xxvi. 3), will be envied for his choice by many a controversialist even

to‐day. Wittily devised is the pun‐title, “City of Sihon” for a mathematical book by R. Joseph Tsarphathi, alluding to Numb. xxi. 27, “For Hesbon (reckoning) is the City of Sihon.”

Other titles were probably intended more as mottoes than titles. “Go forth and behold, ye daughters of Zion” (Cant. iii. 11), is put in the title‐ page of R. Jacob’s German‐Jewish paraphrase of the Pentateuch, which was written chiefly for the use of ladies. “Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth, a stranger and not thine own lips” (Prov. xxvii. 2), forms the title of a book extending over only one and a half page in quarto. It contains letters by seven Rabbis (among them R. Liva of Prague) recommending the Ascetic, R. Abraham Wangos, who has a daughter to marry, and wants also to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as deserving the support of his brethren.

There is also another objection to these titles. It is that they seem sometimes not quite consonant with our notions of modesty. Thus we have “Desirable and Sweet” on astronomy, “Sweeter than Honey” or “He shall comfort us,” and many others of this kind. But it must not be thought that we have a right to infer from the title to the author. There is, indeed, an anecdote that three authors were rather too little careful about the choice of their titles, namely Maimonides in calling his Code _Mishneh Torah_ (which is the traditional title of the Book of Deuteronomy), R. Moses Alshech in calling his homiletical commentaries _Torah_ of Moses, and R. Isaiah Horwitz in calling his book _Shene Luchoth ha‐Berith_ (The Two Tables of the Covenant). These authors, as the story goes, had for their punishment that their works are never quoted by the titles they gave to them, the former two being usually cited as Rambam or Alshech, whilst the last is more known by its abbreviated title of SHeLa(237) than by its full name.

I do not remember where I have read this story, but I am quite sure that its pious author would have been more careful about repeating it had he known that this accusation against Maimonides was a favourite topic with apostates, who thought to hit Judaism in the person of its representative Maimonides. But, as R. Solomon Duran in his polemical work remarks, Maimonides was too much of a truly great man to find any satisfaction in such petty vanity. Nor do I believe that even the character of less‐known authors can in any way be impugned by the seemingly conceited titles of their books; just as on the other hand the humility of the author is not proved by calling his book “The Offering of the Poor,” or other modest titles. The fancy title was in common use, and was therefore a commonplace with no significance whatever. The real disadvantage of such titles lies in the fact that, as already pointed out, they conceal from the student the contents of the book which he might otherwise consult in the course of his researches.

Did these authors perhaps foresee that there would come a time in which index‐knowledge would pass for deep scholarship? and did they thus by using these obscure titles try to put a check on the dabblers who speak the more of a book the less they have read of its contents? If this be the case we can only admire their foresight.

XII. THE CHILD IN JEWISH LITERATURE

“I saw a Jewish lady only yesterday with a child at her knee, and from whose face towards the child there shone a sweetness so angelical that it seemed to form a sort of glory round both. I protest I could have knelt before her, too, and adored in her the divine beneficence in endowing us with the maternal _storgé_ which began with our race and sanctifies the history of mankind.” These words, which are taken from Thackeray’s _Pendennis_, may serve as a starting‐point for this paper. The fact that the great student of man perceived this glory just round the head of a Jewish lady rouses in me the hope that the small student of letters may, with a little search, be able to discover in the remains of our past many similar traces of this divine beneficence and sanctifying sentiment. Certainly the glimpses which we shall catch from the faded leaves of ancient volumes, dating from bygone times, will not be so bright as those which the novelist was so fortunate as to catch from the face of a lady whom he saw but the previous day. The mothers and fathers, about whom I am going to write in this essay, have gone long ago, and the objects of their anxiety and troubles have also long ago vanished. But what the subject will lose in brightness, it may perhaps gain in reality and intensity. A few moments of enraptured devotion do not make up the saint. It is a whole series of feelings and sentiments betrayed on different occasions, expressed in different ways, a whole life of sore troubles, of bitter disappointments, but also moments of most elevated joys and real happiness.

And surely these manifestations of the divine beneficence, which appear in their brightest glory in the literature of every nation when dealing with the child, shine strongest in the literature of the Jewish nation. In it, to possess a child was always considered as the greatest blessing God could bestow on man, and to miss it as the greatest curse. The patriarch Abraham, with whom Israel enters into history, complains—“Oh Lord, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go childless!”

The Rabbis regarded the childless man as dead, whilst the Cabbalist in the Middle Ages thought of him who died without posterity as of one who had failed in his mission in this world, so that he would have to appear again on our planet to fulfil this duty. To trace out the feelings which accompanied the object of their greatest anxiety, to let them pass before the reader in some way approaching to a chronological order, to draw attention to some points more worthy of being emphasised than others, is the aim of this essay.

I said that I propose to treat the subject in chronological order. I meant by this that I shall follow the child in the different stages through which it has to pass from its birth until it ceases to be a child and attains its majority. This latter period is the beginning of the thirteenth year in the case of a female, and the beginning of the fourteenth year in the case of a male. I shall have occasion later on to examine this point more closely.

But there is the embryo‐period which forms a kind of preliminary stage in the life of the child, and plays a very important part in the region of Jewish legends. Human imagination always occupies itself most with the things of which we know least. And so it got hold of this semi‐existence of man, the least accessible to experience and observation, and surrounded it by a whole cycle of legends and stories. They are too numerous to be related here. But I shall hint at a few points which I regard as the most conspicuous features of these legends.

These legends are chiefly based on the notion of the pre‐existence of the soul on the one hand, but on the other hand they are a vivid illustration of the saying of the Fathers, “Thou art born against thy will.” Thus the soul, when it is brought before the throne of God, and is commanded to enter into the body, pleads before Him: “O Lord, till now have I been holy and pure; bring me not into contact with what is common and unclean.” Thereupon the soul is given to understand that it was for this destiny alone that it was created. Another remarkable feature is the warning given to man before his birth that he will be responsible for his actions. He is regularly sworn in. The oath has the double purpose of impressing upon him the consciousness of his duty to lead a holy life, and of arming him against the danger of allowing a holy life to make him vain. As if to render this oath more impressive, the unborn hero is provided with two angels who, besides teaching him the whole of the Torah, take him every morning through paradise and show him the glory of the just ones who dwell there. In the evening he is taken to hell to witness the sufferings of the reprobate. But such a lesson would make free will impossible. His future conduct would only be dictated by the fear of punishment and hope of reward. And the moral value of his actions also depends, according to Jewish notions, upon the power to commit sin. Thus another legend records: “When God created the world, He produced on the second day the angels with their natural inclinations to do good, and the absolute inability to commit sin. On the following days again He created the beasts with their exclusively animal desires. But He was pleased with neither of these extremes. If the angels follow my will, said God, it is only on account of their impotence to act in the opposite direction. I shall therefore create man, who will be a combination of both angel and beast, so that he will be able to follow either the good or evil inclination. His evil deeds will place him beneath the level of animals, whilst his noble aspirations will enable him to obtain a higher position than angels.” Care is therefore taken to make the child forget all it has seen and heard in these upper regions. Before it enters the world an angel strikes it on the upper lip, and all his knowledge and wisdom disappear at once. The pit in the upper lip is a result of this stroke, which is also the cause why children cry when they are born.

As to the origin of these legends, the main features of which are already to be found in the Talmud, I must refer the reader to the researches of Löw and others.(238) Here we have only to watch the effect which these legends had upon the minds of Jewish parents. The newly born child was in consequence looked upon by them as a higher being, which, but a few seconds before, had been conversing with angels and saints, and had now condescended into our profane world to make two ordinary mortals happy. The treatment which the child experienced from its parents, as well as from the whole of the community, was therefore a combination of love and veneration. One may go even further and say that the belief in these legends determines greatly the destination of the child. What other destination could a being of such a glorious past have than to be what an old German Jewish poem expressed in the following lines:—

Geboren soll es wehren Zu Gottes Ehren.

“The child should be born to the honour of God.” The mission of the child is to glorify the name of God on earth. And the whole bringing up of the child in the old Jewish communities was more or less calculated to this end. The words of the Bible, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,” were taken literally. Every man felt it his duty to bring up his children, or at least one member of his family, for this calling. How they carried out this programme we shall see later on.

Now, regarding almost every infant as a predestined priest, and thinking of it as having received a certain preparation for this calling before it came into this world, we cannot wonder that the child was supposed to show signs of piety from the days of its earliest existence, and even earlier. Thus we read that even the unborn children joined in with the chorus on the Red Sea and sang the Song (of Moses). David, again, composed Psalms before perceiving the face of this world. On the Day of Atonement they used to communicate to the unborn child, through the medium of its mother, that on this great day it had to be satisfied with the good it had received the day before. And when a certain child, afterwards named Shabbethai, refused to listen to such a request, R. Johanan applied to it the verse from the Psalm, “The wicked are estranged from the womb.” Indeed, Shabbethai turned out a great sinner. It will perhaps be interesting to hear what his sin was. It consisted in forestalling the corn in the market and afterwards selling it to the poor at a much higher price. Of a certain child the legend tells that it was born with the word _emeth_ (truth) engraved on its fore‐head. Its parents named it Amiti,(239) and the child proved to be a great saint.

The priest, however, could not enter into his office without some consecration. As the first step in this consecration of the child we may consider the Covenant of Abraham. But this was prefaced by a few other solemn acts which I must mention. One of the oldest ceremonies connected with the birth of a child was that of tree‐planting. In the case of a boy they planted a cedar, in that of a girl a pine; and on their marriage they cut branches from these trees to form the wedding‐canopy. Other rites followed, but they were more of a medical character, and would be better appreciated by the physician. In the Middle Ages superstition played a great part. To be sure, I have spoken of saints; but we ought not to forget that saints, too, have their foolish moments, especially when they are fighting against hosts of demons, the existence of which is only guaranteed by their own over‐excited brains. Jewish parents were for many centuries troubled by the fear of Lilith,(240) the devil’s mother, who was suspected of stealing children and killing them. The precautions they took to prevent this atrocity were as foolish as the object of their fear. I do not intend to enumerate here all these various precautions. Every country almost has its own usages and charms, one more absurd than the other. It will suffice to refer here to the most popular of these charms, in which certain angels are invoked to protect the child against its dangerous enemy Lilith. But of whatever origin they may be, Judaism could do better without them. The only excuse for their existence among us is to my mind that they provoked the famous Dr. Erter to the composition of one of the finest satires in the Hebrew language.

Of a less revolting character was the so‐called ceremony of the “Reading of the Shema.”(241) It consisted in taking all the little children of the community into the house of the newly‐born child, where the teacher made them read the Shema, sometimes also the ninety‐first Psalm. The fact that little children were the chief actors in this ceremony reconciles one a little to it despite its rather doubtful origin. In some communities these readings took place every evening up to the day when the child was brought into the covenant of Abraham. In other places they performed the ceremony only on the eve of the day of the _Berith Milah_(242) (Ceremony of the Circumcision). Indeed, this was the night during which Lilith was supposed to play her worst tricks, and the watch over the child was redoubled. Hence the name “Wachnacht,” or the “Night of Watching.” They remained awake for the whole night, and spent it in feasting and in studying certain portions of the Bible and the Talmud, mostly relating to the event which was to take place on the following day. This ceremony was already known to Jewish writers of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, it is considered by the best authorities on the subject to be of foreign origin. Quite Jewish, as well as entirely free from superstitious taint, was the visit which was paid to the infant‐boy on the first Sabbath of his existence. It was called “Shalom Zachar,”(243) probably meaning “Peace‐ boy,” in allusion to a well‐known passage in the Talmud to the effect that the advent of a boy in the family brings peace to the world.

At last the dawn of the great day of the Berith came. I shall, however, only touch here on the social aspects of this rite.

Its popularity began, as it seems, in very early times. The persecutions which Israel suffered for it in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, “when the princes and elders mourned, the virgins and the young men were made feeble, and the beauty of women was changed, and when certain women were put to death for causing their children to be circumcised,” are the best proof of the attachment of the people to it. The repeated attempts against this law, both by heathen and by Christian hands, only served to increase its popularity. Indeed R. Simeon ben Eleazar characterised it as the law for which Israel brought the sacrifice of martyrdom, and therefore held firmly by it. In other words they suffered for it, and it became endeared to them. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel declares it to be the only law which Israel fulfils with joy and exultation. As a sign of this joy we may regard the eagerness and the lively interest which raised this ceremony from a strictly family affair to a matter in which the whole of the community participated. Thus we find that already in the times of the Gaonim the ceremony was transferred from the house of the parents to the synagogue. Here it took place after the prayers, in the presence of the whole congregation. The synagogue used to be specially illuminated in honour of the event. Certain pieces of the daily prayer, of a rather doleful nature, such as the confession of sins, were omitted, lest the harmony of the festival should be disturbed. As a substitute for these prayers, various hymns suitable for the occasion were composed and inserted in the liturgy for the day. As the most prominent members among those present figured the happy father of the child and the medical man who performed the ceremony, usually called the Mohel or Gozer,(244) both wearing their festal garments and having certain privileges, such as being called up to the Reading of the Law and chanting certain portions of the prayers. It is not before the tenth century that a third member suddenly emerges to become almost as important as the father of the child. I refer to the _Sandek_ or Godfather. In some countries he was also called the Baal Berith (Master of the Covenant). In Italy they seemed to have had two Sandeks. This word was for a long time supposed to be the Greek word σύνδικος. But it is now proved beyond doubt that it is a corruption of the word σύντεκνος used in the Greek church for godfather. In the church he was the man who lifted the neophyte from the baptismal waters. Among the Jews, the office of the Sandek was to keep the child on his knees during the performance of the rite. The Sandek’s place was, or is still, near the seat of honour, which is called the Throne of Elijah, who is supposed to be the angel of the covenant. Other angels, too, were believed to officiate at this rite. Thus the angel Gabriel is also said to have performed the office of Sandek to a certain child. According to other sources the archangel Metatron himself attended. Probably it was on this account that later Rabbis admonished the parents to take only a pious and good Jew as Sandek for their children. Christian theologians also declared that no good Christian must render such a service to a Jew. The famous Buxtorf had to pay a fine of 100 florins for having attended the Berith of a child, whose father he had employed as reader when editing the well‐ known Basel Bible. The poor reader himself, who was the cause of Buxtorf’s offence, was fined 400 florins. Of an opposite case in which a Jew served as godfather to a Christian child, we find a detailed account in Schudt’s _Merkwürdigkeiten der Juden_, a very learned and very foolish book. When the father was summoned before the magistrate, and was asked how he dared to charge a Jew with such a holy Christian ceremony, he coolly answered, because he knew that the Jew would present him with a silver cup. As to the present, I have to remark that with the Jews also the godfather was expected to bestow a gift on the child. In some communities he had to defray the expenses of the festival‐dinner, of which I shall speak presently. In others, again, he had also to give a present to the mother of the child.

Much older than the institution of the Sandek is the festival‐dinner just alluded to, which was held after the ceremony. Jewish legend supplies many particulars of the dinner the patriarch Abraham gave at the Berith of his son Isaac. This is a little too legendary, but there is ample historical evidence that such meals were already customary in the times of the Second Temple. The Talmud of Jerusalem gives us a detailed account of the proceedings which took place at the Berith dinner of Elisha ben Abuyah, who afterwards obtained a sad celebrity as Acher. Considering that Elisha’s birth must have fallen within the first decades after the destruction of the Temple, and that these sad times were most unsuitable for introducing new festivals, we may safely date the custom back to the times of the Temple. The way in which the guests entertained themselves is also to be gathered from the passage referred to. First came the dinner, in which all the guests participated; afterwards the great men of Jerusalem occupied one room, indulging there in singing, hand clapping, and dancing. The scholars again, who apparently did not belong to the great men, were confined to another room, where they employed themselves in discussing biblical subjects. In later times special hymns, composed for this festival, were inserted in the grace after dinner. After the dinner, sermons or speeches used also to be given, the contents of which were usually made up of reflections on biblical and Talmudical passages relating to the event of the day. Sometimes they consisted of a kind of learned puns on the name which the child received on this occasion.

With this meal the first consecration of the child‐priest was concluded. In some places they used to come to the father’s house on the third day after the circumcision with the purpose of making inquiries after the child’s health. In the case when the child was the first‐born the ceremony of “redeeming the child”(245) in accordance with Exodus xiii. used to take place. The details of this ceremony are to be found in almost every prayer‐book, and there is nothing fresh to add. But perhaps I may be allowed to draw attention to another distinction that the first‐born received in the Middle Ages. I refer to an account given by the author of the book, _The Ordinance of the Law_,(246) who flourished in the thirteenth century. He says: Our predecessors made the rule to destine every first‐born to God, and before its birth the father had to say, “I take the vow that if my wife presents me with a son, he shall be holy unto the Lord, and in His Torah he shall meditate day and night.” On the eighth day after the Berith Milah they put the child on cushions, and a Bible on its head, and the elders of the community, or the principal of the college, imparted their blessings to it. These first‐born sons formed, when grown up, the chief contingent of the Yeshiboth (Talmudical Colleges), where they devoted the greatest part of their lives to the study of the Torah. In later centuries the vow was dropped, but from the abundance of the Yeshiboth in Poland and elsewhere it seems as if almost every child was considered as having no other calling but the study of the Torah. Indeed, the growing persecutions required a strengthening of the religious force.

With these ceremonies the first act of consecration ended in the case where the new‐born child was a boy. I will now refer to the ceremony of the name‐giving, which was common to males and females. In the case of the former this ceremony was connected with the Berith Milah. The oldest formula, which is already to be found in the _Ritual Rab Amram Gaon_, is composed in Aramaic. It is, like many prayers in that language, a most beautiful composition, and very suitable for the occasion. Our present Hebrew prayer is far less beautiful, and dates from a much later age. In some countries the ceremony of naming was repeated in the house of the parents. It took place on the Sabbath, when the mother returned home from her first visit to the synagogue after her recovery. Here the friends and relatives of the family assembled, and after arranging themselves round the cradle of the child they lifted it three times, shouting the new name at every lifting. This name was the so‐called “profane” name, whilst the name it received in the synagogue was the “sacred” or Hebrew name. The ceremony concluded with the usual festival‐dinner. By the way, there was perhaps a little too much feasting in those days. The contemporary Rabbis tried indeed to suppress some of the banquets, and put all sorts of restrictions on dinner‐hunting people. But considering the fact that, as Jews, they were excluded from every public amusement, we cannot grudge them the pleasure they drew from these semi‐religious celebrations. For people of an ascetic disposition it was, perhaps, the only opportunity of enjoying a proper meal. In the same way, in our days, the most severe father would not deny his lively daughter the pleasure of dancing or singing charitably for the benefit of suffering humanity. The ceremony described was known to the authors of the Middle Ages by the name of _Holle Kreish_. These words are proved by Dr. Perles to be of German origin, and based on some Teutonic superstition into the explanation of which I cannot enter here.

Of much more importance was the ceremony of name‐giving in the case of a girl, it being the only attention the female child received from the synagogue. The usages varied. In some countries the name was given on the first Sabbath after the birth of the child. The father was “called up to the Reading of the Law,” on which followed the formula, “He who blessed our ancestors Abraham,” etc., “may He also bless,” etc., including the blessing and announcement of the child’s name. After the prayer the congregation assembled in the house of the parents to congratulate them. In other countries the ceremony took place on the Sabbath when the mother attended the synagogue after the recovery. The ceremony of Holle Kreish seems to have been especially observed in the case of a girl.

Though the feasting was now over for the parents, the child still lived in a holiday atmosphere for a long time. In the legend of the “Ages of Man” the child is described in the first year of its existence as a little prince, adored and petted by all. The mother herself nourished and tended the child. Although the Bible already speaks of nurses, many passages in the later Jewish literature show a strong aversion to these substitutes for the mother. In the event of the father of the child dying, the mother was forbidden to marry before her suckling infant reached the age of two years, lest a new courtship might lead to the neglect of the child.

More difficult is it to say wherein the other signs of loyalty to the little prince consisted; as, for instance, whether Jews possessed anything like lullabies to soothe the little prince into happy and sweet slumber. At least I am not aware of the existence of such songs in the ancient Jewish literature, nor are they quoted by mediæval writers. The “Schlummerlied,” by an unknown Jewish bard, about which German scholars wrote so much, contains more heathen than Jewish elements. From the protest in _The Book of the Pious_, against using non‐Jewish cradle‐songs, it seems that little Moshechen was lulled to sleep by the same tunes and words as little Johnny. The only Jewish lullaby of which I know, is to be found in the work of a modern writer who lived in Russia. How far its popularity goes in that country I have no means of ascertaining. This jingle runs as follows:—

O! hush thee, my darling, sleep soundly my son, Sleep soundly and sweetly till day has begun; For under the bed of good children at night There lies, till the morning, a kid snowy white. We’ll send it to market to buy Sechora,(247) While my little lad goes to study Torah. Sleep soundly at night and learn Torah by day, Then thou’lt be a Rabbi when I have grown gray. But I’ll give thee to‐morrow ripe nuts and a toy, If thou’lt sleep as I bid thee, my own little boy.(248)

But naturally the holiday atmosphere I spoke of was very often darkened by clouds resulting from the illness of the child. Excepting small‐pox, the child was subject to most of those diseases which so often prove fatal to our children. These diseases were known under the collective name of “the difficulties (or the pain) of bringing up children.” These difficulties seem to have been still greater in Palestine, where one of the old Rabbis exclaimed that it was easier to see a whole forest of young olive trees grow up than to rear one child.(249) To avoid so mournful a subject, I refrain from repeating the touching stories relating to the death of children. The pain was the more keenly felt since there was no other way of explaining the misfortune which befell the innocent creature than that it had suffered for the sins of the parents; and the only comfort the latter had was that the child could not have lost much by its being removed from this vale of tears at such an early period. A remarkable legend describes God Himself as giving lessons so many hours a day to these prematurely deceased children.(250) Indeed, to the mind of the old Rabbis, the only thing worth living for was the study of the Law. Consequently the child that suffered innocently could not have a better compensation than to learn Torah from the mouth of the Master of masters.

But even when the child was healthy, and food and climate proved congenial to its constitution, there still remained the troubles of its spiritual education. And to be sure it was not an easy matter to bring up a “priest.” The first condition for this calling was learning. But learning cannot be acquired without honest and hard industry. It is true that R. Akiba numbers wisdom among the virtues which are hereditary from father to son. Experience, however, has shown that it is seldom the case, and the Rabbis were already troubled with the question how it happens that children so little resemble their fathers in respect of learning.

Certainly Jewish legends can boast of a whole series of prodigies. Thus a certain Rabbi is said to have been so sharp as to have had a clear recollection of the mid‐wife who made him a citizen of this world. Ben Sira again, instantly after his birth, entertains his terrified mother with many a wise and foolish saying, refuses the milk she offers him, and asks for solid food. A certain Nachman was born with a prophecy on his lips, predicting the fate of all nations on earth, as well as fixing the date for the advent of the Messiah. The youngest of seven sons of Hannah, who became martyrs under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, was according to one version aged two years, six months, six hours, and thirty minutes. But the way in which he defied the threats of the tyrant was really worthy of one of seventy. R. Judah de Modena is said to have read the lesson from the prophets in the synagogue at the age of two years and a half. A famous Cabbalist, Nahum, at the age of three, gave a lecture on the decalogue that lasted for three days. The Chassidim pretended of one of their Zaddikim that he remembered all that he had been taught by the angels before his birth, and thus excused their Zaddik’s utter neglect of studying anything. Perhaps I may mention in this place a sentence from Schudt, which may reconcile one to the harmless exaggerations of the Chassidim. It relates to a case where a Jewish girl of six was taken away by a Christian with the intention of baptising her, for he maintained that this was the wish and pleasure of the child. Probably the little girl received her instruction from the Christian servant of the house, as has happened many times. Schudt proves that this wish ought to be granted in spite of the minority of the child. He argues: As there is a maxim, “What is wanting in years may be supplied by wickedness,” why could not also the reverse be true that “What is wanting in years can be supplied by grace”? Of a certain R. Meshullam, again, we know that he preached in the synagogue at Brody, at the age of nine, and perplexed the chief Rabbi of the place by his deep Talmudical learning. As the Rabbi had a daughter of seven, the cleverness exhibited by the boy Rabbi did not end without very serious consequences for all his life.

Happily all these prodigies or children of grace are only exceptional. I say happily, for the Rabbis themselves disliked such creatures. They were more satisfied with those signs of intelligence that indicate future greatness. The following story may serve as an instance:—R. Joshua ben Hananiah once made a journey to Rome. Here he was told that amongst the captives from Jerusalem there was a child with bright eyes, its hair in ringlets, and its features strikingly beautiful. The Rabbi made up his mind to redeem the boy. He went to the prison and addressed the child with a verse from Isaiah, “Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers?” On this the child answered by continuing the second half of the same verse, “Did not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned? For they would not walk in His ways, neither were they obedient unto His law” (Isaiah xlii. 24). The Rabbi was so delighted with this answer, that he said: “I am sure he will grow up to be a teacher in Israel. I take an oath to redeem him, cost what it may.” The child was afterwards known under the name of R. Ishmael ben Elisha. Such children were ideals of the Rabbis, but they hated the baby scholar, who very often grew impertinent and abused his elders. The Rabbis much preferred the majority of those tiny creatures, who are characterised by the already mentioned legends on the “Ages of Men” as little animals playing, laughing, crying, dancing, and committing all sorts of mischief.

But these children must be taught. Now, there is the well‐known advice of Judah ben Tema, who used to say that the child at five years was to be taught Scripture, at ten years Mishnah, at thirteen to fulfil the Law, etc. This saying, incorporated in most editions in the fifth Chapter of the _Sayings of the Fathers_, is usually considered as the programme of Jewish education. But, like so many programmes, this tells us rather how things ought to have been than how they were. In the times of the Temple, the participation of the youth in religious actions began at the tenderest age. As soon as they were able to walk a certain distance with the support of their parents, the children had to accompany them on their pilgrimages to Jerusalem. In the Sabbatical year they were brought to the Temple, to be present at the reading of Deuteronomy by the king.(251) The period at which the child’s allegiance to the Synagogue began is still more distinctly described. Of the many Talmudical passages relating to this question, I shall select the following quotation from a later Midrash, because it is the most concise. In allusion to Leviticus xix. 23, 24, concerning the prohibition of eating the fruits of a tree in the first three years, this Midrash goes on to say: “And this is also the case with the Jewish child. In the first three years the child is unable to speak, and therefore is exempted from every religious duty, but in the fourth year all its fruits shall be holy to praise the Lord, and the father is obliged to initiate the child in religious works.” Accordingly the religious life of the child began as soon as it was able to speak distinctly, or with the fourth year of its life. As to the character of this initiation we learn from the same Midrash and also from other Talmudical passages, that it consisted in teaching the child the verses, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God _is_ One” (Deut. vi. 4), and “Moses commanded us a Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deut. xxxiii. 4). It was also in this year that the boys began to accompany their parents to the synagogue, carrying their prayer‐books. At what age the girls first came out—not for their first party, but with the purpose of going to the synagogue—is difficult to decide with any degree of certainty. But if we were to trust a rather doubtful reading in Tractate _Sopherim_,(252) we might maintain that their first appearance in the synagogue was also at a very tender age. I hope that they behaved there more respectfully than their brothers, who played and cried instead of joining in the responses and singing with the congregation. In some communities they proved so great a nuisance that a certain Rabbi declared it would be better to leave them at home rather than to have the devotion of the whole congregation disturbed by these urchins. Another Rabbi recommended the praiseworthy custom of the Sephardim,(253) who confined all the boys in the synagogue to one place, and set a special overseer by their side, with a whip in his hands, to compel them to keep quiet and to worship with due devotion.

A strange custom is known among the Arabian and Palestinian Jews under the name of _Chalaka_. It means the first hair‐cutting of the boy after his fourth birthday. As on this occasion loyalty to the Scripture is shown by not touching the “corners” (Lev. xix. 17), the whole action is considered a religious ceremony of great importance. In Palestine it usually takes place on the second day of the Feast of the Passover when the counting of the seven weeks begins. On this day friends and relatives assemble at the house of the parents. Thither the boy is brought, dressed in his best garments, and every one of the assembly is entrusted with the duty of cutting a few hairs, which is considered a great privilege. The ceremony is as usual followed by a dinner given to the guests. The Jews in Safed and Tiberias perform the ceremony with great pomp in the courtyard surrounding the (supposed) grave of R. Simeon ben Yochai, in one of the neighbouring villages.

Another custom already mentioned in the Talmud, but which quite disappeared in later times, is that of weighing the child. It would be worth reviving if performed in the way in which the mother of Doeg ben Joseph did it. This tender‐hearted mother weighed her only son every day, and distributed among the poor, in gold, the amount of the increased weight of her child.

I pass now to the second great consecration of the boy,—the rites performed on the day when the boy went to school for the first time. This day was celebrated by the Jews, especially in the Middle Ages, in such a way as to justify the high esteem in which they held the school. The school was looked upon as a second Mount Sinai, and the day on which the child entered it as the Feast of Revelation. Of the many different customs, I shall mention here that according to which this day was fixed for the Feast of Weeks. Early in the morning, while it was still dark, the child was washed and dressed carefully. In some places they dressed it in a “gown with fringes.” As soon as day dawned the boy was taken to the synagogue, either by his father or by some worthy member of the community. Arrived at their destination, the boy was put on the Almemor, or reading‐ dais, before the Scroll of the Law, from which the narrative of the Revelation (Exod. xx. 2‐26) was read as the portion of the day. From the synagogue the boy was taken to the house of the teacher, who took him into his arms. Thereupon a slate was brought, containing the alphabet in various combinations, the verse, “Moses has commanded,” etc. in Deut. xxxiii. 4, the first verse of the Book of Leviticus, and the words, “The Torah will be my calling.” The teacher then read the names of the letters, which the boy repeated. After the reading, the slate was besmeared with honey, which the boy licked off. This was done in allusion to Ezekiel iii. 3, where it is said: “And it (the roll) was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.” The boy was also made to eat a sweet cake, on which were written passages from the Bible relating to the importance of the study of the Torah. The ceremony was concluded by invoking the names of certain angels, asking them to open the heart of the boy, and to strengthen his memory. By the way, I am very much afraid that this invocation was answerable for the abolition of this ceremony. The year in which this ceremony took place is uncertain, probably not before the fifth, nor later than the seventh, according to the good or bad health of the child.

The reverence for the child already hinted at was still further increased when the boy entered the school. “The children of the house (school) of the master” is a regular phrase in Jewish literature. It is on their pure breath that the existence of the world depends, and it is their merit that justifies us in appealing to the mercy of God. Words of Scripture, uttered by them quite innocently, were considered as oracles; and many a Rabbi gave up an undertaking on account of a verse pronounced by a schoolboy, who hardly understood its import. Take only one instance: R. Johanan was longing to see his friend Mar Samuel in Babylon. After many disturbances and delays, he at last undertook the journey. On the way he passed a school where the boys were reciting the verse from 1 Samuel xxviii. 3, “And Samuel died.” This was accepted by him as a hint given by Providence that all was over with his friend.

Especially famous for their wisdom and sharpness were the children of Jerusalem. Of the many illustrative stories given in the Midrash to Lamentations, let the following suffice: R. Joshua was one day riding on his donkey along the high road. As he passed a well, he saw a little girl there, and asked her to give him some water. She accordingly gave water to him and to his animal. The Rabbi thanked her with the words: “My daughter, you acted like Rebecca.” “To be sure,” she answered, “I acted like Rebecca; but you did not behave like Eleazar.” I must add that there are passages in Jewish literature from which, with a little ingenuity, it might be deduced that Jewish babies are the most beautiful of their kind. The assertion made by a monk that Jewish children are inferior to Christian children is a dreadful libel. The author of the _Old Victory_,(254) in whose presence this assertion was made, was probably childless, or he would have simply scratched out the eyes of this malicious monk, instead of giving a mystical reason for the superior beauty of any other children than his own.

Another point to be emphasised is that the boys were not confined all day long to the close air of the schoolroom. They had also their hours of recreation. This recreation consisted chiefly, as one can imagine, in playing. Their favourite game was the ball, boys as well as girls being fond of this form of amusement. They did not deny themselves this pleasure even on festivals. They were also fond of the kite and games with nuts, in which their mothers also took part. Letter‐games and riddles also occupied their minds in the recreation hours. The angel Sandalphon,(255) who also bears in the Cabbalah the name of “Boy,” was considered by the children as their special patron, and they invoked him in their plays, addressing to him the words: “Sandalphon, Lord of the forest, protect us from pain.” Speaking generally, there are very few distinctively Jewish games. From the researches of Zunz, Güdemann, and Löw on this subject, it is clear that the Jews always adopted the pastimes of the peoples among whom they dwelt.

But it must not be thought that there was too much playing. Altogether, Jewish education was far from spoiling the children. And though it was recommended—if such recommendation were necessary—to love children more than one’s own soul, the Rabbis strongly condemned that blind partiality towards our own offspring, which ends in burdening our world with so many good‐for‐nothings. The sad experience of certain biblical personages served as a warning for posterity. Even from the quite natural behaviour of Jacob towards his son Joseph, which had the best possible results in the end, they drew the lesson that a man must never show to one of his children marks of greater favour than to the others. In later times they have been even anxious to conceal this love altogether, and some Rabbis went so far as to refrain from kissing their children. The severity of Akabya ben Mahalaleel is worth mentioning, if not imitating. When this Rabbi, only a few minutes before his death, was asked by his son to recommend him to his friends and colleagues, the answer the poor boy received was: “Thy conduct will recommend thee to my friends, or will estrange thee from them.” Another Rabbi declared (with reference to Prov. xxviii. 27) that it is life‐giving to a youth to teach him temperance in his diet, and not to accustom him to meat and wine. R. Judah, the Pious, in the Middle Ages, gives the advice to rich parents to withdraw their resources from their sons if they lead a disorderly life. The struggle for their existence, and the hardship of life, would bring them back to God. When the old Rabbi said that poverty is a most becoming ornament for Israel, his remark was probably suggested by a similar thought. And many a passage in the Rabbinic literature gives expression to the same idea as that in Goethe’s divine lines:—

Wer nie sein Brot mit Thränen ass, Wer nie die kummervollen Nächte Auf seinem Bette weinend sass, Der kennt Euch nicht, Ihr himmlischen Mächte.

I have spoken of a kingdom of priests, but there is one great disadvantage of such a polity. One or two priests in a community may be sustained by the liberality of the congregation. But if a community consisted of only priests, how could it then be maintained? Besides, the old Jewish ideal expected the teacher to be possessed of a divine goodness, imparting his benefits only as an act of grace. Salaries, therefore, either for teaching or preaching, or for giving ritual decisions, were strongly forbidden. The solution of the question put by the Bible, “And if ye shall say, What shall we eat?” is to be found in the law that every father was obliged to teach his son a handicraft, enabling him to obtain a living.

I have now to speak of the time when childhood is brought to a conclusion. It is, as I stated above, in the case of a girl at the beginning of the thirteenth year, and in that of a boy at the beginning of the fourteenth year. As a reason for this priority I will reproduce the words of R. Chisda, who said that God has endowed woman with a greater portion of intelligence than man, and therefore she obtains her maturity at an earlier period than man does. A very nice compliment, indeed; but like all compliments it is of no practical consequence whatever. It is not always the wiser who get the best of it in life. Whilst the day on which the girl obtained her majority passed unnoticed either by her or by her family, it was marked in the case of the boy as the day on which he became a Son of the Law,(256) and was signalised by various rites and ceremonies, and by the bestowing on him of beautiful presents. I miss only the wig, which used to form the chief ornament of the boy on this happy day.

Less known, however, is the origin of this ceremony, and the reason for fixing its date. It cannot claim a very high antiquity. I may remark that in many cases centuries elapse before an idea or a notion takes practical shape and is crystallised into a custom or usage, and still longer before this custom is fossilised into a law or fixed institution. As far as the Bible goes, there is not the slightest indication of the existence of such a ceremony. From Lev. xxvii. 5, and Num. xiv. 29, it would rather seem that it was not before the twentieth year that the man was considered to have obtained his majority, and to be responsible for his actions. It was only in the times of the Rabbis, when Roman influence became prevalent in juristic matters at least, that the date of thirteen, or rather the _pubertas_, was fixed as giving the boy his majority. But it would be a mistake to think that before having obtained this majority the boy was considered as under age in every respect. Certainly the law made every possible effort to connect him with the synagogue, and to initiate him in his religious duties long before the age of thirteen.

We have seen that the boy’s first appearance in the synagogue was at the beginning of the fourth year. We have noticed the complaints about his troublesome behaviour. But how could we expect the poor child to be attentive to things which quite surpassed the intellectual powers of his tender age? There was no better reason for this attendance either in the Temple or in the synagogue than that the parents might be rewarded by God for the trouble of taking their children there. These cares, by the way, fell most heavily upon the women. The mother of R. Joshua enjoyed this burden so much that she carried her boy, when still in the cradle, to the “House of Study of the Law,” in order that his ears might be accustomed to the sound of the Torah. In later times there was another excuse for taking the little children to the synagogue. They were there allowed to sip the wine of the Sanctification Cup,(257) which was the exclusive privilege of the children; an easy way of worshipping, but, as you can observe, it is a method that they enjoy and understand most excellently. They did not less enjoy and understand the service with which they were charged on the day of “The Rejoicing of the Law.”(258) On this feast they were provided with flags, which they carried before the bearers of the Torah, who feasted them after the service with sweets. Another treat was that of being called up on this day to the Torah, a custom that is still extant. In the Middle Ages they went in some countries so far as to allow these little fellows who did not wear caps “to be called up” to say the blessings over the Law bare‐headed. A beautiful custom was that every Sabbath, after finishing the weekly lesson and dressing the Scroll of the Law, the children used to come up to the Almemor and kiss the Torah. Leaving the synagogue they kissed the hands of the scholars. At home the initiation began with the blessing the child received on every eve of the Sabbath, and with its instruction in “Hear O Israel” and other verses as already mentioned. Short prayers, consisting of a single sentence, were also chosen for children of this age. The function of the child on the eve of the first day of Passover is well known. Besides the putting of the four questions for the meaning of the strange ceremony (Exod. xiii. 14), the boy had also to recite, or rather to sing, the “Praise.”(259) But I am afraid that they enjoyed better the song of “One Kid,” which was composed or rather adapted for their special entertainment from an old German poem.

Within three or four years after entering the synagogue, and with the growth of intellect and strength, the religious duties of the boy increased, and became of a more serious character. He had not only to attend the school, which was troublesome enough, but he was also expected to attend the services more regularly, and to gain something by it. Yet the Rabbis were not so tyrannical as to put unjust demands on the patience of the child. The voice of God on Mount Sinai, the Rabbis said, was adapted to the intellect and powers of all who witnessed the Revelation—adapted, as the Midrash says, to the powers of old and young, children and women. It was in accordance with this sentiment that the Rabbis suited their language to the needs of the less educated classes. Thus we read in the Tractate _Sopherim_ that according to the law the portion of the week, after having been recited in Hebrew, must be translated into the language of the vernacular for the benefit of the unlearned people, the women, and the children. Another consideration children experienced from the Rabbis was that at the age of nine or ten the boy was initiated into the observance of the Day of Atonement by fasting a few hours. Lest, however, this good work might be overdone, and thus endanger the child’s health, the sage R. Acha used to tell his congregation after the Addition‐Prayer “My brethren, let every one of you who has a child go home and make it eat.” In later centuries, when the disease of small‐pox became so fatal, some Rabbis declared it to be the duty of every father to leave the town with his children as soon as the plague showed itself. The joy with which the Rabbis hailed Dr. Jenner’s discovery deserves our recognition. None of them perceived in vaccination a defiance of Providence. R. Abraham Nansich, from London, wrote a pamphlet to prove its lawfulness. The Cabbalist Buzagli disputed Dr. Jenner’s priority, but nevertheless approved of vaccination. R. Israel Lipschütz declared that the Doctor acquired salvation by his new remedy.

With his advancing age, not only the boy’s duties but also his rights were increased. An enumeration of all these rights would lead me too far, but I shall mention the custom which allowed the boy the recital of “Magnified”(260) and “Bless ye”(261) in the synagogue. Now this privilege is restricted to the orphan boy. It is interesting to hear that girls were also admitted to recite the Magnified in the synagogue, in cases where their parents left no male issue. I have myself witnessed such a case. In some countries the boy had the exclusive privilege of reading the prayers on the evenings of the festivals and Sabbaths. R. Samson ben Eleazar, in the fifteenth century, received his family name Baruch Sheamar(262) from the skill with which he recited this prayer when a boy. He chanted it so well that he was called by the members of the community Master Baruch Sheamar. As to the question whether the boy, while under age, might lawfully be considered as one of the Ten when such a quorum was required, or one of the three in the case of grace after meals, I can only say that the authorities never agreed in this respect. Whilst the one insisted upon his having obtained his majority, the other was satisfied with his showing such signs of intelligence as would enable him to participate in the ceremony in question. Here is an instance of such a sign. Abaye and Raba, the two celebrated heroes of the Babylonian Talmud, were sitting at the table of Rabbah. Before saying grace he asked them, “Do you know to whom these prayers are addressed?” Thereupon one boy pointed to the roof, whilst the other boy went out and pointed to the sky. The examiner was satisfied with their answer.

The privilege of putting on the phylacteries forms now in most countries the chief distinction of “The Son of the Law”; in olden times, however, every boy had claim to it as soon as he showed himself capable of behaving respectfully when wearing the holy symbol. It even happened that certain honours of the synagogue were bestowed on boys, though under age. We possess a copy of a Jewish epitaph dating from about the third century, which was written in Rome for a boy of eight years, who is there designated as archon. The fact is the more curious, as on the other hand the Palestinian R. Abuha, who lived in the same century, maintained that no man must be elected as Warden before he has achieved his fiftieth year. That boys were admitted to preach in the synagogue I have already mentioned.(263)

From all these remarks it will easily be seen that in olden times the boy enjoyed almost all the rights of majority long before the day of his being “The Son of the Law.” The condition of the novice is hardly distinguishable from that of the initiated priest. The Talmud, the Gaonim, and even R. Isaac Alfasi and Maimonides knew neither the term “The Son of the Law” (in our sense of the word) nor any ceremony connected with it. There is only one slight reference to such an institution, recorded in the Tractate _Sopherim_, with the quotation of which I shall conclude this paper. We read there: “In Jerusalem there was the godly custom to initiate the children at the _beginning_ of the thirteenth year by fasting the whole Day of Atonement. During this year they took the boy to the priests and learned men that they might bless him, and pray for him that God might think him worthy of a life devoted to the study of the Torah and pious works.” For, this author says, “they were beautiful, and their lives harmonious and their hearts directed to God.”

XIII. WOMAN IN TEMPLE AND SYNAGOGUE

The learned Woman has always been a favourite subject with Jewish students; and her intellectual capabilities have been fully vindicated in many an essay and even fair‐sized book. Less attention, however, has been paid to woman’s claims as a devotional being whom the Temple, and afterwards the Synagogue, more or less recognised. At least it is not known to me that any attempt has been made to give, even in outline, the history of woman’s relation to public worship. It is needless to say that the present sketch, which is meant to supply this want in some measure, lays no claim to completeness; but I venture to hope that it will help to direct the attention of the friends of research to the matter, and that it may induce others to deal more fully with the subject and do it the justice it deserves.

The earliest allusion to women’s participation in _public_ worship, is that in Exodus xxxviii. 8, to the women who assembled to minister at the door of the “tent of meeting,” of whose mirrors the lavers of brass were made (cf. 1 Sam. ii. 22). Philo, who is not exactly enamoured of the emancipation of women, and seeks to confine them to the “small state,” is here full of their praise. “For,” he says, “though no one enjoined them to do so, they of their own spontaneous zeal and earnestness contributed the mirrors with which they had been accustomed to deck and set off their beauty, as the most becoming first‐fruits of their modesty, and of the purity of their married life, and, as one may say, of the beauty of their souls.” In another passage Philo describes the Jewish women as “competing with the men themselves in piety, having determined to enter upon a glorious contest, and to the utmost extent of their power to exert themselves so as not to fall short of their holiness.”

It is, however, very difficult to ascertain in what this ministry of women consisted. The Hebrew term “Zobeoth”(264) would suggest the thought of a species of religious Amazons, who formed a guard of honour round the Sanctuary. Some commentators think that the ministry consisted in performing religious dances accompanied by various instruments. The Septuagint again speaks “of the women who fasted by the doors of the Tabernacle.” But most of the old Jewish expositors, as well as Onkelos, conceive that the women went to the tent of meeting to pray. Ibn Ezra offers the interesting remark, “And behold, there were women in Israel serving the Lord, who left the vanities of this world, and not being desirous of beautifying themselves any longer, made of their mirrors a free offering, and came to the tabernacle every day to pray and to listen there to the words of the commandments.” When we find that in 1 Sam. i. 12, “Hannah continued to pray before the Lord,” she was only doing there what many of her sisters did before and after her. We may also judge that it was from the number of these noble women, who made religion the aim of their lives, that the “twenty‐two” heroines and prophetesses sprang who form part of the glory of Jewish history. Sometimes it even happened that their husbands derived their religious inspiration from them. Thus the husband of the prophetess Deborah is said to have been an unlettered man. But his wife made him carry to the Sanctuary the candles which she herself had prepared, this being the way in which she encouraged him to seek communion with the righteous.

The language in which the husband of the “Great Woman” of Shunem addresses his wife: “Wherefore wilt thou go to him” (the prophet)? “it is neither New Moon nor Sabbath” (2 Kings iv. 23), proves that on Festivals and Sabbaths the women used to attend some kind of worship, performed by the prophet, though we cannot say in what this worship consisted. The New Moon was especially a woman’s holiday, and was so observed even in the Middle Ages, for the women refrained from doing work on that day. The explanation given by the Rabbis is that when the men broke off their golden earrings to supply material for the golden calf, the women refused to contribute their trinkets, for which good behaviour a special day of repose was granted to them. Some Cabbalists even maintain that the original worshippers of the golden calf continue to exist on earth, their souls having successively migrated into various bodies, while their punishment consists in this, that they are ruled over by their wives. Rather interesting as well as complimentary to women is the remark which the Rabbis made with regard to the “Great Woman.” As will be remembered, it is _she_ who says, “I perceive that this (Elisha) is a holy man of God” (2 Kings iv. 19). In allusion to this verse the Talmud says: “From this fact we may infer that woman is quicker in recognising the worth of a stranger than man.”

The great woman, or women, continued to pray and to join in the public worship also after the destruction of the first Temple. Thus Esther is reported by tradition to have addressed God in a long extempore prayer before she presented herself before the throne of Ahasuerus to plead her people’s cause; and women were always enjoined to attend the reading of the Book of Esther. When Ezra read the Law for the first time, he did so in the presence of the men and the women (Neh. viii. 3). In the Book of the Maccabees we read of “The women girt with sackcloth ... and the maidens that ran to the gates.... And all holding their hands towards heaven made supplication.” In the Judith legend, mention is also made of “Every man and woman ... who fell before the Temple, and spread out their sackcloth before the face of the Lord ... and cried before the God of Israel.” In the second Temple, the women, as is well known, possessed a court reserved for their exclusive use. There the great illuminations and rejoicings on the evening of the Feast of Tabernacles used to be held. On this occasion, however, the women were confined to galleries specially erected for them. It was also in this Women’s Hall that the great public reading of certain portions of the Law by the king, once in seven years, used to take place, and women had also to attend at the function. On the other hand, it is hardly necessary to say that women were excluded from performing any important service in the Temple. If we were to trust a certain passage in the “Chapters of R. Eliezer,” we might perhaps conclude that during the first Temple, the wives of the Levites formed a part of the choir, but the meaning of the passage is too obscure and doubtful for us to be justified in basing on it so important an inference. Nor can the three hundred maidens who were employed for the weaving of the curtains in the Temple, be looked upon as having stood in closer connection with the Temple, or as having formed an order of women‐priests or girl‐devotees (as one might wrongly be induced to think by certain passages in Apocryphal writings of the New Testament). But on the other hand, it is not improbable that their frequent contact with the Sanctuary of the nation produced in them that religious enthusiasm and zeal which may account for the heroic death which—according to the legend—they sought and found after the destruction of the Temple. It is to be remarked that, according to the law, women were even exempted from putting their hands on the head of the victim, which formed an important item in the sacrificial worship. It is, however, stated by an eye‐witness, that the authorities permitted them to perform this ceremony if they desired to do so, and that their reason for this concession was “to give calmness of the spirit, or satisfaction, to women.”

Still greater, perhaps, was “the calmness of spirit” given to women in the synagogue. We find in ancient epitaphs that such titles of honour were conferred upon them as “Mistress of the Synagogue,” and “Mother of the Synagogue,” and, though they held no actual office in the Synagogue, it is not improbable that they acquired these titles by meritorious work connected with a religious institution, viz.: Charity. There was, indeed, a tendency to exclude women from the synagogue at certain seasons, but almost all the authorities protest against it, many of them declaring such a notion to be quite un‐Jewish. Some Jewish scholars even think that the ancient synagogues knew of no partition for women. I am rather inclined to think that the synagogue took for its model the arrangements in the Temple, and thus confined women to a place of their own. But, whether they sat side by side with the men or occupied a special portion of the edifice, there can be no doubt that the Jewish women were great synagogue‐ goers. To give only one instance. One Rabbi asks another: Given the case that the members of the synagogue are all descendants of Aaron, to whom then would they impart their blessing? The answer is, to the women who are there.

Of the sermon they were even more fond than their husbands. Thus one woman was so much interested in the lectures of R. Meir, which he was in the habit of giving every Friday evening, that she used to remain there so long that the candles in her house burnt themselves out. Her lazy husband, who stopped at home, so strongly resented having to wait in the dark, that he would not permit her to cross the threshold until she gave some offence to the preacher, which would make him sure that she would not venture to attend his sermons again.

The prayers they said were the Eighteen Benedictions which were prescribed by the Law. But it would seem that occasionally they offered short prayers composed by themselves as suggested by their personal feelings and needs. Thus, to give one instance, R. Johanan relates that one day he observed a young girl fall on her face and pray: “Lord of the world, Thou hast created Paradise, Thou hast created hell, Thou hast created the wicked, Thou hast created the righteous; may it be Thy will that I may not serve as a stumbling‐block to them.” The fine Hebrew in which the prayer is expressed, and the notion of the responsibility of Providence for our actions, manifest a high degree of intelligence and reflection. It would also seem that some women went so far in their religious sensibility as to lead a regular ascetic life, and, according to the suggestion of some scholars, even took the vow of celibacy. Of these the Rabbis did not approve, and stigmatised them as the “destroyers of the world.” Perhaps it was just at this period that Judaism could not afford to give free play to those morbid feelings, degenerating into religious hysterics, which led some to join rival sects, and others to abandon themselves to the gross immorality we read of in the history of the Gnostics.

The same circumstances may have been the cause of public opinion being led to accept the view of R. Eliezer, who thought it inadvisable—it would seem on moral grounds—to permit woman to study the Law. This opinion was opposed to that of Ben Azzai, who considered it incumbent upon every father to teach his daughter Torah. But justified as the advice of R. Eliezer may have been in his own time, it was rather unfortunate that later generations continued to take it as the guiding principle for the education of their children. Many great women in the course of history indeed became law‐breakers and studied Torah; but the majority were entirely dependent on men, and became in religious matters a sort of appendix to their husbands, who by their good actions insured salvation also for them, and sometimes the reverse. Thus there is a story about a woman which, put into modern language, would be to the effect that she married a minister and copied his sermons for him; he died, and she then married a cruel usurer, and kept his accounts for him.

The fact that women were exempted from certain affirmative laws, which become operative only at special seasons—_e.g._, the taking of the palm branch on the Feast of Tabernacles—must also have contributed to weaken their position as a religious factor in Judaism. The idea that women should vie with men in the fulfilment of every law, became even for the Rabbis a notion connected only with the remotest past. This is the impression one gains when reading the legend about Michal, the daughter of Saul, putting on phylacteries, or the wife of the prophet Jonah making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem at the three Festivals. It would indeed seem as if women were led to strive for the satisfaction of their religious wants in another direction. Yet it was said of Jewish women, “The daughters of Israel were stringent and laid certain restrictions on themselves.” They were also allowed to form a quorum by themselves for the purpose of saying the Grace, but they could not be counted along with males for this end. It was also against the early notion of the dignity of the congregation that women should perform any public service for men.

One privilege was left to women—that of weeping. In Judges xi. 40, we read of the daughters of Israel that went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah; while in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25, we are told how “all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations.” Of this privilege they were not deprived, and if they were not allowed to sing any longer, they at least retained the right to weep as much as they pleased. Even in later times they held a public office as mourning women at funerals. In the Talmud fragments of compositions by women for such occasions are to be found. Indeed, woman became in these times the type of grief and sorrow. She cannot reason, but she feels much more deeply than man. Here is one instance from an old legend: Jeremiah said, “When I went up to Jerusalem (after the destruction of the Temple) I lifted my eyes and saw there a lonely woman sitting on the top of the mountain, her dress black, her hair dishevelled, crying, ‘Who will comfort me?’ I approached her and spake to her, ‘If thou art a woman, speak to me. If thou art a ghost, begone.’ She answered, ‘Dost thou not know me?... I am the Mother, Zion.’ ”

In general, however, the principle applied to women was: The king’s daughter _within the palace_ is all glorious (Psalm xlv. 14), but _not_ outside of it. In the face of the “Femina in ecclesia taceat,” which was the ruling maxim with other religions, Jewish women could only feel flattered by this polite treatment by the Rabbis, though it meant the same thing. We must not think, however, that this prevented them from attending the service of the synagogue. According to the Tractate _Sopherim_, even “the little daughters of Israel were accustomed to go to the synagogue.” In the same tractate we find it laid down as “a duty to translate for them the portion (of the Law) of the week, and the lesson from the prophets” into the language they understand. The “King’s daughter” occasionally asserted her rights without undue reliance on the opinion of the authorities. And thus being ignorant of the Hebrew language women prayed in the vernacular, though this was at least against the letter of the law. And many famous Rabbis of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries express their wonder that the “custom of women praying in other (non‐Hebrew) languages extended over the whole world.” It is noteworthy that they did not suppress the practice, but on the contrary, they endeavoured to give to the Law such an interpretation as would bring it into accord with the general custom. Some even recommended it, as, for example, the author of _The Book of the Pious_, who gives advice to women to learn the prayers in the language familiar to them.

At about the same period a lengthy controversy was being waged by the commentators of the Talmud and the codifiers, about woman’s partaking in the fulfilment of the laws for special seasons, from which, as already remarked, they were exempted. To the action itself there could not be much objection, but the difficulty arose when women also insisted on uttering the blessing. Now the point at issue was whether they could be permitted to say, for instance, “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, etc., who hast sanctified us by Thy Commandments, and _hast commanded us_, concerning the taking of the Palm branch,” since in reality the women had _not_ been commanded to do it. To such logical and systematic minds as Maimonides and R. Joseph Caro, the difficulty was insurmountable, and they forbade women to use the formula; but with the less consistent majority women carried their point. Rather interesting is the answer received by R. Jacob, of Corbeil, with regard to this question. This Rabbi is said to have enjoyed the mysterious power which enabled him to appeal in cases of doubt to the celestial authorities. Before them he put also this women’s case for decision. Judgment was communicated to him in the verse from the Scriptures, “In all that Sarah saith unto Thee, hearken unto her voice” (Gen. xxi. 12). Nor was it unknown for a pious Jew to compose a special hymn for his wife’s use in honour of the Sabbath.

How long this custom of women praying in the vernacular lasted, we have no means of ascertaining. Probably was already extinct about the end of the fifteenth century. For R. Solomon Portaleone, who lived in the sixteenth century, already regrets the abolition of “this beautiful and worthy custom.” “When they prayed in the vernacular,” he says, “they understood what they were saying, whilst now they only gabble off their prayers.” As a sort of compromise we may regard the various “Supplications”;(265) they form a kind of additional prayers supplementary to the ordinary liturgy, and are written in German. Chiefly composed by women, they specially answer the needs of the sex on various occasions. These prayers deserve a full description by themselves, into which I cannot enter here; I should like only to mention that in one of these collections in the British Museum, a special supplication is added for servant‐maids, and if I am not quite mistaken, also one for their mistresses.

It is also worth noticing that the manuals on the “Three Women’s Commandments” (mostly composed in German, sometimes also in rhymes), contained much more than their titles would suggest. They rather served as headings to groups of laws, arranged under each commandment. Thus the first (about certain laws in Lev. xii. and xv.) becomes the motto for purity in body and soul; the second (the consecration of the first cake of the dough) includes all matters relating to charity, in which women were even reminded to encourage their newly married husbands not to withhold from the poor the tithes of the bridal dowry, as well as of their future yearly income; whilst the third (the lighting of the Sabbath lamp) becomes the symbol for spiritual light and sweetness in every relation of human life.

As another compromise may also be considered the institution of “Vorsugern” (woman‐reader) or the “Woilkennivdicke” (the well‐knowing one) who reads the prayers and translates them into the vernacular for the benefit of her less learned sisters. In Poland and in Russia, even at the present time, such a woman‐reader is to be found in every synagogue, and from what I have heard the institution is by no means unknown in London. The various prayer‐books containing the Hebrew text as well as the Jewish‐ German translation, which appear in such frequent editions in Russia, are mostly intended for the use of these praying women. Not uninteresting is the title‐page of R. Aaron Ben Samuel’s Jewish‐German translations and collections of prayers which appeared in the beginning of the eighteenth century. He addressed the Jewish public in the following terms: “My dear brethren, buy this lovely prayer‐book or wholesome tonic for body and soul, which has never appeared in such German print since the world began; and make your wives and children read it often, thus they will refresh their bodies and souls, for this light will shine forth into your very hearts. As soon as the children read it they will understand their prayers, by which they will enjoy both this world and the world to come.”

An earlier translator of the prayer‐book addresses himself directly to the “pious women” whom he invites to buy his book, “in which they will see very beautiful things.” Recent centuries seem, on the whole, to have been distinguished for the number of praying‐women they produced. The virtues which constituted the claim of women to religious distinction were modesty, charity, and daily attendance at the synagogue morning and evening. In the memorial books of the time hundreds of such women are noticed. Some used also to spin the “Fringes,” which they presented to their friends; others fasted frequently, whilst “Old Mrs. Hechele” not only attended the synagogue every day, and did charity to poor and rich, but also understood the art of midwifery, which she practised in the community without accepting payment for her services. According to R. Ch. J. Bachrach women used also to say the “Magnified” prayer in the synagogue when their parents left no male posterity.

In bringing to a close this very incomplete sketch, perhaps I ought to notice the confirmation of girls introduced during this century in some communities in Germany, which the “Reformed” Rabbis recommended, but of which the “Orthodox” Rabbis disapproved. It would be well if in the heat of such controversies both sides would remember the words of R. Zedekiah b. Abraham, of Rome, who with regard to a certain difference of opinion on some ritual question, says: “Every man receives reward from God for what he is convinced is the right thing, if this conviction has no other motive but the love of God.”

XIV. THE EARLIEST JEWISH COMMUNITY IN EUROPE

Roman Judaism has disappeared from our guide‐books. Civilisation has levelled down the walls of the Ghetto, and its former inhabitants are not any longer “a people that dwell alone.” But with this well‐deserved destruction a good deal of the interest was also destroyed which the traveller used to attach to “the peculiar people” enclosed in that terrible slum of Rome.

Still, if there is anything eternal in the “eternal city,” which was neither reconstructed by the Cæsars, nor improved upon by the Popes, it is the little Jewish community at Rome. It has survived the former; it has suffered for many centuries under the latter, and, partaking in the general revival which has come upon the Italian nation, it may still be destined for a great future. Indeed, the history of the relation of Israel to Rome is so old that it is not lacking even in legendary elements. On the day on which King Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, the Rabbis narrate, there came down the angel Gabriel. He put a reed into the sea, which, by means of the slime that adhered to it, formed itself, in the course of time, into a large island, on which the city of Rome was built—an event with which the troubles of Israel began. These were the evil consequences of the first _mésalliance_. Even more unfortunate for Israel (and it is not impossible that this is the meaning of the legend) were the results of that spiritual mixed marriage between Judaism and paganism which took place at a much later period, whereat a blunt soldier, who sympathised with neither, and “who dealt in salvation as he dealt in provinces,” acted as best man. As a fact, the parties concerned never understood each other properly. The declaration of love, and the final proposal, were made in an Alexandrine jargon, strange to both, the obscurities of which only grew with the commentaries each successive generation added to them. Under such circumstances, a happy union was not to be expected, and the family quarrel which fills the annals of civilised Europe soon broke out. Judaism, more particularly Roman Judaism, witnessed this struggle from the beginning, and its fortunes were greatly dependent on the chance which of these two elements, the Jewish or the pagan, won the ascendency.

However, I am theologising too much, whilst I am deviating from the subject of these lines. Nor could I think of giving here, even in outline, the history of the oldest Jewish community in Europe. This has been already admirably done by Dr. A. Berliner, who has made the history of the Jews of Rome the subject of his studies for nearly a quarter of a century. I intend only to reproduce here, in a stray fashion, some of those impressions and reflections which, I am certain, must occur to every Jewish traveller in Italy.

Now I do not think for a moment that we Jews should have a point of view of our own for looking at things and men in this paradise of Europe. It would be as silly to have a Jewish Baedeker as to think of orthodox mathematics or an ecclesiastical logic or a racial morality—though unfortunately there exist such things. But on the other hand, if we have not, like the fox in the fable, left our heart at home, let us not do violence to our feelings by passing over everything Jewish, over sights which might remind us of our history, with a certain indifference which would be affected on our part. We are not all little Goethes, nor even little Ruskins, and our artistic enjoyment is hardly so intense as to shut our hearts against impressions which force themselves upon us either by the way of remembrance of the past, or even as a living contrast in the present.

It so happened that my first visit to the Vatican was on a Friday. After doing my work in the Vatican Library, which is open till noon, I went into the adjoining Church of St. Peter.

One should be, like the angel of death in the legend, full of eyes, properly to see all the wonders of art and marvels of architecture at which human genius and piety laboured busily through centuries, in adorning the grandest of sacred buildings in the world. But there is Baedeker or Murray serving at least as a pair of good spectacles to the layman, and it was by their aid that I made my round in St. Peter. But lo, whilst you are observing the celebrated Pietà by Michael Angelo, and, according to the instruction of your guides, admiring both the grief of the Mother and the death of the Son, you notice in its vicinity a little column, surrounded by rails to which the pilgrims approach with a certain awe; for “Tradition affirms it to have been brought from Jerusalem.” Naturally, one is instantly reminded of the report, given by the famous traveller of Tudela, of the curiosities of Rome, which among other things records, “That there are also to be seen in St. Giovanni in Porta Latina (probably meant for Lateran) the two brazen pillars, constructed by King Solomon of blessed memory, whose name, Solomon, the son of David, is engraved upon each; of which he was also told that every year about the 9th of Ab (the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem), these pillars sweat so much that water runs down from them.” So far Benjamin of Tudela in the twelfth century. In our days pillars weep no longer, and even of men it is considered a special sign of good breeding to behave pillar‐ like; but a sigh is still permissible at the sight of this temple‐column, which in its captivity symbolises, not less than the Pietà, the grief of a whole people. Of course, not possessing on the spot either the _Itinerary_ or even Urlick, one is unable to establish the connection between these two traditions and their claim to authenticity. Perhaps one may even comfort oneself on the same ground on which the famous curé tried to appease his flock who were sobbing bitterly at his telling them the Passion story. He exclaimed: “My children, do not weep so much; it happened long ago, and even perhaps is not quite true.”

However, the Vatican is the last place in the world to exercise your critical faculties; you are so deeply absorbed in seeing, that you have no time to think. So on I went, from aisle to aisle, from niche to niche, from chapel to chapel, looking, staring, and admiring, till of a sudden my eyes were struck by a large statue, on which the words, “Thou shalt have no other God before me,” are engraved. There I stood before a question of exegesis, where one is permitted to use his right senses without any regard to the æsthetic side. Yet not all the manifold expositions of the Decalogue, nor all the talk about the subjective‐objective, the absolute and the real, with which metaphysicians have tried to confuse the notion of the Unity of God, will reconcile one to the meaning which Mediæval Art has impressed upon the Ten Commandments. The truth has to be sought elsewhere, and thus my thoughts were turned to the synagogue, and thither I went.

The day was already drawing to its close, and, by a marvellous coincidence, I arrived at the synagogue just as the congregation was intoning the words: “The Lord is one, and His name is one to His renown and glory.” Here was sound, simple exegesis, though sadly lacking in the illustrative matter in which the Vatican is so rich. But what need was there of any real or artificial “aid to the believer,” in the presence of such a living faith, as enabled this little community to maintain its protesting position in the teeth of the mistress of the world! And this even at a time, when it only required a hint from the successors of the old Roman Emperors to make the whole world renounce its right of thinking and judging, and, were we to believe Herr Janssen, even to feel perfectly happy in this torpor.

But, by the way, are our own times much better? As I write these lines (October 1893) I hear that a Bill has been brought into the German Diet, asking that the Talmud should be submitted to a Commission (which _en passant_, has been sitting in unbroken session in that country since the days of Pfefferkorn in the fifteenth century) with the purpose of examining its contents, while in the Vatican the very pupils of Loyola are offering every convenience and comfort to the student who should care to devote his time to Rabbinic literature. Does not the work of a great number of our poets, historians, theologians, and so‐called seers in this blessed century of ours, in many respects prove but a strained effort to destroy the few humanitarian principles which were established a few generations ago, as well as to deify every brutal warrior who was successful in his day? Again, is the national idea so much sublimer, so much grander, than that of a universal religion, that we would willingly permit the former to employ the means which have been denied to the latter as inhuman and barbarous? Every age has its own idolatry, and the eternal wandering Jew will always be the chosen victim of the Moloch in fashion.

Let us, however, return to the synagogue, which withstood many a cruelty, both ancient and modern. The place where the synagogue stands is near the Ghetto, now called Piazza di Scuola. It is, besides a few other communal houses, the only building left there,—all those narrow, dirty, and typhoid‐breeding streets which formed the old Ghetto having been demolished by a sage and humane government, which by this action wiped out the last stain from its history. There, on this vast blank is the synagogue, a comparatively small, insignificant building, laden with heavy age and looking down on her children whom she has been nursing, consoling, and protecting for centuries, but who, now grown old, have forsaken her and scattered to all the ends of the city. Of all her former acquaintances there appears to be left only father Tiber, who would seem to be murmuring to her many an old tale of the times before she was called into existence. And if he listened to the special prayers recited within her walls by the deputies of the Jewish communities, when preparing themselves to go to the court of the Pope, the Tiber heard many a sigh and cry, wrung out from the heart of a Jewish captive who, preferring death to slavery even under the masters of the world, found his last repose in its waters. But insignificant as this synagogue appears, she proved the spiritual bulwark against all the attacks of the time, and you admire her brave resistance all the more when you look at that multitude of churches and cloisters in the closest vicinity of the Ghetto, impressing you as so many intrenchments, all directing their missiles and weapons against this humble, defenceless building, threatening it with death and destruction. One of these churches, probably founded by some Jewish convert, who gained in it both salvation and a good living, bears on its gates in Hebrew letters the inscription: “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in the way that was not good, after their own thoughts. A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face” (Isaiah lxv. 2, 3). Menace is followed by persuasion, the cited verses being accompanied by the Latin words: “Indulgentia plenaria quotodiana perpetua pro vivis et defunctis.” Theologians who like to quarrel most about things they can know least, have for ages discussed the question, whether prayers for the dead are of any use; here the matter is decided by a simple advertisement. It is not to be denied that one would enjoy the fortunes accumulated by one’s late sinner of an uncle all the better for being sure that a few pennyworths of prayer enable the legatee to make one’s benefactor in Hades comfortable and happy.

The thought is very consoling indeed, and it is not to be wondered at that the Roman synagogue could not entirely withstand its temptations, and introduced into the offering‐blessing after one is called up to the Torah, the words: “To the advancing of the soul of the departed.” Of course much of this tendency may be attributed to the Ford Jabbok,(266) which was and is still very popular in that country; but the fact that the author of this Jewish “Book of the Dead” was an Italian (from Modena), shows clearly that there was some Catholic influence at work, from which even the fellow‐countrymen of Azariah de Rossi and Judah Messer Leon could not entirely emancipate themselves.

I ought to have spoken of Roman synagogues, since the building in the Ghetto to which I have been constantly alluding comprises four prayer‐ houses devoted to Spanish and Italian rites. It says much for Roman Judaism, that they did not consider ritual differences of such importance as to prevent them from forming one community for all charitable and congregational purposes. In Verona and in Modena some congregations even retained the German rite, which their ancestors who immigrated from the Rhine provinces brought with them, whilst they accepted the Spanish pronunciation. I wish that the Anglo‐Jewish community could see their way to imitate their example. Not that I think for a moment that the Spanish pronunciation is more correct than the German. Each system has its own mistakes and corruptions; and it is more than probable that the prophet Isaiah, or even the author of Ecclesiastes, would be as little able to follow the prayers in Bevis Marks as in Duke’s Place. But since the non‐ Jewish scientific world has, though only by pure accident, accepted the Spanish way of reading the Hebrew, I should like to see this trifling difference of _Ba_ruch over _Bu_ruch at last disappear, by pronouncing the camets‐vowel _a_ instead of _o_, and accepting similar little changes, which are of no real importance to us.

The inside of these synagogues is even more simple than their outside. I was told that the synagogue which was burned down last winter, and which also formed a part of this building, could boast of many fine decorations and carvings, etc., but I could observe nothing of the kind in the synagogues I had occasion to frequent. Nor is there much of natural decorum in them, and they reconcile one perfectly to the worst of the Small Synagogues elsewhere. I venture to think that in this respect, too, we have to recognise Catholic influence. It was, I think, one of the leaders in the Oxford Movement who expressed his delight at seeing in Italy a woman poorly‐dressed coming into the church, who, after putting down the basket from her back, kneels before one of the many altars and says her prayers. A good deal of this familiarity in the place of worship may also be noticed in the Roman synagogues, where I have seen a woman come into the partition for men, notwithstanding their having a separate gallery, without bonnet or hat on her head, and with an infant in her arms, and listen there to the prayers, till she walked home with her husband. The other people were also very restless, coming and going often, whilst, as soon as the reading of the Law was over, the greater part of the worshippers left the synagogue. It was not a very delightful sight. A minus of decorum does not always mean a plus of devotion; just as little as a maximum of respectability and stiffness are to be taken as signs of true piety.

It is not uninteresting to notice that the Roman synagogue, in spite of its old traditions, did not entirely shut itself against modern reforms. Among them there is that of “calling up the people to the Torah” by the simple formula, “Let the Priest” (or “the Levite”) “step forth,”(267) and so on, not mentioning either names or titles, which I should like to recommend most strongly to our congregations. I hope that no man will suspect me of such heresy as that of questioning the wisdom of the Synagogue Regulations. But I am inclined to think that the business of conferring the degrees of _Rabbi_, “Associate” or “Master,” does not exactly fall within the sphere of activity of the Wardens. The matter could only be decided by a proper Board of examination. As the Council is not provided with such a Board, nor is every aspirant to this honour prepared to undergo the examination required, the wisest course would be to give up titles altogether, calling up all people alike in the way indicated.

The robes the ministers wear (somewhat similar to those of the Greek clergy), are probably also an innovation of modern date,—the old orthodox Rabbis looking at any special vestment for the Preacher or Reader with the same feeling of disgust which the old Puritans entertained for surplice or mitre. But the principle of “The Beauty of Holiness” proved too strong for resistance, and it was only a pardonable vanity when the reformers applied it to their own persons; “Vanity of vanities,” saith the preacher, so often, that he gets rather to like it. This vanity is greatly redeemed by the fact that the preacher does not grudge his uniform to his humbler brother, the beadle, who is in most cases to be distinguished from the officiating ministry only by the brass‐plate on his breast, on which the word “Servant” is engraved. Considering the great confusion arising from the meaningless “Reverend” and the universal white neck‐tie, such a label, indicating the proper office of the bearer, might, perhaps, prove as useful among the English Jews as it is among the Jews of Rome.

It was with a pupil of the Rabbinical College, in company with his friends, that I took my first walk through ancient Rome. I felt attracted to him by his striking face of that peculiar fine Jewish type, which is more common among the Jews in the East than among us. And when he was reading the lesson from the Prophets in the synagogue, where I made his acquaintance, he reminded me of that Jewish boy with bright eyes, black curls, and features strikingly beautiful walking as a captive from Jerusalem through the streets of Rome some seventeen centuries ago, whose proficiency in the words of Isaiah caused his redemption. It would be an exaggeration to say that my companion’s remarks were very instructive from an artistic point of view. Being born and bred in Rome, he passed with utter indifference many objects which we are bidden to admire, whilst at others he actually shouted out “Image,” or made some other prosaic remark. But in a country where one is determined to play the heathen for so many weeks, to worship superannuated deities, to get into raptures at every reminiscence of superseded and vanishing religions, and to be delighted at the sights of “greasy saints and martyrs hairy,” there can be no great harm in being called back to one’s true nature.

The feelings crowding upon one, when entering that part of the ancient city which probably was in the mind of the Rabbis when they spoke of “Guilty Rome,” are of a conflicting nature. Every stone and every brick there saw the humiliation of Israel, in every theatre and every circus the Jew served as a comic figure, and was held up to ridicule, whilst there was, perhaps, hardly a single lane or gate through which those who resented the yoke of the “anti‐Semites of Antiquity” did not pass, in order to “be butchered to make a Roman holiday.” What concerns a Jew most in this perished world of ruins, and at the same time causes him the deepest grief, is the triumphal arch of Titus, “commemorating the defeat of the Jews, and dedicated to him by his successor, Domitian.” Enough has been said and written about it both by antiquarians and theologians, the former admiring the workmanship of the reliefs, the latter perceiving in it a proof of the fulfilment of the well‐known passages in the New Testament about the destruction of the Temple, which came to pass in spite of the efforts made by Titus to save it. Those who have read Bernay’s essay on the “Chronik des Sulpicius Severus” know that the behaviour of “the delight of the human species” on that occasion is rather open to doubt, and it is more probable that, instead of trying to rescue it, he commanded that it should be set on fire. Josephus, who witnessed the shame of his compatriots and co‐religionists, has left us a full account of the triumphal procession. Only a flunkey like Josephus could maintain that calm indifference with which he describes the events of the “bitter day,” the perusal of which makes one’s blood boil. His description fairly agrees with the famous relief on the arch, showing that part of the procession in which the table with the shewbread, the candlestick with the seven lamps, and the golden trumpets figure as the chief objects. The only thing which we miss is the “Law of the Jews,” which, according to Josephus, was carried in the triumph as “the last of all the spoils.” Was it only an oversight of the artist, or had he no place for it, or is it Josephus who committed the error, mistaking some other object for the Scroll of the Law? I dearly hope that this last was the case, and that Heine was under the impulse of a true and real and poetic inspiration when he wrote (speaking of the Holy Scripture to which he owed his conversion): “The Jews, who appreciate the value of precious things, knew right well what they did when, at the burning of the second temple they left to their fate the golden and silver implements of sacrifice, the candlesticks and lamps, even the breastplate of the High Priest adorned with great jewels, but saved the Bible. This was the real treasure of the temple, and, thanks be to God! it was not left a prey to the flames, nor to the fury of Titus Vespasian, the wretch, who, as the Rabbi tells us, met with so dreadful a death.”

However, there were others who brought the glad tidings of the Old Testament to Rome long before there existed a New one. And this is, on the other side, what makes Rome a sort of Terra Sancta even to the Jew. It is true that we have not to look for the footprints of the prophets, for whom even tradition never claimed “the gift of missionary‐travelling.” But might not the ground there have received a sort of consecration by the fact that it was traversed by the ambassadors of Judas Maccabæus (about 161 B.C.) “to make a league of amity and confederacy” with the Roman Senate? Of the embassy of Simon the Maccabee (about 140 B.C.) there is actual historical evidence that they began to propagate in Rome the Jewish religion. Some seventy or eighty years later the Jews had already their own quarter in Rome, with their own synagogues, which they were in the habit of visiting, “most especially on the sacred Sabbath days, when they publicly cultivate their national philosophy.” That many of the oldest teachers of Israel, the Tannaim, went to Rome as deputies, and that one of them (R. Mathia ben Chares) founded a school there early in the second century, is also an authenticated fact. One would like to know what they taught, and in what way they expounded their _national philosophy_. Most of all one would like to know what were the spiritual means they employed in their proselytising work, in which they were, according to the testimony of history, so successful. Did they preach in the streets? Or did they hold public controversies? Or did they even send out Epistles which, in form at least, served as a model to apostles of another creed? How many a problem would be solved; how many a miracle would disappear; how many a book would become superfluous, if we could obtain certainty about these points! The Talmud tells us little, almost nothing, about these important things, whilst we get from the Roman writers only sneers and raillery. To these respectable Romans the Jews were only a mob of unlettered atheists. Indeed, to a good orthodox heathen, a religion without images and statues, with a God without a pedigree and without a theogony, was an impossible thing. Those poor metaphysicians!

However, why dwell so long on a past world? A famous Rabbi once exclaimed: “If a man would ask thee, ‘Where is thy God?’ answer him: ‘In the great city of Rome.’ ” The underlying idea was the mystical notion that wherever Israel had to migrate, they were accompanied by the Divine presence. And Rome was, in the times of the Rabbis, the point to which the streams of Jewish migration from the Holy Land chiefly converged. But now, instead of to Rome, might we not point to London and New York as centres of Jewish migrations?

INDEX

This Index contains the most important names of persons, titles of books, technical terms and Hebrew words occurring in the text. In the notes to the text, the Hebrew words are for the most part given also in Hebrew characters.

Abarbanel, Isaac, 173, 174

Abaye, 311

_Ab Beth Din_, 84

Abba Mari b. Moses, 165, 179

Abba Tachnah, the Chassid, 221

Abraham, Baalshem’s father‐in‐law, 7

Abraham, son of Elijah Wilna, 88

Abraham of Bedres, 262

Abraham Abulaphia, 262

Abraham Ibn Daud, 162

Abraham Ibn Ezra, 50, 52, 64, 71, 210, 314

Abraham b. Shem—Tob Bibago, 172, 173

Abtalyon, 186

Abuha, 311

Acha, 310

_Acher_, 292

_Adam, Primal_, 239

_Agadah_, pl. _Agadoth_, 64, 105, 183, 197

_Agadic_, 110, 156, 157, 193, 262, 279

_Ages of Man_, 295

Akabyah b. Mahalaleel, 305

Akiba, 70, 84, 130, 188, 190, 194, 220, 227, 228, 234

_Almemor_, 302

Ammi, 214, 217, 226, 231

_Amora_, pl. _Amoraim_, 17, 84, 195

Amram Gaon, 293

Anna of Kaidon, wife of Elijah Wilna, 82

Anselm, St., of Canterbury, 79

Antigonos of Socho, 229

Anti‐Maimonists, 133

Aristotle, 79, 167

Aryeh Leb, son of Elijah Wilna, 88

_Ascension of Elijah_, 75

Asher b. Jechiel, 210

Assideans, 64

_Ayil Meshulash_, 81

Azariah de Rossi, 66, 71, 105, 333

_Aziluth_, 117

Azulai, 277

_Baalshem_, Israel, 3‐12, 14‐35, 73

Bachrach, Ch. J., 325

_Bachur_, pl. _Bachurim_, 95, 97

Bachya, 131

_Baraitha_, 271

_Baruch Sheamar_, 311

Bashazi, 161

_Bath‐Kol_, 190

Beer of Mizriez, 11, 37

Beer, Peter, 66

Ben Azzai, 130, 216, 319

Benjamin of Tudela, 329

Ben‐Jacob, 259

Ben Sira, 297

Ben Zoma, 130

_Bereshith_, 127

_Berith Milah_, 288, 292, 293

Berliner, A., 327

Bernays, Isaak, 337

_Beth Din_, 191‐193

_Beth Hammidrash_, 7, 16, 84, 139

_Beth Talmud_, 210

_Biccurim_, 58

Bloch, Samson, 51

Bodek, A., 51

_Book of Brightness_ (_see_ Zohar)

_Book of the Pious_, 295, 322

_Book of Victory_, 167

_Book of Weight_, 133

Boswell, 142, 197

Buckle, 96

_Burbot_, 138

Buzagli, the Cabbalist, 310

Cabbalah, Cabbalists, 99, 128, 129, 133, 210, 283, 315

_Cabod_, 120, 121

Caraites, 48, 160, 161, 207, 208

Casaubon, Isaac, 259

_Chagigah_, 77

_Chakhamim_, 57

_Chambers_, the, 208

Chanina b. Dossa, 217

_Chanukah_, 138

_Chapters of R. Eliezer the Great_, 68, 69, 316

Chasdai Ibn Crescas, 167‐173, 180

_Chassidim_, Chassid, Chassidic, Chassidism, 1‐4, 11, 12, 14‐16, 21, 22, 25‐27, 30, 33, 35‐41, 43‐45, 53, 73, 90, 298

Chayim Vital, 99

Chayim Walosin, 85, 87, 94

Chisda, 307

_Chukkim_, 124

_Code of the Law_, by Caro, 75, 92, 206, 211, 257

_Collectanea_, 144

_Commentary on the Pentateuch_, by Nachmanides, 107, 108, 123, 135

_Creeds and Opinions_, by Saadiah Gaon, 162

_Crown_, 239

_Cusari_, 162

_Date of the Redemption_, 105

David Rocca Martino, 230

David Messer Leon, 174

David b. Samuel d’Estella, 165, 166

David b. Yom‐Tob Bilia, 166.

_Defence of Adam_, 230

Delmedigo, 71, 131, 175

_Disputation_, by Nachmanides, 103

Dukes, L., 260

_Eighteen Benedictions_, 83

Eleazar, 229

Eleazar b. Jacob, 225

Eliezer, father of Baalshem, 5

Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, 189, 319

Eliezer b. Samuel Hallevi, 145

Eliezer b. Simeon, 223

Elijah Levita, 268

Elijah Wilna, 57, 73‐77, 81‐92, 96, 97

Elisha b. Abuyah, 33, 130, 292

Emden, Jacob, 10, 259

_Epikurus_, 157

_Erech Millin_, 66

Erter, Isaac, 51, 59, 288

Essenes, 64, 185

_Examination of the World_, 97

Eybeschütz, J., 10

Ezra, or Azriel, the mystic, 100

_Faithful City_, the, 75

Fichte, 51

Finn, 75

_Ford Jabbok_, 333

Frankists, 10

Frankl, Z., 65, 97

Fürst, J., 66

Gamaliel I., 234

Gamaliel II., 194, 212

_Gaon_, pl. _Gaonim_, 73, 76‐78, 97, 98, 206, 208, 209, 289, 312

_Garden of Mystical Contemplation_, 129

_Gate of Reward_, 115, 213

Geiger, A., 66

_Gemara_, 78

Gershon, brother‐in‐law of Baalshem, 8, 9

Ghetto, 326, 331‐333

Gnostics, 64

Goethe, 57, 73, 306, 328

_Gozer_, 290

Graetz, 65, 97, 99, 183

_Great Interpreters_, 186

Green, A. L., 255

_Guide of the Perplexed_, 49, 68, 97, 102, 130, 131, 179

_Guide of the Perplexed of the Time_, 60, 67

Hadasi, Judah, 160, 161

Hai Gaon, 77, 208, 209, 272

_Halachah_, pl. _Halachoth_, 64, 66, 183

_Halachic_, 57, 92, 110, 157, 193, 207

_Halachoth Gedoloth_, 111, 112

Hannaneel of Kairwan, 162

Hegel, 51, 54, 64, 65

Heine, 59, 124, 254

_High Belief_, 162

Hillel the Great, 185, 186, 188, 193, 237

Hillel, R., 177

_History of Jewish Tradition_, 65, 182

_Hithlahabuth_, 32

_Holle Kreisch_, 294, 295

Huna, 221, 225

Isaac Alfasi, 13, 100, 101, 111, 312

Isaac Aramah, 173

Isaac Loria, 76, 133

Isaac b. Ruben, 100

Ishmael, 188, 190, 224

Ishmael b. Elishah, 222, 299

Israel Baalshem (_see_ Baalshem, Israel)

Jacob of Corbeil, 322

Jacob Dubna, 91

Jacob the Levite, or Maharil, 143, 144

Jacob Sasportas, 101, 102

Jacob Tam, 210

Jannai, 226

Jedaiah of Bedres, 97, 131

_Jerusalem_, by Mendelssohn, 147

Johanan, 249, 287, 303, 318

Johanan b. Zaccai, 48, 188

Jonah Gerundi, 100, 101

Jonah, son of Nachmanides, 101

José, 218, 219

Joseph Albashir, 160

Joseph Albo, 171, 172

Joseph Caro, 75, 92, 206, 211, 322

Joseph Jabez, 131, 173, 179

Joshua b. Hananiah, 194, 299, 304, 308

Jost, M., 66

Judah Alcharisi, 262

Judah Hallevi, 13, 34, 152, 162, 208

Judah b. Ilai, 246

Judah Messer Leon, 333

Judah de Modena, 298

Judah the Patriarch, 63, 195

Judah the Pious, 306

Judah b. Tema, 299

Judah b. Yakar, 100

_Karab_, 124

_Kilayim_, 87

Kimchi, D., 145

_Korban_, 124

Krochmal, Nachman, 44, 46, 48‐68, 71, 72

Kuenen, 240

_Law of Man_, 113‐115

_Laws unto Moses on Mount Sinai_, 64

Lessing, 73

Letteris, M., 56, 57

Levi b. Gershom, 97, 101, 171

_Light of God_, 167

_Lilac of Mysteries_, 133

_Lilith_, 287, 288

Lipman of Mühlhausen, 167, 179

Liva of Prague, 78

Lowell, R., 116

Löw, L., 171, 285, 305

Lucas, Mrs. Henry, 135

Macaulay, 89

_Maggid_, 19

_Magnified_, 310

Maimonides, or Moses b. Maimon, 13, 48, 49, 68, 70, 78, 97, 100, 102, 103, 111, 126, 130, 133, 140, 161‐168, 170‐181, 210, 211, 249, 274, 280, 281, 312, 322

Maimonists, Anti‐Maimonists, 163‐165, 173, 210

Mar Samuel, 84

Mathia b. Chares, 339

_Measure of the Stature_, 208

_Mechilta_, 58, 81, 193

Meheram Schiff, 16

Meir, 130, 194, 226, 318

Meir b. Nathan of Trinquintaines, 100

Meir of Rothenburg, 210

_Memra_, 238

_Men of the Great Synagogue_, 64, 185

_Menachoth_, 86

Mendelssohn, Moses, 48, 58, 73, 147, 151, 176

_Metatron_, 238

_Midrash_, pl. _Midrashim_, 61, 64, 71, 81, 193, 195, 222, 262, 272, 273, 304

Milton, 114

_Minhag_, pl. _Minhagim_, 143, 192

_Minim_, 64

Minor Tractates, 81

_Mishnah_, 57, 64, 66, 76, 78, 82, 85, 87, 91, 157, 190, 193, 195, 271

Mistress of the Synagogue, 317

Moses Cordevora, 133

Moses Ibn Ezra, 262

Moses de Leon, 18, 133, 258, 262

Moses of Tachau, 131

_Mother Zion_, 321

Nachman, son of Nachmanides, 101

Nachmanides, or Moses b. Nachman, 99‐141, 213

Nahum of Gemzo, 215

_Nasi_, 84

Nathan, 194

_Nephesh Chayah_, 117

Neubauer, Dr. A., 263

_Night of Watching_, 288

Nissim of Gerona, 133

Nissim of Marseilles, 267

_Olam Habba_, 115

_Old Victory_, 304

Oral Law, 10

_Orchard_, the, 133

_Ordinance of the Law_, 293

Pablo Christiano, 103, 105, 106

_Pairs_, the, 185

_Paradise Lost_, 114

_Pardes_, 129

_Pashut_, 138

_Path of Belief_, 172

Perles, J., 99, 123, 294

Pharisees, 64, 185, 237, 241

Philo, 52, 64, 154, 238

_Pilpul Pilpulist_, 13, 78

Plato, 78

_Pugio Fidei_, 107

Raba, 311

_Rabbanan Saburai_, 206

Rabbah, 311

Rabbenu, 13

_Rabbenu Mosheh_, 103

Rabbinowicz, R. N. N., 261

Raimund Martini, 107

Rapoport, Solomon Leb, 50, 53, 56, 66

Reggio, Isaac, 270

_Roots_, the, 171

Ruskin, 328

Saadiah Gaon, 48, 162, 108, 272

_Sacred Letter_, 113

Sadducees, 64, 185, 237

Salman the Good, 145

_Sambatyon_, 95

_Sanctification‐cup_, 245

Sandalphon, 305

_Sandek_, 290

Sanhedrin, the, 188, 190, 191

Saul Berlin, 176, 180

_Sayings of the Fathers_, _Aboth_, 262, 299

Schelling, 51

Schiller, 73

_Schlummerlied_, 295

Schorr, O., 193

Schudt, 291, 298

_Sechorah_, 296

_Seder Nezikin_, 58

_Seder Olam_, 81, 92

_Seder Taharoth_, 58

_Segulah_, 122

_Sephardim_, 301

_Sepher_, 13

_Sephiroth_, Ten, 238

_Sermon in the Presence of the King_, by Nachmanides, 165

Shabbethai Tsebi, 134, 239

_Shalom Zachar_, 289

Shammai, 185, 188, 237

_Shechinah_, 120, 121, 228‐230

_Shema_, reading of the, 141, 288

Shemaiah, 186

Shemariah of Crete, 166

Sherira Gaon, 263

Shiphluth, 30

_Simchah_, 31

Simeon Duran, 101, 170, 171

Simeon b. Eleazar, 289

Simeon b. Gamaliel, 222

Simeon b. Gamaliel II., 193, 194

Simeon b. Yochai, 18, 223

Simlai, 112

_Siphra_, 58, 81, 91, 193, 262

_Siphré_, 58, 81, 91, 193, 262

Solomon b. Adereth, 70, 267

Solomon b. Gabirol, 210

Solomon of St. Goar, 143‐145

Solomon b. Isaac, Rashi, 13, 210

Solomon b. Isaac b. Zadok, 137

Solomon Ladier, 43

Solomon Portaleone, 323

Solomon, son of Nachmanides, 110

Solomon Syrillo, 262

Solomon Wilna, 75

_Son of the Law_, 307, 312

_Sopherim_, 64

Spencer, Herbert, 97

Steinschneider, M., 99, 172

_Taanith_, 58

_Talmid Chaber_, 52

_Talmid Chakam_, 7

Talmud (of Jerusalem or Babylon), 16, 19, 33, 49, 52, 57‐59, 64, 76, 78, 81, 82, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 101, 104, 105, 111, 129, 131, 140, 151, 155, 158, 195, 196, 206, 207, 209, 210, 238, 252, 254‐256, 261, 262, 271, 272, 277

_Tanna_, pl. _Tannaim_, 17, 84, 187

_Tephillin_, 249

Thackeray, 282

Thirteen Articles of the Creed, 148, 163, 164, 170, 176, 179

_Thirteen Rules_ (of Interpretation), 195

Tobijah, the Priest, 175

_Tosephta_, 81, 82, 92, 262, 271

Toy, Prof., 233‐239, 251

_Tractate Berachoth_, 221, 271

_Tractate Evidences_, 192

_Tractate Joys_, 194

_Tractate Sanhedrin_, 156, 157, 159

_Tractate Sopherim_, 301, 312, 321

_Tree of Life_, the, 133

Troki, Solomon, 161

_Variae Lectiones_ (of the Talmud), 261

Viterbo, Abraham Chayim, 175, 176

_Vorsugerin_, 324

_Wars of the Lord_, 101

_Watchman_, the, 59

Weiss, T. H., 65, 97, 99, 182, 183, 185‐187, 191‐197, 206, 207, 209‐212

Wellhausen, 243

_Wisdom of Solomon_, 127, 154

_Woilkennivdicke_, 324

_Yediah_, 119

_Yeshibah_, pl. _Yeshiboth_, 94‐96, 293

Yom‐Tob Heller, 196

_Zaddik_, pl. _Zaddikim_ (Zaddikism), 36‐44, 53, 298

Zadoc, 245

_Zebachim_, 86

Zedner, 254‐256

_Zehub_, 137‐139

Zerahiah Hallevi of Gerona (or Gerondi), 100, 101, 111

_Zion‐Elegy_, 208

_Zobeoth_, 314

_Zohar_, 18, 19, 71, 91, 133, 258

Zunz, Leopold, 44, 52, 56, 60, 65, 73, 97, 183, 279, 305

FOOTNOTES

1 SUBJOINED IS A LIST OF SELECTED AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CHASSIDIM.—_Historical and Bibliographical Works_: Graetz (xi. including the polemical literature quoted in the Appendix), Jost, Peter Beer, M. Bodek (סדר הרורות הנרש, Lemberg, 1865), A. Walden (שמ תגרוליב הנדש, Warschau, 1864), Finn (קרוה נאמנה, Wilna, 1860), D. Kahana (אצן אוסל in the periodical השחר, iv.), Zederbaum (כחר כדונה, Odessa, 1868). _Essays and Satires_: T. Erter (הצפה, Wien, 1858), S. Szantó (_Jahrbuch für Israeliten_, p. 108‐178, 1867), A. Gottlober (in his periodical הברקר אור, iii.), L. Löw (Ben Chananjah, ii.), Rudermann (השחר, vi.), Rapoport (נחלת יחודה, Lemberg, 1873, p. 10), Fröhlich (המדרין, Warschau, 1876, p. 63 _seq._), S. Maimon (_Autobiographie_, Berlin, 1792). Compare also the Hebrew novels by P. Smolensky, L. Gordon, M. Brandstätter, A. Gottlober and B. Horowitz (German). _Occasional references_ to the liturgy or the system of the Chassidim in the “Responses” of R. Ezechiel Landau, Moses Sopher, E. Flekeles and T. Steinhart, and in the works of Israel Samostsch, Salomon Chelma and Chayim Walosin. Compare also Zunz (_Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_, p. 477) and L. Löw (_Mannheimer Album_, Wien, 1874), Senior Sachs (התחיה, i. 61) and B. L. Zeitlin (הות קשה, Paris, 1846). The best book on the whole subject is E. Zweifel’s work שלום צל ישראל (Zitomyr 1868, three parts), which I strongly recommend to students. The books written by the Chassidim would amount to more than 200. They are catalogued by Bodek and Walden. I shall only draw the attention of the student to the works of Beer, Salomon Ladier, and Mendel Witipsker on one side, who developed the theory of the Immanence, and those of Nachman Braslaw and Melech Liezensker, who, on the other hand, carried the theory of Zaddikism to its utmost consequences. The student will find a fair collection of sayings and sentences arranged according to theological subjects in the books ררך המידים and לשן חכמים (Anon., Lemberg, 1876).

2 חסידים, “pious ones” (Ps. xxxvii. 28, lxx. 2, etc.). The reader is probably acquainted with the term from the Maccabean history (1 Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13), in which the strict party, opposed to all Hellenistic influence, are called “Assideans” [R.V. “Hasidaeans”], Gr. Ἁσιδαῖοι.

3 בעל שם, “The Master of the Name,” a term usually applied to exorcists, who cast out devils and performed other miracles through adjuration by the name of God (or angels). The unbelieving Rabbis maintained indeed that in his exorcisms Baalshem employed “impure names” (of devils), whilst the Chassidim, on the other hand, declared that their Master never used “names” at all, his miracles being performed by the divine in Baalshem to which all nature owes obedience. Occasionally the Chassidim call him בעל שם תוב (The Man of Good Name), in allusion to Eccles. vii. 1, shortened by some into _Besht_.

4 בית המדרש—“House of Research” or of “study” (of the Law), but in which also divine service is held thrice a day.

5 תלמיד הכם—“Disciple of the Wise,” the usual title of a scholar or student.

6 A Jewish sect, so called after their founder Jacob Leibovicz Frank, who was himself one of the apostles of the pseudo‐Messiah Shabbethai Tsebi of Smyrna in Turkey. Among his other doctrines he taught also a sort of Trinity, consisting of the Holy Ancient One, the Holy King or the Messiah, and a feminine person in the Godhead, in which he, like his master, represented the Second Person. The sect ultimately abolished the Law, and, after many controversies with the Rabbinic Jews, went over to Catholicism, the dominant religion in Poland, by which they were soon absorbed. Eybeschütz, chief Rabbi of Prague and Hamburg, was suspected by Emden to be a secret adherent of Shabbethai Tsebi, which was tantamount to apostasy from Judaism. Eybeschütz protested. The litigants excommunicated each other, and the Rabbis divided into two camps, taking sides either with Emden or with his antagonist.

7 The works of Maimonides or Moses b. Maimon (1135‐1204) are too many to be enumerated here. The most important are the _Guide of the Perplexed_ (מורה נבוכום) and his _Compendium of the Law_ (משנה הורה). Judah Hallevi or Abul Hassan flourished in the first half of the twelfth century. He is well known as a poet by his _Divan_ and as a deep religious thinker by his _Cusari_. The former contains also many songs of a secular nature. Isaac Alfasi (died 1103) is best known by his Compendium of the Talmud, which was so greatly admired by his contemporaries that they declared it could never have been composed “without the aid of the Holy Spirit.” R. Solomon b. Isaac, also called by his initials Rashi (1040‐1105), is well known by his commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud.

8 רבי רבינו.

9 ספר, _Sepher_.

10 The Hebrew word is פלפול, meaning subtle discussion and sharp distinction. The word is closely related to פלפל or פלפלא, which means “pepper” or “seasoning.”

11 מחרם שיף = R. Meir Shiff, whose _novellæ_ on the Talmud are of a very subtle kind, and were very popular with the students of this work.

12 המוראים—תנאים, “The Repeaters,” and “The Interpreters.” The sayings and statements of the former are embodied in the Mishnah, a work compiled by R. Judah the Saint about 220 A.C., and covering a period of about 250 years (30 B.C.‐220 A.C.). The latter occupied themselves mainly with the interpretation of the Mishnah, and their discussions and controversies are incorporated in the Talmud of Jerusalem and that of Babylon, and extend over the period from 220‐500 A.C. The Talmud of Jerusalem is mostly the product of the schools of Palestine. The Talmud of Babylon is a growth of that country. The authorities of this latter Talmud being far away from the place where the first great Rabbis lived and laboured, their traditions are naturally not so historically reliable as those of the Talmud of Jerusalem. The authorities of Palestine were also simpler in their method of interpretation. These again are followed by the Babylonian schools of new interpreters (of the Talmud).

13 שדין יהודאין, an expression that goes back as far as to the _Zohar_.

14 זוהר, “Brightness.” Cf. Dan. xii. 3,—the authors of “The Brightness” pretending to be the _Maskilim_ or “Wise Ones” mentioned in this verse.

15 שפלות.

16 שמחה.

17 התלהבות.

18 צדיק, pl. צדיקים.

19 R. Johanan b. Zaccai was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died about 110 A.D. He belonged to the peace party in opposition to the Zealots, and obtained permission from the Roman government to establish the school of Jamnia, which, after the destruction of the Temple, became the centre of Jewish religious life. See also p. 188.

20 R. Saadiah Gaon was born in Egypt in 892, and died as the head of the school of Sura in Babylon in 942. He is known by his translations of and commentaries on the Bible, and many other works, especially his philosophical treatise _Creeds and Opinions_. He was also a great controversialist. Most of his polemical writings are directed against the Caraites (קראים) or “Scripturalists,” a Jewish sect founded by Anan in the eighth century. They protested against the Oral Law, and denied Tradition. On the title “Gaon,” see note 1 to Elijah Wilna.

21 מורה נבוכים, _Moreh Nebuchim_, generally considered to be the greatest philosophical work by any Jewish thinker.

22 R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, who spent some time in London, died about 1161. He is best known by his commentaries on the Bible. He was the first writer who doubted the unity of the book of Isaiah.

23 תלמיד חבר.

24 עיר מלאת הכמים וסופרים, meaning “sages” and “scribes,” but used by later writers in the sense given in the text.

25 בכורים, dealing with the laws relating to the firstfruits which were brought to the temple (Ex. xxiii. 19). The processions formed by the pilgrims are very vividly described after the said tractate by Delitzsch in his _Iris_, p. 190 _sq._ (English ed.). See also by the same author, _Jüdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu_, p. 66 _seq._

26 תענית, “Fast,” or תעניות, “Fasts.”

27 סדר נזיקין, “Order of Damages,” treating of the civil law of the Jews, the procedure of courts of justice, and kindred subjects. This Order also includes the tractate אבות, _Aboth_ or “Sayings of the Fathers,” which is very important for the study of Rabbinic doctrine and ethics.

28 סדר תהרות, “Order of Purities,” dealing with the laws regarding Levitical purity.

29 ספרא (or הורת כהנים), ספרי, מכילתא. These three works form the oldest Rabbinic commentary on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The authorities cited in these commentaries all belong to the period of the Tannaim. See above, note 12 to the Chassidim. Constituting as they do, to a certain extent, one of the sources used by the _Gemara_, they are naturally indispensable for a scientific study of the Talmud.

30 הצפה, “_Hatsophe_,” a spirited satire against the orthodox and especially against the then prevailing belief in the transmigration of souls taught by the mystical schools. The book is written in the purest biblical Hebrew.

31 מורה נבוכי הזמן.

32 מדרש, pl. מדרשים (_Midrashim_), “Research,” “Researches,” a name usually applied to the homiletical part of the Rabbinic literature. The most important collection of this kind is the _Midrash Rabbah_ to the Pentateuch. The usual way of quoting it is _Genesis Rabbah_, _Exodus Rabbah_, and so on.

33 See above, note 12 to the Chassidim. [Transcriber’s Note: Footnote on the Tannaim and Amoraim.]

34 מינים, “Heretics,” applied to the first Christians, and more so to certain Gnostic sects.

35 הלכה למשה מפיני, see below, p. 186 and _note_. [Transcriber’s Note: The footnote on “laws given to Moses on Sinai.”]

36 הגדה or אגדה—הלכה, “rule,” “method,”—“narrative.” The former deals with the legal side of the Scriptures, and is thus more of a juristic nature; the latter represents a collection of homilies having mostly as their text the historical and exhortatory parts of the Bible, and is thus more of an edifying character. The theological side of Judaism, as well as its ideal aspirations and Messianic hopes, find their expression in the Agadah. The two words are also used as adjectives, as _Halachic_ (legalistic, juristic, and obligatory) and _Agadic_ (poetic, edifying, and hyperbolic).

37 ערך מלין, a sort of encyclopædia to the Talmud, of which only the first letter appeared.

38 Menahem Azariah de Rossi, an Italian Jew who flourished in the first half of the sixteenth century. His great work, מאור עינים, _Meor Enayim_, “Light of the Eyes,” is the first attempt made by a Jew to submit the statements of the Talmud to a critical examination, and to question the value of tradition in its historical records.

39 פרקי דריי אליעזר.

40 Italian Jews of the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. The one, Elijah Delmedigo, wrote an Examination of Religion, whilst his grandson, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, wrote various pamphlets of a deeply sceptical character. See Geiger’s Introduction to his _Melo Chofnayim_ (Berlin, 1840).

41 גאון, “The Great One.” The authorities of the Babylonian schools after the sixth century were also called the Gaonim (גאונים), “[their] Eminences.” The title was also given afterwards to great Rabbis distinguished for their learning.

42 R. Joseph Caro (1488‐1575) lived in Safed. The title of his code is שלחן ערוך, _Prepared Table_. This is a code of the Oral Law compiled from the Rabbinic literature.

43 קדיה נאמנה, containing an account of the Jewish worthies of that city.

44 עלית אלירו.

45 A famous mystic of the sixteenth century, from Safed, who was the more admired the less his pupils understood him.

46 Hai was the last of the authorities called Gaon. With his death (1038) the schools of Babylon fell into decay and soon disappeared.

47 חגיגה, treating of the voluntary offerings brought by the pilgrims to Jerusalem.

48 גמרה, “Perfection or Supplementary Explanations.” By this is understood the interpretation given to the Mishnah by the schools in Palestine and Babylon. See above, note 12 to the Chassidim. [Transcriber’s Note: Footnote on the Tannaim and Amoraim.]

49 See Dean Church’s _St. Anselm_, from which this story is taken.

50 תוספתה, “Addition” (to the Mishnah), but also containing only the sayings and discussions of the period of the Tannaim.

51 סדר עולם, “Order of the World,” dealing with the Chronology of the Bible, and dating from about the end of the second century.

52 These “Minor Tractates” include, among others, treatises on proselytes, on the laws concerning funerals, the writing of the Law, and the like. Others are more of an edifying nature, treating of good manners, conduct, etc.

53 פבלת נלות.

54 שמונה עשרה, “Eighteen.” They are recited thrice a day, and form the original germ of the prayers, from which a very rich liturgy developed in the course of time.

55 The titles of the old authorities from 70 B.C. to 500 A.C. See above, note 12 to the Chassidim. [Transcriber’s Note: Footnote on the Tannaim and Amoraim.]

56 אב בית דין, נשיא, “Prince,” or “Patriarch,” religious head, of the Jews (not political), and “Father (or president) of the Court of Justice.”

57 מנחות, זבחים, “Sacrifices,” “Offerings.” They treat of the laws relating to sacrifices and meal‐offerings.

58 בלאים, the laws relating to diverse seeds and garments of diverse sorts. Cf. Deut. xxii. 9‐11.

59 מגיד, “Teller,” a sort of travelling preacher.

60 לולב, “palm branch.” Cf. Lev. xxiii. 40.

61 ישיבה, “High School,” or “Academy,” in which the Rabbinic literature is studied.

62 ישיבה עץ חיים.

63 סמבטיון, a mythical river which is supposed to stop its course on Sabbath.

64 בחורים, sing. בחור, “Young man,” by which term the Jews usually understand the _alumni_ of their Talmudical schools.

65 Levi b. Gershom (1286‐1344) is generally regarded as the greatest successor of Maimonides. Besides his rationalistic commentaries on the Bible, he wrote various treatises on metaphysics, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, etc.

66 בחינת עולם.

67 In Steinschneider’s _Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, under the name of Moses Nachmanides, pp. 1947‐1965, all the works which are ascribed to this author are put together, and also discussed as to their authenticity. There are only to be added the new edition of the _Derasha_ by Jellinek (Vienna, 1872), in which the variants from Schorr’s MS. (החלוץ, viii. 162) are already incorporated; a new edition of the זיכות, and the commentary to Is. lii.‐liii. by Steinschneider (Berlin, 1860); a _Sermon_ for the New Year, ed. by H. Berliner (_Libanon_, v. 564); and another Sermon at a wedding (?), ed. by Schorr (_Hechalus_, xii. 3). For the literature on Nachmanides, besides the references given by Steinschneider, in his _Catalogue_, and the Addenda, p. cxviii. (cf. also the pedigree in the _Catalogue_ 2305), see also Graetz, _Geschichte_, vii., pp. 112‐143, and p. 147 _seq._; Michael, אור החיים, No. 1125, and Weiss, דור דור ודערקיו, v. 4 _seq._; Perles’ _Monatsschrift_, 1860, p. 175; Zomber, _ibid._ 421; and Z. Frankel, _ibid._ 1868, p. 449, and _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, iv. 245 _seq._ For Nachmanides’ disputation we have to add M. Loeb in the _Révue des Études Juives_, xv. 1 _seq._, and xviii. 52 (about Abner), and Dr. Neubauer’s Essay on Jewish Controversy in the _Expositor_, vol. vii. (third series), p. 98 _seq._, with the references given there. See also his article on the Bahir and the Zohar in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, iv. 357. With regard to Nachmanides’ mystical system see the references to S. Sachs (whose remarks are most suggestive), Krochmal, and Jellinek in Steinschneider, col. 1949 and 1964, Perles’ _Monatsschrift_, 1858, p. 83 _seq._, and Steinschneider in the Heb. _Bibliographie_, i. 34. See also Professor Kaufmann’s _Die Geschichte der Attributenlehre_, and the references given in the index under this name. The _Novellæ_ by his son R. Nachman, alluded to in the text, are in the University Library, Cambridge (Add. 1187, 2). The פץ הנאולה is extant in the British Museum, MS. Add. 26,894, and the passage quoted by De Rossi is to be found on p. 163_b_, but a few words are erased by the censor. As to the poem given at the end of this paper, see Zunz, _Synagogale Poesie_, p. 478; Landshut, _Amude ha‐Abodah_ _s.v._, the references in Sachs’ _Religiöse Poesie der Juden_, and Luzzatto in the _Ozar Nechmad_, ii. 27. Compare also Professor Cheyne’s _The Origin of the Psalter_, p. 421.

68 New Year’s Day, on the first of Tishri. It is in autumn.

69 A famous Rabbi of the fifteenth century, known by his various casuistical and philosophical works.

70 Chiefly known through his controversial writings against the adherents of the pseudo‐Messiah Shabbethai Tsebi. He was for some time the Rabbi of the Portuguese congregation in London.

71 The main objections of the opponents of Maimonides were directed against his rationalistic notions of Revelation, and his allegorising interpretation of the Scriptures, which amounted in some places to a denial of miracles. He was also suspected of having denied bodily resurrection. A history of Jewish rationalism is still a desideratum. I am certain that it would prove at least as interesting as Reuter’s _Geschichte der religiösen Aufklärung im Mittelalter_ (Berlin, 1845‐60).

72 רבינו משה.

73 אגדות, “Homilies.” See above, p. 64 and _note_.

74 קץ הנאולה, “The end of the Redemption,” that is the time when the advent of the Messiah is to be expected.

75 This patriarch is famous in Jewish legend for his hospitality. See Beer’s _Leben Abrahams_, pp. 37 and 56.

76 This is the quorum necessary to form a congregation (עדת) for the purpose of holding divine service.

77 By _Zobah_, or _Aram Zobah_, the Jews of the Middle Ages usually understood Aleppo. See Benjamin of Tudela’s _Itinerary_, i. 88, ii. 124 (London and Berlin, 1840‐41).

78 See below, p. 141, where a full translation of the letter is given.

79 הלכות גדולות, a compendium of the Law, dating from the ninth century, by R. Simon Caro.

80 R. Simlai flourished in Palestine in the third century. He is best known as an Agadic teacher and a great controversialist. According to him, 613 commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, of which 365 are prohibitive laws, whilst the remaining 248 are positive injunctions.

81 שער הנמול, “Treatise on Reward (and Punishment).”

82 עלם הבא.

83 Ps. cix. 4; ואנ תפלה.

84 אצילות.

85 נפש חיח.

86 ידיעה, “Knowledge,” “Foreknowledge,” “Omniscience.”

87 בכוד, שבינה.

88 סגולה. See Exod. xix. 5.

89 חקים.

90 קרב, קרבן.

91 According to a Jewish tradition (the date of which is uncertain) the advent of the Messiah, the Son of David, will be preceded by that of the Messiah, the Son of Joseph. The latter will perish in the battle against Gog and Magog (the Antichrist of Jewish literature), but will soon be brought back to life on the appearance of the former. Cf. G. H. Dalman’s _Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synagoge_ (Berlin, 1881).

92 בראשית, “In the beginning,” Gen. i. 1.

93 מאין; Job xxvii. 12.

94 _Chagigah_ 14_b_. The activity of these four Rabbis falls chiefly in the second century. R. Akiba died as a martyr in the Hadrianic persecution (about 130). Elisha b. Abuyah, the apostate, was usually called אחר, _Acher_, “the other one.”

95 The former lived in the twelfth, the latter in the sixteenth, century. They are both known for their hostility to philosophy.

96 Bachya wrote in the eleventh century a famous book called חובות חלבבות, _The Duties of the Heart_. For the others see above, p. 13 and _note_, p. 49 and _note_, p. 102 and _note_, p. 97 and _note_, p. 71 and _note_. They all belong to the rationalistic school.

97 A younger contemporary of Maimonides, who translated the _Guide_ from Arabic into Hebrew.

98 ספר המשקל. See above, p. 18. R. Moses Cordovora, the author of the סררם, lived in Safed in the sixteenth century. For R. Isaac Loria, the author of the עץ החיים, see above, note 5 to Elijah Wilna.

99 שושן סודות.

100 סשר הבהיר, a forgery by a Provençal Jew of the thirteenth century, who attributed it to a Rabbi of the first century.

101 This hymn is now incorporated in her excellent little book, _Songs of Zion_, pp. 13‐15.

102 זהוב, a gold piece. The country and the date of the writer not being certain, it is impossible to determine the value of this coin.

103 The lawfulness of eating this fish (= sturgeon?) was contested for many centuries, and the controversy still continues.

104 פשוט, a smaller coin than the Zehub.

105 שמע, “Hear,” the verses from Deut. vi. 4‐9, xi. 13‐21, and Num. xv. 37‐41, recited twice a day by the Jews.

106 _Sabbath_, 30_b_.

107 מנהג, pl. מנהגים (_Minhagim_), applied usually to those ritual customs and ceremonies for which there is no distinct authority in the Scriptures or even in the Talmud.

108 _Jerusalem_, in Mendelssohn’s _Sämmtliche Werke_ (Vienna, 1838), especially from p. 264 onwards, and a letter by him published in Frankel‐Graetz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1859, p. 173. For Mendelssohn’s position, see Graetz’s _Geschichte_, xi. 86 _seq._, especially p. 88 and note 1; Kayserling, _Leben und Werke_ of M., 2d ed., p. 394; Steinheim, _Moses Mendelssohn_ (Hamburg, 1840), p. 30 _seq._; Holdheim, _Moses Mendelssohn_ (Berlin, 1859), p. 18 _seq._; Leopold Löw’s pamphlet, _Jüdische Dogmen_ (Pesth, 1871).

109 See the Commentaries on Maimonides’ סשר המצות, especially R. Simeon Duran’s זוהר הרקיע; cf. also ancient and modern commentaries on Exod. xx. 2.

110 See _Siphra_ (ed. Weiss), pp. 86_b_, 93_b_.

111 _Baba Bathra_, 14_b_; cf. Fürst’s _Kanon_, p. 15.

112 See _Sanhedrin_, 38_b_, and _Pseudo‐Jonathan_ to Gen. iv. 8.

113 _Mechilta_, 33_b_.

114 אפיקורוס, Lat. Epicurus.

115 See _Mishnah_, _Sanhedrin_, x. e, § 1, and Talmud, _ibid._ 90_a_ and _b_, and Rabbinowicz’s _Variae Lectiones_, ix. p. 247 notes. Besides the ordinary commentaries on the Talmud, account must also be taken of the remarks of Crescas, Duran, Albo, and Abarbanel on the subject. Cf. also Kämpf in the _Monatsschrift_ (1863), p. 144 _seq._; Oppenheim, _ibid._ (1864), p. 144; Friedmann in the _Beth Talmud_, i. p. 210 _seq._ See also Talmudical Dictionaries, _s.v._ אפיקורום. The explanation I have adopted agrees partly with Friedmann’s and partly with Oppenheim’s views.

116 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iii. § 9, and iv. § 22.

117 See אדרת אליהו (Jovslow, 1835), p. 48. In my exposition of the dogmas of the Caraites I have mainly followed the late Dr. Frankl’s article “Karaiten” in Ersch u. Gruber’s _Encyclopädie_ (sec. ii. vol. xxxvi. pp. 12‐18). See also his _Ein mutazilitischer Kalam_ and his _Beiträge zur Literaturgeschichte der Karäer_ (Berlin, 1887) on Bashazi. Cf. also Jost’s _Geschichte_, ii. c. 13.

118 Kairowan was one of the greatest centres of Jewish learning in North Africa during that period.

119 See, however, Professor D. Kaufmann’s note in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, i. p. 441. From this it would seem that the creed of R. Judah Hallevi may be formulated in the following articles:—The conviction of the existence of God, of His eternity, of His guidance of our fathers, of the Divine Origin of the Law, and of the proof of all this, the pledge or token of its truth, the exodus from Egypt.

120 אמונה רמה, _Emunah Ramah_, pp. 44 and 69; cf. Gulmann, _Monatsschrift_, 1878, p. 304.

121 For the various translations of the Thirteen Articles which were originally composed in Arabic, see Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. col. 1887. Cf. Rosin, _Ethik des Maimonides_, p. 30; Weiss, _Beth Talmud_, i. p. 330, and _Ben Chananjah_, 1863, p. 942, and 1864, pp. 648 and 697, and Landshut, עמודי העבודה, p. 231.

122 מנחת קנאות. See pp. 1‐16.

123 See _Hammaskir_, viii. pp. 63 and 103.

124 See Steinschneider, _Cat. München_, No. 210.

125 See the Collection דברי הבמימ, by Ashkenazi, pp. 56_b_ _seq._

126 See Albo, c. iii. Probably identical with the author mentioned by Duran, 13_b_.

127 ספר נצחון, “Sepher Nizzachon.”

128 See אור ה (ed. Johannisburg), preface, and pp. 20_a_, 44_b_, 59_b_, and elsewhere. The style of this author is very obscure. Cf. Joel’s pamphlet on this author (Breslau, 1874).

129 See the first pages of the מגן (Leghorn, 1758), and his משסם, pp. 13 _seq._

130 עקרים, _Ikkarim_, “Fundamentals.”

131 See _Ikkarim_, i. c. 23, and Maimonides’ _Commentary on the Mishnah_ (end of tractate Maccoth). On Albo compare Schlesinger’s Introduction and notes to the _Ikkarim_, Joel’s pamphlet, p. 82; Paulus, _Monatsschrift_, 1874, p. 463, and Brüll’s _Jahrb._ iv. p. 52.

132 I know his work from a MS. in the British Museum, Orient. 39.

133 דרך אמונה, _Derech Emunah_. Cf. Steinschneider, _Monatsschrift_, 1883, p. 79 _seq._

134 See עקידת יצחק, gate 55.

135 See his ימוד האמונה and מאמר האחרות.

136 ראש אמנה.

137 See בהיגת הדת, ed. Reggio, p. 28.

138 See מעשה מבית (Venice, 1707), 16_a_ and 23_a_. His language is very vague.

139 See the Collection by Ashkenazi (as above, note 18), p. 29_b_.

140 See his בשמים ראש, p. 331.

141 See Weiss’s admirable monograph on Maimonides, published in the _Beth Talmud_, i.

142 The Hebrew title of the work is דור דור ורורשיו.

143 That is, vows of an ascetic nature (not vows or oaths enforced by a court of justice), which the tribunal could annul when there was sufficient reason for it.

144 The ten Rabbis who are named as the bearers of tradition during the period between 170 and 30 B.C. The “pair” in each case is supposed to have consisted of the president and the vice‐president of the Sanhedrin for the time being. See, however, Kuenen, _Gesammelte Schriften_, p. 49 _seq._

145 דרשנים גדולים.

146 הלכות למשה מסיני. They amount, in the whole of Rabbinic literature, to about forty, of which more than ten concern the preparation of the phylacteries, whilst others relate to the libations of water at the Feast of Tabernacles and similar subjects.

147 This is the time when the school of R. Johanan b. Zaccai began its activity. Others place the Tannaitic age in Hillel’s time (30 B.C.).

148 בת קרל.

149 בית דין, lit. “Court of Justice,” as above, note 16 to Elijah Wilna, but it means also a sort of permanent Synod, in which of course justice was also administered as a part of religion.

150 עדיות, “Evidences given by Witnesses.” The tractate consists mostly of a number of laws attested by various Rabbis as having come down to them as old traditions.

151 The family of Hillel, which was supposed to be descended from the house of David, supplied the Jews with patriarchs for many generations. Gamaliel II. flourished about 120 A.C., whilst Simon b. Gamaliel’s activity as Patriarch falls about 160 A.C.

152 שמכות, _Semachoth_. It is a euphemistic title, the tractate dealing with the laws relating to funeral ceremonies and mourning.

153 מבוראי, “Elucidators” or “Explainers.” The heads of the schools in Babylon during the fifth and sixth centuries were so designated.

154 The Rabbinic Jews of the dispersion add one day to each festival, and thus celebrate the Passover eight days, the Feast of Weeks two days, etc. The custom arose out of the uncertainty about the first day of the month, the prerogative of fixing the New Moon resting with the great _Beth Din_ in Palestine, which had not always the means of communicating in time the evidence given before them that the New Moon had been seen by qualified witnesses. The prerogative was abolished in the fourth century, and the calendar fixed for all future time, but the additional day is still kept by the Rabbinic Jews as the “Custom of their Fathers.”

155 שיעור קומה, היכלות, “Chambers (of Heaven)” and the “Measure of the Stature,” mystical works in which occasionally gross anthropomorphisms are to be found. Their authorship is unknown.

156 _Sabbath_, 55_a_.

157 _Sayings of the Fathers_ (ed. C. Taylor), v. 12‐15. See also _Sabbath_, 32 _seq._, and _Mechilta_ (ed. Friedman), 95_b_. _Arachin_, 16_a_.

158 See _Mechilta_, 25_a_, 32_b_. _Gen. Rabbah_, ch. 48, and _Tossephta Sotah_, iv. 7, and parallels.

159 _Taanith_, 21_a_.

160 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iv. 5.

161 _Baba Bathra_, 9_b_.

162 _Yoma_, 39_a_.

163 _Berachoth_, 33_a_.

164 _Sabbath_, 13_b_.

165 _Berachoth_, 7_a_.

166 See _Mechilta_, 68_b_, and parallels. _Siphra_, 112_b_. _Pessikta_ of R. Kahana, 167_b_. Cp. _Sanhedrin_, 44_a_.

167 _Aboth_ de R. Nathan, 40_a_, 59_b_, and 62_b_.

168 _Baba Bathra_, 10_a_.

169 _Eccles. Rabbah_, ix. 7.

170 5_a_.

171 7_b_.

172 See _Mechilta_, 95_b_, and parallels.

173 See _Kiddushin_, 40_b_. _Mechilta_, 63_b_. _Lev. Rabbah_, iv.

174 See _Sabbath_, 54_a_.

175 _Exodus Rabbah_, c. 35, and parallels.

176 See _Negaim_, ii. 1.

177 _Exod. Rabbah_, c. 46.

178 _Taanith_, 11_a_.

179 See _Berachoth_, 5_a_.

180 _Tanchuma_, כי תצא, § 2. Cp. _Mechilta_, 72_b_.

181 _Siphré_, 73_b_, and parallels.

182 _Taanith_, 8_a_.

183 _Arachin_, 16_b_.

184 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iv. 15.

185 See _Chagigah_, 5_a_.

186 _Sabbath_, 55_a_.

187 _Menachoth_, 29_b_.

188 _Taanith_, 25_a_.

189 _Gen. Rabbah_, xxvii.; _Pessikta_, 136_b_; _Sanhedrin_, vi. 5; _Berachoth_, 7_a_.

190 _Sayings of the Fathers_, i. 3, p. 27, ed. Taylor. See also note 8.

191 _Abodah Zarah_, 19_a_; _Siphré_, 79_b_.

192 _Berachoth_, 58_b_.

193 See _Exod. R._, 30, and parallels.

194 See ראשית חבמה, i. 9.

195 See רמתים נמים, 33_b_.

196 See _Sabbath_, 55_b_, and _Siphra_, 27_a_.

197 _Judaism and Christianity, a Sketch of the Progress of Thought from Old Testament to New Testament_, by C. H. Toy, Professor in Harvard University. London, 1890.

198 See _Pessikta_ of R. Kahana, 61_b_, and parallels, and _Erubin_, 13_b_.

199 Tal. Jer., _Sabbath_, 5_b_.

200 מטטרון, the name of an angel, already found in the Talmud, but playing a more important part in the _Book of Chambers_, where he is identified with Enoch. The etymology of the word is doubtful, some authors considering it to be of Persian origin (_Mithra_); others again deriving it from the Greek μετὰ τύραννον, or μετὰ θρόνον.

201 ספירות.

202 מימרא, “The Word,” sometimes substituted for God. See J. Levy’s _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch_, _s.v._

203 בחר, אדם קדמון.

204 _Mechilta_, 104_a_.

205 See Tal. Jer., _Yoma_, 45_b_. Cf. Maimonides, _Mishneh Torah_, הלבות שבת פב הג.

206 _Tosephta Berackoth_, iii. 7.

207 _Sabbath_, 10_b_. The name of the Rabbi is not given, but the fact that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (160 A.C.) already refers to this interpretation makes it clear that its anonymous author must have lived at least a generation before.

208 כום של קדוש.

209 See _Midrash_ to the Psalms xcii. and _Deut. Rabbah_ iii. The Rabbis perceived in the words וקראת לשבת עננ (Isa. lviii. 13), a command to make the Sabbath a day of pleasure, whilst the word הסצף was understood by them to mean “needs,” “wants,” or “business” (_not_ “pleasure”). Cf. _Sabbath_, 113_a_ and _b_.

210 See _Gen. Rabbah_, xi. (and parallels), and _Sabbath_, 119_a_.

211 See _Maaseh Torah_ (ed. Schönblum) and _Deut. Rabbah_, i.

212 _Sabbath_, 25_b_ and 119_a_.

213 _Betsah_, 16_a_. Cf. Baer’s notes in his _Prayer‐Book_, p. 203 _seq._

214 See _Sabbath_, 119_b_, and _Gen. Rabbah_, xi.

215 See _Sabbath_, 10_b_, and _Gen. Rabbah_, _ibid._

216 תפלין.

217 _Nazir_, 23_b_.

218 אור זרוה by R. Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (thirteenth century), mostly on legal subjects.

219 יוחסין, Yuchasin.

220 מכלל, Miklal.

221 זרעים, מועד, the former treating of the agricultural laws of the Bible, the latter of those relating to the Sabbath, Passover, and other festivals.

222 מחזר, “Cycle,” containing the liturgy for the festivals.

223 Since then edited by the Mekize Nirdamim.

224 Eve of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

225 ששח סדרים. ש֜֜ם.

226 ברייתה.

227 פאה.

228 ילקות, Yalkut.

229 חזית.

230 ישוהר נשב.

231 ויסען.

232 ילמרנו והזחיר.

233 רעיא מחימנא.

234 עמק המלך, משנה למלך, מגיד משנה, משנה תורה, ששר המלך.

235 ח֜֜ם שאל.

236 חד גדיא לא ישראל.

237 שני לוחות הכרית. ש֜֜לה.

238 The main authorities on the subjects of this essay are _Die Lebensalter_, by Dr. Leopold Löw; _The Jewish Rite of Circumcision_, by Dr. Asher; an article by Dr. Perles in the Graetz _Jubelschrift_, p. 23 _seq._; _Merkwürdigkeiten der Juden_, by Schudt; the מקורי המנהגים and other works on ritual customs; Güdemann’s _Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden_; and _Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker_, by Dr. Ploss.

239 אמתי, אמת.

240 לילית, Is. xxxiv. 14.

241 See above, note 39 to Nachmanides. [Transcriber’s Note: The footnote on _Shema_.]

242 ברית מילה, “Covenant of Circumcision.” This is the usual expression in Hebrew literature for the rite of circumcision.

243 שלום זכר.

244 גוזר, מוהל.

245 פדיון הבן.

246 הקת תהורה, on educational matters.

247 סחורה, “business,” or “wares.”

248 I am indebted for the English adaptation to Mrs. Henry Lucas.

249 _Bereshith Rabbah_, chapter xx. For another reading see ראשית הכמה (ed. Cracow), p. 374.

250 _Abodah Zarah_, 3_b_.

251 This is the way in which Deut. xxxi. 10‐12 was explained.

252 סופרים, “Scribes”; treating of the regulations concerning the writing of the Law, but containing also much liturgical matter.

253 סשרדים, by which name the Jews of the Spanish rite are designated.

254 נצראן ישן, a controversial work published by Wagenseil. See above, p. 203, for another victory.

255 סנדלפון, who is probably known to the English reader from Longfellow’s poem.

256 בר מצוה.

257 קידוש, “Sanctification”—“benediction”—on the eve of Sabbath, which is pronounced over a cup of wine.

258 שמכת תורה, or on the 23rd of Tishri, when the last portion from the Pentateuch is read.

259 הלל, “Praise,” _i.e._ Ps. cxiii.‐cxviii.

260 קדִש, the name of a prayer commencing יתגדל ויתקדש, “Magnified and sanctified be,” etc.

261 Prayer beginning ברכו, “Bless ye,” etc.

262 ברוך שאמר, beginning of a prayer, “Blessed be He,” etc.

263 See Schürer’s _Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom_, p. 24. Cf. _Hebräische Bibliographie_, xix. p. 79.

264 זבאת.

265 תהנות.

266 מעבר יכק.

267 יעמוד. In olden times the weekly lesson from the Law used to be read by seven members of the congregation who were “called up” for this purpose; the Priest and the Levite took precedence of laymen for this honour. At the present day, the members of the congregation are still called up, but the actual reading is performed by an official.