were generally representations of kings, that they were used for purposes of worship, and
that their prohibition applied only to villages, not to towns, where they were used for
ornament. Similarly the Mishnah directs that everything bearing a representation of sun
or moon, or of a dragon, was to be thrown into the Dead Sea (Ab. Z. iii. 3). On the other
hand, the Talmud quotes (Ab. Z. 42 b) a proposition (Boraita), to the effect that all
representations of the planets were allowed, except those of the sun a nd moon,1 likewise
all statues except those of man, and all pictures except those of a dragon, the discussion
leading to the conclusion that in two, if not in all the cases mentioned, the Talmudic
directions refer to finding, not making such. So stringent, indeed, was the law as regarded
signet-rings, that it was forbidden to have raised work on them, and only such figures
were allowed as were sunk beneath the surface, although even then they were not to be
used for sealing (Ab. Z. 43 b). But this already marks a concession, accorded apparently
to a celebrated Rabbi, who had such a ring. Still further in the same direction is the
excuse, framed at a later period, for the Rabbis who worshipped in a Synagogue that had
a statue of a king to the effect that they could not be suspected of idolatry, since the place,
and hence their conduct, was under the inspection of all men. This more liberal tendency
had, indeed, appeared at a much earlier period, in the case of the Nasi Gamaliel II., who
made use of a public bath at Acco in which there was a statue of Aphrodite. The Mishnah
(Ab. Z. iii. 4) puts this twofold plea into his mouth, that he had not gone into the domain
of the idol, but the idol came into his, and that the statue was there for ornament, not for
worship. The Talmud endorses, indeed, these arguments, but in a manner showing that
the conduct of the great Gamaliel was not really approved of (Ab. Z. 44 b ). But a statue
used for idolatrous purposes was not only to be pulverized, but the dust cast to the winds
or into the sea, lest it might possible serve as manure to the soul! (Ab. Z. iii. 3.) This may
explain how Josephus ventured even to blame King Solomon for the figures on the
Brazen sea and on his throne (Ant. viii. 7. 5), and how he could excite a fanat ical rabble
at Tiberias, to destroy the palace of Herod Antipas because it contained 'figures of living
creatures' (Life 12).2
1. The Nasi R. Gamaliel made use of representations of the moon in questioning ignorant
witnesses with a view of fixing (by the new moon) the beginning of the month. But this
must be regarded as a necessary exception to the rule.
2. Following the insufficient reasoning of Ewald (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. vol. v. p. 83),
Schürer represents the non-issue of coins with the image of Herod as a concession to
Jewish prejudices, and argues that the coins of the Emperors struck in Palestine bore no
effigy. The assertion is, however, unsupported, and St. Matt. xxii. 20 proves that coins
with an image of Cĉsar were in general circulation. Wieseler (Beitr. pp. 83 -87) had
shown that the absence of Herod's effigy on coins proves his inferior position relatively
to Rome, and as this has an important bearing on the question of a Roman census during
his reign, it was scarcely fair to simply ignore it. The Talmud (Baba K. 97 b) speaks of
coins bearing on one side David and Solomon (? their effigies or their names), and on the
other 'Jerusalem, the holy City.' But if it be doubtful whether these coins had respectively
the effigies of David or of Solomon, t here can be no doubt about the coins ascribed in
Ber. R. (Par. 39, ed. Warshau, p. 71 b) to Abraham, Joshua, David, and Mordecai - that of
Abraham being described as bearing on one side the figures of an old man and an old
woman (Abraham and Sarah), and on the other those of a young man and a young woman
(Isaac and Rebekah). The coins of Joshua are stated to have borne on one side a bullock,
on the other a ram, according to Deut. xxxiii. 17. There could, therefore, have been no
such abhorrence of such coins, and if there had been Herod was scarcely the man to be