Halakha in the Gospels

How to cite this article: Ze’ev Safrai, “Halakha in the Gospels,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28876/].

Updated: 23 April 2025

I met David Bivin as a child when he was a senior student in the bet midrash of my teacher, Prof. David Flusser and my father Shmuel Safrai, may they rest in peace. I grew up into this bet midrash, which was conducted in the university, at home, while we traveled, and when we lay down and rose up. David Bivin stood out both as a researcher and in his welcome activity in the bet midrash of Jerusalem Perspective. When I imagine what the study method of Bet Shammai or Bet Hillel would have been like, had they been active in modern times, I imagine this bet midrash in present-day Jerusalem. The coordinators—the late Prof. Flusser and David Bivin—focused on studying the Jewish background of the New Testament, and the question of halakha in the New Testament was central to their discussion and their work as public intellectuals. That is why I decided to explore this subject for the book honoring David Bivin.

Outline

This article has two goals,^[103] the first of which is to discern the relations between the Synoptic Gospels and the Pharisaic halakha, known to us from rabbinical literature. The second goal is to find out what can be learned from the implied halakha in the Gospels about the ancient rabbinic halakha. The starting point of the discussion is the table found in Appendix 1 of this article. The table lists more than 140 halakhot mentioned or alluded to in the Gospels and Acts, the vast majority of which are from the Synoptic Gospels.

In the introduction, the principles according to which the table was prepared are presented, and cases of doubt are raised. Doubtful cases were not entered into the table, so that the proposed findings should be considered a minimum number of halakhot in the New Testament. However, it is worth noting that in the research, doubts have already been cast on some of the evidence.

In the first section, the general picture is presented, emerging from Appendix 1. Research until now has mainly dealt with individual cases of halakhot, which can be interpreted in different ways. But the general picture points to a great closeness between the halakha in the New Testament and the literature of the sages. The large number of halakhot in the Gospels proves, beyond the doubts that exist today in the research, that Jesus is described as the leader of a group that observed the Pharisaic halakha. The picture emerging from the Gospels points to writers (and readers) who were familiar with the halakhic lifestyle, and for whom halakha was central.

In the second section, a division of the halakhot according to their literary context is presented: 1. Laws that are mentioned by way of a story or description; 2. Laws in which Jesus debated with the “others” (the Pharisees and/or the scribes). Almost all of the laws in the first group are according to the ancient Pharisaic halakha (or are represented within the diversity of the Pharisaic halakha of the Second Temple). After that, the fifteen cases in which there is an open debate between the “others” and Jesus are discussed. In almost all of them, Jesus’ words correspond to the law of the sages or are represented within the diversity that existed in rabbinic literature.

Sometimes the evidence for the early halakha comes from later sources (even from the Middle Ages) that preserved the ancient halakha. The article focuses on the laws themselves, and not on the arguments presented in the Gospels. These arguments require a separate investigation, some of them contradict the thought of the sages. In the third section, the literary structure of the dialogues is examined, and it will be noted that such dialogues are also found in the literature of the Sages.

In the fourth section we will examine the legal nature of the halakhic thought attributed to Jesus. As has already been shown in the research, the halakha attributed to Jesus does not reflect a legal character, in contrast to the halakha of the Sages. However, it turns out that the ancient halakha of the Sages was neither legal nor coherent in nature. This argument was raised in a previous study without any connection to the study of the halakha in the Gospels.

We will conclude that Jesus’ halakha is an integral part of early halakha from the first century in all its aspects. Thus implausible that Jesus lodged a principled polemic against central tenets of halakha.

---

• ^[1] For literature that sums up the various opinions, see: P. J. Tomson, “Halakha in the New Testament: A Research Overview,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefeyt and P. J. Tomson (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-206. This volume includes a survey of the literature and directions of the research on the main topics: Shabbat, purity, divorce, and more. See also Thomas Kazen, Impurity and Purification in Early Judaism and the Jesus Tradition (Stockholm: SBL Press, 2021); N. A. van Uchelen, “Halakha in het Nieuwe Testament?” Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 49 (1995): 177-189; W. R. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude Towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 4, Law and Love (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002). The topic also touches on the nonscientific. John P. Meier, agreeing with Kähler and Bultmann on this point, stresses that “the Jesus of history is not, and cannot be, the object of Christian faith.” See Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 197. Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998). ↩
• ^[2] Phillip Sigal, The Halakha of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (Atlanta, 2007) 66-69. ↩
• ^[3] See S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), x–xii; and under the subheading Order of Blessings above. ↩
• ^[4] The case of b. Shab. 116b is exceptional and reflects fourth century Babylonia. See note 29 below. ↩
• ^[5] S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel (Jerusalem and Alon Shvut: Lifshitz and Tvunot, 2008-2023); E. E. Urbach, Halakha: Its Sources and Development (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988); as well as many Talmudic and historical studies. Nearly every paper in these fields deals incidentally with the halakhic evidence in the New Testament. ↩
• ^[6] See P. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature, Brill Van Gorcum, 1990), 92-99. Mark and Luke do not mention the possibility to divorce from adulteress, but it is possible that they thought the expulsion of an adulteress was a commandment, and therefore unnecessary to mention. ↩
• ^[7] A. Schremer, Male and Female He Created Them: Jewish Marriage in Late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2003), 183-218 (Hebrew). ↩
• ^[8] Ibid., 210-218. ↩
• ^[9] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Kidushin (Alon Shvut, 2022), 42-46. ↩
• ^[10] Raymond. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (London: Paulist Press 1979); J. Louis Martyn, The Gospel of John in Christian History: Essays for Interpreters (Eugene Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004). ↩
• ^[11] “Scribes and Pharisees” is a typically Matthaean polemical phrase, esp. in Matt. 23. ↩
• ^[12] Y. Furstenberg, “Jesus against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second Temple Inter-Sectarian Discourse,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020): 767-786. ↩
• ^[13] So, in Matthew; in Luke 11:39 it is “Now you Pharisees.” See M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 145-154. ↩
• ^[14] T. Ilan, “Matrona and Rabbi Jose: An Alternative Interpretation,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 25 (1994): 18-51; R. Gershenzon and E. Slomovic, “A Second Century Jewish-Gnostic Debate: Rabbi Jose ben Halafta and the Matrona” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 16 (1985): 1-41. ↩
• ^[15] Averil Cameron, Niels Gaul, eds., Dialogues and Debates from Late Antiquity to Late Byzantium (London: Routledge, 2017). ↩
• ^[16] There is no legal difference between halakhot from the Written Torah and those in the Oral Law. In general, the distinction between the two appears of course in the rabbinic literature, but it did not affect the social status of the mitzvot. For example, the details of the laws of ritual slaughter are not from the Torah, but they were central to everyday life, like mitzvot from the Torah. The laws of purity for those who are not priests not clear in the Torah. Central rules of purity are certainly not from the Torah, such as mikveh, the rules of immersion, the impurity of drinks, and the impurity of food (which will be mentioned below). ↩
• ^[17] The piyyut adds to the circumcision ceremony that appears in the Tosefta the verse: “...And his name will be called....” See J. Yahalom, Liturgical Poems of Simon Bar Megas (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1984), 211. “And his name will be called” is the precise wording of the prayer following the circumcision, which is said to this day: “And the name [of the circumcised child] will be called p^eloni ben p^eloni [so-and-so son of so-and-so].” ↩
• ^[18] The next evidence comes from a ninth- or tenth-century piyyut (my thanks to Shulamit Elitzur for pointing it out to me). “And on the eighth day...he will be called by the name....” S. Elitzur, Piyute R. Elʻazar Birabi Kilar (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 321. The determination that the name is given during the circumcision appears as a halakha in a midrash composed in Italy (Sekhel Tov on Bereshit 17:14) . The formulation is repeated by sages from Ashkenaz (Germany and France) at the end of that century. The next evidence is in a manuscript from the beginning of the eleventh century (Corpus Christi College Lib. 133). This prayer appears again in the Ashkenazic literature from the twelfth century (Sefer Klalei Hamila by R. Yaakov Hagozer [2:52] in idem, Zichron Brit Rishonim, [Krakov: Fisher Press, 1892]; the book of commentaries on the Siddur of Rokeach, Blessings of the Circumcision [Jerusalem: Machon Harav Hershler, 1992] [Par. 143]; the Siddur of R. Shlomo of Worms [Jerusalem: Machon Harav Hershler, 1972], 287). ↩
• ^[19] Safrai and Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages, 77-79. ↩
• ^[20] See above under the subtitle Purifying the outside of a cup or bowl. ↩
• ^[21] For a summary of the author’s opinion, see Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Berakhot (Jerusalem, 2001), 393. ↩
• ^[22] See below, note 30. ↩
• ^[23] It is difficult to define the difference between halakha and custom. Just as it is difficult to define the difference between an “obligating custom” and a “folk” (popular) custom. Every society has laws and customs and there are some kind of social norms that are less valid, and their observance is voluntary. In the formal theoretical conception of halacha from the Middle Ages, halakha was determined by the sages and popular custom was determined by the public (Rambam, Hilkhot Mamrim 4:2). But this is a formal theoretical diagnosis since we do not know how every halakha was determined. See Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Pes. (Jerusalem: Liphshitz publishing House, 2009), 150-151 and literature cited there in note 1.
  
  In practice, those who belong to the elite circles of society know how to intuitively distinguish between the two. From a formal point of view, a mitzvah must be blessed, and a folk custom is not blessed. But this distinction is only partial. An additional difference is that custom is not mandatory, its observance is voluntary. Moreover, it is not integrated in the halakhic system, and sometimes even contradicts it. It is not legally justified. Halakha has a coherent legal structure, and custom does not fit into this structure. However, in the end it is difficult to define, legally, what a folk custom is, just as it is difficult to define what a folk culture is, but everyone who lives in this system knows and feels the difference. ↩
• ^[24] Z. Safrai, “Rabbinic Parables as an Historical Source,” in G. Herman, et al., eds., Between Babylonia and the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2016), 287-318. ↩
• ^[25] M. Hadas, “Rabbinic Parallels to Scriptorum Historiae Augustae,” in H. A. Fischel, ed., Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1977), 43-47. ↩
• ^[26] Apparently the halakha that one begins with the blessing over bread is post-Tannaitic. ↩
• ^[27] D. Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magness, 1988), 202-206. Also Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Van Gorcum: Fortress, 2002), 304-309. ↩
• ^[28] See also Acts 10:15. This sentence is quoted by the Babylonian Talmud (b. Shab. 116b) in an Aramaic version (perhaps from the lost Aramaic Gospel) “I proceeded at the end of the Gospel, and it is written in it: not to cancel from the Torah of Moses I have come, nor add to the Torah of Moses I have come.” See Y. Paz, “The Torah of the Gospel: A Rabbinic Polemic against The Syro-Roman Lawbook,” The Harvard Theological Review 112 (2019): 517-540. ↩
• ^[29] When it comes to statements attributed to Jesus the concept applies that every stroke of a letter in the Torah is a basis for multiple halakhot. This concept appears mainly in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Eruv. 21b; b. Men. 29b) but it is also implied in the Land of Israel midrashim (Vayikra Rabbah 19:2, p. 419; Shir Hashirim Rabbah 5:1, 11; Midrash Shmuel 5:3, p. 19). The d^erāshā in Vayikra Rabbah continues by saying that all the nations in the world cannot change the halakha in the “Torah.” In that case, the later midrash follows the metaphor and the order of Matthew (not Luke). In this case, too, the parallel to the New Testament is a relatively late Jewish text (five to six hundred years after Jesus). It is doubtful that Vayikra Rabbah was influenced by Matthew (there is no proof that the sages were familiar with the contents of the Gospels). It is more likely that Matthew’s community (or perhaps Jesus himself) used a formulation that was created in the bet midrash already in the first century and was preserved in the midrash. An example of a similar process is found in the series of plant species exempt from tithing (see above, under the subheading The scribes and Pharisees tithe herbs). It should be stressed that the halakhic literature contains no halakhot and almost no d^erāshōt learned from the strokes (thorns of vowels) of the Torah, and the entire d^erāshā is a myth in terms of real-world praxis. ↩
• ^[30] D. A. Carson, “Jesus and the Shabbat in the Four Gospels,” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical Historical and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 57-97; P. J. Tomson, “Halakha in the New Testament: A Research Overview,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefey and P. J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 135-206; L. Doering, “Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. R. Bieringer, F. García Martínez, D. Pollefey and P. J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 207-253; and a great deal of additional literature. ↩
• ^[31] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat (2009), 458-459; see m. Shab. 18:2; t. Shab. 14(15):3. ↩
• ^[32] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Betzah (2011); m. Bez. 3:5, according to Rambam’s commentary. ↩
• ^[33] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Yoma (2010), 298-302; m. Yom. 8:5-7. ↩
• ^[34] But see Peter J. Tomson, “An Alienated Jewish Tradition in John 7:22-23 Proposal for an ‘Epichronic’ Reading,” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 297-314. ↩
• ^[35] S. Safrai, “The Pharisees and the Hasidim,” Sidic–Service international de documentations judeo-chretienne X.2 (1977): 12-16. ↩
• ^[36] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat I (1999), 267. ↩
• ^[37] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shabbat II (1999), 386. ↩
• ^[38] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Rosh Hashana (2001), 388-389. ↩
• ^[39] Some scholars found it hard to accept that, this unimportant detail could serve as a dispute for generations. Therefore, these scholars have suggested several explanations for the term s^emichāh, such as that the dispute was about the support (s^emichāh) of the halakha in the written texts or about the ordination of the sages, and so on. However, the baraitot in the Tosefta and the Talmuds, and the halakhot and the deeds that were cited, attest that s^emichāh is meant literally: the placing of hands on the sacrifice on the festival. The act of placing hands on the head of the sacrifice, which seemed to the sages to be of secondary importance (in the words of the Mishna “s^emichāh—is outside the commandment” [סמיכה—שירי מצוה]), in other words, a sacrifice may be sacrificed and atone even if hands were not placed on it (m. Men. 9:8). It is also impossible to sever this Mishna from the following Mishna, which specifically discusses the question of whether it is permitted to bring a sh^elāmim sacrifice on a festival and to place one’s hand on it. In any case, on Shabbat it is forbidden to perform s^emichāh, since it concerns an animal and s^emichāh is considered work when it comes to an animal. ↩
• ^[40] Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Ta‘anit Megilla (Jerusalem, 2010), 18-20. ↩
• ^[41] But see R. Steven Notley, “Luke 5:35: ‘When the Bridegroom Is Taken Away’—Anticipation of the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in The Gospels in First Century Judaea. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of Nyack College’s Graduate Program in Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, August 29, 2013 ed. R. S. Notley and J. P. García (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 107-121. ↩
• ^[42] Luke 11:38 uses the noun βαπτισμός (baptismos, “immersion”) without explicit mention of handwashing. Immersion before eating the evening meal was the regular halakha among those who ate in purity (mainly priests [m. Ber. 1:1]). This was also the law in the Qumran sect (J.W. 2:129-132). However, I prefer to explain Luke 11:38 in agreement with the parallels in Matthew and Mark. ↩
• ^[43] It is possible that handwashing was greatly influenced by Hellenistic table manners, and it appears in Roman writers such as Athenaeus as a nomos (“law”). ↩
• ^[44] Z. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Yadaim (digital edition, 2020), 5-46. In terms of halakha, m. Hagigah 2:5 requires handwashing for ordinary food, but according to Mishna Halla (m. Hall. 1:9; m. Bik. 2:1) handwashing is only for the heave offering and for hallah. According to this opinion, handwashing is required only for priests, and not for Jesus’ group. The unique status of handwashing is prominent in the many sayings that stress the prohibition against taking handwashing lightly. Elazar ben Haned (Hanoch) was ostracized because he had doubts about handwashing (y. Moed Kat. 3:1, 81d; b. Ber. 19a). “He who takes handwashing lightly is uprooted from the world” (b. Sota 4b). Another expression regarding doubts about handwashing appears in Tana Debei Eliyahu: “From here they said, anyone who takes handwashing lightly has a bad sign, about whom it is said: ‘And it happened when he heard these things,’ etc. ‘God will not want to forgive him,’ etc. (Deut. 29:18, 19), so we have learned that anyone who rejects handwashing has a bad sign” (Tana Debei Eliyahu 16, p. 72). There is debate regarding the date of this source. ↩
• ^[45] The literature on this subject is endless: see T. Holmén, “Jesus and the Purity Paradigm,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. T. Holmén (Leiden: Brill, 2011): 2709-2744; C. Wassen, “The Jewishness of Jesus and Ritual Purity,” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 27 (2016): 11-36. T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakha; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality; B. Chilton et al., Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity and Restoration (Brill: Leiden, 1997); R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity, JSNTS 13 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986). ↩
• ^[46] See above, beneath the subheading Stone Vessels. ↩
• ^[47] M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), 145-154. See also, Y. Furstenberg, “Defilement Penetrating the Body: A New Understanding of Contamination in Mark 7.15,” NTS 54 (2008): 176-200. ↩
• ^[48] According to Mishna Toharot, food that has second-degree impurity defiles the hands, “If they were then separated [the body no longer touches impurity] they are still regarded as having second-degree impurity. If one of them was defiled from the hands, they all have third-degree impurity” (m. Toh. 1:7). This is a more lenient position, where someone who touches impure food becomes impure himself but does not defile food or utensils he then touches. ↩
• ^[49] Samuel A. Olarewaju, Oath-taking in the New Testament (Deerfield Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1995); Scott Hahn, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: some current research (1994-2004),” Currents in Biblical Research 3(2) (2005): 263-292. ↩
• ^[50] Sifre to Numbers, Paragraph 153. The verse speaks of vows. See Z. Safrai and Ch Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim (Alon Shvut: Tvunot Press, 2019), 105. In the sectarian CD column 16 the halakha is like the opponents of Jesus. ↩
• ^[51] The term “korban” in Matt. 15:5 is missing in some of the manuscripts. ↩
• ^[52] See also. m. Bab. Kam 9:10 and parallels. “Konam” is one of the “code words” for a vow, see m. Ned 1:1. Another translation is “whatever benefit you might derive from me.” In the Syrian translation the same words as in the Hebrew text of the Mishna: קורבני מדם דתההנה מני. ↩
• ^[53] The example of the Mishna is the tools of the altar. ↩
• ^[54] Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim, 78. ↩
• ^[55] Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Nedarim, 87. ↩
• ^[56] Jud. 11:31, but see also 1 Kgs. 14:45. ↩
• ^[57] Philo, Hypothetica 7:3; Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 40:4. ↩
• ^[58] Matt. 23:5 speaks about phylacteries (tefillin in Hebrew) and not about prayer (tefilla in Hebrew). ↩
• ^[59] As for opposition to straying from the sanctified formula of the prayer (not lengthening it and, of course, not shortening it) see m. Ber. 1:4; m. Ber. 33b; m. Meg. 25a. I have demonstrated elsewhere that in the Second Temple period and the era of the ancient tannaim, the sages were not especially keen on public prayer, but believed it was a commandment individuals should fulfill at home or at work without ceremony or external emphasis. See M. Aviam and Z. Safrai, “Private Synagogues: What They Were Used For?” JAAJ 5 (2023): 97-126. ↩
• ^[60] This is how the Mishna should be understood. See Safrai and Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Israel, Shekalim (2009), 60-62. ↩
• ^[61] As on all of these topics, scholarship abounds on the issue of divorce, and articles summarizing the history of scholarship have also been published. See P. J. Tomson, “Divorce Halakha in Paul and in the Jesus Tradition,” in R. Bieringer et al., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 289-332; L. Döring, “Marriage and Creation in Mark 10 and CD 4-5,” in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament, ed. Florentino García M. (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 133-163. ↩
• ^[62] For the textual problems see below. Mark 7:4 refers to the washing of vessels, but it is an explanatory comment of the author of Mark, not a polemic in the mouth of Jesus. ↩
• ^[63] Maccoby, Ritual and Morality. For the opposite opinion, see, for example, Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakha. ↩
• ^[64] But in modern literature there are other explanations for this verb. ↩
• ^[65] See for example the Syriac translation to Luke 11:38. Mark adds that the vessels are copper vessels. So it is possible that Mark the understood the halakhic problem of the tradition, and “adapted” it to the halakha he knew. ↩
• ^[66] Zeev Safrai, “The Rise and Fall of ‘Purity Culture’ in the Land of Israel: A Historic Perspective” Atiqot 113 (2023): 150-152. ↩
• ^[67] See also Luke 11:38. ↩
• ^[68] See above, under the subheading Early Halakha and Current Halakha. ↩
• ^[69] The only law in relation to such holy sites is a special blessing for one who sees a place where miracles have been done (m. Ber. 9:1). However, these are not holy places but part of a list that includes all kinds of special places and unusual natural phenomenon The list in the Mishna does not show any relation to the list of holy places (Rachel’s tomb, the tombs of the patriarchs, etc.) that were active at that time. Z. Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 305-410, for m. Ber. see 407-410. ↩
• ^[70] Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land, 373-409. ↩
• ^[71] Safrai, Seeking the Holy Land, 305-410. ↩
• ^[72] So, it should be corrected, as Lieberman does in his interpretation of the Tosefta. ↩
• ^[73] See D. Correns, "Die Verzehntung der Raute: Luk xi 42 und M Schebi ix 1” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963) 110-112. ↩
• ^[74] t. Dem. 4:31; m. Shev. 9: t. Ter. 4:5. ↩
• ^[75] That is, the commandment of the sabbatical year does not apply to them. See m. Maas. 4:5; t. Shev. 2:7. ↩
• ^[76] Addition 1 to Pesikta de rav Kahana (ed. B. Mandelbaum; New York, 1962), 447; Tanchuma Toldot 8. ↩
• ^[77] Several good textual witnesses (such as MS Löv) and the print edition have מיתנא. This is a phonetic variant and it is the original formulation (the phonetic variant) ניניא — נענה in the Bavli below. The variants thus preserve a different pronunciation tradition and are not just copyist errors. This phenomenon recurs in several of the versions we view today as copyist variants, and should be examined in itself. This topic is important to understanding the phenomenon of variants. Certainly, the variants were due to copyists, but sometimes the versions are not a mistake but express local “original” variants. The topic requires a broad investigation, and this is not the place for it. ↩
• ^[78] For a full explanation see Z. Safrai and M. Vanderhorst, “Tithes in the New Testament,” in The Paths of Daniel: Studies in Judaism and Jewish Culture in Honor of Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber, ed. A. S. Ferzinger and D. Sperber (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2017), 213-226 (Heb.). ↩
• ^[79] We explain the development according to the halakha known from rabbinic sources, since the rest of the details suit the halakha and create an internally consistent argument. However, one could still claim regarding this component of the argument that Matthew did not know the halakha and did not intend to refer to it. ↩
• ^[80] H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chap. 13. ↩
• ^[81] The literature on this is rich and abundant, and contains many disputes, but this point is universally agreed upon, at least when it comes to the Second Temple period. For the latest book on the topic see Y. Furstenberg, Purity and Community in Antiquity: Traditions of the Law from Second Temple Judaism to the Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2016) (Heb.). (The English revision is under contract with Indiana University Press [Olamot series].) See also A. Oppenheimer, The, ‘Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden: Brill, 1977). ↩
• ^[82] Matt 9:9 identifies the onlookers as “the Pharisees”; Mark 2:15 identifies them as “the scribes of the Pharisees”; in Luke 5:30 they are identified as “the Pharisees and their scribes.” ↩
• ^[83] The evidence for this assertion is that ordinary fruit found in the market is consider untithed, hence the ‘amē hā’āretz were considered the majority of the population. The majority of the population cannot be condemned and excluded, as this is an impossible social situation. ↩
• ^[84] The physical area of ​​the Temple Mount today is approximately 800x300 meters, but the Mishna claims it is a square with dimensions of 500x500 cubits (approximately 300x300 meters; m. Mid. 2:1). These dimensions were influenced by the utopian description of the Temple by the prophet Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezek. 42:17). There is a difference between the religious domain known as the Temple Mount, and the actual area of ​​the “Temple Mount.” It is possible that this distinction is also an historical distinction in terms of different stages of the development of the Temple Mount and its activity. Trading was prohibited on the “religious” Temple Mount, but commercial buildings are allowed on its outskirts, outside the religious area. Indeed, we know that commercial buildings were built along the perimeter of the Temple Mount. ↩
• ^[85] Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus.” ↩
• ^[86] As I hinted above, it is a matter of great controversy in scholarship whether: 1) the ethical message must necessarily negate the observance of the commandments, or 2) whether the intention is to emphasize the ethical component as more significant than the physical fulfillment of the commandment, or 3) whether the ethical aspect is not less important than the physical fulfillment.
  
  The first option is difficult from a halakhic standpoint, since almost all of the debates are over extreme cases, in which the halakha itself was debated, or in which the rabbinic halakha of the second and third centuries opposed. Even the proofs Jesus used (comparison to other halakhot) are proofs the sages used, as has been noted by many scholars. Others have suggested that the ethical component is a later literary addition secondarily imposed upon the debate, which expresses a different orientation from the specific halakhic debate. But this approach is also problematic, since the debates were presented in the literary form of a dialogue with a fixed style. I therefore conclude that the ethical components of the debates should be understood as related only to the specific, extreme case discussed in the debate.
  
  The first part of this article proves that the historical background reflected in the social description of Jesus’ group points to writers (and readers) who knew the halakhic lifestyle, and for whom halakha was central. The editors, or the audience, of all four Gospels (and less so also of Acts) presuppose an original audience that lived in a halakhic world that they accepted. They kept the Sabbath and knew that one generally should not heal on the Sabbath, they circumcised their sons (and at the same time named them), they buried their dead according to the essential and less essential details of Jewish custom. They kept purity laws as the custom of the religious elite (the ḥ^avērim), even beyond the formal demands of halakha that we know from rabbinic literature. Thus, it is not plausible that at the same time they lodged a principled polemic against central tenets of halakha. The possibility of such an internal contradiction regarding the demands of halakha is not logical. The notion that the Gospel communities already knew Christianity’s subsequent bitter polemic against rabbinic halakha, then, becomes untenable. ↩
• ^[87] See Averil Cameron, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity, Hellenic Studies Series 65 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2014); Alberto Rigolio, Christians in Conversation: A Guide to Late Antique Dialogues in Greek and Syriac (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). ↩
• ^[88] See M. Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus”; Y. Furstenberg, “Jesus against the Laws of the Pharisees: The Legal Woe Sayings and Second Temple Inter-Sectarian Discourse,” Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020): 767-786. ↩
• ^[89] Dialogue no. 15 (commerce on the Temple Mount) is an exception. It starts with Jesus and receives no answer from anyone. ↩
• ^[90] Plucking grains on the Sabbath is an exception because it entails an undisputed halakhic prohibition. But according to the interpretation I offered above (that the plucking occurred during the week) this incident also deals with an internal halakhic dispute. In light of this general analysis, I believe my suggestion regarding this incident is preferable. The discussion on the topic of divorce is also an important issue and not a technical detail, and the addition that one who marries a divorcée commits adultery does not accord with rabbinic halakha. ↩
• ^[91] Sven-Olav Back, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (Åbo Akademi University Press, 1995). ↩
• ^[92] It is not clear exactly what these words refer to, but they relate to details of purity laws. ↩
• ^[93] Robert L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith, 1973); idem, “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” Novum Testamentum 4 (1963): 239-263; D. Flusser, “Die literarischen Beziehungen zwischen den synoptischen Evangelien,” in his Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament (2 vols.; Neukirchener, 1987-1999), 1:40-67; idem, “Die synoptische Frage und die Gleichnisse Jesu,” in his Die Rabbinischen Gleichnisse und die Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 193-213; Richard W. Stegner, “The Priority of Luke: An Exposition of Robert Lindsey’s Solution to the Synoptic Problem” Biblical Research 27 (1982): 26-38. ↩
• ^[94] We summarized our view regarding the external and semi-external evidence (Targumim, the Merkabah literature, piyyut [liturgical poetry], Roman literature, Christian literature, and archaeological finds) in our article, Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, “Were the Rabbis a Ruling Elite?” in Path of Peace: Studies in Honor of Israel Friedman Ben-Shalom, ed. D. Gera and M. Ben-Ze’ev (Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University, 2005), 373-440 (Heb.). See also, Z. Safrai and Ch. Safrai, “To What Extent Did the Rabbis Determine Public Norms? The Internal Evidence” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 172-194. We do not claim that the public norms (the halakha) were always determined by the rabbis. To the contrary, we maintain that in many instances, and perhaps throughout antiquity, the “halakha” was based on the instinctive behavior of the religious-observant public. The rabbis, however, were the ones who formulated the laws, provided them with a legal structure, and channeled them. These are the tasks of the elite. ↩
• ^[95] J. Sievers and A. J. Levine, eds., The Pharisees (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021). ↩
• ^[96] In Matt. 9:20 and Luke 4:44 the term is κρασπέδον (kraspedon, “hem,” “fringe”), but Mark 5:27 does not use the specific term. ↩
• ^[97] It should be noted that according to early medieval commentators a garment and its wearer are considered a single unit (since a garment is secondary to the person). Therefore, if the woman had touched the garment, the person would be impure at the first level, and if she touched the tzitzit and if the tzitzit is not considered part of the garment, then the person and his clothes would be impure at the second level. According to this scenario Jesus would have become impure, but at a lower level. However, the commentators' interpretation that 'the garment is secondary to the person' is not found in Talmudic sources, so it is doubtful whether this opinion was accepted in earlier periods. ↩
• ^[98] There are special laws for teruma, but this is not the place to discuss it. ↩
• ^[99] Mishna translation from Sefaria.org. ↩
• ^[100] A more distant parallel in John 4:46-54. ↩
• ^[101] According to Luke version the petitioner was clearly a Gentile, according to John he could be a Jew. According to Matthew he was an officer in the Roman army, probably a Gentile, but there is no legitimate reason why a Roman army unit would be stationed in a vassal kingdom. So, it is reasonable that he was an officer in the army of Herod Antipas. In this case he could be a Jew or a Gentile. For the possible explanations, see JP Staff Writer, “Two Neglected Aspects of the Centurion’s Slave Pericope,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28673/]. ↩
• ^[102] There is a great deal of scholarly literature on Jesus’ trial. See, for example, Avram R. Shannon, “Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament,” in Blumell, ed., New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament (Provo Utah: Brigham Young University, 2019), 122-38; David W. Chapman and Eckhard J. Schnabel, The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). ↩
• ^[103] I am very grateful to my friend, Prof. Peter Thomson, who read the manuscript very carefully and corrected many errors. His judgment was of importance in the writing of the article. I am also grateful to my editor, Joshua N. Tilton, for his great help in editing and improving the article. ↩