Mishna _Chagigah_ ii. 7; _Zeitschr._ p. 454, _Monatschr._ pp. 33, 62. See Frankel’s own account of this R. Jose in an earlier volume, _Monatschr._ I. p. 405 sq. Footnote 342: _Zeitschr._ p. 457, _Monatschr._ p. 69 sq.; see below, p. 126. Footnote 343: _Niddah_ 38 _a_; see Löwy s.v. Essäer. Footnote 344: Mishna _Kerithuth_ vi. 3, _Nedarim_ 10 a; see _Monatschr._ p. 65. Footnote 345: Thus Grätz (III. p. 81) speaking of the community of goods among the Essenes writes, ‘From this view springs the proverb; Every Chassid says; _Mine and thine belong to thee_ (not _me_)’ thus giving a turn to the expression which in its original connexion it does not at all justify. Of the existence of such a proverb I have found no traces. It certainly is not suggested in the passage of _Pirke Aboth_. Later in the volume (p. 467) Grätz tacitly alters the words to make them express reciprocation or community of goods, substituting ‘Thine is mine’ for ‘Thine is thine’ in the second clause; ‘The Chassid must have no property of his own, but must treat it as belonging to the Society (שלי שלך שלך שלי חסיד).’ At least, as he gives no reference, I suppose that he refers to the same passage. In this loose way he treats the whole subject. Keim (p. 294) quotes the passage correctly, but refers it nevertheless to Essene communism. [Sidenote: Possible connexion of _chasid_ and _chasyo_ discussed.] It might indeed be urged, though this is not Frankel’s plea, that supposing the true etymology of the word Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός, to be the Syriac ܚܣܐ, ܚܣܝܐ, _ch’sē_, _chasyo_ (a possible derivation), _chasid_ might have been its Hebrew equivalent as being similar in sound and meaning, and perhaps ultimately connected in derivation, the exactly corresponding triliteral root חסא (comp. חום) not being in use in Hebrew[346]. But before we accept this explanation we have a right to demand some evidence which, if not demonstrative, is at least circumstantial, that _chasid_ is used of the Essenes: and this we have seen is not forthcoming. Moreover, if the Essenes had thus inherited the name of the _Chasidim_, we should have expected that its old Greek equivalent Ἀσιδαῖοι, which is still used later than the Maccabæan era, would also have gone with it; rather than that a new Greek word Ἐσσαῖος (or Ἐσσηνός) should have been invented to take its place. But indeed the Syriac Version of the Old Testament furnishes an argument against this convertibility of the Hebrew _chasid_ and the Syriac _chasyo_, which must be regarded as [Sidenote: Usage is unfavourable to this view.] almost decisive. The numerous passages in the Psalms, where the expressions ‘My _chasidim_,’ ‘His _chasidim_,’ occur (xxx. 5, xxxi. 24, xxxvii. 28, lii. 11, lxxix. 2, lxxxv. 9, xcvii. 10, cxvi. 15, cxxxii. 9, cxlix. 9: comp. xxxii. 6, cxlix. 1, 5) seem to have suggested the assumption of the name to the original Asidæans. But in such passages