Copyright
© 1976 by
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE
OLD TESTAMENT CANON*
ROBERT C.
NEWMAN
Among those who believe the Old
Testament to be a revela-
tion
from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained
that
the books composing this collection were in themselves
sacred
writings from the moment of their completion, that they
were
quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these
were
written several centuries before the beginning of our era.
The
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest
extant
witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti-
Semite
Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:
We do not possess myriads of
inconsistent books, conflicting
with each other. Our books, those
which are justly accredited,
are but two and twenty, and contain
the record of all time.
Of these, five are the books of Moses,
comprising the laws
and the traditional history from the
birth of man down to the
death of the lawgiver. This period
falls only a little short of
three thousand years. From the death
of Moses until Arta-
xerxes. who succeeded Xerxes as king
of
subsequent
to Moses wrote the history of the events of their
own
tines in thirteen books. The remaining four books con-
tain
hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.
From
Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has
been
written. but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit
*The abbreviations of the names of tractates
in the Mishnah, Tosefta
and
Talmud follow Hermann L. Strack, Introduction
to the Talmud and
Midrash. Other special or
unusual abbreviations are as follows:
BT - Babylonian Talmud
M - Mishnah
MR - Midrash Rabbah
SITM-Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (
Atheneum,
1969, reprint of 1931 edn.)
Tos. - Tosefta
I thank Dr. Robert A. Kraft of the
helpful
criticisms. Naturally, I assume full responsibility for the final
form
of this article.
319
320
with the earlier records, because of
the failure of the exact
succession of the prophets.1
On the basis of later Christian
testimony, the twenty-two
books
mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as
our
thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being
counted
as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a
unit,
and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamenta-
tions
each being taken as one book. This agrees with the
impression
conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the
Pharisees,
and the Palestinian Jewish community in general
seem
to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body
of
sacred writings.
Rabbinical literature, though much
later, is also in agreement
with
this testimony. In the Babylonian Talmud, completed by
about
A.D. 550,3 we read: "Our Rabbis taught: Since the death
of
the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachai, the Holy-
Spirit
departed from
to
have ceased long before the beginning of the Christian era.
Among
earlier Talmudic material, there is a Baraitha5 (from
about
A.D. 2006) which likewise assigns the Scripture to ancient
authors,
but also explicitly names the books of the Old Testa-
ment
and gives a total of twenty-four books7 by using, the
scheme
mentioned above except for treating Judges and Ruth,
Jeremiah
and Lamentations as separate entities. As in Josephus,
the
books are also grouped in three classes. The first is the
Pentateuch,
as in Josephus, but the other two are different:
the
second section, called "prophets," contains Joshua, Judges,
Samuel,
Kings. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve Minor
Prophets
in that order, whereas the third section, called "writ-
ings,"
contains the remainder of our familiar Old Testament.
1 Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41).
2 Ibid., Loeb Classical Library
edition, notes ad loc.; Otto
Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament: An
Introduction,
trans. by Peter R. Ackroyd (New
3 SITM, p. 71.
4 BT, Sanh., 11 a.
5 Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 563.
6 SITM, pp. 4, 20-25.
7
BT, B. B. 1.4b.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 321
Although it is true that the
pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra
(probably
written about A.D. 1208) pictures a much larger
number
of sacred books,9 it is very significant that it admits that
only
twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's
time.
In recent centuries, another outlook
has arisen which is often
called
critical-historical. Denying that claims of God's miracu-
lous
intervention in the inspiration of such books are subject to
historical
investigation, this view sees the canonicity of the Old
Testament
merely as the result of a belief in inspiration which
grew
up around each book in the centuries after its publication.
This
critical or liberal view also commonly pictures the partic-
ular
threefold division of the Old Testament books found in the
Talmud
and in our oldest extant Hebrew Bibles (dating from
the
10th and 11th centuries10) as a sort of fossil of the canoniza-
tion
process. Thus H. E. Ryle, in his classic liberal work on the
Old
Testament canon, distinguishes three canons corresponding
to
the three sections in the Talmud: the first is the Law, finally
fixed
shortly before 432 B.C.;11 the next is the Law and the
Prophets,
established by 200 B.C. (before the critical date for
the
origin of Daniel, though after the dates of the excluded
Chronicles,
Ezra-Nehemiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations
and
Ruth);12 and the last is the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings
as we have them today,13 which canon was practically
completed
before 100 B.C.,14 but not officially recognized until
about
A.D. 100.15
More recent liberal scholarship has
modified Ryle's position,
especially
in regard to the last two divisions. Thus Eissfeldt
now
recognizes that there is historical evidence for Daniel
8 R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament (2 vols.;
9 4 Ezra 14:44-45.
10 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (
11 Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (
Macmillan
and Co., 1892), ch. 4, esp. p. 93.
12 Ibid., ch. 5, esp. p. 113.
13 Ibid.,
chs. 6-8.
14 Ibid., pp. 177-78.
15 Ibid., p. 172.
322
having
been in the second section, but suggests that this means
the
Prophets section must have been open until later:
Here too we cannot actually say that
at that time, i.e., about
200 B.C., the extent and the text of
the books reckoned in the
prophetic canon was already fixed.
But apart from Daniel no
new book has since then succeeded in
getting into this part of
the canon, and this book could not
maintain its place there
but found its final position among
the Writings.16
Fohrer departs even further from
Ryle, though a "natural
process"
view of canonicity is retained. For him there is no
canon
in any strict sense until the time of Ben Sira (c. 190
B.C.).
Even at the time of Ben Sira's translator-grandson (117
B.C.),
Fohrer sees the first two sections of the canon as still
open
to change and the third as just beginning to form:17
The canon was therefore completed
between 100 B.C. and
A. D. 100, and the so-called synod
held at Jamnia . . . ap-
parently made some contribution to
the process. Later dis-
putes about individual books made no
change in the canon.18
Popular liberal discussions of the
canon today speak rather
confidently
of the Council of Jamnia. For instance, the United
says:
Although the whole of the Old Testament
had been written by
150 B.C., the writings were not
declared authoritative until
90 A.D. by a council of rabbis at
Jamnia. It was this group
which decided which of the later
writings should be included
in the Old Testament.19
Alice Parmelee, in her popular-level
Guidebook to the Bible,
speaks
of the Writings as not being "clearly defined" until "the
Council
of Jamnia drew up a definite list of the sacred Scrip-
tures."20
Going into more detail, she says:
It was at Jamnia in the famous
16 Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 565.
17 Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament,
trans. by David
E.
Green (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968, from German, 1965), p.
486.
18 Ibid.
19 Carl E. Berges, How the Old Testament Came to Be: Script for
Adults (Philadelphia: Christian
Education Press 1958), p. 10.
20
Brothers,
1948), p. 138.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 323
that the council met about A.D. 90
to decide which books
belonged to the canon. Pointing, no
doubt, to the actual rolls
brought from the
council argued the merits of the
various books. At length,
they established the Hebrew canon in
which the Writings
were included, but the Apocrypha was
left out.21
Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica sounds a rather certain
note
on this subject:
After the destruction of
Jamnia became the home of the Great
Sanhedrin. A meeting
of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100
discussed and settled the
final canon of the Old Testament.22
Somewhat
more cautiously:
The name canon may properly be applied
to the books that
seem to have been adopted by the
assembly of rabbis at
Jamnia about A.D. 90 or 100 under
the leadership of Rabbi
Akiba. Until then, apparently, the
status of Song of Solomon
and of Ecclesiastes remained
doubtful, but at Jamnia they
were definitely included in the canon
. . . Some of the Hagi-
ographa (including apparently
Daniel) were still in dispute
until the assembly at Jamnia.23
Among experts on canon, not even
Ryle is so definite about
Jamnia,
however. He says that Jamnia only put "an official seal
to
that which had already long enjoyed currency among the
people."24
Unfortunately Ryle does not seem to be entirely
consistent
here:
It was then that the Writings we
have called "Disputed
Books" (Esther, Song, Ecclesiastes,
Chronicles, possibly
Daniel), which, from the peculiarity
of their contents and
teaching, had previously exerted
little influence upon reli-
gious thought, had been little used
in public and, possibly,
little studied in private, seemed all
at once to receive an ad-
ventitious importance. Doubts were
expressed, when their
canonical position was finally
asserted. But no sooner were
such difficulties raised and
scruples proclaimed and protests
delivered against their retention in
the Canon, than eager
voices were lifted up to defend the
character of writings
21 Ibid., p. 149.
22 Edward Robertson,
"Jamnia," Encyclopaedia
Britannica., 1970, XII,
p.
871.
23 Jaroslav Pelikan,
"Bible," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1970, III, p. 576.
24 Ryle, op. cit., p. 173.
324
which, after all, had long been
recognized, although, in com-
parison with the acknowledged books
of the Kethubim, little
valued and rarely made use of.25
After
this detailed psychological analysis of the situation, one is
rather
astonished to find Ryle admitting that "the Synod of
Jamnia
can be little else to us but a name." In any case he
claims
that this name is "connected with the ratified canonicity
of
certain books" and that it symbolizes the rabbinical deter-
mination
"to put an end to the doubts about the 'disputed' books
of
the Hagiographa."26
Eissfeldt,
by contrast, sees Jamnia in a broader context:
Though unfortunately we know
otherwise very little about
this synod, it is at least clear
that it regarded its task as the
securing of the Jewish heritage, and
in this it succeeded.27
After
speaking of the threats to Judaism posed by the apocalyp-
tic
literature and by Christianity, he continues:
These threats . . . necessitated at
that time in particular the
formation of a normative canon of
sacred scriptures . . . So
now what had come into being as a
result of gradual growth
was formally declared binding and
for this purpose was also
undergirded with a dogmatic theory.28
The Danish scholar Aage Bentzen
speaks of the "synod of
Jamnia"
as "important for the definite fixing of the Canon
among
the Semitic speaking Jews."29 According to him:
The debate of the synod mainly
centred on Ezekiel, Proverbs,
the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther. There also seems
to have been some insecurity
concerning Chronicles. This
seems to indicate that only the Law
was really acknowledged
. . . in Palestinian circles, or at
least that Prophets and
Kethubim were considered of
secondary importance.30
Bentzen
has previously argued that the presence of Ezekiel in
25 Ibid., p. 178.
26 Ibid., p. 172.
27 Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 568.
28 Ibid.
29 Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (2
vols., 2nd edn.;
30 Ibid., p. 29.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 325
these
discussions indicates that the second division of the canon
was
not yet fixed.31
From this necessarily brief and
selective survey of opinion
concerning
Jamnia and the Canon, a number of questions arise.
For
instance, was there a "council" of Jamnia? What informa-
tion
do we have about it? When was it held? Who presided?
What
books were discussed? What arguments were presented?
What
conclusions were reached? How binding were these con-
clusions?
Were they at variance with popular opinion or pre-
vailing
practice? It is to an attempted solution of some of these
matters
that we now turn.
The Jamnia Material in
Rabbinical Literature
The rabbinical activities at the
city of
us
only through rabbinical literature, where the more Hebraic
spellings
"Jabneh" or "Yabrieh" are used. Little of this material
seems
to come to us in its present form from rabbis who were
alive
at A.D. 100.
The Mishnah, which forms the basis
for both the Babylonian
and
Palestinian Talmuds, was traditionally compiled by Rabbi
(
A.D.
210.32 His work, however, was apparently based on earlier
compilations
by R. Meir and R. Akiba,33 the latter of whom
was
active at Jamnia. The Mishnah is
available in English in a
separate
form edited by H. Danby,34 as well as in the Soncino
edition
of the Babylonian Talmud, which will be cited here.35
Some of the rabbinical discussions
left out of the Mishnah
were
compiled in a work called the Tosefta.
Although the text
of
the Tosefta has probably been
somewhat confused by influ-
ence
from the Mishnah, it presupposes the Mishnah and is there-
fore
somewhat later. Strack suggests its author is Hiyya bar
31 Ibid., p. 25.
32 SITM, p. 118.
33 Ibid., pp. 20-25.
34 Herbert Danby, ed., The Mishnah (
Press,
1933).
35 Isidore Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud (35 vols.;
The
Soncino Press, 1935-52).
326
probably
from the early third century. Only three tractates of
the
Tosefta are presently available in
English.37
Some other early remarks left out of
the Mishnah have found
their
way into the Gemara of the Babylonian
and Palestinian
Talmuds
where they are designated as Baraitha.
The Palestinian
Talmud
was completed early in the fifth century and therefore
contains
material up to that time.38 The Babylonian Talmud
was
not closed until the middle of the sixth century.39 As little
of
the Palestinian Talmud is available in English, it has not been
cited
here.
The rabbinical discussions which are
organized according to
the
biblical texts (rather than topically as in the previous ma-
terials)
are known as Midrashim. Among the
extant Midrashim,
only
those compiled by the schools of Akiba and Ishmael may
be
as old as the Mishnah.40
But of these, only one, Sifre on
Numbers,
is available in English, and that only in selection.41
The
works contained in the later Midrash
Rabbah date from the
fifth
to the twelfth centuries.42 But,
since these are readily
available,
in English, they are occasionally cited in this study.43
We shall examine these sources for
references to Jamnia to
see
what can be learned about rabbinical activity there. Then
we
shall examine early rabbinical discussions relating to canon,
whenever
and wherever these have occurred. Little attempt will
be
made to criticize these materials as Neusner is now doing,44
36 SITM, p. 75.
37 Herbert Danby, ed., Tractate Sanhedrin: Mishnah and Tosefta
(London:
S.P.C.K., 1919) ; A. W. Greenup, ed.,
Sukkah: Mishnah and
Tosefta (London: S.P.C.K.,
1925) ; A. Lukyn Williams, ed., Tractate
Berakoth: Mishnah and
Tosephta
(London: S.P.C.K., 1921).
38 SITM, p. 65.
39 Ibid., p. 71.
40 Ibid., pp. 206--09.
41 P. P. Levertoff, Midrash Sifre on Numbers: Selections (
S.P.C.K.,
1926).
42 Encyclopaedia Judaica (16 vols.;
see
relevant articles.
43 H. Freedman and Maurice
Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah (10 vols.
;
44 Jacob Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the
Traditions
Concerning Yohanan ben
Zakkai (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1970); Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus: The Tradition
and the Man
(2 vols.;
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 327
for
the author has neither the background nor inclination to
undertake
such a mammoth and problematical task. Naturally,
some
attempt will be made to estimate the date of various tradi-
tions,
from which perhaps one could get an idea of the relative
reliability
of each tradition,45 but anything further I leave to
others.
The ancient city of
south
of
mentioned
both in the Old Testament and in various records
of
the intertestamental period, Jamnia was basically a gentile city
before
the Hasmonean period and did not become thoroughly
Jewish
until about the time of Tiberius.46 According to the
Talmud,
Jamnia was twice the home of the (Great) Sanhedrin,
which
moved there from
returned,
and then passed back to Usha.47 The ten locations of
the
Sanhedrin mentioned here are consistent with the list given
in
the sixth-century Midrash Genesis
Rabbah,48 although the
later
source does not mention the double sojourns at Jamnia
and
Usha.
R. Johanan ben Zakkai seems to have
been instrumental in
the
establishment of the Great Sanhedrin at Jamnia. During the
siege
of
the
doomed city by having his disciples announce his death and
carry
him to safety in a casket. Once outside, he met the Roman
general
(soon to be emperor) Vespasian, who allowed him to
have
“Jabneh and its Wise Men.”49 Notice, however, that this
passage
suggests there were already scholars at Jamnia when
ben
Zakkai arrived. This is further implied by the earlier
Mishnah:
He (the rebellious elder) was
executed neither by his local
Beth Din (i.e., court or Sanhedrin)
nor by the Beth Din at
Jabneh, but was taken to the Great
Beth Din in
1973);
A Life of Yohanan ben Zakkai (2nd
edn.;
1970);
The Rabbinic Traditions about the
Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.;
45 Neusner, Development of a Legend, p. 10.
46 "Jabneh," Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX, p. 1176.
47 BT, R.H. 31.
48 MR, Gen. 97.
49 BT, Git. 56.
328
and kept there until the (next)
festival, and executed
thereon.50
This
remark, attributed to R. Akiba, indicates an important
Sanhedrin
at Jamnia even before the siege of
passage
throughout the land is assumed.
However, a discordant note is struck
by the much later
Midrash
Ecclesiastes Rabbah (7th to 10th centuries),51 which
says:
R. Johanan ben Zakkai had five
disciples, and as long as he
lived they sat before him. When he
died, they went to
Jabneh.52
If
this tradition is correct, then ben Zakkai either was not a
permanent
resident of Jamnia or he left the city before his death.
After ben Zakkai, R. Gamaliel II
became head of the rab-
binical
activity at Jamnia. He was later forced to share his
authority
with R. Eleazar ben Azariah because he continually
insulted
R. Joshua.53 R. Akiba was already important by this
time,
but he seems to have figured even more prominently in
later
activities there. In any case Jamnia was still the center of
rabbinical
activity at the close of the second revolt in A.D. 135,54
in
which Akiba and many others died.
A number of scholars are mentioned
in connection with
Jamnia.
Without attempting to reassess the work of Talmudic
experts,
these rabbis can be classified roughly by age according
to
the scheme of Strack, which we shall follow here.55 Among
the
oldest rabbis at Jamnia (before A.D. 90), Johanan ben
Zakkai
is frequently mentioned,56 not only as founder but also
as
a participant and leader. R. Zadok is also mentioned as a
contemporary
of ben Zakkai57 and (if the same person is in
view)
also of Gamaliel II.58 Ben Bokri is mentioned once.59
50 M, Sanh. 89a.
51 Encyclopaedia Judaica, XI, p. 1512.
52 MR, Eccl. 7. 7.. 2.
53 BT, Ber. 27b.
54 Ibid., 48b.
55 SITM, pp. 109f-I.
56 E.g., M, R.H. 29b; BT, Git.
56, Men. 21b.
57 BT, Git. 56b.
58 Tos., Sanh. 8. 1.
59 BT, Men. 21b.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 329
The next generation (c. A.D.
90-130), overlapping to some
extent
with those that precede and follow, can be subdivided
into
an older and younger group. In the older group, R.
Gamaliel
II is most frequently mentioned, both as head of the
Beth
ha-Midrash at Jamni.60 as well as prince of the San-
hedrin.61
His wealthy contemporary R. Eleazar ben Azariah was
elected
to replace him (at least in his former office) for a time,
after
which they shared the position.62 Other contemporaries
associated
with Gamaliel at Jamnia were: R. Joshua, mentioned
above,
who was reputed to have spoken all the seventy lan-
guages
guages of mankind63 and who, after much argument, submitted
to
Gamaliel's decision on the date of Yom Kippur;64 R. Eliezer
ben
Hyrcanus;65 R. Levitas;66 Samuel the Little, a disciple of
Hillel
"deserving that the Shechinah should alight upon him"
and
author of the benediction against heretics;67 and Simeon
the
Pakulite, who is said to have formulated the Eighteen
Benedictions.68
The younger group of this generation
is dominated by R.
Akiba,
who is important in the pre-history of the Mishnah. He
is
mentioned as early as the time of Gamaliel's replacement by
Eleazar
ben Azariah,69 and he was executed by the Romans
in
connection with the Bar Kochba revolt70 Frequently in argu-
ment
with Akiba are R. Tarfon7l and R. Ishmael.72 The latter
founded
a school in competition with Akiba's, and these schools
produced
the Tannaitic Midrashim.73 Two other rabbis con-
temporary
with Akiba seem to be slightly younger (or at least
less
advanced in studies): R. Jose the Galilean74 and R. Simon
60 BT, Ber. 27b.
61 Tos., Sanh. 8. 1.
62 BT, Ber. 27b.
63 BT, Sanh. 17b.
64 M, R.H. 25a.
65 BT, Sanh. 17b.
66 M, Ab. 4. 4.
67 BT, Sot. 48b, Ber. 28b.
68 BT, Ber. 28b, Meg. 17b.
69 BT, Ber. 27b.
70 BT, Ber. 61b.
71 M, Ber. 28b; BT, Zeb. 57a,
Kid. 66.
72 BT, Zeb. 57a.
73 SITM, pp. 206ff.
74 BT, Zeb. 57a.
330
the
Temanite.75 Besides these rabbis, a butcher I1a76 and a
physician
Theodos77 figured in rabbinical discussions at Jamnia,
apparently
in this period.
The third generation (after A.D.
130) apparently consisted
only
of students or very young rabbis when the Sanhedrin left
Jamnia
for good. Such men only appear in Jamnia in the follow-
ing:
When our teachers entered the
vineyard at Jabneh, there
were among them R. Judah and R. Jose
and R. Nehemiah
and R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose
the Galilean. They all
spoke in honour of hospitality and
expounded texts (for that
purpose).78
Apparently,
then, the Sanhedrin left Jamnia the second time
shortly
after A.D. 135.
What sort of rabbinical activity
went on at Jamnia during
the
height of its fame? Jamnia is said to have had a Beth Din
even
while the Great Beth Din continued to function in Jeru-
salem.79
It also seems to have been the principal
Beth Din in
the
time of ben Zakkai,80 Gamaliel II,81 and Akiba.82
Similarly,
the
term "Sanhedrin," synonymous with all but the smallest
Beth
Din,83 is also applied to Jamnia in the same period.84
According
to the Tosefta:
The Sanhedrin was arranged in the
form of a semicircle,
so that they might all see each
other. The Prince sat in the
middle with the elders on his right
and left. R. Eleazar, the
son of Zadok, said: 'When Rabban
Gamaliel sat at Jabneh,
my father and another sat on his
right, and the other elders
on his left.'85
Jamnia was also said to have had a
Beth ha-Midrash during
this
period, in connection with which Rabbis Gamaliel, Eleazar
75 BT, Sanh. 17b.
76 M, Ber. 28b-29a, 40b.
77 M, Ber. 28b; IBT, Sanh. 33a.
78 BT, Ber. 63b.
79 M, Sanh. 89a.
80 M, R.H. 29b.
81 M, R.H. 25a.
82 M, Ber. 28b, 40b.
83 Encyclopaedia Judaica, IV, p. 720.
84 BT, R.H. 31, Sanh. 17b; Tos.,
Sanh. 8. 1.
85 Tos., Sanh. 8. 1.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 331
ben
Azariah, Joshua, Akiba, Ishmael, Tarfon, and Jose the
Galilean
are all named.86 During the somewhat later mishnaic
period
(c. A.D. 200), such an institution was a biblical study
center
independent of the synagogue and considered even more
holy.87
The Beth ha-Midrash at Jamnia is explicitly connected
with
the so-called "vineyard" there.88 Although this place may
have
been an actual vineyard, the 4th century rabbi Hiyya ben
Nehemiah
speaks of a tradition that it was so named "because
of
the disciples who sat in tiers as in a vineyard."89 It is not
clear
whether the Sanhedrin met in the same place, although
the
semicircular form of the latter and the (presumably) recti-
linear
form of the former would seem to be against this. Among
references
to the vineyard, all are consistent with a Beth ha-
Midrash:
several involve exposition of Scripture,90 one speaks
of
teaching,91 and another, though mentioning a halakic dis-
pute,92
which might equally well occur in a Sanhedrin, uses
the
term Beth ha-Midrash.
There were therefore at least two
different rabbinical institu-
tions
functioning at Jamnia during this period, a Beth Din or
Sanhedrin
and a Beth ha-Midrash. Let us seek to catalogue the
activities
mentioned in reference to Jamnia to see if there is
anything
left over which would not fit one of these two insti-
tutions.
In later years, Jamnia was
especially remembered for the
wisdom
and piety of its rabbis. Although some of the incidents
reported
in this regard appear to be exaggerated, it seems clear
that
some facts lay behind this reputation. Thus Samuel the
Little
was probably an unusually pious man, whether or not a
Bath Kol ever indicated he was
the only man of his generation
deserving
to receive the Shekinah.93 Likewise the almost legen-
dary
wisdom of the "Sages of Jabneh"94 presumably has some
86 BT, Ber. 27b, Zeb. 57a.
87 Encvclopacdia Judaica, IV, p.
751.
88 BT, Zeb. 57a.
89 MR, Eccl. 2. 8. 1.
90 BT, Ber. 63b, B.B. 131b; MR,
Ecc1. 2. 8. 1.
91 BT, Yeb. 42b.
92 BT, Zeb. 57a.
93 BT, Sot. 48b, Sanh. 11a.
94 BT, Kid. 49b.
332
basis
in fact, whether or not they included four men who could
speak
the seventy languages of mankind.95
On a more prosaic level, we find
that the habits and sayings
of
the rabbis at Jamnia were long remembered. Thus the prac-
tice
at Jamnia of removing the leaven on the 14th of Nisan even
when
it fell on a Sabbath contributes to a later discussion.96
Liturgical
customs are recalled,97 and the frugal example set
by
Gamaliel II at his own funeral reversed a prevailing trend
which
was impoverishing the heirs.98
Among many sayings attributed to
various rabbis active at
Jamnia,
one collective remark occurs:
A favourite saying of the rabbis of
Jabneh was: I am God's
creature and my fellow is God's
creature. My work is in the
town and his work is in the country.
I rise early for my work
and he rises early for his work.
Just as he does not presume
to do my work, so I do not presume
to do his work. Will you
say, I do much and he does little?
We have learnt: One may
do much or one may do little, it is
all one, provided he
directs his heart to heaven.99
This exemplary material provides little
of real help for our
discussion.
Probably a school (Beth ha-Midrash) in prolonged
contact
with its students is more likely to produce such memo-
ries
than a combination court and legislature such as the Beth
Din.
But we have already shown that both existed at Jamnia.
No
third institution, such as a council or synod, is suggested
by
this material.
Other passages associate teaching
and exposition of Scripture
with
Jamnia. Recall the reference to students sitting in rows like
a
vineyard.100 One particularly industrious student was remem-
bered
for finding a hundred and fifty reasons why a dead "creep-
ing thing" should be considered clean.101 Likewise R. Joh