Mokhes: Difference between revisions

From PreparingYou
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The mokhes were divided into two different groups: the great mokhes and the little mokhes.
{{gabbaipic}}


According to Alfred Edershiems' '''The life and times of Jesus the messiah''', chapter xvii the call,


<blockquote>
{{mokhes}}
"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. [2464] Although both classes fall under the Rabbinic ban, the douanier<Ref>Customs is an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting tariffs and for controlling the flow of goods, including animals, transports, personal effects, and hazardous items, into and out of a country.</Ref> - 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 ground-tax 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 2½ to 5, and on articles of luxury to even 12½ 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. [2465] That there was ground for such rigour, appears from such an occurrence, [2466] as when a Mokhes took from a defenseless 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, [2467] or a person pass his slave as his son. [2468]
{{gabbai}}


The Mokhes was called great' [2469] if he employed substitutes, and small' if he stood himself at the receipt of custom. Till the time of Cæsar the taxes were farmed in Rome, at the highest bidding, mostly by a joint-stock company of the knightly order, which employed publicans under them. But by a decree of Cæsar, the taxes of Judæa were no longer farmed, but levied by publicans in Judæa, and paid directly to the Government, the officials being appointed by the provincials themselves. [2470] [2471] This was, indeed, a great alleviation, although it perhaps made the tax-gatherers only more unpopular, as being the direct officials of the heathen power. This also explains how, if the Mishnah forbids [2472] even the changing of money from the guilt-laden chest of a Mokhes, or douanier, the Gemara [2473] adds, that such applied to custom-house officers who either did not keep to the tax appointed by the Government, or indeed to any fixed tax, and to those who appointed themselves to such office - that is, as we take it, who would volunteer for the service, in the hope of making profit on their own account. An instance is, however, related of a Gabbai, or tax-gatherer, becoming a celebrated Rabbi, though the taint of his former calling deterred the more rigid of his colleagues from intercourse with him. [2474] On heathen feast days toll was remitted to those who came to the festival. [2475] Sometimes this was also done from kindness. [2476] The following story may serve as a final illustration of the popular notions, alike about publicans and about the merit of good works. The son of a Mokhes and that of a very pious man had died. The former received from his townsmen all honour at his burial, while the latter was carried unmourned to the grave. This anomaly was Divinely explained by the circumstance, that the pious man had committed one transgression, and the publican had done one good deed. But a few days afterwards a further vision and dream was vouchsafed to the survivors, when the pious was seen walking in gardens beside water-brooks, while the publican was described stretching out his tongue towards the river to quench his thirst, but unable to reach the refreshing stream. [2477]


What has been described in such detail, will cast a peculiar light on the call of Matthew by the Saviour of sinners. For, we remember that Levi-Matthew was not only a publican,' but of the worst kind: a Mokhes' or douanier; a little Mokhes,' who himself stood at his custom-house; one of the class to whom, as we are told, repentance offered special difficulties. And, of all such officials, those who had to take toll from ships were perhaps the worst, if we are to judge by the proverb: Woe to the ship which sails without having paid the dues.' [2478] And yet, after all, Matthew may have been only one of that numerous class to whom religion is merely a matter quite outside of, and in another region from life, and who, having first gone astray through ignorance, feel themselves ever farther repelled, or rather shut out, by the narrow, harsh uncharitableness of those whom they look upon as the religious and pious.


But now quite another day had dawned on him. The Prophet of Nazareth was not like those other great Rabbis, or their pietist, self-righteous imitators. There was that about Him which not only aroused the conscience, but drew the heart - compelling, not repelling. What He said opened a new world. His very appearance bespoke Him not harsh, self-righteous, far away, but the Helper, if not even the Friend, of sinners. There was not between Him and one like Matthew, the great, almost impassable gap of repentance. He had seen and heard Him in the Synagogue - and who that had heard His Words, or witnessed His power, could ever forget, or lose the impression? The people, the rulers, even the evil spirits, had owned His authority. But in the Synagogue Jesus was still the Great One, far-away from him; and he, Levi-Matthew, the little Mokhes' of Capernaum, to whom, as the Rabbis told him, repentance was next to impossible. But out there, in the open, by the seashore, it was otherwise. All unobserved by others, he observed all, and could yield himself, without reserve, to the impression. Now, it was an eager multitude that came from Capernaum; then, a long train bearing sufferers, to whom gracious, full, immediate relief was granted - whether they were Rabbinic saints, or sinners. And still more gracious than His deeds were His Words.
And so Matthew sat before his custom-house, and hearkened and hoped. Those white-sailed ships would bring crowds of listeners; the busy caravan on that highway would stop, and its wayfarers turn aside to join the eager multitude - to hear the Word or see the Word. Surely, it was not a time for buying and selling,' and Levi would have little work, and less heart for it at his custom-house. Perhaps he may have witnessed the call of the first Apostles; he certainly must have known the fishermen and shipowners of Capernaum. And now it appeared, as if Jesus had been brought still nearer to Matthew. For, the great ones of Israel, the Scribes of the Pharisees,' [2479] and their pietest followers, had combined against Him, and would exclude Him, not on account of sin, but on account of the sinners. And so, we take it, long before that eventful day which for ever decided his life, Matthew had, in heart, become the disciple of Jesus. Only he dared not, could not, have hoped for personal recognition - far less for call to discipleship. But when it came, and Jesus fixed on him that look of love which searched the inmost deep of the soul, and made Him the true Fisher of men, it needed not a moment's thought or consideration. When he spake it, Follow Me,' the past seemed all swallowed up in the present heaven of bliss. He said not a word, for his soul was in the speechless surprise of unexpected love and grace; but he rose up, left the custom-house, and followed Him. That was a gain that day, not of Matthew alone, but of all the poor and needy in Israel - nay, of all sinners from among men, to whom the door of heaven was opened. And, verily, by the side of Peter, as the stone, we place Levi-Matthew, as typical of those rafters laid on the great foundation, and on which is placed the flooring of that habitation of the Lord, which is His Church.
It could not have been long after this - probably almost immediately - that the memorable gathering took place in the house of Matthew, which gave occasion to that cavil of the Pharisaic Scribes, which served further to bring out the meaning of Levi's call. For, opposition ever brings into clearer light positive truth, just as judgment comes never alone, but always conjoined with display of higher mercy. It was natural that all the publicans around should, after the call of Matthew, have come to his house to meet Jesus. Even from the lowest point of view, the event would give them a new standing in the Jewish world, in relation to the Prophet of Nazareth. And it was characteristic that Jesus should improve such opportunity. When we read of sinners' as in company with these publicans, it is not necessary to think of gross or open offenders, though such may have been included. For, we know what such a term may have included in the Pharisaic vocabulary. Equally characteristic was it, that the Rabbinists should have addressed their objection as to fellowship with such, not to the Master, but to the disciples. Perhaps, it was not only, nor chiefly, from moral cowardice, though they must have known what the reply of Jesus would have been. On the other hand, there was wisdom, or rather cunning, in putting it to the disciples. They were but initial learners - and the question was one not so much of principle, as of acknowledged Jewish propriety. Had they been able to lodge this cavil in their minds, it would have fatally shaken the confidence of the disciples in the Master; and, if they could have been turned aside, the cause of the new Christ would have been grievously injured, if not destroyed. It was with the same object, that they shortly afterwards enlisted the aid of the well-meaning, but only partially-instructed disciples of John on the question of fasting, [2480] which presented a still stronger consensus of Jewish opinion as against Christ, all the more telling, that here the practice of John seemed to clash with that of Jesus.
But then John was at the time in prison, and passing through the temporary darkness of a thick cloud towards the fuller light. But Jesus could not leave His disciples to answer for themselves. What, indeed, could or would they have had to say? And He ever speaks for us, when we cannot answer for ourselves. From their own standpoint and contention - nay, also in their own form of speech - He answered the Pharisees. And He not only silenced their gain-saying, but further opened up the meaning of His acting - nay, His very purpose and Mission. No need have they who are strong and in health [2481] of a physician, but they who are ill.' It was the very principle of Pharisaism which He thus set forth, alike as regarded their self-exclusion from Him and His consorting with the diseased. And, as the more Hebraic St. Matthew adds, applying the very Rabbinic formula, so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information: Go and learn!' [2482] Learn what? What their own Scriptures meant; what was implied in the further prophetic teaching, as correction of a one-sided literalism and externalism that misinterpreted the doctrine of sacrifices - learn that fundamental principle of the spiritual meaning of the Law as explanatory of its mere letter, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' They knew no mercy that was not sacrifice [2483] - with merit attaching; He no sacrifice, real and acceptable to God, that was not mercy. And this also is a fundamental principle of the Old Testament, as spiritually understood; and, being such a fundamental principle, He afterwards again applied this saying of the prophet [2484] to His own mode of viewing and treating the Sabbath-question. [2485]
This was one aspect of it, as Jesus opened up anew the Old Testament, of which their key of knowledge had only locked the door. There was yet another and higher, quite explaining and applying alike this saying and the whole Old Testament, and thus His Own Mission. And this was the fullest unfolding and highest vindication of it: For, I am not come to call righteous men, but sinners.' [2486] The introduction of the words to repentance' in some manuscripts of St. Matthew and St. Mark shows, how early the full meaning of Christ's words was misinterpreted by prosaic apologetic attempts, that failed to fathom their depth. For, Christ called sinners to better and higher than repentance, even to Himself and His Kingdom; and to emendate' the original record by introducing these words from another Gospel [2487] marks a purpose, indicative of retrogression. And this saying of Christ concerning the purpose of His Incarnation and Work: to call not righteous men, but sinners,' also marks the standpoint of the Christ, and the relation which each of us, according to his view of self, of righteousness, and of sin - personally, voluntarily, and deliberately - occupies towards the Kingdom and the Christ.
The history of the call of St. Matthew has also another, to some extent subordinate, historical interest, for it was no doubt speedily followed by the calling of the other Apostles. [2488] This is the chronological succession in the Synoptic narratives. It also affords some insight into the history of those, whom the Lord chose as bearers of His Gospel. The difficulties connected with tracing the family descent or possible relationship between the Apostles are so great, that we must forego all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion. Without, therefore, entering on details about the genealogy of the Apostles, and the varied arrangement of their names in the Gospels, which, with whatever uncertainty remaining in the end, may be learned from any work on the subject, some points at least seem clear. First, it appears that only the calling of those to the Apostolate is related, which in some sense is typical, viz. that of Peter and Andrew, of James and John, of Philip and Bartholomew (or Bar Telamyon, or Temalyon, [2489] generally supposed the same as Nathanael), and of Matthew the publican. Yet, secondly, there is something which attaches to each of the others. Thomas, who is called Didymus (which means twin'), is closely connected with Matthew, both in St. Luke's Gospel and in that of St. Matthew himself. James is expressly named as the son of Alphæus or Clopas. [2490] [2491] This we know to have been also the name of Matthew-Levi's father. But, as the name was a common one, no inference can be drawn from it, and it does not seem likely that the father of Matthew was also that of James, Judas, and Simon, for these three seem to have been brothers. Judas is designated by St. Matthew as Lebbaeus, from the Hebrew lebh, a heart, and is also named, both by him and by St. Mark, Thaddæus - a term which, however, we would not derive, as is commonly done, from thad, the female breast,' but following the analogy of the Jewish name Thodah, from praise.' [2492] In that case both Lebbæus and Thaddæus would point to the heartiness and the Thanksgiving of the Apostle, and hence to his character. St. Luke simply designates him Judas of James, which means that he was the brother (less probably, the son) of James. [2493] Thus his real name would have been Judas Lebbæus, and his surname Thaddæus. Closely connected with these two we have in all the Gospels, Simon, surnamed Zelotes or Cananæan (not Canaanite), both terms indicating his original connection with the Galilean Zealot party, the Zealots for the Law.' [2494] His position in the Apostolic Catalogue, and the testimony of Hegesippus, [2495] seem to point him out as the son of Clopas, and brother of James, and of Judas Lebbæus. These three were, in a sense, cousins of Christ, since, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the brother of Joseph, while the sons of Zebedee were real cousins, their mother Salome being a sister of the Virgin. [2496] Lastly, we have Judas Iscariot, or Ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth,' a town in Judah. [2497] Thus the betrayer alone would be of Judæan origin, the others all of Galilean; and this may throw light on not a little in his after-history.
No further reference than this briefest sketch seems necessary, although on comparison it is clear that the Apostolic Catalogues in the Gospels are ranged in three groups, each of them beginning with respectively the same name (Simon, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus). This, however, we may remark - how narrow, after all, was the Apostolic circle, and how closely connected most of its members. And yet, as we remember the history of their calling, or those notices attached to their names which afford a glimpse into their history, it was a circle, thoroughly representative of those who would gather around the Christ. Most marked and most solemn of all, it was after a night of solitary prayer on the mountain-side, that Jesus at early dawn called His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles,' that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sickness and to cast out devils.' [2498]
Footnotes:
[2391] 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 5:32, 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.
[2392] So in all the three Gospels.
[2393] Yoma 29 a.
[2394] Sot. 3 a.
[2395] Rosh haSh. 17 a.
[2396] Comp. Sepher Iqqarim iv. 28.
[2397] Ber. 34 h.
[2398] Vayyik. R. 7.
[2399] 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.
[2400] Pes. 54 a; Ber. R. 1.
[2401] So in too many passages for enumeration.
[2402] Yoma 69 b; Ber. R. 9, and in many places.
[2403] Some of these points have already been stated. But it was necessary to repeat them so as to give a connected view.
[2404] Sanh. 99 a; Maimon. Hil. Tesh. Per. 7.
[2405] Sanh. 99 a; Ber. 34 b.
[2406] Yalkut on Psalm 32.p. 101 b.
[2407] Sanh. 98 a.
[2408] Sanh. 98 a; Jer. Taan. 64 a.
[2409] Sanh. 98 a.
[2410] St. Luke 17:10.
[2411] So, according to Rabbinism, both in the Sepher Iqqar. and in Menor. Hammaor.
[2412] Yoma 86.
[2413] Ber. 5 a, b; Kidd. 81 b.
[2414] Yoma u. s.
[2415] Yoma u. s., and many passages.
[2416] In almost innumerable passages.
[2417] Ab. Zar. 5 a.
[2418] Mechilta, 76 a.
[2419] 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.
[2420] See also Yoma 86 and following.
[2421] Ber. 12 b; Chag. 5 a.
[2422] Pesiqta ed. Bub. p. 163 b.
[2423] Ab. Zar. 17 a.
[2424] 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).
[2425] Vayyik. R. 7.
[2426] Sanh. vi. 2.
[2427] Shabb. 32 a.
[2428] Sanh. u. s.
[2429] Psalm 92.p>[2430] So it would need to be rendered in this context.
[2431] Ber. R. 22.
[2432] 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).
[2433] 2 Chronicles 33:12, 13.
[2434] Debar. R. 2; ed. Warsh. p. 7 a; comp. Sanh. 102 b, last lines, and 103 a.
[2435] Exodus 15:11.
[2436] Taan. 16 a.
[2437] Rosh haSh. 17 b.
[2438] Baba. Mez. 85 a.
[2439] Ber. 17 a.
[2440] u. s.
[2441] Baba Mez. 85 a.
[2442] 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.'
[2443] Tanch. Noach 4.
[2444] But such restitution was sometimes not insisted on, for the sake of encouraging penitents.
[2445] See the discussion in B. Mez. 37 a.
[2446] 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).
[2447] These statements are all so thoroughly Rabbinic that it is needless to make special references.
[2448] Vayyik. R. 3, towards the end.
[2449] In B. Bab. 10 a.
[2450] Vayyik. R. 25, beg. ed. Warsh. p. 38 a.
[2451] Tanch. on Genesis 48.p>[2452] Ab. Zar. 17 a.
[2453] St. Mark 2:13.
[2454] Gitt. 34 b.
[2455] Sheq. v. 1.
[2456] Eduy. ii. 5; Yoma 84 a.
[2457] Sanh. 43 a, in the older editions; comp, Chesron. haShas, p. 22 b.
[2458] A ridiculous story is told that Matthew endeavored to avert sentence of death by a play on his name, quoting Psalm 42:2: Mathai (in our version, When') I shall come and appear before God;' to which the judges replied by similarly adapting Psalm 41:5: Mathai (in our version, When') he shall die, and his name perish.'
[2459] 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 Exodus 23:7, Naqi (the innocent' in our version) and the righteous shalt thou not slay,' to which the judges replied by Psalm 10:8, in the secret places he shall slay Naqi (the innocent' in our version)'. Again, Netser pleads Isaiah 11:1: Netser (a branch) shall grow out of his roots,' to which the judges reply, Isaiah 14:19: Thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable Netser' (branch), while Boni tries to save his life by a pun on Exodus 4:22: 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 {hebrew}), but it has that meaning in the Aramæan. Kautzsch (Gram. d. Bibl.-Aram.) suggests the word regaz anger,' angry impetuosity.' But the suggestion does not commend itself.
</blockquote>
Footnotes
[2460] p t telnion.
[2461] Sanh. 25 b.
[2462] Baba K. 94 b.
[2463] With them herdsmen were conjoined, on account of their frequent temptations to dishonesty, and their wild lives far from ordinances.
[2464] Wünsche is mistaken in making the Gabbai the superior, and the Mokhes the subordinate, tax-collector. See Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb, iii. p. 116 a.
[2465] Jer. Dem. 23 a; comp. Bekhor. 31 a.
[2466] In B. Kamma x. 2.
[2467] Nedar. iii. 4.
[2468] Jer. Kidd. 66 b.
[2469] Shabb. 78 b.
[2470] Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 5.
[2471] Comp. Wieseler's Beitr. pp. 75-78. Hence the publicans' were not subordinates, but direct officials of the Government.
[2472] B. Kamma x. 1.
[2473] Baba K. 113 a.
[2474] Bekhor. 31 a.
[2475] Ab. Zar. 13 a.
[2476] Tos. B. Mets. viii. 25, ed. Zuck.
[2477] Jer. Chag. 77 d; comp Jer. Sanh. 23 c, and Sanh. 44 b.
[2478] Ab. Zar. 10 b.
[2479] This is perhaps the better reading of St. Mark 2:16.
[2480] St. Matthew 9:14-17.
[2481] The latter in St. Luke 5:31.
[2482] {hebrew}, a very common formula, where further thought and instruction are required. So common, indeed, is it, that it is applied in the sense of let,' such or such thing come and teach' ({hebrew}). Sometimes the formula is varied, as {hebrew}, come and see' (Baba Bath. 10 a), or {hebrew}, go and see' (u. s., b).
[2483] Even in that beautiful page in the Talmud (Succ. 49 b) righteousness and sacrifices are compared, the former being declared the greater; and then righteousness is compared with works of kindness with alms, &c.
[2484] Hosea 6:6.
[2485] St. Matthew 12:7.
[2486] Mark the absence of the Article.
[2487] See the note on p. 507.
[2488] St. Matthew 10:2-4; St. Mark 3:13-19; St. Luke 6:12-19.
[2489] Vayyik. R. 6; Pesiq, R. 22, ed. Friedm. p. 113 a.
[2490] St. John 19:25.
[2491] Thus he would be the same as James the Less,' or rather the Little,' a son of Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin-Mother.
[2492] As is done in the Rabbinic story where Thaddæus appeals to Psalm 100:1 (superscription) to save his life, while the Rabbis reply by appealing to Psalm 50:23: Whoso offereth praise (thodah) glorifieth Me' (Sanh. 43 a, Chesr. haSh.).
[2493] St. Luke 6:15; comp. St. John 14:22.
[2494] War. iv. 3, 9.
[2495] Euseb. H. E. iii. 11; iv. 22.
[2496] As to the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas, comp. Wetzel in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1883, Heft iii. See also further remarks on the sons of Clopas, in the comment on St. John 19:25 in Book V. ch. xv.
[2497] Joshua 15:25.
[2498] As to the designation Boanerges (sons of thunder), see note 2, p. 514. "
----


----
----


== Footnotes ==


[[Category:Articles]]


There was a "bitter hatred of the Rabbinists towards the class of tax-farmers (Moches)."<Ref>Sketches of Jewish social life, chapter 4</Ref>
[[Category:Definitions]]


Matthew was evidently a ''Little Mokhes'', because he manned a tax office where he dealt with people face to face. The mokhes collected taxes on just about everything else. The "great mokhes" had the contract with Rome.
[[Category:Words]]

Latest revision as of 20:05, 13 October 2023

The gabbai collected taxes on land, property and income while the mokhes collected taxes on just about everything else.[1]
In early Israel the original plan of Moses was a form of taxation called tithing which was based on Freewill offerings to the Levites through a minister of your choice but later it became compelled as legal charity or a forced offering by men who exercise authority. Saul forced the real first sacrifice in Israel and was told this was foolish. His kingdom would not stand for the same reason Polybius said the masses would degenerate. When the offerings of the people are forced they are living in the cities of blood.


Mokhes

The mokhes were divided into two different groups: the great mokhes and the little mokhes. The Gabbai also meant a tax collector on land, property and income while the mokhes collected taxes on just about everything else. There job was taxation of the people for the support of the government. The manner of this taxation varied over the years.


Persons bond and free

Herod and the Pharisees set up a system that was contrary to the government of John the Baptist and Jesus who was the Christ. One form of government brings the masses in to subjection through covetous practices and the other sets the captive free.


According to Alfred Edershiems' The life and times of Jesus the messiah, chapter xvii the call,

"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] Although both classes fall under the Rabbinic ban, the douanier[3] - 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 ground-tax 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 2½ to 5, and on articles of luxury to even 12½ 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.[4]

That there was ground for such rigour, appears from such an occurrence,[5] as when a Mokhes took from a defenseless 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,[6] or a person pass his slave as his son.[7]

The Mokhes was called great'[8] if he employed substitutes, and small' if he stood himself at the receipt of custom. Till the time of Caesar the taxes were farmed in Rome, at the highest bidding, mostly by a joint-stock company of the knightly order, which employed publicans under them. But by a decree of Caesar, the taxes of Judæa were no longer farmed, but levied by publicans in Judæa, and paid directly to the Government, the officials being appointed by the provincials themselves.[9], [10]

This was, indeed, a great alleviation, although it perhaps made the tax-gatherers only more unpopular, as being the direct officials of the heathen power. This also explains how, if the Mishnah forbids</Ref> even the changing of money from the guilt-laden chest of a Mokhes, or douanier, the Gemara[11] adds, that such applied to custom-house officers who either did not keep to the tax appointed by the Government, or indeed to any fixed tax, and to those who appointed themselves to such office - that is, as we take it, who would volunteer for the service, in the hope of making profit on their own account. An instance is, however, related of a Gabbai, or tax-gatherer, becoming a celebrated Rabbi, though the taint of his former calling deterred the more rigid of his colleagues from intercourse with him.[12] On heathen feast days toll was remitted to those who came to the festival.[13] Sometimes this was also done from kindness.[14] The following story may serve as a final illustration of the popular notions, alike about publicans and about the merit of good works. The son of a Mokhes and that of a very pious man had died. The former received from his townsmen all honour at his burial, while the latter was carried unmourned to the grave. This anomaly was Divinely explained by the circumstance, that the pious man had committed one transgression, and the publican had done one good deed. But a few days afterwards a further vision and dream was vouchsafed to the survivors, when the pious was seen walking in gardens beside water-brooks, while the publican was described stretching out his tongue towards the river to quench his thirst, but unable to reach the refreshing stream.[15]

What has been described in such detail, will cast a peculiar light on the call of Matthew by the Saviour of sinners. For, we remember that Levi-Matthew was not only a publican,' but of the worst kind: a Mokhes' or douanier; a little Mokhes,' who himself stood at his custom-house; one of the class to whom, as we are told, repentance offered special difficulties. And, of all such officials, those who had to take toll from ships were perhaps the worst, if we are to judge by the proverb: Woe to the ship which sails without having paid the dues.'[16] And yet, after all, Matthew may have been only one of that numerous class to whom religion is merely a matter quite outside of, and in another region from life, and who, having first gone astray through ignorance, feel themselves ever farther repelled, or rather shut out, by the narrow, harsh uncharitableness of those whom they look upon as the religious and pious.

But now quite another day had dawned on him. The Prophet of Nazareth was not like those other great Rabbis, or their pietist, self-righteous imitators. There was that about Him which not only aroused the conscience, but drew the heart - compelling, not repelling. What He said opened a new world. His very appearance bespoke Him not harsh, self-righteous, far away, but the Helper, if not even the Friend, of sinners. There was not between Him and one like Matthew, the great, almost impassable gap of repentance. He had seen and heard Him in the Synagogue - and who that had heard His Words, or witnessed His power, could ever forget, or lose the impression? The people, the rulers, even the evil spirits, had owned His authority. But in the Synagogue Jesus was still the Great One, far-away from him; and he, Levi-Matthew, the little Mokhes' of Capernaum, to whom, as the Rabbis told him, repentance was next to impossible. But out there, in the open, by the seashore, it was otherwise. All unobserved by others, he observed all, and could yield himself, without reserve, to the impression. Now, it was an eager multitude that came from Capernaum; then, a long train bearing sufferers, to whom gracious, full, immediate relief was granted - whether they were Rabbinic saints, or sinners. And still more gracious than His deeds were His Words.

And so Matthew sat before his custom-house, and hearkened and hoped. Those white-sailed ships would bring crowds of listeners; the busy caravan on that highway would stop, and its wayfarers turn aside to join the eager multitude - to hear the Word or see the Word. Surely, it was not a time for buying and selling,' and Levi would have little work, and less heart for it at his custom-house. Perhaps he may have witnessed the call of the first Apostles; he certainly must have known the fishermen and shipowners of Capernaum. And now it appeared, as if Jesus had been brought still nearer to Matthew. For, the great ones of Israel, the Scribes of the Pharisees,'[17] and their pietest followers, had combined against Him, and would exclude Him, not on account of sin, but on account of the sinners. And so, we take it, long before that eventful day which for ever decided his life, Matthew had, in heart, become the disciple of Jesus. Only he dared not, could not, have hoped for personal recognition - far less for call to discipleship. But when it came, and Jesus fixed on him that look of love which searched the inmost deep of the soul, and made Him the true Fisher of men, it needed not a moment's thought or consideration. When he spake it, Follow Me,' the past seemed all swallowed up in the present heaven of bliss. He said not a word, for his soul was in the speechless surprise of unexpected love and grace; but he rose up, left the custom-house, and followed Him. That was a gain that day, not of Matthew alone, but of all the poor and needy in Israel - nay, of all sinners from among men, to whom the door of heaven was opened. And, verily, by the side of Peter, as the stone, we place Levi-Matthew, as typical of those rafters laid on the great foundation, and on which is placed the flooring of that habitation of the Lord, which is His Church.

It could not have been long after this - probably almost immediately - that the memorable gathering took place in the house of Matthew, which gave occasion to that cavil of the Pharisaic Scribes, which served further to bring out the meaning of Levi's call. For, opposition ever brings into clearer light positive truth, just as judgment comes never alone, but always conjoined with display of higher mercy. It was natural that all the publicans around should, after the call of Matthew, have come to his house to meet Jesus. Even from the lowest point of view, the event would give them a new standing in the Jewish world, in relation to the Prophet of Nazareth. And it was characteristic that Jesus should improve such opportunity. When we read of sinners' as in company with these publicans, it is not necessary to think of gross or open offenders, though such may have been included. For, we know what such a term may have included in the Pharisaic vocabulary. Equally characteristic was it, that the Rabbinists should have addressed their objection as to fellowship with such, not to the Master, but to the disciples. Perhaps, it was not only, nor chiefly, from moral cowardice, though they must have known what the reply of Jesus would have been. On the other hand, there was wisdom, or rather cunning, in putting it to the disciples. They were but initial learners - and the question was one not so much of principle, as of acknowledged Jewish propriety. Had they been able to lodge this cavil in their minds, it would have fatally shaken the confidence of the disciples in the Master; and, if they could have been turned aside, the cause of the new Christ would have been grievously injured, if not destroyed. It was with the same object, that they shortly afterwards enlisted the aid of the well-meaning, but only partially-instructed disciples of John on the question of fasting,[18] which presented a still stronger consensus of Jewish opinion as against Christ, all the more telling, that here the practice of John seemed to clash with that of Jesus.

But then John was at the time in prison, and passing through the temporary darkness of a thick cloud towards the fuller light. But Jesus could not leave His disciples to answer for themselves. What, indeed, could or would they have had to say? And He ever speaks for us, when we cannot answer for ourselves. From their own standpoint and contention - nay, also in their own form of speech - He answered the Pharisees. And He not only silenced their gain-saying, but further opened up the meaning of His acting - nay, His very purpose and Mission. No need have they who are strong and in health[19] of a physician, but they who are ill.' It was the very principle of Pharisaism which He thus set forth, alike as regarded their self-exclusion from Him and His consorting with the diseased. And, as the more Hebraic St. Matthew adds, applying the very Rabbinic formula, so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information: Go and learn!'[20] Learn what? What their own Scriptures meant; what was implied in the further prophetic teaching, as correction of a one-sided literalism and externalism that misinterpreted the doctrine of sacrifices - learn that fundamental principle of the spiritual meaning of the Law as explanatory of its mere letter, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' They knew no mercy that was not sacrifice[2483] Even in that beautiful page in the Talmud (Succ. 49 b) righteousness and sacrifices are compared, the former being declared the greater; and then righteousness is compared with works of kindness with alms, &c.</Ref> - with merit attaching; He no sacrifice, real and acceptable to God, that was not mercy. And this also is a fundamental principle of the Old Testament, as spiritually understood; and, being such a fundamental principle, He afterwards again applied this saying of the prophet[21]] to His own mode of viewing and treating the Sabbath-question.[22]

This was one aspect of it, as Jesus opened up anew the Old Testament, of which their key of knowledge had only locked the door. There was yet another and higher, quite explaining and applying alike this saying and the whole Old Testament, and thus His Own Mission. And this was the fullest[23] unfolding and highest vindication of it: For, I am not come to call righteous men, but sinners.' [2486] The introduction of the words to repentance' in some manuscripts of St. Matthew and St. Mark shows, how early the full meaning of Christ's words was misinterpreted by prosaic apologetic attempts, that failed to fathom their depth. For, Christ called sinners to better and higher than repentance, even to Himself and His Kingdom; and to emendate' the original record by introducing these words from another Gospel[24] marks a purpose, indicative of retrogression. And this saying of Christ concerning the purpose of His Incarnation and Work: to call not righteous men, but sinners,' also marks the standpoint of the Christ, and the relation which each of us, according to his view of self, of righteousness, and of sin - personally, voluntarily, and deliberately - occupies towards the Kingdom and the Christ.

The history of the call of St. Matthew has also another, to some extent subordinate, historical interest, for it was no doubt speedily followed by the calling of the other Apostles.[25] This is the chronological succession in the Synoptic narratives. It also affords some insight into the history of those, whom the Lord chose as bearers of His Gospel. The difficulties connected with tracing the family descent or possible relationship between the Apostles are so great, that we must forego all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion. Without, therefore, entering on details about the genealogy of the Apostles, and the varied arrangement of their names in the Gospels, which, with whatever uncertainty remaining in the end, may be learned from any work on the subject, some points at least seem clear. First, it appears that only the calling of those to the Apostolate is related, which in some sense is typical, viz. that of Peter and Andrew, of James and John, of Philip and Bartholomew (or Bar Telamyon, or Temalyon, [2489] Vayyik. R. 6; Pesiq, R. 22, ed. Friedm. p. 113 a.</Ref> generally supposed the same as Nathanael), and of Matthew the publican. Yet, secondly, there is something which attaches to each of the others. Thomas, who is called Didymus (which means twin'), is closely connected with Matthew, both in St. Luke's Gospel and in that of St. Matthew himself. James is expressly named as the son of Alphæus or Clopas.[26] [27] This we know to have been also the name of Matthew-Levi's father. But, as the name was a common one, no inference can be drawn from it, and it does not seem likely that the father of Matthew was also that of James, Judas, and Simon, for these three seem to have been brothers. Judas is designated by St. Matthew as Lebbaeus, from the Hebrew lebh, a heart, and is also named, both by him and by St. Mark, Thaddæus - a term which, however, we would not derive, as is commonly done, from thad, the female breast,' but following the analogy of the Jewish name Thodah, from praise.'[28]

In that case both Lebbæus and Thaddæus would point to the heartiness and the Thanksgiving of the Apostle, and hence to his character. St. Luke simply designates him Judas of James, which means that he was the brother (less probably, the son) of James.[29] Thus his real name would have been Judas Lebbæus, and his surname Thaddæus. Closely connected with these two we have in all the Gospels, Simon, surnamed Zelotes or Cananæan (not Canaanite), both terms indicating his original connection with the Galilean Zealot party, the Zealots for the Law.'[30] His position in the Apostolic Catalogue, and the testimony of Hegesippus,[31] seem to point him out as the son of Clopas, and brother of James, and of Judas Lebbæus. These three were, in a sense, cousins of Christ, since, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the brother of Joseph, while the sons of Zebedee were real cousins, their mother Salome being a sister of the Virgin.[32] Lastly, we have Judas Iscariot, or Ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth,' a town in Judah.[33] Thus the betrayer alone would be of Judæan origin, the others all of Galilean; and this may throw light on not a little in his after-history.

No further reference than this briefest sketch seems necessary, although on comparison it is clear that the Apostolic Catalogues in the Gospels are ranged in three groups, each of them beginning with respectively the same name (Simon, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus). This, however, we may remark - how narrow, after all, was the Apostolic circle, and how closely connected most of its members. And yet, as we remember the history of their calling, or those notices attached to their names which afford a glimpse into their history, it was a circle, thoroughly representative of those who would gather around the Christ. Most marked and most solemn of all, it was after a night of solitary prayer on the mountain-side, that Jesus at early dawn called His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles,' that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sickness and to cast out devils.'[34]


There was a "bitter hatred of the Rabbinists towards the class of tax-farmers (Moches)."[35]

Matthew was evidently a Little Mokhes, because he manned a tax office where he dealt with people face to face. The mokhes collected taxes on just about everything else. The "great mokhes" had the contract with Rome.


Gabbai

Gabbai (pl. gabbaim) is an Aramaic word that meant a tax collector. In Hebrew in Talmudic times it meant "collector of taxes or charity" or "treasurer". The gabbai collected taxes on land, property and income while the mokhes collected taxes on just about everything else. We see a Gabbai was a tax gatherer which was also apparently the head of an important family of Benjamin resident at Jerusalem seen in Nehemiah 11:8 around B.C. 536. But this was not always the case.

In early Israel the original plan of Moses was a form of taxation which was based on Freewill offerings to the Levites through a minister of your choice but later it became compelled as legal charity or a forced offering by men who exercise authority. The benefits provided by the dainties of rulers who were the latter made the word of God to none effect.

Their history

According to Eldershiems The life and times of Jesus the messiah, chapter xvii the call, "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..." There was a "bitter hatred of the Rabbinists towards the class of tax-farmers (Moches)."[36]

There is a non obsolete form used gabái ts'daká, which is said to mean “charity collector” (גַּבַּאי צְדָקָה‎ ).[37] Tzedakah or Ṣedaqah is a Hebrew word meaning "righteousness", but commonly used to signify charity.

Faith or force

Legal charity and other covetous practices are not the fervent charity of Christ nor loving one another. It is biting one another. It is not the righteousness of God but makes men merchandise and is a snare.

Can we say that we are seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness when we seek the benefits of men who exercise authority one over the other? Benefits provided by the legal charity of the State would not be considered righteous, but would be the wages of unrighteousness.


The Hebrew is GamelBeitAlefYod. We do not see this word directly used in the Billical text according to many interpretations. There is the word GamelBeitAlef with a Strongs number 01360[38] Which means a cistern or a pit.

We see it used in Isaiah 30:14 "And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters’ vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherd to take fire from the hearth, or to take water [withal] out of the pit <01360>."

It actually appears as MemGamelBeitAlef and translated a pit or cistern that you cannot get water from because of an iniquity that causes something to break like the "breaking of the potters’ vessel".

Isaiah 30:13 "Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant."

The iniquity comes about because the people "despise this word, and trust in oppression".

Isaiah 30:12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:

This perverseness was the effect going out of the way and turning from the path. Their reliance (stay) upon force does the opposite of a righteous Corban and makes the word of God to none effect meaning the Holy Spirit departs from Israel.

Isaiah 30:11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

All this was because the people were rebellious and would not hear that covetous practices were violating the law of God. They wanted ministers who would tickle their ears with smooth things and the wages of unrighteousness and would not hear that they were to love one another with freewill offerings and charity.

Isaiah 30:9 That this [is] a rebellious people, lying children, children [that] will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

The Gabbia is doing his job it is still oppression and a system that covets your neighbors good through men who exercise authority one over the other through force rather than charity.


In Jeremiah the word for pit or cistern appears as GimelBeitYodMem instead of GimelBeitAlefMem as we saw in Isaiah 30:14.


Jeremiah 14:3 And their nobles have sent their little ones[39] to the waters: they came to the pits <01360>, [and] found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded, and covered their heads.


Ezekiel 47:11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes <01360> thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.

A gabbai, more recently is also known as shamash. Some shamash or gabbai can can act as an assistant to a rabbi. They were also known as parnas or a warden performing duties as a beadle or sexton for a synagogue. It was a designated person who assisted in the running of ritual services in some way as a volunteer or paid position.

While, today a gabbai is someone who assists with the reading of the Torah. This roll shifted as welfare became the province of the State or national governments and religion became little more than superstitious rituals and opinions about God or gods.

Pure Religion was replaced by public religion as Jew and Christians sought the dainties of rulers at the tables of government which were a snare, making them merchandise back in the bondage of Egypt where their sloth in the way of righteousness brought them under tribute and they curse children.



Footnotes

  1. ↑ In Judea Gabbai [tax collector], collected ... ground-, income-, and poll-taxes while the Mokhes collected duty upon imports and exports; on all that was bought and sold... Mark of the Beast.
  2. ↑ [2464] Wünsche is mistaken in making the Gabbai the superior, and the Mokhes the subordinate, tax-collector. See Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb, iii. p. 116 a.
  3. ↑ Customs is an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting tariffs and for controlling the flow of goods, including animals, transports, personal effects, and hazardous items, into and out of a country.
  4. ↑ [2465] Jer. Dem. 23 a; comp. Bekhor. 31 a.
  5. ↑ [2466] In B. Kamma x. 2.
  6. ↑ [2467] Nedar. iii. 4.
  7. ↑ [2468] Jer. Kidd. 66 b.
  8. ↑ [2469] Shabb. 78 b.
  9. ↑ [2470] Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 5.
  10. ↑ [2471] Comp. Wieseler's Beitr. pp. 75-78. Hence the publicans' were not subordinates, but direct officials of the Government.
  11. ↑ [2473] Baba K. 113 a.
  12. ↑ [2474] Bekhor. 31 a.
  13. ↑ [2475] Ab. Zar. 13 a.
  14. ↑ [2476] Tos. B. Mets. viii. 25, ed. Zuck.
  15. ↑ [2477] Jer. Chag. 77 d; comp Jer. Sanh. 23 c, and Sanh. 44 b.
  16. ↑ [2478] Ab. Zar. 10 b.
  17. ↑ [2479] This is perhaps the better reading of St. Mark 2:16.
  18. ↑ [2480] St. Matthew 9:14-17.
  19. ↑ [2481] The latter in St. Luke 5:31.
  20. ↑ [2482] {hebrew}, a very common formula, where further thought and instruction are required. So common, indeed, is it, that it is applied in the sense of let,' such or such thing come and teach' ({hebrew}). Sometimes the formula is varied, as {hebrew}, come and see' (Baba Bath. 10 a), or {hebrew}, go and see' (u. s., b).
  21. ↑ [2484] Hosea 6:6.
  22. ↑ [2485] St. Matthew 12:7.
  23. ↑ [2486] Mark the absence of the Article.
  24. ↑ [2487] See the note on p. 507.
  25. ↑ [2488] St. Matthew 10:2-4; St. Mark 3:13-19; St. Luke 6:12-19.
  26. ↑ [2490] St. John 19:25.
  27. ↑ [2491] Thus he would be the same as James the Less,' or rather the Little,' a son of Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin-Mother.
  28. ↑ [2492] As is done in the Rabbinic story where Thaddæus appeals to Psalm 100:1 (superscription) to save his life, while the Rabbis reply by appealing to Psalm 50:23: Whoso offereth praise (thodah) glorifieth Me' (Sanh. 43 a, Chesr. haSh.).
  29. ↑ [2493] St. Luke 6:15; comp. St. John 14:22.
  30. ↑ [2494] War. iv. 3, 9.
  31. ↑ [2495] Euseb. H. E. iii. 11; iv. 22.
  32. ↑ [2496] As to the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas, comp. Wetzel in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1883, Heft iii. See also further remarks on the sons of Clopas, in the comment on St. John 19:25 in Book V. ch. xv.
  33. ↑ [2497] Joshua 15:25.
  34. ↑ [2498] As to the designation Boanerges (sons of thunder), see note 2, p. 514. "
  35. ↑ Sketches of Jewish social life, chapter 4
  36. ↑ Sketches of Jewish social life, chapter 4
  37. ↑ A lexicon from the foundation for Judaism and Zionism
    : "In charge of collecting donations to charity and distributing money, food or clothing to the poor. "Every city that has Israel - must be made a charity collector" Rambam Judge (Poor Gifts IX, A. charity recognized and trusted honest people who found them unacceptable (sanctification of the year, to the book.)
    Translated from the original Hebrew
    "גבאי צדקה" מתוך: לקסיקון מן המסד ליהדות ולציונות > לקסיקון מן המסד ליהדות ולציונות > ג הממונה על גביית תרומות לצדקה ועל חלוקת כסף , מזון או לבוש לעניים . כל עיר שיש בה ישראל _חייבין להעמיד מהם גבאי צדקה " פוסק הרמב " ס ( מתנות עניים ט , א . ( חכמים קבעו תקנות שונות שתכליתן להסיר כל ספק בכשרותם של הגבאים , כגון שאין גובים בפחות משני גבאים ואין מחלקים מתנות לעניים בפחות משלושה . גבאי הצדקה הוכרו כאנשים ישרים ומהימנים , שלא נמצא בהם פסול ( משנה קידושיו י , ה . ( אל הספר
  38. ↑ 01360 גֶּבֶא‎ gebe GimelBeitAlef [geh’-beh] from an unused root; n m; [BDB-146a] [{See TWOT on 302 @@ "302a" }] AV-pit 2, marishes 1; 3
    1) cistern, pool
    1a) cistern
    1b) pool, marsh
    See Gabbai
    • ג Gimel Reward and Punish, Cause and effect, 'justified repayment'. Do to others as they should do. Written like a Vav with a Yod as a "foot". Camel, [throwstick, pride, to lift up] (Numeric value: 3)
    • ב Beit Purpose: God's Dwelling Place Below - a house or God's house here. [household, in, into] (Numeric value: 2)
    • א Alef Father-Son- begin- The Paradox: God and Man - (ox bull) [strength, leader, first] (Numeric value: 1)
  39. ↑ Is not TzadikAyinYodReish but TzadikAyinYodReishYodChetMem 06810 צָעִיר‎ tsa‘iyr TzadikAyinYodReish [tsaw-eer’] or צעור‎ tsa‘owr [tsaw-ore’] from 06819; adj; [BDB-859a] [{See TWOT on 1948 @@ "1948a" }] AV-younger 8, least 4, youngest 3, little 2, little ones 2, small one 1, small 1, young + 03117 1; 22
    1) little, insignificant, young
    1a) little, insignificant
    1b) insignificant, mean
    1c) young, younger, youngest
    • צ ץ Tzadik is always related to The Faith of the Righteous One, the foundation of the word "to hunt" or Harvest even eat or desire. [Harvest, pant, desire] (Numeric value: 90)
    • ע Ayin also U. Divine Providence "eye" or "fountain" of five states of kindness or severity. AlefYodNun or nothingness as opposed to AlefShin something [eye, watch] (Numeric value: 70)
    • י Yod The Infinite Point of essential good. Divine spark hidden in the ט Tet. Spark of spirit. [closed hand... Deed, work, to make] (Numeric value: 10)
    • ר Reish Process of Clarification The "head" or "beginning". Life's revelation. [Head... Person head highest] (Numeric value: 200) ח Chet The Life Force - Dynamic nature of - cause and effect - give life and live.[fence, thread, hedge, chamber...cycle] (Numeric value: 8)
Retrieved from "http://preparingyou.com/wiki/index.php?title=Mokhes&oldid=62316"