which every little detail is treated. Earthen vessels that had contracted impurity were to be broken; those of wood, horn, glass, or brass immersed; while, if vessels were brought of Gentiles, they were (as the case might be) to be immersed, put into boiling water, purged with fire, or at least polished, [a Ab. Zar. v passim.]
Let us now try to realise the attitude of Christ in regard to these ordinances about purification, and seek to understand the reason of His bearing. That, in replying to the charge of the Scribes against His disciples, He neither vindicated their conduct, nor apologised for their breach
of the Rabbinic ordinances, implied at least an attitude of indifference towards traditionalism. This is the more noticeable, since, as we know, the ordinances of the Scribes were declared more precious, [b Jer. Chag. 76 d.] [1 In this passage there is a regular discussion, whether that which is written (the Pentateuch), or that which is oral (tradition is more precious and to be loved. The opinion is in favour of the oral.] and of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture itself, [c Jer. Ber. 3 b; Sanh. xi. 3; Erub. 21 b.] But,even so, the question might arise, why Christ should have provoked such hostility by placing Himself in marked antagonism to what, after all, was indifferent in itself. The answer to this inquiry will require a disclosure of that aspect of Rabbinism which, from its painfulness, has hitherto been avoided. Yet it is necessary not only in itself, but as showing the infinite distance between Christ and the teaching of the Synagogue. It has already been told, how Rabbinism, in the madness of its self-exaltation, represented God as busying Himself by day with the study of the Scriptures, and by night with that of the Mishnah; [d Targum (ed. Ven.) on Cant. v. 10; comp. Ab. Z. 3 b.] and how, in theheavenly Sanhedrin, over which the Almighty presided, the Rabbis sat in the order of their greatness, and the Halakhah was discussed, and decisions taken in accordance with it. [a Baba Mez. 86 a.] Terrible as this sounds, it is not nearly all. Anthropomorphism of the coarsest kind is carried beyond the verge of profanity, when God is represented as spending the last three hours of every day in playing with Leviathan, [b Ab. Z. u. s.] and it is discussed, how, since the destruction of Jerusalem, God no longer laughs, but weeps, and that, in a secret place of His own, according to Jer. xiii. 17. [c Comp. Chag. 5 b.] Nay, Jer. XXV. 30 is profanely misinterpreted as implying that, in His grief over the destruction of the Temple, the Almighty roars like a lion in each of the three watches of the night, [d Ber. 3 a.] The two tears which He drops into the sea are the cause of earthquakes; although other, though not less coarsely realistic, explanations are offered of this phenomenon, [e Ber. 59 a.]
Sentiments like these, which occur in different Rabbinic writings, cannot be explained away by any ingenuity of allegorical interpretation. There are others, equally painful, as regards the anger of the Almighty, which, as kindling specially in the morning, when the sun-worshippers offer their prayers, renders it even dangerous for an individual Israelite to say certain prayers on the morning of New Year's Day, on which the throne is set for judgment, [f Ber. 7 a; Ab. Z. 4 b.] Such realistic anthropomorphism, combined with the extravagant ideas of the eternal and heavenly reality of Rabbinism and Rabbinic ordinances, help us to understand, how the Almighty was actually represented as saying prayers. This is proved from Is. lvi. 7. Sublime through the language of these prayers is, we cannot but notice that the allcovering mercy, for which He is represented as pleading, is extended only to Israel, [g Ber. 7 a.] It is even more terrible to read of God wearing the Tallith, [h Shem. R. 42, comp. Rosh haSh. 17 b.] or that He puts on the Phylacteries, which is deduced from Is. lxii. 8. That this also is connected with the vain- glorious boasting of Israel, appears from the passage supposed to be enclosed in these Phylacteries. We know that in the ordinary Phylacteries these are: Exod. xiii. 1-10; 10-16; Deut. vi. 4-10; xi. 13-22. In the Divine Phylacteries they were: 1 Chron. xvii. 21; Deut. iv. 7-8; xxxiii. 29; iv. 34; xxvi. 19. [i Ber. 6 a.] Only one other point must be mentioned as connected with Purifications. To these also the Almighty is supposed to submit. Thus He was purified by Aaron, when He had contracted defilement by descending into Egypt, [k Shem. R. 15, ed. warsh. p. 22 a, line 13 from top.] This is deduced from Lev. xvi. 16. Similarly, He immersed in a bath of fire, [m Is. lxvi. 15; comp. Numb, xxxi. 23.] after the defilement of the burial of Moses.
These painful details, most reluctantly given, are certainly not intended to raise or strengthen ignorant prejudices against Israel, to whom 'blindness in part' has truly happened; far less to encourage the wicked spirit of contempt and persecution which is characteristic, not of believing, but of negative theology. But they will explain, how Jesus could not have assumed merely an attitude of indifference towards traditionalism. For, even if such sentiments were represented as a later development, they are the outcome of a direction, of which that of Jesus was the very opposite, and to which it was antagonistic. But, if Jesus was not sent of God, not the Messiah, whence this wonderful contrast of highest spirituality in what He taught of God as our Father, and of His Kingdom as that over the hearts of all men? The attitude of antagonism to traditionalism was never more pronounced than in what He said in reply to the charge of neglect of the ordinance about 'the washing of hands.' Here it must be remembered, that it was an admitted Rabbinic principle that, while the ordinances of Scripture required no confirmation, those of the Scribes needed such, [a Jer. Taan. 66 a, about the middle.] and that no Halakhah (traditional law) might contradict Scripture. [1 It was, however, admitted that the Halakhah sometimes went beyond the Pentateuch (Sot. 16 a).] When Christ, therefore, next proceeded to show, that in a very important point, nay, in 'many such like things', the Halakhah was utterly incompatible with Scripture, that, indeed, they made 'void the Word of God' by their traditions which they had received, [b St. Matt. xv. 3, 6; St. Mark vii. 9. 13.] He dealt the heaviest blow to traditionalism. Rabbinism stood self-condemned; on its own showing, it was to be rejected as incompatible with the Word of God.
It is not so easy to understand, why the Lord should, out of'many such things,' have selected in illustration the Rabbinic ordinance concerning vows, as in certain circumstances, contravening the fifth commandment. Of course, the 'Ten Words' were the Holy of Holies of the Law; nor was there any obligation more rigidly observed, indeed, carried in practice almost to the verge of absurdity [2 See the remarks this point in vol. i. pp. 567, 576, 577.] than that of honour to parents. In both respects, then, this was a specially vulnerable point, and it might well be argued that, if in this Law Rabbinic ordinances came into conflict with the demands of God's Word, the essential contrariety between them must, indeed, be great. Still, we feel as if this were not all. Was there any special instance in view, in which the Rabbinic law about votive offerings had led to such abuse? Or was it only, that at this festive season the Galilean pilgrims would carry with them to Jerusalem their votive offerings? Or, could the Rabbinic ordinances about 'the sanctification of the hands' (Yadayim) have recalled to the Lord another Rabbinic application of the word 'hand' (yad) in connection with votive offerings? It is at least sufficiently curious to find mention here, and it will afford the opportunity of briefly explaining, what to a candid reader may seem almost inexplicable in the Jewish legal practice to which Christ refers.
At the outset it must be admitted, that Rabbinism did not encourage the practice of promiscuous vowing. As we view it, it belongs, at best, to a lower and legal standpoint. In this respect Rabbi Akiba put it concisely, in one of his truest sayings: 'Vows are a hedge to abstinence.' [a Ab. iii. 18.] On the other hand, if regarded as akind of return for benefits received, or as a promise attaching to our prayers, a vow, unless it form part of our absolute and entire self-surrender partakes either of work-righteousness, or appears almost a kind of religious gambling. And so the Jewish proverb has it: 'In the hour of need a vow; in time of ease excess.' [b Ber. R. 81.] Towards such workrighteousness and religious gambling the Eastern, and especially the Rabbinic Jew, would be particularly inclined. But even the Rabbis saw that its encouragement
would lead to the profanation of what was holy; to rash, idle, and wrong vows; and to the worst and most demoralising kind of perjury, as inconvenient consequences made themselves felt. Of many sayings, cordemnatory of the practice, one will suffice to mark the general feeling: 'He who makes a vow, even if he keeps it, deserves the name of wicked.' [c Nedar. 9 a; 22 a.] Nevertheless, the practice must have attained terrible proportions, whether as regards the number of vows, the lightness with which they were made, or the kind of things which became their object. The larger part of the Mishnic Tractate on 'Vows' (Nedarim, in eleven chapters) describes what expressions were to be regarded as equivalent to vows, and what would either legally invalidate and annual a vow, or leave it binding. And here we learn, that those who were of full age, and not in a position of dependence (such as wives) would make almost any kind of vows, such as that they would not lie down to sleep, not speak to their wives or children, not have intercourse with their brethren, and even things more wrong or foolish, all of which were solemnly treated as binding on the conscience. Similarly, it was not necessary to use the express words of vowing. Not only the word 'Qorban' [Korban], 'given to God', but any similar expression, such as Qonakh, or Qonam [ According According to Nedar. 10 a, the Rabbis invented this word instead of'Qorban to the Lord' (Lev. i. 2), in order that the Name of God might not be idly taken.] (the latter also a Phoenician expression, and probably an equivalent for Qeyam, 'let it be established') would suffice; the mention of anything laid upon the altar (though not of the altar itself), such as the wood, or the fire, would constitute a vow, [a Nedar. i. 1-3.] nay, the repetition of the form which generally followed on the votive Qonam or Qorban had binding force, even though not preceded by these terms. Thus, if a man said: 'That I eat or taste of such a thing,' it constituted a vow, which bound him not to eat or
