah.
Vegetable Sacrifices.
Terumah.
Sacrifice in the Haggadah.
Functions of the Several Offerings.
Symbolic Interpretations.
Substitutes for Sacrifice.
Totemistic Interpretation.
—Critical View:
Human Sacrifice.
Early Stages.
Sacrifice According to Ezekiel.
Ancient Sacrifice.
—Samaritan:
Cessation of Sacrifice.
In the Twelfth Century.
Modern Sacrifice.
Antiquity of Sacrifice.
—Talmudic:
Prayer and Study Replace Sacrifice.
Subordination of Sacrifice.
Expiatory Function of Sacrifice.
—In Theology:
Connection with Taboo.
Symbolical Interpretation.
Philo's Symbolism.
Views of Maimonides and Nahmanides.
Views of Hoffmann.
Attitude of Rabbinical Judaism.

The act of offering to a deity for the purpose of doing homage, winning favor, or securing pardon; that which is offered or consecrated. The late generic term for "sacrifice" in Hebrew is , the verb being , used in connection with all kinds of sacrifices.

—Biblical Data:

It is assumed in the Scriptures that the institution of sacrifice is coeval with the race. Abel and Cain are represented as the first among men to sacrifice; and to them are attributed the two chief classes of oblations: namely, the vegetable or bloodless, and the animal or blood-giving (Gen. iv. 3, 4). After the Flood, Noah offered of "every clean beast, and of every clean fowl" (ib. viii. 20). The building of altars by the Patriarchs is frequently recorded (ib. xii. 7, 8; xiii. 4, 18; xxi. 33; xxvi. 25; xxxiii. 20; xxxv. 7). Abraham offers a sacrifice at which Yhwh makes a covenant with him (ib. xv.). In the history of Jacob a sacrifice is mentioned as a ratification of a treaty (ib. xxxi. 54). He sacrifices also when he leaves Canaan to settle in Egypt (ib. xlvi. 1). Abraham had been or believed he had been given the command to sacrifice his son (ib. xxii.). These ancient offerings included not only the bloodless kind (ib. iv. 3), but also holocausts (ib. viii. 20, xxii. 13) and animal thank-offerings (ib. xxxi. 54, xlvi. 1).

Place of Sacrifice.

The primitive altar was made of earth (comp. Ex. xx. 24) or of unhewn stones (ib. xx. 25; Deut. xxvii. 5), and was located probably on an elevation (see Altar; High Place). The story in Genesis proceeds on the theory that wherever the opportunity was presented for sacrifice there it was offered (Gen. viii. 20, xxxi. 54; comp. Ex. xxiv. 4). No one fixed place seems to have been selected (Ex. xx. 24, where the Masoretic text, = "I will have my 'zeker' [ = "remembrance"]," and Geiger's emendation, = "Thou wilt place my 'zeker,'" bear out this inference). This freedom to offer sacrifices at any place recurs in the eschatological visions of the Later Prophets (Isa. xix. 19, 21; Zeph. ii. 11; Mal. i. 11; Zech. xiv. 20, 21), thus confirming the thesis of Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos") that the end is always a reproduction of the beginning.

The Paschal Sacrifice.

Under Moses, according to the Pentateuch, this freedom to offer sacrifices anywhere and without the ministrations of the appointed sacerdotal agents disappears. The proper place for the oblations was to be "before the door of the tabernacle," where the altar of burnt offerings stood (Ex. xl. 6), and where Yhwh met His people (ib. xxix. 42; Lev. i. 3; iv. 4; xii. 6; xv. 14, 29; xvi. 7; xvii. 2-6; xix. 21), or simply "before Yhwh" (Lev. iii. 1, 7, 12; ix. 2, 4, 5), and later in Jerusalem in the Temple (Deut. xii. 5-7, 11, 12). That this law was not observed the historical books disclose, and the Prophets never cease complaining about its many violations (see High Place). The Book of Joshua (xxiv. 14) presumes that while in Egypt the Hebrews had become idolaters. The Biblical records report very little concerning the religious conditions among those held in Egyptian bondage. The supposition, held for a long time, that while in the land of Goshen the Israelites had become adepts in the Egyptian sacrificial cult, lacks confirmation by the Biblical documents. The purpose of the Exodus as given in Ex. viii. 23 (A. V. 25) is to enable the people to sacrifice to their God. But the only sacrifice commanded in Egypt (ib. xii.) was that of the paschal lamb (see Passover Sacrifice). In the account of the Hebrews' migrations in the desert Jethro offers a sacrifice to Yhwh; Moses, Aaron, and the elders participating therein (ib. xviii. 12). Again, at the conclusion of the revelation on Sinai (ib. xxiv. 5), Moses offers up all kinds of sacrifices, sprinkling some of the blood on the altar. At the consecration of the Tabernacle the chiefs of the tribes are said to have offered, in addition to vessels of gold and silver, 252 animals (Num. vii. 12-88); and it has been calculated that the public burnt offerings amounted annually to no less than 1,245 victims (Kalish, "Leviticus," p. 20). No lessthan 50,000 paschal lambs were killed at the Passover celebration of the second year after the Exodus (Num. ix. 1-14).

Private Sacrifices.

According to the Book of Joshua, after the conquest of Canaan the Tabernacle was established at Shiloh (Josh. xviii. 1, xix. 51, xxii. 9). During the periods of the Judges and of Samuel it was the central sanctuary (Judges xviii. 31; I Sam. iii. 3, xiv. 3; comp. Jer. vii. 12), where at certain seasons of the year recurring festivals were celebrated and the Hebrews assembled to perform sacrifices and vows (Judges xxi. 12, 19; I Sam. i. 3, 21; ii. 19). But it seems that the people assembled also at Shechem—where was a sanctuary of Yhwh (Josh. xxiv. 1, 26)—as well as at Mizpeh in Gilead (Judges xi. 11), at Mizpeh in Benjamin (ib. xx. 1), at Gilgal (I Sam. xi. 15, xiii. 8, xv. 21), at Hebron (II Sam. v. 3), at Beth-el, and at Beer-sheba (Amos iv. 4, v. 5, viii. 14). They sacrificed at Bochim and Beth-el (Judges iii. 5, xxi. 4). Private sacrifices, also, in the homes of the families, appear to have been in vogue, e.g., in the house of Jesse in Beth-lehem (I Sam. xx. 6), of Ahithophel at Giloh (II Sam. xv. 12), and of Job (Job i. 5, xlii. 8). Assisting Levites are mentioned (Judges xvii. 4-13). Gideon offered at Ophrah (ib. vi. 11-20, 26 et seq.); Manoah, at Zorah (ib. xiii. 16, 19, 20); Samuel, at Mizpeh, Ramah, Gilgal, and Beth-lehem (I Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17; ix. 12, 13; x. 8; xi. 15; xvi. 25); Saul, at Gilgal (ib. xiii. 9 et seq.) and during his pursuit of the Philistines (ib. xiv. 32-35); David, on the thrashing-floor of Araunah (II Sam. vi. 17, xxiv. 25); Absalom, at Hebron (ib. xv. 7-9); Adonijah, near En-rogel (I Kings i. 9); Solomon, "in high places" (ib. iii. 2, 3); and Elijah, in his contest with the prophets of Baal, on Mount Carmel (ib. xviii.). Naaman took Palestinian soil with him because he desired to offer sacrifice to Yhwh in Syria (II Kings v. 17, 19). The Books of Chronicles throw a different light on this period. If their reports are to be accepted, the sacrificial services were conducted throughout in strict conformity with the Mosaic code (I Chron. xv. 26, xxvi. 8-36; II Chron. i. 2-6, ii. 3, xiii. 11). Enormous numbers of sacrifices are reported in them (II Chron. xv. 11; xxix. 32, 33).

In the Solomonic Temple, Solomon himself (though not a priest) offered three times every year burnt offerings and thank-offerings and incense (I Kings ix. 25); he also built high places. Down to the destruction of the Temple, kings, priests, and even prophets, besides the people, are among the inveterate disregarders of the sacrificial ritual of the Pentateuch, worshiping idols and sacrificing to them; e.g., Jeroboam with his golden calves at Dan and Beth-el (I Kings xii. 28; comp. II Kings xvii. 16), Ahimelech at Nob (I Sam. xxi. 2-10), and even Aaron (Ex. xxxii. 1-6 comp. Neh. ix. 18). Ba'al was worshiped (Hos. ii. 10, 15; II Kings iii. 2; x. 26, 27; xi. 18; Judges vi. 25; Jer. vii. 9, xi. 13, xxxii. 29), as were Astarte, Baal-berith, Baal-peor, Baal-zebub, Moloch, and other false gods, in the cult of which not only animal and vegetable but even human sacrifices (see Sacrifice, Critical View) were important features.

Attitude of Prophets.

The attitude of the literary prophets toward sacrifice manifests no enthusiasm for sacrificial worship. Hosea declares in the name of Yhwh: "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of Yhwh more than burnt offerings" (Hos. vi. 6; comp. ib. viii. 13; ix. 3, 4; xiv. 3). Amos proclaims: "I [Yhwh] hate, I despise your feast-days; . . . if you offer me burnt offerings and your bloodless offerings, I will not accept them nor will I regard the thank-offerings of your fat beasts, . . . but let justice flow like water" (Amos v. 21-24, Hebr.; comp. iv. 4, 5). He goes so far as to doubt the existence of sacrificial institutions in the desert (ib. v. 25). Isaiah is not less strenuous in rejecting a ritualistic sacrificial cult (Isa. i. 11-17). Jeremiah takes up the burden (Jer. vi. 19, 20; comp. xxxi. 31-33). He, like Amos, in expressing his scorn for the burnt offerings and other slaughtered oblations, takes occasion to deny that the fathers had been commanded concerning these things when they came forth from Egypt (ib. vii. 21 et seq.). Malachi, a century later, complains of the wrong spirit which is manifest at the sacrifices ("Mal. i. 10). Ps. l. emphasizes most beautifully the prophetic conviction that thanksgiving alone is acceptable, as does Ps. lxix. 31, 32. Deutero-Isaiah (xl. 16) suggests the utter inadequacy of sacrifices. "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to Yhwh than sacrifice" is found in I Sam. xv. 22 (Hebr.) as a censure of Saul; and gnomic wisdom is not without similar confession (Prov. xv. 8; xxi. 3, 27; xxviii. 9; Eccl. iv. 17). Some passages assert explicitly that sacrifices are not desired (Ps. xl. 7-9, li. 17-19). Micah's rejection of sacrificial religion has become the classical definition of ethical monotheism (Mic. vi. 6-8). Other Psalms and prophetic utterances, however, deplore the cessation of sacrificial services at the Temple and look forward to their reinstitution (Ps. li. 20, 21; Joel ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxxi. 14; xxxiii. 11, 17, 18). The apocalyptic character of some of these predictions is not disputable, neither is that of Isa. xix. 21, lvi. 7, lx. 7. In Ezekiel's scheme of the restoration, also, the sacrifices receive very generous treatment (Ezek. xl.-xlviii.).

The Mosaic Sacrifices.

The Mosaic sacrificial scheme is for the most part set forth in Leviticus. The sacrifices ordained may be divided into the bloodless and the blood-giving kinds. This division takes into consideration the nature of the offering. But another classification may be made according to the occasion for which the oblation is brought and the sentiments and motives of the offerers. On this basis the sacrifices are divided into: (1) burnt offerings, (2) thankor praise-offerings, (3) sinor trespass-offerings, and (4) purificative offerings. Among the thank-offerings might be included the paschal lamb, the offering of the first-born, and the First-Fruits; in the category of sin-offerings, the jealousy-offering. As a rule, the burnt, the expiatory, and the purificative offerings were animal sacrifices, but in exceptional cases a cereal sin-offering was accepted or prescribed. Thank-offerings might consist either of animal or of vegetable oblations.

Animal sacrifices were generally accompanied by bloodless offerings, and in many cases by a libation of wine or a drink-offering also. Bloodless offeringswere, however, brought alone; for instance, that of the showbread and the frankincense offering on the golden altar. Another classification might be (1) voluntary or free-will offerings (private holocausts and thank- or vow-offerings) and (2) compulsory or obligatory offerings (private and public praise-offerings, public holocausts, and others).

The Materials of Sacrifices.

The sacrificial animals were required to be of the clean class (Gen. vii. 23; Lev. xi. 47, xiv. 4, xx. 25; Deut. xiv. 11, 20). Still, not all clean animals occur in the specifications of the offerings, for which were demanded mainly cattle from the herd or from the flock; viz., the bullock and the ox, the cow and the calf; the sheep, male or female, and the lamb; the goat, male or female, and the kid. Of fowls, turtle-doves and pigeons were to be offered, but only in exceptional cases as holocausts and sin-offerings; they were not accepted as thank- or praise-offerings nor as a public sacrifice. Fishes were altogether excluded. The bullock formed the burnt offering of the whole people on New Moon and holy days, and for inadvertent transgressions; of the chiefs at the dedication of the Tabernacle; of the Levites at their initiation; and of private individuals in emergencies. It was the sin-offering for the community or the high priest, for the priests when inducted into office, and for the high priest on the Day of Atonement. In cases of peculiar joyfulness it was chosen for the thank-offering. The ram was presented as a holocaust or a thank-offering by the people or by their chiefs, the high priest or ordinary priests, and by the Nazarite, never by an individual layman. It was the ordinary trespass-offering for violation of property rights. The kid was the special animal for sin-offerings. It was permitted also for private burnt offerings and for thank-offerings; but it was never prescribed for public burnt offerings. The lamb was employed for the daily public holocausts, and very commonly for all private offerings of whatever character. The pigeon and turtle-dove served for burnt offerings and sin-offerings in cases of lustrations. They were allowed as private holocausts, and were accepted as sin-offerings from the poorer people and as purification-offerings; but they were excluded as thank-offerings, nor did they form part of the great public or festal sacrifices.

The bloodless oblations consisted of vegetable products, chief among which were flour (in some cases roasted grains) and wine. Next in importance was oil. As accessories, frankincense and salt were required, the latter being added on nearly all occasions. Leaven and honey were used in a few instances only.

Qualities of Offerings.

Concerning the qualification of the offerings, the Law ordained that the animals be perfect (Deut. xv. 21, xvii. 1; specified more in detail in Lev. xxii. 18-25), the blind, broken, maimed, ulcerous, scurvied, scabbed, bruised, crushed, and castrated being excluded. This injunction was applied explicitly to burnt (Lev. i. 3; ix. 2, 3; xxiii. 18), thank- (ib. iii. 1, 6; xxii. 21), and expiatory offerings (ib. iv. 3, 23, 28, 32; v. 15, 18, 25; ix. 2, 3; xiv. 10) and the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 5). To offer a blemished animal was deemed sacrilegious (Deut. xvii. 1; Mal. i. 6, 7, 8, 9, 13). In most cases a male animal was required; but a female victim was prescribed in a few cases, as, for instance, that of the sin-offering of the ordinary Israelite. In other cases the choice between male and female was left open, e.g., in private thank-offerings and offerings of the firstlings. For pigeons and turtle-doves no particular sex is mentioned.

As to the age of the victims, none might be offered prior to the seventh day from birth (Lev. xxii. 27). Mother and young might not be slaughtered on the same day (ib. xxii. 28). The first-born males were to be killed within the first year (Deut. xv. 19 et seq.). Burnt offerings and sin- and thank-offerings were required to be more than one year old, as was the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 5, xxix. 38; Lev. ix. 3; xii. 6; xiv. 10; xxiii. 12, 19; Num. vi. 12, 14; vii. 17, 23, 29; xv. 27; xxviii. 3, 9, 11, 19, 27). For doves and pigeons no age was set. Sometimes the sacrifice called for an animal that had neither done any work nor borne any yoke, e.g., the Red Heifer (Num. xix. 1-10; Deut. xxi. 3, 4). The animal was required to be the lawful property of the sacrificer (II Sam. xxiv. 24; Deut. xxviii. 19; Ezra vi. 9; vii. 17, 22; I Macc. x. 39; II Macc. iii. 3, ix. 16; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 3, § 3).

Liquid Sacrifices.

The ears of corn (Lev. ii. 14) presented as a first-fruits offering were required to be of the earlier and therefore better sort, the grains to be rubbed or beaten out; the flour, as a rule, of the finest quality and from the choicest cereal, wheat. The offering of the wife suspected of adultery was of common barley flour. As to quantity, at least one-tenth part of an ephah or an omer of flour was used. It was mixed with water, and in most cases was left unleavened; it was then made into dough and baked in loaves or thin cakes. The oil had to be pure white olive-oil from the unripe berries squeezed or beaten in a mortar. It was usually poured over the offering or mingled therewith, or it was brushed over the thin cakes. Sometimes, however, the offering was soaked in oil. The frankincense was white and pure. The wine is not described or qualified in the Law. "Shekar" is another liquid mentioned as a libation (Num. xxviii. 7); it must have been an intoxicating fermented liquor, and was prohibited to priests during service and to Nazarites. Salt was used with both the blood-giving and the bloodless sacrifices (Lev. ii. 13); its use is not further described. Leaven and honey were generally excluded, but the former was permitted for the first new bread offered on Pentecost and for the bread and cakes at every praise-offering; the latter, when offered as a first-fruits offering.

Of the necessary preparations the chief was "sanctification" (Joel i. 14; ii. 15, 16; iv. 9; Mic. iii. 5; Neh. iii. 1; Ps. xx.), consisting in bathing, washing, and change of garments, and in conjugal abstinence (Gen. xxxv. 2-4; Ex. xix. 10, 14, 15; xxxiii. 5, 6; Josh. iii. 5, vii. 13). These laws were amplified with reference to the officiating Priest (Ex. xxx. 17-21, xl. 30-32).

Times of Sacrifice.

No particular time of the day is specified for sacrifices, except that the daily holocausts are to be killed"in the morning" and "between the two evenings" (Ex. xvi. 12; xxix. 39, 41; xxx. 8; Num. xxviii. 4). When the gift had been properly prepared, the offerer, whether man or woman, brought (Lev. iv. 4, 14; xii. 6; xiv. 23; xv. 29) it to the place where alone it was lawful to sacrifice—"before Yhwh," or "to the door of the tent of meeting," i.e., the court where the altar of burnt offering stood. To offer it elsewhere would have been shedding blood (Lev. xvii. 3-5, 8, 9). The injunction to offer in the proper place is repeated more especially in regard to the individual class of sacrifice (Lev. i. 3; iv. 4, 14; vi. 18; xii. 6; xiii. 2, 8, 12; xv. 29; xix. 21). The victim was killed "on the side of the altar [of holocausts] northward" (Lev. i. 11, iv. 24, vi. 18, vii. 2, xiv. 13). When the offering, if a quadruped, had been brought within the precincts of the sanctuary, and after examination had been found qualified, the offerer laid one hand upon the victim's head (Lev. i. 4; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 5, 15). On the scape-goat, the high priest laid both of his hands (ib. xvi. 21). This "laying on of hands" ("semikah") might not be performed by a substitute (Aaron and his sons laid hands on the sin- and burnt offerings killed on their own behalf; see Lev. viii. 14, 18). After the imposition of his hand, the offerer at once killed the animal. If presented by the community, the victim was immolated by one of the elders (ib. iv. 15). Priests might perform this act for the offering Israelites (II Chron. xxx. 15-47; xxxv. 10, 11), though the priestly function began only with the act of receiving the blood, or, in bloodless offerings, with the taking of a handful to be burned on the altar, while the Israelite himself poured over and mixed the oil. The priests invariably killed the doves or pigeons by wringing off their heads (Lev. i. 15, v. 8).

The Blood.

The utmost care was taken by the priest to receive the blood; it represented the life or soul. None but a circumcised Levite in a proper state of Levitical purity and attired in proper vestments might perform this act; so, too, the sprinkling of the blood was the exclusive privilege of the "priests, the sons of Aaron" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13). Moses sprinkled it when Aaron and his sons were inducted; but this was exceptional (ib. viii. 15, 19, 23). In holocausts and thank-offerings the blood was sprinkled "round about upon the altar" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13). In the sin-offering, the later (ib. vii. 2) practise seems to have been to put some of the blood on the horns of the brazen altar, or on those of the golden altar when that was used, or even on parts of the holy edifice (ib. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 25, 30, 34). The same distinction appears in the case of turtle-doves and pigeons: when burnt offerings, their blood was smeared on the side of the brazen altar (ib. viii. 15; xvi. 18, 19); when sin-offerings, it was partly sprinkled on the side of the altar and partly smeared on the base. The animal was then flayed, the skin falling to the priest (ib. i. 6, vii. 8). In some Sin-Offerings the skin was burned along with the flesh (ib. iv. 11, 12, 20, 21; comp. ib. iv. 26, 31, 35). If the entire animal was devoted to the flames, the carcass was "cut into pieces" (ib. i. 6, viii. 20). The bowels and legs of the animals used in the burnt offerings were carefully washed (ib. i. 9, viii. 21, ix. 14) before they were placed on the altar. Certain offerings or portions thereof had to pass through the ceremony of waving, a rite which is not further described in the Bible (see Sacrifice, in Rabbinical Literature).

Waving and Heaving.

Another ceremony is mentioned in connection with the waving, viz., the heaving. This ceremony, likewise not further described, was observed with the right shoulder of the thank-offering, after which the part belonged to the priest. The sacrificial rites were completed by the consumption by fire of the sacrifice or those parts destined for God.

Sacrificial meals were ordained in the cases where some portion of the sacrifice was reserved for the priests or for the offering Israelites. The bloodless oblations of the Israelites, being "most holy," were eaten by the males of the priests alone in the court of the sanctuary (ib. vii. 9, 10), those of the priests being consumed by fire on the altar. In other sacrifices other provisions for these meals were made (ib. vii. 12-14). The repast was a part of the priest's duties (ib. x. 16-18). Public thank-offerings seem to have been given over entirely to the priests (ib. xxiii. 20), with the exception of the Fat. In private thank-offerings this was burned on the altar (ib. iii. 3-5, 9-11, 14-16; vii. 31), the right shoulder was given to the priest (ib. vii. 31-34, x. 14-15), the breast to the Aaronites (ib. vii. 31-34), and the remainder was left to the offering Israelite. The priests might eat their portions with their families in any "clean" place (ib. x. 14). The offering Israelite in this case had to eat his share within a fixed and limited time (ib. vii. 15-18, xix. 5-8), with his family and such guests as Levites and strangers, and always at the town where the sanctuary was (for penalty and other conditions see ib. vii. 19-21; Deut. xii. 6, 7, 11, 12; I Sam. ix. 12, 13, 19). Participation in the meals of idolatrous sacrifices was a fatal offense (Ex. xxxiv. 14, 15; Num. xxv. 1-3; comp. Ps. cvi. 28, 29).

Compound Sacrifices.

The vegetable- and drink-offerings accompanied all the usual holocausts and thank-offerings on ordinary days and Sabbaths, and on festivals (Num. xv. 3) of whatever character (Ex. xxix. 40, 41; Lev. vii. 12, 13; xxiii. 13, 18; Num. xv. 3-9, 14-16; xxviii. 9, 20, 21, 28, 29). The kind of cereal oblation offered varied according to the species of the animals sacrificed, and the amount was increased in proportion to the number of the latter (Lev. xiv. 21; Num. xv. 4, 12; xxviii. 5, 9, 12; xxix. 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, 15). However, a cereal oblation ("minhah") might under certain circumstances be offered independently, e.g., the Showbread, the first sheaf of ripe barley on Pesah, the first loaves of leavened bread from new wheat on Pentecost (Lev. xxiii. 16, 17, 20; Num. xxviii. 26), and the sin-offering of the very poor (Lev. v. 11-13). The minhah with the burnt offerings and thank-offerings was always fine wheaten flour merely mingled with oil; it is not clear whether this minhah was burned entirely (ib. xiv. 20; comp. ib. ix. 16, 17). If it was presented alone as a free-will offering or as a votive offering, it might be offered in various forms and with differentceremonies (ib. ii. 2; v. 12; vi. 8; vii. 9, 10; also ii.; vi. 12-16; vii. 12-14; xxvii. 10, 11). The mode of libation is not described in the Law; but every holocaust or thank-offering was to be accompanied with a libation of wine, the quantity of which was exactly graduated according to the animal, etc. (Num. xv. 3-11). Water seems to have been used at one time for "pouring out" before Yhwh (I Sam. vii. 6; II Sam. xxiii. 16). As to the spices belonging to the sacrifices, four are named in the Torah, Balsam and Frankincense being the more important ("stacte, and onycha, and galbanum . . . with pure frankincense," Ex. xxx. 34).

—In Rabbinical Literature:

The sacrifices treated of in the Law were, according to tradition, the following: (1) the holocaust ("'olah"); (2) the meal-offering ("minhah"); (3) the sin-offering ("hatat"); (4) the trespass-offering ("asham")—these four were "holy of holies" ("kodesh ha-kodashim"); (5) the peace-offerings ("shelamim"), including the thank-offering ("todah") and the voluntary or vow-offering ("nedabah" or "neder"). These shelamim, as well as the sacrifice of the first-born ("bekor") and of the tithe of animals ("ma'aser" and "pesah"), were less holy ("kodashim kallim"). For the 'olot, only male cattle or fowls might be offered; for the shelamim, all kinds of cattle. The hatat, too, might consist of fowls, or, in the case of very poor sacrificers, of flour. For the trespass-offering, only the lamb ("kebes") or the ram ("ayil") might be used. Every 'olah, as well as the votive offerings and the free-will shelamim, required an accessory meal-offering and libation ("nesek"). To a todah were added loaves or cakes of baked flour, both leavened and unleavened.

Acts of Sacrifice.

Every sacrifice required sanctification ("hakdashah"), and was to be brought into the court of the sanctuary ("hakrabah"). In the animal offerings the following acts were observed: (1) "semikah" = laying on of the hand (or both hands, according to tradition); (2) "shehitah" = killing; (3) "kabbalah" = gathering (receiving) the blood; (4) "holakah" = carrying the blood to the altar; (5) "zerikah" = sprinkling the blood; (6) "haktarah" = consumption by fire. For the sacrifices of lesser holiness the victims might be slaughtered anywhere in the court; for the kodesh ha-kodashim, at the north side of it only. Zerikah, in all cases except the sin-offering, consisted of two distinct acts of sprinkling, in each of which two sides of the altar were reached. In the case of the sin-offering, the blood was as a rule smeared with the fingers on the four horns of the brazen altar, but in some instances (e.g., in the case of the bullock and the goat on Yom ha-Kippurim) it was sprinkled seven times upon the curtain of the Holy of Holies and smeared upon the four horns of the golden altar. Offerings of the latter class were on this account called the "inner" sin-offerings. The remainder of the blood of these was poured out at the base of the west side of the brazen altar; in other oblations, on the south side.

The haktarah consisted in flaying the carcass and cutting it into pieces, all of which, if it was an 'olah, were burned on the altar; in the case of other offerings only a few prescribed parts, which were called the "emorim," were burned. If an 'olah consisted of a fowl, the acts of offering were as follows: (1) "melekah" = wringing the neck so as to sever both the esophagus and the trachea; (2) "mizzuy" = the pressing out of the blood against the wall; (3) "haktarah" = burning. When a fowl was sacrificed for a sin-offering the procedure was as follows: (1) "melekah" = wringing the neck, but less completely, only one "siman" being severed; (2) "hazzayah" = sprinkling the blood; and (3) the "mizzuy."

Preparation of Minhah.

In the preparation of the meal-offering some differences were observed. Most of such offerings were of the finest wheat flour, the minimum quantity being fixed at an "'issaron" (= one-tenth ephah). One log of oil and a handful of incense were added to every 'issaron. Mention is made of the following minhot: (1) "minhat solet," the meal-offering of flour, of which a handful ("komez") was placed on the altar; (2) "me'uppat tanur" = baked in the oven (i.e., consisting either of cakes ["hallot"] or wafers ["rekikin"], both of which were broken into pieces before the komez was taken from them); (3) "'al ha-mahabat" = baked in a flat pan; (4) "'al ha-marheshet" = baked in a deep pan; (5) "minhat habitim" (this consisted of one-tenth ephah of flour mixed with three logs of oil, formed into twelve cakes, and baked in pans, six of which cakes the high priest offered by burning with a half-handful of incense in the morning, and the other six in the evening; Lev. vi. 12 et seq.); (6) "minhat 'omer" (= "second of Passover"; see 'Omer), consisting of one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour, incense, and oil (ib. xxiii. 10; comp. ib. ii. 14); (7) "minhat hinnuk," the dedication meal-offering (similar to minhat habitim, with the difference that only one log of oil was used, and the whole was burned at once [ib. vi. 13; Maimonides, "Yad," Kele ha-Mikdash, v. 16; Sifra, zaw, ii. 3; Sifra, ed. Warsaw, 1866, p. 31b; Rashi on Men. 51b; comp. Men. 78a; Hoffmann, "Leviticus," pp. 230 et seq.]); (8) "minhat hote," the meal-offering of the very poor, when compelled to offer a "korban 'oleh we-yored"; (9) "minhat sotah," the jealousy meal-offering (Num. v. 15); (10) "minhat nesakim," the meal-of-fering of the libations (ib. xv.).

Haggashah.

"Haggashah," the carrying to the "keren ma'arbit deromit" (Lev. vi. 7; Hoffmann, l.c. p. 150), the southwest corner of the altar, of the vessel or pan in which the minhah had been placed, was the first act. The second, in the case of the meal-offering of the priests ("minhat kohen"), was the burning. In other cases, (1) the "kemizah" (taking out a handful) followed upon the haggashah, and then ensued (2) the putting of this handful into the dish for the service ("netinat ha-komez bi-keli sharet"), and finally (3) the burning of the komez ("haktarat komez"). At the 'omer-and the jealousyminhah (6 and 9 above), "tenufah" (waving) preceded the haggashah.

Burnt offerings, meal-offerings, and peace-oblations might be offered without specific reason as free-will offerings ("nedabot"); not so sin- and trespass-offerings, which could never be nedabot. A sin-offering might be either "kabua'" (fixed) or a"korban 'oleh we-yored" (i.e., a sacrifice dependent on the material possessions of the sacrificer; the rich bringing a lamb or a goat; the poor, two doves; and the very poor, one-tenth of an ephah of flour). This latter korban was required for the following three sins: (1) "shebu'at ha-'edut" or "shemi'at kol" (Lev. v. 1, in reference to testimony which is not offered); (2) "tum'at mikdash we-kodashim" (unwittingly rendering unclean the sanctuary and its appurtenances; ib. v. 2, 3); and (3) "bittuy sefatayim" (incautious oath; ib. v. 5 et seq.; Shebu. i. 1, 2). In the last two cases the korban was required only when the transgression was unintentional ("bi-she-gagah"); in the first, also when it was intentional ("be-mezid"). The offering of the leper and that of the woman after childbirth were of this order ("Yad," Shegagot, x. 1).

This principle obtained with reference to the fixed sin-offerings: offenses which when committed intentionally entailed excision required a sin-offering when committed inadvertently, except in the case of Blasphemy and in that of neglect of Circumcision or of the Passover sacrifice. The latter two sins, being violations of mandatory injunctions, did not belong to this category of offenses, which included only the transgression of prohibitory injunctions, while in blasphemy no real act is involved ("Yad," l.c. i. 2). Of such sin-offerings five kinds were known: (1) "par kohen mashiah" (Lev. iv. 3 et seq.), the young bullock for the anointed priest; (2) "par ha-'alem dabar shel zibbur" (ib. iv. 13 et seq.), the young bullock for the inadvertent, unwitting sin of the community; (3) "se'ir 'abodat elilim" (Num. xv. 22 et seq.), the goat for idolatry—these three being designated as "penimiyyot" (internal; see above); (4) "se'ir nasi," the he-goat for the prince (Lev. iv. 22 et seq.); (5) "hattat yahid," the individual sin-offering—these last two being termed "hizonot" (external; Zeb. 4b, 14a) or, by the Mishnah (Lev. xi. 1), "ne'ekelot" (those that are eaten; "Yad," Ma'ase ha-korbanot, v. 7-11).

The trespass-offerings ("ashamim") were six in number, and the ram sacrificed for them was required to be worth at least two shekels: (1) "asham me'ilot" (Lev. v. 14 et seq.); (2) "asham gezelot" (ib. v. 20 et seq.; in these two, in addition, "keren we-homesh" [= principal plus one-fifth] had to be paid); (3) "asham taluy," for "suspended" cases, in which it was doubtful whether a prohibition to which the penalty of excision attached had been inadvertently violated (ib. v. 17 et seq.); (4) "asham shiphah harufah" (ib. xix. 20 et seq.); (5) "asham nazir" (Num. vi. 12), the Nazarite's offering; (6) "asham mezora'" (Lev. xiv. 12), the leper's offering. In (5) and (6) the sacrifice consisted of lambs.

Vegetable Sacrifices.

In reference to the vegetable or unbloody oblations, it may be noticed that the Talmud mentions certain places where the grapes for sacrificial wine were grown (Men. viii. 6), e.g., Kefar Signah. On the strength of Prov. xxiii. 31 and Ps. lxxv. 9 (A. V. 8) some have contended that only red wine was used (but see Bertinoro on Men. viii. 6). Salt was indispensable in all sacrifices, even the wood and the libations being salted before being placed on the altar (Men. 20b, 21b).

While the text of the Pentateuch seems to assume that in the laying on of hands one hand only was employed, rabbinical tradition is to the effect that both were imposed and that with much force (Men. 95a; Ibn Ezra on Lev. v. 4; but Targ. Yer. says the right hand only). This semikah had to be performed personally by the offerer; but in case the latter was an idiot, a minor, deaf, a slave, a woman, blind, or a non-Israelite, the rite was omitted. If two partners owned the animal jointly, they had to impose their hands in succession. Only the Passover sacrifice ("pesah") and those of the first-born and the tithe were exceptions to the rule that individual sacrifices were to include semikah. Communal offerings, except that mentioned in Lev. iv. 13 et seq., and the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21), were exempt. In the case of the former the act was performed by the elders; in that of the latter, by the high priest. R. Simon is given as authority for the statement that in the case of the goat offered as a sacrifice for idolatry (Num. xv. 34) the elders were required to perform the laying on of hands (Men. 92a).

The position assumed by the offerer during this ceremony is described in Tosef., Men. x. 12 (comp. Yoma 36a). The victim stood in the northern part of the court, with its face turned to the west; the offerer, in the west with his face likewise to the west. Maimonides asserts that in the case of the kodesh ha-kodashim the offerer stood in the east looking westward ("Yad," Ma'ase ha-korbanot, iii. 14). The offerer placed his two hands between the animal's horns and made a confession appropriate to the sacrifice. In the case of a peace-offering, confession would not be appropriate, and in its stead laudatory words were spoken ("Yad," l.c. iii. 5). The holakah (by this term is denoted the carrying of the pieces of the dismembered victim [Zeb. 14a, 24a; Men. 10a] as well as the carrying of the blood to the altar) is not mentioned in the Bible as one of the successive acts of the sacrifices. However, as the slaughtering might take place at the altar itself, this act was not absolutely required: it was an "'abodah she-efshar le-batteah," a ceremony that might be omitted. The blood was collected by a priest in a holy vessel called the "mizrak." The holakah, it was generally held, might be performed by priests only, though R. hisda (Zeb. 14a) thinks that laymen were permitted to undertake it.

Terumah.

Where terumah or heaving was prescribed, the part subject to this rite was moved perpendicularly down and up, or up and down. In tenufah or waving the motion was horizontal from left to right or vice versa (Men. v. 6; see Rashi on Ex. xxix. 24). The killing might be done by laymen as well as by priests ("Yad," l.c. v. 1 et seq.); minute directions concerning the place of its performance were observed ("Yad," l.c.; see Ey-zehu Mekoman, Zeb. v.). In the Second Temple a red line was marked on the altar five ells from the ground below or above which, as the case required, the blood was sprinkled (Mid. iii. 1). Regulations concerning the localities, three in number, where parts of the victim, or the entire carcass under certain eventualities, had to be burned, were prescribed (Zeb. xii. 5).

Under the name "hagigah" were known free-willofferings of the shelamim class presented by individuals, mostly at festivals (hag. i. 2, 5).

The defects which in Talmudic law disqualified the victims were minutely described (see "Yad," Issure ha-Mizbeah). While in the Bible the incense consisted of four ingredients, the Rabbis add seven others, making the total number eleven (Ker. 6a; Yoma iii. 11; Yer. Yoma 41d; comp. "Yad," Kele ha-Mikdash, ii.).

Sacrifice in the Haggadah.

According to the Shammaites, the two lambs of the daily "tamid" (Num. xxviii. 3) indicate by their name that the sacrifices "press down" (), i.e., diminish, the sins of Israel. The Hillelites connect the term with the homonym (= "to wash"), and contend that sacrifices wash Israel clean from sin (Pes. 61b). Johanan ben Zakkai held that what was wrought for Israel by the sacrifices was accomplished for the non-Israelites by philanthropy (B. B. 10b); and when the Temple was destroyed he consoled his disciple Joshua by insisting that good deeds would take the place of the sin-offerings (Ab. R. N. iv.).

The sacrificial scheme was the target at which gnostics and other skeptics shot their arrows. God, it was argued, manifested Himself in this as a strict accountant and judge, but not as the author of the highest goodness and mercy. In refutation, Ben 'Azzai calls attention to the fact that in connection with the sacrifices the only name used to designate God is Yhwh, the unique name ("Shem ha-Meyuhad; Sifra, Wayikra, ii. [ed. Weiss, p. 4c], with R. Jose b. halafta as author; Men. 110a; Sifre, Num. 143). Basing his inference on the phrase "for your pleasure shall ye offer up" (Lev. xxii. 29, Hebr.), Ben 'Azzai insists also that sacrifices were not planned on the theory that, God's will having been done by man, man's will must be done in corresponding measure by God: they were merely expressive of man's delight; and God did not need them (Ps. l. 12, 13; Sifre, l.c.; Men. 110a).

Speculating on the exceptions which the minhah of the sinner and that of the jealousy-offering constitute, in so far as neither oil nor incense is added thereto, Simeon ben Yohai points out that the absence of these components indicates that the offering of a sinner may not be adorned (Tos. Sotah i. 10; Men. 6a; Sotah 15a; Yer. Sotah 17d). The name of the 'olah indicates that the sacrifice expiates sinful thoughts ("go up into one's mind"; comp. Job i. 5; Lev. R. vii.; Tan., Lek Leka, ed. Buber, 13; for other comments of similar purport see Bacher, "Ag. Tan." ii. 104). The defense of the Law for having forbidden the participation of non-Israelites in the communal sacrifices while it permitted the acceptance of their free-will offerings (Sifra, Emor, vii. [ed. Weiss, p. 98a]), was not a matter of slight difficulty. A very interesting discussion of the point is found in the appendix to Friedmann's edition of the Pesikta Rabbati (p. 192a), in which the non-Jew quotes with very good effect the universalistic verse Mal. i. 11.

Functions of the Several Offerings.

To bring peace to all the world is the purpose not merely of the peace-offerings, but of all sacrifices (Sifra, Wayikra, xvi. [ed. Weiss, p. 13a]). It is better to avoid sin than to offer sacrifices; but, if offered, they should be presented in a repentant mood, and not merely, as fools offer them, for the purpose of complying with the Law (Ber. 23a). God asked Abraham to offer up Isaac in order to prove to Satan that, even if Abraham had not presented Him with as much as a dove at the feast when Isaac was weaned, he would not refuse to do God's bidding (Sanh. 89b). The sacrificial ordinances prove that God is with the persecuted. Cattle are chased by lions; goats, by panthers; sheep, by wolves; hence God commanded, "Not them that persecute, but them that are persecuted, offer ye up to me" (Pesik. de R. Kahana 76b; Lev. R. xxvii.). In the prescription that fowls shall be offered with their feathers is contained the hint that a poor man is not to be despised: his offering is to be placed on the altar in full adornment (Lev. R. iii.). That sacrifices are not meant to appease God, Moses learned from His own lips. Moses had become alarmed when bidden to offer to God (Num. xxviii. 2): all the animals of the world would not suffice for such a purpose (Isa. xl. 10). But God allayed his apprehension by ordaining that only two lambs (the tamid) should be brought to him twice every day (Pes. 20a, 61b). Salt, which is indispensable at sacrifices, is symbolic of the moral effect of suffering, which causes sins to be forgiven and which purifies man (Ber. 5a). God does not eat. Why, then, the sacrifices? They increase the offerer's merit (Tan., Emor, ed. Buber, p. 20). The strongest man might drink twice or even ten times the quantity of water contained in the hollow of his hand; but all the waters of the earth can not fill the hollow of God's hand (Isa. xl. 12).

Symbolic Interpretations.

The words in connection with the goat serving for a sin-offering on the New Moon festival "for Yhwh" (Num. xxviii. 15) are explained in grossly anthropomorphic application. The goat is a sin-offering for God's transgression committed when He decreased the size of the moon (Sheb. 9a; hul. 60b). The offerings of the sons of Noah were burnt offerings (Yer. Meg. 72b; Gen. R. xxii.; Zeb. 116a). The "illegitimate" sacrifices on high places, e.g., those by Elijah (I Kings xviii. 30 et seq.), were exceptions divinely sanctioned (Yer. Ta'an. 65d; Yer. Meg. 72c; Lev. R. xxii.; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxvii. 5). The seventy bullocks of Sukkot correspond to the seventy nations; the single bullock on the eighth day, to the unique people Israel. God is like that king who, having entertained his guests most lavishly for seven days, commanded his son after their departure to prepare a very plain meal (Suk. 55b; Pes. 143b). Children, when learning the Pentateuch, used to begin with the third book because they that are pure should first occupy themselves with offerings that are likewise pure (Pes. 60b; Lev. R. vii.). God has taken care not to tax Israel too heavily (hence Lev. i. 10, 14; ii. 1; vi. 13). Indeed, one who offers only a very modest meal-offering is accounted as having offered sacrifices from one end of the world to the other (Mal. i. 11; Lev. R. viii.). By their position, coming after the laws prescribed for the other sacrifices, the peaceofferings are shown to be dessert, as it were (Lev.R. ix.). God provides "from His own" the minhah of the sin-offering (Lev. R. iii.). The use of the word "adam" ("Adam" = "man"), and not "ish," in Lev. i. 2 leads the offerer to remember that, like Adam, who never robbed or stole, he may offer only what is rightfully his (Lev. R. ii.).

Substitutes for Sacrifice.

The importance attaching to the sacrificial laws was, as the foregoing anthology of haggadic opinions proves, fully realized by the Rabbis. Unable after the destruction of the Temple to observe these ordinances, they did not hesitate to declare that, in contrast to the sacrificial law which rejected the defective victim, God accepts the broken-hearted (Ps. li. 19; Pes. 158b). With a look to the future restoration, they call attention to the smallness of the desert offerings, while delighting in the glorious prospect of the richer ones to come (Lev. R. vii.). The precept concerning the daily offering is given twice (Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 1-8), from which repetition is deduced the consolation for Israel in exile, that he who studies these verses is regarded as having offered the sacrifices (Pes. 60b; Lev. R. vii. 3). The same thought is based on "the torah of the sin-offering" and "the torah of the trespassoffering" (Lev. vi. 18, vii. 7; Men. 110a, b). Prayer is better than sacrifice (Ber. 32b; Midr. Shemuel i. 7; Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." ii. 217). Lulab and etrog replace the altar and offering (Suk. 45a, b). Blood lost when one is wounded replaces the blood of the 'olah (hul. 7b). The reading of the "Shema'" and the "Tefillah" and the wearing of phylacteries ("tefillin") are equivalent to the building of the altar (Ber. 15a; comp. Ber. 14b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. i. 2). As the altar is called "table" (Ezek. xlii. 22), the table of the home has the altar's expiatory virtue (Ber. 55a; Men. 97a). This was understood to have reference to "good deeds," such as hospitality shown to the poor (see Ab. R. N. iv.). The humble are rewarded as though they had presented all the offerings prescribed in the Law (Ps. li. 19; Sotah 5b; Sanh. 43b; Pesikta hadashah, in Jellinek, "B. H." vi. 52). Prayer in the synagogue is tantamount to offering a pure oblation (Isa. lxvi. 20; Yer. Ber. 8d). The students engaged everywhere in the study of the Torah are as dear to God as were they who burned incense on the altar (Men. 110a). The precentor ("sheliah zibbur") is regarded as officiating at the altar and sacrificing (; see Levy, "Neuhebr. Wörterb." iv. 386b; Yer. Ber. 8b). In the Messianic time all sacrifices except the thank-offering will cease (Pes. 79a; Lev. R. ix., xxvii.). Whoever observes the provisions made for the poor (Lev. xxiii. 22) is regarded as highly as he would have been if during the existence of the Temple he had been faithful in making his oblations (Sifra, Emor, 101c). To entertain a student in one's house is an act of piety as notable as the offering of daily sacrifice (II Kings iv. 9; Ber. 10b). To make a present to a learned man (a rabbi) is like offering the first-fruits (Ket. 105b). Filling the rabbi's cellars with wine is an equivalent to pouring out the libations (Yoma 71a). In their extravagant, apocalyptic fancy, the haggadot even describe a heavenly altar at which the archangel Michael ministers as high priest; but his offerings are the souls of the righteous. In the Messianic time this altar will descend from on high to Jerusalem (Midr. 'Aseret ha-Dibrot; see Tos. Men. 110; comp. another midrash of the same tenor, Num. R. xii.).

Totemistic Interpretation.

—Critical View:

Modern scholars, after Robertson Smith ("Rel. of Sem." 2d ed.) and Wellhausen ("Reste Alt-Arabischen Heidentums"), have abandoned the older views, according to which the sacrificial scheme of the Old Testament was regarded as the outflow of divine wisdom or divine mercy, disciplinary or expiatory in its effects, or as the invention of a man of great genius (Moses), who devised its general and specific provisions as symbols wherewith to teach his people some vital truths. Nor is the sacrificial code the outcome of a spontaneous impulse of the human heart to adore God and placate Him, or to show gratitude to Him. Sacrifices revert to the most primitive forms of religion—ancestral animism and totemism. The sacrifice is a meal offered to the dead member of the family, who meets his own at the feast. As the honored guest, he is entitled to the choicest portions of the meal. From this root-idea, in course of time, all others, easily discovered in the sacrificial rites of various nations, are evolved. The visitor at the feast will reward his own for the hospitality extended. Or it is he that has sent the good things: hence gratitude is his due. Or perhaps he was offended: it is he, therefore, who must be appeased (by expiatory rites). He may do harm: it is well to forestall him (by rites to secure protection or immunity).

Human Sacrifice.

The primitive notion of sacrifice is that it is a gift, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word "minhah." During the period of cannibalism the gift naturally takes the form of human victims, human flesh being the choice article of food during the prevalence of anthropophagism. It is also that which by preference or necessity is placed on the table of the deity. Traces of human sacrifices abound in the Biblical records. The command to Abraham (Gen. xxii.) and the subsequent development of the story indicate that the substitution of animal for human victims was traced to patriarchal example. The Ban ("herem") preserves a certain form of the primitive human sacrifice (Schwally, "Kriegsaltertümer"). The first-born naturally belonged to the deity. Originally he was not ransomed, but immolated; and in the Law the very intensity of the protest against "passing the children through the fire to Moloch" reveals the extent of the practise in Israel. In fact, the sacrifice of a son is specifically recorded in the cases of King Mesha (II Kings iii. 27), of Ahaz (ib. xvi. 3; II Chron. xxviii. 3), and of Manasseh (ib. xxi. 6). Jeremiah laments bitterly this devouring disgrace (iii. 24, 25); and even Ezekiel (xx. 30, 31) speaks of it as of frequent occurrence. Ps. cvi. 37, 38 confesses that sons and daughters were sacrificed to demons; and in Deutero-Isaiah lvii. 5 allusions to this horrid iniquity recur. If such offerings were made to Moloch, some instances are not suppressed where human life was "devoted" to Yhwh. The fate of Jephthah's daughter presents the clearest instance of such immolations (Judgesxi. 30, 31, 34-40). That of the seven sons of Saul delivered up by David to the men of Gibeon (II Sam. xxi. 1-14) is another, though the phraseology is less explicit. Other indications, however, point in the same direction. Blood belonged to Yhwh; no man might eat it (I Sam. xiv. 32-34; Lev. xvii. 3 et seq.). The blood was the soul. When animals were substituted for human victims, blood still remained the portion of the Deity. No subtle theological construction of a philosophy of expiation is required to explain this prominent trait (see S. I. Curtiss, "Primitive Semitic Religion," passim). The blood on the lintel (the threshold covenant) at the Passover was proof that that which the Destroyer was seeking—viz., life—had not been withheld. The rite of Circumcision (Ex. iii. 24) appears to have been originally instituted for the same purpose.

As at every meal the Deity was supposed to be present and to claim His own, every meal became a sacrifice, and the killing of the animal a sacrificial act (see I Sam. xiv.); and so strong did this feeling remain, even after the lapse of centuries, that when the Second Temple was destroyed, the rigorists abstained from eating meat on the plea that as the sacrifices had been discontinued, all meat was rendered unfit for food (Tos. Sotah, end; B. B. 60b).

The donative character of the Hebrew sacrifices appears also from the material used, which is always something to eat or drink, the common dietary articles of the Israelites. The phrase "food of God" (Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 17, 21; xxii. 25; Ezek. xliv. 7) proves the use for which such offerings were intended; and Ps. l. 13 also reveals this intention.

Early Stages.

Primitive Yhwh-religion seems at the very outset not to have favored an elaborate sacrificial ritual. In the desert but little grows. The first of the flock, the spring lamb (see Passover), in all probability, constituted the gift prepared, as was that described in Ex. xii., for the God residing on Sinai in unapproachable (i.e., holy) aloofness. The Canaanites, with whom later the Hebrews came in contact, had, as agricultural peoples, a more elaborate and lascivious sacrificial form of worship. From them the Hebrews adopted most of the features of their own priestly scheme, which, even as exhibited in the latest strata of the code, presents some remarkable elements disclosing a non-Hebrew origin (e.g., Azazel, the scapegoat, the red heifer).

This process of adaptation did not proceed without arousing the opposition of the Prophets. They were outspoken in their disapproval of sacrificial religion; and some of them made no concealment of their opinion that the sacrificial rites had no original connection with the worship of Yhwh. At all events, the sacrificial ordinances of the Book of the Covenant are simple, as, indeed, the historical glosses of the feasts at Shiloh would lead one to suppose (see Sacrifice, Biblical Data). Even Deuteronomy can not be said to have proceeded very far toward a detailed system. The one step taken therein was the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, with the final official suppression of the High Places, and the assignment of rank to the Levitical priests. The freedom to sacrifice thus received a severe check.

In P the system is developed in detail; and comparison with the Holiness Code (H) and with Ezekiel gives some notion of the manner of development. In Deuteronomy the prescribed offerings (firstlings, tithes, etc.) are "kodashim" (sacred), in distinction from votive and free-will offerings and from animals slaughtered for food (Deut. xii. 26); victims are taken from the flock and herd ("bakar"); human sacrifices are inhibited (ib. xii. 31); victims must be without blemish (ib. xvii. 1); the ritual is given of holocausts and other sacrifices (ib. xii. 27), burning of fat, libations (ib. xxxii. 38), offerings at feasts (ib. xvi. 1 et seq., xxvi.), tithes, priestly dues (ib. xii. 17, xiv. 23, xviii.), and firstlings (ib. xv. 19 et seq.).

H is cognizant of 'olah (Lev. xxii. 18), 'olah and zebah (ib. xvii. 8), zibhe shelamim (ib. xvii. 5, xix. 5), todah (ib. xxii. 29), neder and nedabah (ib. xxii. 18, 21); sacrifices are kodashim (ib. xxii. 2-15) and are the "food of God" (see above). In addition to the animals in Deuteronomy, "kebes" and "'ez" are enumerated; strict regulations for free-will offerings are elaborated (ib. xxii. 23); they must be brought to the holy place (ib. xvii. 3, and elsewhere); blood is prohibited as food (ib. xvii. 10); the flesh of shelamim must be eaten on the day of the sacrifice or on the following day (ib. xix. 5 et seq.); that of the todah on the day itself (ib. xxii. 29).

Sacrifice According to Ezekiel.

Ezekiel deals almost exclusively with public sacrifices. He names two new species of offerings: hattat and asham. Minhah is an offering of flour and oil (Ezek. xlvi. 5, 7, 11); a libation is also named (nesek; ib. xlv. 17). Birds are not mentioned. The terumah is a tax from which the sacrifices are provided by the prince (ib. xlv. 13-17). The morning tamid consists of one lamb, the Sabbath burnt offering, of six lambs and a ram with their appurtenances (ib. xlvi. 4 et seq.); at the great festivals the prince provides shelamim also. The Levites appear as distinct from the priests (ib. xliv. 11; comp. ib. xlvi. 2); the flesh is boiled in kitchens in the four corners of the outer court by Temple servants (ib. xlvi. 21-24); and so forth (see Ezekiel).

P and Ezekiel do not harmonize as regards every provision. The former reflects conditions actually in force after the Exile. But it is a mistake to suppose that P is entirely new legislation, a copy of Babylonian institutions. The similarity of the sacrificial rites of Israel and Babylonia does not extend beyond some technical terms—which (see Zimmern in Schrader, "K. A. T." 3d ed.), moreover, often had different bearings in the two cults—and such other analogies as may be detected in all sacrificial systems. Prepresents many old priest-rituals ("torot"), probably in force for centuries at some older shrine or High Place.

Deep θεολσγούμενα do not underlie the system; problems of salvation from original sin, restitution, and justification did not enter into the minds of the priests that ministered at the altar in Jerusalem.E. G. H.

Ancient Sacrifice.

—Samaritan:

The Samaritans, claiming to be the true Israelites whose ancestors were brought by Joshua into the land of Canaan, declare that every one of the sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch was punctiliously observed by their forefatherson Mount Gerizim, the blessed mountain. The latter was the only mountain on which an altar to Yhwh could be built and sacrifices brought, as it was claimed to be the place chosen by God for sacrifices according to Deut. xii. 13-14, 18. The Samaritans consequently deny the fact, related in Ezra iv. 1-3, that their ancestors applied to Zerubbabel for permission to help build the Temple of Jerusalem in order that they might bring their sacrifices there. The Samaritan Book of Joshua, while describing the prosperous state of the Israelites during the 260 years of "satisfaction," that is to say, from the reign of Joshua till the death of Samson, gives a few particulars of the sacrifices of the Samaritans of that time. It is stated (ch. xxxviii.) that the Levites assisted the priests in the sacrificial ceremonies. The former were divided into sections. Some had charge of the daily burnt offerings and of the meal-offerings; others examined the animals to see if they had any blemish; others again served as slaughterers and sprinkled the blood of the victims on the altar; while still others were employed in waving the parts prescribed for the wave-offering. The morning burnt offering was brought before sunrise; the evening one, after sunset (comp. Pes. v. 1). During the time the sacrifice was being offered on the altar, the priest standing on the top of Mount Gerizim blew the trumpet; and the other priests, when they heard the sound, also blew trumpets in their respective places (comp. Tamid iii. 8). Later, the sacrifices fell into disuse, prayers being substituted, a practise apparently borrowed from the Jews.

Cessation of Sacrifice.

As to the epoch in which the sacrifices ceased with the Samaritans, nothing can be established with certainty. The Samaritans themselves either are ignorant on the subject or do not care to disclose information concerning this historical event. In 1808 Corancez, consul-general of France at Aleppo, wrote to the high priest Salamah inquiring about the sacrifices and other observances of the Samaritans. Salamah's answer of July, 1808 (Corancez, in "Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits," xii. 72), reads as follows: "The sacrifices are among the chief commandments of the Torah, and were observed on the mountain of Gerizim and not on Ebal during the time of 'satisfaction.' But after the epoch of grace and the Tabernacle had vanished, the priests substituted prayers for all the sacrifices, except the Passover lamb, which we still offer on the fourteenth of Nisan." Salamah's answer is somewhat vague: it is not likely that he wished to imply that the sacrifices ceased entirely at the end of the days of "satisfaction"; and the Samaritan historians themselves record that sacrifices were offered in their temple on Mount Gerizim in the time of Alexander the Great and that of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and even later (comp. Abu al-Fath, "Kitab al-Ta'rikh," ed. Vilmar, pp. 96-97 et passim, Gotha, 1865).

In the Twelfth Century.

That the Samaritans offered sacrifices in the twelfth century is attested by Benjamin of Tudela and by the Karaite Judah Hadassi. The former, who visited the Samaritans of Nablus or Shechem, says ("Itinerary," ed. Asher, i. 33): "They offer sacrifices and burnt offerings in their synagogue on Mount Gerizim according to the prescription of the Law. They bring burnt offerings on the Passover feast and other holy days to the altar which they built on Mount Gerizim." Similarly Hadassi says ("Eshkol ha-Kofer," alphabet 96, end): "They still offer sacrifices to this day, according to the law of Moses, though they have no temple, and it is the priest who performs the ceremonies." It would seem from Joseph Bagi's "kiryah Ne'emanah" (quoted by Wolf in "Bibl. Hebr." iv. 1090) that the Samaritans had offered sacrifices up to his time, that is to say, the beginning of the sixteenth century, unless Bagi simply repeated the words of Hadassi. On the other hand, Mas'udi, the author of "Muruj al-Dhahab" (quoted by Sylvestre de Sacy in "Chrestomathie Arabe," i. 343), who lived in the tenth century, records that the Samaritans of his time had silver trumpets which they blew at the time of prayer; but he makes no mention of sacrifices. Neither do the Samaritan chroniclers speak of any sacrifices offered during the Middle Ages; they refer only to the trumpets and to the fact that under the incumbency of Aaron b. Amram (about the end of the eleventh century) the water of separation was prepared (Adler and Seligsohn, "Une Nouvelle Chronique Samaritaine," p. 97, Paris, 1903).

Modern Sacrifice.

It should be noted that Salamah's report is not strictly reliable even for the nineteenth century; for Corancez was informed by the Jews of Aleppo that, besides the Passover lamb, the Samaritans offered a special lamb in the course of the second day on Mount Ebal, and not on Gerizim (Corancez, l.c. xii. 48). Moreover, the report is contradicted also by a statement of the Samaritan high priest of 1838 to Loewe, who visited Nablus in that year. In the course of conversation the high priest said: "We alone possess Mount Gerizim, and we alone offer sacrifices there" ("Allg. Zeit. des Jud." 1839, No. 46). On another occasion the high priest said: "We complete the reading of the Pentateuch every year; and we celebrate the day on which the reading is terminated ["Simhat Torah"] with burnt offerings on Mount Gerizim" (ib. No. 56). Salamah, in his letter of 1808 says that, according to the Law, the Passover lamb must be slaughtered on Mount Gerizim, but that for the past twenty years, access to the mountain having been refused them, the Samaritans have had to content themselves with slaughtering the animal in the interior of the town, turning their faces toward the sacred mountain. It seems, however, from Loewe's above-mentioned interview with the high priest, that the Samaritans regained admission to the mountain.

The Passover sacrifice, as celebrated at the present day, is described by Nutt ("A Sketch of Samaritan History," pp. 72, 73) as follows: "The lambs must be born in the month of Tishri [October] preceding and be without any blemish. On the previous day the Samaritans pitch their tents on the lower plateau of Mount Gerizim. At sunset of the following day [the fourteenth of Nisan] or in the afternoon, if that day falls on Friday, the lambs are slain, prayers being recited meanwhile, then stripped of their wool, cleaned, and sprinkled with salt, after which theyare well roasted in hermetically covered trenches. In either case the lambs are eaten hastily after sunset with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, all the participants having staves in their hands [comp. Ex. xii. 9-11]. The men and the boys eat first, and afterward the women and girls; the remainder is consumed with fire."

The really remarkable feature of the Samaritan Passover sacrifice is that the people dip their hands into the blood of the slaughtered lamb and besmear therewith the foreheads and the arms of their children—a survival of the ancient rite prescribed in Ex. xiii. 9, 16, and no longer understood by the Jews, for whom the tefillin took the place of this talismanic rite (see Stanley, "Lectures on the Jewish Church," i. 561; comp. S. I. Curtiss, "Ursemitische Religion im Volksleben des Heutigen Orients," 1903, index, s.v. "Blutbestreichung").

Bibliography: Besides the sources before mentioned in this article, Kirchheim, Karme Shomeron, pp. 19-20;
Sylvestre de Sacy, in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, xii. 21-23.K. M. Sel.

Antiquity of Sacrifice.

—Talmudic:

Judging from the various sentences referring to sacrifice scattered through the Talmud, sacrifice in itself has a positive and independent value. The institution is as old as the human race, for Adam offered a sacrifice ('Ab. Zarah 8a), and the Israelites offered sacrifices even before the Tabernacle was set up in the wilderness (Zeb. 116a). An altar has even been erected in heaven on which the angel Michael sacrifices (Men. 110a; hag. 12b). There is a difference between thank- and food-offerings on the one hand and sin-offerings on the other, in that a person should take care not to commit any act obliging him to bring such offerings (hag. 7a); one who does so must bring the offering in the proper frame of mind, showing sorrow and repentance, and confessing his sin; for if he does not fulfil these conditions his sacrifice is in vain (Ber. 23a). The sacrifice cleanses only through the blood that is sprinkled, the blood symbolizing the life of the one sacrificing, which, but for the substitution of the victim, would have to be surrendered in expiation of the sin (Zeb. 6a). The meal-offering, the sacrifice of the poor, has the same significance. Although this does not contain any blood, the poor person who sets it aside from his own food is regarded as if he had sacrificed himself (Men. 104b).

Prayer and Study Replace Sacrifice.

The view that the sacrifice is such a substitute is clearly expressed in the prayer which R. Sheshet was wont to recite on the evening after a fast-day: "Lord of the World, when the Temple was standing one who sinned offered a sacrifice, of which only the fat and the blood were taken, and thereby his sins were forgiven. I have fasted to-day, and through this fasting my blood and my fat have been decreased. Deign to look upon the part of my blood and my fat which I have lost through my fasting as if I had offered it to Thee, and forgive my sins in return" (Ber. 17a). The study of the laws of sacrifice was regarded as a sacrifice in itself (Men. 110), and thereby one obtained forgiveness after the destruction of the Temple had rendered the offering of sacrifices impossible (Ta'an. 27b).

The thank- and food-offerings are more sacred than the sin-offerings. They are offered because it is not fitting that the table of man should be filled while the table of the Lord, the altar, is empty (hag. 7a). There are, however, various sentences in the Talmud which show the different views as to the value of these sacrifices. According to one view they have an absolute value in themselves, and the sacrifices which a person brings are a meritorious work for which he will be rewarded by God. Thus King Balak of Moab was rewarded for his sacrifices to God by being permitted to become the ancestor of Ruth (Nazir 23b). Similarly the sacrifices which Israel offered to God are meritorious works by which it was distinguished from the other peoples (Meg. 12b), and God can not forget the sacrifices which Israel offered to Him in the wilderness (Ber. 32b). A sacrifice is meritorious in proportion to its value (Sanh. 43b). But the view is expressed also that the value of a sacrifice depends upon the spirit in which it is brought; it matters not whether a person offers much or little, so long as he offers it in a spirit pleasing to God (Men. 110a).

Subordination of Sacrifice.

A person must not imagine that his sacrifices are meat and drink for God nor that he has therewith fulfilled a wish of God and that therefore He will fulfil his wishes (ib.; this passage must be explained according to Maimonides, "Moreh," iii. 46, contrary to Rashi). The study of the Law is regarded as more valuable than sacrifices (Meg. 3b). Similarly, philanthropy is worth more than all sacrifices (Suk. 49b), and a modest and humble disposition is equivalent to all kinds of sacrifices (Sanh. 43b). One who intends to give wine for the altar should give it to those who devote themselves to the study of the Law (Yoma 71a); and if one shows hospitality to a student of the Law, it is the same as if he had offered the daily burnt offerings (Ber. 10b). Prayer is regarded as a substitute for sacrifice (Ber. 6b; Suk. 45a); indeed, it is even more than sacrifice (Ber. 15a, b; 32b).S. J. Z. L.

Expiatory Function of Sacrifice.

—In Theology:

The critical school contends, and on good grounds (Nowack, "Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäologic," ii. 223), that sin-offerings in the technical sense of the word were not recognized before Ezekiel. However, the distinction between "kodesh" and "tame" is drawn by the Prophets anterior to the Exile; and even in Samuel (I Sam. iii. 14, xxvi. 19; II Sam. xxiv. 25) the notion is expressed that by sacrifice sin may be atoned for ("yitkapper"), though the sacrifices named are meal-, meat-, and burnt offerings. In the question put by Micah's interlocutor, also, the thought is dominant that offerings, even of human life, may protect against the consequences of sin and transgression (Mic. xvi. 6 et seq.). That sacrifice had some bearing on sin was not, then, an unknown idea, even if there was no technical term therefor. In the progressive systematization of the sacrificial practises, with a view to placing them more and more under the exclusive control of the priesthood of the central sanctuary, specialization in the nomenclature and assignment of the offerings could not but ensue.Yet, in what sense the specific sin-offerings were credited with atoning power can not be understood without an antecedent knowledge of what constituted sin in the conception of those that first observed the sacrificial cult. "Clean" or "holy" and "unclean" are the two poles; and "holy" implies "set aside for the Deity"; e.g., an object which only the Deity's own may touch, or a precinct into which only the Deity's own may enter. Sin is an act that violates the taboo. As originally the sacrifice was a meal offered to the Deity at which He was to meet His own family (see Sacrifice, Critical View), only such as were in the proper state of holiness might take part in this "communion service" (see Passover). On the other hand, the Deity Himself would not accept the gift if the taboo was not respected. Contact with persons or things in an "unclean" state violated the taboo. Sin originally connoted a condition which rendered approach to the Deity impossible, and conversely made it impossible for the Deity to approach, to attend the family communion meal. To correct this the sacrifice was offered, i.e., brought near to ("korban," "hikrib") the Deity, more especially the blood, which preeminently belonged to God, and that by the priest only. In this connection it must be remembered that slaughtering was primitively a sacrificial rite. Meat was not to be eaten unless the Deity had received His share, viz., the blood. This insistence is the motive of the otherwise strange prohibition to slaughter anywhere save at the door of the tent of meeting (Lev. xvii. 3). The presumption was that all belonged to the Deity. Later literature expresses this idea as a spiritual verity (Ps. 1. 10-12; I Chron. xxix. 14).

Connection with Taboo.

The idea itself is very old. It is dominant in the sacrificial scheme. All animals, as belonging to God, are taboo. Hence at first man is a vegetarian (Gen. ix.). The right to partake of animal food is conditioned on the observance of the blood taboo; by killing an animal one taboo is violated; but if an equivalent one (the blood taboo) is kept inviolate, the sin is condoned. The blood is the animal's life; hence the equation "blood" = "animal." The Deity loses nothing by permitting the slaughtering if the blood is reserved for the altar or covered up (Lev. xvii. 13). This throws light on the primitive implications of the root ("kafar," "kipper"), which has furnished the technical terminology for the Levitical and also for the spiritual doctrine of Atonement.

Later, as in Assyrian, a signification synonymous with "mahah" (to wipe off) and a meaning similar to "kisseh" (to cover up), its earlier connotation, were carried by the noun "kofer" (= "ransom"), in the sense of "one for another" ("nefesh tahat nefesh" = "one life for another life"). The blood (= life), the kofer given to God, was for the life(= animal) taken from God. With this as the starting-point, it is not difficult to understand how, when other taboos had been violated, the sacrifice and the blood came to be looked upon as a "kapparah." The refined sense of the soul's separation from God which is to be offset by another soul (blood) is certainly not inherent in the primitive conception. Moreover, the sin-offering is never presented for grave moral offenses (see above); only such sins as refusal to give testimony, contact with unclean objects, and hasty swearing are enumerated (Lev. v. 1 et seq.). That the three sins here specified are of the nature of violated taboos is recognizable. Trial and testimony are ordeals. "tame" is synonymous with broken taboo. "Bitte bi-sefatayim" in all probability refers to "taking the name in vain." Enunciating the "name" was violating the taboo.

In this connection the ceremony of laying on of hands is discovered to be only one of the many symbolic rites, abundant in primitive jurisprudence, whereby acquisition or abandonment of property is expressed. In the case of the sacrifices it implies absolute relinquishment ("manumissio"). The animal reverts thereby to its original owner—God.

This excursus into primitive folk-lore suggests at once the untenable character of the various theological interpretations given to the sacrificial institutions of the Bible. It will not be necessary to explain at length that the expiation of guilt—in any other sense than that given above, though perhaps with a more spiritual scope—is not the leading purpose of the Levitical sacrifices. Purification from physical uncleanness is an important function of sacrifices, but only because "unclean" has a very definite religious meaning (in connection with child-birth or with contact with a dead body, etc.). The consecration of persons and things to holy uses through the sacrifices is not due to some mysterious sacramental element in them; but the profane is changed into holy by coming in contact with what is under all circumstances holy, viz., the blood.

Symbolical Interpretation.

Christian theologians maintain that sacrificial worship was ordained as a twofold means of grace: (1) By permitting penal substitution. The sinner, having forfeited his life, was by a gracious provision permitted to substitute an immaculate victim, whose vicarious death was accepted by God; and this typified another vicarious sacrifice. (2) By recalling to man certain vital truths. This second theory is that of the symbolists, the classical exponent of which in modern times has been Bähr ("Symbolik des Mosaischen Kultus": "the soul placing itself at the disposal of God in order to receive the gift of the true life in sanctification"). The unblemished victim symbolizes the excellence and purity to which the offerer aspires. Other expositions of this kind are found in Oehler ("Theologic des Alten Testament"), Maurice ("The Doctrine of Sacrifice," London, 1879), and Schultz ("American Journal of Theology," 1900). This theology rests on the assumption that God is the direct author of the scheme, and that such analogies as are presented by the sacrificial rites of other nations are either copies of the Jewish rites or dim, imperfect foreshadowings of and gropings after the fuller light; or that Moses with supernatural wisdom devised the scheme to teach the ideas underlying his own laws in contradistinction to the similar legislations of other races.

That the Prophets had risen to a sublime conception of religion must be granted; but this does not necessitate the inference that the primitive basicideas of sacrifices (a gift to God as one of the clan at the communion meal, taboo, etc.) are not to be detected in the legislation and never were contained therein. The Prophets showed no enthusiasm for the system. Ritual religion always preserves older forms than spiritual religion would or could evolve.

The New Testament doctrine of sacrifice has clearly influenced this theological valuation of the Old Testament laws. The death of Jesus was held to be a sacrifice (Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 14). Saving efficacy is imputed to the blood or the cross of Christ (Rom. iii. 25, v. 9; I Cor. x. 16; Rev. i. 5). Jesus is the sin-offering (Rom. viii. 3; Heb. xiii. 11; I Peter iii. 18), the covenant sacrifice (Heb. ii. 17, ix. 12 et seq.), the Passover (I Cor. v. 7). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 28) Jesus is the sin-bearer, the agency of sanctification (ib. x. 10); he is also the obedient servant (ib. x. 8, 9) and the high priest (ib. ix. 11 et seq., 23). Here the precedent is given of treating the Hebrew sacrifices typologically, i.e., as predictive, "expressing a need which they could not satisfy, but which Christ does, and embodying a faith which Christ justifies" (W. P. Paterson, in Hastings, "Dict. Bible," iv. 348b).

Philo's Symbolism.

Of symbolism many indications are found in the homiletic haggadah (see above): the Tabernacle symbolizes Creation; the ten rods, heaven and earth, etc. (Yalk., Ex. 490). Its chief exponent in Jewish literature is Philo, who in his exposition of the sacrifices differs from the Halakah in some details. He ignores the rabbinical prescription of thirty days as the victim's minimum age (Parah i. 4), and he claims that pregnant animals might not be used for the sacrifice, extending thus to all victims a provision mentioned for the Red Heifer (Parah ii. 1). According to him, none but priests were permitted to slaughter the victim (Philo, ib. ii. 241). He names only three classes of sacrifices: (1) holocaust (= "'olah"); (2) σωτήριον (= "shelamim"), like the Septuagint; and (3) περὶ ἁμαρτίας (= "hattat"). The "todah" (ἡλεγομὲνη τῆς αἰνήσεως)he regards as a subdivision of the 'olah, while the "asham" he ranks with the hattat (ib. ii. 246).

Philo devotes a treatise to the victims, the "animals that are fit for sacrifice." God selected the most gentle birds and animals. The perfection of the victims indicates that the offerers should be irreproachable; that the Jews should never bring with them to the altar any weakness or evil passion in the soul, but should endeavor to make it wholly pure and clean; so that God may not turn away with aversion from the sight of it ("De Victimis," § 2). In this way Philo construes every detail of the sacrificial ritual. Withal, he remarks that the "tribunal of God is inaccessible to bribes: it rejects the guilty though they offer daily 100 oxen, and receives the guiltless though they offer no sacrifices at all. God delights in fireless altars round which virtues form the choral dance" ("De Plantatione Noe," § 25 [ed. Mangey, i. 345]). To the eucharist (i.e., thanks-giving) he attaches special importance. This, however, consists not in offerings and sacrifices, but in praises and hymns which the pure and inward mind will chant to inward music (ib. § 30 [ed. Mangey, i. 348]). Josephus mentions only two classes of sacrifices: (1) holocaust and (2) χαριστέριον = "eucharistic" = "shelamim" ("Ant." iii. 9, § 1).

Views of Maimonides and Nahmanides.

The opinion of Maimonides appears to anticipate the views advanced by the most modern investigators. He in the first place refuses to follow the symbolists in finding reason for the details of the various sacrifices. Why a lamb and not a ram was chosen is, he says, an idle inquiry befitting fools, but not the serious-minded ("Moreh," iii., xxxvi.). "Each commandment has necessarily a reason as far as its general character is concerned; but as regards its details it has no ulterior object." These details are devised to be tests of man's obedience. The sacrifices more especially are really not of Jewish origin. As during Moses' time it was the general custom among all men to worship by means of sacrifices and as the Israelites had been brought up in this general mode of religion, God, in order that they might not go from one extreme to the other (from ritualism to a pure religion of righteousness), tolerated the continuance of the sacrifices. As in Maimonides' days prayer, fasting, and the like were serviceable, whereas a prophet preaching the service of God in thought alone, and not in ceremony, would find no hearing, so in the days of Moses the sacrifices were permitted by God in order to blot out the traces of idolatry and to establish the great principle of Judaism—the unity and being of God—without confusing the minds of the people by abolishing what they had been accustomed to (ib. iii., xxxii.). The experience of Israel, led not by the shorter way, but by the circuitous route through the land of the Philistines (Ex. xiii. 17), he quotes as typical of the method apparent in the legislation concerning offerings. The sacrificial service is not the primary object of the Law; but supplications, prayers, and the like are. Hence the restriction of the sacrifices to one locality, by which means God kept this particular kind of service within bounds.

Nahmanides (see his commentary on Lev. i. 9) rejects this view in unsparing words, appealing to the Biblical examples of Abel and Noah, in whose days Egyptian and Chaldean idolatry was unknown, and who were monotheists and not idolaters, but whose offerings furnished a sweet savor for Yhwh. If sacrifices must have a meaning, he prefers to see in them a moral symbolism founded on the psychology of conduct. Every act is composed of thought, speech, and execution. So in the sacrifice the offerer must do and speak, while the burning of the kidneys, the seat of thought, refers to the intention.

Abravanel resumes Maimonides' argument and refutes those advanced by Nahmanides (preface to his commentary on Leviticus). He cites a midrash (Wayikra Rabbah xxii. 5; see also Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." ii. 316) to the effect that as the Hebrews had become accustomed to sacrifices (idols) while in Egypt, God, to wean them from idolatry, commanded, while tolerating the sacrifices, that they should be brought to one central sanctuary. This is illustrated by a parable. A king noticed that his son loved to eat forbidden food, as carrion and animals torn to pieces. In order to retain him at his table,he directed that these things should be set before the son at home every day. This induced the prince to forego his evil habits. Hoffmann ("Leviticus," p. 88), speaking of Abravanel, charges him with having altered the text of the midrash, from which, as quoted in the commentary's preface, it would appear that sacrifices are placed in one category with terefah and nebelah. Hoffmann cites another version of the fable, to the effect that on the king's table no forbidden food was found, and that this led to the prince's conversion. But Bacher (l.c.) gives Abravanel's version. Rabbi Levi, who is the author of the haggadah, may thus be said to have shared Maimonides' and Abravanel's views. The "Sefer ha-hinnuk" (section "Terumah"), by Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona, discusses the purpose of the sacrifices. The troubles connected with their proper preparation and with bringing them to the Temple, etc., were planned to arouse the sinner to a sense of his shame. He repeats also the psychological symbolism explained by Nahmanides ("Sefer ha-hinnuk," ed. Warsaw, pp. 23 et seq.).

David kimhi suggests (see his commentary on Jer. vii. 23) that the sacrifices were never mandatory, but voluntary ("God did not command that they shall offer up ["yakribu"], but merely gave contingent orders, 'if a man should offer up' ["adam ki yakrib"]").

Judah ha-Levi believes without equivocation in the divine wisdom and origin of the sacrifices. As Israel is the "chosen people" in the midst of whom alone prophets have arisen, as Palestine is the chosen land, and as both Israel and the land therefore are in closest affinity with God, so is Israel on this soil commanded to observe His law, central to which is the sacrificial cult. He spiritualizes the anthropomorphic expressions, contending nevertheless that the sacrifices revealed whether in Israel all was as it should be and all the component members had become united into a well-functioning organism. This was divulged by the divine fire that descended on the offerings ("My fires" = "created by My word" ["ishshai"]; "Cuzari," ii. 26-28).

Views of Hoffmann.

According to Hoffmann (l.c. pp. 88 et seq.), the sacrifices are symbols of: (1) man's gratitude to God (illustrated in Abel's minhah); (2) man's dependence on Him (Noah's offering; blood = life saved); (3) man's absolute obedience (Abraham's 'olah); and (4) man's confidence in God (Jacob's shelamim). They symbolize Israel's election to be, as it were, the camp within which God dwells. This is the only reward for Israel's fidelity: "Ye shall be My people and I will be your God" (see Ha-Levi, "Cuzari," i. 109). As the host of God, Israel must remain pure; and every Israelite must keep himself so as not to be cut off ("nikrat") from his people. Still, sins committed inadvertently are pardonable if man approaches God repentantly. That is the purpose of the sin-offerings. But there is no mortal who sinneth not; hence the Day of Atonement for Israel and all. Sacrifice is called "'abodah" = "service." It is "'abodah sheba-ma'aseh"= "ceremonial service," symbolizing the "'abodah sheba-leb" = "service in the heart," the tefillah prayer.

Hoffmann believes in the ultimate reestablishment of the sacrificial cult. The old synagogal prayer-books recognized the sacrificial service as essential; but as it was impossible to bring the offerings prescribed, they were remembered in prayer (Musaf); for their study was as meritorious as their practise (see above). The prayer for the reestablishment of the altar, in which is included the petition "We-Hasheb Et ha-'Abodah"—the "Rezeh" of the "Shemoneh 'Esreh"—is called the "'Abodah" (Ber. 29b; Shab. 24a; R. H. 12a; Meg. 18a; Sotah 38b); for the body of the benediction was recited by the priests at the tamidim (Tamid v. 1; Ber. 11b) and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement after reading the Torah (Yoma 68b). Similar petitions for the reestablishment of the "'Abodah" are found in Lev. R. vii., Ex. R. xxxi., and Midr. Teh. to Ps. xvii. Three times every day this or a similar prayer was to be recited. The enforced suspension of the real "'Abodah" was regarded as a punishment for Israel's sins (see the prayer "Mi-Pene hata'enu" in the Musaf for Rosh ha-Shanah).

Attitude of Rabbinical Judaism.

But the real attitude of rabbinical Judaism on the sacrifices is exhibited in Num. R. xix. A pagan having inquired concerning the Red Heifer, an explanation was tendered by Johanan b. Zakkai, who referred to the analogous treatment of one possessed of an evil spirit. The pupils of the rabbi demurred to that explanation, saying: "Him thou hast driven off with a reed. What answer wilt thou give us?" "By your lives," exclaimed the teacher, "dead bodies do not render unclean, nor does water make clean; but God has decreed 'a statute I have ordained and an institution I have established'; and it is not permitted to transgress the Law." Rabbinical Judaism accepted the law of sacrifices without presuming to understand it. Reform Judaism omits from the prayer-book reference to the sacrifices, sanguinary ceremonies being repugnant to its religious consciousness; it holds that the Jewish doctrine of sin and atonement is not grounded on the sacrificial scheme.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Judaic Numismatics

2009-12-08T08:39:00.000-08:00

NUMISMATICS:

By : Joseph Jacobs Théodore Reinach

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
No Coins Before Maccabeans.
Payments by Weight.
Weight of Shekel.
One-Third Shekels.
Persian Coins.
Under the Seleucidæ.
Minting a Regal Prerogative.
The Hasmoneans.
First Grant of Coinage Rights.
Date of Coins.
Counterfeit Shekels.
Brass Coins of Hasmoneans.
Coins of the Herodians.
Roman Coinage.
Coins of the Revolt.
Roman Commemorative Coins.
Coins of Bar Kokba.
Coins Restruck.

No Coins Before Maccabeans.

The study of Jewish coinage, strictly speaking, begins with the Maccabean period. Some information, however, concerning the use of money, or substitutes for money, among the Jews previous to the creation of a coinage of their own may be here given. The invention of coined money, ascribed to the kings of Lydia, is not earlier by more than a century (if so much) than the fall of the kingdom of Judah (587 B.C.). In the interim the new invention had not spread even to Phenicia, much less to the interior of Asia. No credence whatever can therefore be placed in late Jewish stories mentioning coins of Abraham, Joshua, or David, or even Mordecai (Ber. R. xxxix.; B. k. 97a). Such passages in Scripture as seem to point to the use of coined money during that period are either interpolated or late. A notable instance of anachronism occurs in I Chron. xxix. 7, where among the offerings of the chiefs of Israel in the time of King David are mentioned 10,000 gold "adarkonim" or darics, coins which were not struck before the time of King Darius I., i.e., more than 400 years after David.

Payments by Weight.

When, after the conquest of Canaan, the Hebrews had settled down as an agricultural people, they readily adopted those mediums of exchange which they had found in use among the conquered races of the Holy Land, namely, gold, silver, and brass. The fact that these metals were used in ancient times for this purpose in Palestine is proved beyond doubt by the tribute lists of Thothmes III. at Thebes and by the official correspondence between the King of Egypt and his Syrian vassals found at Tell el-Amarna.

Of the three precious metals, silver seems to have been by far the most commonly employed; to such an extent indeed that its name "kesef" was used for money generally (Ex. xxi. 11). It was told by weight; therefore, the use of the balance and stone weights was inevitable in all important transactions. Under what shape the precious metal circulated—whether in bars or ingots as in Babylonia, or in rings as in Egypt—is a matter of doubt. The system of weights, if not the weights themselves, was at any rate of Babylonian origin. It was the sexagesimal system, which the pre-Hebraic Canaanites had borrowed from Babylon along with the Babylonic script. The three units of this system were the "kikkar" or talent, the "maneh" or mina, and the shekel or "siclus." A talent was worth 60 minas; a mina, 60 shekels; therefore the talent equaled 3,600 shekels. It is to be noted that "mina" occurs rarely, if ever, in the pre-exilic writings, the only passage in which it appears being I Kings x. 17, which mentions (under Solomon) gold shields of 3 minas apiece. On the other hand, sums expressed in shekels, especially in multiples of 10 shekels (20, 50, 600, etc.), are extremely common; and even the word "shekel" is often omitted; that is to say, it must be understood from the context. The inference is that there circulated large quantities of ingots or rings of silver, weighing either 1 shekel, or a round number of shekels, or a fraction of a shekel (I Sam. ix. 8); but it is to be feared that in several passages of this kind the original reading has been tampered with in a period when the coin which was known as the shekel was in common use.

Weight of Shekel.

As to the exact weight of the shekel, mina, and talent in pre-exilic times, and whether or not different standards were used for gold and for silver—these and similar questions are dealt with in the article Weights and Measures. Here it seems sufficient to note that the heaviest stone weights found in Nineveh point to a trade or heavy kikkar of about 60 kilograms, and, hence, a mina of 1 kilogram and a shekel of about 16.80 grams (260 grains). There was also a series of weights having exactly half the value of these, the existence of which can be traced up to the time of King Gudea (about 2500 B.C.). But the Phenician standard, known from later coins, coincided with neither of these, giving a shekel of 224 grains, or 14.51 grams; and it is an open question whether the Hebrew system of weights before the Exile conformed to the Babylonian or to the Phenician scale.

After the Babylonian captivity the scale of weights was slightly modified in accordance with a new system, which perhaps had originated in Babylonia, but at any rate was in common use among various nations (Greeks, Persians, Phenicians). This system is a combination of the older purely sexagesimal (Babylonian) and the purely decimal (Egyptian) systems. It is prescribed in Ezek. xlv. 12 (Greek text), and implied by Ex. xxxviii. 25-26, that the talent shall be reckoned as formerly at 60 minas, but the mina at 50 shekels only; therefore, 3,000 shekels, not 3,600, equaled a talent. The shekel itself was divided into halves ("beka'"; Gen. xxiv. 22; Ex. xxxviii. 26), quarters, and twentieths (Ezek. l.c.), called "gerahs" or grains ("obols" as the Greek version renders the word);this last division was seemingly a new one. In order to insure uniformity throughout the community, a set of standard weights was deposited in the Temple at Jerusalem, a practise of frequent occurrence in classical times. This is the so-called "holy shekel," which is repeatedly mentioned in the Priestly Code, and was used for weighing not only gold and silver, but also copper and spices (Ex. xxx. 23).

One-Third Shekels.

What the weight of the post-exilic shekel was before Greek times is uncertain. The division of the shekel into three parts presupposed by the law of Neh. x. 32 (each citizen to pay yearly one-third of a shekel to the Temple) is not only unusual in monetary systems for silver (elsewhere it is only found at Corinth), but is strangely at variance with the division of the holy shekel into halves, fourths, and twentieths enacted by the Priestly Code. It may be, therefore, that Nehemiah did not know of the holy shekel, and that he reckoned by the Babylonian shekel of 16.80 grams, for which a division into three parts is not out of the question.

By the time of Ezra and Nehemiah the use of coined money, now widely spread in western Asia, was no longer quite unknown in Judea. To be sure, the Jewish community was neither rich nor independent enough to be allowed by the Persian government to have a coinage of its own; but foreign coins began to circulate in the country, and to supersede little by little the older and more troublesome system of weighing gold and silver. The foreign money consisted in royal Persian and autonomous Phenician coins.

Persian Coins.

The chief Persian coin was the golden stater or daric (δαρεικὸς στατήρ), first struck by King Darius I., Hystaspes (522-485 B.C.). See plate, Fig. 1. It was 1/3000 of a light talent of rather more than 25 kilograms, its normal weight being 8.40 grams (130 grains), or precisely the half of a Babylonian shekel.

The Persian government issued also a silver coin, called by the Greeks δίγλος μηδικός, although its weight (5.60 grams, or 87 grains, i.e., 1/6000 of a talent of 33.60 kilograms) shows it to have been rather a half-shekel than a shekel. Under the then prevailing ratio of 13⅓ to 1 between gold and silver, 20 σίγλοι were worth exactly 1 gold daric, as 20 shillings are worth a sovereign. See plate, Fig. 2. The silver coins issued from about 440 B.C. by the large trading cities of the Phenician and Philistine coast (Tyre, Aradus, Gaza) were staters or shekels based on a heavy talent of about 43 kilograms. Their average weight was 14.40 grams, or 222 grains (about 3 shillings).

The Persian government seems also to have struck in this district, for the pay of the sailors, double shekels of Phenician standard: these are the large silver coins commonly, but without sufficient proof, attributed to the mint of Sidon. See plate, Fig. 3.

Of the three species of coins mentioned above, gold darics are certainly mentioned in the Jewish writings of the time, under the name "adarkonim" (Ezra viii. 27; comp. I Chron. xxix. 7) or "darkemonim" (Ezra ii. 69 = Neh. vii. 70 et seq.), in connection with royal gifts or with contributions of the nobles to the Temple treasury. The names seem to be synonymous, although this has been disputed, as well as the identity of either with the δαρεικός. However, two similar forms occur together in a Phenician inscription of the beginning of the first century B.C. (Lidzbarski, "Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik," p. 425), where the context seems to prove they are synonymous (for a contrary view see E. Meyer, "Entstehung des Judenthums," p. 196). That one or both of these forms should represent the Greek δραχμή (half-stater = 100th part of a mina) seems incredible.

A more difficult problem is whether the silver coins used by the Jews in the fifth (latter part) and fourth centuries B.C., especially the shekel in which payment of the Temple tax was to be made, were the Phenician shekel or the Persian δίγλος. In favor of the first opinion it has been alleged that, according to the Talmud (Bek. viii. 7; Tosef., Ket. xii.), all sacred taxes were to be paid in Tyrian currency; but there is no evidence as to the age of this decision, and it may as well date from the second as from the fourth century B.C. On the other hand, some time after Nehemiah and before the redaction of Chronicles a text was introduced in the Law (Ex. xxx. 13; a passage alluded to in II Chron. xxiv. 9), calling for a Temple tax of a half-shekel per head instead of the third of a shekel decreed by Nehemiah. If this half-shekel be regarded as the Persian σίγλος of 5.60 grams, this weight is precisely equivalent to the third of a Babylonian shekel of 16.80 grams, which there is some reason to believe was the rate of the tax levied under Nehemiah. On this hypothesis, the new text would have contained simply a new expression of the terms of the old tax, and therefore would have been unobjectionable. On the contrary, if the shekel intended in Exodus is a Phenician stater (14.40 grams), the new tax (7.20 grams) would have been notably heavier than the Nehemian one (5.60 grams). The possibility of such an increase of taxation might be accepted for the time after Alexander, when the Jews grew richer and silver became more abundant, but not for the precarious condition of the Jewish community about 400 or 350 B.C. However, "sub judice lis est."

Be this as it may, some time or other before the second century B.C. it is certain that the Phenician money standard prevailed among the Jews. This is proved, not so much by the loose equivalents of Josephus, who variously identifies the half-shekel with a didrachm ("Ant." xviii. 9, § 1; "B. J." vii. 6, § 6), the shekel with 4 Attic drachmas ("Ant." iii. 8, § 10), and the mina with 2½ Roman libræ (i.e., 817 grams; ib. xiv. 7, § 1), as by the Gospel text (Matt. xvii. 24) in which two persons pay the tax with "a stater," by the above-mentioned passages of the Talmud, and last but not least by the extant specimens of Jewish silver coins. The Temple tax had therefore certainly been raised by this time to the amount of a Phenician half-shekel. The Septuagint, however, almost constantly (for some unknown reason) wrongly translates the Hebrew shekel by δίδραχμον instead of by τετράδραχμον, which occurs only in Job xlii. 11.

Under the Seleucidæ.

In 332 B.C. the Persian empire collapsed, andJudea became a Macedonian province. The issue of gold and silver darics, as well as of Phenician autonomous silver, then came to an end. Henceforth the coins circulating in Syria were regal Macedonian coins, in gold and silver. At first, under Alexander and his early successors, they were struck according to the Attic system of weights (silver tetradrachm of about 17 grams, and a gold stater of 8.60 grams); but in consequence of the trading supremacy of the Phenicians the various nations had become so well accustomed to the Phenician standard that, from the beginning of the third century, the Ptolemies, then masters of southern Syria, wisely adopted for their Syrian possessions (and perhaps for Egypt too) a tetradrachm of Phenician standard, identical in weight with the old staters of the Phenician townships (14.40 grams). See plate, Fig. 4. These coins were struck in the royal mints of Phenicia (Tyre, Sidon, Ptolemais) and of Philistia (Gaza, Joppa). When, about 200 B.C., southern Syria passed from the Ptolemies to the Seleucidæ, the latter reintroduced the Attic standard, which they had constantly employed in their remaining possessions. Nevertheless, toward the middle of the second century they also were compelled to return to the policy of the Ptolemies and recommenced striking, for the use of their subjects of southern Syria, tetradrachms of Phenician weights, even reviving the well-known Ptolemaic badge, the eagle (in the same way as the Italian government in the nineteenth century struck "thalers" of the Maria Theresa type for the use of its Ethiopian subjects).

It is not likely that during the two periods in which the Attic standard prevailed (330-300; 200-150) the Temple tax was raised to the value of an Attic didrachma. Therefore if the taxpayer could not manage to procure an old Phenician or Ptolemaic coin, he had to take change for his money; and this may have been the first occasion in which money-changers set up their booths in the precincts of the Temple.

Minting a Regal Prerogative.

The Seleucidæ, as well as the Ptolemies, had been very jealous of the prerogative of striking money, which, except in Asia Minor, they reserved exclusively to themselves. Gold and silver were an absolute monopoly; but even the right to coin municipal copper, which was of little importance in the eyes of the ancients, was not readily granted. The few towns of Phenicia which, under Antiochus Epiphanes, obtained the privilege of issuing copper coins bearing their names were compelled to place upon them the effigy of the king.

The Hasmoneans.

Matters, however, changed toward the middle of the second century B.C., when the structure of the Seleucid realm began to totter on all sides, under the united pressure of exterior foes (Parthians, Egyptians, Arabs, Romans) and the ever-renewed internal strife between conflicting pretenders to the throne. The result was the gradual weakening of royal authority, and the more or less full emancipation of the cities and petty ṛulers, hitherto curbed under the Seleucid rule. One of the earliest (if not the first) communities to vindicate its autonomy was the small Jewish priest-state. The Hasmoneans, who had kept the field as freebooters, ably took advantage of the strife among Demetrius I., Alexander Balas, and Demetrius II. to traffic with their military cooperation: in this way Jonathan obtained first the high-priesthood of Jerusalem (153), then the governorship of Judea with the title of στρατηγὸς καὶ μεριδάρχης (150), and, lastly (145), three districts of Samaria, and exemption from annual tribute (though not from the "crown" tax). This was equivalent to semiautonomy, the only remains of Seleucid suzerainty being the presence of a Syrian garrison in the Acra at Jerusalem, the obligation of military assistance in case of war, and, lastly, the prohibition of a separate coinage.

To convert this semiautonomy into complete independence very little was needed. This was the task of Simon, Jonathan's brother and his successor to the high-priesthood (143 or l42). He first obtained of Demetrius II. the total abolition of all taxes levied by the Seleucidæ, including even the crown tax—a grant of such importance that the Jews (at least according to I Macc. xiii. 42) considered it as the definitive shaking off of the infidel yoke—and deeds were henceforth dated from the year of the high-priesthood of Simon. However, the document xiv. 27 et seq. shows that concurrently with the year of this high-priesthood the Jews continued to mention the Seleucid year. There is no question of a new "era."

First Grant of Coinage Rights.

Afterward came the withdrawal of the Syrian garrison (May, 142), then the vote of the people conferring on Simon a hereditary title (Sept., 141), and lastly, in 139-138, the final step—the grant of an autonomous coinage. This came about as follows: Antiochus Sidetes, during the captivity of his brother Demetrius II. (a prisoner of the Parthians), decided to take arms against the usurper Tryphon. Even before setting out on the conquest of Syria, Antiochus, then residing in Rhodes, sent a letter to make friends with Simon. In this letter, the text (or summary) of which has been preserved in I Macc. xv. 1-9, the Seleucid prince (1) confirmed all privileges granted to the Jews, and (2) expressly added the authorization of coinage with their own stamps. The memorable words are: νῦν οὖν ἵστημί [I confirm] σοι πάντα τὰ ἀφαιρέματα [exemptions from taxes] ἃ ἀφῆκάν σοι οἰ πρὸ ἐμοῦ βασιλεῖς, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα δόματα ἀφῆκάν σοι [crown tax], καὶ ἐπέτρεΨά σοι ποιῆσαι κόμμα ἴδιομ νόμισμα τῃ χόρᾳ σου, Ιερουσαλὴμ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἅγια [the holy precinct, the Temple] εἶναι ἀλεύθερα.

It is reasonable to suppose that this important concession was not quite spontaneous and had long been petitioned for by the Jews. Nor is it difficult to guess why. Independently of the political prestige which a national coinage would confer on their community, it was a practical necessity for the Jews to have at their disposal silver coins of a half- (Phenician) shekel and one shekel for the easy payment of the Temple poll-tax, fixed "ne varietur" at that rate. Such coins, after the Seleucid occupation of southern Syria, were no longer struck anywhere; the older coins of that value were becoming rapidlyobsolete, and the new Seleucid stater of that weight was yet to come. A further inference is that, so soon as granted, the authorization was acted upon. Therefore there need be no hesitation in attributing to this period (with the majority of numismatists since Eckhel) the famous Jewish silver shekels and half-shekels, many specimens of which have come down, chiefly from two hoards, one at Jerusalem, the other at Jericho. The description of the shekel is as follows:

Obverse: , in Old Hebrew (vulgo, "Samaritan") characters. A jeweled chalice (vulgo, a pot of manna). See plate, Fig. 5. Above the cup the date, expressed for year 1 by the simple letter א; from year 2 to 5 by the legend ש (i.e., ) ב (or ג, ד, ה), year 2 (3, 4, 5). Of year 4 specimens are rare; and of year 5 only one or two are known. Reverse: ("Yerushalem ha-kedoshah" = "Jerusalem the Holy"; on shekels of the year 1 the legend is simply "Yerushalem kedoshah"); a flowering lily (vulgo, Aaron's rod). The weight was that of the Phenician shekel. The half-shekel differs from the shekel only in the legend of the obverse, which reads, (hazi ha-shekel = "the half-shekel"). Weight: about 7.20 grams. There are no half-shekels of the year 5. A few shekels of the years 3 and 4 are in bronze, but most likely these have been plated. The fabric is rather thick and archaic, in contradistinction to the flattened regal coins of the age; the workmanship is heavy but not rude. See plate, Fig. 6.

These remarkable coins have been variously attributed to the time of Ezra, of Alexander the Great (by De Saulcy), of Gabinius (by Unger), and of the first revolt against the Romans (66-70 C.E.). This last opinion, first advocated by Ewald ("Gött. Nachrichten," 1855, p. 109) and Schürer, was revived in 1887 by T. Reinach, and thereupon adopted by several numismatists (Imhoof, Babelon, Kennedy). But the arguments in favor of this late date, although specious, are not convincing, and the theory fails in the chronology; for the revolt lasted scarcely four years, and there are shekels of the year 5. Therefore the older and more probable ascription must be retained.

Date of Coins.

As to the precise date of the shekels, i.e., to which year B.C. their "year א" corresponds, and as to the exact meaning of the inscribed dates—whether years of Simon's priesthood or years counted from an era—much doubt is entertained. For the identification of "year 1" three dates have been proposed: (1) 143-142 B.C., the year of Simon's accession, when this manner of dating was inaugurated, according to I Macc. xiii. 42; (2) 141-140, when his power was declared hereditary (Merzbacher's view); (3) 139-138, when the grant of coinage was made by Antiochus Sidetes. The first of these opinions is indefensible, as it involves an absurdity, namely, that Simon not only began coining while he was still forbidden to do so, but left off as soon as the privilege to coin was granted him. Of the two other views preference must be given to the latter. That the concession of coinage suggested a new era is not improbable, and it satisfactorily explains the interruption of the coinage after the year 5 (135-134), when John Hyrcanus was besieged in Jerusalem.

Counterfeit Shekels.

Before leaving the subject of shekels a warning must here be issued against forged specimens of this coin. These are very numerous, and have been so since the Renaissance. Most of them are, however, easy to detect, by the clumsiness of the design (which transforms the chalice into a censer), by the absence of date, and by the use of square Hebrew characters, quite unknown not in that period alone, but in the whole range of Jewish numismatics. The counterfeits are also of a larger module than the real ones, and are cast, not struck. Specimens of false shekels were known to Villalpandus (1604) and perhaps even to Melanchthon (1552) (see G. Hill in the "Reliquary and Illustrated Archæologist," Oct., 1902).
(see image) Counterfeit Shekel.(From an old print.)

After Antiochus Sidetes had recovered his father's realm he quarreled with the Jews, who refused to pay tribute for the districts they had seized beyond the limits of Judea proper. He did not attack them seriously before the death of Simon (Feb., 135 B.C.), who was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. The war which then ensued terminated with the capitulation of Jerusalem, most likely in 134 or 133. Already before the siege, Antiochus had annulled all his concessions to the Jews (I Macc. xv. 27); therefore, inter alia, the right of coining silver. Of course, this decree was not revoked after the surrender of Hyrcanus; and so there was an end of Jewish silver coinage. That the Jews did not resume it under Alexander Jannæus, when the Seleucid suzerainty had practically disappeared, can be accounted for by the fact that the Seleucidæ now struck for their Syrian possessions coins of Phenician weights, and, moreover, that from 126 onward the city of Tyre, having obtained its autonomy from one of the contending Seleucidæ, began to coin a new series of staters (see plate, Fig. 8) of the same Phenician weights, well suited for the use of the sanctuary. See plate, Fig.7. These are undoubtedly the "Tyrian coins" recommended by the Talmud for the payment of the sacred tax. However, if the Jewish high priests (who soon assumed the title of kings) were no longer allowed to coin silver, they received the much less significant right to coin brass—a right which they availed themselves of until the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Brass Coins of Hasmoneans.

These Hasmonean brass coins are usually of small size, of types borrowed from the contemporaneous coinages of Syria or Egypt; but they strictly conform to the Jewish law (i.e., they exclude all animal representations). They were issued in the name of the reigning prince and sometimes also of the Jewish community ("heber"). Others interpret this word as denoting the senate or the people. The legends are at first purely Hebrew,then bilingual (Hebrew and Greek), as was the dynasty itself. The following is a short nomenclature of the chief types of these not very interesting coins:
see John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.).
see Aristobulus I. (105-104).
see Alexander Jannæus (104-76).
see Queen Alexandra (76-67).
see Aristobulus II. (67-63).
see John Hyrcanus II. (63-40).
see Antigonus (40-37). (Larger Module,)

After the year 63 B.C., when Pompey took Jerusalem by storm and stripped the Jews of almost all their conquests, Rome's influence, or rather domination, became supreme in Judea, as in the whole of Syria. Once more (40 B.C.) a scion of the Hasmonean family, Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II., succeeded, with the help of the Parthians, in seizing Jerusalem, but only to be defeated, captured, and beheaded a few years later (37). Of these two great wars there are Roman numismatic memorials which may be mentioned here: (1) the denarius of Aulus Plautius ("curule ædile" in 54 B.C.; see plate, Fig.13) with types copied from the somewhat older denarii of Scaurus ("Rex Aretas") and with the unexplained legend "Bacchius Judæus"; (2) the brass coin struck at Zacynthus by "C. Sosius imp[erator]," the conqueror of Antigonus, with the portrait of Mark Antony and the group, afterward often imitated, of vanquished Judea, "Iudæa capta" and a Jewish captive (see plate, Fig. 14), seated at the foot of a trophy.

Coins of the Herodians.

Under the high-priesthood of the feeble Hyrcanus II. an Idumean nobleman, Antipater, had been practically prime minister at Jerusalem. His son Herod became, by favor of the Romans, king of the Jews, nominally at the end of 41 B.C., and actually in 37; and he reigned undisturbedly for thirty-three years (till 4 B.C.). Although the kingdom of Herod was large, and his wealth recalled the palmy days of David and Solomon, he was not allowed (as some other petty kings of his time) to strike silver coins, but, like the Hasmoneans, had to be content with a copper currency. His brass coins are of variable size and bear uniformly the Greek legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΠΩΔΟϒ. Some of them have a regnal date (ΛΓ, that is, "year 3"; see plate, Fig. 15) and a monogram expressing their value, τρίχαλκον (whether the χαλκοῦς was, as elsewhere, the eighth part of an obol is doubtful). The types conform to the Jewish law: palm, wreath, cornucopiæ as under the preceding dynasty; further, tripod, helmet, acrostolion, caduceus. The opinion that small bronze coins bearing the type of an eagle and a much-defaced legend belong to Herod is open to doubt.

After the death of Herod his dominion was divided between his sons. Judea proper fell to the lot of Herod Archelaus, who was content with the title of ethnarch. His brass coins are as varied as those of his father, and the types are similar. The legend reads: ΗΠΩΔΟϒ ΕΘΝΑΠΧΟϒ. See plate, Fig. 16. In the year 6 C.E. he was deposed and exiled to Vienne in Gaul, Judea being thenceforth governed directly by Roman procurators, under the supervision of the legate of Syria. To this régime there was, however, a short exception, from 40 or 41 to 44 C.E., when the emperor Claudius conferred Judea upon Herod Agrippa I., a grandson of the great Herod. This Agrippa had already been invested by Caligula with the two tetrarchies (capitals: Tiberias and Panias) which had been respectively assigned after Herod's death to his other two living sons (Antipas and Philip), and which were now vacant. He therefore united once more under his scepter almost all the dominions of his grandfather, and was allowed to assume the title of king. His Jewish coins—brass, of course—bear the types of an umbrella (a royal emblem in the East) and three ears of corn; their style is BACIΛEΩC ΑΓΗΙΠΑ; and the date, year 6, is reckoned from 37 C.E. See plate, Fig. 17. Of the many varieties of bronze coins struck by Agrippa for his non-Jewish possessions, of the coins of his uncles Antipas and Philip, and of those struck later (till about the year 95) by his son Agrippa II., who inherited their tetrarchies, detailed mention need not be made here. It will suffice to present a specimen of this series and to observe that a great many of these provincial coins do not conform to the Jewish prohibition against representations of living creatures, but present portraits of the prince himself or of the reigning emperor. See plate, Fig. 18.

Roman Coinage.
(see image) NUMISMATICSCoins Current In Palestine (c. B.C. 500-C.E. 135)1. Persian gold daric. 2. Medic siglos. 3. Double shekel of Phenician standard. 4. Phenician tetradrachm of Ptolemy I. 5. Shekel of year 1. 6. Half-shekel of year 2. 7. Seleucid tetradrachm of Phenician weight. 8. Tyrian stater (new series). 9. Bronze coin of John Hyrcanus. 10. Bronze coin of Aristobulus I. 11. Bronze coin of Alexander Jannæus. 12. Bilingual bronze coin of Alexander Jannæus. 13. Denarius of Aulus Plautius with inscription of "Bacchius Iudæus."
(see image) NUMISMATICSCoins Current In Palestine (c. B.C. 500-C.E. 135)14. Brass coin of Sosius. 15. Bronze coin of Herod the Great. 16. Bronze coin of Herod Archelaus. 17. Bronze coin of Agrippa I. 18. Bronze coin of Herod Antipas. 19. Bronze coin of Pontius Pilate. 20. Brass coin of First Revolt. 21. Coin of Vespasian with inscription of "Iudæa Capta." 22. Coin of Nerva with inscription of "Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata." 23. Coin of Hadrian with inscription of "Adventui Aug(usti) Iudææ." 24. Coin of Bar Kokba, restruck on denarius of Trajan. 25. Shekel of Bar Kokba, restruck on tetradrachm of Antioch. 26. Brass coin of Bar Kokba.From 6 to 40 C.E. and again from 40 to 66 Judea, as has been seen, was governed by Roman procurators. During this period—which witnessed the birth of Christianity—the silver currency in Palestine consisted chiefly in (1) Tyrian staters (shekel or sela), which ceased, however, to be struck in 56; (2) debased Attic tetradrachms (about 220 grains) with Greek legends, struck by the Roman government at Antioch for the use of the Syrian Greek-speaking provinces; (3) similar debased drachmas struck at Cæsarea in Cappadocia; (4) Roman denarii, considered as equivalent to the (debased) Attic drachmas (about 20 cents). Of gold coins, only the Roman aureus is of importance. Its legal value was 25 denarii, and its intrinsic value almost exactly a sovereign (five dollars).

For local use the procurators issued small bronze coins, similar in style to those of the Hasmonean and Idumean dynasties. In fact, it seems that in Judea, as in Egypt, the emperors wished to be considered simply as successors of the former kings, and therefore continued the local coinage as a matter of course, avoiding anything which could give offense to the national feeling and to the religious prejudices of Jewish workmen. The brass coins in question have the name of the reigning emperor (sometimes of another member of the imperial family) and a regnal year; but they have neither an imperial effigy nor figures of living creatures. The usual symbols are found: car of corn, palm-tree or branch, cornucopiæ, "diota," covered vase, "lituus" (curved trumpet), wreath, etc. The coin of which an illustration is given on plate (see Fig. 19) was struck under the authority of Pontius Pilate in the eighteenth year of Tiberius (35 C.E.). These coins were probably reckoned as quadrantes (¼ of a Roman as; consequently 1/64 of a denarius). Other denominations of copper coins in use at this period were: (1) the "lepton," worth half a quadrans (Mark xii. 42) and therefore identical with the "perutah" of the Mishnah (kid. i. 1 et seq.); (2) the "assarion" ("issar"), which, according to the Mishnah, was worth 1/24 of a denarius (or drachma), and therefore identical with the old "dichalcus," but different from the Roman as ("issaritalki"), which was worth 1/16 of a denarius.

Coins of the Revolt.

In Sept., 66, the Jews, exasperated by the misgovernment of the Roman procurators, took up arms. The great rebellion lasted, as is well known, four years; it was crushed under the ruins of the Temple of Jerusalem in Aug., 70. Has it left any numismatical records? No coins struck during the first Jewish insurrection are mentioned either in heathen or in Talmudic texts, and, as has been shown, there is good reason for abandoning the view which assigns to that period the silver "shekels" (and half-shekels) "of Israel." Of brass coins, however, the following may with some likelihood be attributed to the Zealots, during the protracted siege of Jerusalem:

(1)

Numerous small coins with Jewish types. Obverse: Vineor fig-leaf. Reverse: A two-handled vase. Legend: ("herut ziyyon" = "liberty of Zion"). [or ("Shenat [or "Shalosh"] Shetayim," "year 2" [or 3]). Year 1 is not represented. The new era most likely began Oct., 66. See plate, Fig. 20.

(2)

Larger coins with types referring to the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths: Obverse: Etrog (lemon) between two lulabs (bundles of twigs). Reverse: Palm-tree or cup between two baskets (or on some specimens a cup). Legend: ("Li-Ge'ullat ziyyon" = "deliverance of Zion"). ("Shenat Arba" = "year 4"). The cup variety has no further inscription; but on the palm-tree specimens is found a mark of value, ("hazi" = "half") on the larger size, ("Rebia'" = "quarter") on the smaller. The word to be understood is most likely "shekel." These coins were therefore meant to stand for halves, quarters (and perhaps sixths or eighths?) of shekels. They were tokens or siege money issued during the last convulsions of besieged Jerusalem.

Of these two categories the first has been assigned to the Vespasianic period by De Saulcy; the second, to the same period by Garrucci. This opinion, although not unanimously accepted by numismatists (especially as concerns the second class), seems to prevail more and more; and the present writer sees no reason for dissenting from it.

Roman Commemorative Coins.

The triumph of Rome over the Jews was commemorated in Roman numismatics by numerous coins of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, of which the commonest types show a female captive (Judea) seated or standing at the foot of a palm-tree or trophy (see plate, Fig. 21). In another series Victory inscribes the name of the emperor on a shield, which she supports against a palm-tree. The legend is "Judæa Capta" or "Devicta." Another coin deserving notice is the large brass one of Nerva with the inscription "Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata" (see plate, Fig. 22); it shows that after the destruction of the Temple the Jewish poll-tax (didrachma) was claimed for the treasury of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. This vexatious imposition was accompanied with many investigations and calumnies, the suppression of which (though not of the tax itself) is here commemorated. Lastly, there is the brass coin of Hadrian (struck in 130) to celebrate his visit to Judea: "Adventui Aug[usti] Iudææ." See plate, Fig. 23.

Coins of Bar Kokba.

In 133 the Jews of Palestine made a supreme effort to regain their independence, or at any rate their right to the free exercise of their religion. This second and last revolt lasted three years, and was quenched with great difficulty in floods of blood, the fortress of Bethar being the last to yield (135). The chief of the insurgents, Bar Kokba, is called in heathen documents "Barco Chebas" (= "son of the star"); in Jewish, "Bar Kozeba." Both give only the patronymic of this bold adventurer, leaving one to guess his proper name. In contradiction to the first revolt, the second revolt is expressly stated by the Talmud to have left monetary records. Say the Rabbis: "The second tithe can not be paid in a coinage which is not current, like the coins of Kozeba or of Jerusalem [the old shekels ?] or that of the former kings [the Seleucidæ ?]" (Tosef., Ma'as. Sheni, i. 5; comp. Yer. Ma'as. Sheni i. 2; B. k. 97b). Coins of Bar Kokba are still extant in large quantities; a large number of them was discovered near Hebron. They may be divided into the following classes:

(1)

Silver coins (twenty-four varieties, according to Hamburger). These are invariably restruck on Roman denarii, Græco-Roman drachmas of Cæsarea (Cappadocia), or Attic tetradrachms of Antioch. The original types and inscriptions are still sometimes discernible under the new orthodox dies; the original coins bore the figures of emperors from Galba to Hadrian. On the smaller coins (denarii, drachmas) the types are of the usual sort (see plate, Fig. 24). Obverse: Wreath, bunch of grapes. Reverse: Flagon, palm-branch, lyre, pair of trumpets. The legend on the obverse reads: "Simon" (usually spelled ); on the reverse, ("Shenat Shetayim le-herut Yisrael" = "year 2 of the liberty of Israel") or simply "Le-herut Yerushalayim" (= "liberty of Jerusalem"). A single coin of this class (belonging to the Marquis de Vogüé) bears the date "year 1" ("Shenat Ahat li-Ge'ullat Yisrael"; On the obverse the name here is not "Simon," but "Eleazar ha-Kohen" (= "Eleazar the priest").

Coins Restruck.

There are also a few hybrid specimens, combining by mistake a die of Simon with one of Eleazar. There can be no reasonable doubt that Simon is the proper name of Bar Kokba or Kozeba, who (at least from the second year of the revolt) was the undisputed chief of the Jews, with almost kingly powers. Indeed, heannounced himself as the Messiah, and was recognized as such by Rabbi Akiba. Who "Eleazar the priest" was is quite unknown; identifications like Eleazar of Modeïn (Bar Kokba's uncle), Eleazar ben Azariah, Eleazar ben Harsom, etc., are mere guesses. On the larger silver coins (restruck on tetradrachms of Antioch) the obverse type is a conventional image of the Temple of Jerusalem (see plate, Fig. 25), usually surmounted by a star; on the reverse is a type (etrog and lulab) already known from the time of the first revolt. Some of these coins bear a date: year 1 ("Shenat Ahat li-Ge'ullat Yisrael"), or year 2 ("Shenat bet le-herut Yisrael"); others, the simple inscription "Le-herut Yerushalayim." Dated coins of the first year have on the obverse the name "Jerusalem"; dated coins of the second, "Simon" or (very seldom) "Jerusalem"; undated coins have always the name "Simon."

(2)

Brass coins. These are of many sizes. They exhibit types of the usual species (palm-tree, bunch of grapes, wreath, diota, vine-leaf, lyre). They also seem to have been all restruck on Greek or Roman brass. Among the coins dating from year 1 ("Shenat Ahat li-Ge'ullat Yisrael") some are struck in the name of Eleazar (Eleazar ha-Kohen) like the silver denarius of the Marquis de Vogüé; the remainder (some of which are of large size) bear the legend "Simon Nasi Israel" (; see plate, Fig. 26); they were struck probably by Bar Kokba, and they indicate that he had assumed the title of "nasi" (prince), then used in a profane sense. The brass coin of year 2 ("Shenat Shetayim le-herut Yisrael") or undated ("Le-herut Yerushalayim") exhibits on the obverse only the name "Simon," or (more rarely) "Jerusalem."

To sum up: Omitting the distinction of types, and denoting by 4 small silver coins, and by Æ 8 large silver, the following list shows the authorities in whose names the coins of the second revolt were issued:
see table

With these coins Jewish numismatics comes to an end. The Roman colonial coins of Ælia Capitolina, the pagan town built on the site of Jerusalem, do not belong to the subject, nor do medals with Hebrew legends struck on divers occasions after the Renaissance.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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

Judaic Money

2009-12-08T08:37:00.000-08:00

MONEY.

By : Emil G. Hirsch Wilhelm Nowack Isidore Singer Lewis N. Dembitz

ARTICLE HEADINGS:
—Biblical Data:
The Shekel.
The Mina.
The Siglos.
—In Rabbinical Literature:

—Biblical Data:

I.

As far back as the history of Israel can be traced, gold and silver were used as standards of value and mediums of exchange, and, as the Egyptian tribute-lists show, they were thus employed in Canaan even before the Israelites inhabited it. The general use of the word "kesef," meaning "silver," to designate money shows that silver was the prevailing medium of exchange. Up to the time of the Exile, and even later, the metals were not coined, but were weighed (Ex. xxii. 16; II Sam. xviii. 12; I Kings xx. 39; see Numismatics). The scales and weights were carried about with the precious metal in a bag attached to the girdle (Deut. xxv. 13 et seq.; Isa. xlvi. 6; Prov. xvi. 11). An adulteration or debasement of the value of the precious metals by means of certain alloys seems not to have occurred; at least the practise was not given any thought, and warnings are uttered only against false measures (Deut. l.c.; Lev. xix. 36).

To disprove the opinion that during the whole period before the Exile coined money was unknown—that is, money under state control in regard to weight, purity, etc.—the passage in I Sam. ix. 8 is cited. Here it is related that Saul's slave gave him the fourth part of a shekel of silver, which he had with him. The conclusion, however, that this is a reference to coined money is too hasty. The only inference to be drawn is that at the time when the author of I Sam. ix. lived silver pieces of a certain weight may have existed and that they were cast into certain shapes known to every one, in order to obviate the necessity of weighing them at eachtransaction. Perhaps the name for "talent" ("kikkar" = "ring") is derived from such forms, since Egyptian documents show that it was quite usual to cast the metals into such rings or into bars. These forms were not found among the Assyrians, who, however, used wedge-shaped pieces of gold, which are mentioned in Josh. vii. 21.

The Shekel.

For money, as for weight, the shekel was the standard unit, the pieces of metal being either fractions or multiples of the shekel. The struggle between the Egyptian decimal system and the sexagesimal method of the Babylonians first made itself felt in regard to weights of gold and silver. The Phenicians were probably the mediators; and a mina of 50 shekels was established as a standard. According to certain indications, the relative value of gold to silver was as 10 to 1. Later, in consequence of the great increase in the supply of silver, the relative value was as 40 to 3. This may, perhaps, have affected the possibility of introducing the sexagesimal system.

The gold shekel originally weighed 1/60 of a mina. The silver shekel, to have had an equal value, must have weighed 40/3 x 1/60 = 2/9 of a mina. As this would have been impracticable for use, it was decided to make a smaller piece, one more suitable for circulation. Two methods presented themselves: (1) either the silver equivalent of the gold shekel could be divided into ten parts in which case a silver shekel of 2/90 = 1/45 of a shekel of weight would result; or (2) the silver equivalent could be divided into fifteen parts, in which case a silver shekel would weigh 2/135 of a mina.

The Mina.

When the decimal system made its way into use, the gold mina as well as the silver mina was reckoned at 50 such shekels. Consequently there was (1) the Babylonian silver mina, equivalent to 50/45 = 10/9 of a mina of weight; (2) the Phenician silver mina, equivalent to 100/135 = 20/27 of a mina of weight.

In the earlier system of Babylonian silver values (which was used also in the Lydian and Persian kingdoms) the silver shekel was divided into thirds, sixths, and twelfths, whereas in the Phenician system it was divided into halves, fourths, eighths, etc.

The Phenician silver shekel is found among the Jews also. This is proved by the fact that they had the same method of division: the quartershekel appears in I Sam. ix. 8; the half-shekel is the Temple-tax in the Priestly Code. The shekels of the Maccabean period which have been preserved vary between 14.50 and 14.65 gr., which is exactly 2/135 of the large "common" (see Weights and Measures) Babylonian mina. The mina accordingly weighed 727.7 gr., and the talent 43,659 kg.

The Siglos.

In the Persian period the Babylonian shekel, equivalent to one-tenth of the mina of weight, came into use, since Nehemiah (x. 33 [A. V. 32]) assessed the Temple-tax at one-third of a shekel. This Persian system of coinage had the small mina as a basis. The unit was the siglos, which corresponded to one-half of a Babylonian shekel. The relation between it and the Jewish one was 3 to 8. It was considered as the one-hundredth part of a mina and not the fiftieth. It amounted to 5.61-5.73 gr.; the mina, to 561-573 gr.; and the talent to 33,660-34,380 kg. In the Maccabean period the Phenician silver shekel was again in use. Consequently the Temple-tax was again a half-shekel (Matt. xvii. 24, 27).

II.

Coined money did not come into use among the Jews until the time of the Persians. In the Old Testament, Persian darics (A. V. "drams") are mentioned in Ezra viii. 27 and I Chron. xxix. 7 as "adarkon," and in Ezra ii. 69 and Neh. vii. 70-72 as "darkemon. They weighed 8.40 gr., thus corresponding almost exactly to one-sixtieth of the Babylonian light mina. The corresponding silver coin was one-twentieth of the daric; which, perhaps, was meant by the term "shekel" in Neh. v. 15, x. 33. See Numismatics.

Judaic, Archeology and Biblical

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