point on which special stress was laid. In the 'first affusion,' which was all that originally was required when the hands were Levitically 'defiled,' the water had to run down to the wrist [The language of the Mishnah shows that the word which bears as vague and wide meaning as, which seems a literal translation of it, can only apply to the wrist.] ( ) lappereq, or ad happereq). If the water remained short of the wrist (chuts lappereq), the hands were not clean, [d Comp. Yad. ii. 3; Chull. 106 a and b.] Accordingly, the words of St. Mark [e St. Mark vii. 3.] can only mean that the Pharisees eat not 'except they wash their hands to the wrist.' [3 The rendering 'wash diligently,' gives no meaning; that 'with the fist' is not in accordance with Jewish Law; while that 'up to the elbow' is not only contrary to Jewish Law, but apparently based on a wrong rendering of the word This is fully shown by Wetstein (N. T. i. p. 585), but his own explanation, that refers to the measure or weight of the water for washing, is inadmissible.]
Allusion has already been made to what are called 'the first' and 'the second,' or 'other' 'waters.' But, in their original meaning, these terms referred to something else than washing before and after meals. The hands were deemed capable of contracting Levitical defilement, which, in certain cases, might even render the whole body 'unclean.' If the hands were 'defiled,' two affusions were required: the first, or 'first waters' (mayim rishonim) to remove the defilement, and the 'second,' or 'after waters' (mayim sheniyim or acharonim) to wash away the waters that had contracted the defilement of the hands. Accordingly, on the affusion of the first waters the hands were elevated, and the water made to run down at the wrist, while at the second waters the hands were depressed, so that the water might run off by the finger points and tips. By-and-by, it became the practice to have two affusions, whenever Terumah (prepared first-fruits) was to be eaten, and at last even when ordinary food (Chullin) was partaken of. The modern Jews have three affusions, and accompany the rite with a special benediction.
This idea of the 'defilement of the hands' received a very curious application. According to one of the eighteen decrees, which, as we shall presently show, date before the time of Christ, the Roll of the Pentateuch in the Temple defiled all kinds of meat that touched it. The alleged reason for this decree was, that the priests were wont to keep the Terumah (preserved first-fruits) close to the Roll of the Law, on which account the latter was injured by mice. The Rabbinic ordinance was intended to avert this danger, [a Shabb. 14 a.] [1 In Yad. iv. 6, the Pharisees in dispute with the Sadducees indicate what seems to me a far more likely reason, in the desire to protect the Scriptures from profane use.] To increase this precaution, it was next laid down as a principle, that all that renders the Terumah unfit, also defiles the hands, [b Yad. iii. 2.] Hence, the Holy Scriptures defiled not only the food but the hands that touched them, and this not merely in the
Temple, but anywhere, while it was also explained that the Holy Scriptures included the whole of the inspired writings, the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. This gave rise to interesting discussions, whether the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Esther were to be regarded as 'defiling the hands,' that is, as part of the Canon. The ultimate decision was in favour of these books: 'all the holy writings defile the hands; the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.' [c Yad. iii. 5.] Nay, so far were sequences carried, that even a small portion of the Scriptures was declared to defile the hands if it contained eighty-five letters, because the smallest 'section' (Parashah) in the Law [d Numb. x. 35, 36.] consisted of exactly that number. Even the Phylacteries, because they contained portions of the sacred text, the very leather straps by which they were bound to the head and arm, nay, the blank margins around the text of the Scriptures, or at the beginning and end of sections, were declared to defile the hands, [a Yad. iii. 3-5.] [1 By a curious inversion the law ultimately came to be, that the Scriptures everywhere defiled the hands, except those of the Priests in the Temple (Kel. xv. 6). This on the ground that, taught by former enactments, they had learned to keep the Terumah far away from the sacred rolls, but really, as I believe, because the law, that the Priests' hands became defiled if they touched a copy of the sacred rules, must have involved constant difficulties.]
From this exposition it will be understood what importance the Scribes attached to the rite which the disciples had neglected. Yet at a later period Pharisaism, with characteristic ingenuity, found a way of evading even this obligation, by laying down what we would call the Popish (or semi-Popish) principle of'intention.' It was ruled, that if anyone had performed the rite of handwashing in the morning, 'with intention' that it should apply to the meals of the whole day, this was (with certain precautions) valid, [b Chull. 106 b.] But at the time of which we write the original ordinance was quite new. This touches one of the most important, but also most intricate questions in the history of Jewish dogmas. Jewish tradition traced, indeed, the command of washing the hands before eating, at least of sacrificial offerings, to Solomon, [c Shabb. 14 b, end.] in acknowledgment of which 'the voice from heaven' (Bath-Qol) had been heard to utter Prov. xxiii. 15, andxxvii. 11. But the earliest trace of this custom occurs in a portion of the Sibylline Books, which dates from about 160 B.C., [d Or. Sib. iii. 591-593.] where we find an allusion to the practice of continually washing the hands, in connection with prayer and thanksgiving. [2 We must bear in mind, that it wasthe work of an Egyptian Jew, and I cannot help feeling that the language bears some likeness to what afterwards was one of the distinctive practices of the Essenes.] It was reserved for Hillel and Shammai, the two great rival teachers and heroes of Jewish traditionalism, immediately before Christ, to fix the Rabbinic ordinance about the washing of hands (Netilath Yadayim), as previously described. This was one of the few points on which they were agreed, [e Shabb. 14 b, about the middle.] and hence emphatically 'a tradition of the Elders,' since these two teachers bear, in Rabbinic writings, each the designation of'the Elder.' Then followed a period of developing traditionalism, and hatred of all that was Gentile. The tradition of the Elders was not yet so established as to command absolute and universal obedience, while the disputes of Hillel and Shammai, who seemed almost on principle to have taken divergent views on every question, must have disturbed the minds of many. We have an account of a stormy meeting between the two Schools, attended even with bloodshed. The story is so confusedly, and so differently told in the Jerusalem [a Jer. Shabb. p. 3 x, d.] and in the Babylon Talmud, [b Shabb. 13b to 14 b.] that it is difficult to form a clear view of what really occurred. Thus much, however, appears that the Shammai tes had a majority of votes, and that 'eighteen decrees' were passed in which the two Schools agreed, while on other eighteen questions (perhaps a round number) the
Shammaites carried their views by a majority, and yet other eighteen remained undecided. Each of the Schools spoke of that day according to its party-results. The Shammaites (such as Rabbi Eliezer) extolled it as that on which the measure of the Law had been filled up to the full, [c Jer. Shabb. 3 c] while the Hillelites (like Rabbi Joshua) deplored, that on that day water had been poured into a vessel full of oil, by which some of the more precious fluid had been split. In general, the tendency of these eighteen decrees was of the most violently anti- Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character. Yet such value was attached to them, that, while any other decree of the sages might be altered by a more grave, learned, and authoritative assembly, these eighteen decrees might not under any circumstances, be modified, [d Jer. Shabb. 3 d.] But, besides these eighteen decrees, the two Schools on that day [e Shabb. 13 b; 14 b.] agreed in solemnly re-enacting 'the decrees about the Book (the copy of the Law), and the hands'. The Babylon Talmud [f Shabb. 14 b, towards end.] notes that the latter decree, though first made by Hillel and Shammai, 'the Elders,' was not universally carried out until re-enacted by their colleges. It is important to notice, that this 'Decree' dates from the time just before, and was finally carried into force in the very days of Christ. This fully accounts for the zeal which the Scribes displayed, and explains 'the extreme minutenes of details' with which St. Mark 'calls attention' to this Pharisaic practice. [1 In the 'Speaker's Commentary' (ad loc.) this 'extreme minuteness of details' is, it seems to me not correctly, accounted for on the ground of'special reference to the Judaisers who at a very early period formed an influential party at Rome.'] For, it was an express Rabbinic principle [g Ab. Z. 35 a.] that, if an ordinance had been only recently re-enacted, it might not be called in question or 'invalidated' . [2 This is the more striking as the same expression is used in reference to the opposition or rather the 'invalidating' by R. Eliezer ben Chanokh of the ordinance of hand-washing, for which he was excommunicated Eduy. v. 6). The term , which originally means to stop up by pouring or putting in something, is used for contemning or bringing into contempt, invalidating, or shaking a decree, with the same signification as. This is proved from the use of the latter in Ab. Z. 35 a, line 9 from bottom, and 36 a, line 12 from top.] Thus it will be seen, that the language employed by the Evangelist affords most valuable indirect confirmation of the trustworthiness of his Gospel, as not only showing intimate familiarity with the minutix of Jewish 'tradition,' but giving prominence to what was then a present controversy, and all this the more, that it needs intimate knowledge of that Law even fully to understand the language of the Evangelist.
After this full exposition, it can only be necessary to refer in briefest manner to those other observances which orthodox Judaism had 'received to hold.' They connect themselves with those eighteen decrees, intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles. Any contact with a heathen, even the touch of his dress, might involve such defilement, that on coming from the market the orthodox Jew would have to immerse. Only those who know the complicated arrangements about the defilements of vessels that were in any part, however small, hollow, as these are described in the Mishnah (Tractate Kelim), can form an adequate idea of the painful minuteness with
