For some other liturgical peculiarities deemed heretical, see above, p. 199 fol.

IMMORTALITY

(127) Shem. r. xliv. 6, p. 73o, a.-Another explanation [Exod. xxxii. 13]: Remember Abraham [Isaac and Israel]. Why does he mention the three Fathers? R. Levi said, 'Moses

said, Lord of the world, are the dead living? He said to him, Moses, thou art become a Min,' etc.

Commentary. This passage is of interest only as showing that to deny the Scripture warrant for immortality is a sign of Minuth. For the attitude of the Minim to the doctrine of Immortality, see above, pp. 232, 280. The rest of the passage quoted has nothing to do with Minuth. R. Levi was a younger contemporary of R. Johanan.

SECTION IV. MISCELLANEOUS PASSAGES REFERRING TO MINIM, MINUTH

THE GROUND OF DEPARTURE OF THE MINIM (128) T. Meg. iv. 37.-Hence R. Shim'on ben El'azar used to say, One man alone is not competent to reply to a corrupting speech; for the Minim take their ground of departure from the answer that Aaron gave to Moses. Commentary. The reference is to Exod. xxxii. 22-24, in which Aaron excuses himself to Moses for having made the golden calf. The Erfurt MS. of Tosephta reads, "The answer which Moses gave to

Aaron,' which is obviously an error. The 'ground of departure' of the Minim would seem to be the rejection of the authority of Moses implied in the act of making the calf. R. Shim'on ben El'azar was a disciple of R. Meir, in the second half of the second century. There is nothing to identify the Minim with Christians in this passage; what is said would apply to all Jewish heretics.

In (129) b. Meg. 25b there is a somewhat different version of the above passage. R. Shim'on ben El'azar says, 'Let a man always be careful in his answers; for from the answer which Aaron gave to Moses, the Minim [so acc. to the MSS.] have gone astray; for it is said [Exod. xxxii. 24], I cast it in the fire, and there came out this calf.' The commentators explain this to mean that the Minim inferred from the answer of Aaron that there was some truth in so-called false religion.

DO NOT GIVE PLACE TO THE MINIM

(130) T. Par. iii. 3.-They said, in the presence of R. Aqiba, in the name of R. Ishma'el, Cups of stone were hung on the horns of the oxen ; when the oxen stooped to drink, the cups were filled. He said to them, 'Do not give occasion to the Minim to humble you.' Commentary. The phrase, 'Do not give occasion to the Minim to humble you,' occurs also in the following passages: (i) M. Par. iii. 3, where the speaker is R. José, and the printed text has pry in place of ; (ii) T. Joma iii. 2, where the speaker is R. Aqiba. The subject-matter in every case is

different. The Mishnah in Joma does not contain the phrase; but in the Babylonian Gemara, Joma 40b, it is quoted in a Baraitha apparently from the Tosephta. Here the printed text has ppy in place of ; but the latter is the reading of the MSS. and of the early editions, as shown by Rabbinowicz.

The literal meaning of the phrase is clear; but the application of it is very difficult to understand. In every instance where it occurs, the matter under discussion is a minute detail of ritual, connected with either the killing of the red heifer [Num. xix. 1–13] or the casting of lots for the scape-goat [Lev. xvi. 8 fol.]. In the time of R. Aqiba (or R. José, i.e. probably R. José ben Ḥalaphta) the ritual in question was no longer practised, having ceased to be possible when the Temple was destroyed. The discussion upon them was therefore purely academic. Accordingly the difficulty arises, What reason was there to fear the Minim? From all that we have learnt hitherto, it does not appear that the Minim took part or interest in the discussions upon halachah in the Rabbinical assemblies. The frequent controversies between Minim and Jewish Rabbis turned chiefly upon the interpretation of texts of Scripture, and were concerned with doctrine rather than with ritual. If the ceremonies referred to had been actually performed in the time of R. Aqiba, it would be more easy to understand that the Minim might have found occasion to criticise, and in some way to 'humble,' the Jews. But the ceremonies had long been disused, together with all else that depended upon the existence of the Temple.

Since, then, the discussion related to the manner

in which these ceremonies had once been performed, or ought to have been performed, we may interpret the phrase about the Minim as a suggestion that the opinions of those to whom R. Aqiba (or R. José) addressed the remark were heretical, or at least would support the contentions of the Minim. I can offer no better explanation than this, and am aware that it is not complete. I cannot show in what way the opinions put forward tended to favour heresy. The commentators on the passage in b. Joma 406, where the discussion refers to the scape-goat, explain that the Minim will say that Azazel, for whom the scape-goat was intended, was a second God, and thus will taunt the Jews with admitting the doctrine of Two Powers. But that criticism on the part of the Minim, if it were made at all, would be applicable to the original text in Lev. xvi., not merely to one small detail of the ritual connected with the scape-goat. And as for the reference to the 'cups of stone' hung on the horns of the oxen, it is hard to see what this has to do with Minuth, or why the Minim should object to it more than to the whole series of ceremonies of which it was a small part. If it were alleged that the Minim did object to, or rather deny the validity of, the whole procedure in reference to the red heifer and to the scape-goat, then it might be pointed out that these two are mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, a writing with which we have seen reason to believe the Minim were familiar. It is, of course, possible that such a reference underlies the phrase we are considering, but in itself it is quite too slight and vague to serve as the foundation for any such conclusion.

An alternative explanation is that the reference is not to the Minim but to the Sadducees. This is supported by the printed text of the Mishnah, and by the fact that in two other passages of b. Joma, 19b and 53, the Sadducees are undoubtedly referred to in a discussion upon certain matters of ritual. It is true that the Sadducees passed out of history along with the Temple, at least it is probable they did so. But there might, and indeed did, remain the tradition of Sadducean practice and theory; and the phrase under consideration would, in this case, mean that the opinions against which Aqiba protested were, in his judgment, Sadducean. But there is nothing to establish any connexion between the opinions put forward and the teaching or practice of the Sadducees. And if there were, it is a question whether it would have been worth while for R. Aqiba to have referred to a virtually extinct opponent. The Minim, whoever they were, were by no means extinct in the time of R. Aqiba; and although it be now impossible to explain the precise force of his remark, there can be little doubt that he intended it to guard against a danger which he felt to be real.

A CANON OF MINUTH.

(131) Ber. r. xlviii. 6, p. 97o, c.—R. Jonathan said, Everywhere that 'hypocrisy' (1) occurs in a verse, the Scripture speaks of Minuth; and the common element in them all is [indicated by Isa. xxxiii. 14], The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling hath seized the hypocrites. Commentary. This is really only an obiter dictum