disciples asked him: How can a man know on which day he shall die? So much the more, was the reply, let him repent to-day, as he may die to-morrow. Thus his whole life will be one of repentance.

Rabbon Yochanan ben Zachai (contemporary of our Lord) said: It is like a king who invited his servants to a banquet, but did not appoint the time. The wise among them adorned themselves, and waited at the entrance of the king's palace, saying: Can there be anything wanting at the king's house which (may delay the banquet)? But the foolish among them went after their work, saying: Can there be a banquet without preparation? Suddenly the king asked for his servants, when the wise among them entered adorned, and the foolish came into his presence soiled. The king rejoiced to meet the wise servants, but was angry with the foolish servants. Let those, said he, who have adorned themselves for the banquet, sit down to eat and drink, but let those who have not adorned themselves for the banquet, stand and look on. (Comp. Mat. xxv. 1-14; xxii. 1-14.) Shabbath, fol. 153, col. 1.

97. Rava exclaimed: How foolish the generality of people are! They will stand up before the book of the Law, but will not rise before a great man; and yet the book of the Law prescribes forty stripes, whereas the Rabbis have diminished them by one. Maccoth, fol. 22, col. 2.

98. Hillel the Elder (whom a certain school have set up as the teacher of Jesus) once met men carrying wheat. What is the price of a measure? he inquired. Two denars, was the answer. Meeting others, he was told in answer to the same question, that the price was three denars. The first party, said he, told me that it was only two. Foolish Babylonian, exclaimed the men, dost thou not know that the reward is proportionate to the toil? Fools and racas! retorted he, is that the answer you give to a fair question? What did Hillel? He restored them to a better course. Avoth of Rabbi Nathan, chap. 12.

7. N. For once then the proverbially meek Hillel did lose his temper: and his proselytising effort was probably not so successful this time as it is alleged to have been on another occasion. (See page 366, Note 8.)

99. Rami bar Tamri, the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikuli, had the Vav in (in that portion of Scripture, which is put into the phylacteries) cut into two by a hole. Consulting Rav Zera, he was told to let a child that was neither wise nor foolish read the word. If he pronounced it 17, the phylacteries might be used; but if he read it, they should not be used. Minachoth, fol. 29, col. 2.

100. Tradition records: Rabbi Eliezer (first century) said to the wise men (in the course of a discussion): Has not the son of Sitda brought out witchcraft from Egypt, in an incision made in his flesh? They replied: He was a ne, and no proof is adduced from (the The son of Sitda (says the compiler of the Guemara) is the son of Pandira. Rav Chisda said: As to the husband of Sitda, the seducer was Pandira, but the husband was Papus ben

שוטים (conduct of

Yehudah (a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva. See page 125, Note 48; page 152, Note 17). His mother Sitda is the same as Mary the women's hair dresser ; (she was called Sitda) as we say in Pumbeditha : This (woman) has strayed from her husband. ( would thus be a

contraction of 7 D.) Shabbath, fol. 104, col. 2.

T. N. a. Rashi comments on the words, "As to the husband of Sitda," etc.: The son of Sitda was called by the name of her husband, although he was the son of another.

ממזר

b. Tosephoth adds: "This is not Jesus the Nazarene (the word Jesus is contracted as usual into, i.e., the initial letters of the imprecation DD); for the son of Sitda here mentioned was a contemporary of Papus ben Yehudah, who was in the days of Rabbi Akiva; whereas Jesus was in the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah, who repelled Jesus the Nazarene with both his hands; and Rabbi Yehoshua lived long before Rabbi Akiva." Undoubtedly, for Rabbi Yehoshua flourished at least one hundred years before the Christian era.

c. And now let us hear what the Talmud has to say in connection with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. To translate the whole passage as it stands, would be an outrage upon decency, but as folio and column are given, the reader may refer to it, if he is at all conversant with the hybrid dialect in which it is written. The reference should be made to the Amsterdam edition of the Talmud, all such passages being expunged from the later editions by the folly of the Censor.

d. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have taught (i.e., in the third century, and it was committed to writing in the fifth): The right hand should always attract, when the left hand repels. Not like Elisha, who repelled Gehazi with both his hands; and not like Yehoshua ben Perachyah, who repelled the Nazarene with both his hands. (The case of Gehazi is mentioned first, which see page 380, Note 13, and then follows:) What about Yehoshua ben Perachyah? When king Jannæus slew the Rabbis (about 100 B.C.), Shimon ben Shatach was hidden by his sister, the queen, whilst Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah fled to Alexandria in Egypt. When peace was restored, Shimon ben Shatach sent the following epistle: "From me, Jerusalem, the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt. My husband (Yehoshua was president) dwells in thy midst, and I am desolate." Evidently there is peace now, said Yehoshua, and he returned home accompanied by Jesus. At a roadside inn, where he was well treated by the hostess, .... Yehoshua excommunicated him at the blast of four hundred horns. Every day he asked to be received as a penitent, but in vain. One day he came while Yehoshua was reading the Shema. He was willing to receive him then, and beckoned with his hand to that effect. (Speech is forbidden during the reading of the Shema. See page 452, Note 2.) Jesus thinking that he was repelled again, went and committed an act of idolatry. Repent, said Rabbi Yehoshua afterwards. I have it by tradition from thyself, was the reply, that whoever sins, and causes the multitude to sin, is not encouraged to repent. For (adds the compiler) the master had said, that Jesus bewitched, enticed, and caused Israel to stumble and to sin. Soteh, fol. 47, col. 1; Sanhedrin, fol. 107, col. 2.

e. Here then is the incident on which a British Rabbi, an eager aspirant after literary fame, in a course of lectures on Judaism in Relation to Mankind, has based the assertion, that the Rabbis disapproved the intolerance of the teacher (sic) of Jesus. The Jewish Chronicle urged strongly the publication of the lectures for the enlightenment of Christians. It seems, however, that both the editor of that organ and the lecturing Rabbi are more distinguished for their bold advocacy of Rabbinism, than for consistency with its enactments. The Talmud itself is, no doubt, more or less, a sealed book to both of them; but were they in the habit, as every Jew of less pretension is, of reciting every Sabbath Pirkey Avoth, which is written almost in pure Hebrew, they would have known, that Yehoshua ben Perachyah and Nittai the Arbelite were the predecessors of Shimon ben Shatach, who, as a contemporary of Alexander Jannæus, flourished one hundred years before Jesus was born. That the Post-Mishnic Rabbis, or perhaps the compiler of the Guemara, who records the

incident, committed the same blunder, is no excuse for the enlightened Rabbi and his editorial patron.

f. It may be added, that Toledoth Yisho, a contemptible medley of the Life of Jesus, makes Him the contemporary of Rabbi Akiva during the existence of the Temple, and Mary the betrothed of Papus ben Yehudah. Rabbi Eliezer was the brother-in-law of Rabbon Gamliel II., and an older contemporary of Rabbi Akiva. Accordingly, both Rav Chisda (about the close of the third century) and Tosephoth are involved, as usual, in hopeless confusion.

115. Akavyah ben Mahalalel testified to four halachahs (in opposition to the wise men). Recant, said they, and we will make thee president of the tribunal. He replied: I would rather be called fool all my days, than be a wicked man for one hour in the presence of the Omnipresent. People will say I recanted for the sake of the promotion.

On his death-bed he advised his son to recant. Why hast thou not recanted thyself? asked the son. Because, said he, I heard these four halachahs from many, as well as my opponents did from many others on the opposite side; but thou hast heard them from me only, a single man as opposed to many. It is better to leave the words of a single man, and hold those of many. Father, said he, recommend me to thy friends. I shall not do it, was the reply. Hast thou found anything amiss in me? asked the son. No; thy own deeds will either commend, or expel thee. Edoyoth, chap, 5, Mishnah 6, 7.

119. A man who takes upon himself to be an associate (of the disciples of the wise), may not sell to an amhaaretz either fresh or dried fruits (because, careless of the halachahs respecting ceremonial defilement, they would become polluted in his possession. See page 318, Note 12), nor may he buy of him fresh fruit (if dried they are incapable of contracting defilement, see Le. vi. 38, unless they have come into contact with water, or six other liquids enumerated by the Rabbis). He may not accept hospitality from an amhaaretz, nor offer him hospitality when arrayed in his garment. Demai, chap. 2, Mishnah 3.

120. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have taught: Under all circumstances let a man sell all he has, and marry the daughter of a disciple of the wise; if not in a position to do so, let him marry the daughter of a prominent man of the generation; failing to obtain such a wife, let it be the daughter of a functionary of the synagogue, of a collector of charity, of a schoolmaster; but let him never marry (a Jewess, who is) the daughter of an amhaaretz, because they are an abomination, and their women are vermin, and concerning their daughters it is said (De. xxvii. 21): "Cursed is he that lieth with any manner of

beast."

Tradition records, that Rabbi Elazer said: If we were not necessary to them in the way of business, they would kill us.

The hatred which the amhaaretz bear against a disciple of the wise is more intense than that which idolaters conceive against Israel. That of their wives is even more inveterate; but most implacable of all is that of one who has fallen away from the disciples of the wise.

The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have taught: Six injunctions are laid down with reference to the amhaaretz: their depositions are not asked, nor received; no secret is revealed to them; they are not

appointed guardians (apotropos, εжɩтрожоs) of orphans, nor of poor boxes; and they are refused as travelling companions. Some add also, that no proclamation is made respecting their lost property. Why (asks some one) is the last injunction not added by the former? (Answer) Because sometimes a good seed issues from them, who would enjoy it; as it is said (Job xxvii. 17): "He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on." Psachim, fol. 49, col. 2.

T. N. a. Tosephoth asks the very natural question: How can it be known, that the lost property belongs to an amhaaretz? To this a Rabbi Yitzchak answers: It is supposed that a caravan of amhaaretz has passed by, and it has been noticed that the property has been dropped by it. In that case, no proclamation is made, but to rob them deliberately, it would seem, is not allowed, apart even from the consideration, that they may have issue of good seed. Still Rabbi Yitzchak is puzzled to know, why the deliberate appropriation of their property should be forbidden, considering that even their bodies may be torn to pieces like fishes (see page 73, Note 20), and so the discussion goes on.

b. Maimonides has embodied all these laws in his Digest-Maimonides, with whom, and Spinoza, Deutsch, the Hebrew Christian Mendelssohn Bartholdy, etc., (what a medley!) the editor of a Jewish organ in London prefers infinitely to go to hell, than dwell for ever in the Christian heaven. The editor should ascertain first whether the association would feel quite comfortable in his society, or in each other's. If he knew more of Maimonides than the name, he would not have included him at least in the company. Maimonides has embodied these laws as the unanimous teaching of all the Rabbis, and yet these Rabbis are coolly paraded before the world as the source from whence Jesus and His Apostles derived all their ethics! What must one think of the moral turpitude, or, to be charitable, of the mental haziness of our modern philosophers!

128.

Rabbi (in refusing relief to the amhaaretz) followed out his own assertion, that no calamities come upon the (Jewish) world but on account of the amhaaretz. Bava-bathra, fol. 8, col. 1.

130. The wife and the slaves of a Rabbinic associate are treated like him. If he dies, his wife, his children, and the household generally are still presumed to act like him, unless there is ground for believing that they no longer submit to the Rabbis.

The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have taught: The widow, or the divorced wife, or the daughter of an amhaaretz, who has married an associate, or a slave of an amhaaretz sold to an associate, must personally submit to the rules of the Association; but if vice versa, no formal submission is required, so says Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yehudah and likewise also Rabbi Shimon ben Elazer hold the reverse. The latter gives an instance of the late wife of an associate, who, on marrying a publican, departed from the rules. Avodah-zarah, fol. 39, col. 1.

131. An amhaaretz who has stretched out his hand into a vinepress, and touched the bunches, Rabbi says (which is the halachah), that the bunch and all about it are unclean, but the whole vine-press is clean. Rabbi Cheyah says: The whole vine-press is also unclean. Avodah zarah, fol. 75, col. 2.

132. Rav Shemuel bar Nachmaine recorded, that Rabbi Yonathan had said: How is it proved, that no offerings may be given to a priest who is an amhaaretz? It is said (2 Ch. xxxi. 4): He commanded

the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might hold to the law of the Lord; whoever holds to the Law (as expounded by the Rabbis, of course) has offerings, but he that holds not to the Law, has no offerings. Sanhedrin, fol. 90, col. 2.

134. Rav Huna's widow appeared as a litigant before Rav Nachman. What shall I do? said he, if I rise before her (as the widow of a Rabbi), the defendant (an amhaaretz) will feel uneasy; if I do not rise before her, (I shall transgress the regulation, that) the wife of an associate is to be treated like an associate. Go, said he to his servant, and let loose a gosling over my head, and I shall rise.

Ravah bar Rav Huna said: If a Rabbi has a law suit with an amhaaretz, the former is seated at once, and the latter also is told to sit down, and if he remains standing, no further notice is taken. Maimonides, Hilchoth Sanhedrin, Sec. 21.

Rav bar Sheravyah had a law suit with an amhaaretz before Rav Pappa, who had him seated, and asked also his adversary to sit down. When, however, the officer of justice raised the amhaaretz with a kick, 'I', Rav Pappa did not ask him to sit down again. Shevuoth, fol. 30, col. 2.

135. An ignoramus can have no fear of sin, and an amhaaretz cannot be holy. Avoth. chap. 2.

T. N. The commentator in loco defines "ignoramus" as one who possesses neither wisdom, nor morals; and an amhaaretz as one who possesses morals to a certain extent, but no intellectual parts.

136. Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrcanus said: Morning siestas, midday wine, children's prattle, and lounging in the synagogues of the amhaaretz remove a man from the world. Avoth, chap. 3.

137. "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth." (Jos. i. 8.) Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: This precept is fulfilled when a man reads only the Shema morning and evening. This halachah, however (continues the Rabbi), may not be repeated in the presence of an amhaaretz (for it would encourage him in his neglect of the study of the Law). Minachoth, fol. 99, col. 2.

139. Rabbi Shimon ben Akashyah says: The aged amhaaretz become more demented the older they grow, but the aged students of the Law are not so; the older they grow the greater is their mental sobriety. Kinnim, chap. 3.

140. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis have related: A certain Sadducee once conversed with the highpriest, and some of his spittle fell on the latter's garments. Terrified (at the possible pollution of his garments), he hastened to the Sadducee's wife. She told him, that, although wives of Sadducees, they venerated the Pharisees, and consulted them on the appearance of any signs requiring purification.

Rabbi Yosi said: We are familiar with these women more than anyone else, and (we know that) they consult the wise men. There was one woman in our neighbourhood, who was not in the habit of doing so, and she died. Niddah, fol. 33, col. 2.