[4875] St. Matt. xix. 1, 2; St. Mark x. 1; St. Luke xvii. 11.
[4876] St. Mark xv. 40, 41.
[4877] Indeed, any lengthened journeying, and for an indefinite purpose, would have been quite contrary to Jewish manners. Not so, of course, the travelling in the festive band up to the Paschal Feast.
[4878] St. Matthew.
[4879] St. Mark.
[4880] This will more fully appear when we study the history of Zacchæus and the cure of the blind man in Jericho.
[4881] St. Luke xvii. 12-19.
[4882] vv. 20-37.
[4883] St. Matt. viii. 2-4; St. Mark i. 40-45.
[4884] St. Luke xvii. 20-37.
[4885] St. Matt. xxiv.; St. Mark xiii.
[4886] See Book III. chap. xv.
[4887] As we note, in St. Luke xvii. 14, the direction to show themselves to the priests' (in the plural), this forms another point of undesigned evidence of the authenticity of the narrative.
[4888] Neg. iii. 1.
[4889] Some have seen in the reference by St. Luke here, and in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a peculiarly Pauline trait. But we remember St. John's reference to the Samaritans (iv.), and such sentiments in regard to the Gentiles as St. Matt. viii. 11, 12.
[4890] The equivalent for this would be {hebrew}. This, as may be shown from very many passages, means not so much a stranger as a non-Jew. Thus, the expression Nokhri and Yisrael are constantly contrasted as non-Jews and Jews. At the same time it must be admitted that in Demai iii. 4, the Nokhri is also distinguished from the Cuthean, or Samaritan. But see the explanatory note of Maimonides referred to by Surenhusius vol. i. p. 87.
[4891] St. Luke xvii. 20-37.
[4892] St. Matt. xxiv.
[4893] St. Luke xvii. 20.
[4894] in St. Luke xvi. 14.
[4895] St. Matt. xix. 3-12; St. Mark x. 2-12.
[4896] St. Matt. xix. 1, 2; St. Mark x. 1.
[4897] St. Luke xvi. 14.
[4898] See chap. xviii. of this Book.
[4899] St. Luke xvi. 17, 18.
[4900] So, according to many commentators. See Meyer, ad loc.
[4901] St. Matt xix. 3.
[4902] On the general subject I would refer to Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 142, 157, 158.
[4903] Gittin.
[4904] Thus, the Talmudic tractate on Divorce,' while insisting on its duty in case of sin, closes with the words: He who divorces his first wife, the very altar sheds tears over him' (Gitt. 90 b, last lines; comp. Mal. ii. 13-16.)
[4905] An instance of refusing to be divorced, even from a very disagreeable and quarrelsome wife, is that of R. Chiya, mentioned in Yebam. 63 a, towards end.
[4906] Two disgusting instances of Rabbis making proclamation of their wish to be married for a day (in a strange place, and then divorced), are mentioned in Yoma 18 b.
[4907] Jer. Kidd. 58 c; Ber.R. 18.
[4908] This by a very profane application to this point of the expression God of Israel,' in Mal. ii. 16.
[4909] Gitt. ix. 10.
[4910] Bemidb. R. 9, ed. Warsh. p. 29 b, about the middle.
[4911] Gitt. 90 a; Sanh. 22 a and b.
[4912] Gitt. 90 a.
[4913] An extraordinary attempt has been made to explain the expression ({hebrew}, burns his mess') as meaning brings dishonour upon him.' But (1) in the two passages quoted as bearing out this meaning (Ber. 17 b, Sanh. 103 a, second line from bottom), the expression is not the precise equivalent for bringing dishonour,' while in both cases the addition of the words in public' ({hebrew}) marks its figurative use. The real meaning of the expression in the two passages referred to is: One who brings into disrepute (destroys) that which has been taught and learned. But (2) in Gitt. ix. 10; 90 a; Bemidb. R. 9 there is no indication of any figurative use of the expression, and the commentators explain it, as burning the dish, either by fire or by salt;' while (3), the expression is followed by an anti-climax giving permission of divorce if another woman more pleasing were found.