[2988] Zebhach. 19 a, b.
[2989] As the question is of considerable practical importance, the following, as bearing upon it, may be noticed. From Jer. Ber. 4 c, we gather: 1. That at one time it was the practice to wear the phylacteries all day long, in order to pass as pious. This is denounced as a mark of hypocrisy. 2. That it was settled, that phylacteries should be worn during a considerable part of the day, but not the whole day. [In Ber. 23 a to 24 a we have rules and discussions about depositing them under certain circumstances, and where to place them at night.] 3. That it was deemed objectionable to wear them only during prayer. 4. That celebrated Rabbis did not deem it necessary always to wear the phylacteries both on the head and on the arm. This seems to prove that their obligation could not have been regarded as absolutely binding. Thus, R. Jochanan wore those for the head only in winter, but not in summer, because then he did not wear a headgear. As another illustration, that the wearing of phylacteries was not deemed absolutely requisite, the following passage may be quoted (Sanh. xi. 3): It is more culpable to transgress the words of the Scribes than those of the Torah.' He that says, There are no phylacteries, transgresses the word of the Torah, and is not to be regarded as a rebel (literally, is free); but he who says, There are five compartments (instead of four), to add to the words of the Scribes, he is guilty.
[2990] St. John xix. 23.
[2991] I find that the lowest price mentioned for an upper garment was 7½ dinars, or about 4s. 7d. (Jer. Kilay. ix. 1). The more common price, however, seems to have been 12 dinars, or about 7s. 6d. The cost of making seems to have been 8 dinars, or about 5s. (Jer. Babha Mets. vi. 1), leaving 4 dinars, or 2s. 6d., for the material. Of course, the latter might be much more expensive, and the cost of the garment increased accordingly.
[2992] This, however, does not necessarily follow, although in New Testament language kraspedon seems to bear that meaning. Comp. the excellent work of Braunius (Vest. Sac. Heb. pp. 72, 73 - not p. 55, as Schleusner notes).
[2993] So literally in St. Mark's Gospel.
[2994] This gives the full meaning - but it is difficult to give a literal translation which would give the entire meaning of the original.
[2995] The Revised Version renders it: And straightway Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth, turned Him about.' Mark the position of the first comma. In the Speaker's Commentary it is rendered: And immediately Jesus, having perceived in Himself that the virtue had gone forth from Him.' Dean Plumptre translates: Knowing fully in Himself the virtue that had gone out from Him.'
[2996] The arrangement of the words in the A.V. is entirely misleading. The word immediately' refers to His turning round, not to His perceiving in Himself.
[2997] St. Luke viii. 47.
[2998] So literally.
[2999] St. John xi. 6.
[3000] I adopt the reading parakosas which seems to me better rendered by overhearing' than by not heeding,' as in the Revised Version.
[3001] The word unquestionably means, literally, Teacher - but in the sense of Rabbi, or Master.
[3002] Those who believe in an antiPetrine' tendency in the Gospel by St. Luke must find it difficult to account for the prominence given to him in the Third Gospel.
[3003] I confess myself unable to see any real discrepancy between the accounts of St. Mark and St. Luke, such as Strauss, Keim, and others have tried to establish. In St. Mark it is: He suffered no man to accompany Him' (whither?); in St. Luke: He suffered not any man to enter in with Him.'
[3004] They are specially called flutes for the dead' (B. Mez. vi. 1): {hebrew}.