The Eighteen Measures, Part 1: Introduction

Yeshuas relationship to the Pharisees has been routinely characterized among Christian authors as universally hostile. Indeed, Pharisee is actually defined in modern dictionaries as, a sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person (Dictionary.com). This low view of the Pharisees has long been promulgated by most of the most respected Christian commentators: But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. (John Calvin on Mat. 5:20) Unsurprisingly, I am not an enormous fan of John Calvin. While certainly an erudite writer to a point, it is very evident that he had little exposure himself to Judaism, and certainly not to the writings of the rabbis that he so casually slanders. Modern scholarship, by studying the Pharisees from their own writingsthe rabbinic sources such as the Talmud and the Midrashhas come to a conclusion that Calvin, Henry, etc. would find incredible: While the Pharisees certainly had their problems, their ideals and their lives were actually quite admirable. Indeed, several scholars have come to the conclusion that Yeshua Himself was a Pharisee: The argument between Jesus and some of the Pharisees is a legitimate family dispute. This is like when the ancient prophets condemn the children of Israel. They talk about the bad behavior, but they dont disassociate themselves from Israel. They see themselves as part of it. So I believe that Jesus was a Pharisee who knew that there were wonderful Pharisees around, probably the majority, but there were some who were actually desecrating the name, the message, and the tradition they were meant to be the custodians of. (Rabbi

David Rosen, interviewed by R.T. Kendall in Interview with a Phariseeand a Christian, Christianity Today, 10/12/2007; see also Hyam MacCoby, Jesus the Pharisee, 2003) In the Messianic movement there is a great push to defend the honor of the Pharisees, and thereby defend the honor of traditional Judaism. Of course, Yeshua did seem to spend most of His time around Pharisees, suggesting that He felt a kinship with them, and they with Him. Pharisees even invited Him over for dinner on multiple occasions (Luke 11:37, 14:1) and warned Him of danger from Herod (13:31). Many of us are quick to say that the Pharisees did not believe in the death penalty while under Roman law (see m.Makkot 1:10) or that the Pharisees were not directly involved in the actual trial of Yeshua (which is true; none of the four Gospel accounts says that the Pharisees were at the various trials, though some of the scribes and elders were). However, this does not entirely square with the Gospel accounts testimony that the Pharisees conspired with the Sadducees (John 11:47) and that the guard that came to arrest Yeshua was sent by both the chief priests and the Pharisees (John 11:57, 18:3). Some Jewish scholars may attempt to argue that these passages were written by later authors with an anti-Jewish bias, but simply discounting the testimony of the Apostles is not an option for the Messianic movement. How then are we to reconcile this apparent contradiction between the ideals espoused in the Talmud and the apparent murderous intent in the Gospel accounts? Let us consider a possibility: What if the Pharisees, instead of being a monolithic organization, were actually split into two or more groups? And if so, was the group that had control in the time of Yeshua indeed everything He describes in the Seven Woes of Matthew chapter 23? Is there evidence for such a split? Indeed there is, imbedded in a strange, often overlooked passage from the Talmud. And as we explore this passage over the coming weeks, we will see that not only does it open up to us a fuller understanding of Yeshuas own interactions with the Pharisees, but also to the conflict evident in Acts and the Epistles as well.

The Eighteen Measures, Part 2: Another Upper Room

The Mishnah, tractate Shabbat 1:4, and its corresponding passage in the Babylonian Talmud (folios 13b-17b), present a strange puzzle to those who study it deeply. Let us begin with the Mishnah passage that is discussed in the Gemara: These are some of the laws which they stated in the upper room of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Gurion when they went up to visit him. They took a vote, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel. And eighteen measures did they decree on that very day. The exact nature of these Eighteen Measures is not given in this passage. Indeed, the very next passage of the Mishnah holds a lengthy comparison and contrast between the halakha of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, whereas m.Shabbat 1:4 indicates that these Eighteen Measures were passed as universal halakha by vote. The very next line of the Gemara also indicates that the full corpus of the Measures was lost to later sages, with R. Abbayye questioning whether the Mishnah passage above might refer to the passages that came before. (The answer is that it does not.) The mystery only deepens as we read on. Shabbat 17a suddenly interjects a curious and sinister footnote into what would otherwise be a fairly standard discussion on ritual purity: They plunged a sword into the schoolhouse, saying, Let anyone come in who wants, but no one is going to get out of here, and on that day, Hillel sat humble before Shammai like just another disciple. And that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made. (See also t.Shabbat 1:16B.) Why did they plunge a sword into the Beit Midrash? Both the Soccino and Schottenstein footnotes claim that this was merely the standard practice when taking a vote, but neither cites any other passage of the Talmud to indicate that this was so, and after an extensive search, I could not find anywhere else that a sword is mentioned in connection with the Beit Midrash or with passing a ruling. Furthermore, plunging the sword into the door is accompanied with what appears to be a thinly-veiled threat and is immediately followed by the humiliation of Hillel (another unique event in the

Talmud). Finally, it concludes with the curious phrase, And that day was as hard for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made. Was there indeed a threat, or perhaps even actual violence? The Jerusalem Talmud (y.Shabbat 1:4) actually states that the followers of Shammai did murder the disciples of Hillel: Rabbi Yehoshua taught: The students of Beit Shammai stood below, killing the students of Beit Hillel. We learn: Six of them went up, and the rest stood upon them with swords and spears. Thats an astounding twist to this strange event! How could it be that one great house of the Pharisees should actually murder the members of the other? A clue may be found in the site of the Beit Midrash, the home of Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that Hezekiah ben Gurion is believed by some scholars to have been one and the same individual as Hezekiah the Zealot: When King Aristobulus, taken prisoner by the Romans, had been poisoned by the followers of Pompey, Hezekiah (Ezekias in Josephus, Ant. xiv. 9, 2 et seq) gathered together the remnants of that kings army in the mountains of Galilee and carried on a successful guerrilla war against the Romans and Syrians, while awaiting the opportunity for a general uprising against Rome. The pious men of the country looked upon him as the avenger of their honor and liberty. Antipater, the governor of the country, and his sons, however, who were Romes agents in Palestine, viewed this patriotic band differently. In order to curry favor with the Romans, Herod, unauthorized by the king Hyrcanus, advanced against Hezekiah, took him prisoner, and beheaded him, without the formality of a trial; and he also slew many of his followers. This deed excited the indignation of all the patriots. Hezekiah and his band were enrolled among the martyrs of the nation. If indeed Hananiah was the son of Hezekiah the Zealot, the actions of that night begin to make sense. Beit Shammai is well known for criticizing the leniency of Beit Hillel, especially in regards to Gentile converts. Shammai himself was known for driving away potential converts who then turned to R. Hillel, who accepted them in gentleness (b.Shabbat 31a). While we cannot state that this was the case with certainty, an alliance between Beit Shammai and the Gentile-hating Zealots in the house of Hananiah b. Hezekiah does not seem impossible.

Rabbi Hillel was not simply forced to sit at Shammais feet because his side was outvoted, but was apparently forced to under threat of violence to himself and his students. It would not be the only time Shammai and his students threatened Hillel, either. In another incident, recorded in b.Betzah 20a, Hillel once went up to the Temple to offer a burnt offering and was accosted by several students of Shammai. Rather than risk confrontation in the very Temple courtyard, Hillel offered a lie that they accepted and moved off. The fact that Shammais students were so emboldened as to accost the esteemed master and that Hillel had to offer a lie on holy ground to go on his way is telling of the atmosphere that existed at that point. This was especially telling given that R. Hillel was highly respected by the priests, who turned to him on matters of halakhah (see b.Peshachim 66a). Surely, Hillel should have expected aid from the priests! What had happened to so dishonor the once-honored rabbi that he had to lower his eyes before mere students? The real key question is this: What were the Eighteen Measures, why were they considered so important to Beit Shammai that they would actually resort to violence to get them passed? And how would their passing be considered as hard for Israel as a day that would have resulted in our destruction if not for the intervention of Moshe? We will continue to explore this mystery in the coming weeks.

The Eighteen Measures, Part 3: The Measures and Ritual Purity

The discussion in the Gemara is, as always, challenging, and does not seem to provide a complete list of enactments. Nevertheless, it presents the following as representative of the whole, citing m.Zavim 5:12: These render terumah (wave offering) unfit: He who eats food unclean in the first remove; and he who eats food unclean in the second remove; and he who drinks unclean liquid; he whose head and the greater part of whose body enters drawn water; and one who was clean on whose head and the greater part of whose body three logs of drawn water fall; and a scroll, and hands, and a person who has completed his rites of purification and awaits sunset to be completely clean [a tebul yom]; and food and utensils which have been made unclean by [unclean] liquids. (b.Shabbat 13b)

The terumah, though usually translated heave-offering or wave offering is not an offering per se as it was not burnt upon the altar. Rather, it was the dedication of an item or person to the service of the Temple. In the Talmud, it designates a free-will contribution, above and beyond the tithe, that the Torah calls on a man to offer to the Temple service. Though the Torah did not specify the amount that should be offered as terumah, Jewish law (m.Ter. 4:3) established the proper amount as being between onesixtieth and one-thirtieth, depending on the piousness of the offerer. The terumah was not given directly to the Temple, but could be given to any priest (or, technically, any Levite), and the Pharisees were quick to rule that it should only be given to priests allied with their body. Food that the terumah had not been set aside for was called chullin, and could not be eaten. The invalidation of the terumah was an important issue in Pharisaic Judaism, as we will see below. Degrees of Uncleaness At this point, we should define some terms. The terumah is commonly translated as the wave or heave offering, not burnt upon the altar of sacrifice but presented before the priests for service in the Mikdash. The word came to mean the tithe, not only of ones grain and produce, but of all ones income even down to ones spices (cf. Mat. 23:23). The word translated unfit is pasul, which is not to be confused with unclean (tamei). It is most likely the term rendered as koinos (profane, common, defiled, unholy; verb form, koinoo) in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures (cf. Mat. 15:11, Acts 10:15). Something that is unfit or profane could not be used for holy purposes, but could be used for other purposes without risking the spread of tamei. That which could spread the condition of tamei by touch was called tumah. Tumah was considered to have multiple degrees of transmission, with corpse uncleanliness being the most severe, or first degree, of tamei. Contact with that which is tamei would render one tumah of one less degree. So, for example, a person who buried their father would be tumah in the first degree, or av hatumah. Someone who laid a hand on their shoulder would be tumah in the second degree, sheni. If that person then shook hands with a third, the third person would be considered shlishiunfit (pasul) to enter the Mikdash. Food that was shlishi is unfit (to a Pharisee) to be consumed, but

incapable of spreading the condition of tumah any further. Priests were capable of sustaining a fourth degree of tumah, called revii, but other Jews could not. Why the Concern? It should be noted of course that it is a direct command of the Holy One to make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean (Lev. 10:10). Furthermore, it is clear that tamei could indeed be transmitted by casual contact (Lev. 7:19, 11:32). By developing distinct degrees of impurity and defining what could spread uncleanness and what could not, the rabbis were fulfilling their proper role. However, in doing so, they actually increased the strictness of ritual purity well above the requirements of the Torah. The Gemara admits that this was the case when it points out that while Solomon decreed that hands may be tumah, he only did so in regards to sacrificial offerings; it was not until Hillel and Shimmai that hands were considered tamei for the terumah as well (b.Shabbat 15a). In fact, the Eighteen Measures raised the bar for ritual purity so high that at least some of them were criticized and repealed by the time R. Judah HaNasi penned the Mishnah (see b.Pesahim 19b). How did they do so? Let us take, for example, the issue of unclean hands. The Gemara tells us that hands are assumed to be ritually unclean because they are constantly touching things. Therefore the hands had to be ritually washed before handling terumah. In the case of the Pharisees, who recognized the corruption of the Temple and who were trying to import aspects of Temple-worship into their daily lives, the dinner table was considered a type of the altar. Thus, the ritual purity of the hands was considered as important for them as it was for priests serving in the Mikdash (cf. Exo. 30:21, Mark 7:3), to the point where it was said, Whoever eats bread without washing his hands is as if he had sexual relations with a whore (b.Sotah 4b). In other words, rulings affecting the defilement of the terumah would effect the observant Pharisees life on a daily basis. The Eighteen Measures would have the effect of splintering the people even more than they already were, to the point where even Pharisees could not eat with other Pharisees. Fences of Fences Several of the Measures involve adding more stringent rules to the rules of ritual purity, often only for the sake of discouraging unwanted behavior. For example, the rule that allowing the greater part of ones body to enter drawn water would make one tumah

came about to end a practice in which people would use fetid cave water for a mikveh (immersion pool) and then wash themselves afterwards. The rule that touching a sacred scroll made one tumah came about because the people began placing the terumah beside the scroll to show that both were holy, thus wasting the food. Another example: The Torah declares that things which could survive being heated by fire could be purified by fire (Num. 31:23). It also implies that breaking an object, such as an earthen vessel, cleanses it (Lev. 6:28, 11:33, etc.). In order to avoid people cleansing objects by simply breaking and repairing them, the rabbis declared that repairing an object restored its previous tamei stateeven if the breaking and repairing consisted of melting the object down (by fire, obviously) into its base metals and using those metals to create new objects (b.Shabbat 16b)! Creating fences around the Torah is, of course, an old and noble impulse (cf. Pirke Avot 1:1). A Christian who, not wishing to risk becoming drunk, eschews alcohol altogether has built a fence around the commandment for himself. However, soon those fences either become sacrosanct and require fences of their own or they lead to unintended consequences of practice that it becomes necessary to regulate. For His part, Yeshua kept many of the rabbinic fences Himself (and taught His own, as in Mat. 5-7), but He did not suffer that His disciples should be judged as sinners for having a different practice or wider fence (cf. Mat. 12 and 15). Here we see a similar confrontation occurring a generation earlier, with Shammai the driving force behind the creation of these new fences: He who gleans grapes for the wine press Shammai says, The grapes have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness. Hillel says, The grapes have not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness. Said Hillel to Shammai, How come grapes have to be vintaged in a state of taharah (ritual purity) but olives dont have to be gathered in a state of taharah? He said to him, So if you provoke me, Ill make a decree of uncleanness also in the matter of gathering olives, too! (b.Shabbat 17a) Even here, we see that Shammai clearly sees himself as in charge over Hillel rather than Hillels equal. The very next line of Gemara, They stuck a sword in the Beit Midrash, amplifies for us again that the Measures were passed in a night of violence, under the threat of still more violence. It was the end result that this compromised Israels true mission to be a light to the Gentiles, as we will see next week.

The Eighteen Measures, Part 4: The Gentile Factor

In the previous post in this series, I noted that the Eighteen Measures compromised Israels task to be a light to the Gentiles. Indeed, as we will see, it was precisely because of the Measures that Peter required a vision direct from Heaven to prompt him to enter the house of Cornelius. We will begin with a pair of quotes from the Talmud which at first seem contradictory: First, Yos b. Yoezer of Seridah and Yos b. Yohanan of Jerusalem decreed uncleanness on the land of the gentiles and on glassware (b.Shabat 14b). The two rabbis Yose were the first of the zugot (pairs), ruling at the time of the Maccabees. But a page later, we read that it is the testimony of R. Yishmael b. R. Jose that eighty years prior to the destruction of the Temple the decree was made that the lands of the peoples around the Land of Israel and utensils made out of glass were subject to uncleanness (15a). The Talmud itself recognizes the contradiction and explains that the zugot applied tumah to only the actual dirt of the Gentile lands, since this dirt could be from a grave or have some fragment of a dead body in it and there would be no way to know. But eighty years prior to the destruction of the Templeten years prior to Yeshuas birth, and at the time of the Eighteen Measures (since that is the ongoing subject at interest to the Gemara)tumah was decreed on the very air of Gentile lands. While certainly not the only factor, it is likely that this radical addition to Jewish Law, a generation before the time of Yeshuas Talmidim, contributed heavily to the perception that entering a Gentiles house just isnt done (Acts 10:28, CJB). In addition, another of the measures was that the daughters of the Cutheansa community of Gentiles from Cuthea, in northern Babylonia in Samariaare deemed niddos from their cradle (b.Shabbat 16b). Now the Cutheans did keep the Torah and did observe the laws of niddah, separation during the time of menstruation. However, they did not do so to the same level of stringency as the rabbis. Clearly, there is no Biblical support for regarding a pre-adolescent girl as niddos, unclean with menstruation. Furthermore, the rabbis held to separation so strongly during niddah that

the Talmud relates a story of a rabbi who was struck dead by God for merely casual contact during the days of [his wifes] white clothing, the period of separation after the woman had stopped menstruating but before she could mikveh (13b). If even those Gentiles who observed the proscriptions of the Torah were regarded as so unclean that their very children were to be regarded as niddos, how much more would Gentiles who did not observe the whole Torah? Rabbi Hillel was noted for gently guiding Gentiles into the kingdom where Shammai drove them away (b.Shabbat 31a)he certainly had no problem with coming in close proximity to them or guiding them to the point where they were ready to proselytize. If indeed the zealots were aligned with Beit Shammai against all association with the Gentiles and were not opposed to even murdering fellow Jews who might oppose the new ritual purity and separation laws, this might explain the strange withdrawal of Shimon Kefa from eating with the Gentile believers in Gal. 2:12. It was not that Jacob (James) objected to table-fellowship with the Gentiles, for we see Jacob taking the Gentile side in Acts 15. Rather, we must consider the possibility that the Zealots had become emboldened and were perhaps taking a particular interest in the one who initiated Gentile fellowship in the Ekklesia. The above is supposition, of course, and must be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, it is a solid theory that accords with all of the facts we know about the political and religious situation of the time, including some of Yeshuas own condemnations of the Pharisees, which we will review next week.

The Eighteen Measures, Part 5: Woe to You, Pharisees!

Many of Yeshuas attacks on the Pharisees who had fallen into hypocrisy seem to have been focused on the provisions in the Eighteen Measures and the environment of violence that their institution fomented:

The murder of the disciples of Hillel Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city . . . (Mat. 23:34).

An over-emphasis on ritual purity Woe to you, hypocrite scribes and Pharisees! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also (Mat. 23:25f).

Creation of a halakha too great to bear; so great, in fact, that it was repealed two generations later They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on mens shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger (Mat. 23:4).

Persecution of those who reached out to the Gentiles But woe to you, hypocrite scribes and Pharisees, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in (Mat. 23:13).

We have already seen that the House of Shammai was so much in control of the Pharisee sect that his students felt free reign to accost Shammais ostensible partner in leading the group. In fact, it was so strong in the days of the Apostles that they simply identify the practices and sins of Beit Shammai as the practices of the Pharisees as a group! Centuries later, as the Ekklesia separated itself from the synagogue and even from its own Jewish members, the division in the party of the Pharisees was forgotten, and the word Pharisee came to have its present, wholly vindictive connotation. In the process, the Church overlooked the strange love/hate relationship between Yeshua and the Pharisees, ascribing every good deed by every member of that group (except Paul, of course) to hypocrisy.

What the Church never after registered is that the Measures that created a yoke neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear (Acts 15:10) were largely repealed by the end of the Second Century (though practices derived from them do continue even

today). Indeed, Judaism ultimately honored R. Hillel above R. Shammai, even passing down a tradition in which a Bat Qol, an echo of the Holy Ones voice, declared from Heaven, These [words of Hillel] and those [words of Shammai] are both the words of the living God, but the decided law is in accord with the House of Hillel (b.Erubin 13b). In fact, while we know of numerous rabbis that came from the school of Hillel, the Talmud does not record a single rabbi to come out of the school of Shammai.

In short, Judaism came to agree on its own with Yeshua on most of the matters in which He debated the rabbis of the time of His ministry. The shallow, hypocritical caricature of the Pharisee that is still taught in most churches today is at least eighteen centuries out of date, as an increasing number of scholars on both sides are beginning to recognize. Nevertheless, the sin of the Measures and the illegal and murderous way in which they were passed did have terrible consequences for our people in the 1st Century, as the Talmud itself attests and as we will see in the conclusion of this series.

The Eighteen Measures, Part 6: A New Golden Calf

As we noted in our response to Rabbi Singer on the interpretation of Yoma 39b, the Talmud wrestles with the question of why the Second Temple was destroyed even though there was no idolatry in the Land. Yoma 9b seeks to explain this judgment of the Holy One: But as to the second sanctuary, in which the people were engaged in Torah and practice of the commandments and acts of loving kindness, on what account was it destroyed? It was because of gratuitous hatred. That fact serves to teach you: gratuitous hatred weighs in the balance against the three cardinal sins of idolatry, fornication, and murder.

This brings to mind Yeshuas words on the eve of His crucifixion: I command these things to you, that you may love one another. If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you. . . . But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, They hated me without a cause. (John 15:17-19, 25, citing Psa. 35:19, 69:4) But while Yeshua drew the focus of the gratuitous hatred in Israel to Himself, He was not its sole target. It seems that the Talmud, though it is careful not to emphasize it so as not to cause a further rift in a Judaism struggling for its very survival, records one such act of gratuitous hatred that was on par with the sin of the golden calf. The gratuitous hatred in Israel in the 1st Century was in general directed against the Gentiles and all who associated with them. We see repeatedly through the Renewed Covenant Scriptures that many of the most violent rejections of the Messiah and the Good News arose when the Kingdom was extended to the Gentiles (Luke 4:24-29, Acts 13-14, 22:21-22, Rom. 11:28). For the passing of the Eighteen Measuresin the wake of murder and under the threat of the swordto be compared to the days of the golden calf has a very special meaning in Judaism. The sin of the golden calf nearly caused the destruction of the whole nation (Exo. 32:10) and did cause the Shkhinah to withdraw outside the camp until the intercession of Moshe, the Former Redeemer, resulted in its return (33:2f). Here, we see the Talmud giving a not-so-subtle suggestion that the actions of Beit Shammai were among those acts of gratuitous hatred that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, leading to further splintering of the people, a greater rejection of Israels call to be a beacon to the nations, and creating a burden that even the rabbis found too great to bear and subsequently removed. We have drunk the waters of bitterness, suffered the sword and plague, and lamented the removal of the Tent of Meeting. Now only the intercession of the Latter Redeemer will bring the Shkhinah back into its place so that the Holy One will once again dwell among His people.