32. Jer. Chag. 79 d; Tos. Chag. iii.
33. Erub. 54 a. I give the latter clause, not as in our edition of the Talmud, but according
to a more correct reading (Levy, Neuhebr. Wörterb. vol. ii. p. 102).
34. It could serve no good purpose to give instances. They are readily accessible to those
who have taste or curiosity in that direction.
But it would be grossly unjust to identify Pharisaism, as a religious direction, with such
embodiments of it or even with the official 'fraternity.' While it may be granted that the
tendency and logical sequence of their views and practices were such, their system, as
opposed to Sadduceeism, had very serious bearings: dogmatic, ritual, and legal. It is,
however, erroneous to suppose, either that their system represented traditionalism itself,
or that Scribes and Pharisees are convertible terms,35 while the Sadducees represented the
civil and political element. The Pharisees represented only the prevailing system of, not
traditionalism itself; while the Sadducees also numbered among them many learned men.
They were able to enter into controversy, often protracted and fierce, with their
opponents, and they acted as members of the Sanhedrin, although they had diverging
traditions of their own, and even, as it would appear, at one time a complete code of
canon- law.36 37 Moreover, the admitted fact, that when in office the Sadducees conformed
to the principles and practices of the Pharisees, proves at least that they must have been
acquainted with the ordinances of traditionalism.38 Lastly, there were certain traditional
ordinances on which both parties were at one.39 Thus it seems Sadduceeism was in a
sense rather a speculative than a practical system, starting from simple and well-defined
principles, but wide-reaching in its possible consequences. Perhaps it ma y best be
described as a general reaction against the extremes of Pharisaism, springing from
moderate and rationalistic tendencies; intended to secure a footing within the recognised
bounds of Judaism; and seeking to defend its principles by a strict literalism of
interpretation and application. If so, these interpretations would be intended rather for
defensive than offensive purposes, and the great aim of the party would be after rational
freedom - or, it might be, free rationality. Practically, the party would, of course, tend in
broad, and often grossly unorthodox, directions.
35. So, erroneously, Wellhausen, in his treatise 'Pharisäer u. Sadduc.'; and partially, as it
seems to me, even Schürer (Neutest. Zeitgesch.). In other respects also these two learned
men seem too much under the influence of Geiger and Kuenen.
36. Megill. Taan. Per. iv. ed. Warsh. p. 8 a.
37. Wellhausen has carried his criticisms and doubts of the Hebrew Scholion on the
Megill. Taan. (or 'Roll of Fasts') too far.
38. Even such a book as the Meg. Taan. does not accuse them of absolute ignorance, but
only of being unable to prove their dicta from Scripture (comp. Pereq x. p. 15 b, which
may well mark the extreme of Anti-Sadduceeism).
39. Sanh. 33 t Horay 4 a.