GEDALIAH ALON, Halakah in the Teaching of the Twelve

GEDALIAH ALON, Halakah in the Teaching of the Twelve

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE

APOSTLES

+ GEDALIAH ALON

Jerusalem The majority of the Halachot embedded in this ancient book', which was written a few years after the destruction of the Second

Temple? in Israel or in Syria3, are typical of those which were adapted by the early Christians, with modifications, from the tradition and the custom of Israel, although some of the quasiHalachot, which are included in the first chapters of this exposition, originated in the Torah of the Jews in their substance and form. Inasmuch as these sections are "fundamental writings" of the book, and as an ancient Mishnah which was written in the times of the Temple by an Israelite, we shall, therefore, first of all examine the first document in order to acquaint ourselves with what it appertains to, as well as those statements analogous to Halacha which it contains, and afterwards return to discuss the body of Halachot which can be found in the remainder of the Christian chapters.

Most scholars have noted the uniqueness of the first six chapters in relation to the other chapters for the following reasons: a) the subject matter: while all the other chapters deal with the establishment of Christian ritual (baptism, prayers and fasts and blessings of the Lord's Supper), fixing the the order of leadership in the communities (authorities—supervisors over kashrut and cantors) and the reception of apostles, prophets, laymen-hosts and ! Mentioned only a few times in the first Christian writings, it disappeared and was discovered once more by Bryennios in 1875 and was published by him in 1883

(P. Bryennios, Avdax7 T&v dédexa &00T6\wv [Constantinople, 1883]). My text is taken from the Harnack's commentary, Die Lehre der zwélf Apostel (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893 [TU 2,1-2]) pp. 1-64. The orthography for the names of the Rabbis and the abbreviations of Rabbinic texts is taken from H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger,

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Edinburgh: Clark, 1991).

2 There is no consensus in this regard, as there are some who attribute it to the first half of the second century. However, many scholars have situated it in the period between 80-100. See F. Zeller, Die Apostellehre, 6-16, (Miinchen: Késel,

1918 [BKV 35]); R. Knopf, Die Lehre der zwélf Apostel (Ttibingen:Mohr, 1920 [HNT.E 1]) p. 3; Harnack RE Ill, p. 712; Leclercq, Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie 4,1, p. 777.

3 Harnack (Die Lehre, pp. 168-170) and others presume that it was written in Egypt. However there are some details in the book itself which point to its place in Israel and in Syria. See Knopf, Die Lehre, p. 3, and especially A. Greiff, Das dlteste Pascharituale der Kirche, Did. 1-10, und das Johannesevangelium (Paderborn, 1929) pp. 11-36 (although his arguments for Antioch are not decisive); Jordan, Geschichte d. altchr. Literature p. 342; E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche

Apokryphen (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1964) p. 560

GEDALIAH ALON

priestly gifts and gifts for the poor (chs. 7-10, 11-14), the above mentioned chapters deal with "Two Ways", the Way of Life and the Way of Death, and propose a paradigm for the principles of religion which are based, in the main, on Torat hamidot, which devolved from Scripture and which permeates the Tannaitic Mishnah, the Apocrypha and the books written by the scholars of Israel in Greek, and which contain (except for Did 1:3-6 from the word

"bless" and 6:2-3)4 not the slightest hint of Christianity; b) from the wording: we can discern that the style of these chapters differs completely from the language of the others; c) from the aspect of their use, since we find these chapters embedded in the Epistle of Barnabas 19-20 and other later writings>, a fact which could possibly attest to the existence of "the Two Ways" as a book in its own right, as well as to its antiquity relative to the final Teaching of the Apostles (and relative also to the Epistle itself). On the basis of these sections, scholars* have presumed that they have before them a Jewish book which was written before the Destruction

(even antedating Paul, who uses it in some of his Epistles', as well as being embedded in Berachot) and served as the foundation of the exposition of the Christian writer, who made of it a quasiopening and an authoritative Torah for the Gentiles who came to 4 These verses were added by the Christian writer; see P. Drews, "Untersuchung zur Didache", ZNTW 5 [1904] pp. 53-79, esp. 54.

5 See Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, pp. 556-7, to which should be added the Coptic version of the Didache copied by C. Schmidt ("Das koptische

Didache-Fragment des British Museum", ZNW 24 [1925] pp. 81-99), and the Georgian translated by G. Peradse ("Die "Lehre der zw6lf Apostel' in der georgischen Uberlieferung", ZNW 31 [1932] PP. 111-116).

6 Harnack RE II, pp. 193-196 on the basis of C. Taylor, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1886) to which I did not have access; as well as most scholars. However, there are those who advance the hypotheses that it was written by a Jewish-Christian, and even though they admit that the Jewish material had been embedded in it (Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, p.

558) nevertheless apparently this hypothesis is far-fetched, as is Harnack's interpretation (RE III, p. 718). It is superfluous to say that the claim that "the golden tule", which is presented here, is Christian can be rejected. Even the proof of the term cyto. ("saints") in 4:2 is not decisive, nor is the expression odc 76 mvetpa hroiweoev in 4:10; since Kadosh and Kedoshim are found even among the scholars, and in Enoch 1.48:1 (Tzadikim, Kedoshim and Bechirim) and in the Syriac Baruch

66:2 (Kedoshim, Tzadikim and Hachamim). And in the Talmud it is written, "All those who observe the words of Sages are called Kadosh" (b.Yeb 19a). Nevertheless, in regard to this and to the latter proof it must be said that testifying, "What we have not seen can not be considered proof". Since so little is extant in the tradition of the latter generations prior to the destruction of the Temple, we can deduce from the language of the early Christian writings that they originated with them (or were unique to them), and did not belong to Israel.

7 In addition, Drews ("Untersuchung", pp. 53-63) presumes that chapter 16 also belongs at the end of the Two Ways document and derives from the same writing; however this has not been proven, and perhaps it is from another Jewish source.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

accept the Christian religion.

However, we must first discuss the very essence and purpose of this Jewish writing, inasmuch as it is the general opinion accepted by researchers that the book under discussion was written primarily for Gentiles who came to convert to Judaism, in order to teach them the fundamentals of religion and the mitzvoth of the religion, in accordance with what we have learnt in the tradition of the Sages about the Mektzat mitzvoth which were presented to each convert.' But this assumption, which depends on their use in the relevant chapters in the Teaching of the Apostles for training Gentile-Christians, has no basis in its contents. Not only is there no hint of this purpose in the book itself, but there is no allusion to it in the substance of those mitzvoth of the Torah which all those who wish to convert to Judaism are required to confess to, such as the Sabbath, Holy Days and forbidden foods etc., as these have been interpreted in the Tannaitic Mishnah.? On the other hand, we do find some matters in the document which are not a priori presented to the Gentiles who have come to take upon themselves the burden of the kingdom of God and mitzvoth.'° Therefore, we must seek the orientation of the book in some another way.

Apparently, the facts which determine the essence and purpose of the exposition are as follows: a) the writer has set out to provide a brief manifesto of the fundamentals of life according to Judaism; b) these fundamentals are, on the whole, in the sphere of mitzvoth between man and man, and the minority refer to withdrawal from anything resembling idolatry; c) it begins with the writer committing himself to the Ten Commandments, which he presents in his opening, inferring that the remainder of his words can be considered mere commentaries; d) an account of the spe8 Harnack RE III, p. 724; Drews, "Untersuchung"; K. Kohler, s.v. "Didache",

JE IV, p. 585; I. Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfurt a. M., 19247) pp. 71-74; Knopf, Die Lehre, p. 2; Zeller,

Apostellehre; G. Klein. (Der dilteste christliche Katechismus und die jiidische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin, 1909] p. 172) is of the opinion that this is a Torah for Gerim Toshavim but the writer can be counted among the "opposition to Halacha" and of "heirs of the prophets", who rescinded the Mitzvoth between man and God and accepted Gentiles who observe the moral Mitzvoth of Judaism. But he has no proof for his words.

9 b.Yeb. 47a (and in Tractate Gerim 1:3 we find only eight minor Mitzvoth and see Ruth Rabba, end of chapter 1) for those who seek to complement the "Two

Ways" with Halacha, which parallel the Christian Law—circumcision, sacrifices, purities, Sabbaths and Holy Days—there is no foundation for this in the book itself.

See Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, p. 558.

10 For example the warnings found in chapter 4 (to cover yourself with the dust from the feet of the kedoshim, to flee from doubt and from conflicts in the community).

GEDALIAH ALON

cial transgressions in which the Gentiles of his day were mired (as well as before and after his time), in other words the Greeks and the Romans who sanctioned them, as well as flattery towards the deeds of these nations.

First of all, we must illustrate the analogy between our document and other extant writings, which include comprehensive expositions (in the opinion of their owners) of Judaism and its essence, such as the sections which are embedded in Contra Apion by Josephus, the end of the second book,!! Philo's chapters in the remains of his book 'Yao@y7tKc&,!2 and the Jewish poetry attributed to Phocylides.!3 However, the first two compositions mentioned, although they are equivalent to the essay under discussion as far as the generality of their exposition is concerned and even in some of their details, nevertheless the evident differences obviate their being reviewed together with this essay. First of all, although hermeneutical principles occupy a major portion of these writings, they also devote a prominent place to presenting the essence of Judaism in the sphere of the fundamental mitzvoth between man and God;!4 and secondly, most of the warnings in "the Two

Ways" cannot be found in these sections; and lastly, the language of these writings attests to their having been, for all practical purposes, consciously written for the Gentiles to explain to them the customs practised by Israel in order to vindicate them to the enemies of Israel among the nations.

However, a comparison of our essay to that attributed to Phocylides discloses an apparent close affinity between them, as even the poetry leans towards the exposition of the mitzvoth of the Ten Commandments as well as a warning against violations of the mitzvoth between man and man (including incest), while avoiding giving details in regard to the mitzvoth between man and God

(except in two verses which speak of the prohibition on corpses and non-kosher food), and we find many sayings written in these two books which are similar in their content and language.!5 Furthermore, to my mind it seems that we should pay attention to the 'l Especially chs. 26-30.

12 In Eusebius, Praep. Evang. VIII.7.

'3 In J. Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen Il (Berlin, 1885) pp. 254-261.

14 Especially Josephus, but also Philo.

'S Such as taking a vain oath (2:3)—Cf. ch. 16; avoiding witchcraft (3:4), ch.

149; fleeing doubt and conflict (4:3-4), ch. 184; abortion and discarding foetuses, ch. 183; regarding the matter of justification (and the reason for it—partnership in assets), ch. 30:59-60; giving wages and labour (missing in the Greek Didache but found in the one copied by L. E. Iselin, Eine bisher unbekannte Version des ersten

Teiles der "Apostellehre" (Leipzig: Heusler, 1895 [TU 13,1b]) pp. 1-16 from Vita des Schenudi, in Arabic,)(2:4)—"Do not oppress the wages of an employee", and apparently it is one of the principles of the Didache. See fn. 28 below and others.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

fact that in neither of them do we find an allusion to the uniqueness of God or a warning against idolatry (although it does contain several recriminations against other transgressions which were widespread among the nations) and against abodah zarah (the dust of idolatry).

J. Bernays sees in the Phocylidian poetry a quasi-Talmud arranged for the Gentiles as in the "Seven Noachide laws"; in other words, the Jewish writer had proceeded to teach the foreigners those Noachide laws which they are obligated by the Torah to observe, in accordance with tradition.!° However, not only are some of his utterances inconsistent with the Gentile

"Catechism"

,!7 but the absence of the cardinal principle of the seven Noachide laws, namely, the prohibition on idolatry, is decisive in refuting the explanation of this scholar. In fact Bernays himself grappled with this problem which undermined his methodology and forced him to resolve it by proposing that the writer had made a special effort to avoid offending what was so "dear and precious" to the foreign readers. Needless to say, his answer is far-fetched.

However, despite the fact that some of the sayings in the above poetry were deliberately!' written for the nations, who were preoccupied with the major moral mitzvoth, the final chapter, where the writer sums up his commandments, namely, that these are the revealed and wise "mysteries" of Judaism as opposed to the secretive and magical "mysteries" of the ritual of the idol worshippers, attests to the fact that the words were deliberately aimed at the Gentiles. In any case, we cannot conclude from this that they were written for the purpose of constituting a Torah for them. It is more plausible that the book in its core is only an exposition of the principles and ways of life of the Jews,}9 invidiously comparing them to the foreign culture in which many

Israelites were involved. This is why it did not specify the Mitzvah of the uniqueness of God and the prohibition on idolatry, as these were a "cardinal principal" among the Jews, even among the most distant, and it was superfluous to mention them. And when the author clothes the composition in foreign attire, by attributing it to a Gentile, it becomes obvious that he was aspiring to bring it to 16 Bernays, Abhandlungen, p. 252, and Klein (Katechismus, pp. 144f) agrees with him.

17 Such as V.95—"Don't put your faith in the crowd" etc.

18 Abortion, discarding of newborn for predators, homosexuality, cruelty towards slaves and similar sayings.

19 This refers to the essence of this document; since there were additions of chapters from the sphere of halachot of Derech Eretz, as well as wisdom literature from the books of homiletical sayings. It is also obvious that some of the sayings in it, both in the content as well as form, were influenced by Greek wisdom.

GEDALIAH ALON

the attention of the Gentiles in order to praise Judaism, and to say that in its essence it was reflected upon and learnt by an ancient

Greek scholar. Yet, the "Noachide Laws" cannot be found here; whereas the "Two Ways" does not resort to any semblance of subterfuge and even in its intimate language it supports our assertion that this is a presentation of the principles of Judaism, as conceived by the writer.?°

This method of exhaustively presenting the principles of belief of the nation was widespread in Israel in the times of the Second Temple (and afterwards). There are a few aspects to this way of thinking. There were those who distinguished between mitzvoth which obtained for the individual, thus isolating them from others for all practical purposes, such as the enactment in Lod that idolatry, incest and bloodshed, which are subject to capital punishment, must not be transgressed. However, the uniqueness of these mitzvoth antedates the Destruction by many days, since the purpose of the famous Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:2) that Christian Gentiles must avoid idolworshipping and prostitution and (meat) from what has been strangled and from blood was to impose on the foreigners the above-mentioned three mitzvoth, and "blood" does not refer to a prohibition on eating but on bloodshed, as G. Resch has deduced from the precepts.?! Needless to say, James, the brother of Jesus, and his followers did not contrive this arbitrarily, but made a binding decision in regard to the disagreement between Paul and the Elders of Jerusalem by effecting a compromise, as was the custom in the tradition of the early generations of Israel.

And there were those who saw the major mitzvoth as progenitors of others, but these were no more than commentaries to the "general principles", such as the Ten Commandments which were regarded as "fathers" to the Torah, as Jesus replied to an enquiry in Matthew 19:18-19, and as has been proven by the words of Paul in Romans 13:10. We already know that this was accepted by Philo, who took pains to propose the Ten Commandments and their commentaries as a Halacha, and even organized his Mishnah as an elucidation of the Halachot of the whole Torah and as an outcome of these Commandments, and therefore linked the mitzvoth to each and every Commandment?2. Furthermore,

20 Idolatry was mentioned in the Didache only in enumerating crimes (5:1) and not in the body of the Mitzvoth.

21 G. Resch, Das Aposteldekret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt (1905 [TU 13,3]). "Western version" and the word "the suffocated" does not appear in the tradition which initially did not discuss prohibited food.

» And it is proven from the reading out in the Temple of the Ten Commandments together with the reading of the Shema (b.Tam 85, 41) and even the other cities and villages in Israel wanted to read them but this was abolished in view of "the resentment of the Minim" (b.Ber 12a; Jerusalem Talmud, Ibid.). And even

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

there were even those who enjoined being more stringent in observing the Commandment, and ruled that a death sentence should be imposed on transgressors, in contrast to those who transgress the other prohibitions of the Torah23, and this is reminiscent of the endeavour to base the whole Torah on two great principles of loving God and loving humankind?4, and the way in which Jesus spoke to the Pharisee: Mt 22:37-40; Mk

12:30-32 (and from the reply of the scribe we can learn that these words were the transmission of the Oral Tradition); Lk 10:27

(here also it was Oral Tradition in the hands of the Sages). And there were those who attributed the whole Torah to one "great principle", loving humankind, as Hillel did in his reply to the convert and similarly we read what Paul has written in Galatians 5:14 and we can read the Epistle of James 2:8. Now, these principles in all their multiple aspects can be found in several places in the Apocrypha, in particular in those chapters where it is possible to regard them as a quasi-exposition on the fundamentals of life and Torah resembling the Two Ways; and even here we can discern differences which can be reduced to only one principle "loving humankind", and there were those who included the love of God and the mitzvoth obtaining to religion and ritual. Thus we read in the Book of Jubilees 20:2-3 about Abraham, who ordained justice and the love of one's neighbour, circumcision and idolatry, and also about Isaac (/bid.

15:2-3, justice, love idolatry).

And similarly the author of Tzvaot Shevatim, although the latter ultimately inclines towards the mitzvoth between man and man.

And also the apocryphal Jeremiah? seeks in the streets of Jerusalem, in accordance with God's wishes, a man who performs tzedek (righteousness), loves his brother and neighbour and purifies the idols on the altars with his mouth.26 Likewise, the though there were those who adhered to this custom even afterwards, as we have learnt from the Nash Papyrus and from sections of the Genizah (Mann, HUCA 2, pp. 283-4). And Rabbi Levi (j.Ber 1:3a) stresses that the reason we read the portions of the Shema is because of the Ten Commandments that it contains.

23 See I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und jlidische Bildung (reprinted Darmstadt, 1962) p. 357. We can even see this same tradition in Philo (He himself comments that there are divergent opinions) who supports the death sentence as punishment for making a vain oath, for the same above-mentioned reason.

24 There are iwo aspects to our writing which have converged as one, since it begins, "This is the way of life, first love God your Creator, second your neighbour as yourself, and what you do not want to happen to you, do not do unto others"; he added to the "great principle", the love of humankind, the "Golden

Rule" of Hillel and Rabbi Aqiba, which can be found in Philo in the in the extant parts of the 'Yao@nrixé and in the Book of Tobit 4:15 (cf. the defence of Aristides

I, Mingana 159, 14, 4 published by J. Geffcken p. 22) and concludes with the Ten

Commandments.

25 A. Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies 1, 1927.

26 Pp. 171.

GEDALIAH ALON

wonderful verses which open with "Happy is he" in the Slavonic Enoch (2 Enoch 35-60), which speak of truth and justice and the love of peace and even chasidut towards heaven (although the former triumph) and in Enoch 1:94-99, where Enoch reads "from the books", presenting many sayings which combine to comprise one big unit which limits itself to a discourse on good qualities and justice (towards humankind). In general, these are the writings of Jews, expositions on Judaism, compelling us to regard them as the fruit of the indefatigable reflective thought of the nation, which sought exhaustively to derive for itself the principles of Torah and to assure its transmission for the benefit of its children.?'

Inasmuch as Judaism in the times of the Second Temple (as during the times of the Prophets) tended to see the essence of the Torah as justice and tzedaka and the love of humankind "the mitzvoth

(between man and God) were not given except to unite all Israel together", therefore even these expositions, which were born and evolved with these thoughts in mind, include, on the whole, matters originating from the same sphere.78

We shall return to examine those Halachot which are embedded in the "Two Ways".

The Prohibition on Abortion 2.2 ov dovedboeic Téxvov év Popa ovde yEevvnOev ATOKTEVEIC

Do not destroy the foetus and do not murder the newborn.

27 An outstanding example of this way of seeking the principles of Mitzvoth (without discussing the essence of belief) can be found in the article by Rabbi Simlai b. Abba (b.Mak 23b-24a) and it can be seen that even the common factor between Philo and Josephus in their above-mentioned expositions were not written to present the fundamentals of life to Israelites, but they rather aim it at the Gentiles for the purpose of defending Judaism, and in regards to Phocylides, I concur with E. Schiirer, G. Vermes, G. Millar & M. Goodman, The History of the Jewish

People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) W.1 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986) pp. 689-690).

28 In the version "Two Ways" which was concealed in the Vita des Schenudi (Iselin, unbekannte Version, p. 1) there are verses which can be seen to have originated with this scholar, for example, "Do not oppress the salary of the employee so that he will not call for God's help and He will hear", as well as the warning that man should not be a "userer" (after "Do not steal", compare with the use of the term "the robbers and the userers" by the Tanaim). Similarly, in chapter

4:1-2, we can see the Arabic version which advocates the Mitzvoth—devotion to honouring "the speakers of God's words" and the "Kedoshim"'—honour towards

God's word itself as a principle. (With regard to the name of the book, see Klein,

Katechismus, p. 184). "Didache" should be compared to the Jerusalem seal (Synagogue) which was published by R. Weil, REJ 71, p 30. and see L. H. Vincent

(RevBib 30, p. 251) verse 4-5 on the Synagogue which was built eic av(&yv)wo(wr) vopov Kat eic (6)darx(H)v étod@v for the reading of the Torah and for the study of Mitzvoth.)

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

This Halacha, whose contents are replicated by Clement of Alexandria from the Ten Commandments,2° can be found in the Sibylline Oracles*® attributed to Phocylides, and in Philo and Josephus;*! and all its force is dedicated to warn against this

Greek and Roman custom. It is not necessary to elaborate on the fact that the killing of babies by throwing them to wild animals, which was permitted by the majority of Gentiles, was prohibited by the laws of Israel and considered bloodshed, since once the head of the foetus has emerged into the air of the world, the law which applies to adults applies to him/her as well and capital punishment would be. imposed on anyone who kills him/her.

Similarly, this applies to the interdict against the destruction of a foetus to prevent a woman from giving birth, which is consonant with the Halacha. However, we have to discuss the seriousness of the transgression. Inasmuch as Josephus teaches of the woman who aborts her seed deliberately: "and if a woman should be found doing so, she would be adjudged in court as a killer of children because she has extirpated a soul...", we can derive from this that she has endangered herself by this act. Similarly, Philo resolved (as well as the Septaguint), that a person who hits a pregnant woman and destroys the foetus after its formation in her womb is complete, will have the death sentence imposed on him.32

There is no doubt that these laws diverge from the Halacha which was current in the tradition of the Sages, which exempts from capital punishment the killing of a foetus as long as it has not emerged into the air of the world. There is therefore a basis to the premise that it is possible to learn from the Tannaitic teachings of the existence of a Halacha which had been incorporated, and which is consistent with the tradition of the above mentioned

Soferim, and corresponds with what is recorded in the Talmud? in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, namely, that a Noachide is sentenced to death even if the victim was a foetus, as well being consistent with the other stringencies enumerated, all of which could possibly prove the existence of ancient Halachot which took a stringent attitude towards capital punishment in regards to Israelites ,34 and this needs further scrutiny.

29 Paedagogus M11.89:7 (Staehlin, p. 285); Is there a lack of precision in the citing of the source or is this an ancient Jewish-Greek "midrash-Torah", which served as a commentary to "Thou shall not kill"?

30 Book Three, J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902 [GCS 8]) p. 87.

31 See Heinemann, Philons, pp. 392-394. ae 32 Compare with Heinemann, Philons, p. 390 (and perhaps in the Septaguint it is written "there shall be no loyalty", analogous to "loyalty to Torah" etc.).

33 b. Sanh 57b, Bereshit Rabba 34. Theodor, p. 325 (See j.Qid 1:58b).

34 Heinemann (Philons, pp. 352-357) discusses the multiplicity of death penalties which can be found in the Philonian Hypothetica, and even mentions the opinion

GEDALIAH ALON

The Ways of the Amorites 3.4

Tékxvoy pov, py vyivou oiavooxerToc, erexdy Oder yet aig TR? sidwAodaTpiav, undé emaarddg pnd wordy worrexag pnd Tepicataiper, pndé Oéde atta BdExew.

Ex yap TovTay aTayTUr yeEvvaTau My son, do not be among those who look on birds, as this leads to idolatry, and [let there not be ] incantations, and do not be an astrologer nor a sorcerer, and also do not lust after them to see them, because they are all idolatry.

With regard to the diviners, we can take it for granted that they are prohibited and thus consonant with the Torah and Halacha.

Nevertheless, during Temple times and after its destruction, sorcerers and magicians existed amongst the Israelites, both in Israel and abroad,36 as well as "magicians' books" which were popular among the people. There were even Sages who were well versed in magic, and there were those who were engaged im it under compelling circumstances.

However, there were those who prohibited the uttering of charms (on diseases) which was especially prevalent, and contrary to the fact that the majority of the Tanaim and the Amoraim had ruled that it was permitted. Rabbi

Agiba ruled in his Mishnah (m. Sanh 10:1):

He that utters.charms over a wound and says "I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians"...does not have a portion in the world to come.

However, in the Tosephta (t.Sanh 12:10) Abba Saul says in his name—"Even the diviner..." etc. The Halacha is not clear, inasmuch as it is possible to interpret it that he prohibited only the Rokek, but that which is not rekika is permitted (and this is the law that both Philo's exposition and Josephus's Contra Apion were based om 2 common source, whose purpose was to convert Gentiles. In this manner it is also possible to explicate Josephus' allusion to the ruling that a death penalty should be imposed upon a woman who aborts her foetus. However, an examination of the early sources

(and other even more obscure books) confronts us with the first Halacha which applied the death penalty with great stringency and imposed it for many transgressions, so that the Halacha (the Pharisaic and the later one) moderated them. And in the matter of the foetuses, it is necessary to examine other later writings which are in the tradition, although there is no need to expand on this.

35 In regards to the divining using birds, compare with the story by Hikitus (was it invented? See H. Lewy, ZNTW [1934] pp. 117-132) im Josephus, Comra Apion

1:22, about Meshulam the Jew.

= ae Schiirer, Vermes, Millar & Goodman, History of the Jewish People IL.1, pp.

342-347.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

in the tradition transmitted in the name of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri in Abot de Rabbi Nathan chapter 36), and it is possible to interpret the Baraita as referring only to the present, whereas the uttering of charms is prohibited everywhere. Indeed, there are divergent opinions on this issue in the Talmud. In the opinions of R. Yohanan in the Babylonian Talmud (b.Sanh 101a) and Rab in the Jerusalem Talmud (j.Sanh 28:270b) Rabbi Aqiba only prohibited spitting "since you do not mention the Name of Heaven over spitting" (Babylonian Talmud). However, according to Rabbi

Hanina (as well as Rab in the Babylonian Talmud), incantations are prohibited even when verses which do not mention the Name are uttered, in fact they forbid the uttering of charms under any circumstances, as Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, "Do not heal through the words of the Torah".37 While it is true that we can not derive an absolute teaching from the words of Rabbi Joshua ben

Levi, and not even from Rabbi Agiba's Mishnah, that indeed the uttering of charms was prohibited even with words not from the Torah; it appears that the bulk of Jewish incantations were based on the reading of verses from the Torah.38 It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that their intention was to prohibit incantations totally, justifying this with the phrase "because of the ways of the Amorites", and this is compatible with the manner in which Rabbi Meir pronounced the prohibition in the Mishnah (m.Shab

6:10):

They may go out with the egg of a locust or with a tooth of a fox or with a nail from the stake as a means of a cure even on ordinary week days [it is forbidden] for the same reason.

This premise, that there were scholars who categorically opposed the uttering of charms, can assist us in explaining the words of Origen against Celsus,3° who recounts that Israel was preoccupied with divining and oaths, that he found people amongst the populace of Israel who did not know Torah, and he

did not see Hechsharim who avoided what was prohibited. We must therefore consider the chapter which is replicated above from our book as expressing the opinion of those Sages who condemned the uttering of charms and regarded it as bordering on sorcery, which is related to idolatry.*°

37 b.Shebu. 15b. This was how the Rambam understood it, Halachot Idolatry (Avodah Zara), 77, chapter 11, Halacha 12.

38 See b.Shab 67a, and also the blessings and charms which include elements "from the Torah" (b.Shab 115b; t.Shab 13:4; m. Yad 2:12; j.Shab 17:15c—and in the latter two no charms are mentioned but nevertheless it seems that the allusion to "blessings" refer to the same type) also belong here.

39 Contra Celsum V.9 (Koetschau II, p. 9).

40 With regard to the astrologers, even though the Sages believed in them and relied on them (by approaching others), in any case, there were those who neverthe-

GEDALIAH ALON

Concerning the Slaves 4.10 Ovx émrckéerc SovA@ cov 7 Tadioxn, Tog emi TOV aurov Geov édritovow, é&v miKpia cov, pytoTe ov pH doBnOjoovTat TOV Ex apdorépotg bedv Do not impose*! on your man-servant or your maid-servant who hope on God—the same God as you—with bitterness, lest they desist from fearing the God you both share.

Now through this admonition not to impose excessive fear on your slaves, the Sages drew a comparison with the Agadah in order to teach us that some of the Tanaim and Amoraim did not stand on their honour and protected them [the slaves] and acted towards them by the standard of mercy. However, as far as the Halacha is concerned, we must first discuss to what the documents refer, whether to Canaanites or Hebrews, as what is not written is not interpreted. However, there is no doubt that the reference here is only to Canaanite slaves, since the same tradition which testifies to the fact that there were no Hebrew slaves during the Second

Temple period (b. Qid 69a and parallel editions), is true at least as far as the latter part of this epoch is concerned. Although explicit proof for this tradition is lacking, it seems that we can find corroboration in John 8:33, where "Jews who believe in Jesus" say to him after he had promised them freedom through the knowledge of the truth, "We are the seed of Abraham and in our lives we have never been slaves to anyone, so how can you say that we shall be freemen?" This is especially likely as the plain sense of what has been written informs us that "the sons of Abraham" were forever freemen. From this we have learned that common

Canaanite slaves who were owned by Israelites do not remain Gentiles, but are slaves to Heaven, thus confirming the Halacha.*? less imposed a prohibition on it (b. Pes 113b, fortune tellers and diviners. In regards to Heter, allowing it, see b.Shab 156a-b). And we found a Gentile astrologer who converted who said, "Has this holiness not cleaved to this nation to isolate itself from these things?" (j.Shab 6:8d, and see Levi below). In addition, the early

Christians were quite strict in not accepting converts from the astrologers (corresponding to the Israelites?).

41 At first glance it may seem that it is difficult that it should wam against "commanding" the slaves, and perhaps embedded in the article a Hebrew basis—"Do not impose" etc, in order to tell us, do not punish, and read: do not pee A Phocylides 224-226 it says that physical damage to slaves that must be avoided).

42 We cannot rely here on the opinion of Rabbi Agiba ("Do not keep slaves who are not circumcised") as opposed to the Halacha of Rabbi Ishmael (b. Yeb. 47b, and see Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael 7, Horowitz, p. 230) and even less so on the Halacha which permits forcing circumcision upon slaves (b.Yeb. 47b-48a: j. Yeb.

8:8d, as well as the article by Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, in Genesis Rabba 90 (Theodore-Albeck, p. 1106): "you impose circumcision" as did those Egyptians

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

What is the relevance of this embedded chapter?

3.1 Téxvov pov, petye aT TavTOG Tovnpod Kai ad TaVTdC Opoiou avrov My son, flee from all evil, and from anything else similar to it.

It seems that this concurs with the opinion of the majority of the Sages that the allusion is to not to a person but to an evil thing.43

And this has already been brought to our attention in the edict of the Tanaim, "Distance yourself from ugliness and what is similar to it [or to ugliness]"44.

However, it is necessary to assess whether the writer had encountered this Hebrew edict and misunderstood its subject matter and formulated it in a way which diverged from its substantial meaning. In our book the edict is conceived as having the purpose of teaching us that a person should isolate himself from the minor transgressions which lead to major ones, and then goes into more detail (do not get angry as anger leads to bloodshed, etc.). However, the Hebrew script, apparently conveys an admonition to avoid those deeds which in themselves are not transgressions but are liable to raise suspicions amongst the people towards himself. Since that is the literal meaning of the word "ugliness" or "ugly" in the language of the Sages, and this is its use in many places,4> and even the sources which have transmitted this edict teach us this. The Talmud presents this as proof that the Halacha imposed a prohibition on eating an animal which a Sage had interdicted, even though it was permitted on the "basis of doubt". And we can find corroboration for this in t. Yeb 4:7 and in Abot de Rabbi Nathan Ashkenazi version, chapter

2, which inclines towards caution because of "complaints of the people". And Derech Eretz 5:12 (Higger, p. 63) concludes with "lest you be suspected of a transgression". This is so also in the Mekhilta to Deuteronomy (Midrash Tanaim, 134): Rabbi Ishmael says that what is written comes to teach us to distance ourselves themselves who were the slaves of Joseph, Genesis 47:19, and we have already learned this Halacha from the Kingdom's commands as they were presented in Codex Theodosianus and therefore it is not necessary to proofread Albeck, in his remark—'"Kaspan" (whose interpretation has been disallowed)—since we cannot derive proof from this that all the slaves were, indeed, God-fearers.

43 In the section of the Didache which was published in ZNTW (1922) p. 238, the version is xd TavTic TovNnpod mpa&ypaTos ("from every evil matter").

44 In the Mekhilta to Deuteronomy (Midrash Tanaim 134) which is copied down by the words of Rabbi Ishmael and in ¢. Hull 2:24)—by Rabbi Eliezer.

45 In b. Yeb 24b; j.Ket 7:32c and the above meaning was current in the School of Rabbi Elijah (Tana debi Eliyahu).

GEDALIAH ALON

from the ugliness "so that others will not suspect you of a transgression". And this is interpreted im a chapter in Phocylides:

"Flee from a bad rumour** (bad reputation)". It seems that the latter was referring to a ruling to avoid slander by distancing oneself from evil people (so that you will not be considered one of them), since he concludes with the verse, "keep away from depraved people". Or perhaps it is possible to interpret the Tosephta in Hullin along these same lines, where Rabbi Eliezer transmits this edict in order to rebuke himself for having enjoyed a sermon on the Torah given by an heretic (min). And it was interpreted similarly in Schenudi's version, who added afterwards, "and do not join an evil person (rasha), lest your life be shortened and you die before your time." (as in Phocylides). However, it is has been proven from the rest of the section that the essence of the version in our book is, as we have said, an admonition to avoid minor transgressions which lead to major ones, and so it stands to reason that the basic significance of the adage has been distorted here.

However, we have already found this in our sources, as he adds in Abot de Rabbi Nathan reference to that same edict, ~Therefore the Sages have decreed keep afar from a minor sin lest it lead you to a grave sin." And below (Schecter, 6,2) he says

(Where it is written, "and I shall observe the virgin™}—1t teaches that Job eschewed anything which was liable to lead to 2 transgression and from the ugliness and to anything resembling uglmess. And we have leamed in the Mishnah ? (1, 26), im accord with our edict, (Ibid. 12}—Refraim from anything which could lead you to sim and anything resembling it efc.

And even in the Mekhilta to Deuteronomy he concludes after repeating the edict and elucidating it—that they should not suspect you of a transgression—"as if-a man is wearing a woman's clothes—and we find ourselves having been impelled to commit a transgression", indicating that even in this tradition the edict had become obscured and confused with similar edicts. In any case, at the core of the adage, as it is formulated in the Hebrew parallels

(and they are the most important), a foundation exists for many Halachot which were enacted on the grounds of "obviating suspicion" and mareet ayin, and the Bimyan-Av to all of them can be found in Tractate Shekalim in the Mishnah (m.Shek 3:2), "he who made the appropriation did not enter with a hem...for a man must satisfy people just as he has to satisfy the Almighty"

'© The content of the document can be found in Paul also (1 Thess 5:22) ax TavTig etdovg axovypod a&xéxeode ("Distance yourself from everything which resembles evil"), but is not sufficiently clarified_

*? There is an ancient Halacha which recounts the divergent opinions between Rabbi Aqiba and Rabbi Ishmael in regard to to the Midrasha (Sifre Deaeronomy

10:9, Midrash Tanaim 61).

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

THE HALACHA IN THE CHRISTIAN CHAPTERS

Prayer 8.3 After he has commanded them not to pray in the manner of the flatterers (Pharisees, Jews), but in the fashion conceived by Jesus ("Our

Father in Heaven..."), he adds Tpic rij¢ juépac otrw mpoxetxeobe:

"Pray thus three times a day."

Ostensibly, from this we have irrefutable evidence for the Halacha which fixed prayer three times a day, Shacharit, Minha and Aravit, and corroboration for the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel against Rabbi Joshua who says that the Aravit prayer is optional.

However, after examination we found that there is substance to his opinion. According to Tertullian*® the reference is to the the prayer being at the third hour and the sixth hour and the ninth hour of the day, and similarly, the author of Didascalia Apostolorum;*? in opposition to them Origen,°° ruled that it should be at Shacharit and at midnight and at Aravit. Thus it is not clear what the intention of the writer of the Didache was. As to the essence of the question in regards to the modifications introduced by the early Christians, we must turn to and scrutinise ancient sources in order to learn whether they were no more than custominnovations introduced by Israel. First of all, in Acts 10:9 we read about Peter who prayed in the Temple at the sixth hour and about Cornelius the Roman officer, a God-fearer, who prayed in his house at the ninth hour (10:30), demonstrating beyond doubt that they had comprehended the original way of the Jews, but only with regard to the final prayer. From Luke we deduce that the nation must pray at the time of [the burning of] the incense (at dusk, 1:10). Similarly, we read in Judith (9:1) that she prayed in her house at the time of the sacrifice of the incense5! at the Temple in the evening. Akin to these testimonies is the admonition given by the writer of the Slavic Enoch (13:88): "morning, noon and evening it is good to come to the house of the Lord and to praise the Creator for everything." However, in all these sources the time of the prayer of Shacharit was not interpreted as being at 48 De ieiunio 10, De oratione 25, See Harnack, Die Lehre, p. 27.

49 Gibson, p. 26.

50 On prayer 12 (Koetschau, p. 325).

51 In j.Ber 4:7b Rabbi Yose says in regards to the final time to pray the Minha according to Rabbi Jehuda, that it is, in the opinion of the Baraita, "eleven hours less a quarter>—Or39yn Js bw PHN ANN novpn nwpIn KX? see t.Ber 26:2

"Debur Hamatcheel until Peleg Hamanche" (These are Halachic units of time. The Minha).

GEDALIAH ALON

the third hour (on the contrary, the connotation of "morning" im Enoch is exactly dawn). Moreover, in some of the sources we have learnt that the first prayer was set at the beginning of the day, since it says in the Songs of Solomon 6:4-5 "He shall wake up from his sleep and bless the name of God...and await the face of God for all his household" And so with the Sibylline Oracles

(3:591-593)}—"At dawn they lift up holy arms toward heaven, from their beds...and they honor only the Immortal who always rules" (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha 1, p. 375). And even in Judith (12:8), apparently she prayed with the first rays of the sun.

And the author of Epistle of Aristeas, testifies that the Elders prayed "as was the custom among all the Jews" at Shacharit, even though it was not the rule, with the first rays of the sun (Jbid.,

Pesigta de Rab Kahana, according to the simple meaning of the verse). However, the Therapeuts in Egypt used to pray twice a day, Shacharit and Aravit, as Philo attests, and the first prayer was recited with the first rays of the sun5?. Now, in order to elucidate the custom of the Shacharit prayer at the third hour, for which explicit proof does not exist in the early sources®3, it is, perhaps, possible to allude to the Halacha enacted by Rabbi

Joshua in the reading of the Shema at the third hour. And it is possible that the custom was established on the basis of its affinity to the dawn Tamid, whose deadline was the fourth hour, and this, in the opinions of Rabbi Jehuda ben Baba and Rabbi Judah, applies also to the prayer. In any case, it must be said first of all that those sources (m.Eduy 6:1 and m.Ber 4:1) which state that prayer is at the sixth hour and at the ninth, undoubtedly count three prayers, although they do not mention an evening prayer, and this is in accord with Rabbi Joshua's opinion. In regards to the two latter prayers, the middle one is intended approximately for the major Minha, and the latter for the minor Minha. However, there were those who ruled that this prayer should be delayed until after the Minha, to the hour of the dawn incense. Thus we have established that the tradition which ruled three prayers in a day (to the exclusion of Aravit) is based on the custom that definitively linked the prayer to the sacrifices and to the Temple. In contradistinction to this, the same tradition which ruled two prayers a day, Shacharit and the one at the beginning of the evening (precisely),

2 De vita contemplativa 83 (with the first rays of the sun and its setting).

Josephus provides similar testimony in regards to the Essenes (Wars, I1.8:5) although he does not mention the Aravit prayer. And these prayers were aimed towards those who prayed "with the dimming of the sun", between the dawn prayer yee and the evening prayer [Aravit] (Rabbi Yose, b.Shab 118, 2. See 7. Ber

53 However, we find that the Amoraim prayed at three different hours (Rabbi Yasa, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba and also Rabbi Barchaya, Jerusalem Talmud Jbid.).

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

has no affinity to the Temple (Avor Tikunam).54 From this we permit ourselves to state that the Halacha enacted by Rabban

Gamaliel that the Aravit prayer is obligatory is comprised of both of these traditions simultaneously. And we have found a similar fusion with the early Christians, where in the opinion of Tertullian a man must pray not only the above-mentioned three prayers, at the third, sixth and ninth hours of the day, but also when he arises

(with the sun's rays) and when evening commences. Similarly, the writer of the Syriac Didascalia.55 Now, it is possible to state that this Halacha was renewed after the Destruction when a third prayer was added. In view of this, if we interpret the edict in the Didache in such a manner, then we have no choice but to defer the dating of the time our composition was written. However, as was mentioned above, the two customs existed side by side during Second Temple times.5° Therefore, we cannot attribute this Halacha to the Destruction, but it must be interpreted under the assumption of a fusion of two different customs, a phenomenon which was common especially in regards to blessings and prayer.

And in reference to the issue itself, although there is no evidence to support this, it is logical to assume that the writer of the book was referring to the dawn prayer (as the Halacha has ruled) and to Minha and to Aravit, thus conforming to Rabban Gamaliel's ruling.

The Prayer over the Meal The whole of chapter 9 discusses' the prayers over the meal, which apparently is "the Lord's Supper", to which he also devotes chapter 14. This is the manner in which he opens: wepi 6& Tijc¢ evxaptotiac, ovTwo evxapioTioaTte. This wording can also be found in chapter 14 below. However, we shall return to clarify this matter afterwards; let us now examine the body of the text, which is reproduced here:

54 In the opinion of the Tosefta the Shacharit and Aravit prayers are the substance of the "law", and with regard to the Syrian Didache it must be stated, that it adds another prayer which is "on the bed". Compare with the words of Rabbi

Joshua ben Levi in the matter of the reading of the Shema in b.Ber 4b, and the words of other Amoraim in j. Ber 1:4d ("in order to avoid damages").

55 Rabbi Yose and his son Rabbi Eliezer (t.Ber 3:2) subsume the closing prayer (Neila) under Aravit (and Neila is definitely "the closing of the gates of the Palace"). Rav also is of the opinion that Neila exempts from the evening prayer

(b. Yoma 87b; j.Ber 4:7c). In any case, it is still far-fetched to see this as an Aravit prayer which comes during Neila (which previously was prayed even outside the "three chapters") and which has an affinity to the Temple.

56 Holtzmann, ZNTW 12, pp. 90-107, deals with this matter, but his words are not clear to me.

GEDALIAH ALON

Chapter 9 First over the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be eternal honour.

And concerning the bread for breaking: We thank you; our Father for the life and knowledge, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be eternal honour. As the broken [bread] was spread over the mountains and gathered and became one, so your congregation will gather together from the ends of the earth to your kingdom. Because to you be the honour and the might through Jesus the Messiah forever.

But let no one eat or drink from your evxapioTia, except those who baptise themselves for the Lord, because concerning this the Lord has said, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."

Chapter 10 And after you have been filled then bless in this way: We thank you, holy Father, for your holy Name which resides in our hearts and for the knowledge and the faith and eternal life which have been made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be honour forever. You, the Lord of all, you created everything for the sake of your Name; you have given food and drink to humankind for their support, so that they will thank you. However, upon us you have bestowed spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your servant. We thank you for everything, because you are great. To you be eternal honour. O God, remember your congregation, to save it from all evil and to consummate it with your love, and gather it, the holy one, from the four winds, into your kingdom, which you have established for it. Because to you be eternal might and honour. Let grace come and this world disappear. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come, and if he is not, let him repent.

Let our Lord come, Amen. However, allow the prophets to give thanks as they will.

We find that scholars who have tried to elucidate the question of this meal,5? argue that it cannot unequivocally be the "eucharist"

(which is alluded to in chapter 10) since there is feasting here with not even a hint of a holy sacrifice (6voia, as in chapter 14 below), as a symbol of the Lord's flesh and blood. Opinions are divided here, as there are those who argue that from its origin, the "Lord's Supper" (which was on Sunday) was comprised of actual food and drink, and it is with this issue that we are dealing.

Whereas there are those who argue that the writings refer to the communal suppers in which the early Christians partook, the cya&mou which eventually evolved into public meals for the poor, or it refers to "house suppers" which resembled a_ private eucharist (which took place at any hour)58. Nonetheless, to delve

57 E. von der Goltz, Tischgebete und Abendmahlsgebete in der altchristlichen und in der griechischen Kirche (Leipzig, 1905 [TU 29,2b}) pp. 1 ff; H. J.

Holtzmann, ZNTW 1904, pp. 89-120; Drews, "Untersuchung", pp. 74-79; W. O.

E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon,

1925) pp. 198-9; F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (London: SPCK, 1928) pp. 80-81; Knopf, Die Lehre, p. 24; J. Weiss, Das

Urchristentum, p. 510 n.1 (Eng. Earliest Christianity 1-Il [New York 1959}); Leclerq, Dictionnaire, p. 790.

58 See Holtzmann, Ibid., p. 95; Axel, ZNW, 1902, p. 138; Oesterley , Jewish Background, pp. 156-193; Gavin, Jewish Antecedents, pp. 64-66.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

into the substance of the law it is necessary to state that even the eucharist, like the agape, was based on the communal-meals of Israel. In the beginning, since it was known that Jesus' Last Supper, according to the opinion of the tradition in the Gospel of John and in the (apocryphal) Gospel of Peter and in the opinion of researchers, despite being propounded in the tradition of Mark, was not Passover evening but took place on a weekday. Secondly, the Passover sacrifice is missing from the Seder of the eucharist and not even an allusion to a Seder exists, and therefore the theory which derives the "Lord's Supper" from the Seder of the evening of Passover Seder is totally refuted.5°. Nevertheless, the alternative, which seeks to deduce it from the Sabbath meal and from the kiddush, is no better, because there is no mention of the holiness of the day in its blessings®.

And we find with regard to these communal meals, that the law itself demonstrates that they took place, on the whole, on the Sabbaths (and on holy days and new months). And certainly

Geiger is right when he interprets the foundations of the Halachot governing Eruvay Hatzarot (unification of courtyards on Sabbath so that food can be carried from courtyard to courtyard to permit everyone to bring their Sabbath food and eat together) on the basis of the custom of eating together on the Sabbaths in a large company®! (and eventually, when the first custom took root, the takannah itself was not abolished even though its cause became obsolete). And apparently this process occurred in the matter of the meals of the same type, for whose existence we have found some evidence (of their content and even as to their semiritualistic quality) in the days of Julius Caesar (and before them).

As we read in Josephus (Antiquities 14.10:8) that in the order 59 G. Klein, "Die Gebete in der Didache", ZNW.9 (1908) pp. 134-144, and in Katechismus, pp. 216-217; Oesterley and Gavin rely on the whole on Elebogen

(Tiferet Yisrael, 179-181) who relates that in the days of the Tanaim they would receive the Sabbath with a meal while it was still daytime (Zosephet), which he teaches in the Tosephta (t.Ber 5:31-33 and parallel ones) and to this must be added b. Git 38b. See there. However, Rabbi Judah disagrees and forbids eating "from the Minha and above". According to Rabbi Meir the time of reading the Shema in the evening falls "from the time that people enter to eat their bread on Sabbath evenings" (¢.Git 1:1 and parallels) and even from the words of Rabbi Yose we can not learn that there was a fixed custom even among the "rich and the aristocratic". It seems that the Baraita which states that it was not the custom to blow the shofar on Sabbath evenings at these meals (t.Suk 4:11-12; b.Shab 35b) ("when they have filled the barrel with water and roasted the fish and lit the candle"). In any case, the Eucharist should not be linked to the Kiddush, as proposed by these scholars, since there is no mention in the blessing in the Didache to the holiness of the day (neither in the blessing over the wine nor in the blessing over the meal).

60 Goltz, Tischgebete, p. 124.

61 j, MQ 2:81b; j.San 8:26b.

GEDALIAH ALON

given by the Roman Proconsul to the leaders and to the nation of the Island of Pyrus with regard to the Jews; the Jewish people of Dilus had complained against the Greeks that they were preventing them from observing their Torah and their customs: éuoi Toivuv ovK apéoKel...kwtecbar ators Sg KaTa Ta avTav EOvn Kat xejuata sic ovvdertva Kai Ta iepa siogépev...kai yap Tato¢g Koloap...KwAVwWY OL&doUg oUPdyECbaL...TOUTOVG OvK éxa@voev ouTEe obvderTva ToLEiv...0Moiwcs, 5& KWYO...ETITPETH KATA TA TATPLA EOy Kat

"popisa ovvayecbai Te Kai éoTLaoba.

We have learnt from this that there was a fixed custom among the Israelites in the days of Caesar (and before them), whether in Rome or in Dilus, to eat together in groups (assemblies) and for this purpose they would collect money from the public and these meals were considered a Mitzvah. Thus, in any case, it appears that not only on the Sabbaths did the "Mitzvah groups", who are mentioned in the tradition of the Tanaim, as well as being permitted by Rabbi Yohanan to lend money with interest for the purpose of providing for fulfilling the obligation of money for these suppers®?, assemble together for these suppers with their companions. And if we require proof that these parties (that sometimes took place at the synagogues or in the Midrashic schools®, and as was introduced by the Christians subsequently with the eucharist), but even during the weekdays it was a religious act with an ambience of holiness. Josephus attests to this in his testimony about the Essenes and their suppers. And so we must state that it was precisely the communal-supper (over which the substance of the Blessing over the meal was devoted), as it was taught in the Mishnah and arranged in the Tosephta," with its

"manner of reclining" and sequence of eating, and with its many cups, which constituted the source for both the Christian Agape and the Eucharist, since the many modifications found in the early

Christian sources with regard to the order of blessings over the cup and over the bread, which precedes the other, were underpinned by the two cups which were always drunk in the above-mentioned meals amongst the Israelites, a cup before the food and a cup afterwards (a cup for the blessing). The Christians maintained one, eliminating the second so that the first cup was preserved by the former [Israelites] while the last cup (the blessing after the meal) was preserved by the latter.

62 j. Shab 4:7a; 2:17c; j.Ber 7:11c.

63 m. Ber 4:8, and the parallels in the Talmudim.

6 Goltz (Tischgebete, pp 13-14) understands the cup of the blessing (after the meal) as similar to the "cup of Elijah the prophet", but there is no sign of this cup in the early sources, and in principle it symbolized the fifth cup of the passover evening, which was ultimately rejected.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

As can be seen, the name itself, ayamn (7245X), proves its Jewish origins. Although scholars have been doubtful and have sought to clarify its origins, they have not been successful. For example, Oesterley sought to explain it as a translation of the term

"communal" [havurah] from the linguistic term hiba;®5 however, the word havurah is never used in this way. Closer to the truth is that the agape is but the Hebrew term meriyot, which is found in the Baraita in the Talmud (b.Moed Qatan 22b)®, and its contents refer to a supper with companions, which was_ initially, undoubtedly, referred to as seudat-reyim (fellowship-meal), but with time the name was shortened, as usual, and only the term meriyot remained.

Now, after we have seen the affinity between the essence of the Christian meals and the communal-meals of Israel, it will not be difficult to appreciate the pattern of blessings in the portion under discussion, and to see in them the foundations upon which the Sages moulded the Grace after Meals. And here, the first blessing over the cup, which is the blessing over the wine (the Creator of the Vine), was transformed by the Christian writer into thanksgiving for redemption by converting the vine into a symbol of the kingdom of heaven and the Messianic days (which have already arrived), and similarly with the rest of the blessings. And the second blessing over the bread was also eliminated and in its place a thanksgiving for spiritual good was introduced,® although it is necessary to be precise with regard to its end. Inasmuch as the same Christian prayer which speaks of the ingathering of the exiles, which concludes the blessing, certainly does not cohere with Christianity in its early days, and it is reasonable to assume that the Jewish blessing-pattern was embedded here. However, the version of the blessing which is in the Halacha is shorter,-and, as we learned in the Tosephta (1:6): "These are the blessings that you shorten when blessing over fruit...", and there is no petition.

Similarly: "These are the blessings which do not end with blessed be he who blesses over the fruit...". And here he concludes

65 Oesterley, Jewish Background, p. 204.

66 In this Baraita, LeSimcha and Lemeriyot, the Meriyot has its own meaning although according to Rabba bar bar Hana—Simchat Meriyot.

67 We should avoid regarding spirituality as a Christian innovation, as it is possible that even amongst Israel there were paradigms of similar blessings. M.

Dibelius ("Die Mahlgebete der Didache", ZNTW [1938] pp. 32-41) has already suggested that such a paradigm should be sought amongst the Hellenistic Jews. Bousset demonstrated this in his exposition, Eine Judische Gebetsammlung im siebenten

Buch der apostolischen Konstitutionen (See Philo's testimony in regards to the prayers of the Therapeuts "on the sereneness and the truth and the understanding and the knowledge"), although we must not exclude the Jews of Israel, especially certain circles, from similar concerns.

GEDALIAH ALON

(doxology). From this it can be deduced that in early days a single Halacha or custom did not exist for the blessing over deriving benefits, since there is a fourth prayer for the Grace after Meals, it too is part of the same Halacha in the Tosephta (Ubid.), that can be shortened. You can conclude with it, but nevertheless: "Rabbi

Yose ha-Gelili would conclude with the last blessing in the Grace after Meals and prolong it." Furthermore, it seems that from the Epistle of Aristeas, where we read about the Elder of the Priests who had made a blessing during the meal (with the king) before eating "as was the custom among the Jews". It was also the custom among the Essenes, where the priest blesses (Jewish Wars

2.8:5), blessing the king and his wife and his household. It seems that we can learn from this that they would prolong the Grace before the food and include a petition (here—a blessing for the host, which our Talmud and custom has fixed as part of the Grace and after it),°* although we must discuss what determined the blessing over the breaking of the bread, namely, that it is said only after the breaking. Now in Matthew (15:36; 26:26) and in Mark (6:41; 8:6; 14:12) and in Luke (9:16; 22:19) and in Acts

(27:35) and in Paul in 1 Corinthians (11:24) we read that the blessing preceded the breaking of the bread, as is the ruling which the Halacha ordained in the Gemara (b. Ber 39b). However, from the words of Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi (39a) we learn that there were those who instructed that the blessing should be said over the bread which had been broken (Rabbi Hiyya's opinion, as recorded in j.Ber 6:10, 71, is the middle road between both of these opinions). At first glance, there seems to be a disagreement in this

Halacha among the early Sages, and moreover, it seems from the words of Rab Papa that, "everyone agrees that on Passover you place pieces of bread both whole and broken", that we have before us a vestige of the meal of the Passover evenings (as well as several other customs) reminiscent of the ancient custom to bless over the broken bread (See above the statement made by Mar b. Rabina and the Baraita, which always tries to harmonise customs), since its reason ("because of the bread of the poor") is untenable.®° 68 b. Ber 46a. The Rishonim replicate the "Jerusalem" and to the "Tosephta" as also speaking of this custom.

69 Even though the above Halacha of Passover was observed in Babylon only, we have fortuitously learned from the differences in customs between the people of Israel and the people of Babylon, that they acted in accordance to this custom in Israel also (M. Margoliyoth (ed.), Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature

(Tel Aviv, 1960 [Hebrew]) p. 133). And J. Jeremias ("Das Brotbrechen beim Passahmahl und Mc 14,22 par.", ZNTW 33 [1934] pp. 203-204) reprimands the scholars that have come to elucidate from the Gospels on the "Last Supper" which relate that Jesus blessed and afterwards broke the bread that was not a Passover meal, where the custom is precisely the converse, and claims that even on the Passover the blessing over the bread is said first and then the bread is broken. He

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

Let us now return to the blessings after the food. First of all we have learnt that there are three blessings, as is set out in the first Halacha of the Mishnah which speaks of three blessings and Maayan Shalosh (the prayer al Hamehya and other prayers said upon foodstuffs and cakestuffs and products of the land of Israel other than bread in m. Ber 6:1).7° However, from the Baraitot we have learnt, according to the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Yose ha-Gelili, that a fourth blessing (the good and does good) can be found within the Grace after Meals. And contrary to the tradition of the Amoraim in the two Talmudim, which testifies to the existence of a fourth blessing introduced in memory of those killed at Betar, at their burial. There is no doubt that the blessing "the good and does good" existed during the meals at the Temple,"! and if we want to reconcile this with the above tradition of the Amoraim, then we are compelled to state that after the Bar Kochba war the blessing was fixed in its place and the division of opinion ceased.72 In any case, from this we find corroboration for the opinion of the early scholars who rejected the fourth blessing as being moulded into the Grace after Meals.

As to the contents of the blessings, we find the imprint of the pattern-of-blessings current in Israel, since the blessing on "the holy Name who resides in the hearts" and "the knowledge and the faith" etc. are intended for the second blessing (covenant, Torah and Eretz) and the blessing on "food and drink which God has given to humankind to support them" is intended as a blessing for sustainment, and the third (the'petition for the ingathering and redemption of the congregation) is aimed at "the rebuilder of Jerusalem", but the Christian writer altered it for his purposes, and even deliberately stressed the spirituality of the Grace after Meals in the Christian prayer ("but you bestowed upon us spiritual food...").

However, it is necessary to explore the however did not go into the depths of these particulars. On the other hand, this conjecture is rejected on the basis of Greiff''s methodology, where he establishes that the Didache refers to Passover (Das dlteste Pascharituale, p. 149).

70 Perhaps we should learn about the three blessings especially from covenantal blessing in the Book of Jubilees 22:6.

71 A. Biichler has dealt with this issue (Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century London, 1928 [Jews' College Publications \1}) and so has C. Albeck ("Die vierte Eulogie des Tischgebets", MGWJ 78 [1934] pp.

430-437).

72 ere is of the opinion that they fixed it after Betar as a fourth blessing in the house of mourning, while in all the other places it was already fixed and existed

(although it is difficult to interpret the tradition as it is). Albeck believes that at first there was no fixed formula for this blessing, and after those killed in Betar were buried, it was fixed as the last rite.

GEDALIAH ALON

changes in the arrangement introduced by the Christian mould, which can be found in the second blessing (on the land) which precedes the blessing "who sustains". It is not improbable that we have before us a foundation upon which we can interpret the name

Eucharistia which pertains to the blessing after the food, whose theme is thanksgiving. As we have learned in the Baraita (49a):

"R' Abba (=Rab) says that it is necessary that thanksgiving should be said (in the second blessing) at the beginning and at the conclusion and anyone diminishing should not diminish from any one of them". This Halacha teaches us that thanksgiving occupies a special place in the Grace after meals, and since according to the tradition in the Didache the second blessing preceded the first blessing, this indicates that thanksgiving, and an expectancy towards God, were fixed features of the blessings over the food.

Nevertheless, the language of thanksgiving appears even in the blessings before the food. It seems, therefore, that the early tradition was preserved here, and that the blessings over the meal have always included thanksgiving, but this needs further investigation.

As to the matter of the verses after the blessings, the first one reminds us of "May the All-Merciful send us Elijah the Prophet...". And even in regards to the remainder, there are scholars who propound the theory that they were said in a manner of praise, similarly to the blessings said after the meal by the Israelites.73 Despite this, it is worthwhile to assess the language of "Hosanna to THE GOD OF DAVID" which is rarely found in Christian books (in Mt 21:9—to Jesus—to the son of David). As is known, this resembles the formula "the rebuilder of Jerusalem" found in the prayer of Eretz Yisrael ("the God of David and rebuilder of Jerusalem"),74 so it is possible that we can discern a hint of this formula here. Or perhaps there were those who practised the custom of blessing in this manner in Eretz Yisrael, even in the Grace after meals, in accord with the tradition which existed among the Rishonim?> .

The language of the final prayer of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus and in Apostolic Church Order and the Coptic version indicates that its substance had already been fixed in the Didache,

73 Goltz, Tischgebete, p. 16. There are those who link them with political petitions against the Romans (Klein, Katechismus, pp. 222ff). From every aspect this portion needs further investigation.

74 As well as "in the prophet the God of David who sprouts redemption", j.RH 4:59c., and in Midrash Shmuel ch. 26, 126.

75 See Z. W. Rabinowitz, Sh°are Torat Eretz Jisrael: Notes and Comments on the Yerushalmi, ed. E. Z. Melammed (Jerusalem, 1940) pp. 10-11, and in the ancient poems (Habermann, blessings virtually three and virtually four) we find

"the God of David rebuilder of Jerusalem" or "the God of David he is..." several times, as well as in proverb of the Kalir.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

" Bi been misplaced, and this is the mould into which it was xed:

Concerning the oil of myrrh this is the way we give thanks: we thank you God [the Creator of everything] for the smell of the good myrrh, and for the eternal world which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. Because to you be the honour and the might forever. Amen.

And we have already had the privilege of deriving confirmation from the differences of opinion among the Sages, as we have learnt in Tosephta (t.Ber 6:5): "The School of Shamai say that with a glass of wine on his right and pleasant oil on his left he blesses the wine and afterwards the oil and the School of Hillel says you bless on the oil..." (the reference is to oil and wine after the food). And this blessing has not been elucidated, although we found several formulas in the Talmud'> ("Creator of pleasant oil",

"Creator of oil of our land", b. Ber 43a; "who infused good aroma into pleasant oil, who infused good aroma into the trees of spices, and others", j.Ber 6:10d). From this we can apparently establish that the blessing of Rabbi Zera ("who infused good aroma into pleasant oil") is the essence of the prayer.7'

The Fast on the Second and Fifth Day of the Week 8.1 Ai 6& vnoreian buoy wn ~oTwWOAY pEeTa TOV UTOKpLTaV. vnoTEtovot yap SevTtépa oaBBatwv Kai réumtTyn. vpetc 5& vnoTevoaTe TETpada Kai

TOpPAOKEUHY

And let your fasts not be with the flatterers; because they fast on the second day of the week and on the fifth; but you will fast on the fourth and on the eve of the Sabbath.

Now we have learnt in several places in the tradition, that it was the custom in Israel to fast on these very days (even though not in the majority, and not even regularly).78 However later tradition pins the reason for the fasts on the destruction of the Temple.

However, from this, and from Luke 18:12 (which is interpreted in 76 43:1 and compare with 43:2 (there were those who used it for lubrication, even though, apparently, you do not need to make a blessing over the "oil for filth"

- j.Ber 6:10d; however, in "the Church reforms of Hippolytus, the blessing over the oil contains thanksgiving for lubrication.

77 The researchers tried to interpret what the properties of this oil were, and there were those who said that it was oil for the lubrication of the sick which was mentioned in the Epistle of James 4:14, and others said that it was the oil of baptism. However, according to our sources it can be said with no doubt that it came after the meal for "good aroma" (and even for lubrication), but not everyone acted in accordance with this, and therefore there is no "torah" in the versions before us.

78 See volume II of the Studies, mmx XN? 2 YW m31w°> and S. Lieberman, Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto (Jerusalem, 1934).

GEDALIAH ALON

accordance to our document) we learn that they acted accordingly even at the time of the Temple. When we seek the cause of this, it seems that the only way to interpret this is on the basis of the premise that the fast was linked to the customs whereby in those days the rural people came together (to the market), where they used (until the destruction of Betar) to sit down with Dayanim and read from the Torah (the reading of the Torah on Mondays and Thursdays evolved especially for the people in the rural areas who did not have anyone who could read for them on the Sabbaths).

Inasmuch as we know that they did not practice these fasts in Babylon in the days of the Tanaim and the Amoraim, and inasmuch as we have not heard of the reading of the Torah on Mondays and Thursdays in the Diaspora (at least until the Destruction), this would substantiate our conjecture that we can locate the Didache either in Eretz Yisrael or adjacent to it.

BAPTISMAL HALACHOT

6:2-3 (Speaks of the baptism of converts to Christianity) Eav 5& un éxnc tdwp fav, sic GAdo tdwp BaTTLOOV. ei 5 ov SbvAcOL Ev Yuxpa, Ev OEpLa.

"Eady 68 auddtepa un Ex, Exxeov sic THY KEdadTY TPIS Vdwp Eig Ovopa TATPOS Kai ViOd Kal ayiov TVEvMATOS Even if you do not have fresh water [as is commanded], baptise in other

[waters]; and if it is impossible in cold water—in hot. And if you do not have either of those or those, pour water over the head [of the person being baptised] three times in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We have before us a primary source for the introduction of "baptism" among the Christians through the pouring of water, over which reservations were raised later on; even though the Gnostics, in the second century of their calender, used to baptise in this way.7? And in a Baraita which we studied (Berachot 22,1):

You pour nine portions of pure water over the one having nocturnal pollution; Nahum of Gimzo whispered to Rabbi Aqiba who whispered to Rabbi

Azai and Rabbi Azai withdrew and there was hatred towards his disciples in the market.

We learnt that this Halacha had only recently become known to the public, and the progenitor of this Halacha was Nahum of Gimzu, and he himself only said it in a whisper (permission under constraint).8° It is possible, therefore, to conclude that the Baraita originated at the time of the destruction of the Temple. And as far as the Hachamim is concerned, we only heard that it was kosher

79 Trenaeus, Contra Haer. 1.21:4.

80 See above, fn. 18.

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

from the words of the Amoraim (Babylonian Talmud Jbid., Rab Huna) from which it is perhaps possible to ascertain that it is an early tradition.

THE HALACHOT GOVERNING PRIESTLY GIFTS

13:3 Tlaoav ovy arapxy}. yevrrnudtwv Anvod kai &wvoc, Body Te Kat TpoBarow AaBav daoeg THY aTApXIY Tolg TpodHraig' avToL yap siow ol apxepeic vpav. "Eav dé uh Exnte tpodyrny, d0TE Toig Trwxoic. "Eav oirlay Trois, THY aTapxXnY haBadv S6¢ KaTa THY &vTOAHY. 'NoabTwc

Kepapiov oivov H édaiov avoi~tac, THY aTapxnv AaBaV do ToIC Tpopyraic' apyupiov S& Kai iuatiopod Kai TavTdg KTHWATOS haBaV THY aTapxnv, ao &v oor d6En And all Teruma of the fruit of the winery and of the silo, the cattle and the sheep, take and give as a Teruma for the prophets; because they are your high priests. And if you do not have a prophet amongst you, give it to the poor. And when you make a compound?! take the Teruma and give it to the prophets. And when you open a jar of wine or oil take Teruma and give it to the prophets. However, from the money, from clothing and from all property, take a Teruwma as you will and give it as a Mitzvah.

Now first of all we must examine the issue of the source of these words. Harnack®? and the scholar Drews believe that we cannot regard them as deriving from the Torah, but they must be interpreted as new Christian Halacha. They sustain their argument with two pieces of evidence, the first being the fact that tithes are not mentioned. And the second is that there is no substance in the Torah to the giving of money as Teruma etc. Therefore Drews®3 assumes that the writer derived this from a special source which contained "mitzvoth of the Lord", in other words Jesus (and he supplements this with 1:5 ("Happy is he who gives tzedaka as a Mitzvah"). However, the fact that it does not mention the tithes is not conclusive. Because, even if he had wanted to abolish them, this is not proof that everything that he observed was derived in its essence from a new Torah. Moreover, we have already found this in early sources (such as in Israel), where the tithes are subsumed under the generic name of Terumot.* In addition, a Jewish sofer who is well-versed in tradition, who wrote the Book of Biblical

Antiquities, which is attributed to Philo, erred and explicitly altered the term from tithes to Terumot, for this reason. As he

81 Is it possible that we have here extensive evidence of a Halacha which obligates the giving halah from a mixture which has not been baked, in contrast to a tradition we have from Philo, and was the custom among the Jewish inhabitants of Alexandria (m. Hal 4:10)?

82 In his remarks to the same verses in his big publication.

83 Drews, "Untersuchung", pp. 63-67.

84 Philo undoubtedly subsumed the tithes under the portion of the priestly-gifts

SpecLeg 1:132-141, and see also the Letter of Aristeas 158 (Wendland, p. 45).

GEDALIAH ALON

writes (14:4), "since the Holy One, Blessed be He, saved one of fifty Israelites (from Egypt)". In this manner he explicates "and fifty Israelites went up" (see the Tannaitic Midrash), therefore, "I command my people to tithe their fruit for me (changing Teruma which is one of fifty, to a tithe [one in ten]). And in the matter of the Teruma of oil and money etc., the Halacha derives its substance from the tradition of the Rishonim, as we shall see below. It is not difficult to suppose that those Halachot which were renewed and added as accretions to the substance of Torah (Midrash) were ultimately regarded as written Mitzvah, even if we refuse to concur that the writer relied on the laws of the Torah, since Mitzvah in the language of the Sages was regularly used to express the words of the Soferim (such as "the mitzvoth of the Elders"),85 and it is not improbable to assume that this fixed language existed at the time of the writer (and before him). And perhaps we can discern in the wording kemitzvah, which only applies to the Halachot obtaining to gifts for [their] priests and for the poor, a hint of the word, Mitzvah, metzavta which is used by Amoraim and the Tanaim in Israel, and denotes ketzedaka, the giving of money.® As to the essence of the question, it cannot be denied that the writer relied on Scripture, as evidenced by his language. Origen had already commanded that the priestly gifts mentioned in the Torah, are among those mitzvoth which were not to be abolished, that even the Christians are obliged to observe (in their fashion)8'. Nevertheless Irenaeus opposes the tithes®8, and in any case the writer of the Syriac Didascalia observes them de jure

(but not de facto) and imposes an obligation to give "to the true Messiah the High Priest and his servants®?.

We shall return to discuss the Halachot themselves.

85 See below, p. 311.

86 Mitzvat in the Halacha of Rabban Gamliel (in the name of the Rishonim) and in the tradition of minyan Usha (j.Peah 1:15b) and see b.Ket 51a; Pesikata Rabati

25 undoubtedly refers to tzedaka.

87 Sermon on the Book of Numbers (Baehrens XI, pp. 75-80) refers to primitiae, the firstfruits of the new wine and oil and all the fruit of the tree and the grain of the field and a tithe of the animals, and he testifies that the Pharisees who do not eat until they have separated— baptise!—and he says: How "shall our righteousness be more than the Pharisees who do not enjoy the fruits until they have brought terumot to the Priests—thus confusing separation with donating—and you separate the TITHES to the LEVITES. et ego nihil horum faciens fructibus terrae ita abitur ut sacerdo nesciat, Levites ignorat divinum altare non sentiat?.

88 Harnack, Die Lehre.

8° Gibson, Ch. 9, p. 85 (although at the beginning of the chapter p. 77 he is inclined to intimate that the tithes had been abolished).

THE HALACHA IN THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

It is clear that the writer is of the opinion that the tithe of cattle is for the priests, in contrast to the Halacha which ordains that the tithe should revert to the owners. But corroboration for his view can be found in Jubilees 13:25-26 and the Book of Tobit (the long version, 1:6-7) and Philo (SpecLeg 141:1). Contrariwise, in the matter of Teruma which is not of the crops of the earth or cattle, this is not dealt with in the Bible and the writer himself confesses that there is no absolute obligation and has no measure, and we did find corroboration in our own sources.

First of all, in the Jerusalem Talmud (j.Demai 1:21d) Rabbi Yohanan rules that,% in other words he tithed even from foods which were not of "the produce of your seed", and despite this the Talmud explains so that it can be discerned that the custom adhered to by Rabbi

Yohanan was based on the tradition of the Rishonim who were stringent in the tithes, extending the range of the applicability of the Mitzvah even beyond what had been interpreted in the Torah

(including fruits of the tree and vegetables).

However, the writers of the Tosephot transmit what is written (¢.Taan 9:1) in Sifre: "Tithe—I do not have anything but the crops of my seed which must be tithed and merchandise". And nevertheless, in contrast to the Sifre which is before us, it is still far-fetched to conjecture, as proposed by the scholar Finkelstein,®! that the dictum is from the Middle Ages as it suited the economic life of the Israelites in those days (there were fewer landowners and an abundance of merchansie), since already in the times of the Second Temple (in the times of the latter Hasmonaeans and afterwards) the number of businessmen grew in Israel (and even more so in the Diaspora). The law provides, especially in those days when priestly gifts were no more than a type of taxes for the kingdom of Israel that were sent to Jerusalem to the "treasury", that a takanah be enacted which would devolve upon the owners of moveable property and monies so that they would not be exempt from the obligation which was imposed on everyone else. And indeed, Rabbi Abba demands (Bar Kahana?) in Pesiqta de Rab

Kahana that a tenth be tithed (Buber, 90, 2): and it is reasonable to assume that these same "terumot and tithes" which were collected from the Diaspora by the messengers of the Ne'siim [head of the Sanhedrin] for their benefit (and appropriated for the benefit of "those who labour in Torah"), a phenomenon observed by Appian (On Cilicia), were undoubtedly subsumed under the terumot and tithes which were given first to the priests, so that 90 When he would even eat meat, even an egg, he would rule (="Wyn).

91 On the same verse in his publication of Sifre.

92 See G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History 1 (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1958) pp. 83-92.

GEDALIAH ALON

even these gifts were not collected exclusively from the landowners%3. Support for this can be found in what Jubilees 32:2 has recorded, namely that Jacob had a Levi tithe for him "from man to animal and from the gold including all the tools and the clothes". Or perhaps we should be more precise by turning to Luke 18:12, who mentions a Pharisee who gives thanksgiving to the Holy-One, Blessed be He, who did not make him like other creatures who oppress etc. or like the tax collector, as he (the Pharisee) "fasts twice on Sabbath and tithes ma@vTa Goa xT@pox

(from all his wealth)".

In any case, from the body of the Halacha which is found in the book which has been mentioned, it has been established that it was not an actual fixed Mitzvah, as was the Terwma for the harvest-of the land (which is from the Torah), but had no measure, and someone can give more and someone else can give less, both having fulfilled their obligation. And this obviously was the opinion of the Rishonim in Israel.% 93 Panarion haer. 30:4-30, 12, 9.

°4 Some of the books and research in the matters discussed in this article were not available for examination.

↑ Back to top