CHAPTER XXI.

THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATIONS TO JUDAISM.

Hillel II.--His Calendar--Heads of Judæan Schools: Jonah, José,

and Jeremiah--The Expansion of Christianity--Constantine--The

Decadence of the Jewish Schools in Babylonia--The Pumbeditha

School--Development of Talmudical Dialectics--The Persian Queen

Ifra and her son Shabur II.--The Emperor Julian--Favor shown

towards the Jews--Proposed Rebuilding of the Temple--Roman

Tolerance.

320.375 C. E.

The period during which Christendom asserted its triumphant sway marked

a decisive crisis in the history of nations, and closed also an epoch

in Jewish history. The harvest which had slowly and invisibly been

maturing during the preceding centuries was now ripe. Christianity,

although hated and persecuted, had still remained defiant, and at

last disarmed its enemies by drawing them within the circle of its

influence. The Roman Empire, which seems to have felt an instinctive

dread of its approaching dissolution through the religion of Christ,

submitted to baptism, thus prolonging its assigned length of existence

by the space of a century and a half. Heathenism, which was nourished

by and in turn bred irrational ideas, deceit, and immorality, was

obliged to surrender its life of shams, and make room for another form

of religion.

The new religion which thus pressed triumphantly to the fore,

possessed innumerable advantages over heathenism, in that it laid

down in theory as a fundamental principle, a worthier conception of

God and a purer morality, although it was very far from conforming

in practice to these tenets. At the same time as Rome and Italy lost

their importance and retained only a shadow of their former greatness,

Judæa and Tiberias, which had taken the place of Jerusalem, sank into

insignificance. Like Italy, the seat of heathen civilization, Judæa was

impoverished and stunted by Christianity. By means of the political

power to which this religion now attained--the possession of the

imperial dignity placing the axe of the lictors and the sword of the

legions under its command--Judæa was soon deprived of its intellectual

life, and the school of Tiberias lost the power of attraction which it

had so long exercised, and sank into decadence.

While Babylonia was raised during the next fifty years to the pinnacle

of its fame by the exertions of three original Amoraïm, Rabba, Abayi,

and Raba, the Judæan Amoraïm of this period were of no importance.

The few men of these times whose names have survived are Chaggai,

who became an authority by reason of his age, Jonah II and José, the

disciples and successors of Ami and Assi. The sole recognized authority

of Judæa was Jeremiah; but he was an emigrant from Babylonia, where

he had been so little appreciated that he had been turned out of

the schools. The office of Patriarch also sank at this period into

complete insignificance, its holder, Hillel II, having in imitation

of his great-grandfather Hillel, self-denyingly resigned a portion of

his power. It is remarkable that at the same time as the Patriarchate

lost all consequence in Judæa, it acquired a showy splendor abroad, as

if the corpse were being adorned before being lowered into the grave.

During the last century of the existence of the office, the Patriarchs

received the pompous titles of "Highness" (_illustres_), "Worshipful"

(_spectabiles_), "Famous" (_clarissimi_), which titles they enjoyed

in conjunction with the highest dignitaries of the State, with whom,

to all appearances, they were thus placed on an equality. "Let him who

dares to publicly insult the illustrious Patriarchs be visited with

severe punishment," commands an imperial edict, which, although dating

from a later period, rests nevertheless on the earlier legislation

affecting the Patriarchs.

The Emperor Constantine, who had aggrandized the Church, and laid the

dominion of the earth at her feet, had at the same time given her the

doubtful blessing, "By the sword thou shalt live." He had originally

placed Judaism, as a religion, on an equal footing with the other

forms of worship existing in the Roman Empire. For, before adopting

the Christian faith, and determining above all things to put a stop

to religious persecutions throughout his dominions, Constantine had

published a sort of edict of toleration, wherein he had commanded that

every man should enjoy the right of professing any religion without

thereby becoming an outlaw. The Jews were likewise included in this act

of toleration, and their patriarchs, elders, and the principals of the

schools and synagogues enjoyed the same privileges as the Christian

ecclesiastics and the heathen priests. These decisions continued in

force, and in later times were sanctioned by new laws, although another

spirit began to sway the newly-founded Byzantine court. The rule was

established that the members of the synagogue who dedicated themselves

to the Law, the Patriarchs, Priests, and other religious officials,

should be relieved from all municipal and other onerous offices. Taking

as models the constitution of the Roman priesthood, and the Christian

system of bishops, the Patriarch of Judæa was regarded as the chief

of all the Jews in the Roman Empire. Constantine's impartial justice,

however, lasted but a short time. The more Christianity asserted its

influence over him, the more did he affect the intolerance of that

religion, which, forgetful of its origin, entertained as passionate a

hatred of Judaism and its adherents as of heathenism. Sylvester, Bishop

of Rome, Paul, afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, the new capital,

and Eusebius of Cæsarea, the first historian of the Church, did not

fail to incite the inhabitants of the empire against the Jews. Judaism

was stigmatized as a noxious, profligate, godless sect (_feralis_,

_nefaria secta_) which ought to be exterminated from the face of

the earth wherever possible. An imperial edict was published to the

effect that the Jews were no longer to make converts, those entering,

as well as those receiving newcomers into the faith being threatened

with punishment (315). Finally the proselytism of the Christians

was afforded the aid of the State, and the Jews were forbidden to

pronounce upon such of the members of their community as apostatized

the punishment which Christianity was, however, permitted to inflict in

a terribly aggravated degree upon its own adherents who left its fold.

"All who dare attack the apostates with stones or in any other manner,

shall be delivered to the flames, together with their accomplices." It

was impossible, in fact, that Jews without fixed opinions should not

be tempted by Constantine's decided leaning towards Christianity, and

the prospect of profit, to change their religion. The Church expressly

aimed, by all sorts of promises, at seducing the weaker members of the

Jewish community from their faith, laying especial emphasis on the

disadvantages which would accrue from adherence to Judaism, and on the

benefits which the apostate would derive from the State. "Why do you

suffer death for your God? See to what punishments and pillagings He

has condemned you! Come to us; we will make you dukes, and governors

and captains." "The sinful Roman Empire, the son of thy mother,

attempts to make the faithful waver," such were the texts from which

the public orators of the synagogue had henceforth to preach. The

privileges of the Jews were abolished by Constantine--as, for instance,

in the city of Cologne--and it was decreed by him that, with the

exception of two or three men, all of them were liable to be called

upon to fill the burdensome municipal offices.

Then the world witnessed the hitherto undreamt-of spectacle of the

first general convocation of Nice, consisting of several hundred

bishops and priests, with the emperor at their head (325). Christianity

thought to celebrate its triumph, but only succeeded in betraying its

weakness and internal disunion. For on the occasion of this, its first

official appearance, in all the splendor of its plenitude of spiritual

and temporal power, there remained no trace of its original character.

The Essenean doctrine of humility, brotherly love, and community of

possessions; the Pauline zeal for morality and sound opinions; the

ardor of the Alexandrian school for scientific erudition;--all had

vanished. Dogmatical disputes, whether Christ the Son was equal to

the Father, whether he resembled or differed from him, disputes all

the more bitterly carried on because of the impossibility of settling

the question either way,--these were the points which henceforward

constituted the foreground of the history of the Church which was

destined to represent the history of the world. At the Council of Nice

the last thread was snapped which connected Christianity with its

parent stock. The festival of Easter had up till now been celebrated

for the most part at the same time as the Jewish Passover, and indeed

upon the days calculated and fixed by the Synhedrion in Judæa for

its celebration; but in future its observance was to be rendered

altogether independent of the Jewish calendar, "For it is unbecoming

beyond measure that on this the holiest of festivals we should follow

the customs of the Jews. Henceforward let us have nothing in common

with this odious people; our Savior has shown us another path. It

would indeed be absurd if the Jews were able to boast that we are

not in a position to celebrate the Passover without the aid of their

rules (calculations)." These remarks are attributed to the Emperor

Constantine, and even though they may not have been uttered by him,

they were nevertheless the guiding principle of the Church which was

now to decide the fate of the Jews.

The first utterance of Christianity on the very day of its victory

betrayed its hostile attitude towards the Jews, and gave rise to

those malignant decrees of Constantine and his successors, which

laid the foundation of the bloody persecutions of subsequent

centuries. Constantine re-enacted--undoubtedly at the instigation of

the clergy--the law of Hadrian, which forbade the Jews to live in

Jerusalem. Only on the anniversary of the destruction of the city were

they allowed, on making certain payments to the officials, to mourn on

the ruins of the Temple. The clergy further succeeded in obtaining a

law from Constantine prohibiting the Jews from making converts among

the slaves. Christianity claimed the monopoly of expansion, and forbade

Judaism to increase its influence either by making proselytes or by

converting its slaves. Constantine seems, however, to have protected

the Jews against the arrogance of such of their brethren as had gone

over to Christianity; these converts, for the most part possessed of

no fixed opinions, attempted to revenge themselves on their former

fellow-countrymen and co-religionists. One of these apostates, Joseph

by name, seems at this period to have vigorously persecuted the

Palestinean Jews. He had been one of the assessors of the Patriarch in

the Synhedrion of Tiberias, and had been entrusted with the honorable

office of delegate and envoy to the communities of Cilicia. There he

had frequently associated in secret with a bishop, and had obtained the

writings of the New Testament to read. The Cilician Jews raised doubts

as to his orthodoxy, and as, in addition to this, he was not greatly

beloved, on account of his high-handed treatment of the teachers and

religious dignitaries, some of whom he even degraded, certain of

the Cilicians entered his residence by surprise, and discovered him

reading the gospel. How is it possible to blame the Jews of Cilicia

for venting upon his person their indignation at his deceit? They are

said to have thrown him into the river Cydnus, and he is supposed to

have escaped death only by a miracle. Nothing now remained for Joseph

but to publicly announce his adoption of Christianity. If he is to

be believed, many Jews, including the most learned and worthy among

them, nourished at this period a secret predilection for Christianity.

Joseph even relates a thoroughly incredible tale of the aged Patriarch

(probably Judah III), according to which the latter was a secret

adherent of the religion of Jesus, and feeling a desire to be baptized,

he invited a bishop from the neighborhood of Tiberias, under pretext of

obtaining his medical advice.

The Christian clergy of Palestine, and probably the bishop Eusebius,

who stood in high favor with the emperor, took care that Joseph should

be well rewarded for his apostasy. Constantine conferred upon him

the dignity of Comes, which carried with it a sort of immunity from

punishment in case of misdemeanor or violation of the law. He was

also granted permission by the emperor to build the first churches

of Galilee--at Tiberias, Sepphoris (Dio-cæsarea), Nazareth, and

Capernaum--where but few Christians had hitherto resided.

The Patriarch's son and successor, Hillel II, who is said to have

been still a minor at the death of his father, was defamed by Joseph

with a twofold purpose; he desired, in the first place, to brand with

infamy, simply by the force of calumny, a fellow-countryman of exalted

position who had sufficient reason to hate him; and secondly, he wished

to attest the miraculous power of the sign of the cross. He is said to

have been appointed guardian and tutor to the young Patriarch, of whom

he related that, being led astray by his youthful companions, he had

abandoned himself to a life of indulgence, and had even seduced honest

and virtuous women by the use of magical arts. This same Patriarch,

Hillel II, who flourished from about 320 to 365, was, however, one of

the most estimable successors of the elder Hillel; he was certainly no

votary of Christianity, and was favored by an emperor who likewise had

reason to dislike the arrogant Church.

It was in reality under Constantius (327-330), the fratricide and

arch-persecutor of heretics, that the Christian rule was introduced

into the Roman empire, and that the misfortunes of the Jews commenced.

If the champions of the Church had not been blinded by vindictiveness

and dogmatism, they would necessarily have perceived that by accepting

the support of the political power they were acknowledging the

authority of a master and turning the spear against their own breasts.

The emperor Constantius could boldly exclaim, "Let my will be religion

and the law of the Church!" It was not the fathers of the Church who

decided questions of religion in the last instance, but the eunuchs

and the serving-women of the court. How could the Jews expect humane

treatment when the members of the Church, from the emperor down to the

most humble of his subjects, were prompted by a spirit of fanaticism

to persecute one another on account of verbal disputes? At the very

beginning of Constantius' reign, the Jewish teachers of the Law were

banished; in consequence of this decree several of them emigrated to

Babylonia. Among those who were exiled there were two who are known

by name: Dimé and Isaac bar Joseph. These persecutions seem to have

been aggravated in the course of time; the teachers of the Law were

threatened with death, whereby the stream of emigration from Judæa was

naturally increased. Abin and Samuel bar Judah were among the later

emigrants (337-338). The consequences of these events were the decline

of the Academy of Tiberias and the general decay of active teaching.

Up till then there had still existed a sort of Synhedrion, employing

the usual method of voting at its meetings; Haggai, Jonah, and José are

named as members of it.

The sentiment of hostility, nourished by Constantius against the

Jews, also manifested itself in several laws concerning them. The

causes of this persecution remain involved in complete obscurity,

and it is impossible to ascertain whether the apostate Joseph, that

second Acher, was in any way connected therewith. Marriages between

Jews and Christian women, which appear to have been of not infrequent

occurrence, were punished with death under the emperor Constantius

(339). Of even greater consequence was the law concerning slaves which

was promulgated by him. Whereas his father had only forbidden the

admission of slaves into the Jewish community, and had simply punished

the transgression of this prohibition by declaring forfeited all

slaves so admitted, Constantius decreed (339) that the circumcision

of a Christian slave entailed the pain of death and the entire loss

of fortune. He even forbade the reception of heathen slaves into the

covenant of Judaism. The grounds for this law were twofold: it was

desired that Judaism should receive no increase through its adoption by

slaves, and also that Christians should not serve Jewish masters, "the

assassins of God." This preposterous view has been held by the Church

ever since, and prevails even at the present day, although in another

form. These restraints and rigors were by no means legal, for the Jews

were still reputed citizens of the Roman empire, and in consequence

of this equality with the other inhabitants, ought not to have been

subject to any exceptional laws. But what were right and law to this

emperor, who, as unscrupulous as he was weak, was swayed by the eunuchs

and the ecclesiastics of the court? His conceits and caprices were law.

Constantius, or the ecclesiastics of his court, were the founders of

the Christian State.

The sufferings of the Jews became unbearable when Constantius sent

his cousin and co-emperor Gallus to the East to operate against

the ever-increasing power of the Persians (351). Gallus, who was

addicted to debauchery, abandoned the conduct of the war to his

legate Ursicinus. The latter, during three long years, worked more

dire distress in Judæa than any imperial master. As the Roman legions

were quartered in the cities of Judæa, Ursicinus made it the duty of

the Jewish inhabitants to furnish the provisions necessary for their

maintenance, and prosecuted his demands so inexorably that the Jewish

communities were thereby driven to violate the laws of their religion.

The Roman military officials demanded, for example, that the troops

should be supplied with new bread, even on the Sabbath and the feast

of unleavened bread. The communities of Judæa were so disheartened

that the teachers of the Law vied with one another in granting

indulgences and mitigating the severity of the Law. The two authorities

of Tiberias, Jonah and José, taught that it was lawful to bake for

Ursicinus' army on the Sabbath; and the teachers of Neve, a Gaulanite

town, permitted leavened bread to be baked for the legions during

Passover. In their distress the religious representatives quieted

their consciences with the excuse, which they deluded themselves into

believing, that the enemy did not expressly demand the transgression

of the Law, but simply required the regular supply of the army. But

Ursicinus' intention appears really to have been to institute a

religious persecution, for at Senbaris, a small town situated about

four miles from Tiberias, he burnt a scroll of the Law which had been

consecrated to the public use, and this act could not relate in any

way to the service of the army. Besides this, an intolerable weight

of taxes burdened the Jews of Palestine, who were for the most part

greatly impoverished. Among these burdens were the supply of natural

produce (corn and cattle), the payment of a poll-tax, of the tribute,

and, in addition thereto, of a tax levied on every trade, and of all

sorts of fines. The complaints which were uttered against these onerous

taxes found an echo in the pulpit. "In the same way as when a garment

hanging on a hedge of thorns has been disengaged from one side, it is

immediately torn by the other, so does it happen to us under the rule

of Esau (Rome). No sooner have the supplies of produce been carried off

than it is the turn of the poll-tax, and before this has been paid, the

tribute is demanded. Wicked Esau behaves with artful cunning towards

Israel. Thou hast stolen or killed. Thou hast not stolen? Who stole

with thee? Thou hast not killed? Who was thy accomplice? Pay down thy

fines, provide supplies, pay the poll-tax and other imposts."

These multitudinous oppressions with which the Jews were visited

by the first Christian emperors, inspired them with the courage of

despair and roused them to a fresh revolt. Although but little is

known of this rebellion and its consequences, the accounts appearing

to be but lightly sketched, it is possible nevertheless to collect

some isolated particulars. The seat of the revolt was at Sepphoris,

where, under cover of the night, the Jews surprised the Roman troops

stationed there, slaughtered them, and gained possession of their

weapons. According to one account the Jews were led by a chief of the

name of Patricius or Patrick (Netira), whom they raised to the position

of prince. Masters of the mountain town of Sepphoris, they ventured

upon extensive incursions into the surrounding country, with a view to

revenging themselves on their enemies for the outrages to which they

had so long been subjected. Similar revolts must also have occurred

at this time in the two most important towns of Judæa, Tiberias and

Lydda, as well as at various other places. Thus the revolt acquired not

inconsiderable dimensions, and for this reason Constantius was obliged

to reinforce his colleague Gallus with fresh legions. With the aid of

these troops the latter completely suppressed the rebellion, but showed

so little mercy to the vanquished that not even the children were

spared. Many thousands of Jews fell as the victims of an insurrection

in which prudence had been overcome by despair. Sepphoris was razed to

the ground, and Tiberias, Lydda, and the other cities which had joined

the rebellion were partially destroyed (352).

As had always been the case after similar rebellions, those who had

taken part in the revolt were hunted down, so that none of them might

escape punishment; the inhabitants of Sepphoris, being the originators

of the rising, were most rigorously sought out by Ursicinus. In order

to escape this persecution they made themselves unrecognizable by

masking their faces, and by this means escaped detection for a while.

At last, however, traitors came forward and informed the authorities

of the deceit practised by the Sepphorians, and the latter were

accordingly seized and executed on the spot. Many of the refugees had

meanwhile hidden themselves in the subterranean passages of Tiberias,

where they were safe from the Romans. Huna relates: "When we took

refuge in the subterranean passages, we had torches with us; if they

showed but a feeble light, we knew that it was day, while when they

burned more brightly we perceived that night was at hand." According to

this, the refugees must have passed some time in these caverns.

Meanwhile Constantius appears to have re-enacted Hadrian's edict

against the Jews, for the discharge of religious duties was prohibited,

and even the computation of the calendar and trade in articles of

religious use were forbidden. When it was desired to inform Raba,

who was at this period the principal of the schools in Machuza, of

the intended intercalation of a month, and of the restraint laid on

the exercise of religion, it was necessary to adopt a mysterious and

enigmatical style, and to make use of obscure allusions. The news was

communicated in the following terms: "Men came from Reket (Tiberias),

and the eagle (the Romans) caught them; for they held in their hand

that which is fabricated at Luz (a blue-purple color for fringes). But

by God's mercy and their own merits, they have nevertheless escaped

in safety. The successors of Nachshon (Patriarch) desired to appoint

a supporter of the months (intercalated month), but the Arameans

(Romans) would not allow it; notwithstanding this, they assembled

and intercalated the month of the death of Aaron (Ab)." This secret

epistle to Babylonia betrays the distress which existed in Judæa at

this period. The dispersed and weakened Synhedrion must have been

prevented from inserting the usual supplementary month in the spring

(Adar), and must have been compelled to transpose it to some unusual

season which had not been sanctioned by the Law. On one occasion, about

this period, the Jews were forbidden to observe the Day of Atonement,

and were accordingly compelled to postpone it till the Sabbath. This

condition of distress in which Judæa was plunged was not at all altered

when the barbarous Gallus was put to death at Constantius' command,

and Ursicinus fell into disfavor (354). The adherents of Judaism were

regarded at the imperial court of Constantinople as simple atheists,

by reason of their refusal to recognize Jesus. This view gave rise

to the law (357) that all Christians who joined the "blasphemous"

communities of the Jews should incur the punishment of the forfeiture

of their possessions. The creatures of Constantius, Eusebius the

chamberlain among others, had specially aimed at the confiscation of

property, and they burdened the Jews with illegal taxes, heavy beyond

measure, hoping to exterminate them by impoverishment and exhaustion.

New tables of taxes had already been drawn up, with a view to still

further increasing their severity, on the pretext that as the Jews were

atheists they deserved no protection. They were delivered from this

oppression in an unexpected manner by the Emperor Julian, who differed

as greatly from his brother Gallus, as from his cousin and co-emperor,

Constantius.

The miserable condition of Judæa was the occasion of an act of

self-renunciation on the part of the Patriarch Hillel, which has not

yet been thoroughly appreciated. The custom had prevailed up till now

of keeping secret the computation of the new moon and the leap year,

and of making known the times of the festivals to the communities in

the neighboring lands by announcing them by messengers. During the

persecutions under Constantius this method had proved itself to be

impracticable and useless. Whenever the Synhedrion was prevented from

fixing the date of the leap year, the Jewish communities in distant

countries were left in utter doubt concerning the most important

religious decisions. In order to put a stop to all difficulty and

uncertainty, Hillel II introduced a final and fixed calendar; that is

to say he placed at every one's disposal the means of establishing

the rules which had guided the Synhedrion up till then in the

calculation of the calendar and the fixing of the festivals. With

his own hand the Patriarch destroyed the last bond which united the

communities dispersed throughout the Roman and Persian empires with

the Patriarchate. He was more concerned for the certainty of the

continuance of Judaism than for the dignity of his own house, and

therefore abandoned those functions for which his ancestors, Gamaliel

II and Simon his son, had been so jealous and solicitous. The members

of the Synhedrion favored this innovation; they only desired that the

second day of the festivals, which had always been celebrated by the

communities not situated in Palestine, should not now be disregarded.

José addressed to the Alexandrian communities an epistle containing the

following words: "Although we have made you acquainted with the order

of the festivals, nevertheless change not the custom of your ancestors"

(_i. e._ to observe the second day of the festivals). The same

recommendation was also made to the Babylonians: "Adhere closely to the

customs of your fathers." This advice was conscientiously followed, and

the second day is observed by all the non-Palestinean communities even

at the present time.

The method of calculating the calendar introduced by Hillel is so

simple and certain that up to the present day it has not required

either emendation or amplification, and for this reason is acknowledged

to be perfect by all who are competent to express an opinion on the

subject, whether Jews or non-Jews. The system is based upon a cycle

of nineteen years, in which seven leap years occur. Ten months in

every year are invariable, and consist alternately of twenty-nine and

thirty days; the two autumn months only which follow Tishri (the most

important of all the months) are left variable, as being dependent

on certain circumstances in astronomy and Jewish law. This and other

computations rest, however, on rules so simple, and are so plain and

easy, that the veriest tyro is thereby enabled to draw up a calendar

for a hundred, or even a thousand years. It has not been ascertained

how much of this system was invented by Hillel, and how much he owed to

tradition, for it is indisputable that certain astronomical rules were

regarded as traditional in the patriarchal house; in any case, Hillel

appears to have made use of Samuel's calendar. This calendar and the

year of its introduction are now known. It was published in the 670th

year of the Seleucidean era, the 359th of the common reckoning.

The oppression which thus fell upon the inhabitants of Palestine,

and which gave rise to Hillel's calendar, augmented the importance

and influence of Babylonia, and although Christianity could boast of

having broken up the academies and destroyed, so to speak, the Temple

of the Law in Judæa, the destruction was nevertheless merely local. In

Babylonia the study of the Law acquired so vigorous an impetus that

the achievements of ancient times were almost eclipsed; the study of

the Law was now celebrating the period of its maturity. Two methods

of instruction in the traditions especially had developed, namely,

that of receiving the authentic terms of the traditions and handing

them down in exactly the same words, and that of making a fruitful

application of the same, and of further amplifying them. Each of these

methods was represented by one of the academies of Babylonia; Sora was

receptive, Pumbeditha creative. Altogether Sora can be regarded only

as a continuation of the academies of Judæa, as a sort of Babylonian

Tiberias; and although the spirit which reigned there underwent a

change under the influence of the Babylonian method, still the Soranian

school never furthered the cause of study to any appreciable extent.

It was Pumbeditha that raised learning to its highest level. The acute

scholars of Pumbeditha, produced by Judah ben Ezekiel's Academy, held

sway at this period over Babylonia and the dependent countries. The

leaders and representatives of this movement formed a triumvirate,

consisting of Rabba, and his comrades and disciples, Abayi and Raba. It

was these three that gave the finishing touch to the work of completing

the Talmud, or rather who raised the study of the Halacha to the rank

of an intellectual system of dialectics.

Rabba bar Nachmani (born about 270, died 330) possessed, like the

family to which he belonged, certain original qualities. He was of a

family from Mamal or Mamala, a city of Galilee, the inhabitants of

which were for the most part descendants of Aaron, and members of the

family of Eli; they asserted that they participated in the curse with

which this house had been visited, and which prevented any of its

members from ever attaining extreme old age. Whoever went to Mamala was

astonished at seeing so many persons with black hair; a grey-haired man

was a rarity.

Rabba had three brothers, whose names were Kailil, Ushaya, and

Chananya; all of them lived in the greatest poverty, which misfortune

they also ascribed to the curse resting on the house of Eli. Ushaya,

the younger, and Chananya, who had returned to Judæa, obtained

a precarious living as shoemakers. By reason of the scarcity of

customers, they were sometimes obliged to sell their work to

prostitutes. Nevertheless, their minds remained so pure and chaste

that they were never reproached with a single immodest glance; they

were consequently held in high esteem, and were known as the "saints

of the land of Israel." These two brothers applied themselves to

the Agada, the favorite study in Judæa, while Rabba, their sober

brother, who as a child had shown signs of great acuteness of mind,

evinced a predilection for the Halacha, in which province his labor

was epoch-making. He had determined to remain in Babylonia, and his

brothers, unable to quiet their apprehensions concerning his lot, used

all their endeavors to persuade him to come to Judæa. "It is not all

one," ran their message to him, "whether one dies in or out of Judæa;

for the Patriarch Jacob attached great weight to being buried in the

Holy Land. Although thou art learned, still it is better to have a

master than to educate thyself. And if thou thinkest that there is no

teacher of importance to be found in the academies of Judæa, we inform

thee that thou wouldst indeed find such a one here." In consequence

of this pressing invitation, and contrary to the principles of Judah,

his teacher, Rabba emigrated to Judæa. Some time after, however, he

returned to Babylonia, probably because he was dissatisfied with the

Judæan method of teaching. Rabba's worldly affairs are described

as most miserable, and are frequently contrasted with Chasda's

uninterrupted happiness.

After the death of his teacher Judah in 299, the Pumbedithan College,

which was composed of lovers of dialectics, esteemed Rabba to be the

only person worthy of occupying the vacancy thus created in the school.

He was therefore offered the honor of becoming Judah's successor, but

his exceeding modesty induced him to decline the post. The vacancy

was eventually filled by Huna ben Chiya, whose wealth was so immense

that he furnished his audience in the lecture-room with gilded seats.

Although the greater number of the disciples frequented Sora, the

Pumbedithan Academy nevertheless counted 400 students. Both Rabba

and his friend Joseph associated themselves with the local academy,

and subordinated themselves to the principal, in order to prevent the

school from being deprived of the reputation which it had at last

succeeded in gaining. When it came to be known in what manner Huna ben

Chiya had acquired his wealth, which had been amassed by the farming

of tolls, he was given to understand that the dignity of teacher must

not be stained by association with that hateful trade, and that he must

give up either one or the other. Having abandoned the calling of farmer

of tolls, he was recognized by the college, which followed Rabba's

example, as a worthy principal of the academy. Joseph was the only

person who refused to acquiesce in the appointment. The not altogether

spotless reputation of its principal, however, threatened to become

a cause of ruin to the Pumbedithan Academy; care was therefore taken

after the death of Huna to make a better choice, in order to enlist

the sympathy of the people and to attract a numerous audience. Two men

appeared worthy to fill this post, Rabba bar Nachmani and Joseph ben

Chiya, the one distinguished for Talmudical dialectics, and the other

for Halachic erudition. The choice between the two was so difficult

that it was determined to take counsel of Judæa, and the following

question was accordingly asked: "Who possesses the superiority, Sinai

(man of learning), or the remover of mountains (man of acuteness)?" In

Tiberias, where the acute method of teaching, although not hated, was

nevertheless held in low esteem, the decision was given in favor of the

former. But Joseph entertained scruples against accepting this dignity.

His nativity had once been cast by a Chaldean, who had informed him

that he would obtain a position of great authority, but would not be

able to retain it longer than two years and six months, after which he

would die. In spite of the legal prohibition forbidding credence to be

given to the wisdom of the Chaldeans, the most noted teachers of the

Law were unable to free themselves from its influence; daily example

was stronger than the Law. Joseph having refused the post thus offered

to him, it was conferred upon Rabba (309), and in him the Pumbedithan

Academy found its ideal.

Rabba restored anew to the academy its extinguished fame, and

attracted to his discourses a crowd of students, amounting at times

to as many as 1200. He did not confine his lectures to the practical

part of jurisprudence alone, as Judah had done, but treated of all

the subjects contained in the Mishna; he sought to reconcile the

various contradictions existing in the Mishna, the Boraitas, and the

additions made by the Amoraic authorities (Memra), and generally to

introduce clearness into the study of the Halacha. He even turned

his attention to the remote subject of the laws of Levitical purity,

which he succeeded in making comprehensible; but in this branch of

study, which had vanished out of every-day life, he stood quite

alone, a fact that he frequently lamented. He was distinguished by a

desire to enter deeply into the motives not only of the Pentateuch,

but also of the Sopheric and Mishnaic laws, and to draw conclusions

from them. The formulæ which he employed as an introduction to these

investigations ran as follows: "Wherefore has the Law commanded this?"

or "Why are such-and-such things prohibited by the teachers of the

Law?" His luminous conception and treatment of his subject invested

it with life, while the variety which he succeeded in imparting to

a dry theme by means of the occasional introduction of an Agadic

sentence made it both interesting and captivating. At times he would

entertain the students with interesting anecdotes before beginning

his discourse, and as soon as he thought that he had put them in a

cheerful temper, he would begin to treat of more serious and weighty

subjects. His guiding principle was that the soul must be prepared

for the reception of serious thoughts, and that this receptivity was

best awakened by cheerfulness. Rabba often put catch questions to his

pupils, or expressed paradoxical opinions, in order to test their

judgment or sharpen their intellect. Rabba holds the same important

position among the Amoraim, as Akiba among the Tanaites. He collected

scattered and fragmentary subjects under general heads. For this reason

the reverence in which he was held by the teachers of the Law equaled

that which was entertained for the founder of Babylonian Jewish life.

But in proportion as he was beloved by this circle, he was obnoxious

to the populace of Pumbeditha. His fellow-countrymen could not forgive

this severe censor for the sharp, reproachful words with which, in

his honesty and stern morality, he strove to combat their deceits

and artifices. Once, on the occasion of a drought, when Rabba had

proclaimed a public fast, and had ordered prayers to be offered up,

without succeeding in obtaining rain, he exclaimed reproachfully to the

populace: "It is not because we leaders of the people are worse than in

the time of my master Judah, that Heaven refuses to gratify our wishes;

nor is it because we are less diligent in the study of the Law. But

what can be done by the representatives of the people when the entire

race is degenerate?"

On account of their needy circumstances Rabba and another Amora,

Ada, appear to have become the colleagues (Chacham) of Mar-Ukban, a

grandchild of Rab, and at that time Prince of the Captivity, at whose

expense they were probably supported. While the principals of the

Soranian Academy were wealthy, often supporting the entire expenses of

the schools, and maintaining a large number of disciples from their

own purse, those of Pumbeditha generally possessed but small means.

This circumstance necessitated the establishment of an academical fund

at Pumbeditha, to which the communities and the Prince of the Captivity

probably contributed.

In Rabba's time the Babylonian Jews were the victims of a transitory

persecution, which, although insignificant when compared with those

which had occurred in the Roman empire, was nevertheless calculated

to arouse the sufferers from their feeling of profound safety. It was

during the long reign (310-380) of Shabur II, the new king of the

Sassanian dynasty, who had been acknowledged as ruler while yet unborn,

that the friendly relation in which the Jews had stood to the Persian

court became disturbed, and it is possible that they would have been as

cruelly persecuted as the Christians, had it not been that Ifra-Ormuzd,

the king's mother, was prepossessed in favor of Judaism and the Jews.

The account briefly narrates that a body of troops marched into

Pumbeditha, whereupon Rabba and Joseph took to flight. A serious charge

had been brought against Rabba, the king or his councillors having been

secretly informed that, by means of Rabba's discourses during the Kalla

months, his 1200 students had been induced to evade the payment of the

poll-tax. A royal bailiff was sent out with orders to seize the person

of the principal of the Pumbedithan Academy. Being warned in advance,

Rabba fled, and in order to escape detection he wandered about in the

surrounding country. His death was caused by fright at the rustling

of the wind in the trees, which the fugitive mistook for the tramp of

advancing soldiery. Abayi and Raba, his most distinguished disciples,

together with the rest of the members of the academy, went in search

of his corpse, which they eventually found covered over and hidden by

birds. They mourned during seven days for this highly esteemed Amora

(330). The charge, which was the occasion of Rabba's death, does not

seem to have been further prosecuted. The queen-mother, Ifra, even sent

a purse of denars to his successor, leaving it to him to make the best

and most pious use of it, whereupon he employed it in ransoming Jewish

prisoners.

Rabba's successor and friend, Joseph ben Chiya (born about 270, died

about 333), was sickly and sensitive, and possessed a passionate

disposition. He was aware of his failings and complained that they

prevented him from enjoying life. He seems to have been very wealthy,

and to have possessed fields, palm-trees and vineyards, from which

latter--as he cultivated them more carefully than was generally the

case--he obtained better wine than was commonly produced. Upon being

afflicted with blindness, he grieved less for the loss of his sight

than on account of his being thereby relieved from performing various

religious duties.

Joseph was exceptional among the principals of the Pumbedithan Academy,

inasmuch as he attached more weight to the acquisition of a knowledge

of the Mishna and the Boraïtas by committing them to memory, than to

the drawing of ingenious conclusions. For this reason he was known by

the title of "Sinai" and "Possessor of Storehouses." Besides studying

the Halacha, he turned his attention to the Targum or Chaldaic

translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Torah, and probably also

isolated portions of the Prophets, which were used for public reading

(Haftara), had long ago been translated into the Aramaic dialects--both

the Syriac and the Chaldaic. There existed various Chaldaic

translations of the Torah for the use of those who were ignorant of

Hebrew: one of these, based probably on the favorite Greek version of

Akylas, bore the name of _Targum Onkelos_; the Syrian translation,

employed by such of the Jews of Syria and Mesopotamia as spoke Syriac,

was called _Peshito_ (the simple). The greater portion of the Prophets,

however, had not been translated, and it was Joseph who first took in

hand a Chaldaic translation thereof. Some persons believed that this

was a work of piety, as Joseph was prevented by his blindness from

reading, and was unwilling to recite the Hebrew text by heart, on

account of the prohibition against oral quotation of the written Law.

He therefore set about translating the Prophets on his own account, in

order to be able to quote any desired passage in Chaldaic. Joseph's

translation was incorporated in the Targum, and was accepted as a

decisive authority on questions relating to the explanation of doubtful

words.

He was exceedingly severe in maintaining discipline in his capacity

of principal of the Academy; he flogged one of the students--Nathan

bar Assa--for journeying on foot from the Academy to Pumbeditha on

the second day of one of the festivals. The few years during which

he retained his office were in many ways embittered. He was stricken

by a severe illness, through which he lost his memory, and it was

consequently often necessary for his pupils to remind him that he

himself had formerly taught them the very facts which he was then

disputing. Although they endeavored to spare his feelings when drawing

his attention to his absurd mistakes, nevertheless, in his irritation,

he regarded these corrections as a slight, and complainingly exclaimed:

"Be indulgent with an old man whom misfortune has caused to forget all

he learnt; and forget not that the fragments of the first tables of the

Law were preserved by the side of the unbroken tables."

Joseph's hard lot may be considered as typical of the decay of the

method of teaching which depended on the power of memory. It heaps up

the treasures of learning and tradition, guarding every atom of its

hoard as painfully as a miser, and warns off all influences exerted

by the employment of the intellect, as if they might obscure its

mirror-like purity; but in an unlucky moment the store that has been

laboriously collected suddenly vanishes; memory is extinguished, and

there remain no means of recovering the lost treasures.

The Soranian school, the home of culture, also began to decline,

through neglecting to further the development of the Law. After

Chasda's death, the post of principal was held for twelve years

(309-320) by Huna's son, Rabba or Rab Abba; but the studious youths

were more strongly attracted by the rising star of the Pumbedithan

Academy. For this reason Rabba's modesty is the only circumstance in

connection with which any remembrance of him is retained. After the

death of Rabba bar Huna, the Soranian Academy was deserted, and it was

not frequented until half a century later, when it began to regain its

lost renown.

After Joseph's death, the college was embarrassed as to whom it

should appoint as his successor. There were four who seemed worthy to

occupy this post, being all equally esteemed; they were Abayi, Raba,

Zeïra II, and Rabba bar Matana. The college accordingly determined to

vote for the one who should give the most striking answer, to which

no objection could be offered, to a question that was raised. Abayi

was victorious in this intellectual tournament, and was chosen as

principal. Abayi, whose surname was Nachmani (born about 280, died

338), was an orphan; his father Kailil had died before, his mother

immediately after, his birth. A governess took the place of his mother,

while Rabba, the sagacious Amora of Pumbeditha, filled that of his

father. In after-life, Abayi spoke with gratitude and emotion of his

foster-mother, and gave her name to several healing medicaments. To

his uncle Rabba, Abayi owed his knowledge of the Law and his skill in

Talmudical dialectics. Like Raba, his contemporary Amora, he aroused

great expectations during his early youth, and it used to be said of

them, "The bud shows what the melon will be." Abayi appears to have

possessed but a moderate fortune. Like the majority of the Babylonian

teachers of the Law, however, he had a small field of his own, which

he cultivated by the agency of a freeman. His character was mild and

yielding, and he retained these qualities in his intercourse with

the various classes of society. His maxim was: that man should be

sagacious in the fear of God, gentle and conciliatory in his speech,

and at peace with his brethren, with his relations, in fact, with all

the world, even with the heathen abroad, so that he might be beloved

and esteemed, and possess influence over his fellow-men. At this time

opinions, words, and deeds, were still one and the same. Abayi's

integrity was even acknowledged by such of the Samaritans as dwelt in

Babylonia. Having once lost an ass which was found by some Samaritans,

it was brought back by them to its owner, though he was not able to

mention any special mark by which it could be recognized. "If thou wert

not Nachmani," said they to him, "we should not have restored the ass

even if it had borne some particular mark." Under Abayi's direction of

the Pumbedithan Academy (333-338) the number of students diminished

to about two hundred, and therefore in remembrance of the crowd of

scholars who had flocked thither during the time of his predecessors,

Rab and Huna, he called himself an "orphan of orphans." It was not

that less interest and pleasure than formerly were now felt in study,

but that Abayi possessed a rival in Raba, who had founded a school

of his own in Machuza on the Tigris, whither he had attracted many

students. Both of these teachers brought the Pumbedithan method to its

greatest perfection. Rivaling one another in talent and ingenuity, they

discovered answers to questions which Rabba and Joseph had been unable

to solve.

The traditions which had been handed down no longer afforded material

for discussion, every point which they presented having already been

thoroughly elucidated; new themes were therefore propounded and solved

by the help of recognized formulæ. These subtle Talmudical dialectics

received the names of their most proficient adepts, and were known as

the "Havayot (reflections) d'Abayi ve Raba."

Before his death, Abayi heard of the cruel persecutions to which his

coreligionists in Judæa were subjected under Constantius. The fugitives

who conveyed this sad news to Babylonia, also brought with them new

Halachas, from the circle of which Jochanan was the head, and thus

inspired the learned students of Babylonia with new vigor.

Abayi died in the prime of life (338). After his death, the office of

principal was conferred upon Raba bar Joseph bar Chama of Machuza (born

299, died 352), without any discussion, as if this was expected as a

matter of course. Raba was wealthy, talented and acute, but possessed

his weak points, which caused him to be considered inferior to his

fellow Amoraim, although he surpassed them in acuteness of intellect.

He was well acquainted with his own character, and described himself

in the following words: "I have always cherished three wishes, of

which, while two have been fulfilled, the gratification of the third

has not been vouchsafed to me. I desired Huna's learning and Chasda's

wealth, and obtained both; but Rabba bar Huna's unassuming modesty

was not allotted to me." Although he was superior to the majority of

his fellow-countrymen, his character was tainted, nevertheless, with

certain peculiarities of the Machuzans; he was luxurious, proud and

overbearing, and although his fellow-countrymen did not enjoy the

best of reputations in Babylonia, he flattered them to excess. He was

exceedingly desirous of winning and retaining their favor. "When I

became judge," he relates, "I was afraid that I should no longer retain

the attachment of the Machuzans, but as they recognize my impartiality

in giving judgment, all must either hate or all love me." Abayi seems

to have reproved this tendency of Raba to sacrifice moral dignity for

the acquisition of popular favor. "When a teacher of the Law," said

he, "is too greatly beloved by his fellow-citizens, it is not because

of his great merit, but on account of his indulgence, which causes him

to refrain from calling attention to their vices, and from earnestly

reprimanding them."

It has already been mentioned that the inhabitants of Machuza were

descended for the most part from proselytes, for which reason the

aristocratic Babylonian Jews forbore to contract marriages with them.

As the Machuzans thus seemed to be at a loss how to obtain wives,

Zeïra II declared in a public discourse that it was allowable for them

to marry persons who had been born out of wedlock. This permission,

however, implying as it did a sort of degradation of the Machuzans,

was so offensive to their pride, that they almost stoned him to death

with the fruits with which the booths were decorated (the incident

occurring during the celebration of the feast of Tabernacles), just as

King Alexander Jannæus had once been attacked in the outer court of

the temple. Raba could hardly find words severe enough with which to

blame Zeïra's candor: "Who would give utterance to so inconsiderate a

decision in a community containing so many descendants of proselytes!"

In order to enlist the favor of the populace still more strongly on

his side, he demonstrated, in opposition to Zeïra's theory, that

proselytes might marry even the daughters of priests, and he succeeded

by this flattery in charming the Machuzans so greatly that they

overwhelmed him with presents of silken stuffs. In after-times Raba

attempted to restrict the equality which he had accorded somewhat too

freely to the proselytes, probably on account of its having caused

displeasure in various circles; at the same time he remarked that

proselytes might ally themselves with bastard families. This decision

having caused dissatisfaction, Raba appeased his fellow-countrymen with

the following words: "I only meant well towards you, and leave you free

to act either way."

Another of Raba's failings was that, although exceedingly wealthy, he

was not entirely free from covetousness, which he allowed to become

apparent on several occasions. A proselyte of Machuza, Issor by name,

had deposited with Raba a sum of 12,000 sus (denars), in order to

bequeath it to his son, who was being brought up as a student of the

Law. Issor having fallen ill, Raba resolved to keep possession of this

money as property to which there was no heir, a proselyte being unable

to leave his fortune to a son born before his adoption of Judaism, as

the Talmudical law does not recognize such offspring as a son. At all

events, the principal of the schools--familiar as he was with all the

intricacies of the Law--was determined to nullify Issor's disposal

of his fortune in favor of his son. Meanwhile, another person who

was equally well acquainted with the Law, suggested to the anxious

father that, although he was prevented from making over the money in

question to his son by will, he was, nevertheless, at liberty to do so

by declaring before witnesses that the money belonged to the latter.

Raba was greatly incensed at the man who offered this counsel, and

complained as bitterly of this secret advice as if he had thereby been

deprived of a lawfully acquired fortune. Raba's conduct also violated

an accepted Halacha which treats of a similar case. According to this

law, although a man is not obliged to hand over to such of the sons as

may have become proselytes, the property committed to his keeping by

a heathen, of which the latter had not otherwise disposed, an offense

is, nevertheless, committed against the higher laws of morality by

withholding it from them.

Another example of Raba's selfish conduct is afforded by the fact

that he exacted a higher rent from the tenants of his fields than

was customary in Babylonia. At times his behavior towards persons of

slender means was marked by a harshness which was in glaring opposition

to the doctrines of charity and pity, inculcated equally by the

Halachas and the Scriptures.

The conduct of his brother Saurim was even more heartless; he posed

as a moral censor, and whenever any of the poorer members of the

community appeared to him not to be religious enough he made slaves

of them, and compelled them to carry him about in his gilded litter.

Even to this conduct Raba offered no objection, but sanctioned his

brother's arbitrary proceedings by referring to a long-forgotten law,

which countenanced the treatment of the Jews as slaves, in case they no

longer lived in accordance with the Law.

During this period the simple manners and the honesty which had

obtained among the Jews of Babylonia in former times, fell to a low ebb

with many of them, and made room for luxury, vanity, and thirst for

power. Many a teacher of the Law was clad in gorgeous garments and was

carried about in a gilded litter. They no longer felt themselves one

with the people from whom they had risen, but constituted a particular

caste, a patrician class, who mutually protected and maintained one

another's interests, looking down with pride and contempt on the

lower orders of the populace. Raba himself admitted that whenever he

was called upon to decide a point of law in which a person of the same

class of society as himself was concerned, he was unable to sleep

until he succeeded in interpreting the law in his favor. If a member

of the school brought his produce to market, he was invested with the

privilege of being allowed to sell before any one else, in order that

he might obtain higher prices. The cause of a member was always heard

first in the court. The teachers of the Law of such communities as paid

their taxes in a lump sum, were exempt from all imposts. Raba allowed

the associates, in places where they were not known, to declare their

rank, in order that they might enjoy the advantages attaching thereto.

What a contrast to former times, when the Tanaites hesitated, at the

risk of their lives even, to derive any benefit from their knowledge of

the Law! Raba went to extreme lengths in according privileges to the

doctors of the Law. He permitted the associates to pass themselves off

as worshipers of fire in order to escape payment of the _charag_.

The course of conduct thus pursued by the learned classes gradually

awoke a dislike of them among the people. The lower classes spoke of

them contemptuously as "those scholars." The mockery expressed by

this epithet must have been so bitter that on their side the teachers

of the Law branded as heretics (Epicureans) all who made use of the

expression. Scholarship thus no longer obtained recognition. "What do

we profit by the scholars?" the people asked themselves; "all their

knowledge is employed for their own benefit." At the head of this

opposition to the Rabbis stood the family of the physician, Benjamin

of Machuza, which seems to have been possessed of great importance, as

Raba paid great attention to its members. "What advantage do we really

derive from the teachers of the Law?" said they jeeringly; "they can

neither allow us to eat ravens, nor forbid us to eat pigeons?"--meaning

that in spite of all their dialectics they were unable to proceed

beyond the circle of established customs. Although Raba declared this

utterance of Benjamin Assia to be heretical, it does not appear that

he excommunicated him, but rather that he treated him with great

consideration; it is probable that the latter belonged to the retinue

of the Prince of the Captivity.

Meanwhile the zeal for the study of the Law had greatly increased.

Disciples crowded in even greater numbers than formerly to Raba's

academy in Machuza, neglecting in their ardor their business pursuits.

Raba was obliged to warn them against this excess: "I pray you do not

come to my school in the spring and autumn months, lest you should

neglect the time of the harvest and of the preparation of wine and

oil, and so be troubled throughout the year by the cares of life."

Raba's discourses were even more popular than Abayi's by reason of the

clearness of his explanations, the exactitude of his distinctions,

and the boldness of his treatment of the subject-matter of tradition.

Raba showed a decided preference for analyzing the Mishna to the bare

study of its dry subject-matter. The former method offered a wide field

for the employment of dialectical powers, while the Mishna, taken in

its simplest sense, became a mere matter of memory. On this account

Raba placed the Amoraïm above the Tanaites; the former explained,

or explained better, such points as were doubtful to the latter. He

was accustomed to say that a grain of pepper (acuteness) was better

than a basketful of melons. In contrast to Zeïra I, who was adverse

to that method of teaching which encouraged ingenious reasoning, and

valued highly the simplicity of the Mishna, Raba declared that "whoso

breaketh stones injureth himself thereby (Eccles. x. 9); thus are they

characterized who know merely the Mishna; but he who splitteth wood

warmeth himself; such are they who are acquainted with the Talmud."

The true Talmud, the attractive collection of nice questions, answers,

comparisons and distinctions, the lofty flight of thought, which,

starting from a point, passes with the quickness of lightning over

the intermediate steps of a chain of reasoning, the dialectic form

of the Talmud is the product of this period. The triumvirate, Rabba,

Abayi, and Raba, were Talmudists in the real meaning of the word, _i.

e._, dialecticians. In this sense the Talmud was the creation of the

Pumbedithan and Machuzan schools. In Judæa there was scarcely a notion

of it. By reason of his extensive acquirements, his profound intellect,

and perhaps also on account of his wealth, Raba remained the sole

authority during his continuance at the head of the academy. Questions

were referred to him even from Judæa, when the frequent persecutions

under Constantius and Gallus involved the Holy Land in the deepest

misery.

This period was by no means the happiest for the Jewish subjects of

the Persian crown; they were not spared during the obstinate struggle

between Rome and Persia. A Persian army was stationed at Machuza, and

had to be maintained by the inhabitants of the town. As the population

was entirely Jewish, this duty was attended with many inconveniences.

Shabur II was no friend of the Jews. In ancient times numerous Jewish

families had been transported to Armenia, and now lived there in their

own cities; of these, Shabur led an immense multitude (estimated at

71,000) into captivity, and colonized them in Susiana and Ispahan.

This latter city, which had formerly been the capital of the Persian

empire, received the name of Jehudia, from the many Jews who settled

there after the captivity. Shabur appears to have oppressed the Jews

of Babylonia in no less degree, for Raba was obliged to expend

considerable sums of money in preventing persecution. His friends

extolled his good luck in being, to a certain extent, exempted from

the misfortunes to which the Jewish people had been predestined,

seeing that up till then he had been subjected to no extortions. To

these congratulations Raba replied as follows: "You know not how much

I am obliged to do in secret for Shabur's court!" On one occasion it

was with great difficulty that he managed to escape a personal danger

which threatened him in his capacity of principal of the schools. He

had ordered a Jew to be flogged for having held carnal intercourse

with a Persian woman, and the chastisement had caused the death of the

culprit. The case happening to come to Shabur's knowledge, he commanded

a heavy punishment to be inflicted on Raba for having exercised the

criminal jurisdiction. The latter appears to have escaped the penalty

by flight, but his house was pillaged. All further consequences of this

occurrence were averted by Ifra, the queen-mother, who is reported to

have said to her son: "Do not meddle in any way with the Jews, for God

grants them whatever they pray for." In striking contrast with her

son, Ifra-Ormuzd entertained a special liking for the Jews, and in

particular for the teachers of the Law, to whom at times she vouchsafed

a glance into the most secret recesses of her heart. In the same way

as she had formerly sent a purse of gold to Joseph, she now forwarded

400 golden denars to Raba. Rami, a contemporary, was of opinion that

this present ought to be refused, as it was not lawful to receive alms

of the heathens. Notwithstanding this, Raba accepted the money, but

distributed it amongst the heathen poor. The queen-mother Ifra also

sent an animal for sacrifice to the principal of the school in Machuza,

which she requested might be offered up according to the Jewish rites,

in order to prove her adoration of the only God. Raba did not live to

see either the introduction of the calendar by Hillel, or the short

period during which prosperity smiled upon the Jews. He died after

holding his office for fourteen years.

After Raba's death the importance of Machuza began to decline, and

Pumbeditha, which had unwillingly surrendered the palm to Raba, now

occupied its former position. It is remarkable that from this time

forward mediocrity began to reign, as if intellectual activity needed

recreation after so many exertions. Not one of Raba's successors was

sufficiently able to compensate for his loss. The principals of the

Babylonian schools, Nachman ben Isaac, Papa, and Chama of Nahardea,

were possessed of no conspicuous importance; the Pumbedithan spirit of

severe analysis and ingenious dialectics was indeed cultivated, but in

nowise advanced.

Nachman ben Isaac (born about 280, died 356) was chosen as the leader

of the Pumbedithan Metibta, but merely on account of his advanced age,

his extraordinary piety, and perhaps also of his independence. His

tenure of office only extended over four years, and was not rendered

memorable by any noteworthy feature. During this period a new academy

was founded at Nares, in proximity to Sora, situated on the canal of

the same name.

The founder of this new academy, of which he became the principal, was

Papa bar Chanan (born about 300, died 375). He had early been left an

orphan, was wealthy, and by trade a brewer of beer from dates. His

friend, Huna ben Joshua, equally wealthy, and his partner in business,

became a teacher at this academy. But the two together were not able to

fill the void which Raba's death had occasioned. It is true that the

members of the Machuzan academy gathered around them; but opportunities

soon arose of effecting comparisons, the results of which were

anything but favorable to the new chiefs.

The following anecdote will serve to indicate the character of the

principal of the Nares academy. Certain of the younger teachers of the

Law had come to Nares in order to be present at Papa's lectures. This

latter, however, left his subject in so confused a condition, that

they secretly began to make signs one to the other. Papa, seeing this,

was exceedingly mortified, and said to them: "Let those present depart

from here in peace." Another member, one Simaï bar Ashi (father of the

Ashi who became famous later on), used to importune Papa with questions

which quite exceeded his modest capabilities. Papa, in despair lest he

should be put to shame before his pupils, would throw himself down in

prayer, and beseech the merciful God to preserve him from the terrible

feeling of confusion. Simaï, having been an unobserved witness of

this fervent prayer, made up his mind that henceforward he would keep

silence, and no longer involuntarily mortify Papa.

In the Halacha, Papa was the representative of a school which was so

devoid of self-dependence, that its partisans did not even hold an

opinion of their own concerning the views of others. Whenever two or

more conflicting opinions left the meaning of a precept of the Law in

doubt, Papa would say: "Let us adopt both views, or act according to

all these opinions." Papa remained at his post during nineteen years

(355-375), and the stupor into which all minds were thrown during this

period was only dissipated by his successor. Pumbeditha possessed a

principal of equal insignificance in Chama of Nahardea, whose character

a single anecdote will suffice to indicate. King Shabur asked him

whether the practice of burying the dead was founded on the Torah, or

whether it was simply an ancient custom. The question arose from the

usage of the Persians, who neither buried nor burned the corpses of

their dead. Chama, however, could bring forward no passage of Scripture

in support of burial. Acha ben Jacob, a member of the household of the

Prince of the Captivity, and therefore privileged to say many things,

expressed the following opinion of this principal: "The world is

delivered into the hands of fools; why did he not instance the verse,

'And thou shalt bury him on the same day'?"

In the course of the twenty-one years (356-377) during which Chama held

office, a change occurred in the Roman Empire which was not without

weighty consequences for the communities of Judæa and Babylonia. A

nephew of the Emperor Constantius, Julian, effected a revolution which,

however, was only temporary. Emperor Julian was one of those masterful

characters who impress their names indelibly on the memory of man.

It was only an early death and the hatred of the ruling Church which

prevented him from obtaining the title of "Great." Although a member

of Constantine's family, the fratricidal sword of the Constantines

hung over his head, and he was compelled by fear of death to give

hypocritical adhesion to the Christian religion, which he hated. Almost

by a miracle he was created co-emperor by his uncle Constantius,

who hated him from the bottom of his heart, and had already held a

council about his death. A military revolt in his favor, and the

unexpected death of his enemy Constantius, put Julian in possession of

exclusive power. Known in the history of the Church as the Apostate

(Apostata, Parabata), Julian made it the duty of his life to realize

the ideal, which association with his teachers, Libanius and Maximus,

had suggested to him, and which had been further ennobled by his rich

mind. His favorite thoughts were to protect the oppressed of all

nations and religions, to promote the well-being of all his subjects,

more especially by alleviating the burden of taxes, to revive the

philosophical sciences, which had been condemned by the Christian

emperors, to restore the ancient religion, freed, however, from its

most conspicuous blemishes, which had rendered it so contemptible

and ridiculous; finally, to confine Christianity, which had gained

so much power during so short a period, within its proper limits.

Mindful, however, of the persecution to which he himself had been

subjected, he refrained from retaliating on the Christians, in spite

of their mania for persecution. Still, he was desirous of restraining

their encroachments, and therefore deprived them of their influence

in civil and scientific matters, and attempted to lower them in the

appreciation of the learned classes by the employment of the weapons

of the intellect and delicate satire. He called Jesus a Galilæan whom

credulity had exalted to a god, and spoke of the Christians by the

nickname of Galilæans. For this reason he was all the more friendly

toward the Jews, and was the only emperor after Alexander Severus who

evinced serious interest in Judaism. He was led by more reasons than

one to prefer Judaism. Brought up in the Christian religion, he had

become acquainted with Judaism through the Holy Bible, and the more

Judaism was hated and persecuted by Christianity, the greater was the

reverence with which he regarded it. The emperor even admitted that

he had been greatly shocked by the cruel oppression to which the Jews

were exposed during the reign of Constantius, when their religion was

branded as blasphemous by victorious Christianity. Julian was greatly

impressed by the God of Judaism, as described in Holy Writ, and

acknowledged him as the "Great God." He refused to believe, however,

that beside Him there existed no other gods. He especially admired the

benevolence of the Jews, and was astonished that they cared for their

poor with such zeal that no beggars existed among them. He was also

desirous of deeply mortifying the Christians by the preference which

he exhibited for the Jews, for the former were at great pains to prove

the superiority of their religion by the abasement of the latter. He

entertained a particular predilection for the sacrificial cult, and

for this reason he was especially pleased with the Jewish system of

sacrifices, with the solemn pomp of the Temple and the priests. The

emperor reproached the Christians with having rejected the God and

the worship of Judaism, but he particularly blamed them for having

discarded the sacrificial service. It was true that the Jews did

not then offer sacrifices, but this was only because they no longer

possessed a Temple. Finally, the idea may have occurred to Julian to

dispose the Babylonian Jews in his favor for the Persian war which now

occupied his whole attention. He desired, if not to obtain their active

support, at least to prevent them from offering fanatical resistance.

Julian's reign, which lasted not quite two years (November, 361 to

June, 363) was a period of extreme happiness for the Jews of the Roman

Empire. The emperor favored them, relieving them from oppression, and

from the disgrace which the taunt of blasphemy entailed. He called

the Patriarch Hillel his venerable friend, and honored him with an

autograph letter, wherein he assured him of his good-will, and promised

to try and put an end to the wrongs of the Jews. He also addressed

an epistle to all the Jewish communities of the empire, and made

preparations for rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem, which had become

a Christian city since the time of Constantine. The imperial missive,

which stands out in glaring contrast with the course of treatment

adopted by the first two Christian emperors, is remarkable enough to

merit being preserved. The letter (written at Antioch in the autumn of

362 or the winter of 363) ran as follows:

"TO THE JEWISH CONGREGATIONS.--More oppressive for you in the

past than the yoke of dependence was the circumstance that new

taxes were imposed upon you without previous notice, and you

were thus compelled to furnish an immense quantity of gold to

the imperial treasury. I learnt much by personal observation,

but still more by the tax-rolls which were being preserved to

your detriment, and which I happened to light upon. I myself

abolished a tax which it was intended to impose upon you, and

thus put a stop to the injustice of attempting to cast such a

slur on you; with my own hands did I commit to the flames the

tax-rolls against you which I came across in my archives, in

order that for the future no one might spread such a charge of

blasphemy against you. My brother Constantius, the Glorious,

was not so much to blame for this as those barbarians in

thought and godless in spirit who invented such a system of

taxation. With my own arm have I hurled them to deepest ruin,

so that not even the memory of their fall shall remain with us.

Being on the point of according you yet greater favor, I have

exhorted my brother, the venerable Patriarch Julos (Hillel),

to put a stop to the collection of the so-called Apostole from

you, and henceforward let no one further oppress your nation

with the collection of such imposts, so that everywhere in

my empire you may be free from care; and thus, in the full

enjoyment of peace, may you address your fervent prayers for

my empire to the Almighty Creator of the Universe, who has

supported me with His strong right hand. It seems to be the

fact, that those whose lives are passed in anxiety are indolent

of spirit, and do not dare raise their hands in supplication

for the prosperity of their country. But those who are exempt

from all care, and are glad with their whole hearts, are

able to direct their sincere prayers for the welfare of the

empire to the Most High, who can best further my rule as I

propose to reign. Thus should you do in order that, on the

happy termination of the Persian war, I may be able to visit

Jerusalem, the Holy City, which shall be rebuilt at my expense,

as you have desired to see it restored for so many years: then

will I unite with you in giving praise to the Almighty."

It is not related what impression was produced by this gracious letter,

which, more winning even than Cyrus' missive to the Babylonian exiles,

came as a drop of refreshing dew after long drought. A single account,

which is borrowed from Jewish tradition, relates that the Jews applied

to Julian the following verse (Daniel xi. 34): "Now when they shall

fall, they shall be holpen with a little help." Daniel is thus supposed

to have prophesied that after the Jewish nation had suffered at the

hands of Gallus, Julian would extend help to them by his support and

his promise to rebuild the Temple.

Meanwhile Julian did not forget to act upon his promise. Although

abundantly occupied with the preparations for the Persian war, he had

nevertheless at heart the restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem from

its ruins. For this purpose he appointed a special chief overseer in

the person of his best friend, the learned and virtuous Alypius of

Antioch, and exhorted him to spare no expense during the rebuilding.

The governors of Syria and Palestine received orders to aid Alypius

with everything that was necessary. The building materials were already

prepared, and workmen were assembled in great numbers for the purpose

of clearing away the ruins which had lain heaped upon the site of the

Temple ever since its destruction, nearly three hundred years before.

The Jews do not seem to have interested themselves in the rebuilding

of the Temple, for the Jewish authorities maintain a complete silence

concerning this fact, and the stories of the ardor of the Jews for the

rebuilding which are related by the later Christian reports are purely

fictitious. The distant communities are said to have forwarded sums of

money toward the restoration of the Temple, and it is even asserted

that women sold their jewelry and brought stones in their laps. But

all this was quite unnecessary, for Julian had amply provided both

building materials and workmen. The Christians also spread the report

that Julian only pretended to be kindly disposed towards the Jews in

order to entice them into heathenism. Especially spiteful is the story

that the Jews destroyed several churches in Judæa and the neighboring

countries, and threatened to inflict as much evil on the Christians as

they themselves had suffered at the hands of the Christian emperors.

The report that about this period the Christians of Edessa massacred

the entire Jewish population of that city is more credible. It may be

assumed as a certainty that the hope of re-establishing their state,

which had occasioned two or three revolutions, and had cost so many

victims, was extinguished in the hearts of the Jews. The restoration

of their former magnificence was now only expected at the appearance

of the Messiah. Without the latter a Temple would have seemed utterly

absurd, according to the views which were entertained at this period,

and still less would it have been possible for a Roman emperor to be

regarded as the Messiah. The opinion was generally accepted that "God

had bound the Jewish nation by oath not to climb over the wall (_i.

e._, re-establish the State by force), nor to rebel against the ruling

nations, but to bear their yoke patiently until the coming of the

Messiah, and not to attempt to bring about that period by violence."

Meanwhile the Christians looked with envious eyes upon the commencement

of the work (spring, 363). The indifference of the Jews seems, however,

to have contributed more than anything else to the suspension of the

rebuilding, on account of the various obstacles which were encountered.

On the occasion of the pulling down of the ruins, and the excavation

of the foundations, a fire broke out by which several workmen lost

their lives. This subterranean conflagration doubtless occurred in the

passages which had formerly existed beneath the Temple, and had its

origin in the gases which had long been compressed there, and which, on

being suddenly released from pressure, ignited on coming into contact

with the air above. These sudden explosions occurred repeatedly, and

disheartened the workmen, so that they gradually gave up work. If

the Jews had interested themselves more warmly in the rebuilding,

it is hardly probable that they would have allowed themselves to be

discouraged by such an obstacle, which was anything but invincible;

ardent enthusiasm shuns no sacrifice. But deprived of the warm

participation of the Jews, Alypius also became less enthusiastic,

and waited for further commands from the emperor. Julian, however,

is said to have accused the Christians of having caused the fires to

break out in the underground passages, and to have threatened to build

a prison for Christians out of the ruins of the Temple on his return

from the war. But this story, which, like most of those relating to

this event, is drawn from Christian sources, is utterly untrustworthy.

The Christian authorities of the following generation relate the most

wonderful tales of the miracles which are said to have happened during

this impious rebuilding, the purpose of all of which was to warn the

obdurate Jews and to glorify Christ.

The issue of the Persian war--unhappy as it was for Julian--was also

calculated to deprive the Jews of their short-lived exultation, and to

prepare a new triumph for the Christians. Julian had concentrated the

whole of the Roman forces, and had availed himself of every possible

expedient in order not to be inferior in strength to his opponent,

Shabur II. Shabur on his side had set himself the task of freeing Asia

from the Roman rule. Julian, however, was dreaming the golden dream

which had lured many a Roman general, from Crassus and Cæsar downwards,

to the region of the Euphrates. His ambition was to plant the Roman

eagle on the further side of the Tigris.

Once again Europe and Asia stood face to face. The scene of the war

was laid, for the most part, in the province of Jewish Babylonia. It

is impossible to determine which side was espoused by the Jews. The

town of Firuz-Shabur, which contained many Jewish inhabitants, was

obstinately besieged for three days, compelled to capitulate, and

finally burnt. The inhabitants escaped in small boats by the canals of

the Euphrates. The conduct of the Jewish inhabitants of Firuz-Shabur

towards Julian therefore remains uncertain. But the town of Bitra

(more correctly Birtha), which was inhabited entirely by Jews, and

was surrounded by a low wall, displayed a spirit of hostility; it was

completely abandoned by its population, and the soldiers, giving vent

to their martial passion, burnt it to the ground. The town of Machuza

(Maoga-Malka), which was to a certain extent a suburb of Ctesiphon, was

held by a Persian garrison; it was most hotly besieged, and offered

so determined a resistance that the entire military force of the

Romans hardly sufficed to effect its fall. Machuza, the seat of Raba's

academy, whose proud Jewish inhabitants rivaled those of the capital

in magnificence, fell ten years after Raba's death (363) under the

blows of the Roman catapults, and became a heap of ruins. After the

war it was again rebuilt. In spite of the progress which Julian made

into the enemy's country, he did not succeed in reaching Ctesiphon. He

lost not only the fruits of his victories, but even his life, through

his rashness. He was struck down by an arrow, said to have been shot

by a Christian belonging to his own army. Calmly, and as becomes a

philosopher, Julian breathed his last. It is related that a few minutes

before his death he exclaimed: "Thou hast conquered, O Galilæan!"

The death of Julian in the neighborhood of the Tigris (June, 363)

deprived the Jews of the last ray of hope for a peaceful and unmolested

existence. His favor was, however, so far attended with good effect,

that the edicts promulgated against the Jews by Constantine and

Constantius were not immediately renewed; Julian's ordinances remained

in force in so far as they did not affect the privileges of the

Jews. Jovianus, Julian's successor (June, 363 to February, 364),

was compelled to conclude an ignominious peace with the victorious

Shabur; he lived too short a time to be able to effect any changes.

He permitted his subjects to freely declare their adherence to any

religion they chose, without thereby incurring any disadvantage. Once

again the Roman empire was divided between two rulers, Valentinian I

(364-375), and Valens (364-378). The latter, who was Emperor of the

East, was an Arian, and had suffered too severely from the powerful

Catholic party to be intolerant himself. He protected the Jews and

bestowed honors and distinctions upon them. His brother, Valentinian I,

the Emperor of the West, likewise chose the policy of tolerance in the

struggle between Catholics and Arians, and permitted the profession of

either religion without political disadvantages being thereby incurred

(371). This toleration was also extended the Jews.