sages wore it down to the feet. It was covered by the upper garment or Tallith to within about a handbreath. [e. Baha B. 57 b.] The Chalug lay close to the body, and had no other opening than that round the neck and for the arms. At the bottom it had a kind of hem. To posses only one such 'coat' or inner garment was a mark of proverty. [f Meod. K.14 a.] Hence, when the Apostles were sent on their temporary mission, they were direted not to take 'two coats.' [g St. Matt. x. 10, and parallels.] Closely similar to, if not identical with, the Chaluq, was the ancient garment mentioned in the Old Testament as Kethoneth, to which the Greek 'Chiton' ( ) corresponds. As the garment which our Lord wore, [h St. John xix. 23.] [As to the mode of weaving such garments, see the pictorial illustration in Braunius, Vest. Sacred. Hebraeor., which is reproduced, with full details for various other works, in Hartmanns Hebr. am
Putzt. vol. i., explanatory notes being added at the beginning of vol. iii. Sammter's note in his edition of B. Mezia, p. 151 a, is only a reproduction of Hartmann's remarks.] and those of which
well-know Kethoneth or Rabbinic Kittuna. This might be of almost any material, even leather, though it was generally of wool or flax. It was sleeved, close-fitting, reached to the ankles, and was fastened round the loins, or just under the breast, [Comp. Rev. i. 13.] by a girdle. One kind of the latter, the Pundah or Aphundah, [5 It was worn outside (Jer. Ber. 14 c, top). This is the girdle which was not to be worn in the Temple, probably as being that of a person engaged in business.] was provided with pockets or other receptacles, [6 This is the explanation of the Aruch (ed. Landau, i. p. 157 b).] and hence might not be worn outside by those who went into the Temple, [a Jer. Ber. 14 c, top.] probably to indicate that he who went to worship should not be engaged in, nor bear mark of, any other occupation.
Of the two other garments mentioned as parts of a man's toilette, the Aphqarsin or Aphikarsus seems to have been an article of luxury rather than of necessity. Its precise purpose is difficult to determine. A comparison of the passages in which the term occurs conveys the impression, that it was a large kerchief used partly as a head- gear, and which hung down and was fastened under the right arm. [b Kel. xxix. 1; Ber. 23 b; 24 b, in the sense of kerchief worn in an accessible position; Pesiqt. 15 b, as lying close to the body and yet contracting dust; Jer. Ber. 4 c, line 14 from top, as used for wrapping the upper part of the body.] [1 This passage is both curious and difficult. It seems to imply that the Aphqarsin was a garment worn in summer, close to the body, and having sleeves.] Probably it was also used for the upper part of the body. But the circumstance that, unlike the other articles of dress, it need not be rent in mourning, [c Jer. Moed, K. 83 d.] and that, when worn by females,it was regarded as a mark of wealth, [d Nidd. 48 1.] shows that it was not a necessary article of dress, and hence that, in all liklihood, it was not worn by Christ. It was otherwise with the upper garment. Various shapes and kinds of such were in use, from the coarser Boresin and Bardesin, the modern Burnoose, upwards. The Gelima was a cloak of which 'the border,' or 'hem,' is specially mentioned (). [e Sanh. 102 b, and often.] The Gunda was a peculiarly Pharisaic garb, [f Sot. 22 b.] But the upper garment which Jesus wore would be either the so-called Goltha, or, most likely, the Tallith. Both the Goltha [g Jer, Sanh. 28 c] and the Tallith [h Menach. 37 b.] were provided, on the four borders, with the so-called Tsitsith, or 'fringes.' These were attached to the four corners of the outer dress, in supposed fulfilment of the command, Numb. xv. 38-41; Deut. xxii. 12. At first, this observance seems to have been comparatively simple. The question as to the number of filaments on these 'frings' was settled in accordance with the teaching of the School of Shammai. Four filaments (not three, as the Hillelites proposed), each of four finger- lengths (these, as later tradition put it, doubled), and attached to the four corners of what must be a strictly square garment, such were the earliest rules on the subject, [i Siphre, ed. Friedmann, p. 117 a.] The Mishnah leaves it still a comparatively open question, whether these filaments were to be blue or white, [k Menach. iv. 1.] But the Targum makes a strong point of it as between Moses and Korah, that there was to be a filament of hyacinth colour among four of white, [m Targ. Ps., Jon. on Numb. xvi. 2.] It seems even to implythe peculiar symbolical mode of knotting them at present in use. [n u. s. on Numb. xv. 38.] Further symbolic details were, of course, added in the course of time. [2 The number of knots andthreads at present counted are, of course, later additions. The little tractate Tsitsith Kirchheim, Septem Libri Talm. P. pp. 22-24 is merely a summary. The various authorities on the subject, and not a few have been consulted, are more or less wanting in clearness and defective. Comp. p. 277, note 2, of this
volume.] As these fringes were attached to the corners of any square garment, the question, whether the upper garment which Jesus wore was the Goltha or the Tallith, is of secondary importance. But as all that concerns His Sacred Person is of deepest interest, we may be allowed to state our belief in favour of the Tallith. Both are mentioned as distinctive dresses of teachers, but the Goltha (so far as it differed from the Tallith) seems the more peculiarly Rabbinic.
We can now form an approximate idea of the outward appearance of Jesus on that spring-morning amidst the throng at Capernaum. He would, we may safely assume, go about in the ordinary, although not in the more ostentatious, dress, worn by the Jewish teachers of Galilee. His head-gear would probably be the Sudar (Sudarium) would into a kind of turban, or perhaps the Maaphoreth, [1 The difference between it and the Aphqarsin seems to be, that the latter was worn and fastened inside the dress. The Maaphoreth would in some measure combine the uses of the Sudar and the Aphqarsin.] which seems to have served as a covering for the head, and to have descended over the back of the neck and shoulders, somewhat like the Indian pugaree. His feet were probably shod with sandals. The Chaluq, or more probably the Kittuna, which formed his inner garment, must have been close- fitting, and descended to His feet, since it was not only so worn by teachers, but was regarded as absolutely necessary for any one who would publicly read or 'Targum' the Scriptures, or exercise any function in the Synagogue, [a Tos. Megill. iv. p. 45 b, lines 17 and 16 from bottom.] As we know, it 'was without seam, woven from the top throughout;' [b St. John xix. 23.] and this closely accords with the texture of these garments. Round the middle it would be fastened with a girdle. [2 Canon Westcott (Speaker's Comment.on St. John xix. 23) seems to imply that the girdle was worn outside the loose outer garment. This was not the case.] Over this inner, He would most probably wear the square outer garment, or Tallith, with the customary fringes of four long white threads with one of hyacinth knotted together on each of the four corners. There is reason to believe, that three square garments were made with these 'fringes,' although, by way of ostentation, the Pharisees made them particularly wide so as to attract attention, just as they made their phylacteries broad, [c St. Matt, xviii. 5.] Although Christ only denounced the latter practice, not the phylacteries themselves, it is impossible to believe that Himself ever wore them, either on the forehead or the arm. [3 On this subject I must take leave to refer to the Bibl. Cyclopaedias and to 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 220-224.] There was certainly no warrant for them in Holy Scripture, and only Pharisee externalism could represent their use as fulfilling the import of Exod. xiii. 9, 16; Deut. vi. 8; xi. 18. The admission that neither the officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people, wore them in the Temple, [a Zebhach. 19 a, b.] seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal. For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long, or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom, and not merely; as the modern practice, to wear them only at prayer. [1 As the question is of considerable practical importance, the following, as bearing upon it, may be noticed. From Jer. Ber. 4 c, we gather: 1. That at one time it was the practice to wear the phylacteries all day long, in order to pass as pious. This is denounced as a mark of hypocrisy. 2. That it was settled, that phylacteries should be worn during a considerable part of the day, but not the whole day. [In Ber. 23 a to 24 a we have rules and discussions about depositing them under certain circumstances, and where to place them at night.] 3. That it was deemed objectionable to wear them only during prayer. 4. That celebrated Rabbis did not deem it necessary always to wear the phylacteries both on the head and on the arm. This seems to prove that their obligation could not have been regarded as absolutely binding. Thus, R. Jochanan wore those for the head only in winter, but not in summer, because then he did not wear a
headgear. As another illustration, that the wearing of phylacteries was not deemed absolutely requisite, the following passage may be quoted (Sanh. xi. 3): 'It is more culpable to transgress the words of the Scribes than those of the Torah. He that says, There are no phylacteries, transgresses the word of the Torah, and is not to be regarded as a rebel (literally, is free); but he who says, There are five compartments (instead of four), to add to the words of the Scribes, he is guilty.]
One further remark may be allowed before dismissing this subject. Our inquiries enable us in this matter also to confirm the accuracy of the Fourth Gospel. We read [b St. John xix. 23.] that the quaternion of soldiers who crucified Christ made division of the riches of His poverty, taking each one part of His dress, while for the fifth, which, if divided, would have had to be rent in pieces, they cast lots. This incidental remark carries evidence of the Judaean authorship of the Gospel in the accurate knowledge which it displays. The four pieces of dress to be divided would be the head-gear, the more expensive sandals or shoes, the long girdle, and the coarse Tallith, all about
