multitude; [f St. Matt. xv. 10; St. Mark vii. 14, 15.] next would follow the remark of the disciples and the reply of the Lord, spoken, probably, when they were again on the way; [g St. Matt. xv. 12-14.] and, lastly,the final explanation of Christ, after they had entered the house at Capernaum, [h St. Matt. xv. 15-20; St. Mark vii. 17-23.] In all probability a part of what is recorded in St. John vi. 24, &c. occurred also about the same time; the rest on the Sabbath which followed.
Although the cavil of the Jerusalem Scribes may have been occasioned by seeing some of the disciples eating without first having washed their hands, we cannot banish the impression that it reflected on the miraculously provided meal of the previous evening, when thousands had sat down to food without the previous observance of the Rabbinic ordinance. Neither in that case, nor in the present, had the Master interposed. He was, therefore, guilty of participation in their offence. So this was all which these Pharisees and Scribes could see in the miracle of Christ's feeding the Multitude—that it had not been done according to Law! Most strange as it may seem, yet in the past history of the Church, and, perhaps, sometimes also in the present, this has been the only thing
which some men have seen in the miraculous working of the Christ! Perhaps we should not wonder that the miracle itself made no deeper impression, since even the disciples 'understood not' (by reasoning) 'about the loaves' —however they may have accounted for it in a manner which might seem to them reasonable. But, in another aspect, the objection of the Scribes was not a mere cavil. In truth, it represented one of the great charges which the Pharisees brought against Jesus, and which determined them to seek His destruction.
It has already been shown, that they accounted for the miracles of Christ as wrought by the power of Satan, whose special representative—almostincarnation—they declared Jesus to be. This would not only turn the evidential force of these signs into an argument against Christ, but vindicate the resistance of the Pharisees to His claims. The second charge against Jesus was, that He was 'not of God;' that He was 'a sinner.' [a St. John ix. 16, 24.] If this could be established, it would, of course, prove that He was not the Messiah, but a deceiver who misled the people, and whom it was the duty of the Sanhedrin to unmask and arrest. The way in which they attempted to establish this, perhaps persuaded themselves that it was so, was by proving that He sanctioned in others, and Himself committed, breaches of the traditional law; which, according to their fundamental principles, involved heavier guilt than sins against the revealed Law of Moses. The third and last charge against Jesus, which finally decided the action of the Council, could only be fully made at the close of His career. It might be formulated so as to meet the views of either the Pharisees or Sadducees. To the former it might be presented as a blasphemous claim to equality with God—the Very Son of the Living God. To the Sadducees it would appear as a movement on the part of a most dangerous enthusiast-if honest and self-deceived, all the more dangerous; one of those pseudo-Messiahs who led away the ignorant, superstitious, and excitable people; and which, if unchecked, would result in persecutions and terrible vengeance by the Romans, and in loss of the last remnants of their national independence. To each of these three charges, of which we are now watching the opening or development, there was (from the then standpoint) only one answer: Faith in His Person. And in our time, also, this is the final answer to all difficulties and objections. To this faith Jesus was now leading His disciples, till, fully realised in the great confession of Peter, it became, and has ever since proved, the Rock on which that Church is built, against which the very gates of Hades cannot prevail.
It was in support of the second of these charges, that the Scribes now blamed the Master for allowing His disciples to eat without having previously washed, or, as St. Mark—indicating, as we shall see, in the word the origin of the custom-expresses it with graphic accuracy: 'with common hands.'[1 The word quite corresponds to the Jewish term. Notwithstanding the objection of the learned Bishop Haneberg (Relig. Alterth. p. 475, note 288) I believe it corresponds to the Rabbinic or profanus, in the sense of'common,' 'not hallowed.'] Once more we have to mark, how minutely conversant the Gospel narratives are with Jewish Law and practice. This will best appear from a brief account of this 'tradition of the elders,' [2 The fullest account of it within reach of ordinary readers is in the Notes to Pocock's Porta Mosis (pp. 350-402) though it is confused, not quite accurate, and based chiefly on later Jewish authorities. Spencer (de Leg. Hebr. pp. 1175-1179) only adds references to similar Gentile rites. Goodwin, even under the revision of Hottinger (pp. 182-188), is in this instance inferior to Pocock. Buxtorf (Synag. pp. 179- 184) gives chiefly illustrative Jewish legends; Otho (Lex. Rabb. pp. 335, 336) extracts from his predecessors, to little advantage. The Rabbinic notes of Lightfoot, Winsche, Schottgen, and Wetstein give no clear account; and the Biblical Dictionaries are either silent, or (as Herzog's) very meagre. Other
accounts are, unfortunately, very inaccurate.] the more needful that important differences prevail even among learned Jewish authorities, due probably to the circumstance that the brief Mi shnic Tractate devoted to the subject [3 Yadayim, in four chapters, which, however, touches on other subjects also, notably on the canonicity of certain parts of the O.T.] has no Gemara attached to it, and also largely treats of other matters. At the outset we have this confirmation of the Gospel language, that this practice is expressly admitted to have been, not a Law of Moses, but 'a tradition of the elders. [4 We refer here generally to chull. 105 a, b, 106 b. Still, and perhaps on this very account, it was so strictly enjoined, that to neglect it was like being guilty of gross carnal defilement. Its omission would lead to temporal destruction, [a Sot. 4 b.] or, at least, to poverty, [b Shabb. 62 b.] Bread eaten with unwashen hands was as if it had been filth, [a Sot. 4 b.] Indeed, a Rabbi who had held this command in contempt was actually buried in excommunication, [b Eduy. v. 6; Ber. 19 a.] Thus, from their point of view, the charge of the Scribes against the disciples, so far from being exaggerated, is most moderately worded by the Evangelists. In fact, although at one time it had only been one of the marks of a Pharisee, yet at a later period to wash before eating was regarded as affording the ready means of recognising a Jew. [c Chull. 106 a; Bemidb. R. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b.][l Many illustrative stories are given of its importance, on the one hand, and of the danger of neglecting it on the other. With these legends it is not necessary to cumber our pages.]
It is somewhat more difficult to account for the origin of the ordinance. So far as indicated, it seems to have been first enjoined in order to ensure that sacred offerings should not be eaten in defilement. When once it became an ordinance of the elders, this was, of course, regarded as sufficient ground for obedience, [d Chull. 106 a.] Presently, Scriptural support was sought for it. Some based it on the original ordinance of purification in Lev. XV. 11; [e Chull. 106 a.] while others saw in the words [f Lev xi. 44.] 'Sanctify yourselves,' the command to wash before meat; in the command, 'Be ye holy,' that of washing after meat; while the final clause, 'for I am the Lord your God,' was regarded as enjoining 'the grace at meat.' [g Ber. 53 b, end.] For, soon it was not merely a washing before, but also after meals. The former alone was, however, regarded as 'a commandment' (Mitsvah), the other only as 'a duty' (Chobhah), which some, indeed, explained on sanitary grounds, as there might be left about the hands what might prove injurious to the eyes, [h Erub. 17 b; Chull. 105 b.] [2 The danger from 'Salt of Sodom is specially mentioned.] Accordingly, soldiers might, in the urgency of campaigning, neglect the washing before, but they ought to be careful about that after meat. By-and-by, the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary, [i Chull. 105 a, b.] This washing before meals is regarded by some as referred to in Talmudic writings by the expression 'the first waters' (Mayim rishonim), while what is called 'the second' (sheniyim), or 'the other,' 'later,' or 'afterwaters' (Mayim acharonim), is supposed to represent the washing after meals.
But there is another and more important aspect of the expression, which leads us to describe the rite itself. The distinctive designation for it is Netilath Yadayim, [3 sometimes though rarely, but not which refers to ordinary washing. Occasionally it is simply designated by the term Netilah.] literally, the lifting of the hands; while for the washing before meat the term Meshi or Mesha [k (Chull. 107 a and b).] is also used, which literally means 'to rub.' Both these terms point to the manner of the rite. The first question here was, whether 'second tithe,' prepared first-fruits (Terumah), or even common food (Chullin), or else, 'holy' i.e. sacrificial food, was to be partaken of. In the latter case a complete immersion of the hands ('baptism,' Tebhilath Yadayim), and not merely a Netilath, or 'uplifting,' was purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that
the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolour or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose. These might be of any material, although stone is specially mentioned. [This and what follows illustrates St. John ii. 6.] It was the practice to draw water out of these with what was called a natla, antila, or antelaya, [b avtyior. very often of glass, which must hold (at least) a quarter of a log [c Chull. 107 a; Baba B. 58 b, and often.] a measure equal to one and a half'egg-shells.' For, no less quantity than this might be used for affusion. The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, &c. The hands were lifted up, so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to ensure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the first), provided the hand that rubbed had been affused: otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one
