4. As a necessary and vital consequence of the fore- going view, the Sadducees maintained that the skin and the other parts of an animal not legall}' slaugh- t-ered — i.e. both of all those animals which the law per- mits to be eaten when legally slaughtered, but which have died a natural death, and of those which the law does not pertnit to be eaten — are not allowed to be made into difterent articles of use; and that leather, parchment, or any other of the numerous articles made from the skin, bones, veins, etc., is defiling. This rigid view obliged the Sadducees to explain Lev. vii, 24 in an unnatural manner, by taking the expression rtb33 to denote an animal appi-oaching the condition of becom- ing a carcass — i. e. being so weak that it must soon ex- pire— and to urge that an animal in such a condition may be slaughtered before it breathes its last. In such a case, though its flesh is a defiling carcass, and must not be eaten, the fat, skin, bones, etc., may be used for divers purposes (Jerusalem Megilla, i, 9 ; Babylon Sab- hath, 108 a). The Pharisees, on the other hand, as the representatives of the people, whose interests they had at heart, allowed the sundry parts of such animals to be used as materials for different utensils. They even al- lowed the Sacred Scriptures, the phylacteries, and the mezuzah (q. v.) to be written on parchment prepared from the skin of an animal which either died a natural death or was torn by wild beasts, but not on parchment prepared from the skin of an unclean animal (ibid, and Torah ad init. ; Sopherini ad init.). Hearing in mind fcliis difference of opinion, we shall understand the im- port of the two discussions, recorded in the ISIishna, be- tween the Sadducees and the Pharisees, based there- upon. The Sadducees, we are told, said, " We complain of you Pharisees because you say the Sacred Scriptures, wlien touched, defile tlie hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands." Jochanan ben-Zakkai said, "And have we nothing else to object to the Pharisees but this? Do they not also assert that the bones of an ass are clean, but that the bones of Jochanan the high- priest are unclean?" (Y'adaini, iv, fi). Now, according to the Sadchicees, contact with sacred things, so far from defiling, actually sanctified; while the Pharisees, in or- der to guard the sacred things against contact, ordained that contact with such holy things defiles. On the oth- er hand, the Sadducees regarded the touching of foreign books as defiling, liecause they are written upon parch- ment made from skins of unclean animals, or of clean animals not legally slaughtered, which, with them, were like carcasses, and wliidi, as we have seen, the Pharisees did not admit. Ilcnco tlie charge of the Sadducees that tiie Pharisees assign a superiority to profane books over the Sacre<l Scriptures, which .lochanan ben-Zakkai rebuts by ironically enhancing this charge, and saying that tliis is not the only accusation against the Pliar- isces, inasmuch as he shows thereljy a similar conse- quence arising from Pliarisaic views. Tlie bones of a dead man, lie sidimits, arc unclean, according to the ex- press declaration of the I'.ilde, even if they happen to be the bones of such a man as .lolni Ilyrcaiuis. tlie pa- tron of liie Sadducees; whereas the bones of an animal,
even if it be unclean, and such a contemptible one as an ass, are clean ; thus showing that the defiling power of an object does not always betoken a degradation in its nature, but, on the contrary, because it is of an elevating nature, therefore it defiles more easily. The other dis- cussion, also arising from this difference of opinion, is recorded in the Talmud, where the law of the Pharisaic sages is recorded, that the Sacred Scriptures, the phy- lacteries, and the mezuzah may be written upon parch- ment prepared from the skin of an animal which died a natural deatii, but not from an unclean beast. Where- upon a Boethusian [ = Sadduceel asked Kabbi Joshua Ha-Garsi, " Where can you show that the phylacteries are not to be written on the skin of an unclean ani- mal?" R. Joshua. "Because it is written [Exod. xiii, 9, where the phylacteries are enjoined] that the law of the Lord be in thy mouth ; that is to say, prepared from animals allowed to be put into the mouth." The Sadducee. " But, according to this, they ought not to be written on the skin of an animal which died or was torn [because these, too, must be put into the inouth, or be eaten]." To which he replied, '"I will tell thee a parable, to show the distinction between the two : Two men are guilty of death ; one is killed by the king him- self, and the other by the executioner. Whose lot is preferable?" Reply. "That one's whom the king exe- cuted." [So is the carcass of a clean animal killed by the hand of the King of kings to be preferred to the unclean animal which is already stamped with defile- ment while alive.] "But, according to this," said the Sadducee, "the carcass ought also to be eaten." To this he replied, " The law says ye shall not eat of any- thing that died [Dent, xiv, 21] ; and sayest thou that it should be eaten ?" To this the Sadducee replied, " Bravo !" (Dibxp = KaXux; ISabbath, 108 a]).