The prohibited labours were: (1) wales (2) ploughing, (3) reaping, (4) binding into sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) fruit cleaning, (S) grinding, (9) sifting, (10) kneading, (11) bake ing, (12) wool shearing, (13) bleaching, (14) combing, (15) dyeing, (16) ergy a warping, (18) making two spindle-trees, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads (in the warp), (21) tying a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing on with two stitches, (24) tearing to sew together with two stitches, (25) hunting a deer, (26) killing, ΟἿ᾽ skinning, (28) and salting it, (29) ee its skin, (30) scraping off the hair, (31) cutting up the , (82) writing two letters (characters), (33) erasing to write two letters, (34) building, (35) demolishing, (36) extinguish- ing (fire), (37) kindling (fire), (88) hammering, (39) carrying from one place to another (Tract Shabbath vii. 2). Each of these prohibitions was still further explained. On (21), (22), knots of camel-drivers and sailors are forbidden both to be tied and untied; but knots which may be untied with one hand were lawful. A woman might tie up a slit in her chemise, the bands of her hood, her girdle, her shoes and sandals; also the bands of leather bottles of wine or oil, or of a pot with meat. A rope might be tied in front of cattle that they might not escape ; a bucket over a well with a girdle but nota rope. Rabbi Judah
rmits a rope also (Tract Shabbath xv. 2; cf. Schiirer, HJP τι. ii. p. 96ff.). In the Gemara or Rabbinical comments on the Mishna these refinements are still further refined.
*The Babylonian arrangement was for completion in one year, and this, later, came into general use.
¢ Ca, Ru, La, Ec, Est read respectively at the seasons of the Passover, Pentecost, Destruction of Jerusalem, Tabernacles, and Purim.
t Another view is that the Talmud, though compiled in the 2nd cent., continued to be orally transmitted until the 6th cent, (see art. TALMUD).
8 Its development and place is well compared with that of tracition in the Roman Catholic Church.
600 OLD TESTAMENT
OLD TESTAMENT
In the derivation of the Halakhoth were em- jloyed seven rules of interpretation laid down by Rabbi Hillel (contemporary of Herod the Great), and afterwards increased to thirteen by Rabbi Ishmael (2nd cent. A.D.).
These rules are: (1) That which is true of the easier or less is true of the greater or more difficult. An example, Nu 12)4, If from the sign of a human father’s displeasure Miriam should be ashamed (shut up) seven days, then from leprosy, the sign of the Lord's displeasure, she should be shut out of the camp seven days. (2) A parallel passage or word supplements another: Ly 16% enjoins on the Day of Atonement affliction of souls (3 ΠΖΦῸΣ yA ‘ye shall afflict your souls’). In Dt 83 may (‘afflict’) is used in reference to suffering from hunger, hence the affliction of the Day of Atonement is fasting. (8) A special provision of Scripture is to be generalized or applied in other analogous es or cases, Dt 246 forbids the mill or upper millstone to be taken as a pledge. This law is generali by the Rabbis so that everything which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken as a pledge. (4-11) * Eight rules with reference to the relation of genus to species by inclusion, exclusion, contrast, and their relation to a third term in the forms of Rabbinical logic.’ (12) A word or passage is to be explained by the context. (18) Conflicting passages are to be reconciled by a third. Gn 11) ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,’ and 24 ‘In the day that the Lorp made the earth and the heavens.’ The question now arises, which did He make first? The answer, ‘ Both at once,’ is found in Is 4815 ‘Mine hand hath laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens,’ For a full discussion and illustrations of these rules, see Mielziner’s Introd. to the Talmud (1897), pp. 117-187, They are also given in Barclay’s Talmud, 1878, pp. 40-44; Weber, Jtidische Theo- logie, 1897, pp. 108-118; cf. also Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, p. 430 f.
The fault of Rabbinical exegesis arose not so much from these rules, many of which represent valid forms of reasoning, as from their application, and, indeed, they were not always supposed to be applied: the mere mention or suggestion of any- thing under discussion was suflicient to constitute a proof text. That a piece of earthenware 35 enough to stir a fire might be carried on the Sabbath day, was inferred from Is 30 ‘So that there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a sherd to take fire from the hearth.’ And that to anoint oneself on the Day of Atonement was equal to drinking, was inferred from Ps 109'8 ‘And it cometh like water on his body and oil into his bones’ (Tract Shabbath ο. viii. and ec. ix., Bab. Talmud, Rodkinson, vol. i. pp. 157, 163).
_The very language of Scripture was held to be different from ordinary human language, and hence particles of speech, such as adverbs and conjunc- tions, special constructions of syntax, the position of words, syllables, letters, and even forms of letters, were regarded as capable of a hidden mean- ing and of giving proof in support of tradition. This method was advocated by the celebrated Rabbi Akiba of the 2nd cent., and, although opposed by some of his contemporaries, yet won a place for itself in the Talmud.