THE FIRST AMORAIM.
Judah II.--Friendliness of Alexander Severus towards the
Jews--Joshua ben Levi--Hillel instructs Origen in Hebrew--The
_Hexapla_--The Palestinean Amoraim--Chanina--Jochanan--Simon
ben Lakish--Joshua, the Hero of Fable--Simlai, the
Philosophical Agadist--Porphyry comments on the Book of Daniel.
219.280 C. E.
After the extinction of the Tanaites and the death of the younger
contemporaries of the compiler of the Mishna and of his son Gamaliel
III, a happier period commenced: happy abroad by reason of the
favorable political situation brought about by the friendly attitude
assumed towards the Jews by one of the best of the Roman emperors;
happy at home through the agency of a series of vigorous-minded men,
who imbued the ancient customs and manners with a new and healthy
spirit. The most prominent men and the lights of this epoch were: in
Judæa, the Patriarch Judah II, son of Gamaliel; Jochanan, the principal
authority of these times; and Simon b. Lakish, the Teacher, robust of
hand and brain; and in Babylonia, Abba-Areka and Samuel. These men were
the pioneers of a new movement, connected, it is true, with the labors
of the Tanaites, inasmuch as it was grounded upon their work, but yet
went beyond it in range. A sketch of the leading personalities of this
period will not perhaps be considered superfluous.
But little is known of the early life and training of Judah the
Patriarch. His youth was passed in a time when religious strictness
had acquired so predominant an importance, that the family of the
Patriarch himself was open to censure in case any of its members acted
contrary to prescribed law. Judah was walking one Sabbath-day, with
his brother Hillel, in Biri, wearing a pair of shoes decorated with
golden buckles, which seems to have been prohibited in that town.
They were sharply censured by the populace on this account, and, not
daring to explain that the act was not contrary to the Law, they
were obliged to take off their shoes and give them to their slaves.
On another occasion, when the two sons of the Patriarch were one day
bathing together in Kabul, the people called out to them "that in
their city it was not lawful for two brothers to bathe together." When
Judah succeeded his father in the office of Patriarch (about 225)
he transferred the seat of this dignity from Sepphoris to Tiberias,
and this city, formerly avoided on account of its uncleanliness, was
thus invested by him with considerable importance; it outlived all
the other cities of Judæa, however rich in memories, and was the last
retreat of the ancient traditions. The announcement of the appearance
of the new moon, which on account of a certain preference shown to
the south of Judæa had formerly been made there, was now ordered by
Judah to be made at Tiberias. The south of Palestine, formerly the
principal scene of historical events, was henceforward bereft of its
supremacy, and was obliged to abandon its rôle to the once-despised
Galilee. Like his grandfather, Judah II was held in great reverence
by his contemporaries, and was also called simply Rabbi or Rabbenu.
He likewise was often severely censured, but accepted the blame more
patiently than his ancestor.
It was probably the second Judah, as the Jewish narratives positively
assert, that was beloved by a Roman emperor, from whom he received
numerous marks of favor. Accident, which in the guise of the Prætorian
guards generally gave the casting vote at the election of the emperor,
elevated Alexander Severus (222-235), an unknown Syrian youth in his
seventeenth year, to the position of ruler of the world. In public, he
gave evidence of a more pronounced friendliness to Judaism than any
of his predecessors. In his private apartment there was placed, next
to the representations of Orpheus and Christ, a picture of Abraham.
This emperor was so deeply impressed with the truth of the golden
rule of pure philanthropy, "Do not unto others what thou wouldst not
they should do unto you" (esteemed as the essence of the whole Jewish
religion before the time of Jesus), that it was always on his lips,
and was placed by him as a motto on the imperial palace and the public
buildings, and proclaimed by a herald to the soldiers whenever he
desired to reprimand them for attacks on the property of foreigners.
On all occasions he set up the Jews and Christians as patterns to the
depraved Romans, and was desirous of seeing the highest dignities of
the state awarded upon the same principles as those which governed the
admission of Jewish and Christian religious leaders to ordination. He
was well disposed towards the Christians, but seems to have possessed
a greater predilection for the Jews and Judaism. The inhabitants of
Antioch and Alexandria, whose frivolous character caused them to be
better pleased with immoral emperors than with an austere ruler like
Alexander Severus, derided him in epigrams, and gave him the nicknames
of the "Syrian Head of the Synagogue" (Archisynagogus, that is,
Rabbi) and "High Priest." The emperor's mother, Mammæa, however, had
a preference for Christianity, and was a protectress of Origen, one
of the Fathers of the Church. For these reasons, the Patriarch Judah
possessed during this period an almost royal authority, and was even
able to exercise anew criminal jurisdiction; not quite openly, it is
true, but still with the prior knowledge of the emperor. The latter
seems to have made the acquaintance of the Jewish Patriarch during his
frequent visits to Antioch on the occasion of his campaign in Persia
(231-234). Judah probably prevailed upon him to protect, or rather to
revive, the privileges of the Jews. Among these was the right of again
entering the city of Jerusalem, and of filling the office of judge,
both of which rights had been denied to them by Hadrian. Jewish fable
relates many things concerning the sincere attachment of the Emperor
Severus (Asverus), son of Antoninus, or simply Antoninus, to Judaism
and the Jews. But although much of this is doubtless exaggerated
and embellished, the Talmud contains many narratives concerning the
relations existing between the Patriarch and the Emperor which are
certainly historical. Thus it is related of him that he presented a
golden candlestick to a synagogue (probably that of Tiberias), and
granted the Patriarch a field in the district of Gaulanitis, most
likely for the support of the disciples.
It is quite in the spirit of this emperor of Syrian origin,
prepossessed as he was in favor of foreign religions, that he should
have requested the Patriarch, as the story runs, to recommend to him a
learned man to aid him in building an altar on the model of that in the
Jewish Temple, and in the preparation of incense according to the rules
of the Jewish code, for which purpose Judah is said to have recommended
his intimate friend Romanus. The thirteen years during which the Roman
world submitted to the rule of a good emperor were a happy time for
the Jewish nation, for the sovereign conferred many marks of favor
upon this people, lately despised and persecuted. The position of the
Jews was indeed so favorable that the opinion was commonly expressed
that Daniel, who had cast a prophetic glance on the succession of the
empires of the world, had predicted this state of things in the words:
"When they (the Jews) succumb, some small help will still be extended
to them," which were considered to refer to Severus Antoninus, who
manifested a love for the Jews. This favorable situation contributed
towards the substitution of a more friendly spirit in place of the
variance with and profound dislike of the Romans which had prevailed
for centuries.
The Christians complained at this time that the Jews were much more
favorably disposed towards the heathens than towards themselves,
although possessing much more in common with themselves than with the
heathens. The barrier erected by the Jews, in consequence of their
hatred of the Romans, was partly overthrown, and the rigor of the
separation of the two nations was relaxed. The family of the Patriarch
were permitted, on account of their association with the highest
dignitaries of the state, to dress their hair according to the Roman
fashion, to learn Greek, and to do various other things which had
formerly been prohibited. The life of the Jews assumed altogether a
happier aspect: they began to decorate their rooms with paintings, and
religious scrupulousness took no exception.
To the influence exercised by these friendly relations with the rulers
must probably also be ascribed the fact that the Patriarch abolished,
or intended to abolish, many of the stricter rules which had formerly
been carried out with the utmost severity. In the stormy days of the
first rebellion against the Romans, when the wave of racial hatred ran
high between Jews and Græco-Roman heathens, a Synod, in order to put
a stop to all intercourse with the heathens, had forbidden the Jews
to purchase or make use of their oil and various other articles of
food. In Palestine, this restraint did not fall heavily on the Jewish
inhabitants, as the land produced all that was necessary to satisfy
the daily wants of the people, and the oil exported from Galilee
afforded a sufficient supply to the neighboring countries. But the war
of Hadrian devastated Judæa and deprived it of all its oil plantations;
the daily need of oil thus gradually compelled this strict prohibition
to be disregarded. But the legal permission was still wanting, and,
although numbers had dispensed with it, there still remained many
who complied strictly with the law, as yet unabolished. Judah II
therefore used his best endeavors to obtain a majority favorable to the
abrogation of this law, and prided himself greatly on accomplishing
his purpose; it is probable that he had to sustain a severe conflict
in order to gain his object. When Simlaï, the Patriarch's assessor,
who was constantly traveling between Galilee and Babylon, brought
the news that permission had been granted to the Jewish inhabitants
of countries bordering on the Euphrates (who had always been restive
under restraints imposed upon them) to make use of the oil of the
heathens, this innovation appeared so daring to Abba-Areka (the
principal Babylonian authority), that he refused to believe the report.
Samuel, however, who desired to see the authority of the Patriarch
generally recognized even in Babylon, compelled him to make use of this
permission.
Another alleviation proposed by the Patriarch, according to which the
onerous marriage with a deceased brother's widow was to be evaded in
certain cases by a bill of divorce, to be given before death, was not
agreed to by his College. He was also desirous of permitting the use of
bread made by the heathens. Finally, he proposed to abolish the fast of
the month of Ab, instituted in commemoration of so many catastrophes,
according to some authors in totality, according to others in certain
cases only. The contemporary teachers of the Law, however, were opposed
to these alterations; but, on the other hand, they agreed with him
in abolishing a mark of affliction introduced during the period of
adversity under Hadrian: henceforward it was allowable for brides to
ride in state-litters on their wedding-day.
In spite of the reverence felt by the teachers of the Law for the
Patriarch Judah, they were not blind to his weaknesses, and he was
obliged to submit to numerous attacks on their part. The Patriarchate
had acquired in his hands an almost royal power, and was even entitled
to a body-guard, ready to enforce the commands of the Patriarch. This
power, although not abused by Judah, was all the more displeasing to
the teachers of the Law, since he, on his side, conferred no particular
favors on the learned classes, but rather exerted himself to abolish
the distinction between the learned and illiterate in all civil
relations. He further subjected the teachers of the Law to a share of
the communal burdens. Simeon ben-Lakish, one of those outspoken men who
carry their love of truth even to the length of disrespect of persons,
was especially opposed to this leveling policy, and gave vent to
offensive sallies against the Patriarch. Once, in the lecture-hall, he
put forward the proposition: That in case the Patriarch should render
himself guilty of a crime, it would be necessary to sentence him, like
any ordinary man, to the punishment of scourging. Upon this it was
observed by Chaggai, that in such a case he would have to be absolutely
deposed, and debarred from taking office again lest he should employ
his power in revenging himself upon the authors of his disgrace.
This discussion was manifestly an attack upon Judah's possession of
extraordinary power. Angry at these remarks, and carried away by his
first impulse, he immediately despatched his Gothic slaves to seize
the fault-finder; but Jochanan, the Principal of the school, succeeded
eventually in appeasing his wrath. Once the Patriarch complained
to Ben-Lakish of the rapacity of the Roman authorities, which
prevailed for a lengthened period in all the provinces of the Roman
empire during the reign of anarchy which followed after the death of
Alexander Severus. In most of the provinces there had arisen emperors,
anti-emperors, and usurpers, who, during the short span of their reign,
assumed the character of ruler of the world, and conducted themselves
in the countries subject to their sway with true Roman rapacity. "Pray
for me," said Judah to Ben-Lakish, "for the rule of the Romans is
evil." To which the latter replied: "If thou take nothing, nothing will
be taken from thee." This remark was probably intended as a rebuke for
the covetousness of which it is impossible to acquit Judah.
The Patriarchs seem to have commenced about this time to draw a
revenue from the communities. This had become a necessity, as the
impoverishment of Palestine had followed in the wake of its heavy
taxation. A great part of the pasture lands had fallen into the
hands of the heathens dwelling in the country, to whom the Jewish
proprietors had been obliged to sell. Through this impoverishment the
means of maintaining the school-houses and the pupils were greatly
diminished. The income of Judah, unlike that of his grandfather,
proved insufficient for the purpose, and he was therefore obliged
to open up new sources of income in order worthily to support the
dignity of Patriarch. He sent messages abroad to make collections
amongst the rich Jews. One of the most important teachers of the Law
in Lydda, named Joshua ben Levi, made a special journey to Rome for
this purpose. In Rome some wealthy Jews were known to live. These
willingly contributed to the support of the institution which replaced
the Synhedrion, and which was the last remnant of an independent state,
and the representative of which was supposed to be descended from or
connected with the royal house of David. It is related that the Jewish
ship-owners and merchants gave up the tenth part of their gains to the
support of the disciples in the school of Tiberias. This grant was
called the Patriarch's tax, and the mission-tax (Apostole), also crown
money (aurum coronarium).
Meanwhile, however greatly Judah's avarice may have been blamed,
he still stood high in the favor of the populace, by reason of the
simplicity of his manners and attire, which caused his proud and almost
royal dignity to be forgotten. He was accustomed to wear linen clothes,
and to dispense with all etiquette in his reception of ceremonious
visits, thereby calling down upon himself the reproaches of his
friends, who expressed their opinion that a ruler ought to appear in
magnificence, and to maintain an imposing demeanor.
How great a reverence was felt for Judah may be seen from the fact
that, on his death, no less honors were paid to his body than had been
shown to his grandfather, Judah I. In direct opposition to the Law,
a descendant of Aaron was compelled to take charge of his corpse; it
being alleged that it was permissible in this instance to lay aside the
holy character of his priesthood.
Hillel II., the brother of the Patriarch, was possessed of great skill
in the Agadic exposition of the Scriptures, and seems to have been a
profoundly moral man. Among the many maxims said to have been uttered
by him, the following is especially worthy of note:
"Separate not thyself from the rest of the community; put not
overmuch trust in thyself (in thy piety) before thy death;
judge not thy neighbor until thou hast been placed in his
position."
It was probably owing to Hillel's profound knowledge of the Scriptures
that he was visited by Origen, the philosophical Father of the Church,
who desired to consult him concerning certain difficult passages in the
Bible. Origen called him the Patriarch Jullos.
The spirit of investigation awakened by the Fathers of the Church,
Pantæus and Clemens of Alexandria, in the Christian school of
Alexandria, which sought to connect the Old and the New Testament,
revived the necessity of an acquaintance with the Hebrew language, in
order to explain by the help of the knowledge of the original text, the
glaring contradictions existing in many places between the views of the
Old Testament and the now inflexible dogmas of Christianity. It was
Origen who felt most the need of this knowledge, and he was unremitting
in his efforts to acquire the Hebrew tongue, and in his recommendations
to others to study it. He regarded the Jews as his masters in the
knowledge of Hebrew and the correct exegesis of the Scripture: he
admitted having learnt from Jews the exact sense of various difficult
passages in the Bible, during his long but intermittent residence in
Judæa (from about 229 to 253). Being desirous of writing a Commentary
on the Psalms, he took the trouble to have them explained to him by
a Jew, according to the traditions. At that time the study of the
Halachas had not yet superseded that of Biblical exegesis.
Besides Hillel and Simlaï there were other Jewish teachers well
acquainted with the original text, who confuted the Christian teachers,
and laughed at them for the absurdly childish arguments which they
drew from their corrupt Greek translation, the Septuagint. They were
especially diverted at the credulity of the Christians, by whom every
apocryphal book was invested with the garb of antiquity. Such books as
the histories of Tobias, of Judith, and of Susannah were admitted into
the collection of the Holy writings, upon which loose foundation was
erected the fragile fabric of their religion.
In order to protect the creed of the Church from this ridicule, Origen
undertook the gigantic task of revising the Septuagint version,
mutilated and crowded as it was with errors of all kinds. His immediate
object was to afford the Christian teachers an insight into the
differences existing between the translation and the original text,
and so better to enable them to conduct their discussions with the
Jews. To this end, he compared the translations of Akylas, Symmachos,
Theodotion, and three others which had appeared in the meantime; and
in order to allow of a convenient survey, he placed them in columns,
the Hebrew text, with its pronunciation in Greek letters, figuring at
the head. These parallel texts were known by the name of the Hexapla
(sixfold). It was labor lost, however, to compare the wretched and
intentionally corrupt Greek translation with the original Hebrew text.
The Septuagint continued to exist in its mutilated form, and was even
worse confounded by reason of Origen's industry, for many passages
belonging to other translations were often accidentally introduced into
its text.
The activity of the Palestinean teachers was directed to another
object; their cares were bestowed neither on the study of the Bible nor
on the establishing of the doctrines of faith; both these subjects lay
outside their sphere of activity. Their chief energies were devoted
to the study of the oral law in its definite form, the Mishna. This
work had been composed in a brief and laconic style, and, besides,
it contained many passages which were incomprehensible, the words or
subject-matter having passed out of everyday use. For these reasons
the comprehension of the Mishna required peculiar study and erudition.
The principals of the schools applied themselves, in the first place,
to the elucidation of the terse and frequently obscure text of the
Mishna. From this aspect of their labors they received the name of
Amoraim (Amoraï, Expounder). But far from being satisfied with this
arid work, or with remaining contentedly in this dependence, they
gradually emancipated themselves, made new departures, and believing in
good faith that they were standing on the ground of the Mishna, went
far beyond its boundaries. As the Tanaites had treated the text of the
Bible, so also did the Amoraim treat that of the second code; they
dissected it, and resolved it into its constituent parts, so that under
their hand it was dissipated, becoming new matter and acquiring a new
form.
The first generation of the Amoraim, following immediately upon the
Tanaites and semi-Tanaites, constitutes in many points a parallel with
the second generation of the Tanaites. Like the latter it consisted
of a series of talented teachers, who attained a great age, and whose
labors were continued during half a century. Like the latter, again,
it possessed different schools and systems, and was divided into
various opinions concerning the explanation of the Law. But it does
not afford the spectacle of violent controversies; for it already
possessed a common and recognized formula, a settled standard, to which
all authorities subordinated themselves. The oldest of the Amoraim
was Chanina b. Chama, of Sepphoris (from about 180 to 260). He was
descended from an ancient and noble family, and followed the profession
of physician; the science of medicine, inborn in the Levites, being
generally cultivated by teachers of the Law. The method of teaching
adopted by him was very simple. He was an Amora in the fullest sense
of the primitive meaning of the term; he expounded the Mishna or the
Boraitas with the help of such comments only as had been handed down
to him by tradition, without allowing himself to make any independent
deductions. If new cases occurred which were not indicated in the
Mishna, he did not decide them according to his own lights, but took
counsel with learned colleagues, or even with disciples, however
obvious the decision may have been. Chanina occupied the same position
among the Amoraim as Eleazar b. Hyrcanus among the Tanaites; he was
entirely receptive, never creative. This point of view, however,
according to which the Mishna was regarded as dead stock, was not
acceptable to the younger and more zealous men; Chanina was therefore
deserted, even by his own disciples, who proceeded to found new
academies.
Notwithstanding this, Chanina was regarded with great veneration both
by Jews and Romans, on account of his piety. Once, when he went,
with Joshua b. Levi, a younger contemporary, to visit the Proconsul
(Anthypatos), in Cæsarea, the latter rose respectfully at their
approach, replying to his friends, who expressed astonishment at his
behavior, that "they appeared to him like angels." He reproved more
boldly and fearlessly than any other teacher, the deeply-rooted faults
of his community, and tried to rid it of that erroneous belief which
willingly accepts the most incredible miracles, in order to be relieved
of all responsibility. Chanina's unsparing utterances concerning the
people of Sepphoris present at the same time a faithful picture of the
customs of the period. On one occasion Sepphoris and the surrounding
districts had been so devastated by the plague that many of the
inhabitants of all parts of the town had been carried off by it; the
only quarter not visited by it was that in which Chanina resided. The
men of Sepphoris wished to make him responsible for this plague, on the
ground that he had not performed any miracle to avert it; whereupon he
replied: "In the time of Moses there was only one Zimri (who debauched
a heathen woman), and yet twenty-four thousand fell by the plague;
ye, however, possess many Zimris, and complain notwithstanding."
Another time, Judæa was visited by a continued drought and lack of
rain. Chanina had arranged the prescribed fasts and offered up public
prayers, yet the much desired rains did not set in; whereupon the
people complained anew, and referred to Joshua b. Levi, the envoy to
Rome, whose prayers for rain for the south of Judæa had been crowned
with success. On the next opportunity Chanina sent for Joshua from
the south, and united with him in prayer, but again without success.
Seizing upon this occasion, he reprimanded his fellow-countrymen for
their superstitious belief in the power of a human being to work
miracles; "Thus do ye see," exclaimed he, "that it is neither Joshua
who causes rain, nor Chanina who hinders it; the inhabitants of Lydda
are kind-hearted and humble, therefore heaven sends them rain; ye,
however, are hard-hearted and callous, and therefore heaven withholds
rain from you." Chanina retained his modesty and self-denial all
through his life, and justly recognizing the merits of others, rejoiced
in his later years over the fame of those who had surpassed him. He
attained an extreme old age, and saw three Patriarchs--the elder Judah,
his teacher; Gamaliel, Judah's son, and Judah II.
In opposition to the conservative Chanina stands Jochanan bar Napacha
(born 199, died 279). Deprived of both father and mother, who died
in his early youth, he used to say in later life, that he ought to
be thankful for this misfortune, as he would not have been able to
fulfil the strict duties of filial love in the manner required by the
Law. He was so handsome of figure that the Talmudical source, usually
so sober, involuntarily becomes poetical in trying to describe his
beauty: "Let him who desires to form an idea of Jochanan's beauty take
a newly-wrought silver goblet, fill it with ruddy garnets, crown its
brim with a wreath of red roses, and place it between light and shadow;
its peculiar reflection of light will then represent the glory of
Jochanan's dazzling beauty." This beauty, however, partook more of a
feminine character, for he possessed no beard, the expression of manly
dignity. His eyebrows were also so long as to overshadow his eyes.
When he was grown up he attended the school of the elder Judah, but
admitted that he had understood but little of the profound Halachic
discussion, by reason of his youth. As he was not rich, possessing only
a small plot of land, he applied himself to business, in conjunction
with Ilpha, a fellow-disciple, when a warning was given to him to
devote his whole energies to the study of the Law, in which it was
asserted that he would acquire great distinction. For this reason he
abandoned his trade, and again followed the lectures of celebrated
teachers of the Law. He sold his little plot of ground in order to
obtain the wherewithal to study, exhibiting no concern with regard to
any provision for his old age. It seems, however, that later on he was
maintained at the expense of the Patriarch, Judah. Jochanan frequented
the company of the teachers of various schools, in order to acquire
a diversified knowledge of the subject-matter of the Law. He became
the principal assistant of the Patriarch, Judah II, and was the most
productive Amora of his time. Through the influence of a large body
of disciples, his sayings form a considerable element of the Talmud.
His method of teaching was to search deeply into the meaning of the
Mishna, to subject every paragraph to severe analysis, and to compare
each maxim with the others; he arrived by these means at the inference
that the Mishna was not possessed throughout of legal force. He also
laid down certain rules concerning the manner of arriving at a definite
decision in those cases where two or more Tanaites were of different
opinions.
Through his influence Tiberias, with its mild air, its fertility and
its curative waters, became the meeting-place of a numerous body of
disciples, who flocked to him from far and wide. His academy was even
attended by mature and finished scholars from Babylon, although the
newly-founded schools of that country possessed excellent masters. Over
a hundred Amoraim are known who accepted Jochanan's decisions as of
full legal force, and who taught them in their schools.
An intimate friend of the Patriarch, he supported him in his endeavors
to modify certain ancient usages. Jochanan was himself not very
particular on this head, and by far less strict than the Babylonian
school, which came into existence during his lifetime. In opposition
to the existing custom, he permitted the acquirement of Greek: by
men, because they were thereby enabled to protect themselves against
traitors, and by women, because the Greek language was an ornament to
the sex. He entertained great esteem for Greek civilization in general,
and ranked it on an equality with Judaism. He expressed himself
beautifully on this subject: "For that Shem and Japhet, the two sons
of Noah, did cover their father's nakedness with a mantle, Shem (symbol
of Judaism) hath obtained a shawl with fringes (Talith), Japhet (the
type of Greek civilization) the philosopher's mantle (Pallium)." It
was Jochanan who permitted the innovation of decorating rooms with
paintings. He was never able to reconcile himself to the Roman rule,
and was unsparing in his denunciation of the insolent arrogance and
heartless violence of the authorities. He regarded as symbolical of the
Roman Empire, the fourth beast in Daniel's vision of the four empires
of the world, which was a perennial mine of discovery for the Biblical
exegete, and was even more diligently explored by the Christians
than by the Jews. The small horn which grew out of the fourth
beast represents, according to his explanation, wicked Rome, which
annihilated all previous empires; the eyes resembling human eyes,
which were visible in this horn, indicate Rome's envious glances at the
wealth of others. If any one is rich, the Romans immediately elevate
him to the office of president of the council charged with the supply
of provisions, or make him a member of the municipal senate, in order
that his fortune may be answerable for everything. Another striking
maxim of this sort uttered by Jochanan was the following: "If thou art
proposed as a member of the senate, choose rather as thy dwelling the
desert of the Jordan." He permitted people, in exceptional instances,
to emigrate from Judæa, in order to escape from the heavy burden of the
municipal offices.
Jochanan's character was marked by a profound morality; the slave who
waited upon him was allowed to partake of all the dishes prepared for
his master. He had the misfortune to lose his ten sons; the unfortunate
father carried about with him a small bone of his last son, in order to
console all such as had to bewail a similar disaster, by the relation
of his extraordinary misfortune. "Behold all that now remains of the
last of my ten sons," he was wont to explain to them. A daughter
alone was left to Jochanan; thus, an orphan from his birth, he died
almost childless. He is said to have had periods of insanity in his
extreme old age, occasioned by grief at the death of his friend and
brother-in-law, Ben-Lakish, of which he believed himself to be the
cause.
Simeon Ben-Lakish, Jochanan's contemporary friend, brother-in-law
and opponent, was in many ways his counterpart, and was altogether a
peculiar personage, in whom were united the most opposite qualities;
rough physical strength was coupled with tenderness of sentiment and
acuteness of mind. Resh-Lakish, for such was his abbreviated name,
seems to have been born at Bostra, the capital of the Saracens, about
the year 200, and to have died in 275. As Jochanan's constant comrade,
he had seen the Patriarch Judah I. in his youth, and had been brought
up in the school of his successors. The sources of the Talmud are
never tired of dilating on his gigantic strength and enormous size. He
once engaged himself at the Circus in the capacity of slaughterer of
wild beasts, his duty being to protect the spectators of these highly
popular combats from the fury of the animals. Ben-Lakish probably only
chose this low and dangerous occupation out of necessity. Tradition
is at some pains to reconcile and to transform into a beautiful
picture the glaring contrasts existing in Resh-Lakish, his rude
strength and his study of the Law. But his scrupulous integrity is
even more renowned than his enormous physical strength. It is related
that he used to avoid the company of persons of whose honesty he was
not fully convinced, for which reason unlimited credit was usually
accorded to all whom Ben-Lakish honored with his society, without
any further inquiry. His earnest and gloomy countenance was never
brightened by a smile, for he considered cheerfulness to be frivolous,
so long as the holy people were subject to the power of the heathens.
We have already noticed his love of truth and his candor, which he
carried almost to insult in his animadversions on the abuses of the
Patriarch. In Biblical exegesis he adopted the method of finding
ingenious explanations, in which study he surpassed his older comrade
and brother-in-law. "When he considered Halachic questions," says a
source of the Talmud, "it was as though he were grinding the mountains
against one another." Ben-Lakish possessed a certain originality in
the study of the Agada, and advanced peculiar views, which were only
estimated at their proper worth in later times. It was often questioned
in the schools at what period the sufferings of Job had occurred,
the other circumstances of this remarkable drama were also debated,
and the most contrary views found expression. Resh-Lakish seems to
have come to an accurate conclusion in advancing the opinion that Job
had existed at no period, that he had never lived, and was simply an
ingenious moral creation (Mashal). This view appeared very strange to
his contemporaries, who were unable to comprehend such a conception.
The names of the angels were regarded by Ben-Lakish as not having been
originally Jewish, but as being a foreign element transplanted into
Judaism, which had, in fact, been brought by the Jewish nation from
Persia. He was wont to contradict the assertions of those who extolled
the past at the expense of the present, who declared hyperbolically
"that a nail of the ancients was worth more than the whole body of
their descendants"; or, in another form, "that if the ancients were
angels, we, on the contrary, are only asses"; he used to say that
the existing generation possessed greater merit, for the reason that
although heavily oppressed, they still pursued the study of the Law.
Although a friend of Jochanan from his youth, and drawn still closer
to him by the ties of family alliance, Ben-Lakish was nevertheless at
variance with him during his last years.
The name of Joshua ben-Levi, who formed, with Jochanan and Ben-Lakish,
the triumvirate of the Palestinian Amoraim, is more renowned in the
world of legend than in history, where, indeed, but little is related
of him. The son of Levi ben-Sissi, he conducted a school at Lydda,
in the south of Judæa. It is true that the inhabitants of Lydda were
not in over-good repute with the Galileans, who pronounced them proud
and superficial. But Joshua's reputation in no way suffered from this
circumstance, and his authority was greatly respected. To his opinions
on the Halachas was accorded for the most part the force of law,
even in those cases where the other two members of the triumvirate
entertained different views. Joshua himself admits, however, that he
forgot many traditions during the period in which he was occupied with
the organization of the communities of Southern Judæa. The situation
of the communities of this district had, in fact, been so unsettled
ever since the catastrophe in the time of Hadrian, that Jochanan and
Jonathan were obliged to journey thither in order to restore peace and
order. Joshua also on one occasion visited Rome, in the capacity of
collector of revenues for the Patriarch. He had there an opportunity
of observing a fact which exhibited in strong relief the contrasts
existing in the capital of the world. He saw a statue enveloped in
drapery, in order to protect it against heat and cold, while near by
sat a beggar who had hardly a rag to cover his nakedness. He is said to
have expected the Messiah to appear in the capital of the world, where
he supposed that he existed in the guise of a servant, waiting among
the beggars and cripples at the gate, and expecting every moment to
be called upon to effect the deliverance of Israel. According to the
legend, Joshua ben-Levi was regarded as one of those choice spirits
who were admitted to the most intimate intercourse with the prophet
Elijah, and over whom death itself was obliged to relinquish its power.
He wrested the sword from the angel of death, went to Heaven alive,
measured the expanse of the Heavens, of Paradise, and of Hell, and
forwarded the results of his investigation to Gamaliel through the
medium of the destroying angel himself, who was obliged to submit to
his orders.
An original path in the explanation of the Agada was struck out
by Simlaï; he it was who first considered this collection worthy
of profounder study. Born at Lydda, he had quitted this desolate
region, and had settled down at Nahardea, where the new school of the
Babylonian Amoraim was first coming to its prime. He entertained the
most friendly relations with the Patriarch Judah II. He possessed
but small weight in questions relating to the study of the Law, and
his Halachic attainments were not esteemed in Palestine. He was the
first to collect together all the commands contained in the Jewish
Law, numbering 613, of which 365 are prohibitions, and 248 affirmative
precepts. David, according to Simlaï, reduced these 613 commands to the
following eleven virtues: honesty, justice, truthfulness, abhorrence
of calumny, of malice and of injuring one's neighbor, despising the
wicked, reverence of the worthy, sanctity of oaths, unselfish lending
without interest, and forbearance from bribery. Isaiah summed them up
in six, as follows: to be just in our conduct, honest in our speech,
to despise self-interest, to keep our hand from bribery, our ear from
wicked insinuations, and our eye from base desires. The Prophet Micah
reduced the commands of the Law to three leading principles: the
exercise of justice, love of charity, and humility; while the second
Isaiah brought them down to two, which are, to cherish justice and to
exercise charity. Finally, the Prophet Habakkuk expressed them all in a
single formula: "The just man lives by his faith." This was the first
attempt to reduce the whole Law of Israel to principles. A beautiful
parable, in which Simlaï indicates the part played by every nation in
the history of the world, affords evidence both of the wide extent of
his views and of his poetical talent.
Possessed of a profound knowledge of the Scripture, and gifted with an
elevated mind, Simlaï was especially qualified to enter into discussion
with the Fathers of the Church, and to shake the arguments which they
drew from the Old Testament in support of the dogmas of Christianity.
In these discussions Simlaï gave evidence of a sound exegesis, free
from misinterpretations. During the time of the first generation of
Amoraim, Christianity had entered upon a new stage; in opposition to
the tendency of the primitive Christians (Ebionites and Nazarenes), a
universal Catholic Church had come into existence, whose fundamental
doctrines (dogmas), collected from all quarters, some Pauline, others
anti-Pauline, others heathen, were generally assented to by the
majority of Christians. The various sects of primitive Christians and
Gnostics were vanquished, being either embodied in the incorporated
Catholic Church or rejected as heretical. This creation of a Catholic
Church and the unification of the Christian religion, accomplished in
the midst of all this diversity and schism, were largely brought about
by the Bishops of Rome. These arrogated to themselves, on the strength
of their seat in the capital of the world, the supremacy over all the
other bishops and patriarchs, expelled them from the community for
unorthodox opinions (as in the case of the discussion concerning the
celebration of the Passover), and gradually obtained recognition as
chief-bishops and Popes. After the completion of this work the spirit
of research also made its appearance among the Christians, and the
traditions of the Church were subjected to a thorough investigation.
New dogmas had made their appearance, which the authorities sought to
establish and secure. The rigid doctrine of the Unity of God, derived
by Christianity from the parent religion, had in course of time, and
in proportion as the new Church glorified the Messiahship of Jesus,
given rise to a doctrine of duality: Father and Son, or the Creator
of the World, and the Logos. To these was soon added a third. The
primitive Jewish view of the inspiration by God of the Prophets and
other pious persons, which was, in this signification, characterized as
holy inspiration (Ruach-ha-Kodesh), crystallized in Christianity into
the dogma of the Holy Ghost considered as a person, and regarded as an
equality with God and Christ and as having originally co-existed with
them. Without being aware of the fact, Christianity, which considered
itself a truly spiritual and refined Judaism, had adopted an entirely
different idea of God, in fact, a sort of tritheism. The more the
Christian dogma of the Trinity was at variance with the very essence of
Judaism, the more trouble was taken to establish that it was supported
by the Old Testament, in order to give it thus the stamp of antiquity.
This proof, however, was not to be furnished by straightforward means,
and thus the Fathers of the Church of the Palestinean and Alexandrian
schools, being acquainted with Hebrew, were obliged to take refuge
in all sorts of allegorical interpretations. Wherever the Scriptures
contained several denominations for God, they professed to see an
indication of the Trinity in the letter of the text itself. Even the
simple opening words of the Pentateuch, "In the beginning God created
heaven and earth," were interpreted by this Christology in proof of
Christ's co-operation in the creation of the world; for "the beginning"
was interpreted to mean "wisdom," or the "Word" (Logos), being
synonymous with Christ, and this sentence was thus found to contain
the profound secret that "God created the world in Christ"! As long as
the leading spirits of Christianity remained ignorant of the Hebrew
sources, they were not in a position to hold any serious conference
on matters of religion. It was only when the Fathers of the Church
applied themselves, like Origen, to the acquirement of a clearer Hebrew
text, that polemical discussions on Christological themes became more
frequent.
Simlaï, in particular, defended the doctrine of the unity of God
against the Christian dogma of the Trinity, and adduced the proofs for
his contention with consummate skill. His opponent in this theoretical
dispute was perhaps Origen, who was for a long time a resident in
Palestine. By the help of a sober method of interpretation Simlaï
established the fact that all the passages of the Holy Scripture
which appear to afford an argument in support of the Trinity, in
reality bring out and emphasize so strongly the unity of God, that
any misconception appears impossible. Jew and Christian who, like
quarrelsome brothers, had cherished feelings of animosity to each other
during the time they had lived under one roof, now contented themselves
with carrying on religious controversies.
The attacks upon Christianity during this period had the effect of
producing a certain acquaintance with Jewish literature even in the
heathens, who turned it to account in their efforts to restrain the
growth of Christianity. In Daniel, the Christian dogmatists had
discovered a Sibylline book, with vague insinuations and mystic
numbers, which they contended contained prophecies relating to the
Christian economy and to the appearance of Christ on the Day of
Judgment. In opposition to these views the heathen philosopher Porphyry
wrote a polemical commentary on the book of Daniel, which is certainly
the only Biblical commentary composed by a heathen. This neo-Platonist,
who was possessed of moderate but mystic views, bore the oriental name
of Malchus, and was a native of Batanea, formerly a Jewish province. He
asserted in his commentary that the book of Daniel is the work of an
author who lived during the time of the persecution of Judaism and the
Jews by the Syrian monarch, Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the ambiguous
expressions in which it abounds are only allusions to that period,
and in nowise prophecies, still less oracular proofs of the facts of
Christianity.