It has already been stated, that Rabbinism confessed itself powerless in presence of this living death. Although, as Michaelis rightly suggests, [2317] the sacrificial ritual for the cleansed leper implies, at least, the possibility of a cure, it is in every instance traced to the direct agency of God. [2318] Hence the mythical theory, which, to be rational, must show some precedent to account for the origination of the narrative in the Gospel, here once more breaks down. [2319] Keim cannot deny the evident authenticity of the Evangelic narrative, and has no better explanation to offer than that of the old Rationalists - which Strauss had already so fully refuted [2320] - that the poor sufferer only asked of Jesus to declare, not to make, him clean. [2321] In truth, the possibility of any cure through human agency was never contemplated by the Jews. Josephus speaks of it as possibly granted to prayer, [2322] but in a manner betokening a pious phraseology without serious meaning. We may go further, and say that not only did Rabbinism never suggest the cure of a leper, but that its treatment of those sufferers presents the most marked contrast to that of the Saviour. And yet, as if writing its own condemnation, one of the titles which it gives to the Messiah is the Leprous,' the King Messiah being represented as seated in the entrance to Rome, surrounded by, and relieving all misery and disease, in fulfilment of Is. liii. 4. [2323] [2324]
We need not here enumerate the various symptoms, by which the Rabbinic law teaches us to recognise true leprosy. [2325] Any one capable of it might make the medical inspection, although only a descendant of Aaron could formally pronounce clean or unclean. [2326] Once declared leprous, the sufferer was soon made to feel the utter heartlessness of Rabbinism. To banish him outside walled towns [2327] may have been a necessity, which, perhaps, required to be enforced by the threatened penalty of forty stripes save one. [2328] Similarly, it might be a right, even merciful, provision, that in the Synagogues lepers were to be the first to enter and the last to leave, and that they should occupy a separate compartment (Mechitsah), ten palms high, and six feet wide. [2329] For, from the symbolism and connection between the physical and the psychical, [2330] the Old Testament, in its rites and institutions, laid the greatest stress on clean and unclean.' To sum it up in briefest compass, and leaving out of view leprosy of clothes or houses, [2331] according to the Old Testament, defilement was conveyed only by the animal body, and attached to no other living body than that of man, nor could any other living body than that of man communicate defilement. The Old Testament mentioned eleven principal kinds of defilement. These, as being capable of communicating further defilement, were designated Abhoth hattumeoth - fathers of defilements' - the defilement which they produced being either itself an Abh hattumeah, or else a Child,' or a Child's Child of defilement' ({hebrew}). We find in Scripture thirty-two Abhoth hattumeoth, as they are called. To this Rabbinic tradition added other twenty-nine. Again, according to Scripture, these fathers of defilements' affected only in two degrees; the direct effect produced by them being designated the beginning,' or the first,' and that further propagated, the second' degree. But Rabbinic ordinances added a third, fourth, and even fifth degree of defilement. [2332] From this, as well as the equally intricate arrangements about purification, the Mishnic section about clean and unclean' is at the same time the largest and most intricate in the Rabbinic code, while its provisions touched and interfered, more than any others, with every department of life.
In the elaborate code of defilements leprosy was not only one of the fathers of uncleanness,' but, next to defilement from the dead, stood foremost amongst them. Not merely actual contact with the leper, but even his entrance defiled a habitation, [2333] and everything in it, to the beams of the roof. [2334] But beyond this, Rabbinic harshness or fear carried its provisions to the utmost sequences of an unbending logic. It is, indeed, true that, as in general so especially in this instance, Rabbinism loved to trace disease to moral causes. No death without sin, and no pain without transgression;' [2335] the sick is not healed, till all his sins are forgiven him.' [2336] These are oft-repeated sayings; but, when closely examined, they are not quite so spiritual as they sound. For, first, they represent a reaction against the doctrine of original sin, in the sense that it is not the Fall of man, but one's actual transgression, to which disease and death are to be traced according to the saying: Not the serpent kills, but sin.' [2337] [2338] But their real unspirituality appears most clearly, when we remember how special diseases were traced to particular sins. Thus, [2339] childlessness and leprosy are described as chastisements, which indeed procure for the sufferer forgiveness of sins, but cannot, like other chastisements, be regarded as the outcome of love, nor be received in love. [2340] And even such sentiments in regard to sufferings [2341] are immediately followed by such cynical declarations on the part of Rabbis so afflicted, as that they loved neither the chastisement, nor its reward. [2342] And in regard to leprosy, tradition had it that, as leprosy attached to the house, the dress, or the person, these were to be regarded as always heavier strokes, following as each successive warning had been neglected, and a reference to this was seen in Prov. xix. 29. [2343] [2344] Eleven sins are mentioned [2345] which bring leprosy, among them pre-eminently those of which the tongue is the organ. [2346]