Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 17, scan section 2

tents are nonsense and we arc sure that these were not said or written by the talnnidic scholars. We also possess a letter from the late lamented Dr. Miclziner, who agrees with us on this point. CONCLUDING WORDS. vii doctrines are referred to, and I wish I were informed as to the names and other indications which would show this. If you could give me some light, without trespassing too much on your time, I would be very grateful indeed. June 12, 1901. My Dear Sir: Your kind favor of the 9th at hand and carefully noted. I assume that you have good and sufficient reasons for your hesitation in such a matter, although they may not be apparent to me. Therefore it only remains for me to assure you as strongly as I know how, that the informa- tion I seek is only for myself, that it will not be published, that it will not be quoted even in conversation as your opinion. I simply wish to read understandingly the fine work you are placing before English readers; I want to get into the atmosphere of the times as much as possible. Judaism and Christianity must have touched elbows a good deal in the first three centuries, and there must be some evidences of it in the Talmud to those who can read between the lines. I think I can see references. For instance, were there Saducees after the final over- throw, and is not the term, at least occasionally, applied to Christians? My own conviction, which of course, is based on very superficial knowl- edge mostly gleaned from the early Christian Fathers, is that at first, the line of demarcation between the Jewish Christians and the Jews was not so strong as it became afterwards. But at any rate, there must be more references to them than appear on the surface, it seems to me, and that is what I want to know. But I have no theory to vindicate and seek the knowledge only for myself. July 2, 1901. My Dear Sir: I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your very kind and instructive letter of two weeks ago. It covers substantially the points I wished to know, and saved me much research that might in the end prove barren of results. I shall remember your kindness. Again thanking you, I am, And to these letters we may add a paragraph of Tract Sab- bath, p. 119. " R. Aqiba said: ' The wood-gatherer was Zeloph- chad.' To which R. Jehudah b. Bathyra exclaimed: 'Aqiba! Whether your statement be true or false, you will have to an- swer for it at the time of the divine judgment; for if it be true, you disclosed the name of the man whom the Scriptures direct to shield, and thus you brought him unto infamy, and if it be false, you slandered a man who was upright,' " etc. (See there.) And this rule we adopted while engaged in this transla- tion— namely, not to give hypotheses to the reader, as there is not one line in the whole Mishna which speaks clearly of Jesus and his beliefs. In our book on "Phylacteries" we have alluded to the reason why the editor of the Mishna did so. And the same reason prevented us from interpreting passages or paragraphs which seemed to us to treat about Jesus and his viii CONCLUDING WORDS. followers, as after all these are only hypotheses, and we do not like to throw our suppositions in a translation which ought to be more or less authentic. This is all that we can say in answer to the " Open Court." There has appeared in the" Baltimore Sun," April 17, 1903, a notice which, in the main, is very flattering, but gives also some criticisms that are of interest, and correct from the standpoint of the writer. They concern the remarks sub 3 and 4 of the " Explanatory Remarks" published in each volume on the other side of the title-page. Concerning the fourth he says: ** There are many who would be glad to verify references who may not have a copy of the new Hebrew text, or unable to use it, if they had it." Concerning the third remark he says: " This seems unfortunate. The alternative interpretation is often of very considerable value, and may be used for historical purposes even if not so important theologic- ally." To this we may say that we were very careful when omitting the first version, and where we found it important we translated both, as the reader will find in our Talmud in many places, " If you wish, it may be said so, and if you wish, it may be said so and so." And we did not fail even to translate a third " if you wish " when we saw that they all were of import- ance. In general, however, only the last versions are of great account, and the decisions of the post-talmudical rabbis were only in accordance with those. And only they are the guides of the Schul'han Arush (Jewish Code). Concerning the fourth we may confess that the critic is per- fectly right in his contention. However, it is not our fault but that of the circumstances which deceived us in the beginning of our undertaking. We previously thought that we would find subscribers for the Hebrew text also, and so give the Hebrew with the English together, and then there would have certainly been no need of separately marking the pages of the text. Un- fortunately, there was no demand for the text at all, so that we were unable to furnish it with the translation, and in reality, for the general English reader who is not able to read Hebrew the page of the text is immaterial. And for the Hebrew stu- dents, who are very few, wc could not afford to go to such ex- pense, as a separate column for each page would be necessary for this purpose, for such could not be inserted in the text even in parentheses. Concerning the last Tract Horioth, which speaks of sacrifices CONCLUDING WORDS. ix and offerings only, we are at a loss to understand why it was in- serted in the section Jurisprudence, unless the reason be the treat- ment of whether the expenses of the offerings must be carried by the judges of the court themselves or by the treasury of the congregation, which may belong to the category of damages. However, the whole tract treats almost of one and the same point, so that we could not give the contents of each chapter separately, and confined ourselves by giving the synopsis of the beginning of each Mishna and some important matters from the Gemara of the last. M. L. R. New York, May 25, 1903. CONTENTS. PAoE Synopsis of Subjects of Tract Maccoth (Stripes) . . vii CHAPTER I. Rules and Regulations concerning Collusive Wit- nesses IN BOTH Criminal and Civil Cases, and the Application thereto of Corporeal and other Pun- ishments 1 CHAPTER II. Rules and Regulations concerning Unintentional Murder and Exile. Which is the Punishment there- for.— Who is and Who is not Subject to Exile. — The Cities of Exile and their Preparations. — The Redeeming of the Exiled by the Death of the High-priest 15 CHAPTER III. Who is Subject to the Punishment by Stripes. — The