THE MOSAIC LAW But in addition to these philosophical or theoretical differences between Judaism and Christianity, there was another group, of equal, if not of greater importance. This group comprises the observances of the Mosaic law. This law was two-fold, the Written law (Torah she-be-Khethdbh) and the Oral law (Torah she-be-`al Peh). The law revealed on Sinai gives general commands, e.g., to make fringes on the garments as reminders of God, and pro hibitions, e.g., to abstain from work on Sabbath. But these gen eral commands are not defined. According to Exodus xxiv., 12-18, Moses remained on the Mount for 4o days, receiving instructions which amplified the Written law, and these instructions are called the Oral law, each command being styled a halakkah le-Mosheh mis-Sindi, a law given to Moses on Sinai. (See Halakhah : Tal mud.) It used to be the fashion to call the Oral law a mere innova tion of the later Rabbis: only in a limited sense is this judgment accurate. In point of fact a great mass of the Oral law is merely ancient Jewish tradition, some part indeed being Semitic and taken over by the Jews from the common law and custom of the Semites. Before the days of Jesus there were two parties in Judaism, the Sadducees and the Pharisees (q.v.), who differed very much on the law. The former were mostly priests and con servative aristocrats corresponding roughly to the English Church and nobility in the 18th century : the latter, laymen, scholars and revivalists, many of them artisans, may be compared with the Wesleyans. The former took their stand on the letter, the latter on the spirit. Wholesale verdicts must be avoided in Judaism no "Luke, xiv., 26. It must, however, be noted that the verse adds "Yea, and his own life also," which suggests that willingness to suffer martyr dom is implied. But monastic Christianity has always taken this verse as a command to break with the family and this interpretation seems the more natural.
i'Matthew, x., 35: Leviticus, xix., 3 (see Rashi's note in loc.); ib. xviii., 5.
B. Ta'anith, na, see p. 77 of H. Malter's text and Eng. trans., Phil. (1928).
"See Hastings, E.R.E., s.v. Atheism, Jewish.
less than in Christianity. Not all the churchmen and not all the Sadducees were worldly wise; not all Wesleyans and not all the Pharisees were saints. Unfortunately the information which has come down is one-sided. After the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees vanished : Jewish sources give the Pharisaic side in nearly every instance.
Moreover, Christian sources, i.e., New Testament evidence, being later than the Sadducees and having no interest in Jewish differences, not only are frequently in error about the Sadducees but also make mistakes about their opponents. An example in
point will be found with reference to CORBAN. For centuries the average Christian estimate of the ethical teaching of the Pharisees has been prejudiced : Pharisee and hypocrite have been treated as synonyms among lettered and unlettered alike. The cause of this misconception is not far to seek. Hitherto the Pharisees have not been studied for their own sake : they have been used as a foil to the Gospels. Their faults have been stressed and their virtues ignored. The present generation, which not only contains learned upholders of the older view, e.g., Schiirer, Bousset and Charles, has witnessed the rise of a newer and more correct school of thought, including Jewish and Christian scholars, e.g., Moore, Lake, Foakes-Jackson, Strack, Billerbeck, Travers Herford, Box, Oesterley, Burkitt and many others among Christian theologians and Montefiore and Abrahams among their Jewish colleagues. The most recent recruit is Prof. D. W. Riddle, of Chicago, whose Jesus and the Pharisees (Chicago and Cambridge, 1928) deserves the careful attention of every student.
The Pharisees strove to give the Oral law the authority enjoyed by the Written law. As the Sadducees demanded biblical sanc tion for the Oral law, various hermeneutical devices were invented, and it is these that sometimes appear far-fetched. But their pur pose was not to introduce some new enactment on slender grounds. It was to support some traditional practice by the rules of logic as then understood. There were, however, cases where the Phari sees were almost innovators. An instance is the substitution of compensation for the Lex Talionis. In primitive times, when there was no State judicature and no centralized executive of justice, it was the duty of every man to put down wrongdoing and punish the criminal. Abstention was apathy and contrary to public spirit. When, however, institutions developed, it became wrong for the private citizen to take the law into his own hands. Before, it was necessary to check punishment, and the law laid down that no more than measure for measure was to be exacted. Now that a trained and impartial tribunal had charge of the administration of justice, different conditions prevailed. The older alternative of compensation for injury, well known among primitive Semites, was now made general by the efforts of the Pharisees, and in this type of legislation they may be termed innovators.