strangely incongruous to Jewish thinking. And yet Jewish tradition may here prove both
illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,18 was a settled
conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, 'the
tower of the flock.'19 This Migdal Eder was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks
which pastured on the barren sheepground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town,
on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah20 leads to the conclusion, that the
flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple -sacrifices,21 and, accordingly, that
the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were
under the ban of Rabbinism,22 on account of their necessary isolation from religious
ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if
not absolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer, that these
flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days
before the Passover - that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average
rainfall is nearly greatest.23 Thus, Jewish tradition in some dim manner apprehended the
first revelation of the Messiah from that Migdal Eder, where shepherds watched the
Temple- flocks all the year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a
coincidence, it is needless to speak.
18. In the curious story of His birth, related in the Jer. Talmud (Ber. ii. 3), He is said to
have been born in 'the royal castle of Bethlehem;' while in the parallel narrative in the
Midr. on Lament. i. 16, ed. W. p. 64 b) the somewhat mysterious expression is used
)βρ( τρψββ. But we must keep in view the Rabbinic statement that, even if a castle falls
down, it is still called a castle (Yalkut, vol. ii. p. 60 b).
19. Targum Pseudo-Jon. On Gen. xxxv. 21.
20. Shek. vii. 4.
21. In fact the Mishnah (Baba K. vii. 7) expressly forbids the keeping of flocks
throughout the land of Israel, except in the wilderness - and the only flocks otherwise
kept, would be those for the Temple -services (Baba K. 80 a).
22. This disposes of an inapt quotation (from Delitzsch) by Dr. Geikie. No one could
imagine, that the Talmudic passages in question could apply to such shepherds as these.
23. The mean of 22 seasons in Jerusalem amounted to 4.718 inches in December, 5.479
in January, and 5.207 in February (see a very interesting paper by Dr. Chaplin in Quart.
Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, January, 1883). For 1876-77 we have these startling figures:
mean for December, .490; for January, 1.595; for February, 8.750 - and, similarly, in
other years. And so we read: 'Good the year in which Tebheth (December) is without rain'
(Taan. 6 b). Those who have copied Lightfoot's quotations about the flocks not lying out
during the winter months ought, at least, to have known that the reference in the
Talmudic passages is expressly to the flocks which pastured in 'the wilderness'
(ωλ) τωψρβδµ Νη). But even so, the statement, as so many others of the kind, is not
accurate. For, in the Talmud two opinions are expressed. According to one, the
'Midbariyoth,' or 'animals of the wilderness,' are those which go to the open at the
Passovert ime, and return at the first rains (about November); while, on the other hand,
Rabbi maintains, and, as it seems, more authoritatively, that the wilderness-flocks remain
in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season - i.e. all the year round
(Bezah 40 a). Comp. also Tosephta Bezah iv. 6. A somewhat different explanation is
given in Jer. Bezah 63 b.