History of the Jews (Vol. 1-6). Graetz Heinrich
This keenly-felt penitence, uttered amid sobs and tears, powerfully affected the bystanders, men, women and children, who had been attracted by the sight of the kneeling sage. They burst into passionate weeping, as if their tears could obliterate the dark pages in their history. One of those present, Shechaniah, touched by sympathy, uttered a weighty suggestion: "Let us make a covenant to put away all the strange wives, and such as are born of them." Ezra seized upon the idea at once; he rose and demanded that the heads of the families, who were present on that occasion, swear before the Sanctuary, and by their God, that they would repudiate their foreign wives and their children. That moment was to decide the fate of the Judæan people. Ezra, and those who thought as he did, raised a wall of separation between the Judæans and the rest of the world. But this exclusiveness was not strictly in agreement with the letter of the Law, for Ezra himself, with all his knowledge, was not able to point out any passage in the Torah, implying that mixed marriages were forbidden when contracted with those who acknowledged the God of Israel.
Such members of the community as, in a moment of enthusiasm, had taken this vow, were now obliged to keep it. With bleeding hearts they separated themselves from their wives, the daughters of neighbouring tribes, and repudiated their own children. The sons and relations of the high-priest were forced to set an example to the rest. Those of the elders of the people who were the most ardent disciples of the Law formed a kind of senate. They issued a proclamation throughout Judah, commanding all who had been guilty of contracting mixed marriages, to appear within three days in Jerusalem, on pain of excommunication. A special court of enquiry was instituted for this one question. Ezra himself selected the members who were to make the needful researches to discover whether the Judæans had really repudiated their wives. So thoroughly was the work of this court of enquiry carried on, that all those who were living in the towns of Judæa separated themselves from their wives and children, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem had done. Still there were some who, influenced by family feelings, made some show of resistance.
The severity with which this separation from all neighbouring tribes, Samaritans and others, had been effected led naturally to grave results. The raising of this wall of separation by Ezra and his party against those who were truly anxious to belong to the community caused much bitterness. They were to be separated for ever from the Deity they had chosen, and excluded from the Sanctuary in Jerusalem to which they had belonged. The decree of separation sent to them changed their friendly relations towards the Judæans to enmity. Hatred which arises from despised affection is always most bitter. The grief of the wives deserted by their husbands, and the sight of children disowned by their fathers could not fail to awaken and to increase the animosity of those who were closely related to them. Unfortunately for the Judæans, Sanballat and Tobiah, two forceful and able men, were at the head of the party excluded from the community. Tobiah, the Ammonite, was related to several Judæan families. They had both accepted the Judæan teaching, and now they were both repulsed. Henceforth they assumed a hostile position towards Judæa; they were determined, by force or by intrigues, to maintain their right of worshipping in the Temple and sharing in the faith of Israel. At first they probably took steps to restore their peaceful intercourse with the Judæans, and urged them to revoke their cruel decision. In Jerusalem, as well as in the provinces, there was a party which strongly disapproved of Ezra's stern action. The well-informed among these differed with Ezra on the illegality of marriages with women who had, at all events outwardly, accepted the Law. Was Ezra's severity justifiable? Did not the historical records contain many instances of Israelites having married foreign wives? Such questions must have been constantly put at that time.
A charming literary production, written probably at that date, echoes the opinions of the gentler members of the community. The poetical author of the Book of Ruth relates, apparently without a purpose, the simple idyllic story of a distinguished family of Bethlehem which had migrated to Moab, where the two sons married Moabitish wives; but he touches at the same time upon the burning question of the day. Ruth, the Moabitess, the widow of one of the sons, is described as saying to her mother-in-law, "Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me." And the Moabitess kept her word faithfully. Upon her marriage with Boaz, the people exclaim: "The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." The son born to Ruth was the ancestor of David, the great king of Israel. The several incidents of this exquisite story are most delicately and artistically developed. But the author meant to place two facts before his readers, namely, that the royal house of Israel sprang from a Moabitess, and that the Moabitess, after having connected herself closely with the people of Israel and acknowledged their God, gave proof of such virtues as grace a daughter of Israel: chastity, refinement of feeling, and cheerful self-sacrifice. The reference in this tale to the all-absorbing question of the day was too pointed to be passed over unnoticed. Among those unfortunate wives who had been, or who were to be repudiated by their husbands, might there not be some who resembled Ruth? And the children born of foreign women, but having Judæan fathers,—were they to be looked down upon as heathens? If so, then not even the house of David, the royal family, whose ancestor had married a Moabitess, belonged to the Judæan nation!
But none of these representations were of avail. Ezra and the reigning senate in Jerusalem insisted sternly upon the exclusion from the community of all people who could not claim Judaic descent, and who were, therefore, not of "the holy seed." The failure of all conciliatory measures resulted in hostilities, which lasted for several years (457–444). Ezra was, unfortunately, not a man of action; he could only pray and arouse the feelings of others, but he could not prevent many Judæan families from secretly abetting his opponents. On the other hand, Sanballat and his followers were men of decided character, full of virulent hatred towards their adversaries, and they took every opportunity of harassing their enemies. At last they even attacked Jerusalem.
What could have inspired them with such boldness, knowing as they did that Ezra was favoured by the Persian court, and that Judæan favourites possessed great influence over Artaxerxes? Did they, perhaps, count upon the fickleness of the Persian king? Or were they emboldened by the revolt of Megabyzus, satrap of Syria, to whom both Judæa and Samaria were subordinate? And while the Syrians vanquished one Persian army after another, were they encouraged to commence hostilities on their own account and to aim at the heart of their enemy? But, no matter what it was that induced Sanballat and his followers to take warlike steps against Jerusalem, they were entirely successful. They were able to raise an army, whilst their opponents in Jerusalem were mostly ignorant of the use of arms. The result was that Sanballat and his followers made breaches in the walls of the city, burned the wooden gates, and destroyed many of the buildings, so that Jerusalem again resembled a heap of ruins. They, however, spared the Temple, for it was sacred in their eyes also; but it was nevertheless abandoned, and most of the inhabitants, having lost the protection of the city walls, left Jerusalem, and established themselves in other places, wherever they could find shelter.
The Aaronides and Levites, deprived of their income from gifts and tithes, left the Temple and sought other means of subsistence. The commonwealth of Judæa, after barely a century's existence, was passing through sad times. Many noble families made peace with their neighbours, took back their repudiated wives, and contracted new connections with the stranger. They pledged themselves by a reciprocal vow of constancy to respect these new ties. For a short time it seemed as if Ezra's great work were frustrated, and as if the life of the commonwealth were endangered. How little was lacking to effect a complete dissolution!
The religious zeal kindled by Ezra was, however, too ardent to be so easily extinguished. Some of the Judæans, maddened by grief at the destruction and desolation of Jerusalem, hurried to the Persian court to seek aid. They counted upon the aid of Nehemiah, the Judæan cup-bearer of Artaxerxes. Hananiah, a kinsman of Nehemiah, and an eye-witness of the sad occurrences, gave him a harrowing description of the sad state of the Judæans and of the fall of the Holy City. Nehemiah was struck with dismay at these tidings. He belonged to the zealous party in Persia, and was, if possible, more exacting than Ezra. Jerusalem, the Holy City, had always presented itself to his imagination as especially protected by God, and surrounded by a fiery wall, which permitted no enemy