(1) God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark, and God caused a wind to blow across the earth, and the waters subsided.
(יב) וַיִּכְרְתֻ֧הוּ זָרִ֛ים עָרִיצֵ֥י גוֹיִ֖ם וַֽיִּטְּשֻׁ֑הוּ אֶל־הֶ֠הָרִים וּבְכָל־גֵּ֨אָי֜וֹת נָפְל֣וּ דָלִיּוֹתָ֗יו וַתִּשָּׁבַ֤רְנָה פֹֽארֹתָיו֙ בְּכֹל֙ אֲפִיקֵ֣י הָאָ֔רֶץ וַיֵּרְד֧וּ מִצִּלּ֛וֹ כָּל־עַמֵּ֥י הָאָ֖רֶץ וַֽיִּטְּשֻֽׁהוּ׃ (יג) עַל־מַפַּלְתּ֥וֹ יִשְׁכְּנ֖וּ כָּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וְאֶל־פֹּארֹתָ֣יו הָי֔וּ כֹּ֖ל חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ (יד) לְמַ֡עַן אֲשֶׁר֩ לֹא־יִגְבְּה֨וּ בְקוֹמָתָ֜ם כָּל־עֲצֵי־מַ֗יִם וְלֹֽא־יִתְּנ֤וּ אֶת־צַמַּרְתָּם֙ אֶל־בֵּ֣ין עֲבֹתִ֔ים וְלֹֽא־יַעַמְד֧וּ אֵלֵיהֶ֛ם בְּגָבְהָ֖ם כָּל־שֹׁ֣תֵי מָ֑יִם כִּֽי־כֻלָּם֩ נִתְּנ֨וּ לַמָּ֜וֶת אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ תַּחְתִּ֗ית בְּת֛וֹךְ בְּנֵ֥י אָדָ֖ם אֶל־י֥וֹרְדֵי בֽוֹר׃ (ס) (טו) כֹּֽה־אָמַ֞ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה בְּי֨וֹם רִדְתּ֤וֹ שְׁא֙וֹלָה֙ הֶאֱבַ֜לְתִּי כִּסֵּ֤תִי עָלָיו֙ אֶת־תְּה֔וֹם וָֽאֶמְנַע֙ נַהֲרוֹתֶ֔יהָ וַיִּכָּלְא֖וּ מַ֣יִם רַבִּ֑ים וָאַקְדִּ֤ר עָלָיו֙ לְבָנ֔וֹן וְכָל־עֲצֵ֥י הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה עָלָ֥יו עֻלְפֶּֽה׃
(י) אִמְר֥וּ צַדִּ֖יק כִּי־ט֑וֹב כִּֽי־פְרִ֥י מַעַלְלֵיהֶ֖ם יֹאכֵֽלוּ׃
Alexander the Great
Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γʹ ὁ Μακεδών, Aléxandros III ho Makedȏn; 20/21 July 356 BC – 10/11 June 323 BC), commonly known as Alexander the Great (Greek: ὁ Μέγας, ho Mégas), was a king (basileus) of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon[a] and a member of the Argead dynasty. He was born in Pella in 356 BC and succeeded his father Philip II to the throne at the age of 20. He spent most of his ruling years on an unprecedented military campaign through western Asia and northeast Africa, and by the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world, stretching from Greece to northwestern India.[1][2] He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered one of history's most successful military commanders.[3]
During his youth, Alexander was tutored by Aristotle until age 16. After Philip's assassination in 336 BC, he succeeded his father to the throne and inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army. Alexander was awarded the generalship of Greece and used this authority to launch his father's pan-Hellenic project to lead the Greeks in the conquest of Persia.[4][5] In 334 BC, he invaded the Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire) and began a series of campaigns that lasted 10 years. Following the conquest of Anatolia, Alexander broke the power of Persia in a series of decisive battles, most notably the battles of Issus and Gaugamela. He subsequently overthrew Persian King Darius III and conquered the Achaemenid Empire in its entirety.[b] At that point, his empire stretched from the Adriatic Sea to the Beas River.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/09/mysterious-mosaic-alexander-the-great-israel/
AFTER SEVERAL YEARS of digging and study, archaeologists are revealing an extraordinary—and enigmatic—mosaic discovered among the ruins of a Roman-era synagogue at a site in Israel known as Huqoq. Nothing like it has come to light in any other building yet known from the ancient world, experts say.
Dated to the fifth century A.D., the mosaic depicts a meeting between two high-ranking male figures, one of whom appears to be a great general leading his troops. A major challenge to interpreting the scene is a total lack of identifying inscriptions.
“It’s very frequent in late antique and early Byzantine art to have figures in mosaics and other media that are labeled,” says Karen Britt, an art historian at Western Carolina University and the excavation’s mosaic expert. “The fact that these are not labeled makes it confounding for the modern viewer.”
The scene includes elephants outfitted for battle—a detail that immediately suggests the story of the Maccabees, Judean leaders who mounted a revolt against the Seleucid Empire in the mid-second century B.C. The Seleucids, who were descendants of one of Alexander the Great’s generals, are famed for including elephants in their armies.
But excavation director Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has a different interpretation. She believes the leader of the army is none other than Alexander the Great himself. His meeting with the high priest of Jerusalem never happened, but it was a piece of historical fiction that would have been very familiar to the residents of ancient Huqoq. (Learn more about the excavation at Huqoq here and here.)
“After Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., when his fame spread and his importance became clear because of the way that he changed the face of the Near East, the Jews—like other ancient people—sought to associate themselves with him and his greatness,” Magness explains. “That’s why stories like this legend began to circulate.”
(יא) בִּשְׁנַ֨ת שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֤וֹת שָׁנָה֙ לְחַיֵּי־נֹ֔חַ בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י בְּשִׁבְעָֽה־עָשָׂ֥ר י֖וֹם לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֗ה נִבְקְעוּ֙ כָּֽל־מַעְיְנֹת֙ תְּה֣וֹם רַבָּ֔ה וַאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ׃
(יד) עִ֣יר קְטַנָּ֔ה וַאֲנָשִׁ֥ים בָּ֖הּ מְעָ֑ט וּבָֽא־אֵלֶ֜יהָ מֶ֤לֶךְ גָּדוֹל֙ וְסָבַ֣ב אֹתָ֔הּ וּבָנָ֥ה עָלֶ֖יהָ מְצוֹדִ֥ים גְּדֹלִֽים׃ (טו) וּמָ֣צָא בָ֗הּ אִ֤ישׁ מִסְכֵּן֙ חָכָ֔ם וּמִלַּט־ה֥וּא אֶת־הָעִ֖יר בְּחָכְמָת֑וֹ וְאָדָם֙ לֹ֣א זָכַ֔ר אֶת־הָאִ֥ישׁ הַמִּסְכֵּ֖ן הַהּֽוּא׃ (טז) וְאָמַ֣רְתִּי אָ֔נִי טוֹבָ֥ה חָכְמָ֖ה מִגְּבוּרָ֑ה וְחָכְמַ֤ת הַמִּסְכֵּן֙ בְּזוּיָ֔ה וּדְבָרָ֖יו אֵינָ֥ם נִשְׁמָעִֽים׃ (יז) דִּבְרֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים בְּנַ֖חַת נִשְׁמָעִ֑ים מִזַּעֲקַ֥ת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בַּכְּסִילִֽים׃ (יח) טוֹבָ֥ה חָכְמָ֖ה מִכְּלֵ֣י קְרָ֑ב וְחוֹטֶ֣א אֶחָ֔ד יְאַבֵּ֥ד טוֹבָ֥ה הַרְבֵּֽה׃
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ecclesiastes/9-14.htm
Verse 14. - There was a little city. The substantive verb is, as commonly, omitted. Commentators have amused themselves with endeavoring to identify the city here mentioned. Thus some see herein Athens, saved by the counsel of Themistocles, who was afterwards driven from Athens and died in misery (Justin., 2:12); or Dora, near Mount Carmel, besieged unsuccessfully by Antiochus the Great, B.C. 218, though we know nothing of the circumstances (Polyb., 5:66); but see note on ver. 13. The Septuagint takes the whole paragraph hypothetically, "Suppose there was a little city," etc. Wright well compares the historical allusions to events fresh in the minds of his hearers made by our Lord in his parable of the pounds (Luke 19:12, 14, 15, 27). So we may regard the present section as a parable founded on some historical fact well known at the time when the book was written
(ד) הִגִּיעַ שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּמַרְחֶשְׁוָן וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים, הִתְחִילוּ הַיְחִידִים מִתְעַנִּין שָׁלשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת. אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה, וּמֻתָּרִין בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה:
(ה) הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ כִּסְלֵו וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים, בֵּית דִּין גּוֹזְרִין שָׁלשׁ תַּעֲנִיוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר. אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה, וּמֻתָּרִין בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה:
(ו) עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ, בֵּית דִּין גּוֹזְרִין שָׁלשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר. אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וַאֲסוּרִין בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת. עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ, בֵּית דִּין גּוֹזְרִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד שֶׁבַע, שֶׁהֵן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת עַל הַצִּבּוּר. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יְתֵרוֹת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, שֶׁבָּאֵלּוּ מַתְרִיעִין וְנוֹעֲלִין אֶת הַחֲנוּיוֹת, בַּשֵּׁנִי מַטִּין עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מֻתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת:
(ז) עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ, מְמַעֲטִין בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, בְּבִנְיָן וּבִנְטִיעָה, בְּאֵרוּסִין וּבְנִשּׂוּאִין וּבִשְׁאֵלַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, כִּבְנֵי אָדָם הַנְּזוּפִין לַמָּקוֹם. הַיְחִידִים חוֹזְרִים וּמִתְעַנִּים עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא נִיסָן. יָצָא נִיסָן וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים, סִימַן קְלָלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א יב) הֲלוֹא קְצִיר חִטִּים הַיּוֹם, וְגוֹ':
(4) If the seventeenth of Marheshvan came and no rain fell, individuals begin to fast three fasts. They eat and drink after it gets dark and they are permitted to do work, to bathe, to anoint themselves with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.
(5) If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.
(6) If these passed and there was no answer, the court decrees three more fasts on the community. They may eat and drink [only] while it is still day; they may not work, bathe, anoint themselves with oil, wear shoes, or have marital, relations. And the bathhouses are closed. If these passed and there was no answer the court decrees upon the community a further seven, making a total of thirteen. These are greater than the first, for on these they blast the shofar and they lock the shops. On Mondays the shutters [of the shops] are opened a little when it gets dark, but on Thursdays they are permitted [the whole day] because of the Shabbat.
(7) If these passed and there was [still] no answer then they restrict engaging in business, and in building, planting, betrothal and marriage, and in greeting one another, as if they were people undesirable to God. The individuals go back to fasting anew until the end of Nisan. If Nisan passes and then rain falls this is a sign of a curse, as it is written, “It is the season of the wheat harvest. [I will pray to the Lord and He will send thunder and rain; then you will take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the Lord when you asked for a king” (I Samuel 12:17).
Judah ha-Nasi (Hebrew: יהודה הנשיא, Yehudah HaNasi or Judah the Prince) or Judah I, was a second-century rabbi (a tanna of the fifth generation) and chief redactor and editor of the Mishnah. He lived from approximately 135 to 217 CE. He was a key leader of the Jewish community during the Roman occupation of Judea.
Cataacomb in Bet Shearim
(ו) כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָעֵדִים. זוּג שֶׁבָּא רִאשׁוֹן, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ רִאשׁוֹן. וּמַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אֱמֹר, כֵּיצַד רָאִיתָ אֶת הַלְּבָנָה, לִפְנֵי הַחַמָּה אוֹ לְאַחַר הַחַמָּה, לִצְפוֹנָהּ אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ, כַּמָּה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ וּלְאַיִן הָיָה נוֹטֶה, וְכַמָּה הָיָה רָחָב. אִם אָמַר לִפְנֵי הַחַמָּה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִים אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַזּוּגוֹת שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי דְבָרִים, לֹא שֶׁהָיוּ צְרִיכִין לָהֶן, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיְּהוּ רְגִילִים לָבֹא:
(ז) רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין אוֹמֵר מְקֻדָּשׁ, וְכָל הָעָם עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו מְקֻדָּשׁ מְקֻדָּשׁ. בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ, מְקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ, אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר קִדְּשׁוּהוּ שָׁמָיִם:
(ח) דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָא וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ שַׁחֲרִית בַּמִּזְרָח וְעַרְבִית בַּמַּעֲרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם. כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיַבְנֶה קִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְעוֹד בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ בִזְמַנּוֹ, וּבְלֵיל עִבּוּרוֹ לֹא נִרְאָה, וְקִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאָךְ מְעִידִין עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה, וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵסָהּ בֵּין שִׁנֶּיהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ:
(ט) שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:
(6) How do they test the witnesses?The pair which arrives first, they test them first. They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].
(7) The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.
(8) Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.
(9) Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.
(י) שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת:
(10) Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.
The Relations between the
Laws of Babylonia and the
Laws of the Hebrew Peoples
By
The Rev. C. H. W. Johns, M.A., Litt.D.
Master of St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge
The Schweich Lectures
1912
London
Published for the British Academy
By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press
Amen Corner, E.C.
1914
OXFORD: HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
[Pg iii]
PREFACE
It has long been held that the laws of the Israelites, as revealed by God to Moses, by him embodied in the books of the Pentateuch and since preserved by the zealous care of the Jewish people, are incomparable. Accordingly they have been adopted professedly by most Christian nations and were early accepted by our own king Alfred1 as the basis of the law system of this our land.
We live in an age of devotion to comparative methods, when it is an article of faith to hold that the most fruitful means to attain a clear understanding of the exact nature of anything is to compare it with its like. This comparative method forms a large part of modern scientific research and, with proper safeguards and reserves, has become a favourite weapon of literary research into the history of human institutions.
Long ago, as it seems to us, Sir Henry Maine used it2 when he wrote his History of Early Law. As a consequence of his investigations and those of many who have followed in his footsteps, the Science of Comparative Law has grown up. All the great law systems of the world have been classified and compared, and comparative lawyers felt qualified to assign to any new-found fragment of ancient law its true position in their schemes. The results had rather confirmed than traversed ancient claims for the supremacy of Mosaic Laws. Men had settled down to the belief that we might compare, and that to its great advantage, the Legislation of Moses with the Roman Laws of the XII Tables, with the Indian Laws of Manu or the Greek Code of Gortyna. We had recognized the broad outlines of a process of evolution and begun to understand the way in which, as a people advanced along the path of progress in the elements of civilization, similar human needs called forth similar solutions of the questions of right and wrong.
Nevertheless much remained obscure in many ancient legislations. It was the opinion of Jhering,3 the great authority on Roman Law, that for the ultimate solution of the puzzles of Roman Law we should have to go back to Babylon. In his days comparatively little was known about the laws of Babylonia, and that little was badly attested. Men were still of opinion that the Mosaic Law was the oldest of which [Pg iv]we had any trustworthy account and that Babylonian laws, if there ever were any worthy of the name, must have been more barbarous and unformed.
Then there came, in the early days of this century, a great surprise, calling at once for much revision of our neatly arranged systems of knowledge. A Code of Laws was discovered, certainly the oldest known, by far the most complete and best attested, and at the same time the most advanced of all but the most modern.
Fragments of it were already known from late copies, had been recognized as probably parts of a Babylonian Code of Law, were even conjecturally styled the Code of Hammurabi by Professor Friedrich Delitzsch,4 but very little could be concluded from them. Then suddenly at Susa in Elam was discovered practically the whole text of it. Ever since it has been the subject of profound study from all points of view.
The comparison of this Code of Hammurabi with the Laws of Moses was bound to be made. Many reasons would suggest the likelihood that much similarity would be observed between two early legislations both Semitic in complexion. Comparisons with other ancient codes were equally sure to be made and the differences naturally to be expected would be carefully weighed and considered.
But while most surprising results came out of these comparisons, especially in the realm of Roman Law, a much keener interest has attached to the comparison with Hebrew Law, not only because of the sacred nature of the Old Testament, but even more because this had been the special study of the Higher Critics. These scholars had almost decided what their view of the composition of the Pentateuch should be, what were the ultimate sources implied, what dates should be assigned to the constituent documents, and the arguments to be considered valid in such discussions. Those who rejected the Higher Critical conclusions flew at once to the new-found Code for arguments to refute Higher Criticism; while Higher Critics found confirmations in many directions.‘
It may be hoped that this side issue has lost its interest, and that a hearing may now be obtained for a simple attempt to use the two legislations for mutual understanding. When on the appearance of the Code in its first edition I lectured upon it at Queens’ College, Cambridge, it was solely as a new document of human history. When a month or two later I was privileged to point out its ‘significance for comparison with the Hebrew legislation’ in a paper read before the Cambridge Theological Society,5 of which an abstract appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies (Jan. 1903), it is probable enough [Pg v]that the contrasts to the Mosaic Law were more apparent than the likenesses. In the next few months there was ready for press an extensive work on the Code, illustrating its meaning from the innumerable legal documents, most of them contemporary, which had been my study for years.
I trust that I may be pardoned for thus simply stating why, when the British Academy conferred upon me the great honour of inviting me to deliver the Schweich Lectures for 1912, I selected the subject of Babylonian Law in its relation to the Laws of Moses. It was a subject in which I had taken an interest for some years, and I was anxious to seize an opportunity of making public the work done in 1903-4.
(ג) סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין:
(ד) וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ:
(3) A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges’ scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.
(4) And three rows of Torah scholars sit before the judges, and each and every one among those sitting recognizes his place, i.e., they are seated in accordance with their stature. When the court must ordain an additional judge, e.g., if a judge dies during the proceedings or in the case of a court without a decisive majority (see 40a), the court ordains the greatest Torah scholar from the first row. As a seat in the first row is now vacant, one Torah scholar from the second row comes to the first row, and one Torah scholar from the third row comes to the second row, and the court selects another Torah scholar from among the assembled and they seat him in the third row. And this Torah scholar who moves from the second row to the first row would not sit in the place of the first Torah scholar, who joined the court, rather, he would sit in the place appropriate for him, i.e., at the end of that row, in accordance with his stature.
Guide to the Perplexed
There are several words in Hebrew meaning to see. These include raah, hibit, and chazah. The primary meaning of these is to perceive with the sense of vision as in, “He looked and saw a well” (Genesis 29:2). But these words can also refer to perceiving something intellectually, as in “My heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge” (Koheles 1:16). It is this sense that is to be understood when these words are applied to God, as in “They saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:10) and “God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10). [I, 4]
Shema means to hear as in “Let it not be heard from your mouth” (Exodus 23:13). It also means to obey as in “They did not listen to Moshe” (Exodus 6:9). Examples of both of these usages are abundant. Shema also means to know or to comprehend something, as in “A nation whose language you will not understand” (Deuteronomy 28:49). This is the word’s meaning when applied to God, as in “God heard it” (Numbers 11:1). God does not have ears and does not hear as we do, through the vibration of sound waves; when applied to Him, “hear” can only mean to perceive and to understand. It also means for God to respond to the prayers of man as in “I will hear his cry” (Exodus 22:23) and “When you make many prayers, I will not hear” (Jeremiah 7:16). Instances of this use are likewise common. [I, 45]
Braita of Rabbi Yishmael
8. Whatever is first implied in a generalization and afterwards specified to provide new information concerning it, is stated not only for its own sake, but to teach something additional concerning the general proposition.
https://thevcs.org/prophet-elijah-wilderness/elijah-icon
The Elijah Icon
Commentary by
The prophet Elijah is unique in Orthodox Christian tradition in that he is the only Old Testament figure to receive detailed individual treatment on icons. That he was able to gaze on the full glory of Christ during the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36) ensured that his partial, yet intense, experience of the divine in the cave at Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:9–14) would forever hold a central place in Orthodox spirituality.
The prophet must be portrayed according to a strict iconographical canon, summed up by Dionysius of Fourna, author of the eighteenth-century manual on icon painting:
Elijah should be presented as an old man with a white beard. There should be a cave with the prophet sitting inside it; he rests his chin and leans his elbow on his knee. Above the cave, a raven watches him and carries bread in its beak. (1974: 24)
The icon combines two episodes: the ravens bringing food to Elijah as described in 1 Kings 17:6, and Elijah’s mystical experience in the cave, reported in somewhat veiled language in 1 Kings 19:12. The cave encloses the prophet whose mantle touches its darkness on all sides. Orthodox writers stress that the symbolism of the darkness in Elijah icons reflects not so much the personal despair of the prophet as the notion of divine transcendence expressed through Gregory of Nyssa’s theology of darkness, according to which darkness, our essential ‘unknowingness’ of God, represents the culmination of the mystical experience of the divine (Life of Moses, 2:163).
Traditionally, before icon painters began their work, they were required to draw the great eye of God on the unpainted panel and write the word ‘God’ underneath it to remind them that the icon, like a transparent membrane, is not only an image for the viewer to engage with but also a medium through which God beholds the viewer. In this icon, the position of the cave approximates to where the eye of God would have been drawn. Now faded and tattered with age, the icon offers a very moving witness to the esteem given to the prophet by many Orthodox believers through the centuries.
(א) אֵיכָ֣ה ׀ יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד הָעִיר֙ רַבָּ֣תִי עָ֔ם הָיְתָ֖ה כְּאַלְמָנָ֑ה רַּבָּ֣תִי בַגּוֹיִ֗ם שָׂרָ֙תִי֙ בַּמְּדִינ֔וֹת הָיְתָ֖ה לָמַֽס׃ (ס) (ב) בָּכ֨וֹ תִבְכֶּ֜ה בַּלַּ֗יְלָה וְדִמְעָתָהּ֙ עַ֣ל לֶֽחֱיָ֔הּ אֵֽין־לָ֥הּ מְנַחֵ֖ם מִכָּל־אֹהֲבֶ֑יהָ כָּל־רֵעֶ֙יהָ֙ בָּ֣גְדוּ בָ֔הּ הָ֥יוּ לָ֖הּ לְאֹיְבִֽים׃ (ס) (ג) גָּֽלְתָ֨ה יְהוּדָ֤ה מֵעֹ֙נִי֙ וּמֵרֹ֣ב עֲבֹדָ֔ה הִ֚יא יָשְׁבָ֣ה בַגּוֹיִ֔ם לֹ֥א מָצְאָ֖ה מָנ֑וֹחַ כָּל־רֹדְפֶ֥יהָ הִשִּׂיג֖וּהָ בֵּ֥ין הַמְּצָרִֽים׃ (ס)
