Part 4

An erroneous notion has long prevailed regarding the place assigned to the Hebrew woman at home and in society by the Mosaic law. Even now the idea obtains that the law placed the Hebrew woman almost on the same footing as the low-born slave, and denied her all mental and spiritual enjoyments; that, because polygamy was silently tolerated by the law, and because it gave fathers and husbands a certain amount of authority over their wives and daughters, the position of the Hebrew woman must therefore have been exceedingly low. But the student who closely examines the Old Testament passages relating to her domestic and social life, will soon see that this assumption is without foundation. A consideration of her life during Biblical times will, in fact, show that she enjoyed more freedom than other Oriental women of that or even of the present time, and that in some respects her position was not much inferior to that of her modern descendants.

The Old Testament gives two distinct periods in the history of the Hebrew woman. The first extends from the times when the Israelites became established in Palestine, and the second from that date to the building of the second Temple. The most prominent feature of the first period is an extreme simplicity of manners in both sexes, occasioned by their living in the open air or in tents. It resembles in many respects the heroic age of the ancient Greeks, and especially with regard to the social position of the female sex. But while in the Hebrew world the woman is known as “Ish-shah” (‪אשה‬), “wife,” being equal in moral as well as in literal etymology to “Ish” (‪איש‬), “man,” the Greeks had separate words for _man_ and _wife_, namely, ἀνήρ, γυνή, suggesting, perhaps, the inferior rank of the weaker sex among them. Again, while the Greeks called their _first_ woman _Pandora_ as the bringer of all evil to man, the first woman of the Bible, _Eve_, is introduced to us as a part of her husband's being, and as having been created to be “a helpmeet for him” (‪עזר כנגדו‬) (Gen. ii. 18). Except Eve, who seems to have lived with her family in the open air, the women belonging to that period dwelt in tents. Such a tent was called in Hebrew _ohel_ (‪אהל‬), and sometimes _baït_ (‪בית‬)^[37-1], and consisted of a walled-in enclosure covered with curtains of a dark colour (Cant. i. 5). It was divided into two or more apartments, one being always reserved for the females of the family; but sometimes each female had a separate tent (Gen. xxxi. 33; cp. also Homer, _Iliad_, vi. 247–9). When travelling the women's tents were fastened on a broad cushion (‪כר‬), and placed on the backs of the riding camels (Gen. xxxi. 34). The occupations of the married woman were multifarious. She rose early in the morning, and spent the day in attending to her children, distributing food at meal times, and weaving various textures for the use of her family (Prov. xxxi. 15). Cp. Homer, _Odyss._ x. 221; and Virgil, _Georg._ i. 293–5:—

Interea longum cantu solata laborem Arguto conjux percurrit pectine telas.

The cooking was also done by the mistress of the house, and even women of rank did not consider it beneath their dignity to help in culinary work (Gen. xviii. 5). Sometimes a nurse was kept for the younger children of the family, and was held in great estimation by her employers (ibid. xxxv. 8). The surplus of their manufactures was usually sold to merchants (Prov. xxxi. 24), but was sometimes given away for religious purposes (Exod. xxxv. 22).

The unmarried women had, besides their share of the domestic duties, the daily task of tending the flocks and of taking them to the well, where the neighbouring shepherds met them and indulged in gossip and hilarity (Gen. xxix). On these occasions they moved about freely, and could even dispense with the veil usually worn out of doors by Oriental women (ibid. xii. 14). These diversions ended when they entered upon the matrimonial state, which they did between the ages of twelve and eighteen years (Buxtorf, _Synag._ VII, 143). Sometimes courtship preceded marriage, as in the cases of Jacob and Samson; but the mediation of a third party was usual in marriage negotiations (Gen. xxiv. 4). When the parents approved of the bridegroom's proposals, the bride was sometimes asked for her consent; but when she was of a higher rank than the bridegroom, the father offered her hand to him as a mark of special favour. Thus Jethro did to Moses, Caleb to Othniel, and Saul to David. The wedding itself had no definite ceremonies connected with it. At the wedding of Rebekah and of Ruth only a blessing was pronounced by those present. At a much later period an oath was added in ratification of the union (Ezek. xvi. 8). Indeed, marriage was always considered among the Hebrews as an institution proceeding from God (Gen. xxiv. 50; Judges xiv. 4); and the name given to it in post-Biblical times and retained to the present day is _Kiddushin_ (‪קדושין‬), i.e. “sanctification.” The Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, called it συζυγία and _coniugium_ respectively, meaning “yoking together of two persons,” and emphasizing essentially the civil nature of the union.

Though polygamy was not actually forbidden by the Mosaic law, yet it appears from the phraseology employed at its first institution that monogamy was the only legitimate practice. In Gen. ii. 24 it is said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife,” and not his “wives.” Elkanah's _second_ wife is, quaintly enough, called in 1 Sam. i _Tsara_, which term in Hebrew also means “misery.”

The simplicity manifested in the manners of the Hebrew women found its counterpart in their attire. This was generally of a primitive order. On festive occasions, however, apparel of a more elaborate character was used (Gen. xxiv. 53). Personal ornaments were also sometimes worn; these were mostly articles of gold, and, perhaps, even jewels, since precious stones are mentioned in the Pentateuch. While in Egypt, the Hebrew women learnt the use of mirrors, which were then made of a mixture of copper and tin. These mirrors they gave freely for the fabrication of the laver of the Tabernacle (Exod. xxxviii. 8). At that time they appear also to have acquired some proficiency in singing, dancing, and playing on musical instruments; for on the shore of the Red Sea we find them singing an ode together with Miriam. Later on, they shared with the men the privilege of being summoned to hear the reading of the law (Deut. xxxi. 12). An old Sanscrit proverb says: “Women are instructed by nature, but men obtain learning by books”; nor are illustrations wanting in the Bible to prove the truth of this saying. The Hebrew women had already cultivated a taste for flowers (Gen. xxx. 14), song, and music; they were active in their households, charitable to the poor and needy (Prov. xxxi. 20); and, above all, they were sensible of the blessing of freedom and independence.

During the second period of Biblical history, from the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine to the rebuilding of the second Temple, a remarkable change occurred in the life, habits, and social standing of the Hebrew woman. The simplicity of manners which had characterized the first period gave place in course of time to luxurious living—the result of residing in large towns and in permanent dwelling-houses, and of closer social intercourse with men of their own and foreign nations. The females of the poorer and middle classes occupied the same room or rooms with their husbands; but the wives of the rich and nobles had a separate set of apartments for themselves, called _harmon_ (‪הרמון‬) (Amos iv. 3), most probably derived from _harem_ (‪חרם‬) (forbidden), and akin to the modern _Harem_.

Yet the seclusion of women among the wealthy Hebrews was at that period much less strict than with the modern Mohammedans, or the ancient Persians and Greeks. As among the Greeks (Homer, _Odyss._ i. 329–331), the Jewish females occupied the upper part of the house, as instanced in 2 Sam. vi. 16, and 2 Kings ix. 31–33, in connexion with Michal and Jezebel. But, while the former were not allowed to see any one but their nearest relations (cp. Wieland, _Attisches Museum_, II, 131), the latter moved about freely, and sometimes took an active part in public life. As instances of this may be mentioned Jephthah's daughter, Deborah, Jezebel, Athalia, Huldah, Esther, and Noadiah. Deborah and Hannah, as composers of excellent odes, have the honour of being the first poetesses in history. Women were also hired to chant doleful songs at the funerals of persons of high rank (Jer. ix. 16). Sometimes they were even employed to plead causes at the royal courts (2 Sam. xiv. 2; 1 Kings i. 11). Then, again, there are instances of women who, by their bravery and oratorical powers, saved a whole town from destruction (Judges ix. 53; 2 Sam. xx. 18–23).

Their recreation consisted chiefly in paying visits to their relations and friends, on which occasions refreshments were served (Cant. viii. 2), and in attending at public festivals. These were of frequent occurrence: religious celebrations, or weddings, when the women assembled in the streets to watch the gay procession of the guests (Jer. xxv. 10); vintage festivals and harvest festivals where, amidst merriment and laughter, men and women danced to the strains of sweet music (Judges xxi. 21; Isa. xvi. 10; Jer. xxxi. 3,4). Recreation-houses^[40-1] also existed, and were frequented by women of rank (Micah ii. 9), but their exact nature is not clearly defined. The prophet Isaiah devotes a whole chapter to the description of the dresses and trinkets worn by the Hebrew women of his time; and even as far back as the days of King Saul, women wore rich dresses of scarlet and gold. David, when bewailing Saul's death, says: “Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your dresses” (2 Sam. i. 24). This extravagance in women's attire continued to the time of Christ; and according to Edersheim (_Life and Times of Jesus_), a lady could then get in Jerusalem “from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a Persian shawl, or an Indian dress.” The Jewish women, like the Egyptian, the Greek, and the Roman, used precious ointments and perfumes for their heads and dresses (Cant. i. 3). The cost of a moderately-sized bottle of those perfumes is stated to have been equal to £6 of our money. Women of rank also used cosmetics for the eyelashes (2 Kings ix. 30; Jer. iv. 30). Isaiah, deriding this practice, says that the women of his time were “lying with their eyes” (‪משקרות‬, from ‪שקר‬, Isa. iii. 16). The Hebrew term for this paint is _puck_ (‪פוך‬), being equivalent in etymology to φῦκος and _fucus_ of the classics. The Hebrew women must generally have been of great natural beauty, for many such are found in the Old Testament. According to Canticles (ch. ii), pet-names were often given to women, such as _rose of the valley_, _dove_, _Aurora_, _sister_, _sun_, and _star_.

If the character of a nation is reflected in its proverbs, the passages in the Bible relating to the worth of women prove the high estimation in which the Hebrew women were held by their husbands. They joined the latter at meals (Job i. 4), and took part in their social life—a privilege withheld from other Oriental women even at the present day.

It is, therefore, evident that the common idea as to the low position of the ancient Hebrew woman is incorrect. She enjoyed, at all events, much greater freedom than was permitted to the wives of the highly-cultured ancient Greeks. She was held in higher regard than the women that lived in the time of Luther, who in his _Table Talk_ quotes, and as it seems approvingly, the old Latin proverb: _Tria mala pessima: ignis, aqua, femina_. And finally, the liberty granted by the Mosaic law to the Hebrew women was never condemned by contemporary poets or prophets, while modern writers and philosophers, such as Hartmann, Schopenhauer, and others, do not hesitate to inveigh against the privileges granted to them in modern life. In the book _Über die Weiber_ (_On Women_, vol. VI, P. 549), Schopenhauer says that the low position of the Oriental women suits them better than their freedom in the West.

It is true that the Old Testament has its share of gossiping, over-curious, quarrelsome, and superstitious women, but they only form a small proportion to the large number of model women that appear in its pages. The esteem in which the Hebrew woman was held is shown throughout the Bible, as the following few quotations from it will prove:—“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord” (Prov. xviii. 22). “A gracious woman retaineth honour, as the hand of the industrious increaseth wealth” (ibid. xi. 16). “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband” (ibid. xii. 4). “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: but a prudent wife is from God” (ibid. xix. 14).

Footnotes:

[37-1] In Arabic the term _baït_ has the same signification as in Hebrew.

[40-1] The original Hebrew term means “houses of pleasure.”

V

CURIOSITIES OF CERTAIN PROPER NAMES IN THE BIBLE

Shakespeare, in one of his plays, asks “What's in a name?” That he himself believed that there was a good deal in a name is shown by his fondness for reading certain characteristics into the personality of the possessors of certain names. Thus, for example, in the dialogue between King Richard and Gaunt (cp. _Richard II_, Act 2), the former says:—

What comfort, man? How is it with aged Gaunt? _Gaunt._ Oh, how that name befits my composition! Old Gaunt indeed, and _gaunt_ in being old!

With this may be compared Falstaff's remark in _2 King Henry IV_, Act 3, Scene 2, where he says:—“I told you John a Gaunt he beat his own name; for you might have thrust him and all his apparel into an eel-skin.”

In Greek literature, too, several names occur which are even more striking, inasmuch as they foreshadow the future fate, and sometimes also the mental or physical disposition of their bearers^[43-1]. Similarly, certain Hebrew proper names are found in the Old Testament, which are attended with peculiar significance. So, for instance, in the name of the first man _Adam_ (‪אדם‬, from ‪אדמה‬, “the earth”), the final destiny of man seems to have been predicted. At a subsequent period in Adam's life, this hidden allusion to his future fate is made even more clear by the words: “For _dust_ art thou, and unto _dust_ shalt thou return” (Gen. iii. 19).

Something similar is noticeable in connexion with the first woman, _Eve_. She was first called _Ish-shah_ (‪אשה‬, from ‪איש‬) “because she was taken out of man,” but subsequently, after she had tasted of the “tree of knowledge,” her name was changed into ‪חוה‬ = “Eve” (from ‪חיה‬, “living”), which is evidently a name showing that she was destined to become “the mother of all living.” In the name of one of her sons, _Abel_ (‪הבל‬, signifying “breath” or “nothingness”), a prophetic prediction of his brief life seems to have been expressed; and the names of the descendants of her second son _Cain_, viz. _Jabal_, _Jubal_, and _Tubal_ (‪יבל‬, ‪יובל‬, ‪תובל‬), indicated their respective occupations after reaching manhood.

At a later period in Biblical times, we meet with the names _Noah_ (‪נח‬, meaning “rest” or “comfort”), _Abram_ (‪אברם‬, “the exalted father”), and _Sarah_ (‪שרה‬, “the princess”), and it is interesting to notice how these names foretold the future fate of their owners. There are three more proper names in the Pentateuch, which belong to the same category, viz. _Korah_, _Balaam_, and _Balak_. _Kerah_ signifies in the original Hebrew “coldness,” exemplified by his apathy to divine ordinances, when he brought about a rebellion against the authority of Moses. It has also another meaning in Hebrew, viz. “baldness,” and it is curious to observe that it gave some ardent followers of the Church of Rome a ready handle with which to banter Calvin (Lat. _Calvus_, _Calvinus_ = “bald”) as being homonymous with his predecessor (‪קרח‬) in schism (cf. Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, sub _Korah_).

In the names of _Balaam_ and _Balak_, some of the old Jewish and Christian commentators on the Bible have detected a particular meaning. In _Balaam_ (‪בלע־עם‬) they saw a future “devourer,” or “destroyer of the people,” and in _Balak_ (‪בלק‬) a representation of “incompetence,” illustrating their subsequent conduct towards the Jewish people. Similarly, too, the name of _Achan_ or _Achar_ (‪עכר‬) (1 Chron. ii. 7), which latter word means “to cause trouble,” and _Machlon_ and _Chillion_ (‪מחלון‬, ‪כליון‬) “the sick, the perishing,” seem to be foretokens of the subsequent fortunes of their owners.

Interesting, again, is the name _David_ (‪דוד‬), which means “the beloved one,” or “the friend,” and was given to the child that subsequently became the sweet singer in Israel. In connexion therewith a play on words may be mentioned here, which seems to have hitherto been overlooked by students of the Bible. When King Saul, who hated David after his victory over Goliath, missed his presence at the royal table, he asked his son Jonathan, “Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat?” (‪אל הלחם‬). Thereupon Jonathan ironically replied: “David has asked leave of me to go to _Beth-lehem_” (‪בית לחם‬). By this play on words Jonathan seems to have intended to tell his father that David had a home of his own where there was plenty of food (‪לחם‬), and he could therefore readily dispense with the hospitality of the royal palace.

This play on words is found elsewhere in the Bible, in connexion with proper names, viz. ‪בתי אכזיב לאכזב‬, “The houses of _Achzib_ (from ‪כזב‬) shall be a ‛lie’” (Mic. i. 14); and ‪עקרון תעקר‬, “_Ekron_ (from ‪עקר‬) shall be destroyed” (Zeph. ii. 4). It is noticeable that the idol which the inhabitants of the latter town used to worship was ignominiously called in the Bible “_Baal-Zebub_”—“The Lord of Flies.” It is said in 2 Kings i. 2, not without a slight touch of irony, that King _Ahazia_ had sent messengers to this impotent deity to inquire about the issue of his protracted illness.

There are four other proper names in the Bible which have seemingly foretold the future characteristics of their respective possessors. These are: _Solomon_ (‪שלמה‬), being a name which signifies “Peace” (from ‪שלום‬); _Malachi_ (‪מלאכי‬), “My Messenger,” the future Jewish prophet; _Ezra_ (‪עזרא‬), “The Helper”; and _Nehemia_ (‪נחמיה‬), “God's Comforter.” The subsequent history of the two latter in leading back to Palestine the bulk of the Jewish exiles from the Babylonian captivity shows that their names were not ill-bestowed.

There are also a few female proper names in the Bible of similar interest. Besides the names of _Eve_ and _Sarah_, to which reference has already been made, there is the name _Miriam_ (‪מרים‬, from ‪מרי‬, “rebellion”), which suggests her and her brother Aaron's revolt against Moses on the occasion of his marrying the Cushite woman. Jacob's only daughter was called _Dinah_ (‪דינה‬, from ‪דין‬), signifying “judgment,” and that name seems to have foreshadowed punishment for her unprotected wanderings. _Deborah_ (‪דבורה‬), “The Bee,” made the enemies of her race feel her sting in the great battle that she fought against them. Another Biblical heroine, _Hannah_ (‪חנה‬, from ‪חון‬, “to pray,” or ‪חנן‬, “to be favoured”), afterwards received that favour which her name prognosticated. She longed and prayed for a son, whose life was to be wholly devoted to the service of God, and her prayer was favourably received. She subsequently became the mother of Samuel, who was the first of the regular and unbroken succession of prophets.

Footnotes:

[43-1] Cp. the ἑλέναυς, ἕλανδρος, ἑλέπολις of Aesch. _Agam._ 689, and the play on the word Πενθεύς in Eurip. _Bacch._ 508.

VI

SKETCH OF THE TALMUD

The old proverb “Habent sua fata libelli” is perhaps nowhere more strikingly illustrated than in the Talmud. This gigantic literary work has a peculiar history of its own. Now honoured, now decried, it has been at once the study of the scholar, the butt of the sceptic, and the scapegoat of the bigot.

In the Middle Ages, some of the high dignitaries of the Roman Church thundered their anathemas against it, and caused edition after edition to be publicly burnt. What strikes one most is their profound ignorance of its real contents. They were satisfied to condemn it on hearsay evidence, or on the strength of some garbled quotations. Henricus Seynensis, a Capucin friar, having heard a good deal about the heretical Talmud, took it to be a Rabbi, and swore that he would ere long have him put to death by the common executioner. The censor, too, whose duty it was to amend any passage or expression found in the Talmud which might be construed in a sense hostile to the representatives of the Roman Church, displayed, as a rule, more zeal than erudition. Thus, for the Talmud to say, for instance, that a Roman swore by the Capitol or by Jupiter, was sufficient for the censor to find a hidden allusion to the Vatican or the Pope, and to alter the nomenclature, so that the Roman swore by the capital of Persia, or by the God of Babylon. This substitution of inappropriate names rendered many passages obscure, and this is one of the chief reasons why the Talmud has been repeatedly condemned as an unintelligible and nonsensical production. The great majority, however, of modern scholars, theologians, and orientalists read the Talmud, not to refute it, but rather to bring to light the vast store of knowledge hidden therein. And yet, in spite of the many allusions there are to it in theology, in Biblical lore, and in sacred geography, it still is to the majority of students a sealed book. The object of this essay is therefore to sketch in outline its essence and character, and to give some idea of its subject-matter.