THE SYNHEDRION AT JABNE.
Foundation of the School at Jabne--Jochanan ben
Zakkai--The Last of the Herodians--Judæa and Rome--The
Tanaites--Gamaliel II. appointed Patriarch--The Power
of Excommunication--Deposition and Restoration of the
Patriarch--Steps towards Collecting the Mishna--Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus--Joshua ben Chananya--Akiba and his
System--Ishmael--Condition of the Synhedrion.
70.117 C. E.
The disastrous result of the war which had been waged against the
Romans during a period of four years, the destruction of the State,
the burning of the Temple, the condemnation of the prisoners to labor
in the lead-works of Egypt, to be sold in the slave-markets, or to
become victims in the fights with wild beasts in the arena--all
these calamities came with such crushing force on the remaining Jews
that they felt utterly at a loss as to what they should do. Judæa
was depopulated; all who had taken up arms, whether in northern or
southern, whether in cis- or trans-Jordanic Judæa, were either dead or
enslaved and banished. The infuriated conquerors had spared neither the
women nor the children. The third banishment--the Roman Exile (Galut
Edom), under Vespasian and Titus--had commenced amid greater terror
and cruelty than the Babylonian Exile under Nebuchadnezzar. Only a
few were spared--those who openly or secretly sided with the Romans,
partisans of Rome, who, from the very commencement, had been devoid
of patriotic feelings; the friends of peace, who thought that Judaism
had a different task from that of combating the Romans by force of
arms, thoughtful and careful men, who looked upon a contest with Rome
as national suicide; and lastly those who, through party strife, had
been forced to lay down their arms and to make separate terms with the
Romans. This small remnant in the land of Judæa and the Jews of Syria,
who had always hoped that Titus would respect the Temple (the center of
worship and religion), were moved deeply, and thrown into despair at
the destruction of the sanctuary protected by God. Their despair led
to various results. Some were driven to lead an ascetic life, to deny
themselves meat and wine; others were led thereby to join Christianity,
seeking thus to fill the void in their hearts which was caused by the
cessation of burnt-offerings. Judaism was threatened by the greatest
danger; deprived, as it was, of its support and rallying-point, it
appeared in imminent danger of stagnation or of falling to pieces. The
communities in Syria, Babylon, and Persia, in Asia Minor, Rome, and
in Europe generally, had until now turned their eyes to Jerusalem and
the Temple, whence they drew their instructions and laws. The only
independent congregation, that of Alexandria, had become helpless
through the destruction of the Temple of Onias. What was to be the
future of the Jewish nation, of Judaism? The Synhedrion, which had
given laws to the entire community, and had regulated its religious
life, had disappeared with the fall of Jerusalem. Who would step into
the breach, and render a continued existence a possibility? There now
appeared a man who seemed made to save the essential doctrines of
Judaism, to restore some amount of strength to the nation, so that it
might continue to live, and the threatened decay be averted.
This man was Jochanan, the son of Zakkai. He labored, like the prophets
during the first exile in Babylon, but by other means, to maintain
the life of the Jewish nation; he reanimated its frozen limbs, and
infusing fresh energy into its actions, consolidated its dispersed
members into one whole. Jochanan, if not a disciple of Hillel, was
yet an heir to his mind. For forty years he is said to have been a
tradesman. In other cases, too, we shall see that the great leaders
in Jewish history did not follow the study of the Law as a means of
subsistence or of gain. During the existence of the State, Jochanan
sat in the Synhedrion, or taught within the shadow of the Temple: his
school at Jerusalem is said to have been an important one. He was the
first man who successfully combated the Sadducees, and who knew how
to refute their arguments. During the stormy days of the revolution,
he, owing to his peaceful character, joined the party of peace, and on
several occasions he urged the nation and the Zealots to surrender the
town of Jerusalem, and to submit to the Romans. "Why do you desire to
destroy the town, and to give up the Temple to the flames?" he would
say to the leaders of the revolution.
Notwithstanding the respect in which he was held, his well-meant
admonitions were ignored by the Zealots. The spies whom the Roman
general placed in the besieged city of Jerusalem, and who reported to
him what took place, did not fail to announce that Jochanan belonged to
the friends of Rome, and that he counseled the chiefs to make peace.
The news from the town was conveyed on small pieces of paper, which
were shot on arrows into the Roman camp. Induced either by fear of
the Zealots, or by the desire of obtaining a place of safety for the
Law, Jochanan formed the idea of taking refuge in the camp of Titus.
To depart from the town was, however, very difficult, as the Zealots
kept up a constant watch; Jochanan, therefore, aided by a leader of the
Zealots, named Ben-Batiach, determined to have himself conveyed out
of the town as a corpse. Having been placed in a coffin he was carried
out of the city gates, at the hour of sunset, by his pupils Eleazer and
Joshua. Titus received the fugitive in a friendly manner, and gave him
permission to make some request of him. Jochanan modestly requested
that he might be permitted to establish a school at Jamnia (Jabne),
where he could give lectures to his pupils. The district in which this
town lay belonged to the private domains of the imperial house, to
which it had been bequeathed by the last will of Salome, the sister of
Herod. Titus had nothing to urge against the harmless wish of Jochanan,
for he could not foresee that by this unimportant concession he was
enabling Judaism, feeble as it then appeared, to outlive Rome, which
was in all its vigor, by thousands of years.
Jochanan settled with his disciples in Jamnia, a city not far from the
Mediterranean Sea, and situated between the port Joppa, and the former
city of the Philistines, Ashdod. Jochanan was unable to settle down to
his occupation for some space of time, during which the bitter strife
was raging before the walls of Jerusalem, and within its streets and
its Temple. When the news arrived that the city had fallen, and that
the Temple was in flames, Jochanan and his disciples mourned and wailed
as if they had lost a dear relative through death. Jochanan, however,
unlike his followers, did not despair, for he recognized the truth
that Judaism was not indissolubly bound up with its Temple and its
altar. He rather consoled his mourning disciples for the loss of the
place of expiation with the fitting remark that charity and love of
mankind would take the place of burnt-offerings, as it is said in the
Bible--"for I take pleasure in mercy and not in burnt-offerings." This
liberal view of the value of burnt-offerings made it clear, however,
that it was absolutely necessary for a fresh center to be established
in lieu of the Temple. Jochanan therefore formed a sort of Synhedrion
in Jabne, of which he was at once recognized as the President. The
newly created Synhedrion was certainly not composed of seventy members,
and no doubt had a totally different sphere of action from the one in
Jerusalem, which during the revolution had exercised control over the
most important political events. The Synhedrion of Jamnia in the first
place gave to its founder plenary power in all religious matters such
as the Council had possessed in Jerusalem, and with this were connected
the judicial functions of a supreme court. It was only by unbounded
authority that Jochanan could compass the formation and consolidation
of a Synhedrion, under the unfavorable conditions of the time. Jochanan
had to oppose the general opinion that the Synhedrion as a body should
have control only in the hewn-stone hall of the Temple, and that
outside this spot it lost its judicial character and ceased to be the
representative of the nation. When, therefore, Jochanan dissociated the
functions of the Synhedrion from the site of the Temple, and removed
it to Jabne, he had actually released Judaism from the observance of
the rite of burnt-offerings, and rendered it independent. Without any
opposition whatsoever, Jabne by this means took the place of Jerusalem,
and became the religious national center for the dispersed community.
The important functions of the Synhedrion, by which it exercised a
judicial and uniting power over the distant congregations, such as
the fixing of the time for the new moon and the festivals, proceeded
from Jabne. It enjoyed some of the religious privileges of the Holy
City. The Synhedrion now bore the name of the Beth-Din (Court of
Justice)--the President was called Rosh-beth-din, and was honored by
the title of Rabban (general teacher). Jochanan gave over to the Court
of Justice the supervision of arrangements for the calendar, which
had formerly been one of the offices of the President. By this means
the watchers who were looking out for the reappearance of the new moon
needed no longer follow the President about in order to give him the
information, but had only to attend the sittings of the assembly. This
change was an important step, as it rendered the Synhedrion independent
of the person of its President.
Jochanan made altogether nine changes, most of which affected such
arrangements as had been rendered valueless through the destruction
of the Temple. He, however, retained various religious customs as a
remembrance of the Temple. He promoted the continuance and preservation
of Judaism through the renewal of the study of the Law, and thus
rendered firmer the weakened foundations of Jewish communal life.
The school at Jabne he influenced through his disciples, whom he
imbued with his spirit and his learning. Five of his distinguished
pupils are known to us by name, but only three of them won lasting
renown--Eliezer, and Joshua (who had carried Jochanan in a coffin out
of Jerusalem), and also Eleazer ben Arach. The latter was the most
eminent and important amongst them, and of him it was said, "If weighed
in the scale, he would outweigh all his fellow-scholars." Jochanan
loved to incite them to independent thought by deep-reaching questions.
Thus he gave them as a theme for thought, "What should man endeavor
most eagerly to obtain?" The one answered "a genial manner," the other
"a noble friend," a third "a noble neighbor," the fourth "the gift of
knowing in advance the result of his actions." Eleazer answered that
"man's best possession is a noble heart." This remark won the approval
of his master; it was an answer after his own mind, for in it all else
was included.
What was the character of the teachings which Jochanan imparted to
his pupils in the school? Hillel, the most respected of the teachers
of the Law, the highly-honored ideal in times to come, had given to
Judaism a special garb and form, or rather had given it the character
of the Law, which had always been peculiar to it. He was the first to
develop and confirm a special theory, a sort of Jewish theology or
nomology (science of religious laws). He was the founder of Talmudic
Judaism. From the midst of contending parties, which were tearing one
another to pieces, Hillel had drawn the Law into the quiet precincts
of the school-house, and had endeavored to bring into harmony those
precepts which were apparently opposed to the Law. Those which had been
considered as only customary and traditional were regarded as human
laws, and were looked upon by the Sadducees as innovations. Hillel had
shown these to be of Biblical origin. His seven explanatory rules, or
laws of interpretation, had on the one hand confirmed the laws which
had been introduced by the Sopheric and Pharisaic teachers, and on the
other hand had given them new scope to develop.
The written Law (that of the Pentateuch) and the oral Law (the
Sopheric) from his time ceased to be two widely sundered branches, but
were brought into close relations with each other, although the new
rendering certainly did violence to the words of Scripture. But as
the text was explained, not on a philological basis, but in order to
elucidate the laws, it was not possible to keep simply to the written
words; it was necessary to interpret them so as to render them suited
to the new conditions of life. Under the term Oral Law was included
everything which had been handed down from the Fathers, and it formed
to a certain extent a hereditary law. The various restrictions which
the Sopheric teachers had placed around the Law, the legal decisions
which had been introduced by the Synhedrion, the customs which had been
observed from generation to generation, the extensions deduced from
meager verses of the Pentateuch, all these elements were not written
down, but were committed to memory. They were put into the form of
short sentences, called "Halacha." They were not arranged or classified
according to subjects, but were strung together without connection, or
handed down separately, sometimes joined to the name of the authority
from whom they were derived. A marvelous memory was needed to retain
these Halachas or oral teachings. Jochanan ben Zakkai was the man who
best knew these laws. He handed them down to his pupils, and pointed
out to them their connection with the written law; he showed them how
to draw deductions therefrom, the laws handed down being the material,
and their mode of treatment the form. These deductions were obtained
by two methods, the one showing how the ordinances of the Law were
to be obtained from the words of Scripture (Midrash), and the other
served to apply the oral Law to new questions as they arose (Talmud).
Thus a fruitful field for the extension of the Law and for ingenious
combinations was opened, which was later on freely cultivated. Jochanan
ben Zakkai, however, thought much more of the material of the Law than
of its form.
He taught not only those doctrines of Judaism which appertained to
the Law, but also those portions of the Holy Scriptures which had no
direct bearing on the Law. He gave lectures on the writings of the
prophets and historians in the form of discourses, which had for some
time past been in use both in and out of the synagogue. These lectures
were either edifying, comforting, or bitter, sharp, and ironical, and
applied the words of the prophets about Edom and Esau, to hated Rome
and its tyranny. This kind of exposition of Scripture had a name,
"Agada" or "Hagadah." Its chief subjects consisted in explaining
historical events, prophetic utterances, and in bringing to mind the
past, and treating of the future of Judaism. The Agada investigated
the meaning of the Law, examined into the general moral truths of
Judaism, deftly united the present with the past, and shadowed the
present conditions of life in past experiences. The Halacha forms the
chief trunk of the Law, the Midrash the suckling roots, which drew
their nourishment from the words of Scripture. The Talmud formed the
wide-spreading branches, and the Agada was the blossom which scented
and colored the simple fabric of the laws.
In his Agadic dissertations Jochanan endeavored to illuminate the
ordinances of the Law by the light of the understanding, and to combine
them into general truths, but in a clear and simple manner, utterly
dissimilar from the exaggerated method of the Alexandrian-Jewish
teachers, who endeavored to extract the dazzling light of the Grecian
mode of thought from Holy Writ.
Amongst other things, Jochanan explained very quaintly why the use of
iron is forbidden in erecting an altar. Iron is the symbol of war and
dissension; the altar, on the contrary, is the symbol of peace and
atonement; therefore iron must be kept away from the altar. He deduced
therefrom the high value of peace, the advantages of peace between
man and wife, between one city and another, and between one nation
and another. These were the principles which had induced him to side
with the Romans against the revolutionaries. In this way he explained
various laws, and rendered them comprehensible, when they seemed
obscure or in any way extraordinary. Jochanan was wont to hold converse
also with Pagans who had knowledge of the Jewish Law, either from the
Greek translation or from their intercourse with the Jews, refuting
the objections which they raised, and dispelling or making clear by
suitable comparisons the peculiarities which occur in the Holy Writings.
Besides Jochanan, who was the most influential and the chief personage
of his time, there was a group of teachers of the Law. They were all
at an advanced age at the period of the destruction of the State, and
were without doubt members of the Jamnian Synhedrion. Most of them, of
whom nothing important is recorded, are known only by name. Among these
were Chanina, the deputy of various High Priests (_Segan ha-Cohanim_),
who has preserved for us traditions from the time of the Temple. He
belonged to the lovers of peace, and exhorted his contemporaries to
pray for the well-being of the ruling power (that of the Romans), "for,
if no fear thereof existed, then one man would swallow another alive."
Zadok, another teacher, was a disciple of Shammai, and in anticipation
of the fall of the Temple he fasted for forty years, whereby he ruined
his health. Nachum, the Mede, who had been previously member of a
college of the Law in Jerusalem, Dossa ben Archinas, with his brother
Jonathan, the latter a clear-headed and argumentative youth, and Abba
Saul must also be mentioned.
Lastly, there belonged to this circle Nachum of Gimso (Emmaus), and
Nechunya ben Hakana. The first has been recorded by tradition as the
hero of strange adventures, and even the name of his birthplace Gimso
has been explained, so as to put into his mouth the words "This also is
for good" (Gam-su-l'-toba). He is represented in the world of legend as
a scholar to whom many disagreeable experiences happened, all of which
proved of good to him. Nachum developed a special mode of teaching,
which consisted in explaining the oral law from the written text,
according to certain particles which the lawgiver had purposely used
as indications when drawing up the Law. These particles, according to
his idea, not only served as syntactical signs in the sentences, but
as signs for enlarging and diminishing the circle within which each
law should work. Nachum's rules formed a new and fruitful addition
to those laid down by Hillel; they were carefully cultivated and
developed, and received the name "the rules of extension or exclusion"
(Ribbuj-u-m'ut). Nechunya ben Hakana was, however, an opponent of
Nachum's system; he approved only the explanatory rules as propounded
by Hillel.
Jochanan ben Zakkai, the head not of the State but of the community,
appears to have acted as a shield from a political point of view.
His kindly and gentle disposition, in which he resembled Hillel, he
displayed even to the heathens. It is related of him that he always
greeted them in a friendly manner. Such friendliness offers a striking
contrast to the hatred felt by the Zealots towards the heathens, both
before and after the revolution, which increased after the destruction
of the Temple. The verse (Proverbs xiv. 34), "The kindness of the
nations is sin," was taken literally by the people of that time, and
was specially applied to the heathen world. "The heathens may do
ever so much good, yet it is accounted to them as sin, for they do
it only to mock us." Jochanan alone explained this verse in a sense
expressive of true humanity: "As the burnt-offering atones for Israel,
so mercy and kindness atone for the heathen nations." This kindliness
of Jochanan may have contributed to the result that, notwithstanding
the fresh outbreaks amongst the Jews in Cyrene and Egypt, which the
Emperors Vespasian and Titus had to put down, they did not persecute
the Jews in any extraordinary degree. It is expressly stated in ancient
records that the Roman authorities removed the contempt which formerly
attached to the Jews, and that the murder of a Jew was punished by
death. The personality of Jochanan may have served them as a guarantee
for the peaceful disposition of the mother-country.
Hope alone gave to him and his circle of fellow-pupils and disciples
fresh courage, the hope or rather the assurance that Israel should
not be lost. The dreary present did not veil from him the promised
and brighter future. The present was in truth sufficiently overcast.
The pasture lands had been taken away from those who had survived the
national disasters, and given to strangers. Thereby those who had
formerly been rich had fallen into poverty. The very poorest had to
pay the Jews' tax (Fiscus Judaicus). The land, which before the war
had been so flourishing, was strewn with ruins. Every joy had departed
from Israel; even weddings were performed in a silent manner. Jochanan
described the comfortless position of the times in an address to the
people. He once saw a Jewish maiden of a rich house, picking up a
scanty nourishment of barley-corn from amongst the horses' hoofs.
At this he exclaimed, "Unhappy nation, you would not serve God, and
therefore you must serve foreign nations; you would not offer half a
shekel for the Temple, and therefore you must pay thirty times as much
to the State of your new enemies; you refused to keep the roads and
paths in order for the pilgrims, and, therefore, you must now support
the watch-lodges in the vineyards, which the Romans have seized."
Agrippa and Berenice, the remaining members of the house of Herod,
who kept up close connections with those in power, appear to have
contributed greatly to the alleviation of the sorrows of the conquered
Jews. Princess Berenice, whose beauty seemed to bid defiance to time,
long held Titus captive by her charms, and it wanted but little for the
Jewish princess to become a Roman empress. The prejudice of Roman pride
disturbed the project of a marriage between Titus and Berenice, and
compelled the Emperor's son to break the bonds which had bound him for
years. Berenice had to leave the royal palace, and probably returned to
her brother in Palestine. But as Titus had not yet given up the hope
of making her his wife, her voice still had weight with him, and it
probably was often raised in favor of her co-religionists, to whom she
was attached. The last Jewish king, Agrippa, also stood in favor with
Vespasian, for the great services which he had rendered to his house.
It appears that the Emperor had added Galilee to his territories;
Agrippa had a Jewish governor, whom he sent alternately to the two
Galilæan capitals, Tiberias and Sepphoris. To this ruler it was no
doubt due that the district of Galilee recovered itself more rapidly,
and became sooner repeopled than Judæa, which was governed by a Roman
ruler.
The period during which Jochanan worked in his new sphere of action
cannot be stated with certainty. He united in himself the qualities
of the prophet Jeremiah and the prince Zerubbabel, who had been in
exile. Like Jeremiah he mourned over the destruction of Jerusalem, and
like Zerubbabel he unrolled a new future. Both Jochanan ben Zakkai
and Zerubbabel stood at the threshold of a new epoch, both laid the
foundation-stone of a new edifice in Judaism, for the completion of
which the subsequent generations have worked. Jochanan died on his bed
in the arms of his pupils. He had previously had a conversation with
them, which gives an insight into his mind. His pupils were surprised
to find their courageous master frightened and depressed in the hour of
his death. He remarked that he did not fear death, but the having to
appear before the Eternal Ruler, whose justice was incorruptible. He
blessed his pupils before his death with these words--"May the fear of
God influence your actions as much as the fear of man."
Immediately after the death of their master, his chief disciples held
council as to the place where they might continue the work of teaching
the Law. Most of them thought of remaining in Jabne, where there lived
a circle of men acquainted with the traditions of the past. Eleazar ben
Arach, the favorite pupil of Jochanan, however, insisted on removing
the school to Emmaus (Gimso), a healthy and pleasant town, three
geographical miles distant from Jabne. Believing that he was absolutely
needful to his fellow-students, and being persuaded by his wife that
they would soon follow him, he separated from them, and remained in
Emmaus. Solitary and cut off from the opportunity of exchanging ideas
with others, he is said to have so utterly forgotten what he once knew,
that amusing anecdotes are related of his subsequent ignorance. To
Arach was applied the saying, "Repair to the place of the Law, and do
not fancy that thy comrades will follow thee, and that they can uphold
the Law only through thee; do not rely too much on thy penetration."
Whilst Arach, from whom so much was hoped, was thus forgotten, his
companions continued the work of their master, and became renowned in
generations to come. Gamaliel, Joshua, and Eliezer came to the fore as
important personages.
It was first necessary to give a chief to the community, which, though
small, was yet respected by the Jews of all countries. Gamaliel was
chosen; he was the descendant of Hillel, and his ancestors had presided
over the Synhedrion throughout four generations. It must have been
necessary to remove political difficulties to enable the son of the man
who had been concerned in the uprising against the Romans, to attain so
high a rank. Gamaliel took the title Nasi (Prince--among the Romans,
Patriarch). He had his seat in Jabne, and was also sufficiently versed
in traditions to preside in the school. Although the town of Jabne was
of first importance, the members of the new college established some
schools outside of the town of Jabne, but in its neighborhood. Eliezer
taught at Lydda; Joshua at Bekiin, on the plains between Jabne and
Lydda; other pupils of Jochanan also opened schools; and each attracted
a circle of disciples, and was called by the title Rabbi (Master).
The Patriarch was called Rabban (General Master), to distinguish him
from the other teachers. The Law therefore was not left unheeded after
the death of the founder of the Jabne Synhedrion; it received, if
possible, even more attention; but the unity which had hardly been
established threatened to disappear altogether. The disputes between
the adherents of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, over which blood
had been shed before the destruction of the Temple, and which had only
been quelled by the war of the revolution, broke out afresh, and the
more severely, as the uniting influence proceeding from the Temple now
no longer existed. The contentions between the schools, which extended
to various practical matters, brought about wide divergence in the
views with regard to the Law and life. One teacher held some things
to be permissible which another forbade; and in one place things were
done which were not allowed in another. Thus Judaism seemed to have
two bodies of laws, or, according to the words of the Talmud--"The one
Law had become two." Important questions of life, sometimes involving
serious consequences, such as those concerning marriage, were affected
by these differences. The younger generation, relieved from the
necessity for mutual forbearance occasioned by the late war, had no
very strong desire to make peace, but contested the disputed questions
with great acrimony. The endeavor to terminate these quarrels, which
threatened the destruction of all unity, was the life-task of Gamaliel,
but his policy brought him into open collision with his friends.
Little is known of his private affairs, but this little shows him to
have possessed a high moral character and a powerful mind. Gamaliel
owned land, which he lent to be cultivated on condition that he
received a part of the harvest. He also gave corn for sowing purposes,
but when he was repaid he only accepted the lowest prices, in order
to avoid even the appearance of taking interest. He displayed great
tenderness to his favorite slave Tabi, whom he would willingly have
set free could he have done so, and had not the Law disapproved of
manumission. On the death of the slave he mourned for him as for a
relative. Gamaliel appears to have had some mathematical knowledge. In
fixing the new moon and the holidays dependent on it, he was guided
more by astronomical calculations than by the evidence of witnesses
that they had or had not seen the new moon. Such reckonings, exact even
to a fraction, were handed down in the house of the Patriarch. Gamaliel
often made journeys in order to visit the various congregations, to
be an eye-witness of their condition, and to keep them all in order.
His journeys took him over Judæa, into Galilee, and as far as Acco
(Ptolemais). Although he was not of robust health, he did not spare
himself the greatest exertions, when he could benefit his people. His
rule as Patriarch occurred in a very troubled time, both within and
without, and this circumstance caused him to insist on his dignity
most strictly. His character was thereby misunderstood, and he was
accused of forming selfish and ambitious plans. Gamaliel directed
his chief energies to raise the patriarchal dignity that it should
become the center of the Jewish community, so as to maintain by his
authority the threatened unity of the Law, and the religious and moral
condition of the people. In the contests between the disciples of the
schools of Shammai and Hillel he decreed that votes should be taken
with regard to each law in question, and that the decision should be
determined by the majority of votes in the college, in order to protect
by authority the threatened unity of the Law against all attacks. The
desire for unity seems to have been more generally felt, the more the
opposition between the two schools increased, and the more the two
sets of followers, who clung to the Halachas bequeathed to them by
their teachers, sought to develop their doctrines. Contemporaries did
not disguise from themselves the fact that the Law might easily be
subject to confusion through these differences. A fear was expressed
that the time would soon come when men would refer in vain to the
Holy Writings or to the Oral Law for a decision, and when one account
would contradict the other. The Synhedrion of Jabne, therefore, once
more subjected contested matters to discussion and decision. It began
with the fundamental propositions of Hillel and Shammai, in order to
fix by voting such rules as should hold good in all cases. But it was
not easy to obtain unity; for three and a half years the contest is
said to have lasted in the vineyards of Jabne, both parties insisting
on the exclusive correctness of their own traditions--the Shammaites
being especially stubborn and immovable, and, like the founder of
their school, not disposed to yield. Then a voice, heard by chance
(Bath-Kol), which was usually considered as a communication from heaven
in difficult cases, is said to have sounded through the school-house in
Jabne--a voice which said, "The teachings of both schools are the words
of the living God, but practically the laws of Hillel only are to carry
weight." Joshua, a man of calm disposition, alone expressed himself
against any decision arrived at by the Bath-Kol. "We do not require
a miraculous voice," he said, "for the Law is not given for heavenly
beings, but for men, who in questionable cases can decide by taking
a majority, and a miracle cannot in such cases give the decision."
Eliezer also was not satisfied with the conclusion arrived at, but this
opposition had only slight results. Hillel's expositions, deductions,
and explanatory rules at length attained the authority due to them.
As the followers of Shammai held with the Zealots, the enemies of the
Romans, and the Hillelites with the peace party, the revolution was
in some measure ended by this act of the Synhedrion of Jabne. But it
was not intended to exercise compulsion against the Shammaites, and so
entirely to reorganize their religious life according to the decision
arrived at; on the contrary it permitted them to follow their own
convictions. "Every man according to his choice may follow the school
of Hillel or of Shammai, but the decisions of the school of Hillel
shall be the only accepted interpretation of the Law." Rabbi Gamaliel
watched most carefully over the union of the two parties, which was
probably his work, and withstood any attempt to oppose the decisions
of the Synhedrion; he was supported by the venerable Zadok, to whom he
gave the place of honor at his right hand at all meetings, and who,
having beheld the Temple in its glory, was considered as an authority.
There seems to have been another regulation in use besides the above,
but the connection of the two is not very clear. The Patriarch of
Jabne made a rule that only such persons should be admitted to the
school-house whose uprightness had been proved; and for this purpose
he placed a porter at the doors of the school, in order to prevent the
admission of those who were unworthy. It appears that he desired to
exclude such as pursued the study of the Law with wrong intentions;
some, perhaps, had sought admission to the school from vanity or other
ignoble motives. Two warnings, the one by Jochanan ben Zakkai, and the
other by Zadok, against those who took part in the study of the Law
from self-interest, appear to confirm this supposition. The former
said, "If you have acquired much of the Law, do not be proud of it, for
you are made for that purpose." The latter said, "Do not use the Law as
a crown in order to shine with it, nor as a spade in order to dig with
it." Such low ideas Gamaliel endeavored to keep out of the circle of
the school.
Both arrangements, the employment of the authority of the Patriarch in
maintaining the Halachic decisions, and the precautions for admitting
members and disciples, met with opposition, which at first was only
timidly expressed. The Patriarch endeavored to keep down contests by
the use of excommunication, which he employed with great energy, and
with that entire disregard of consequences which arises from deeply
rooted conviction. The excommunication (Nidui) had not at that time
the gloomy severity of later ages, but was of a mild form; forbidding
the interdicted man to hold any close intercourse with others until
he had penitently submitted to the required demands. During the
interdict, which lasted at least thirty days, the sinner wore a black
mourning-garb and kept several mourning observances; if he died
during this period without having submitted or repented, the Court of
Justice had a stone laid on his coffin. Gamaliel had the courage to
excommunicate several of the most important personages of his time,
whereby he made many bitter enemies. He acted thus even towards his
own brother-in-law, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. Deeply impressed by the
unfortunate results which disunion must bring to Judaism, threatened as
it already was by various half-Jewish, half-Christian sects, Gamaliel
did not hesitate to proceed with severity against trifling offenses,
in order to avoid the destruction of religious unity. There was once
a discussion about an oven of peculiar structure, which a decision of
the majority had pronounced liable to become unclean, like earthenware
vessels. Eliezer, following a special tradition, did not wish to
yield to this decision, and acted in opposition to it; at Gamaliel's
instigation, Eliezer was excommunicated.
Gamaliel thought that he had united the two schools, and had brought
about peace, when his power was destroyed by a man from whom he had
not expected any energetic opposition. Joshua, who was of a yielding
disposition, and apparently the least dangerous of the opponents
of the severe Patriarch, became his worst enemy. Joshua was just
as discontented with some of Gamaliel's regulations as Eliezer had
been, but he did not venture to show his disapproval on account of
his poor and miserable condition, and when he happened to utter any
contradictory opinion he quickly withdrew it again. Gamaliel had
received the report of two untrustworthy witnesses in order to fix the
commencement of the month of Tishri, on which depended the dates of the
chief festivals, including the Day of Atonement. Joshua showed that
the Patriarch had committed an error in this act, and demanded that
the college should change the date of the holiday. Gamaliel remained
firm, and sent an order to Joshua that on the day which, according
to Joshua's calculation, was the Day of Atonement, the latter should
appear before him in workaday clothes, with his staff, knapsack, and
money-bag. This dictatorial proceeding seemed so harsh to Joshua, that
he complained of it to his most important colleagues, and appeared
determined to oppose it. Those, however, who saw the necessity for
unity persuaded him to yield. The venerable Dossa ben Harchinas
convinced him that the arrangements of a religious chief must be
uncontested even if they are erroneous, and that every man must follow
them. Joshua allowed himself to be persuaded, and submitted to the
Patriarch. His appearance filled Gamaliel with astonishment. He greeted
him heartily, and said to him, "Welcome, my teacher and pupil--my
teacher in wisdom, my pupil in obedience. Happy is the age in which
great men obey inferior ones." But this reconciliation was not of long
duration. The severe proceedings of the Patriarch had raised a hostile
party against him, which began secretly to act in opposition to him. He
knew of this opposition party, and referred to it in public addresses.
It is related of him that his mode of opening the sittings of the
Synhedrion varied. If none of his opponents were present he would ask
the assembly to propound questions; if, however, any of his enemies
were present he would not give this invitation. The opposition party
seem therefore to have put him in a dilemma at these meetings. Gamaliel
may have had reason to consider Joshua as the chief of this party, and
often made him feel the power of his own higher position by offensive
demeanor and severe treatment. One day the mutual ill-feeling led to
an outbreak, and caused a change in the Synhedrion. The Patriarch had
once again offended Joshua by his severe manner, and accused him of
secret opposition to one of the Halachas. As Joshua at first denied
the fact, Gamaliel was so angered that he cried out, "Then stand, so
that witnesses may give evidence against you." This was the form of an
indictment. The school-house was full of people, amongst whom there
arose a tumult at this contemptuous treatment of a member who was
respected and loved by the people. The opposition party took courage,
and gave utterance to their dissatisfaction. They called out to the
Patriarch, "Who is there that has not constantly felt thy severity?"
The school was turned into a tribunal, and the college deposed Gamaliel
on the spot from the dignity of Patriarch. With his fall ended the
regulations made by him. The porter was removed from the door of the
school, to which all could now gain unobstructed admission. The
members of the Synhedrion immediately sought for another Patriarch, so
that this important office might not be unoccupied. They had too much
tact to heap fresh contumely on the late Patriarch by choosing Joshua,
his chief opponent, and Eliezer, who had a claim to the honor, lay
under an interdict. Akiba seemed fitted for the post by his intellect
and character. He had quickly risen from ignorance and poverty, had
rapidly passed the intervening steps between the degrees of pupil
and master, and had obtained admiration even from the profoundest
teachers of the Law. But his greatness was only of yesterday; he had no
distinguished ancestors to show that he was worthy of the dignity of
Patriarch. The college therefore chose a very young member, Eleazar ben
Azariah, who at that time must have been only in his sixteenth year.
The choice was made on account of his noble descent from a long line of
ancestors, which reached to Ezra, the regenerator of Judaism, a further
motive for his election being his immense riches and the consideration
in which he was held by the Roman authorities. Eleazar was not wanting
in character and understanding, and was therefore considered worthy to
succeed Gamaliel.
This deposition and election had great results, and the day on
which these events took place was considered of such importance by
after-comers that it was known by the simple designation, "that
day." It seems that the college of the Synhedrion, perhaps on the
suggestion of Joshua, again revised those laws which, through the
influence of Gamaliel, had been decided according to the spirit of
the school of Hillel. The college, which at that time consisted of
the extraordinary number of seventy-two members, therefore undertook
the revision of one-sided laws, and examined those who were in
possession of traditions. More than twenty persons are recorded to
have given testimony before the college as to the traditions which
had been handed down. In many points the majority of the college
took middle ground between the opposing doctrines of the schools of
Shammai and Hillel, and they decided "neither like the one nor like
the other." With regard to other contested questions it appeared that
Hillel himself, or his school, had renounced their own views, and had
been inclined to follow the Shammaites. The witnesses with regard
to the Halachas seem to have been formally examined, and perhaps
their evidence was even written down. The testimony of witnesses on
this day bears the name Adoyot (evidence of witnesses), or Bechirta
(best choice), and the code drawn up is without doubt the earliest
collection. One recognizes in its contents the ancient and primitive
form of the traditions. The laws are put together quite promiscuously,
and without any other connection than the name of the person who handed
them down.
The day of the assembly of witnesses was also of general importance,
on account of two questions which were discussed. The first question
arose thus. A heathen of Ammonite descent came before the meeting,
asking whether he could be legally accepted as a proselyte. Gamaliel
had turned him away with the sentence of the written law, "Moabites and
Ammonites may not be received into the congregation of God, even in the
tenth generation." The disputants treated the question with warmth, and
Gamaliel endeavored to have his view carried. Joshua, however, carried
his view that the sentence of the Law no longer applied to those times,
as, through the aggressions of their conquerors, all nations had become
mixed together and confused beyond recognition. The second question
concerned the holiness of the two writings ascribed to King Solomon,
Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim). The
school of Shammai had not recognized them as holy. This old contest
was now taken up by the College of Seventy-two, which had not approved
of the decisions of Hillel, but it is not clearly known with what
result. Later on these Halachas were included in the collection (Canon)
of the Holy Writings, after which the Canon was completed and several
writings in the Hebrew language were rejected as Apocrypha, such as the
proverbs of Sirach, the first book of the Maccabees, and several others.
It is a noble characteristic of Gamaliel, which his contemporaries
readily recognized, that notwithstanding the many insults he received
on "that day," he did not for one moment feel a desire, from petty
revenge, to retire from his office of teacher. He took part in the
discussions as before, little prospect as there was for him to carry
through his ideas in the midst of an assemblage which was so opposed
to him. But in the eager controversies of the day he no doubt became
convinced that his great severity had estranged the others from him,
and that he had thereby suppressed many a true opinion; he felt his
courage broken and he determined to yield. He therefore went to
the most respected members of the Synhedrion, to apologize for his
offensive demeanor. He visited his chief opponent, Joshua, who was
following his handicraft of needle-making. Gamaliel, who had grown
up in riches, could not suppress his surprise at seeing so learned a
man engaged in such heavy work, and said, "Is it thus thou makest thy
living?" Joshua took the opportunity frankly to put before him the
indifference shown to the sad condition of several worthy men--"It is
bad enough," said Joshua, "that thou hast only just discovered it. Woe
to the age, whose leader thou art, that thou dost not know of the cares
of the learned and what difficulty they have to support themselves."
Joshua had uttered the same reproach when Gamaliel had admired his
astronomical knowledge; he had modestly repudiated his admiration,
and pointed out two pupils who possessed distinguished mathematical
attainments, but who hardly had bread and clothes. Gamaliel at last
besought his enraged opponent to forgive him, out of consideration for
the highly honored house of Hillel. Joshua thereupon expressed himself
as satisfied, and promised to work for Gamaliel's reinstatement in the
position of Patriarch. The next step was to induce the newly-elected
Nasi to give up his dignity, upon which he had only just entered. There
was a certain amount of delicacy in making the suggestion to him.
Akiba, who was ever ready to be of service, undertook the delicate
commission, the execution of which, however, was not made at all
difficult for him. For hardly had Eleazar, the newly-elected Patriarch,
heard that peace was made between Gamaliel and his chief enemy, than he
was immediately prepared to return to private life; he even offered to
pay a visit to Gamaliel, attended by the whole College. The arrangement
made between the Patriarch and Eleazar was that the former should
always preside for the first two weeks, and hold the classes, and that
the latter, as Vice-President, should do the same in the third week.
In this way the strife ended; it had arisen neither from ambition nor
pride, but only from an erroneous view of the Patriarch's functions.
These disagreements were soon forgotten, and thenceforward Gamaliel
lived in peace with the members of the Synhedrion. Perhaps the position
of affairs under the Emperor Domitian had diverted the public attention
from internal matters, and caused the necessity for union to be felt,
in order to avert the dangers which threatened from without.
Gamaliel represented in this circle of scholars that desire for
unity and authority which might regulate from one center the entire
religious and national life of the people. His brother-in-law,
Eliezer, son of Hyrcanus, represented the other party, namely, those
who maintained their own views and refused to submit to universally
binding enactments. From his earliest youth Eliezer had devoted himself
to the acquirement of Halachas, and these he impressed so firmly on
his memory that, as he himself said, not a grain of them should be
lost. His teacher, Jochanan, therefore called him "a sealed cistern
which lets no drop pass." It was in accordance with this method that
Eliezer taught at Lydda (Diospolis), a place which had formerly been a
race-course. When he was questioned as to a law, he either replied as
he had been taught by his teachers, or openly acknowledged "I do not
know; I have not been told." During his stay once in Cæsarea Philippi
in Upper Galilee, thirty questions were put to him for decision, to
which he replied, "To twelve of these I can give the decision which has
been handed down to me; for the other eighteen I have no tradition."
Being asked whether he only taught what had been handed down to him,
he replied, "You compel me now to impart something which has not been
communicated to me; for know that in my whole life I have never taught
a single word which has not been handed down to me by my teachers."
In order to escape troublesome questions which he did not know how
to answer, he would put cross-questions from which could be seen his
disinclination to discuss the matter. He was once asked whether an
illegitimate child could succeed to property, and he asked in return,
"Whether it would be legally considered as a brother." To the question
whether one might paint a house white after the destruction of the
Temple, he put the cross-question whether one would paint a grave, thus
keeping firm to his rule never to pronounce a decision which had not
been made certain to him by oral tradition. To the keenest deductions
he usually opposed the simple reply, "I have not heard it." In order
to maintain this peculiar view, he seems to have impressed on his
pupils, "Keep your children from searching (Higayon); let them rather
be brought up on the knees of the wise."
Eliezer was therefore the conservative element in the Synhedrion; he
was the organ of tradition, which retained the Halachas precisely as
it received them; he was the "sealed cistern" which did not permit one
drop of water to run away, nor one fresh drop to find entrance. His
contemporaries and successors gave him the honored name of "Sinai," a
living tablet of the Law, inscribed with unchangeable precepts. Greatly
as he was respected, however, as a faithful keeper of the traditional
Law, he nevertheless was somewhat isolated on account of his clinging
exclusively to traditions. His colleagues had gone too far on the road
pointed out by Hillel to be satisfied with merely keeping the Law;
they desired also to extend and develop it. Eliezer necessarily came
into collision with the tendency of the times. He was most strongly
opposed to his brother-in-law, Gamaliel, and his method of exclusion
in striving for unity. On the one side was authority supported by a
powerful will, which kept down any revolt against the law adopted; and
on the other side was the secure knowledge which finds its sanction
in the past. Such opposites could not be easily reconciled, nor was
Eliezer the man to give up his convictions. He was in fact reproached
for his unbending character, which refused to submit to others, and
which made him express his opinions in harsh terms. The respect which
was felt for him personally made it difficult to inform him of the
fact that he was excommunicated, but Akiba once more undertook the
office of conveying the unpleasant news. Dressed in black, he went to
Eliezer and gently broke to him the sentence, and addressed him in
these words, "It appears to me that thy comrades shun thee." Eliezer
understood the hint, and took the blow without murmuring; he submitted
to the excommunication, and lived apart from his friends. He took only
a distant interest in the discussions pursued in Jamnia. When he heard
any important decision, he used to look among the treasures of the
Halachas in order to confirm or dispute it.
Without exercising any influence over affairs or taking part in the
development of the Law, Eliezer lived his last years in flourishing
material circumstances, but in a dreary state of mind. In his misery
he gave utterance to a sentence which is in marked contrast to the
sentiments of his comrades. "Warm thyself," he said, "at the fire of
the wise, but beware of the coals that thou dost not burn thyself, for
their bite is as that of the jackal, their sting like the scorpion's,
their tongues like the tongues of snakes, and their words are burning
coals." These are the bitter words of a pained spirit, but they do not
deny to his opponents a measure of justification.
A striking contrast to the stubbornness of Eliezer, and the no less
unbending despotism of Gamaliel, is offered by Joshua ben Chananya. He
was the yielding, pliable, peaceable element in this newly constituted
Jewish body. He protected the Law and the people from one-sided and
exaggerated ideas, and became the promoter of the study of the Law and
the benefactor of his people. As a young Levite of the choir he had
seen the glory of the Temple, and had sung the psalms in its halls.
Together with his teacher he had left Jerusalem, and after the death of
the latter had founded a school in Bekiin. Here he taught his pupils,
and carried on the humble handicraft of making needles, by which he
maintained his family. Through his twofold occupation Joshua was
brought into communication both with scholars and the common people;
and he endeavored to unite the two, and was the only man who possessed
power over the minds and will of the masses. He was personally so ugly
that an empress's daughter once asked him how it was so much wisdom was
incorporated in so ugly a form. Whereupon Joshua answered that wine was
not kept in casks of gold.
Besides an acquaintance with tradition, he seems to have possessed some
astronomical knowledge, which enabled him to calculate the irregular
course of the comets. This knowledge was once of great use to him
when he was on a journey. He had started on a voyage with Gamaliel,
and had laid in more provisions than were usually necessary for the
journey. The ship took an erratic course for some time, because its
captain, deceived by the sight of a certain star, had steered in a
wrong direction. Gamaliel's provisions having been consumed, he was
astonished that this was not the case with his companion, but that,
in fact, he could even spare some for him. Thereupon Joshua informed
him that he had calculated on the return of a star (a comet), which
reappeared every seventy years, and which would mislead the ignorant
sailor, and that therefore he (Joshua) had provided himself with extra
food for this emergency. This astronomical knowledge of Joshua appears
the more surprising, as the cycles of the comets were known not even
to the learned of antiquity. But Joshua was yet more distinguished
for his modesty and gentleness than for knowledge and wisdom, and
these qualities he displayed also in teaching. He was opposed to all
exaggeration and eccentricity, and gave heed to the circumstances of
daily life when making a legal decision.
Joshua warmly expressed his disapproval of the numerous measures which
the school of Shammai had introduced before the destruction of the
Temple, under the name of "the eighteen rules," and which rendered
impossible all closer relations or friendly communications with the
heathens. He said, "On that day, the school of Shammai went beyond all
bounds in their decisions; they behaved as one who pours water into a
vessel containing oil; the more water one pours in, the more oil runs
off," which meant that, by introducing a number of superfluous details,
the really important things were lost. Joshua seems also to have
opposed the unmeasured deductions of the Hillelite school. He said that
the regulations respecting the Sabbath, festive offerings, and misuse
of holy things, have but slight foundation in Holy Writ, but have many
Halachas in their support.
The balanced and calm character of Joshua rendered him especially
fitted for the part of intermediary between the Jewish nation and
Roman intolerance. He was the only teacher who sought and enjoyed
the confidence of the Roman rulers; without betraying his trust to
the Romans, he yet persuaded the opposing forces to be mutually more
yielding. The death of Gamaliel, and the hostile attitude of the Jews
towards the Romans during the last years of the Emperor Trajan and the
early years of Hadrian's reign, seem to have torn Joshua away from his
petty trade, and to have put the public leadership into his hands.
It is not improbable that he assumed the patriarchal position; at
least the circumstance that he removed the ban from Eliezer after the
latter's death, an act which could be performed only by a patriarch,
or one equal in authority, affords some ground for this supposition.
Joshua's activity during the last years of his life forms an important
part of the history of his times.
Amongst the personages of this period, Akiba ben Joseph was
unquestionably the most talented, original and influential. His
youthful days and mental development are shrouded in darkness, as
is often the case with characters who leave their mark in history;
but legends have cast sufficient light to show the obscurity of his
descent. According to one legend, he was a proselyte, and a descendant
of Sisera, who fell through a woman's deceit. Another legend represents
him as a servant of Kalba-Sabua, one of the three richest men of
Jerusalem, who, by their provisions, wished to prevent for many years
the famine occasioned by the siege. The legend adds that the daughter
of one of these wealthy men of Jerusalem, named Rachel, had bestowed
her love on Akiba, on the condition that he should follow the study
of the Law. In those days this meant to acquire culture, and thus, in
his fortieth year, Akiba entered a school, in order to take his first
lessons to obtain the knowledge in which he was deficient. During the
period of his studies the daughter of Kalba-Sabua had remained faithful
to him, living in the greatest poverty, to which her father in his
anger had reduced her by casting her adrift. Of these stories so much
is certain, that Akiba was very ignorant until he was well advanced in
years, that he and his wife lived under very straitened circumstances,
and he related later on that during the period of his ignorance, he
hated those who were versed in the Law.
Meanwhile his slumbering mind did not develop so quickly as the
legend relates. One source declares that he was one of the pupils of
Eliezer during many years, without ever showing himself worthy of
receiving an instructive reply from him. His teacher appears to have
regarded him with a certain amount of contempt. Perhaps the peculiar
system, pursued by Rabbi Akiba with regard to the newer Halachas, also
excited Eliezer's disapproval. Akiba had learned this new system under
Nachum of Gimso (or Emmaus), under whom he studied, not, indeed, for
two-and-twenty years, as the legend relates. Akiba raised what was
incomplete and fragmentary in this school to a complete system, and
thus he stands at a turning-point in Jewish history.
The peculiar system of Akiba was built on certain principles, and in
fact he may be considered as the only systematic Tanai. In this system
the law was not considered as a dead treasure incapable of growth or
development, or, as it was in the eyes of Eliezer, a wealth of mere
memories, but it formed an everlasting quarry in which, with proper
means, new treasures might always be found. New laws were also no
longer to be formulated by the voice of a majority, but were to be
justified by and founded on the written documents of the Holy Word. As
the fundamental doctrine of his system, Akiba maintained that the style
of the Torah, especially in parts relating to the laws (Halachas), was
quite different from that of other writings. Human language, besides
the indispensable words employed, requires certain expressions,
figures of speech, repetitions, and enlargements--in fact it takes a
certain form which is almost unnecessary for conveying the writer's
meaning, but which is used as a matter of taste, in order to round
off the sentences and to make them more finished and artistic. In the
language of the Torah, on the other hand, no weight is put on the form;
nothing is superfluous, no word, no syllable, not even a letter; every
peculiarity of expression, every additional word, every sign is to be
regarded as of great importance, as a hint of a deeper meaning that
lies buried within. Akiba added a number of explanatory and deductive
rules to those of Hillel and Nachum, and his additions afforded fresh
means of development for the traditional law. When a deduction had been
obtained by the correct use of the rules, such conclusion might again
be employed as the foundation for fresh deductions, and so on, in a
continuous chain.
Akiba was not to be restrained in this course by any consequences
whatsoever. He had opened up a new path with his system, and a new
point of view. The Oral Law, of which it had been said that it hung
on a hair and had no firm ground in Holy Writ, was thus placed on a
firmer basis, and the dissensions concerning the Halachas were to a
considerable degree diminished. Akiba's contemporaries were surprised,
dazzled, and inspired by his theories, which were new and yet old.
Tarphon, who had at one time been the superior of Akiba, said to
him, "He who departs from thee departs from life eternal; for what
has been forgotten in the handing down, that dost thou give afresh
in thy explanations." It was acknowledged that the Law would have
been forgotten or neglected, had not Akiba given it his support. With
exaggerated enthusiasm, it was said that many enactments of law, which
were unknown to Moses, were revealed to Akiba.
Just as Akiba had recognized and confirmed the worth of the traditional
law, he also assisted in reducing it to a methodical system and order.
He laid the foundation for the possible collection of the rich material
at hand. It has already been stated that the Halachas were strung
together without connection or systematic grouping; it was therefore
necessary, in order to retain the entire mass, to maintain years of
intimacy with those who were acquainted with the Halachas, to be
untiringly industrious, and to have a faithful memory. Akiba, however,
facilitated the study of the Halachas by arranging them in groups, and
thus assisted the memory. The arranging of the Halachas he carried
out in two ways. He put them together according to their context, so
that all Halachas concerning the Sabbath, marriage laws, divorces, and
property should form independent wholes. Thus the entire matter was
divided into six similar parts, each part bearing the name Masechta
(Textus--Division). These divisions he arranged according to numbers,
so as to give a useful aid to the memory; thus, from four causes
injuries to property might occur; five classes of men could be excluded
from the tithes of the priests; fifteen classes of women were prevented
by consanguinity from intermarrying with their brothers-in-law;
thirty-six kinds of sins are recorded in the Holy Writings as being
punished by extermination. The collection of the Halachas, instituted
by Akiba, was called the Mishna, or more fully Mishna of Rabbi Akiba,
to distinguish it from the later collection; in Christian circles it
was known under the name of Akiba's Deuterosis. It was also called
Midoth (Measures), probably on account of the numbers which form the
basis of arrangement. This Mishna or Midoth, though arranged, was not
written down; the contents remained as before traditional, but an
easier method was employed in classifying them. It is hardly probable
that Akiba alone completed and arranged all this material. His pupils
no doubt assisted in this collection which, later on, formed the
foundation of the code that terminated the whole traditional system.
The older Mishnas (Mishna Rishona) were often separated from the later
(Mishna Acharona, or Mishna of Rabbi Akiba), and the latter were taken
as the norm. The name of the new founder of the Oral Law became,
through his peculiar mode of teaching, one of the most celebrated in
the Jewish communities far and wide. His mysterious descent and his
lowly origin only heightened the interest felt in him. The number of
his hearers is exaggerated by tradition, which fixes it at twelve
thousand, and even double that number, but a more modest record
represents them as amounting to three hundred. Accompanied by this
numerous band of disciples, Akiba again visited his wife Rachel, who
for some years had lived apart from him in the greatest poverty. The
scene of their meeting is touchingly described, and her hard-hearted
father, Kalba-Sabua, proud of such a son-in-law, is said to have
bequeathed to him his whole property. From this time Akiba lived in
great riches with his wife, who had previously been so poor that she
slept on a bed of straw. His gratitude to his sorely tried wife was in
proportion to the sacrifices which she had made for him.
Akiba had his fixed domicile in Bene-Berak, where his school was
situated. The position of this spot, which, through him, became so
celebrated, is supposed to be southeast of Joppa. Others place it
yet more to the south, near Ashdod; but Akiba was a member of the
Synhedrion in Jabne, and it was but seldom that any measure was
determined without him.
In the development of Jewish law, in which Akiba had wrought such
changes, Ishmael ben Elisha took an important part. He demanded the
explanation of the written law from the common-sense view, and was thus
one of the chief opponents of Akiba's system. According to Ishmael,
the divine precepts of the Torah are expressed in human language, in
which various figures of speech, linguistic repetitions and oratorical
modes of expression occur, on which, however, no weight should be
laid, as they are a mere matter of form. He thus put aside the various
deductions of Akiba, which were based on an apparently superfluous
(pleonastic) word, or even letter of the alphabet. Akiba deduced, for
example, the punishment of death by fire against the adulterous married
daughter of a priest from one letter of the alphabet, on which Ishmael
remarked--"On account of one letter of the alphabet thou wouldst
inflict death by burning!" Ishmael had his own school, which was known
under the name of Be-Rabbi Ishmael. He there developed the rules
which were to be employed in explaining and applying the Written Law.
He amplified Hillel's seven rules of interpretation into thirteen, by
subdividing one into several, while he rejected another, and on his own
authority added one which was quite new.
The thirteen deductive rules of Ishmael are recognized as the complete
form, but the system of Akiba, although partly opposed to it, was not
thereby excluded from use, for both were equally employed by succeeding
teachers. There is but little else known of Ishmael. He belongs to a
circle which, doubtless for political reasons, was relegated by the
Synhedrion from Jabne to Usha. He subsequently paid for his love for
his nation and the Law with his life. Akiba, though an opponent of the
theories held by him, gave a funeral address in praise of him, and was
impressed with the idea that a similar fate would soon befall himself.
These five men--Gamaliel, the arranger; Eliezer, the strict upholder
of tradition; Joshua, the conciliator; Akiba, the systematizer; and
Ishmael, the clear thinker, were the center-point of that period; they
formed the rays which, starting from one point, diverge in order to be
finally reunited in another.
The maintaining and cultivation of the inherited Law was a point of
union for all men of activity and intelligence, and to it they turned
all their energy, mind and power. The numerous teachers of this second
generation of Tanaites were called the Armed (Baâle Trêssin), because
the Synhedrion and schools constituted a battle-field on which the
combatants contested for the Law (machai nomikai). The group was
composed partly of members of the Synhedrion who had a voice in every
decision; partly of ordained members who, through the ceremony of
"laying on of hands," were elevated to the rank of "wise men," from
whose midst the college was wont to fill up vacancies; and, lastly,
there were disciples who sat on the ground as listeners at "the feet
of the masters."
Amongst the most important members was Tarphon of Lydda; he was rich
and generous, passionate and hasty--a zealous enemy of the Jewish
Christians. Further, there were Eliezer of Modin, an authority on
Agadic explanations; and José, the Galilæan, whose heart was soft
and full of love for humanity. There was also Isebab, the clerk of
the Synhedrion; Chuzpit, the public orator or interpreter; Judah
ben Baba, the Chassidæan (he probably belonged to the order of the
Essenes); Chananya ben Teradion, who, together with those just named,
suffered the death of a martyr. Besides these were Eleazar Chasma
and Jochanan ben Gudgada, both of whom were celebrated on account of
their deep mathematical knowledge and their poverty, but they were
put in possession of lucrative posts by the patriarch at the express
intervention of Joshua; Jochanan ben Nuri, a zealous disciple of
Gamaliel; Joseph ben Kisma, an admirer of the Romans; and, lastly,
Ilai and Chalafta, both of whom became better known through their
sons. From the class of disciples only four distinguished themselves
in history, Samuel, the younger, and three others--all of whom were
named Simon. The disciples consisted of those who, for some reason,
had not been amongst the ordained, and who were thus excluded from
certain functions, such as membership of the Synhedrion and the
holding of certain judicial offices. To these was denied the title
of Rabbi--equivalent to the title of doctor in our times, but not
corresponding to the title of Reverend. The title of Rabbi was, in
fact, first used from the time of the destruction of the Temple, and
was probably introduced by the disciples of Jochanan ben Zakkai, who
were called master by their adherents.
Samuel the Younger (Hakaton) was a man of rare modesty and abnegation,
a "true disciple of Hillel"; he was chiefly known for his condemnation
of the Jewish Christians, and for the prophetic glance, which, when on
his death-bed, he cast into the gloomy future. He uttered the prophetic
words: "Simon and Ishmael are doomed to destruction; the nation is
threatened with anarchy, and heavy persecutions will follow." Those
around knew not what to make of his utterances, but he foresaw the
coming troubles under Hadrian. Samuel died childless, and the Patriarch
himself delivered an address in his memory.
Simon ben Nanos was renowned on account of his intimate acquaintance
with the law of the individual, and Ishmael recommended all those who
were learned in the Law to cultivate an acquaintance with ben-Nanos.
Simon ben Asai was an enemy to marriage, and, together with Simon ben
Zoma, he became absorbed in the theosophic speculations of the times.
Amongst the great number of teachers of the Law, of whom many lost
their lives, only one is named as having deserted his people, and thus
having attained to undesirable notoriety. This was Elisha ben Abuya,
better known by his apostate name Acher, who became a persecutor of the
Law and of those who adhered to it. Outside of Judæa, and particularly
in Babylon, there existed centers for the growth of spiritual activity.
Judah ben Bathyra, who taught in Nisibis, a town in Babylon, was
probably a descendant of the family Bene Bathyra, which, in the time
of King Herod, had been at the head of the Synhedrion. In Nahardea,
Nehemia is named as the teacher of the traditional Law in Beth-Deli.
From this center there seems to have originated, as will be shown later
on, the chief opposition to Trajan's plans for conquest in the district
of the Euphrates. In Asia Minor, likewise, the study of the Halachas
was pursued, though the names of its teachers have not been preserved.
Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia (also called Mazaca), appears to
have been the chief seat of this branch of study. Rabbi Akiba, during
his journey in Asia Minor, found in the latter place a man learned in
traditions, who held a discussion with him concerning the Halachas.
The Jews of Egypt, who had closed the temple of Onias at the command
of Vespasian, and had thus lost their seat of learning, appear to have
pursued their studies of the Halachas in Alexandria. They continued to
occupy themselves with the translation of such writings as resembled
the Holy Writ or the Apocryphal Literature. Sirach translated the
sayings of his grandfather into Greek, and others translated the book
of Susannah and the Letter of Baruch. Additions were also made to the
Books of Esther and Daniel. These later additions to Hebrew poetry
were considered by Christians as part of the Bible. In Judæa, however,
no attention was paid to these foreign schools, but the Synhedrion of
Jabne was regarded as the supreme authority.