|
Appendix 16 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 18
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Appendix 17
THE ORDINANCES AND LAW OF THE SABBATH AS LAID
DOWN IN THE MISHNAH AND THE JERUSALEM TALMUD.
(See Book III. ch. 35.)
The terribly exaggerated views of the Rabbis, and their
endless, burdensome rules about the Sabbath may best be learned from a brief
analysis of the Mishnah, as further explained and enlarged in the
Jerusalem Talmud.1
For this purpose a brief analysis of what is, confessedly, one of the most
difficult tractates may here be given.
1. The
Jerusalem Talmud is not only the older and the shorter of the two Gemaras,
but would represent most fully the Palestinian ideas.
The Mishnic tractate Sabbath stands at the head of
twelve tractates which together from the second of the six sections into which
the Mishnah is divided, and which treats of Festive Seasons (Seder Moed).
Properly to understand the Sabbath regulations, it is, however, necessary also
to take into account the second tractate in that section, which treats of what
are called 'commixtures' or 'connections' (Erubin). Its object is to
make the Sabbath Laws more bearable. For this purpose, it is explained how
places, beyond which it would otherwise have been unlawful to carry things, may
be connected together, so as, by a legal fiction, to convert them into a sort
of private dwelling. Thus, supposing a number of small private houses to open
into a common court, it would have been unlawful on the Sabbath to carry anything
from one of these houses into the other. This difficulty is removed if
all the families deposit before the Sabbath some food in the common court, when
'a connection' is established between the various house, which makes them one
dwelling. This was called the 'Erubh of Courts.' Similarly, an extension of
what was allowed as a 'Sabbath journey' might be secured by another
'commixture,' the 'Erubh' or 'connection of boundaries.' An ordinary Sabbath
day's journey extended 2,000 cubits beyond one's dwelling.2
But if at the boundary of that 'journey' a man deposited on the Friday food for
two meals, he thereby constituted it his dwelling, and hence might go on for
other 2,000 cubits. Lastly, there was another 'Erubh,' when narrow streets or
blind alleys were connected into 'a private dwelling' by laying a beam over the
entrance, or extending a wire or rope along such streets and alleyways. This,
by a legal fiction, made them 'a private dwelling,' so that everything was
lawful there which a man might do on the Sabbath in his own house.
2. On
the Sabbath-journey, and the reason for fixing it at a distance of 2,000
cubits, see Kitto's Cyclop. (last ed.) 'Sabbath-way,' and 'The Temple
and its Services,' p. 148.
Without discussing the possible and impossible questions about these
Erubin raised by the most ingenious casuistry, let us see how Rabbinism
taught Israel to observe its Sabbath. In not less than twenty-four chapters,3
matters are seriously discussed as of vital religious importance, which one
would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain. Through 64½
folio columns in the Jerusalem, and 156 double pages of folio in the Babylon
Talmud does the enumeration and discussion of possible cases, drag on, almost
unrelieved even by Haggadah.4
The Talmud itself bears witness to this, when it speaks (no doubt exaggeratedly)
of a certain Rabbi who had spent no less than two and a half years in the study
of only one of those twenty-four chapters! And it further bears testimony to
the unprofitableness of these endless discussions and determinations. The
occasion of this is so curious and characteristic, that it might here find
mention. The discussion was concerning a beast of burden. An ass might not be
led out on the road with its covering on, unless such had been put on the
animal previous to the Sabbath, but it was lawful to lead the animal about in
this fashion in one's courtyard.5
The same rule applied to a packsaddle, provided it were not fastened on by
girth and back-strap. Upon this one of the Rabbis is reported as bursting into
the declaration that this formed part of those Sabbath Laws (comp. Chag. i. 8)
which were like mountains suspended by a hair! (Jer. Shabb. p. 7, col. b,
last lines). And yet in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace
of anything spiritual - not a word even to suggest higher thoughts of God's
holy day and its observance.
3. In
the Jerusalem Talmud a Gemara is attached only to the first twenty chapters of
the Mishnic tractate Shabbath; in the Babylon Talmud to all the
Twenty-four chapters.
4. I
have counted about thirty-three Haggadic pieces in the tractate.
5. In
the former case it might be a burden or lead to work, while in the latter case
the covering was presumably for warmth.
The tractate on the Sabbath begins with regulations extending
its provisions to the close of the Friday afternoon, so as to prevent the possibility
of infringing the Sabbath itself, which commenced on the Friday
evening. As the most common kind of labour would be that of carrying, this is
the first point discussed. The Biblical Law forbade such labour in simple terms
(Ex. xxxvi. 6; comp. Jer. xvii.22). But Rabbinism developed the prohibition
into eight special ordinances, by first dividing 'the bearing of a burden' into
two separate acts - lifting it up and putting it down - and than arguing, that
it might be lifted up or put down from two different places, from a public into
a private, or from a private into a public place. Here, of course, there are
discussions as to what constituted a 'private place' (dyxyh tw#r); 'a public
place' (Mybrh tw#r); ' a wide space,' which belongs neither to a special
individual or to a community, such as the sea, a deep wide valley, or else the
corner of a property leading out on the road or fields, and, lastly, a 'legally
free place.'6
Again, a 'burden' meant, as the lowest standard of it, the weight of 'a dried
fig.' But if 'half a fig' were carried at two different times - lifted or
deposited from a private into a public place, or vice versā - were these
two actions to be combined into one so as to constitute the sin of Sabbath desecration?
And if so, under what conditions as to state of mind, locality, &c. ? And,
lastly, how many different sins might one such act involve? To give an instance
of the kind of questions that were generally discussed. the standard measure
for forbidden food was the size of an olive, just as that for carrying burdens
was the weight of a fig. If a man swallowed forbidden food of the size of half
an olive, rejected it, and again eaten of the size of half an olive, he would
be guilty, because the palate had altogether tasted food to the size of a whole
olive; but if one had deposited in another locality a burden of the weight of a
half a fig, and removed it again, it involved no guilt, because the burden was
altogether only of half a fig, nor even if the first half fig's burden had been
burnt and then a second half fig introduced. Similarly, if an object that was
intended to be worn or carried in front had slipped behind it involved no
guilt, but if it had been intended to be worn or carried behind, and it slipped
forward, this involved guilt, as involving labor.
6. Such
a free place (rw+p Mwqm) must cover less than four square cubits - for ex., a
pillar would be such. To this no legal determination would apply. The 'wide
space' is called Karmelith (tylmrb). The Mishnah, however, expressly
mentions only the 'private' and the 'public' place (or 'enclosed' and 'open'),
although the Karmeilth was in certain circumstances treated as 'public,'
in others as 'private' property. The explanation of the terms and legal
definitions is in Jer. Shabb. 12 d; 13 a; Shabb. 6, a, b;
Toseft. Shabb. 1.
Similar difficulties were discussed as to the reverse. Whether,
if an object were thrown from a private into a public place, or the reverse.
Whether, if an object was thrown into the air with the left, and caught again
in the right hand, this involved sin, was a nice question, though there could
be no doubt a man incurred guilt if he caught it with the same hand which it
had been thrown, but he was not guilty if he caught it in his mouth, since, after
being eaten, the object no longer existed, and hence catching with the mouth
was as if it had been done by a second person. Again, if it rained, and the
water which fell from the sky were carried, there was no sin in it; but if the
rain had run down from a wall it would involve sin. If a person were in one
place, and his hand filled with fruit
stretched into another, and the Sabbath overtook him in this attitude,
he would have to drop the fruit, since if he withdrew his full hand from one
locality into another, he would be carrying a burden on the Sabbath. It is needless to continue to analysis of this casuistry. All
discussions to which we have referred turn only on the first of the
legal canons in the tractate 'Sabbath.' They will show what a complicated
machinery of merely external ordinances traditionalism set in motion; how
utterly unspiritual the whole system was, and how it required no small amount
of learning and ingenuity to avoid committing grievous sin. In what follows we
shall only attempt to indicate the leading points in the Sabbath-legislation of
the Rabbis. Shortly before the commencement of the Sabbath (late on Friday
afternoon) nothing new was to be begun;7
the tailor might no longer go out with his needle, nor the scribe with his pen;
nor were clothes to be examined by lamp-light. A teacher might not allow his
pupils to read, if he himself looked on the book. All these are precautionary measures. The tailor or scribe carrying his ordinary means of employment, might
forget the advent of the holy day; the person examining a dress might kill
insects,8 which is
strictly forbidden on the Sabbath, and the teacher might move the lamp to see
better, while the pupils were supposed to be so zealous as to do this.
7. Here
such questions are raised as what constitutes the beginning, for ex., of
shaving or a bath.
8. To
kill such vermin is, of course, strictly forbidden (to kill a flea is like a
camel). Rules are given how to dispose of such insects. On the same occasion
some curious ideas are broached as to the transformation of animals, one into
another.
These latter rules, we are reminded, were passed at a certain
celebrated discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, when the
latter were in the majority. On that occasion also opposition to the Gentiles
was carried to its farthest length, and their food, their language, their testimony,
their presence, their intercourse, in short, all connection with them
denounced. The school of Shammai also forbade to make any mixture, the
ingredients of which would not be wholly dissolved and assimilated before the
Sabbath. Nay, the Sabbath law was declared to apply even to lifeless objects.
Thus, wool might not be dyed if the process was not completed before the
Sabbath. Nor was it even lawful to sell anything to a heathen unless the object
would reach its destination before the Sabbath, nor to give to a heathen
workman anything to do which might involve him in Sabbath work. Thus, Rabbi
Gamialiel was careful to send his linen to be washed three days before Sabbath.
But it was lawful to leave olives or grapes in the olive or wine-press. Both
schools were agreed that, in roasting or baking, a crust must have been formed
before the Sabbath, except in case of the Passover lamb. The Jerusalem Talmud,
however, modifies certain of these rules. Thus the prohibition of work to a
heathen only implies, if they work in the house of the Jew, or at least in the
same town with him. The school of Shammai, however, went so far as to forbid
sending a letter by a heathen, not only a Friday or on a Thursday, but even
sending on a Wednesday, or to embark on the sea on these days. It being assumed that the lighting of the Sabbath lamp was a law
given to Moses on Mount Sinai, the Mishnah proceeds, in the second chapter of
the tractate on the Sabbath, to discuss the substances of which respectively
the wick and the oil may be composed, provided always that oil which feeds the
wick is not put in a separate vessel, since the removal of that vessel would
cause the extinction of the lamp, which would involve a breach of the Sabbath
law. But if the light were extinguished from fear of the Gentiles, of robbers,
or of an evil spirit, or in order that one dangerously ill might go to sleep,
it involved no guilt. Here, many points in casuistry are discussed, such as
whether twofold guilt is incurred if in blowing out a candle its flame lights
another. The Mishnah here diverges to discuss the other commandments, which,
like that of lighting the Sabbath lamp, specially devolve on women, on which
occasion the Talmud broaches some curious statements about the heavenly
Sanhedrin and Satan, such as that it is in moments of danger that the Great
Enemy brings accusations against us, in order to ensure our ruin; or this, that
on three occasions he specially lies in ambush: when one travels alone, when
one sleeps alone in a dark house, and when one crosses the sea. In regard to
the latter we may note as illustrative of St. Paul's warning not to travel
after the fast (Day of Atonement), that the Jewish proverb had it: 'When you
bind your Lulabh9
(at the Feast of Tabernacles) bind also your feet' - as regards a sea-voyage
(Jer. Shabb. 5 b, Ber. R. 6).
9. The
Lulabh (blwl) consisted of a palm with myrtle and willow branch tied
on either side of it, which every worshipper carried on the Feast of
Tabernacles ('Temple and its Services,' p. 238).
The next two chapters in the tractate on the Sabbath discuss the
manner in which food may be kept warm for the Sabbath, since no fire might be
lighted. If the food had been partially cooked, or was such as would improve by
increased heat, there would be temptation to attend to the fire, and this must
be avoided. Hence the oven was immediately before the Sabbath only to be heated
with straw or chaff; if otherwise, the coals were to be removed or covered with
ashes. Clothes ought not to be dried by the hot air of a stove. At any rate,
care must be taken that neighbours do not see it. An egg may not be boiled by
putting it near a hot kettle, nor in a cloth, nor sand heated by the sun. Cold
water might be poured on warm, but not the reverse (at least such was the
opinion of the school of Shammai), nor was it lawful to prepare either cold or
warm compresses. Nay, a Rabbi went so far as to forbid throwing hot water over
one's self, for fear of spreading the vapour, or of cleaning the floor thereby!
A vessel might be put under a lamp to catch the falling sparks, but no water
might be put into it, because it was not lawful to extinguish a light. Nor
would it have been allowed on the Sabbath to put a vessel to receive the drops
of oil that might fall from the lamp. Among many other questions raised was
this: whether a parent might take his child in his arms. Happily Rabbinic
literally went so far as not only to allow this, but even in the supposed case
that the child might happen to have a stone in its hands, although this would
involve the labour of carrying that stone! Similarly, it was declared lawful to
lift seats, provided they had not, as it were, four steps, when they must be
considered as ladders. But it was not allowed to draw along chairs, as this
might produce a rut of cavity, although a little carriage might be moved, since
the wheels would only compress the soil but not produce a cavity (comp. on the
Bab. Talmud, Shabb. 22 a; 46; and Bets. 23 b). Again, the question is discussed, whether it is lawful to keep
the food warm by wrapping around a vessel certain substances. Here the general
canon is, that all must be avoided which would increase the heat: since this
would be to produce some outward effect, which would be equivalent to work. In the fifth chapter of the tractate we are supposed to begin the
Sabbath morning. Ordinarily, the first business of the morning would, of
course, have been to take out the cattle. Accordingly, the laws are now laid
down for ensuring Sabbath rest to the animals. The principle underlying these
is, that only what serves as ornament, or is absolutely necessary for leading
out or bringing back animals, or for safety, may be worn by them; all else is
regarded as a burden. Even such things as might be put on to prevent the
rubbing of a wound, or other possible harm, or to distinguish an animal, must
be left aside on the day of rest. Next, certain regulations are laid down to guide the Jew when
dressing on the Sabbath morning, so as to prevent his breaking its rest. Hence
he must be careful not to put on any dress which might become burdensome, nor
to wear any ornament which be might put off and carry in his hand, for this
would be a 'burden.' A woman must not wear such headgear as would require
unloosing before taking a bath, nor go out with such ornaments as could be
taken off in the street, such as a frontlet, unless it is attached to the cap,
nor with a gold crown, nor with a necklace or nose-ring, nor with rings, nor
have a pin10 in her
dress. The reason for this prohibition of ornaments was, that in their vanity
women might take them off to show them to their companions, and then, forgetful
to the day, carry them, which would be a 'burden.' Women are also forbidden to
look in the glass on the Sabbath, because they might discover a white hair and
attempt to pull it out, which would be a grievous sin; but men ought not to use
looking-glasses even on weekdays, because this was undignified. A woman may
walk about her own court, but not in the streets, with false hair. Similarly, a
man was forbidden to wear on the Sabbath wooden shoes studded with nails, or
only one shoe, as this would involve labour; nor was he to wear phylacteries
nor amulets, unless, indeed, they had been made by competent persons (since
they might lift them off in order to show the novelty). Similarly, it was
forbidden to wear any part of a suit of armour. It was not lawful to scrape
shoes, except perhaps with the back of a knife, but they might be touched with
oil or water. Nor should sandals be softened with oil, because that would
improve them. It was a very serious question, which led to much discussion,
what should be done if the tie of a sandal had broken on the Sabbath. A plaster
might be worn, provided its object was to prevent the wound from getting worse,
not to heal it, for that would have been a work. Ornaments which could not
easily be taken off might be worn in one's courtyard. Similarly, a person might
go about with wadding in his ear, but not with false teeth nor with a gold plug
in the tooth. If the wadding fell out of the ear, it could not be replaced.
Some indeed, thought that its healing virtues lay in the oil in which it had
been soaked, and which had dried up, but others ascribed them to the warmth of the
wadding itself. In either case there was danger of healing - of doing anything
for the purpose of a cure - and hence wadding might not be put into the ear on
the Sabbath, although if worn before it might be continued. Again, as regarded
false teeth: they might fall out, and the wearer might then lift and carry
them, which would be sinful on the Sabbath. But anything which formed part of
the ordinary dress of a person might be worn also on the Sabbath, and children
whose ears were being bored might have a plug put into the hole. It was also
allowed to go about on crutches, or with a wooden leg, and children might have
bells on their dresses; but it was prohibited to walk on stilts, or to carry
any heathen amulet.
10. Literally,
a needle which has not an eyelet. Of course, it would not be lawful for a
modern Jew - if he observe the Rabbinic Law - to carry a stick or a pencil on
the Sabbath, to drive, or even to smoke.
The seventh chapter of the tractate contains the most important part
of the whole. It opens by laying down the principle that, if a person has
either not known, or forgotten, the whole Sabbath law, all the breaches of it
which he has committed during ever so many weeks are to be considered as only one
error or one sin. If he has broken the Sabbath law by mistaking the day, every
Sabbath thus profaned must be atoned for; but he has broken the law because he
thought that what he did was permissible, then every separate infringement constitutes a
separate sin, although labors which stand related as species
to the genus are regarded as only one work. It follows, that guilt
attaches to the state of mind rather than to the outward deed. Next, forty less
one chief or 'fathers' of work (Aboth) are enumerated, all of which are
supposed to be forbidden in the Bible. They are: sowing, ploughing reaping,
binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sifting (selecting), grinding, sifting
in a sieve, kneading, baking; shearing the wool, washing it, beating it, dyeing
it, spinning, putting it on the weaver's beam, making a knot, undoing a knot,
sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches; catching deer,
killing; skinning, salting it, preparing its skin, scraping off its hair,
cutting it up, writing two letters, scraping in order to write two letters;
building, pulling down, extinguishing fire, lighting fire, beating with the
hammer, and carrying from one possession into the other. The number thirty-nine is said to represent the number of times
that the word 'labour' occurs in the Biblical text, and all these Aboth
or 'fathers' of work are supposed to be connected with some work that had been
done about the Tabernacle, or to be kindred to such work. Again, each of these
principal works involved the prohibition of a number of others which were
derived from them, and hence called their 'descendants' (toledoth). The
thirty-nine principal works have been arranged in four groups: the first (1-11)
referring to the preparation of bread; the second (12-24) to all connected with
dress; the third (25-33) to all connected with writing; and the last (34-39) to
all the work necessary for a private house. Another Rabbi derives the number
thirty-nine (of these Aboth) from the numerical value of the initial word in
Exod. xxxv. 1, although in so doing he has to change the last letter (h)l,
the h must be changed into a x to make thirty-nine).11
Further explanations must here be added. If you scatter two seeds, you have
been sowing. In general, the principle is laid down, that anything by which the
ground may be benefited is to be considered a 'work' or 'labour,' even if it
were to sweep away or to break up a cold of earth. Nay, to pluck a blade of
grass was a sin. Similarly, it was sinful labour to do anything that would
promote the ripening of fruits, such as to water, or even to remove a withered
leaf. To pick fruit, or even to lift it from the ground, would be like reaping.
If for example, a mushroom were cut, there would be twofold sin, since by the
act of cutting, a new one would spring in its place. According to the Rabbis of
Cęsarea, fishing, and all that put an end to life, must be ranked with
harvesting. In connection with the conduct of the disciples in rubbing the ears
of corn on the Sabbath, it is interesting to know that all work connected with
food would be classed as one of the toledoth, of binding into sheaves.
If a woman were to roll wheat to take away this husks, she would be guilty of
sifting with a sieve. If she were rubbing the ends of the stalks, she would be
guilty of threshing. If she were cleaning what adheres to the side of a stalk,
she would be guilty of sifting. If she were brushing the stalk, she would be
guilty of grinding. If she were throwing it up in her hands, she would be
guilty of winnowing. Distinctions like the following are made: A radish may be
dipped into salt, but not left in it too long, since this would be to make
pickle. A new dress might be put on, irrespective of the danger that in so
doing it might be torn. Mud on the dress might be crushed in the hand and
shaken off, but the dress must not be rubbed (for fear of affecting the
material). If a person took a bath, opinions are divided, whether the whole
body should be dried at once, or limb after limb. If water had fallen on the dress,
some allowed the dress to be shaken but not wrung; other, to be wrung but not
shaken. One Rabbi allowed to spit into the handkerchief, and that although it
may necessitate the compressing of what had been wetted; but there is a grave
discussion whether it was lawful to spit on the ground, and then to rub it with
the foot, because thereby the earth may be scratched. It may, however, be done
on stones. In the labour of grinding would be included such an act as crushing
salt. To sweep, or to water the ground, would involve the same sin as beating
out the corn. To lay on a plaster would be a grievous sin; to scratch out a big
letter, leaving room for two small ones, would be a sin, but to write one big
letter occupying the room of two small letters was no sin. To change one letter
into another might imply a double sin. And so on through endless details!
11. The
Rabbis contend for the lawfullness of changing the h into a x for
the sake of an interpretation. So expressly here. (Jer. Shabb. 9 b) and
in Jer. Peah 20 b (Mylwlh into Mylwlx in Lev. xix. 24).
The Mishnah continues to explain that, in order to involve
guilt, the thing carried from one locality to another must be sufficient to be
entrusted for safekeeping. The quantity is regulated: as regards the food of
animals, to the capacity of their mouth; as regards man, a dried fig is the
standard. As regards fluids, the measure is as much wine as is used for one
cup, that is, the measure of the cup being a quarter of a log, and wine being
mixed with water in the proportion of three parts water to one of wine -
one-sixteenth of a log.12
As regards milk, a mouthful; of honey, sufficient to lay on a wound; of oil,
sufficient to anoint the smallest member; of water, sufficient to wet eyesalve;
and of all other fluids, a quarter of a log.
12. It
has been calculated by Herzfeld that a log = 0.36 of a litre; 'six hen's
eggs.'
As regarded other substances, the standard as to what
constituted a burden was whether the thing could be turned to any practical
use, however trifling. Thus, two horse's hairs might be made into a birdtrap; a
scrap of clean paper into a custom-house notice; a small piece of paper written
upon might be converted into a wrapper for a small flagon. In all these cases,
therefore, transport would involve sin. Similarly, ink sufficient to write two
letters, wax enough to fill up a small hole, even a pebble with which you might
aim at a little bird, or a small piece of broken earthenware with which you
might stir the coals, would be 'burdens!' Passing to another aspect of the subject, the Mishanah lays it
down that, in order to constitute sin, a thing must have been carried from one
locality into another entirely and immediately, and that it must have been done
in the way in which things are ordinarily carried. If an object which one person
could carry is carried by two, they are not guilty. Finally, like all labour on
the Sabbath, that of cutting one's nails or hair involves moral sin, but only
if it is done in the ordinary way, otherwise only the lesser sin of the breach
of the Sabbath rest. A very interesting notice in connection with St. John v.,
is that in which it is explained how it would not involve sin to carry a living
person on a pallet, the pallet being regarded only as an accessory to the man;
while to carry a dead body in such manner, or even the smallest part of a dead
body, would involve guilt. From this the Mishnah proceeds to discuss what is analogous to
carrying, such as drawing or throwing. Other 'labours' are similarly made the
subject of inquiry, and it is shown how any approach to them involves guilt.
The rule here is, that anything that might prove of lasting character must not
be done on the Sabbath. The same rule applies to what might prove the beginning
of work, such as letting the hammer fall on the anvil; or to anything that
might contribute to improve a place, to gathering as much wood as would boil an
egg, to uprooting weeds, to writing two letters of a word - in short, to
anything that might be helpful in, or contribute towards, some future work. The Mishnah next passes to such work in which not quantity, but
quality, is in question - such as catching deer. Here it is explained that
anything by which an animal might be caught is included in the prohibition. So
far is this carried that, if a deer had run into a house, and the door were
shut upon it, it would involve guilt, and this, even if, without closing the
door, persons seated themselves at the entry to prevent the exit of the animal.
Passing over the other chapters, which similarly illustrate what are
supposed to be Biblical prohibitions of labour as defined in the thirty-nine Aboth
and their toledoth, we come, in the sixteenth chapter of the tractate,
to one of the most interesting parts, containing such Sabbath laws as, by their
own admission, were imposed only by the Rabbis. These embrace: 1. Things
forbidden, because they might lead to a transgression of the Biblical command;
2. such as are like the kind of labour supposed to be forbidden in the Bible;
3. Such as are regarded a sin compatible with the honour due to the Sabbath. In
the first class are included a number of regulations in case of a fire. All
portions of Holy Scripture, whether in the original or translated, and the case
in which they are laid; the phylacteries and their case, might be rescued from
the flames. Of food or drink only what was needful for the Sabbath might be rescued; but if the food were in a
cupboard or basket the whole might be carried
out. Similarly, all utensils needed for the Sabbath meal, but of dress only
what was absolutely necessary, might be saved, it being, however, provided,
that a person might put on a dress, save it, to go back and put on another, and
so on. Again, anything in the house might be covered with skin so as to save it
from the flames, or the spread of the flames might be arrested by piling up
vessels. It was not lawful to ask a Gentile to extinguish the flame, but not
duty to hinder him, if he did so. It was lawful to put a vessel over a lamp, to
prevent the ceiling from catching fire; similarly, to throw a vessel over a
scorpion, although on that point there is doubt. On the other hand, it is
allowed, if a Gentile has lighted a lamp on the Sabbath, to make use of it, the
fiction being, however, kept up that he did it for himself, and not for the
Jew. By the same fiction the cattle may be watered, or, in fact, any other use
made of his services. Before passing from this, we should point out that it was
directed that the Hagiographa should not be read except in the evening, since
the daytime was to be devoted to more doctrinal studies. In the same connection
it is added, that the study of the Mishnah is more important than that of the
Bible, that of the Talmud being considered the most meritorious of all, as
enabling one to understand all questions of right and wrong. Liturgical pieces,
though containing the Name of God, might not be rescued from the flames. The
Gospels, and the writings of Christians, or of heretics, might not be rescued.
If it be asked what should be done with them on weekdays, the answer is, that
the Names of God which they contain ought to be cut out, and then the books
themselves burned. One of the Rabbis, however, would have had them burnt at
once, indeed, he would rather have fled into an idolatrous temple than into a Christian
church: 'for the idolators deny God because they have not known Him,
but the apostates are worse.' To them applied Ps. cxxxix. 21, and, if it was
lawful to wash out in the waters of jealousy the Divine Name in order to
restore peace, much more would it be lawful to burn such books, even though
they contained the Divine Name, because they led to enmity between Israel and
their Heavenly Father. Another chapter of the tractate deals with the question of the
various pieces of furniture - how far they may be moved and used. Thus,
curtains, or a lid, may be regarded as furniture, and hence used. More
interesting is the next chapter (xviii.), which deals with things forbidden by
the Rabbis because they resemble those kinds of labour supposed to be
interdicted in the Bible. Here it is declared lawful, for example, to remove
quantities of straw or corn in order to make room for guests, or for an
assembly of students, but the whole barn must not be emptied, because in so
doing the floor might be injured. Again, as regards animals, some assistance
might be given if an animal was about to have its young, though not to the same
amount as to a woman in childbirth, for whose sake the Sabbath might be
desecrated. Lastly, all might be done on the holy day needful for circumcision.
At the same time, every preparation possible for the service should be made the
day before. The Mishnah proceeds to enter here on details not necessarily
connected with the Sabbath law. In the following chapter (xx.) the tractate goes on to indicate such
things as are only allowed on the Sabbath on condition that they are done
differently from ordinary days. Thus, for example, certain solutions ordinarily
made in water should be made in vinegar. The food for horses or cattle must not
be taken out of the manger, unless it is immediately given to some other animal.
The bedding straw must not be turned with hand, but with other part of the
body. A press in which linen is smoothed may be opened to take out napkins, but
must not be screwed down again, &c. The next chapter proceeds upon the principle that, although
everything is to be avoided which resembles the labours referred to in the
Bible, the same prohibition does not apply to such labours as resemble those interdicted
by the Rabbis. The application of this principle is not, however,
of interest to general readers. In the twenty-second chapter the Mishnah proceeds to show that all
the precautions of the Rabbis had only this object: to prevent an ultimate
breach of a Biblical prohibition. Hence, where such was not to be feared, an
act might be done. For example, a person might bathe in mineral waters, but not
carry home the linen with which he had dried himself. He might anoint and rub
the body, but not to the degree of making himself tired; but he might not use
any artificial remedial measures, such as taking a shower-bath. Bones might not
be set, nor emetics given, nor any medical or surgical operation performed. In the last two chapters the Mishnah points out those things which
are unlawful as derogatory to the dignity of the Sabbath. Certain things are
here of interest as bearing on the question of purchasing things for the
feast-day. Thus, it is expressly allowed to borrow wine, or oil, or bread on
the Sabbath, and to leave one's upper garment in pledge, though one should not
express it in such manner as to imply it was a loan. Moreover, it is expressly
added that if the day before the Passover falls on a Sabbath, one may in this
manner purchase a Paschal lamb, and, presumably, all else that is needful for
the feast. This shows how Judas might have been sent on the eve of the Passover
to purchase what was needful, for the law applying to a feast-day was much less
strict than that of the Sabbath. Again, to avoid the possibility of effacing
anything written, it was forbidden to read from a tablet the names of one's
guests, or the menu. It was lawful for children to cast lots for their
portions at table, but not with strangers, for this might lead to a breach of
the Sabbath, and to games of chance. Similarly, it was improper on the Sabbath
to engage workmen for the following week, nor should one be on the watch for
the close of that day to begin one's ordinary work. It was otherwise if
religious obligations awaited one at the close of the Sabbath such as attending
to a bride, or making preparation for a funeral.13
On the Sabbath itself it was lawful to do all that was absolutely necessary
connected with the dead, such as to anoint or wash the body, although without
moving the limbs, nor might the
eyes of the dying be closed - a practice which, indeed, was generally
denounced.
13. It
is curious as bearing upon a recent controversy, to note that on this occasion
it is said that an Israelite may be buried in the coffin and grave originally
destined for a Gentile, but not vice versā.
In the last chapter of the tractate the Mishnah returns to the
discussion of punctilious details. Supposing a traveller to arrive in a place
just as the Sabbath commenced, he must only take from his beast of burden such
objects are allowed to be handled on the Sabbath . As for the rest, he may
loosen the ropes and let them fall down of themselves. Further, it is declared
lawful to unloose bundles of straw, or to rub up what can only be eaten in that
condition; but care must be taken that nothing is done which is not absolutely
necessary. On the other hand, cooking would not be allowed - in short, nothing
must be done but what was absolutely necessary to satisfy the cravings of
hunger or thirst. Finally, it was declared lawful on the Sabbath to absolve from
vows, and to attend to similar religious calls. Detailed as this analysis of the Sabbath law is, we have not by
any means exhausted the subject. Thus, one of the most curious provisions of the
Sabbath law was, that on the Sabbath only such things were to be touched or
eaten as had been expressly prepared on a weekday with a view to the Sabbath
(Bez. 2 b).14
Anything not so destined was forbidden, as the expression is 'on account of Muqtsah'
(hcqwm), i. e. as not having been the 'intention.' Jewish dogmatists
enumerate nearly fifty cases in which that theological term finds its
application. Thus, if a hen had laid on the Sabbath, the egg was forbidden,
because, evidently, it could not have been destined on a weekday for eating,
since it was not yet laid, and did not exist; while if the hen had been kept,
not for laying but for fattening, the egg might be eaten as forming a part of
the hen that had fallen off! But when the principle of Muqtsah is applied
to the touching of things which are not used because they have become ugly (and
hence are not in one's mind), so that, for example, an old lamp may not be
touched, or raisins during the process of drying them (because they are not
eatable then), it will be seen how complicated such a law must have been.
14. This
destination or preparation is called Hachanah.
Chiefly from other tractates of the Talmud the following may
here be added. It would break the Sabbath rest to climb a tree, to ride, to
swim, to clap one's hands, to strike one's side, or to dance. All judicial
acts, vows, and tilling were also prohibited on that day (Bez. v. 2). It has
already been noted that aid might be given or promised for a woman in her bed.
But the Law went further. While it prohibited the application or use on the
Sabbath of any remedies that would bring improvement or cure to the sick, 'all
actual danger to life,' (tb#x t) hxwd ty#pn qps lb, Yoma vii. 6) superseded the Sabbath law, but
nothing short of that. Thus, to state an extreme case, if on the Sabbath a wall
had fallen on a person, and it were doubtful whether he was under the ruins or
not, whether he was alive or dead, a Jew or Gentile, it would be duty to clear
away the rubbish sufficiently to find the body. If life were not extinct the
labour would have to be continued; but if the person were dead nothing further
should be done to extricate the body. Similarly, a Rabbi allowed the use of
remedies on the Sabbath in throat diseases, on the express ground that he
regarded them as endangering life. On a similar principle a woman with child or
a sick person was allowed to break even the fast of the Day of Atonement, while
one who had a maniacal attack of morbid craving for food (swmlwb) = boulimoV might on that sacred day have
even unlawful food (Yoma viii. 5, 6). Such are the leading provisions by which Rabbinism enlarged the
simple Sabbath-law as expressed in the Bible,15
and, in its anxiety to ensure its most exact observance, changed the spiritual
import of its rest into a complicated code of external and burdensome
ordinances. Shall we then wonder at Christ's opposition to the
Sabbath-ordinances of the Synagogue, or, on the other hand, at the teaching of
Christ on this subject, and that of his most learned and most advanced
contemporaries? And whence this difference unless Christ was the 'Teacher come
from God,' Who spake as never before man had spoken?
15. Ex.
xx. 8--11; xxiii. 12-17; xxxiv. 1-3; Deut. v. 12-15.
Appendix 16 | Table
of Contents | Appendix 18
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
