Part Three

p. 176 necessity of tradition, the truthfulness, loftiness, and religious zeal of traditionists? 48. Al Khazari: For all that, I am surprised that you observe the regulations of religious purity. 49. The Rabbi: Impurity and holiness are contradictory ideas; one cannot be thought of without the other. Without holiness we should not know the signification of impurity. Impurity means that the approach to holy objects, hallowed by God, is forbidden to the person so affected. Such would be priests, their food, clothing, offering, sacrifices, the holy House, etc. In the same way the ideas of holiness include something which forbids the person connected with it to approach many ordinary objects. This chiefly depends on the vicinity of the Shekhinah, which we now lack entirely. The prohibition which still holds good, of cohabiting with a woman in her period or after confinement has nothing to do with impurity, but is an independent divine law. The practice we observe to keep aloof from them as much as possible is but a restriction and hedge to prevent cohabitation. The regulations of impurity proper ceased to exist for us, because we live in 'an unclean land and in unclean air,' especially as we move about among graves, vermin, lepers, persons affected with issue, corpses, etc. To touch carrion is not forbidden on account of its impurity, but it forms a special law connected with the prohibition of eating the same to which impurity is accessory. If Ezra had not ordained a bath for certain contaminated persons, this would not be a regulation but simply a matter of cleanliness. If these persons would conceive this regulation in the sense of cleanliness, it would lose nothing, as long as it is not taken for a religious law.

p. 177 [paragraph continues] Otherwise they might draw conclusions from their own folly, try to improve upon the law and cause heterodoxy, I mean the splitting of opinions, which is the beginning of the corruption of a religion. They would soon be outside the pale of 'one law and one regulation.' Whatever we might allow ourselves in matters of touching even repulsive things, is out of proportion to their (the Karaites) schismatic views, which might cause us to find in one house ten persons with as many different opinions. Were our laws not fixed and confined in unbreakable rules, they would not be secure from the intrusion of strange elements and the loss of some component parts, because argument and taste would become guiding principles. The Karaite would have no compunction in using the implements of idolatry, such as gold, silver, frankincense and wine. Indeed, death is better than this. On the other hand, he would abstain from using parts of the pig, even for purposes of medicine, although this is in reality one of the lighter transgressions, and only punished with 'forty stripes.' In the same way he would allow the Nazirite to eat raisins and grapes rather than be intoxicated with mead and cider. But the opposite is true. This prohibition only refers to the products of the vine, but there was no intention of prohibiting intoxication altogether, as one might surmise. This is one of the secrets known only to God, his prophets and the pious. One must not, however, charge traditionists or those who draw their own conclusions, with ignorance in this matter, because the word shēkhār is common property. They have a tradition that the 'wine and strong drink' (Lev. x. 8), mentioned in connexion with the priests includes all kinds of intoxication, whilst the same words

p. 178 in the case of the Nazirite only refer to the juice of grapes. Every law has certain limits fixed with scientific accuracy, though in practice they may appear illogical. He who is zealous tries to avoid them, without, however, making them unlawful, as e.g. the flesh of an animal in peril of death, which is lawful. For it is uncertain whether this animal will die, because some one might assert that it will recover, and then be permitted. A diseased animal which externally looks in good health is unlawful, if it suffers internally from an incurable illness, with which it can neither live nor recover. Those who judge according to their own taste and reasoning may arrive in these matters at an opposite conclusion. Follow not, therefore, thy own taste and opinion in religious questions, lest they throw thee into doubts, which lead to heresy. Nor wilt thou be in harmony with one of thy friends on any point. Every individual has his own taste and opinion. It is only necessary to examine the roots of the traditional and written laws with the inferences codified for practice, in order to trace the branches back to the roots. Where they lead thee, there put thy faith, though thy mind and feeling shrink from it. Common view and assumption deny the non-existence of the vacuum, whilst logical conclusion rejects its existence. Appearance denies the infinite divisibility of a body, whilst logic makes it an axiom. Appearance denies that the earth is a globe and the one hundred and sixtieth part of the sun disc. There are also other matters which astronomy establishes against mere appearances. Whatever the Sages declared lawful they did neither in obedience to their own taste or inclination, but to the results of the inherited knowledge, handed down to them. The

p. 179 same was the case with what they declared unlawful. He who is unable to grasp their wisdom, but judges their speech according to his own conception, will misinterpret them in the same way as people do with the words of natural philosophers and astronomers. Whenever they settle the limits of the code, and explain what is lawful or unlawful in strictly juridical deduction, they indicate apparently unseemly points. They consider it revolting to eat the flesh of a dangerously sick animal, or to gain money by means of legal trickery, or to travel on the Sabbath with the assistance of the Erūb, or to render certain marriages lawful in a cunning manner, or to undo oaths and vows by circumvention, which may be permitted according to the paragraph of the law, but is devoid of any religious feeling. Both, however, are necessary together, for, if one is guided by the legal deduction alone, more relaxation would crop up than could be controlled. If, on the other hand, one would neglect the legalized lines which form the fence round the law, and would only rely on religious zeal, it would become a source of schism, and destroy everything. 50. Al Khazari: If this be so, I willingly admit that the Rabbanite who unites these two points of view is superior to the Karaite both in theory and practice. He would also perform his religious duties cheerfully, because they are handed down to him by trustworthy authorities who derived their knowledge from God. However far a Karaite's zeal may lead him, his heart will never be satisfied, because he knows that his zeal is but based on speculation and reasoning. He will never be sure whether his practice is God-pleasing. He is also aware that there are among the gentiles

p. 180 some who are even more zealous than he. Now I wish to ask thee concerning the Erūb, which is one of the licences of the law of Sabbath. How can we make lawful a thing which God has forbidden by means so paltry and artificial? 51. The Rabbi: Heaven forbid that all those pious men and Sages should concur in untying one of the knots of the divine law. Their intention was to make it tighter and therefore they said: Build a fence round the law. Part of this is the Rabbinic prohibition of carrying things out of private to public ground or vice versa, a prohibition not of Mosaic origin. In constructing this fence they introduced this licence, to prevent their religious zeal ranking with the Tōrāh, and at the same time to give people some liberty in moving about. This liberty was gained in a perfectly lawful way and takes the form of the Erūb, which marks a line between what is entirely legal, the fence itself, and the secluded part inside the latter. 52. Al Khazari: This is enough for me. Yet I cannot believe that an Erūb is strong enough to restore a connexion between two areas. 53. The Rabbi: In this case the whole law is inefficient in thy opinion. Dost thou consider the release of money, property, persons, and slaves valid by assuring the right of property or last will? Likewise the divorce of a woman, or a second marriage, after having been single, by means of the formula: 'Write, sign and hand her the letter of divorce;' or her singleness after having been married? All these matters depend upon a ceremony or a formula and are laid down in the Third Book of Moses. The leprosy of a garment or house [officially] depends upon the declaration of 'clean' or

p. 181 [paragraph continues] 'unclean' by a priest. The holy character of the Tabernacle was subject to its being erected by Moses and anointed with the anointing oil. The consecration of the priests depended upon the initiatory sacrifices and wave offerings; that of the Levites upon purifying and wave offerings. Unclean persons were purified by means of 'water of separation' (Num. xix.) to which were added ashes of the red heifer, hyssop, and scarlet. The redemption of a house required two birds (Lev. xiv. 49). All these ceremonies, the remission of sins on the Day of Atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary from impurities by means of the he-goat of Azāzēl, with all accompanying ceremonies; the blessing of Israel through Aaron's uplifted hands and the reciting of the verse: 'the Lord bless thee'; upon every one of these ceremonies the Divine Influence rested. Religious ceremonies are, like the work of nature, entirely determined by God, but beyond the power of man. Formations of nature, are, as thou canst see, composed of accurately measured proportions of the four elements. A trifle renders them perfect and gives them their proper animal or plant form. Every mixture receives the shape beseeming it, but can also lose it through a trifle. The egg may be spoiled by the slight accident of too much heat or cold, or a movement, and become unable to receive the form of a chicken which otherwise the hen achieves by sitting on it three weeks. Who, then, can weigh actions upon which the Divine Influence rest, save God alone? This is the error committed by alchymists and necromancers. The former thought, indeed, that they could weigh the elementary fire on their scales, and produce what they wished, and thus alter the nature of materials, as is done in living beings

p. 182 by natural heat which transforms food into blood, flesh, bone and other organs. They toil to discover a fire of the same kind, but are misled by accidental results of their experiments, not based on calculation, just in the same manner as the discovery was made that from the planting of seed within the womb man arises. When those necromancers heard that the appearance of the Divinity from Adam down to the children of Israel was gained by sacrifices, they thought it was the result of meditation and research; that the prophets were but deeply learned persons who accomplished these wonders by means of calculation. Then they, on their part, were anxious to fix sacrifices to be offered up at certain times and astrological opportunities, accompanied by ceremonies and burning of incense which their calculations prescribed. They even composed astrological books and other matters the mention of which is forbidden. Beside these, the adepts of magic formulas, having heard that a prophet had been spoken to in this or that manner, or had experienced a miracle, imagined that the words were the cause of the miracle. They, therefore endeavoured to accomplish a similar feat. The artificial is not like the natural. Religious deeds are, however, like nature. Being ignorant of their designs one thinks it but play till the results becomes apparent. Then one praises their guide and mover, and professes belief in him. Suppose thou hast heard nothing of cohabitation and its consequences, but thou feelest thyself attracted by the lowest of female organs. If thou considerest the degradation of a woman's surrender, or the ignominy of surrendering to a woman, thou wouldst say wonderingly: this is as vain as it is absurd. But when thou seest a being like thyself

p. 183 born of a woman, then dost thou marvel and notice that thou art one of the preservers of mankind created by God to inhabit the earth. It is the same with religious actions fixed by God. Thou slaughterest a lamb and smearest thyself with its blood, in skinning it, cleaning its entrails, washing, dismembering it and sprinking its blood. Then thou arrangest the wood, kindlest the fire, placing the body on it. If this were not done in consequence of a divine command, thou wouldst think little of all these actions and believe that they estrange thee from God rather than bring thee near to Him. But as soon as the whole is properly accomplished, and thou seest the divine fire, or dost notice in thyself a new spirit, unknown before, or seest true visions and great apparitions, thou art aware that this is the fruit of the preceding actions, as well as of the great influence with which thou hast come in contact. When arrived at this goal care not that thou must die. Thy death is but the decay of thy body, whilst the soul having reached this step, cannot descend from it nor be removed. This will shew thee that the approach to God is only possible through the medium of God's command, and there is no road to the knowledge of the commands of God except by way of prophesy, but not by means of speculation and reasoning. There is, however, no other connexion between us and these commands except truthful tradition. Those who have handed down these laws to us were not a few sporadic individuals, but a multitude of learned and lofty men nearly approaching the prophets. And if the bearers of the Law had only been the priests, Levites and the Seventy Elders, the chain beginning with Moses himself would never have been interrupted.

p. 184 54. Al Khazari: I only know that the people of the second Temple forgot the Tōrāh, and were ignorant of the law of Succāh till they found it written. A similar thing happened with the law that 'an Ammonite shall not enter the congregation of God' (Deut. xxiii. 3). With regard to these two points it is said: 'They found written.' (Neh. viii., 4; xiii. 1). This proves that they had lost the knowledge of the law. 55. The Rabbi: If this be so we are to-day more learned and erudite than they, since we think we know the Tōrāh. 56. Al Khazari: That is what I say. 57. The Rabbi: Should we be commanded to bring a sacrifice, would we know how and where to slaughter it, catch its blood, skin and dismember it, and into how many pieces, how to offer it up, how to sprinkle the blood, what to do with its meal and wine offering; with what songs to accompany it; what duties of holiness, purity, anointment, clothing, and demeanour the priests had to observe; how, when and where they should eat the holy meat, and other matters which it would lead us too far to commemorate? 58. Al Khazari: We cannot know this without a priest or prophet. 59. The Rabbi: See how the people of the second Temple were engaged many years in the construction of the altar, till God assisted them to build the Temple and the walls. Dost thou think that they brought offerings in a haphazard fashion? 60. Al Khazari: 'A burnt offering' cannot be 'an offering made by fire a sweet savour' (Lev. i. 9)--being a law not dependent on reasoning--except if all its details are arranged on the authority and command

60. Al Khazari: 'A burnt offering' cannot be 'an offering made by fire a sweet savour' (Lev. i. 9)--being a law not dependent on reasoning--except if all its details are arranged on the authority and command p. 185 of God. The people were also well acquainted with the regulations of the Day of Atonement, which are more important than the regulations of the Succāh. All these things required the detailed instruction of a teacher. 61. The Rabbi: Should a person versed in these minute regulations of the Tōrāh have been ignorant of the way how to construct a hut, or of the law concerning the Ammonites? 62. Al Khazari: What can I say, then, about 'they found written '? 63. The Rabbi: The compiler of the Holy Writ did not pay so much attention to hidden matters as to those generally known. He, therefore, mentions nothing of the wisdom Joshua had received from God and from Moses, but only the days when he stood at the Jordan, the day when the sun stood still, and the day of the circumcision, since these matters concerned the whole people. The tales of Samson, Deborah, Gideon, Samuel, David and Solomon contain nothing about their own learning and religious practices. In the history of Solomon we find an account of his luxurious table, great wealth, but of his great wisdom nothing except the case of the two women (1 Kings iii. 16), because this took place in public. The wisdom he displayed in his intercourse with the Queen of Sheba and elsewhere is not mentioned, because it was not the author's intention to relate anything that did not concern or interest the whole people. Special records referring to special individuals only, are lost with the exception of a few, besides the magnificent prophetic speeches which everyone took a delight in learning by heart on account of their lofty contents and noble

p. 186 language. Even of the history of Ezra and Nehemiah nothing is related except that which concerned the whole people. The day of the building of the tabernacles was a public affair, because on that day the people set out to ascend the mountains and gather olive, myrtle and palm branches. The words: 'they found written,' mean that the whole people gave attention to them and commenced to build their tabernacles. The erudite were not unacquainted with the details of the law, and still less with the general tenor of it. The author's intention was to single out this day, as well as the other one on which the Ammonite and Moabite wives were divorced. This was a remarkable day, when men had to divorce their wives and the mothers of their children, a grave and painful matter. I do not believe that any other people than the chosen would give a similar proof of their obedience to their Lord. It is on account of this public affair that the words: 'they found written,' were said. It means that, when the public Reader read the words: 'An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter . . .' the people was moved, and a great perturbation arose on that day. 64. Al Khazari: Give me an example of the manner of tradition which proves its verity. 65. The Rabbi: Prophecy lasted about forty years during the second Temple among those elders who had the assistance of the Shekhinah from the first Temple. Individually acquired prophecy had ceased with the removal of the Shekhinah, and only appeared in extraordinary times or on account of great force, as that of Abraham, Moses, the expected Messiah, Elijah and their equals. In them the Shekhinah found a worthy abode, and their very existence helped their

p. 187 contemporaries to gain the degree. of prophecy. The people, after their return, still had Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra and others. Forty years later these prophets were succeeded by an assembly of Sages, called the Men of the Great Synode. They were too numerous to be counted. They had returned with Zerubbabel and inherited their tradition from the Prophets, as it is said: 'The prophets handed [the law] down to the Men of the Great Synode' (Aboth, I. i.). The next generation was that of the High Priest Simon the Just and his disciples and friends. He was followed by Antigonos of Sōchō of great fame. His disciples were Ṣādōk and Boethos who were the originators of the sects called after them Saddōcaeans and Boethosians. The next was Jōsē b. Jō‘ēzer 'the most pious among the priests,' 33 and Josef b. Jōḥānān and their friends. With regard to the former it was said: 'At the death of Jōsē b. Jō‘ēzer the grapes ceased' as it is said: 'No grapes to eat;' (Mic. vii. 1), for no sin of his was know from his youth to his death. He was followed by Joshua b. Peraḥyāh whose history is known. Among his disciples was Jesus the Nazarene, and Nittāi of Arbela was his contemporary. After him came Judah b. Tabbāi and Simon b. Shētaḥ, with the friends of both. At this period arose the doctrine of the Karaites in consequence of an incident between the Sages and King Jannai who was a priest. His mother was under suspicion of being a 'profane' woman. One of the Sages alluded to this, saying to him: 'Be satisfied, O king Jannai, with the royal crown, but leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.' His friends prejudiced him against the Sages, advising him to browbeat, expel, and scatter or kill them. He replied: 'If I destroy the Sages what

p. 188 will become of our Law?' 'There is the written law,' they replied, whoever wishes to study it may come and do so; take no heed of the oral law.' He followed their advice and expelled the Sages and among them Simon b. Shētaḥ, his son-in-law. Rabbanism was laid low for some time. The other party tried to establish a law built on their own conception, but failed, till Simon b. Shētaḥ returned with his disciples from Alexandria, and restored tradition to its former condition. Karaism had, however, taken root among people who rejected the oral law, and called all kinds of proofs to their aid, as we see to-day. As regards the Sādōcaeans and Boēthosians, they are the sectarians who are anathemised in our prayer. The followers of Jesus are the Baptists who adopted the doctrine of baptism, being baptized in the Jordan. The Karaites turned their attention to the fundamental principles, deducing the special laws from them by means of arguments. The damage often extended to the roots, through their ignorance rather than intention. The next generation was that of Shema‘yāh and Abtaliōn, whose disciples were Hillēl and Shammāi. Hillēl was famous for his learning and gentleness. He was a descendant of David and lived a hundred and twenty years. He had thousands of pupils. The following was said about the most select of these: Hillēl the elder had eighty disciples. Thirty were worthy of association with the Shekhinah; thirty were fit to declare embolismic years, and twenty stood between the two former groups. The greatest of them was Jōnāthān b. Uzzi‘ēl, the least of them was Joḥānān b. Zakkāi, who left unstudied no verse in the Bible, nor Mishnāh, Talmud, Halākhā, Agādā, explanatory rules of the Sages and Scribes, nor any word of the law code.

p. 189 [paragraph continues] It was said concerning him, that he never held a profane conversation, was always the last and first in the house of study, never slept there even for a few minutes, never walked four yards without a word of Tōrāh or phylacteries, never sat idle, but studied deeply. No one lectured to his pupils but he, said nothing but what he had heard from the mouth of his teacher, and never said that it was time to leave the house of study. This was also characteristic of his disciple R. Eliezer. R. Jōḥānān b. Zakkāi lived a hundred and twenty years like his master, and saw the second Temple. Among his disciples was R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos, the author of the 'Chapters of R. Eliezer,' a famous work on astronomy, calculation of the spheres and earth and other profound astronomical subjects. His pupil was R. Ishmael b. Elisha, the High Priest. He is the author of the works entitled 'Hēkhālōth', 'Hakhārath Panim,' and the 'Ma‘asē Merkābāh,' because he was initiated in the secrets of this science, being worthy of a degree near prophecy. He is responsible for the following utterance: 'Once I entered [the Holy of Holiest] in order to burn the incense, and I saw Akhterīēl Yāh, the Lord of Hosts,' etc. Another pupil of his was the famous R. Joshua between whom and Rabbān Gamaliēl occurred the well known affair; further R. Jōsē, and R. Elāzar b. Arākh. Of the last named it was said: 'If all Sages of Israel were placed on one scale and Elāzar b. Arākh on the other, he would outweigh them ' Beside those famous men and many Sages, priests and Levites whose calling was the study of the law, there flourished undisturbed in the same period the seventy learned members of the Synhedrion on whose authority officials were appointed or deposed. With

p. 190 reference to this it is told: R. Simon b. Joḥāi said: 'I heard from the mouth of the seventy elders on the day when R. Eliezer b. Azariāh was appointed President of the Academy.' These seventy had a hundred followers, the latter -thousands; for, seventy such accomplished men can best be selected from hundreds standing beneath them and so on by degrees. In the next generation after the destruction of the Temple, there lived R. Akībāh and R. Tarfōn and R. Jōsē of Galilee with their friends. R. Akībāh reached a degree so near prophecy that he held intercourse with the spiritual world, as it is said: Four persons entered paradise; one of them peeped in and died, the other did the same and was hurt; the third did likewise and cut the plants down, and only one entered in peace and left in peace. This was R. Akībāh. The one who died was unable to bear the glance of the higher world, and his body collapsed. The second lost his mind and whispered divine frenzy without benefiting mankind. The third fell into bad ways, because he ascended above human intelligence and said: 'Human actions are but instruments which lead up to spiritual heights. Having reached these I care not for religious ceremonies. He was corrupt and corrupted others, erred and caused others to err.' R. Akībāh conversed with both worlds without harm, and it was said of him: He was as worthy of associating with the Shekhinah as Moses, but the period was not propitious. He was one of the ten martyrs, and during his torture enquired of his pupils, whether the time of reading the Shema‘ had arrived. They answered: 'O our master; even now?' 'All my days,' he answered, 'I endeavoured to practise the words: "with all thy heart and all thy soul--even if it costs thee thy life"; now, when

p. 191 the opportunity has arisen, I will make them true.' He protracted the ēḥād till his soul fled 66. Al Khazari: In this way one may spend a happy life, and die a happy! death, and then live an eternal life in never-ceasing bliss. 67. The Rabbi: In the next generation lived R. Mēīr, R. Judah, R. Simon b. Azzāi, and R. Ḥananyāh b. Teradiōn and their friends. They were followed by Rabbi, viz. R. Judāh Hannāsi, 'our Teacher.' His contemporaries were R. Nāthān, R. Joshua b. Korḥāh, and many others who were the last teachers of the Mishnāh, also called Tannāim. They were followed by the Amōrāim, who are the authorities of the Talmud. The Mishnāh was compiled in the year 530, according the era of the 'Documents,' which corresponds to the year 150 after the destruction of the Temple, and 530 years after the termination of prophecy. In the Mishnāh were reproduced those sayings and doings which--few out of many--we have quoted. They treated the Mishnāh with the same care as the Tōrāh, arranging it in sections, chapters and paragraphs. Its traditions are so reliable that no suspicion of invention could be upheld. Besides this the Mishnāh contains a large amount of pure Hebrew which is not borrowed from the Bible. It is greatly distinguished by terseness of language, beauty of style, excellence of composition, and the comprehensive employment of homonyms, applied in a lucid way, leaving neither doubt nor obscurity. This is so striking that every one who looks at it with genuine scrutiny must be aware that mortal man is incapable of composing such a work without divine assistance. Only he who is hostile to it, who does not know it, and never endeavoured

p. 192 to read and study it, hearing some general and allegorical utterances of the Sages deems them senseless and defective, just as one who judges a person after meeting him, without having conversed with him for any length of time. The following saying of R. Nahum the Scribe will show how the Sages based their learning on that of the prophets: 'I have heard from R. Mayyāshā, who learnt from the "pairs," who had it from the prophets as an ordination given to Moses from Sinai.' They were careful not to hand down the teachings of single individuals, as is shown by the following saying uttered on the deathbed of one of them, to his son: 'My son, retract thy opinion on four subjects which I have taught thee.' 'Wherefore,' asked the son, 'didst thou not retract thine?' 'I learnt,' answered the father, 'from many who, in their turn, had learnt from many. I kept to my tradition, and they to theirs. Thou, however, didst learn only from one person. It is better to neglect the teachings of a single individual, and to accept that of the majority.' These are a few sayings, like a drop from the sea, showing the excellence of the traditions of the Mishnāh. To give thee a sketch of the traditions and traditionists of the Talmud, and its methods, sentences and aphorisms, would lead us too far. And if there is in it many a thing which is considered less attractive to-day, it was yet held proper in those days.

68. Al Khazari: Indeed, several details in their sayings appear to me inferior to their general principles. They employ verses of the Tōrāh in a manner without regard to common sense. One can only say that the application of such verses once for legal deductions, p. 193 another time for homiletic purposes, does not tally with their real meaning. Their Agadās and tales are often against reason. 69. The Rabbi: Didst thou notice how strictly and minutely the comments on the Mishnāh and Boraithā are given? They speak with a thoroughness and lucidity which do equal justice both to the words and meaning of them. 70. Al Khazari: I am well aware to what perfection they brought the art of dialectics, but this is an argument which cannot be refuted. 71. The Rabbi: May we assume that he who proceeds with so much thoroughness should not know as much of the contents of a verse as we know? 72. Al Khazari: This is most unlikely. Two cases are possible. Either we are ignorant of their method of interpreting the Tōrāh, or the interpreters of the Rabbinic law are not identical with those of the Holy Writ. The latter point of view is absurd. It is seldom that we see them give a verse a rational and literal rendition, but, on the other hand, we never find them interpret a halākhā except on the lines of strict logic. 73. The Rabbi: Let us rather assume two other possibilities. Either they employ secret methods of interpretation which we are unable to discern, and which were handed down to them, together with the method of the 'Thirteen Rules of Interpretation,' or they use Biblical verses as a kind of fulcrum of interpretation in a method called Asmakhtā, and make them a sort of hall mark of tradition. An instance is given in the following verse: 'And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat' (Gen. ii. 16 sq.). It

p. 194 forms the basis of the 'seven Noahide laws' in the following manner: ['He] commanded' refers to jurisdiction. 'The Lord' refers to prohibition of blasphemy. 'God' refers to prohibition of idolatry. 'The man' refers to prohibition of murder. 'Saying' refers to prohibition of incest. 'Of every tree of the garden,' prohibition of rape. 'Thou mayest surely eat,' a prohibition of flesh from the living animal. [paragraph continues] There is a wide difference between these injunctions and the verse. The people, however, accepted these seven laws as tradition, connecting them with the verse as aid to memory. It is also possible that they applied both methods of interpreting verses, or others which are now lost to us. Considering the well-known wisdom, piety, zeal, and number of the Sages which excludes a common plan, it is our duty to follow them. If we feel any doubt, it is not due to their words, but to our own intelligence. This also applies to the Tōrāh and its contents. We must ascribe the defective understanding of it to ourselves. As to the Agādās, many serve as basis and introduction for explanations and inunctions. For instance: the saying, 'When the Lord descended to Egypt,' etc. is designed to confirm the belief that the delivery from Egypt was a deliberate act of God, and not an accident, nor achieved with the assistance of human plotting, spirits, stars, and angels, jinn, or any other fanciful creation of the mind. It was done by God's providence alone. Statements of this kind are introduced by the word kibejākhōl, which

p. 195 means: If this could be so and so, it would be so and so. Although this is not to be found in the Talmud, but only in a few other works, it is to be so understood wherever it is found. This is also the meaning of the words of Micaiah, when he said to Ahab: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne . . . host of heaven. And the Lord said, who shall persuade Ahab. . . . And there came forth a spirit,' etc. (1 Kings. xxii. 19 sqq.) As a matter of fact all that he intended conveying was: Behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets. Verses of this kind serve as a fulcrum and induction, rendering a subject eloquent, apposite, and showing that it is based on truth. To the same category belong tales of visions of spirits, a matter which is not strange in such pious men. Some of the visions they saw were the consequence of their lofty thoughts and pure minds, others were really apparent, as was the case with those seen by the prophets. Such is the nature of the Bāth Qōl, often heard during the time of the second Temple, and regarded as ranking next to prophecy and the Divine voice. Do not consider strange what R. Ishmael said: 'I heard a voice cooing like a dove, etc.' For the histories of Moses and Elijah prove that such a thing is possible, and when a true account is given, it must be accepted as such. In a similar sense we must take the words: 'Woe unto me that I have destroyed my house' (Gen. vi. 6), which is of the same character as: 'And it repented the Lord, . . . and it grieved Him at His heart.' Other Rabbinic sayings are parables employed to express mysterious teachings which were not to be made public. For they are of no use to the masses, and were only handed over to a few select persons

p. 196 for research and investigation, if a proper person suitable--one in an age, or in several--could be found. Other sayings appear senseless on the face of them, but that they have their meaning, becomes apparent after but a little reflection. The following is an instance: Seven things were created prior to the world: Paradise, the Tōrāh, the just, Israel, the throne of glory, Jerusalem, and the Messiah, the son of David.' This is similar to the saying of some philosophers: 'The primary thought includes the final deed.' It was the object of divine wisdom in the creation of the world to create the Tōrāh, which was the essence of wisdom, and whose bearers are the just, among whom stands the throne of glory and the truly righteous, who are the most select, viz. Israel, and the proper place for them was Jerusalem, and only the best of men, viz. the Messiah, son of David, could be associated with them, and they all entered Paradise. Figuratively speaking, one must assume that they were created prior to the world. Seemingly against common sense is also the saying: Ten things were created in the twilight, viz. the opening of the earth, the opening of the spring, the mouth of the she ass, etc., as otherwise the Tōrāh were out of harmony with nature. Nature claims to pursue its regular course, whilst the Tōrāh claims to alter this regular course. The solution is that ordinary natural phenomena are altered within natural limits, since they had been primarily fixed by the divine will, and clearly laid down from the six days of creation. I will not deny, O King of the Khazars, that there are matters in the Talmud of which I am unable to give thee a satisfactory explanation, nor even bring them in connexion with the whole. These things stand in the

p. 197 [paragraph continues] Talmud through the conscientiousness of the disciples, who followed the principle that 'even the commonplace talk of the Sages requires study.' They took care to reproduce only that which they had heard from their teachers, striving at the same time to understand everything they had heard from their masters. In this they went so far as to render it in the same words, although they may not have grasped its meaning. In this case they said: 'Thus have we been taught and have heard.' Occasionally the teacher concealed from his pupils the reasons which prompted him to make certain statements. But the matter came down to us in this form, and we think little of it, because we do not know its purport. For the whole of this relates to topics which do not touch on lawful or unlawful matters. Let us not therefore trouble about it, and the book will lose nothing if we consider the points discussed here. 74. Al Khazari: Thou hast pleased me greatly, and strengthened my belief in tradition. Now I should like to learn something of the scientific pursuits of the Sages. But previously give me a discourse on the names of God. On this subject thou canst speak at greater length. END OF THE THIRD PART.