xiii. 24, the "speech of Ashdod" is more probably a distinct

(Philistine) language. Certain peculiarities in the language of the Pentateuch ([Hebrew: hu] for [Hebrew: hi], [Hebrew: naar] for [Hebrew: naara]), which used to be regarded as archaisms, are to be explained as purely orthographical.[3] In a series of writings, however, extending over so long a period as those of the Old Testament, some variation or development in language is to be expected apart from the natural differences between the poetic (or prophetic) and prose styles. The consonantal text sometimes betrays these in spite of the Massorah. In general, the later books of the Old Testament show, roughly speaking, a greater simplicity and uniformity of style, as well as a tendency to Aramaisms. For some centuries after the Exile, the people of Palestine must have been bilingual, speaking Aramaic for ordinary purposes, but still at least understanding Hebrew. Not that they forgot their own tongue in the Captivity and learnt Aramaic in Babylon, as used to be supposed. In the western provinces of the Persian empire Aramaic was the official language, spoken not only in Palestine but in all the surrounding countries, even in Egypt and among Arab tribes such as the Nabateans. It is natural, therefore, that it should influence and finally supplant Hebrew in popular use, so that translations even of the Old Testament eventually appear in it (TARGUMS). Meanwhile Hebrew did not become a dead language--indeed it can hardly be said ever to have died, since it has continued in use till the present day for the purposes of ordinary life among educated Jews in all parts of the world. It gradually became a literary rather than a popular tongue, as appears from the style of the later books of the Old Testament (Chron., Dan., Eccles.), and from the Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus (c. 170 B.C.). During the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. we have no direct evidence of its characteristics. After that period there is a great development in the language of the Mishna. It was still living Hebrew, although mainly confined to the schools, with very clear differences from the biblical language. In the Old Testament the range of subjects was limited. In the Mishna it was very much extended. Matters relating to daily life had to be discussed, and words and phrases were adopted from what was no doubt the popular language of an earlier period. A great many foreign words were also introduced. The language being no longer familiar in the same sense as formerly, greater definiteness of expression became necessary in the written style. In order to avoid the uncertainty arising from the lack of vowels to distinguish forms consisting of the same consonants (for the vowel-points were not yet invented), the aramaising use of the reflexive conjugations (Hithpa'el, Nithpa'el) for the internal passives (Pu'al, Hoph'al) became common; particles were used to express the genitive and other relations, and in general there was an endeavour to avoid the obscurities of a purely consonantal writing. What is practically Mishnic Hebrew continued to be used in Midrash for some centuries. The language of both Talmuds, which, roughly speaking, were growing contemporaneously with Midrash, is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic (Eastern Aram. in the Babylonian, Western in the Jerusalem Talmud), as was also that of the earlier commentators. As the popular use of Aramaic was gradually restricted by the spread of Arabic as the vernacular (from the 7th century onwards), while the dispersion of the Jews became wider, biblical Hebrew again came to be the natural standard both of East and West. The cultivation of it is shown and was no doubt promoted by the many philological works (grammars, lexicons and masorah) which are extant from the 10th century onward. In Spain, under Moorish dominion, most of the important works of that period were composed in Arabic, and the influence of Arabic writers both on language and method may be seen in contemporaneous Hebrew compositions. No other vernacular (except, of course, Aramaic) ever had the same influence upon Hebrew, largely because no other bears so close a relation to it. At the present day in the East, and among learned Jews elsewhere, Hebrew is still cultivated conversationally, and it is widely used for literary purposes. Numerous works on all kinds of subjects are produced in various countries, periodicals flourish, and Hebrew is the vehicle of correspondence between Jews in all parts of the world. Naturally its quality varies with the ability and education of the writer. In the modern _pronunciation_ the principal differences are between the Ashkenazim (German and Polish Jews) and the Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), and concern not only the vowels but also certain consonants, and in some cases probably go back to early times. As regards _writing_, it is most likely that the oldest Hebrew records were preserved in some form of cuneiform script. The alphabet (see WRITING) subsequently adopted is seen in its earliest form on the stele of Mesha, and has been retained, with modifications, by the Samaritans. According to Jewish tradition Ezra introduced the Assyrian character ([Hebrew: ktav ashuri]), a much-debated statement which no doubt means that the Aramaic hand in use in Babylonia was adopted by the Jews about the 5th century B.C. Another form of the same hand, allowing for differences of material, is found in Egyptian Aramaic papyri of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. From this were developed (a) the _square_ character used in MSS. of the Bible or important texts, and in most printed books, (b) the _Rabbinic_ (or Rashi) character, used in commentaries and treatises of all kinds, both in MS. and in printed books, (c) the _Cursive_ character, used in letters and for informal purposes, not as a rule printed. In the present state of Hebrew palaeography it is not possible to determine accurately the date of a MS., but it is easy to recognize the country in which it was written. The most clearly marked distinctions are between Spanish, French, German, Italian, Maghrebi, Greek, Syrian (including Egyptian), Yemenite, Persian and Qaraite hands. It is in the Rabbinic and Cursive characters that the differences are most noticeable. The Hebrew alphabet is also used, generally with the addition of some diacritical marks, by Jews to write other languages, chiefly Arabic, Spanish, Persian, Greek, Tatar (by Qaraites) and in later times German.

The philological study of Hebrew among the Jews is described below, under Hebrew Literature, of which it formed an integral part. Among Christian scholars there was no independent school of Hebraists before the revival of learning. In the Greek and Latin Church the few fathers who, like Origen and Jerome, knew something of the language, were wholly dependent on their Jewish teachers, and their chief value for us is as depositaries of Jewish tradition. Similarly in the East, the Syriac version of the Old Testament is largely under the influence of the synagogue, and the homilies of Aphraates are a mine of Rabbinic lore. In the middle ages some knowledge of Hebrew was preserved in the Church by converted Jews and even by non-Jewish scholars, of whom the most notable were the Dominican controversialist Raymundus Martini (in his _Pugio fidei_) and the Franciscan Nicolaus of Lyra, on whom Luther drew largely in his interpretation of Scripture. But there was no tradition of Hebrew study apart from the Jews, and in the 15th century when an interest in the subject was awakened, only the most ardent zeal could conquer the obstacles that lay in the way. Orthodox Jews refused to teach those who were not of their faith, and on the other hand many churchmen conscientiously believed in the duty of entirely suppressing Jewish learning. Even books were to be had only with the greatest difficulty, at least north of the Alps. In Italy things were somewhat better. Jews expelled from Spain received favour from the popes. Study was facilitated by the use of the printing-press, and some of the earliest books printed were in Hebrew. The father of Hebrew study among Christians was the humanist Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522), the author of the _Rudimenta Hebraica_ (Pforzheim, 1506), whose contest with the converted Jew Pfefferkorn and the Cologne obscurantists, established the claim of the new study to recognition by the Church. Interest in the subject spread rapidly. Among Reuchlin's own pupils were Melanchthon, Oecolampadius and Cellarius, while Sebastian Munster in Heidelberg (afterwards professor at Basel), and Buchlein (Fagius) at Isny, Strasburg and Cambridge, were pupils of the liberal Jewish scholar Elias Levita. France drew teachers from Italy. Santes Pagninus of Lucca was at Lyons; and the trilingual college of Francis I. at Paris, with Vatablus and le Mercier, attracted, among other foreigners, Giustiniani, bishop of Nebbio, the editor of the Genoa psalter of 1516. In Rome the converted Jew Felix Pratensis taught under the patronage of Leo X., and did useful work in connexion with the great Bomberg Bibles. In Spain Hebrew learning was promoted by Cardinal Ximenes, the patron of the Complutensian Polyglot. The printers, as J. Froben at Basel and Etienne at Paris, also produced Hebrew books. For a time Christian scholars still leaned mainly on the Rabbis. But a more independent spirit soon arose, of which le Mercier in the 16th, and Drusius early in the 17th century, may be taken as representatives. In the 17th century too the cognate languages were studied by J. Selden, E. Castell (Heptaglott lexicon) and E. Pococke (Arabic) in England, Ludovicus de Dieu in Holland, S. Bochart in France, J. Ludolf (Ethiopic) and J. H. Hottinger (Syriac) in Germany, with advantage to the Hebrew grammar and lexicon. Rabbinic learning moreover was cultivated at Basel by the elder Buxtorf who was the author of grammatical works and a lexicon. With the rise of criticism Hebrew philology soon became a necessary department of theology. Cappellus (d. 1658) followed Levita in maintaining, against Buxtorf, the late introduction of the vowel-points, a controversy in which the authority of the massoretic text was concerned. He was supported by J. Morin and R. Simon in France. In the 18th century in Holland A. Schultens and N. W. Schroeder used the comparative method, with great success, relying mainly on Arabic. In Germany there was the meritorious J. D. Michaelis and in France the brilliant S. de Sacy. In the 19th century the greatest name among Hebraists is that of Gesenius, at Halle, whose shorter grammar (of Biblical Hebrew) first published in 1813, is still the standard work, thanks to the ability with which his pupil E. Rodiger and recently E. Kautzsch have revised and enlarged it. Important work was also done by G. H. A. Ewald, J. Olshausen and P. A. de Lagarde, not to mention later scholars who have utilized the valuable results of Assyriological research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Among the numerous works dealing with the study of Hebrew, the following are some of the most practically useful.

Grammars, Introductory.--Davidson, _Introductory Hebrew Grammar_ (9th ed., Edinburgh, 1888); and _Syntax_ (Edinburgh, 1894). Advanced: Gesenius's _Hebraische Grammatik_, ed. Kautzsch (28th ed., Leipzig, 1909; Eng. trans., Oxford, 1910); also Driver, _Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ (3rd ed., Oxford, 1892). For post-biblical Hebrew, Strack and Siegfried, _Lehrbuch d. neuhebraischen Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1884).

Comparative Grammar.--Wright, _Lectures on the Comp. Grammar of the Sem. Lang._ (Cambridge, 1890); Brockelmann, _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik_ (Berlin, 1907, &c.).

Lexicons.--Gesenius's _Thesaurus philologicus_ (Leipzig, 1829-1858), and his _Hebraisches Handworterbuch_ (15th ed. by Zimmern and Buhl, Leipzig, 1910); Brown, Briggs and Driver, _Hebrew and Eng. Lexicon_ (Oxford, 1892-1906). For later Hebrew: Levy, _Neuhebraisches Worterbuch_ (Leipzig, 1876-1889); Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumi, &c. (New York, 1886, &c.); Dalman, _Aramaisches neuhebraisches Worterbuch_ (Frankfort a. M., 1897); Kohut, _Aruch completum_ (Vienna, 1878-1890) (in Hebrew) is valuable for the language of the Talmud. (A. Cy.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In 2 Sam. xvii. 25 _Israelite_ should be _Ishmaelite_, as in the parallel passage 1 Chron. ii. 17.

[2] See Zimmern, in _Ztsch. fur Assyriol._ (1891), p. 154.

[3] See Gesenius-Kautzsch, _Hebr. Gram._ S 17 c.

HEBREW LITERATURE. Properly speaking, "Hebrew Literature" denotes all works written in the Hebrew language. In catalogues and bibliographies, however, the expression is now generally used, conveniently if incorrectly, as synonymous with Jewish literature, including all works written by Jews in Hebrew characters, whether the language be Aramaic, Arabic or even some vernacular not related to Hebrew.

Old Testament-Scriptures.

The literature begins with, as it is almost entirely based upon, the Old Testament. There were no doubt in the earliest times popular songs orally transmitted and perhaps books of annals and laws, but except in so far as remnants of them are embedded in the biblical books, they have entirely disappeared. Thus the Book of the Wars of the Lord is mentioned in Num. xxi. 14; the Book of Jashar in Josh. x. 13, 2. Sam. i. 18; the Song of the Well is quoted in Num. xxi. 17, 18, and the song of Sihon and Moab, ib. 27-30; of Lamech, Gen. iv. 23, 24; of Moses, Exod. xv. As in other literatures, these popular elements form the foundation on which greater works are gradually built, and it is one function of literary criticism to show the way in which the component parts were welded into a uniform whole. The traditional view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch in its present form, would make this the earliest monument of Hebrew literature. Modern inquiry, however, has arrived at other conclusions (see BIBLE, _Old Testament_), which may be briefly summarized as follows: the Pentateuch is compiled from various documents, the earliest of which is denoted by J (beginning at Gen. ii. 4) from the fact that its author regularly uses the divine name Jehovah (Yahweh). Its date is now usually given as about 800 B.C.[1] In the next century the document E was composed, so called from its using Elohim (God) instead of Yahweh. Both these documents are considered to have originated in the Northern kingdom, Israel, where also in the 8th century appeared the prophets Amos and Hosea. To the same period belong the book of Micah, the earlier parts of the books of Samuel, of Isaiah and of Proverbs, and perhaps some Psalms. In 722 B.C. Samaria was taken and the Northern kingdom ceased to exist. Judah suffered also, and it is not until a century later that any important literary activity is again manifested. The main part of the book of Deuteronomy was "found" shortly before 621 B.C. and about the same time appeared the prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah, and perhaps the book of Ruth. A few years later (about 600) the two Pentateuchal documents J and E were woven together, the books of Kings were compiled, the book of Habakkuk and parts of the Proverbs were written. Early in the next century Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadrezzar, and the prophet Ezekiel was among the exiles with Jehoiachin. Somewhat later (c. 550) the combined document JE was edited by a writer under the influence of Deuteronomy, the later parts of the books of Samuel were written, parts of Isaiah, the books of Obadiah, Haggai, Zechariah and perhaps the later Proverbs. In the exile, but probably after 500 B.C., an important section of the Hexateuch, usually called the Priest's Code (P), was drawn up. At various times in the same century are to be placed the book of Job, the post-exilic parts of Isaiah, the books of Joel, Jonah, Malachi and the Song of Songs. The Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) was finally completed in its present form at some time before 400 B.C. The latest parts of the Old Testament are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (c. 330 B.C.), Ecclesiastes and Esther (3rd century) and Daniel, composed either in the 3rd century or according to some views as late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 168 B.C.). With regard to the date of the Psalms, internal evidence, from the nature of the case, leads to few results which are convincing. The most reasonable view seems to be that the collection was formed gradually and that the process was going on during most of the period sketched above.

Apocryphal literature.

Targum.

It is not to be supposed that all the contents of the Old Testament were immediately accepted as sacred, or that they were ever all regarded as being on the same level. The Torah, the Law delivered to Moses, held among the Jews of the 4th century B.C. as it holds now, a pre-eminent position. The inclusion of other books in the Canon was gradual, and was effected only after centuries of debate. The Jews have always been, however, an intensely literary people, and the books ultimately accepted as canonical were only a selection from the literature in existence at the beginning of the Christian era. The rejected books receiving little attention have mostly either been altogether lost or have survived only in translations, as in the case of the Apocrypha. Hence from the composition of the latest canonical books to the redaction of the Mishna (see below) in the 2nd century A.D., the remains of Hebrew literature are very scanty. Of books of this period which are known to have existed in Hebrew or Aramaic up to the time of Jerome (and even later) we now possess most of the original Hebrew text of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) in a somewhat corrupt form, and fragments of an Aramaic text of a recension of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, both discovered within recent years. Besides definite works of this kind, there was also being formed during this period a large body of exegetical and legal material, for the most part orally transmitted, which only received its literary form much later. As Hebrew became less familiar to the people, a system of translating the text of the Law into the Aramaic vernacular verse by verse, was adopted in the synagogue. The beginnings of it are supposed to be indicated in Neh. viii. 8. The translation was no doubt originally extemporary, and varied with the individual translators, but its form gradually became fixed and was ultimately written down. It was called _Targum_, from the Aramaic _targem_, to translate. The earliest to be thus edited was the Targum of Onkelos (Onqelos), the proselyte, on the Law. It received its final form in Babylonia probably in the 3rd century A.D. The Samaritan Targum, of about the same date, clearly rests on the same tradition. Parallel to Onkelos was another Targum on the Law, generally called pseudo-Jonathan, which was edited in the 7th century in Palestine, and is based on the same system of interpretation but is fuller and closer to the original tradition. There is also a fragmentary Targum (Palestinian) the relation of which to the others is obscure. It may be only a series of disconnected glosses on Onkelos. For the other books, the recognized Targum on the Prophets is that ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel (4th century?), which originated in Palestine, but was edited in Babylonia, so that it has the same history and linguistic character as Onkelos. Just as there is a Palestinian Targum on the Law parallel to the Babylonian Onkelos, so there is a Palestinian Targum (called _Yerushalmi_) on the Prophets parallel to that of Ben Uzziel, but of later date and incomplete. The Law and the Prophets being alone used in the services of the synagogue, there was no authorized version of the rest of the Canon. There are, however, Targumim on the Psalms and Job, composed in the 5th century, on Proverbs, resembling the Peshitta version, on the five Meghilloth, paraphrastic and agadic (see below) in character, and on Chronicles--all Palestinian. There is also a second Targum on Esther. There is none on Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Halakhah.

We must now return to the 2nd century. During the period which followed the later canonical books, not only was translation, and therefore exegesis, cultivated, but even more the amplification of the Law. According to Jewish teaching (e.g. Abhoth i. 1) Moses received on Mount Sinai not only the written Law as set down in the Pentateuch, but also the Oral Law, which he communicated personally to the 70 elders and through them by a "chain of tradition" to succeeding ages. The application of this oral law is called _Halakhah_, the rules by which a man's daily "walk" is regulated. The halakhah was by no means inferior in prestige to the written Law. Indeed some teachers even went so far as to ascribe a higher value to it, since it comes into closer relation with the details of everyday life. It was not independent of the written Law, still less could it be in opposition to it. Rather it was implicitly contained in the Torah, and the duty of the teacher was to show this. It was therefore of the first importance that the chain of tradition should be continuous and trustworthy. The line is traced through biblical teachers to Ezra, the first of the Sopherim or scribes, who handed on the charge to the "men of the Great Synagogue," a much-discussed term for a body or succession of teachers inaugurated by Ezra. The last member of it, Simon the Just (either Simon I., who died about 300 B.C., or Simon II., who died about 200 B.C.), was the first of the next series, called Elders, represented in the tradition by _pairs_ of teachers, ending with Hillel and Shammai about the beginning of the Christian era. Their pupils form the starting-point of the next series, the Tannaim (from Aram. _tena_ to teach), who occupy the first two centuries A.D.

Mishnah.

By this time the collection of halakhic material had become very large and various, and after several attempts had been made to reduce it to uniformity, a code of oral tradition was finally drawn up in the 2nd century by Judah ha-Nasi, called Rabbi _par excellence_. This was the Mishnah. Its name is derived from the Hebrew _shanah_, corresponding to the Aramaic _tena_, and therefore a suitable name for a tannaitic work, meaning the _repetition_ or _teaching_ of the oral law. It is written in the Hebrew of the schools (_leshon hakhamim_) which differs in many respects from that of the Old Testament (see HEBREW LANGUAGE). It is divided into six "orders," according to subject, and each order is subdivided into chapters. In making his selection of halakhoth, Rabbi used the earlier compilations, which are quoted as "words of Rabbi 'Aqiba" or of R. Me'ir, but rejected much which was afterwards collected under the title of Tosefta (_addition_) and Baraita (_outside_ the Mishnah).

Midrash.

Traditional teaching was, however, not confined to halakhah. As observed above, it was the duty of the teachers to show the connexion of practical rules with the written Law, the more so since the Sadducees rejected the authority of the oral law as such. Hence arises Midrash, _exposition_, from _darash_ to "investigate" a scriptural passage. Of this halakhic Midrash we possess that on Exodus, called Mekhilta, that on Leviticus, called Sifra, and that on Numbers and Deuteronomy, called Sifre. All of these were drawn up in the period of the Amoraim, the order of teachers who succeeded the Tannaim, from the close of the Mishnah to about A.D. 500. The term Midrash, however, more commonly implies _agada_, i.e. the homiletical exposition of the text, with illustrations designed to make it more attractive to the readers or hearers. Picturesque teaching of this kind was always popular, and specimens of it are familiar in the Gospel discourses. It began, as a method, with the Sopherim (though there are traces in the Old Testament itself), and was most developed among the Tannaim and Amoraim, rivalling even the study of halakhah. As the existing halakhoth were collected and edited in the Mishnah, so the much larger agadic material was gathered together and arranged in the Midrashim. Apart from the agadic parts of the earlier Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifre, the most important of these collections (which are anonymous) form a sort of continuous commentary on various books of the Bible. They were called _Rabboth_ (_great_ Midrashim) to distinguish them from preceding smaller collections. _Bereshith Rabba_, on Genesis, and _Ekhah Rabbati_, on Lamentations, were probably edited in the 7th century. Of the same character and of about the same date are the _Pesiqta_, on the lessons for Sabbaths and feast-days, and _Wayyiqra R._ on Leviticus. A century perhaps later is the _Tanhuma_, on the sections of the Pentateuch, and later still the _Pesiqta Rabbati_, _Shemoth R._ (on Exodus), _Bemidhbar R._ (on Numbers), _Debharim R._ (on Deuteronomy). There are also Midrashim on the Canticle, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther and the Psalms, belonging to this later period, the _Pirqe R. Eliezer_, of the 8th or 9th century, a sort of history of creation and of the patriarchs, and the _Tanna debe Eliyahu_ (an ethical work of the 10th century but containing much that is old), besides a large number of minor compositions.[2] In general, these performed very much the same function as the lives of saints in the early and medieval church. Very important for the study of Midrashic literature are the _Yalqut (gleaning) Shim'oni_, on the whole Bible, the _Yalqut Mekhiri_, on the Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs and Job, and the _Midrash ha-gadhol_,[3] all of which are of uncertain but late date and preserve earlier material. The last, which is preserved in MSS. from Yemen, is especially valuable as representing an independent tradition.

Talmud.

Meanwhile, if agadic exegesis was popular in the centuries following the redaction of the Mishna, the study of halakhah was by no means neglected. As the discussion of the Law led up to the compilation of the Mishnah, so the Mishnah itself became in turn the subject of further discussion. The material thus accumulated, both halakhic and agadic, forming a commentary on and amplification of the Mishnah, was eventually written down under the name of _Gemara_ (from _gemar_, to learn completely), the two together forming the _Talmud_ (properly "_instruction_"). The tradition, as in the case of the Targums, was again twofold; that which had grown up in the Palestinian Schools and that of Babylonia. The foundation, however, the Mishnah, was the same in both. Both works were due to the Amoraim and were completed by about A.D. 500, though the date at which they were actually committed to writing is very uncertain. It is probable that notes or selections were from time to time written down to help in teaching and learning the immense mass of material, in spite of the fact that even in Sherira's time (11th century) such aids to memory were not officially recognized. Both Talmuds are arranged according to the six orders of the Mishnah, but the discussion of the Mishnic text often wanders off into widely different topics. Neither is altogether complete. In the Palestinian Talmud (_Yerushalmi_) the gemara of the 5th order (_Qodashim_) and of nearly all the 6th (_Tohoroth_) is missing, besides smaller parts. In the Babylonian Talmud (_Babhli_) there is no gemara to the smaller tractates of Order 1, and to parts of ii., iv., v., vi. The language of both gemaras is in the main the Aramaic vernacular (western Aramaic in Yerushalmi, eastern in Babhli), but early halakhic traditions (e.g. of Tannaitic origin) are given in their original form, and the discussion of them is usually also in Hebrew. Babhli is not only greater in bulk than Yerushalmi, but has also received far greater attention, so that the name Talmud alone is often used for it. As being a constant object of study numerous commentaries have been written on the Talmud from the earliest times till the present. The most important of them for the understanding of the gemara (Babhli) is that of Rashi[4] (Solomon ben Isaac, d. 1104) with the Tosafoth (_additions_, not to be confused with the Tosefta) chiefly by the French school of rabbis following Rashi. These are always printed in the editions on the same page as the Mishnah and Gemara, the whole, with various other matter, filling generally about 12 folio volumes. Since the introduction of printing, the Talmud is always cited by the number of the leaf in the first edition (Venice, 1520, &c.), to which all subsequent editions conform. In order to facilitate the practical study of the Talmud, it was natural that abridgements of it should be made. Two of these may be mentioned which are usually found in the larger editions: that by Isaac Alfasi (i.e. of Fez) in the 11th century, often cited in the Jewish manner as _Rif_; and that by Asher ben Yehiel (d. 1328) of Toledo, usually cited as _Rabbenu Asher_. The object of both was to collect all halakhoth having a practical importance, omitting all those which owing to circumstances no longer possess more than an academic interest, and excluding the discussions on them and all agada. Both add notes and explanations of their own, and both have in turn formed the text of commentaries.

Masorah.

With the Talmud, the anonymous period of Hebrew literature may be considered to end. Henceforward important works are produced not by schools but by particular teachers, who, however, no doubt often represent the opinions of a school. There are two branches of work which partake of both characters, the Masorah and the Liturgy. The name Masorah (Massorah) is usually derived from _masar_, to hand on, and explained as "tradition." According to others[5] it is the word found in Ezek. xx. 37, meaning a "fetter." Its object was to fix the biblical text unalterably. It is generally divided into the Great and the Small Masorah, forming together an _apparatus criticus_ which grew up gradually in the course of centuries and now accompanies the text in most MSS. and printed editions to a greater or less extent. There are also separate masoretic treatises. Some system of the kind was necessary to guard against corruptions of copyists, while the care bestowed upon it no doubt reacted so as to enhance the sanctity ascribed to the text. Many apparent puerilities, such as the counting of letters and the marking of the middle point of books, had a practical use in enabling copyists of MSS. to determine the amount of work done. The registration of anomalies, such as the suspended letters, inverted _nuns_ and larger letters, enabled any one to test the accuracy of a copy. But the work of the Masoretes was much greater than this. Their long lists of the occurrences of words and forms fixed with accuracy the present (Masoretic) text, which they had produced, and were invaluable to subsequent lexicographers, while their system of vowel-points and accents not only gives us the pronunciation and manner of reading traditional about the 7th century A.D., but frequently serves also the purpose of an explanatory commentary. (See further under BIBLE.) Most of the Masorah is anonymous, including the _Massekheth Soferim_ (of various dates from perhaps the 6th to the 9th century) and the _Okhlah we-Okhlah_, but when the period of anonymous literature ceases, there appear (in the 10th century) Ben Asher of Tiberias, the greatest authority on the subject, and his opponent Ben Naphthali. Later on, Jacob ben Hayyim arranged the Masorah for the great Bomberg Bible of 1524. Elias Levita's _Massoreth ha-Massoreth_ (1538) and Buxtorf's _Tiberias_ (1620) are also important.

Liturgy.

We must now turn back to a most difficult subject--the growth of the Liturgy. We are not concerned here with indications of the ritual used in the Temple. Of the prayer-book as it is at present, the earliest parts are the Shema' (Deut. vi. 4, &c.) and the anonymous blessings commonly called Shemoneh 'Esreh (the Eighteen), together with certain Psalms. (Readings from the Law and the Prophets [Haphtarah] also formed part of the service.) To this framework were fitted, from time to time, various prayers, and, for festivals especially, numerous hymns. The earliest existing codification of the prayer-book is the _Siddur_ (_order_) drawn up by Amram Gaon of Sura about 850. Half a century later the famous Gaon Seadiah, also of Sura, issued his _Siddur_, in which the rubrical matter is in Arabic. Besides the _Siddur_, or order for Sabbaths and general use, there is the _Mahzor_ (_cycle_) for festivals and fasts. In both there are ritual differences according to the Sephardic (Spanish), Ashkenazic (German-Polish), Roman (Greek and South Italian) and some minor uses, in the later additions to the Liturgy. The Mahzor of each rite is also distinguished by hymns (_piyyutim_) composed by authors (_payyetanim_) of the district. The most important writers are Yoseh ben Yoseh, probably in the 6th century, chiefly known for his compositions for the day of Atonement, Eleazar Qalir, the founder of the payyetanic style, perhaps in the 7th century, Seadiah, and the Spanish school consisting of Joseph ibn Abitur (died in 970), Ibn Gabirol, Isaac Gayyath, Moses ben Ezra, Abraham ben Ezra and Judah ha-levi, who will be mentioned below; later, Moses ben Nahman and Isaac Luria the Kabbalist.[6]

The Geonim.

The order of the Amoraim, which ended with the close of the Talmud (A.D. 500), was succeeded by that of the Saboraim, who merely continued and explained the work of their predecessors, and these again were followed by the Geonim, the heads of the schools of Sura and Pumbeditha in Babylonia. The office of Gaon lasted for something over 400 years, beginning about A.D. 600, and varied in importance according to the ability of the holders of it. Individual Geonim produced valuable works (of which later), but what is perhaps most important from the point of view of the development of Judaism is the literature of their Responsa or answers to questions, chiefly on halakhic matters, addressed to them from various countries. Some of these were actual decisions of particular Geonim; others were an official summary of the discussion of the subject by the members of the School. They begin with Mar Rab Sheshna (7th century) and continue to Hai Gaon, who died in 1038, and are full of historical and literary interest.[7] The She'iltoth (_questions_) of Rab Ahai (8th century) also belong probably to the school of Pumbeditha, though their author was not Gaon. Besides the Responsa, but closely related to them, we have the lesser Halakhoth of Yehudai Gaon of Sura (8th century) and the great Halakhoth of Simeon Qayyara of Sura (not Gaon) in the 9th century. In a different department there is the first Talmud lexicon (_'Arukh_) now lost, by Zemah ben Paltoi, Gaon of Pumbeditha in the 9th century. The _Siddur_ of Amram ben Sheshna has been already mentioned. All these writers, however, are entirely eclipsed by the commanding personality of the most famous of the Geonim, SEADIAH ben Joseph (q.v.) of Sura, often called al-Fayyumi (of the Fayum in Egypt), one of the greatest representatives of Jewish learning of all times, who died in 942. The last three holders of the office were also distinguished. Sherira of Pumbeditha (d. 998) was the author of the famous "Letter" (in the form of a Responsum to a question addressed to him by residents in Kairawan), an historical document of the highest value and the foundation of our knowledge of the history of tradition. His son Hai, last Gaon of Pumbeditha (d. 1038), a man of wide learning, wrote (partly in Arabic) not only numerous Responsa, but also treatises on law, commentaries on the Mishnah and the Bible, a lexicon called in Arabic _al-Hawi_, and poems such as the _Musar Haskel_, but most of them are now lost or known only from translations or quotations. Though his teaching was largely directed against superstition, he seems to have been inclined to mysticism, and perhaps for this reason various kabbalistic works were ascribed to him in later times. His father-in-law Samuel ben Hophni, last Gaon of Sura (d. 1034), was a voluminous writer on law, translated the Pentateuch into Arabic, commented on much of the Bible, and composed an Arabic introduction to the Talmud, of which the existing Hebrew introduction (by Samuel the Nagid) is perhaps a translation. Most of his works are now lost.

The Karaites.

In the Geonic period there came into prominence the sect of the Karaites (_Bene miqra_), "followers of the Scripture", the protestants of Judaism, who rejected rabbinical authority, basing their doctrine and practice exclusively on the Bible. The sect was founded by 'Anan in the 8th century, and, after many vicissitudes, still exists. Their literature, with which alone we are here concerned, is largely polemical and to a great extent deals with grammar and exegesis. Of their first important authors, Benjamin al-Nehawendi and Daniel al-Qumisi (both in the 9th century), little is preserved. In the 10th century Jacob al-Qirqisani wrote his _Kitab al-anwar_, on law, Solomon ben Yeruham (against Seadiah) and Yefet ben 'Ali wrote exegetical works; in the 11th century Abu'l-faraj Furqan, exegesis, and Yusuf al-Basir against Samuel ben Hophni. Most of these wrote in Arabic. In the 12th century and in S. Europe, Judah Hadassi composed his _Eshkol ha-Kopher_, a great theological compendium in the form of a commentary on the Decalogue. Other writers are Aaron (the elder) ben Joseph, 13th century, who wrote the commentary _Sepher ha-mibhhar_; Aaron (the younger) of Nicomedia (14th century), author of _'Ez Hayyim_, on philosophy, _Gan 'Eden_, on law, and the commentary _Kether Torah_; in the 15th century Elijah Bashyazi, on law (_Addereth Eliyahu_), and Caleb Efendipoulo, poet and theologian; in the 16th century Moses Bashyazi, theologian. From the 12th century onward the sect gradually declined, being ultimately restricted mainly to the Crimea and Lithuania, learning disappeared and their literature became merely popular and of little interest. Much of it in later times was written in a curious Tatar dialect. Mention need only be made further of Isaac of Troki, whose anti-Christian polemic _Hizzuq Emunah_ (1593) was translated into English by Moses Mocatta under the title of _Faith Strengthened_ (1851); Solomon of Troki, whose _Appiryon_, an account of Karaism, was written at the request of Pufendorf (about 1700); and Abraham Firkovich, who, in spite of his impostures, did much for the literature of his people about the middle of the 19th century. (See also QARAITES.)

Medieval scholarship.

To return to the period of the Geonim. While the schools of Babylonia were flourishing as the religious head of Judaism, the West, and especially Spain under Moorish rule, was becoming the home of Jewish scholarship. On the breaking up of the schools many of the fugitives fled to the West and helped to promote rabbinical learning there. The communities of Fez, Kairawan and N. Africa were in close relation with those of Spain, and as early as the beginning of the 9th century Judah ben Quraish of Tahort had composed his _Risalah_ (_letter_) to the Jews of Fez on grammatical subjects from a comparative point of view, and a dictionary now lost. His work was used in the 10th century by Menahem ben Saruq, of Cordova, in his _Mahbereth_ (dictionary). Menahem's system of bi-literal and uni-literal roots was violently attacked by Dunash ibn Labrat, and as violently defended by the author's pupils. Among these was Judah Hayyuj of Cordova, the father of modern Hebrew grammar, who first established the principle of tri-literal roots. His treatises on the verbs, written in Arabic, were translated into Hebrew by Moses Giqatilla (11th century), himself a considerable grammarian and commentator, and by Ibn Ezra. His system was adopted by Abu'l-walid ibn Jannah, of Saragossa (died early in the 11th century), in his lexicon (_Kitab al-usul_, in Arabic) and other works. In Italy appeared the invaluable Talmud-lexicon (_'Arukh_) by Nathan b. Yehiel, of Rome (d. 1106), who was indirectly indebted to Babylonian teaching. He does not strictly follow the system of Hayyuj. Other works of a different kind also originated in Italy about this time: the very popular history of the Jews, called _Josippon_ (probably of the 10th or even 9th century), ascribed to Joseph ben Gorion (Gorionides)[8]; the medical treatises of Shabbethai Donnolo (10th century) and his commentary on the _Sepher Yezirah_, the anonymous and earliest Hebrew kabbalistic work ascribed to the patriarch Abraham. In North Africa, probably in the 9th century, appeared the book known under the name of _Eldad ha-Dani_, giving an account of the ten tribes, from which much medieval legend was derived;[9] and in Kairawan the medical and philosophical treatises of Isaac Israeli, who died in 932.

Exegesis.

The aim of the grammatical studies of the Spanish school was ultimately exegesis. This had already been cultivated in the East. In the 9th century Hivi of Balkh wrote a rationalistic treatise[10] on difficulties in the Bible, which was refuted by Seadiah. The commentaries of the Geonim have been mentioned above. The impulse to similar work in the West came also from Babylonia. In the 10th century Hushiel, one of four prisoners, perhaps from Babylonia, though that is doubtful, was ransomed and settled at Kairawan, where he acquired great reputation as a Talmudist. His son Hananeel (d. 1050) wrote a commentary on (probably all) the Talmud, and one now lost on the Pentateuch. Hananeel's contemporary Nissim ben Jacob, of Kairawan, who corresponded with Hai Gaon of Pumbeditha as well as with Samuel the Nagid in Spain, likewise wrote on the Talmud, and is probably the author of a collection of _Ma'asiyyoth_ or edifying stories, besides works now lost. The activity in North Africa reacted on Spain. There the most prominent figure was that of Samuel ibn Nagdela (or Nagrela), generally known as Samuel the Nagid or head of the Jewish settlement, who died in 1055. As vizier to the Moorish king at Granada, he was not only a patron of learning, but himself a man of wide knowledge and a considerable author. Some of his poems are extant, and an Introduction to the Talmud mentioned above. In grammar he followed Hayyuj, whose pupil he was. Among others he was the patron of Solomon ibn Gabirol (q.v.), the poet and philosopher. To this period belong Hafz al-Quti (the Goth?) who made a version of the Psalms in Arabic rhyme, and Bahya (more correctly Behai) ibn Paquda, dayyan at Saragossa, whose Arabic ethical treatise has always had great popularity among the Jews in its Hebrew translation, _Hobhoth ha-lebhabhoth_. He also composed liturgical poems. At the end of the 11th century Judah ibn Bal'am wrote grammatical works and commentaries (on the Pentateuch, Isaiah, &c.) in Arabic; the liturgist Isaac Gayyath (d. in 1089 at Cordova) wrote on ritual. Moses Giqatilla has been already mentioned.

Rashi.

The French school of the 11th century was hardly less important. Gershom ben Judah, the "Light of the Exile" (d. in 1040 at Mainz), a famous Talmudist and commentator, his pupil Jacob ben Yaqar, and Moses of Narbonne, called ha-Darshan, the "Exegete," were the forerunners of the greatest of all Jewish commentators, Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi), who died at Troyes in 1105. Rashi was a pupil of Jacob ben Yaqar, and studied at Worms and Mainz. Unlike his contemporaries in Spain, he seems to have confined himself wholly to Jewish learning, and to have known nothing of Arabic or other languages except his native French. Yet no commentator is more valuable or indeed more voluminous, and for the study of the Talmud he is even now indispensable. He commented on all the Bible and on nearly all the Talmud, has been himself the text of several super-commentaries, and has exercised great influence on Christian exegesis. The biblical commentary was translated into Latin by Breithaupt (Gotha, 1710-1714), that on the Pentateuch rather freely into German by L. Dukes (Prag, 1838, in Hebrew-German characters, with the text), and parts by others. Closely connected with Rashi, or of his school, are Joseph Qara, of Troyes (d. about 1130), the commentator, and his teacher Menahem ben Helbo, Jacob ben Me'ir, called Rabbenu Tam (d. 1171), the most important of the Tosaphists (_v. sup._), and later in the 12th century the liberal and rationalizing Joseph Bekhor Shor, and Samuel ben Me'ir (d. about 1174) of Ramerupt, commentator and Talmudist.

In the 12th and 13th centuries literature maintained a high level in Spain. Abraham bar Hiyya, known to Christian scholars as Abraham Judaeus (d. about 1136), was a mathematician, astronomer and philosopher much studied in the middle ages. Moses ben Ezra, of Granada (d. about 1140), wrote in Arabic a philosophical work based on Greek and Arabic as well as Jewish authorities, known by the name of the Hebrew translation as _'Arugath ha-bosem_, and the _Kitab al-Mahadarah_, of great value for literary history. He is even better known as a poet, for his _Diwan_ and the _'Anaq_, and as a hymn-writer. His relative Abraham ben Ezra, generally called simply Ibn Ezra,[11] was still more distinguished. He was born at Toledo, spent most of his life in travel, wandering even to England and to the East, and died in 1167. Yet he contrived to write his great commentary on the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible, treatises on philosophy (as the _Yesodh mora_), astronomy, mathematics, grammar (translation of Hayyuj), besides a Diwan. The man, however, who shares with Ibn Gabirol the first place in Jewish poetry is Judah Ha-levi, of Toledo, who died in Jerusalem about 1140. His poems, both secular and religious, contained in his Diwan and scattered in the liturgy, are all in Hebrew, though he employed Arabic metres. In Arabic he wrote his philosophical work, called in the Hebrew translation _Sepher ha-Kuzari_, a defence of revelation as against non-Jewish philosophy and Qaraite doctrine. It shows considerable knowledge of Greek and Arabic thought (Avicenna). Joseph ibn Migash (d. 1141 at Lucena), a friend of Judah Ha-levi and of Moses ben Ezra, wrote Responsa and Hiddushin (_annotations_) on parts of the Talmud. In another sphere mention must be made of the travellers Benjamin of Tudela (d. after 1173), whose Massa'oth are of great value for the history and geography of his time, and (though not belonging to Spain) Pethahiah, of Regensburg (d. about 1190), who wrote short notes of his journeys. Abraham ben David, of Toledo (d. about 1180), in philosophy an Aristotelian (through Avicenna) and the precursor of Maimonides, is chiefly known for his _Sepher ha-qabbalah_, written as a polemic against Karaism, but valuable for the history of tradition.

Maimonides.

Maimonists and anti-Maimonists.

The greatest of all medieval Jewish scholars was Moses ben Maimon (Rambam), called _Maimonides_ by Christians. He was born at Cordova in 1135, fled with his parents from persecution in 1148, settled at Fez in 1160, passing there for a Moslem, fled again to Jerusalem in 1165, and finally went to Cairo where he died in 1204. He was distinguished in his profession as a physician, and wrote a number of medical works in Arabic (including a commentary on the aphorisms of Hippocrates), all of which were translated into Hebrew, and most of them into Latin, becoming the textbooks of Europe in the succeeding centuries. But his fame rests mainly on his theological works. Passing over the less important, these are the _Moreh Nebhukhim_ (so the Hebrew translation of the Arabic original), an endeavour to show philosophically the reasonableness of the faith, parts of which, translated into Latin, were studied by the Christian schoolmen, and the _Mishneh Torah_, also called _Yad hahazaqah_ ([Hebrew: id] = 14, the number of the parts), a classified compendium of the Law, written in Hebrew and early translated into Arabic. The latter of these, though generally accepted in the East, was much opposed in the West, especially at the time by the Talmudist Abraham ben David of Posquieres (d. 1198). Maimonides also wrote an Arabic commentary on the Mishnah, soon afterwards translated into Hebrew, commentaries on parts of the Talmud (now lost), and a treatise on Logic. His breadth of view and his Aristotelianism were a stumbling-block to the orthodox, and subsequent teachers may be mostly classified as Maimonists or anti-Maimonists. Even his friend Joseph ibn 'Aqnin (d. 1226), author of a philosophical treatise in Arabic and of a commentary on the Song of Solomon, found so much difficulty in the new views that the _Moreh Nebhukhim_ was written in order to convince him. Maimonides' son Abraham (d. 1234), also a great Talmudist, wrote in Arabic _Ma'aseh Yerushalmi_, on oaths, and _Kitab al-Kifayah_, theology. His grandson David was also an author. A very different person was Moses ben Nahman (Ramban) or Nahmanides, who was born at Gerona in 1194 and died in Palestine about 1270. His whole tendency was as conservative as that of Maimonides was liberal, and like all conservatives he may be said to represent a lost though not necessarily a less desirable cause. Much of his life was spent in controversy, not only with Christians (in 1293 before the king of Aragon), but also with his own people and on the views of the time. His greatest work is the commentary on the Pentateuch in opposition to Maimonides and Ibn Ezra. He had a strong inclination to mysticism, but whether certain kabbalistic works are rightly attributed to him is doubtful. It is, however, not a mere coincidence that the two great kabbalistic textbooks, the _Bahir_ and the _Zohar_ (both meaning "brightness"), appear first in the 13th century. If not due to his teaching they are at least in sympathy with it. The _Bahir_, a sort of outline of the _Zohar_, and traditionally ascribed to Nehunya (1st century), is believed by some to be the work of Isaac the Blind ben Abraham of Posquieres (d. early in the 13th century), the founder of the modern Kabbalah and the author of the names for the 10 Sephiroth. The _Zohar_, supposed to be by Simeon ben Yohai (2nd century), is now generally attributed to Moses of Leon (d. 1305), who, however, drew his material in part from earlier written or traditional sources, such as the Sepher Yezirah. At any rate the work was immediately accepted by the kabbalists, and has formed the basis of all subsequent study of the subject. Though put into the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch, it is really an exposition of the kabbalistic view of the universe, and incidentally shows considerable acquaintance with the natural science of the time. A pupil, though not a follower of Nahmanides, was Solomon Adreth (not Addereth), of Barcelona (d. 1310), a prolific writer of Talmudic and polemical works (against the Kabbalists and Mahommedans) as well as of responsa. He was opposed by Abraham Abulafia (d. about 1291) and his pupil Joseph Giqatilla (d. about 1305), the author of numerous kabbalistic works. Solomon's pupil Bahya ben Asher, of Saragossa (d. 1340) was the author of a very popular commentary on the Pentateuch and of religious discourses entitled _Kad ha-qemah_, in both of which, unlike his teacher, he made large use of the Kabbalah. Other studies, however, were not neglected. In the first half of the 13th century, Abraham ibn Hasdai, a vigorous supporter of Maimonides, translated (or adapted) a large number of philosophical works from Arabic, among them being the _Sepher ha-tappuah_, based on Aristotle's _de Anima_, and the _Mozene Zedeq_ of Ghazzali on moral philosophy, of both of which the originals are lost. Another Maimonist was Shem Tobh ben Joseph Falaquera (d. after 1290), philosopher (following Averroes), poet and author of a commentary on the Moreh. A curious mixture of mysticism and Aristotelianism is seen in Isaac Aboab (about 1300), whose _Menorath ha-Ma'or_, a collection of agadoth, attained great popularity and has been frequently printed and translated. Somewhat earlier in the 13th century lived Judah al-Harizi, who belongs in spirit to the time of Ibn Gabirol and Judah ha-levi. He wrote numerous translations, of Galen, Aristotle, Hariri, Hunain ben Isaac and Maimonides, as well as several original works, a _Sepher 'Anaq_ in imitation of Moses ben Ezra, and treatises on grammar and medicine (_Rephuath geviyyah_), but he is best known for his _Tahkemoni_, a diwan in the style of Hariri's _Maqamat_.

Meanwhile the literary activity of the Jews in Spain had its effect on those of France. The fact that many of the most important works were written in Arabic, the vernacular of the Spanish Jews under the Moors, which was not understood in France, gave rise to a number of translations into Hebrew, chiefly by the family of Ibn Tibbon (or Tabbon). The first of them, Judah ibn Tibbon, translated works of Bahya ibn Paqudah, Judah ha-levi, Seadiah, Abu'lwalid and Ibn Gabirol, besides writing works of his own. He was a native of Granada, but migrated to Lunel, where he probably died about 1190. His son Samuel, who died at Marseilles about 1230, was equally prolific. He translated the _Moreh Nebhukhim_ during the life of the author, and with some help from him, so that this may be regarded as the authorized version; Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah tractate _Pirqe Abhoth_, and some minor works; treatises of Averroes and other Arabic authors. His original works are mostly biblical commentaries and some additional matter on the Moreh. His son Moses, who died about the end of the 13th century, translated the rest of Maimonides, much of Averroes, the lesser Canon of Avicenna, Euclid's _Elements_ (from the Arabic version), Ibn al-Jazzar's _Viaticum_, medical works of Hunain ben Isaac (Johannitius) and Razi (Rhazes), besides works of less-known Arabic authors. His original works are commentaries and perhaps a treatise on immortality. His nephew Jacob ben Makhir, of Montpellier (d. about 1304), translated Arabic scientific works, such as parts of Averroes and Ghazzali, Arabic versions from the Greek, as Euclid's _Data_, Autolycus, Menelaus (Hebrew: Milium) and Theodosius on the Sphere, and Ptolemy's _Almagest_. He also compiled astronomical tables and a treatise on the quadrant. The great importance of these translations is that many of them were afterwards rendered into Latin,[12] thus making Arabic and, through it, Greek learning accessible to medieval Europe. Another important family about this time is that of Qimhi (or Qamhi). It also originated in Spain, where Joseph ben Isaac Qimhi was born, who migrated to S. France, probably for the same reason which caused the flight of Maimonides, and died there about 1170. He wrote on grammar (_Sepher ha-galui_ and _Sepher Zikkaron_), commentaries on Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, an apologetic work, _Sepher ha-berith_, and a translation of Bahya's _Hobhoth ha-lebhabhoth_. His son Moses (d. about 1190) also wrote on grammar and some commentaries, wrongly attributed to Ibn Ezra. A younger son, David (Radaq) of Narbonne (d. 1235) is the most famous of the name. His great work, the _Mikhlol_, consists of a grammar and lexicon; his commentaries on various parts of the Bible are admirably luminous, and, in spite of his anti-Christian remarks, have been widely used by Christian theologians and largely influenced the English authorized version of the Bible. A friend of Joseph Qimhi, Jacob ben Me'ir, known as Rabbenu Tam of Ramerupt (d. 1171), the grandson of Rashi, wrote the _Sepher ha-yashar_ (hiddushin and responsa) and was one of the chief Tosaphists. Of the same school were Menahem ben Simeon of Posquieres, a commentator, who died about the end of the 12th century, and Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (13th century), author of the _Semag_ (book of precepts, positive and negative) a very popular and valuable halakhic work. A younger contemporary of David Qimhi was Abraham ben Isaac Bedersi (i.e. of Beziers), the poet, and some time in the 13th century lived Joseph Ezobhi of Perpignan, whose ethical poem, _Qe'arath Yoseph_, was translated by Reuchlin and later by others. Berachiah,[13] the compiler of the "Fox Fables" (which have much in common with the "Ysopet" of Marie de France), is generally thought to have lived in Provence in the 13th century, but according to others in England in the 12th century. In Germany, Eleazar ben Judah of Worms (d. 1238), besides being a Talmudist, was an earnest promoter of kabbalistic studies. Isaac ben Moses (d. about 1270), who had studied in France, wrote the famous _Or Zarua'_ (from which he is often called), an halakhic work somewhat resembling Maimonides' _Mishneh Torah_, but more diffuse. In the course of his wanderings he settled for a time at Wurzburg, where he had as a pupil Me'ir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). The latter was a prolific writer of great influence, chiefly known for his Responsa, but also for his halakhic treatises, hiddushin and tosaphoth. He also composed a number of piyyutim. Me'ir's pupil, Mordecai ben Hillel of Nurnberg (d. 1298), had an even greater influence through his halakhic work, usually known as the _Mordekhai_. This is a codification of halakhoth, based on all the authorities then known, some of them now lost. Owing to the fact that the material collected by Mordecai was left to his pupils to arrange, the work was current in two recensions, an Eastern (in Austria) and a Western (in Germany, France, &c.). In the East, Tanhum ben Joseph of Jerusalem was the author of commentaries (not to be confounded with the _Midrash Tanhuma_) on many books of the Bible, and of an extensive lexicon (_Kitab al-Murshid_) to the Mishnah, all in Arabic.

With the 13th century Hebrew literature may be said to have reached the limit of its development. Later writers to a large extent used over again the materials of their predecessors, while secular works tend to be influenced by the surrounding civilization, or even are composed in the vernacular languages. From the 14th century onward only the most notable names can be mentioned. In Italy Immanuel ben Solomon, of Rome (d. about 1330), perhaps the friend and certainly the imitator of Dante, wrote his diwan, of which the last part, "Topheth ve-'Eden," is suggested by the _Divina Commedia_. In Spain Israel Israeli, of Toledo (d. 1326), was a translator and the author of an Arabic work on ritual and a commentary on _Pirqe Abhoth_. About the same time Isaac Israeli wrote his _Yesodh 'Olam_ and other astronomical works which were much studied. Asher ben Jehiel, a pupil of Me'ir of Rothenburg, was the author of the popular Talmudic compendium, generally quoted as _Rabbenu Asher_, on the lines of Alfasi, besides other halakhic works. He migrated from Germany and settled at Toledo, where he died in 1328. His son Jacob, of Toledo (d. 1340), was the author of the _Tur_ (or the four Turim), a most important manual of Jewish law, serving as an abridgement of the _Mishneh Torah_ brought up to date. His pupil David Abudrahim, of Seville (d. after 1340), wrote a commentary on the liturgy. Both the 14th and 15th centuries in Spain were largely taken up with controversy, as by Isaac ibn Pulgar (about 1350), and Shem Tobh ibn Shaprut (about 1380), who translated St Matthew's gospel into Hebrew. In France Jedaiah Bedersi, i.e. of Beziers (d. about 1340), wrote poems (_Behinath ha-'olam_), commentaries on agada and a defence of Maimonides against Solomon Adreth. Levi ben Gershom (d. 1344), called Ralbag, the great commentator on the Bible and Talmud, in philosophy a follower of Aristotle and Averroes, known to Christians as Leo Hebraeus, wrote also many works on halakhah, mathematics and astronomy. Joseph Kaspi, i.e. of Largentiere (d. 1340), wrote a large number of treatises on grammar and philosophy (mystical), besides commentaries and piyyutim. In the first half of the 14th century lived the two translators Qalonymos ben David and Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, the latter of whom translated many works of Galen and Averroes, and various scientific treatises, besides writing original works, e.g. one against Kaspi, and an ethical work entitled _Eben Bohan_. At the end of the century Isaac ben Moses, called Profiat Duran (Efodi), is chiefly known as an anti-Christian controversialist (letter to Me'ir Alguadez), but also wrote on grammar (_Ma'aseh Efod_) and a commentary on the Moreh. In philosophy he was an Aristotelian. About the same time in Spain controversy was very active. Hasdai Crescas (d. 1410) wrote against Christianity and in his _Or Adonai_ against the Aristotelianism of the Maimonists. His pupil Joseph Albo in his _'Iqqarim_ had the same two objects. On the side of the Maimonists was Simeon Duran (d. at Algiers 1444) in his _Magen Abhoth_ and in his numerous commentaries. Shem Tobh ibn Shem Tobh, the kabbalist, was a strong anti-Maimonist, as was his son Joseph of Castile (d. 1480), a commentator with kabbalistic tendencies but versed in Aristotle, Averroes and Christian doctrine. Joseph's son Shem Tobh was, on the contrary, a follower of Maimonides and the Aristotelians. In other subjects, Saadyah ibn Danan, of Granada (d. at Oran after 1473), is chiefly important for his grammar and lexicon, in Arabic; Judah ibn Verga, of Seville (d. after 1480), was a mathematician and astronomer; Solomon ibn Verga, somewhat later, wrote _Shebet Yehudah_, of doubtful value historically; Abraham Zakkuth or Zakkuto, of Salamanca (d. after 1510), astronomer, wrote the _Sepher Yuhasin_, an historical work of importance. In Italy, Obadiah Bertinoro (d. about 1500) compiled his very useful commentary on the Mishnah, based on those of Rashi and Maimonides. His account of his travels and his letters are also of great interest. Isaac Abravanel (d. 1508) wrote commentaries (not of the first rank) on the Pentateuch and Prophets and on the Moreh, philosophical treatises and apologetics, such as the _Yeshu'oth Meshiho_, all of which had considerable influence. Elijah Delmedigo, of Crete (d. 1497), a strong opponent of Kabbalah, was the author of the philosophical treatise _Behinath ha-dath_, but most of his work (on Averroes) was in Latin.

Later writers.

The introduction of printing (first dated Hebrew printed book, Rashi, Reggio, 1475) gave occasion for a number of scholarly compositors and proof-readers, some of whom were also authors, such as Jacob ben Hayyim of Tunis (d. about 1530), proof-reader to Bomberg, chiefly known for his masoretic work in connexion with the Rabbinic Bible and his introduction to it; Elias Levita, of Venice (d. 1549), also proof-reader to Bomberg, author of the _Massoreth ha-Massoreth_ and other works on grammar and lexicography; and Cornelius Adelkind, who however was not an author. In the East, Joseph Karo (Qaro) wrote his _Beth Yoseph_ (Venice, 1550), a commentary on the _Tur_, and his _Shulhan 'Arukh_ (Venice, 1564) an halakhic work like the _Tur_, which is still a standard authority. The influence of non-Jewish methods is seen in the more modern tendency of Azariah dei Rossi, who was opposed by Joseph Karo. In his _Me'or 'Enayim_ (Mantua, 1573) Del Rossi endeavoured to investigate Jewish history in a scientific spirit, with the aid of non-Jewish authorities, and even criticizes Talmudic and traditional statements. Another historian living also in Italy was Joseph ben Joshua, whose _Dibhre ha-yamim_ (Venice, 1534) is a sort of history of the world, and his _'Emeq ha-bakhah_ an account of Jewish troubles to the year 1575. In Germany David Gans wrote on astronomy, and also the historical work _Zemah David_ (Prag, 1592). The study of Kabbalah was promoted and the practical Kabbalah founded by Isaac Luria in Palestine (d. 1572). Numerous works, representing the extreme of mysticism, were published by his pupils as the result of his teaching. Foremost among these was Hayyim Vital, author of the _'Ez hayyim_, and his son Samuel, who wrote an introduction to the Kabbalah, called _Shemoneh She'arim_. To the same school belonged Moses Zakkuto, of Mantua (d. 1697), poet and kabbalist. Contemporary with Luria and also living at Safed, was Moses Cordovero (d. 1570), the kabbalist, whose chief work was the _Pardes Rimmonim_ (Cracow, 1591). In the 17th century Leon of Modena (d. 1648) wrote his _Beth Yehudah_, and probably _Qol Sakhal_, against traditionalism, besides many controversial works and commentaries. Joseph Delmedigo, of Prag (d. 1655), wrote almost entirely on scientific subjects. Also connected with Prag was Yom Tobh Lipmann Heller, a voluminous author, best known for the _Tosaphoth Yom Tobh_ on the Mishna (Prag, 1614; Cracow, 1643). Another important Talmudist, Shabbethai ben Me'ir, of Wilna (d. 1662), commented on the _Shulhan 'Arukh_. In the East, David Conforte (d. about 1685) wrote the historical work _Qore ha-doroth_ (Venice, 1746), using Jewish and other sources; Jacob ben Hayyim Zemah, kabbalist and student of Luria, wrote _Qol be-ramah_, a commentary on the _Zohar_ and on the liturgy; Abraham Hayekini, kabbalist, chiefly remembered as a supporter of the would-be Messiah, Shabbethai Zebhi, wrote _Hod Malkuth_ (Constantinople, 1655) and sermons. In the 18th century the study of the kabbalah was cultivated by Moses Hayyim Luzzatto (d. 1747) and by Elijah ben Solomon, called Gaon, of Wilna (d. 1797), who commented on the whole Bible and on many Talmudic and kabbalistic works. In spite of his own leaning towards mysticism he was a strong opponent of the Hasidim, a mystical sect founded by Israel Ba'al Shem Tobh (Besht) and promoted by Baer of Meseritz. Elijah's son Abraham (d. 1808), the commentator, is valuable for his work on Midrash. An historical work which makes an attempt to be scientific, is the _Seder ha-doroth_ of Yehiel Heilprin (d. 1746). These, however, belong in spirit to the previous century.

Modernizing tendencies.

The characteristic of the 18th and 19th centuries is the endeavour, connected with the name of Moses Mendelssohn, to bring Judaism more into relation with external learning, and in using the Hebrew language to purify and develop it in accordance with the biblical standard. The result, while linguistically more uniform and pleasing, often lacks the spontaneity of medieval literature. It was Moses Mendelssohn's German translation of the Pentateuch (1780-1793) which marked the new spirit, while the views of his opponents belong to a bygone age. In fact the controversy of which he was the centre may fitly be compared with the earlier battles between the Maimonists and anti-Maimonists. One of the most remarkable writers of the new Hebrew was Mendelssohn's friend N. H. Wessely, of Hamburg (d. 1805), author of _Shire Tiphe'reth_, a long poem on the Exodus, _Dibhre Shalom_, a plea for liberalism, _Sepher ha-middoth_, on ethics, besides philological works and commentaries. A curious combination of new and old was Hayyim Azulai (d. 1807), a kabbalist, but also the author of _Shem ha-gedholim_, a valuable contribution to literary history.

In the 19th century the modernizing tendency continued to grow, though always side by side with a strong conservative opposition, and the most prominent names on both sides are those of scholars rather than literary men. Among them may be mentioned, Akiba ('Aqibha) Eger (d. 1837), Talmudist of the orthodox, conservative school; W. Heidenheim (d. 1832), a liberal, and editor of the Pentateuch and Mahzor; N. Krochmal, of Galicia (d. 1840), author of _Moreh Nebhukhe ha-zeman_, on Jewish history and literature; his son Abraham (d. 1895), conservative commentator and philosopher. One consequence of the Mendelssohn movement was that many writers used their vernacular language besides or instead of Hebrew, or translated from one to the other. Thus Isaac Samuel Reggio (d. 1855), a strong liberal, wrote both in Hebrew and Italian; Joseph Almanzi, of Padua (d. 1860), a poet, translated Italian poems into Hebrew; S. D. Luzzatto, of Padua (d. 1865), a distinguished scholar and opponent of the philosophy of Maimonides, wrote much in Italian; M. H. Letteris, of Vienna (d. 1871), translated German poems into Hebrew; S. Bacher, of Hungary (d. 1891), was a poet and moderate liberal; L. Gordon (d. 1892), poet and prose-writer in Hebrew and Russian, of liberal views; A. Jellinek, of Vienna (d. 1893), preacher and scholar; Jacob Reifmann (d. 1895), scholar, wrote only in Hebrew. The endeavour to bring Judaism into relation with the modern world and to change the current impressions about Jews by making their teaching accessible to the rest of the world, is connected chiefly with the names of Z. Frankel (d. 1875), the first Jewish scholar to study the Septuagint; Abraham Geiger (d. 1874), critic of the first rank; L. Zunz (d. 1884) and L. Dukes (d. 1891), both scholarly investigators of Jewish literary history. Their most important works are in German. The question of the use of the vernacular or of Hebrew is bound up with the differences between the orthodox and the liberal or reform parties, complicated by the many problems involved. Patriotic efforts are made to encourage the use of Hebrew both for writing and speaking, but the continued existence of it as a literary language depends on the direction in which the future history of the Jews will develop.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Only the more comprehensive works are mentioned here, omitting those relating to particular authors, and those already cited.

Introductory: Abrahams, _Short History of Jewish Literature_ (London, 1906); Steinschneider, _Jewish Literature_ (London, 1857); Winter and Wunsche, _Die judische Literatur_ (Leipzig, 1893-1895) (containing selections translated into German).

For further study: Graetz, _Geschichte der Juden_ (Leipzig, 1853, &c.) (the volumes are in various editions), with special reference to the notes; English translation by B. Lowy (London, 1891-1892) (without the notes); Zunz, _Gottesdienstliche Vortrage der Juden_ (new ed., Frankfort-on-Main, 1892); _Zur Geschichte und Literatur_ (Berlin, 1845). The _Synagogale Poesie_ has been mentioned above. Steinschneider, _Arabische Literatur der Juden_ (Frankfort-on-Main, 1902); _Hebraische Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1893).

On particular authors and subjects there are many excellent monographs in the _Jewish Encyclopaedia_ (New York, 1901-6), to which the present article is much indebted.

Bibliographies of printed books: Steinschneider, _Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Bibl. Bodleiana_ (Berlin, 1852-1860) (more than a catalogue); Zedner, _Catalogue of the Hebr. Books in the British Museum_ (London, 1867; continued by van Straalen, London, 1894). Of manuscripts: Neubauer, _Catal. of the Hebrew MSS. in the Bodleian Library_ (Oxford, 1886), vol. ii. by Neubauer and Cowley (Oxford, 1906); G. Margoliouth, _Catal. of the Hebr. ... MSS. in the British Museum_ (London, 1899, &c.). Of both: Benjacob, _Ozar ha-sepharim_ (Wilna, 1880) (in Hebrew; arranged by titles).

Periodicals: _Jewish Quarterly Review_; _Revue des etudes juives_; _Hebraische Bibliographie_. (A. Cy.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The dating of these documents is extremely difficult, since it is based entirely on internal evidence. Various scholars, while agreeing on the actual divisions of the text, differ on the question of priority. The dates here given are those which seem to be most generally accepted at the present time. They are not put forward as the result of an independent review of the evidence.

[2] See especially A. Jellinek's _Bet-ha-Midrasch_ (Leipzig, 1853), for these lesser midrashim.

[3] That on Genesis was edited for the first time by Schechter (Cambridge, 1902).

[4] In Hebrew [Hebrew: rashi], from the initial letters of Rabbi Shelomoh Yiz[h.]aqi, a convenient method used by Jewish writers in referring to well-known authors. The name Jarchi, formerly used for Rashi, rests on a misunderstanding.

[5] So Bacher in _J.Q.R._ iii. 785 sqq.

[6] For the history of the very extensive literature of this class, Zunz, _Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie_ (Berlin, 1865), is indispensable.

[7] See the edition of them in Harkavy, _Studien_, iv. (Berlin, 1885).

[8] Two different texts of it exist: (1) in the ed. pr. (Mantua, 1476); (2) ed. by Seb. Munster (Basel, 1541). There is also an early Arabic recension, but its relation to the Hebrew and to the Arabic 2 Maccabees is still obscure. See _J. Q. R._, xi. 355 sqq. The Hebrew text was edited with a Latin translation by Breithaupt (Gotha, 1707).

[9] On the various recensions of the text see D. H. Muller in the _Denkschriften_ of the Vienna Academy (_Phil.-hist. Cl._, xli. 1, p. 41) and Epstein's ed. (Pressburg, 1891).

[10] A fragment of such a work, probably emanating from the school of Hivi was found by Schechter and published in _J.Q.R._, xiii. 345 sqq.

[11] See M. Friedlander in _Publications of the Society of Hebrew Lit._, 1st ser. vol. i., and 2nd ser. vol. iv.

[12] The fullest account of them is to be found in Steinschneider's _Hebraische Ubersetzungen des Mittelalters_ (Berlin, 1893).

[13] See H. Gollancz, _The Ethical Treatises of Berachya_ (London, 1902).

HEBREW RELIGION (1) _Introductory._--To trace the history of the religion of the Hebrews is a complex task, because the literary sources from which our knowledge of that history is derived are themselves complex and replete with problems as to age and authorship, some of which have been solved according to the consensus of nearly all the best scholars, but some of which still await solution or are matters of dispute. Even if the analysis of the literature into component documents were complete, we should still possess a most imperfect record, since the documents themselves have passed through many redactions, and these redactions have proceeded from varying standpoints of religious tradition, successively eliminating or modifying certain elements deemed inconsistent with the canons of religious usage or propriety which prevailed in the age when the redaction took place. Lastly it should be recollected that the entire body of the fragments of tradition and literature belonging to _northern_ Israel has come down to us through the channel of _Judaean_ recensions.

The influence of the Deuteronomic tradition in redaction is seen in such passages as Genesis xxxiii. 20 (cf. xxxi. 45 fol.); Josh. iv. 9-20, xxiv. 26 fol.; 1 Sam. vii. 12, where the _massebhah_ or stone symbol of deity (forbidden in Deut. xii. 3, xvi. 22) is in some way got rid of (in Gen. xxxiii. 20 the word "altar" in Hebrew is substituted). Similarly in Gen. xiii. 18, xiv. 13, xviii. 1, the Septuagint shows that the singular form "terebinth" stood in the original text. But the Massoretes altered this to the plural as this form was less suggestive of tree-worship (see Smend, _A. Tliche Religionsgesch_. i. p. 134, footnote 1; Nowack, _Heb. Archaol._ p. 12, footnote 1). Many other examples might be cited, as the "suspended _nun_" which transforms the pronunciation of the original Mosheh (Moses) into Menashsheh (Manasseh) owing to the irregular practices of his descendant, Jonathan ben Gershom (Jud. xviii. 30). It is not improbable that in 2 Kings iii. 27 the words "from Kemosh" stood after "great wrath" in the original document, as the phraseology seems bald without them, and the motives for their suppression are obvious.

So far as concerns the critical problems which stand at the threshold of our task, it must suffice to say that the main conclusions reached by the school of Kuenen and Wellhausen as to the literary problems of the Old Testament are assumed throughout this sketch of the evolution of Hebrew religion. The documents underlying the Pentateuch and book of Joshua, represented by the ciphers J, E, D and P, are assumed to have been drawn up in the chronological order in which those ciphers are here set down, and the period of their composition extends from the 9th century B.C., in which the earlier portions of J were written, to the 5th century B.C., in which P finally took shape. The view of Professor Dillmann, who placed P before D in the regal period (though he admitted exilic and post-exilic additions in Exod., Levit. and Numb.), a view which he maintained in his commentary on Genesis (edition of 1892), has now been abandoned by nearly all scholars of repute. In the following pages we shall not attempt to do more than to sketch in very succinct outline the general results of investigation into the origins and growth of Hebrew religion.

2. _Pre-Mosaic Religion._--Can any clear indications be found to guide us as to the religion of the Hebrew clans before the time of Moses? That Moses united the scattered tribes, probably consisting at first mainly of the Josephite, under the common worship of Yahweh, and that upon the religion of Yahweh a distinctly ethical character was impressed, is generally recognized. The tradition of the earliest document J ascribes the worship of Yahweh to much earlier times, in fact to the dawn of human life. A close survey of the facts, however, would lead us to regard it as probable that some at least of the Hebrew clans had patron-deities of their own.

(a) Both Moab and Ammon as well as Edom had their separate tribal deities, viz. Chemosh (Moab) and Milk (Milcom), the god of Ammon, and in the case of Edom a deity known from the inscriptions as Kos (in Assyrian Kaus).[1] From the patriarchal narratives and genealogies in Genesis we infer that these races were closely allied to Israel. That in early pre-Mosaic times parallel cults existed among the various Hebrew tribes is by no means improbable. It would be reasonable to assume that Moab, Ammon, Edom and kindred tribes of Israel in the 15th and preceding centuries were included in the generic term Habiri (or Hebrews) mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna inscriptions as forming predatory bands that disturbed the security of the Canaanite dwellers west of the Jordan. Lastly pre-Mosaic polytheism seems to be implied in the Mosaic prohibition Ex. xx. 3, xxii. 20.

(b) The tribal names Gad and Asher are suggestive of the worship of a deity of fortune (Gad) and of the male counterpart of the goddess, Asherah. Under the name Shaddai (which Noldeke suggests[2] was originally Shedi "my demon") it is possible to discern the name of a deity who in later times came to be identified with Yahweh. On the other hand, the connexion of the name Samson with sun-worship throws light on the period of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan and not on pre-Mosaic times. Nor is it possible to agree with Baudissin (_Studien zur semit. Religionsgesch._ i. 55) that Elohim as a plural form for the name of the Hebrew deity "can hardly be understood otherwise than as a comprehensive expression for the multitude of gods embraced in the One God of Old Testament religion," in other words that it presupposes an original polytheism. For (1) Elohim is also applied in Judges xi. 24 to the Moabite Chemosh (Kemosh); in 1 Sam. v. 7 to Dagon; in 1 Kings xi. 5 to Ashtoreth; in 2 Kings i. 2, iii. 6, 16 to Ba'al Zebul of Ekron. (2) It is merely a plural of dignity (_pluralis majestatis_) parallel to _adonim_ (applied to a king in 1 Kings xviii. 8, whereas in the previous verse the _singular_ form _adoni_ is applied to the prophet Elijah). (3) The Tell el-Amarna inscriptions indicate that the term _Elohim_ might even be applied in abject homage to an Egyptian monarch as the use of the term _ilani_ in this connexion obviously implies.[3]

The religion of the Arabian tribes in the days of Mahomet, of which a picture is presented to us by Wellhausen in his _Remains of Arabic Heathendom_, furnishes some suggestive indications of the religion that prevailed in nomadic Israel before as well as during the lifetime of Moses. It is true that Arabian polytheism in the time of Mahomet was in a state of decay. Nevertheless the life of the desert changes but slowly. We may therefore infer that ancient Israel during the period when they inhabited the _negebh_ (S. of Canaan) stood in awe of the demons (Jinn) of the desert, just as the Arabs at the present day described in Doughty's _Arabia deserta_. We know that diseases were attributed by the Israelites to malignant demons which they, like the Arabs, identified with serpents. The counterspell took the form of a bronze image of the serpent-demon; see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 426; and I Sam. v. 6, vi. 4, 5 (LXX. and Heb.) as well as Buchanan Gray's instructive note in _Numbers_, p. 276. The slaughter of a lamb at the Passover or Easter season, whose blood was smeared on the door-post, as described in Ex. xii. 21-23, probably points back to an immemorial custom. In this case the counterspell assumed a different form. Westermarck has shown from his observations in Morocco that the blood of the victim was considered to visit a curse upon the object to whom the sacrifice is offered and thereby the latter is made amenable to the sacrificer.[4] It is hardly possible to doubt that in the original form of the rite described in Exodus the blood offering was made to the plague demon ("the destroyer") and possessed over him a magic power of arrest.

It is therefore certain that belief in demons and magic spells prevailed in pre-Mosaic times[5] among the Israelite clans. And it is also probable that certain persons combined in their own individuality the functions of magician and sacrificer as well as soothsayer. For we know that in Arabic the _Kahin_, or soothsayer, is the same participial form that we meet with in the Hebrew _Kohen_, or priest, and in the early period of Hebrew history (e.g. in the days of Saul and David) it was the priest with the ephod or image of Yahweh who gave answers to those who consulted him. How far _totemism_, or belief in deified animal ancestors, existed in prehistoric Israel, as evidenced by the tribal names Simeon (hyena, wolf), Caleb (dog), Hamor (ass), Rahel (ewe) and Leah (wild cow), &c.,[6] as well as by the laws respecting clean and unclean animals, is too intricate and speculative a problem to be discussed here. That the food-taboo against eating the flesh of a particular animal would prevail in the clan of which that animal was the deified totem-ancestor is obvious, and it would be a plausible theory to hold that the laws in question arose when the Israelite tribes were to be consolidated into a national unity (i.e. in the time of David and Solomon), but the application of this theory to the list of unclean foods in Deut. xiv. (Lev. xi.) seems to present insuperable difficulties. In fact, while Robertson Smith (in _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, as well as his _Religion of the Semites_, followed by Stade and Benzinger) strongly advocated the view that clear traces of totemism can be found in early Israel, later writers, such as Marti, _Gesch. der israelit. Religion_, 4th ed., p. 24, Kautzsch in his _Religion of Israel_ already cited, p. 613, and recently Addis in his _Hebrew Religion_, p. 33 foll., have abandoned the theory as applied to Israel.[7] On the other hand, the evidence for the existence of ancestor-worship in primitive Israel cannot be so easily disposed of as Kautzsch (_ibid._ p. 615) appears to think. We have examples (1 Sam. xxviii. 13) in which _Elohim_ is the term which is applied to departed spirits. Oracles were received from them (Isa. viii. 19, xxviii. 15, 18; Deut. xviii. 10 foll.). At the graves of national heroes or ancestors worship was paid. In Gen. xxxv. 20 we read that a _massebah_ or sacred pillar was erected at Rahel's tomb. That the Teraphim, which we know to have resembled the human form (1 Sam. xix. 13, 16), were ancestral images is a reasonable theory. That they were employed in divination is consonant with the facts already noted. Lastly, the rite of circumcision (q.v.), which the Hebrews practised in common with their Semitic neighbours as well as the Egyptians, belonged to ages long anterior to the time of Moses. This is a fact which has long been recognized: cf. Gen. xvii. 10 foll., Herod. ii. 104, and Barton, _Semitic Origins_, pp. 98-100. Probably the custom was of African origin, and came from eastern Africa along with the Semitic race. Respecting Arabia, see Doughty, _Arabia deserta_, i. 340 foll.

It is necessary here to advert to a subject much debated during recent years, viz. the effects of Babylonian culture in western Asia on Israel and Israel's religion in early times even preceding the advent of Moses. The great influence exercised by Babylonian culture over Palestine between 2000 and 1400 B.C. (_circa_), which has been clearly revealed to us since 1887 by the discovery of the Tell el Amarna tablets, is now universally acknowledged. The subsequent discovery of a document written in Babylonian cuneiform at Lachish (Tell el Hesy), and more recently still of another in the excavations at Ta'annek, have established the fact beyond all dispute. The last discovery had tended to confirm the views of Fried. Delitzsch, Jeremias (_Monotheistische Stromungen_) and Baentsch, that monotheistic tendencies are to be found in the midst of Babylonian polytheism. Page Renouf, in his Hibbert lectures, _Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by that of Ancient Egypt_ (1879), p. 89 foll., pointed out this monotheistic tendency in Egyptian religion, as did de Rouge before him. Baentsch draws attention to this feature in his monograph _Altorientalischer u. israelitischer Monotheismus_ (1906). This tendency, however, he, unlike the earlier conservative writers, rightly considers to have emerged out of polytheism. He ventures into a more disputable region when he penetrates into the obscure realm of the Abrahamic migration and finds in the Abrahamic traditions of Genesis the higher Canaanite monotheistic tendencies evolved out of Babylonian astral religion, and reflected in the name El 'Elyon (Gen. xiv. 18, 22). Further discoveries like Sellin's find at Ta'annek may elucidate the problem. See Baudissin in _Theolog. lit. Zeitung_ (27th October 1906).

3. _The Era of Moses._--We are now on safer ground though still obscure. Moses was the first historic individuality who can be said to have welded the Israelite clans into a whole. This could never have been accomplished without unity of worship. The object of this worship was Yahweh. As we have already indicated, the document J assumes that Yahweh was worshipped by the Hebrew race from the first. On the other hand, according to P (Ex. vi. 2), God spake to Moses and said to him: "I am Yahweh. But I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai and by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." According to this later tradition Yahweh was unknown till the days of Moses, and under the aegis of His power the Hebrew tribes were delivered from Egyptian thraldom. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two sharply contrasted traditions. So much is clear. Yahweh now becomes the supreme deity of the Hebrew people, and an ark analogous to the Egyptian and Babylonian arks portrayed on the monuments[8] was constructed as embodiment of the _numen_ of Yahweh and was borne in front of the Hebrew army when it marched to war. It was the signal victory won by Moses at the exodus against the Egyptians and in the subsequent battle at Rephidim against 'Amalek (Ex. xvii.) that consolidated the prestige of Yahweh, Israel's war-god. Indications in the Old Testament itself clearly point to the celestial or atmospheric character of the Yahweh of the Hebrews. The supposition that the name originally contained the notion of permanent or eternal being, and was derived from the verbal root signifying "to be," involves too abstract a conception to be probable, though it is based on Ex. iii. 15 (E) representing a tradition which may have prevailed in the 8th century B.C. Kautzsch, however, supports it (Hastings's _D.B._, extra vol. "Rel. of Isr." p. 625 foll.) against the other derivations proposed by recent scholars (see JEHOVAH). That the name also prevailed as that of a god among other Semitic races (or even non-Semitic) is rendered certain by the proper names Jau-bi'-di (= Ilu-bi'di) of Hamath in Sargon's inscriptions, Ahi-jawi (mi) in Sellin's discovered tablet at Ta'annek, to say nothing of those which have been found in the documents of Khammurabi's reign. It has generally been held that Stade's supposition has much to recommend it, that it was derived by Moses from the Kenites, and should be connected with the Sinai-Horeb region. The name Sinai suggests moon-worship and the moon-god Sin; and it also suggests Babylonian influence (cf. also Mount Nebo, which was a place-name both in Moab and in Judah, and naturally connects itself with the name of the Babylonian deity). Several indications favour the view of the connexion in the age of Moses between the Yahweh-cult at Sinai and the moon-worship of Babylonian origin to which the name Sinai points (Sin being the Babylonian moon-god). We note (a) that in the worship of Yahweh the sacred seasons of new moon and Sabbath are obviously _lunar_. Recent investigations have even been held to disclose the fact that the Sabbath coincided originally, i.e. in early pre-exilian days, with the full moon.[9] (b) It also accords with the name bestowed on Yahweh as "Lord of Hosts" (_sebaoth_) or stars, which were regarded as personified beings (Job