and necessity Hyrcanus belonged to the former, by tendency and . probably, inclination to
the later. His interference in religious affairs was by no means to the liking of the
Pharisees, still less to that of their extreme sectaries, the Chasidim. Tradition ascribes to
Hyrcanus no less than nine innovations, of which only five were afterwards continued as
legal ordinances. First , the payment of tithes (both of the Levitical and the so-called
'poor's tithe') was declared no longer obligatory on a seller, if he were one of the Am ha-
Arets, or country people, but on the b uyer.26 Complaints had long been made that this
heavy impost was not paid by the majority of the common people, and it was deemed
better to devote the responsibility on the buyer, unless the seller were what was called
'neeman,' trusted; i.e., one who had solemnly bound himself to pay tithes. In connection
with this, secondly, the declaration ordered in Deut. xxvi.3-10 was abrogated as no longer
applicable. Thirdly, all work that caused noise was forbidden during the days
intermediate between the first and the last great festive days of the Passover and of the
Feast of Tabernacles. Fourthly, the formula: 'Awake, why sleepest Thou, O Lord' (Ps.
xliv. 23), with which, since the Syrian persecution, the morning service in the Temple
had commenced, was abolished. Fifthly, the cruel custom of wounding the sacrificial
animals on the head was prohibited and rings fastened in the pavement to which the
animals were attached (Jer. Maas. Sh. v. 9; Jer. Sot. ix. 11; Tos. Sot. 13; Sotah 48 a). The
four ordinances of Hyrcanus which were abolished referred to the introduction in official
documents, after the title of the High-Priest, of the expression 'El Elyon' - the Most High
God; to the attempt to declare the Syrian and Samaritan towns liable to tithes (implying
their virtual incorporation) while according to an old principle, this obligation only
applied when a place could be reached from Judea without passing over heathen soil; to
the abrogation by Hyrcanus of a former enactment by Jose ben Joezer, which discouraged
emigration by declaring all heathen soil defiled, and which rendered social intercourse
with Gentiles impossible by declaring vessels of glass capable of contracting Levitical
defilement (Jer. Shabb. 1. 4; Shabb.14 b) - and which was re-enacted; and, lastly, to the
easy terms on which the King had admitted the Idumĉans into the Jewish community.
24. Schürer (Neutest. Zeitg. p. 113) does not give this inscription correctly. Comp. Levy,
Gesch. d. Jud. Munzen, pp. 52, 53. See especially Madden. 'Coins of the Jews,' pp. 74-81,
where all the varieties of inscription are given.
25. We dismiss the fanciful readings and explanations of the word ρβξ by De Saulcy and
Ewald. But I cannot agree with Schürer in applying it to the people as a whole. Even the
passage which he q uotes (Ber, iv. 7, with which the corresponding Gemara should be
compared), proves that the word is not used loosely for the people, but with reference to
their ecclesiastical nexus. Comp, also Meg. 27 b.
26. Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Time of Christ,' pp. 233, 234.
From all this it is not difficult to from an idea of the relations between Hyrcanus and the
Pharisees. If Hyrcanus had not otherwise known of the growing aversion of t he Pharisees,
a Sadducean friend and councillor kept him informed, and turned it to account for his
party. The story of the public breach between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees is told by
Josephus (Ant. xiii. 10. 5, 6), and in the Talmud (Kidd. 66 a), with only variations of
names and details. Whether from a challenge thrown out to the Pharisees (according to
the Talmud), or in answer to a somewhat strange request by Hyrcanus, to point out any