Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ THE Jewish Encyclopedia A DESCRIPTIVE RECORD OF THE HISTORY, RELIGION, LITERATURE, AND CUS- TOMS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY Prepared by More than Four Hundred Scholars and Specialists UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE FOLLOWING EDITORIAL BOARD Cyrus ADLER, PH.D. (Departments of Post. KAUFMANN KOHLER, PH.D. (Departments of Biblical Antiquities ; the Jews of America). Theology and Philosophy). GOTTHARD DEuTSCH, Pu.D. (Department of HERMAN ROSENTHAL (Department of the Jews of History from 1492 to 1904). Russia and Poland), RICHARD GOTTHEIL, PH.D. (Departments of History from Ezra to 1492; History of Post- Talmudic Literature). Emit G. Hirscu, Pu.D., LL.D. (Department of ISIDORE SINGER, PH.D. (Department of Modern the Bible). Biography from 1750 to 1904). JOSEPH JACOBS, B.A, (Departments of the Jews Crawrorpd H. Toy, D.D., LL.D. (Departments of England and Anthropology; Revising Editor). of Hebrew Philology and Hellenistic Literature). SOLOMON SCHECHTER, M.A., LitT.D. (Defart- ment of the Talmud). ISAAC K., FUNK, D.D., LL.D. FRANK H. VIZETELLY, F.S.A. Chairman of the Board Secretary of the Board WILLIAM Popper, M.A., PH.D. Associate Revising Editor ; Chief of the Bureau of Translation ISIDORE SINGER, Ph.D. Projector and Managing Editor ASSISTED BY AMERICAN AND FOREIGN BOARDS OF CONSULTING EDITORS COMPLETE IN TWELVE VOLUMES EMBELLISHED WITH MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND ILLUSTRATIONS FUNK AND WAGNALLS COMPANY NEW YORK AND LONDON Hosted by Google Hosted by Google - , ae $4 20 Hosted by Google Hosted by Google THE Jewish Encyclopedia A DESCRIPTIVE RECORD OF THE HISTORY, RELIGION, LITERATURE, AND CUS- TOMS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY Prepared by More than Four Hundred Scholars and Specialists UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE FOLLOWING EDITORIAL BOARD Cyrus ADLER, PH.D. (Departments of Post- JosEPH JACOBS, B.A. (Departments of the Jews Biblical Antiquities ; the Jews of America). of England and Anthropology; Revising Editor). GoTTHARD Deurscu, Pu.D. (Department of KAUFMANN KOHLER, PH.D. (Departments of History from 1492 to 1903). Theology and Philosophy). HERMAN ROSENTHAL (D tment of th LouIs GINZBERG, PH.D. (Department of Rad- ponies oe eee epartment of the Jews of binical Literature). ) SOLOMON SCHECHTER, M.A., Litt.D. (Depart- RICHARD GOTTHEIL, PH.D. (Departments of ment of the Talmud), flistory from Ezra to 1492; LHistory of Post- Jsjpore SINGER, PH.D. (Department of Modern Talmudic Literature), Biography fron 1750 to I9Q}). EMIL G. Hirscu, PH.D., LL.D. (Department of Crawrorp H. Toy, D.D., LL.D. (Departments the Bible). of Hebrew Philology and Hellenistic Literature). ISAAC K. FUNK, D.D., LL.D. FRANK H. VIZETELLY, F.S.A. Chairman of the Board Secretary of the Board WILLIAM Popper, M.A., PH.D. Associate Revising Editor ; Chief of the Bureau of Translation ISIDORE SINGER, Ph.D. Projector and Managing Editor ASSISTED BY AMERICAN AND FOREIGN BOARDS OF CONSULTING EDITORS VOLUME IV CHAZARS—DREYFUS CASE FUNK AND WAGNALLS COMPANY NEW YORK AND LONDON COPYRIGHT, 1905, 1909, 1912, BY FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY All rights of translation reserved Registered at Stationers’ Hall, London, England [ Printed in the United States of America} LITERARY DIRECTORATE EDITORIAL BOARD CYRUS ADLER, Ph.D. (Departments of Post-Biblical Antiquities ; the Jews of America.) president of the American Jewish Historical Society : Libra- rian, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. GOTTHARD DEUTSCH, Ph.D. (Department of History from 1492 to 1903.) professor of Jewish History, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio; Editor of ** Deborah.” LOUIS GINZBERG, Ph.D. (Department of Rabbinical Literature.) Professor of Ta!.nud, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York: Author of ‘* Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern.” RICHARD GOTTHEIL, Ph.D. (Departments of History from Ezra to 1492; History of Post-Talmudic Literature.) Professor of Semitic Languages, Columbia University, New York; Chief of the Oriental Department, New York Public Library ; President of the Federation of American Zionists. EMIL G. HIRSCH, Ph.D., LL.D. (Department of the Bible.) Rabbi of Chicago Sinai Congregation, Chicago, Il.; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy, University of Chicago; Editor of ** The Reform Advocate.” JOSEPH JACOBS, B.A. (Departments of the Jews of England and Anthropology ; Revising Editor.) Formerly President of the Jewish Historical Society of England; Author of * Jews of Angevin Engiand,”’ ete. KAUFMANN KOHLER, Ph.D. (Departments of Theology: Philosophy.) Rabbi of Temple Beth-El, New York ; ex-President of the Board of Jewish Ministers, New York. HERMAN ROSENTHAL. (Department of the Jews of Russia and Potand.) Chief of the Slavonic Department, New York Library. SOLOMON SCHECHTER, M.A., Litt.D. (Department of the Talmud.) President of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; Author of * Studies in Judaism.” ISIDORE SINGER, Ph.D. MANAGING EDITOR. (Department of Modern Biography from 1750 to 1908.) CRAWFORD HOWELL TOY, D.D., LL.D. (Departments of Hebrew Philology and Hellenéatic Literature.) Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.; Author of ** The Religion of Israel,” ete. I. K. FUNK, D.D., LL.D. (Chairman of the Board.) Editor-in-Chief of the STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, etc. FRANK H. VIZETELLY, F.S.A. (Secretary of the Board.) Associate Editor of the STANDARD DICTIONARY, “The Colum- bian Cyclopedia,” etc. WILLIAM POPPER, M.A., Ph.D. (Associate Revising Editar; Chief of the Bureau of Translation.) Author of *‘ Censorship of Hebrew Books.” AMERICAN BOARD OF CONSULTING EDITORS BERNARD DRACHMAN, Ph.D., Rabbi of the Congregation Zichron Ephraim; Instructor in the Bible and in Hebrew Grammar, Jewish Theological Semi- nary of America, New York B. FELSENTHAL, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Zion Congregation, Chicago; Author of *“ A Practical Grammar of the Hebrew Language.” GUSTAV GOTTHEIL, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Emanu-El, New York. HENRY HYVERNAT, D.D., Head of the Department of Semitie and Egyptian Literatures, Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. MARCUS JASTROW, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of the Congregation Rodef Shalom, Philadel. phia, Pa.; Author of * Dictionary of the Talmud.” MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Librarian in the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.; Author of * Re- ligion of the Babylonians and Assyrians,” ete. J. FREDERIC McCURDY, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Oriental Languages, University College, Toronto, Canada; Author of “* History, Prophecy, and the Monuments.” H. PEREIRA MENDES, M.D., Rabbi of the Shearith Israel Congregation (Spanish ana Portu- guese), New York; President of the Board of Jewiss Ministers, New York. v1 LITERARY DIRECTORATE MOSES MIELZINER, Ph.D., D.D. (DECEASED), Late Presideut of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio; Author of ** Introduction to the Talmud.” GEORGE F. MOORE, M.A., D.D., Professor of Bibiteat Literature and the History of Religions in Harvard University, Cambpriage, Mass.; Author of “4 Commentary on the Book of Judges,” etc. DAVID PHILIPSON, D.D., Rabbi of the Congregation Bene Israel ; Professor of Homiletics, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio; President of Hebrew Sabbath School Union of America. IRA MAURICE PRICE, B.D., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, University of Chicago, Ill.; Author of ** The Monuments and the Old Testament,” etc. JOSEPH SILVERMAN, D.D., President of Central Conference of American Rabbis: Rabbi of Temple Emanu-El, New York. JACOB VOORSANGER, D.D., Rabbi of the Congregation Emanu-El, San Francisco, Cal.; Pro- fessor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley, Cal. EDWARD J. WHEELER, M.A., Editor of *‘ The Literary Digest,’? New York; Author of ** Stories in Rhyme,” etc. FOREIGN BOARD OF CONSULTING EDITORS ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, M.A., Coeditor of ‘* The Jewish Quarterly Review ”: Author of “ Jew- ish Life in the Middle Ages,” etc.; Reader in Talmudic, Cambridge University, England. W. BACHER, Ph.D., brotessor in the Jewish Theological Seminary, Budapest, Hungary. M. BRANN, P2.D., Professor in the Jewish Theological Seminary, Breslau, Ger- many ; Editor of “ Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums.” H. BRODY, Ph.D., Rabbi, Nachod, Bohemia, Austria; Coeditor of ** Zeitschrift fiir Hebriaische Bibliographie.” ABRAHAM DANON, Principal of the Jewish ‘Theological Seminary, Constantinople, Turkey. HARTWIG DERENBOURG, Ph.D., Professor of Literal Arabic at the Special School of Oriental Languages, Paris ; Member of the Institut de France. Ss. M. DUBNOW, Author of ‘* Istoriya Yevreyev,” Odessa, Russia. MICHAEL FRIEDLANDER, Ph.D., Principal of Jews’ College, London, England; Author of **The Jewish Religion,” ete. IGNAZ GOLDZIHER, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Philology, University of Budapest, Hungary. M. GUDEMANN, Pb.D., Chief Rabbi of Vienna, Austria. BARON DAVID GUNZBURG, St. Petersburg, Russia. A. HARKAVY, Ph.D., Chief of the Hebrew Department of the Imperial Public Library, St. Petershurg, Russia. ZADOC KAHN, Chief Rabbi of France; Honorary President of the Alliance Israélite Universelle; Officer of the Legion of Honor. Paris, France. M. KAYSERLING, Ph.D., Rabbi, Budapest, Hungary; Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of History, Madrid, Spain. MORITZ LAZARUS, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Berlin; Meran, Austria. ANATOLE LEROY-BEAULIED, Member of the French Institute; Professor atthe Free School of Political Science, Paris, France; Author of ** Israél chez les Nations.” ISRAEL LEVI, Professor in the Jewish Theological Seminary ; Editor of ** Revue des Etudes Juives,”’ Paris, France, EUDE LOLLI, D.D., Chief Rabbi of Padua; Professor of Hebrew at the University. Padua, Italy. IMMANUEL LOW, Ph.D., Chief Rabbi of Szegedin, Hungary; Author of ** Die Aramaischen Pflanzennamen.”’ S. H. MARGULIES, Ph.D., Principal of the Jewish Theological Seminary; Chief Rabbi of Florence, Italy. H. OORT, D.D., Professor of Hebrew Language and Archeology at the State University, Leyden, Holland. ABBE PIETRO PERREAU, Formerly Librarian of the Reale Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, Italy. MARTIN PHILIPPSON, Ph.D., Formerly Professor of History at the Universities of Bonn and Brussels; President of the Deutsch-[sraelitischer Gemeindebund. Berlin, Germany. SAMUEL POZNANSKI, Ph.D., Rabbi in Warsaw, Lussia. E. SCHWARZFELD, LL.D., Secretary-General of the Jewish Colonization Association, Paris, France. LUDWIG STEIN, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University of Bern, Switzerland ; Editor of ‘* Archiv fiir Geschichte der Philosophie,” ete. HERMANN lL. STRACK, Ph.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Semitic Languages, University of Berlin, Germany. CHARLES TAYLOR, D.D., LL.D., Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, England; Editor of ** Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,”’ ete. SYSTEMS OF TRANSLITERATION AND OF CITATION A. 2. 4. 3. 6. OF PROPER NAMES“ A.—Rules for the Transliteration of Hebrew and Aramaic. All important names which occur in the Bible are cited as found in the authorized King James version ; ¢.g., Moses, not Mosheh; Isaac, not Yizhak; Saul, not Sha’ul or Shaiil; Solomon, not Shelomoh, etc. Names that have gained currency in English books on Jewish subjects, or that have become familiar to English readers, are always retained and cross-references given, though the topic be treated under the form transliterated according to the system tabulated below. Hebrew subject-headings are transcribed according to the scheme of transliteration ; cross-refer- ences are made as in the case of personal names, The following system of transliteration has been used for Hebrew and Aramaic: x Not noted at the beginning or the end of a word ; otherwise’ or by dieresis; e.g., Ze’eb or Meir, 3 5b r 2 5 B with dagesh, p w sh 4 9g m2 mm h without dagesh, f vs 4 a b 7 3% ¥ 2 ne mh , y Ds p& + w ak ys \ Tr Note: The presence of dagesh lene is not noted except in the case of pe. Dagesh forte is indi- cated by doubling the letter. The vowels have been transcribed as follows: - a > 4u - 4 wv 6 { o —- ¢ =z e = Oo ‘4 Kamez hatuf is represented by o. The so-called ‘‘ Continental” pronunciation of the English vowels is implied. The Hebrew article is transcribed as ha, followed by a hyphen, without doubling the following letter. [Not hak-Kohen or hak-Cohen, nor Rosh ha-shshanah.] B.—Rules for the Transliteration of Arabic. All Arabic names and words except such as have become familiar to English readers in another form, as Mohammed, Koran, mosque, are transliterated according to the following system : 4% a < kh u sh € gh wy” bu? D od ues it DA cst 3) ah od i > oa Wo th wie Le we) k we ¥ (oa) j#% L, z J! CT (Ms co . em Only tne three vowels —a, i, u—are represented : —- aord = tor? ~ work No account has been taken of the imdlah; 7 has not been written e, nor u written o, * In all other matters of orthography the spelling preferred by the STANDARD DICTIONARY. has usually been followed. Typo- graphical exigencies have rendered occasional deviations from these systems necessary. viii SYSTEMS OF TRANSLITERATION AND OF CITATION OF PROPER NAMES 3. The Arabic article is invariably written al; no account being taken of the assimilation cf the 7 to the following letter; ¢.g., Abé& al-Sali, not Abu-l-Salt; Nafis al-Dauiah, not Nafis ad-Daulah, The article is joined by a hyphen to the following word. 4, At the end of words the feminine termination is written ah; but, when followed by a genitive, at; e.g., Risalah dhat al-Kursiyy, but H7at al-Aflak. 5. No account is taken of the overhanging vowels which distinguish the cases; e.g., ‘Amr, not ‘Amru or ‘Amrun; Ya‘akib, not Ya‘akibun; or ina title, Kitab al-amandadt wai-l-tikadat. C.—Rules for the Transliteration of Russian. Ali Russian names and words, except such as have become familiar to English readers in another form, as Czar, Alexander, deciatine, Moscow, are transliterated according to the following system : Aa a II a n iu shch B 6 0 Oo O bs mute BB v Ila p bl wt y ['r h,v, or g Pp r bb half mute Aa d Ce 8 BS ye Ee e and ye Tv ¢ 09 e ee nies: ot & zh Vy u 10 1 yu 33 2 ® f Sls ya Wuli a XX kh 98 0 F Kk kK Il tz Vv ce a Z Uq ch UW ix j Mm m I m sh Rules for the Citation of Proper Names, Personal and Otherwise. IR. Whenever possible, an author is cited under his most specific name; e.g., Moses Nigrin under Nigrin; Moses Zacuto under Zacuto; Moses Rieti under Rieti; all the Kimhis (or Kamhis) under Kimhi; Israel ben Joseph Drohobiczer under Drohobiczer. Cross-references are freely made from any other form to the most specific one; e.g., to Moses Vidal from Moses Narboni ; to Solomon Nathan Vidal from Menahem Meiri; to Samuel Kansi from Samuel Astruc Dascola ; to Jedaiah Penini, from both Bedersi and En Bonet; to John of Avignon from Moses de Roquemaure. 2. When a person is not referred to as above, he is cited under his own persona! name followed by his official or other title ; or, where he has borne no such title, by ‘‘of” followed by the place of his birth or residence; e.g., Johanan ha-Sandlar ; Samuel ha-Nagid ; Judah ha-Hasid; Gershom of Metz, Isaac of Corbeil. 3. Names containing the word d’, de, da, di, or van, von, y, are arranged under the letter of the name following this word; e.g., de Pomis under Pomis, de Barrios under Barrios, Jacob d’Mlescas under Jilescas. 4, In arranging the alphabetical order of personal names ben, da, de, dt, ha-, ibn*, of have not been: taken into account. These names thus follow the order of the next succeeding capital letter : Abraham of Augsburg Abraham de Balmes Abraham ben Benjamin Aaron Abraham of Avila Abraham ben Baruch Abraham ben Benjamin Ze’eb Abraham ben Azriel Abraham of Beja — Abraham Benveniste * When Inn bas come t:: be a specific part of a name, as Isn Ezra, such name is treated in its alphabetical place under “* L.’* LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Self-evident abbreviations, particularly those used in the bibliographies, are not included here. J abot, Pirke ry es x. ast Abot de-Riabbi Natan an a rab eases Abodah Zarah NON aca’ at the place ge Bee es in the vear of the Hegira Jolt. des Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums td.. "Jew. “Hist, Soc. Amenicen Jewish Histone) Society eae Association Bocce wate wate ere Apocalypse Aer cena eaeapaiaeete Apocrypha ; A post. Const... Reet Constitutions fee a ae BE Fe AOS . rae ecaneuens Das Alte Tecument pe ee Authorized Version b. Si ben or bar or born SONU Me areca Babli (Babylonian Talroud) AIMOPaet eae Bacher, Ag. Tan.. | Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten Bar nce eevee seeecees Baruch B. Biv essceeccereces Baba Batra (Talmud) 7 eee betes before the Christian era Bek ...ceeee ee eee Bekorot (Talmud) . Benzinger, Arch... Benzinger, Hebriaische Archaologie Ber... ccececevecees Berakot (Talmud) Berliner’s t Berliner’s Magazin fiir die Wissenschaft des Magazin .....-- Judenthums Bik <6 0ccicod deo es’ Bikkurim (TaJmud) Be. K.veeeeeeeeeeees Baba Kamma (Talmud) Boo. a sesteee sen Baba Mezi‘a (Talmud) Bibl. Rav....-...-+ Bibliotheca Rabbinica : ., ) Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia Boletin Acad. Hist. } aladvid) oer Briill’s Jahrbiicher fiir Jiidische Geschichte Briill's Jabrb..... ; und Litteratur nen All. Isr.... Bulletin of the Alliance Israélite Universelle cache: Maven Mania wes aS about Cant. were Gene Nesta Canticles (Song of Solomon) Cat. Anglo-Jew. {Catalogue of Anglo-Jewish Historical Ex- Hist. Uxh...... } hibition Cazés, Notes Bib- / Cazés, Notes Bibliographiques sur la Littéra- liographiques..f ture Juive-Tunisienne CLE otek cen eres oe common era Cliecas patentee i . chapter or chapters Cheyneand Black, ? ,, Encye. Bibl.... { Cheyne and Black, Encyclopedia Biblica JT Chron.......e.0ee I Chronicles II Chron.........6.. II Chronicles {Recueil des Travaux Rédigés en Mémoire SL a ubilee ) "Gu Jubilé Scientifique de M. Daniel Chwol- aes } son, 1846-1896 OTe FRA ven secdtasecee Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum Cele Gacteivcu sens Corpus Inseriptionum Greecarum Co 1s Heaven ee iis Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum | BA ass PPaoeneerreee wat ee Corpus Inseriptionum Latinarum OAS iied eaeatawas Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum COL Ove dakoeastesouias Colossians COMP ......... roe compare COP VNas aati eeus Corinthians Cnet sites riers bared died Dis cced te weenie Cates Deuteronomist OD icais Seiata: saya es Daniel De Gubernatis, ak Gubernatis, Dizionario Biografico degli Diz. Biog....... Scrittori Contemporanei De Gubernatis, a Gubernatis, Dictionnaire International Kcrivains du Jour des Ecrivains du Jour TOU Gita beled akon Demai (Talmud) . ‘ 1a G6 D : Derenbourg, Essai sur Histoire et la Géo- erenbourg, Hist. : graphie de la Palestine, etc. DOW eeriesuecdye ts Deuteronomy | Re eee ee ne Elohist BCC pice tstese dicate: Ecelesiastes eClus: (Sirach)....Eeclesiasticus OG seieteees oeenee a's edition Eduy uieemcalaed *Eduyot (Talmud) ro” Brit...... ... Encyclopedia Britannica E 1 OY ee ee eee English rep aa maeewis Wand ee were Ephesians pibhanius, Heres. Epiphanius, Adversus Heereses E i 6a Rises onto ladles ‘Erubta (Talmua) Gy ro (Ersch and Gruber, Allg, Encyklopadte der fea er, Encyc..) Wissenschaften und Kiinste Bath eee ee Esdras Spool aries sss Esther 8eq.. sooees..and following Sadelons Hist. Ecel. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Ex First, Bibl. Jud....Fiirst, Bibliotheca Judaica F phere ide ae t Fiirst, Geschichte des Karaerthums Gal... — a Galatians Gaster, Hist. of 1. ; +e : ; Bevis Marks..., ( Gaster, Bevis Marks Memorial Volume _, : Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Geiger, Urschrift. Bibel in fhrer Abhingigkeit von der In- neren Entwicklung des Judenthums + ateare TH wy J) Geiger’s Jiidische Zeitschrift fiir Wissen- BSIB En SUUCAZeIE ( sehaft und Leben Geiger’s Wiss. | Geiger’s Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift fir Zeit. Jiid. Theol. { Jiidische Theologie GEM ..... cc cee ene Gemara COW eevase- Je bccies eats a Genesis GOSCH....-ceccevees Geschichte Gesenius, Gr....... Gesenius, Grammar Gesenius, Th....... Gesenius, Thesaurus Gibbon, Decline | Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of and Fall........$ Be Roman Empire er await t : : ; insburg’s Masoretico-Critica ition oO Ginsburg’s Bible the Hebrew Bible GU vias vtesbcoet ex cittia (Talmud) Graetz, Hist........ Graetz, History of the Jews Gratz, Gesch....... Gritz, Geschichte der Juden FAD wiaeees asin eiofents H ee HAG casein heen Haggai HAE aieh cisteenes Hagigah (Talmud) Hal 2o4 3 aaweease Hallah (Talmud) Hamburger, } Hamburger, Realencyclopidie fiir Bibel Aes, Bol Rave atts und Talmud Boe. mee t Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible HGbis .cctst een danies Epistle to the Hebrews Hebr.........+...-.Masoretic Text Herzog - Hauck, ologie und Kirche (“d and 3d editions re- Real-Encye.... ag! ely) F cee . irsch, Biographisches Lexikon der Hervor- Hirsch, Biog. Lex. lragenden Aerzte Aller Zeiten und Volker Herzog -Phtt or Lote -Encyklopadie fiir Protestantische The- HOI 44aevewscwe Homiletics or Homily HO’. 35sssenutess .-Horayot (Talmud) FW cece ised 308 « . Hullin (Talmud) 1, oe re ana e: same place QUO on cadases ba wane same author TSO Rosine Sawa eeas Isaiah Isr. Letterbode.....Israelitische Letterbode B eee ree hearer ee Jahvist J aarboeken sakes Sia Jaarboeken voor de Israeliten in Nederland § Jacobs, Inquiry into the Sources of Spanish- ' Jewish History Jacobs and Wolf, : Bibl. Anglo-Jud. { - Jacobs and Wolf, Bibliotheca Anglo-Judaica Jahrb. Gesch. der? Jahrbuch fiir die Geschichte der Juden und DUC eat eyes des Judenthums if hes Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, Tal- Jastrow, Dict..... ; mudim, and Midrashim Jacobs, Sources... Jellinek, B. H...... Jelinek, Bet ha-Midrash A cy ee ena ere ..... geremijah Jew, Chron......... Jewish Chronicle, London Jew. Encyc........ The Jewish Encyclopedia Jew. Hist. Soc. Eng. Jewish Historical Society of England Jew. de Rev.. | Jewish Quarterly Review Q.R Jew. World........ Jewish World, London Josephus, Ant...... Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Josephus, B. J...... Josephus, De Bello Judaico Josephus, Contra AD. Josephus, Contra Apionem JOSH cece vous ves . Joshua Jost’s Annalen..... Jost’s Israelitische Annalen Jour. Bib. Lit...... Journal of Biblical Literature tes Dial. cum t Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judo Try Kau th mann Ge- Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kauf- denkbuch...... mann Kayserling, Bib). J Kayserling. Biblioteca Espafiola-Portugueza- Esp.-Port.-Jud.. udaica Ker ...ceccosccess + Keritot (Talmud) ROG eccinseteeeceoes ‘Ketubot (Talmud) K. H.C 4 Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testa- e e Bo eenhevey aon athe op ment, ed. Marti Kid....... eooe oes Kiddushin (Talmud) Kil...... shea Saeioinns ...Kilayim (Talmud) Kil isacectcciwsnens Kinnim (Talmud) Kohut Memorial Volume......sce | Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Krauss, Lehn- eer Griechiscbe und Lateiniscbe Lehn- woOrter ........ worter, e TID oe sacteecew aateare (Tarousse, Gr Peer ‘ - 2 rousse, Gran etionnaire Universel du Larousse, Dict.... i) X1Xe Sidele UM relecns ies Ra aretha: in the place cited TON 4 cane ee aah ecd Leviticus se Rad t Levy, Chaldiisches Worterbuch, ete. Levy, Neuhebr. { Levy, Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterb....... .{ Worterbuch, ete. Hb ise cairo tere ates eo nl ae en eae Ow e Lebensalter in der schen Li- Léw, Lebensalter } teratur AK eh acer eee aves Septuagint TM <3565 oer tee See ais married Ma’As,......cccee0:- Ma‘aserot (Talmud) Ma‘as. Sh.......... Ma‘aser Sheni (Talmud) MACC.i5acis catelewcnss Maccabees MAK. oies dd sewe Beek Makkot (Talmud) Maksh ............. Makshirin (Talmud) MSlci i weeiees aeons Malachi — MGS ¢ishivesenaencis Masorah Massek .. Masseket URC sco a ey a veiae ext oe Matthew McClintock and Strong, Cyclopeedia of Bib- McClintock and oy lical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Liter- Strong, Cyc.... ( ature Meg...... .6- seagate Megillah (Talmud) MO eadecto sa a aats 468 Spree Me‘ilah (Talmud) MO Keg eta xevete ead Mekilta Men...... beta hee Gas Menahot (Talmud) MGs bare oeeiss Middot (Talmud) MIGE: § cit iene nee Midrash Midr. Teh.... ..... Midrash Tehillim (Psalms) MT seek crate Sac ken aaa Mikwaot (Talmud) ee Cee en eee Mo‘ed Katan (Talmud) aetna fiir Geschichte und Wissen- schaft des Judenthums .Mortara, Indice Alfabetico Monatssenrift..... Mortara, Indice... MS iisccessaadus seuss Manuscript Miiller, Frag. Hist. tort ie tragmenta Historicorum Greco- GTC. ow cece ee rum Murray’s Eng. Dict.A. H. Murray, A New English Dictionary NOG o4 cisieee teens oaks Nazir (Talinud) Vis isi cansoceses no date NOG eoc-cguiacaceenen os Nedarim (Taimud) NOG ess sapere ae een Nega‘im INCI oid Senbies Paes Nehemiah Neubauer, Cat. ¢ Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS. Bodl.Hebr.MSS, 5 in the Bodleian Library Nenhavels G. T....Neubauer, Géograpbie du Talmud Se eine oe eiea eles New Testament N um eee re ee er Numbers ODA ses en ieee aees Obadiah Oest. Wochensehrift.Oesterreichiseche Wochenschrift Os ea ee eter tices Qhaloet (Talmud) ONK: ccvesreniignecws Onkelos Orient, Lit.......... Literaturblatt des Orients WOR iicrre Sout Ohne: Old ‘Testament Per gi eailhs otha nek Priestly code . ; Pagel, Biographisches Lexikon Hervorragen- Pagel, Biog. Lex. } der Aerzte des Neunzehnten sanenunnere Pal. Exnilor. Fund..Palestine Exploration Fund Pauly-Wissowa, [| Panly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopiidie der Clas- Real-Eneye.....4 sischen Altertumswissenschaft POS sis caele chine es Pesahim (Talmu@) POS 4 sian sess ¥a% Peshito, Peshitta POSE hic iceeetatiess Pesikta "de-Rab Kahana Pesik. R .. Pesikta Rabbati PP es heads acer Philippians Pirke R. El......... Pirke Rabbi Eliezer PLOY oawcs neces ste Proverbs PPS eg acd nes Psalin or Psalms Pe eiaw ince wane thse Rab or Rabbi or Rabbah Melos Rapes aot: | Rahmer's Jiidisches Litteratur-Blatt Regesly .....scecees Regesty i Nadpisi Rey. Bib. .......... Revue Biblique ey a pies ‘* } Revue des Etudes Juives Rev. Sém.......... Revue Sémitique er Hicecincnvxiiciad Rosh ha-Shanah (Talmud) Rios (Amador de | Estudios Histéricos, Politicos y Literarios, los), Estudios..§ ete. Rios (Amador de ; Historia .. . los), Hist....... ae Seah ed Se tte itter, Die unde im Verhiltnis zur Ritter, Erdkunde. ; Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen Roest, Cat. ’ Roest, Catalog der Hebraica und Judaica Rosenthal. Bibl. f aus der L. Rosenthal’schen Bibliothek ROM 6 eciievcncved ...-RomanNSs R. Vi... cevesceesae REVISed Version de los Judios de Espafia y Salfeld, Martyro-) Salfeld, Das Martyrologium des Niirnberger logium easter ouats Memorbuches I Sam.......- ree I Samuel IT SQM... cece cee eee IT Samuel BADD eis ooh cieceaielees Sanhedrin (Talmud) SoBe Wiese taro Sacred Books of the East 8.B.0.T ; (Sacred Books of the Old Testament) Poly. ae le as eis chrome Bible, ed. Paul Haupt ee ( Sechaff-Herzog, A Religious Encyclopsedia Schrader, ‘Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Cy 1.0. Tes cices 1 Old Testament, Eng. trans. Schrader, K. A. T. eed Keijlinschriften und das Alte Tes. tament Schrader, K. B..... Bpuaace Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek K. G. F, J Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts- Schrader, i forschung Schiirer, Gesch..... Schitrer, Geschichte des Jtidischen Volkes SOM, vescncssaceces Semahot (Talmua) SNA use caseve Shae s Shabbat (Talmud) SeNassi3s3e fies Shebi‘it (Talmud) Shebu ...........068 Shebu‘ot (Talmud) Shek...... weeeedanes Shekalim (Talmud) Sibyllines .......... Sibylline Books Smith, Rel. of Sem.. ae Leetures on Religion of the Semites Ie Tal } tade’s Zeitschrift flr die Alttestament- Stade’s Zeitschrift liche Wissenschaft Steinschneider, Steinschneider, Catalogue of the Hebrew Cat. Bodl....... Books in the Bodieian Library Steinschneider, ¢ Hebr. Bibl...... Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographie ee | t Steinschneider, Hebriische Uebersetzungen SUK seciiesadaice ce Sukkah (Talmud) Ske eee aeeshes under the word Ta‘an...... chun Fa‘anit (Talmud) Tan beieceseeasees Tanhuma DAly a08 os xdearaes Targumim Targ. Onk.......... Targum Onkelos TAarg,. Y Cl aiuiege ean Targum Yerushalmi or Targum Jonathan LOM caw aseaeaieale-ae Temurah (Talmud) TOP eascaer cece Terumot (‘Talmud) ROSS: so 554 544 aca a Thessalonians TUN ivivacke be aeeacs Timothy PGs serie crovere atateledars Tohorot TOS aiedeeneuhes Bees Tosafot Tosef .......-..000. Tosefta WSUS) 6 cies saceesss translation Tr. Soc. Bibl ( Transactions of the Society of Biblical Ar- ATO. yo 6% eueidaes { ehseology se ar ee eae ices Tebul Yom (Talmud) Ol aera eee ere “‘Ukzin (Talmud) Univ. Isr...... ..... Univers Israélite Virchow’s Archiv fiir Pathologische Anato- Virchow’s Archiv mie und Physiologie, und fiir Klinische Medizin Vl es 45443 sO Ase Vulgate Weiss, Dor..........Weiss, Dor Dor we-Dorshaw Wellhausen, eee Israelitische und Jiidische Tee Setiwace ste Geschichte Winer, B. R........ Winer, Biblisches Realwo6rterbuch Wisdom .......0.06: Wisdoin of Solomon wolf, BID. Hebr...Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebreaa W.Z.K.M 5 Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des oe ee a yg t Morgenlandes VAG ecacvatanswerates Yadayim (Talmud) De ie atc tead Macs Yad ha-Hazakah Valk wxcosads deeerd Yalkut VOU 60059 hiss ee Yebamot (Talmud) NOt sc cc eres atta Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) YVHWH once cccceees Yahweh, Jehovah PAD cx chaldvate sca Zabim (Talmud) z.D.M.G pe een der Deutschen Morgenlandi- a schen Gesellschaft DOO od tiedaa ba ees Zebahim (Talmud) POC Wii end canoes Zechariah Zedner, Cat. Hebr. nnrcs Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in Books Brit.Mus. the British Museum Zeit. fur Assyr..... Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie ee — | Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins Zeit. fir Hebr. Bibl.Zeitschrift fiir Hebriische Bibliographie Zeitlin, Bibl. Post- / Zeitlin, Bibliotheca Hebraica Post-Mendels- Mendels........ f sohniana CODING sd Viama wlan, Zephaniah ZUNZ, GS... reeceee Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften ZunZ, G. V..... 006, Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrage Zunz, Literatur- ae Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen DOSED ociseco-oth es Poesie Zunz, Ritus...... ; ae Ritus des Synagogalen Gottes- ZunzZ, S. P..cescees Zunz, Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters ZunZ, Ze Grreeoese ‘gunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur Nore TO THE READER. Subjects on which further information is afforded elsewhere in this work are indicated by the use of capitals and small capitals in the text; as, ABBA ARIKA; PUMBEDITA; VOCALIZATION. CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME IV _....Cyrus Adler, Ph.D., Buvverees President of the American Jewish Historical Society ; President of the Board cf Directors of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Librarian of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Fae _G..... Amélie André Gedalge, A.A Paris, France. Batiacss Armin Blau, A. Bl Berlin, Germany. A. Fucccce ese Freimann, Ph.D., ae Editor of the “Zeitschrift fir Hebraische Bibliographie”’: Librarian of the Hebrew Department, Stadtbibliothek, Frankfort-on- the-Main, Germany. A. Fe .. -:.. Alfred Feilchenfeld, Ph.D., oie Principal of the Realschule, Firth, Bavaria, Germany. A. Fr........ Aaron Friedenwald, M.D. (Deceased), Late of Baltimore, Md. A, Gece Adolf Guttmacher, Ph.D., Rabbi of the Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, Baltimore, Md. A. K........- A. Kaminka, Ph.D., Rabbi; Secretary of the ‘* Wiener Israelitische Allianz,”’ Vienna, Austria. A. M.F......Albert M. Friedenberg, B.S., Correspondent of “The Jewish Comment,” Baltimore, Md.; New York City. A. P..........A. Porter, Formerly Associate Editor of *‘The Forum ”’; Revising Editor ** Standard Cyclopedia,”” New York City. A. Pe........A. Peiginsky, Ph.D., New York City. A.R.........A. Rhine, Rabbi in Hot Springs, Ark. BB Bisscocin vs Benuel H. Brumberg, Contributor to ** National Cyclopedia of Amer- ican Biography,’”’ New York City. B. Ei.........Benzion Eisenstadt, New York City. B. Fi........ Bertha Fishberg, New York City. Beds icsiswses B. Jacob, Ph.D., Rabbi in Gottingen, Germany. -.....bernhard Pick, Ph.D., D.D., Formerly pastor of St. Jobn’s Lutheran Church, Albany, N. Y.; now New York City. B. PP... C.A.T...... C. A. Trier, Copenhagen, Denmark. C.deB......C.de Bethencourt, Lisbon, Portugal. C.I.deS....Clarence I. de Sola, Montreal, Canada. C.J. M......Charles J. Mendelsohn, Philadelphia, Pa. 0. L..........Caspar Levias, M.A., Instructor of Exegesis and Talmudic Aramaic, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. D.............Gotthard Deutsch, Ph.D., Professor of Jewish History, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. D. Le........ David Levy, Rabbi in New Haven, Conn. DP iisstace. David Philipson, D.D., Rabbi of the Congregation B’ne Israel; Pro- fessor of Homiletics, Hebrew Union College. Cincinnati, Ohio. DES est nurs D. Simonsen, Professor; Former Chief Rabbi of Denmark ; Copenhagen, Denmark. D. W. A.....David Werner Amram, LL.B., Attorney at Law, Philadelphia, Pa. E. A..........Edouard André, Paris, France. iO sewtuke Executive Com. ofthe Editorial Board. E.G. H.,.....Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D., LL.D., D.D., Rabbi of Sinai Congregation; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy in the University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. .--... duard Konig, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Uni- versity of Bonn, Germany. E. Me........ Eduard Meyer, Ph.D., Professor of Ancient History, University of Berlin, Germany. E. Ms....... Edgar Mels, New York City. E. K... E.N.........Bduard Neumann, Ph.D., Chief Rabbi of Nagy-Kanisza, Hungary. E.Sd........E. Schwarzfeld, LL.D., Secretary of Jewish Colonization Association, Paris, France. E. W. B......Edward William Bennett, New York City. F. Bu...... .Franz Buhl, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Philology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. ¥F. H. V...... Frank H. Vizetelly, F.S.A., Associate Editor of the STANDARD DICTION- ARY and the “Columbian Cyclopedia,” New York City. .......2riedman Janovsky, St. Petersburg, Russia. F. K.S...... Frank Knight Sanders, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Biblical History and Archeology ; Dean of the Divinity School, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Bis Beicicactas .F. Rosenthal, Ph.D., Rabbi in Breslau, Germany. F. T. H...... Frederick T. Haneman, M.D., Brooklyn, N. Y. Ge .csecseeeee-ichard Gottheil, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages, Columbia University ; Chief of the Oriental Department, New York Public Library: President of the Federation of American Zionists, New York City. G. A. B......George A. Barton, Ph.D., Associate Professor in Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. G. A. K......George Alexander Kohut, Assistant Librarian Jewish Theological Semi- nary of America, New York City. F.J.... xii CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME IV ~~ G. B.L...... Gerson B. Levi, Ty DP iicesseds Ignaz Drabkin, Ph.D., New York City. Rabbi in St. Petersburg, Russia. "IGid isecepence Giuseppe Jaré, I. E...........Ismar Elbogen, Ph.D., Chief Rabbi of Ferrara, Italy. Docent at Lehranstalt fiir die Wissenschaft deg (es Cee Goodman Lipkind, B.A. Judenthums, Berlin. [Co-author of article Rabbi in London, England. - “Coen, Graziadio V. A.” signed J. E.]. G. Sie Gabriel Schwarz, Ph.D., I. G. D....... I, George Dobsevage, Rabbi in Carlstadt, Austria. New York City. H.B......... H. Brody, Ph.D. Tees Isidore Harris, A.M., . Coeditor of the “Zeitschrift fir Hebraische Rabbi of West London Synagogue, London, Bibliogrephie ’?; Rabbi in Nachod, Bohemia, England. Austria, A eS = 0) eer eee Isaac Husik, HH. BI......... Heinrich Bloch, Ph.D., Instructor, Gratz College, Philadelphia, Pa. Professor of History, Jewish Theological I. L. i “ vs Seminary, Budapest, Hungary. I. Lev. } ... _Israel Levi, Editor of ** Revue des Etudes Juives’’: Pro- ie & ren ree Henry Cohen ; : eae H saree of the Con gregation B'nai Israel, Gal- fessor Jewish Theological Seminary, Paris, veston, Texas. France. Ls DM vgs I. M. Casanowicz, Ph.D. 1 3 BH. Cr. @eevsat .Henri Cordier, Professor of the Ecole des Langues Vivantes __ Orientales, Paris, France. B.. Diievcncs Hartwig Derenbourg, Member of the Institute of France; Professor of Literal Arabic at the Special School of Oriental Languages, Paris, France. Fi... Bias) cians H. Eliasof, Chicago, IIl. gs ae oe CHOMANG), “ATG OF AA Guascbad dune ea on uauine BeeeGReae reek ee ere re Frontispiece Temple Buildings at K’ai-Fung-Foo, China, Bird’s-Eye View of the...........ssceccccecesesecceees 34 Tiao Kin Kiaou,” in Chinese Characters (Term applied to Jews by the Chinese)..........eseeee0.++ 88 Title-Page: see Kap HA-KEemag. Tombs, Traditional: see DANIEL; Davin. Tombstone of Joseph Solomon Delmedigo at Prague... ..........008 ceeees eee Peer ee 5.) ——: see also Dessau. xxii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME IV ee er Lire rine PAGE PUIG: J OWS Ol ond dhs ces eis Asa hs eae aes eo ewes errr 297, and Figs. 22, 23 of plate between 298-299 Turkey: see CONSTANTINOPLE; COSTUME. “Tur Orah Hayyim,” Last Page of the First Edition of, Printed by Abraham Conat, 1476....... ceeee 205 Types, Jewish: see Cu1ina; Cocuin; CosTuME; Cracow, Typography: see CoLopHon; ConaT, ABRAHAM; CONSTANTINOPLE; CRACOW. United States: see CHIcaGo; CINCINNATI; CLEVELAND; CONSUMPTION; DENVER. Wandsworth Family, Arms 0f........... cc. c cece cee eee icaae caminawne sehen wneeameaets change de, LOS Warsaw Jew and Jewess of the Early Nineteenth Century...... re rere Crees veivgaeres seeee 302 World, The Nether, in the Clutches of a Demon...... 0. ccc ccc cc ce cece cece cet e ne eteneececnaes 515 Worms, Costume of Jews of, Sixteenth Century....... Suche earekemes wneesaiens Fig. 13 of plate between 298-299 —— De, Family, Arms of......... 0.0. ce eee eeeee plaieeie eet awate-ners iGUS sewed Bord wee aie uteg ees 132 Writing, Cursive: see CounciL oF Four Lanps. mukertort, 24: Chess, Master. c..12:0004%-csieww wane bwatate oo cons 1dcseteetseneenseceeaiwesiwaneese Le THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Note: For topics beginning with Ch, not found in alphabetical order, see under H.] | CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very be- s of the history of the Jews of Russia. The jnnin andor of the Chazars was firmly established in most of South Russia long before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians (855). Jews have lived on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas since the first centuries of the com- mon era. Historical evidence points to the region of the Ural as the home of the Chazars. Among the classical writers of the Middle Ages they were known as the “Chozars,” “Khazirs,” “ Akatzirs,” and “Akatirs,” and in the Russian chronicles as “Khwalisses”” and “Ugry Byelyye.” The Armenian writers of the fifth and following centuries furnish ample information concerning this people. Moses of Chorene refers to the invasion by the “Khazirs” of Armenia and Iberia at the begin- ning of the third century: “The chaghan was the king of the North, the ruler of the Khazirs, and the queen was the chatoun ” (“ History of Armenia,” ii. 357). The Chazars first came to Armenia with the Basileans in 198. Though at first repulsed, they subsequently became important factors in Armenian history for a period of 800 years. Driven onward by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by their own desire for plunder and revenge, they made fre- quent invasions into Armenia. The latter country was made the battle-ground in the long struggle be- tween the Romans and the Persians. Thisstruggle, which finally resulted in the loss by Armenia of her independence, paved the way for the political im- portance of the Chazars. The conquest of eastern Armenia by the Persians in the fourth century ren- dered the latter dangerous to the Chazars, who, for their own protection, formed an alliance with the Byzantines. This alliance was renewed from time to time until the final conquest of the Chazars by the Russians. Their first aid was rendered to the Byzantine emperor Julian, in 368. About 434 they were for a time tributary to Attila—Sidonius Apol- linaris relates that the Chazars followed the banners of Attila—and in 452 fought on the Catalanian fields . company with the Black Huns and Alans. The haber king Kobad (488-531) undertook the con- struction - a line of forts through the pass between eal Derbent and the Caucasus, in order to guard against the invasion of the Chazars, Turks, and _ Other warlike tribes. His son Chos- roes Anoshirvan (531-579) built the wall of Derbent, repeatedly mentioned by the Oriental geographers and his- torians as Bab al-Abwab (Justi, “Gesch. des Alten Persiens,” p. 208). In the second half of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward. They established themselves in the territory bounded by the Sea of Azov, the Don and the lower Volga, the Caspian Sea, and the northern Caucasus. The Caucasian Goths (Tetrax- ites) were subjugated by the Chazars, probably about the seventh century (Léwe, “Die Reste der Ger- manen am Schwarzen Meere,” p. 72, Halle, 1896). Early in that century the kingdom of the Chazars had become powerful enough to enable the chaghan to send to the Byzantine emperor Heraclius an army of 40,000 men, by whose aid he conquered the Per- sians (626-627). The Chazars had already occupied the northeastern part of the Black Sea region. Ac- cording to the historian Moses Kalonkataci, the Cha- zars, under their leader Jebu Chaghan (called “ Zie- bel Chaghan” by the Greek writers), penetrated into Persian territory as early as the second cam- paign of Heraclius, on which occasion they devas- tated Albania (“ Die Persischen Feldziige des Kaisers Herakleios,” in “ Byzantinische Zeitschrift,” tii. 364), Nicephorus testifies that Heraclius repeatedly showed marks of esteem to his ally, the chaghan of the Chazars, to whom he even promised his daughter in marriage. In the great battle between the Cha- zars and the Arabs near Kizliar 4,000 Mohammedan soldiers and their leader were slain. In the year 669 the Ugrians or Zabirs freed them- selves from the rule of the Obrians, settled between the Don and the Caucasus, and came under the do- minion of the Chazars. For this reason the Ugri- ans, who had hitherto been called the“ White ” or“ In- dependent ” Ugrians, are described in the chronicles ascribed to Nestor as the “Black,” or “ Dependent,” Ugrians. They were no longer governed by their own princes, but were ruled by the kings of the Chazars. In 735, when the Arab leader Mervan moved from Georgia against the Chazars, he at- tacked the Ugrians also. In 679 the Chazars sub- jugated the Bulgars and extended their sway far- ther west between the Don and the Dnieper, as far Early History. Chazars as the head-waters of the Donetz in the province of Lebedia (K. Grot, “Moravia i Madyary,” St. Peters- burg, 1881; J. Danilevski and K. Grot, “O Puti Madyar s Urala v Lebediyu,” in “ Iz vyestiya Impera- torskavo Russkavo Geograficheskavo Obshchestva,” xix.). It was probably about that time that the chaghan of the Chazars and his gran- Embrace dees, together with a large number Judaism. of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion. According to A. Harkavy (“Meassef Niddahim,” i.), the conversion took place in 620; according to others, in 740. King Joseph, in his letter to Hasdai ibn Shaprut (about 960), gives the following account of the conversion: ** Some centuries ago King Bulan reigned over the Chazars. To him God appeared in a dream and promised him might and glory. Encouraged by this dream, Bulan went by the road of Darian to the country of Ardebil, where he gained great victo- ries [over the Arabs]. The Byzantine emperor and the calif of the Ishmaelites sent to him envoys with presents, and sages to convert him to their respective re- ligions. Bulan in- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 2 Le, his son Moses (or Manasseh IT.); the latter by his soy Nisi; and Nisi by his son Aaron II. King Joseph himself was a son of Aaron, and ascended the throne in accordance with the law of the Chazars relating to succession. On the whole, King Joseph’s ac. . count agrees generally with the evidence giyen by the Arabic writers of the tenth century, but in de. tail it contains a few discrepancies. According to Ibn Fadlan, Ibn Dastah, and others, only the king and the grandees were followers of Judaism: The rest of the Chazars were Christians, Mohammedans, and heathens; and the Jews were in a great minority (Frihn, “De Chazaris,” pp. 138-18, 584-590). Ac. cording to Mas‘udi (“Les Prairies d’Or,” ii. 8), the king and the Chazars proper were Jews; but the army consisted of Mohammedans, while the other inhabitants, especially the Slavonians and Rus- sians, were heathens. From the work “ Kitab al- Buldan,” written about the ninth century (p. 121; cited by Chwol- son in “Izvyes- tiya o Chaza- rakh,” etc., p. 57), it appears as vited also wise men of Israel, and pro- ceeded to examine them all. As each of the champions be- lieved his religion to be the best, Bulan separately ques- ifall the Chazars were Jews and that they had been converted to Judaism only a short tine be- tioned the Moham- fore that book medans and. the Christians as _ to was written. which of the other But this work iil tH two religions they considered the bet- ter. When both gave preference to that of the Jews, that king perceived that it must be the true re- ligion. He therefore adopted it’? (see Harkavy, ‘*Soobsh- chenija o Chaza- rakh,” in “ Yevrei- skaya Biblioteka,” vii. 153). This account of the conver- sion was con- sidered to be of a legendary nature. Harkavy, how- ever (in “ Bilbasov ” and “ Yevreiskaya Biblioteka ”), proved from Arabic and Slavonian sources that the religious disputation at the Chazarian court is a his- torical fact. Even the name of Sangari has been found ina liturgy of Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril). It was one of the successors of Bulan, named Obadiah, who regenerated the kingdom and strengthened the Jewish religion. He invited Jew- ish scholars to settle in his dominions, and founded synagogues and schools. The people were in- structed in the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud, and in the “divine service of the hazzanim.” In their writings the Chazars used the Hebrew Succession letters (Harkavy, “Skazaniya,” etc., of Kings. p. 241). Obadiah was succeeded by his son Hezekiah; the latter by his son Manasseh; Manasseh by Hanukkah, a brother of Obadiah; Hanukkah by his son Isaac; Isaac by Map Showing the Distribution of Religions in Europe in the Tenth Century, C.E£., Indicating Extent of the Kingdom of the Chazars. ; was probably in- spired by Jai- hani; and it may be assumed that in the ninth cen- tury many Cha- zar heathens be- came Jcws, owing to the re- ligious zeal of King Obadiah. “Such a conver- Mi il VU. i ‘ Z SSVsqo O°—CSLEEZ, SS WZ SS “ot PZZAGREEK CATHOLICS PHA JEWS (Chazars) BSS MOHAMMEDANS E= PAGANS (After Schrader, “ Atlas de Géographie Historique.”’) sion 1 & reat masses,” says Chwolson (#2. p. 58), “may have been the reason for the embassy of Christians from the land of the Chazars to the Byzantine emperor Michael. The report of the embassy reads as follows: ‘Quomodo nunc Judi, nunc Saraceni ad suam fidem eos moli- rentur convertere’” (Schlézer, “ Nestor,” iii. 154). The history of the kingdom of the Chazars un- doubtedly presents one of the most remarkable fea- tures of the Middle Ages. Surrounded by wild, nomadic peoples, and themselves lead- Internal ing partly a nomadic life, the Chazars Adminis- enjoyed all the privileges of civilized tration nations, a well-constituted and tolerant and government, a flourishing trade, and Commercial a well-disciplined standing army. In Relations. a time when fanaticism, ignorance, and anarchy reigned in western Ku- rope, the kingdom of the Chazars could boast of its just and broad-minded administration; and all THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 3 o were persecuted on the score of their religion : ed ofr seve ’ justice’, a po Mohammedans, and two Christians, were Jew of the interests of their respective faiths, jn Sage heathen was appointed for the Slavonians, while a and other pagans (Mas‘udi, Z.¢. ti, 8-11). eae -jsh population in the entiredomain of the Lue 5, in the period between the seventh and Coa ae centuries, must have been considerable. baa is no doubt that the Caucasian and other Ori- ae had lived and carried on business with ee long before the arrival of the Jewish raeittved from Greece, who escaped hee a the mania for conversion which possessed the byzan- tine emperor Leo the Isaurian, From the corre- spondence between King Joseph and Hasdat it is apparent that two Spanish Jews, Judah ben Meir ben Nathan and J oe oe ueneeetn in Aue Be d of the Chazars, and that it wasa German poe ben Eliezer “from the land of Nyemetz y (Germany), who carried Hasdai's letter to the king. Saadia, who had a fair knowledge of the kingdom of the Chazars, mentions a certain Isaac ben Abra- ham who had removed ee ated to cack (Har- avy, in Kohut Memorial Volume, p. #44). mong oe aaiets routes enumerated by the Arabic geog- rapher Ibn Khurdadhbah (860-880) as being used by the Rahdanite Jewish merchants, there is one leading from Spain or France, via Allemapia, through the land of the Slavonians, close by Atel, the capital of the Chazars, whence they crossed the Sea of the Cha- zars (Caspian Sea) and continued their voyage, via Balkh, Transoxania, and the land of the Tagasga, to India and China. These merchants, who spoke Arabic, Persian, Greek, Spanish, French, and Sla- vonic, “traveled continuously from west to east from east to west by sea and by land.” ‘They carried eu- nuchs, serving-maids, boys, silks, furs, swords, im- ported musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products of the Far East (Harkavy, “Skazaniya Musulmanskikh Pisatelei o Slavyanakh i Russkikh,” pp. 48, 58; “Journal Asiatique,” 1865). Hasdai ibn Shaprut, who was foreign minister to ‘Abd al-Rahman, Sultan of Cordova, in his letter to King Joseph of the Chazars (about 960), relates that the first information about that kingdom was com- municated to him by envoys from Khorassan, and that their statements were corroborated by the am- bassadors from Byzantium. The latter told him that the powerful Chazars were maintaining amica- ble relations with the Byzantine empire, with which they carried on by seaa trade in fish, skins, and other wares, the voyage from Constantinople occupying fifteen days. Hasdai determined to avail himself of ns services of the Byzantine embassy to transmit Is ee! to the king of the Chazars, and with that view he despatched Isaac ben Nathan with valuable gifts to the emperor, requesting him to aid Isaac in his journey to Chazaria. But the Greeks interposed delays, and finally sent Isaac back to Cordova. Has- dai then decided to send his message by way of Jeru- oe Nisibis, Armenia, and Bardaa, but the envoys whe ‘ king of the Gebalim (Boleslav I. of Bohemia), kes ad then just arrived in Cordova, and among om were two Jews, Saul and Joseph, suggested wh Chazars a different plan. They offered to send the letter to Jews living in “ Hungarin” (Hungary), who, in their turn, would transmit it to “Russ” (Russia), and thence through “ Bulgar” (probably the country of the Bulgarians on the Kuban) to its destination (Atel, the capital of Chazaria). As the envoys guaranteed the safe delivery of the message, Hasdai accepted the proposal. He further expressed his thankfulness that God in His mercy had not de- prived the Jews of a deliverer, but had preserved the remnant of the Jewish race. Taking a keen interest in everything relating to the kingdom of the Chazars, Hasdai begs the king to communicate to him a detailed account of the geography of his country, of its internal constitu- tion, of the customs and occupations of its inhabit- ants, and especially of the history of his ancestry and of the state. In this letter Hasdaispeaks of the tradition according to which the Chazars once dwelt near the Scir (Serir) Mountains; he refers to the narrative of Eldad ha-Dani, who thought he had discovered the Lost Ten Tribes; and inquires whether the Chazars know anything concerning “the end of the miracles” (the coming of the Messiah). As to Eldad ha-Dani’s unauthenticated account of the Lost Ten Tribes on the River Sambation, it may be inter- esting to note that, according to Idrisi, the city of Sarmel (Sarkel-on-the-Don) was situated on the River Al-Sabt (Sambat), whichis the River Don. The name for Kiev, as given by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, is also Sambatas (SeuBdrac). These appellations of the River Don and of the city of Kiev point evidently to Jewish-Chazar influences (Westberg, “Ibrahim ibn Ya‘kub’s Reisebericht tiber die Slavenlande aus dem Jahre 965,” p. 184, St. Petersburg, 1898). A complete account of the correspondence be- tween Hasdai and King Joseph has The been written by A. Harkavy (“ Yevre- Chazarian iskaya Biblioteka,” vili. 135), one of Letters. the leading authorities on the history of the Chazars, from which the fol- lowing is, in substance, an extract: The Chazarian correspondence was first published in the . work “*Kol-Mebasser ” of Isaac ‘Akrish (Constantinople, 1577), into whose hands these documents came while on a voyage from Egypt to Constantinople. He published them with the view of proving that even after the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews still had their own country, in accordance with the well-known passage in Genesis(xlix. 10), ‘* the scepter shall not depart from Judah.” Among European scholars Johann Buxtorf, the son, was the first to become interested in the Chazarian letters, which he printed together with the text of ‘Akrish in his Latin transla- tion of ** Cuzari’’ (Basel, 1660). Buxtorf believed that the letters themselves and the entire . history of the Chazarian kingdom were but fable, for the reason that no seafarers. merchants, or other travelers had brought any information concerning such a flourishing kingdom as that of the Chazars was reputed to be. The learned Orientalist D’Herbelot (‘* Bibliotheque Orientale,” ii. 455, Paris, 1697), mis- led by a wrong conception of the ** Cuzari ’’ and its relation to the conversion of the Chazars to Judaism, leaves the authenticity of the correspondence an open question. One of the greatest scholars of the 17th century, Samuel Bochart, in his derivation of the name of the Chazars, introduces the account of Joseph ben Gorion (Yosippon), and in his notes to the ** Yuhasin”’ of Zacuto gives information about the Chaza- rian kingdom and the Sea of the Chazars obtained from the ** Geographia Nubiensis’’ of the Arabian writer Idrisi (12th cen- tury ; see “ Geographia Sacra,’’ 1646, p. 226). Bochart’s views, however, are not important because he had no knowledge of the *Cuzari’’ or of the Chazarian letters. All the skeptics of that Chazars time and those mentioned below had no knowledge of the facts concerning the Chazars and Chazarian Judaism as contained in Slavonic Russian sources, or of the ** Acta Sanctorum,” which dis- cusses those sources. It is therefore not surprising that the first author of a comprehensive history of the Jews, Basnage, Who in his ‘' Histoire des Juifs,”’ v. 446, Rotterdam, 1707, prints the Chazarian letters, has the boldness to declare as idle fancy, not only the kingdom of the Chazars, but even the existence of the Chazarian people, which was invented, he considers, by Jewish boastfulness. About the same time Dom Augustine Calmet issued his Bib- Heal researches, part of which treats of ** the country whither the Ten Tribes were led away and where the said tribes now live.” Calmet considers Media near the Caspian Sea to be “ the coun- try,” and that it is also identical with ‘“‘ the country of the Cha- zars,’’ which was glorified so much in the rabbinical writings. According to them the czar of the Chazars adopted the Jewish religion in the eighth century. Calmet, however, considers the whole story a fietion (Calmet, “ Biblische Untersuchungen, Uebersetzt von Mosheim,” iv. 406-407, Bremen, 1748). BARATIER, “the remarkable child,”® also considered the story of the Chazars to be only a pleasing novel; but it may serve as an excuse for his opinion that when he wrote his work he was only eleven years of age (Baratier, ** Voyage de R. Benjamin Fils de Jona de Tudela,”’ ii. 285, Amsterdam, 1734). The Danish historiographer Frederick Suhm, who in 1779 wrote a remark- able work, for that time, on the Chazars, and who could not free himself from the view of the Hebraists of the time with re- gard to the letter of King Joseph, was the first to give a decided opinion in favor of the genuineness of the letter of Hasdai (Suhm, **Samlede Skrifter’’). The ignorance of these writers is accounted for by the fact that only at the end of the eighteenth century were translations of the old Arabic writers, Mas‘udi, Istakhbri, Ibn Haukal, etc., on the Chazars, issued. The first to make use of the testimony of the Arabic writers to corroborate the accounts of the Jewish writers on the Chazars, was the ‘Lithuanian historian Tadeusz CZACKI, who had the advantage Of using copies of the Arabic manuscripts relating to the subject ‘in the Library of Paris (‘* Rosprawao Zydach,”’ pp. 68-69, Wilna, 1807). The Russian historian Karamsin also made use of Mas‘u- di’s information, given in the *‘ Chrestomathy *’ of Silvestre de Sacy, and of Abulfeda’s researches published in the fifth volume of Busching’s ** Historical Magazine.”’ The Russian academician Ch, Fraihn and the Swedish scholar D’Ohsson collected and published, in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, all the Arabic testimony on the subject of the Chazars known at that time. The authenticity of the letter of King Joseph has, however, since been fully established by the very material which those scholars had at their disposal. Frihn acknowledges the genuineness of Hasdai’s letter, but not that of King Joseph. In thesame way D’Ohsson, although he found the information of the Arabic and Byzantine writers in conformity with the contents of the Chazar letters, could not help doubting its genuineness (“* Peuples du Caucase,”’ p. 205). This may be explained by the fact that as they did not under- stand Hebrew they did not care to commit themselves on a question which lay outside of their field of investigation. But the Jewish scholars had no doubts whatever as to the genuineness of the Chazarian documents, especially since the beginning of the critical school of Rapoport and Zunz. They were made use of by many writers in Spain in the twelfth cen- tury; as, for instance, by Judah ha-Levi (1140), who displayed a close {acquaintance with the contents of King Joseph’s epistie (Cassel, ** Das Buch Kusari,” pp. 138-14, Leipsic, 1869), and by the historian Abraham ibn Daud of Toledo (1160), who distinctly refers to the same letter (*‘ Sefer ha-Kabbalah,” p. 46b, Amster- dam, 1711). Later on, with the persecutions which ended with the expul- sion of the Jews from Spain, the Chazarian documents, together with many other treasures of medieval Jewish literature, were fost to the learned, and were not recovered until the end of the sixteenth century, when they were found in Egypt by Isaac ‘Akrish. The Jews of that time took little interest, however, in the history of the past, being absorbed by the cheerless events of their ownepoch. The first reference, therefore, to the Chazar letters is by Rabbi Bacharach of Worms, in 1679, who discovered proofs of the genuineness of Hasdai’s letter in an acrostic in the poem which served as a preface, and which reads as follows ; **1, Hasdai, son of Isaac, son of Ezra ben Shaprut”’ (see ** Hut ba-Shani,”’ p. 110b, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1769). This acrostic, however, again remained unnoticed until it was rediscovered by Frensdorf, independently of Bacharach, in 1836 (‘* Zeitschrift fiir Jiidische Theologie,”’ ii. 513). Four years later (1840) the genuineness of Hasdai’s letter was absolutely THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ; 4 proved by Joseph Zedner. He also acknowledged the authen. ticity of the chaghan’s letter, but did not submit proofs (‘* Aug. wahl Historischer Stiicke aus der Jiidischen Literatur,” pp. 26- 36, Berlin, 1840). At the same time Solomon Munk gave hig opinion in favor of the genuineness of both letters (** Orient, Lit.” i. 136; ‘* Archives Israélites,”’ 1848, p. 343; ** Mélanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe,”’ p. 483, Paris, 1859). Since then most of the Jewish scholars have adopted his view, including Lebrecht, 1841; Michael Sachs, 1845; S. D. Luzzatto, 1846-50; Z. Frankel, 1852; D. Cassel and H. Joloviez, 1858, 1859, 1872; Leop. Liw, 1855-74; Hartog, 1857; Jost, 1858; Steinschneider, 1860; Gratz, 1860 and 1871; Harkavy, beginning with 1864, Geiger, 1865; Kraushar, 1866; D. Kaufmann, 1877; and many others. A comparison of Jewish with other sources, especially with Arabic, as far as they were then known, must be credited to E. Carmoly. He began his work with the comparison of the various sources in his ‘Revue Orientale ” (1840-44). He com. pleted it in 1847 (** Itinéraires de la Terre Sainte,” pp. 1-110, Brus. sels, 1847). Some useful supplements to Carmoly’s works were presented by Paulus Cassel in 1848 and 1877 (‘* Magyarische Alterthiimer,”? pp. 188-219, Berlin, 1848; ** Der Chazarische K6- nigsbrief aus dem 10. Jahrhundert,”’ Berlin, 1877). The results of these investigations were accepted by the fol. lowing Christian scholars: Grigoryev, 1834; Schafarik, 1848; Lelevel, 1851-60; Vivien de San Martin, 1851; 8. Solovyov, 1851~ 1874; Byelevski, 1864; Brun, 1866-77; Bilbasov, 1868-71; Kunik, 1874 and 1878; and many others. Still there were some writers who were misled by the earlier opinions, and on the strength of them spoke skeptically of the documents; as Jacob Goldenthal (1848) ; Dobryakov (1865); and even the historian Ilovaiski (1876) .* In 960 Atel (or Itil), at that time the capital of the kingdom of the Chazars, was situated about eight miles from the modern Astrakhan, on the right bankof the lower Volga, which river was also called “ Atel” or “Jtil.” The meaning of “Atel” The in the Gothic language is “ father” or Capital of “little father,” that of “Itil” in the Chazaria. Turanian language is “river”; it is difficult to decide which of these two words gave the river its name. The western part of the city was surrounded by a wall pierced by four gates, of which one led to the river, and the others to the steppes. Here was situated the king’s palace, which was the only brick building in the city. According to Mas‘udi, the city was divided into three parts, the palace of the chaghan standing onanisland. The king had twenty-five wives, all of royal blood, and sixty concubines, all famous beauties. Each one dwelt in a separate tent and was watched by a eunuch. The authority of the chaghan was so absolute that during his absence from the capital, even his viceroy, or coregent (called “isha,” or “bek,” or “ pech ”), was powerless. The viceroy had to enter the chaghan’s apartments barefooted and with the greatest reverence. He held in his right hand a chip of wood, which he lit when he saluted the chaghan, whereupon he took his seat to the right of the latter, on the throne, which was of gold. The wails of the palace were also gilded, and a golden gate ornamented the palace. All the other dwellings of the then populous city were insignificant mud hutsor felt tents. The posi- tion of the chaghan of the Chazars was evidently similar to that of the former mikados of Japan, while the bek, his military coregent, corresponded *The translation of the letters given by Harkavy is from a manuscript in the St. Petersburg Public Library. The genuine- ness of the St. Petersburg manuscript has been demonstrated by him (against P. Cassel, Vambéry, ete.), in the *‘ Russische Re vue’ and in ‘* Meassef Niddahim, ’ i., No. 10, pp. 149 et seq. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 5 guns of the latter. Emperor Heraclius in 626 concluded a treaty with the chaghan of the and Constantine Copronymus, in his de- Chaz ane f the embassy of the Chazars (834), states sent by the “ oe ae pech.” ates that the king of the Chazars was Ibn esa eee chaghan,” and his deputy “cha- called the ” ai -» “beg,” or “bek”). The bek ghan-bhoa San at tered the affairs of the coun- the army, admuinistere . ie d appeared among the people; and to him try; ih hboring kings paid allegiance. It will thus ce z that the extent of the powers of the bek be with the times. When the chaghan wanted punish any one, he said, “Go and commit sui- cide”—a method resenibling the Japanese custom = 1. a of the chaghan resided in the western art of the city, whose eastern part, called “Cha- » wag inhabited by merchants of various na- tionalities. |The city and its environs were heavily shaded by trees. The Turkish and the Chazar lan- guages predominated. The entourage of the cha- ghan, numbering 4,000 men,consisted of representa- tives of different nationalities. ‘The White Chazars were renowned for their beauty; and according to Demidov, the mountaineers of the Crimea con- trasted very favorably with the Nogay Tatars, be- cause they were considerably intermixed with the Chazars and with the equally fine race of the Ku- mans. Besides the White Chazars, there were also Black Chazars (who were almost as dark as the Hindus), Turkish immigrants, Slavonians, Hunno- Bulgars, Jews, who lived mostly in the cities, and various Caucasian tribes, such as the Abghases, Ka- bardines, Ossetes, Avares, Lesghians, etc. The Chazars cultivated rice, millet, fruit, grains, and the vine. They had important fisheries on the Caspian Sea, and the sturgeon constituted the main article of food. The Arabic writer Al-Makdisi re- marks: “In Chazaria there are many Trade and sheep, and Jews, and much honey” Commerce. (“Bibl. Geograph. Arabic.” iti., Ley- den, 1877). From the upper Volga they brought down from the Mordvines and Russians honey and valuable furs, which they exported to Africa, Spain, and France. They supplied the mar- ket of Constantinople with hides, furs, fish, Indian goods, and articles of luxury. The chaghan and his suite resided in the capital only during the winter months. From the month of Nisan (April) they led a nomadic life in the steppes, returning to the city about the Feast of Hanukkah (December). The es- tates and vineyards of the chaghan were on the island on which his palace was situated. Another city of the Chazars, Semender, between Atel and Bab al- Abwab, was surrounded by 40,000 vines. It was identical with the modern Tarku, near Petrovsk, which is now inhabited by Jews and Kumyks. The latter are supposed to be descended from the Cha- zars (Klaproth, “ Mémoire sur les Khazars,” in “ Jour- nal Asiatique,” 1823, iii.). At the Byzantine court the chaghan was held in high esteem. In diplomatic correspondence with him the seal of three solidi was used, which marked M as a potentate of the first rank, above even the bope and the Carlovingian monarchs. Emperor to the sho that it was zaran, Chazars Justinian IT., after his flight from Kherson to Doros, took refuge during his exile with the chaghan, and married the chaghan’s daughter Irene, Relations who was famous for her beauty (702) with By- (Nicephorus, “Breviarium,” ed. Bonn, zantium, 18387, p. 46). Emperor Leo IV., “the Chazar” (775-780), the son of Con- stantine, was thus a grandson of the king of the Chazars. From his mother he inherited his mild, amiable disposition. Justinian’s rival, Bardanes, likewise sought an asylum in Chazaria. Chazarian troops were among the body-guard of the Byzantine imperial court; and they fought for Leo VI. against Simeon of Bulgaria in 888. King Joseph in his letter to Hasdai gives the fol- lowing account of his kingdom: ** The country up the river is within a four months’ journey to the Orient, settled by the following nations who pay tribute to the Chazars: Burtas, Bulgar, Suvar, Arissu, Tzar- Chazarian mis, Ventit, Syever, and Slaviyun. Thence the Territories. boundary-line runs to Buarasm as far as the Jordjan. All the inhabitants of the seacoast that live within a month’s distance pay tribute to the Chazars. To the south Semender, Bak-Tadlu, and the gates of the Bab al-Abwab are situated on the seashore. Thence the boundary- line extends to the mountains of Azur, Bak-Bagdada, Sridi, Kiton, Arku, Shaula, Sagsar, Albusser, Ukusser, Kiadusser, Tzidlag, Zunikh, which are very high peaks, and to the Alans as far as the boundary of the Kassa, Kalkial, Takat, Gebul, and the Con- stantinian Sea. To the west, Sarkel, Samkrtz, Kertz, Sugdai, Aluss, Lambat, Bartnit, Alubika, Kut, Mankup, Budik, Alma, and Grusin—all these western localities are situated on the banks of the Constantinian (Black) Sea. Thence the boundary- line extends to the north, traversing the land of Basa, which is on the River Vaghez. Here on the plains live nomadic tribes, which extend to the frontier of the Gagries, as innumerable as the sands of the sea; and they all pay tribute to the Chazars. The king of the Chazars himself has established his residence at the mouth of the river, in order to guard its entrance and to prevent the Russians from reaching the Caspian Sea, and thus penetrating to the land of the Ishmaelites. In the same way the Chazars bar enemies from the gaies of Bab al-Abwab.”’ Even the Russian Slavonians of Kiev had, in the ninth century, to pay as yearly tax to the Chazars a sword and the skin of a squirrel for each house. At the end of the eighth century, when the Cri- mean Goths rebelled against the sovereignty of the Chazars, the latter occupied the Gothic capital, Doros. The Chazars were at first repulsed by the Gothic bishop Joannes; but when he War with had surrendered, the Goths submitted Goths. to the rule of the Chazars (Braun, “ Die Letzten Schicksale der Krimgo- then,” p. 14, St. Petersburg, 1890; Tomasches, “Die Gothen in Taurien,” Vienna, 1881). In the second quarter of the ninth century, when the Chazars were often annoyed by the irruptions of the Petchenegs, Emperor Theophilus, fearing for the safety of the Byzantine trade with the neigh- boring nations, despatched his brother-in-law, Petron Kamateros, with materials and workmen to build for the Chazars the fortress Sarkel on the Don (884). Sarkel (“Sar-kel,” the white abode; Russian, “Byelaya Vyezha”) served as a military post and as a commercial depot for the north. In the second half of the ninth century the apostle of the Slavonians, Constantine (CYRIL), went to the Crimea to spread Christianity among the Chazars (Tomaschek, @. c. p. 25). At this time the kingdom of the Chazars stood at the height of its power, and was constantly at war with the Arabian califs and Chazars Cheese THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 6 their leaders in Persia and the Caucasus. The Per- sian Jews hoped that the Chazars might succeed in destroying the califs’ country (Harkavy, in Kohut Memorial Volume, p. 244). The high esteem in which the Chazars were held among the Jews of the Orient may be seen in the application to them—in an Arabic commentary on Isaiah ascribed by some to Saadia, and by others to Benjamin Nahawandi— of Isa. xiviii. 14: “The Lord hath loved him.” “This,” says the commentary, “refers to the Cha- zars, who will go and destroy Babel ”—7.e., Babylo- nia—a name used to designate the country of the Arabs (Harkavy, in “ Ha-Maggid,” 1877, p. 357). The chaghans of the Chazars, in their turn, took great interest in and protected their coreligionists, the Jews. When one of the chaghans received in- formation (c. 921) that the Mohammedans had des- troyed a synagogue in the land of Babung (accord- ing to Harkavy the market of Camo- Jewish mile in Atel is meant), he gave orders Sym- that the minaret of the mosque in his pathies. capital should be broken off, and the muezzin executed. He declared that he would have destroyed all the mosques in the coun- try had he not been afraid that the Mohammedans wouldin turn destroy all the synagogues in their lands (Ibn Fadlan, in Frahn, “ De Chazaris,” p. 18). In the conquest of Hungary by the Magyars (889) the Cha- zars rendered considerable assistance. They had, however, settled in Pannonia before the arrival of the Magyars. This is evident from the names of such places as Kozar and Kis-Kozard in the Négrad, and Great-Kozar and Raczkozar in the Baranya district (Karl Szab6, “Magyar Akademiai Ertesité,” i. 182, cited by Vambéry in his “ Ursprung der Magyaren,” p. 182; compare Kohn, “A Zsid6k Torténete Mag- yarorszigon ””—The History of the Jews in Hun- gary—i. 12 et seq.). Mas‘udi relates the following particulars concern- ing the Chazars in connection with Russian inva- sions of Tabaristan and neighboring countries: ** After the year 300 of the Hegira (913-914), five hundred Rus- sian [Northmen’s] ships, every one of which had a hundred men on board, came to the estuary of the Don, War with which opens into the Pontus, and is in com- Russians. munication with the river of the Chazars, the Volga. The king of the Chazars keeps a garri- son on this side of the estuary with efficient, warlike equipment to exclude any other power from its passage. The king of the Chazars himself frequently takes the fleld against them if this garrison is too weak. ** When the Russian vessels reached the fort they sent to the king of the Chazars to ask his permission to pass through his dominions, promising him half the plunder which they might take from the nations who lived on the coast of this sea. He gave them leave. They entered the country, and continuing their voyage up the River Don as far as the river of the Chazars, they went down this river past the town of Atel and entered through its mouth into the sea of the Chazars. They spread over e]-Jil, ed-Dailem, Tabaristan, Aboskum, which is the name for the coast of Jordjan, the Naphtha country, and toward Ader- bijan, the town of Ardobil, which is in Aderbijan, and about three days’ journey from the sea. The nations on the coast had no means of repelling the Russians, although they put them- selves in a state of defense; for the inhabitants of the coast of this sea are well civilized. When the Russians had secured their booty and captives, they sailed to the mouth of the river of the Chazars and sent messengers with money and spoils to the king, in conformity with the stipulations they had made. The Larissians and other Moslems in the conntry of the Chazars heard of the attack of the Russians, and they said to their king: *The Russians have invaded the country of our Mosiem brothers ; they have shed their blood and made their wives and children captives, as they are unable to resist; permit us to oppose them.’ The Moslem army, which numbered about 15,000, took the flelg and fought for three days. The Russians were put to the sword, many being drowned, and only 5,000 escaping. These were slain by the Burtas and by the Moslems of Targhiz. The Rus. sians did not make a similar attempt after that year’ (Mas‘udi {tr. by Sprenger], in ‘* Historical Encyc.,”’ pp. 416-420). Notwithstanding the assertions of Mas‘udi, the Russians invaded the trans-Caucasian country in 944, but were careful in this expedition to take q different route. This seems to have been the beginning of the downfall of the Chazar kingdom. The Russian Varangians had firmly established themselves at Kiev, while the powerful dominions of the Chazarg had become dangerous to the Byzantine empire, and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his instruc- tions on government written for his son, carefully enumerates the Alans, the Petchenegs, the Uzes, and the Bulgarians as the forces on which he must rely to check the influence of the Chazars. Five years after the correspondence between the king of the Chazars and Hasdai ibn Shaprut (965), the Russian prince Swyatoslaw made war upon the Chazars, apparently for the possession of Taurida and Taman. The Russians had already freed from the rule of the Chazars a part of the Declineand Black Bulgars, and had established Fall of the a separate Russian duchy under the Chazars. name of “Tmutrakan”; but in the Crimean peninsula the Chazars still had possessions, and from the Caucasian side the Russian Tmutrakan suffered from the irruption of the Kossogian and Karbardine princes, who were tributary to the chaghan of the Chazars. The for- tress of Sarkel and the city of Atel were the chief obstacles to Russian predatory expeditions on the Caspian Sea. After a hard fight the Russians con- quered the Chazars. Swyatoslaw destroyed Sarkel, subdued also the tribes of the Kossogians and Yass (Alans), and so strengthened the position of the Russian Tmutrakan. They destroyed the city of Bulgar, devastated the country of the Burtas, and took possession of Atel and Semender. Four years later the Russians conquered all the Chazarian territory east of the Sea of Azov. Only the Crimean territory of the Chazars remained in their possession until 1016, when they were dispos- sessed by a joint expedition of Russians and Byzan- tines. The last of the chaghans, George Tzula, was taken prisoner; some of the Chazars took refuge in an island of the Caspian, Siahcouye; others retired to the Caucasus; while many were sent as prisoners of war to Kiev, where a Chazar community had long existed. Many intermingled in the Crimea with the local Jews; the Krimtschaki are probably their descendants—perhaps some of the Subbotniki also (“Voskhod,” 1891, iv.—vi.). Some went to Hungary, but the great mass of the people re- mained in their native country. Many members of the Chazarian royal family emigrated to Spain. Until the thirteenth century the Crimea was known to European travelers as “ Gazaria,” the Italian form of “Chazaria.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. ‘Akrish, Kol Mebasser, Constantinople, 1577; Cassel, Der Chazarische Kinigsbrief, Berlin, 1877; Carmoly, in Revue Orientale, i.. Brussels, 1841; Chwolson, Ibn-Dasta Izvyestiya o Chazarakh, Burtasakh, ete., St. Petersburg, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA __ oor P nazaris; Excerpta de Scriptoribus Ara- en ae 1821; idem, /bn Foszlan (Fadlan), St. t. 1823: Grigoryev, Rossia + Asia, St. Petersburg, petersvune Soobshcheniya o Chazarakya, in Yevreiska- 1876; HO) eka, vill., St. Petersburg, 1880; idem, Chazarskia a Bib in Yevreiskaya Biblioteka, vii., St. Petersburg, 1879; ismd, 10 iger’s Jud. Zeit. iii., Breslau, 1865; idem, in Raz- No. 4; idem, Nyekotoryya Daninyya, in Trudy gicheskavo Syezda v Kazani, Kazan, 1884; ssische Revue, 1875, 1877; Hirschfeld, Das Buch wel, 3 ih Warehe olo idem, ee Breslau, 1885; Klaproth, Mémoire sur les Kha- AL-One ournal Asiatique, ser. 1, vol. iii; Neumann, Die zars, in J » Gudlichen Russiands, Leipsic, 184”; C. d’Ohsson, Vor nates 1 Caucase, Paris, 1828; Sprenger, Al-Mas‘udi’s Les dows of Gold, i., London, 1841; Vambéry, Der Ursprung Men gyarens Leipsic, 1882; Vivien de St. Martin, Sur les der wars, it Nouvelles Annales des Voyages, 1851; Bacher, K are an version des Khazars Wapres un Ouvrage Midra- La “in Rev. Et. Juives, xx. 144-146; and works men- aco tn the text. See, also, ARMENIA, CaUCASUS, and H. R. CRIMEA. CHEBAR: Name of a Babylonian river or canal, by the side of which Ezekiel “saw visions” (Ezek. i. 1, 3. iii. 15, 23; x. 15 et seg.). The Hebrew “nahar” (9773), usually rendered “ river, ” was evidently used also for “canal” (= Babylonian “naru” ; compare Ps. exxxvii. 1, “naharoth Babel”; that is, “canals of Babylon”). In Babylonian, Naru Kabaru ” means, literally, “greatcanal.” The river has usually been identified with the Chabor, a tributary discharging its waters into the Euphrates at Circesium; a mis- take not to be justified in view of the definite state- ment that it wasin the land of Chaldea. The stream intended is undoubtedly the Kabaru, a large navi- gable canal near Nippur, twice mentioned ia an in- scription recovered by the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania (see Hilprecht and Clay, “Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania,” ix. 50). J. JR. R. W. R. CHECHELNIE: Town in the government of Podolia, Russia, having (1898) a population of about 7,000, including 1,967 Jews. Their principal occu- pation is commerce; but 352 are engaged in various handicrafts, and 96 are journeymen. About 200 Jews earn a livelihood as farm-laborers; and 41 are employed in the local factories. There are no char- itable organizations, and poverty among the Jewish inhabitants is general. A private school for boys with 100 pupils, and 23 hadarim with 367 pupils, constitute the Jewish educational institutions of Chechelnik. H. R. S. J. CHECHERSE: Town in the government of Mohilev, Russia, with a population (in 1898) of 2,819, including 1,692 Jews. The latter are princi- pally engaged in commerce, but 323 follow various handicrafts. Of these 158 own shops, 60 are wage- workers, and 105 are apprentices. Shoemaking is the predominant industry, 120 persons being engaged in it. There are, besides, 31 day-laborers. The chari- table organizations consist of a Gemilut Hasadim, a Lehem Ebyonim and a Bikkur Holim. Over 40 families apply yearly for aid for the Passover holi- days. The educational institutions include an ele- mentary government school with 80 pupils, 15 being Jews, and 15 hadarim, with 140 scholars. When the Uprising under Bogdan Chmielnicki broke out in 1648, Chechersk was taken by the Cossacks, who massacred all the Jews there. STSLIOGRAPRY : Regesty, i. 408, 411, St. Petersburg, _ OQhazars Cheese CHEDORLAOMER.—Biblical Data: Name of a king of Elam (Gen. xiv. 1), who made conquests as far west as Canaan and exercised supremacy over its southeastern part. After paying tribute to him for twelve years, the five local kings, or princes, rebelled in the thirteenth year, and in the fourteenth were assailed and reduced by Chedorlaomer, assisted by AMRAPHEL, King of Shinar; Ariocu, King of Ellasar, and Tidal, King of Goyim. —Critical View: The name “Chedorlaomer” has long been the subject of controversy, that has increased, rather than diminished, since the discov- ery of native Elamite and Babylonian documents. The first clue to an identification of the name is found in the fact, every where now regarded as estab- lished, that the name is a correct Elamite compound. Its first half, “Chedor” (= “ Kudur,” “servant of,” or “worshiper of”), is found frequently in Ela- mite proper names, such as “ Kudur-nanhundi” (“nabhunte” in Susian or Elamite) and “Kudur- mabuk.” The latter half of the name, “la‘omer,” (= “lagamaru”), isthe name of an Elamite deity, mentioned by Assurbanipal. Apart from these certain facts, all else is matter of controversy. Scheil believed that he had found the name on a tablet of Hammurabi in the form “Ku-du-la-uh-ga-mar ” (“ Revue Biblique,” 1896, p. 600), but the name is now proved to be “ Inuhsham- mar.” Pinches has found the name “ Kudur-ku-ku- mal” in a tablet dating probably from the period of the Arsacide. In spite of the difficulty of the read- ing and the late date of the text, it is possible that the person intended is really the same as the Chedor- laomer of Genesis, though most scholars are opposed to this view. The tablet in question is couched in a florid, poetical style, and little material of historical value can be gleaned from it. For the present the records give only the rather negative result that from Babylonian and Elamite documents nothing definite has been learned of Chedorlaomer. It is, however, a matter of some consequence in estima- ting the character of the narrative in Gen. xiv. to have learned that the name of Chedorlaomer is not a fiction. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schrader, Keilinsechriften des Alten Testa- ments, 2d ed., pp. 135 et seg.; (compare paper read by Pinches before the Victoria Institute) Jan. 20, 1896; L. W. King, Let- ters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, 1898, vol. i. J. IR. R. W. RB. CHEESE: The curd of milk run into molds and allowed to coagulate. This article of food was known to the ancient Hebrews. Three expressions seem at least to indicate that various kinds and forms of cheese were in use: 1. “Gebinah” (Job x. 10) denotes the ordinary article, prepared in Biblical times as it is to this day in Syria. Milk is passed through a cloth, and the curd, after being salted, is molded into disks about the size of the hand and dried in the sun. From such cheese a cool, acid drink is made by stirring it in water. 2. “ Harize he-halab” (I Sam. xvii. 18) appears to have been made of sweet milk, and to have been something like cottage-cheese. It is not certain what “she- fot bakar” (II Sam. xvii. 29) signifies. Perhaps the Masoretic reading is corrupt. If not, “cream” Cheese Chemosh THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA | 8 Eee ay, or “cheese” may be its meaning. 8. “Hem’ah,” ordinarily “cream,” signifies “cheese” in Prov. xxx. 38. | In post-Biblical days the manufacture of cheese was in the hands of a distinct gild. Josephus (“B. J.” v. 4, § 1), at all events, mentions “the val- ley of the cheese-makers,” and many are the refer- ences in the Talmudic writings to the preparation of hard cheese (Shab. 96a; Tosef., Shab. x.; Yer. Shab. vii. 10a, end; Yer. Ma‘as. ii. 8a; Yer. B. M. vii. 11b). Yer. Shek. vii. 3c mentions a disk (“iggul”) of cheese. Cheese and water are men- tioned as constituting a very poor meal (Yer. M. K. iii. 88b; Yer. Ned. v. 40d, beginning). Cheese was one of the articles included in the list of eighteen prohibitions enacted at the famous mect- ing in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon (Shab. i. 7), which could never be re- voked because they who had adopted them gave their lives for them (Yer. Shab. i.7; 3c. The Mish- nah does not enumerate them specifically; in the Gemara there are long debates concerning them; but a Baraita in the name of R. Simeon ben Yohai (7.) furnishes the particulars. According to this war measure, Jews were forbidden to buy bread, oil, cheese, wine, vinegar, etc., from an idolater. In the Mishnah (‘Ab. Zarah, ii. 5, 29a) cheese from Bet Oneiki (= Bithnica; Yer. reading spy-ym; Tosefta has here %°p.)""; according to Rapoport, “ Erek Mil- lin,” Veneca in Media is referred to) is declared to be “issur ” (interdicted), Rashi explaining that cheese from any other locality may be eaten. According to R. Meir this issur carries with it the prohibi- tion against using cheese for other purposes than eating, an opinion not accepted by the Rabbis. R. Joshua is reported as accounting for the prohibition by the fact that the makers of cheese, who were all either pagans (O°93)3) or Bithynians (sce Pliny, “Historia Naturalis,” xi. 97; Wiesner, in “Ben Chananja,” 1866, col. 75), placed the cheese (to ripen it) in the rennet-bag of an animal that had died of disease. Another of the reasons advanced is that most of the Bithynian calves whose stomachs were used in the manufacture of cheese, were slaugh- tered for idolatrous rites (‘Ab. Zarah 34b). Besides this, the fact of the contact of the rennet with the cheese would class the mixture, if made, under the general prohibition that forbade the mixing of milk with meat. The later religious practise has been to inter- dict all cheese made by non-Jews suspected of idolatry. Cheese made by Jews from the milk of animals originally destined for idolatry seems also to have been forbidden, and so was cheese of heathen manufacture, even if kept in leaves or herbs (see Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 115, 2; “Yad,” Ma‘akalot Asurot, iii.). So strictly was this prohibition observed that for a long time the Jews of England used to get their cheese from Holland so as to be certain that it had been prepared according to Jewish custom. E. Gi. CHELLUS (Xedove; Codex Sinaiticus, Xecdove; Syriac version, }95): Place mentioned in Judith i. 9 as lying before Kadesh and the River of Egypt. Reland (“ Palestina ex Monumentis Veteribus Illug. trata,” p. 717) is probably correct in identifying it with the city of Elusa (according to the Targum, ayibn), which was situated on the south of Beer. sheba, and was noted for its particular cult. Legg probable is the supposition of Movers, according to which Chellus is the Biblical “ Halhul,” mentioned in Joshua xv. 58. The name does not occur in the QO. T., but is found in the form “ Alusa” in Jose. phus (“ Ant.” xiv. 1, 84); not identical with “ Allus,” mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (“ Onomasticon,” pp. 85, 6; 211, 3). The modern name is “ Chalasa,” and the place contains only ruins. E. G. H. F. Bu. CHELM or CHOLM: Town in the government of Kovno, Russia. It has a population of about 4,200, all of whom, with the exception of about 300, are Jews. Most of them are engaged in mercantile pursuits, only 549 being artisans. The town hasa considerable trade in leather, wool, flax, hemp, bris- tles, and lumber, shipping these products to com- mercial centers, such as Ké6nigsberg, Riga, and Libau. About 30 Jews find employment in the local factories, corn milis, and sawmills; 80 are journey- men, draymen, and porters; 80 are engaged in gar- dening, cultivating a tract of 80 deciatines, which they partly own and partly hold on lease; and 8 live by dairying. In the vicinity of the town are several settlements inhabited by Jewish agricul- turists, The charitable institutions include societies for the Visitation of the sick, for the relief of the poor, and for affording temporary shelter to the destitute. The only educational institutions are the hadarim, H. R, S. J. CHELM, EPHRAIM B. JOSEPH. Sce Epu- RAIM B. JOSEPH CHELM. CHELM, SOLOMON B. MOSES. See Soto- MON B. MOSES CHELM. CHELOD: A nameoccurring in Judithi. 6b, and designating apparently the Chaldeans. In place of the rendering of the A. V., “many nations of the sons of Chelod assembled themselves to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and Arphaxad,” it is perhaps better to translate—follow- ing the Greck version—“ there came together many nations unto the array of the sons of Cheleul.” The Syriac renders “to fight against the Chaldeans.” And while it is true that Nebuchadnezzar is called “king of the Assyrians” in Judith, and not “of the Chaldeans,” it is to be remembered that the term “ Chaldeans” is used in the late Book of Daniel asa race-name for the Babylonians of the time of Nebu- chadnezzar (see Prince, “ Daniel,” pp. 59-61). The text of Judith seems to imply that the “sons of Chelod ” were Nebuchadnezzar’sarmy. Although it is not impossible that “Chelod” or “Cheleul” comes from acorrupt Aramaic form denoting “Chaldeans,” the whole matter is very uncertain. The idea that Calneh is meant is quite as improba- ble as the theory that the word is from the Hebrew “holed ” (mole), and that “children of the mole” is an opprobrious term for the Syrians (Ewald, “ Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” iii. 548). J. JR. J. D. P. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 9 UB: A Hebrew word meaning a cage, as : ene 97, It is also the name of two men: (1) ‘ai a eottiet of Shuah and father of Mehir of the The brew yadah (I Chron. iv. 11), In the Sep- eae Xai63. (2) The father of David’s chief reef Ezri (I Chron. xxvii. 26), 1014 8.c. In the Septuag™ Xehot ps. IDB CHELUBAI: This is probably another form of CALEB. It occurs in I Chron. ii. 9. eee G. BL. CHEMARIM : Plural of "99; occurs as translit- eration of the Hebrew in the English translation of Zeph. i. 4, and alsoas the marginal reading both in A. v.and R. V. to If Kings xxiii. }and Hosea x. 5, where the text renders the Hebrew by “ idolatrous priests x and “priests.” In Zeph. i. 4 the Septuagint omits it, and this in connection with the parallelism goes far to indicate that there it is an interpolation. But Wellhausen and others have, by emending the pas- sage in Hosea iv. 4, *2°7193 Toy1, to read yw1933 My (my people like its idolatrous priests), claimed for the word another passage in old Hebrew writings. The meaning of the word is well assured to be “priests.” It occurs with certainty in this acceptation in Semitic inscriptions (Halévy, in“ Rev. Sem.” 1896, pp. 280, 282; “OC. 1. S.” ii. 170), and possibly as “ ka- miru” on the El-Amarna tablets (Bezcld, “ Oriental Dipolmacy,” p. 92). In the Aramaic and in the Pe- shitta “kumra ” stands for “ priest ” without tinge of evil sense. In Neo-Hebrew 713 designates a Cath- olic priest and monk. In the passages quoted above, the term without doubt carries a by-flavor of disre- pute. It is the “idol-worshiping priest ” that is so de- nominated. And in thissense the appellation is very frequent in the Talmud (A757 AIIY wWID AwYps, ‘Ar. 30b; mt mayo ania AVN Min’, Pesik. R. 65c). The etymology, however, is notsoclear. Usually it is associated with the verb “kamar,” to be black. Kimhi, among others, is of this opinion, and derives the meaning “ priest” from the circumstance that the “priests wore black garments.” Others connect the root with the idea to be sad, “kumra” being a sad person; 2.e., an ascete, monk, priest. Delitzsch, in “Assyrisches Handwéorterbuch,” holds it to have sprung from “kamaru,” to overthrow, to prostrate, the “priest” being he who prostrates himself be- fore the idol. Perhaps the meaning of 45D in the Nif‘al (“to grow hot”) best explains the trans- ition to “priest” with a by-sense’ of “reprobate.” The old Semitic idols were without exception wor- shiped by intemperate (sexual) excesses. The “hot” “exciting man” was the priest xar’ éoy4v. E. G. H. CHEMEROVTZY: Small town in the govern- ment of Podolia, Russia, with (in 1898) an almost ex- clusively Jewish population of 1,282. About 160 Jews follow various trades, but the bulk of the population is engaged in mercantile pursuits. Tair sacks form the principal article of commerce, being exported to the value of 100,000 rubles annually. Poverty is increasing to such a degree that the scanty funds of the two existing charitable organi- zations can barely meet the needs of the poorer part of the community. The educational institutions Cheese Chemosh include a Talmud Torah, with 10 pupils, and 10 hadarim (which are subdivided into 3 primary, 3 middle, and 4 higher departments), with 178 pupils. H. R. S. J. CHEMNITZ: Town in Saxony, with a Jewish population of 1,150. Jews first settled there in the latter half of the nineteenth century. In 1874 they organized a congregation, although on feast-days religious services had been held since 1871. The hebra kaddisha and the Jewish Women’s Associ- ation were founded in 1876. On March 29, 1878, the prayer-house was consecrated; and in 1879 a cemetery was secured. The first rabbi of the con- gregation was Abraham Chatiner (d. 1882); he was succeeded by Jacob Mithlfelder, who is still officia- ting (1902). The congregation was granted corpo- rate rights Oct. 12, 1885. In 1899 the building ofa new synagogue, with a seating capacity of 685, was completed. The dedication took place March 7, 1899. In the same year the Max and Selma Berg- mann’s Widows and Orphans’ Charitable Institu- tion was founded. The congregation maintains a school with three teachers and two hundred pupils. Chemnitz is the seat of the Saxonia Lodge XLIV., 497 I. O. B. B., established May 27, 1899. E. C. S. So. CHEMOSH: The national god of the Moabites. He became angry with his people and permitted them to become the vassals of Israel; his anger passed, he commanded Mesha to fight against Israel, and Mo- abitish independence was reestablished (Moabite Stone, lines 5, 9, 14 et seg.). A king in the days of Sennacherib was called “Chemoshnadab” (“K. B.” ii. 90 et seg.: see JEHONADAB). Chemosh was a god developed out of the primitive Semitic mother-god- dess Athtar, whose name he bears (Moabite Stone, line 17; compare Barton, “Semitic Origins,” iv.). Peake wrongly holds that Ashtar-Chemosh was a deity distinct from Chemosh, while Moore and Bithgen (“Beitrige zur Semitischen Religionsge- schichte,” p. 14) regard “Ashtar” in this name as equivalent to “ Astarte,” who they believe was wor- shiped in the temple of Chemosh. “ Ashtar” is more probably masculine here, as in South Arabia, and another name for Chemosh, the compound “ Ashtar- Chemosh” being formed like “ YHwun-Elohim” or “Yuwu-Sebaoth.” There seems to be no good rea- son for denying that Chemosh was a “baal,” and that the names “ Baal-maon” (Moabite Stone, line 30) and “ Baal-peor” (Num. xxv. 8; Hosea ix. 10) apply to what was practically the same god as Chemosh. The way Mesha brings Baal-maon into his inscription identifies the latter with Chemosh; for when Baal-maon is pleased Chemosh speaks to Mesha (Moabite Stone, lines 80, 31). Whatever dif- ferences of conception may have attached to the god at different shrines, there is no adequate reason for doubting the substantial identity of the gods to whom these various names were applied. Hosea ix. 10 is proof that at some period (according to Well- hausen, at the time of the prophet himself) the im- pure cult of the Semitic goddess was practised at Baal-peor (compare Wellhausen, “Kleine Prophe- ten”; Nowack’s Commentary; and G. A. Smith, “Twelve Prophets,” ad loc.). Chemosh, therefore, Chenaanah herith THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 19 ee en was in general a deity of the same nature as Baal. On critical occasions a human sacrifice was consid- ered necessary to secure his favor (compare II Kings iii. 27), and when deliverance came, a sanctu- ary might be built to him (Moabite Stone, line 8). Anancient poem, twice quoted in the Old Testament (Num. xxi. 27-80; Jer. xlviii. 45, 46), regards the Moabites as the children of Chemosh, and also calls them “the people of Chemosh.” The etymology of “Chemosh” is unknown. The name of the father of Mesha, Chemosh-melek (“Chemosh is Malik,” or “Chemosh is king”; com- pare Moabite Stone, line 1), indicates the possibility that Chemosh and Malik (or Moloch) were one and the same deity. Judges xi. 24 has been thought by some to be a proof of this, since it speaks of Che- mosh as the god of the Ammonites, while Moloch is elsewhere their god (compare I Kings xi. 7, 38). Several critics rightly regard the statement in Judges as a mistake; but such an error was not un- natural. since both Chemosh and Moloch were de- veloped, in different environments, from the same primitive divinity, and possessed many of the same epithets. Solomon is said to have built a sanctuary to Che- mosh on the Mount of Olives (I Kings xi. 7, 33), which was maintained till the reform of Josiah (II Kings xxiii. 13). This movement by Solomon was no doubt to some extent a political one, but it made the worship of Chemosha part of the religious life of Israel for nearly 400 years. J. IR. CHENAANAH: Feminine form of “Canaan”; the name of two men: (1) The fourth-named of the seven sons of Bilham, son of Jediael, of the tribe of Benjamin, a leading warrior in the time of David (1 Chron, vii. 10). (2) The father of the false prophet Zedekiah, who encouraged Ahab against Micaiah (I Kings xxii. 11, 24; IT Chron. xvili. 10, 23). First (“ Bibl. Jud.”) attributes the existence of such names as thisand “ Tarshish ” and “ Cush” among the Benjamites to their intermarriages with the earlier races. The hostilities which the Benjamites had to endure during the civil war (see Judges xxi.) might have compelled them to establish alliances with their Phenician neighbors, E. G. H. J. D. B. CHENANTIAH (literally, “established by God,” I Chron. xv. 27; also found in the longer form “Chenanyahu,” I Chron. xv. 22): A Levite of the family of Izharites (1 Chron. xxvi. 29) and chief of the Temple singers who conducted the musica, service when the Ark was removed from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem (1 Chron. xv. 27). E.G. H. J. D. B. CHENSTOCHOV (Polish, Czenstochowa ): City in the government of Petrokow, Russian Po- land, the Jewish inhabitants of which in 1897 num- bered 12,500 in a total population of 45,130. Most of the Jews are merchants, only 2,155 being artisans. Of the latter, 801 are tailors and 228 are shoe- makers. Seven estates in the environ’ of Chensto- chov are owned by Jews. In 1898 Jews owned 57 factories with 397 operatives. G. A. B. Originally the Jewish factories of Chenstochoy mostly manufactured medallions with pictures og the Virgin, and other articles of Christian worship, for the numerous pilgrims visiting the city; but when this industry was forbidden to the Jews, they turned to the manufacturing of toys, in which fifteen factories are now occupied, 80 per cent of the factory laborers being Jews. After the establishment of the liquor monopoly by the Russian government eighty families remaineq without occupation. In 1898 about 460 Jewish families received fuel from charitable institutions, Poverty is increasing among the Jewish population, as may be seen from the following figuresof families applying for help at Passover: 5538 in 1894; 581 in 1895; 607 in 1896; 639 in 1897; 708in 1898. Taking the average of five for a family, it appears that 3,500 persons, or 29 per cent of the Jewish popula. tion, have applied for charity, and in relieving dis. tress the efforts of about ten charitable institutions are taxed to the utmost. The Jewish children receive their education in the general schools as well as in special Jewish schools, Among the latter are a Talmud Torah with an in. dustrial department, and 29 hadarim with 531 male and 90 female pupils. In September, 1902, Chenstochov was the scene of an uprising on the part of the Jews, which, how- ever, was soon suppressed by the authorities. H. R. 8. J. CHEPHIRAH: City belonging originally to the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17), but which, in the ap- portionment of the land, fell to the lot of Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 26). Men of this city returned with Zerubbabel from the captivity in Babylon (Ezra ii. 20; Neh. vii. 29: in both instances the town is men- tioned in connection with Kirjath-jearim [= arim] and Beeroth). In ] Esd. v. 19 the place is called “Caphira.” It is, perhaps, to be identified with the ruins now called “ Kefire.” The word “ Kephirim” of Neh. vi. 2 may refer to Chephirah (F. Buhl, “ Ge- ographie des Alten Palastina,” p. 169). E. G. I. G. B. L. CHERAN: A name occurring in the genealogy of Seir the Horite (Gen. xxxvi. 26), and in the corre- sponding list in I Chron. i. 41. Dillmann (commen- tary on Gen, xxxvi. 26) suggests that it comes from “kar” (a lamb). The names in the lists are clan- names; and a number of the clans have animal des- ignations, such as Dishon, Ayyah, Shobal. E. C. G. B. L. CHEREI: A small town in the government of Mohilev, Russia, with (1898) about 3,000 inhabit- ants, of whom 1,300 are Jews. The principal oc- cupations of the latter are commerce and _ handi- crafts. The total number of artisans is 298, 189 being shop-owners, 35 wage-workers, and 74 ap- prentices. The predominating trades are shoemaking and tailoring, in which altogether 146 persons are engaged. About 61 Jews earn a livelihood as jour- neymen. There are, besides, 4 Jewish families oc- cupied in agricultural pursuits, 8 families engaged in gardening, and 24 families who keep dairies. There are 20 hadarim, with 120 scholars; to the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA il Chenaanah Cherith jlementary school of the town, Jewish children are elem H. R. CHERETHITES or CHERETHIM.—Bib- ‘cal Data: Probably the name of a part of the Phi- Ne, usually, however, designating the whole listines as in Zeph. ii. 5, where “the nation of the Oe ties ” evidently means the Philistines in gen- a Similarly, Ezek. xxv. 16 and xxx. 5 belong oe V. translates “the children of the land [that is in] league.” But the true reading after the at d partly after the LXX. (which omits Ethiopic and partly @ ; ni the word “land "Vis: “the children of the Kerethi (compare Cornill’s “ Ezekiel”). In Ezek. xxx. 5, ‘where “the cbildren of the land that is in league” are mentioned among the allies of Egypt, the whole of the Philistines must be meant. For the origi- nal special meaning compare the earliest passage, I Sam. xxx. 14, which mentions the Cherethites as living ina strip in the southwest of Palestine (the Negeb), near the territory of Judah and of Ziklag. This strip is called the “South” (Negeb) of the Cherethites. From verse 16, where the same dis- trict is designated as “the land of the Philistines,” it may be inferred that the Cherethites belonged to the Philistines, or that the two terms were used promiscuously. The name is also found in the frequent phrase “Cherethites and Pelethites.” By this phrase was designated the corps d’élite and body-guard (thus correctly, Josephus, “Ant.” vii. 5, § 4) of David; compare II Sam. viii. 18 (= I Chron. xviii. 17), xv. 18 (with “the Gittites”; ¢.e., men from Gath), xx. 7 (among “all the mighty men”), 7b. verse 23 (Ket., onion); I Kings i. 38, 44 (escorting Solomon to his coronation). If the Carites and Cherethites (II Kings xi. 4) are identical, the same troop was still in existence in the time of Athaliah (see CaritTEs), It is evident, especially from JI Sam. xv. 18, that this troop consisted of mercenaries recruited from the warlike Philistines. They are different from the special guards (Hebrew, “runners”; mentioned in Saul’s time, I Sam. xxii. 17) of the kings (I Kings xiv. 27 = II Chron. xii. 10); compare “ Carites” in II Kings xi. 4, R. V. The threat against “those that leap over the threshold” at the king’s court (Zeph. i. 9) is usually explained as referring to soldiers and officials of Philistine blood (compare on their superstitious custom I Sam. v. 5), but see the com- mentaries for different explanations of that passage. “Pelethi” = “ Pelethite ” isnow generally considered as a shortened form of “Pelishti” = “ Philistine,” adapted to the Hebrew (according to Ewald). This seems to establish a difference between the Chere- thites and the majority of the Philistines. The Sep- tuagint, in the Prophets, translates “ Cherethite” by (Cretans,” and the tradition is found that the “ Pales- linians” (Stephen of Byzanz; Tacitus, “Historic,” Vv. 2, erroneously of the Jews) had come from Crete. This tradition seems to have sprung from the Septu- agint; however, see CaAPHTOR on the question of the origin of the Philistines from the “island [of Caph- tor ?]” and the frequent identification of “Caphtor ” With “Crete.” Less probable is the explanation of @ free tuition. 8. J. d only upon payment of a fee, while others the two names of nations, “ Cherethites ” and “ Pele- thites” as appellative nouns; for instance, by Gese- nius, “executioners and runners”; or by Targum (Pesh., some Greek MSS.), “bowmen and slingers” ; by the Hexapla in Zephaniah, “corrupted people,” for “ Cherethites ”; by Halévy, “the exiles excluded from their nation,” ete. BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jew- ish Church, ii. 262; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the EN of Samuel, p. 172; Kittel, Hist. of the Hebr. ii. 153, oO. cy W. M. M. E. G. H. In Rabbinical Literature: The Haggadah, which always endeavors to idealize the ancient his- tory of Israel, takes the nbn) "nN 75 to benot David’s heathen body-guard, but a designation for the Great Sanhedrin, to which a very early date is thus ascribed. Hence “kereti” (‘mM 9) is interpreted as derived from m5 (“to cut off”) in the sense of 473 (“to cut off,” “to decree”), the men of the Sanhedrin rendering legal decisions. Similarly, mp, from bp, meaning “the elect,” or those emi- nent through their doctrines (Ber. 4a, above; Sanh. 16b, above; on the correct reading compare Rab- binowicz, “ Dikduke Soferim,” to the passage and Midr. Teh. iii.). Pseudo-Jerome, on II Sam. xx. 93, follows the Jewish tradition, according to which “keretiand peleti” means literally “accidentes et vi- vificantes, ” and is used to designate the “ congregatio Dei.” The Targum’s rendering of the passage, “archers and slingers,” is adopted by Kimbhi also, who adds that there were two families so called, who excelled in the use of those weapons of war (commentary on II Sam. xv. 18). L. G. CHERIKOV: Town in the government of Mohi- lev, Russia. According to the last census (1897) it has 5,250 inhabitants, including 2,700 Jews. Most of the latter are smal] tradesmen; 12 are engaged in horticulture, and 10 in gardening. In the whole district of Cherikov 60 Jewish families follow agri- cultural pursuits. Out of 255 artisans (consisting of 155 shop-owners, 10 wage-workers, and 90 ap- prentices) 115 are tailors. There are, besides, 25 journeymen, and 8 Jews who find employment in the local Dutch tile-factory. Two associations lend money tothe poor without interest. The educational institutions consist of a government elementary Jew- ish school with 73 pupils, one Talmud Torah with 70 pupils, and 20 hadarim. In 1648 Ladislaus, King of Poland, granted the Jews of Cherikov a charter by which they were allowed to deal in liquors, grain, and other articles of trade, to acquire immovable property, and to have their own synagogue and cemetery, which should be exempted from taxation. By this charter the Jews of Cherikov were placed on an equal footing with the other Jewish communities of the grand duchy of Lithuania. In the same year (1648) the Jews of Cherikov were massacred by the Cossacks. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Regesty, i. 398, 411, St. Petersburg, 1899. H. R. S. J. CHERITH: The name of a brook or wadi near the Jordan, where Elijah, in the time of drought aud famine, was told to hide himself, and there find Cherkassy Cherub THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 19 water and food (I Kings xvii. 3,5). When the brook dried up he was sent to Zarephath. Jn the verses cited from Kings the expression “before Jordan ” (literally, “by the face of the Jordan ”) cer- tainly points to the eastern side; hence Robinson’s proposed identification with the Wadi al-Kalt, apart from philological difficulties, is impossible. Cheyne proposes Rehoboth, which he explains as woru down into “Cherith,” and further suggests that “Egypt ” be substituted for “Jordan.” Buhl (“Geog. des Alten Palistina,” p. 121) argues for the identifica- tion of Cherith with Wadi al-Himar, on the suppo- sition that Tishbi is Khirbat Istib. None of the modern attempts at identification is satisfactory. E. G. H. G. B. L. CHEREASSY (Polish, Czerkasy): District town in the government of Kiev, Russia, situated on the right bank of the Dnieper, about 126 miles from Kiev. The date of the establishment of the Jewish com- munity of Cherkassy is not known. Being the chief town of the Cossacks since the beginning of the six- teenth century, including the time of Chmielnicki (1648-52), it may be surmised that only a few Jews, leaseholders, lived there. The census of 1765 gives only one Jew in Cherkassy, this one being “the farmer of taxes, who paid 10,000 florins for the general taxes and 400 florins for the saltpeter-fac- tory.” In 1789, of 561 houses, 14 belonged to Jews; and in 1797, after the annexation of Cherkassy by Russia (1795), the town had 783 Jewish inhabitants. In 1870 there were 20,492 Jews in the district and town; which figures, by 1897, had increased to 29, 982, or 9.75 per cent of the total population; and in 1898, out of a total population of 26,165 in the town alone, 5,884 were Jews. The majority of the latter are small] traders, artisans, and day-laborers, while some are employed in the sugar- and tobacco-facto- ries, and in the flour-mills. A great part of the Jews belong to the Hasidim, and are followers of the local “ zaddik,” called by them the “ gute Rov” (good rabbi) of Cherkassy. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Semenov Geografichesko-Statisticheski Slo- var, V., 8.V. H. R. M. R. CHERNEVTZY: Town in the government of Podolia, Russia; it has (1898) a population of about 15,000, including ‘about 2,000 Jews. Of the latter, 267 are artisans, but most of them earn a livelihood as small tradesmen. In the local sugar-refinery, which employs 400 men, only 14 Jews find work. There are, besides, 17 journeymen and 20 agricul- tural laborers. The number of Jewish poor in Cher- nevtzy is very considerable. 60 families who received fuel from charitable organ- izations. H. R. S. J. CHERNIGOV: A city in Russia; capital of the government of the same name. The Jewish set- tlement at Chernigov is one of the oldest of the Ukraine. In the thirteenth century a rabbi, Isaac (Itze) of Chernigov, is mentioned, who spoke the Russian language. (Harkavy, “ Yevreii Slavyanskie Yazyky,” p. 11). In 1623 King Ladislaus banished the Jews from the “voyevodstvos” (military dis- In 1898 there were = tricts) of Chernigov and Syeversk. The cause wag probably jealousy on the part of the Christian mey. chants and tradesmen; the edict declaring that the Jews caused great damage to their business. How. ever, soon after 1623 the Jews again came to Cherni. gov. In 1648, at the time of Chmielnicki’s revols, the whole Jewish population of Chernigov was ex. terminated by the Cossacks. In the later histories of Chernigov indications are found of the hostility of the people toward the Jews. Thus, in 1665 the noblemen of Chernigov sent an embassy to the Council of Warsaw, mentioning jp their instructions that justice called for the expul. sion of the dishonest Jews from the country, or at least for the imposition of a Jewish poll-tax. According to the census of 1897 there were in the town of Chernigov about 11,000 Jews in a total pop. wation of 27,006. The chief occupations of the Jews are industrial and commercial. In the neigh. borhood many tobacco-plantations and fruit-gardeng are owned by Jews. There are in Chernigov 1,321 Jewish artisans, including 404 tailors and seam. stresses, but the demand for artisan labor is limited to the town. There are 69 Jewish day-laborers, a). most exclusively teamsters. But few are engaged in the factories. The small charitable institutions of Chernigoy were combincd, in 1899, in the Committee of Relief for the Jewish Poor; but the different trade groups of the Jewish population have their own charitable institutions also. Thus the bakers, storekeepers, teamsters, tailors, and “melammedim” (teachers of Hebrew) have separate funds from which loans with out interest, and, in cases of necessity, gratuitous help, are obtained. The Jewish educational establishments include a Talmud Torah (115 pupils); a primary school for boys (40 pupils); a private school for girls (57 pupils); and there are 45 hadarim, where about 450 boys and 70 girls are taught Hebrew. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Regesty i Nadpisi, i. 408, 404, 466; Budush- chnost, 1900, No. 42. H. R. S. J. CHERNIGOV: A government of Little Russia (Ukraine), with a Jewish population (1897) of 114,- 630 in a total population of 2,298,834, or nearly 5 per cent. In 1881 the Jewish inhabitants formed only 2.5 per cent of the total. By districts, the Jews inthe government of Chernigov are distributed as follows: Chernigov 12,006 in a total population of 162,086 =7.41 per cent (in 1881 only 4.2 per cent); Borzna 3,542 in 146,730 =—2.41 per cent (in 1881 1.6 per cent); Glukhov 5,493 in 142,814 =3.85 per cent (in 1881 about 5.1 per cent): Gorodnya 8,913 in 153,020 =5.82 per cent (in 1881 only 1.6 per cent); Kozeletz 4,741 in 185,101 =3.51 per cent (in 1881 1.5 per cent); Konotop 7,091 in 156,502 = 4,53 per cent (in 1881 1.7 per cent); Krolevetz 3,896 in 131,009 =2.97 per cent (in 1881 1.5 per cent); Mglin 10,014 in 139,357 =7.18 per cent (in 1881 3.2 per cent); Novgorod Syeversk 6,328 in 146,394 = 4,32 per cent (in 1881 2.5 per cent); Novozybkov 8,852 in 164,789 =—5.37 per cent (in 1881 1.0 per cent); Nyezhin 9,987 in 168,888 =—5.91 per cent (in 1881 3.3 per cent); Oster 6,188 in 150,556 —4.11 per cent (in 1881 2.3 per cent); Sosnitza 7,525 in THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 13 17 a 973 in 144,704 =6.89 per cent (in 1881 2.8 oe. Surazh 10,078 in 188,596 = 5.4 per cent 18st 9.9 per cent). ; virhe pistory of the Jews in the government will pe treated under LITTLE Ressia, and under the re- € eve spective cities. M. BR. ative statistics of population in the cities, al i Compa llages in the government of Chernigov towns, and V1 are given below: SS — apa | Total ee Site peace Popu- | Popu- Pee opu- | Popu- Name. |iation, lation, Name. lation,| lation, | isu7. | 1897. 1897."| 1897. tase Se a 000 300 ||Novgorod Sye- pet aoe aa £000 500 || versk.........| 9,185 | 2,700 Bakbmach.-.-++} 3°59 | 383 ||Novoe Myesto..| 1.496 | _° 60 | eee age "| g'991 | 1,333 ||NovozybKov ....| 15,480 | 1,220 Loc haeka eee 5,000; 400 |/NovyeBorovichi; — 3 BovrovitZ-++*-| 15°458| 1,400 ||Novy Ropsk....|° 860| 80 Le "1 5766 | 1.344 '|Nyezhin........ 32,108 | 10,000 BOT Te... | 27,008 | 11,000 [ORtePes:caccae oe 5,384 | 1,100 eer ee csc} SORE | 282 [PAGE oc cones. 7,000 | "348 SOEs LBL | |, OOP ROCHE Cas owas 9,000 | 8,900 TT MEDeY anaes 14.856 | 3,807 |Pogar ... 0... 4.982 | 1.150 Gorodnya....../ 4,197} —_ |;PonurovKa.....| 3,509 295 Gorsk Diswae — 29 iRyepski.. tr — 783 Klintzy ...- +++: ' 12.000] 2,200 |[Seredina Bude.| 6,000! 450 Konotop ...+++- | 19,404 | 4,000 |/Snovsk-Korney~ KOrop acceeeeees 6,268 | 1,000 eee ,000 1,004 kozeletz. 5,160 | 1,568 ||Sosnitza........| 7,095 | 1,882 i ortevetZ.......| 10.375] 1,000 ||Starodub....... 12,451 | 4,500 Lynbech +s. .+. 2091 | ‘273 ||StoIna.......... 7.3741 168 Mglin......+-++ | 7,63) | 4,200 }/Unecha........ 615 212 Mitkovka....-- 3.600; _ 48] Ushcherpye.....| 2,000] 150 Myena... sesso! 5,881 ; 1,618 || Voronezh ...... 5,500] 385 H. R. S. J. CHERNOBYL: Town in the government of Kiev, Russia; it has (1898) a population of 10,759, including 7,189 Jews. Of the latter, 651 are arti- sans, of whom 419 own shops 192 are wage-workers, and 40 are apprentices. The predominating trade is tailoring, in which 163 persons are engaged; 167 Jews are journeymen, and 120 are employed in a paper-mill. Several hadarim, and a Talmud Torah with 45 pupils, are the only educational insti- tntions. Bobrik and Bobry, situated at a distance of 60 versts (40 English miles) from Chernobyl, are Jewish colonies, in Which 47 families cultivate 618 deciatines of land. S. J. CHERUB (21:93; plural, Cherubim).—Biblical Data: The name of a winged being mentioned fre- quently in the Bible. The prophet Ezekiel describes the cherubim as a tetrad of living creatures, each having four faces—of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man—the stature and hands of a man, the feet of a calf, and four wings. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and Covered the creatures themselves. They never turned, but went “straight forward” as the wheels of the cherubic chariot, and they were full of eyes like burning coals of fire” (Ezek. i, 5-28, ix. 8, x., Xi. 22). Ezek. xxviii. 18-16 is manifestly a true ac- fone of a popular tradition, distinct from that in Gen. ii., iti, Ezek. xii, 18-25 and other passages show that Cherkassy Cherub 4.41 per cent (in 1881 2.3 per cent); Star- | the number and form of the cherubim vary in differ- ent representations. The books of Kings and Chron- icles contain, in the main, a description of the cheru- bim of Solomon’s Temple. The Ark was placed between the two colossal figures of cherubim, carved in olive- wood and plated with gold, ten cubits high, standing in the adytum (9°35) and facing the door. The distance between the points of their out- stretched wings was ten cubits; the right wing of the one touching the point of the left wing of the other, while the outer wings extended to the walis (I Kings vi. 28-28; viii. 6, 7; II Chron. iii. 10-18, v. 7-8). II Chron. iii. 14 states that they were woven in the veil of the adytum; and in Ex. xxvi. 1, 31 and xxxvi. 8, 35 they are also referred to as wrought into the curtains and veil of the Temple. In Ex. xxv. 18-22, xxxvii. 7-9; Num. vii. 89 men- tion is made by the priestly writer of two cherubim of solid gold, upon the golden slab of the ADD, facing each other. Their outstretched wings came together above, constituting a throne on which the glory of Yuwu appeared, and from whence He spoke. | In the early days of Israel’s history the cherubim became the divine chariot, the bearer of the throne of YHWH in its progress through the worlds (I Sam. iv. 4; II Sam. vi. 2; [ Chron. xiii. 6). The cheru- bim of the Ark of the Covenant seem to be meant here, and this is probably also the case in II Kings xix. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 16; Ps. Ixxx. 1, xcix. 1 (see Rahilfs, “*3) und \3y in den Psalmen,” 1892, pp. 36 et seq.). Atan earlier period the cherubim were the living chariot of the theophanic God, possibly iden- tical with the storm-winds (Ps. xviit. 11; II Sam. xxii. 11: “And he rode upon a cherub and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind”). Here isa conception similar to that of the Baby- lonians, where the cherubim originally symbolized the winds. E. G. H. In the Temple. W. M.-A.—J. F. Me C. ——In Rabbinical and Apocryphal Litera- ture: The cherubim placed by God at the entrance of paradise (Gen. iii. 24) were angels created on the third day, and therefore they had no definite shape; appearing either as men or women, or as spirits or angelic beings (Gen. R. xxi., end). According to another authority, the cherubim were the first ob- jects created in the universe (Tanna debe Eliyahu R., i. beginning); while in the Slavonic Book of Enoch they are said to dwell in both the sixth and seventh heavens. The passage referring to the sixth heaven is as follows (xix. 6): “In the midst of them (the archangels] are seven phenixes, and seven cherubim, and seven six-winged creatures [sera- phim], being as one voice and singing with one voice. It is not possible to describe their singing; and they rejoice before the Lord at His footstool.” Enoch then (xx. 1) describes how he saw in the sev- enth heaven “cherubim and seraphim and the watch- fulness of many eyes” (= ofannim). The Ethio- pian Book of Enoch also mentions these three classes of angels as those that never sleep, but always watch the throne of God (Ixx. 7%; compare also 1xi. 10). In another passage of this book Gabriel is designated Cherub THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 14 SSS SSS SS ae ee a eS ee ane as the archangel who is set over the serpents, the garden (= paradise), and the cherubim (xx. 7). In the passages of the Talmud that describe the heavens and their inhabitants, the seraphim, ofan- nim, and hayyot are mentioned, but not the cheru- bim (Hag. 12b); and the ancient liturgy also men- tions only these three classes. The following sentence of the Midrash is charac- teristic: “When a man sleeps, the body tells to the neshamah [“ the soul”] what it has doneduring the day; the neshamah then reports it to the nefesh [“the spirit ”], the nefesh to the angel, the angel to the cherub, and the cherub to the seraph, who then brings it before God [Lev. R. xxii.; Eccl. R. x. 20]. When Pharaoh pursued Israel at the Red Sea, God took a cherub from the wheels of His throne and flew to the spot—for He inspects the heavenly worlds while sitting on a cherub. The cherub, however, is YD 1D PRY AIT (“something not ma- terial ”}, and is carried by God, not vice versa (Midr. Teh, xviii. 15; Cant. R. i. 9). Maimonides (“ Yad,” Yesode ha-Torah, ii. 7) enumerates ten classes of angels, the cherubim being the ninth; while the cabalistic “ Massekct Azilut” designates the cheru- bim as the third class of angels, witha leader named Kerubiel Seon5; Jellinek, “ Auswahl Kabbalisti- scher Mystik,” p. 3). In the Zohar, where also ten classes of angels are enumerated, the cherubim are not mentioned as a special class (compare Zohar, Ex. Bo, 43a). As regards the representations of the cherubim in the Temple, Josephus holds that no one knows or can even guess what form they had (“ Ant.” viii. 3, § 8); Philo thinks they represented the two supreme attributes of God, goodness and authority (“De Cherubim,” x. ; “ De Vita Moysis,” iii. 8; ed. Mangey, ii. 150); he says, however, that some The authorities took the cherubim to Cherubim represent the two hemispheres (“De of the Cherubim,” vii.). The rabbinical Temple. sources evince an archeological rather . than a theological interest in the cher- ubim. Onkelos, the proselyte (beginning of the second century ¢.E.), says that “the cherubim had their heads bent backward, like a pupil who is going away from his master” (B. B. 99a); this is intended to explain the somewhat ambiguous verse referring to the cherubim in the Tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 20), meaning that the faces of the cherubim were bert downward toward the cover (M3595) of the Ark, but still with their eyes turned toward each other. Onke- los’ view is also givenin the Targ. O. on the passage, while the Targ. Yer. thinks that the faces of both the opposite cherubim were turned downward toward the cover (compare Friedmann, “ Onkelos und Akylas,” pp. 98-99). Concerning the form of these cherubim, ~n au- thority of the end of the third century says that they had the form of youths (amp, derived from 9 =“like,” and 39 =“ youth”; Suk. 5b; Hag. 13b). The last-named passage says that the cherubim which Ezekiel saw in his vision (Ezek. x. 1) also had this form, adding that the four creatures at the throne of God were originally man, lion, bull, and eagle, but that Ezekiel implored God to take a cherub instead of a bull; Ezekiel desiring that God should not always look upon a bull, which woulg continually remind Him of Israel’s worship of that animal. It seems that the Talmud had noticed that Ezekiel’s conception of the heavenly creatures dif. fered from the traditional one. It is recorded as a miracle that when Israel wag worshiping the Lord, the cherubim lovingly turned their faces toward each other (B. B. /.c.), and evep embraced like a loving couple. On these occasiong the curtain was raised so that the Jews who had come on pilgrimage might convince themselves how much God loved them (Yoma 54a). At the de. struction of the Temple the heathen found the cher. ubim in this posture; and they mocked Com- the Jews because of their obscene wor. munion of ship, thinking the cherubim to be the Israel objects of it (Yoma 54b). This con. with God. ception of the cherubim, as represent. ing the union of Israel with God, hag been further developed by the Cabala, the cherubim being taken to represent the mysterious union of the earthly with the heavenly (see Bahya b. Asher to Ex. xxv. 20; Zohar, Terumah, ii. 176a). The sym. bolical interpretation of the Alexandrians, mentioned above, is also found in rabbinical sources. Midr. Tadshe (ed. Epstein, p. 15), like Philo, takes the cherubim tosymbolize the two names of God, Yuwu and Elohim, by which rabbinical theology (see, for example, Sifre, Deut. 26) designates the two attri- butes pan (“ goodness ”) and 4 (“justice”). An- other Midrash (Nuin. R. iv.) compares the cherubim with heaven and earth, as do the Alexandrians men- tioned by Philo (“ De Cherubim,” vii.). Maimonides says (“ Moreh Nebukim,” iii. 45) that the figures of the cherubim were placed in the sanctuary only to preserve among the people the belief in angels, there being two in order that the people might not be led to believe that they were the image of God. There were no cherubim in the Temple of Herod; but according to some authorities, its walls were painted with figures of cherubim (Yoma 54a). L. G. — Critical View: Primitive Hebrew tradition must have conceived of the cherubim as guardians of the Garden of Eden (Gen. iii. 34; see also Ezek. xxviii. 14). Back of this lies the primitive Semitic belief in beings of superhuman power and devoid of human feelings, whose duty it was to represent the gods, and as guardians of their sanc- tuaries to repel intruders. Compare the account in the Nimrod-Epos, Tablet IX.; and see Kosters, in “Theolog. Tijdschrift,” 1874, pp. 445 e¢ seq. From the brief and meager Biblical descriptions of the statues representing the cherubim, it is im- possible to judge of their real form. They were hardly sphinx-shaped; for all the representations of the winged sphinx have the wings bent backward rather than extended toward the sides. Whether the cherub was a union of man and some animal form, such as the hawk-headed man so frequently found on Egyptian monuments and also at Nineveh, or only a winged man, as the representation of the palace guardian at Khorsabad, is not certain. Such figures, however, are very common in Babylonian de- corations; and winged men and animals are found in ancient sculptures throughout Syria. Cheyne con- Pee! 7 Dal ed * * Gi: a he 4 COMMS LLL the Louvre). in Form (i ician Phen carum’’). iti onum Sem ti ‘**Corpus Inscrip outh Arabian Form (from S sis tions a aspero, ‘Struggles of the N ian Form (after M Egypt ish Museum) in the Brit * Forms ( yrian Ass FORMS OF CHERUBIM. Cherub Chess THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1g ey siders the cherubim of Hittite origin, the originality of the Hittites in the use of animal forms being well known. The Hittite griffin appears almost always not as a ficrce beast of prey, but seated in calm dignity, like an irresistible guardian of holy things. The Phenicians, and probably the Canaanites, and through them the Israelites, attached greater importance to the cherub. The origin of the cherub myth ante- dates history, and points to the time when primitive man began to shape bis ideas of supernatural powers by mystic forms, especially by the combination of parts of the two strongest animals of land and air— the Hon and the eagle. Many are the grotesque figures found thus far, survivals of ancient Oriental sculpture. Thus, in Babylonia there is the winged sphinx having a king’s head, a lion’s body, and an eagle’s wings (sce B, Teloni, “Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie,” vi. 124-140; text published by Bezold, 2d. ix. 114- 119; and Puchstein’s comment, 7b. 410-421). This was adopted largely in Phenicia. The wings, because of their artistic beauty, soon became the most promi- nent part, and animals of various kinds were adorned with wings; consequently, wings were bestowed also upon man. The next step, from cherubim to the angels of the Old Testament as well as of the New, was inevitable. Following Lenormant’s suggestions, Friedrich Delitzsch connected the Hebrew 3)73 with the As- syrian “kirubu” = “shedu ” (the name of the winged bull). Against this combination see Feuchtwang, in “ Zeit- schrift fiir Assyriologie,” etc., i. 68 et seg.; Teloni, 7d. vi. 124 et seg.; Budge, in “The Expositor,” April and May, 1885. Later on, De- litzsch (“ Assyrisches Hand wérterbuch,” p. 352) con- nected it with the Assyrian “ karubu” (great, mighty) ; so, also, Karppe, in “Journal Asiatique,” July- Aug., 1897, pp. 91-98. Haupt, in Toy, “ Ezekiel” (“S. B. O. T.”), Hebrew text, p. 56, line 11, says: “The name 3193 may be Babylonian; it does not mean ‘powerful,’ however, but ‘ propitious’ (syno- nym ‘damku’).” For the original conception of the Babylonian cherubim see Haupt’s notes on the Eng- lish translation of Ezekiel, pp. 181-184(“58. B. O. T.”), and the abstract of Haupt’s paper on “ Cherubim and Seraphim,” in the “ Bulletins of the Twelfth Interna- tional Congress of Orientalists,” No, 18, p. 9, Rome, 1899. See also Haupt, in Paterson, “Numbers” (“S. B. O. T.”), p. 46: “The stem of 5)99 is the As- syrian ‘ karfbu’ (= be propitious, bless), which is nothing but a transposition of the Hebrew 793.” Dillmann, Duff, and others still favor the connection with yptw (“ gryphus” = the Hindu “ Garuda.”) Probable Source. Ety- mology. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Winer, B. R.; Schenkel, Bibel-Lexikon, 1869, i. 509-515; Lichtenberger, Encyclopédie des Sciences Reli- gieuses, 8.V.; Riehm. Handwérterbuch des Biblischen Alier- tums, 20 ed., Baethgen, 1893-94; Hastings, Dict. Bible; Cheyne and Black, Aneye. Bibl.; Herzog-Hauck, Real-E-ncye. Vv. 304-372 ; W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Archd- ologie, 1894, pp. 38, 89, 60, 61; Benzinger, Arch. pp. 233, 257, 267, 268, 368, 886-87, 397; R. Smend, Lehrbuch der -Alttesta- mentlichen Religionsgeschichte, 1899, pp. 21 et seq., 467 et seq.; H. Schultz, Old Testa.nent Theology; A. Dillmann, Handbuch der Alttestamentlichen T heolugie, pp. 50, 92, 119, 228, 246, 327-328, Leipsic, 1895. W. M.-A. E. @. H. CHESALON: A border town of Judah (Josh. xv. 10), also known as “Mount Jearim.” It lies jp a directly west of Jerusalem, at a distance of twelve miles, and is the modern Kesla (Buhl, “ Geographie des Alten Palistina,” pp. 91, 166). E. G. H. G. B. L. CHESED: A son of Nahor and Milcah (Gen. Xxii. 22), From the name the term “Casdim ” (Chal. deans) is clearly derived. E. G. H. G. B. L. CHESS: A game of skill, usually played by two persons, with sixteen pieces each, on a board divideq into sixty-four squares alternately light and dark. Authoritative opinions agree that chess, under the Sanskrit name of “chaturanga” (= the four “angas” or members of an army), was known earliest to the Hindus—possibly as carly as the sixth century of the present era. From India the game was carried into Persia, its name being changedinto “shatranj.” Mas‘udi (947) speaks of chess as an Indian invention sent by an Indian king to Chosroes, King of Persia (531-579), the sixteen pieces of one side being of emerald, and those of the other being of ruby. From Persia the game passed into Arabia, and thence to central and western Europe; but how or when has not been determined. When the Jews first became acquainted with chess is not known. It has been supposed that the game was referred to in the Talmud; but the con- sensus of opinion now seems to be that certain games mentioned therein, which some have identified with chess, were not chess at all, but were played with dice, under the designations Db ’DH or 7w's 9, which Rashi (‘Er. 61a) interprets as “chess.” Nathan ben Jehiel of Rome (1103), however, in his “‘Aruk,” distinctly translates the word 7!w553, supposed by some to indicate chess, by the Arabic “al-nard,” which he renders by the Italian “dadi” (= dice). DS'pDS is clearly derived from the Greek wWidoc, and refers to some game with pebbles or dice (Yer. R. H. i. 57c). The matter has been fully discussed by Franz Delitzsch (“Ueber das Schach und die Damit Verwandten Spiele in den Talmuden,” in “Orient, Lit.” Jan., 1840, pp. 42-58), who con- cludes that, as the Talmud was completed in the fifth century, chess could not have been referred to therein, inasmuch as the Persians, from whom the Jews would have learned the game, did not know it themselves until the close of that century (see also L. Léw, “ Lebensalter,” p. 324). Steinschneider (“Schach bei den Juden,” p. 338) conjectures that the first Jew to recommend chess was the convert Ali, son of “Rabbi” Saul of Taberistan, teacher of the physician Razi (ninth cen- tury), who considered the game a remedy for low spirits and dejected mental condition. By the elev- enth century it was commonly played in Spain. After Rashi, the first European to Ninth to mention chess was Moses Sephardi, Thirteenth born in Spain in 1062 and baptized at Century. the age of forty-four as Petrus AL- FONSI, who in his “ Disciplina Cleri- calis” includes chess in the seven accomplishments (“probitates ”) of a knight. In Italy it was known at the same period, having been probably derived et s z % a eee eat oie yn es: ; ‘ tats are ’ y ; ry rat = ANY wie 4 y wa ye A, "s, . exo YY fe 4 yy Hf a / 1. Al EMINENT JEWISH CHESS MASTERS. - Alexandre. 2. Horwitz. 3, Liéwenthal. 4. Kolisch. 5. Gunsberg. 6. Janowski. 7. Lasker. 8. Tarrasch. 9 and 10. Zucker- Iv.—2 tort and Steinitz, playing their match at New York, 1886. rr Chess from the East through Byzantium. In the twelfth century chess had spread to Frauce, Germany, and England, and by 1200-had become a favorite gam- bling game throughout Europe; to suchan extent, indeed, that it was prohibited by the Council of Paris, 1212, and afterward by Louis IX. At the same epoch the “ Sefer Hasidim ” (Book of the Pious), § 400, strongly recommended the game. Nothwithstanding the clerical prohibition, there is a legend to the effect that the pope himself played chess with aJew: it occurs in “ Das Leben El- chanans oder Elchonons,” pp. 27, 46, Frankfort- on-the-Main, 1753: “This pope is the best one they ever had, since he can not get along without Jews, with whom he plays chess. . . . Rabbi Simeon is a great master of chess; but the pope mates him.” The pope is even recognized by R. Simeonas his son through a particular move which he had taught him. This Simeon seems to have been Simeon ha-Gadol, who lived at Mayence about the beginning of the eleventh century. See ANDREAS. The earliest writer to treat of chess among the Jews is Hyde, who, in the second volume of his “ De Ludis Orientalibus” (1694), prints three Hebrew works on chess, with excellent translations in Latin. These are: (1) a poem attributed to Early Abraham ibn Ezra, ptm, the Latin Hebrew title being “Carmina Rhythmica de Works on Ludo Schah-mat, R. Abraham Abben- Chess. Ezra, Beatee Memorie”(Steinschneider, “Cat. Bodl.” col. 684); (2) “ Melizat ha- Sehok ha-Ishkaki,” a poem by Bonsenior ibn Yahya (in Berechiah ha-Nakdan’s “ Mishle Shua‘lim,” Man- tua, 1557-58; “ Cat. Bod.” coi. 796); and (3) “ Ma‘ad- anne Melek” (“Cat. Bodl.” col. 604), attributed by Steinschneider to Judah or Leo di Modena (1571- 1648). Ifthe poem first mentioned is correctly as- cribed to Ibn Ezra (d. 1167), it certainly gives the oldest set of chess rules extant; and it has been reprinted six times under thatimpression. The He- brew text is given in Steinschneider (“Schach bei den Juden,” pp. 48-45), as well as a German render- ing (7. pp. 12-15); and the following English trans- lation is by Nina Davis (now Mrs. Salomon), in “Songs of Exile” (pp. 129-181), issued by the Jew- ish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1901: Tue Sone or CHEss. I will sing a song of battle Planned in days long passed and over. Men of skill and science set it On a plain of eight divisions, And designed in squares all chequered. Two camps face each one the other, And the kings stand by for battle, And *twixt these two is the fighting. Bent on war the face of each is, Ever moving or encamping, Yet no swords are drawn in warfare, For a war of thoughts their war is. They are known by signs and tokens Sealed and written on their bodies; And aman who sees them, thinketh Edomites and Ethiopians Are these two that fight together. And the Ethiopian forces Overspread the field of battle, And the Edomites pursue them. First in battle the foot-soldier Comes to fight upon the highway, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1g Ever marching straight before him, But to capture moving sideways, Straying not from off his pathway, Neither do his steps go backward; He may leap at the beginning Anywhere within three chequers. Should he take his steps in battle Far away unto the eighth row, Then a Queen to all appearance He becomes and fights as she does. And the Queen directs her moving AS she will to any quarter. Backs the Elephant or advances, Stands aside as ’twere an ambush ; As the Queen’s way, so is his way, But o’er him she hath advantage ; He stands only in the third rank, Swift the Horse is in the battle, Moving on a crooked pathway ; Ways of his are ever crooked ; *Mid the Squares, three form his limit. Straight the Wind moves o’er the war-path In the field across or lengthwise ; Ways of crookedness he seeks not, But straight paths without perverseness. Turning every way the King goes, Giving aid unto his subjects ; In his actions he is cautious, Whether fighting or encamping. If his foe come to dismay him, From his place he flees in terror, Or the Wind can give him refuge. Sometimes he must flee before him ; Multitudes at times support him ; And all slaughter each the other, Wasting with great wrath each other. Mighty men of both the sovereigns Slaughtered fall, with yet no bloodshed. Ethiopia sometimes triumphs, Edom flees away before her ; Now victorious is Edom: Ethiopia and her sovereign Are defeated in the battle. Should a King in the destruction Fall within the foeman’s power, He is never granted mercy, Neither refuge nor deliv’rance, Nor a flight to refuge-city. Judged by foes, and lacking rescue, Though not slain he is checkmated. Hosts about him all are slaughtered, Giving life for his deliverance. Quenched and vanished is their glory, For they see their lord is smitten ; Yet they fight again this battle, For in death is resurrection. It is characteristic of this poem that the pawn moves two spaces at the first move, as at present, but not as in the Arabic game. The queening of a pawn is also mentioned, The queen may move in all directions, but only one space, like the king at present. The bishop “fil” or (elephant) moves diag- onally, but only three spaces. Castling is unknown. The “wind” is the rook. Steinschneider declares on subjective grounds, against the attribution to Ibn Ezra, and is supported by the like opinion of Dr. Egers, the editor of Ibn Ezra’s poetry. Bonsenior (lived not later than the fifteenth cen- tury), in his poem, also pictures the game as 4 battle, and describes the pieces in the following order: King, bn, moves one in any direction. Queen, Os, to the right of the king, moves two or three spaces in any direction. Knights, DWH or DDD (= “horsemen” of “horses ”), move one space obliquely and one space straight forward. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 19 ,; oon (= elephants; editio princeps odin Bishop®, , ale obliquely to the third space. = Rooks BPN move straight, forward, backward, OOSS; oe ‘de to side. or from Sa (“heroes”), move straight forward. aw , : cteristic of Bonsenior’s work is the ae chief cif Biblical texts which he employs. st oi Modena’s work (“Ma‘adanne Melek ”) was a a the purpose of teaching the author’s two hae ame, and in the hope of inducing them to see a or d-playing. The book is particularly in- oh Becta sts reference (1) to the queening of a pedi (2) to castling, and (8) to the queen’s position ie commencement of the game. The following ab the author’s description of the pieces: . King, nv (Persian “ shah”), may castle. ont: IND (“ferzan ” or “ oe ”), eras at -aning of game a space or its own. color. a eae una Guest have the following three noblemen by their sides: Bishop, 9° (“fil”), elephant. Knight, wb (“ parash ")s horseman, Rook, prior nmin (Persian “rokh”). Pawn, 535, foot-soldier, moves two boxes at the first move, and may become a queen. A number of other early works on chess will be found in Steinschneider’s “ Schach bei den Juden ” (pp. 22-83). Among these may be specially men- tioned a Catalan poem by Moses Azan, translated into Castilian in 1850; a poem of 1532, which describes castling as an interchange of places between king and rook ; and “ Ha-Kerab” (The War), a poem in He- brew, composed by Jacob Hichenbaum in Odessa, and printed in London (n.d. ; dedication dated Sept. 3, 1839). It has been translated into Russian by Joseph Ossip Rabbinovicz. Hebrew riddles on chess occur in medieval man- uscripts, and are given by Steinschneider. One of them describes the game as: * 4 country without earth: kings and princes walking with- out soul. If the King be wasted, all is without soul.” Chess is referred to by Maimonides (1155~1204), who mentions a forced mate and declares profes- sional chess-players as unworthy of Lawfulness credence in the law courts (commen- of tary on Mishnah Sanh. ii. 3), and by the Game. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (¢. 1300). The former condemns the game only when played for money; the latter, whether played for stakes or not. During the thirteenth and the four following centuries chess was quite commonly played; and Jewish literature contains numerous rabbinical opinions for and against it. enough, Joseph Caro does not refer to it in his great code, the Shulhan‘Aruk. Moses Isserles (d. 1573) terms it “the game with bones called chess,” and approves of its being played not only on week- days, but on the Sabbath, though not for money. An old responsum (Dukes, in “ Ben Chananja,” 1864, PP. 601, 650) states that in Spain the game of chess (ODLN [? wppyR]) was sanctioned by the Rabbis. After a visitation of the plague in 1575 the three Tabbis of Cremona declared that with the exception of chess (“ishkaki”) all games were “primary evils and the cause of all troubles” (Lampronti, “Pahad 180). Strangely | Chess Yizhak,” iii. 54). Schudt (“Jiidische Merckwir- digkeiten,” pt. VI., ch. xxxv., p. 317) records that in Frankfort-on-the-Main, after the great fire of 1711, the Jewish community passed a resolution forbidding for a period of fourteen years any Jew or Jewess (except sick persons and lying-in women) to play chess. When plaved on the Sabbath, it became customary in Germany, in honor of the day, to use chessmen made of silver (“Shilte ha-Gib- borim,” on ‘Er. 127b), though wooden pieces were not disallowed. Chess was popular among Jewesses, as is seen from Schudt’s remark (/.c. LY. ii. 881) that “it is not at all strange that Jews should play Popular chess well, since Jewish women have Among for many years played and practised Jewesses. the game.” In 1617 a Jewess of Ven- ice became well known for her skill in chess. Indeed, Abrahams (“Jewish Life in the Middle Ages,” p. 388) goesso far as to suggest that it first made its way among Jewish circles as a wom- an’s game. R. Aaron Sason of Constantinople recommends the avoidance of chess on Sabbath (Responsa, No. Elijah de Vidas appears to have been the sole halakist who absolutely forbade the game (“Shebet Musar,” 1712, ch. xlii.). Children under fourteen were allowed to learn the game, on the ground that it rendered the intellect more acute. Elijah Cohen of Smyrna (“Shebet Musar,” /.c.) ob- jects to chess on the ground that it wastes time and takes the mind away from study. Azulai (1774) agrees with Ali ben Saul, mentioned above, in favor- ing chess only as a remedy for illness or melancholy. He also cites opinions for and against playing chess on Saturdays (Berliner, “ Aus dem Inneren Leben der Deutschen Juden im Mittelalter,” pp. 12, 53, Berlin, 1871). Mendelssohn was a passionate lover of the game, and is said to have cemented his friendship with Lessing over the chessboard. Yet he is credited with the dictum: “Chess is too earnest for a game; too much of a game to be in earnest about it” (“Fir Spiel ist es zu viel Ernst, fiir Ernst zu viel Spiel”; compare Dukes, in “Ben Chananja,” 1864, vii. 636; something similar is attributed to Montaigne). From the eighteenth century (to which belongs Albert [Aaron} Alexandre) onward, Jews came more and more to the front as chess-players; and it is not too much to say that in recent years they have proved themselves paramount as exponents of the game both in Europe and in America. As a race they seem to possess those intellectual qualities which are necessary to excel in chess. It must suf- fice here merely to mention a few names, such as S. Alapin, O. Blumenthal, W. Cohn, E. Delmar, L. R. Eisenberg, B. Englisch, E. Epstein, I. Gunsberg, D. Harrwitz, Leopold Hoffer, B. Horwitz, Herbert Jacobs, D. Janowski, Baron Ignaz von Kolisch, J. J. Lowenthal, S. Lipschitz, 8. Rosenthal, E. Schif- fers, Carl Schlechter, 8. Tarrasch, Max Weiss, and S. Winawer. Besides these, three Jewish chess masters stand out with especial prominence as hav- ing held the primacy of the chess world since 1866; viz., J. H. Zukertort, William Steinitz, and Eman- uel Lasker. . Johannes H. Zukertort (1842-88) was a pupil of Chess Chiarini THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 20 the celebrated player A. Anderssen, whom he at length defeated in 1871 with a score of 5to 2. In 1878 he gained the first prize at the international tournament at Paris, and in 1888 took the saine posi- tion at the great London tournament, in which all the greatest chess masters of the day (except Paulsen) competed. Zukertort excelled as a blindfold player. In 1876 he played thus against 16 strong amateurs, the result being: won 12, lost 1, drew 3. William Steinitz (1836-1900) held the chess cham- pionship of the world for a period of twenty-eight years (1866-1894), and during that time may be said to have formed a new schoolofchess. In In Modern place of the fierce attack, he sought to Times. win bya combination of minor advan- tages; and his method was gradually adopted by the leading experts. The Steinitz gambit (see below), though now generally dis- carded, had for a time a considerable number of adherents. Emanuel Lasker (b. 1868) is the present champion of the world (1902), having succeeded in wresting that title from Steinitz in 1894. In 1896 he was first in the Nuremberg tourney; in 1899, first in the Lon- don tournament; and again first in that at the Paris Exposition of 1900. The following list of tournaments since 1851 shows the positions gained by Jewish players and by their principal competitors. It will be seen that during the past fifty years the leading places have been in most cases secured by Jews. Non-Jewish players are indicated by italics: TOURNAMENTS. 1851, London: Anderssen 1; Horwitz 7. 1857, Manchester: Léwenthal 1; Anderssen 2. 1858, Birmingham: Léwenthal 1; Falkbeer 2, 1860, Cambridge: Kolisch 1; Stanley 2. 1862, London: Anderssen 1; Steinitz 6. 1865, Dublin: Steinitz 1; AfaeDonnell 2. 1866, British Chess Association: Steinitz 1; Green 2. 1867, Paris: Kolisch 1; Winawer 2: Steinitz 3. 1867, Dundee: Neumani 1: Steinitz 2; De Vere 3. 1868, British Chess Association Handicap: Steinitz 1; Wisker 2; Blackburne 8. 1870, Baden-Baden: Anderssen1; Steinitz 2; Blackburne 3. 1872, London : Steinitz 1; Blackburne 2; Zukertort 3. 1873, Vienna: Steinitz 1; Blackburne 2; Anderssen 3; Ro- senthal 4. 1876, London: Blackburne 1; Zukertort 2. 1878, Paris: Zukertort 1; Winawer 2. 1881, Berlin: Blackburne 1: Zukertort 2; Tehigorin 3. 1882, Vienna: Steinitz and Winawer 1 and 2; Zukertort 5. 1888, London: Zukertort 1; Steinitz 2. 1883, Nuremberg: Winawer 1; Blackburne 2. 1885, Hamburg: Gunsberg 1; Englisch, Tarrasch, Weiss (tied) 2. 1886, London: Gunsberg and Taubenhaus 3 and 4. 1886, Nottingham: Gunsberg and Zukertort 3 and 4. 1887, Frankfort: Blackburne and Weiss 2and 3; Bardeleben 4; Tarrasch 5. 1888, Bradford: Gunsberg 1; Mackenzie 2, 1889, New York: Tchigorin and Weiss 1 and 2; Gunsberg 3. 1889, Breslau: Tarrasch 1; Burn 2; Weiss3; Gunsberg 4. 1890, Amsterdam: Burn 1; Lasker 2; Mason 3. 1890, Manchester: Tarrasch 1; Blackburne 2. 1892, Dresden: Tarrasch 1; Markovetz 2; Porges 3. 1894, Leipsic: Tarrasch 1; Lipke and Teichman 2 and 3. 1895, Hastings: Pillsbury 1; Tehigorin 2; Lasker 3; Tar- rasch 4; Steinitz 5. 1896, Nuremberg: Lasker 1: Mvsroczy 2; Tarrasch 3. 1896, Budapest: Tehigorin 1; Charousek 2; Pillsbury 3, 1898, Vienna: Tarrasch 1; Pillsbury 2. 1898, Cologne: Burn 1; Charousek 2; Cohn 3. 1899, London: Lasker 1; Janowski, Maroczy, and Pillsbury tied for 2, 3, and 4. 1900, Munich: Maroczy, Pillsbury, and Schlechter tied for 1, 2, and 3. 1900, Paris: Lasker 1; Pillsbury 2. 1901, Monte Carlo: Janowski 1; Schlechter 2. 1902, Hanover: Janowski 1; Pillsbury 2. Of 33 important matches since 1834, enumerated in the “Encyc. Brit.” Supplement, 1902, s.2. “ Chess,” only 5 (all before 1863) have been without a Jewish competitor. Of 42 living contemporary first-class players of Europe and America mentioned in that article, 19 are Jews. What is known in chess as the “ gambit” consists in sacrificing a piece for the sake of certain advan- tages of position. It is first met with in Italy about the middle of the six- teenth century. Two Jewish chess- players have given their names to gambits; viz., Steinitz and Isaac L. Rice of New York. The Steinitz gambit may be played as fol- - lows: ‘¢Gam- bits.” WHITE. BLACK. 1 P—K 4 1 P—K 4 2 Kt—QB3 2 Kt—QB3 3 P—B4 3PxP 4P—Q4 4 Q—R5ch 5 K—K 2 5 P—Q3 6 Kt—B3 6 B—K Kt 5 7BxP 7 Castles The Rice gambit is as follows, and is only possible after Black plays 7 B—Q3. White, after giving up the knight, is able to withstand a violent attack. WHITE. BLACK. 1 P—K 4 1 P—K4 2P—KB4 2PxP 3 Kt-KB3 3 P—-K Kt4 4P—-KR4 4 P—Kt5 5 Kt—K 5 5 Kt-—K B3 6 B—B 4 6 P—Q4 7PxP 7 B—Q3 8 Castles 8 Bx Kt 9 R—K sq Though so successful in matches, Jews have not shown themselves particularly brilliant in the com- position of problems. Schlechter, Teichman, and Mieses, however, have displayed some talent in this direction, and E. N. Frankenstein was part author of “The Chess Problem Text-Book,” London, 1887. In 1782 Moses Hirschel of Breslau wrote the first work in German on the chess writings of Greco and Stamma. Of other Jewish writers on chess may be mentioned tne following, with dates of publication: W. Schlesinger (“Beitrige zum Unterricht im Schachspiel,” Presburg, 1804); E. M. Oettinger (“ Bi- bliotheca Shahiludii,” Leipsic, 1844); P. Bendix (1824 -1833). (‘ Recueil de Parties d’Echec; Tant Entiéres que Finales, avec des Observations Instructives,” St. Petersburg, 1824); H. Silberschmidt (“Die Neuent- deckten Geheimnisse im Gebiete des Schachspiels,” Braunschweig, 1826; “Lehrbuch des Schachspiels,” Wolfenbitittel); Albert (Aaron) Alexandre (“Ency- clopédie des Echecs,” Paris, 1837, and “Collection des Plus Beaux Problémes d’Echecs,” giving 2,120 examples, 7). 1846); D. M. Frankel (1888); A. Schmid (“Literatur des Schachspiels,” 1847); J. Horwitz (“Das Schachspiel,” Berlin, 1879); D. Nathan (1851-- 1852); S. Tarrasch (“ Dreihundert Schachpartien,” Leipsic, 1894); Leon Hollaenderski (a French trans- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 21 : f the three Hebrew manuscripts given in lation © 94); J, J. Lowenthal (1857-69) (“‘Transac- Hyde, 159%/> tions of the British Chess Association,” 1867-69); D. Harrwitz (“ Lehrbuch des Moder" Schachspiels,” Berlin, 1862; J. H. Zu- Talat kertort (“ Leitfaden des Schachspiels,” ee 1870); L. Hoffer (“ Chess,” London, Authors. 1892) ; W. Steinitz (“ The Modern Chess ” New York, 1895); and E. Lasker (“ Com- ein Chess,” London, 1896). Meveral important chess journals have been edited “The Chess-Players’ Magazine,” by J. Fe Jews, ae 1805-675 the ON eue Berliner Schach- J a g,” by Zukertort, 1867; “ The Chess Monthly ” = hich had an existence of seventeen years, 1879-96), Se Zukertort and Hoffer, and by the latter alone af- : A Zukertort’s death; and “The International Chess Magazine,” by Steinitz, 1885-1900. Books com- memorative of the important tournaments, giving the games with annotations, have also been pub- lished by Jewish authors. : Steinschneider, Schach bei den Juden, Ber- BIBL also in Van derjLinde, Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels, Berlin, 1874); idem, in Hebr. Bibl. xii. 60- 63: Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 388-90 5 L. Léw, Die Lebensalter, pp. 324-28 and notes; Leon Hol- Jaenderski, Délices Royales, ou le Jeu des Echecs, Paris, 1864 ; C. Devidé, A Memorial to William Steinitz, New York, 1901: L L. Rice, The Rice Gambit, ib. 1889. For a general bibliography of chess see that of Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa, Wiesbaden, 1896; idem, Zur Gesch. und Literatur des Schachspiels, Leipsic, 1897. J. A. P. CHEST. Sec ARK. CHESTNUT-TREE: The rendering of fony given in the A. V. (Gen. xxx. 87; Ezek. xxxi. 8); the R. V., however, preferring “plane-tree.” There are two considerations lending weight to the re- jection of the translation given in the A, V.: (1) the plane (Platanus orientalis) is indigenous to western Asia, where, under favorable conditions, it attains a commanding size, and is remarkable for the luxuri- ance of its growth; and (2) the etymology of the word #y, which is connected with the Arabic “‘aram” (= to strip off bark); the plane-tree being noted for annually casting its bark. consideration is, apparently, the determining one, The chestnut, which found its way from Asia into Europe through Greece and Italy, takes its botanical name (Castanea vulgaris) from an ancient Thes- salian town, Castanum. Like the plane, it is distin- guished by the magnificence of its growth, prefer- ring, however, high and dry situations; while the plane develops more freely in low and moist ground. According to Tristram, the plane-tree “is common on the banks of the upper Jordan and of the Leontes, where it overhangs the water” (“Natural History of the Bible,” p. 345). os E. W. B. CHEVRA. Sce HEBRA. CHEYNE, THOMAS KELLEY: English Christian Biblical critic, and Oriel professor of Bib- lical exegesis at the University of Oxford, England; born at London Sept. 18, 1841; educated at Mer- Chant Taylors’ School, London, Worcester College, Oxford, and under Ewald at Gottingen. Before a uaune he showed his interest in Hebrew stud- es by taking the Pusey, Ellerton, and Kennicott This latter | Chess | Chiarini scholarships, and his post-graduate life has been devoted almost exclusively to Old Testament exe- gesis and theology. Fora long time he was almost the sole representative of the higher criticism in England. Together with Professor Driver, he pro- vided the Queen’s Printers’ Bible, 1881, with a series of variorum readings and renderings which were of great use to Bible students. He has de- voted particular attention to the Book of Isaiah, of which be published notes on the Hebrew text in 1869, a translation in 1870, an edition in 1880-81, an introduction in 1896, and a new translation, based on a critical text, in the Polychrome Bible in 1898. Besides this, he has given two versions of Psalms to the world, in 1884 and 1889, while in 1891 he treated of the “ Origin of the Psalter” in his Bamp- ton Lectures, probably his most important contribu- tion to Old Testament exegesis. A volume on “Job and Solomon” in 1886 treated of the Wisdom litera- ture, while his “ Founders of Old Testament Criti- cism ” in 1898 gave the only adequate history of that subject in existence. In the winter of 1897-98 Cheyne visited the United States and delivered lectures on “Jewish Religious Life in the Post-Exilic Period”; these were subse- quently published (London and New York, 1898), and show a certain sympathy with specifically Jew- ish religious thought, which was also shown in his Bampton Lectures. Cheyne has frequently con- tributed to the “ Jewish Quarterly Review.” Cheyne has shown great daring in textual emen- dation, which has grown upon him of recent years. His most recent contributions to Biblical study con- sist of numerous articles contained in the “ Ency- clopedia Biblica,” which was edited by himself and A. 8. Black, and which bears the stamp of Cheyne’s influence on every page. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Plarr, Men and Women of the Time, 1895; Who's Who, 1902. J T. . CHIARINI, LUIGI: Italian abbé; born near Montepulciano, Italy, April 26, 1789; died at War- saw Feb. 28, 1832. He was appointed professor of history and Oriental languages at the University of Warsaw, Poland (1826). Chiarini was a prominent member of the so-called “Jewish Committee,” consisting exclusively of Christian members, organized by imperial decree May 22, 1825. This committee established schools for Jewish boys and girls as well as classes of Hebrew for Christian young men to study Jewish history, rabbinical literature, and even Judeeo-German, which would enable them to do organization (missionary) work among the Jews of Poland. Chiarini was entrusted by this body to translate the Babylonian Talmud, for which the Russian government granted him a subsidy of 12,000 thalers. He published his work, “Théorie du Judaisme Appliquée 4 la Reé- forme des Israélites de Tous les Pays de 1’Europe, et Servant en Méme Temps d’Ouvrage Préparatoire & la Version du Talmud de Babylone,” 2 vols., Paris, 1830, as a precursor to the prescribed version of the Talmud which was to appear in six large folio volumes. Chiarini’s book planned the reform of the Polish Jews, and also the general im- provement of the condition of all Jews. This work Chiarini Chicago is divided into three parts; in the first Chiarini states the difficulties of knowing the true character of Judaism: in the second he elucidates the theory of Judaism: andin the third the author treats of the reform of Judaism and discusses the means of re- moving its “ pernicious ” elements. In brief, Chiarini endeavors to prove that the so-called evils of Juda- ism originate chiefly from the alleged harmful anti- social teachings of the Talmud. He argues that the state should assist the Jews in freeing themselves from the influence of the Talmud, and that they should return to thesimple Mosaic faith. This goal can be attained in two ways: first, by the establish- ment of schools where Bible instruction is given and the Hebrew grammar studied; and, secondly, by a French translation of the Babylonian Talmud, with explanatory notes and refutations. Chiarini recognized that the popular knowledge of the Jews and Judaism was inadequate and defect- ive, and that their enemies furnish nothing but dis- torted instead of correct information. Nevertheless, his work is pervaded with some of the traditional prejudices against which he protests; but, at the same time, he expresses a sincere concern for the spiritual and material welfare of the Jews, and a desire to improve their condition. Of Chiarini’s translation of the Talmud only two volumes appeared, under the title “Le Talmud de Babylone, Traduit en Langue Francaise et Complété par Celui de Jérnsalem et par d’Autres Monuments de l’Antiquité Judaique,” Leipsic, 1831. It con- tains a copious preface. The translation of Berakot, which is partly based on previous translations, has many faults. Chiarini’s “Théorie du Judaisme” was widely criticized and caused considerable dis- cussion in the “ Revue Encyclopédique” and in sep- arate pamphlets by Zunz, Jost, and others. Besides many other works on Italian poetry (Pisa, 1816 and 1818) and on the history of astronomy in the Orient, Chiarini wrote a Hebrew grammar and a Hebrew dictionary, both in Latin, trauslated into Polish by Piotr Chlebowski, Warsaw, 1826 and 1829; he wrote also “ Dei Funerari degli Ebrei Polacchi,” Bo- logna, 1826. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Zunz, G. S. i. 271-298, Berlin, 1878; Jost, Hine Freimtithige und Unpartheiische Beleuchtung des Werkes: Théorie du Judaisme. Berlin, 1830; Orgelbrand, Encyklo- pedja Powszechna, iii., 8.v., Warsaw, 1898; Nuova HE nciclo- pedia Italiana, 6th ed., vol. v., Turin, 1878; E. Bischoff, Kri- tische Geschichte der Talmud-Uebersetzungen, ete., p. 68, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1899. H. R. CHICAGO: Capital of Cook county, Illinois; the second largest city of the United States. It was incorporated as a city in 1887, and a year later the first Jewish settler, J. Gottlieb, arrived. Whence he came, and what his business was, are not known. In 1840 Gottlieb was followed by Isaac Ziegler, the brothers Benedict and Jacob Schubert, and Philip Newberg. Ziegler was for a number of years a pedler in the city and vicinity. Benedict Schubert was the first Jew to establish a merchant-tailoring business in Chicago. He prospered, and became one of the leading men in his trade. The first brick house in the city was built for him on Lake street, and he carried on business there for a number of years. Philip Newberg was the first Jewish tobacco-dealer. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 22 ee eee meee The first Jewish child born in Chicago was a goy of Jacob Rosenberg, whose wife was Hannah Reege, About twenty German Jewsarrived between 1849 and 1844, and the community was slowly augmenteq by incoming settlers up to 1849, in which year g strong tide of Jewish immigration sect in, followin the completion of the Galena and Chicago Railwa to Elgin. Most of the early settlers were Germap Jews, principally from Bavaria and the Rhenish Palatinate. Religious services were held for the first time jn the Jewish settlement on the Day of Atonement, 1845. The congregation met in a private room on a street now known as Fifth avenue. Only ten men were present; Mayer Klein and Philip New. berg officiated as readers. The following year serv. ices were again held on the Day of Atonement, the attendance being, however, no larger than on the previous occasion. The first Jewish organization, the Jewish Burial. Ground Society, was established in 1846. It pur. chased from the city for $46 one acre of ground, to be used as a cemetery; and this was the first public act by which the Jews of Chicago demonstrated their existence as an integral portion of the body corporate. This first Jewish burial-ground wag located east of the city limits, toward the north along the shore of Lake Michigan. Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arahb, the first Jewish con- gregation, was established Nov. 3, 1847, when a con- stitution was adopted and signed by First Con- fourteen members. Morris L. Leo- gregation. pold, a young man of twenty-six, born in Laubheim, Wtirttemberg, was elected president. The Jewish Burial-Ground Soci- ety turned over to the congregation allits property, including the cemetery, and dissolved. Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arab held its first regular service in a pri- vate room on the second floor of a building on the southwest corner of Lake and Wells strects, and in 1849 leased a lot on Clark street, between Adams and Quincy streets (where the post-office now stands), on which it erected a frame synagogue. In 1858 this congregation established a day-school, where Hebrew was taught In addition to the regular common-school curriculum. This school was in operation for twenty years. In 1856 a new ceme- tery on Green Bay road (ow North Clark street) and Belmont avenue was purchased. In 1857 the old burial-ground, having been included in the city extensions, had to be abandoned. In 1882 the ground was sold to the park commissioners, and it is now merged in Lincoln Park. On the date of the closing of the old burial-ground (June 11, 1857) the first in- terment in the new cemetery took place. In 1868 the congregation purchased the northwest corner of Wabash avenue and Peck court, with the church standing upon it. The latter was converted into a synagogue. In the great fire of 1871 the syn- agogue escaped destruction, but all the records, which had been placed by Joseph Pollak, the secre- tary of the congregation, and at that time clerk of Cook county, in a vault of the court-house, were lost. In 1873 Dr. Merzbacher’s prayer-book was adopted. An organ, choir, and family pews had been introduced several years before. In the fire of THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Grice 23 at Anshe Ma‘arab lost the synagogue on nue, and in December of that year it d the church and site on the corner of In- pu aie and Twenty-sixth street. The chureh diana eee into a synagogue, and the property was on avenue and Peck court was sold. In one cob Rosenberg, then vice-president, pre- 1888 ee the congregation twenty acres of land in sented t of Jefferson, to be used asa burial-ground. ee is NOW called “Mount Ma‘arab Cemetery.” +974, Kehill Wabash ave —— and the influence of these two leaders was most beneficial to the Jewish community, especially to the younger generation. AdJer was succeeded by Dr. M. Machol. Dr. Samuel Sale was his successor, and was followed snecessively by Dr. Isaac S. Moses, the Rev. M. P. Jacobson, and Dr. Tobias Schanfarber, the present incumbent (1902). B’nai Sholom, the second oldest congregation, was organized May 25, 1852, by fourteen members, Its first temple was built in 1864, on the corner of MICHAEL REESE HOSPITAL, CHICAGO, ILL. (From a photograph.) The bodies in the North Clark street cemetery were transferred to Mount Ma‘arab, and the vacated prop- erty was sold. The latter is now completely built over, and all traces of the former cemetery have vanished. . In 1889 Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arab found that most of its members had moved farthersouth. The loca- tion of the synagogue being, therefore, no longer convenient for the majority, a plot on the southeast corner of Indiana avenue and Thirty-third street was purchased, and the temple now in use was erected. The latter has a seating capacity of 1,500 persons. The membership is175, In 1902 the Ein- horn ritual, in the English version, was adopted. The first rabbi was the Rev. Ignatz Kunreuther, who was called from New York in 1847. He was born in 1811, in Gelnhausen, near Early Frankfort-on-the-Main. He remained Rabbis. with the congregation six years, and then retired to private life. Hedied in Chicago June 27, 1884. Dr. 8. Friedlander, who was called from New York in 1855, was but a short time in Chicago, when he died suddenly. In 1861 the Rev. Liebmann ApLER was called from Detroit. eae his long and eventful ministration, M. M. erstley was president of Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arab; Harrison street and Fourth avenue. It was at that time the handsomest Jewish house of worship in Chicago. This temple was destroyed Congrega- by the fire of 1871. A new one was tions erected on Michigan avenue near Four- Before the teenth street; but this property was Great Fire. sold in 1889, and B’nai Sholom pur- chased the synagogue of Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arab, on the corner of Indiana avenue and Twenty-sixth street. The Rev. A. J. Messing is the present rabbi. Sinai Congregation, the third oldest, was the re- sult of the Reform movement started in Chicago in 1858. In that year the ritual question agitated the minds of the members of Kehillat Anshe Ma‘arab. The younger element was dissatisfied with the con- servatism of the older members, and demanded sweeping reforms. Dr. Bernhard Felsenthal, a young Jewish teacher who had just arrived in Chi- cago, became the leader of the Progressives. He published a pamphlet entitled “Kol Kore ba-Mid- bar” (A Voice Crying in the Wilderness), in which he strongly advocated Reform. This publication encouraged the Progressives, and they organized a Reform-Verein, of which Dr. Felsenthal was elected secretary. This Reform-Verein was the Chicago THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 24 ee pe ge ge ee a a Ss, foundation upon which four years later the Sinai congregation was built by twenty-six members who had seceded from the parent organization. Sinai congregation was established April 7, 1861. B. Schoeneman was the first president, and Dr. B. Felsenthal the first rabbi. Its first house of worship ~~ i Jewish Training-School, Chicago, Ill. (From a photograph.) was a frame building, formerly a church, on Monroe street, between Clark and La Salle streets. At the dedication of this temple, June 21, 1861, the Einhom ritual was used for the first time in a Western con- gregation. In 1863 Dr. Felsenthal declined reelec- tion, and Dr. Chronic was elected rabbi, upon the rec- ommendation of Dr. Abraham Geiger. Dr. Chronic founded in Chicago “Zeichen der Zeit” (Signs of the Times), a German monthly in the interest of Jewish Reform. At the rabbinical conference held in Philadelphia in 1869, Dr. Chronic, the delegate of Sinai, moved to transfer the celebration of the Sab- bath to Sunday; but no action was taken upon the motion. In 1867 Sinai made a contract with the Rosehill Cemetery Company for a burial plot. This was the first instance in Chicago of a Jewish con- gregation securing a burial-plot in a non-Jewish cemetery. . The great fire of 1871 destroyed Sinai temple. Dr. Chronic had gone back to Europe, and Dr. K. Kohler, then minister of Beth-El congregation in Detroit, Mich., was elected rabbi. Sunday services were held for the first time by the Sinai congrega- tion in Martin’s Hall, corner Twenty-second street and Indiana avenue, on Jan. 15, 1874. The site of their temple, on the corner of Indiana avenue and Twenty-first street, had been purchased in 1872, and the structure was finished in 1876. In 1879 Dr. Kohler was called to New York; and in 1880 Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, then at Louisville, Ky., was elected rabbi. In 1885 Dr. Hirsch was relieved from preach- ing onSaturdays. In 1892 the temple was remodeled and enlarged. Sinai is by far the largest Jewish congregation in Chicago, having a membershj of nearly 600, It maintains a Jewish mission-schog} —the Sinai West Side Sabbath-School—where ove, 300 children, boys and girls, are instructed in Jewish history and religion. Zion Congregation, the fourth oldest in Chicago, was organized on the West Side in 1864; Henry Greenebaum being the first president, and Dr, B Felsenthal the first rabbi. The first house of wor. ship was on Desplaines street, between Madison street and Washington boulevard. ‘The present temple is located on Ogden avenue, Opposite Union Park. In 1886 Dr. Felsenthal retired on account of old age, and Dr. Joseph Stolz was elected hig successor. For many years Zion was a prominent factor in the spiritual and educational development of the Jewish community ; but during the last decade it has suffered considerably through the migration of its members to the South Side. The present rabbj is Dr. Jacob 8. Jacobson. The North Side Hebrew Congregation was established in 1867. Its first house of worship wag dedicated Sept. 27 in that year by the Rev. A. Ollen. dorf, who had been called to the rabbinate. In 187% the Rev. A. Norden was elected rabbi. The fire of 1871 destroyed the synagogue, and the existence of the congregation was temporarily suspended. It was reorganized, however, in 1875, and the Rev. A, Norden was reelected; but the synagogue was not rebuilt until 1884. In 1898 Rabbi Norden retired, and the Rev, Abraham Hirschberg became his successor. B’nai Abraham was organized on the West Side in 1870. The first rabbi was the Rev. Isaac Fall. In 1888 Dr. A. R. Levy, the present incumbent, was elected. Of these six congregations, that of Sinai is the most radical, and B’nai Sholom and B’nai Abraham are the most conservative. The others belong to the class comprising the majority of American Jew- ish Reform congregations. A number of ultra- Orthodox congregations were also established before the great fire. In several instances a number of small “hebrahs” among the Jews of Slavonic parentage amalgamated and formed congregations. The most prominent among these congregations are Bet ha- Midrash Hagadol u-Benai Jacob, a charter for which was obtained in March, 186%, and Ohabai Shalom Mariampole, established in 1870. The latter has an extensive library of Hebrew books in its large synagogue. The congregation has instituted a loan association, and is in many other ways a bene- ficently active factor in the community. After the fire the number of congregations in- creased rapidly. The most prominent among the younger congregations are Isaiah, Emanuel, and Beth-El. Beth-El Congregation, on the northwest side of the city, was organized Oct. 7, 1871, imme- diately after the fire. The first serv- Congrega- ices were held in the home of one of tions After the members, but in the following the Great week a hall was rented at the corner of Fire. Peoria and Ohio streets, where regular services were held every Friday night and Saturday morning. D. Gottlieb and Ignatz Kunreuther officiated. Six months later the congre- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 25 Chicago ground at the corner of Mayand , The congregation owns a cemetery at Waldheim. : tf some ation ae o which they moved a frame church Huron ae Oe hey had purchased from a Norwe- puilding eration, Herman Eliassof was elected in gian oie regular minister and teacher of Beth-El. Se aay June 22, 1878, a cyclone destroyed the On a rue. ; s) pacile game evening a mecting of the congrega- . avag called, and & fund was raised sufficient to tion us e building of a new synagogue, a modest fae structure, still standing on the site of the old cae It now serves as a Lutheran church, buile ae ae sold by Beth-El in 1901. Theministers De eaing Rabbi Eliassof were Bonheim Lippman- SE aan and Jacob Dansk, the last of whom offi- sobm, “rom 1881 to 1891, dying in the prime of ay The present incumbent, Rabbi Julius Rappa- ee took charge of the congregation in July, 1891. al (1902) there are 100 members, partly Ger- mans and partly Bohemians. A new synagogue was erected on Crystal and Hoyne avenues, and was dedicat- ed Sept. 28, 1902. The tendency of thecongregation is toward Re- form, and the ~Minhag Amer- ica” ritual is used. Family pews, an organ, and a choir have been introduced, mostly during the ministry of the present rab- bi; Friday serv- ices are likewise a recent innova- tion, prayers and lectures be- ing delivered in the English language. The Saturday morning serv- ices are held in German. There are a ladies’ soci- ety—Sisters of Beth-E]—numbering 120 members, and a Young People’s Auxiliary Socicty, connected with the congregation. Anshe Emeth Congregation, on Sedgwick street, was founded in 1872. Solomon Bauer offici- ates as rabbi. Congregation Emanuel was founded in 1880, ina hall at the corner of Sedgwick and Blackhawk streets ; the church of the Swedish congregation at No. 280 Franklinstreet bein g purchased threeyears afterward. In 1889 moderate Reform and the prayer-book “ Min- hag America” were adopted, and later the cause of ad- vanced Reform was further strengthened by the intro- duction of the German (Einhorn) prayer-book and tlie practise of worshiping with uncovered head. In 1897 the congregation rented the Baptist church at Belden stil and Halsted Street, where services are held, ut in 1900 it bou ght a new site on Belden avenue. Standard Club, Chicago, Tl. (From a photograph.) Connected with the congregation are the Emanuel Gemeinde Frauenverein, established in 1897, and the Emanuel Auxiliary Society, founded in 1900 by the younger members of the congregation. The names of the successive rabbis of Congrega- tion Emanuel are: Austrian E. Brown, Julius New- nan, and Dr. Emanuel Schreiber, the incumbency of the last-named dating from 1899. The Reform Congregation of Isaiah Temple was organized Oct. 24, 1895, by members from Zion congregation who had moved to the South Side. At the first meeting Dr. Joseph Stolz was chosen rabbi and still (1902) holds that position. The first services were held Jan. 4, 1896, at the Oakland Club Hall, Ellis avenue and 39th street, which continued to be used in this capacity for three years. In May, 1898, some ground was purchased on the corner of Vincennes avenue and 45th street, and on Sept. 11 follow- ing Dr. Isaac M. Wise laid the corner - stone of a synagogue de- signed by Dank- mar Adler. The schoolhouse at- tached to the synagogue was dedicated on Jan. 14, 1899, and two months later (March 17) Dr. Wise dedi- cated the syna- gogue. Itsmem- bership numbers 228, and the Sab- bath-school has 883 children en- rolled. The Sab- bath-school holds Saturday and Sunday ses- sions, teaches Hebrew, and has a class for the deaf, at present composed of three pupils. Affiliated. with the congregation are the Isaiah Woman’s Club and the Isaac M. Wise Auxil- iary Lodge 1.0.B.B. The principal Jewish charitable institutions of Chicago are the following: (1) The United Hebrew Charities of Chicago, organized in 1859 as the United Hebrew Relief Association, for the purpose of provi- ding an asylum for widows and orphans, and a hos- pital. The present name of the association was adopted in 1888. The first hospital was erected on La Salle avenue, and opened to patients Aug. 9, 1868. It was destroyed by the fire of 1871. In 1879 Henry L. Frank and his brother Joseph, as the trustees of a fund bequeathed by Michael Reese of San Fran- cisco, Cal., offered the sum of $30,000 for the building of a hospital, on condition that it should be. known as (2) “The Michael Reese Hospital.” Jacob Rosen- berg and Mrs. Henrietta Rosenfeld, also trustees of a fund bequeathed by the same Michael Reese, of- Chicago Child fered on the same condition $50,000 as an endowment for the maintenance of the new hospital. The United Hebrew Relief Association accepted both offers. The new hospital was built, and opened to patients in 1881. The Michael Reese Hospital is one of the best equipped in Chicago. (83) The Jewish Training-School, opened on Judd street near Clinton street, in 1890, in the heart of the district inhabited by the poorest of the Jew- ish population. It is a manual-train- Charitable ing school, not a trade-school, where In- pupils receive an excellent general stitutions. cducation also. Prof. G. Bamberger is the superintendent. (4) The Home for Aged Jews, established in 1891. Abraham Slimmer of Waverly, Iowa, donated $50,000 for such a home in Chicago, on condition that the Jews of Chicago raise anequalamount. The money was obtained without difficulty. (5) The Chicago Home for Jewish Orphans, opened Oct. 7, 1894, in a rented house on Vernon avenue. Two years later a piece of property was donated by Henry Siegel and others. Mr. Slimmer again came for- ward with a donation of $25,000 toward the erec- tion of a suitable building, on condition that a like sum was collected in Chicago. The amount was raised, and the home was dedicated April 23, 1899. (6) The Beth Moshav Z’keinim (Orthodox Home for Aged Jews), organized Sept. 7, 1899. In 1901 Mr, Slimmer promised the society which un- dertook to establish the home the sum of $20,000, on conditions similar to those accompanying his previous donations. The conditions were of course accepted ; and the building is now in course of con- struction on the corner of Ogden and Albany avenues. (7) The Jewish Agriculturists’ Aid So- ciety of America, established in 1888 by three Chi- cago rabbis, Dr. Hirsch, Dr. Moses, and Dr, Levi. The society has its headquarters in Chicago, but it is nationalin aim and scope. The object of the soci- ety is to assist able-bodied poor Jews who are will- ing to establish themselves as farmers, in obtaining land on favorable terms. (8) The Home for Jew- ish Friendless and Working Girls, the youngest Jewish charitable institution in Chicago, established by a number of ladies’ societies Oct. 15, 1901. Besides these there are a great number of Jewish societies for various benevolent, educational, and social purposes. The United Hebrew Charities of Chicago maintains a number of branch institutions, such as an employment bureau, a free dispensary, and a training-school for nurses. All charities are now federated in the Associated Jewish Charities, founded in 1900, through which all collections are made. The total number of Jewish congregations is fifty- five. Thirty cemeteries are owned and managed by Jewish congregations and societies, and five Jewish clubs minister to the social needs of the community. The Jewish population of Chicago is fully eighty thousand. As in other large cities of the United States, tnere exist several social clubs, which, though nom- inally not restricted in their membership, are prac- tically recruited exclusively from Jewish circles. The first club so organized was named “Concor- dia,” and may be considered the parent of the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 28 present Standard Club, which, founded in 1879 . now located in a club-house at Twenty-fourth Stree and Michigan avenue, The Lake-Side, at For, second street and Grand boulevard; the Ideal, 0p Lasalle avenue; the Unity, and the West-Side ate clubs similar in character to the Standard. ‘Ty, latest of these social clubs is the Ravisloe, recently established (1901). It is a country club, devoted 4 athletics. From the earliest days of the municipality tp, Jews of Chicago have taken an honorable part j, public life. On the two municipal boards, th, board of education and the directory of the Pub}, Library, Jews have distinguished themselves, th, president’s chair having been often occupied by op, of their number, Adolf Kraus was president of the board of education for several terms, while Be. thold Loewenthal has served as president of th Public Library board—an honor also conferred oy Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, who was a director for ning years and president for six. Under Dr. Hirsch’ administration the present splendid home of the Public Library was erected, while another Jew, Bernard Moos, acted as chairman of the building committee, rendering in this capacity the most sig. nal services. Among the other Jewish members on the board of the library at various times may he mentioned Julius Rosenthal (founder and librarian of the Law Institute), Adolf Moses, and Jacob Franks. The following Jews have served on the school board: Herman Felsenthal, David Kohn, B. J, Rosenthal, James Rosenthal, Edward Rose, Charles Kozminski, and Dr. Joseph Stolz. Schools have been named after Herman Felsenthal and Charles Kozminski, in recognition of their services; while another public school, not ina Jewish district, hag been named after Sir Moses Montefiore. Among the charter members of the civic federa. tion was Dr. Emil G. Hirsch; while Adolf Nathan, a member of the Columbian Fair executive com. mittee, was president. Dr. Hirsch is also president of the Rabida Fresh Air Sanitarium. The follow- ing Jews have held other offices: corporation coun- sel, Adolf Kraus, Siegmund Zeisler; county clerk, Joseph Pollak, General Solomon; presidential elec- tor, Henry Greenebaum, Emil G. Hirsch; county commissioner, Isa Monheimer, Jacob L. Cahn, Mor. ris Rosenfeld; city alderman, Henry Greenebaun, Jacob Rosenberg, Abe Ballenberg, David Horner, Milton J. Foreman ; South Park commissioner, Henry G. Foreman, Henry Greenebaum; judge of the cir- cuit court, Philip Stein; justice of the peace, E. C. Hamburgher, Adolph J. Sabath, Max L. Wolf; city clerk, William Loeffler; controller of the city, Charles M. Schwab. In the militia, may be mentioned Major Milton J. Foreman (cavalry); Lieut. Robert Hart (ist Il. Infantry); and Emil G, Hirsch, the chaplain of the Illinois Naval Militia, with rank of lieutenant- commander. The. Jews have been contributors to the endow: ment fund of the Chicago University. Their origi- nal contribution of $35,000 saved the first donation by J. D. Rockefeller of $600,000, being made at4 time when it seemed impossible to fulfil the condi- tions attaching to that gift. Sinai congregation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA one? 27 7 $5,000 for a Semitic library. Eli B. | applied to the priest, not in the sense of an officer, Jater cone member of the board of trustees of Felsentha : , while the following Jews belong to the univers professor Michaelson, head of the de- the cathe physics; Julius Stieglitz and Felix partmen the latter resigned), professors of chem- Lengfeld ( Freund, professor of jurisprudence; ewer s PY USt P : istry; E Mack, professor of law; Emil G. Hirsch, Julian We rabbinical literature and philosophy; Be Clark professor of elocution. Dr. Joseph 8. i. th geisler holds the chair of dermatology in the North- eisle Western Medical] School. . thal, On the History of the Jews of Discs in Publication of the Amy eae, Tt Sot, NG. ¥ INNINGS O . 1994; idem, The Beg. Felsenthal aE eat ey acs Ma‘arab, Chicago, ; Eliassof, é of Kehallat AnShe 5 wocate, Chicago, May 4, 1901. Jews of [Uinots, n Reform Advocate, Chicago a CHICAGO ISRAELITE, THE: An Ameri- can weekly newspaper devoted to Jewish interests; founded January, 1885, and first issued under the editorship of Leo Wise, who for several years con- ducted a department of “Notes and Comments ” of a personal character. Occasionally the work of this department was done by Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, Levi A. Ekel, and Dr. Julius Wise, the last of whom wrote under the pen-name “ Nickerdown. ” “The Chicago Israelite” makes a feature of the local news of the congregations, lodges, and phil- anthropic and other societies. G. F. H. V. CHIDON: The owner of the threshing-floor at which Uzza or Uzzah, attempting to steady the Ark of the Covenant, was killed (I Chron. xiii. 9). In II Sam. vi. 6 the place is called “ Nachon.” E. G. H. G. B. L. CHIEF: Term used by the English Bible versions as anapproximate rendering of a number of Hebrew words. The leaders of the Levites are called “chiefs” (N'w3a, Num. iii. 24, 30), although else- where the same word is rendered “prince” (Num. vii. 18). From the fact that on the day of the dedi- cation of the Tabernacle every chief gave exactly the same donation to the service, it can be inferred that the chiefs were here representing the tribes, and were not giving of themselvesonly. The tribes, furthermore, were divided into several sections, and the leader of each section (as, for example, the leader of the Gershon branch of the tribe of Levi) was called “nasi” also; and the leader of the whole tribe was called “the chief of the chiefs” (Num. iii. 24, 32). The authority of the “nasi” was very great, and marked respect was to be shown him (Ex. xxii. 27, A. V. 28), In the days of royalty the rights and privileges, as well ag the name, were absorbed by the king (I Kings xi. 84), and later by Zerubbabel (Ezra i. 8). A fuller phrase, “nesi ha-arez,” occurs in Gen. XXXlv, 2. In the early stages the chiefs helped the Central authority. They assisted in counting the Levites (Num. iy. 54). . Other terms for “chief” are: (1) “Pinnat kol ha- am” (corner-stone of the people; Judges xx. 2; ava xiv. 38); and the reference here, too, is to Tribe and family representatives; (2) “ Ba‘al,” but as one standing out preeminent. (3) “‘Attud” (Isa. xiv. 9); but such a rendering only loosely cor- responds to the original. (4) “Rosh” is rendered “chief” seventy-eight times, and is used almost in- terchangeably with “nasi.” It stands for the head of a family (Ex. vi. 14, 25), and for larger tribal sections (I Kings viii. 1; Num, xxxii. 38), and is ap- plied to the high priest (II Chron. xix. 11, xxiv. 6). In the New Testament “chief” is the rendering for apxyov (Luke xi. 15), and for mparo¢ (Matt. xx. 27; Luke xix. 47). An officer termed the “ Asiarch” (chief of Asia) is mentioned in Acts xix. 81. E. C. G. B. L. CHIERA, ESTHER. See Kiera, Esruer. CHIGIRIN: Town in the government of Kiev, Russia, with a population (in 1897) of 9,870, including about 3,000 Jews. The latter are engaged principally in commerce and the handicrafts, the total number of artisans being 551. Tailoring is the predominating trade, 204 being engaged in it. There are, besides, 37 journeymen; and 16 Jews find employment in the local tannery and factories. About 200 families apply yearly for aid at Passover. The educational institutions comprise a government school with 300 pupils, of whom 120 are Jews; about 30 hadarim aggregating 230 scholars; anda Talmud Torah with 45 pupils. WR. 5. J. CHILD, THE: Since the days of Abraham (Gen. Xv. 2), to possess a child was always consid- ered as the greatest blessing God could bestow; and to be without children was regarded as the greatest curse. The Rabbis regarded the childless man as dead; while thecahbalist in the Middle Ages thought of him who died without posterity as of one who had failed in his mission in this world, so that he would have to appear again on the planet to fulfil this duty. As human imagination always occupies itself with the unknown, the embryonic or preliminary stage of child-life became the subject of fanciful legend and myth. The soul before birth is warned that it will be held responsible for its actions through life,and takes an oath to lead a holy lite (Jellinek, “B, H.”i.). Two guardian angels teach the soul the Torah every morning and display the glories of the just in paradise. In the evening hellisshown. As the memory of this would interfere with free-will, the child forgets all it has seen and heard in this stage. The depression in the middle of the upper lip represents the stroke by which this knowledge and wisdom are made to disappear. For this reason, too, children cry when they are born. One of the oldest ceremonies connected with the birth of a child was that of tree-planting. In the case of a boy a cedar was planted; in that of a girl, a pine (Git. 57a). Among the ceremonies observed for the protection of the new-born son was the read- ing of the Shema‘, and at times of Psalm xc. in the presence of the children of the community. This was usually continued every evening of the week, but in some places took place only on the eve of the Berit Milah (see Circumcision). The cus- tom of paying a visit to an infant boy on the first Child Childbirth Sabbath of his existence (a21 gydw = “ peace-boy ”) was also of Jewish origin. Male children received their “sacred” names on the occasion of the Berit Milah. The so-called “ pro- fane” name (“kKinnui”) was given on the Sabbath after the mother paid her first visit to the synagogue; this was accompanied by a feast termed Hoe KREISH (see Perles, in Griitz Memorial Volume, pp. 24-26). Girls were given their names about a month after their birth, when the father was called up to read the Law, and the Holle Kreish was also cel- ebrated on the return home. In the case of the first-born the ceremony of “ re- deeming the child” (3m pve, Ex. xiii. 2-15) oc- curred on the thirtieth day. According to the author of “ Hukkot ha-Torah ” (Giidemann, “ Gesch. des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden,” i. 93), it was customary in the thirteenth century fora father to vow his first-born son to the study of the Torah. “Talakah,” the custom of cutting a boy’s hair for the first time, took place after his fourth birth- day, when care was taken to avoid touching the “corners” (Lev. xix. 27). In Palestine this occurred on the second day of Passover; and it was consid- ered a religious privilege for each of the friends and relatives to cut a few hairs. In Talmudic times it was also customary to weigh the child and to pre- sent the weight in com to the poor. For the lullabies with which mothers soothe tlieir children to sleep see CRADLE SONGS. The various diseases to which the child was sub- ject, especially in Palestine (HSN MwRs, Gen. R. xx. [ed. Cracow, p. 874]), were included under “ the difficulties of bringing up children.” If the child died, it was said to be because of the sins of the parents. God Himself supervised the education of the prematurely deceased children (‘Ab. Zarah 3b). If a boy remained healthy, he studied the Torah in order to be rendered fit for the priestly office, for which learning was a neces- The sary condition. The Rabbis tell of Duty of many infant prodigies. Leo de Learning. Modena is said to have read the Haf- tarah at the age of two and one-half years. But generally they preferred promise rather than performauce at so early an age. The regular curriculum was for boys to learn Scripture at five, Mishnah at ten, and to fulfil the whole Law at thir- teen. In the times of the Temple youths took part in religious ceremonies at a very early age. In the Sabbatical year tiey were brought to the Temple when the king read Deuteronomy (Deut. xxxi. 10- 12). A boy’s religious life began in his fourth year, as soon as he was able to speak distinctly; for although the child was held to be free from religious duties, it was required of the father to accustom him early to fulfil them (myo2 i295). ‘This was considered all the more desirable because of the be- lief that the prayer of a child was more readily heard by God. Girls, too, went to the synagogue at a tender age. The presence of children in the synagogue was often trovblesome. The boys fre- quently played during worship; hence the Sephar- dim confined them to one place. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 2 went to school (see Eptcation). “Children of th house [school] of the master” is a regular phrage ; Jewish literature. Words of Scripture uttered inp, cently by them were viewed as oracles by the Rabp; In the school, the boys had hours of recreation well as of study. In play, the angel Sandalpho, (potap) was their patron; but there were few gs, cifically Jewish GAMES, most of them being take, from the peoplesamong whom the Jewslived. Py, ents did not pamper their children, but Createg them severely, slight corporal punishments by the fy, ther being allowed, though notrecommended. Tey, perance, abstemiousness, and poverty were ine), cated as virtues; and, even though any boy mig enter the priesthood, all had to learn a handicrag and swimming. The duty of providing for such education, as wey as for circumcision, for redemption from the Kohen, for teaching of the Law, and, when the child was of . the proper age, for marriage, was imposed by the Talmud upon the father. The synod of Asa in, posed upon hin, furthermore, the obligation to pro. vide for the necessities of the child until his seventh year. It, however, strongly recommended the cop. tinuation of such provision until the child shoulq have attained his majority (Ket. 49b). Although enjoying all the protection of the law, the child was declared irresponsible by the Talmud, and had not to account for any mischief he might do. Nor was the father answerable for damages for injury due to such mischief; he was only morally responsible. This moral responsibility, however, ended when the child had attained his religious ma. jority ceased to be a child, and became a,“ son of the Law ” (see BAR Mizway)—namely at the age of thir. teen. On this occasion the father pronounces the fol- lowing benediction: “ Blessed be He for having freed me from this punishment.” Actual legal responsi- bility on the part of the young man, however, be- gan only with the age of twenty. In later times little children were taken to the synagogue to sip the wine of the “sanctification cup” (“kiddush”) or to take part in the Simhat Torah ceremony. They participated in the Passover and Sabbath festivals, too, singing the “ Praise ” (bbn, Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.). When a little older, the boy had to attend the synagogue and school regularly. He recited certain prayers (wtp and Oxy” 92). In- deed, he enjoyed almost all the rights of majority long before the day of his becoming “the son of the Law.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, pp. 28% 312, Philadelphia, 1896, from which this article has been col- densed; L. Low, Lebensalter. A.M. F. E. C. CHILD MARRIAGE. Sce MARRIAGE. CHILDBIRTH: The following are some of the Biblical and Talmudical details touching the birth of children: The child might be brought into the world with or without a midwife (Gen. xxxviii. 28; Ex. i. 15¢4 seq.; compare Mishnah R. H. ii. 5; Oh. vii. 6), The expression in Gen. xxx. 3, “she shall bear upon my knees,” and similar phrases are to be taken liter Certain rites were observed when the boy first i ally (see Ploss,“ Das Weib,” and compare the say THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 29 —————— R. Is. “ 'Twixt wife and midwife the jing in Gen. ae woman perishes”; see also Dukes, child of the po Blumenlese,” p. 128). Immediately after birth the infant was bathed, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in swaddling-clothes (Ezek. xvi. 4 et seq.). ontra Ap.” ii. 26) says: “The law does [the J ews] tomake festivals at the birth n Josephus (*C not permit us Ele | tH fr q Ai) \ XY ‘ *Reciting the “* Ha-Mal’ak ha-Go’el ”’ Prayer at Childbirth. (From Kirchner, ‘¢ Jiidisches Ceremoniel,’? 1726.) of our children, and thereby to occasion drinkin g to oxcess.” The child was usually suckled by its mother, but sometimes by a wet-nurse (Gen, xxxv. 8; II Kings xi. 2, 8; IIT Mace. i. 20). Thirty-three days after the birth of a male child, and sixty-six after that of a female child, the mother offered up a sac- rifice of purification (Lev. xii. 2 e¢ seg.; see Cr- cUMCISION and REDEMPTION OF THE FIRST-BORN). The weaning, often long deferred, was accompanied by sacrifices and festivities. “The cradle is said to have been first used in Isaac’s time; it occurs in similes, as with Homer (Gen. R. lili, 10; Jxix. 8; Bacher, Ag. Pal. Amor., pp. 126, 344). On it were hung bells, which generally were employed together with amulcts in order to guard children against demons (“ Monatsschrift,” 1900, p. 382; compare Blau, “Zauberwesen,” pp. 90, 160; “ Mi‘teilungen der Gesellschaft fiir Jtidische Volks- kunde,” v. 75, note 5, Hamburg, 1900). A woman during confinement is recommended to particular attention; and her dcath is ascribed to negligence of the duties specially prescribed for Jewish women (Shab. ii. 6; concernin g the origin of leprosy among children, compare Lev. R. xv. 5). New-born children, accordin g to the Talmud as well as the Bible, were sprinkled with salt (Shab. 129b; compare Jerome and Galen in Wiesner, “Scholien,” N. 248); those that made no sound were rubbed with the afterbirth (Wunderbar, in “Orient. Lit.” 1850, p. 104; Hamburger, “R. B. T.” ii. 256). Air was breathed into those born apparently inanimate; and 4 beaker filled with hot coals was held near the tere one that refused the breast, to stimulate aes ie of the facial muscles (Shab. 134a). Oper- ts 7 assist birth were known (compare Rabbino- ronsta : Médecine du Talmud,” i. 29). It was ierec a heathen custom to fasten a piece of iron Child — Childbirth on the bed for the protection of the woman (Tosef., Shab. vi. [vii.] 4), as well as, on the night before circumcision, to place on the table viands which should not be touched (Shulhan “Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 178, 3, gloss; 179, 17; compare M, Schuhl, “ Super- stitions et Coutumes Populaires du Judaisme Con- temporain,” p. 6), The use of a Torah scroll as a charm for easing birth (Pithe Teshubah on Yoreh De‘ah, 179, 9) and for the protection of the child (Yoreh De‘ah, /.c. ; Maimonides, “ Yad” Hil. ‘Akkum, xi, 12) seems to be of early date; and the origin of the ceremony of lighting candles on the “ watch- night ”—7.e., the night before circumcision—is to be ascribed to the Talmud (Yer. Ket. i. 25c; Sanh. 82b). In Rumania, as soon as the labor-pains of the woman begin, all the female inmates of the house loosen their hair. In Poland, for the purpose of easing birth, all knots in the woman’s clothing are untied; and she wraps herself in a “mappah” or “wimpel”; that is, the band which is wound around the Torah. In the Caucasus the woman is held in the strictest seclusion. For seven Customs weeks prior to her expected accouche- and Su- ment no one, except the midwife and perstitions. the female relatives, is allowed to see her. On the night of birth the door of the lying-in room is locked; one light burns near to the mezuzah, and another next to the hearth (Chorny, “Sefer ha-Massa‘ot be-Erez Kaukaz,” pp. 196, 296). Despite the repeated prohibition of their rabbis, the Caucasian Jews practise the superstitious custom of mixing in a glass of water some earth from the grave of one deceased within the last forty days, and giving it to the parturient woman to drink. If it is not effective the dose is repeated with earth obtained at a greater depth. In Poland and Galicia the custom still obtains that once prevailed in Germany, of making a chalk-mark Mt ) Fm 1 ———— If A — Bast METER NRT tts, | z Siac Feast at Childbirth. (From Kirchner, * Jiidisches Ceremoniel,”’ 1726.) around the lying-in chamber or of describing black circles on the wall. It is also the practise in many places to hang Psalm-verses over the woman’s bed (the same custom obtains among Christians in Ger- many; see L. Liw, “Lebensalter,” pp. 75 et seq.). Sometimes Ps. xx. 2 is inscribed on the door, and the following invocation is recited: “ May He who hark- ened to thy mother, harken to thee also!” In Childbirth Chile Hesse a circle is drawn with chalk on the floor, and the verse, “My help cometh from the Lord,” ete. (Ps. exxi. 2), is written within it. In Kurdistan and elsewhere in the Orient, sweet-smelling herbs are burned in acenser, with which first the synagogue and then the lying-in room are perfumed. In Poland the Book of Raziel is laid under the head of the woman, and white cloths are hung at the windows and around the bed. In older Jewish recipe-books (“ Mitteilungen,” v. 58 et seq.) the following directions are given: Whisper into the ear of the woman in travail: “‘ And Moses spake unto the people, Get thee out, and all the people that fol- low thee; and after that I will go out. And he went out ” (Ex. xi. 8; compare Raziel, 43a). Or write on a “ Ranftel”’ (head) of cheese to be given her to eat, ‘* Satur Recipes arepo tenet opera rutas’’ (made up of ** Sator in fare] poten [ter] et opera[re] r[atiJo tluja Old Books. s[it]’’; compare Steinschneider, ‘* Hebr. Bibl.” xvii. 60 ; idem, “Cat. Bod].” No. 100). Or whis- per in her right ear: ‘*‘ He went up on Mount Sinai and heard a callingandacrying. Andhespoke unto the Lord: *‘ What mean- eth this calling and this crying that Ihear?’ The Lord answered him: ‘It is the voice of a womanin labor. Now go and say unto her: ‘Get thee out! The earth demands thee!” And all these thy servants shall come down unto Me and bow down themselves unto Me, saying, “ Get thee out, and all the people that follow,”’’” etc. Or mix the fat (or milk) of a bitch with water and give it to the woman to drink. Or stand at the door next to the mezuzah and read the ‘ Haf- tarab Shofetim”’ (lsa. li.); then say Gen. xxi, 1, and pronounce the Lord’s name thus, NAN XS (= * Get thee out!’’). Or strew ground black pepper under the woman in labor; . .. or place a ram’s horn in her hand, or the skin of asnake on her heart; . . or the eyes and bladder of a salt her- ring; or let another woman put her hand on her and say with her Ps. xix. 6; or lay upon her a clay vessel on which is in- scribed: OVS WINN p’n PYM: or write on a kosher parchment the magic square (com- pare Abraham ibn Ezra, ‘* Yesod Mora,” ed. Creizenach, p. 125), and lay iton the spot where the tefillin are laid; or place between her teeth a silver ring on which has been inscribed with a new graving- tool: VP, DB’, P"D, BP), Vb, PD (compare ** Mitteilungen,” iii. 67, No. 123). If the child dies in the womb, the gall of an ox should be mixed with water and given to the woman. Magic Square. It is further stated in the same recipe-books that “Sannui, Sansannui, and Samangaluf (‘9D3D) “3D 9bismD1) are known as the great and noble angels whom men call upon to protect women in labor against Lilith, and whose names written in any local- ity, even if on the wall, serve to exorcise Lilith’s brood therefrom. Therefore, it is effective to write these names in the four cardinal points near the woman, especially at an opening, as at a door or window.” This prescription against the beautiful Lilith, Adam’s first wife (compare second part of Goethe’s “Faust”), was zealously observed (see the satire of Isaac Erter in “Kerem Hemed,” iii. 106, and Flégel-Ebeling, “Gesch. des Grotesk- Komischen,” p. 14). Older amulets for the lying-in chamber contained the following (see illustration to AMULET; compare “Mitteilungen,” ii. 79 e¢ seg.; v. 61, 47; Lilith and on “Zakar,” 7b. v. 35): “Adam and Amulets. Eve,” within (compare 7b. i. 91; “Am Urquell,” ii. 144, 196; iv. 95); “ Lilith and the first Eve,” without, “Sannui, Sansannui, Samangaluf, Shumriel, Hasdiel.” The text con- tinues: “In the name of the Lord God of Israel, who THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA % reigns over the cherubim, whose name is might and fearful, Elijah the prophet—may he be me tioned for good!—once went upon his way and i Lilith, with all her kith and kin. And he said unt Lilith, the fiend: ‘Thou unrivaled in im purit and ye, ye goodly crew, whither are ye going» She answered: ‘ My master Elijah, lam going whe, I may find a woman in travail. I will cause a dee, sleep to come upon her, and I will rob her of he new-born cbild. I will drink its blood, and Slice its marrow, and devour its flesh.’ And Elijah. may he be mentioned for good!—spake angrijy. ‘May God, blessed be He! banish you hence! ¥M,, you become stiff and starkasstone:’ Lilith repligg, ‘For God's sake, spare me, and I will get me hence Iswear to you by the name of the Lord God g Israel, I will desist from my intent upon the woma, and her child; and whenever I hear my name callg I will go away. Now IJ will tell unto you my names; and whenever they are spoken, neither I no - those that are mine will have the power to do harm or to go to the house of a woman in labor, or to qy her any evil. These are my names: Lilith, Abity [compare “Mitteilungen,” v. 80, .W3N AIN Onn MON CMAN of the Mandeans); I. Wollstein “Déimonenbeschwérungen aus Nachtalmudische Zeit,” pp. 52, 57, Berlin, 1894; “Zeitschrift fr, Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete,” ix. 136) Abihu, Amsarfu, Hagash, Ores, Ikpodu, Iyly, Tatrota, Abhanuktah, Satruna [probably to be com. pared with Seon: “ Mitteilungen,” v. 57], Kah. katasa, Thilathuy, Piratsha. .. .’” Amulets such as are described in “ Mitteilungen,’ i. 91 e¢ seg., and others having inscribed on them “Magen David,” the signs of the zodiac, and Ps Ixvii., are still in use and may be obtained at any Jewish book-shop. When travail is difficult g Torah-roll is brought into the room. Old representations show the employment of de. livery-chairs (compare Miiler-Schlossar, “ Hag gadah von Sarajevo”). In Rumania the child stays in the bed with its mother as long as she remains there, and a sefer (any holy book) is placed under its pil- low. Into its first bath are put pieces of bread and sugar. In Poland the rocking of an empty cradleis avoided. If any one comes with a basket into 4 house in which there is a new-born child, a pisce is cut from the basket and laid in the cradle, in order that the infant may not be robbed of sleep and rest. - For the same reason care is taken not to remove from such a house utensils of any kind, especially such as hold burning coals. If the child is born with a caul, the latter is taken as a sign of good luck (the same is the case in Ice- land; compare Grimm, “ Marchen,” Customs _ ii. 59), and is preserved for a talisman. After Birth. A boy is welcomed into the world with the words: 7543 ody S35 I pbiyS axa (“A boy is born to the world; a blessing has come into the world”), but at a girl’s birth the walls weep. Itis a belief in Rumania that until the completion of the first year of its life the child speaks with God and the angels. The latter show it golden fruit in its sleep: if it can grasp the fruit, it laughs; if it can not, it weeps. Elsewhere 4 child’s laughing in its sleep is said to betoken that THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA i be angel of death; therefore itis | before circumcision (“Zakar”) a feast is spread, to 31 : ith t jt is payed ae the child be lightly tapped on recom the mt oui not be kissed on the feet, since A chil stom at the“ mehbillah prayer”; that is, this is the ae dead for forgiveness. A child must not fore a mirror, else a second child will be “nin the year. If the hair be cut, the child 1 got an elf-lock. Scurf (“ pareh”; compare Lev. will B° ives promise of beautiful hair (compare ave plungen? j.81 on “halakah”). The woman “ ae been delivered must not be left alone. ae ie pillow or under the mattress is laid a DE uk which she may never leave her bed. a er is stuck in the ground near her head; a - ang for thirty days it is carried three times ae a her couch. In northern Germany this serves ee against the werwolt (Wuttke, “Der panei Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart,” p. 260), or, according to Grimm (“ Mythologie,” xc.), against ‘ie wicked fairies (for the customs among the Ro- mans see Pliny, “ Historia Naturalis,” xxxiv. 44), While making the circuit with the dagger about the ped the following verses are sung: “ tch mache einen Kreis Den Gott wohl weiss. ... Also mancher Ziegel ist auf diesem Dach, Also mancher Engel bei uns wach !”* (Translation.) I make a circle (Which God well knows) ; As many tiles as are on this roof, So many angels keep watch o'er us! At a hard labor three or four women pray: ** Auf meinem rechten Fuss tret’ ich, Gott, den Herrn, bitt’ ich, Dass er entbind.”’ (Translation.) I press upon my right foot, God, the Lord, entreating, That He may deliver! During the same thirty days in which the dagger is carried about the bed the school-children recite the evening prayers in the lying-in chamber, in order to keep off the “ Benemmerin ” (pixies); that is, elves. In Hamburg, for the protection of mother and child a skein of red silk is bound about the child’s wrists (see “Am Urquell,” iv. 96). Of efficacy against “Frau Holle” is the “Holle Kreisch ” (com- pare Low, /.c. p. 105; Bodenschatz, “ Kirchliche Ver- fassung,” iv. 73; “ Mitteilungen,” iv. 146, v. 7). Here may be mentioned the custom existing in Breslau of scattering almonds and raisins on the first Simhat Torah after birth. The night before circumcision (watch-night or wheat-night), and in Palestine every night between birth and circumcision, for the Protection of the child the people in the house study ” (compare Griinbaum, in Winter and Wiinsche, “Die Judische Litteratur,” iii, 587). At Salonica & ballad is sung on the watch-night (com- Pale ae’ Etudes J uives,” 1896, ii. 188 e¢ seg.). In ae aoe the night before the circumcision an anil ai ith many wicks is brought into the house, € 1s general rejoicing. In Upper Silesia the a for circumcision must be in the house the ht before the ceremony. The Friday evening Childbirth Chile which every one is welcomed. In Hamburg, peas with pepper, whisky, and cake are provided; among the Portuguese, nasturtium seeds; in Poland, “ fristt- lech” (“ faworiski” ; that is, a thin pastry mixed with oil), round peas, and mead (“ Mitteilungen,” i. 100). Most of these customs and superstitions are not of Jewish origin; but, as a review of Grimm’s “My- thologie” and Wuttke’s work (see bibliography be- low) shows, they have been borrowed from neigh- boring peoples. For parturient women the regulations are the same as for the Nippan. At the birth of a male the bath (mikweh) may not be taken before the ex- piration of eight days; at the birth of a female, not before fifteen days, provided clean white linen has been put on and the seven days of purification have taken place within that time. Where it is the cus- tom for the women to visit the mikweh at thc end of forty days atter bearing a male, and fifty after bearing a female, regulations are made accordingly (Yoreh De‘ah, 19, 4). BIBLIOGRAPHY: A, Lewysohn, Mekore Minhagim, Berlin, 1846; L. Léw, Die Lebensalter, Szegedin, 1875; Lunez, Je- rusalem, i. 21 et seq., Vienna, 1882; Mitteilungen der Gesell- schaft fiir Jtidische Voikskunde, Hamburg, 1898 et seq.: S. Rubin, Gesch. des Aberglaubens, German translation by I. Stern, Leipsic ; Schudt, Jiidische Merkwiirdigkeiten, 1714, ii. 6 et seq. ; M. Schuhl, Superstitions et Coutumes Populaires du Judaisme Contemporain, Paris, 1882; J. J. Chorny, Sefer ha-Massa‘ot be-Erez Kaukaz, St. Petersburg, 1887 ; Winer, B. R. s.v. Kinder; Wuttke, Der Deutsche Votks- aberglaube der Gegenwart, Berlin, 1869; 8. Schechter, The Child in Jewish Literature. in Studies in Judaism, pp. 343- 380, 434-436, London, 1896. A. M. Gr. CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE. See DANIEL, Book oF. CHILDREN OF GOD. See Gop, CHILDREN oF; SON OF GoD. CHILE: A republic of South America, bounded by Peru on the north, Bolivia and the Argentine Republic on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south and west. Soon after the discovery of the American continent many Jews, professed and secret, settled in the different sections of South Aimerica, and changed their places of residence according to the pressure of the Inquisition. At the beginning of the sixteenth century many New Christians (“Christianos Nuevos”) who had re- cently arrived at Callao, Peru, drifted to Santiago, Chile. It was not long before the spies (“ famili- ares”) of the Holy Office ferreted them out, accumu- lating evidence as to their antecedents from Buenos Ayres, Mexico, and the cities of the Old World, until sufficient data had been secured to warrant theirapprehension. Thus, an accused Jew would be imprisoned in Chile, tortured until he confessed, and, sometimes after languishing for years in the secret dungeons of the tribunal in Santiago, finally be sur- rendered to the secular arm for execution in Carta- gena or Lima. The martyrdom of the scholar and theologian Francisco Maldonado de Silva, whose trial was a cause célébre, is a case in point. He suffered imprisonment in Chile, and was burned at an auto da féin Lima Jan. 23, 1639. Nor was his cage an exception to the rule. Inthe following par- agraphs will be found the first summary in English of these trials for Judaizing. ? Chile China The case of Luis Noble or Luis Duarte (see Du- ARTE) is probably the first on record. A Portu- guese by birth, he served as a soldier in Chile, and was arraigned before the tribunal at Callao for steal- ing a crucifix. He confessed to being a Jew (Aug., 1614). Duarte does not seem to have been severcly dealt with, escaping with a whipping and a light sentence. From 1686 to 1641 the following persons were accused and punished for Judaizing: Antonio de Acunha, from Arronchez, Portugal, Earliest aged 24 years; Antonio Corderes; Victims of Diego Lopez de Fonseca, from Bada- In- joz, aged 40 years; Manuel Baptista quisition. Perez, merchant, aged 46 years; Man- uel de la Rosa. All these Jews were incarcerated in Chile, and their possessions were con- fiscated, which seems to have been the leading mo- tive for these prosecutions for heresy. The above- named, it appears from another record, all suffered martyrdom in Lima at an auto da fé held in that city Jan. 23, 1639. Don Manuel Bautista PEREz was rated as a mil- lionaire, and is described as the owner of a regal residence in Lima, which yet bears the name of “the house of Pilate.” Don Diego Lopez de Fonseca, who was burned at the same auto da fé, was charged with selling goods cheaper to people who would enter his shop through the door, beneath the thresh- old of which he had buried a cross in mockery of Jesus, than to others (see TREVINO). Juan de la Parra, a Chilean by birth, was imprisoned and sentenced by the Holy Office “for observing the religion of Moses,” in 1661. There were several others who suffered imprisonment in Chile and martyrdom in Peru. J. T. Medina devotes two long chapters to leading Jewish cases in his his- tory of the tribunal in Chile (see subjoined bib- liography), and gives the whole trial of de Silva at length. In 1680 proceedings were begun against Leon Gomez de Silva, or Oliva (as his name is spelled in another place). He was born in Portugal and re- sided at Santiago, and was denounced as a Juda- izer. The accused was still alive in Santiago twenty years after proceedings were instituted against him; and his property, at one time confiscated by the authorities, had been restored. The celebrated Hungarian-Jewish violinist, Mi- chael Hauser, who had been the guest of Don Elias, President of Peru, in 1852, and who was every where received with extraordinary honors, was compelled to fly for his life in Santiago, charged with “con- spiring diabolically to ruin Christian folk and, by reason Of hellish art [his violin], in league with the devil.” Thanks to the friendly offices of a humane Creole who had been charmed by his music, he hid until the arrival of a ship bound for Australia (see his “Aus dem Wanderbuche eines Oesterreichi- schen Virtuosen,” Leipsic, 1859; also Ignaz Reich’s “ Beth-El,” ii. 97). On a proposal made to Oliver Cromwell in 1655 to seize Chile, see Simon de CACERES, Of the modern history of the Jews in Chile noth- ing definite can be ascertained. There are a large number of prosperous Jewish merchants in Santiago, mostly Europeans; but it isnot known whether they THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 89 form a religious community. For other data Sep SouTH AMERICA. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. T. Medina, Historia del Tribuna Santo Oficio de la Inquisicion en Chile, i. 197, 206, 209 sa 215, 2223 ii. 50, 71-93, 96, 104, 105, 108, 112, 114-15, 180, 14y°k 166, 251-61, Santiago, 1890; B. Vicufa MacKenna, Frangj.* Moyen, or the Inquisition as It Wasin South Amerieg 105, 174 (Engl. transl. by J. W. Duffy, London, 1869); q Pp, Kohut, in Publications of Am. Jew. Hist. Soc. No. 4, p, i idem, Simon de Caceres and His Plan for the Conquest} Chile in 1655, reprinted from the American Hebrew, Tun 16, 1899, pp. 12-16, where bibliography and text of the letter“ Caceres are given; Lucien Wolf, in Transactions of Jey Hist. Soc. Eng. iii. A. G. A. K. CHILEAB: A son of David, born to him at Hebron, His mother was Abigail, whom David ma, ried after the death of her husband Nabal, ¢, Carmelite (II Sam. iii. 3). The parallel account in I Chron, iii. 1 gives hisnameas “ Daniel.” In IT San iii. 1 the Septuagint reads Aadovia, and in I Chrop iii, 1 Aaya.) (The Alexandrine, however, read here, too, Aatovia.) It is impossible to restore the _ original name, although “Daniel” is much neare than “Chileab.” Berakot 4a (Bab.) gives a fap. ciful interpretation to the name. He was calle “Chileab ” because he shamed (p°>>19) Mephibosheth in the Law. G. B. L. E.G. I. CHILIASM, CHILIASTIC¢, See MILLENNIUM. CHILION: A son of Elimelech and Naomi, the Bethlehemites who emigrated to Moab because of the severe famine in Judea (Ruth i. 2). This might have been the reason for the name “Chilion” (wa, sting), as also for his brother’s name “ Mahlon ” (dis. ease). In Moab, Chilion married Orpah (2d.), ang, after living in that land for ten years, died there. E. G. H. G. B. L. CHILMAD: A name occurring in the long lis of those nations supplying merchandise for Tyre (izek. xxvii. 23). The Septuagint reads xat Xappdy which seems to point to Carmania. The Targum renders it “ the Medes,” which Rashifollows. David Kimhi quotes his father’s opinion that the word contains the root 1199. The word would then mean “as taught.” George A. Smith identifies the name with “Chalwadh.” Of all these identifications that of the Targum is the simplest and, perhaps, the most acceptable; for other corruptions of the text have been noted in this verse, and it is probable, as Cheyne suggests, that the first syllable in why came from the following 939, the 9 of which fell out owing to the preceding 4. E. G. H. G. B. L. CHIMHAM: A son of Barzillai, who supported David while the latter was in exile at Mahanaim. After the death of Absalom, Barzillai was invited to spend the rest of his days with the king; but he declined, and sent his son Chimham instead. In Jer, xli. 17 mention is made of the camp of Chim- ham near Bethlehem, from which it would seem that David bestowed upon him some land which passed on to his descendants in his name. This rendering is indicated by the Targum, and is accepted Dy Rashi and Kimhi (II Sam. xix. 88, 39, 41; R. V. 3% 38, 40). E. G. i. G. B. L. CHILIAST, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA HIN, B ACHEL MIRONOWN A. See Kury, Cc , SOWNA. RacHEL 3 et southeastern and main division of ; The subject of the Jews in spe Chinese empite. I. Their his- a ef ere China ae religious customs, etc. tor vi Ht : I. History | a matter of dispute among schol- lical uae ority of Bible commentators iden- ars The vx (“the land of the Sinim ”), of Israel shall return to trade, and, as a consequence, entered into direct relations with the “ silk- men ” (“Seres, ” from “ser” = DON Ww = “sericum” = “silk”), as the Chi- nese were called by the Romans. (For the identification see commen- taries of Gesenius, Delitzsch, Hitzig, Cheyne, and Orelli; also Kautzsch, in Riehm’s “Handworterbuch der Bib- lischen Alterthiimer,” s.c. “Sinim”; Von Strauss-Torney, in Delitzsch’s “Jsaiah,” p. 712; Lassen, “ Indische Alterthumskunde,” 1867, i. 1028; fur- ther, Dillmann, Dulm, and Marti, Chinese Namefor jn their commentaries; Konig, in elites Hauck’s “ Real-Encyc.” ¢.¢. “Sinim ”; and Von Richthofen, “ China,” i. 436 ; for the “ Seres,” see SILK; Kohler, “The Jews and Commerce,” in «The Menorah,” 1887, p. 211; Heyd, “Gesch. des Le- vantehandels,” i. 12, notes 1, 24; compare Momm- sen, “Rémische Gesch.” v. 346, 465-470; Herzfeld, « Handelsgesch. der Juden,” pp. 110, 308). At what time, however, the first Jewish settle- ment in China took place it is difficult to say. In all likelihood Jewish merchants immigrated, or changed a temporary sojourn into a First Jew- permanent one, at various epochs. In ish Settle- an “Account Written by Two Moham- ment. medan Travelers Through India and China ” in 8d1 (Renaudot, transl., Lon- don, 1738, p: 42), it is stated that “the Jews have been settled in that empire [China] from time imme- morial.” Notwithstanding this, it is as hazardous to connect the first Jewish settlement in China with the Lost Ten Tribes (“Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiii. 28) as it is an unwarranted skepticism to doubt the cor- rectness of the tradition of the Chinese Jews them- selves, which traces the first immigration back to the Han dynasty between 206 B.c. and 221 c.E. (Mdl- lendorf, in “Monatsschrift,” 1895, p. 829), and more exactly to the time of the emperor Ming-ti. This opinion is based upon the oral tradition of the nee reported by Father Brotier: “These Jews say dag bared entered China under the Han dynasty fate ne reise of Han Ming-ti [58-76 c.x.].” And that ae Several of these Jews have assured me oi “Te. arrived during the reign of Ming-ti” (To- sends ees Juives de Kai-Fung-Fu,” P. 90) A tury) si waunan (Jewish traveler of the ninth cen- ¥) similarly claims that they entered in 65C.E£. ratz oe places the first immigration in the —3 Chile China year 281 c.E., connecting it with the persecution of Jews in Persia, which caused also their first set- tlement in India; furthermore, the Jews of K’ai- Fung-Foo themselves claim that they received their religion from India (compare Finn, “The Orphan Colony of Jews in China,” p. 40; but see passages cited below); but there is nothing to support this hypothetical date, or the statement of Glover in the “ Babylonian and Oriental Record,” vi. 247, 288; vii. 149, that the Jews were not in China before the fifth century. On the other hand there are many reasons for the assumption of an ear- Jews lier date. The Chinese everywhere Known as call the Jews “Tiao Kiu Kiaou” (the ‘‘Tiao Kiu sect which extracts the sinews, after Kiaou.” Gen. xxxii. 33); and this name itself, as a Characterization ot the Jews, in- dicates great antiquity. Rabbinical Judaism would have suggested more distinctive peculiarities of the Jews to the Chinese. As will be shown later, there are also many in- trinsic evidences of early Jewish settlements in China to be found in peculiar rites, preserved in connection with their synagogue; the records which will be cited below are obviously copies of older documents; and there is also the fact that the Arabic writers of the ninth and fourteenth centuries confirm the existence of old Jewish commercial colo- nies in China. Indeed, all facts tend to show a long and peculiar development of religious as well as social life of the Jews in China, the beginnings of whichcan hardly have been later than the first Christian century. K. Concerning the history of the Chinese Jews in the Middle Ages a very few isolated facts are known. The two Mohammedan travelers of 851 who are quoted above state that at that period “many of them, for the sake of riches and preferment, have abjured their own religion.” This is corroborated by Abu Zaid Hasan al-Sirafi (Reinaud, “ Géographie d’Abulfeda,” i. Ixxxiii., Paris, 1848), according to whom “120,000 Mohammedans, Jews, Christians, and Parsees, who had come there for commerce, were in the revolt of Baichu in the year 884 massa- cred in Canfu, the chief port for all the Arabian merchants.” It seems very probable that in the tenth century a new colony of Jews came into China, as Professor Chavannes declares: “ Between 960 and 1126 (Sung dynasty) Jews coming from India brought, for the first time, as tribute to the court of China, stuffs from western maritime coun- tries (‘si yang poo’). The Jews came to China by sea, and not by crossing central Asia; they were members of the Jewish colonies settled in India, Lastly, their arrival does not appear to have been prior to the end of the tenth century c.E.” Marco Polo refers to the powerful commercial and political influence of the Jews in China in 1286 (see Murray’s translation of “Polo’s Travels,” p. 99). Ibn Batuta (see “ Monatsschrift,” 1895, p. 829) in the fourteenth century speaks of Al-Khansa —which Mdllendorf identifies with Hangchau; Neu- bauer (“Jew. Quart. Rev.” x. 125) with Canfu—as having many resident Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians. The Jews, who were never active participants China —_—— in Chinese affairs, being taken for Mohammedans (“Hwei Hwei”), are nevertheless mentioned in Chinese annals: “The Jews are referred to for the first time in the ‘Yuen shi’ under the year 1329, on the occasion of the reestablishment of the law on the collection of taxes from Dissent- ers. Mention of them is again made under the year 1354, when, on account of several insurrections in China, rich Moham- medans and Jews were invited to the capital in order to join the army. In both cases they are named ‘Chu hu’ (Djubud)” (“Journal North- China Branch of Roy- al Asiatic Society,” new series, x. 38). Throughout the Middle Ages the Eu- ropean Jews had no knowledge of the ex- istence of Jews in China; even Benja- min of Tudela, who mentions China (= y¥; see Asher’s ed. of the “Itinerary,” 1. 194, ii. 189), seems to know nothing about them. It wasthrough Catholic missionaries in the seventeenth century that the first informa- tion reached Europe of a Jewish community, consisting of about five hundred or six hun- dred members, in K’ai-Fung-Foo, the ancient cap- jtal of Honan; of one at Hangchau-Foo; and of others in other Chinese towns. But owing to the existence of an ancient synagogue at K’ai-Fung- Foo, which, though rebuilt several times, had pre- served the oldest records of Jewish settlements, the interest of the historians was centered The Jews upon the Jews there; and the inscrip- of K’ai- _—_ tions in the Chinese language found on Fung-Foo. its marble tablets, dating from the years 1489, 1512, and 1663, which have been often translated and published, have cast unexpected light upon a hitherto entirely unknown chapter of Jewish history. The following abstracts of these inscriptions, taken from “Inscriptions Juives de Kai-Fung-Fu,” Shanghai, 1900 (see “Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiii. 20), give an insight into both the history and the character of the Chinese Jews. The inscription of 1489 referring to the immigration states: “Seventy families came from the Western lands offering tribute of cotton cloth to the emperor, who allowed The them to settle at Peen-lang ’’ (K’ai-Fung-Foo). Synagogue In 1163 the synagogue was erected by a certain Records. Yen-too-la; and in 1279 it was rebuilt on a larger scale. In 1390 the Jews were granted land and additional privileges by Tai-tsou, the founder of the Ming dynasty. In 1421 permission was given by the emperor to Yen-Tcheng, a physician greatly honored by him, to repair the Mien — fh oe ts tears aSyor An tm 8 ial SINS MUNN SS S/o OO i iti Re wf larval WER we 5 Bird’s-Eye View of the Temple Buildings at K’ai-Fung-Foo, China. (From ‘‘ Jewish Quarterly Review.”’) THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a synagogue, incense for use therein being presented by the ‘ peror. In 1461 the synagogue was destroyed by fiood, but be restored by a prominent Jew. New copies of the Law Wed procured; and the table of offerings, the bronze vase, the Howe. vases, the candlesticks, the Ark, the triumphal arch, the ha” trades, and other furniture were presented to the SYDagogy, prominent members of the Jewish community. b The end of the inscription of 1489 reads: ““Composed by gq moted literary graq ate of the prefecture K’ai-Fung-Foo, ng Kiu-chung; inscribeg aliterary graduate of »,. chased rank, belonginy , the district of Tstang.y, named Tsaou-tso ; ande, graved by a literary gn, uate of purchased Tank belonging to the pre, ture of K’ai-Fung.p named Foo-jo6. — Eree on a fortunate day, in t, middle of summery, in thy second year of Hung; A.D. 1488 [read 1489), the forty-sixth year of seventieth cycle, by @ dip ciple of the religion ¢ Truth and Purity.” In an inscription of 15, set up by a Chinese ma, darin it is stated: “ Adu, the first man Was fro, Teen-chou in the West! {This seems to point toh, dia or Ceylon as the ch nese Eden, as does aly perhaps, a rather obsoy, sentence in the previoy (1489) inscription: “Oy religion comes original; from T’heen-chuh”- India.—k.] Referring to the imni gration, this inscriptig says: “During the Ha dynasty this religion e¢ tered China. In 1164 a synagogue was built at Peen [K's Fung-Foo]. In 1296 it was rebuilt. (The dates in Tobar and Glover’s translations differ slightly.] Those who pra tise this religion are found in other places than Peen [K's Fung-Foo]; but, wherever they are met with, they al without exception, honor the sacred writings and venera Eternal Reason in the same manner as the Chinese, shu ning superstitious practises and image-worship. These sacré books concern not Jews only, but all men, kings and subjecs parents and children, old and young. Differing little from or [the Chinese !] laws, they are summed up High Repu- the worship of heaven [God], the honor of pa tation of ents,andthe veneration of ancestors.’’ Spe# Chinese ing of the Jews themselves, the Chinese mont Jews. mental testimony continues: ‘* They exceli agriculture, in merchandise, in magistracié and in warfare, and are highly esteemed for integrity, fidelif and a strict observance of their religion.”’ At the end of the inscription of 1512 occurs: “This tablet was erected by the families Yen, Lé, Kad Chaou, Kin, FE, and Cheng,-at the rebuilding of the synagoglt in the first month of autumn, in the seventh year of Ching-t of the Ming dynasty, a.pD. 1511 [read 1512].” Another inscription dated 1663, by a Chinese mandarin, afte ward minister of state, begins in the same manner as the 6s two, dwelling first on the virtues of Adam, Noah, Abraham, al Moses, and then on the conformity of the Jewish law and lite* ture with those of the Chinese. After relating the history the Jewish settlement, it gives a graphic account of the ré lion which caused the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1642 and Ut destruction of the city, the synagogue, and many Jewish lives and of the rescue of the sacred writings by a Jewish mandat™ who, with the help of the troops, restored the city, and togett with his brother rebuilt the synagogue in 1653 (see CHao *5° CHENG). Only one complete scroll of the Law having be recovered from the waters, this was placed in the middle of ® Ark ; and twelve other scrolls were copied and placed arou? ‘ K Rune 4 Nea BOR THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA China ' 35 , gs and prayer-books were repaired bymem- / as 1850 by Dr. Smith, Bishop of Victoria, after in- whose hames are perpetuated in the other holy writ m of all the dignitaries who took munity e er with the names tablet, t restoration. al g the Jewish inhabitants of China contin- the imperial protection as mi ghty men their Persian si enn ae sa means of religious education. ave Pat and social decline broke off their Their aaa the West; and a state of ignorance connection ¥ followed. Thus were they found by the Catholic missionaries in the seven- ear teenth century, and in @ worse condi- a asia 1 tion by the Protestant missionaries— and Boer both endeavoring to convert them, un- Dene til the Chinese government interfered So long o merce, ; ‘r attempts. wee Hie beginning of the seventeenth century the der of the Jesuit mission at Peking, Father Me Ricci, received a young Jew who came to poate declaring that he worshiped one God. At ene seeing a picture representing the Virgin = me child Jesus, he believed she was Rebekah win Hsau or Jacob, and said that he came from wy Fung-Foo, in the province of Honan, where a a twelve families belonging to his religion dwelt, having a synagogue, in which there were books written in the language (Hebrew) of a Bible shown to him by Ricci. Too old to travel, Ricci sent to K’ai-Fung-Foo a Chi- ree nese Jesuit. Later, Ss the Jesuits Aleni i b (1618), Gozani (1704), Gaubel, and Do- menge (Father Tobar, “Inscriptions Juives de Kai-Fung-Fu,” Shanghai, 1900), brought with them SHH) 7 SNWAARREREEE SEB OD, 2 ee) ee) | HT wi AN much information yy from K’ai-Fung-Foo, iY which they had vis- ited. When the existence of Jews in China be- came known to their European — brethren, Steps were taken to communicate with them by Isaac Nieto, haham of London (1760), who addressed @ Hebrew letter to them imploring them to give information of their origin, their condition, and their needs. Their answer, writ- rig! Hebrew and Chinese, has disappeared. In ew pt Finn, British consul at Jerusalem, in- es himself in these Chinese Jews; and a Ilet- S He rich he received from them (1870) in reply a oie printed In his work “The Orphan Col- ate ews in China,” 1872, disclosed the sad fact. this eir utter destitution and religious decay. But State of affairs had been made known as early almost destitute of raiment and shelter. a ) J — 4 til Interior of the Synagogue at K’ai-Fung-Foo, China. (From “ Jewish Quarterly Review.’’) quiries made on behalf of the London Missionary Society. In order to secure information of the Chinese Jews at K’ai-Fung-Foo, a number of missionaries and Jewish merchants were sent thither. They re- ported that a few families, Jewish in name only, but sharply differentiated from the surrounding heathens and Mohammedans, lived there in abject poverty. They could read no Hebrew, had not had a rabbi for fifty years, intermarried outside the faith, and preserved only a few ceremonies and names of holy days. ** The expectation of a Messiah seems to have been entirely lost. ‘The rite of circumcision, which appears to have been ob- served at the period of their discovery by the Jesuits two centu- ries ago, had been totally discontinued. ... They had peti- tioned the Chinese emperor to have pity on their poverty, and to rebuild their temple. No reply had been received from Pe- king; but to this feeble hope they still clung. Out of seventy family names or clans [see above] not more than seven now re- mained, numbering about 200 individuals in all, dispersed over the neighborhood. A few of them were shopkeepers in the city ; others were agriculturists at some little distance from the suburbs ; while a few families aiso lived in the temple precincts, According to present appearances, in the judgment of native messengers, after a few years all traces of Judaism will probably have disappeared, and this Jewish remnant will have been amalgamated with and absorbed into surrounding Mohammedanism” (Smith, ‘* The Jews at Kai-Fung-Fu,” London, 1851, passim; “Jews in China,” in ‘* North-China Herald,” No. 25, Jan. 18, 1851). Two of the Chi- nese travelers were sent a second time to K’ai-Fung - Foo, and returned to Shang- hai in July, 1851, ail\ vim 1 mat e & e i age bringing with them mi) =e new information a7 4 : : = SS8 which corrected in ty : i WS part the previous re- SAR 7 SS ports : ‘During their former visit our travelers, by mis- taking family names for individuals, greatly under- een rated the number of the Jewish community. Cir- cumcision also appears to be practised, though the tradition respecting its origin and object ap- pears to be lost among them.” Attempts to send Jews to offer a help- ing hand to the for- lorn brethren and to revive the colony were made in England and in the United States in 1852 and 1864, but without success, owing to the occurrence of the T’ai-P’ing rebellion, the federal war, and the death of Benjamin II., the Jewish traveler, who had in- terested himself in them (see Benjamin II., “ Acht Jahre in Asien und Afrika,” 1858, p. 157, and the appeal made in the “ Jewish Chronicle” for April 29, 1864). After the T’ai-P’ing rebels had left the Yang-tse Begs LiLét China THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA River, going northward in 1857, the Jewish colony of K’ai- *ung-Foo was scattered with the rest of the population, audits members fled to Attempts various places, even to the seaports. to Re- Two or three of these were known to habilitate the present writer. They bad all of Colony. the characteristic features of those of their race who came to Shanghai in 1851, although they were dressed like the other Chinese and wore a cue. Most of them returned to K’ai-Fung-Foo. The information given by Aaron Arnauld in 1855 (see Benjamin IL., 7.¢.); by A. P. Martin, the Ameri- can missionary, in his work “A Cycle of Cathay” (see also “Monatsschrift,” 1895, p. 828); by Lieb- ermann, in his re- port to the Anglo- Jewish Association (see “Jew. Chron.” July 11, 1879); and, finally, by Lehmann, an officer of the Ger- man army at Kiau- Chau (“ American He- brew,” Jan 12, 1900), has given the impulse toan ayitation which promises to bring re- lief and possibly re- instation to the or- phan colony (see “Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiii, 40; “Jew. Chron.” June 22, 1900, and Aug. 28, 1902). According to Aaron Arnauld, cous- in of Aaron Arnauld, the grand rabbi of Strasburg (see Ben- jamin IT., J.¢.), many Jews have emigrated, wars with the Tatars, to Kiang-su, to Arnoy, and to Peking; but they have no synagogue in those places. A number of Jews have under English protection removed to Shanghai and Hongkong, where they have engaged in the opium and cotton trades. In 1900 the community of K’ai-Fung-Foo num- bered 140 souls, without a leader, synagogue, or any well-defined system of education. Since 1900 re- newed efforts have been made by the Society for the Rescue of the Chinese Jews, looking toward the res- toration of the Jewish religion at K’ai-Fung-Foo. Several Jews of Shanghai have interested themselves in this work. G. H. Cr. II. Religious Customs: The synagogue of K’ai-Fung-Foo, since 1870 a heap of ruins, is de- scribed by the Jesuit fathers of the eighteenth cen- tury as having covered a space from 300 to 400 feet in length and 150 feet in width, with its four gy facing the west; that is, toward Jerusalep 1 Kings viii. 38; Dan. vi. 11), iy The center of the first court Stood, : Synagogue rounded in Chinese fashion by 4, at K’ai- a large triumphal arch, bearing Fung-Foo. scription in Chinese characters - cording the dedication of the buy : to the Creator and Preserver of all things, bath-houses and lavatories in these precincts mh apparently used for ablution in preparation ; divine service. The second court, entered hy great gate, was opened only on special OCCasin, Dwellings for , keepers of the eqy, flanked its NOT the and southern Wal The third court, & taining recept, rooms for guests} through another, umphal arch into, morial chapels, each side. The foy court consisted oft; divisions — separa: by a row of tn In the center of, stood a large bray vase of incense a marble lion upon, pedestal, on eith; side of which the was placed a brag vase filled with flo ers—certainly in y cordance with ( nese customs 4, views. Adjoiningt northern wall, hos ever, Was & recess which, in conform with Gen. xxxili the sinews were & tracted from then la : ‘ ws of K’ai-Fung-Fou, China. . during the Chinese ae Grom a eas ioe ) mals slain for fool- an institution allt more remarkable since nowhere else is the synagog: chosen for that practise. 'The Chinese were sit pressed by it that they gave the dev Peculiar the name of “sinew-pluckers.” T Religious second division of the court kt Rites. through an empty space in its cenl# into the “ Hall of Ancestors” to therig and the left. Here et the vernal and autumnal eq! noxes veneration was paid in Chinese manner tot Jewish patriarchs. The mode of veneration, hot ever, differed from the Chinese in that only # names of the Biblical ancestors were written 02! tablet, and no picture was presented. Further,? stead of the animal sacrifices mentioned in ® inscription (see below), incense was used, a ceD¥ being assigned to each patriarch; the largest one Abraham as the most venerated, the rest for # other patriarchs (the twelve sons of Jacob), Mo# Aaron, Joshua, Ezra, and other Biblical pe™ THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA China 37 | nn and women. In the open space be- ** Thrice a day we pray: morning (at the fourth hour), noon, els tabernacles ornamented with poth m h these © ah every year at the Feast of Lusi were erec -oper—an edifice about 60x 40 The sy pa ee tice with a double row of four to whic ed the entrance—had in the center a ae ieuated chair with embroidered cush- ificent vchich the scroll of the Law rested upon ™ d. This was called the “chair of ; tt. xxiii. 2; “Rev. Et. Juives,” Moses” Oe cae iO: see ALMEMAR). In front XXSIV. ple was placed, upon which the name of of this a 18 was written in golden letters, accom- prayer “May he live ten thousand 1” Over the chair of Moses was a “ Shema‘ Yisrael,” “Baruk shem jops, “FF. while being as olden Hebrew letters. On a large table by the door stood six candelabra having three different kinds of light, a vase for in- : and a tablet recording the generous donations coe py the emperors of the Ming dynasty. i" laver for the washing of hands (probably for t fore reciting the benediction) stood scribed in g the priests be Tr oe the extreme end of the synagogue was the Holy of Holies (which was totally dark) containing the Ark. Inthe latter were placed the thirteen scrolls of the Law, each in a separate case and enclosed in silk curtains; that in the middle, which was the one most venerated, representing Moses, and the others representing the twelve tribes, The whole of this part of the synagogue was elevated, stairs leading up to it on both sides, and was inaccessible to any one but the rabbi and the priests, probably because the scrolls were too sacred to be handled by any but the rabbi, and because the priests used the place for the “dukan,” or blessing, both priests and rabbi undergoing ablution before the services. The place, however, regarded with especial reverence as the Holy of Holies, bore the name “House of Heaven [of God], Bet-El.” The name given to the synagogue in general was “ Li- pai-se” (Place of Ceremony, or, according to others, Weekly Meeting-House), which seems to indicate that it was used only on Sabbath for service. Asin most Eastern countries, the worshipers put off their shoes on entering the synagogue. During service they wore a blue head-dress in contradistinc- tion to the Mohammedans, who wear a white one, A remarkable custom prescribed that he who read the Law should cover his face with a trans- parent veil of gauze, in imitation of Moses (Ex. XXKLV, 33); a practise unknown otherwise, but to ae Paul seems to allude as being well established ve 13 time, when he says. “For until this day re- aineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament” (II Cor. fii. 14). — ae of the reader stood a monitor, to cor- survival of 1 es if necessary (this is probably a fig ue €meturgeman). The practise of call- Oia ewe: to read from the Law does not seem bigs fais known. In the inscription of 1489 are given regarding divine service: Holy of Holies. and evening (at the sixth hour).”? This corresponds with Ps. Iv. 18, not with the Mishnah Ber. iv. 1. ‘*The worshiper first bends his body (WINTW->); then he offers the silent prayer, swaying the body to and fro; and at the close he retreats three paces and then advances five, afterward turning toward the left and the right, and finally looks upward and downward in order thus to profess the belief that God is everywhere ”’ (com- pare R. Akiba in Ber. 31a). Very singular, and indicative of powerful Chinese influence, is the following: “ It is incumbent upon the Jew to venerate his ancestors. Twice in the year—in spring and in autumn—he offers them oxen and sheep together with the fruits of the season’ (compare Tobit iv. 17; Tosef., Shek. 1.12). Noteworthy also are the following passages: ‘* Four days every month are devoted to purification, fasting, and charitable acts” [whether these are Fridays, the preparatory days for the Sabbath, or the four lunar phases of each month, is not clear]. ‘‘ Each seventh day is devoted to rest, and afresh period of good deeds com- mences anew.” Here reference is made to the ancient Chinese work, the ** Book of Diagrams.’’ ‘‘In the fourth season of the year the Jew places himself under severe restraint for seven days [seven in place of the Ten Penitential Days}. One entire day [Day of Atonement] he abstains altogether from food, de- voting the time to prayer and repentance.” The Sabbath and festivais were, indeed, strictly observed by them, including even the Feast of Sim- hat Torah, when Pater Domenge saw them carry the thirteen scrolls of the Law in procession round the Bet-El Ark ; the Song of Moses, however, was read the day before, on Shemini ‘Azeret. Services for the Fast of Ab and for Purim are also included in their litur. gies. Their celebration of the New Moon asa festival is proof of a pre-Talmudic tradition (compare Soferim xix. 9). Their calendar was regulated Sabbaths by the moon like that of the rest of and the Jews, and like that of the Chinese. Festivals. In this connection the fact should be noted that their division of the Torah is into fifty-three weekly portions for the Sabbaths of the year, as is stated also in the account of the hand. ing down of the Law given in the inscription of 1489: Abraham is ** the nineteenth in descent from Adam, who in the year 146 of the Chow dynasty (2108 B.C.) became the founder of the religion of the One God, denouncing the worship of images. His sublime doctrine was submitted to Moses, who in the six hundred and thirteenth year of the Chow dynasty (1641 B.C.), after forty days’ stay on Mount Sinai spent in fasting and in communion with God, brought down the Law. From him were the fifty-three portions of the Torah, together with the tradition handed down to Ezra, the great reformer and contem- porary of the founder of the Chinese religion [Confucius].”’ This division differs from the Masoretic tradition, which, as a rule, has fifty-four portions (see Zunz, “G. V.” p. 4, note ce., where only two exceptional author- ities are quoted); it seems to have been based upon the regular fifty-two Sabbaths of the year, with*an additional parashah (Deut. xxxiii.-xxxiv.) for She- mini ‘Azeret or Simhat Torah. As will be seen further on, they had also Haftarot for the Minhah service, which, again, differed from Talmudical cus- tom, and had only its parallel in some Babylonian (or ancient Persian?) congregations (see Shab. 116b; Rapoport, “‘Erek Millin,” pp. 170 e¢ seg.). Their pronunciation of Hebrew was found by the Jesuit fathers to correspond with the one generally accepted by the Jews; also their views of the Merkabah and of the future. Bibliomancy was practised by them. If the statement in Finn’s “The Jews in China” (p. 7) be correct, they were not particular in regard to eating forbidden animals. Their literature also bears the stamp of various China Chmielnicki epochs, a fact not fully kept in mind by Jewish writers on the subject. According to a description given by the missionaries (Finn, /.¢. Their pp. 28-48), the following classes of Literature. books were deposited in the Bet-Ei Ark besides the scrolls of the Law: (1) The Ta-King, or Temple Scripture, containing the fifty-three parashiy yot for the Sabbaths of the year, written in large letters with the vowel-points, ac- cents, and other scribal signs. (2) The Haftarah, or “supplementary books,” containing selected por- tions from Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the Later Prophets. (3) The historical books—proba- bly more correctly, as Finn thinks, the Hagiographa, comprising Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, the first chap- ters of Chronicles, and the two books of the Mac- cabees. These last, together with Judith and Ben Sira, in their possession, are another indication of a greater antiquity than has been assigned them by many writers. (4) Expositors. What these books contained was not ascertained by the Catholic fa- thers; possibly they were of a Midrashic character, and, if so, they would be of great value to stu: dents if they could be obtained. (5) Ritual books, about fifty in number, one of which bore the title “Minhah Tamid ” (Perpetual Afternoon Service), and contained besides the prayers the readings for each Sabbath afternoon of the year and a special Minhah Maftir (Haftarah). A special Minhah for the New Moon festival was also pointed out. Their liturgy, as preserved in the books taken to Europe, bears quite a different character. These books, after careful examination by Neubauer and Elkan Adler (“Jew. Quart. Rev.” viii. 128, x. 584), have been shown to belong to the geonic time—some of the piyyutim are compositions of Saadia—and they were introduced into China from Per- Their sia. The ritual is decidedly Persian; Liturgy. and the directions for the prayers, the translations of parts of the piyyutim, as well as the colophons at the end of the Penta- teuch sections, are in Persian. Parts of the Mish- nah are quoted in their prayer-book, but nothing from the Gemara. The Pentateuch shows observance of the same sof- eric rules regarding the letter “ waw” and the {pw A°3 as are found in the Yemenite scrolls (see G. Margo- liouth, in “Cat. Hebrew and Samaritan MSS. Brit. Mus.” 1899, p. 3, No. 6). The Aramean language is used in special supplications and songs; also in the announcement of the New Moon, which is strongly tinged with Messianic hopes. So also in the Elijah song for the close of the Sabbath. In the “Hazkarat Neshamot” seven Biblical men— Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Elijah, and Elisha (perhaps Joshua and Elijah originally)—and seven Biblical women—-Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah, Jochebed, Miriam, and Zipporah—are men- tioned as representatives of the seven classes of saints who dwell under the tree of life in Eden. The Pesah Haggadah is almost the same as that of the Yemen Jews. As Elkan Adler (“Jew. Quart. Rev.” x. 601) suggests, the mSy (“ messen ger”) who signed his name as copyist upon the Pentateuch was the typical transmitter of Persian rites, rituals, and writings to these Chinese Jews. Another character- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA , istic name for a copyist is “ha-melammed» teacher). Some of the writings mentioned as were first made accessible to European schol, when brought to Shanghai from K’ai-Fung-Foq) the two Chinese travelers in 1851, as is narrate, | the following extract: Six of the twelve rolls of the Law, which they saw q their previous visit, each containing a complete copy oy whole Pentateuch, were purchased for four hundred " silver (about £130) from the Jews duly assembled to the Dury, of 300 persons; and the manuscripts were conveyed ip ,° day from the synagogue to the lodgings of our travelerg, 7 are each written in a fine legible hand on thick shee: sewed together, and are without points, or any of the i divisions into sections or even books. They are in EXCEL preservation, except one, which was injured by a flood dg, the Ming dynasty, but is considered critically of the Brey, value. .. . Forty smaller Hebrew manuscripts were th brought away, which, on further examination, may Porgs, throw light on their early history and migration. : Facsimiles of the following Hebrew MAanuscrin, which were brought back by the two Chinese voys from the synagogue, were published in 1851, Shanghai (printed at the London Missionary gq ety'’s Press): (a) Thirteenth section of the Law, MOY 78) (Ex. 1, 1-74) The last page contains the following note: ‘* Holiness to Ju, vah! The Rabbi Akiba, the son of Aaron, the son of Ezra, hey it. Shadiavor, the son of Bethuel, the son of Moses, reag; Mordecai, the son of Moses, witnessed it. And he believed; Jehovah: and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Q Twenty-third section of the Law, spp 7bx (EX. xxxviii,y xl. 38). The following note is appended to the last page: “py ness to Jehovah! The learned Rabbi Phinehas, the son of Isry the son of Joshua, the son of Benjamin, heard the reading | have waited for Thy salvation, O Jehovah, Amen.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Rev. Etudes Juives, xxxv. 110; xliix 301; Cordier, Les Juifs en Chine, Paris, 1891; idg Bibliotheca Sinica, 1766-68, cols. 685-638; Jew. Rev. viii. 128, 362; ix. 746; x. 624; xiii. 18; Jour. Amo Soc. ii. 341, tii. 235; Athenw@um, Feb. 6, 1892, p. 18: & natsschrift fiir Gesch.und Wissenschaft des Judenthun Xxxvii. 289; tb. xxxix. 327 et seq.; Jew. Chron. Londy April 6, 1900, p. 19; July 22, 1900, p. 21; Jan. 4, 1901, p. & Aug. 4, 1901, p. 10; Bloch’s Wochenschrift, 1900, pp. 44, 7: Katz, Israelitische Monatsschrift, 1898, Nos. 1-4; Die Wi No. 20, p. 10; No. 5, p. 9; Lopez, The Portuguese in Moai bar, p. |xxxii., Lisbon, 1898; Gesellschaft fiir Jlidixh Volkskunde, i. 7; Jaarboeken voor die Geschiedenis & Jooden in Nederland, 1838, p. 120; Delitzsch, Gesch. & Jidischen Poesie, p. 138, Leipsic, 1886; L’ Univers Israéliy, 1901, Nos. 28, 29, 30; Louis Lévy, Les Juifs en Chine; Ba jamin IL., Acht Jahrein Asien und Afrika, 1858, pp. lt 163; Andree, Volkskunde der Juden, 1881, pp. 244-248; 4 K. Glover, The Jews of the Extreme Eastern Diasporat The Menorah, iv.-vi., and in the Babylonian and Orient Records, v.-vi.; Cat. of Burrow Library; Chinese scrolbi possession of Judge Sulzberger, Philadelphia, Pa., andd Lenox Library, New York; Finn, The Jews in China,pt London, 1843: idem, The Orphan Colony of Jews in Chin London, 1872 ; compare letter in Hebrew from Jews of Lond to Jews of China in L760, Brit. Mus. MS., Add. No. 29,868; Chr topher Theophilus von Murr, in Journal zur Kunst und lt teratur, 1779, vii. 240 et seq. + ib. 1780, ix. 81 et seq. ; idem, I natii Koegleri, 8. J., Pekini .. . Notitiw 8. 8. Bibliont Judcorum tn Imperio Sinensis, p, 88, Halle, 1805; iden Versuch einer Geschichte der Juden in Sina, p, 136, Halk 1806; De Guignes, in Mem. de Litt. Tirés des Registra l Academie des Inscriptions et Beiles-Lettres, 1808, xiv. 763 et seq.; Silvestre de Sacy in Notices et Extraits & Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque du Roi, 1831, iv. 592 et & xii. 277 et seq. BE. C. K. CHINNERETH, also CHINNEROTH: ! The sea marking the eastern boundary of the Iss itish possessions, whence the boundary proceeded! the River Jordan to the Dead Sea (Num. xxxiv. !! It also marked the western boundary of the tm Jordanic tribes (Deut. iii. 17). In later times the# was called Gennesaret or lake of Galilee; the moa name is Bahr Tabariyyah (Lake of Tiberias). I’ about 13 miles in length and 8 miles wide, its g™ THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 89 little north of the center. It is ; ing @ width belms q-level. The Jordan flows into and The lake itself is filled with vari- oun ion of Jose . XIX. Q, Ind Lae Talmudic authority is identified with eubauer, “G. T.” p. 214). It is of con- ae equity, as it occurs in a hieroglyphic siderable OF rnothmes IIL. (W. Max Maller, “Asien 7 p. 84). rowll ek G. B. L. CHINON, SAMSON OF. See SAMSON oF CO HIOS: Island in the Augean Sea; Turkish pos- sion, 344 miles west of Smyrna. It is not known re any certainty when the Jews first established a selves at Chios. According to the local legends pee by the traveler Joseph Benjamin IJI., the an cemetery of the island contains the tomb of JacoB BEN ASHER, author of the “'Turim,” who is aid to have put in at the island in order to avoid shipwreck, and lived there for a number of years, un ti) bis death in 1840. The supposed tombstone of this jearned rabbi is era at eee a sa Nay inscription has become ilegibie. e tom ae oe the Jews aS holy ground. Formerly troops of pilgrims from Smyrna met there, espe- cially on the thirty-third day of ‘Omer. The syna- gogue of the island of Chios is named after Jacob n Asher. ae was an object of dispute in the Middle Ages among the Byzantine emperors, the Genoese and the Venetians; and it fell into the hands of the Otto- man Turks in 1595. Probably under the Turkish dominion the Jewish community of the island gradu- ally grew. Toward 1700 Isaac al-Ghazzi, a rabbi be- longing to a Smyrnese family of Talmudists, was chief rabbi of the island; he is the author of a He- brew work, “ Doresh Tob,” a collection of discourses. Nothing further is heard of this community, al- though it continued to exist, for the magnificent marble tomb of Fernandez Diaz, a Jew of Salonica, dating somewhat prior to 1800, still attracts the ut- tention of visitors to the cemetery. The spiritual leaders of the community during the nineteenth century were R. Mordecai Aboab, R. Matathia Alluf, and R. Abraham Franco, who offici- ated for twelve years (1846-58). The chief event in the history of the Jews of Chios during that century was the earthquake >f April 4, 1881. Twenty-one of them were killed, eight disappeared, and twenty- four were crippled, The Alliance Israélite Univer- Selle Sent aid to the island through its representa- lives at Smyrna. The catastrophe had some good results, however, for the ghetto, situated within the Walls of the castle, was completely destroyed, and earn determining to live outside the city, set- ee mM the Frankish quarter, among the Greek odox, Catholic, and Protestant inhabitants. - Re Jews of Chios number only 200 in a total of ee Inhabitants, including Greek Orthodox, Ro- 0 Catholics, and Mohammedans. In 1885 they China Chmielnicki built, through public subscription, a fine synagogue in the Frankish quarter. As the community is too small to be elaborately organized, it has a lay pres- ident who guards the interests of his coreligionists be- fore the government, and raisesa tax (the “ gabelle” ) on meat, which is the only revenue for paying the ex- penses of the synagogue and for contributing to the support of the two Jewish schools. The schools, which are both in the same building, are subsidized by the Alliance Israélite Universelle; together they count seventy pupils, fifteen of whom are Gentiles, Since 1890 Moses Issachar has been president of the community, succeeding his brother Judah, who died in that year. D. M. Fr. CHIQUITILLA. See GreaTILua. CHISDAI. See Haspar; Hispat. CHITTIM (KITTIM). See Cyrrrus, CHIUN: A word occurring in connection with “Siccuth ” in Amos v. 26. Scholars have long been puzzled to know whether in this passage they are common nounsor proper names. “Siccuth” is proba- bly the Assyrian “Sakkut” (Schrader, “K. A. T.” pp. 442 e¢ seg.), on epithet of Niniband Anu. WNinib was identified with Saturn (Jcnsen, “ Kosmologie,” p. 186), the Assyrian name of which was “ Kaiman” (“Kaiwan”). The Septuagint and Syriac readings give ground for holding that #1"5 originally stood in the Hebrew text in place of f° (compare Barton, “Studies of Oriental Club of Philadelphia,” p. 113; and Nowack, “ Kleine Propheten,” p. 143), the point- ing of the latter being a Masoretic distortion on the pattern of yipyw (“abomination”). “Sakkut” and “Kaiwan” occur together in Rawlinson, “ Inscrip- tions of Western Asia,” iv. pl. 52, col. 4, line 9, ina list of epithets (compare Zimmern, “ Beitr. zur Kennt- niss der Babylonischen Religion,” i. 10). Probably they were introduced together here through Baby- lonian influence in a verse regarded by Welihausen (“Kleine Propheten,” ad toc.) and Nowack, on the basis of II Kings xvii. 30, asa gloss. Budde (“Re- gion .f Israel to the Exile,” pp. 67 e¢ seq.) regards the verse .3 genuine, and the Babylonian influence as potent in the wilderness. Reuss and W. R. Smith (“Old Testament and the Jewish Church,” 2d ed., p. 294) translate the two words as common nouns and find no trace of foreign worship in the verse, which they regard as genuine, This view is not so probable as the other. J. JR. G. A. B. CHMIELNICKI, BOGDAN ZINOVI: Het- man of the Zaporogian Cossacks, born about 1595; died at Chigirin Aug. 16, 1675. Unlike many other Little-Russian pupils of the Jesuits, Chmielnicki did not embrace Roman Catholicism, but early in life became a champion of the Greek Orthodox faith, to which most of the Cossacks and the Little-Russian peasants belonged. While still in the subordinate position of a “sotski” (an officer over a hundred) of the Cossacks, subject to the Polish magnate Koniec- polski, he was deprived by Chaplinski, the bailiff of Chigirin, of: his estate of Subotovo. Chaplinski availed himself of Chmielnicki’s absence to make a Chmielnicki Cholera Asiatica raid on the place, during which the young son of the owner received injuries from which he ultimately died, and Chmielnicki’s (second) wife was carried off. In this raid Chaplinski was aided by the lease- holder of Chigirin, the Jew Zachariah Zabilenki. At another time, it is related, a Jew reported to the Polish government a secret treaty concluded by Chmielnicki with the Tatars. These personal indig- nities and injuries embittered him against the Poles and the Jews. Still, he was not without friends among the Jews themselves; for, according to Na- than Hannover, the Jew Jacob Zabilenki—possibly a relative of Zachariah—aided him to escape from prison when arrested by Koniecpolski. It appears, therefore, that though his personal re- sentment influenced his decision to rid the Ukraine of the Jews, yet there is little doubt that it was his great ambition to become the ruler of the liberated Ukraine, which was the main motive that led him to instigate the uprising of the Little-Russian people against the Poles and the Jews. For years the peo- ple of Little Russia had been oppressed by the Po- lish landlord. Unwilling to attend to the details of administration himself, Chmielnicki made the Jewa go-between in his transactions with the peasants of Little Russia. He sold and leased certain privileges to Jews for alump sum, and, while enjoying himself at the court, left it to the Jewish leaseholder and collector to become the embodiment of hatred to the oppressed and long-suffering peasant. The accu- mulated store of animosity was utilized by Chmiel- nicki in directing his cruel measures against the Jows. He told the people that the Poles had sold them as slaves “into the hands of the accursed Jews.” With this as their battle-cry, the Cossacks let loose their wildest passions and most ruthlessly massacred about three hundred thousand Jews with such crucities as the world had seldom witnessed (1648- 1649). For this great catastrophe the Jews might have prepared themselves had they taken warning from the uprising of the Cossacks in 1687, when about 2,000 Jewish leaseholders and tax-collectors were killed in Pereyaslav and its vicinity. This inexcusa- ble short-sightedness may be accounted for in part by the influence of the cabalistic teachings which dom- inated the minds of the South-Russian Jews, and which, according to the interpretation of the Zohar by the cabalists, brought them to believe firmly in the coming of the Messiah in 1648. It may be added that, in spite of his numerous massacres of Poles and Jews, Chmielnicki failed to secure the liberation of the Ukraine. See also Cossacks and Lirrir Russia, H. R. CHOBA or CHOBAI: A town included among those which the Jews fortified against the attacks of Holofernes. It is mentioned in two places (Ju- dith iv. 4; xv. 4,5). Its connection with Jericho in Judith iv. 4 has induced Reland to look for it in the neighborhood of that city. He identifies it with Coabis. Conder (“ Pal. Explor. Fund Memoirs,” ii. 231) seeks to identify it with Al-Makhubbi. E. G. H. v. B. LL. CHOIR: A collection of singers with trained voices who take part in divine service and who THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ‘the choir (Suk. 50b; Maimonides, 28.). 49 are separated from the congregation. The 4 choir mentioned in the Bible is the one Otgay ized by the Levites for the Temple service, to be a, companied by musicians. The choir also sang , the offering of public sacrifices (“when the buy, offering began, the song of the Lord began,” ; Chron, xxix. 27) and at the wine-libation (Maimo, ides, “Yad,” Kele ha-Mikdash, iii.). Two Priegt, with silver trumpets gave the signal for the Chois to begin (Tamid vii. 8). The prophet Samuel and King David are saiq to have subdivided the Levites into twenty-four orde, each to serve a certain day (Ta‘an. 27b; comp, I Chron. xxv.). Some acted as doorkeepers, ay others were engaged as either singers or myg, cians, Each one was assigned his post in the cho, or orchestra, and was not permitted, undcr penalt to assume the position of anothe Levitical Hence the choristers could not jy Choir inthe instrumentalists, nor vice versa. Fiy, Temple. years’ preparation, from the age g twenty-five to thirty, was required of every Levite; this preparation included instry. tion in singing. This limitation, in vogue y the Tabernacle, was, according to the Talmud eliminated in the Temple service, where ability t sing, and pot age, was the qualification of the Levig chorister (ful. 24a). At the dedication of Solomon’, Temple the sons of the Levites accompanied the choir in singing the praise of God (II Chron. v. 18) These young Levites “sweetened” the music with their soprano voices, but were not permitted to use instruments, and were restricted from entering the priests’ hall in the Temple before the adult Levites had begun tosing. They were not allowed to stand on the same platform with the latter, but had to take up a position on the ground below (‘Ar. 13b), The Temple choir was composed of no less than twelve adult singers besides the young assistants. The question whether vocal or instrumental music formed the principal service is decided in favor of Graetz infers that the twelve Levites mentioned in the Mishnah served in the dual capacity of singers and players “Kritischer Commentar zu den Psulmen,” p. 65, Breslau, 1882), which is contrary to Maimonides, who states: “The instrumentalists were not in- cluded in the number of twelve. . . . Others who stood there were playing the musical instruments” (“ Yad,” 2. ili. 3). Women took an active part in choir-singing. At the exodus from Egypt, Miriam formed a chorus composed of women, and sounded the praise of God to the accompaniment of drumsand dance-music. It is said: “God gave to Heman fourteen sons and three daughters. All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of Female the Lord” (I Chron. xxv. 5), from Choristers. which passage some writers errone ously infer that women were included in the Temple choir. But the words “all these’ refer only to the sons, and not to the daughters, 3 is proved by the number of choir members men tinned in the list (2b. 7-81; Weisel, ad loc.). Em mentions 200 singing men and singing wome? among those that returned from Babylon to Jer a THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA i 65); but for the Temple service A of Asaph are counted (22. ili. 10; com- only the on ij. 67-xi. 22). The women choristers, are Neb. ke heard in dirges in honor of the ee Allthe singing men and the singing women " of Josiah in their lamentations” (II Chron. 95) R. Meir says those were the wives of x? ites (Pirke R. El. xvii.). the we pbis, after the destruction of the Second i aed a decree prohibiting all instrumental Tee ae asasign of national mourning: “The 8 eee listens to music should be [barren] deaf; ear tho ge where there is song should eventually be any ee (Git. 7a). Later on, however, R. Hai nee Gaon contended that this referred only to Arabian love-songs. Maimonides ermitted the choir to sing in God’s saat ee at the synagogue and at all re- ligious feasts (“ Yad,” Ta‘aniyot, v. s4; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 560, 3). R. Isaiah Hurwitz (died in 1578 at Safed, Pales- tinc) regrets the choir’s custom of prolonging their singing at the end of the benedictions, thus interfer- ing with the prompt response of “Amen ” by the congregation; also their arbitrary connection and division of the words and syllables, which produce a wrong and meaningless reading. “Surely the choir of our holy Temple was sweet and pleasing both to God and to men, with due respect to precision and correct pronunciation of every letter of the words, ‘This example we must follow” (“Shene Luhot ha-Berit,” p. 293b, Amsterdam, 1698). See also “Sefer Hasidim,” § 158, on the necessity for singing prayers and the praises of God. The modern musical scale was introduced into the synagogue at Venice about 1600. Six to eight members, who became masters of music, formed a choir and sang on every holiday the “ Hallel,” “En Kelohenu,” “‘Alenu,” “ Yigdal,” and “ Adon ‘Olam.” Somemembers objected to this innovation; and the question, submitted in 1603, was Tr Scientific decided favorably by R. Judah Aryeh Musical Modena, who was supported by Choir the opinion of the following rabbis: in Later Benzion Zarfato, Leib Saraval, Ba- Times. ruch b. Samuel, Ezra Panu of Man- tua, and Judah b. Moses of Venice (“Te‘udat Shelomoh,” xxiv.). Solomon Hazzan of Metz, in his manual for can. tors, admits that a cantor can not get along with- out choristers, “just as it is impossible for. the earth to exist without wind”; but he deprecates the low character of some of the singers, and their misbeba- vior in frequenting drinking-places, in neglecting to pray in the synagogue daily, and in chatting during the prayers when they attend on Saturdays and hol- idays (¢b. xxiii.). He admonishes the choir to be careful in singing the Sabbath “Zemirot ” at home, lest it appear that they praise God for remuneration only (7b. xvi.), The beginning of the nineteenth century gave birth to two extreme parties: the Neo-Hasidim in Poland and the Reformers in Germany. While dia- eel | opposite in their views, both agreed that ging in the house of prayer is an essential part of © service. The Hasidim, however, opposed the Chmielnicki Cholera Asiatica church music and the special, organized choir, as they all joined in singing at prayers and sang the “ Zemi- rot” at home. On the other hand, Among the Reformers not only chose a trained Hasidim choir, but, through the influence of and Israel Jacobsohn at Berlin in 1817, Reformers. introduced the organ to accompany them (see ORGAN); and afterward per- mitted even a mixed choir of men and women. This action, according to Graetz, “History of the Jews,” v. 563-572, called out strong protests from the Orthodox rabbis headed by R. Moses Sofer, as being prohibited according tothe Talmud: “to listen to the voice of woman is leading to lusting after her” (Ber, 24a; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, %5, 8). The male choir is still maintained. in Ortho- dox synagogues. [A far more important ques- tion than that raised by the employment of female choristers, is whether non-Jewish choristers of either sex should be engaged in a Jewish synagogue; whether the most sacred parts of the service should thus be sung by persons unable to enter into the spirit of the religious community which they repre- sent. It is greatly to be deplored that this question has never received the serious consideration on the part of modern congregations which it really de- serves. —k. | BIBLIOGRAPHY: Abraham Portaleone, ay71399 sow, xii.-xiii. Mantua, 1612; Solomon Hazan, 15ov nr, Offenbach, 1718; Eliezer Lieberman, 72) 7s, pp. 14-18, Dessau, 1818; Abraham. b. L6b, OwNA Ay, Responsum i., Amsterdam, 1820; Joseph Levin Saalschiitz, Gesch. und Wiirdigung der Musik hei. den Hebriiern, Berlin, 1829; Abraham Zutra (Klein), rondn ‘, pp. 40, 109, Hanover, 1834; Leopold Low, Lebensalter in der Jtid. Literatur, Szegedin, 1875; idem, Gesam*melte Schriften, 1898, iv. 108-119; P. Smolenskin, OMMAIIDIT AINA, part ii., pp. 267-269; Meir Rabbinowicz, 0°22, pp. 215-221, New York, 1888; Cantoren-Zeitung, vii. No. 3. K. J. D. E. CHOLERA ASIATICA (In Hebrew sometimes a ‘Sn, “the bad disease”): A specific and com municable disease, characterized by violent vomiting and purging. It prevailsendemically in some parts of India, and from time to time is diffused epidem- ically throughout the world. The mortality is about 50 per cent of all the persons attacked. The first appearance of the disease in Europe occurred in 1817, when it broke out in Lower Bengal and thence spread over Europe, until it disappeared in 1828. Since then the disease has appeared in Europe on six different occasions; viz., in 1826, 1837, 1846, 1863, 1882, and 1892-96. According to all the etiological factors, excepting ALCOHOLISM, of course, the Jews should suffer from cholera more frequently than, or at least as often as, other races. But careful investigation has shown that during most of the epidemics Jews Immunity were affected to a lesser degree than of Jews. non-Jews; indeed, during some epi- demics they are said to have shown perfect immunity. According to Boudin, the Jews in Algiers, not- withstanding the fact that they are overcrowded in small and dark dwellings, and often in underground cellars, enjoy better health than the inhabitants of other races. Thus during the cholera epidemic of 1844-45, the mortality per 1,000 of the population was as follows: | Cholera Asiatica Chorin, Aaron 1844 1845 BUTOPEADS: oasisscncbaicn’ favs 1av ced iaeeeaereres 42.9 45.5 PL PE PITTA. oe. ois ines oak CAR h Seale we me aed 32.4 40.8 IO ys ok a waist x sighs Mss etd wee a eee 21.6 36.1 During the epidemic of cholera in Budapest, Hun- gary, in 1851, while the mortality among Christians was 1.85 per cent, that among the Jews was only 0.257 per cent, or one-seventh as great. During the epidemic of 1866 there were in every 100 deaths in the general hospital 51.76 deaths from cholera, and in the Jewish hospital 34.0 only (Tormay). From a pamphlet published in 1868 by Dr. Scalzi, professor of medicine in the University of Rome, it appears that in every 100 attacks of cholera in 1866, the Catholics had 69.13 deaths; the inhabitants be- longing to other non-Jewish cults, 42.18; the Jews, 22.0 only. In proportion to the population the mor- tality from cholera would have been 0.45 per cent for the Jews, and 1 per cent for others. Dr. Mopother of Dublin (“Revue Scientifique,” 1881, p. 625), in one of his lectures on public hy- giene, states that there was noted a surprising im- munity of the Jews in Whitechapel, London London, during recent and former Epidemics. epidemics of cholera; and Mr. Wolff, surgeon to th: poor of the Spanish and Portuguese synagogues in London, thus refers to the immunity of the London Jews in 1849: “They {the Jews] do not suffer from the depression caused by habitual intoxication. These circumstances in their favor enabled them during the epidemic of 1849 to enjoy an al- most complete immunity from the disease, which raged with frightful violence in the immediate neighborhood of the district where they most congregate, and the sanitary conditions of which, as regards cleanliness, ventilation, etc., were decidedly unfavorable” (‘* Medical Times and Gazette,”’? London, vol. vii., 1853, p. 356). During some epidemics, however, the Jews are stated to have suffered severely. Thus, according to Hirsch, in Algiers and in Smyrna, in 1831, the Jewish population suffered more from cholera than the rest of the population. The same was the case in 1831 with the Jews in Poland, Jassy (Rumania), and many other places (Hirsch, “Handbuch der Historisch Geograph. Pathologie,” Erlangen, 1851, 1. 129). From evidence collected by Boudin the mortality of the Jews during the cholera epidemic in 1831 seems to have been perceptibly higher than that of the non-Jews; but thirteen years later (as shown above) the exact opposite was the case. During the last epidemic of cholera in Europe (1891-96), there is also evidence that in some places at least the Jews enjoyed a relative immunity from the disease. Thus in 1892 in Hamburg, Germany, according to Dr. J. J. Reincke (“ Deutsche Medici- nische Wochenschrift,” 1898, p. 198), during the months of August and September there were buried in the general cemetery 6.4 times the average num- ber of dead for the three previous years; in the Jew- ish cemetery, only 3.5 times as many. According to Dr. Georg Buschan (“ Globus,” Ixvii. 47), there is evidence tending to shov, that in Berlin, Breslau, etc., the Jews suffered during the recent epidemics of cholera in Germany in a lesser degree and had a lower mortality than non-Jews. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 49 Oe NS ie NENG a, vee Similar evidence is given concerning Rugg During the cholera epidemic in Nicolayev the Jew, had a lower rate of morbidity an In mortality than the non-Jews. Int Germany city there were at that time about 75. and 000 inhabitants, of whom about 15,00) Russia. were Jews; that is, one Jew to foy non-Jews. Among the latter 4, scourge attacked 756, of whom 3882 died; among former only 36 were attacked, and but 13 of th succumbed (“ Vrach,” 1898, xiv. 115). 7 Dr. Barazhnikov reported to the St. Petershy, Medical Society that during the epidemic of Choler, in 1894 in the government of Mohilev the morbig} among the Jews was greater, and the disease, ag 4 rule, ran a severer course, than among the nop, Jews; but the percentage of mortality was smallp among the Jews. He adds that the fact must ny be forgotten that the Jews in that locality, althoug) generally poorer, are more intelligent than the, neighbors, and take better care of their health (“ Py. iy ceedings of the St, Petersburg Medical Society» 1895, p. 206). As to the causes of this comparative immunity of the Jews from cholera, authorities differ. Som think that it is due to the Jews’ regular habit, of life, and to the fact that they are engageg mostly in occupations and professions which do not expose them to infection (Lombroso, Bordier, [a. gneau, Boudin, Hirsch, etc.). But, as Buschan aptly points out, while this may hold good in epidemics of other infectious diseases, in the case of cholera the Jew should, according to present knowledge ast the propagation of the disease, be attacked mor frequently, The Jewish population is engaged mostly in occupations which favor the infection of cholera, Second-hand clothing is usually bought by the Jews, and, according to Buschan, during epi. demics of cholera they do an exceptionally large business of this kind. Buschan points out that the immunity of the Jews is due to a racial characteristic of a somatic nature, which enables them to resist infection better than the Aryan races. On the other hand, those who argue that the immunity is not due to any racial characteristic, point out that the dis Varying easeattacks preferably people addicted Opinions to the abuse of alcohol, who suffer (a Respecting a result of this) from the various forms Immunity. of dyspepsia common among habitual drinkers, and that people of temperate habits are seldom attacked. The Jews are known all over the world as an abstemious people, aod their immunity is commensurate with their sobriety. The latter view seems to be borne out by facts ob served by physicians practising among the Jews. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Boudin, Traité de Géographie Médicalé, Paris, 1857; Hirsch, Handbuch der Historisch-Geograph Pathologie, Erlangen, 1851; De Certaines Immunités Pht siologiques de la Race Juive. in Revue Scientifique, Pars 1881, i. 625; Legoyt, De Certaines Immunités de la Rati Juive, in Journ. de la Soc. de Statist. de Paris, 1869, p. 18 G. Buschan, Einfluss der Rasse auf die Form una iiZeft keit Pathologischer Verdnderungen, in Globus, 1xvil. 43, 60, 76, Brunswick, 1895; S. O. Grusenberg, Ghetto + Zatt zitelnyya Bolyesni, in Sbornik v Polzu Yevreiskikh N& chalnykh Shkol, p. 483, St. Petersburg, 1896: Tormay, Dé prenetas und Sterblichkeits-Verhdltnisse der Stadt Peé J. M. FL. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 43 OR-ASHAN (RK. VY. Cor-Ashan): This s, better given, with the earlier manu- : aer), as “Bor-ashan.” The Septuagint acne a latter spelling, although one read- also « Beersheba.” Chor-ashan (1 Sam. xxx. cH is, perbap ad ei jor-asban is probably the place known as nae G. B. I. i. “he : CHORIN (CHORINER), AARON: Hun- arian rabbi; born at Weisskirchen, Moravia, Aug. 3 1766; died at Arad, Hungary, Aug 24, 1844. At the age of fourteen he studied in the yeshibah of Rabbi Jeremias 10 Mattersdorf, Hungary, and two ears later at Prague in the higher Talmudical school of Ezekiel Landau. Here he also learned German. Chorin married Dec. 26, 1783, and entered com- merce; but bis business career being unsuccessful, he accepted the post of rabbi at Arad in the spring of 1789, which position he occupied till his death. In 1798 Chorin published his first pamphiet, “Imre No‘am ” (Words of Pleasantness), in which he d that as the sturgeon had scales it was per- mitted as food according to Scripture. His First His opinion, although following that Work. of Ezekiel Landau and other authori- ties, was strongly opposed by Mor- decai Benet and his partizans. Rabbi Isaac Kries- haber of Paks wrote a refutation, “ Makkel No‘am” (Staff of Pleasantness), which called forth a second pamphlet by Chorin, “Shiryon Kaskassim ” (Coat of Mail), Prague, 1799. By his determined opposition to the traditional usages in Hungary, Chorin incurred the hostility of most of his colleagues. In the spring of 1802 he journeyed to the Somogy district. The favorable impression which his sermons made upon his Jewish bearers there induced him to consider himself as the future rabbi of this district, and on the title-page of a pamphlet be published he assumed this title. The rich and prominent Moses Lakenbacher, presi- dent of the congregation of Gross-Kanizsa, promised Chorin his influence with his brethren of the district ; but when Lakenbacher became aware of the strong opposition of the conservative party against the re- former, he soon turned against him. At Prague in 1803 Chorin published “ ‘ Emek ha- Shaweh” (Vale of the Plain), a work divided into three parts. The first and rnaost important part, “ Rosh Amanah” (Head of the Perennial Stream), in which he granted to the spiritual guides of the people authority to modify the traditional laws and adapt them to the requirements of the time, led to much opposition to him. Chorin treats of Maimonides’ thirteen articles of faith, and gives evidence of knowledge rare among his Hungarian contempo- raries. Next to the Halakah, Chorin also interpreted the Haggadah ina philosophical way. This method he applied in like manner to the Zohar, which he, far from all mysticism, considered as a rich source of speculative knowledge. This view referred only to the theoretic or intuitive, and not the practi- cal, Cabala, the belief in which he considered as contradictory to sound reason. At the beginning of this book are printed the approbation of Rabbi Moses Miinz and aeulogistic Hebrew poem of Rabbi argue Cholera Asiatica Chorin, Aaron Moses Kunitz. This work gave great offense to the Orthodox party, which thwarted the publication of a second edition, for which Chorin Opposition had prepared many corrections and by the additions. Mord. Benet wrote to the Orthodox. Arad congregation that the book con- tained heresies and must be burned. The congregation, however, stood by their rabbi; but some of its members sided with Benet, and their leader, a rich man, publicly insulted Chorin while he was preaching. The Arad board now applied to Moses Miinz to certify that the book contained no heresies. Having given his approbation to the au- thor, Miinz was in a great dilemma, since he was urged by the Orthodox party to condemn Chorin and to inflict upon him an exemplary punishment. He concluded to yield to the insinuations, and Sept. 1, 1805, he invited two rabbis to come to Alt-Ofen to form with him a tribunal before which Chorin was summoned. The session of the court was pro- | longed to the next day, but then Minz failed to appear. Samuel Butschowitz, rabbi of Assod, now pronounced sentence that “Chorin must retract the contents of his book. Should he re- Sentence fuse to do so, his beard will be cut off Pro- asa penalty for his heretical transgres- nounced. sions.” Thereupon Chorin, whom the populace had stoned in the courtyard of the synagogue, declared that he subordinated his views to those of the theologians of his time, and desired that his book besuppressed. The court also decreed a reduction of Chorin’s salary, but the board of his congregation indignantly rejected this decree. Chorin appealed to the imperial government. which, June 24, 1806, annulled the judgment and condemned the leader of his adversaries at Arad to pay the ex- penses of the lawsuit; the same was also to be pun- ished for his scandalous conduct on Sabbath Teshu- bah, 1804. Chorin declared that he forgave his adversary, and declined his claims for compensation of the expenses. To avoid further trouble, he de- termined to give up writing. The Reform movement among the Jews of Ham- burg met his hearty approval. In “Kin‘at ha- Emet” (Zeal for Truth), a paper writ- ten April 7, 1818, and published in the collection “Nogah ha-Zedek” (Light of Righteousness), he declared himself in favor of reforms, such as German prayers, the use of the organ, and other liturgical modifications. The principal prayers, the Shema‘, and the eighteen benedictions, however, should be said in Hebrew, he declared, as this language keeps alive the belief in the restoration of Israel. He also pleaded for opening the temple for daily service. Influenced by Moses Miinz, Chorin recalled this writing Feb. 19, 1819; but a year later he pub- lished “ Dabar be-‘Itto” (A. Word in Its Time), in which he reaffirmed the views expressed in “ Kin’at ha-Emet,” and pleaded strongly for the right of Reform. A German translation by L6b Herzfeld ap- peared at Vienna. This directed upon him the atten- tion of the progressive party in Austria and in Ger- many. Michael Lazar Biedermann, a prominent man, proposed the appointment of Chorin at the new temple to be erected at Vienna; but the Attitude Toward Reform. Chorin, Aaron Chosen People THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 44 government being opposed to it, Mannheimer was elected instead. The government of the grand duchy of Baden asked Chorin (Feb. 8, 1821), through the banker 8. Haber, for his opinion about the duties Consulted of a rabbi, and about the reforms in by Baden. the Austrianstates. Chorin answered by writing “Iggeret Elasaf,” or “ T.et- ter of an African Rabbi to His Colleagues in Europe,” which was published by M. J. Landau, Prague, 1826. In it he stated that the Torah comprised religious truths and religious laws, the latter partly applica- ble only in Palestine, partly obligatory every where. These may be temporarily suspended, but not en- tirely abolished, by a competent authority, such as a synod. Only ordinances and precautionary laws which are of human origin may be abrogated in conformity with the circumstances of the time. As for mere customs and usages (minhagim), the gov- ernment, after having consulted Jewish men of knowledge, may modify or abolish them; but in no other way may it interfere with religious affairs. Chorin also pleaded for the establishment of consis- tories, schools, a theological seminary, and for the promotion of agriculture and professions among the Jews. Someof these ideas he carried out in hisown congregation, which included a great number of mechanics. He succeeded in founding a school, and introducing liturgical reforms into the synagogue; even an organ was installed at hisinstance. He per- mitted the eating of rice and pulse during the days of Passover. To his theory of a synod regulating and modify- ing Jewish laws and customs, Chorin always adhered. In his “Treue Bote” (Prague, 1831) he declared himself against the transfer of the Sabbath to Sun- day, but expressed the opinion that, considering the requirements of our time, synods might mitigate the severity of the Sabbatical laws, especially in re- gard to traveling and writing. In another treatise, “Hillel,” which appeared at Ofen, 1885, he interpreted the prophetic promises about the reuniting of Israel to signify the estab- lishing of a supreme religious authority at Jerusa- lem. “Hillel,” in the form of a dialogue, and other contributions of his pen were published in the fourth volume of “Bikkure ha-‘Iitim.” Jn 1819 he wrote “Abak Sofer” (The Dust of a Writer), pub- lished by M. IJ. Landau, Prague, 1828, containing glosses about Yoreh De‘ah, Eben ha-‘Ezer, the phy- lacteries, an exposition of Prov. i. 10 et seqg., and two riddles. In his “Yeled Zekunim” (Child of Old Age), Vienna, 1839, partly in Hebrew, partly in German, he again strongly advocated practical reforms in re- gard to railroad traveling on the Sabbath and on holidays, the abridgment of the seven days of mourn- ing, the use of the organ, etc., and gave a short sketch of his life. His biographer, Leopold Liéw, wrote an introduction to this work. In consequence of the Damascus affair in 1840, Chorin republished the apology written 1753 by Sonnenfels, in which the author proves the falsity of the blood accusation. Chorin added an introduc- tion and Léw a biographical notice. On July 26, 1844, during the last weeks of his life, he wrote from his sick-bed a declaration expressing his full accord with the rabbinical conference at Brunswick, and Aug. 11 he sent an address to the con. ference of Hungarian rabbis at Paks. He took an active part in the efforts for Jewish emancipation, and was very influential with the state authorities. His grandson, Franz Chorin, was Hungarian ca L. G, 3 Man. CHORIN, FRANZ: Hungarian deputy; grand- son of Aaron Chorin; born at Arad May 11, 1842. He studied law at Arad, Budapest, and Vienna, and began practise in his native city, where he soon be- came vice-president of the barassociation. He was elected in 1870 as representative of the city of Arad to the Hungarian Parliament, of which he was a member continuously for twenty-one years, He is recognized as one of the leading orators and jurists of the country. The Exchange Law of 1876 is en- tirely his work. For many years he agitated for the modification of Hungarian criminal procedure in accordance with the more liberal English laws. His efforts culminated in success when, in 1896, he was appointed to draft and report upon this bill, which was subsequently passed by the House. In Parliament he had often the opportunity of defend- ing his coreligionists, and contri»uted largely to the eradication of anti-Jewish prejudice. In 1881 he became director of the coal-mining company of Sal- gdOtarjan; since then he has devoted himself to labor questions. The city of Szatmar, which he repre- sented in the Hungarian Parliament from 1895 to 1901, elected him an honorary citizen in 1902, in recognition of his public services. Ss. L. V. CHORNY, JOSEPH JUDAH: Russian trav- eler; born at Minsk April 20, 1885; died at Odessa April 28, 1880. His parents destined him for the wine-growing industry; but after having been graduated as a viticulturalist, he, owing to an indomitable passion for travel and exploration, aban- doned this career. For eight years Chorny, with practically no means, explored a great part of the Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and many Asiatic coun- tries; studying everywhere the life, customs, and history of the inhabitants, and chiefly those of the Jews. In 1875, on returning from his travels, he endeavored to publish his studieson the Jews of the countries he had visited, but failed to find the nec- essary means. He resumed the life of an explorer; and after five years of hardships and privations returned, in ill health and poverty, to Odessa, where he died shortly after his arrival. Chorny was highly appreciated by the officials of the Russian government, and his studies on the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, published in various Russian papers, attracted the attention of the min- ister of the interior, Loris Melikov, who recom- mended Chorny to the protection of the governor- general of Odessa. The most noteworthy of Chorny’s THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 45 ang were: “Kratkiya Istoricheskiya Svyedeniya studies kh Yevreyakh Terskoi Oblasti,” Terskiya o Gors vsti 1869; “Gorskie Yevrei,” in “ Kavkaz,” MOF eel iii. - “On the Caucasian Jews,” in “ Den,” Vy 4870, 0. 38. . . bh . horny bequeathed his manuscripts to tl e Society . Promoting Culture Among the Russian Jews; the latter commissioned A. Harkavy to edit oe They were published with Harkavy’s notes wae the title “Sefer ha-Massa‘ot ” (Book of Trav- oe) St. Petersburg. gee pias ae j ‘ h, 1880, p. ; Ha-Meliz, , p BIBLIOGRAPHY fF Boat Mandela. p. 50. , : . BR. 117: Zel H. R. CHOSAMEUS: One of “the sons of Annas o shat had “strange wives "(I Esd. ix. $2). The name can not be identified with any in the corresponding ; ra xX. 82. Jt is, most probably, a combi- list of Ezra eam nation of the last part of “ Maluch” with the first art of “ Shemariah,” names found in the Ezra list, ae remaining syllables of these names having been lided. saeeuaerD G. B. L. CHOSEN PEOPLE.—Biblical Data: Name for the Jewish people expressive of the idea of their having been chosen by God to fulfil the mission of roclaiming His truth among all the nations. This choice does not imply a superior claim, but a supe- rior duty and responsibility on the part of the Jew- ish people, inasmuch as they have been pledged by the covenant which God concluded with Abraham, their ancestor, and again with the entire nation on Sinai, to testify, by precept and example, to the truth revealed to them, to lead a holy life as God’s priest-people, and, if needs be, sacrifice their very lives for the sake of thistruth. In this peculiar sense they are called God’s own people; their religious genius, as manifested in their patriarchs, prophets, inspired poets, sages, and heroes, having rendered them the chosen people of religion to a far greater extent than the artistic and philosophical genius of the Greeks made that nation the chosen people of art and philosophy, or the juridical and political genius of the Romans made them the chosen people of law and politics. Unlike any other nation, the Jewish people began their career conscious of their life-purpose and world- duty as the priests and teachers of a universal relig- ious truth; and their whole history, Conscious- with all its tragic sternness, was and ness of to the end of time will be devoted to Selection. the carrying out of this purpose and . the discharge of thisduty. This view 18 expressed in all the Biblical and rabbinical pas- sages referring to Israel as the chosen people, or to Abraham as their ancestor. “For I have singled him out (A. V., “have known him ”] to the end that he may command his children and his house after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. xviii. 1, Hebr.; com- pare Neh. ix. 7, “Thou art the Lord, the God who didst choose Abram”). That Israel’s character as the chosen people is Conditioned by obedience to God’s commandments 18 stated in the very words of the Sinai cove- nant: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice Chorin, Aaron Chosen People indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto Conditions mea kingdom of priests, and an holy of Choice. nation” (Ex. xix. 5,6). “The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any peo- ple; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers” (Deut. vii. 7,8). The great obligation imposed upon Israel as the chosen people is especially emphasized by the prophet Amos (iii. 2): “You only have I singled out [R. V., “known”] of all the families of the earth: therefore will J visit upon you all your iniquities.” Compare Deut. xiv. 2: “Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth,” and 7b. xxiv. 18, 19, R. V. Particularly is the world-mission of the chosen people dwelt upon by Deutero-Isaiah, the seer of the Exile (Isa. xli.; xlii. 1-7; xHii. 10, God’s “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Witnesses Lord, and my servant whom I have and Their chosen”; 7). verse 21, R. V., “The Inherit- people which I formed for myself that ance. they might set forth my praise ”; com- pare xliv. 1, 2; xlix. 6, 7). As God’s chosen people, Israel is also called His “inheritance ” (Deut. iv. 20; ix. 26, 29; xxxii. 9; Ps. xxxili, 12: “The people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance”; I Kings viii. 53, Jer. x. 16; and elsewhere). As the children of the Patriarchs they are His chosen ones (Ps. ev. 6). ——In Rabbinical Literature: According to the Rabbis, Israel has not been chosen as the people of the Law on account of itsracial superiority. “Israel is of all nations the most wilful or headstrong one [nip ary ty], and the Torah was to give it the right scope and power of resistance, or else the world could not have withstood its fierceness ” (Bezah, 25b). “The Lord offered the Law to all nations; but all refused to accept it except Israel” (Mek. Yitro, Pes. R. K. 108b, 186a, 200a). “A Gentile who conse- crates his life to the study and observance of the Law ranks as high asthe high priest,” says Rt. Meir, by de- duction from Lev. xviii. 5; II Sam. vii. 19; Isa. xxvi, 2; Ps. xxxiii. 1, cxviii. 20, cxxv. 4, where all stress is laid not on Israel, but on man or the right- eous one (Sifra, Ahare Mot, 86b; Bacher, “Ag. Tan.” ii. 31). Israel is likened to the olive. Just as this fruit yields its precious oil only after being much pressed and squeezed, so Israel’s destiny is one of great oppression and hardship, in order that it may thereby give forth its illuminating wisdom (Ex. R. xxvi.). Poverty is the quality most befit- ting Israel as the chosen people (Hag. 9b). Only on account of its good works is Israel among the nations “as the lily among thorns” (Cant. R. ii. 2), or “as wheat among the chaff” (Midr. Teh. i. 4; Weber’s “System der Altsynagogalen Theologie,” etc., pp. 59-69, is full of glaring errors and misstate- ments on the subject of Israel as the chosen people). In the Jewish liturgy, praise is frequently offered to God for having chosen Israel from among all the Chosroes Christ THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 46 SSS ae ee SSS eg ee eee ay nations of the earth: in AHABAH RaBBauH, in the benediction before the reading from the Law, and in the seven benedictions of the holy days and New Moon; concerning which see Geiger’s “Jitid. Zeit.” vil. 55: and Einhorn, in “Protocolle der Zweiten Rabbinerversammlung,” p. 75, Frankfort- on-the-Main, 1845. “The character of Israel as the chosen people,” writes Giidemann (“Das Judenthum,” 1902, p. 44) “does not involve the inferiority of other nations. The universality of Israel’s idea of God is sufficient proof against such an assumption. Every nation re- quiresa certain self-consciousness for the carrying out of its mission. Israel’s self-consciousness was tem- pered by the memory of its servitude in Egypt and the recognition of its being ‘ the servant of the Lord.’ It was the noblesse oblige of the God-appointed worker for the entire human race.” E. C. K. CHOSROES (KHOSRU) II. PARWIZ (“The Conqueror”): King of Persia from 591 to 628. Chosroes, on the plea of avenging the death of his father-in-law, the Byzantine emperor Maurice (Mauritius), who had been murdered by the usurper Phocas (602), invaded Asia Minor and Syria at the head of a largearmy. The Jews joined the Persians in great numbers under the leadership of Benjamin of Tiberias, a man of immense wealth, by whom they were enlisted and armed. The Tiberian Jews, with those of Nazareth and the mountain cities of Galilee, marched on Jerusalem with the Persian divi- sion commanded by Shahrbaraz. Later they were joined by the Jews of southern Palestine; and sup- ported by a band of Arabs, the united forces took Jerusalem by storm (July, 614). Ninety thousand Christians are said to have perished. The story that the Jews purchased the Christian prisoners from their Persian captors and put them to death in cold biood is a pure invention. In conjunction with the Persians, the Jews swept through Palestine, des- troyed the monasteries which abounded in the country, and expelled or killed the monks. Bands of Jews from Jerusalem, Tiberias, Galilee, Damas- cus, and even from Cyprus, united and undertook an incursion against Tyre, having been invited by the 4,000 Jewish inhabitants of that city to surprise and massacre the Christians on Easter night. The Jewish army is said to have consisted of 20,000 men. The expedition, however, miscarried, as the Chris- tians of Tyre learned of the impending danger, and seized the 4,000 Tyrian Jews as hostages. The Jewish invaders destroyed the churches around Tyre, an act which the Christians avenged by killing two thousand of their Jewish prisoners. The be- siegers, to save the remaining prisoners, withdrew. The immediate results of these wars filled the Jews with joy. Many Christians became Jews through fear. . with whom he has fought drawn battles, have been Dan Creedon, “Kid” McCoy, James Jeffries, T. Sharkey, and Steve O’Donnell. Choynski has fought more than fifty battles, of which he has los; but seven. A. F. H. V. CHRIST (Greek, Xprordc): Septuagint translation of Hebrew “ Mashiah” (“ Messiah ”=The Anointed), Surica nity. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 4 8 applied by Christians exclusively to Jesus as the Messiah (see Jesus oF NazARETH and MESSIAH). de | K. CHRISTIAN: A word denoting a follower of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ. It originated, ac- cording to Acts xi. 26, in Antioch, the Syrian capi- tal, where, shortly after the failure of the Hellenistic movement in Jerusalem (7b. viii. 1, xi. 19), the doc- trine of the risen Christ was propagated among the non-Jewish population, and where the first impor- tant church of the Christians was established by Barnabas and Paul about the year 44. This early origin of the name has been questioned by F. C. Baar (“ Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi,” i. 108), Lipsius (“Ueber den Ursprung des Christenna- mens,” 1873), Hausrath (“ Neutestamentliche Zeit- geschichte,” ii. 3892), and Weizsicker (“ Aposto- lisches Zeitalter,” p. 90), but is upheld by Keim (“Aus dem Urchristenthum,” pp. 171-181). Jose- phus, in the well-known passage concerning Jesus (“ Ant.” xviii. 8, 83; not all of which is spurious), speaks of the “tribe of Christians” as still existing. It is certain that except in Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28, and I Peter iv. 16—passages referring to the persecution of Christians in Rome—the name occurs nowhere in the New Testament or in the early Christian litera- ture. In all probability it owes its origin to a Ro- man or Latin-speaking population. The fact that the early Christians met for worship in the name of Christ and called themselves those “of Christ” (I Cor. i. 12) induced the pagans to regard them as the partizan followers of a leader of that name. Hence they coined the name “Christiani” for them, as a nickname after the example of “Cesarians” or “Pompeians.” Unfamiliar with the name “ Christus,” the pagans pronounced the name also “ Chrestos ” {Xpyoréc), and spoke of the Christians as “ Chrestiani ” (Tertullian, “ Apologia,” p. 3; Justin, “ Apologia,” i, 4; compare Suetonius, “Claudius,” p, 25: “Ju- dos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit”; Gritz, “Geseh.” iii. 3, 449, is wrong in taking Chrestos for aspecial agitator in Rome). The name came into general use among the Chris- tians themselves during the second century, when it became endeared to them all the more because it entailed persecution and martyrdom (I Peter iv. 16; Luke iv. 22; Tacitus, “Hist.” xv. 44; Suetonius, “Nero,” p. 16; Pliny, “Epistles,” x. 96; Ignatius, “Epistles to the Magnesians,” p. 4; and elsewhere). They continued, however, to call one another also “the brethren” (Acts ix. 30, xi. 1; Rom. xvi. 14; Gal. i. 2), “the saints” (Acts ix. 18, 32; xxvi. 10; Rom. xii. 18, xvi. 15; Heb. vi. 10), “believers” or “faithful ones” (Acts x. 45; I Tim. iv. 8), “the elect ” (Matt. xxiv. 22, 24; Mark xiii. 20- 22; I Peter i. 1, 2), and in the earlier time also “the disciples” (Acts ix. 26, xiii. 52, xx. 30). To the Jews, to whom the reported appearance of the Messiah was a matter of frequent occurrence in those times, when the good tidings of redemption from the domination of Rome were constantly ex- pected (Josephus, “ Ant.” xvii. 10, 88 6, 7; xviii. 4, $1; xx. 5, § 1), the word “ Christian ” had no specific meaning; and when the followers of Jesus of Naza- reth began to teach a “way” different from that of the mother-synagogue (Acts ix. 2; Xvili. 25; xix. 23; xxli. 4; xxiv. 14, 22), they received the name of i “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5, XXVij 22; in Hebrew, “ Nozerim ”). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hastings, Dict. Bibl.s.v.; Cheyne and Blagg Eacye. Bibl. s.v. K CHRISTIAN, GUSTAV CHRISTOPHE. German author and Christian missionary; borp of Jewish parents; baptized in 1719; died at Nuren, berg about 1735. He was the authorof two J Uday, German works: “Yesod Emunat Yeshu‘a” (tT Basis of the Faith of Jesus), Berlin, 1712; and « Die Bekehrung Israels,” Schwabach, 1722. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sammlung von Alten und Neuen Theoly, gischen Sachen, 1723, p. 628 ; Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. iii., No. 189g D. I. Br CHRISTIANI, FRIEDRICH ALBRECH?. Jewish convert to Christianity; born in the middj of the seventeenth century; died at Prossnitz at th, beginning of the eighteenth. He was baptized jy 1674 at Strasburg, having formerly borne the nam, of Baruch as hazzan at Bruchsal. After haviy occupied for twenty years the chair of Semitic styq. ies at the University of Leipsic, he retired to Prog. nitz, where he returned to Judaism. Christiani’s works comprise the following, aj published at Leipsic: (1) “ Zebah Pesah ” (The Sacr. fice of Easter), 1677, an account of the Jewish cele. bration of Easter in the time of Jesus and at the present; (2) “Se‘udat Purim” (The Meal of Purim) 1677, a description of Jewish fasting and feasting. (3) “ Zahakan Melummad u-Mitharet ” (The Scholarly Gambler Repenting), 1683, a German translation of the work of Leon of Modena on gambling; (4) Abn. vanel’s commentary on the first Prophets, with g Latin index, 1686; (5) the text of Jonah with Tar. gum, Masorah, and the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimhi, and Abravanel, and a Hebrew-Latin vocabulary, 1683; (6) “Iggeret” (Letter), 1676, the epistle of St. Paul to the Jews, translated from the Greek into Hebrew; (7) “Traktat von dem Glauben und Unglauben der Juden,” 1713. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schudt, Jiidische Merckwtirdigkeiten, i. 2, 573: ii. 56, 88 et seq.; Reineccius, in the Introduction to Traktat von dem Glauben und Unglauben der Juden; First, Bibl. Jud. i.178; Allg. Deutsche Biographie, iv. 2B D. I. Br. CHRISTIANI, MORITZ WILHELM: Av thor and Jewish convert to Christianity; born a Altorf at the end of the seventeenth century ; died at Prague about 1740; probably a member of the Keyser family of Schleusingen (Bavaria). He claimed to have been a rabbi at Schleusingen before his baptism in 1715. Christiani wrote: (1) “Kurze Beschreibung einet Jiidischen Synagoge und eine Beschreibung det Synagogalen Gebriiuche” (Regensburg, 1723); () “Die Schlacht- und Visitir-Kunst ” (4. 1724); @ “Ausgang von dem Verstockten Judenthum ud Eingang zum Wahren Christenthum,” an account 0 his conversion, his profession of faith, and sever orations (Erfurt, 1720); (4) “Rede zur Kinladung fi! Rabbinische Studien,” written in Hebrew and Ger man, inserted in Johann David Kohler’s “ Progra (Altorf, 1715); (5) a German translation of tl? THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 49 —— - Minhagim ” of Jacob Levi (MaHaRIL), | tion from King James, he went on missionary , ba- pLiogRAy” Br ud. j. 178. I. Br. p. sTIANI, PABLO: Jewish convert of llier, France, contemporary of NAHMANIDES. Montpe” - » been baptized, Christiani joined the the Dominicans and attempted to convert oreligionists. Failing to make prose- mong the Jews of Provence, to whom he had lytes 3 t by his zealous general, Raymond de Pen- been sen Christiani planned the conversion by force y afr, pagouian Jews. To this purpose he per- of ae Raymond de Penyaforte to bring about a guade us controversy between him and Nahman- su which he felt assured of victory. Raymond ae aforte secured the consent of King James; ae ee pmanides was summoned to Barcelona, in ae to answer Christiani’s questions. ks disputation took place in the king’s palace, in the presence of the whole court and many eccle- ‘astical dignitaries, and lasted four days (July 20- 04) As suggested by Nahmanides, the subjects of cussion were three: (1) whether the Messiah had sapere (2) whether the Messiah announced by ae Prophets was to be considered as a god, or as a man born of human parents; and (3) whether the Jews or the Christians were in possession of the true faith. Christiani undertook to demonstrate from the Talmud itself the truth of the Christian faith, and feigned indignation at Nahmanides when he declared that he did not believe in those and other Haggadic stories. Christiani hoped to profit by the reserve he felt Nahmanides would be forced to main- tain through fear of wounding the feelings of the Christian dignitaries who were present. He was, however, deceived. Nahmanides mod- erately but firmly refuted all the arguments of Christiani. As the disputation turned Nah- in favor of Nahmanides the Jews of manides Barcelona, fearing the resentment of Victorious. the Dominicans, entreated him to dis- continue; but the king, whom Nah- manides acquainted with the apprehensions of the Jews, desired him to proceed. The controversy was therefore resumed, and concluded in a complete vic- tory for Nahmanides, who was dismissed by the king with a gift of three hundred maravedis asa mark of his respect. The Dominicans, nevertheless, claimed the vic- tory, and Nahmanides felt obliged to publish the proceedings of the controversy. Obtaining a copy of this publication, Christiani selected from it certain Passages which he construed as blasphemies against the Christian religion, and denounced them as such to Raymond de Penyaforte. A capital charge Was then instituted, and a formal complaint against a work and its author was lodged with the Pa Finally, Nahmanides was sentenced to exile T two years, and his pamphlet was ordered to be burned. _ The failure of the controversy did not, however, opt Christiani. Provided through theagency 4ymond de Penyaforte with letters of protec- IV.—4 Christian Christianity journeys, compelling the Jews every where to listen to his speeches and toanswer his ques- Christiani’s tions, either in their synagogues or Prosely- wherever else he pleased. They were tizing even required to defray the expenses Tour. of his mission. In spite of the protec- tion granted him by the king, Chris- tiani did not meet with the success he had expected; he therefore went to Pope Clement IV. and de- nounced the Talmud, asserting that it contained pas- sages derogatory to Jesusand Mary. The pope issued a bull (1264) to the Bishop of Tarragona, command- ing him to submit all the copies of the Talmud to the examination of the Dominicans and Franciscans. A commission was then appointed by the king, Chris- tiani being one of its members, to act as censors of the Talmud; and they obliterated all passages which seemed to them to be hostile to Christianity. In 1269 Christiani interceded with King Louis IX. of France and obtained from him the enforcement of the canonical edict requiring Jews to wear badges. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wikkuah ha-Ramban; Wagenseil, Disputa- tio R. Mosis Nachmanidis cum Fratre Paulo, Altdorf, 1674; Carpzov, Procmium to Raymond Martin’s Pugio Fidei; Gritz, Gesch. der Juden, vii. 120 et seq. G. J. Br. CHRISTIANITY IN ITS RELATION TO JUDAISM: Christianity is the system of religious truth based upon the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the expected Messiah, or Christ, and that in him all the hopes and prophecies of Israel concern- ing the future have been fulfilled. While compri- sing creeds which differ widely from one another in doctrine and in practise, Christianity as a whole rests upon the belief in the God of Israel and in the Hebrew Scriptures as the word of God; but it claims that these Scriptures, which it calls the Old Testament, receive their true meaning and interpre- tation from the New Testament, taken to be the written testimonies of the Apostles that Jesus ap- peared as the end and fulfilment of all Hebrew prophecy. It furthermore claims that Jesus, its Christ, was and is ason of God ina higher and an essentially different sense than any other human being, sharing in His divine nature, a cosmic prin- ciple destined to counteract the principle of evil embodied in Satan; that, therefore, the death of the crucified Christ was designed by God to be the means of atonement for the sin inherited by the human race through the fall of Adam, the first man; and, consequently, that without belief in Jesus, in whom the Old Testament sacrifice is typi- fied, there is no salvation. Finally, Christianity, as a world-power, claims that it represents the highest form of civilization, inasmuch as, having made its appearance when the nations of antiquity had run their course and mankind longed for a higher and deeper religious life, it regenerated the human race while uniting Hebrew and Greek to become the heir to both; and because it has since become the ruling power of history, influencing the life of all nations and races tosuch an extent that all other creeds and systems of thought must recede and pale before it. These three claims of Christianity, which have frequently been asserted in such a manner as di- Christianity rectly or implicitly to deny to Judaism, its mother religion, the purpose, if not the very right of its continued existence, will be examined from a_his- torical point of view under three heads: (1) the New Testament claim as to the Christship of Jesus; (2) the Church’s claim as to the dogmatic truths of Christianity, whether Trinitarian or Unitarian; and (3) the claim of Christianity to be the great power of civilization. The attitude taken by Jews to- ward Christianity in public debates and in literary controversies will be treated under PoLEMICS AND PoLemicaL LITERATURE; while the NEw TEs- TAMENT as literature and the personality of JEsus oF NazareTH will also be discussed in separate articles. I. It isa matter of extreme significance that the Talmudic literature, which is based on tradition at least a century older than Christianity, hasnotevena specific name for the Christian belief or doctrine, but mentions it only occasionally un- The der the general category of “ Minim” Messianic (literally, “distinctive species of be- Movement. lief”), heresies, or Gnostic sects. As one of these it could only be regarded in the second century, when Christianity was in danger of being entirely absorbed by Gnosticism. At firstit was viewed by theJewssimply as one of the numerous Messianic movements which, aimed against Roman Tule, ended tragically for their instigators, and from which it differed only in one singular fact; viz., that the death of the leader, far from crushing the move- ment, gave, on the contrary, rise to a new faith which gradually, both in principle and in attitude, antagonized as none other the parent faith, and came to manifest the greatest hostility to it. There is no indication in Jewish literature that the appear- ance of Jesus, either as a teacher or as a social or political leader, made at the time a deep or lasting im- pression on the Jewish people in general. Outside of Galilee he was scarcely known. This at least seems to be the only explanation of the fact that the Tal- mudic passages, some of which are old, confound Jesus, on the one hand, with Ben Stada, who was tried in Lydda—probably identical with Theudas “the magiciaa,” the pseudo-Messiah who appeared in 44 (Josephus, “ Ant.” xx. 5,§ 1; Acts v. 86)—and, on the other, with the Egyptian “false prophet” who created 2a Messianic revolt a few years later (“ Ant.” xx. 8, §6; zdem, “B. J.” ii. 18, $5; Acts xxi. 88; see Tosef., Sanh. x. 11; Sanh. 67a, 107b; Shab. 104b; Sotah 47a; compare Matt. xxiv. 11 and 24). As to Jesus ben Pandera, or Jesus the pupil of R. Joshua ben Perahyah, see JESUS IN JEWISH LEGEND, The only reference to Jesus in contemporary Jewish literature is found in Josephus, “ Antig- uities ” xviii. 3, § 3, a passage which has been inter- polated by Christian copyists, but appears to have originally contained the following words (see Theo- dore Reinach, in “Rev. Etudes Juives,” xxxv. 1-18; A. v. Gutschmid, “ Kleine Schriften,” 1893, iv. 352): “There was about that time [a certain] Jesus, a wise man; for he was a worker of miracles, a teacher of men eager to receive [new (revolution- ary) tidings], and he drew over to him many Jews _and also many of the Hellenic world. He was [pro- ciaimed] Christ; and when, on denunciation by the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA y principal men amongst us, Pilate condemneg ,. § to be crucified, those that were first (captivatea)® him did not cease to adhere to him; and the trp, ?8 Christians, so pamed after him, is not eXting | this day.” . The Gospel records agree upon one essentig] Doin f confirmed by Josephus (/.c. 5, § 2; compare My iii. 1-13; Mark i. 2-9; Luke iii. 1-21; John jg F et seq.; Acts xiii, 24); viz., that the main impulse ‘ the Christian movement was given by Jory, ! BapTisT, an Essene saint, who—among the ao that, by penitence, fasting, and },. | tisms, prepared themselves for tk coming of the Messiah (Luke ii, 95 , : et seq.; Mark xv. 48; compare 2, ij 1 : Matt. ix. 14, xi. 18; compare Pesik R. xxxiii., XXxijy. Josephus, “ Vita,” § 2)—-stood forth as the Preach, ; of repentance and “ good tidings,” causing the py. ple to flock to the Jordan to wash themselves gja,: of their sins in expectation of the Messianic kingdy, Some of his followers were known afterward g class of Baptists under the name “ Disciples of Johp (Acts vili. 20; xix. 3, 4), and seem partly to hay. joined the Mandxans (Brandt, “Die Mandaig, Religion,” pp. 187 et seg., 218 et seq., 2258; see ale HEMEROBAPTISTS), Jesus, however, being one g John’s disciples, the moment the latter had been py in prison stepped to the front as a preacher of “Kingdom or tleaven” in the very language of }j master (Matt. iv. 12 ef seg., xiv. 3-5; Mark j, 1) Still, to the very last he had to admit in his arg, ment with the elders (Matt. xx. 26; Mark xi,» compare 74, viii. 28) that John was universally at knowledged prophet, while he was not. Indeg Herod Antipas, upon learning of Jesus’ miraculoy performances, expressed the belief that John tk - Baptist had risen from the dead (Matt. xiv. 2) xy. 14; Mark vi. 14). Nor did Jesus himself, accordiy to the older records, lay claim to any title other thy - that of a prophet or worker by the Holy Spirit, lik any other Essene saint (Matt. xiii. 57; xxi. 11,4) Luke vii. 16, 39; xiii. 33; xxiv. 19; John iv. 19 4 compare Josephus, “B, J.” i. 3, §5; ii. 8, § 12; tden, - “Ant.” xiii. 10,§ 7; Luke ii. 25, 36). Gradually, however, the fame of Jesus as “ healer” and “ helper’ of those stricken with disease so eclipsed that d John, at least in Galilean circles, that the latter wa declared to have been only the forerunner of theen: destined to subdue the whole kingdom of Satan that is, the Elijah of the Messianic kingdom—andi_ declaration to this effect was finally put into th mouth of John as though made by him at the ver start (Mark i. 2, ix. 18, xi. 2-19; Luke i. 17). Jesus, as a man of the people, deviated from t. practise of the Essenes and Pharisees in not sbur:, ning contact with the sinners, the Pusricans at. the despised ‘AM HA-AREZ, a8 contaminating, and! | endeavoring to elevate them; follor Jesus as a ing the maxim, “They that are who0t® Man of the need not a physician, but they th! People. are.sick” (Matt. ix. 12, and parallé compare Antisthenes, in Dioge® Laertius, vi. 6). He felt the calling to preach #. gospel to the poor (Luke iv. 16 e¢ seg., after Is: Ixi. 1 ef seg.), and truly became the redeemer of the lower classes, who were not slow to lift him to”. John the Baptist. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA the Messiah. Still, he apparently made ain before his entrance into Jerusalem, as d by the warning given to the disciples ig evidence irits of the possessed not to disclose the apd t0 a : peing the Son of David (Matt. xii. 16, F Mark i. 24 iij, 12, viii. 30; Luke iv. 41). vi. 20: e to himself as the “Son of man,” after His reference, Dan. vii. 18, and Enoch, xlvi. 2 et seq., rhe manne g and Mark x. 33, has no historical Sv aead in Mark ii. 28 and Matt. viii. 20 man” stands for “man” or “myself.” “Son Me eschatological predictions in Matt. xxiv., . Luke xvil. 92 et seqg., and elsewhere have been BXV-> or literally from Jewish apocalypses and taken ° the mouth of Jesus, the teachings and ut ae Jesus petray, on closer analysis, rather an doings “onging after the Messianic time than joy inten tisfaction over its arrival, And as the so- HG ee iord’s Prayer ”—an exquisite compilation of callet prayer formulas (Luke xi. 1-18; Matt, vi. aie Charles Taylor, “Sayings of the Jewish aie » 4901, p. 176)—is, like the Kaddish, a peti- oie than a thanksgiving for the Messianic - - dom, so is the entire code of ethics laid down by : ae for his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat. y.-vii., X.; Luke vi. 20, xi.-xii., and else- where) not a law of conduct for a world rejoicing in @ redeemer that has come, but a guide for a few of the elect and saintly ones who wait for the immediate downfall of this world and the rise of another (Matt. x. 28, xix. 28, xxiv. 34-37). Only later events caused the allusion to the “Son of man” in these sayings to be referred to Jesus. As a mat- ter of fact, a spirit of great anxiety and unrest per- meates the sayings of Jesus and the entire New Tes- tament epoch, as is indicated by such utterances as “Watch, therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Matt. xxiv. 42, xxv. 13); “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation [that is, calculation], but suddenly, imperceptibly it is among you” (Luke xvii. 20, 21); compare the rab- binical saying: “The Messiah cometh AINA AoW (when least expected], like a thief in the night” (Sanh. 9%a, b). See, further, Matt. xxiv. 43; I Thess. v. 2; II Peter iii. 10; Rev. iii. 8. A number of sayings allude to the sword, to contention, and to violence, which do not altogether harmonize with the gentle and submissive character assigned generally to Jesus. Such are the following: “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. x. 34, R. V.); “Suppose ye that Tam come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division. . . . The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father,” etc. ae xi. 01-38); “From the days of John the Bap- tea until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth vio- 2) and the Violent take it by force” (Matt. xi. ee hardly reconcilable with the concluding na se of the chapter: “Come unto me, all ye 73 or and are heavy laden. . . . Take my yoke 30) rie - +, and ye shall find rest” (Zc. xi. 28- neni ravage given by J esus to his disciples to 8: com emselves each with a sword (Luke xxii. aveetd an ab, verse 49; John xix. 10, though dis- fimea es Matt. xxvi. 52, 58); the allusion by € saint to the sword and to the strife as re- “ Christianity sulting from Jesus’ birth (Luke ii. 34, 35); and the disappointment voiced by Cleopas, “ We trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel” (Luke xxiv. 21; compare Matt. i. 21, where Jesus is explained as pyyn', Joshua, who shall “save his peo- ple from sin ”)—all these point to some action which gave cause for his being handed over to Pontius Pilate as one who was “perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar” (Luke xxiii. 2); though the charge was refuted by the saying, “ Ren- der unto Cesar the things that are Cxesar’s” (Matt. xxii. 21; Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 25, R. V.). Hewas tried and crucified as “King of the Jews” or “ Mes- siah”; and all the alleged charges of blasphemy, in that he called himself “Son of God” in the Mes- sianic sense, or announced the destruction of the Temple, prove, in the light of the ancient Jewish law, to be later inventions (Matt. xxvi. 68-65; Mark xiv. 58; Luke xxii. 70). See CrucrFrx1on of Jesus. That the movement did not end with the crucifix- ion, but gave birth to that belief in the risen Christ which brought the scattered adherents The Risen together and founded Christianity, is Christ. due to two psychic forces that never before had come so strongly into play: (1) the great personality of Jesus, which had so im- pressed itself upon the simple people of Galilee as to become a living power to them even after his death ; and (2) the transcendentalism, or other-worldliness, in which those penance doing, saintly men and women of the common classes, in their longing for godliness, lived. In entranced visions they beheld their crucified Messiah expounding the Scriptures for them, or breaking the bread for them at their love-feasts, or even assisting them when they were out on the lake fishing (Luke xxiv. 15, 30, 31, 36; John xx, 19, xxi.). In an atmosphere of such per- fect naiveté the miracie of the Resurrection seemed as natural as had been the miracle of the healing of the sick. Memory and vision combined to weave the stories of Jesus walking on the water (compare Matt. xiv. 25, Mark vi. 49, and John vi. 19 with John xxi. 1-14), of the transfiguration on the Mount (compare Matt. xvii. 1-18, Mark ix. 2-13, and Luke ix. 29-36 with Matt. xxviii. 16 e¢ seg.), and of his moving through the air to be near the divine throne, served by the angels and the holy (not “wild”) beasts (“hayyot”), and holding Scriptural combats with Satan (Mark i. 12, 18; Matt. iv. 1-11; compare with Acts vii. 15, vii. 55). The Messiahship of Jesus having once become an axiomatic truth to the “be- lievers,” as they called themselves, his whole life was reconstructed and woven together out of Mes- sianic passages of the Scriptures. In him all the Testament prophecies had “to be fulfilled” (Matt. i. 22; ii. 5, 15, 17; iii, 8; iv. 14; vill. 17; xu. 17; xiii, 14, 85; xx. 14; xxvi. 56; xxvii. 19; John xii. 38: xiii. 18; xv. 25; xvii. 12; xviii. 9; xix. 24, 36). Thus, according to the Jewish view, shared by many Christian theologians, there grew up, through a sort of Messianic Midrash, the myths of Jesus’ birth from a virgin (after Isa. vii. 14), in Bethlehem, the city of David (after Micah v. 1 et seg.; there was a town of Bethlehem also in Galilee, which Gritz identifies with Nazareth ; see “ Monatsschrift,” xxix. 481); the genealogies in Luke iii. 23-38 and Christianity Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth, the converted sinners and heathens, as mothers of the elect one (compare Gen. R. ii; Hor. 10b; Nazir 23b; Meg. 14b); likewise the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem ri- ding upon a young ass(after Zech. ix. 9), and of his being hailed by the people’s “Hosanna” (after Ps. cxviii. 26; compare Midr. Teh. to the passage; also Matt. xxi. 1-11, and parallels). Similarly, his healing powers were made proofs of his Messiahship (after Isa. xxxv. 5, 6; compare Gen. R. xev. and Midr. Teh. cxlviii.), also his death on the cross was taken, with reference to Isa. liii. and old Essene tradition of the suffering Messiah (Pesik. R. xxxiv.-xxxvii.), to be the atoning sacri- fice of the Lamb of God slain for man’s sin (John i. 29; Acts viii. 82; Rev. xiii. 8; compare Enoch xc. 8), and his resurrection the beginning of a new life (after Zech. xiv. 5: [ Chron. iii. 24; Sibyllines, ii. 242; Matt. xxiv. 30; I Thess. iv. 16). Men held their love-feasts in his memory—turned into paschal feasts of the new covenant (Matt. xxvi. 28, and par- alleis; John xix. 33 et seg.)—and led lives of volun- tary poverty and of partial celibacy (Acts ii. 44; Matt. xix. 12). Out of these elements arose the life-picture of Jesus, shaped after later events and toa great ex- tent reflecting the hostile sentiments entertained against the Jewish people by the new sect when, in the final struggle with Rome, the latter no longer shared the views and destinies of the former. Many antinomistic views put into the mouth of Jesus have their origin in Pauline—7z.e., anti-Judean—circles. Thus the saying, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man” (Matt. xv. 11, and parallels), is irreconcilable with Peter’s action and vision in Acts xi, 1-10. What Jesus actually said and did is difficult todetermine. Manyof his teach- ings can be traced to rabbinical sayings Jesus’ current in the Pharisaic schools; and Teachings. many sentences, if not entire chapters, have been taken over from Essene writings (see DIDASCALIA; EssENES; GOLDEN RULE; JESUS OF NAZARETH; MATTHEW), On the other hand, there are utterances of striking originality and wondrous power which denote great genius. He certainly had a message to bring to the forlorn, to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. x. 6, xv. 24), to the outcast, to the lower classes, to the “ ‘am ha-arez,” to the sinners, and to the publi- caus. And whether the whole life-picture is reality or poetic imagination, in him the Essene ideal reached its culmination. But it is not correct to speak, as Christian theologians do, of a possible recognition or an actual rejection of Jesus’ Christship by the Jews. Whatever his greatness as teacher or as friend of the people, this could not establish his claim to the Messianic title; and whether his Galilean fol- lowers were justified in according it to him, or the authorities at Jerusalem in denying it and in de- nouncing him to the Roman prefect—probably more from fear than from spite (John xix. 15)—is not a matter that can be decided from the scanty records (compare Matt. xxvi. 5: Luke xiii. 31; xix. 47, 48; xx. 19; xxiii. 48 with Matt. xxvii. 25-28; Mark xv. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a language of Jesus, in denouncing Sadduceay y;* and the hypocrisy and narrowness of the Phat leaders, was not. altogether new and unhearg i was the privilege of the Essene preachers, the pot lar Haggadists (see PHARIsEES and Sanppy,,"" Most of his teachings, a great number of which ,; rabbinical sayings, and have been misundersgt misapplied altogether by the late Gospel com,;' (see GosrELs, THE Four), were addressed to g gi. of men who lived in a world of their own, far,,' from the centers of commerce and industry, " attitude toward Judaism is defined by the Wong “Think not that Tam come to destroy the ky, the prophets: Iam not come to destroy, but ty : fil” (Matt. v. 1%). The rejection of the Lay Christianity, therefore, was a departure from ; Christ, all the New Testament statements ty contrary notwithstanding. He himself deci even the title of “ good master,” because he Wants to reserve this epithet for God alone (Matt. xix tt Christianity, contrary to all his teaching, tung him into a God. II. This radical change was brought about) Sav. or Tarsus or Paul, the real founder of, Christian Church, though Peter formed the fir community of the risen Christ (Matt. Xvi. 16; 4, i. 15; I Cor. xv. 5), Having, under the influg, of a vision, turned from an earnest persecutor, the new sect into its vigorous champion (Acts; 1-14, xxii. 38-16, xxvi. 9-18; I Cor. ix. 1, xv. 4, seg.; Gal. i. 16), he construed the belief in the y, ning death of Christ held by the rest into a syst altogether antagonistic to Juda: Pauls andits Law, claiming to have receiy Anti- the apostleship to the heathen wo, nomistic from the Christ he beheld in his visio; and Operating with certain Gnostic ide Gnostic which rendered the Messiah as iy Views. of God a cosmic power, like Phi “logos,” aiding in the world’s creatis and mediating between God and man, he saw bit in the Crucifixion and in the Incarnation acts¢ divine self-humiliation suffered for the sake ofr deeming a world polluted and doomed by sin sin the fall of Adam. Faith alonein Christ should sm man, baptism being the seal of the belief in Got redeeming love. It meant dying with Christ tos which is inherited from Adam, and rising again wil Christ to put on the new Adam (Rom. vi. 1-4;1@ xv.; Gal. iii.-iv.). See Baprism. On the other hand, Paul taught, the law of Mot the seal of which was CrrcumcIsion, failed to rede man, because it made sin unavoidable. By a colt of reasoning he discarded the Law as being wu the curse (Gal. iii. 10 et seg.), declaring only thé who believed in Christ as the Son of God to} free from all bondage (Gal. iv.). In opposili to those who distinguished between full Px LYTES and “proselytes of the gate,” who only# cepted the Noachidian laws (Acts xv. 20), he at gated the whole Law; claiming God to be the god the heathen as well as of the Jews (Rom. iil” Yet in enunciating this seemingly liberal doct? he deprived faith, as typified by Abraham (Gen.* 6; Rom. iv. 3), of its naturalness, and forg THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 5 f the Christian dogma, with its terrors of | Jesus had lived and died. The Council of Nice in 3 nell for the unbeliever. God, as e just Ruler, was pushed into the back- gather aD nd the Christ—who in the Gospels as well grounds Jewish apocalyptic literature figured as in the the souls under God’s sovereignty (Matt. judge of xv. Bl _33: compare Enoch, iv. xiv. e svi. 20) 4, vil. 88 with Rom. xiv. 10; II Cor. v. 10) seq. 3 dered the central figure, because he, as remvjory of the divine kingdom, has, like Bel d cue mythology fighting with the dragon, of Baby + Satan and his kingdom of evil, sin, and {0 cone hile thus opening wide the door to admit orld, Paul caused fhe influx of the en- ythology in the guise of Gnostic and names and formulas. No wonder if he tly assailed nee ee by the officials ue: he used this very synagogue, of the aap pe centuries had been made the which f Jewish propaganda also among the heathen ee pitts monotheistic faith of Abraham and the - of Moses, as the starting-point of his antinomis- tic and anti-Judean agitations (Acts xiii. 14, xiv. 1, xvii. 1 ef 8eg., xxi, 27). Fora long time Christianity regarded itself as part It had its center in Jerusalem (Irenzeus, — tire ti-Gnostic was frequen oes “Adversus Hereses, i. 26); its first Early _ fifteen bishops were circumcised Jews, Christi- they observed the Law and were rather anity unfriendly to heathenism (Sulpicius aJewish Severus, “Historia Sacra,” ii. 31; Sect. Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl.” iv. 5; compare Matt. xv. 26), while they held friendly intercourse With the leaders of the synagogue (see Gratz,“ Gesch. der Juden,” iv. 378 et seg. ; and EBIon- rres, Mrnim, and NazARENES). Many a halakic and haggadic discussion is recorded in the Talmud as having taken place between the Christians and the Rabbis (see JAcoB THE GNostTIc). Probably the Christian Congregation, or Church of the Saints, did not distinguish itself in outward form from the “Kehala Kaddisha” at Jerusalem, under which nane the Essene community survived the downfall of the Temple (Ber. 9b; compare Ecci. R. ix. 9: ‘Edah Kedoshah). Of course, the destruction of the Temple and of the Judean state and the ccssation of sacrifice could not but promote the cause of Chris- tianity (see Justin, “Dial. cum Tryph.” xi.); and under the impression of these important events the Gospels were written and accordingly colored. Still, Jew and Christian looked in common for the erection of the kingdom of heaven by the Messiah either s00n to appear or to reappear (see Joél, “ Blicke In die Religionsgesch.” i. 82 et seq.). It was dur- Ing the last struggle with Rome in the days of Bar Kokba and Akiba that, amidst denunciations on the part of the Christians and execrations on the a = the Jewish leaders, those hostilities began ce ae = parted Church and Synagogue forever, a eg coe an ally of the arch-enemy. aa ristlanity greatly aided in the Romani- cas e Church. It gravitated toward Rome as ecu ue great world-empire, and soon the Church sites 0) a eyes of the Jew leir to Edom (Gen. Pay! ha : he emperor Constantine completed what €gun—a world hostile to the faith in which Christianity 325 determined that Church and Synagogue should have nothing in common, and that whatever smacked of the unity of God and of the freedom of man, or offered a Jewish aspect of worship, must be elimi- nated from Catholic Christendom. Three causes seem to have been at workin making the Pauline system dominant in the Church. First, the pagan world, particularly its lower Paganism classes, having lost faith in its old Pre- gods, yearned for a redeemer, a man- dominant. like god, and, on the other hand, was captivated by that work of redeeming love which the Christian communities practised, in the name of Jesus, in pursuance of the an- cient Essene ideals (see Cnarrry). Secondly, the blending of Jewish, Oriental, and Hellenic thought created those strange mystic or Gnostic systems which fascinated and bewildered the minds of the more educated classes, and seemed to lend a deeper meaning to the old beliefs and superstitions. Thirdly, woman appeared on the scene as a new factor of Church life. While the women of Syria and of Rome were on the whole attracted by the brightness and purity of Jewish home life, women in the New Testament, and most of all in Faul’s life and letters, are prominent in other directions. Aside from those visions of Mary Magdalene which lent support to the belief in the Resurrection (Matt. xxviii. 1, and parallels), there was an undisguised tendency on the part of some women of these Woman’s circles, such as Salome; Thecla, the Part in the friend of Paul; and others (see “ Gos- Early pel of the Egyptians,” in Clement, Church. “Stromata,” iii. 964; Convbeare, “Apology and Acts of Apollonius and Other Monuments of Early Christianity,” pp. 24, 183, 284), to free themselves from the tram- mels of those principles upon which the sanctity of home rested (see Eccl. R. vii. 26). A morbid emo- tionalism, prizing love as “ the greatest of all things” in place of truth and justice, and a pagan view of holiness which tended to make life oscillate be- tween austere asceticism (demanding virginity and eunuchism) on the one side, and licentiousness on the other (see Matt. xix. 12; Sulpicius Severus, “Dialogi Duo,” i. 9, 18, 15; Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl.” vi. 8; Clement, J.¢. iii. 4; Cyprian, Ep. iv.; Rev. ii. 14), went hand in hand with Gnosticism. Against this exaggeration of the divine attribute of love and the neglect of that of justice, the Rabbis in the ancient Mishnah seem to utter their warning (Meg. iv. 9; Yer. Ber. i. 3). When, finally, the reaction set in, and Gnosticism both as an intellectual and as a sexual degeneracy (compare Sifre on Num. xv. 39) was checked by astrong counter-movement in favor of positive Christianity, two principles of extraor- dinary character were laid down by the framers of the Church: (1) the Trinitarian dogma with all its corollaries; and (2) a double code of morality, one for the world-fleeing monks and nunsand the clergy —called the really religious ones—and another for the laity, the men of the world. The Trinitarian formula first occurs in Matthew (xxviii. 19, R. V.) in the words spoken by the risen Christ to the disciples in Galilee: “Go ye therefore, Christianity and make disciples of all the [heathen] nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; Trini- but it appears to have been still tarianism. unknown to Paul (1 Cor. vi. 11; Acts ii, 38). It is quite significant for the historian to observe that, while in the older Gospel (Mark xii. 29) Jesus began reciting the first commandment with the Jew- ish confession, “ Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” this verse is omitted in Matt. xxii. 37. Christ, the preexistent Messiah (Gen. R. i.), being either identified with the Shekinah or divine «lory (Rom. ix. 4; Col. i. 27; see Mayor, “ Epistle of James,” p. 75, notes), or with the “Memra” or “Logos,” Philo’s second god (“ Fragments,” ed. Mangey, ii. 625; compare “De Somniis,” i. 39-41, ed. Mangey, 1. 655 e¢ seg.), was raised by Paul to the rank of a god and placed alongside of God the Father (I Cor. viii. 6, xii. 3; Titus ii. 18; compare I John v. 20); and in Ii Cor, xiii. 14 the Trinity is almost complete. In vain did the early Christians protest against the deification of Jesus (“Clementine Hom- ilies,” xvi. 15). He isin Paul’s system the image of God the Father (II Cor. iv. 4; compare I Cor. viii. | 6); and, being opposed “to Satan, the god of this world,” his title “God of the world to come” is as- sured. However repugnant expressions such as “the blood,” “the suffering,” and “the death of God” ({gnatius, “Ad Romanos,” ili., v. 18; tdem, “ Ad Ephesios.” i. 1; TertuHian, “Ad Praxeam”) must have been to the still monotheistic sentiment of many, the opponents of Jesus’ deification were de- feated as Jewish heretics (Tertullian, /.c. 30; see ARIANISM and MONARCHIANS). The idea of a Trinity, which, since the Council of Nice, and especially through Basil the Great (370), had become the Catholic dogma, is of course re- _garded by Jews as antagonistic to their monothe- istic faith and as due to the paganistic tendency of the Church; God the Father and God the Son, to- gether with “the Holy Ghost {“ Ruah ha-Kodesh”] conceived of as a female being,” having their paral- lelsiu all the heathen mythologies, as has been shown by many Christian scholars, such as Zimmern, in his “Vater, Sohn, und Fiirsprecher,” 1896, and in _Scehrader’s “K. A. T.” 1902, p. 377; Ebers, in his “Sinnbildliches: die Koptische Kunst,” 1892, p. 10; and others. There was a jime when the Demiurgos, as a sec- ond god, threatened to becloud Jewish monotheism (see GNosTiIcIsM and ELISHA BEN ABUYAH): but this was at once checked, and the absolute unity of God became the impregnable bulwark of Juda- ism. “If a man says: ‘Iam God,’ he lies, and if ‘Son of man,’ he will repent,” was the bold interpre- tation of Num. xxiii. 18, given by R. Abbahu with reference to Christianity (Yer. Ta‘an. ii. 1, 65b). “When Nebuchadnezzar spoke of the ‘Son of God ’ (Dan. iii. 25), an angel came and smote him on the face,” saying: “Hath God a son?” (Yer. Shab. vi. . 8d). In the Church, Unitarianism was suppressed and persecuted whenever it endeavored to assert its birthright to reason; and it is owing chiefly to Justinian’s fanatic persecution of the Syrian Uni- tarians that Islam, with its insistence on pure mono- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a i theism, triumphed over the Eastern Church, forth Moslem and Jewish philosophy stood togent for the absolute unity of Q@oq he b Persecu- allowing any predicate of the : tionof which might endanger this Pring! : Unitarians. (see ATTRIBUTES); whereas Chr f philosophers, from Augustine to He , successively, attempted to overcome the Metaph aS cal difficulties involved in the conception of a Ty Ny t (see David Friedrich Strauss, “Glaubenslehre »! § 425-490), tg The next radical deviation from Judaign " P the worship of the Virgin Mary as the mothe God; the canonical and, still more, the apocry ig writings of the New Testament offering the y,! come points of support to justify such a cult, 2? Jew could only abhor the medieval adoratioy 1 Mary, which seemed to differ little from the wopg, - of Isis and her son Horus, Isthar and Tammuz, and Balder. Yet this was but part of the hum,” ization of the Deity and deification of man institu’ in the Church in the shape of image-Worship, 4 spite synods and imperial decrees, prohibitig. and iconoclasm. The cross, the lamb, and the fq - as symbols of the new faith, failed to satisfy 4. heathen minds; in the terms of John of Damage, they demanded “to see the image of God, why: God the Father was hidden from sight”; and oy: sequently the second commandment had to gi: way (see “Image- Worship,” in Schaff-Herzog, “hy ” cyc.”). It is no wonder, then, that the Jews beh idolatry in allthis, and felt constrained to apply th. law, “Make no mention cf the name of other gog'. (Ex. xxiii. 13; Mek. to the passage and Sanh. 63}. also to Jesus; so that the name of one of the bestaj:, truest of Jewish teachers was shunned by the meé* eval Jew. Still, the Jewish code of law offerd some toleration to the Christian Trinity, in thati’ permitted semi-proselytes (“ger toshab”) to wa! ship other divine powers together with the One Gu: (Tosef., Sanh. 68b; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyin 156, Moses Isserles’ note). It was, indeed, no easy matter for the Jew to ds tinguish between pagan idolatry and Christin. image-worship (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yo° Medieval reh De‘ah, 141). Moreover, image-wo-: Image- ship went hand in hand with rele” Worship. worship and saint-worship; ands the door was opened wide to admiti the guise of saints the various deities of paganism, the policy of the medieval Church being to creates large pantheon of saints, apostles, and angels aloug side of the Trinity in order to facilitate the conque : of heathen nations. Incontrast to the uncompromt:. sing attitude of Judaism, the Church was ever reaf] , for compromise to win the great multitudes. Itws: this spirit of polytheism which led to all th: abuses the opposition to which was the chief faci. of the Reformation—whose aim and purpose Wt, a return to Pauline Christianity and the New Tes: ment with the help of a deeper study of the Ou Testament at the hand of Jewish scholarship @; LUTHER; REFORMATION; REUCHLIN). ; But the Trinitarian dogma rested mainly UP} Paul’s conception of the mediatorship of Chri? For no sooner was the idea of the atoning powey i & re & THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 55 death of the righteous (Isa. liii. 4-10; see of the &" 1) applied to Jesus (Matt. xx. 28; Luke ATONEMENT] "Gi. 87; Acts viii, 82) than Christ pecame the necessary mediator, “de- livering man from the power of ship 4, Satan and the last enemy—death” (I of ChTISY him. ii. 5; Col. i. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 26). ism has no room for dualism, since God the seer, “I formed the light and spon a the darkness: I make peace and create evil” ed , 7); aud while the divine attributes of jus- (18a. a 71 ae punitive wrath and forgiving mercy, es contrasted (DOA Nw ypsTA NW, Ber. 7a; aii on vig Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” xxxiv. ; £ hilo, | qd. “ Philo,” pp- 213 et seqg.), but never divided siegirie arate powers, the world of Satan and the ae oe Christ are arrayed against each other, and von eaent by the blood of the cross is necessi- ee he Pauline system (Col. i. 20; Rom. tii. 29). God had to reconcile the world to Himself through ne death of Jesus (IL Cor. v. 18) and render “the u real of wrath” children of His grace (Ephes. il. s oui iii, 25, v. 10). “The love of God required the sacrifice of his own begotten Son” (John iii. 16). This view 1s regarded asrepugnant by the pure mono- theistic sentiment of the Jew, itself grounded upon the spirituality and holiness of God, and was op- posed by R. Akiba when he, with direct reference to the Christian doctrine, said: “Happy are ye, Israelites! Before whom do ye purify yourselves, and who is the one who purifieth you but your Father in heaven, for it is said: * Israel’s hope [“‘ mik- well,” also interpreted as “source of purification "| is God?” (Jer. xvii. 18; Mishnah Yoma, end). But the whole dogma of Jesus’ incarnation and crucifixion has for its background a world of sin and death ruled by Satan and his hosts of demons (II Cor, iv. 4: Ephes. ii. 1, vi. 12 e¢ seg.; If Tim. ii. 26). In fact, the whole coming of Christ is viewed in the New Testament as a battle with Satan (see Matt. iv. 1 et seg., xii, 29; Luke x. 18; John xii, 31; John iii. 8). The story of Adam’s fall, which caused the Book of Wisdom to say (ii. 24) that “through the envy of the devil death came into the world ” (com- pare Ecclus, {Sirach] xxv. 24), was made by Paul (compare II Esdras iii. 7, 21, and Apoc. Baruch, xvii. 3) the keynote of the entire human history (Rom. v. 12). Forthose of the Rabbis whoaccepted this view the Law was an antidote against “the venom of the Serpent”—that is, the germ or the inclination to sin (‘Ab. Zarah, 22b; Shab. 146a); to Paul, who antagonized the Law, the “breath of the aes became a power of sin and everlasting om of such a nature that none but God Himself, through Christ His son, could overcome it. In adopting this view as the doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN the Church deprived man of both his moral and his intellectual birthright as the child of God 7 (Tertullian, “De Anima,” xvi., xl; he Doc- Augustine, “De Nuptiis et Concupi- mediator- be ine of scentiis,” i. 24, ii. 34; Strauss,“ Glau- Pree benslehre,” ii. 48 et seg.), and declared all the generations of man to have niet been bornin sin—a belief accepted ana SY the Lutherans in the Augsburg Confession y Calvin (“Institutes,” II. i. 6-8; Strauss, Jc. Christianity ~_—— ii. 49). In vain did Pelagius, Socinus, and the Armin- ians protest against a view which deprived man of his prerogative asa free, responsible person (Strauss, i.e. p. 58). No longer could the Christian recite the ancient prayer of the Synagogue: “My God, the soul which Thou gavest unto me is pure” (Ber. 60b). And while, in all Hellenistic or pre-Christian writings, Enoch, Methuselah, Job, and other Gen- tiles of old were viewed as prototypes of humanity, the prevailing opinion of the Rabbis being that “the righteous among the heathen have a share in the world to come” (Tosef., Sanh. xiii, 2; Sanh. 105a; see all the passages and the views of a dissenting minority in Zunz, “Z.G.” pp. 373-3885), the Church, Catholic and Protestant alike, consigns without ex- ception all those who do not believe in Jesus to the eternal doom of hell (Strauss, ¢.¢. ii. 686, 687). Christ’s descent into hell to liberate his own soul from the pangs of eternal doom became, therefore, one of the fundamentals of the Apostolic creed, after I Peter iii. 18, iv. 6 (see Schaff-Herzog, “ En- cyc.” art. “Hell, Christ’s Descent into”). It is ob- vious that this view of God could not well inculcate kindly feelings toward Jews and heretics; and the ‘tragic fate of the medieval Jew, the persecutions he suffered, and the hatred he experienced, must be chiefly attributed to this doctrine. Paul’s depreciation of the Law and his laudation of faith (in Christ) as the only saving power for Jew and Gentile (Rom. iii. 28, x. 4; Gal. Faith iii. 7 e¢ seg.) had, in the Middle Ages, and an injurious effect upon the mental Reason. progress of man. Faith, as exhib- ited by Abraham and as demanded of the people in the Old Testament and rabbinical writings, is MIN. a simple, childlike trust in God, and accordingly “littleness of faith ”—that is, want of perfect confidence in the divine goodness--is de- clared by Jesus as well as by the Rabbis in the Tal- mud as unworthy of the true servant and son of God (Gen. xv. 6; Ex. xiv. 31; Num. xiv. 11, xx. 12; Hab. ii. 4; If Chron. xx. 20; Mek. to Ex, xiv. 31; Matt. vi. 80; Sotah 48b). Paul’s theology made faith a meritorious act of saving quality (Rom. i, 16); and the more meritorious it is the less is it in harmony with the wisdom of the wise, appearing rather as “ foolishness” (1 Cor. i. 18-31). From this it was but one step to Tertullian’s perfect surren- der of reason, as expressed in “Credo quia absur- dum,” or, more correctly, “ Credibile quia ineptum; certum est quia impossibile est” (To be believed be- cause it is foolish; certain because impossible”; “De Carne Christi,” v.). Blind faith, which renders the impossible possible (Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a credulity throughout Christendom which became indifferent to the laws of nature and which depre- cated learning, as was shown by Draper (“ History of the Conflict between Science and Religion ”) and by White (“ History of the Warfare of Science with Theology”). A craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, or sanctioned, under the form of relic-worship, old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Chris- tian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed. Whereas Juda- Christianity ism made the study of the Law, or rather of the Torah—which is learning, and included science and philosophy as well as religion—the foremost duty of each member of the household (Deut. vi. 7, xi. 19; Josephus, “Contra Ap.” ii. §§ 18, 26, 41), medi- eval Christianity tended to find bliss in ignorance, because knowledge and belief seemed incompatible (Lecky, “ History of Kuropean Morals from Augus- tus to Charlemagne,” ii. 203-210; zdem, “ History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rational- ism in Europe,” i, 1-201). It was the resuscitated pagan thinkers, it was the Mohammedan and the Jew, who kept the lamps of knowledge and science burning ; and to them in large measure the revival of learning, through scholastic philosophy in the Catholic cloisters and afterward in western Europe in general, is due. Not merely the burning of witches and heretics, but the charges, raised by priests and mobs against the Jews, of having poisoned the wells, pierced the consecrated host, and slain innocent children in order to use their blood, can mainly be traced to that stupor of the mind which beholds in every intellectual feat the working of Satanic powers, alliance with which was believed to be bought with blood. On the other hand, the Church was ever busy infusing into the popular mind the belief that those rites which served as symbolic expressions of the faith were endowed with supernatural powers, “sacrament” being the Latin word used for “mysterion,” the name given to forms which had a certain magic spell for the be- liever. Both baptism and the eucharist were re- garded as miracle-working powers of the Christian faith, on participation in which the salvation of the soul depended, and exclusion from which meant eternal damnation (see the literature in Schaff- Herzog, “Encyc.” s.v. “Sacrament ”). The expectation by early Christianity of a speedy regeneration of the world by the reappearance of Jesus exerted a strange influ- Asceticism ence also on the whole moral and in the Mon- social state of humanity. The entire asteries. Christian life being a preparation for the world to come (and this change being expected to take place soon; Matt. x. 23; I Cor. i. 7; I Peter i. 18), only those that renounced the joys of the flesh were certain of entering the latter. This view gave rise to asceticism in the mon- asteries, for which genuine religiosity was claimed; while marriage, home, and state, and all earthly com- forts, were only concessions to the flesh. Henceforth the ideal life for the priest and recluse was to differ from that for the people at large, who were to rank as inferiors (Strauss, U.c.i. 41 et seg.). Whereas in Judaism the high priest was not allowed to offici- ate on the Day of Atonement unless he had a wife that made home sacred to him (Yoma i. 1, after Lev. xvi. 11, 1%), celibacy and virginity were prized as the higher virtues of the Christian elect, contempt of the world with all its material, socia], and intel- lectual pursuits being rendered the ideal of life (see Ziegler, “Gesch. der Ethik,” 1886, pp. 192-242). Thus, to the Jew Christendom, from the days of the emperor Constantine, presented a strange aspect. The Church, formerly the declared enemy of Rome- Babel (Rev. xvii.), had become her ally, accepting THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 53 ; Edom’s blessing, “By thy sword shalt thou lives : (Gen. xxvii. 40), as herown; and, on the otherha there appeared her priests (“ gallah” = hair-clipngs and monks (“kummarim”), in the guise of the 7 Hebrew Nazarites and saints, claiming to be the t d t heirs to Israel’s prophecy and priesthood. Inde’. medieval Judaism and Christianity formed the Brey est contrast. Children of the same household, iny, king the same God and using the same Scripture, ,, His revealed word, they interpreted differently lit and itsmeaning, God and religion. Their Bible, Sah bath, and festivals, their whole bent of mind and goy__ had become widely divergent. They no longer y, derstood each other. Yet, while neither Augustine nor Thomas Agy nas, the chief framers of the Church dogma, j, even Luther and Calvin, the Reform, Medieval ers, had any tolerance for Jew or My, Jewish lem, the authorities of the Synago Views of accorded to Christianity and Islan 4 Christi- high providential mission in hu anity. history. Saapra (died 942), the first {, examine the Christian dogma, SAYS (iy his “Emunot we-De‘ot,” ii. 5) that, unconcerned } the sensual Trinitarian belief of the common crowd he would discuss only the speculative value giva by Christian thinkers to the Trinity; and so, wit, penetrating acumen and profound earnestness an love of truth, he endeavors to lay bare either th metaphysical errors of those who, as he says, mak of such attributes as life, power, and knowledge separate parts of the Deity, or the defects of th various philosophical constructions of the divinity of Jesus (see Kaufmann, “Gesch. der Attribute. lehre,” pp. 38-52; Guttmann, “ Die Religionsphib. sophie des Saadia,” pp. 103-118). Grander still is the view of Christianity taken by Judah ha-Levi in the “Cuzari.” After having re. jected as incompatible with reason all the claims of the Trinity and of Christ’s origin (i. 5), and remarked that both Christianity and Islam accepted the roots, but not the logical conclusions, of Israel’s faith, (iv. 11)—rather amalgamating the same with paga rites and notions—hbe declares (iv. 23) that both form the preparatory steps to the Messianic time which will ripen the fruit in which adherents of those faiths, too, will have a share, all the branche thus proving to be “the one tree” of Israel (Ezek xxxvii. 17; see D. Cassel, “Das Buch Kuzari,” 33). This view is shared by Maimonides, who writes 1. “Yad,” Melakim, xi. 4: “The teachings of th Nazarene and the Ishmaelite [Mohammed] serve tit divine purpose of preparing the way for the Me siah, who is sent to make the whole world perfect by worshiping God with one spirit: for they hav spread the words of the Scriptures and the lawd truth over the wide globe; and, whatever of err0t they adhere to, they will turn toward the full traf at the arrival of the Messianic time.” And in bt Responsa (No. 58) he declares: “The Christians bt lieve and profess in common with us that the Bibe is of divine origin and given through Moses, oY teacher; they have it completely written do though they frequently interpret it differently.” The great rabbinical authorities, R. Gershom df Mayence (d. 1040; see “ Ha-Hoker,” i. 2, 45); Rass THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Ohriatianity ae ]; the French Tosafists of the twelfth | of Jesus’ Mother, and Transubstantiation, and who , 00 be vat Zarah, 2a); Solomon ben Adret of cen Jona, of the thirteenth century; Isaac b. She- parce the fourteenth century (Responsa No. 119); o* Garo (Shulban ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 156, * yoreh De‘ah, 148; and Hoshen Mishpat, 266), 4 Moses Isserles of the sixteenth century declare Christians are to be regarded as Proselytes of ar te and notas idolaters, in spite of their image- the 4* Still more emphatic in the recognition of Wort ste ag teaching a belief in the Creator, Chri ay etribution, and resurrection, is Joseph tee . victim of Spanish persecution (1492), ho in his “Ma’amar ha-Ahdut,” iii., goes so far as : ssert that “but for these Christian nations we mi vat ee? ey a infirm in our faith dur- Oe OT ne generous View is taken by his contem- orary Isaac Arama, iS ‘Akedat Yizhak,” Ixxxviii.). Eliezer Ashkenazi (sixteenth century) warns his co- religionists, in his “ Ma‘ase ha-Shem, written in Tur- key, “not to curse a whole Christian nation because g portion wrongs US, as little as one would curse one’s own brother or son for some wrong inflicted.” Jacob Emden at the middle of the eighteenth cen- tury wrote: “Christianity has been given as part of the Jewish religion by the Apostles to the Gentile world; and its founder has even made the moral laws stricter than are those contained in Mosaism. There are, accordingly, many Christians of high qualities and excellent morals who keep from hatred and do no harm, even to their enemies. Would that Christians would all live in con- Christian- formity with their precepts! They ity Com- are not enjoined, like the Israelites, pared with to observe the laws of Moses; nor do Islam. they sin if they associate other beings with God in worshiping a triune God. They will receive reward from God for having propagated a belief in Him among nations that never heard His name; for ‘He looks into the heart.’ Yea, many have come forth to the rescue of Jews and their literature” (“ Resen Mat‘eh,” p. 15b, Amsterdam, 1758, and “ Lehem ha-Shamayim ” to Ab. v. 17). Leone del Bene (Judah Asahel Meha- Tob) also may be mentioned, who, in his “ Kis’ot le-Bet David,” 1646, xxiv., xxvi., xlvi., xlviii., com- pares Mohammedanism with Christianity, and de- clares the latter as superior, notwithstanding its uaa dogma. Ee teal pai hae dean esus 18 expressed also in a Karaite fragmen noted in Steinschneider, “Ozerot Hayyim,” Cata- logue of the Michael Library, pp. 377 et seg., Ham- burg, 1848. Compare Jew. ENcvc. i. 228, s.v. AFEN- DOPOLO. _ The persistent attacks of Christian controversial- against the Jewish belief gave rise, of course, & number of polemical works, written in self- defense, in which both the Christian dogmas and the ew Testament writings are submitted to unsparing criticism. Foremost among these—not to mention pear published disputation with Pablo Spar: 1—is that of Hasdai Crescas, who, in a i ai tratado ” on the Christian creeds (1396), i rhe the irrationality of the doctrines of Origi- al Sin, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virginity investigated the value of baptism and of the New Testament compared with the Old; beginning with the following three axioms: “(1) Reason can not. be forced into belief; (2) God Himself can not alter the laws of a priori truth and understanding; (8) God’s justice must comprise all His children.” Another vigorous defender of Judaism against Christianity was Simon ben ZEMAH DURAN (1361- 1440), who, in his great work, “Magen Abot,” reiter- ates the assertion that Jesus, according to his own words, did not come to abrogate the Law; and then exposes the many self-contradictory statements in the New Testament concerning Jesus. The “Ik- karim” of Joseph ALBO is (not merely in ch. xxv. of sect. iii., but in its totality) a defense of liberal Jewish thought against Christian dogmatism; and it therefore dwells with especial emphasis on the fact—which all Jewish thinkers from Saadia and Maimonides down to Mendelssohn accentuated— that miracles can never testify to the verity of a be- lief, because every belief claims them for itself. As to the two Hebrew standard works of New Testa- ment criticism in the Middle Ages, written for apol- ogetic purposes, the “Sefer Nizzahon” and the “Hizzuk Emunah,” see MUHLHAUSEN; LIPPMANN, and Isaac ben Abraham TROKI. III. To offer to the great Gentile world the Jew- ish truth adapted to its psychic and intellectual ca- pacities—this was the providential mis- Christi- sion of Christianity. Yet, in order to anity’s becomea unifying power for all the Historic nations on the globe, shaping and re- Mission. shaping empires, and concentrating the social, political, and spiritual forces of humanity in a manner never before at- tempted or dreamed of, it required an inspiring ideal of sublime grandeur and beauty, which should at. once fascinate and stir souls to their very depths and satisfy their longings. Nothing Jess than the con- quests of Cyrus the Lord’s “anointed,” called “to subdue nations and to break their prison doors ” (Isa. xiv. 1, 2), than Alexander’s great empire over the earth, still more than a kingdom that would en- compass all that for which Rome and Alexandria and Jerusalem stood—“a kingdom of the people of the saints of the Most High” (Dan. vii. 17-27)— nothing less than this was the goal which they that were told to“ go forth and make disciples of alli nations” (Matt. xxviii. 19) had in view. The Jew- ish propaganda, begun in the Babylonian Exile (Isa. xlv. 6; xlix. 6; lvi. 6, 7; lxvi. 21), and systematically pursued in Alexandria and Rome (Matt. xxiii. 15; Schiirer, “Gesch.” iii. 802 e¢ seg., 420 et seq.), was to be left far behind, and, by battering down the barriers of the Law and the Abrahamic faith, was to be rendered elastic enough to suit the needs of a polytheistic world. Such was the view of the mis- sionary of Tarsus. But it was, after all, the glad tidings of the Jew Jesus which won humanity for Abraham’s God. Jewish righteousness, “Zedakah,” which is the power of helpful love readjusting social inadequa- cies, was destined to go forth from the Synagogue in order. to lift the burden of wo from suffering humanity and to organize everywhere works of Christianity Chronicles charity. By this the Church, “the congregation of the Lord,” conquered the masses of the vast Roman empire, and, as she learned the better to apply the Jewish system (see EssENES) to the larger field opened, achieved ever-increasing wonders with the mighty resources at her disposal. ‘The poorhouse, or hospital, “transplanted as a branch of the tere- binth of Abraham to Rome” (see CHanrry), became a mighty factor of human beneficence, and moved the deepest forces of the Church to glorious activity. Christianity, following the matchless ideal of its Christ, redeemed the despised and outcast, and en- nobled suffering. It checked infanticide and founded asylums for the young; it removed the curse of slavery by making the humblest bondsman proud of being a child of God; it fought against the cruel- ties of the arena; it invested the home with purity and proclaimed, in the spirit of Ezek. xviii. aud Yer. Sanh. iv. 22a, the value of each human soul as a treasure in the eyes of God; and it so leavened the great masses of the empire as to render the cross of Christ the sign of victory for its legions in place of the Romaneagle. The“ Galilean ” entered the world as conqueror. The Church became the educator of the pagan nations; and one race after another was brought under her tutorship. The Latin races were followed by the Celt, the Teuton, and the Slav. The same burning enthusiasm which sent forth the first apostle also set. the missionaries aglow, and brought all Europe and Africa, and finally the American continent, under the scepter of an omnip- otent Church. The sword and the cross paved the way through vast deserts and across the seas, and spread the blessings of a civilization claimed to be Christian because its end was the rule of Christ. Judaism, however, denies the validity of this claim. As Isaac Troki (in his “ Hizzuk Emunah,” i, 2, 4a, 6) says, “none of the Mes- Messianic sianic promises of a time of perfect Promises peace and unity among men, of love Not and truth of universal knowledge and Fulfilled. undisturbed -happiness, of the cessa- tion of all wrong-doing, superstition, idolatry, falsehood, and hatred [Isa. ii. 1 et seg., 18; xi. 1-9, Ixv. 19, 23; Jer. iii. 17; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, XXXVI, 25 et seqg., XxXvii. 26; Zech. xiii. 2, xiv. 9; Zeph. iii. 18] have been fulfilled by the Church.” On the contrary, the medieval Church divided men into believers and unbelievers, who are to inherit heaven and hell respectively. With the love which she poured forth as the fountain of divine grace, she also sent forth streams of hatred. She did not foster that spirit of true holiness which sanctifies the whole of life—marriage and home, industry and com- merce—but in Jewish eyes seemed to cultivate only the feminine virtues, love and humility, not liberty and justice, manhood and independence of thought. She has done much in refining the emotions, unfold- ing those faculties of the soul which produce the heavenly strains of music and the beauties of art and voetry; but she also did all in her power to check intellectual progress, scientific research, and the application of knowledge. Her tutorship suf- ficed as long as the nations under her care were in the infant stage; but as soon as they awoke to self- consciousness and longed for freedom, they burst THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 58 the shackles of dogma and of ecclesiastical authorit Thus the Church was broken up into churches Under the iufluence of Judaism and of Arabie phi. losophy, Scholasticism arose, and then came th REFORMATION; and the process of disintegratio, continues throughout Protestantism, The tendeng of historical inquiry and Biblical criticisin jg to leave nothing but the picture of the man Jegy, the Jew, as a noble type of humanity, aud to ye. _ turn to simple monotheism (see Renan, “Le Jugg. isme et le Christianisme,” 1888; ¢den, " L’Egtiga : Chréticnne,” 1879, p. 248; Alexander von Hn. boldt, in Samter, “Moderne Judentaufen,” ap in A. Kohut, “Alexander von Humboldt und da, Judenthum,” 1871, p. 176; Berner, “Judenthum ung Christenthum,” 1891, p. 81; Alphonse de Candollp # in Jellinek, “Franzosen tiber Juden,” 1880, p. 97. Singer. “Briefe Bertilmter Christ. Zeigenossen,® p. 114. No human individual, however great in hiy_- own environment, can, according tothe Jewish viey present a perfect ideal of humanity for all ages and phases of life. “No one is holy but God”: to thig Jewish conception of man Jesus also gave expression (Matt. xix. 17). Man as the image of God requires all the ages and historical conditions of progregg to unfold the infinite possibilities of the divine life planted in him. “Each age has its own types of righteousness” (Tan., Mikez, Viennaed., p. 48), and only by the blending of all human efforts toward the realization of the true, the good, and the bean. tiful can the highest perfection be attained at the end of history, “each mount of vision forming a4 stepping-stone to Zion as the sublime goal” (Midr, Teh. to Ps. xxxvi. 6). , Christianity is not an end, but the means to an end; namely, the establishment of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. Here Christian- ity presents itself as an orb of light, but not so cen- tral as to exclude Islam, nor so bright and unique as to eclipse Judaism, the parent of both. Moreover, room is left for other spiritual forces, for whatever of permanent value is contained in Brahmanism, especially its modern theistic sects, and in Buddhism (see EKucken, “Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion,” Leipsic, 1901; Happel, “Die Religidsen und Philo- sophischen Grundanschauungen der Inder,” 1902), — and in the theosophic principles derived from it, and for all religious and philosophical systems that may yet be evolved in the process of the ages. Jn fact, whatever constitutes humanity and bears the image of God, whatever man does in order to unfold the divine life (Gen. i. 27; Lev. xviii. 5; Ps. viii. 6; Job xxviii. 28; Eccl. xii. 18)—that helps to make up the sum of religion. For the modern tendency toward pure theistic and humanitarian views among the various systems of religious thought, see ErHicaL CULTURE; UNITABI- ANISM. PCR a 31 any CoA oJ MSL Sk, ee OR RS ORE REY Oe +f CRM, EISEN de Ret es cote ea, Sa ee oe) LAL lee oo ag BIBLIOGRAPHY : Graetz, Hist. of the Jews, ti., iii.,iv., passim; Hamburger, R. B. T. ii., s.v. Christenthum:; Geiger, Das Judenthum und Seine Gesch. 1865,i., ii, Supplement; M- Schreiner, Die Jlingsten Urtheile tiber das Judenthum, _ 1902; Perles, What Jews May Learn from Harnack, 1 Jew. Quart. Rev, 1902; M. Gtidemann, Das Judenthum 1902; Toy, Judaism and Christianity, 1890; Harnack, His tory of Dogma, i-v., Eng. transl. by N. Buchanan; Strauss, Die Christliche Glaubenslehre, 1840-41, i., ii.; Chwol- son, Die Blutanklage und Sonstige Mittelalterliche Be schuldigungen, pp. 1-78, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1901; Lecky: THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 59 Christianity Chronicles of European Morals from Augustus to Charle- | methods. This course antagonized the conservative Fistor Vigra, i., ti; a ae Gesch. der Christlichen Ethik. magne, vid Einhorn, nterscheidunyslehre Zwischen Ju- ik um und Pe aia in Sinai, 1860, pp. 193 et seq., apd 1961, pp. 190 e© Beds K. CHRISTINA AUGUSTA: Queen of Sweden ; at Stockholm Dec. 7%, 1626; died at Rome pee 19, 1689. She was a daughter of Gustavus Ap! - us and Mary Eleanora of Brandenburg, and Ado a from 1632 to 1654. Her attitude toward the : sean was most benevolent. Acquainted with He- se literature, which she eagerly studied in her ae she welcomed eminent Hebrew scholars at you ourt. Thus Menasseh ben Israel, recommended woe by Vossius, was kindly received; and his pteadin gs for the Jews and their literature met with greal sympathy. Christina was, furthermore, interested, together with England, in pernutting Jews to settle in the West Indies, and especially favored a Portuguese Marano, Isaac Manoel Texeira, whom she appointed gnancial agent and resident minister at Hamburg, and on account of whom she more than once re- monstrated with the Senate of Hamburg, demand- ing for her Jewish minister the honors enjoyed py other ministers resident. During her sojourn at Hamburg she resided at the home of Manoel Texeira, regardless O1 the severe censures pronounced upon her from the Protestant pulpits. She appointed as her physician Benedito de Castro (Baruch Nehemiah). Christina contrived by every possible means to prevent the banishment of the Jews of Vienna, de- creed by Emperor Leopold in 1670; but unfortunate circumstances rendered her efforts futile. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Archenholz, Memoiren der Kénigin Chris- tine, i. 99 et seq., Berlin, 1751-64; Zeitschrift des Vereins fir Hamburgische Gesch. ii. 409 et seg.; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, x. 80, 206, 238; Kayserling, in Wertheimer’s Jahr- hiicher der Israeliten, 1860, pp. 1-13. G. J. Br. CHRISTOLOGY. See MEssraq. CHRONEGK, LUDWIG: German actor; born at Brandenburg-on-the-Havel Nov. 3, 1887; died at Meiningen July 8,1890. He was the stage-man- ager and “Intendanzrath” of the famous Meininger troupe established at Weimar by Duke George of Meiningen. Chronegk had but little schooling, as his bent for the stage asserted itself while he was still a boy. At eighteen he went to Paris to study French methods, == 80] and seek aid (Hyiws = 391; together 471] in the sixth millennium.” Tle days of the month and week are indicated in the same way. The chronograms on the works and documents of persons who were followers of Shabbethaism, and who in this manner indicated their belief, are most interesting. Thus, Samuel b. David ha-Levi’s well- known work, “ Nahalat Shib‘ah ” (Amsterdam, 1667), has the date 82 91 }2 mwp (“Messiah, son of David, is come!”) on the title-page; and the com- munity of Holleschau, in Moravia, similarly en- graved in the epitaph of its beloved rabbi, Shab- bethai b. Meir ha-Kohen, the words Mwy &3 DYN mynd (“Messiah is come to-day for a redemp- tion” ; compare Weisse, in “ Kokebe Yizhak,” 1. 77). Many important years in Jewish history are indi- cated by their respective chronograms; ¢.g., the year 1492 by AND (“scatterer ” = 252, after Jer. xxi. 10, which says that God scattered Israel), This was the year when the Jews were expelled from Spain (Abravanel’s Introduction to his Commentary on Kings). Neo-Hebraic poetry, which laid especial stress on the formal side of verse, also cultivated chrono- grams, A number of Hebrew poems In Poetry. were produced in the first half of the nineteenth century, in which the let- ters of each verse have the same numerical value, being generally the year in which it was written. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 64 A New-Year’s poem in this style, written jn , year 579 (=1819), is found in Shalom Cohen’s “ K, Yosher ” (ed. Warsaw, p. 146). ‘Two years later Jagy, Eichenbaum wrote a poem in honor of a friend, each line of which had the numerical value of 581 (“Ky Zimrah,” ed. Leipsic, pp. 50-53). While this Do is really a work of art, in spite of the artifice en ployed, Eichenbaum’s imitators have in their try, lations merely produced rimes with certain numer, cal values. Gottlober (in “ Ha-Kokabim,” i. 31) wr an excellent satire on these rimesters, each line of }. . poem having the numerical value of 618 (= 1859 The first two verses of the poem are as follows; mae m2 ppabn oy nmawe ond on Sya5 SxS) But even poets like J. L. Gordon and A. B. Ley, “ ensohn havea great weakness for the ptppd (“ming eras”), though employing them only in the supe, : scriptions to their poems. The modern school g - Hebrew poets has given up these artifices, t, “minor eras” being now chiefly employed for Ney. : Year congratulations, especially by the poor gf _ Palestine, who frequently distribute printed Ney. Year cards, the wish consisting of a verse who numerical value is equal to the year. BIBLIOGRAPHY: James Hilton, Chronograms, 1. 542-545, i, 593-600; Steinschneider, Jiidische Typographie, in Eng and Gruber, Encyc. xxviii. 27-28; Zunz, Z. G. pp. 214 et 89 G. L. @. CHRONOLOGY *(I.): The science that treatgof the computation and adjustment of time or periods of time, and of the record and arrangement of event in the order of time. The chronology of Jewish literature may be divided into two periods: (1) that of the Biblical books; and (2) that of post-Biblic! times. Division of Time in the Biblical Books: From the earliest periods the day was divided int ; night and morning. Genesis records the division ; into two parts of what is now termed the “ tropical [ or solar day.” It is probable that the Israelites di. . vided the day into twelve “dihore,” or twenty-four hours; but in the Hebrew texts no trace thereof’ found. Theearliest mention of the hour (“sha‘ah’) © is in the Aramaic texts of Daniel (iii. 6, 15). documents of the Greek epoch, as also in the As syrian texts, references occur to “night-watches’ - (“ashmurah ”), by which the night was divided into - three parts (Ps. xc. 4; Lam. ii. 19). As regards in | struments for measuring time, II Kings (xx. 11) aud | Isaiah (xxx viii. 8) give some vague information con > cerning the gnomon of King Ahaz, and the degre marked on his sun-dial (see Drat). ‘ The week, with the attribution of each day to ont - of the seven planets, is one of the most ancient ins: * tutions of the Babylonians. Thisnation comment ° the hebdomadal period with the sun, followed by - the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Sat urn, Every planet in succession presided ov. twenty-four hours, but not in the order assumed fot their spheres, which was as follows: the sun, Ven Mercury, the moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars. The « nytyee * The foundations of Biblical chronology being still 4 matte : of discussion, it is deemed desirable to present the divé : views in separate articles. : y : nN j THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 65 Chronogram Chronology oe of the first day was consecrated to the | (138); nor can the first of Nisan be on Monday, : r hare spitial ane wenty-fifth, or the initial hour of the sec- suD; to the moon; the forty-ninth to Mars; the p ay ‘third to Mercury; the ninety-seventh to seventy” |e one hundred and twenty-first to Venus ; jupiter ne hundred and forty-fifth to Saturn. d the ane claimed that this arrangement is of It ane invention; but indications of its exist- Spoand in the earliest texts. The Mosaic ac- ence ae Creation, of course, ignore the assignment counts © ek-days to divers stars; but, independently of the atral influence, the seventh day was insti- of all . a sacred day, quite distinct in character Jere seventh day of the lunar synodic month, ‘ch Was regarded as a holy day by the Chaldeans. we m the Mosaic times down the synodical month ; ane Jewish calendar was calculated, as in the = Seal from one new moon to the next. This spa ee py the well-known passage in Ex. xii. 2. a no Egyptian influence may be assumed. But ran stem of thirty-day months, also, seems to ae cee recognized by the Jewish calendar. Te Jewish year was solar-lunar. In the early Biblical statements no indication whatever is found of an intercalary month. Still it is safely assumed that the difference of ten or eleven hours between the twelve gynodical months and the tropical year was equalized by the insertion of an embolismic month; and in the cunciform Sumerian texts express mention is made of this intercalation as far back as the fifth millennium B.c, It is very probable that the equivalence of 19 tropical years and 285 synod- ical months was known in the most remote times; but a regular intercalary system was not introduced before Greek influence asserted itself—that is, not before 367 B.c. In Chaldea the embolismic months were inserted merely for astrological reasons: the methods employed later by the Jewish authorities (see CALENDAR) to adjust astronomical irregularities can not be held to have been in vogue among the Chaldeans. Post-Biblical Times: The modern Jewish cal- endar is adapted to the Greek computation exclu- sively. The'Talmudic tractate Rosh ha-Shanah (ch. i.) indicates that four ways for commencing the year were known and observed. The day was divided into twenty-four hours, and each hour into 1,080 “halakim.” The passage in Rosh ha-Shanah gives, almost exactly, the length of the average synodical month as 29 days, 6 hours, and 793 halakim (44 min- utes, 34 seconds), which is only 4 second too long; the real duration being 29 days, 6 hours, 44 minutes, *.89 seconds. This estimate is of Greek origin, like the Metonic embolismic cycle of the years 8, 6, 8, li, 14, 17, 19 of the nineteen-year Metonic period. The new Jewish calendar seems to have been inau- gurated in 363 (Tishri), and Rabbi Hillel apparently modified it by introducing some innovations; but it a known exactly what they were. Some hints a almudic texts, which can not be dwelt upon diebie ce to indicate that the - forbidden days ”— ew o ays of the week on which Rosh ha-Shanah ae sia could not fall—were introduced at that Satis he Talmud speaks of Shabu‘ot falling on a Tis vay, which can not happen now. The first of a se fallon Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday —§ Wednesday, or Friday (173). These forbidden days cause a great complication of the calendar. As a starting-point for calculation, the first of Tishri in the year 1 is indicated by the symbol 3, sig- nifying Monday (3 or second day of week), 5 (7) hours, 204 (45) halakim, corresponding to Oct. 7 in the Julian, or Sept. 7 in the Gregorian, calendar of the year 3761-3760 3B.c. (6240 of the modern com- putation, which adds 10,000 years to the common era). This is the astronomical day 347,999. The cycles(“ mahzor”) count from that epoch. In order to ascertain the year of the cycle, the number is divided by 19, the remainder giving the year of the cycle; for example: 5661 (1900-1901)--19 = 297 +18; z.e., the year 5661 is the eighteenth year of the 298th cycle. The idea of an era beginning with and counted from an historical event is an ingenious invention of the Greeks, who represented by an impersonal fact computations referring toa person. The first pub- lic application of it was the Seleucid era, dating from Oct., 312 (or, at Babylon, from April 2, 811) B.c.; and this era was accepted by the Jews, who maintained it generally down to the eleventh century; in Egypt, however, it survived into the sixteenth cen- tury, when Rabbi David ibn Abi Zimra brought about its disuse, while in South Arabia it was used, along with the “aera mundi,” even as late as the nineteenth century. For the Temple and the da- ting of private records there existed the era from the Exodus. Not only is the existence of this era a mathemz. ical conclusion based on the 200 dates in Kings, but it is also definitely indicated in I Kings vi. 1, where the beginning of the construc- tion of Solomon’s Temple is assigned to the year 480 of the Exodus era. The Hebrew context is of such characteristic precision that no one can seriously pretend this to be an intentional combination of 12 times 40 years. Why this number and not another? It would be no less absurd to claim that the 480 years of the Roman republic (510-30 B.c.) or the equal duration of the Parthian realm (256 B.c.-225 c.E.) had been assumed only in order to have the product of 12 x 40, or 60 * 8. The question to be decided is whether the date then obtained for the Exodus— viz., 1492 B.c.—is the real one; for whether or not the chroniclers of this period were mistaken as to the epoch or the era is quite a different matter for examination. Most of the eras in use assume a con- ventional starting date which is not accurately that of the event from which the name is derived. The Dionysian era of the birth of Jesus, perhaps the Mohammedan one of the Hegira, or flight of the prophet from Mecca to Medina, the Jewish one of the Creation, besides some 150 other modes of start- ing a chronological series, are illustrations of this common practise. The months in the era employed by the Biblical chronographers were counted from Nisan, the first month, to Adar, the twelfth, or We-Adar, the thir- teenth. On the other hand, it is found that Biblical texts in giving the years of the kings commence with the dates of their accession to the throne, just as the kings of England and the popes determine Eras. Chronology their regnal years. Thus in II Chron. xxix. 3 the reference to the first day of the first month in year 1 of Hezekiah is not to the day of his accession, but to the first of Nisan of the first year of his reign; that is, according to the modern computation, March or April, 726 B.c. If the date of 1492 for the Exo- dus is correct, the starting date for the annals is 767 B.c. By this system it is possible to assign with certainty the destruction of the First Temple to Sun- day, Aug. 27 (Julian), 587 B.c. (9418; astronomical day 1,507,261); that is, the 9th of Ab of the year 906 of the era of the Exodus. The Biblical figures are given in the nth year; that is, from the accession to the throne down to the event there had elapsed n — 1 year plusa fraction of a year, which fraction is expressed by a Greek let- ter. For instance, Uzziah reigned fifty-two years; in his fifty-second year Pekah of Israel was king; and Uzziah died in the second year of Pekah. This example, among many similar ones, shows mathe- matically that the beginning of the royal years can not be the same. The problem may be stated as follows: Uzziah reigned before Pekah....... Uzziah reigned simultaneously with Total length of Uzziah’s reign...... 52-+- (a+ 8) years where the sum of the fractions a4 and 8 does not amount to one- half. All the Biblical calculations start from a different date, the date of accession; and the agreement of all these figures proves that the original date must have been changed to conform with the fixed har- monizing scheme of the annalist, the synchronous tables of the kings’ reigns. Jewish chronology includes: (1) the non-chrono- logical, mythical numbers of Genesis; and (2) the real chronology, from the Exodus to the end of the Jewish dominion (1492 B.c. to 70 of the common era). The Non-Chronological, Mythical Numbers of Genesis: The figures of Genesis, handed down in their original form by the Hebrew texts followed by the Vulgate, are the results of a fictitious reduc- tion of the enormous numbers put forth by the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and the Hindus. The Jews and Greeks were not willing to admit that the world had been created long before their appearance in history. The original figures of one of the sys- tems named were reduced to a certain scale. Only one of the Chaldean systems, preserved by the frag- ments of Berosus, is known. It is probable that his figures are those of the Babylonian school; while those of Sipparaand Orchoé had possibly other units of time to express the same original arithmetical numbers. The Creation: One of the Chaldean schools as- sumed seven periods, each of 240,000 years; that is, 1,680,000 years. Each period of 10,000 years is meas- ured by an hour of the seven days which comprise Creation in Genesis (168=7 x 24). From the Creation to the Deluge: The Chaldeans admitted the eternity of the world without any be- ginning; but the existing astronomical bodies had a commencement. For the time from the creation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 8 of these to the great cataclysm, or the Deluge ther f ig. assumed a sexagesimal unit, the number of the onds of theday: 60 < 60 X 24, or 86,400 units, unit of the Babylonian school was 60 monthg years; that is, 432,000 years. The Hindus gy unit at 5,000 years, or 432,000,000. The Jews duced this to 86,400 weeks, or 1,656 years; that me 72 periods of 28 yearseach. The 23 years give; 8,400 days, or 1,200 weeks; the unit of 72 pe; being divided into three unequal parts, Contaj); Ors respectively 20, 18 (which is one-fourth of 79), ht 34 periods of 1,200 weeks or 23 years each. number 23 is found in the number resulting ¢,, adding the years elapsing between the births : father and son in the three groups given in Gen, y namely: . . ’ eo (1) Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, and Jared: 130 + 105 +99 +4 + 65 = 460 = 20 X 23, or 20 X 1,200 = 24,000 weeks, (2) Mahalaleel, Enoch, Methuselah: 162-+ 65+ 187; = 44. 23 X 18 (the fourth of the period, as in the Chaldean) . : 1,200 x 18 = 21,600 weeks. (3) Lamech: 182-+ 600 = 782 = 23 x 34 = 40,800 weeks, The corresponding Babylonian figures relating the ten antediluvian kings are: The first three together..... 93,600 years = 18,720 lustra = 21,600 c} The following two together, 108,000 “ The remaining five (?)..... 230,400 ‘“* = 46,080 * 86,400 weeks 86,400 lustra The Bible haS.......ccsscenscvcuceesevscees The Chaldean texts NAve.......cevcesesceue The three periods correspond to legends now alty gether lost, as the chronological tables in Geneg show. The postdiluvian times down to the end of Genes include: From the Deluge to the birth of Abraham.... 292 years From the birth of Abraham to the end of GOENCSIS coal die teas Soe Re eae These 292 and 361 years are the reduction to om sixtieth of the Berosian figures, which give: For the first two kings..........cceeceseees 5,100 years For the 86 following ........csceseeeeeceres 34,080 “ 39,180 “ These 39,180 years are composed of 12 Sothie periods of 1,460 years, and of twelve lunar periods (Assyrian, “tupkot nannar”) of 1,805 years. After 1,805 years the eclipses recur in the same order and this cycle was known to the Chaldeans, 10 by calculation, but by actual observations and registrations of eclipses during centuries and ml. lennia. | The Babylonian figures are controlled by the sr agesimal notation of sosses (“shushi” = ciao) of 6 ners (“neru ”= vgpoc) of 600, and sars (“ shar ”= ope) | of 3,600 years. There are thus: : 12 Sothic periods of 1,460 years = 17,520 years, or 292 sosses i 12lunar “ “180 “ =21,660 “ “ 361 The Biblical number of 292 years, quoted by Jost : phus (“ Ant.” i. 6, § 5) comprises the nine generati@® . from Arphaxad to Terah, the father of Abrahat . namely : 2+35-+ 30+ 34+ 304-32 -+. 29+ 30+ 70 = 202 years THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Chronology 67 | = ee ee Ee btain the necessary 292, Terah must Third part, 40,800 weeks. All die except Noah and Shem. order t0 OO” tieth for : reached his seventieth year before begetting ave Ab the birth of Abraham to that of Isaac... 100 years From ine birth of Isaac to that of Jacob....... 60 From tne birth of Jacob to that of Joseph..... 91 Frretime of Joseph, end of Genesis............ 110 361 °° In b es ee der to secure the total of 861 years which the ea required, Joseph must be given neither more sy ee than 110 years. CF sides this computation of generations, there ee another. originally quite independent there- ot umerating only the years of life of each ances- of these numbers referring to the length of life ‘cht have been derived from Babylonian state- ate put the almost complete destruction of cunei- aes historical documents has removed all tradition | aie kind. It must be remarked that the prime o pmaber 93 is also found in the sums of this series, , penomenon which is probably to be explaimed by eiuilg that some analogous fact existed in the Chaldean mythology. The Biblical sums are as follows: 3,657 = 23 X 159 years 5,520 = 23 X 240 * 2,898 = 23 X 126 . 12,075 =23 525 prom Adam to Cainan .......... From Mahalaleel to Shem....... prom Arphaxad to Jacob........ It is, of course, very strange that these 12,075 years should be equal to 525 x1,200 weeks, or 630,000 weeks; that is, the result of 70, 90, and 100. It would correspond to a Babylonian epoch of 3,150, - 000 years. These two different traditions have been combined by the redactors of the Biblical text, in order to ex- plain the now lost legends of the antediluvian and postdiluvian times of the Jewish people. An exact scrutiny of the figures as they are found in the present form of the text provides the basis for very singular and awkward results, of which Biblical tradition compels acceptance, and which have dur- ing many centuries caused numerous falsifications and discussions. CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS. ANTEDILUVIAN PERIOD, 86,400 WEEKS. First part, 24,000 weeks. Year of Creation. in Adam born Cainan born 23 Seth = Mahalaleel born Enos “ Jared born Jared born Methuselah born En och oe bb Lamech | Year of Year of Creation. Creation. | aaedad 874 Lamech born 1290 Mahalaleel dies 930 Adam dies | 1422 Jared dies 987 Enoch translated 1556 Shem born 1042 Seth dies 1654 Lamech dies 1056 Noah born 1656 Methuselah dies 1140 Enos dies The Deluge 1235 Cainan ‘* POSTDILUVIAN PERIOD, 653 SOSSES, REDUCED TO 653 YEARS. First part, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham. No one dies. Year of the! Year of the Deluge. Deluge. 2 Arphaxad born 163 Serug born 37 Salah * 192 Nahor “ 67 Eber “ 222 Terah “ 101 Peleg s 292 Abraham born 131 | - Rev “ | Second part, from the birth of Abraham to the end of Genesis, 361 sosses, reduced to 361 years. All die. Year of the Year of the Deluge. Deluge. 292 | Abraham born Jacob born 340 Peleg dies Abraham die 341 Nahor “ Salah is 350 Noah “ (I) Shem dies (!) 367 The calling of Eber °* Abraham Joseph born 370 Reu dies Isaac dies 392 Isaac born Arrival of Jacob 393 Serug dies in Egypt 427 Terah “* Jacob dies 440 Arphaxad dies Joseph ** These figures had been known for centuries, Shem survived Abraham; therefore legends pretend that Melchizedek was really Shem and had handed down the antediluvian traditions. The antediluvian times produced a great many traditions that have been altogether lost. In the first fortunate period nobody died; in the second, death may have been threatened; in the third, all men perished, and the aged Methuselah died in the actual year of the Deluge. The combination of the two systems has produced considerable bewilderment among subsequent trans- lators and exegetes. The LXX., to avoid awkward chronological results, hit upon the expedient of falsifying the real figures, by adding to each of the post-Semitic personages 100 years. Instead of 2 they have 102; for 35 they substituted 1385; and SO on. When this chronology of cycles was invented, it is idle to discuss. It is highly possible that it arose during the time of the First Temple; and there is no reason for bringing its origin down to the post- exilian epoch. Israel and Judah had at this period a systematized chronology; and there had existed, beginning with the seventeenth century B.c., a close connection between Palestine and Chaldea. 4 Chronology Real Chronology: 1. From the Exodus to the Destruction of the First Temple (1492 to 587 B.C.). The first part, the four centuries between the Exodus and David (1492-1047), can not be fixed with certainty. The duration of the several judges’ reigns is involved in doubt, and arguments can not be advanced with the slightest hope of success; for the needed documents are wanting, With David commences a sound and really historical chronology. The two hundred chronological dates handed down by the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are, with one or two exceptions (e.g., the twelfth year of Ahaz, instead of the thirteenth year; see II Kings xvii. 1), of remarkable consistency. In a few cases, again, the figures are rightly given, but are by the present text attributed to some other event, owing to the transposition of the fragments of records saved from destruction at the fall of the First Tem- ple. For example: the fourteenth year of Heze- kiah is not the year of the expedition of Sennacherib, but that of the sickness of Hezekiah and of the em- bassy of Merodach-baladan, King of Babylon. The twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam IT., King of Israel (Il Kings xv. 1), is mentioned as the first year of Uzziah, in flagrant contradiction to all the statements of the previous chapter, which makes it correspond with the fifteenth or sixteenth year. Intentional mutilation of the text and suppression of all notice of the temporary suspension of the inde- pendence of the kingdom of Israel by the Syrians are the real cause of the larger number (15 or 16) given in ch. xiv.: the end of that chapter, and Isa. vii. 3, which can not be understood otherwise, indicate clearly that for eleven years Jeroboam II. had been expelled from Samaria by the Syrians. The subse- quent passages have been ruthlessly altered, in order to obviate the slightest mention of this cessation of Israel’s realm. removed in Nassau. Israel Jacobson and Wolff Breidenbach agitate the abolj tion of the poll-tax for Jews in Germany. : (Dec. 9) ‘“*Enactment concerning the Jews”’ passeq ig Alexander I. of Russia. : The Great Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon ; Joseph Davig Sinzheim president. (Jan. 27) Jerome Napoleon issues decree giving ful] Civie rights to Jews of Westphalia. (Dec. 11) Napoleon at Madrid issues decree dividing the French empire inty Jewish consistories. ang . Law of Baden forms Jews into special religious commy, nity with all privileges. The Jews of Hamburg emancipated. The Jews of Prussia emancipated. (Feb. 18) The Jews of Mecklenburg emancipated. (June 8) ‘* Bundesakte’’ passed at the Congress of Vienna decrees maintenance of status quo in the political cong. tion of the Jews. First Reform Temple in Hamburg opened. (Aug.) The beginning of the “‘ Hep, hep!” persecutions, Formation of the Society for the Culture and Science of the Jews, by Zunz, Gans, and Moser. Jews admitted again at Lisbon. Jews expelled from St. Petersburg through influence of gilds. Jews obtain full civic rights in the state of Maryland, U. 8. A. Decree issued in Russia enrolling Jews for inilitary service. . Louis Philippe orders salaries of rabbis to be paid by the state. (Oct. 29) Jews of Kur-Hessen granted full emancipation. . (April 13) General Jewish regulations issued in Russis, Edict of Nicholas I. founding agricultural colonies in Russia. . Law refusing Jews the right to bear Christian names re newed in Prussia. Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid grants citizenship to Turkish Jews, (Nov. 6) Firman is sued by sultan against blood accusation. (May 25) Louis Philippe issues regulations for the internal organization of French Jews. (June) Rabbinical con ference at Brunswick. . (April) Ukase issued ordering Russian and Polish Jews te adopt ordinary costume. . Emaneipation Year: most of the countries of centri Europe grant full civic and political rights to J ews—il the majority of cases, repealed the next year. (May 1+ 20) Riots in Presburg. (July 3) Baron Lionel de Rothschild, previously returned as M.P. for city of London, not allowed to take seat. (Sept. 3) Violent anti-Jewish riots at Stockholm. (Feb, 18) “ Hatti-Humayun” issued, granting full cif : rights to Turkish Jews. . (June 24) Eagar Mortara in Ancona forcibly taken from : his family by Bishop of Bologna on plea that behal . been baptized when an infant by a Roman Cathollt servant. The oath “on the true faith of a Christiad abolished in England; Jewish disabilities removed. Alliance Israélite Universelle founded. (July) Emancipation of Swiss Jews. a Rumanian constitution makes Rumanian Jews “ aliens. (Dec.) Emancipation of Hungarian Jews. Jews permitted to return to Spain. The law of the North German Federation of July 3 decrees that no state $ retain restrictions on the ground of religious belief. (March) Thirteen hundred and sixty Jews expelled {1% districts of Falciu and Vaslui, Rumania. Anglo-Jewish Association founded. Union of American Hebrew Congregations establisbed- TP EEG ye Qe ey, ON hale tt SR eae or eS fe MDA beta pmen prety at 2.15 Se pA ACORN, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA q5 we (July 78) E. Lasker procures the passing of the ** Austritt- 18:6. geseiZ,” permitting Jews to change their congregation. ~~ Rabbinical Seminary, Rudapest, inaugurated. 18«4- (July 13) The Berlin Congress inserts clause 44, that dis- 18° © inction of religion shall not be a bar to civil and polit- ical rights in Rumania. Nov. 20-22) Debate in Prussian Diet on Kantorowicz in- ident. 1 atrocities against Jews in South Russia. (April 25) Anti- 1881. Semitic league in Germany presents petition with 253,000 signatures to Bismarck. (April 27) Riot at Argenau. 952. ( April *) Disappearance of Esther Solymosi causes a trial ee on blood accusation at Tisza-Eszlar. (May 3) ‘* May Laws” issued by General Ignatief confining the Jews in the Pale of Settlement to the towns. S64 (March +) Rumanian law prohibiting hawking puts 5,000 a Jewish families out of employment. (July 9) Lord Rothschild takes his seat as first Jewish peer in the British House of Lords. 1885. Pittsburg Conference of American Rabbis establishes a platform for Reform Judaism. _ prumont publishes “ La France Juive.” 1887. (Feb. 28) Rumanian law excluding Jews from - public service and from tobacco trade and from employment in retail trade. 1309. (May 12) Rumanian law limiting number of Jewish fac- tory hands to one-third. 1390. (Dec. 10) Guildhall meeting against persecution of Russian Jews by May Laws. 1991. (June 29) Blood accusation at Xanten. 1992. Jewish Colonization Association founded by Baron de Hirsch. 1993. (Jan. 14) Rumanian law prohibiting Jews from being em- ployed in public medical department. 189. Capt. Alfred Dreyfus condemned and degraded as a spy and deported to Devil’s lsle, Cayenne. 1997. (Aug. 29-31) First Zionist Congress at Basel. 1898. (Oct.) Eleven thousand two bundred Jewish children re- fused admission to public schools in Rumania. 1999. (March 31) Rumanian Jaw excluding Jews from agricul- tural and professional schools. (Sept. 2) Dreyfus con- demned a second time, but “ pardoned ”’ on Sept. 19. 1900. (Aug. 18-16) Fourth Zionist Congress at London. (Sept. 8) Israelsky, accused of ritual murder at Konitz, ac- quitted. 1901. (Dec.) Rumanian law prohibiting Jews from holding sa- loons or stores in rural districts. 192. (March) Rumanian law prohibiting employment of Jew- ish working men. BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. Loeb, Josef Haccohen et les Chroni- queurs Juifs, pp. 79, 86; S. Cassel, Juden, in Ersch and Gruber, Hneye. section ii., part 27, pp. 32-33; Stern, Jtidische Zeitrechnung, ib.; 8. Poznanski, in Monatsschrift, xliv. 508; H. Elienberger, Die Leiden und Verfolgungen der Juden, Budapest, 1882; E. H. Lindo, A Jewish Calendar, p. 105-134, London, 1838; H. Schlesinger, Chronologisches andbuch zur Gesch. der Juden, Berlin, 1872; Kohler, Chronology, in American Jews’ Annual, 1884-85, | J. G. : CHRYSOSTOMUS, JOANNES (generally known as St. Chrysostom): Patriarch of Constan- tinople, one of the most celebrated of the Church Fathers, and the most eminent orator of the early Christian period; born in 847 at Antioch; died Sept. 14, 407, near Comana, in Pontus. Chrysostom orig- inally devoted himself to the Jaw, but soon felt dissatisfied with this vocation, and at the age of twenty-three was madea deacon, About fifteen years later (886) he advanced to the rank of presbyter, aud In 398 was appointed by the emperor Bishop of Con- Stantinople, Having attacked the empress Eudoxia in his sermons, he was banished (408), but was re- called soon after, upon the unanimous demand of his congregation. He repeated his attacks upon the ~press, and was again banished in 404, first to lca, then to Cucusus in the desert of the Taurus, and finally to Pityos on the Black Sea; but he died While on the way to the last-named place. € name “Chrysostomus ” (“ golden-mouthed ” : 1880. ( Chronology Chrysostomus xprvoc = “ gold,” and o7éua = “mouth ”) is a title of honor conferred on this Church father only. It was first used by Isidore of Seville (636), and is significant of the importance of the man, whose sermons, of which one thousand have been preserved, are among the very best products of Christian rhetoric. Asa teacher of dogmaticsand exegesis Chrysostom is not of so much importance, although much space in his works is devoted to these two branches. Among his sermons, the “ Orationes VIIT. Adversus Judeos” (ed. Migne, 1. 843-944) deserve special notice, inas- much as they mark a turning-point in anti-Jewish polemics. While up to that time the Church as- pired merely to attack the dogmas of Judaism, and did that in a manner intended only for the learned, with Chrysostom there began the endeavor, which eventually brought so much suffering upon the Jews, to prejudice the whole of Christendom against the latter, and to erect hitherto unknown barriers between Jews and Christians. It was the existing friendly intercourse between Jews and Christians which impelled Chrysostom to his furious attacks upon the former. Attack on Religious motives were not lacking, for Jews. many Christians were in the habit of celebrating the Feast of the Blowing of the Shofar, or New- Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles (“ Adversus Judeos,” i.; ed. Migne, i. 848). “ What forgiveness can we expect,” he exclaimed, “when we run to their syn- agogues, merely following an impulse ora habit, and call their physicians and conjurers to our houses?” (7b, viii.). In another place Chrysostom says: “I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you if any one of you should go to attend the Feast of the Blowing of the Trumpets, or participate in the fasts, or the observance of the Sabbath, or observe an important or unimportant rite of the Jews, and I will be innocent of your blood” (7d. i. 8; ed. Migne, i. 855). Not only had Chrysostom to com- bat the pro-Jewish inclinations of the Antiochians in religious matters, but the Jews were held in so much respect at that time, that Christians preferred to bring their lawsuits before Jewish judges, because the form of the Jewish oath seemed to them more impressive and binding than their own (2d. i. 3; ed. Migne, i. 847). Chrysostom further argues at lengthin his writings that Judaism has been overcome and displaced by Christianity. Heattemptsto prove this by showing that the Jewish religion can not ex- Arguments ist without a temple and sacrifice and Against a religious center in Jerusalem, and Judaism. that none of the later religious institu- tions can fill the place of the ancient ones. Chrysostom derides the Patriarchs, who, he declares, were no priests, but gave themselves the appearance of such, and merely played their parts like actors. Headds: “The holy Ark, which the Jews now have in their synagogues, appears to be no better than any wooden box offered for sale in the market” (7b. vi. 7; ed. Migne, i. 614). But he is not satisfied with the derision of all thing's sacred to the Jews. He tries to convince his hearers that it is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews (2). vi. 7; ed. Migne, i. 854), and declares Chudnov Church Councils THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 76 ee ee OR ye eye ges it asin for Christians to treat them with respect. In spite of his hatred of the Jews and Judaism, Chrysostom-—as, indeed, the whole Antiochian school in their Bible exegesis—shows a dependence upon the Haggadah, which at the time predominated among the Palestinian Jews. A few parallels with the Haggadists have been given by Weiss, but they could be easily increased; and even in instances not directly taken from the Haggadah, its influence can be noticed in the writings of Chrysostom. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best edition of Chrysostom’s works is by Montfaucon, 18 vols., in Patrologie Cursus Com*pletus, ed. Migne, Greek series, Paris, 1718-38; Béhringer, Die Kirche Christi und Ihre Zeugen, ix.; Bush, Life and Times of Chrysostonvus, 1875; Lutz, Chrysostomus und die Bertihmtes- ten Redner, 1859; Cassel, in Erseh and Gruber, Encyec. xxvii; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, iv, 356-357; Perles, Chrys- ostomus and the Jews, in Ben Chananja, fii, 569-571; Weiss, Dor, iii. 128~129. K. L. G. CHUDNOV: Town in the government of Vol- hynia, Russia. A Jewish community existed here before the uprising of the Cossacks in 1648. In 1898 the town had nearly 8,000 inhabitants. Among them there were about 3,500 Jews, who were princi- pally engaged in handicrafts and commercial pur- suits. The former employed 1,252 Jews, of whom 475 owned their shops, 498 were wage-workers, and 279 were apprentices. The principal trades followed by the Jews are tailoring and shoemaking, the former, in 1898, employing 475 men, and the latter 350. The journeymen numbered 55. The educational institutions include a Talmud Torah with 30 pupils, a private school for male pupils, one for female pupils, and 30 hadarim with an attendance of about 300. BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. Katz, Le-Korot ha-Yehudim, Berlin, 1899, pp. 39, 41. H. R. S. J. CHUETAS (“ Pork-Eaters”) or INDIVIDUOS DELA CALLE (“Ghetto People”): Names given to the descendants of the secret Jews in Majorca, who at heart were still faithful to Judaism, but who, in order to induce the belief that they were good Christians, publicly ate pork (“chuya,” diminutive “chueta”); the second term, “Ghetto People,” is self-explanatory. Their fate was similar to that of the Cagots of the Pyrenees, who are still held in abhor- rence by the natives of that region. People were afraid to approach them; at church they sat apart; and even in the cemetery their bodies were isolated. When the tribunal of the Inquisition was established in Majorca in 1488, it granted a general amnesty to all Jews that solicited pardon for their apostasy, and it received back the repentant ones, to the num- ber of 680, on payment of a considerable fine. Be- ginning with 1509, however, several secret Jews were publicly burned before the Gate of Jesus at Palma; and in 1679, when a synagogue was discov- ered in an outlying house, several hundred of them were condemned by the tribunal to imprisonment for life, and their property was confiscated. To escape these continuous persecutions and ex- tortions, a number of Chuetas, reputed to be the wealthiest inhabitants of Palma, decided to leave the “ Golden Island” inan English vessel which they had hired for the purpose; and they had set sail, when unfavorable winds compelled them to return to the harborof Palma. After having been IMPrisoneg for five years, these unfortunates were, in 1691, eo). demned by the Inquisition to the confiscation , their property, and more than fifty of them Were garroted and then burned at the stake. Among the latter were Raphael Valls, “an excellent rabpj». Raphael Benito Terongi, his most faithful pupil. and Catalina Terongi, a sister of the latter. Thege hero-martyrs were commemorated by Majorcay troubadours, whose verses are still sung by the women of the island while at their work. The Ip. quisition did its utmost to fan the prejudice of the people against the outlawed. Their portraits wer, placed in the Dominican monastery; and in 1755, list was published in which were mentioned the names and rank of all those condemned to death oy to confiscation of property from 1645 to 1691. Not until the publication of the royal decree, Dee, 16, 1782, was an amelioration effected in the condj. tion of these people, who were thenceforward per. mitted to reside in any street in the city of Palma and in any part of the island, and were no longer tg be called Jews, Hebrews, or Chuetas, under penalty of the galleys or imprisonment in the fortresg Three years later they were declared eligible to the army and the navy as well as to public offices. Not. withstanding, as late as 1857 there appeared a spe. cial book directed against them. It bore the title “La Sinagoga Balear, Historia de los Judios de Mal. lorca,” and the purpose of the author, Juan de ]g Puerta Vizcains, was, by means of it, to levy black. mail upon them. They, however, bought up alt but three copies of the work. The descendants of the Chuetas, who bear to-day the same names that their ancestors bore in the fourteenth century, now occupy a respected position in industry and agri- culture, as well as in the departments of science and politics. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Kayserling, Gesch. der Juden in Spanien und Portugal, i. 178 et seg.; M. Levin, Ein Besuch bei den “ Leuten der Gasse ’ in Palma,in Briill’s Jahrb. 1. 122 et seq.; Rev, Et. Juives, ixiv. 297 et seq. D. M. K. CHUFUT-KALE: Suburb of Bakhchiserai, a town in the government of Taurida, Russia. Itis called by the Tatars “ Kirk-er” (Place of Forty), and by the Karaites, to which sect the greater part of its inhabitants belong, “Sela‘ ha-Yehudim” (The Rock of the Jews). There are many legends con- cerning the place. According to one, it was called “Kirk-er” because the khans Mengli-Girei and Takhtamish, the founders of the city, brought with them forty Karaite families, and in their honor called it the “ Place of Forty.” Another legend, fostered by the Karaites to show the antiquity of their sect, says that Karaites were brought there from Persia at the time of the first Exile. The early settlers of the city exercised great influence upon their neighbors, the Chazars. The hakam Abraham Firkowitsch, who was very skilfu in falsifying epitaphs and manuscripts, pretended to have unearthed at the cemetery of Chufut-Kale tombstones dating from the year 6 of the comm? era, and to have discovered the tomb of Sangat, which is still shown by the Karaites. According to Harkavy, however, no epitaph earlier than 1208 OE EP CP IS IY aM CLA em Ur ters (EON; SEL NRET e Ee BP OLNATED Ff 353 7 IRE EOS ANE TERR OT oe ea hem ASCE RT See sie Lede tat geet SPUR CHEIFS BOUL, ts he gp or c.88 Le VTA TOIL ANM CY OER THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA q7 e seen at the cemetery of Chufut-Kale, called cap le of Jehoshaphat”; and the tombs do not be- Bs to Karaites, but to the old Rabbinite settlers jon8 d“ Krimchaki.” Chufut-Kale, however, existed calle rly as the seventh century. Abu al-Fida men- as o jt under the name “ Kirk-er.” one Karaite community possesses two syna- eyes; it has a bet din consisting of three members, e"° yakam, the hazzan, and the beadle(shammash). ri rinting-office for Karaite works was established A Pn 1734. The first work published was the re in parsit ritual, according to Aaron ben Joseph, the ythor of “ Sefer ha-Mibhar.” For history of sub- “ib see CRIMEA; KaRAITES. HY: Semenov, i. 742; Regesty, pp. 1028 ct seq.; chwolson, Trudy Pyatavo, Archeologicheskavo Syezda v Tifisye. PP. 95-100; Beim, Pamyat o Chufut-Kale; Beilin- pn, Zebi la-Zaddik, refuting the legends related in the pre- ceding work; see also Harkavy s letter, In Nedyelnagaya Khronika Voskhoda, 1895, No. 16. a. R. TY. Br. CHUMACEIRO, ARON MENDES: Hakam of Curagao, Dutch West Indies; born at Amster- dam Jan. 28, 1810; died there Sept. 18, 1882. He received the various rabbinical degrees (that of «morenu ” in 1846) at the celebrated bet ha-midrash Ets Haim. In 1848 he was awarded the royal gold medal for the best sermon in the Dutch language. When the Sephardic synagogue of Amsterdam pro- posed to elect him preacher in the ver- nacular, it met with strenuous opposition, Ladino being the only language, except He- brew, used in the synagogue. When in 1852 Chumaceiro was elected first ab bet din, he succeeded in over- coming the opposition to Dutch, and soon es- tablished a reputation as one of the foremost pulpit orators in Holland. In 1852 he edited the first Dutch Jewish weekly, “ Het Israelietisch Week- blad.” In the same year he was elected head of the bet ha-midrash Ets Haim. | Delegated by the parnasim of his congregation in 1854 to receive the future King Pedro V. of Por- tugal, he conducted the royal visitor and his suite to the bet ha-midrash, where the king, noticing the names of the donors to that institution inscribed on the walls, made the significant remark: “Me faz parecer que estoy em mea propia terra do Portugal” (It seems as though I were in my own land of Por- tugal). When Pedro V. ascended the throne in 1856, he removed the civil disabilities of the Jews. On account of his liberal-conservative views humaceiro was strongly opposed by the ultra- Orthodox party, and he therefore accepted in 1855 from King William ITI. the appointment of chief tabbi of the colony of Curacao. At the solicita- tion of the special ambassador, O. van Rees, who BIBLIOGRAP Aaron Mendes Chumaceiro. Chudnov Chureh Councils was sent by the king to adjust the claims of the persecuted Dutch Jews of Coro, Venezuela, he suc- ceeded in settling the complicated disputes to the entire satisfaction of the contending parties. Chumaceiro visited his birthplace in 1861, when the office of hakam was tendered to him, which he declined, receiving on that occasion a costly testi- monial from the Sephardic synagogue. He obtained his discharge as hakam of Curacao in 1869, and received a liberal pension from the king for “the numerous and faithful services rendered to his country.” Chumaceiro had four sons: 1. Abraham Mendes Chumaceiro: Attorney at law; born at Amsterdam Nov. 16, 1841; died at Curacao, Dutch West Indies, Aug. 19, 1902. He moved to Curacao, in 1856, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1872. He soon acquired great prominence in his profession. Among his literary works are “Is Curacao te Koop?” and “ Het Kiesrecht in de Kolonie Curacao.” 2. Benjamin Mendes Chumaceiro: Hazzan; born in Amsterdam in 1871. He received a minis- terial training at the bet ha-midrash Ets Haim of Amsterdam. In 1892 he was elected assistant hazzan of the Portuguese synagogue at The Hague; and in 1895 hazzan of that of Hamburg. 3. Jacob Mendes Chumaceiro: Dayyan and editor; born at Amsterdam March 11, 1838; died Feb. 8, 1900. Besides being dayyan of the Sephar- dic synagogue, and acting hakam for the Portu- guese Jews of North and South Holland, he was inspector of the Jewish schools of Amsterdam, head aud librarian of the bet ha-midrash Ets Haim, and editor of “Het Israelietisch Weekblad.” 4. Joseph Hayyim Mendes Chumaceiro: Rabbi and editor; born in Amsterdam July 3, 1844; studied for the ministry under his father at Cura- cao. From 1867 to 1874 he was rabbi of Beth-El congregation, Charleston, 5. C,; from 1874 to 1880, of Nefashot Yehudah, New Orleans, La.; from 1884 to 1887, of Beth-El Emeth, Philadelphia, Pa.; from 1889 to 1891, of Mikwe Yisrael, Curacao; from 1892 to 1898, of Children of Israel, Augusta, Ga.; and was recalled as rabbi to Curacao in 1898. During part (1879-83) of his residence at New Orleans he was also editor of “The Jewish South,” a weekly journal. Besides many sermons and discourses, he pub- lished “The Evidences of Free-Masonry from An- cient Hebrew Records,” 1900, which reached a third edition; “La Revelacion,” the first Jewish catechism in Spanish; and “ Verdediging is geen Aanval,” a correspondence between a Christian divine and a Jewish rabbi on Jesus as the Messiah. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Afscheidspredikatie, Voorwoord door David Henriquez de Castro, 1866; J. Voorsanger, in American Is- reelite, Oct., 1882, A. J. H. M. C. CHURCH COUNCILS: Synods of the Roman Catholic Church, possessing legislative power in matters pertaining to doctrine.and discipline. The Apostles’ synod at Jerusalem (Acts xv.) is regarded as the oldest example of suchan assembly. Besides the general (ecumenical) councils, of which the Catholic Church recognizes twenty, there are na- Church Councils tional and provincial councils and diocesan synods. The decisions of these lesser synods were naturally authoritative only within their own particular dis- tricts; but as they were sometimes recognized by other provincial synods, or even by a general coun- cil, they acquired a more or less general validity. Many of the Church councils have concerned them- selves with the Jews, with the object of removing Judaizing institutions and teachings from among Christians, destroying any influence which Jews might exercise upon Christians, preventing, on the one hand, the return to Judaism of baptized Jews, and devising, on the other, means to convert Jews to Christianity. It is characteristic of the de- cisions of these councils in respect to the Jews that up to the end of the Middle Ages they became ever harsher and more hostile, a few isolated instances only of benevolent resolutions standing on record. Many of the Church decrees, however, were en- forced only after they had been several times con- firmed ; while some of them were never enforced at all. The Jews are mentioned for the first time in the resolutions of the synod at ELvira, at the beginning of the fourth century, immediately Spanish after the persecutions under Diocle- Synods. tian. The synod opposed the custom existing among Christians of having the fruits of their fields blessed by Jews, and for- bade all familiar intercourse, especially eating, with Jews (canons 49, 50). The spirit of intolerance, arising almost before the persecution of the Chris- tians themselves had ended, remained characteristic of the Spanish Church. When the Arian creed was exchanged for the Catholic by the third Toledo Synod held under Reccared in 582, resolutions hos- tile to the Jews were passed. The synod forbade in- termarriage with Jews, and claimed the children of mixed marriages for Christianity. It disqualified Jews from holding any public office in which they would have power to punish Christians, and forbade them to keep slaves for their own use (canon 14). Still more severe are the decrees of the fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633 (canons 57-66), directed more espe- cially against the pretended Christianity of those converted by force under Sisebut. Though it was decreed that in the future no Jew should be bap- tized by force, those who were once baptized were obliged to remain Christians. Whoever protected the Jews was threatened with excommunication. The sixth Synod of Toledo, in 638, confirmed King Chintila’s decree providing for the expulsion of the Jews, and demanded that every future king on his accession should take an oath to observe faithfully the laws concerning the Jews. The twelfth Synod of Toledo, in 681, went furthest, and adopted in its resolutions (canon 90) King Erwig’s laws in reference to Jews (“ Leges Visigothorum,” xii. 3): celebration of the Sabbath and of feast-days, observance of dietary laws, work on Sunday, defense of their re- ligion, and even emigration were forbidden. One generation Jater Spain was under Moorish dominion. More comprehensive were the measures adopted by the councils outside of Spain. Before 450 they confined themselves to the prohibition of familiar intercourse with Jews; of the celebration of their feast-days, especially the Passover; of resting from THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 78 labor on their Sabbath; of entrance into their sy gogues, etc. The General Council of Chalcedo, (451) went a step further, though only as a regy)}t of previous resolutions, in forbidding intermarriage at first only in the case of the Childre, of lectors or precentors (canon 14 The synods of Orléans (in 533 and 539) and the above-mentioned Spanish gyn. ods forbade marriages between Jews and Chris. tians altogether, and this legislation was repeateg by the Synod of Rome in 7438. As the Jews they. selves were opposed to such marriage, there wag yy difficulty in the enforcement of these decrees. Only incountries where Christianity had not yet gaineg entire mastery was there a repetition of these map. riage prohibitions, as in Hungary (1092) and iy Spain (1239). The Quinisext Synod of Constant. nople, in 692, and a number of later synods forbade Christians to receive treatment from Jewish phyg. cians. In spite of this interdiction (repeated gey. eral times, at Avignon as late as 1594), even Popes often employed Jews as court physicians. After the Synod of Orléans, in 5388, the councils turned their attention to the Christian slaves in the service of Jews, at first merely prescribing the pro. tection of the slaves’ persons and religious belief, but later prohibiting absolutely the possession of Christian slaves. Together with this decree, which only repeated a law in the Theodosian Code, came laws forbidding Jews to have free Christians in their employ. By a general decree of the third Laterap Council of 1179 (canon 26), Christians were strictly forbidden to act as servants to Jews, with so little Other Synods. effect, however, that nearly all later Church councils had to renew the interdict ; for instance, the Synod of Milan in 1565 (canon 14). Jews of all lands were in great fear of the third Lateran Council (“Shebet Ye- hudah,” ed. Wiener, p. 112). Their fears, however, proved groundless; for, aside from the decree in re- spect to the employment of Christian Third Lat- servants, especially of nurses and mid- eran Coun- wives—a decree due to the fear of the cil, 1179. common people’s apostasy to Judaism —the following are the important de- cisions of the council: (1) Christians must not live together with Jews (a repetition of an old decree); (2) new synagogues must not be built; old ones may be repaired only when dilapidated, but on no ac- count may they be beautified; (8) the testimony of Christians against Jews must be admitted, since Jews are accepted as witnesses against Christians; (4) neophytes must be protected against the fanati- cism of the Jews, and Jews are forbidden to disin- herit baptized persons (compare “Codex Theodo- sian.,” xvi. 8, 28). A characteristic clause states that Jews may be protected only for reasons of common humanity. The fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, was of crucial importance. Its resolutions inaugurated a new em of ecclesiastical legislation in regard to the Jews, and reduced them virtually to the grade of pariahs. I the south of France an assembly of Jewish notables, which was held at the demand of Isaac Benveniste, sent a delegation to Rome to try to avert the impend- ing evil. The last four resolutions or canons whi¢ the council adopted were concerned with the Jews ERO PAA 95 FTN HW FEET ONT: CP PT TNT APTN SOR ASAT NRSC A WA me enh ee ne Na BL ae ae Tal ced LS aa ne ae in aie inet diipiicigd eteeaaemiaa non diesiassancse as ak ad ria THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Church Councils tae og ae ae a ee a ey eee a a ee Ege Se ee ee | 67 adopts measures a gainst usury by the Jews. Avignon had anticipated the Lateran ynci very Sit ict regulations were made against Lombard who, according to Matthew of Paris, were rse than the Jews. For houses and Janded property Jews were obliged to givea tithe to the Church, and besides each Jewish family had to pay at Easter a tax of six denarii. Canon 68 ordains a special dress for Jews and Saracens, ostensibly “to prevent sexual inter- urse, Which has occasionally occurred by mistake,” put in reality to make a sharp distinction between Jews and Christians. The Jewish badge and hat xposed the Jews to scorn and ridicule, and their as lete abasement dates from this time. Later councils, even up to comparatively modern times, pave renewed these regulations, fixing the form and color of the Jewish badge in various countries, or forbidding the Jews to wear certain costumes (see papcE; HEAD, COVERING OF). Because many Jews were said to parade in their pest clothes during Holy Week (in which the Feast of the Passover usually falls) on purpose to mock the Christians, the Jews were not thenceforth allowed to leave their houses at all during those days. This Draconian decree, however, supported by similar decrees of French and Spanish synods of the sixth century, Was not without its advantages for the Jews, agsmany subsequent synods (for instance, at Nar- ponne, 1227; Béziers, 1246) were obliged expressly to protect the Jews against ill treatment during Holy Week. Other synods of the thirteenth century forbade Jews to eat meat on Christian fast-days (Avignon, 1209), or to carry it across the street (Vienna, 1267). The synods of Narbonne (122%), Béziers (1246), Albi (1255), and Anse (13800) forbade altogether the sale of meat by Jews. Canon 69, which declares Jews disqualified from holding public offices, only incorporated in ecclesiastical law a de- cree of the Holy Christian Empire. As has been mentioned, the synods of Toledo, and the French councils also, had debarred Jews from the office of judge, and fromany office in which they would pos- sess the right to punish Christians. The fourth Lateran Council simply extended this statute over the whole Roman Catholic world, referring to the synods of Toledo in support of its decision. Canon 10 takes measures to prevent converted Jews from returning to their former belief. _The concluding act of the fourth Lateran Coun- cil—the Crusades decree—compelied Jewish cred- itors to renounce all claim to interest on debts, and facilitated in other ways the movements of the Cru- saders. Similar ordinances were adopted by the first Council of Lyons (1245). The decisions of the Synod of Vienna, in 1267, were practically the same as those of the fourth Lateran Coun- Vienna cil, but were more severe in some Synod of points. For example, Jews were for- 1267. — bidden to frequent Christian inns or eae baths; they were ordered to stay at car with closed doors and windows when the host Carried past, etc. Nevertheless, these decrees Fourth Lateran. council 5 1215. co did not succeed in making entirely unbearable the position of the Jews in Austria (see Barwald, in “Jahrbuch fiir Israeliten,” 1859). The same may be said of the decrees of the Hungarian Council at Ofen, in 1279 (Gratz, “Geschichte,” vii. 139 et seq.). The later councils went a step further in restrict- ing and humiliating the Jews by limiting their free- dom in the choice of dwelling-places. The Synod of Bourges, 1276, ordained that Jews should live only in cities or large towns, in order that the simple country folk might not be led astray. Similarly the Synod of Ravenna, 1311, ordained that Jews should be allowed to live only in cities that had syna- gogues. TheSynod of Bologna, 1317, forbade rent- ing or selling houses to Jews, and the Synod of Salamanca, 1835, forbade Jews to live near a church- yard or in houses belonging to the Church. Fi- nally, the Spanish Council of Palencia, 1888, under the presidency of Pedro de Luna, demanded sepa- rate quarters for Jews and Saracens, a demand after- ward renewed by many Church councils. The compulsory conversion of Jews was often forbidden by the councils (for instance, Toledo, 633; Prague, 1349). Toward the end of the Middle Ages the General Council of Basel, in Council of its nineteenth sitting (1434), adopted a Basel. new method of moral suasion by com- pelling the Jews to listen periodically to sermons for their conversion, a decision renewed, for instance, by the Synod of Milan in 1565. A last attack on the scanty freedom of the Jews was brought about directly by the art of printing. The committee on index of the General Council of Trent (1568) decided to refer to the pope the ques- tion of placing the Talmud on the list of forbidden books; and although the Italian Jews succeeded with bribes in preventing the absolute prohibition of the work, it was permitted to be printed only on condition that the title “ Talmud” and all passages supposed to be hostile to Christianity be omitted (Mortara, in “ Hebr. Bibl.” 1862, pp. 74, 96; see CEN- SORSHIP OF HEBREW Books). The General Vatican Council of 1869-70 did not concern itself at all about the Jews Vatican beyond inviting them, on the sugges- Council, tion of the convert Léman, to attend 1869-70. the council (Friedberg, “Sammlung der Aktenstiicke zum Ersten Vati- kanischen Concil.” pp. 65 e¢ seq.). Regarding a supposed synod in Rome in 314-324, directed against the Jews (Jaffe, “ Regesta Pontif. Roman.”), nothing is known. Untrustworthy also is the report that a synod, summoned at Toulouse in 883 by the Frankish king Carloman, on the com- plaint brought by Jews of their ill treatment, or- dained the corporal chastisement of a Jew before the church door on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Ascension Day, and that the degradation was in- creased by compelling the Jew to acknowledge his punishment as just (Mansi, “Concilia,” xvii. 565). BIBLIOGRAPHY : Hardouin, Conciliorum Collectio, Paris, 1715; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amoplissima Col- lectio, Florence, 1759-98: Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Frei- burg, 1890-93; Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte der Deut- schen National-, Provinzial-und Vorztiglichsten Didzesan- leah dias Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, In- eX, &.U. | G. HY. Church Fathers CHURCH FATHERS: The early teachers and defenders of Christianity. The most important of the fathers lived and worked in a period when Chris- tianity still had many points of contact with Ju- daism, and they found that the latter was a splendid support in the contest against paganism, although it had to be combated in the development of Christian doctrine. So the Fathers of the Church are seen at one time holding to a Jewish conception of the universe and making use of Jewish argu- ments, at another rejecting a part of such teaching and formulating a new one. In the contest of Christianity against paganism the Church Fathers employ the language of the Hellenistic literature as found in Philo, Josephus, the Apocrypha, and the Sibyline Books, all of which draw upon the Prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, practi- cally, only the polemic features in the activity of the Church Fathers directed against Judaism can be considered as new and original. But in order to wage successful war against pagan- Their ism, they, as well as Christians in gen- Impor- eral, had to acquaint themselves with tance to the religious documents of Judaism; Judaism. and this was possible only if they en- tered into personal relations with the Jews: through these personal relations the Church Fathers become of signal importance to Judaism. The contemporaries and, in part, the coworkers of those men who are known from the Talmud and the Midrash as the depositaries of the Jewish doctrine, were the instructors who transmitted this doctrine to the Church Fathers also. Hence such a mass of haggadic material is found in the work of the fa- thers as to constitute an important part of Jewish theological lore. This article is primarily concerned with their interpretation of the texts of the Bible and of the Apocrypha, which differs in essential points from those of the Jews. Personal Relations with Jews: After the Bar Kokba war against the Romans, Ariston of Pella, a converted Jew, wrote,.as is generally accepted, a dialogue in which the Christian Jason and the Jew Papiscus are made the speakers, and in which the nature of Jesus is discussed (Idoove¢ cai Tla- Tiokov avtizoyia epi Xpiorov). This dialogue, al- ready mentioned by Celsus, may be wholly imag- inary and without historical basis. But the famous dialogue of Justin Martyr with the Jew Tryphon, which took place at Ephesus (Eusebius, “ Historia Ecclesiastica,” iv. 18) at the time of the Bar Kokba war, isstrictly historical, as certain details show ; for instance, the statement that on the first day no strangers were present, while on the second day some Jews of Ephesus accompanied Tryphon and took part in the discussion (Justin, “Dialogus cum Try phone, ”cxviii.),a certain Mnaseas being expressly mentioned (2, Ixxxv.). The Jewish auditors are not only able to follow the intricate discussion intelligently, but their de- meanor also is seemly; Tryphon espe- cially proves himself a true disciple of Greek philosophy, and his scholarship is freely acknowledged by Justin (#d. lxxx.). At the close of the debate, Jew and Christian confess that they have learned much from each other, and part with Justin Martyr. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 8 expressions of mutual good-will (2. at the end) Justin was born and reared in proximity to Jews. for he calls himself a Samaritan (2). cxx.), meanin,. thereby probably not that he professed the relivios of the Samaritans, but that he came from Samay; 2 Of the relations of Clement of Alexandria to j,, daism nothing positive is known. During the os secutions of the Christians of Alexandria, in 209 : 208, Clement sought refuge fora short time in Syn (Eusebius, /.c. vi. 11). Here he may have learneg much at first hand fromthe Jews. He knew a lity, Hebrew, also some Jewish traditions; both of Which facts point to personal relations with Jews. Clement’s contemporary, Origen, probably also born in Alexandria about 185, may possibly have been on his mother’s side of Jewish descent, if on may judge from the fact that while his father ;, mentioned as Leonides, the name of his mother j, passed over in silence. A Jewish mother ecoyig reauily have taught her son the Hebrew language so that they might sing the Psalms together (J erome. “Epistola xxxix. ad Paulam”). [Both his fathe, and his mother were, however, Christian in faith.—7 In his capacity of presbyter at Ceesarea in Pales. tine, Origen must have come into frequent contag with learned Jews, as indeed appears from his wy. tings. He mentions again and again his “magiste, Hicbreus” (6 ‘ESpaioc in the Greek fragment), op whose authority he gives several hag. Clement gadot (“ De Principiis,” i. 3, 4; iv, 26), and His dependence on the Jews is suff. Origen. ciently emphasized by Jerome (“ Ad. versus Rufinum,” I. xiii.) in the pas. sage wherein Clement and Eusebius are named among those who did not disdain to learn from Jews, Origen often mentions the views of Jews, meaning thereby not the teaching of certain individuals, but the method of exegesis prevalent among the Jews of his time. The Jews with whom he maintained per. sonal intercourse were men of distinguished scien. tific attainments. The one Jew whom he mentions by name was no less a personage than Hillel, the patriarch’s son, or “Juljos,” as Origen calls him (Gritz, “ Monatsschrift,” 1881, xxx. 433 e¢ seq.). His other Jewish acquaintances either were closely re- lated to the patriarch’s family, or occupied high positions on account of their erudition. Gritz (“Gesch. der Juden,” 3d ed., iv. 281) thinks indeed that some passages in Origen’s writings are directed against the contemporary amore of Palestine, Simlai. Origen seems, moreover, .o have had inter- course with Hoshaya of Cesarea (Bacher, “ Agada _der Paldstinensischen Amorier,” {. 92). Eusebius, the celebrated Church historian, also learned from the Jews, as has already been mer tioned, and was under the influence of Jewish tradi- tion. In Csesarea, where he lived, he met many Jews, with whom he had discussions. Nevertheless he uses the word “ Jew ” asa term of reproach, calling his opponent, Marcellus, “a Jew ” (“De Ecclesiasti Theologia,” ii. 2, 8). He likewise thinks it a dis grace to be one of the “circumcised” (ve To” & eptrousc, “Demonstratio Evangelica,” i. 6). This last expression is also used regularly by Ephraet@ Syrus to designate Jews (NVI) Np, “Opera By: riaca,” ii, 469). Ephraem distances aii his eccles! RCT Aer alas +9 SR TTS ’ put also FEET OER TUS DPE EE RT ES YRC, TITTLE WEOLEY TIER, BS BETTS OP. SL SO SH SOTA PES IER STM OA OITA! eT oe THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA predecessors in his hatred of the Jews, display- Jerome lived about forty years in Palestine, ap- $1 rness that is explicable only on the ground that he at one time had personal rela- tions with them, and had formed an adverse opinion of them. Epiphanius, too, shows his dependence on the Jews, especially in the book, Eg wrongly ascribed to him, e Pro- phetarum Vitis”; which contains, be- jdes man oe ee area J an tang of the lives of the Prophets. In this i td sowed by a Syrian work (“The Book of the a » published in “ Anecdota Oxoniensia,” Semitic “43. j., part 2). ee aes all other Church Fathers in his ndition as well as in his importance for Judaism. ; must be emphasized, in spite of Christian asser- Hee to the contrary (¢.g., B. Baue, “ Vorlesungen,” +i, 36), that he oa much fy oe aus ia ae ; from loyal Jews. e sought his informa- jon in many quarters, especially among . the edu- cated Jews (Preface to Hosea ; compare ‘Epistola Isxiii. ad Evangelum”). Hence he always cites she opinions of several Jews (“ quidam Hebreeorum ”), not that of one Jew; and these Jewish friends of his accompany him on his journeys (Preface to I Chronicles), though he has one particular guide (“ circumducens,” Preface to Nahum). Of only three of his Jewish teachers is anything known. A Jew from Lydda, whom Jerome calls “Lyddeus,” explained to him the Book of Job, translating it into Greek, and ex- pounding itin Latin. Although he has much to say in praise of this man, Jerome will not admit that he learned much from him (Preface to Job), designa- ting him often as one who merely read the Scriptures to him (“Onomastica Sacra,” xc. 12; commentary on Eccles. iv. 14, v. 8). But from this Lyddan Jerome acquired not only the material for his philo- logical notes, but also the Hebrew pronunciation that gives him a unique importance for Old Testa- ment criticism (Siegfried, in Stade’s “ Zeitschrift,” 1884, p. 84; Krauss, in “Magyar Zsid6 Szémle,” 1900, vii. 513). Jerome was more attached to his second teacher, Bar Hanina, who, however, can not be identical with R. Hama b. Hanina, as Rahmer insists (com- pare Weiss, in “ Bet-Talmud,” i. 131, note 3); nor can he possibly be identified until his Midrashim, quoted by Jerome, have been compared with the known say- Ings of the authors of the Talmud and the Midrash. This Bar Hanina must have been an eminent teacher of the Law, for Jerome spent much time and money before he could secure himasteacher. Since Jerome Would not visit his teacher by day, for fear of the Jews, he went to Bar Hanina by night (“ Epistola Isxxiv. ad Pammachium et Oceanum”). Bar Hanina eee from Tiberias, as is shown by the Hebrew tra- -lous communicated by him to Jerome; for one par- cular prophecy was held to apply to Tiberias (Je- me, “Queestiones Hebraice in Genesin,” xlix. 21). dial ee third teacher, whom he required espe- ie the Aramaic portions of the Bible, knew the J ebrew and Aramaic, and was considered by toe scribes as a “Chaldeus” (Preface to Bena gah “Epistola xviii. ad Damasum ”). Vi6 seal ae pitte gebius, pphraem pyrus ’ Epipha- pius. Jerome. Church Fathers parently studying all the time under Jews (commen- tary on Nahumii. 1: “a quibus non modico tempore eruditus”). His enemies severely censured him for his intercourse with the Jews, but he was proud of it. He asks how it could be held to impugn his faith in the Church, that he informs his readers in how many ways the Jews construe a single error. (“ Adversus Rufinuin,” booki.). “ Why should I not be permitted to inform the Latins of what I have learned from the Hebrews. . . . It ismost useful to cross the threshold of the masters, and to learn the art directly from the artists” (70. ). Jerome’s contemporary, the great teacher Augus- tine, did not fare so well in Africa. When he ques- tioned the Jews on Biblical matters, they often either did not answer at all, or, at least from the standpoint of the Church Fathers, “ lied ” (Jerome, “ Epistola cxii. ad Augustinum”), meaning probably that they gave an answer different from what the Christians desired (“ Epistola civ. Augustini ad Hieronymum”), Anal- leged letter from Jerome, probably forged by Rufi- nus, was sent to the Christian communities in Africa, in which Jerome professed to admit that, misled by the Jews, he had translated erroneously (“ Adversus Rufinum,” book iii., ii. 554, ed. Vallarsi). It morti- fied Jerome that his translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, so famous later on, should be passed over in silence by all the Jews, and that there was no one who knew enough Hebrew to appreciate the merits of the new translation (“ Epistola Augustine. cxii. ad Augustinum”), Fleeven be- lieved that all the Jews of Africa had conspired to oppose him, as actually happened in one place. Inacertain African town—so Augustine wrote to Jerome (Jerome’s works, “ Epistola civ. Augustini ad Hieronymum ”)—the new translation was read in the church, by order of the bishop. When they came to the passage in Jonah con- taining the word “kikayon” (iv. 6), which differed from the interpretation hitherto accepted, such a tumult arose that the bishop had to ask the Jews for a verification, and they declared, to the great annoyance of both Jerome and Augustine, that Jerome’s rendering did not agree with the He brew, or Greek, or (old) Latin codices. The bishop had to strike it out as “a lie,” bemmg in danger of losing his congregation. Before this, Tertul- lian of Carthage (165-245) had spoken of the im- pertinence and derision shown by a Jew (“Apo- logia,” xvi.; “Ad Nationes,” i. 11; compare Ass- WORSHIP), Among the Greek Church Fathers, Basil the Great hardly knew Hebrew (H. Weiss, “ Die Grossen Kap- padocier Exegeten,” p. 32, Braunsberg, 1872); yet his ability to distinguish between Amos, the prophet, and Amoz, the father of Isaiah (whose names are written alike in the Septuagint), as well as other similar facts, points to his having received oral instruction from Jews [or from some one who knew Hebrew.—tT.|. Gregory of Nyssa (¢c. 331-396), who did not recognize the rending of the garments on the occasion of a death as being a Jewish custom (repi Tov Biv tH¢ Maxapiag Maxpivyc, in Oehler, “ Bib- liothek der. Kirchenviter,” i. 188), does not seem to have known much about Judaism. The same may Church Fathers be said of the other Church Fathers who lived in Europe; that is, in sections sparsely settled by Jews. Jreneus, for instance, who suffered as a martyr in 202 in Lyons, knew nothing of Judaism outside of the Scriptures, although he was reared in Asia Minor. In the paschal controversy he advocated separation from Judaism. But the Greek fathers John Chrysos- tom and Cyril of Alexandria (see By- ZANTINE EMPIRE) potently affected the fate of the Jewish people, as did Bishop Ambrose of Milan (¢. 340-897). The Syrian Church, on the whole, waseven in the fourth century dependent upon Jewish traditions (Wellihausen, in Bleek’s “Einleitung in das Alte Testament,” 4th ed., p. 601). This appears espe- cially in the “Homilies” of Aphraates (c. 337-345). He complains (Hom. xix.) that the monks are led astray and ensnared by the Jewish arguments; he himself had a disputation with one “who is called a wise man among the Jews.” Aphraates, who, under the name “Mar-Jacob,” was abbot of the monastery of Mar-Mattai, and a bishop, gives such a number of Jewish traditions as to place him, in this regard, beside Ephraem Syrus (see APHRAATES). The Haggadah: The Church Fathers adopted from the Jews a mass of interpolations, interpreta- tions, and illustrative anecdotes, which may best be designated by the well-known term “Haggadah,” but which they themselves called variously. Gold- fahn has counted in Justin Martyr (“ Dialogus cum Tryphone”) twenty-six Hebrew traditions and six polemico-apologetic Haggadot. Among these may be mentioned: the eating by the three angels who appeared to Abraham; the Messiah’s conceal- ment and anointment by Elijah; the violent death of Isaiah (a Haggadah found already in the oldest apocry pha, and in nearly all the earlier fathers); Mel- chizedek’s identity with Shem (compare especially Epiphanius, “ Adversus Heereses,” xxxv., and the Syriac “Cave of Treasures,” translated by Bezold, p. 36). Clement calls the Jewish haggadists “myst” (uvorat, “ persons initiated”), a term that was prob- ably current in Alexandria; for the writings of all the Church Fathers agree in regarding Jewish tradi- tion as a kind of esoteric doctrine understood only by the initiated. Clement is acquainted with the old Haggadah to Ex. ii. 14, according to which Moses killed the Egyptian by merely Chrys- ostom, Cyril, and Ambrose. Clement pronouncing the nameof God. Mosesis and called also “ Joiakim ” and “ Melch” by Origen. the myste (“Stromata,” ed. Migne, viii. 897), and “ Melchiel” in Pseudo-Philo, “ Antiq. Bibl.” (Jewish Quarterly Review,” x. 228; compare x. 726). the Resurrection, ete. phe ability of the Jews to cope successfully with e Christians in these controversies is due to the act that they were well versed in all the questions yndet discussion. Jerome assumes that in Scrip- jural questions every Jew is able to give satisfac- tory replies (Preface toSamuel). The Skill Jews, moreover, were acquainted not of Jews in only with the original text, but also Con- with the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, troversy- Aquila’s version, and in general with all works relating to Holy Writ. No sooner had Apollinaris Laodicinus’ writings ap- peared than the Jews read and discussed them Jerome on Eccl. v. 1%). Especially noteworthy is the fact that the Jews were as well versed in the New Testament as in the (ld, being able to explain difficulties therein that puzzled even the officially appointed Christian teachers (tdem on Isa. xi. 1). Ephraem Syrusasserts, curiously enough (Sermon xxv., in Zingerle, “ Bib- liothek der Kirchenvater,” ii. 271), that the Jews admitted that John the Baptist really had appeared. Origen relates a Jewish tradition concerning Judas Iscariot (on Matt., Com. ser., § 78). Jerome is there- fore to be believed when he says that the Jews were often in a position to applaud their own champions (on Ezek, xxxiii. 88), which they did in a sensa- tional way (¢b. xxxiv. 3). Chrysostom also taxes the Jews with their theatrical manner (“ Opera,” ed. Montfaucon, i. 656), and before him the just and cautious Justin says the same thing (“ Dialogus cum Tryphone,” ¢exxii.). The Old Testament and the Apocrypha: The main object of the Christian endeavor was to wrest the Old Testament from the Jews and to make of it a Christian weapon. Therefore, as Jerome says (on Micah vii. 9), the Jews were hoping that in the Messianic times the Law and the Prophets would be taken away from the Christians and given to the Jews exclusively (compare the polemic passage in x. R. xlvii.). To accomplish their purpose the stians made use of the allegorical exegesis as developed by Philo and other Jewish Hellenists. @ literal meaning, says Origen, is good enough only for the Jews, in order that nothing may be ee to Jesus. Only Isidor of Pelusium had - fs enough to warn against applying the whole € Old Testament to Jesus, lest the Jews and Pagans find cause for ridicule (Epistles, i., ep. evi. ; » €P. cxev.), Nevertheless the whole Christian Church fell into this exaggeration; and into what absurdities they were led is shown by the following examples: Sarah and Hagar, already explained alle- gorically by Paul (Gal. iv. 24), are, according to Clement (“Stromata,” i. 5), wisdom Christians and the world. The two women who andthe appeared before Solomon symbolize Jewish the Synagogue and the Church; to Hellenists. the former belongs the dead child; to the latter, the living one, that is, the Jewish faith is dead; the Christian faith is living (Ephraem Syrus on I Kings iii. 6). These might pass; but it becomes mere childishness when David is made to signify old and worn-out Israel, but Abishag Jesus (on [ Kings i.1). Equally unnatural is the assertion of Fulgentius in his “ Epistola Syno- dica” (in Hefele, “Conciliengesch.” 2d ed., ii. 699), that Esau represents the “figura populi Judeorum,” and Jacob the people destined to be saved. The Jews made things much more easy by looking upon themselves as Jacob, and upon the Christians as Esauor Edom. At disputations the Christians knew in advance how the Jews would interpret certain passages. “If we ask the Jews who that daughter is [Ps. xlv.], I do not doubt that they will answer: the synagogue” (Jerome, “Epistola xlii. ad Prin- cipiam”). The Jews therefore not only opposed the Christian exegesis with the literal sense, but also had ready allegorical interpretations of their own. Only Tertullian and Irenzus were rational enough to follow the simple literal meaning. The so-called school of Antioch, whose most eminent representa- tives were Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, also taught a wholly rational exegesis; although the disciples of this school, such as Cosmas Indico- pleustes, used the allegorical and typical methods extensively (Barjean, “L’Ecole Exégétique d’ Anti- oche,” Paris, 1898). Still, it can not be denied that other Church Fathers, and above all Jerome, did ex- cellent work in simple exegesis. Good exegesis depends upon a good text, and this the Christians did not possess; for the copies of the Bible circulating among them were Corrupted corrupt in a number of passages. At Texts ofthe a certain disputation between Jews Bible. and Christians, the former, naturally enough, referred to these mistakes, and mocked their opponents for allowing such ob- vious blunders. Jewish arguments of that kind are often quoted by Justin, Origen, Jerome, and other fathers. In order to free the Church from the just reproaches of the Jews on this score, Origen under- took his gigantic work, the Hexapla (Epiphanius, “De Ponderibus et Mensuris,” ii.), in which he fre- quently restores the Jewish reading (¢.g., homily on Num. xvi. 4; Com. on Rom., books ii., xiii. ; compare Rufinus, “ Apologia s. Invectiv. in Hierony- mum,” book v., chap. iv.). Justin is honest enough to reject a manifest Christological gloss, the notori- ous ard Tov SbAov, which was said to be the reading in Ps. xevi. (xev. 10), interpolated in the Greek ver- sion (“the Lord reigned from the wood”). Aside from Justin (“ Dial. cum Tryphone,” Ixxiil.), this in- terpolation is found only in the Latin fathers—Ter- tullian, Ambrose,’Augustine, Leo, and Gregory the Great—who indulge in much nonsense concerning Church Fathers Chwolson THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a ay ge we rae eee ep ee le tg ee ee, ee ee, the words “a ligno.” Augustine (“De Civitate Dei,” xvi. 8) had a text in Gen. x. 2 in which not seven but eight sons of Japheth were mentioned, a reading that is found in none of the known texts. Hence the Jews rejected all translations, recognizing at most Aquila’s “secunda editio,” because this was correct (kata axpiBeav; Jerome on Ezek. iv. 15). Jerome is the only Church Father who, as against the Septuagint, constantly refers to the “ Hebraica veritas.” At great cost he had a Bible copied for himself by his Jewish friend (“ Adversus Rufinum,” book ii.), who borrowed for him, although with “ pia fraus,” the copies belonging to the synagogue (“ Epis- tola xxxvi. ad Damasum”). Nevertheless, even Jerome accuses the Jewsof tampering with the text of the Bible (Mal. ii. 2); and thereafter the accusa- tion constantly recurs. The Christians fared no better with the Apocry- pha, which they rated altogether too high, although these at times offended good taste. Origen fared badly at the hands of the Jews with his apocryphon Susanna (“ Epistola ad Africanum de Historia Susan- ne,” v.) nor was Jerome’s obscene legend to Jer. xxix. 21—a legend which is evidently connected with this apocryphon (see N. Briill’s ‘‘Jahrbiicher,’’ iii. 2), favorably received by the Jews. Jerome (on Matt. xxvii. 9) claims to have received an apocryphon on Jeremiah from a Jewish Nazarite, and to have found in a Hebrew book (“ Epistola xxxvi. ad Damasum,” “in quodam Hebrzo volumine”) a history of La- mech ; but his Jewish teacher speaks contemptuously of the additions to Daniel, as having been written by some Greek (Preface to Daniel). See BIBLE CANONS, The importance of the Church Fathers for Jewish jearning, already recognized by David Kimhi and Azariah dei Rossi, becomes evident, if one considers that many sentences of Talmud and Midrash can be brought into the right perspective only by the light of the exegesis and the polemics of these Chris- tian writers. Therefore modern Jewish learning turns, although not yet with sufficient eagerness, to the investigation of the works of the Church Fathers. BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Rahmer, Die Hebrdiischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronynvs, i.: Quaestiones in Genesin, Breslau, 1861; idem, Die Hebrdischen Traditionen in dem Bibelcommentar des Hieronymos, in Ben Chananja, 1864, vii. ; idem, Die Hebriiischen Traditionen des Hieronymos, in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868 ; in the Grdtz Jubelschrift, 1887; in Monatsschrift, 1897, pp. 625-639, 691- 692 : 1898, pp. 1-16; 8S. Krauss, Die Juden in den Werken des Heiligen Hieronymos,in Magyar Zsidé Szémle, vii., 1890; Gritz, Haggadische Elemente bei den Kirchenviitern, in Monatsschrift, 1854, iii.; Goldfahn, Justin Martyr wid die Agada, ib. 1873, xxvii., and reprinted; Gerson, Die Com- mentarien des Hphraem Syrus im Ihrem Verhidltniss zur Jitdischen Exegese, Breslau, 1868; Griinwald, Das Verhdiit- niss der Kirchenvdter zur Talmudischen und Midrasch- ischen Literatur, in Konigsberger’s Monatsbliitter, and re- printed, Jung-Bunzlau, 1891; 8. Funk, Die Haggadischen Ele- mente in den Homitien des Aphraates, des Persisehen Weisen, Vienna, 1891; S. Krauss, The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers, in Jewish Quarterly Review, 1892, v.122- 157; 1893, vi. 82-99, 225-261. A very thorough investigation is the treatise of L. Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchen- vitern und in der Apokryphischen Litteratur, in Mo- natsschrift, 1898, xlii. et seq., and reprinted, Berlin, 1900; ay habe Haggada bei den Kirchenvitern, vol. i., Am- sterdam, T : S. Kr. CHURRIKER, ABRAHAM DAVID: Beni- Israel soldier and police officer; born 1822; died at Puna Nov. 2, 1867. Heenlisted in the Third Reg- iment of the Bombay Native Light Infantry, in which he served in the Punjab army in the yen 1848-49, being present at the siege of Multan a the battle of Gujarat (1849), after which he obtaj, the Punjab medal with two bars, and was PrOmotey to the rank of subahdar in 1853. In 1855 he , made native commandant of the Ahmednug = police. During the Mutiny he served againgt th rebel Bhils at the battles of Tursia, Donger, bag Punchalla, and received the Order of Merit og ; third class for his gallantry. He was subsequeny appointed assistant superintendent of police at Puna (March 16, 1863), and died while serving ;, that capacity. He was held in such esteem that} was appointed chairman of the Puna municipality BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Samuel, Sketch of the Beni-Israg 25-27 PD whe ; } CHUSHAN-RISHATHAIM (R. V., Cushap. rishathaim).—Biblical Data: A king of Mesopo. tamia, or, more specifically, of Aram-naham; (“ Aram of the two rivers ”), probably a kingdom j, northern Mesopotamia (see ARAM). He was the fing of the oppressors of Israel in the time of the judges The tyrant, who held Israel in subjection for eight years after Joshua’s death, was finally conquered } the Judahite judge OTHNIEL, who freed Israel fron his rule (Judges iii. 8 et seq.). ——Critical View: Critics (see Moore’s comme. tary to Judges iii.) consider that the two state. ments: (1) that the land of Israel was conquered by an early Aramaic king, and (2) that the Israelite were freed by a Judahite hero, are contradictory. In all probability the ancient Judean clans had practi. cally no connection with Israel, and, in fact, would not aid the Israelites in Deborah’s insurrection (see Judges v.). Budde (“Richter und Samuel,” p, 95) also denies the possibility of Israel having been helped by Othniel. He thinks that the later editor of Judges wasa Judean who arranged the story 90 as to give his own tribe a representative among the judges. On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt the truth of the tradition that Arameans may at one time have held Israel in subjugation. The name “ Chushan-rishathaim ” appears nowhere outside of the Biblical record. It has not yet been found on the cuneiform monuments; and no satis factory explanation of its derivation has been given. J. IR. J. D. P. CHWOLSON, DANIEL ABRAMOVICH: Russian Orientalist; born at Wilna Dec. 15, 1819 As he showed marked ability in the study of He- brew and Talmud, his parents, who were very fF: ligious, destined him for the rabbinate, and placed him at the yeshibah of Rabbi Israel Gtinzburg; but fate had decided that he should serve his race i28 quite different sphere. Up to his eighteenth ye he did not know any other language than He brew; but in three years, without the aid of § teacher, he acquired a fair knowledge of Germal French, and Russian. Chwolson in 1841 went Breslau, and, after three years’ preparation in tH classical languages, entered, in 1844, the Breslal University, where he devoted himself to the Of ental languages, especially Arabic. There he studied until 1848, and in 1850 he received the degree ° doctor of philosophy at the Leipsic University. 8 wet eee Fase ey EEL A TE oR tere t THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 37 etum to his native country he settled at St. i rebUure, and in 1855, being highly appreciated i jearned circles, and having embraced Christian- in be was appointed extraordinary professor of ity’ al Janguages in the university. Three years rhe received a similar appointment in the Duk- late aya Akademiya. In 1856 the Imperial Acad- DOT saed. at its own expense, Chwolson’s first rk, which at once established the authority of its ees in the field of Oriental research. It was a a tribution to the history of religion, entitled “ Die oe tiee und der Ssabismus,” intwo volumes. Three set later Chwolson published another important ork entitled “Ueber die Ueberreste der Altbaby- ” ischen Literatur in Arabischen Uebersetzungen ” St. Petersburg, 1859; also in Russian under the title “Novootkrytie Pamyatniki,” in “ Russki Vyestnik,” 1859). This work made a great sensation among scholars by the importance of its discoveries and by Chwolson’s brilliant combinations concerning the oid Babylonian monuments. It was followed in 1860 by “Ueber Tammuz und die Menschenvereh- rung bel den Alten Babyloniern” (2b. 1860). His reputation being now firmly established, “Chwolson devoted himself to his life-task; namely, the defense of his former coreligion- ists. For blood accusation had been brought against the Jews of Saratov in 1857, and the government now sum- moned a commission of scholars to see whether any passages could be found in Jewish literature recommending the use of Christian blood for ritual purposes. Chwolson, who was appointed a mem- ber of the commission, wrote a report in which he fully demonstrated the groundlessness of the ac- cusations in general, and pointed out that in this particular case of Saratov the evidence given by the two principal witnesses was full of contradic- tionsand absurdities. As the investigation extended over a period of nine years, Chwolson, fearing that meanwhile the Jews of Russia would suffer under this accusation, secured permission to publish his memoir, It accordingly appeared in 1861, in the “Biblioteka diya Chteniya,” under the title “O Nye- kotorykh Srednovyekovykh Obvineniyakh Protiv Yevreyev.” in 1877 Chwolson had the mortification of seeing & new blood accusation brought against Jews at Kutais, Transcaucasia. At the same time several Russian anti-Semitic writers undertook a campaign against the Talmud, repeating the old charge that it contained blasphemies against Jesus. His Defense Chwolson again took up the defense ofthe ofthe Jews, and republished his mem- Talmud. oir with many additions (St. Peters- burg, 1880). A German edition of this Work appeared in the year 1901 under the title “ Die Blutanklage und Sonstige Mittelalterliche Beschuldi- Bingen der Juden,” Frankfort-on-the-Main. In this tdition Chwolson, before entering into a discussion of the blood question,expounds the history of the Tal- mud, and shows that the “ Pharisees ” condemned by ie in the Gospels were not the Rabbinites in gen- ince the latter were the advocates of progress at i Period of Jesus in history; that he meant by the M rather a certain class of false Pharisees, who His Life- Work. Church Fathers Chwolson were condemned in rabbinical literature also; and that it was not the Pharisees, but the Sadducees, who were the enemies and persecutors of Jesus. He fur- ther demonstrates that, according to Talmudical law, Jews were bound to look upon the Chris- tians as their breth- ren, and that intoler- ance toward other religions was not a characteristic of the Talmudists. The as- sertions to the con- trary are due partly to misconception, partly to hatred. The deep-rooted belief that Jesus was crucified by the Jews being the principal cause of the preju- dice against them on the part of the Christians, Chwol- a son, in a disserta- os De Se tion entitled “ Pos- lyedniyaya Pask- halnaya Vecherya Isusa Christa i Den yevo Smerti,” in “Christianskoe Chtenie,” St. Petersburg, 1875 (German translation, “Das Letzte Passamal Christi,” 1b. 1892), shows the groundlessness of this belief. He points out that the proceedings of the trial and con- demnation of Jesus, as related in the Gospels, were in violation of the rabbinical laws, and consequently could not have been conducted by a Jewish tribunal. The Jewish race, as well as the Jewish religion, was defended by Chwolson. In a work entitled “ Kharakteristika Semitskikh Narodov,” in “Russki Vyestnik,” 1872 (German ed., Berlin, 1872), he draws a parallel between the distinguish- ing characteristics of the Jew, the representative of the Semitic race, and those of the Greek, the representative of the Aryan peoples, not always to the advantage of the latter. The pamphlet was translated into English under the title “The Semitic Nations,” Cin- cinnati, 1874. Chwolson is also the author of the following works: “Statistische Nachrichten itiber die Orientalische Facultit der Universit&t zu St. Petersburg,” Leip- sic, 1861; “Achtzehn Hebriische Grabschriften aus der Krim,” in the “ Mémoires” of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science, 1865 (Russian translation, “ Vo- semnadtzat Nadgrobnykh Nadpisei iz Kryma,” St. Petersburg, 1866); “Izvyestiya o Khazarakh,” St. Petersburg, 1869 (notes on the Chazars, Burtars, Madjars, Slavs, and Russians from the Arabic of Ibn Dasta); “ Novotkryty Pamyatnik Moavitskavo Tzarya Meshi,” 2b. 1870; “O Vliyanii Geografiches- kavo Polozheniya Palestiny na Sudbu Yevreiskavo Naroda,” 7b. 1875 (reprinted in “Sbornik Budush- chnosti, ” ii. 1-4) ; “ Vozmozhnyli v Turtzii Reformy ?” 7b, 1877 (on the Turkish reform); “ Die Quiescentes He, Waw, und Iod in der Althebriischen Orthogra- phie,” Leyden, 1878 (Russian trans. in “ Christian- skoe Chtenie,” St. Petersburg, 1881; English transl. Other Works. Cicero . Cincinnati by T. K, Abbott, Dublin, 1890); “Upotreblyayut li Yevrei Christianskuyu Krov?” 2d ed., St. Petersburg, 1879; “O Mnimoi Zamknutosti Yevreyev,” 2b. 1880; “Corpus Inscriptionum MHebraicarum,” 7, 1882 Russian translation, 22. 1884); “ Predvaritelnaya, Zamyetka o Naidennykh v Semiryechenskoi Oblasti Siriskikh Nadgrobnykh Nadpisyakh, ”zb. 1886; “Sy- rische Grabschriften aus Semirjetschie,” 7b. 1890, in “Mémoires” of the St. Petersburg Academy; “Hat es Jemals Irgend Einen Grund Gegeben, den Riisttag des Jiidischen Passahfestes als party rév "ACouwv zu Bezeichnen?” in “Zeitschrift fiir Wis- senschaftliche Theologie,” v. 38, Leipsic, 1896; “Staropechatnyya Yevreiskiya Knigi,” on the He- brew incunabula, St. Petersburg, 1897 (Hebrew transl., “ Reshit Ma‘ase ha-Defus,” Warsaw, 1897). Mention may be made here of Chwolson’s early contributions of Jewish biographies from Arabic sources, especially that of Maimonides by A1l-Hifta, to the “ Orient,” 1846. Chwolson is an indefatigable collector of He- brew books, and his collection of Hebrew incunab- ula is one of the most valuable in existence. A catalogue of his Hebrew books was published by him under the title “Reshimat Sifre Yisrael,” Wilna, 1897. The Russian government conferred upon Chwolson the title of “Councilor of State” (“ Wirk- licher Staatsrath ”). The learned world in 1899 celebrated Chwolson’s literary jubilee by presenting him with a collection of articles written in his honor by prominent Euro- pean scholars. This was published by Baron David Ginzburg under the title “ Recueil des Travaux Ré- digés en Mémoire du Jubilé Scientifique de M. Daniel Chwolson,” Berlin, 1899. BIBLIOGRAPHY: La Grande Encyclopédie, s.v.; Meyers Kon- versations-Lexikon, 8.V. H. R. I, Br. CICERO, MARCUS TULLIUS: Roman statesman and orator; born 106; died 48 B.c. In 59 he delivered in the Aurelian Forum at Rome a speech in behalf of Flaccus, in which he spoke disparagingly of the Jews; this was perhaps not from conviction so much as in the interest of his client (“Pro Flacco,” xxviii.), though in Rhodes he had been the disciple in rhetoric of the anti-Jewish writer APoLLONIus Moon. Flaccus being ac- cused, among other things, of having appropriated while proconsul of Asia the moneys contributed for the Jewish Temple by Jews under his jurisdiction, Cicero contended that there was an edict forbidding the exporting of gold from the Roman provinces—a plea that was evidently sophistical, sinceJudea atthat time was a part of the Roman empire. He further said, referring to the Jews: “Justice demands that that barbaric superstition should be opposed; and it is to the interest of the state not to regard that Jew- ish mob which at times breaks out in open riots. ... At one time the Jewish people took up arms against the Romans; but the gods showed how little they cared for this people, suffering it to be con- quered and made tributary.” In the Latin the phrase “and to be preserved” occurs after “made tribu- tary,” but these words stultify the rest of the sen- tence, and seem to have been added later by a THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ; 88 Jewish or Christian copyist (Bernays, in “R isches Museum,” xit. 464), It would appear, unless Cicero’s words are Mere} a rhetorical flourish, that the Jews, who insis on being present on an occasion that conee them, surrounded the platform, and, supporting each other, became formidable through their numb “You know,” he said, addressing the plaintiff, « how large the mob is, how it holds together, and wha, ; accomplished in its assemblies.” It is not like] however, that the Jewish mob accomplished any. thing in this case, for Flaccus was probably dis. charged (compare Pliny, “Historia Naturalis xiii. 4). In the trial of Verres (70 B.c.) Plutarch repoy, that Cicero, in speaking of one of the ACCUser Cecilius, who was suspected of a leaning toward Judaism, made the pun, “Quid Judxo cum Verre)» (What has a Jew to do with a pig?). Finally, ing speech delivered in the Senate, May, 56 B.c,, and entitled “De Provinciis Consularibus,” Cicero refer to the Jewsand Syrians as “races born to be slaveg» an expression not uncommon in the mouths of the Romans of his day. hein. G. S. Kr.—@. CICIRUACCHIO. See BRunettr, ANGELO. CID, CAMPEADOR RUY DIAZ DE Y¥1. VAR (known as El Cid): The conqueror of Valen. cia (1094) and popular hero of the Spanish nation, Lacking money to pay his knights, he negotiated through his nephew, Martin Antolinez, a loan of 600 marks from two wealthy Jews of Burgos, Don Rachel and Don Vidas, and succeeded, despite all their precautions, in defrauding them. According to the “Cronica General de Castilla,” the Cid hada Jewish page by the name of Gil, who later assumed his master’s name, Diaz, and who is described asa rare example of fidelity. The “Cronica del Cid’— which is reputed to have had its source in an Arabic chronicle written by the Moorish Jew Ibn Alfango, one of the Cid’s officials—is in reality a careless com: pilation of older Arabic, Latin, and Spanish chrov- icles, and is a much Jater work than the “ Poems del Cid,” which appeared about the middle of the twelfth century and bears no traces of Arabic origin or Oriental coloring. The first complete translation of this poem was prepared by O. L. B. Wolff, a Jet ish convert to Christianity (Jena, 1850). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Amador de los Rios, Historia .. . dels J dios de Espatia y Portugal, i. 187 et seq.; Fr. Delitzsch, 20° Gesch. der Jildischen Poesie, p. 65: F. Wolf, Zur Gesth. der Spanischen und Portugiesischen Literatur, pp. seq. a. M. K. CILICIA: Ancient province of southeastern As# Minor, separated from Syria by the Taurus-Amanv range. In native Phenician inscriptions the name given as abn or —b> (Lidzbarski, “Handbuch det Nordsemitischen Epigraphik,” i. 274). Originally inhabited by Phenicians and Syrians (Herodotts vii. 91), Cilicia was only gradually Hellenized fro™ TARAS TOE: TT TE TRE FEO NAAT S FOTN TET IG, EP fee PV FR ty PIES RNA YN 9 25 18 HRT ERR ETNA ERIN ION Cena Re AEN UAE AIT 17 SOFAS CIE AES FET NTI OT OER TTY RTE RITE IRIS TRU RTO INO AS OTERO TOR EONS BEE THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 99 time of Alexander the Great; and because of its the imity to Syria it was often included in that Ce to which it belonged politically. After the ae of Alexander it became a Seleucid-Syrian Oe ance (I Macc. xi. 14; II Macc. iv. 386); it was pre afterward a part of Armenia; and from ame and 63 B.C. it belonged to Rome. As a gituation. Roman province Cilicia was known to the author of the Book of Judith; al- bh the Babylonian monarchy is referred to there!” (Judith i. 73 ii. 21, 25). Josephus (“ Ant.” i. 6, § 1) asserts that the Odpooc of the Bible (Gen. x. 4, “ Tarshish ”) is the old name gor Cilicia. He expressly identifies Oapoo¢ with Tapod¢ ufarsus ”), the renowned capital of Cilicia; but this is philologically impossible. He also makes the rophet Jonah travel to Tarsus in Cilicia (“ Ant.” a 10, § 2), and mentions the country in several other connections. According to Josephus, it was by way of Cilicia that Pompey (63 B.c.) returned from Judea to Rome with Aristobulusas his prisoner (“B, J.” i. 7,§ 7). Herod with his sons embarked for Cilicia, landing at Eleusa, where he met Arche- us, King of Cappadocia (“ Ant.” xvi. 4, § 6; “B. J." i. 28, § 4). At times Celenderis in Cilicia, a city otherwise unknown, is referred to (“ Ant.” xvii. 5, g1; “B. J.” i. 31, § 8). Alexander, a great-great- grandson of Herod, became king of an island of Cilicia by the favor of Vespasian (“ Ant.” xviii. 5, § 4). The infamous Berenice, after her husband’s death, married Polemon, King of Cilicia (“ Ant.” xx. ",§ 8). Antiochus, King of Commagene, who at first joined the Romans against the Jews, fled to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he was taken prisoner by Petus (“B. J.” vii. 7, $$ 2, 3). Mopsuestia, too, a Cilician city which afterward became celebrated through its Biblical exegesis, is referred to by Jose- phus (“ Ant.” xiii. 18, § 4). Cilicians were among the mercenaries of Alexander Jannseus (7b. § 5; “B. J.” i. 4, § 3) and those of Heron. In the Talmud the country is referred to as “ Kili- kah” after the Greek name. The cities of Tarsus, Taurus Amanus, and Zephyrion are mentioned ; but it is not certain that the Cilician Zephyr- In the Tal- ion is intended. The Syrians (Payne mud. Smith, “ Thesaurus Syriacus,” p. 3602) also mentioned Tarsus and Zephyrus among the important cities of Cilicia; but “ Aulon Kilikios ” (Targ. Yer. Num. xxxiv. 8) is the name ofa place in Moab (compare Josephus, “ Ant.” xiii. 5, $4). That Jews were dwelling in Cilicia is known from Philo (* Legatio ad Caium,” p. 86). At the time of the Apostles many Cilician Jews lived in Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9); among them Paul (2d. ix. 11, xxi. 89, xxi, 3), whose birthplace was Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia. Nahum, the son of Rabbi Simai, preached in Tarsus (Pesik. R. 15; ed. Friedmann, p. 78b); so that there must have beenacon gregation and a syn- agogue there. Some explain the “synagogue of the arsiyim ” as meaning “people of Tarsus.” In Jaffa a Greek epitaph of a Jew, “son of Jose of Tarsus,” a been found. Epiphanius (“Heres.” xxx, 11) tes that the patriarch Judah, of the fourth cen- ete sent messengers to Cilicia to collect tithes and aoe in every city. In Corycos in Cilicia the ‘cophagus of a Jew named Alexander and his thoug Cicero ; Cincinnati wife has been found. In Rome the epitaph ofa Jew, “Asaphat of Tarsus” (“Jahrb. Gesch. der Jud.” ii, 287), has been deciphered; but the reading is doubtful. Christianity spread rapidly in Cilicia; and this indicates that there were numerous Jewsin the province. Cilicia produced much wine (Pliny, “Historia Naturalis,” xiv. 11), to which reference is often made in the Talmud (Tosef., Sheb. v. 2; Yer. Hal. 60b). The Cilician bean is also frequently men- tioned (Ma’as. v. 8), as is the so-called Products. “cilicium,” a coarse cloth made of Cilician goat-hair (Kelim xix. 1). The word “cilicium” is used by the Vulgate to render the Biblical word py (“sack”); and in the ecclesias- tical life of the Christians it has a certain religious significance. Curly hair on the body is designa- ted as “cilicinus” by the Rabbis (Sifra, ed. Weiss, 76c). Though Cilicia came under various rulers, it was not until its conquest by the Turks that the Jews of the country attained to any prominence. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Boettger, Topographisch-Historisches Lexi- con zu den Schriften des Flavius Josephus, p. 90; Neu- bauer, G. T. p. 314; Bochart, Canaan, i. 5; S. Krauss, Lehn- worter, H. 581; Schiirer, Gesch. 3d ed., iii. 17. G. S. Kr. CINCINNATI: Capital of Hamilton county, Ohio, U.S. A. Its Jewish community is the oldest west of the Alleghany Mountains. In March, 1817, Joseph Jonas, a young English Jew, a native Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, O. (From a photograph.) of Exeter, arrived at the metropolis of the Ohio valley. He had left his English home with the avowed intention of settling in Cincinnati. Friends in Philadelphia endeavored to induce him to relin- quish his purpose of going to a spot so far removed from all association with his coreligionists, and said Cincinnati Cinnamon THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 90 to him: “In the wilds of America, and entirely among Gentiles, you will forget your religion and your God.” However, the young man remained deaf to the persuasions of his friends, and per- English severed in his original purpose. For Jews two years he was the only Jew in the Settle. Westerntown. In 1819 he was joined by three others, Lewis Cohen of Lon- don, Barnet Levi of Liverpool, and Jonas Levy of Exeter. These four with David Israel Johnson of Brookville, Ind., a frontier trading-station, con- ducted on the holidays in the autumn of 1819 the first Jewish service in the western portion of the United States. Similar / services were foe Ria es held in the three Se succeeding falls. Newcomers con- tinued to arrive, the early settlers being mostly Englishmen. The first Jew- ish child born in Cincinnati (June 2, 1821) was Frederick A., son of the above- mentioned Da- vid Israel John- son and his wife Eliza. This couple, also English, had re- moved to Cin- cinnati from Brookville, where they had first settled. The first couple to be joined in wedlock were Morris Symonds and Rebekah Hyams, who were married Sept. 15, 1824. The first death in the commu- nity was that of Benjamin Leib or Lape, in 1821. This man, who had not been known as a Jew, when he felt death to be approaching, asked that three of the Jewish residents of the town be called. He disclosed to them that he was a Jew. He had married a Christian wife, and had reared his chil- dren as Christians, but he begged to be buried as a Jew. There was no Jewish burial-ground in the town. The few Jews living in the city at once proceeded to acquire a small plot of ground to be used as a cemetery. Here they buried their repent- ant coreligionist, This plot, which was afterward A B’ne Yeshurun Temple, Cincinnati, O. (From a photograph.) an ie a Od eniarged, was used as the cemetery of the Jewish community till the year 1850. At present it is sit ated in the heart of the city, on the corner of Con tral avenue and Chestnut street. = There were not enough settlers to form a con gation till the year 1824, when the number of Jewish inhabitants of the town had reached about twent On Jan. 4 of that year a preliminary meeting y,. held to consider the advisability of organizing congregation; and two weeks later, on Jan. 18. th Congregation B’ne Israel was formally organized. those in attend. ance were Solo. mon Bucking. ham, David ] Jobuson, J oseph 23 Jonas, Samuel] ‘ : bas Eee Jonas, Jonag : Levy, Morrig Moses, Phineas Moses, Simeoy Moses, Solomo, Moses, and Mop. ris Symonds On Jan. 8, 1839 the General As. sembly of Ohio granted the cop. gregationa char. ter whereby it was incorpo. rated under the laws of the state, For twelve years the con. gregation wor- shiped in a room rented for the purpose; but during all this time the small congregation was exerting it- self to secure 4 permanent home. Appeals were made to the Jewish con- gregationsin various parts of the country. Philadelphia, Charleston, 5. C., and New Orleans lent a helping hand. Contributions wert even received from Portsmouth, England, whenct a number of Cincinnatians had emigrated, and from Barbados in the West Indies. On June 11, 18% the corner-stone of the first synagogue was laid: and on Sept. 9, 1886, the synagogue was dedicated with appropriate ceremonies. The members of the congregation had conducted the services up to this time. The first official reader was Joseph Samuels He served a very short time, and was succeeded by Henry Harris, who was followed in 18388 by Hi Judah. rt iat PhP A NT RRA IEE RTT NI 2 tl PETAR BOOE Tel PTO TQM SPO RR tn pret THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA g1 the first benevolent association was organized in g with Phineas Moses as president: its object 18 to assist needy coreligionists. The first re- a school was established in 1842, Mrs. Louisa hig! Symonds becoming its first superin- Early tendent. This school was short-lived. Religious In 1845 a Talmud Torah school was Institu- established, which gave way the fol- tions. lowing year to the Hebrew Institute, established by James K. Gutheim. This also flourished but a short time; for with the departure of Gutheim for New Orleans the career of the institute closed. puring the fourth decade of the century quite a number of Germans arrived in the city. These were not in sympathy with their English coreligion- ists, and determined to form another congregation. On Sept. 19, 1841, the B’ne Yeshurun congregation gas organized by these Germans, and was incorpo- rated under the laws of the state Feb. 28, 1842. The first reader Was Simon Bamberger. In 1847 James K. Gutheim was elected lecturer and reader of the congregation. He served till 1848, and was suc- ceeded by H. A. Henry and A. Rosenfeld. The as- sumption of the office of rabbiin the B’ne Yeshurun congregation by Isaac M. Wise in April, 1854, and in the B’ne Israel congregation by Max Lilienthal in June, 1855, gave the Jewish com- Becomes munity of Cincinnati a commanding aJewish position. Owing to their efforts in the Center. cause of Judaism, Cincinnati became a Jewish center indeed and the seat of a number of movements that were national in scope. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Hebrew Union College, the Hebrew Sabbath-School Union, and the Central Conference of American Rab- pighave their seat in Cincinnati. Dr. Lilientha! died in office April 5, 1882. He was succeeded as rabbi of the Congregation B’ne Israel by Raphael Benjamin, who served till Nov., 1888, when the present incumbent, Dr. David Philipson, took charge of the congregation. Dr. Wise served as rabbi of the B’ne Yeshurun congregation till the day of his death, March 26, 1900; being succeeded by his associate, Dr. Louis Grossman. Dr. Gross- man had been preceded as associate rabbi by Rabbi Charles 8. Levi, who served from Sept., 1889, to Sept., 1898. The other congregations of the city are the Adath Israel, organized in 1847; the Ahabath Achim, or- ganized in 1848; and the Sherith Israel, organized in 1855. There are also a number of small congre- gations, Each of these congregations conducts its Own religious school, and there are also two free religious schools; one holding its ses- Edu- sions in the schoolrooms of the Mound cational street temple (B’ne Israel), and the Work. other, conducted under the auspices of the local branch of the Council of Jewish Women, meeting at the Jewish Settlement. A large Talmud Torah school is conducted by the almud Torah Association on Barr street. The ‘ebrew Union College is located in Cincinnati. Night classes for various English and industrial Tanches of study are a feature of the work of the Jewish Settlement. The Jewish Kitchen Garden Cincinnati Cinnamon Association conducts a large school for girls in the building of the United Jewish Charities every Sun- day morning, where instruction is given in dress- making, millinery, housekeeping, cooking, stenog- raphy, typewriting, and allied subjects. An industrial school for girls is conducted during the summer months in the vestry-rooms of the Plum street temple (B’ne Yeshurun), and one for boys dur- ing the school year in the Ohio Mechanics’ Institute building. There is a training-school for nurses in connection with the Jewish Hospital. The Jewish charities of Cincinnati are exception- ally well organized. All the relief and educational agencies joined their forces in April, 1896, and formed the United Jewish Charities. This body comprises the following federated societies: He- brew General Relief Association, Jewish Ladies’ Sewing Society, Jewish Foster Home, Jewish Kitchen Garden Association, Boys’ Industrial School, Girls’ Industrial School, and Society for the Relief of Jewish Sick Poor. The United Charities also grants an annual subvention to the Denver Hospital for Consumptives and to the local Jewish Settlement Association. The seat of the National Jewish Charities is also in Cincinnati, where the na- tional organization was called into being in May, 1899. Besides the United Jewish Charities, Cincin- nati supports the Jewish Hospital and the Home for the Jewish Aged and Infirm, and is one of the lar- gest contributors to the Jewish Orphan Asylum at Cleveland. The Jews of Cincinnati have always shown great public spirit and have filled many local positions of trust, as well as state, judicial, and govern- mental offices. Henry Mack, Charles Fleischmann, James Brown, and Alfred M. Cohen have been mem- bers of the Ohio senate, and Joseph Jonas, Jacob Wolf, Daniel Wolf, and Harry M. Hoffheimer have been members of the legislature. Jacob Shroder was judge of the court of common pleas for a num- ber of years, and Frederick S. Spiegel now holds (1902) the same position. Julius Fleischmann is the present mayor of the city. Nathaniel New- burgh was appointed appraiser of merchandise by President Cleveland during his first administration, and Bernhard Bettmann has been collector of inter- nal revenue since 1897, The Jewish newspapers published in Cincinnati are “The American Israelite,” established 1854, and “ Die Deborah,” established 1855; “ The Sabbath Vis- itor,” established 1874, was discontinued in 1892. The Jews of the city were estimated in 1900 at 15,000, in a total population of 325,902. BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Jews of Ohio, by J{oseph] Jfonas], in Leeser’s Occident, i. 547-550; ii. 29-31, 148-147, 244-247; David Philipson, The Oldest Jewish Congregation in the West, Cincinnati. 1894; History of the Congregation B’ne Yeshu- run (by a committee of the board of trustees), Cincinnati, 1894: David Philipson, The Jewish Pioneers of the Ohio Valley, in Publications Am. Jew. Hist. Soc. ix. 48-57; the files of The American Israelite, 1854. P A DP. CINNAMON: The bark of the Cinnamomum Zeylanicum, a plant so called botanically because growing best in Ceylon. A variety often substi- tuted for it, cassia, comes from China. Cinnamon was known in early times to the Hebrews. It was used in making the anointing-oil (Ex. xxx. 28), and, Cipher. Circumcision further, as a mere perfume (Prov. vii. 17). In the Song of Solomon (iv. 14) it is mentioned along with other fragrant woods. Gesenius and Lagarde con- sider the Hebrew (“kinnamon”) to be a loan-word from the Greek (kwvduwpov), although Herodotus (iii. 111) states that the Greeks themselves borrowed it from the Phenicians. It seems that both Hebrew and Greek took it from the Phenician. E. G. H. CIPHER. See GEMATRIA. CIRCUMCISION (75%; in Biblical Hebrew, abin =the cutting away” of the noayp = “fore- skin ”),—Biblical Data: A religiousrite performed on male children of Jews on the eighth day after birth ; also on their slaves, whether born in the house or not. It was enjoined upon Abraham and his de- scendants as “a token of the covenant” concluded with him by God for all generations, the penalty of non-observance being “karet,” excision from the people (Gen. xvii. 10-14, xxi. 4; Lev. xii. 3), Aliens had to undergo circumcision before they could be allowed to partake of the covenant-feast of Passover (Ex. xii. 48), or marry into a Jewish family (Gen. xxxiv. 14-16). It was “a reproach” for the Israelite to be uncircumcised (Josh. v. 9; on “the reproach of Egypt” see below). Hence the name “‘arelim ” (uncircumcised) became an opprobrious term, denoting the Philistines and other non-Israel- ites (I Sam. xiv. 6, xxxi. 4; II Sam. i. 20; compare Judges xiv. 3; I Sam. xvii. 26), and used synony- mously with“ tame” (unclean) for heathen (Isa. lii. 1). The word “ ‘arel” (uncircumcised) is also employed for “unclean” (Lev. xxvi. 41, “their uncircumcised hearts”; compare Jer. ix. 25; Ezek. xliv. 7, 9); it is even applied to the first three years’ fruit of a tree, which is forbidden (Lev. xix. 23). This shows how deeply rooted in the minds of the ancient Hebrews was the idea that circumcision was an indispensable act of national consecration and purification. Nevertheless, there are several facts in the Bible which do not seem to be in full harmony with this view. Ac- cording to Ex. iv. 24-26, the circum- cision of the first-born son was omitted by Moses, and the Lord therefore “sought to kill him”; whereupon “Zipporah took a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son, and made it touch [A. V., “cast it at”] his [Moses’] feet,” say- ing, “A bridegroom of blood art thou tome.” Thus Moses was ransomed by the blood of his son’s circumcision. Strange as was this omission on the part of Moses, the omission of the rite on the part of the Israelites in the wilderness was no less singular. As re- corded in Josh. v. 2-9, “all the people that came out” of Egypt were circumcised, but those “born in the wilderness” were not; and therefore Joshua, before the celebration of the Passover, had them circumcised with knives of flint (compare Ex. iv. 25) at Gilgal, which name is explained as “the roll- ing away ” of “the reproach of Egypt” (see GILGAL). Attention has also been called to the peculiar at- titude of Deuteronomy and the Prophets toward cir- cumcision. Deut. x. 16 (compare 7b. xxx. 6 and Jer. iv. 4) says, “Circumcise the foreskin of your G. B. L. Original Sig- nificance. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 92 heart,” thus giving the rite a spiritual mean; circumcision as a physical act being enjoineg no where in the whole book (see Geiger, “ Urschrift,» 7 79, and Montefiore, “Hibbert Lectures,” 1899, p 229, 387). Jer. ix. 25, 26 goes so far as to say that i cumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by-the Lord; for “all thenations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel] are uncircumciseg in heart.” Obviously, the prophetic view of the sacredness of the rite differed from that of the people. ——Historical View: Circumcision was knoy to be not an exclusively Jewish rite. Ishmael Wag circumcised when thirteen years old; that is, at the age of puberty (Gen. xvii. 20). The rite was, in fact, practised not only in ancient Arabia (Jogo, phus, “Ant.” 1. 12,§ 2; Origen, “ Ad Genesin,” j, 44. Eusebius, “ Preparatio Evangelica,” vi. 11; Shahray. tani, transl. Haarbriicker, ij. 35, § 4; Sozomen “Hist. Eccl.” vi. 88), but also in Ethiopia (Phijo. storgius, “Hist. Eccl.” iii. 4; Strabo, xvii. 776, 824), as well as by almost all the primitive tribes of Africa and by many of Australia (see R. Andree “Die Beschneidung,” in “Archiv fiir Anthropolo. gie,” 1880, xiii. 58-78; Ploss, “Geschichtliches unq Ethnologisches tiber Knaben-Beschneidung,” jp “ Archiv fiir Gesch. der Medicin,” 1885, viii.; R Hartmann, “ Die Volker Afrikas,” 1879, i. 178), This accumulation of evidence points to the fact that circumcision in its primitive form was connected with marriage, whether performed with « view to the facilitation of cohabitation, as Ploss thinks, or, as is far more in accordance with the psycholcgy of all primitive as well as of all ancient nations, to the consecration of the generative powers. Atall events, theage of puberty is most frequently selected for the rite; and, after weeks of purification, accom- panied by tests of courage, the boy is formally graduated into manhood and, bearing a new name, is ushered into the bridal clamber (Niebuhr, “Be. schreibung von Arabien,” p. 269; Andree, @.c.). For Egypt the practise is attested not alone by Herod- otus (ii. 37, 164), Philo (“ De Circumcisione,” § 2; ed. Mangey, p. 210), and Anibrosius (“ De Abrahamo,” ii. 348), butalso by the monuments (see Ebers, “ Aigyp- ten und die Biicher Mose’s,” i, 278) and the very valuable Greek text published and discussed by R. Reizenstein (“ Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen,” Strasburg, 1901). The rite of circumcision signified admission of the boy at the age of puberty into the rank of priesthood, as “web” (the Egyptian for “pure” or “holy ”), the mother’s presence being con sidered especially necessary. In Biblica) literature the rite is incidental to the recognition of heirship, and to the adoption of anew name (Gen, xvii. 4-14). Moses’ neglect to circumcise Gershom was possi- bly associated in some way with his (Moses’) mar riage to a Midianite woman. Zipporah, howevel, ultimately showed her allegiance to the God of the Hebrews by performing the rite herself. The fact that in Arabic “hatana” signifies both “l marry ” (compare the Hebrew jnn = “ bridegroom, | and inin = “father-in-law ”) and “to circumelsé shows an original connection between the rite 20 the nuptial ceremony; whereas the terms “tubut and “tathir” (purification), applied to circumcisi hg; THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 93 arabia (see Wellhausen, “Skizzen und Vorarbei- my 1887, ili. 154 e¢ seg.), indicate the later relig- ; is view (see also Kohler, in “Z. D. M. G.” xxiii. ion and Naldeke, ¢b. xl. 787). Oe critical view of the Pentateuch, which ribes Gen. xvii. to the late Priestly Code, and aie vy. 4-7 to the interpolation of the redactor Jos Pillmann, commentary on the passage), suf- % cently accounts for the non-circumcision of young . ' elites prior to their entrance into Canaan by the ai owing theory: The ancient Hebrews followed the ma primitive custom of undergoing circumcision t the age of puberty, the circumcision of young vyarrio¥S at that age signifying the consecration ¢ their manhood to their task as men of the cove- ant battling against the uncircumcised inhabitants we Reizenstein, l.c.). After the settlement of the Israelites in Palestine, the rite was transferred to the eighth day after birth. In fixing the time of the in- tiatory Tite at an age when its severity would be jeast felt, the Mosaic law shows its superiority over theolder custom. Explanations which find the origin of circumcision in hygienic motives, suggested first by Philo (i.c.) and Josephus (“Contra Ap.” ii, 138), then by Saadia (“ Emunot we-De‘ot,” iii. 10) and Maimonides (“ Moreh Nebukim,” iii. 49), and often repeated in modern times, from Michaelis (“ Mosa- isches Recht,” iv. 184-186) down to Rosenzweig (“Zur Beschneidungsfrage,” 1878), who recommends ig introduction into the Prussian army, have no other than a historical value. __In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature : During the Babylonian exile the Sabbath and cir- eumcision became the characteristic symbols of Ju- daism. ‘This seems to be the underlying idea of Isa. Ivi. 4: “The eunuchs that keep my Sabbath” still “hold fast by my covenant,” though not hav- ing “the sign of the covenant” (Gen. xvii. 11, Hebr.) upon their flesh. Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena, made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or anti- nationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm (“making themselves foreskins”; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, “Ant.” xii. 5,81; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; nduy Jw, Tosef., Shab. xv.9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a), All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Anti- ochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. 1.48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons. In order to prevent the obliteration of the “seal of the covenant” (A°99 Onin) on the flesh, as cir- Cumcision was henceforth called, the Rabbis, proba- bly after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. @.¢c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the “peri‘ah” (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was de- Clared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6). Thenceforward circumcision was the mark of Jewish loyalty. The Book of Jubilees (xv. 26-27), ¥ritten in the time of John Hyrcanus, has the fol- OWing: “Whosoever is uncircumcised belongs to Sons of Belial,’ to ‘the children of doom and Tal perdition ’; for all the angels of the Presence ‘ad of the Glorification have been so from the Cipher | Circumcision -——— day of their creation, and God’s anger will be kin- died against the children of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and ex- terminated from the earth ” (see Charles, “The Book of Jubilees,” lv.-lx. iii. 190-192). To be born circumcised was regarded as the privilege of the saints, from Adam, “who was made in the image of God,” and Moses to Zerubbabel (see Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, p. 158; Sotah 12a). And great impor- tance was laid upon the shedding of a drop of blood as a sign of the covenant when a child or a prose- lyte born circumcised was to be initiated into Juda- ism (Shab. 1385-187). Uncircumcision being a blemish, circumcision was to remove it, and to render Abraham and his de- scendants “ perfect” (Ned. 31b; Gen. R. xlvi., after Gen. xvii. 1). “Isaac should be the offspring of the consecrated patriarch” (Gen. R. @.c.). He who des- troys the covenant sign of Abraham (by epispasm), has no portion in the world to come (Ab, iii. 17; Sifre, Num. xv. 31; Sanh, 99). According to Pirke R. El. xxix., it was Shem who circumcised Abra- ham and Ishmael on the Day of Atonement; and the blood of the covenant then shed is ever before God on that day to serve as an atoning power. Accord- ing to the same Midrash, Pharaoh prevented the Hebrew slaves from performing the rite, but when the Passover time came and brought Abrahamic them deliverance, they underwent cir- Covenant. cumcision, and mingled the blood of the paschal lamb with that of the Abrahamic covenant, wherefore (Ezek. xvi. 6) God ‘repeats the words: “In thy blood live!” In the wilderness, however, the Israelites omitted only the peri‘ah, according to R. Ishmael; accord- ing to the other rabbis, they did not circumcise their children on account of the fatigue of the journey. According to Sifre, Beha‘aloteka, 67, and Ex. R., xix., the tribe of Levi was the only one that “kept the [Abrahamic] covenant ” (Deut. xxxiii. 9). They had, says R. Ishmael, piled up the foreskins of the circumcision in the wilderness, and covered them with earth. To this Balaam referred when he asked: “Who can count the dust of Jacob?” (Num. xxiii. 10); and for this reason it became custom- ary after circumcision to cover the foreskin with earth. Loyalty to the Abrahamic covenant was shown by the Gentiles who voluntarily espoused the Jewish faith, but not by the slaves of Abraham upon whom circumcision was enforced, the patriarch having done so only because he wished to conform to the Levitical laws of purity. Nor did Esau practise circumcision in his own household: “he despised his birthright ” (Gen. xxv. 34; Tanna debe Eliyahu R, xxiv. [xxii.]). The Ephraimite kingdom also failed to observe the Abrahamic rite; wherefore Elijah swore “there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word” (I Kings xvii. 1). Eli- jah’s lot was ever to be persecuted by Jezebel; therefore the Lord also swore an oath that no “berit milah” (rite of circumcision) should be cele- brated in Israel without the presence of Elijah: hence a chair is always reserved on that occasion for Elijah, “the angel [A. V., “messenger”] of the Circumcision covenant” (Mal. iii. 1; Pirke R. El. xix.; see Eut- Jan's CHAIR). Talismanic powers were ascribed to the sign of the covenant, as also to the phylacteries. Accord- ing to the rabbis, David, when he saw himself at the bath stripped of the tefillin and other religious in- signia, thanked God for the Abrahamic rite protect- ing him, and sang the Twelfth Psalm, which hears the superscription “‘Al-ha Sheminit” (lit., “on the eighth,” explained by the Rabbis as referring to the rite of circumcision; Yeb. 48b; compare 7). 53b.) Circumcision causes an angel to save the Israelites from the pangs of Gehenna, to which, according to Ezek. xxxii. 24, the uncircumcised (‘arelim) are consigned (Tan., Lek Leka, ed. Buber, 27; Ex. R. xix.). According to Gen. R. xIviii., it is Abraham who sits at the gate of Gehenna to save the circum- cised (see ABRAHAM). “Circumcision is of such importance that heaven and earth are held only by the fulfilment of that covenant [after Jer. xxxi. 35]; and all the merits of Moses could not shield him against the danger to which he was exposed in consequence of the neglect of this command. It is a thirteenfold covenant” (Ned. 34b). Saving But “it is also an occasion of high- Power of est joy” (Meg. 16b, with reference to Cir- Esth. viii. 16, and Ps. cxix. 162), espe- cumcision. cially “forthe mother ” (Git. 57a, with reference to Ps, cxiii. 9), the berit mi- lah having been made the occasion of great festivity from the daysof Abraham (Shab. 130a; Pirke R. El. i.c.; see BANQUETS). “ Circumcision is one of the commandments which, having been accepted with joy, are ever obeyed with joy, and, because the people gave their lives for them, are observed with steadfast loyalty ” (R. Simeon b. Eleazar, in Shab. 130a). This refers to the martyrdom which the Jewish people under- went during the Hadrianic persecution, which was especially directed against circumcision. “We ought to abstain from marrying,” said R. Ishmael b. Elisha, “since the Roman {Yawanj| government forbids us to celebrate the festival of the birth of a son [“ yeshua‘ ha-ben,” or “shabua‘ ha-ben”]; but then the world would come to a standstill” (B. B. 60b). “ Why art thou, O Israel, led forth to be slain? . . . Because [have circumcised my son! .. . Itis the love I show for my Father in heaven” (Mek., Yitro, Ba-Hodesh, vi.). “Why did God not make man as he wanted him to be?” asked Tinnius (Ty- rannus) Rufus, with biting sarcasm; and Akiba re- plied, “In order that man should perfect himself by the fulfilment of a divine command” (Tan., Tazria‘, ed. Buber, 7). In Gen. R. xlvi. the arguments for and against circumcision are put forth in the form of a dia- logue between God and Abraham. Replying to the question why the command had Arguments not been given to Adam if it was so forand dear to Him, God reminds Abraham Against. that it should be sufficient for him that he and God are in the world—a play on “ShADDAI”—and that the maintenance of the world depends upon the acceptance of the com- mandment. But Abraham objects that circum- cision is an obstacle to the conversion of thie THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 94 Gentiles. This trouble, also, is overcome by th declaration of God’s sufficiency to protect bo . Abraham and the world. In fact, circumcision been deferred from the time of Abraham’s CONE: sion—in the forty-eighth year of his life—untj) hie ninety-ninth year, for the express purpose of faci}; tating the making of proselytes. ° The problem of proselytism, indeed, had Stirr Judaism to its very depths, and had almost Separateg Hellenistic from Palestinian Judaism. The forme, would admit Gentiles after having undergone the rite of baptism; that is, regeneration by living Water (see Sibyllines. iv. 164 et seg.: “ Wash your Whole stature clean from impurity in running Streams and, with hands uplifted to heaven, ask for forgiy,’ ness for your doing; then the worship of God wi) heal gross impiety”). With this view, Josephy, relates (“ Ant.” xx. 2, 8§ 3, 4), a Jew named Anania, sought to make converts to Judaism. He gy¢. ceeded with Queen Helena and the women of th, court, and her son Izates was eager to follow he example. But Izates’ mother, on hearing of hj, determination to submit to circumcision also, i. plored him not to do so, as the people might take umbrage at his act of compliance with strange ang abhorrent rites, and overthrow the dynasty. Hig instructor, Ananias, also tried to dissuade him anq to allay his scruples with arguments based on the meritoriousness of his intention, which would atone, in the sight of God, for the non-performance of the rite. But, through the influence of another Jew, Eleazar, from Galilee, the home of the Zealot party, Izates was easily induced to submit to the operation; and he informed both his mother and Ananias of what he had done. He was rewarded for his fortitude and piety; for “God . . . preserved both Izates and his sons when they had fallen into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed impossible, demonstrating thereby that the fruit of piety is not lost to those who Circum- wait for Him and who put their sole cision of trust in Him.” Compare the story re. Proselytes. lated in Gen. R. xlvi.: “ King Monobaz and Izates, sons of King Ptolemy {an error: read “Monobaz” for “Ptolemy ”], read the Book of Genesis together. When they came to the passage xvii. 11 they wept; and each, without the other’s knowledge, underwent circumcision. The next time they read the chapter together one said to the other: ‘ Wo unto me, my brother!’ They then disclosed what they had done. Their mother, on hearing of the matter, told their father that they had needed circumcision as a precaution against phi- mosis, and he signified his approval. As a reward for their action they were saved by an angel from be ing killed in an ambush during a war in which they had become involved ” (compare Gritz, “ Gesch.” ill 430 et seq.). The issue between the Zealot and Liberal pe ties regarding the circumcision of proselytes ™ mained an open one in tannaitic times; R. Joshua a serting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered 4 person a full proselyte without circumcision, 93 rael, when receiving the Law, required no initiatio” other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliez! makes circumcision a condition for the admissio2 ° OED MATHURA NAP pete Dey eer pS NR 5 EERE, - gjrcu THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 95 rosely te, and declares the baptismal rite to be 9 consequence (Yeb. 46a). A similar contro- petween the Shammaites and the Hillelites is asi (Shab. 137a) regarding a proselyte born cir- give cumcised: the former demanding the Cir- spilling of a drop of blood of the cov- mcision enant; the latter declaring it to be wecesSalY unnecessary. The rigorous Shamma- or Not? ite view, voiced in the Book of Jubi- lees (Z.c.), prevailed in the time of King John Hyrcanus, who forced the Abrahamic tg UpOR the Idumeans, and in that of King Aristo- ylus, who made the Itureans undergo circumcision J osephus, “ Ant.” xiii. 9,§1; 11,§3). According to Rsth. viii. 17, LXX., the Persians who, from fear of the Jews after Haman’s defeat, “became Jews,” were circumcised. The rigorous view is echoed also in the Midrash: «jf thy sops accept My Godhead [by undergoing mcision] I shall be their God and bring them into the land; but if they do not observe My cove- rant in regard either to circumcision or to the Sab- hath, they shall not enter the land of promise” (Gen. R, xivi., with reference to Gen. xvii. 8-9). “The sabbath-keepers who are not circumcised are ‘intru- ders, and deserve punishment,” (AN IYN NIww I; Deut. R. i. and Ma*‘ase Torah, ed. Schénblum; see also Hippolytus,“ Refutatio Omnium Heresium,” : 1 . a on however, that while the Palestinian Jews accepted the uncircumcised proselytes only as “Proselytes of the Gate” (“Gere Toshab,” Yeb. 47; see PROSELYTES), non-Palestinian Judaism did not make such a distinction until the Roman wars, when the more rigorous view became prevalent every- where. Thus Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the emperors Titus and Domitian, when with his wife Domitilla he embraced the Jewish faith, underwent circumcision, for which he suffered the penalty of death (see Gritz, “Gesch.” iv. 403 e¢ seg., 702). It was chiefly this rigorous feature of Jewish prose- lytism which provoked the hostile measures of the emperor Hadrian. And, furthermore, it was the discussion of this same question among the Jews— whether the seal of circumcision, M™3 ONIN (see Shab. 187b; Ex..R. xix. ; Targ. Cant. iii. 8; Hermas, “Similitudines,” viii. 6, ix. 16; II Clemens to the Corinthians, vii. 6, viii. 6; Grace aT MEA.s; for heathen parallels of the expression “seal” see Anrich, “Das Antike Mysterienwesen,” pp. 123-124, and Reizenstein, Uc. pp. 7-8), might not find its substi- tute in “the seal of baptism ”— which led Paul to urge the latter in opposition to the former (Rom. l, 29 et seq., iv. 11, and elsewhere), just as he was led to adopt the antinomistic or antinational view, Which had its exponents in Alexandria (see Philo, De Migratione Abrahami,” xvi. ;ed. Mangey, i. 450). hile in Biblical times the mother (perhaps gen- erally) performed the operation, it was in later times Performed by a surgeon, NAY OF tN, also called by © Specific name “mohel” Omi; see Josephus, Ant.” xx. 2,84; B. B. 21a; Shab. 180b, 138b, 135, nie or “ gozer” (n713). In the Codex Justinianus i: dae physicians were prohibited from perform- med € operation on Roman citizens who had be- © converts to Judaism. Circumcision Unlike Christian baptism, circumcision, however important it may be, is not a sacrament which gives the Jew his religious character as a Jew. An un- circumcised Jew is a full Jew by birth Cir- (Hul. 4b; ‘Ab. Zarah 27a; Shulhan cumcision ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 264, 1). A non- Not a Sac- Jewish physician may, according to rament. RR. Meir, in the absence of a Jewish expert, perform the ceremony, a8 may women, slaves, and children (‘Ab. Zarah 26b; Men. 42a; Maimonides, “ Yad,” Milah, ii. 1; Yoreh De‘ah, Z.c.), although the more rigorous Shammaite rule was forced by the Amoraim; compare Gen. R. L.c. Circumcision must, whenever possible, take place on the eighth day, even when this falls upon the Sabbath (Shab. xix. 1). The Samaritans and the Karaites, however, dissent from this rule (see KaRra- IrEs and SAMARITANS); if by reason of the child’s debility or sickness the ceremony is postponed, it can not take place on the Sabbath (Shab. 187a). It is the duty of the father to have his child circum- cised; and if he fails in this, the bet din of the city must see that the rite is performed (Kid. 29a), As early as the geonic time the ceremony had been transferred from the house of the parents to the synagogue, where it took place after the serv- ice in the presence of the whole congregation. In order to give it the character of a festival certain prayers of a mournful nature, such as “ Widduy ” and “Tahanun,” were omitted, and occasionally appropriate hymns were recited instead. In the tenth century there appears, in addition to the mohel and the father of the child, the “ ba‘al berit,” also called “ godfather ” (“sandek ” corresponding to the civrexvoc, the godfather in the Greek Church, who lifted the neophyte from the baptismal water). The sandek holds the child on his knees during the operation. Asa rule, the wife of the godfather car- ries the child in and hands it to the mohel, while the congregation greets it with: “ Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Ps. cxviii. 26). Beside the chair upen which the sandek Is seated another chair is placed, called, as has been stated above, “the chair of Elijah” (see EL1gan’s CHatR). Upon this the mohel places the child, reciting Gen. xlix. 18; Ps. cxix. 156, 162, 166; and the first half of Ps. Ixv. 5, the congregation responding with the lat- terhalf. Hethen takes the child from The “Hlijah’s chair” and places it, upon Ceremony. a cushion, in the lap of the sandek, reciting the benediction: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast enjoined us to perform the commandment of cir- cumcision.” When the operation is over, the father of the child recites the benediction: “Blessed art Thou . . . who hast sanctified us by Thy command- ments, and hast enjoined us to make him enter into the covenant of Abraham our father”; and the con- gregation responds with: “ As he hath been made to enter the covenant, so may he also be made to enter the study of the Torah, the huppah [nuptial cham- ber], and the performance of good deeds.” The use of the pronoun “him” in this peculiar bene- diction of the father, and in the congregational response given in the ancient Baraita (Shab. 137b), Oircumcision seems to indicate that originally the child was named immediately after the circumcision, as was the case in New Testament times (Luke ii. 21; compare Gen. xvii. 5), and that the congregation then blessed the child just named. Hence, also, the prayer recited at the close. Owing to the fact that the original “se‘u- dat berit milah” (see BANQUETS) was later on post- poned or changed in character, the two benedictsons introducing it are now recited by the mohel, who, taking the cup of wine, says: “Blessed be Thou. . . who hast created the fruit of the vine.” “Blessed be Thou ... who hast sanctified the beloved one [Isaac] from the womb, and hast ordained an ordi- nance for his kindred, and sealed his descendants with the sign of the holy covenant. Therefore on this account do Thou, O living God, our Inherit- ance and our Rock, command [Thy angels; see Maimonides, “Pe’er ha-Dor,” responsum No. 134] to save Thy beloved kindred [Israel] from the pit {of Gehenna], for the sake of Thy covenant which Thou hast put upon our flesh! Blessed be thou, O Lord, Maker of the Covenant” (Shab. 137b). Here followsin the liturgy a prayer, preserved from geonic times by Abraham b. Nathan, Tanyah, and Abnudrahim, referring especially to the naming of the child: “Our God and God of our fathers! Preserve this child to his father and mother, and let his name be called in Israel N the son of N. Let the father rejoice in him that came forth from his loins, and Jet the mother be glad in the fruit of her womb; as it is written... [Prov. xxiii. 25]: and it is said ... [Ezek. xvi. 6 (see above); Ps. cv. 8-10; Gen. xxi. 4; Ps. exviii. 1]. Let the child named N wax great!” Whereupon the congregation again re- sponds, saying: “As he hath entered into the cove- nant, so may he be permitted to enter the study of the Torah, the huppah, and the performance of good deeds.” After having for centuries been practised as a dis- tinctively Jewish rite, circumcision appeared to many enlightened Jews of modern times to be no longer in keeping with the dictates of a religious truth intended for humanity at large; and its aboli- tion was advocated, and made the shibhboleth of the “ Friends of Reform” (“ Reformfreunde ”) in Frank- fort-on-the-Main in 1848. Under the Reform leadership of Theodor Creizenach, M. Judaism Stern of Géttingen, and others, the and Cir- association published in the “ Frank- cumcision. furter Journal,” July 15, 1848, and in “Der Israelit des Neunzehnten Jahr- hunderts” of the same year articles in which, be- sides the abolition of circumcision and the transfer of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday, the renuncia- tion of historical Judaism in its entirety was de- clared necessary, and a sort of Jewish Church, based upon the Mosaic monotheism, was recom- mended. These articles called forth the protests of many rabbis, even in the Reform camp, among whom were Joseph Aub and Samuel Hirsch of Lux- emburg (see 8. D. Trier, “Rabbinische Gutachten liber die Beschneidung,” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1844). CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALs Animals ceremonially pure and fit for food, and such as are not. Biblical Data: The distinction ls tween clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the @ ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kingg of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male an female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that ar : pe @ not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that aftey the flood Noah “took of every clean beast and of eye, clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alts, that he had built to the Lord.” It seems that in tp, mind of this writer the distinction bet ween Clean ang unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only, for in the following chapter he makes God gg “Everything that moveth shall be food for yoy» (Gen, ix. 3). In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuterop. omy (xiv. 1-20), however, the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” is made the foundation of, food-law: “Thisisthelaw . . . tomakea difference between the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” (Lev. xi, 45. Distinction 47). The permitted food is calleg Between “clean,” “pure” (370, tahor): the ‘‘Clean” and forbidden food is not simply notclean, “Unclean.” but is positively unclean, polluted, impure (ND), tame), “an aboming. nation” (PpY, shekez). The terminology “clean and unclean ” in the food-law has to a certain extent a different implication from that borne by the same terms as used in the sacrificial law (see Sacririce), The clean animals were: (1) All quadrupeds that chew the cud and also divide the hoof (Lev. xi. 3; Deut. xiv. 6); for instance, the ox, the sheep, the goat (i.e., the sacrificial animals), the hart and the gazel, the roebuck, the wild goat, the pygarg, the antelope, and the chamois (Deut. xiv. 4-5), Among other forbidden animals, the camel, the rock-badger (see CoNEy), the hare, and the swine were excluded by name (Lev. xi. 4-7; Deut. xiv. 7-8), probably because used as food or for sacrifice by the neigh- boring tribes. , (2) Fish proper; ¢.e., “whatsoever hath fins and scales . . . in the seas and in the rivers” (Lev. Xi. 9; compare Deut. xiv. 9). (3) Birds. Here the Law proceeds by way of elimination. From the rather lengthy list of forbid- den birds (Lev. xi. 18-19; Deut. xiv. 11-18) it may be concluded that all the birds of prey and most of the water-fowl were considered unclean. The bat closes the list. (4) The winged creeping things “that go uponall four” which “have legs above their feet to leap withal,” of which four kinds of locusts are named (Lev. xi. 21-22). All the other creeping things (se ANIMALS) are most emphatically and repeatedly for bidden and held up as the greatest abomination (Lev. xi. 20, 31-38, 42-43). A list of creepins things to be avoided includes the weasel, the mous, four kinds of lizards, and the chameleon (Lev. ** 29-30). THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA jit estrictions were also placed on the use of the of clean animals: it was forbidden to eat it f n the animal had been torn in the field by a car- yan peast (Ex. xxii. 30), or when it had died a se ral death, or had been carried off by disease D eut. xiv. 21). Although, however, the use of such meat their pro BLoo. : : Bidet tal "__Ethnological View: For the distinction be- een clean and unclean animals various origins ye been suggested; though few of them seem to pave fully satisfied any one but their own origina- 13. Omitting the most ancient ones (Origen, “ Con- ea Celts,” iv. 98; ed. Migne, xi., col. 1171; The- | on Lev. ix. 1, ed. Migne, Ixxx., col. 299, and ha ee analyzed in Vigouroux, “ Dict. de la Bible,” i. 615 e¢ seq.), only the most popular Theories oncs in our own day need be men- of Dis- _ tioned. According to Grotius, on Lev. tinction. xi. 3; Spencer, “De Leg. Hebr. Rit.” i. 7, 2; 8S. D. Michaelis, “ Mosaisches recht,” iv., § 220, efc., the distinction between clean apd unclean animals is based on hygiene: it is a sani- tary law. According to others, the law was a na- tonal one, intended to separate Israel from the neighboring nations, Arabians, Canaanites, and Egyptians (Ewald, “ Antiq. of Israel,” pp. 144 et seq.), and partly a sanitary one (Rosenmiiller, “Scholia in Vetus Testamentum ”—Leviticus). According to Keil, “Handbuch der Biblischen Archdologie,” pp. 499 et seq., the law is a religious one, intended to deter men from the vices and sins of which certain animals are the symbols, which view is a mere vari- stion of the allegorical interpretation proposed by Philo (“De Concupiscentia,” 5-10). Of these explanations the first two have been re- futed by Sommer in his “ Biblische Abhandlungen,” j. 187-193; Keil’s opinion has been opposed by No- wack, “ Lehrbuch der Biblischen Archiologie, ” i. 117, andothers. The most popular theory at the present day is perhaps that offered by the late W. Robertson Smith, in his article “Animal Worship and Animal Tribes Among the Ancient Arabs” (“Journal of Philology,” 1880), according to which the unclean animals were forbidden because they were totems of the primitive clans of Israel. This theory has beenaccepted by Cheyne (“ Isaiah,” i. 99; ii. 123-124, #3) and Stade (*Gesch. Israels,” i. 408), but by Dillmann is either entirely and without discussion rejected (“ Genesis,” p. 382), or restricted to tlie pre- listorie times of Israel, as being a survival of the dd totem-worship and totem-clan organization, re- smbling in historic times the case of the horse in ngland, which anthropologists say is not eaten be- Cause it was once sacred to Odin, and thus tabooed Woseph Jacobs in his “Studies in Biblical Archeol.” .89, and similarly Salomon Reinach, “Les Interdic- Mons Alimentaires et la Loi Mosaique,” in “ Rev. tudes Juives,” xH. 144). See BLoon; Foop; and OTEMISM, IBLIOGRAPRY : Zapletal, Der Totemismus und die Religion ilies in Jew. Quart. Rev. April, 1902; idem, Der Totem- Reo. key ge Levy, Du aoe a in ~ ft. Juives, ix. 21-24; nD é Pr ies 0 leaiah, isan Ixxxix Cheyne, ophecies of EG. y, H. H. Clavering Clean —In Rabbinical and Hellenistic Literature: The distinctions between clean and unclean ani- mals, as described in the Scriptures, are more fully drawn in the “Halakah. To chew the cud and to have split hoofs (Lev. xi. 3) are the marks of the clean tame quadruped (“behemah”), and the Talmudic traditions add that an animal without upper teeth always chews the cud and has split hoofs (see Aris- totle, “ Natural History,” ix. 50), the only excep- tions being the hare and the rabbit, which, in spite of having upper teeth, chew the cud and have split hoofs, and the camel, which has, in place of upper teeth, an incisor on each side (959). Even the meat of the clean and the unclean animals can be distin- guished. The meat of the former below the hip- bones can be torn lengthwise as well as across, which, among unclean animals, is only pessible with the flesh of the wild ass. These differences apply also to clean wild animals (AA AYN) as against un- clean wild animals (ANDY AN). In order, however, to distinguish clean wild from clean tame animals attention must particularly be paid Quadrupeds. tothe horns. The horns of the former must be forked, or, if not forked, they must be clear of splinters, notched with scales, and be NWI (“round”), or, as others read, nh (“pointed”). Itisimportant to distinguish the clean wild animals from the clean tame animals, because the tallow of the former may be used, while that of the latter is forbidden, and the blood of the clean wild animal must be covered up (Lev. xvii. 13), which is not the case with that of other animals (Hul. 09a, b). It was hard for the rabbinical authorities to dis- tinguish clean from unclean birds, as the Scripture (Lev. xi. 13-19) enumerates only the birds which shall not beeaten, without giving any of the marks which distinguish them from the clean birds. This is all the more important as the names of some of the birds mentioned in the Scriptures are followed by the word “lemino ” or “ leminehu ”—7.e.,“ after its kind ” —and it is therefore necessary to recognize certain fixed distinguishing characteristics. The follow- ing rules are fixed by the Talmud, by which a clean bird may be distinguished. It must not be a bird of prey; it must have a front toe, if that be the meaning of ANN YOSN; but according to most. explanations the hind toe Is meant. Al- though most birds of prey have the hind toe, the toes of the clean bird are so divided that the three front toes are on one side and the hind toes on the other, while the unclean bird spreads his toes so that two toes are on each side; or if it has five toes, three will be on one side and two on the other (compare Rashi to Hul. 59a, and Nissim b. Reuben on the Mishnah to this passage). The clean birds, furthermore, have eraws, and their stomachs have a double skin which can easily be sep- arated. They catch food thrown into the air, but will lay it upon the ground and tear it with their bills be- fore eating it. If a morsel be thrown to an unclean bird it will catch it in the air and swallow it, or it will hold it onthe ground with one foot, while tear- ing off pieces with its bill (Hul. 59a, 61a, 63a). As this distinction is not found in Scripture, opinious dif- Birds. Clean Clement XIV. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA lig fered greatly during and since Talmudic times, Ac- | David ha-Levi on Yoreh De'‘ah, 85) forbiq its y cording to the Talmud (Hul. 62a, 68b), only the twenty-four kinds of birds mentioned in Scripture are actually forbidden. If certain birds are posi- tively known as not belonging to these, no further in- vestigation as to characteristic signs is necessary, and they may be eaten. The marks of distinction are luid down only for cases in which there is doubt whether the species is clean or unclean, Authori- ties, especially in Germany, would only permit the eating of such kinds as have always been eaten (MDD). Accordingly some birds are permitted to be eaten in certain countries, but notin others. There are many controversies in the casuistic literature concerning this matter. Menahem Mendel Krochmal {“Zemah Zedek,” No. 29), for instance, declares the wild goose forbidden, while Eybeschiitz (“ Ke- reti u-Peleti,” $82) permits it. When the turkey was brought to Europe Isaiah Horwitz forbade it to be eaten; and although his opinion did not prevail, his descendants refrain from eating it even to-day. In regard to clean and unclean fishes the authori- ties of the Talmud have also made some additions to the regulations in the Scriptures, While it is stated in Lev. xi. 9 that only those fishes are to be considered clean which have scales and fins, the Mishnah (Niddah vi. 9) declares that all fishes with scales have, doubtless, fins also. According to this all fishes having scales but no fins may be eaten, as under that opinion it may be taken for granted that. all scaly fishes have fins; apparent exceptions are ac- counted for by the supposition that sometimes fins are so small or rudimentary that they can not be distinguished. On the other hand, a fish with fins may be without scales and thus be unclean. The formation of the spinal cord and head also af- fords means of distinction. The clean fishes (O°34 DAY) have a perfect spinal column, and a head of a more or less flat projection; the unclean fishes have no spinal bone, and their heads end in a point (‘Ab. Zarah 39b, 40a). There is a difference in the form of the bladder and roe in clean and unclean fishes. In clean fishes the bladder is blunt at one end and pointed at the other; while the unclean have the ends either both blunt or both pointed. Whether these marks can be depended on when the scales and fins are absent, or when the actual condition can no longer be positively ascertained, has been much dis- cussed by old authorities (compare Jacob b. Asher, Tur Yoreh De‘ah, 83). As a “cause célébre” of modern times may be mentioned the controversy of Aaron Chorin with many Orthodox rabbis concerning the eating of sturgeon, which Chorin declared per- missible, contrary to ajl former usage. Concerning the use of the four kinds of locust permitted in the Scriptures (Lev. xi. 21-22) the Mish- nah (Hul. iii. 8) says that a clean locust must have four feet, two of which are for jumping, and four wings, which must be long and broad enough to cover the whole body. But it is still subject to the restriction that, to be eaten, it must belong to the species 33n, and there must be a reliable tradition recognizing it as eatable. Later authorities (compare Samuel b. Fishes. Insects. entirely. Very rigorous are the rules set dow the Rabbis concerning the eating of “creepin g thin y which crawl upon the ground ” (Lev. xi. 41), 8 cording to the Rabbis only such “worms” are -° ; ee ‘ Per. mitted for food as do not live in an isolated cond: tion, but are found only in other substances. .° instance, the maggots in meat, fruit, fish, drinking water, etc. But even in such cases the eating > forbidden if the worms have been removed from, 4° place in which they originated, or if they have lef that place and returned to it, thereby Practicalty excluding all worm-eaten food (Hul. 67a, bp), y conditions concerning the enforcement of these Tul : ; eg are very complicated (compare Yoreh De‘yh 84 ; : ; > 93), but it may suffice to point out the following: Fruit and vegetables must be thoroughly examined befy,, use to see whether they contain worms, and Ortho. dox families pay strict attention to the fact that should the food, after cooking, be shown to have been worm-eaten, it is not fit for consumption (gq, pare Danzig, “HWokmat Adam,” pp. 35, 22), There was much speculation as to the reasons yh certain species of animals should be allowed ag fogq and others forbidden. In the Leite Reasons for of ARISTEAS (lines 144-154) it ig gy. Distinc- plained at length that “these layg tion. have been given for justice’ sake tp awake pious thoughts and to form the character.” It is especially emphasized that birds of prey have been forbidden, to teach that man shall practise justice; and not, dependiug upon his ow) strength, do injury to others. The marks whic distinguish the clean animal] are allegorically ex. plained, as shown in the following instance: Tp have two feet and split hoofs signifies that all actions shall be taken with consideration of the right and wrong (compare ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION), The martyr Eleazar, in IV Macc. v. 25, answers the king, who ridicules the laws forbidding unclean ani. mais, “ Whatever is congenial to our soul He permits us to eat; the use of obnoxious meats He forbade us.” In this is apparently expressed the same idea which is stated later on by Zarza in the words: “All these things are forbidden, because they deprave the blood and make it susceptible to many diseases; they pollute the body and the soul” (Mekor Hay- yim, “Tazria‘,” beginning), The prolix allegories of Philo concerning the clean and unclean animals (compare “ De Agricul: tura Noe,” xxv.-xxxi.) have been far surpassed by the Church Fathers (Ireneus, “ Adversus Hereses,” v. 8; Clemens Alexandrinus, “ Pedagogus,” ii: Origen, Hom. 7 in Lev.; and many others), avd for this reason in many Jewish circles no expos tion of the law whatever would be heard. te should not say “The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me,” but *I would and could eat it had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it” (Sifra, Kedoshin end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attemP is made to bring these laws nearer to human under standing. It was feared that much defining woul endanger the observance of them, and all were isfied “that they are things the use of which the Te rah forbids ” (Tanhuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemin!," 29), although they were not capable of ex planatio> 413 ' THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Clean Clement XIV. eR eT Ce Te a ee at eee oe ‘nning With Saadia, the Jewish commentators Beg d to explain the Biblical laws either rationalis- gtarte : j : aes cally OF mystically. It is remarkable that Saadia’s eee pears great resemblance to the modern theory Te otemis. He asserts, namely, that some animals oi were worshiped as divine were declared eat- ae as @ protest against that worship, and for the me reason others were declared unclean (“ Kitab ' ymanat Wal-I‘tikadat,” 117, bottom; Hebrew nslation, iii. 2; ed. Slucki, p. 61). Ibn Ezra is of e opinion that the flesh of unclean animals has ep forbidden because it is impure and obnoxious, nd the substance swallowed and digested goes into ine flesh and blood of those who have eaten it (com- entary to Lev. xi. 93; concerning other passages of Ibn Ezra compare Zarza, l.c.). Maimonides (“Morch Nebukim,” iil. 48) finds in these ordinances mainly sanitary, and partly esthetic, ruciples. Similar is the opinion of the great French exegete Samuel b. Meir, in his commentary on Leviticus. Nahmanides agrees only partly with these theories, and mentions only one sanitary rea- gon concerning fishes. The clean, he argues, get nearer the surface of the water, and therefore pos- gssa degree of heat which drives away too much humidity; while the fishes without fins and scales, which stay in the deep water, and especially those inswampy water, possess a degree of cold and hu- midity which acts mortally. It is different with the pirds, which, with exception of the “ peres ” and “ ‘oz- niyyah,” two species of eagles, are all birds of prey, the black and thick blood of which causes a marked jnclination to cruelty. Concerning the quadrupeds, Nahmanides wavers between ethical and sanitary reasons, aud refers to non-Jewish physicians to main- tain the objections to the flesh of the hog (commentary on Lev. ix. 18; compare his “ Derasha,” ed. Jellinek, p.29). The explanations which Bahya b. Asher (on ley. xi.) gives concerning the forbidden animals are mainly taken from. Nahmanides. He adds the new explanation that this law is merely an expansion of the rules of the cult of sacrifice, so that many ani- mals which can not be used for sacrifice shall not be eaten (iden, 163d, ed. Riva di Trento), Isaac Arama is especially opposed to sanitary reasons (“‘Akedat Yizhak,” part 60, ed. Pollak, iii. 33b), and acknow!l- edges psychological and ethical motives only. “The unclean animals,” says Arama, “cause coarseness and dulness of the soul.” Arama, evidently refer- ring to Abravanel, but without mentioning his name, gives other theories of Jewish scholars. In his re- markable polemic against the rationalistic explana- ton by Maimonides of the laws regulating food, Viterbo tries to show the untenableness of the sani- lary grounds (“ Ta‘am Zekenim,” ed. El. Ashkenazi, bp. 42-43), Like the Jewish religious philosophers, the mys- ies have stated their speculations concerning the grounds of these laws. According to the cabalis- lic theory which makes the negative SEFIROT the te of the existence of evil in the world, the ani Shemini, iii. 41b) explains that the unclean ‘ai als originate from some of these negative Sefi- “a ae therefore they are forbidden as food; but as and €arrival of the Messiah all will become purer nobler, these animals will then be permitted as IV.—s th YT SY es POS SS SP SP i Vr food (Yalk. Hadash, Likkutim, 36, 79). In this manner the mystics explained the idea, expressed in Midrash Tehillim to cxlvi., that in the future God will declare the unclean animals clean. This Mid- rash caused Abravanel and other Jewish scholars much embarrassment (see Buber, ad loc.), so that several of them did not hesitate to declare it a Chris- tian interpolation; but without reason, as similar opinions have been held and expressed in the remo- test time (compare ANTINOMIANISM), and probably had their origin in pre-Christian times. Regarding the view taken by Reform rabbis and by modern Bible exegetes of clean and unclean animals, see DiEeTary Laws; Purity; ReEFrorm; TorTeMi1sM. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hiillin, 59a, 66b; for the old Halakah, Torat Kohanim, Shemini; Sifre, Dewut., 100-104; Caro, Shul- han “Aruk, Yoreh De’ah, 79-86; idem, Bet Yosef, Yo- reh De‘ah, 79-86; Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, pp. 14-18; Wiener, Speisegesetze, pp. 298-328. I. C. L. G. CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS. Sce Purity. CLEIF, DANIEL HAYYIM: Russian rabbi; born in Amsterdam 1729; died there May 14, 1794. He settled in Hasenpoth, in the government of Cour- Jand, originally as a jeweler; later he officiated there as rabbi for many years. At this time he wrote “‘Arugah Ketannah” (The Small Garden-Bed), a booklet in which the 248 mandatory precepts are formulated in rime (Altona, 1787, and reprinted several times). He also left in manuscript a com- mentary on the Pentateuch. One of Cleif’s sons was a physician in the service of the Russian government, with the title of coun- cilor of state: he died in the government of Orel in 1846. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wunderbar, Gesch. der Juden in Liv- und Kurland, Mitau, 1853. H. R. CLEMENT XIV. (LORENZO GANGA- NELLI): Two hundred and fifty-sixth pope; born at San Arcangelo, near Rimini, Oct. 31, 1705; elected May 19, 1769; died Sept. 22, 1774. His election was hailed with particular joy by the Jews, who trusted that the man who, as councilor of the Holy Office, declared them, in a memorandum issued March 21, 1758, innocent of the slanderous blood ac- cusation, would be no less just and humane toward them on the throne of Catholicism. In this they were not deceived. Twomonths after his accession Clement XIV. withdrew the Roman Jews from the jurisdiction of the Inquisition and placed them un- der that of the “ Vicariato di Roma” (Aug. 5, 1769). Another token of his benevolence toward the Jews was the confirmation (March 29, 1778) of the bull of Clement VII. concerning the Jus Gazaxka, which was of very great importance to the Roman Jews. The memorandum of Clement XIV. (Ganganelli), referred to above, deserves special mention, as much from the importance of the subject treated therein as from the great authority of its author. It was called forth by a blood accusation against the Jews of Yanopol, Poland. Alarmed by this frequently repeated accusation, the Polish Jews sent one Jacob Selek to Rome to implore the protection of the pope. Benedict XIV. thereupon ordered a thorough exami- Clement XIV. Clementina nation of the matter, and the councilor of the Holy Office, Lorenzo Ganganelli (later Clement XIY.), was charged with the preparation of a report on the subject. This report, bearing on its title-page the motto “Non solis accusatoribus credendum,” was presented to the congregation of the Inquisition March 21, 1758. The author shows therein not only the groundlessness of the Yanopol accusation, but, passing in review all the principal cases of blood accusation since the thirteenth century, de- monstrates that they were all groundless. Only in two cases did Ganganelli hesitate to declare the fal- sity of the accusation; namely, in that of Simon of Trent, in 1475, and in that of Andreas of Rinn, in 1462. The future pope could not very well ac- knowledge that the canonization of these two pre- tended martyrs was undeserved. But he pointed out that the popes themselves hesitated a long time before admitting the worship of Saint Si- mon and Saint Andrew; the former having waited more than 110 years, and the latter almost 300 years —a proof that the veracity of the accusation was doubted. No account is to be taken of the testi- mony of some baptized Jews, such as Julio Moro- sini and Paul Sebastian Medici, who, in their hatred of their former coreligionists, claim in their writings that the Jews use Christian blood. Moreover, these writings were triumphantly refuted by high authori- ties. Ganganelli concludes his memorandum by re- minding the Christians that they themselves were once accused by the heathen of the same crime, as attested by Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Theodoret, and Rufinus. The effort of Ganganelli was crowned with suc- cess. Benedict XIV., impressed by the arguments in the memoir, declared the Jews of Yanopol inno- cent, and dismissed Jacob Selek with honors, recom- mending him, through Cardinal Corsini, to Visconti, Bishop of Warsaw, who received orders to protect the Polish Jews in the future from such accusations. Ganganelli’s memorandum was translated into German by A. Berliner, under the title “Gutachten Ganganelli’s (Clemens XIV.) in Angelegenheit der Blutbeschuldigung der Juden,” Berlin, 1888. The original Italian text was published by Isidore Loeb in “Rev. Etudes Juives,” xviii. 179 et seq. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mortara, in Hducatore, 1862, pp. 257-270; Berliner, as above; Levisohn, Efes Damim, pp. 107 et seq.; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, x. 4383; Strack, Das Blut, p. 188; Isidore Loeb, as above; Vogelstein and Rieger, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, ii. 246 et seq. an IT. Br. CLEMENTINA or PSEUDO - CLEMEN- TINE LITERATURE: A series of kindred works of a Judeo-Christian sect of the second cen- tury, of which only the Homilies, the Recognitions, and the Epitomes have been preserved. The Homi- lies, published first in 1853, present in the form of dia- logues between Peter, Clement of Rome, and others, a gnostic system based on revelation. By revela- tion alone can knowledge be obtained, not by phi- losophy (Hom. i. 19, ii. 5). This is illustrated by the history of Clement, who vainly tried to arrive at the truth by means of philosophy. The Hom- ilies assume a twofold revelation—the primal rev- elation, and the continuous revelation through the true prophets. The first was given in the act of THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ljq creation, especially in that of man. The Homi say, like the Mishnah (Sanh. 37a): “God reveals Himself by making man in His image; were th another god he also would have to reveg} i self, and create other men in his image” : xvi. 10). Manas the image of’ God is God’s rey a tion, and as he also has in him God’s spirit (Tei, the whole truth lies in him like a seed Sie ‘ , d. ing only to be developed. Had men recogni, the will of God and been ready to obey it, tae would have been no need of a further revelation. but as they have sinned, the primal revelatioy ;’ obscured and a new revelation is always neceggy : (ib. i. 18, villi. 5). This is afforded by the true prophet, who knows the past, the present, and the future. His knowledge is not derived from the ae ternal world, but is innate, as is the spirit in hin. and his revelation is not ecstatic, but clear ang Un. ambiguous (2d. ii. 6-12, iii. 11-20). The true Prophet has appeared not in one, but in various forms. changing name and shape, he will traverse thi, world until he finds rest in the coming world, a, pméAdwv (20, Fil. 20). Eight persous are exalted above the rest of hy. manity and brought into special connection wit, revelation—Jesus and the “seven pillars of the world,” Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacop and Moses; and among these eight Adam, Moses, and Jesus are preeminent as possessing all the qual. ities of the true prophet (compare Uhlhorn, “Die Homilien,” pp. 164-166). The Haggadah (Hag. 12b) also says that the world rests on seven pillars, but according to other authorities one pillar, p»y by name, supports the world (compare Prov. x. 25), ‘Avauaptyroc (DYFY¥) is, according to the Homilies (ii, 6), the true prophet (compare also Suk, 52c on the haggadic interpretation of the “seven shepherds and eight princes”; Micah v. 4). As the person of the true prophet is always the same, so the religion revealed by him is always the same: the primal revelations through Adam, through pure Mosaism, and through Theological Christianity are identical (Hom. xvii. Teaching of 3). The fundamental doctrine of this, the Homi- the only true, religion is that of the lies. one God, the Creator of the world. “Before all things, consider that no one shares His rule, no one has a name in common with Him; thatis, is called ‘God.’ For He alone both is, and is called, ‘God.’ Nor is it lawful to think that there is any other, or to call any other by that name. And if any one should dare do so, eternal punishment of soul is his” (23. iii. 87). The attacks on those who deny the unity of God, and the pos tive proofs of that unity, constitute the greater part of the Homilies. The conception of monotheism's entirely Jewish, and all attempts to modify abstract monotheism in the Christian way are emphatically rejected. So much stress is laid on monothes® that it almost becomes pantheism, God being des\s nated as 76 Iav, 7d “Ov, and everything else as nol” ing. Healoneis; He isthe tangible and the intagr ble, near and far, here and there; He alone exists. He penetrates everything. As the sun warms 3 illuminates the surrounding air, so God warms 9” illuminates the world; He is the heart of the wor 7. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 115 qd the eenter from which all life irradiates (3. at y xviii. 8, and passem; compare Uhlhorn, 2c. xv). Although this pantheistic conception is ri ginally Greek, it must be remembered that it was > known to the, Jewish scholars of Alexandria q of Palestine. Similar to the statement in the : omilies (xvii. 8): “The space of God is the non- stent, but God is that which exists,” is the state- ‘ent in the Midrash: odiyn PN wy mip xinw 48 =) (Gen. R. lxviii. 10; Midr. Teh. xe.). Le this pantheistic point of view the Homilies gard the development of the world asa develop- within God; the vvetwa (“spirit ”) and the ooyua exi o a ”) which were originally united in God, were (‘body }> ois grated, and this was the beginning of the world. The Creation is explained by assuming that the spirit of God changed into air, the air into water, apd the water into fire. The Homilics teach not the emanation of the world from God, but the eter- pal flux of things, God being the beginning and the end. Herein the Book of Yezirah corresponds with the Homilies, holding likewise that the world was created out of the first four Sefirot; the last six Seti- rot treated in this book—namely, the three dimen- gions of space in the two opposite directions, by means of which, out of the prototypes of the world, the world was produced as a reality—also occur in a passage of the Homilies, which, however, has often heen misunderstood (xvii. 9; compare Gratz, “ Gnos- ticismus.” p. 118; Epstein, in “Rev. Et. Juives,” xxix. 78). Like the Book of Yezirah and the Cabalain general, the Homilies also hold the doctrine of contrasts, which constitutes their conception of the world. All things separate (d¢yG¢ Kai évarv7iwe) and go in opposite directions, unite, separate, and finally uniteagain. As the material world is made up of the four elements mentioned above, Syzygies. which oppose cach other in pairs (Homilies, xix. 12), so the spiritual world is governed by contrast. The ruler of this world is Satan, the ruler of the better future world isthe Messiah, who was produced by the spirit or pneumatic side of God. While the greater, mascu- line principle—heaven—earth, day—night, sun— moon, life—death; etc.—has precedence in the orig- inal syzygial series, the reverse takes place among men, the smaller, feminine principle preceding. Hence in history, especially in that of Israel, Cain 18 opposed to Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, Esau to. Jacob, etc. The principles that appeared separate in Adam and Eve, but which are mixed in the major- ty of men, appear from time to time separated again. The final outcome of this evolution is a re- turn to God by a process of purification or annihila- fou. When the Messiah, the eternal light, ap- Pears, all darkness will vanish (dd. ii. 17). At the resurrection all men will be transformed into crea- lures of light so that they may behold God (ib. xvii. his rests on the assumption that He can not oie by man inthe flesh. “He who sees God can a ve {Ex. xxxiii. 20], for the excess of light dis- Yes the flesh of him who sees, ... but... at “Tesurrection of the dead, when they shall have thee changed into light and become like the angels, Y Shall be able to see Him ” (t.c.)—a theory found Clement XIV. Clementina also among the tannaim of the second century, whom Akiba attacked (Sifra, Wayikra, 2; Sifre, Num. 108; compare also Abba Arika’s description of the joys of the future world, when the pious “shall en- joy the glory of God ”"—AySwN WO PII; Ber. 1%a; Tan, iv. 145, ed. Buber). This is an instance of that anthropomorphic conception of God which is found in the Homilies side by side with the pantheistic conception, and although in its present form it be- trays attempts to reconcile these two diametrically opposed conceptions, yet the contradiction between the two Is often very marked. The anthropomor- phism is less pronounced in the metaphysical por- tions of the Homilies; but it forms the basis of their ethics, which is founded on the doctrine that man was made in the image of God (compare the teach- ing of the Jewish Gnostic Ben Azzai; Gen. R. xxiv. 7); and this doctrine they can establish only by assigning a shape to God (compare especially 7b. XVii. 11). As regards the attributes of God, which are, how- ever, Only given in human similes, the Homilies hold that the Doman AW) pan nw (“justice and mercy ”) of Jewish theology (Sifre, Deut. 27) consti- tute the nature of God (Homilies, iv. Judaism 13), It is this conception especially and Chris- that stamps the Homilies as consisting tianity. entirely of Jewish gnosis, admitting of no contrast between the “righteous ” God of the Old Testament and the “ merciful” God of the New Testament, but identifying the teach- ings of Jesus with those of Moses, so that the salva- tion of those who follow Moses is as assured as that of those who believe in Jesus; the former, however, must not hate Jesus, nor the latter, Moses (26. viii. 6,7. Hence the Homilies never speak of Chris- tians, their point of view being always designated as the “Jewish ” one (see Langen, “ Die Klemensro- mane,” p. 90); and it is pointed out that the daugh- ter of the Canaanite woman was healed only after the latter had become a Jewess (Homilies, ii. 19); that is, had accepted the Jewish Law. The Pentateuch did not originate entirely with Moses, for he put nothing into writing; and those who recorded his teachings after his death introduced much that was contrary to those teachings. The sacrifices especially do not belong to the original Law (an Essene heresy), and as these and similar interpolations obscured the meaning of the Torah, it became necessary for the true prophet to appear in the person of Jesus. It is.difficult to say how the authors of the Homilies conceived of the incarnation of Jesus; they, how- _ever, decidedly opposed the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, and considered the Christian doctrine of the atonement and salvation through the sufferings of Jesus as without importance. The strict asceticism found in the Homilies may be traced back to Essen- ism. I[tisasin to possess anything whatever; the eating of meat is absolutely forbidden, only bread and water being allowed (compare Abot vi. 4); and the Homilies, like the Essenes, lay great stress on ablutions and bodily cleanliness. Bathing is le- gally prescribed after cohabitation, as in the Talmud (Ber. 21b, 22a); but marriage itself is highly regarded and recommended, even early marriage being in- sisted upon—in which points the Clementina follow Cleopatra Clermont-Ferrand entirely rabbinical Judaism (Yeb. vi. 6, based upon Gen. i. 28, ix. 1). The Recognitions are extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus. Regarding their relation to the Homilies, and regarding the historical value of the Clementina in general, opinions differ. While Baur and many representatives of the Titibingen school regard them as a chief source for the his- tory of the early Christian Church, Harnack thinks that they contribute nothing toward determining the origin of that Church. It can not be denied, however, that the Clementina are highly important for the history of gnostic Judeo-Christianity, as well as for that of Jewish Gnosticism, being among the few extant literary documents of those sects. Compare ADAM KaDMON; ELCESAITES; GNOSTICISM; Smion Macts. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Baur, De KMbionitarum Origine: idem, Die Christliche Gnosis; Bigg, The Clementine Homilies, in Studia Biblica, ii. 157 et seq.; Hilgenfeld, Die Clementi- mnischen. Recognitionen und Homilien, 1848; idem, Der Ursprung der Pseudoclementinischen Recognitionen wit Homilien, in Theologiseche Jahrbticher, 1854, pp. 488 e€ seq. ; Harnack, Dogmengesch., 3d ed., i. 294-800; Langen, Die Kiemensromane, 1890; Lehmann, Die Clementinischen Schriften, 1869: Lipsius, in Protestantische Kirchenzei- tung, 1879, pp. 477 et seq.; idem, Die Quellen der Petrus- sage; Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844; Schwegler, Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, i. 364 et seqg.; Ritsehl, Die Hnt- stehung der Altkatholischen Kirche; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, ii. 485-442; Uhthorn, Die Homitien und Recognitionen, 1854; idem, in Realencyklopddie ftir Pro- testantische Theologie, 3d ed., iv, 11, 171-179; Chawner, In- dex of Noteworthy Words and Phrases in the Clemen- tine Writings, 1894. I. G. RK. CLEOPATRA: Queen of Egypt 52-30 B.c.; daughter of Ptolemy Auletes. Through her associ- ation with the rulers of Rome, Cleopatra was of im- portance not so much to the Jews of her own country as to those of Judea. When Herod fled in great dis- tress before Antigonus, he turned toward Egypt; but it was only after suffering many indignities at Pelusium that he was enabled to embark for Alex- andria, where hesaw Cleopatra. However, although she invited him to remain, he hastened on to Rome (40 p.c.) (Josephus, “ Ant.” xiv. 18,8 2; “B. J.” i. 14, § 2). After Herod became king by the help of the Ro- mans, Cleopatra tried in every way to injure him. Alexandra, Herod’s mother-in-law, complained to Cleopatra that the office of high priest was denied to her son Aristobulus, and she sent the pictures of her beautiful children, Mariamne and Aristobulus, to Antony, at that time held captive by Cleopatra’s charms. Antony desired the handsome youth asa companion, and to prevent this Herod was forced to appoint Aristobulus as high priest (85 B.C.). Alexandra’s ambition went so far as to desire the throne for her son. Hidden in coffins, mother and son intended to have themselves transported to Egypt to Cleopatra, but the plan was discovered, and Herod had Aristobulus_ secretly murdered (* Ant.” xv. 2, §& 5-7; 3, §§ 1-38). Alexandra noti- fied Cleopatra of the deed (2. 3,$ 5); but Herod, protected by Antony, went unpunished. Cleopatra’s ambitious spirit seriously injured Herod. She not only induced Antony to give to her in fief the entire coast-line, except Tyre and Sidon, but appropriated Jericho, a region of Judea rich in palms and the far-famed baisam. She traveled to THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1lg Judea by way of Apamea and Damascus. I[erod was forced not only toappeasc her animoa with presents, but also to rent Jericho from lees a yearly sum of two hundred talents, and to oe her at his own expense as far as Pelusium (i, yy a &$ 1-2; “B. J.” i. 18, 85). Through her Machin tions he was drawn into a war with the Nabate,. king Malich; and when he was victorious, Cleopate sent her general Athenion to help the Nabatagn. whereupon the Jews were defcated and retired aor, the Jordan (81 B.c.). Herod had great difficulty ; surmounting the consequences of this defeat (4 Any » xv. 5, $8 3-4; “B. J.” i. 19, 88 5-6). The anti-Jewish Apron not incorrectly lookeq upon Cleopatra as a ruler hostile to the Jews. for she seems indeed to have been inimical to then, Still Josephus says(“ Contra Ap.” ii., § 5) that Apion should rather have denounced the vices of this dey. ish woman, and thinks it redounds to the honor of th, Jews that they received no wheat from her during, famine in Alexandria. Cleopatra’s hatred went , far that when her capital, Alexandria, had been take, by Cesar Augustus and she had lost everything, sho conceived the idea that all could yet be saved if she should murder the Jews of her city with her ow) hands(#b.). Ler death immediately afterward sayeq the Jews from this fate (80 B.c.), Rabbinical literature also reports one of her crue} deeds. The bodies of some of her female slaves who had been condemned to death, were torn open and the contents examined (Tosef., Niddah, iv, 17. Talmud, Niddah, 30b). A question that she is said to have addressed to R. Meir (Sanh. 90b) can scarcely be historical, owing to the anachronism involved in making them contemporaries, and it is probable that the reading xnsbp xipadp (“Queen Cleopatra”) in this passage is a corruption of ‘8MD9 Xp (“patriarch of the Samaritans”; see Bacher, in “Rev. Et. Juives,” v. 185, vi. 159; zdem, “ Ag. Tan it. 68). . G. S. Kr. CLEOPATRA OF JERUSALEM: One of the nine wives of Herod I., whom he married late in life. She bore to him Herod and Philippus (Josephus, “Ant.” xvii. 1, $3; “B. J.” i. 28, § 4). G. S. Kr. CLERGY. See COHEN; Priest; RaBBL CLERICAL ERRORS: Errors made in the writing of documents, especially legal] documents, for the prevention of which the Jews have many strin gent laws. The Jewish official scribes were notably exact in the preparation of legal documents (Git. 2b) for an error was often fatal to the validity of the instrument. Care is taken not to write an acknowl edgment of indebtedness on any substance on which it may be easily altered. Such an instrument wot be absolutely invalid even though it were intendé to be used immediately for the collection of the debt (Shuthan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 42, 1). But! the instrument is a bill of sale, it is valid (26.. gloss) because there would-be no reason for the holder° the instrument to make any alteration in its ter™ Some authorities adopt the general rule that a instrument which is not prepared in accordance wil 417 . yabbivical ordinances is ipso facto invalid (26., em The instrument of indebtedness may be Sea in any language, but the scribe must take Ue that it does not deviate from the prescribed che of documents (2). 42, 2). If an erasure is on made, it must be noted on the instru- Alterations ment before the witnesses sign (7). 44, in Deeds. 5-11). It is the duty of the witnesses and the court to scan the instrument rarefully to note whether the rules for writing it ave been complied with (22. 45, 2). hese rules arenumerous, The scribe must write nis letters of equal size and equidistant (7b. 42, 3). He must spell the amounts of money in full, and not merely use the letters (correspondin 2 to modern fig- res) to designate the amount (20. 42, 4). He must not write at the end of a line words that can easily be altered, such as the amounts from three to ten; as these by the addition of a letter or two can be raised to ten times their original amount (zd. 42, 4). The failure to close the instrument with the univer- sally accepted formula, “ Allis fixed and established,” is absolutely fatal (#b. 44, 9). If the scribe has omitted the date of the instrument, it is nevertheless yalid, but is no Jien on goods sold to third persons (id. 48, 1). If the date is partially written, it is sufficient; as, for instance, if the scribe has omitted the thousands of the date (7d. 43, 2), or has written “on the fourth day,” omitting “beshabbath ” (of the week) (1b. 43, 4), or if he has erred in the day of the week (1b. 43, 5). But if the instrument is written bv the debtor himself, it is valid even though it has no date at all and is without witnesses, and was de- livered in the presence of witnesses without the cus- tomary “livery of seizin” (2d, 40,2; 48, 6). If the instrument is wilfully antedated it is void; but if antedated by mistake it is valid, though it can not serve a8 a lien on property sold to a third person (¢. 43,8). If the document is postdated it is valid (2. 48, 12); but a bill of sale should not be postdated unless this fact is noted thereon (25, 48, 13). If the date appears to be a Sabbath, or the Day of Atone- ment, the instrument is valid; for, inasmuch as no instrument can be written on those days, it is pre- sumed to have been postdated (¢b. 48, 14; 289, 2). If there is a contradiction in the amounts mentioned in the instrument, the amount last stated governs (7b. 42,5). If the coinage in which pay- Contradic- ment is to be made is not stated, the tions and coinage of the place where the con- Erasures. tract was made governs. If the place is not stated, then the coinage of the place where the debt is sought to be collected gov- ers (7b, 42, 14). If there ig an erasure of ‘one letter of the name on the last part of the instrument, it may be supplied from the statement of the name in the beginning; but if more than one letter is obliterated, the instru- ment is void. If by the error of the scribe there is more than one letter entirely omitted from the name In the last part of the instrument, it is valid for the ne erof the last name, it being presumed that the Bee has erred in the first name by writing two €t8 too many; but it is not to be supposed that € es err in omitting two letters of a name THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cleopatra Clermont-Ferrand Allinterlineations, obliterations, and erasures must be noted before the final formula; and if they occur in the names of the parties or in the amount, and are not so noted, the instrument is void (2). 44, 5). The formula used is “The word .. . is interlined,” or “The words . .. are obliterated.” In bills of di- vorce, erasures or interlineations in the formal] parts do not affect the validity of the instrument; but if they occur in the essential parts, it is void, unless they are noted at the end as in the case of other in- struments (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 125, 19). The modern rule, however, is stricter and will not tolerate any such imperfections in the “get.” To insure accuracy and freedom from clerical errors the Seder ha-Get (Eben ha-‘Ezer, Rules 46-52) pre- scribes that the writing must be clear and neither crooked nor confused ; the letters must be separately written and not joined together; the letters of two lines must not run into cach other; nor should the letters extend beyond the marginal line. There must be no erasure of ink-spots or of words, no roughness in the letters, and no writings over erasures. In case any of these rules be violated a new get must be written. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Shulhan “Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, xili., xliil. D. W. A. CLERMONT-FERRAND: Chief town of the department of Puy-de-Doéme, France. The origin of the Jewish community of Augusta-Nemetum (Clermont) is usually assigned to the third century of the common era. [It is said that the first apostle of Auvergne, St. Austremoine (Stremonius), was killed about 286, by order of Lucius, the Jewish governor of Issoire, by a Jew, the owner of the vil- lage Perrier (compare Labbe, “Nova Bibliotheca,” ii. 482; Gonod, “Chronologie des Evéques de Cler- mont”; A. Tardieu, “ Histoire de Clermont”). This ig evidently a legend, as perhaps is also the story told by the Abbé Marmeisse (“ Vie de St. Verny et de Ste. Marcelle,” Clermont, 1858), that, about the second half of the thirteenth century, a Jewish working man murdered a young Christian child named Verny, who was afterward proclaimed a saint. It is certain, however, that the Jews es- tablished themselves in Clermont at a very early pe- riod. They then occupied the entire eastern part of the market-town Fontgiéve, called “Fontjuifs” or “Fontjuifve” in the fourteenth century; and they owned the hillock Montjuzet; 7.e., “Mons Judeus ” or “Judaicus” (Cohendy, “Inventaire des J. SR. Early History. -Chartes des Archives, Département du Puy-de- Dome,” pp. 11, 51). Sidonius Apollinarius, Bishop of Clermont (472- 488), held the Jews in great esteem. He speaks in the highest terms of the Jew Gozolas, servant of the Bishop of Narbonne (“ Epistle,” vi. 4), and recom- mends to the bishop Eleutherus the cause of a Jew. In a third letter, addressed to the bishop Nennechius, Sidonius Apollinarius recommends to him Promotus, a Jew of Clermont (/.c. ii. 18). Bishop Gallus, uncle of Gregory of Tours, also showed good-will to the Jews. When he died (551) the Jews of Clermont took part in the general mourning, weeping for the man who had treated them so kindly, and carrying Clermont-Ferrand Clevelan the wax tapers at his funeral (Gregory of Tours, “Vite Patrum,” vi. 7). Bishop Cautinus (551-871) esteemed them no less. “He was dear to the Jews,” says Gregory of Tours (lc. iv.), “and was much at- tached to them.” The historians of Auvergne, Sa- varon in his “ Origines de Clairmont,” and Audigier in his “ Histoire de Clermont,” censure this prelate for his familiarity with the Jews, saying that “he lived on friendly terms with them, not with the view of enlightening them, but in order to buy his furniture and jewels cheap from them.” On his death the presbyter Euphrasius sent to the king many valuable things which Cautinus had bought from the Jews—a proceeding quite different from those of Bishop Avitus a few years later (see AVITUs oF AUVERGNE). The councils which met at Clermont in the sixth century occupied themselves repeatedly with the affairs of the Jews. Those of 535 and 549 forbade intermarriages between Jews and Christians, and the appointment of Jews as magistrates of the people (Conc. Arverne, Canons vi. and ix.). It does not appear that Jews were living at Cler- mont at the time of the first Crusade (1096). Only toward the end of the thirteenth century are traces of a Jewish community again found in that city. At that time (1298-99) the Jews of Auvergne paid into the royal treasury a tax of 992 livres, 6 sous, 6 deniers (Library of Clermont, Auvergne MS. No. 62; compare “Revue Etudes Juives,” xv. 248). In 1293 Jews dwelt in several market-towns or villages of Auvergne, such as Herment, Ennezat, Montaigut, Lignat, etc. (see article by M. A. Tardieu, in “La Dépéche du Puy-de-Déme,” Sept. 14, 1891). At Or- beil lived one of the disciples of R. Hayyim of Blois, R. Isaac, author of “ Menahel” (The Guide), a collection of ritual rules known only by the quota- tions from it found in the ritualistic work “ Orhot Hayyim” of Aaron of Lunel (Renan - Neubauer, “Les Rabbins Francais,” p. 448). The Manuscript de Rossi 3138, 3, cited by Gross (“Gallia Judaica,” p. 589), contains the haggadic explanations of Na- than ben Joseph. This scholar probably came from Clermont, There were also Jews in other French places which bore the name of Clermont. Some are found in 1321-23 at Clermont-en-Argonne, in the depart- ment of the Meuse (“Revue Etudes Juives,” xix. 257), and some at Clermont, Hérault, in 1350-1400 (S. Kahn, “Les Juifs de Tarascon,” p. 25). In 1808 thirty-eight Jews were living at Clermont; in 1901 it had twenty-five to thirty families. The commu- nity is part of the consistory of Lyons. BIBLIOGRAPHY: In addition to the citations in the text, see Regesten zur Geseh. der Juden, Nos. 29, 34, 35, 38. G. S. K. CLEVE, GERMANY. See Ji ica. CLEVE, ELIJAH. See GomPerz Famity. CLEVELAND: Capital of Cuyahoga county, Ohio, U. 8. A.; situated at the mouth of the Cuya- hoga River, and an important port on Lake Erie. ‘The history of its Jewish community dates back to the year 1837, when a Bavarian, Simson Thorman, settled here. He was soon followed by others of his countrymen—Cleveland being then a thriving THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 11g town of about 6,000 inhabitants—and in 1839 th colony had increased sufficiently to warrant the a tabiishment of a permanent religious organization — This first congregation, called The Israelitig) N ciety, began with twenty members. In 1842 jt y divided, the seceding branch forming the Angh Chesed society ; but four years later these twog iP united, and formed the Anshe Chesed congye : tion, the oldest existing religious organization in 4), town. Its first synagogue was built on a lot : changed for land which had been presented to the Anshe Chesed society, for building purposes br Leonard Case, a wealthy non-Jewish landowner. ; Dissensions In 1848 resulted in the withdrawa] o members, who in 1850 formed the Tifereth Isra,) congregation, the second of the noy First Set- existing congregations. Per chevron, gules ant, €.a chevron vairé between (in chief) two lions ram- te ae queued, or, each holding between the paws a ing: arged with an ermine spot, and in base a cinquefoil 8. Crest: A mount vert, thereon, issuant out of six panches So Ws Pirbright. Salomons, Coat of Arms park-pales or. a demi-lion., double queued, gules, holding be- tween the paws a bezant charged with an ermine spot. Motto: Deo adjuvante. [Ih.] Salvador (Holland ; creation Nov. 25, 1821) : Sinople, a lion or. armed and lampussé gules, accompanied by three fleurs-de-lis or. Crest: A lion issuant gules, armed and langued azure, holding between the paws a fleur-de-lis or (see Frontispiece, Fig. 9). [Rietstap, ii. 662.] Salvador (England ; Jesurun Rodriguez): Vert, a lion ram- pant, between three fleurs-de-lis or. [Burke's ** General Ar- mory,’’ p. 893. ] Salvador-Rodrigues (Spain, Portugal, Holland: creation as Netherland barons, Nov. 23, 1821): Sinople, a lion or, armed. and lampassé gules, accompanied by three fleurs-de-lis of the second. Crest: A lion issuant, gules, armé and Jampassé azure, holding between his paws a fleur-de-lis or. [Rietstap, li. 662; idem, ““Wapenboek,”’ ii. 131.] Sampayo (Portugal, Holland): Quarterly, 1 and 4, or, an eagle purple, flving out for prey; 2 and 3, checkered of or and sable of sixteen flelds; a border gules, with compartinents andeigbt “S's” argent. Crest: Five ostrich-plumes, sabie, or, gules, argent, sable, Lambrequins: Dexter, or, gules, sable: sinister, argent, gules, sable. [De Castro, p. 104; Rietstap, ii. 891.] Samuel (London) : Per chevron argent and gules, two wolves’ heads erased in chief sable, and in base as many squirrels se- jant addorsed, and each cracking a nut of the first. Crest: Upon a rock proper in front of three spears, one in pale and two in saltier, argent, a wolf courant sable, pierced in the breast by an arrow of the second flighted or. Motto: A pledge of better times. [‘* Jewish Year Book.”*] Samuel (Liverpool): Vert, two bars between seven bees vo- lant, four in chief and three in base, or; on a chief nebulé of the last, three roses sable. Crest: On a wreath of the colors upon a mount vert, a rose argent, barbed, seeded, stalked, and leaved proper between two bees volant, also proper. ([L. Wolf, * Families of Yates and Samuel,”’ p. 56.] Samuel De Vahl (Portugal; creation May 13, 1865: Lon- don): Quarterly, 1 and 4, azure, a leopard or, accompanied by three crowns or; a canton argent, charged with the cross of the Brazilian Order of the Rose, suspended by a ribbon or, bordered gules (for De Vahl): 2 and 3, gules, a cross argent, charged with a rose gules, and accompanied in 1 and 4 by a lion argent, and in 2 and 3 by an eagie argent (for Samuel). Crests: (1) A lion issuant, argent, crowned or, holding a scepter, or, in pale (for De Vahl); (2) an eagle argent. sur- mounted by an imperial crown or (for Samuel). Supporters: Dexter, a lion argent, crowned or; sinister, an eagle argent, surmounted by an imperial crown or. Motto: Habent sua sidera reges. {Rietstap, ii. 664.] Sarmiento (Spain): Argent, asarment (twig ofa vine) sinople, couped above and below, or, put inabar. ([(Rietstap, ii. 672.] Sarmiento (Spain, England): Gules, thirteen bezants or, 3. 3.3.8.1. [Rietstap, ii. 672; Piferrer, i., plate 34.] Sassoon : Or, a palm-tree eradicated, proper, between, on the dexter, a pomegranate, also proper, and on the sinister, a branch of laurel fructed, vert, both proper ; on a chief azurea lion passant of the first,in the dexter paw a rod erect or. Crest: On a mount vert, a fern brake surmounted by a dove volant, having in the beak a laurel-branch, all proper, the wings semé with estoiles or. Motto: Candide et constanter, or 31281 MON (see Frontispiece, Fig. 1). [‘*Jewish Year Book.’’] Seligmann (Austria; creation 1874, for Dr. Seligmann, born 1815) : Azure, a double eagle or, lampassé gules; a bar across. the shield, charged with a cross gules (the ‘tred cross *’). Crest: Two helmets, two crowns: dexter, closed wings azure and or: sinister, three ostrich-plumes argent, charged with the “‘ red cross.”’ Lambrequins: Dexter, azure and or; sinister, gules and argent. Motto: In a blue ribbon under the shield in Gothic characters, Helfen und Heilen! [Wurzbach, xxxiv. 50.] Simson (Prussia; creation Sept. 10, 1840) : Quarterly, 1, or. in a chief gules three crescents argent; 2 and 3, argent, a bend azure, accompanied in chief by aswan sable, and in base. by a hunting-horn sable and argent, a saltier gules, accom. panied in chief by a star or; 4, a chief gules, charged in sinis- ter by astaror. [Rietstap, ii. 781.] Sonnenfels (Austria; creation 1804 [7]): Quarterly, 1 and 4, a tower proper (?) 32 and 3,a sun or, rising behind a jagged rock proper. Crest: From the crown over the helmet, a woman’s figure, holding in the dexter hand a book; the head is surrounded by rays of the sun, between two eagle-wings. proper (?} Lambrequins: Azure and argent. (Wurzbach, XXxv. 335.] Coat of Arms Coblenz Sonnenfels .Austria; 1797, baron) : Quarterly, with center- shield azure, a sun or, upen a jagged rock; 1 and 4, barry of six, sable and or, surmounted by a three-towered tower gules, ports and windows sable; 2 and 3, gules, a serpent in pale, ar- gent, twice coiled. Crests: (1) Between horns of plenty, or and sable, and or and argent, the figure of a man, dress azure, the hands folded over the breast and holding a closed book, bound gules ; the man’s figure, instead of a head, has a sun in its splendor. Lambrequins: Azure and argent. (2) Five ostrich-plumes, gules, argent, gules, argent, gules. Lambre- quins: Gules and argent. [Rietstap, li. 799; Siebmacher, * Der Adel in BOhmen,”’ p. 96, plate 54.} Suasso (Spain: registered in Belgiuin, 1676): Or, a lion gules, armé, lampassé, couronné, azure (see Frontispiece, Fig. 4). [Rietstap, ii. 864.} Sylva, Da (Portugal): Argent, a lion-leopardée purple, armed azure ; sometimes surrounded by foliage sinople. [Rietstap, ii. 874. Tedesco (Milan): Gules, semé with Jozenges or; an arm proper, coming from a cloud argent, which moves from the sinister; in the band a poplar sinople, sustained by a square slab argent, upon its border in sable the words “* Mit Zeit.” [Rietstap, ii. 890.] sa (Spain) : Azure, a cross potencée or. 103.] Teixeira (Holland; inscribed Sept. 27, 1817): Quarterly, I and 4, or, an eagle displayed, purple: 2 and 8, checky or and sable (sixteen flelds). The shield is surrounded by a border gules, charged by eigbt **s's” argent. Crest: Five ostrich - pluines, sable, or, gules, argent, sable. Lam- brequins: Dexter, or, gules, sable; sinister, argent, gules, sable (see Frontis- piece, Fig.7). CRietstap, ii. 891; idem, ‘* Wapenboek van den Nederlandschen oa} m Adel,” ii. 87.J Kaa Sy | Teixeira (Amsterdam): Pow as Quarterly, 1 and 4, gules, a {De Castro, p. lion ... (7); 2 and 8, gules, a@ tree upon a terrace sinople. Crest: The lion, issuant. [Rietstap, Supple- ment, p. 1808; De Castro, *Keur,” p. 108.) Teixeira de Mattos (Hol- land): Quarterly, 1 and 4, gules, a Jion... (?); 2 and 3, gules, a tree upon a terrace sinople. Crest: The tree. (Riet- stap, Supplement, p. 1303. J Treves (England) : Argent, three boars’ heads, couped azure. Crest: A demi-griffin, brandishing a sword, proper. [Burke’s * General Armory,” p. 1029.) ‘Vahl, De (London) : Azure, a leopard or, accompanied by three crowns or, a canton argent, charged with the Brazilian Order of the Rose, suspended by a ribbon or, bordered gules. Crest: A lion issuant, argent, crowned or, holding a scepter or, in pale (see also SAMUEL DE VAHL), ([Rietstap, ii. 966.] Vidal (Portugal) : Argent, five vines sinople (2. 1. 2). One vine of the field. ([Rietstap, iii. 499.) Waley (England): A chevron, in chief two eagles displayed, in base a deer passant. Crest: Upon a wreath on a mount a deer’s head erased, hold- ing in its mouth a trefoil (?) or fleur-de-lis. Motto; Fortiter et fideliter. {Gaster, “* Hist. of Bevis Marks,”’ plate facing p. 161.] Wandsworth : Or, on a pile sable a lion rampant of the last, a chief gules, thereon two horses’ beads erased, argent. Crest: A lion passant, prorer, gorged with a collar flory counterfiory, gules, resting the dexter forepaw on an escutch- eon of the Jast, charged with a horse’s head erased, argent. Supporters: On either side a horse argent, charged on the shoulder with an estoile within an annulet, all gules. Motto: Vincit perseverantia. [‘* Jewish Year Book.’’] Wartenegg von Wertheimstein (Austria; creation Dec. 19, 1791}: Quarterly, 1 and 4, gules, a chevron argent, accompanied by three lozenges ; 2, azure, two panels of a door, Teixeira (Amsterdam). Crest: Wandsworth. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 189 brownish color, fixtures argent, the panels put in Saltiep . azure, a stag contourne, or. Crest: A stag issuant, or, a 3 brequins: Dexter, argent and gules; sinister, or ang ‘ mM. [Rietstap, ii. 1051.) Ure, Weil von Weilen (Anstvia; creation Sept. 20, 1874) . 4 a bar argent, charged with a sphinx, Winged gules, sien , panied in chief by two stars or, and in base by g Vee Crests: (1) Wings azure, the extreme plumes or, Lam, Or, quins: Or and azure. () Wings argent, the extreme blu guies. Lambrequins: Argent and gules. [Rietstap, ij Fi Wurzbach, liv. 8.) ~ 108); Weling, alias Seligmann (Bavaria; creation De, 1816) : Party, argent upon gules, two roses argent iy eu, f gules in argent. Crest: A rose argent, between wingg. dey ter, gules upon argent; sinister, argent Upon gules, [Rj a stap, ii. 1066.] ie Wertheimer (Austria; creation 1860, for Joseph yon y, theimer): A bar or, charged in the center by a bow and q . proper, pointed upward. In point sinister, gules, ga lion tongued gules, holding in the right paw a bundle of arrows proper. In base, azure, a sun in its spien- dor or, rising behind a mountain proper, Crests: (1) Open wings, azure and argent, and ar- gent and azure, each charged with a star or. (2) The lion of the field, eontourné. Lambre- quins: Dexter, azure and argent; sinister, gules and or. Motto: In a blue ribbon with letters argent, Luc et concordia. [Wurzbach, lv. 129.] Worms, De: Quarterly, 1 and 4, azure, a key in bend dextg; wards downward, or; 2 and 3, or, an eagle displayed, sable: over all an escutcheon gules, a dexter arm, fesswise. couped at the wrist, proper, the hand grasping three arrows, one jp pale and two in saltier, argent. Cres¢: A ducal coronet or, Supporters: On either side a lion, collared and chained, or, or. Motto: Vinetus non victus. [** Jewish Year Book."] Ximenes (England): Or, two bars gules; over all a pale counterchanged within a border azure. Crest, Out of a muni crown or, an arm embowed in armor, proper, garnished or: the hand, also proper, supporting a trumpet erect and issuant of the first. (Burke's “General Armory,”’ p. 1147.} Ximenes-Cisneros: Checkered or and gules. [Rietstap, ii. 1127.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lucien Wolf, Anglo-Jewish Coats of Arms, in Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc. Eng. 1894-95, pp. 153-169. J. H. Ger—J, Or, De Worms. COBLENCE, ADOLPHE: French army sur. geon; born at Nancy May 11, 1812; died in Paris Sept 18, 1872. He entered the service of the army as an assistant surgeon in the military hospital at Metz in 1882; became surgeon in 1834; aud sub- sequently was made head of the clinic at the Hotel des Invalides, Paris, by Baron Larrey. While at the Invalides he received the degree of M.D. from the faculty of Paris, and was appointed surge, with the rank of adjutant, to the Fifty-fifth Regi- ment of the line and to the engineer corps stationed at Metz. In 1846 he was promoted to surged major of the Twelfth Infantry, which took part 10 the last expedition against ‘Abd-al-Kadir. In 1849, in recognition of his self-sacrificing devo tion to his duties during the outbreak of the choles in Oran, he was presented by the civil authorities with a gold medal, and was made a chevalier of the Legion of Honor. Coblence was attached in 1856 1 the military hospital at Bayonne, but gave UP position and went to the Crimea, afterward ee ting himself to the ty phoid-stricken soldiers quar ss tined in the island of Porquerolles. In 1809 he ne made an officer of the Legion of Honor fo 133 jendid services with the Renault division during a Italian campaign, particularly at Magenta and apiferino, aud subsequently was appointed physi- jan-in-chiet of military hospitals, with quarters at Algiers. His excessive exertions and an unfavora- ble climate brought on blindness in 1863, whereupon he yeturned to Paris, and was retired. pipLIOGRAPHY > Arch. Isr, 1872, pp. 606, 627, 628. : A. R. COBLENZ: Prussian city on the Rhine. Jews gttled there between 1135 and 1159, and are first mentioned in the “Judenschreinsbuch ” (Archives) of Cologne. As early as 1100 there is mention of a custom-house in Coblenz at which Jews were obliged to pay four denarii for every salable slave. Perhaps gnote in the “ Memorbiicher,” according to which jizchak and his wife Bela brought about the “aboli- tion of the tax,” refers to the above-mentioned duty. petween 1160 and 1173 the traveler Benjamin of qudela found a large community in Coblenz. Mar- sjlius, the mayor of Treves, and the knights Hein- rich and Dithard of Pfaffendorf, testified, in 1265, that the archbishop Heinrich of Treves had freed ite Jews in Coblenz of all taxes for a year. In the game year the Jews of this city were subjected to a ergecution, as a result of which more than ten were killed. In 1334 the “Judenschliger” (Jew-beaters) attacked the Jews in Coblenz; in 1349 they suffered under the Flagellants, who killed almost all of them. The records show that from 1352 the houses of the Jews were frequently subject to confiseation and sale for the benefit of the reigning prince. In 1322 and 1326 there is mention of a cemetery, and in 1883 and 1852 of a Jewry. The emperor Charles 1V. ordered, in 1854, that a certain Jew named Sam- uel receive protection. In 1856 he granted Arch- bishop Boemund II. of Treves the right for Jews to settle in his district; and from 1866 Jews are found in Coblenz as house-owners. This prelate took the Jew Symon for his court physician. In 1418 Archbishop Otto drove them out of his do- mains, and in 1421 he gave in fief the Jewish ceme- tery of Coblenz to the daughters of Gottfried Sack of Dieblich, and presented the Jewish houses in the Burggasse to the religious order of St. Florin. In 1912 the elector Richard admitted two Jewish fam- ilies to Liitzel-Coblenz, and in 1518 tive more fami- lies to Coblenz itself. The Council first extended civil protection to them in 1518. In 1588 they were again ordered to leave, and until 1592 they were ex- cluded from the electorate. In 1597 John VIL. granted a Jewish firm permis- ‘lon to settle in Treves and Coblenz, and carry ona trade with the East. Their religious center was in Frank fort-on-the-Main. Twenty-one years later the elector Lothar von Metternich issued an order Tegulating the status of the Jews. In1723a statute Was enacted reestablishing the Jewry, and permit- & Jews to have arabbi. When the elector Wen- ceslaus made his public entry into Coblenz in 1786, he Jews wished to take part in the ceremonies. : ae 23 they held religious services in his honor, , vere admitted by him toan audience. On Jan. » 1851, a new synagogue was dedicated, and in THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Coat of Arms Coblenz 1901 there were 600 Jews in the city, out of a total population of 45, 146. Among the rabbis and scholars of Coblenz Moses Kohen ben Eliezer, the author of “Sefer Hasidim ” (1473), should be mentioned. Wolf of Coblenz took part in the convention of rabbis at Frank fort in 1608. In 1650 Judah Léb Heilbronn ben Abraham David Eliezer, as rabbi of Coblenz, signed a letter of intro- duction for David Carcassonne. From 1666 to 1669 Jair Hayyim Bacharach, author of the responsa “Hawwot Yair,” was rabbi in Coblenz. He was succeeded by Moses Meir Grotwohl, a member of the rabbinate in his native city, Frankfort-on-the- Main, who died in 1691. His successor was Aaron Spira, who died in 1697. From 1697 to 1717 Jacob Kohen Poppers was rabbi in Coblenz; he is the author of the responsa “Sheb Ya‘akob,” and died in 1740 in Frankfort-on-the-Main. He was followed by Eliezer Lipman, son of Isaac Benjamin Wolf, rabb: in Berlin and the Mark, and author of “Nahalat Binyamin.” Eliezer (d. 1733) was teacher and tutor of Simon von Geldern, Heine’s mater- nal grandfather. Mannele Wallich, who came of an old family of physicians, and was himself a physician, succeeded in the rabbinate, and died on the first day of the Feast of Weeks in 1762. The founder of the Altona printing-house (1715), Sam- uel Sanvel Poppert, who was also publisher of several short works, likewise came from Cob- lenz. The author of “Mafteah ha-Yam ” (novelke to the Pentatench; Offenbach, 1788) calls him- self Jacob Meir ben Wolf Coblenz. Hayyim Léb Gundersheim of Frankfort-on-the-Main had been rabbi in Coblenz for nearly thirty-five years, when he went back to Frankfort, became a member of the rabbinate there, and died in 1803. Ben Israel, born 1817, in Diersdorf, was preacher (1848), later rabbi, in Coblenz. He died Nov. 6, 1876, and was suc- ceeded by Dr. Adolf Levin (1878-385), who is now rabbi of Freiburg, and by Dr. M. Singer (died in 1901). Coblenz has the following Jewish charitable associations: Mé&nner- Krankenverein, Wohlthitig- keitsverein, Wittwen- und Waisenverein, Sterbe- kassenverein, Seligmannsche Stiftung, Alberti-Stif- tung, and Bragsche Stiftung. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Aronius, Regesten, Nos. 208, 282, 307, 701, 704; Salfeld, Martyrologium, pp. 1380, 238, 246; Liebe, in West- deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte und Kunst, xii. 340 et seq.: Neues Archiv der Geselischaft fiir Aeltere Deutsche Geschichte, viii. 260; Hecht, in Monatsschrift, vii. 183 et seq.; Literaturblatt dex Orients, 1846, col. 194; Steinschnei- der, Hebr. Bibl. ix. 118; Horowitz, Frankfurter Rabbiner, i. 40; ii. 54, 82, 102, 105; iv. 34, 75, 101; Rev. Et. Juives, ix. 117; xxv. 207, 215; Kaufmann, Letzte Vertreibung, pp. 80, No. 1; 208, No. 23; 226, No.1; idem, Jair Chajjim Bacha- rach, pp. 47, 71,52; idem, Heine’s Ahnensaal, p. 101; Lands- hut, Toledot Anshe Shem, pp. 3,9; Lowenstein, Natanael Weil, p. 65, n. 3; Zeitschrift fiir Gesch. der Juden in Deutschland, i. 2, ti, 199, v. 191. G. A. F. COBLENZ, GERSON BEN ISAAC MOSES: French rabbi and author; born about 1717; died at Metz in the first half of the eighteenth century. He was a pupil of R. Jacob, author of “Shebut Ya‘akob,” and officiated as dayyan at Metz. Of his works the following are known: “Kiryat Hanah,” responsa, finished by the author at the age of twenty-five, and published by his son Jacob (Metz, 1785); many responsa found in “Shebut Cocceius ) = Cochin THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 194 Ya‘akob” and in the “Kencset Yehezkel” of | fessor of theology at Leyden. He was the found. Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen. Coblenz also wrote | of the school of theology known by his name. novelle on the “ Turim,” and corresponded on rab- Cocceius wrote commentaries On most of binical subjects with the rabbis Judah Moller, | books of the Old Testament, in which he maintay, i Samuel Helmann, and Jacob Joshua of Cracow. that sentences and phrases should be interpreteg BIBLIOGRAPHY : Preface of the author and that of his son to the only BecOrgius toe cout Kiryat Hanah; Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael, p. 221; Azulai, He compiled a Hebrew dictionary of the Ojg Tee Shem ha-Gedolim, pp. 41, 132. tament, which was published at Leyden iy 1669 L. G. pe as bee De under the title “ Lexicon et Commentarius Sermon; COBO. See Covo. Hebraici et Chaldaici Veteris Testamenti,” whic, . a certain extent marks an epoch in Hebrew lex; COCCEIUS (KOCH), JOHANNES: German | cography among Christians. Of interest to Judaism theologian and Hebraist; born at Bremen 1608; | are his “Versio Latina Mischne cum Excerptig WABU VOD GF BVO VU NVI HUY 1) Wo vy \BLWICOWY FAAUW BBW OYVE WY WWIY DIU CWB BPSD CIWS 2]V SF MWe WBLIVESIVO UY 2BIGGINN OD 3 VORUNH WW SCI) BUD ICUAU WUUV YOO WY CAS BADD IAS MIRO GUC LF VAG WIS WLIW FAVUYUWSO VV 2BRUUVI2~VERDUZ MIEBNEOO VIS SYBOWUVG VHS FYSE WAIBDU F BRPVBBYUV HU2BN FCW VWA7QDNIVW)7 WOW AN VFYVSUYGINQ WFYI UO AVY 99 VI|n AGB OY DOV OS ae IFAS BNP WAWU I1I1GI® VW UNA 0 QA CSB WUGUYOYVAD Kev 20004 YWUN3B SUB FOF GOI1WUVUGOWU9-G UL NWT BC HUY9™SB YW OANA) lad yI2 MUWIAWIC WOON Hearse OR SESSU AP AND EBRYUWW YR) V SUOE Ya WEY YU RUD AD %BV3BSB UU 29197 249 OV 6 EVO ORI UZ G/AGRWU EV WU SASANAM OF THE JEWS OF COCHIN, GRANTING PRIVILEGES TO JOSEPH RAaBBAN, ABOOT 730 C.E. (From “Indian Antiquary.’’) # died at Leyden Nov. 5, 1669. He was appointed | ex Gemara Tractatuum Synhedrin et Makkot, professor of Hebrew at Bremen in 1629, and at | 1629; “Judaicarum Responsionum et Questionu™ Franeker in 1636, where, after 1643, he also held the | Consideratio,” with a “Prefatio de Fide Sacrorut chair of theology.. In 1650 he was appointed pro- | Codd. Hebreorum ac Versionis LXU. Interpretu 135 _ et Oratio de Causis Incredulitatis Judeorum ” (Am- sterdam, 1662); “ Tractatus Makkot Versio Latina” in Surenhusius, “Versio Latina Mischnee et Com- mentationum Maimonidis et Obadjaz)”, 1698-1708. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cocceius Cochin The earliest trace of the Cochin Jews is to be found in two bronze tablets known as the “ Sisa- nam” (Burnell, “Indian Antiquary,” iil. 383-334), Which are now in the possession of one of the elders JEWS OF COCHIN. (From a photograph.) All three essays were reprinted in his complete | and contain a charter given by Cheramal Perumal, works, which were published in Amsterdam, two years after his death, under the title “Opera Omnia,” BIBLIOGRAPHY : Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. No. 4757; Schaff- Herzog, Eneye: s.v.; Karpeles, Gesch. der Jlidischen Lite- ratur, p. 1034, Berlin, 1886,; Eineye. Brit. s.v. he | F. T. H. COCHABI, JOSEPH BEN ABRAHAM. See KoKABI, JOSEPH BEN ABRAHAM. COCHIN: State of India, within the Madras Presidency. The Jews in Cochin numbered 1,142 in 1891, and are divided into two classes: the Whites, Whose complexion is almost as fair as that of Euro- pean Jews, and the Blacks, who, though darker than the former, are not so black as negroes, and are of the same complexion as the Jews of Yemen or Kurdistan. The White Jews number at present about fifty families, and these are divided into six stocks: the Zakkai, who are the oldest, and are said to have come trom Cranganore in 1219; the Castillia, exiles from Spain in 1492, who arrived at Cochin in 1511; the Ashkenazi and Rothenburg, whocame from Germany 0 the sixteenth century; and the Rahabi and Halli- sta families, who came from Aleppo about 1680. here are three hundred families of the Blacks. King of Malabar, to Isuppu Irabban (Joseph Rab- ban), probably a Jew of Yemen who led an expedi- tion of Jews to Cranganore about the year 750. By the terms of the charter, engraved in Earliest Vatteluttu characters on the plate, Mention— Rabban, who is referred to as the the ‘‘S&- prince of Ansuvannam, was granted sanam.” seventy-two “free houses” and feudal rights in Ansuvannam, near Cranga- nore. The date of the charter can be fixed at about 750; it can not, for paleographical reasons, have been much earlier than this, nor later than 774, since a grant made to the Nestorian Christians at that time was copied from it. These Jews intermingling with the natives be- came the progenitors of the Black Jews of Cochin, These are mentioned by Ibn Wahab in the ninth cen- . tury; and Benjamin of Tudela appears to have vis- ited or heard of them about 1167. He reports that they were one hundred in number and Traces as black as the rest of the inhabitants in Middle of Coilum or Quilon, then the most im- Ages. portant port on the Malabar coast. . There Marco Polo found them a cen- tury later (“ Travels of Sir Marco Polo,” ed. Yule, ii. 268), and when Vasco da Gama reached Calicut in Cochin 1487, the first person he met was a Jew said to have come from Posen via Turkey and Palestine (Kay- serling, “ Christopher Columbus,” pp. 1138-114). In 1511 they were joined by Jews from Portugal. In 1565 they were threatened with the Inquisition by the Portuguese Christians settling at Cranganore, and fled to Cochin, where their number increased so rapidly that the Por- tuguese historian De Barros (1496- 1570) refers to the King of Cochin as the “king of the Jews” (“ Asia,” ILL. ii, 284). Slavery was for- merly allowed in Mal- abar, and the White Jews could make others slaves. The native males and fe- males whom they bought were admit- ted as slaves accord- ing to the Jewish law, and even those who voluntarily entered the fold of Judaism were not ad- mitted and treated as “strangers of right- eousness,” but as slaves. The males had to undergo the rites of circumcision and ablution, and the females were sub- jected to ablution. Their offspring were also treated as slaves. At the time of cir- cumceision the mohel who performed this rite recited the bless- ing of circumcising slaves, and a similar blessing was recited at the time of their ablution. Even after undergo- ing these rites they were not allowed to intermarry with the other Jews, to study the Holy Scriptures, or to wear zizit and tefillin, unless they obtained a cer- tificate of emancipation from their masters or mis- tresses. To make this emancipation Known to the community of the White Jews, the freed slave went about and kissed the hands of all the Jews of the city. The children and children’s children of all such freed slaves were also considered eman- cipated and were at liberty to wear zizit and tefillin, but were not called up to the reading of the Law except on Simhat Torah. On the first two Seder nights the cmancipated slaves with their families were allowed to join their masters at the table and to chant the Haggadah. This was the only occasion on which they were treated as free men and women. At the conclusion of the service on the Day of Atonement they kissed the Slaves. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Group of Cochin Jews. (From a photograph.) 136 hands of their former masters. The Property o¢ one who had no heir went to his or her former Mas ter. In the synagogue they were formerly mada ns sit on the ground in the veranda outside the Syna. gogue proper. In 1848 the freed slaves asked permission of the White Jews to use the benches in the Synagogue. being refused, they moved within the boundary of the British territory where no distinetig, is made between mag. ters and slaves. [Leg by Ava, a Wealthy emancipated — slave who acted ag sofer and shohet, they built a synagogue; pyt their numbers wey soon diminished p the plague, and after Ava’s death they were obliged to re. turn to the White Jews, and to reag. sume their old po. sition in the syna. gogue. Though they neither eat nor drink together, nor inter. marry, the Black and the White Jews of Cochin have almost the same social and religious customs, They hold the same doctrines, use the same ritual (Sephar. dic), observe the same feasts and fasts, dress alike, and have adopt- ed the same vernacu- lar, Malayalam, adia- lect of Tamil. Their chief articles of food are rice and the milk of the coconut. Mazzot are eaten only at the Seder, and though the Whites eat cooked fishes and chicken on the Religious Sabbath, the Blacks eat no meat. Ob- The two classes are equally strict in servances. religious observances. The Blacks have two synagogues, one of which was built in 1625. The synagogue of the Whites, a maguificent edifice, was erected in 1568, burned by the Portuguese in 1662, rebuilt by Shem-Tob Castillia in 1668, and finally completed by Eze kiel Rahabi in 1780. It is situated next to the raja’s palace, and is richly endowed with landed property. The Ark in these synagogues is situated in the western end of the building, not in the east: ern, as in European lands, so that the congregation may turn in prayer toward Jerusalem. ; Among the Blacks there are no Kohanim or Levites, so that they hire impoverished White Jews of the tribe of Levi and of the family of Aaron 02 the 137 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cochin Ee gE ee Se ee ee ae ee ae pecasions when their presence is necessary. In 1615 4 false Messiah appeared among the Jews of Cochin gchudt, “ Jiidische Merckwiirdigkeiten,” i, 42). \ Pereyra de Paiva (“ Notisias dos Judeos de Cochin ”) states that during the week of Nov. 21-26, 166, some Dutch merchants of the Sephardic con- regation of Amsterdam visited Cochin, at that time aD important commercial port, and at the request of David Rahabi had rolls of the Penta- Connec-_ teuch, prayer-books, and various rab- tion with binical works sent from Amsterdam Europe. to Cochin. The books were received on the Fifteenth of Ab, and this day was appointed a holiday to be observed every year. jn 1757 the White Jews had their own prayer-books rinted at Amsterdam, and brought out a second edition in 1769. Their houses, situated in the sec- tion of the city called the “Jewish Town,” are of one story, built of chunam and teak-wood, and are situ- ated on the east and west of the road leading to the synagogues. In the yard is usually found a cistern required for the “tebilah” and a tabernacle for the festival. The whole lo- lity is kept clean, and jighted on Sabbath, new moond, and holiday nights. The commercial and synagogal affairs of the community are looked after by five elders With a WNW PPT (‘chief elder”) at their head. During the Portu- guese and Dutch periods, that is, until about 1790, the greater part of the business of Cochin was in the hands of the White Jews. But their money was lost by Baruch David Rahahi, and for a time the community was very poor. About 1860 their condition im- proved, and while few are still able to live on the income of their an- | cestral landed property, none are dependent on charity. The Whites are engaged chiefly as schools. The women, if instructed at all, are taught merely to recite their prayers. The only Cochin Jews who have made any contributions to literature are David Rahabi, author of “ Ohel. Da- wid,” a calendar, printed at Amster- Literary dam in 1791; and Solomon Riemann, Efforts. author of “ Mas‘ot Shelomoh,” Vienna, 1884. Riemann taught the Blacks the Torah and shehitah, and was the first to consider them eligible for Minyan. The week-day dress of the White Jew is the same as that worn by the natives; but the Blacks are cov- ered only from the waist down, wear a red kerchief ou the head, and have “pe’ot.” In the synagogue, the Black wears the kaffa; the White, a turban, a shirt, a jacket with twelve buttons, over this a jubha, and trousers. Some of the younger men have adopted European dress. The “tahli,” a gold chain with a peculiar coin in the middle, is worn by all married women, including widows; but the latter are not allowed to wear their wedding-rings. The rites and ceremonies of the Cochin Jews are usually conducted on a. very extravagant scale. The only ceremony which is performed in the case of a female child is its naming, in the synagogue or at home, eight days after birth; while the male child, eight days after birth, is carried under a canopy by his mater- nal uncle Birth from the Rites. house to the syna- gogue, where he is cir- cumcised; the occasion. is then observed by the usual feast. Ifa woman dies in childbirth, and the child dies even one hour after, the dowry, contrary to the usual Jewish custom, remains in the husband’s family. The proposal of mar- riage is made to the father of the girl by the father of the man, Inerchants or farmers, through professional the Biacks as fishermen, Black Jew of Cochin. match-makers for both fruiterers, wood-chop- (From “ Globus.”) parties. Two days be- bers, or oil-pressers; fore the wedding, which while many of the freed slaves are | usually takes place on Tuesday evening, the girl is Social = bookbinders, clerks, or merchants. taken to the synagogue for “tebilah ” (purification) ; Conditions. In education the Jews of Cochin | on her return, taking four threads of zizit in her are extremely unprogressive. For- merly boys of thirteen or fourteen were taught to Pray and to read the Law; now there are no Tal- nudists among them, few are well versed even ‘0 the Torah, and most of them learn only suf- litient English to enable them to do clerical work. here are both Black and White teachers in the hands, she kisses seven times the portion of the Bible containing the Decalogue. The making of the wedding-ring, and the cutting of the bride- groom’s hair, usually done on the day of the wed- ding, are attended with music and festivities. At the beginning of the ceremony the bridegroom, | who wears a white head-covering, takes a glass Cochin Codicil of wine and a ring, and recites a responsive formula. To his salutation, “With the permission of you all,” those present respond, * With the permission of Heaven.” He then repeats the usual blessings of betrothal, followed by a betrothal formula in which the exact name of the bride is mentioned. He drinks of the wine, and handing the cup to the bride, whose face A Synagogue in Cochin. (After a photograph.) is covered with a silk or embroidered network, says, “With this, also, do I betroth thee.” Hereupon the officiating minister reads with cantil- lation the “ketubbah ” (marriage con- tract), which is handsomely engrossed upon parchment. Before the last sen- tence is read the bridegroom hands the fringe of his zizit to the rabbi; and while both hold it the minister adjures hin: “By the command of the Holy and Sanctitied, by the Mighty One, who revealed the Law at Sinai, ‘her support, her clothing, and her conjugal right he shall not diminish!’” The bridegroom replies: “Her support, her clothing, and her conjugal right I will not diminish.” The rabbi says, “Dost thou undertake this?” and the bridegroom replies, “I undertake it.” The minister adds, “A promise before Heaven and earth?” and the response is, “A promise before Heaven and earth.” When the reading of the contract is completed, Marriage Rites. the signatures of the bridegroom and witnesses are appended and read aloud, and the bridegroom pre- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 13g sents the contract to the bride; while those ASSe bled exclaim, “Be-simana taba!” (May it be for ; good sign!) The whole company then joing ; singing a quaint epithalamium. 2 On the Sabbath after the wedding, the bridegro, : ‘ mn is called up tothe reading of the Law, ang after the recital of the usual portion of the day, the pas sage Gen. xxiv. 1-7 is read by him and the hazza, alternately, verse by verse, in. Hebrew and Aramaj a Verses from Isaiah Ixi. 10-Ixti. 5 are similarly added to the Haftarah (lesson from the Prophets). After the ceremony the guests are invited to a feagt at the home of the bride, at which the poor sit above the rich; and the festivities are continued for Seven days, the bride’s parents defraying most of the expenses. In case of adultery (Deut. xxiv.), bills of divorce written in Hebrew, are given; but divorces are very rare. “Yibbum,” the obligation to marry the child. less widow ofa deceased brother (Deut. Other Cere- xxv. 5, 6), is still observed by the (+. monies. chin Jews, as is the ceremony of Hy. LIZAH (Deut. xxv. 7,10). Bigamy ang polygamy are almost unknown among them. The funeral and mourning ceremonies are ob. served in accordance with the prescriptions of the Shulhan ‘Aruk. Soon after a death the shirt of the chief mourner is torn from his body; and on return. ing from the cemetery, the funeral party, except the mourners, wash themselves and their clothes. Dur. ing the seven days of mourning, the bereaved wear a piece of white cloth over the head, which the hazzan removes on the seventh day. On the sev. enth and twenty-ninth days, and at the expiration of the eleventh and twelfth months, the family visit the grave, and on the return home, selections from the Psalms, Mishnah, Torah, and “ Hashkabah” are read, and the “ Kaddish” is recited. The latter is repeated by the mourners for one year, with some intermissions at the beginning of the twelfth month. All the Jews of Cochin buried their dead in one plot of ground until twenty-five years ago, when the White Jews, through the influence of the British agent of the Cochin raja’s court, were allotted a separate place. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Pereyra de Paiva, Notisias dos Judeos de Co- chim, Amsterdam, 1687; Schudt, Jiidische Merckwiirdig- keiten, i. 88-46; H. Wessely, in Meassef, vi. 129, reprinted in Richhorn, Aligemeine Bibliothek, ti. 571 et seg. (other repro- ductions in Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. cols. 2722-2723) ; Su purim, iii. 196; Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asta, p. 224: Wilson, Lands of the Bible: Eben Safir, ii. 56-86; 5. Riemann, Mas‘ot Shelomoh, pp. 146-165; Burnell, Jndian Antiquary, 1873, iii, 333-334 (with facsimile of the bronze tab- jets); De Barros, Asia, ed. 1777, i. 364, ii, 234; Imperial Gazetteer of India, s.v.; Zunz, Ritus, p. 57; Ritter, Erd- kunde, v. 595-601. J. J. EJ. COCK: The male of the domestic fowl. The original habitat of the domestic fowl is generally supposed to be India, whence it was introduced at an early time into Babyloniaand Greece. Its diffi- cult to say when it was brought to Palestine, a8 the allusions to it in the Bible are still very doubtful. According to rabbinical tradition 133 (Isa. xx. 1") is a designation for “cock,” which was know under this name in various districts of Babylonia as late as the third century c.. (Lev. R. v.; Midr. Mishle XX3. 139 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cochin Codicil cpsla ee ag ee es a ee 19). The Jewish teacher of Eusebius also explained the word thus (see Eusebius’ commentary on Isaiah, joc. cit.; Compare, however, Ket. 28a and Yoma 90b, in both of which passages Abba Arika’s oppo- sition to thisexplanation is declared). Another term which, according to an amora of the fourth century, signifies “cock,” is Naw (Job xxxviii. 36), the statement being added that the cock bore a similar name about this time in Arabia (R. H. 20a; Lev. R. XXVv.). The assumption of the Midrash (Midr. Mishle xxx, 31) that 7M? (Prov, xxx. 31) is a designation for «cock ” is more plausible than the foregoing explana- tions, since the Arabic “zarzar” means “cock.” In the Talmud and in Midrashic literature, however, the cock is always called by his Babylonian name byso9n (compare Oppert in “Zeitschrift fir Assyri- ologie,” vii. 8389), which fact may be taken, perhaps, to indicate that the cock was introduced into Pales- tine from Babylonia. In this literature the cock is also frequently mentioned as a common domestic fowl, although it is expressly stated that at Jerusa- lem the breeding of cocks was forbidden during the existence of the Temple because they scratch the ground and pick up objects which are Levitically unclean, and are thus likely to spread uncleanness (B. K. 82b). The cock and the bat are contrasted as the bird of day and the bird of night. The cock and the bat were both waiting for daylight, when the cock said: “I may wait for the dawn, for light be- longs to me; but for what do you need light?” (Sanh, 98b, bottom). The cock is characterized as the most impudent of birds (Bezah 25b); his lascivi- ousness is also proverbial (Ber. 22a), yet his kind treatment of the female is set up as a model, inas- much as he humors the hen to win her favor (‘Er. 100b). The comb is the cock’s chief ornament, of which he is very proud, and when it is cut off he loses his spirit and no Jonger seeks the hen (Shab. 119b, bot- tom). The cock is also said to be quarrelsome and vicious (Pes. 113b), those from Bet Bukya having an especially bad reputation in this respect, as they suffered no intruders among them (Yeb. 84a). A cock once killed a child by picking at its scalp with its beak (‘Eduy. vi. 1; Yer. ‘Er. x, 26a), The crow- ing of the cock, as well as his flight, sometimes causes dishes to break (B. K. 1%7a; Kid. 24b). The cock, which occupies a prominent place in the mythology of many peoples (compare Gubernatis, “Zoological Mythology,” ii. 280-291), was an espe- cially sacred bird among the Persians, where he was the ally of Sraosha in the battle with The the powersof darkness. In Talmudic- Cock in Midrashic literature there are reminis- Folk-Lore. cences among the pagans of the divine honors paid to the cock, as well as of the influence on the Jews of these ideas. The Mish- tah (‘Ab. Zarah i. 5) mentions the pagan custom of sacrificing white cocks, the Jews being forbidden for this reason to sell them to the pagans. The idol Nergal (Il Kings xvii. 30) was taken by the Rabbis 'obea cock (Sanh. 63b), which assumption was based Probably on something more than the mere similar- ty of sound between “ tarnegol” (cock) and “ Ner- gal” (compare the cock-shaped Melek Taous of the Devil-worshipers; see Herzog’s “ Real-Encyklo- padie,” s.r. “ Nergal”). The various theories found in Jewish literature on the crowing of the cock at the approach of day are probably traceable to Persian influence (compare Darmesteter’s translation of the Zend-Avesta, in “Sacred Books of the East,” i. 192, 193; Schorr, “ He-Haluz,” i. 148, iii. 98, vii. 19). * The Greek Baruch Apocalypse says that the rus- tling of the wings of the phenix, a fabulous bird which accompanies the sun, awakens the cocks, “who then converse in the language peculiar to them”; for when the angels get the sun ready for the day the cock crows (ch. iv., end; compare Sla- vonic Enoch, xv. 1). Asin the Zend-Avesta the cock is said to crow out to men early in the morning: “ Arise, O men! recite the Ashem Yad va histen” (Vendidad, Fargard, xviii.), so the Zohar says that in the hour of grace (about midnight), when God visits paradise to confer with the souls of the pious, a fire proceeds from this holy place and touches the wings of the cock, who then breaks out into praise to God, at the same time calling out to men to praise the Lord and do His service (Zohar, Wayikra, tii. 22b, 23a). In this connection must be mentioned a pre- cept of the Talmud to the effect that on hearing the cock crow in the morning, the following benediction must be pronounced: “Praised be Thou, O God, Lord of the world, that gavest understanding to the cock to distinguish between day and night” (Ber. 60b). This benediction is traced back to Job xxxviii. 36, where Sw is derived from psy (“to see”), and the cock is designated as the one who foresees the day. In the Zend-Avesta the cock is also called “ parddars ” (he who foresees [the coming dawn]). Characteristic also is the statement in a late Midrash (“Seder Yezirat ha-Walad,” in Jellinek’s “B. H.” i. 155) that the sobs of the dying at the sight of the angel who comes to take the soul are heard by no one except the cock. The favor in which the cock is held by the heavenly beings has perhaps also given rise to the statement that by closely watching the cock’s comb one can determine the moment when God lays aside His mercy; this happens at some one moment during the first three hours of day, the color of the comb changing at that moment. Superstitious speculations in regard to the cock were frequent during the Middle Ages. The cock is stili killed asa “kapparah” for a man (see ATONE- MENT); and the will of Judah the Pious directs that a cock which upsets a vessel shall be killed imme- diately, because evil spirits have seized it. The de- mons (“shadim.”) are said to have cock’s feet (Ber. 6a). Many of these superstitions are still found among ignorant people in various countries. Thus, for instance, the scratching of the cock with his claws is taken to signify that visitors are coming. Compare HEN. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, pp. 194-199; Kohut, Aruch Completum, s.v. 912997; Rubin, in Ha-Kar- mel (weekly), vol. lii., Nos. 9, 11. E, C. L. G. COCKATRICE. See BASILISK. CODES. See Laws, CODIFICATION OF, CODICIL. See WILL. Ceele-Syria Coen CCELE-SYRIA: The name, occurring in the Greek apocryphal writings, of a Persian province lying between Egypt and the Euphrates. In old editions it is given as “Celosyria.” This name stands for the earlier expression “the country be- yond the river” (Ezra iv. 10, R. V.; compare I Esd. ii. 17, 24, 27, R. V., “Caie-Syria and Phenicia ” ; 7, vi. 29, “tribute of Coele-Svria and Phenicia” ; and 70. vii. 1, “the governor of Cele-Syria and Phenicia”). II Macc. iii. 5, 8 speaks also of a single governor for both Ceele-Syria and Phenicia under Antiochus Epiphanes, so that the old Persian administrative division must have been retained. The Greek term “Coele-Syria” originally meant the valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, the modern Bika‘, called in the O. T. (Josh. xi. 17, xii. 7) “the valley of Lebanon.” Greek writers ex- tend that name vaguely and inconsistently to “the land from Seleucis {¢.e., northern Syria] to Egypt” (Strabo, p. 756), or to central Syria with Palestine except Judea proper (Strabo, p. 750), or with all Palestine (thus Polybius, v. 80, 86; while v. 87, like the apocryphal writings, distinguishes Phenuicia from Coele-Syria). Josephus also varies in his use of the term, apply- ing (“ Ant.” xiv. 40) “ Ceele-Syria” to the valley, exclu- ding Damascus, but (2d. xiii. 18, § 2 [ Niese xii. 136] ) including Palestine, east of the Jordan (2b. xiv. 154), Galilee, and (2b. xiv. 79) extending it to the Hu- phrates (this passage is, however, corrected by Niese). The Romans later used “Syria Cela” for northern Syria. E. G. If. W. M. M. COEN: Physician-in-ordinary at the court of Prince Vassile Lupu, hospodar of Moldavia from 1634 to 1654. The dates of his birth and death, and his given name, are unknown. E. Schwarzfeld is of the opinion that Coen was a descendant of Eliezer Cohen of Safed, who had settled in Poland, and one of whose sons, Moses, a. rabbi and physician, escaped during the Cossack uprising in 1648 (Car- moly, “Hist. des Médecins Juifs,” i. 245, Brussels, 1884). He stood high in favor with the Sultan of Turkey, and when Prince Lupu was in danger of being dethroned, through the intrigues of his ene- mies, Coen protected him. The sultan entrusted to Coen for transmission to Prince Lupu important documents concerning a secret alliance between Sweden and Russia, the object of which was a joint attack upon Turkey. The government of Venice sought his advice in matters of diplomacy, as ap- pears from two letters of Giovanni Battista Ballarius to the Doge of Venice, dated at Constantinople Feb. 28, 1656, and Jan. 3, 1660. It was probably owing to Coen’s influence that enactments in favor of the Jews of Moldavia were issued by Lupu. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Sehwarzfeld, Le Réle des Médecins Juifs dans les Principautés Roumaines, Hebr. transl. in Ha- Yekeb, p. 68, St. Petersburg, 1894. WR 8 COEN, ACHILLE: 1. Italian soldier; born at Leghorn in 1851. He studied at the military acad- emy of his native town, and was appointed lieuten- ant in the engineer corps at the age of twenty. Subsequently assigned to the sharpshooters, he was THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 149 transferred to the staff and attached to the milita, section of the Geographical Institute at Florence On his promotion to a captaincy he was appointeg adjutant to General Heusch. In 1895, with the rank of major, he was sent, under General Baldisserg to join the army then operating in Africa. A few da 3 before his arrival, however, the Italian commands Baraticri, had provoked and lost the battle of Adowa’ After the campaign Coen, promoted to the rank of heutenant-colonel, was appointed director of th. military section of the Geographical Institute, He has since been transferred to Cesena as commander of the Second Regiment of the Royal Brigade, Coen isa knight of the Order of the Crown of Italy and of the Order of Saint Maurice and Saint Lazarus. He has published numerous essays in technical jour. nals and in the “ Nuova Antologia,” and also reports of work done at the Geographical Institute, no. tably “ Venticinque Anni di Lavoro all’Istituto Geo. grafico.” 2. Italian historian ; born at Pisa Jan. 5, 1844, At the age of twenty-three he was appointed profesgop of history at the Lyceum of Leghorn. In 1879 he was called as professor of ancient history to the Accademia Scientifica e Letteraria at Milan, and ip 1887, in the same capacity, to the Istituto di Stud} Superiori at Florence, taking charge also of the uni. versity library of that city. He is a knight of the Order of the Crown of Italy. His published works include: “ L’ Abdicazione dj Diocleziano” (Leghorn, 1877); “Di Una Leggenda Relativa alla Nascita e alla Gioventt di Costantino Magno” (Rome, 1882); “Manuale di Storia Orien. tale” (Milan, 1886); “Manuale di Storia Greca” (Milan, 1887); “Vezzio Agorio Pretestato” (Rome, 1888). He also published Aristophanes’ “ Clouds,” with introduction and critical notes (Prato, 1871). BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. de Gubernatis, Dictionnaire des Ecrivains Contemporains. 8. I. E. COEN, BENJAMIN VITALE: Italian rabbi; born at Alessandria della Paglia in the second half of the seventeenth century; died at Reggio nell’ Emilia in 1739. Descended from a wealthy and prominent family, Coen was elected rabbi of Casale while still a youth. He soon became known for his ability and erudition, and was chosen rabbi at Reg: gio nell’ Emilia, at that time an important post. Among his disciples were Israel Bassano, his son-in- law, who succeeded him in the rabbinate, and Ma- nasseh Joshua Padova, rabbi of Modena. Abraham Joseph Graziani wrote some verses in his honor. Coen was the author of the following works: “ : 0 search for Jews’ debts. When the Jews were ¢ : | a pelled in 1290, nine houses and a “schola” of th Jewry escheated to the king, from which it ma : assumed that the community of Colchester Stoo about seventh in order of importance at that time, seat ntpi ee ou Colchester, xiti. 118-125: Jacodg, J, COLENSO, JOHN WILLIAM: Bishop of Natal and English Biblical critic; born at St. Aus. tell, Cornwall, Jan. 24, 1814; died Jan. 20, 1893 He was educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge. After obtaining his degree Colenso passed some time as a teacher at Harrow, where he produced his wey. known school-books on arithmetic and algebra. yp became Bishop of Natal in 1858. For the PUT Poses of his mission to the Zulus he mastered their lan- guage. He wrote and published a Zulu gramme; and translated into that language the books of Gene. sis, Exodus, and Saniuel. During the course of his translation he was much troubled by inquiries from the intelligent Zulug whom he used as interpreters as to the discrepancies in the different narratives contained in Genesis and Exodus. This led him to write his “Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined,” of which the first part appeared in 1862, and created great ex. citement in the theological world. Colenso drew at- tention to the arithmetical difficulties attached to the acceptance of the Biblical estimate of the num- ber of fighting men (600,000) who left Egypt at the time of the Exodus, since this number assumes a population of over two millions, Colenso’s early studies enabled him to realize the difficulties of com- missariat involved in the movement of such large numbers. Hewas ultimately led to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and to declare that Jeremiah was the author of the Book of Deuteron- omy. He was deposed by the Bishop of Cape Town for heresy in 1863, but the act of deposition was not confirmed by the Privy Council, and Colenso re- mained Bishop of Natal to his death. His work, the later parts of which show consider- able advance on the somewhat crude views expressed in the earlier portions, was concluded by the pub- lication of part seven in 1879. He was fora long time the solitary English representative of the higher criticism, and was thereby exposed to much oblo- quy. The well-known “Speaker’s Commentary” was projected mainly in order to combat his views. These created great interest in Jewish quarters, and were answered by Dr. H. Adler and Dr. 4. Benisch. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Dictionary of National Biography, ay COLLAR: 1. A rendering in Judges viii. 26 of the Hebrew word mp). In the other passage (158 iii, 19) in which it occurs it is translated “chats. In both cases the word is used in the enumeratio of ornaments: in Isaiah of the Jewish women, 4 in Judges of the Midianite kings. The root (02) 165 ee means “to drop,” and the word may therefore mean “drops,” “ pendants from the ears,” etc. Targum to Judges renders it by xdiby, which Jastrow, s.¢., trans- lates wreaths,” “crowns.” Rashi, as is his wont, agrees With the Targum; understanding by it, how- evel, pendants falling upon the breast, as a string of pearls (see Rashi on Isa. iii. 19, where he inter- changes NPY and se5uh5). Kimhi, starting from the root “drop,” finds in “natifah” the idea “drop- er,” Which he interprets to mean a bottle in which erfume Was carried, and from which it was dropped as occasion required. Gersonides agrees with Kimli. 'g, A rendering, in Job xxx. 18, of the Hebrew word MH (HD) where, however, the translation is scarcely Warranted. The reference is merely to an opening for the head in a garment, and does not imply the elaborate idea conveyed by the word *‘eollar” (Ex. xxviii. 82). The same word is found in Ps. cxXxXili. 2, where it indicates the top edge of the garinent. E.G H. COLLEGES, RABBINICAL. EWIES; EDUCATION, COLLINS, CHARLOTTE (Lottie): Anglo- American actress; born in London, England, about 1865. She began her stage carecr at the age of five, whenshe made her début asarope-dancer. Having lost both her parents while still a child, she joined her sisters, Marie and Lizzie Collins. singing and dancing with them at various music-halls. In 1890 she became famous for the song entitled “ Ta-ra-ra- boom-de-ay,” which she introduced at the Tivoli Music Hall in London. This song had enormous success. It was originally a boating-chant, used by sailors on the lower Mississippi. In 1892 she was engaged by Charles Frohman to sing in America. J. V. E. G. B. L. See ACAD- COLMAR (German, Kolmar): Chief town of Upper Alsace, Germany, on the Lauch and the Fecht. At the beginning of the thirteenth century Colmar had a.large community of Jews, who en- joyed the favor of the municipal authorities. They occupied a special quarter, where they had a syna- gogue. The building was destroyed by fire in 1279. In 1285 the emperor Rudolph I. besieged Colmar, for which the Jews were held responsible by its citi- zens, Who declared they had induced Rudolph to attack the city ; the Jews were accordingly expelled. That this charge was groundless can be seen from Rudoiph’s subsequent treatment of them. Meir of Rothenburg, rabbi of Colmar, passing through Ru- dolph’s camp, was held for a ransom of 1,500 Marks. He, however, forbade his flock to pay such aheavy sum, and spent the remainder of his life in Prison, The period of banishment must have been brief, for several years later, when Adolph of Nassau, Rudolph’s successor, besieged Colmar, Jews were among the defenders of the city. In 1292 the Jews of Colmar were accused of a ritual murder, and a Mot ensued, in which many Jews lost their lives. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Coimbra Colmar. More fortunate than many other Alsatian com- munities, Colmar escaped the persecutions of the hordes of Armleder, who, on hearing Per- of the approach of the army of Louis secutions. of Bavaria, raised the siege. But this relief was dearly paid for. Louis of Bavaria handed over the Jews of Colmar, with their possessions, to the city for the sum of 200 marks. The year 1348 was fatal to the community of Col- mar, as toall Alsatian communities. Theaccusation of having caused the Black Death found credence with the anti-Jewish council of Colmar. In fact, on Dec. 29, 1348, the city council announced to their fellows of Strasburg that one Hegman had, under torture, accused Jacob, the cantor of the synagogue of Strasburg, of having sent him the poison which he had put into the wells of Colmar. Thereupon the Jews, without being permitted a hearing, were burned outside the gates of the city. The place where the auto da fé occurred is still known as the “Judenloch” (Hole of the Jews). In the following year, Charles IV. of Germany absolved the inhabit- ants of Colmar from all responsibility for the burn- ing of his “servi camere.” Jews were again admitted to Colmar, at the re- quest of King Wenceslaus, about 1875. Neverthe- less, when the latter took the part of the nobles in their quarrels with the Alsatian towns, the Jews of Colmar helped to defend the city, and refused to pay taxes for three years (1885-88). They were, therefore, together with their Christian fellow citi- zens, put under the ban of the empire. Later an arrangement was made between the city and the em- peror, relinquishing to the former the Jewish taxes for a period of ten years; whereupon the ban was removed. Wenceslaus, however, did not forget their recalcitrance, and in 1392 annulled all the claims of the Jews against their Christian debtors. During the reign of Robert of Bavaria the condi- tion of the community improved. On Sept. 28, 1401, he granted the Jews of Colmar a renewal of their old privileges. But the hostility of the coun- cil of Colmar continued to manifest itself in many ways; and in 1487 the council secured from King Sigismund an edict prohibiting the citizens of Col- mar from renting or selling houses to Jews without special permission from tle mayor. In 1468, the council made changes in the statutes affecting Jews, and added the following clauses: “Tn addition to the yearly taxes, the Jews shall contribute to: the tax for the maintenance of the fortress, and give New- Year gifts to the mayor. In case of war they shall pay supple- mentary taxes. They shall remain in their houses during Holy Week, Easter and the feasts of Corpus Christi and Assumption. Only unmarried children may reside with their parents, and no Jew shall harbor without special permission any foreign core- ligionist. Foreign Jews shall pay, on entering the city, a ‘biappert’ at the gate, and a pfennig to the gatekeeper. If they wish to pass a night in the city, they shall pay one shilling. The city protects the Jews only from persons amenable to its tribunal.”’ At the end of 1476 the community suffered greatly at the hands of the Swiss Confederates, who, on their way to France, plundered the Jews and com- mitted many acts of violence. Moreover, the coun- — cil, fearing that the Christian inhabitants would get into trouble with the Confederates on account of the Jews, prohibited the latter from entering the Colmar Cologne city. Thus in 1478 only two Jewish families were tolerated there. At length the council requested from Maximilian I., in Dec. 1507, per- Their mission to banish the Jews from Col- Banish- mar, which request was granted in ment of 1510 (Jan. 22). In vain the com- 1512. munity exerted every effort to secure the repeal of the decree of banishment. All that it obtained, through the help of Josel of Rosheim, the leader of the Alsatian Jews, was the postponement of enforcement until St. George’s Day, 1512. Thenceforth all Jews who came to Col- mar for purposes of trade were compelled to pay a toll and to wear the yellow badge. The syna- gogue and the Jewish cemetery of Colmar were pre- sented by Maximilian to his secretary, Jean Spiegel of Schlettstadt. The cemetery, however, was also used by the Jews in the seigniory of Ribeaupierre. The council was therefore constrained to take over both the cemetery and the buildings formerly be- longing to the Jews, paying an indemnity to both Jean Spiegel and William of Ribeaupierre. The council was not yet satisfied. The banished Jews settled in the neighboring villages, and came daily to Colmar to transact business with its citi- zens. The council therefore passed a law prohib- iting Jews from depositing their merchandise with Christians. On Feb. 2, 1534, the council passed another law forbidding the inhabitants, under pen- alty of loss of citizenship, to harbor Jews. These laws remaining without effect, the council solicited and obtained from Charles V. (April 25, 1541) per- mission to forbid them from entering Colmar. Through the intervention again of Jose! of Rosheim the imperial chancelry, a month later (May 24, 1541), renewed all the privileges previously enjoyed by the Jews of Colmar. These contradictory enact- ments became the occasion of litigation between the city and the Jews, lasting eight years, the Jews being ultimately defeated. Until 1691 no Jew set footinto Colmar. A commu- nity, however, began to form in 1789; and its his- tory, from that time on, differs little from that of other communities in France and Ger- many. With the introduction of the system of consistorics (1808) Colmar became the seat of one, with twenty- five dependent communities. At present (1903) Isi- dore Weill is grand rabbi of the consistory. The district of Colmar includes about 11,000 Jews. There are several benevolent societies, the most note- worthy of which are the Société de Patronage des Jeunes Israélites and the Société des Dames. See ALSACE, BIBLIOGRAPIIY : Mossmann, Etude sur Ul Histoire des Juifs a Colmar, Colmar, 1866; Scheid, Histoire de Juifs d’ Alsace, Paris, 1873; idem, Josel et la Ville de Colmar, in Rev. Et. Juives, xiil. 70-74: J. Kracauer, Procés de R. Joselmann Contre la Ville de Colmar, ib. xix. 282-293; Reuss, L’ Alsace au XVIle Sieécte. Recent History. G. I. Br. COLOGNA, ABRAHAM. See ABRAHAM DE COLOGNA. COLOGNE (German, K6ln or C8ln; Latin, Colonia Agrippina): Chief city of Rhenish Prussia. There are indications that a Jewish com- munity existed here long before Christianity had THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 9 Le gree 166 become dominant. The first official document however, concerming the Jews of Cologne dates from the time of Constantine, who issued a decree (Dec. 11, 321) abolishing their privilege of exemp. tion from onerous municipal offices (“Codex Theo. dosianus,” iii. 16, 8). His successors, especia}] Theodosius IIJ., did not content themselves with the withdrawal of old privileges, but curtailed the civic rights of the Jews. Happily for the Jews of (po. logne, it fell, in 462, into the hands of the Franks. and a long period of freedom and prosperity for the Jews of that city followed, though many attempts were made by the fanatical clergy to disturb the hay. mony and interrupt the friendship existing between the Jews and the Christians. In 881 the Jewish community of Cologne ceageg to exist, the city having been reduced to ashes the Norman invaders. It was, however, soon re. built, and under the wise rule of the archbishops which made the city a great industrial and commer. cial center, a prosperous and numerous Jewish cop. munity came into existence during the tenth cep. tury, accumulating material wealth and learning jp an eminent degree. As in the old city, the Jews occupied a special quarter, situated be. First Be- tween the city hall and the Church of ginnings. St. Laurentius, although they were allowed to reside wherever they chose. They had a synagogue and a Talmudical school, the origin of which is ascribed to AMRAM OF May. ENCE. In 1010 a new and richly decorated synagogue was erected, and about the same time a hospital (wpm) was built by a philanthropist named Eliakim ben Mordecai. The community was administered by a chief rabbi, officially called “episcopus Jude- orum,” who was elected annually. He was assisted by a council of twelve dayyanim, whose decisions had legal force. Disputes between Christians and Jews had to be decided by the Jewish council; and in grave criminal cases, in which the Jewish coun- cil was incompetent to decide, a Jew could be con- victed only on evidence corroborated by a Jewish witness. The Jews were engaged in all branches of com- merce, trading especially in wool, leather, fur, and jewelry. They were also allowed to hold public offices; and many a Jew was entrusted by his Chris- tian fellow citizens with the direction of public af- fairs. Thus, in the middle of the eleventh century, a Jew named Egeberth exercised the functions of burgomaster of the parish of St. Laurentius. This golden period in the life of the Jews of Co- logne was terminated by the Crusades. On May 29, 1096, the Jews of Cologne were informed of the ap- proach of the Crusaders. Being well aware that they could expect no mercy from the pilgrims, whe delighted in the spilling of Jewish blood, they sought refuge in the houses of thelf The First Christian fellow citizens, who, touched Crusade. with pity, did all they could to shield them. The following day the Cru saders, on entering the city, had to content them selves with pillaging the Jewish quarter, and teal ing up and defiling the scrolls of the Law. Only two Jews, Mar Isaac and Rebekah, fell victims 167 their rage. Both had refused to escape, and will- ingly accepted martyrdom. Mar Isaac was dragged to a church, and, spitting on the crucifix held up before him, was there killed. Meanwhile the situation of the refugees became untenable, and detection was feared at every moment. The archbishop, Hermann HI., who himself shel- tered many Jews in his palace, decided to send them secretly away, to be housed in the neighboring towns and villages of his diocese. For three weeks the unfortunate Jews remained safely in their new hi- ding-places, but were finally discovered, and shared the fate of their brethren in other towns, Many ended their lives in lakes and bogs, following the example of a pious man named Samuel ben Yehiel. Standing in the water, and pronouncing a blessing, he killed his son; and his assembled coreligionists, while intoning the “Shema‘” (“ Hear, O Israel! ”) threw themselves into the Rhine. Various “ Memor- piicher” preserve the names of a great number of these martyrs, among whom were several proselytes ; anda prayer of commemoration is recited every year at Cologne on the Sabbath preceding Pentecost. As soon as the horrors of the Crusade had ceased the community was reestablished by the remain- ing old settlers who had escaped massacre, and it was augmented by newcomers, who anticipated greater security at Cologne, as the Christian citizens of the city had shown themselves compassionate toward the Jews. Scarcely had fifty years passed in relative tranquillity when a new The Second calamity overtook the community. Crusade. The monk Rudolph arrived at Cologne (Aug. 1, 1146); and his anti-Jewish speeches soon bore fruit. Meanwhile pilgrims for the Second Crusade commenced to gather; and a re- newal of the scenes of 1096 was to be apprehended. In their distress the Jews addressed themselves to Archbishop Arnold, who gave them the castle of Valkenburg and permission to defend themselves with arms. As long as they remained in this place of refuge they were safe; but as soon as they ven- tured forth the pilgrims, who lay in ambush, dragged them away to be baptized, torturing and killing those that resisted. In commemoration of their sufferings during the Second Crusade, the community of Cologne made the twenty-third of Nisan a fast-day. After the departure of Rudolph the Jews of Co- logne reoccupied their dwellings, and those who had under compulsion nominally embraced Chris- tianity resumed their status and places as Jews. But other disastrous effects of the Crusades soon followed. Besides the great loss of life sustained by many communities, the traffic between Europe and the East, hitherto almost wholly controlled by Jewish merchants, passed rapidly into the hands of Christian competitors, and Jews were soon forbidden to engage in ‘any commercial pursuit. Nor were they able to practise handicrafts, owing to the de- Velopment of the gilds, which excluded Jews from membership. The only means of livelihood left to them, that of money-lending, entailed the ill will of Inhabitants. Thus the characteristic features of € history of the Jews of Cologne from the Second Tusade to their banishment were, as every where THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA —_ Colmar Cologne else, perpetual renewals of privileges—dearly paid for and almost immediately revoked—and_period- ical outbursts of persecution on the part of the populace. Under Archbishop Reinald (1157-67) the Jews of Cologne were regarded as “servi camera,” under the protection of the emperor; and the so-called protec- tion, as it was elsewhere, was here an excuse for ex- tortion. At the beginning of the twelfth century the archbishops of Cologne acquired temporal power over the diocese; and the protection of the Jews—in other words, the levying of taxes—was transferred by the emperor tothe prelates. The Jews had now to pay, on the Feast of St. Martin, 10 marks and 6 poundsof pepper. But the archbishops understood how to extract additional taxes. Thus, the false accusation that a rich Jewish merchant and a rabbi, called Abrahams, had tendered to a saleswoman base coin in payment for their purchases, compelled the community, in order to save their lives, to pay to Archbishop Philip von Heinsberg 180 marks. Philip, however, carried extortion so far that he was subsequently called to account by the emperor Frederick Barbarossa. An exception to the general conduct of the arch- bishops of the thirteenth century was that of Enge}- bert von Berg (1216-22). As provost of Bishop the Dom he had shown his kindly Engelbert. feeling toward the Jews by presenting them in 1212 with five acres of land for the enlargement of their cemetery. Under his rule the Jews were really protected, and this with- out the payment of special taxes. A noble who had robbed and killed a Jew was condemned to death by Engelbert. During the struggles between the municipality of Cologneand Archbishop Conrad von Hochstaden (1232-61), the Jews distinguished them- selves by their courage in defending the city against the archiepiscopal troops. The municipality showed its gratitude by including them in the treaty of peace of March, 1252. A month later (April 27) Conrad granted the Jews a special privilege for two years. Meanwhile the state of the Jews in Germany gen- erally grew worse from year to year; and the com- munity of Cologne was largely increased by refu- gees from neighboring towns. The Thirteenth consequence was renewed trouble and Century. violence. Thus in 1266 (June 15), on a charge of having furnished arms to the invading Mongols and Tatars, the community had to mourn twelve additional martyrs, including Rabbi Isaac ben Simson. Whenever possible, the archbishops, for whom the Jews were an inexhaust- ible source of revenue, quelled the popular out- breaks, and the Jews were safer at Cologne than elsewhere in Germany. In the same year a new privilege was granted, modeled on that of 1252, but with several additional clauses, and with the follow- ing stipulations: that no execution should take place in or near the Jews’ cemetery; that a foreign Jew might be buried therein; that Jews, whenceso- ever they might come, should not pay, in the terri- tory of the archbishop, higher taxes than Chris- tians; the archbishop should not tolerate in the city of Cologne any Cauwercini or Christian usurers. Cologne THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 16g ee ae a am Og eg i ee we I ee eg og A eG RN OS = a These clauses were engraved on stone tablets in the wall of the treasury of the Dom. Archbishop Wicbold (1297-1304) renewed the priv- ilege in 1802 for the sum of 1.200 marks and a yearly payment of 60 marks, in addition to an existing payment of 1,600 shillings to the municipality. In 1849 the sweeping accusation that the Jews had caused the Black Death by poisoning the wells and the rivers, stirred the cver-ready popwace to violence. The municipality, be it said to its honor, did all in its power to prevent the im- The Black pending catastrophe, assuring the in- Death. habitants that the plague was a pun- ishment from God. Iteven encouraged the municipality of Strasburg, in a letter addressed to the burgomaster of that city, to stand by the Jews. But all these exhortations were of no avail: the executioners would not let slip their prey. Seeing that es- cape was hope- less, the elders of the commu- nity, ina council held on the eve of St. Barthol- omew’s Day, de- cided that, in cease of an attack, instead of being dragged to church for com- pulsory bap- tism, they would set fire to their houses and die with their wives and children in the flames. They had not Jong to wait. On St. Bartholomew’s Day (Aug. 24, a letter of protection, in which it acknowledgeq the benefits derived from the Jews. About this time the Jews began to acquire houses in the Judengasse, Botengasse, and Burgerstragga A part of their old synagogue was restored to them. and in 1872 they acquired the remainder. But thj, relatively happy state of affairs did not last, The increasing influence of the Domin;. Expulsion cans, who had established their head. Through quarters at Cologne—a center of the the Hussite movement—showed itself jy Dominicans the enactment, In 1404, of laws pre. in 1426. scribing special garments for Jews On the other hand, the municipality. weary of the struggle against the archbishops, who illegally arrested Jews whenever they necded money eagerly embraced the opportunity to remove the cause of the dis. cord, and. there. fore refused, ip 1426, to renew; the Jewish privi. leges. The Jews had to leave the city, and thenee. forth were not allowed even to pass a night in Cologne. Their synagogue was converted into a chapel, which still exists under the name of Rathauscapelle. Though Co- Jogne had ceased to be a home for Jews, it re- mained during the fifteenth and sixteenth centu- ries the center of an anti-Jew- 1349) the Jewish Hebrew Deed of Conveyance by Cologne Jews. ish movement. quarter was at- (From the “ Judenschreinbuch ” of the thirteenth century.) Thence arose the tacked; fire crusades against broke out simultaneously in different parts of it, and the whole community perished. It remained only for the authorities to dispose of the spoils; an agree- ment was made, in 1850, between the archbishop and the municipality by which the former secured the possessions of the victims. For more than twenty years there wcre no Jews in Cologne. and his son-in-law, who had to pay 1,000 gulden for admission to the city. It wasagreed that each fam- ily admitted should pay 100 gulden for protection. Fourteen families settled in the year 1372, paying together 2,000 guilden foradmission and 1,150 gulden annually for protection. In 1372 Archbishop Fred- erick IJI., in return for a yearly payment of 70 marks, granted privileges similar to those of his predecessors. The old cemetery near Severinsgate was restored to the community; and on St. Thomas’ Day, in the following vear, the municipality issued The first new settlers were one Schaaf Jewish books; and baptized Jews like Victor of Carben and John Pfefferkorn found it a fertile field for their anti-Jewish propaganda. MReuchlin encountered there his bitterest enemies, the Domini- cans, who converted the inhabitants of the once liberal city into a bigoted mob. Even after the Protestant reform movement had triumphed, Col- ogne remained the citadel of the reactionary spirit. Jews of neighboring towns had the greatest diffi culty in obtaining permission to stay in the city even for twenty-four hours. Not until 1798, when Cologne became a part of the French republic, were its gates opened to Jews. In 1798 Joseph Isaac Stern of Mithlheim and his family, availing themselves of the declaration of the new government that each one was responsible to his own conscience for his religious belief, set: tled in Cologne as French citizens. Four years later seventeen other families, including that of SolomoB 169 a a Nt RO Oppenheim, selected Cologne for their abode. A community was then formed and the statutes were drafted; but It increased very slowly, Re- especially when Cologne in 1815 was admission. annexed to Prussia. At that time there were only thirty families; and this number increased but little in the following twenty years. In 1820 the government charged the leaders of the community, Solomon Oppenheim and Solomon Mar- cus Cohen, With the supervision of the Jewish prim- ary school, iu which Joshua Schloss, Elkan Levi, Joseph Gottschalk, and Marcus Mannheimer were guecessively the teachers. The school was then at- tended by thirty pupils. In 1843 the community consisted of forty-six families, and was included in Synagogue at Cologne. (After a photograph.) the rubbinate of Bonn, to which it contributed a yearly payment of 130 to 140 thalers. It took the leadership in the struggle for Jewish emancipation in Germany. In 1847 it summoned the Rhenish communities to a gencral assembly; and its leader, the municipal councilor Abraham Oppenheim, was sent to Berlin in order to prevent the passage of several impending anti-Jewish laws. With the emancipation of the Jews in Germany the community increased, and in 1854 Dr. Israel Schwarz was nominated rabbi. In 1861 a beautiful sybagogue, erected in the Glockengasse at the ex- pense of Abraham von Oppenheim, was consecrated. In 1876 the seminary for teachers, which had been founded at Dtisseldorf in 1867, was transferred to Cologne and placed under the direction of Dr. Plato, Tabbi of the Orthodox congregation ‘Adat Yeshu- tun, A new synagogue was dedicated in 1899, in the presence of inany representatives of both the ‘tate and the municipality. The liberal congrega- hon hag two rabbis, Dr. S. Frank, who, in 1876, sue- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cologne ceeded Rabbi Israel Schwarz, aud the recently nomi- nated Dr. Ludwig Rosenthal. At present (1902) the community numbers about 10,000 Jews. They are engaged in all branches of commerce and industry, and many of them follow the liberal professions. The community maintains numerous benevolent societies, of which the most important are: an asylum for sick and vld; Die Philanthropie, an institution for the promotion of arts and handicrafts; Quelle des Heiles, for the relief of needy tradesmen; Gemilut Hasadim, for lending without interest; Semikut Dallim, founded in 1849; Kotnot Or, for furnishing clothing to children of the poor; Armenverein, for the relief of the poor; Frauenverein, founded in 1820; and Waisenstiftung, founded in 1878. Among the recently erected institutionsare: B'nai Brith Rheinlandloge; an institute for training Jew- ish female nurses; a society for the study of Jewish history and literature; a children’s settlement; and Das Jiidische Lehrlingsheim, a home for Jewish apprentices. The Central-Komitee der Zionist-Ver- einigung fttr Deutschland has its seat in Cologne. In the Middle Ages, Cologne was a center of Jew- ish learning, and the “wise of Cologne” are fre- quently mentioned in rabbinical literature. A. char- acteristic of the Talmudical authorities of that city was their liberality. Many a liturgical poem which still has a place in the Ashkenazic ritual was com- posed by poets of Cologne. The Dis- names of many rabbis and scholars tinguished have been preserved: the legendary Cologne Amram, traditional founder of the Jews. Talmudie school in the tenth cen- tury; R. Jacob ben Yakkar, disciple of Gerson Meor ha-Golah (1050); the liturgist Eliakim ben Joseph; Eliezer ben Nathan (1070-1152), the chronicler of the First Crusade; the poet Eliezer ben Simson, who, together with the last named, took part. in the famous assembly of French and German rabbis about the middle of the twelfth century; the Tosa- fist Samuel ben Natronai and his son Mordecai; the liturgist Joel ben Isaac ha-Levi (d. 1200); Uri ben Eliakim (middie of the twelfth century); R. Eliakim ben Judah; Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn (b. 1182), the chronicler of the Second Crusade. The last lost at | Cologne, in 1171, his son Eliakim, a promising youth, who was murdered in the street. His tombstone is still to be seen in the cemetery of Cologne. Among the rabbis and scholars of the thirteenth century were: Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi; Uri ben Joel ha-Levi; Jehiel ben Uri, father of R. Asher; Tsaac ben Simson (martyred in 1266); Isaac ben Abraham, brother of the Tosafist Simson ben Abra- ham of Sens (martyred in 1266 at Sinzig); R. Isaiah ben Nehemiah (also martyred in 1266 at Sinzig); the liturgist Eliezer ben Hayyim; Hayyim ben Jehiel (d. 1814) and Asher ben Jehiel (b. ¢. 1250; d. 1827); Yakkar ben Samuel ha-Levi; Reuben ben Hezekiah of Boppard; Abraham ben Samuel; Judah ben Meir; Samuel ben Joseph; Hayyim ben Shaltiel ; Nathan ben Joel ha-Levi; Jacob Azriel ben Asher ha-Levi; Metr ben Moses; Eliezer ben Judah ha- Kohen, most of whom are Known as commentators on the Bible. Institu- tions and Societies. Colombia Colophon THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1709 $F a The rabbis and scholars of the fourteenth century include: Samuel ben Menahem, Talmudist and litur- gist; Jedidiah ben Israel, disciple of Meir of Rothen- burg; and Mordecai ben Samuel. These three are called in the municipal sources “Gottschalk,” “Moyter,” and “Siisskind.” The rabbi who offici- ated at the time of the banishment was Jekuthiel ben Moses M6ln ha- Levi (Pruno Siisskind). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hirsch, in Jeschurun, xiii. 388 ; Wallraf, Bei- trdige zur Gesch. der Stadt Koln, Cologne, 1818; Ennen, Gesch. der Stadt Céln, Cologne, 1863-79: Hoeniger, Das Juden-Schreinbuch der Laurenzpfarre zu Kéln, Berlin, 1888 ; Neubauer and Stern, Hebriéiische Berichte tiber die Judenverfolgung Wdhrend der Kreuzztige; Sulfeld, Mar- tyrologium, pp. 247, 255, 267, 272, 286; Aronius, Regesten, s.v.; Stobbe, Die Juden in Deutschiand Witihrend des Mit- teialters, pp. 88 et seq.; Gritz, Gesch. vi, 106 et seq.; Brisch, a Gee Juden in Kéln und Umgebung, Miheim-a.- eq 4 * E. C. I. Br. COLOMBIA. See UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA. COLON. See PANAMA. COLON, JOSEPH B. SOLOMON: The fore- most Talmudist of Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century; born probably at Chambéry, Savoy, about 1420; died at Padua 1480. Colon (whose name is probably identical with the French “colombe,” dove) belonged to the scholarly family of the Trabots, who emigrated from France to Italy in the fifteenth century. The teachers of the boy were his father—himself an eminent Talmudist— and a certain Mordecai b. Nathan. Colon left his home at an early age—not, however, as Gritz says (“Gesch.” 3d ed., viii. 248), in consequence of the expulsion of the Jews from Savoy, which took place in 1471. For a time he ted a wandering life, and was forced to gain his living by teaching children. About 1469 he officiated as rabbi in Pieve de Sacco, in Venetian territory, whence he went to Mestre, near Venice. There he became acquainted with a pupil of Israel Isserlein, and was influenced by him in favor of the German Talmudists. Subsequently Colon was rabbi at Bologna and Mantua, and he became involved ina quarrel with Messer Leon, both being banished by the authorities. Thereupon he was made a rabbi at Pavia, and there he became the center of Talmudic learning in Italy. At the same time Colon’s decisions in civil as well as religious questions were sought from far and wide—from Ger- man cities, such as Ulm and Nuremberg, as well as from Constantinople. He wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, and novellz on the Talmud and on the legal codex (4"1»D) of Moses of Coucy; but the re- sponsa, coliected after his death by his son-in-law Gershon and by one of his pupils, Hayya Meir b. David, are all that have been printed of Colon’s works (ed. princeps, Venice, 1519; several later editions). Colon’s responsa, which are among the classical productions in this field of rabbinical literature, ex- ercised a great influence on the devel- His opment of rabbinical law. One of the Responsa. most important was his responsum No. 1, in which he decided that no one could be forced to take acase to an outside court when there was a court in the place where the de- fendant (yon)) was living; for it often happened that rich people took their cases to foreign rabbis in order to make the poor surrender. His responsum No. 4, addressed to the congregation of Regensburg, is also highly important. A number of Jews of thay community having been falsely accused, and a sun, of money having to be raised for their ransom, the surrounding places and neighboring communitje, refused to contribute, at least in so far ag jy was a question of paying a fixed tax instead of making voluntary contributions. Colon decideg that the communities in question could not refuge to pay their share, since the same false accusation (by253) might be made against them also, and if the accused in this case were proved innocent and rap. somed, they would then be safe from danger. In his responsa Colon endeavored not only to de. cide the case in hand, but to establish general pringj. ples according to which similar or related cases might be decided. In addition to an astonishing range of reading in the entire rabbinical literature, Colon dig. plays a critical insight into the treatment of the Talmud that is remarkable for his time. This is q]] the more noteworthy since he was entirely under the influence of the German Talmudists, which pre. ponderated in northern Italy. Colon’s great self. confidence is remarkable; he paid little attention to Jacob ben Asher’s “Turim,” even then considered the most authoritative law codices; and he cared as little for mere custom (Responsa, No. 161, end). He had, besides, an inflexible regard for right and jus- tice, and never stopped to consider persons. This becomes especially evident in the sharp yet duly re- spectful manner in which he reproved Israel Bruna, the foremost Talmudist of Germany of his time, when the latter presumed to act as judge in a certain dispute, though he was himself one of the contend- ing parties. It was natural thata man of Colon’s stamp should sometimes be carried too far in his zeal for truth and justice; and this happened in his dispute with Capsali, the hakam-bashi of Turkey. Having been falsely informed by an emissary (“meshullah”) in behalf of the people of Jerusalem that His Capsali was very lax in divorce de- Dispute cisions, that he had declared that the with betrothed (3D%9N) of a man who had Capsali. -become converted to Christianity should be considered as single, and that he had declared an engagement (yp) void because it had not been entered into according to the laws of the community, Colon, in order to estab- lish the sanctity and inviolability of marriage be- yond the power of any individual} rabbi, wrote three letters (Resp. Nos. 88, 84, 85) to the president and leaders of the community of Constantinople, threat- ening to place Capsali under the ban if he did not recall his decisions and do public penance: and at the same time making it understood that in no case would Capsali ever again be allowed to fill the office of rabbi (Resp. No. 83). This decree of an Italian rabbi pronounced against a Turkish colleague was an unprecedented attack on the rights of the com- munity, and provoked the righteous indignatiou of the Constantinople community—all the more as it proved to rest upon a groundless and vulgar calumny. Capsali, conscious of having been ma ligned, did not mince matters in answering Colon s letters; and a bitter discussion arose between the two men, in which the leading rabbis of Germany, Italy, 171 and the Orient took part. It is characteristic of Colon that as soon as he became convinced that he jiad been the victim of an intrigue, and so had done injustice to the hakam bashi, he did not hesitate to make amends. On his death-bed he commissioned his son Perez to go to Constantinople and ask, in his father’s name, the forgiveness of Capsali. RAPHY: Frankel, in Litteraturbl. d. Orients, 1848, pp. BIBL Oe. 379-884 ; Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael, pp. 502-503 ; Gratz, Geach. 3d ed., viii., passim; Giidemann, Gesch. des Erzieh- UNGS Wese rs und der Cultur der Juden in Deutschland, pp. 246-251; Gross, Gallia Judaica, pp. 221-223; Zunz, Z. G. p. 106. LG COLONIAL JEWISH MONTHLY. See PERIODICALS. COLONNE, JULES EDOUARD: French musician; born at Bordeaux July 23, 18388. He studied at the Paris Conservatory, where he was awarded the first prize for harmony and for the violin. He gave up a position as first violinist at the Grand Opéra in order to found the Association Artistique des Concerts du Chatelet in 1874. By these concerts Colonne popularized the works of Berlioz, whose “L’Enfance du Christ,” “Les Tro- yens,” and especially “La Damnation de Faust,” the one hundredth performance of which was given in 1898, were frequently rendered. He also gave prominence to the works of the younger French composers, such as Massenet, Dubois, Lalo, Vincent d’Yiidy, as well as to the masterpieces of foreign composers. The Association Artistique des Concerts du Chate- let, well known at Paris under the name of “Con. certs Coionne,” won signal success. Colonne was appointed leader of the official concerts of the Expo- sition of 1878. In 1891 he was appointed leader of the orchestra at the Opéra, lis initial performance being in “Lohengrin.” At the Exposition of 1900 he conducted the concerts in “Old Paris.” Colonne gave many successful concerts in foreign coun- tries, and also introduced to France, through the medium of his association, the most prominent of contemporary German conductors, like Siegfried, Wagner, Mottl, etc. Colonne was an officer of the Legion of Honor. He died March 28, 1910. s. M. Bu. COLOPHON: An inscription or device placed at the end of books, generally with the intention of showing the title, the writer’s or the printer’s name, the date, and the place of printing. Originally the certificate of the illuminator, it was used by the early printers to attest that the work had been done by a reputable man and in a reputable manner. Early prints attempted only to reproduce faithfully the manuscripts. As these at times had neither title- page nor colophon, some of the earliest prints are wanting in both. This is true of such early Hebrew prints as the editio princeps of Maimonides’ “ Mish- neh Torah ” and Jacob b. Asher’s “ Turim ” (Soncino, ¢. 1490). In the “ Dikduk” of Elijah Levita (Isny, 1942) a poem takes the place of the usual colophon. In other works the colophon is extremely short, con- taining simply the word on (“It is ended”): or JON yy nb fox, as in Nahmanides’ “ Perush ha-Torah ” (before 1480); or (abyy *ndxd ndan =) y5n ody on Finished and ended! Praise be to the Lord of the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Eee Colombia Colophon world! ”), asat the end of the editzo princeps of the He- brew version of Avicenna’s “ Canon ” (Naples, 1491). In the course of time colophons grew in length, practically taking the place of the modern title- page. But even when the Hebrew title-page grew in size and completeness the colophon was still used, and either duplcated or supple- Substitutes mented the information given in the for, or title-page. The colophons were used Sup- to extol the merits of the book as well plements as the excellence of its typography. to, Title- Characteristic of the Hebrew colo- Page. phons is the religious character im- parted to them by an expression of thanks to God that the work had been happily com- pleted, or a prayer that those who had assisted might be spared to do similar work for many years tocome. The hope of the restoration of Palestine, and of the rebuilding of the Temple, often finds ex- pression also. In the Soncino (1485) edition of the “Ikkarim” Isaiah ii. 3 is curiously changed into “From Zion goes forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Soncino,” eulogistic of the printer’s pro- fession. These colophons, which often mention the “ printer” (D°579 or ppind), the “superintendent of the printing-office ” (BIDS I7A by 3¥3), the “ typesetter ” (YD, TIDY, Spr, or IDDM TIDY), give us valuable information which can not otherwise be obtained. The colophon to Kimhi’s commentary on _ the Psalms (1477) states that 3800 copies of the book were printed. The word p}p% is first used for “ print” in the colophon of the Ferrara (1477) edition of Gersonideson Job. Steinschneider states that the oldest book containing such a notice is the “ Leshon Limmudim ” (Constantinople, 1542) ; but the Con- stantinople Alfasi (1509) contains one also. The Constantinople prints are noted for their long colophons. Those in the early Venice prints are shorter, probably because most of the printers were Christians. Many of the early Italian prints, how- ever, do contain lengthy colophons. Thus the “ Mahzor ” of Castel-Maggiore (1486) contains, after the usual] ending, “Ended and finished. Praise be to the Lord of the world,” a very long account of the book itself, stating where the printing was commenced and where it was finished, with verses interspersed. This is followed by an invo- cation. The “Seder Tefillot” (Mantua, 1558) has a long colophon giving the date and place, and the name of the ruler (“Our Lord, Duke William Gon- zago”) of the country in which the city was situ- ated, the names of all those who took Additions part in the work, and ends with “ For to the sake of His mercy may He make Colophons. us worthy to produce very many books and to exalt the Law. Amen.” The date was often given ina CHRONOGRAM. The ‘first edition of the “ Yosippon” containsa long colo- phon, in which the editor, Abraham Conti, gives an account of himself; this is followed by the real epi- logue of the work, and this in turn bya distich giv- ing his name and the date, the initial letters of the last line being the numerical equivalent of the printer’s name. Where a work was printed in sev- eral volumes, each volume is apt to have a colophon of itsown. Thus in the Bologna “ Mahzor” (1540) Colophon THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 172 the colophon at the end of the first volume is in verse, commencing “ Finished is the first part; Praise be to the Lord of the world”; it is then followed by the wish that the printer may be enabled to com- mence the second volume. Volume two contains the main colophon, with the date and an expression of thanks to God that the printer has been able to finish the work. At times the printer uses the colophon to implore the pardon of the reader for any mistakes which may have crept into the text, as in the Bologna (1588) edi- tion of the “Sefer ha- Hasidim,” or in the colophon attached by Meir b. Jacob Pa- renz to “Kaftor wa- Ferah” (Venice, 1546). The value of the Hebrew colophon is enhanced at times by the addition of historical notes. The Fano (1506) edition of the “ Cuzari” con- tains an account of the Yahya family of Lisbon. Simon Ash- enburg’s “Debek Tob” (Venice, 1588) has in the colophon a long note by the eorrector, in which an account is given of the author’s jour- ney to Jerusalem. In Flijah b. Hayyim’s “Imre Shefer” (Frankfort, 1718) Ju- dah Léb b. Joseph tells us that he did not put his name on the title-page because he was daily waiting to receive a privilege from the emperor to print the Talmud. The Constantinople (1562) edition of the “Emunot” contains a long note by the editor, Solomon Ya‘bez, about the author, and the translation of his work from the Arabic. Colo- phons were also at times used to call Historical special attention to some one person Notesin who had assisted in the work. Thus, Colophons. the Amsterdam edition (1711) of the “Seder ‘Olam ” contains, after a very simple formula, and on a separate page, a eulogistic notice of R. Hirsch of Szebrszescyn for the assist- ance which he had given to the priuters. Hebrew colophons were occasionally written in meter, as were those in some of the early Latin prints of Franz Rinner, the Speyers of Venice, and Ulric Haan of Rome. Usually the verses are Ll * oe ; hha Colophon and Printer’s Mark on the Last Page of “ Tefillot Vulgar ”’ (Mantua, 1561). (In the Columbia University Library, New York.) are ea: merely complimentary to the author. These eolo. phons at times attain a surprising length. In the Rimini edition (1525) of Rashi’s Pentateuch com. mentary, Moses Soncino takes one whole page t, explain how he came to reprint the work. Solomoy, Alkabiz’s “Shoresh Yishai” (Constantinople, 1561) contains on a separate page a series of verses p Samuel Shullam in praise of thecommentary. Some of these additions to the colophon are headed by g title, as pst ny'nn (“ Last word of the printer ) attached to the Am. sterdam (1765) eq}. tion of Jos. b. David's “Mebin Hidot.” Jy the Amsterdam (1651) edition of Manasseh b. Israel’s “ Nishmat Hayyim,” after the real colophon cop. taining the date of printing and the printer’s name, Jacob Sasportas has added five pages of correc. tions and a long ac. count of how hecame in contact with Ma- nasseh, and headed by the title mibyona mann (“Apology of the corrector”), A remarkable exagger- ation of the colophon may be seen in the Karaite Pentateuch (Constantinople, 1883), which contains not only notes on the correctors and poems in honor of the work, but also an account of the men who contributed money to make the printing possible. Such notes are not unusual in I"33 (compare Isa. xl. 29). Dei Rossi’s “ Me’or ‘Enayim” (Mantua, 1574) contains on page 184 the words wos jon. pds ‘n ina. on, “Stampato in Man- tova con licenza dei superiori”; then follow sev- eral pages of additions, with a colophon; an index, with the note “Et questo con la detta licenza”; and a 33wm (critique), followed by the words “Con la detta licenza.” rainy 2 nana ara my VOD) TD Hamat Sloth ae COLOPHON OF ABRAHAM CONAT ON THE LAST PAGE OF LEVI BEN GERSHON’S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE (MANTUA, BEFORE 1480). (In the Columbia University Library, New York.) Colophon Color THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 174 a gy ge gangs ea ete ee eta Mier to eee eae eee gs way Met gg gee ee py hg Sen ee Colophonsare almost invariably in Hebrew, though occasionally, especially in Italy, some Latin or Italian words are added; thus in the Venice edition (1582) of “Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah,” after the words “ It is finished,” are found the words “In Venetia apresso Gio. de Garra. Con licentia de Superiori.” Eliezer Ashkenazi’s “ Yosef Lekah ” (Cremona, 1576) has the addition “In Cremona. Appresso Christoforo Dra- coni 1576. Con licenza de Superiori.” The Venice (1625) edition of the “Sefer ha-Yashar” has as colo- phon an Italian permit, given by the ecclesiastical authorities, dated 1615,and countersigned by Georgio Domini (1625), secretary of the“ Magistr. Ecclest. con- tra la Biastema.” Such colophons are Copyright. somewhatrare. Still morerare was the custom of adding, after the ex pression “ Finished and ended,” a warning against any editor reprinting the book within a specified time. Thus in the “Sefer ha-Mikkah u-Mimkar” of Hai Gaon, edited by Moses Mintz (Venice, 1602), such a pro- hibition, covering a period of ten years, is printed in the colophon. To this the editor adds a note in regard to the translation of the work from the Ara- bic, and a long colophon giving the dates of the commencement and the conclusion of the work, to which is attached the Aramaic formula 29M 2 VD Wi wmv pyro (“ Blessed be the Merciful One, who has helped us from the beginning to the end ”), A similar copyright privilege is found in the colo- phon to Ibn Baruk’s commentary to Ecclesiastes (Venice, 1598); though where such copyrights are published they were generally found following the title-page, and were known technically as “ haska- mot” (see APPROBATION). Side by side with these long colophons shorter ones were in use. In the Augsburg edition of the “ Arba‘ Turim ” (1540) we have simply the names of the three publishers, Hayyim bar David, Joseph bar Yakar, and Isaac bar Hayyim, in large letters. These names, however, are preceded by a long poem by Joseph bar Yakar, addressed to Jacob b. Baruch. Such small colophons beeame more general as the title-page was enlarged. They usually read: py ava omdyd now. odwn on, “Finished and complete. Praise be to the Lord, Creator of the World” (very often abbreviated to yadyrn), and were followed by the names of the printers; or VI TYyvDI own W423, as in Heidenheim’s “ Mish- pete ha-Te‘amim ” (Rédelheim, 1808). Such abbre- viated formulas appear quite early. Albo’s “Ikka- rim” (Soncino, 1485) has the letters b'sbn: it is signed by iynwN ppinon. The benediction is sometimes omitted in the short colophon, the date being retained. Abraham Bibago’s“ Derek Emunah” (Constantinople, 1521) has simply pbyry s nowy on 2’b"9 now pwna ppInS sppA Ar. The colophon was still further shortened into either the simple pn (or its Aramaic equivalent Sp; or 5d »bp), or pimna) ptm (compare IT Sam. x. 12); or both com- bined, as in the “ Piske Hallah” of Rashba’ (Constan- tinople, 1516). In Hebrew books the colophon was usually printed in the same type as that used in the body of the work, or even in smaller rabbinical type. ionally were larger characters used, to bring prom- Only occas- - inently before the reader the names of the printerg. ey., in the Augsburg “Turim” mentioned above and in Abraham Zahalon’s “ Yesha‘ Elohim ” (Ve,’ ice, 1595), which bears in large Je. Ty- ters, covering an entire page, the ab. pography. breviations ‘px} ‘pb JeI2 yadean (= Isa. x1. 29 -+ Gen. xlix. 18). Ocgg. sionally the printer’s mark was added after the cojo. phon, though already given on the title-page. Such marks are found at the end of the “ Arba’ Turin» (Ixar, 1485), of Bahya’s “Kad ba-Kemah” (Cop. stantinople, 1515), of the Constantinople edition (1514) of “Pirke KR. Hliezer,” and of Cresca’s “oO, Adonai” (Ferrara, 1556), printed by Abraham Usque. The eccentric arrangement of the type, in the form of funnel, diamond, wine-cup, wedge, or pyramid as found in early Latin prints, is only occasionally met with in Hebrew books. The most common form is that of the inverted cone, where the lines taper either to a very short line or to asingle word. This custom is found in many Hebrew manuscripts. it being an old idea that nothing should be left blank upon the last page of a copy of the Torah (“Sofer. im,” ed. Miiller, p. 20). For colophons in many. scripts see MANUSCRIPTS. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Steinschneider and Cassel, Jiidische Typo. graphie, in Ersch and Gruber, Encyc. pp. 26 et seq..; Zunz Z. G. pp. 214 ef seqg.; a number of early colophons are re. produced in Berliner’s Ueber dem Einfluss des Ersten Hebr. Buchdrucks, Frankfort, 1896, and in his Aus Meinep Bibliothek, ib. 1898; compare De Vinne, Title-Pages ag Seen by a Printer, pp. 1-14, New York, 1901. J. G. COLOR: It is noteworthy that Biblical Hebrew contains no term to express that property of light known as color. When a Hebrew writer wishes to compare an object with another in respect to color, he employs the word py (“eye”) or MN (“ appear. ance”). ‘The former term is thus used in speaking of the appearance of the plague (Lev. xiii. 55), of bdellium (Num. xi. 7), of wine (Prov. xxiii. 31), of amber (Ezek. i. 4, 27; viii. 2), of burnished or pol- ished brass (#3. i. 7; Dan. x. 6), of beryl (Ezek. i.16, x. 9), and of crystal (zd. i. 22). The latter term is used of brass (75. x1. 8). In rabbinical Hterature are found the Aramaic “hazuta” (appearance, Hul, 47b), “ guf” (body, Men. 44a), “keren” (ray, Niddah ii. 6), “or” (light, Num. R. ii. 7; compare Luria, note 10 ad éoc.), “zeba‘” (dye, paint, 2.= the Aramaic “zib‘a”) (Shab. 75a), the Persian loan-word “gawwan” (‘Er. 538b =Ara- maic “ gvawna”; compare Targ. Yer. to Lev. xv. 19: “color of saffron”), and D195, DNDN, the Greek ypoua (compare Krauss, “Lehnwéorter,” ii., s.c.; see, how- ever, Jastrow, “Dict.” s.v.), Intensity of color is expressed by the terms “‘amok” (deep, Tosef., Niddah, iii, 11), “‘az” (strong, Neg. i. 1), “‘ad me’od” (to a high degree, Num. Rt. ii. 7), or syntactically by such expressions as “adamdam she-ba’adummim” (deep red, Neg. xi. 4), “yerakrak sheba-yerokim ” (deep green, 10.). - Faintness or paleness of color is eX- Intensity pressed by “kehah” (dim, faint, Lev. of Color. xiii. 39; Neg. ii. 2) or by “deheh” (Neg. i. 2). The same idea is expressed by reduplication, as “adamdam” (reddish), “ yeray” rak” (greenish, Lev. xiii. 49), and “sheharhar 175 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Colophon Color a oS ee ee ee ee i kish, swarthy, Cant. i. 6). Dark colors are ssed by “mashhir” (Niddah 19a) or “makdir ” (Yer. Niddah ii. 50b) ; bright, vivid, is “ mezahzeah ” (7b.); dingy, dirty, is “ka‘ur” (ugly, B. K. ix. 4), + meko’ar,” “meko‘ar,” the same (Baraita Niddah ; Horowitz, “ Uralte Tosephtas,” V. ii., § 1); and clear (of liquids), “zalul” =Aramaic “zil” (Num. R. ii. 7; Hul. 5b). There are but few real color-terms found in Bib- lical or traditional literature. Only white, and two of the elementary colors, red and green, are distin- ouished by name; while for blue and yellow dis- rinct terms are entirely wanting. The other ele- mentary colors are expressed by words denoting degrees of lightness and darkness; while non-ele- mentary colors are indicated by the names of the objects from which they are derived. Moreover, one and the same word is used.to de- Scarcity of note not only several shades of one Color- color, but even what are now known Names. as different colors; the context, or the object to which the color was applied, affording the clue as to the particular color in- tended. The scarcity of color-names found in the Bible and other ancient literatures has been differently ac- counted for by various scholars. All that can with certainty be said of the ancients in this respect is that their color vocabulary was undeveloped. To the psychological reasons for such an undevel- oped state among all nations of antiquity (compare Wundt, “ Vélkerpsychologie: Die Sprache,” ii. 518, 514) was added, in the case of the Israelites, the religious prohibition of idolatry at a period of his- tory when painting, like other arts, was largely, if not altogether, in the service of idolatry. Needle- work in colors, as well as dyed stuffs, was indeed known in Israel in very early times (compare DYE- ING; EMBROIDERY), but the coloring was in all prob- ability of a simple kind. In the determination of the various color-terms, notwithstanding the aid which the context and ety- mology offer, it is at times impossible to arrive at very definite conclusions. In the following lists the Biblical data are given under a; the data from tradi- tional literature, inclusive of the Targumim, under 0. (2) “Zak” (literally, “clear,” “pure ”) is applied in the Bible to the whiteness of the complexion (Lam. iv. 7); “zahob” (glistening like gold), to the golden tint of hair (Lev. xiii. 30, 32, 36); the hof‘al participle “muzhab,” to brass (Ezra viii. 27); “zah” (glowing, glistening), to the glow of a healthy complexion (Cant. v. 10); similarly, with the additional idea of whiteness, in Lam. iv. 7; to the clearness of a dry, hot atmosphere Degrees of (Isa. xviii. 4); and toa dry, hot wind Lightness. (Jer. iv. 11); “zahor” (light reddish; A. VY. “white ”), to the color of the ass (Judges v. 10). (0) “Bahak” (be glistening white) is used in the later Hebrew to denote the color of the human skin in a diseased condition (Bek. 45b; compare Ley. xiii, 89); “hibhik” (to glisten), is used of Jewels (Gen. R. xxxi. 11); ¢dem (be bright), of the Countenance (Pesik. R. xiv. [ed. Friedmann, p. 62b} ); “hizhib” (become golden-hued), of a dove’s plumage (blac expre (Hul. 22b); “hizhib” (to become glistening), of the metallic color of the dove’s plumage (Hul. 2d.), an earlier stage of coloration of plumage than the pre- ceding hizhib; “zihub,” of the getting of such color (2b.); “hizhil” (become bright), of the countenance (Gen. R. xevii. 1); “hizhir” (make bright), of the skin (Lev. R. v. 3). Aramaic: “barir” (pure) =“ zak ” (Targ. to Lam. iv. 7); “zehal”=Hebr. “hizhil” (Pesik. R. /.c.); “zehir” (bright) and “zihara” (brightness), used of the surface of peeled grain, and of a clear, trans- lucent liquid (Bezah 14b; Kid. 48b); “faziah” (clear) = Hebr. “zah” (Targ. to Isa. xviii. 4), and (speckled) =Hebr. “ bared” (Targ. to Zech. vi. 3). (4) The usual term in the Bible to express the idea of darkness is “shahor” (black). It is used of the dark hair ina leprous scall (Lev. xiii. 31, 37), of a sunburnt skin (Job xxx. 30; Cant. i. 5) and of dark horses (Zech. vi. 2). The diminutive form “sheharhor” is applied to swarthy complexion (Cant. i. 6). When it is desired to express a partic- ular shade of dark, another substantive is added for a closer definition, as “oven-black” (Lam. v. 10), and “raven-black,” of hair (Cant. v.11). “Hum” (literally, “hot,” then “ dark,” “ brown”) is used of the wool of sheep (Gen. xxx. 32 and pussim). “ Kadar,” meaning primarily “to overpower,” then “to be sad, gloomy, dirty, or dark” (compare the explana- tion of “shahuf,” below), is applied to the turbid state of water (Job vi. 16), to a sad countenance (Jer. vili. 21), to mourning garments, to the gates of a mourning city (Jer. xiv. 2), and to the sky (2d. iv. 28). The hif‘il of the same verb is used in a causa- tive sense; ¢.g., “make dark” the heavens (Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8), “cause sadness” (2b. xxxi. 15). The hitpa‘el of this verb means “to become dark ” with clouds of the sky (I Kings xviii. 435). Degrees of The noun “kadrut” signifies “black- Darkness. ness” (Isa. Il. 3); and the adverb “kedorannit,” “wrapped in mourn- ing” (Mal. iii. 14). “ Flashak ” (to be dark), a word generally employed to signify the darkness of approaching night (Isa. v. 80; Job xviii. 6), isalso used of the eyes becoming dim (Lam. v. 17) or blind (Ps. ]xix. 24), and of a black complexion (Lain. iv. 8). Hence the terms “hoshek ” (darkness), “haklili” (Gen, xlix. 12), and “haklilut” (Prov. xxiii. 29) refer to the darkly lus- trous or inflamed appearance of the eyes, The second, as used in Gen. xlix. 12, refers to the spark- ling luster of dark-red wine, comparing the beauty of Judah’s eyes therewith; the third (Prov. xxiii. 29) is descriptive of the inflamed eyes due to pro- tracted night sessions over the wine-cup at the wine- shops (see Jastrow, “Proc. Soc. of Biblical Exe- gesis,” xi, 128). “Kimrir” (Job iii, 5), originally “casting down,” “oppression,” seems to mean “blackness” (compare “shahuf,” below). (>) In the later Hebrew “shahor” is frequently more nearly defined as “ink-black ” (Niddah ii. 7), or “black as the sediment of ink” (2b.), like black wax, pitch, grapes, olives (7).), “mouse-gray ” (Pes. 10b), or as black as a negro (Suk. iii. 6). In Num. R. ii. 7, the term “shahor” is applied to “bareket,” probably taken here as sardonyx, and described as consisting of one-third white, one-third black, and Color THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 176 a ee a me ge eye ne a ee em re ee ap eg fee eg ge re et one-thirdred; to“ sappir,” black like stibium (¢.e., met- allic grayish-blue [7]; to “leshem” and to “shebo,” probably gray amethyst, said to be mixed black and white. The “shoham”—here the deep sea-green beryl—is said to be “shahor ‘ad meod” (very dark). Hence, “shahrurit” =the Aramaic “shahrurita” dblackness, darkness, Ta‘anit 23b; B. K. 20b; B. M. 117b) and the by-form “sheharharut” (Cant. R. i. 6). “Shehamtit” (brownish), of the colorof grain (B. B. v. 6), is sometimes contracted to “shamtit ” (Yer. Ma‘as. Sh. iv. 54d). Aramaic: “shehum,” “shehim,” literally “ warm,” “hot,” = the Hebrew “hum” (brown, Targ. O. to Gen, Xxx. 82). “Shahuf” or “tahuf” (gray, dark), a term which is used of sheep’s wool (Hul. xi. 2, 136b), goes back to “sahaf” (cast down). The variation in the first consonant points to a differentiation of an original “thakhaf.” (On the development of meaning from the idea of overpowering, casting down, oppressing, to that of darkness, compare “kadar,” above, and Levias, “Babyl. Aram. Gram.” p. 210, note 6). “ Pihem (to blacken, soil), denominative of “ peham ” {coal, is used of soot, the sun, and other things. The passive of this may be used in the pu‘al and nitpa‘el (compare Jastrow, “ Dict.” s.c.). The verb “shetak” is used to designate “rust-colored” or “bronze ” (Ta‘an. 8a). Aramaic: “ukkam,” originally signifies “op- pressed,” then “black” (compare Levias, @.c.); “le- hush,” literally “glowing,” then “brown” (Targ. Yer. to Gen. xxx. 82, 83, 35); “halid” (rust-colored [?]); compare Targ. Job xi. 17 Ms. ; Jastrow, “ Dict.” g.v.). “Kewah” or “kahah” (deep black) is applied to horses (Targ. to Zech. i. 8). (a) Whiteis usually expressed in the Bible by the word “laban,” which is used of the color of goats (Gen. xxx. 35, 37), of teeth (2b. xlix. 12), of manna (Ex. xvi, 31), of leprous hair (Lev. xiii.), of garments (Eccl. ix. 8), and of horses (Zech. i. 8; vi. 3, 6). Shades of white are: milk- white (Gen. xhlix., 12), coriander-seed- white (Ex. xvi. 31), snow-white (Num. xii. 10; IL Kings v. 27; Ps. Ixviii. 15 [A. V. 14]; Isa. i. 18), and dull white (Lev. xiii. 39). Hence the noun “loben” (whiteness, Ecclus. [Sirach] xliii, 18). The moon, on account of its pale light, is called “lebanah.” The Aramaic terms corresponding to “laban” are “hawar,” used of the face becoming pale with shame (Isa, xxix. 22), and “hiwwar” (white), applied toa snow-white garment (Dan. vii. 9). (») The white color may be as white as snow, as the calcimining in the Temple, as wool, as the cuticle of the egg (Neg. i., referring to the color of leprous spots), as pearl (Yoma 75a), or as the wood below the bark (Hul. 47b). The color of the stone “yahalom,” probably milky opal, is white (Num. R. ii. 7). “Libbun” (whitening) is used of wool (B. K. 98b). “ Libben ” means “ to bleach cloth ” (Yer. Ber. ix. 1, 13c), “to glaze tiles” (Bezah iv. 7), “to heat to a white heat iron instruments” (‘Ab. Zarah v.12). “Hilbin” signifies “to grow white,” used of hair (Neg. i. 6); “to whiten the wing of a raven” (Cant. R. v. 11); “to cause paleness of face through shame” (Ab. iii. 11). Hence, “Jabnunit ” Degrees of White. (whiteness, Neg. iv. 4), and the by-form “labnyt» (Lev. R. xiv.). The verb“ kasaf,” in various forms is used to indicate paleness of countenance caused by shame or fright (compare Jastrow, “ Dict.” ¢.9. The word is perhaps connected with “ kesef ” (silver), Notice also “lawkan,” “Jabkan” = the Greek Aerxg, (albino, or white-spotted in the face, Ber. 58b), ‘T, express the idea of the hair becoming grayish-white through old age, the root “sib” is used (I Sam, x4 2; Job xv. 10), whence the derivative “sebah » meaning “gray hair” (Gen. xlii. 88; xliv. 29, 31. Deut. xxxii. 25; Ios. vii. 9; Prov. xx. 29), or the “hoary hair” of old age (Isa. xl vi. 4). In Aramaic the roots “ hawar,” “ kesaf,” and “ sjp» are used in the same senses as in Hebrew; add to which “kitman” (ash-gray, Targ. to Zech. vi. 3, 7), (a) Red is expressed by “adom,” a term probably connected with “dam” (blood). It is applied to blood (IL Kings iii. 22), to blood-stained appare} (Isa. xiii. 3), to a heifer (Num. xix. 2), to a horse (Zech. i. 8), and to brown. ish yellow lentils (Gen. xxv. 30). The adjective “admoni” describes a reddish-brown com. plexion (Gen. xxv. 20; I Sam. xvi. 12). Verbal forms are used of becoming as red as crimson (Isa, i. 18), of skins dyed red (Ex. xxv. 5), and of a blood- besmeared shield (Nahum ii.4[A. V.3]). Thedimi- nutive form of the adjective “adaindain ” expresses “reddish,” applied to the color of the leprous spot (Lev. xiii. 19, 24) or a sore (¢, xiii, 42), . Other terms occasionally occur which denote some shade of red, as “sarok ” (reddish-brown, sorrel), ap- plied to horses (Zech. i, 8); and “hamuz,” some shade of red not more closely defined (Isa. I xiii, 3). “Amoz” (Zech. vi. 7), translated by the Targum “ash-gray,” stands, in the opinion of modern schol- ars, for “hamez” (red; compare Gesenius-Buhl, “ Hebraisches und Chaldiisches Hand wérterbuch,” s.0.). Some trace the root “hamar” (to be red) in Ps. lxxv. 9 and Job xvi, 16.. (b) Redness is applied in Talmudic literature to the scarlet lily (Cant. R. vii. 3), to collyrium (Lam, R. iv. 15), to wine (Num. R. ii. 7), to the ruby (2d.), and in the hif‘il form is used also of “ putting to the blush” (Num. R. iv. 20). Deep red is “ adamdam she-ba’adummim” (Neg. xi. 4). Hence are formed the nouns “odem” (Niddah 82b), “admut” (Num. R. ii. 7, where inp, ed. Wilna, is to be corrected to IND IN), and “admumit” (redness, Hul. 87b). Compare also “gihor” (red of complexion, Ber. 58b; Bek. vii. 6, 45b). © The usual term for red in Aramaic is “summaka” (reddish) or “simmuka” (compare Jastrow, “ Dict.” s.v.). Occasionally are found “ gihora,” and “ gihya,” “gihya” (Bek. 45b). The latter properly means “ flame-colored,” (a2) The term “yarak,” originally “pale,” is used to describe those uncertain colors which waver be- tween green, yellow, and blue. It is applied to the color of vegetation (Job xxxix. 8; II Kings xix. 26; - Isa, xxxvii. 27), the fading color of Green, Blue, decaying vegetation (Deut. xxvUl and Yellow. 22; Amosiv. 9; Hag. ii. 17), or of 4 panic-stricken countenance (Jer. XX%- 6). “Yerakrak” (greenish or yellowish) is used of the appearance of plague-spots (Lev. xiii. 49, °Y Red. 177 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Color —_———— - 37) and of gold (Ps. Ixviii. 138). The term “haraz,” applied to gold, probably means yellow.” (6) The same root 7 is used in later Hebrew and Aramaic for green, yellow, and blue (compare Yoreh De‘ah, 188, 1). Green is given as the color of leek (Ber. i. 23 Suk. iii. 6), and of myrtle (Meg. 18a). Yellow is the color of crocus (Niddah ii. 6; Hul. 47b), of cuscuta (Hul. éc.), and of the yolk of an egg (id). The color of the “tarshish” (probably chrysolite or olivin) is like that of clear olive-oil (Num. R. ii. 7). Hence, “morika” (crocus) and «yerakon ” (jaundice). The verb “*iorik” (Gen. R. xiii. ; Ber. 44b) is used to denote “muking pallid,” “pale,” especially the pale yellowish color of a frightened countenance (Sotah iii. 4). The same idea is conveyed by the verb “kirkem,” a denomi- native of the noun “karkom” (crocus). Compare, further, “morika ” (saffron-colored), from pop, a by- form of pw (Levias, “Am. Jour. Semitic Lang.” xvi. 200); “hardali” (mustard-colored), used of the color of wine (Shab. 68a), “kela’illan,” an adaptation of xeZ.aivov (sea-green, blue; compare Krauss, /.¢.s.v.). Variegated Surfaces: (a) A party-colored ap- pearance of one kind or another is denoted by the following terms: “barod” (grizzled, used of goats, Gen. xxxi. 10, 12; and piebald, of horses, Zech. vi. 3. 6); “talu” (literally, “patched,” hence “be- sprinkled,” “flecked ”), used of goats (Gen. xxx. 32 et seg.)and of dyed stuffs of many colors (Ezek. xvi. 16); “nakod ” (literally, “ dotted,” hence “speck- led,” having light spots on a dark skin), used of goats (Gen. xxx. 32; xxxi. 8, 10, 12); “‘akod” (ring- streaked; literally, “ tied”), referring to light stripes ona dark skin (Gen. xxx. 35, 39; xxxi. 8, 10, 12), the stripes resembling ropes. (b) From “namer” (leopard) the verb “nimmer” is derived, having the meaning of giving a checkered or striped appearance to something, and is used of the appearance of a field in which the fruits have been gathered in some places and left standing in others (Peal iii. 2), or of a checkered web (B. K. 119b), or of writing, in which a number of words are stricken out (Git. 54b). “Patuk ” (mixed) is applied to the color of plague-spots, and is described as looking like wine mixed with snow, or wine mixed with water, or milk before being mixed (Neg. i. 2). In Aramaic the following terms are used: “nemor” (speckled; compare “nimmer,” above); “regol” (ring-streaked; literally, “having some spots on the feet”); “rekoa‘” (literally, “patched ”), the sameas the Biblical “talu” (compare above); “ keruah ” (lit- erally, “bald”; having light-colored spots ona dark skin); and “hutrana” (striped like a staff), used of swine (Shab. 110b). Pigments: (a) Of pigments known and used in Biblical times, four are mentioned. Three were de- tived from animals and one from a metal. Scarlet or crimson was obtained from an insect (coccus), which gave its name to a species of oak (Ilex cocetf- era). By infusing the insect in boiling water a beautiful red dye was produced, superior in effect | and durability to cochineal. To des- ignate this color the word “tola‘” (worm) is used (Isa. i. 18; Lam. iv. 5). More often, however, the form “tola‘at” is found Dreceded or followed by “shani,” a word supposed IV.—12 Scarlet. to mean “to ghtter.” In this form it is mentioned as a costly possession (Ex. xxxv. 28), and as being, therefore, suitable for an offering (Ex. xxv. 4, xxxv. 6; Lev. xiv.; Num. xix. 6), for the Tabernacle hangings (Ex. xxvi. 86, xxvii. 16, xxxvi. 37, Xxxvili. 18), for the ephod (Ex. xxviii. 56, xxxix. 28), etc. Athread of this color was commonly used in early times as a sign to aid recognition (Gen. XxXXvill. 28, 80: Josh. ii. 21). In these passages, as well as in II Sam. i, 24 and Cant. iv. 3, “shani” alone is used. The plural “shanim” (scarlet stuffs) oceurs in Prov. xxxi. 21 and Isa. i. 18. In later times the Persian Joan-word “ karmil” came into use (I Chron. ii. 6, 18; iii. 14). The verbal form “me- tulla’im ” (clothed in scarlet) occurs in Nahum ii. 4, A similar shade of color was derived from “shashar” (minium, red oxid of lead), used for painting ceil- ings (Jer. xxij, 14) and images (Ezek. xxiii. 14). (6) The Targumim and Mishnah use for scarlet the expression “zehorit,” on the etymology of which compare Jensen, in Brockelmann, “Lexicon Syri- acum,” 93b. The Aramaic has also the adjective “tol‘ana,” or “tolana” (Ab. Zarah 28b). In later times crimson was also obtained from “ puah ” (mad- der; see Rieger, “ Versuch einer Technologie und Terminologie der Handwerke in der Mischnah,” i. 23, note 38). From seaweeds were obtained a cos- metic rouge, “pikas” (fucus; Rieger, 2d.), and the mineral pigment “sikra” (according to Léw, “Gra- phische Requisiten,” etc., i. 165, vermilion; accord- ing to Rieger, l.c. p. 24, note 48, minium). ). A mizwah which can be fulfilled only by the transgression of another law is considered unlawful (“mizwah ha-bo’ah ba‘aberah, ‘aberah”; Suk. 30a; Yer. Shab. xiii. 14a). The proselyte on being ini- tiated into Judaism must be familiarized with com- mandments both of great and of small import (Yeb. 47b). This rule seems to be directed against the older practise followed by the Christian Church (see DipacnuE). The fulfilment of a commandment is a protection against evil powers (Ber. 3la; Pes. 8a; Sotah 21a; Kid. i. 10), and becomesa guardian angel pleading for reward in the future life (Sotah 3b). According to the teachings of Judaism, all moral laws are virtually and in their ultimate analysis divine commandments. Obedience to the Divine Will is the first requisite of the moral life (see Dury). This is the meaning of the Biblical account of Adam’s offense, The first commandment was intended to test his obedience and thus toawaken his moral con- sclousness (see SIN; ORIGINAL SIN, DoGMaA oF). In the Pentateuch the Ten Commandments are not designated as “ Mizwot,” but are called the “Ten Words” (aman Mwy). In Jewish literature they are spoken of as the N37 NAwy (see DECALOGUE). E. G. B. K.—E£. G. H. COMMANDMENTS, THE 618: That the law of Moses contains 613 commandments is stated by R. Simlai, a Palestinian haggadist, who says (Mak. 28b): “Six hundred and thirteen command- ments were revealed to Moses; 865 being prohi- bitions equal in number to the days of the year, and 248 being mandates corresponding in number to the bones of the human body.” The number 618 is found as early as tannaitic times—e.g., in a saying of Simon ben Eleazar (Mek., Yitro, Bahodesh, 5) and one of Simon ben Azzai (Sifre, Deut. § 76, Friediman’s ed., p. 90b)—and is apparently based upon ancient tradition (see Tan., Ki Teze, ed. Buber, 2; Ex. R. xxxii.; Num. R. xiii., xviii.; Yeb. 47b; Shab. 87a; Ned. 25a; Shebu. 29a; comp. Bacher, “ Ag. Tan.” i. 413, ii. 486). The authenticity of the statements at- tributed to R. Simlai, however, has been questioned by authorities such as Nahmanides and Abraham ibn Ezra (see M. Bloch, in“ Rev. Et. Juives,” i. 197, 210; v. 27 et seg.; Weiss, “ Dor,” p. 74, note 50). The first to undertake the task of identifying the command- ments was Simeon Kahira, in his “Halakot Gedo- lot.” He begins with the prohibitions, which he classes in the order of the gravity of the punish- ments incurred by their transgression, while in re- gard to the mandates he follows the order of the parashiyyot, beginning with the Decalogue. Kahira was followed by Saadia, Gabirol, and many others, who enumerated the 618 command- ments in liturgical poems (see AzHaRoT). In order to make up the number 613, Kahira and the poets just mentioned were compelled to incorporate many rabbinical laws. This method was criticized by Maimonides, who published a work entitled “Sefer ha-Mizwot,” laying down fourteen guiding princi- ples for the identification of the commandments, which he enumerates accordingly. Some of these principles were attacked by Nahmanides and others, who showed that Maimonides himself had not al- ways been consistent. New identifications were therefore proposed by Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, author of the “Sefer Mizwot ha-Gadol” (SeMaG), and Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, author of the- “Sefer Mizwot ha-Katon” (SeMaK). The follow- ing isa list of the 618 commandments of Maimon- ides: MANDATORY COMMANDMENTS. 1. To know that the Lord God exists. Ex. xx. 2. 2. To acknowledge His unity. Deut. vi. 4. 3-4. To love and fear Him. Deut. vi. 5, 13. 5. To pray to Him. Ex. xxiii. 25. 6. To cleave to Him. Deut. x. 20. 7%. To swear by His name. Deut. vi. 13, x. 20. 8, To resemble Him in His ways. Deut. xxviii. 9. 9. To sanctify His name. Lev. xxii, 32. 10. Toread the Shema‘ each morning and evening. Deut. vi. 7. 11. To learn and to teach others the Law. Deut. vi. 7. 12-18. To bind tefillin on the forehead and arm. Deut. vi.8. 14. To make zizit. Num. xv. 38. 15. To fix a MEzUZAH. Deut. vi. 9. 16. To assemble the people to hear the Law every seventh year. Deut. xxxi. 12. 17. To write a copy of the Law for oneself. Deut. xxxi. 19. 18, That the king write a special copy of the Law for himself. Deut. xvii. 18. 19. To bless God after eating. Deut. viii. 10. 20. To build the Temple. Ex. xxv. 8. ‘21. To reverence the sanctuary. Lev. xix. 30. 22. To watch the sanctuary perpetually. Num. xviii. 2. 23. That Levites shall serve inthe sanctuary, Num. xviii. 23. Commandments 24. That at services the priests wash their hands and feet. Ex. xxx. 19, 25, That the priests kindle the lights in the sanctuary. Ex. xxx. 19. 26. That the priests bless Israel. Num. vi. 23. 27. To set showbread and incense before the Lord on Sab- bath. Ex. xxv. 30, 28. To burn incense twice each day. Ex. xxx. 7. 29. To keep fire continually upon the altar. Ley. vi. 18. 30. To remove the ashes daily from the altar. Lev. vi. 10, 31. To put the impure out of the holy place. Num. v. 2. 32. That the Aaronites have the place of honor. Lev. xxi. 8. 33. To clothe the Aaronites with priestly garments. Ex. XXViii. 2. 34. That the Kehathites carry the Ark upon their shoulders. Num. vii. 9. 35. To anoint high priests and kings with oi], Ex. xxx. 31. 36. That the priests officiate by turns. Deut. xviii. 6, 8. 37. That the priests pay due honors to the dead. Lev. xxi. 3. 38. That the high priest take a virgin to wife. Lev. xxi. 13. 39. To sacrifice twice a day. Num. xxviii. 3. 40. That the chief priest offer an oblation daily. Lev. vi. 20. 41-3. Yo offer an additional oblation every Sabbath, on the first of every month, and on the Feastof Passover. Num. xxviii. 9, xxviii. 11; Lev. xxiii. 36. 44. To offer a sheaf of the first barley on the second day of Passover. Lev. xxiii. 10. 45. To add an oblation on the day of the Feast of Shebu‘ot. Num. xxviii. 26. 46. To offer two loaves of bread on Shebu‘ot. Ley. xxiii. 17. 47, To add an offering on the first of Tishri. Num. xxix. 1. 48. To add an offering on the Day of Atonement. Num. XxXix. 7. 49. To observe the service on the Day of Atonement. Lev. xvi. 3. 50. To add an offering on the Feast of Sukkot. Num. xxix. 13. dl. To offer a special sacrifice on the eighth day of Sukkot. Num. xxix. 35. 52. To keep the festival at the three seasons of the year. Ex. Xxiii. 14. 53. That every male appear at the feast. Deut. xvi. 16. 54. To rejoice at the feasts. Deut. xvi. 14. 5a-6. To slay the paschal lamb and eat the flesh roasted, on the fifteenth night of Nisan. Ex. xii. 6, xii. 8. 57-8. To observe the second Passover and eat the paschal lainb with mazzah and maror. Num. ix. Ll, 13; ix. LL. 59. To blow the trumpets over the sacrifices, and in time of tribulation. Num. x. 10. 60. That cattle, when sacrificed, be eight days old or more. Lev. xxii. 27. 61. That all cattle sacrificed be perfect. Lev. xxii. 21. 62. That all offerings be salted. Lev. ii. 13. 63. To bring a burnt offering. Lev. i. 3. 64-7. To bring a sacrifice for sin, for trespass, a peace-offer- ing. and a meat-offering. Lev. il. 1, vi. 25, vii. 1, 11. 68. That the Sanhedrin bring a sin-offering if they bave erred in doctrine. Lev. iv. 13. 69. That one who has by error transgressed a KARET probibi- tion bring a sin-offering. Lev. iv. 27, v. 1. 70. That one in doubt whether he has transgressed a prohibi- tion bring a sin-offering. Lev. v. 17, 18. 71. That a trespass-offering be brought for having sworn falsely and the like. Ley. v. 15, 21; xix. 20. 72. To offer a sacrifice according toone’s means. Lev. v. 7,11. 73. That confession of sins be made before the Lord. Num. v. 7. 74-5, That a man or woman having an issue offer a sacrifice. Lev. xv. 18, 28. 76. That a leper after being cleansed bring an offering. Ley. xiv. 10, 77. That a woman offer a sacrifice after childbirth. Lev. xii.6. 78. To tithe thecattle. Lev. xxvii. 32. 79. To sacrifice the first-born of clean cattle. Deut. xv. 19. 80. To redeem the first-born of man. Num. xviii. 15. 81-2. To redeem the firstling of an ass, and to break its neck if the animal be not redeemed. Ex. xiii, 18. 83. To bring all offerings to Jerusalem. Deut. xii. 5, 6. 84. To offer all sacrifices in the Temple. Deut. xii. 14. 85. To bring to the Temple also the offerings from beyond the land of Israel. Deut. xii. 26. &6. To redeem holy animals that have blemishes. Deut. xii. 15. &7. That a beast exchanged for an offering is holy. Lev. XXxvVii. 10. &8, That the remainder of the meat-offerings be eaten. vi. 16. Lev. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 182 $$ 89. That the flesh of sin- and trespass-offeriugs be eaten, Ex Xxix. 33. ° 90-1. To burn consecrated flesh that has become unclean ; also the remainder of the consecrated flesh not eaten. Lev. vii.17, 19 92-3. That the Nazarite suffer his hair to grow during his sep. aration, and shave it at the close of his Nazariteship. Num, yj 5, 9. ° 94. That a man keep his vow. Deut. xxiii. 25. 95. That the judge act according to the Law in annulling vows. Num. xxx. 3. 96. That all who touch a careass are unclean. Lev. xi. 34, 97. That eight species of animals contaminate. Lev. xi. 39, 98. That food is contaminated by contact with unclean things, Lev. xi. 34. 99. That a menstruous woman contaminates, Lev. xv. 19, 100. That a lying-in woman is unclean. Lev. xii. 2. 101. That a leper is unclean and contaminates others, xili. 3. 102-3. That a leprous garment and a leprous house contami. nate. Lev. xiii. 47, xiv. 3. 104-6. That a man or woman having a running issue cop. taminates, as does the seed of copulation. Lev. xv. 2, 16, 28, 107. That a corpse contaminates. Num. xix. 14, 108. That the water of separation contaminates the cleg cleansing only the unclean from the pollution of the dead. N um, xix. 26. 109. To cleanse from uncleanness by washing in running water. Lev. xv. 16, 110-12. That leprosy be cleansed with cedar-wood, ete.: that the leper shave all his hair, rend his raiment, and bare his head, Lev. xiii. 45; xiv. 2, 9. 113. To burn a red heifer and preserve itsashes. Num. xix.9, 114. To pay the equivalent of a singular’? vow, Lev. xxvii, 2, 115-7. That one who vows an unclean beast, or his house, or his fleld, shall pay the appointed sum, or as the priest shall di- rect. Lev. xxvii. 11, 14, 16. 118, That he shall make restitution who trespasses through ig- norance in things holy. Lev. v. 16. 119. That plantations in their fourth year shall be holy. Ley. xix. 24, 120-4. To leave to the poor the corners of the field unreaped, the gleanings of the harvest, the forgotten sheaf, the gleanings in the vineyard, and the residue of the grapes. Ley. xix. 9, 10; Deut, xxiv. 19. 125. To bring the first-fruits into the sanctuary. Ex. xxiii. 19, 126. To give the great heave-offering to the priest. Deut. xviii. 4. 127. To separate the tithe of corn for the Levites. 24; Lev. xxvii. 30. 128. To separate a second tithe and eat it in Jerusalem. Deut. xiv. 22. 129. That the Levites shall give a tithe of the tithe to the priest. Num. xviii. 26. 130. To separate the tithe for the poor in the third and sixth years instead of in the second. Deut. xiv. 28. 131-2. To recite the chapter on the tithe and read it over the first-fruit. Deut. xxvi. 5, 13. 133. To separate for the priest a cake of the first of the dough. Num. xv. 20. 134-5. To let the field rest fallow every seventh year, and to cease from tilling the ground. Ex. xxiii. 11, xxxiv. 21. 136-8. To hallow the year of jubilee by resting, to sound the trumpet in the year of jubilee, and to grant a redemption for the land in that year. Lev. xxv. 9, 10, 24. 189. To allow a house sold ina walled city to be redeemed within the year. Lev. xxv. 29. ; 140. To number the years of jubilee yearly and septennially. Lev. xxv. 8. 141, To release all debts in the seventh year. Deut. xv. 2. 142. To exact the debt of a foreigner. Deut. xv. 3. 143. To give to the priest his share of the cattle sacrifices. Deut. xviii, 3. 144. To give the first of the fleece to the priest. Deut. xvii. 4 145. To discriminate between what belongs to the Lord and what to the priest. Lev. xxvii. 21, 28. 146. To perform the right mode of slaughtering beasts. Deut. xii. 28. 147. To cover the blood of wild beast and bird. Lev. xvii. 18. 148. To set free the parent bird when taking a nest. Deut. xxii. 7. 149-52. To search diligently for the marks in clean beasts, fowl, locusts, and fish. Lev. xi. 2; Deut. xiv. 11; Lev. xi. 9. 153. That the Sanhedrin sanctify the new moon and reckon the years and months. Ex. xii. 2. Ley. Num. xviii. 183 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commandments ———— eee 154-5. To rest on and hallow the Sabbath. Ex. xx. 8 and xxiii. 12. 156. To remove the leaven. Ex. xii. 15. 157-8. To relate the story of the Exodus and to eat unleavened pread on Passover night. Ex. xii. 18, xiii. 8. 159-60. ‘To rest on the first and seventh days of Passover. . xii. 16. eG. To reckon forty-nine days from the time of the cutting of the first sheaf. Lev. xxiii. 15. 162-3. To rest on Shebu‘ct and on the first day of Tishri. Lev. xxiii. 24. 164-5. To fast and rest on the Day of Atonement. Lev. xvi. 99, xxiii. 3?. 166-7. To rest on the first and eighth days of Sukkot. Lev. xxiii. 85, 36. 468. To dwell in booths seven days. Lev. xxiii. 42. 169, To take the four kinds of branches of trees. Lev. xxiii. 40. 170. To hear the sound of the trumpet on the first of Tishri. Num. xxix. J. 171. To give half a shekel each year asransom. Ex. xxx. 13. 172. To obey the prophet of each generation if he neither adds nor takes away from the statutes, Deut. xviii. 15. 173. To appointa king. Deut. xviii. 15. 174. To obey the authority of the Sanhedrin. Deut. xvii. 11. 175. To yield to the majority in case of division. Ex. xxiii. 2. 176. To appoint judges in every town. Deut. xvi. 18. 177. To administer judgment impartially. Lev. xix. 15. 178. That whoever possesses evidence shall testify in court. ey. Vv. 1. ‘ 179. To examine witnesses diligently. Deut. xiii. 14. 180. To do unto false witnesses as they themselves designed to do unto others. Dent. xix. 19. 181, To decapitate the heifer as commanded, Deut. xxi. 4. 182. To establish six cities of refuge, Deut. xix. 3. 183. To give cities to the Levites for habitations. xxv. 2. : 184. To make battlements on the housetops. Deut. xxii. 8. 183-6. To destroy idolaters and to burn their city. Deut. xii. 2, xiii. 16. 187. To destroy the seven Canaanite nations. Deut. xx. 17. 188-9. To blot out the remembrance of Amalek. Deut. xxv. 17, 19. ; 190. To observe a certain procedure in voluntary battle. Deut. xx. 10. 191. To anoint the priest for war. Deut. xx. 2. 192-3. To keep the camp pure and in a sanitary condition. Deut. xxiii. 12, 18. 194. To restore plunder. Lev. vi. 4. 195. To givealms. Deut. xv. 8, 11. 196. To give liberal gifts to a freed Hebrew servant. Deut. xv. 14. 197. To lend to the poor. 198. To lend on usury to idolaters. Deut. xxiii. 21. 199. To restore a pledge toits owner. Deut. xxiv. 13. 200-1. To pay a hireling his hire when due, and to permit him'to eat during work. Deut. xxiv. 15, 24, 25. 202-3. To help a neighbor’s beast. Ex. xxiii. 5; and Deut. £xii. 4. 204. To restore lost property. Deut. xx. 1. 205. To rebuke the sinner. Lev. xix. 17. 206. To love the children of the covenant. Lev. xix. 18. 207. To love the stranger. Deut. x. ‘19. 208. To have just balances and weights. Lev. xix. 36. 209. To honor the wise. Levy. xix. 32. 210. To honor parents. Ex. xx. 12. 2l1. To fear parents. Lev. xix. 3. 212. To perpetuate the human species by marriage. 213, To lead a pure married life. Deut. xxiv. 5. 214. That the bridegroom rejoice for a year with his wife. Deut. xxiv. 1. 215. To circumcise the males. Gen. xvii. 10; Lev. xii. 3. 216-7. To marry the wife of a deceased brother, and give Ha- LIZAH in case of declining to do so. Deut. xxv. 5, 9. “18-9. That the violator of a virgin shall marry her, and he may not put her away all his days. Deut. xxii. 29. 220, That the seducer pay a penalty. Ex. xxii. 16. 221. That beautiful female captives must not be sold, etc. Deut. xxi. 11, 222, To divoree by a written contract. Deut. xxiv. 1. 223, That the suspected adulteress be subjected to trial of jeal- ousy. Num. v. 30. #4, To beat the wicked. Deut. xxv. 2. *23.To exile the homicide through ignorance. XEXYV, 25, Num. Deut. xv. 8. Gen. i, 28. Num. 226-30. That executions be effected by means of the sword, strangling, fire, stoning, and hanging. Ex. xxi. 20; Lev. xx. lf; Deut. xxi. 22, xxii. 24, 231. To bury on the same day one put to death. Deut. xxi. 23, 232. To deal with a Hebrew servant according to the Law. EX. Xxi. 2. ae To redeem a betrothed Hebrew maid servant. Ex. xxi. 8. 233. To make the non-Hebrew slave serve for ever. xxv. 46. 238. That he who wounds another pay a fine. Ex. xxi. 18, 237-8. To judge of injuries to a beast by a pitfall. Ex. xxi. 33. 239. To punish the thief with death or to compel him to make restitution. Ex. xxi. 16, xxii. 1, 240-2. To give judgment in cases of trespass by cattle, of in- juries by fire, or of robbery of money or goods left in charge of an unpaid Keeper. Ex. xxii. 5-7. 243-4, To Judge as to the injuries caused by the hireling or by the borrower. Ex. xxii. 10, 14. 245-6. To judge in disputes between buyer and seller or be- tween plaintiff and defendant. Lev. xxv. 14; Ex. xxii. 9. 247, To rescue the persecuted, even at the cost of the life of the oppressor. Deut. xxv. 12. 248. - judge in disputes concerning inheritances. Num. xxvii. 8. Ley, PROHIBITIVE COMMANDMENTS. 1. Belief in the existence of any but the one God. Ex. xx. 3. 2-4. The making of images. Ex. xx. 3,4; xxxiv. 17, 5-6. The worship of stars and planets. Ex. xx. 5. 7. The sacrifice of children to Moloch. Lev. xviii. 21, 8-9. Necromancy and familiar spirits. Lev. xix. 31. 10. Showing regard for the service of the stars and planets. Lev. xix. 4. ll. The erection of pillars. Lev. xxvi. 1. 12, The erection of pillars of stone. Lev. xxvi. 1. 13. Planting of trees in the sanctuary. Deut. xvi. 21. 14-16. Swearing by idols, or leading any Israelite toward idolatry. Ex. xxiii. 13; Deut. xiii, 11. 17-19. To show mercy to the seducer. Deut. xiii. 8. 20-21. Defense or concealment of the seducer by the seduced. Deut. xiii. 8. 22. The use of ornaments of idois. Deut. vii. 25. 23-4. To rebnild a city destroyed on account of its idolatry or to use its Wealth. Deut. xiii. 16, 17. 23. The use of things belonging to ido)s or idolaters, or of the provisions and libations offered to idols. Deut. vii. 26. 26, Prophesying in the name of idols. Deut. xviii. 20. 27. False prophecies. Deut. xviii. 20. 28. Listening to prophecies inthe name ofidols. Deut. xiii. 3. 29, Fear of a false prophet or hindering any one from killing him. Deut. xviii. 22. 30, Walking in the manner of the idolaters, and practising their rites. Lev. xx. 238. 31-8. Enchantment, augury, and consultation of familiar spirits, ete. Lev. xix. 26; Deut. xviii. 10, 11. 39-40. The use of male attire by women, and vice versa. Deut. xxii. 5. 41. Tattooing the body after the manner of idolaters. Ley. xix. 28. 4%. The use of garments made of both linen and wool. ‘' Sha- ‘atnez,” Deut. xxii. 11. 43-4. Rounding ‘‘the corners of the head” or of the beard. Lev. xix. 27. 45, Lacerating oneself for the dead. Deut. xiv. 1. 46. To return to Egypt to dwell permanently there. Deut. xvii. 16. 47, Indulgence in impure thoughts and sights. Num. xv. 39. 48-9, Covenanting with, and preservation of, the seven na- tions. Ex. xxiii. 32. 50-2. To show mercy to or to intermarry with idolaters or to allow them to Qwellin the land. Ex. xxiii. 33; and Deut. vii. "53, The marriage of a daughter of Israel with an Ammonite or Moabite. Deut. xxiii. 3. d4-5. To refuse admission to the congregation to a descendant of Esau or to an Egyptian after the third generation. Deut. xxiti. 7. 56. To offer peace to the Ammonites and Moabites in time of Deut. xxiii. 6. %. The destruction of fruit-trees in time of war. Deut. xx. 19. 58. Fear of the enemy by warriors. Deut. iii. 22, vii. 21, Xx. 3. 59. To forget the evil wrought by Amalek. Deut. xxv. 19. Commandments THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 184 PRE ag ee me ES ag cI et eG ET ON ge fle ae Se me eg eg en Ee gg ee ee 60. Blasphemy of the Holy Name. Ex. xxii. 28, 61. To violate an oath, however rash. Lev. xix. 12. 62. Taking the name of the Lord in vain. Ex. xx. 7. 63. Profaning the name of the Holy One. Lev. xxii. 32. 64, To tempt the Lord. Deut. vi. 16. 65. Destruction of the sanctuary, synagogues, or schools, and erasure of the Holy Name and Holy Writings. Deut. xii. 66. To suffer the body of one hanged to remain on the tree. Deut. xxi. 23. 67. To cease watching the sanctuary. Num. xviii. 5. 68-71. The entrance of the priests into the sanctuary at cer- tain times; priests with a blemish may not go beyond the altar nor serve in the sanctuary. Ley. xvi. 2, 28; xxi. 17, 21. 72. The ministry of Levites in the service of priests, and vice versa. Num. xviii. 3. 73. The entrance of intoxicated persons into the sanctuary, and the teaching of the Law by the same. Lev. x. 9. 74-6. Service in the sanctuary by strangers or by unclean priests, ete. Lev. xxii. 2; Num. xviii. 4. 77-8. Entrance into the court or the camp of the Levites by unclean priests. Num. v.33; Deut. xxiii. 10. 19. The erection of an altar of hewn stone. Ex. xx. 25, 80. Ascension by steps to the aitar. Ex. xx. 26. 81. To burn incense, or to offer it on the golden altar. Ex. Xxx. 9. 82. To extinguish the fire on the altar. Lev. vi. 15. 83-5. Misuse of the holy oil, the anointing oil, or the holy in- cense. Ex. xxx. 32, 37. 86. Removal of the staves from the ark. Ex. xxv. 15. 87-8. To loosen the breastplate from the ephod or to tear the upper garment. Ex. xxvili. 32. 89-90. The killing and offering of sacrifices without the Tem- ple. Deut. xii. 13; Lev. xvii. 3, 4. 91-5. The sanctification and use of blemished things for sacri- fice. Lev. xxii. 22, 24; Deut. xvii. 1. 96. The offering of blemished animals from Gentiles. Lev. Xxii. 25. 97. The offering of imperfect animals in sacrifice. Lev. xxii. 21. 98-100. To offer in sacrifice leaven or honey, au unsalted obla- tion, the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog. Lev. ii. 11, 13; Deut. xxiii. 18. 101. To kill an animal and its young on the same day. Lev. Xxii. 28, 102-5. The use of olive-oil or frankincense in the sin-offering or the jealousy-offering. Ley. v.11; Num. v. 15. 106-7. To exchange sacrifices. Lev. xvii. 26, xxvii. 10. 108. The redemption of the first-born of clean cattle. Num. xviii. 17. 109. The sale of the tithe of the herd. Lev. xxvii. 33. 110-11. The sale or redemption of a dedicated field. XXVii. 28. 112. The division of the head of the bird in a sin-offering. Lev. v. 3. 113-4. Working with or shearing the first-born. Deut. xv. 19. 115-7. To kill the paschal lamb while there is leaven, or leave its fat or any part of its flesh over night. Ex. xii. 10, xxiii. 18, 118. To leave any of the festa! offering until the third day. Deut. xvi. 4. 119. To leave part of the second Passover lamb until the morning. Num. ix. 12. 120. The preservation of any part of the thank-offering until the morning. Ex. xii. 10. 121-2. To break a bone of the paschal lamb or of the second Passover lamb. Ex. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12. 123. To carry of the flesh of Passover out of the house. Ex. xii. 46. 124. To allow the remnants of the meat-offering to become leavened. Lev. vi. 17. 125-8. To eat the paschal lamb raw or sodden, or to allow it to be eaten by a foreigner, by one uncircumeised, or by an apos- tate Israelite. Ex. xii. 9, 48, 45, 48. 129-32. An unclean person may not eat of holy things, nor of holy things polluted ; nor of that which is left of sacrifices: nor of sacrifices which are polluted. Lev. vii. 18, 19, 20; xix. 8. 183-6. A stranger may not eat of the heave-offering, nor a sojourner with the priest, nor an hired servant, nor an uncir- cumcised person, nor an unclean priest. Lev. xxii. 4, 10. 137. A priest’s daughter married to a stranger may not eat of the holy things. Lev. xxii. 12. 138-40. To eat the meat-offering of the priest, or the flesh of the sin-offering, or holy things which have been defiled. Ley. vi. 23. 80; Deut. xiv. 3. L ey. 141-4. To eat the second tithe of corn, or of the vintage, or “a a oil, or the pure firstling without Jerusalem, Deut xil. 17. . 145-7. The consumption by the priest outside the courts of the sin- or trespass-offering, of the flesh of the burnt offering, op of lighter sacrifices before the blood has been sprinkled. Deut xii. 17. : 148. A stranger may not eat of the flesh of the most holy things, Ex. xxix. 38. 149. The priest may not eat cf the first-fruits before they are brought into the court. Deut. xii. 17. 150-1. To eat the second tithe in mourning or in impurity even in Jernsalem, until it be redeemed. Deut. xxvi. 14, : 152. Use of the money of the second tithe except for eating or drinking. Deut. xxvi, 14, 153. Eating the corn before the heave-offerings and tithes have been separated. Lev. xxii. 15. 154. Changing the order regarding the wave-offering, the first-fruits, and the first and second tithes. Ex. xxii. 29. 155. The delay of vows aud free-will offerings. Xxiii. 21. ' 156. Attendance at the feast without an offering. fy. xxiii. 15. 157. The violation of vows. Num. xxx. 2. 158-60. The marriage of a priest with a harlot, a ‘*profane” woman (“‘halalah’’), or a divorcee. Lev. xxi. 7. 161-2. The marriage of a high priest with a widow, nor may he take her as his concubine. Ley. xxi. 14. 163-4. Priests may not enter the sanctuary With uncovereg head or with torn garments. Lev. x. 6. 165. Priests may not leave the court during service. Lev. x. 4. ate ha pollution of priests and of the high priest. Ley. xxi. 1, Ll. 169-70. The participation of the tribe of Levi in the holy Jang and in the spoils. Deut. xviii. 1. 171. To make oneself bald for the dead. Deut. xiv. 1. 2-9, The eating of unclean cattle, unclean fish, unclean fowl, creeping things that fly, things that creep upon the earth, or reptiles (* remesh’”’), etc. Lev. xi. 4, 18, 42-44; Deut, xiv. 19. 180-2. The eating of beasts in a dying condition, or torn ani- mals (“ terefah’’), ora member of a living animal. Ex. xxii. dl; Deut, xii. 21, 28. 183-5. The eating of the sinew which shrank, of blood, or of fat. Gen. xxxii. 323 Lev. vii. 23, 26. 186-7. The boiling of flesh in milk and the eating of flesh with milk. Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26: Deut. xiv. 21. 188. The eating of the flesh of an ox that has been stoned. Ex, xxi. 28. 189-91. The eating of bread made of the new corn, or roasted grain, or green ears of the new corn, before the Passover offer- ing has been brought. Lev. xxiii. 14. 192. The use of the fruit of a young tree before the fourth year. Ley. xix. 23. 193. The eating of mixed seeds of the vineyard. Deut. xxii. 9. 194. The use of libations to idols. Deut. xxxii. 38. 195. Gluttony and drunkenness. Deut. xxi. 20; Lev. xix. 2%. 196. Eating on the Day of Atonement. Lev. xxiii. 29. 197-9. The eating of anything leavened on Passover, or of leavened bread after the middle of the fourteenth day. Ex. xii. 20; Deut. xiii. 3, xvi. 3. 200-1. The exposure of leaven and leavened bread. Ex. xiii. 7, 19. 202-6. A Nazarite may not drink wine or any liquor made from grapes, nor may he eat grapes or any part thereof. Num. vi. 3-5. 207-9. A Nazarite may not pollute himself for the dead, nor enter into the tent of the dead, nor shall he shave his hair. Num. vi. 5-7. 210-4, To reap the whole of the field, to gather the fallen ears of corn in barvest, to cut off all the clusters of the vineyard, to gather every grape of the vineyard, or to return to take a for- gotten handful. Lev. xix. 9-10; Deut. xxiv. 19, 20. 215-6. The sowing of different kinds of seed together, or of corn and herbs in a vineyard. Lev. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 9. _ 217. The gendering of cattle with those of diverse species. Ley. xix. 19. 218. The use of two different kinds of cattle together. Deut. Xxii. 10. 219. The prevention of an animal working in the field from eating. Deut. xxv. 4. 220-3. To till the ground, to prune trees, to reap spontane- ously grown corn, or fo gather the fruit of trees, in the seventh. year. Lev. xxv. 4-5, Deut, 185 == : ~ . 4-4, To till the earth, to prune trees, to reap What grows spon- taneously, Or to gather fruit, in the jubilee year. Lev. xxv. 11. »7, The permanent sale of a fleld in the land of Israel. Lev. xxv. 23. . »2. To change the suburbs of the Levitesor their fields. Lev. xxv. ot. ~9. To leave the Levite without support, Deut. xii. 19. 230, To demand the amount of a debt after the lapse of the seventh year. Deut. xv. 2. #31, To refuse to lend to the poor on account of the release year. Deut. xv. 9. "232, To refuse to lend to the poor the things which he requires. peut. xv. ¢. 233, Sending a Hebrew slave away empty-handed. Deut. xy. 13. 134, Exaction with regard to loans to the poor. Ex. xxii. 25. 235-5. Loans to or by an Israelite vpon usury. Lev. xxv. 37. 237, Usury, or participation therein either as surety, witness, or writer of contracts. Ex. xxii. 25; Deut. xxiii. 19. #38, Delay in the payment of wages. Lev. xix. 15. 239-42. The exaction of a pledge from a debtor by violence; the retention of a pledge from the poor when he requires it; the receipt of a pledge from a widow, and the exaction of a pledge when it is such Chat one obtains by it a living. Deut. xxiv. 6. 10, 17. 243, To kidnap a man of Israel. 244, To steal. Ley. xix. LL. 245, To rob by violence. Lev. xix. 13. 246. To remove the landmark. Deut. xix. 14. 947, To defraud. Ley. xix. 13. 248, To defraud one’s neighbor. Lev. xix. 11. 249. To swear falsely with regard to a neighbor’s property. Lev. xix. 11. 250. To injure any one in bargaining. Lev. xxv. 14. 951-3. To oppress or injureanyone, Ex. xxii.21; Lev. xxv. 17. 254-5. To deliver a fugitive slave to his master, or to vex him. Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. 236. To afflict the widow and orphan. Ex. xxii. 22. 257-9. To use a Hebrew servant as a slave, to sell him as a bondman, or to treat him cruelly. Ley. xxv. 39, 42-48. "60, To permit a heathen to treat a Hebrew servant cruelly. Lev. xxv. 53. 261. To sell a Hebrew maid servant. Ex. xxi. 8. 22. To withhold from a betrothed Hebrew slave food, rai- ment, or conjugal rights. Ex. xxi. 10, 263. To sell as a slave a beautiful captive. Deut. xxi. 14. 264. To humble a beautiful woman. Deut. xxi. 14. 265. To covet a man's wife. Ex. xx. 1%. 266. Covetousness. Deut. v. 21. 267-8. A hireling may not cut down standing corn during his labor, nor take more fruit than he can eat. Deut. xxiii. 24. 289. To hide when a thing lost is to be returned to the owner. Deut. xxi. 3. 210. To refrain from helping an animal fallen under its bur- den. Deut. xxii. 4, 21-2, Fraud in weights and measures. xxv. 13, 14.- 273. Unrighteousness in judgment. Lev. xix. 3). a4. The acceptance of bribes. Ex. xxiii. 8. 275-46. Partiality or fear ina judge. Lev. xix. 15; Deut. i. 17. avi. To pity the poor in judgment. Ex. xxiii. 3. 28. To pervert the judgment of asinner. Ex. xxiii. 6. 239, To spare the offender in matters of fines. Deut. xix. 13. 280. To pervert the judgment of strangers or orphans. Deut. xxiv. 17, 281. To hear one litigant except in the presence of the other. Ex. xxiii. 1. 282. To decide by a majority of one in capital cases. Ex. Xxiii. 2. 283. Having first pleaded for a man in a capital case, one may hot afterward plead against him. Ex. xxtii. 2. ~84. The appointment as judge of one who is not learned in the Law. Deut. i. 17. “85. False witness. Ex. xx. 16. ae au acceptance of testimony from a wicked person. Ex. iii. 1, 287. The testimony of relatives. Deut. xxiv. 16. - To pronounce judgment upon the testimony of only one Witness, Deut. xix. 15. 789. To kill the innocent. Ex. xx. 13. 740. To convict on circumstantial evidence only. Ex. xxiii. 7. 1. To condemn to death on the evidence of only one wit- hess. Num. xxxv. 30. Ex. xx. 15. Lev. xix. 35; Deut. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commandments 292, To exeeute before conviction one charged with a crime. Num, xxxyv. 12, 293 To pity or spare the persecutor. Deut. xxv. 12. 294. To punish the victim in a case of rape. Deut. xxii. 26. 295-6. ‘he acceptance of ransom for a murderer or for a man- Slayer. Num. xxxv. 31, 32, 29,. The toleration of bloodshed. Ley. xix. 16. 298-9. To leave a stumbling-block in the way, or to cause the simple to stumble on the road. Deut. xxii. 8; Lev. xix. ld. 300. To exceed the number of stripes assigned to the guilty. Deut. xxv. 3. 301. Calumny. Lev. xix. 16. 302. To bear hatred in one’s heart. Lev. xix. 17. 303. To cause the face of an Israelite to blush. Ley. xix. 17. 304-5. To bear a grudge. Lev. xix. 18. 306. To take the dam with the young. Deut. xxii, 6. 307-8. To shave the hair of the scall, or to pluck out the marks of leprosy. Lev. xiii. 33; Deut. xxiv. 8. 309. To plow or sow in a valley in which a slain body has been found. Deut. xxi. 4. 310. To suffer a witch to live. Ex. xxii. 18. 311. To force a bridegroom to perform military service. Deut. XXiv. 5. 312. Rebellion against the Sanhedrin. Deut. xvii. 11. 313-4. To add to or detract from the precepts of the Law. Deut. xii. 32. 315-6. To curse the judges, a prince, or a ruler, 31%. To curse any Israelite. Lev. xix. 14. 318-9, To curse or smite father or mother. Ex. xxi. 15, 17. 320-1. To work or to go beyond the city limits on the Sabbath. Ex. xx. 10. 322. To punish on the Sabbath. Ex. xxxv. 3. 323-9. To work on the first or the seventh day of Passover, or on the Feast of Shebu‘ot, or on the first day of the seventh month, or on the Day of Atonement, or on the first or the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Ex. xii. 16; Lev. xxiii. 7, 16, 20, 25, 28, 35, 30. Ex. xxii. 28. 330-45. The various marriages constituting incest. Lev. xviii. 7-18. 346. To have intercourse with a menstruous woman. Lev, Xviii. 19. 3473-93. Adultery, sodomy, ete. Lev. xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23. 334. The marriage of a bastard with a daughter of Israel. Deut. xxiii. 2. 355. Harlotry. Deut. xxiii. 17. 336. The remarriage of a divorcee with her first husband. Deut. xxiv. 4. 3o.. The marriage of a widow with any one but the brother of ber deceased husband. Deut. xxv. 5. 338. Divorcing of a victiin of rape by the offender. xxii. 29. 309. Divoreing of a wife upon whom an evil name has been bronght. Deut. xxii. 9, 360. The marriage of a eunuch with a daughter of Israel. Deut. xxiii. 1. 361. The castration of any male whatsoever. 362. The election of a stranger as king over Israel. xvii. 15. 363-5. The possession by a king of an excessive number of horses and wives. or of an unduly large quantity of silver and gold. Deut. xvii. 16, 17. Deut. Lev. xxii. 24. Deut. Of the mandates Nahmanides rejected Nos. 5, 7, 63, 64. 65, 66, 67, 85, 89, 95-108 (inclusive), 149, 150, 151, 198, 227, 228, 237, and 299, substituting for them the following: 5. To eat the first-born of cattle and the second tithe in Jeru- salem. Deut. xiv. 23. i. To eat the wave-offering only wheu it is without blemish. Deut. xv. 22. 63. To eat the fruit of the seventh year, and not to trade with . it. Lev. xxv. 6. 64. To possess the land of Israel. Num. xxxili, 53. 65. To leave open one side in besieging atown. Num. xxxi.? (see Sifre ad loe.). 66. To remember what God did to Miriam. Deut. xxiv. 9, 67. To be perfect with the Lord. Deut. xviii. 13. 85. To select the wave-offering from the best. Num. xviii. 29. 89. To bring an offering of cattle only. Lev. i. 1. 95. To offer all the sacrifices between the two oblations. Ley. vi. 5, 96. To eat the paschal lamb in the night only. Ex. xii. 8. Commandments Commerce THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 186 Set a ee a ee ae Se ee ea 97. That the avenger of blood pursne the murderer. Num. xxxv. 19. 98. To avoid the garments of the leprous. Lev. xiii. 51. 99. To recite the blessing over the Torah before reading it. Deut, xxxii. 2. 100. To sustain the sojourning stranger. Ley. xxv. 49. 101. To return usury taken from an Israelite. Lev. xxv. 35. 102. To renounce profit from the Nazarite’s hair. Num. vi. 5. 108. To make an ark and a mercy-seat. Ex. xxy. 15. 104. To keep an oath or vow. Deut. xxiii. 24. 105. To reckon months and years. Deut. xvi. 1. 106. To bring an offering morning and evening. Num. XXviii. 4. 107. To offer incense morning and evening. Ex. xxx. 7, 8. 108. To read the Shema‘ morning and evening. Deut. vi. 17. 149, To recognize unconditionally the first-born son. Deut. xxi. 17. 150. To liberate the slave whose tooth or eye has been knocked out by his master. Ex. xxi. 27. 151. To execute him who has incurred capital punishment. Deut. xvii. 7. 198, 227, 228. That the priest shall serve In the sanctuary all the sacrifices; to separate the wave-offering, a cake of the dough, and give it to the priest. Num. xviii. 7: Deut. xviii. 7; Num. Xv. 21. 237. To separate the first tithe and give it to the Levite, and give the poor’s tithe to the poor. Num. xviii. 24. 299. Toconsult the Urim and the Thummim for the king. Num. XXVii. 21. Of the prohibitions Nahmanides rejects Nos. 2, 3, 5, 14, 28, 58, 69, 70, 92, 98, 94, 95, 148, 150, 152, 177, 178, 179, 190, 191, 199, 201, 294, 307, 319, 321, 353, substituting for them the following: 2-3. Forgetfulness of the law of God and of the sojourn on Mount Sinai. Deut. iv. 9, viii. 11. d. Alteration of the order of the vessels inthe Temple. Ex. xxiii. 13 (see Mekilta ad loc.). 14, 28. The offering of sacrifices with the intention of eating them in other than the prescribed time and place, and the eating of sacrifices so offered. Lev. vii. 18; Deut. xvii. 1. 58. Eating the bird slain for the cleansing from leprosy. Lev. xiv. 14. 69. Selection of the heave-offering by the Levites. Num. xviii. 32. 70. The acceptance of shekels from heathens. Lev. xxii. 25. 92. The condemnation on the testimony of only one witness. Deut. xvii. 6. 93. Allowing the faint-hearted to goto war. Deut. xx. 8. 94. To cause the Shekinah to depart from the camp by reason of any impurity. Deut. xxiii. 15. 95. Depriving the first-born of his birthright. Deut. xxi. 16. 148. Clemency to a murderer. Deut. xix.21. — 150. Marriage of the deceased brother’s wife after ‘* halizah.” Deut. xxv. 9. 152. Cohabitation with a wife who has committed adultery. Deut. xxiv. 4. 177. Regretting the poing of charity and the freeing of a He- brew slave in the seventh year. Deut. xv. 10, 18. 178. Robbery of vessels of the sanctuary. Num. iv. 20. +9. The Levite may not carry the holy vessels after the fifti- eth year. Num, viii. 25. 190. The divorced wife when married to another may not be taken back. Deut. xxiv. 4. 191. Disputing the priesthood. Num. xvii. 5. 199. Deriving profit from the beheaded heifer. Num. xxxv. 34. 201. To marry a daughter to one who is forbidden to her. Lev. xix. 9. 294. Profanation of the Holy Land. 307. Leaving the sanctuary during the service. Two prohibitions are contained in each of the fol- lowing verses, by which the number of the remaining rejected prohibitions ismadeup: Lev. xxiii. 4; Lev. ii. 11; Deut. xxiii, 19; Ex. xii, 9; Ex. xxii, 21; Ex. xxviii. 7; Deut. xxiv. 5; Deut. xxi. 18; Deut. ii, 9. Moses of Coucy rejects Maimonides’ mandates Nos. 142, 193, 198, substituting the following: 142, To justify the decision of the Lord. Deut. viii. 5. 198. To reckon the solstices and constellations. Deut. iv. 6. 198. To keep far from a false matter. Ex. xxiii. 7. Of the prohibitions he rejects Nos. 14, 26, 67 70, 78, 95, 140, 150, 152, 165, 177, 178, 199, 266, 979" 288, 291, substituting the following: ° 14. Abandonment of the Torah. Deut. iv. 9. 26. The kissing of idols. Ex. xxiii. 24. 67, The making of idols. Lev. xxvi. 1. 70. Pride. Deut, viii. 14. 78. Prostitution of a daughter of Israel. 95. Cursing oneself. Deut. iv. 140, A priest may not make himself unclean for the deag, Lev. xxi. 1. There are two prohibitions in each of the follow. ing verses, by which the number of the remaining rejected prohibitions is made up: Ex. xii. 9; Ley. ii. 11; Deut. xxiii. 1, 18, 18; xxiv. 6. Joseph of Corbeil has the following mandates not found in the lists of Maimonides, Nahmanides, and Moses of Coucy: Ley. xix, 29, To gaze upon the fringes. Num. xv. 39. To show kindness toward the needy, both in feeling and iy deed; to bury the dead; and to show forbearance. EX. xviii, 20, To practise modesty in privacy. Deut. xxiii. 15. To remember the Exodus from Egypt. Deut. xvi. 3. To love admonition. Deut. x. 16. To teach. Lev. x. 11. To cleanse soiled vessels with boiled water and to immerse vessels. Num. xxXxi. 23. To give tothe stranger meat forbidden to Israelites. xiv. 21. To sanctify the first-born of clean cattle. Deut. xv. 19. That men shall live with their wives, but keep from them at certain times. Deut. xxiv. 5; Lev. xv. 31. To blot out the names of idols, to break down their pillars, and hew down the “‘asherim.”? Deut. vii. 5, xii, 3. To burn the asherah, demolish the places of idolatrous wor. ship, break down the altars, and destroy the vessels used for idolatry. Deut. xii. 3: Num. xxx. 52; Deut. vii. 5; xii. 2, 3, The prohibitions not included by the other com- pilers, but found in the Semak, are: Intolerance of admonition. Deut. x. 16. Self-righteousness. Deut. ix, 4. Delay in attending to the natural needs. Sodomy. Ex. xx. 14. BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Bloch, Les 613 Lois, in Rev. Et. Juives, i. 197 et seq., Vv. 25 et seq.; Michael Creizenach, Thoriag, 1833; M. Brueck, Dag MMosaisehe Judenthum, 1887; D. Rosin, Hin Compendium der Jitdischen Gesetzeskunde, Breslau, 1871; Jellinek, Konteris Taryag, Vienna, 1878; Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1896, p. 248. Deut, Deut. xxiii. 15. K. I. Br. COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN. See Dec- ALOGUE. COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE. See BIBLE EXEGESIS. COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. See TALMUD, COMMENTARIES TO THE. . COMMERCE: Sale or exchange of goods, gen- erally ona large scale. During the Biblical period the Hebrews in Palestine had what is known asa natural self-sufficing economy (Benzinger, “ Arch.” p. 218)—that is, each household grew or made all the food, tools, and clothing it needed. A few arti- cles of luxury or necessity, such as gold, silver, iron, and salt, which could not be found on the Israel- itish farms, were supplied by merchants, who car- ried them round the country, and for that reason were known as “soher”.(from a root meaning “to wander”). These merchants were almost exclu- sively Canaanites, probably Philistines, Hence, when the goodwife sells her wool (Prov. xxxi. 24) she disposes of it to the Canaanites (A. V. “mer: chants”). The Israelite tribes were mainly settled 187 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commandments Commerce See ee ee fe ee ee eg eR ge emt mye me ea Edita Ago SS me sng we ee ee ee Ge on the uplands of Palestine, and therefore were not touched by the streams of commerce which flowed py the two great caravan routes along the coast, through Tyre, Acco, and Gaza, to Egypt, and from south Arabia, through Petra on the east side of the Jordan, to Damascus (Herzfeld, “ Handelsgeschichte der Juden,” pp. 22, 28). The chief references to commerce in the Old Tes- tament are, accordingly, to that of other than Israel- ‘tish peoples—to Ishmaelites (Gen. xxxvii. 25) and Phenicians (Isa. xxiil.; Ezek. xxvii. 27). It is only with the reign of Solomon that any signs are given of extensive external trade on the Solomon’s part of the Israelites. Solomon was Foreign himself a large exporter of wheat and Commerce. oil, which he paid to Hiram, King of Tyre, for timber and the use of skilled workmen (I Kings v. 25 [Hebr.]; I Kings vii.). He doubtless obtained horses and chariots from Egypt (I Kings x. 28, 29) by similar payments. It is even recorded of Solomon that he sent ships of Tharshish every three years from Ezion-geber to Ophir, whence the fleet brought back gold, silver, iron, apes, and peacocks (I Kings x. 22). Solomon’s example evi- dently Jed to a general development of trading (J Kings x. 19), but it was not followed up by his. successors. Jchoshaphat tried in vain to revive the voyages to Ophir (I Kings xxii. 48), and the Proph- ets when speaking of merchants identify them with Canaanites or Philistines (Hosea xii. 7; Isaiah xxiii. 11; Zeph. i. 11; compare Job xli. 6). -It has been assumed from the songs of Deborah, Jacob, and Moses (Judges v. 17; Gen. xlix. 18; Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19) that the tribes of Dan, Zebulun, and Issachar were connected with the Mediterranean trade; but there is very little evidence of this, and the ships used were known by a foreign name as “ships of Tharshish.” There seem to have been some attempts to en- courage foreign trade in the northern kingdom, as ‘Ahab is reported to have obtained from Ben-hadad the right to have “huzot” in Damascus (I Kings xx. 34); in other words, the Israelites were allowed a special street or bazaar in the market of Damascus. A somewhat similar activity on the part of Judah is indicated in Isaiah ii. 6 (Hebr.), where the “con- tracts made with the sons of aliens” refer, accord- ing to Cheyne, to the renewed commercial activity of the reigns of Uzziah and Jotham (II Kings xiv. 22, xvi. 6). The treasures of the kings must have been obtained indirectly from commerce; the tribute of Hezekiah to Sennacherib, which, according to the Taylor cylinder, amounted to 80 talents of gold and 800 of silver, besides precious stones, must have been secured in this way. The luxurious feminine ap- parel indicated in Isaiah iii. 18-24 must also have been obtained by commerce. Notwithstanding this, the merchant’s profession was despised (Hosea xii. 7; compare Ecclus. [Sirach] xxvi. 29, xxvii. 2). The few laws relating to business in the Pentateuch and dealing with weights (Lev. xix. 35, 36), loans to the Poor (¢b. xxv. 86, 37), usury (Deut. xxiii. 20), debts i the Sabbatical year (Deut. xv. 2), and slave-tra- ding (Lev. xxv. 44, 45), show that very little busi- tess was done. The fact that even tribute was paid in Kind (I Sam. xvi. 20, xvii. 18) proves that not much attention was paid to commerce, as is also proved by the fact that no coined money was made till the time of the Maccabees (see MoneEy). The highlands of Palestine in Bible times do not seem to have supplied very much material for for- eign commerce. Honey, balsam, wheat, and oil were forwarded to Phenicia (I Kings Exports v.11; Ezra iii. 7; Ezek. xxvii. 17), and while spices, balm, myrrh, honey, pis- Imports. tachio nuts, almonds, and oil were for- warded to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 25; Hosea xii. 1). In return timber was sent from Phe- nicia (I Kings v. 11); corn, horses, and chariots from Egypt (Gen. xli. 57; I Kings x. 29); gold, silver, spices, precious stones, ivory, apes, peacocks, armor, and mules from Arabia, OpHrR, and other Eastern countries. Wool and sheep were sent as tribute from Moab (II Kings iii. 4). Within Palestine itself salt was sent from the Dead Sea, cattle and wool from the pastures beyond the Jordan, corn chiefly from the plain of Esdraelon. These were sent up to the mar- kets, one of which seems to have been at Jerusalem, ata place called “ Maktesh” (Zeph. i. 11); later on there was a market even in the Temple precincts (John ii. 14). Merchants carried wares to their customers or to the markets (Neh. xiii. 16) by caravans of camels, asses, mules, or oxen (Gen. xxiv. 10, xli, 26, xliii. 18; I Kings v. 7; I Chron. xii. 40); sometimes mer- chandise was carried by slaves (II Kings v. 28). After the return from the Exile the small and im- poverished Jewish community had little business to transact except at Jerusalem, and even After there it was conducted mainly by the Exile. Phenicians (Neh. iii. 31, 32; xiii, 15- 20). When Jonah sailed for Tarshish he had to embark in a Gentile vessel, showing that little maritime trade was undertaken by the Jews. With the spread of Hellenism in the East, however, there were Greek mercantile settlements in Ptolemais, with connections with the coast of Palestine along the Gaza, Ashkelon, and Dor route (Schirer, “Ge- schichte,” ii, 15); and by the time of Hyrcanus I. Athenian merchants came regularly to Judea (Jose- phus, “Ant.” xiv. 8,8 5; “Corp. Insc. Att.” ii, No. 470). It was with the intention of developing the foreign trade of Judea that Simon Maccabeus took Joppa (I Macc. xiv. 5), and similarly Herod built Ceesarea for a port (Josephus, f.c. xv. 9, § 6). By Maccabean times, indeed, it seems to have be- come a custom for the villagers to carry their prod- ucts into towns once a month (I Macc. i. 58). Later on this became extended to twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays being traditionally set aside as mar- ket days; and the custom of having special services in synagogues on these days can be traced back to this period. Jerusalem became the commercial cen- ter of the whole country, and mention is made there of markets for horses and wool (‘Er. x. 9), for ironware, clothing, lumber (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 19, § 4; v. 8, § 1), and for fruit (Bezah v. 8). Besides these, there were markets at Hebron, Emmaus, Lydda, Antipatris, Haishub, Patris, Beth Hino, Sepphoris, Tiberias, Scythopolis, and Botna, the last three being especially devoted to cereals, which were exported Markets. Commerce THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 188 SSS ee ee ae eg gg a ag through Kesib to Tyre (Yer. Dem. i. 3), and from Arab in Galilee to Sepphoris (Yer. Ta‘an. iv. 1): olives were sent to Italy (Shab. 26a; Josephius, /.¢. ii. 92, § 2), and olive-oil was sent to Syria and Egypt (Pliny, “Historia Naturalis,” xii. 54). The main ports engaged in these exports were Ashkelon, Jop- pa, Gaza, Ptolemais, Rephia, Yabne, Caesarea, Dor, and Haifa. Some outside trade in silk passed through Pales- tine into Tyre (Yer. B, K. iv. 2, vi. 7). Most of the more luxurious products were imported. Asagainst 87 different materials produced in Pulestine itself, Herzfeld enumerates 183 brought from almost all the known lands of antiquity: camels from Arabia (Ket. 67a); asses from Libya (Shab. 51b); byssus from Pelusium and India, to form the dress worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Yoma iii. 1%); linen and “himuza” from Rome (Yer. ‘Ab. Zarah ii. 10; M. K. 28a); a garment called a “gomed” from Arabia (Kel, xxix. 9), as well as pottery (Kel. v. 10; Men. v. 9) from the same place; spoons from Sidon and wines from Ammon and Media (Sanh. 106a; Pes. ii. 1). Beans and linseed came from Egypt (Ma‘as. v. 8); damsons from Damascus (Ber. 39a; B. K. 116b); palms, dates, and carpets from Baby- lon; timber, wine, and purple from Phenicia; wine, oil, and lumber from Syria. Specially important was the trade with Egypt, which probably took some of the cereals from Palestine in exchange for beans and writing-material. Philospeaks of several Jewish shippers and wholesale mer- Trade with chants in Alexandria (“In Flaccum,” Egypt. §8). Many Egyptian Jews attained considerable wealth by this means. Arion is said to have lent Joseph the “ publican ” no less 4 sum than 3,000 talents (Josephus, “ Ant.” xii. 4,§$ %), and the alabarch Alexander lent 200,000 drachmas to Agrippa (¢b. xviii. 6, § 3). Salted fish was a specially favored article of com- merce, as may be seen from the fact that Jerusalem had a fish-gate (Neh. iii. 8); it was brought from Egypt (Maksh. vi. 3) and Spain (Shab. xxii. 2) probably to Acco, whence the proverb “ to send fish to Acco,” cor- responding to the English “to carry coals to New- castle.” Lake Tiberias wasalso the center of a great fishing industry. Josephus enumerates no less than 230 boats sailing upon it at one time (“B. J.” ii. 21, § 8). Several kinds of traders are mentioned—cloth- dealers, horse-dealers, and cattle-dealers (Kil. ix. 5; M. K. ii. 5; B. M. 51b; ‘Ab. Zarahi. 6; Shek. vii. 2). These carried their accounts in books (* pinkes,” from the Greek zia£) made of two boards joined together with a hinge, and covered with wax on which marks could be made. Markets were held every Friday (Sifra 140b), and at Gaza, Acco, and Botna there were great fairs where slaves and horses were sold (Yer. ‘Ab. Zarah i. 4). Goods were sold by contract (Shab. 120b) and paid for by bills which themselves were sold for cash before maturing (B. M. iv. 9). Merchants of different towns commu- nicated by post (Shab. x. 4, 19a), and there even seems to have been a kind of parcel-post (R. H. 9b). Prices seemed to be fixed by local authorities (B. M. v. 7%), and any speculation in necessaries, such as corn, wine, or oil, was deprecated (B. B. 90b). Notwithstanding this evidence of considerabj|e commercial activity, it can not be said that the Jew, in early post-Biblical times were at all inclined to commerce. Josephus, indeed, says: “We do not dwell in a land by the sea, and do not therefore indulge in commerce either by sea or otherwise» (“Contra Apion,” i. 12). Several of the chief sages of the Talmud, however, were traders. Eleasar ben Azaria dealt in wine and oil (B. B. 91a). Notwith. standing this, many sayings in the Talmud show that little importance was attached to commerce ag 9 means of livelihood; ¢ 9., “have little businegg» (Abot iv. 14); or, “the less trading the more Torah» (ib, vi. 6). It was recommended to lay out one’s money in three parts: one-third to be invested jy land; one-third in goods; one-third to be kept on hand (B. M. 42a). It may be of interest to conclude this account of trading among the Jews of Biblicaland Talmudic times by the details given by Herzfeld relating to the prices of objects mentioned in these two sources, arranging the objects in the usual order: grain, cat- tle, fowl, fruit, wines, dress, slaves, beasts of burden, chariots, fields, vineyards, and houses, finishing with wages and fees. See accompanying table. Hitherto there had been no signs of any special predilection or capacity for commerce shown by Jews, but they had developed special aptitudes in that direction by the early geonic period, when they are everywhere mentioned as merchants. As soon as the Teutonic nations had settled down after the great migrations of the fifth century, Jews are found mentioned together with Syrians as merchants at Narbonne and Marseilles (Gregory, “ Epistles,” vii, 24,45). The Frankish kings bought goods from them (Gregory of Tours, “ Hist. Gall.” iv. 12-35, vi. 5, vii. 23), and they occur as traders at Naples (Proco- pius, “ De Bello Gallico ”), Palermo (Gregory, “ Epis- tles,” ix. 55), and Genoa (Cassidorus,“ Epistles,” No. 33). They even chartered ships: Gregory of Tours (“De Gloria Martyrum,” p. 97) mentions a Jew who owned a vessel sailing between Nice and Marseilles. It is recorded of Charles the Great that, after watch- inga ship nearing Narbonne, he decided that it was not a Jewish, but a Norman, vessel (Pertz, “ Monu- menta,” ii. 737). The Visigoth king Egica, indeed, forbade them to engage in maritime commerce (“ Leg. Visig.” xii. 2,18). They were particularly active in the slave trade (Agobard, “Opera,” ed. Baluze, pp. 62-65), and Gregory the Great protested against their activity in this direction in North Gaul (“ Epistles,” ix, 36). It has been conjectured that through their means England was brought within the pale of Chris- tendom (Jacobs, “Jews of Angevin England,” pp. 8, 4). See SLAVE TRADE. The cause of this sudden commercial activity and predilection for trading is probably to be found in the rise of Islam and its control of the lands whence came most of the luxuries demanded in Europe. Christians could not trade in Mohammedan countries, nor Moslems in Christendom, consequently an open- ing was left for Jews, who were tolerated in both spheres as commercial intermediaries (Cunningham, “Western Civilization,” ii. 49, Cambridge, 1901). Within two centuries after the foundation of Islam the Jews appear to have almost monopolized the Prices. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commerce ee ee eee ee ee eh hae a Me a Se ereeteenae peeve eeeves etueeene ervee eee eee r eres sever eene eeeetave eave haee eeeoehr oe aceon ethene oreeee anasasene CAD sicaas- cones Mantle....... Save woseeee is eeereenes oreerebree wer eeeceee eeeeeoene Vineyard..... House .,...... Wages (day- laborer) .... Wages, Hil- Ol Bes davai Jain) LOY sn cc eseanse i Quantity. Price. seah 1 denarius is 2 denarii “s sela* * # to 1 den. o 4 sheket 1-2 mina ~ 100 den. 200 ** oe 30 eb two |; d0 shekels one | 20 den. 100—s|:« 100 gold den. one 2 sela’, 8 den 2 shekels 1-24 sela* 400 pee den. one 1-3 sela‘ Hs 2, 4, 5 sela‘ G 3 sela‘ litra 3 den. pair leolt , Silver den 2 | ijssar five 2 issar 3-4 1 issar one xestes (sextar.) 4 Joma amphora | + Tyrian sela’ 80 xestes | 4 den. drachm. one 4 den. >" 3 | 14 gold den. ie 12 den. et 2) 6 ts 0 ae bb 4 be b se 12 mina mm 20 shekels ob 30 os ae 5h) bet oe 80 e¢ be 100 oe % 120 drachmas aGoeae 100-200 den. Py 150 shekels oe 600 ot erik a ™ rere es = wetness | 10 gold den. @e@enteee | H den. | Wenieade | 3 den. Sdtasg ory 2 den. eeeues | References and Remarks. Peah viii.; ‘Er. viii. 2; Ta‘an. 19b. B. B, 91b. Ta‘an. 19b (famine). jShek. iv. 9. Il kings vii. 1. mina (100 den.)|Men. xiii. 8. B. K. iii. 9. Tos. Shek, li. 3. Tos. “Ar. iv. 4. RB. M. 69b. II Sam. xxiv. 24 (with threshing-floor). Men. xiii. 8. Tos. B. M. v. 4 (one for 25 silver issar). Men. xiii.8; Ker, v. 2, Ley. v. 1b. Tos. Ker. iv. 3. 'Tos. B. M. v. 1 (one | for 25 silyer den.). Shek, ii. 4. Tos. Ker. iv. 3. Hag. i. 2; Bek. 1la. Gen. R. 49 [?]. .|Ker. i. 7 (exceptiona)). |Matt. x. 29. Luke xii. 6. Ma‘as. ii. 5, 6. ‘ere (tissar) |Me‘i. vi. 4, ‘Ab. Zarab 3ib. Josephus, “ B. J.’ ii. 21, § 2 idem, ** Vita,” § 13. Yer, Shab. viii. 7. Tos. B. M. iii. 3. Me‘i. vi. 4, Tos. ‘Ar. iv. 2. Tos. Shek. ii. 4. B. K. 119a. B. B. ix. 7 (excep- tional). Gen. xxxvii. 28 (Jo- seph). Ex. xxi. 32. Lev. XXVii. 3, 4. “AY. Vi. 5. Jos. ** Ant.” xii. 2, $3, B. K. x. 4. I Kings x. 2. Ley. xxvii. 16 (requir- ing a homer of oats for seed). Isa. vii. 23; Cant. viii. 11 (with 1,000 vines). lYer. Ket. iv. 18. | aaa Xx. 2, 'Yoma 35b. 10 shekels per Judges xy. 10. inet x. 35. trade between Europe and Asia. able passage in the “Book of Ways,” written about 817 by Ibn Khordadhbeh (ed. De Goeje, in “Bibl. Geogr. Arab.” vi. 114), givin by these Jewish merchants. There isa remark- g the routes adopted ROUTES OF THE JEWISH MERCHANTS CALLED RADANITES. “ These merchants speak Persian, Roman [Greek], Arabic, the language of the Franks, Spanish, and Slav. They journey from West to east, from east to west, partly on Jand, partly by sea, They transport from the West eunuehs, female slaves, boys, silk, castor, marten and other furs, and swords. They take ship in the land of the Franks, on the Western Sea, and steer for Farama [Pelusium}. There they load their goods on the backs of camels and go by land to Kolzum [Suez] in five days’ journey over a distance of twenty-five farsakhs [parasangs]. They embark in the East Sea [Red Sea], and sail from Kolzum to El-Tar [port of Medina] and Jeddab [port of Mecca]: then they go to Sind, India, and China. On their return they carry back musk, aloes, camphor, cinnamon, and other products of the Eastern countries to Kolzum,and bring them to Farama, where they again embark on the Western Sea. Some make sail for Constantinople to sell their goods to the Romans; others go to the palace of the King of the Franks to place their goods. Sometimes these Jew merchants, when embarking in the land of the Franks in the Western Sea, make for Antioch [at the mouth of the Orontes}; thence they go by land to Al-Jabia [7], Al-Hanaya [on the bank of the Euphrates], where they arrive after three days’ march. There they embark on the Euphrates for Bagdad, and then sail down the Tigris to Al-Obolla. From Al-Obolla they sail for Oman, Sind, Hind, and China. * These different journeys can also be made by land. The mer- chants that start from Spain or France go to Sous Al-Akca [Mo- roceo}, and then to Tangiers, whence they march to Kairowan and the capital of Egypt. Thence they go to Ar-Ramla, visit Damascus, Al-Koufa, Bagdad, and Bassora, cross Ahwaz, Fersia, Kirman, Sind, Hind, and arrive at China. Sometimes they like- wise take the route behind Rome, and, passing through the coun- try of the Slavs, arrive at Khamlij, the capital of the Chazars. They embark on the Jorjan Sea, arrive at Balkh, betake them- selves from there across the Oxus, and continue their journey toward Yourt, Toghozghor, and from there to China.”’ The name “ Radanites” is a puzzle, but probably refers to the commercial metropolis of Persia—Rai (Rhaga), near Teheran, which was the commercial center for Armenia, Chorasan, and Chazaria (Ritter, “ Asien,” vi. 1, 595). Theinfluence of the Radanites probably accounts for the adoption by the court of Chazaria of the Jewish religion (see CHAZARs), and it is also probable that the mission of a Jewish en- voy from Charles the Great to Harun al-Rashid is _ connected with this extensive commerce. The Jews also appear to have taken wares from Byzantium to Prague, and to have exchanged them for corn, tin, lead, and slaves, from the Russians and Slavs who met them there (Ibrahim ibn Ya‘kub, quoted by G. Jacob,“ Handelsartikel der Araber,” p.9, Berlin, 1891). The large number of Arabic coins found throngh- out northeastern Europe (as many as twenty thou- sand in Sweden alone) shows the great extent of this Baltic trade with Chazaria, mainly conducted by Jews. The spice trade appears to have been practically monopolized by Jews (Gregory of Tours, iv. 12, 35; vi. 5); and this was of consequence because of the demand for condiments to flavor the salted meats and fish on which medieval Europe lived during winter. Aun indication of the extent of their Lyons trade is found in the complaint of Agobard that, to suit their convenience, the market-day had been changed from Saturday to another day in the week (“De Insolentia,” p. 64); indeed, so important had their commercial position in medieval Europe be- come by the tenth century that a usual formula in charters and like documents was “Jews and other merchants” (Stobbe, “Juden in Deutschland,” pp. 108, 199, 200, 281). The emperor Henry IY. gave them permission to sell wine, pigments, and drugs (2b. p. 231). In the tenth century the commercial rivals of the Jews began to take measures to restrain their activity. The Venetians, for example, forbade ships’ captains to take Jewish passengers on their voyages to the Levant (Depping, “ Histoire du Com- merce,” ii. 22), Similarly as late as 1841 no Jew was allowed to pass from Aix to Alexandria, and only four each year for the Levant. . But the first systematic repression of Jewish com- Commerce mercial activity began in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries during the Crusades, All trade in the towns began to be monopolized by the merchants’ gilds, from which Jews were ex- Influence cluded. In England, for example, of there is only one known instance of Crusades. a Jew in a merchant gild (Kitchin, “Winchester,” p. 108); so the only way in which Jews could obtain possession of mer- chandise was not by direct purchase, but as pledges for money lent. In this way, for example, Aaron of Lincoln came into possession of large quantities of corn at the time of his death (sce “Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc. Eng.” iii. 164, 165); and a large amount of corn was included in the property which escheated to the king on the expulsion of the Jews from Hereford (2d. i. p. 144-158). Heliot of Vesoul and his company sim- ilarly came into possession of stuffs and vestments which they transported by horses and carriages to various customers. They also sold wheat, soap, paper, wax, fur, leather, harnesses, kitchen utensils, spoons, forks, girdles, etc., besides horses and cattle (I. Loeb, in “Rev. Et. Juives,” ix. 39); but these sales, which took place in the presence of the prov- ost, and, probably, were mostly sales of pledges, can not be regarded as the ordinary sales of com- merce, in which the buyer competes in open market and afterward sells at his own time, and without in- tervention of officials. Whatever the commercial activity of the Jews in the Middle Ages and after the Crusades, it was incidental to their trade of money- lending (see Usury) and the taking of PLEDGES. W. Roscher traces this activity to the introduction into commercial law of three important innovations which indirectly affected commerce: (1) the making of loans oninterest; (2) the retention of goods bought bona fide, which has been applied in later commer- cial law to bonds and other securities to bearer ; (3) the introduction, or, at least, the extensive use, of bills of exchange (“ Ansichten der Volkswirtschaft,” ii. 231, Leipsic, 1878). It is still, however, a doubtful point whether bills of exchange were not introduced quite independently of the Jews (see EXxcHANGE, BILLs OF). Though, asa rule, Jewish commercial activity was from the twelfth century almost up to the nineteenth generally restricted to usury and petty trading, there are occasional instances of commercial dealings on a large scale, chiefly at the great seaports. Instances Thus at Marseilles, between 1260 and of Medieval 1299, a Jewish merchant named:*Man- Commerce. drul, and others, traded in spices, cot- ton, and medicines, like sulfur and tar- tar, from Egypt, the Barbary States, the Balearic Islands, and Pisa, the chief trade being with Valencia, Acco, and Bougiah (“ Rev. Et. Juives,” xvi. 28). By this time Jews had lost their monopoly of the slave trade; only two cases of slave-dealing occurred at Marseilles at that period among Jews as against seven among Christians. Similarly, in 1248 there were twenty-nine money-changers among the Christians of Marseilles, but not a single Jew. Jews appear also to have been interested in the export of corn and wine from Vienna to Salzburg (Pertz, “ Monumenta,” ix. 706), and the Jews of Laibach in 1368 are reported to have become rich through trade with Venetians, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 199 ‘Hungarians, and Croats (Scherer, “ Rechtsverhgjt. nisse,” p. 519). It was indeed found necessary a} times to prevent their competition with Christian merchants; thus the Jews of Linz in 1396 were fo, bidden to deal as merchants with the citizens of tha, town (Kurz, “ Handel Oesterreichs,” p. 89). In Spain the practise varied: in Castile, Henry IV. alloweg the Jews to trade with Christians (Amador de log Rios, Gs Historia,” iil. 1384, 135), and there is evidence of a considerable wool trade between Navarre ang England, conducted by Jews (Jacobs, “Spanish Sources,” Nos. 1568, 1578, 1689, 1647), besides no. tices of dealers in cloth, fur, leather, silk, spices timber, horses, mules, and wine (2b. p. Xxxvii.); yet the Jews of Navarre were not allowed to scll any. thing without license from the king (7d. Nos. 1458, 1459). On the whole, fewer restrictions seem to have been placed upon the Jews in Spain than elge. where; the silk industry was entirely in their hands (Gratz, “Geschichte,” v. 396). This led to a re. markable extension of Jewish commercial activity when, in the fifteenth century, there spread through. out the world aclass of persons which. maintained intimate connections with Spain and Portugal ata time when those countries were receiving masses of the precious metals, which raised prices throughout Europe and gave abnormal profits to merchants, amounting, it is said, to between 300 and 400 per cent (Beer, “Geschichte des Welthandels,” jj, 147). # ¥ The commerce of the Maranos served an impor. tant function in the development of trade between Europe, America, and the Levant, Manasseh ben Israel, in his “ Declara- tion” to the English Parliament, gives an interesting account of the wide ex- tent of Jewish trade due to their family connections and common language (ed. Wolf, pp. 2, 8). The precious metals mined in America were transported to Spain and Portugal, and thence, in exchange for Oriental goods, were passed on to Antwerp, which thereby became the financial center of Europe. Jewish Marano families were especially active in all these countries. The Caceres family had members in Hamburg, England, Austria, the West Indies, Barbados, and Surinam in the middle of the seven- teenth century. Similarly extended connections are found with the Conegliano and Alhadib families. The Mendez family was connected at first with Ant- werp, then with Constantinople, while a branch, the Grants family, settled at Bordeaux, dominated French colonial trade. Benjamin Gradis sent out wine, alcohol, meal, and pickled meats to Cayenne, Martinique, and San Domingo, getting sugar and indigo in return. The Maranos were especially active in the American interstate trade. From Cu- racao Joshua Mordecai Henriquez shipped to New Netherland in 1568 Venetian pearls and pendants, thimbles, scissors, knives, and bells. The Jewish trade from Jamaica became so extensive that the English traders of that island petitioned against Jews being allowed to trade from it unless they became endenizened. By 1758 the greater part of the British trade with the Spanish West Indies was in the hands of the Jews, especially the trade of Jamaica with the Spanish main (“Consideration 08 Marano Trade. 191 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commerce the Act of 1753,” p. 40). Aaron Lopez of Newport bad no less than thirty ships engaged in this trade (see M. J. Kohler, in “Pub. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc.” x. 62). This trade was naturally fostered by the Jews of New York, who were not allowed to en- gage in retail trade from 1688 (7d. v.). From Mar- seilles an extensive trade with the Levant was main- tained by Spanish Jews. In the ten years 1670-79 the firm of Joseph Vaez Villarreal & Company in- sured ships to the amount of 866,400 livres (“ Rev. Et. Juives,” xi, 142). In 1693 merchants of Mar- seilles petitioned the intendant of Provence not to allow French subjects to lend their names to Jews pringing silk from the Levant, especially from Smyrna (7. xii, 270). The Gorneyim of Algiers practically monopolized the trade between that port and Leghorn in the seventeenth century. (Griin- wald, “Juden als Seefahrer,” 1902, p. 48). Meanwhile in Centrai Europea special Jewish com- merce was being developed in connection with the great fairs, especially during the Thir- ty Years’ war. They purchased the soldiers’ loot and thus acquired capital. The position of Jews as pawnbrokers led naturally to pedling. These pedlers often de- veloped into traveling traders, purchasing the prod- ucts of the villages, especially furs and leather, which they sold at the Fats, especially at the great fair at Leipsic, which, after the close of the Thirty Years’ war, became a clearing-house for the wares of North Germany. During the last quarter of the seventeenth century, 15,620 Jews, with 2,362 depend- ents, visited the three annua] fairsat Leipsic, making an average of nearly 240 Jews at each fair. These came from all quarters of Europe; not less than 321 places are mentioned by M. Freudenthal (“ Die Jii- dischen Besucher der Leipziger Messen,” Frank fort, 1902). Chief among these were Prague, Hamburg, Halberstadt, Berlin, Dessau, Frankfort, and, beyond Germany, Amsterdam and Venice. As early as 1590 Jews used to import fur, leather, lumber, and grain from Moscow to Gnesen. The memoirs of Glickl von Hameln show that these visits to the fairs were of social as well as of commercial importance. The Frankfort fair became the center of the Hebrew book trade in the seventeenth century (“Rev. Et. Juives,” viii. 75). By this means new connections were made with different parts of Europe by the rising Jewish merchants, and the international trade of the continent became concentrated for a time in their hands. The furtrade in particular was monop- dlized by Jews, owing to their wide connections, Tanging from Novgorod to Nantes (“Rev. Et. Juives,” xxxiii. 97). Similarly the Jews of Avignon, in the seventeenth century, used to travel as far as Nimes and Montpellier (2b. xxxiv. 280), where they Sold mules on credit, and thus took the business out of the hands of the Christian merchants of Langue- doc, In 1738 the latter obtained a decree from the intendant of Provence prohibiting the sale of mules by Jews, though this decree was afterward with- drawn. In like manner German and Polish Jews, toward the end of the eighteenth century, settled in the chief English ports of the south and westas small Pawnbrokers and shopkeepers, sending out agents from Monday to Friday to the neighboring villages Central Europe. (L. Wolf, “Family of Yates and Samuel,” p. 2, Lon- don, 1901). The amount of trade conducted by the Jews de- pended in a large measure on the municipal or other authorities. In 1603 Henry IV. granted Re- to Jews of Metz the right to trade, which strictions was confirmed by Louis XIV. in 1657 on Jewish (Jost, “Geschichte,” ix. 31). So, too, Trade. the Jews of Leghorn were permitted to trade from 1668 (Bedarride, “Les Juifs,” p. 364); on the other hand, the Jews of Rome and Ancona were only permitted to deal in second- hand clothing (Vogelstein and Rieger, ii. 198). As arule, however, the right to trade was one of the municipal rights, and these were not granted the Jews till well on toward the middle of the nineteenth century. They were therefore generally confined to pawnbroking, pedling, and second-hand cloth- ing, in which for a considerable time they had a monopoly. With the spread of colonization Jewish merchants found new spheres, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, where there was little opposi- tion to them. The firms of Montefiore in Australia, of Mosenthal and of Bergtheil in South Africa, were among the pioneers of those colonies, and a large proportion of the English colonial shipping trade was fora considerable time in the hands of Jews. On the continent of Europe Jews performed a spe- cial function in mediating between the domestic in- dustries of the villages and the markets and manu- factories of the chief towns. Thus in Vienna the woolen manufacturers obtained their raw material from Jewish traders who traveled round to Iglau, Reichenberg, and Brtinn. Before the emancipation many expedients had to be resorted to before this centralization of the wool industry could be effected. Thus the firm of Tuchowsky used to have a Chris- tian agent at Vienna to represent its interests, When he died one of the firm had to submit to baptism in order to reside in Vienna (S. Mayer, in Bloch’s “Wochenschrift,” Nov. 14, 1902). Owing to a variety of circumstances the number of Jews applying themselves to commerce is heavily in excess of their proportion to the general popula- tion. Thus in Prussia in 1861 among Numbers adult workers 58 per cent of Jews Engagedin were engaged in commerce as against Commerce. 6 per cent of the rest of the popula- tion (Legoyt, “Immunités,” p. 34), while in Italy the proportion was as 55 to 5. These figures are somewhat misleading, as most Jews live in cities; but, after allowing for this factor, a large discrepancy still remains. At Berlin, ¢.g., in 1871 61.4 per cent of Jews were in commerce against 15,4 of the rest of the population (H. Schwabe, “ Berlin in 1871,” p. 100); in Vienna, 33.1 per cent against 11.5 percent (Jeitteles, “Israeliten zu Wien”). Al: together it may be said that thrice as many Jews adopt commercial pursuits. The particular branch of commerce in which Jewsappear to excel is mainly the “commerce of intangibles ”—that is, dealing with money per se—and they excel as factors and ship- pers (see BANKING; Finance). The clothing trades seem to be largely in the hands of Jews, both as re- gards manufacture and the wholesale and retail trade, This may have developed out of the restric- Commerce Commercial Law tion to the sale of second-hand clothing, but is prob- ably due more to the economic pressure brought to bear in the Russian ghettos. The trade in furs and feathers is also largely in Jewish hands as a relic of the old peregrinations of the Jewish pedlers in East Europe, and can be traced back to the time of the Chazars. The fancy-goods trade is almost in- variably a trade in imports, and here the cosmopoli- tan connections of the Jews have helped them to achieve conspicuous success. In England the fruit trade is wholly in the hands of Jews, because fruit can be sold on Sunday, and therefore the keeping of the Sabbath is not an obstacle to Jewish fruit-traders, In the United States the most striking characteris- tic of Jewish commerce is found in the large number \of department stores held by Jewish firms. BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Herzfeld, Handelsgesch. der Juden, Bruns- wick, 1879; W. Roscher, Die Juden im Mittelaiter, in An- sichten der Volkswirtschaft, ii. 321-354, Leipsic, 1878 : Heyd, Gesch. des Levante-Handels, i. 138, Stuttgart, 1879: 1. Loeh. Deux Livres de Commerce, in Rev. Et. Juives, vii. 9; M. J. Kohler, Jewish Activity in American Colonial Commerce, in Pub. Am. Jew. Hist. Soe. No. 10; 1. Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 215-217; J. Jacobs, Studies in Jewish Statistics, pp. 28-36; W. Sombart. Der Moderne Ka- pitalismus, Leipsic, 1902; M. Grunwald, Die Juden als Rhe- der und Seefahrer, Berlin, 1902. G. J. ——In Russia: Under the Polish régime—that is, up to the end of the eighteenth century—com- merce was almost the only occupation followed by the Jews in Russia. Neither the upper nor the lower classes among the non-Jewish native popula- tion cared to engage in it; and it consequently be- came centralized in the hands of the Germans and the Jews, As early as the fourteenth century there was a Jewish bazaar in Wilna. During the Middle Ages the Jews of Poland and of Lithuania were engaged in agricultural and industrial pursuits only in a small degree. After the Polish provinces had been annexed to Russia, and especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Jews were at- tracted to handicrafts; but owing to certain re- strictions placed on these occupations they were compelled, as they are even to-day, to ‘rely chiefly upon commerce and finance. The closing years of the nineteenth century were marked by a serious decline of Jewish commerce in Russia. Owing to a steady increase in the number of Jewish merchants, especially in the western re- gions, and to the consequent keenness of competi- tion, commerce could hardly have been lucrative. The chief obstacle to its development was, and still is, the lack of capital, for the poverty of the Jewish population is extreme. Business is frequently started exclusively upon credit. Consequently, when the manufacturer re- duces or withdraws credit, the Jewish Business merchant is often forced to declare Conducted himself insolvent. But the manufac- on Credit. turer is not always the trader’s only creditor. Advances secured by chat- tel mortgage are made by banks, by mutual loan associations, and py private persons. Usually the interest charged is very high, especially to small dealers. The “wocher ”—that is, the plan of paying off a debt in weekly instalments—prevails. The profit is mostly absorbed by the interest on the cap- ital borrowed. Therefore, in order to secure an in- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1q come, it is often necessary to put the capita] y peatedly into circulation. By adopting this cour the turnover of the Jewish merchants is, Oth things being equal, greater than that of their Chr; tian competitors; but, notwithstanding their n sourcefulness, the Jewish merchants do not Tealiq as large a percentage of profits as do the Christians The foregoing applies to Jewish merchants doi business on a moderate scale. The majority of thi Jews in the cities and villages within the Pay of SETTLEMENT are not able to start business EVEN of credit, and are therefore compelled to trade in Sma} wares. Opening asmall store on some street-corney they stock it with a few rubles’ worth of goods, ang inake a profit of from twenty to thirty copecks , day. Frequently the business equipment CONnSisy only of a single stand stocked with provisions, Dea} ers of this kind are very numerous in the Jewis} centers, as in Wilna, Minsk, and Kovno, where thé percentage of poor Jews is exceptionally large, Thus, in Wilna their business center consists of a cluster of dark alleys, permeated with a fetid atf mosphere, and resigned to rows of dirty, ill-smelling stores and stands. Although the range of ie astonishingly low, little business is done, and oftey the dealers in the district outnumber the customer } The Jewish interest in lumber, in agricultur produce, in the export of grain, flax, butter, eggs fruit, wines, and tobacco, and in key Branches osene, is considerable. Before the pro¢ of Trade. mulgation of the law making the salq! of liquor a government monopoly, the Jews were active in the retail sale of vodka? At present Jewish merchants supply alcohol to the government in considerable quantities, In general t government contracts have been monopolized bys the wealthier Jews. In recent years, however many of the governmental departments have de.i clined the services of Jewish contractors. ' The Jews are prominent in the trade in grain.’ They have established branch offices in the chief? centers of the grain-producing regions. In the au-3 tumn their agents travel through the grain belt andi purchase its produce. Small dealers establish them-} selves at the railroad stations. They pay up to: ninety-five per cent of the value of the grain shipped, deposit the bills of lading in a bank, and then send! an order for sale to the ageut at the port. Whent the sale has been consummated and the money from t the commission agent received, accounts between } seer and purchaser are adjusted. The dealers for- } ward the grain to Black Sea and Baltic ports and , to German frontier-towns like Danzig, Konigsberg, etc. The number of Jews engaged in the graiv- trade is considerable, and embraces buyers, commis- sion agents, bankers, brokers, ete. To the poverty of the crops recently harvested in South Russia may be attributed the present (1902) deplorable con- dition of the Jews in that region. A considerable portion of the Jewish population is engaged in the lumber trade. The Jews buy the . standing timber from the landowners, especially i1 1 western Russia, and manufacture from it articles of various kinds for the home and foreign markets. The part taken by the Jews in fairs, which are@ distinguishing feature of trading ife in Russia, also Sere att 3 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commerce Commercial Law CS SSS a age Tee piper wg Pree ayes erves notice. Whenever a fair is held they yply the peasants who visit the fair with all kinds of household necessities, such Fairs. asiron, salt, kerosene, sugar, and dry- goods, in exchange for their farm ducts. To the development of railroads in recent ws may be attributed the decline of this method of ding. Another obstacle calculated to shut out the ys from this class of trade is the law prohibiting m from living in small towns and villages. Prac- illy no recent statistical data on Russian-Jewish nmerce are available. fhere are still some legal restrictions on Jewish nmerce in force even within the Pale of Settle- ment. A typical example is the pro- Anti- hibition against dealing in objects held Jewish sacred by Christians, such as holy Re- images and the like. Prior to the rictions. government monopoly of the sale of liquors, the Jews, while permitted to sage in that business, were hampered by various trictions. Thus, they were forbidden to sell be- ad the Pale; and within the Pale the sale was al- red only in houses owned by the sellers. [he chief obstacle which embarrasses Jews en- zed in commerce in Russia is their exclusion m the interior governments of the country. ose enrolled in the mercantile gildsare allowed to there only for the purchase of commodities: mbers of the first gild are allowed to stay six mths; those of the second gild, only two months. certain fairs temporary sojourn only is permitted. tisans domiciled in the interior governments may ilin their own manufactures. If a Jew be found ding in prohibited articles, these articles are con- satea, and the transgressor is sent to the Pale of itlement. A five years’ enrolment with the mer- ants of the first gild in governments within the le confers the privilege of enrolment in the first din the interior governments. In consequence this measure many of the wealthier Jews enroll merchants, although not actually engaged in any siness, to obtain the right of residing wherever xy please. Those engaged in the liberal pro- sions, physicians, druggists, etc., enjoy the priv- ge of settling wherever they may choose, though air right of engaging in business outside the Pale s often been contested by the administration. The iate, however, has invariably decided in their vor. For statistics regarding Jewish commerce in issia, see RussIA. BLIOGRAPHY: Orshanski, Yevrei v Rossti, St. Petersburg, 877 Subbotin, V Chertye Yevreiskoi Osyedlosti, parts i. and i, St. Petersburg, 1880 and 1890; Petlin, Opyt Opisaniya tuberni 4 Oblastet Rossii, St. Petersburg, 1893; Pamyat- wya Knizhki, published by the statistical committees; 3lioch, Sravnenie Materialnavo Byta, etc., V Chertye Osy- dlosti Yevreyev 1 Vnye Yeya, St. Petersburg, 1891. H.R, F. J. COMMERCIAL LAW: According to Jewish w persons legally capable of entering into any m of contract are legally capable of making com- xrcial contracts also; but it must not be forgotten at girls reach majority at twelve and boys at thir- *. Three kinds of incapables are barred out: the af-mute, the unsound in mind, and the minor. mdmen are excluded because their possessions as IV.—13 a Pre AS Sy i a A a a SF ST a ES A EAS well as their earnings belong totheir masters. Mar- ried women have not full legal capacity, for they lack the control of their property, and their earnings belong to their husbands. But the authorities rec- ognize the wife that “trades [buys and sells] within the house” with the permission of her husband (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat 62, 1); in fact, a woman may marry with the agreement that the hus- band shall have no interest in her property or its income (Ket. ix. 1). Yet the great majority of those women who have carried on trade and industry in Israel, often on a Jarge scale and with marked suc- cess, have done so simply in the names and as the agents of their husbands. There is an Assyrian word used in the Talmnd for “ partners ” (PEN), but in the Mishnah it is applied inainly to joint owners of Jand. In the Codes it is used both in this sense and in that of “ partners ” (Mai- monides, “Yad,” Sheluhin, passin). It will be seen under PARTNERSHIP that its formation is clogged by many doubts and fcermalities. Of joint-stock companies or trading corporations the Talmud and the Codes show little trace; there were, indeed, socicties in Palestine holding their property in common and working for the common profit—the Essenes, for instance—but neither the inclinations nor the purposes of these societies were in any way commercial, and seldom, if ever, did they go to law. Old trading companies may, perhaps, be recognized in the mutual insurance companies mentioned be- low, or in the caravan (NY) repeatedly spoken of in the Talmud; but nothing is known from that source as to their workings as ]egal entities. The commonwealth of Israel in its palmiest days troubled itself but very little about ships, and con- trolled hardly any of the ports on its Maritime coast-line. Its maritime trade fell to Law. Phenicians and Philistines. There were, however, in Mishnaic times, Jews who owned trading-vessels; and in the article ALIENATION AND Acquisition the mode of making delivery of a vessel (33°)D) so as to give title to the buyer is discussed. There is also, in a rather crude form, a law of jettison, or general average. Says a Baraita (B. K. 116b): “A ship is going along the sea; a squall arises and threatens to sink her, and they lighten ber of her burden; then they take account, accord- ing to the weight, and not according to the money value; for they should not change from the usages of ship-owners.” The reason of this rule is evi- dently that the owners of goods of small weight in proportion to value have done very little toward overloading the ship. No mention is made of other sacrifices for the common good than actual jettison ; and the rule of apportioning the loss by weight rather unjustly relieves the ship-owner from con- tribution. But other laws on shipping, now gen- erally in force, are not found. Rich Jews in the Middle Ages often owned ships and cargoes; but they of necessity settled disputes about these In the admiralty courts of the sea powers, not before their rabbis; and so no rulings on such disputes in the responsa literature, or in the Jewish Codes, are to be found. : Partner- ship. Commercial Law Community There is but little mention of bills and notes in Jewish law, though it has been shown under ALIEN- ATIon that Abraham ben David was the first to suggest a form of bond with some elements of true negotiability ; his idea, however, was not developed by later authorities. In questions of contracts with carriers and contracts of affreightment—that is, for carriage by water—the Talmud knows no special liability of the carrier; he is, like the shepherd, simply a hired keeper (sce BAILMENTS). On that sort of affreightment known as a “charter party,” where a single freighter hires the ship for the voy- age, the Talmud (B. M. 79a, b} gives some points which Maimonides repeats in “ Yad,” Sekirut, vi. 4, but with a lack of clearness which indicates that the subject treated did not come up in actual practise. A Baraita, probably of the second century (B. K. 116b), contains the principles of marine insurance: “And ship-owners have the right to contract that whosesoever vessel is lost, they will get him another; butif it be lost through his fault [| N°D)D Marine (variant x°D)2; see Rabbinowicz, “ Dik- Insurance. duke Soferim” ad loc.)| they do not re- place it; if not through his fault, they replace it; and if he has lost his vessel while devia- ting from proper course, they do not replace it.” Thisis the earliest known passage oninsurance, The Justinian Code is silent; and when the Roman republic or empire, as Livy and Suetonius say, agreed to indemnify shippers against loss in case of war or famine, it was not insurance, for there was neither premium nor mutuality. Another Baraita (B. K. 116b) approves mutual in- surance among ass-drivers (QM), with this addi- tion: “If he says, ‘Give me (the money] and I will watch,’ they do not listen to him”; for, as the Ge- mara explains, one of the considerations of the in- surance is that every driver shall stay with the cara- van and help todefend it. Notethe phrases: “ship- owners have the right,” “ass-drivers have the right,” toinsure. Generally, contractsdepending on uncer- tain future conditions were not favored in Jewish law. Of life or fire insurance the Talmud knows nothing; nor is it cognizant of bottomry and res- ‘pondentia bonds. In the Jewish law contracts for hiring service are treated more from the moral than from the com- mercial standpoint. The subject of apprentices is also unknown to Jewish law, doubtless for the reason that boys are of age at thirteen and may dis- pose of their own services. Of commercial remedies only the lien of the party in possession for work done and for advances is rec- ognized in the Talmud, and this incidentally in the discussions on the liability for faulty work of me- chanics entrusted with goods (B. K. 98-102); but there is none of the complication of the subject which has been introduced into modern law. For the discussion of other points of commercial law see ACCEPTANCE; AGENCY, LAW oF; ALTENA- TION AND ACQUISITION; BAILMENTS; BROKER; Con- TRACT; DEBTOR aN) CREDITOR; OVERREACHING; PARTNERSHIP. L. G. LN. D. COMMISSION. Sce Brokers. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 194 et ee tS Sea a COMMUNITY, ORGANIZATION oF __ Ancient and Medieval: At the beginning of the common era there were Jewish communities at Alex. andria, Rome, Salamis, Corinth, Athens, Delos, ete . at Antioch (in Pisidia), Iconium, Smyrna, Ephegys” and other well-known cities on the Mediterranean and in Asia Minor. In Palestine, which even ag < Roman province retained its essentially Jewish char. acter, the whole country formed one community with its center at Jerusalem, where the highest re. ligious, judicial, and executive authorities were located. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Ro. mans, the national life of the Jews was replace by the communal life, on which the Roman form of government was impressed. But while the Romang reserved for themselves the government of the proy- ince, they did not interfere with the internal affairs of the communities. The Jews still had acenterin the person of the patriarch (“ nasi”), who had the disposal of communal offices, and the right to levy a tax (AuRUM CoRONARIUM), which right, on the ces. sation of the patriarchate, was transferred to the emperor. At an early date the Babylonian com. munities separated from those of Palestine, and had their own head, called “resh galuta” (exilarch), whose authority was greater than that of the patriarch. The communities, whether found in pss (“ vil- lages”), Nyy (“cities”), or O°373 CS walled towns”), were composed of Wyrm 99 (“full citizens ”—regj- dents of more than twelve months’ standing), syn cawsy (“half citizens "—residents of from thirty days’ totwelve months’ standing), and “ transients” —those who remained less than twenty days in the place. At the head of the community was a gov- erning board (D°DIND, Wp ‘s) consisting of at least three members, but usually of seven, and, in later times, of twelve. If brothers happened to be: on the board, they had one vote only between them. All communal offices, even that of physician, were filled by appointment from the “court” with the concurrence of the community. The governing board, even where it had absolute authority, was. expected to observe the wishes of the community. Membership in the board, as well as other com- munal offices, was sometimes hereditary. The governing board conducted all the affairs of the community, giving special attention to the dis- tribution of funds for alms; it apportioned commu- nal and municipal taxes according to fixed rules, and decided on the acquisition and The sale of communal property. Itsuper- Governing vised the entire social and commercial Body. life of the community, fixed weights and measures, the price of food, and the rate of wages; it issued police regulations, and could even interfere in the private affairs of the 1 dividual; and, in the interest of the community, could annul rules long sanctioned by usage and. precedent. The board was responsible for the safety and the social and intellectual welfare of the com munity. The Jews of ancient Rome were governed by * “ gerusiarch,” that is, a president of the commune council (“gerusia”); an archon (1°73) oF p78); wm eniccitis Gigabyte 195 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Commercial Law Community ee i qx cpcre qq me oe an ARCHISYNAGOGUE (NDII7 WN»); etc. (Berliner, « Magazin,” i. 66; for the later communal govern- ment at Rome see Berliner, 2). ii. 81). In Sicily the following expressions were current: “dien- chelele” (chief district rabbi); “manigliori” (from yo = “keeper of the keys of the synagogue”); «presbyter ” (hazzan and shohet); “sacristano” Nad)5 celebrare missam ” (literally, “to celebrate mass”), to conduct services, etc. (Gidemann, “Ge- schichte des Erziehungswesens,” ii. 71, 281). At Cologne the president of the community was called “Judenbischof” (Jewish bishop), and was assisted by a chapter. At Speyer the archisynagogue, ap- pointed by the Catholic bishop, was at the head of the community. The governing board was subject to the “day- yan” (judge, also called “hakam,” or “zaken”), who was ordained by the nasi or exilarch, and was the final authority on ritual, civil, and political questions, He decided un- aided in money matters (without be- ing obliged to make restitution in case of an error of judgment), where otherwise three lay judges were required, Criminal cases were de- cided only by three scholars of standing (1 793), who were usually elected for life to insure impartiality and respect. They did not, in general, draw asalary, but when their entire time was devoted to the af- fairs of the community, they might receive means sufficient for a bare subsistence. They had super- vision over all religious and political affairs. Those who had been ordained at Babylon were called “rabbonim”; those ordained in Palestine were called “rabbis.” The title of “haber” (associate) was bestowed upon a person who had rendered special services to the community. He was consid- ered in many cases as arbitrator, A community consisting of more than ten members was a syna- gogal community, and was obliged to secure a syn- agogue, the judicial and outer affairs of which were in the hands of a committee elected from the mem- bers of the governing board. It was not permissible to sell or exchange the synagogue, except in cases of extreme necessity, nor could the old synagogue be pulled down before the new one was built. Af- fairs pertaining to the ritual and liturgy were in the hands of the archisynagogue. (This term when ap- plied to a woman, as in old Roman inscriptions, meant, no doubt, merely the president of a wom- an’s philanthropic society, like the “ parnesessa ”-at Rome in the sixteenth century.) The archisynagogue was especially honored, his office being for life and sometimes hereditary. In the Diaspora there were honorary titles, such as “fathers,” or “mothers, of the synagogue”; thus, the title of “mater syna- goge” or “pateressa” was conferred upon Dona Gracia Mendesia. The “rosh ha-keneset” (archi- synagogue) was subordinate to the “ hazzan ha-kene- set,” whose orders were authoritative in synagogal and in general matters; he was also executor of the punishments decreed by the court, and per- formed the functions of the Jater “shammash,” who Is otherwise called my ma mow (“the messenger of the court ”) in the Talmud and by the Geonim. The yay moby (“delegate of the congregation,” or “leader in prayer”) stood before God as repre- | The Bet Din. sentative of those who did not understand the im- port of the prayer. He, too, was an unsalaried offi- cial. All worthy persons, however, Other and especially those in straitened cir- Officials. cumstances or in trouble, were allowed to lead in prayer on days of fasting and repentance. The lesson fromthe Torah was read by the snp (“reader”) although any one called upon was to read his own section. The weekly section was translated into the Aramaic vernacular by the yorind (“dragoman”), who was entitled to com- pensation; and in order to insure the requisite mini- muin for the service, ten men, called BATLANIM, re- ceived a regular salary to attend. 3 The school, like the synagogue, was under the supervision of the community, which appointed the teachers (called variously MIpisn spon, xoadp. ap Xp? pp). The latter were paid by the parents of the children of school age, but this salary was gen- erally so small that the community contributed an addition as ApIy (“relief”). No one who was un- married, or under the age of forty, was employed as teacher. An assistant teacher (N3DI9 Ww) was paid by the community when the pupils numbered forty or more; a second assistant being added when the number reached fifty. Private teachers were also allowed. AS oO Oo ao a | Y) O le Concordance Conditions THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 206 —————S ENTE TE CE, the eminent scholar Johann Buxtorf the Elder of Basel became the concordance parexcelience. Bux- torf followed Nathan’s work closely ; he retained the latter’s remarks on the meanings of the root placed at the head of every article, but also gave these in Latin, and explained every form of the word in Latin. He materially increased the usefulness of the concord- ance by separating from one another the derivatives of a root, the nominal and the verbal forms, and by arranging them systematically, as Levita had done. Buxtorf’s concordance appeared after his death (Basel, 1682), his son Johann adding to it a con- cordance of the Aramaic portions of the Bible as well as a long preface. This concordance, which was authoritative for more than two hundred years, was reedited by John Taylor, London, 1754. Ex- tracts from it were made by Christian Ravius, Frank- fort-on-the-Oder, 1676, and by Andreas Sennertus, Wittenberg, 1658. A most useful and important addition to it was made by Christian Nolde (Noldius) in his “Concordance of the Particles,” Copenhagen, 1679; new ed., Jena, 1734. A highly valuable revision of the concordance was undertaken by Julius Fiirst. In the Latin preface to his great work (Leipsic, 1840) he described the relation of the latter to Buxtorf’s concordance in the following words: “J admit that [have used Bux- torf’s concordance as the foundation for my own work; but I may claim that L have not only revised and enlarged Buxtorf’s work, but have worked it over to such an extent that I do not hesitate to affix my name to the concordance. I have enriched Bux- torf's work with many additions; adding, for in- stance, Wolf Heidenheim’s manuscript notes con- tained in his copy of the book, and articles that Buxtorf had omitted, as on the verb mn and the divine name YuwuH. All these additions are in ac- cordance with the advances in philology, and espe- cially in etymology; and in some cases I have fol- lowed an entirely new arrangement, founded upon a careful examination of the origin and the form of the words.” First added new material, and made some minor changes, especially by Buxtorf’s. Julius substituting Arabic numbers for the Fiirst’s. quotations instead of the Hebrew let- ters. The headings of the articles are entirely new, having been transformed into interest- ing lexicographical articles in which the etymology and meaning of the root are explained by the aid of comparative philology. Unfortunately, however, Fiirst goes too far in ap- plying his theory of the primitive roots of the Sem- itic languages and of the original relationship of the latter with the Indo-Germanic languages. This theory had been propounded by Fiirst’s pupil, Franz Delitzsch, in his work “ Jesurun” (Grimma, 1838), which was designated as “Prolegomena to First’s Concordance of the Old Testament.” Fiirst’s peculiar views on certain Hebrew roots affected un- fortunately the arrangement of the concordance, as he often places a word in a connection in which it would not be sought according to the commonly accepted view; as, for instance, D4 (“blood ”) under the root DIS (“man”). The work has a number of interesting appendices, including: an etymologic index to the concordance; an alphabetical list of 2,668 Biblical proper names, with their etymologies, but without reference to the passages; a list of about 600 Phenicio-Punic proper names; an index of Ara. maic and Neo-Hebrew words compared in the heaq- ings to the articles; an etymological table of Hebrew and Aramaic particles; a systematic view of the noun forms; “Propylea Masore,” a view of the most important topics of the Masorah; a synopsig of the history of the Hebrew Janguage, written jp Hebrew; and a comparative glossary of IIebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic words. In the “Lit. teraturblatt” of the periodical “ Der Orient,” edited by Fiirst, additions and revisions to the concordance repeatedly appeared in the years following 1840, B. Bir issued a new edition of Buxtorf’s concord- ance—in quarto instead of in folio—making use in part of First’s work (Stettin, 1862, ef seg.). An English version by B. Davidson appeared in London in 1876. An entirely new revision of the concordance was undertaken a few yearsago by Solomon Mandelkern, He had found, after a thorough examination of the entire material, that “in the concordances of First. and Bar about 5,000 omissions and grammatical er- rors, a8 well as countless misquotations and wrong references, must be rectified.” Mandelkern’s new concordance appeared in Leipsic in 1896. To the material of the preceding concordances is added an appendix, containing all proper names, as well as, in a separate division, a list of the most important particles. Mandelkern corrected the errors of the previous concordances and filled in the omissions. He arranged the passages according to the sequence of the Biblical books obtaining in the Hebrew Bible, instead of the sequence of the Vulgate hitherto used. Especially noteworthy is the care that Mandelkern displays in regard to the exact and Solomon logical completeness of the Biblical Mandel- passages used to illustrate each word. kern’s. The headings of the articles furnish the lexicographical explanations of the roots and their derivatives, while due attention is paid to the latest philological discoveries and text- ual criticism. Mention must also be made of the practical arrangement of this latest concordance. Mandelkern has issued it in a smaller edition (Leip- sic, 1900), which contains all the material of the larger edition, but only a list of the passages where the respective word-forms are found, without any quotation. That Mandelkern’s concordance itself contains numerous errors and omissions has become evident since its appearance, especially from the reviews in Stade’s “Zeitschrift” and in the “Monatsschrift.” The editor of the latter, M. Brann, mentions in this connection a most complete and careful concordance to the particles, and one to the proper names (pre- served in manuscript in Breslau), made by Moritz Piorkowsky, a teacher in Silesia in the first half of the nineteenth century (“Monatsschrift,” xlii. 529 et seg.). Two other concordances of Biblical proper names may .be mentioned: one by Gideon Brecher, Frank fort-on-the-Main, 1876; the other by Schusslo- vicz, Wilna, 1878. | Among concordances to the Septuagint are: the 207 earlier ones of Conrad Kircher (Frank fort-on-the- Main, 1607) and of Abraham Tromm (Trommius) (Amsterdam, 1718); and the large concordance by E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath (Oxford, 1892-97), which covers also the other Greek Bible translations and the Apocryphal writings, and is compiled with extraordinary care. A supplement to this work (Oxford, 1900) deals with the proper names. Se Ta ON SOR eT dantiarum Biblicarum, Leipsic, i660. A detailed list of con- cordances is given at the beginning of First’s introduction. x, Ww. B. __— Talmudical: In 1899 the library of the « Landesrabbinerschult” of Budapest came into pos- session of a manuscript in two folio volumes, con- taining the first half of a concordance to the Baby- Jonian Talmud. The first volume (from X to 4) has 937 pages with 1.890 columns; the second (from } to’), 169 pages with 1,347 columns. The writing ig exceedingly elegant and small (cursive), and shows equal care from beginning to end. Each column contains about 80 lines, so that nearly 260,- 000 Talmudic passages are recorded. The letter & takes up 648 columns; 42, 504; 3, 241; “4, 260; i, 998: 4,9; ft, 184; n, 507; w, 166; and’, 491. The Talmudic passages follow in the sequence of the Talniudic treatises, and are arranged according to roots and words, like the Biblical passages in Isaac Nathan’s concordance, without regard to their gram- matical form. The passage is given in such a way that it always forms a complete sentence clear in meaning. An index of all the articles, with a short explanation of the words, is given at the beginning of each volume. The work has the significant title “ Asaf ha-Mazkir” (after IJ Kings xviii. 18, 37; Isa. xxxvi. 3, 22), meaning a collection of words serving to aid the memory. The author of the work, Moses Rigotz (Rigécz), or Moses Sande (¢.e., Szant6), who lived toward the end of the eighteenth century and at the beginning of the nineteenthin Balassa-Gyarmat, the chief town of the county of Nograd, Hungary, was notary of the Jewish community in the county, and was held in high esteem by the nobility and the authorities. He was a pupil of the Moravian chief rabbi R. Gerson Politz, with whose successor, R. Mordecai Benet, he corresponded in regard to the Talmudic concordance he had undertaken. Other Talmudic authorities also encouraged him to carry out his plan; for instance, R. Wolf Boskowitz; R. Meir Eisenstadt (a pupil of R. Moses Sofer), rabbi at Balassa-Gyarmat; and R. Moses Minz of Alt-Ofen. Notwithstanding the approbation (“haskamah ”) of these authorities, neither the author himself nor (after his death) his son succeeded in having the work published ; and it seems to have remained unfinished. The two volumes remained in the possession of the author’s family, until the last owner, Joseph Weiss, presented them to the above-mentioned library. The work and the author were first noticed by W. Bacher in the Hungarian weekly “A Jévé,” Jan. 22, 1897, pp. 6-8 (see extract in Brody’s “Zeit. fiir Hebr. Bibl.” 1898, ifi. 63). E, C. CONCUBINAGE. Sce PILEGESH. W. B. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Concordance. Conditions CONDITIONS: Qualifications or limitations. annexed to an agreement by which it may be con- tinued, altered, or rendered of no effect upon the performance or non-performance of something, or the happening or non-happening of an uncertain event. If the event must happen before the agree- ment begins to operate, the qualification is called a “condition precedent”; if afterward, a “condition subsequent.” A condition may be attached to any contract or legal act. The various conditions known to Roman and common law may be divided as follows: (1). positive, z.e., the happening of some event which may or may not happen; (2) negative, z.e., the non- happening of such an event; (8) authoritative, 7.e., dependent on the power of the party in whose favor: the obligation is contracted; (4) dependent on the party binding himself with the obligation; (5) casual, 2.e., dependent on an accident, or on the act of per- sons in no way controlled by either of the parties to the contract; (6) mutual, ¢.¢., dependent on the acts. of both parties; (7) mixed, z.e., dependent on the act of one of the parties and a third person. The- condition may be either expressed or implied, and it may be lawful or unlawful. The law of conditions is well developed in the Jewish law-books. All these classes of conditions. were known to the Jewish law. Nevertheless the classification of the subject-matter must differ some- what from that of the other systems of law. Express conditions are created by the use of one: of three formulas: “im” (if); “me‘akshaw im” (from now on, if); and “‘al menat” (on condition that). The condition “if” differs materially from. the other two. The latter are simpler, and not sub- ject to the same rules that must be observed in order to create a valid condition with the form “if.” The first consideration refers, therefore, to the condition “if.” There are four principal rules to be observed in the creation of a condition with the word “if.” (1) The condition must be “double” (“tenai ka- ful”); that is, it must be expressed in a positive as. well as a negative form. R. Meir derived this rule from Num. xxxii. 29, 80: “And Moses said to them, ‘If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. © will pass with you over Jordan, . . . then ye shall give them the land of Gilead fora pos- session: but if they will not pass over: with you, ... they shall have pos- sessions among you in the land of Canaan ’” (see Mishnah Kid. iii. 4). The following example is given by Maimonides (“ Yad,” Ishut, vi. 3): “If a man says to a woman, ‘If thou givest me two hundred zuzim thou art betrothed to me by this denarius [coin], but if thou dost not give them to me thou art not betrothed ’; and after having ex- pressed this condition he gives her the denarius, the- condition is a valid one, and she is ‘betrothed on condition.’ If thereafter she gives him the two hundred zuzim she is betrothed absolutely; and if’ she does not give them to him, she is not betrothed.” Some of the later geonim ruled that conditions need. not be “doubled” except in cases of conditions an- nexed to betrothal or divorce, and that in ordinary contracts referring to money matters this form of expressing the condition doubly is unnecessary. Condition €¢ If.” Conditions Conegliano THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 208 SE a ae a OE ea ae ET Gn ee ew ne ge ae a ee ee eS Se Pe ee Maimonides dissents from this (Ishut, vi. 14), and his opinion is the adopted Jaw. If the condition is not properly expressed in its double form it is void, and the contract is unaffected by it. Thus, if, in the case above, the man had merely said, “If thou givest me two hundred zuzim thou art betrothed to me by this denarius,” and had omitted the clause, “if thou dost not give them to me thou art not be- trothed ”; and had then given her the coin, the con- dition would have been void, and she would have been betrothed to him absolutely (Ishut, vi. 5). (2) The double condition must be so expressed that (ie positive form precedes the negative. This is shown in the above example. If the man had put the negative form first, thus: “If thou dost not give me tne two hundred zuzim thou are not be- trotued, but if thou givest them to me thou art be- trothed wi.h this denarius,” and if he then gave her the coin, she would have been betrothed without condition (shut, vi. 1; Git. 75b). (8) The condition must precede the act, or the conclusion of the contract. Maimonides illustrates it thus. “If the man says to the woman, ‘ Thou art betrothed to me by this coin,’ and gives her the coin, and then expresses the condition, saying, ‘If thou wilt give me two hundred zuzim thou art be- trothed: but if not, thou art not betrothed,’ the condition is void, because the legal Qualifica- act of betrothal was complete before tions. the condition was expressed” (Ishut, vi. 4). In taking the view that the act itself may not precede the expression of the con- dition, Maimonides follows the literal meaning of the Mistinah (B. M. vii. 11): “And every condition which is preceded by the act is void.” Otber au- thorities go even further, and maintain that the sub- stance of the contract may not even be expressed before the condition is expressed, or else the condi- tion is void (Maggid Mishneh to “ Yad,” Ishut, _ vi 4). Thus the contract and the condition in the following case are well expressed: “If you do this I will give you that; but if you do not do this I will not give you that.” But if a party says, “I will give you this if you do that,” the condition is void. (4) The condition must be one possible of fulfil- ment. If the condition of the contract is that the party shall climb into heaven, or walk through the sea, or swallow a reed a hundred yards long, the condition is void, and the contract is complete with- out condition (B. M. 94a). The condition created by the words “me‘akshaw im” (from now on, if) differs in many important re- spects from the condition “if.” The latter is, in fact, @ condition precedent, and the former a quasi condi- tion subsequent. Where the condition is that acer- tain thing shall bedone “if” something else is done, the condition mnst be fulfilled before the contract to do the thing can be enforced; whereas in a con- dition subsequent, the contract is im- Condition mediately effective, but may be ended ‘from by the performance or non-perform- now on, if.” ance of the condition at some future time. In the Jewish law this is ac- complished by use of the werds “from now on, if.” The distinction between these two cases is thus ex- pressed by Maimonides (Ishut, vi. 15, 16): “Jf one betroths a woman ‘on condition,’ she is betrotheg from the moment the condition is fulfilled, and not from the time of the actual ceremony of betrotha) For example, if he says to a woman, ‘If I give thee two hundred zuzim during this year thou art be. trothed to me by this denarius, and if I do not give them to thee thou art not betrothed,’ and gives hey the denarius in the month of Nisan, and the two hundred zuzim in the month of Elul, she ig pe. trothed from Elul, Therefore if another betrothg her before the condition imposed by the first map is fulfilled, she is betrothed to the second.” Anq this is also the law in cases of divorce and of money matters. The divorce is absolute or the sale or gift perfected at the time when the condition is fulfilled, All this is true only if, in imposing the condition he did notsay “from nowon.” If, however, he said. “Thou art betrothed unto me by this denarius from now on if I give thee two hundred zuzim,” and he eventually gives her the two hundred zuzim, she jg betrothed from the time of the ceremony of be. trotnal, even though the condition was not fulfilled until after some time. Therefore if a second man betroths her before the fulfilment of the condition, her betrothal to the latter is void. And this is algo the law in cases of divorce and of money matters (Kid. 60a; Git. 74a). Three of the above four rules that must be ob- served in creating conditions with the word “if” need not be observed when the words “from now on, if” are used. The only one in force in this cage is that the condition must not be impossible of fulfilment (Ishut, vi. 17). But the Shulhan ‘ Aruk states that there is a difference of opinion on this point among the authorities, some holding that even when the form “from now on, if” is used, all the rules must be observed (Eben ha-‘Ezer, 38, 3). The form “‘al menat” (on condition that) is in all respects similar, in its legal effect, to the form “from now on, if” (Ishut, vi. 17; Git. 74a). Conditions may be implied from the nature of the contract and from its terms. Thusif a contract is reduced to writing and contains a date, the question as to when it is to go into effect is determined thereby (Ket. 2b). The date in the contract is equivalent to the use of the form “me- ‘akshaw.” If a contract is entered into for a specific reason, as where one sells a piece of ground because he urgently needs the money, and the reason fails, as when the need for the sum of money is no longer pressing, the contract may be rescinded, because it is an implied condition of the contract that it is to be considered null and void if the reason that caused its consummation no longer exists (20. 97a). It is necessary, however, that this reason be clearly stated at the time the contract is made, or otherwise the implied condition is not pre- sumed to exist, for the maxim of the law is that “words which are in the heart are no words” (Kid. 49b). This rule applies only to contracts concern: ing real estate. for in contracts concerning movable property the conditions, if any, must be expressed according to the rules of law governing the making of conditions (gloss to Hoshen Mishpat, 207, 3). There are some acts which are subject to conditions, Condition éé on condition that.” 209 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conditions Conegliano eee pecause itis presumed that all men are familiar with them, They need not be expressed in any way; they are absolutely presumptions of law. Thus where a man on his sick-bed transfers his entire estate to another, the law presumes that it was done in contemplation of death. The condition is implied that if he dies it shall be a valid transfer, but if he recovers it shall he void. It is not to be presumed that a man would have given away his entire estate if he expected to recover from his illness (Mishnah B. B. ix. 6; seealso Hoshen Mishpat, 246, 1; “ Yad,” Zekiyah, vi. 1). Unlawful conditions are void. Such are condi- tiops that are contrary to the precepts of the law (Mak. 3b). For instance, if aman marrics a woman on condition that he shall not live with her as her pusband, such a condition is absolutely void. But if he stipulates that he shall not provide her with food and clothing, his condition is a Unlawful valid one (Kben ha-‘Ezer, 88,5). The Conditions. distinction between the two cases is based on the fact that the cohabitation of husband and wife is of the very essence of mar- riage, whereas the questions of food and clothing are financial considerations, in regard to which con- ditions may be made even though they are opposed to the law, provided they are made as waivers of rights given by the law, and are not stated in such a manner as to imply that the parties do not recog- nize the law. There can, however, be no diminu- tion of the amount of the Ketubah, or of the hus- band’s rights of Inheritance. These are excepted, even though they are mere matters of money (Ishut, xii, 6; see also “Yad,” Mekirah, xiii. 8; Hoshen Mishpat, 67, 9; 227, 21). There is another class of exceptions to unlawful conditions. Where the condition is that the party shall do something contrary to law, it is not ipso facto void, because the party need not fulfilit. For example, if the condition is that the party shall eat forbidden food, and the condition is fulfilled, the contract is valid, even though a breach of the di- etary law has been occasioned thereby (Ishut, vi. 8). but this fulfilment of such conditions must be in the power of the party alone. If the condition is a mixed one—that is, if it requires the act of the party and a third person—it is void, because it is presumed that the third person will not be a party to a breach of the law (Git. 84a, b; Ishut, vi. 11). Conditions in cases of delivery of bills of divorce present a specially interesting phase of the subject. Where a husband was about to go abroad, er to sea, or with a caravan through the desert, Conditions it was customary for him to give his of Divorce. wife a bill of divorce “on condition.” The condition annexed was that if he did not return within a certain time, the divorce should be absolute; but that if he did return within such time, the bill of divorce should be null and void (Mishnah Git. vii. 8). The purpose of this proceed- Ing was to prevent the wife from becoming an ‘AGUNAH. The husband could make his own death the con- dition upon which the divorce became absolute (7b. Vil. 3); the happening of this event worked retroact- ively, and during the interval between the deliv- IV.—14 ery of the GET and the death of the husband the wife was, according to R. Judah, considered a mar- ried woman in every respect; but, according to R. Jose, one whose divorce was doubtful (25, vii. 4). This peculiar use of the get “on condition” seems to have arisen out of the desire of the husband to save his wife from the levirate marriage (Ned. 27a, Rashi). According to the Law the death of the hus- band without issue made his wife ipso facto the bride of his brother, whose duty it was to marry her or re- lease her through the ceremony of “halizah” (Deut. xxv. 5-10). The divorced woman was, of course, not subject to this law. So that when the husband gave his wife a bill of divorce on condition that it should become absolute at his death, she remained his wife as long as he lived, but at the moment of his death she was not his widow, but a divorced woman (Mishnah Git. vii. 3). The general rules of conditions are set forth in de- tail in the Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 88, 2-3; for betrothal on condition, see Eben ha-‘Ezer, 38, 39, 40; for divorce on condition, see Eben ha-‘Ezer, 143-148. See also Hoshen Mishpat, 207; Ishut, vi. ; and ASMAKTA. BIBLIOGRAPHY: mudischem Rechte (from the Annual Report), pp. 16-28, Budapest, 1893; Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, pp. 165-170, Philadelphia, 1896. D. W. A. J, SK. CONDOM (1731p or j173\p): County seat in the department of Gers, France. Jews were found there at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In order to pass through this locality, they were heavily taxed. A Jewess, not enceinte, had to pay eight deniers Tours currency; if enceinte, she had to pay double that amount, Jn 1320, during the persecutions of the Pastoureaux, all the Jews of Con- dom were massacred. Bloch, Der Vertrag nach Mosaisch-Tal- BIBLIOGRAPHY: Kayserling, Gesch. der Juden in Navarra, p. 39; Joseph Ha-Kohen, ‘Eimek ha-Baka, p. 72; Rev. Etudes Juives, xvi. 219; Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. 552. G. S. K. CONDUITS. Sce AQUEDUCTS IN PALESTINE. CONEGLIANO (also known as Conian): A prominent Jewish family of northern Italy. The spelling “Conian,” according to Kaufmann, is a misreading of the Hebrew INDI. It takes its name from the town of Conegtiano, which at one time be. longed to the republic of Venice. A branch of the family flourished in Ceneda. Its members were dis- tinguished by their learning. The family seems to have originated in Asti, where the name is first met with in the sixteenth century. The best-known members are: Israel Conegliano: Italian physician and states- man; born at Padua in the middle of the seven- teenth century; died in Constantinople in the sec- ond decade of the eighteenth century. After obtaining his diploma Israel Conegliano practised medicine in Venice for two years, and then went to Constantinople. Despite the state of an- archy which reigned at Constantinople at that time, he won the favor and respect of the sultan, and also of his grand vizier Kara Mustapha. Giovanni Moro- sini, the ambassador of Venice, and his successor, Giambattista Donato, realizing. the influence the Conegliano Conferences THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 210 SS ee young Jewish physician had obtained over the ru- ling powers, asked their government to attach him to the legation. The matter was, however, left in abeyance until 1681, when Mustapha sent Cone- gliano to Venice to consult other eminent physicians about the illness of the sultan’s son-in-law. On Oct. 10, 1682, Conegliano was appointed phy- sician extraordinary to the Venetian embassy, with an allowance of one hundred zecchinos (about $475), a quarter more than had ever been previously paid, and a further payment of forty zecchinos for per- sonal expenses. Conegliano arrived at Constanti- nople in December of 1682. Shortly after his arrival] the relations between Tur- key and Venice became strained, because of a mas- sacre of Turks by the Morlaks of Dalmatia, then under the suzerainty of Venice. The Porte de- manded 175,000 reals for the sultan, and 25,000 each for Mustapha and Husain Aga. Donato, the ambas- sador, went back to Venice to conduct the negotia- tions, and Conegliano was left as the unofficial rep- resentative of Venice. Conegliano, however, was soon deprived of his most powerful protector. Mustapha had been in supreme command of the Turkish forces that had threatened Vienna. Driven off by John Sobieski of Poland, Mustapha was murdered Dec. 25, 1688, by order of Mohammed [V. In the alliance made by Poland with Venice it became the duty of Cone- gliano to keep his government posted on the move- ments of the common enemy, Turkey. This he did, though at the imminent risk of his life, sending the reports through his brother Solomon, then a prac- tising physician in Venice. On the deathof his first wife in 1687, Conegliano went to Venice in order to superintend the education of his two boys. In 1690 he returned to Constantinople, and soon gained greater influence than before. A change of sultans and the secret aid of France had induced the Turks to renew a warfare, which was stopped only by the approach of winter. Conegliano unearthed a plot to burn the Venetian fleet, just in time to pre- vent its execution. So active was he in the service of his country that, despite his popularity, his house was attacked, and he was saved only by the prompt and energetic action of the French ambassador, M. de Castagnéres. In 1698, however, France withdrew her protection from Venetian subjects, and Conegliano sought in vain to enlist the good services of Holland. In May of this year five poor Jews were arrested on fictitious charges of espionage. Conegliano was able to procure their release; but he had aroused antagonism, and he was secretly advised by Ali Pa- sha, the grand vizier, to flee the city. This he refused to do, and a contemplated order to arrest all Vene- tians and confiscate their property was stayed for two months. He had, during all this period, been an ardent advocate of peace. In June, 1694, he returned to Venice, leaving his brother Leo and his friend Husain Aga in Constan- tinople to work for a cessation of hostilities. On arriving in Venice, Conegliano learned that the Sen- ate had, on June 12, 1693, exempted him and his two brothers from wearing the yellow hat, and had made them citizens of the republic. In February, 1696, the Turks under Mustapha II. invaded Hungary, but were crushed at Zenta by Eugene of Savoy, Peace, however, was not declared until 1698. On Aug. 23 of that year Conegliano was appointed an ex officio member of the peace congress, with Ruz. zini, the Venetian ambassador to Constantinople, ag the active member. The congress met at Carlovitz, near Belgrade, but bickerings and differences led to a deadlock. Matters were approaching an open rupture, when at last the jealousy of Lord William Paget and of Ruzzini abated, and Conegliano wag permitted for the first time to use his influence with the Turkish commissioners. His efforts were crowned with success, and on Jan. 26, 1699, the peace protocol was signed. Conegiiano returned to Venice and was further honored by his government by receiving permission to travel at will, without the special iicense usually required of the Jews. In 1700 Conegliano went again to Constantinople, where he dicd. BIBLIOGRAPHY ; David Kaufmann, Dr. Israel phigh ac s. Israel Conegliano: Preacher at the Ashkenazic synagogue of Padua; born there at the end of the eighteenth century; died March, 1824. He was the pupil of Azariel Alatino, and the teacher of Joseph Almanzi, who bewailed his death in a special pub- lication, “Me‘il Kin’ah.” Israel wrote a work enti- tled “Sefer Derashot,” still extant in manuscript in Almanzi’s collection. M.S. Ghirondi published a poem in his honor in “ Bikkure ha-‘Ittim,” vi. 57. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ghirondi, Toledot Gedole Yisrael, p. 204; To- bias Cohn, Ma‘aseh Tobiah, Introduction; Mortara, Indice Alfabetico, p. 16; First, Bibl. Jud. i. 186, ii. 201; David Kauf- mann, Dr. Israel Conegliano, pp. 6 et seq. LB . R. Joseph ben Israel Conegliano: Physician, and probably son of the preceding; lived at Padua at the end of the eighteenth century. Je was the author, in conjunction with his brother Naphtuli, of a poem entitled “Zemer ie-Se‘udat Purim” (Song for the Meal of Purim), published at Mantua. Judah Conegliano: Talmudist; rabbi in Acqui at the end of the sixteenth century and the begin- ning of the seventeenth. He was among the rabbis whose interdiction of the bath of Reggio provoked so much discussion. Judah Saltaro, in his work “Mikweh Yisrael,” Venice, 1607, invokes Cone- gliano’s authority on a ritual question. Naphtali ben Israel Conegliano: Hebraist; brother of Joseph, and joint author with him of the poem “ Zemer le-Se‘udat Purim.” J. Br. Solomon Conegliano: Venetian physician; born about 1642; died in 1719. Conegliano was the elder brother of Israel Conegiiano, and, like him, served the Venetian republic with great credit. He was educated at Padua, where he attended the uni- versity, obtaining the degrees of M.D. and Ph.D. Jan. 22, 1660. He returned to Venice shortly after- ward, and soon developed remarkable talent as @ teacher of medicine. Young Jews from all parts of Europe sought his house, to attend the prepara- tory school] which he had established there. Tobias Cohn, who, in his encyclopedia entitled “Ma‘aseh Tobiy yah,” represents Solomon as one of the greatest physicians and philosophers of his time, was one of 211 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conegliano Conferences ee ee AS a ap ee ee ee his pupils. A poem by him was prefixed to Cohn’s encyclopedia. So eminent were his qualifications, poth as teacher and as practitioner, that the gov- ernment permitted him to exercise the privileges of a citizen of the republic. Conegliano’s services to Venice and the honors conferred upon him and on his brother by the republic are given in detail in the piography of Israel Conegliano. BIBLIOGRAPHY : David Kaufmann, Dr. Israel Conegliano, 1895, G. E. Ms. CONEGLIANO, IMMANUEL. See Ponre, LorRENzo Da. - CONEY: A small herbivorous animal (Hyraz Syriacus or Hyrax Daman) mentioned in the Bible. “Coney ” is the traditional rendering of the Hebrew “shafan” (JY), which occurs four times in the O. T. (Lev. xi.5; Deut. xiv. 7; Ps. civ. 18; Prov. xxx. 96). Inthe first two places the “shafan ” is classified among the unclean animals, along with the hare, “because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof” (Lev. xi., R. V. 5). In the Book of Proverbs the shefannim are described as one of the “four things which are little upon the earth,” but “are ex- ceedingly wise.” They “are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks” (Prov. xxx. 24, 26). The rendering “coney ” is principally supported by the Jewish interpreters and lexicographers of the Middle Ages. None of tie ancient versions, however, lend it support in more than one out of the four passages—for instance, the Septuagint in Psalms, and the Vulgate in Proverbs (see Bochart, “Hierozoicon,” pp. 1002-1008). Besides, this inter- pretation is inadmissible for one if for no other rea- son: the “coney” is a European animal, unknown to the Israelites; and it does not live in the rocks. Bochart, who refuted the Jewish opinion, tried to demonstrate that the shafan, which, he says, the Sep- tuagint generally and rightly translates yocpoypis- Awoc, and which St. Jerome rightly identities with the apxrouv¢, can not be anything else than the jer- boa. His arguments are: (1) the authority of the Copto-Arabie lexicon, the “Scala Magna” of Kircher (“Lingua Atgyptiaca Restituta,” p. 165); (2) the analogy between the habits of the two ani- mals (2d. p. 1016). Since then, however, travelers who have made on the spot a thorough study of the habits of the jerboa have pronounced that identifi- cation impossible (see Bruce, “Voyage,” v. 145, Paris, 1791). Shaw (“Travels,” p. 386) was the first to propose to identify the shafan with an animal called “ ghanam Isra‘il” (Israel’s lamb). This iden- tification found a warm supporter in Bruce (.¢. p. 165), who further identifies it with the “ashoko” of the Abyssinians. The Arabs call this animal “wabr” also, which, it may be added by way of con- firmation, is the word used by the Arabic versions to render “shafan” in the first two passages, Lev. xi. Sand Deut. xiv. 7. Finally, Fresnel (“Journal Asiatique,” 3d series, v. 514) says that in the Ehkili dialect (Sabean) the wabr is called “thufun,” from the root “thafan,” Hebr. “shafan.” The shafan, it is said, does not chew the cud. But here, as in many other cases, Scripture speaks according to appearances. Bruce, who studied care- fally the habits of this animal, says that it cer- tainly chews the cud (Z.c. v. 168), “The shafan,” says Shaw, “is a harmless creature of the same size and quality with the rabbit, having the like incur- vating posture and disposition of the fove teeth. But it is of a browner color, with smaller eyes and & head more pointed. . . . The usual refuge of it isin the holes and clefts of the rocks” (/.c. p. 876). Like the ants they live in large numbers, and display considerable wisdom in guarding tliemselves against. surprises from their enemies. Their habitat extends from Abyssinia into Arabia, Palestine, and Syria. In Abyssinia both Christians and Mohammedans abstain from their flesh: but the Arabs of Arabia Petrea, and also the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon, consider it a great relish. For the place of the coney in the totemistic theories, see ToOTEMISM. E. G. H. CONFERENCES, RABBINICAL: Assem- blies of rabbis to determine conimmon courses of ac- tion or common principles of faith. Rabbinical con- ferences are a late phenomenon in the history of Judaism, dating, as they do, only from the fourth decade of the nineteenth century. There had been occasional gatherings of Jews during earlier cen- turies to consider important issues touching the life aud religious practise of the people; but the delib- erations at these gatherings, or synods, as they are usually called, were not participated in exclusively by the rabbis (See CONSISTORIES; Synops, RABBIN- ICAL). The changed conditions in the life of the Jews in the early years of the nineteenth century, owing to the emancipation from medieval legislation and the accompanying necessity of reconciling the religious beliefs and practises with the demands of the new era upon which they had entered, were the moving causes for the convening of the first rabbinical con- ference. There have been five notable conferences: viz., at Brunswick, June 12-19, 1844; at Frankfort- on-the-Main, July 15-28, 1845; at Breslau, July 13- 24, 1846; at Philadelphia, Pa., Nov. 8-6, 1869; and at Pittsburg, Pa., Nov. 16-18, 1885. Besides these, mention may be made of the following: the Jewish Ministers’ Association, an organization of rabbis stationed in the eastern cities of the United States, which metannually from 1885 to 1890; Early Con- the Conference of Southern Rabbis of ferences. the United States, which existed from April 14, 1885, to Nov. 20, 1887, when it held its final mecting; and the Rabbinical Literary Association, which was organized at Detroit, Mich., July 18, 1880, and existed only two years. After the rabbinical conference at Philadelphia three meet- ings were held in 1871 at Cleveland, New York, and Cincinnati respectively. The so-called Cleveland conference (Oct. 17-20, 1855) was not strictly a rab- binical conference, since there were also a few lay delegates present. The same was the case at the synods of Leipsic (June 29-July 4, 1869) and Augs- burg (July 11-17, 1871). Hence, these three meet- ings do not come properly within the scope of this article. Thesame may be said of the so-called French Sanhedrin, that met in 1807 at the call of Napoleon, and all previous synods. In Germany and Hungary, local conferences of rabbisare still held from time to If. I. Conterences THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 212 Ce a a a ee a ea aaa ae aaa aaa aaa aac aaa aaa Lata time. The Central Conference of American Rab- bis, organized in 1889, meets in annual session. In point of fact, however, the first purely rabbin- ical conference took place at Wiesbaden in 1837, in answer toa call issued by Abraham Geiger. Ina letter to a colleague, dated May of that year, Geiger had written as follows in reference to the purpose of the proposed meeting: “It is not intended to create a new Judaism, nor yet to assume the author- ity of a synod: it shall merely give honest men thie opportunity to discuss the proper methods of con- ducting their office, and shall be the beginning of the restoration of the almost vanished spirit of Judaism ” (“ Wiss. Zeit. Jiid. Theol.” iii. 321). This conference was attended by Rabbis Geiger of Wies- baden, Aub of Bayreuth, Bloch of Buchau, Gutt- mann of Redwitz, Herxheimer of Bernburg, Kohn of Hohenems, Maier of Stuttgart, Stein of Burgkun- stadt, Wagner of Mannheim, Wassermann of Mihr- ingen, and Wechsler of Oldenburg. Friedliinder of Brilon, Griinebaum of Landau, and Hess of EHisenach arrived too late. These men discussed various ques- tions, but did not enunciate any important deci- sions. The mere fact, however, that they had gath- ered for such discussion was significant. A com- mittee was appointed to prepare a manual for do- mestic devotion in accordance with the needs of the time. It was resolved to discuss in the pages of Geiger’s “ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift ftir Ji- dische Theologie” the practical questions which were agitating the Jewish communities at that time. The epoch-making conferences have been the tive mentioned by name above; they were respectively attended by most of the prominent Reform rabbis of the time in Germany and America; and their de- liberations and decisions form an important chapter in the development of the faith. During the opening years of the fifth decade of the nineteenth century the Jewish communities of Germany were stirred by religious agitation as never before; the issue between the traditionalists and the reformers was acute; the bitter opposition of Tiktin, rabbi of Breslau, to the appointment of Geiger, the most prominent reformer in Germany, Contro- had induced the officers of the congre- versies gation toaddress the rabbis of Europe Regarding for opinions on the subject; and these Reform. opinions were published in two volumes entitled “Ueber die Vertriglichkeit der Freien Forschung mit dem Rabbineramte.” The publication in 1842 of the new prayer-book of the Hamburg Temple (Reform) congregation had called forth from Isaac Bernays, the Orthodox leader, a dec- laration anathematizing the book and the reformers. These latter, in their defense, published a number of opinions of rabbis who sanctioned the reforms intro- duced into the prayer-book; these rabbis were, be- sides the two preachers of the congregation, Salomon and Frankfurter, the following: L. Auerbach, Fried- linder, Geiger, Guttmann, Holdheim, Kohn, Maier, Maunbeimer, Philippson, and Stein. The volume was entitled “Theologische Gutachten iiber das Gebet- buch nach dem Gebrauche des Neuen Israelitischen Tempelvereins in Hamburg ” (Hamburg, 1842). The action of a society of Jews in Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1848, condemning circumcision, and resolving to abolish the rite in the future so far as their children were concerned, had induced Solomon Trier, the chief of the Orthodox of that city, to address his colleagueg for opinions on the absolute requirement of circum. cision as an essential of Jewish practise. These opinions, also, were published in a volume entitleq “Gutachten tiber die Beschneidung” (Frankfort, 1814). The time was ripe for the organization of a soci. ety of rabbis at whose meetings all these vexed questions could be discussed, and decisions reached for the guidance of the troubled communities. Lud- wig Philippson, editor of the “ Allg. Zeit. des Ju. denthums,” recognized this need of the hour, ag Geiger had done before him; and he issued a call in the columns of his journal (Jan. 15, 1844, p. 27) for a rabbinical conference. In this call he wrote: * Let us speak plainly. The issue is no longer the permissj. bility or non-permissibility of this or that synagogal institution, of this or that alleviation for civil or social] life: the issue before us is concerned with the entire content of our religion, Which we must present and strengthen in its purity in order to rescue it from deadening rigidity on the one hand and from benumb- ing unfaith on the other. Judaism is losing influence day by day, and every layman is asking us, ° What are you doing?’ The objects of the conference shall be: (J) to bring the rabbis into closer relations and acquaintanceship;: (2) to promote unanimity in the conduct of the rabbinical office; (3) to further the founding of communal institutions; and (4) to deliberate upon all Jewish affairs.” A number of rabbis declared themselves in sym- pathy with this call, and it resulted in the conve. ning of the Brunswick conference of 1844. The Brunswick Conference (June 12-19, 1844); This was attended by the following rabbis: A. Adler of Worms; 8. AdJerof Alzey ; Ben Israel of Coblenz: Bodenheimer of Hildesheim; Adler cf Minden; Formstecher of Offenbach ; Frankfurter of Hamburg: Geiger of Breslau; Gold- man of Kurhessen ; Heidenheim of Sondershausen; Herzfeld of Brunswick ; Herxheimer of Bernburg; Hess of Weimar; Hirsth of Luxemburg; Hoffmann of Meiningen; Holdheim of Meck- lenburg-Schwerin; Jolowiecz of Marienwerder; J. Kahn of Treves; Klein of Pomerania; Maier of Stuttgart, who was president of the conference; Philippson of Magdeburg ; Salo- mon of Hamburg ; Schott of Randegg: Sobernheim of Bingen. The purpose of the conference was declared to be “to consider the ways and means for the preser- vation of Judaism, and the awakening of the relig- ious spirit.” The resolutions passed by the conference were as follows: “The oath of a Jew is binding without any further ceremony than the invocation of the nameof God. The prayer * Kol Nidre’ is unessential; and the members of the conference were to take steps to abolish it on the following Day of Atonement.” The conference indorsed the responsa of the French Sanhedrin, with the exception of the third, which it changed tc read as follows: “The marriage of a Jew with a Christian—in fact, the mar- riage of a Jew with the adherent of any monotheistic religion— is not forbidden if the civil Jaw permits the parents to raise 2 the Jewish religion the children issuing from such a union.” A commission was appointed to consider a number of important questions and to report at the next conference. The Frankfort-on-the-Main Conference (July 15-28. 1845): The deliberations were concerned maln- ly with the reports of the commission appointed at 213 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conferences 2 eS ee a ne a SF ae es a Se ee Se —————— the Brunswick conference. There were present, be- sides the above-mentioned: j. Auerbach of Frankfort-on-the-Main; Einhorn of Birken- feld; Frankel of Dresden; Gosen of Marburg; Giildenstein of puchau; Jost of Frankfort; Reiss of Alt-Breisach; Stein of Burgkunstadt; Suesskind of Wiesbaden: Treuenfels of Weil- purg; Wagner of Mannheim; Wechsler of Oldenburg ; Leopold stein of Frankfort-on-the-Main, who was president of the con- ference. The first report discussed was that on the reten- tion of Hebrew in the public services. The confer- ence voted unanimously for the retention of the sacred language. On the question, to what extent, there was a decided difference of opinion. The rec- ommendation of the committee, adopted by a vote of 18 to 12, was that the “ Bareku” with its response, the “Shema‘” (first paragraph), the first and last three benedictions of the “ Tefillah,” and the selec- tion from the Torah should be in Hebrew, and that the remainder of the service should be in the vernac- ular. The conference also decided (in the affirmative) the question “Shall the prayers for the return to the land of our forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish state be eliminated from the ritual?” Closely connected with this was the question as to whether the Messianic idea was to receive prominent and dis- tinct expression inthe ritual. Thisalso was decided in the affirmative. Although the conference voted for the retention of the “Musaf” prayer, yet it was definitely under- stood that the traditional supplication for the resto- ration of the sacrifices should be so changed as to be a mere mention of the sacrifices as historical reminis- cences. On the question of the reading from the Torah, the majority voted for the triennial cycle; and the reading of the “Haftarah” in the vernacular was favored. The conference was unanimous in its affirmative vote on the admissibility of the organ into the syna- gogue. All the members but three agreed that a Jew was permitted to play the organ on the Sab- bath, and that by so doing he did not violate the law of Sabbath observance. The conference considered favorably the sugges- tion submitted by the Berlin Reform Association for the calling of a synod “in which the lay and the theological elements shall be alike represented.” The conference decided in the affirmative the question whether modern bathing establishments can be used for ritualistic purposes. A committee was appointed to direct the attention of the people to the need of theological seminaries. It was at this conference that the irreconcilable differences between the traditionalists and the re- formers received decisive expression. The discus- sions had shown that many of the Historical members held radical views on a num- Judaism. ber of vital points connected with the ritual. Zacharias Frankel, who de- clared himself to be a champion of positive histor- ica] Judaism, desired the conference to issue a state- ment of definite principles. In this he was opposed particularly by Geiger and Holdhbeim, and, although 4 majority of the meeting was in sympathy with Frankel’s views, yet the conference supported his two chief opponents in their contention that no definite declaration of principles should be formn- lated, because such a theoretical document would result only in antagonisms and would not assist in solving the burning questions of the day. Frankel withdrew from the conference, and became the leader of the adherents of so-called “ positive his- torical” Judaism. Frankel issued a call in May, 1846, for a conference of Jewish theologians, to be held in the fall of that year, and to be the organ of the opposition to the Reform conferences; but the meeting did not take place. The Breslau Conference (July 13-24, 1846): This was attended by: A. Adler of Worms; S. Adler of Alzey; J. Auerbach of Frankfort-on-the-Main; Ben Israel of Coblenz; Einhorn of Birkenfeld ; Formstecher of Offenbach; Geiger of Breslau (who was president of the conference); Goldstein of Waren; Gosen of Marburg; Gildenstein of Buchau; Herxheimer of Bern- burg: Herzfeld of Brunswick: Hess of Bisenach ; Holdheim of Mecklenburg-Schwerin: J. Kahn of Treves; M. Levy of Bres- lau; L. Lévy of Miinsterberg; Pick of Teplitz; Philippson of Magdeburg ; Sobernheim of Bingen; Stein of Frankfort-on-the- Main; Wagner of Mannheim ; Wechsler of Oldenburg. A number of important declarations were made on vital subjects, such as the Sabbath, the holidays, circumcision, and mourning customs. The confer- ence expressed itself on the Sabbath question to the effect that the restoration of the solemn observance of the Sabbath as a day of rest and sanctification is incumbent not only upon the teacher in Israel, but upon every Israelite. Therefore special care must be taken in these days to insure the solemnity of the public services and to secure the observance of Sab- bathin the home, Work which is ordinarily prohib- ited on the Sabbath is permitted in connection with divine services if necessary for the The proper conduct of these services. Ifa Sabbath man’s livelihood is endangered by the Question. closing of his business on the Sabbath, he may have his business attended to by non-Jews. If contingencies arise threatening the material welfare, any kind of work may be done on the Sabbath to avoid this; for example, in case of fire. Any and all manner of labor is permitted on the Sabbath in cases where human life—whether of Jew or non-Jew—is in danger. The rabbinical prohibi- tions known as “hedges ”—rigorous interpretations — of Sabbath laws—are no longer binding. Such in- stitutions as “‘Erube Hazerot ” and “ “Erube Tehu- mim,” which are mere evasions of the Sabbath laws, although their ostensible purpose is relaxation of the strictness of these laws, are both superfluous and. inadmissible. The Jewish soldier must attend to his duties on the Sabbath. As for the Jew who holds a public office, although he is bound to perform the duties connected with his office, yet he should exert himself to restore the solemnity of the day in his home. Brain-work is not included in the categories. of labor prohibited on the Sabbath. The conference made the following pronounce- ments concerning the holidays: Congregations are justified in abolishing the second day’s observance of the holidays with the exception of the second day of Rosh ha-Shanah. If, however, some of the mem- bers of a congregation should object to such aboli- tion, these days are to be continued as occasions for public worship, but the prohibition to work on them Conferences THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 214 ees is no longer binding in any event. The eating of leavened bread is permitted on the twenty-second day of Nisan, the so-called eighth or last day of Passover. It is permitted to blow the shofar on the first day of the New-Year when it happens to fall on the Sabbath. The same is the case with the use of the four fruits on the first day of Succot when that falls on the Sabbath. The question of circumcision was made the occa- sion for a number of declarations, of which the most important were these: Every “mohel” should be required to pass an examination, after being in- structed by a surgeon, and should prove by his cre- dentials his authority to perform the operation. The so-called “ peri‘ah” may be performed with a sur- gical instrument if the assisting surgeon prefers this to the finger-nail, which, as a rule, is used for the purpose. The “mezizah” is to be dispensed with. (See Circumcision.) A physician should treat the child after circumcision. A physician should exam- ine the child before circumcision, and decide whether the operation can be safely performed, or whether on account of sickness or bodily weakness it had best be postponed. If parents have had the misfor- tune to lose a child, or a child hag become a chronic invalid, owing to the operation, and they fear to have other children circumcised, they may postpone the rite until the physician declares that there is absolutely no danger from its performance. The conference gave expression to some decided views on traditional mourning customs. It declared that such practises as the rending of the garments, allowing the beard to grow for thirty days after the death, sitting on the floor, removing Mourning the leather shoes, the prohibitions of Customs. washing, bathing, and greeting, have lost all significance in these days; pay, more, are repulsive to the religious feeling, and should be abolished. The mourner should remain at home for three days, counting from the day of burial. The mourner should also, as far as possible, abstain from business on the day of the funeral and for two days after the burial. Many important resolutions were referred to committees, but were not acted upon by the conference. Each of these conferences aroused intense excite- ment; protests against the discussions and resolu- tions of the conferences being issued by opponents, while pamphlets in defense were published by par- ticipants. The Brunswick conference called forth a protest from seventy-seven German and Tungarian rabbis; also publications such as “FB*.DN AIDN. Protestation Gegen die Rabbinerversammlung von D. Deutsch, Rabbiner in Sohrau, O.8.” In defense were issued ; “ Die Erste Rabbinerversammlung und Ihre Gegner,” by Kirchenrath Dr. Maier, and the pamphlet by Holdheim, “Die Erste Rabbinerver- sammlung und Herr Dr. Frankel.” The press of the day, notably the three Jewish publications, “ Die Allgemeine Zeitschrift des Judenthums,” “ Orient,” and Frankel’s “Zeitschrift fiir die Interessen des Judenthums,” contained articles proandcon. Feel- ing ran very high, and this was intensified by the Frankfort conference, which had resulted in an open break with Frankel and the conservatives. The bitterness of the feelings engendered is apparent from such an incident as the refusal on the part of Michael Sachs, the famous preacher of the Berlin congregation, to receive one of the rabbis who haq attended the Frankfort conference. A conference of the rabbis of Baden, held in the summer of 1845 after the Frankfort conference, de. clared for Reform on the historico-traditional basis. The Breslau conference called forth a bitter declarg. tion from some Jews of Frankfort-on-the- Main, con. demning the conference for its cowardice in not dealing fearlessly with the Sabbath question. This aroused the participants in the conference, notably Geiger, Philippson, Stein, and Wechsler, who wrote in defense of their action. These were days of “storm and stress” in Judaism. No further confer. ences were held. The hope of the founders of the rabbinical conference, that it might become the au. thoritative tribunal for the solution of the vexing problems that were agitating the Jewish congrega. tions, was not realized, owing to the political reac- tion following the year 1848. In 1868 an unsuccegs- ful attempt was made to convene a rabbinical con- ference at Cassel. These conferences did not succeed in effecting their object because the differences in Jewry were too pronounced. Had they frankly and outspokenly taken either the Reform or the Ortho- Outcome dox position, they might have received ofCon- acknowledgmentas the authority from ferences. the adherents of the cause they es- poused. It wasimpossible to satisfy all parties; the participants in the conferences represent- ed many shades of opinion, from the extreme radical- ism cf Holdheim to the conservative traditionalism of the sympathizer with Frankel, although their main tendency was toward Reform. The conferences fur- nished at most a forum where vital questions were discussed, and expression was given to interesting views, but they did not attain an authoritative place. They were at best expressive of the conflicts and disturbances that were agitating Jewish thought in the fifth decade of the nineteenth century. The Philadelphia Conference (Nov. 3-6, 1869): There were present: 8. Adler of New York; J. Chronik of Chicago; D. Einhorn of New York; B. Felsenthal of Chicago; J. K. Gutheim of New York; S. Hirsch of Philadelphia; K. Kohler of Detroit; L. Mayer of Selma, Ala.; M. Mielziner of New York; 8. H. £onnen- schein of St. Louis; M. Schlesinger of Albany, N. Y.; I. M. Wise of Cincinnati. The following statement of principles was adopted: ““1. The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a sec- ond separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God, $0 as to realize the unity of all rational creatures and their call fo moral sanctification. **2. We look upon the destruction of the second Jewish come- monwealth not as a punishment for the sinfulness of Israel, but asa result of the divine purpose revealed to Abraham. which, as has become ever clearer in the course of the world’s history, consists in the dispersion of the Jews to all parts of the earth, for the realization of their high-priestly mission, to lead the nations to the true knowledge and worship of God. “3, The Aaronic priesthood and the Mosaic sacrificia] cult were preparatory steps to the real priesthood of the whole people, which began with the dispersion of the Jews, and to the sacri- fices of sincere devotion and moral sanctification, which alone are pleasing and acceptable to the Most Holy. These institu- tions, preparatory to higher religiosity, were consigned to the 215 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conferences past, once for all, with the destruction of the Second Temple, and only in this sense—as educational influences in the past—- are they to be mentioned in our prayers. “4, Every distinction between Aaronides and non-Aaronides, as far as religious rites and duties are concerned, is conse- quently inadmissible, both in the religious cult and in social life. “5, The selection of Israel as the people of religion, as the bearer of the highest idea of humanity, is still. as ever, to be strongly emphasized, and for this very reason, whenever this is mentioned, it shall be done with full emphasis laid on the world- embracing mission of Israel and the love of God for all His ebildren. **8. The beliefin the bodily resurrection has no religious foun- dation, and the doctrine of immortality refers to the after. existence of the soul only. “" Urgently as the cultivation of the Hebrew language, in which the treasures of divine revelation were given and the im- mortal remains of a literature that influences all civilized na- tions are preserved, must be always desired by us in fulfilment of a sacred duty, yet it has become unintelligible to the vast majority of our coreligionists; therefore, as is advisable under existing circumstances, it must give way in prayer to intelligible language, which prayer, if not understood, is a soulless form.” The conference passed a number of resolutions on marriage and divorce, and declared that “the male child of a Jewish mother is, no less than her female child, in accordance with a never-disputed princi- ple of Judaism, to be considered a Jew by descent, even though he be uncircumcised.” The Pittsburg Conference (Nov. 16-18, 1885): There were present at this conference: I. Aaron of Ft. Wayne, Ind.; J. Bloch of Youngstown, 0O.; 8. Falk of Buffalo, N. Y.; A. Guttmann of Syracuse, N. Y.; E. G. Hirsch of Chicago; A. Hahn of Cleveland, O.; K. Kohler of New York; J. Krauskopf of Kansas City, Mo.; M. Lessler of Wheeling, W. Va.; A. Moses of Louisville, Ky.; MW. Machol of Cleveland, O.; L. Mayer of Pittsburg; L. Naumberg of Pittsburg ; D. Philipsun of Baltimore; S. Sale of Chicago; S. H. Sonnen- schein of St. Louis; M. Schlesinger of Albany, N. ¥.; S. Weil of Bradford, Pa.; I. M. Wise of Cincinnati. The following declaration of principles was formu- lated : “1. We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source, or book of revelation held sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwell- ing of Godin man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God-idea as taught in our Holy Scriptures and developed and spiritualized by the Jewish teachers, in accord- ance with the moral and philosophical progress of their respect- ive ages. We maintain that Judaism preserved and defended, midst continual struggles and trials and under enforced isola- tion, this God-idea as the central religious truth for the human Tace. “2. We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God, and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of seientific researches in the domgin of nature and history are not antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its con- ception of Divine Providence and Justice dealing with man in miraculous narratives. “3. We recognize in the Mosaic legislation asystem of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and to-day we accept as binding only its moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization. ‘*4, We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws asregulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and Spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a Spirit of priestly holiness: their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation. “5. We recognize in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect the approaching of the realization of Is- Tael’s great, Messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider our- Selves no longer a ration, but a religious community, and there- fore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial wor- ship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state. **6. We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever stri- ving to be in accord with the postulates of reason. Weare con- vinced of the utmost necessity of preserving the historical identity with our great past. Christianity and Islam being daughter religions of Judaism, we appreciate their providential mission to aid in the spreading of monotheistic and moral truth. We acknowledge that the spirit of broad humanity of our age is our ally in the fulfilment of our mission, and therefore we ex- tend the hand of fellowship to all who operate with us in the establishment of the reign of truth and righteousness among men. “7, We reassert the doctrine of Judaism that the soul is im- mortal, grounding this belief on the divine nature of the human spirit, which forever finds bliss in righteousness and misery in wickedness. We reject, as ideas not rooted in Judaism, the beliefs both in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden (Hell and Paradise) as abodes for everlasting punishment and reward. **8. In full accordance with the spirit of Mosaic legislation, which strives to regulate the relation between rich and poor, we deem it our duty to participate in the great task of modern times, to solve, on the basis of justice and righteousness, the problems presented by the contrasts and evils of the present organization of society.” The conference adopted the following resolution on the proselyte question: ‘** Inasmuch as the so-called Abrahamitic rite is by many, and the most competent, rabbis no longer considered as a conditio sine qua non of receiving male Gentiles into the fold of Juda- ism, and inasmuch as a new legislation on this and kindred subjects is one of the most imperative and practica] demands of our Reform movement, be it “Resolved that a committee of five, one of them to be the president of this conference, be entrusted with framing a full report to be submitted for Mnal action to the next conference.” This conference has been the only one to make a definite statement on the question of Sunday serv- ices. Its declaration on the subject was to this effect: ** Whereas we recognize the importance of maintaining the historical Sabbath as a bond with our great past and the symbol of the unity of Judaism the world over; and whereas, on the other hand, it can not be denied that there is a vast number of working men and others who, from some cause or other, are not able to attend the services on the sacred aay of rest; be it re- solved that there is nothing in the spirit of Judaism or its laws to prevent the introduction of Sunday services in localities where the necessity for such services appears or is felt.” The conference also recommended that each rabbi read only such sections of the Pentateuch as he thinks proper, but with regard, however, to the reg- ulations of the Hebrew calendar. Central Conference of American Rabbis: The first meeting was held in Detroit, Mich., July 9, 1889, at the initiation of Isaac M. Wisk. The meet- ing for organization was presided over by David Philipson, with Henry Berkowitz as secretary. At a session on the following day a series of resolutions was adopted as the working basis of the conference. One of these fixed the position of the conference in the historical succession of rabbinical deliberative bodies, by declaring that “the proceedings of all the modern rabbinical conferences, from that held in Brunswick in 1844, and including all like assem- blages held since, shall be taken as a basis for the work of this conference in an endeavor to maintain in unbroken succession the formulated expression of Jewish life and thought in each era.” Actuated by the spirit of this resolution, the confer- ence elected as honorary president Samuel Adler, the only surviving member of the various German con- Conferences Confession THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 216 ferences held after the year 1840; and Isaac M. Wise was elected president. The conference has since met in annual session in the following cit- ies: Cleveland, 1890; Baltimore, 1891; New York city, 1892; Chicago, 1893; Atlantic City, 1894; Rochester, N. Y., 1895; Milwaukee, Wis., 1896; Montreal, Canada, 1897; Atlantic City, 1898; Cincinnati, 1899; Buffalo, 1900; Philadelphia, 1901; New Orleans, 1902. All of these meetings were held in the month of July, with the exception of those at Chicago, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. The Chicago conference took place Aug. 23-26, introductory to the Jewish De- nominational Congress, held in connection with the World’s Parliament of Religions; and, together with the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, it represented Judaism officially at the Parliament. The papers read by the members of the conference, both at the Jewish Denominational Congress and at Founda- tion. the general Parliament, were published by the Union in a volume entitled “Judaism at the World’s Par- liament of Religions” (Cincinnati, 1894). The Cin- cinnati meeting in 1899 was held in March instead of July, in order to celebrate the eightieth birthday of Isaac M. Wise, founder and president of the con- ference from its organization. An extra session was held at Washington, D. C., in Dec., 1892. The meeting at New Orleans took place May 6-10, 1902. The proceedings of the various meetings of the conference are given in detail in a series of year- books, containing not only the record of the business transacted and the discussions by the members on religious doctrine and practise, but also of the papers read at the sessions. Although the conference is open to rabbis of any opinion, it is in reality an association of ministers of the Reform schoo! ; and while it formu- lated no declaration of principies, yet its position in all its deliberations and proceedings has been taken firmly on the basis of the Reform movement. This was evi- dent particularly in the discussion of the authority of the Talmud and the rabbinical codes. At the meeting held in Rochester in 1895, the president in his annual address proposed for discussion and deci- sion the question, “ What is our relation in all relig- ious matters to our own post-Biblical and patristic literature, including the Talmud, casuists, responses, and commentaries?” The committee to whom the question was referred reported as follows: Reform Platform. ‘**From the standpoint of Reform Judaism, the whole post- Biblical] and patristic literature, including the Tajmud, casuists, responses, and commentaries, is, and can be considered as, nothing more nor less than ‘religious lterature.’ As such it is of inestimable value. It is the treasure-house in which the suc- cessive ages deposited their conceptions of the great and funda- mental principles of Judaism and their contributions to the never-ceasing endeavor to elucidate the same. Consciously or unconsciously, every age has added a wing to this great treas- ure-house, and the architecture and construction of each wing bear the indelible marks of the peculiar characteristics of the time in which it was erected. Our age is engaged in the same task. We too have to contribute to the enlargement of this treasure-house ; but we have to do it in our own way, as the spirit of our time directs, without any slavish imitation of the past. “To have awakened the consciousness of this historic fact is the great merit of Reform Judaism ; and the more this conscious- hess grows upon our mind, the more the conditions and envi- ronments of our modern life force it upon us, the more persist- ently we have to assert that our relations in all religious mat. ters are in no way authoritatively and finally determined by any portion of our post-Biblical and patristic literature.” The notable achievements of the conference are: its preparation aud publication of the Union Prayer- Book for Jewish worship; its successful representa- tion of Judaisin at the World’s Parliament of Relig- ions, as described above; its declaration on the requirements for the admission of proselytes; and, more than all, its uniting in one body the Reform rabbis of the country. The Union Prayer-Book ig used at present (1902) by 138 congregations, in all portions of the country, having superseded most of the prayer-books in use heretofore. It attempts to combine the best elements of the tra- Union = ditional service with prayers express- Prayer- ing the aspirations of modern days, Book. In its report to the general mecting, the ritual committee entrusted with the preparation of the work stated thus the princi- ples that had guided it: ** Imbued with the earnestness of the task that was laid upon, us, We endeavored to conform the ritual for these two great. holidays to the spirit and principle of the first part of our Union Prayer-Book, to unite the soul-stirring reminiscences of the past with the urgent demands of the present, and to enhance the so- lemnity of the service by combining the two essential elements, the ancient time-honored formulas with modern prayers and meditations in the vernacular.”’ The declaration of the conference on the admis- sion of proselytes, adopted at the New York meeting in 1892, is as follows: * Resolved that the Central Conference of American Rabbis, assembied this day in this city of New York, considers it lawful and proper for any officiating rabbi, assisted by no less than two associates, and in the name and with the consent of his congre- gation, to accept into the sacred covenant of Israei, and declare fully affiliated with the congregation WyPaw 237 555) any honorable and intelligent person who desires such affiliation, without any initiatory rite, ceremony, or observance Whatever; provided such person he sufficiently acquainted with the faith, doctrine, and religious usages of Israel; that nothing deroga- tory to such person’s moral aud mental character is suspected; that it is his or her free will and choice to embrace the cause of Judaism; and that he or she declare verbally, and in a document signed and sealed before such officiating rabbi and his associ-. ates, his or her intention and firm resolve— “*t. To worship the One Sole and Eternal God, and none be- sides Him. **2. To be conscientiously governed in his or her doings and omissions in life by God’s laws, ordained for the child and im- age of the Father and Maker of all, the sanctified son or daugh- ter of the divine covenant. **3. To adhere in life and death actively and faithfully to the sacred cause and mission of Israel, as marked out in Holy Writ.” The conference has published, in addition to the eleven year-books and the two volumes of the Union Prayer-Book, a Union Hymnal, and a volume enti- tled “Sermons by American Rabbis.” One-half of the income from the sale of the Union Prayer-Book is placed to the credit of the fund for superannuated ministers; and a number of worthy rabbis, incapae- itated from active service by age or physical infir- mity, have been assisted by donations from this fund. At present (1902) the conference has 149 active and four honorary members. Its constitution de- clares that “all active and retired rabbis of congre- gations, and professors of rabbinical seminaries, shall be eligible for membership.” In March, 1900, it suffered the loss of its founder and president, Isaac M. Wise, in whose honor the meeting at Buffalo in July of that year largely assumed the character 217 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conferences. Confession of a memorial meeting. At this meeting Joseph Silverman of New York, who had been first vice- president, was elected president of the body. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Protokolle der Ersten Rabbinerversammlung (Brunswick, 1844); Protokolle und Aktenstlicke der Zwei- ten Rabbinerversammlung, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1845; Protokolle der Dritten Versammlung Deutscher Rabbiner, Breslau, 1847; Protokolle der Rabbiner-Konferenz Abye- halten zu Philadelphia, New York, 1870; Authentic Report of the Proceedings of the Rabbinical Conference held at Pittsburg, Pa., in Jewish Reformer, New York, Jan. 15, 1886 ; Jost, Culturgeschichte der Israecliten ia 1815-1845, pp. 234, 941, 259, Berlin, 1847, and Geschichte des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten, iii. 379-386, Leipsic, 1859; idem, Geschichte des Judenthums von Mendelsohn his auf die Neuere Zeit, pp. 275 et seq., Berlin, 1870; Israel Deutsch, Zur Wiir- digung der Braunschweiger Rabbinerversammlung, Leip- gic, 1844; and the publications mentioned in the body of the article as Well as the articles in the Jewish journals also indi- cated above; likewise the journal established especially for this purpose, viz.: Die Reform des Judenthums, Organ flr die Rabbinerversammlung Deutschiands, Mannheim, 1846. D. P. Conventions of the Union of Orthodox Con- gregations of the United States and Canada : The great influx of Orthodox Jews—that is, of those who follow the rabbinical ordinances of Judaism besides the prescriptions of the Bible—within the last twenty-five years in America has made a union imperative. The first real attempt to effect a union of Ortho- dox congregations was made on June 8, 1898, when a convention met in New York, in which fifty con- gregations were represented. H. Pereira Mendes was elected as president, and as vice-presidents Ph. Klein, Meldola de Sola, and H. W. Schneeberger. The following principles were agreed to: ‘This conference of delegates from Jewish congregations in the United States and the Dominion of Canada is convened to advance the interests of positive Biblical, rabbinical, and his- torical Judaism. “We are assembled not as a synod, and therefore we have no legislative authority to amend religious questions, but as a representative body, which by organization and co-operation will endeavor to advance the interests of Judaism in America. “We favor the convening of a Jewish synod specifically authorized by congregations to meet, to be composed of men who must be certified rabbis, and (a) elders in official position (ef. Num. xi. 16); (b) men of wisdom and understanding, and known among us (cf. Deut. i. 13): (c) able men, God-fearing men, men of truth, hating profit (cf. Ex. xviii. 21). “We believe in the Divine revelation of the Bible, and we de- clare that the Prophets in no way discountenanced ceremonial duty, but only condemned the personal life of those who ob- served ceremonial law, but disregarded the moral. Ceremonial law is not optative; it is obligatory. ‘* We affirm our adherence to the acknowledged codes of our Rabbis and the thirteen principles of Maimonides. ‘**We believe that in our dispersion we are .to be united with our brethren of alien faith in all that devolves upon men as citizens; but that religiously, in rites, ceremonies, ideals, and doctrines, we are separate, and must remain separate in accord- ance with the Divine declaration : ‘I have separated you from the nations to be Mine’ (Lev. xx. 26). * And further, to prevent misunderstanding concerning Juda- ism, we reaffirm our belief in the coming of a personal Messiah, and we protest against the admisston of proselytes into the fold of Judaism without ‘milah’ and °tebilah.’ “We protest against intermarriage between Jew and Gen- tile ; we protest against the idea that we are merely a religious Sect, and maintain that we are a nation, though temporarily Without a national home; and ** Furthermore, that the restoration to Zion is the legitimate aspiration of scattered Israel,in no way conflicting with our loyalty to the land in which we dwell or may dwell at any me, It was determined that the object of the organi- zation, to be known as the “Jewish Congregational Union of America,” should be the promotion of the religious interests of Orthodox Jews. Questions of Orthodoxy in connection with the admission of mem- bers should be decided by a sub-committee of five. H. Pereira Mendes was elected permanent president. The objects of local unions were stated to be: 1. To strengthen congregational life, but not to interfere in. congregational autonomy. 2. To advance the interests of local Judaism by the appoint- ment of committees on congregational membership; civil legislation ; Jewish presentations; city religious work (mission, circuit preaching); to devise uniform methuds in Hebrew and religious schools; a union to send out rabbis for propaganda. under the direction of the executive committee. The convention held in New York Dec. 30, 1900, under the presidency of H. P. Mendes, represented. 104 congregations. K. HH. P. M. CONFESSION OF SIN (‘35°)).—Biblical. Data: The Scriptures repeatedly prescribe confes- sion of sin asa means to expiation and atonement. “It shall be that when he is guilty of any one of these things, he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing” (Lev. v. 5). “ Aaron shall . . . confess. over him [the scapegoat] all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins” (25. xvi. 21). “When a man or woman. shall commit any sin that men commit... they shall confess their sin which they have done” (Num. v. 6, 7). The effect of confession is remission. Thus the Bible states, “ And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die” (II Sam. xii. 13). Elihu says, “God looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not for, “I have not been requited ”]: Its Effect. He will deliver his soul from going to the pit, and his life shall see the light ” (Job xxxiii. 27, 28); and Jeremiah declares, “The Lord said to me . . . go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for Iam merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity that thou hast trans- gressed against the Lord thy God” (Jer. iii. 11-18). Elsewhere the prophet says, “Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously. . . . I will heal. their backslidings, I will love them freely ” (Hos, xiv. 2 et seq.; see ATONEMENT). Confession may be individual, that of a person. repenting backslidings; or it may be national, when the public at large humble themselves before God. As examples of the former may be cited the confes-- sion of Cain (Gen. iv. 18), of Jacob (#). xxxii. 9), and of David (II Sam. xxiv. 10; Ps. xli. 4, li. 3, Ixix. 5); of the latter, that of the Israelites in the wilder- ness (Num. xiv. 40); in the dispersion (Lev. xxvi. 40); at Mizpah, when admonished by Samuel (I Sam. vii. 6); and again at Gilgal, after choosing their first. king (7b, xii. 10). National confessions are sometimes. made through national representatives, as by Moses, after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf (Ex. Confession Confirmation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 218 — ee 080 Or ep nr. xxxii. 81), by the high priest on Atonement Day (Lev. xvi. 21), by Ezra (ix. 6, 7, 15), and by Nehe- miah (i. 6, 7; ix. 2, 38-35). —-In Rabbinical Literature: Here repentance is likened to a door which, if man opens only as much as the eye of a needle, God opens as wide as a gateway (Cant. R. to v. 2), for whoso is willing to cleanse himself is assisted from above (Shab. 104a; Yoma 38b); and confession may be said to be the opening wedge, or the hinge on which repentance turns. Accordingly the Rabbis teach that Samuel, interceding for Israel (Sam. vil. 5 et seqg.), addressed to God the following argument in favor of his peo- ple’s salvation: “ Lord of the universe! Dost Thou ever require of man more than that he utter, ‘I have sinned’? Now, the Israelites do plead, ‘We have sinned ’ [¢b. 6]: forgive them” (Midr. Sam. to vii. 6; Yer. Ta‘an. ii. 65d). Elsewhere this doctrine is sinneth, it shall die,” rabbinical lore (with reference to Ps. xxv. 8 and Amos v. 4) teaches that God Him. self says, “ Let him repent and he shall be pardoned » (Yer. Mak. ii. 31d; Pesik. xxv. 158b; compare So. tah 7b; Sanh. 48b). No formal confession is prescribed in the Scrip- tures; time and circumstances suggested the pen. itent’s thoughts or utterances (compare “Yaq» Tefillah, i. 1; Kesef Mishneh ad loc.). Pogt. Biblical literature, however, containg Formula some formulas. Of these, that em. inthe bodying the phrase “I have sinned, Talmud. transgressed, and rebelled” ‘nNDN *NYwhI my, seems to be the oldest, having formed part of the high priest’s confession in the course of the Temple service on the Day of Atonement (Yoma iii. 8, iv. 2; Tosef., Yoma, ii. 1; Sifra, Ahare, i. 2). It is based on similar expressions - JEWS CONFESSING THEIR SINS ON THE DAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF PENTECOST. (From Bodenschatz, ‘‘ Kirchliche Verfassung,”’ 1748.) presented in another form (Yalk., Ps. c. 1; Pesik. xxv. 159a). Citing the Scriptural verse (Prov. xxviii. 18), “He that covereth his sins shal] not pros- per; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy,” the Rabbis remark, when a man is charged of crime before a human tribunal, as long as he denies his guilt he has a chance for escape, but when he admits his guilt he receives punishment; not so before God: unless man confesses, he receives punishment, but when he confesses, he receives re- mission, provided he confesses with the determina- tion to forsake his sins. According to another Mid- rash, even Balaam knew of the insuperable power of repentance and confession when he said (Num. xxii, 34), “I have sinned.” He knew that nothing may avcrt heavenly visitation except repentance, and that over one who has sinned and then says, “JT have sinned,” the messenger of retribution has no power (Tan., Balak, 10). Hence, although Solo- mon declares, “Evil pursueth sinners” (Prov. xiii. 21); and Ezekiel (xviii. 4, 20) says, “The soul that min used in Biblical times (I Kings viii. 47; Ps. cvi. 6; Dan. ix. 5), and is considered the principal of all con- fessions (Sifra, ¢.c.; “ Yad,” Teshubah, i. 1; compare Pesik. R. 35, 160b). A rabbi of the fourth cen- tury recommends the following to be recited on the eve of the Day of Atonement: “I confess all the wrong I have done before Thee. I have indeed stood on the way of evil; but as I have done I shall dono more. May it please Thee, O Lord my God! to forgive all my errors, to remit all my offenses, and to pardon all my transgressions” (Lev. R. iii. 3; compare Yer. Yoma viii. 45c). A formula some- what older, used by some daily, and by others only on the Day of Atonement, is the following: “My God! Before I was formed I was worthless, and now that Iam formed I am as if not formed: Iam dust while I live; how much more so shall I be when dead. Behold, Iam before Thee asa vessel full of shame and disgrace. May it be Thy will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers! that I shall sin no more, and what I have sinned before Thee blot out 219 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Confession Confirmation in Thy abundant mercy, but not through sufferings aud serious diseases” (Ber. lia; Yoma 87b). The alphabetic confessions {24wN (“ We have in- eurred guilt”; see ASHAMNU) and NOnwY KON by 1965 (“For the sin which we have committed before Thee”) are first mentioned in the literary produc- tions of geonim of the eighth century, the former by Simon Kahira (“ Talakot Gedolot,” Later ed. Berlin, 1888, “Hilkot Yom ha- Formulas. Kippurim,” missing in ed. Warsaw, 1874), the latter by Ahai of Shabha (“She’iltot,” clxvii.). The Talmud, however, ex- plicitly says (Yoma 87b), “When one utters the simple expression, ‘Verily we have sinned,’ he need say no more”; and this is also the opinion of the casuists (“ Hal. Gedol.” @e¢.; “ Yad,” Teshubah, ii. 8; Tur Orah Hayyim, 607). One nearing death, or even when first taken ill, should be exhorted to make confession (Shab. 82a; Sanh. vi. 2, 48a e¢ seq.), as were all those about to be executed for crime (see ATONEMENT; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT). If one is unable himself to frame aconfession, he is prompted to say, “May my death prove an atonement for all my sins” (Sanh. /.¢.). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maimonides, Yad, Seder Tefilot Kol ha- Shanah; Moses of Coucy, Semag, precept 16; Isaac Aboab, Menorat ha-Maor, Ner v., part i., 4; Abu Darham, Tefillat Von ha-Kippurim ; Léwe b, Bezalel, Netibet ‘Olam, Tesiu- hah, v.3 LL. Landshut, Hegyon Leb, pp. 489 et seq.; Baer, *“Abodat Yisracl, pp. 414 et seq. Hamburger, A. 8B. 7. ii. 1139 et seg.; Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Tftome, pp. 165 et seq. S. M. E. ¢. In Hellenistic Literature and in the Lit- urgy: Ever since the return from the Exile (see Ezra ix.; Dan. ix. 4-20), confession of sins has formed an integral part of prayer, and verses select- ed from such passages as the penitential Psalms, xxxii., li., Ixxxvi., were used in the liturgy. An example of elaborate confession of sins, composed in the second century B.c., is presented in the Apoc typha under the name of “The Prayer of Manas- seh,” and in all probability it formed originally a part of a Midrashic addition to II Chron. xxxiii. 19 {as may be learned from Apostolical Constitutions, ji. 22: see DrpascaLiA). A characteristic feature of this confession is the reiteration of certain formulas: “J have sinned, O Lord; I have sinned”; “Forgive me, O Lord, forgive me.” Another example of a confcssion of sin is contained in the prayer of Asenath, xii. (see Jew. Encyc. ii. 178): “I take refuge with Thee, Lord, my God, from now; to Thee I cry, O Lord, and before Thee I confess my sins. Spare me, O Lord, spare me! for I have greatly sinned ; [ have trarsgressed and done evil. I have spoken harsh words before Thee that should not be spoken. . . . I have sinned before Thee. O Lord; I have sinned, knowingly and unknowingly.” With these words Asenath begins her prayer while repenting of her idolatrous life, thus offering to proselytes an example of due preparation for admis- sion into the Jewish fold. Confession of sins pre- ceded baptism (Mark i. 5; compare Sotah 12b) and was made the condition of admission into the Christian Church, as may be learned from Didache iv. 14, xiv. 1 (compare James v. 16). The common formulas for confession of sins in the Christian Church being in the main exactly like those of the Synagogue, the conclusion is to be drawn that they go back to pre-Talmudic times. The words “Forgive, remit, pardon, O God, our offenses, voluntary and involuntary, committed knowingly or in ignorance, by transgression or through omission,” in the closing prayer of propitia- tion in the liturgy of James (Hammond, “ Eastern and Western Liturgies,” p. 54), as well as the formula still found in the common prayer of the Episcopal Church: “We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; and we have done those things which we ought not to have done,” are nearly identical with the closing words of the Atonement- Day confession: “O God of forgiveness, forgive us, pardon us, grant us remission . . . for the violation of mandatory and for the violation of prohibitive precepts, for sius known or unknown to us.” In the time of Rab and Samucl in Babylonia and R. Johanan in Palestine the confessions of sin in the Day of Atonement liturgy was fixed by tradition, as is proved by the fact that these amoraim of the beginning of the third century refer to the liturgical portions containing these confessions as familiar and known by their initial words (Yoma 87b). The quotation of the confession of sins in Pesik. R. (ed. Friedmann, xxxv. 160b; see note) also shows that the whole portion of the “ Widdui” was known and familiar to all, and was included in the Talmudical reference in Yoma, ‘IXSN in3N bay. See LITURGY. The alphabetical enumeration of sins in AStIlAMNU and ‘Au Het may also be traced to pre-Talmudic times, as the catalogue of sins in Rom. i. 29, with its number of twenty-two, secms to be based upon an alphabetical confession of sins used in Paul's time (see J. Rendel Harris, “The Teaching of the Apos- tles,” Baltimore, 1887, who refers to Shab. 55a: “They that observe the Law from Aleph to Taw ”). The confession of sins is recited during bathing in preparation for the Day of Atonement, by the bridegroom before his wedding, and by the sick who prepares for the approaching end. Fora still larger catalogue of sins, sce “ Kizzur Shene Luhot ha-Berit, Seder Widdui,” pp. 126b, 127, Amsterdam, 1683. K. CONFIRMATION, THE RITE OF: Solemn form of initiation of the Jewish youth into their an- cestral faith. The rite is mentioned officially for the first time in an ordinance issued by the Jewish consistory of the kingdom of Westphalia at Cassel in 1810. There it was made the duty of the rabbi “to prepare the young for confirmation, and person- ally to conduct the ceremony.” At Earliest first only boys were confirmed, on the Confir- Sabbath of their BAR Mizwan, and mations. the ceremony was performed at the home or in the schoolroom. In Ber- lin girls were confirmed for the first time in 1817, in Hamburg in 1818. The rite was at first rigidly ex- cluded from the synagogue, because, like every inno- vation, it met with violent opposition. Gradually, however, it found more favor; classes were confirmed together, and confirmation became a solemn and im- pressive celebration at the synagogue. In 1822 the first class of boysand girls was confirmed by Dr. Kley at the Hamburg Temple, and in 1831 Rabbi Samuel Egers, one of the most prominent rabbis of his time Confirmation Confiscation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA ee a ae and a man of unquestioned orthodoxy, began to con- firm boys and girls regularly at the synagogue of Brunswick, While in the beginning some Sabbath, frequently Sabbath Hanukkah or Passover, was selected for contirmation, it became more and more customary, following the example of Egers, to perform the ceremony at the synagogue on Shebu‘ot, because this festival is peculiarly adapted for the rite. As it celebrated the occasion when the Israelites on Sinai, of their own free will, declared their intention to accept the obligation of God’s Law, so those of every new generation should follow the ancient ex- ample and declare their willingness to be faithful to the religion transmitted by the Fathers. Confirmation was introduced in Denmark as early as 1817, in Hamburg 1818, and in Hessen and Saxony in 1835. The Prussian government, which showed itself hostile to the Reform movement, prohibited it as late as 1886, as did Bavaria as late as 1888. It soon made its way, however, into all progressive congre- gations of Germany. In 1841 it was introduced in France, first in Bordeaux and Marseilles, then in Strasburg and Paris, under the name “initiation religieuse.” The first Israelitish synod in 1869 at Leipsic adopted a report by Dr. Herxheimer on re- ligious education, the thirteenth section of which contains an elaborate opinion on confirmation, rec- ommending the same to all Jewish congregations. In America the annual confirmation of boys and girls was first resolved upon by the congregation of Temple Emanu-El of New York on Oct. 11, 1847; and the first confirmation at that temple took place on Shebu‘ot,1848. A confirmation had been held two years before at the Anshe Chesed Synagogue of New York. The ceremony has since gained so firm a foothold in America that there is now no progress- ive Jewish congregation in which the annual con- firmation on Shebi‘ot is not a regular feature of congregational life and one of the most inspiring ceremonies of the whole year. Gritz (““Gesch.” xi. 874) blames Israel Jacobsohn for having introduced, among many other syna- gogue reforms, the confirmation of boys and girls, which, he says, “has no root in Juda- Objections ism.” In the opinion of reform Jews to the Rite. confirmation, like the organ and other innovations traceable to non-Jewish associations, lends an imnpressiveness to the initiation of the young into their ancestral religion which the bar mizwah institution had lost, owing to the unfa- ‘miliarity of the children with Hebrew. Besides, there was no provision for a solemn consecration of the Jewish maiden to her religious duties. Con- firmation was the first step toward the official recog- nition of woman as a member of the Synagogue. While many Orthodox leaders object to confirmation on the ground that it has been borrowed from the Protestant Church, where also it is but a recent de- velopment and not at all characteristically or typ- ically Christian (see “Confirmation,” in Herzog- Hauck, “ Real-Encyc.”), or because it contradicts _the principle that the Israelite is pledged by the covenant of Sinai by his birth pip) yawn 39D 3D Shebu. 22b), there is nothing in the rite which is not thoroughly in harmony with the spirit of Judaism. It does not mean initiation into the faith, or admission into the Jewish com. munity, but is a solemn declaration of the cay. didates, after having been sutliciently In instructed in their duties as Jews, and Harmony being imbued with enthusiasm fo) with their religion, to be resolved to live as Judaism. Jewsand Jewesses. For this purpose, after their religious sentiment has been, awakened and strengthened, and their minds have been prepared for their becoming faithful members of the Jewish congregation, of society, and of the state, confirmation comes as the solemn graduation from the schoo! of religious and ethical instruction, and js intended to consecrate the young to thetr duties ag Jews. It appeals not only to those confirmed, but to the entire congregation, and thereby becomes for all a renewal of the Sinaicovenant. Inorder to pro- duce this lasting effect it is becoming customary to. delay the rite until the sixteenth or seventeenth year, With the freedom and self-government universally prevailing in Jewish congregations, it is natural that the confirmation services should differ according to. the subjective views and to the tastes of the rabbis, Thus some introduce a formal confession of faith, while others prefer a statement of principles. But. the essential features are every where about the same, and may be stated as follows: The act is preceded by a public examination in the history, doctrines, and duties of the Jewish religion, held either in connection with the celebra- tion or on some day during the pre- ceding week. The sermon preached ut the exercises refers to the importance of the epoch which the young people have reached, and closes. with an impressive address to them. Thereupon follows a prayer, either a profession of faith ora statement of principles by members of the Class, and in conclusion is invoked the blessing of the candidates by the rabbi. The rite is accompanied. by impressive music. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Geiger, Wiss. Zeit. Jiid. Theol. iii. 65 ct seq.; Low, Die Lebensalter in der Jtidischen Litteratur, pp. 222° et seq.; Zunyz, G. V. ii. 472; Jost, Neuere Gesch. der Juden, i. 364; fi. 172: iii. 17, 47,168; Stein, Volkslehrer, vi. 89 et seq., viii. 337 et seq.; Verhandlungen der Ersten Israclitischen Synode zu Leipzig, pp. 283-238, Berlin, 1869; Year-Book of eee Conference of American Rabbis, 1890-91, pp. kK, M. Lan.—K. CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE.— 1. Confiscation: Appropriation of private pro- erty to the public use or treasury. Confiscation of the property of peaceable aliens in Palestine who belonged to a nation at war with Israel, ig not men- tioned in either Biblical or rabbinical literature. Biblical history, on the contrary, records instances. where such people as chose to remain in Israel's midst were left unmolested in possession of their es- tates, paying only the usual tribute to the country (Josh. xvii. 18; Judges i. 28 ef seg.), Nor is conu- fiscation, in the sense of appropriation to the use of the state as a judicial punishment. for the violation of law, known in the history of Israel’s first com- monwealth. Thecase of Ahab and Naboth(I Kings. xxi.; see AMAB), which some cite in support of the contrary view (Michaelis, “Mosaisches Recht.” 1. 261; Mayer, “Rechte der Isracliten,” i. 218, iii. 132), Essential Features. 220 221 is not considered as a criterion in rabbinical law. Tradition asserts that Ahab was his victim’s cousin, trie son of the brother of Naboth’s father; and in the absence of nearer agnates, he was Naboth’s legal heiy (Tosef., Sanh. iv. 6; Sanh. 48b). Such contfisca- tion came into vogue in theearly days of the second commonwealth, and was an importation from Persia. In the rescript which Artaxerxes gave to Ezra (Ezra vij, 12-26), and the authenticity of which is proved by E. Meyer (“Die Entstehung des Judenthums,” pp. 60 ef seg.), “confiscation of goods” is decreed as one of the punishments of those who failed to “do the law of . . . God and the law of the king.” This decree was adopted by Ezra; and in a procla- mation subsequently issued by him he threatened, “Whosoever would not come within three days, ac- cording to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited ” (Ezra x. 8). There is, however, a controversy in the Talmud as to the right of confiscation of the property of executed criminals, and the decision isa compromise: “The property of criminals executed by order of the king [for treason] lapses to the king; but the property of those executed by a verdict of a regular court [for other crimes] descends to their legal heirs ” (Tosef., ¢.c.; Sanh. U.c.; Maimonides, “ Yad,” Ebel, i. 9; see Capital PUNISHMENT). Private property may be seized for the personal needs and con- veniences of the king, or for the advancement of public safety; but for all such property the state must remunerate the owner (Sifre, Deut. 161; Sanh. i.4; B. K. 60b; “ Yad,” Melakim, iv. 3 e¢ seg.). This royal prerogative was greatly abused by some kings, particularly in fulfilling literally Samuel’s pre- diction (I Sam. viii. 14): “He will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive-yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants” (com- pare 2). xxii. 7; Ezek. xlv. 7, 8; xlvi. 16-18), which probably suggested the comparatively late homiletic remark, “ As soon as one is promoted to leadership in Israel he becomes rich ” (Yoma 22b; Yalk., Sam. 119). Rabbinical law, therefore, restricts this right of con- fiscation to the actual needs of the king and his court and army (Sifre, Deut. 158 et seg, ; Sanh. ii. 4; “Yad,” J.¢.). 2. Forfeiture: A penalty for misconduct, crime, or breach of duty. Pentateuchal and rabbinical laws prescribe specified amounts as forfeitures for certain crimes or misdemeanors (Ex. xxi. 32; B. K. 48a; Deut. xxii. 19; Ket. 46a; Deut. xxii. 29; Ket. 38a). These will be found detailed under DaMAGE, FINES AND FORFEITURE, or in the articles treating of the respective causes. Among the purely rabbinical enactments, one pre- scribes the forfeiture of rights where, through them, injury may accrue to innocent parties. For ex- ample: Where a bond bears a date antecedent to the day of actual execution, its holder forfeits the right of levying on the debtor’s property, if other- wise encumbered, even where that encumbrance dates posteriorly to the delivery of the bond (Sheb. xX. 5; B. M. 72a; “Yad,” Malveh, xxiii. 1; Hoshen Mishpat, 48, 7). Also, where the amount denomi- nated in a bond includes usury, and it can not be ascertained how much of that amount is principal, the creditor forfeits the principal as well as the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Confirmation Confiscation usury (B. M. 72a; Yoreh De‘ah, 161, 11; Hoshen Mishpat, 52,1). 1 Sovnectical THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 226 Gesetzgebung und die Medicin des Thalmuds (Mayer’s | in conflict with Abaye (B. M. 22b). The opin. trans].), Treves, 1881; Amram, Jewish Law of Divorce, Philadelphia, 1896. E. ©. J. H. G. CONFLICT OF OPINION (Hebrew, Mahlo- ket; Aramaic, Pelugta): Rarely did an opinion expressed by one of the rabbis of the Talmud pass unchallenged. In questions involving logical rea- soning, or the interpretation of some Biblical pas- sage, or an opinion of an earlier authority, there were conflicts of opinion among the teachers of the Talmud. The conflicting opinions were usually represented by different schools; for example, those of Shammai and Hillel, Rab and Samuel, Abaye and Raba. In fact, most of the rabbis of the Talmud, from the earliest tannaim to the latest amoraim, can be grouped into antagonistic couples, one in opposition to the other. Just as a tanna could not express an opinion which was in conflict with a Biblical passage, so an amora could not contradict a Mishnah or a generally accepted Baraita, unless he was able to produce an- other Mishnah or Baraita to support his view. Nor could an amora express an opinion which was in conflict with an accepted decision or principle ex- pressed by an earlier leading amora (Bezah 9a, and Rashi ad loc.). Otherwise, every rabbi had a right to his opinion, even though it conflicted with the opinion of the greatest of his contemporaries (B. K. 43b). Seattered throughout the Talmud there are vari- ous rules by which the Rabbis were guided in de- ciding cases of conflicting opinions. When the opinion of an individual conflicted with that of the majority, the opinion of the majority prevailed (Ber. 9a et al.). If one Mishnah records a conflict of opin- jon between two tannaim, and a subse- Rules of quent Mishnah in the same book re- Decision. cords the opinion of only one without mentioning any name (Setam), the opinion expressed in the latter Mishnah is to be fol- lowed (Yeb. 42b). In laws concerning mourning, the more lenient opinion is usually observed (M. K. 18a). With a few exceptions, an opinion expressed by the school of Hillel prevails against an opinion by the school of Shammai (‘Er. 18b). Because Eli- ezer ben Hyrcanus was under the ban (B. M. 59b; Shab. 130b), decisions were not, except in a few in- stances, rendered in accordance with his opinions. Decisions are always in accordance with the opin- ions of Simeon ben Gamaliel, except in three cases (Git. 38a), and of Rabbi (Judah the Patriarch), when in conflict with any other tanna. In questions in- volving logical reasoning, the decision is never ren- dered in accordance with the opinion of R. Meir when in conflict with the opinions of his colleagues, because his reasoning was too subtle (‘Er. 13b; com- pare Ket. 57a). In conflicts of opmion between amoraim the fol- lowing rules were employed. In matters of civil law the opinion of Rab prevails against the opinion of Samuel; in religious laws the reverse is the case (Bek. 49b). The same rule applies to conflicts of opinion between Rab Nahman and Rab Sheshet. With the exception of six cases, decisions are al- ways in accordance with the opinion of Raba when ion of Rabbah generally prevails against that of Rab Judah or Rab Joseph (Git. 74b). In rabbinica] institutions the more lenient opinion is followed (Yer. Git. i. 2). In a conflict between earlier and later authorities (those coming after the period of Abaye and Raba) the opinion of the later takeg precedence (see Asheri to Sanh. iv. 6; compare B. PB. 142b). These rules were followed by the various codi- fiers of the Jewish law. Although the law is now fixed in the codes of Maimonides and Caro, many of these rules have still their application, especially the one last mentioned, for it is considered that the later rabbis, who knew of the opinions advanced by their predecessors, were in a better position to de- cide correctly (compare AHARONIM; AMORA; AU- THORITY; LAWS, CODIFICATION OF. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mebo’ ha-Talmud, ascribed to Samuel ha- Nagid, appended to Berakot in most editions of the Talmud; Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1894. L. G. J. H. G. CONFLICT OF PASSAGES. Sce HeErme- NEUTICS. CONFORTE or CONFORTI, DAVID: He- brew literary historian; born in Salonica about 1618, died about 1685. Conforte came of a family of scholars. His early instructors were R. Israel Zebi, R. Judah Girasi, and R. Baruch Angel. As a young man he studied the Cabala under R. Jefeth the Egyptian, and philosophy under R. Levi Pasriel. His chief teachers, however, were Mordecai Kalai and Daniel Estroza. Conforte married a grand- daughter of Menahem de Lonsano. He journeyed twice to Palestine, once in 1644, alone, and a second time in 1652, when, together with his family, he settled in Jerusalem, founding there a bet ha-mid- rash. In 1671, however, he was in Egypt, where he occupied the position of dayyan, He is also known to have been in Smyrna. His chief work is a literary chronicle now known by the title “Kore ha-Dorot,” which contains the names of all the teachers and writers from the close of the Talmud up to his ownday. This chronicle is divided into three parts, the first two of which, referring to the time before the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, are very short. The third part is divided into eleven generations, and is not systematically arranged. Conforte used all the earlier historical works, such as Abraham ibn Daud’s “Sefer ha-Kabbalah,” Zacuto’s “ Yuhasin,” and Yahyah’s “Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah,” especially the first mentioned, from which he cites whole passages. He also gathered material from various printed and manuscript responsa, and was the first to collect the names mentioned in these works. His chronicle 1s valuable for the literary history of the Jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially in Turkey, Italy, Africa, and the near East, Proba- bly it was composed in Egypt, about the year 1683, if Cassel’s conjecture be correct. Conforte was 4 mere compiler, and at times his data are contradict- ory. The original manuscript was brought from Egypt by R. David Ashkenazi of Jerusalem, who, to judge from a note in his preface, gave it the title “Kore ha-Dorot,” and had it printed in Venice 1 227 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Conflict of Opinion Connecticut a a RT I a NS Ra 1746, without mentioning the name of the author. This poor edition has been critically reedited, and supplied with notes and index, by David Cassel (Ber- lin, 1846), who follows the pagination of the first edition. Conforte also wrote a volume of responsa, of the fate of which, however, nothing is known. Gabriel Confoto, a Turkish Talmudist who is mentioned in the responsa literature of the seven- teenth century, was probably a son of David Con- forte. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cassel’s preface to his edition of Conforte’s Kore ha-Dorot; Nepi-Ghirondi, Toledot Gedole Yisrael, p. 91; Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, i., No. 45; De-Rossi_ Ham- perger, Historisches Worterbuch, p. 86; Michael, Or ha- Hayyim, No. 771. G CONGREGATION: 1. An assembly convoked for a certain time and purpose (6np = éxxAyoia, J Kings vill. 65; Joel ii. 16; Ps. x1. 10. For ovsrpn and nbnpy in Ps, xxvi, 12, Ixviii, 26, “assemblies ” would be more correct than “ congregations” [A.V. ] ; and q*y179 in Ps, Ixxiv. 4 should be rendered “syn- agogues,” not “congregations,” asin A. V.). 2. A single community (ASP = cvvaywyZ, Num, Xxxv. 23 et seq.). 3. The whole body of Israel, called ate) (“the congregation of the Lord,” Deut. xxiii. 1 e¢ seg.; R.V. “assembly ” is incorrect); *% ay, Num. xxvii. 17; Seay nop =“the congregation of Israel,” Ex. xii. 3; Gress 932 moy = “the congregation of the chil- dren of Israel, Ex. xvi. 1; 5s7yv* my Sap = “the assembly of the congregation of Israel,” Ex. xii. 6 and Num. xiv. 5; or simply bmn and myn used indifferently, Lev. iv. 18 e¢ seq.; Prov. v. 14, where may is preferably translated by LAX. svvaywy7, and bre, éxxAnaia, To this must be added apy nbnp = “the congregation of Jacob,” Deut. xxxiii. 4 (R. V. “assembly ”; LXX. ovvaywyaic, plural; so also Ecclus. [Sirach| xxiv. 23). From the Apocryphal and other Hellenistic wri- tings (see Ecclus. xxiv. 2, xliv. 15, lL. 12 et eeg.; I Mace. ti. 56, tit. 13, etc.), and the inscriptions in Schirer (“Gesch. des Jiidischen Volkes,” ii, 482 et seq., ili, 40-46), it appears that “synagogue” = svvayoy” was the name, corresponding to ND3ID, Aramean Xnw'33, given to the Jewish congregation as a community, as well as to the place of worship; while the name éxxayoia (rov Beet, or Kupiov = “ assem- bly of the Lord”; hence kupiaxg [oixia] = “ church”) was chosen to designate the assembly of worshipers. It was owing to the influence of Paul that éx«ay- cia (= “church ”) became the distinctive name of the Christian communities, while “synagogue” became that of the Jewish congregation, and for some time, also, of the Judeo-Christian congregations (compare Schiirer, .c.). See COMMUNITY, ORGANIZATION OF; Minyan; SYNAGOGUE. - CONGRESS OF JEWISH WOMEN: One of the denominational congresses of the World’s Parliament of Religions, held at the Columbian Ex- Position in Chicago, Il]., 1898. It was the first dele- gate body of Jewish women ever called together. here were present 93 delegates from 29 cities of the United States. The congress was organized by (Mrs. Henry) Hannah G. Solomon, chairman, as- sisted by Miss Sadie American, secretary, and a committee of 25 other Chicago women. Its sessions were held Sept. 4-7, inclusive. Papers were pre- sented setting forth the work and thought of Jew- ish women in philanthropy and religion. At the final session a resolution was adopted calling for the formation of a permanent organization of Jewish women, to be called the “ National Council of Jew- ish Women” (see CouNcIL OF JEWISH WOMEN). As a souvenir of the congress, there was issued a “CoHection of Traditional Jewish Melodies,” ar- ranged and edited by the cantors William Sparger of New York and Alois Kaiser of Baltimore, with an introduction by Dr. Cyrus Adler of the United States National Museum, Washington. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Papers of the Jewish Women's Congress (Jewish Publication Society of America), 1894. A. S. A. CONIGLIANI, CARLO: Italian jurist and political economist; born at. Modena June 25, 1868; died there Dec. 6, 1901. After studying law at Modena, receiving the degree of doctor of laws in 1889, he was sent by the government to Padua and London for further study. On his return to Modena he became lecturer at the university, belng made instructor in finance in 1892. In 1898 he was ap- pointed assistant professor on the faculty of law. He died suddenly on the same day on which he had been named for the full professorship. Conigliani was an earnest student of economics, being attracted especially to the problem of the effect of duties and taxes on the masses. When Minister WOLLEMBORG was planning in 1901 a thorough reform of taxation, with the object of relieving the poorer classes, he called Conigliani into the ministry of finance as sci- entific adviser, to help him in elaborating his meas- ures. Conigliani was also interested in Jewish com- munal affairs, and was for a long time a member of the governing board of the Jewish community of Modena. During the last years of his short life he was the enthusiastic leader of the Zionists in Italy. He founded in 1901 “ L’Idea Sionista” for the expres- sion of their views, and acted as its editor until his death. His works include: “Teoria degli Effetti Eco- nomici delle Imposte,” Milan, 1890; “Un Nuovo Sistema di Tariffe Ferroviarie,” Florence, 1890; “Le Basi Subbiettive dello Scambio,” Padua, 1890; “Le Dottrine Monetarie in Francia nel Medio Evo” Mo- dena, 1892; “I Pronostici del Futuro Sociale” and “Per l’Imposta Proggessiva,” Turin, 1896; “La Ri- forma delle Leggi sui Tributi Locali, Studi e Pro- poste,” Modena, 1898; “Ueber das Hausiergewerbe in Italien” (with Ugo Rabbeno); “Gladstone e la Finanza Inglese,” Turin, 1898; and many shorter articles contributed to “ Riforma Sociale,” “Critica Sociale,” “Rivista Popolare,” and “Giornale degli Economisti.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: L'Idea Sionista, Jan. 6, 1902. S. I. E. CONITZ. See Konirz. CONJUNCTIVE. See Accents In HEBREW. CONNECTICUT: One of the six New England States, and one of the thirteen original states of the Cone so auity THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 228 Union. The first mention of a Jew in Connecticut | Building (at the corner of Fleet street and Custom is apparently that of a certain “David the Jew” in the Colonial Records, under date of Nov. 9, 1659 (i. 848); the records further show that a Jacob Lu- cena was fined £20 in 1670, probably for Sabbath- breaking, since the court, “considering he was a Jew,” reduced his fine to £10, and later, upon pe- tition of Asser Levy, to £5 (Hiihner, in “Pub. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc.” No. 8, pp. 21 et seq.). In a short history of the New Haven congrega- tion, deposited in the corner-stone of the new tem- ple, and published in the local press of March, 1896, it is stated that about six Jewish families settled in New Haven as early as 1770, According to the re- cently (1901) published diary of Ezra Stiles, this statement is inaccurate. Stiles was born in New Haven in 1727, continuing his residence there till his removal to Newport in 1755. In an account of his visit to New Haven in 1772 he makes this assertion: “The summer past a family of Jewsscttled here, the first real Jews (except the two brothers Pintos, who renounced Judaism and all religion) that settled in New Haven.” Headds that they were “10 or 8 Souls Jews, with six or 8 Negroes. Last Saturday they kept holy ... the Family were worshipping by themselves in a Room in which were Lights and a suspended Lamp. This is the first Jewish Worship in New Haven” (“ Diary of Ezra Stiles,” i, 283). It is quite probable that of the Jews who came to Connecticut up to the year 1840 the greater number left the state, the others amalgamating with the families of other faiths. There are a few Christian families of Connecticut—notably those of an ex- president of Yale College, a former governor of the state, and an ex-minister to Russia—that trace their lineage to these early settlers, claiming relationship with Ralph Isaacs. Considerable interest attaches to the brothers Pinto. They were doubtless the first Jewish settlers of Connecticut. A building known as the “ Pinto Place,” in State street near the railroad bridge in New Haven, is still in existence (see Pinto), In the “Roll of the Citizens of New Haven, Feb. 5, 1784, at their first incorporation,” are found the names of the Pinto brothers—Jacob and Solomon. The latter was a student at Yale College, graduating there in 1777. He took part in the defense of New Haven against the British July 5 and 6, 1779, and was taken prisoner in that engagement (“ Diary of Ezra Stiles,” ii.). New Haven is the most important city of Connect- | icut, having a population of 108,027 (1900). The number of its Jewish inhabitants is about 5,500. Al} records having been destroyed by fire, there exist no -available data regarding the Jewish congregations of New Haven. The first synagogue, Mishkan Israel, had its origin between 1840 and 1848, as in the latter year a parcel of land in West- ville (1 acres) was purchased for $50 for a cemetery. The jirst congregation consisted of twenty Bavarian families, among which were the Adlers, Bretzfeld- ers, Lehmans, Lauterbachs, Milanders, Ullmans, Watermans, and Rothschilds. Milander was the first reader of the synagogue. The congregation worshiped from time to time in the Armstrong New Haven. House square), in the Brewster Building (at the corner of State and Chapel streets), and in Todd’s Hall (in State street, near Court street), Meininger, Sternheimer, and Samuel Zunder being the succes. sive readers. In 1854, by the will of Judah Touro, the congregation came into possession of $5,000, which enabled it to purchase the property of the Third Congregational Church in Court street. The new synagogue was dedicated in the following year, the Rev. B. E. Jacobs being minister. In 1855 mere handful of people formed an Orthodox con- gregation, under the name “B’nai Sholom.” They worshiped from time to time in West Water street, William street, and in Olive street; their present synagogue was built in 1894. During 1862-64 the Court street congregation in- troduced a choir and an organ in the services, under the direction of Morris Steinert the Rev. Jonag Gabriel being minister. In 1873 the “Minhag America” was adopted as the ritual, and the first Sabbath-school established, with the Rev. Judah Wechsler as minister. He was succeeded in 1878 by the Rev. Dr. Kleeberg. Regular weekly sermons in German were introduced, the temple was enlarged, and anew organ installed. In 1893 Rabbi David Levy was elected minister. Various changes were made in the ritual, the sermon and a large part of the serv- ices being given in English, and the congregation decided to move to a more convenient quarter of the city. In 1896 the corner-stone of the new temple at Orange and Audubon strects was laid, and in March of the following year the new structure was dedicated. Since the Russian and Rumanian imumi- gration there have been established a number of other congregations, among which are Bnai Israel, Bikur Cholim, Bnay Abraham, B’nai Jacob, and Shewath Achim, each having a large membership and being in a thriving condition. Daily religious schools are connected with these congregations. While the Jewish community of New Haven con- sists mainly of merchants with large business and manufacturing establishments, it has had distin- guished representatives in the legal and medical professions also. Some have been specially promi- nent, as Max Adler, president of the chamber of commerce; 1, M. Ullman, officer on the staff of the governor; Morris Spier, commissioner of charities; Isaac Wolf, member of the legislature; H. W. Asher, president of the board of education; and J. B. Ullman, assistant corporation counsel, A con- siderable number have held important positions as teachers in the public schools. Maier Zunder (d. 1901) was for twenty years a member of the board of education. In recognition of his services in the cause of public-school education, a prominent school building bears his name. He was for many years, and up to the time of his death, treasurer of the Congregation Mishkan Israel, trustee of the B’nai B’rith Home, member of the board of the Masonic Home, and president of the Savings Bank of New Haven. During the past twenty years there has been & considerable increase in the Jewish populations of other towns and cities of the state, especially Bridgeport, Ansonia, Derby, Waterbury, and New 229 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Connecticut. Consanguinity London. Though without a resident minister, they each maintain a cemetery and a Sabbath-schooi, and hold religious services during the important holidays of the year. Thecombined population of Jews out- side of Hartford and New Haven is estimated to be one thousand. Since 1891 a number of Jewish farm- ers have settled in various parts of the state (see AGRICULTURAL COLONIES IN THE UNITED STATES). The capital city of the state is Hartford, with a population of 79,850 (1900), the Jewish inhabitants numbering about 2,000. The first con- Hartford. gregation established there was Beth Israel (1843), Among its rabbis have been Deutsch, Mayer, Rundbaken, and the present in- cumbent, Meyer Elkin. The congregation numbers about 100 members, and is ina flourishing condition. There are two or three other congregations, estab- lished by the Russian community within the past ten years, notably Adas Israel and B’nai Israel. Many Hartford Jews have held positions of honor in civic affairs, while not a few have held distinguished places in the medical and legal professions. A. D. Le. CONQUE, ABRAHAM BEN LEVI: Caba- list; lived at Hebron, Palestine, in the second half of the seventeenth century. Swayed by his cabalistic studies, Conque threw himself into the Shabbethaian movement, and became one of the most earnest apos- tles of the pretended Messiah. Even the apostasy of SHABBETHAL ZEBI did not shake Conque’s be- lief, and he remained until his death a faithful fol- lower. Conque traveled, as a collector for the poor of Palestine, throughout Germany and Russia, and everywhere endeavored to win adherents to the movement. At the request of a friend residing at Frankfort-on-the-Main, he wrote, in 1689, an ac- count of Shabbethai Zebi’s life, which reveals in the author a peculiar state of mind. The account is full of miracles and prodigies, firmly believed in by Conque. lt is referred to in Jacob Emden’s history of the Shabbethaian movement, “Zot Torat ha- Kena’ot.” Conque was also the author of the follow- ing works: (1) “ Abak Soferim ” (Dust of Scholars), Amsterdam, 1704, the first part, under the special title of “Em ha-Yeled,” comprises homilies on the Pentateuch; the second, “‘ Uggat Rezafim,” contains Biblical interpretations by himself and others; and the third, “Em Ja-Binah,” consists of nineteen ser- mons. (2) “ Minhat Kena’ot” (Offering of Jealousy), a treatise on jealousy. (8) “Abak Derakim” (Dust of Roads), a collection of sermons. The last two are mentioned by Azulai, who claims to have seen them in manuscript. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, ii., 8.v.; Zedner, Auswahl, p. 178, note 10: Gratz, Gesch. x. "998, 306, 422; Sisinechnoniee Cat. Bodl. col. 675. K. I. Br. CONRAD (CUNTZE) OF WINTERTHUR: Burgomaster of Strasburg during the Black Death, in 1348, Together with the councilors Goffe Sturm (Schéppe) and Peter Schwarber, he opposed the mob which, believing the Jews had caused the Black Death by poisoning the wells and rivers, de- manded their lives. When a deputation of the citi- zens appeared before the council to insist upon the 1878; arrest of the Jews, Conrad energetically refused. They insolently demanded that he divide among the citizens a part of the money he had taken from the Jews for protection; whereupon Conrad arrested the whole deputation. Hisattitude toward the Jews was the more meritorious in that he exposed himself to the resentment of the populace, knowing clearly the consequences. Conrad and his colleagues were deposed, their property was confiscated, and they were excluded from the council for ten years. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Glaser, Gesch. der Juden in Strassburg, pp. 13 et _seq.; Scheid, Hislotre des Juifs d’ Alsace, p. 36; Gratz, Gesch. vii. 336. I. Br. EK. C. CONRAT, MASE: Professor and: writer on Ro- man law; born in Breslau Sept. 16, 1848. His original name was Cohn, which he exchanged for Conrat in 1882, when he embraced the Christian faith. Conrat attended the gymnasium of St. Maria Magdalena in Breslau up to the year 1867; and then entered successively the universities of Breslau, Heidelberg, and Berlin. At the last he took his doctor’s degree in 1870. From 1870 to 1872 he filled the office of referendar in Breslau; he was appointed privat-docent in Roman law at the University of Heidelberg in 1873; and in 1874 he became pro- fessor at the University of Zurich. In 1878 he accepted, a call as professor in Roman law to the University of Amsterdam. His early studies lay mainly in the field of ancient Roman law; but afterward, and for twenty years, he turned his attention to the Roman Jaw of the Middle Ages. Besides numerous articles in various periodicals, he is the author of the following works: “De Natura Societatum Juris Romani Que Vocantur Publice,” 1870; “Zum Rémischen Vereinsrecht,” “Die Sogenannte Actio de Eo Quod Certo Loco,” 1877; “Beitriige zur Bearbeitung des Ré- mischen Rechts,” 1880, vol. i.; “Das Florentiner Rechtsbuch,” 1882; “Die Epitome Exactis Regi- bus,” 1884; “ Pandekten und Institutionenauszug der Britischen Dekretatensammlung,” 1887; “ Geschichte der Quellen und Litteratur des Rémischen Rechts im Friiheren Mittelalter,” 1891; “Die Christenver- folgungen im Rémischen Reich vom Standpunkt des Juristen,” 1897. He translated from Dutch into German Asser’s “Das Internationale Privat- recht,” 1880, and Kappeyne van de Cappello’s “ Ab- handJungen,” 1885. S. CONREID, HEINRICH: American theatrical manager and impresario, born at Bielitz, Austria, Sept. 13, 1855; died at Meran, Austria, April 27, 1909. In 1887 he leased the Irving Place Theater, and introduced German plays there with great success. He succeeded Maurice Grau as manager of the Metro- politan Opera House, New York, in 1903, produc- ing “Parsifal” and “Salome” in 1907. F. H. V. CONSANGUINITY AMONG JEWS: Ow- ing to their dispersion among populations professing creeds different from their own, Jews have married near relatives more frequently than the rest of the world. The marriage of first cousins and even of uncle and niece is quite legal and usual among them (see MARRIAGE). The limitations on the marriage of those of priestly descent would tend to limit the choice of Cohens to those nearly related to them. Consanguinity Consent The tendency seems to have begun early, since Abraham is represented as having sought a wife for Isaac in his mother’s family. In the Middle Ages it is difficult to ascertain how far the Jews tended to marry within their own families; but the Ghirondi family, to which Nahmanides, Gersonides (who mar- ried his first cousin), and Simon Duran belonged, appeared to have married relatives for several gen- erations (Steinschneider, “Cat. Bodl” cols. 2305- 2310). An attempt has been made to ascertain the pro- portion of first-cousin marriages among English Jews upon the method invented by G. H. Darwin (“Fortnightly Review,” July, 1875), based on the number of marriages in which both bride and bride- groom have the same surname. This method gives a proportion of about one-fifth. Judging by this criterion, the percentage of cousin-marriages in the English peerage was 4.50 among the landed gentry, 3.75 in rural districts, 2.25 in London. Applying the same method to English Jews, Jaccbs calculated that 7.52 per cent of their marriages were first-cousin marriages. By another method W. Stieda found that there were 23.02 per cent per thousand consan- guineous marriages among the Jews of Alsace-Lor- raine as compared with 8.97 among Catholics and 1.86 among Protestants (“Die Eheschliessungen in Elsass-Lorhringen,” 1872-76, Dorpat, 1878). It would therefore appear that the proportion of first- cousin marriages among Jews is about three times greater than among the non-Jewish population. It seems that consanguineous unions are more fertile and less sterile than other marriages. In Eng- land the ordinary percentage of sterile marriages is as high as 16.03 (Duncan, “ Fecundity, Fertility and Sterility,” p. 1538, Edinburgh, 1856), whereas among a number of Jewish consanguineous mar- riages only 5.4 per cent were sterile. The children who lived numbered 4.6 on an average as compared with 2.26 among ordinary Englishmen. . It has been contended that the neurotic tendency of Jews is due to these consanguineous marriages. Boudin (“Traité de Géographie Medicale,” ii. 140, Paris, 1857) contended that the greater prevalence of deaf-mutism among Jews was due to this cause; but this view is no longer credited among medical men, who regard consanguinity in marriage as aggrava- ting any diathetic tendency in a family, but not as causing the tendency per se. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Jacobs, Studies in Jewish Statistics, pp. 1-9, London, 1891; Huth, Marriage of Near Kin, p. 244, London, 1875. A. J. CONSECRATION or DEDICATION (7Dd9n): The solemn setting apart of a. person or thing toa special use or purpose. According to Fleischer (Levy, “Neuhebr. Wéo6rterb.” ii. 206), the word “hanak ” (to initiate) is derived from the “rubbing of the throat ” of an infant for the purpose of cleans- ing it and enabling it to take the mother’s milk, and is therefore applied to every form of initiation. It appears, moreover, that the “rubbing ” remained for a long time an essential feature of the rite of initia- tion, for “every consecration in Biblical times was accompanied by rubbing or anointing with oil the object to be consecrated. Thus the pillar at Bethel THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 230 was anointed (Gen. xxviii. 18; compare the “ dedica- tion” of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, Dan. ili. 2 et seq.). The priests and the vessels of the Tabernacle were anointed with oil (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 26; Lev. viii. 10-12; Num. vii. 18), and by this rite they were “hallowed.” “Mishhat Adonai” is, therefore, “con- secration to the Lord” (Lev. x. 7%). In the case of a priest to be consecrated there was also an anointing with the blood of the initiation “sacrifice ” (Ex. xxix. 1), the sacrifice Priests receiving the name of ody, from and Altar. 4° TAS ron, “the filling of the hand” of the priest with the offering which he had to bring in order to be thereby initiated as ministering priest (see Dillmann’s and Strack’s commentaries on Lev. vii. 37). The anointing of kings with oil (I Sam. xvi. 18, xxvi. 11; I Kings i. 39; II Kings xi. 12) is also a consecratory rite; hence, also, that of prophets (I Kings xix. 16). The consecration of the altar was most essential, and therefore accompanied with special solemnities in the form of sacrificial offerings (see Num. vii. 10, 11, 84-88). The consecration (713M) of Solomon’s Tem- ple consisted of adedicatory prayer and a blessing, in addition to the sacrifices (I Kings viii. 15 e¢ seg., 55 et seqg., 68 et seq.). The consecration of the Second Temple is mentioned in Ezra vi. 16, 17, and for the probable date (25th of Kislew) see Num. R. xiii. 4 (compare Hag. ii. 10). It was the consecration of the newly erected altar which gave the feast of the Maccabees the name of HaNuKKAH (I Macc. iv. 58, 59). According to Deut. xx. 5, private houses also were consecrated, and as to the gates of a city see Neh. iii. 1 and CoRNER-STONE. The warrior when going to battle was also “consecrated ” (Joel iv.9; Micah iii. 5; Jer. xxii. 7, Hebr.); hence, probably, the name 9)3M for the young warrior initiated into war (Gen. xiv. 14). This gave rise to the proverb (Prov. xxii. 6, Hebr.): “Initiate the lad [A. V. and R. V. “Train up a child ”] in the way he should go.” It was considered the duty of parents to “initiate” the young into every religious practise, and this was a “consecration” to a life of re- In ligious duty (fa3n, Yoma 82a; Nazir Rabbinical 29b). When children were to be ini- Times. tiated into the study of the Law or of the Hebrew language, Hebrew letters or Biblical sentences upon honey-cakes covered with honey were given them to eat, in accordance with Ezek. iii. 3 (see Mahzor Vitry § 508, p. 628, ed. Hor- witz; Zunz, “Z. G.” pp. 167 e¢ seg.; and compare Sotah 11b and the symbolical offering of honey and milk as a similar Christian baptismal rite; Tertul- lian, “De Corona Militis,” iii.; and Augusti, “ Hand- buch der Kirchlichen Archiologie,” ii. 445 et seq.). For the consecration of synagogues there is no special form mentioned in Talmudical literature; but the fact that in the beginning of the fourth century the churches had their dedication ceremonies (Buse- bius, “ Hist. Eccl.” x. 4) makes it probable that the synagogues had some such form, as indeed Greeks and Romans also had for their temples (see Pfannen- schmid, “Germanische Erntefeste,” 1878, pp. 524- 580). Mishnah M. K. i. 6 speaks of consecration of family sepulchers (p33 MN j3D3MD), and Yer. M. 231 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Consanguinity Consent K. i. 80d of consecration of cemeteries (M3 PIN nap). But this does not always imply a formal act, as may be learned from Sheb. 15a: “The vessels of the sanctuary after Moses’ time were consecrated by their use without being anointed.” Later prac- tise, however, introduced ceremonies of dedication for synagogues, and also for a newly written “Se- fer Torah” when given to a congregation. Mod- ern life extended dedication ceremonies to every communal institution of an educational, charitable, or religious character. A fixed form for such dedi- cation exercises does not exist; the Psalms to be read and the prayers to be offered are left to the dis- cretion of the rabbi or officers in charge. At the dedication of cemeteries a superstitious custom, sanctioned by R. Juda the Pious, was to kill a rooster (933, a term used for both man and rooster) and bury it as the first victim of death (see Isaac Lampronti, nNApA M3). Fora wise selection of Psalms and prayers at the dedication of a ceme- tery, see Praeger, “Gebet- und Erbauungsbuch fir Israeliten,” 1860, pp. 178-181, and M. Silberstein, “Predigten bei Besonderen Veranlassungen,” p. 163, Breslau, 1870. For the consecration of a new house see Singer, “ Authorized Daily Prayer Book,” pp. 300-303, London, 1891. For other dedications see “Liturgies” in Zedner, “Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus.” E. G. A. K. CONSENT: A voluntary yielding of the will, judgment, or inclination to what is proposed or de- sired by another. A rational and voluntary concur- rence of the parties is necessary in all cases involv- ing a legal act orcontract. This principle gives rise to several distinctions in civil law. If a man has been forced to make a gift to another, his act is con- sidered invalid, even though he made no formal pro- test (B. B, 40b; Hoshen Mishpat, 242,1). If he has been compelled, however, to sell either personal or real estate, the contract is valid, for it is presumed that, unless he had previously made a formal protest (“moda‘a”’) before two witnesses, be was reconciled on the receipt of the money (B. B. ¢b.; Maimonides, “Yad,” Mekirah, x. 1, 6; Hoshen Mishpat, 205, 1). Minors above six years of age, who show intelli- gence and an understanding of business, are pre- sumed to be capable of consenting to the purchase, sale, or gift of personal property, but not of real estate (Git. 59a; Mekirah, xxix. 1; Hoshen Mishpat, 235, 1). If a guardian (“apitropos”) In Business is appointed for them, they can nego- Trans- tiate no business without his consent actions. (25. 235, 2; see “ Pithe Teshubah,” quo- ting the opinion that even then his gifts should be valid). The deaf-mute can enter by signs into contracts concerning personal estate. He must, however, be examined to see that he understands what he is doing (Git. 2.c.; Mekirah, xxix. 2; Hoshen Mishpat, 235, 1%). The mute can sell and buy and give away either personal property or real estate (7b. 235, 18). The idiot can make no contract, and the court ap- points a guardian for him as for a minor (Ket. 48a; Mekirah, xxix. 4, 20; Hoshen Mishpat, 235, 20). The consent need not always be expressed. Si- lence is regarded as voluntary consent (Yeb. 87b; B. M. 87b). Therefore, in marriage contracts, if a man gave a coin toa woman and pronounced the prescribed formula in the presence of two witnesses, and she did not protest immediately, the marriage is valid (Eben ha-‘Ezer, 42,1; see Isserles’ gloss). By “immediately ” a space of time is meant which would be sufficient for a disciple to greet his In master thus: “Peace be with thee, Marriage my master and teacher” (B. K. 73b). Contracts. If, however, she was under duress, the marriage is invalid (Yeb. 19b; see Rashi’s commentary, where the principle of consent on the part of the woman is derived from Deut. xxiv. 2: “She may go and be another man’s wife”; Kid. 2b; Eben ha-‘Ezer, J.c.). Authorities differ, how- ever, regarding cases in which the man is under duress in contracting a marriage; some are of opin- ion that inasmuch as he can divorce her at will after- ward, the marriage should be valid (Eben ha-‘Ezer, l.c.). Since, however, compulsory divorce is now impossible, according to the decree of R. GeRsHom, the man would be in the same position as the woman, and a forced marriage, whether the man or the woman be the party under duress, would be consid- ered invalid (Mielziner, “Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce,” § 29). Consent being necessary, insane persons or idiots were considered incapable of entering into a mar- riage contract (Eben ha-‘Ezer, 42, 2). If a person who is only weak-minded or tempo- Insanity rarily insane has contracted a mar- and Idiocy riage, it is doubtful whether such a Barred. contract could be declared invalid, so that the woman may be allowed to marry again (2b. Isserles’ gloss). A marriage con- tracted by an intoxicated person is valid, unless he was at the time of his marriage entirely unconscious, “as the intoxication of Lot” @b. 42, 3). Deaf and dumb persons, being looked upon as idiots, could not contract a marriage according to Biblical law, but the Rabbis sanctioned such a marriage when performed by signs. This being merely a rabbinical institution, it is not as valid as other marriages, and @ very serious question would arise were another man to contract a marriage with the woman after she had been married to the deaf-mute (Yeb. 112b; “Yad,” Ishut, iv. 9; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 44, 1; see Miel- ziner, l.c. $8 83, 34). Minors are usually classed with deaf-mutes and idiots by the Talmudists, and their marriage is also considered invalid by lack of consent (Eben ha-‘Ezer, 43, 1). While mutual consent is absolutely necessary in marriage, it is, according to the old Jewish law, not necessary in divorce, and the husband can divorce his wife even without asking her consent (20. 119, 6; from Mishnah Yeb. xiv. 1). As in the course of time the act of divorce came under the control of the rabbinical courts, the Rabbis had an opportunity to restrict this law gradually by many regulations, until, in the eleventh century, by a de- In Divorce. cree of R. Gershom, this arbitrary right of the husband was entirely abrogated. Although Maimonides made no mention of it in his code, this bold regulation was soon adopted by the great majority of the Jews, and a divorce without sufficient cause will not be granted unless the con- Consistory Consolation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 232 sent of both parties is obtained (Eben ha-‘Ezer, J.c. Isserles’ gloss; see Amram, “Jewish Law of Di- vorce,” iv.). In certain cases this decree is disre- garded—for instance, if the woman commits adult- ery, or is even denounced as an adulteress by persons in whom the husband has faith (Eben ha- ‘Eizer, 115, 7); if she conducts herself in a manner unbecoming a Jewish woman (20, 115, 4); if she causes her husband to transgress the religious precepts with regard to food or to cohabitation; if she curses her father-in-law (2. 115, 4); if she contracts an incurable disease (2b. 117, 11); if she refuses him connubial rights for a whole year (¢. 77, 2, Isserles’ gloss). There is a difference of opinion among authorities whether, under the decree of R. Gershom forbidding bigamy, the husband may marry another woman if he can not force his wife to the acceptance of the bill of divorce in the above- mentioned cases (“Pithe Teshubah” to Eben ha- ‘Ezer, 1, 10, and 119, 6). An insane person, or one whois intoxicated to the degree of unconsciousness, is incapable of divorcing his wife. A deaf-mute, who became so after his marriage, can not divorce his wife. If, however, he was so when he first married, he may divorce her by signs as he married her by signs (Eben ha- *Ezer, 121, 1, 6). For questions involving legal rights, see hicutr oF EMINENT Domain; Riegut ofr Way; for those involving consent to a crime see ACCESSORIES, BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bloch, Der Vertrag nach Mosatsch-Talmu- dischem Rechte, Budapest, 1893; Mielziner, The Jewish Law . of Marriage and Divorce, Cincinnati, 1884; Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, Philadelphia, 1898. J. SR. J. H. G. CONSISTORY: An ecclesiastical court; in Jewish usage, a body governing the Jewish congre- gations of a province or of a country; also the dis- trict administered by the consistory. The term was originally, and still is, applied in the Roman Catholic Church to the College of Cardinals, assembled for de- liberation or to hear a solemn declaration from the pope. Similarly every bishop has the right to convene for the purpose of deliberation a consistory composed of priests of his diocese. After the Reformation the Protestant Church adopted this term for the body which governed the ecclesiastical affairs of a coun- try. Inthe latter sense the Jews in countries under French influence made use of the term in the be- ginning of the nineteenth century, when the move- ment for political emancipation demanded the cre- ation of a representative body which could transact official business with a government in the name of the Jews, and when the desire for reform among the educated classes demanded the creation of a body vested with authority to render religious de- cisions. The first attempt to create such a consistory was made by Napoleon [. In 1806 he convened the Assembly of Jewish Notables, whose resolutions were confirmed by a sub- sequently convened Sanhedrin; after which, by the decree of March 17, 1808, he organ- ized a consistory. According to this decree every department containing 2,000 Jews might establish a consistory. Departments having less than this number might combine with others; but none had France. more than one consistory. Above these provin- cial consistories there was a central consistory, Every consistory consisted of a grand rabbi, with another rabbi where possible, and of three lay mem- bers, two of whom were residents of the town where the consistory sat. They were elected by twenty- five “notables,” who were nominated by the au- thorities. Eligible to become members of the con- sistory were Israelites who had reached the age of thirty years, who had. never been bankrupt, and had not practised usury. The central consistory consisted of three grand rabbis and two lay mem- bers. Every year one retired, and the remaining members elected his successor. Napoleon demanded that the consistories should see toit that the resolutions passed by the Assembly of Notables and confirmed by the Sanhedrin should be enforced by the rabbis; that proper decorum should be maintained in the synagogue; that the Jews should take up mechanical trades; and that they should see to it that no one evaded military service. The central consistory watched over the consistories of the various departments, and had the right to appoint the rabbis. This organization was also introduced in the vari- ous countries which were under the sway of France during the Napoleonic era, as Hol- French land, Belgium, and Westphalia. Inthe De- last-named country, ruled over by Na- pendencies. poleon’s youngest brother, Jerome, a consistorial organization was intro- duced by the decree of March 31, 1808. It was com- posed of a president (who could be either a rabbi or a layman), three rabbis, two lay members, and one secretary. It was chiefly the outcome of Israel J ACOBSON’S efforts, who hoped to introduce through such amedium his Reform ideas. A circular of this consistory ordered the introduction of confirmation and removed the prohibition against leguminous plants on Passover. None of these organizations survived the Napoleonic era with the exception of that in Belgium, where the consistorial organization still exists as in France. The following is a list of the original consistories as drawn up by Napoleon for the whole of tle ter- ritory under his influence, in his Madrid decrce of Dec. 11, 1808, with the census of Jews in eacl con- sistory and in its chief town (Halphen, “Recueil des Lois . . . Concernant les Israélites,”pp. 55-57): —— Jews in\Jews in Jews in Jews in Consistory. | Chief | Consis- || Consistory. | Chief | Consis- Town. | tory. = Town. & tory. Paris ....... 2,733 | 3,585 ||Coblenz......, Bap 4.063 Strasburg.....} 1,476 | 16,155 ||Krefeld...... | 160 | 6,218 Winzenhein, 536 | 10,000 ||Bordeaux. 2,131 3,713 Mayence..... 1,264 | 11,122 Marseilles. . 440 2,527 MetZ ci asscess 2,400 6.517 || TRL s065ea ac 1,450 | 2,614 Nancy ...++.: 739 4,166 ||Casal-Maggi- TYeEVES ....04. 261 3,553 OPCs eceaire 790 | The desire to introduce reforms, and the difficulty of making them popular so long as they were indi- vidual decisions, led to various attempts during the middle of the nineteenth century to introduce either a consistory or a synod which should, by an author- 233 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Consistory Consolation itative vote, settle the difficulties which arose when the demands of the time came into conflict with the traditional law. None of these attempts was suc- cessful. Since Napoleon’s decree of March 17, 1808, vari- ous changes have been introduced in the method of electing the delegates, and some of The Pres- the provisions assigning to the rabbis ent Status. the réle of informers were dropped. The most important changes are con- tained in the laws of Louis Philippe (May 25, 1844) and of Napoleon IIT. (June 15, 1850, and Aug. 29, 1862), and the law of Dec. 12,18 72, which introduced the system of universal suffrage in the elections of the consistories. There are at present twelve con- sistories: Paris, Nancy, Bordeaux, Lyon, Marseilles, Bayonne, Epinal, Lille, Besancon, Algiers, Con- stantine, Oran; each is composed of the grand rabbi of the consistorial district and six lay members, with a secretary. Each consistory has a representative in the central consistory, which therefore is composed of twelve members and the grand rabbi of France; its seat is in Paris. In Alsace-Lorraine the former consistories of Metz, Strasburg, and Colmar still exist, but they are not united under acentral consis- tory, though the establishment of such an organ- ization is now (1903) under consideration. The consistory of Belgium has its seat in Brussels. See COMMUNITY, ORGANIZATION OF, IN MODERN TIMES. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hallez, Des Juifs.en France, Paris, 1845; Halphen, Recueil des Lois... Concernant les Israelites, Paris and Bordeaux, 1851: Roenne and Simon, Die Frttheren und Gegenwirtigen Verhdlinisse der Juden in den Sdmmttichen Landestheilen des Preussischen Staates, pp. 378 et seg.: Breslau, 1843, Sulamith, iii. 1 et seq.; the French almanae Annuaire des Archives Israélites, published an- nually since 1884; Gritz, Gesch. xi. 200 ef seq.; Jost, Gescit. des Judenthums und Setner Sekteit, iii. 327 et seq. CONSOLATION.—Biblical Data: Comfort; alleviation of sorrow (MDM), OM WN3IN); relief from grief (from D3, meaning in pi‘el form “to remove grief”); words of sympathy and encouragement offered to persons in distress (Gen. xxxvii. 35; II Sam. xii. 24; Job xvi. 2; Ps, cxix. 50, 82). After the burial of the dead, mourners were offered “ conso- lation” by the friends, who made them partake of the mourners’ meal and the cup of consolation (see Jer. xvi. 7; compare Ps. lxix. 20; Job xlii. 11). These friends, called “comforters,” are frequently mentioned in the Bible (see Lam. i. 2 e¢ seg.; Eccl. iv.1; If Sam. x. 2; Job xvi. 2; Ps. Ixix. 20; Nahum iii. 7), and the act of consolation is alluded to in Job xxix. 25, and especially in Isa. lvii. 18 eé seq., Hebr.: “I will restore comforts unto him and to his mourners—food for the refreshment of the lips” (the last Hebrew words, “bore nib sefatayim,” have been strangely misinterpreted by the commentators, A. V. giving, “I create the fruit of the lips”; see Luz- zatto ad foc.). Isa. Ixvi. 10 et seg., Hebr.: “All ye that mourn over her that ye may suck and be satis- tied with the overflow of her consolation,” also con- tains an allusion to this custom (compare Ps. xciv. 19, “thy comforts,” and Job xv. 11). Also the in- terpretation of the name of Noah as the one who Shall “comfort” men for their hard toil because of the curse of the earth (Gen. v. 29, §9xm3° MP), alludes to the wine of which he was the first producer (Gen. ix. 20; see Gunkel, commentary, ad loc., and Prov, Xxxi. 6). Consolation was especially promised by the prophets of the Exile to the people mourning over Jerusalem (Isa, xl. 1; xlix. 13; li. 8, 12; lii. 9; Ixi. 2 e¢ seg.; Ixvi. 10-18; Jer. xxxi. 12 et seg. ; Zech. i, 18, 17). Hence the name “ Nehamah” or “ Neha- mata” (consolation) given tothe prophetic literature as offering comfort to the mourners over Jerusalem by the promise of the advent of “the comforter,” either “the Messiah” (see “Menahem” as name of the Messiah, Sanh. 98b) or the “messenger of glad tidings” (see PARACLETE; B. B. 14b; Ber. 81b; Yer. Ber. v. 8d). ——In Rabbinical Literature: “The consola- tion of Jerusalem” (see above) is mentioned in the prayer recited at meals (see GRACE at MEALS); also by the Karaites in the wedding eulogy (see Miller, “ Masseket Soferim,” p. 278), before the reading of the Haftarah (see “ Massek. Soferim,” xiii. 12), and particularly in the benedictions recited over the cup of consolation at the mourners’ meal. The consola- tion of Jerusalem is thus brought into connection with that of the mourners over the dead (see Ket. 8b; Siddur R. Amram, i. 55; Tur Yoreh De‘ah, 379; Shulhan ‘ Aruk, 2). There were two gates in the Temple at Jerusa- lem, believed to have been built by King Solo- mon, through one of which bridegrooms marched, through the other mourners and anathematized persons; the former to receive the congratulations, the latter the consolations, of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who gathered before these gates for the purpose of showing their sympathy. After the destruction of the Temple the synagogue became the place where bridegrooms received the congrat- wlations and mourners the condolences of the peo- ple (Soferim, xix. 12; compare Pirke R. EI. xiii.). Formerly the mourners stood still, and the people offering consolation passed by them; later on, in consequence of rivalry between families claiming rights of precedence on account of higher rank, the people were ranged in lines, and the mourners passed them, receiving consolation (Sanh. 19a). Ten men were necessary to form such a line (Sanh. 78.). Where there were no mourners to receive consola- tion, a congregation of ten men paid the honors to the dead (Shab. 152a, b). If the king wasa mourner, the people said to him: “May we be thine atone- ment!” that is, May we suffer for thy sin! And he rejoined: “ May ye be blessed from the Lord! ” (Sanh. ii. 1). To the priest in the Temple who was in mourning or in misfortune, the friends standing to the right said: “May He who dwells in this house be thy Comforter!” (Middot ii. 2). The friends who offered consolation sat down on the ground with the mourners and waited for the latter to speak first (Yer. M. K. iii. 88a). When Jo- hanan ben Zakkai lost his son his disciples came to offer him consolation. R. Eliezer said: “The first man lost his son Abel, and was comforted ; so should you be comforted.” R.Joshuasaid: “Job had many sons and daughters, and lost them all on one day, and was comforted; so should you be comforted.” R. Jose referred to Aaron the high priest, who lost his two sons on the day of the dedication of the Consolation Constance THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 234 Sanctuary, and was comforted; R. Simeon referred to King David, who lost a son and was comforted. But R. Johanan ben Zakkai rejoined: “ Your consola- tions only awaken grief, inasmuch as they recall the evil destiny which befell all these men.” Then R. Eleazar b, ‘Arak began: “A king gave a precious boon in trust toa man; and, behold, the man was in constant dread lest he might have it damaged or lost; and only when he had returned it safely did he feel at ease. The King of the world gave to thee a son who became a devotee of the Law; and then, having become familiar with all branches of learn- ing, he departed this world free from sins; oughtst thou not be thankful that thou couldst return the treasure to God in such blameless shape?” Where- upon R. Johanan b. Zakkai replied: “Truly, thou, R. Eleazar, hast comforted me” (Ab. R. N. xiv.; compare BERURIAH), Judah bar Nahmani, the me- turgeman of Resh Lakish, spoke at the death of a child to the mourners: “Ye brethren who are af- flicted by this loss, ponder upon this bitter lot of man foreordained from the days of creation; many have drunk of this cup, and many will yet drink of it. May the Lord of Consolation console you! Blessed be the Comforter of the Mourners!” Tothe friends who had come to condole with the bereft he said: “Brethren who practise benevolence, sons of prac- tisers of benevolence, adhering to the covenant of Abraham our father, may the Lord of Recompense recompense you! Blessed be He who recompenseth good deeds!” (Ket. 8b). In Midrashie literature God Himself is regarded as giving men an example of the “consolation of mourners” (Sotah 14a, with reference to Gen. xxv. 11: “After the death of Abraham God_ blessed Isaac”). It is said of consolation that “it is one of those things which bring happiness to man” (Ab. R. N., A., xxx., ed. Schechter, p. 89); and it is declared that “wine has only been created for the cup of con- solation” (‘Er. 65a, with reference to Prov. xxxi. 6). Regarding the mourners’ meal see FUNERAL RITES and MouRNING CUSTOMS. ~ K. CONSOLO, BENJAMIN: Italian Hebraist; born at Ancona in 1806; died at Florence in 1887, He received his elementary instruction from Rabbi David A. Vivanti at the Talmud Torah of his native city, and then took up eagerly the study of secular sciences, though against the wishes of his teachers. As he was excluded from the schools of Ancona, which were then under papal control, and was too poor to pay private tutors, he encountered great difficulties. He studied Italian with Count Pietro Alety, a student of Dante, and then Latin with Lorenzo Barili, who subsequently became a car- dinal. Consolo was appointed secretary of the Jewish community at Ancona, and later of that at Florence. In the latter city he formed a friendship with the litterateur Cesare Scartabelli, whose enthu- siasm in behalf of purism anda return to the lan- guage of the trecentists he shared. His love for Judaism, together with his interest in Italian litera- ture, induced Consolo to translate Hebrew works into Italian. His worksinclude: “1 Capitoli dei Padri, Trattato Misnico Morale con Commenti,” an Italian transla- tion of Abot; “I Doveri de’ Cuori,” Prato, 1847. “ Volgarizzamento del Libro di Job,” Florence, 1874, “Volgarizzamento delle Lamentazioni di Geremia ”. “Tl Salterio o Canti Nazionali del Popolo d’Israele Spiegati e Commentati,” Florence, 1885. He was also the author of several shorter essays and poems, The autographs of these works, as well as the man- uscript of his comparative treatise on Biblical and Roman law, entitled “Jus Civile,” are preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionaleat Florence. Consolo’s wife, Regine, published an Italian translation of the “ En- chiridion d’Egitto.” The composer and virtuogo Federico Conso.o is his son. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Introduction to Consolo’s translation of the Psalms; A. de Gubernatis, Dizionario Internazionale degli Scrittori Contemporanet; Il Vessillo Israelitico, xxxiv. 14%, s. I. E. CONSOLO, FEDERICO: Italian violin virtu- oso, composer, and scholar; born at Ancona in 1841, After studying the violin with Giorgetti in Florence and Vieuxtemps in Brussels, and composition with Fétis and Liszt, he played with great success at al- most all the European courts and in the Orient, In 1884, however, he was compelled by a nerv- ous affliction to discontinue violin-playing. He re- moved to Florence, aud devoted himself to composi- tion. His works include a number of Oriental cycles, concertos, and “Shire Yisrael” (“Libro dei Canti d’Israel,” Florence, 1891) a collection of Seph- ardic synagogal melodies and original compositions, He subsequently undertook archeological studies, writing on musical notation, and especially on music in the Bible. He is a knight of several orders in different states. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Riemann, Musiklexicon, Supplement, xiii., Leipsic, 1900. 8. I. E. CONSONANTS. See HEBREW LANGUAGE. CONSTANCE, DISTRICT OF THE LAKE OF: Region in the northeastern part of Switzerland. Of the Jewish communities designated as belong- ing to the district of the Lake of Constance, those of Ueberlingen, Constance, Schaffhausen, and Dies- senhofen deserve special mention, although many others belong to the same district, as Bregenz, Engen, Aach, Feldkirch, Randegg, Isny, Donau- eschiugen, and Thiengen. This designation is found also in the “Memorbiicher.” The cemetery of the Jews at Ueberlingen is mentioned as early as 1226. The earliest Jewish settlement at Constance dates from the beginuing of the thirteenth century. Jews of Schaffhausen are referred to in documents in 1299; while those of Diessenhofen are not mentioned until the fourteenth century, although probably some were living there long before that time. In 1314 the Jews of Ueberlingen paid their taxes to King Frederick and Duke Leopold of Austria; in 1332 they were cruelly persecuted, more than 300 being killed, and their synagogue destroyed. Their synagogue and the Jewish quarter are again mentioned in 1349, when the Jews were completely exterminated by the FLAGELLANTS (Feb. 11), while the tombstones of their cemetery were used in build- ing the cathedral and the hospital. Jews were again admitted in 1378. They suffered much under ED Ade AF FPR OE PEL, is, S S P ROCE 8 PP ie s SION OF JEWS MEETING POPE MARTIN V. AT THE (From a manuscript chronicle of Ulrich von Reichthal, in the li COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, ibrary of the town hall at Basel.) 1417 Constance Constantinople THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 236 King Wenzel’s law which canceled all debts owing to them (1385); and in 1429 twelve were banished. In 1812 many Jews of Constance were burned on a charge of having desecrated the host. They had a synagogue at this time. In 1314 their quarter was destroyed by fire; 880 were killed by the Flagellants in 1849. In 1417 Jews from Constance went to meet Pope Martin V. in solemn procession. Their synagogue is again mentioned in 1424, The liaison of a Jewess of the community witha member of Emperor Sigismund’s family, in 1424, was used by Scribe as the subject of his libretto to Halévy’s opera “La Juive.” In 1429 and in 1448 all the Yonstance Jews were imprisoned; and from 1448 to 1533 none lived there. | At Schaffhausen many were slain in 1349 on a charge of having poisoned the wells. Their syna- gogue is mentioned in 13891; 30 Jews were burned in 1401; and in 1475 the last remaining Jew removed to Winterthur. At Diessenhofen, where they had a synagogue at an early period, they were persecuted in 1849. In 1401 a Jew, accused of having mur- dered a Christian boy, was burned; and in 1494 the Jews left the city. In 1547 Charles V. gave Ueberlingen certain priv- ileges regarding usurious contracts with the Jews, which were renewed by Maximilian in 1566. As late as 1853 two Jews who desired to live in Ueber- lingen encountered difficulties in so doing; three were living there in 1880, and nine in 1902. In 1533 it was decreed that but one Jew a week might remain for one night at Constance. Since 1847 Jews have been permitted to live there; though under many restrictions. In 1868 five Jewish fam- ilies settled in Constance, and in 1866 formed a com- munity that by 1902 numbered 130 families. At Schaffhausen a Jewish physician, David, with his family of six members, was admitted as a resi- dent in 1585. He was made to suffer many persecu- tions; and his son Samuel was expelled in 1562. Since 1865, Jews have again settled there, though only two families were resident in 1880. At Diessenhofen, where, in 1667, six families were living, a Jew received permission to settle in 1865, and ten Jewish families were living in the town in 1880, BIBLIOGRAPHY : Lowenstein, Gesch. der Juden am Bodensee und Umgebung, 1879; Stern, in Zeitschrift fiir Gesch. der Juden in Deutschland, i. 216 et seq.; idem, Zeitschriften- Literatur, s.v. Bodensee. G. AS e. CONSTANTINE I. (FLAVIUS VALERIUS AURELIUS CONSTANTINUS): Roman em- peror; born Feb. 27, 274; died May 22, 337; pro- claimed emperor by the army in Gaul on the death of his father, Constantius Chlorus (306). He defeated Maxentius, his rival in Italy, in 812; and after rout- ing Licinius, Emperor of the East (323), became sole ruler. In 830 he transferred his court to Byzan- tium, thenceforth called Constantinople; but died in the midst of his preparations fora Persian campaign, after receiving baptism from Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea. Being the tirst Christian emperor, the Church conferred upon him the title of “The Great.” Political and religious considerations dictated Constantine’s friendly attitude toward Christianity. As early as the war against Maxentius, his standard bore a Christian emblem; but previous to his victory over Licinius he contented himself with placing Christianity upon a footing of equality with heathen- dom. As sole ruler he did not go materially be- yond the gradual repression of heathenism and the public encouragement of Christianity; he showed his attitude on this question especially by conduct- ing the first ecumenical council at Nicea (325). After his victory over Licinius, Constantine inau. gurated a more and more hostile policy toward the Jews. It is true that as early as 321 a law wag promulgated which made it obligatory for Jews to fill onerous, expensive municipal offices; while on the other hand such Jews as had devoted themselves to the service of their own religion were exempted in 330 from all public services, and those who were already “curiales” were freed from the levying of taxes. In329, however, the Jews were forbidden to perform the rite of circumcision on slaves or to own Christian slaves; the death penalty was ordained for those who embraced the Jewish faith, as well as for Jews versed in the Law who aided them, On the other hand, Jewish converts to Christian- ity were protected against the fanaticism of their former coreligionists. Simultaneously with this an edict was issued forbidding marriages between Jews and Christians, and imposing the death penalty upon any Jew who should transgress this law. Some of these enactments were affirmed in 835. Noteworthy is the hostile language of several of these laws, in which Judaism is spoken of asanignominious or as a bestial sect (“secta nefaria” or “feralis ”). The hostile attitude of the Christianized state, which later became more and more accentuated under Constantine’s sons, thus owed its origin to | Constantine himself; it is even probable that it was Constantine who renewed the law prohibiting the Jews from entering Jerusalem. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lactantius, De Mort. Persec. pp. 24 et seq. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. viii.-x.; Zosimus, ii. 8-39; Codex T he- odosianus, xvi. 8, 1'~6, and 9, 1-2; compare Seeck, Die Zeit- folge der Gesetze Constantins, in Zeitschrift der Savigny- stiftung, x. (Romanist. Abthetlung); Victor Schu!tze, Gesch. des Unterg. des Griech.-Rém. Heidenthums, i. 2+-67 idem, in Zeit. fiir Kirchengesch. vii. 348 et seq.; Brieger. in th. iv. 168 et seg.: Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Eneyce. iv. 1013 et seq: Gratz, Gesch. 3a ed., iv. 307 et seq., 480; Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der Antiken Welt, Berlin, 1897-1901. G. H. V. CONSTANTINE (ancient Cirta): City in Al- geria; capital of the department of the same name. In ancient times it was the capital of Numidia. Jews lived there as early as the first centuries of the common era, as is attested by epitaphs found in sev- eral places in that province. As Constantine re- mained under the Roman domination until its con- quest by the Arabs (710), it is probable that, toward the middle of the fifth century, the greater part of the Jewish inhabitants left it and settled in the neighboring towns under the Vandals, among whom the Jews enjoyed a far greater amount of freedom than they did under Christian Rome. In common with all Algerian Jews, those of Con- stantine enjoyed peace from the time of the Ara- bian conquest until the middle of the twelfth cen- tury. Under the Almohad dynasty they were subjected to frequent persecutions. From 1509 until 1555 Constantine was in the hands of the 237 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Constance Constantinople Spaniards. During this period the Jewish commu- nity suffered severely. Under the domination of the Turks, Constantine was administered by beys, al- most independent of the deys of Algiers, and under them the state of the Constantine Jews was similar to that of Jews elsewhere in ALGERIA. Like all Algerian communities, that of Constan- tine was governed by a “mukaddam,” or president, assisted by a council. Since the French conquest the city has been the seat of a consistory, to which belong the following communities: Ain Beida, Batna, Bone, Bougie, Guelma, Philippeville, Setif, Tebassa. This district counts 6,800 Jews, of which number 38,321 live in Constantine. The rabbis of the last thirty years have been: Netter, Abraham Cahen, Jacques Levy, and Pau} Haguenauer, the present incumbent. Until recently there existed in Constantine an im- portant rabbinical school called “Ez Hayyim.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bulletin Arch. du Comité des Travaux His- toriques, No. 1, xiii. 64; Elie de la Primaudaie, Le Commerce et la Navigation de VAlgérie Avant la Conquéte, p. 71; Abraham Cahen, in Recueil de la Société Archéologique de Constantine, 1867, p. 104; Jacques Cahen, Les Juifs et LP Al- gérie au Moment dela Conquéte, pp. 25 et seq. See ALGE- RIA. 8. I. Br. CONSTANTINIS, ABRAHAM: Greek man- ufacturer, and president (“ proédros ”) of the Jewish community of Athens, Greece. He was born at Zante in 1865. After receiving an elementary edu- cation in his native city, he studied at Paris, where he tock the degree of doctor of science, and gradu- ated as engineer at the Ecole Supéricure de Télé- graphie. He was at first in the employ of the Soci- été Edison of Paris, and afterward in that of the Société d’Entreprises of Athens, in which city he constructed, in 1887, the first electric-lighting estab- lishment, thereby greatly contributing to the popu- larization in the Greek peninsula of the most recent discoveries in electricity and telephony. A commission and banking business which he founded has, in less than thirteen years, taken the foremost position in the commercial and industrial af- fairs of Athens. The emery trade of the island of Naxos isa state monopoly managed by the firm of A. Constantinis, which exports three-fourths of the emery consumed in the world. In recognition of Con- stantinis’ services the Greek government appointed him secretary of the commission in charge of the Ath- ens exhibit in the Paris Exposition of 1900. As presi- dent of the Jewish community he uses his influence for the protection of his coreligionists at Athens. BIBLIOGRAPHY: El Tiempo, Constantinople, June 7, 1900; Fen CICOReaye Contemporaine Illustrée, Paris, April 15, 8. M. Fr. CONSTANTINOPLE (Turkish, Stambul or Istambul): Capital of the Ottoman empire, situated on the Bosporus; the “Byzantium ” of the ancients. The earliest official document hitherto discovered relating to the Jews of Constantinople dates from 390. A decree of that year (Feb. 23) bearing the successive signatures of the emperors Valentinian If., Theodosius, and Arcadius, exempted the Jew- ish and Samaritan ship- and cargo-owners from shar- ing the burdens of the society known in that city as the “ Navicularii ” (“Codex Theodosianus,” xiii. 5, 18). Other decrees in favor of the Jews were issued during the reign of Arcadius. Theodosius II. was the first Byzantine emperor to curtail the civil rights of the Jews. Instigated by the clergy, he expelled the Jews from the city proper, and assigned to them a district at the other side of the Golden Horn, above Galata, called Stenum (the modern Pera). Hitherto they had occupied in the city itself a special quarter known as the “copper market,” where they had their synagogue, which was later converted into the Church of the Holy Mother. Instead of being included in the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities, the Jews were placed by Theo- dosius under that of a special strategus. Accord- ing to Ibn Verga (“Shebet Yehudah,” p. 40), the expulsion from the city proper was really a measure of clemency on the part of Theodosius, who had previously subjected the Jews to more rigorous per- secutions in order to force them to embrace Chris- tianity. This statement has, however, no histor- ical basis, as such action was contrary to the policy of Theodosius, who in 412 forbade the disturbance © of Jewish services and the appropriation of Jewish synagogues (compare “ Novelle Theod.” title iii.), It was Justinian I. (527-565) who first interfered with the religious customs of the Jews, forbidding them to celebrate the Passover before the Christian Easter. Itis said that during his reign the holy vessels of the Temple were brought by Belisarius to Constantinople; but on the remark of a Jew that they would bring misfortune to Constantinople as they had done to Rome and Carthage, they were re- turned to Jerusalem. There are no records of the fate of the Jewish commubpity of Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius I. (610-641), who, after he had massacred thousands of Jews in Palestine in the course of his war with the Persians, ordered the remainder throughout his empire to be baptized. It seems, however, that the Constantinople Jews found pro- tectors tn the persons of Heraclius’ wife, the em- press Martina, and her son Heracleonas; for the his- torian Nicephorus records that, emboldened by their influence, the Jews on one occasion stormed the Church of St. Sophia. With the accession of the Iconoclasts the Jewish community of Constantinople, like those of the other cities of the Byzantine empire, underwent terrible persecutions. Indeed, during the reign of Leo the Isaurian—as well as later under Basil The Icono- I.—it actually ceased to exist, the clasts. Jews having been forced either to emi- grate or toembrace Christianity. But the Byzantine capital, the greatest commercial cen- ter of that time, had such attractions for the Jews that the slightest relaxation in the persecutions brought thither masses of new settlers. No wonder, therefore, that it became the center of Judaism as soon as Leo VI. (886-911) had restored religious freedom tothe Jews; although their social condition continued to be intolerable. Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Constantinople in 1176, givesthe follow- ing account of the Jews there: * No Jew dwells in the city, the Jews having been expelled beyond the one arm of the sea. They are shut in by the chan- nel of Sophia on one side; and they can reach the city by water only, whenever they visit it for the purpose of trade. The num- ber of Jews at. Constantinople amounts to two thousand Rab- binites and five hundred Karaites, who live on one spot; Constantinople but a wall divides them. The principal Rabbinites, who are learned in the Law, are Rabbi R. Abatlion, R. Obadiah, R. Aaron Kustipo, R. Joseph Sargeno, and R. Eliakim the Benjamin of Elder. Many of the Jews are manufacturers of Tudela’s silk cloth; many others are merchants, some Account. of them being extremely rich ; but no Jew is al- lowed to ride upon a borse except R. Solomon ha-Mizri, who is the king’s physician, and by whose influence the Jews enjoy many advantages even in their state of oppres- sion. This state is very burdensome to them; and the hatred against them is enhanced by the practise of the tanners, who pour out their filthy water in the streets and even before the very doors of the Jews, who, being thus defiled, become objects of hatred to the Greeks. Their yoke is severely felt by the Jews, both good and bad: they are exposed to beatings in the streets, and must submit to all sorts of harsh treatment. But the Jews are rich, good, benevolent, and religious men, who bear the misfortunes of exile with humility. The quarter in- habited by the Jews is called Pera.”’ The king referred to by Benjamin was Manuel Comnenus (1143-80), who—probably owing to the influence of Solomon ha-Mizri—placed the Jews of Constantinople again under the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities. A new era for the Jewish community began with the fall of the Byzantine empire (May 29, 1453). Mohammed the Conqueror (1451-81), Under on entering his new capital, granted the Turks. to the Jews equal rights with all his non-Mussulman subjects, assigning to their chief rabbi a seat in the divan next to the spiritual chief of the Greek Church. Foreign Jews were invited to settle in the suburb of Haskeui, where building sites were gratuitously divided among the newcomers. TwoJews, Hakim Ya‘akuband Moses Hamon, were elevated to high official positions: the former being appointed minister of finance; the lat- ter, physician to the sovereign. The sixteenth century was the golden age of the Jewish community of Constantinople. Sultan Baya- zid II. (1481-1512) received the exiles of Spain; and these gave a great impulse to its material and intel- lectual life. Moreover, thousands of wealthy Mara- nos, who had been persecuted in Italy and Portugal, sought refuge in Constantinople, where they re- sumed their former religion. Among these were Joseph Nassi, created Duke of Naxos by Selim II. (1566-74), and Donna Gracia, his mother-in-law, both of whom liberally endowed the community with schools, charitable institutions, and synagogues. According to Stephan Gerlach (“Tagebuch,” p. 90), the number of Maranos who settled in Constantino- ple up to 1574 amounted to 10,000, and the whole Jewish population numbered 30,000. There were 44 synagogues, representing as many separate con- gregations, each of which retained its own customs, rites, and liturgy. Under Murad IIT. (1574-95) and Mohammed III. (1595-1603) many Constantinople Jews became very prominent in the politics of the Turkish empire. In addition to Joseph Nassi, Duke of Naxos, who held a high office, a physician named Solo- Influential mon ben Nathan Ashkenazi, a native Jews. of Poland, held, about 1580, the office of ambassador at Venice. A Jewess named Esther Kiera, widow of Elijah Chendali, was powerful at court, being the favorite of the sultana Baffa, wife of Murad III. No less prosperous was the material condition of the community. The wholesale trade, customs dues, shipping, and coin- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 238 eT age were mainly in Jewish hands. As Moses Al. mosnino relates in his description of Constantinople, Jews owned the largest houses, with gardens and kiosks equal to those of the grand viziers. Many easily earned a livelihood by teaching languages and by acting as interpreters, as is attested by Petrus della Valle, who himself learned foreign languages from a Jew at Constantinople (“ Viaggi de Pietro della Valle,” i. 71 et seq.). An interruption of this happy state of the com. munity took place in the seventeenthcentury. The ever-growing weakness of the sultans and the in. crease of the religious fanaticism of the Mussulmang made the Jews the prey of the soldiery, who often set fire to the Jewish quarters in order to plunder during the confusion. Another factor which con- tributed largely to the intellectual and material ruin of the prosperous community was the Shabbethai SHABBETHAI ZEBI agitation. The Zebi. scenes of disorder of which Constanti- nople became the theater during the pseudo-Messiah’s stay in the city, alienated from the Jews the good will of the sultan, who saw in the movement not a purely religious manifestation, but a rebellion against his authority. Further, their affairs being neglected during the years of this Mes- sianic chimera, the Jews were supplanted every- where by the Greeks and Armenians; and they had neither the courage nor the power to regain their former position. All these causescombined to make the community a veritable type of the Turkish em- pire—without strength to live and without desire to die. Misery and ignorance went hand in hand, and annihilated all energy and enterprise in this once in- dustrious and rich population. There were, indeed, from time to time some wealthy and influential families, such as the Agimans, the Gabbais, and the Carnionas, members of which held official positions; but the majority remained in the most abject desti- tution and ignorance. An endeavor to raise the material and intellectual condition of the community was undertaken with some success in the second half of the nineteenth century, first by Albert Conn, who in 1854 founded at Constantinoplea school patterned after European institutions, and then by the AlHance Israélite Uni- verselle through the numerous institutions which it established there for the instruction of young people. In 1853 two Jews of Constantinople, Behar Effendi Ashkenazi and David Effendi Cremona, were ap- pointed by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz members of the council of state; and in 1876 both of them were nominated senators by Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid. Persecutions contribute but little to poetry and learning; and during the Byzantine period Constan- tinople did not produce any noteworthy rabbinical scholars. The Karaites, however, displayed some scientific activity, and counted among Literary their number prominent men like Ju- Pro- dah ben Elijah Hadassi (1150), author ductions.. of “Eshkol ha-Kofer”; Aaron ben Joseph ha-Rofe (1290), author of the “Kelil Yofi” and “Sefer ha-Mibhar”; Aaron ben Elijah of Nicomedia, author of “Ez Hayyim ” (1846). The security and prosperity enjoyed by the Jews under the first Turkish rulers brought about a great 239 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Constantinople i pe LL oe scientific movement; and Constantinople became the focus of Jewish learning. Mohammed the Con- gueror followed the custom established by his pred- ecessors in nominating a hakam bashi, or grand rabbi, chosen from the Rabbinite Jews. Sambari (Neubauer, “Medieval Jewish Chronicles,” i. 153) gives the names of the rabbis of Constantinople who officiated from 1453 to 1672 as follows: Moses Capsali; Elijah Misrahi; Tam ben Yahya, author of * Ohole Tam’; Elijah Capsali, author of a historical work en- titled *‘ Debe Eliyahu ”; Samuel Yafe, author of ** Yefeh Toar,” ete.; Samuel Saba‘; Joseph ibn Leb; Joshua Zonzin, author of ‘* Nahlah li-Yehoshu‘a”’; Hananiah ben Yakar ; Jehiel ‘Anabi; Elijah ben Hayyim, author of **Torat Mosheh*’ and responsa; Moses Aruk ; Merdecai ha-Kohen; Gedaliah Hayyun; David ha-Kohen ; Sam- uel di Curiel ; Elijah ha-Levi; Abraham ibn Jamil; Gabriel Alva; Eliezer ben Nabmias; Shemariah Sharbit ha-Zahab; Hayyim Egozi; Abraham Monson; Isaac Ashkenazi; Jehiel Bassan ; Jo- seph of Trani; Jeremiah Mabrogonato (x317194Nn); Salomon Caro; Samuel ben 7015» (?); Yom-Tob ben Yatish; David Egozi; Abraham Allegre; Baruch ben Ya‘ish; Baruch ben Hay- yim; Judah Afna‘im; Abraham Sharbit ha-Zahab; Aaron Cu- pino; Hayyim Alfandari; Moses ben Shangi; Baruch Ashkenazi; Joseph ben Shangi; Isaac Ispania ha-Rofe; Zemah of Narbonne; Isaac Sasson; Moses Bassan; Elijah; Meir Isaac; Eliezer ben Shushin ({°%’1); Isaiah of Trani; Joshua Benveniste; Hayyim Benveniste; Moses Benveniste; Yom-Tob ben Yakar; Joseph ha-Kohen Hasid; Hayyim Algazi; Moses Afna‘’im; Solomon ben Mubhar; Yom-Tob Birbinya; Aaron Hamon; Jebiel Bas- san the Younger; Aaron Yizhaki; Nissim Egozi; Abraham Ashkenazi ; Meir de Boton ; Samuel ha-Levi ; and Samuel ‘Adilah. Besides these rabbis, many of whom were equally renowned for their great Talmudical knowledge and for their proficiency in the secular sciences, there were in the second half of the fifteenth century and during the sixteenth a succession of brilliant writers and scholars, such as Mordecai Comtino, Shabbethai ben Malkiel, Solomon Sharbit Zahab, Joseph ibn Verga, and Moses Pizanto. The characteristic fea- ture of that period was the scientific intercourse be- tween the Karaites and the Rabbinites. In spite of some obscurantists, who attempted tointerrupt these relations by excommunications and other violent measures, Rabbinite scholars instructed the Karaites in rabbinical literature and the secular sciences; and this circumstance had a salutary effect upon the Karaite community, which had hitherto been im- mersed in ignorance. So . x Br bostiiihncesentity . : | Ye ed . : i . Bie . : aN He. , - :- ; © : pets ht c. q i h pe Nay 7 wot ‘ > . é 4 5 o oc i [ Sm Ee: 8 res : ¢ 4 ¢ *% 4 . ‘ m = ~~ s * « dees +38 ? . < te y be i : ; z . i z ; s TITLE-PAGE FROM BAHYA BEN ASHER’S “ KAD HA-KEMAH,” PRINTED AT CONSTANTINOPLE 1520, (in the Columbia Universi i vew York.) Constantinople Consumption THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 244 a 1518. Isaac Caro’s ** Toledot Yizhak.” 1518. Abr. b. Hisdai’s ** Ben ha-Melek.” 1518. (?) Solomen Halevy's ** ‘A bodat ha-Lewi.”’ 1518. Nahmanides’ ** Torat ha-Adam,” “* Sha‘ar ha-Gemul.”’ 1519. (7) °° Otiyyot Shel R. Akiba.” 1519. Ben Sira, Midrash Wayasha‘. ete. 1519. Abr. Yarhi’s “ Sefer ha-Manhig.”’ 1518. Solomon Almoli’s ** Halikot Sheba.”’ 1519. Kol Bo. 1519. David b. Yahya’s ** Leshon Limmudim.” 15:20, Joshua ibn Shu‘aib’s ‘* Derashot.”’ 1820, Midrash Hamesh Megillot. 1520. Joseph Bekor Shor’s ‘* Perush ha-Torah ” (?). 1520. (?) I. Campanton’s ‘* Darke ha-Talmud.” 1520. (2?) Moses ibn Habib’s ‘* Marpe Lashon.” 1520. Elijah Mizrahi’s Tosafot to ‘‘ Semag.”” 1520 (1540 ?). Maimonides’ ‘* Teshubot Sha’alot Iggeret.” 1521, Abr. Bibago’s ‘* Derek Emunah.”’ 1522. Torah, with commentary, ete. 1522. Midrash Tanhuma. 1525. I. Aboab’s “ Bi’ur Perush ha-Rambam.” 1529. Abr. ibn Ezra’s ** Yesod Mora.” 1530. Abr. ibn Ezra’s ‘‘Safah Berurah.” 1530. Sefer Tefillot. 1530. Elijah Bashyazi’s ‘* Aderet Eliyahu.” 1830. Judah Bolat’s ** Kelal Kazer.” 1530. Sol. Almoli’s ‘* Me’assef Je-Kol ha-Mahanot.”’ 1532. Hai Guon’s ‘* Musar Haskel ” and Ezobi's ** Ka‘arat Kesef.” 1532. Almoli’s ** Sha‘ar Adonai he-Hadash.”” 1533. Jos. Ya‘bez’s “* Hasde Adonai.” 1534. El, Mizrahi’s ‘Sefer ha-Mispar.” 1534. D. Kimhi’s ** Miklol.”” 1535. Imm. b. Solomon's ‘* Mahberot.”” 1536. David Vidal’s ‘* Keter Kehunnah.” 1536. Jehiel b. Ruben‘s ‘**Eser Yeri'‘ot.°? 1536. Judah Khalas’s ‘* Sefer ha-Musar.”” 1537. David Kohen’s ‘** Teshubot.” 1838. I. Aboab’s ** Nehar Pishon.” 1539. Abr. Shalom’s ‘‘ Neweh Shalom.” 1539. Jacob B. Asher’s Arba‘ Turim. 1889. Jacob of Illesea’s ** Imre No‘am.* 1540. Al-Harizi's ‘‘ Tahkemoni.” 1543. Judah ben Isaac’s ** Milhemet ha-Hokmah weha-‘Osher.”’ 1543. Judah ben Isaac’s ‘** Minhat Yehudah Sone ha-Nashim.”’ 1544. Gedaliah ben Yahya’s ‘‘Shib‘ah ‘Enayim.”’ 1546. Barfat’s ** Teshubot.”” 1546. ‘* Torat Adonai” (polyglot). 1547. Moses of Coucy’s ** Mizwot Gadol.” 1548. Nissim Gerundi’s ** She’elot u-Teshubot.” 1549. Solomon ben Melek’s ** Miklol Yo.” 1550. Bahya’s ‘* Hobot ha-Lebabot.”’ 1553. Isaac ben Reuben’s “Sha‘are Dura” or ‘Sefer ha-She- ‘arim.”’ 1559. Elijah Mizrahi’s ** She’elot u-Teshubot.”” 1560. Judah Zarko’s ‘* Lehem Yebudah.”’ 1560. (?) Judah Nathan Provencal’s “Or ‘Olam.” 1561. Solomon Alkabeg’s ‘*Shoresh Yishai” (on Ruth). 1562. Saadia’s ‘‘ Ha-Emunot weha-De'‘ot.” 1565. Naashon of Babylon’s ** Re’umah.” 1565, (?) Isaac Arama’s ** Yad Abshalom ”’ (on Proverbs). 1566. Joseph ibn Leb’s ** She’elot u-Teshubot.” 1566. M. Zacuto’s ** Sefer ha-Yuhasin.”” 1567. Moses ben Hayyim’s ** Ner Mizwah.” 1567. Simeon ben Zemah’s ** Yesha‘ Elohim.” 15/0. Joseph Hayyim’s ‘* Mille de-Abot.” 1572. (?) Mattathiah Zacuto’s ** Zebah Todah.”” 1573. Joseph Nasi’s ** Ben Porat Yosef.’ 1575. “* She’elot u-Teshubot ha-Geonim.” 1575. Moses Najura’s ** Lekah Tob.” 1575. Samuel! Aripol’s ‘* Leb Hakam.”’ 1576. David Messer Leon’s “* Tehillah le-Dawid.” 1576. Eliezer Ashkenazi’s ‘* MeKor Baruk.”’ 1577. Isaac Onkeneira’s ‘* Ayummah ka-Nidgalot.” 1578. Al-Harizi’s ‘* Tahkemoni.”’ 1581. Judah Chelebi’s “* Sha‘are Yehudah.” 1581. Aaron ben Joseph’s “* Kelil Yofi.”’ 1583. Isaac Ya‘ahez’s “* Hasde Abot.”’ 1585. (7) Isaac ibn Latif’s *‘ Perush ‘al Kohelet.” 1585. Aaron Abraham’s **Iggeret ba-Te‘amim.” 1586. Kohelet, with commentary by Samuel Aripol. 1593. Moses Alshech’s ‘* Torat Mosheh.” During the nineteenth century a few Hebrew books were printed at Ortakeui or Constantinople ; e.g., Abraham A bigdor’s “ Zeker le-Abraham ” (1824), Isaac Farhi’s “Marpe le-‘Ezem” (1830), Abraham Zaki’s “Shemen Rosh ” (1839), and Joseph ha-Rofe’s “Shemen ha-Tob” (1849). But avery largenumber of books in Judwo-Spanish, and not a few journals, have been issued, a list of the latter being given in the article CONSTANTINOPLE. Karaite books have been published in the nineteenth century by Irab Oglu & Sons. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cassel and Steinschneider, Jiidische Typo. graphie, in Ersch and Gruber, Encyc. section ii., part 28, Pp. vee I, Br.—G, CONSTANTINOV, VOLHYNIA. STARO-KONSTANTINOV. CONSTANZA (until 1878 Custendje): Ruma. - nian town in the province of Dobrudja. During the Russo-Turkish campaign of 1828 some Jewish purveyors came with the Russian army to Con- stanza, and, settling in the place, formed the nucleus of asmall community. | 3 SAUIOZAT Ne %, ; VHAOUYABIL AONB ba Se P- 4 ain $1 — a ca di 9} Sen el, abesy Qo Spoug ; a ER hi Aas ihe ; 3 AT an 1) ' : a save’ Aa] eo AOA fOUoATY parisez? Fos 9 8 toatwadag ° ADI SVIULOT 2 a ~, —— soy, pousitogd ¢ aanpo | 2ovqna ee oo A uygedld 5 ATH Cua me aLIOS Or \ ee ro) 2\atoy © UTABTHe) SG BASLO Gl io “ah eoaNG tae 06 o ryNyild ar ulyony.° o 4Z10'T otto rarrz Ave {id wa , by re] sal m= otis 5 Ape A YLUSRryy Oo ae | dal one fame TN Vip gg ) doyouon ° ° C : ° } oBUlayO 2 my MOPOTM AOM! H a ma VOW \ ALLOK ; $s : AokO'} a tad lef o| HSuLL ASAOPW]-Jso.1g \ uryZzApey Onn qoy ) aos f on qryooAr a i 3 UOSo.7 6 iG qnporsy}s 2 sc] ~ $ ? at ni b wah 7 fil >| 1000-1 f, ; Aouy sad £188 Q av oupo. 6 aout o OULZ.19g 5 i e o SULA ARISOT 0 fo \ — ARIST EH ° 5sdow BuAoTgud, 4 b o SUSU gi vA S ASQor % Q mojo ~~ q i i oN Bvanid o oO baa "at : °\asON d / eer tl ™ re ) ra ; oi bk ott ol o8% Cossacks Costa THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 288 the states of western Europe. Jewish fugitives from Poland, and captives ransomed from Tatar bondage, could at that time be met with in all the countries of Europe and Asia. The following is a list of the towns in which out- breaks occurred during the uprising of the Cossacks (1648-58): Alexandria (Volhynia) Alexandrovka (Podolia) Arhat Bagrinovtzy (Podolia) Bar Bazhin Berestechku (Volhynia) Berezino (Minsk) Berezovka (Poltava) Berezovka (Volhynia) Bershad Bieleza (Galicia) Bielgoria (Poland) Borisovka (Pcitava) Borispol (Poltava) Bozovka Bragin Bratzlav (Podolia) Bratzlavshehina (Podolia) Brest-Litovsk Brezna (Poland) Breznitza (Poland) Brody Buchach (Podolia) Busk (Galicia) Byelaya Tzerkov Byeltzy Byely (see Kostomarov, iii. 154) Byely-Kamen Bykhov Chernigov Chigirin Chirikov Chudnov (Volhynia) Derazhnya Drogobuzh Druya Dubno Dubovaya Volost (see Kosto- maroy, ii. 402) Dubrovna Fastov or Khvastov (Kiev) Galich (Galicia) Gora (White Russia) Goria (Poland) Grodno Grubeschoy (Lublin) Gushcha (Volhynia) Gusyatin (Podolia) Homel Hrubieszow or Rubieszow (Lublin) Husan Ivanovich Ivnibrod Kamenetz-Podolsk Esther, a daughter of Isaac and Esther Cappadose Kanev Kiev Kishinev Klevan Kobrin (Minsk) Kobrin (Vothynia) Kolki (Volhynia) Komorno (Galicia) Konotop Kopys Koretz Korsun Kovel Kovno Krainepole Krasnik (Lublin) Krasnobrod (Poland) Krasny Kremenetz Krichev Kunitza Ladyzhin Latischan Lemberg Lesla Letichev (Podolia) Lobemla Lokhvitza (Poltava) Loyev (Kostomarov ii. 186) Lublin Lubny (Poltava) Lubsentz Luntsehitz Luzk Lyubartovo or Lyubar (Vol- hynia) Lyubom (Volhynia) Makhnovka (Kiev) Medzhibozh (Podolia) Mezhirich (Great) Mezhirich (Little) Minsk Miropol (Volhynia)—See Po- lonnoye Mohilev (Podolia) Mozyr (Minsk) Mstislavl Murakhva (Podolia) Narol (Volhynia) Nemirov Nevel Novopole (Poland) Novozhmir Olyka Opta Orsha Ostrog (Volhynia) Pereyaslav Pinczow Pinsk Piotrkov Piryatin Pkut Podgayetz (Galicia) Pogrebishche (Kiev) Poionnoye (Volhynia) Polotzk Pomorany (Galicia) Posen Priluki (Kiev) Prolikowitz Propoisk (Mohilev) Przemysl (Galicia) Rogschany Roslavl Rovno Ryechitza Satanov Serpeisk Sharograd or Shargorod (Po- dolia) Slutzk Sokol (Volhynia) Starodub Starokonstantinov (Volhynia) Stary Bykhov StrelitZ Szezebrszyn Taikury (Volhynia) Tomaschev Tornograd (Poland) Trilisy (Kiev) Tuchin (Yolhynia) Tulchin Turbino Uchanie (Lublin) Ulanov (Vothynia) Vankovtzy Verkhovka (Podolia) Vinnitza Vitebsk Vladimir (Volhynia) Wilna Wislocz (Galicia) Wlodow Wreshna Yampol Yanuschov (Podolia) Yaslovitza (Podolia) zabrazh Zamoscz (Zamostye) Zaslavl (Volhynia) Zharaz (Galicia) Zborowo (Galicia) Zhier (Zgierz) Zlatowo Zlochev (Polish, Zloczow [Ga licia]) Zmiyev (Kiev) ZOtov BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hannover, Yawan Mezulah, Venice, 1658, German translation by 8. Kayserling, 1863: Kohen, Megillat Efah, in Shebet Yehudah, Hebr. and Ger., Hanover, 1856; Abraham ben Samuel Ashkenazi, Za‘ar Bat Rabbim, in Gurland’s Le Korot ha-Gezerot he-Yisrael, ii.; Meir ben Samuel of Szcezebrszyn, Zuk ha-‘Iitim; Samuel ben Phoebus, Tit ha-Yawen; Gurland, Abne Milluim ; Grondskide Gandi, Hist. Betli Cosaco-Polonici, ed. Kaffi, Budapest, 1789; Lye. topis Samovitza o Voinach Bogdana Chmielnickavo, ete., in Chtenie Moskovskavo Obshchestva Istorii, Moscow, 1846; Kulish, Istoriva Vozsoyedinenya Rusi, St. Petersburg, 1874; Skalkovski, Istoriya Novot Syecht, Odessa, 1841; Graetz, Hist. Hebr. ed., viii. 125. passim, Warsaw, 1900. H. R. COSTA, DA, PEDIGREE: The family of Da Costa is probably identical with that of the Mendez da Costa. It has even been suggested that an early Mendes called himself Mendez da Costa (“ Men- des of the Coast”). Thearmsof the two families both in England and in Holland are practically identical. Their wide connections with so many Marano fami- lies—Bravo, Bueno, Dias, Fernandez, Gradis, Jachia, Lopez, Silva, Suasso, Pinto, Mesquita, Ricardo, Bel- monte, Capadose, Henriques, Aguilar, Osorio, Villa- Real, Franco, Quiro, Paiba—the large families re- sulting from these alliances, coupled with the wide extent of their migrations—make the Mendez da Costa pedigree the key to Sephardic genealogies. The principal branch of the Da Costa family in the Netherlands (pedigree I.) and the Holland Mendes da Costa branch (pedigree II.) follow herewith: MENDES DA Costa OF THE NETHERLANDS Abraham da Costa Raphael Mendes da C. = in 1760 Rachel Mendes da Costa, a daughter of Moses + 1798 = Jacob Mendes da C,, 1774-1825 Sarah Mendes da Costa = Raphael Jacob Mendes da Costa = Nanette Henriquez de Castro, b. 1812, daughter of David 3 children 8 children, one of them, Emanuel Mendes da Costa, b. 1845 and Rachel da Costa Esther Henriquez de Castro, b. 1857, = a daughter of Jacob and Rachel Hen- riquez de Castro 289 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Sou II. Da Costas oF HOLLAND. Uriel Acosta, Abraham Joseph 64 (descendants in 8S. America) (from him (see JEw. ENCYC. i. 167) descended) (no issue) Abraham da C. = Emilie Jeannette Sarah des Bordes | Isaac da C. Abraham dac. Dorothea Catherine Abraham Beatrix da C. The English branch of the Mendez da Costas is especially noteworthy, and the genealogy for the early stages was compiled by an eminent member of the family, Emanuel Mendez da Costa, secretary of the Royal Society, London. He traces his own de- scent back to two Da Costas from whom he was de- sceuded on the father’s (pedigree III.) and the mother’s (pedigree IV.) side respectively. The two pedigrees follow on page 290. The last inheritor of the fortunes of the English Da Costa appears to have been Mrs. Sarah Williams, who left £40,000 to Benjamin Disraeli, with the re- quest that he should adopt the Da Costa arms, BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gentleman's Magazine, 1812, part i., pp. 21 et seq.: Dictionary of National Biography, xii. 271; Da Costa, Israel en de Volken, Utrecht, 1876; Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History: ; Vorsterman van Oyen, Stam-en Wa- pennoets van Nederlandsche Familien, i. 164, Groningen, J. H. Gut. COSTA, ANDREA MENDES DA: Cham- berlain of Queen Catherine of Braganca, wife of Charles IT. of England; flourished about 1665. His position at court was due to the influence of his brother, Antonio Mendes, who had cured Queen Catherine, while in Portugal, of erysipelas. The queen had persuaded Antonio and his brothers to accompany her to England, where they all be- came members of her household. After their ar- rival in London they openly proclaimed themselves Jews, Andrea Mendes, as wellas his brothers, is said to have taken an active interest in the affairs of the Jews of London, and freauently influenced Charles II. on their behalf. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Picciotto, Sketches of ee His- tory, p. 44; Da Costa, Israel and the Gentiles , p. 455; Lindo, Jews in Spain and Portugal, p. 850; Jacobs and Wolf, Bibl. Anglo-Fud. p. 138, J. M. SEL. COSTA, ANTHONY DA (sometimes known as Moses da Costa or Antonio da Costa): An opulent Jewish London merchant of the eight- eenth century. He attained the position—unusual for a Jew in those days—of a director of the Bank of England. In 1727 he brought an action against the Russia Company, which refused to ad- mit him to membership on the ground of his being IvV.—19 _ Jacob da C. Daniel da Costa = Rebecca Ricardo Isaac da Costa, the poet, 1798~1860 ] Hannah Belmonte Rebecca da C., = Christian William Francisca da C., b. 1882 d. 1882 = William Justin Raman Raman | Isaac William da Costa aJdew. The attorney-general decided that he must be admitted, whereupon the company petitioned Parliament to modify the former’s charter so as to give it the right of refusal. Anthony also figured, in 1736, in’a case with W. Monmartel relating to a bill of exchange. Anthony was the son of Jacob (Alvarez or Alvaro) da Costa, who is probably the Da Costa referred to in the “Thurlow Papers.” Jacob Alvarez (or Al- varo) da Costa arrived in England with his family in 1655. He married Leonora (Rachel) Mendes, sister of Fernandez (Fernando) Mendes, the Marano physician of John 1V., King of Portugal. Anthony married his cousin Catherine Mendes, in 1698. Catherine was born in Somerset House, and was named after Queen Catherine of Braganca, wife of Charles II., who graciously consented to stand sponsor to her. This Catherine da Costa is supposed to have made, in 1721, the water-color portrait of her father which now hangs in the vestry of the Bevis MarksSynagogue, Anthony and Cath- erine da Costa had a daughter, also named Cath- erine, who married a M. Villareal, becoming a widow at theageof twenty-one. She figured in the famous case of Da Costa », Villareal, and subsequently in that of Villareal v. Mellish. Batons Sera a Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History, pp. 3, 155 ; Gaster, H. istory of the Ancient Syna- gogue of the Spanish and Portu uguese Jews, pp, 10, 97; Wolf, Crypto-Jews Under the Commonwealth, in Transac- tions of the Jew. Hist. Soe. Eng.i. 55-88; Lucien Wolf, Menusseh ben Israel’s Mission to Oliver Cromwell, Xiv., xli., etc.;. Jacobs and Wolf, Bibl. Anglo-Jud. pp. 95, 96; Graetz, History of the Jews, iv. 554. I. H. J. COSTA, BENJAMIN MENDEZ DA: Phi- lanthropist; born in 1704; died in England 1764. His family was among the most ancient and honor- able of the Portuguese Jews, and Da Costa himself was in the foremost ranks of the Hebrew merchants of his day. As an instance of his philanthropy he distributed, during his lifetime, £3,000 a year in charity to the poor of all creeds. In 1762, in con- junction with Isaac de David Levy, he endowed a yeshibah, bestowing yearly distributions on the stu- dents who attended it. By a codicil to his will he desired his benefactions to be continued during the ‘ATIKVY VisoO VQ dO HUN I VOIDOTVaNa % _- 81500 BD JOPBATLY [9]UUq Jo spouvlg = qeiwg gypNL = Zepuew; engsor 99-0ZLT ‘TSTWY «= IOpRATRy OIE pg T1SQBziry JO JouOe’] = qdesor ‘WeyBIgy =ABMICO USTPW WUNOOSITA UTBI{ITA —Osseng OSSUNG SAsOW ee aS reat ddsaee tdoee ‘ WoIPIN § C8-6FLL Uerpryo qooer Jo Uos JouOS="nep e ou ss upuefaeg aes ‘TIeqViqy | #1809 Bp £U0T Ausu = Joyqsnep By800 BD | sop | = ‘nep ® BIsoO VP «= UaIpTINO -uy Jo ‘nep ‘[ayavy eT: = | | OpuBaloay "8" “TOR OLBALY USIeW | ururefueg | Wap [Tyo GLLT “Pp *SBIt}-8| meploqs WeplIjswy jOuUOS UaplIqo g Yyeq Jonep ‘eyo UWeTIM 's ‘[VeN sflep = ejoun 07UI_ 9p | “SBUMOAY UOIRG, DZ -uly ‘oymb JO BAITS Bp Lie al Seis aah 6 | RZ = -WU=OSLT INA-81S09 op Udes Weywqy Yweg= Joy Uoley = -**- soso = BUTT Op'’'’ ‘AUONJUY Jo vvEs] -SaA ap oueng zopueW | ZBIq-sop ulmsltuag ‘p‘sasofyY -of *[ = Bulleqye9 | | | | i qoove = joyoey «=plABd = eres 81S09 BP -URULIdg SBIR aa eee ocean feel SSS ft nll opuelleag ‘euvIg ovevsT= zs | JO UOS 189 OOLT “DP “ToToVy | uIsnoo Jay ‘Bysog Bp TaRgBqy = SBIX)-OT | plo ‘weg | ZOpPUsH OPUBILIIT (Pp2040AIP) [TROY-VIITA = “~SVUIOAY Wolegd OGLT 'P eBISOD ep AWeK= -BIqQy ‘''* = aoe jo nep ‘Louog'T = EgggT ‘a ‘qdesor BUUBYOL 10 JeqIsy ‘ossung zado’[ ‘uo = Teqouy Zopusn UNOL = solve | | a EN Va eS ee ee FELT "P “IT SOMBUO 0} uvprsiud ‘zapueW Opuviiag O099T PUVIsUz 0} 19]8]8 ‘Zopusp{ JOUCBT = 0} UIGO *BISOD Bp OIBALV ‘Al | BISON BP Zapusn qoovr jo "nep ‘Bo00q VOIGT Op OPIOSO Saso oTue “oy = [nowy = qoovr = MOLDITT:? Tels y las kis : OBES] BoDEqoY [EyoeY | uolBg = | | ueIpTyqo Joyqsuep B | e1SOD Bp JayqSnep B suosg Jozusnep | qoq Aq WaIpPTITO L J Jayysnep @ Zapuey_l qoo | SMOS % Ja1qsnep B | | sornd RBLT "Pp “lop | UBUTINS 438d | 190980 | “BP JO "NBP JOPBATBS es | OoURIA SOSOWT BISON OpPoOwoWOT -BaTes qoovrjo oOABlg'’’’g -eVzITY ‘g ‘opeid op zopueu | BISON Vp ‘B{pIped wBo00qay B10u09sT JO GLLT “Dp ZB = OSLT ep svsom J0qjIS{ MOPIM ‘IOUISA = sOIMNGH' ''T VIT “T=16-LILL ~od UreyRiqy OABIA* **°°S ae a ie = SasON soso = VIPAT aia =qoovr ‘p'yavg = vooeqgey = qovvr ge-eLJT ‘WeqBIqy = oBRS] “SW ‘TONUBWI = S8-TL LT ‘ames OABIC' ** *T=qooer eee Seta eae fe Sn ae ee ee ee | | | : | | ZTLT Uf Zapuont Ju pBalpy opB.Ly, 6FLT °P “WIsNOD sTY “eysoD uygor Qooer = ZaIBALY Teles "ICL JO WOs ‘zap SUBIY 10 JoOTUed = [eqoVYy op [enulesg = [ervg ep BUUBYOL 10 JEWISH ZOLT = 10 WIBYBIGV -uayy AuoqyUV = ii | ZIIONINY-ZopudW OBUlag Jo JoIgsnep _—sOF-GELT “DP *ze9T UOPUOT 0} omIBO "BUlLId-BqULW BISON Bp Zale1]NY JOUBLT = BISCO) BP Zepua| AjlIU_ Io sasoyg ‘Til ‘aNVIONG 0 SVLSOQ VQ 291 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Costa, Emanuel] Costa, Israele Se he Se lives of the indigent families who had received his bounty. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Picciotto, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish His- tory, pp. 89, 95, 155. J. G. LL. COSTA, EMANUEL MENDEZ DA: Libra. rian and fellow of the Royal Society of London, scientific writer, and fellow of the Antiquarian So- ciety of London; born in 1717; died in 1791. He was ason of Abraham Mendez da Costa, who had come from Normandy to reside in England about 1696, and in 1702 had married Esther da Costa, his first cousin. Emanuel Mendez da Costa was distin- guished as a botanist, naturalist, philosopher, and collector of anecdotes of literati and of valuable notes and MSS. He was made a member of the Aurelian Society Feb. 7, 1789, and in 1746 was elected a member of the Gentleman’s Society at Spalding, and maintained a regular correspondence with Dr. Green, the secretary of that organization. On Nov. 26, 1747, Da Costa was elected fellow of the Royal Society of London, and later its librarian, after which he was elected a member of the Botanic Society in Florence. His publications were: “A Natural History of Fossils” (at the time of its pub- lication the author was esteemed the greatest master of the subject in England); “ Elements of Conchol- ogy, or An Introduction to the Knowledge of Shells,” 1776; and “ British Conchology,” 1778. He also contributed several valuable papers to the “Philosophical Transactions” and other scientific publications. It was in his library that the list of the original Jewish settlers in England was found. His collection of printed books, manuscripts, en- gravings, and drawings of natural history was sold by public auction after his death. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Nichols, Anecdotes and Tllustrations, ii. 292, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History, p. 95 J. G. L. COSTA, ISAAC DA: Dutch poct; born Jan. 14, 1798, at Amsterdam; died there April 28, 1860. His father, Daniel da Costa, a relative of Uriel Acosta, was a prominent merchant in the city of Amsterdam; his mother, Rebecca Ricardo, was a near relative of the English political economist David Ricardo. Danie! da Costa, soon recognizing his son’s love for study, destined him for the bar, and sent him to the Latin school from 1806 to 1811. Here Isaac wrote his first verses. Through his Hebrew teacher, the mathematician and Hebraist Moses Lemans, he became acquainted with the great Dutch poet Bilderdijk, who, at the request of Isaac’s father, agreed to supervise the boy’s further education, Bilderdijk taught him Roman law, and a familiar intercourse sprang up between them, which afterward developed into an intimate friend- ship. In 1817 Da Costa went to Leyden, where he again saw much of Bilderdijk. He there took his degree as doctor of law in 1818, and as doctor of philoso- phy June 21, 1821. Three weeks later he married his cousin, Hannah Belmonte, who had been edu- cated in a Christian institution; and soon after, at the instance of Bilderdijk, he was baptized with her at Leyden. At that time he wasalready wellknown Gentleman’s Magazine, 1xxxii. 21; J. Picciotto,: asa poet. After Bilderdijk’s death Da Costa was generally recognized as his successor among Dutch pocts. He was a faithful adherent of the religious views of his friend, was one of the leaders of the Orthodox Reformed party, and during the last years of his life was a teacher and a director of the sem- inary of the Independent Scotch Church. However severely his religious views and efforts be censured, his character, no less than his genius, was respected by his contemporaries. Although he wrote much on missionary matters, he is distinguished from many other converts in that, to the end of his life, he felt only reverence and love for his former core- ligionists, was deeply interested in their past his- tory, and often took their part. Aside from his fifty-three longer and shorter poems, Da Costa wrote largely on theological sub- jects. He also wrote “Israel en de Volken ” (2d ed., Haarlem, 1848-49), asurvey of the history of the Jews to the nineteenth century, written from the stand- point of the Church. The third volume, dealing with the history of the Spanish-Portuguese Jews, is especially noteworthy on account of the mags of new material used. The work was translated into Eng- lish, under the title “Israel and the Gentiles,” by Ward Kennedy (London, 1850), and into German by “A Friend of God’s Word” (Miss Thumb), published by K. Mann (Frankfort - on - the - Main, 1855). Da Costa’s two papers, “The Jews in Spain and Portugal” and “The Jews from Spain and Portugal in the Netherlands,” which appeared in 1836 in the “ Nedersche Stemmen over Godsdienst-, Staat- Geschied- en Letterkunde,” may be considered as preliminary to the history. Of interest also are his works on the Von Schoonenberg (Belmonte) family (“Jabrb. fiir Holland,” 1851) and on “The Noble Families Among the Jews” (“Navorscher,” 1857, pp. 210 ef seg., 269 et seg.; 1858, pp. 71 et seg. ; 1859, pp. 110 ef seg., 174 et seg., 242 et seg.). Da Costa possessed a valuable library which contained a large number of Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew man- uscripts, as well as rare prints from the Spanish- Portuguese Jewish literature. It wassold at public auction a year after his death. A catalogue of the library, compiled by M. Roest, was published at Amsterdam in 1861, BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. J. Koenen, Geschiedenis der Joden in Nederland, pp. 25 et _seq.; Unsere Zeit. Jahrb. iv. 399; Steinschneider, Hebr. Bibl. iii. 114 et seq. S. M. K. COSTA, ISRAELE DI EMANVELE: Italian rabbi; born 1819; died 1897. Hesucceeded Abraham Baruch Piperno as rabbi of Leghorn in 1864. Of his works the following may be mentioned: “Sefer Bet ha-Zikkaron” (Mahzor for Rosh ha-Shanah), with annotations, 1869; complete Sephardic Mahzor, with Italian translation, 1892: The Zohar, in square He- brew letters, with punctuation and vowel-signs, Leg- horn, 1888; “ Mikweh Yisrael” (Hope of Israel), one hundred stories, 1851; “ Yashir Yisrael ” (Let Israel Sing), 1853; “‘Arabim be-Tokah” (The Willows in Her Midst), 1880; “Ki Na‘ar Yisrael” (For Israel Is a Lad), 1890; a Hebrew grammar for the use of chil- dren, several times reprinted; a Hebrew-Italian dictionary, in collaboration with the rabbis Funaro Costa, Joseph da Costume THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 292 and Cabib, 1853; various remarks on the validity of the celebrated will of Caid Nissim Samama, 1877-78. Costa was a Freemason, and reached the thirty- third degree. His Italian songs are very popular among the youth of the Jewish schools. BIBLIOGRAPHY: S. Colombo, Alla Memoria del Rabb. Israel Costa, Leghorn, 1898. s. G. J. COSTA, JOSEPH DA: 1. Younger brother of Uriel Acosta or da Costa, to whom MANASSEH BEN IsRAEL dedicated his Spanish edition of the “ Hope of Israel” (1650); lived at Amsterdam. 2. Relative of the preceding; wrote “Tratado de Cortesia y Politica” (Amsterdam, 1726), dedica- ted to Immanuel de Abraham Curiel. s. M. K. COSTA, SIR MICHAEL: Musical composer and conductor; born at Naples of a Sephardic fam- ily Feb. 4, 1810; died in Brighton April 29, 1884. He studied under his father, Pasquale Costa, his grandfather, Tritto Costa, and Zingarelli. In 1829 he visited England, assisting at the Birmingham musical festival, and conducting at Her Majesty’s Theater in 1831. He was naturalized as a British subject in 18389. Subsequently he conducted at the Philharmonic Society concerts 1846, at the Royal Italian Opera 1847, for the Sacred Harmonic Society 1849, at the Handel festivals 1857, and at Her Maj- esty’s Theater in 1871. Costa was knighted at Windsor April 14, 1868, and invested with the Royal Order of Frederick in 1869. He was also knight of the Turkish Order of the Medjidie, and knight com- mander of the Crown in Italy. Costa’s works include the operas and ballets “Tl Delitto Punito,” 1826; “Il Sospetto Funesto,” 1827; “Il Carcere d’Idegonda,” 1828; “Malvina,” 1829: “Malek Adhel,” 1887: “Don Carlos,” 1844; “ Kenilworth,” 1881; “Sir Huon,” 1883; and “ Alma,” 1842; and the oratorios and cantatas: “L’Immagine,” 1815; “La Passione,” 1827; “ Eli,” 1855; and “ Naa- man,” 1864. He also wrote many songs and miscel- laneous compositions. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Times, London, April 30, 1884; Grove, Dict. of Music and Musiciana, s.v. Bie G. L. COSTA, SOLOMON DA: Donor of Hebrew li- brary to the British Museum; flourished about 1760. A broker by profession, he acquired a consider- able fortune, much of which was distributed in deeds of piety and beneticence to non-Jews, as well as to his coreligionists. He was also able to render monetary assistance to several of the leaders of the House of Commons, and by his credit with them ef- fected at times national good services. Among these was the preservation of the collection of Hebrew books at present in the library of the British Mu- seum. These had been collected during the Com- monwealth, and had fallen to Charles II. at the Res- toration. They lay unnoticed throughout the reign of Charles, and this neglect continued during the reigns of James IJ. and William III. At length in Anne’s reign they were sold to a bookseller, from whom, some time in the reign of George I., the en- tire collection was purchased by Solomon da Costa, then a young man, and desirous of knowledge, who subsequently presented it to the British Museum. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Thomas Hollis, Biography of Costa; Jew. Chron. Dec. 2, 1859; Cat. Anglo-Jew. Hist. Hxrh. Preface; Zedner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. Ae G. L. COSTA RICA. See SAn JUAN. COSTER, ABRAHAM: Dutch anti-Jewish preacher; lived at Amsterdam in the seventeenth century. He wrote “ Histoire der Joden,” a history of the Jews from their dispersion to the author’s time (Amsterdam, 1658). In this history he described the manners, customs, and fables of the exiles, with the purpose of influencing the authorities to prevent the Jews of Amsterdam from building a new synagogue. » BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fiirst, Bibl. Jud. i. 189: Koenen, Geschie- denis der Joden in Nederland, pp. 28, 335. Ji: M. SEL. COSTS: The outlays made by suitors which are incident to the administration of justice. The ques- tion of costs is a twofold one: (1) What do the several officials and the witnesses receive? and (2) What, if anything, does the successful recover from the losing party? 1. Among the officers the judge or judges are foremost; then such experts and referees as assist the court by their reports (eg., the appraisers of land: see APPRAISEMENT); next the clerks who take down the proceedings or make out judicial writings; next the messengers who summon the defendant aud who carry out the judgment by seizure of goods and lands; and, lastly, the witnesses. As to the judges and witnesses the Mishnah (Bek. iv. 6) lays down thestern rule: “One who takes hire to judge, his judgments are void: he who testifies for hire, his testimony is void.” Later authorities saw the impossibility of obtain- ing the services of the judge for nothing, and, fol- lowing Ket. 105a, alowed him to charge for loss of time if he had a known occupation; but the mere claim that during the time consumed he might have secured some employment did not entitle him toany costs. The payment of a judge’s fee was shared by the two parties in equal parts (compare BRIBERY; FEES). The clerk’s fees for noting the proceedings in open court, and for making out all writings in which both parties join, are borne by both parties in equal shares (B. B. x. 4). But if the ban has been pronounced against the defendant for refusing to appear, and he comes in to clear himself, he has to pay, before the ban is removed, the fee due to the clerk for making out the instrument (B. K. 112b). The messengers are of course paid for their serv- ices and traveling expenses. In the Talmudical passage relating to the corrupt practise of Samuel’s sons of enriching their underlings (Shab. 56a), the messenger is called ttm (“ apparitor,” lit. asynagogue official). 2. There is no provision for awarding to the win- ning party his outlay for costs against the loser, except in a procedure arising after Talmud times, and first mentioned by Alfasi; namely, that of For- EIGN ATTACHMENT, 4 procedure which is peculiar. 293 being due to the necessities of the times when the Jews had become wanderers from land to land. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, ix. 1-5; compare the authorities quoted in FEisenstadt’s Pithe Teshubah to this passage. L. N. D. L. G. COSTUME.—In Biblical Times: The general Hebrew desiguation for “costume” is “beged,” ap- plied indifferently to the garments of rich and poor, male and female. Other general designations are “keli,” “lebush,” “malbush,” “tilboshet,” and also “kesut.” An exact description of the successive styles of costume in use among the people of the Bible is impossible, since the material at hand is insufficient. The earliest garment was the apron around the hips or loins (“hagorah” or “ezor”), made, in primi- tive times, of the skins of animals. This apron de- veloped in course of time into the undergarment (“ketonct” or “kuttonet” = yitav, “ tunica”), which was worn next to the skin (Gen. ix. 21; II Sam. vi. 20), and taken off at night (Cant. v. 3). (See Coat.) It seems to have been distinct from the “sedinim ” = owddvec (Judges xiv, 12 e¢ seg.; Isa. ili. 23; Prov. xxxi. 24), usually designating undergarments of fine linen worn under the ketonet (compare the Assyrian “sudinnu ”). In aucient times undergarments of this kind were held together by a girdle, made of linen (Jer. xiii. 1), leather (II Kings i. 8), or gold (Dan. x. 5), and called “hagor” or “ezor” in the case of the priests (Ex. XXvili. 4 ef seg.), or “abnet” (Isa. xxii. 21) in the case of officials. The original dress of the Israelites changed somewhat under Syrian and Babylonian influence. On Egyptian monuments the Syrians are clad in long, tight-fitting upper garments, striped in blueand dark red, richly embroidered, and in yellow undergarments with tight-fitting sleeves, and tight trousers (compare Josh. vii. 21). Trousers, which are now worn in the East, especially by women (compare “Zeit. Deutsch. Paliist. Ver.” iv. 62), are not mentioned among the appointments of an ordinary wardrobe, but the priests in later times (compare Ex. xx. 26) wore a garment resembling modern trousers (“ mik- nasim” or “miknasayim”; Ex. xxviii. 42 e¢ seq., Xxxix. 28; Ezek. xliv. 18). A cloak (“ me‘il”) was generally worn over the un- Under- garments. dergarment (I Sam. ii. 19, xv. 27). This, like the me‘il . of the high priest, may have reached only to the knees, but it is commonly supposed to have been a long-sleeved garment made of a light fabric, probably imported from Syria. Every respectable man wore generally the upper garment (“simlah”) over the ketonet; for any one dressed only in the ketonet was considered naked (“‘arom”; I Sam. xix. 24; Amos ii. 16; Isa. xx. 2; Job xxii. 6, xxiv. 7, 10). The fellaheen of modern Palestine wear the “ ‘aba- yah,” a cloak usually black, or in black and brown stripes, which corresponds to the (outer) coat of the ancient Israelites. The ‘abayah consists of a rectangular piece of woolen cloth, sewed together so that the front and the two openings on the sides for the arms are unstitched. Cloak. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Costa, Joseph da Costume Like the fellah of to-day, so the poor Israelite of ancient times wrapped himself in this garment at night to keep warm (Ex. xxii. 26; Deut. xxiv. 18). Deuteronomy and the ordinances for the priests com- mand that tassels (“ gedilim,” and “zizit”) be at- tached to the corners of the coat (Deut. xxii. 12; Num. xv. 88 et seg.); and, according to the later in- terpretation, not given in Deuteronomy, these tas- sels were to serve the Israelites as a perpetual re- minder to keep the commands of Yuwu. At the breast the upper garment was arranged in a wide fold (“hek”; Ex. iv. 6), into which idlers put their hands (Ps. Ixxiv. 11), and which was frequently used as a pocket (II Kings iv. 39; Hag. ii. 12). Since the upper garment was in the way when worn at work, it was either left at home or removed by the workman, It was made of the same Upper materials as the lower one, in early Garments. times generally of wool, in Palestine of flax also; but later on purple stuff was imported from Phenicia, byssus from Egypt, and artistic weavings and embroideries from Baby- lonia (Josh. vil. 21; Zeph. i. 8). The nobles often dressed in white (Eccl. ix. 8; compare the garments of the priests), but it is probable that gorgeously colored garments, like those found on the Syrian figures in Egyptian monuments, were also much used. According to Deut. xxii. 11; Lev. xix. 19, gar- ments woven of both wool and linen were forbidden, probably for superstitious reasons (compare Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” xx. 86 e¢ seg.; see SHA‘ATNEZ), At a later period the nobles wore over the upper garment, or in place of it, a wide, many-folded mantle of state (“adderet ” or “ ma‘atafah ”) made of rich material (Isa. iii. 22), imported from Babylon (Josh. vii. 21). As costly garments were worn only on special occasions and removed immediately after- ward, they were called “mahalazot” (Isa. iii. 22; Zech. iii. 4) or “halifot ” (Gen. xlv. 22; Judges xiv. 12 et seg.). This was especially the case with gar- ments worn during the service in the Temple, which, having come close to the divinity, had become, figuratively speaking, saturated with the divine effluvium and could easily imperil the wearer. Per- sons of higher rank, especially the princes, had a ereat number of these festive garments (II Kings x. 22), which were taken care of by 4 special keeper of the wardrobe (compare IT Kings xxii. 14). They were not merely for personal wear (Job xxvii. 16), but, as inthe East to-day, they were frequently offered as presents (Gen. xlv. 22; [Sam. xviii. 4; I] Kings v. 5). The dress of women corresponded in the main to that of the men. They also wore the ketonet and simlah. According to Deut. xxii. 5, Women’s however, there must have been some Dress. difference. The garments of the women were probably longer (com- pare Nahum iii. 5; Jer. xiii, 22, 26; Isa. xlvii. 2), provided with sleeves (II Sam. xiii. 19), and wider than those of the men, and therefore better adapted to conceal the figure (compare “Zeit. Deutsch. Palist. Ver.” iv. 60). The dress of noblewomen was distinguished for its luxury and ornaments (compare Tsa. ii. 16 et seg.; Ezek. xvi. 10 et seg.), and was even scented with perfumes (Ps. xlv. 8; Cant. iv. 11; compare especially the catalogue in Isa. iii. 16 Costume THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 294 et seq.). The luxury in dress displayed by women in the East at the present day suggests the probabil- ity of similarly luxurious habits on the part of their sisters of former times. Nicbuhr saw women ap- pear in eight or ten different dresses during one evening. Sandals(“na‘alayim ”) of leather, fastened Withastrap (“serok ”; Gen. xiv. 23), were generally worn to protect the feet insummer against the burn- ing sand, and in winter against the damp ground; but they were worn neither in the house nor in the sanctuary (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v.15). Otherwise, how- ever, to walk about without sandals was a sign of great poverty (Deut, xxv. 19) or of deep mourning al Sam. xv. 30; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 28). Neither the monuments nor the written docu- ments of Biblical times give any information of value concerning head-gear. On the marble relief of Sennacherib the Israelites appear uncovered; and while on the Shalmaneser stele Jehu’s ambassadors have head-coverings, these are evidently patterned after the Assyrian fashion. Only one passage of the older literature (I Kings xx, 81) makes mention of *habalim ” that are wound around the head ; these recall the Syrians on Egyptian monuments, who appear with a rope coiled around their long, flowing hair, as is still the custom here and there in Arabia. This custom, prob- ably a very ancient one, did not long obtain, since it afforded no protection against the sun. It may be assumed, therefore, that even the ancient Hebrews had a style of head- covering still used by the Bedouins. This consists of a square woolen cloth (‘kaffiyyvah ”), folded triangu- larly, and laid upon the head, over which one corner depends to protect the nape of the neck, while the two side corners are crossed under the chin and also hang down the back. A heavy woolen cord (© ‘akal”) holds the cloth firmly on the head. Jn later times both men and women wore a covering more closely resembling the turban of the medern fellaheen of Paivstine. The cap (takiyvah), often the only head-covering worn by boys. is generally made of two or three thick- nesses of Gotton cloth, intended to protect the rest of the head-covering against perspiration ; over this are placed one, and often two, felt caps ( lubbadah”), and then the Turkish national head-covering (“ tarbush”) ; finally a fringed cloth of unbleached cotton, a colored figured mandil, a yellow and red striped Kaffivyah, a black cashmere shaw], a piece of white muslin, or a green cloth is wound around this. This sty le of head-cov ering not only protects against the sun, but is also an admin able pillow, and serves as a re- pository for valuable documents (compare “ Zeit. Deutsch. Paliist. Ver.” iv. 57 et seg.). The use of a similar head-covering among the Hebrews scems to be indicated by the noun “ zanif ” (from the verb “ za- naf”; Job xxix. 14; Isa. ii. 23), as well as by the ver “habash,” applied to the act of arranging the “zanif ”; for the verb “habash” means literally “ to wind around,” and the verb “zanaf” similarly sig- nifies “to wind into a ball.” It is possible that the various classes gradually came to use different forms of the turban. Since the ancient Hebrews evidently knew noth- ing of the strict separation of men and women cus- Head- Covering. tomary among the Moslems, the women wore veils only on certain occasions, as on the wedding-day (Gen. xxiv. 65, xxix. 22 etseg.). Later on, veilsand gauze garments, adopted from other nations, apparently came into more general use among the Israelites (compare Isa. iii. 16 e¢ seg.). Tle most common term for “ veil” is “za‘if” (Gen, xxiv. 65), while “re‘alot” (isa. tii, 19) probably designates a veil consisting of two parts, one of which, adjusted above the eyes, was thrown backward overthe head and neck, while the other, adjusted below the eyes, hung down over the breast. It does not follow from Ex. xxxiv. 83 et seg. that men also wore veils. BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Archtiologie; Benzinger, Areh. pp. 97 ct seqg.: Weiss, Kostizm- kunde; Brill, Traehiten der Jiuden; Chevne and Black, EFneye. Bibl; Biblical Wartd, 101, W. ON. E.G. H. —-—In Post-Biblical Times: The dress indicated in the Talmud does not cliffer much from that de- scribed in the Bible. Rules were given for the order in Which the ditferent articles of dress were removed Veils. a ere er Se ee Costume of German Jews of the Thirteenth Century. (From Herrad von Landsperg, “‘ Luftgarten.’’) before a bath, and from this can be ascertained the cos tume of the ordinary Israelite of the time, which con- sisted, in order of removal, of shoes, head- -covering, mantle, girdle, shirt, and Day a vest known by the Greek name “epikarsion ” (Derek Erez Rabbah x.). 295 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Costume Many, if not most, of the terms applied to ar- ticles of dress were derived from the Greek, and it is therefore probable that their form and style Hea M7) en Sa. ~~. Sa German Jew of the Early Sixteenth Century. (After Hans Burgkmair.) were Hellenic. Thus the sagum, or armless mantle of the laborer (Kel. xxix. 1); the dalmatic of the lei- surely classes (Kil. ix. 7); the sndarium, or hand- kerchief (Shab. iii. 8; Sanh. vi. 1; compare Luke xix. 20); the pileum, or felt hat (Niddah viii. 1); and the stola (Yoma vii. 1) are all spoken of by their Greek names. A more complete enumeration of clothing in Talmudic times is given in Shab. 120a, in which the question is raised as to what clothes may be carried out of a burning house on Sabbath, Rabbi Jose limiting them to eighteen of the more necessary articles. The parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud gives different names, which fact points to a difference in costume between Palestine and Babylonia. Most of these names, as well as those in Yer. Kil. ix. 4and in Massek. Zizit, p. 22, are of Greek origin, and indicate the extent of Hel- lenic influence on Jewish dress, The Jews even bor- rowed from the Romans the superstitious practise of drawing on the right shoe first (Derek Erez R. x. ; Shab. 61a), though previously the op- posite custom had prevailed among them (Yer. Shab. vi. 2). The panula, a round cape with hood, mentioned in Yer. Hag. i. 8, and generally used by day-laborers to protect their tunics from rain and snow, is contrasted with the tallit as a Japhetic or foreign garment (Gen. R. xxxvi.). Hellenic Influence. a Generally speaking, it may be assumed that the Jewish dress of Palestine, at least in the cities, was adapted in a large measure from that of the Romans; yet at times conservatives like the masters of the Law kept to the old Palestinian costume: the “ gol- lok,” which they wore under the tallit (B. B. 57b), is specially declared to be like the so-called “coat of many colors” of Joseph (Gen. R. Ixxxiv.). Ow- ing to the flowing character of the robes there was very little difference in male and female dress, so that Rabbi Judah and his wife were able to man- age with one street-robe between them. The stola, for instance, was used Indiscriminately by men and women. It was a long mantle of finer material than the tunic or shirt, girdled under the breast and provided with a stripe of a different color and some- times embroidered with gold. It was often very expensive, costing occasionally as much as 100 mi- nas (Shab. 128a). The waistcoat, or epikarsion, used by both men and women, was brought round under one arm and then Knotted over the shoulder of the other (Niddah 48b; compare Mik. x. 4). The trou- sers or drawers of the ordinary Israelite differed from those of the pricsts of carlicr times only by being provided with openings (Niddah i3b). In regard to covering for head and fect see Hat; Siok. Mourners as well as excommunicated persons (Yer. R. H. i. 8) wore black, as did those accused of adultery (Sotah 7a); but shoes were not to be black, because the wearing of black shoes was a distinct- ively Gentile practise (Ta‘an. 22a). White was used at weddings and other festivals, and for this rea- son was adopted for the festival of New- Year (Yer. R. H. i. 8); for spe- cial apparel as a sign of mourning see Mournixe, and for the use of crowns on festive occasions see Crowns. Jewesses did not wear red, Color. it Mi 1 1 ' t 4 | t ‘ Jews of the Upper Rhine, End of the Sixteenth Century. (From the Basel ‘‘ Stammbuch,”’ 1612.) which was regarded as licentious (Ber. 20a). Jews were cautioned against adopting the many-colored or purple garments of the heathen, or their wide Costume pantaloons (Sifre, 81), and it became a general prin- ciple in later Jewish law that one should not fol- low in the ways of the heathen or use costumes pe- see a mats ooo) Ss = 3S RS 3A) ase Sy SES SSS Gey x by = P88 wo etree Costume of a Jew of Swabia, Early Seventeenth Century. (After Daniel Meisner, ‘* Politica Politice,’’ 1700.) culiar to them (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 178, 1); and though this was interpreted as applying only to that kind of Gentile dress which was associated with some specifically religious practise, it was held that, if a religious principle were involved, it were better to face martyrdom than to change even the style of a shoelace (Sanh. 74b). The pious were particularly careful. Moses Sofer in his ethical will says: “Be careful of changing your name, language, or cos- tume, which God forbid” (“Leb ha-‘Ibri,” i. 35). Only one exception was made to this general princi- ple: those who were “near the government” were allowed and even recommended to wear the ordinary clothes of office (Yoreh De‘ah, 178, 2), There is no definite proof that a distinctively Jewish dress was worn during the Middle Ages, either in Asia or in Europe. The gaon of Bagdad was clothed like a king (“Travels of R. Pethahiah,” ed. Benisch, p. 48). Pethahiah himself noticed the difference between the costumes of Eastern and Western Jews (J.c. 11), the Persian Jews at that time wearing full and flowing outer robes. Considerable elegance was displayed by the wealthier classes. Gold embroidery is mep- tioned (Yer. Yoma vii. 3); and women were not above using false hair (‘Er. 7b), and false teeth made of gold or silver (Sheb. 64b); the hair was also dyed (B. B. 60b). Great importance was attributed to dress: “The glory of God is man, the glory of man is dress” THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 296 (Derek Erez Zuta x.); dress was considered of even more consequence than food and drink: “ Dear upon you, cheap within you” (B. B. 52a); and the rule was to dress according to your means, Importance but to eat below them (Hul. @4b; but of Dress. see Gen. R. xx.). The scholar espe- cially was required to dress neatly and respectably. It was regarded as bringing shame upon scholarship if a learned person went out with botched shoes or darned garments (Shab. 114a). A bride was given a year to prepare the trousseau (Ket. 57a), and a man was obliged to give his wife each year one hat, one belt, three pairs of shoes (for the three feasts), and other articles of dress, amount- ing in all to fifty zuzim (Ket. 64b). While there was a strong tendency to adopt foreign costume, as shown by the names of garments, there was an equally marked tendency to avoid this, probably as part of the general principle of placing a fence about the law, The great change came with the Lateran Council of 1215, which instituted the Baper. Innocent II. in the preamble to the law enforcing the badge com- plains that Jews were being mistaken for Christians. From this time onward there was little danger of such mistake. Thetendency among the Jews them- selves was to make a distinction be- Influence of tween their own dress and that of their the Badge. neighbors. In particular, black be- came the favorite color of the Jews in Spain, Germany, and Italy (Berliner, “ Aus dem In- nern Leben,” Ist ed., pp. 86-37). Their frequent ex- pulsions caused them to carry into other lands the dress of their native places, and their natural conserv- atism caused them to retain it. The Rabbis, however, had throughout to contend with the innate tendency An English Jew of the Stock Exchange. (From a caricature of the early eighteenth century.) of the Jewess toward luxury and display, and they passed in vain many SumptTuaRy Laws. The only restriction on material is in the Biblical injunction against using garments “ mingled of liner 297 and woolen” (Lev. xix. 19; see SHA‘ATNEZ). The leather of forbidden animals would also be unsuit- able for Jewish use. Generally speaking, the ma- terial used was of the richest kind for female dress, but was chosen more for use than for show in the case of the men. Even from Talmudic times it was usual to reserve a better suit of clothes for the Sabbath. Every one should have two suits, one for week-days and one for Sabbath (Yer. Peah viii. 7), and where two suits are unattain- able, the one should be differently arranged on Sabbath (Sanh. 118a). It is quite customary on modern Jewish hoh- days to carry out the Talmudic precept. Regarding the cos- tume of Jews in early Germany there are a few details in the sources given by Ber- liner in “ Aus dem In- nern Leben,” 2d_ ed., pp. 62-65. The “ Sach- fa! ° : | ests ) senspiegel” speaks of a i ie the gray coats of the ‘ane Jews, but black was generally recommend- ed (Benjamin Ze’eb, Re- sponsa, No. 282), though Jews might wear bright colors on journeys orin times of trouble (“ Aggudah,” 125b). Similarly fringes were disliked (Israe] Is- serlein, Responsa, No. 296), though the “kurse” worn by brides, a mantle with narrow sleeves, was trimmed with fur. Both sexes wore long garments. The Jew wore a “kappa” reaching to his heels, while on his head was placed a “ mitra,” or hood (“ Maharil,” pp. 36, 82). The mantle of the Jewess, however, was longer, and was held back by a brooch called a “nuschke” (“Or Zaru‘a,” ii. 39). The best-known garment worn by the German- speaking Jews was the white “sargenes,” called “ kit- tel” in the Rhine regions. This was made of silk, often embroidered, and flowed ungirdled to the feet (Menz, Responsa, No. 86). It was worn mainly on the Sabbath and on festivals, and was without the right armhole, so that the right arm could not pro- fane the Sabbath. Later on it was used as a shroud, but the earliest notice of this refers to the beginning of the fourteenth century. Griinbaum (“Jiidisch- Deutsche Chrestomathie,” pp. 502-504) derives it from “sarge,” but Berliner (/.c. p. 182) from the Old Tunis Jewess in Street Costume. (After a photograph.) THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Pee a ee meetin Sani ita gn = Costume. High German “sarroc,” or shirt. For garments for the dead see Simon, The pupils of Isserlein describe him as wearing a“ eeriffelte,” a fur-lned mantle like that worm by women, with ruffles round the neck (Responsa, No. 297); but at the same time they state that only the older rabbis in Austria wore it. Sebastian Brant, in his * Narrenschilf,” describes a particularly popular fringed mantie of his time as “Judisch syt ” (Giide- mann, “ Erziehungswesen in Deutschland,” Vienna, 1888, p. 274). For information concerning the actual dress used by Jews in medieval and modern times, the portraits and caricatures of Jews found in manuscripts and books must be examined. These are rarely of Jew- ish originexcept in the case of the illuminated Hag- Costume of a Jew of Algiers. (From a photograph.) gadot, and in these it is difficult to determine how far the illustrations represent specifically Jewish dress. In an early fourteenth-century Spanish man- uscript Haggadah the tunics of the men come toa Costume point in front, while the women wear an outer mantle without sleeves which passes over the head, leaving the breast bare. The hat is large, and is worn toward one side of the head, with the back bent up and the front flat (Brit. Museum, Add. MS. 27,210). In an Italian Hageadah dated 1269 the women wear tight- fitting low dresses and have their haiv fastened in nets and caps (¢b. Add. MS. 26,957). The chief characteristic which will be observed in the first row of costumes in the ac- companying plate is the length of the outer robe, which, except in the case of No. 12, a Swiss Jew of the fifteenth century, comes down to the feet. This points to the fact that the Jews during the three centuries indica- ted were debarred from handicrafts. Baa MoE. ee., MOON mt Ailey gee : _ TS NA OR am EA Lip A a ne ee a a me ed o a z 2 # a * ec ° >. = fw z yy z < t = 9 o wn “ = z ° 3 a Zz < x ae = & > a a ] or 2 ° x > a Oo v + 4 o > < a wi a G 4 uv > Ae z ws = " . ta a) “wa 5 ras Hosted by Google 299 wear yellow turbans. The dress of an Oriental Jew, especially when on his travels, is described at length by Ezra Stiles in his * Diary ” (p. 362), but it would be danverous to regard his description as typical. Striped clothing is one of the striking characteris- tics of the Oriental male Jewish dress. This seems against the medieval principle of avoiding party- colored garments. Tt is not an invariable cus- tom, but is fre- quent enough to deserve men- tion. ali A. contempo- rary Jewess of Algiers wears on her head a “ ta- krita ” (handKer- chief), is dressed in a “ bedenor ” (gown with a bodice trimmed with lace) and a striped vest with long sleeves coming to the waist. The “ mosse” (girdle) is of silk. The native Algerian Jew wears a “tarbush ” or ob- long turban with silken tassel, a “sadrivyah ” or vest with large sleeves, and " sarwal” or pan- taloons fastened by a “hizam” (girdle), all being covered by a mantle, a bur- nus, and a large silk handker- chief, the tassels of which hang down to his fect. At an earlier stage the 33 ae Fay opts ra pris. ys yo Bi = +poyy oB jee pie Bt : vee’ tap peKeS 582 Lp rae} [8 err ae ae bn nyse Tab ONS «DONS pop pret Set THOS DOI ons , eats | STRAY prep pe ? rH 599 np th ph Ms 16% re KN PEE ents aI fr w in mrrip 330 The Polish establishments enjoyed a limited pro- tection against foreign competition, the rabbis of Cracow and the Counci, or Four LAnps hav- Italians, who had in Poland their best markets, thought it prudent to obey leaders who could effect- ively bar their products from that territory. Cracow was now declining, and the old printing-establish- ment was likewise losing ground. The last book it > opr KH i 4 : eo 17 Sth “pane puny nds Ob bs tanh aes elude ied ee pur 4 j : . . 7m Ip rk hor 72 - PAGE WITH THE KOL NIDRE PRAYER, FROM & JUD.ZO-G-ERMAN MAHZOR PRINTED AT CRACOW 1571. orated after the Italian style. In 1600 R. Isaac re- turned to Prossnitz, but part of his plant remained in Cracow, where his three sons, Aaron, Moses Joshua, and Issachar Bir, began, in 1602, the publication of the Babylonian Talmud, finished in 1608. They did not place their names on the title-pages as printers until after their father’s death (1612); but they are found, in accordance with the customs of the time, among the typesetters whose names were affixed at the end of each book. Their printers’ mark was a ram. issued bears the date of September, 1628. There was also at that time another printing-office in Cra- cow, which issued one book, “Shomerim la-Boker,” in 1627. R. Nahum Meisels, a member of one of the best families of Cracow, embarked in the printing busi- ness in 1631. He imported new type froin Venice, and made great efforts to secure prosperity for his venture. He printed many books, but the records of his business affairs show that he was generally tinancially embarrassed. He had frequently to bor- 331 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cracow Cradle Songs row on unfavorable terms, or to take In partners; to pledge his plant and books to creditors; and, at last, to sell his house. The calamitous years of 1648-49 added to his difficulties, and in the latter year he failed, closing with the publication of “Zuk ha-‘Ittim,” by R. Meir of Shebreshin, in which the dis- asters of the Cossack war are described in the quaint rabbinical style of that period. What remained of the plant of R. Nahum Meisels, who died in 1659, wasinherited by his son-in-law, Jehuda L6b Meisels, who began to print books ona small scale in that year and continued until 1670, when he, too, was forced to suspend work. For over 130 years in the period of the decline of Poland, Cracow had no Hiebrew printing-office. In 1808 the wealthy Naphtali Hirz ha-Kohen Schapiro opened an establishment, and in 1820 his son Aaron Solomon became his associate. They sympathized with the “ Haskalah,” or progressive ideas, and did much to encourage its literature, but were forced to close their establishment in 1825 after having sus- tained great losses. There was again an interval of about forty years, when Karl Budweiser, in 1868, began the printing ef Hebrew books. The most notable among the works issued from his office, be- fore he removed to Lemberg in 1874, are those of S. J. L. Rappopert and Mieses. In 1879 Joseph Fischer established a Hebrew printing-office, which is now in a flourishing condi- tion, and which has contributed to make Cracow a center of Neo-Hebrew Hterature during the last two deeades. Since Ha-MaGerp, the old- Periodic- est of Hebrew weekly periodicals, als. removed to Cracow in 1892, that city has occupied an important position in the Jewish publishing world. Numerous Hebrew periodicals like “ Ha-Eshkol,” “ Ha-Zeman,” “Ha- Heker,” “Mi-Mizralh umi- Ma‘arab.” “Ha- Dor,” the Yiddish weekly “Der Jud,” and the monthly “Die Judische Familie” (the last two published by the Ahiasaf of Warsaw) appeared there; all of them, however, are now defunct. Cracow’s prox- imity to Russia makes it.a convenient place from which Russian publishers can issue books and peri- odicals for circulation in Russia, where permission to found a newspaper is difficult to obtain. Free- dom from rigid censorship gives Cracow an advan- tage over greater centers like Warsaw or Wilna. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ch. D. Friedberg, Ha-Defus fa-Mri be- Krakave, Cracow, 1900. : J. P. WI. CRADLE SONGS, JUDA0-GERMAN : Songs written as lullabies; these exist in great variety and profusion among the Jews speaking Judieo-German or Yiddish, and among them may be quoted the following: For boys: Behind Jankele’s cradle Stands a golden goat ; Goat went to sell Raisins and almonds, Inter Yankeles wigele Shteit a gilden tsigele; Tsigele is gifurn handlen Rozhinkelach mit mandlen. Rozhinkelach mit mandlen Raisins and alinonds Sanen di baste schoire. Are the best goods. Yankele wet leirnen Toire; Jankele will learn Torah ; Toire wet er leirnen ; Torah will he learn ; Briwelach wet er schraben, Letters he will write. In a eirlecher Id And he will be a good Jew Wet er af tomid farblaben. And remain so for ever. The last few lines oceur in Bessarabia in the fol- lowing form: Lernen wet er keseider A por Shures, a por mailes. Moishinke wet paskenen shai- les; Shailes wet er paskenen, Droshes wet er darshenen. He will learn properly A few lines, a few steps for- ward. Moishinke will answer ritual] questions : Ritual questions will he an- swer, And he will inake religious speeches. Another version, from the government of Suwalki, prophesies the boy's marriage: Du west lernen Teire, Teire, Teire, in Kepele, Kashe, kashe, in tepele. Puter mit breit shmirn. Der tate mit der mime soln derieben Dir tsu der chupe firn. Firt men, firt men, tsu der chipe 3 Firt men, firt men, fun der chupe 5 Sefst nen aruf eijm on. In gold 1n in silber ongeton. Git men a shtikl fleish, Svet der chosn as di fleish is heis ; Git men a shtikele of, Sogt er di of i post, Darfar wet er derleben Mit der kale shlofn. Shlof zhe, shlof zhe in dainem ru, Mach zhe daine koshere eige- lach tsu: Mach zhe tsu, un efo out; Kimt der tate un wekt dir onf, Sol er mir wekn, wi er wil, Ich el mirstumachen di eige- lach un shwaigen shtil. You will learn Torah, Torah, Torah, will be in your head, Gruel, gruel, in your pot, You will put butter on your bread. May father and mother live To bring you under the can- opy. They take him, they take him, to the canopy 3 They take him, they take him, from the canopy ; They seat him at the head of al. He is dressed in gold and in silver. They give him a piece of meat, And the bridegroom says it’s too hot; They give him a piece of poul- try, And he says the poultry is too tough. For this he will live To have a bride. Sleep, sleep in peace, Close your pretty eyes ; Close them and open them : When papa comes to wake thee, Let him wake mé as much as he likes, I will close my eves and keep quiet. A Rumanian version looks forward to the period of the bar mizwal: A giter ina frimer Id wet mir dus kind blaben. Toire tsiwe Moishe morushe. Tsi der barmitswe wet essugn au drusche: Tsi der drushe wet er sech shteln. Der futer mit der miter wet unqueln ; dem oilem drushe gefeln— Gur dem oilem, gur der welt. Der futer mit der miter wet gibn nadn asach geld. Gur wet san He will remain a good and pious Jew. Muses left us the Law as an inheritance. He will make a speech at his confirmation 3 He will rise to make a speech. Father and inother will swell With pride; And the community will like his speech— The coinmnnity and the whole world. The father and the mother will give much money for his dowry. The lullabies for girls are of a simpler nature, as may be shown by the following examples from the neighborhood of Kherson: I. Shlof zhe, shlof, main taier kind ; Mach zhe tsu di eigelach gich un geshwind ; Dain esn un dain trinken shteit shein greit do. Mach zhe tsu di eigelach af etlechene sho. I. Sleep, sleep. my dearest child ; Close your eyes quickly ; Your food and your drink are all ready. Close your eyes for a few hours. Cradle Songs VOT ! ear pee THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 332 II. II. Af dem gepitsten pol; My tittie child, Dzhades un bern i do ume- Beggars and bears are al] | Di west unmachn a wind SpE ee tie ene ne dum: around: Demelst taminju ; You will dance i a hall Sei geien in drousn arum ; Sei obn sheine meidelach weinendik gefunen, Obn sei gechapt un arainge- worfen in brunen. HII. Di sun is schon ufgegangn, Der hon hot shon gekreit. Er samelt keiches tsu_ der- trogn Wos far dir is ongegreit. IV. Di lewone is shon arousge- gangn Fon ir getselt ; Asei heich sol dain masgel shai- nen In der gantsen welt. They even walk around out- side ; And if they find pretty girls are crying, They seize them and throw them into the well. IIt. The sun has already risen, The cock has ajready crowed. He is gathering strengtb to bear What you are getting ready for him. IV. The moon has already disap- peared From its tent; So should your luck be Over the whole world. The following cradle song, the most elaborate col- lected (“ Globus,” xx.), is perhaps one of the most charming: Shiuf. man feigele, Mach tsi dus eigele, Sbluf sech ois, man kind. Di shlufst nit fraid. Di weist nit ken laid; Shluf sech ois gesint. Ich, dan miter, Bin dan beshitser 3 Schiuf sech ois gesint. Der schluf der giter Asoi, Wi a hiter, Shteit ba dir bis fri. Mit san fligele Ioer dan wigele, Dekt er dich sthil tsi. Di shpilst sech af dan brist Mit dane hentelech iimsist. Der takt hot ba dir ken wert; In mit di fingerlech Oif di klingerlech Piano in Konzert. Di west oifshtein fin den wig, Hosti arbet genig Far dir ungegrait atsind— Shtikn shichelach, Laienen bichelech. Shluf derwal, man kind, Ass’wet weren a roit flekele Oif dan bekele; Wet men wisen dan main. Di west a kik tun finder sat, Shtein inge lat, Rach geklait in shain. Dech wel'n libn, Presenten gibn, Solste sugn nain. Di eltern soln leiben In nadn geibn Toisenter asach 3 Sech kishn in malechl, Chusn mit der kalechl. Mir weln sech frain glach mit ach 3; Di west gain a kleid Mit shlaires banait. Di west sech drein aher in ahin; In fin dan windele, Man klain kindele, Wet wern a karnolin; Di west tantsn in sal Sleep, my birdie, Close your eyes ; Sleep enough, my child. You sleep with joy. You know of no sorrow; Sleep with health. I, your mother, Am your owner ; Sleep with health. The good angel of sleep Will, jike a guardian, Stand by you till morning. With his wings Over your cradle, He covers you well, You play on your bosom With your little hands. Rhythm has no value to you; And with your little fingers You play on the bells As if it were a piano in a con- cert. When you shall go out from your cradle, You will have work enough Prepared for you— To embroider shoes, To pray from books. Meanwhile sleep, my child, And a red spot will appear On your cheek ; They will know you’re mine. You will look sideways, And young men will stand there, Richly dressed and handsome. They will love you, And give you presents, But you should refuse them. Your parents shall live And give you a dowry Of many thousands ; Shall kiss each other on the mouth The bridegroom and the bride. We will take joy in joy; You will wear a dress With lace sewed on it. You will turn around and around ¢ And your swaddling clothes, On a polished floor; You will create a wind Then, my sweet one; You will be ealled * lady.” Meanwhile sleep in health, And yon Will go to the canopy Di west sitsen bam tish Nicely dressed. Di west esn gefilte fish. Then you will be cleared from Shluf derwal, man kind, sin. Di west habn a klains, You will sit at the table A fans ina shains; And eat stuifed fish, Di west’s libn wi ich lib dech; Meanwhile sleep, ny child. Ta west im giskishen yeider You will have a little one, glidele. A good one and a pretty one; West im singn dus lidele;: You will love it as I love you; Shluf sech ois gesint ! You will kiss every limb, You will sing to it this song: Take your sleep in health ! Westi heisn daminju. Shluf derwal gesint, Di west tsi der chipe gain Ungetin shain. Demelst westi Wern rain fin sind. BIBLIOGRAPHY (recent literature): A. Berliner, Die Mittel- hochdeutsche Sprache bei den Juden, in Jahrbuch ftir Jiidisehe Gesch. und Litteratur, Berlin, 1898; idem, Aus dem Leben der Deutschen Juden in Mittelalter, ib. 1900; Griinbaum, Die Jitdisch Deutsche Litteratur, in Winter and Wiinsche, Jiidische Litteratur, ili. idem, Juidisch-Deutsche Chrestomathie; idem, Mischsprachen (Virchow-Holzendorf), 1896; A. Landau, Das Diminutivwn der Galizisch-J idischen Mundart, in Deutsche Mundarten, ist series, vol. ii.j Am Urquell, iv. 119, vi. 48; 8S. R. Landau, Hin Proletarier- Diehter des Ghetto, in Der Arheiter: Scheinhaus, Die Alte Gesch. der Russischen und Polnischen Juden, in Israeti- tische Wochenschrift, 1899, pp. set seq.; M. Steinschneider, Die Italienische Litteratur der SJiuien. in Monatsschrift, Feb., 1898; L. Wiener, On the Hebrew Element in Slavo- Judco-German, in Hebraica; idem, On the Judmo-Ger- man Spoken bythe Russian Jews, in American Journal of Philology, 1893, xiv. 4; A Poet of the New York Ghetto, in The Menorah, Feb., 1808; Viddish Literature, ip. 1899, A. Landau, Das Jiidische Volkstied in Russtaid; compare the catalogue of literature in Miitheiluiugen der Geschichte ftir Jidischen Volkskunde ; 8. Wiener, Vevreiskiya Narod- nyia Pyesny v Rosii, pp. o9-75, St. Petersburg, 1901. J. M. Gr. CRAJOVA: Chief town of the district of Dolschi; ancient capital of the Banat of Oltenie, Lower Wal- lachia. It may be assumed that Jews settled here at a very early period, some, doubtless, under Ladis- laus Basarab between 1865 and 1867, after the ex- pulsion of the Jews from Tfungary by Louis the Great. At the beginning of the seventcenth century there was an organized community with a rabbi at Crajova. Many Jewscoming from Turkey on busi- ness, settled in the city, and when Oltenie came under Austrian rule, in 1718, the community was probably augmented by new arrivals of Austrian and Hungarian Jews. The letter of privileges granted to the Bulgarian colonies (Oct. 1, 1727) by Charles VI. of Austria, forbade the Jews, as well as the Turks and the Grecks, of Crajova to display their goods at the fairs held in the city, the great annual fair being excepted. But when Oltenie again became part of Wallachia, in 1789, the privileges accorded to the Bulgarians were withdrawn, and the Jews of Crajova were once more free to ply their trades. The community of Crajova, like all the Jewish communities of Wallachia, was under the jurisdic- tion of the Jewish starost of Bucharest, and there- fore, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, under that of the hakam-bashi of Jassy. There was probably a starost-wekil at Crajova, who was raised to the rank of starost in 1805. It is impossible to estimate even approximately the number of Jews formerly living at Crajova, for 333 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cradle Songs Craniometry Wallachia suffered greatly during the wars between Turkey and Austria, especially from the incursions of the bashi-bazouks and, later, from the armed hordes of Pasvant-Oglu. These inroads always forced the inhabitants of Crajova to disperse and seek refuge either beyond the Danube or beyond the Carpathians. According to the census of 1899 there were 2,891 Jews ina total population of 45,4938. Ac- cording to the statistics of trades made in 1900, which are very incomplete, there were 286 Jewish artisans. The Jewish population of Crajova is di- vided into two communities—Sephardim and Ash- kenazim, the latter being the larger, and also the poorer. Each has its synagogue and its hebra kad- disha, but both use the same cemetery. They do not agree well together, in spite of the boys’ school they maintain in common; but the Zion Society, now Independent Order B’nai B’rith, has done much to moderate their differences and lead to a better understanding between them. In consequence of these differences, however, Crajova is the only im- portant Rumanian community without a rabbi. Though the Jews of Crajova have lived in per- fect accord with their Christian fellow citizens, the city has become during the last twenty-five years a center of anti-Semiticagitation. During the national festival of May 10, 1888, mobs went through the city, smashing the windows of Jewish shops and wounding some persons; a few days later one of the Jewish synagogues was set on fire. Jn 1884a bomb was thrown into the theater while a Jewish company was playing. Since that time anti-Semitic hostilities and agitation have greatly increased, so that the Jews are leaving the city In great num- bers. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Paul of Aleppo. Travelsof Macartus, in Anu- arul Pentru Israelitzi, x. 200-201; E. de Hurmuzaki, Docu- mente Priviteare la Istoria Romdnilor, vi. 398; Urechie, Istoria Romdnilor, viii. 635; Fraternitatea, 1882, iv. 245- 246; Anucarul Pentru Israelitzt, vii. 70-71, viii. 151. G, E. Sp. CRANE: x pa 4 oO a | = a | Teltnt 449 183.4 2Q fer ~ ph | "OD fe Meijer and Galicia....... 413] | opi? | 8.63 | 17.67 } 78.69 meer sa Russia......+- 100} 88.11} 1.00 | 13.00 | 86.00 |Blechiman oe 100} 82,5} 1.00 | 18.00 + 81,00 |Weissenberg oe 67} 82.2 J overs 17.9 | 8.1 |Stieda Lithuania...-| 69} 81.7) 9g 15,94 | 84.06 eens Ukraine ....--/ 438] 82.2) ~ 13.47 | 85,61 ncewiez DALY: asm sivas 112} 82.14] 2.68 | 19.64 ¢ 77.68 /Lombrosy Various ...... 19] 82,2 | .... | 26.3 73.8 |Weisbach Russia........]189} 80.9 | 2.16 | 31.65 | 66,19 |Yakowenko Bosnia.,..... 55| 80.1 | 7.3 34.5 58.2 |Gliick Baden ....... 86} 838.5) .... | 11.6 87.8 {Ammon Caucasus.....| 53} 85.2 | .... Let 98.3 |Pantukhof Russia ....... 41} 82.87 saase ries wes» {Lkoff Engiland......| 363} 80.0] .... | .... .... [Jacobs Poland .......;825| 81.9] 1.0 { 22.0 77.0 |Elkind TEdLY santas 34; 81.6) ....] .... cae) HAVE | Various...... | 500 | 82.12; 1.8 23.8 | "4.4 [Fishberg Craniometry THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 334 On an examination of the figures in this table a remarkable uniformity of the cephalic index of the modern Jews will be noticed. Excepting the Cau- casian Jews, of whom but few have been measured, it is shown that nearly 90 per cent are between 81.0 and 83. This indicatesa limited variability and dif- ferentiation. In fact, the differences are so slight (from 80 to 83) that they may be fairly assigned to the usual discrepancies between different series of , measurements of a single and homogeneous race. Another remarkable fact is the striking absence of the dolichocephalic type, which is characteristic of all the other modern Semitic races and tribes, as the Arabs, Syrians, Abyssinians, etc. Among the mod- ern Jews this ranges, as is seen in the table, from 1 per cent, in Blechman’s series, to 7.3 per cent in These 1,071 leads are classitied as follows: doli- chocephalic. 17 = 1.58 per cent; mesocephalic, 235 = 21.94 per cent; brachycephalic, 819 = 76.48 per cent. What is most worthy of notice is the small per- centage of dolichocephaly—only 1.58 per cent—and the large preponderance of brachycephaly, 76.48 per cent. The graphic representation of these 1,071 meas- urements is shown on the accompanying diagram. The cephalic index is marked from left to right, the percentage of persons having a given index being indicated aboveeach index. Thus, 10.46 percent of heads have an index of 80; 14.19 per cent, one of 82; and so on. The curve culminates at the index of 82—corresponding exactly to the average and also to the mean index. The largest percentage of people Gliick’s. On the have this cephalic other hand, the TEA) a pa [Es See BO 9 index ; and around brachycephalic 144 BEERS EERE EERE ESSERE ERE EEE 4. them are clustered type predomi FA Jews ——— Freee CeCe ESEeeErepree| he majority of nates, nearly all a JEWESSES—~— =f Se a) See 1k SY a A SoS heads—those hav- the series show- Be Ria ceteew nse fea tee ESGees FEE ing larger indexes ing more than 60 2 FEE SESS C ESP ar NEP Ree eee cece EES to the right, and Unnaepeneam 2225 sncecnscessr/ cece: seca: seeseaasaa=s ca men ihe Aen te EERE EERE EEE HERE wolee meal Re ee index of over 80. BEER RRR EEREEE EERE E EEE EERE EERE EE EEE io Atthe index of 75 Modern anthro- Sr ne a or et RCo | ow eo the line of the pologists do mot | FERRE ER EEE EEE EA eee] curve begins to rely solely on av. FERRE REE EE EGER EERE SE ACEEEE EEF re] ascend regularly erages forthe pur- g FERRE Ee meeps ew (rs en ol bao ENCE EEE EEE EEE g and rapidly, un- pose of ascertain 9 See fe ee til it reaches 82 : } * 7 ea i ws ing the character ES-EE EEE EEE EE BEER EEE EEEEEREEEEEEEEEEEBCH = when it rapidly Be a een, dace, SS Seeet esha eioeeeeeeesee: e=seeeeeseee- == descends. It thus The best test at 6 SS oSeoeee ao PEER arse ied BREESE EERE EER EE 6 forms an _ acute present at the FEES ER EEE =D CESS ee EE EA EE EEE EeEEH pyramid with its command of the = FRE= So bt es a os a oa apex almost in ; i — 7 r anthropologist, of Bree Ey daneecsecesees StS pnSeeesesene the middle. “A or variability of a FRE REEEE EEE EERE SEEREEEEEEEPEEE EP] = generally denotes race, is the seria- BREE Ree eee eee Pee eee] 6a © homogeneous tion aud coordina. FRR sce Seapcsese FHESEEEEESEEEH, people: if they tion of the figures © HAA Bee BaeeaNasScenes were all precisely ebtained by meas EES Sf astra SSS ESSENSE alike, asingle ver urement, and the vas> ae sees = FiGePiiakte-INpep tS tical line, 100 per ; rs ALLO IND SA) Le , representation of .cees es eed Cot ee a ae a lod aon eRe EEE Se cent, would re- them graphically in the form of a curve. In case The index is indicated along the base-line. NI an 73 CEPHALIC INDEX OF 1,071 JEWS AND 345 JEWESSES. indieated by the altitude. The percentage of a given index is sult” (Ripley). The cephalic in- dexes from which this curve was the people inves- tigated is a mixed race, its component elements are shown in the curve by different culminating points. From the literature on the anthropology of the Arrange- Jews 1,071 measurements of Jewish ment heads in various countries have been by Curve. collected, and the data has been ar- ranged in curve-form. The figures from which the appended diagram is derived were obtained from the following sources: 139 Russian Jews, measurements made by Yakowenko. obtained were those of Jews in various parts of the world. Rus- sian Jews are those observed by Yakowenko, Biechman, Weissenberg, etc.; Italian Jews (Seph- ardim), by Lombroso; Cansasian Jews, by Pan- tukhof; while those measured by Fishberg in- clude Russian, Polish, Austrian, Hungarian, Ru- manian, German, and American Jews. Some, though very few, in the last-mentioned series are of African origin, When figures taken from such diverse elements of Judaism present such a homo- geneity, it can safely be concluded that the cranial 100 : . ; , Biechman. oe Le. ke i * Ce type of the modern Jews shows very little if any 12 Ntalian “ os Lombyroso. intermixture of foreign blood. So little has this 53 Caucasian * - - Pantukhof. 500 Jews from various countries measured by Fishberg. 1,071 been anticipated that Lombroso, in his frequently quoted comparison of 95 Italian and 112 Jewish heads, insists upon the variabilitv of the latter; 335 whereas, if he had drawn a curve, the result would have shown several apexes among the Italians and only one, and that a steep one, for the Jews at the usual index (82—), leading to an exactly opposite conclusion to that of Lombroso. There appears no perceptible difference between the cephalic index of Jews and that of Jewesses, as can be seen from the following table: Cephalic Index, Observer. _ Men. Women. Talko-HrynC@wicZ .....ccceaceecaveeuvenes 82.20 83.00 Majer and Kopernickt,...004.95.0+s00009 05446 81.70 80.30 WGISSCHDOTE 034.00 ear samnrect eee stanwen 82.50 | 82.40 RIEING 4 p05 0s 6i.c REI Kees Shoe RSC ess eRe 81.90 82.90 Veg OWONK Gs ccvs0c sesnraGaes anna seaned 80.90 81.24 PEEP INON GE oule ao io ra si ei a ae esnjienn ju Rha Sele SETS 82.17 83.00 In the measurements of 845 heads of Jewish women collected by Fishberg (50 from Weissen- berg’s measurements, 80 from Yakowenko’s, and 215 from Fishberg’s), the following Skulls of distribution is found: dolichoceph- Jewesses. alic, 9 = 2.61 per cent; mesocephalic, 67 = 19.42 per cent; brachycephalic, 269 = 77.97 per cent. These figuresagree with those cited above for men. Acurve drawn from the measurements of 345 heads of Jewesses here re- corded has the appearance indicated in the accom- panying diagram. It will be observed that this curve is nota smooth pyramid, as is the curve of the cephalic index of Jews. It shows, in fact, a decided double apex: one pointing at an index of 81, the other at 84, which seems to indicate a greater varia- bility and differentiation in Jewish females than in Jewish males. This is contrary to what has been observed throughout the organic world. This point, recently brought out by Fishberg (“ American Anthropologist,” Oct.~Dec. 1902), is of sufficient scientific interest to merit further investigation. The absolute figures obtained by craniometry of modern European Jews show a striking uniformity unknown among other civilized races. In the ac- companying table the length of the head varies from 188 mm, in Majer’s and Kopernicki’s, Weissen- berg’s, and Yakowenko’s series, to 188 mm. in Blechman’s—a difference of only 5 mm., which is comparatively insignificant. The same is the case Length | Width of of Observer. Head. | Head. Milli- Milli- meters. meters. Majer and Kopernicki: SOMOS Was cp anci week die awa MORES 8 TESS 183 153 te When cab PERERA BRR oe eka eae el 186: } 18? RAE std ae eer, at Sate koe a aan vee se eES ERS 187 154 AV GIGSHNOH 5.2.0 ci edosw sore ue tee Si Saw Paeee earaa 4 185 152 BIGCHMIBI . Gna Secs ak a ON Kaceweee hen Sous ey eeate 188 156 WGISSEU HONE sok. Soveiat dass aaceeaieegeeweas 183 15] Talko-Hryncewicz : WET AERG bo iar opos cee PR Rtl1 thoes eeeess 185 153 Lithuania. ..... cece cree ei esseenescoees 18%, 188 WAR WONKO ys dis sca peeka sale sa ateete a Mew KL ewe 183 150 PO sd, Oh ete hata Meena ane see poaheis 186 | 149 Blinds ns sees hos lasindcoa had acmaeanes 1st | 151 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Craniometry with the width of the head, which varies from 150 to 156 mm.—a difference of only 6 mm. Of the other measurements of the Circum- head, the horizontal circumference is ference of important enough to be mentioned Jewish here. A table giving figures on this Skulls. subject is appended: Circumference of Head. Observer. ~-=; Men, Women, Kite Ate y} 549 512 aaa HRYICO ACLs Bhi aa ae 55) B98 Majer and Kopernickl .......0eesesscecee: 548 535 VHROWERKO. Cece uvacd tas eveecenee ened abt 532 WVEISRETIIOIE:. 5 xa eenn oon 8 464 eS oh ooo Pa aw ee 5a) 536 CONIC SX s4 ot bh Oh onine Sah e ae lure wae a46 ee PRIORI es aire dincy aes hades eal eee ebee ba 5at fea SHCOD. istetac coe ness avees en Ge UWES SAATRGC 502 a WeSDIOD i, ces Oss had wtad eis eee Raat 558 ee BTR a5080 554 Pe aaniaaea cases dade we tiets 533. 536 As is the universal rule, the circumference of the head of the male is greater than that of the female by about 2.5 cm. (1 inch). Another point worth noting is that (wherever data are obtainable) the circuinference of the head among the Jews is, asa rule, greater than that among the races with whom they dwell. The most important problem suggested by astudy of craniometrical results concerning Jews is the re- lation of the type head of the modern Jews to that of the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is dolichocephalic, as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians, Syrians, etc. The cephalic in- dex of these races is from 78 to77. Asis at present accepted by nearly all anthropologists, the shape of the head is the most stable characteristic of a given race. It is little if at all influenced by cli- mate, environment, nutrition, or sexual and social selection. The only way the type of the head may changeis by intermixture with other races. If the ancient Hebrews were of the same stock as the mod- ern non-Jewish Semites, and if the modern Jews are their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be expected among the Jews. As has been seen, all the results of craniometry prove that the Jews are brachycephalic, and that the dolicho- cephalic form is only found among them in less than tivo per cent of cases. This can be explained in two ways: either the modern Jews have very little Semitic blood in their veins, as Lombroso, Luschan, and others are inclined to think, or the ancient Hebrews may have been a brachycephalic race. In order to establish this, an examination is necessary of more skulls of ancient Hebrews, which are not available at present. The only skulls of ancient Hebrews recorded are five obtained by Lombroso from the cata- Ancient comb of St. Calixtus in Rome, dating Jewish back to 150c.r. Lombroso aptly re- Skulls. marks that these skulls are of great importance, because at the period from which they are derived (second century), there could not have been any considerable racial intermixture of the Jews with other peoples, and the cranial type Craniometry Creation TUE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 336 they represent should be considered pure. The cranial indexes of these skulls are 80, 76.1, 78, 83.4, and 75.1, giving an average cephalic index for the living of 80.5, which is far above the cephalic index of the non-Jewish Semites. Of course, no positive conclusion can be drawn from only five skulls; still, the fact that among these are found two brachycephalic and only one dolichocephalic, points strongly against the opinion that the ancient Hebrews were a purely dolichoceph- atic race. The twelve skulls from a Jewish cemetery in Basel, of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which have been examined by Kollmann, are even more brachycephalic than those of contemporary Jews. The average cranial index of these skulls is 84.66; @.e., @ cephalic index of 86.66. This again shows that the brachycephalism of the modern Jews is not of recent origin. It can therefore be stated that the modern Eur- opean Jews are shown by craniometrical evidence to be a pure type, and that no evidence of apprecia- ble racial intermixture is discoverable. The opinion that the Sephardim are dolichocephalic, while the Ashkenazim are brachycephalic, is not supported by craniometrical research on European Jews. The measurements by Jacobs, Lombroso, Livi, and Glick prove that the Sephardim are almost as brachycephalic as are the Ashkenazim, as can be seen from the accompanying table. Jacobs’ meas- urements of the Jews in London show that the per- centage of dolichocephalic is even larger among the Ashkenazim, being 28.3 per cent, as against only 17 per cent among Scphardin. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Majer and Kopernicki, Charakterystyka Fi- zyezna Ludnosct Galienjskie), in Zbhior Wiad.do Antrop- Iraj, 1877-85, Cracow; B. Blechman, Hin Beitrag zur An- thropologie der Juden, Dorpat, 1882; L. stieda and W. Dy- bowski, bin Beitrag zur Anthropologie der Suden, in Archiv fiir Anthropologie, xiv. 167-1823 J. Jacobs and I. Spielman, On the Comparative Anthropometry of English Jews, in Jour, Anthropological Institute, xix. 76-88; K. N. Tkoff, Neue Beitrdye zur Anthropologie der Juden, in Ar- chiv. fir Anthropologie, xv. 369-389; S. Weissenberg, Die Siid-Russischen Jiuden,in aArehiv fir Anthropologie, xxiii. 847-4238, 531-579; C. Lombroso, L’_Antisemitismo ele Scienze Moderne, Turin, 1894; L. Glick, Beitrdge zur Physisehen Anthropologie der Spaniolen, in Wissenschaft. Mitt. aus Bosnien uo do Hercegovina, iv. 587-592; O. Ammon. Zur Anthropologie der Badener, pp. 648-673, Jena, 1899; I. I. Pantukbof, Anthropologiteheskia Nabliudenia na Kav- kase, pp. 33-41, Tifiis, 1893: M. G. Yakowenko, Afateriali k Anthropologti Frreev, St. Petersburg, 1898 ; J. Talko-Hrynece- wicz, Anthropologia Ukrainskikh « Litowshkikh Evreev, in Proc. Russian Arnthrop. Soe. 1890-91, pp. TO-To, St. Petersburg; J. Kollmann, Sehiidel wnat Skeletreste aus einem Judenfriedhof Ges 13. wid 14. Jahrhunderts zu Basel, in Verh. der Naturforsehenden Gesellschaft, viii. 115-126, Basel, 1885: Maurice Fishberg, The Physical An- thropology of the Jews: I, The Cephatie Index, in Amer- ican Anthropologist, Oct.-Dec. 1902. J. M. F1. CREATION: The bringing into existence of the world by the act of God. Most Jewish philosophers find In AND (Gen. i. 1) creation ex nihilo (Ni w). The etymological meaning of the verb ANIA. however, is “to cut out and put into shape,” and thus presupposes the use of material. This fact was recognized by Ibn Ezra and Nahma- nides, for instance (commentaries on Gen. i. 1; see also Maimonides, “Moreh Nebukim,” ii. 30), and constitutes one of the arguments in the discussion of the problem. Whatever may be the nature of the traditions in Genesis (see CosMoGONY), and however strong may be the presumption that they suggest the existence of an original substance which was reshaped in ac- cordance with the Deity’s purposes (see DRAGON; DARKNESS), it is clear that the Prophets and many of the Psalms accept without reservation the doc- trine of creation from nothing by the will of a su- permundane personal God (Ps. xxxili. 6-9, cil. 26, exxi. 2; Jer. x. 12; Isa. xlii. 5, xlv. 7-9): “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” To such a degree has this found acceptance as the doc- trine of the Synagogue that God has come to be desig- nated as “ He who spake and the world sprang into existence” (see BaruK SHe-AmMaArR and ‘Er. 13b; Meg. 13b; Sanh. 19a, 105a; Kid. 31a; Hul. 63b, 84b; Sifre to Num. § 84; Gen. R. 84b; Ex. R. xxv.; Shab. 139a; Midrash Mishle, 10c). God is “the au- thor of creation,” MwA AeAy (“Sbereshit ” having become the technical term for “creation ”; Gen. R. xvi. ; Ber. 54a, 58a; Hag. 12a, 18a; Hul. 88a; Ecclus. [Sirach] xv. 14). The belief in God as the author of creation ranks first among the thirteen fundamentals (see ARTICLES or FaltH) enumerated by Maimonides. It occurs in the YirapaL, where God is called 49% bob NoIp N33 7WN, “anterior [because Himself uucreated] to all that was created”; in the ADon ‘OLAM; and it is taught in all modern Jewish catechisms. Nevertheless, Jewish literature (Talmudic, pseudo- epigraphic, and philosophical) shows that the diffi- culties involved in this assumption of Difficulties a creation ea nihilo (PRD w) and in of the tine, were recognized at a very carly Conception. day, and that there were many among the Jews who spoke out on this subject with perfect candor and freedom. Around the first chapter of Genesis was waged many a controversy with both fellow Jews and non-Jews, The influ- ence of Greek ideas is clearly discernible in various Midrashic homilies on the subject—e.g., those dealing with the mode of divine creation (Gen. R.i., “God looked into the Torah, and through it He created "— a Platonic idea ; 70, x.); with the view of God as archi- tect (7. i.; Hag. 12; compare Philo, “De Opificiis Mundi,” iv.); with the creative word or letter (Gen. R. i. ; Midr. ha-Gadol, ed. Schechter, pp. 10 e¢ seqg.; Pesik. R. xxi.; Yer. Hag. ii. Tie); with the original elements (Gen. R. x.; Ex. R. xiii., xv.; Yer. Hag. ii. 77a); with the order of creation, the subject of the well-known controversy betwecn the schools of Hillel and Shammai (compare Hag. 12a; Ta‘an. 32a; Pirke R. El. xxxvi.); with the various acts of creation assigned to various days (Charles, “Book of Jubilees,” 1902, pp. i1 e¢ seg.); with the time consumed in creation (Ber. R, xii.); with suc- cessive creations (Pes. 54a; Gen. R.i.; Ab. R. N. XXXxvii.); and, finally, with the purpose of creation (Abot vi.; Sanh. 98b; Ber. 6b, 61b; see also Bacher, “Ag, Tan.” and “Ag. Pal. Amor.,” Indices, s.2. “'Weltschépfung,” ete.). The Slavonic Enoch (xxiil.- XXXV.) contains an elaborate presentation of old Jewish cosmogonic speculations, apparently under Egyptian Orphic influences (see N. Bonwetsch, “Das Slavische Henochbuch,” Bertin, 1896; “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” ed. by W. R. Mor- fill and R. H. Charles, Oxford, 1896). (-Ainqueo qyuae}zn0j 914 Jo qup28Suqy oaaleing aq) mol “80H TIVqqug * Mey puy steunICY Sspitg pue SOQSLI : SIMS pue ‘uooT ‘ang - : : : ma T 4 S ‘Il ‘Woysjeso, f401eM pue qyaeq JO UONBredag ‘ ssouyIeg OI : ] S- J IWSPT Jo uojstay ¢ Tsay T ‘NOLLVEUD JO SUDVIS s Pg ore Mat 2 sO 2) ANA MOLE Se eens Oe eee Pe e id * ¥ % * a; & é ps , 0% PPFR Pee we 6 oy | TV.—22 Creation The danger lest speculation on creation might lead to Gnosticism underlies the hesitancy to leave the study of Gen. i. open to all without restriction (Sanh. 37a; Deut. R. ii.; Hag. 19b; Midr. Teh. to Ps. exxxvi.; Midr. ha-Gadol, ed. Schechter, p. 4). That such speculation is of no consequence to the practical religiosity which Judaism means to foster is well expressed in the caution not to “inquire into what was before the worid was” (Mishnah Hag. ii. ; Yer. Hag. ti.). See CABALA. The Alexandrian Jews, under the sway of Pla- tonic and Neoplatonic ideas, conceived of creation as carried into effect through intermediate agencies, though still an act of divine will, while the relation of the agencies to the Godhead is not always clearly defined, so that it is possible to regard them almost as divine hypostases—subdeities, as it were, with independent existence and a will of their own (ALEXANDRIAN PHILOSOPHY). The divine codia (“ wisdom ”) has a cooperative part in creation (Wis- dom ix. 9). While the Palestinian (II Macc. vii. 28) insists that all was made by God “out of nothing” (ef ctx évrwv), Wisdom (xi. 17) posits a formless arch- matter (vay), which the Creator simply brought into order. Philo proceeds to fully develop this idea. The Mosaic account of creation is not to be accepted literally (see Drummond, “ Philo Judsus,” i. 298). Creation was not in time. “It is folly to suppose that the universe was made in six days, or in time at all,” The expression “six days” merely indi- cates the most perfect arrangement (“ De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 2: “De Opificiis Mundi,” i. 3; “Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis,” i. 277). To Views the question whether the world had of Philo. no real beginning, he gives, though inconsistent with himself, a negative answer. There was a time when the parts of the cosmos “deitied by the heathen” were not; God alone was never non-existent (“ Dec. Orac.” ii. 190), “For the genesis of anything,” he says, “many things must combine: that by which, that out of which, that through which, that on account of which” (= cause, material, instrument, purpose). God is the cause of the cosmos, while the four ele- ments are the material (“ De Cherubim,” i. 161, 162). Nothing suggests that he regarded this material as other than uncreated. It was there when God ar- ranged the new order of things. God is the demi- urge (“De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur,” i. 220; “De Plantatione Noe,” i. 320; his ex pressions are Onutovpyéc, Koouot2aozhn¢, Teyvizyc). As in other points, so on this, Philo is not rigidly consistent. There are passages again from which a belief in the creation of matter out of nothing might be assumed. He speaks of matter as corruptible, and “corrupt- ible” is, in his theory,a correlative of “created ” (“Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit,” i. 495). It was not matter, but form, that God praised as good, and acknowledged thus as His creative work. Yet Philo protests that God is “not a demi- urge, but a creator.” What before was not, He made (ov dyucovpyéc pévov, GAAG Kai KTioTHE avTéc Ov, “De Somniis,” i, 632; see Siegfried, “Philo von Alexandrien,” p. 232). Drummond argues, against Siegfried, that God is here styled Creator only of the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 338 ideal, intelligible world, not of matter in the visible world (.c. i. 804). In regard to Philo’s Logos and the Memra of the Targuin see Locos. In the writings of the Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages, creation is one of the problems most earnestly discussed. It belonged to the “four ques- tions ” (Maimonides, “ Moreh,” i. 71) which were re- garded as fundamental. The alternative was be- tween odiyn wrin, Ar. odxySs non In (“creation”), and abyya mop, Ar. o4p Medieval poxybx (“eternity of matter”). The Jewish Arabian thinkers and schoolmen were Phi- perplexed by the same _ problem losophy. (Munk, “Mélanges,” p. 421). They had been moved to discuss the subject by their studies (at second hand) of Plato and Aris- totle. The Greek mind could not conceive of crea- tion out of nothing—“ Ex nihilo nihil fit.” Plato’s tAy (consult his “Timzus”) was eter- nal. Aristotle, too, maintained the eternity of mat- ter (“De Ceelo,” i. 10-12; “Phys.” ii. 6-9). God is the source of the order of things predestined by Himself (‘De Mundo,” ii.), though Maimonides and Judah ha-Levi argue for the possibility of claiming for Aristotle the contrary view (“ Moreh Nebukim,” ii. 15; “ Cuzari,” 1, 65), Is the doctrine of the eternity of matter compat- ible with the Jewish conception of God? On three grounds this has been negatived: (1) It limits God's omnipotence and freedom. (2) It is in conflict with the Biblical account, and denies the possibility of miracles, though the Talmudic theory of miracles would not be affected. “God, when Fe created the sea, imposed the condition that it should divide itself before Moses’ staff” (Ab. v. 9). (3) Great men, such as Moses and the Messiah, would be utterly im- possible (Albo, “ Ikkarim,” i. 12). The first, point may be considered cogent, but the two others are not very profound. In two ways do those of the Jewish philosophers who maintain the creatio ex nthilo attempt to prove their thesis: (1) by demonstrating the necessity of the Creation, and (2) by showing that it is impossi- ble that the world was not created (“Cuzari,” v. 18; “ Moreh Nebukim,” i. 30). But in order to achieve this, they had first to disprove the arguments of their opponents. These were the same as those with which Mohammedan theologians (see Shahrastani, il. 199 e¢ seq.) had been confronted. Maimonides (/.c. ii. 14; compare also Aaron b. Elijah, “ ‘Ez Hayvim,” vi., vii.) arranges them into two groups: (1) T¥9 Sy odin (cosmological, Schmiedi’s terminology), and (2) ‘nm Ser IN (theological). In the first group there are the arguments: (@) Motion must be eternal, without beginning. Time is an accident of motion; “timeless (7.e., changeless) motion ” and “ motionless (¢.e., changeless) time” are self-contradictory conceptions ; therefore, time has no beginning. (4) The prime arch-matter underlying the four elements must be eternal. “To become” implies taking on form. But primal matter, accord- ing to its own presupposition, implied in the con- cept “ prime,” has no form; hence it has never “ be- come.” (¢) Decay and undoing are caused by con- tradictory elements, But spherical motion excludes contradictory principles, and is without beginning 339 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Creation a | and end. (@) Suppose the world had a_ begin- ning; then either its creation was necessary—that is, eternal—or its previous existence was impossible (and thus it might not be now); but ifit was possible, then possibility (potentiality) presupposes a subject carrying attributes involving the possibility. This subject could not but be eternal. In the second group there are the arguments (a) God could not have been a creator in potentia with- out suffering change in Himself from potentia to reality. What caused this change’ (8) The world created in time presupposes some exciting cause for God's will tocreate. Hither God did not previously will to create, or, if He did, He had not the power. The world can not be thought eternal unless we ad- mit defects in God. (ec) The world is perfect, the product of God’s wisdom. God’s wisdom and His essence are coincident. God being eternal, His work must also be eternal. (@) What did God do before the world was? How did Jewish thinkers meet these positions? They followed in the paths of the Arab Motekal- lamin. Especially did they lay emphasis on the proof of free determination,” which the Arabic logi- clans had developed (mn 3, Ar. “al-takhsig ”). Admitting no “law of nature,” they posited the principle of limitless possibility. Things areas they are, not because they must be so, but because a free Being outside of them wills them to be so. He might also have willed them to be otherwise. He who determines is also He who creates; that is, pro- duces from nothing. The world is as it is because a Being determined its being, preferring its being to its non-being. Matter dependent for form upon another, even if eternal, can not exist. God is by inherent necessity. The fact that matter is as it is, shows that it was created to be as it is by the pref- erence of the Creator. In historical succession Saadia was the first to take up the problem, especially in his “ Emunot” (i. 1-5). He argues for the creation from the irrationality of an endless limitless quantity—a favorite theme among the Motekallamin. His argumentation is extremely obscure. He enumerates thirteen theories concerning creation; among them, first, the Biblical; then that of the atomists; next the theory of emana- tion and dualism; finally, that in which the four ele- meuts are held to be eternal, a theory which he says had many adherents among the Jews. Ibn Gabirol devotes a large part of his “ Mekor Hayyim” to the problem. He does not rely upon Biblical texts. His creation theory is as follows: The prime substance emanated out of itself Will, or the creative Word. This Will mediates between God and the world. From the Will emanated univer- sal matter (element) 65 1D°, from which came all beings. His position is a sort of pantheism, not altogether Biblical. Bahyaibn Pakuda, in “ Hobot ha-Lebabot,” main- tains that (1) nothing is self-created; (2) there must be a highest first cause; (8) composition proves generation or creation. | Judah ha-Levi invokes the testimony of tradition in his “Cuzari” (i. 48-68; see also Maimonides’ “Moreh,” iii. 50; Abravanel, in his Down DM, p. 34). He pleads for the authenticity of the Mosaic er cr i ce cea A A A Sh ye eS account as being corroborated by tradition; by the facts of human speech, which show the common de- scent of all men; by the identity of the system for counting time; ete. Abraham bar Hiyya Albargeloni is another de. fender of creation. His “Sefer Hegyon ha-Nefesh ” tries to explain the Biblical tradition on mathematical grounds. “‘Y7” and “form” had potential exist- ence until God called them into reality through His will in combination. But when we speak of time and the like with reference to God, we use human similes, Time is only a measurer. Therefore be- fore the world was, there was nothin yg to measure and consequently no time. “YAy = “Tohu,” and form =“Bohu”; both were preexistent, as the text shows by its use of the expression “the earth had been” (An. “Form” = xy 493). Maimonides is most timid in his defense of crea- tion. He concedes that it can not be proved. The most that can be attempted is to weaken the argu- ments of the opposition schools (” Morch,” i. 67, 71; see Gersonides to Gen. i.). THe endeavors to dis- prove the eternity of the world as far Views of as he may, and to strengthen what- Mai- ever seems to favor the contrary the- monides. ory (“Moreh,” i. 13-30). He makes much of Aristotle’s indecision con- cerning the point at issue. He advances “argu- ments that approximate demonstrations” (see Mal- MONIDES, Mosks). They have contributed nothing to the solution of the perplexity. Of his successors, Albalag, Gersonides, and Nah- manides cither reject creation ex nthilo or seriously modify it. Hasdai Crescas (in “ Or Adonai,” iii. 1, 4) criticizes most severely Gersonidcs’ assumptions that matter and God are equally absolute; while the former is void of everything, even of form, the lat- ter is highest perfection. Why should equally abso- lute and necessary matter submit to the will of God? He charges Gersonides with inconsistencies in deny- ing special providence while assuming the power of God over and in the special particulars of arech- matter. His pupil Albo regards the denial of crea- tion ex nthilo as tantamount to the denial of God’s perfection (“ Ikkarim,” i. 23). . The Karaites as a rule accept creatio ex nthilo. It is one of their articles of faith (see *‘Ez Hayyim,” xii.). For the speculations of the Cabalists see CABALA. Regarding modern views see EVOLUTION. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schmiedl, Studien zur Religionsphilosophie, Vienna, 1869; J. Guttmann, Die Schotlasttk des Dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, Breslau, 1902: idem, Das Verhdiltniss des Thomas von Aquino zum Judentum, Géttingen, 1891. K. E. G. H. ——In the Koran and Mohammedan Litera- ture: The Koran does not contain a descriptive and detailed account of the Creation; but it abounds in allusions to God’s power as manifested therein, and in appeals to it in refutation of heretical assumptions (Polytheism; sura Xvi.), or in support of certain dogmas (Resurrection; 76. xxii. 1-7). On the whole, these various references show that Mohammed had a general, vague, hearsay acquaintance with both the Biblical and Talmudical traditions of the Jews. “Tt is God,” according to sura xi. 9, “that created the heavens and the earth in six days.” Before Creation Creizenach THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 340 creation “ His throne [compare 7}2335 XDD] was upon the water” (see Gen. i. 2; suras 1. 87, lvii. 4). Spe- cial emphasis ts laid on the forming of the moun- tains, which are said to give stability to the earth (suras xxi. 22, xxxi. 9, xli. 9. Ixxviii. 6). In thisa reminiscence of the Biblical poy mypyy (Deut. xx xiii. 27; compare Ps. xe. 2) is suggested, while the pop- ular conceit of the Arabs has it that the earth, when tirst created, was smooth and flat, which induced the angels to ask who could stand on so tottering a frame. Thereupon God next morning threw the mountains on it (Sale, “ Koran,” p. 215, note g, Phil- adelphia ed., 1876). In the space of four days God distributed nourishment to all that asked (sura xli. 9). The earthand the heavens are said to have been originally a compact mass which God divided, while water is said to be the life-giving element (sura xxi. 9, 31). Things were created after a certain prees- tablished measure (sura liv. 49; the word “kadr” may also be rendered “decree”; but see Baidawi, ad loe.). “Oneword” alone brought the world into being “like the twinkling of an eye” (sura liv. 50). As baidawi remarks, this word was “Kun” (Let there be!), though the statement is also explained to imply that God accomplished His work very easily and quickly, without manual labor or assistance (compare sura l. 37, and Talmudic x5ay Soy x59 nya, Ber. R. xil.; see Baidawi, ad lvc.). Nor did He create in sport (compare rabbinical abt95 55), but in truth, and for a definite term, to last until the day of final judgment (suras xliv. 35, xlvi. 2; Baidawi, ad loc.). With scant consistency, however, Mohammed speaks in another passage of a creation not in six but in two days. Baidawi (sura xli. 8) interprets “days” as “turns.” Mas‘udi (“ Prairies d’Or,” ed. Meynard and Cour- teille, i. 36 e¢ seg.) gives in detail the following tradi- tional order: “First water, which car- In Mo-__ ried the divine throne, was created. hammedan From this primal water God caused a Tradition. vapor toariseandformthesky. Then He dried the liquid mass, transforming it into one earth, which He split up later into seven. This earth was completed in two davs—Sunday and Monday. The earth was placed ona fish that sup- ported it [sura Ixviii. 1; compare Pirke R. El. ix., and Ginzberg “Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvi- tern,” p. 19, where it is shown that by this fish is meant the leviathan}. This fish and the earth God propped on blocks of stone, resting on the back of an angel, thisagain onarock, and this finally on the wind. But the motions of the fish shook the earth might- ily, so God put the mountains in place and rendered it stable. The mountains furnished food for earth’s tenants. The trees were created during two days— Tuesday and Wednesday. Then God mounted up to the vaporous sky and made of it one heaven, which, in two more days—Thursday and Friday— He split upinto seven. Hence the name for Friday, ‘Jum‘ah ’ (joining together), ‘union’ or ‘assembly,’ because on it the creation of the heavens was united to that of the earth. Then God filled the heavens with angels, seas, icebergs. Creation thus com- pleted, God peopled the earth with the jinn, made of purest fire [sura lv. 14], among them being Iblis, the Devil. When about to create man (Adam), He informed the angels of His intention to make him His vicegerent on earth. The angels made objec- tions [as in the rabbinical legend, Gen. R. viii.]. Gabriel was sent to bring clay from the earth, but the earth refused to supply it. Michael, also sent on the same errand, was unsuccessful. Finally the angel of death went forth, vowing that he would succeed. He brought back earth of various colors, hence the vari- ous colors among men. Adam was made of the sur- face [“adim ”] soil. Forty years a portion of such soil was hung up to become a compact mass, and then left for another period of forty years, until the clay became corrupt. To this God then gave human shape, but left it withoutasoul for one hundred and twenty years. Finally, after enduring many indig- nities at the hand of Iblis, and being an object of terror to the angels, and at last causing Iblis’ ban- ishment, Adam was endowed with divine breath, according to some gradually ; and when he was en- tirely permeated with this divine breath, he sneezed; whereupon God taught him to say: ‘ Praise be to God! may thy Master have mercy on thee, O Adam!’” An altogether different account is found in the “ Kitab Ahwal al-Kiyamah,” edited by Wolff (“ Mu- bammadanische Eschatologie,” Leipsic, 1872). The first object created was a tree with four thousand branches—the tree of knowledge; the second, the light of Mohammed—a pearl in the shape of a pea- cock, which was placed on the tree. Then God made the mirror of shame, placing it so that the peacock saw his reflected image; whereupon shame seized him and he prostrated himself five times before God. The light of Mohammed, too, blushed before God, and in consequence perspired. From the beads of perspiration taken from various parts of the body were created the angels, the upperand lower thrones of God, the tablet of revelation or of decree, the pen, Paradise and Gehenna, sun, moon, and stars, the di- viding interval between heaven and earth, the Proph- ets, the Sages, the martyrs, the pious, the celestial and the terrestrial Ka‘bah, the Temple in Jerusalem, the places for the mosques, the Moslems—men and women, the souls of the Jews, the Christians, the Magi, and, finally, the earth from east to west, and all that it contains. This apocalyptic ac- count is comparatively late [but echoes rabbinical traditions concerning the light of the Messiah (Gen. R. i.), the 93255 Npd, Paradise and Gehinnon (Pes. 54a); compare also Slavonic Enoch, xxv.— xxvi.—x.]. As to the theories of creation pro- pounded in the various philosophical schools, see ARABIC PHILOSOPHY; ARISTOTLE IN JEWISH LiT- ERATURE, BIBLIOGRAPHY: Munk, Mélanges, Paris, 1859; Maimonides, Moreh Nebukim, ed. Munk, passim; Dieterici, [chivan Hs- safa, Leipsic, 1896; Steiner, Die Mutaziliten, Leipsic, 1865; Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, Leyden, 1875. E. G. H. CREATION, BOOK OF. See YEzrraug, SEFER. CREATION, ERA OF. Sec Era. CREATURE: A loose rendering in the A. V. of: 1. “Nefesh” (“a breathing thing ”; Gen. i. 20 ef seq., ii. 19, ix. 10 e¢ seg.; Lev. xi. 46). 2. “ Beri’ah” (“creation ”; R. V. better, “a new thing”; Num. xvi. 30). 341 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Creation Creizenach 3. “Hayyot” (“heavenly animals”; Ezek. i. 5 e¢ sey., X. 15; Septuagint, GGov). In Apocryphal literature “creature” is the trans- lation of xTiovea or Krioie (ANID or 799), and denotes either creation in general (Wisdom v, 17, xix. 6; Judith ix. 12, xvi. 14; III Macc. ii. 2) or mankind (Ecclus. [Sirach] xvi. 16; Wisdom xvi. 24). In rab- binical literature “beriyyot” is the regular term for fellow creatures or mankind (Abot i. 12, “Love the creatures”; ¢b. ii. 10, iii. 11; Ber. 19b, “ Respect of the creatures”). Hence, also, Mark xvi. 15; Col. 1. 238; Rom. viti. 19; and I Peter ii. 18 (A. V. renders, incorrectly, “every human ordinance”; see Taylor, “Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,” 2d ed., pp. 21, 141). The phrase “a new creature,” inthe sense of “re- generation,” which occurs in II Cor. v. 17, and Gal. vi. 15, represents the rabbinical “berivyah hada- shah.” See Baptism. E. G. H. K. CREED. See ARTICLES OF FAITH. CREEPING THINGS: A loose expression used in the A. V.as the equivalent of wp7 and yw. yn (“remes” = creeping—that is, without, or with imperceptible, feet; applies to terrestrial and also to wateranimals, The R. V. more correctly translates it“teemeth” in Gen. ix. 2; Lev. xx. 285, and “moveth” in Lev. xi. 44; Ps. Ixix. 34; Gen. viii. 19. Generally, however, “remes” stands for “reptiles,” possibly also for very small quadrupeds. In the Talmud “remes” is used asa general name for worms infesting the intestines of man or beast (Nid- dah 21a), for which elsewhere the words yoin (Ab. iii. 1) and 7p occur. But, according to Tos. to Niddah 28a, s.v. sans, only the serpent was called the “ creeping thing,” Nwpnn Mn. yw (“sherez,” Gen. vil, 21; Lev. v. 2; xi. 10, 29; Deut. xiv. 19) applies only to animals that swarm, whether terrestrial, such as the weasel, mouse, lizard (Lev. v. 29); aquatic (Lev. xi. 10; Gen. i. 2; compare Ex. vii. 28 (A.V. vili. 3]); or even winged (Lev. xi. 20-23). The fundamental connotation of the verb and noun is undoubtedly the incalculably prolific multitudes of little animals which always appear in troops or swarms. The R. V. therefore gives the translation “breed abundantly” (Gen. viii. 17, ix. 7; compare Ex. i. 7%). In rabbinical Hebrew “sherez ” is the generic term for amphibious reptiles (‘Ab. Zarah 3ib). The ety- mological implication of prolific increase is brought out in Ex. R. viii. 2; Lev. R. § 18 (the “‘akrab” throws 60 young). Itisalso the typicalterm for ritual and moral impurity, in the oft-recurring phrase bsp ma pw (“one takes the bath of purification while holding a sherez in his hand”), applied to one who would do penance without repentance (Yer. Ta‘an. ii, 65d, beginning). A distinction is made between yas pow land insect”), ow ‘w (“water reptile”), and yy ‘w (“winged insect”) (Pes. 24a). Maimon- ides (“ Yad. ”"Ma’akalot Asurot, 11. 12 e¢ seq.) says: “Dit pay are all animals that are not fishes but live in. the water, such as leeches, sea-dogs. wpyn YONA by [“romes” = creepers upon the earth] are worms produced by the decomposition of other sub- stances, helminths; while YAS by yu [“‘ those that swarm on the earth”] are generated through copula- tion of the parent animals.” BIBLIOGRAPHY : Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebriiischen Archd- ologie, i. 74-87; Benzinger, Areh. p. 40; Hart, Animals of the Bible; Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, Frankfort-on- the-Main, 1858. E. G. H. CREFELD. Sce KREFELD. CREHANGE, ALEXANDRE BEN BA- RUCH: French Hebraist; born at Etain, in the de- partment of Meurthe-et-Moselle, 1791; died in Paris Jan. 7, 1872. He acted as secretary to the Hebrew United Charities (Comité de Bienfaisance Israélite), and devoted himself to the circulation of relig- ious works. He published: “ La Semaine Israélite, ou le Tseena Ourena Moderne, Entretiens de Josue Ha- ' dass avec sa Famille sur les Saintes Ecritures,” after the Hebrew, 2 vols., Paris, 1846; a French translation of the Haggadah of Passover, 1847; “ Des Droits et des Devoirs du Citoyen: Instruction Tirée de lHis- toire Sainte,” 1848; “Tefillat ‘Adat Yeshurun,” prayers of the French Jews, in Hebrew and French, 1850; “Minhah Hadashah,” prayers of the Sephardic Jews, in Hebrew and French, 1855; an illustrated translation of the Psalms, 1858; “Edouard Mortara, ou |l’Enfant Volé” (.d.); festival prayers for the use of Franco-Spanish and Franco-Portuguese Jews, in Hebrew and French, 6 vols., 1861-68; and from 1870 an almanac, “ Annuaire Parisien.” s. J. W. CREIZENACH, MICHAEL: German educa- tor and theologian; born in Mayence May 16, 1789; died in Frankfort-on-the-Main Aug. 5, 1842. Crei- zenach is one of the most typical representatives of the era of transition, following the epoch of Mendelssohn, whose: chief aim was the re- generation of Judaism: by the methods of Tal- mudic dialecticism. which, as they imag- ined, would win over the Orthodox and yet achieve the necessary progress, Creizenach was educated in the traditional way, devo- ting his whole time to Talmudic studies; and he was sixteen years old when he began to acquire the elements of sec- ular knowledge. This was during the French oc- cupation, when a liberal spirit, greeted enthu- slastically by both Jews and Christians, perme- ated the society of the ancient center of Catholic Germany. Hestudied mathematics with great zeal, and wrote text-books of the science. Through his influence a Jewish school was founded in Mayence, whose principal he was, at the same time giving private instruction. He was avery popular teacher, and counted many Christians among his pupils. In 1825 Creizenach was appointed teacher at the Philanthropin in Frankfort, where he found in I. M. Jost an enthusiastic coworker in pedagogic and reform endeavors. He held services regularly in the hall of the school, and introduced confirma- Michael] Creizenacb. Creizenach Cremation THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 342 tion exercises. His literary works were also devoted to the advocacy of Reform on the basis of rabbinical Judaism. With this object he wrote his *Shulhan ‘Aruk,” in which he essayed to prove that the Tal- mud asa whole was untenable, but that a compro- miise with modern ideas could be effected in the same dialectical way in which the Rabbis had har- mouized the Law with the exigencies of their time. In the later parts of his work, however, he aban- doned this view; advocating a return to pure Mosa- ism, Which a vear after his death was more distinctly proclaimed as the program of the Frankfort Re- formverein, at the head of which was his son The- odor, In spite of his Reform tendencies, Creizenach was deeply interested in Hebrew literature, espe- cially in Hebrew fiction, and during the last two years of his life edited with his friend Jost the Hebrew periodical “ Zion.” Creizenach’s works are: “Versuch tiber die Pa- rallellentheoric,” Mayence, 1822; “ Lehrbuch der Dar- stellenden Geometrie,” 7. 1822; “Geist der Pharisii- ischen Lehre,” a monthly, 7). 1823-24; “ Heshbon ha-Nefesh, oder Selbstprifung des Israeliten Wiih- rend der Busstage,” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1888; “Hinnuk li-Bene Mizwah, oder Stunden der Weithe fiir Israelitische Confirmanden,” 22. 1841; Ibn Ezra’s “Yesod Mora” (edited with a German translation), 7b. 1840; “32 Thesen tiber den Talmud,” 7). 18381; “Lehrbuch der Technischen Geometrie,” 7b. 1828; “Lehrbuch der Algebra,” Stuttgart and Leipsic, 1885. His chief work, mentioned above, is “Shulhan ‘Aruk, oder Encyklopidische Darstellung des Mo- saischen Gesetzes,” etc.,in 4 vols. : (1) “ Thariag, oder Inbegriff der Mosaischen Vorschriften nach Talmu- discher Interpretation,” 2b. 1888; (2) “ Shurat ha-Din, Anweisung zur Regulirung des Israelitisch-Religi6- sen Lebens,” etc., 2. 1837; (3) “Hizzuk ha-Torah, oder die Dringlich Gewordene Befestigung der Mosa- ischen Lehre,” etc., 7b. 1839; (4) “ Dorshe ha-Dorot, oder Entwickelungslehre des Mosaischen Ritualge- setzes,” etc., 7b. 1840. BIBLIOGRAPHY: I. M. Jost, Michael Creizenach, in Isidor Busch. Kalender und Jahrbuch fiir Israeltiten auf das Jahr 4604, Vienna, 1843; idem, Neuere Gesch. der Isr. s, D. CREIZENACH, THEODOR: German poet and historian of literature; son of Michael Crei- zenach; born April 17, 1818, in Mayence; died Dec. 6, 1877, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. He studied classical antiquities in Giessen, Géttingen, and Heidelberg, and then lived for several years at Paris as tutor in the house of Aaron Anselm Rothschild. Upon his return from Paris in 1842 Creizenach be- came teacher in the Jewish Philanthropin at Frank- fort-on-the-Main, and was one of the principal founders of the Frankfort Jewish Reformverein; in 1854, however, he abandoned the faith of his fathers and embraced Christianity. Creizenach was made teacher of the Frankfort municipal high school in 1859, aud appointed professor of history and litera- ture at the Frankfort gymnasium in 1863. In the literary world he attracted attention by such poetical productions as “ Dichtungen,” Frank- fort, 1889; and “ Gedichte,” Frankfort, 1848; 2d ed., 1851. Being familiar with the personality and life of Goethe in his relations to Frankfort, he edited and published Goethe’s correspondence with Madame von Willemer, under the title “Der Briefwechsel Zwischen Goethe und Marianne von Willemer,” 2d ed., Stuttgart, 1878. In conjunction with O. Jiger he took charge of the new edition of Schlosser’s *Weltgeschichte,” 1870 e¢ seg.; and in conjunction with Otto Miller edited a weekly publication, “ Das Frankfurter Museum.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Adolph Kohut, Bertthmte Israelitische Mdn- ner und Frauen, xi. 383, Leipsic, 1901; Meyers Konversa- tions-Lexikon. S. B. B. CREMATION.—Biblical Data: The act of burning the dead. Cremation was not the prevailing custom among the ancient Hebrews, as it wasamong other contemporary nations (see J. Grimm, “ Kleine Schriften,” ii. 226). It was, however, not unknown to them, and was occasionally practised. The Pen- tateuch prescribes burning as the punishment in certain cases of unchastity (Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9; Gen. xxxviii. 24), In Josh. vii. 15, 25, and perhaps I Kings xiii. 2, and If Kings xxiii. 20, the burning of the corpse is added to the death penalty. From this it may be concluded that the burning of the human body was looked upon with horror. In ex- ceptional cireumstances—for instance, in the case of an epidemic—cremation may have been resorted to. This at least is inferred from Amos vi.10. From the unusual word there employed 9109, held to be a dialectic variant for }7w1, many have concluded that in Amos’ time cremation was far from being re- pugnant to the feelings of the people, and the care that the body should be properly burned became a sacred duty, devolving upon the nearest of kin—in the passage quoted, upon the uncle or the mother’s brother, who therefore was designated as the 7D» (see Kimhi’s Com. ad dec., and his Dy wr "D, 8.2. sD). However, the evidence in support of this conten- tion is very weak, A7D probably meaning the mater- nal uncle without reference toan assumed obligation to direct the process of incinerating the bodies of his kinsfolk. Amos vi. 10 does not necessarily imply that the “bones of the dead” about to be removed from the house were burned. In a Karaite docu- ment by Jephet ben Ali (Felsenthal, in Kohut Memorial Volume, pp. 183 e¢ seg.), FD occurs as “maternal uncle.” Ibn Ezra, ad doe., quotes Ibn Ixuraish as authority for the meaning “maternal uncle,” saying that it is unsupported ; Abu al- Walid, in “ Kitab al-Usul,” ed. Neubauer, p. 494, mentions this meaning. The passage in Jer. xxxiv. 5 has nothing to do with cremation. A. V. renders it “so shall they burn odors for thee,” arendering accepted by Graf (“ Der Prophet Jeremias,” Leipsic, 1862) and Giesebrecht (“Der Prophet Jeremiah,” in “ Kurz. Hand-Comment, zum A. T.” Gottingen, 1894), Nor can I Sam. xxxi. 12 be interpreted to imply that the corpses of kings were cremated, and that this constituted one of the royal prerogatives. It is far more likely that in order to guard the bedies from insult on the part of the Philistines, the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead burned them, and for this received praise. To the author of Chronicles the cremation of royal remains appeared so offensive that he changed it 343 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Creizenach Cremation into a regular burial (I Chron. x. 12). He states the occurrences as follows: “And [they] laid him [King Asa] in the bed which was filled with sweet odors and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art; and they maqe a very great burn- ing for him” (II Chron. xvi. 14). “And his people made no burning for him [King Jehoram] like the burning of his fathers” (II Chron. xxi. 19). The custom of making “a very great burning” at the funeral of great men continued for several cen- turies. The Talmud (‘Ab. Zarah 11a) records that at the funeral of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (¢. 117 c.£.) Aquilas, the proselyte, made “a very great burping.” In Talmudic Literature: made of cremation in Talmudical literature. Oh. ii. 2, where the question is discussed whether the ashes of those who were burned are to be con- sidered clean or unclean, and Niddah 27b, where a similar question is raised in regard to a burned corpse, the skeleton of which has been preserved, refer to cases of accidental burning. The Tosafot Ta‘an. Lob, 8.2. Pomigi, and 16a, s.o. 18, are of the opinion that the ashes strewn on the reading-desk and on the heads of all that attended the service on fast-days were those of burned human bones. But nbpnp “5N docs not signify the ashes of burned bodies, but the ashes of the hearth. Nor does the Talmud contain any suggestion that cremation was once practised by the ancient Hebrews, E.G. HL. M. Sc. In Modern Times: The question whether, from the point of view of Jewish law, cremation may be allowed, has been extensively discussed in modern times. It is generally agreed that there is no express Jaw to be found in the Bible demanding the burial of the human body; and though the Shul- han ‘Aruk (Yoreh De‘ah, 362) contains the statement “ Burial in the earth is a positive command,” a posi- tion assumed also by Maimonides (“Sefer ha-Miz- wot,” p. 261), this command is merely deduced from wasapn wsp (* Thou shalt surcly bury him”) in Deuteronomy (xxi. 28;. compare Sanh. 46b). It seems uncertain whether it was ever a custom in early times to burn the bodies of kings and nobles. Referring to such a burning, the Mishnah (‘Ab. Zarah i, 38) says, “Every death which is accom- panied by burning is looked upon as idolatry ”; and the fact that Saul’s body was burned (I Sam. xxxi. 12) is said to have been the cause of the three years’ hunger at the time of David (Yeb. 78b; Rashi to IT Sam, xxi, 1). Funeral pyres of costly clothes and other articles, to which reference is made (Tosef., ed. Zuckermandel, 119, 8, and parallels) in the case of Rabban Gamalicl the Elder, were also not un- known in Hasmonean times (Josephus, “ Ant.” xv. 3, $ 4). According to the Shulhan ‘Aruk (348, 1) this is expressly forbidden in the case of ordinary people. Yom-Tob Lipmann Heller even tries to prove that the cases of burning mentioned in the Bible are to be explained as “embalming.” by means of which all but the bones was destroyed (Tosafot to Pesahim, iv. 9). On the other hand, it has been asserted by some authorities that burial is merely a custom(“ minhag”), and that no serious objection can be brought against No mention is Both - cremation. In proof of this the following citation has been adduced from Midr. Wayasha‘ (Jellinek, * Bet ha-Midrash,” i. 87): “Isaac begged his father on Mount Moriah: ‘ Burn me completely, and bring my ashes to my mother that she place them in an urn in her own room, and that whenever she enters the room she may remember me with tears.’” The same idea is referred to in a number of liturgical pieces. It is furtherasserted that 7127p AN? AN can not be construed as opposed to some other form of disposing of the dead, since it simply means that a Jew should be careful so to dispose of the dead as to bring the body as quickly as possible into contact with mother earth. Many authorities went so far as to permit calcium to be strewn over the body in the grave, in order to hasten the process of decom- position (Solomon b. Adret, Responsum No. 369; Moses Isserles to Yoreh De‘ah, 363, 2). This cus- tom became general among the Portuguese Jews. On dogmatic grounds, it is further asserted, no op- position can be entertained against cremation (Mai- monides, “ Yad,” Teshubah, viii. 2, 3); and Joseph Albo (‘‘Ikkarim,” iv. 80) criticizes Abraham ibn Daud and Nahmanides for opposing the practise. Some Italian cabalists were opposed to cremation on the ground that according to their system the soul was supposed to go from the house of the deceased to the grave and back again during the seven days following death “Il Vessillo Israelitico, ”xxx. 105). Orthodox Jewish authorities have as a rule op- posed cremation on the ground that it is not in con- sonance with the spirit and traditions of Judaism. The Italian rabbinate made a declara- Recent tion in this sense (70. xxiii. 12). Zadok Declara- Kalin, grand rabbi of France, has de- tions. cided that in the case of cremation the religious ceremony should precede in- cineration; that the rabbi should then retire and not be present during the act of cremation; and that the “Hashkabah” should be recited at thehome. Her- man Adler, chief rabbi of Great Britain, considers cremation a violation of Jewish law and custom; but he permits the “Lewayah” at the burying of the remains @b. xlili. 394). The late haham of the Portuguese community in London, B. Artom, preached Nov, 7, 1874, a sermon on cremation, in which he asserted that it was opposed to the spirit and history of Judaism (“Jewish World,” June 15, 1874; compare “Il Vessillo,” xxiv. 294, 327). This position was also maintained by J. Hildesheimer in Berlin, Kohen in Inowrazlaw, and others. But Moses Israel] Tedeschi, rabbi of Triest, published a responsum in 1890 in which he not only tried to prove that cremation was not opposed to the spirit of Judaism, but asked that at his death his own body should be disposed of in this way (“ Monats- schrift,” 1890, pp. 149, 153). In 1895 the rabbis of Wiirttemberg declared cremation contrary to Jewish law because that law, with rare exceptions, forbids us to mutilate a corpse (see “Rev. Et. Juives,” XxXxii. 276). One of the foremost advocates of cremation was Rabbi A. Wiener of Oppeln, who not only contrib- uted articles to the “Flamme,” but also became a member of the Gesellschaft fiir Feuerbestaltung. In 1892 the Central Conference of American Rabbis re- Crémieu Crémieux solved “that in case we should be invited to officiate as ministers of religion at the cremation of a de- parted coreligionist, we ought not to refuse on the plea that cremation is anti-Jewish or irreligious” (“ Year Book,” 1892, p. 48). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Kilehenmeister, Die Tudtenhestattungen der Bibel und die Feucrhestattunuy stuttgart, 1893: Perles, Die Leichenverbrenmnung a dea Alten Bibelversionen, in MWo- natsschrift, xviii. 76; Hamburger, Realencyclopddie des Judenthume, ili, Supplement, ili. d8 ef seg.; 8S. A. Weissmann, Denon maw sat 4s in Ha-Boker Or, IST7 ii. iii, 5 El Edu catore, xxii, 19, 202: 1 Vessilla Tsraelitico. xXx. 305, xiii. 498; Ratuner, in Jitdisches Litteraturblalt, 1879, p. 373 E886, p. 323 L887, pp. 127 ct xeq.; Die Moderne Reform und die Todten Verbrennung, in Israélit, 1887, p. 61; St6sse!, in Allg. Zeit, des Jud. 1894, Nos. 32, 33: Wiener, ib. No. 38 and in Die Flamme, 188. No. 193 Israel. Woehenschritt, 1886, 1887; Elijah Benamozegh, Vataneh be-Esh, Leghorn, 1866; M. Klotz, in Bloch’s Fuchenschrift, 1901, No. 25, p. 423. A. CREMIEU: Town in the ancient province of Dauphiné, France. As early as the fifteenth cen- tury it hadanimportant Jewishcommunity. Raoul de Gaucourt, governor of Dauphiné, renewed in 1441 the privileges of the Jews of that town for seven years in consideration of the sum of fifty florins, which the Jews Moses Dandéli of Crémicu and Aguinet Solomon of St. Symphorien were to collect from their coreligiovists. The Jews of Crémien re- fused to pay the sum, and emigrated in large num- bers. The dauphin Louis recalled them in 1449, and promised them that if they would reopen their bank- ing-houses he would exact of them in future only one ounce of fine silver, instead of the half-mark that they had formerly becn taxed. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Prudhomme, Les Juifs en Dauphine, p. 64. G. S. K. CREMIEU-FOA, ANDRE: An officer in the French cavalry; born in Paris Jan. 20, 1857; died at Porto Novo, North Africa, Nov., 1892. Cré- miecu-Foa early embraced the military career. The “Libre Parole,” the organ of the anti-Seniitic party, published in 1892 a series of articles on the prepon- derance of the Jewish element in the French army. Captain Crémieu-Foa, then garrisoned at Meaux, challenged the editor-in-chief of the “ Libre Parole,” Edouard Drumont, to a duel, and inflicted upon him a slight wound. Tbereupon, the signer of the arti- cles, M. de Lamase, challenged Crémicu-Foa, alleg- ing that the latter should have applied to him for satisfaction. After the encounter between Crémicu-Foa and M. de Lamase, in which four bullets were exchanged without either of the principals being hit (June, 1892), Armand Mayer, one of the seconds of the Jew- ish officer, a comrade and coreligionist, was taken to task on the spot by the Marquis de Morés, one of the seconds of M. de Lamase, the marquis charging Mayer unjustly with having divulged the contents of the procés-verbal which had been drawn up at the conclusion of the first encounter, and which should have been kept secret. In the subsequent duel between Mayer and Morés, the former was killed. Crushed by this fatal issue, and exposed to still more violent insults on the part of the anti-Semitic press, Crémieu-Foa was about to issue more chal- lenges when M. de Freycinet, then minister of war, ordered him to Tunis to organize one of the two squadrons of Sudanese spahis destined for Daho- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 344 mey, West Africa, which place was then in revolt against the French protectorate. In the ensuing expedition under the command of Colonel Dodds, Cremieu-Foa distinguished himself in several com- bats previous to the taking of Abomey, so that he was mentioned for bravery in the order of the day, and received in the presence of the troops the con- gratulations of the commander-in-chief. He died at Porto Novo, Nov., 1892, partly in consequence of a wound sustained while reconnoitering, and partly owing to an attack of tropical fever. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ernest Crémieu-Foa, La Campagne © OO @® J WY) O ale: “BGAVTS FNL AO NOILVdIONVAY GHL NO VOIYAKY PNILVIOLVYONOD XAGINAY) AHATOCY OVVS] dO UALLAY HAVUDNOLAY AHL 40 LUV ‘ , a ae ce! ra sgl Ee , intl yp 4 tp ae Crémieux Cremona THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 348 the sincerity of the prince’s expressions of repub- lican sentiments, and cherished the illusion that a nephew of Napoleon would sustain the republic in France, and redeem the “eighteenth of Brumaire.” Moreover he was strongly prejudiced against Gen- eral Cavaignac, who, after having refused, on the pretext of il] health, the portfolio of minister of war, offered to him by the provisional government, sud- denly became well enough to be the chief executive. Crémieux’s illusions concerning the policy of Louis Napoleon soon vanished. Under date of Dec. 15, 1848, he addressed a letter to the newly elected prince, in which he exhorted him to be a “standard for reconciliation and not of disillusionment,” and to remain true to his republican principles. He never saw Napoleon again. On leaving the Open prisons of Mazas and Vincennes, to Letter to which the coup d’état of his former Louis friend had brought him, he retired Napoleon. from active politics and went back to his law practise, defending throughout France the newspapers that were persecuted, and the interests of all the proscribed republicans, among them Louis Blanc, Challemel-Lacour, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and many others. To enumerate Crémieux'’s many and important cases would be impossible. Among his clients were the sultan and the viceroy of Egypt. He journeyed to Bucharest in the interests of the ALLIANCE IsRAELITE UNIVERSELLE, Of which he had been one of the founders and of which he had become the president in 18638. Finally, in 1869, he had to give way to the voters of Paris, and, in spite of his sev- enty-three years, was compelled to take his seat in the Palais-Bourbon, to help overthrow the empire and again save his beloved France. But this time the task was impossible. The incapacity of the leaders and Bazaine’s treason lost the army. Gam- betta himself, formerly Crémieux’s secretary and now his colleague in the Government of National Defense, could not create a new army or capable generals. The five months of terrible anxiety, fol- lowed by the inglorious peace, prostrated Créinieux. He offered a part of his wealth to help pay the millions demanded by the Germans, but Thiers would not listen to the plan of a national subscrip- tion. Crémieux was made a life senator. He gave 50,000 franes in aid of the victims of the flood at Toulouse, urged by the same sentiments that, in 1860, had led him to address the following appeal to his coreligionists in behalf of the Christians of Lebanon: ‘**The Christians of the East are subjected to the most horrible persecution. Tortures, rape, assassination, pillage, burning, the murder of women, children, and old peo- Memorable ple, even mutilation of corpses—such is the Pro-Chris- picture presented by the whole region of the tian Appeal. Lebanon. Blood is shed; misery and famine are spreading among a dense population, whom Mohammedan fanaticism is destroying in a war even against the intention and forces of the Turkish government, and whose sole crime is that they worship the Christ. French Jews, let us be the first to come to the aid of our Christian brothers ; let us not await the results of diplomacy, which is always so slow and which will regulate the future; let us alleviate present needs. Let a large subscription be begun to-day in Paris, and let a Jewish committee be organized to-morrow. Do not let us lose one day, one hour; let the signal for abundant relief be given in the midst of this Jewish assembly, gathered in this capital of civilization. This signal will be answered by our | brethren in England, Germany, Belgium, Holland, andall Eu- rope; in the countries that recognize them as citizens, and in those that still refuse them this noble title. You, also, Jews of the American countries Where religious liberty is triumphant, you will help the Catholics of Asia, who are so cruelly oppressed by superstition. Let the rich Jew bring his large offering, and the poor Jew his pious obolus. But a still greater thought shall rise from this first impulse. Who knows? Perhaps God, who rules over all, has permitted these catastrophes in order to give @ solemn occasion to all the cults to aid one another, for mutual defense against the furious hatreds, the daughters of supersti- tion and barbarity. A permanent committee in every country, with eyes open for all the victins of fanaticism, Without dis- tinction of religion, must be created and supported. The mis- fortunes that fall at this moment upon so many innocent victims arouse the sympathy of all. They suggest the thought of a fu- ture protection against this scourge, which our century repudi- ates with horror—religious persecution.” Crémieux’s entire life is a proof of the nobility of his character. In 1832 he heard that his father, on leaving the prison in 1796, had found his business destroyed, and had been compelled to compromise with his creditors. Crémieux did not His rest until he had found all these ered- Character. itors or their heirs; and he returned to them not only the principal, which most of them had forgotten, but also the accumu- lated interest for thirty-six years. Therenpon he sought and easily obtained the rehabilitation of his father’s name. He never sacrificed any of his con- victions to his personal interests, and did not hesitate to antagonize the powerful influence of the Roths- childs in advocating, in the Chamber of Deputies, the acquisition of the railroads by the government. Always ready to aid his coreligionists, Crémieux never forgave them a meanaction. Thus, herefused to aid Deutz, the despicable accuser of the Duchess of Berry, who appealed to him as being a Jew. On Jan. 30, 1880, Crémieux lost his wife, who, since 1824, had been his constant companion and helper. Both had frequently said that neither could live without the other, and Crémieux’s death occurred ten days after that of his wife. BIBLIOGRAPHY: La Grande Encyclopédie: Meyers Konver- sations-Lexikon ; Brockhaus, Konversations-Lexikon. S. oR: CREMIEUX, MORDECAI BEN ABRA- HAM: Rabbi at Aix, Provence; born at Carpen- tras in 1749; died May 22, 1825. He was the au- thor of “ Ma’amar Mordekai ” (‘Treatise of Mordecai), a commentary on the Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hay- yim, in two parts, Leghorn, 1784. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Milhaud, in Archives Israélites, 1849, pp. 11, 186; and 1840, p.374; Nepi-Ghirondi, Toledot Gedole Yis- racl, p. 241; Allg. Zeit. des Jud. 1840, p. 411; Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, ii. 42; Steinschneider. Cat. Bodl. col. 1657. = A. RB. CREMIEUX or CREMIEU, MOSES BEN SOLOMON: Scholar; born at Carpentras, France, in 1766; died May 4, 1837. He was a nephew and son-in-law of Mordecai Crémieux. In 1790 he re- moved to Aix, in Provence. Here he established a Hebrew printing-office, from which he issued (1829- 1835) a corrected edition of the prayer-book used in the four French communities of Avignon, Carpen- tras, L’Isle, and Cavaillon, together with a com- mentary thereon, under the title “Ho’il Mosheh Be’er” (Moses Began to Explain), Healso published (1883-86) notes on [bn Ezra’s commentaries on Gen- esis, Exodus, Leviticus. the Five Scrolls, Proverbs, 349 and Job. The former work is of greater intrinsic value than the latter. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Crémieux, in Arch. [sr. i. 372, 418; Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. 268. L. G. A. Rk. CREMONA: [Italian city in the plain of Lom- bardy; capital of the province of Cremona. The beginnings of the Jewish community in this city appear to date back to the middle of the twelfth century, but the first authentic notice is of the year 1420, when the decurions of the city renewed some earlier privileges of the Jews. They lived in the Via Giudecca (now Via Zuecca), where there was a large synagogue, and in a few contiguous streets; and they had a cemetery in the vicinity, designated to-day as “S. Maria di Bethlem No. 2174.” In 1456 Francesco Sforza took them under his protection because of their fidelity to the state. In 1466-63 they were so numerous that the citizens petitioned Princess Bianca Maria Visconti not to admit any more Jews, The treatment received by the Jews in the territory of Milan was generally just. Their chief occupations seem to have been in commerce, bank- ing, and agriculture. They fared ill, however, un- der Spanish rule. Charles VY. permitted the preach- ing friars to excite the populace against the Jews; but this permission was rescinded in 1541 by Guido Ascanio Sforza, chamberlain of Pope Paul III. The first considerable disturbance in the ghetto of Cremona occurred when steps were taken to enforce the bull of Pope Julius II. ordering all Talmudic works to be burned (1558). It was in 1559 that the inquisitor-general of the city ordered the Jews to deliver to the Inquisition all their copies of the Tal- mud. Some of them obeyed; but deputies of the various congregations protested in a memorial, and the governor of Milan intervened in their favor. The Inquisition, however, remained obdurate, and the Dominicans came to jts aid. One of these, Hieronymus of Vercelli, was a vicar acting as assist- ant to the inquisitor-general of Cremona; the other, Sixtus of Siena, was an apostate well known to the Jews from his previous fanatical preaching against them in various parts of Italy. Asa result of their agitations, a censorship commission was organized, to which were appointed Vettoria Eliano, another convert, and a Jew named Joshua dei Cantori. The last-named had lived in a feud with Joseph Otto- lenghi, a scholar who had opened a school in Cre- mona, had edited many Hebrew works, and had helped to make Cremoua a center of Talmud learn- ing. Joshua was ready to avenge himself on Otto- lenghi and his friends by joining the Dominicans in their denunciations, and the commission gave a de- cision against the Talmud and rabbinical works. These proceedings finally wore out the patience of the governor; he yielded, gave orders that the Tal- mud should be burned, and ordered Spanish soldiers to aid in searching Jewish houses and the printing establishment for the proscribed works. In April or May, 1559, between 10,000 and 12,000 books were publicly burned. Seven years later, in 1566, Hebrew books were again seized, but were immediately re- stored by the Senate. When Pius V. ordered the Jews to wear the badge, and forbade the lending of money on interest, Cardinal Borromeo extended the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Crémieuzx. Cremona application of these measures to all the Jews of Lombardy. In 1582 a Christian, having murdered a Jew, was punished on complaint of the community; Whereupon the Christian citizens of Cremona sent a deputation to Philip II. requesting the expulsion of all Jews. When the Bishop of Cremona was ele- vated to the papacy in 1590 as Gregory XIV., the Jews were in danger of being plundered, and dared not leave their houses for several days. On receiving the deputation from the citizens of Cremona, Philip II. ordered a census of the Jews, and in 1592 their expulsion. But this order was not carried into effect by Volasco, the governor of Milan; on the contrary, he lent his aid to Samuel Coen of Alessandria when the latter offered to carry a petition to Madrid. Coen succeeded in persuading the king to withdraw the order. The inhabitants of Cremona and Padua, however, offered considerable sums of money to Philip as an inducement to expel the Jews, and, advised thereto by his Expulsion confessor, he acceded to their wishes. 1597. At the same time the Jews were ac- cused of fraud in regard to the taxes, and were thereby deprived of the protection of the state. When the order of expulsion arrived, in 1596, the Jews were unable to leave because of the war in Lombardy between the French and the Spaniards, and the governor permitted them to stay until 1597. A new decree was then obtained from the king, ordering an immediate expulsion, and Volasco was forced to obey it. He tried to soften the lot of the unfortunate Jews by advising a gradual emigration, and by aiding and supporting them with money; he also, hearing that the fugitives were being mo- lested and annoyed, strictly forbade any ill treatment or plundering. Only two families were allowed to remain until the trial in connection with the taxes was finished, and then, after a decision had been given in their favor, these too left. The fugitives went to Mantua, Modena, Monticelli, Reggio, Verona, and Padua. No Jews have lived in Cremona since that time. In 1588 the community of Cremona numbered 456 persons and was well organized. It had supported in 1550 a Talmud Torah under the direction of R. Joseph Ottling. There was also a club for study, “ Bet El,” the by-laws of which, dated Nov. 26, 1582, are still extant (“ Ha-Asif,” iii. 220), besides a chari- table society, “ Honen Dal,” whose constitution dated from 1591, when the community was already threat- ened with danger. The reputation of the community extended beyond its borders. The consent of the rabbis of Cremona was obtained on the occasion of the proceedings against Azariah dei Rossi’s “ Me’or ‘Ena- yim ” (see “ Rev, Et. Juives,” xxxiii. 86). The com- munity was always ready to render aid to the perse- cuted, as in the case of the Maranos of Pesaro (2d. xx. 70); and when the communities of Italy sent a deputation to Rome to protest against the burning of Hebrew books, that of Cremona was the leader of the movement. For many years there was a Hebrew printing es- tablishment at Cremona, and when the publication of certain works was interfered with in other places, Cremona shared with Mantua the work of comple- ting them. For example, the “Ziyyuni,” one thou- Crescas THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 350 sand copies of which had been in course of publica- tion and had been burned during the Milan troubles of 1559, was brought out in 1560, In 1556-61 and 1565-67 Vincenzo Conti published here in excellent form several important Hebrew works—the Psalms in 1561, the Pentateuch and the Megillah in 1566 (7%). The device of the publisher shows Hercules with the hydra and the motto “Superavit ac virtus.” Several other books were subsequently printed at Cremona (for instance, by Christopher Draconi, 1576); the edi- tions were often very large, 2,000 copies of the Zohar being issued in 1559-60. The Jews regarded their works as safe from the Inquisition in the territory of Milan. The earliest known rabbi of Cremona was Mena- hem Immanuel b. Abraham Raphael Coen Rapa Porto (1519). Then followed: Joseph Ottling (Otto- Jenghi [?]; 1555); Eliezer b. Elia Ash- Rabbis of kenazi; Abraham b. Abraham Basola; Cremona. [saac b. Gershom Gentili; Abraham b. Kalonymus Pescarolo; Raphael b. Isaiah delli Piatelli; Moses Menahem Coen Rafa Porto; Abba b. Elia Zarfati; Joshua Sanvil ben Jekuthiel; David Aaron Norlenghi (1596); Nathan da Cremona; Joshua and Jacob b. Elhanan Heilbronn qnipden), born in Cremona; Abraham Menahem Coen Porto, who worked as corrector at Cremona in aoe BIBLIOGRAPHY: Alessandria, in JEw. Encyc. i. 340; a “* pin- kes ” of Cremona, and the statutes of the societies mentioned, in Cod. Montefiore College, No. 94 (see Jew. Quart. Rev. xiv. 178); Joseph ha-Kohen, ‘Emek ha-Baka; Cremona Ilius- trata, Milan. 1865: A. Pesaro,Cenni sult’ ev- "Comunila Israel. di Cremona, in Vess. fsr. 1882, Xxx. 302, 339, 366; xxxi. 4; Is. Bianehi, Suile Tipografie Iebraiche di Cremona del Sec. xvi., Cremona, 1807; G. B. de Rossi, Annali Ebreo-Tipo- grafici di Cremona, Parma, 1808 3 Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. col. 3097; Mortara. Indice Alfabetico, S.V. G I. F.—G. J. CRESCAS, ABIATHARIBN, HA-KOHEN: Physician in ordinary to King Juan IL. of Aragon (1458-79); skilful oculist and learned astrologer. In Sept., 1468, he freed the king, who was seventy years of age, from a double cataract of the eyes, which had caused his total blindness. Abiathar preached the memorial sermon at the funeral service held by the Jewish community of Cervera upon the death of Juan IT. (Jan., 1479). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Zurita, Anales de Aragon, book xix., ch. 14. G. M. K. ag eee, ASTRUC DON: Provencal schol- ; lived probably at Perpignan, in the fourteenth ere Samuel, son of Solomon Shalom of Per- pignan (compare Azulai, “Shem ha-Gedolim,” p. 188), consulted Crescas on a halakic question in a complicated case of marriage. Both Samuel’s in- quiry and Crescas’ answer are still extant in manu- script. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Neubauer, Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS. No. 834, 8. G. I. Br. CRESCAS, HASDAI BEN ABRAHAM (or BEN JUDAH: misreading of DA SN 132 °NIDN WPMD) : Religious philosopher; born in Barcelona, Spall 1340; died 1410, He was of an illustrious and learned family, in “ Kore ha-Dorot” falsely designa- ted as of the family ‘wny (the abbreviation of by xy! obey Daswn, found at the end of the geneal- ogy in his own preface to his great work). He was a disciple of the Talmudist and philosopher NissIM BEN REUBEN (RaN), and, following in the footsteps of both his ancestors and his teacher, he became a Talmudic authority and a philosopher of great originality (Joél, “Don Chasdai Creskas,” p. 78, note 2, Breslau, 1866), important in the history of modern thought for his deep influence on Spinoza. While he did not occupy an_ official position as rabbi, he seems to have been active as a teacher. Among his fellow students and friends, Tsaac ben Sheshet (RIBaSH), famous for his responsa, takes precedence. ALBO is the best known of his pupils, but at least two others have won recogni- tion—R. Mattathias of Saragossa (see “ He-Haluz,” vii. 94), and R. Zechariah ha-Levi, the translator of Al-Ghazzali’s “ Refutation of the Philosophers ” (see Steinschneider, in “ Ozar ha-Nehmad,” li. 231). Cres- cas wasamanof means. Assuch he wasappointed sole executor of the will of his uncle Vitalis (Hay- vim) Azday by the King and the Queen of Aragon in- 1393 (Jacobs, “Sources of Spanish-Jewish History,” * pp. 184-137). Still, though enjoying the high es- tecm even of prominent non-Jews, he did not escape the common fate of his coreligionists. Imprisoned upon a false accusation in 1878, he suffered personal indignities because he was a Jew (Gritz, “ Geseh.” vill., ch. 4). His only son died in 1391, a martyr for his faith (see Crescas’ pathetic words in Wiener's edition of “Shebet Yehudah,” Appendix), during the persecutions of that period. Nevertheless he kept his “eyes turned to the Father in heaven.” How deep his faith was is shown by the circum- stance that, notwithstanding this bercavement, his mental powers were unbreken; for the works that have made him immortal are al} posterior to that terrible year. Another episode of his life worthy of note is connected with the appearance of the pseudo-Messiah of Cisneros, one of whose adherents he became. In 1401-02 he visited Joseph Orabuena at Pamplona at the request of the King of Navarre, who paid the expenses of his journey to various Na- varrese towns (Jacobs, ¢@.c. Nos. 1570, 1574). He was at that time described as “ Rab of Saragossa.’ Of his writings three have become known: (1) Fis letter to the congregations of Avignon, pub- lished as an appendix to Wiener’s edition of “She- bet Yehudah” (see above), in which he relates the incidents of the persecution of 1891. (2) An exposi- tion and refutation of the main doctrines of Chris- tianity. This “tratado” was written in Spanish in 1398. The Spanish original is no longer extant; but a Hebrew translation by Joseph ibn Shem-Tob, with the title po yan “py doa (“Refutation of the Cardinal Principles of the Christians”), has been preserved. The work was composed at the solici- tation of Spanish noblemen (Griitz, “Gesch.” viii. 411, note 2), and this explains the use of the vernac- ular. Crescas’ object in writing what is virtually an apologetic treatise on Judaism was to present the reasons Which held the Jews fast to their ancestral faith. He does this in a dispassionate, clignified manner, by contrasting the reasonableness of Jew- ish doctrines with the unintelligible perplexities of the Christian dogma. Crescas may also have had in mind, while thus defending Judaism, the many apostates who tried to demonstrate the genuine- ness of their Christian convictions by attacking 351 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Crescaa their native religion. He was a lifelong combatant in the ranks of those who would expose the false- hoods of these apostates. His main contribution to literature is (8) a work entitled “Or Adonai” (Light of the Lord). In it he develops his philosophy and proves himsclf master in the realmof thought. He hadintended this work for the first part of a complete presentation of the contents of Judaism. It was to be followed by a second, to be known as the “ Ner Adonai” (Lamp of the Lord), in which he desired to treat of duties and ceremonies. But this second part was never written. He doubtless had in mind the ex- ample of Maimonides. The “Or Adonai,” asa phil- osophical treatment of Jewish dogma, corresponds to Maimonides’ “ Moreh Nebukim”; the “ Ner Ado- nai” was to have been written on the lines of Mai- monides’ “ Yad ha-Hazakah.” Crescas’ “Or Adonai,” notwithstanding its signal merit as the production of an independent and orig- inal thinker, met with scant attention. The much less meritorious elaboration of his pupil Albo (the ““Tkkarim”) found its way into the The ‘Or libraries and minds of innumerable Adonai.” readers, and was republished time and again, though its strong points are mostly purloined from Crescas; but the master and teacher suffered from neglect and even eclipse. (Munk, in his “ Mélanges,” forgets to mention hii.) Only the haggadic commentaries which, always strikingly clear, embroider occasionally the text of his rigid speculations, were frequently quoted in “ ay SD ma Oo 25 / 2a. | aa 24 | 350 | Za" iE [ge"lBe || Ss | ee? ee we . S nes | = a — 4 [8 = cae ee ——~—— | {§ ——__—$____ jf ——- —- —— | ee ae é' ; oe TR ce. 0.6 a 1834../ 8 0.6 ‘ er? Fed Om ~ 1823. 5 0.5 - 1835..) 11 0.8 0.3 - i = 1829. toe 10 0.7 oe 1836. * 14 1.0 oe 1930....| 5 04 i 06 |/18387..] 9 0.7 ~ 1832....1 6 0.5 i 1838..} 12 0.6 i 1838....1 9 | 0.7 | 5 | 1880. | 8 | 08 | 0.3 This would indicate a degree of criminality slightly above the normal. In Germany there were convicted, during the period 1882-92, 88,288 Jews and 3,973,667 non- Jews. Tomaintainan equality incrime would have required the conviction of 47,306 Jews. In 1882 there were 998 criminals to every 100,000 inhabit- ants; while among the same number of Jews there were 844 criminals. In 1891 the number of crimi- nals among 100,000 inhabitants had increased to 1,073, while among the Jews it had decreased to 799. For Austria the percentage of the Jews in the whole population is 4.8, while, according to the offi- cial statistics, the Jewish percentage in total num- ber of criminals was as follows: LSS Licivtawes Stier ecg La b's ae Pe ee 4.2 TERE ys tiwa aeeeew anedes AL | ABB biwetaniss wecenente TReSivsddsdeieivesceshC. ASB p.stcevewieccviesde TWOSh iiweviwkeeveswseee: 1880 cass seveas ett cs 3.5 LSSD yiidiewin Vu we sea es ae MOE “WSO hwisas seins seles 3.6 Even in Galicia, which has been always described as a hotbed of moral corruption, the figures are in favor of the Jews, for in 1889 there were among 7,102 convicts only 656 Jews, while, according to their percentage (11.68) in the population, there should have been 829. BIBLIOGRAPHY : David Friedliinder, Actenstticke, die Reform der Jiidischen Colonien in den Preussischen Staaten Be- treffend, Berlin, 1893: Karl Weil, Die Zuldssigkeit der Juden zum Biirgerrechte, 1828 ; Rudolf Moser, Die Juden und Thre Wiinsehe, 1828; Giese, Die Juden und die Deutsche Criminatl- statistik, Leipsic, 1893: see also a critical review of this work by W. Bambus in Jiidische Presse, 1893. Nos. 17-19; H. Lux, Die Juden als Verbrecher, Munich, 1894: Die Criminati- tit der Juden in Deutschland, edited by the Comité zur Abwenhr Antisemitischer Angriffe, Berlin, 1896: Antisemiten- spiegel, 2a ed., pp. 197-224, Danzig, 199). Further material may be found in Witthetlungen aus dem Verein zur Ab- wehr des Antisemitismus, a weekly paper published in Ber- lin since 1891. D CRISPIN, ISAAC IBN: Spanish moralist and poet; lived at the beginning of the twelfth century. Judah al-Harizi praises him among the renowned poets of the twelfth century; and, judging from the title Syqan qwa (“The Great Prince”), which he prefixes to Crispin’s name, the latter must have oc- cupied a high official position (*Tahkemoni,” ed. Constantinople, iti. 9b). Crispin was the author of an ethical] work entitled “Sefer ha-Musar ” (Book of Instruction). This book, mentioned by Al-Harizi, is, according to Stein- schneider, identical with the “ Mishle Anashim Haka- mim” (Neubauer, “ Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS.” No. 1402, 8), and with “Mishle ‘Arab,” still extant in two manuscripts in the possession of Baron de Giinzburg. Under the Jatter title it was published in the sup- plements of “Ha-Lebanon,” 1867-68. The “Sefer ha-Musar” io this case would be, if not a mere translation, an adaptation from the Arabic, as stated in the introduction to the “Mishle Anashim Haka- mim ” (see Steinschneider, “ Ozerot Hayyim,” p. 868). This adaptation was in its turn translated into Ara- bic by Joseph ibn Hasan, under the title “ Mahasin al-Adab,” which is still extant in manuscript (Neu- bauer, “Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS.” No. 1220, 4). Like the original Hebrew, the “ Mahasin al-Adab” is di- vided tuto fifty “ kasidas,” which agree with those of the “Mishle ‘Arab,” published in “Ha-Lebanon.” The “Sefer ha-Musar,” or “ Mishle ‘Arab,” is mostly written in verse. BIBLIOGRAPHY; Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. 1., No. 1266; Dei Rossi, Dizionarian Storico, p. 96; Dukes, in Orient, Lit. xi. 106, O91, 542, 593; idem, Zur Rabbinischen Spruchkunde, pp. 65, 88; Edelmann, Derel:; Tobim, Hebrew part, p. 23; Stein- schneider, Cat. Bodl. col. 1104; idem, Hebr. Uebers. pp. 884 et seq. G. I. Br. CRISPUS: The ruler of the synagogue at Cor- inth, who became a Christian, with all his house, through the preaching of Paul (Acts xviii. 8). In one of his letters to the church at Corinth (I Cor. i. 14), Paul speaks of Crispus as one of those whom he had baptized. There is a tradition that Crispus became such animportant factor in the early Church that he was ordained Bishop of A gina (“ Apost. Const.” vii. 46), BE. G. H. I. M. P. CROATIA: Southwestern part of the Hungarian crown provinces; consists of Croatia, Slavonia, and the Military Frontier, included since 1868. The ear- Hest allusion to Jews in Croatia is found in a letter of the Spanish vizier Hasdai ibn Shaprut, addressed to Joseph, king of the Chazars. Two men, named Mar Saul and Mar Joseph, were the bearers of this letter; and they had come with the ambassador of the “king of the Giblim” to Hasdai at Cordova. Since both words, “ Giblim ” and “ Croats,” have ety- mologically the same meaning—7.e., “mountain peo- ple ”—it is generally assumed that by “Giblim” is meant the people of Croatia. This is the only evi- dence, however slight, of the settlement of Jews within the present limits of Croatia in the tenth cen- tury. The proximity to Constantinople, as well as the active commerce with Italy, and more especially with Venice, leads to the conclusion that Jews were living in Croatia in the Middle Ages; but as yet the only historical evidence for this hypothesis Croatia Crocodile is an ordinance of the Venetian doge, dating from the sixteenth century, which forbade the Jews in Dalmatia to own any real estate, and, consequently, to settle there. It is recorded that at about that time a Jewish physician on his way through Ragusa was permitted to stay in that city six months. The political unity which always existed between Hun- gary and Croatia resulted, naturally, in a common legislation; but it is not known whether the vari- ous pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish laws of the em- pire practically affected Croatia also. A single da- tum the only one within a hundred years, appears about the middle of the seventeenth century. At that time there is found in the literature, side by side with the common “ Jidov” (derived from “ Ju- deus”), the expression — still used by the people—“ tschifut,” borrowed from the Turkish. The former ex- pression undeniably proves that the first Jews came to Croatia with the Turks during the time of the Turkish rule. But it seems that these Turkish Jews left together with the Turks; for in the eighteenth century the first Croatian Jews appear with German names; hence they had immigrated from the north. ! £ later rabbinical passages concerning the CROWNS oF ru RienTEows and the Crown or tue Law. BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. Low, Kranz und Krone, in Ben Chaian- ja, 1867, Nos. 11, 12; Charles, The Ascension of [sciah. 190, p. 613 J. B. Mayor, The Bypistle of St. James, 1802, notes, pip. 46 et seg.: Hastings, Dict. Bible; Cheyne and Biack, Bncye. Bibl. sv. Crown. Kk. In the Talmudic Hebrew, ANY is used (compare the English “crown”) for the Biblical 3p in the sense of “border” or “rim” (Kelim v. 8; Oh. xiv. 1). In the Targuinim sf is usually rendered by the identical >} or 9°, or sometimes by babs, which in sense is equivalent to “crown” or “wreath.” For the insignia of royalty the late Biblical * keter” is used, together with “kisse” (throne) and “shar- bit” (scepter), While the Biblical 472 drops ont of use in the Talmudical Hebrew, which restricts the root to its original meaning, “cut off” (hence “de- voted,” a “nazir”), a new word is introduced, “taga” (san), of non-Hebrew stock, in the sense of royal crown and thence of ornament. “ Keter,” as well as * ‘ateret”? and its derivatives, has alsothe applicd meaning of ornament, dignity, and distinction. The righteous will wear crowns in the hereafter (Ber. 17a; compare Meg. 15b, where God is the crown on the head of the pious; Lev. R. xxx.). So also prayer is woven into a crown for the head of God (Ex. R. xxi.“ Phree crowns there are: the crown of the Torah, the crown of the priesthood, the crown of rovalty; but the crown of a good name is higher than these alto- gether” (Abot iv. 18). In explanation of this enn- meration of the three degrees of distinction Ex. R. xxxiv. and Num. R. iv. must be kept in mind. The crown of the learned man (Plarisee), that of the priest (Sadducee), that of royai The blood, men of good repute not only ‘‘Three attain but even surpass; that is, learn- Crowns.” ing, birth, and station are worthless, while character is all. RR. Simeon ber Johai enumerates these crowns in this order: the crown of royalty, that is, the “table of the show- breads,” which had a golden border: the crown of the priesthood, that is, the altar: the crown of the Torah, that is, the Ark of the Covenant. Playing upon the vocalization of 4) (zav and zer). he adds: “Tf one acquires the Torah, it is for bim a zer,a crown; if he does not, it is for him something foreign” (compare Yoma 72b). God is represented in the Talmud as ornamenting the letters Eye. as well as the letters "a (on p see Shab. 104a}, with “crowns,” and refrains from multiplying them in view of RK. Akiba'’s disposition to read into these “crowns” halakic decisions (Men. 29b; Shab. 89b:. “Crown” is also used for “kingdon.”; for instance, in the parable about the moon’s jealousy of the sun, she asks: “Is it possible for two kings to have one ‘crown’? and God, acting upon the suggestion. reduces her to the second rank (Hul, 60b). Again. CROWNS OF THE LAW. 1. In Hambro’ Synagogue, London. 2. In a private collection, New York. 3. In the Svnagegue at Pogrebishche, Russia. 4 and 6. In Temple Shearith Israel, New York. 5. In the Synagogue at Casale Monferrato. Italy. ;. Oriental; in the United States National Museum, Washington. 8. In the Victoria and Albert Museum. London, 9. Samaritan, in the possession of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Crown | Crucifixion THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 372 it is used figuratively for a deed entitling one to rec- ognition, as in Yer. Dem. ii. 22c, bottom. Hezekiah was privileged by God to “acquire the crown” of the removal of the brazen serpent (Hul. 6b, 7b). In the same sense the caution occurs against making the Torah and learning a crown of self-glorification (Abot iv. 4). The most distinguished men are called the crown of their fellows (for instance, in Tosef., Sotah, xv.). With the death of R. Eleazar ben Azariah passed away the crown of the wise, for the wealth of the wise consists in the crown of learning (compare Sotah 49b). So also the distinctions conferred on the first day are designated as its ten crowns (Sifra, Shemini Shab. 87b). The bride wore a crown—wreath or chaplet—at the marriage feast, and so did the bridegroom, who, indeed, was regarded as a king during the nuptial ceremonies (Nowack, “Lehrbuch des Hebriischen Archiologie,” i. 164). This custom was suspended for a time in consequence of the Roman wars (Sotah ix. 14). These bridal wreaths could not be woven of myrtle or roses, but were made of reeds. The reason for this restriction is found in the idolatrous uses of wreaths of the Kind prohibited (Yer. ‘Ab. Zarah iv. 48d: “Not only wreaths made of wheat-stalks, but also of roses”; comparealso Yer. Bik. i., toward end 64b, top; Sotah 49a). In Yer. Sotah ix. 24b, bottom, R. Jeremiah is reported as weariug a crown of olive-branches in order to amuse the bridal party, from which act he came to be known as the rabbi with the (myrtle bridal) crown (com- pare Gen, R. Ixx.; Lam. R. 94b; the verse “the crown is fallen from our head” {Lam. v. 16] was interpreted to refer to him; Lam, R. to the verse, 69d). Mention is also made of ornaments in the shape of wreaths, which were much affected by women (Shab. v. 1 [57a]; Sotah 49b). Some of these are even said to have shown in engraving the pic- ture of Jerusalem. By later rabbis the custom of placing a wreath or crown on the head of the bride- groom was regarded as a token of mourning for Je- rusalem, “the olive-branches being bitter ” (“ ‘Ateret Zekenin ” to “Or ha-Hayyim,” 560; Tur Eben ha- ‘Ezer, 65; Tos. Pes. 86a). See CROWN OF THE Law. E. ¢. E. G. H. CROWN OF THE LAW: A coronet, usually made of gilded silver, with bells, bearing the He- brew inscription AWH ANS. It is placed upon the upper ends of the handles of the scroll of the Law. Sometimes the crown is a double one. A similar emblem, often borne between two lions as symbols of strength, decorates the mantle of the scroll and the curtain of the Ark. The device signifies the majestic sovereignty of the Law. It is difficult to say when it was first adopted. In geonic times he who read the last. chapter of the Pentateuch on Sim- hat Torah had a crown of silver or gold or a gar- land of myrtle placed upon his head, similar to the one placed upon the head of a bridegroom; whence, probably. the name BRIDEGROOM OF THE Law. From this arose the custom of having a crown placed permanently upon the scroll of the Law, the making of crowns or garlands on festival days being a transgression of the Law (see Abraham ben Nathan Bridal Crowns. ha-Yarhi in “Ha-Manhig,” Suk. § 59; and R. Nis- sim to Aifasi, Meg. iii.; Shulhan “Aruk, Orah Hay- yim, 154, 10). The masters of the school, called “ kings” (Git. 62a), were probably the persons originally decorated with the crown of the Law. This scems to be confirmed by the saying of Hillel: ‘*He who makes use of the crown [Nin] perishes” (Ab. i. 13). [This “crown” was afterward understood to mean the “crown of God” (AND = the Ineffable Name, which was prob- ably engraved upon the crown; see Pirke Kh. El, xlvii.; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxiii. 4-6, 25.)] Compare Ab. iv. 5: “Make not the Torah a crown to glory in it.” The saying of R. Simon b. Yohai concerning the three crowns—the crown of the Law, the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of royalty (see Crown IN Post-BrplicaL TrmxEs)—appears also to indicate that the crown of the Law, like the two others, was a material crown, and not a figura- tive expression like “the crown of a good name.” The crown of the Law is probably indicated by the folowing Haggadah: “ When the Israelites before receiving the Law on Mount Sinai proclaimed ‘ We shall do and hearken!’ [Ex. xxiv. 17], there came sixty myriads of angels with two crowns for each —one for each of the two promises; and when they sinned before the Golden Calf there came twice as many demons to take their ornaments away” (Ex. xxxiii. 6; Shab. 88a; compare Pesik. 21 (ed. Fried- mann, 102b]; Pesik. de R. K. xiv. 124b; Tan., Te- zawweh, ed. Buber, 50a). Regarding the question whether the Keter Torah in use may be sold for the purpose of settling a dowry for a daughter, see Isaac Lampronti, “ Pahad Yizhak,” letter 1p, 170b. K, J. D. E. CROWNS OF THE RIGHTEOUS: The fu- ture bliss of the righteous is described by Rab in Ber. 17b: “ There is neither eating and drinking nor marrying nor bargaining nor envy nor hatred nor quarrel in the world to come; but the righteous sit with crowns upon their heads, and feed upon the splendor of the Shekinah, as it is said of the no- bles of the children of Israel: ‘MWe laid not his hand upon them, but they saw God, and this was their eating and their drinking’” (Ex. xxiv. 11, Targ.). In Sanh. 111b, Meg. 15b, R. Haninah says: “God himself will be a crown of glory upon the head of each righteous one, as it is written: ‘In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people’? ” (Isa, xxviii. 5). Accordingly the Zohar (Wayehi; ed. Cracow, p. 296) speaks of seats sur- rounded with crowns prepared for the righteous in paradise thirty days before their death, when their forthcoming arrival there is announced. So sings the poet of the “ Akdamut”: ‘** Under a canopy of crystal clouds, Wearing a beauteous crown, Each In accordance with his deeds, On a throne with seven steps of fine gold." XK. J. D. E. CRUCEANU, STEFAN: Rumanian author; born at Jassy April 25, 1868. On receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1889 he entered the University of Jassy as a student of philosophy, but at the end 373 THE JEWISIE ENCYCLOPEDIA Crown — Crucitixion of a year he went to Paris to study medicine. In April, 1885, he published his first work, a socialistic story, in the “Drepturile Omului” (Rights of Man). He became a frequent contributor to different polit- ical papers, including the “ Natiunea,” “ Drapelul,” “Perdaful,” “Fulgerul,” “Tunul,” and “ Propa- shirea.” In 1891 he published his first poem, “ Ba- taile din Urma” (The Last Heart-Beat), in the “ Re- vista Noua” of Bucharest. He is a contributor to the most prominent journals of Rumania, such as the “Convorbiri Literare,” “ Radicalul,” “ Eveni- mentul,” “Noutatea,” “ Adeverul,” “ Literatura et Arta Romana,” and the “Nona Revista Romana.” In 1898 he published most of his poems in one vol- ume under the title “ Lacrime.” s. E. Sp. CRUCIFIXION: The act of putting to death by nailing or binding toacross, Among the modes of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found; the “hanging” of criminals “on a tree,” mentioned in Deut. xxi, 22, was resorted to in New Testament times only after lapidation (Sanh. vi, 4; Sifre, ii. 221, ed. Friedmann, Vienna, 1864). A Jewish court could not have passed a sentence of death by crucifixion without violating the Jewish law. The Roman penal code recognized this cruel penalty from remote times (Aurelius Victor Cesar, 41). It may have developed out of the primitive custom of “hanging” (“arbori suspendere”’) on the “arbor infelix,” which was dedt- cated to the gods of the nether world. Seneca (* Epis- tola,” 101) still calls the cross “infelix Hgnum.” Trees were often used for crucifying convicts (Tertul- lian, “ Apologia,” viii. 16). Originally only slaves were crucified; hence “death on the cross” and “sup- plicium servile” were used indiscriminately (Tacitus, “ Historia,” iv. 3,11). Later, provincial freedmen of obscure station (“ humiles”) were added to the class liable to this sentence. Roman citizens were exempt under all circumstances (Cicero, “ Verr.” i. 7; ii. 2, 24, 26; iv. 10 e¢ seg.). The following crimes entaied this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebel- lion (see Pauly-Wissowa, “ Real-Encyc.” s.v.“ Crux”; Josephus, “B. J.” v. 11, § 1). Soldiers that de- serted to the enemy and slaves who denounced their masters (“delatio domini”) were also punished by death on the cross. The crosses used were of different shapes. Some were in the form of a T, others in that of a St. An- drew’s cross, X, while others again were in four parts, -—. The more common kind consisted of a stake (“ palus ”) firmly embedded in the ground (“ c¢ru- cem figere”) before the condemned arrived at the place of execution (Cicero, “ Verr.” v.12; Josephus, “B. J.” vii. 6, § 4) and a cross-beam (“ patibulum ”), bearing the “titulus ”—the inscription naming the crime (Matt. xxvii. 87; Luke xxiii. 88; Suetonius, “Cal.” 88). It was this cross-beam, not the heavy stake, which the condemned was compelled to carry to the scene of execution (Plutarch, “DeSera Num. Vind.” 9; Matt. ¢b.; John xix. 17; see Cross), The cross was not very high, and the sentenced man could without difficulty be drawn up with ropes (“in crucem tollere, agere, dare, ferre”). Tis hands and feet were fastened with nails to the cross-beam and stake (Tertullian, “Adv. Judos,” 10; Seneca, “Vita Beata,” 19); though it has been held that, as in Egypt, the hands and feet were merely bound with ropes (see Winer, “B, R.” i, 678). The execution was always preceded by flagellation(Livy, xxxiv. 26; Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 14, $9; v. 11, $ 1; and on his way to his doom, led through the most populous streets, the delinquent was exposed to insult and injury. Upon arrival at the stake, his clothes were removed, and the execution took place. Death was probably caused by starvation or exhaustion, the cramped position of the body causing Mode of fearful tortures, and ultimately gradual Execution. paralysis. Whether a foot-rest was pro- vided is open to doubt; but usually the body was placed astride a board (“sedile”). The agony lasted at least twelve hours, in some cases as long as three days. To basten death the legs were broken, and this was considered an act of clemency (Cicero, “Phil.” xiii. 27). The body remained on the cross, food for birds of prey until it rotted, or was cast before wild beasts. Special permission to remove the body was occasionally granted. Officers (carnifex and triumviri) and sol- cliers were in charge. This cruel way of carrying into effect the sentence of death was introduced into Palestine by the Ro- mans. Josephus brands the first crucifixion as an act of unusual cruelty (“ Ant.” xiii. 14, § 2), and as’ illegal. But many Jews underwent this extreme penalty (2. xx. 6, § 2; “Vita,” § 75; “B. J.” ii. 12, § 6; 14, § 9; v. 11, §1; Philo, ii. 529). During the times of unrest which preceded the rise in open rebellion against Rome (about 30-66 B.C.), “rebels” met with short shrift at the hands of the oppressor. They were crucified as traitors. The sons of Judas the Galilean were among those who suffered this fate. he details given in the New Testament accounts (Matt. xxvii. and parallels) of the crucifixion of Jesus agree on the whole with the procedure in vogue under Roman law. Two modifications are worthy of note: (1) In order to make him insensible to pain, a drink (6g0¢, Matt. xxvii. 34, £8; John xix. 29) was given him. This was in accordance with the humane Jewish provision (see Maimonides, “ Yad,” Sanh. xiii. 2; Sanh. 482). The beverage was a mix- ture of myrrh (Ansd Sey Dp) and wine, given “so that the delinquent might lose clear conscious- ness through the ensuing intoxication.” (2) Con- trary to the Roman practise of leaving the body on the cross, that of Jesus was removed and buried, the latter act In keeping with Jewish law and custom. These exceptions, however, exhaust the incidents in the crucifixion of Jesus that might point toa partic- ipation therein, and a regulation thereof, by Jews or Jewish law. The mode and manner of Jesus’ death undoubtedly point to Roman customs and laws as the directive power. From the Jewish point of view, the crime of which Jesus was convicted by the Jewish priests is greatly in doubt (sce Jesus). If it was blasphemy, lapida- tion should, according to Jewish law, have been the penalty, with suspension from the gallows after death (Mishnah Sanh. iii. 4; Sifre, iii. 221). Nor were any of the well-known measures taken (Sanh. vi.) Crucifixion Cruelty which provide before execution for the contingency of a reversal of the sentence. Neither was the “cross "—i.¢., the gallows for hanging—constructed as usual after lapidation, and as ordained in Sanhedrin vi. 4. His hands were not bound as prescribed; the “cross” was not buried with his body (Maimonides, “Yad,” Sanh. xv. 9). Whether the Jewish law would have tolerated a threefold exe- cution at one and the same time is more than un- certain (Sanh. vi. 4; Sifre, it. 2215. The greatest difficulty from the point of view of the Jewish penal procedure is presented by the day and time of theexecution. According Date of to the Gospels, Jesus died on Friday, Jesus’ Cru- the eve of Sabbath. Yet on that day, cifixion. in view of the approach of the Sab- bath (or holiday), executions lasting until late in the afternoon were almost impossible (Sifre, il. 221; Sanh. 35b; Mekilta to Wayakhel). The Synoptics do not agree with John on the date of the month. According to the latter he died on the 14th of Nisan, as though he were the paschal lamb; but executions were certainly not regular on theeveof a Jewish holiday. According to the Syn- optics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no exccution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the com- mentarics; Yer. Sanh. ii. 8; Yer. Bez. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). This discrepancy has given rise to vari- ous attempts at rectification. That by Chwolson is the most ingenious, assuming that Jesus died on the Mth, and accounting for the error in Matthew by a mistranslation from the original He- brew in Matt, xxvi. 17 Q39p) ap, due to the omis- sion of the first 33p; see his “Das Letzte Passamahl Christi,” p. 13). But even so, the whole artificial construction of the law regarding Passover when the loth of Nisan was on Saturday, attempted by Chwolson, would not remove the difficulty of an execution occurring on Friday = eve of Sabbath and eve of holiday; and the body could not have been removed as late as the ninth hour (8 P.M.), Bodies of delinquents were not buried in private graves (Sanh. vi. 5), while that of Jesus was buried in a sepulcher belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Besides this, penal jurisdiction had been taken from the Sanhedrin in capital cases “forty years before the fall of the Temple.” These facts show that the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of the Roman government. That it was cus- tomary to liberate one sentenced to death on ac- count of the holiday season is not corroborated by Jewish sources. But mary of the Jews suspected of Messianic ambitions had been nailed to the cross by Rome. The Messiah, “King of the Jews,” was arcbel in the estimation of Rome, and rebels were crucified (Suetonius, “Vespas.” 4; “Claudius,” xxv.; Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 5, § 1; 8, § 6; Acts v. 36, 37). The inscription on the cross of Jesus reveals the crime for which, according to Roman law, Jesus expired. He was arebel. Tac- itus (* Annales,” 54, 59) reports therefore without comment the fact that Jesus was crucified. For Romans no amplification was necessary. Pontius Pilate’s part in the tragedy as told in the Gospels is that of a wretched coward; but this docs not agree THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 374 with his character as recorded elsewhere (see Schitirer, “Gesch.” Index, s.¢.). The other incidents in the New Testament report-——the rending of the curtain, darkness (eclipse of the sun), the ri- sing of the dead from their graves—are apocalyp- tic embellishments derived from Jewish Messianic eschatology. The so-called writs for the execution (see Mayer, * Die Rechte der Isracliten, Athener, und Romer,” iii, 428, note 27) are spurious. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ludwig Philipson, Hahen die Jiucden Jesum Gekreuzigt? 2d ed., reprint, 1902; Hirsch, Zhe Cructtix- ion from the Jewish Point of View, Chicago, 1892: Chwolson, Das Letzte Passamaht Christi, St. Petersburg, 1802 3 works of Jewish historians, as Gritz, Jost, etc.; Schiirer, Gesch.; commentaries on the Gospels, K. E. G. Hi. CRUELTY: The disposition to inflict pain and to gloat over suffering. Widely prevalent among, if not characteristic of, savages and barbarians, it has influenced their treatment of strangers, enc- mies, and evildoers. Primitive races, however, are strongly inured to pain, being early in life trained to endure it unflinchingly, as the various initiatory rites at puberty in universal vogue among them show (sce Ileinrich Schurtz, “ Altersklassen und Minnerbunde,” pp. 92 ¢ seg., Berlin, 1902). More- over, lack of imagination incapacitates them for measuring the suffering entailed cn others (Tylor, “ Anthropology,” p. 408, New York, 1897). Again, among them, as also among civilized nations of an- tiquity, religious notions sanctify the passion for revenge, nearly always an element of cruelty. Abdel’s “blood cries to heaven” (Gen, iv. 10, Hebr.). The deity itself is injured and oftended, and the land is defiled by bloodshed (see Schneider, “Die Natur- volker,” 1886, 1. 86; Leopold Schmidt, “Die Ethik der Alten Griechen,” ii. 809 eé seq., Berlin, 1882; Tiele, “ Verglijkende Geschiedenis von de Egypt. en Mesopotam. Godsdienster,” p. 160; “Tr. Soe. Bibl. Arch.” viii. 12 e¢ seq.). The “jiex talionis,” universally observed by sav- age and semi-civilized peoples, illustrates this prin- ciple. Injury had to be requited by corresponding injury. “Eye foreye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand” (Ex, xxi, 24). Literally construed at first, the provi- sions of this law in course of time, and ‘* Lex with the refinement of fcecling accom- Talionis.” panying progressing civilization, were translated into pecuniary assessments in compensation of injuries. . Cruel practises connected with the observances of religion, such as mutilations, the cutting of gashes (see CurTiInGs), the burning of children to propitiate Moloch, and human sacrifice generally, rest orig- inally upon a similar idea. The ancient Hebrews in their primitive state were in disposition little different from their neighbors and cognates. In the period of “ignorance” the pre-Mohammedan Arabs deemed “revenge to be the twin brother of gratitude,” and not to visit an offense upon the offender was considered cowardly and ignoble (see Goldziher, “Muhammedanische Stu- dien,” 1889, i. 15 e¢ seg.). The books of Judges and Samuel prove that the Israelitish invaders of Canaan displayed in their dealings with their enemies the temper of their day. The bodies of those slain in battle were stripped of everything valuable. Occa- 375 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Crucifixion Cruelty sionally their heads were cut off as trophies (ISam. xvii. 51, 54; xxxi. 9; ID Sam. xx. 22). Among the Assyrians this was the rule (compare II Kings x. 6 et seqg.). In later times, however, decent burial was accorded to dead enemies (Ezek. xxxix. 11), or they were cremated (Isa. Xxx. 38). Captives were shown little leniency. To mark them as conquered, they were subjected to the hu- miliation of being tredden under foot (Joshua x, 24; compare Ps. cx.1). This was also the Treatment customamong the Assyriansand Egyp- of Captives. tians. Still, excessive cruelties are only reported in cases where fury had been aroused by the length of the pursuit (Judges i. 6 et seq.). The most atrocious instance of cruelty in requital of previous insult is afforded, if the text is correct, by David’s dealing with the Ammonites (see IKXJostermann’s commentary on IT Sam. xii. 31). Ama- ziah is reported to have huried ten thousand cap- tive Edomites from a rock (IJ Chron. xxv. 12). As a rule, however, the Hebrews did not go to such extremes, and, compared with the Assyrians, were merciful, The latter impaled their prisoners, or flayed them alive, or tore out their tongues (see, for the case of the Elamite prisoners, Koyundjik Collection, slabs 48-50; Jxaulen, “Assyrien und Babylonien,” 5th ed., p. 265). The Philistines put out Samson’s eyes (Judges xvi. 2). Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, threatened the Jebusites with the blinding of their right eyes (I Sam. xi. 2). King Zedekiah was blinded by the Chaldeans (II Kings xxv. 7). Among the Chaldeans and Persians, and even now Jn Eastern countries, this procedure is not exceptional. Ezek. xxiii. 25 alludes to the cutting off of the noses and ears of captives. Rings were put through the under lips of captured kings to fasten the chain to (pan, “S. B. O. T.” Ezekiel, p. 188), Atrocious barbarities against women big with child are mentioned as having occurred in the ferocious civil wars of the Northern Kingdom (II Kings xv. 16), but these, as well as the dashing to pieces of chil- dren, secm to have been common among Syrians, Ammonites, Assyrians, and Chaldeans (II Kings viii. 12; Amos i. 18; Ps. cxxxvii. 9 et seg.). If not killed, the captives were led away “naked” (see Coat) and fettered, to be sold into slavery (Num. xxx1. 26; Deut. xx. 14; Isa. xx. 4). The country of the enemy was devastated; its trecs were cut down, its wells wrecked, its cities and hamlets sacked and razed; tribute was levied and hostages demanded (II Kings iii. 19, 25; xiv, 14), In the earlier civil code of the Hebrews, the “ book of the Covenant” (Ex, xxi.-xxiv.), the law of retal- iation is still fundamental. Mutilations were thus legalized. The Deuteronomic legisla- Stages of tion applies this principle in the case Progress. of false witnesses (Deut. xix. 16 e¢ seq.). A woman guilty of a certain indecent act lost her hand (Deut. xxv. 1! e¢ seq.). Similar and severer provisions are also found in the recently discovered code of Hammurabi (see Winck- ler, “Die Gesetze Hammurabi,” Leipsic, 1902); and the punishments provided by the laws of other an- cient and modern Oriental nations show still greater cruelty. Adulterous women had their noses cut off, While the co-respondent was condemned to a thou- Se SS SS pp sand stripes (Diodorus Siculus, i. 78). The state- ment of Josephus (“ Vita,” $$ 83, 34) that rebels and traitors suffered the loss of one or both hands re- flects the ferocity of the civil war. The primitive severity of the earlier practise, how- ever, was tempered by clemency. ‘This appears clearly in the provisions for carrying out the punish- meut of stripes. The number of stripes must not ex- ceed forty (Deut. xxv, 1-4; in Hammiurabi’s code the maximum is fixed at fifty), and they must be admin- istered before a proper court officer. As alsoamong the Egyptians (sce Wilkinson, “ Ancient Egypt,” ii. 41 et seg.), the stripes were applied to the back of the delinquent, not, as is the cruel Eastern practise, to the soles of the feet. The instrument employed was in carly times a rod or switch (Prov. x. 18). The later rabbinical authorities prescribe the use of a plaited leather strap, construing “bikoret,” in Lev, xix. 20, to indicate this (see Gesenius, “Th.” i. 234), and limit the number of stripes to thirty-nine (Mak. iii. 10; Josephus, “Ant.” iv. 8, § 21). The use of “scorpions ” (“’akrabim”), mentioned in I Kings xii. 11, 14; II Chron. x. 11, 14, was, as the context shows, regarded as excessively cruel, and must have been rare. They were pointed and knotty rods, or whips with sharp iron points (Gesenius, @.¢. ii. 1062). Beating with bags filled with sand and pointed pieces of iron was another method of punishment (Ephracm Syrus). The Syrians seem to have had recourse to similar instruments of torture (II Macc. vii. 1). Later, the Romans adopted the use of whips weighted with rough, heavy stones, or lead balls (Cicero, “Cluent.” 68). Thorny rods or switches were also occasionally used (Judges viii. 7, 16; com- pare Prov. xxvi. 3). Other indications of the gradual refincment of feeling are revealed in the fact that the slave ulti- mately acquired a right to protection against bodily injury, and that the master who caused his death by cruel beating was punished (Ex. xxi, 21, 26-27). If, however, death was not immediate, the owner was considered to have injured his own Treatment property. Philoregards the provision of Slaves. which grants freedom to the maimed slave as based less upon the principle of compensation than upon the desire to protect the slave against further insult, the master naturally finding a constant cause of irritation in the slave incapacitated for full work in consequence of his rash or cruel treatment The law also modified to a considerable extent the rights of vengeance and A8sYLUM (Ex. xxi. 13, 14), and provided for the pro- tection of those guilty of manslaughter. With what abborrence the Prophets viewed the atrocities committed in the spirit of the savage in earlicr times is clear from the opening chapters of Amos. They denounced the cruel rites—mutila- tions, human sacrifices—sanctioned by the religion of Canaan, and modified barbarity through the po- tent leaven of merey and humanity. As a pun- ishment the invasion of a “cruel” people is an- nounced, and the detailed description shows that the Jewish people had outgrown the temper which regarded such atrocities as natural (Jer. vi. 23, 24; Deut, xxxii. 82, 88). In the later books cruelty is expanded to include Cruelty Cruelty to Animals THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 376 unfriendly and unnatural conduct (Prov. xi. 17) on the part of one from whom, by reason of friendship or consanguinity, consideration is to be expected (Job xxx. 21). As symptoms of cruelty, anger and jeal- ousy are enumerated (Prov. xxvii. 4). Later Judaism, in interpreting the Mosaic legis- lation, proceeded upon the theory that any unnat- ural act was cruel. The seething of the kid in the milk of its mother, the wearing of wool and linen together, the yoking of ox and ass to- Attitude gether, the sowing of different seeds of Later in one field, were so regarded (Philo, Judaism. “De Specialibus Legibus”). Human- ity, therefore, was declared to be the sister of piety, and was inculcated in many injunc- tions of the Mosaic code; it is befitting the king (tdem, “ De Vita Moysis,” ii. 1, 2); it iste be shown to strangers as readily and fully as to fellow country- men; it is due to the demented and to dumb crea- tures (idem, “De Caritate”), The “lex talionis” was modified (Mek., Mishpatim, 8). Capital pun- ishment was virtually abolished in all cases where malice prepense was not established beyond all doubt. Judges who pronounced the death sentence too frequently were stigmatized as shedders of blood (Mak. %a), and this in spite of the conviction that “misapplied clemency leads to unjustifiable cruelty ” (Lam. R. vii. 16). And when the sentence of death was carried into effect tender regard was extended to the body of the executed (Sanh. v. 3: Babli 55b), Decapitation by the sword was for this reason de- clared to be an indignity (59999, B. B. 8b). Needless exposure of the body was looked upon with the same disfavor; a woman undergoing Japidation was not uncovered (Yer. Sotah iii. 19b, end). This con- sideration was shown the dead in all cases, the view prevailing that until the body is inhumed, or, ac- cording to others, until decomposition sets in, the soul hovering over the abandoned frame feels what- ever insult or injury is offered (see Bopy In JEWISH THEOLOGY). KR. Akiba inhibited exhumation as an act of cruelty (B. B. 154a). Phiio (“In Flaccum ”) gives a vivid account of the outrages perpetrated by the Romans upon the living as well as upon the dead. Some cruelties com- monly practised by the Romans seem never to have been known to the Hebrews. The exposure of children, and the burying alive of undesired daugh- ters, common among pre-Mohammedan Arabs, were quite unknown to the Hebrews. In rabbinical Judaism the idea of “cruelty ” in- cludes also an unforgiving temper. It thus came to signify what has been termed “ the cruelty of civ- ilized men” (Lazarus, “Ethik des Judentums,” i. 308), such as calumny, slander, putting to shame, calling men by nicknames, slighting their honor. Characteristic of the one not crue] was the readiness to “forego one’s due” (YhAyIWD by app), and this disposition is deemed essential to the attainment of forgiveness of one’s own sins (Yoma 28a). One that in public puts a man to shame is likened tothe mur- derer (B. M. 58b, 59a). One that will not forgive his fellow is cruel: sox sinw Smo xd ony pap (B. K. 92a; see also Maimonides, “Yad,” De‘ot, vi. 6; Teshubah, ii. 10). Nimrod, Goliath, Haman, Cain, and others are remembered as examples of cruelty (Pesik. ix. 78b). Tax-gatherers are typically cruel, as also among the Mohammedans (B. K. x. 1-2; Goldziher, 2. i. 19, note; Philo, “De Specialibus Legibus”; see PUBLICANS). Prophetic and rabbini- cal Judaism, in thus enlarging the scope of “ cruelty ” to embrace not merely the infliction of physical, but also of mental and moral suffering, and in denoun- cing a haughty, heartless, unforgiving, grasping disposition as “cruel,” has discarded utterly the prin- ciple of retaliation. The Deuteronomic laws (Deut. xx. 7; Josh. vi. 21) concerning the annilulation of the seven aboriginal nations of the land, if they were ever carried out to the letter, were written in the spirit of holy wartare against idolatry (see BAN) ata time when cruel temper was universally prevalent, Later Judaism condemns cruelty in whatever form. Its abhorrence of barbarity is illustrated also by the prohibition against cutting out a piece of flesh from a living animal Cnr 1 738), which mutilation was a well-established practise among the Romans and many other ancient peoples (Hul. 101b et seg.). This prohibition does not rest upon ritual grounds, but is based on moral repugnance; the Noachides are also under this prohibition. The “pound of flesh” in Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” is an impossi- bility according to Jewish law, though the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables legalizes such security. The whole “Shylock ” story originated in old Aryan mythology. That evi]-doers were not treated without cruelty is apparent from the frequent allusions in the Bib- lical books to the terrors and sufferings incidental to imprisonment (II Sam. iii, 84; Job, xiii, 27; Ps, Ixxxvill, 7, ev. 18, cvii. 10; Isa. xxiv. 22; Zeeh. ix. 11). Though prisons existed (Jer. xxxvii. 15, 20), abandoned cisterns filled with mire were used for the detention of men that had incurred the displeas- ure of the mighty (Jer. xxxviii. 6). Ill fed (I Kings xx. 27), the prisoners were often bound with chains and ropes (Job xxxvi. 8; Ps. exlix. 8); the feet es- pecially were fastened together with brass (Judges xvi. 21; II Sam. iii. 34; Jer. lii. 11) or iron links (Ps. cv. 18; Prov. vii. 22). Often the feet were put into the stocks or blocks (“sad,” Job xiii. 27, x xxiii. 11), while in other cases a veritable instrument of torture was used, the “mahpeket.” a wooden contri- vance so arranged as to force the body into unnatural contortions. The neck, too, was constrained by aring (“zinok ”) or iron collar (Jer. xx. 2; Sirach vi. 30), The Romans, however, were past-masters in the art of applying these various expedients. Under the non-Hebrew designation abip, the Latin “collare,” the rabbinical books recall a neck-ring largely in use to render prisoners helpless (Eha Rabb. Proem. xxxiv.). Characteristic in this connection as show- ing the dread of the inhumanities of non-Jewish tormentors is the prohibition (Tosef., ‘Ab. Zarah, ii. 4) “not to sell them either weapons or these devices for restraining prisoners”; 7.e., dyn (ed. Zucker- mann wrongly, bby) oa3; PID and Qs niebwoy m3 Giron chains). K. E. G. H. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: The Bible con- tains no comprehensive principle regarding the rights 377 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cruelty Cruelty to Animals of animals. Inthe Biblical account of creation man is made sole ruler over the lower creatures, with the right to use them for whatever purpose he de- sires (Gen. i. 28; Ps. viii. 6-8). Still, in the legisla- tive portions of the Bible there are many laws con- cerning the rights of dumb creatures; so many, in fact, as to justify the assumption of the Rabbis that kindness to animals is a Biblical injunction (py SM UNIT ON sbyy9 B. M. 82b). The prohibition against eating a limb or flesh cut from a living animal was included by the Rabbis in the seven NoacHIAn Laws, and the act was thus forbidden not only to Israelites, but also to other nations. Animals must not be tortured unnecessarily. The ox must not be muzzled while threshing (Deut. xxv. 4), but must be free to eat of the corn while working, as the human laborer is permitted to do (Deut. xxiii. 25, 26; B. M. 87b). The Rabbis consid- ered the term “ox” to be a generic Precepts of term including all animals. Nor does Con- it matter whether the animal belongs sideration. to a Jew or not; the Jew who em- ploys it in threshing must not muzzle it (B. M. 90a; Maimonides, “ Yad,” Sekirut, xiii. 3; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 388; compare I Cor. ix. 9). It is forbidden to emasculate an animal, whether clean or unclean, although when emasculated it may, if clean, be used for food (Lev. xxii. 24; Shab. 111la; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 5,11). It is forbid- den to pair, or couple in doing any kind of work, animals of different species, especially to pair a wild ‘with a tame animal (Lev, xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 10, and Sifre ad loc.; B. K. 54b; Kil. viii. 1, 2). Mother and young must not be slaughtered on the same day (Lev. xxii. 28). When the paternity of an animal is known, or can be ascertained, it is also forbidden to kill father and young on the same day. Although the transgressor of this command- ment is liable to the punishment of flagellation, the animals may be used for food. The seller, if he knows that they are bought to be slaughtered on the same day, must notify the buyer of the relation- ship of the animals when he sells a mother with its young — for instance, if sold directly before the holidays, when any one buying cattle is presumed to intend to slaughter them immediately (Hul. 88a; “Yad,” Shehitah, xiii.; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 16). It is forbidden to take both mother and young from a nest. When the mother is liberated the young may be appropriated (Deut. xxii. 6). This law applies only to clean, undomesticated birds, but if one has domesticated geese, pigeons, etc., he need not drive off the mother when he takes the young (Hul. 188b e¢ seg.; Yoreh De‘ah, 292). Hunting was discouraged by the Rabbis (see Hul. 60b), and the Jater authorities forbid its pursuit entirely if merely for sport (Ezekiel Landau, “Noda‘ bi-Yehu- dah,” series ii.; Yoreh De‘ah, 10). The various regulations for the lawful killing of animals (“shehitah ”) are not only in harmony with the principle of the prevention of cruelty, but seem to have been dictated by it. These Jaws have no definite Scriptural origin, although the Rabbis take Hunting. as a basis for them a Biblical expression (Deut. xii. 21). While the Rabbis themselves do not assign the prevention of cruelty to animalsas the reason for the regulations (see Maimonides, “Moreh Nebukim,” iii. 26, 48), many of their provisions—for instance, that the knife must be sharp, smooth, without any perceptible notch, and must be drawn, not pressed, against the throat of the animal (see SHEHITAH)— were obviously instituted for the purpose of lessen- ing pain. In spite of the attempts made in various European states in the last fifty years to forbid the Jewish mode of shehitah on the ground of cruelty, this institution of Judaism still stands vindicated as far more humane than any of the modes employed by non-Jews (see Dembo, “Slaughtering of Ani- mals”), The Jewish law not only forbids cruelty, but also enjoins kindness, to animals. “If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and thou wouldst forbear to unload him, thou shalt surely help with him” (Ex. xxiii. 5). The expres- sion “of him that hateth thee” is explained by the Rabbis to refer to an irreligious Jew or to a non- Jew (B. M. 82b; “Yad,” Rozeah, xiii.; Hoshen Mishpat, 272). If an animal falls into a pit on the Sabbath, food must be provided for it there for the day, and it must be removed in the evening. Should the ani- mal be in danger of not being able to live through the day, the removal of vessels and tools from one place to another in order to save it is permitted (Shab. 128a; “Yad,” Shabbat, xxv. 26; Orah Hay- yim, 305,19). It is also permitted to ask a non-Jew to milk one’s cow on the Sabbath when she is suf- fering from an oversupply of milk (Asheri to B. M. ii, 29). Itis, moreover, lawful to cut the nails of an animal, or to com) it, or to heal it, on the week- days of the holidays (M. K. 10a; Rashi ad luc.; “Yad,” Shebitot Yom-Tob, viii. 15: Orah Hay- yim, 536, 1-3). Beasts of burden and all domestic animals must, rest on the Sabbath day (Ex. xx. 10, Rest xxiii. 12; Deut. v.14). It is not per- on Sabbath mitted to ride an animal on the Sab- for bath day, or to ride In a Wagon drawn Animals. by animals, even when the driver is a non-Jew (Yer. Bezah v. 2; Orah Hayyim, @.¢. 18, Isserles’ gloss). The Rabbis enlarged upon the principle of kind- ness to animals found in these Mosaic injunctions, by instituting laws to regulate man’s dealings with the lower creatures. They teach that before an Israel- ite sits down to his meal his animals must first be pro- vided with food (Ber. 40a; “ Yad,” ‘Abadim, ix. ), Some of the Rabbis are of the opinion that no one is permitted to buy animals unless he is able to sup- port them (Yer. Ket. iv. 8).. The ethical value of this precept is brought out with great emphasis in the haggadic portions of the Talmud. Moses and David were chosen leaders of Israel because as shepherds they had shown themselves kind and sympathetic to the Jower animals (Midrash Rabbah Ex. 11. 3). The angel of God took the part of the dumb creature, demanding of Balaam why he smote his ass (Tan. and Yalk. to Num. xxii. 32). “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast. Crusades Crypto-Jews THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 378 a SSS SS SS but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prov. xii. 10). God, the Righteous, has pity on animals as well as on man, inasmuch as He saved the animals together with Noah from the Flood (Yalk. ad loe., and to Noah, 56). Rabbi Judah I was punished with bodily suffering during many years because, When a young calf that was being led to slaughter hid its face in his skirts, he said, “Go! for this purpose wast thou created!” When, after many vears of suffering, he showed mercy to a nest of mice which his maid wished to destroy, he Was again restored to health (B. M, 86a). Standing not “in the way of sinners” (Ps. i. 1) is explained as a prohibition against associating with hunters who plague animals by urging dogs against them (‘Ab. Zarah 18b; see Rashi). Compare Crrcvs; SHEHITAH. . BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hamburger, R. B. T. s.v. Thierquiileret Saalsehtitz, Das Mosaische Reeht, xvii... Low, TPhiersehutz in. Judenthume, Budapest, 1890; Suwalsky, Hayye ha-Ye- hati, eh. 49. be: J. U. G. CRUSADES, THE: Fxpeditions from western Europe to recover Jerusalem and the holy sepulcher from the control of the infidel. The undisciplined mobs accompanying the first three Crusades attacked the Jews in Germany, France, and England, and put many of them to death, leaving behind for centuries strony feelings of ill will on both sides. The social position of the Jews in western Europe was dis- tinctly worsened by the Crusades, and legal restric- tions became frequent during and afterthem. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Innocent IIT., and formed tlie turning-point In the medieval history of the Jews. The outbursts did not come unexpectedly. Soon after Peter the Her- mit and Urban IL. had aroused the enthusiasm of French chivalry at the Council of Clermont in 1094, Godfrey de Bouillon declared that he would avenge the blood of Jesus on that of the Jews, and leave none of them alive, while his First companions threatened to exterminate Crusade: the Jews if they would not become 1096. converted. The Judwo-French com- munities accordingly sent letters to those on the Rhine, who thereupon appointed a fast- day to avert the evil (Jan., 1096); and when Godfrey de Bouillon came to Cologne and Mayence each com- munity made him a present of 500 silver marks to secure his protection. When Peter of Amiens ar- rived with the crusaders at Treves early in 1096, he did not directly arouse the people against the Jews, but left a general ill will against them throughout Lorraine, especially through the influence of the knight Volkmar, who declared that he would not leave the kingdom until he had slain at least one Jew. Jn the spring cf 1096 twenty-two Jews were slain at Metz, and on May 3 the crusaders and ac- companying rabble attacked the Jews of Speyer, slaying eleven of them and only being restrained by the execrtious of Bishop John from putting them all to death in the synagogue. On May 18 the Jews of Worms were all slain except a few who were forcibly baptized or who took refuge with the bishop, Their houses were destroyed, and even the corpses denuded. Many slew themselves rather than fall into the hands of the mob. The bishop’s palace was stormed a week Jater, and all those within it were put to death. The number of the slain is said to have amounted to 800, though the extant list of names reaches only 400 (Salfeld, “ Martyrologium,” p. 107). Oneof the richest Jewesses, named Minna, when surrounded by the mob and implored by some of her friends among the nobles to accept baptism, resolutely refused and was put to death, Several were drowned, and Mar Shemariah with his whole family was buried alive amid the jeers of the mob, wuten oJ tae 27 CGeldern) ° Mors _ Dortmund July 2 °fJune 29-July 1 oCNCUSS 2 : shofen° June 26 June 2% Kerpeno June 27 Cologne April 17-May 30 oa = a ~ G e 42 So i) ey? Riidesheim eaten ‘ May 18-27 6 Junel Treyes j June. 20 Worms ° May 18-25 RORMAY & COt,N.Y. Map of Rhine Region, Showing Sites, with Dates, of Anti- Jewish Outbreaks During the First Crusade, 1096. who nevertheless during the entombment offered in vain to grant them safety if they would become converted. On the same day Count Emicho arrived at Ma- yence with a numerous band of crusaders, but he was not admitted by the archbishop Ruthard, who had promised protection to the Jews. Two days later, however, Emicho forced admission through a side gate, and, notwithstanding the armed defense of the Jews, succeeded in des- troying them all except Kalonymus, the president of the congregation, and fifty-three others, who hid themselves in the treasure-house of the cathedral. A number of Jews who had de- fended themselves all day ina fortified position found it untenable as night came on, and, rather than fall Mayence. 379 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Crusades Crypto-Jews into the hands of the enemy, killed themselves. The corpses after being stripped were cast into nine graves; they are said to have numbered 1,014. Mar Isaac ben David, after having submitted to baptism, burned down lus own house and the synagogue and perished in the flames, because it had been rumored that the Christiaus intended to turn the synagogue into a church. Kalonymus and his 53 companions were taken by bishop Ruthard in boats to Rides- heim and Kept there for some time; but on June 1 he declared he could not protect them unless they submitted to baptism. They determined to slay themselves rather than do this, and Kalonymus put his own son Joseph to death, and then, wild with grief, attempted to kill the archbishop, but was pre- vented and killed. . The crusaders again attacked the houses and syna- gogue of the Jews of Cologne on May 30; but here the citizens protected the Jewsin theirown houses until Archbishop Hermann, on June 8, sent them for safety to seven neighboring villages, Neuss, Wevel- inghofen, Altenahr, Xanten, Geldern, Mors, and Kerpen. The crusaders followed them to these places, killing 200 in Neuss and Altenahr, in several eases throwing old women and young children into the river (Salfeld, “ Martyrologium,” p. 188); forcing them to be baptized at Geldern and Kerpen; while in Wevelinghofen, Altenahr, and Xanten the Jews slew themselves rather than change their faith. The 300 Jews of Cologne who found themselves at Altenahr selected five men to shy the rest. In the month of June the crusaders reached Treves, and some of the Jews at once slew themselves, a number of Jewesses throwing themselves into the river. The rest betook themselves to the palace of Archbishop Egbert, who attempted in a sermon to persuade the people to spare the Jews, but was him- self maltreated and besicgedin his palace fora week, at the end of which he told the Jews there was no hope for their livesbutin baptism. When they still remained obdurate some of them were exposed by him to the crusaders, who immediately slew them. The rest thereupon accepted baptism. The same fate befell the Jews of Regensburg, while those of Magdeburg were expelled. The crusaders on their march through Bohemia forced the Jews to become baptized, killing those who refused, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Bishop Cosmas. Next year, however, on the return of Emperor Henry from Italy, he granted them permission to revert to their ancestral faith (Pertz, “Monumenta,” ii. 181), not- Withstanding the protests of Pope Clemeut HI. (Jaffe, “Regesta,” No. 5336). The Jews of the Rhine district were decimated: it has been calculated that about 4.000 were killed or slew themselves. The few survivors of Mayence who had taken refuge at Speyer did not return to their old homes until 1104, when a new synagogue was dedicated (Sep- tember 22), When the crusaders at last stormed Jerusalem, July 15, 1099, they drove all the Jews Into one of the synagogues and there burned them alive. During the preparations for the Second Crusade a narrow-minded monk named Radulph preached the Cross in the Rhine valley, and declared that the Jews should be slain as the enemies of the Christian religion. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX protested ener- getically against the unchristian behavior of Ra- dulph, and only a few isolated cases Second of outrage occurred. The Jews were Crusade: expelled from Magdeburg and Halle. 1145-47. Bernard went to Germany to preach the Cross, and met the monk Radulph in open disputation at Mayence in the beginning of November, 1146, but failed to influcnce the people in favor of the Jews. He accordingly addressed a let- ter to the peoples of western Christendom, protest- ing against the persecution of the Jews. Notwith- standing this, when the crusaders came to Wiirzburg they slew the rabbi, Isaac ben Eliakim, and about twenty-one men, women, and children, whose bodies were buried by the bishop in his garden. This was ultimately purchased by Hezekiah, the brother of the rabbi, asa graveyard for the Jews (see Witrz- BURG). At the coronation on Sept. 3, 1189, of Richard L, before he started for the Third Crusade, a severe riot occurred, and after he had left the Third country the crusaders who were pre- Crusade: paring to follow him attacked, with 1189-90. the aid of the populace, the Jews at Lynn, Stamford (March 7), Bury St. Edmunds (March 18), Colchester, Thetford, and Ospringe. The chief tragedy, however, occurred at YorK on the night of March 16, 1190, when 150 Jews of all ages, headed by Rabbi Yom-Tob of Joigny, immolated themselves to escape slaughter or baptism (see YORE). Before the Crusades the Jews had practically a monopoly of trace in Eastern products, but the closer connection between Europe and the East brought about by the Cru- sades raised up a class of merchant traders among the Christians, and from this time onward restrictions on the sale of goods by Jews became frequent (Honiger, in “Zeit. Gesch. Juden Deutsch.” i. 94 ef seg.). The religious zeal fomented by the Crusades burned as fiercely against the Jews as enemies of Christ as against the Moslems. Thus both economically and socially the Crusades were disastrous for European Jews. BIBLIOGRAPHY: ‘First and Second Crusades) Neubauer and Stern, Hebriiische Berichte ther die Judenverfolgungen Wéhrend der Kreuzziige, Berlin, 1892; Salfeld, Das Mar- tyrologium des Nitrnberyger Memorbuehes ; (Third Crusade) Jacobs, Jews of Angerin England, pp. 99, 1384, 385-392. The above account follows mainly Aronius, Regesten, pp. 78-94, 104-116, in preference to Gritz, Gesch. vi. 82-95. G. J. CRYPTO-JEWS: Jews professing another re- ligion but practising Jewish rites in secret in their own homes. There was some tendency toward this even in early days, as is shown by the attempts of certain Jews to avoid being taken for such (see Josephus, “ Ant.” xii. 5,$ 1; compare I Macc. i. 15); but the first wide-spread adoption of the practise appears to have been after the Almohade persecu- tions in Spain in 1146. The father of Maimonides is said to have nominally embraced Islamism at this time, and he was doubtless followed by others. Later, in Spain, after the persecutions of 1391, a whole body of Spanish Jews formally adopted Christianity, but observed Jewish rites in their homes. These were known as MARANOS or, in the Results. Crystal Cuba —_—- Balearic Islands, Cuvetas. Officially they were known as “New Christians,” and there was consid- erable legislation directed against them in both Spain and Portugal and in their colonies, the chief activity of the Inquisition being directed against them. It is stated that Maranos are to be found even at the present day, especially at Covilhdo in Portugal. It also appears that there are, or have been, sev- eral classes of Crypto-Jews in Moslem lands; thus the ancestors of the DaGGatruNns probably kept up their Jewish practisesa long time after their nominal adoption of Mohammedanism, This was also done by the Maimins of Salonica (Gritz, in “ Monats. schrift,” Feb., 1884), and near Khorassan there still remain a number of Jews known as the “ Jedid al- Islam,” who were converted to Mohammedanism half a century ago (“II Vessillo Israelitico,” April, 1884). G. J. CRYSTAL. See GLass. CSEMEGI, KARL: President of the Hunga- rian Supreme Court of Judicature; born in Csongrad May 38, 1826; died March 18, 1899. Csemegi re- ceived his early education in the schools of Szegedin and Budapest. By order of Count Elemer Batthya- nyi he organized a battalion of infantry in the Hungarian war of independence of 1848, at the head of which he fought throughout the whole war. After the conclusion of the campaign in the Bacska and Bandt districts, he laid down his arms at Lugos, and as punishment was placed in an Austrian regi- ment, but was soon released on account of ill health. During the absolutist era he had a large law-office in Arad, but was compelled by the chicanery of Austrian officials to transfer it to Butyinin Rumania, After the restoration of the former constitution, the Hungarian minister of justice, Balthasar Hor- vath, called him into the ministry, where a wide field presented itself for the employment of his abil- ity. From ministerial secretary he became state sec- retary, in which capacity he proposed and codified chapter iv. of the laws of 1869, on the legal power and authority of judges. The incorporation of the judiciary of Finme with that of Hungary was also his work. His epoch-making achievement in the judicial administration of Hungary was, however, the codification of the criminal law on a modern basis. Through this work he succeeded in funda- mentally improving legal procedure in Hungary. Especially important was the comprehensive state- ment which he annexed to the code explaining the basic principles that underlie it, which statement contains a mass of legal knowledge still of much value. His influcaoce left a distinct impress on the science of criminology, which developed rapidly after the adoption of his code. Csemegi became president of the Supreme Court in 1879, and founded the Society of Hungarian Jurists, which to-day has among its members the niost eminent jurists of modern Hungary. He was decorated with the Crossof the Order of St. Stephan of Hungary in 1878, and in 1882 became privy coun- cilor, Twelve years later he resigned his position as president of the Supreme Court. He was granted the honorary degree of LL.D. by the juridical fac- ulty of the University of Budapest in 1896. THE JEWISIE ENCYCLOPEDIA 380 Csemegi was a convert to Christianity. His liter- ary work includes: “A Jogvesztés Elmélete és az Allamjog,” Budapest, 1872; “A Magyar Binvadi Eljaras Szervezetének Indokai,” Budapest, 1882; “Magyar Binvadi Eljards a Térvényszckek Elott,” Budapest, 1883; “Az Egyhazi Holtkéz,” Budapest, 1897. The French government had the statement of principles which he subjoined to the Hungarian criminal code translated into French under the title “Code Pénal Hongrois des Crimes et des Deélits,” Paris, 1885. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pester Lloyd, March 19, 1899; Pesti Naplo, same date; Vasarnapi Ujsag, March, 1899. S, M. W. CSILLAG, ROSA: Hungarian opera-singer; born about 1840. She attracted much attention in the chorus of the Hungarian National Theater at Budapest. Trained by Professor Proch, she made her first appearance in 1898 as Aides in Meyerbeer's “Le Prophéte,” in the court opera-house of Vienna, where she delighted her audiences with her beauti- ful mezzo-soprano voice, Until 1873 Csillag be- longed to the cast of the Vienna Royal Opera- House, and was a general favorite. On her tours also she met with much success. Her husband was the cele- brated prestidigitator Hermann. When her voice began to fail she became singing teacher at the Vienna Conservatoire. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pallas Lexikon, iv. S. M. W. CSILLAG, THERESE: Hungarian actress; born at Duna-Adony May 17, 1862. For many years she was a popular comedienne at the Na- tional Theater in Budapest. At the age of thirteen she attended the dramatic school in that city. In 1879 she was engaged at the National Theater, where she played in ingénue rdles up to 1898. Nearly all Hungarian playwrights of her day wrote special réles for her, among them being Gregor Csiky, in whose plays she always excelled. Since 1899 she has been engaged at the Vigszinhaz in Budapest. She has embraced the Christian faith. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Magyar Szalon, 1886. s. M. W. CUBA: An island in the Atlantic Ocean, the largest of the West Indian groups. The relations of the Jews with the island of Cuba date from the dis- covery of the island by Columbus in 1492, several Jews having accompanied him on his first voyage (sce AMERICA, THE DrscovERY OF). On Nov. 2, 1492, Columbus sent Luis de ToRREs, together with a companion, into the interior to ascertain the char- acter of the island and of its people, and to find its king. JKayserling (“Christopher Columbus,” p. 95) asserts that Luis de Torres settled in Cuba and died there. The records of the Inquisition in America, thus far published only in fragments, are the chief sources of information about Jewsin Cuba. Jewish women, forcibly baptized, and sent to the West Indies by the Spanish authorities, seem to have been among the earliest settlers. In 1618 the Inquisition wrung from Francisco Gomez de Leon of Havana the con- fession that he was a Jew; as a consequence he underwent martyrdom for his faith. and the Inqui- sition confiscated his fortune, amounting to 149,000 381 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Crystal Cuba pesos. About 1627 the Inquisition seized Antonio Mendez, Luis Rodrigues, and others on the charge of being Jews. About 1636, 150,000 Inquisition pesos in gold was extorted from in Cuba. threecitizens of Havana on the charge of Judaizing. Their names were Blas de Paz Pinto, Juan Rodrigues Mésa and Fran- cisco Rodriguez de Solis; and they appear to have been among the most opulent men in the West Indies. The trial of Gabriel de Granada, about 1642, evoked a reference to an uncle, Miguel Nufiez de Guerta, alias Huerto, who was supposed to be in Havana at this time, and whose bones in 1649 were used by the Inquisition for his execution in effigy. About the same time Luis Mendez de Chaves, Luis Gomez Barreto, and Manuel Alvarez Prieto, of Havana, were in the clutches of the In- quisition on similar charges. The Portuguese reconquest of Brazil about this period, which compelled thousands of Jews to leave the country, undoubtedly augmented the Jewish population in Cuba. Accordingly, about this time the number of charges of Judaizing increased, and commercial relations with Jamaica and Curacao further augmented them. A party of the earliest settlers of New York, who arrived in that city in 1654, are supposed to have touched in the neigh- borhood of Cape St. Anthony, Cuba, on their way from Brazil. In 1689 Vincente Gomez Coello, a Por- tuguese, was denounced as a Jew in Cuba. The prosecution of Cubans on the charge of Judaizing continued into the nextcentury. In 1712 Jacob Nu- fiez Lopez was denounced on this charge. In 1717 was celebrated the auto da fé in which In the Fray Joseph Diez Pimienta figured, Eighteenth an account of whose career has been Century. published by Richard Gottheil. Pi- mien# lived for a considerable time in Cuba, and became a convert to Judaism, though he several times thereafter changed his faith. As late as 1783 the Inquisition claimed victims, as wit- ness the fate of Juan Rodriguez Mexia and An- tonio Santaclla, of Havana. These are but a few of the many names of persons in Cuba who have been charged with Judaizing. In recounting the history of the Jews in Cuba, it is important not to overlook their friendly com- mercial relations with the buccaneers, as it was cus- tomary to style the assailants of Spain’s commercial monopoly in the New World, who waged for dec- ades incessant war against her ports and her ves- sels; and there is reason to believe that there were some Jews among them. Cuba and Cuban waters were for a long time the principal headquar- ters of these predecessors of the American pirates, from whom the buccaneers differed, however, in that they waged war against Spain. . A considerable portion of Hamburg’s trade with Cuba and other West Indian islands was also at this time in Jewish hands. The Jews’ familiarity with Cubaand Cuban affairs, as well as their anti-Spanish seutiments, seems to have been known to the ene- mies of Spain. Thus, for instance, Admiral Vernon, in his expedition against Cuba in 1741, took with him a Jewish interpreter, whom he sent with mes- Sages to the governor at Santiago de Cuba in that year. It is also known that Jacob Franks of New York was a contractor for the British government, supplying the British navy at Jamaica with pro- visions during the campaign which resulted in the capture, in 1762, of Havana by the British. This capture was extremely important, Havana being regarded as of enormous political and commercial value as the key to America. Cuba’s material pros- perity is supposed to date from this period, not- withstanding the restoration of Havana to Spain by the treaty of 1763. Itis probable that Jewish houses in New York, Newport, Jamaica, Curacao, London, Amsterdam, and Hamburg were interested in the Cuban trade in tobacco, sugar, and other merchan- dise, which from this date on became increasingly valuable. Moreover, about this time the population of Cuba was beneficially augmented by the influx of French settlers from Martinique and Guadaloupe, including, apparently, some Jews. Hernando de Castro, probably a Marano, has been credited with the introduction of the culture of sugar into Cuba. Jews were also engaged in early fili- buster expeditions to Cuba; for instance, in 1851. Until almost the end of the Spanish-American war of 1898, public religious services other than those of the Roman Catholic Church were forbid- den; the Inquisition, however, had been abolished in the early years of the century. Since 1881 Jews have been tolerated in Spain and her colonies.. The number of Jews in Cuba had increased prior to the war, particularly through Jewish-American interest in the tobacco trade. Richard Davey, in “Cuba: Past and Present,” states regarding the conditions preceding the war: “Jews in Cuba barely number 500, and are mostly of Spanish origin, and engaged in trade. A great many Jews fled to the West Indies from Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but few remained in the Spanish posses- sions. The danger was too great. Five or six of the Cuban Jewish families are reported wealthy, and are much respected, but they keep entirely to themselves.” There may, perhaps, be some exag- geration in these statements. A Jarge number of American Jews served in the American army in Cuba during the Spanish-American war, waged for the liberation of Cuba. Since the war the number of American residents has increased, and it is es- timated that there are now in Cuba about 1,000 Jew- ish residents. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Davey,Cuba: Past and Present, London, 1898: R. P. Porter, Industrial Cuba, New York, 1899: Industrial Cuba: Being aStudy of Present Commercial Conditions, New York, 1899; Guiteras, Historia de Isla de Cuba, New York, 1863-66, Ramon de la Sagra, Historia Economica- Politica de Cuba, Havana, 1881; Lowery, The Spanish Set- tlements Within the Present Limits of the United States, New York, 1901; Kayserling, Christopher Columbus and the Participation of the Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese Discovertes, New York, 1894; Colden Papers, in Publica- tion Fund Series of New York Hist. Soc. ix. 209, 210, New York; M. J. Kohler, Rebecca Franks, New York, 1594; Original Papers Relatingto the Expedition to the Island of Cuba by Edward Vernon, pp. 33, 34, 36, London, 1744; Helps, Spanish Canquest in America, edited by M. Cpen- heim, London, 1900-02; Journal of Columbus, ed. Markham (Hakluyt Society Publications), London: Publications Am. Jew. Hist. Soc. vii., viii., ix.; J. T, Medina, Historia det Tribunal det Santo Oficio de ta Inquisicion de Cartagena de las Indias, Santiago, 1899; Miiller, Cuba, Berlin, 1899; Pyie, Buccaneers and Pirates, New York, 1892: Personal Narrative of Louis Schlesinger of Adventures in Cue C 4 and Ceuta, in the Democratic Review, xxxi. 209, 352, 558. A. M. J. K. ae, 38 Cubit MTEL Seeoee Cumin THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA CUBIT. Sve WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Amador de los Rios. Historia de los Judics CUCKOO (A. V. Cuckow): The A. V. rendering of 3mw (shahaf) in Lev. xi. 16 and Deut. xiv. 15. In hoth places it occurs in the list of unclean birds. This identification, however, is only a conjecture, and there is no certain tradition to support it. The Targum transcribes the Hebrew word. The Septu- agint gives Zdpoc (“sea-gull”), The R. V. rendering is “seamew,” which is accepted by Gesenius, Ber- tholet, and Driver in their commentaries, and by Baentsch and Lewyson (* Zoologie des Talmuds.” p. 182). The cuckoo, however, is found in Palestine, where it passes the summer. Two varieties are met with—the common and the spotted cuckoo. E. G. Il. G. B. LL. CUCUMBER: The rendering of the Hebrew p'swp (Num. xi. 5). There are at least two kinds of cucumbers in Palestine (Hasselquist, Groser, Post, ete.); viz., Cucumis sativcusand C. chate. The former is the common green cucumber well known in the western world; and the latter is the Egyptian or hairy cucumber, which is said by Hasselquist to be “the queen of cucumbers, refreshing, sweet, solid, and wholesome.” Post (Hastings, “Dict. Bible”) speaks of it as doubtless one of the good things of Egypt (Num. xi.5). “It is longer and more slender than the common cucumber, being often more than a foot long, and sometimes Jess than an inch thick, and pointed at both ends.” The so-called “ garden of cucumbers ” referred to in Isa. i. 8 is the transla- tion of Awpy, meaning “ place of cucumbers”; 7@.e., a place wherein cucumbers were cultivated. The “lodge” mentioned in the same verse is the shelter of the person who kept birds away and guarded the garden from robbers. E. G. H. I. M. P. CUENCA (Ap31p): City in New Castile, Spain, which, after its conquest by Alfonso VIT., possessed Jewish inhabitants. In the “fuero,” or charter, granted to the city about 1189, the king secured to the Jews full personal protection, together with commercial privileges in every way equal to those of the Christians; and in consequence the Jewish community increased so rapidly both in size and in influence, that it was able in 1290 to pay 70,883 maravedis in taxes. The following circumstance is significant: The Jews of Cuenca refused to lend money or grain, greatly to the detriment of agricul- ture and industry; in consequence of which an agreement was entered into in 1826 between the city council and the Jewish community, whereby any Jew or Jewess was privileged to charge any Chris- tian of Cuenca or its vicinity, cither man or woman, 40 per cent annual interest on money or property, The prosperity and commercial activity of the Jews finally drew upon them the hatred of the populace; and in the “year of terror,” 1391, the Jews suffered greatly; even the officials and other men of influ- ence of the town participated in plundering and slaying them; many were murdered, while others either settled elsewhere or became converts to Chris- tianitv. The grandparents of the historian Joseph ha-Kohen left Cuenca, and repaired to the fortress of I{uete, dé Espana. i. 388 ct seq. i. 1389, db8 ef seg.; Joseph ha- Kohen, ‘Emek ha-Baka, p. 70. G, M. K. CULI, JACOB: Talmudist and Biblical ceon- mentator of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- turies; died at Constantinople Aug. 9, 1732. He be- longed to an exiled Spanish family. and was thie grandson and pupil of Moses ibn Habib. Tle edited various important works. The first fruit of his t- erary activity was the publication of his grand- father’s writings. To this end he left Safed, where he seemed to have taken up his abode, and removed to Constantinople. As he points out in various passages in his writings, he found in Hayyim A!- fandari the Younger a warm supporter. Whe engaged on the works of his grandfather, he entered (1714) into close relations with the chief rabbi of Constantinople, Judah Rosanes, at the time gen- erally regarded the highest authority of the Orient. Rosanes appointed Culi dayvan, which. together with his position as teacher, secured to him a suffi- cient livelihood, In i727 Culi published his grand- father’s work “Shammot ba-Arez ” (notes on various portions of the Talmud), with an index. In this year Rosanes died. He Jeft voluminous literary remains in a very chaotic condition. To in- troduce order into this chaos it needed a scholar of the first rank. With this task Culi was entrusted. But even for him it meant a labor of several vears. First, in 1728, he edited the “ Parashat Derakim,” a work both haggadic and halakic. Three years later he published the voluminous “ Mishneh fa- Melek,” enriched with numerous Important notes. To both these works Culi wrote a preface, Jn the same year, he edited also his grandfather's “-Ezrat Nashim,” in the beginning of which there are two responsa of his own. Ilis most important work is his commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled “ Me- ‘Am Lo'ez.” This work, which is held in high re- gard by the Jews of the East, is a very claborate encyclopedic commentary in Ladino, dealing with Jewish life in all its relations. Its material was taken from the Talmud, the Midrash, and the princi- pal works of Talmudic and rabbinic literature. Culi carried his commentary on the Pentateuch through Genesis and as faras ch. xxivof Exodus. After his death the work was continued by Isaac Magreso and Isaac Behor Arguiti. The five parts were pub- lished in Constantinople (1738), partly at the expense of Judah Mizrahi, The first part appeared in a sec- ond edition (Salonica, 1798) and a third edition (Smyrna, 1870); and the other parts were republished at Smyrna (1871-73). A portion of the first was issued under the title “‘Akedat Yizhak ” (The Sacri- fice of Isaac), Smyrna, 1864. Culi also wrote a halakic work under the ttle “Simanim le-Oraita,” which, however, remained in manuscript. He scems to have lived for some time in Hebron (compare his responsum No, 2). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Preface to the Index of Habib’s Gef Pashut, and to Rosanes, Mishnel la-Meleii: vresponsum No. 1, end of Habib’s ‘“Ezrat Nashim; Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, s.v., and Judah Rosanes; Kayserling, Bibl. Eisp.-Port.-Jud. pp. da, Ob: Steinschneider, Hebr. Bibl. xvii. 15 et sey.; idem, Cat. Boal. col. 2926. L. G. L. Grt.—M. K. - 383 CULTURVEREIN DER JUDEN. Sce VE- REIN FUR CULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DER JUDEN. CUMANUS, VENTIDIUS: Roman procurator in Judea (48-52). According to Tacitus (“ Annales,” xii. 54), he divided the procuratorship with Felix; the latter being at the head of Samaria, the former of Galilee. Such a division is unknown to Josephus, and, though accepted by Mommsen (“Gesch.” v. 525), is rightly discarded by Schtirer (“Gesch.” i, 477). Griitz, who follows the statement of Tacitus, is forced to amend his text; holding that events show that Samaria belonged to Cumanus, and Gali- lee to Felix (“ Monatsschrift,” xxvi. 404). The procuratorship of Cumanus lay in the stormy period preceding the final insurrection in Judea. He himself had to put down three uprisings, the last one causing his own downfall. The first of these happened in the Temple court at the Passover feast, When one of the Roman soldicrs—who were always present on such occasions to keep order in the multitude—shocked the Jews by his indecent behavior. The tumult thus occasioned was sup- pressed by the soldiers, and a large number of those assembled (by Josephus said to have exceeded 8,000) were crushed to death. The second uprising also was brought about by a Roman soldier, Jewish robbers had attacked an imperial officer named Stephanus near Beth-horon (“B. J.” ii. 12, § 2). The soldiers sent by Cumanus to restore order plun- dered the surrounding villages, and one of them tore up a scroll of the Law. At this the Jews be- eame much excited, sent a large deputation to the procurator at Ceesarea, and were appeased only when the soldier was condemned to death. Jealousy between the Samaritans and the Judeans was the cause of the third trouble. A Galilean, on his way to the Temple at Jerusalem, had been mur- dered at Gema (“ B. J.” ii. 12, § 3) or Ginea (“ Ant.” xx. 6, $1; compare Bocttger, “Top.-Hist. Lexikon zu Josephus,” p. 129). Cumanus hesitated to in- flict punishment upon the Samaritans: It iseven said that he was in their pay. The Judeans, headed by the zealots Eleazar, son of Dineus, and Alexander, revenged themselves upon the Samaritans, despite the attempt of the leadersin Jerusalem to hold them back. Cumanus sent out the Sebaste troop from Ceesarea; but in the mean time both Samaritans and Judeans had made presentments to Ummidius Quad- ratus, the governor of Syria, who at once put to death in Cesarea all those who had been captured by Cumanus, and in Lydda eighteen of the Judeans who had been involved in the disturbance. The high priests Jonathan and Ananias, the latter’s son Anan, the Samaritan leaders, Cumanus and the trib- une Celer, and others, were ordered to Rome to ap- pear before theemperor, Claudius condemned three of the leading Samaritans to death, banished Cuma- nus, and sent Celer to Jerusalem to be beheaded. This judgment, according to Josephus (“ Ant.” xx. 6, $ 3), was due to the influence of Agrippa II. with Agrippina, the emperor’s wife. According to Tacitus (2.¢.), however, the trouble between the Samaritans and the Judeans had been fomented by the jealousy of the two procurators, and it was Quadratus himself who sat in judgment. Antonius Felix was exonerated, as he was the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA _—<————$ Cubit Cumin brother of the emperor’s favorite, Pallas, and brother-in-law of King Agrippa. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Josephus, Ant. xx. ch. ¥. and vi.; idem, B. J. ii. ch. 123 Gratz and Mommsen, as above; Schilrer, Gesch, 3¢ ed., 1, 568-570, G. CUMATIANO, MORDECAI B. ELIEZER. See CoMTINO, MORDECAI B, ELIEZER, | CUMBERLAND, RICHARD: English dram- atist; born in the Master's Lodge, Trinity College, Cambridge, Feb. 19, 1732; died at Tunbridge Wells May 7, 1811. He was educated at Bury St. Ed- munds and Westminster, and at Trinity College, where he was entered when but fourteen years old. About 1750 Cumberland was appointed private secretary to Lord Halifax, and finding the position a sinecure, he devoted his leisure to play-writing. Among his most successful plays were “ A Summer’s Tale,” 1765, and “The West Indian,” produced by Garrick in 1770. Cumberland’s most important work. from a Jew- ish standpoint. was his drama “The Jew.” written in 1777, in which he depicted the antithesis of Shakespeare’s Shylock and Marlowe’s Burahbas in — Sheva, the benevolent, grateful Jew. Sheu is res- cued at Cadiz from an auto da fé by Don Carlos, and, later, from a mob in London by the son of Don Carlos, Charles Rateliffe. In gratitude, Shevu gives £10,000 to Ratelijfe’s sister as a marriage por- tion, and the balance of his fortune to Jeateléte. Incidentally it may be stated that “The Jew” appeared two years before “Nathan der Weise,” which, however, had been written earlier. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Davies, Life of Garriek, 1808, ii. 289-304; Memoirs of Richard Cumberland, 1507; Notes and Que- ries, Sth series, xi, 504; Dict. of National Bivyraplhy, xiii. 8. E. Ms. CUMIN: The seed of the Cuminuim Cymidinum, an umbelliferous plant, which, coming originally from Mediterranean countries, spread to many parts of the world. Its name is common to Greek, He- brew, Phenician, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic, as well as to modern languages. Geoponicon and Bar Bahlul mention among its varieties the wild, the Ethiopic, and the domestic or garden cumin. Pal- estine grew a special variety of its own, the Cymé- num Syriacum (Mish. Demai, ii. 1; the Yer. distin- guishes it from the variety called Cyprven, the seed of which is curved). By the Arabs as well as by the Jews cumin was used as a condiment. It has a pungent taste, something like caraway, and is used by many people to flavor bread. The oven was heated with cumin for that purpose (Ter. x. 4). Tt is used also medicinally to soften swellings. In the Talmud it is mentioned as used to stanch ex- cessive bleeding (Shab, 110b) during menstruation and after circumcision (Shab, 18, 4: see also Joel Miller, “Willufe Minhagin,” p. 41, Vienna, 1878); while it is also credited with curative properties for colics (Ab. Zarah 29a, top). It is not certain whether, in the magic formula against boils given in Shab. 67a, the word “kammon” is an allusion to the seed; but in view of its application in such cases, this is highly probable. In Isa. xxviii. 25 the method of threshing it is re- ferred to. Instead of the usual instrument, a rod is Cunzus Cup used, and the knowledge of this method is pointed out as of divine origin. Matt. xxiii. 23 complains of those who give tithes of cumin but disregard the weighticr matters of the Law. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. L6w, Avamdische Phlanzennamen, pp. 206-207, E. GW. G. B. L.—E. G. H. CUNZEUS, PETRUS (also known as Peter van der Kuhn): Dutch Christian and rabbinical scholar; born at Flushing 1586; died at Leyden Dec. 2, 1638. From 1617 until his death he was professor of jurisprudence and polities at the Uni- versity of Leyden. Cunzeus holds a position of some importance in the development of Biblical archeology as the author of “De Republica Hebre- orum,” which appeared in three volumes, in 1617, at Leyden. It was republished in 16382 by Elzevir; and was translated into French in 1703. It was also reproduced in the “Critici Sacri” and in Ugolini’s “Thesaurus.” In this book Cunzeus deals with the constitution of the old Hebrew kingdom, which he regards asa purely theocratic one. The Lord was the sole ruier, and made the laws, appointed judges, decided ques- tions of war and peace, and was high priest, libera- tor, and leader of the people. Cunzus had often com- pared the conditions of Jewish with those of Roman and Greek life, and concluded that Jewish laws were superior to those of the classical world. He instanced the jubilee year of the Hebrews, which, according to his view, would have been the only remedy for the evils of the “latifundia” in Rome. He made use of the teachings of the Rabbis, espe- cially of Maimonides. Cunzeus and Grotius were the first Christian scholars who accepted, in their Biblical interpretations, the explanations of the Rabbis. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Testaments in der Christlichen Kirche, pp. 376, 467, 468, 516, Jena, 1869; Geil- lustreede Encyclopacdie, s.v., Rotterdam, 1884. J. F, T. H. CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS. See Assyr- IOLOGY AND FHE OLD TESTAMENT. CUNEO: Capital of the Italian province of the same name. According to local traditions, a Jewish community, founded probably after the expulsion of the Jews from France (1381), existed there in the fourteenth century. It seems to have been firmly established only after the immigration of Spanish and Portuguese Jews, the first of the immigrants being some bankers, who, at the eud of the sixteenth century, received permission from the pope to open loan-offices (“ Rev. Etudes Juives,” xix. 143). The oldest monument preserved by the community is a “dukan” of the year 1611. The societies also date back to an early time: the Gemilut Hasidim was founded in 1687; the Talmud Torah, in 1770 by Solomon Jehiel della Torre. Two special memorial days are celebrated in the synagogue of Cuneo: one in memory of a conflagration in 1750, the other of the siege of 1799. The Spanish and the Italian rituals are followed. Among the rabbis have been the fol- lowing: Jacob ben Mordecai Poggetto, in the six- teenth century; Solomon Jehiel della Torre, in the eighteenth century; M. Sorani, in the nineteenth century. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 384 The community has a permanent population of about 800 persons. The Lattes family, which has lived there continuously since the sixteenth century, is especially noted. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Corriere Israelitico, ii. 150; v. 239, 270. G. 1. E. CUP.—Biblical Data: The word most com- monly used in the Old Testament for drinking-ves- sel is DID (Gen. xl. 11, 18). yras first occurs in the story of Joseph for the cup with which he “divined ” (Gen. xliv, 2-12, Hebr.), and from Jer. xxxv. 5 it appears that it was larger than the D\3, correspond- ing toa goblet or crater. The y"39 was also one of the ornaments of the golden candlestick, or me- norah (Ex. xxv. 83 ef seg., xxxvii. 17-21), and is described as being “almond-shaped” (py), like the calyx of the almond-flower. Other words, like tN, Mw, 4D, which the English versions some- times render by “cup” or “goblet” (Isa. xxii. 24; Song of Solomon vii. 3; Num. iv. 7; I Chron. xxviii. 17; Jer. lii, 19), were used to designate rather a basin, or bowl-shaped vessel. It may be assumed that the cups of the Jews were in general of the same material, design, and workmanship as those of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Phenicians, whose craters were celebrated even in Homer’s time (Homer, “Tliad,” xxiii. 748; ¢dem, “Odyssey,” iv. 615-618). The cups used at present in synagogues for “kiddush ” and “habdalah” are generally of sil- ver, oblong, and shaped like an inverted dome, with a stem and base, resembling the cup figured on the Maccabean coins. “Cup” is frequently used in metaphors of good or of ill fortune, asin “ My cup runneth over” (Ps. xxiii. 5, xvi. 5); “the cup of his fury ” (Isa. Meta- li. 17, 22); “the bowl of the cup of phorical staggering” (Zech. xii. 2, Hebr.); Use. “the cup of astonishment and desola- tion” (Ezek. xxiii. 33). Babylon isa “golden cup in the Lord’s hand that made all the earth drunken” (Jer. li. 7). The “ cup of consola- tion” (Jer. xvi. 7) is one offered to mourners; while the “cup of salvation” (Ps. exvi. 18) isa cup of thanksgiving for deliverance, in allusion, per- haps, to the wine of the peace-offering (“ shelamim ”), or to the cup of praise and thanksgiving. —In Rabbinical Literature: In the Talmud the figurative use of “cup” fortroubleand suffering (Hul, 92a; compare Gen. R. lxxxviii. 5) is observed in the expression “to taste the taste of death” (NMMDT NOvy oyy, Yoma 78b; in the N. T., Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; John viii. 52; Heb. ii. 9; com- pare “Etymologicon Magnum”: torgpiov. . . onuai- vee Kat Tov Oévavov), Another figurative use of “cup” is for one’s wife (Ket. 75b; Ned. 20b; Git. 90a). Ten—at one time fourteen—cups were ordained for the house of mourning (Ket. 8b; compare Sanh. 70a). The “cup of benediction ”—7.¢., the third of the four cups of the Passover meal—is often re- ferred to (Ber. 5la; B. B. 97%b, etc.; in the N. T., I Cor. x. 16). For other interesting references to “cup” see Ket. 65a; Pes. 96b; Yoma T5a; Bezah 15b, ete. In Gen. xliv. 5 is found probably the oldest ref- CUPS OF SANCTIFICATION. 4. Kiddush cup for Sabbath (in Musée de Cluny). 2. Habdalah cup (in Temple Shearith Israel, New York). 3. Passover cup (i possession of L. Jarmolowsky, New York). 4. Elijah cup for Passover {in possession of Dr. Max Rosenthal, New York). 6. Elijah cup for Passover (in possession of Foly Raunheim, New York). 6. Circumcision cup (io possession of Leopold de Rothschild, London). 7%. Kiddush cup (in possession of H. Masliansky, New York). 8. Passover cup (in possession of Dr. Max Rosenthal, New York). 9. Kiddush cup (in possession of Leopold de Rothschild, London). Cup of Benediction Curacao THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 386 erence to divination by cup (KvAccouavreia, also Aexa- vouarteia), a species of hydromancy. According to the rabbinical explanation Joseph In “feigned to prophesy by striking on Folk-Lore. the cup ” (Gen. R. xci. 6; compare also Rashi and Targ, Yer. to Gen. xiii. 38). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, Nos. 174, 181, etc.; A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, ii. 286; idem, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 180, 190, 192; Joseph Bonomi, Nineveh and Its Palaces, pp. 187 et seq.; Tieroff, De Seypho Josepht, Jena, 1657; Francois Lenormant, La Divination et la Science des Présages chez les Chaldées, pp. 78-80. A. IM. C. CUP OF BENEDICTION (Hebrew, “kos shel berakah ”): The cup of wine taken immediately after grace has been recited at the conclusion of a meal. The custom is first mentioned directly in Mish. Ber. vi 6: “If wine comes to them [a com- pany of three or more] during the meal, each one blesses for himself; if after the meal, one blesses for all of them.” In other words, wine after the meal is treated withsome solemnity. In Pes, x. 1 the four cups of the Passover night are mentioned: the third of these is the cup of benediction following the grace after supper. In later times the custom arose that where one had with his meal only one unit of wine (one-fourth of a log—about the contents of an egg and a half), he should drink it after the meal asacup of bene- djction; and many rabbis deemed it highly meritori- ous, indeed almost a duty, to have wine in readiness for this purpose at each meal, cspecially when three men were to partake of it, and would join in sav- ing grace. In that case the one reciting grace aloud would take the cup in his right hand during the recital and hold sweet-smelling spices in his left (see Maimonides, “ Yad,” Berakot, vii. 14, 15). But the custom as to the spices has long since gone out of use. In northern countries wine is not ac- cessible as a daily beverage to the mass of the Jews; hence, “strong drink ”—7.e., beer or mead, and, later on, spirits, under the name of “ wine of the country ” —or any beverage other than water, such as sirup or the juice of fruits, was deemed a fit substitute for wine in the cup of benediction (see Shulhban ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 182, 1-2, Isserles’ gloss). Speaking generally, the cup of benediction is drunk only on Sabbaths or at festivals and other joyous occasions. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, pp. 345, 346, especially for the song based on the cup of benediction. J. L. N. D. CUP OF SALVATION. See PERIODICALS. CUPBEARER (7)w" ): The officer who served the cup to the king. Like the Cup, the cupbearer is first mentioned in the Gld Testament in connec- tion with the story of Joseph in Egypt (Gen. x1. 21), where the title “chief of cupbearers” (D’pwDn Wy) would show that such a functionary existed at the Egyptian court. In Jewish history this officer is mentioned in the description of Solomon’s court (I Kings x.5; I] Chron. ix. 4), and, later, at the court of Herod I. (Josephus, “ Ant.” xvi. 8,§ 1). Nehe- miah was cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus (465-425 bp.c.; Neh. i. 11, ii. 1). Cup- bearers are frequently represented on the Assyrian monuments (compare also Tobit i. 22), The As- syrian Rab-shakeh (Apwa, I Kings xviii. 17; Isa. xxxvi. 2), formerly supposed to have been the cap- tain of the cupbearers, is now Known to have held a different office. The Egyptian cupbearers were eunuchs (OQ°D*1D, Gen. x]. 2), as were those of Herod and those in Assyria; and it may be assumed that this was gen- erally the case throughout the Orient. The ojfice of cupbearer at the Median-Persian courts was, ac- cording to Herodotus (iii. 834) and Xenophon (* Cy- ropedia,” i. 8,3), one of great honor. The cupbearer had in some cases to taste of the cup before pre- senting it (Xenophon, 20.). BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, ii. 253: Joseph Bonomi, Nineveh and Its Palaces, pp. 250, 284 5 Tavernier, Reisen, iii, part 2, pp. 6 et seq.; Klemm, Morgein- land, pp. 206 et seq. A. I. M. C. CURACAO: Anisland of the Dutch West Indies, captured from Spain in 1634, It is probable that. Jews from Holland were among the first settlers in the island under the Dutch government, But they did not arrive there in considerable numbers un- til 1650, when twelve Jewish families—De Meza, Aboab, Pereira, De Leon, La Parra, Touro, Cardoze, Jesurun, Marchena, Chaviz, Oleveira, Henriquez Cutinho—were granted permission by Prince Mau- rice of Orange to settle there. The governor of the island, Matthias Beck, was directed to grant them land, and supply them with slaves, horses, cattle, and agriculturai implements, in order to further the cultivation and develop the natural resources of the island, the earlier settlers being chiefly concerned in the more lucrative contraband trade with the Spanish Main. The land assigned to these immi- grants was situated on the northern outskirts of the present district of Willemstad. This district is still known as the “ Jodenwyk ” (Jewish quarter; Corcos, “ History of the Jews of Curacao,” pp. 7-8). In those early years, despite the favorable aus- pices under which the Jews arrived, severe restric- tions were put upon their movements, and they la- bored under all the disadvantages to which aliens were generally subject. They were even prohibited in 1653 from purchasing additional negro slaves, much needed for their farms. In March, 1651, the directors of the Dutch West. India Company (in which Jews were large stock- holders) wrote to Peter Stuyvesant, the governor of New Netherlands, that they were seriously consider- ing the abandonment of Curacao, since the island was not proving a source of revenue. They de- cided, however, to make one more experiment, and entered into a contract with Joseph Nufiez de Fon- seca (also known as David Nassi), who undertook to emigrate, taking with hima large number of people, under one Jan de Ilan, also a Jew, as patroon. “He intends,” they write, ‘*to bring a considerable number of people there to settle and cultivate the land, but we begin to suspect that he and his associates have quite another object in view ; namely, to trade from there to the West Indies and the Main. Bethat as it may, we are willing to make the experi- ment, and you must, therefore, charge Director Rodenborch to accommodate him within proper limits and in conformity with the conditions of the contract’’ (Albany MSS., ‘* Pub. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc.,’’ No. 10). 387 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Cup of Benediction Curacao By Dec., 1652, Flan and his followers had made considerable progress, and had begun a trade in logwood with the neighboring is- Settlement lands. =F ee SS tp. YH Pardat 3 titit tf wate Jolin oe 4 Sultlise / § }_atyt oo iat ih ties ten Hyseiax Ui im Houde | J og century. At least he mentions the city in the cele- brated forty-sixth “ Makamah.” Toward the end of the thirteenth century Jesse b. Hezekiah, a man full of energy, arose in Damas- cus. He wasrecognized by Sultan Kelaiin of Egypt as prince and exilarch, and in 1289 and in June, 1290, in conjunction with his twelve colleagues, he put the anti-Maimonists under the ban (Griitz, “ Gesch.” vii. 186-195). The letters of the rabbis of Damascus and of Acre have been collected in the “Minhat-Kena’ot” (a compilation made by Abba Mari, grandson of Don Astruc of Lunel). No data are available for the fourteenth century. Estori Farhi (13138) contents himself with the mere mention of Damascene Jews journeying to Jerusalem (Zunz, “G. §.” ii, 269). A manuscript of David Kimhi on Ezekiel was written by Nathan of Narbonne and collated with the origi- nal by R. Hiyya in Damascus, Ab 18, 1875 (Neu- bauer, “Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS.” No. 816). The Jewish com- munity of Da- mascus contin- ued its existence under the sultans (Borgites and Mamelukes) of Egypt, who con- quered Syria: i ny ee K Orthod: I9 for the Jewish parnas, and R. Rreit. al Zadok, physi- _ ee aes cian, i i 2A \ ‘ie; rs About the [Zao Si fh is A sue same time Peth- |\” =u ahiah of Regens- burg was here. He found “about roa ‘= ai jai 10,000 Jews, ya who have a prince. The head of their academy is Rabbi Ezra, who is full of the knowl- edge of the Law; for Rabbi Samuel, the head of the Academy of Babylon, ordained him” (ed. Benisch, p. 58). It was a Damascus rabbi, Judah b. Josiah, who, toward the end of the twelfth century, was “nagid” in Egypt (Sambari, in “ Med. Jew. Chron.” i. 183). Ata later period another nagid, David b. Joshua, also came from Damascus (Gritz, “Gesch.” ix., note i.). In 1210 a French Jew, Samuel b. Simson, visited the city. He speaks of the beautiful synagogue situated outside the city (Jobar) and said to have been constructed by Elisha (see below; compare “Ozar Tob,” 1878, p. 88; Carmoly, Twelfth “Itineraires,” p. 136). to the Under Saladin the city again en- Fifteenth joyed considerable importance; but Century. upon his death the disturbances be- gan anew, until in 1516 the city fell into the hands of the Turks, since which time it has declined to the rank of a provincial town. It seems probable that Al-Harizi also visited Da- Mascus during the first decade of the thirteenth IV.— 27 Tih city W Pian of the Modern City of Damascus. (After Baedeker, “ Palestine and Syria.”) refugees of Spain established themselves among their co- religionists in that city in 1492, constructing a synagogue which they called “Khata’ib.” The anonymous author of the “Yihus ha-Abot” (1537; published by Uri b. Simeon in 1564) also speaks of the beauties of Damascus; and of the synagogue at Jobar, “half of which was constructed by Elisha, half by Eleazar b. ‘Arak ” (Carmoly, /.c. p. 457; com pare similar accounts by Raphael of Troyes and Azulai, 2b. p. 487). Elijah of Ferrara (1488) had come to Jerusalem and had a certain jurisdiction in rabbinical matters over Damascusas well. Hespeaksof a great plague which devastated Egypt, Syria, and Jerusalem; but he does not say in how far the Jews of the first- named city suffered (Carmoly, é.c. p. 333). Mena- hem Hayyim of Volterra visited Damascus in 1481, and found 450 Jewish families, “all rich, honored, and merchants.” The head of the community was a certain R. Joseph, a physician (“ Jerusalem,” i. 211). Obadiah of Bertinoro (1488) speaks in one of his letters of the riches of the Jews in Damascus, of the beautiful houses and gardens (ed. Neubauer, p. 380). A few years later (1495) an anonymous traveler speaks in like eulogistic terms (7d. p. 84). He lived Damascus with acertain Moses Makran, and he relates that the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 418 Joseph al-Sa’ih; Moses Najjarah, author of “Le- : oo. ; : ; | Damascene Jews dealt in dress-goods or engaged ia | kah Tob”; Hayyim Alshaich; Joseph Matalon; some handicraft. They lent money to the Venetians at 24 per cent interest. An anonymous Jewish traveler (see “Shibhe Yeru- shalayim,”51b; and Graetz, “ Hist.” Hebrew trausl., vii. 27) who arrived a few years after the Spanish im~- migration, found at Damascus 500 Jewish house- holds; also a Karaite community whose members called themselves “ Muallim-Sadakah”; and amore important Rabbinite community, composed of three groups and possessing three beautiful synagogues, One of these belonged to the Sephardim; another, to the Moriscos (Moorish Jews) or natives; and the third, to the Sicilians. In each synagogue there was a preacher, who read the works of Maimonides to the pious every day after the prayer. The preacher of the Sephardim was Ishak Mas‘ud, that of the na- tives Shem-Tob al-Furani, and that of the Sicilians Isaac Haber. There were also two small schools for young students of the Talmud, containing — re- spectively thir- ty and forty pu- pils. Sixty Jewish families were living in the vil- lage of Jobar, one mile from Damascus, who had avery beau- tiful synagogue, “J have never seen anything like it,” says the author; “it is supported by thirteen col- umns. ‘Tradi- tion says that it dates from the time of the prophet Elisha, and that he here anointed King Hazael [see also Sambari in Neubauer, “Med. Jew. Chron.” i. 152]. KR. Eleazar ben ‘Arak [tannaite of the first century] repaired this synagogue.” In order to in- dicate, finally, that the city was even then under the Ottoman rule, the narrator adds that the people of Damascus had just received a governor (“na’ib ”) from Constantinople. The “ Chronicle ” of Joseph Sambari (finished 1672) contains the names of a number of rabbis of note who lived here during the sixteenth century. He says that the Jewish community lived In the’ chiefly in Jobar, and he knows of Sixteenth the synagogue of Elisha and the Century. cave of Elijah the Tishbite. At the head of the community was a certain Abu Hasirah (so-called from a peculiar kind of headdress which he wore), who was followed by ‘Abd Allah ibn Nasir. Of the rabbis of Damascus proper he mentions Joseph Hayyat; Samuel Aripol, author of “Mizmor le-Todah”; Samuel ibn ‘Imran; Interior of a Damascus Synagogue, (After a photograph.) Abraham Galante (“Med. Jew. Chron.” i, 152). In this home of learning there was also a model-codex of the Bible called “Al-Taj” (the Crown; 7. p. 119). In 1547 Pierre Belon visited Damascus in the train of the French ambassador M. de Fuinel. He speaks of the large number of Jews there; but makes the singular confusion of placing in this city the events connected with the famous Ahmad Shaitan of Egypt (“ Revue Etudes Juives,” Xxvil. 129). Among the spiritual leaders of Damascus in the sixteenth century may be mentioned: Jacob Berab, who, in the interval between his sojourns in Egypt and at Safed, lived there for some years (¢. 15384) ; Hay- yim Vital the Calabrian (1526-1603), for many years chief rabbi of Damascus, and the author of various cabalistic works, including “FEz-Hayyim”; Samuel ben David the Karaite (not “Jemsel,” as Carmoly, “ Itine- raires,” op. 311, has it), who vis- ited Damascus in 1641, mentions the circumstauce that the Kara- ites there do not read the Uafta- rah after the Pentateuch sec- tion Ch. p. 526; but see Zunz, “Titus,” p. 56). Moses Nagara; his son, the poet Israel Nagara; and Moses Ga- lante («died in 1608), the son of Mordecai Ga- lante, were also among the prominent men of the sixteenth cen- tury. The most celebrated rabbis of the seven- teenth century were Josiah Pinto, a pupil of Jacob Abulafia, and author of the “ Kesef-Nibhar” (“Med. Jew. Chron.” i. 153; “Kore ha-Dorot,” 49b), and his son-in-law, Samuel Vital, who trans- cribed and circulated a large number of his fa- ther’s cabalistic manuscripts. During the cighteenth century nothing important is known of the com- munity. Some information is obtainable from travelers who visited Damascus during the nineteenth century. Alfred von Kremer, in “ Mittel-Syrien Inthe und Damaskus” (1853), states that in Nineteenth the municipal government of the city Century. two Christiansand one Jew had places; the number of Jews was 4,000, only 1,000 of whom, however, paid the poll-tax; the last Karaite had died there some fifty years previously, the Karaite synagogue being then sold to the Greeks, who turned it intoa church (“ Monatsschrift,” iii, 75). Benjamin II. gives the same number of inhabitants. 419 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Damascus He describes the synagogue at Jobar (to the north- | was appointed by an imperial decree in 1883 (still in east of the city) thus: oftice in 1901). During the nineteenth century the Jews of Damas- cus were several times made the victims of calum- nies, the gravest being those of 1840 and 1860, in the reign of the sultan ‘Abd al-Majid. That of 1840, commonly known as the Damascts AFFAIR, Was an accusation of ritual murder brought against the Jewsin connection with the death of Father Thomas, The second accusation brought against the Jews, in 1860, was that of having taken part in the massacre of the Christian Maronites by the Druses and the Mohammedans. Five hundred of the last named, geen eestor — Mosque Moawiah; the interior is supported by 18 marble pil- lars, six on the right and seven on the left side, and is every- where inlaid with marble. There is only one portal by which to ehter. Under the holy shrine ... isa grotto... the de- scent to Which is by a flight of about 20 steps. According to the Jews, the Prophet Elisha is said to have found in this grotto a place of refuge.... At the entranee of the synagogue, toward the middie of the wall to the right, is an irregularly formed stone, on Which can be observed the traces of several steps. Tradition asserts that upon this step sat King Hazael when the Prophet Elisha anointed him king” (“ Eight Years “The structure of this ancient building reminds one of the in Asia and Afriea,”’ pp. 41 et seq.). | COURT-YARD OF A JEWISH RESIDENCE AT DAMASCUS. (From a photograph by Bonfils.) Benjamin IJ. also speaks of valuable copies of | who had been involved in theaffair, were hanged by parts of the Bible to be found in Damascus; though | the grand vizier Fuad Pasha. Two hundred Jews the dates he gives (581 and 989) are unreliable. | were awaiting the same fate, in spite of their inno- Neubauer mentions a copy of the Bible which be- | cence, and the whole Jewish community had been longed to Elisha ben Abraham b. Benvenisti, called | fined 4,000,000 piasters. The condemned Jews were “Crescas,” and which was finished in 1382 (“ Med. | saved only by the official intervention of Fuad Pasha Jew. Chron.” i. 21). himself; that of the Prussian consul, Dr. Wetzstein ; Damascus has had eight chief rabbis during the | of Sir Moses Montefiore of London, and of the bank- last hundred years, namely: (1) Joseph David Abu- | ers Abraham Camondo of Constantinople and She- lafia (1809-16). (2) Jacob Antebi (1816-1833). (8) | maya Angel of Damascus. From that time even Jacob Perez (1833-48), (4) Aaron Bagdadi (1848-66). | down to the present day, blood accusations have (During the next two years the office of chief rabbi | several times been brought against the Jews; these, Was vacant, owing to internal quarrels.) (5) Hay- | however, have never provoked any great excite- yim Kimhi of Constantinople (1868-72). (6) Mer- | ment. cado Kilhi of Nish (1872-76). (7) Isaac Abulafia The present Jewish community of Damascus num- (1876-88). (8) Solomon Eliezer Alfandari, commonly | bers 11,000 (though in 1894 Socin-Benzinger, in Bae- called “ Mercado Alfandari” of Constantinople, who | deker’s “Palestine,” 2d ed., estimated their num- Damascus Damrosch ber as 6,320) persons in a total population of 160,000 inhabitants. It has eight synagogues, be- sides the ancient one of Jobar; several Situation of them, according to local traditions, in 1901. date from the sixteenth century. The entire administration of the commu- nity is concentrated in the hands of the chief rabbi, his secretary, and some rabbis. Twice a year, at Passover and at Sukkot, all the families are taxed by the chief rabbi in proportion to their means, and the revenues are collected accordingly. This sum is used to defray the salaries of the chief rabbi, the rabbis who study the Talmud at the yeshibah, and the slaughterers at the butcher-shops; also to re- lieve the poor of the community. The chief rabbi (“hakam bashi”) represents the community in af- fairs with the government. There is alsoa spiritual chief to decide in religious questions, the incumbent in 1901 being Isaac Abulafia. On the peculiarities of the ritual, which Damascus has in common with other Syrian communities, see Zunz, “ Ritus,” pp. 55, 56. There are four Jewish benevolent socicties in Da- mascus: (1) “ Ahe-Iizer ” (mutual help), distributing money and food to the needy Jews of the city; (2) “Yishma‘ Yisrael,” furnishing dowries for poor young girls; (3) “Bikkur Holim,” for relief of the sick poor; (4) the Ladies’ Society, helping indigent families and women in childbirth. The majority of the Jewish population are en- gagedas engravers on copper and wood, or as weav- ers, carpenters, and smiths. There are a few bank- ers and some small merchants. Four or five Jews are employed in the government offices, among them being Jacob Ades Effendi, inspector-general of real estate on the civil list in the vilayet of Damascus. But the mass of the population lives in misery. The members of the rabbinate, who form a kind of cor- poration, study in the yeshibot or in libraries belong- ing to pious families. Isaac Abulafia, the spiritual leader, is the only rabbinical author of the present time. Of the eight works which he has written, five are entitled “Pene-Yizhak”; one, “ Leb-Nishbar”; and two are collections of discourses. Some of these books are still in manuscript. Aside from the synagogues mentioned above, there is a yeshibah containing many books and an ancient genizah. In 1880 the Alliance Israélite Uni- verselle founded a boys’ school (which in 1899 had 229 pupils on its roll), and in 1883 a school for girls (298 on the roll in 1899). Two of the most impor- tant Talmud Torahs are now under the supervision of the Alliance: in 1899 they had 419 on their rolls. The Anglo-Jewish Association also contributes to the support of all these schools. In 1902 a dispensary for the Jews was opened in Damascus by Edward D. Stern of London (“Jew. Chron.” Jan. 2, 1908, p. 24). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ndéldeke, in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, s.v.: Robinson, Neuere Biblische Forschungen, pp. 578 et seq.; Porter, Five Years in Damascus, 1855; Baedeker, Paldstina und Syrien, pp. 329 et sey.; Kremer, Topographie von Damaskus, in Schriften der Wiener Akademie, Phil.- Hist. Classe, v., vi.; Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Votlkes, iii. 117 e€ seq. G. M. Fr.—G. DAMASCUS AFFAIR: Accusation of ritual murder brought against the Jews of Damascus in THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 420 1840. At that time Damascus, together with Syr- ia, belonged to Mohammed Ali, pasha of Egypt, who had revolted against the authority of his suze- rain, the sultan Mahmud of Constantinople. The governor of Damascus was an Egyptian Arab, Sherif Pasha by name. On Feb. 5, 1840, Father Thomas, originally from Sardinia, and the superior of a Franciscan convent at Damascus, disappeared with his servant. Thig monk, who practised medicine, was very well known in the Jewish and Mohammedan quarters, as well as among the Christians. Some days previous he had had a dispute with a Turkish muleteer, who had heard him blaspheme Mohammed, whereupon the Turk is reported to have said: “That dog ofa Christian shall die by my hand.” Upon Thomas’ disappearance the French consul at Damascus, Ratti Menton, who was an enemy to the Jews, following the advice of certain monks, instituted investiga- tions in the Jewish quarter; and the governor, Sherif Pasha, pretending to act merely in accordance with the friendly relations existing between the governments of Louis Philippe and Mohammed Ali, aided the French consul in a culpable way. A con- fession was extorted by torture from a Jewish bar- ber named Negrin, and eight of the most notable Jews, among them Joseph Lafiado, Moses Abulafia, and Farhi, were imprisoned and tortured. Their teeth and beards were pulled out, they were burned, and finally tempted with gold, to persuade them to confess an imaginary crime. Lafiado, a feeble old man, died under this treatment. Moses Abulafia be- came a Mohammedan in order to escape the torture. In spite of the stoic courage displayed by the suf- ferers, Sherif Pasha and Ratti Menton agreed on the guilt of the accused in view of the words resem- bling a confession that had escaped them in their agony. While Ratti Menton published libels against the Jews in French and in Arabic, Sherif Pasha wrote to his master, Mohammed Ali, demanding authori- zation to execute the murderers of Father Thomas. in the mean time the populace fell upon the syna- gogue in the suburb of Jobar, pillaged it, and de- stroyed the scrolls of the Law. The Jewish communities of Europe were appealed to, and public meetings were held in London, Paris, and even New York and Philadelphia. Especially important was a meeting called by the lord mayor of London at the Mansion House, London, July 8, 1840. Asaresult the lawyer Isaac Crémieux and the Orientalist Salomon Munk from France, and Sir Moses Montefiore from England were sent as me- diators to Alexandria to plead with the khedive. They arrived at Alexandria Aug. 4,and after repeated interviews with Mohammed Ali, obtained from him, on Aug. 28, the unconditional release and rec- ognition of the innocence of the nine prisoners who still remained alive of the thirteen imprisoned. They then went to Constantinople, and obtained from the sultan Majid a firman declaring the accu- sation of ritual murder to be absurd (see BLooD AccusaTIoNn). The Austrian consul at Damascus, Merlatto, and the Austrian consul-general at Alex- andria defended the rights of the Jews during all the incidents arising in this celebrated case. It was in part the Damascus affair which suggested to 421 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Damascus Damrosch A some French Jews later the idea of founding the Alliance Israélite Universelle, BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. G. Lowenstein, Damassia, 1840; Stimmen Bertihmter Christen, 1841; Persecution Contre les Juifs de Damas, Paris, 1840; D. Salomons, An Account of the Re- cent Persecution of the Jews at Damascus, London, 1840; Persecution of the Jews in the East, Philadelphia, 1840; Jost, Gesch. der Israeliten, xi. 845-381; Copies of Letters Received from Sir Moses Montefiore, 3 issues, 1840; Graetz, History of the Jews, v. 632-661, D. M. Fr. DAMIANI, PETER: Italian prelate; born at Ravenua 1007; died at Faenza 1072. About 1035 he entered the convent of Fonte Avellana near Gubbio, of which he became abbot. Together with Hilde- brand, subsequently Pope Gregory VII., and Abbot Desiderius of Monte Casino, Damiani belonged to the most zealous champions of Church reform. In 1057 he was appointed Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. At the instance of an Egyptian ecclesiastic, Hones- tus, he wrote two small controversial pamphlets to serve as a guide in religious disputationsagainst the Jews, although he himself had no taste for such polemics. In the first of these pamphlets, “ Antilogus Contra Judeos,” he sought, by means of numerous passages from the Old Testament, such as those relating to the Creation, the building of the Tower of Babel, the triple priestly benediction, the thrice-repeated “Holy,” and the Messianic passages, to prove the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, the Messiah, and the divine sonship of Jesus. In the second, enti- tled “ Dialogus Inter Judzeum Requirentem et Chris- tiannm e Contrario Respondentem,” he endeavored to refute—by claiming that all of the laws referred to are to be interpreted spiritually—the objection raised by the Jews that the Christians fail to observe the ceremonial law, although Jesus declared that he came to fulfil that law. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 8S. Petri Damiani, Opera, in Migne’s Patro- logia, second series, 1853; exlv., Neukireh, Das Leben des Petrus Damiani; Kleinermanns, Der Heilige Petrus Da- miant; Vogelstein and Rieger, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, i. 267 et seq. G. H. V. DAMPIERRE (Hebr. 104, 83°52, or NV): Village of Champagne, in the department of the Aube, France; not to be confounded with “Dom- paire,” Vosges, as is sometimes done (Zunz, “Z.G.”p. 33, and Renan-Neubauer, “ Les Rabbins Francais,” p. 444). In the Middle Ages there was a somewhat important Jewish community in this village. King Philippe-Auguste, after an agreement with the Countess of Champagne, and Gui, Seigneur of Dam- pierre, in 1206, ordered the Jews to aflix a special seal to the documents recording their loans, and for- bade them to lend money on holy vessels or on the | lands of the Church. During the years 1212, 1220, and 1225 the Jews had among their debtors the seig- heurs of Dampierre and the abbey of Saint-Loup of Troyes, Rabbis: (1) Isaac ben Samuel the Elder, abbrevi- ated *"5, surnamed “the Saint” (1120-95); (2) his Son Elhanan, martyred in 1184; (8) Joseph ben Sim- ton; (4) Isaac ben Abraham, abbreviated 4° or NIN, called sometimes “Isaac the Younger ” to dis- Unguish him from Isaac ben Samuel; (5) Isaac ha- Laban ben Jacob. BIBLIOGRAPHY ; Brussel, Usage Général des Fiefs, vol.i., book 2, ch. 89; compare Rev. Et. Juives, ti. 247, iv. 213; Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. 160. G. S. K. DAMROSCH, LEOPOLD: German-American violinist and conductor; born at Posen, Prussia, Oct. 22, 18382; died in New York Feb. 18, 1885. He commenced to learn the violin at the age of nine, but owing to his parents’ opposition, who wished him to study medicine, he was compelled to study in the house of friends. In 1851 he entered Berlin Univer- sity, where he studied medicine, and was graduated with high honors three yearslater. He then returned to Posen, and soon forsook medicine in order to devote himself entirely to music. In 1856 he appeared at Magdeburg as a Violin virtuoso, and afterward made a tour of the chief cities of Europe. He was one of the famous band who sat under Liszt at Weimar. Liszt made him solo violinist in the ducal orchestra, and dedicated “ Tasso ” to him, a distinction conferred only upon two other musicians, Wagner and Berlioz. In 1858 Damrosch married Helene von Heimburg, asinger of talent. Henow became director of music at the Stadttheater in Posen, where he remained until 1866, when he accepted the position of director of the Philharmonic Concerts at Breslau. Here he or- ganized a symphony society with an orchestra of eighty members. The society gave twelve annual concerts, and many eminent artists appeared among the performers. Damrosch also established a choral society, and gave recitals as a soloist. In 1871 Damrosch was invited by the New York Arion Society to become its conductor. He went to America and soon became very successful both as a violinist and asconductor of his own compositions. In 1873 he organized a musical choir. Morris Reno and some twelve other lovers of music met at Dam- rosch’s house and formally pledged themselves to become musical missionaries. Trinity Chapel was secured for a study-room, and on Dec. 3, 1873, was given the first concert of the Oratorio Socicty, with choir numbering 50 to 60. By the following May the society was able to produce Handel’s oratorio “Samson ” at Steinway Hall. For five years Damrosch worked gratuitously for the Oratorio Society (at the time of his death it had a membership of 500, and ranked among the leading choruses of the world). In 1876 Damrosch became conductor of the Philharmonic Society, and in the fol- lowing year, yielding that place to Theodore Thomas, founded the Symphony Society of New York. In 1880 he received the degree of doctor of music from Columbia College. The next year he planned the great musical festival which was held at the Seventh Regiment Armory, with a chorus of 1,200 voices and an orchestra of 250 instruments. But his crowning success was in 1884, when he successfully estab- lished German opera at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York. On the failure of that theater to secure an Italian troupe, he went, to Germany, and in five weeks brought back a number of artists, who constituted the famous company which first estab- lished German operain America. Damrosch not only personally directed each opera, but at the same time continued his work as director of the Oratorio and Symphony societies. His health broke down under Dan THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 422 the strain, and he died of pneumonia in the follow- ing year. Damrosch was one of the great conductors of modern times, and no man, except possibly Theo- dore Thomas, contributed so largely to the cultiva- tion of good music in America. He was a devotee of Wagner. His works include: seven cantatas; symphony in A; the music to Schiller’s “Joan of Arce”; an opera, “Sulamith”; and many other pieces. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ritter, Music in America, pp. 352, 356; Rie- mann, Musik-Lexikon, s.v.; Baker, Biographical Dict. of Musicians, New York, 1900, s.y. A. V.E. DAN.—Biblical Data: 1. The name of Jacob’s fifth son (Gen, xxx. 6), whose mother was Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden (2b. xxx. 38, xxxv. 25). He was therefore a full brother of Naphtali (xxx. 8). Dan’s name occurs also in Gen. xlix. 16 ef seq.; Judges xviii. 29; I Chron. ii. 2, and in all the pas- sages where his sons are mentioned (Gen. x]vi. 23 e¢ seq.). 2. “Dan” designates one of the twelve tribes of Israel, both in poetic (Deut. xxxiii. 22; Judges v. 17) and in prose passages (Num. i, 12; ii. 25, 31; Deut. xxvii. 18; Judges xiii. 25, xviii. The Tribe. 12; Ezek. xlviii. 1, 32 et seg.; I Chron. xxvii. 22; II Chron. ii. 18); but it generally occurs in combinations such as “the sons of Dan” (Num. i. 88, ii. 25, vii. 66, x. 25, xxvi. 42; Josh. xix. 47), “the generations of Dan” (Num. xxvi. 42), “the tribe of the sons of Dan” (Num. xxxiv. 22; Josh. xix. 40, 48), or, simply, “the tribe of Dan” (Ex. xxxi. 6, xxxv. 34, xxxviii. 23; Lev. xxiv. 11; Num.i. 39, xiii. 12; Josh. xxi. 5, 28). The following are detached details from the history of the tribe given in the Old Testament. The artist Aholiab or Oholiab, who took part in the construc- tion of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 6, xxxv. 34, xxxviii. 23), was a member of this tribe, as was also the mother of a man who blasphemed the name of Yuwu (Lev. xxiv. 11). At the time of Moses, Dan is represented as one of the larger tribes of the chil- dren of Israel, and as numbering 62,700 men of twenty years of age and upward (Num. i. 39, ii. 26). Somewhat later, when the tribe of Benjamin, for instance, is reported as having only 35,400 (Num. i. 37) or 45,600 men (2b. xxvi. 41), the num- ber in the tribe of Dan is given as 64,400 (75. xxvi. 43). Its men able to bear arms were among the three tribes (Dan, Asher, and Naphtali) whose army in the wilderness of Sinai covered the northern flank (Num. ii. 25-31, x. 25-27). Ammiel, one of the twelve spies (2b. xiii. 12), belonged to Dan; and its prince was Bukki (¢b. xxxiv. 22). On en- tering Canaan the representatives of Dan, together with those of Reuben. Gad, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali, took their position on Ebal, the mount of the curse (Deut. xxvii. 18). In Moses’ blessing Dan is characterized as “a lion’s whelp: he shall leap from Bashan” (7). xxxiii. 22). The latter clause, however, does not fit Dan, since that tribe did not live in the well-known plain of Bashan east of the Jordan. The land assigned to the tribe of Dan was in western Canaan, its several cities and boundaries being enumerated in Josh. xix. 40-46. Noteworthy among the cities are Zorah, Eshtaol, Thimnathah or Timnah, Ajalon (near which was fought the famous battle described in Josh x. 12), and Ekron, which is found in the cuneiform inscriptions as The “Amkarruna.” On the north the ter- Territory. ritory of Dan ended opposite Joppa, the modern Jaffa, This territory, not very extensive originally, was soon diminished by its dangerous neighbors, the Philistines. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Danites had great dif- ficulty in conquering the country that had been as- signed to them (Josh. xix. 47; Judges xviii. 1). Accordingly, they sent a deputation to find a dis- trict suitable for the reception of a part of the tribe. This was found in the vicinity of the city of Laish (Judges xviii. 7-27; see below, 3). Another indica- tion that the tribe of Dan was harassed is found in the sentence “Why did Dan remain in ships?” (Judges v. 17). This probably had reference to the fact that members of the tribe of Dan had enlisted on the ships of the Phenicians (see Budde, “ Kurzer Handcommentar,” 1897, and Nowack, “ Handcom- mentar,” 1900). The distress of Dan increased when, toward the end of the period of the Israelitish judges, the Phi- listines, receiving reenforcements from their former home (Guthe, “Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” 1899, p. 65), endeavored to invade the middie territories of Canaan (Josephus, “Ant.” v. 8,§ 1). Then help arose for Dan in the person of the hero Samson (Judges xiii. 2-xvi. 31), whose work was brilliantly continued by Samuel (I Sam. vii. 11), and then by David and other kings. This explains why the tribe of Dan is mentioned in the accounts of David (I Chron. xxvii. 22) and Solomon (IJ Chron. ii. 18), and in later times (Ezek. xviii. 1, 2, 32). 3. The later designation for the Canaanite city Laish (Judges xviii. 7, 14, 27, 29) or Leshem (Josh. xix. 47), the latter name being probably derived from “Lesham.” The city lay in a deep valley near Beth-rehob (Judges xviii. 28), on the northern fron- tier of Palestine, at the place where “men come to Hamath” (Num. xiii. 21), According to Josephus (“Ant.” v. 8, § 1), it was not far from the sources of the lesser Jordan, and, according to the “QOno- mastica Sacra” (s.0. “Dan”), three or four Roman miles from Paneas. In the Book of Enoch (xiii. 7) it is said that “ Dan lay south of the western side of Mt. Hermon.” Originally inhabited by Canaanites, it was captured bya part of the tribe of Dan, whose territory in southwestern Palestine was invaded by the Philistines (Josh, xix. 47; Judges xviii. 1 et seq.), and who named it after their tribal ancestor (Josh. xix. 47). The mention of the name of Dan asearly as the time of Abraham and Moses(Gen. xiv.14; Deut. XXXiv. 1) is therefore anticipated by the later chron- icler (compare “Beth-el” in Gen. xii. 8 and xxviii. 19). Consequently there is no reason to assume, from Gen. xiv. 14 and Deut. xxxiv. 1, the existence of another city of Dan, The place seems to be identical with Dan-jaan (II Sam. xxiv. 6), which was situated east of the Lake of Gennesaret toward Sidon; and as this was the route on which Laish-Dan lay (Judges xviii. 7, 29), it is probable that “Dan-jaan” is a corruption of 423 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dan ¢Dan-jaar” (Dan in the wood), and that this was merely an occasional designation of the city of Dan. The place is often mentioned in the phrases “ from Dan even to Beer-sheba” (Judges xx. 1; I Sam. iii, 20; Il Sam. iii. 10; xvii. 11; xxiv. 2, 15; I Kings iv. 25; Amos vill. 14) and “from Beer-sheba even to Dan” (I Chron, xxi. 2; IJ Chron. xxx. 5); while in Jer. iv. 15 and viii. 16 it is mentioned as a northern frontier town of Palestine. Dan is also referred to in connection with the ritual; for, according to Judges xviii. 31, a graven image stood there up to the time of the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh, which sanctuary is men- tioned for the last timein ISam.iv.12. Jeroboam I. set up at Dan one of the two golden calves which he intended as symbols for Yuwu (I Kings xii. 29). Many persons of the northern tribes of Israel, there- fore, made pilgrimages to Dan (Amos viii. 14; TI Kings x.29); but the city soon fell into the hands of Israel’s northern enemies (I Kings xv. 20; II Chron. xvi. 4). A hill near the valley in which lay the ancient city of Dan is to-day called “ Tall al-Kadi ”—7.¢., “ Hill of the Judge”—the name being, perhaps, a reminiscence of the name Dan = “ judge.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 1. 124, 146; Cornill, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 1898, p. 32; Guthe, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 1899, pp. 5 et seq.; Winckler, Gesch. Isr. in Einzeldarstellungen, 1900, ii. 63 et seg.; Holzinger on Gen. xxx. 24,in Kurzer Handcommentar, 1898; Gunkel on Gen. Xxix. 23, in Handcommentar, 1901; Cheyne, in Eneye. Bibl. s.v. Dan; Buhl, Geographie des Alten Paliistinas, 1896, $ 124. E. G. H. EE. K. ——-In Rabbinical and Hellenistic Literature: Dan plays a peculiar réle in rabbinical tradition. Owing to the fact that his name, as the name of a tribe, is connected with the blasphemer (Lev. xxiv. 11), and with the idolatry of northern Israel (Judges xviii. 30; I Kings xit. 29; Amos viii. 14), while Sam- son, the judge ot the tribe of Dan, proved faithless to his nazirate (Judges xiii. 2), Dan came to be regarded as the black sheep of the house of Jacob. His hatred of Joseph, because he brought to his father evil reports against the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, induced him to plot against Joseph’s life, and he advised the brothers to deceive their father by telling that they had found the coat of Joseph dipped in blood (Test. Patr., Zebulon, 4; Dan, 1; Gad, 1). Dan and Gad were in league with the crown prince of Egypt against Joseph and Asenath (see ASENATH, PRAYER OF). As early as the days of Moses the tribe of Dan worshiped idols, wherefore the pillar of cloud failed to protect it, and consequently Amalek smote Dan, who was the “hindmost” and “feeble” because “he feared not God” (Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxv. 18; Pesik. iii. 27b; Pesik. R. xii.; Tan., Ki Teze). Be- ing “the rearward of all the camps” (Num. x. 25), Dan fell a victim to “the fire that devoured the ut- termost part of the camp because of the idol which provoked the anger of the Lord” (Targ. Yer. to Num. xi. 1, Hebr.). It wasalso Dan’s idolatry which induced Balaam to order altar and sacrifices for the defeat of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxii. 41, Xxiii. 1). Dan's idolatry restrained Abraham in his march against the Babylonian kings (Gen. xiv. 15; Gen. R. xliii.) and appalled Moses in his vision of the future (Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxiv.1; Sifre, Debarim, 357). The children of Dan taught their sons the idolatrous Amorite practises contained in the books hidden under Mount Abarim (Gaster, “ Chronicles of Jerahmeel,” 1899, p. 167). Jacob’s blessing of Dan, in which he is compared to a serpent (Gen. xlix. 16-18), is referred to Samson (Gen. R. xcviii.), and the serpent is said to have been made the emblem of the tribe on its standard (Num. R. ii.). But Dan became the very type of evil-doing. He was placed to the north (Num. ii. 25), this being the region of darkness and evil (Jer. i. 14), Dan, Type because of his idolatry which wrapped of the world in darkness (Num. R. ii.). Antichrist. Still further goes a tradition which identifies the serpent and the lion (Gen. xlix. 17and Deut. xxxiii. 22) with BELIAL (see the lit- erature in Bousset’s “ Antichrist,” 1895, pp. 87, 118). Jrenzeus (“ Adversus Heereses,” v. 302), Hippolytus (“De Christo et Antichristo,” pp. 14, 15), and other Church fathers have a tradition, which can not but be of Jewish origin, that the ANTICHRIST comes from the tribe of Dan, and base it upon Jer. viii. 16: “The snorting of his [the enemy’s] horses was heard from Dan”—a verse referred also in Gen. R. xliii. to Dan’s idolatry. JIrenzus remarks that Dan is, in view of this tradition, not in the Apocalypse (Rev. vii, 5-7) among the 144,000 saved ones of the twelve tribes. Nor is the omission of Dan in I Chron. iv. et seq. unintentional. Bousset, who has a special chapter devoted to the Dan Antichrist legend (Z.c. pp. 112-115), believes that the connection of Dan with Belial in Test. Patr., Dan, 5 points to the same tradition. This seems to find corroboration in Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxiv. 3, where the war against Ahriman ( pido) and Gog or Magog in the vision of Moses seems to refer to Dan, 1 (compare Sifre, J.c. to INNA O71; see also Dan and TEN TRIBES, THE Lost.) K. ——Critical View: Kuenen (“Theologisch Tijd- schrift,” v. 291) and others after him, such as Cheyne (“Encye. Bibl.” s.v.), have argued that “Dan” is the title of a deity. In the etymology adduced in the explanatory remarks attributed to Rachel (Gen. xxx. 6) nothing is said about the character of the child. The judgment referred to is by God, and is passed upon Rachel. The reference to the name “Daniel” and to the cuneiform name of a king, “ Ashur-dan,” In support of the critical view has not been regarded by conservative scholars as suffi- cient to prove the contention in issue. Still, the analogy with other names, both tribal (GAD) and per- sonal, is strongly in favor of the views advanced by Kuenen and his successors. “ Daniel,” in all proba- bility, means “Danis El” (compare “ Eliyahu ”) and not “God is my judge”; and “ Ashur-dan ” is also a combination of two names of deities. The personal existence of a son of Jacob bearing the name “Dan” has also been denied by modern scholars. This is in accord with the general doubt cast on the patriarchal biographies and genealogies. It is contended that no clan or tribe ever sprang from one ancestor, While among the tribes one of Dan Ashkenazi Dancing the name of Dan may have existed, the designation is that of an eponym, assumed after the tribe had come to reflect upon its own origin and its relations to other tribes (Cornill, “ History of Israel,” p. 32; Stade, “ Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” i. 124, 146; Guthe, “Gesch. des Volkes Israel,” pp. 5 et seg.; Holzinger, “Kurzer Handcommentar,” on Gen. xxx. 24; Gun- kel, “ Handcommentar,” on Gen. xxix. 85; Cheyne, in “Encyc. Bibl.” cols. 992 e¢ seq.). The assumption that Dan was the son of Rachel’s handmaid, Bilhah, whose other son was Naphtali, signifies, according to the modern view of the ideas underlying such genealogies, that the tribe of Dan recognized a closer geographical or historical connec- tion with that of Naphtali, in common with which it was regarded, or regarded itself, as somehow in a position subordinate to the tribes that traced their descent directly through Rachel from Jacob. The universal applicability of this principle has been doubted by Konig (“Bibelkritisches,” 1902). In the case of Dan, tradition furnishes only scant ma- terial by which to test the theory. Yet, as the gene- alogies and biographies of other tribal eponyms ap- pear to justify the general principle, there is no reason, from the point of view of the critical school, to question its applicability to Dan (see TRIBEs, THE TWELVE). KE. G. H. DAN ASHKENAZI: German Talmudist and exegete; flourished in the second half of the thir- teenth century. Dan, who was one of the most prominent Talmudists of Germany and the teacher of Mordecai ben Hillel, emigrated to Spain toward the end of the thirteenth century, probably in con- sequence of the cruel persecutions to which the Jews of Germany were subjected at that time, when many were driven to seek asylum in other countries. In Spain, where he was called “ Ashkenazi” (Ger- man), he met the foremost rabbinical authorities, who thought highly of him. Dan, however, was so imprudent as to give a letter of recommendation to a youth who pretended to be a prophet (compare ABRAHAM OF AVILA); and when the latter turned it to account, Solomon Adret cast scorn upon the German rabbi in his circular letter on the psendo- prophet (Adret’s Responsa, No. 548). Even before this occurrence the relations between these two men do not seem to have been very friendly, since Dan declared at Saragossa that, from the strict point of view of the Halakah, there could be no objection to the slaughtering of animals by Christians, as the reason given in the Talmud for forbidding the slaughtering of animals by pagans did not apply to Christians; for the pagan regarded the slaughtering as a sacrifice to his idols, while the same could not be said of the Christians (26. No. 529; but Dan’s reasons are not clearly stated). Dan, who was a person of much individuality, was misunderstood by many, and acts were as- cribed to him which he certainly did not commit (2d. No. 580). Adret’s five responsa (Nos. 1229-1233) show that Dan was not a man to be overlooked; Ad- ret’s successor as rabbi of Barcelona, Nissim b. Reu- ben, also recognizes Dan’s scholarship (Responsa, No. 82; ed. Rome, p. 72). Yom-Tob b. Abraham of Seville (RITBA) calls Dan “our teacher” (2d.), THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 424 although this did not prevent him from writing a pamphlet against Dan regarding their dispute over an important halakic question (RITBA to Yibum, 109). Dan wasalso very independent as anexegete; the fragments of his exegesis that have been preserved in manuscript, and also in the works of Bahya ben Asher and in the collection “Hadrat Zekenim ” (Leghorn, 1840), are highly interesting on account of their rationalism, which was not to be expected from one who had allowed himself to be misled by a false prophet. For instance, he interpreted abn, in Ex. xxiii. 20, as “messenger,” not “angel,” and supposed it to refer to Joshua. It iscurious to note that in the collection of responsa “ Besamim Rosh,” which Saul Berlin published as Asher b. Jehiel’s work, the statement is made that Dan wrote his Tefillin in Aramaic (No. 24). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael; 8. Eppenstein, in Rev. Et. Juives, xxxvii. 318; D. Kaufmann, R. Dan Aschke- nasi Exégete, in Rev. Et. Juives, xxxvi. 287-291; Perles, R Salomo b. Abraham, pp. 9, 683; Kohn, Mordechai b. Hillel, pp. 37, 38, L. G. DAN-JAAN : If the reading is correct, the name of a city mentioned only once in the Bible (II Sam. xxiv. 6). It was one of the places included in the route of Joab and his associates when they were sent out by David to number the people. Their route was eastward across the Jordan, northward through the trans-Jordanic tribes, westward to Sidon, passing Dan-jaan on the way, and southward as far as Beer- sheba. It is natural, then, to identify Dan, on the northern boundary of Israel, with Dan-jaan, al- though Conder, after Schultz, seeks to identify it with Danian near Achzib, For “Jaan” variousemen- dations have been proposed. Gesenius changes }y* into 43° (“Dan of the wood”). Wellhausen and, following him, Budde, Wittel, and Driver read JAAD p19) (“and from Dan they went round”). Klo- stermann and Gritz change jy" into py (Ton), a city mentioned in connection with Dan in I Kings xv. 20. E, G. H. G. B. LL. DANCING.—Biblical Data: Rhythmical and measured stepping to the accompaniment of music, singing, or the beating of drums. This exercise, generally expressive of joy, is found among all primitive peoples. It was originally incident to religious worship, or to the martial demonstrations of a tribe. It may be inferred, therefore, that dan- cing of this character obtained also among the ancient Hebrews. Their cognates, the Bedouin Arabs, at the present time indulge in wild dances of this kind (Doughty, “ Arabia Deserta,” i. 81), and in the rites of the hadj old religious dances have been preserved (Wellhausen, “ Reste Arabischen Heidentums,” 1st ed., pp. 106, 165). That dancing among the Hebrews was chiefly con- nected with demonstrations of joy is indicated by the use of the word pnw = pny, usually connoting “playing,” “sporting,” or “jesting ” Ter- (I Sam. xviii. 7; IT Sam. vi. 5, 21; minology. I Chron. xiii. 8, xv. 29; Jer. xxx. 19, xxxi. 4: gtonwy dino). That vio- lent motions of the feet, not a graceful gliding, char- acterized the dance appears from the verb 4p\, meaning originally “to leap like lambs,” used with the meaning of “to dance.” 425 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dan Ashkenazi Dancing i ae SSS ie Pe ee s5n9, in II Sam. vi. 14, 16, seems to indicate a round dance (compare I Chron. xv. 29), most likely the turning round and round upon the heels on one spot, as practised by the dervishes. The choric dance is denoted by Sinn sbnin, a derivative of On = “to writhe,” “to turn” (Lam. v. 15; Ps. xxx. 11, 12; Cant. vii. 1; Ex. xv. 20, xxxii.19; I Sam. xviii. 6 (Septuagint, “dancing women ”], xxi. 2, xxix. 5; Judges xi. 34, xxi. 21; Ps. Ixxxvii. 7). That the religious dance constituted the principal feature of every festival is shown by the history of the word sn (“Z. D. M. G.” xli. 719; Driver’s “ Notes on the Books of Samuel,” p. 178; Wellhausen, “ Israeli- tische und Jtidische Geschichte,” p. 101, Berlin, 1897; idem, “ Reste Arabischen Heidentums,”J/.c.). In the course of time it came to mean merely a festival, or one of the three pilgrim festivals, though its primitive connotation was a procession around the altar or shrine executed in a certain halting rhythm, whence the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hadj, has taken itsname. The term “pesah” recalls the same facts. It indicates this “limping ” dance (see Toy in “ Jour- nal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis,” xvi. 178 e¢ seg.); whence, also, the jibe in I Kings xviii. 26: “How long will you dance at two ‘ thresholds’ ” (Jas- trow’s emendation). These religious processional dances may have represented some mythological event, @ swaying to and fro of contending par- ties (see Jacob’s experience in Gen. xxxii. 29: “he limps ”). . The Biblical books have undoubtedly preserved the memory of religious dances in connection with the making of the golden calf, and at Religious the Red Seca (ix. xv. 20, xxxii. 19). Dances. The story of Jephthah’s daughter (Judges xi. 84) illustrates this custom, and suggests that it was a part of a very ancient sacrificial cult. In I Sam. xviii. 6, xxi. 11 women dance in honor of Saul and David. It seems that women were prominent in these choragic ceremo- nies. The “kedeshot ” attached to every sanctuary may even have been professional dancers. Ps. cxviii. 27 probably alludes to a procession of this kind in the puzzling phrase 3n DX. Post-exilic psalms evidence that processions of dancers to the sound of various musical instruments (flutes, trump- ets, timbrels, cymbals, drums) had a prominent share in religious celebrations (Ps. xxvi. 6, cxlix. 3, cl. 4 [Ixviii. 25: §. B. O. T.]). The request which was addressed to Phuraoh by Moses (Ex. x. 9) in- dicates that such processions were an old-estab- lished custom. As do the dervishes even at the present day (Tristram, “Eastern Customs,” pp. 207-210), so did the Prophets resort to dancing as a means of work- ing themselves up to the proper nervous pitch (I Sam. x. 10, 11; xix. 20-24). Their resulting exal- tution proved contagious, as do, according to Lane, oe mad contortions of the dancing dervishes to- ay. Dancing marked also tribal and family festivals. At Shiloh an annual feast was celebrated at which the maidens indulged in dancing (Judges xxi. 21), and it is more than probable that Abel-meholah (“the dancing meadow ”) owes its name to a similar usage (I Kings xix. 16), For the times of the Tal- mud a kind of “marriage dance,” such as is found in many modern children’s plays, is remembered (Ta‘an. iv. 8) as occurring on the Day Tribal of Atonement and on the fifteenth and Family day of Ab; and the theory that these Dances. “dances” aresurvivals of marriage by capture is not without reasonableness. The “torchlight procession ” which took place at the Festival of the Water-Drawing (R2NIwn M3 ANDY) Was particpated in by the most distinguished nota- bles (Suk. v. 1-4). In the days when Greek immoralities menaced the very existence of Judaism, dancing—especially by professional and probably lewd women—was looked upon with disfavor (Ecclus. [Sirach] ix. 4). The daughter of Herodias undoubtedly imitated and took the place of a professional dancer at the banquet (Matt. xiv. 6). From other Biblical passages it is clear that dancing was demanded on similar occa- sions (Jer. xxxi. 4,18). Lam. v.15; Eccl. iii. 4; and Ps. xxx. 11 indicate that the dance was considered an expression of joy. Some have urged Cant. vii. 1 in support cf the theory that a sort of square dance (“kimeholat ha-mahanayim”) was known to the Jews. Wetzstein identifies it with the sword-dance that still takes place at Eastern wedding-feasts. E. G. H. In Talmudic Times: In post-Biblical times dancing continued to be a favorite exercise on both religious and secular occasions. “The woman of sixty runs to the sound of music like the girl of six” (M. K. 9b). A feast was made complete by dancing, and noted scholars were in the habit of providing such entertainment for their guests (Ned. 51a). Dancing in honor of the bride at a wedding was deemed an act of piety, and sedate rabbis often vied with one another in its exercise. Thus, R. Judah b. ‘Ilai used to dance at weddings waving a myrtle branch (Ket. 17a). Moreover, the festive procession which in Biblical times made the periodical pilgrim- ages to Jerusalem sucha source of popular joy, forming the main feature in the observance of the great holidays, continued to fill with glee the high- ways of Palestine in Talmudic days. Franz De- litzsch properly uses a description of these jubilant ceremonies as an argument against these theorists who hold that the Law had rendered the life of the post-exilic Jews sad and gloomy, depriving their religious practises of spontaneity and joyfulness. The Mishnah, for instance, relates in how truly pop- ular a manner and with what accompaniment of genuine joy the men from the provinces were wont to bring the first-fruits to the Temple at Jerusalem. They did not come singly, as men bearing burdens, but in festive processions, with light, joyous, grate- ful hearts. ** All the villages of a district send their dwellers to the chief city of the district ; the pilgrims pass the night 1n the streets of the town, refraining from entering the houses, and at dawn the leader cries out: ‘ Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the house of our God!’ While on the march they sing choral psalms, *I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go unto the house of the Lord,” being the favorite refrain. When they reach Jerusa- lem they chant: *Our feet are standing within thy gates, O Jerusalem !° (Ps. exxii.). At the Temple mount they strike up: ‘Praise ye the Lord, praise God in his sanctuary!’ (Ps. cl.). and having reached the hall, they finish with ‘ Praise ye the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!’ (Ps. cxlvi.). The men from Dancing Daniel THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 426 the neighborhood bring fresh figs and grapes, and those from afar dried figs and grapes. And the ox of sacrifice goes before them, its horns embossed with gold and a crown of olive on its head. The flute is played a]l the while they are marching, until they come close upon Jerusalem. Then they send delegates to the city to offer their first-fruits. The foremost priests come out to meet them: according to the number of pilgrims is the priestly deputation. In Jerusalem all workinen in the streets pause in their work to greet the comers: * Be welcome, our brethren, men of such-and-such a town!’ And the flute still plays on be- fore them until they reach the mount of the sanctuary ”’ (Bik. iii. 2; Yer. ad loc.). The Talmud also contains traditions concerning the joyful manner in which the two national holi- days, the 15th of Ab (the Feast of Wood-Offering, or “Xylophorizx,” as Josephus calls it) and the Day of Atonement, were celebrated. Various causes, it appears, were held to have given birth to these two feasts; at any rate, they were generally observed. On those days the maidens of Israel were in the habit of going forth to the vineyards, each clad in well-washed white, and joining in the choral dances. They all appeared in borrowed gowns, so as not to shame the poor. The young men came and looked on, while the dancers sang appropriate songs. It would seem that brides were oftentimes chosen at these gatherings (Ta‘an. 80b). Similarly, there is a Talmudic tradition that “whoever has not witnessed the joy of the Festival of Water-Drawing has seen no joy in his life.” On those occasions, Festival on the night of the first day of the of Water- Feast of Tabernacles, huge assemblies Drawing. of people gathered in the women’s court of the Temple, bearing lamps of gold and vessels for water, while every house in Jerusalem was brightly illuminated. “ Pious men and men of affairs,” adds the tradition, “danced with torches in their hands, singing songs of joy and of praise, and the Levites made music with lyre and harp and cymbals and trumpets and countless other instruments” (Suk. 51a; Maimonides, “ Yad,” Lulab, viii. 12,18). Two galleries were built for the spectators, one for men and one for women. The celebration lasted all night and ended at dawn, an- nounced by blasts of trumpets, with the pouring of water upon the altar. The fondness of the ancient Jew for dancing is suggested in the hope naively expressed by R. Eleazar: “Some day the Holy One, blessed be He! will give a dance for the righteous, and He will sit among them in the Garden of Eden, and each one will point his finger at Him, saying, as it is written (Isa. xxv. 9), ‘Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation ’” (Ta‘an, end), It will be seen that dancing among the Jews pre- served its primitive character: a spontaneous expres- sion of joy rather than an esthetic pleasure. In both ancient and medieval times, therefore, it consisted of “gesticulations, violent leaps and bounds, hop- ping in a circle, rather than graceful pose, and soft, rhythmic movements.” The popularity of the amusement in the Middle Ages is attested by the spread of the dancing-hall, or “Tanzhaus,” which, for the use of both weddings and ordinary dances, was established in almost every ghetto of France and Germany. At first these halls, frequented es- pecially on Sabbaths and feast-days, witnessed little mixed dancing. But when the latter habit came into vogue, the Rabbis opposed it strenuously on ac- count of the license and the marital quarrels to which it led, citing in support the verse in Proverbs; “Wand to hand shall not go unpunished ” (xi. 21, Hebr.). The nearest relations alone, such as hus- band and wife, father and daughter, brother and sister, were exempted from the inhibition. Need- less to say, the rabbinic rule was often infringed by the bolder young men and women. That mixed dancing was not without its moral dangers was wit- nessed by the license which its prevalence engen- dered among the enthusiastic followers of Shabbethai Zebi. Occasionally, professional Jewish dancers oc- cur; for instance in the seventeenth century, when the sultan engaged Jewish fiddlers and dancers to perform at a banquet; and they are not infrequent in the modern Orient, more especially in Tunis. In these latter forms, of course, dancing has become a purely social diversion without any religious im- port; but the original significance of dancing as an expression of religious joy and fervor may yet be observed in the synagogues of Orthodox Jews on the Feast of Simhat Torah (“ Rejoicing of the Law”), where the primitive religious dance may be said to have survived. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Tristram, Eastern Customs, pp. 207 et seq.; Wetzstein, Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, 1873, pp. 285 et seq.; Benzinger, Arch. Index; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebrii- ischen Archidologie, i. 279; Wellhausen, Psalms, in S. B. O. T. Appendix; Schudt, Merckwtirdigkeiten, li. 5; Berliner, Aus dem Innern Lehen, p. 8; Gidemann, Gesch. des Er- ziehungswesens, iii. 188 et seq.; Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 75, 254, 3880 et seq.; Hamburger, R. B. T.1.977; Franz Delitzsch, Iris, pp. 189 et seg. (English trans.). Ss. S. H. G. E. DANHAUSER, ADOLPHE - LEOPOLD: French musician; born in Paris Feb. 26, 1885; died there June 9, 1896. He studied at the Paris Con- servatory under Bazin, Halévy, and Reber; took first prize in harmony (1857); first prize in fugue (1859); second Prix de Rome (1862). He became chief inspector of instruction in singing in the schools of Paris in 1875; afterward professor of sol- feggio at the Conservatory. He composed: “Le Proscrit,” a musical drama (produced at Auteuil in 1866); “ Maures et Castillans,” a three-act opera (not produced); several “ Mélodies Vocales”; “Soirées Orphéoniques” (collection of twelve choruses for three equal voices). He wrote a well-known text- book, “Théorie de la Musique” (1878); “ Abrégé de la Théorie de la Musique ” (1879); “Chants pour les Ecoles”; “Recueil de Petits Chants 4 Une Voix” (1888); “ Questionnaire, Appendice de la Théorie de la Musique” (1886). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Baker, Biog. Dict. of Musicians, s.v.; La- rousse, Dict. 24 Supplement, p. 986; La Grande Eneye. xiii. S.V. 8. N. D. DANIEL.—Biblical Data: In Hebrew (1) 509; (2) Gyesys. (1) The form without the * (see Masorah Magna to Ezek. xiv. 14) occurs in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20; XXvili. 3; also in a Palmyrene inscription (see De Vogué, “Syrie Centrale,” No. 93). The pronunciation “ Dani’el” (God is my Judge) is more probable than “Dan’el” (God is a Judge), because in consonance with the general structure of Hebrew names. It is 427 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dancing Daniel therefore probably correct to vocalize the consonants in the three places thus: Ss7n. (2) The hiatus be- tween the vowels “i” and “e” gave rise to the pro- uunciation “Daniyel” (58°24, Dan. i. 6), with the in- sertion of a consonantal '; compare “ Eli’ atah” (* Eliathah,” I Chron. xxv. 4) with “Eliyata” (verse 27; compare Konig, “ Historisch-Kritisches Lehrge- biude der Hebriiischen Sprache,” ii. 481 e¢ seg.). The name should be interpreted, in accordance with Gen. xxx. 6, as “God is the Defender of my right.” The following persons called “ Daniel” are men- tioned in the O. T.: 1. A-son of David by Abigail (I Chron. iti. 1); the parallel passage (II Sam. iii. 3) has “Chileab”; but this reading is perhaps a cor- ruption due to the fact that the last three letters of axb> are identical with the first three The Name lettersof the following word, basa, in the Old and the form in I Chron. iii. 1 is prob- Testament. ably correct. The forms of his name found in the Septuagint—Aasouea and Aapyvin?——support this view, in that they show the first letter of the name to be 4 (A). G. Kerber (in his “ Die Religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der Hebr. Eigennamen,” 1897, p. 86) combines the name “Kile’ab” with “Kaleb,” the name of the well- known companion of Joshua, and with “keleb” =dog. This, however, is a mere hy pothesis, and can not serve &s an argument for the name “ Kile’ab.” 2. Aman of extraordinary righteousness (Ezek. xiv. 14, 20) and wisdom (xxviii. 3), who appears to have been almost as well known as Noah and Job, with whom he is mentioned in both of the passages cited. 3. A priest of the sons of Ithamar (Ezra viii. 2). The parallel passage in the Greek Book of Ezra (viii. 29) has the forms T'auayA, Tauy2oc, and Tauaasya, which are evidently miswritings for dav. This priest returned with Ezra from Babylonia to Jerusa- lem in 458 B.c., and was one of those who sealed Israel’s covenant with God (Neh. x. 6). 4. The most important bearer of the name is the hero of the canonical Book of Daniel and of the ad- ditions found in the Septuagint. This Daniel was among the prisoners carried by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon after the capture of Jerusa- lem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim; he was also one of the young men instructed, by order of Nebuchadnezzar, in the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans (Dan. i. 3-4). No mention is made, however, of Daniel’s birthplace or family. It is not known whether he belonged to the family of the King of Israel or to that of an Israclitish maguate. Josephus (“ Ant.” x. 10, § 1) evidently inferred from Sanh. i. 8 that Daniel was a relation of King Zedekiah (joav Tov éx TOU Ledexiov yévouc téooapec), while Pseudo- Epiphanius, on the strength of the same passage, makes Daniel the scion of a noble Israelitish family (compare Prince, “ Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,” p. 25). The Chaldeans gave Daniel a new name derived from their own language; namely, “ Belteshazzar,” the Hebraized form of “Balatshu-uzur” (lit. “His Life Protect”). When requested to cat the food of the heathen, he asked that he and his Hebrew Descent of Daniel. friends might be given their own food, in keeping with the Law of their fathers. Daniel soon had an opportunity to reap the reward of his piety; for, in- spired by God, he interpreted King Nebuchadnez- zar’s dream, and the king in return made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief over all the wise men of Bab- ylon (Dan. ii. 48). Daniel distinguished himself a second time by interpreting another dream of Nebuchadnezzar (7d. iv.), and by deciphering the mysterious words “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Ufarsin ” (¢b. v. 25), Daniel retained his high position under Darius until his fellow dignitaries induced the king to issue a decree forbidding any one to ask anything of God, or of any man except the king, for a period of thirty days. When Daniel, nevertheless, continued to pray three times a day at an open window looking toward Jerusalem, he was cast into the lion’s den, but was rescued by his God and honored anew by the king. He retained his influence until the third year of Cyrus’ reign over Babylon (that is, up to 536 B.c.), and prophesied the future of God’s king- dom (28. i. 21, vi. 28, x. 1). E. @. H. E. K. ——In Rabbinical Literature: According to rabbinical tradition Daniel was of royal descent; and his fate, together with that of his three friends, Hananiah, Mishae], and Azariah, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah to King Hezekiah in these words, “and they shall be eunuchsin the palace of the king of Babylon” ({sa. xxxix. 7; compare Sanh. 93b; Pirke R. El. lii.; Origen, commentary to Mait. xv. 5; Jerome, commentary to Isaiah, é.c.). According to this view, Daniel and his friends were eunuchs, and were consequently able to prove the ground- lessness of charges of immorality brought against them, which had almost caused their death at the hands of the king. Even in his youth, when he convicted the false witnesses against the pious and beautiful Susanna, Daniel gave proof of that wis- dom (see Susanna, History oF) which afterward made him so famous that it was said of him, “If he were in one scale of the balance and ali the wise men of the heathens in the other, he would out- weigh them all” (see Yoma 77a). When the king Nebuchadnezzar heard Daniel reproduce the dream which he had, had he could not doubt the truthfulness of his interpretation (Tan., ed. Buber, 1. 191). Nebu- chadnezzar admired Daniel greatly, although the latter refused the proffered divine honors, thus dis- tinguishing himself favorably from his contempo- rary Hiram (the “ prince of Tyre,” in Ezek. xxviii.), who demanded honor as a god (Gen. R. xcvi.). Life at court was fraught with many dangers for the pious Daniel. In the first place he denied him- self much in the matter of food, since he would not partake of the wine and oil of the Nebuchad- heathens (‘Ab. Zarah 36a); and more nezzar’s than once he endangered his life by Idol. refusing to take part in the idolatry of the king. Daniel was not forced, as were his three friends, to worship the idol which Nebuchadnezzar set up; for the king, who well knew that Daniel would rather be cast. into the fiery furnace than commit idolatry, sent him away from Daniel’s Career. Daniel THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 428 Babylon in order that he might not be forced to con- demn his own god—namely, Daniel, whom he wor- shiped—to death by fire. Furthermore, it was God’s intention to cause the three men to be taken out of the furnace during the absence of Daniel, so that their rescue should not be ascribed to the merit of the latter (Sanh. 98a; compare also Cant. R. vii. 8, and AZARIAH IN RABBINICAL LITERATURE). Never- theless, the king endeavored to induce Daniel to wor- ship the idol by trying to make him believe that it was something alive and real; and he ordered that there be placed in its mouth the frontlet (“ziz”) of the high priest, on which was written the name of God ; and since this name possessed the miraculous power of enabling inanimate things to speak, the idol could utter the words “I am thy god.” Daniel, however, was not to be so easily deceived. Asking permission to kiss the idol on the mouth, he stepped before it and conjured the frontlet in the following words: “Although I am only a man of flesh and blood, yet I stand here as God’s messenger. Take care that God’s name is not desecrated by you, and thus I command you to follow me.” While he was kissing the idol the frontlet passed from the idol’s mouth into his. When Nebuchadnezzar, as usual, sent for musicians to give songs of praise to the idol, he noticed that Daniel had silenced it (Cant. R. vii. 9). On another occasion Daniel was strongly urged by King Cyrus to recognize Bel, whose divinity was evidenced by the fact that he ate up the sacrifices placed daily before him. This was reported by the priests, who entered the temple every night by a subterranean passage, ate the sacrifices, and then announced that the idol had eaten the offerings. Daniel exposed this fraud. He had ashes strewn on the floor of the temple, and on the following day he convinced the king that persons had entered the temple at night, by showing him the footprints in the ashes. At another time a dragon was worshiped by the Babylonians, and their king tried to make Daniel also worship it. Daniel boiled pitch, fat, and hair together and gave lumps of it to the dragon, which thereupon burst. Daniel’s success at court naturally excited the envy and ill will of the Babylonians, who gathered in a mob and threatened the king and In the his house if he did not deliver Daniel Lions’ Den. to them. The king was powerless to resist, and the people took Daniel and threw him into a den with seven famished lions. Daniel remained there unharmed for six days, being fed during that time by the prophet Habakkuk, whom an angel had in an instant transported from Judea to Babylon, holding him by the hair of his head. On the seventh day the king went to the den to bewail Daniel, and was astonished to find him alive. Praising God for the help accorded to His pious servant, the king ordered that Daniel should be drawn out of the den and that his accusers should be cast therein; and they were immediately de- voured by the wild beasts (see BEL AND THE DraGon). In like manner was Daniel delivered from lions in the reign of Darius. By the advice of Daniel this ruler had placed the affairs of the government in the hands of a board composed of three officials, with Daniel at their head. He was, therefore, the second after the king. His high position excited the envy of the other officials, who, in an underhand way, succeeded in inducing the king to signa decree forbidding any one, on pain of death, to pray to any god or man, except to the king (Yosippon, ed. Cracow, 1589, iii, Ta-7d). Although Daniel was not forced to sin in any way, he was prepared to sacri- fice his life rather than omit his prayers; hence it was easy for his enemies to convict him of having violated the royal order. While he was at prayer his enemies entered his room, and watched to see whether the accusations against him could be sub- stantiated, as the king didnot believethem. Daniel did not omit his “Minhah” prayer. Notwithstand- ing his friendship for Daniel, the king listened to the accusations of the nobles, and condemned him to be cast into the den of lions. The mouth of the den was closed with a huge stone, which had rolled of itself from Palestine to Babylon for that purpose. Upon this stone sat an angel in the shape of a lion, so that Daniel’s enemies might not harass him (Midr. Teh. xxiv., Ixvi.); and the beasts in the den received Daniel as faithful dogs might receive their returning master, wagging their tails and licking him (Yosippon, iii. 8b; Aphraates, “ Homilies,” ed. Wright, iv. 67). Early the next morning the king hastened to the den In order to learn Daniel’s fate, and called him by name; but he received no answer, as Daniel was just then reading the “Shema‘ ” (Midr. Teh. Ixvi.), after having spent the night in song of praise to God, to which the lions had silently listened (Yosippon, @.c.). Daniel’s enemies insisted that the lions were tame because they were not hungry, whereupon the king commanded that the accusers themselves spend a night with the beasts. Asa result the enemies of Daniel, numbering 122, with their wives and children, making a total of 366 persons, were torn by 1,469 lions (Midr. Teh. l.c.; in Yosippon [Z.c. 8c] this experience is attrib- uted to Habakkuk. The legend of the dragon is in any case probably only a later differentiation of the Biblical story in Dan. vi.). These miracles kept Daniel in favor with the king, who thereupon issued orders that the Jews should return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple. Daniel’s great age induced him to ask for his dis- missal from the king’s service; but his request was not granted until he had found a worthy successor in Zerubbabel, whom he recommended to the king for all the offices that he himself had filled. Daniel was then graciously dismissed with valuable pres- ents from the king, and went to Shushan, where he lived piously until his death (Yosippon, é.c. 9d-10a; but compare Cant. R., /.¢., according to which Daniel returned to Palestine at the command of Cyrus). Although Daniel was no prophet, God held him worthy to receive the revelation of the destiny of Israel, even to the Day of Judgment, thus distin- guishing him from his friends, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who had no visions (Dan. x. 7). Daniel, however, forgot the “end” (pp) re- vealed to him, after an angel had shown him every- thing (Gen. R. xeviii. 2), E, C. L. G. 429 THE JEWIMI ENCYCLOPEDIA Daniel ——In Arabic Literature: The Moslems consiler Daniel as a prophet, though he is not mentionec in the Koran. It was he who preached in Babylonan ‘Trak—that is to say, Chaldea—exhorting the peole to return to God. He lived during thereigns of:he Persian king Lahorasp and of Cyrus, and taurht these two princes the unity of God and the trucre- ligion. Tabari says (“ Chronique,” French tranla- tion of Zotenberg, i. 44) that thousands of peole who had dicd ina certain town from an epidenic were resuscitated a thousand years Jater by ‘he prayer of Danicl, a legend probably borrowed fom Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10. When Daniel had become a noted prophet, Cyrus made hiin the chief of all hig kingdom in order that he might teach his people the true religion. The prophet asked the king to let him go back to Palestine and build the Tem- ple. Cyrus con- sented to the re- construction of the sanctuary, but refused tolet him go, saying, “Tf [ hadathou- sand prophets like thee, I should have them all stay withme.” There is another tradi- tion, to theeffect that Daniel-was king of the Isra- elites after their return from cap- tivity. According to Muhammad ibn Jarir (quoted by Tabari, Z.¢. p. 751), it was Nb- uchadnezzar who ordered Daniel to be throvn into the lion’s den. A pit was dug purposely ‘or him; and he and five companions were cast bepre afamished animal. Shortly afterward the king,on approaching the pit, saw there seven persons instad of six. Theseventh was an angel, who struck Nb- uchadnezzar a blow in the face, and by tiat changed him into a wild beast. The Arabs attribute to Daniel the invention of Seomancy (“‘ilm al-raml”) and the authorshipof the “Ugul al-Ta‘bir” (The Principles of Interpretng Dreams). Mas‘udi says there were two Daniels: Danicl he Elder, who lived in the period between Noah md Tradition! Tomb of Daniel. (From Flandin and Cste, “ Voyage en Perse Moderne.’’) sciences: and Daniel the Younger, who, according to a tradition, was the maternal uncle of Cyrus, whose mother was a Jewess. The Arabs attrib- ute to him the book “Kitab al-Jafar” (Divina- tion) and many predictions relative to the Persian kings. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Tabari, Chronique (French transl. by Zoten- berg), i. 44, 496, 508, 571; ii. 288; Mas‘udi, Les Prairies d@’Or (ed. B. de Meynard), ii. 128; D’Herbelot, Bibliothéque Ori- entale, S.Vv. E. G. H. M. SEL. DANIEL, TOMB OF: Tradition has named two places as the site of Daniel’s tomb. In the “Mar- tyrologium Ro- manum,” for in- stance, which consecrates July 21 to Saint Dan- iel, the place of his death is given as Baby- lon, and it was claimed that he was buried in the royal vault there. Benja- min of Tudela, who visited the Holy Land about 1160 c.E., gives much more ac- curate informa- tion in his ac- count of Susa. In the facade of one of its many synagogues he was shown the tomb assigned by tradition to Daniel. Susa is the modern Shuster, and this synagogue is still standing. There are some good representa- tions of it, as, for example, in Flandin and Coste, “ Voyage en Perse Moderne” (plate 100), and in Loftus, “ Chal- dea and Susiana” (pp. 317 e¢ seq.). Benjamin declares, however, that the tomb does not hold Daniel’s remains, which were said to have been discovered at Susa about 640¢.E, Theremains were supposed to bring good fortune; and bitter quarrels arose because of them between the inhabit- ants of the two banks of the Choaspes. All those living on the side on which Daniel’s grave was situ- ated were rich and happy, while those on the oppo- site side were poor and in want; the latter, there- fore, wished the bier of Daniel transferred to their side of the river. They finally agreed that the bier should rest alternately one year on each side. This agreement was carried out for many years, until the Abraham, and was the father of the above-mentiored | Persian shah Sanjar, on visiting the city, stopped Daniel the practise, holding that the continual removal of the bier was disrespectful to the prophet. He ordered the bier to be fastened with chains to the bridge, directly in the middle of the structure; and he erected a chapel on the spot for both Jews and non-Jews. The king also forbade fishing in the river within a mile of Daniel’s bier (“ Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela” [Hebr.], ed. Asher, i. 74-76, ii. 152-154; compare Pethahiah of Regensburg, p. 77, below, Jérusalem, 1872). The place is a dangerous one for navigation, since godless persons perish immediately on passing it; and the water under the bier is distin- guished by the presence of goldfish. Mohammedan traditions agree in stating that Daniel was buried at Susa, and a similar tradition was current among the Syriac writers (Budge, “ Book of the Bee,” p. 78). Al-Baladhori (ninth century) says that when the conqueror Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari came to Susa in 688, he found the coffin of Daniel, which had been brought thither from Babylon in order to bring down rain during a period of drought (compare Al-Tabari, i. 2567). Abu Musa referred the matter to the calif Omar, who ordered the cof- fin to be buried, which was done by sinking it to the bottom of one of the streams near by (“ Futuh al-Buldan,” p. 878). A similar account is given by Ibn Haukal (ed. De Goeje, p. 174) and Al-Istahri (ed. De Goeje, p. 92), who add that the Jews were accustomed to make a circuit around Daniel’s tomb and to draw water in its neighborhood (see also Yakut, “Mu‘jam al-Buldan,” iii. 189), Al-Mukad- dasi (ed. De Goeje, p. 417) refers to the contention between the people of Susa and those of Tustar. A slightly divergent tradition reported by Ibn Tai- miyyah says that the body was found in Tustar; that at night thirteen graves were dug, and it was put in one of these—a sign that the early Moslems were opposed to the worship of the tombs of holy men (“Z, D. M. G.” lili. 58). The authenticity of the tomb at Susa is believed in by the mollahs of Arabistan, even though five days journey from Dizful, near Mal Amir, there is another tomb sacred to Daniel. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Jane Dieulafoy, At Susa, p. 131, New York, Ist; Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. xxi. G EK. K.—G. DANIEL, APOCALYPSE OF. See Apoca- LYPTIC LITERATURE. DANIEL, BOOK OF *—Critical View: One of the books of the Old Testament. It may be di- vided into two parts: chaptersi.-vi., recounting the events of Daniel’s life; chapters vii.-xii., containing his prophecies. “While the first part proves that it is impossible for the world-empire to belong to the heathen forever, the second part shows that Israel is destined to found this world empire through the son of man, who has long since existed in heav- en” (J. Béhmer, “Reich Gottes und Menschensohz im Buche Daniel,” 1899, p. 60). In its form the book shows striking differences, for while ii. 4 to vii. 28 is written in Aramaic, the preceding and following portions are written in He- brew. It is not easy to discover the reason for this peculiarity; it suggests, however, that the “Chal- deans” in this book are tlhe Arameans or Syrians. A. * For Biblical Data see DANIEL. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 430 similar instance occurs in the Seder ‘Olam Zuta (ed. Joh. Meyer), where the author gradually lapses into Aramaic in talking of personages of the Baby- lonian exile, buton p. 117 returns to Hebrew. The author may have meant to introduce the “Chal- deans” in their own language, and then inadvert- ently continued in the Janguage that was familiar to him (see Driver, “ Daniel,” in “Cambridge Bible for Schools,” p. xxii.). J. Boéhmer (/.c. p. 150) main- tains that the Aramaic portion was so written be- cause its contents concerned all peoples; Prince and others suggest that the whole book was written orig- inally in Hebrew, and translated into Aramaic; and that a part of the Hebrew book was lost, and re- placed by the Aramaic translation. This opinion, however, does not weigh the fact that the Ara- maic begins with the speech of the “Chaldeans.” Other scholars think that the whole book was origi- nally written in Aramaic, while the beginning and end were translated into Hebrew so that the book might be incorporated into the canon (Marti, in his Commentary, 1901, p. ix.). But if its inclusion in the canon had depended on its Hebrew form, it would have been necessary to translate the whole into Hebrew. In any case the linguistic diversity in parts of this book is no reason for assuming two sources for it, as Meinhold does in his Comimnentary (p. 262); for the Aramaic Book of Danicl could not have begun with ii. 4. Another difference in form is found in the fact. that the political history forming the background of the first six chapters is absent in vii.-xii. This dif- ference may bethusexplained: The author thought it his first task to recount without a break the his- torical facts of Daniel’s life; his second task being to record the revelations vouchsafed to Daniel which were not connected with the experiences of other people. In the first six chapters Daniel is intro- duced in the third person, while in the others he appears as the speaker. This is explicable on the ground that the second pari of the book is concerned only with the presentation of Daniel’s inner expe- riences to the exclusion of all objective relations. Such transitions are found in other books—com- pare, for example, Hosea i. and iii. The change of person therefore does not necessarily affect the unity of thebook. (For other opinions on the composite character of the Book of Daniel, see Eduard Konig, “Hinleitung ins Alte Testament,” p. 384; Vop Gall, “Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel,” 1895; G. A. Barton, “The Composition of the Book of Dan- iel,” in “Jour. Bib. Lit.” 1898, pp. 62-86). Barton finds a contradiction between i. 1, 5, 18, and ii. 1; for Nebuchadnezzar is designated as “king” in i. 1, and, according to i. 5, 18, Daniel and his friends were to be prepared three years prior to appearing before the king, while in ii. 1 it is stated that this hap- pened as early as the second year of Nebuchadnez- zar. Still it was not an unnatural prolepsis on first mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, who subsequently be- came king, to give him the title by which he was commonly known at the time of writing. Barton also finds a contradiction between the words “ And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus” (i. 21) and “In the third year of Cyrus, king Form. 431 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Daniel ee ee ee ee ee ee ee of Persia, a thing was revealed unto Daniel ” (x. 1). But i. 21 does not mean that Daniel /¢ved “even unto the first year of Cyrus,” but that Daniel survived even the fall of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom and that of his successor. The other contradictions men- tioned by Barton are discussed by Eduard Kénig in “ Theologisches Litteraturblatt,” 1898, cols. 539 et seg. His conclusion that nine different and complete epi- sodes follow the first chapter is therefore untenable. The book, however, may have included originally only i-vii., an assumption that would explain the following three circumstances: the dropping of the Aramaic; the formula “ Hitherto is the end of the matter” (vii. 28); and the juxtaposition of two ma- terially identical narratives as found in vii. and viii. As events unfolded themselves, amplifications of the prophecy in the form of pamphlets, pointing even more clearly to the day of liberation, may have been added. The date of the writing of the book may be in- ferred from the following considerations: It was not written by one of the exiles, for many Date of the portions of the text could not have Book. been composed by a contemporary of the second king of the Babylonian em- pire and his immediate successors. This is proved even by the form of that king’s name as given in the book, His Assyrian name was “ Nabu-kudurriuzur ” (Friedrich Delitzsch, “ Assyrische Lesestiicke,” 1900, p. 192), which the Hebrewsat first pronounced “Nebu-kadr-ezzar” (Jer. xxi. 2 e¢ seq. [26 times]; Ezek, xxvi. 7, xxix. 18 e¢ seg., xxx. 10), The mid- dle“r” was then dissimilated from the final “r,” giving “Nebu-kadn-ezzar,” a form which is found in Jeremiah only in xxvii. 6-xxix. 3, but which is the usual form in all later writings (II Kings xxiv. 1 ef seg.; I Chron. xxxvi. 6 ¢¢ seg.; Ezrai. 7; Esth. ii. 6; Dan. i, 18 et seg.; Soferim xiv. 7; Seder ‘Olam R. xxiv. e¢ seg.; and Septuagint, NaSovyodovécop). Nor would a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors have written the stories of the Book of Daniel in the form in which they exist, since they contain many details that can not be harmo- nized with the data furnished in other historical sources, The first verse, for instance, contradicts other passages of the O. T. in saying that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and besieged it. For the verb 83 means here, as elsewhere, “come,” “arrive,” and can not be equivalent to “break up”; this is also proved by the context of 1.1. But Jere- miah announced the coming of the Chaldeans only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a year that is ex- pressly designated, in Jer. xxv. 1, xlvi. 2, as the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar. The date, “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” (Dan. i. 1), is probably derived from II Kings xxiv. 1 et seq., where it is said that Jehoiakim, after having been subject to Nebuchadnezzar three years, turned and rebelled, and was attacked by predatory bands of the Chaldeans and their vassals. As no date is given for the beginning of this period of three years, it might be supposed that it began with the accession ofJehoiakim. The supposition being made, it could be said that the Chaldeans besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar would naturally be their leader. But these state- ments in Dan. i. 1 are erroneously drawn from II Kings xxiv. 1 e¢ seg., and contradict those found in Jer. xxv. 1, 9, and xlvi. 2. Such discrepancies are not unparalleled in the O. T. (compare Eduard Konig, “Einleitung ins Alte Testament,” pp. 172 et seqg.). . Nor can Nebuchadnezzar’s madness (Dan. iv. 12 e¢ seg.) during seven years be taken literally. Belshazzar’s father, Nebuchadnezzar, is mentioned again (v. 11, 138, 18, 22) ina way which compels the inference that he really was such. This may be ex- plained on the ground that during the long period of oral tradition the unimportant kings of Babylon might easily have been forgotten, and the last king, who was vanquished by Cyrus, would have been taken as the successor of the well-known Nebuchad- nezzar. The same thing occurred in Bar. i. 11, and Sennacherib is mentioned as the son of Enemessar (7.e. Shalmaneser) in Tobit i. 15, Sargon (Isa. xx. 1) being passed over. It is also well known that the period 016-331, of which only a few events are recorded, was contracted to thirty-four years in computing the time elapsed since the Creation (Seder ‘Olam R. xxx.), The Book of Daniel was not written immediately after the Exile. The post-exilic prophets did not know it, for the four horns to which Israel’s ene- mies are compared in Zech. i. 21, have a local mean- ing, representing the four points of the compass, and do not refer to the successive kingdoms, as in Dan. i. 29 et seg. The same is the case with the four chariots in Zech. vi. 1 ef seg. These passages are not exactly parallel with the predictions in Daniel, but it is also stated in Hag. ii. 6-9 eZ seq., that within “a little while” the Messianic time will come, And even Ben Sira says expressly (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlix. 15) that he has never found a man who resembled Joseph, a statement he could not have made had he known the extant Book of Daniel, since Daniel is there drawn as a man who, like Jo- seph, rose to be prime minister by virtue of his abil- ity to interpret dreams, The Book of Daniel was written during the per- secutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. This assertion is supported by the fol- lowing data: The kingdom which is symbolized by the he goat (viii. 5 et seg.) is expressly named as the “kingdom of Yawan”—that is, the Grecian kingdom (viii. 21) the great horn being its first king, Alexander the Great (definitely stated in Seder ‘Olam R. xxx.), and the little horn Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164). This kingdom was to persecute the host of the saints “unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings” (viii. 14, R. V.); that is, “half-days,” or 1,150 days; and Epiphanes did, in fact, profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem for about that length of time, from Kislew 15, 168, to Kislew 25,165 (I Mace. i. 57, iv. 52). The little horn described in Dan. viii. 9-12, 238-25 has the same general characteristics as the little horn in vii. 8, 20; hence the same ruler is designated in both passages. The well-known passage ix. 28-27 also points to the same period. The first and imperative rule in inter- preting it is to begin the period of the seventy times seven units (A. V. “seventy weeks”) with the first period of seven (ix. 25), and to let the second period, the “sixty-two times seven units,” follow this; for Daniel Daniel ben Moses if this second period (the sixty-two weeks) be reck- oned as beginning again from the very beginning, the third period, the “one week,” must be carried back in the same way. The context demands, further- more, that the origin of the prediction concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem be sought in Jer, xxv. 11-18 and the parallel passage, 7). xxix. 10. The “anointed,” the “prince,” mentioned after the first seven times seven units, must be Cyrus, who is called the anointed of the Lord in Isa. xlv.1 also. He concluded the first seven weeks of years by issuing the decree of liberation, and the time that elapsed between the Chaldean destruction of Jerusalem (586) and the year 5388 was just about forty-nine years. The duration of the sixty-two times seven units (434 years) does not correspond with the time 538-171 (867 years); but the chronological knowledge of that age was not very exact. The Seder ‘Olam Zuta (ed. Meyer, p. 104) computed the Persian rule to have lasted fifty-two years. This is all the more evident as the last period of seven units must include the seven years 171-165 (see “Rev. Et. Juives,” xix. 202 et seg.). This week of years began with the murder of an anointed one (compare Lev. iv. 8 e¢ seq. on the anointing of the priest)—namely, the legiti- mate high priest Onias JIJ.—and it was in the sec- ond half of this week of years that the Temple of the Lord was desecrated by an abomination—the silver altar erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in place of the Lord’s altar for burnt offering (see I Macc. i. 54). Stories undoubtedly existed of a person by the name of Daniel, who was known to Ezekiel as a wise man. Tradition then ascribed to Genesis this wise man all the traits which Is- of the Book rael could attribute to its heroes. He of Daniel. was exalted as the pattern of piety and faithfulness; andit may also have been said that he interpreted dreams, read erypto- grams, and foreshadowed the beginning of the Messi- anic kingdom. In any case his name may have played the same réle in literature as that of Solo- mon or that of Enoch; and as one author ascribed his book, “ Koheleth,” to Solomon, so another author may have made Daniel responsible for his. As to the origin of his prophecies, it would probably be unjust to say that they were inventions, They may have been suggested by the author’s enthusiastic study of the past history of God’s people. He util- ized the past to unlock the future. This is evident from ix. 2, where the author says that he had paid attention to the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years, which prophecy became the basis for a new prophecy. This shows that the author was merely a disciple of the Prophets, one who repro- duced the prophecies of his masters. His book, in- deed, is not included in the section Nebiim. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. D. Prince, Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1899; Driver, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Daniel, 1900; Behrmann, Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1894; Marti, Kurzer Handkommentar zum Buche Daniel, 1901. E. K. E. G, H. DANIEL IBN AL-ANISHATA. See DanrIeL mn. SAADIA HA-BABLI. DANIEL, HAYYATA (“The Tailor”): A Pal- estinian, twoof whose Scriptural interpretations are THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 432 preserved in the Midrash: one to Gen. xxvi. 14 (Gen. R. lxiv. 7; compare Sanh. 58b; Yalk. on Prov, xii. 11), and the other to Eccl. iv. 1 (Lev. R. xxxii. 8; Eccl. R. ad loc.), The time of Daniel may only be con- jectured. As the rabbis mentioned in the contexts are of the third and fourth centuries, and as the one cited after him, and supplementing his views, is of the fourth generation of amoraim, Daniel can not be placed earlier than that generation. Bacher (“Ag. Pal. Amor.” iii. 761) includes him among those whose period is uncertain, L. G. S. M. DANIEL BEN HASDAI. See DANIEL BEN SOLOMON. DANIEL B. ISAAC. Sce Pisa, DANIEL DA. DANIEL BEN JACOB OF GRODNO: Rus- sian halakist; died in Grodno April 30, 1807. He was dayyan there for forty years. He is ordinarily called “saint,” “pious,” and “modest.” He is the author of “Hamude Daniel” (The Precious Things of Daniel), on questions concerning the preparation of food (Grodno, 1810). Daniel’s opinions are fre- quently mentioned in Zebi Hirsch Eisenstadt’s widely used work, “Pithe Teshubah,” on Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Walden, Shem ha-Gedolim he-Hadash, ii. 323 ey aia ‘Ir Gibborim, p. 65; Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael, L. G. I. Ber. DANIEL BEN JUDAH: Liturgical poet, who lived at Rome in the middle of the fourteenth cen- tury. He was the grandfather of Daniel ben Samuel ha-Rofe, rabbi at Tivoli. According to Luzzatto, Daniel ben Judah was the author of the well-known hymn “Yigdal Elohim Wai,” containing the thir- teen articles of belief of Maimonides. This poem, which forms part of the morning prayer among the Ashkenazim, and is sung by the Sephardim on the eve of Sabbaths and holy days, is included in the Romania ritual for Saturday evening. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Zunz, Literaturgesch. p. 507 ; Luzzatto, Mebo, p. 18; He-Haluz, vol. ix., part 2, p. 50. G. I. Br. DANIEL B. KETINA: Babylonian amora; flourished in the second half of the third century. He was a contemporary of Zre‘ERA (Yer. Suk. iv. 54b; Hul. 62a e¢ seg.). Heis cited in the Palestinian as well as in the Babylonian Talmud by some of the foremost teachers of his generation (Yer. Shab. iii. 5c; Yer, ‘Er. i. 19d, ii. 20a; M. K.8b, 12a; Hag. 8b; Ket. 97a; B. K. 97a; B. M. 64b), but generally as the transmitter of Halakot he had learned from his predecessors. That he was regarded as a saint ap- pears from the legend relating that he would daily inspect his garden and mark the beds requiring water, whereupon rain would descend and moisten the beds thus marked (Ta‘an. 9b; Yalk., Zech. 578). Rabbah bar bar Hanah, Rab’s nephew, mar- ried his son to Daniel’s daughter (Ber. 47a; compare Rabbinowicz, “ Dikduke Soferim,” ad Joc.). BIBLIOGRAPHY : Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii. s.v.: Frankel, ebo, 73a. Db. .G: S. M. DANIEL BEN MOSES AL-KUMISI, or AL-DAMAGANTI: One of the most prominent Karaite scholars of the earlier period; flourished at 433 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Daniel, Book of Daniel ben Moses RR the end of the ninth or at the beginning of the tenth century; a native of Damagan, the capital of the Persian province of Kumis, in Tabaristan, as isshown by his two surnames, the latter of which is found only in “Kirkisani.” His attitude to Anan and his violent opposition to the Ananites (7.e., the first Ka- raites, Anan’s followers and immediate successors) are characteristic of his place in Karaism. At first he esteemed Anan highly, calling him “rosh ha- maskilim” (chief of the scholars); but later he de- spised him and called him “rosh ha-kesilim ” (chief of the fools). Nevertheless, Daniel's opinions were respected by the Karaites. As regards Daniel’s theories, he denied that. spec- ulation could be regarded as a source of knowledge, and, probably in accordance with this tenet, he maintained, in opposition to Anan, the principle that the Biblical laws must not be interpreted allegoric- ally, nor explained contrary to the simple text (see below). He evinces little regard for science, as, for instance, when he asserts that it is forbidden to de- termine the beginning of the new moon by calcula- tion, after the manner of the Rabbinites, because such calculations are condemned like astrology, and the practise of them is threatened with severe pun- ishment, according to Isa, xlvii. 18-14. Yet Daniel himself, in his commentary to Lev. xxvi., indulges in long reflections on the theodicy and on the suf- fering of the pious. His conception of the angels, also, is most extraordinary. He says that wherever “mal’akim ” (angels) are mentioned in the Bible, the designation does not refer to living, speaking beings who act as messengers, but to forces of nature, as fire, fog, winds, etc., by means of which God per- forms His works (compare Maimonides, “ Moreh,” ii. 6). This may be due to the influence of the Sad- ducees (who also denied the existence of angels; com- pare Acts xxiii. 8), in view of the fact that works circulated among the earlier Karaites named after Zadok and containing Sadducean opinions. Daniel favored a rigorous interpretation of the Law. The following decisions of his have been preserved: It is forbidden to do any work whatever on the Sabbath—even to clean the hands with pow- der—or to have any work done on the Sabbath by a non-Jew, whether gratuitously, or for wages or any other compensation. The burning of lights is for- bidden not only on Friday evenings, but also on the evenings of the festivals. Inthedescription in Lev. xxii, 40 of the trees which, according Legal to Daniel, were used in erecting the Decisions. booths, the phrase “ peri ez hadar” (the fruit of goodly trees) is more defi- nitely explained by “kappot temarim” (branches of palms), the palm being distinguished for its beauty (Cant. vii. 8). Like Anan, Benjamin al-Nahawandi, and Ishmael al-‘Okbari, Daniel forbade in the Diaspora the eating of those animals that were used for sacrifice, adding to the proofs of his predecessors others drawn from Hosea ix. 4 and Isa. Ixvi. 8. The prohibition con- tained in Ex. xxiii. 19 (“Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk”) must not be interpreted allegorically, as Anan interpreted it, but literally. he priest carried out the injunction to “wring [pinch] off the head” of the bird (“melikah,” Lev. IV.—28 i. 15) by cutting the head off entirely, after the slaughtering. The clean birds are not recogni- zable by certain signs, as the Rabbinites assert, but the names of the birds as found in the Pen- tateuch are decisive (and as these can not always be identified, the Karaites make the class of forbidden birds very large). Among the locusts only the four species expressly named in Lev. xi. 22 are per- mitted as food. It is forbidden to eat eggs because they must be considered as living things that can not be slaughtered, as is proved by Deut. xxii. 6-7, where it is permitted to take the young, but not the eggs. Of fish the eggs only are permitted ; the blood is forbidden. The leper must still be considered as unclean (this, too, is directed against Anan, who had held that the laws regarding the clean and the un- clean were not applicable in the Diaspora). The carcass of an animal, however, ceases to be unclean after use has been made of it in any way, as is proved by Lev. vii. 24. In regard to the levirate marriage Daniel agrees with Anan that “ahim,” in Deut. xxv. 5, does not mean “brothers,” which would violate the prohibi- tion contained in Lev. xviii. 16, but “relations.” The story of Judah and his sons (Gen. xxxviii. 8) proves nothing, because at that time the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife did not exist. The prohibition contained in Lev. xviii. 18 can not be taken literally (as the Rabbinites take it), for the wife’s sister is forbidden under any circumstance, just as is the husband’s brother (there is here an example of the method of analogy, “hekkesh ”); it is rather the stepsister of the wife that is meant in the passage in question; ¢.g., the daughter of the father-in-law’s wife whom the last-named had by her first husband. In this case the prohibition ends with the wife’s death. The daughter is not ex- cluded from the heritage, as the Rabbinites say, al- though her portion is less than that of the son, being only one-third; for in the law of valuation in con- nection with vows (Lev. xxvii.) women were valued less than men. In conformity with this law, the mother also receives one-third. Daniel was doubt- less influenced here by the Mohammedan law (see Koran, sura iv. 12, 175). In other re- Influence spects Daniel follows the Talmud in ofIslam holding that the descendants of one and entitled to a portion succeed to his en- Talmud. tire rights; the children of the son— v.¢., grandchildren—taking precedence over the daughter, theiraunt. Finally, Daniel holds that responsibility for the observance of the com- mandments must begin not with the thirteenth, but with the twentieth year; that the New-Ycar begins on the tenth of Tishri, as follows from Ezek. xl. 1; and that Mohammedans also may act as witnesses of the new moon’s appearance. Daniel wrote several works in Hebrew, ail of which, save for a few quotations and fragments, have been lost. There is undeniable evidence that he compiled a legal code (“Sefer ha-Mizwot ”), and a work on the rights of inheritance. The latter, against which Saadia directed his polemics, was perhaps merely a part of the code just mentioned. He also wrote commentaries to the Pentateuch, to Joshua, and to Judges, and probably to other Bib- paniol ben asdis THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 434 cal books. They were not running commentaries, | dor of the house of David.” Nothing is known of but explanations to certain passages, and contained also digressions. Words were often explained in Arabic. These commentaries, especially that to the Pentateuch, probably contained many of the deci- sions enumerated above. BIBLIOGRAPHY : The principal source regarding Daniel and his opinions is Kirkisani, sec. 1, ch. i.-ii. xviii. (ed. Harkavy, p. 280, lines 8-195 285, 19-20; 316, 14-29); sec. iii., ch. Xxi.- xxiii: sec. xi., ch. xxvi.; sec. xii., ch. vii., xxxiii. (MSS. Br. Mus. Or. 2524, fols. 68-68 ; 2978, fols. 10-15 and 143-144; com- pare Steinschneider Festschrift, pp. 199 et seq.). For the other opinions of Daniel: Hadassi, Hshkol, 1263, 233), 2860, 2405, 2563, 2874, 3087, 3169; Aaron b. Elijah, Gan “Eden, 65b, below, and 169d, below; Bashyazi, Aderet, Mwiw WD, ch. ii., iii, Extracts from the niyon “5d, after quotations from Karaitic authors, are found in: Pinsker, Likkute Kad- moniyyot, ii. 188; Harkavy, in Berliner’s Bfagazin, xx. 2285 Poznanski, in Jew. Quart. Rev. viii. 683. A fragment of the commentary to Lev. 1. 1-15, vi. 21-vii. 21, from the Cairo Geni- zah, has been published by Schechter, Saadyana, pp. 144-146 (Jew. Quart. Rev. xiv. 512; compare ib. 41,79) ; another frag- ment, to Lev. xxv. 9-xxvi. 25, has been edited by Harkavy, in Fuchs’ 3p)n7, i. 169-173, who ascribes it to Benjamin al- Nahawandi. Daniel, however, is the author, compare Harkavy, Studien u. Miitheil. viii. 192, and note 2; 187. Compare also Pinsker, l.c. i. 453 First, Geschichte des Kardierthums, i. 78 3 Gottlober, oxapa ndainy napa, p.164; Harkavy, Kirkisani, p. 271; Poznanski in Jew. Quart. Rev, viii. 681 et seq.; Mar- goliouth, th. ix. 436, note 2. K. Ss. P. DANIEL BEN SAADIA HA-BABLI (or Daniel the Babylonian): Talmudic scholar; lived at Damascus in the thirteenth century. He wasa pupil of Samuel b. Ali Halevi, the anti-Maimonist. After Maimonides’ death he undertook a campaign against the latter’s works, which, however, he con- ducted in a more temperate and judicial spirit than was shown by his master. His criticisms took the form of questions (forty-seven on the “Mishneh Torah” and thirteen on the “Book of Precepts”), which he sent to Abraham, the son of Maimonides. The partizans of Maimonides urged the excommuni- cation of Daniel, but Abraham contented himself with writing a controversial work (DA 3N N33, “Blessing of Abraham,” Lyck, 1870) in refutation of Daniel’s attacks. Later on Daniel attacked the or- thodoxy of Maimonides, and reproached him for not believing in the existence of evil spirits. As there are in the Talmud several passages on demonology, he did not shrink from denouncing him as a heretic. Abraham not being willing to launch the anathema, the Maimonides party induced the exilarch David of Mosul to excommunicate Daniel, who died of grief. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Abraham Maimuni, Milhamot, pp. 11, 125 Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael, 1. 262: Neubauer, Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS. No. 628; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 91. K, M. SEL. DANIEL BEN SOLOMON (BEN HASDAI): Exilarch at Bagdad in the second half of the twelfth century. According to Pethahiah, Daniel’s father, Solomon, was highly esteemed by the calif, a circum- stance that for a time lent new dignity to the ex- ilarchate, which had sunk into entire insignificance. Scholars assume that Danicl’s father was also iden- tical with the exilarch Hasdai, who, according to Benjamin of Tudela and Joseph Sambari (“ Med. Jew. Chron.” i. 123), was the teacher of the agitator David Alroy. The family, which traced its ancestry back to King David, lived in great splendor, to which Abraham ibn Ezra, who visited Bagdad in the middle of the twelfth century, alludes in his commentary to Zech. xii. 7, speaking of “the splen- Daniel’s political or literary activity. He doubtless approved the opposition to Maimonides led by the learned Samuel b. Ali of Bagdad, though Danicl himself did not come to the front. As he left no children, the exilarchate was transferred after his death to Mosul, where it was contested by two rival candidates, Davip BEN Hopaya and SAMUEL, A fragment from the Cairo Genizah contains the colophon of a manuscript once in the possession of Daniel b. Solomon, BIBLIOGRAPHY : Gratz, Gesch. vi., note 10; Schechter, in Jew. Quart. Rev. xiv. 221. G. A. K. DANIELILLO (“Little Daniel”) OF LEG- HORN: Avonymous author of a small apologetic work of the seventeenth century, written in Span- ish, which Gratz erroneously considers to be pseud- epigraphic. It was copied by Isaac Mendes in 1788, and published at Brussels in 1868, under the title “Danielillo 6 Respuestas 4 los Cristianos,” by M. Caplan from a manuscript in the Royal Library in that city. By far the larger part of the work is de- voted to a dialogue between D. Antonio de Con- treras and Danielillo, but it contains many passages from the dialogue of Andrés Antonio and Obadiah, written in 1583, and still in manuscript (Wolf, “Bibl. Hebr.” iv. 487, 726; De Rossi, “ Bibl. Anti- christ,” p. 36). The principal contents of the work is a dialogue of the Augustinian monk Juan Car- rasco of Madrid, who was converted to Judaism in Holland, and wrote a work in defense of Juda- ism and against Roman Catholicism (Nodriza-Haya, 1638). The Duke del Infantado, Hurtado de Men- doza, who is mentioned in the work, was Spanish ambassador at Rome in 1623. From page 104 to the end is given to the “Razonamiento,” tlie discourse delivered in the presence of theologians and courtiers at Paris, at the command of Henry IV., by Elijah Montalto, physician to the king. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Gratz, Gesch. 3d ed., ix. 485; Steinschneider, Bibl, Hebr. xi. 84; Monatsschrift, xvii. 321 et seg; G. M. K. DANIELS, D. POLAK: Dutch communal worker at The Hague; died 1899. He was active in Jewish communal affairs, was president of the Jewish community for more than forty years, and was a member of the municipal council for the same length of time. His funeral was attended by the highest dignitaries of Holland. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Jewish Chronicle, May 12, 1899, p. 13. s. A, R DANILEVSKY. See Russta. DANON, ABRAHAM: Turkish writer; born at Adrianople, European Turkey, in 1857; attended the Talmud Torah in that city, pursuing his Tal- mudic studies at a yeshibah. After having pre- sided over a sinall seminary at Adrianople, he was appointed director of the seminary founded by the Alliance Israclite Universelle at Constantinople. Under the title “Toledot Bene Abraham,” he pub- lished a Hebrew translation of Theodore Rei- nach’s “ Histoire des Juifs,” Presburg, 1888, comple- ting the story, as he says in the preface, by extracts from Graetz, Geiger, Kalman Schulmann, and others. Under the title “ Maskil le-Aidan” (Aidan’s Poem; 435 mss, abbreviation of “Abraham Josef Danon”), he published a series of Hebrew translations of the poems of Vergil, Victor Hugo, and Sadi, together with some original contributions (Adrianople, 1888). In Sept., 1897, he went to Paris to represent the Ori- ental Jews at the Congress of Orientalists. Danon’s chief distinction rests on his initiative in founding at Adrianople in 1888 a historical review, pearing the title “ Yosef-Da‘at,” or “El Progresso,” which was published in Hebrew characters and in three languages; namely, Judzo-Spanish, Hebrew, and Turkish. The aim of the review was to collect all the documents relating to the history of the Ori- ental Jews. But the Ottoman government censorship suppressed this review, together with all others pub- lished in Turkey. As the fruit of patient labor, Danon published a collection of fifty-five Judso- Spanish ballads which are sung in Turkey, each ballad being accompanied by its French translation. They first appeared in the “Revue des Etudes Juives,” xxxii. and xxxiti.,and were published sep- arately by Durlacher, Paris in 1896. They form one of the most curious chapters in the literature of the Oriental Jews. Danon has also published some studies on the Oriental Jews (Jews of Adrianople and of Salonica), which appeared in the same re- view. Danon is the only author of the present generation of Oriental Jews who writes in Hebrew, other writers publishing their works in Judzo- Spanish. 8. M. Fr. DANON, BERAKAH BEN YOM-TOB: Talmudical scholar; lived at Jerusalem in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was the author of a work entitled “Bad Kodesh” (Holy Linen), containing sermons, and novella on Maimonides’ “Yad.” It was published in Salonica in 1846, to- gether with a work by his father on the same sub- ject, entitled “ Kebod Yom-Tob.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hazan, Ha-Ma‘alot li-Shelomoh, p.5lb; Zed- ner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. p. 195. L. G. I. Br. DANON, JOSEPH BEN JACOB BEN MOSES IBN: Hebraist and Talmudist; born at Belgrade about 1620; died at London toward the end of the seventeenth century. He was descended from an old Spanish family which had settled at Belgrade several generations earlier. Having re- ceived an excellent education, he became the secre- tary of Joseph Almosnino, rabbi of Belgrade. When Belgrade was taken by Prince Max Emanuel of Aus- tria (Sept. 6, 1688), Danon, with the greater part of the Jewish community in that city, was exiled. He maintained for some time a precarious existence in various Moravian towns, dependent sometimes upon public charity for food and shelter. He finally wandered to Amsterdam, where he received aid and protection from the Mecenas of Jewish learning, Joseph Zarfati. Danon now devoted himself to literary pursuits, and wrote a work entitled “Sheloshah Sarigim” (Three Branches), a treatise on the three foundations upon which, according to the Talmud (Abot i. 2), the world is based—the Law, Worship, and Charity. The first part only of this manuscript work, with Its preface, is still extant. During his residence at THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a Daniel ben Saadia Dante Amsterdam he composed an index of the abbrevia- tions found in Hezekiah de Silva’s “Peri Hadash,” a commentary on Joseph Caro’s Shuthan ‘Aruk. At the death of his protector, Danon settled in Lon- don, where he remained, highly appreciated, until his death, BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. N. Adler,in Jew. Chron. June 28, 1895; Kaufmann, in Rev. Bt. Juives, xxxvii. 284 et seq. I. Br. L. G. DANON, MEIRBENJAMIN MENAHEM: Rabbinical writer, and chief rabbi of Sarajevo in Bosnia; lived in the first half of the nineteenth cen- tury. He wrote “Be’cr ba-Saden” (A Well in the Field), 4 supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary to the Pentateuch, and on its supercommentator, Elijah Mizrahi. It was published in Jerusalem in 1846. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hazan, Ha-Ma‘alot li-Shelomoh, p. 18. L. G. M. Fr. DANON, YOM-TOB: Author and rabbi of Smyrna in the first half of the nineteenth century. He went to Jerusalem in 1821, where he succeeded Joseph Hazan as chief rabbi. He wrote “ Kebod Yom-Tob,” a commentary on Maimonides’ “ Yad ha- Hazakah ” (Salonica, 1846). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hazan, Ha-Ma ‘alot li-Shelomoh, p. 51b. L. G. M. Fr, DANTE, ALIGHIERI: Florentine poet; born 1265; died at Ravenna Sept. 14, 1821. Dante took an active part in the political feuds then distracting his native city, and in 1802 was banished. From that time on he lived in exile, enjoying from time to time the hospitality of several princes of northern Italy, such as Can Grande della Scala of Verona and Guido Polenta of Ravenna. Dante’s principal work is the “Divina Commedia.” xity—and the deadly look (773 y15)]. Death shivered and trembled at being called to come be- fore the Lord, when God said to him: ‘Come hither, thou bitter and fierce name of the world [an allusion to both Azazel and WwaA32, 1Sam. xv, 32], hide thy fierceness, cover thy corrup- tion, and cast away thy bitterness from thee, and put on thy beauty and all thy glory, and go down to Abraham My friend and bring him to Me.’ Death put on a robe of great brightness and made his appearance like the sun, and became fair and beautiful above the sons of men, assuming the form of an arch- angel, his cheeks flaming with fire, and went to Abraham, a Sweet odor and a flash of light announcing his coming to the Patriarch, who took him to be an archangel, the chief captain of God, and welcomed him as the bringer of light aud a most glori- ous helper. But Death rejoined: ‘Most righteous Abrabam, I am the bitter drop of Death’ (npn oD, whence the name Sxx01; and when asked for his errand, he said: ‘For thy holy soul fon Icome.’ Abraham again refused togive uphissoul. Death ollowed him into his chamber, and when Abraham lay down upon his couch, he sat by his feet and would not depart, not- ‘Withstunding all the entreaties of the patriarch to let him live. **On inquiry of the patriarch, he told him that only because of his great righteousness, his hospitality to men, and his Jove toward God, which became a crown of glory upon his head, did he approach him in such beauty and glory: to sinners he came in flerceness, corruption, and bitterness. ‘Show me _ these,’ asked Abraham: but Death replied, ‘Thon canst not stand these looks.” Thereto Abraham answered: ‘By means of the name of the living God—wr1p727 Sv’—I shall be able to look.’ So Death put off his sunlike glory and put on his tyrant-ltike robe and made his appearance fiercer than all wild beasts, and filthier thau all flith, and he showed Abraham seven flery ser- pents’ heads and fourteen faces: (1) of flaming fire, (2) of dark- ness, (3) of a viper, (4) of a precipice, (5) of a fierce asp, (6) of a terrible lion, (7) of a cerastes, (8) of a basilisk, (9) of a fiery simitar, (10) of terrible lightning and thunder. (11) of a stormy sea, (12) of arushing river, (13) of a three-headed serpent, and (14) of a cup filed with poison; and then he showed him every mortal disease emanating from the odor of Death. Seven thou- sand man- and maid-servants of Abraham died from the effect of this odor and sight, so that Abraham impiored Death to hide his fierceness and to put on his former garb of beauty. Death complied with his request, and joined Abraham in a prayer to God to restore to life those who had died so suddenly by his flerceness ; and the prayer was granted. “Abraham, however, would not consent to surrender his soul until Death had expiained to him the different forms and faces he had shown him in all their flerceness ; whereupon weath replied that the seven heads of serpents indicated the seven ages during which he is to destroy all men, rich and poor, and to bring them to the bottom of Hades. Because people die by fire, by falling from precipices, by the sword, by rushing rivers, on the raging sea, and in storms of lightning, by wild beasts or cups of poison, he assumed all those aspects. Finally, he spoke of the seventy-two kinds of death [see ABRAHAM, TES- TAMENT OF, and footnote, Jew. ENcYC. i. 95d] and of the death of the righteous. Then Death took the right band of Abraham, and his soul clung to him.” Death appears here as the pcrsonification of psychical evil, with numerous traits borrowed from Abhriman in the Zend Avesta, but not of moral evil (see Test. Abraham, A, xvi.-xx.; “Texts and Studies,” ii. 2, Cambridge, 1892; “ Anti-Nicene Fathers,” Eng. transl., pp. 188 et seg., New York, 1897; see also DUMARH). E. C. K. —In Rabbinical Literature: There are dif- ferent views among Jews concerning the cause of death. Some assign it to Adam’s first sin in partaking of the forbidden fruit (Tanna debe Eli- yahu R. v.). This view is somewhat modified by the Rabbis, who regard death as the fruit of personal sin; maintaining that, like Adam, each person dies on account of his own sin (Shab. 55a, b), as “there is not a righteous man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not” (Eccl. vii. 20). Stil, the Rabbis speak of anumber of “saintly men who died without sin and only in consequence of the poison of the serpent ” (by wey wns); eg., Benjamin; Amram; Jesse, the father of David; and Chileab, David’s son (Shab. 55b; B. B. 17a; compare Derek Erez Zuta, where thirteen persons are named). Another view is that death was ordained at creation, and that Adam by his sin merely hastened death (Ex. R. ii.; Tan. [Yelamdenu], Wayesheb, ed. Vienna, 44b). Accord- ing to others, Adam was destined to live forever and not to taste death, but, owing to the fact that men like Hiram of Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar wanted to be worshiped as gods, God decreed death for man (Ex. R.ix.). The opinion is also expressed that God would have annihilated the power of the angel of death over Israel after its acceptance of the Law, Cause of Death. Death THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 484 —_--- but for the fact that the divine decree could not be reversed (“Ab. Zarah 5a). From the point of view that sin precedes and causes death in each person, the Talmud designates special reasons for the death of innocent children (Shab. 32b). There are 903 (moayin, Ps. Ixvii. 21) distinct deaths. The hardest is by asthma; Modes and the easiest is called ADw3 nmD of Death. (“death by the kiss”), which is “like drawing a hair out of milk”: that is the interpretation of °5 by (“by the mouth of the Lord,” Deut. xxxiv. 5, Hebr.). Six persons are known to have died io that way; namely, the three patriarchs, and Moses, Aaron, and Miriain (B. B. 17a). Death coming after five days’ illness is considered ordinary ; after four days, a reprimand of Heaven; after three days, « severe rebuke; after two days, a hastened death; after one day, a sudden one, or, according to some, an apoplectic one (M. K. 28a). To die before reaching the age of fifty is HD (“to be cut off,” Lev. xviii. 29). Sixty years is a ripe age; seventy is old age; and eighty, advanced age (M. KK. 28a). Many allegorical tales are related in rabbinical lit- erature about the communication of the dead with the living. A pious man, being rebuked by his wife for giving away a dinar (denarius) toa beggar in time of famine, went to sleep in the ceme- Com- tery. It was New-Year’s eve, and he munication overheard the spirits of two women with gossiping. One of them proposed to fly the Living. and listen behind the curtain in the judgment chamber to the promulga- tion of the future visitations in the world. The other spirit excused herself, saying, “I can not accompany thee because I am buried in reed matting; go thy- self, and come back and tell me what thou hearest.” Presently her companion returned and reported: “I heard that the hail will kill whatever is planted in the first rainy season.” The pious man planted in the second season. The following year he again went, to sleep in the cemetery on New- Year’s eve, and overheard a similar conversation, gaining the infor- ination that whatever was planted in the second sea- son would be consumed by blight. The pious man planted during the first season. His wife was curi- ous to know how he managed to evade the calami- tous visitations, and he, being pressed, related his story. A few days later the woman had a quarrel with the mother of the second spirit, and abused her for having given her daughter an indecent burial. The third year the pious husband again sought to obtain information regarding future crops; the sec- ond spirit said, “ Hush, companion! our former con- versation was overheard by mortal men ” (Ber. 18a). R. Ze‘ira left his money with the mistress of a boarding-house. Returning, he found that she had died. He repaired to the cemetery and inquired of her: “Whereis my money?” Said she: “Go, take it from the socket under the door-pivot. At the same time tell my mother to send me my comb and the eye-dye flask by a certain Woman who will arrive here to-morrow ” (2b. 18b). A similar story is told of Samuel, who was absent when his father Abba died, and wished to find out where he treasured the money entrusted to him by orphans. Samuel went tothe cemetery and inquireq after “ Abba,” but was told, “There are many ‘Ab- bas’ here.” Said he, “I want Abba, the son of Ab- ba.” “There are many by this name.” “But |] want Abba b. Abba, the father of Samuel [Samue] being more famous than his father]; where is he?” He was informed that his father was studying at the high yeshibah in heaven. On reaching it Samuel] observed Levi standing outside, as a punishment for not attending R. Aphes’ yeshibah below. Mean. while Abba appeared. Samuel saw him crying and laughing, and asked him: “ Why cryest thou?” “Be. cause thou wilt soon join us.” “Why laughest thou?” “Because thou art very much respected here.” “If so,” said Samuel, “let Levi enter!” And Levi was allowed to enter. Then the father informed Samuel where to find the money (¢é.). The dead are supposed to take an active interest in worldly affairs. The assertion of Kohe- Continued let that “The dead know not any- Conscious- thing” (Eccl. ix, 5) is interpreted, ness of “The wicked who are considered dead the Dead. while yet alive.” KR. Isaac said, “The sting of a worm tothe dead is like the pricking of a pin in the flesh of the living” (Shab, 13b). The dead are very sensitive. One must not tell tales around the death-bed of a scholar (Ber. 19a), Inasmuch, however, as the dead are exempt from performing the precepts, they feel slighted if such performance should take place in their presence by the living, as it would be like “mocking the poor” (Prov. xvii. 5). KR. Hiyya, on his way to the ceme- tery with R. Jonathan, noticed the zizit of the lat- ter’s garment untied, and admonished him to pick them up, else the dead would remark, “'To-morrow they will join us, and now they scoff us” (Ber. 18a; compare Yer. Ber. 4c, d; Eccl. R. ix. 5; see Bacher, “Ag. Tan.” ii, 526). From this it is inferred that where the custom prevails to wrap the dead with a tallit over the shroud, the fringe must be removed or made unfit for purposes of prayer (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 351). Also, in burying a scholar it is customary to deposit in his coffin a scroll that is unfit for reading (¢b. 351; Maimonides, “Yad,” Sefer Torah, x. 36). The Zohar obviously disapproves this practise ot making use of the cemetery as a genizah for de fective scrolls, and tells the following story of R. Hezekiah and R. Jose, who were passing the ruins of Aleppoin Syria, the latter carrying along a fragment of a scroll. While resting they heard a rumbling noise arising from a grave, and a cry: “Wo, wo, the world must be in trouble, for the Torah has appeared here. Or perhaps they come again to laugh at us and disgrace us?” The rabbis were frightened and asked, “Whoartthou?” “Iamadead man. Once upon a time, when the world was in trouble, B. Hiyya came here witha scroll to pray. Iand my comrades went out to mect him, and introduced him to the patriarchs in paradise; but on examina tion the scroll was found to be defective, having? ° superfluous letter ‘waw’ in the word non [Lev- xi. 8], and because we admitted him we were ¢* pelled from the high yeshibah” (Zohar, ed. CracoW> Mid ae 127). DeATH-BED SCENES. ote 1. Visiting the Sick. %. Making the Confession. 3. Lighting the Candles. 4. Mourning. (From Botenschatz, ** Kirehtiche Verfassang,’”” 1748.) Death Debarim THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 486 The practise of praying for the intercession of the dead is of early origin. Caleb on reaching Hebron visited the cave of Machpelah, and Prayers to prayed to the patriarch to be saved andof from cooperating in the conspiracy of the Dead. the scouts sent by Moses to make a report of the conditions existing in the Holy Land (Sotah 34b). The Talmud mentions the custom of visiting the cemetery to request the dead to pray for the living (Ta‘an. 16a; compare tb, 23d). The noise of the soul’s departure from the body reverberates through the world from one end to the other, and yet the sound is unheard The Soul of (Yoma 20b). Prior to the soul’s exit the Dying. it sees the Shekinah (Pirke R. El. xxxiv.). The soul after death is in the same condition as it is in life when one dreams (v6.). Until the body is entirely consumed the soul hovers over the grave (Shab. 152b). R. Judah ha-Nasi in his last will commanded his sons that on every Sabbath eve after his demise they should continue to light the candles, set the table, and prepare the couch in their customary places, as on every Sabbath eve he would visit his home. Once a neighbor knocked at the door for entrance, and Rabbi’s servant answered: “Hush! Rabbi is at home.” After this, Rabbi ceased his visits, soas not to reflect on the righteous men who died before him (Ket. 108a). Samuel said: “If one wants to have a taste of death, let him sleep with his shoes on ” (Yoma 78b). “And God saw everything he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31). “This in- cludes death,” wrote R. Mcir on the margin of his Bible, playing on the similarity of Tis and nw (Gen. R. ix.). “The day of death [is better] than the day of one’s birth” (Eccl. vii. 1) is explained in Eccl. R. ad doe. and Ex. R. xiviii. to mean that “death telis of the meritorious life of the departed ; it is like the vessel cniering port laden with goods.” The great ones of each veneration must die to make room for the greatness of successors; “the righteous themselves ask for death as a favor” (Midr, Teh. to Ps. exvi. 15). The Zohar calls death a festal day (Rost nov; Zohar, Shemini, in referring to the death of Nadab aud Abihu; compare also Heilprin, “Kr Ke ha-Kinnuyim,” fol. 20c.) The day when Adam died was made a holiday (Tanna debe Eliyahu R. xvi.). The windows of the death-chamber should be opened to allow the spirits to enter and to depart (Pa V2yN, 5.7. [ID naw, vi.; see Brrps as SouLs), The angei of death is supposed to wipe his bloody knife in water near the dead; hence all water of the adjacent houses must be emptied on the ground (Yoreh De‘ah, 339). As the “shedim ” are supposed to follow the dead or to hover around the graves. those who follow a funeral cortége must wash their hands on their return, before entering a house (26. 376, 4); but should not dip them in the river, A special lavatory for this purpose is usually pro- vided at the cemetery. On returning from the fu- neral one should sit down and rest on the way several times, so as to drive away the spirits that follow him (Tur Yoreh De‘ah, 375). The board Super- stitions. upon which the dead is cleansed must not be turned over. One should not visit the same grave twice during one day (Will of R. Judah the Pious); nor sleep in the cemetery (Nid. 17a); nor look closely on the face of a dead person; nor kiss the dead, not even when a near relative (“Sefer Hasidim,” § 236), A common superstition is current that if the shadow of one’s head is invisible against the wall in a house where a light is burning on HosHa‘Na RABBAH eve, it is a sign that the person is destined to die with- in the year; if visible, he will live (see Nahmani, commentary on Num. xiv. 9). R. Ammi says: “If one wishes to know whether he will live during the following year, let him during the ten Penitential Days burn a candle in his house where no wind can blow it out. If it does not become ex- tinguished he will live; otherwise, not” (Hor. 12a), To discover whether the husband or the wife wil] die first, calculate the numerical value of the letters in the names of both. If the amount is even, the man will die first; if odd, the woman (PwyD oda), letter Mem, § 6). Superstitions concerning death in connection with dreams are numerous. One of them, the vision of a scroll in the Ark, foretells death, as the death of Aaron follows the description of the tablets placed in the Ark (“Sefer Hasidim,” § 583). See Dreams, A dying child may be released from death’s grasp if nominally sold by the parents to a friend fora shekel (“Sefer Hasidim,” § 245). A change of name may save from death (R. H. 16b). Re- moval of a feather pillow from beneath the head of a dying person helps the soul to depart more easily. But some rabbis objected to this treatment, on the ground that it disturbs the sinking person and hastens his death (3"435 to Tur Yoreh De‘ah, 339; “Sefer Hasidim,” &§ 245-246). The iron keys of the synagogue, if placed under the pillow, have the same effect (¢b.). In accordance with Prov. x. 18: “He that uttercth slander [A329 = “evil news ”] is a fool.” Announcement of death should be made indirectly (Pes. 8b); it was for this reason that the shofar was blown in Talmudical times when death occurred in a town (M. K. 27b). The beadle who summons the congregation to early morning prayer by three knocks at their doors or windows, announces & death in the town by reducing the number of knocks to two. It is a good omen to die with a smile on the face, or to die on one’s birthday. Rain on the day of a funeral is a sign of compassion and forgiveness toward the dead (Tur Yoreh De‘ah, 353). It is customary to bend the thumb of the corpse so that the whole hand resembles the word “ Shaddai” (Almighty), and to bind it in this position with the zizit. A shard is placed on the eyes, a little stick in the hands, a piece of metal on the body, a little bag with earth from the Holy Land under the head, and a three-toothed wooden fork in the hands, to enable the dead to excavate a subterranean way to the Holy Land on the day of resurrection, when all the Jewish dead will arise in Palestine. A towel 1S hung up and a glass of water placed beside it, so that the soul might bathe when it returns to the body. K. J. D. E. Omens of Death. 487 _ ee DEATH (Statistics). See Morvra.ity. DEBARIM. Sce DEUTERONOMY. DEBARIM RABBAH: A Midrash or homiletic commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. Unlike Bereshit Rabbah, the Midrash to Deuteronomy which has been included in the collection of the Rabbot in the ordinary editions does not contain running commentaries on the text of the Bible, but twenty-five complete, independent homilies, to- gether with two fragmentary ones, on as many sec- tious of Deuteronomy, which for the larger part are recognized as “sedarim,” the Sabbatical lessons for public worship according to the Palestinian three- year cycle. The index to the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1525) gives twenty-seven sedarim in Deu- teronomy ; on nineteen of these there are homilies in the present Midrash, as well asa fragment, which, according to the editions, belongs to another seder (Deut. xxix. 9). It may be due to differences of time and place in the division of the cycle of seda- rim that in the Debarim Rabbah there are no homi- lies on seven or eight of the sedarim mentioned in that index—namely, Deut. xi. 10, xiv. 1, xv. 7, xxiii. 10, xxiii. 22, xxiv. 19, xxvi. 1, and occasionally and conditionally xxix. 9—and that, besides a homily ona section mentioned in other sources as a seder ~ (Deut. iv. 25), there are five additional homilies on the sections Deut. i. 10, iv. 7, xi. 26, xxiv. 9, and xxix. 1, which were not otherwise known as se- darim. In someof these homilies, moreover, the ha- lakic exordiums (see below) close with the words p39 2. PIPD IM IPL? dd, which clearly show that the Scriptural sections on which the homilies were pro- nounced were used for public lessons. The editor of this Midrash, however, has probably included only the homilies on the Sabbatical lessons Sections of of the cycle of sedarim: for Debarim the Rabbah contains no homilics on the Midrash. lessonsof the Pesigra cycle belonging to Deuteronomy, Deut. xiv. 22 and xxv, 17 (Deut. xxxili. 1 is a seder as well as a Pe- sikta section). The economy of this Midrash containing sedarim homilies on Deuteronomy, as well as the character of the individual homilies, could easily have been misconstrued and forgotten after the division of the Torah into pericopes according to the one-year cycle had come into general use. In present edi- tions Debarim Rabbah is divided only according to these latter pericopes; it was not noticed that the homilies on NYA YD and NaN 3D did not correspond With the beginnings of the pericopes Deut, xxi. 10 and xxvi. 1. The sidrot Nizzabim and Wayelek formed one pericope in the oldest Midrash editions (Constantinople, 1512, and Venice, 1545); hence in these editions Debarim Rabbah contains only ten sec- tions, corresponding with the pericopes. The fur- ther designation of these sections as “ parashiyyot ” and their enumeration from 1 to 11, dividing Nizza- bim and Wayelek, are addenda of the later editions. According to its original composition, this Mid- rash includes the following homilies (the passages marked with an asterisk are sedarim): (1) Parashab i. Nos. 1-9 (according to the Wilna ed.), on *Deut. i. 1; (2) ih. Nos. 10-14, on Deut i. 10; (2) th. Nos. 15-20, 0 * Deut. if. 2; (4) ib. Nos, 21-25, on * Deut. ii. 31; (5) par. ii. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Death Debarim Nos. 1-9, on * Deut. iii. 23; (6) ib. Nos. 10-17, on Deut. iv. 7; (7) ib. Nos. 18-24, on * Deut. iv. 25; (8) ib. Nos. 25-80, on * Deut. iv. 41; (9) ib. Nos. 31-87, on * Deut. vi. 4; (10) par. iii. Nos. 1-7, on * Deut. vii. 12; (11) ib. Nos. 8-11, on * Deut. ix. 1; (12) ib. Nos, 12-17, on * Deut. x. 1; (13) par. iv. Nos. 1-5, on Deut. xi, 26; (14) th. Nos. 6-11, on *Deut. xii. 20; Analysis of (15) par. vy. Nos. 1-7, on * Deut, xvi. 18; (16) ib. Contents. Nos. 8-11, on * Deut. xvii. 14; (17) ib. Nos. 12- 15, on * Deut. xx. 10; (18) par. vi. Nos. 1-7, on *Deut. xxii.6; (19) ib. Nos. 8-14, on Deut. xxiv. 9; (20) par. vii. Nos. 1-7, on * Deut. xxviii. 1; (21) ib. Nos. 8-12, on Deut. xxix. 1; (par. viii. No. 1, merely a halakic exordium, doubtful if belonging to * Deut. xxix. 9); (22) par. viti. Nos, 2-7, on * Deut. Xxx. IL; (28) par. ix. Nos. 1-9, on * Deut. xxxi. 14; (24) par. x. Nos. 1-4, on * Deut. xxxii. 1; (25) par. xi, Nos. 1-5, and probably 7-8, on Deut. xxxiii. 1 (ib. No. 6 is an interpolated second ha- lakie exordium; No. 8 probably closes the homily and the Mid- rash, the remaining pieces being additions borrowed from the ‘** Midrash on the death of Moses’’). These homilies, which ina new edition of the Mid- rash should be marked as its proper components, evince a great regularity of workmanship in their composition and execution. Each homily begins with a halakic exordium, has one or more proems, followed by the commentary—in which, however, only the first verse, or a few verses from the begin- ning of the section read, are treated—-and ends with an easily recognizable peroration containing a prom- ise of the Messianic future or some other consolatory thought, all concluding with a verse of the Bible. The comments referring only to the first verses of the lesson characterize Debarim Rabbah as a Mid- rash of homilies in which even the proems are rather independent homilies than introductions to the com- ment on the Scriptural section; and the exordiums show, further, that Debarim Rabbah is very similar to the Tanhuma Midrashim. In the halakic exor- dium (an essential of the haggadic discourse which is found neither in Pesikta and Wayikra Rabbah nor in Bereshit Rabbah) an apparently irrelevant legal question is put, and answered with a passage from the Mishnah (about twenty times) or Tosefta, etc. Such answers are generally introduced in De- barim Rabbah by the formula D°93n 13wW 43; though the formula usual in Tanhuma, }3*sMIN 1w JB, oc- curs twice (in parashah it. Nos. 10 and 15). Then follow other halakic explanations (compare para- shah v. No. 8; par. vii. Nos. 1 and 8; par. ix. No. 1: par. xi. No. 1) and haggadic interpretations, the last of which are deduced from the Scriptural sec- tion of the Sabbath lesson. Thus, a connection be- tween the halakie question and the text or the first verse of the lesson is found, and the speaker can proceed to the further discussion of the homily, the exordiums closing generally with the formula }%3%9 PIP PY’ ANN. followed by the first words of the Scriptural section. The formula occurs 18 times as cited; twice as PIPD DBNDw pd; once as Jy }°3D IND: twice as WNIW Psd; it is lacking altogether in only a few of the homilies. The stylistic manner of opening the discourse with a halakic question is so closely connected with the original Midrash Tanhuma, however, Re- that in consequence of the introduc- semblance tory formula 13°37 yo (“May our of Ye- teacher instruct us?”), with which lamdenu. the exordiums and hence the homilies began, the name “ Yelamdenu” was given to this Midrash. Even in early times some scholars concluded from the halakic cxordiums in De- Debarim Deborah THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 488 barim Rabbah that this Midrash was derived in large part from the Yelamdenu; as did ABRAHAM BEN SoLomon AKRA in his “Kelale Midrash Rabbah,” Venice, 1601. It is curious that while in Debarim Rabbah every homily has a halakic exordium, in the extant Tanhuma Midrashim the part on Deuteronomy is without any (the Tanhuma edited by Buber lacks the exordiums to Exodusalso). It would be errone- ous to conclude from this, however, that the present Debarim Rabbah must be identified with Tanhuma, and Tanhuma to Deuteronomy with Debarim Rab- bah, or that Debarim Rabbah as well as the Tanhuma Mirdash in the editions to Deuteronomy, and several other Midrashim to Deuteronomy of which frag- ments have been published in modern times, or from which quotations are found in old authors, have ali borrowed from the original Yelamdenu. If the des- ignation “'Tanhuma homilies” be given to the homi- lies described above, consisting of halakic introduc- tions, proems, comments on various verses, etc., modeled on the form of the Yelamdenu Tanhuma, and if the latter was also the model for the haggadic discourses in the centuries immediately following Tanhuma, it may be said that Debarim Rabbah contains these homilies in a much more primitive form and also in a more complete col- lection than the Midrash Tanhuma to Deuteronomy in Buber’s and the earlier editions; for these editions (as Theodor has shown in his “ Die Midraschim zum Pentateuch,” in “ Monatsschrift,” 1886, pp. 559 ef seq.) are extant in a very defective form, treat much fewer sedarim than Debarim Rab- bah, and, are with few exceptions, only shorter or longer fragments of sedarim homilies. In view of the form of the homilies and the com- position of the whole work, which lend to Debarim Rabbah the appearance of a Tanhuma Midrash, it is not strange that passages from this Midrash are quoted, in some citations of earlier authors (in the thirteenth century and later), as belonging to Tan- huma. Textually, Debarim Rabbah has little in common with the Tanhuma Midrashim on Deuter- onomy, either in the editions or in the extracts from Tanhuma in Yalkut or from Yelamdenu in Yalkut and ‘Aruk. Some halakic questions found also in Tanhumain homilies on Genesis, Exodus, and Levit- icus are quite differently applied and developed in the exordiums of Debarim Rabbah. This Midrash, in its use of the old sources, such as Yerushahni, Bereshit Rabbah, and Wayikra Rabbah, often shows a freer treatment, and endeavors to translate Ara- maic passages into Hebrew and to modernize them. As regards the time of writing or editing the De- barim Rabbah, “the epoch of the year 900” comes, according to Zunz, “perhaps” nearest the mark. The Midrash was not known cither to Debarim Rabbah Older than Tanhuma. Probable R. Nathan, the author of the ‘Aruk, Date. or to Rashi (the passage in a citation quoted by the latter is not found in Debarim Rabbah). A large number of extracts are found in Yalkut, generally with the designation of the Midrash 739 DMD nbx, asitis commonly cited by the older authors. The same name is given to the Midrash on Deuteronomy in Cod. Munich, No. 229; this contains for the first pericope, D935, four entirely different homilies which have but a few points of similarity with those in present editions, but which are likewise composed according to the Tan- huma form, and are on the same Scrip- The tural sections as the homilies in De- Munich barim Rabbah; namely, on Deut. i. 1, Codex. i. 10, ii. 2, 11.31. The second and third pericopes have also halakic exordiums closing with the words, . . . PIYD IW PY 79D pan, in which, however, the question is put without any formula, The Munich manuscript agrees with De- barim Rabbah in the pericopes apy to pay, but has additions to the latter; the remaining pcricopes are lacking, Another manuscript Midrash, in the pos- session of A. Epstein, Vienna, contains not only the same homilies as Cod. Munich for the pericope O35, but for the pericope PON) has similar homilies, that are entirely different from Debarim Rabbah and are on the sedarim Deut. iii. 23 (not iv. 7), iv. 25, iv. 41, vi. 4; all these four homilies have halakie exordiums, The manuscript also has a different exordium for the beginning Apy. From this point to the pericope Nan °3, it agrees with the editions (the exordiums, however, are preceded only by the word m25n, with- out Suen DOIN); in pericope D393 and its addi- tions it agrees with the Cod. Munich. For 35" (also on Deut. xxxi. 14) it has a different text; and in the last two pericopes, 1487 and AI5I7 NNN, it agrees with the Midrash Tanhuma in present editions. It may be assumed with certainty that the first one or two pericopes of this manuscript—in which several passages can be pointed out that R. Bahya (end of the thirteenth century) quotes from the Midrash Rabbah or from 735 D334 mbx—belong to a Midrash that originally included the whole of Deuteronomy. What remained of that Midrash was combined in those codices with pericopes from Debarim Rabbah and Midrash Tanhuma. Among the numerous Midrashim to Deuteronomy there are known to be a number of fragments of a Debarim Auta, the preservation of which is due to the author of Yalkut. BIBLIOGRAPHY: See Bibliography to BERESHIT RABBAH; on Debarim Rabbah especially, compare Zunz, G. V. pp. 25l- 253; Weiss, Dor, iii. 268, iv. 210 et seq.; Buber, Kinleitung zum Tan. pp. 20b et seq., 40a, and ayryp>, Vienna, 1885; Theodor, in Monatsschrift, 1886, p. 559; 1887, pp. 33, 321 et seq.; Epstein, Beitrdge zur Jiidiseche Alterthumskunde, pp. 57, 76 ef seq. idem, in Bet Tatmud, year V.; Winter and Wiinsche. Die Jiidische Litteratur, i. Bacher, Ag. Pal. Amor. tii. 504 et seq.; Maybaum, Die Aeltesten Phasen in der Entwickelung der Jiid. Predigt, pp. 2, 42 et seqg., Berlin, 1901. J. T. L, G. DEBASH, ISAIAH BEN SAMUEL: Proven- cal poet of the second half of the thirteenth cen- tury. Renan supposes that the surname “ Debash” (honey) is the Hebrew translation of the Provengal name “Miles,” a surname frequently borne by the Jews of Provence. Debash is known by two poems addressed to the poet Gorni in defense of Shiloni, also a poet, who had been criticized by Gorni. These two poems are still extant in manuscript (Munich MS. No. 128). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Monatsschrift, 1882, pp. 517, 519; Renan-Neu- Horne ae Rabbins Francais, p. 724; Gross, Gallia Juda- G. I. Br. 489 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Debarim Deborah wa SS Se eS SSS a SS DEBE RABBI ISHMAEL. See ISHMAEL BEN ELISIIA. DEBIR: 1. A king of Eglon referred to in Josh. x. Bet seg. TheSeptuagint reads Aapsiv. Debir was one of the five kings who joined Adonizedek, King of Jerusalem, against the city of Gibeou. In the bat- tle which ensued, according to the Book of Jashar, Joshua, who had come to the support of Gibeon, caused the sun and the moon to stop in their courses while he took revenge on his enemies. The outcome was a crushing defeat for Debir and the allied kings, who fied, but were caught and ig- nominiously put to death. Ae I. Hu. 2. City in the south of Judah. According to Josh. xv. 15 and Judgesi. 12, it was originally called “Kirjath-sepher” (9BD Np); according to Josh. xv. 49, “Kirjath-sannah” (49D Ap). In Josh. x. 39, xi. 21, xii. 13, it is said to have been conquered by Joshua, while in 2b, xv. 15 e¢ seqg.; Judges i. 12 et seg., Othniel is named as its captor. It was the seat of a tribal chief, and therefore a place of some importance. It is mentioned among the Levitical cities in Josh, xxi. 15. Its situation is not certainly known. Probably it is identical with Al-Dahariyyah, a large village on the top of a hill southwest of Hebron. Some consider the “ Debir” mentioned in Josh. xv. 7 to be another place; but no city of this name is elsewhere mentioned as being in the vicinity indicated in the passage, and the text seems to be corrupt. E. G. H. F. Bu. DEBIR, THE. See Hoty or HOL.iEs. DEBORAH: 1. Rebekah’s nurse, who accom- panied Jacob, and died on the road to Beth-el. She was buried under a terebinth (“oak” in A.V. and R.V.), on this account named “ Allon-bakut” (tere- binth of weeping; Gen.xxxv. 8). This tree appears later on in Jewish history in connection with an- other Deborah. In Judges iv. 5 it is called “the palm-tree of Deborah,” as though named in honor of the prophetess, who sat under it and judged Israel; but it is more likely that “ Deborah ” in this connection is a reminiscence of the nurse. How Deborah came to be in the camp of Jacob is explained by Moses ha-Darshan as follows: “ Re- bekah had said to Jacob, ‘I shall send thee hence, and I shall bring thee back’ (see Gen. xxvii. 45); and in fulfilment of the second part of her promise She sent Deborah to bring him back.” The nurse is also mentioned in Gen. xxiv. 59, but her name is not given. E. G. H. G. B. L. 2.——Biblical Data: A prophetess who judged Israel. The story of Deborah is given in Judges iv. and v., and, although these chapters agree in some details, the differences between the two are so great as to make it necessary to treat them separately. h. iv. is a prose narrative from which it is learned that for twenty years Jabin, King of Canaan— whose royal city was Hazor, and whose gencral, Sisera, also had aspecial city, Harosheth of the Gen- tiles—op pressed Israel. During this time, or fora Part of it, there was a prophetess named Deborah, Wife of Lapidoth; she also acted as judge. Her a a AS = ay Pr eh lS Pr residence was between Ramah and Beth-el in the Mount of Ephraim. Stirred by the wretched con- dition of Israel she incites a rebellion, and sends for Barak, the son of Abinoam, to Kedesh of Naphtali, and orders him to muster ten thousand troops of Naphtali and Zebulun and concentrate them upon Mount Tabor, the mountain at the northern angle of the great plain of Esdraclon. At the same time she states that she will draw Sisera to the River Kishon. Barak declines to go without the prophetess. De- borah consents, but declares that the glory of the victory will therefore belong to a woman, for a woman will capture Sisera. Barak gathers ten thousand troops and comes to Mount Tabor. As soon as the news of the rebellion reaches Sisera he collects nine hundred charivts of iron and a host of people. A battle is fought, and Sisera is complete- ly defeated. He himself escapes on foot, whilc his army is pursued as far as Harosheth of the Gentiles and destroyed, not a man being left. Sisera passes the tent of Jael, who calls him; and he lies down to rest. He asks for a drink; she gives him milk; and while he is asleep she hammers a tent-pin through his temple. When Barak, in hot pursuit, passes the tent, she shows him the dead general. The narrative closes with the statement that thence- forth the power of Jabin waned until he was finally destroyed. For Judges v., see DEBORAH, SONG OF. E. G, WH. G. B. L. —-In Rabbinica] Literature: Deborah was one of the seven prophetesses God raised in Israel: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther (Meg. 14a), The epithet mass NWN (“wife of Lapidoth ”) is interpreted by the Rabbis (i.c.) as referring to the woman who furnished wicks forthe “lamps” of the sanctuary. The story is told more elaborately in Tanna debe Eliyahu R. ix.: Deborah, being married to an “am ha-arez,” induced him to furnish wicks for the Shiloh sanctuary, and he made them so big as to turn the lights into bla- zing torches (myD5). His real name was “ Barak,” given to him because his face “shone like lightning ” (p73); he wasalso called “ Michael,” because he was modest before God (WYP AN WO): but his name “Lapidoth ” (furnisher of lights) indicates the merit of his wife Deborah, which caused her to become a great light in Israel. The fact that she was ap- pointed by God to be judge and prophetess while Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, was living, was to evi- dence that the spirit of God rests alike upon Jew and Gentile, man and woman, bondman and bond- woman. The name “Deborah” is made an object- lesson: Two women were prophetesses, yet at the same time conceited and overbearing; all the more ugly were their names: that of the one being“ De- borah ” (bee), that of the other, “ Huldah ” (weasel). Of Deborah it is said: “And she sent and called Barak” (Judges iv. 6) instead of going to him; while Huldah sent a message to King Josiah: “Tell the man that sent you to me,” etc. (II Kings xxii. 15), omitting to address him as king (Meg. 14b. compare marginal glosses). Deborah’s dwelling under the palm-tree (Judges iv. 5) is explained in several ways. According to one view, she would not, being a woman, teach or Deborah Debts THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 490 judge in privacy, but in the open air, where all could assemble; according to another opinion the palm- tree symbolized the unity of hearts of all Israel, all being turned, like the leaves of the palm, to God their Father in heaven (Tanna debe Eliyahu ix. ; compare Yalk. ii. 42). Deborah’s prophecy con- sisted in her revealing the fact that God aids Israel by means of men who consecrate their lives to the worship of God and the study of His Law, praising Him in the bet ha-keneset and bet ha-midrash (Tanna debe Eliyahu ix. and x., derived from p’a73npnN Ja OY, Judges v. 2,9; compare Targum to I Macc. ii, 42, and “ Apost. Const.” Ixii.). “ Barak, because he heeded her prophecy, was made participant of her song ” (Judges v. 1). Deborah’s song, which is taken by Griitz (“‘Gesch.” i. 115) to be a poem not composed by her—the form ‘Mopy (Judges v. 7) being the second person femi- nine; z.e. “Until thou didst arise, O Deborah,” not “T arose” (A. V.)—is referred by the Haggadah to such Hasidean heroes as aided the Maccabean war- riors in their battle against the Syrians (Tanna debe Eliyahu x.; ‘Er. 54b, Targ. to Judges ii, 2-9, 11). The words “I arose a mother in Israel ” show her con- ceit, and her punishment for such pride was that she lost her powers of prophecy (Pes. 66b). S. 8. DEBORAH, THE SONG OF: Nameof the tri- umphal ode found in Judges v. 2-81 and ascribed in the title (Judges v. 1) to Deborah; it celebrates the victory in the plain of Megiddo over Sisera and his army. The song belongs to the earlier poetry of the Hebrews, but shows such a remarkable power of expression and such aspontaneity that it takes a high place among the masterpieces of the world’s poetic literature. The Masoretic text, while exhibiting corruptions and obscurities, may be said on the whole to be fairly faithful to the original. Jt has, how- ever, been in the way of all attempts to reduce the poem to meter and divide it into regular strophes. The principal pauses occur after v. 11 and v. 22, and the prevailing rhythm has four beats to the line. The poem opeus, after the summons to praise Yuwu, in which the kings of the surrounding nations are asked to join, with the description of Yirwn’s marching forth from Scir (verses 2-5). Then the song enlarges on the disorganized state of affairs before the war “until thou didst arise, O Deborah” (verse 7) (the ending of the verb *nppw, which may be taken to be the first person, is rather the archaic form of the second person feminine); thisapostrophe to Deborah (or declaration by Deborah) is followed by continued portrayal of the critical situation in Israel, which was completely unmanned because disloyal—though the phrase (“they chose new gods.” v. 8) is of obscure meaning—to the ancestral God. The text of verses 9-1 { shows some misplacements, and verse 9 may be & marginal note by some later hand, or a eulogy added, of the class so numerously found in the Old Testament. Verses 12-22 describe the march into battle, the victory, and the flight of the Canaanites; verse 12a is the appeal to Deborah to strike up the bat- tle-song, followed by that to Barak to open the fight. Praise is bestowed on the tribes of Ephraim, Benja- min, Machir (Manasseh), Zebulun, Issachar (Debo- rah’s tribe), and Naphtali (Barak’s tribe). while cen- sure is dealt out to Reuben (Gilead), Dan, and Asher for lack of patriotism. Verses 19-22 detail the battle, in which “from heaven fought the stars” (YHWaH’said), andthe rout of the enemy. The third division, verses 23-31, narrates the flight and death of Sisera (verses 23-27), and graphically describes g scene in his palace where his mother and her women await his return with anticipations of rich booty (verses 28-30). “Meroz”—an unknown place—is cursed for its unwillingness to help YHwu, and by contrast Jacl is blessed for her bravery (verses 23-27). The whole poem concludes (verse 81) with a fervent wish that Sisera’s fate befall all of Yuawu’s enemies, while His friends shall be invincible. The poem may have been included in the “book of the wars of Yuwu” (Num. xxi. 14; sce Ber. 58a). Modern critics for the most part concede that the song was written very near the time at which the battle therein de- scribed took place. BIBLIOGRAPILY: August Miller, Honigsberger Studien, 1887, i. 1 et seq.; Budde, Kurzer Handkommentar (Marti’s), ed. Richter, 1897; G. Moore, Internat. Critical Commentary, Judges, pp. 135-173, New York, 1901; D. H. Miiller, Les Actes du Onziéme Congres Intern. des Orientatistes, Up. 261 et seg., Paris, 1898; Eduard Kinig, Die Stitistik, thetorik und Poetik, 1900, pp. 298-801; Néldeke, Unter- suchungen zur Kritik des Pentateuchs, p. 15L: Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertioms,i., 8 167: Stade, Geschichte Israels, i. 49; Wellhausen, Komposition des Hexateuchs, p. 22: Pieper- ding, Histoire du Peuple @Israel, p. 835, Paris, 1898; M, Vernes, Précis @ Histoire Jivive, p. 210 (fanciful and wild) ; H. Winckler, Geschichte Israels, 1895, i. 343; C. Niebuhr, Versuch einer Rekonstellation des Deboralhliedes, Leipsic, 1894 (umreasonable and ultracritical): Nowack, Handkom- mentar, ed. Richter, 1900. pp. 41 et seq. E. G. H. DEBORAH: A Jewish weckly in the German language, founded in 1855 by Isaac M. Wise and Max Lilienthal in Cincinnati, Ohio, forGerman immigrants who had not mastered English. It was planned as a German supplement to the AMERICAN IsRAEL- Ire, and with the increase of the English-speaking Jewish population it lost ground continually. It was kept up until Wise’s death (March 26, 1900), he being assisted at various times by 8. H. Sonneschein. [Tenry Zirndorf, and G. Deutsch. The last weekly issue appeared April 6, 1900. In Jan., 1901, G. Deutsch, assisted by 8. H. Sonneschein, resumed the publica- tion of “ Deborah” as a monthly; but this was dis- continued in Dec., 1902. G. D. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR: The law-books treat under this head the incidents of payment: the kind of money that the creditor must accept: the place at which the debtor must pay; the means of sending or bringing the money; good and bad ten- ders; the creditor’s duty to give a receipt; ete. The Jewish codes treat some of these questions on Talmudic authority. They speak of debtor and creditor as “malweh we-loweh” (literally, “lender and borrower”), looking upon a liquidated debt, even when it arises from the sale of land or goods, as @ loan. The question, What isa good tender—so as to stop interest and costs—is of no consequence in Jewish law, us the latter awards neither interest nor costs. Though debts were not paid with checks or notes in Talmudic times, yet cases quite analogous are discussed. A debt is payable wherever the creditor demands it, even if he meets the debtor in the wilderness 491 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deborah Debts (provided the payment leaves to the debtor the means for getting home); but should the debtor offer to the creditor in the wilderness money which he has borrowed in a settled country, the creditor may re- fuse to take it (B. K. x. 6, also applicable to liabil- jties arising from torts or bailment; Maimonides, “Yad,” Malweh, xiii. 8; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 74, 1). The custom arose in the days of the Geonim for the creditor, at or after the time of a contract made before witnesses, to request the debtor Time of to pay only before witnesses; and, Payment. according to rules drawn by the Ge- onim from Shebu‘ot vi., such a re- quest must be complied with. That is to say, the debtor will in such a case be unable to set up pay- ment except by the testimony of witnesses (Mai- monides, 22. xv. 1, and see gloss for disputed points), So if the creditor stipulates that the witnesses must be scholars or physicians, or that he, the cred- itor, shall be trusted without oath against the plea of payment, the stipulation was enforced (¢). xv. 2, 3). Similar stipulations may be made by the debtor ; with what effect sce cb. xv. 5; compare gencrally Hoshen Mishpat, 69. The debtor is responsible for the sum due till he pays it over to the creditor or to his agent. Should the creditor say to hin, “Throw me my money and be quit,” and he does so, but the money is lost or stolen before it reaches the creditor, he is quit (Git. "8b: see Maimonides, 7. xv. 1). What is said about throwing the money applies, of course, to any mode of transmission chosen by the creditor (Hoshen Mish- pat, 120, 1, 2). In the absence of special terms, a loan or a sale on credit (unless there bea local custom to the contrary) is presumed to fall due in thirty days (Tosef., B. M. x, 1; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 78, 1). Where atime of payment has been set, cither in an oral “loan” or by bond, whether the debtor be dead or alive, the creditor may make no demand before the day set (see Hoshen Mishpat, 73, 2, 8, 4, for the set- tlement of disputes as to the time of maturity). At maturity the debtor may wish to pay at once, so as no Jonger to hold the money at his own risk— for example, if it be feared that the government will levy an arbitrary tax or change the money standard—and the creditor is bound toaccept. If he refuses, the debtor may deposit the Acceptance. money with the court or with some trustworthy party; but not when the debt is not yet due and some untoward act, as above, seemsimminent. Ifnosuch risk is apparent, however, the creditor must accept; for the setting of a time is intended only for the debtor's benetit. After maturity the debtor may wish to pay in driblets. Elere the better opinion is that the creditor may not refuse such payments. Still, if there isa pledge or mortgage for the debt, the debtor can not compel the creditor to release part of the property, even though it may be easily divisible (Hoshen Mish- pat, 74, 4, based on B. M. 77b). When the coin in which a contract was made has been demonetized by the government, it must still be accepted so long as it remains current in some Other country to which the creditor has access; if not current in such a country, the debtor must pay in the coin current at the time; and such is also the rule for the wife’s jointure (7d. 74, 7). It has been shown under ALIENATION how a de- mand is transferred in a “meeting of three.” This, the promise of a third person may be transferred in payment of a debt. As Maimonides says, if A owes a mina to B, and B says to Ain a meeting of three, “Give toC the mina which you owe me,” and C assumes it, but it turns out that A is insolvent, C may back out; for Bhasmisledhim. But if C knew of A’s insolvency, or if A was well off at the time and became insolvent afterward, C may not repudiate his assumption. Again, suppose A has no demand on B, but owes a mina to C, and he refers the latter for payment to B, although he refers him thus in a “meeting of three,” there is no transfer. B need not give the money toC; but if he does, he can recover it from A. Also, if C says, “I do not wish to collect from B,” he may hold A liable, even after collecting part of the demand from B (“ Yad,” Malweh, xvi. 3, 4). The inference from the cases in which the old debt is not barred by reason of fraud or mistake is that where the debtor in a meeting of three furnishes to the creditor a new obligor with a full understanding of the facts all round, the oid debt is extinguished. The formal acquittance by which a bond is canceled is known as “shober” (literally, “ breaker”), and is in form a “shetar”; that is, attested by two wit- nesses. Where the debt is by bond, the bond is de- livered upon payment in full. Upon partial pay- ment, the creditor may insist on receiving a new bond for the remnant,or he may give an acquittance for the part paid. For a debt otherwise than by bond, the debtor may have his shober, provided he pays the scrivener’stees. But if the creditor claims to have lost or misiaid the bond, the debtor is enti- tled to a shober at the creditor’s cost, and may, moreover, compel him to take an oath that the bond is not in his possession (Hoshen Mishpat, 54, and authorities there quoted). Can- celation. L, N. D. DEBTS OF DECEDENTS: Under the old law as it is recognized in many passages of the Talmud (e.g., Ket. 81b) and implied in the Mishnah (Ket. ix. 2; B. Kk. x. 1), the goods and chattels of a decedent, or the moneys due to his estate, can not be seized by his creditors or by his widow, who is a bond credi- tor for her jointure (“Ketubah”), though R. Meir distinctly said, and the Mishnah in one place inti- . mates, that all of a man’s estate is bound by the lat- ter instrument. The very name given to lands and slaves, “estate which has responsibility ” (“ahara- yot”), as shown in the article on ALIENATION, Indi- cates that land was deemed by the old sages the primary fund for securing creditors (see also DEED). It may hence be inferred that in Palestine, even after the destruction of the Temple, and in Babylonia, the Jews were, down to the completion of the Talmud, in the main land-owning farmers, not landless traders or artisans. In later times, when the bulk of the Jews had become landless, this rule became impracticable, and L. G. Debts Decalogue the Geonim instituted another rule, subjecting the goods and demands of decedents, as well as their lands, to their debts (see Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 107, 1). Maimonides shows that even with- out this new institution the orphan heirs of A, who have as such obtained the land of his debtor, must give them up to A’s creditors: for the lands would be considered as coming to them from their father (Ket. 92a); and morally orphans were always bound to pay their father’s debts to the extent of both lands and chattels received (“ Yad,” Malweh, viii. 9, based on Ket. 91b). As to priorities of bond creditors on de- scended lands, see DEED. Regarding personal prop- erty, all creditors are on an equality, except in so far as one gains a priority by making the first seizure. The codes say little or nothing about the distribution of an estate that is not sufficient to satisfy all cred- itors. | Bond creditors take lands sold by the heirs out of the hands of the purchasers (unless the heirs will pay the debt), in like manner as they prevail against purchasers from the debtor himself. The manner of appraising the lands of infant heirs, and of advertising and selling the same for the pay- ment of debts, is described in the article on Ap- PRAISEMENT (see also Hoshen Mishpat, 109). A sort of judicial conveyance, known as “adrakta,” is drawn up after the selling of the lands, which must contain the declaration that the lands sold belong to the deceased debtor, naming him (7d.). A debt arising by word of mouth, or by written contract not scaled (see DEED), can be set up against the debtor’s heirs in three cases only: (1) if the debtor had in his last sickness acknowledged the debt; (2) if the debt was not due at the debtor’s death; (3) if the debtor had been excommunicated for failing to satisfy a judgment, and had died while under the ban; for in other cases the debt might have been paid in the debtor’s lifetime with- out the knowledge of the heirs. And, except in these three cases, even a debt by bond can not be enforced against the heirs during their infancy (boys under thirteen), though the bond contain a clause that the debtor trusts the honesty of the creditor; for these heirs, if of full age, might find proof to overcome the bond or to show its having been paid. Nor can the debt be enforced during the infancy of the heirs if the testimony of witnesses is needed to bring it within one of these three cases; for witnesses can not be adduced against an infant. Hence it was usual to make a judicial minute of the debtor’s death-bed acknowl- edgment. So decides Caro (Hoshen Mishpat); but Maimonides (Malweh, xii. 1, 2) holds that during the infancy of the heirs no proceedings can be taken in any cases but the following two: (1) where the demand belongs to a Gentile, and bears interest which it is for the benefit of the infants to stop; (2) the case of a widow’s jointure, provided she has not married again. In these two cases the court should appoint a guardian for the infant heirs, who will guard their interests; and if there is no defense, the descended estate will be sold, and the debt paid off (see also B. B. 5b, 22a, 174a). Whether the heirs be under or over age, the cred- itor can not proceed against them without taking the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 492 oath, unless there be a clause in his bond in which the debtor declares faith in his truthfulness. Should the creditor die, and his heirs set up a claim against that of the debtor, they must take a solemn oath framed for the circumstances (sce Sheb. 45a), unless a clause in the bond avows faith in the creditor and in his heirs. Where the creditor does not know of assets descended, and calls upon the debtor’s heirs for payment, and they, while admitting the debt, deny the receipt of assets, they may clear them- selves by the rabbinical oath. A fine, such as was often imposed by the rabbin- ical courts (“kenas”), fails to the ground with the wrong-doer’s death, and can not be collected from his heirs (Joshen Mishpat, 108, 2). The rule of enforcing all demands against the obligor’s heirs is of late date. Rab and Samuel, the first of the Babylonian “ pairs” (c. 230-250), still agreed in the proposition: “He who lends by word of mouth can not collect either from heirs or from purchasers” (B. B. 15a; but see RoBBeRY as to liability of descended lands for things taken forcibly). This feature of the older Talmudic law falls in with the common-law rule that the heir (z.¢., the suc- cessor to the decedent’s lands) is bound only for the bonds or sealed instruments of his ancestor. Later on, in both systems of law natural equity prevailed over narrow distinctions. L. G. L. N. D. DECALOGUE: A word, derived from the Greek, corresponding to the Biblical O 29m mwyy; LXX. ot déxa Adyo., (EX. xxxiv. 28; Deut. x. 4; compare Josephus, “Ant.” il, 5, § 8) and ta déxa pyyara (Deut. xiv. 18); also ra déxa Adyio, in the title of Philo’s dissertation Tlepi tov Aéxa Aoyiwy; in later Hebrew mina4n “yp (Shabbat 86b) or, without the numeral, nAIN (B. K. 64b). As a singular, 7 déxadoyes (scil. BifAoc) was first used by the Church Fathers (see Clement of Alexandria, “ Predagogus,” iii. 12, § 8, and “Stromata,” vi. 16, &§ 183, 187); the corresponding Latin “decalogus” is met with in Tertullian (“ De Anima,” xxxvii.). ——~—Biblical Data: The Decalogueis given in the Pentateuch in two versions (Ex. xx. 2-17 and Deut. v. 6-18) that exhibit some variants (see below). Ac- cording to the Biblical records, it represents the sol- emn utterances of Yiwu on Mt. Sinai, directly re- vealed by Him to Moses and the people of Israel in the third month after their deliverance from Egypt, amid wonderful manifestations of divine power marked by thunder and lightning and thick smoke (Ex. xix.). Assuch, God wrote the Ten Words upon two tablets of stone—“ tables of testimony ” (nynd moyn, Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 18, xxxii. 16) or “tables of the covenant” (Aan mini, Deut. ix. 9,11, 15) —and gavethemto Moses, The people having gone astray, Moses, carried away by righteous indigna- tion, broke the tables (Ex. xxxii. 19), and God sub- sequently commanded him to hew two other tables like the first (Ex. xxxiv. 1), whereon to rewrite the Ten Words (Ex. xxxiv. 1). According to another passage (Ex, xxxiv. 27, 28), Moses was bidden to rewrite, and did rewrite, the Commandments him- self; but in Deut. iv. 18, v. 18, ix. 10, x. 24, God appears as the writer. This second set, brought 4938 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Debts Decalogue down from Mt. Sinai by Moses (Ex. xxxiv. 29), was placed in the Ark (Ex. xxv. 16, 21; x]. 20), hence designated as the “ Ark of the Testimony ” (Ex. xxv. 22; Num. iv. 5; compare also I Kings viii. 9). The Decalogue opens with the solemn affirmation, put in the first person, that the speaker is Yuwu, Israel’s (“thy”) God, who hath led Israel (“ thee”) out of Egypt. There- fore there shall be for Israel (“thee ”) no other gods before Yuwu’s (“my”) face. Pro- hibition of idolatry fol- lows as a logical ampli- fication of this impress- ive announcement, and then a caution against taking YHWIL'S name in vain. The duty of remembering the Sabbath and that of honoring father and mother are empha- sized. Murder, adul- tery, theft, and false testimony are forbid- den, and the Decalogue concludes with an ex- panded declaration against covetousness. Critical View: The Decalogue in Deu- teronomy does not differ materially from that in Exodus in re- gard to the affirmations and obligations con- tained therein. Verbal discrepancies, how- ever, are comparativelv numerous, while the reason adduced for the Sabbath is altogether different. In detail these variants may be grouped as follows: Contents. (a) Differences in the. consonantal (Masoretic) text, in identical words: For example, **mizwotui” (rivn, Ex. xx. 6). which occurs as ‘““mizwotaw” Q3D, Deut. v.10, in the “Ketib’?; this variant is due to an anticipation of the transition from the first to the third person which en- Sues after this verse). Sim- larly, there are changes in the use and position of the auxiliary vowel letters; e.g., NaN (Ex. xx 5) and niax (Deut. v. 9); powey (Ex. xx. 12) and yo°9N» (Deut. v. 16). (b) Syntactical differences: E.g., the syndetic arrangement “children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren ” (Ex. xx. 2, Hebr.), over against the polysyndetic ‘children and grand- children and great-grandchildren”? (Deut. vy. 9, Hebr.); and the asyndetie succession ‘* Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal’? (Ex. xx. 13-17), over against the polysyndetic ‘Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt hot, .. . and,” ete. (Deut. v. 17, Hebr.). (c) Stylistie variations: *‘ Covet,” occurring twice in Ex- odus (xx. 17), is replaced in one instance by “desire”? in Deuteronomy (v. 18). ‘Graven image and any likeness” in X. Xx. 11 (Hebr.) appears as ‘“*[the] graven image of any Earliest Manuscript of Decalogue (Second Century’), Containing Variations from the Masoretic Text. ample of Square Characters in a Hebrew Manuscript. (From “ Transactions of Society of Biblical Archeology.’’) likeness’? in Deut. v. 8 (Hebr.). ‘* Remember (31) the Sab- bath ’” in Ex. xx. 9 corresponds to ‘* Keep’ (4¥>%) in Deut. v. 12, "Pw IW C'false witness”) in Ex. xx. 16 corresponds to Rw’ 3y (a witness of iniquity’ or ‘** falsehood *’) in Deut. v. 17 (A.V. 20), the prohibition being furthermore prefixed by *‘and.”’ The sequence *““house and wife”? in Ex. xx. 17 is reversed to read ‘‘ wife and house” in Deut. v. 18 (A.V. 21). (ad) Additions and amplifications: Deuteronomy adds in two places (Vv. 12, 16) the formula “*as YHWH, thy God, hath commanded thee.” Anotheraddition is found in Deuteronomy in the text of the command to honor father and mother (v. 16): **and that it may go well with thee.’ Ex. xx. 10 summarizes ‘“thy cattle,’ which in Deut. v. 14 (Hebr.) is expanded to thine ox and thine ass and all thy eattle,”’ to which is added “that thy man-serv- ant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.” Deut. v. 18 (Hebr.) has “his fleld,’’ which in the corresponding passage of Exodus is wanting. Bat of greatest inter- est is the variation in the reason given for the Sabbath. Ex. xx. 10, 11 connects it with cre- ation (compare Gen. ii. 2); Deuteronomy as- signs to it a social pur- pose and connects it with Israel’s liberation from Egyptian bond- age. Thus the Sabbath may be said to rest in Exodus on a universal- theological, in Deute- ronomy on @ national- historical-economic, basis. A careful analysis of these variants leads to the conclusion that Ex- odus, on the whole, presents an earlier text than Deuteronomy. The clearly marked ef- fort at stylistic retine- ment (the substitution of “lo tit’awweh” for “lo tahmod”; the men- tion of the “wife” be fore the “house”; even the polysyndetic phras- ing, showing astraining after effect) points in this direction. The in- sertion of the formula “as YHWH hath com- manded ” indicates that the appeal rests on a well- known and long-established. law. The enumeration of the various kinds of cattle also betrays the hand of a later writer, and so does the explanatory and qualifying gloss “that it may go well with thee.” On the other hand, the variants in the command against idolatry point to the priority of the Deutero- nomic reading. Exodus is more explicit and stren- uous, as if afraid that the laxer wording (“ graven image of any likeness”) of Deut. v. 8 might not be sufficiently comprehensive to bar every species of Probably the Oldest Ex- Decalogue THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 494 idolatry. The Sabbath law in Deuteronomy, at least in part, appears to confirm this; while the expres- sion “keep” is stronger than that in Relation Exodus, “remember,” and would thus of the Two indicate a later solicitude for a better Versions. observance. Also, its anxiety for the welfare of the servant exhibits a hu- mane spirit not ordinarily to be looked for in docu- ments of antiquity. The introduction of the theo- logical motive in Exodus, where Deuteronomy has the historical-economic, is an element that favors the assumption of the higher antiquity of the Deu- teronomic Decalogue. These variants, however, have been explained as due to scribal carelessness, such as is easily estab- lished by a comparison of the texts of other parallel passages; the writers, contrary to the later rabbinic practise and injunction, failing to consult the writ- ten text while quoting from memory, and thus mixing with their lines reminiscences of similar but not identical verses (compare Bardowicz, “Studien zur Geschichte der Orthographie des Alt-Hebr.” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1894; Blau, “Studien zum Alt-Hebr. Bicherwesen,” Budapest, 1902). But upon examination this plausible theory will be seen to create new difficulties in the matter in point. The Decalogue must be considered, on the basis of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, to have been fundamental; and as such its wording must have been so accurately fixed as to preclude the possibility of latitude for scribal caprice. The Rab- bis, indeed, have felt this difficulty. They have solved it by assuming that both versions are of iden- tical divine origin, and were spoken in a miracu- jously strange manner at one and the same time (“Bedibbur Ehad”; see Mek., ed. Weiss, p. 77, Vienna, 1865; Shebu. 20b; R. H. 27b; Yer. Ned. iii. 1; Yer. Shebu. iii. 5; Cant. Rabbah xxviii; Sifre, Ki Tabo). Ibn Ezra (to Ex. xx, 1) recognizes the insufficiency of this explanation, but is equally dissatisfied with the solution proposed by Saadia. The latter, con- forming to his rigorous thecry of inspiration, would not admit that the Masoretic text was other than of divine origin. It is therefore his theory that. liter- ally the Deuteronomic Decalogue equally with that of Exodus was divinely inspired. While Exodus presents the reading of the first set of tables, Deu- teronomy contains that engraved by divine direction on the second (see “Jour. Asiatique,” Dec., 1861, in Neubauer, “Notice sur la Lexicographie,” etc. ; Geiger’s “Jiid. Zeit.” i. 292). With profuse profes- sions of regard for Orthodox teachings, Ibn Ezra ventures to hold that these variants are in the nature of linguistic differences often noticeable in the Bib- lical books. Modern Views: Modern conservative schol- ars, with few exceptions (G. Livingston Robinson, “The Decalogue and Criticism,” 1899), in so far as they do not maintain that the version of Exodus is the original Mosaic, or at least the older, while that of Deuteronomy (also Mosaic) departs from the orig- inal text in conformity with the parenetic method and purpose of Deuteronomy, have concluded that both versions are amplifications—those in Deuteron- omy on the whole being later than those in Ex- odus—of an anterior and old (Mosaic) but briefer list of ten statements written in the manner of the prohi- bitions against murder, adultery, theft, etc. (Strack, “ Exodus,” p. 241; Franz Delitzsch, in “ Zeitschrift fir Kirchliche Wissenschaft und Leben.” 1882, p. 292; Holzinger, “ Exodus,” in “Kurzer Hand-Com- mentar zum A. T.” pp. 79 ef seg., Tiibingen, 1900; Eduard Konig, “ Einleitung,” p. 187, and Index, s.2. ; Wildeboer, “ Die Literatur des A, T.” p. 17). Graphically considered, the writing of the Ietters (about 620) contained in the Decalogue on two tables of stone of moderately large dimensions does not present, as was long thought, animpossibility. The Mesha stone proves the contrary. The Decalogue written in the style of the latter would fill about twenty of its lines (Holzinger, J.c. p. 69). The un- evenness in the length of the first and the second parts is a much stronger indication that the original ver- sion was without the amplifications noticeable in the commandments of the first and tenth groups. The tradition, according to which ear- lier tables were replaced by others, shows that for a long time the knowl- edge was current of changes in the text, and not, as Holzinger contends (J.c. p. 77), that a Mosuic law had never existed. The original Ten Words probably opened with (1) “Yam Yawu, thy God,” etc. Then followed: (2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me [beside Me]. (3) Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain. (4) Remember the Sabbath-day. (5) Honor thy father and thy mother. (6) Thou shalt not murder. (7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. (8) Thou shalt not steal. (9) Thou shalt not bear false witness. (10) Thou shalt not covet (Wildeboer, Le. p. 19). Eduard Konig and others (see Lotz in Herzog- Hauck, “Real-Encyc.” 3d ed., p. 563) place as the second of these original Ten Words the prohibition against the making and the worshiping of graven images. Itis probable that the early Hebrews shared with the Arabs the repugnance to molten plastic idols ( Sop ;see Wellhausen, “Reste Arabischen Heiden- tunis,” p. 102); but “mazzebot” (pillars or stones) were legitimate accessories of the Ynwu cult down toa much later period than that of such a Mosaic decalogue. Moreover, idolatry was tolerated in North Israel and even in Judea down to the later centuries. Upon these considerations, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Stade, Schultz, and Smend have argued against the ascription of any decalogue to Mosaic times; but with the omission from the origina] ten of the injunction against idolatry, the mainstay is taken from under the opposition to the authenticity of the tradition connecting Moses with such a lapi- dary code. These simple brief statements were amplified in course of time; the fourth, for instance, reflecting in both versions agricultural conditions such as did not obtain in the Mosaic days. So also does the promised reward of the fifth. The reason given in Deutcron- omy for keeping the Sabbath also appeals to circum- stances of agricultural civilization; that adduced in Exodus is of a theological nature, and can not be much older than the priestly code (P), nor can it antedate the reception into the Pentateuch of Gen. i. Original Form. 495 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Decalogue RR and ii. 1-4. Critics have assigned the Exodus ver- gion, With this exception, to the ninth century B.C. ; the Deuteronomic text, to the seventh century. From the point of view of Pentateuchal analysis Wellhausen (“ Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Biicher des Alten Testaments,” 1885, pp. 84, 85, and posse) maintains that the Jahvist (J) contains an altogether different decalogue; viz., that of Ex. xxxiv. 14-26. Goethe, in his “Zwo Fragen, 1773,” was the first modern to suggest this. This decalogue is concerned with ritual affairs. Holzinger (Commentary on Exodus, p. 119) proposes the folowing brief sentences as its contents: (1) Thou shalt not worship any strange god. (2) Thou shalt not make thee any molten images. (3) Thou shalt observe the Feast of Mazzot [Pesah]. (4) The first-born are Mine [YHWuH’s]. (5) Fhou shalt observe the Feast of Weeks, (6) Thou shalt observe the Feast of the Ingathering. (7) Thou shalt not mix with leaven the blood of My offerings. (8) The fat of My feast shail not remain with thee until the next morning. (9) The choicest of the first-fruits of the land shalt thou bring to the house of YHWH, thy God. (10) Thou shalt not seethe the kid in the milk of its mother. In order to extract these “ten words” from the passage, many other laws therein contained of seem- ingly equal importance have to be omitted, as also the reasons assigned for their observance. This at- tempt to reconstrue another decalogue may be said to be a failure, all the more as it is conceded that the decalogue in P (Ex. xx.) is virtually anterior to that (Ex. xxxiv.) in J (Holzinger, 7.c. p. 120). Still less satisfactory, because altogether unreasonable, is the venture to recover the Decalogue from frag- ments in Ex. xx. 27, 28, and xxiii. 10-16 (Meissner, “Der Dekalog,” Halle, 1898; Staerk, “Das Deute- ronomium,” pp. 29 eé seg., 40, Leipsic, 1894). Written on two stone tables (Deut. iv. 18, v. 19, x. 84), with script on both sides (Ex. xxxii. 15), the Decalogue would most naturally have Division been divided into two groups, of five of the “words” each, each group appearing Decalogue. on one stone. In this way, according to Josephus (“ Ant.” iii. 5, § 4) and Philo (“ De Decalogo,” § 12, dio zevrddac), the Deca- logue was originally delivered, the first pentad con- taining the commandments of “ pietas” (relating to God or His visible representatives on earth, the parents); the other, those of “ probitas ” (relating to conduct toward one’s fellow men). The Midrash mentions a similar division: m> 5y 'n ar mS Sy ‘ny np (Ex. R. xli.), though, according to R. Nehemiah, each table contained the complete text of the Ten Words (compare Yer. Shek. vi. [quoted in “En Ya‘akob”]). The first table would thus have contained 146 of the 172 words of the Exodus Deca- logue, but the other only 26. In view of this in- equality in the distributicn it has been suggested that the one table contained only the first three com- mandments; the other, the last seven. Butif the amplifications were omitted, the grouping in sets of five would result in assigning to the one table *8 words and to the other 27 (Strack, “Exodus,” Pp. 242), The order of the prohibitions against murder, adultery, and theft, as now given in the Maso- Decalogue of Exodus XxXXiV. retic text, in Josephus, and in the Syriac Hexa- pla, is not followed by the Septuagint, the Co- dex Alexandrinus, and Ambrosianus Sequence (which have “murder, theft, adul- and Num- tery”), nor by Philo (who has “adul- bering. tery, murder, theft”), nor by the Codex Vaticanus (which reads “adultery, theft, murder”). Differences obtain also in regard to the numbering of the various commandments. The _ traditional Jewish system makes Ex. xx. 2 the first “word,” and verses 3-6 are regarded as one; viz., the second (Mak, 24a; Mek., ed. Friedmann, p. 70b, Vienna, 1870; Pesik. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 106b, 7b. 1880). This arrangement is found also in the Codex Vati- canus of the LXX. and in the Deuteronomy of Am- brosianus. Still R. Ishma’el counts verse 3 as the first “word ” (Sifre to Num. xv. 31; ed. Friedmann, p. 38a, Vienna, 1864). Philo and Josephus count verse 3 aS commandment i.; verses 4-6 as ii.; verse 7 as lii.; verses 8-11 as iv.; verse 12 as v.; verse 18 as vi.: verse 14 as vii.; verse 15 as viii.; verse 16 as ix.; and verse 17 as x. The numbering adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches combines verses 3-6 into a single commandment which is numbered i., in con- sequence of which, up to the last, every command- ment is advanced by one, the Jewish No. III. be- coming IJ., and so on. In order to maintain the number ten, the Jewish No. X. is divided into IX. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife”) and X. (“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house,” etc.). This method of numbering is ascribed to Augustine (“ quest. 71 ad Exodum ”), but the Codex Alexandrinus, as E. Nestle was the first to notice (“Theol. Studien aus Wirttemberg,” 1886, pp. 319 et seq.), also exhibits it. Modern critics are inclined to accept this latter system of enumeration, partly because the Jewish No. I. is not a “commandment,” in which they overlook the Hebrew designation 9349 (“word”), and partly because, as the Jewish enu- meration has it, verses 8 and 4-6 certainly constitute one command. The “ ‘aseret ha-dibrot ” are accentuated in the He- brew in two ways: one for private reading, when the verses are marked to begin at 2, 3, Accentu- 4, 5, 6, 7,8, 9,10, 11, 12, 18, 17 (18-16 ation of the as one verse); the other for solemn Command- publicrecital, when the first two com- ments. mandments and the introduction are read without interruption, because God is mtroduced as the speaker, and every other com- mandment as a separate verse (Pinsker, “ Einleitung in das Babylonisch-Hebriische Punktationssystem,” pp. 48-50). It may be possible, though it has been doubted, that this double accentuation preserves the traces of an old uncertainty concerning the numera- tion of the various “ principles” or“ words.” These accents are respectively known as the “ta‘am ha‘el- yon” (superlinear) and the “ta‘am ha-tahton ” (sub- linear). The Oriental Jews know only the division into ten words; ¢.e., that observed in private reading (W. Wickes, “ Accentuation of the Twenty-one So- called Prose Books of the O. T.” p. 180). The superlinear accentuation is generally used for the cantillation of the Decalogue on the Feast of Weeks Decalogue THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 496 as the memorial day of the revelation—7.e., the giv- ing of the Torah (A71N pnd yor)—while on the ordi- nary Sabbaths, when the Decalogue is read as a part of the pericope (Yitro and Wa’ethannan), the sublinear is followed (Japhet, “Die Accente der Heiligen Schrift,” 1896, p. 160; Geiger, “ Wiss. Zeit. Jtid. Theol.” ii. 147 et seg.; also “ Urschrift,” p. 378, note). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sonntag, Ueber die Hintheilung der Zehn Gebote, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1836, pp. 61 et seq.; Geffken, Ucher die Verschiedenen Eintheilungen des Dekalogs, Hamburg, 1838; Bertheau, Die Sieben Grup- pen Moscischer Gesetzgeh. Géttingen, 1840; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, ib. 1848; Graf, Die Geschichtlichen- Bitcher des A. T., Leipsic, 1866; Heilbut, Ueber die Ur- spriingliche und Richtige Eintheilung des Dekalogs, Ber- lin, 1874; Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, ete., in Jahrb. fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1876-77; Lemme, Die Religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Dekalogs, Breslau, 1850; Reuss, Die Gesch. der Heiligen Schriften d. A. T. Brunswick, 1881; Franz Delitzsch, Der Dekalog in Exodus und Deuteronomium, in Zeitschrift ftir Kirch- liche Wissenschaft und Kirchtliches Leben, 1882, pp. 281- 293; Kuenen, H. K. Onders, i., Leyden, 1885 (German ed., Leipsic, 1857); Lotz, Gesch. und Offenbaruny, Leipsic, 1891 ; Budda, Die Gesetzgebung der Mittleren Bticher, in Stade’s Zeitschrift, 1891, pp. 193-234; Baentseh, Das Bundesbuch, Halle, 1892; Meissner, Der Dekalog, Halle, 1895; Kénig, Hin- ieittung, Bonn, 1893; Smend, Lehrhuch der Alttestament- lichen Religionsgesch. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893; Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, ib. 1893; Staerk, Das Deu- teronomium, Leipsic, 1894; Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des Deuteronomiums, Halle, 1894; idem, Die Entstehung des Deut. Gesetzes, Halle, 1896; Dillmann, Komm. various edi- tions, Leipsie, from 1878 on; idem, Alttestament. Theologie, jb. 1895: Driver, Introduction, 10th ed., New York, 1902; Kraetzschinar, Die Bundesvorstellung tm A. T. Marburg, 1896; Kiostermann, Geseh. des Volkes Israel, Munich, 1896 ; Holzinger, Hxeodus, in Marti’s Kurzer Hand-Commentar, 1900; Robinson, The Decalogue, Chicago, 1899; the Bible dictionaries, s.v. Decalogue; Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Is- rael, i; Baentsch, Hxrodus- Leviticus, Gottingen, 1900; S. A. Cook, in Guardian, London, Dee. 17, 1902; Jan. 14, 1908 (de- scription of a recently discovered papyrus containing an early Hebrew recension of the Decalogue, alleged to be of the sec- ond century and represented as giving the text followed by the Septuagint). E. G. H. E. K.—E. G. H. DECALOGUE, THE, IN JEWISH THE- OLOGY: The Ten Words are designated by Philo as kegadaia véuwr =the heads of the law,” the title of the chapter “De Decem Oraculis.” The second table Philo, contrary to the usual order, begins with the commandment against adultery, describing adultery as the greatest of all violations of the Law, since it corrupts three houses—that of the adul- terer, that of the wronged busband, and that of the adulterer’s wife. The fourth commandment re- fers to all festivals, and, according to Philo, em- braces all the laws conducive to the spread of kind- ness and gentleness and fellowship and the feeling of equality among men (with reference to Sabbatical year and the jubilee), Under the fifth command- ment he ranges all laws in regard to family life, the honor due to old people, the duties of the old to the young, the ruler to his subjects, the benefactor to the needy, the master to his servants, etc. Philo’s ex position of the preeminence and original character of the Decalogue, both in its general tenor and in many of its particular details, reflects the teachings of the Mishnaic period, as indeed it also anticipates some of the positions of later Rabbis. The fact that the recital of the Ten Words consti- tuted a salient feature of the daily liturgy in the morning service (Tamid v.1; Ber. 8c) indicates that they were regarded as the essential parts of divine revelation. This practise was discontinued as a protest against the unwarranted inference drawn therefrom by sectaries that the Decalogue alone had been revealed by God on Sinai (Ber. 11a). The Shema‘ (“ Hear, O Israel,” Deut. vi. 4)ana une selec- tions from Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 18-22; Num. xv. 37 e¢ seg., which follow the Shema‘ in the order of the liturgy, and form as it were a part thereof, were be- lieved to contain in essence the Decalogue. The new Pesikta (Bet Ham. vi. 41; comp. Bacher, “Die Agada der Palistin. Amorier,” ii. 188) holds the reading of the Shema‘ every morning as tanta- mount to the keeping of the Ten Commandments, because they, too, had been proclaimed “in the morning ” (Ex. xix. 16). Again, Sifre to Deut. i. 8 controverts the assumption that the Decalogue alone had been revealed through Moses. Like the Shema‘, Num. xix., looked upon by R. Hiyya as funda- mental, is construed by R. Levi as a cryptogram of the Decalogue (see DIDACHE). According to Hananiah, the son of Joshua’s brother, the Decaiogue contains all the laws of the Torah (Yer. Shek. 46d, bottom; Sotah 22d; Cant. Rabbah to v. 14), his words, “ parashiyyoteha we- dikdukeha shel Torah,” recalling Philo’s view that the Decalogue contains the capital, the rest of the Pentateuch the special, laws. Berechiah is credited with a similar opinion (Bacher, /.c. iii. 856). The Decalogue is compared with a rare jewel of ten pearls (Exod. R. xliv.; Tan. [Ki] Tissa, end). The Patriarchs had been loyal to the principles of the Decalogue long before they had been revealed to Moses. (Attentionis called to Yalk. Shim‘oni, i. 276, end.) The universality of the Decalogue is accentu- ated by the fact of its being offered in turn to all the nations (Deut. xxxiii. 2, 3; Hab. iii. 3; Ta‘an. 25a; ‘Ab. Zarah 2a) in the desert territory (“ hefker ”) which belonged to none exclusively (Mek., Yitro, 1). and of its proclamation in al} the (seventy) languages of the world (Shab. 88b). The first and second commandments are rated as preeminent (Sifre to Num. xv. 31), both on account of their doctrine and also because they alone, as is indicated by the use of the first person singular, were spoken to the people by God Himself (Mace. 24a; Sanh. 99a; Hor. 8a; compare Geiger, “Jiid. Zeit.” iv. 118 e¢ seqg.). On the other hand, the tenth commandment is also held fundamentally to include the others; at least its violation amounted to trans- gressing the seven “nots” (rid) of the Decalogue (Pesik. R. 22). ) (“a loan ”). The incidents of demands are these: (1) Can they be transferred? If so, how and with what effect? (2) To whom do they pass at the owner’s death? Do they survive him? (8) Do they survive against the debtor’s or wrong-doer’s heirs? (4) How are they extinguished without satisfaction ? 1. The first question is answered under ALIENA- cion. It may be added that though the sages have found means to bring about the transfer of contrac- tual demands, the Talmud nowhere alludes to the assignment of claims arising from torts to either per- son or property. Where the demand savors of tort, an attorney to bring suit (“mursheh”) could not be appointed, even in later times, when Trans- the leave to appoint attorneys had ference of been extended; for the letter of attor- Demand. ney took the form of a partial assign- ment. The claim for an admitted de- posit could be assigned, the thing deposited itself being assigned (B. K. 70a; “ Yad,” Sheluhin, iil. 6, 7; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 123, 1). 2. At the owner’s death his estate, both landed and movable, together with his demands, goes to his heirs; and they may sue for and collect all demands. The debtor, or person bound by a wrong- fulact, must pay them. This applies to the value of goods taken by force or embezzlement, and to the one-fifth in addition due under some circum- stances by way of atonement (B. K. ix. 5), and to the double or greater compensation due by the thief or faithless depositary (“ Yad,” Genebah, ii. 6). Like- wise the party who has made himself liable for in- jury to property must, if the owner die before re- covery of damages, pay his heirs, as the injured person is considered in the light of a creditor (“ Yad,” Nizke Mamon, viii. 11). 3. It has been shown under the head of DEBTS OF DEcEDEN's how far the assets left by a debtor are subjected to his obligations. It is shown under Rogsery how such assets are liable for the value of goods taken by force. They would in like manuer be bound for the single value of goods stolen; also for all damages to property, whether On Estate done wilfully or by negligence (¢d. of a viii. 11, 12). Neither Talmud nor Deceased either of the codes mentions the liabil- Person. ity of heirs for injuries to the person committed by their ancestor; but it May be inferred, from the enumeration of the differ- aces between injuries to property and injuries to the person (B. K. viii. 7; “Yad,” Hobel, v. 9, 11), in which there is no mention of injuries arising from the death of the wrong-doer, that here also the heirs are bound to the extent of assets left. As shown under DEBTS oF DECEDENTS, the pro- cedure against the heirs is clogged with many hin- drances; but, in theory, it seems that all demands sur- vive against the heirs of the party under obligation. 4. A demand can not be extinguished by mere lapse of time. There is no statute of limitations, except the Scriptural law of the year of release, which was never in force outside the Holy Land, and even there was practically abrogated in the days of Hillel. The Hazaxan is nothing but a presump- tion arising from lapse of time, always subject to rebuttal. Any demand may, however, be extin- guished by a voluntary release (M>°MD); and, as a rule, this act does not need a formal transfer of title (ap), though in many places it was customary to clothe it m such forms (“ Yad,” Mekirah, v. 11, 12). Compare ROBBERY. The liability of the heirs for personal damages— or the survival of such demands against the tort- feasor’s heirs—was hardly ever a practical question ; because the liability of the heirs for anything but the bond debts (what the common law calls “specialty debts ”) of the ancestor was established only a short time before the Jewish courts, for lack of ordained judges, lost their jurisdiction in actions for personal injury. See DEBTS OF DECEDENTS, sud fine, L. @. L. N. D. DEMBITZ, LEWIS NAPHTALI: American lawyer, scholar, and author; born Feb. 3, 1838, at Zirke, in the province of Posen, Prussia; edu- cated at the gymnasia of Frankfort-on-the-Oder, Sagan, and Glogau, in Prussia, and attended the law course for one semester in Prague. He then studied American law in offices at Cincinnati, Ohio. and Madison, Ind. After doing journalistic work for a time, he began in 1853 the practise of law at the bar of Kentucky, in Louisville, which practise he has continued uninterruptedly ever since. Dembitz was a delegate to the National Republican Conven- tion of 1860, assistant city attorney of Louisville, 1884-88, and is (1901) a commissioner for Kentucky to the Conference for the Uniformity of State Laws. In 1888 Dembitz drafted the first Australian ballot law ever adopted in the United States, to govern elections in Louisville. His legal works include: “Kentucky Jurisprudence,” 1890; “Law Language for Shorthand Writers,” 1892; and “Land Titles in the United States,” 2 vols., 1895. Heis the author of “The Question of Silver Coinage,” in the “ Pres- ent Problem Series,” 1896, No. 1; and has writ- ten a number of book-reviews for “The Nation,” 1888-97, besides articles in other magazines and in newspapers. Dembitz was strongly attached to conservative Judaism. He was one of the early members of the executive board of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and in 1878 a member of the com- mission on the plan of study for the Hebrew Union College. In 1898 he acted as chairman at a conven- tion of Orthodox congregations, and was elected a vice-president of the Orthodox Jewish Congrega- tional Union of America. In addition to memoirs, Dembitzer Demetrius THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 512 SS eas articles, and addresses which have appeared in Jew- ish papers, he published “Jewish Services in Syna- gogue and Home,” 1898; “The Lost Tribes,” in the “ Andover Review,” Aug., 1889; and revised Exodus and Leviticus for the new translation of the Bible to be issued by the Jewish Publication Society of America, He died March 11, 1907. A. DEMBITZER, HAYYIM NATHAN: Gali- cian rabbi and historian; born in Cracow June 29, 1820; died there Nov. 20, 1892. His father, Jeku- thiel Solomon, a scholarly merchant who claimed he was a descendant of R. Moses Isserles, died in 1838, aged forty-one. While diligently occupied with his Talmudical studies, he came across the “ Zemah Dawid,” a chronological work by David Gans, which aroused his interest in Jewish biography and history. He received his ordination as rabbi from Solomon Kluger, Hirsch Chajes, and Berish Meisels, the last- named of whom was rabbi of Cracow until 1854, Dembitzer sided nevertheless with Meisel’s rival, Saul Landau, in the quarrel about the rabbinate of Cracow. In 1856 Dembitzer became a dayyan in his native city, and was, like his older brother Jacob, advanced to the position of rosh bet din, which he held till his death. In 1874 he visited Germany and made the acquaintance of Zunz and other Jewish scholars, with whom he corresponded on historical subjects. Dembitzer’s earlier works were all on halakic sub- jects, on which he was a recognized authority. His “Maginne Erez Yisrael” (responsa, Lemberg, 1852); “Dibre Hen,” which appeared as a supplement to Solomon Kluger’s “‘Abodat ha-Kodesh” (Zolkiev, 1863); and “Liwyat Hen” (Cracow, 1882) belong to that class. But the last-named, a critical com- mentary on the work “RABYH” of ELrezer sz. JoEL HA-LEVI, which Dembitzer published from a manuscript, contains much valuable material for the history of the Tosafists, which is interspersed among the pilpulistic arguments of the main subject. His chief historical work, “ Kelilat Yori,” of which the first part, containing biographies of the rabbis of Lemberg and of other Polish communities, appeared in 1888, and the second part, also biographical and historical, in 1893 (Cracow), is au important contri- bution to the science of Judaism. He is also the author of “Miktebe Bikkoret,” a valuable corre- spondence with the historian Gritz about the Coun- cil of Four Lands (“Ozar ha-Sifrut,” iv. 198-248; also published separately, Cracow, 1892), and of a biography of the Tosafist Joseph Porat, which ap- peared posthumously in “ Ha-Hoker,” ii. 48-59. The “Mappelet ‘Ir ha-Zedek ” (1878), a severe and vindic- tive criticism of J. M. Zunz’s “ ‘Ir ha-Zedek ” on the rabbis of Cracow, was likewise written by him, al- though the name of Joe] Dembitzer, his younger brother, appears on the title-page as the nominal author. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wettstein, Toledot Maharhan (German title, Bingraphie des H. N. Dembitzer), Cracow, 1893; Brann, in Monatsschrift, xxxix. 142-148; Sefer Zikkaron, p. 2, War- saw, 1890; Ahiasaf for 5654, p. 296. P. Wr. L. G. DEMBO, ISAAC: Russian physician; born at Poneviezh, government of Kovno, in 1846. Demho studied Hebrew and rabbinical literature under the direction of Samuel Salant and other Talmudic ay. thorities until the age of fourteen, when he devoteq himself to secular studies, and in 1870 graduated ag M.D. from the University of St. Petersburg. He served as physician in several hospitals, and in 1877, on the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war, enlisted in the medical department of the army. He was awarded a medal for his services. In 1881-82 he traveled in Germany and France, and on his returp to St. Petersburg was appointed physician to the Alexandrowski Hospital. In 1888 the government bestowed upon him the title of “ privy councilor.” Dembo turned his attention to the scientific study of the slaughtering of animals according to the Jew. ish rite. In Switzerland and in Germany attempts had been made to secure the prohibition of the Jew. ish method, on the plea that it caused the animals un. necessary pain. After investigating the matter and studying all the current methods of slaughtering in Russia and abroad, Dembo arrived at the conclusion that the Jewish method caused less pain than any other. He communicated his results to the leading scientists (who agreed with him on the matter) and to the governments interested. . Dembo published two works on this subject; namely, “ Anatomisch-Phy- siologische Grundlagen der Verschiedenen Metho- den des Viehschlachtens,” Leipsic, 1894; and “Das Schlachten im Vergleich mit Anderen Schlacht- methoden vom Standpunkte der Humanitit und Hygiene,” 76, 1894. The latter work was translated into Hebrew under the title “ Ha-Shehitah weha-Be- dikah,” Warsaw, 1896. He died May 22, 1906. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Jewish Chronicle, Jan., 1895. H. R. I. Br. DEMBOWSKI, NICOLAS. See Barucn Ya- VAN; FRanxkists; KAMENETZ-PODOLSK. DEMETRIUS: Son-in-law of King Agrippa IL When Mariamne I1., daughter of Agrippa I. and sis- ter of Agrippa II., had put away Archelaus, the son of Chelcias, she married Demetrius, who was by birth and wealth among the foremost Jews of Alex- andria, and held the office of alabarch about the year 49 c.e. By him Mariamne had a son, Agrippinus. The assumption that Demetrius was the son of Alexander, and hence the brother of the apostate Tiberius Alexander, is unfounded, and is not sup- ported by Josephus. He probably belonged to the priestly family of Onias. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Josephus, Ant. xix. 9, §1; xx. 7,933 Briill, in Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift, iii. 279; Gratz, Monatsschrift, 1876, 217; Sehiirer, iii. 88. G, E. N. DEMETRIUS: Chronicler; supposed to have lived at Alexandria in the third century p.c. Ina work entitled Iepi ’Iovdaiwy (“ About Jews ”), contain- ing extracts from foreign authors, Alexander Poly ; histor (80-40 8.c.) quotes fragments of Demetrius chronicles; and these were inserted by Eusevius 12 his “ Preeparatio Evangelica ” (ix. 17-39). The first excerpt deals with the history of Jacob from the time of his emigration to Mesopotamia til his death. Demetrius endeavors to establish the Biblical chronology and gives the date of every 2 dent in Jacob’s life, even fixing the year and mont in which each of Jacob's children was born. The e* §13 cerpt concludes with the genealogy of Levi back to the birth of Aaron and Moses. The second fragment is an extract from the his- tory of Moses, laying stress on the genealogy of Jethro jn order to demonstrate that Zipporah, the wife of Moses, was a descendant of Abraham and Keturah. The third excerpt gives an account of the sweet- ening of the water of Marah (Ex. xv. 28). Another fragment was preserved by Clemens Alex- andrinus (“ Stromata,” i. 21, 141), who gives the title of Demetrius’ chronicles as Ilepi tov év ra "Iovdaia Baot- ziwv. This fragment endeavors to determine exactly the period of the exile of the Ten Tribes, and that of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin till Ptolemy LV. (222-205 B.c.), in whose reign the chronicler evidently lived. From the orthography of proper names, and from various expressions used, it is evident that Deme- irius used the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. For the determination of certain dates he relied on the Biblical exegesis in use among the Palestinian Jews. Josephus used Demetrius’ chronicles for his “Antiquities,” and adopted his chronological system. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, i. 35 et seq.; Bloch, Die Quelten des Flavius Josephus, pp. 56 et seq., Lelpsic, 1879; Vaillant, De Historicis Qui Ante Josephum Judaicas Res Scripsere, pp. 45-52, Paris, 1851; Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, lii. 486 et seq.: Gritz, Gesch. iii. 604-606; Schtirer, Gesch. iii. 849-351, 3d ed. I I. Br. DEMETRIUS I. SOTER: King of Syria 162- 150 n.c.; son of Seleucus LV. Philopator. He was sent by his father as a hostage to Rome in place of Antiochus Epiphanes, after whose death he de- manded in vain of the Senate that he be acknow]l- edged as his father’s successor. Later he again de- manded the throne; and, being met with a refusal, he fled with the aid of Polybius to Tripoli, where he was given a cordial reception. He soon obtained possession of Antioch, but could not win the sym- pathies of the Romans. On the contrary, the Roman Senate permitted the satrap Timarchus to assume the kingly title. Timarchus succeeded, with the aid of Artaxias of Armenia, in conquering the whole of Babylonia, ruling it in a cruel manner. At length he was defeated by Demetrius, whom the Baby- lonians on that account called “Soter” (Redeemer), In 162 Demetrius appointed Alcimus high priest of the Jews, and, after the expulsion of the latter, en- deavored to have him reinstated; but Nicanor, the Seneral sent for this purpose, was killed in battle (161). Another of Demetrius’ generals, Bacchides, succeeded in vanquishing Judas Maccabeus in 160; Jonathan, however, was able to stand his ground, and in 157 he made peace with Bacchides, although € was compelled to tolerate Syrian garrisons in Jerusalem and other places. Owing to his pride and severity, Demetrius was much hated by the Syrians. He was greatly ad- dicted to drink, and Josephus reproaches him with frivolity and laziness. In 158 Alexander Balas, rec- *8nized and supported by the Senate, and aided by ttalus IT. and Ptolemy Philometor, appeared with a0 army in Syria, and captured Ptolemais through reason. Demetrius’ own men deserted him; and the ews, too, whom Alexander Balas had wen over with IV.—33 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a ek Dembitzer Demetrius large presents, withdrew their allegiance. Deme- trius was compelled to withdraw the troops from the Jewish localities, with the exception of Jerusalem and Beth-Zur, and to concentrate his forces against Balas. In the decisive battle Demetrius fell. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Polybius, iii. 5, xxxi. et seq.; Appian, Syriaca, Xlv. et seq.; Diodorus Siculus, xxxi.; Justin, xxxiv. ef seq.; Josephus, Ant. xii. 10, §8 4 et seq.; xiii. 2, 881-4: I Mace. vii. et seq.; IT Macc., xiv. 1; Schiirer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 170 et seq.: Wellhausen, J. J. G. 3d ed., pp. 260 ef seqg.; Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encye. 8.v. G. H. Bt. DEMETRIUS II. NICATOR: King of Syria; son of Demetrius Soter. He was sent to Rome by his father as hostage for his fidelity. It was in- tended that he should work there against Alexander Balas, whose cause was promoted by Heraclides. He could achieve nothing, however. After the death of his father he set out in 147 with an army of mercenaries against Balas, who fled to Antioch. He was aided in this by Appolonius, the governor of Cele-Syria, against whom, however, the high priest Jonathan made successful war. In the deci- sive battle at Antiochia on the Ainoparus (146), Al- exander Balas was defeated by Demetrius and his own father-in-law, Ptolemy Philometor, who had be- come reconciled with Demetrius. Balas was killed during his flight, and Ptolemy Philometor died of a wound received in the battle. Demetrius now as- sumed the surname “ Nicator.” We confirmed the high priest Jonathan, on the payment of a tribute of 300 talents, in his dignity, and in the possession of the three districts of Lydda, Ephraim, and Rama- thaim, which had been severed from Samaria. Nor had he cause to regret the act; for when the dis- banded native soldiers rose in revolt against Deme- trius, Jonathan sent to his aid an army of 3,000 Jews, With this army and his own mercenaries, De- metrius suppressed the dangerous uprising. Demetrius, however, did not fulfil his promise to withdraw the Syrian garrisons from the fortresses in Judea; on the contrary, he demanded of Jonathan the payment of all the tributes which bad been due to his predecessors, but which had not been paid. Under these circumstances, the uprising which was kindled by Diodotus on behalf of the young son of Alexander Balas, Antiochus VI. Dionysus, and which was provoked by the barbarities of Deme- trius, came very opportunely. Demetrius was de- feated; but found refuge in Seleucia, which remained faithful to him at all times. In the mean time Jonathan stood his ground against the generals of Demetrius, and in conjunction with Simon con- quered southern Syria. After the murder of Jona- than, in which Diodotus shared, the fortunes of Demetrius improved. The Jews deserted Diodotus, who had forfeited their sympathies not only by this murder, but also because he had removed Antiochus VI. and had usurped the throne under the name of “Tryphon.” Demetrius recognized Simon as high priest and ethnarch. Soon afterward Demetrius commenced a war against the Parthians, but after several victories was finally defeated and taken prisoner by a Parthian general of Mithridates I. (140). He was released only after his younger brother, Antiochus Sidetes, fought a successful battle against the Parthian. Demetrius Demonology Upon the death of Antiochus, Demetrius again be- came ruler; and he had begun planning a fresh subjugation of the Jews, when he decided to make war on Ptolemy Euergetes HT. of Egypt. He marched as far as Pelusium, but turned back, be- cause, being without confidence in his army, he did not dare to engage in battle. In revenge Ptolemy set up Alexander Zabina against Demetrius (128), and several Syrian cities thereupon freed themselves from Demetrius’ control. In 125 he was defeated near Damascus, and was killed at the instigation of his first wife, Cleopatra, who hated him because, during his Parthian captivity, he had married a daughter of the Parthian king. BIBLIOGRAPHY: I Mace. x. et seq.; Josephus, Ant. xiii.; Jus- tinus, xxxv. 1, 2,3; xxxviii. 9 et seq.; Diodor, xxxii. 9 et seq.3 Xxxiii. 3 et seg., 9, 28; Schtirer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 172 et seq.; Von Gutschmid, Gesch. Trans, ete., pp. 51 et seq.; Flathe, Gesch. Makedoniens; Holm, Griechische Gesch. pp. 553 et seq.; Kuhn, Beitriige zur Gesch. der Seleukider ; Wilcken, in Hermes, pp. 29, 441 et seq.; Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Hncyc. s.v.; Babelon, Rois de Syrie, pp. 153 et seq. G. H. Br. DEMETRIUS III. EUCERUS: King of Syria; sonof Antiochus Grypus. He was pretender to the throne of Antiochus X., whom he supplanted in 95 B.c. after a severe struggle. He divided the authority with his brother Philip, keeping to him- self apparently Cele-Syria. In the year 88 the Jews appealed to him for aid against their king, Alexan- der Jannzeus, who was subsequently defeated. But thousands of Jews renewed their allegiance to their defeated king, probably out of a well-founded ap- prehension that Demetrius would again subject them to the Syrian rule. Demetrius was taken prisoner in a battle against his brother Philip, and died in captivity. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Josephus, At. xiii. 4, §8 1-3; idem, B. J. i. 4, 88 4-8; Kuhn, Beitrdige zur Gesch. der Seleukiden, p. 19; Schiirer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 176; Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Hincye. viii. 2802. G. H. Bt. DEMIDOV, PAVEL PAVLOVICH: Prince of San-Donato, Russian jurist, and philanthropist; born in 1839; died in 1885. He was a member of a well-known Russian family of nobles whose pedi- gree is traced as far back as 1672. Soon after his graduation from the faculty of jurisprudence of the University of St. Petersburg, he was attached to the Russian embassy at Paris, and later to the embassy at Vienna. From 1871 to 1876 he served as mayor of Kiev. During the Russo-Turkish war (1877-78) Demidov chose to follow the army as the authorized agent of the Society of the Red Cross, rather than to be a leader of soldiers with more warlike purposes. Of a peaceful and peace-loving disposition, and witha pronounced predilection for literary work, he cared for achievements foreign to those of the ambitious belligerents, and his name is accordingly associated with deeds of philanthropy. Through these years he remained unknown beyond the narrow circle of family, relatives, and personal acquaintances. In 18838, two years before his untimely death, he came suddenly into prominence by the publication of his work, “The Jewish Question in Russia,” which was well received. In addition to a very sympathetic though somewhat cursory review of the history of the Jews in Russia, beginning with the first division THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 514 of Poland, it contains an able analysis of the po. litical and social status of the Jew and of his eco. nomic condition and statutory rights, or, more pre. cisely, absence of rights. This analysis proved not only that the author was sufficiently broad-mindeqd and large-hearted to free himself of all popular prejudices, but that he had both the will and the ability to dig deep, reaching here and there the very roots of this social evil. Demidov’s solution of the vexed question may be expressed in the de- mand of equal rights for the Jews and the reorgan- ization and increase of their educational facilities, The abolition of the “ Pale of Settlement,” the right to live and do as it is accorded to all other Russian subjects, the right to attend any public school upon the same basis as the Christian population, and other privileges, are demanded by the author on the ground of the central idea which he so ably main- tains; namely, that the Jew is a desirable and able citizen, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, He asserts that the peculiarly Jewish exploitation ig a fiction; that the exclusiveness of the Jew is as hateful to the Jew himself as is any form of bondage to man; that his commercial ability is useful to the buyer in the Pale of Settlement, as it reduces by sharp competition the profit of the seller, thus on the whole benefiting the public; and, finally, that the much-bewailed baneful influence exerted by the Jew on the Christian poor by his selling intoxicants to the latter, has been exaggerated out of all pro- portion, as is demonstrated by an array of factsand statistics bearing upon the question and establishing that, beyond all possible doubt, the curse of intem- perance is felt considerably more outside the Pale than within it. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Demidov, San-Donato; Yerreiski Vopros v Rossii, 1883; Ogarkov, Demidovy; Osnovatelt Gornavo Dyeia v Rossii, St. Petersburg, 1891; Pamyati, P. P. Demi- dova, Knyazya San-Donato, 1886; A. Scholz, Die Juden in Russland, p. 149. M. Z. H. R. DEMONIACS IN BIBLE AND TALMUD. See EXORCISM, DEMONOLOGY.— Biblical and Post - Bib- lical Data: Systematic knowledge concerning de- mons or evil spirits. Demons (Greek, daiyoves or dapévia; Hebrew, ory [Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. cvi. 87} and osyyy (Lev. xvii. 7; II Chron. xi. 15; A. V. “devils”; Luther, “Feldgeister” and “ Feld- teufel”|; Aramaic, or rabbinical, pt) and pay pwd), as spirits animating all elements of life and inhabiting all parts of the world, have their piace in the primitive belief of all tribesand races, When certain deities rose to be the objects of regular wor- ship and became the rulers of the powers of life, demons, or spirits, were subordinated to them. But inasmuch as they were still feared and occasionally worshiped by the populace, they became the objects of popular superstition. Jewish demonology can at no time be viewed as the outcome of an antecedent Hebrew belief. While the nomadic Hebrews had much in common with the Arabian Bedouins in their belief in spirits (see Wellhausen, “ Reste ArabischeD Heidenthums: Skizzen und Vorarbeiten,” 1887, 135 et seg.; Smith, “Rel. of Sem.” 1889, pp. 112-12 422 et seq.), Canaanite practise and belief were greatly influenced by ancient Chaldea, whose demonology 515 aren is in the main pre-Semitic (see Lenormant, “Chal- dean Magic,” 1877, pp. 23-88; German transl., 1878, pp. 22-41; Jastrow, “Religion of Babylonia and Assyria,” pp. 260 e¢ seg.; Zimmern, in Schrader’s “Kk, A. T.” 1902, ii. 458-464). In Babylonia the Jews came under the influence of both the Chaldean and the Persiau belief in good and in evil spirits, and this dualistic system became a dominant factor of Jewish demonology and ANGELOLOGy. In Europe, Teutonic, Celtic, and Slavonic demonology in the form of superstition permeated Jewish practise and belicf. See SUPERSTITION. The demons mentioned in the Bible are of two classes, the “se‘irim” and the “shedim.” The se‘i- rim (“hairy beings”), to which the Israclites sacri- ficed in the open fields (Lev. xvii. 7; A. V. “devils”; R. V., incorrectly, “ he-goats”), are satyr-like demons, described as dancing in the wilderness (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14; com- pare Maimon- ides, “Moreh,” iii. 46; Vergil’s “Eclogues,” v. 73, “saltantes sa- tyri”), and are identical with the jinn of the Arabian woods and deserts (sec Wellhausen, /.¢., and Smith, @.c.). Tothe same class belongs AZAZEL, the goat-like de- mon of the wil- derness (Lev. xvi. 10 e¢ seg.), probably the chief of the se‘i- & , rim,and Linirn =F: : = Si (Isa. xxxiv. 14). ‘SURE aac ees ea Possibly “the roes and hinds of the field,” by which Shulamit conjures the daughters of Jerusalem to bring her back to her lover (Cant. ii. 7, iii. 5), are faun- like spirits similar to the se‘irim, Demons in though of a harmless nature. The the Bible. -nwnmocaN (Job v. 23, A. V. “stones of the field”), with which the right- cous are said to be in league—obviously identical with, if not a corruption of, the AWA ‘TN (Mish- nah Kil. viii. 5), explained in Yer. Kil. 31c as w3 93 NO, “a fabulous mountain-man drawing nourish- ment from the ground” (see Jastrow, “ Dict.,” and Levy , “Neuhebr. Worterb.” s.0. °94%)—seem to be field-demons of the same nature. The wilderness as the home of demons was regarded as the place whence such diseases as leprosy issued, and in cases of leprosy one of the birds set apart to be offered as a1 expiatory sacrifice was released that it might Carry the disease back to the desert (Lev. xiv. 7, 52; Compare a similar rite in Sayce, “Hibbert Lectures,” 1887, p. 461, and “Zeit. fir Assyr.” 1902. p. 149). he Israelites also offered sacrifices to the shedim THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA The Nether World in the Clutches of a Demon. (From an Assyrian bronze tablet in the collection of M. de Clerq.) Demetrius Demonology (Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. evi. 87), The name Jy (be- Neved by Hoffmann, “ Hiob,” 1891, to occur in Job v. 21), for a long time erroneously connected with “the Almighty ” (4y), denotes a storm-demon (from Nw, Isa. xiii. 6; A. V. “destruction”; compare Ps. xci. 6, TH, “that stormeth about”; A. V. “that wasteth”). In Chaldean mythology the seven evil deities were known as “ shedim,” storm-demons, rep- resented in ox-like form; and because these ox- colossi representing evil demons were, by a peculiar law of contrast, used also as protective genii of royal palaces and the like, the name “shed” assumed also the meaning of a propitious genius in Babylonian magic literature (see Delitzsch, “ Assyrisches Hand- worterb.” pp. 60, 243, 261, 646; Jensen, “ Assyr.- Babyl. Mythen und Epen,” 1900, p. 453; Sayce, lc. pp. 441, 450, 463; Lenormant, U.c. pp. 48-51). It was from Chaldea that the name “shedim” = evil demons came to the Isra- elites, and so the sacred writers intentionaily applied the word in a dyslogistic sense to the Ca- naanite deities in the two passages quoted. But they also spoke of “the destroy- A 5 = : tae Ge RES AN SS Sars te, Res = eq oer” (Snwnn, hem EX. xii. 28) as we 2 SS 3 aa a demon whose malignant effect upon the houses of the [sraelites was to be warded — off by the blood ot the paschal sacrifice sprin- kled upon the lintel and the door-post (a corresponding pagan = talisman is mentioned in Isa. lvii. 8: In II Sam. xxiv. 16 and IL Chron. xxi. 15 the pestilence-dealing demon is called monwinn qxbp = “the destroying angel” (compare “the angel of the Lord” in IT Kings xix. 35; Isa, xxxvii. 36), because, although they are demons, these ‘evil messengers” (Ps. Ixxviii, 49; A. V. “evil angels”) do only the bid- ding of God, their Master; they are the agents of His divine wrath. But there are many indications that popular He- brew mythology ascribed to the demons a certain independence, a malevolent character of their own, because they are believed to come forth, not from the heaveuly abode of Yuwu, but from the nether world (compare Isa. xxxviii. 11 with Job xiv. 18; Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8). “The first-born of Death who devours the members of his [man’s] body ” and causes him to be brought “to the king of terrors” (Job xviii. 18, 14, Hebr.), is undoubt- edly one of the terrible hawk-like demons por- trayed in the Babylonian Hades-picture (see illustra- + et Demonology THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 516 tion above, and Roscher, “Lexikon der Griechis- chen und Rémischen Mythologie,” s.v. “Nergal ”), and the “messengers of death” (Prov. xvi. 14) are identical with the “servants of Nergal,” the King of Hades and god of pestilence and fever in Chal- dean mythology (see Jeremias, “ Die Babylonisch- Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode,” 1887, pp. 71 e¢ seg.; Zimmern, @.c. pp. 412 et seg.; Jensen, f.c. pp. 478, 557). ‘Alukah (Prov, xxx. 15; A. V. “horseleech”), the bloodsucker or vampire, whose two daughters cry “Give! Give!” is none other than the flesh-devour- ing ghoul of the Arabs, called by them “‘aluk” (Wellhausen, ¢.c. pp. 185-137). She has been ren- dered in Jewish mythology the demon of the nether world (= 037°}; see ‘Ab. Zarah 17a), and the names of her two daughters have in all probability, as familiar names of dreaded diseases, been dropped (compare Ewald, Delitzsch, and Wilderboer’s com- mentaries, ad loc., and the description of the demon “Labartu” in “Zeit. fiir Assyr.” 1902, pp. 148 e¢ seg.). Deber (“pestilence”), originally the death- dealing sting of the midsummer sun-god Nergal (sce Roscher, @.c. iii. 257), and Keteb (“smiter ”), the deadly hot wind (Deut. Xxxii. 24; Isa. xxviii. 2; A. V. “de- struction,” “destroying ”), are demons, the one walking in darkness, the other storming along in midday (A. V. “that wasteth at noonday ”), against which God’s protection is invoked in the incantatory psalm “Shir shel Pega‘im,” ascribed to Moses by the Rabbis (Ps. xci. 5,6; compare Midr. Teh. ad loc.; Tan., Naso, ed. Buber, 39; Num. R. xli.). Possibly the evil spirit that troubled Saul (I Sam. xvi. 14 et seg.) was originally a demon (com- pare Josephus, “ Ant.” vi. 8, § 2), turned into an evil spirit coming from YuawH in theamended Masoretic text (see Smith, Commentary, ad loc.). None of these demons, however, has actually a place in the system of Biblical theology; it is the Lord who sends pestilence and death (Ex. ix, 3, xii. 29); Deber and Reshef (“the fiery bolt”) are His heralds (Hab. iii. 5). The shedim are “not-gods” (Deut. xxxii. 17); there is no supernatural power beyond Yawn (Deut. iv. 35; compare Sanh. 67b). It is possible, however, that, as at a later stage in the development of Judaism the idols were regarded as demons, so the Canaanite deities were, either in disparagement, or as powers seducing men to idolatry, called “she- dim” by the sacred writers (Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. ev. 37); all the more so as the latter ascribed a certain reality to the idols (Hix. xii. 12; Isa. xix. 1, xxiv. 21; see Baudissin, “Studien zur Semitischen Religions- gesch.” 1876, i. 180). ——In Rabbinical Literature: It was the prim- itive demonology of Babylonia which peopled the world of the Jews with beings of a semi-celestial and semi-infernal nature. Only afterward did the division of the world between Ahriman and Ormuzd in the Mazdean system give rise to the Jewish divi- sion of life between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of evil. Rabbinical demonology has, like the Chaldean, three classes of demons, though they are scarcely separable one from another, There were the “shedim,” the “mazzikim” (harmers), and the “ruhin ” or “ruhot ra‘ot ” (evilspirits). Besides these Other Demons. there were “lilin” (night spirits), “telane ” (shade, or evening, spirits), “tiharire” (midday spirits), and “gafrire” (morning spirits), as wellas the “demong that bring famine” and “such as cause storm and earthquake” (Targ. Yer. to Deut. xxxti. 24and Num, vi. 24; Targ. to Cant. iii. 8, iv. 6; Eccl. ii. 5; Ps. xci, 5, 6; compare Ps. Ixx. and Js. xxxiv. 14). Occa- sionally they are called “mal'ake habbalah ” (angels of destruction) (Ber. 5ia; Ket. 104a; Sanh. 106b), “They surround man on all sides as the earth does the roots of the vine”; “a thousand are on his left, and ten thousand on his right side” (compare Ps, xci. 7); if a man could see them he would lack the strength to face them, though he can see them by casting the ashes of the fetus of a black cat about his eyes, or by sprinkling ashes around his bed he can trace their cock-like footprints in the morning (Ber. 62). They hover around the house and the tield (Gen, R. xx.), particularly in the lower regions of the air (Num. R, xii. ;Tan., Mishpatim, ed. Vienna, 99a; compare Diogenes Laertius, viii. 32, ix. 7). Their main abode is in the northern part of the earth (Pirke R, El. iii., after Jer. i. 14). Their sporting-places are caper-bushes and spearworts, where they dwell in groups of sixty; nut-trees, where they form in groups of nine; shady spots on moonlight nights, especially the roofs of houses, under gutters, or near ruins; cemeteries and privies (there isa special demon of the privy, “shed shel bet ha-kisse”); water, oil, and bread-crums cast on the ground; and they harm persons and things coming near them (Pes. 3b; Ber. 8a, 62b; Shab. 67a; Git. 70a; Hul. 105; Sanh. 65b). R. Johanan knew of 300 kinds of shedim living near the town of Shihin (Git. 68a), It is dangerous to walk between two palm-trees (Pes. 111la). De- mons are particularly hurtful at night. It is unsafe to salute a person in the dark, for he might bea demon (Meg. 8a); to sleep alone in a house, as Lilith may seize one (Shab. 151b); to walk alone in the night or in the morning before cockcrow (Ber. 48a; Yoma 21a; compare Cock); to take water from one whose hands have not been washed in the morning (Ber. 51a). Especially dangerous are the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath, for then Agrat bat Mahlat, “the dancing roof-demon” (Yalkut Hadash, Keshafim, 56), haunts the air with her train of eigh- teen myriads of messengers of destruction, “every one of whom has the power of doing harm” (Pes. 112b). On those nights one should not drink water except out of white vessels and after having recited Ps, xxix. 3-9 (the verses mentioning seven times “the voice of the Lord”) or other magic formulas (Pes. 8a). Another perilous season is midsummer noon from the 17th of Tammuz to the 9th of Ab. Then the demon Keteb Meriri reigns from ten in the forenoon to three in theafternoon. He has the head of a calf, with one revolving horn in the middle, and an eye on the breast, and his whole body is cov- ered with scales and hair and eyes; and whosoevel sees him, man or beast, falls down and expires (Pes- 8b; Lam. R. i. 8; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci. 3; Num. R. xii.). Demons assume the shape of men, but have no shadow (Yeb. 122a; Git. 66a; Yoma 75a). At Time and Place of Ap- pearance. 517 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Demonology a ee eee times they are black goat-like beings (a™yw; Kid. 72a); at other times, seven-headed dragons (Kid. 99a). “Like angels, they have wings and fly from one end of the world to the other, and know the future; and like men they cat, propagate, and die” (Hag. 16b; Ab. R. N. xxxvii.). They cause the faintness of students and the wear and tear of their dress in the schoolhouses and assemblies of the learned (Ber. 6a). -But they are not always malign spirits. As they, by virtue of their semi-celestial nature, can overhear the decrees of heaven, they may be consulted by men as to the future; this can pe done by means of oil and eggshells; only on Sab- bath is this forbidden (Shab. 101la). Hillel and Johanan ben Zakkai understood their talk just as King Solomon did (Mas. Soferim, xvi. 9; B. B. 134a; Suk. 28a; Git. 68b; Ker. 5b; Pesik., ed. Buber, 45b). The saint Abba Jose of Zaintor saved his town from harm, when informed by a water-demon liv- ing near by that a harmful fellow demon made his dwelling there, by causing the inhabitants to go down to the water’s edge at dawn, equipped with jron rods and spits, and beat the intruder to death; blood marked the spot where he was killed (Lev. R. xxiv.). The magicians in Egypt made use of de- mons to perform their miracles, as all witchcraft is the work of demons (Sanh. 67b; ‘Er. 18b; Ex. R. ix.), though demons can not create, but only trans- form existing things (Sanh. 67b). Egypt was con- sidered the stronghold of such witchcraft as worked by means of demons (Kid. 49); Shab. 104b; Men. 85a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 17, 27; Tosef., Shab. xi. 15; compare Friedliinder, “Sittengesch. Roms,” i. 362, iii. 517). Some of the Babylonian amoraim em- ployed shedim as friendly spirits, and received use- ful instruction from them, calling them by familiar names, such as “Joseph” or “ Jonathan ” (Pes. 110a; Hul. 105b; Yeb. 122a; ‘Er. 48a; regarding jn3Y xiv see Schorr in “ He-Haluz,” 1865, p. 18). De- mons were regarded by antiquity as beings endowed with higher intelligence (see Friedlander, /.c. iti. 562). They were said to have been created at the twilight of the Sabbath (Abot v. 9); “after the souls were created the Sabbath set in, and so they remained with- out bodies” (Gen. R. vii.). In the main demons were workers of harm. To them were ascribed the various diseases, particularly such as affect the brain and the inner parts (compare Rhode, ** Psyche,” 1894, p. 358). Hence there was a constant fear of ‘* Shabriri ” (lit. ** daz- Ziing glare’), the demon of blindness, who rests on uncovered water at night and strikes those with blind- Nature of ness who drink of it (Pes. 112a; ‘Ab. Zarah Demons. 12b); “ruah zeradah,” the spirit of catalepsy, and “ruah zelahta,”’ also “ ruah palga,”’ the spirit of headache (megrim or meningitis ?), hovering on paln- trees (Pes. 111b; Hul. 105b; Git. 68b); ‘‘ ben nefilim,” the de- mon of epilepsy, and “‘ruah kezarit,” the spirit of nightmare (Bek. 44b ; Tosef., Bek. v.3; Schorr, in “ He-Haluz,” 1869, p. 15); ruah tezazit,”? the spirit of delirious fever and madness, be- falling man and beast (Pesik., Parah, 40a; Yer. Yoma viii. 45b; Yoma 88b; Gen. R. xii: see Aruch and Dictionaries, 8.v. 11); Tuah Zara‘at,’”? the spirit of leprosy (Ket. 61b); °° ruah karde- yakos,” the spirit of melancholy (kapdcaxes; Git. vii. 1, p. 67b; Yer, Git. 48c); “‘ shibbeta,’? a female demon, bringing croup to bersons, especially children, who leave their hands unwashed Mm the morning (Hul. 107b; Ta‘an. 20b; Yoma 77b), probably identical with the ** bush-asp,” the Parsee demon ‘ with long ands,’ who lu!ls men to sleep and attacks them (‘* Vendidad,”’ XViii. 88; ‘* Bundahish,”’ xxviii. 26): ‘‘bat horin”’ (daughter of freedom ; possibly a play on “ hiwar,” a euphemistic expression for blindness), a demon bringing a disease of the eye to one Who fails to wash his hands after meals (see Briill’s * Jahrb.” i. 157); “*kuda,”* a demon of disease which attacks women in childbirth CAb. Zarah 29a); “eshshata,” the demon of fever, (ib. 28a; Shab. 66b); “‘ruah zenunim,” the spirit of sexual de- sire (Pes. llla); “‘she’iyyah,” an ox-like demon dwelling in desolate houses (B. K, 21a, after Isa. xxiv. 12); and many others mentioned in Rabbinical lore, only part of which has been pre- served in Shab. 66 et seq., 109 et seq.: Pes. 109-113; Git. 68-70, Sauh. 67 et seq.; see Brill, l.c. i. 154 et seg., who refers also to ‘**puta’? or “pura,” the spirit of forgetfulness, mentioned in Siddur Rab Amram,i. 3lb; see also Blau, “ Das Altjiidische Zau- berwesen,’’ 1898, pp. 71-85. On the demon “ben temalyon”’ (probably a euphemism for St. Vitus’ dance) see BEN TEMA- LION; EXORCISM. These demons were supposed to enter the body and cause the disease while overwhelming (“‘kefa’o shed,”’ R. H. 28a; Sifre, Debarim, 318) or “ seizing”? the victim (‘‘ahazo,”* Shab. 1l5lb; Yoma, 88a, 84a); hence the usual name for “epileptic” ts * nik- peh’’ (Bek. 44b; Yeb. 64b; Ket. 60b; Pes. 1126). The Greek word is dacporcgecdat, meaning the condition of being in the power of a demon. To cure such diseases it was necessary to draw out the evil demons by certain incantations and_talis- manic performances, in which the Essenes excelled. Josephus, who speaks of demons as “spirits of the wicked which enter into men that are alive and kill them,”’ but which can be driven out by a certain root (°° B. J.” vii. 6, $3), witnessed such a perform- ance in the presence of the emperor Vespasian (“* Ant.” viii. 2, § 5), and ascribed its origin to King Solomon, In the Book of Wisdom, Solomon claims to have received from God power over the demons (Wisdom vii. 20). The same power of curing by exorcism such diseases as dumbness, blindness, epilepsy, mania, and fever was exercised by Jesus and his disci- ples (Matt. viii. 16, ix. $2, xi. 18, xii. 22; Mark i. 25; v. 2 et seg.; vii. 82 et seg.; ix. 17, 27; Luke iv. 33, 39 ef seq.; vilti. 27; ix. 89; x1. 14; xiii, 11; Acts xvi. 16), as also by their Jewish contemporaries (Acts xix. 18 e¢ seg.). It remained for a long time a practise among the early Christians (see Irenecus, “Teereses,” ii. 4, 82; Origen, “Contra Celsum,” iii. 24; Friedlander, Z.¢. iii. 572, 684). The demons were believed to be under the domin- ion of a king or chief, either Ashmodai (Targ. to Eccl. i. 18; Pes. 110a: Yer. Shek. 49b; Lev. R. v., where STYY Is a corruption of "NIOwWN) or, in the older Haggadah, Samael (“ the angel of King and death”), who kills people by his deadly Queen poison (“sam ha-mawet”), and is called of Demons. “head of the devils” (“rosh satanim ”; Deut R. xi.; Pirke R. El. xiii.). Oc- casionally a demon is called “satan”: “Stand not in the way of an ox when coming from the pasture, for Satan dances between his horns” (Pes. 112b; compare B. K. 21a). The name “mashhit” (“des- troyer,” Ex. xii. 23) seems to refer to the head of the demons in the sentence: “ When permission is given to the destroyer to do harm, he no longer dis- criminates between the righteous and the wicked” (Mek., Bo, 11; B. K. 60a). The queen of demons is Lititu, pictured with wings and long flowing hair, and called the “mother of Ahriman” (p17 B. B. 73b; ‘Er. 100b; Nid. 24b). “When Adam, doing penance for his sin, separated from Eve for 180 years, he, by impure desire, caused the earth to be filled with demons, or shedim, lilin, and evil spirits” (Gen. R. xx.; ‘Er. 18b), and according to Pseudo-Sirach (“ Alpha- betum Siracidis,” ed. Steinschneider, p. 23) it was Lilith, as Adam’s concubine, who bore them (com- pare “Chronicles of Jerahmeel,” ed. Gaster, xxiii. 1). Whether identical with Lilith or not, a more famil- iar personage, as queen of the demons, is Igarat bat Mahlat (Num. R. xii.; Pes. 112b), with her Demonology THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 518 a a a SSS SS chariot and her train of eighteen myriads of demons. According to Yalkut, Hadash, Keshafim, 56, she dances at the head of 478 (= nbn), and Lilith howls at the head of 480 (= m535 ), companies of demons. The cabalists have asa third queen of the demons and wife of Samael, “ Na‘amah,” the sister of Tubal Cain and the “imother of Ashmodai” (Gen. iv. 27; see Behai’s commentary, and Yalkut, Reubeni, ad loc.). sAgrat bat Mallat seems to be “the mistress of the sorceresses ” who communicated magic secrets to Amemar (compare Pes. 110a, 112b). Yohane bat Retibi, who, according to Sotah 22a, prevented women by witchcraft from giving birth to their children, seems to be the same mythical person men- tioned by Pliny as “Jotape” or “ Lotape” in “ His- toria Naturalis” (xxx. 1, 2), together with Jannes (Jambres) and Moses (see Reinach, “fexte d’Au- teurs Grecs et Romains,” 1895, p. 282). Upon pre-Talmudic demonology new light has been thrown by the “ Testament of Solomon,” trans- lated by Conybeare in “ Jew. Quart. Rev.” (1898, xi. 1-45), a work which, notwithstanding many Chiris- tian interpolations, is of ancient Jew- Pre- ish origin and related to the “ Book of Talmudic Healing” (“Sefer Refu’ot”) ascribed De- to King Solomon (see Pes. iv. 9; Jo- monology. sephus, é.c.; Schiirer, “Gesch.” iti. 300). In this “Testament” it is told that by the help ofa magic ring with the seal of Pentalpha, Lilith-like vampires, Beelzebub, and all kinds of demons and unclean spirits were brought before Solomon, to whom they disclosed their secrets and told how they could be mastered (see SoLomon, TESTAMENT OF). It contains incantations against certain diseases, and specifies the task allotted to each of the chief demons in the erection of the Tem- ple. The latter wasa favorite theme of the Hag- gadists (Pesik. R. vi.; Sotah 48b; Git. 68a). The later Haggadah ascribed to Moses this power to make the demons work at the erection of the Sanc- tuary (Pesik. R. iv. 6b; Num. R. xii.); and Solo- mon’s “sword against the fear of the spirits at night” (Caut. R. to iii. 8) was transformed into the magic “sword of Moses” (Pesik. 140a; Pesik. R. 15; Cant. R. iii. 7; Num. R. xi., xii). Henceforth the magic books of Mosesand the “Sword of Moses” (see Dieterich, “ Abraxas,” 1891, pp. 155, 169 et seg. ; Gaster, “Sword of Moses,” London, 1896) took the place of “Solomon’s Testament” in the magic lore of the Jews. In the main, demonology among the Jews pre- served its simple character as a popular belief, the demons being regarded as mischievous, but not as diabolical or as agencies of a power antagonistic to God. Even Ashmodai, or Asmodeus, the king of demons (Tobit ili. 8, vi. 14, Aramaic version), who kills the seven successive bridegrooms of Sara before their marital union, is but a personi- Cosmic fication of lust and murder; but there Demons. is nothing Satanic—that is, of the spirit of rebellion against God—in him; he is driven out by the recipe prescribed by the angel Raphael, and sent to Egypt and bound by Raphael (Tobit viii. 3). It was only at a certain period and within a certain circle that demonology received its evil, and in opposition to angelology as part of the cosmic power of good. Babylonian cosmogony describes the combat of Bel-Marduk with the chaos-monster Tiamat, the sea- dragon, the power of darkness whose defeat is the beginning of the world of light aud order. The same monster appears in various Biblical passages as Rawas, the sea-monster; Tannin, the dragon of the sea; and Leviathan, the “ crooked serpent” slain by Yawn “with his sure and great and strong sword” (Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 10, 11; Job xxvi. 12; Gunkel, “Schépfung und Chaos,” 1895, pp. 80-46 et seqg.). While this mythological figure became in the course of time a metaphor symboli- zing nations like Egypt (Ezek. xxix. 8; Ps. lxxxvii, 4), the monster remained areal being in the popular belief; and inasmuch as this conflicted with the monotheistic system, the battle of God or His angel Gabriel with Leviathan and Behemoth was trans- formed into a great eschatological drama which ended in the perfect triumph of divine justice (B. B. 75b).. The Babylonian Tiamat, as Behemoth and Leviathan, became on the one hand infernal mon- sters devouring the wicked, and on the other food and cover for the righteous in heaven (see LEvia- THAN). Nevertheless, the Mandwan and Gnostic heresies maintained the belief in these cosmic mon- sters (Brandt, “Mandiiische Schriften,” 1893, pp. 144 e¢ seqg.), and many descriptions of Gehenna in Jewish and Christian literature preserve traces of these “Tartarus-holding” or “watching” demons of the lower regions (see Dieterich, f.c. pp. 35, 76 et seq.; ESCHATOLOGY; GEHENNA). In fact, the hosts of demons punishing the wicked in Gehenna are in the service of angels of divine justice, and though called “satanim ” (Enoch x1. 7 e¢ al.), belong to the category of angels rather than of demons. Accord- ing to the Book of Jubilees, Noah learned from the angels (Raphael) the remediesagainst these diseases, and wrote them in a “Book of Healing ” similar to the one ascribed to King Solomon (x. 5-12; Jelli- nek, “B, H.” iii, 155 et seg., xxx. et seq.). The host of demons under Satan’s direction accordingly seduce all heathen people to idoatry (Jubilees, vii. 27, x. 1, xi. 5, xv. 20, xxii. 17), but the end of Satan will be the healing and resurrection of the servants of the Lord (xxiii. 30). The speculation regarding the nature and origin of these demons and their leaders led as early as the second pre-Christian century, in those fragments preserved under the name of the Book of Enoch, to the story of the fall of the angels (Enoch, vii.-viil.; Ixix.). Like Beelzebub, or Lucifer (Isa. xiv. 12; compare Slavouic Enoch, xxix. 4), two hundred ‘Trin or “watchers” fell, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of men (Gen. vi. 4); only tradition obvi- ously differed as to the leader of the rebellious host, whether it was Azazel or Shamhazai. At any rate, they acknowledged the supremacy of Satan (liii. 3, liv. 6), though occasionaily many satans are men- tioned (xl. 7 e¢ al.), and these fallen angels became “the evil spirits” (xv. 8, xix. 19) who taugbt maD- kind all the arts of deception, witcheraft, and sin (vil.-viii., lxix.). But their children, the offspring of this mixture of an earthly and a celestial race, specific character as part of the cosmic power of | became, when slain, the hybrid race of disembodie 519 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Demonology SSS SS eS spirits or demons doing the work of destruction un- ti] the Day of Judgment (xvi. 1). Belial is another name for Satan found in the Book of Jubilees (xv. 38), in Sibyllines (iti. 63), and in Ascension of Isaiah (ii. 4), where he is also called “the prince of injus- tice” (Sar ha-Mastemah), who rules over this world. Belial (or Behar) occurs most frequently in the Tes- taments of the Twelve Patriarchs. He has “seven spirits of deception” in his service (Reuben, 2), and as author of all evil, “the spirit of hatred, darkness, deception, and error,” he is the opponent of God, the “Father of Light,” and of His Law (Simeon, 5; Levi, 19; Issachar, 6; Dan, 5; Zebulun, 9; Naph- tali, 8: Gad, 4; Joseph, 20), and when “he and his evil spirits are crushed the heathen world will be converted to the belicf in the Lord” (Simeon, 7; Zebulon, 9). Under this aspect the world appeared as the arena in which Satan contends with the Lord, the God of life everlasting, until “the great dragon, the oid serpent, he that is called Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, shall be cast down and his angels with him” (Suk. 52a; Assumptio Mosis, xi.; Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 9). The whote Jewish and pagan world at the begin- ning of the Christian era believed in those magic formulas by which the evil powers of the demons could be subdued, and the Jewish exorcists found a fertile soil everywhere for the cultivation of their Essene notions and their magic. This was the at- mosphere in which Christianity arose with the claim of “healing all that were oppressed of the devil” (Acts x. 38), enforcing the recognition by the unclean spirits themselves of the Son of David as the vanquisher of the de- mons (Mark i. 27, iii. 11). The name of Jesus be- came the power by which the host of Satan was to be overcome, as Jesus himself had seen “Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Mark ix. 38, xvi. 17; Matt. xii. 28; Luke x. 18). But there was danger lest the exorcism practised by Gentiles and Jews alike (see Conybeare, “J. Q. R.” ix. 88 e¢ seg.) should engender the spirit of impurity underlying all magic, the dividing line between legitimate and ille- gitimate magic being anything but sharply drawn (see Book of Jubilees, viii. 2; Sanh. 91a: “Abra- ham handed the name of unclean witchcraft to the sons of Keturah”; compare Blau, “Das Jiidische Zauberwesen,” pp. 15, 23, 41 et seq.). It was, there- fore, not hostility which prompted the Pharisees to accuse Jesus and his disciples of “casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of devils” (Matt. xii. 24; compare Ben Stada, Shab. 104b). The more devils cast out, the more appeared (Luke xi. 26), The cure offered to anage in constant dread of demons (Acts v. 16, viii. 7, xvi. 16, xix. 12-20) only aggravated the disease; nor did Paul’s system (see Everling, “ Die Paulinische Angelologie und Da- monologie,” 1888) spiritualize the idea of Satan as the Testaments of the Patriarchs endeavored to do, In order to remove the fear of demons (see Eph. vi. 12; Gal. iv. 8, 9). Pharisaism diagnosed the disease of the age differ- €atly, and therefore iusisted that the observance of the Law was the best prophylactic against demons. € wearing of the Tefillin, the Greek name of New Testament De- monology. which, ¢v/axrypa, indicates that they were regarded by the Hellenistic Jews as amulets (comp. Targ. Cant. vili. 83; Gen. R. xxxv.; Men. 33b), the fixing of the Mezuzatat the door, the reading of the SuEMA‘ with the name of God in the first verse, and the putting on of the Zizir, while direct observances of the Law (Deut. vi. 4-9, Num. xvi. 38), were also re- garded by the Rabbis as a safeguard against all evil powers (Ber. 5a; Num. 48b), The recital of the set prayers each morning and evening (Ber. 9b), the observance of the commandment of the Sukkah (Pesik. 187b), protect against evil powers. In fact, “the wicked are accompanied by the angels of Satan; the righteous by the angels of God ” (Tosef., Shab. xvii. 2-8; compare Book of Ju- bilees, x. 6). For each commandment observed by man becomes an angel “to guard him against demons” (Ex. R. xxxii. and Tan. ad loc.). “Every observance of the Law is a protec- tion ” (Sotah 21a), and those bent upon doing some sacred work (“sheluhe mizwah ”) need fear no evil powers (Pes. 8b). The priest’s bless- ing also is a protection against malign influences (Num. R. xi.). And as in the Passover night, “the night of watching,” Satan was bound and prevented from doing harm to Israel (Book of Jubilees, x] viii. 15; Pes. 109b), so is “the left hand when adorned with the tefillim surrounded with thousands, and the right hand performing acts of religion surrounded with myriads, of guardian angels” (Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci. 4), “Every limb engaged in the fulfil- ment of a divine commandment is protected against the ‘Strong One’” (Pesik. R. ix.; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxxv.). Thus Pharisaism, while increasing the yoke of ceremonial laws for the sake of love of God, showed a way to overcome the fear of demons. Be- lief in the power of the Law became the antidote against what may be termed “Satanophohia,” and against the spirit of pessimism and asceticism which was fostered by the Essenes and by their Christian heirs, Though the belief in demons was greatly encour- aged and enlarged in Babylonia under the influence of Parsee notions, demonology never became an es- sential feature of Jewish theology. The reality of demons was never questioned by the Talmudists aud casuists; therefore the Halakah accepted it as a fact (see Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayvyim, 4, 2 e¢ seq. ; 90, 6; 181, 2; Yoreh De‘ah, 116, 5; 179, 16, 19; Eben ha-‘Ezer, 17, 10: based upon Shab. 101a, 109a; Hul. 105a; Ber. 8a; Pes. 112a; Meg. 3a; Pes. 109b; Yeb, 122a). Nor did most of the medieval thinkers question their reality (see Nahmanides on Lev. xvii. 7; “Cuzari,” v. 14; Crescas, “Or Adonai,” iv. 6; Sol- omon b. Adret, Responsa, i. 413; Moses Tachau, in “Ketab Tamim”; “Ozar Nehmad,” ili. 97). Only Maimonides, when ignoring or circumscribing the rabbinical refer- ences to the demons (see “ Yad,” Ro- zeah, xli.5; Gerushin, ti. 18 et seg.; compare “* Mo- reh,” i. 7, the commentary to Mishnah Pes. iv. 11, and Abot v. 6), and Ibn Ezra, on Lev. xvii. %, de- nied their existence, The cabalists, on the other hand, not only took up all the ideas expressed in Enoch and Pirke R. El. The Law, the Pro- phylactic Against Demons. The Phi- losophers. Demonology enis THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 520 en nnn LL eee Se xxxiv., regarding the demons as the spirits of the men of the Flood and as the result of the union of Adam and Lilith, but they made demons form part of the cosmic design in the emanistic system in which the right and the left are the opposite cur- rents of pure and impure powers filling the world and dividing it between the Holy One and the ser- pent Samael (see Zohar, Bereshit, 47b, 53 et seq., 169b et seg., 174b, and CaBALA). But while the malign powers became agencies of the spirit of impurity working in men and nations, there goes along with this view the popular conception of demonsas spirits of the dead roaming about as specters and vampires. This latter view is especially prominent in the school of R. Judah of Regensburg, and is dwelt upon in the Book of Raziel and the “Sefer Hasidim,” 172, 326 et seg. Nevertheless, while the number of the de- mons of diseases increases (see Giidemann, “ Gesch. des Erziehungswesens,” 1880, i. 205; Yalk., Hadash, Mita, 149), and the belief in the efficacy of incan- tations is firmly adhered to, these writers repeat- edly urge their readers not to resort The to any conjuration or magic practises, Cabalists. but to have perfect confidence only in prayer and in the power of God. “Noone who indulges in such practise will see good results for himself and his house ” (“Sefer Hasidim,” ed. Wistinetzki, Nos. 211 ef seg., 1448-57; Gtide- mann, f.¢. 207). Notwithstanding this closing admonition of the “Sefer Hasidim,” many prayers for the warding off of demonic influences have found a place in the Jewish liturgy and the Shulhan ‘Aruk. The privies having been in Talmudic times iso- Prayers lated spots which filled the imagina- Against tion with specters of fear, a special Demons. incantation is prescribed invoking the protection of guardian angels against the evil spirits haunting these places (see Ber. 60b; compare Ber. 62a and Orah Hayyim, 13, 1). Most of the prayers to be recited before retiring to bed are intended to guard the sleeper against demons (com- pare Ber. 4a; Shebu. 15b). At the close of the Sabbath, when the angel Dumah calls all spirits of the wicked back to their place of torment after their Sabbath respite, the evil spirits are supposed to swarm everywhere, poisoning the wells and doing harm in many ways; wherefore Psalm xci. is recited (see Pesik. R. xxiii.; Sheeltot, Bereshit; Tanya, xxi.; Ha-Manhig, Shabbat, 65; Solomon b. Adret, Responsa, 1119; Kol Bo, xli.). See Duman. As early as geonic times there was a special in- cantatory formula, to be recited before drinking from the cup of the HaBpaLan wine, against “the demon Puta, the prince of forgetfulness,” that “by the power of the holy names of the angels Arimaz, Arimas [Ahuramazda?], Ansisel, and Petahel, he may be cast upon the high mountains [Alburz]” (“Seder Rab Amram,” i. 31). To this Isaac Luria added new features in the form of incantations against all the demons, and instead of “Puta” he read “ Purah,” connecting it with Isa. lxiii. 1 as the name of Esau-Samael (see Isaac Luria, “Tikkune Shabbat,” and Kizzur Shelah, “Moze‘e Shabbat”: compare M. Briick, “ Pharisiische Volkssitten,” 1840, p. 121; Brill, 7.c.). Death at all times impressed people with the fear of evil spirits. Many ritesand prayer-formulas were introduced to avert their malign influence, and specia} formulas for the dying were prescribed by the caba- lists, by which all the demons—the shedim, ruhin, lilin, mazzikim, etc.—that may have been created by the impure thoughts and deeds of the departing, are adjured, by the Holy Decrees, the Powers of Heaven, and the anathemas of men, not to follow the deaq nor injure him, nor in any way, direct or indirect, to cause injury toany person through him (see “ Ma‘abar Yabbok,” ed. Landshut, pp. 80-83, Berlin, 1857, and introduction, where the literature is given; AMULET : CHILDBIRTH; INCANTATIONS). Customs are some. times explained by the superstitious as being based upon belief in demons; for instance, the one pro. hibiting women from going to a cemetery because demons are fond of following her who yielded to the temptation of the serpent and thus caused death to come into the world, or the custom of blowing the shofar at funerals to ward off the shedim (see Yalk. , Hadash, d.c. 47). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Herzog-Hauck, Real-Eneye. s.v. Feldgeister und Diimonische; L. LOw, in Ben Chananja, 1858, i. 150. 154; Hamburger, R. B. 7. s.vy. Geister; Winer, B. R. s.y, Gespenster ; M. Kalisch, Commentary on Leviticus, 1872, ii. 310-319; Weber, System der Altsynagogalen Theologie, Index ; Schorr, in He-Haluz, 1865, vii. 17 et seq. ; 1869, viii. 8 et seg.; Fuller, in Wace’s Apocrypha, 1888, i. 176, 185 et seq.: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, ii. 752-760, 7715 Kohut, Angelologie und Didmonologie in Ihrer Abhdingigkeit vom Parsismas, 1896. E. G. H.—@. Ky. ——In Arabic Literature: * Ante-Islamic myth- ology does not discriminate between gods and de- mons. The jinn are considered as divinities of in- ferior rank, having many human attributes: they eat, drink, and procreate their kind (compare Hag. 16a, where a similar belicf is expressed), sometimes in conjunction with human beings; in which latter case the offspring shares the natures of both parents. The jinn smell and lick things, and have a liking for remnants of food. In eating they use the left hand (“ Manakib Al-Ansar,” No, 32). Usually they haunt waste and deserted places, especially the thickets where wild beasts gather. Cemeteries and dirty places are also favorite abodes (compare Shab. 67a; Ber. 62b; Mark v. 5). In appearing to man they assume sometimes the forms of beastsand some- times those of men; but they always have some animal characteristic, such as a paw in place of 4 hand (Darimi, “ Kitab al-Sunnah,” ii. 213). Eccen- tric movements of the dust-whirlwind (“ zawabi‘”) are taken to be the visible signs of a battle between two clans of jinn (Yakut, iii. 478). Under the influence of Jewish and Christian de monology in post-Islamic times, the only animals directly identified with the jinn are snakes and other obnoxious creeping things (compare Pes. 112a\. When Mohammed was on his way to Tabuk, it is said that a swarm of jinn, assuming the form of serpents, approached him and stood still for a long while. Generally jinn are peaceable and well disposed to- ward men. Many an ante-Islamic poet was believed to have been inspired by good jinn; and Mohammed himself was accused by his adversaries of having been inspired by jinn (“majnun”), But there are * This article treats only of parallels to Jewish demonology found in Arabic literature. 521 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Demonology Denis ee pe a ee eee also evil jinn, who contrive to injure men. Among these are specially conspicuous the three female demons named “Ghul” (corresponding to the Tal- mudical m5%), “Si‘lat,” and “‘Aluk” or “‘Aulak” (compare Prov. xxx. 15), and the four male demons “ Afrit,” “Azbab,” “Aziab,” and “Ezb.” Ghul is especially harmful to new-born children, and in order to keep her away their heads are rubbed with the gum of an acacia (Zamakhshari, “ Asas,” 8.9. “haid ”). Islam recognized the existence of all the pagan demons, good and evil, protesting only against their being considered gods. It divides the evil demons into five species: “ jann,” “jinn,” “shaitans,” “afrits,” and “ma- rids.”. Mohammed frequently refers in the Koran to the shaitans,of whom Iblis is the chief. Iblis, probably a corruption of the name “ Diabolos” — Satan, is said to have been deprived of authority over the animal and spirit kingdoms, and sentenced to death, when he refused, at the creation of Adam, to prostrate himself before him (Koran, vii, 13). The shaitans are the children of Iblis, and are to die when their father dies; whereas the others, thongh they may live many centuries, must die before him. A popular belief says that Iblis and other evil demons are to survive mankind, though they will die before the general resurrection; the last to die being ‘Azaril, the angel of death. Tradition attributes to Mohammed the statement that every man has an angel and a demon appointed to attend him. The former guides him toward goodness, while the latter leads him to evil (“ Mish- kat,” i. ch. 8). The shaitans, being the enemies of Allah, strive to disturb worshipers. Mohammed, it is said, prefaced his prayers with “O God! In Thee I am seeking for a refuge from the attacks of the shaitan and his witchcraft” (Hamzah, vii. 293). Among the evil jinn are distinguished the five sons of Iblis: “Tir,” who brings about calami- ties and injuries; “Al-A‘war,” who encourages debauchery; “Sut,” who suggests lies; “ Dasim,” who causes hatred between man and wife; and “Zalambur,” who presides over places of traffic. It was in order to keep them away that the faithful were commanded the cleansings and fumigations which are unbearable to the shaitans, who delight in dirt and filth (Wakidi, ii. 178). The pronoun- cing of the “takbir” formula (“ Allah akbar” =Al- lah is very great) is also a means of driving them away. Mohammed, it is said, pronounced it in his travels whenever the appearance of the region changed, lest it might be enchanted. In later times amulets were invented to which were ascribed the virtue of protecting their bearers from the attacks of demons. As in cabalistic literature, the cat plays a great part in Islamic demonology. A demon assuming the form of a cat is said to have presented himself to Mohammed while he was praying (Darimi, @.¢. ii. 449). The demons called “ Kutrus” usually assumed the form of cats (Mas‘udi, “Muruj al-Dhahab,” iii. 821). As to the good jinn, there are some among them who profess Islamism, and Mohammed pre- tended that many of them had listened to his ser- Mons (Koran, sura ]xxii.). Demons jn Islam. Interesting are the accounts given in the Koran of the power of Solomon over the shaitans, which accounts parallel the legends found in Talmud and Midrashim, and of which the following are examples: **And we [subjected] to Solomon sundry devils to dive for him, and do other works: and we watched over them” (sura xxi. 81, 82). “And we tried Solomon, and we placed upon his throne a counterfeit body... . So we subjected unto him the wind, which moved gently at his command whithersoever he desired ; and the devils also—every builder and diver bound in chains” (sura xxxviii. 33-387). ‘‘ And of the jinn were those who worked in his presence by the will of the Lord; and such of them as swerved from our command we caused to taste of the punishment of hell. They made for him whatever he please@ of lofty halls and images, and dishes large as tanks for watering camels’ (sura xxxiv. 11-12). In the tradition it is said that Solomon possessed power over the demons by virtue of a talisman, which consisted of a signet-ring of brass, upon which was engraved the most great name of God. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wellhausen, Reste Arabischen Heiden thums, pp. 148 et seq.; Goldziher, Abhandlungen zur Ara- bischen Philologie, i. 3, 107, 198, 205; Freytag, Hinleitung in die Arabische Sprache, p. 167; E. W. Lane, Arabian So- cietyin the Middle Ages, pp. 25 et seq.; W. R. Smith, Sem- itie Religions, pp. 122 et seq. G. I, Br. DEMOPHON: Apparently an officer under Lys- jas’ command; he was Syrian general in Palestine about 164 B.c., and as such harried the Jewish pop- ulation, who were already worn out because of their many wars, and were then engaged in agriculture (II Mace. xii. 2). G. S. Kr. DEN (“The Day”): Russian Jewish weekly, published at Odessa (1869-71) by A. Zederbaum and I. Goldenblum, and edited by 8. Ornstein. Among its collaborators were M. Morgulis, I. G. Orshanski, and L. Levanda. G M. R. DENARIUS (Greek, dyvdpwrv): Roman silver coin, which derived its name from its being at first equal to ten asses; later this number was increased to sixteen. From the second century B.c. it was the chief silver coin of the commonwealth, and under the empire it is probable that it held a similar posi- tion up to the fall of Jerusalem. Its normal value was one twenty-fifth of the imperial aureus. In the English versions the word is rendered “penny ”; and it was in this coin that payment was made by the Jews of the civil tribute to the Roman emperors. The coin bore the effigies and titles of the reigning monarch; hence the reply of Jesus to the Pharisees (Matt. xxi. 17-21). In the Talmud the denarius is identified with the zuz and reckoned to be worth one-fourth of the holy shekel, or a half of the ordinary one, aud equivalent to 4 common selas, 4 sesterces, 6 obols, 24 asses, or 192 perutas or widow’s mites. See also Money; NUMISMATICS, BIBLIOGRAPHY: Madden, Coins of the Jews (vol. ii. of Nu- mismata Orientalia), pp. 291-292; Zunz, Z. G. p. 539. J. 7a ea as DENIS (DIONIS), ALBERTUS: One of the first members of the Portuguese community in Ham- burg. On May 31, 1611, he with two others signed the agreement which assured to the community its cemetery in Altona. In 1612 he was with others Denmark THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 522 formally admitted to the town by the Senate and the aldermen. He was banker to Count Ernest of Schauenburg, the reigning prince of the county of Pinneberg in southern Holstein, whom he supplied with silver bullion for his mint. In consequence of his confidential relations with the count, he came into collision with the Hamburg authorities, who accused him of buying up reichsthalers coined in Hamburg to melt down in Altona. The Senate of Hamburg ordered him put into prison, but he escaped to Altona and settled there, protected by the count against the Senate of Hamburg and the hostile popu- lation of Altona. Christian IV. of Denmark com- mitted to him (1619) the administration of the royal mint in thenewly founded town of Gliickstadt. He continued to be a member of the Hamburg Portu- guese community, and in 1637 interceded as its rep- resentative with Count Otto of Schauenburg for the renewal of the cemetery privileges. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ehrenberg, Altona Unter Schauenburg- ischer Herrschaft, Altona, 1893; A. Feilchenfeld, Anfany und Bititezeit der Portugiesen-Gemeinde in Hamburg. Hamburg, 1897; M. Grunwald, Portugiesengrtiber, p. 130. G. A. FE. PENMARK: A kingdom of northwestern Eu- rope. The first mention of the Danes in Jewish litera- ture occurs in the “ Yosippon” (ed. Breithaupt, pp. 8, 547; compare Jerahmeel, transl. Gaster, p. 68), where the Dodanim mentioned in the Bible (Gen. x. 4) are identified with the Danes, and where they are de- scribed as a valiant people who fled to northern shores in order to escape trom the Romans, though the latter reached them even there, and overcame their resistance, The last-named detail probably owes its origin to an Italian source, in which may have been recounted, although inaccurately, the wars of the Christian emperors of Rome with the Danish kings. The identification with the Dodanim is, of course, based only on the partial consonance of the names. It is very doubtful whether Jews were found even sporadically in Denmark in the Middle Ages. A1- thougha “ Deulacresse of Danemarcia” is mentioned in connection with the English money-broker AARON oF LIncoLn, in an English “shetar” of 1176 (the first shetar bearing a date, according to Jacobs in “Jews of Angevin England,” pp. 58, 59), the desig- nation “ Danemarcia” can hardly refer to Denmark proper, but rather to a territory in Normandy sub- ject to the Danes. The Jews first appeared in the region of Holstein, which belonged formerly to Denmark. In a letter dated Nov. 25, 1622, King Christian TV. (1588-1648) invited the Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam to settle in Gltickstadt, where, among other privileges, the free exercise of their religion would be granted them. Though the history of the Jews in the terri- tories of Sleswick-Holstein does not belong to this article, it must be noted that the Danish kings were invariably friendly to their Jewish subjects in these provinces, and that the Jews in Denmark proper were for a long time intimately connected with Altona, inasmuch asthe chief rabbi of Altona, Ham- burg, and Wandsbeck also exercised civil juris- diction over the Jews settled in the Danish city Fredericia until Sleswick and Holstein in 1864 were severed from the Danish monarchy. The assistant rabbi of Fredericia was subject tothe chief rabbi of Altona until 1812, The first Jews probably cume to Denmark by way of Sleswick and Holstein during the reign of the above-mentioned Christian IV. Hig successor, Frederick III. (1648-70), was not so fa- vorably disposed toward the Jews, for in a rescript of Feb. 6, 1651, he says: “Jews have stolen into Denmark contrary to long-standing custom, [since the days of the Reformation, the Lutheran creed had, according to the laws of Denmark, been com. pulsory throughout the kingdom], and have dared to traffic with jewels and the like.” Accordingly, he ordered that no Jew should enter Denmark without a special passport (“Geleitsbriet”), and that those who were already in the country should be heavily fined if they did not leave within fourteen days. A few years later, however, the tables were turned. Frederick III., being in need of funds fer his wars, borrowed money from the Jew Abraham (or Diego) Teixeira de Mattos of Hamburg (known through his relations with the Swedish queen Chris- tina), and gave as security crownlands in Jutland. Teixeira thereupon made such good use of his in. fluence with the Danish king that, as early as Jan. 19, 1657, “the Portuguese professing the Hebrew re- ligion” were permitted to travel everywhere within the kingdom, and to trade and traffic within the limit of the law. Teixeira himself gained little by his transaction with the Danish monarch. As his joan was not returned, he took instead the estates he held as security, selling them later at a great loss. The king acted similarly in his dealings with the De Lima family, who were in possession of the Hald estate from 1660 to 1708. The first Jewish congregation was formed in the capital, COPENHAGEN, but other congregations were soon founded in some of the provincial cities; for example, in the Laaland town Nakskov (1667). In Ribe, Jutland, there were Jews as early as 1680, although the first synagogue in Jutland, that of Fredericia, was not built until 1719 (rebuilt in 1814). The privilege of 1657 was specially ratified in an open letter of Dec. 14, 1670, at the instance of Gabriel Gomez, who was in the service of the king. Nevertheless, a rescript of April 16, 1681, repeated that Jews were not to come into Denmark with- out a special Geleitsbrief; and the “Danish Law” (1688) of Christian V. (1670-99), a remarkable pro- duction which is still authoritative in Danish juris- prudence, in so far as it has not been expressly abrogated by later laws, classed Jews with Gipsies, and in general breathed the same spirit as the law of 1651. But as early as July 30, 1684, a rescript ad- dressed to the above-mentioned Diego Teixeira de- clared that the Geleitsbrief was not to be demanded of the Portuguese Jews, and it is probable that the law was not always strictly enforced against Ger- man Jews. Religious services were permitted in COPENHAGEN in 1684. So far as is known, the only “blood accusation” ever made in Denmark was brought against the court jeweler Meyer Goldschmidt, an elder of the synagogue already mentioned. A poor woman came to him, asking him to buy her child. She said she had been told that rich Jews bought children 10 Relations with Frederick III. 523 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Denmark Se order to suck their blood, and she wished to give up per child to him, since she could not feed it. Meyer Goldschmidt immediately notified the authorities, and the woman was sentenced to be whipped, but was let off with imprisonment. At the end of the seventeenth and in the course of the eighteenth century, German as well as Se- yhardic Jews continued to come into Denmark, al- though in small numbers. The government was on the whole not unfavorably disposed toward the Jews, although it was often obliged to listen to the complaints of the merchants with whom the Jews competed. The subordinate officials Contrast of were not generally as friendly as the Portuguese government; they probably had much and trouble with traveling Jews, whose German = speech they hardly understood. It was Jews. not easy, of course, for every police official to find out whether the Jew before him was a Portuguese and therefore enjoyed the general privileges, or whether he was to be ac- counted a German Jew (as were all who were not Sephardim), in which latter case the legality of his passport required demonstration. Probably the German Jews often assumed Portuguese names, and then joined the Portuguese congregation in Copen- hagen in order to enjoy their privileges. What the government feared was that Jewish beggars and vagabonds might tramp about the country without definite means of support. An account of the bap- tism of a Polish Jew in 1620 leads to the conclusion that even then Jews who were worthless as subjects crossed the frontier and accepted baptism as a means of escaping punishment. To obtain a pass- port it was necessary to demonstrate the possession of money, or of means in some form for carrying on business, as well as some special technical skill; for in former centuries Denmark endeavored to open up all branches of industry by artificial means, the country until then having been almost entirely de- pendent uponagriculture and commerce. The Jews promoted the commercial interests of Denmark in relation to both the cloth and the tobacco industry. An agreement to build a house in any city that needed buildings was also a means of gaining an en- try into Denmark. This is set forth as early as Sept. 2, 1726, in a rescript for Copenhagen; and earlier still (March 31, 1688) in one for Christians- havn, a suburb of Copenhagen on the island of Amager, where the German Jews received the priv- llege of carrying on the tobacco industry, but only on condition that they would build houses in that part of thecity. Marrying into a Dano-Jewish fam- ily often conferred citizenship. It must be added, Inexplanation of all these privileges and rescripts, that, beginning with 1660, the Danish king was abso- lute sovereign and sole ruler of the country. He Could at his pleasure appoint any Jew to a royal oifice, as was done in the instance of Aron Gold- Zleher, customs collector, Although this sovereignty Was on the whole very mildly and wisely used, it is €asy to see how important personal influence must ave been in the direction of government. There Were several rescripts against immigration before the middle of the eighteenth century, but none in the following decades of the century. Denmark was strictly Protestant. Naturally, anything that wore the appearance of an attempt to pioselytize would be resented. Danger therefore threatened the Jews when Holger Patuui (d. 1714), a half-crazy merchant, announced Jews and himself as the Messiah and king of Christians. the Jews. Equally pregnant with possibilities of trouble was the case of Jens Gedelécke. He was a lawyer who evinced a marked inclination for Judaism, and it became evi- dent at his death (1729) that at heart he had been more Jew than Christian, and, according to the in- formation of some of his Jewish friends, had prac- tised Jewish rites. The Jews were thereupon com- pelled to remove his body from the Christian cemetery and to inter him in the Jewish cemetery; but as he had not formally embraced Judaism, they soon afterward decided not to permit the body to re- main among them, and it was removed again. The chief of police of Copenhagen, who had not a very good reputation, endeavored to magnify the incident into an offense against the state; but the threatened storm soon blew over. At one time the Jews were forbidden to keep Christian servants (Jan., 1725); after two months, however, the ordi- nance was modified, and soon fell into disuse, The Jews were encouraged to embrace Christianity, but the converts made in tliat century were not of the best repute. The Mendelssohn movement soon found adherents in Denmark. It is well known that Mendelssohn’s friend, the Danish councilor of state, August v. Hennings, induced the minister to place the name of the insane king, Christian VII. (1756-1808), on the subscription list of Mendelssohn’s Influence edition of the Pentateuch, thereby of Mendels- making it impossible for Raphael sohn Cohen, the rabbi of Altona, to put the Movement. book under ban (see COPENHAGEN). The crown prince (later Frederick VI.), who was for a long time regent in the name of his sick father, was interested in the progress of his Jewish subjects, and after several commissions had made reports, he issued a comprehensive order (March 29, 1814) granting to the Jews full civil lib- erty, and placing them in general on an equal stand- ing with the Christian population. They were, however, still debarred from government positions. The fact that they enjoyed no political rights is of no importance, since their Danish fellow subjects were in the same position, owing to the absolute sovereignty of the king. The government at this time was more favorably disposed toward the Jews than were the people. Business rivalry was fre- quently bitter, and the anti-Jewish movement which spread over Germany in the beginning of the nine- teenth century invaded Denmark also. (ed. Buber, 44b), and probably Derek Erez Rabbah were also used. As already mentioned, the Spanish ver- $10n of the Halakot Gedolot, probably made about ae adopted these four sections as a complete trea- "se; hence one would not be far wrong in setting the IV,.—84 a tr ay ninth century as the date of composition. The first four sections date from a much earlier period. From their contents they may even have been an independ- ent collection already in existence at the time of the Tannaim. At any rate this collection contains much that is old, even if it can not be proved that the “ Me- gillat Hasidim,” which is cited in Abot de-Rabbi Natan (ed. Schechter, xxvi. 52), is identical with the treatise under discussion. The ninth section, originally, perhaps, a small col- lection of maxims, is more modern than the first and older than the second part of the treatise. The con- clusion of the ninth chapter, which treats of peace, caused the insertion in the Talmud of a Section on Peace (“Perek ha-Shalom ”), in which various say- ings concerning peace, taken from different Mid- rashim, especially from the Midrash to Num. vi. 26, are placed together. This tenth (supplementary) section is comparatively a very late product, and is not found in Mahzor Vitry, in Halakot Gedolot, nor in the MSS. The Abot excepted, this treatise is the only collec- tion of precepts from the period of the Talmud and the Midrashim, and is therefore of great Importance importance in any estimate of the ear- of the liest ethical views of the old rabbis. Treatise. Zunz appropriately characterizes the treatise: “ The Derek Erez Zuta, which is meant to be a mirror for scholars, is full of high moral teachings and pithy worldly wisdom which philosophers of to-day could study to advantage.” The treatise deals mainly with man’s relation to man, and is moral rather than religious in nature. A few quotations from it will illustrate its character: “If others speak evil of thee let the greatest thing seem unimportant in thy eyes; but if thou hast spoken evil of others, let the least word seem impor- tant” (i.). “If thou hast done much good Jet it seem little in thy eyes, and sav: ‘Not of mine own have I done this, but of that good which has come to me through others’; but let a small kindness done to thee appear great” (1i.). The treatise was much read, and the fact that it went through so many hands partly accounts for the chaotic condition of the text. Scholars of the eight- eenth century did much, by means of their glosses and commentaries, toward making possible an understanding of the text, but a critical edition is still needed. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Azulai, Kikkkar la-Aden, Leghorn, 1801; Bacher, in Jeu’. Quart. Rev. vii. 697-098; Harburger, Masse- chet Derech Krez Sutta, German transl., Bayreuth, 1839; Elijah of Wilna, critical glosses tu the ed. of Sklow, 1#04 (re- printed several times); Liipshtitz, Regel Yesharah, Dyhern- furth, 1776; Naumburg, Nahelat Ya‘akob, Firth, 1798: Krauss, in Rev. Ht. Juives, xxxvi.-xxxvii.: idem, Talmudi > Eletszabolyok, Hungarian transl., Budapest, 1896; Tawrogi, Derech Hrez Sutta, nach Handschriften und Seltenen Ausgaben, Kénigsberg, 1885. S. 8. L. G. DERELICTS: Things that have been abandoned (“reg nullius” in the Roman law). The Talmud treats of four kinds of things that have no owner: (1) Seas, rivers, brooks, the desert (which can not be subjected to ownership), and all they contain; also wild beasts wherever found. (2) Things de- clared by the owner to be derelict ((ppA). (3) The property of a convert. who dies without leaving issue “begotten in holiness.” (4) Land sold by a Derelicts Derenburg THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 530 SSS SS en a Ee Ge ee ee ge RS ge a ang cate ge gS ere A: Gentile to an Israelite, for which he has been paid, but for which he has not executed a deed (this last class is questioned). He who devotes anything as a derelict can not put any limitations upon it. Like the fruits of the seventh year, it must be as free to the rich as to the poor. And as long as no one has, by occupation, made the derelict his own, the former owner can recover it (Ned. 44a). The fourth kind isasubject of dispute in the Tal- mud. It originated in the Persian law, which rec- ognized no transference of immovable property without a deed; which practise became recognized in Jewish law. Jt was argued: “The law of the kingdom is law”; the Gentile has conveyed no title to the Israelite purchaser, but as he has been paid for his land, his own title is gone; the land is there- fore derelict. Hence the first Israelile who can ac- quire it by occupancy will be recognized as its owner. However, this very maxim, “The law of the kingdom is law,” seems to have been quoted on the other side of the question (B. B. 54b). It must also be observed that, according to some interpreters of the Talmud, the third owner could not make his claim valid before he paid to the Israelite who had bought the land from the Gentile all of the money which he had expended. Seas and rivers excepted, anything, whether mov- able or immovable, coming within these four classi- fications may be acquired by occupancy, and not otherwise. The lawfulness of fishing and hunt- ing rests on the position that fish in open waters, and wild beasts or fowl everywhere, are “res nul- lius,” and as such belong tothe firstoccupant. But fish in an artificial pond (“bibarin”; Latin, “viva- rium”) are private property; to take them without the consent of the owner is robbery; and it is rob- bery likewise to take game out of a net or trap which has been set by another, even if it be in the desert (B. K. 81a). To hunt upon the field of another may be morally wrong, and the hunter is responsible for all damage done; but the wild beasts he catches or kills belong to him (compare, however, FINDER OF PROPERTY). Fish that jump from the water into a ship or boat be- long to the owner thereof (B. M. 9b). Other owner- less movable things, including tame beasts, belong to him who takes possession in a way that would give title to a purchaser, according to the nature of the thing to be acquired (see ALIENATION AND ACQUISITION). When a debt or a deposit has for any reason be- come ownerless, the debtor or depositary is freed from all liability, being naturally the first occupant. For a like reason bondmen or bondwomen declared by their owners as derelict become their own masters— that is, they become free; but if under age, they become the property of the first occupant, like goods or tame beasts. The occupation of derelict land must have the same character in each of the three cases. To seize a deed for the land gives no title except to the parchment on which it is written. Such occupation of land as is defined under ALIENATION is generally good enough; but where a field or other parcel of land is separated from other parts of the same estate, even by a foot-path, the actual occupation of one can not by a declaration in words be extended tg the other. The mere perceiving of fruits, or the taking of fallen trees, is not deemed occupancy of the soil. Plowing, or sticking a spade or pick into the ground, or sowing seed and covering it with earth, is effective. To erect posts or doors on the ground gives title; living in a house, or building something in the house above the ground, does not, The reason for these technical distinctions is this. that there is no contract, written or oral, to impress a meaning on the acts of occupation; hence they cay not be extended beyond the very thing which they touch (B, B. 54a, b). Issur, the convert, father of Rab Mare, a Baby. Jonian teacher, is an example of aconvert having no son “begotten in holiness.” The difficulty with which he transmitted to his son money on deposit jg described in B. K. 87a. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hoshen Mishpat, 213-275 ; Maimonides, Yad, Zekiyyah, ch. 1, 2. Ss. 8. L. N. D. DERENBURG (DERENBOURG): A Franco- German family of Orientalists. Their original home was Derenburg, a town near Halberstadt, Saxony, whence they moved successively to Offenbach, Frankfort-on-the-Main, and Mayence. Concerning Jacob Derenburg, the first known member of the family, nothing is ascertainable. His son, Hart. wig (Zebi-Hirsch) Derenburg, was the author of a comedy, “ Yoshebe Tebel ” (Inhabitants of the Uni- verse), written in imitation of the “ La-Yesharim Te- hillah” of Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, and published in Offenbach in 1789. He moved to Mayence about this time, as is shown by the fact that he calls him- self in his preface “tutor in the family of Mdm. Brendeli, widow of Beer Hamburg, in Mayence.” The play was dedicated to “the philanthropist and scholar Solomon Firth of Frankfort-on-the-Main,” of whose son Derenburg had been teacher, Derenburg was buried in Mayence, but his tombstone gives no information regarding the date of his death. The “Yoshebe Tebel” consists of a dialogue in which eight characters hold converse with one an- other, each of them in turn representing one of the capital sins, which the adjuster of wrongs, the “Prince of Peace” (“Sar Shalom”), representing the pastor of the community, condemns. Hartwig De- renburg abstains from mentioning names, as, in 1803, did Goethe in his “Natiirliche Tochter.” But as, in the case of Goethe, the originals of the characters which he put upon the stage under the veil of ano- nymity could be identified, so the coutemporaries of Derenburg must have recognized the members of the Jewish congregation in Mayence to whom the “Prince of Peace” (R. Noah Hayyim Hirsch) had ad- dressed a well-deserved rebuke. The “ Yoshebe Te bel” was the author’s sole preduction of this nature. Hartwig’s eldest son, Jacob Derenburg, bom at Mayence in 1794, was a lawyer; his youngest son was the French Orientalist Joseph (Naftali) Derenburg, born at Mayence, France, Aug. “1, 1811; died at Bad-Ems, Germany, July 29, 1899. To the age of thirteen Joseph’s education was nee fined exclusively to rabbinical studies. Whev a ficiently prepared, Joseph entered the gymnasium 531 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Derelicts Derenburg in Mayence, and then attended lectures in the Uni- versity of Giessen, and afterward in that of Bonn, where he studicd Arabic under Freytag. It was principally due to his intimate friendship with Abra- ham Geiger that be did not entirely drift into the domain ot Semitic phi- lology, but remained faithful to Jewish sci- ence. Abandoning the idea of becoming a rabbi, and having obtained his Ph.D. degree, Jo- seph in 1834 left Bonn for Amsterdam, where he accepted a_ posi- tion as tutor with the Bischoffsheim family. When in 1888 his pupil Raphael Louis BIsCHOFFSHEIM went to Paris to study at the Ecole Centrale, Jo- seph accompanied him, and took up his abode in Paris. In 1841 he became associate proprietor of the Pension Coutant, and directed the religious and moral instruction of the Jewish pupils. A few months after his marriage (1843) he regained his French nationality, and, having previously spelled his name “Derenburg” (and later “Dernburg”), he called himself thenceforth Joseph Derenbourg. After teaching German at the Lycée Henri IV. in 1851, he was appointed proof-reader of Oriental texts at. the Imprimerie Impériale (1852). In 1857 he established a private college, and remained at its head until 1864. In 1869 he became chevalier of the Legion of Honor, and was elected (Dec, 22, 1871) member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. If nominally he was the successor to Caussin de Perceval, his former teacher of Arabic, in reality he was called to fill the place left vacant by the death of Salomon MUNK (Feb. 7, 1867). He had already (May 3, 1868) succeeded the latter, who had been an intimate friend of his, as member of the central committee of the Alliance Israélite Univer- Selle, of which he later became a vice-president. From 1869 to 1872 he was a member of the Consis- toire Israélite de Paris. In 1877 an eye affection compelled him to resign his position at the Impri- merie Nationale; but immediately after this he was appointed professor of rabbinical Hebrew at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes. The following are Joseph Derenbourg’s principal works, no mention being made of a number of arti- cles which appeared in the “Comptes Rendus de YAcadémie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,” the a ournal Asiatique,” the “Revue Critique,” Geiger’s Jiidische Zeitschrift,” the “Revue des Etudes Juives,” Gritz’s “ Monatsschrift,” ete. : Joseph Derenbourg. Maimonides,” in Geiger’s ‘* Wiss. Zeit. Jiid. Theol.” i, (1833). Sur le Dernier Repas Pascal de Jesus,” in * Orientalia,” i., Amsterdam, 1840. A Les Séances de Hariri,” with a commentary by Silvestre €Sacy; 2d ed. revised and supplemented with historical and “xplanatory notes, Paris, 1847-51, preface by Reinaud. ** Les Fables de Loytian le Sage,”? Berlin and Lon:ton, 1850, “Les Inscriptions de FAlhambra,’? appendix to Girault de Prangey’s ** Essai sur Architecture des Arabes et des Maures. en Espagne,’’ Paris, 1851. ** Essai sur l*Histoire et la Géographie de la Palestine d’Aprés. jes Thalmuds et les Autres Sources Rabbiniques: I., Histoire de la Palestine,’’ Paris, 1867. ** Manuel du Leeteur, d'un Auteur Inconnu,”’ reprinted from ** Journal Asiatique,” 1870. * Opuscules et Traités d’Abod 1-Walid Merwan ibn Djandh de Cordoue ” (with Hartwig Derenbourg), Paris, 1880. “Deux Versions Hébraiques du Livre de Kalilah et Dimnah,’” Paris, 1881. “Talmud,” in the ‘* Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses,’” by Lichtenberger, xii., Paris, 1882. ** Etudes sur l’Epigraphie du Yémen” (with Hartwig Deren- bourg), in the ‘‘ Journal Asiatique *’ for 1882-64. **Les Monuments Sabéens et Himyarites du Louvre” (with Hartwig Derenbourg), Paris, 1885. ** Les Inscriptions Phéniciennes du Temple de Seti a Abydos ** (with Hartwig Derenbourg), Paris, 1885, ‘**Le Livre des Parterres Fleuris,’”? Hebrew grammar in Ara-. bic, by Abu al-Walid Merwan ibn Janah, Paris, 1886, the text. published in anonymous conjunction with W. Bacher. ‘*Commentaire de Maimonide sur la Mischnah, Seder Toho~ rot,’’ 3 parts, Berlin, 1887-89. ** Johannis de Capua Directorium Humane Vitew, Alias Para- bola Antiquorum Sapientum,” Paris, 1889. ** Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum; Pars Quarta, Inscrip- tiones Himyariticas et Sabveas Continens "(with Hartwig De--. renbourg), i.-ii., Paris, 1889-92. “Texte Arabe de l'Isaie de Saadia,”’ in Stade’s ** Zeitschrift,” ix., x., Giessen, 1889-90. ‘**CEuvres Completes de R. Saadia ben Joseph al-Fayyouimi,’* edited under his general supervision. I., “‘ Version Arabe du: Pentateuque,”’ Paris, 1893; VI., “* Version Arabe des Proverbes ”* (with Mayer Lambert), Paris, 1894. “La Version Arabe de Isaie,’”? Paris, 1896, and ‘* La Version Arabe du Livre de Job,”’ edited by Hartwig Derenboureg, Paris, 1899. BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Maspero, Discours Prononeé_aux Furé- railles de M. Derenbourg: W. Bacher, Joseph Derenbourg Sa Vie et Son Quvre, Paris, 1896; A. Carriére, Joseph Deren bourg, in the Annuaire de V Ecole des Hautes Etudes, See~ tion des Sctences Historiques et Philologiques, 189¢, pp. 3\- 40: Hartwig Derenbourg, Version Arabe du Livre de Job de: R. Saadia, \ntroduction, Paris, 1899. S. B.D. Derenbourg, Hartwig: French Orientalist ; som of Joseph Derenbourg; born in Paris June 17, 1844. He attended the lycées Charlemagne and Bo- naparte (now Ccndor- cet). He studied He- brew, Arabic, and oth- er Semitic languages under Reinaud, Ul- mann, chief rabbi of France, and his father, in Paris; under Ewald, Bertheau, and Wiisten- fold, in Gdé6ttingen; under Fleischer and Krehl, in Leipsic. In 1866, after taking his degree in Gottingen, he was engaged at the Bibliothéque Impéri- ale, continuing the preparation of the catalogue of Arabic manuscripts, discontinued since 1859. His father-in-law, Hermann Joseph Baer, the well-known bookseller of Frankfort-on-the-Main, placed him m 1871 at the head of the Paris branch of his house. In 1875 he received two almost. simultaneous calls: one as professor of Arabic and Hartwig Derenbourg, Derenburg Desecration THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 532 Semitic languages to the Jewish Theological Sem- inary of Paris, and the other as instructor in Ara- bic grammar to the Ecole Speciale des Langues Orientales Vivantes. In April,.1879, he was called to occupy, at the latter institution, the chair of liter- ary Arabic, which had been vacant since Reinaud’s death in 1867, In 1880 the minister of public instruction entrusted him with the investigation of the Arabic manu- scripts in the Escurial and in the other libraries of Spain, On his return Ernest Renan had Derenbourg made assistant to the commission upon Semitic inscriptions at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, being especially entrusted, under the direction of his father, Joseph Derenbourg, with the Himyaritic and Sabean section. In 1884 he was ap- pointed professor of Arabic at the Ecole des Hautes- Etudes, and in 1885 professor of Islamism and of the religions of Arabia in the religious section of the same school. In Feb., 1897, he was decorated with the cross of the Legion of Honor, and in June, 1900, he was elected member of the Institute (Académie des In- scriptions et Belles-Lettres). He was also honorary member of the Academy of History in Madrid, of the Institut Egyptien in Cairo, of the Society of Biblical Archeology in London, and a member of many other scientific societies. Hartwig Derenbourg took a lively interest in Jew- ish affairs. He wasa member of the central com- mittee of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and of the council of the Société des Etudes Juives, having become its president in 1890; and continual vice- president of the administrative board of the Ecole de Travail Israélite. He was, further, one of the founders and directors of the Grand Encyclopédie. The following is a list of his principal works: * De Plnralibus Lingue Arabice,” Gottingen, 1867, ** Quelques Observations sur I Antiquité de la Déclinaison dans les Langues Sémitiques,’’ Paris, 1868. ‘**Le Diwan de Nabiga Dhobyani.”’ Paris, 1869, “Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes de la Bibliothéque Im- périale,”’ 4 vols., 1866-70. ** Notes sur la Grammaire Arabe,”? Paris, 1869-71. ‘** Histoire Littéraire del’Ancien Testament,” translated from the German of Néldeke in collab, with Jules Soury, Paris, 1878. **Le Livre de Sibawaihi,”’ 2 vols., Paris, 1881-89, “Les Manuscrits Arabes de |’Escurial,” i., Paris, 1884; if., Part I., ib., 1899. ‘*Chrestomathie Elémentaire de l Arabe Littéral ’ (with Jean . Spiro}, Paris, 1885; 2d ed., Paris, 189°. La Science des Religions et ’'Islamisme,” Paris, 1886. * Onsima Ibn Mounkidh,” the Arabic text of his ** Autobiog- raphy,”’ Paris, 1886, French transi}. 1895. “Souvenirs Historiques et Récits de Chasse” (French trans- lation of Ousama’s ** Autobiography ”), Paris, 1895, “Silvestre de Sacy, Une Esquisse Biographique,’’ Leipsic, 1886 : Paris, 1892 and 1895; Cairo, 1903. ‘*“Yemen Inscriptions,” the Glaser collection in the British Museum, London, 1888. ** Catalogue des Manuscrits Judaiques Entrés au British Mu- seum de 1867 4 1890,’ Paris, 1891. **Les Monuments Sabéens et Himyarites de la Bibliothéque Nationale, Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques,” Paris, 1891. **Une Epitaphe Minéene d’Egypte,"* two memoirs, Paris, 1893 and 1895. * Ibn KhAélawaihi, Livre Intitulé Laisa,” in ‘‘ Hebraica,”? 1894- 1901 (unfinished). ** Al-Fakhri d’ Ibn Tiktaka,” a new edition of the Arabic text, Paris, 1895. **Les Croisades @’Aprés le Dictionnaire Géographique de Yakoit,”’ Paris, 1895, **Oumara du Yémen, Sa Vie et Son Cuvre,” Paris, 1897-1903. ‘*Les Monuments Sabéens et Himyarites du Musée d’Arché. ologie de Marseille,” Paris, 1899. “Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum; Pars Quarta, Inscrip. tiones Himyariticas et Sabgeas Continens,”’ iii., Paris, 1900. **Les Manuscrits Arabes de la Collection Schefer 4 la Biblio. théque Nationale,” Paris, 1901. “Notice sur la Vie et les Travaux de Maximin Deloche,” Paris, 1901; 2d ed., Tulle, 1902. “* Michele Amari, la Vie d’un Historien et Orientaliste Italien,” Paris, 1902. ** Nouvelles Inscriptions Yéménites Inédites,”’ Paris, 1902. To this list must be added numerous articles which appeared in the “Journal des Savants,” the “ Jour- nal Asiatique,” the “Revue Critique,” the “Revue des Etudes Juives,” the “Revue d’Assyriologie et Archéologie Orientale,” the “Revue de Il’Histoire des Religions,” etc. He died April 12, 1908. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Hartwig Derenbourg, La Version Arabe du Livre de Job de R. Saadia, Introduction, Paris, 1898; Titres Seientifiques de M. Hartwig Derenbourg, Paris, 1900; La Grande Eneyclopedie ; Gubernatis, Dictionnaire des Eeri. vains du Jour, s.v. R DERNBURG, HEINRICH: German jurist; born at Mayence March 3, 1829; brother of Fried- rich Dernburg. The Dernburgs are related to the French family of Derenbourg, which, before its set- tlement in France, was called “ Dernburg ” (see DerR- ENBURG). Dernburg was educated at the gymna- sium of Mayence and the universities of Giessen and Berlin, graduating from the jatter in 1851. In the same year he became privat-docent of the juridical faculty of the University of Heidelberg. In 1852 he was called to Zurich as assistant professor, and was appointed professor in 1855. In 1862 he accepted a similar position in the University of Halle, which he represented in the Prussian Herrenhaus (Upper House) from 1866 to 1878, when he became professor of Roman and Prussian law in the University of Berlin. He reentered the Herrenhaus in 1878. With Brinck- mann and others he founded in 1851 the “ Kritische Zeitschrift fiir die Gesammte Rechtswissenschaft.” Among his works may be mentioned: “Geschichte und Theorie der Kompensation,” Heidelberg, 1854; 2d ed., 1868; “Das Pfandrecht,” Leipsic, 1860-64; “Die Institutionen des Gaius, ein Kollegienheft aus dem Jahre 161 nach Christi Geburt,” Halle, 1869; “Lehrbuch des Preussischen Privatrechts und die Privatrechtnormen des Reiches,” 2j, 1871-80; “ Das Vormundschaftsrecht der Preussischen Monarchie,” Berlin, 1875; 3d ed., edited by Schultzenstein, 1886; “Das Preussische Hypothekenrecht” (with Hin- richs), Leipsic, 1877-91; “Pandekten,” 2d. 1884-87; 6th ed., 1900-01; “Die Kénigliche Friedrich-Wil- helms-Universitit Berlin in lhrem Personalbestande seit Ihrer Einrichtung bis 1885,” ¢b. 1885; “Das Bir- gerliche Recht des Deutschen Reiches und Preus- sen,” Halle, 1898-1900. The father of Dernburg and his whole family be- came Christians. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Broeckhaus, Konversations-Lexicon, at s. . H. DERUSH. Sve Homivetics and M1iprasH. DERZHAVIN, GAVRIIL ROMANOVICE : Russian poet and senator; born at Kazan July 12, 1748; died at Zvanka, government of Novgorod, July 20, 1816. In 1799 Derzhavin was commissione by Emperor Paul to investigate a complaint made by the Jews of Shklov against General Zorich, the 533 ee en owner of that town. The latter was accused by them of oppression and extortion; and it became the duty of Derzhavin to assume the guardianship of Zorich’s estate, and to sift the matter thoroughly. During his stay in Shklov the dissensions between the sects of Mitnagdim and Hasidim were very bit- ter, passions rose high, and unfounded accusations were made. Under such conditions much trans- pired that was not creditable to the Jewish commu- nity, and undoubtedly Derzhavin noted it. The Jews were encouraged in their complaint by JXutai- sov, a favorite of the czar. JXutaisov desired to get possession of Zorich’s estate; and he knew that by proving the accusations against Zorich the estate would be confiscated and sold at auction. Derz- havin realized this; but, although on terms of friendship with Kcutaisov, he was loath to become the means of helping him. Derzhavin’s scruples com- bined with the dissensions among the Jews prej- udiced the poet aguinst them; and notwithstand- ing the evident abuse by Zorich of his prerogative, and in spite of the undoubted truth of many accu- sations against Zorich, Derzhavin reported in his favor, and he was acquitted. In the following year Derzhavin was again sent to White Russia, in order to investigate the causes of a famine there, and to formulate uw plan for aid- ing the starving peasants. He was commissioned at the same time to study the economic condition of the Jews in that region, and to pre- Report sent areport on the subject, with sug- on Jews of gestionsas to the measures to be taken White in order to eliminate the supposed Russia harmful influence exerted by their “unscrupulous dealings” on the lower classes of the population. Derzhavin, in collecting the materials for his report, made an extended jour- ney through the province. In a comparatively short time he obtained from various sourees—sourecs occasionally of doubtful value—a considerable mass of data bearing directly not only on the economic condition of the Jews of White Russia, but also on their social, communal, and religious life. In Sept., 1800, Derzhavin prepared in Vitebsk his celebrated “Mnyenie ob Otvrashchenii v Byelorussii Goloda i Ustroistvye byta Yevreyev ” (Opinion as tothe Pro- tection of White Russia from Famine, and on the Organization of the Status of the Jews). Looking carefully into the condition of the Jews, Derzhavin saw clearly that temporary measures would not be sufficient to remedy existing evils. The Jews of Russia were in an anomalous and unnatural condi- tion: for the old Polish laws and those of Lithuania Were defective and equivocal. When, therefore, & commission was appointed in 1804 by Alexan- der 1. to consider remedial legislation, Derzhavin’s Opinion” had great weight with it. Derzhavin’s plan called for the creation of a pro- tectorate over the Jews; the protector to advise the czar personaily as to the best measures Derz- _to be taken for the moral uplifting of cone the Jew, so that he might in time be Pinion.” considered worthy to become a sub- ject. Notwithstanding the more lib- eral attitude of Speranski, Derzhavin's “Opinion” decidedly influenced the commission. THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA EF il i PS a SSS, nS yf ere yer Pe Derenburg Desecration Derzhavin’s prejudice against the Jews is very manifest, and is often carried to ludicrous extremes. Thus he concludes, from the custom of the Ortho- dox Jews of keeping their heads covered, that the Jews consider themselves “of all peoples the most excellent.” He associates the frequent occurrence of certain names, such as Moses, Abraham, etc., toa desire on the part of their owners to conceal their individual identity, and states that the Jew hoards money for no other purpose than to rebuild the Temple in Palestine, whither he ever expects to return. One of the redeeming features of the * Opin- ion” is its recommendation of the establishment of schools for the Jews in order to facilitate their edu- cation; but even here Derzhavin insists that cor- poral punishment should be inflicted on the delin- quents of that “stubborn race.” Nathan Nata (Notkin), a merchant of Shklov, supplied Derzhavin with much valuable information on the economic and moral condition of the Jews of White Russia, and suggested methods by which they might be made more useful citizens; ¢.g., by teach- ing them agricultural and industrial pursuits (see AGRICULTURAL COLONIES IN Russia). While Derzhavin adopted Notkin’s suggestions and embodied them in his report, he nevertheless couched the whole in terms decidedly unfair to the Jews; as a result he and Notkin became estranged. That the enactment of Dec. 9, 1804, was, neverthe- less, favorable to the Jews (see ALEXANDER I., Pav- LOVicy), was due to Notkin’s exertions. Notkin’s opposition angered Derzhavin to such an extent that he called his former protégé “the Jew Notka,” and even asserted that Notkin had attempted to bribe him. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bershadski, in Voshhod, i. 82; Dubnov. in tb. 1893, i. 54: Gessen, in Sbornik Budushchnostt, i., St. Peters- burg. 1900; Zapiski Derzhavina, Moseow, 1860; Orshanski, Rueskve Zakonodatelstvo o Yevreyakh, St. Petersburg, 1877. W. R. J. G. L.—H. R. DESCENT, LAW OF. Sce AGNATES. DESECRATION: The act of diverting froma sacred to acommon use. It was forbidden, as being an act of desecration, to use the anointing-oil of the sauctuary for common purposes, or even to prepare oil like it, or to prepare for common use incense similar to that used in the sanctuary. The punish- ment for any of these transgressions was excision from the people of Israel (“karet,” Ex. xxx. 83, 38). All objects used in connection with the Temple serv- ice—as the utensils employed in the ritual—the sacrifices, the clothing of the attendant priests, and the building itself were considered sacred, and their use for common purposes was therefore prohibited. Any one who knowingly appropriated any of these objects for his own use was liable to the penalty of stripes; if the act was committed unwittingly, he was required to bring a sacrifice, and to pay one- fifth more than the value of the object misused (Lev. v. 14; Maimonides, “Yad,” Me‘ilah, i. 1, 2). Not only could no sacred object be diverted to a common use, but it could not even be exchanged. If a man consecrated an animal that could be used as a sacrifice and then exchanged it for another, he suffered the punishment of stripes, and both ani- In his report ‘| mals remained sacred. It made no difference whether Desecration Dessau THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 534 the exchange was for a better or for a worse animal ; the holy object could in neither case be desecrated, nor could it be used for another pur- pose equally sacred (Tem. 32a; Mai- of Sacred monides, /.c.iv. 11). If, however, the Objects animal was such as could not be of- ‘Forbidden. fered on the altar, the owner might redeem it by paying the value of the animal and an additional fifth. The same law ap- plied to all other objects which were not of im- mediate use in the Temple service (Lev. xxvii. 9; “Yad,” Temurah, i. 1 ef seg.). With regard to the use of the synagogue and its appurtenances, the Rabbis laid down the following general rule: “ We may ascend with holy things, but not descend ”—that is, holy objects may be used for a holier purpose, but not for one less holy (Shab. 21b). On this principle, objects used in worship were classi- fied and graded according to their sanctity. A com- munity might sell its synagogue and use the money in building an academy, but not the reverse. The appurtenances of the synagogue were graded as fol- Jows: the scroll of the Law; other sacred books; the mantle of the scroll; the Ark, where the scroll is de- posited ; the table upon which it is placed while being read; the synagogue itself being the least sacred. The money realized from the sale of a synagogue may be used in buying an Ark or a table, and so on; but the reverse is forbidden (Meg. 26a; “ Yad,” Tefil- jah, xi. 14; Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 153, 1). The scroll of the Law must never be sold, and when it becomes old and unfit for use, it must be placed in an earthen vessel and buried near the tomb of a scholar. Torn books or pages of booksof the Scrip- ‘tures, and all the accessories of holy objects, as the mantle of the scroll, the sheath of the “Worn-Out mezuzah, the straps of the tefillim, ‘Objects to and so forth, must not be diverted to ‘be Buried. any common use, but must be buried (see GENIZAH). Objects which are ‘used in the performance of certain conmandments, ras the “sukkah” (booth), “lulab” (palm-branch), ““shofar” (ram’s horn), “zizit” (fringes), etc., may tbe thrown away after they have become useless. It iis not permitted to make any use of the light of the ‘Hanukkah candles, even for sucha holy use as study- ing the Law (Meg. 26b; “ Yad,” Sefer Torah, x. 3; Orah Hayyim, 154, 678, 1). The Rabbis permitted an individual to sell the scroll of the Law only when he needed the money for the purpose of studying the Law or for the pur- pose of marrying; otherwise the possessor of a copy ‘of the scroll of the Law must never sell it, even when he needs the money for the necessities of life (Meg. ‘Q%a; “Yad,” Sefer Torah, x. 2; “Kesef Mishneh” ad doc.; Shulhan ‘Arnk, Yoreh De‘ah, 270, 1). L. G, J. H. G. DESERT. See WILDERNESS. DESERTION: Leaving husband or wife with the intention of not returning. It must be premised ‘that, if the husband deserted his wife and went be- yond the jurisdiction of the court, he could not be -compelled to give hera bill of divorce; and if he re- mained away and was never heard of again, the wife was never free from the bond of matrimony (see ‘AGUNAH), because it was always the husband Exchange who was presumed to grant a divorce, even though at the suit of the wife, under the order of the court, There is no proceeding known in Jewish law anal. ogous to a modern suit for divorce on the ground of the husband’s desertion, in which the divorce ig granted judicially in the absence of the husband and without his consent. Further, in Jewish law there is no presumption of death from absence. There- fore the woman who was deserted by her husband remained his wife until she received a bill of divorce from him, or until his death was legally proved. There are cases in Jewish law which may technic- ally be deemed cases of desertion, in which the wife was entitled to receive a bill of divorce from her husband before he left the jurisdiction of the court, If a wife living in a foreign country desired to re. move to Palestine, or if, living in Palestine, she de- sired to remove to the city of Jeru- Change of salem, and if her husband refused to Residence. accompany her or to allow her to re. move, he was at her instance com- pelled by the court to give her a bill of divorce. If she was living in Jerusalem and he desired her to remove to a foreign country or even some other city in Palestine, or, if living elsewhere in Palestine, he desired her to remove to some foreign country, she had a right to refuse to accompany him, because she was not obliged to expatriate herself (Ket. 110b; com- pare Domicit). If she feared that he would then desert her, she could appeal to the court, and her hus- band would be compelled before leaving to give her a bill of divorce for the time being (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 154, 8). This divorce for desertion was granted only in the above cases, and did not apply to countries other than Palestine or to cities other than Jerusalem; and the reason for thisis to be found in the special favor with which the people looked upon the Holy Land and the Holy City. They weredeemed to be dwell- ing-places par excellence of the Jews, and this fact established the right of the wife to refuse to follow her husband in case he desired hertoremove. Many authorities are therefore of the opinion that these rules did not apply after the destruction of the Tem- ple (compare Asher ben Jehiel to Ket. 110b). Under the later law the principle was extended; and if a man was about to leave the jurisdiction of the court of any country to go to another country, he was either placed under oath not to desert his wife, or, if he insisted upon going, was compelled to grant her a bill of divorce (Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 154, 8, 9). Desertion by the wife occurred either if she actu- ally abandoned her husband’s domicil, or if she refused to follow her husband to an- other domicil. She was obliged to follow him only from one place to an- other in the same country, or from any Refusal to Accom- pany Husband. other country into Palestine, or 1 Jerusalem from any other place 10 Palestine. For such desertion the husband could give her a bill of divorce, and she lost all of her proP erty rights under the marriage contract (Ket. 110b)- An exception to this rule may be noted. If aman dwelling in one country married a woman dwelling in another, she was obliged to follow him to his 535 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Desecration Dessau ——— AL OL LE a domicil; for that was an implied condition of the marriage, or perhaps may have been an expressed condition in the marriage contract. In case of her refusal to follow him, she was technically deemed guilty of desertion; and her husband could divorce her, she losing her property rights under the mar- riage contract. Compare DomMICcIL. L. G. D. W. A DESSAU: Chief town of the duchy of Anhalt, North Germany, on the left bank of the Mulde. The settlement of Jews here dates from 1621. The jutroduction of debased coins had ruined the finances of the duchy, and Duke Johann Casimir permitted Jews to settleat Dessau as purveyors of silver to the mint. They were forbidden to export money, and had to prevent ifs exportation by others. The permit was, however, of short duration. The calamities con- sequent upon the Thirty Years’ war made it impos- sible to reestab- lish the finances of the duchy. The Jews were therefore ban- ished. In 1672 Duke Johann Georg readmit- ted them; and some Jews set- tled at Dessau. In 1685 there were only 26 families. Moses Wulff,adescend- ant of Moses IJs- serles, banished from Berlin at theinstigation of his powerful en- emy, Jost Lieb- mann, the court factor, settled with his family at Dessau and became court factor of Johann Georg II. Combining learning With philanthropy, and being of a religious turn of mind, he exerted his great influence for the welfare of the newly established community, which soon became a center of scien- tific activity. A bet ha-midrash was founded by the Wulff family. At its head was Rabbi Benjamin Wolf, author of “ ‘Ir Bin- yamin,” who was succeeded by Isaac Itzig Gerson, or, as he later called himself, Joseph Isaac Gerson (1708-35), After the death of Moses Wulff (1729) the material Prosperity of the community (which had increased to about 700 persons) diminished. His son Elijah Succeeded him jn the office of court factor; but the family had become impoverished, and with it the Community also declined. Still, enlightened rabbis aud scholars like David Hirshel Friinkel, the rosh ha-yeshibah Hir sh, Moses Frankel, and others, made ita center of learning; and from Dessaucame Moses lendelssohn, A source of intellectual development Moses Wulff. Graveyard of the Dessau Community Showing Tombstone of Mendelssotin’s Father to the Right. (From Freudenthal, “ Aus der Heimat Mendelssohns.’’) for the first half of the nineteenth century was the Franzschule. Founded in 1799 as a primary school for poor children, five years later it was transformed, with the sanction of the government, into a Jewish high school. For sixty years it en- The Franz- joyed the highest reputation through- schule. out Germany. Its director, David Frankel, and such teachers as Joseph Wolf, Gotthold Solomon, and Moses Philippson, at- tracted pupils from far and near. The community of Dessau led in the struggle for the emancipation of the German Jews. A German monthly entitled “Sulamith,” aevoted to Jewish in- terests and culture, was published for eight years (1806-14) by David Frinkel and Joseph Wolf. But the Dessau-Anhalt government continued until 1848 to consider the Jewsas “ Schutzjuden. ” No foreign Jew was allowed to settle in the town without a special permit, and the Dessau Jews were restricted to a special quar- ter. Even after 1848 the govern- ment endeav- ored to limit the right of the Jews to election to the Parliament, and maintained fora long time the oath “more Ju- daico.” It was probably on this account that be- tween 1850 and 1895 the Jewish population of Dessau fell from about 1,000 to 406. During the greater part of the nineteenth century the rab- binate of Dessau . was in an ex- tremely chaotic state. Rabbi succeedea rabbi with extraordinary rapidity; for many years the post was vacant, and the duties of the rabbinate were partially performed by the teachers of the Franzschule. The rabbis since 1870 have been: Dr. Saalfeld (1870-81); Schénberger (1881-84); Dr. Samson Weisse (1884- 1893); Dr. Max Freudenthal (1893-1900); Dr. Isidor Walter (1900). In 1886 the government issued reg- ulations concerning Jewish worship, according to which a chief rabbi for Anhalt, with his seat at Dessau, was to be nominated and supported by the governinent. Dessau possesses an imposing synagogue in the Oriental style (restored in 1861), and a monument to Moses Mendelssohn erected on the centenary of his death. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wlirdig, Chronik der Stadt Dessaat, 1876, passim; idem, Dessau Innerhalb Eines Jahrhunderts, 1886 ; Steinthal, Die Jitd. Volksschule in Anhalt, in Zeit- sehrift fir Gesech. der Judenin Deutschland, iv. 66: Kayser- ling, Moses Mendelssohn, passim, Leipsic, 1888: Max Freu- denthal, Aus der Heimat Mendelssohns, passim, Berlin, 1900; Die Juden Unter den Annhaltischen Markgrafen von rine naa Pat Mra We TENET MANNING of fetd al ary mu mons aa Pa Dessau Detmold THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 536 Brandenburg, in Allg. Zeit. des Jud. 1840, No. 18; D. Calm, Die Stellung der Juden in Anhalt, ib. 1866, Nos. 40 and 41. G. S. Sa.—I. Br. ——Typography: A Hebrew printing-office was established at Dessau in 1694 by court factor Moses Benjamin Wulff. The privilege obtained for this purpose included both Hebrew and German, but Wulff availed himself only of the former, the enter- prise not being undertaken with a desire for gain, but to conserve and advance Jewish learning. The first work published by him (1696) was a ritual en- titled “ Tefillah le-Mosheh,” to which were appended prayers for women in Judeo-German, entitled “ Min- hat ‘Ani.” The type for the Judso-German was set. up by a girl of nine years—Ellah, daughter of Moses of Holland. In 1704 the work of the press was sus- pended, owing to the great losses Wulff had sus- tained in his transactions with the court of Gothia. His son Elijah reestablished the office in 1742, but discontinued it in 1743. The first work issued by the latter was the Sifra with a commentary, “ Kor- ban Aharon,” by Aaron ben Hayyim; the last was the “Korban ha-‘Edah,” on the Jerusalem Tal- mud, by David Friinkel. In 1783 another office was established by C. Schilder, which continued into the second half of the nineteenth century. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cassel and Steinschneider, Jiidische Typogra- phie.in Erseh and Gruber, Eneyc. section ii., part 28, p. 84; Max Freudenthal, Avs der Hetmat Mendelssohns, pp. 151 et seq., Berlin, 1900. J. I. Br. DESSAU, MOSES. See MENDELSSOHN, Mosks. DESSAU, MOSES B. MICHAEL: Talmud- ist of the eighteenth century; called “ Dessau” after the town in which he lived. He is the author of (1) novell published in 1724—haggadic annotations to the Talmudic tractates Berakot, Shabbat, and Kid- dushin, and halakic novelle to Pesahim and Ke- tubot; and (2) “Zikron Mosheh” (Memorial of Moses), published in 1765—novellz on various hag- gadic and halakic subjects. He also edited and an- notated “Sha‘are Dura” (Gates of Dueren), by Isaac b. Meir of Dueren. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. iii. 1184 and 1593h; Stein- schneider, Cat. Bodl. Nos. 5341 and 6456; Zedner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. L. G. A. R. DESSAU, WOLF. See Wo.Lr zs. JOSEPH OF DESSAU. DESSAUER, FERDINAND (DESSOIR, FERDINAND AUGUST): German actor; son of Leopold DESsAUER; born at Breslau Jan. 29, 1836; died in Dresden April 15, 1892. He was trained for the stage by Werner Mannheim, and made his début in 1852 as the Princein “ Dorf und Stadt.” In the fol- lowing year he went to Mayence, where he remained until 1855, when he appeared at Heidelberg. Vienna was his next engagement, in 1856; followed in 1857 by Stettin; 1857-61, Leipsic; 1861-68, Bremen; 1868-64, Weimar. From 1864 to 1867 he played at the Hoftheater, Berlin; after which he returned to Weimar, in 1868. He next went to the Lobetheater, Breslau, in 1868-69. The following seven years were spent at the Hoftheater, Dresden; from 1877 to 1878 at the Thalia Theater, Hamburg; from 1878 to 1879 at the Residenz Theater, Dresden; and in 1880 he played at Prague. Dessauer became insane during a performance, ang never acted again. His principal réles were Hauf- mann Bloom, Mephisto, Falstaf, Muley Hassan, Riecaut, Chalisac, and Hans Lange. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Moniteur des Dates, Appendix, p. 48; Flig. gen, Blihnen Lexikon, pp. 56-00. s. E. Ms. DESSAUER, GABRIEL L.: Hungarian rabbi and author; bornat Neutra, Hungary, in 1805; died June1, 1878. He becamea pupil of R. Moses Sopher (Schreiber) at Presburg, and was for forty years rabbi at Balaton-Kojair, on the Plattensee, where he died, He published the following works: “ Das Buch Hiob: Uebersetzt und Commentirt,” Presburg, 1888; “ Yad Gabriel” (Gabriel’s Hand), novell about the slaugh- tering of animals as contained in the ritual codex in Shulhan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De‘ah, 2b. 1838; “ Ha-Ariel,” a commentary on the Talmudic utterances of R. bar bar Hana, Budapest, 1859; “Shire Zimrah,” to a part of Genesis, an appendix to Hartwig Wessely’s “ Shire-Tif’eret,” with a commentary entitled “ Degel ha-Lewi”; finally, “ Homiletische Skizzen,” Ofen, 1862. s. M. XK. DESSAUVUER, JOSEF: German composer ; born at Prague May 28, 1798; died at Médling, near Vienna, July 8, 1876; a pupil of Tomaczek (piano) and Dionys Weber (composition). In compliance with the wishes of his parents, Dessauer first devo- ted himself to a mercantile career. At the age of twenty-three, upon one of his commercial tours, he visited Italy, where his musical bent received a powerful stimulus. In 1821, owing to the favorable reception accorded at Naples to several of his canzonettas and other vocal compositions, Dessauer determined to devote himself exclusively to composition. He settled in Vienna, from which city he made numerous Euro- pean tours to introduce his compositions; and his songs, Which were distinguished by considerable melodic beauty, soon secured for him international fame. In the “Hofmeister Catalogue” for 1844 nearly seventy of these canzonettas, ariettas, ete., are enumerated. Less successful were his operas, “ Lidwinna” (Prague, 1836), “Ein Besuch in Saint-Cyr” (Dres- den, 1838), “Paquita” (Vienna, 1851), “ Domingo” (1860), and “Oberon” (not performed). Neither these nor his instrumental works are now performed ; only a few of his songs, such as the well-known air “Scheiden und Meiden,” having maintained their popularity and being still reprinted. The Schlesin- gers of Berlin, who included most of these composi- tions in their catalogue for 1900, publish the following list: “8 Slavische Lieder” ; “9 Wanderlieder von Uh- land ” (“ Lebewohl,” “ Scheiden und Meiden,” “ In der Ferne,” “ Morgenlied,” * Nachtreise,” “ Winterreise,” “ A preise,” “Einkehr,” “Heimkehr”); and two song collections of ten numbers each, including “ Ver: schwiegenheit,” “Das Gebet,” “ Wie Gliicklich,’ “ Am Strande,” “Ich Denke Dein,” “ Das Zerbrochené Ringlein.” Se aie a Mendel, Musikalisches Konversations-Letv on. 8. J. So. 537 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dessau Detmold EEE LM E————————————— ed DESSAUER, JULIUS: Hungarian writer; son of Gabriel L. Dessauer; born at Neutra 1832. He was for some years rabbi at Ujpest. Ie has pub- lished the following works: “Die Finf Bicher Moses. Nebst dem Raschi-Commentar, Punktirt, Leichtfasslich Uebersetzt und mit Anmerkungen Verseben,” Budapest, 1868; 2d ed., 1887; “Schul- ehan Aruch, Orach Hayyim, Deutsch Bearbeitet,” in two parts, 70. 1868; “Spruch-Lexikon des Talmud und Midrash,” 7b. 1876; “Schltissel zum Gebet- puche,” 7. 1878; “Perlenschatz: Philosophische Sentenzen in Alphabetischer Reihenfolge,” 2d. 1880; “Der Jiidische Humorist,” 2d. 1899. 8. M. K. DESSAUER, LEOPOLD (DESSOIR, LUD- WIG): German actor; born at Posen Dec. 15, 1810; died Dec. 80, 1874, in Berlin. Dessauer, who was known during his stage career as “ Dessoir,” was the son of a Jewish merchant. He made his début in the theater of his native town in 1825, playing Nanky in Korner’s “Toni.” Then he traveled about the country, appearing at Coburg, Schénebeck, Wriezen, Krossen, Wiesbaden, and Mayence, eventu- ally playing Zell at Potsdam. This was the real be- ginning of his career, and in 1834 he went to the Stadttheater, Leipsic, where, in the following year, he married the leading woman, Theresa. Reimann. The union proved an unhappy one, and in 1836 Dessauer obtained a divorce and left Leipsic for the Stadttheater, Breslau, where he remained until! 1837. Two years of starring followed at Prague, Briinn, Vienna (Burgtheater), and Budapest, after which he succeeded Devrient at Karlsruhe. In 1847 he went to Berlin, where he played, with few interruptions, until July 10, 1872. In 1858 he appeared in London. Dessauer was by many considered a greater artist than DAWISsON, whose most serious rival he was. The former, it is true, was handicapped by lack of figure, looks, and, to some extent, voice; yet so con- siderable was his talent that he was among the fore- most Shakespearian actors. His Othello—first played at Berlin Oct. 6, 1849—Lear, Shylock, Hamlet, An- tony, Brutus, Coriolanus, King John, Macduff, and lachimo were classical creations. Scarcely less clever were his Bolingbroke, Uriel Acosta, Faust, Tasso, Alba, Gessler, Naretss, Caligula (‘ Fechter von Ravenna”)! Louds XJ. (“ Gringoire ”), Perin (“Donna Diana”), and Marinelli (“ Emilia Galotti”). Dessauer’s life was greatly embittered by his marital misfortunes, for his second wife, Helene Pfeffer, whom he married in 1844, became insane on the death of their child. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, v. 15-17: E. M. Oettinger, Prachtalbum fiir Theater und Musik, vol. V.; Entsch, Bithnen Album, 1876, pp. 173-179. 8. E. Ms. DESSAUER, MORITZ: German rabbi and author; son of Gabriel L. Dessauer; born at Bala- ton-Kojaér, Hungary, May 24, 1842; died April 17, 1895, at Meiningen. He pursued his Talmudic stud- eS at Var-Palota and Stuhlweissenburg, and at- tended subsequently the rabbinical seminary and the university at Breslau. In 1871 he went as preacher to Kothen, becoming, in 1881, district rabbi at Mei- Ungen, He published the following works: “Spi- noza und Hobbes: Begriindung Ihrer Staats. und Religionstheorien Durch Ihre Philosophischen Sys. teme,” Breslau, 1868; “ Daniel, in Sieben Kanzelredese fiir das Neujahrsund Verséhnungsfest,” 7b. 1875 , “Der Sokrates der Neuzeit und Sein Gedanken . schatz: Siimmtliche Schriften Spinozas Gemeinver stiindlich und Kurz Gefasst,” Kothen, 1878: “De Deutsche Plato: Erinnerungsschrift zu Moses Met- delssohn’s 150jilrigem Geburtstage,” Berlin, 1879: “ Bliithen und Knospen der Humanitiit aus der Zeit von heuchlin bis Lessing,” Zurich, 1881; “Humaa. itaét und Judenthum,” Leipsic, 1885. ; BIBLIOGRAPHY: _Human, Geschichte der Juden im Herzow tum S.-Meiningen-Hildburghausen pp. 72 et seq. Hild. burghausen, 1898, S. M. XK. DESSOFF, FELIX OTTO: German conductor and composer; born Jan. 14, 1885, in Leipsic; died Oct. 28, 1891, at Frankfort-on-the-Main; studied with Moscheles, Plaidy (piano), Hauptmann (com- position), and Reitz (instrumentation) at the Leipsic Conservatory (1851-54). Graduating with high hon- ors, he first became musical director of the Actien- theater at Chemnitz, and during the following six years successively conducted opera-orchestras in Altenburg, Diisseldorf, Cassel, Aix-la-Chapelle, and Magdeburg. In 1860, when only twenty-five years of age, he was appointed leader of the orchestra at the Imperial Opera at Vienna, and in the same year he was elected director of the famous Philharmonic concerts. Several months later he received an ap- pointment as teacher of thorough-bass and composi- tion in the Vienna Conservatory. From 1875 to 1881 he was court Kapellmeister at Karlsruhe, and then became the first Kapelimeister at the Stadttheater, Frankfort. Dessoff was at one time perhaps the leading con- ductor of his day. Although nota strict adherent of the Mendelssohn school, his virtuosity, technical finish, and careful attention to detail stamped his performances as models. His influence upon the de- velopment of the Philharmonic Society can scarcely be overestimated ; and it was largely due to his ini- tiative that this important musical institution of Vienna was placed upon a secure financial and artis- tic basis. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mendel, Musikalisches Konversations-Leri«- kon. S. J. So. DESSOIR, FERDINAND. Sec DESSAUER, FERDINAND, DESSOIR, LUDWIG. See DeEssatER, LEo- POLD. DETERMINISM. See Fatanism and FREE- WIL. DETMOLD. Sec LIPrre. DETMOLD, JOHANN HERMANN: Ger- man diplomat; born at Hanover July 24, 1807; died there March 17, 1856. He was the son of Det- mold, the court physician at Hanover, who, with his whole family, joined the Christian Church. Det- mold received bis education at the universities of Gottingen and Heidelberg. Admitted to the bar, he established himself asa lawyer in his native town in 1880. He took an active interest in politics as a Conservative, and in 1838 was elected a member of Detmold Deuteronomy THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 538 the Hanoverian Diet. His opposition to the new constitution and his attacks upon the government, both in the Chamber and in the press, led to a brief imprisonment. In 1848 he was elected to the Ger- man Parliament sitting at Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he alhed himself with the deputies of the tight. He remained an uncompromising reaction- ist. In 1848, after the refusal of Frederick William IV. to accept the German crown, he became secre- tary of justice, and soon afterward was appointed secretary of the interior in the short-lived German government. When the “ Reichsverwescr” in 1849 dismissed the government, Detmold returned to Han- over, but was again sent to Frankfort, this time as representative of the King of Hanover, with the title of “ Legationsrat.” He held the position until 1831, when he was recalled. The last years of his life were spent in Eanover. During his juridical and diplomatic career Det- mold found time for the cultivation of the arts, the last five years of his life being especially devoted to altistic interests. He was a fluent speaker and writer, and his political controversies developed a considerable power of satire and invective. Detmold is the author of “ Anleitung zur Kunst- kennerschaft.” Hanover, 1883; 2d ed., 1845—an in- cisive and witty criticism of artistic conditions in Hanover; “Randzeichnungen,” Brunswick, 1843 —a political essay; “Thaten und Meinungen des Herrn Piepmeyer,” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1849— a satirical pamphlet on the politics of the Frankfort Parliament. BIBLIOGRAPHY: De le Roi, Geschichte der Evangelischen Ju- denmission, i. 229, Leipsic, 1899; Allgemeine Deutsche Bio- graphie, s.v.; Meyers Konversations- Lexikon, 8.v. S. F. T. H. DETMOLD, SAMUEL: Austrian educator and translator; lived at the end of the eighteenth and in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was one of the collaborators on the German translation of the Bible which was published by a number of the “ Meassefim,” Breslau, 1822-27. Detmold translated the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chron- icles. He is also the author of a Hebrew primer with the title “ Morch Derek ” (Guide of the Road), Vienna, 1815. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Steinschneider, Bibliographisches Hand- buch, p. 41; Zedner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. s.v.; Zeitlin, Bibl. Post-Mendels. pp. 66, 235-256, whose statements are, however, hardly correct. L. G. DETROIT: Largest city in the state of Michi- gan. No authentic records of the settlement of Jews in the vicinity of Detroit, or in the state of Michigan, are found earlier than the middle of the nineteenth century. Even then the settlers were few in number and to a great extent interrelated. Most of them were of Bavarian stock. Among the earliest are found the names of Silberman, Hirsch, Cohen, Schloss, Bendit, Sloman, Heineman, and Kanter. The first organization of Jews in Detroit was ef- fected during the summer of 1850, when the Beth El Society, from which a few years later sprang Congregation Beth El, was established. Like all congregations of that period this one was Orthodecx in its ritual, but it was not Jong before the Reform spirit began to create divisions in the community, In 1861 a Jarge number of the members withdrew because of the introduction of an organ and a mixed choir into the synagogue, and formed the Sha‘are Zedek congregation, which is to-day the leading organization of the Orthodox Jewsof tliecity. The pulpit of congregation Beth El has been occupied by a number of well-known rabbis, including Lieb- man Adler, Isidore Kalisch, Kaufmann Kohler, Henry Zirndorf, and Louis Grossman. This congregation brought Kohler and Zirndorf to America. The pres- ent (1902) rabbi is Leo M. Franklin. In a total population of 300,000 there are about 12,000 Jews, of whom 60 per cent are (1902) of Rus- sian and Polish origin. Besides Temple Beth El, which is now the home of a Reform congregation, there are in the city the congregations Sha‘are Zedek, Beth Jacob, Beth David, and Benai Israel, all of which worship in their own synagogues and according to the Orthodox ritual. A number of hebrahs assemble only on the holidays. Each con- gregation has its own cemetery. The Orthodox Jews maintain a Talmud Torah, and have recently dedicated a modern and commodious school build- ing for that purpose. Until the fall of 1899 there were not less than nine Jewish charitable institutions in Detroit, but at that time all except one were federated under the title “Union of Jewish Charities.” This organization, with headquarters in its own building, carries on practically every branch of educational, philan- thropic, and relief work. Most of the Jewish secret orders have lodges in Detroit, and there are three Jewish social clubs, the Phenix, the Fellowship, and the Standard. The Jewish Woman’s Club, with a membership of 250, does excellent educa- tional work. The city supports a Jewish weekly, “The Jewish American,” which is the organ of Temple Beth El and other congregations. A. L. M. F. DEUTERONOMIST: The name given by critics to the author of the discourses in Deuteronomy. See DEUTERONOMY. DEUTERONOMY (014): The fifth book of the Pentateuch, called in Hebrew “ Debarim” (Words), from the opening phrase “ Eleh ha-debarim ” ; in Rab- binical Hebrew it is known also as “ Mishneh Torah.” The English appellation is derived from the name which the book bears in the Septuagint (Acvrepovducor) and in the Vulgate (Deuteronomium); and this 1s based upon the erroneous Septuagint rendering of “mishneh ha-torah ha-zot” (xvii. 18), which gram- matically can mean only “a repetition [that is, 4 copy] of this law,” but which is rendered by the Sep- tuagint Té6 Acvrepovdusov Toto, as though the expres- sion meant “this repetition of the law.” While, however, the name is thus a mistranslation, it is not inappropriate; for the book does include, by the side of much new matter, arepetition or reformulation of a large part of the laws found in the non-priestly sections (known as “ JE”) of Exodus. —~—Biblical Data: The book of Deuteronomy cot sists in the main of the discourses which Moses is rep: resented as having delivered, immediately before bis death (i. 3), on the other side of Jordan for the pur pose of teaching the Israelites the laws which they 539 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Detmold Deuteronomy Se ap a Se Se eager were to obey, and the spirit in which they were to obey them, when they should be settled in the Prom- ised Land. Disregarding introductions and other subsidiary matter, the contents of the book may be summarized as follows: Ch. i. 6-iv. 40: Moses’ first discourse, consisting (i.-iii.) of a review of the providential guidance of the Israelites through the wilderness to the border of the Promised Land, and concluding (iv.) with an eloquent appeal not to forget the great truths. especially the spirituality of their God, impressed upon them at oreb. een V.cXXVi.. XXViiil. 1-xxix. 1: Moses’ second discourse, con- taining the exposition of the Deuteronomic law, and forming the central and most characteristic portion of the book, It con- sists of two parts: (1) ch. v.-xi..a hortatory introduction, devel- oping the first commandment of the Decalogue, and inculcating the general theocratic principles by which Israel, as a nation, is to be governed; (2) ch. xii.-xxvi., the code of special laws, fol- lowed (XxViil. 1-xXxix. 1) by a solenim rehearsal of-the blessings and curses attached respectively to the observance and neglect of the Deuteronomic law. (Ch. xxvii. consists of instructions (interrupting the discourse of Moses, and narrated in the third person) relative to a cere- mony by which the nation, after entering Canaan, is to sym- polize its ratification of the preceding code; see Josh. viii. 30-35.) Ch. xxix. 2-xxx. 20: Moses’ third discourse, emphasizing afresh the fundamental duty of loyalty to YHWH and the dan- gers of apostasy. Ch. xxxi.-xxxiv.: Moses’ last words of encouragement ad- dressed to the people and to Joshua; his song (xxxii. 1-48) and blessing (xxxili,); the account of his death (xxxiv.). It is characteristic of the discourses of Deuteron- omy that the writer’s aim is throughout parenetic: both in the two historical retrospects (i.-iii., ix. 9-x. 11), and in passing allusions elsewhere (as xi. 2-6; xxiii. 4, 5; xxiv. 9), he appeals to history for the sake of the lessons deducible from it; and in his treatment of the laws, he does not merely collect or repeat a series of legal enactments, but he “ex- pounds” them (i. 5); that is, he develops them with reference to the moral and religious purposes which they subserve, and to the motives from which the Israelite ought to obey them. Itis a further charac- teristic of the discourses that they are, in both the historicaland the legal parts, dependent upon thie narrative and laws, respectively, of JE in Exodus and Numbers; entire phrases from the earlier docu- ment being frequently embedded in them (compare Deut. i. 88, 85, 86 with Ex. xiii. 21,and Num. xiv. 23, 24 respectively; and Deut. xvi. 16,19 with Ex. xxiii. 6, 8, 17). The following is an outline of the laws in Deute- tonomy, the asterisk (*) denoting those laws which are peculiar to Deuteronomy, and the The Laws dagger (} or ) those which differ more in Deu- or less materially in their provisions teronomy. from those in JE and P respectively. For a more complete synoptical table see Driver’s “Introduction to the Literature of the 0. T.” Tth ed., pp. 73 e¢ seg., or his Commentary on Deuteronomy, pp. iv. e€ seq. i. Religious Observances : 1. Law of single sanctuary, xii. 1-28¢ (burnt offerings, sacrifices [i.c., peace-offerings], tithes, heave-cffer- ings [first-fruits and other offerings from the pro- duce of the soil], vows, free-will offerings, and first- lings, all to be offered at the central sanctuary). 2. Laws against the worship of *‘ other gods,”’ xii. 29-31, xiii*. 3. Sanctity of the laity, xiv. 1-21 (person not to be dis- figured in mourning, xiv. 1-2; law of clean and unclean animals, xiv. 3-20; flesh of animals dying a natural death not to be eaten, xiv. 21). 4, Laws tending to ameliorate the condition of the poor, xiv. 22-xv. 18 (disposition of the charitable tithe, xiv. 22-2943 relief secured to debtors every seventh year. xv. 1-l1 #¥; law of slavery, xv. 12-18 +%). 9. Offerings and festivals (firstling males to be offered to YHWH, xv. 19-23%; regulations respecting the ob- servance of the three annual pilgrimages, xvi. 1-174). ii. The Office-Bearers of the Theocracy: 1. Judges to be appointed in every city, xvi. 18*; and judgment to be impartial, xvi. 19, 20. (Ch. xvi. 21-22, asherahs and ‘ pillars’’ prohibited: Xvii. 1, sacrifices to be without blemish: xvii. 2-7, an Israelite convicted of idolatry to be stoned to death*. ] . The supreme central tribunal, xvii. 8-13 *. . The king, xvii. 14-20 (theocratic conditions which the monarchy is to satisfy *). . Rights and revenues of the priestly tribe, xviii. 1-8 *. . The prophet, xviii. 9-22* (verses 10, 11 against differ- ‘ent forms of magic and divination—expansion of Ex. xxii. 18). lii. Criminal Law: 1, Manslaughter and murder, xix. 1-18 (cities of refuge +). 2. Against removal of boundary-stones, xix. 14*. 3. Law of witness, xix. 15-21 (compare xvii. 6). [Four laws designed to secure self-control] and for- bearance in the conduct of war, xx.* and xxi. 10-14*; cominpare Xxiv. 5*.] iv. Miscellaneous Laws Relating Chiefly to Civil and Domestic Life: Symbolical rite of expiation for an untraced murder, xxi. 1-9*; primogeniture, xxi. 15-17*; treatment of an undutiful son, xxi. 18-21*; treatment of the body of a malefactor, xxi. 22-23*; lost eattle or other property to be restored to owner, xxii. 1-4; sexes not to interchange garments, xxii.5*; mother- bird not to be taken with nest, xxii. 6, 7*; parapets on roofs, xxii. 8*; prohibition of non-natural mixtures and combinations, xxii. 9-11; law of fringes, xxii. 12; slan- der against a newly married maiden, xxii. 13-21*; adul- tery and seduction, xxii. 22-29; prohibition of marriage with stepmother, xxii. 80; conditions of admittance into the theocratic community, xxiii. 1-8 *; cleanliness in the camp, xxiii. 9-14+; humanity to escaped slave, xxiii. 15— 16*; religious prostitution forbidden, xxiii. 17-18*; usury (interest), xxiii. 19-20; vows, xxiii, 21-28; regard for neighbor’s crops, xxiii. 24-25* +; divorce, xxiv. 1-4*; pledges, xxiv. 6, 10-13; man-stealing, xxiv. 7: leprosy, xxiv. 8-9; wages of hired servant not to be detained, xxiv. 14-15; criminal’s family not to be punished with him, xxiv. 16*; justice toward ** stranger *’ (i.e., resident foreigner), widow, and orphan, xxiv. 17-18; gleanings, xxiv. 19-22; limit to stripes, xxv. J-3*; ox not to be muzzied while threshing, xxv. 4*; levirate marriage, xxv. 5-10*; modesty in women, xxv. 11, 12*: just weights and measures, xxv. 13-16; liturgical directions for the offering of first-fruits and of the triennial tithe, XXVi. 1-15*. The moral and religious duties which form the subject of the imprecations in xxvii. 15-26 should likewise be noted, as also the injunctions occurring in other parts of the book, or introduced more or less incidentally in xii.- XXvVi —as vy. 6-21 (the Decalogue, repeated, with varia- tions in the subordinate clauses, from Ex. xx. 2-17); vi. 8 and xi. 18 (the law of frontlets); vi. 14 and xi. 16 (against “‘other gods’’); xii. 16, 23-25, and xv. 23 (blood not to be eaten); xix. 21 (‘‘ the lex talionis).” ——Critical View: I. If the Deuteronomic laws are compared carefully with the three codes con- tained in Exodus and Numbers, it will be appar- ent that they stand in a different relation to each: (1) The laws in JE—namely, Ex. xx.-xxiii. (re- peated partially in Ex. xxxiv. 10-26), and the kin- dred section, Ex. xiii, 3-16—form the foundation of the Deuteronomic legislation. This is evident partly from the numerous verbal coincidences referred to above—whole clauses, and sometimes even an en- tire law, being repeated verbatim—and partly from the fact that frequently a law in Deuteronomy con- sists of an expansion, or application to particular cases, of a principle laid down more briefly in Exo- dus (compare, for instance, Deut, xiii., x vii. 2-7, with OT OW re Deuteronomy THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 540 Ex, xxii. 20; Deut. xvi. 1-17 with Ex. xxiii. 14-17: and Deut. xviii. 10,11 with Ex. xxii. 18). The civil and social enactments which are new in Deuteronomy make provision chiefly for cases likely to arise ina more highly organized community than is contem- plated in the legislation of Ex. xx.-xxiii. (2) With the laws contained principally in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (the law of holiness, known as “H”), there are parallels in Deuteronomy (chiefly moral in- junctions); but though in such cases the substance is often similar, the expression jis nearly always dif- ferent (compare, for instance, Deut. xiv. 1 with Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xvi. 19, 20 with Lev. xix. 15; Deut. xxiv. 19-22 with Lev. xix. 9,10); and it can not be said that the legislation of Deuteronomy is in any sense an expansion or development of that in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. The oneexception is the description of clean and unclean animals in xiv. 4a, 6-19a, which agrees in the main verbally with Lev. xi. 2b-20, (8) With the ceremonial laws contained in the other parts of Leviticus, and in Numbers (P), Deu- teronomy is only remotely related: there are no ver- bal parallels. Some of the institutions and observ- ances codified in P are indeed mentioned, as, for instance, burnt and peace-offerings, fire-sacrifices, heave-offerings, the distinction between clean and unclean, a Torah for leprosy (xxiv. 8); Relation to but they are destitute of the central Other significance which they hold in the Codes. system of P; while many of the fun- damental institutions of P—as the dis- tinction between the priests and the common Levites; the Levitical cities and the year of jubilee; the cereal-offering; the guilt- and sin-offering; the great Day of Atonement—are not referred to in Deuteron- omy at all; and in the laws which do touch common ground, great, and, indeed, in some cases, irrecon- cilable, discrepancies frequently display themselves. Thus the Deuteronomic legislation may be termed an expansion of the body of laws contained in JE; it is, in several features, parallel to that contained in H; it contains allusions to jaws similar to—it can not be said identical with—those codified in some parts of P; while its provisions sometimes differ _ widely from those found in other parts of P. The Deuteronomic discourses may be said to com- prise three elements—a historical, a legislative, and a parenetic. Of these the parenetic element is both the most characteristic and the most important; for it is devoted to the inculcation of cer- Aim and tain fundamental religious and moral Scope principles upon which the writer lays of Deu- great stress. The historical element teronomy. is subservient to the parenetic, the ref- erences to history, as has been al- ready remarked, having nearly always a didactic aim. The legislative element, though obviously, in many of its features, tending directly to secure the national well-being, and possessing consequently an independent value of its own, is by the writer of Deuteronomy viewed primarily as a vehicle for ex- emplifying the principles which it is the main object of his book to enforce. The author wrote, it is evi- dent, under a keen sense of the perils of idolatry; and to guard Israel against this, by insisting ear- nestly on the debt of gratitude and obedience which it owes to its sovereign Lord, is the fundamenta] teaching of his book. Accordingly the truths oy which he loves to dwell are the sole godhead of Yuwu, His spirituality (Deut. iv.), His choice of Israel, and the love and faithfulness which Me has manifested toward it; from which are deduced the great practical duties of loyal and loving devotion to Him, an absolute and uncompromising repudia- tion of all false gods, a warm and spontancous obe. dience to His will, and a large-hearted and generous attitude toward men. The central and principal discourse (v.-xxvij,, XXViii.) opens with the Decalogue; and the first - commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods be. fore me,” may be said to be the text which in the rest of ch. v.-xi. is eloquentiy and moviugly ex- panded. YuwuH is, moreover, a spiritual being: hence no sensible representation can be framed of Him, Still less should Israel’s devotions be paid to any other material object (iv. 12, 15-19). YHwuthag chosen Israel; and, in fulfilment of the promises given to its forefathers, has wonderfully delivered it from its bondage in Egypt, and assigned it a home ina bounteous and fertile land, to take pos- session of which it is now on the point of crossing the Jordan (vi. 10, 11; viii. 7-10). In return for all these benefits it is the Israelite’s duty to fear and tolove YHwH—to fear Him as the great and mighty God, whose judgments strike terror into all behold- ers (iv. 82-356, xi. 2-7); and to love Him on account of the affection and constancy with which, even asa father, He has ever dealt with Israel. The love of God, an all-absorbing sense of personal devotion to Him, is propounded in Deuteronomy as the primary spring of human duty (vi. 5); itis the duty which is the direct corollary of the character of God and of Israel’s relation to Him; the Israel- ite is to love Him with undivided af- fection (“ with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,” vi. 5; xiii. 3; xxx. 6; and elsewhere—an expression characteristic of Deu- teronomy), renouncing everything that is in any degree inconsistent with loyalty to Him. This brings with it, on the one hand, an earnest and entire repudiation of all false gods, and of every rite or practise connected with idolatry; and, on the other hand, a cheerful and ready acquiescence in the positive commandments which He has laid down. Of nothing is the Israelite more repeatedly and em- phatically warned in Deuteronomy than of the temptations to idolatry, and of the perils of yielding tothem. The heathen populations of Canaan are to be exterminated ; no intermarriage, or other inter- course with them, is to be permitted: and their places of worship and religious symbols are to be ruthlessly destroyed (vii. 2-5; xii. 2,3). Israel must ever remember that it is “holy” to Yawa (vii. 6 xiv. 2, 21; xxvi. 19; xxviii. 9). Canaanitish forms of divination and magic are not to be tolerated: an authorized order of prophets is to supply in Israel, so far as YHWH permits it, the information an counsel for which other nations resorted to augurs and soothsayers (xviii. 9-19), Local shrines aP altars, even though ostensibly dedicated to the wor ship of the true God, were liable to contaminatioD, on the part of the unspiritual Israclites, by the ad The Love of God. 541 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deuteronomy ——<—— a ne ee ee eS — ee mixture of heathen rites; accordingly, the three reat annual feasts are to be observed, and all sac- rifices and other religious dues are to be rendered, it is repeatedly and strongly insisted, at a single cen- tralsanctuary, “the place which YuwH shall choose _, . to set his name there” (xii. 5-7, 11, 14, 18, 26, and elsewhere). Obedience to these commands, if it come from the heart and be sincere, will bring with it the blessing of Yuwu: disobedience will end in national disaster and exile (vi. 14-15, vii. 12- 16, viii. 19, and especially xxviii.). The practical form which devotion to Yuwdu is to take is not, however, to be confined to religious duties, strictly so called. It is to embrace also the [sraelite’s social and domestic life, and it is to deter- mine his attitude toward the moral and civil ordi- nances prescribed tohim. The individual laws con- tained in ch. xii.-xxvi. are designed for the moral and social well-being of the nation; and it is the Israelite’s duty to obey them accordingly. Love of God involves the love of one’s neighbor, and the avoidance of any act which may be detrimental to a neighbors’ welfare. The Israelite must comport himself accordingly. Duties involving directly the application of a moral principle are especially in- sisted on, particularly justice, integrity, equity, phi- lanthropy, and generosity; and the laws embodying such principles are manifestly of paramount impor- tance in the writer’s eyes. Judges are to be ap- pointed in every city, who are to administer justice with the strictest impartiality (xvi. Love of 18-20). Fathers are not to be con- Neighbors. demned judicially for the crimes of their children; nor children for the crimes of their fathers (xxiv.16). Just weights and measures are to be used in all commercial trans- actions (xxv. 13-16); grave moral offenses are pun- ished severely; death is the penalty not only for murder, but also for incorrigible behavior in a son, for unchastity, for adultery, and for man-stealing (xxi. 18-21, xxii. 20-27, xxiv. 7). But the author’sruling motive is humanity, where- ever considerations of religion or morality do not force him to repress it. Thus philanthropy, prompt- itude, and liberality are to be shown toward those in difficulty and want—as the indigent in need of a loan (xv. 7-11); a slave at the time of his manumis- Sion (xv. 13-15); a fugitive (xxiii. 15, 16); a hired Servant (xxiv. 14, 15); the “stranger [7.e., resident foreigner], the fatherless, and the widow ” (xiv. 29, and frequently elsewhere). Gratitude and a sense of sympathy, evoked by the recollection of Israel’s own past, are frequently appealed to as the motives by which the Israelite should in such cases be actu- ated (x. 19, “For ye were strangers in the iand of Egypt”; xv. 15; xvi. 12; xxiv. 18, 22, “and thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt”). A-spirit of forbearance, equity, and regard for the feelings or welfare of others un- derlies also many of the otherregulations of Deute- Tonomy. Nowhere else in tlie Old Testament does there breathe such an atmosphere of generous devo- tion to God and of large-hearted benevolence toward men; nowhere else are duties and motives set forth With deeper feeling or with more moving eloquence; aud nowhere else is it shown so fully how high and noble principles may be made to elevate and refine the entire life of the community. The Song of Moses, contained in chap. xxxii. 1-34, is a didactic poem, the aim of which (verses 4-6) is to exemplify the rectitude and faithfulness of YuHwu as manifested in His dealings with a corrupt and un- grateful nation. Looking back upon the past, the poet, after the exordium (verses 1-8), describes, first, the providence that had brought Israel safely through the wilderness, and planted it ina land blessed abun- dantly by the goodness of YHwu (verses 7-14); sec- ondly, Israel’s ingratitude and lapse into idolatry (verses 15-18), which had obliged Yuwu to threaten it with national disaster, and to bring it almost to the verge of ruin (verses 19-30) ; and thirdly, YHwa’s determination not to allow an unworthy foe to triumph over His people, but by speaking to them through the extremity of their need to bring them to a better mind, and so to make it Song and possible for Himself to interpose and Blessing of save them (verses 31-48), The thought Moses. underlying the poem is thus the rescue of the people, by an act of grace, at the moment when annihilation seems imminent. The author develops this theme with a glow of im- passioned earnestness, and also with great literary and artistic skill. Chap. xxxiil. contains the “Blessing of Moses,” consisting of a series of benedictions, or eulogies, pro- nounced upon the different tribes (Simeon excepted), with an exordium (verses 2-5) and a conclusion (verses 26-29). The method of the author is to sig- nalize some distinctive feature in the character, or oc- cupation, or geographical situation of each tribe, with allusion, by preference, to the theocratic function discharged by it, and at the same time to celebrate the felicity, material and spiritual, of the nation as a whole, secured to it originally by Yrwnu’s goodness in the wilderness (verses 2-5), and maintained after- ward, through the continuance of his protecting care, in Canaan (verses 26-29), In general character it resembles the blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix. 1-27); but if the two be compared attentively, there will be seen to be some noticeable points of difference. The most salient featuresin Deut. xxxiil. are the iso- jation and depression of Judah (verse 7; contrast the warm eulogy in Gen. xlix. 8-12), the honor and re- spect with which Levi is viewed (verses 8-11; con- trast the unfavorable terms of Gen. xlix. 5-7), the strength and splendor of the double tribe of Joseph (verses 18-17; compare Gen. xlix. 22-26, with which there are some verbal resemblances), and the burst of grateful enthusiasm with which the poet cele- brates the fortune of his nation, settled and secure, with the aid of its God, in its promised home. The tone of the blessing is very different from that of the song (xxxii.): the one reflects national happi- ness; the other, national disaster. The two, it is evident, must have been composed at times In which the circumstances of the nation were very different. It is the unanimous opinion of modern critics that. Deuteronomy is not the work of Moses, but that it was, in its main parts, written in the seventh cen- tury B.c., either during the reign of Manasseh, or during that of Josiah (but before his eighteenth year, the Book of the Law found in that year in the Deuteronomy THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 542 Temple [see IJ Kings xxii.-xxiii.] clearly containing Deuteronomy, if indeed it included anything more). The reasons for this conclusion, stated Age and here in the briefest outline, are as fol- Au- lows: (1) Even upon the assumption thorship of that JE in Exodus and Numbers is Deu- Mosaic, the historical discrepancies in teronomy. Deut, i.-iv. and ix.—x., and the terms in which incidents belonging to the fortieth year of the Exodus are referred to, pre- clude the possibility of Deuteronomy being Mo- saic likewise; while the use of the expression “ be- yond Jordan” in i. 1, 5; iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49, for eastern Palestine, implies that the author was a resi- dent in western Palestine. (2) The same conclusion follows, a fortiori, for those who allow that JE is a post-Mosaic document, from the fact, noticed above, that JE itself, both in the narrative parts and in the laws, is repeatedly quoted in Deuteronomy. (3) In Deuteronomy it is strictly laid down that sac- rifice is to be offered ata single central sanctuary (xii. 5, 11, 14, etc.); whereas in Joshua to I Kings vi. sacrifices are frequently described as offered in vari- ous parts of the land (in accordance with the law of Ex. xx. 24), without any indication on the part of either the actor or the narrator that a law such as that of Deuteronomy is being infringed. (4) The other differences between the legislation of Deute- ronomy and that of Ex, xxi.-xxili. point with some cogency to the conclusion that the laws of Deute- ronomy originated in a later and more highly devel- oped stage of society than the laws of Exodus. (5) The law of the kingdom (xvii. 14-20) is colored by reminiscences of the monarchy of Solomon. (6) The forms of idolatry referred to—especially the worship of the “host of heaven” (iv. 19, xvii. 7)— point to a date not earlier than the reign of Ahaz, and more probably to one in the seventh century B.c. (7) The influence of Deuteronomy upon sub- sequent writers is clear and indisputable. Itis re- markable that Amos, Hosea, and the Influence undisputed portions of Isaiah show on no certain traces of this influence, Subsequent while Jeremiah exhibits marks of it on Writers. nearly every page. If Deuteronomy had been composed between Isaiah and Jeremiah, these facts would be exactly accounted for. (8) The languageand style of Deuteronomy— clear and flowing, free from archaisms, but purer than that of Jererniah—would suit the same period. (9) The prophetic teachings of Deuteronomy—the leading theological ideas and the principles which the author seeks to inculcate—exhibit many points of contact with that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and especially with the characteristic principles of the compiler of the Book of Kings (who must have lived in the same age). Upon these grounds (which, when studied in de- tail, are seen to possess far greater cogency than can be conveyed by a mere summary) it is concluded by modern critics that Deuteronomy is in reality a work of the seventh century B.c. It is not difficult to realize the significance which the book must have had if it were written at this time. It was a great protest against the prevalent tendencies of the age. t Jaid down the lines of a great religious reform. The century was one in which—as Jeremiah and the Books of Kings sufficiently testify—heathenism wag making serious encroachmentsin Judah, The Book of Deuteronomy was an endeavor by means of g dramatic use of the last words of Moses—based, nog improbably, upon an actual tradition of a concluding address delivered by the great leader to his people— to reaffirm the fundamental principles of Israel's religion (namely, loyalty to YHwH and the repudia- tion of all false gods) and to recall the people tog holier life and to a purer service of Yuwu. So far as its more distinctively legal parts are concerned, Deuteronomy may be described as the prophetic re- formulation and adaptation to new needs of an older legislation (namely, the laws contained in JE). It is essentially the work not of a jurist or statesman, but of a prophet; a system of wise laws (iv. 6-8), consistently obeyed, is indeed, as explained above, a condition of the welfare of the community; but the points of view from which these laws are presented, the principles which the author evidently has at. heart, the oratorical treatment, and the warm pare- netic tone, are all characteristic of the prophet, and are all the creation of the prophetic spirit. [Yor reasons which can not be here developed, the discourses of Deuteronomy do not appear to be all from the same hand. The kernel of the book consists of ch. v.-xXxvi, and Its XXViii.; and this, no doubt, constituted the Composite book found in the Temple by Hilkiah. It was Character. probably preceded by ch. i.-iv. (with the ex- ception of a few verses here and there which seem to be of later origin), though most modern critics are of opin- ion that these chapters were prefixed to it afterward. Some little time after the kernel of Deuteronomy was composed, it appears to have been enlarged by a second Deuteronomic writer (D?), who supplemented the work of his predecessor (D!) by adding ch, xxvii., xxix. 10-29, xxx. 1-10, aud some other short pas- sages in xXxix.-xxxiv., together with the song (xxxii. 1-48) and the historical notices belonging to it (xxxi. 16-22, xxxii. 4). Finally, at a still later date, the whole thus formed was brought formally into relation with the literary framework of the Hexa- teuch as an entirety by the addition of some brief extracts from P (i. 3, xxxiv. 1 and 5 [partly], 7-9). At what stage in the his- tory of the text the biessing (xxxiii.) was introduced is uncer- tain. ‘The song was probably written in the age of Jeremiah; the blessing is earlier, being assigned by most critics to the reign of Jeroboam IT.} The style of the Deuteronomic discourses is very marked. Not only do particular words and expres- sions, embodying often the writer’s characteristic thoughts, recur with remarkable frequency, giving a distinctive coloring to every part of Style of his work, but the long and rolling Deu- periods in which the author expresses teronomy. himself—which have the effect of car- rying the reader with them and hold- ing him enthralled by their oratorical power—are @ new feature in Hebrew literature. The author has a wonderful command of Hebrew style. His prac- tical aims, and the parenctic treatment which as& rule his subject demands, oblige him naturally to expand and reiterate more than is usually the case with Hebrew writers; nevertheless, his discourse, while never (in the bad sense of the term) rhetorical, always maintains its freshness, and is never monot- onous or prolix. The influence of Deuteronomy upon the later lit erature of the Old Testament is very perceptible. Upon its promulgation it speedily became the bee which both gave the religious ideals of the age 4? 543 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deuteronomy molded the phraseology in which these ideals were expressed. The style of Deuteronomy, when once it had been found, lent itself readily to adoption; and thus a school of writers, imbued with its spirit, quickly arose, who have stamped their mark upon many parts of the Old Testament. Ashas been just remarked, even the original Deuteronomy itself seems in places to have received expansion at the hands of a Deuteronomic editor (or editors). In the historical books, especially Joshua, Judges, and Kings, passages—consisting usually of speeches, or additions to speeches, placed in the mouths of prom- inent historical characters, or of reflections upon the religious aspects of the history—constantly recur, distinguished from the general current of the narra- tive by their strongly marked Deuteronomic phrasc- ology, and evidently either composed entirely, or expanded from a narrative originally brief, by a distinct writer; namely, the Deuteronomic compiler oreditor. Among the Prophets, Jeremiah, especially in his prose passages, shows most conspicuously the influence of Deuteronomy ; but it is also perceptible in many later writings, as In parts of Chronicles, and in the prayers in Neh. i., ix., and Dan. ix. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Of recent commentaries reference may be made to those of Dillmann (1886), Driver (1895; 2d ed., 1896), Stenernagel (1898), and Bertholet (899); and with reference to sources, the Oxford Hexateuch (1900), i. 70-97, 200 et seq., ii. 246 et seq., may be mentioned. 8. R. D. J. JR. ——Critical View: II. Scientific criticism denies both the unity and the authenticity of Deuteronomy, and brings forward definite theories regarding its composition, date of writing, and place in the de- velopment of law and religion. The critical prob- lems presented by this book are especially difficult, and the way in which they are solved is decisive not only for the criticism of the whole of the Penta- teuch, but for the total conception of the religion of the O. T. and its development. The book is divided on the whole as follows: the Deuteronomic law proper, xii.-xxvi.; the parenetic introduction, v.-xi., and peroration, xxvii.(xxviii.)-xxx.; and the his- torical setting; that is, the introduction, i,-iv., and the peroration to the whole book, xxxi. to end. Nearly all critics agree that the introduction, i.-iv. 40 (48), can not be the work of the author of v.-xi., or v.-xxvi., as (1) it contains contra- Analysis dictions to that portion, namely, ii. of Sources. 14 (also i. 35-39) to v. 8 (also vii. 19— ix, 2-28, xi. 2), ii. 29 to xxiii. 5, and iv, 41-43 to xix. 2; (2) iv. 45-49, the superscription, is incompatible with that ini. 5; (8) the introduc- tion i.-iv. is different in motive, being historic and hot parenetic. This historical introduction was writ- ten by a Deuteronomist (D’); that is, an author writ- Ing in the style and spirit of Deuteronomy at atime when the Jahvist-Elohist narrative (JE) of the pre- ceding books, Exodus~Numbers, was not yet united With Deuteronomy (Reuss, Hollenberg, Kuenen, Wellhausen, Cornill, Steuernagel, etc.). But as, after the combination of JE with Deuteronomy the narra- tive portion in the latter was duplicated, the original narrative, which also included iv. 41-43 and ix. 25-x. ll, was, accordin g to Dillmann, changed by the Deu- ‘eronomic editor (Rd) into a speech by Moses, except: ing the passages ii. 10-12, 20-28; iii. 9, 11, 14; iv. 41-43; x. 6, 7, which were not suited tor the pur- pose. Therefore i.-iii. are by the author of Deuteron- omy and iv. 1-40 was added by Rd in order to givea parenetic ending to his speech of Moses. Horst also separates i.-iii. from iv. 1-40. Portions from ch. ix. and x. also belong toi.-iii.,in the following sequence: ix. 9b, 11, 12-14, 25-29, 15, 16, 21, 18-20; x. 1-5, 10, 11; then followed i. 6-tii. 29, 1. 6-8 preceding i. 9-18. Ch. ii. 10-12, 20-28; iii. 9, 11b, 18b-14; x. 6-9 are marginal notes by a learned reader. Ch. iii. 29 is followed by xxxi. 1-8, and ch. xxxiv. constitutes the end. Horst, in other words, constructs from the historical notes in i.-xi. a chronological account of the events in the wilderness after the Law had been promulgated. Steuernagel, finally, considers all the passages with the address in the singular (i. 21, 3la; ii. 7, etc.) as later interpolations, All these source-analyses, and the separation of i.-iv. from the rest of the book, to which only Hoonacker has hitherto objected, are inadmissible. for (1) the supposed contradictions do not exist; (2) i. 5 is no Superscription, while i. 1 is an epilogue to Num, (Knobel, Herxheimer, Klostermann); and (8) all the critics have misunderstood the import of the introduction, ch. i.-iv., which is not a historical or chronological account, but in its general character and in its details a single and continuous reproof based upon I[srael’s guilt contrasted with God’s man- ifold mercies, and therefore as clearly of a parenetic nature as are the other parts of the book. Ch. v.-xi.: Wellhausen holds that this passage does not belong to the original Deuteronomy as it is too long foran introduction: “Moses is forever trying to get at his point, but never gets to it.” Wellhausen is followed by Valeton, who designates v. 5, vii. 17- 26, ix. 18-20, 22, 23, x. 1-10a, 18-20, xi. 18-21 as in- terpolations, and by Cornill, who considers only x. 1-9 as such, and designates this parenetic introduc- tion as Dp in contrast to the historical i.-iv., Dh.; D’Hichthal, on the other hand, distinguishes three documents: (1) a glorification of God and Israel—v. 1-3, 29 et seg.; vi. 1-25; vii. 7-24, 1-6, 25, 26; (2) exhortations to humility—viii. 1-20; ix. 1-8, 22-24; (8) a further glorification of Israel—x. 21 et seg.; xi. 1-28, 32. According to Horst, the Law begins in ch. v., into which parenetic insertions (vii. 6b-10, 17-24; viii.; ix. 1-9a, 10, 22-24; x. 12-xi. 12, 22-25 [26-82]) have been forced. Steuernagel distinguishes in v.-xi. two combined introductions to the Law— namely, one with the plural form of address: v. 1-4, 20-28; ix. 9, 11, 18-17, 21, 25-29; x. 1-5, 11, 16, 17; xi. 2-5, 7, 16-17, 22-28; and another with the sin- gular form of address: vi. 4-5, 10-13, Variations 15; vii. 1-4a, 6, 9, 12b-16a, 17-21, 23- of 24; viii. 2-5, 7-14, 17-18; ix. 1-4a, Analysis. 5-7a; x. 12, 14-15, 21 (22%); xi. 10-12, 14-15. Kuenen, Oettl, Konig, and Strack (“ Einleitung,” 4th ed., p. 42) object to the separation of v.-xi., which is in fact entirely unnec- essary, and makes of xii.-xxvi. a fragment, this splitting up into fragments resting on no other foundation than the fiction that a briefer original Deuteronomy had been in existence to accommodate an impatient reader limited in time. Ch. xii.-xxvi.: Since the assertion of Wellhausen (“Composition des Hexateuchs,” p. 194), that the Deuteronomy THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 544 SSS SSS me BN main division of the book has also been worked over, sources, interpolations, etc., have likewise been discovered within this part. In ch. xii, Vater had already assumed two duplicates—verses 5-7 parallel to 11, 12, and 15-19 parallel to 20-28—this opinion being shared by Cornill and in part by Stade (“Gesch. Israels,” i. 658). Steinthal even distin- guishes seven fragments in this chapter: (1) 1-7; (2) 8-12; (8) 138-16; (4) 17-19; (5) 20, 26-28; (6) 21- 25; (7) 29-31 and xiii. 1. Nearly the same is assumed by Stiirk. D’Eichthal divides xii. into two docu- ments: (1) 1-3, 29-31; (2) 4-28. Horst thinks that 4-28 isa combination of four different texts. Steuer- nage] divides the chapter thus: (1) 1; (2) 2-12, sub- divided into (8) 2; (4) 4-7; (5) 8-10; (6) 138-27, sub- divided into (7) 15, 16; (8) 22-25; and (9) 28. Underlying all these efforts to split its chapters into fragments and parts of fragments is a misconception of the style of Deuteronomy. The following, among other criticisms, may be mentioned: Beginning with Wellhausen, almost all critics consider xv. 4, 5 as a gloss or correction to xv, %, 11, because they do not take into account the mean- ing and connection. The passage xvi. 2{-xvii. 7 is in the wrong place, according to Wellhausen, Cornili, Stiirk, and others, while Valeton and Kuenen admit this only of xvi. 21-xvii. 1. Wellhausen, Stade, Cor- nill, and others do not include the “ king’s law,” xvii. 4-20, in Deuteronomy. In ch, xxiii. verses 3-9 have been objected to by Geiger, Wellhausen, Stade, and Valeton, while Kuenen rejects their criticism. D’EHichthal tinds contradictions between xxvi. 3, 4 and xxvi. 11; Horst, between xxvi. 1-15 and xiv. 22-29. The latest critics, Stirk and Steuernagel, have gone furthest in rearranging and cutting up the text. Starting with the twofold mode of address —singular and plura:—both assume that two works were combined, each of which again, according to Steuernagel, was based on a number of different sources. These and other critics (1) forget that the categories of the critic are not necessarily those of the author; (2) fail to explain how the present dis- crepancies were derived from a previous orderly ar- rangement, for in view of the continua! change of address a separation of passages based on it can be effected only by resorting to violence; (8) should first have examined whether the noteworthy changes in the forms of address have no internal warrant. While it is possible that xii.-xxvi. has been subjected to many revisions, changes, and in- terpolations, as a legal code naturally would be, nothing to that effect can be proved. Ch, xXvii.-xxx.: Kuenen criticizes xxvii. as fol- lows: Not attributable to the Deuteronomist are: (1) 1-8, because they include an earlier account— o-7va; and (2) 11-18, because they refer back to xi. 29-30, although misunderstanding the Supposed passage. Verses 14-26 constitute a Sources of later interpolation; hence only 9, 10 XXvVii.-xxx. remain for D!. This opinion is shared by Ewald, Kleinert, Kayser, Dillmann. According to Wellhausen, xx viii. does not agree with XXVii. : XXVHI.-NXxX. are parallel to xxvii., each being a different conclusion to two different editions of the chief part, xli.-xxvi. corresponding to the two pref- aces i.-iv. and v.-xi, Ch. xxviii. itself lacks unity. | Samuel, and certainly in a truly Mosaic spirit. Valeton ascribes only 1-6, 15-19 to the author of the hortatory v.~xi., considering all else as later expan. sions. Kleinert considers 28-37 and 49-57 as later interpolations. Dillmann also assumes numeroyg interpolations by a later editor. In the two follow. ing chapters Kleinert considers xxix. 21-27 anq xxx. 1-10 as interpolations. Kuenen ascribes both chapters to another author. Ch. xxi.-xxxiv.: Not only the critics but also the apologists refuse to consider these closing chapters, wholly or in part, ag due to theauthor of Deuteron- omy proper. (1) xxxi, 1-8, parallel to Num. xxvij, 15-23, is a continuation of iii. 28 e¢ seg., by the same author; xxxi. 9-13 forms the close of the law-book, xxx. 20; (2) xxxi. 14-830 serves as introduction to the song of Moses, belonging with it to the passages incorporated later in Deuteronomy; ch. xxxii. 44-47 is the ending to the song, and to xxxi. 15-29; 48-52 are taken from the Priestly Code (P); (3) xxxiii, js an old document incorporated by the editor; (4) xXxiv., Moses’ death, is combined from different ac. counts; the following verses are taken from P: 1a and 5 (revised), 7-9 (Dillmann); 1-7a, 8, 9 (Wellhau. sen); la, 8, 9, la, 7a, 8, 9 (Kuenen); 1a, 8, 9 (Cornill), ToJ belong: 1b, 4(Dillmann); 1b-7(Cornill). ToJE belong: 10 (Dillmann); 2-7, 10-12 (Wellhausen; re- vised); 1b-8, 5-7b, 10 (Kuenen). To D belong: la 2 6 (revised), 11, 12 (Dillmann); and 1b f 2-3, an in- terpolation. According to Wellhausen, 2-7, 10-12, Kuenen 4-6, 7a, 11-12, Cornill 10-12, are editorial interpolations. Rauke, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, Fr. W. Schultz, Keil, Kiithel, Bissel, and other apol- ogists ascribe the book to Moses. This view is criti- cized on the following grounds: (1) The account of the discourses of Moses, their writing aud transmis- sion (xxXxi. 9, 24-26; xxviii. 58, 61; xxix. 19, 20, 26; xxx. 11; xvii. 18 e¢ seg.), can not be by Date and Moses. (2) Moses can not possibly Tendency. have written the story of his death, nor compared himself with later proph- ets (ch. xxxiv.). (8) A later time is indicated by it. 12 (“as Israel did”), by iii. 9-11, 14 (“unto this day”; comp. Judges x. 4and i. 44 with i. 17); and by xix. 14(“ofold time”). (4) The writer speaks of the country east of the Jordan as “on this side” (i. 1, 5; iv, 41-49), though referring in the speeches to the western country (iii. 20, 25; xi. 80: in iii. 8 vice versa): therefore, he is in Palestine. (5) Although Israel is represented ag about to enter Canaan, the language necessitates the inference that Israel is al- ready settled in that country, engaged in agricul- ture or living in cities, under an organized govern- ment. (6) The book assumesa long period of devel- opment as regards politics and the state (“king’s law”; supreme court), religion (allusions to funda- mental religious principles and the law of the Proph- ets; emphasis on the centralization of worship), 4 worship (position of the priests and Levites; gifts to the sanctuary). (7) The book uses sources that can be proved to be post-Mosaic. The precise dates given, however, vary. Kleinert is of the opinion that the book was cout posed about the end of the period of the Judges, perhaps even by Samuel or by a ale eae i 545 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deuteronomy legislation occupies a middle ground in relation to that of the earlier books. As pre-Deuteronomic may pe proved: Ex, xx.-xxiii., xxxiv. 11-26, xix. 5 et seg., xii, 1-18; Lev. xvii. 18 et seg.; Num. xxxili. 50 et seg., lil. 12 e¢ seg.; the principal enactments in Lev. xviili.-xx.; the content of Ex. xii. 1-14, 21-28, 43-50; Lev. xiii. xiv. Post-Deuteronomic: Lev. xi,, xv. 16 et seg., xvii. 15 et seg., xxii..17 et seq., xxiii., xxv. 39 et seg., xxvii. 26-80 et seg.; Num. xv. 87 et seg.; xVili, 15, 21 et seg. ; Xxviii., xxix. Moses’ blessing, xxxiiil., dates from the early time of the Judges. Ch. xxxi. 14-29, xxxii. 1-48, 48-52, xxxiv, must be separated as non-Deuteronomic. The book is assumed to have been composed dur- jing the earlier, but post-Solomonic, time of the Kings, by Delitzsch and Oettli; under Hezekiah, by Vai- hinger and Konig ; under Manasseh, by Different Ewald, Riehm, W. R. Smith, Wilde- Dates boer, Kautzsch, Kittel, Dernier, Vale- Assigned. ton; under Josiah, by De Wette, Bleck, George, Vatke, Graf, Well- hausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Cornill, Stade, Reuss, and nearly all critics since Graf-Wellhausen. Gesenius and the more recent French critics, as D’Ejichthal, Havet, Vernes, Horst, have assumed a date during, or later than, the Exile. The assumption that the book was composed under Hezekiah, Manasseh, or Josiah is based on the hypothesis that the law-book which was discov- ered in the Temple by the priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year of the reign of King Josiah, 621 B.c., as narrated in II Kings xxii. e¢ seg., was virtu- ally the present Deuteronomy, the only difference of opinion being as to how long it had been composed. Most of the advocates of the Josianic period even say that the book was composed and hidden with the definite intention that it should be brought to light in that way. This hypothesis is difficult to maintain, fora number of improbabilities must be assumed in order to prove that the code found at the time of Josiah was Deuteronomy. All that can be claimed is that the narrator of the story of the finding and of the reforms attendant upon it adopts iM part the languageof Deut. This view is exposed to the insuperable objection that the religion which brought truth into the world can not have been founded upon a deception. That this fundamental book of religion, containing such a free and pure Stream of truth, could be pseudepigraphic, and that the whole nation should have considered as of Mosaic origin and of divine authority, and have adopted at once, without objection or criticism, a book which was a forgery, of the existence of which no one knew anything before that time, and which demanded radical modifications of the religious life, and especially of worship, is inconceivable. Those critics who recognize these objections, but for critical reasons hesitate to take Moses as the au- thor, assert, therefore, that the book is in its essen- “als a faithful reproduction of the teaching of loses, filling in the outlines given by the latter; and that there are no objections to assuming that in- ‘pired men, working in the spirit of Moses, and sus- taining to him the uninterrupted relation of spiritual] Succession, should feel justified in rendering his teaching and his law comprehensible for their own IV.—35 time, supplementing and developing them, and: that, the book thus composed is none the less Mosaic in spirit. Modern criticism holds that the book was prepared for the purpose of realizing the ideals of the Prophets in the national life of Israel. It is the summary of the prophetic deliverances of the eighth and seventh centuries, though not altogether free from impairments of the prophetic ideals. Some critics (Cheyne, “Jeremiah,” pp. 65 e¢ seg.) consider it as a product of the priestly-prophetic circles, an as- sumption that is certainly correct (comp. xvii. 9 et seg., XXiv. 8), . Although the place assigned traditionally to Deut. as containing the end of the Mosaic legislation, and as presupposing the existence of Ex.-Num., is dis- puted by modern criticism, yet all critics agree that it is based on previous sources that have in part been preserved, This applies certainly to J and to E, both in the narrative and the legal portions. J inthe narra- tive: i. 8, comp. Gen. xv. 18; i. 45, comp. Num. xiv. 16; iii. 15 e¢ seg., comp. Num. xxxii. Sources 29; otherwise the story is recapitulated and from E. In the Law the close relation Redaction. and connection with the Book of the Covenant contained in E (Ex. xx. 24- xxiii, 19) is most noticeable, Steuernagel being the only one to dispute this, and the so-called Drca- LOGUE in J (Ex. xxxiv.). It isa matter of dispute whether the author of Deutcronomy knew J and E as separate works, or after they had been united into JE and incorporated into the Tetrateuch. The priority of the Decalogue of Ex. xx. or that of Deut. v.is also a much disputed question. Deute- ronomy takes a very independent stand toward its sources, the reproduction being a free modification or enlargement. Wellhausen and Stade have there- fore assumed it to be an enlarged edition of the old Book of the Covenant, and Kuenen, followed espe- cially by Cornill, has brought forward the hypothe- sis that Deut. supplanted the Book of the Covenant. It is a very important question under discussion, whether the author of Deuteronomy was acquainted with P; whether, therefore, the latter was the ear- lier book, if not in its present. codification, at least in content. P is asserted to be older by Dilimann, Delitzsch, Oettli, and, of course, by the traditional- ists. As regards history they quote iv. 3= Num, xxv. (leading astray of the Israelites); 1. 37, iti. 26, iv. 21 (Aaron and Moses forbidden to enter Canaan) = Num. xx. 12, 24, xxvii. 14; 1. 23 (number of the spies) — Num, xifi. 1 e¢ seg.; x. 3 (the Ark of shittim-wood) = Ex. xxxvii. 1; x. 22 (the number “70”) = Gen, xlvi. 27; xxxi. 2, xxxiv. 7 (the age of Moses) = Ex. vii. 7. In the Law the many allusions to the law of holiness belonging to P (Lev. xvii.- xxvi.), the assumption of several “torot,” and espe- cially Deut. xiv. in comparison with Lev. xi., con- firm this view. According to other critics the his- torical references are derived from notes in JE, no longer extant, and as regards the Law they reverse the relation in every case. P presupposes Deut. ; so that, for instance, Lev. xi. was modeled upon Deut. xiv. The redaction of Deut. passed, according to Well- hausen, through three stages: (1) the original Deut. —xii.-xxvi.; (2) two enlarged editions independent Deuteronomy Deutsch THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 546 of each other—i.~iv., xii.-xxvi., xvii., and v.-xi., xii.-xxvi., xxXviii.-xxx.; (8) combination of the two editions and incorporation of the work so formed into the Hexateuchic code. Deuteronomy was in the first place combined only with JE; a later editor combined this work with P after the component parts of the latter had been put together, Dillmann assumes the following three stages of redaction down to Ezra: (1) Pg+E+ J; (2) PpEEJ+-D; (3) PgEJD+ Ph (law of holiness), The views in re- gard to the redaction depend on what is considered as the original Deut. and into what and how many parts it is divided. According to the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the relation of Deut. to the Prophets, and its priority to P, the book marks a radical change in the Israelitic religion. Through the centralization of worship the popular exercise of religion, closely connected with the daily life, the home, and the house, is up- rooted and all the sacred poetry of life destroyed. Worship is separated from life, and the sharp con- trast of holy and profane arises between the two. The idea of the Church comes into existence; then a separate profession, that of the clergy, is created ; and by transferring the priestly ideal to the whole people the way is prepared for the exclusive and particularistic character of later Judaism. As the prophetic ideas are formulated into concrete laws, religion is externalized and becomes a religion of law, an opus operatum. The people now know ex- actly what they have to do, for “it is written.” Deuteronomy marks the beginning of the canon; religion becomes a book religion, an object of study, a theology. The people know what they may ex- pect if they keep the Law. Religion assumes the nature of a covenant, acontract, and the doctrine of retribution becomes paramount. Further conclu- sions are then drawn by P as to post-exilic Judaism, Pharisaism, the Talmud, Rabbinism. This whole conception is based on literary and religio-historical assumptions that are either wrong or doubtful. The doctrines and demands of Deut. -have always been fundamental in Israel's religion. The book condemns and abolishes paganism. The alleged legitimacy of the decentralization and pop- warization of worship is based entirely upon a wrong interpretation of Ex. xx. 24. Centralization is the necessary consequence of monotheism and of the actual or ideal unity of the people. Law and proph- ecy are closely connected from the foundation of Judaism, beginning with Moses. The regulation of life according to divine law, the contrast between holy and profane, the rise of a canon and a theology, are incidental to the development of every religion that has ever controlled and modified the life of a people. E. G. H. B. J. DEUTERONOMY RABBAH. See DEBARIM RaBBAt. DEUTSCH, ALEXANDER: French financier; died April 18, 1889. He was head of the firm of A. Deutsch & Sons, of Paris, and was one of the most prominent financiers in that city, hir firm taking the lead in the organization of the mineral-light (“ éclair- ave minéral”) industry. He was also prominent in other industries, and his exertions in the industrial interests of France won for him the ribbon of the Legion of Honor. Deutsch took an active part ip Jewish affairs, and contributed liberally to the char. itable institutions of Paris. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Archives Israélites, 1889, pp. 141-142. 8. A. R, DEUTSCH, ANTON : Hungarian journalist ang politico-economic writer; born at Budapest Oct. 21, 1848. He studied in Budapest and Paris. Since 1870 he has worked with the “Pester Lloyd,” the economic articles in which come from his pen. His most important writingsare: “ Finfundzwanzig Jahre Ungarischer Volkswirtschaft und Finanzen ” and “Magyar Vasdrok Torténete” (History of the Hungarian Fairs). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Szinnyei; Magyar [rok Tara, Pallas Lexi. con, iv. Ss. M. W. DEUTSCH, CAROLINE: German novelist; born at Namesto, a small Hungarian village, Feb, 23, 1846. Her father, a rabbi, was German in cul- ture, and the German language and spirit prevailed in the family. While still very young, Caroline be- gan to write verse, some appearing in Berlin news- papers. In 1870 she graduated as a public teacher, obtaining at the same time a permanent position on the “ Fiidische Presse” of Berlin. Several novelettes from her pen were published in the Berlin “ Volks- zeitung.” In recent years she has written chiefly for the “Hamburger Nachrichten.” The scenes of her novels are mostly laid in Hungary, and she vividly describes the life of the Hungarian peasant and small tradesman. In 1875 she married, and although her legal name was Caroline Weiss, she still wrote under her former name. Of her writings may be mentioned: “Ueber Klippen,” a novel, in 2 vols., Dresden, 1894; “Aus Drang und Not,” Prague, 1897; “Besiegt,” “Die Tochter des Hirten,” and “Ilonka,” published in 2 vols., Hamburg; “In Letzter Stunde,” Leipsic, 1897. s. M. Z. DEUTSCH, DAVID: German rabbi; born at Ziilz, Silesia, 1810; died at Sohrau, Silesia, July 31, 1873. He was brought up by his relative Mena- hem Deutsch, at Breslau. He studied Talmud un- der Mordecai Benet at Nikolsburg, and under Moses Sofer at Presburg. Deutsch was called to the rab- binate of Myslowitz, Prussia, in 1888, and that of Sohrau in 1845. David Deutsch, like his older brother Israel Deutsch, was a champion of Orthodoxy, and led the protest against the nomination of Abraham Geiger as rabbi of Breslau. Deutsch contributed articles to most of the Jewish periodicals. The fol lowing are his works: “Habakkuk Meturgam u-Me bo’ar "(Habakkuk Translated and Explained), a Get man translation with notes (Breslau, 1887); “Riick- sprache mit Allen Gliubigen des Rabbinischen Jt denthums” (Breslau, 18438), areply, written in collab- oration with his brother Israe] Deutsch, to Abraham Geiger’s pamphlet “ Ansprache an Meine Gemeinde ': “Asof Asefah” (The Gathering of an Assembly). 4 protest against the rabbinical conferences at Brun wick in 1844 and at Frankfort in 1845 (Breslau. 1846): 547 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deuteronomy Deutsch ee ee ee “Die Orgel in der Synagoge,” a refutation of the ar- guments of S. Léw in favor of the use of the or- gan in the synagogue; a German translation of Isaac Troki’s “ Hizzuk Emunah,” with critical notes (Bres- lau, 1865). Deutsch’s sermons had a felicitous com- pination of the older style with modern rhetoric, and some of those delivered on public occasions were published. 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY: Der Israelit, 1873, pp. 803-805; Fuenn, Kene- set Yisrael, p. 22; Jiidisches Literaturblatt, 1902, No. 11; J. Norden, David Deutsch, ein Lebensbild, 1902. J. M. SEL. DEUTSCH (AARON), DAVID: Hungarian rabbi and Talmudic author; born in Raudnitz, Bo- hemia, about 1812; died at Balassa-Gyarmath, Hun- gary, April 26, 1878. He received his early educa- tion under his grandfather, Joseph Deutsch, who was rabbi in Raudnitz, and then frequented the yeshibot of Prague and Presburg, being one of the favored disciples of Moses Sofer. He lived subsequently in Irsa, where he married, and after the death of his wife moved to Budapest, where he lectured on Tal- mud to asmall society. In 1846 he was called as rabbi to Sebes and in 1851 to Balassa-Gyarmath, where he officiated till his death. In the Reform movement, which began with the Hungarian Jewish Congress of 1868, Deutsch was one of the most uncompromising leaders of Ortho- doxy; and to his efforts the legal recognition of the autonomy of the Orthodox congregations in Hungary was largely due. He was a great ascetic, and was in sympathy with the Hasidim, although he did not adopt all their tenets. As typical of his views may be quoted the facts that he declared it sinful to pray in a synagogue in which the almemar was not in the center, and that he prohibited the winding up and setting of an alarm-clock on Friday so that it should ring on Saturday. Of his works a collection of responsa, under the title “Goren Dawid” (David’s Threshing-Floor), was published after his death by his sons (Pacs, 1885). BIBLIOGRAPHY : Preface to Goren Dawid. - Ss. DEUTSCH, DAVID B. MENAHEM MAN- DEL: Hungarian rabbiand Talmudist; born about 1760; died in 1830 at Novo Mesto (Waag-Neustadth), Hungary. He officiated first at Szerdahely, and sub- sequently, after 1810, at Waag-Neustadtl. One of the most prominent Hungarian rabbinical authorities of the early part of the nineteenth century, he was dis- tinguished for his nobility of character. Stories on his high views of life are still current in many dis- tricts of Hungary. He was classed among the fore- most of Jewish philanthropists. Deutsch often gave & poor applicant money without counting or even Ocking at it; and, if his purse was exhausted, he would give him any object of value that happened tobe at hand. Deutsch was also celebrated for his Wit and humor, of which he often made effective Use in his capacity as preacher. “His piety was such that he never raised his head, regarding it as incon- sistent with true humility and the fear of God; and he never looked beyond his immediate surroundings —“the four cubits.” Deutsch was the author of the following works: (1) “ Obel Dawid ” (Tent of David), Vienna, 1819-25, novelle, in two volumes, to several Talmudic trea- tises, some of which appeared under the same title in 1822; (2) “Ohel Dawid,” Presburg, 1836, novellee to the treatises Shebu‘ot and Yebamot; (8) halakic discussions in Aryeh Judah b. Samuel Zebi’s “ He- lek Rishon mi-She’elot u-Teshubot ha-Geonim Bat- ra’e,” Prague, 1861; (4) halakic discussions in Wolf b. Léb Lasch’s “Kedushat Yisrael II.” (Vienna, 1829), Eleazar Shemen Rokeah, an old friend of Deutsch, collected posthumously all the responsa which the latter had addressed to him in the course of many years, printing them as a memorial to his friend. It may be noted as a bibliographical pecu- liarity of the “Ohel Dawid” that all the copies contain manuscript glosses by the author. Deutsch revised his book after it had been printed, and noted the corrections on the margins before the book left his hands. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael, p. 232: Miinz, Rabbt Eleazar, Genannt Schemen Rokeach, pp. 106-109. L. G. DEUTSCH, EMANUEL OSCAR MENA- HEM: Orientalist; born at Neisse, in Silesia, Oct. 28, 1829; died at Alexandria, Egypt, May 12, 1873. His early training was conducted by his uncle, David Deutsch of Myslowitz, to whom he owed his wide acquaintance with Hebrew literature. His educa- tion was completed at the University of Berlin, where, under Boeckh and Meineke, he became an accurate classical scholar. From Berlin he went to London to accept an appointment in the British Mu- seum, to which he had been recommended by Asher Asher. Thenceforward he was known for his la- bors in the British Museum and for the efforts he made to promote Semitic studies in the outside world. His work in the library is, of course, not on record in a separate form; and his best official mon- ument is to be found in the “ Phenician Inscriptions ” published by the trustees, in which the editor, W. S. A. Vaux, received invaluable aid from him. Deutsch’s literary work outside the museum was: of two kinds: either purely scientific essays, acute in criticism and lucid in statement—like the article: on the Targumim and on the Samaritan Pentateuch in Smith’s “ Dictionary of the Bible”—or brilliant popular expositions of some learned work, like his. famous essay on the Talmud in the “Quarterly Re- view” for Oct., 1867. This created probably a greater’ sensation than any other review article in England dealing with a purely literary subject, and caused that number of the “Quarterly” to be repeatedly re- printed. The article itself was translated into several languages, and contributed to create an interest in the Talmud wherever the essay was read. Though there was little that was new in the facts adduced—the literary history being derived from Wolf and the wise and witty sayings from Dukes—yet the skill with which the pertinent topics were grouped, the brilliancy of the style, and the underlying enthu- siasm of the writer made it a striking performance. Some of its effect was due to the implied suggestion that the key to the life of the founder of Christian- ity was to be sought for in the surrounding ideas in. Palestine. The renewed attention given to the Tal- mud in Christian circles, at any rate in England, was undoubtedly due to the article. The ambition. Deutsch Devotion of his life to produce a more exhaustive work on the Talmud was thus shadowed forth; but the failure of his health compelled him to abandon the project. This famous essay was succeeded some time after- ward by an article in the “Quarterly Review” on “Tslam,” which was not so successful because not dealing with so novel a subjectand because Deutsch was not aspecial student of Arabic. He also contrib- uted the article on “ Versions” to Smith’s “ Diction- ary of the Bible,” and besides wrote more than 190 articles for “Chambers’s Cyclopiedia.” Deutsch had an excellent faculty, cultivated by practise, of deciphering inscriptions. His letters to the “ Times ” respecting the discovery and contents of the Moabite Stone aroused considerable attention. During the sittings of the Ecumenical Council at the Vatican, 1869-70, Deutsch acted as special cor- respondent of the “ Times,” and wrote a number of incisive letters on its deliberations. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. R. Haweis, in Contemporary Review, 1873; Jewish Chronicle, May, 1873: Times, and Datly News, May 14, 1873; Athenwum, May 17, 1873; Lady Strangford, memoir of Deutsch in Literary Remains, London, 1874; S. Lane-Poole, in Dict. Nat. Biography. J. G. L.—J. DEUTSCH, GOTTHARD: Theologian; born at Kanitz, Austria, Jan. 31,1859. Thedescendant ofa rabbinical family (see BRAUNSCHWEIG, JAcoB ELIE- ZER) and the son of a Talmudist, he received an early training in rabbinical literature while he attended the school of his native city. In 1868 he entered the gymnasium of Nikolsburg, continuing his stud- ies at home, and graduated in 1876. He subse- quently attended the rabbinical seminary and the University of Breslau, where he remained until the year 1879. Continuing his studies in Vienna, he graduated from the university in 1881, receiving his rabbinical diploma from I. H. Weiss. Immediately thereafter he was called to teach the religious school of the congregation of Briinn, and upon the death of Daniel Ehrmann (1882) he was appointed by the state as teacher of religion in the German high schools of the Moravian capital. In 1887, simulta- neously invited to the rabbinates of Boskowitz and Briix, he chose the latter position, which he resigned in 1891 to accept the professorship of Jewish history ‘and philosophy of religion in the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati, which position he still (1903) eccupies, Deutsch has been a frequent contributor to the Jewish and to the secular press. Articles from his pen have appeared in “ Allgemeine Zeitung des Ju- denthums,” “Israelitische Wochenschrift,” “ Jiidi- sches Literaturblatt,” and a great number of Amer- ican periodicals, notably “Deborah,” “ American Israelite,” “The Reform Advocate,” “Jewish Com- ment,” “The American Journal of Theology,” “The New World,” “The Yearbook of the Cen- tral Conference of American Rabbis,” “ New-Yorker Staatszeitung,” and others. He has further pub- lished: “Symbolik in Cultus und Dichtung bei den Hebriern,” Brinn, 1886; “Paradigmentafeln zur Hebritischen Grammatik,” Briinn, 1886; ‘“Ge- denkrede an dem Sarge des Verewigten Dr. Aron Birwald,” Briix, 1891; “Epochs of Jewish His- tory,” New York, 1894; “ Theory of Oral Tradition,” ‘Cincinnati, 1896; “Philosophy of Jewish History,” THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 548 ee ere et a Cincinnati, 1897; “Andere Zeiten,” a novel, Berlin, 1898; “Unldsbare Fesseln,” a novel. He was the editor of the “ Deborah,” a German monthly, from the death of its founder, Isaac M. Wise. until the paper ceased publication (1903). 8. DEUTSCH DE HATVAN, ALEXANDER; Hungarian merchant and financier; born at Arad Nov, 17, 1852. He was educated in Budapest ang Berlin. As the head of the firm of Ignatz Deutsch & Sons, he rendered great service to the sugar in- dustry in Hungary, establishing beet-sugar factorieg at Nagy Surany, Hatvan, and Garamvélgye. In recognition of his services his family was raised to the nobility in 1879. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Pallas Lexicon, iv. 8. M. W. DEUTSCH, HEINRICH: Hungarian edu. cator; born at Trencsen-Ban June 12, 1819; died at Budapest Dec. 18, 1889. After teaching in the elementary schools of the provincial communities of Lovasberény and Kecskemét, he was called to the Talmud Torah school of Budapest in 1859. Enjoy- ing a high reputation as an educator and a scholar by virtue of his attainments in Jewish science and his literary activity, he was appointed in 1868 di- rector of the reorganized Jewish Teachers’ College, and in 1876 professor of the Bible and Talmud in the lower division of the newly founded Rabbinical Seminary. Deutsch was the first in Hungary to lecture in the Hungarian language on the Talmud. His chief works are: “A Hebrew Grammar” (in Hungarian, 1859); Hungarian translation of the prayer-book (seven editions since 1864); ‘“ Beleuch- tung der Dogmentheorie Leopold Léw,” Leipsic, 1871 {under the pseudonym “ David Nieto Redivi- vus”); “Mekor Hayyim,” text-book of the Jewish religion, in four parts, Budapest, 1878; Hungarian translation of the Pentateuch with comments, 1887- 1890. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Pallas Nagy Lexicon, s.v. s. L. V. DEUTSCH, ISRAEL: German rabbi; born in Ziilz, Prussian Silesia, April 2, 1800; died in Beuthen June 7, 1853. From 1829 until his death he officiated asrabbiin Beuthen, achieving distinction as a preach- er, Talmudist, and Hebraist. In the two treatises “Ricksprache mit Allen Gliubigen des Rabbiv- ischen Judenthums, ete.” (written in conjunction with his brother, David Deutsch), Breslau, 1848, and“ Zur Wiirdigung der Braunschweiger Rabbin- erversammlung,” 7b, 1845, he vigorously opposed the Reform movement. After his death his two brothers, Abraham, rabbi of Gleiwitz, and David, rabbi of Sohrau, published “Proben aus dem Literarisched Nachlasse deg Israel Deutsch,” Gleiwitz, 1899. BIEL OU RAPHY: Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthume, 1833, O. ot. 8 M. Ko. DEUTSCH, JOEL: Hebraist and teacher of deaf-mutes; born in Nikolsburg. Moravia, March 22, 1813; died in Vienna May 1, 1899. Deutsch is Te membered asa close student of rabbinical literaturé, and was an energetic collector of Hebrew books. He took great interest in the instruction of deat mutes; and when the * Allgemeines Oesterreichisch- 549 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Deutsch Devotion Israclitisches Taubstummen-Institut” was founded at Nikolsburg in 1844, he entered it as teacher. In 1852 this institution was moved to Vienna, und Deutsch became director, retiring in 1888. In 1859 he was decorated with the “Goldene Verdienst- kranz,” and in 1869 received the title “ Kaiserlicher Rath.” Pupils of Deutsch have been called to be- come teachers in the asylums of New York, London, and Budapest. He was author of the folowing works: “ Religions- lehre far Israe]. Taubstumme,” Vienna, 1868; “ Bi- blische Geschichte fiir Israel. Taubstumme,” 7d. 1863; «Wortersammlung zur Gedichtnissiibung fiir den Ersten Anschauungsunterricht Taubstummer Kin- der,” 2). 1881; “Worter- und Aufgabensammlung far den Ersten Unterricht Taubstummer Kinder,” #b. 1881; “ Vorlege-Blitter zur Einleitung der Unent- behrlichsten Grammatischen Formen,” Teplitz, 1877. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lippe, Bibliographisches Lexicon. S. L. Y. DEUTSCH, MORDECAI BEN ENOCH JU- DAH: Rabbi of Kolin, Bohemia, and its subordi- nate communities; he flourished at the beginning of the eighteenth century. He was the author of a work called “Mor Deror” (Flowing Myrrh), nov- elle on the following Talmudic treatises: Ketubot, Baba Kamma, Baba Mezi‘a, Hullin, Yoma, and Shebu‘ot (Prague, 1738). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. col. 1657 ; Zedner, Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus. p. 208; Walden, Shem ha-Ge- dotim he-Hadash, ii. 43. M. SEu. L. G, DEUTSCH, NIETO REDIVIVUS. See Devtscu, HEINRICH. DEUTSCH, SIMON: Austrian Hebraist and revolutionist; died at Constantinople March 24, 1877. Asa young man he devoted himself to He- brew studies in Vienna, and catalogued in collab- oration with A. Kraft the Hebrew manuscripts in the possession of the Vienna Imperial Library. In 1848 he sided with the revolution, escaping after its collapse to France. In Paris, through the assis- tance of Mme. Strauss, the friend of Borne, he entered upon a business career, in which he was suc- cessful. After the fall of the Commune Deutsch was denounced to the government as a Communist. He was arrested and thrown into the “Orangerie” prison of Versailles, and only the efforts of the Austrian ambassador saved his life. He died in Constantinople while there on business, but was in- terred in Paris. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Johannes Nordmann, Von einem Aechtund- vierziger, in Neue Freie Presse, 188, reproduced in the 4.9: Zeit, des Jud. 1883, pp. 293-296; Steinschneider, Cat. odl. 8.v. 8. AL. R. DEUTSCH -ISRAELITISCHER GEMEIN- DEBUND. See GEMEINDEBUND, DrEvutscH-Israk- LITISCHER. DEUTZ, ELIJAH BEN ISAAC: Rabbinical author ; lived at Hamburg in the seventeenth and “ighteenth centuries. He was the author of “Pi liyahu” (Mouth of Elijah: Altona, 1783), a com- Mentary on * Perek Shirah.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: Steinschneider, Cat. Boil. col. 928; Zedner, Cat. Hebr, Books Brit. Mus. pp. 208, 688. ; M. SEL. L, G, DEUTZ, EMMANUEL (Menahem): Chief rabbi of the Central Consistory of the Jews of France; born at Coblenz, in Rhenish Prussia, 17638; died Jan. 31, 1842. Afterstudying for some years at the yeshi- bah at Mayence, he was appointed rabbiin his native town. He wasa member of the assemblies of 1806 and 1807 (see SANHEDRIN), and, in conformity with the organization instituted by Napoleon I., he took his place in the Central Consistory beside David Sinzheim and Abraham de Cologna. From 1822 he was the only chief rabbi of the Consistory. He was a preacher of the old school, for, although he knew French, he never used it in the pulpit. His life was saddened by domestic sorrows, especially by his son’s apostasy and unfortunate political rdle. J J. W. DEVENISHET: Village in the government of Wilna, Russia. The census of 1898 shows a popu- lation of 1,877, of whom 1,288 are Jews. Of the latter 277 areartisans, About 66 Jewish women and girls earn a livelihood by knitting stockings, which are sold in Wilna. About 98 people are employed as day-laborers. The remainder of the population are engaged in business. Among charitable institu- tions there are the poorhouse, the gemilut hasadim, the bikkur holim, etc. The village possesses a Jew- ish library. There are a Jewish free school with 84 pupils, a Talmud Torah with 20 pupils, and 5 hada- rim with 56 pupils. H. R. DEVIL. Sce DeMoNOLOGY and SaTAn. DEVOTION (4913): The state of religious con- secration. It is the most essential element in wor- ship; so that a divine service without it is “like to a body without a soul.” To such as pray to God without the spirit of fervent devotion, the stern sentence is applicable: “ With their mouth and their lips they honored me, but their heart they removed far from me” (Isa. xxix. 18). Devotion is the en- tire dedication of the worshiper to the service of God, the banishment of all other thoughts from the mind and heart, so that the whole inner life centers in the one idea of God’s greatnessand goodness (Ber. 29b, 30a ; Maimonides, “ Yad,” Tefillah, iv. 16). Every fulfilment of a divine commandment (“ mizwah ”) re- quires devotion or consecration of mind and heart to the sacred work to be done (“mizwot zerikot kawwanah”; Ber. 18a, b; Meg. 20a; Hul. 3ta, b; Yer. Yeb. viii., 9a). Hence the cabalists enjoined men, before fulfilling any commandment, to express- ly consecrate the mind to the work by certain for- mulas (see Kawwanant; Loria, Isaac). The term “devotion ” is also used for prayer itself, especially for the extra and occasional prayers added to the regular service (RINN and Awpa, “supplica- tion” and “petition” ). Among pious Jewish people there is a strong craving for frequent communion with the Creator; the fixed and regular prayers and services can not satisfy such craving, and the rec- ommendation of Rabbi Simeon (Abot ii. 18), “ When thou prayest, do not make thy prayera fixed reading, but let it be an appeal for divine mercy and grace,” is understocd to refer to this kind of devotion. Prayers. are frequently compared to sacrifices (Ber. 26b), and as there were two kinds of sacrifices, “ korban S. J. Devotional Literature THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 550 SS a a a ee Se ee ON Se a a ay ee ee ee Ret ee Me wide pe a pee ee ee eas hobah ” (obligatory sacrifice) and “ korban nedabah” (voluntary or free-will sacrifice), so also prayers are of two Kinds, “tefillat hobah” (obligatory prayer) and “tefillat nedabah” (voluntary prayer; compare “Yad,” Tetillah, i. 9). The ancient Hasidim are said to have spent in silent meditation a short time before and after the service (26. 32b). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. col. 295. K M. F. DEVOTIONAL LITERATURE: Aside from the regular prayers, which are treated under Lir- URGY, there exists a literature of private devotions, prayers offered on special occasions. Such devotions are strongly recommended in the Talmud, where private prayers composed by individuals on various occasions are to be found. R. Eliezer (Ber. iv. 4) says: “He who makes his prayer a fixed form [“ke- ba‘ ”] has no true devotion.” “ This,” say Rabbah and R. Joseph, “is because he fails to add thoughts or expressions of his own” (Ber. 29b). [Compare the so-called “Lord’s Prayer,” taught by Jesus (Luke xi. 2-4; Matt. vi. 9-13), and the parallels given in C. Taylor’s “Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,” pp. 128~-129.—x.] Talmudic devotional prayers may be classified as: (1) general, (2) for forgiveness of sin, (3) when studying the Torah, (4) for the restoration of the Holy Temple. The following are examples of the several kinds: 1. R. Eliezer said: ** May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, and God of our fathers, that no personal enmity or envy enter my heart or the hearts of others. May the Law be our occupation through the days of our life, and may our words of devotion come before Thee.” R. Hiyyah b. Abba added: ** May our hearts cleave to Thy Name in reverence. Keep us from things Thou hatest and bring us nearer to those that Thou lovest. O favor us for Thy Name's sake’’ (Yer. Ber. iv. 2). 2. ‘Lord of the worlds, Thou well knowest that our aim is to do Thy will. But what interferes? The leaven in the dough {bad inclinations] and the servitude of the ruling government. O may it be Thy will to save us from these, that we may do Thy will with a true heart.”’ 3. R. Saphra: **O let peace reign between the heavenly and the earthly households, and between those who study the Torah for its own sake and those who study it for reward” (ib.). 4, **O let Him reveal and show His kingdom over us speedily. O let Him build His house in our days. O let Him grace the rem- nant of His people Israel] with peace, loving-kindness, and mercy. For the sake of His great Name’’ (Massek. Soferim, xiv. 12). The morning devotion of the house of R. Jannai was as follows; * May it please Thee, O Lord my God, to grant me a good heart, a good lot, a good companion, a good name, a good [unbegrudging ] eye, a humble soul, and a devout spirit. May Thy Name not he profaned through us, and let us not be a byword among the people. Let not our remainder be destroved, nor our hope shat- tered. Let us not be under obligation to a human being, whose gift is insignificant and its humiliation great. Let our lot be With the Law and among those who do Thy will. O build Thy Holy City and Temple speedily in our days ” (Yer. Ber. iv. 2, 7d). Devotional prayers from various rabbis (ib. pp. 16, 17, 29, 60) are copied in the prayer-book, including a prayer against bad dreams, that they may presage good results (Ber. 55b), which was inserted in congregational responses to the priest’s blessing on holidays. In the geonic period private devotional prayers developed side by side with the liturgy; and pri- vate prayers were inserted in the prayer-book of Amram Gaon (846 c.E.), as well as in the siddur of Saadia Gaon. One of these is quoted in the collec- tion of private prayers, “ Keri’al Ne‘emanah,” by Samuel David Ottolengi (Venice, 1715), which con- tains also a prayer composed by R. Nissim to be recited before the morning prayer of Yom Kippur. Judah ha-Hasid and his pupil, Eliezer of Worms, composed devotional prayers which were published under the titles “Tefilot R. Jehudah Hasid” ang “Yoreh Hattaim.” Regarding the midnight prayer, myyn, for the reg. toration of the Jewish state and the rebuilding of the Temple (see Zohar, Wa-Yakhel, Midnight Shulhan ‘Aruk, Orah Hayyim, 1), re. Devotion. cited especially in the sixteenth, sev- enteenth, and eighteenth centuries, see Hazor. Collections of such prayers were made by Zebi b. Hayyim of Wilmersdorf under the title “ Lik. kute Zebi,” Sulzbach, 1797; by David Tevele Pos. ner, Hamburg, 1715; and by Aaron Berechiah Mode- na, author of the collection of devotional prayers for various occasions entitled “ Ma‘abar Yabbok,” and of “Seder Ashmurat ha-Boker” (matins) for the society known as “Me‘ire Shahar” (Early Risers or Vigi- lants). Mantua, 1624. This, under the title * Shomerim la-Boker,” was translated by Mrs, Ellusch in 1724, Joseph Jedidiah Carmiis the author of “ Kenaf Rena- nim” (The Singers’ Wing; Venice, 1626), containing devotions and hymns for every day in the week and for holidays. From a literary point of view, Carmi’s devotions have no equal among the Hebrew collections, and yet, while they were approved by the Rabbis and adopted by several Early Risers’ societies in Italy, they were contested as an innovation and a super- fluity before a council of rabbis, who finally decided to allow them, not as an addition to the prayer-book but as an adjunct for voluntary devotionalists (see decisions in the Preface, 6a, 12b). Some devotions are composed of words all of which begin with the same !etter. Thus, & in the prayer “Elef Alafim” (A Thousand Alefs) by Jo- seph b. Sheshet Latimi, first published with the “Ig- geret” of Isaac Akrish, Constantinople, 1570; a simi- lar one by Moses Zacuto in his “Iggeret,” Leghorn, 1870; the letter 4 in the prayer “ Bakkashat ha- Hehin” by David Ulma (Benjacob, “ Ozar ha-Se- farim,” pp. 82, 329); ‘in a prayer composed of Biblical verges beginning with “ Lord ” (“Siddur ” of Amram, ti. 8a); 5 in the “ Bakkashat ha-Lamedin ” of Meir Hesse, Altona, 1829; » in the “ Bakkashat ha- Memin” of Jedaiah Bedersi, published with his “Behinat ‘Olam,” Mantua, 1556 (see “Ha-Sharon” to “Ha-Karmel,” i., No. 42); yw in Aaron Voltera’s “Bakkashah Hadashah” (A New Petition) ory U (“300 Words Beginning with yw”), Leghorn, 1740. Some parts of these alphabetical devotions are in pure and fluent Hebrew, while the style of the others is cramped and forced. Divers devotional prayers were composed for Fri- day night and for Saturday, day and night. They are known as “Zemirot.” Regarding the Tashlik prayer on New-Year’s Day, see TASHLIK; and for & prayer on entering the sukkah on the Feast of Taber- nacles, see TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. A petition before saying the Psalms reads: “May Thy mercy attend us in reading the Psalms, as if David himself—peace be to him!—had uttered them; to cleanse us of sin and to forgive us as even Thou hast forgiven David,” etc. There are prayers by Nahmanides on crossing the sea, and for children (“ Likkute Zebi,” p. 97b, Wilna 1817) and by Abraham Galicchi against epidem@ 551 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Devotional Literature A (* Moshia‘ Hosim,” p. 33b, Venice, 1087). The “ Ma- ‘aneh Lashon,” py Jacob ben Solomon Darshan, pub- lished first at Prague, 1615, is a collection of prayers ro be recited for the sick, also on visiting cemeteries, and on similar occasions, which is very popular in Russia and Poland. Among other devotional pray- ers mention may be made of the following: Moses Rieti, “Ma‘on ha-Sho’alim,” Venice, 1550; Isaiah Hurwitz, “Refu’at ha-Nefesh,” Amsterdam, 1672; “Yoreh Hatta’im”; Pinchas Monselice, “Magen Hayyim,” Mantua, 1657; Nathan Nata‘ Hanover, “Sha‘are Ziyyon,” 1662. Raphael Solomon’s prayer against an epidemic among cattle in Italy in 1712 is found in the collec- tion of Matthew Levi (“Zebah Todah,” Leghorn, 1829). Others are: by Leon Modena, for a prisoner, in David Sabibi, “ Mazzil Nefashot,” Venice, 17438; by Moses Zacuto, the poor man’s devotion, in Nathan Benjamin of Gaza, “Hemdat ha-Yainim,” v. 29a, Leghorn, 1764; by David b. Hassin, “Tefillah le- Dawid,” bymns 4, 7, Amsterdam, 1807; by Abraham Danzig, “ Tefillah Zakkah,” on the eve of the Day of Atonement; Nahman Breslov, “ Likkute Tefillot,” Warsaw, 1873. Eliezer Papu’s “Bet Tefillah” (Hebrew and La- dino, Belgrade, 1860) includes the following prayers: by a learned man for those who support him; for a bar mizwah; for a matrimonial suitor; on the mar- riage day; at a circumcision; for a teacher; fora shohet; for a preacher to be able to deliver his sermons fluently and to please his audience. The prayers in a collection by Nahman of Horodek (“Likkutim,” Korzec, 1809), all beginning with the words “ Rab shel ‘Olam ” (Master of the World), are composed especially for Hasidim. A modern Hebrew hymnal, “Zimrat Yah,” by Moses Zele, Hamburg, 1857, intended to replace the old devotions, “ which tend to degrade us in the eyes of the non-Jewish world,” did not find recognition among the Jewish people, and is hardly known in devotional literature. In the Vernacular: For those who could not read Hebrew, devotional works were composed in the vernacular. In the geonic period the Aramaic was the substitute (see Ber. 3a, Tosef.). A few of the Aramaic devotions are still in use in the selihot, such as “ Rahmana Eddekar Lanu,” “ May the Merci- ful remember us of the covenant of Abraham, the be- loved,” ete.; and the soliloquy “Maran de-basha- maya,” “Our Master in heaven, to Thee we beg, even like a captive to his master. All captives are ransomed with money; but Thy people Israel, with mercy and supplication. O-grant us our request and prayer, and let us notreturn from Thy presence ID Vain.” Most of the vernacular devotions are in the Judeo- German dialect, beginning with the seventeenth cen- tury, and were written mostly by women to supply the religious needs of their sex on various occasions. The earliest, “ Tehinnot u-Bakkashot ” (Devotions and Petitions) was published at Basel in 1609 (Zedner, ‘Cat. Hebr. Books Brit. Mus.” p. 448). A German Pastor, Willemer of Gelnhausen, translated the “ Te- hinnah,” published at Amsterdam in 1650. The ‘Seder Tehinnot,” for week-days and holidays. pub- lished at Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1723, contains also prayers for removing the priests’ share of the dough (“hallah” ; p. 5); for baking the Sabbath cakes; for putting on Sabbath garments; before the im- mersion (“tebilah”); for the state of pregnancy, and before childbirth; fora rich woman seeking divine guidance in disposing of her fortune in good deeds (p. 12). Another tehinnah, of Sulzbach, 1738, in- cludes a petition for pious and scholarly children (p.17b). A“ Tehinnah for Jewish Women,” Vienna, 1838, for Sabbaths and holidays, includes a prayer to be recited on lighting the Sabbath candles, and a blessing on occasion of the approaching new moon. The tehinnot written in Yiddish are of late origin, and most of them have been published at Wilna from 1870 to date. The popular ones are: Yiddish (1) “Tehinnot Immahot” (The Matri- Tehinnot. archs—Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah), to be said during the month of Elul, composed by Seril, daughter of Jacob Dubno and wife of Mordecai Rapoport, Wilna, 1873, (2) “Tehinnot Sheloshah She‘arim” (Three Gates), by Sarah, daughter of Mordecai, former rabbi of Brest, Russia, for the following occasions: first gate, the pre- cepts of R"3n, abbreviation of “hallah,” “niddah,” “hadlukah,” for giving the priests’ share of the dough, for observing the period of menstruation, and for lighting the Sabbath candles; second gate, for blessing the coming new moon; third gate, for the Penitential Days (“ Yamim Nora’im”), The author’s account of herself on the title-page reads: “Ich, Soreh, bass tovim, tuhes dem lieben Gott, boruch-hu wegen,” etc. (I, Sarah, daughter of a good man, do this for the sake of the loving God, blessed be He) Wil- na, 1873). (3) “Tehinnot Sha‘are Teshubah” (Gates of Penitence), for the month of Elul, by Mrs. Shifra, daughter of Judah Leib, rabbi of Lublin, Wilna, 1875. (4) “Erez Yisrael” Tehinnah, Wilna, 1875, credited to Deborah, wife of R. Naphtali, formerly chief (nasi) of Palestine. In other editions it is called “The Jerusalem Tehinnot at the Wailing Wall.” The names of the authors are nearly all fictitious and high-sounding, and have been affixed in order to make the tehinnot salable. It is known that some of the tehinnot were written by indigent stu- dents of the Rabbinical Seminary of Wilna or Jito- mir (among others, Naphtali Maskil le-Ethon), and by Selekowitz, for nominal sums, and that the pub- lishers stipulated that the writers should fashion the composition in tearful and heart-rending phrases to suit the taste of the women readers. This forced cultivation of devotional feeling rendered the tehin- not exaggerated and over-colored, and this did not escape the criticism and ridicule of the men against the women who were such devotees of the tehinnot. The first attempt made to edit the tehinnot in a modern language was by Joshua Heshel Miro in his collection “Gebetbuch ftir Gebildete Frauen- zimmer Mosaischer Religion,” Breslau, 1833. This was in Hebrew characters; a later edition was trans- literated into German type by 8. Blogg. Letteris’ “Tahnune Bat Yehudah,” translated from the German into Dutch (“ Gebeden voor Israel- itische Vrouwen,” Amsterdam, 1853), was dedi- cated to Lady Judith Montefiore. 8. Baer published “Kol Bat Ziyyon” (The Voice of the Daughter of Zion), Rédelheim, 1856, prayers for every day in the Dew Diabetes THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 552 year and for all circumstances of life, for married and unmarried women. Devotions in Hungarian have been written by Immanuel Léw, M. Stern, and A. Kiss. A very popular compilation is that of Fanny Neuda (née Schmiedel), “Stunden der Andacht,” Briinn, 1859, for girls and young women. It was translated into English by M. Mayer and published by L. H. Frank, New York, 1866. The best-known compilations in English are Ascher, “Book of Life,” London, 1861; Bresslau, “Devotions for the Daughters of Israel,” 26. 1861; Cohen, “ Prayers for Family Use,” 2. 1884; Miss Montagu, “ Prayers for Jewish Working Girls”; Baroness L. D. Rothschild, “Prayers and Meditations,” 7. 1869; Alice Lucas, “The Jewish Year,” 2b. 1898, 1908; Gustav Gottheil, “Sun and Shield,” New York, 1898, taken chiefly from non-Jewish sources; Annie Josephine Levi, “Meditation of the Heart,” New York, 1900 (also drawn from non-Jewish sources), with introduction by Gustav Gottheil. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Michel Sachs, Religidse Poesie der Juden in Spanien, Appendix, Berlin, 1845 ; Leopold Dukes, Zur Kennt- qiss der Neuhebrdischen Religidsen Poesie. Appendix, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1842 ; Zunz, S. P. viii.; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, §8 19, 28, London, 1857; S. Sekles, Poetry of the Talmud, pp. 19-25, New York, 1880; Max Griinbaum, Jiid. Deutsche Chrest. pp. 328-335, Leipsic,1882; Nahida Remy. Gebet in Bibel und Talmud, Berlin, 1892, and English translation, New York, 1894; A. Sulzbach, Religidse und Weltliche Poesie der Juden, Berlin, 1893; Winter and Wiinsche, Die Jtid. Lit. p. 824, Treves, 1896; 8. Schechter, Studiesin Judaism, p. 323, Philadelphia, 1896 ; L. N. Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, ib. 1898; Leo Wie- ner, Hist. Yiddish Literature, xvi. 244-246, New York, 1899. J. D. E. K. DEW (51). —Biblical Data: Moisture con- densed from the atmosphere and gathered in small drops, specially upon the upper surface of plants. In Palestine dew “falls” in cloudless nights during the summer, and refreshes the vegetation, which withoutit wouldsuffer. The westerly winds sweep- ing across the sea in the Jate summer months deposit this moisture in the form of mist like fine spray upon the summer crops; hence, “the dew of Hermon that cometh down upon the mountains of Zion” (Ps. exxxiii. 2, Hebr.). Dew and rain are closely related to each other in Hebrew literature as sources of fer- tility and of regeneration of life (Micah v. 6 [7]). In the rainless season “the dew assuages the heat” (Ecclus. (Sirach] xviii. 16, xliii. 22); it is therefore as precious as rain (Gen. xxvii. 28; Deut. xxxiii. 18, 28; Zech. viii. 12), and the withholding of it, as of rain, is a curse (II Sam. i. 21; I Kings xvii. 1; Hag. i.10). The summer dew is so copious as to saturate the fleece of wool (Judges vi. 37 et seg.) or the hair of the wanderer (Cant. v. 2). Suddenly it falls (II Sam. xvii. 12), and gently (Deut. xxxii. 2; Prov. xix. 12); it lies all night (Job xxix. 19), and rises and disappears in the morning (Ex. xvi. 14; Hos. vi. 4). Dew as the vivifying power is used as a simile of God (Hos. xiv. 6 [5]); it also symbolizes freshness (Ps. cx. 3: “the dew of thy youth ”)and resurrection: “ A dew of herbs is thy dew, and the earth shall cast off the spirits of the dead” (Isa. xxvi. 19, Hebr.). ~——In Post-Biblical Literature: According to Enoch Ix. 20, “the spirit of the dew dwells at the ends of the heaven, close to the chambers of the rain, and its course is in winter and in summer.” Winds coming from the middle cf the twelve portals bring beneficial dew of prosperity; from other portals, hurtful dew accompanied by locusts and other calam- ities (Enoch Ixxvi. 8 et seg.). This is also in accord. ance with rabbinical tradition: “In the sixth heaven, Makon, there are treasuries of hurtful dews and of beneficial dewdrops ” (p*baN yy DP osby nvby: Hag. 12b). “Between Pesah and Shabu‘ot a prayer is offered that God may preserve the people from the hurtful dews ” (Lev. R. xxviii., with reference to Jer, v. 24). Thetwo loavesof bread offered on Shabu ‘ot are waved to and fro in symbolical petition to the Ruler of heaven and earth and of the four winds to keep off the unpropitious winds and dews (Suk. 37b; Lev. R. Z.c.). Only on account of Israel does dew come as q blessing upon the world: on account of Jacob, who studied the Torah, or for the sake of Job, whose doors were kept wide open for the needy (Gen. R, Ixvi.). “God promised Abraham under an oath never to let dew cease to bless his descendants, and therefore Elijah could not stop its fall by his words” (Yer. Ta‘an. i. 68d; compare Bab, 8a, b). Accord- ing to Samuel bar Nahmani, dew comes asa heavenly gift and by the merit of no man (Yer. Ta‘an. L.c.; Ber. v. 9b, after Micah vi. 6). On the other hand, the opinion is expressed that since the destruction of the Temple no dew of unmixed blessing falls (Sotah ix. 12), and this on account of the cessation of the heave-offering and the tithes (Shab. 32b). But the “dew of the Resurrection” is also stored up in ‘Arabot, the highest heaven (Hag. 12b). By this dew the dead are revived (Yer. Dew of Ber. v. 9b; Yer. Ta‘an. i. 68d, with the Resur- reference to Isa. xxvi. 19). In Hag. rection. 12b, Ps. Ixviii. 10 (9) is referred to: “Thou didst send a plentiful rain to revive thine inheritance” (Hebr.). This verse is construed to allude to an incident at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. “ When God appeared amidst the trembling of the earth on Sinai, life fled from the people of Israel and from all the living people in the land of Israel; and the angels said: ‘Dost Thou desire to give Thy Law unto the dead or unto the living?’ Then God dropped the dew of Resurrection upon all, and they revived.” Regard- ing the Prayer for Dew and the liturgical poetry of Kalir for the first day of Passover, which contains many allusions to the dew of Resurrection, see TAL, PRAYER FOR. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Cheyne and Black, Hncyc. Bibl. s.v. Dew. KE. G. H. K. DEW, THE PRAYER FOR. Sce TAL. DEZA, DIEGO DE: Second inquisitor-general; Bishop of Salamanca, and professor of theology at the university of that city; subsequently Arch- bishop of Seville, in which city he died 1506; friend and protector of Christopher Columbus. After Tomas de Torquemada’s death Deza was appointed inquisitor-general of all Spain (Sept. 1, 1499). While he held office, 1,664 persons were burned alive, and various penances and punishments were inflicted upon 52,456 persons. Deza was cf Jewish descent, and in spite of the cruelty with which he persecuted his kindred, the Maranos, he was, toward the end of his life, publicly accused of being a Jew at heart 553 He was buried in Seville Cathedral. Compare Ivx- QUISITION. M. K. D. DHU NUWAS, ZUR‘AH YUSUF IBN TUBAN AS‘AD ABI KARIB: Jewish King of Yemen, 515-525. According to the Arabian historians the name “Dhu Nuwas” was given him on account of his curly hair (Ibn Khaldun, “ Pro- legomena,” p. 311; Hamzah of Ispahan, “ Annals,” i. 183). Von Kremer connects the name with a for- tress “Nuwash” in southern Arabia (“Sitid-Arab. Sage,” p. 90); but the Arabic derivation is substan- tiated by the name “ Masruk,” given him in the Syriac translation of John Psaltes. In Greek sources he is known as Aovvady (acc.) or Aovvads (nom.); while the name }}3)}D38 found in John of Ephesus has been explained by Von Gutschmid as the Greek cov =u 'Ivdev. In Ethiopic accounts he is called “Phineas.” If the contradictory and sometimes legendary accounts of the personality of Dhu Nu- was given by the Arabian writers can be trusted, he was not a Jew by birth, but embraced Judaism after ascending the throne, taking the Name and nameof “Joseph.” Having killed the Religion. debauched usurper Khani‘ah Yanuf Dhu Shanatir, who endeavored to mal- treat him, Dhu Nuwas successfully propagated Ju- daism in Yemen. His zeal for Judaism brought about his fall. THav- ing heard of the persecutions of the Jews by the Byzantine emperors, he retaliated by putting to death some Byzantine merchants who were traveling on business through Himyara. This destroyed the trade of Yemen with Europe and involved Dhu Nuwas in a war with the heathen king Aidug, whose commercial interests were injured thereby. Dhu Nuwas was defeated (521), but succeeded in reestablishing his kingdom. Soon, however, he en- tangled himself in a new difficulty. He made war against the Christian city Najran, in Yemen, which was a dependency of his kingdom; and on its capitu- lation, in spite, itis said, of his promise of immunity from punishment, he offered the citizens the alterna- tive of embracing Judaism or being put todeath. As they refused to renounce their faith, he executed their chief, Harith (Aretas) ibn Kaleb, and three hun- dred and forty chosen men. This event caused a great stir among the Chris- tians; and the Roman empcror Justin I. requested the Negus Elezbaa of Ethiopia to march against the Jewish king. Ac- from cordingly an Ethiopian army crossed Abyssinia. the Red Sea to Yemen. Dhu Nuwas endeavored unsuccessfully to prevent its landing. The ensuing engagement terminated disastrously for Dhu Nuwas. His city of Zafora (Thafar), together with his queen and the treasure, fell into the hands of the enemy. Preferring death to capture, Dhu Nuwas rode into the sea and was rowned, The chief authority for these facts is the Syriac etter of Simeon of Bet-Arsham, which is found in the histories of John of Asia, Pseudo-Denys of Tel- Mahre, and Zacharias. the best edition of which is that of Guidi (“Reale Acad. dei Lincei,” 1881). Gritz. Pretorius (1870), George (1888), Halévy, and Attacked THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dew . Diabetes Pereira have thrown doubts upon the authenticity of the narrative, which has also found its way into the “Martyrium Arethe.” Halévy, especially, has tried to prove the apocryphal character of this let- ter, because of certain contradictions which it con- tains, and has endeavored to show that it was writ- ten at the time of Justinian and not of Justin. The consolatory epistle written in 519 to the Himyaritic Christians by Jacob of Serug (“Z. D. M. G.” xxxi. 402 et seg.) merely speaks of their persecution, and says nothing about the conversion of the king. John Psaltes, Abbot of Beth Afthonius(d. 538), wrote a Greek hymn, which was afterward translated into Syriac, in which he speaks of the persecutions, but does not in any way mention the Jews. Neither Cosmas Indicopleustes, who was at Adulis when the Christian King of Aksum, Elezbaa, was preparing his expedition against the Himyarites, nor Proco- pius, the historian of Justinian’s wars (d. 565), men- tions the events at all. L. Duchesne, while accept- ing Halévy’s criticism of the letter of Simeon, still holds to the historicity of the general facts, as do also Néldeke and Dillmann. Glaser (“Skizze,” p. 534) suspects that the stories told in regard to Dhu Nuwas’ cruelties are pure fictions. Mohammed knew the story (sura 85); it is mentioned in the celebrated South Arabian “ Kasidah ” (see the ed. of Von Kremer, p. 20, Leipsic, 1865), and by the Himyarite Naslwan ibn Sa‘id in his “Shams al- ‘Ulum” (D. H. Miiller, “Stid-Arab. Studien,” p. 8, Vienna, 1877). The unanimity of Arabian tradition, and the presence of Jews in Yemen as attested by | the Jewish inscriptions found there by Glaser, lead to the belief that the account of the Jewish king may be in the main historical, though the particu- lars regarding his cruelty toward the Christians are probably largely exaggerated. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Caussin de Perceval, Essai sur UV Hist. des Arabes, i. 118 et seq.; Tabari, Annales, ed. De Goeje, 1. 917 et seq.; Mas‘udi, Muruj al Dhahab, i. 129 et seq.; iii. 34, 156, 157, 175; iv. 240; Blau, in Z.D.M.G. xxv. 260, xxiii. 560: Prae- torius, in 1b. xxiv. 624; Mordtmann, in ib. xxxi. 66; Fell, in ib. xxxv. 1 et seq.: Kremer, Ueher die Stid-Arabische Sage, pp. 90, 127; F. M. Esteves Pereira, Hist. dos Martyres de Na- gran, Lisbon, 1899; Gritz, Gesch. v. 78-81: L. Duchesne, in Rev. Et. Juives, xx. 220 et seq.; Noldeke, Gesch. der Perser und Araber, pp. 174 et seq.; Duval, Lit. Syriaque, pp. 148 et seq.; Halévy, tn Rev. Et. Juives, xviii. 16 et seq., xxi. 220 et seq.: idem, in Rev. Sém. viii. 88 et seq. G. I. Br.—G. DIA, EL (= “ The Day”): Title of a Jewish peri- odical written in Judzo-Spanish and printed in rab- binical characters. It was published at Philippopo- lis, Bulgaria, from June, 1897 until 1900; in 1908 its publication was begun again at Sofia. G. M. Fr. DIABETES MELLITUS: A constitutional disorder of nutrition, characterized by the persistent elimination of grape-sugar in the urine. It is con- sidered to be a disease of the wealthier classes, and is more common in cities than in the country. Dr. Bertillon has demonstrated that the A Disease mortality from diabetes is higher in all of Civ- the wealthy districts. Persons of a ilization. nervous temperament are very often affected, and it is not uncommon to find a history of insanity, consumption, and gout among the relatives of diabetics. Sudden emo- tional excitement. grief, terror, worry, and anx- Diabetes THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 554 jety may each and all be followed so closely by diabetes that there is no room for doubt as to their having occasioned it. It is well known as a result of commercial disaster. “When stocks fall, dia- betes rises in Wall Street,” says Dr. Kleen. It has also been noticed that engine-drivers are especially subject to this disease; this fact is presumably due to the excessively anxious nature of their occupa- tion. Diabetes is met with, in varying degrees of fre- quency, in every country. It is stated to be ex- tremely common among the educated classes of na- tives in India and Ceylon. The disease is almost unknown among the Chinese, the Japanese, and the negroes of Africa; but many cases have been ob- served among negroes in the United States. Many competent and reliable observers show that diabetes is more common among the Jews than among any other European races; and statistics prove conclu- sively that the disease occurs among Jews from two to six times as frequently as it does among non- Jews, as can be seen from an examination of the fol- lowing tables: Percentage of Deaths Due to Diabetes. Locality. Period, Authority. Gen- JEG: tiles. | ( Wallach, in * Med. Frankfort-on- | Wochenschrift,”’ 1876-80; 1.9 0.4 4 the-Main. { | | 1893, p. 779. | Se oe aa Save! aS a > Observer. eh re = Authority, S ao | Ss 2o5 A | v ee | Z, ¥. T. Frerich.} 400 | 103 25 |‘* Ueber den Diabetes,” p. 185, | Berlin, 1884. BS iinS304'e0 692 a 17,8) ** Klinische Erfahrungen iiber Diabetes Mellitus,” pp. 2, 3, Jena, 1899. | \ “* Die Zuckerkrankheit und 3 Ihre Behandlung,” p. 44, | Carly. Noor-! | 650 g den ) |) B28 ( Berlin, 1901. Other observers have given statistics showing that the German Jews are more liable to diabetes than non-Jews. On the other hand, these statistics have been objected to as valueless, because most of them relate to German bathing-resorts and sanita- riums, where well-to-do patients from every country are apt to flock for rehef. It is further shown that Jews are attracted to these resorts in relatively greater numbers than other races, because they more often seek relief of celebrated physicians and specialists. Thus, Dr. Arnold Pollatschek (“Zur Aetiologie des Diabetes Mellitus,” in “ Zeitschrift fiir Klinische Medizin.” xxxii. 478-482, Berlin, 1901) shows that in the course of ten vears (1891-1900) he treated 4,719 persons, of whom 2,381 were Christians, 2,333 Jews, and 5 Mohammedans. Of these patients 653 suffered from diabetes—289 Christians and 864 Jews. Of his entire clientele 13.8 per cent were dia- betics, and there were 124 diabetic Christians per 1,000, as against 155 per 1,000 of Jewish origin. The slight relative excess of the Jewish diabetics is, ac- cording to Pollatschek, only apparent. He believes that the circumstance that Jews apply oftener than Christians to the sanitariums for treatment is due to their greater wealth, and that, consequently, as q bath physician in Carlsbad, he saw more patients of Jewish origin. He finally draws attention to the fact that the mortality from diabetes in England ig quite high, although there are comparatively few Jews there, and claims that it is questionable whether Thomas, Willis, Dobson, and Rollo, who first ob- served and described diabetes, had Jewish materia] for their researches. Both of these views—(1) that the Jews suffer more frequently from diabetes than other races, and (2) that they are not more often affected—are probably well founded. It is only a question of the nativity of the Jews: the Jews in Germany, for example, are decidedly more diabetic than those in Russia, Eng- land, and France; and the difference of opinion among physicians of experience is simply due to the fact that they usually neglect to consider the ques- tion of the nativity of the Jews under consideration. In the United States, where Jews arrive from vari- ous countries, diabetes is found to be extremely frequent among the German and Hungarian Jews; while among the Russian Jews it is certainly no more—perhaps it is even less—frequent than among other races. Dr, Heinrich Stern (“ The Mortality from Diabetes Mellitus in the City of New York During 1899,” in “The Medical Record,” lviii. 766-774), who has carefully analyzed the death-certificates of diabetics in New York, has found that of 202 deaths due to diabetes 54 were those of Jews, or over 25 per cent; of these, 21 were males and 33 females. New York city (Manhattan and the Bronx) in 1900 had a pop- ulation of over 2,050,000, of which the Jews con- stituted 20 per cent. This would indicate that in these boroughs there were over 400,000 Jews, and 1,650,000 non-Jews. The following table shows the relative death-rate from diabetesin New York (Man- hattan and Bronx) in 1899: | Number of | Death-Rate Population : 3 : Deaths Due! of Diabetes Race. aera Of | te Diabetes| per 100,000 oy (1899). Population. All races......... 2,050,000 202 9,85 Non-Jews (80 per Cent) ..ccccceees 1,650,000 148 8.95 Jews (20 per cent). 400,000 54 13.50 From this table it is evident that the mortality from diabetes of the Jews in New York is relatively more than double that of the rest of the population of the city. The morbidity of New York Jews from this dis ease has been investigated by Dr. Julius Rudisch (“Mount Sinai Hospital Report,” 1898-99, pp. 26- 29): and the following table gives his statistics of the cases of diabetes which were treated in Mount §55 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Diabetes Sinai Hospital during the years 1890-1900, compared with those of four other New York hospitals for the same period: Su | a | we |S.) 3 Es S| 2 Race. Sex. Hospital. | 5S | $2) 3 | Ze | 2a | ae | 4] ° Se |e 5 | Gen- raen Z |Jews. | Hog | Males. | Females. Mt. Sinai..| 29,166| 0021! 62| 52 | 10 | 43 19 Lebanon...| 3,953 | .0027 | 11 | 10 if 4 eA German...| 24,811 | .0023 | 59 | 19 4() 45 14 New York.| 50,429 | .0005 ! 3 25 20 8 Roosevelt..| 28,402 O04 | 36 2 34 25 11 Total....| 136,761 196 86 | 110 | 187 59 It will be seen that the total number of cases treated in the five hospitals in question during the ten years mentioned amounted to 136,767, of which 196 were diabetics, or 1 diabetic to 697 general cases. “Tf weassume,” says Rudisch, “that upon the basis of population [of New York city] 15 per cent of the total number of patients were Jews, we find that 20,500 were treated. The whole number of dia- betics was 196, and of these 86 were Hebrews—a matter of 43 percent. If we now assume 20,500 as the total number of Jewish patients, we find that diabetes is nearly three times as prevalent among Hebrews as among any other race or creed.” It has been observed by many clinicians that the Jews bear diabetes better than other Jews races; thus, Van Noorden (/.c. p. 176) Endure _ states that it is remarkable how some Diabetes patients will endure glycosuria for Better than years without much discomfort, suc- Others. cumbing at last—perhaps after decades —to what is supposed to be heart-fail- ure, This peculiar type of diabetes, and this remark- able endurance by the human body of the anomalous metabolism of diabetes, are more frequently met with among women than among men, and almost exclu- sively among Jews. Dr. Stern has pointed out another peculiarity ; viz., that Jews dying of diabetes succumb through coma more frequently than non-Jews. Thus, while the ratio of fatal coma cases occurring in New York city in 1899 to the total mortality from dia- betes was as 60 to 202, or 29 per cent, coma occurred in 43 per cent of the cases of diabetes among Jews. It has also been shown that diabetes is nota racial disease of the Jews. Sée has observed that it is no more frequent among the Jews in Not France than among the rest of the pop- a Racial ulation ofthatcountry. Rudisch says Disease. that while the total number of patients admitted into the Mount Sinai Hospi- talin New York is three times as large as that of patients who are natives of Germany, the striking feature is that the diabetic patients among the latter outnumber in the proportion of 6 to 1 those among the patients who are Russians. He attributes this to the circumstance that the Russo-Jewish patients Of the hospital belong to the poorer laboring classes and are insufficiently nourished, whereas the major- ity of the German Jews represent the better classes of workmen as well as persons engaged in mercantile and professional pursuits. The same fact is evidenced in the “ Report on Vital Statistics of New York City” of the Eleventh Cen- sus, Wherein the deaths for the six years ending May 31, 1890, are recorded. During the period in question the average mortality from diabetes per 100,000 population is seen to be as follows: S z 2 = = Se 22 = © moo: mL 3 oS &s fE=¢ BS S£=¢ = ra a) —_— a4 = om iH = = wa ee = om ~ Oo oo oe,s De oe aS oe oS 5 oF = 2 > © = OD Do =O ae Sica ont D fans} — Va ee oaos + ol OAS ms ar > a ia—d >— eR Zz, & << $= Zz o , 4; confirmed in 428 [20. 5}); but even this provision was modified in 489 to exile and confiscation (“Cod. Just.” i. 9, 16). In the same manner that the legislation opposed all expansion of the Jewish religion, it encour- aged, and no less energetically, the conversion of the Jews to Christianity. The Church, however, had no right to receive such apostates as desired, in invoking its right of asylum, simply to escape the payment of their debts (“ Cod. Theod.” ix. 45, 2 [in 397]). In the first place, of course, the newly con- verted were protected with the whole rigor of the law against the malice and cruelty of their former coreligionists (“Const. Sirm.” 4; “Cod. Theod.” xvi. 8,1; “Cod. Just.” i. 9, 8; this constitution, the date of which as handed down [815] is certainly false, threatens delinquents with the penalty of being burned alive). Still worse, the converted Jewish child could not be disinherited by its parents, nor even be curtailed in its portion; while a provi- sion singularly odious was added, viz., the fourth part of the residue was assured to it, even though it might have been convicted of a capital crime Diathesis Dibon against the “de cujus”; without prejudice, how- ever, to the legal penalties (" Cod. Theod.” xvi. 8, 28 [in 426]). By means of these measures and others of the same kind, confirmed by the novelle of Justinian (45 and 146), it became possible, if not to induce numerous conversions (compare Procopius, “De Aid.” vi. 2), at all events to check definitively the spread of Juda- ism; to pen it up, both physically and morally, within the confines of Christian society ; and, finally, to stamp upon it the seal of humiliation and terror which it was to bear, as a token of infamy, through- out the Middle Ages. The legislation of the coun- cils that inspired most of the medieval laws concern- ing the Jews was but a reflection of the legislation of the Christian emperors. Jn Constantinople (Leo vi., “Constit.” 55 [between 886 and 911]), as well as in the greater part of the Occidental states, such an at- titude could not but bring about, sooner or later, a complete proscription of Judaism and its followers. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Zorn, Historia Fiset Tudaici, 1734; Wesse- ling, Diatribe de Judworum Archontibus, Utrecht, 1738 3 Fischer, De Statu et Jurisdictione Judworum, Argentor, 1763; Levysch, De Judaworum sub Coesaribus Condit., et de Legibus Hos Spectantibus, Leyden, 1828; Ch. Giraud, EssaisurV Hist. du Droit Frang. au Moyen Age, 1846, pp. 1, 328 et seq.; Frankel, Die Diaspora zur Zeit des 2ten Tem- pels, in Monatsschrift, 1853; idem, Die Fuden Unter dei Ersten Rom. Kaiseri, ib. 1854; Goldschmidt, De Judcworum apud Romanos Condicione, Halle, 1866; Friedlander, De Jud. Colontis, Regimont. 1876; idem, Sittengeschichte Roms, 6th ed., iii. 609-628; Schiirer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden i Rom, Leipsic, 1879; idem, Gesch. des Jiid. Volkes, 8d ed.; Hild, Les Juifs a Rome Devant VOpinion Ro- maine, in Rev. tudes Juives, viii., ix.; Manfrin, Gli Ebrei Sotto la Dominaz. Rom., 4 vols.; Th. Reinach, Textes a’ Auteurs Grecs et Romains, 1895; Willrich, Juden und Griechen, Gottingen, 1895; Alf. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Isr. zu den Fremden, Freiburg, 1896; the histories of Jost, Herzfeld, Ewald, S. Cassel, Gratz, Renan, and Wellhausen ; Renan, Les Apodtres, pp. 289 et seq.; Mommsen, Rém. Gesch. v.; idem, in Hist. Zeitschrift, 1890; Godefroy’s Com- mentaries on the Justinian Code; Berliner, Gesch. der Ju- denin Rom, 1893; Vogelstein and Rieger, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, 1895. G. T. R. DIATHESIS: A predisposition to certain forms of disease. It has been observed by physicians at all times that some races are more prone to be affected by certain diseases than are other races. These peculiar tendencies have sometimes been Que to somatic characteristics, and in such cases the dis- eases are designated as “racial.” But in the major- ity of cases these diatheses are due to certain habits of life, diet, or environment, or to social causes; and the diseases which result from the diatheses can not be called “ racial,” because when the social conditions are changed the liability to the disease disappears. The nervous diathesis has been universally ob- served by medical men to be peculiar to the Jews. Some physicians have even gone so far as to state that the majority of Jews are hysterical or neuras- thenic—neuropathics or psychopathics. How far thisis true will be found in the articles on INsanttry and Nervovs DIsEAsEs. French writers like Charcot, Lancereaux, and Féré have said that rheumatic and gouty diathe- sis is more wide-spread among Jews than among any other European race. The groups of diseases recognized by the French under the names “arthri- tism” and “herpetism ” are by some writers said to be commonamong the Jews. By “arthritism” they understand a certain group of diseases, usually due THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 574 ny ee et ap es to disturbances of the normal metabolism, which manifest themselves primarily as chronic rheumg. tism and gout, but which also include other morbig processes, such as diabetes, gall-stones, stone in the kidneys, obesity, and some diseases of the skin. By “herpetism” is understood a group of diseases which manifest themselves in various forms of vago. motor disturbances, as some skin-eruptions, ney. ralgia, migraine, gastralgia, and nervous dyspepsia; various forms of trophoneurosis, pulmonary emphy. sema, and arteriosclerosis, with their sequels, &po- plexy, softening of the brain, paralysis, etc. These disease conditions are not so prevalent among the Jews as some French physicians assert. Some, as the functional neuroses, are actually very wide-spread among them; others, such as arterio. sclerosis, apoplexy, etc., are no more common among Jews than among other civilized races. The dis. eases which are most often met with among Jews are not racial in the full sense of the word. In the majority of cases they are due to their mode of life, to the fact that Jews are almost exclusively town. dwellers, and to the anxieties of their occupations, See APOPLEXY; EPILEPsy; INSANITY; NERVots Diseases; MEDICINE, BIBLIOGRAPHY: Discussion on the pathology of the Jews be. fore the Paris Academy of Medicine, in Bulletin de V Acadé. mie de Médecine, Sept, 8, 1891; Maurice Fishberg, The Com. parative Pathology of the Jews, in New York Medical Journal, March 80 and April 6, 1901. J. M. Ft, DIAZ (DIAS) DE SORIA: A family of Bor- deaux which derived its name from the Spanish town Soria. There is nothing to definitely warrant the belief, held by Féret, that this family went to France as early as 1492. It is found for the first time, with the full patronymic “ Dias de Soria,” in 1756; although there were bearers of the name “ Dias” and others of the name “ Soria” in France long before. The family Diaz de Soria enjoysa great reputation, especially for the musicians it has produced. Jacob de Soria: Born at Bordeaux April 2%, 1762; died there Jan. 17, 1881. He was the leader of the choir of the synagogue in that place. He was also a captain of infantry, a rank witli which he retired after serving in forty-four campaigns, es- pecially in that of Saint Dominique, and receiving four wounds on various battle-fields. His two grandsons, Jacob-Frédéric and Julius, both born at Bordeaux, the former Feb. 18, 1841, the latter April 28, 1843, are well known as singers and musicians. Gounod composed several pieces for Julius. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Edouard Féret, Statistique de la Gironde, ill. 579-580; Archiv. Municip. Bordeaux, G. G. 800 bis, part il. p. 82; Alexis Azevedo, Impressions aun Vieux Dilettante: J. Diaz de Soria, Paris, 1874 (?). G. C. DE B. DIBBUKIM : Transmnigrated souls. “ Dibbuk” (lit. “something that cleaves unto something else ”) is a colloquial equivalent, common among the supe! stitious Jews in eastern European countries, for a mb grant soul, It represents the latest. phase in the de- velopment of the belief in the transmigration 0 souls; namely, that the soul of a man who has live a wicked life will enter the body of a living person and refuse to leave it. The exorciser, in such a case a “ba‘al shem,” or a wonder-working rabbi, is alone 575 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Diathesis Dibon able to cast out this evil spirit, which usually goes out through the small toe, where a little orifice from which blood oozes marks the exact point of its exit. Full descriptions of such successful acts of exorcism, where, however, the dibbuk isstill called by its older pame “ruah,” are given in Manasseh b. Israel’s + Nishmat Hayyim ” (part iii., ch, 14; partiv., ch. 20). Another detailed description of a similar incident jis reproduced in “Ha-Shahar” (vi. 459, 697) from Moses Prager’s (Graf) “ Zera‘ Kodesh ” (Firth, 1696), and is curious from the fact that R. David Oppen- heim, the celebrated book-collector, who was then rabbi of Nikolsburg, Moravia, is one of the signa- tories to the narrative. The first who wrote of the dibbuk under that name in modern Hebrew literature was P. Ruder- man, but his * Ha-Dibbuk,” of which the German title is “ Cebersicht tiber die Idee der Seelenwande- rung” (Warsaw, 1878), is of little value. The most interesting part of the book is the description of one of the dibbukim, which, according to his state- ment, were very common in Poland in those days. Jt proves that the manifestations of the dibbuk, and the belief in the power of practical cabalists to exor- cise it, have undergone little change in the two cen- turies which have elapsed since the Nikolsburg in- cident referred to above. Dr. S. Rubin, in his “Gilgul Neshamot,” the German title of which is “Die Metempsychose in Mythus und Kultur Aller Volker ” (Cracow, 1898), points out the connection be- tween the ancient belicfin the transmigration of souls and in possession by evil spirits, and that in the dib- bukim of modern times. He says at the end of his work (p. 29) that the belief in the wanderings of the soul “has come down to our time among the zad- dikim and saints of the Hasidim, who cast out ‘gil- golim’ and ‘dibbukim’ from insane people.” See Exorcism; METEMPSYCHOSIS. A. P. Wr. DIBLAH: According tothe Masorah and Septua- gint, which the R. V. follows, “ Diblah” is the name ofa place mentioned in Ezek, vi. 14. No place of this name corresponding with the requirements of the passage is known. J. D. Michaelis conjectured that it was a misreading for “Riblah,” since in Jer. lii. 10 the Septuagint has the same misreading, though the Masorah is there correct. See RIBLAH. E.G. H. G. A. B. DIBON (fas): 1. A very ancient town, situated from three to five miles (Baedeker, “Palestine,” p. 193) north of the River Arnon (Tristram, “The Land of Moab,” pp. 182 e¢ seqg.). The true pronunciation seems to be “Daibon” (according to the Greek transliterations, Aa:8wv, A7yfov; see Dilimann, on Num. xxi. 80, and Mayer, “ Z. A. T, W.” i. 128, note 2). It is the modern Diban, where in 1868 the Mesha Inscription was found, upon which the name of the town itself occurs (lines 21, 28). It is from Dibon that King Mesha derives his epithet 32"9n (“the Dibonite”; Meshba Inscription, line 1). The town, originally under the dominion of Moab, was conquered by Sihon. king of the Amorites (Num. xxi. 27-30). but then wrested from his con- ttol by the Israelites. Tt appears to have been forti- fied by Gad (Num. xxxii. 8, 34); hence its descrip- tion as * Dibon-gad” in Num, xxxiii. 45, 46, though it is possible that the second part of this compound refers to a local deity only, It was assigned to Reuben (Josh. xii. 9,17). In the tenth pre-Chris- tian century it is again found under Moabite domi- nation, and as the residence of King Mesha. Accord- ing to his inscription the Moabites called it “ Karha,” meaning a bald (untimbered) plateau. This was x fis NN Ht iif | \ \ itt M\ Mepslifece PAA > hye) ri wie ay re TT - A Ne RENN 7 RSS mt TIFT, id sx Be - =z = Ait: A \\ cNew Quarter of| a Open Squares Ly Lenn my House CeeE ea ° BAgut NWA ed King’s Garden ? Ai ff \ Sit SS age iy, == Q (ud rN Plan of Ancient Dibon. (After Schick, in ‘¢ Zeit, Deut. Pal. Ver.’’) due to the fact that the town occupied two ele- vations; the higher one, this Karha, had been sur- rounded by a wall, and constituted the “new city,” containing a water reservoir and many cisterns, as well as the royal palace and a “height” (“ bamah”) for the god Chemosh. In Isaiah’s prophecies (Isa. xv. 2) it is menaced as a Moabitish city before other towns, the writer playing upon the name “ Dibon” (=“ Dimon,” from “dam”=blood; Isa. xv. 9; “Madmen” in Jer. xlviii. 2 is a variant, if not a cor- | ruption) to predict its bloody fate. Dillmann, Duhm, and others reject the identification. Cheyne makes “Dimon ” a corruption of “ Nimrim ” (compare “ Zeit- schrift des Deutsch. Palastina Vereins,” ii. 8). Euse- bius callsita “large market-place ” (“ Onomasticon,” 249, 43): but it isnot mentioned by later medieval writers. Even now fragments of columns and orna- ments strewn about witness to the town’s former importance. 2. A settlement of returning exiles in the Negeb (the South), in the tribal territory of Judah (Neh. xi. 25), inall likelihood identical with “ Dimonah ” in Josh. xv, 22, and represented by the modern Al-Dib (or Al-Dhaib; according to Robinson, Al-Daib; see Buhl. “Geographie des Alten Palistina,” p. 182). K. E. G. H. Dice THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dictionaries DICE. See GAMBLING. DICK, ISAAC MAYER: Russian Hebraist and novelist; born in Wilna 1808 (of the various dates the one given by “ Aliasaf” is probably most nearly correct); died there Jan. 24, 18938. His father, who was a hazzan, gave him the usual] Talmudical educa- tion, and he was also instructed in the Bible and He- brew. He married when very young, and while living with his wife’s parents in Nishvezh, near Wilna, became acquainted with a Catholic priest who clandestinely taught him the German language. He also acquired a knowledge of Russian and Polish, and on his return to Wilna acted as private teacher of Hebrew and German, having for one of his pu- pils Mattathias Strashun, who remained his lifelong friend. In 1841 Dick became teacher of Hebrew in the newly founded government school for Jewish boys in Wilna. The visit of Sir Moses Montefiore to Wilna in 1846 was the occasion of a great outburst of Jiterary pro- ductions in his honor, Dick described the visit in “ Ha-Oreah” (The Guest), published at Kénigsberg 1860. He was one of the founders and for many years the “shammash” of the Synagogue Tohorat ha-Kodesh, modeled after the Shohare ha-Tob of Berlin of Mendelssohn’s time, and known in Wilna as “ Berliner Schul,” because it dared introduce some slight reforms in accordance with the ideas of the Mendelssohnian “maskilim,” who were called “ Ber- liner.” He was interested in the uplifting of the Jews of Russia by various means, and corresponded on that subject with Count Ouvaroff, minister of education under Nicholas [. Dick declared himself in favor of enforcing the ordinance compelling the Jews of Lithuania to dress in German or European fashiou, though in his own dress and manners he re- mained an old-style Jew to the last, believing that he could thus do more good than if he broke with old associations and boldly joined the new generation. Dick was a most pleasant conversationalist, his fame as a wit spreading far outside of Wilna, and innumerable bumorous anecdotes being told in his name and about him to this day. In later years he was employed by the publishing house of Rom» at a small weekly salary to write Yiddish stories; and his productions of that nature, of various sizes, are said to number nearly three hundred. In the cha- otic condition of the Yiddish publishing trade in Russia, even an approach toa bibliography of works of that nature is an absolute impossibility. In his old age Dick lived comfortably, and was one of the most respected and popular men in the community. In addition to that mentioned above, Dick wrote three Hebrew works: “ Mahazch Mul Mahazeh,” a4 Purim story (Warsaw, 1861); “Siprono,” a descrip- tion of Jewish life in small cities (Wilna, 1868); and “ Masseket ‘Anivyut ” (Tractate Poverty), considered one of the best Talmudical parodies ever written, But his fame rests on his Yiddish novels, a field in which he was the first professional and the founder ofaschool. As he himsclf asserted many times. he wrote only for the purpose of spreading knowledge and morality among his readers, and In many cases he permitted this purpose to overshadow the story, Most of the modern critics condemn his style: his constant use of High-German words, explained, often 576 wrongly, In parenthesis: his quotations from the Talmud and Midrashim with his own commentaries retarding the flow of the narrative; and his pausing at a dialogue or other interesting point to insert a Jong sermon on the moral lesson to be drawn from incidents described in the story. But in spite of aj} verbosity and deviation, Dick was an excellent story- teller, having a power of description, an insight into human character, and a sympathetic humor which are given tofew. His longer works are chiefly trans. lations, and are the least worthy of his writings; but among the shorter ones are many original stories, some of which, if divested of superfluous matter, could well bear an English translation. “ Der Yiq.- discher Posliannik” (The Jewish Ambassador), Wilna, 1880; “Note Ganaf” (Life of Nathan the Thief), 76. 1887; and “ Die Schiéne Minka,” 2d, 1886, have considerable merit; while some of his charac. ters, such as “Shemaya Gut Yom-Tob Bitter” (the holiday visitor), “ Chaitzikel Allein,” or “ Der Moi- ziter Bachur,” rank among the best efforts of the present Yiddish writers. : BIBLIOGRAPHY: Obituaries in Ha-Asif and Ahiasaf, Warsaw, 1894; Wiener, History of Yiddish Literature, pp. 169-172, New York, 1899; Zolotkoff, in Stadt-Anzeiger, Oct. 15, 1893; Ha-Shahar, v. 349 et seq.: Hausfreund, 1894, vol. iii.: Win. ter and Wilnsche, Die Jlicdische Litteratur, pp. 585-608. H.R. P. Wt. DICK, LEOPOLD: German artist and professor of engraving; born 1817; died June 23, 1854. He studied art at the Royal Academy of Munich, and became well known through his lithographic illus- trations of the Old Testament after Raphael. In 1848 he was appointed professor of the art of en- graving at the Royal District Industrial School of Kaiserslautern in the Palatinate. He taught with great success, and was highly spoken of by the board of examiners in their annual reports. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Allg. Zeit. des Jud, 1854, p. 376, S, A. R. DICKENS, CHARLES: English novelist; born Feb. 7, 1812, at 387 Mile End Terrace, Com- mercial Road, Landport, Portsea; died June 9, 1870, at Gadshill, near Rochester, Kent. Dickens is of interest to the Jewish world principally through two of his novels: “Oliver Twist” (Jan., 1887 to March, 1839) and “Our Mutual Friend ” (May, 1864 to Nov., 1865). These two works are characterized by a de- cided difference in the attitude of Dickens toward Jews. Few Jews in fiction are blacker and more repugnant in body and soul than Fagin, the thief, the coward, the all but murderer, and few bits of descriptive writing are more graphic than the nar- ration of Faugin’s last night on earth and his well- deserved punishment. Yet the name was derive froma Christian friend of Dickens’ youth, the whole character from a well-known Christian “fence” ° the period. Fagin became the generally accepted type of thé Jew; and “Oliver Twist ” was considered as a direct hit at the Jew. Dickens evidently realized ts either through criticism or from personal contact with the real Jew; for when next he made use of @ Hebrew in fiction, he drew Riahk in “Our Mutua Friend,” a character at the other extreme—almost 577 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dice : Dictionaries ee Se ee ee rt jmpossibly, certainly improbably, good. In beth «Oliver Twist” and “Our Mutual Friend ” Dickens displays a lack of knowledge of the real characteris- tics of Jews. BIBLIOGRAPHY: David Philipson, The Jew in English Fic- tion, pp. 88-102, Cincinnati, 1889. : J. E. Ms. DICTIONARIES, BIBLE: Collections of arti- cles in alphabetical order treating of the various biographical, archeological, geographical, and other subjects of the Bible. Up to within quite recent times Jews have taken very little part in such work. The earliest attempt at anything like a Bible dic- tionary is the work of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (d. 340), on the geographical names mentioned in the Old and New Testaments, entitled Hep? trav Tomcxéy ‘OvouaTov Tav év Ty Ocia Tpady (ed. Lagarde, in “ Ono- mastica Sacra,” 2d ed., 1887; republished by Klo- stermann in “Texte und Uchersetz.” viii. 2). To this must be added the “ Onomasticon” of Biblical proper names in Greek, also published by Lagarde. Jerome’s “ Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nomi- num” and “De Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebra- icorum Liber” (ed. Lagarde, ?.c.) are based cn the work of Eusebius. The work of the Spanish priest Arias Montanus, entitled “Communes et Familiares Hebraice Lingue,” etc. (Antwerp, 1572), contains a large amount of material which, if put in alphabet- ical sequence, might have made a Biblical dictionary. Even the interest aroused in the Bible by the Refor- mation and the Humanist development (see Human- ists) was largely philological in character; but the works of learned French, Dutch, and English Orien- talists had brought outa large amount of material dealing with the social life of the Israelites, and the travels of some of them had increased the interest in the East as the best aid to an exposition of Biblical times. The first successful attempt to compile a dic- tionary of the Bible was made by the polyhistor and Protestant theologian Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588- 1688), who wrote a universal encyclopedia and a “Triumphus Bibliorum Sacrorum seu Encyclopedia Biblica,” Frankfort, 1625. Not many years later P. Ravenilli published his “ Bibliotheca Sacra seu The- saurus Scripturz Canouice ” (Geneva, 1650; 2d ed., 1660), which is in the proper form of a dictionary. This work might rather be called a dictionary to the Vulgate, just as the extract made of it in English, “A Complete Christian Dictionary of the O. and N. Test.,” by Thomas Wilson, John Bagwell, and An- drew Simon (London, 1661), is rather a concordance to the English Bible. In 1693 J. Simon published at Lyons a “Dictionarium Biblicum,” which was Teprinted several times, the last in 1717. Simon, however, was ignorant of Hebrew, and it was for the purpose of correcting the many mistakes in his dictionary that the epoch-making Calmet’s work of Augustin Calmet, “ La Sainte ictionary. Bible en Latin et en Francois avec un Commentaire Littéral et Critique ” (23 vols., Paris, 1707), was published. Sce CALMET, Aveusrin, Calmet’s dictionary, translated into English by Oyley and Colson (1782), was republished with Many additions by Charies Taylor (London, 1793), but with the omission of all the rabbinic and Cath- IV .—87 olic material; and it reached an eighth edition in 1841. Inacondensed form it was edited by Edward Robinson (7th ed., Boston, Mass., 1832-35). Calmet’s dictionary was incorporated in the series of theo- logical encyclopedias edited by Abbé Migne; and not only the text, but the illustrations also have served until quite recently to illustrate books dealing with the Bible or with the Jews. Upon Calmet is based also Daniel Schneider’s “ Allg. Bibl. Lexikon” (8 vols., Frankfort, 1728-31), containing much material from Geiers, Carpzov, Buxtorf, Bo- chart, Lightfoot, Selden, and Vitringa. Though very diffuse, this represents the first German attempt at a Bible dictionary, some of the articles being of special Jewish interest; ¢.g., “Falsche Messias,” “Falsche Christen,” and “Gebot,” in which last Schneider has added an incomplete list in German of the 6138 commandments. W.F. Hezel’s “ Bibl. Real- lexikon” (8 vols., Leipsic, 1783-85) also depends upon Calmet. The rise of the critical school, especially as repre- sented at Halle by the two Michaelis, Semler, Eich- horn, etc., finds its expression in the “ Biblische Ency- clopidie,” published at Gotha (1793-98) by a company of learned scholars, which work, however, was never finished. The Gotha encyclopedia was completely overshadowed by G. B. Winer’s “Biblisches Real- worterbuch” (2 vols., Leipsic, 1820, 1883, 1847), which has remained a standard work almost down to the present day. A number of popular presenta- tions appeared in Germany during the first half of the nineteenth century; for example: 1829. Worlein.—Encyk. Worterbuch der Bibl. Grund-Realien. Nuremberg. 1836. Allgem. Worterb. der Heil. Schrift. (Catholic). Regens- burg. 1837. Gemmerli and Léhn.—Encyk. der Bibelkunde. Leipsic. 1846-50. Von Hoffmann and Redslob.—Allg. Volksbibellexikon. Ib. 1849. F. C. Oetinger.—Bibl. Worterb. Stuttgart. 1856. H. Zeller.—Bibl. Worterb. 2d ed. 1866; 3d ed. 1884. (purely theological). The last-named was a protest against the rational- ism of Winer and of Redslob (who followed Vatke’s Biblical criticism). It was, however, fast becoming apparent that no more than an encyclopedia, could a real Bible dictionary be compiled by one man. The “ Real-Encyklopiidie ftir Protestantische Theo- logie und Kirche,” edited by Herzog and a number of leading German scholars (Stuttgart, 1852-62; 2d ed., by Herzog and Plitt, 1877-88; 3d ed., by A. Hauck, 1896 et seg.), while not strictly a Bible dictionary, con- tains many valuable articles dealing with Biblical subjects and personages. Germany has, in modern times, published two Bible diction- aries in condensed form; namely, those of Schenkel aud C. A. Riehm. Schenkel’s “Bibel-Lexikon” (5 vols., 1869-75) was written in large part by Diestel, Dillmann, Hitzig, Holtzman, Merx, Noldeke, Graf, Reuss, and Schrader. It omits subjects which are of minor importance. Riehm was assisted in his “Handworterb. des Bibl. Alterthums” (2 vols., 1874) by Beischlag, Delitzsch, Ebers, Diestel, Kautzsch, Schrader, and others (2d ed., by F. Baethgen, 1894). Of other and more popular dictionaries published in Germany may be cited the following: Johann Herzog. Dictionaries THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 578 a SS SS pe ee eT Te ee a eS 1714. Ad. Rechenberg.—Hierolexicon Reale Collectum. 2 vols. Leipsic and Frankfort. 1776, J. A. Dalmasius.—Dict. Manuale Biblicum. burg. 1793-96. G. L. Gebhardt,—Bibl. Worterb. 3 vols. Lemgo. 1820-27. C. G. Haupt.—Bibl. Real und Verbal Encyk. 3 vols. Quedlinburg. 1828. C. A. Wahl.—Bibl. Handworterb. 2 vols. Leipsic. 1837. C. L. Walbrectt.—Bibl. Worterb. Gottingen. 1842. A. C. Hoffmann.—Allgem. Volksbibellexikon. Leipsic. 1866. H. Besser.—Bibl. Worterb. Gotha. The first to break away from Calmet in England was John Kitto, He recast the whole work, being assisted by such scholars as Hiavernick, Tholuck, Reginald Stuart Poole, and William Wright, and published “A Cyclopedia of Biblical John Kitto. Literature” (Edinburgh, 1848-45; 2d ed. by Burgess), The whole was re- written for the third edition by William Lindsay Alexander (Philadelphia, 1865), with especial ref- erence to the religion, literature, and archeology of the Hebrews. For the first time the scope of such dictionaries was enlarged by the addition of lives of prominent Biblical scholars and of articles upon dis- tinctively Jewish subjects (¢.9., “Elijah Levita,” “Jewish Printers,” “ Albelda,” “ Dunash,” “ Yosip- pon,” “Tanhuma,” “Talmud,” “Satanow,” “ Rash- bam”). Among those contributing to this work were Bialloblotzky, Cairns, Samuel Davidson, Eman- uel Deutsch, Farrar, Geikie, and D. Ginsburg. Pot- ter’s “Complete Bible Encyclopedia” (ed. William Blackwood, 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1875) was based upon Kitto and Ayre (see list). It is a Church dic- tionary as well as a Biblical one. J. A. Bartow’s “ Biblical Dict.” (2 vols., London, 1845) was popular in character, but did not go further than the let- ter “ .” Much more scholarly than Kitto’s dictionary is the “Dict. of the Bible,” published by W. Smith and Aldis Wright (London, 1860). This was frankly stated to be not a dictionary of theology, but a Bible dictionary according to the Authorized Version. It was non-controversial ; in certain cases it has several articles treating one and the same subject from dif- erent points of view. It was the first dictionary to contain a complete list of proper names in the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha. The first volume was republished in two parts (1893) with the help of Driver, Naviile, Westcott, Ryle, Tris- tram, Wilson, etc. The first edition was republished in Boston (1863), and again by H. B. Hackett and Ezra Abbot in New York (1871). An abridgment, made by Smith himself, appeared at Hartford (1868). P. Fairbairn’s “Imperial Bible Dict.” (Edinb., 1865) is more popular in character and more theological. McClintock and Strong’s “ Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Litera- ture” (12 vols., New York, 1867-87; rev. ed., 1895) has justiy had a great vogue in the United States. It contains nearly all the material to be found in previous dictionaries, and a large number of articles dealing with rabbinical theology and_ rabbinical writers. Philip Schaff’s name is connected with two Bible dictionaries: one published in Philadel- phia and New York in 1880 (Italian translation by Enrico Meille, Florence, 1891), and a larger “ Relig- ious Encyclopedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, His- torical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,” based 2vols. Augs- largely upon Herzog and Plitt’s “Real-Encyc.” Ty this he added an “ Encyclopedia of Living Divines » the whole being published iu a third edition (4 Vols.) by Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1891. Mention should be made here of the ninth edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica.” With Robert. son Smith as editor, it is natural that if should cop- tain a large number of articles dealing with the Bible, and largely written by Smith Robertson himself (see “Encyc. Bibl.” Preface, Smith. p. vii.). The articles on Jewish liter. ature were written by S. M. Schiller. Szinessy. It was Smith’s intention to republish the Biblical articles, and, with the help of other scholars, to form an “Encyclopedia Biblica.” The immense mass of archeological and critical materia] gathered since the appearance of the “ Britannica ” made this impossible; but the project paved the way for the “ Encyc. Bibl.” of T. K. Cheyne and T,. S. Black (4 vols,, New York and London, 1899 eg seqg.). All the leading Biblical scholars are contribu- tors to this work, which reaches the highest stand- ard of accuracy and completeness; but it has one great drawback in that it gives too much attention to conjectural Biblical criticism. The “ Dict. of the Bible,” published at the same time by J. Hastings in conjunction with John A. Selbie, A. B. Davidson, '§. R. Driver, and H. B. Swete (4 vols., New York, 1898-1902), is meant for intelligent laymen as well as for scholars, and therefore contains much less purely technical matter. It contains also articles on specifically Jewish subjects written by W. Bacher and other Jewish scholars. By the side of these works must be placed the “Dict. de la Bible,” now in course of publication by F, Vigouroux (Paris, 1895 e¢ seg.). Containing the work of a number of Catholic scholars and prefaced by an encyclical of Pope Leo XIIL., this dictionary ts an authoritative Catholic presentation. It embraces a number of subjects dealing with the theology and history of the Church; and it endeavors to combat from the Catholic standpoint modern Biblical crit- icism. The care employed in its compilation and the richness of its illustrations make it a valuable addition to the list of Biblical reference-books. There are only three dictionaries by Jewish schol- ars to be recorded here. Ezekiel b. Joseph Mandel- stamm compiled (“Sefer ha-Shemot,” Warsaw, 1889) an alphabetic account in Hebrew of all persons and places mentioned in the Bible. In 1896 A. H. Rosen- berg commenced the publication of a Bible diction- ary in Hebrew, “Ozar ha-Shemot.” No topics oF general subjects were treated, but only proper names and words occurring in the Hebrew text. The publication ceased after two parts had been issued (New York, 1896-99). A far more ambi- tious attempt is the “Real-Encyc. des Judenthums, Worterb. fir Gemeinde, Schule und Haus,” of J. Hamburger, the first part of which (Strelitz, 1874) is devoted to the Bible. Hamburger attempts ' treat the Biblical subjects entirely from a Jewish point of view, and with continual reference to the Talmud and Midrash, often with a practical e u view, as many of the topics treated were the sub- ject of controversy within the Jewish body. Up- fortunately, his references are not exact, 579 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dictionaries a ee a ee ee Quite different in character from all those above mentioned is James Inglis’ “Bible Text Cyclopex- dia” (Philadelphia, 1877). This is a topical classi- fication of Bible texts, the wording of whichis given in full. A shorter work, but upon similar lines, ig the “ Bible Text-Book,” published by the Amer- ican Tract Society (n.d.). The following list com- prises the chief Bible dictionaries published in mod- ern times for more general use: 1769. J. Brown.—Dict. of the Holy Bible. 2 vols. London. 1779. A. Macbean.—Dict. of the Bible. Tb. 1184. >. Oliver.—Scripture Lexicon. Birmingham; London, 1843. 1793-98. F. G. Lenn.—Bibl. Encye. 4 vols. Gotha. 1815-35. J. Robinson.—Theological, Biblical, and Ecclesiastical Dict. London. 1816. J. Brown.—Dict. of the Holy Bible. vol., New York, 1846. 1829. W. Gurney.— Pocket Dict. of the Holy Bible. London. 1831. W. Jones.—-Bibl. Cye. 2 vols. Lb. 1831. R. Watson.—Bibl. and Theol. Dict. London. 1839, 1855. F. A. P.—Union Bible Dict. Philadelphia. 1840, 1860. 8. Green.—Bibl. and Theol. Dict. London. 1848, 1849,1 853. J. Eadie.—Bibl. Cyc. London; Philadelphia, 1902. 1849. J. G. Lawson.—Bib]. Cye. 3vols. London. 1850. Alfred Jones.—Proper Names of the O. T. Scriptures Ex- pounded and Illustrated. London. 1852. J. Farrar.—-Bibl. and Theol. Dict. London. 1854. H. Maleolm.—Diect. of the Bible. Ih. 1859, 1886. Dict. of the Holy Bible for General Use. American Tract Soc., New York. 1863. G. S. Bowen.-—Manual of [llustrations Gathered from Scriptural Figures. etc. New York. 1865. J. A. Bost.—Dict. de la Bible. Paris. 1866. J. Ayre.—Treasury of Bible Knowledge. London. 1877. James Inglis.—Bible Text Cyc. Philadelphia. 1880. Manrique Alonzo Lallave.—Diccionario Biblico. Seville, fphia. 1893. Edwin N. Rice.—People’s Dict. of the Bible. Philadel- 1903. H. Guthe.—Kurzes Bibl. Worterb. Tibingen and Leipsic. n.d. W. Goodhue and W. C. Taylor.—Pictorial Dict. of the Holy Bible. { Philadelphia. n.d. Index to the Holy Bible. American Sunday School Union, n.d. Bible Text-Book. American Tract Soe. 1909. James Hastings.—Dictionary of the Bible. 1909. M. W. Jacobus and others.--A Standard Bible Dict. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Diestel, Gesch. des Alten Test. pp. 577 et seq.; McClintock. and Strong. Cye. ii. 787, xii. 278; T. H. Horne, Manuat of Biblical Bibliography, pp. 369-872, London, 1889. G. DICTIONARIES, HEBREW: The earliest known work giving a lexical survey of part of the Hebrew language, with comments, is the dictionary of Biblical proper names (Epyyveia ‘EBpaixdy ’Ovoyd- Tov) ascribed to Philo of Alexandria, and in any case the work of a Greek Jew. Origen, in the third cen- tury, enlarged it, and Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, worked it over in Latin (P. de La- garde, “Onomastica Sacra,” 2d ed., 1887; Schirer, “Geschichte,” 3d ed., iii, 540). Aside from these first lexical works on the Bible, which have been preserved only within the Christian Church, there ate no traces of a similar attempt in pre-geonic times. The manner in which the Bible was ex- pounded and its language handed down by tradition 1 the Jewish schools of Pulestine and Babylon, precluded the need of lexical aids. Traditional lit- erature, beginning with the tannaitic Midrash, con- tains, of course, numerous lexical comments on the Words of the Bible; and this literature, including the old Bible translations, must be regarded as the earliest and most important source of Hebrew lexicolovy. 2 vols., Albany; 1 Part i. The first lexicon mentioned in Hebrew literature deals not with the Bible, but with the Talmud. Gaon Zemah b. Paltoi of Pumbedita (last quarter of the ninth century) wrote a lexicon Talmudic for the Babylonian Talmud, of which, Lexicons. however, only small fragments have been preserved in quotations (see Kohut, “Aruch Completum,” Introduction, pp. xviii. e¢ seg.). Perhaps Zemah himself designated his work by the name ‘ARUK (yy), which word (derived from the verb Jny, Job xxxii, 14) is the ear- liest term in Jewish literature for a Jexicon, though it gained currency only through Nathan b. Jehiel’s work (see below) of that title. The first known He- brew lexicon is called “Agron” (73x, pronounced also “TIgron”), meaning “a collection of words,” from 438, “to collect.” It is a youthful work of Saadia, gaon of Sura, and was written in 913. I¢ was intended, as Saadia says in the introduction (still extant), not only to promote the knowledge of the pure Biblical language, but also as an aid to writing poetry. Hence Saadia’s “Agron” was a double lexicon, arranged, as were most of the origi- nal Arabic lexicons, according to the alphabetical se- quence of the first and final letters of the roots and words, corresponding to the two formal require- ments of the Hebrew versification of that time, acrostic and rime. Saadia, who originally had sup- plemented each word by only a Biblical passage in which it, occurred, made a second, enlarged edition of the “ Agron,” in which he gave the Arabic equiv- alents for the words, besides also chapters in Ara- bic on various subjects useful for poets. He also changed the name of the work to “ Book of Poetry,” or “Book on the Principles of Poetry ” (for the ex- tant fragments see Harkavy, “Studien und Mitthei- luogen,” v.). A smaller but likewise epoch-making work of Saadia’s was his explanation, from the lan- guage of the Mishnah and Talmud, of 70 (or rather 90) words occurring seldom or only once in the Bible. This has been edited many times. Saadia’s elder contemporary, Judah ibn Koraish of Tahart, North Africa, composed a larger work along the lines of Saadia’s small list of Biblical words. This work, which is still extant, was written in the form of a letter (“risalah ”) to the community of Fas (Fez), and has three chief divisions in lexical arrangement, containing comparisons of Hebrew words with (1) New-Hebrew words of the Mishnah, (2) Aramaic words, and (8) Arabic words. This is the first work on Semitic comparative linguistics, and it has held a permanent place in Hebrew philol- ogy (ed. Bargés and Goldberg, Paris, 1857). The third part, containing comparisons of Hebrew and Arabic words, was known separately as “Sefer ha- Yahas,” or “Sefer Ab wa-Em,” according to the in- itial words (Ibn Ezra, Introduction to his “ M’ozna- yim”; Ibn Ezra’s contemporary, Isaac b. Samuel, quotes “Agron Ab wa-Em”; see “Jew. Quart. Rev.” x. 729). Ibn Koraish also began a larger lex- icon, which, however, was not carried beyond the roots beginning with alef (see Bacher, “Die An- finge der Hebriiischen Grammatik,” p. 69; “Jew. Quart. Rev.” Z.e.). This work, which Menahem b. Saruk quotes as “Sefer Pitronim ” (Book of Expla- Judah ibn Koraish. Dictionaries THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 580 a a aT ee gap a Te ke eT ns ee ea ee ee a ee ee al nations), was, like Saadia’s “ Agron,” doubtless writ- ten in Arabic, as was the “risalah.” What Ibn Koraish’s lexicon would have been may be seen from that of David b. Abraham (tenth cen- tury), Which has been preserved in an almost com- plete state. The latter author, called also Abu Su- laiman of Fas (Fez), belonged to the Karaite sect, and was probably stimulated by Ibn Koraish’s wri- tings to undertake his own work, which, also, con- tained many Hebrew-Arabic comparisons. Like Saadia, the only author to whom he refers by name, David b. Abraham calls his lexicon (written in Ara- bic) “ Agron,” which he renders in Arabic by “ Jami‘ al-Alfaz” (Collector of Words). Through him the Karaites came to prefer the word “agron” as a term for “lexicon.” An author belonging to David ben that sect, writing in Arabic in the be- Abraham. ginning of the eleventh century, calls David b. Abraham’s work “the chief representative of the Agron literature” (see “Rev. Etudes Juives,” xxx. 252); and Judah Hadassi {twelfth century) mentions the “ Agronot” or “Sifre ha-Agron” (“ Monatsschrift,” xl. 125). David b. Abraham also produced an abridgment of his lexi- con, as did Levi b. Japheth later, whose work was made the basis of Ali b. Sulaiman’s “ Agron,” writ- ten in the first half of the eleventh century (Pin- sker, “Likkute Kadmoniyyot,” i. 117, 183; “Rev. Etudes Juives,” xxx. 125). Extracts from David b. Abraham’s work, which was the only original con- tribution of the Karaites to Hebrew lexicography, have been published by Pinsker (é.c. pp. 117-162, 206-216; see also Neubauer, “ Notice sur la Lexico- graphie Hébraique,” pp. 25-155). After David b. Abraham, Abu al-Faraj Harun only is to be men- tioned: he is none other than the anonymous gram- marian of Jerusalem mentioned by Ibn Ezra in the introduction to the “ M’oznayim.” The seventh part of his “ Al-Mushtamil,” completed in 1026, isa kind of root-lexicon, in which the triconsonantal roots are so treated that all the roots formed by combinations of the same three letters are arranged in one group; for example, all roots containing the letters y, 5, and \—namely, "DY, AY, POD, WH—are treated under yay (see “Rev. Etudes Juives,” xxx. 247 eft segq., Xxxili. 20 e¢ seg.). A similar arrangement was also adopted about the same time by the Jeading rabbin- ical authority of the East, the gaon Hai, in his lexi- con “Kitab al-Hawi” (Hebr. “Sefer ha-Me’assef,” or “Sefer ha-Kolel”), of which only quotations and fragments are extant (see “Z. D. M. G.” lv. 129 e¢ seq., 597 et seq.). Long before Hai Gaon’s time (d. 1038) a lexicon had inaugurated in the West a period of literary activity that made Spain the real home of Hebrew philology. About 960 Menahem ben Saruk wrote his “Mahberet” (name derived from Ex. xxvi. 4), the first complete lexical treatment in the Hebrew lan- guage of the wordsinthe Bible. In the arrangement of his lexicon Menahem rigidly adheres to the theory of roots current at that time. He includes roots of one and two letters, and adds a lengthy grammatical introduction together with longer and shorter excur- sus. On account of its Hebrew form this lexicon (ed. Filipowski. London, 1854) was for a long time ‘the generally accepted lexical aid to Bible study in European countries where Arabic did net prevai]. while in Spain itself it at first gave rise to lively polemics in the works of Dunash b. Labrat and of Menahem’s and Dunasch’s pupils. It was soon superseded, however, in the new era of Hebrew phi. lology inaugurated by Menahem’s pupil Judah p, David Hayyuj. Hayyuj (end of the tenth century) set forth hig theory of roots and his fundamental view of verba] inflection in two works, in which the weak radicals and the radicals in which the second letter is doubled are grouped together in lexicographical order. The same arrangement obtains in the first work of Hay- yuj’s eminent successor, the “ Kitab al-Mustalhak ” (Elebr. “Sefer ha-Hassagah”), a critical supplement to Hayyuj’s works by Abu al-Walid Merwanibn Ja. nah. The chief work of Abu al-Walid (called R. Jo- nahin Hebrew; lived in the first half of the eleventh century) is divided into a grammar and a lexicon, The latter, entitled “ Kitab al-Usul” (“Sefer ha-Sho- rashim”), is the high-water mark of the Abu lexicalactivity of the Middle Ages, and al-Walid is remarkable for the value of its con- ibn Janah. tents as well as for the methodical arrangement of the material. Espe- cially noteworthy are the comparative definitions of the words and the large number of Bible-exegetical details. This lexicon influenced directly or indi- rectly the entire later Hebrew lexicography: the Arabic original was edited by Neubauer (Oxford, 1875); and Bacher edited the Hebrew translation of Judah ibn Tibbon (Berlin, 1896). Mention should be made here of the following works pertaining to the subject, and written in Arabic by Spanish Jews of the eleventh and twelfth centuries: Judah ibn Balaam’s small treatises on the homonyms and particles; Abu Ibrahim ibn Barun’s monograph “ Kitab al-Muwazanah,” on the relation of Hebrew to Arabic (edited, as far as extant, by Kokowzoff, St. Petersburg, 1894); “ itab al-Kamil” (in Hebrew “Sefer ha-Shalem ”), including a gram- mar and lexicon, by Jacob b. Eleazar of Toledo, known only through extracts. Outside the domain of Arabic culture the first great lexicon to traditional literature (Talmud, Mid- rash, and Targum) was contributed by Italy, the old seat of Talmudic scholarship. This work is the “*Aruk” of Nathan b. Jehiel of Rome, which was finished about 1100, and has remained up to the pres- ent time the most important lexical aid to Tal- mudicstudy. Nathan arranged the roots according to the early system followed by Menahem, and paid particular attention to rare expressions and_bor- rowed words, following largely the Talmud exegesis handed down by the Geonim (first ed. in Italy before 1480; latest ed. by Kohut, 1878-92, 8 vols.). With the exception of Gaon Zemah’s “‘Aruk, referred to above, the only work of this kind men- tioned as preceding Nathan’s is the “ Alphabeton, a kind of glossary by Makir, the brother of Rab- benu Gershom (first half of the eleventh century : Se Rapoport’s biography of Nathan, note 12). Sanuel b. Jacob Jam’a of North Africa made important additions to Nathan’s “‘Aruk” in the twelfth ce? tury (“Gritz Jubelschrift,” Hebrew part, pp. 1- i) The c¢ ‘Aruk.” 581 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dictionaries The glossaries by the geonim Sherira and Hai ac- companying the texts of certain Talmudic treatises do not come within the scope of this article (see Bacher, “Leben und Werke des Abulwalid,” pp. 84 et séq.). Half a century after Nathan b. Jehiel, Menahem b. Solomon, also of Rome, wrote a lexicon with the evident inteution of upholding Ibn Saruk’s reputa- tion in the face of the system founded by the Span- ish school, and at that time (1143) propagated in Italy by Abraham ibn Ezra. Menahem b. Solomon’s lexicon is the chief part of hits manual of Bible study, “Eben Bohan” (Touchstone; see Bacher in “Gratz Jubelschrift,” pp. 104-115). While this lexicon had little influence, that of Menahem Solomon ibn Parhon, “ Mahberet. he- ben ‘Aruk” (ed. S. G. Stern, Presburg, Solomon. 1844), written somewhat later (1160) at Salerno, achieved a wide reputa- tion. This work was in the main an enlarged extract from Abu al-Walid’s lexicon, of which it bas erro- neously been regarded as a translation (see Bacher in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” x. 120-150, xi. 35-99). Two other lexicons from two countries that otherwise have contributed little or nothing to the literature of Hebrew philology must also be mentioned. The first of these works, both of which drew upon Ibn Parhon’s lexicon, is the “Sefer ha-Shohain” (Onyx Book), written by Moses b. Isaac of London (end of the twelfth century), the beginning of which was edited by Collins, London, 1882. The author has been identitied as the well-known punctator Moses ha-Nakdan. The second work is the lexicon of the German Shimshon, who often defines the words also in German (see Geiger’s “ Wiss. Zeit. Jid. Theol.” v. 419-430). Southern France began to take the lead in Jewish literature in the second half of the twelfth century. About 1150 Joseph Kimhi of Narbonne wrote the “Sefer ha-Galui” (Book of the Revelation; edited by Mathews, Berlin, 1887), containing chiefly lexical matter and a criticism of Menahem’s lexicon. His son, David Kimhi (1160-1235), wrote the “ Miklol,” which contained a grammar and @ lexicon supple- mentary to Abu al- Walid’s chief work, but revealed, especially in its method, a remarkable independ- ence. The lexicon, “Sefer ha-Shorashim” (printed before the grammar, in Italy prior to The 1480; also Naples, 1490, 1491; Con- Kimhis. stantinople, 1518; Venice, 1529; new ed., Berlin, 1847), is much superior to Abu al-Walid’s lexicon, and was for centuries the standard work of Hebrew lexicography. In the latter half of the thirteenth century Abraham Be- dersi of Beziéres wrote the first book of Hebrew synonymy, “Hotem Toknit” (see Ezek. xxviii. 12), & large and valuable work, arranged in alphabetical order (edited by G. E. Polak, Amsterdam, 1865). In the first third of the fourteenth century the many-: sided Joseph ibn Kaspi also wrote a lexicon, “Shor- Shot Kesef” (see Ex. xxviii. 22), in which he en- deavored to deduce the secondary meanings from the feneral primary meaning of the root (see “ Orient, Lit.” viii., ix.; Neubauer, “Notice sur la Lexicogr. Hébraique,” pp. 208-211). “ Menorat ha-Ma’or,” the Work of a Greek Jew, Joseph b. David ha-Yewani, of which only a fragment is extant in a single man- uscript, dates from about the same time (see Neu- bauer, J.c. p. 207). The first Hebrew concordance, also a kind of lexicon (see CONCORDANCE), Was pro- duced in the first half of the fifteenth century by a Jew of southern France. In Italy, where the scientific spirit among the Jews was especially active in the fifteenth century, Solo- monb, Abraham of Urbino wrote (1480) a book of syn- onyms entitled “Ohel Mo‘ed,” Venice, 1548 (edited by Willheimer, Vienna, 1881), entirely In Italy, different in character from Abraham Spain, and Bedersi’s work. In Spain, just before the East. the expulsion of 1492, a Hebrew lexi- con was written in Arabic by the learned rabbi of Granada, Saadia b. Maimun ibn Danan (“ Rev. Et. Juives,” xli. 268). In the East the study of Maimonides’ epoch-ma- king work in tle second half of the thirteenth century resulted in Tanhum b. Joseph Yerushalmi’s lexi- con, “Al-Murshid al-Kafi” (The Sufficient Guide), written in Arabic. This work deals especially with Maimonides’ “Mishneh Torah,” but includes also some of the words of the Mishnah. A lexicon by Solomon b. Samuel of Gurganj (Urgenj, central Asia), completed in 1339, is a remarkable example of intellectual activity and wide literary knowledge from a region which is not otherwise mentioned in the history of Jewish literature. It presents in uni- form alphabetical arrangement the vocabulary of the Bible, the Targum, the Talmudic-Midrashic lit- erature, and some later works, in about 18,000 ar- ticles, most of which are very short. The author called his work “Sefer ha-Melizah,” and sometimes “Agron” (see Bacher, “Ein Hebriaisch-Persisches Worterbuch aus dem 14. Jahrhundert,” Strasburg, 1900). A century later Moses Shirwani of northern Persia completed (1459) a Hebrew-Persian lexicon which he called “Agron” (see Bacher in Stade’s “ Zeitschrift,” xvi. 201-247). This is a popular aid to Bible study, as is also the “ Makre Dardeke,” a Hebrew-Arabic-Romanic (Italian, French, Proven- cal) glossary to the Bible which was produced about the same time in western Europe (printed at Naples about 1488). At the beginning of the sixteenth century a great and decisive change occurred in the history of Hebrew philology. From that time this science, hitherto cultivated exclusively by the Jews, took rank in the large circle of scientific activities inaugurated by the new humanism; and it soon became a mighty factor in the religious movement that revolutionized Germany. Protestantism, going back directly to the Bible, took up the study of the Hebrew language, which henceforth became an integral part of Protes- tant. theology. But in Judaism itself the period beginning with this century was one of intellectual stagnation. The old classical literature of the pre- ceding periods was more and more Elijah forgotten, and the one-sided study of Levita. the Talmud gradually displaced the study of the Bible and its language, rendering the literary productions in this field ut- terly unimportant. The beginning of this epoch of decadence was marked, however, by Elijah Levita’s activity, with which the creative period of Hebrew Dictionaries THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 582 philological literature within Judaism was worthily closed. His works include: “Sefer Zikronot,” a Masoretic lexicon or, rather, a Masoretic concordance to the Bible, still in manuscript; “ Tishbi,” a small lexicon of 712 articles (published in 1541 ez seq.), containing mostly New-Hebrew words; and “ Metur- geman,” the first lexicon to the Targumim (1541). Abraham de Balmes did not finish the lexicon of roots to which he refers several times in his grammar. The paucity of production in the field of lexicog- raphy during the three centuries of Jewish litera- ture from 1500 to 1800 may be seen in the following chronological lists of works issued during this period, which are short and served chiefly practical pur- poses. These, as well as the following lists, have been made with the help of Steinschneider’s “ Biblio- graphisches Handbuch” (compare the corrections and additions by Steinschneider and Porges in “ Cen- tralblatt fir Bibliothekswesen,” xili., xv.): Anshel, 734" Masa, Cracow, 1534; reprinted under the title ** Sefer Aushel,*’ Cracow, 1584. An vs pwn, “Libro de Ladinos de los Verbios Caros di Toda la Mikra,”’ Venice, 1588 and 1617. 279 935, Hebr.-Germ.-Italian alphabetical glossary, Cracow, 1590, David b. Abraham Modena, 3%) 7137, Hebrew-Italian glossary, Venice, 1596 and 1606, Judah Leon di Modena, a7» ~yb,, ‘* Novo Dittionario Hebr, e Ital.”” Venice, 1612; Padua, 1640. Solomon b. David Oliveyra, ovnpy, Hebrew-Portuguese lexi- con, Amsterdam, 1682; y:2149 Yeiyw y>°x, Portuguese-He- brew vocabulary, Amsterdam, 1683. Judah b. Zebi Hirsch, 7) :SaN (dealing especially with proper names), Jessnitz, 1719; awry ysa, “*Compend, Concordanz,”’ Offenbach, 17382. Eleazar Soesman, Sxsw > aN2: part 1, grammar; part 2, Dutch- Hebrew dictionary; part 3, Hebrew-Dutch dictionary, Am- sterdam, 1741; ““Nomenclater op Hebr. en Nederd. Naam- woordenboek,”’ ib. 1744. Judah b. Joel Minden, 7x5 aS, Hebrew !exicon, chiefly following Kimhi, with Nigh-German notes, Berlin, 1759-60. Abraham b. Menahem Schwab, re por, Hebrew-German lexicon to the same author’s "wyr+435, Amsterdam, 1767. Phoebus b. Aryeh, ooo wan, Hebrew-German lexicon, Dy- hernfurth, 1773. Jacob Rodriguez Moreira, 3py) noap, “ Vocabulary of Words in the Hebrew Language .... Done into English and Span- ish,’? London, 1778. Isaac b. Moses Satanow, ™ox Pow, Hebrew-German lexicon, Berlin, 1787; Prague, 1804. David Levi, ** Lingua Sacra,” in three parts, grammar and He- brew-English and English-Hebrew lexicons, London, 1785- 89, 1803. The following lexicographic works to the Talmud must be added: Anonymous, 13) Wy, Constantinople, 1511; Cracow, 1591; Prague, 1707. David b. Isaac de Pomis, 3 ms, “ Lexicon Hebr. et Chald. Lingue, Lat. et Ital. Expositum,’’ Venice, 1587, Menabem Lonsano, J) yr, explanations of difficult and foreign words in the Talmud (in the ny »>yv), Venice, 1618. Benjamin Mussaphia, 71137" Oi, additions to the “Aruk in the Amsterdam ed. of 1655. David Cohen b. Isaac de Lara, 1953 153, ** De Convenientia Voca- bulorumn Rabbinicorum cum Grecis et Quibusdam Aliis Lin- guis,”” Amsterdam, 1638; 73173 “m5, ‘De Convenientia Vo- cabulorum Talmudicorum et Rabbinicorum,” etc., Hamburg, 1668. Benjamin b. David, }»2°93 ‘1yw, Hebrew-rabbinical lexicon, Zolkiev, 1732. Benjamin b. Isaac Levi Leitmeritz, mia79 nex, an alphabet- ical glossary to the Zohar, Lublin, 1645. During the same period (1500-1800) the need of lexical aids felt by Christians studying Hebrew called forth a large number of lexicons, the list of which is as follows: Johannes Reuchlin, ‘*Rudimenta Lingue Hebraic una cum Lexico,” Pforzheim, 1506; Basel, 1537. Alfonsus Zamorensis ‘(ex-Judzus), “Vocabvularium Hebr. et Chald. V. T.”’ (in voi. vi. of Complutensian Christian Polyglot, 1515). Lexicogra- Theodoricus Martinus (Dirck Martens), ‘ Dic. phers. tionarium Hebraicum,” Louvain, c. 1520, Sebastian Miinster, “Dictionarium Hebrai. cum,” Basel, 15238, 1525, 1535, 1589, 1548, 1564. Sanctus (Xantes) Pagninus. * Thesaurus Lingus Sancta,” Ley. den, 1529; ed. Rob. Stephanus, Paris, 1548; Leyden, 1575, 1577; Geneva, 1614. Sebastian Miinster, “* Dictionarium Trilingue” (Latin, Greek, Hebrew), Basel, 1580, 1535, 1543, 1562. Ant. Reuchlin, ** Lexicon Hebr. Linguze,’? Basel, 1556, 1569, Jo, Forster (Forster. Vorstheimer), ** Dictionarium Hebr. No. vuim,”” Basel, 1547, 1464. Jo. Avenarius (Habermann), ‘Liber Radicum, seu Lexicon Hebr.”’ Wittenberg. 1568, 1589. Sanctus Pagninus, * Epitome Thesauri Linguee Sacre,” Antwerp, 1570, 1dv2, 1578, 1588, 1599, 1609, 1616, 1670. Ambrosius Calepinus, * Dictionarium Septem Linguarum,” Ge. neva, 15:8; Basel, 1684; * Dict. Undecim Lingu.”’ Basel, 1590, 1598, 1605, 1616. El. Hutter, **Cubus Alpbabeticus Sanctee Hebraicee Lingue,” Hamburg, 1586, 1588, 1603. Mareus Marinus, ** Arca Noe, sive Thesaurus Lingu# Sanctes Novus,” Venice, 1593. Johann Buxtorf the Elder, “ Lexicon Hebr.-Chald.” Basel, 1607, 1615, 1621, 1631, 1645, 1646, 1654. 1655, 1663, 1667, 1676, 1689, 1698, 1710, 1735; °° Manuale Hebr.-Chald.” Basel, 1612, 1619, 1630, 1631, 1684, 1658. Valentine Schindler, ** Lexicon Pentaglotton, Hebr., Chaid., Syr., Talmudico-Rabbin., et Arab.” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1612, 1649, 16353, 1695. Jos. Abudacnus (Barbatus), “* Lexicon Hebr.’’ Louvain, 1615. Marius de Calasius, ** Dictionarium Hebr.” Rome, 1617. Joh. Meelfiihrer, *° Manuale Lexici Hebr.”’ Leipsic, 1617, 1657, Chr. Helvicus, ** Lexicon Hebr. Didacticum,” Giessen, 1620. Sixtus ab Amama, Hebrew lexicon (Dutch), Franeker, 1628. Daniel Schwenterns, **Manipulus Linguw Sanctee, sive Lex. Hebr. ad Formam Cubi Hutteriani,’”’ Nuremberg, 1628, 16388 ; Leipsic, 1668, Philip Aquinas (ex-Jud.), m29y27 Toy, * Dictionarium Abso- lutissimum Hebr., Chald., et Talm.-Rabhbin.”’ Paris, 1629. Gregorius Francus (Franke), “‘Lexicon Sacrum,’ Hanover, William Alabaster, **Spiraculum Tubarum ... seu Sehindleri Lexicon Pentaglottum in Compend. Redact.”’ London, 1635. Edward Leigh, ** Critica Sacra,” in two parts: (i.) observations on all the radical or primitive Hebrew words in the OQ. T. in alphabetical order, London, 1639, 1650, 1662; Latin, Amster- dam, 1678, 1688, 1696, 1706; French, ib. 1712. Jo. Plantavitius, ** Thesaurus Synonymicus Hebr.-Chald.-Rab- bin.’? Lodéve, 1644-45. Sebastian Curtius, ‘* Radices Lingue S. Hebr.” 1648, 1649; Amsterdam, 1652. William Robertson, ‘''The Second Gate. ..a Compendious Hebr. Lexicon or Dictionary,"’ London. 1654. H. Hottinger, ** Etymologicum Orientale, s. Lexicon Harmoni- cum Heptaglotton,’? Frankfort, 166) (also ** Talmud.-Rab- bin.”’). J. Leusden, *‘Onomasticum Sacrum.” Leyden, 1665, 1684; ** Manuale Hebr.-Lat.-Belgicum,”’ Utrecht, 1667, 1683. Sebastian Curtius, ‘*‘Manuale Hebr.-Chaid.-Lat.-Belgicum,” Frankfort, 1668, Edw. Castellus, ‘Lexicon Heptaglottum,’? London, 1669, 1686; from this, ** Lexicon Hebraicum,”’ adnot. J. D. Michaelis, Gottingen, 1790. Joh. Coccejus, “ Lexicon et Commentarius Sermonis Hebr. ét Chald. Y. T.’’ Amsterdam, 1669; Frankfort, 1689, 1714; Leip sic, 1777, 1793-96. ; J. Friedr. Nicolai, ** Hodegeticum Orientale,” part i.: ‘* Lexicon Hebr.”’ ete., Jena, 16,0; Frankfort, 1686. Ant. Halsius, ** Compendium Lexici Hebraici,’’ 3d ed., Utrecht, 1674, 1679, 1685. William Robertson, ‘* Thesaurus Linguze Sacree Compend. - - s. Concordant. Lexicon Hebr.-Latino-Biblicum,” London, 1 . Matthew Hillerus, ** Lexicon Latino-Hebr.” Tiibingen, 1680. Jo. Leusden, ** Lexicon Novum Hebr.-Latinum,” Utrecht, 1687. Jo. Michaelis, ** Lexicon Particularum Hebr.”* Frankfort, 160% Henr. Opitius, * Novum Lexicon Hebr.-Chald.-Biblicum,”” Let? sic, 1692; Hamburg, 1705, 1714, 1724. ke Ge. Christ. Burcklinus, * Lexicon Hebr.-Macaronicum,” Frat fort, 1699; in compend. redact. 1743. Geismar, 1645, 583 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Dictionariei Paul Math. Alberti, ** Porta Lingus Sancte, seu Lex. Novum Hebr.-Lat.-Biblicum,”’ Bautzen, 1704. Christ. Reineccius, **Janua Hebr. Lingue V. T.”* (since the 2d ed. with lexicon), Leipsic, 1704, 1707, 1720, 1738, 1741, 1748, 1756, 1769, 1788. Christ. Gottlieb Meinigius, “* Lexicon Hebr. in Compend. Re- dact.”? ib. 1712. Joh. Heeser, ‘Lapis Adjutorius, s. Lexicon Philolog. Hebr.- Chald.-Sacrum,” part i. (x-3), Harderov, 1716. Ge. Burchard Riimelinus, ** Lexicon Biblicum,”’ Frankfort, 1716. Lud. Christoph. Schaefer, '* Hebr. Worterbuch,”’ Bernburg, 1720. Charl. France. Houbigantius, “ Racines Hébr. ... ou Diction. Hebr. par Racines,” Paris, 1732. Ant. Zanolini, ** Lexicon Hebraicum,” Padua, 1732. Nicol. Burger, ““ Lexicon Hebr.-Chald,-Lat.’* Copenhagen, 1738. Jo. Bougetius, ** Lexicon Hebr. et Chald.”’ Rome, 1337. Jo. Simonis, ** Onomasticon V. T.’’ Halle, 1741. Fr. Haseibauer, ** Lexicon Hebr.-Chald.’’ Prague, 1748. Jo. Christ. Clodius, ** Lexicon Hebr. Selectum,” Leipsic, 1744. Jo. Christ. Kiemm, ** Lex. Hebr.-Germ.-Lat.”* Tiibingen, 1745. Petr. Gruaria, “* Lexicon Hebr. et Chald. Biblicum,” Paris, 1746. Weitenauer, ** Hierolexicon Linguse Hebr., Chald. et Syr.”” Augs- burg, 1730, 17338. Jo. Simonis, ** Dictionarium V. T. Hebr.-Chald.”” Halle, 1752, 1765; ‘* Lexicon Manuale Hebr. et Chald.”’ ib. 1756; Amster- dam, 1757; Leyden, 1763; Halle, 1771; (ed. I. G. Eichhorn) 1193; (enlarged by F. S. Winer) Leipsic, 1828, English by Charles Seager, London, 1832. Pp.... “Lexicon Hebr.-Chald.-Latino-Biblicum,’’ Avignon, 1758, 1765; Leyden, 1770. Anonymous, ** Neu Eingerichtetes Deutsch-Hebr. W6rterbuch,” Oettingen, 1764. John Parkhurst, “An Hebrew and English Lexicon,”’ London, 1762, 1778, 1792, 1811, 1823. Jos. Montaldi, ** Lex. Hebr. et Chald.-Biblic.”? Rome, 1789. W. Fr. Hetzel, ‘‘Kritisches Woérterbuch der Hebr. Sprache,”’ vol. i., see. 1, Halle, 1793. Ph. N. Moser, ** Lexicon Manuale Hebr. et Chald.’’ Ulm, 1795. Jo. Chr. Fried. Schulz, ‘* Hebr.-Deutsches Worterbuch iiber das 7 Od Wa To this list must be added the following lexicons on the language of the Talmud, written by Chris- tians: Sebastian Miinster, “* Dictionarium Chaldaicum, non tam ad Chald. Interpretes, quam Rabbinorum Intelligenda Commen- taria Necessarium,”’ Basel, 1527. Johann Buxtorf the Elder, ** Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum,” ed. Jo. Buxtorfius the Younger,”’ Basel, 1639. Joh. Henr. Otho, ** Lex. Rabbin.-Philologicum,”’ Geneva, 1675, Ant. Zanolini, ** Lexicon Chaldaico-Rabbinicum,”’ Padua, 1747. Bon. Girandeau, 8. J., °° Dictionarium Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, et Rabbinicum,”’ Paris, 1778. Among the seventy or more lexicons above enu- merated that were called forth by the study of He- brew among the Christian theologians down to the end of the eighteenth century, the following may be noted for the number of editions through which they have passed : the works of Sebastian Minster, 8, Pag- ninus, Buxtorf, Coccejus, Reineccius, Simonis. Most of the lexicons deal also with the Aramaic portions of the Bible, the designation “ Chaldaic” for this lan- guage having become current since Sebastian Mtin- ster’s time, though even Dunash ibn The Most Labrat calls the Aramaic w5 nw in Popular _ his polemic against Saadia, No. 6. The Diction- comparison of Hebrew with its kin- aries, dred languages, already indicated by William Postellus in the first half of the sixteenth century, and by Guichard, “L’Har- monie Etymologique des Langues Hébr.,” etc., Paris, 1660, was first carried out lexically by Schind- ler, then by Hottinger, and more completely and on a More solid basis by Castelli. But it remained for Albert Schultens (died 1750), an eminent member of the distinguished Dutch school, to place the com- bérison of Hebrew with the Arabic on a more solid scientific foundation, the achievements of the Jew- ish philologists of the preceding centuries having been forgotten. Schultens himself compiled no dic. tionary; but his contributions to Hebrew lexicog: raphy are found in many treatises and commen. taries. Attempts to translate the Hebrew into the vernacular instead of into Latin were first made in Dutch, then in English, Flemish, German, and French. The rapid development of philology in all its branches during the first decades of the nineteenth century also extended to Hebrew, which gradually occupied a position independent of theology. The labors of Wilhelm Gesenius marked a new epoch in grammar and lexicography. His lexicon, in the en- larged and modified later editions, has remained down to the present day the lexical manual most in demand for the study of the Bible—a proof of its excellence that was apparent even in the earlier editions. In its first form (Leipsic, 1810, 1812) it bore the title “ Hebr.- Deutsches Handwéorterbuch iiber die Schriften des A. T.” This book became the basis for the large “Thesaurus Philolog.-Criticus,” 1829-42, the last fasciculi of which were completed after Gesenius’ death (in 1842) by Rédiger, 1858-1858. An abbre. viated edition of the “ Handwoérterbuch ” was issued under the title “ Neues Hebr. -Deutsches Hand worter- buch,” 1815; and this became the basis for the later editions, which, beginning with the second thor- oughly revised edition (1825), bore the title “ Hebr. und Chalda&isches Worterbuch.” Gesenius himself issued the third and fourth editions, 1828, 1834, The editors of the later editions were: Dietrich, 1857, 1863, 1868; Miihlau and Volck, 1888, 1886, 1890; F. Buhl, 1895, 1899. Gesenius also issued the third edition in Latin, under the title “ Lexicon Ma- nuale,” Leipsic, 1882-388. An English translation of the first “Handwéorterbuch” of 1810 was issued by Christ. Leo, Cambridge, 1825-28; the new “ Handwéorterbuch” of 1815 was issued in English by J. W. Gibbs, Andover, 1824; other editions, Lon- don, 1827, 1832; the “Lexicon Manuale” was trans- lated into English by Edw. Robinson, Boston, 1886 (last ed., 1854); and by Tregellas, 1859. This is the basis of the Oxford lexicon, appearing since 1892 under the title of “A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament,” edited by Francis Brown, with the cooperation of S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. The Ac&icov EBp-NeveAAnv. cue Madaac Aadyxnc, Malta, 1842, is also based on Gesenius’ work, of which a Swedish translation appeared at Upsala in 1829-32. Other lexicons appeared in the course of the nine- teenth century, of which the following isa list, Stein- schneider’s “Handbuch” furnishing the material down to 1859: Th. Imm. Dindorf, Leipsic, 1801, 1804. Samuel Pike, ‘* A Comparative Hebrew Lex.” Glasgow, 1802. Evr. Scheidius, ** Lex. Hebr. et Chald. Man.”’ Utrecht, 1805, 1810. Aug. Fried. Pfeiffer,‘' Man. Bibl. Hebr. et Chald.”’ Erlangen, 1809. Chr. Gottlieb Elwert, ‘‘Deutsch-Hebr. Worterbuch,” Reut- lingen, 1822, E, F. C. Rosenmiiller, ‘* Vocabularium V. T. Hebr. et Chald.”’ Halle, 1822, 1827. James Andrew, ‘*Hehrew Dict. and Grammar,” London, 1823. Gesenius. “Novum Lex. Linguze Hebr. et Chald.” Dictionaries Didache THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 584. eee eee ea, Jo. Fried. Schroeder, ‘“* Deutsch-Hebr. Wdorterb.’’ Leipsic, 1825. France. Fontanella, ** Vocabulario Ebreo-Ital. et Ita].-Ebreo,” Venice, 1824. L’ Abbé Giraud, “* Vocabulaire Hébr.-Francais,”’ Wilna, 1625. J. B. Glaire, *‘ Lex. Manuale Hebr. et Chald.” Paris, 1830, 1843. Joh. Ev. Stadler, ‘* Lex. Manuale Hebr.-Latin,”’ Munich, 1831. Em. Fried. Leopold, ‘‘ Lex. Hebr. et Chald.” Leipsic, 1832. J. H. L. Biesenthal, ‘‘Hebr. und Chald. Schulwérterbuch,” Berlin, 1885-37, W. L. Roy, ‘A Complete Hebrew and English Dictionary,” New York, 1838. Samuel Lee, ** A Lex. Hebr., Chald., and English,’ London, 1840, 1844. William Wallace Duncan, **A New Hebrew-English and Eng- lish-Hebrew Lex.” ib, 1841. Ernst Meier, ‘** Hebr. Wurzelworterbuch,” Mannheim, 1845. Fr. Nork, °° Vollstindiges Hebr.-Chald.-Rabbinisches Waorter- buch,”’ Grimma, 1842. Fred. Bialloblotzky, ** Lexicon Radicum Hebr.” London, 1843. William Osborn, ‘A New Hebrew-English Lexicon,” tb. 1845. B. Davidson, “ The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,” ib. 1848. Fr. J. V. D. Maurer, ** Kurzgefasstes Hebr. und Chald. Hand- worterbuch,” Stuttgart, 1851. G. Stier, ** Hebriisches Vocabularium,” Leipsic, 1857, 1859. Benj. Davies, ‘‘ Hebrew Lexicon,’ 2d ed., London, 1876, A new arrangement of lexical matter is found in Carl Siegfried and B. Stade’s “ Hebriiisches Wérter- buch zum Alten Testament,” Leipsic, 1898, in which the comparison of the kindred languages is excluded, the etymology made secondary, and the introduc- tion of so-called primary meanings avoided, while the vocabulary and idioms are given as completely as possible. Friedrich Delitzsch advocates the free use of Assyrian in his work, “ Prolegomena eines Neuen Hebr.-Aram. Woérterbuches zum A. T.” Leip- sic, 1886 (see Néldeke’s exhaustive discussion in “Z. D. M. G.” xl. 718-748). The new stimulus given to the study of the Bible among the European Jews by Moses Mendelssohn and his followers was evident also in the demands for lexical aids to that study. The Hebrew lexicons writ- ten by Jews in the last decades of the eighteenth cen- tury have already been mentioned. J. Ben-Ze’eb’s “Qzar ha-Shorashim” (Treasury of Roots), Vienna, 1807, was very popular down to the second half of the century, and did good work in purifying the lan- guage in eastern Europe. The second edition ap- peared in 1816; the third, edited by Letteris, in 1889- 1844; the fourth, in 1862-64. Jewish learning, which was developed to an unexpected degree by the generation of Jewish scholars following Men- delssohn’s school, brought to light especially the works of classical scholars dealing with Hebrew philology and Bible exegesis, advan- Jewish cing thereby also modern Hebrew phi- Lexicog- lology. The Hebrew lexicons of the raphers of past, edited or printed for the first the time, have been mentioned above. Nineteenth Julius Ftirst was most active as lexi- Century. cographer, publishing a new edition of the Bible concordance. In 1842 he issued a Hebrew-Chalde¢e school lexicon; and in 1869 a Hebrew pocket-dictionary to the Old Testament. His “ Hebritisch und Chaldiisches Handwéorterbuch tiber das A. T.” Leipsic, 1857-61 (2d ed., 18638; 3d ed., by Ryssel, 1876), “marked a great advance, evincing an assiduous and scholarly use of the many products of Old Testament exegesis” (Diestel). The work was translated into English by Davidson, the fifth edition appearing in 1885. Following is a list of other Hebrew lexicons to the Bible which were written by Jews: Hananiah Coen, yw may, * Vocabulario Compendioso Ebra- ico-Italiane,” Reggio, 1811-12. W. Heinemann, 31299 Men, “ Vocabulary Hebrew and Eng. lish,’’ London, 1823. Van Embden, ** Prospectus eines Hebr.-Deutschen und Deutsch. Hebr. Worterbuches,’’ Hamburg, 1823. Judah Laz. Kron, ndvbp 777, °° Hebr.-Deutsches Wérterbueh,” Wilna, 1826. D. Luzzatto, *“ Dizionario Compendiato Ebraico-Chald., Latino et Italiano,” part i., Florence, 1827. Marchand d’Ennery, “Hebr.-Franz. Worterbuch,” 1827. Jos. Hirschfeld, >o773" Now, “Neues Synonymisches Hand. worterbuch zur Beférderung der Hebriischen Sprache,” Frankfort-on-the-Oder, 1818, 1830. Moses Lemans and Y. J. Mulder, ** Hebr.-Nederduitsch Hand- woordenboek,”’’ Amsterdam, 1829-31. Abraham Buchner, w3pn pw? “yw, grammar and lex., War- saw, 1830. M.I.Benlevi, xayn waw oN, * Tabellarisches Hebr.-Deutsches Worterbuch,’? Hanover, 1833. Selig Newmann. ‘‘ Hebrew and English Lexicon,” London, 1834; ‘*Euglish and Hebrew Lexicon,” ib. 1832. Michael Josephs, aD watr, “An English and Hebrew Lexi. con,” tw, 1834. Simba b. Ephraim, xb +n, ‘‘ Hebr. Lx. nach Neuer Methode,” part i., Warsaw, 1839. Joseph Johbisohn, 3° Jy, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1840. Isaac Nordheimer, *‘A Complete Hebrew and Chaldean Con- cordance to the O. T.” part i., New York, 1842. S. E. Heigmans, wap 737, “ Hebr. en Nederduitsch Woorden- boekje,’’ Amsterdam, 1845. Abigail Lindo, ‘‘ A Hebrew-English and English-Hebrew Die- tionary,”’ London, 1846. Emanuel Recanati, ** Dizionario Ebr.-Chald. ed. Italiano,’’ Ve- rona, 1854-56, W. G. Schauffler, wapn ned 1373 75x, ‘Diccionario della Lengua Santa”? (Ladino), Constantinople, 1855. A. Luzzatto, yun «p> ond, ‘ Vocabulario Italiano Hebr.” Ve- rona, 1856, E. Bardach, noayrn youys, ed. Letteris, Vienna, 1868. David Cassel, ** Hebr.-Deutsches Worterbuch,”? Berlin, 1871, 1885, 1886, 1889, 1898. M. E. Stern, wap mow vy, Vienna, 1871. Ch. Polak, ‘* Héber-Magyar Teljes Szétar,’’ Budapest, 1881. J. Steinberg, oo 759s, “* Hebr.-Deutsch-Russisches Worter- buch,’’ Wilna, 1897. ** Biblisch-Hebr. Worterbuch,” Jewish learning of the nineteenth century has pro- duced important works in the field of Talmudic lexi- cography, the most important of which are Jacob Levy’s “ Neuhebriisches und Chaldiisches Worter- buch fiber die Talmudim und Midraschim,” with additions by H. L. Fleischer, Leipsic, 1876-89; and his “Chaldaisches Worterbuch itiber Jewish die Targumim,” 7). 1886. M. Jas- Dic- trow’s work, “Dictionary of the Tar- tionaries of gumim, the Talmud Babli and Yeru- Talmud. shbalmi, and the Midrashic Literature,” London and New York, 1886 e¢ seq., the concluding portion of which will shortly appear, 1s also of independent value. Alexander Kohut’s edi- tion of the ‘Aruk, mentioned above, assumed the shape of an independent lexicon by reason of its size and wealth of material. J. M. Landau’s edition of the ‘Aruk, Prague, 1819-24, also containing maby additions, was used for a long time. The foreig? words, more especially of the Talmud, are explaine in S. and M. Bondi’s 7npx 38, Dessau, 1812; in J. B. Schénhak’s “ Ha-Mashbir,” Warsaw, 1858; by A. Brill in “Fremdsprachliche Redensarten in Talm. und Midr.,” Leipsic, 1869; and in J. First’s “Glos: sarium Greco-Hebraicum. oder der Griechische WO™ terschatz der Jiidischen Midraschwerke,” Strasburg, 585 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 1890. An important supplement to the Talmudic lexicons, including the whole material, is S. Krauss’s *Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter im Tal- mud, Midrasch, und Targum,” with notes by Im- manuel Léw, Berlin, 1898, 1899. Among other works on Talmudic lexicography, the following may be mentioned on account of their lexical form: Isaiab Berlin, "ya? ANSp4, glossary to the ‘Aruk:i., Bres- lau, 1830; ii., Vienna, 1859. M. Laites. additions to Levy’s lexicon, Milan, 1878, 1881; ‘* Mis- cellanea Postuma,” 1884, 1885, J. H. Dessauer, 3329 p12", short lexicons to the Talmud, Er- langen, 1889. M. E. Stern, poo ayix, Vienna, 1863. G. H. Dalman, wa3nn qs, “ Aram.-Neubebr. Worterbueh zu Targum, Talmud, und Midrasch,” Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1897, 1901, a very useful work. No special lexical treatment of the Neo-Hebrew of the Midrashim has yet been undertaken, though a beginning is found in Hananiah Coen’s mOX nay, Reggio, 1822, and Geiger’s glossary to his “ Lehr- und Lesebuch der Sprache der Mischna,” Breslau, 1845. Mention should also be made of the work of the non-Jewish scholar A, Th. Hartmann, “ Thesau- rus Lingue Hebr. e Mischna Augendus,” Rostock, 1825, 1826. David Lowy’s lexicon, osm pw, Prague, 1845, 1847, containing Hebrew words and idioms found in the Talmud, is carried only as far as the root 13. W. Bacher’s “ Die Aelteste Termi- nologie der Jiidischen Schriftauslegung. Ein W6r- terbuch der Bibelexegetischen Kunstsprache der Tan- naiten,” Leipsic, 1899, is confined to one special field. There is as yet no lexicon of the later form of He- brew in post-almudic times, when the vocabulary was strongly influenced and enriched by the various sciences treated in the Hebrew language and by the translations from the Arabic. Jac. Goldenthal! issued his“ Grundziige und Beitriige zu Einem Sprachver- gleichenden Rabbinisch - Philologischen Wérter- buch,” in the “ Abhandlungen der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften,” Vienna, 1849. Zunz, who in- cluded very instructive lists of words in his works on synagogal poetry, expressed in 1856 a “wish for a lexicon of the Hebrew language” (in “Z. D. M. G.” x. 501-312; “Gesammelte Schriften,” iii. 14-80); but this wish has not yet been fulfilled. See also Steinschneider, “Fremdsprachliche Elemente im Neuhebriischen,” Prague, 1845. _ In the last few decades the vocabulary of the He- brew language, which is used in Russia and Poland asa literary language, and in certain regions of Pal- estine and the East as vernacular, has been materially increased, in many cases at the sacrifice of the models set by Biblical purity and historic tradition. This is due to the fact that it is used in jour- Modern nals and scientific works, so that mod- Hebrew. ern objects and ideas must be expressed in the ancient language. The unscien- tific arbitrariness thus arising would be checked bya dictionary including the different phases of the de- velopment of the Hebrew language, in which the Hebrew of the Bible, of the Mishnah, of the medie- val scientific and poetic literature, and, finally, the modern revived Hebrew should each be treated, and those words definitely adopted and standing the test of Sclentific investigation be lexically determined. The Publication of two such lexicons has recently been un- Dictionaries Didache dertaken, partly with scientific ends in view, partly to answer the practical needs of those writing in He- brew ; namely, 8. I. Fuenn’s “ Ha-Ozar,” Warsaw (as far as the letter m), and Ben Judah’s “ Ha-Millon,” Jerusalem (only two fasciculi so far). G. W. B. DIDACHE, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (AiWay7 tov Addexa ’ArooréAwv): A manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Syn- agogue by early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and amplification into a Church manual. Discovered among a collection of ancient Christian manuscripts in Constantinople by Bryennios in 1878, and published by him in 18838, it aroused great in- terest among scholars. The book, mentioned by Eusebius (“ Hist. Eccl.” iii. 25) and Athanasius (“Festal Letters,” 39) in the fourth century, had ap- parently been lost since the ninth century. The most acceptable theory among the many proposed on the character and composition of the “Didache” is that proposed by Charles Taylor in 1886, and ac- cepted in 1895 by A. Harnack (who in 1884 had most vigorously maintained its Christian origin)— that the first part of the “Didache,” the teach- ing concerning the “Two Ways” (“ Didache,” ch. i.-vi.), was originally a manual of instruction used for the initiation of proselytes in the Synagogue, and was converted later into a Christian manual and ascribed to Jesus and the Apostles. Toit were added rules concerning baptism, fasting, and prayer, the benedictions over the wine and the bread and after the communion meal, and regulations regarding the Christian community (ch. vii.-xvi.). The Jewish student is concerned chiefly with the first part, the title and contents of which are discussed here. The composite character of the “ Didache” is shown by the double title or heading. The first words, “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” Title of the form the general title, and therefore Book. need not now be considered. But of the second heading, which refers to the original book, ch. i-vi., only the words “Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles” (A:day7 Kupiov toic “E@veotv) are genuinely Jewish; the words “through the Twelve Apostles,” which assume that the word “Lord” refers to Jesus, are a Christian interpolation. The book known to Christians as the “Teaching of the Two Ways” corresponded proba- bly with the “Hilkot Gerim” (Rules Regarding Proselytes) referred to in Ruth R. i. 7 and 16 as having been studied by Ruth under the direction of Naomi, the words Ju4 (“way”) and bn (“ walk ”) in both verses being taken as indications that the necessary instruction in the “Two Ways” had been duly given to Ruth (compare Baraita Yeb. 47a, and Massek. Gerim, the abrupt beginning of which gives evidence of the existence of other rules concerning the admission of proselytes during the Temple time). The whole teaching issummarized in the first two verses (ch. i. 1-2): “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and wide is the dif- Contents ference between. The way of life is of the this: First, thou shalt love God thy ‘¢ Didache.” Maker [after Deut. vi. 5]; second, thou shalt love thy neighbor as_ thyself [after Lev. xix. 18]. Now the teaching of these two Didache THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 586 —_—_—_—_—_—VXVXYVX—X—_—_—————_—— Ch OoO5OwOT Te words is this: ‘Whatsoever thou wouldst not have done unto thee, neither do thou to another.’ ” Here is a great lacuna, nothing being said about what love of God implies; and what follows is only very loosely connected with the preceding verses. Whether taken from an old Essene document (see Hippolytus, “*Refutatio Hzeresium,”’ ix. 23 [18]}) or from some Christian collection of ** Sayings *’ older than Matt. v. 39-48 and Luke vi. 27-39, verses 3-4 are certainly out of place; they interrupt the order. So do verses 4-5, in which “the commandment of charity’ is treated from the Jewish point of view, though they have parallels in Matt. v. 26; Acts xXx. 38. Ch. ii. 1 begins as if the first part of the Decalogue, comprising the law of the love of God, had been treated in the preceding chapter: ‘*And the second commandment of the Teaching [that is, love of our fellow man] is: Thou shalt not kill’? (Ex. Xx. 13; see verse 2). 2: **Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: “* Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.”’) “Thou shalt not steal’? (Ex. xx. 15). ... “*Thou shalt not use witchcraft nor practise sorcery’ (Ex. xxii. 18; Lev. xix. 26). (This belongs obviously to the eliminated first part comprising the duties toward God.) ‘* Thou sbalt not procure abortion, nor shalt thou kill the new-born child’? (compare Wisdom xii. 5). (This is the amplification of Ex. xx. 13, and belongs to verse 1.) “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods”’ (Ex. xx. 17; see verse 6). 3-5: “Thou shalt not forswear thyself.” .. . (This again be- longs to the eliminated first part.) ‘*Thou shalt not bear false witness’ (Ex. xx. 16). ‘*Thou shalt not speak evil nor bear malice. Thou shalt not be doubled-minded nor double-tongued, for duplicity of tongue is a snare of death. Thy speech shall not be false nor vain, but filled with deed.” 6: “Thou shalt not be covetous nor rapacious [amplification of Ex. xx. 17), nor a hyprocrite, nor malignant, nor haughty. Thou shalt not take evil counsel against thy neighbor’ (ampli- fication of Ex. xx. 16). 7: “Thou shalt not hate any one; but some thou shalt rebuke {Lev. xix. 17], and for some thou shalt pray [compare Tosef., B. K. ix. 29 with reference to Job xlii. 8; Gen. xx.17; see Matt. v. 44], and some thou shalt love above thine own soul” (compare “Epistle of Barnabas,’’ xix. 11, and another ‘*Didache”’ version, Harnack and Gebhard, *‘ Texte u. Untersuchungen,” xiii. i. 7 et seqg.). (This is the interpretation of Lev. xix. 18; compare above, i. 3.) Ch. iii. 1 dwells on lighter sins, and begins by laying down the following principle: ‘“*My child, flee from every evil and from whatsoever is similar to it.” This well-known maxim, VIP MDI FO) Wps37 yA ANA SAN NA OY, is ascribed in Tosef., Hul. ij. 24 to R. Eliezer of the second Christian century, and in Ab. R. N. ii. (ed. Schechter, pp. 8, 9) to Job, and is ex- plained: * Avoid light sins in order to escape grosser sins” (compare also Hul. 44b; Derek Erez Zuta, viii.; | Thess. v. 22: and Bacher,‘ Die Agada der Tannaiten,” i. 118, 281). In this sense are the commandments of the Decalogue further ampli- fled: 2 warns against anger and contention as leading to murder. 3, against lust, lascivious speeches and looks as leading to fornication and adultery. 4, against divination, astrology, and other heathen practises as leading to idolatry. 5, against lying, avarice, and vanity as leading to theft. 6-9, against an irreverential and presumptuous attitude toward God as ieading to blaspkemy. 10, enjoining the disciple to accept every seemingly evil hap- pening as good because coming from God. Ch. iv. 1-13 refers again to the duty toward God, stating that the honor of God includes the study of His Word; the honor of the teacher, the support of the students and practisers of the Law: the honor of the father, the support of the household : and after having positively enjoined hatred of hypocrisy and of whatever is evil (see Ab. R. N. xvi, [ed. Schechter, p. 64]), it declares ina genuinely Jewish spirit that “the commandments of the Lord should all be képt;: none to be added, and none to be taken away” (compare Deut. iv. 2. xiii. 1 (xii. 32]). Ch. v. recapitulates the prohibitory laws under the heading “This is the Way of Death’; the enumeration, however. shows lack of order. Ch. vi. coutains a warning against false teachers, and ad- dressing the proselyte in verse 2, it says: “If thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect: if not, do what thou canst.” This is obviously an allusion to the two classes of proselytes Judaism recognized: the full proselyte, - who accepted all the laws of the Torah, including circumcision, Sabbath, and the dietary laws. and the semi-proselyte, who accepted only the Noacbian laws as binding. For the latter verse 3 contains the warning not to eat meat which has been offered to idols, Which is forbidden also to the Noachide, Asa matter of course, this Jewish manual could not be used in its entirety by the Church from the moment when she deviated from Jewish practises and views. JustastheShema‘ Yisrael in the saying of Jesus (Mark xii. 29) was dropped by the other Gos- pel writers, so was the whole first part of the “ Dj- dache,” dealing with monotheism, tampered with by the Christian editor. The whole book has fallen into disorder, and much of it is misunderstood and mis- interpreted by Christian scholars, who judge it only from the point of view of the Church. The ‘“‘Two The fundamental ideas of the “Dj. Ways.” dache” areindisputably Jewish. The teaching of the “Two Ways,” the one of life and the other of death, runs as a leading thought throughout Jewish literature. Just as Moses set before the people of Israel “life and good, death and evil” (Deut. xxx. 15-19; Jer. xxi. 8), so is the choice between the two roads to be made ever anew (Ps. i. 6; Prov. ii. 12-20, vi. 23; Ecclus, [Sirach] xv. 17; Slavonic Enoch, xxx. 15; IV Ezra iii. 7, iv.4; Pirke R. El. xv.; Gen. R. viii., ix., xxi; Targum to Gen. iii, 22; Enoch, xciv. 2 et seq.; Ba- ruch iv. 2; Apoc. Baruch, xlii. 5 et seg., Ixxxv. 13; Book of Jubilees, xxii, 17-29; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Asher, 1; Abot R. N. xv.; Ber, 28b; Sifre, Debarim, 48, 54, based on 977 [“the way ”]; Deut xi. 28; Gen. R. Ixx. to Gen. xxviii. 20 [JI = see Targum]; Ex. R. xxx.; Deut. R. iv.; Midrash, Tehillim to Ps. ii. 3, with reference to 471; Isa. ii. 3; Ps. xxvi. 5, xxxix, 2, xl. 2, xviii. 21, cxix. 9, cxlvi. 9; Midrash Prov. i. 15 [Jo]. This twofold way was especially emphasized in the preaching to the Gentiles, who were to be won over to the right way (Sibyllines, Proemium 24; iii. 11, 2383, 721; viii. 399). Anda faint reminiscence of the twofold way appears to be preserved in the later Halakah insisting that the applicant for admis- sion into Judaism be informed of the death-penal- ties attached to certain transgressions (see Yeb. 47a, b; compare Ruth R. i. 17 with reference to the Biblical words “ Where thou diest will I die”). An- other leading idea of the “ Didache” is the twofold duty: love of God and Jove of man; both being prefaced by the word pnsmXy= “And thou shalt love” (Deut. vi. 4; Lev. xix. 18; see Sifre, Debarim, 32; Ab. R. N. xvi. fed. Schechter, p. 64]; Gen. R. xxiv, end). Upon God as “the Maker of man” rests the claim of the fellow man to love (Job xxxi. 19). It is noteworthy that the “golden rule” is given in the “ Didache” according to the traditional Jewish interpretation—negatively : spand 43D aby nm ayn xb (see Targ. to Lev. xix. 18; Tobit iv. 15; Philo in Eusebius, “Preparatio Evangelica,” viii. ™ “Apostolic Constitutions,” i. 1; see DrpascaLls compare Taylor, “Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. 2d ed., p. 142), exactly as Hillel and Akiba taught 1 when instructing the proselyte regarding the chie commandment of the Law (Shab. 31b; Ab. R. N> B, xxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]). On the other hand, the New Testament (Matt. vil. 12; Luke vi. 31) bas 587 ec ara eee jt in a positive form (compare Matt. xxii. 35-40 and Mark xii. 29-31, which discussion is based on the “ Didache,” not vice versa). A third characteristic of the teaching is the use of the Decalogue as the exponent of ethics in its two- fold aspect: duty to God, and duty to man (compare Taylor, @.c. pp. 216 et seq.). Evidently Based the original “Didache” contained a onthe systematic exposition of the Ten Com- Decalogue. mandments, whereas the “ Didache ” in its present shape has preserved only fragments, and these in great disorder. Thus, for instance, iv. 9-11, and possibly iv. 1, 2, dwelling on the relations of the members of the household to one another, refers to the fifth commandment, nor is itlikely that the Sabbath commandment was omitted (compare xiv. 1, where the Christian Sabbath is re- ferred to). The Decalogue and the Shema’‘, as fun- damental elements of Judaism, were recited every morning in the Tempie (Tamid v. 1), and only be- cause the early Judseo-Christians (Minim; see Ire- neus, “ Adversus Heereses,” iv. 16) claimed divine revelation exclusively for the Ten Commandments, discarding the other Mosaic laws as temporary enact- ments, was the recital of the DECALOGUE in the daily morning liturgy afterward abolished (Yer. Ber. i. 3c). Philo still regarded the Decalogue as fundamental (*De Decem Oraculis”; compare Pes. R. xxi.-xxiv. ; Num. R. xiii. 15). The Jater Halakah insists that the proselyte should be acquainted instead with the 613 commandments of the Law (Yeb. 47b), whereas the Christian Apostles laid all the greater stress on the second part of the Decalogue (Rom. xiii. 9). A fourth distinguishing feature of the “ Didache ” is the accentuation of the lighter sins and lighter duties as leading to graver ones: “Flee from every evil and from whatsoever is similar to it” (iii. 1). This is not a proof of “the superiority of the Gospel ethics over the law” (Schaff, note ad loc.), but the very essence of the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law. The same idea is expressed in Ab. R. N. it. {ed. Schechter, pp. 8, 9,12; comp. Ab. i. 1): “Make a fence around the Law”; (Schaff, note ad loc.), and in the adage “Go around the vineyard, they say to the Nazarite, but dare not to enter it” (Shab. 18a). Upon this principle the whole rabbinical code of ethics is built up, of which the Sermon on the Mount is only the echo (see Ab. R. N. Ze, and Etaics; compare Taylor, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” pp. 24 et seg.). The later Hala- kah also sets down the rule that the proselyte has to be made acquainted with some of the lighter and some of the graver commandments—MyoO AYPY mon myyp nypor mbp (Veb. 47a). It must accordingly have been simply in imitation of the Jewish example which was offered by the “Didache” that the epistles of Paul, of Peter, and of John were made to close with moral exhortations, all of which point to a common source or archetype. Familiarity with the “ Two Ways” of the “ Didache” furthermore accounts for the term “way ” or “way of God” given to the Christian religion as preached to Gentiles (Acts ix. 2; xviii. 25,26; xix. 9, 28: xxii. 4; xxiv. 14, 22): and the expression “I am the Way and the Life” (John xiv. 6); also “the way of truth” 8nd “the right way ” (II Peter ii. 2,15). Finally, the THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Didache “Didache,” after adaptation to Christian use, circ |- lated in different versions. It was attached to the “Epistle of Barnabas” (xviii.-xx.); it was worked into the form of “Sayings of the Twelve Apostles ” (Kdvoveg "ExxAnotaotixot trav ' Ayiwy ’ Axvoté2wv), and as such propagated in the various churches of the East. An older version is attached to the “ Didascalia ” as the beginning of the seventh book of the “ Apostolic Constitutions,” Whether the latter part was also worked out after a Jewish model, or whether the whole Jewish “ Didache ” did not originally also con- tain rules concerning baptism, prayer, and thanks- giving similar to those of the Church Depend- manual, is difficult to say. Much ence upon speaks in favor of this hypothesis: on Jewish the one hand, the antagonistic spirit Custom. which transferred the Hebrew Ma‘am- adot fasts from Monday and Thurs- day, and on the other hand, the expression “Take the first-fruit and give according to the command- ment” (xiii. 5, 7). But the dependence upon Jew- ish custom is especially indicated by the following thanksgiving formulas: (1) Over the cup: “ We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy wine of David Thy servant Which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant.”’ This strange formulais the Jew- ish benediction over the wine,** Blessed be Thou who hast created the fruit of the vine ’ Christianized (compare Ps. 1xxx. 15, Tar- gum; exvi. 18 refers to David atthe banquet of the future life; Pes. 119b; John xv. 1; compare Taylor, l.c. pp. 69, 129). (2) Over the broken bread: “ We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant. As this broken bread, scattered upon the mountains and gathered together, beeame one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth inte Thy Kingdom!’ (compare the benediction **Rahem ”’ accord- ing to Rab Nahman, which contains a reference to Ps. exlvii. 23 Ber. 49a). (8) Over the meal: ** We thank Thee, O holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast caused to dwell [xategxyrwaas, reference to the Shekinah] in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant. Thou, Almighty Lord, didst make all things for Thy name’s sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to Thee, buf to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy servant. . . . Remember, O Lord, Thy Church to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in love of Thee, and gather her together from the four winds, sanctified for Thy Kingdom which Thou didst prepare for her. Let grace come and let this world pass away! Hosanna to the Son of David” (ix.-x. 6). The original Jewish benediction over the meal was a thanksgiving for the food and for the Word of God, the Torah as the spiritual nurture, and a prayer for the restitution of the kingdom of David. The Church transformed the Logos into the in- carnated son of God, while expressing the wish for His speedy return to the united congregation (the Church). It is the praver of the Judeo-Christian community of the first century, and this casts light upon the whole Christianized “ Didache.” As to the relation of the “ Didache” to Phokylides, see Psrupo- PHOCYLIDES; see also DIDASCALIA. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Editio princeps: Theoph. Bryennios, A:édayy tav Awdexa ‘ArootoAwy, Constantinople, 1888; Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles (with facsimile text), Balti- more and London, 1887; Ph. Schaff. The Oldest Church Manual, Called * The Teaching of the Twelve _A postles,” New York, 1886, where all the literature is given; C. Taylor, The Teaching of the Tivelve Apostles, with illustrations from the Talmud (two lectures), Cambridge, 1886: A. Har- nack, Die Lehre der Zwilf Apostel, in Texte u. Untersu- chungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, ii. 2, Leipsic, 1884; idem, Die Apostellehre w. die Jitdischen Beiden Wege, Leipsic, 1886, 1896}; O. Bardenhewer, Ge- Didascali Didascalia THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 588 SS eg FS te Te ee Ce ee ee ee ow I ap eae ae RF ae a ON ay eee I ee — schichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, 1902, i. 88-86: Iselin. Hine Bisher Unbekannte Version des Ersten Theils der ae in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xiii. 1, Leipsic, 1895 ; Herzog-Hauck, Real-Eneyklopddie, s.v. K 8. S. ‘ DIDASCALI. See CaTEcHUMENS, HoUsE OF. DIDASCALIA § (Adacxatia = “Instruction ”) : A Greek work, in eight books, containing regula- tions of Church life, better known under the name of “Apostolic Constitutions,” the full title being “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [composed] by Clemens, Bishop and Citizen of Rome—Catholic Di- dascalia.” Claiming to have been written by the Apostles, the work proves on closer examination to be based, like the DIDACHE, upon an original Jewish work, transformed by extensive interpolations and slight alterations into a Christian document of great authority. There exists another version, bearing the name “ Didascalia,” in Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and (incomplete) in Latin, which, since the appearance of Lagarde’s edition of the Syriac “ Di- dascalia ” in 1854, most modern scholars consider to be the original work. On the other hand, Bickell (“Gesch. des Kirchenrechts,” 1843, pp. 148-177) has givenconvincing proofs that the “ Apostolic Consti- tutions” is the original work, and the so-called “ Didascalia ” a mere condensation. In the latter the Jewish elements are toa large extent eliminated, and the Christian character is more pronounced. Only the first six books of the “ Apostolic Consti- tutions,” which correspond with the “ Didascalia ” —the latter consists of twenty-six chapters and is not divided into books—form the orig- Jewish inal work; the last two, which con- Original. tain, besides a remodeled version of the “ Didache,” many liturgical pieces of very ancient character and indisputably of Jew- ish origin, are later additions, but seem to have be- longed in part to the older Jewish original. The work is of very great value to the student of Jewish and Church history, as it contains a large amount of haggadic and halakic material derived from un- known Jewish sources, and casts a flood of light upon Talmudic and New Testament literature. The original writer quotes the Scripture after the Septu- agint version, and many apocryphal verses from un- known works; and, as will be shown farther on, he furnished to Paul and to other New Testament wri- ters the source for many of their dicta. His style is fresh and vigorous, bearing striking resemblance to that of the “ Didache.” The Christian interpolator, ou the other hand, is easily recognized by interrup- tions of the context, by ill-fitting New Testament references, and by occasional outbursts of Jew-hatred in glaring contrast to the Jewish spirit of the main work, The name “God” was frequently changed by copyists into “Christ,” as was occasionally no- ticed by Lagarde; at times “Christ” is used for “Logos” (the Word). The name “ Didascalia” (given in the Preface and found in ii. 39, 55; vi. 14, 18; vii. 36) was borrowed from the Jewish original, the introductory sentence of which, greatly amplified in the “ Apostolic Con- stitutions ” and still more in the Syriac “ Didascalia,” seems to have read as follows: “The plantation of God and His elect vineyard, those who believe in His unerring worship and hope to partake of His kingdom, sharing in His power and in the communion of His Holy Spirit . . . harken to His holy ‘Instruction.’ Take care, ye children of God, to do all things in obedience to God ang to be agreeable in all things to the Lord our God. For if any man follow unrighteousness and act contrarily to the will of God, such a one will be regarded by God as a lawless heathey [ws mapavonov ébvos = yen syQ).” Book I.: Dealing with the conduct of indiviy. uals, this book begins with a warning against the lighter transgressions (mp nisio; see Drpacne), é.g., covetousness (Ex. xx. 17), as coming from the Evil One (Test. Patr., Simeon, 3); the argument, based on the Targumic interpretation of Lev. xix, 18, as in the “Didache” (not the positive “golden tule” of the New Testament), has its exact parallel in Ab, R. N. xv.—xvi. (ed. Schechter, pp. 60, 62, 65), The monition in ch. ii. to bless him who curses ig based on Num. xxiv. 9 and Prov, xx. 22; Luke vi. 28 and Matt. v. 44, 45 being obviously later inter. polations. The warning against lascivious conduct of men, “which may cause the stumbling of women,” is based on Ex. xx. 14, 17 (without reference to Matt. xviii. 7); and rules regarding modesty in the dressing of hair and beard, on Deut. xxii. 5 and Lev. xix. 27 (compare Sifra, Ahare Mot, ix.18). Ch, iv.—vi. recommend a useful occupation and the study of the Scriptures (Josh. i. 8; Deut. iv. 7; and verses from Wisdom and Proverbs), and warn against heathen and diabolical books. Ch. vili.~x. contain rules of conduct for women, beginning with a sen- tence of which Paul’s dictum, I Cor. xi. 3, is evi- dently the copy, not the source (the interpolation made here disturbing the sense). The sentence isas follows: ** Let the wife subordinate herself to her husband; for the head of the woman is the man, and of the man who walks in the way of righteousness, God, his Father, who is over all {compare *‘ Didache,” iv. 10]; therefore, next to God, O wife, fear and reverence thy husband.” With copious references to Proverbs, woman is warned not to cause men to “stumble” by her en- ticing attire. She is admonished to go about with covered head in the street; not to paint her face, as “all frivolous adornment of what God Himself made beautiful is an affront to the bounty of the Creator”; to walk with downward look and be veiled; to bathe only in places and at times reserved exclusively for women; and, finally, to conduct herself so as not to cause her husband to stumble. All these teachings may be termed “ Hilkot Zeni‘ut” (Rules of Modesty), and having many parallels in Massek. Kallah, ed. Coronel, Vienna, 1864, and in Massek. Derek ‘Erez, were conspicuous features in the life of the Essenes or Zenu‘im (Ber. 62a, b; Shab. 118b, 140b; Ta‘an. 21b, 22a; Meg. 12b; B. K. 82a). Book II.: Dwellson the functions and powers of the head of the congregation, called “episcopus : = “overseer,” the Christian “ bishop,” Origin the DB (= mpdvooe or rpovodn) of the In- of rabbinical literature (Sifre, Bemid- stitution bar, 139; compare zpovolav rocovuevos 1D of Bishops. “Apost. Const.” III. iii). It begs with the rule: “The shepherd who }5 ordained overseer must be without blemish and 20 under fifty years of age” (compare Philo, “De Pro- fugis,” vi.; Hag. 14a; Sanh. 17a). The modificatio? | of this rule for small parishes, which follows, betrays the hand of Christian interpolators, 589 gota ee Se eee The qualities necessary for an overseer (based on Ex. xviii, 21; compare Mek., Yitro, ad loc.; Sifre, Bemidbar, 92; Debarim, 15; Sanh. 17a) are enumer- ated in ch. ii., and repeated in I Tim. ili. 2-7. One of these is that he should not be a proselyte (vedovroe — 73; compare Kid. 76b; A. V. “novice,” I Tim. iji. 6, is incorrect), From Lev. xxi. 17 (compare Sanh. 86b) is derived the rule in ch. iti. that the overseer must be examined in order that it may be ascertained whether he is free from blemish; but chief stress is laid upon his being a compassionate friend of the widow and the stranger, eager and capable to administer to the poor, this being his principal task (ch. iv.). In order to fulfil well his other task, that of in- structing the people in the Law, he must (ch. v.- viii.) always be sober-minded (compare Sifra to Lev. x. 8; Sanh. 42a; ‘Er. 64b); show no greediness, es- pecially in dealing with Gentiles (the latter words are omitted in I Tim. iii. 8; compare, however, Yer. B. M. ii. 8c); suffer rather than inflict injury (compare Shab. 88b, padyy yoy padyon); shun heathen festi- vals and heathen lusts; and asa good shepherd lead his flock by a good example (after Lev. xv. 31, LXX.; Hosea iv. 9, LXX.). The name “episcopus,” taken as “watchman” (“The shepherds should be good watchmen”; com- pare Jer. vi. 17, DXX., and Ezek. xxxiit. 6), is dwelt upon as enjoining him to expel bad sheep from the flock (ch. ix.-x., with references to Achan and Ge- hazi, but without mention of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts v. 1-10). Ch. xvi.-xix.: “One scabbed sheep, if not separated, infects the rest with disease”; “A little Jeaven infects the whole lump” (hence, also, Gal. v. 9); therefore sinners should be separated, like Miriam (Num. xii. 14; compare Sifre ad loe., 453), for longer or shorter periods, and avoid Episcopal “the wrath of divine judgment pro- Powers. nounced by the overseer, the watch- man of righteousness,” who has the power of binding and loosing; who is like Moses and Aaron, being made to bear the sins of all (Num. xviii. 1); and who, as shepherd, is held to account for every single sheep of his flock (Ezek. xxxiv.). The whole disciplinary system in use among the Essenes and the Pharisees as well as among the early Christians (see ANATHEMA; EXCOMMUNICATION) is here (ch. xlii.-xliii. and xlvii.) fully presented, the excommunicated being characteristically called atoovvaywyoc = “expelled from the synagogue” (ch, lxiii, p. 71, line 5, ed. Lagarde [compare p. 72, line 8]; book III., ch. viii., 7d., p. 105, line 6; book IV., ch. viii., ¢d., p. 119, line 28). The overseer also offers remission of sins to the transgressor who repents, exactly as, when David confessed his sin before God, the Holy Spirit an- Swered (II Sam. xii. 18, LXX.): “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; be of good cheer, thou shalt hot die” (ch. xviii. and xxii.). Moreover, “he who does not receive the penitent is a murderer of his brother, like Cain” (ch. xxi.). The sinner’s claim upon compassion is especially illustrated by a re- Markable portion of a Midrash relating more elabo- Tately than in any other work the story of Manas- Seh’s idolatry and repentance, Manasseh’s prayer forming an integral part of the whole haggadic THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Didascali Didascalia legend, while ‘the fruitlessness of hypocritical re- pentance is illustrated by the singular story of Amon (see AMON; MANASSEH), Ch. XXii.-xxiv.: The weak, malapropos Apostolic testimony here added by the Christian redactor only serves to estab- lish the Jewish character of the remainder. Still more remarkable are ch. xii.—xv., which, dwelling upon the proper treatment of the penitent sinner, refer to Ezek. xxxiii. 11 e¢ seg. Ch. xiv. and xvili. contain arguments in favor of mingling with the wicked in order to win them over to right- eousness and to obtain God’s pardon for them, with- out even a reference to the life-work of Jesus—a fact which excludes the very possibility of a Christian authorship of the book. On the contrary, remon- strating against those “relentless” fanatics who would let the wicked perish in their sin, the author says (ch. xXiv.): ** The lovers of God who commune with the sinners are not guilty of sin, but are imitators of their Father in heaven, who maketh His sun rise on the righteous and on the wicked, and sendeth His rain alike upon the evil and the good. [Compare Agadat Shir ha-Shirim, ed. Schechter, p.4. Thisis the source also of Matt. v. 45 and of II Tim. ii. 5.] Victors and vanquished are in the same arena, and only those are crowned who have nobly striven.’ ** Noris the teacher defiled by coming nigh to the sin- ners [compare the controversy between the Shammaites and the Hillelites in Ab. R. N. iii. (ed. Schechter, p. 14), and Ber. 22a). The sinners should be offered comfort and hope [Isa. xl. 1, LXX.]; and Noah, Lot, and Rahab are given as instances that conver- sation and association with the unrighteous do not condemn the righteous.” Likewise is the picture of the good shepherd, who “strengthens the weak, heals the sick, and seeks that which is lost” (derived from Ezek. xxxiv.), elaborately described in ch. Xviii.-xx.; accounting for the New Testament similes (Luke xv. 4 and Matt. x. 6), as well as for the haggadic pictures of Moses and David (Ex. R. ii.; Tan., Shemot, ed. Buber, p. 6; Midr. Teh. to Ps. lxxviii. 71). “Like the gentle shepherd [Isa. xlii.], the overseer should endeavor to save all the members of The Good his flock, and say to the sinner, ‘Do Shepherd. thou but return, and I will accept death for thee.’” This is the original of “the good shepherd ” who “ giveth his life for the sheep” (John x. 11-18, quoted in the interpolated passage). “Likeafather he should love them as his children, and rear them as the hen rears her chick- ens” (hence Matt. xxiii. 32). A genuine piece of halakic legislation occurs in ch, xxiv.-xxv. concerning the use of charity-offer- ings: “The overseer should not use the godly things [uypn] as if they were profane [pon = 42.267 pu0}, but with restraint;” he may, as “a man of God” (compare II Kings iv. 42; Ket. 105b; “ Didache,” xiii. 3-6), use as godly things the tithes, first-fruits, and all the freewill offerings brought in for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the sick, and the stranger, but may not misuse them in selfish greed. Here follows, with references to Num. xxxii. 22 (compare Yer. Shek. iii. 47%c), Ezek. xxxiv. 3, Isa. v. 8, and Lev. xix. 18 (342), the passage which is obviously the source of Paul in I Cor. ix. 7-9. Referring to Deut. xxv, 4, it says: ‘**In the same manner as the ox that labors on the threshing- floor without a muzzle eats indeed, but does not eat it all up, so do you who labor for the threshing-fioor [}72: compare Hul. 5a] —that is, for the congregation of God—eat of the congregation. Didascalia THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 590 Se Le See Sl le SA ae ee ge = aaa a A eee Fe eS peg ge poe a ee mm In the same manner as the Levites who served in the Taber- nacle partook of the things offered to God (Num. xviii.]. should the administrators of charity be supported out of the charity gifts.” In the following passage, beneath “the Church of Jesus the Savior” (yom), there is discernible “the congregation of God that escaped the Ten Plagues and received the Ten Commandments, and has yod (=ten) as its first letter, while named after God (YuwH), whose first letter is also yod(=ten).” Here the overseer is recommended to the people’s love and reverence as their high priest, as “the father [“abba”; see Kohler in “Jew. Quart. Rev.” xiii, 567 et seg.] who caused you to be born anew as God’s children through baptism and the Holy Spirit” (see Essenes), and as “the earthly god,” after Ps. Ixxxii. 6; Ex. xxii. 27. As without the priest no one could approach the altar, so the means of support for the widows and orphans, which is a type of the altar of burnt offering, may not be of- fered without the overseer, lest punishment, as in I Sam. xiii. 18, IZ Chron. xxii. 16, and Num, xvi., fol- low (ch. xxv.—xxvii.). Ch. xxxii.: “The overseer, who adopts thee as God’s child, is thy father, and his right hand, with which he imbues thee with the Holy Spirit, thy mother; so honor them as thy spir- itual parents” (Ex, xx. 12; comp. B. M. ii. 11). Great stress is Jaid in ch. xlv. ef seg. upon the avoidance of heathen courts of justice for the ad- justment of differences (comp. Tan. Yelamdenu to Deut. xvi. 18; Yalk. to Ps. exlvii., p39 Sw myony). On Sabbath no judicial debates should take place; peace only is to prevail; wherefore the court ses- sions should be on the second (and the fifth [?]) day of the Sabbaths, so that the controversy Jewish may be settled in the interval, and the Courts of contestants may have peace again on Justice. the Lord’s Day (see Syriac “ Didasca- . lia,” xi. ; Ket. i. 1; Bezah v. 2; compare “Didache,” viii. 11 against the Jewish “Ma‘ama- dot”). According to ch. lxvii., the assistants (“ diaco- nes ”) and elders give their votes as “ men of God,” and the overseer decides; God, whose Shekinah (the text has Xpiorec) is present, confirming the judgment (after Ps. 1xxxii 1; compare Midr. Teh. ad loc.). * Even the heathen judge, before passing the final decree of capital punishment, lifts his hand toward the sun and swears that he is innocent of the blood of the culprit ; so much the more should your verdict be given only after careful investigation.” ** Be, therefore, righteous judges, peacemakers, and free from anger. If it happen that by some evil influence you become angry at anybody, let not the sun go down upon your wrath: for, says David, ‘ Be angry, and sin not’ [Ps. iv. 4, LXX.]; that is, “Be soon reconciled, lest your wrath, lasting -long, become hatred and work sin.’ For *Thesouls of those that bear a settled hatred are to death,’ says Solomon [Prov. xii. 28, LXX.]."" It is plain that Eph. iv. 26 is based upon this passage (compare Resch, ** Agrapha,” p. 210, Leipsic, 1899). ** Wherefore, brethren, it is your duty to pray continually and to remove enmity. God hears not those who are at enmity with their brethren on account of unjust anger” (compare Ber, 19a). ‘** Before the prayer which follows the reading from the Law and the psalm-singing and the instruction [‘ didascalia’’] out of the Scriptures (*‘ Haftarah ’*J, should the assistant (deacon = yn], while standing near you, say with a loud voice: * Let no one have a quarrel with another. Let none come in hypoc- risy !’ For the greeting of peace [Isa. lvii.J, offered on entering private houses, is all the more applicable to those that enter the congregation of God, as the name ‘bet ha-keneset’ [‘‘syna- gogue ’’] indicates the gathering of all who belong to the Lord and the augmentation of the number of those *saved by con- cord’ ”’ (ch. lv.). Divine service, under the direction of the overseer “as the commander of a great ship ” (compare Clem. ent’s Epistle to James xiv.-xv.; B. B. 91b; Ber, 289. Levy, “Neuhebr. Worterb.” s.c, 6°993)), and under the supervision of the deacons (D*3tn), begins with the reading of the two lessons from the Torah and the Prophets, while “all stand in silence” (according to Deut. v. 28 [A. V. 31], xxvii. 9). This is followed by expositions by the seven elders, and finally by the overseer (“maftir”); then prayer is of. fered for the land and its produce, for the high priest and the king, and for the peace of the universe, the faces of all being turned eastward “toward the site of Parg. dise”; and the overseer then gives the closing bene- diction (ch. Ivii.). Ch. lviil. states that the overseer should enjoin the people to attend the service regularly, and not by their absence to cause the body of the divine glory, Shekinah (text, “ Christ ”), to lose a member (compare mDPIwA oy and Yeb. 64a; Ber. 6a, 8a); especially on the Sabbath day, on which “we pray thrice standing, in memory of the exodus from Egypt and the manna, and on which the reading of the Proph- ets takes place” (ch. lix.; see further regarding the Sabbath prayer). In ch. Ix. it is stated that the peo- ple should emulate the heathen, who rally in the theaters, as in a synagogue, for “things that do not profit,” while deprived of the power of the Word and of the power of the name “Judah,” which is interpreted “confession” (M35m"; Ezek. v. 6, 7; xvi. AT; Jer. ii. 10, 11). According to ch. Ixii., the people should pursue their trades as by-work (Sep) and the worship of God as their main work (1py), avoiding the shows and theaters of the Hellenesand the Hellenic oracles, and adhering to the congregation of the Lord, “the daughter of the Highest” (Ps. xxvi. 4,5; 1. 1, 2; Jer. xv. 17, LXX.; Job xxxi. 5, 6; compare ‘Ab. Zarah 18b). They should also avoid the indecent spectacles, the sports, and the feasts of the heathen (Num. xxiii. 23; II Sam. xv. 23, LXX.; Lev. xix. 26; Jer. ix. 2). “There is no fellowship between God and Satan” (hence Cor, vi, 14, 15). Only for the sake of redeeming a captive and saving a soul (YI MIP) DNA j19H) and other necessary objects may such places be visited (compare Shab. 150a). “The younger men of the congregation should work for their own support and for that of the needy [Prov. vi. 6, LXX., xii. 11, xix. 24; Eccl. x. 18]: ‘Andif any one will not work, neither shall he eat among you,’ for the Lord our God hateth the slothful. For no one of those who are dedicated to God [pat "x: Tare. to Judges v. 9; I Macc. ii. 42; see Des- ORAHIN RABBINICAL LITERATURE] ought to be idle.” Here again Paul (II Thess. iii. 10) copies from the “ Didascalia.” Books III. and IV.: These, as well as part of Book V., contain regulations concerning the support of widows, orphans, and other persons in distress: but the order in which they are presented 1s scarcel¥ the original one. The fundamental idea underlying the book which deals with widows as a special class, or holy order, is that they are “types of the altat° God ” (Book IIL, ch. vi., vii., xiv. ; compare Book IL., Divine Service. Work. 591 ch. xxvi.,and ALTAR); they pray for him who gives alms (Book III., ch. xiii., xiv.). The institution of pious widows spending their time in prayer goes back to pre-Christian times, and can not but be of Essene or Hasidic origin (see Luke ii. 36-88; ANNA and SERAH BaT ASHER); the Therapeutes had their class of aged women who leda holy life, and who were regarded as virgins because they would not marry a second time (Philo, “De Vita Contemplativa,” § 8; see espe- Widows cially Conybeare in his edition, pp. ‘the Altar 303 and 353; compare Kohler, “Testa- of God.” ment of Job,” in Kohut Memorial Vol- ume, pp. 287-292). These “ virgin widows,” whose type was Judith (see Judith xi, 17, xii. 6-8, xvi. 22), are called “the pious Women ” (p29 nyopty) that “save their generation” (Ex, R. i. ; Num. R. xxi.; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxviii. 8; Sotah 12a). These widows had to be sixty years of age (Mupr; compare Abot v. 21) before they were ad- witted into the order of women (hence I Tim. v. 9; the Syriac “ Didascalia” has “sixty” changed into “fifty ”). On entering the order they had to take the vow of virginity—thatis, that they would uot marry again; wherefore they were to be of an age when re- marrying was no Jonger thoughtof. Exceptionally young widows after a brief marriage were admitted when they had an “especial gift of widowhood,” to be blessed like (? Judith and) the widow of Sarepta mentioned in I Kings xvii. 9 (Book IIL, ch.i.).. Wid- ows not belonging to the order might marry a second time, lest they be ensnared by Satan (2). ch. ii.), “The widows who are supported as consecrated to God must be sober, chaste, faithful, and pious; they must have been married only once, have brought up their children well, and have entertained strangers without blemish” (ch. iii.). The widow “should be meek and not hasty of speech, and leave to the rulers doctrinal questions to be answered for the young applicants. Only the unity of God she should de- fend against polytheistic errors, but in regard to the mysteries of the Shekinah [the text has “ Christ ”] she must use caution in order not to blaspheme God ” (isa. ii. 5, LXX.). “She should not teach in the assembly, but pray, and listen to those that teach” (hence Paul in I Cor. xiv. 34). “Being the altar of God, she should go to the houses of the faithful to obtain alms, not to the houses of strangers [Syriac “Didascalia”: “to become a stumbling-block to men”], Nor should she indulge in foolish prattle instead of going to the synagogue on the Day of the Lord for rest and watchfulness like the angels {“watchers”]. Nor should she, dissatisfied with her support by the congregation, be solicitous about mammon and make her bag ber God, ‘ wor- shiping mammon instead of God’ [hence Matt. vi. *4; compare Sifre to Deut. vi. 5]; but, like Judith, She should pray unceasingly for the congregation, remaining in her house, singing psalms, reading the Scripture, holding vigils and fasts, communing with God continually in songs and hymns; and let her take woo] for work to help others, but not for her Own use” (ch. vi.-vii.). “As little as the priests Wereallowed to accept free-will offerings from a ra- Pacious person or a harlot [Deut. xxiii. 18; Mal. i. 18, 14), is the widow allowed to acceptany gift from im- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Didascalia proper sources, nor indeed from any one who has been excommunicated from the Synagogue; for prayer ought not to be offered by the recipient for such a one, this being an offense against the Holy Spirit [the text has “Christ ”]” (ch. viii.). “Any widow who fosters strife acts like Cain, and will be cast out of the kingdom of God and delivered to eternal punishment as doing the work of Satan” (ch. ix.). “It is by appointment of God that the overseer distributes the gifts among the widows, and they bave to pray both for him and for the giver” (ch. xiii.-xiv.). In ch. iil.-iv. it is stated to be the overseer’s duty, as the steward of God, to provide for the wants of all the needy, the widows and orphans, the friendless and the afflicted, with- out any partiality, and to mention the name of the giver so that the recipients may be able to pray for him (Isa. lviii. 7; Dan. iv. 27; Ps. xli. 2 [A. V. 1], exii. 9; Prov. xvi. 6, xix. 17, xxi. 13). Also those who assist the overseer in the administration of the needy (D°A1N wADY; compare Wohler, “ Testament of Job,” in Zc. p. 818; hence “diacones” = “deacons ”) are required to be spotless like him and still more ener- ° getic (Q°p47), ever ready to travel, to carry messages, and to minister to theneedy, Women should attend to women in need. They should not be ashamed to attend to those in want, but, if needs be, should lay down their lives for a brother, imitating the Lord of heaven and earth (compare Targ. Yer. Gen. xxxv. 9), acting only for His name’s sake. They should visit all who are in need of visitation, and report to the overseer (ch. xix.). Of Book IV. the earlier chapters treat mainly of orphans: ** When the son or daughter of any brother [the Christianized text has ** Christian ’’} becomes an orphan, some one of the brethren should adopt the same, and, if feasible, marry the girl to his son. They who do so, perform a great work [noi aI] and will receive reward from God; and if, because such or- phans are poor, he, being rich, is ashamed to do so. the Father of the fatberless and the ‘judge of the widows’ [Ps. Ixviii. 6 (A. V.5) J will provide for these. while the fortune of such a one will be spent by prodigal] heirs” (Lev. xxvi. 16 or Eccl. vi. 2, av- cording to Midrashic interpretation; Isa. i. 7). “While the overseers have, like husbands, to provide for the widows [compare Sirach (Ecclus.) iv. 10, Hebrew text]; to give work to the mechanics; to show compassion to the feeble; to give shelter to the strangers, food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, visitation to the sick Cason +p3], rescue to the imprisoned [2°)2¥" yy75), they must take especial care of the orphans, give the marriageable maiden in marriage to a brother, and cause the young tan to learn a trade (71)2.8] in order to become self-supporting {see concerning the bringing up of orphans, O°m109 *57an, Ex. R. xly.; Sanh. 19b]. Both widows and orphans receiving gifts shall give thanks ‘to the Lord who giveth food to the hungry’. . .” (Ps. civ. 14-15; exlv. 15-16; Ecel. ii. 25, LXX.; Zech. ix. 17). Peculiarly instructive are the regulations concern- ing the acceptance of charitable offerings. Being considered as holy sacrifices for the altar of God, the Law (Deut. xviii. 12, xxiii. 19[A. V. 18]; Prov. xvii. 12) was applied, and no gift was to be re- ceived from unjust dealers in merchandise (xd pp: Eccius. [Sirach] xxvi. 29; Isa. i. 22, 28), from for- nicators or such as abuse their own female servants (Mmnaws ann owns, Lev. R. xxv.), from sodom- ites, idol-makers, blasphemers, thieves, publicans, informers, any subverter of justice, usurer, or from any one acting against the will of God. Accept- ance of gifts from any of the foregoing would Didascalia —_—— evoke divine punishment, as in the case of the prophet (I Kings xiii. 1-5); and the prayer of those who received such gifts would not be Forbidden heard (Jer. vii. 16, xv. 1). “ Neither Charitable did Elisha accept gifts from Hazael Gifts. nor Abijah from’ Jeroboam’s wife ” (II Kings viii. 10; I Kings xiv. 3). “Ye have received the gifts of the Levites and should not receive from the wicked. It is better to per- ish from want than to accept from the enemies of God” (Ps. cxiv. 5). “Receive only from such as are found, on examination, to walk in holiness, and not from those who are expelled from the Syna- gogue.” “The Lord is honored only out of right- eous labor” (Prov. iii. 9, LXX.). “Only righteous money is to be used for the ransom of captives and imprisoned ones” (Prov. xxiv. 11). “Should, how- ever, the acceptance of money from ungodly per- sons be enforced upon any, it is to be used only for fuel, like the forbidden holy thing (by35] which is to be consumed with fire, being evil not by nature, but only in the minds of those that offer it” (Lev. xix. 7; compare Sifra thereto). Compare with these reg- ulations those regarding “ zedakah ” practised by the Jewish charity administrators (ADTY °x24; Tosef., B. K. xi. 6-9; Sanh. 26b; B. B. 10b; sce also CHar- Iry); the interpretation of the Law, sy} JINN abs samy) (Deut. xxii. 19), with reference to char- ity, was a matter of controversy between the Chris- tian Jacob the Gnostic, and the Rabbis (‘Ab. Zarah 17a). Of the four chapters which close Book IV., only partly preserved in the Syrian “ Didascalia,” the eleventh is, with the exception only of the words “and our divine words,” certainly Jewish. It en- joins parents to train their children well, have them learn useful trades, familiarize them with holy Scripture, guard them against bad company, and, finally, to join them in wedlock in due time (com- pare Kid. 29a; Tosef., Kid. i. 11; Yeb. 62b). Book V.: This book, treating of martyrdom, resurrection, heathenism, and the feast- and fast- days, rests, in spite of the pronounced Christian character which it now has, upon a Jewish substra- tum, “Christ” having often, and at times very awk- wardly, been substituted for “God.” The idea pre- sented in ch. i.-iv. is that “he who is condemned by the heathen to the games and the beasts for the name of the Lord God is a holy martyr, the son of the Highest, and a vessel of the Holy Spirit” (com- pare the expression nad %5 in the Midr, ha- Gadol, quoted by I. Lewy in his “Ein Wort Ueber die ‘Mechilta des R. Simon,’” p. 38, note), and “whosoever aids or rescues these martyrs by means of his work shares in their glorious martyrdom.” “He who denies being God’s in order not to be hated by men, loving his own life more than he does the Lord in whose hand his breath is held, is wretched, an enemy of God, who has his portion with the ac- cursed and not with the saints, and inherits the eter- nal fire prepared for Satan and his angels, instead of the reward of the blessed” (compare Sifre, Deba- rim, 32; Philo, “Quod Omnis Probus Liber,” xiii. ; Wisdom iii. 11-19; Bousset, “Die Religion des Judenthums,” 1902, p. 168). The Essene principle is set forth in ch. vi.-vil.: THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA SS i le 592 “Let us then renounce our parents, kinsmen, and friends wife and children, all possessions aud enjvoyments of life, it they become an impediment to piety {compare Philo, ‘* De Vita Contemplativa,”” § %, and parallels in Cons beare’s ed., p, 49] For while it behooves us to pray that He may not lead us into temptation [Ber. 60b; Matt. vi. 13], yet when we are called upon to give testimony [as martyrs; compare LXX. to Isa. X)iii, 10-12], while confessing His precious name With defiance [sen wisp; Sifra, Emor, 9], let us rejoice, hastening towarg immortality. And when persecuted, iet us not be perplexed and let us love neither this world nor the praise of men nor the glory and honor of rulers; but lef him who bas been deemed worthy of martyrdom rejoice in the joy of the Lord as obtaining thereby a great crown, and ending life with a confession [Sx wy pry: compare Sifre, Deut., 32; Ber. 61b]. For the Almighty Gog will Himself raise us up, according to His infallible promise, and grant us a resurrection With all those that have slept from the beginning of the world [ny ‘su in the Fighteen Bene. dictions], whether we die in the sea, are scattered on earth, or torn to pieces by wild beasts or birds. He will raise us by Hig own power [compare -y733 in Eighteen Benedictions}, for the whole world is held together by the hand of God.” Here ref. erences are made to Dan, xii. 2-3; Eccl. xii. 14; Ezek. xxvii. 11; Isa. xxvi. 19, xvi. 243 then to Enoch and Elisha, to the raising of the dead by Eljjah and Elisha; to Jonah (ii. 11), to Daniel and his three youths (Dan. ii.-iii.), and finally, to convince heathen readers, to the Sibylline Oracles (iv. 178-190), and to the mythical phenix. “In this hope we undergo stripes, persecutions, and deaths, Just as God by His will made heaven and earth [Gen. i. 1; Jer, i, 5; Zech. xii. 1; Job. x. 10; Ps, etii, 145 cxix. 13; cxxxix. 5, 16], so will He raise all men by His will either to crown them or to punish them [Dan. xii. 3], man being His workmanship made by His word [(ren. i. 23 ct seq.; text has * Christ’’], just as He raises the wheat out of the ground [compare Sanh. 90b] and as He made Aaron’s dry rod put forth buds [Num. xvii. 8].” Martyrs should be held in honor, according to Ps, exvi, 15; Prov. x. 7; Isa. lvii. 1, Ixx. “A faithful martyr [“witness”] is he who strove by his own blood for the cause of faith ” (ch. viii.-ix.), On Sabbath and holy days, which are days of joy (Isa. lviii. 18), all obscene talk and song should be avoided, according to Ps. ii. 11: “ Rejoice with trem- bling.” Names of heathen gods are not to be men- tioned, nor should one swear by any of the lumina- ries or elements (ch. X.—Xi.). Book VI.: Ch. i.-iv. warn against heresies and schisms, dwelling at great length on the sedition of Dathan and Abiram against Moses— On who “exhibited the Law of God in Heresies. the perfect number of Ten Command- ments,” and of whom God said: “ There arose not a prophet like unto Moses” (Deut, xxxiv. 10; no Christian could without considerable modifi cation have written of Moses all that is stated here)— and on Sheba tle son of Bichri (the name is twice misspelled almost bey ond recognition) ; and on Joshua the son of Josedech, who also was tempted by Satan (Zech. tii. 1). In ch. vi. the Sadducees and Dosith- eans seem to have originally been characterized as heretics among the Jewish people. The present text enumerates all the Jewish sects, and what follows to the end of the book—with the exception of some parts of ch. xxvii.-xxix., which dwell on Levitic impurity in connection with prayer and the Holy Spirit (Ber. iii. 5; compare Kayser, “ Die Canones Jacob’s von Edessa,” 1886, pp. 12, 81)—is altogether of Christian origin and anti-Jewish in character. Books VII. and VIII.: These contain, besides third-ceutury Church canons and the like, divers¢ subject-matter—probably thrown out by the late Christian redactor of the “ Didasealia ” on account i its Judeo-Christian character, The first thirty-tW! chapters of Book VII. contain a version of the "¥7 593 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Didascalia dache,” which, while betraying, like the rest of the “ Didascalia,” the hand of a Christian redactor, rests nevertheless upon a more complete Jewish original than the onediscovered by Bryennios. Its whole tenor ischaracteristically Jewish in so far as it has each sin- gle precept or sentence based upon some Scriptural verse; and its mode of teaching, likeany haggadic or halakic work, isargumentative. It begins the“ Two Ways” with an apt reference to Deut. xxx. 15 and 1 Kings xviii. 21; the reference to Matt. vi, 24 is manifestly an interpolation. In ch. ii. the verse “Love the Lord thy God ” (Deut. vi. 5) is given (com- pare Iselin’s [Coptic] “ Apostellehre,” The p. 6, Leipsic, 1895). The rule, “ Love ‘‘Didache” those that hate you, and ye shall have inan Older no cnemy,” in itself decidedly Jewish Form. in tone (see Bousset, f.c. p. 393), is de- rived from Deut. xxiii. 7: “Thou shalt not hate any man, Egyptian or Edomite, as they all are the works of God ” (17 J'iN "3 ; compare “ Apost. Const.” II. xxxvi., V. vii.). Likewise is the pre- cept “If any one give thee a stroke on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” vased upon the argument “Not that revenge is evil, but that pa- tience is more honorable”; and Ps. vii. 5 (A. V. 4) is referred to. This proves that Matt. v. 89 is not the source. Old Testament quotations and spe- cific references to the Law are frequent throughout ch, vi. The principle “Flee from all evil and whatever is similar to it” (9S pI yoy DA PO pn) is derived from Isa. liv. 14: pwyn spr (‘Abstain from injustice ”), and the warning against anger and envy is illustrated by the fate of Cain, Saul, and Joab (ch. v.). The lesson of submission to God’s decree is aptly illustrated by the example of Job—and very inaptly by the interpolator’s reference to Lazarus (ch. viii.). Inch. ix. honor for the teacher is required, because “where there is teaching concerning God, there God is present” (Abot iii. 8; compare Matt. Xvili. 20). The sedition of Korah is to warn man against making schisms, and the examples of Elijah Micaiah, Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, and Nathan, against taking presents from sinners that are to be reproved (ch. x.). Ch. xvii. contains as the last rule: “Thou shalt not proceed to thy house of prayer ona day of thy misfortune before thou hast laid aside thy bitterness ”—a decidedly Jewish pre- cept (Ber. 81a). A striking parallel to the Mishnaic statement, **‘ The ancient Hasidim used to spend a full hour in silent meditation before Prayer in order to turn their hearts in true devotion to their Father in heaven” (Ber. v. 1), is preserved in ch. xxiv.: ‘* Pray thrice a day, preparing yourselves beforehand that ye may be Worthy of being received as children by the Father, lest, when you cail Him * Father’ unworthily, you be reproached by Him, like Israel, ‘If I be a Father, where is My glory? Andif I bea Lord, where is My fear?’” (Mal. i. 6). Irrefutable proof of the Jewish provenience of the “Didache ” and, as will be seen, of the whole “ Didas- calia,” is given in the words “O God of our holy and Perfect fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Thy faithful servants,” preserved in the thanksgiving Prayer after a meal (ch. xxvi.), which also contains & thanksgiving “for the Law which Thou hast Planted in our souls” (compare ynitpby wn Syn, 2 the grace after meals). The same characteristic LV.—&8 words, * The God of our holy and perfect forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ” (9°N13N bx apy") post (Ss oman nds oon oth), occur also in the prayer which follows God of Our inch. xxxiii. This prayer is an older Fathers, version of the first of the Eighteen etc. (or Seven) Benedictions, called by the Rabbis ASS, and, with a few omis- sions, it reads as follows: * Our eternal Savior, King of the godly beings, who alone art the Almighty and Lord, God of all things, God of our holy and perfect forefathers, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jaech, raereiful and compassionate, long-suffering and abundant in merey, to whom every heart is naked and every secret thought revealed, to Thee the souls of the righteous cry aloud ; upon Thee do the hopes of the holy ones rest in confidence, Thou Father of the perfect, who bearest the prayer of those that call upon Thee in uprightness and knowest the supplication unuttered. . . . Thou hast made this world a place of combat for righteousness and hast opened to all the gate of mercy [Dxn3 Aye mmr], hav- ing shown to each man by the knowledge implanted [ap ], by natural judgment [72°], and by the admonition of the Law [r-7], that riches, beauty, and strength vanish and only the guileless conscience of faith [m312x] abides throughout the heavens, and walking with truth receives the right hand of vic- tory, exulting in hope before even the world is regenerated. For Thou didst guide our forefather Abraham when he found the way of truth, and didst teach him in a vision what this world is, faith preceding his knowledge [yrvwor.s]; and the covenant was the consequence of his faith {Gen. xv. 6, xxii. 17], And when Thou gavest him Isaac as son, Thou saidst, ° I will be a God to thee’ (Gen. xxvi. 3], and when our father Jacob wag sent to Mesopotamia Thou showedst him the Word [text: ** Christ ’’], and through him spakest, *Bebold I am with thee’ (Gen. xxviii. 15]. And so spakest Thou to Moses, Thy faithful and holy servant, at the vision of the bush: ‘I am He that is’ (Ex. iii. 14, 15}. O Thou shield of the posterity of Abraham. be blessed forever” (= O77 738 732 NI; Compare Midr. TebtoTs.,. i., ed. Buber, p. 5). The prayer which follows in ch. xxxiv. is the sec- ond of the Seven Benedictions; it has not been pre- served intact. It begins as follows: ** Blessed art Thou, O Lord, King of the worlds, who by the word [1n9NxND2 ; text has “ Christ’) hast made the universe and by the same hast brought order into chaos.”” Here follows an enumeration of the whole work of Creation (MwWNRr3 mwyz), after Gen. i., closing With the formation by the divine Wisdom of man as ‘“‘the citizen of the wurld,” “the cosmos [** ornament ’*} of the cosmos ” (cédauou xoguov); his body being formed of the four bodily elements, his sou] endowed with five senses as a new creation out of nothing, and his mind being the charioteer of the soul. The closing sen- tence reads: ‘** When man was disobedient Thou didst not des- troy him forever, but laidst him to sleep for a time, and by an oath didst promise him resurrection and didst loose the bond of death. Blessed be Thou, O Reviver of the Dead” (a-Mrn vonn; “through Jesus Christ our hope” is the Chris- tian addition). The prayer in ch. xxxv. begins,“ Great art Thou, O Lord Almighty, and great is Thy power,” exactly as the second of the Seven Benedictions in the Jewish rit- ual (4 pbdyyyd 33 7NN), and enumerates the wondrous works of God’s power—pim3aa (Ta‘an. 1. 1; Ber. v. 2) —also characteristic of the same benediction. So this part evidently belongs to the preceding prayer. But it also contains, in an elaborate form, those portions which constitute the third benediction (Awitp). It describes the sanctification of God by the hosts of celestial beings—the holy seraphim and the six- winged cherubim, the angels and archangels; the thrones (“ofannim”), dominions, principalities, an- thorities, and powers—citing Isa. vi. 3; Dan. viii. 13; Ezek. 111.12 (see FALASHAS) ; and then speaks of Israel as “Thy congregation selected from the nations on The Seven Benedic- tions. Didascalia Dienesohn earth, emulating the heavenly powers night and day, and singing with a full heart and soul” (Ps. Ixviii. 18 fA. V. 17}). After quotations from Deut. iv. 39; I Sam. ii. 2-4; and Deut. xxxiv. 2, the benediction closes thus: “Thou art glorious and highly exalted, invisible and un- searchable; Thy life without want; Thy operation without toil; Thy work without assistance; Thy dominion unchangeable; Thy monarchy without succession; Thy kingdom without end; Thy strength irresistible; Thine army very numerous. Thou art the Father of Wisdom, the Creator of Creation, the Bestower of Providence, the Giver of Laws, the Supplier of Wants, the Punisher of the Ungodly, and the Rewarder of the Righteous, the God and Father [here “Christ” is interpolated] and Lord of those that worship Him whose promise is infallible, .. whose thanksgiving is everlasting, to whom adoration is due from every rational and holy creature.’’ Here the blessing formula, yitpn xa, is omitted. Ch, xxxvi. contains the following portions of the original Jewish prayers for Sabbath and festivals: *“O Lord Almighty, Thou hast created the world by Thy Word [text: “Christ’’}, and hast appointed the Sabbath as a memorial thereof, because on that day Thou hast made us rest from our works that we may meditate upon Thy laws. * Thou hast appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we may remember the Wisdom created by Thee... . Wherefore we assemble on the Day of the Lord Prayers for and rejoice with Thy Word whieh has lit up Sabbath and life and immortality. For through it Thou Festivals. hast made Israel, the God-beloved, Thy pecul- iar people. For Thou, O Lord, didst bring our fathers out of the land of Egypt and didst deliver them out of the iron furnace, from brick-making, and didst redeem them out of the hands of Pharaoh and those under him. and didst lead them through the sea as through dry land, and feed them in the wilderness with all kinds of good things. ** Thou didst give them the Law, the Ten Words pronounced by Thy voice and written with Thy hand. Thou didst enjoin thein to observe the Sabbath not for the sake of affording them an occasion of idleness, but as an opportunity of piety that they might learn to Know Thy power; having, in order to prevent them from evil things, kept them as within a holy circuit (Syn7 naw] for the sake of instruction that they might rejoice in the number seven (for there are the seventh day and the seven weeks and the seven months and the seventh year and the jubilee year for remission) {a marginal note probably: compare Philo, ** De Septennario,’’ 88 7-8], so that men might have no cause for pretending ignorance: Wherefore, He permitted men to rest every Sabbath so that no one should send forth one word in anger on the Sabbath day; for the Sabbath is the cessation of the creation, the completion of the world, [given for] the study of the Law, and the thanksgiving hymn to God for the blessings be- stowed upon men. As the Mediator, Provider, and Lawgiver of all this, does the Lord’s Day hold forth the word of God as the first-born of the entire creation, so that the Lord’s Day commands us to offer unto Thee, O Lord, thanksgiving for all.” Obviously the fourth benediction, Nawnm espn, has here assumed an Essene, or Gnostic, character, without, however, obscuring the features of the typical synagogue formula. Ch, xxxvii., xxxviii., and Book VIII., ch. xxxvii., have preserved portions of the last three benedic- tions recited both in the synagogue and in the Tem- ple, the WNAy, and ALN, and DYAD ND. The first commences: ** Thou who hast fulfilled Thy promise Made by the prophets, and hast had mercy on Jerusalem by exalting the throne of David Thy servant, dv Thou how, O Lord God, accept the prayers of Thy people who call upon Thee in truth as Thou didst aecept of the gifts of the righteous in their generations. (Here followsan enumeration of all the righteous men from Abel to Mattathias and his sons.} So receive Thou the prayers of Thy people, offered to Thee with knowledge [the phrase “‘through Christ’ is a Christian addition; there is no mention of Christ in the prayer itself] in the Spirit.” The Modim prayer begins exactly like the Jewish benedic- tion: ** We give thanks to Thee for all things. O Lord Almighty, that Thou hast not taken away Thy mercies and loving-kind- THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA a nesses from us, but generation after generation dost Thou gaye deliver, assist, and protect. Thou didst assist in the days of Enos and Enoch, of Muses and Joshua, of Samue} The Last and Elijah, of David and the Kings. of Esther Three Tem- and Judith, and of Judas Maccabeus and his ple Benedic- brethren [{" Christ’ very inappropriately ip. tions. terpolated here], For He has delivered us from the sword and from famine, from sickness and from an evil tongue. .... For all these things do we give Thee thanks [compare 3 °3 231].” Here foliows a special thanks. giving for the wonderful creation of man, for the immortal soul, and for the laws given to him, and for the promise o¢ resurrection. ‘The closing sentences are as follows: * What life is sufflcient-—-what length of ages will be loug enough for men to be thankful! For Thou hast delivered us from the im. piety of polytheism. [Then follows a Christian addition quite characteristic, ““and from the heresy of the murderers of Christ!”’]. Thou hast delivered us from error and ignorance. Thou hast set angels over us, and hast put Satan to shame. Thou hast created us and provided for us. Thou measurest out life to us, aud affordest us nourishment, and hast provided re. pentance. Glory and worship to Thee for all these things for ever and aye.” Of the closing benediction only the following portion has been preserved as the bishop’s benediction : **O God of our fathers, Lord of mercy, who didst form man by Thy Wisdom, . .. look down, O Lord Almighty, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy people and bless them by Thy Word [text: “*Christ’’], through which Thou hast enlightened us with the light of Thy knowledge, and hast revealed Thyself unto us, Adoration is due to Thee from every rational and holy creature forever.” As all these prayers go back to pre-Christian times, they are of incalculable importance to the student of Jewish and Christian liturgy. Here is also the origin of such names as “the Lord’s Day” for Sabbath (Sunday). There are a number of other benediction formulas given in Books VIL. and VIII. which betray an adap- tation from Jewish prayers and anthems. Espe- cially is the “ Trisagion,” or “ Thrice Holy,” in Book VIII., ch. xii.—which has, in more or less modi- fied form, been universally adopted in the various churches—based on a somewhat older form of the Jewish sanctification than the one in ch. xxxv. of Book VII., mentioned above; while the prayers for penitents and for the various classes of people (Book VIII., ch. ix. and x.) have striking parallels in the older portion of the Jewish litanies (see SELIHOT). See also EsseNES; GNostTicIsM; LITURGY; SABBATH. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lagarde, Constitutiones A postolorum, Leip- sic and London, 1862; idem, Didascalia, 1854; Funk, Die Apostolischen Constitutionen, Rothenburg, 1891; Bickell. Gesch. des Kirchenrechts, i., Giessen, 1843; Kohler, in Mo- natsschrift, 1898, 6. 447, K A. DIDEROT, DENIS: French philosopher and encyclopedist; born at Langres Oct. 5, 1713; died at Paris July 30, 1784. Although, like all the French encyclopedists, an apostle of tolerance, Diderot does not seem to have had much sympathy with the Jews and Judaism, He wrote the bright and interesting article on Jewish philosophy for the “ Encyclopédie, but it shows a superficial acquaintance with the subject, and is not free from errors. The same crit- icism applies to a brilliant passage on the Jews 0 Amsterdam in his “ Voyage en Hollande” (xvii. 481- 438, ed. Assezat and Tourneux, Paris, 1875-79). 1 his “Neveu de Rameau” (v. 454, 479) there are tw anecdotes, the heroes of which are Jews. The first refers to a renegade who abuses the confidence of & rich Jew of Avignon in order to rob him and de- nounce him to the Inquisition. The second, which is somewhat licentious, narrates the story of au 595 Orthodox Jew of Utrecht who signs a note in an in- famous bargain. The first anecdote is improbabie, for the Inquisition never forbade the Jews of the Comtat to follow their religion. The second anec- dote, still more improbable, is also found in the “Voyage en Hollande,” where the personages are Dutch citizens, and by substituting different names Diderot simply intended to make a striking antithe- sis between the piety of the Jew and his amorous escapades. This literary trifle must not be taken seriously ; it shows only that Diderot was subject to the common prejudice against the Jews. BipOHe: T. Reinach, in Rev. Et. Juives, 1884, vii. 10 seq. ‘D. ‘ IL. DIDRACHMA. See Numismaticsand WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. DIEGO DE VALENCIA: Spanish troubadour of the fifteenth century; born of Jewish parentage at Valencia de Don Juan, in the kingdom of Leon. After his conversion to Christianity he became a Franciscan monk; and receiving the degree of doc- tor of theology, was known among his contempo- raries as a very learned physician, astrologer, and master of sciences (“ gran letrado, fisico, astrologo, émecanico”). Hewasoneof the leading Valencian poets, and most of his poems are contained in the “Cancionero de Baena.” He did not consider it be- neath his dignity to speak openly, in a number of flippant songs, of his intimacy with various classes of courtezans, nor did he hesitate, in his satirical poems on Jews and Maranos, tomake use of Hebrew and rabbinic terms, though he thereby derided him- self. Diego chose as the special target of his scof- fings a certain Juan de Espafia, who was considered an accomplished Talmudist, and who, after accept- ing baptism in 1413, wrote a short work on his con- version. The following lines may serve as speci- mens of Diego’s satire: ** Johan de Espafla, muy gran safia Fué aquesta de Adonay, Pues la aljama se derrama Por culpa de Barcelay. Todos fuemos espantados, Maestros, rabies, cohenim, Ca les fueron sus pecados De este sofarahentm Pues quien non tiéne becim, Quiso infinita faser, Hora finque por mansel Pues tan mal] pertrecho tray.” BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Amador de los Rios, Estudios, pp. 423 et seq.; Ferd. Wolf, Zur Spanischen und Portugiesischen Lit- teratur, pp. 201, 209; Kayserling, Sephardim, pp. 75 et seq. G, M. K. DIENA (DAYYENA), AZRIEL BEN SOL- OMON: Rabbi at Sabbionetta; died 1536. He wasa disciple of Nathaniel Trabotto, and is men- tioned with respect by R. Meir Katzenellenbogen. Azulai claims to have seen two volumes of his Tesponsa—perhaps those referred to in “ Magazin,” ll. 16. MS. 911in the Bodleian collection contains Diena’s notes on Maw modr according to the Roman Tite (Neubauer, “Cat.” col. 196); and MS. 948 con- tains some of his letters (). col. 205). MSS. 48, 135, 158, 166 of the Friedland collection in St. Petersburg Contain some of Diena’s decisions. He seems to have Possessed valuable manuscripts: the 1550 ed. of Mai- Monides’ * Yad ” having followed his copy (Conforte, THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Didascalia Dienesohn “Kore ha-Dorot,” p. 34b). Dicna became known by his opposition to the adventurer David Reubeni. Being of a positive and practical disposition, opposed to the current Messianic vagaries, Diena was alive to the danger resulting therefrom, and he decided to actagainst Reubeni. When the latter, after the exe- cution of Molko, had increased his influence to such an extent that the Italian rabbis began to take his pretensions seriously, Diena called to his aid Abra- ham b. Moses Cohen, rabbi of Bologna, and both unmasked the impostor. The veneration in which Diena was held may be seen from the elegies published at his death, one of which was by Abraham of Pisa, and two others by Samuel b. Moses Anav. His son’s name was David (Nepi-Ghirondi, “'Toledot Gedole Yisrael,” p. 75). BIBLIOGRAPHY: Kaufmann, in Rev. Et. Juives, xxx. 304, xxxi. 65, xxxviii. 277; LOwenstein, ib. xxxi. 120; Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. No. 7821; Mose, Antologia, vi. 58, 184; Gedalya ibn Yahya, Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, p. 64a; Nepi-Ghirondi, Toledot Gedole Yisrael, pp. 38, 40; Eisenstadt-Wiener, Da‘at Kedoshim, App., ti. 47, 71, 78; Benjacob, Ozar ha-Sefarim, p. 560, No. 1423 Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, i. 77. G DIENA (DAYYENA), DAVID: Italian rabbi; he lived at Rovigo at the end of the seven- teenth century. He was consulted on Talmudic mat- ters by R. Nathaniel Segre ; and his responsa appeared first in the collection “‘Afar Ya‘akob,” from which it was copied by Isaac Lampronti into his “ Pahad Yizhak.” David, in his responsa, mentions Azriel Diena as his grandfather. There is much confusion concerning his father. Ghirondi calls him David b. Azriel Diena, while Mortara speaks of two Davids, one being a grandson and the other ason of Azriel Diena. He was the grandfather of David Hayyim Diena, chief rabbi of Rovigo. BIBLIOGRAPHY : Nepi-Ghirondi, Toledot Gedole Yisrael, p. 75; Lowenstein, in Rev. Et. Juivés, xxxi. 121; FPuenn, Keneset Yisrael, p. 282; Mortara, Indice Alfabetico, p. 19; Berliner’s Magazin, ii. 16; Steinschneider, Hebr. Bibl. xix. 51. L. G. M. SEt. DIENESOHN, JACOB: Yiddish novelist; born in Zagory (Zagaren), Russia, in 1859. He is one of the most popular Yiddish novelists of the latter half of the nineteenth century. He began to write in 1877, when he published a story called “ Ha-Ne- ‘ehabim weha-Ne‘imim” or “Der Schwartzer Jun- ger Mantshik ” (The Dark Young Man). Since then Dienesohn has written many novels, almost all of which have been widely read. Among the best known of his works is his “ Eben Negef ” (Stumbling- Stone). In his books Dienesohn pictures the strug- gle among the Jews of the older and the younger generation—between the “haskalah ” and hasidism. He knew well the public for. which he was writing, and avoided all violent expressions in denouncing fanaticism, describing merely the sufferings of the Maskilim. His later novels treat of the same themes, but are rather sketches from Jewish life than roman- tic stories. Dienesohn is also the author of the “Welt-Geschichte,” in Yiddish. He has in addition contributed many articles to Yiddish periodicals, and is a good Hebrew writer, his contributions to “ Ha- Shahar” having won him the favorable criticism even of such writers as Smolenskin. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wiener, Yiddish Literature, p. 189; Sefer Zikkaron, Warsaw, p. 26. G, M. Ra. Diessenhofen Dietary Laws DIESSENHOFEN: City in the Swiss canton of Thurgau, connected by a bridge with the village of Gailingen in Baden. It attracted the Jews in early times by its favorable position. In 1848 the Jews here were accused of having poisoned the wells; their houses were plundered by the mob, and some of the Jews were burned at the stake. Over three hundred sought refuge in the fortress of Kyburg, where they were protected by the Austrian gov- eror; but when he himself was threatened by the cities of Diessenhofen and Winterthur, the fugitives were either expelled and left to the mercy of their persecutors, or, as other authorities state, were burned by the governor on Sept. 18, 1849, to save the “innocent ones” from the fury of the mob (Pupi- kofer, “Gesch. des Thurgaus,” i. 204; manuscript material in Lowenstein, “Gesch. der Juden am Bodensee,” p. 81). Jews settled in Diessenhofen again within half a century; but in 1401 a false accusation again gave rise to butcheries. The outrider of the governor had murdered Konrad, the four-year-old son of Coun- cilor Hermann Lory of Diessenhofen. To save him- self the man said that the Jew Michael Vinelmann (Veitelmann), who, with his son Gitlieb, had been admitted in 1396 on the condition of paying a yearly tax of eight gulden, had instigated the murder, and had promised three guiden “for the hot blood of the Christian child.” The outrider was broken on the wheel; the Jew was burned alive without any ex- amination; and little Konrad was sainted. On this occasion Jews at Schaffhausen, Winterthur, and other places were either burned or forced to accept baptism. Contrary to all expectation Jews soon returned to Diessenhofen. ae IRR ae ¥ . th 4 Se Ss, OES POE Lee 2 a 7 ¥ Disputation Between Jewish and Christian Theologians. (From Peter Schwarz, ‘“‘ Der Stern Messhiah,” 1477.) | | | f | being consigned to the flames two years later in Paris (see Levin in “ Monatsschrift,” 1869, pp. 97 ez seg, . Gritz, Uc. vii. 401; Loeb, in “Rev, Et. Juives,” j. 247, li. 248, iii. 39). The second disputation took place at Barcelona on July 20, 1263, at the royal palace, in the presence of James I. of Aragon and his court, and of many prom- inent ecclesiastics and knights, between Nanay. IDES and Pablo CHnrisriant, who, like Donin, was the accuser and the instigator. The debate turned on y, Wo if the questions CON whether the Mes. CAS siah had ap. peared or not; whether, accord- ing to Scripture, the Messiah is a divine or a hu- man being; and whetherthe Jews or the Christians held the true faith. Differing from R. Jehiel of Par- is, Nahmanides met his antago- nist with fearless courage and with the dignity of a true Spaniard; > and when Pablo NY undertook to <4 prove from vari- A ous hag gadic P34 passages the ar Messianic char- SBA rE acter of Jesus, Ae Nahmanides Ae frankly stated A that he did not ae believe in all the BAL haggadic pas- ae i sages of the Tal- mud, and lhe went so far as to declare that he had more regard for the Christian monarch than for the Messiah. AS to the question whether the Mes- siah had come OF not, he could not believe that he had come as long a5 the promised cessation of all warfare had not been realized. It wasa triumph for the Jewish cause, yet all the more did both the Jewish and the Christian friends of Nahmanides warn him against the pe! threatening his brethren from the terrible power ° the Dominicans in case of defeat, and so, at his ow? request, the disputation was interrupted on the fourth day. But the enemies of the Jews were not set @ twenty-four cartloads of copies of the Talmud from | rest. They claimed the victory, and when Nahma- 617 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA Disputations nides published the frank statements he had made, the king, who had dismissed him with presents and with expressions of his regard, could no longer pro- tect him, and he had to leave the country. Again the Talmud was made the object of attack; but this time, instead of the whole Talmud being proscribed or burned, only the offending passages were singled out for erasure by a censorial committee appointed by the king (see Griitz, U.c. vii, 121-124). Of literary rather than of historical importance are the public disputations held at Burgos and Avila in 13875 by Moses Cohen de Tordesillas with the apostates John of Valladolid and Abner of Burgos, and that held about the same time in Pam- peluna by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut of Tudela with Cardinal Don Pedro de Luna, afterward Pope Benedict XIII, the dis- putations being made the subjects of the books ““Bzerha-Emunah ” (by Moses) and “Eben Bo- han” (by Shem-Tob: see PoLEMIcs AND PoLEM- ICAL LITERATURE). The most remarkable disputation in Jewish history, for the pomp and splendor accom- panying it, the time it lasted, and the number of Jews that took part therein, is the one held at the summons of the anti- pope Benedict XIII. in Tortosa. It began in Feb., 1418, and ended Nov., 1414, and was pre- sided over by the pope in state, surrounded by the cardinals and dignitaries of the Church who still retained allegiance to him, while hundreds of monks and knights and men of all degrees were among the audience. Joshua Lorqui (Geroni- Ino de Santa Fé), the apostate, was to prove from the Talmud that Jesus was the Messiah, and the twenty-two most distin- guished rabbis and scholars of the Disputa- kingdom of Aragon had the choice of tion refuting his arguments or—and this | of Tortosa. was the scarcely concealed purpose of the pope, anxious to regain power and prestige through the conversion of the Jews of Spain —espousing the Christian faith. To judge from the fragmentary records, there was no great erudition or acumen displayed either by the aggressor, who dwelt on a few haggadic passages concerning the Messiah, or by the defenders, who no longer pos- 8essed the courage and self-confidence shown by Nahmanides. The sixty-nine sessions passed with- Out any other result than that neither the blandish- Religious Disputation Between Jews and Christians, (From Konut, “ Geschichte der Deutschen Juden,’’) ments nor the threats of the pope, nor the fierce at- tack on the Talmud made by Lorqui, the pope’s physician and chief adviser, could induce the Jews to become traitors to their heritage.