Jochanan's character was marked by a profound morality; the slave who waited upon him was allowed to partake of all the dishes prepared for his master. He had the misfortune to lose his ten sons; the unfortunate father carried about with him a small bone of his last son, in order to console all such as had to bewail a similar disaster, by the relation of his extraordinary misfortune. "Behold all that now remains of the last of my ten sons," he was wont to explain to them. A daughter alone was left to Jochanan; thus, an orphan from his birth, he died almost childless. He is said to have had periods of insanity in his extreme old age, occasioned by grief at the death of his friend and brother-in-law, Ben-Lakish, of which he believed himself to be the cause.
Simeon Ben-Lakish, Jochanan's contemporary friend, brother-in-law and opponent, was in many ways his counterpart, and was altogether a peculiar personage, in whom were united the most opposite qualities; rough physical strength was coupled with tenderness of sentiment and acuteness of mind. Resh-Lakish, for such was his abbreviated name, seems to have been born at Bostra, the capital of the Saracens, about the year 200, and to have died in 275. As Jochanan's constant comrade, he had seen the Patriarch Judah I. in his youth, and had been brought up in the school of his successors. The sources of the Talmud are never tired of dilating on his gigantic strength and enormous size. He once engaged himself at the Circus in the capacity of slaughterer of wild beasts, his duty being to protect the spectators of these highly popular combats from the fury of the animals. Ben-Lakish probably only chose this low and dangerous occupation out of necessity. Tradition is at some pains to reconcile and to transform into a beautiful picture the glaring contrasts existing in Resh-Lakish, his rude strength and his study of the Law. But his scrupulous integrity is even more renowned than his enormous physical strength. It is related that he used to avoid the company of persons of whose honesty he was not fully convinced, for which reason unlimited credit was usually accorded to all whom Ben-Lakish honored with his society, without any further inquiry. His earnest and gloomy countenance was never brightened by a smile, for he considered cheerfulness to be frivolous, so long as the holy people were subject to the power of the heathens. We have already noticed his love of truth and his candor, which he carried almost to insult in his animadversions on the abuses of the Patriarch. In Biblical exegesis he adopted the method of finding ingenious explanations, in which study he surpassed his older comrade and brother-in-law. "When he considered Halachic questions," says a source of the Talmud, "it was as though he were grinding the mountains against one another." Ben-Lakish possessed a certain originality in the study of the Agada, and advanced peculiar views, which were only estimated at their proper worth in later times. It was often questioned in the schools at what period the sufferings of Job had occurred, the other circumstances of this remarkable drama were also debated, and the most contrary views found expression. Resh-Lakish seems to have come to an accurate conclusion in advancing the opinion that Job had existed at no period, that he had never lived, and was simply an ingenious moral creation (Mashal). This view appeared very strange to his contemporaries, who were unable to comprehend such a conception. The names of the angels were regarded by Ben-Lakish as not having been originally Jewish, but as being a foreign element transplanted into Judaism, which had, in fact, been brought by the Jewish nation from Persia. He was wont to contradict the assertions of those who extolled the past at the expense of the present, who declared hyperbolically "that a nail of the ancients was worth more than the whole body of their descendants"; or, in another form, "that if the ancients were angels, we, on the contrary, are only asses"; he used to say that the existing generation possessed greater merit, for the reason that although heavily oppressed, they still pursued the study of the Law. Although a friend of Jochanan from his youth, and drawn still closer to him by the ties of family alliance, Ben-Lakish was nevertheless at variance with him during his last years.
The name of Joshua ben-Levi, who formed, with Jochanan and Ben-Lakish, the triumvirate of the Palestinian Amoraim, is more renowned in the world of legend than in history, where, indeed, but little is related of him. The son of Levi ben-Sissi, he conducted a school at Lydda, in the south of Judæa. It is true that the inhabitants of Lydda were not in over-good repute with the Galileans, who pronounced them proud and superficial. But Joshua's reputation in no way suffered from this circumstance, and his authority was greatly respected. To his opinions on the Halachas was accorded for the most part the force of law, even in those cases where the other two members of the triumvirate entertained different views. Joshua himself admits, however, that he forgot many traditions during the period in which he was occupied with the organization of the communities of Southern Judæa. The situation of the communities of this district had, in fact, been so unsettled ever since the catastrophe in the time of Hadrian, that Jochanan and Jonathan were obliged to journey thither in order to restore peace and order. Joshua also on one occasion visited Rome, in the capacity of collector of revenues for the Patriarch. He had there an opportunity of observing a fact which exhibited in strong relief the contrasts existing in the capital of the world. He saw a statue enveloped in drapery, in order to protect it against heat and cold, while near by sat a beggar who had hardly a rag to cover his nakedness. He is said to have expected the Messiah to appear in the capital of the world, where he supposed that he existed in the guise of a servant, waiting among the beggars and cripples at the gate, and expecting every moment to be called upon to effect the deliverance of Israel. According to the legend, Joshua ben-Levi was regarded as one of those choice spirits who were admitted to the most intimate intercourse with the prophet Elijah, and over whom death itself was obliged to relinquish its power. He wrested the sword from the angel of death, went to Heaven alive, measured the expanse of the Heavens, of Paradise, and of Hell, and forwarded the results of his investigation to Gamaliel through the medium of the destroying angel himself, who was obliged to submit to his orders.
An original path in the explanation of the Agada was struck out by Simlaï; he it was who first considered this collection worthy of profounder study. Born at Lydda, he had quitted this desolate region, and had settled down at Nahardea, where the new school of the Babylonian Amoraim was first coming to its prime. He entertained the most friendly relations with the Patriarch Judah II. He possessed but small weight in questions relating to the study of the Law, and his Halachic attainments were not esteemed in Palestine. He was the first to collect together all the commands contained in the Jewish Law, numbering 613, of which 365 are prohibitions, and 248 affirmative precepts. David, according to Simlaï, reduced these 613 commands to the following eleven virtues: honesty, justice, truthfulness, abhorrence of calumny, of malice and of injuring one's neighbor, despising the wicked, reverence of the worthy, sanctity of oaths, unselfish lending without interest, and forbearance from bribery. Isaiah summed them up in six, as follows: to be just in our conduct, honest in our speech, to despise self-interest, to keep our hand from bribery, our ear from wicked insinuations, and our eye from base desires. The Prophet Micah reduced the commands of the Law to three leading principles: the exercise of justice, love of charity, and humility; while the second Isaiah brought them down to two, which are, to cherish justice and to exercise charity. Finally, the Prophet Habakkuk expressed them all in a single formula: "The just man lives by his faith." This was the first attempt to reduce the whole Law of Israel to principles. A beautiful parable, in which Simlaï indicates the part played by every nation in the history of the world, affords evidence both of the wide extent of his views and of his poetical talent.
Possessed of a profound knowledge of the Scripture, and gifted with an elevated mind, Simlaï was especially qualified to enter into discussion with the Fathers of the Church, and to shake the arguments which they drew from the Old Testament in support of the dogmas of Christianity. In these discussions Simlaï gave evidence of a sound exegesis, free from misinterpretations. During the time of the first generation of Amoraim, Christianity had entered upon a new stage; in opposition to the tendency of the primitive Christians (Ebionites and Nazarenes), a universal Catholic Church had come into existence, whose fundamental doctrines (dogmas), collected from all quarters, some Pauline, others anti-Pauline, others heathen, were generally assented to by the majority of Christians. The various sects of primitive Christians and Gnostics were vanquished, being either embodied in the incorporated Catholic Church or rejected as heretical. This creation of a Catholic Church and the unification of the Christian religion, accomplished in the midst of all this diversity and schism, were largely brought about by the Bishops of Rome. These arrogated to themselves, on the strength of their seat in the capital of the world, the supremacy over all the other bishops and patriarchs, expelled them from the community for unorthodox opinions (as in the case of the discussion concerning the celebration of the Passover), and gradually obtained recognition as chief-bishops and Popes. After the completion of this work the spirit of research also made its appearance among the Christians, and the traditions of the Church were subjected to a thorough investigation.
New dogmas had made their appearance, which the authorities sought to establish and secure. The rigid doctrine of the Unity of God, derived by Christianity from the parent religion, had in course of time, and in proportion as the new Church glorified the Messiahship of Jesus, given rise to a doctrine of duality: Father and Son, or the Creator of the World, and the Logos. To these was soon added a third. The primitive Jewish view of the inspiration by God of the Prophets and other pious persons, which was, in this signification, characterized as holy inspiration (Ruach-ha-Kodesh), crystallized in Christianity into the dogma of the Holy Ghost considered as a person, and regarded as an equality with God and Christ and as having originally co-existed with them. Without being aware of the fact, Christianity, which considered itself a truly spiritual and refined Judaism, had adopted an entirely different idea of God, in fact, a sort of tritheism. The more the Christian dogma of the Trinity was at variance with the very essence of Judaism, the more trouble was taken to establish that it was supported by the Old Testament, in order to give it thus the stamp of antiquity. This proof, however, was not to be furnished by straightforward means, and thus the Fathers of the Church of the Palestinean and Alexandrian schools, being acquainted with Hebrew, were obliged to take refuge in all sorts of allegorical interpretations. Wherever the Scriptures contained several denominations for God, they professed to see an indication of the Trinity in the letter of the text itself. Even the simple opening words of the Pentateuch, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," were interpreted by this Christology in proof of Christ's co-operation in the creation of the world; for "the beginning" was interpreted to mean "wisdom," or the "Word" (Logos), being synonymous with Christ, and this sentence was thus found to contain the profound secret that "God created the world in Christ"! As long as the leading spirits of Christianity remained ignorant of the Hebrew sources, they were not in a position to hold any serious conference on matters of religion. It was only when the Fathers of the Church applied themselves, like Origen, to the acquirement of a clearer Hebrew text, that polemical discussions on Christological themes became more frequent.
Simlaï, in particular, defended the doctrine of the unity of God against the Christian dogma of the Trinity, and adduced the proofs for his contention with consummate skill. His opponent in this theoretical dispute was perhaps Origen, who was for a long time a resident in Palestine. By the help of a sober method of interpretation Simlaï established the fact that all the passages of the Holy Scripture which appear to afford an argument in support of the Trinity, in reality bring out and emphasize so strongly the unity of God, that any misconception appears impossible. Jew and Christian who, like quarrelsome brothers, had cherished feelings of animosity to each other during the time they had lived under one roof, now contented themselves with carrying on religious controversies.
The attacks upon Christianity during this period had the effect of producing a certain acquaintance with Jewish literature even in the heathens, who turned it to account in their efforts to restrain the growth of Christianity. In Daniel, the Christian dogmatists had discovered a Sibylline book, with vague insinuations and mystic numbers, which they contended contained prophecies relating to the Christian economy and to the appearance of Christ on the Day of Judgment. In opposition to these views the heathen philosopher Porphyry wrote a polemical commentary on the book of Daniel, which is certainly the only Biblical commentary composed by a heathen. This neo-Platonist, who was possessed of moderate but mystic views, bore the oriental name of Malchus, and was a native of Batanea, formerly a Jewish province. He asserted in his commentary that the book of Daniel is the work of an author who lived during the time of the persecution of Judaism and the Jews by the Syrian monarch, Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the ambiguous expressions in which it abounds are only allusions to that period, and in nowise prophecies, still less oracular proofs of the facts of Christianity.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE JEWS OF THE PARTHIAN EMPIRE
Increasing importance of the Jewish Community in Babylonia – The Prince of the Captivity – The Babylonian Amoraim – Abba Areka (Rab) and his royal friend Artaban – Samuel and King Shabur – Important Political Changes under the Neo-Persians – Anarchy in Rome – Zenobia and the Jews.
219–279 C. E
During the Patriarchate of Judah II. many important events occurred in the Jewish community of Babylonia, which contributed to place that country in the foreground of Jewish history. After the loss of their mother, the children of Israel had found a second in Babylonia, and had never yet experienced a stepmother's treatment at her hands. Babylonia, the Italy of the East, whose capital had in ancient times, like Rome, first been the ruler of the world, and then the point of attack of uncivilized tribes in their migrations; whose name still exercises a certain magic in the distance, even after its fall; Babylonia, which had already been the temporary abode of the Jewish race, now became for a long period the permanent scene of Jewish activity. Judæa, on the other hand, gradually fell into the background. The peculiar formation of the country between the Euphrates and the Tigris facilitated the separation of Judaism from its primitive scene of action, and brought about the transplantation of Jewish genius into a foreign zone; by reason of the abundant opportunities of employment which the land afforded, similar to those to which they had been accustomed, it became a second fatherland for the homeless nation. The great number of the Jews who had inhabited this district time out of mind; their independence, which had suffered no restraint at the hands of the Parthian and Persian rulers; the luster imparted to their situation by the possession of a political chief; their inherent, self-contained vitality, unweakened by suffering and petty annoyances, all these things contributed to invest their character with a peculiar quality and to further the evolution of new parts and tendencies. The sojourn in Babylonia imbued the Jewish mind with that particular form of keen intelligence which discovers an answer to every question, a solution to every riddle, and is discouraged by no difficulties. The Jews of this country acquired studious, plodding, energetic habits; the successive leaders and principals of the schools showed them the paths of profound wisdom and impressed on them the seal of elevated thought.
The word Babylonia, as used in Jewish history, is capable of a broad and a narrow interpretation, and possesses, in fact, three different meanings. In the broadest sense in which it occurs it includes the whole district between the Zagros mountains and the Euphrates, from the sources of the twin-river Tigris-Euphrates to the Persian Gulf. In a narrower sense it signifies the strip of land enclosed between the two rivers, where their beds begin to converge towards each other and at last actually unite, and where numerous canals formerly intersected the country and connected their streams: the southern part of Mesopotamia, the ancient province of Babel, and a portion of the former kingdom of Chaldæa. Babylonia, as understood in this narrow sense, was principally inhabited by Jews, and for this reason was also known by the name of "the land of Israel." Finally, in its most limited sense, Babylonia designates a small district on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, of which the center-point seems to have been the town of Pumbeditha. This district extends from Nahardea in the north to Sora in the south, a distance of twenty-two parasangs (sixty-eight miles). The fixing of the boundaries of Jewish Babylonia is not a matter of indifference for history, as in former times it constituted a matter of conscience. Even in Judæa the natives of Babylonia of Jewish origin were admitted to possess the most unsullied purity of descent, and to have refrained from all intercourse with heathens, slaves, or persons born out of wedlock; Judæa was far behind Babylonia in this respect. An old proverb says: "In the matter of descent, the Jewish population of the (Roman) countries is to that of Judæa, as adulterated dough is to pure meal, but Judæa itself is only as dough when compared with Babylonia."
The Jewish province in Babylonia was divided into several smaller districts, each of which was known by the name of its capital. Thus there existed the districts of Nares, Sora, Pumbeditha, Nahardea, Nahar-Pakod, Machuza, and some others, all of them possessed of some characteristic, such as a peculiar dialect, or particular customs or manners, or even distinct weights and measures. Four of these towns were distinguished as prominent centers, each having in turn been at the head of the entire province. The first place was occupied by Nahardea (also called Naarda, of which name there were both a town and a district); this was a fortified city situated on the Euphrates and a canal called the Naraga, and was entirely inhabited by Jews; it lay on the boundary-line of Jewish Babylonia. During a certain period Nahardea was a Babylonian Jerusalem; here were situated, in the time of the continuance of the Temple, the treasure-chambers of the Babylonian communities for the reception of the gifts to the Temple, which it was customary to convey to Jerusalem under a strong escort. A few miles to the south of Nahardea lay Firuz-Shabur (afterwards Anbar), a fortified and thickly-populated town, and the most important in the country after Ctesiphon, the capital.
Near by lay Pumbeditha, situated on one of the numerous canals of the Euphrates, and adorned with many palaces. Pumbeditha was none the less a thoroughly Jewish town, with a Jewish congregation, and was regarded as the capital of Jewish Babylonia. Within its territory lay several smaller towns and fortified castles, which nestled in the shadow of the capital. The inhabitants of Pumbeditha were considered acute and cunning, and were even notorious for their deceit and dishonesty. "If a man of Pumbeditha accompany thee," said a proverb, "change thy lodging."
Sixteen geographical miles (twenty-two parasangs) south of Pumbeditha was situated the town of Mata-Mechassia. It lay on the shore of a broad lake, Sora, which was in reality the Euphrates, widening out over the low-lying country; from its position on this lake the town also derived the name of Sora. It was inhabited by a mixed population of Jews and heathens. The region round Sora was one of the most fruitful parts of the whole country; by reason of its low situation it was inundated every year by the Euphrates and its tributaries and canals, and the overflow produced an Egyptian fertility. Pumbeditha was distinguished for its magnificent buildings and the cunning of its population, while Mata-Mechassia was noted for the poverty and honesty of its inhabitants. A proverb expresses this contrast in the following words: "It is better to live on the dunghills in Mechassia than in the palaces of Pumbeditha."
With these three towns of the Euphrates, Nahardea, Pumbeditha, and Mata-Mechassia, a fourth contested the supremacy: this was Machuza, situated on the Tigris, at a distance of hardly twelve miles from Ctesiphon, the capital of the Parthians. Machuza, also called Machuza-Malka, from the King's Canal (Nahar Malka) which flows in proximity to the Tigris, was situated on an eminence, and was fortified with two strong walls and a moat. Close by stood a castle, called Akra di Coche, which served as a bulwark to the capital, Ctesiphon. In spite of the importance which Machuza and its castle must have possessed for the Parthian and Persian rulers, it was, nevertheless, entirely inhabited by Jews, and an Amora expressed his surprise that the gates of its fortress were not provided with the prescribed Mezuzas.
The most noted families of Machuza were descended from proselytes, for which reason their features differed from those of the remainder of the Jewish population of Babylonia. They are described as having been very frivolous, addicted to pleasure and good cheer, and more devoted to the affairs of this world than to those of the next; they were called on this account "candidates for hell." It is related of the women of Machuza that they indulged in pleasure and idleness. Once, when a Palestinean teacher of the Law brought from Judæa to Nahardea a Halacha allowing women to wear golden head-bands set with precious stones on the Sabbath, it was remarked that only four-and-twenty women in that town availed themselves of this permission, while in one quarter alone of Machuza there were eighteen who appeared with most costly head-bands. The proximity of Ctesiphon, and its wealth, had probably some influence on the luxurious propensities and the manners of the inhabitants of Machuza. This city also, which was the residence of the king, and the newly-built town of Ardashir, which lay close by, were thickly populated with Jews. The entire district of Babylonia, with its numerous canals, resembled an island, and its wonderful fertility made of the whole country one extensive garden. There was so great a multitude of date plantations that it used to be said proverbially of the Babylonians: "A basketful of dates for a denar, and yet they do not apply themselves to the study of the Law!"
The occupations followed by the Babylonian Jews were agriculture, trades of all descriptions, and, what is of course natural in a country dependent on its canals for irrigation, the digging and cleaning of these artificial waterways; they also bred cattle, carried on commerce, undertook voyages, and cultivated certain of the fine arts.
The greatness of their numbers invested the Babylonian Jews with a certain amount of independence, and they seemed in this country almost as if in a land of their own. Their situation with regard to the rulers of the land was very favorable, as they were only called upon to pay a poll-tax (Charag) and a land-tax (Taska); there was at this period much vacant ground in the region of the Euphrates, and any one could take possession of a plot on becoming answerable for the land-tax in respect thereof. The Jews possessed their own political chief, who was called the Prince of the Captivity (Exilarch, Resh-Galutha); he was a dignitary of the Persian empire, and the fourth in rank from the king. His position with regard to the Persian kings was that of a feudatory. The Resh-Galuthas were, in fact, vassals of the Persian crown, but were simply confirmed, not chosen, by the monarch. Their badges of office were a silken cloak and a golden girdle; in later times they were surrounded by a princely luxuriousness, rode in a state carriage, possessed their own train of attendants, and an outrider to announce their approach. When they were received in solemn audience by the king, the royal attendants showed them the greatest respect, and they treated with the ruler on a footing of equality. According to the usage of Eastern princes, they were entertained with music at the moment of rising from or going to bed, a custom which was severely censured by the strict teachers of the Law, on account of the mourning for Jerusalem.
The Princes of the Captivity were descendants of the house of David, for which reason the people gladly acknowledged their sway, since it honored itself and felt honored in its princes. An old chronicle gives the full details of their names and numbers. They traced back their descent as far as Zerubbabel, the grandson of the Jewish King Jojachin, who is supposed to have returned to Babel, and to have become the ancestor of a long line of descendants. It is not until the second century that a Resh-Galutha, by name Achiya, is visible through the deep obscurity of antiquity. Another, Mar-Huna, in the time of Judah I, commanded that his body should be brought to Palestine, in order to be buried in holy ground. From that time forward, however, the succession of the Princes of the Captivity can be traced in an unbroken chain till the eleventh century. They exercised considerable influence upon the development of Jewish history in Babylonia. Their relations with the people are indicated in a few occasional passages only.
The Resh-Galutha was the supreme judge of the Jewish communities, both in civil and in criminal cases; he either administered justice in person, or delegated his office to judges of his own nomination. The ordinary coercive measure employed in cases of disobedience was the bastinado, according to Eastern custom. The princes were also entrusted with the police of the cities, the control of weights and measures, the inspection of canals, and the guardianship of public safety, to all of which various charges they appointed their own officers. It is nowhere indicated what revenues the Princes of the Captivity derived from the people; it is most probable that the primitive Asiatic custom of making presents to the sovereign obtained. It is not until later times that mention is made of regular yearly revenues drawn by them from certain regions and cities. They enjoyed an honorable public distinction which was only conferred upon such rulers as were descended from David; this consisted of having the scrolls of the Law brought to them when they had to read a portion of the Torah aloud, whereas every one else was obliged to go to the scrolls. Wealthy by reason of the income accruing from their extensive lands, they also possessed many slaves and a numerous suite of attendants; even free men placed themselves under their patronage, wearing, as sign of their fealty, the arms of their masters on their garments. The Princes of the Captivity were most sensitive with regard to these distinctive marks, refusing to pardon even the scholars whom they themselves supported, if they laid aside or even only covered over these badges. There was too much power in the hands of the Prince, and this power was too little restrained or regulated by law or tradition, for cases of arbitrariness and abuse of authority not to be forthcoming. Numerous complaints were made of the arrogance, arbitrary encroachments, or violent deeds of many of the Princes of the Captivity or their servants; they deposed the principals of the schools, appointing others in their places who were often without merit. But what power has ever restrained itself within the bounds of justice and equity? In prehistoric times, that is to say, before the knowledge of the Law had been carried to Babylonia and there domesticated, the ignorance of the Princes of the Captivity in matters of religious practice appears to have been so profound, that it was possible to transgress the laws relating to food in their house with the greatest impunity. But history tells also of meritorious persons among their numbers, who in later times combined a knowledge of the Jewish law with the possession of Jewish virtues, and whose names became a source of glory to the nation. The Princes of the Captivity often united with their political power the authority of teachers of the Law, equaling in this respect the Palestinean Patriarchs. As certain of these latter attempted to acquire political influence, in order not to be inferior to the Resh-Galutha – in which attempt, however, they were not always successful – many of the Princes of the Captivity endeavored in turn to obtain the dignity of teacher. All these various circumstances, the great number of the Jewish population of Babylonia, their independence, and the concentrated power of the Princes, stamp the history of the Jews of this region with a peculiar character; new needs arose in this country which were unknown in Judæa; new needs produced new regulations and Halachas, and thus the Law entered upon a new development in which, as already intimated, Babylon played the most important part.