THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION

THE CALL OF MATTHEW, THE SAVIOUR'S WELCOME TO SINNERS, RABBINIC THEOLOGY AS REGARDS THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS IN CONTRAST TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, THE CALL OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.

CHAPTER XVII

(St. Matt. ix. 9-13; St. Mark ii. 13-17; St. Luke v. 27-32; St. Matt. x. 2-4;St. Mark iii. 13-19; St. Luke vi. 12-19.)

In two things chiefly does the fundamental difference appear between Christianity and all other religious systems, notably Rabbinism. And in these two things, therefore, lies the main characteristic of Christ's work; or, taking a wider view, the fundamental idea of all religions. Subjectively, they concern sin and the sinner; or, to put it objectively, the forgiveness of sin and the welcome to the sinner. But Rabbinism, and every other system down to modern humanitarianism, if it rises so high in its idea of God as to reach that of sin, which is its shadow, can only generally point to God for the forgiveness of sin. What here is merely an abstraction, has become a concrete reality in Christ. He speaks forgiveness on earth, because He is its embodiment. As regards the second idea, that of the sinner, all other systems know of no welcome to him till, by some means (inward or outward), he have ceased to be a sinner and become a penitent. They would first make him a penitent, and then bid him welcome to God; Christ first welcomes him to God, and so makes him a penitent. The one demands, the other imparts life. And so Christ is the Physician Whom they that are in health need not, but they that are sick. And so Christ came not to call the righteous but sinners, not to repentance, as our common text erroneously puts it in St. Matthew ix. 13, and St. Mark ii. 17, [1 The words 'to repentance' are certainly spurious in St. Matt. and St. Mark. I regard theirs as the original and authentic report of the words of Christ. In St. Luke v. 32, the words 'unto repentance' do certainly occur. But, with Godet, I regard them as referring to 'the righteous,' and as used, in a sense ironically.] but to Himself, to the Kingdom; and this is the beginning of repentance.

Thus it is that Jesus, when His teaching becomes distinctive from that of Judaism, puts these two points in the foreground: the one at the cure of the paralytic, the other in the call of Levi-Matthew. And this, also, further explains His miracles of healing as for the higher presentation of Himself as the Great Physician, while it gives some insight into the nexus of these two events, and explains their chronological succession. [1 So in all the three Gospels.] It was fitting that at the very outset, when Rabbinism followed and challenged Jesus with hostile intent, these two spiritual facts should be brought out, and that, not in a controversial, but in a positive and practical manner. For, as these two questions of sin and of the possible relation of the sinner to God are the great burden of the soul in its upward striving after God, so the answer to them forms the substance of all religions. Indeed, all the cumbrous observances of Rabbinism, its whole law, were only an attempted answer to the question: How can a man be just with God?

But, as Rabbinism stood self-confessedly silent and powerless as regarded the forgiveness of sins, so it had emphatically no word of welcome or help for the sinner. The very term 'Pharisee,' or 'separated one,' implied the exclusion of sinners. With this the whole character of Pharisaism accorded; perhaps, we should have said, that of Rabbinism, since the Sadducean would here agree with the Pharisaic Rabbi. The contempt and avoidance of the unlearned, which was so characteristic of the system, arose not from mere pride of knowledge, but from the thought that, as 'the Law' was the glory and privilege of Israel, indeed, the object for which the world was created and preserved, ignorance of it was culpable. Thus, the unlearned blasphemed his Creator, and missed or perverted his own destiny. It was a principle, that 'the ignorant cannot be pious.' On the principles of Rabbinism, there was logic in all this, and reason also, though sadly perverted. The yoke of 'the Kingdom of God' was the high destiny of every true Israelite. Only, to them it lay in external, not internal conformity to the Law of God: 'in meat and drink,' not 'in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.' True, they also perceived, that 'sins of thought' and purpose, though uncommitted, were 'more grievous than even sins of outward deed;' [a Yoma 29 a.] but only in this sense,that each outward sin was traceable to inward dereliction or denial of the Law, 'no man sinneth, unless the spirit of error has first entered into him.' [b Sot. 3 a.] On this ground the punishment of infidelity or apostasy in the next world was endless, while that of actual transgressions was limited in duration. [c Rosh haSh. 17 a.] [2 Comp. Sepher Iqqarim iv. 28.]

As 'righteousness came by the Law,' so also return to it on the part of the sinner. Hence, although Rabbinism had no welcome to the sinner, it was unceasing in its call to repentance and in extolling its merits. All the prophets had prophesied only of repentance. [a Ber. 34 h.] The last pages of the Tractate on the Day of Atonement are full of praises of repentance. It not only averted punishment and prolonged life, but brought good, even the final redemption to Israel and the world at large. It surpassed the observance of all the commandments, and was as meritorious as if one had restored the Temple and Altar, and offered all sacrifices. [b Vayyik. R. 7.] One hour of penitence and good works outweighed the whole world to come. These are only a few of the extravagant statements by which Rabbinism extolled repentance. But, when more closely examined, we find that this repentance, as preceding the free welcome of invitation to the sinner, was only another form of work-righteousness. This is, at any rate, one meaning [1 It would be quite one- sided to represent this as the only meaning, as, it seems to me, Weber has done in his 'System d. altsynagog, palaest. Theol.' This, and a certain defectiveness in the treatment, are among the blemishes in this otherwise interesting and very able posthumous work.] of the saying which conjoined the Law and repentance, and represented them as preceding the Creation. [c Pes. 54 a; Ber. R. 1.] Another would seem derived from a kind of Manichaean view of sin. According to it, God Himself was really the author of the Yetser haRa, or evil impulse [2 So in too many passagesfor enumeration.] ('the law in our members'), for which, indeed, there was an absolute necessity, if the world was to continue. [d Yoma 69 b; Ber. R. 9, and in many places.] [3 Some of these points have already been stated. But it was necessary to repeat them so as to give a connected view.] Hence, 'the penitent' was really 'the great one,' since his strong nature had more in it of the 'evil impulse,' and the conquest of it by the penitent was really of greater merit than abstinence from sin. [e Sanh. 99 a; Maimon. Hil. Tesh. Per. 7.] Thus it came, that the true penitent really occupied a higher place, 'stood where the perfectly righteous could not stand.' [f Sanh. 99 a; Ber. 34 b.] There is then both work and merit in penitence; and we can understand, how 'the gate of penitence is open, even when that of prayer is shut,' [g Yalkut on Ps. xxxii. p. 101 b.] and that these two sentences are not only consistent, but almost cover each other, that the Messianic deliverance would come, if all Israel did righteousness, [h Sanh. 98 a.] and, again, if all Israel repented for only one day; [i Sanh. 98 a; Jer. Taan. 64 a.] or, to put it otherwise, if Israel were all saints, or all sinners. [k Sanh. 98 a.]

We have already touched the point where, as regards repentance, as formerly in regard to forgiveness, the teaching of Christ is in absolute and fundamental contrariety to that of the Rabbis. According to Jesus Christ, when we have done all, we are to feel that we are but unprofitable servants. [m St. Luke xvii. 10.] According to the Rabbis, as St. Paul puts it, 'righteousness cometh by the Law;' and, when it is lost, the Law alone can restore life; [1 So, according to Rabbinism, both in the Sepher Iqqar. and in Menor. Hammaor.] while, according to Christian teaching, it only bringeth death. Thus there was, at the very foundation of religious life, absolute contrariety between Jesus and His contemporaries. Whence, if not from heaven, came a doctrine so novel as that which Jesus made the basis of His Kingdom?

In one respect, indeed, the Rabbinic view was in some measure derived from the Old Testament, though by an external and, therefore, false interpretation of its teaching. In the Old Testament, also, 'repentance' was Teshubhah ( ), 'return;' while, in the New Testament, it is 'change of mind' ( ). It would not be fair here to argue, that the common expression for repenting was 'to do penitence' ( ), since by its side we frequently meet that other: 'to return in penitence' ( ). Indeed, other terms for repentance also occur. Thus Tohu ( ) means repentance in the sense of regret; Charatah, perhaps, more in that of a change of mind; while Teyubha or Teshubhah is the return of repentance. Yet, according to the very common Rabbinic expression, there is a 'gate of repentance' ( ) through which a man must enter, and, even if Charatah be the sorrowing change of mind, it is at most only that gate. Thus, after all, there is more in the 'doing of penitence' than appears at first sight. In point of fact, the full meaning of repentance as Teshubhah, or 'return,' is only realised, when a man has returned from dereliction to observance of the Law. Then, sins of purpose are looked upon as if they had been unintentional, nay, they become even virtuous actions. [a Yoma 86.]

We are not now speaking of the forgiveness of sins. In truth, Rabbinism knew nothing of a forgiveness of sin, free and unconditional, unless in the case of those who had not the power of doing anything for their atonement. Even in the passage which extols most the freeness and the benefits of repentance (the last pages of the Tractate on the Day of Atonement), there is the most painful discussion about sins great and small, about repentance from fear or from love, about sins against commands or against prohibitions; and, in what cases repentance averted, or else only deferred, judgment, leaving final expiation to be wrought by other means. These were: personal sufferings, [b Ber. 5 a, b; Kidd. 81 b.] death, [c Yoma u. s.] or the Day of Atonement. [d Yoma u. s., and many passages.] Besides these, there were always the 'merits of the fathers;' [e In almost innumerable passages.] or, perhaps, some one good work done; [f Ab. Zar. 5 a.] or, at any rate, the brief period of purgatorial pain, which might open the gate of mercy. These are the so-called 'advocates' (Peraqlitin, ) of the penitent sinner. In a classical passage on the subject, [a Mechilta, 76 a.] repentance is viewed in its bearing on four different spiritual [1 In Menorath Hammaor (Ner v. 1. 1, 2) seven kinds of repentance in regard to seven different conditions are mentioned. They are repentance immediately after the commission of sin; after a course of sin, but while there is still the power of sinning; where there is no longer the occasion for sinning; where it is caused by admonition, or fear of danger; where it is caused by actual affliction; where a man is old, and unable to sin; and, lastly, repentance in prospect of death.] conditions, which are supposed to be respectively referred to in Jer. iii. 22; Lev. xvi. 30; Is. xxii. 14; and Ps. lxxxix. 32. The first of these refers to a breach of a command, with immediate and persistent cry for forgiveness, which is at once granted. The second is that of a breach of a prohibition, when, besides repentance, the Day of Atonement is required. The third is that of purposed sin, on which death or cutting off had been threatened, when, besides repentance and the Day of Atonement, sufferings are required; while in open profanation of the Name of God, only death can make final atonement. [b See also Yoma 86 and following.]

But the nature of repentance has yet to be more fully explained. Its gate is sorrow and shame. [c Ber. 12 b; Chag. 5 a.] In that sense repentance may be the work of a moment, 'as in the twinkling of an eye,' [d Pesiqta ed. Bub. p. 163 b.] and a life's sins may obtain mercy by the tears and prayers of a few minutes' repentance.' [2 This is illustrated, among other things, by the history of a Rabbi who, at the close of a dissolute life, became a convert by repentance. The story of the occasion of his repentance is not at all nice in its realistic details, and the tears with which a self-righteous colleague saw the beatification of the penitent are painfully illustrative of the elder brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Ab. Z. 17 a).] To this also refers the beautiful saying, that all which rendered a sacrifice unfit for the altar, such as that it was broken, fitted the penitent for acceptance, since 'the sacrifices of God were a broken and contrite heart.' [f Vayyik. R. 7.] By the side of what may be called contrition, Jewish theology places confession (Viddui, ). This was deemed so integral a part of repentance, that those about to be executed, [g Sanh. vi. 2.]or to die, [h Shabb. 32 a.] were admonished to it. Achan of old had thus obtained pardon. [i Sanh. u. s.] But in the case of the living all this could only be regarded as repentance in the sense of being its preparation or beginning. Even if it were Charatah, or regret at the past, it would not yet be Teshubhah, or return to God; and even if it changed purposed into unintentional sin, arrested judgment, and stayed or banished its Angel, it would still leave a man without those works which are not only his real destiny and merit heaven, but constitute true repentance. For, as sin is ultimately dereliction of the Law, beginning within, so repentance is ultimately return to the Law. In this sense there is a higher and meritorious confession, which not only owns sin but God, and is therefore an inward return to Him. So Adam, when he saw the penitence of Cain, burst into this Psalm, [a Ps. xcii.] 'It is a good thing to confess [1 So it would need to be rendered in this context.] unto the Lord.' [b Ber. R. 22.] [2 Another beautiful allegory is that, in the fear of Adam, as the night closed in upon his guilt, God gave him two stones to rub against each other, which produced the spark of light, the rubbing of these two stones being emblematic of repentance (Pes. 54 a; Ber. R. 11, 12).] Manasseh, when in trouble, called upon God and was heard, [c 2 Chron. xxxiii. 12, 13.] although it is added, that this was only done in order to prove that the door of repentance was open to all. Indeed, the Angels had closed the windows of Heaven against his prayers, but God opened a place for their entrance beneath His throne of glory. [d Debar. R. 2; ed. Warsh. p. 7 a; comp. Sanh. 102 b, last lines, and 103 a.] Similarly, even Pharaoh, who, according to Jewish tradition, made in the Red Sea confession of God, [e Ex. xv. 11.] was preserved, became king of Nineveh, and so brought the Ninevites to true repentance, which verily consisted not merely in sackcloth and fasting, but in restitution, so that every one who had stolen a beam pulled down his whole palace to restore it. [f Taan. 16 a.]

But, after all, inward repentance only arrested the decrees of justice. [g Rosh haSh. 17 b.] That which really put the penitent into right relationship with God was good deeds. The term must here be taken in its widest sense. Fasting is meritorious in a threefold sense: as the expression of humiliation, [h Baba. Mez. 85 a.] as an offering to God, similar to, but better than the fat of sacrifices on the altar, [i Ber. 17 a.] and as preventing further sins by chastening and keeping under the body. [k u. s.] A similar view must be taken of self-inflicted penances. [m Baba Mez. 85 a.] [3 Baba Mez. 84 b (quoted by Weber) is scarcely an instance. The whole of that part of the Talmud is specially repugnant, from its unsavory character and grossly absurd stories. In one of the stories in Baba Mez. 85, a Rabbi tries by sitting over the fire in an oven, whether he has become impervious to the fire of Gehinnom. For thirty days he was successful, but after that it was noticed his thighs were singed, whence he was called 'the little one with the singed thighs.'] On the other hand, there was restitution to those who had been wronged, as a woman once put it to her husband, to the surrender of one's 'girdle.' [n Tanch. Noach 4.] [4 But such restitution was sometimes not insisted on, for the sake of encouraging penitents.] Nay, it must be of even more than was due in strict law. [o See the discussion in B. Mez. 37 a.] To this must be added public acknowledgment of public sins. If a person had sinned in one direction, he must not only avoid it for the future, [5 Rabbinism has an apt illustration of this in the saying, that all the baths of lustration would not cleanse a man, so long as he continued holding in his hand that which had polluted him (Taan. 16 a).] but aim at doing all the more in the-opposite direction, or of overcoming sin in the same circumstances of temptation. [6 These statements are all so thoroughly Rabbinic that it is needless to make special references.] Beyond all this were the really good works, whether occupation with the Law [a Vayyik. R. 3, towards the end.] or outward deeds, which constituted perfect repentance. Thus we read, [b In B. Bab. 10 a.] that every time Israel gave alms or did any kindness, they made in this world great peace, and procured great Paracletes between Israel and their Father in Heaven. Still farther, we are told [c Vayyik. R. 25, beg. ed. Warsh. p. 38 a.] what a sinner must do who would be pardoned. If he had been accustomed daily to read one column in the Bible, let him read two; if to learn one chapter in the Mishnah, let him learn two. But if he be not learned enough to do either, let him become an administrator for the congregation, or a public distributor of alms. Nay, so far was the doctrine of external merit carried, that to be buried in the land of Israel was supposed to ensure forgiveness of sins. [d Tanch. on Gen. xlviii.] This may, finally, be illustrated by an instance, which also throws some light on the parable of Dives in Hades. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish had in early life been the associate of two robbers. But he repented, 'returned to his God with all his heart, with fasting and prayer, was early and late before God, and busied himself with the Torah (Law) and the commandments.' Then both he and his former companions died, when they saw him in glory, while themselves were in the lowest hell. And when they reminded God, that with Him there was no regard of persons, He pointed to the Rabbi's penitence and their own impenitence. On this they asked for respite, that they might 'do great penitence,' when they were told that there was no space for repentance after death. This is farther enforced by a parable to the effect, that a man, who is going into the wilderness, must provide himself with bread and water while in the inhabited country, if he would not perish in the desert.

Thus, in one and another respect, Rabbinic teaching about the need of repentance runs close to that of the Bible. But the vital difference between Rabbinism and the Gospel lies in this: that whereas Jesus Christ freely invited all sinners, whatever their past, assuring them of welcome and grace, the last word of Rabbinism is only despair, and a kind of Pessimism. For, it is expressly and repeatedly declared in the case of certain sins, and, characteristically, of heresy, that, even if a man genuinely and truly repented, he must expect immediately to die, indeed, his death would be the evidence that his repentance was genuine, since, though such a sinner might turn from his evil, it would be impossible for him, if he lived, to lay hold on the good, and to do it. [e Ab. Zar. 17 a.]

It is in the light of what we have just learned concerning the Rabbinic views of forgiveness and repentance that the call of Levi-Matthew must be read, if we would perceive its full meaning. There is no need to suppose that it took place immediately on the cure of the paralytic. On the contrary, the more circumstantial account of St. Mark implies, that some time had intervened. [a St. Mark ii. 13.] If our suggestion be correct, that it was winter when the paralytic was healed at Capernaum, we may suppose it to have been the early spring-time of that favoured district, when Jesus 'went forth again by the seaside.' And with this, as we shall see, best agrees the succession of afterevents.

Few, if any, could have enjoyed better opportunities for hearing, and quietly thinking over the teaching of the Prophet of Nazareth, than Levi-Matthew. There is no occasion for speculating which was his original, or whether the second name was added after his conversion, since in Galilee it was common to have two names, one the strictly Jewish, the other the Galilean. [b Gitt. 34 b.] Nor do we wonder, that in the sequel the first or purely Jewish name of Levi was dropped, and only that of Matthew (Matti, Mattai, Matteya, Mattithyah), retained. The latter which is the equivalent of Nathanael, or of the Greek Theodore (gift of God), seems to have been frequent. We read that it was that of a former Temple-official, [c Sheq. v. 1.] and of several Rabbis. [d Eduy. ii. 5; Yoma 84 a.] It is perhaps of more interest, that the Talmud [e Sanh. 43 a, in the older editions; comp, Chesron. haShas, p. 22 b.] names five as the disciples of Jesus, and among them these two whom we can clearly identify: Matthew [1 A ridiculous story is told that Matthew endeavored to avert sentence of death by a play on his name, quoting Ps. xlii. 2: 'Mathai (in our version, 'When') I shall come and appear before God;' to which the judges replied by similarly adapting Ps. xli. 5: 'Mathai (in our version, 'When') he shall die, and his name perish.'] and Thaddaeus. [2 The other three disciples are named: Neqai, Netser, and Boni, or Buni. In Taan. 20 a a miracle is related which gave to Boni the name of Nicodemus (Naqdimon). But I regard this as some confusion, of which there is much in connection with the name of Nicodemus in the Talmud. According to the Talmud, like Matthew, the other three tried to save their lives by punning appeals to Scripture, similar to that of St. Matthew. Thus, Neqai quotes Exod. xxiii. 7, 'Naqi ('the innocent' in our version) and the righteous shalt thou not slay,' to which the judges replied by Ps. x. 8, 'in the secret places he shall slay Naqi ('the innocent' in our version'). Again, Netser pleads Is. xi. 1: 'Netser (a branch) shall grow out of his roots,' to which the judges reply, Is. xiv. 19: 'Thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable Netser' (branch), while Boni tries to save his life by a pun on Exod. iv. 22: 'My first-born Beni (in our version, 'my son') is Israel,' to which the judges reply by quoting the next verse, 'I will slay Binkha (in our version, 'thy son'), thy first-born!' If the Hebrew Beni was sometimes pronounced Boni, this may account for the Grecianised form Boanerges ('sons of thunder') for Beney-Regosh, or Regasha. In Hebrew the root scarcely means even 'noise' (see Gesenius sub ), but it has that meaning in the Aramaean. Kautzsch (Gram. d. Bibl.-Aram.) suggests the word regaz 'anger,' 'angry impetuosity.' But the suggestion does not commend itself.]

Sitting before [3 .] his custom-house, as on that day when Jesus called him, Matthew must have frequently heard Him as He taught by the sea-shore. For this would be the best, and therefore often chosen, place for the purpose. Thither not only the multitude from Capernaum could easily follow; but here was the landing-place for the many ships which traversed the Lake, or coasted from town to town. And this not only for them who had business in Capernaum or that neighbourhood, but also for those who would then strike the great road of Eastern commerce, which led from Damascus to the harbours of the West. Touching the Lake in that very neighbourhood, it turned thence, northwards and westwards, to join what was termed the Upper Galilean road. We know much, and yet, as regards details, perhaps too little about those 'tolls, dues, and customs,' which made the Roman administration such sore and vexatious exaction to all 'Provincials,' and which in Judaea loaded the very name of publican with contempt and hatred. They who cherished the gravest religious doubts as to the lawfulness of paying any tribute to Caesar, as involving in principle recognition of a bondage to which they would fain have closed their eyes, and the substitution of heathen kingship for that of Jehovah, must have looked on the publican as the very embodiment of antinationalism. But perhaps men do not always act under the constant consciousness of such abstract principles. Yet the endless vexatious interferences, the unjust and cruel exactions, the petty tyranny, and the extortionate avarice, from which there was neither defence nor appeal, would make it always well- nigh unbearable. It is to this that the Rabbis so often refer. If 'publicans') were disqualified from being judges or witnesses, it was, at least so far as regarded witnessbearing, because 'they exacted more than was due.' [a Sanh. 25 b.] Hence also it was said, that repentance was specially difficult for tax-gatherers and custom-house officers. [b Baba K. 94 b.] [1 With them herdsmen were conjoined, on account of their frequent temptations to dishonesty, and their wild lives far from ordinances.]

It is of importance to notice, that the Talmud distinguishes two classes of 'publicans': the tax-gatherer in general (Gabbai), and the Mokhes, or Mokhsa, who was specially the douanier or custom-house official. [2 Wunsche is mistaken in making the Gabbai the superior, and the Mokhes the subordinate, tax-collector. See Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb, iii. p. 116 a.] Although both classes fall under the Rabbinic ban, the douanier, such as Matthew was, is the object of chief execration. And this, because his exactions were more vexatious, and gave more scope to rapacity. The Gabbai, or tax-gatherer, collected the regular dues, which consisted of ground-, income-, and poll-tax. The groundtax amounted to one-tenth of all grain and one-fifth of the wine and fruit grown; partly paid in kind, and partly commuted into money. The income-tax amounted to 1 per cent.; while the head-money, or poll-tax, was levied on all persons, bond and free, in the case of men from the age of fourteen, in that of women from the age of twelve, up to that of sixty-five.

If this offered many opportunities for vexatious exactions and rapacious injustice, the Mokhes might inflict much greater hardship upon the poor people. There was tax and duty upon all imports and exports; on all that was bought and sold; bridge-money, road-money, harbour-dues, town-dues, &c. The classical reader knows the ingenuity which could invent a tax, and find a name for every kind of exaction, such as on axles, wheels, pack-animals, pedestrians, roads, highways; on admission to markets; on carriers, bridges, ships, and quays; on crossing rivers, on dams, on licences, in short, on such a variety of objects, that even the research of modern scholars has not been able to identify all the names. On goods the ad valorem duty amounted to from 2 1/2 to 5, and on articles of luxury to even 12 1/2 per cent. But even this was as nothing, compared to the vexation of being constantly stopped on the journey, having to unload all one's pack-animals, when every bale and package was opened, and the contents tumbled about, private letters opened, and the Mokhes ruled supreme in his insolence and rapacity.

The very word Mokhes seems, in its root-meaning, associated with the idea of oppression and injustice. He was literally, as really, an oppressor. The Talmud charges them with gross partiality, remitting in the case of those to whom they wished to show favour, and exacting from those who were not their favourites. They were a criminal race, to which Lev. xx. 5 applied. It was said, that there never was a family which numbered a Mokhes, in which all did not become such. Still, cases are recorded when a religious publican would extend favour to Rabbis, or give them timely notice to go into hiding. If one belonging to the sacred association (a Chabher) became either a Gabbai or a Mokhes, he was at once expelled, although he might be restored on repentance. [a Jer. Dem. 23 a; comp. Bekhor. 31 a.] That there was ground for such rigour, appears from such an occurrence, [b In B. Kamma x. 2.] as when a Mokhes took from a defenceless person his ass, giving him another, and very inferior, animal for it. Against such unscrupulous oppressors every kind of deception was allowed; goods might be declared to be votive offerings, [c Nedar. iii. 4.] or a person pass his slave as his son. [d Jer. Kidd. 66 b.]