THE CROSS AND THE CROWN

THE LAW IN MESSIANIC TIMES.

APPENDIX XIV.

(See Vol. i. Book III. ch. iii. p. 341.)

THE question as to the Rabbinic views in regard to the binding character of theLaw, and its imposition on the Gentiles, in Messianic times, although, strictly speaking, not forming part of this history, is of such vital importance in connection with recent controversies as to demand special consideration. In the text to which this Appendix refers it has been indicated, that a new legislation was expected in Messianic days. The ultimate basis of this expectancy must be soughtin the Old Testament itself, not merely in such allusions as to the intrinsic worthlessness of sacrifices, but in such passages as Deut. xviii. 15, 18, and its prophetic commentary in Jer. xxxi. 31, &c. It was with a view to this that the Jewish deputation inquired whether John the Baptist was 'that Prophet.' For, as has been shown, Rabbinism associated certain reformatory and legislative functions with the appearance of the Forerunner of the Messiah (Eduy. viii. 7).

There were, indeed, in this, as in most respects, diverging opinions according to the different standpoints of the Rabbis, and, as we infer, not without controversial bearing on the teaching of Christianity. The strictest tendency may be characterised as that which denied the possibilty of any change in the ceremonial Law, as well as the abrogation of festivals in the future. Even the destruction of the Temple. and with it the necessary cessation of sacrifices, if, indeed, which is a moot question, all sacrifices did at once and absolutely cease, only caused a gap; just as exile from the land could only free from such laws as attached to the soil of Israel. [1 In the Book Cusari (ii. 49 ed. Cassel, p. 274) an inference somewhat inconvenient to Rabbinism is drawn from this. If, as it asserts Levitical uncleanness and holiness are correlative terms, the one implying the other, would it not follow that with the cessation of the Jewish economy the whole ceremonial Law would also cease? See Cassel' note.] The reading of the sacrificial sections in the Law (Meg. 31 b; Ber. R. 44), at any rate, in conjunction with prayers (Ber. 2 b), but especially study of the Law (Men. 110 a), took in the meantime the place of the sacrifices. And as regarded the most sacred of all sacrifices, that of the Day of Atonement, it wasexplained that the day rather than the sacrifices brought reconciliation (Sifra c. 8). This party held the principle that not only those Divine, but even those Rabbinic, ordinances, which apparently had been intended only for a certain time or for a certain purpose, were of eternal duration (Bezah 5 b). 'The law is never to cease; there are the commandments, since there is no prophet who may change a word in them.' [2 For further particulars I refer to Setin, Schrift des Lebens, i. pp. 319-336 (ch. on 'The Messiah'), to the article on the Messiah in Hamburger's Real-Encycl. ii. pp. 747, 748, and especially to that most interesting brochure of Rabbi Holdheim, Das Ceremonialges. im Messias- Reich. I have not read a more clear demonstration of the impossibility of Rabbinism, nor, strange as it may sound, a fuller vindication of the fundamental positions of Christianity.

So far were these views carried, that it was asserted: 'Israel needs not the teaching of the King Messiah,' but that 'He only comes to gather the dispersed, and to give to the Gentiles thirty commandments, as it is written (Zechar. xi. 12), ''they weighed me my price, thirty pieces of silver'' (Ber. R. 98). But even these extreme statements seem to imply that keen controversy had raged on the subject.Besides, the most zealous defenders of the Law admitted that the Gentiles were to receive laws in Messianic times. The smalles and most extreme section held that,the laws, as Israel observed them, would be imposed on the Gentiles (Chull. 92 a); others that only thirty commandments, the original Noachic ordinances supposed to be enumerated in Lev. xix., would become obligatory, [1 Stein, u.s. pp. 327, 328.] while some held, that only three ordinances would be binding on the new converts: two connected with the Feast of Tabernacles, the third, that of the phylacteries (Midr. on Ps. xxxi. 1, ed. Warsh, p. 30 b). On the other hand, we have the most clear testimony that the prevailin tendency of teaching was in a different direction. In a very curious passage (Yalkut ii. 296, p. 46 a), in which the final restitution of 'the sinners of Israel and of the righteous of the Gentiles' who are all in Gehinnom, is taught in very figurative language, we are told of a 'new Law which God will give by the Messiah' in the age to come, thanksgiving for which calls forth that universal Amen, not only on earth but in Gehinnon, which leads to the deliverance of thosewho are in the latter. But as this may refer to the time of the final consummation, we turn to other passages. The Midrash on Song ii. 13, applying the passage in conjunction with Jer. xxxi. 31, expressly states that the Messiah would give Israel a new law, and the Targum, on Is. xii., 3, although perhaps not quite so clearly, also speaks of a 'new instruction.' It is needless to multiply proofs (such as Vayyikra R. 13). But the Talmud goes even further, and layws down the two principles, that in the 'age to come' the whole ceremonial Law and all the feasts were to cease. [2 Comp. on this Holdhei, Das Ceremonialges, p. 46.] And althoughthis may be regarded as merely a general statement, it is definitely applied to the effect, that all sacrifices except the thank-offering, and all fasts and feasts except the Day of Atonement, or else the Feast of Esther, were to come to an end, nay (in the Midr. on the words 'the Lord looseth the bound,' Ps. cxlvi. 7), that what had formerly been 'bound' or forbidden would be 'loosed' or allowed, notably that the distinctions between clean and unclean animals would be removed.

There is the less need for apology for any digression here, that, besides the intrinsic interest of the question, it casts light on two most important subjects, For, first, it illustrates the attempt of the narrowest Judaic party in the Church to force on Gentile believers the yoke of the whole Law; the bearing of St. Paul in this respect; his relation to St. Peter; the conduct of the latter; and the proceedings of the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (Acts xv.). St. Paul, in hisopposition to that party, stood even on Orthodox Jewish ground. But when he asserted, not only a new 'law of liberty,' but the typical and preparatory character of the whole Law, and its fulfillment in Christ, he went far beyond the Jewish standpoint. Further, the favorite modern theory as to fundamental opposition in principle between Pauline and Petrine thrology in this respect, has, like many kindred theories, no support in the Jewish views on that subject, unless we suppose thatPeter had belonged to the narrowest Jewish school, which his whole history seemsto forbid. We can also understand, how the Divinely granted vision of the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean animals (Act x. 9-16) may, though coming as a surprise, have had a natural basis in Jewish expectancy,[1 The learned reader will find a very curious illustration of this in that strange Haggadah about the envy of the serpent being excited on seeing Adam fed with meat from heaven, where another equally curious Haggadah is related to show that 'nothing is unclean which cometh down from heaven.'] and it explains how the Apostolic Synod, when settling the question, [2 Yalkut i. 15, p. 4, d, towards the middle A considerable part of vol. iii. of 'Supernatural Religion' is devoted to argumentation on this subject. But here also the information of the writer on the subject is neither accurate nor critical, and hence his reasoning and conclusions are vitiated.] ultimately fell back on the so-called Noachic commandments, though with very wider-reachingprinciples underlying their decision (Acts xv. 13-21). Lastly, it seems to cast even some light on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel; for, the question about 'thatprophet' evidently referring to the possible alteration of the Law in Messianic times, which is reported only in the Fourth Gospel, shows such close acquaintance with the details of Jewish ideas on this subject, as seems to us utterly incompatible with its supposed origination as 'The Ephesian Gospel' towards the end of the second century, the outcome of Ephesian Church-teaching, an 'esoteric and eclectic' book, designed to modify 'the impressions produced by the tradition previously recorded by the Synoptists.' APPENDIX XV. THE LOCATION OFSYCHAR, AND THE DATE OF OUR LORD's VISIT TO SAMARIA. (See vol. i. Book III ch. viii.) 1. THE LOCATION OF SYCHAR. Although modern writers are now mostly agreed on this subject, it may be well briefly to put our readers the facts of the case. Till comparitively lately, the Sychar of St. John iv. was generally as representing the ancient Schem. The first difficulty here was the name, since Shechem, or even Sichem, could scarcely be identifiedwith Sychar, which is undoubtedly the correct reading. accordingly, the latter term was represneted as one of oppobrium, and derived from 'Skehar' (in Aramaen Shikhra). as it were, 'drunken Twon,' or else from 'Sheqer'(in Aramaean Shiqra),'lying town.' But, not to mention other objections, there is no trace of such as alteration of the name Sychar in Jewish writings, while its employment would seem wholly incongrous in such a narrative as St.John iv. Moreover, all the earliest writers distinguished Sychar from Shechem. Lastly, in the Talmud the name of Sokher, also written Sikhra, frequently occurs, and that not only as distinct from Schechem, but in a connection which renders the hypothesis of an opprobrious by-name impossible. Professor Delitzch (Zeitschrift fur luther. Theol. for 1856, ii pp. 242, 243) has collect seven pasages from Babylon talmud to that effect, in five of which Sichra, is mentioned as the birthplace of celebrated Rabbis, the town having at a later period apparently been left by the Samaritans, and occupied by Jews (Baba mez. 42 a, 83 a, Pes. 31 b, Nidd. 36 a, Chull. 18 b, and, without mention of Rabbis, Baba k82 b Menach. 64 b. See also Men. x. 2, and jer. Sheq. p. 48d). If further proof were required, it would be sufficient to say that a woman would scarcely have gone a mile and a half from Schem to Jacob's well to fetch water, when there are so many springs about the former city. In these circumstances, later writers have generally fixed upon the village of 'Askar, half a mile from Jacob's Well, and within sight of it, as the Sychar of the New Testament, one of the earliest to advocate this view having been the late learned Canon Williams. Little more than a third of a mile from 'Askar is the reputed tomb of Joseph. The transformation ofthe name Sychar into 'Askar is explained, either by a contraction of 'Ain' Askar'the well of Sychar,' or else by the fact that in the Samaritan Chronicle the place full description of the place is given by Captain Conder (Tent- Worker in Palestine, vol. i. pp. 71 &c., especially pp. 75 and 76), and by M. Guerin, 'La Samarie,' vol. i. p. 371, although the later writer, eho almost always absolutely follows tradition, denies the identity of Sychar and 'Askar (pp. 401, 402). This question, which is of such importance not only for the chronology of this period, but in regard to the unnamed Feast at Jerusalem to which went up (St. John v.1), has been discussed most fully and satisfactorily by Canon Westcott (Speaker's Commentary, vol. ii. of the New Testament, p. 93) The following data will assist our inquires. 1. Jesus spent some time after the Feast of Passover (St. John ii. 23) in the province of Judea. But it can be supposed that this was a long period, for, 2ndly, in St. john iv. 45 the Galileans have evidently a fresh remembrance of what had taken palce at the Passover in Jerusalem, ehich would scarcely have been the case if a long period and other festivals had intervened. Similarly, the 'King's Offer' (St. John iv. 47) seems also to act upon a recent report. 3rdly, the unnamed Feast of St. john v. 1forms an important element in our computations. Some months of Galilean ministry must have intervened between it and the return of Jesus of Galilee. hence ot cou;d not have been Pentecost. Nor could it have been the Feast of Tabernacles, which was in atumn, nor yet thefeast of the Dedication, ehich took place in winter, since both are expressly mentioned by their names (St. John vii. 2, x. 22). The only other feasts were: the Feast of Wood-Offering (comp. 'The Temple,' &c., p. 295), the Feast of Trumpets,or New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, and the feast of Esther, or Purim. To Begin with the latter, since of late it has found most favor. The reasons against Christ's attendance in Jerusalem at purim seem to me irrestible. Canon Westcott urges that the discourse of Christ at the unnamed Feast has not, as is generally the case, any connection with the thoughts of that festival. To this Iwould add, that I can scarcely conceive our Lord going up to a feast observed with such boisterous merriment as Purim was, shile the season of the year in which itfalls would scarcely tally with the statement of St. John v. 3, that a great multitude of sick people were laid down in the porches of Bethesda. [1 I must here correct the view expressed in my book on 'The Temple,' p. 291, due to a misunderstanding of St. John iv. 35. Of course, if lattter had implied that Jesus was at Sychar in December, the unnamed feast must have been Purim.] But if the unnamed Feast was not Purim, it must have been one of these three, the Feast of the Ingathering of Wood, the feast of trumphets, or Day of Atomement. In other words, it must have taken place late in summer, or in the very begining of atumn. But if so, then the Galilean ministry intervening between the visit to Samaria and this Feast leads to the necessary inferences that the visit to Sychar had taken palce in early summer, probably ablot the middle or end of May. This would allow ample time for Christ's stay in Jerusalem during the Passover and for His Judean ministry. As we are discussing the date of the unnamed Feast, it may be as well to bring the subject here to a close. We have seen that the only three Feasts to which reference could hav ebeen are to the Feast of Wood Offering, the Feast of Trumphets, and the Day of Atonement. But the last of those could not be meant, since it is disignated, not only by Philo, but in acts xxvii. 9, as Hthe fast,' not the feast not (comp. LXX., Lev. xiv. 29 &c., xxiii. 27 &c). As between the Feast of the Wood Offering and that of Trumphets I feel at considerable lossCanon Westcott has urged on behalf on the latter reasons which I confess are very weighty. On the other hand, the Feast of Trumphets was not one of those on which people generally to Jerusalem, and as it took place on the 1st of Tishri (about the middle of September), it is difficult to believe that anyone going up to it would not rather have chosen, or at least remained over, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, which followed respectively, on the 10th and 15th days of that month. Lastly, the Feast of Wood Offering, which took place on the 15th Ab (in August), was a popular and joyus festival, when the wood needed for the altar was brought up from all parts of the cuntry (comp. on that feast 'The Temple and its Services,' &c., pp. 295, 296) As between these two feasts, we must leave the question undecided, only noticing that barely six weeks intervened between the one and the other feast. APPENDIX XVI. ON THE JEWISH VIEWS ABOUT 'DEMONS AND 'THE DEMONISHED,' TOGETHER WITH SOME NOTES ON THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JEWS AND JEWISH CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURIES. (See vol. i. Book III. ch. xiv.) IT is not, of course, our purpose here to attmept an exhaustive account of the Jesish views on 'demons' and the 'demonished.' A few preliminary strictures wre, however, necessary on a work upon which writers on this subject have too implictly relied. I refer to Gfrorer's Jahrhundert des heils (especially vol. i. pp. 378, 424). Grofer sets out by quoting a passage in the Book of Enoch on which he lays great stress, but which critical inquiries of Dillmann and other scholars have shown to be of no value on the argument. This disposes of many pages of negative criticism on the New Testament which Grofer founds on this quotation. Similarly, 4 Esdras would not in our days be adduced in evidence of pre-Christian teaching. As regards Rabbinic passages, grofer uncritically quotes from Kabalistic works which he mixes with quotations of grofer from the Mishah (Erub. iv. 1; Gitt. vii. 1), it has already been stated (vol. i. p. 481, note 4) that neither of these passages bears any refernece to demoniac possesionFurther, Grofer appeals to two passages in Sif which may here be given in extenso. The first of these (ed. Friedmann, p. 107 b) is on Duet. xviii. 12, andreads thus: 'He who joins himself (cleaves) to uncleanness, on him rests the spirit of uncleaness; but he who cleaves to the Shechinah, it is meet that the Holy Spirit should rest on him.' It will be observed that in both these quotations reference is made to certian moral, not to a physical effects, such as in the case of the demonished. Lastly, although on passage from the Talmud which grofer adduces (though not quite exactly) applies, indeed to demonical possessions, but is given in an references we turn to what jewish authorities really state on the subject, we have:, 1. To deal with the Writings of Josephus. in Aniq. vi. 8. 2, Josephus ascribes Saul's disorder to demonic influence, ehich Hbrought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him. In Antiq. viii. 2.5, Josephus describes the wisdom, learning, and achievements of Solomon, referring specially to his skill in expelling demons who caused various diseases. According to Josephus Solomon had exercised this power by incanations, his formulae and words of exoccism being still known in Josephus's days. In such manner a certain Eleazar had healed a 'demoniac' in the presence of Vespasian, his officers, and troops, by putting tohis nostrils a ring 'that held a root of one of those mentioned by Solomon,' by which the demon was drawn out amidst convulsions of the demoniac, When the demon was further adjured not to return by frequent mention of the name of Solomon, and by'incantations which he [Solomon] had composed.' To show the reality of this, a vessel with water had been placed at a little distance, and the demon had, in coming out, overturned it. It is probably to this 'root' that Josephus refers inWar. vii. 6. 3, where he names it Baaras, which I conjecture to be the equivalent of the form boara, 'the burning,' since he describes it as of colour like a flame, and as emitting at even a ray like lightning, and which it would cost a man's life to take up otherwise than by certain magical means which Josephus specifies. From all this we infer that Josephus occupied the later Talmudical standpoint, alike as regards exorcism, magical cures, and magical preventions. This is of great importance as hsoeing that these views prevailed in New Testament times. But when Josephus adds, that the demons expelled by Baaras were 'the spirits of the wicked,' he represents a superstition which is not shard by the earlier Rabbis, and may possibly be due to a rationalising attempt to account for the phenomenon. It is,indeed, true that the same view occurs in comparatively late Jewish writings, and that in Yalkuat on Is. 46 b there appears to be a reference to it, at least in connection with the spirits of those who had perished in the flood; but this seems to belong to a different cycle of legends.

2. Rabbinic views. [1 I would here generally acknowledge my obligations to Dr. Brecher's tractate on the subject.] Probably the nearest approach to the idea of Josephus that 'demons' were the souls of the wicked, is the (perhaps allegorical) statement that the backbone of a person who did not bow down to worship God became a Shed. or demon (Baba K. 16 a; Jer. Shabb. 3 b). The ordinary names for demons are 'evil spirits,' or 'unclean spirits' (ruach raah, [2 Erub. 41 b; Pes. 112 a.The more common designation is r. tumeah; but there are others.] ruach tumeah), Seirim (lit. goats). Shedim (Sheyda, a demon, male or female, either because their chief habitation is in desolate places, or from the word 'to fly about,' or else from 'to rebel'), and Mazzikin (the hurtful ones). A demoniac is called Gebher Shediyin (Ber. R. 65). Even this, that demons are supposed to eat and drink, to propagate themselves, and to die, distinguishes them from the 'demons' of the New Testament. The food of demons consists of certain elements in fire and water, and of certain odours. Hence themode of incantation by incense made of certain ingredients. Of their origin, number, habitation, and general influence, sufficient has been said in the Appendix on Demonology. It is more important here to notice these two Jewish ideas: that demons entered into, or took possession of, men; and that many diseases were due to their agency. The former is frequently expressed. The 'evil spirit' constrains a man to do certain things, such as to pass beyond the Sabbath-boundary (Erub. 41 b), top eat the Passover-bread, &c. (Rosh ha-Sh. 28 a). But it reads more like a caustic than a serious remark when we are informed that these three thing deprive a man of his free will and make him transgress: the Cuthaeans, an evil spirit, and poverty (Erub. u.s). Diseases, such as rabies, amgina, asthma, or accidents, su h as an encounter with a wild bull, are due to their agency, which, happily, is not unlimited. As stated in App. XIII. the most dangerous demons are those of dirty (secret) places (Shabb. 67 a). Even numbers (21, 4, 6, &c.) are always dangerous, so is anythingthat comes from unwashen hands. For such, or similar oversights, a whole legion of demons is on the watch (Ber. 51 a). On the evening of the Passover the demonsare bound, and, in general, their power has now been restricted, chiefly to the eves of Wednesday and of the Sabbath (Pes. 109 b to 112 b, passim). Yet there are, as we shall see, circumstances in which it would be foolhardiness to risk their encounter. Without here entering on the views expressed in the Talmud about prophecy, visions, and dreams, we turn to the questions germane to our subject.

A. Magic and Magicians. We must here bear in mind that the practice of magic was strictly prohibited to Israelites, and that, as a matter of principle at least, witchcraft, or magic, was supposed to have no power over Israel, if they owned and served their God (Chull. 7 b; Nedar. 32 a). But this matter also, as will presently appear, theory and practice did not accord. Thus, under certain circumstances, the repetition of magical formulas was declared lawful even on the Sabbath (Sanh. 101 a). egypt was regarded as the home of magic (Kidd. 49 b; Shabb. 75 a). In connection with this, it deserves notice that the Talmud ascribes the miracles of Jesus to magic, whic He had learned during His stay in Eqypt having taken care, when He left, to insert under His skin its rules and formulas, since every traveller, on quitting the country, was searched, lest he should take to other lands the mysteries of magic (Shabb. 104 b).

Here it may be interesting to refer to some of the strange ideas which Rabbinism attached to the early Christians, as showing both the intercourse between the two parties, and that the Jews did not deny the gift of miracles in the Church, only ascribing its exercise to magic. Of the existence of such intercourse with Jewish Christians there is abundant evidence. Thus, R. Joshua, the son of Levi (at the end of the sencond century), was so hard pressed by their quotations from the Bible that, unable to answer, he pronounced a curse on them, which, however, did not come. We gather, that in the first century Christianity had widely spread among the Jews, and R. Ishmael, the son of Elisha, the grandson of that High-Priest who was executed by the Romans (Josephus, Wari. 2, 2), seems in vain R. Tarphon that nothing his nephew Ben Dama from being cured of the bite of a serpent by a Christian, preferring that he should die rather than be healedby such means (Abod. Zar. 27 b, about the middle). Similarly, the great R. Eliezer such means (Abod. Zar. 27 b, about the middle). Similarly, the great R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, also in the first century, was so suspected of the prevailing heresy that he was actually taken up as a Christian in the persecution of the later. Though he cleared himself of the suspicion, yet his contemporaries regarded him for a time doubtfully, and all agreed that the troubles which befell him were inpunishment for having listened with pleasure to the teaching of the heretics (AB. Z. 16 b, 17 a. [1 See more on this subject in vol. ii. pp. 193, 194.] The following may be mentioned as instances of the magic practiced by these heretics. In Jer. Sanh. 25 d, we are told about two great Rabbis who were banned by a heretic to the beam of a bath. In return the Rabbis,by similar means, fastened the heretic to the door of the bath. Having mutually agreed to set each other free, the same parties next met on board a ship. Here the heretic by magical means clave the sea, by way of imitating Moses. On this the Rabbis called upon him to walk through the sea, like Moses, when he was immediately overwhelmed through the ban of R. Joshua! Other stories of a similarand even more absurd character might be quoted. But if such opinions were entertained of Jewish Christians, we can scarcely wonder that all their books were ordered to be burnt (Bemid. R. 9), that even a roll of the Law written by a heretic was to be destroyed (Gitt. 45 b), and that Jewish Christians were consigned to eternal punishment in Gehinnon (Rosh. haSh. 17 a), from which even the token of circumcision should not deliver them since an Angel would convert it into uncircumcision (Shem R. 19 [1 We have here only been able to indicate this most interesting subject. Much more remains to be said concerning Eliezer b. Hyrecanus, and others. There seem even to have been regular meeeting-places for discussion between Jews and Christians. Nay, the the practice of some early Christians to make themselves eunuchs is alluded to in the Talmud (Shabb. 152 a).]).

But to return. Talmudic writings distinguishing several classes of magicians. The Bual Obh, or conjuror of the dead, evoked a voice from under the armpit, or from other members of the dead body, the arms or other members being struck together,for the purpose of eliciting the sound. Necromancy might be practised in two different ways. The dead might be called up (by a method which scarcely bears description), in which case they would appear with the feet upwards. But this must not be practised on the Sabbath. Or again, a skull might, by magical means, be made to answer. This might be done on the Sabbath also (Sanh. 65 a and b) Or a demon might be conjured up by a certain kind of incense, and then employed in magic. A second class of magicians (calle Yideoni) uttered oracles by putting a certain bone into their mouth. Thirdly, there was the Chabar, or serpent charmer, a distinction being made between a great and small Chabar, according as larger or smaller serpents were charmed. Fourthly, we have the Meonen, who could indicate what days or hours were lucky and unlucky. Fifthly, there was the 'search after the dead,' who remained fasting on graves in order to communicate with an unclean spirit; and, lastly, the Menachesh, who knew what omens were lucky and what unlucky (Sanh. 66 a). And if they were treated only as signs and not as omens, the practice was declared lawful (Chull. 95 b).

In general the black art might be practised either through demons, or else by the employment of magical means. Among the latter we reckon, not only incantations, but magic by means of the thumb, by a knife with a black handle, or by a glass cup (Sanh. 67 b), or by a cup of incantation (Baba Mets. 29 b). But there was danger here, since, if all proper rules and cautions were not observed the magician might be hurt by the demon. Such an instance is related, although the Rabbi in question was mercifully perserved by being swallowed by a cedar, which afterwards burst and set him free (Sanh. 101 a). Women were specially suspected of witchcraft (Jer. Sanh. vii. 25 d), and great caution was accordingly enjoined. Thus, it might even be dangerous to lift up loaves of bread (though not broken pieces) lest they should be bewitched (Erub. 64 b). A number of instances are related in which persons were in imminent danger from magic, in some of which they suffered not only damage but death, while in others the Rabbis knew how to turn the impending danger against their would-be assailants. (Comp. for examples Pes.110 b; Sot. 22 a; Gitt. 45 a; Sanh. 67 b). A very peculiar idea is that about the Teraphim of Scripture. It occurs already in the Targum Ps.- Jon. on Gen. xxxi. 19, and is found also in the Pirqe de R. Eliez. c. 36. It is stated that the Teraphim were made in the following manner: a first-born was killed, his head cut off, and prepared with salt and spices, after which a gold plate, upon which magical formulas had been graven, was placed under his tongue, when the head was supposed to giveanswer to whatever questions might be addressed to it.