12 s. ii. DEC. 2, WIG.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
451
or the authorizing power to paskan (give
judgment), and to make new laws in emer-
gency for their brethren, whereby historic
continuity from Mosaic times onwards was
ecclesiastically secured unto the latest
generations.
There are several minor references to fishing tackle in the Talmud, mainly of a ritual tendency. Two must be quoted. One shows the Rabbins in an amiable light, .as true sportsmen, willing to give even a fish a fair chance for its life ; the other is no Jess interesting as it corroborates events recorded in Matt. xv. 34, 36 ; Luke v. 5 ; and John xxi. 6, regarding the incertitude of the " catches " in the Sea of Galilee. We take the last-mentioned reference first. " Fishing," we read in Baba Kamma, 81b, " is allowed in the Sea of Tiberias provided anchors are not dropped to stay the ship's progress ; but fish may be taken in nets and drags." It is founded on an ancient rescript. In former times, the Rabbins say, all the tribes entered into a com- pact to that effect. The Sea of Tiberias being in Naphtali's territory, the custom arose in accordance with an ancient prophecy (Deut. xxxiv. 23) : " The sea and the South is your exclusive inheritance."
The other passage is extracted from Sanhedrin, 81b : " Resh Lokish, taking his text from Psalm xxxiv. 22, 'The wicked are destroyed by their own misdeeds/ said,
- Seeing that no man knows the hour or the
manner of his dying, he is in no better case than fishes " caught in a trap " (bimmet- zoodo rongo).' On his disciples inquiring what that was, he answered, ' I meant to say, " on a hook " (bechakko).' In Keilim, 30a, a list of piscatorial devices is given. The modof, palstur, metzoodous, hasakrin, are all species of " hooks," while the okkun, roloov, and kloov are nets and gins for trapping the finny tribes. Keilim, 36a, and Baba Basra, 75a, give chayrem&n.d kennigia, as nets only.
We have now to discuss the question of rods or handles. It has been stated that there is no mention of "a fishing-rod " in the Old and New Testaments. If it means that the R.V. does not render any of the numerous passages of Scripture by that set phrase, this cannot be contradicted. Yet there are places, such as Job xl. 31, where the Hebrew words are translated " barbed irons " and " fish spears," and in Job xl. 26, " a thorn." A fishing-rod, in the strict modern sense, no one could reasonably demand, though I opine that in agmoun (Isa. Iviii. 5), used in that sense in Job. xl. 26, we have the nucleus of one. Now the ancient
Hebrews were a practical body of men, and
would bring a certain amount of mentality,
proportional to their knowledge, to bear on
operations by which they obtained their
livelihood. And unless I am mistaken, they
must have devised some rude instrument of
wood, iron, or copper to aid them in casting
their hooks from banks into the deeper
parts of streams, and the mechillous
referred to in Yebamoth, 121a, where the
bream and jack skulked and sulked. An-
other general consideration may be ad-
vanced, based upon an excellent Rabbinical
canon of criticism in favour of circumstantial
evidence in literary problems: Im ein
rahyo leddovor, zeicher leddovor. " When
direct evidence is difficult to produce,
indirect evidence is not to be ignored."
Nevertheless in real life the rule was not
allowed to govern " case law " (Yebamoth,
121a), as the following anecdote indicates ;
it also proves how the Rabbins strove to
.prevent bigamy, by demanding first-hand
evidence of death. Two friends went a-
fishing along the banks of the Jordan, and
as one of them failed to return home, he
was regarded as dead. Next morning at
sunrise he found his way out of one of the
caves where he had passed the night, and on
approaching his homestead he heard loud
shrieks and lamentations. Had he gone to
sea and stayed away for some years his
wife would not have got relief to many
again, whereas had this man been drowned,
search parties might have been able to
recover the body in a reasonable tune.
I di not know how far this psychological trait was common to other ancient nations, but the Hebrews of Scripture and of Talmudio tunes ignored the means, and concentrated the mind on the end. So chakko (hook) necessarily had " a line," not mentioned, though it is inferred, and a handle-bar. One can hardly imagine that in Job xl. 25 the animal was attacked at close quarters with the chakko, without a pole of some kind. But in the Hebrew's judgment it was not the pole that did execution, so he did not stop to give it any credit, nor did he deem it worthy of record in the Holy Books. Yet I think I can show indications there of the presence of terms suggesting that a rod was employed.
We find several words which tacitly imply " a rod " in the Old Testament : konay, klee, and chayvel. Ezek. xl. 3, 5 provides us with knei hammiddo (measuring rod) and psil pishtim (flaxen threads). We have only to add a chakko, and we get the rudiments of our modern fishing-rods. Now let us go a step
