Tos. Neg. vi. no case of leprosy of houses had ever occurred, but was only mentioned in Scripture, in order to give occasion to legal studies, so as to procure a Divine reward.] according to the Old Testament, defilement was conveyed only by the animal body, and attached to no other living body than that of man, nor could any other living body than that of man communicate defilement. The Old Testament mentioned eleven principal kinds of defilement. These, as being capable of communicating further defilement, were designated Abhoth hattumeoth, 'fathers of defilements', the defilement which they produced being either itself an Abh hattumeah, or else a 'Child,' or a 'Child's Child of defilement' ( ). We find in Scripture thirty-two Abhoth hattumeoth, as they are called. To this Rabbinic tradition added other twenty-nine. Again, according to Scripture, these 'fathers of defilements' affected only in two degrees; the direct effect produced by them being designated 'the beginning,' or 'the first,' and that further propagated, 'the second' degree. But Rabbinic ordinances added a third, fourth, and even fifth degree of defilement. [5 I have here followed, or rather summarised, Maimonides. It was, of course, impossible to give even the briefest details.] From this, as well as the equallyintricate arrangements about purification, the Mishnic section about 'clean and unclean' is at the same time the largest and most intricate in the Rabbinic code, while its provisious touched and interfered, more than any others, with every department of life.
In the elaborate code of defilements leprosy was not only one of'the fathers of uncleanness,' but, next to defilement from the dead, stood foremost amongst them. Not merely actual contact with the leper, but even his entrance defiled a habitation, [a Kel. i. 1-4.] and
everything in it, to the beams of the roof, [b Neg. xiii. 11.] But beyond this, Rabbinic harshness or fear carried its provisions to the utmost sequences of an unbending logic. It is, indeed, true that, as in general so especially in this instance, Rabbinism loved to trace disease to moral causes. 'No death without sin, and no pain without transgression;' [c Shabb. 55 a.] 'the sick is not healed, till all his sins are forgiven him.' [d Nedar. 41 a.] These are oftrepeated sayings; but, when closely examined, they are not quite so spiritual as they sound. For, first, they represent a reaction against the doctrine of original sin, in the sense that it is not the Fall of man, but one's actual trangression, to which disease and death are to be traced according to the saying: 'Not the serpent kills, but sin.' [e Ber. 33 a.] [1 The story, of which this saying is the moral, is that of the crushing of a serpent by the great miracle-monger Chanina ben Dosa, without his being hurt. But I cannot help feeling that a double entendre is here intended, on the one hand, that even a serpent could not hurt one like Chanina, and, on the other, the wider bearing on the real cause of death: not our original state, but our actual sin.] But their real unspirituality appears most clearly, when we remember how special diseases were traced to particular sins. Thus, [f Ber. 5 b.] childlessness and leprosy are described as chastisements, which indeed procure for the sufferer forgiveness of sins, but cannot, like other chastisements, be regarded as the outcome of love, nor be received in love. [2 The Midrash enumerates four as in that category: the poor, the blind, the childless, and the leprous.] And even such sentiments in regard to sufferings [g Ber. 5 a.] are immediately followed by such cynical declarations on the part of Rabbis so afflicted, as that they loved neither the chastisement, nor its reward, [h Ber. 5 b.] And in regard to leprosy, tradition had it that, as leprosy attached to the house, the dress, or the person, these were to be regarded as always heavier strokes, following as each successive warning had been neglected, and a reference to this was seen in Prov. xix. 29. [i Bemidb. R. 13.] [3 From Zech. xiv. 12 it was inferred, that this leprosy would smite the Gentiles even in the Messianic age (Tanchuma, Tazria, end).] Eleven sins are mentioned [k Tanch. on Hammetsora 4; ed. Lemberg ii. p. 24 a.] which bring leprosy, among them pre-eminently those of which the tongue is the organ, [m u. s., 2, p.23 a; Arach. 15 b; and in many passages.]
Still, if such had been the real views of Rabbinism one might have expected that Divine compassion would have been extended to those, who bore such heavy burden of their sins. Instead of this, their burdens were needlessly increased. True, as wrapped in mourner's garb the leper passed by, his cry 'Unclean!' was to incite others to pray for him, but also to avoid him. [a Moed K.]. No one was even to salute him; his bed was to be low, inclining towards the ground, [b u.s. 15 a]. If he even put his head into a place, it became unclean. No less a distance than four cubits (six feet) must be kept from a leper; or, if the wind came from that direction, a hundred were scarcely sufficient. Rabbi Meir would not eat an egg purchased in a street where there was a leper. Another Rabbi boasted, that he always threw stones at them to keep them far off, while others hid themselves or ran away, [c Vayyik. R. 16. [Leprosy is there brought into connection with calumny] [1 And yet Jewish symbolism saw in the sufferings of Israel and the destruction of the Temple the real fulfilment of the punishment of leprosy with its attendant ordinances, while it also traced in the healing of that disease and the provisions for declaring the leper clean, a close analogy to what would happen in Israel's restoration (Vayyikra R. 15, 17; Yalkut i. par. 551, 563).] To such extent did Rabbinism carry its inhuman logic in considering the leper as a mourner, that it even forbade him to wash his face, [d Moed. K 15 a.]
We can now in some measure appreciate the contrast between Jesus and His contemporaries in His bearing towards the leper. Or, conversely, we can judge by the healing of
this leper of the impression which the Saviour had made upon the people. He would have fled from a Rabbi; he came in lowiest attitude of entreaty to Jesus. Criticism need not so anxiously seek for an explanation of his approach. There was no Old Testament precedent for it: not in the case of Moses, nor even in that of Elisha, and there was no Jewish expectancy of it. But to have heard Him teach, to have seen or known Him as healing all manner of disease, must have carried to the heart the conviction of His absolute power. And so one can understand this lowly reverence of approach, this cry which has so often since been wrung from those who have despaired of all other help: If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.' It is not a prayer, but the ground-tone of all prayer, faith in His Power, and absolute committal to Him of our helpless, hopeless need. And Jesus, touched with compassion, willed it. It almost seems, as if it were in the very exuberance of power that Jesus, acting in so direct contravention of Jewish usage, touched the leper. It was fitting that Elisha should disappoint Naaman's expectancy, that the prophet would heal his leprosy by the touch of his hand. It was even more fitting that Jesus should surprise the Jewish leper by touching, ere by His Word He cleansed him. And so, experience ever finds that in Christ the real is far beyond the ideal. We can understand, how. from his standpoint, Stauss should have found it impossible to understand the healing of leprosy by the touch and Word of Jesus. Its explanation lies in the fact, that He was the God-Man. And yet, as our inner tending after God and the voice of conscience indicate that man is capable of adoption into God's family, so the marked power which in disease mind has over body points to a higher capability in Man Perfect, the Ideal Man, the God-Man, of vanquishing disease by His Will.
It is not quite so easy at first sight to understand, why Christ should with such intense earnestness, almost vehemence, [1 On this term see the first note in this chapter.] have sent the healed man away, as the term bears, 'cast him out.' [2 This, however, as Godet has shown (Comm. on St. Luke, German transl., p. 137), does not imply that the event took place either in a house or in a town, as most commentators suppose. It is strange that the 'Speaker's Commentary,' following Weiss, should have located the incident in a Synagogue. It could not possibly have occurred there, unless all Jewish ordinances and customs had been reversed.] Certainly not (as Volkmar, fantastically in error on this, as on so many other points, imagines) because He disapproved of his worship. Rather do we once more gather, how the God-Man shrank from the fame connected with miracles, specially with such an one, which as we have seen, were rather of inward and outward necessity than of choice in His Mission. Not so, followed by a curious crowd, or thronged by eager multitudes of sight-seers, or aspirants for temporal benefits, was the Kingdom of Heaven to be preached and advanced. It would have been the way of a Jewish Messiah, and have led up to His royal proclamation by the populace. But as we study the character of the Christ, no contrast seems more glaring, let us add, more painful, than that of such a scene. And so we read that, when, notwithstanding the Saviour's charge to the healed leper to keep silence, it was nevertheless, nay, as might perhaps have been expected all the more made known by him, as, indeed, in some measure it could scacely have remained entirely unknown, He could no more, as before, enter the cities, but remained without in desert places, whither they came to Him from every quarter. And in that withdrawal He spoke, and healed, 'and prayed.'
Yet another motive of Christ's conduct may be suggested. His injunction of silence was combined with that of presenting himself to the priest and conforming to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law in such cases. [1 The Rabbinic ordinances as to the ritual in such cases are in Neg. xiv. See 'The Temple and its Services' pp. 315-317. Special attention was to be given, that
the water with which the purified leper was sprinkled was from a pure, flowing spring (six different collections of water, suited to different kinds of impurity, being described in Miqv. i. 1-8). From Parah viii. 10 we gather, that among other rivers even the Jordan was not deemed sufficiently pure, because in its course other streams, which were not lawful for such purfication, had mingled with it.] It is scarcely necessary to refute the notion, that in this Christ was prompted either by the desire to see the healed man restored to the society of his
