53. Tos. Shabb. xiv.
54. Another reason also is, however, mentioned for his prohibition.
But if traditionalism was not to be committed to writing by Moses, measures had been taken to
prevent oblivion or inaccuracy. Moses had always repeated a traditional law successively to
Aaron, to his sons, and to the elders of the people, and they again in turn to each other, in such
wise, that Aaron heard the Mishnah four times, his sons three times, the Elders twice, and the
people once. But even this was not all, for by successive repetitions (of Aaron, his sons, and the
Elders) the people also heard it four times.55 And, before his death, Moses had summoned any
one to come forward, if he had forgotten aught of what he had heard and learned.56 But these
`Halakhoth of Moses from Sinai' do not make up the whole of traditionalism. According to
Maimonides, it consists of five, but more critically of three classes.57 The first of these
comprises both such ordinances as are found in the Bible itself, and the so-called Halakhoth of
Moses from Sinai - that is, such laws and usages as prevailed from time immemorial, and
which, according to the Jewish view, had been orally delivered to, but not written down by
Moses. For these, therefore, no proof was to be sought in Scripture - at most support, or
confirmatory allusion (Asmakhtu).58 Nor were these open to discussion. The second class
formed the `oral law,'59 or the `traditional teaching'60 in the stricter sense. To this class belonged
all that was supposed to be implied in, or that could be deduced from, the Law of Moses.61 The
latter contained, indeed, in substance or germ, everything; but it had not been brought out, till
circumstances successfully evolved what from the first had been provided in principle. For this
class of ordinances reference to, and proof from, Scripture was required. Not so for the
third class of ordinances, which were `the hedge' drawn by the Rabbis around the Law, to
prevent any breach of the Law or customs, to ensure their exact observance, or to meet
peculiar circumstances and dangers. These ordinances constituted `the sayings of the Scribes'62
or `of the Rabbis'63 64 - and were either positive in their character (Teqqanoth), or else
negative (Gezeroth from gazar `to cut off'). Perhaps the distinction of these two cannot
always be strictly carried out. But it was probably to this third class especially, confessedly
unsupported by Scripture, that these words of Christ referred:65 `All therefore whatsoever they
tell you, that do and observe; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they
bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with their
finger they will not move them away (set in motion).'66 This view has two-fold confirmation.
For, this third class of Halakhic ordinances was the only one open to the discussion of the
learned, the ultimate decision being according to the majority. Yet it possessed practically
(though not theoretically) the same authority as the other two classes. In further confirmation of
our view the following may be quoted: `A Gezerah (i.e. this third class of ordinances) is not to
be laid on the congregation, unless the majority of the congregation is able to bear it'67 - words
which read like a commentary on those of Jesus, and show that these burdens could be laid on,
or moved away, according to the varying judgment or severity of a Rabbinic College.68
55. Erub. 54 b.
56. Deut. i. 5.