SEV Biblia, Chapter 15:2
¿Por qu tus discípulos traspasan la tradicin de los ancianos? Porque no se lavan las manos cuando comen pan.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Matthew 15:2
Verse 2. Elders] Rulers and magistrates among the Jews. For they wash not their hands] What frivolous nonsense! These Pharisees had nothing which their malice could fasten on in the conduct or doctrine of our blessed Lord and his disciples, and therefore they must dispute about washing of hands! All sorts of Pharisees are troublesome people in religious society; and the reason is, they take more pleasure in blaming others than in amending themselves. The tradition of the elders] The word paradosiv, tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation! This supplementary matter has been called paradosiv, from paradidomai, to deliver from hand to hand-to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado, to deliver, especially from one to another;-to hand down. Among the Jews TRADITION signifies what is also called the oral law, which they distinguish from the written law: this last contains the Mosaic precepts, as found in the Pentateuch: the former, the traditions of the elders, i.e. traditions, or doctrines, that had been successively handed down from Moses through every generation, but not committed to writing.
The Jews feign that, when GOD gave Moses the written law, he gave him also the oral law, which is the interpretation of the former. This law, Moses at first delivered to Aaron then to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar; and, after these to the seventy-two elders, who were six of the most eminent men chosen out of each of the twelve tribes. These seventy-two, with Moses and Aaron, delivered it again to all the heads of the people, and afterwards to the congregation at large. They say also that, before Moses died, he delivered this oral law, or system of traditions, to JOSHUA, and Joshua to the ELDERS which succeeded him-THEY to the Prophets, and the PROPHETS to each other, till it came to JEREMIAH, who delivered it to BARUCH his scribe, who repeated it to Ezra, who delivered it to the men of the great synagogue, the last of whom was SIMON the Just. By Simon the Just it was delivered to ANTIGONUS of Socho; by him to JOSE the son of Jochanan; by him to JOSE, the son of Joezer; by him to NATHAN the Arbelite, and Joshua the son of Perachiah; and by them to JUDAH the son of Tabbai, and Simeon, the son of Shatah; and by them to SHEMAIAH and ABTALION; and by them to HILLEL; and by Hillel to SIMEON his son, the same who took Christ in his arms when brought to the temple to be presented to the Lord: by SIMEON it was delivered to GAMALIEL his son, the preceptor of St. Paul, who delivered it to SIMEON his son, and he to Rab. JUDAH HAKKODESH his son, who compiled and digested it into the book which is called the MISHNA; to explain which the two Talmuds, called the Jerusalem and Babylyonish Talmuds, were compiled, which are also called the Gemera or complement, because by these the oral law or Mishnah is fully explained. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed about A. D. 300; and the Babylonish Talmud about the beginning of the sixth century. This Talmud was printed at Amsterdam in 12 vols. folio. These contain the whole of the traditions of the elders, and have so explained, or rather frittered away, the words of God, that our Lord might well say, Ye have made the word of God of no effect by your traditions. In what estimation these are held by the Jews, the following examples will prove: "The words of the scribes are lovely beyond the words of the law: for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty." Hierus. Berac. fol. 3.
"He that shall say, There are no phylacteries, though he thus transgress the words of the law, he is not guilty; but he that shall say, There are five Totaphot, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is guilty."A prophet and an elder, to what are they likened! To a king sending two of his servants into a province; of one he writes thus: Unless he show you my seal, believe him not; for thus it is written of the prophet: He shall show thee a sign; but of the elders thus: According to the law which they shall teach thee, for I will confirm their words."-See Prideaux. Con. vol. ii.
p. 465, and Lightfoot's Hor. Talmud.
They wash not their hands] On washing of hands, before and after meat, the Jews laid great stress: they considered eating with unwashed hands to be no ordinary crime; and therefore, to induce men to do it, they feigned that an evil spirit, called Shibta atby , who sits on the hands by night, has a right to sit on the food of him who eats without washing his hands, and make it hurtful to him! They consider the person who undervalues this rite to be no better than a heathen, and consequently excommunicate him. See many examples of this doctrine in Schoettgen and Lightfoot.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? etc.] Having observed, for some little time, the conduct of Christ and his disciples, they thought proper to take no notice of him as yet, but of them; and of them, not as transgressing any command of God, but of men; not being able to charge them with any breach of the law of God: and could they have done this with any show of truth, yet they might choose rather to accuse them of breaking the rules of the elders; by whom they mean, not the elders of the present sanhedrim, but Hillell and Shammai; the two heads of their famous schools, and other ancient doctors; from whom were delivered by one to another, certain rules and laws of their own devising, which had no foundation in the word of God; and of these the Scribes and Pharisees were more tenacious, than of the Scriptures; and indeed they preferred them before them: most extravagant are their praises and commendations of these unwritten traditions; thus they say f873 , Know then, that the words of the Scribes are more lovely than the words of the law: for, says R. Tarphon, if a man does not read, he only transgresses an affirmative; but if he transgresses the words of the school of Hillell, he is guilty of death, because he hath broke down a hedge, and a serpent shall bite him. It is a tradition of R.
Ishmael, the words of the law have in them both prohibition and permission; some of them are light, and some heavy, but the words of the Scribes are all of them heavy ynqz yrbd yrwmh , weightier are the words of the elders, than the words of the prophets.
And elsewhere f874 , this advice is given; My son, attend to the words of the Scribes, more than to the words of the law; for in the words of the law, are affirmatives and negatives; but the words of the Scribes yrpws yrbd l[ rbw[h lk , everyone that transgresses the words of the Scribes, is guilty of death.
This is what they charge the disciples with here, and could they have had their wills, would have put them to death for it: the particular tradition, they accuse them with the breach of, follows, for they wash not their hands when they eat bread ; common bread, an ordinary meal; for, for eating of holy things, more than bare washing was required, even an immersion of them in water; but the hands were to be washed before eating common food, whether they were known to be defiled or not: bread is particularly mentioned, as including all sorts of food, and as distinct from fruit; for, for eating of common fruit, there was no need of washing of hands; he that washed his hands for eating fruit, was reckoned an ostentatious man f875 , who were the first authors of this tradition, it is not certain; it is said f876 , that Hillell and Shammai decreed ydy twrhj l[ , concerning the purification of the hands; R. Jose ben R. Bon, in the name of R.
Levi, says, so was the tradition before, but they forgot it; and these two stood up, and agreed with the minds of the former ones. However, it is a certain point, that the washing of the hands, and the dipping of them, are yrpws yrbdm , from the words of the Scribes f877 .
The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes f878 : R. Jose says, whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.
And elsewhere it is said by them f879 , that he that blesseth (food) with defiled hands, is guilty of death.
And again f880 , whoever does not wash his hands as is fitting, although he is punished above, he shall be punished below.
And to fright people into an observance of this tradition, they talk of Shibta, a sort of an evil spirit, that hurts such as eat without washing their hands: they say, he sits upon their hands, and upon their bread, and leaves something behind, which is very dangerous f881 ; and it is recorded f882 , to the praise of R. Akiba, that he chose rather to die, than to transgress this tradition; for being in prison, and in want of water, what little he had, he washed his hands with it, instead of drinking it. Eleazar ben Chanac was excommunicated for despising the tradition concerning washing of hands; and when he died, the sanhedrim sent and put a great stone upon his coffin, to show, that he that died in his excommunication, the sanhedrim stoned his coffin f883 : but of this, See Gill Mark 7:3 .
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-9 - Additions to God's laws reflect upon his wisdom, as if he had left ou something which was needed, and which man could supply; in one way of other they always lead men to disobey God. How thankful ought we to be for the written word of God! Never let us think that the religion of the Bible can be improved by any human addition, either in doctrine or practice. Our blessed Lord spoke of their traditions as inventions of their own, and pointed out one instance in which this was very clear that of their transgressing the fifth commandment. When a parent' wants called for assistance, they pleaded, that they had devoted to the temple all they could spare, even though they did not part with it, an therefore their parents must expect nothing from them. This was makin the command of God of no effect. The doom of hypocrites is put in little compass; "In vain do they worship me." It will neither pleas God, nor profit themselves; they trust in vanity, and vanity will be their recompence.
Greek Textus Receptus
δια 1223 PREP τι 5101 I-ASN οι 3588 T-NPM μαθηται 3101 N-NPM σου 4675 P-2GS παραβαινουσιν 3845 5719 V-PAI-3P την 3588 T-ASF παραδοσιν 3862 N-ASF των 3588 T-GPM πρεσβυτερων 4245 A-GPM ου 3756 PRT-N γαρ 1063 CONJ νιπτονται 3538 5731 V-PMI-3P τας 3588 T-APF χειρας 5495 N-APF αυτων 846 P-GPM οταν 3752 CONJ αρτον 740 N-ASM εσθιωσιν 2068 5725 V-PAS-3P
Vincent's NT Word Studies
2. Wash not their hands. Washing before meals was along regarded as a commandment; washing after meals only as a duty. By and by the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary. The distinctive designation for washing after meals was the lifting of the hands; while for washing before meat a term was used which meant, literally, to rub. If "holy," i.e., sacrificial food was to be partaken of, a complete immersion of the hands, and not a mere "uplifting" was prescribed. As the purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolor or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose (see John ii. 6). It was the practice to draw water out of these with a kind of ladle or bucket - very often of glass - which must hold at least one and a half egg-shells (compare draw out now, John ii. 8). The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, etc. The hands were lifted up so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to insure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the fist,) provided the hand that rubbed had been affused; otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the "first affusion," which was all that originally was required when the hands were not levitically "defiled," the water had to run down to the wrist. If the water remained short of the wrist, the hands were not clean. See on Mark vii. 3 (Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus").
Robertson's NT Word Studies
15:2 {The tradition of the elders} (ten paradosin twn presbuterwn). this was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in _ex cathedra_ fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. this item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (niptontai, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. qen the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (#Joh 2:6-8). So it went on _ad infinitum_. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal Sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.
