ACCURSED
49
ACELDAMA
also frequent terms in the Mishna (Taanith, iii, 8 ; Moed Katon, iii, 1). Stones were thrown (a mark of dishon- or) over the graves of those who died in excommuni- cation (Eduyoth, v, G. The excommunicated person was not permitted to enter the Temple by the common door with others, but was admitted by a separate one (Middoth, ii, 2). He was also prohibited from shaving during the time of his excommunication {Moed. Kat. iii, 1 ; see Selden, Jus Nat. et Gent, iv, 8 sq.). There is mention in the Gemara, as well as in other rabbin- ical writings, of another sort of excommunication, C*in, che'rem (the person thus excommunicated was called Dini'Q, mucharam'), more severe than the "^ID, niddu'y. The difference between the two — according to Maimonides — was, [1,] that the nidduy was valid only for the thirty days following its date, and was pro- nounced without accursing ; but the cherem was al- ways connected with a curse : [2,] that cherem could be pronounced only by several, at least ten, members of the congregation; but the nidduy even by a single Is- raelite (e. g. by a rabbi) : [3,] that the mucharam was excluded from all intercourse with others ; but it was permitted to converse with the menudeh at a distance of four cubits, and his household was not subjected even to this restriction. According to the Gemara, the latter was compelled to wear a mourning dress, in order to be distinguished outwardly from others. Elias Levita (in Tisbi, under "'IT'S) and later rabbis speak of a third and still higher degree of excommunication, NFlSrJ, shammata' , execration (see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. col. 24G3 sq.), by which an obdurate sinner was delivered up to all sorts of perdition. It does not appear, how- ever, that older Talmudists used this word in a sense different from nidduy, [the formula declarations quoted by Maimonides in the case of the latter, however, is KFiaoa il.Tl'1, let him be in "shammata,"] (see Sel- den, De Synedr. i, 7, p. 64 sq ; Ugolino, in Pfeiffer's Antiqu. Ebr. iv ; Thesaur. p. 1294); or perhaps it was the generic term for excommunication (see Danz, in Meuschen, Ar. T. Talm. p. 615 sq.), and the hypoth- esis of Elias seems, in fine, to have been founded upon a whimsical etymology of the word shammata (q. d. WQ, there, and HtVm, the death). But it may even be questioned whether nidduy and cherem were distin- guished from each other in the age of Jesus, or in the first centuries after the destruction of Jerusa- lem, in the sense asserted by Maimonides. In gen- eral, it is not improbable that there were even then degrees of excommunication. The formal ex- clusion from the Hebrew congregation and nation- ality is mentioned already by Ezra x, 8 (see above). In the passages of John foregoing a minor excom- munication is spoken of; while iii that of Luke, with- out doubt, a total exclusion is understood ; even if we take merely the ct(papi£nv in this sense, or (with Liicke, Commentar zum Ev. Joh. ii, 387) we suppose that there is a gradation in the passage, so that dehopiZ,. re- fers to 1*1^3, 6vuc"iZ,. Kai ItcjidW. to Q'nrl. Many were of the opinion that the highest degree of excommunica- tion, KF)5aTa, according to the classification of Elias Levita, is to be found in the formula wapaSiSovai r<,J Zarava (1 Cor. v, 5 ; 1 Tim. i, 20). But there is no firm historical ground for such explanation, and the above expression should be explained rather from the usual idiomatic language of the apostle Paul, accord- ing to which it cannot mean, surely, a mere excom- munication, as has been satisfactorily proved by Flatt (Vorles. ub. d. Br. an die Kor. i, 102 sq.), and concurred in by later commentators. See Devil. Finally, it is not les-s improbable that, in Rom. ix, 3, avdQtfia dirb roil Xparrov should refer to the Jewish excom- munication (as was asserted of late by Tholuck and Ruckert; see Fritzsche, in loc.). See Execution. (For the Jewish excommunication in general, see Carp- zov, Appar. p. 554 sq. ; Witsii Miscell. ii, p. 47 sq. ; D
Vitringa, De synag. vet. p. 739 sqq. ; Pfeiffer, Antiqu. Ebr. c. 22; Bindrim, De gradib. excommun'cot. up. Ilebr. in Ugolini Thesaur. xxvi ; Otho, Lexic. Iiabb. p. 212 sq. ; Beer, in the Hall. Encyklop. xvi, 278 sq. ; [the last vary uncritical.]) See Excommunication.
Accuser Cjfflfe, lashan', in Iliph. "accuse," Prov. xxx, 10; and other terms signifying to slander ; more properly denoted by some form of the verb 2"1"!, rib, to plead a cause, also in defence ; Sept. and N. T. dvriSiKOQ, "adversary," or Kari'iyopoc, prosecutor}. (1.) The original word, which bears this leading signi- fication, means one who has a cause or matter of con- tention ; the accuser, opponent, or plaintiff in any suit (Judg. xii, 2; Matt, v, 25; Luke xii, 58). We have little information respecting the manner in which causes were conducted in the Hebrew courts of justice, except from the rabbinical authorities, who, in matters of this description, may be supposed well informed as to the later customs of the nation. See Trial. Even from these we learn little more than that great care was taken that, the accused being deemed innocent until convicted, he and the accuser should appear under equal circumstances be- fore the court, that no prejudicial impression might be created to the disadvantage of the defendant, whose interests, we are told, were so anxiously guarded, that any one was allowed to speak what- ever he knew or had to say in his favor, which priv- ilege was withheld from the accuser (Lewis, Orig- ines Hebram, i, 68). See Advocate. (2.) The word is also applied in Scripture, in the general sense, to any adversary or enemy (Luke xviii, 3 ; 1 Pet. v, 8). In the latter passage there is an allusion to the old Jewish opinion that Satan was the accuser or calum- niator of men before God (Job i, G sq. ; Rev. xii, 10 sq. ; comp. Zech. iii, 1). In this application the fo- rensic sense was still retained, Satan being represent- ed as laying to man's charge a breach of the law, as in a court of justice, and demanding his punishment. — Kitto, s. v. See Satan.