{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48890/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48890","id":"gutenberg_48890","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48890","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jews"],"text":"Studies in Judaism\n\n                               First Series\n\n                                    by\n\n                     Solomon Schechter, M.A., Litt.D.\n\n                               Philadelphia\n\n                The Jewish Publication Society of America\n\n                                   1911\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPreface\nIntroduction\nI. The Chassidim\nII. Nachman Krochmal and the \u201cPerplexities Of The Time\u201d\nIII. Rabbi Elijah Wilna, Gaon\nIV. Nachmanides\nV. A Jewish Boswell\nVI. The Dogmas Of Judaism\nVII. The History of Jewish Tradition\nVIII. The Doctrine of Divine Retribution in Rabbinical Literature\nIX. The Law And Recent Criticism\nX. The Hebrew Collection of the British Museum\nXI. Titles of Jewish Books\nXII. The Child in Jewish Literature\nXIII. Woman in Temple and Synagogue\nXIV. The Earliest Jewish Community in Europe\nIndex\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               [Cover Art]\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter\nat Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]\n\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nTHE EVER\u2010CHERISHED MEMORY\n\nOF\n\nTHE LATE DR. P. F. FRANKL, RABBI IN BERLIN\n\nTHESE STUDIES ARE REVERENTLY\n\nDEDICATED\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThese studies appeared originally in their first form in _The Jewish\nQuarterly_ and _The Jewish Chronicle_. To the Editors of these periodicals\nmy best thanks are due for their readiness in placing the articles at my\ndisposal for the purposes of the present volume. The Introductory Essay is\nnew. I desire to express my sincere gratitude to Mr. J. G. Frazer, Fellow\nof Trinity College, Cambridge, and Dr. J. Sutherland Black, of London, for\ntheir great kindness in revising the proofs, and for many a valuable\nsuggestion. To Mr. Claude G. Montefiore I am indebted for the English\nversion of the Essay on \u201cChassidim\u201d\u2014my first literary effort in this\ncountry, written at his own suggestion.\n\nIn the transliteration of Hebrew names, I have given the familiar English\nforms of the authorised version. As regards post\u2010Biblical names, I have\nwith few exceptions followed Zedner\u2019s _Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in\nthe Library of the British Museum_. A Hebrew word will be found here and\nthere in the text; I have purposely avoided bewildering devices for\nrepresenting the actual sound of the word, contenting myself with the\nordinary Roman alphabet, in spite of its shortcomings.\n\nThe authorities used for the various Essays will be found indicated in the\nNotes at the end of the volume, where the reader will also find short\nbiographical and bibliographical notices, together with brief explanations\nof technical terms for which no exact equivalent exists in English. The\nindex will, it is hoped, facilitate reference.\n\n_S. S._\n\nCAMBRIDGE, _February 1896_.\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe essays published in this volume under the title of _Studies in\nJudaism_ have been written on various occasions and at long intervals.\nThere is thus no necessary connection between them. If some sort of unity\nmay be detected in the book, it can only be between the first three\nessays\u2014on the Chassidim, Krochmal, and the Gaon\u2014in which there is a\ncertain unity of purpose. The purpose in view was, as may easily be\ngathered from the essays themselves, to bring under the notice of the\nEnglish public a type of men produced by the Synagogue of the Eastern\nJews. That Synagogue is widely different from ours. Its places of worship\nhave no claims to \u201cbeauty of holiness,\u201d being in their outward appearance\nrather bare and bald, if not repulsive; whilst those who frequent them are\na noisy, excitable people, who actually dance on the \u201cSeason of Rejoicing\u201d\nand cry bitterly on the \u201cDays of Mourning.\u201d But among all these\nvagaries\u2014or perhaps because of them\u2014this Synagogue has had its moments of\ngrace, when enthusiasm wedded to inspiration gave birth to such beautiful\nsouls as Baalshem, such fine sceptics as Krochmal, and such saintly\nscholars as Elijah Wilna. The Synagogue of the West is certainly of a more\npresentable character, and free from excesses; though it is not devoid of\nan enthusiasm of its own which finds its outlet in an ardent and self\u2010\nsacrificing philanthropic activity. But owing to its practical tendency\nthere is too little room in it for that play of intellectual forces which\nfinds its extravagant expression in the saint on the one hand, and the\nlearned heretic on the other.\n\nEight of these essays are more or less of a theological nature. But in\nreading the proofs I have been struck by the fact that there is assumed in\nthem a certain conception of the Synagogue which, familiar though it be to\nthe Jewish student, may appear obscure and even strange to the general\nEnglish reader. For brevity\u2019s sake I will call it the High Synagogue,\nthough it does not correspond in all details to what one is accustomed to\nunderstand under the term of High Church. The High Synagogue has a history\nwhich is not altogether without its points of interest.\n\nSome years ago when the waves of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament\nreached the shores of this country, and such questions as the\nheterogeneous composition of the Pentateuch, the comparatively late date\nof the Levitical Legislation, and the post\u2010exilic origin of certain\nProphecies as well as of the Psalms began to be freely discussed by the\npress and even in the pulpit, the invidious remark was often made: What\nwill now become of Judaism when its last stronghold, the Law, is being\nshaken to its very foundations?\n\nSuch a remark shows a very superficial acquaintance with the nature of an\nold historical religion like Judaism, and the richness of the resources it\nhas to fall back upon in cases of emergency.\n\nAs a fact, the emergency did not quite surprise Judaism. The alarm signal\nwas given some 150 years ago by an Italian Rabbi, Abiad Sar Shalom\nBazilai, in his pamphlet _The Faith of the Sages_. The pamphlet is, as the\ntitle indicates, of a polemical character, reviewing the work of the\nJewish rationalistic schools; and after warming up in his attacks against\ntheir heterodox views, Bazilai exclaims: \u201cNature and simple meaning, they\nare our misfortune.\u201d By \u201cnature and simple meaning\u201d Bazilai, who wrote in\nHebrew, understood what we would call Natural Science and Philology. With\nthe right instinct of faith, Bazilai hit on the real sore points. For\nthough he mostly argues against the philosophical systems of Aristotle and\nhis commentators, he felt that it is not speculation that will ever\nseriously endanger religion. There is hardly any metaphysical system, old\nor new, which has not in course of time been adapted by able dialecticians\nto the creed which they happened to hold. In our own time we have seen the\nglorious, though not entirely novel spectacle, of Agnosticism itself\nbecoming the rightful handmaid of Queen Theology. The real danger lies in\n\u201cnature\u201d (or Natural Science) with its stern demand of law and regularity\nin all phenomena, and in the \u201csimple meaning\u201d (or Philology) with its\ninconsiderate insistence on truth. Of the two, the \u201csimple meaning\u201d is the\nmore objectionable. Not only is it very often at variance with Tradition,\nwhich has its own code of interpretation, but it is constantly increasing\nthe difficulties raised by science. For if words could only have more than\none meaning, there would be no objection to reading the first words of\nGenesis, \u201cIn _a_ beginning God _evolved_.\u201d The difficulties of science\nwould then be disposed of easily enough. Maimonides, who was as bold an\ninterpreter as he was a deep metaphysician, hinted plainly enough that\nwere he as convinced of the eternity of matter as he was satisfied of the\nimpossibility of any corporeal quality in the deity, he would feel as\nlittle compunction in explaining (figuratively) the contents of the first\nchapter of Genesis as he did in allegorising the anthropomorphic passages\nof the Bible. Thus in the end all the difficulties resolve themselves into\nthe one great difficulty of the \u201csimple meaning.\u201d The best way to meet\nthis difficulty was found to be to shift the centre of gravity in Judaism\nand to place it in the secondary meaning, thus making religion independent\nof philology and all its dangerous consequences.\n\nThis shifting work was chiefly done, perhaps not quite consciously, by the\nhistorical school which followed upon that of Mendelssohn and his first\nsuccessors. The historical school, which is still in the ascendant,\ncomprises many of the best Jewish writers who either by their learning or\nby their ecclesiastical profession as Rabbis and preachers in great\ncommunities have acquired some important position among their brethren.\nThe men who have inaugurated this movement were Krochmal (1785\u20101841),\nRapoport (1790\u20101867), and Zunz (1794\u20101886).\n\nIt is not a mere coincidence that the first representatives of the\nhistorical school were also the first Jewish scholars who proved\nthemselves more or less ready to join the modern school of Bible\nCriticism, and even to contribute their share to it. The first two,\nKrochmal and Rapoport, early in the second quarter of this century\naccepted and defended the modern view about a second Isaiah, the post\u2010\nexilic origin of many Psalms, and the late date of Ecclesiastes; whilst\nZunz, who began (in 1832) with denying the authenticity of Ezekiel,\nconcluded his literary career (1873) with a study on the Bible\n(_Gesammelte __ Schriften_, i. pp. 217\u2010290), in which he expressed his\nview \u201cthat the Book of Leviticus dates from a later period than the Book\nof Deuteronomy, later even than Ezekiel, having been composed during the\nage of the Second Temple, when there already existed a well\u2010established\npriesthood which superintended the sacrificial worship.\u201d But when\nRevelation or the Written Word is reduced to the level of history, there\nis no difficulty in elevating history in its aspect of Tradition to the\nrank of Scripture, for both have then the same human or divine origin\n(according to the student\u2019s predilection for the one or the other\nadjective), and emanate from the same authority. Tradition becomes thus\nthe means whereby the modern divine seeks to compensate himself for the\nloss of the Bible, and the theological balance is to the satisfaction of\nall parties happily readjusted.\n\nJewish Tradition, or, as it is commonly called, the Oral Law, or, as we\nmay term it (in consideration of its claims to represent an interpretation\nof the Bible), the Secondary Meaning of the Scriptures, is mainly embodied\nin the works of the Rabbis and their subsequent followers during the\nMiddle Ages. Hence the zeal and energy with which the historical school\napplied itself to the Jewish post\u2010biblical literature, not only\nelucidating its texts by means of new critical editions, dictionaries, and\ncommentaries, but also trying to trace its origins and to pursue its\nhistory through its gradual development. To the work of Krochmal in this\ndirection a special essay is devoted in this volume. The labours of\nRapoport are more of a biographical and bibliographical nature, being\noccupied mostly with the minor details in the lives and writings of\nvarious famous Jewish Rabbis in the Middle Ages; thus they offer but\nlittle opportunity for general theological comment. Of more importance in\nthis respect are the hints thrown out in his various works by Zunz, who\nwas just as emphatic in asserting the claims of Tradition as he was\nadvanced in his views on Bible criticism. Zunz\u2019s greatest work is _Die\nGottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge_\u2014an awkward title, which in fact means \u201cThe\nHistory of the Interpretation of the Scriptures as forming a part of the\ndivine service.\u201d Now if a work displaying such wide learning and critical\nacumen, and written in such an impartial spirit can be said to have a\nbias, it was towards bridging over the seemingly wide gap between the\nWritten Word (the Scriptures) and the Spoken Word (the Oral Law or\nTradition), which was the more deeply felt, as most of Zunz\u2019s older\ncontemporaries were men, grown up in the habits of thought of the\neighteenth century\u2014a century distinguished both for its ignorance of, and\nits power of ignoring, the teachings of history. Indeed it would seem that\nages employed in making history have no time for studying it.\n\nZunz accomplished the task he set himself, by showing, as already\nindicated, the late date of certain portions of the Bible, which by\nsetting the early history of Israel in an ideal light betray the\nmoralising tendency of their authors, and are, in fact, little more than a\ntraditional interpretation of older portions of Scripture, adapted to the\nreligious needs of the time. Placing thus the origin of Tradition in the\nBible itself, it was a comparatively easy matter for Zunz to prove its\nfurther continuity. Prophecy and Interpretation are with him the natural\nexpressions of the religious life of the nation; and though by the loss of\nIsrael\u2019s political independence the voice of the prophets gradually died\naway, the voice of God was still heard. Israel continues to consult God\nthrough the medium of the Scriptures, and He answers His people by the\nmouth of the Scribes, the Sages, the Interpreters of the Law; whilst the\nliturgy of the Synagogue, springing up at the time when Psalms were still\nbeing composed, expands in its later stages through the work of the Poets\nof the Synagogue into such a rich luxuriance \u201cthat it forms in itself a\ntreasure of history, poetry, philosophy; and prophecy and psalms are again\nrevived in the hymnology of the Middle Ages.\u201d This is in brief the lesson\nto be learned from Zunz\u2019s _Gottesdienstliche Vortr\u00e4ge_ as far as it deals\nwith the significance of Tradition; and it is in the introduction to this\nwork that Zunz expresses himself to the following effect: Indispensable is\nthe free Spoken Word. Mankind has acquired all its ideal treasures only by\nWord of Mouth; an education continuing through all stages of life. In\nIsrael, too, the Word of Instruction transmitted from mouth to mouth was\nnever silenced.\n\nThe historical school has never, to my knowledge, offered to the world a\ntheological programme of its own. By the nature of its task, its labours\nare mostly conducted in the field of philology and arch\u00e6ology, and it pays\nbut little attention to purely dogmatic questions. On the whole, its\nattitude towards religion may be defined as an enlightened Scepticism\ncombined with a staunch conservatism which is not even wholly devoid of a\ncertain mystical touch. As far as we may gather from vague remarks and\nhints thrown out now and then, its theological position may perhaps be\nthus defined:\u2014It is not the mere revealed Bible that is of first\nimportance to the Jew, but the Bible as it repeats itself in history, in\nother words, as it is interpreted by Tradition. The Talmud, that wonderful\nmine of religious ideas from which it would be just as easy to draw up a\nmanual for the most orthodox as to extract a vade\u2010mecum for the most\nsceptical, lends some countenance to this view by certain controversial\npassages\u2014not to be taken seriously\u2014in which \u201cthe words of the scribes\u201d are\nplaced almost above the words of the Torah. Since then the interpretation\nof Scripture or the Secondary Meaning is mainly a product of changing\nhistorical influences, it follows that the centre of authority is actually\nremoved from the Bible and placed in some _living body_, which, by reason\nof its being in touch with the ideal aspirations and the religious needs\nof the age, is best able to determine the nature of the Secondary Meaning.\nThis living body, however, is not represented by any section of the\nnation, or any corporate priesthood, or Rabbihood, but by the collective\nconscience of Catholic Israel as embodied in the Universal Synagogue. The\nSynagogue \u201cwith its long, continuous cry after God for more than twenty\u2010\nthree centuries,\u201d with its unremittent activity in teaching and developing\nthe word of God, with its uninterrupted succession of prophets, Psalmists,\nScribes, Assideans, Rabbis, Patriarchs, Interpreters, Elucidators,\nEminences, and Teachers, with its glorious record of Saints, martyrs,\nsages, philosophers, scholars, and mystics; this Synagogue, the only true\nwitness to the past, and forming in all ages the sublimest expression of\nIsrael\u2019s religious life, must also retain its authority as the sole true\nguide for the present and the future. And being in communion with this\nSynagogue, we may also look hopefully for a safe and rational solution of\nour present theological troubles. For was it not the Synagogue which even\nin antiquity determined the fate of Scripture? On the one hand, for\nexample, books like Ezekiel, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, were\nonly declared to be Holy Writ in virtue of the interpretation put upon\nthem by the Rabbis: and, on the other hand, it was the veto of the Rabbis\nwhich excluded from the canon the works that now pass under the name of\nApocrypha. We may, therefore, safely trust that the Synagogue will again\nassert its divine right in passing judgment upon the Bible when it feels\ncalled upon to exercise that holy office. It is \u201cGod who has chosen the\nTorah, and Moses His servant, and Israel His people.\u201d But indeed God\u2019s\nchoice invariably coincides with the wishes of Israel; He \u201cperformeth all\nthings\u201d upon which the councils of Israel, meeting under promise of the\nDivine presence and communion, have previously agreed. As the Talmud\nsomewhere expresses itself with regard to the Book of Esther, \u201cThey have\nconfirmed above what Israel has accepted below.\u201d\n\nAnother consequence of this conception of Tradition is that it is neither\nScripture nor primitive Judaism, but general custom which forms the real\nrule of practice. Holy Writ as well as history, Zunz tells us, teaches\nthat the law of Moses was never fully and absolutely put in practice.\nLiberty was always given to the great teachers of every generation to make\nmodifications and innovations in harmony with the spirit of existing\ninstitutions. Hence a return to Mosaism would be illegal, pernicious, and\nindeed impossible. The norm as well as the sanction of Judaism is the\npractice actually in vogue. Its consecration is the consecration of\ngeneral use,\u2014or, in other words, of Catholic Israel. It was probably with\na view to this communion that the later mystics introduced a short prayer\nto be said before the performance of any religious ceremony, in which,\namong other things, the speaker professes his readiness to act \u201cin the\nname of all Israel.\u201d\n\nIt would be out of place in an introductory essay to pursue any further\nthis interesting subject with its far\u2010reaching consequences upon Jewish\nlife and Jewish thought. But the foregoing remarks may suffice to show\nthat Judaism did not remain quite inactive at the approach of the great\nreligious crisis which our generation has witnessed. Like so many other\nreligious communities, it reviewed its forces, entrenched itself on the\nfield of history, and what it lost of its old devotion to the Bible, it\nhas sought to make up by a renewed reverence for institutions.\n\nIn this connection, a mere mention may suffice of the ultra\u2010Orthodox\nparty, led by the late Dr. S. R. Hirsch of Frankfort (1808\u20101889) whose\ndefiance of reason and criticism even a Ward might have envied, and whose\nsaintliness and sublimity even a Keble might have admired. And, to take an\nexample from the opposite school, we must at least record the name of that\ndevout Jew, Osias Schorr (1816\u20101895), in whom we have profound learning\ncombined with an uncompromising disposition of mind productive of a\ntypical champion of Radicalism in things religious. These men are,\nhowever, representative of two extremes, and their followers constitute\nmere minorities; the majority is with the historical school.\n\nHow long the position of this school will prove tenable is another\nquestion. Being brought up in the old Low Synagogue, where, with all\nattachment to tradition, the Bible was looked upon as the crown and the\nclimax of Judaism, the old Adam still asserts itself in me, and in\nunguarded moments makes me rebel against this new rival of revelation in\nthe shape of history. At times this now fashionable exaltation of\nTradition at the expense of Scripture even impresses me as a sort of\nreligious bimetallism in which bold speculators in theology try to keep up\nthe market value of an inferior currency by denouncing loudly the bright\nshining gold which, they would have us believe, is less fitted to\ncirculate in the vulgar use of daily life than the small cash of\nhistorical interpretation. Nor can I quite reconcile myself to this\nalliance of religion with history, which seems to me both unworthy and\nunnatural. The Jew, some writer aptly remarked, was the first and the\nfiercest Nonconformist of the East, and so Judaism was always a protesting\nreligion. To break the idols, whether of the past or of the present, has\nalways been a sacred mission of Judaism, and has indeed been esteemed by\nit as a necessary preliminary to the advent of the kingdom of God on\nearth. One of its daily prayers was and still is: \u201cWe therefore hope in\nThee, O Lord our God, that we may speedily behold the glory of Thy might,\nwhen ... the idols will be cut off, when the world will be perfected under\nthe kingdom of the Almighty.\u201d It bowed before truth, but it had never made\na covenant with facts only because they were facts. History had to be re\u2010\nmade and to sanctify itself before it found its way into its sacred\nannals. Nor did Judaism make a virtue of swallowing down institutions.\nSuch institutions as crept into it in course of time had, when the\nSynagogue was conscious of their claims to form part of religion, to\nsubmit to the laborious process of a thorough adaptation to prophetic\nnotions before they were formally sanctioned. But when this process was\ndeemed impossible or impracticable, Judaism boldly denounced the past in\nsuch fierce language as the prophets used and as still finds its echo in\nsuch passages of the liturgy as \u201cFirst our ancestors were worshippers of\nidols and now God has brought us near to His service\u201d; or \u201cBut of a truth,\nwe and our ancestors have sinned.\u201d\n\nHowever, it would be unfair to argue any further against a theological\nsystem which, as already said, was never avowed distinctly by the\nhistorical school\u2014a school, moreover, with which speculation is a matter\nof minor importance. The main strength of this school lies in its\nscientific work, for which Judaism will always be under a sense of deep\ngratitude. And living as we do in an age in which history reigns supreme\nin all departments of human thought, we may hope that even its theology,\nas far as it goes, will \u201cdo\u201d for us, though I neither hope nor believe\nthat it will do for those who come after us. I may, however, humbly\nconfess that the sixth essay in this volume was written in a spirit of\nrebellion against this all\u2010absorbing Catholic Israel, with its decently\nveiled scepticism on the one hand, and its unfortunate tendency with many\npeople to degenerate into a soulless conformity on the other hand. There\nis, I am afraid, not much to be said in favour of this essay. It is\ndeficient both in matter and in style. It proved to be a futile attempt to\nbring within the compass of an essay what a whole book could hardly do\njustice to. The Hebrew documents bearing upon the question of dogma which\nI have collected from various manuscripts and rare printed books, would\nalone make a fair\u2010sized volume. I only venture to offer it to the public\nin the absence of anything better; since, so far as I know, no other\nattempt has ever been made to treat the subject even in its meagrest\noutlines. I even venture to hope that, with all its shortcomings, it will\ncontribute something towards destroying the illusion, in which so many\ntheologians indulge, that Judaism is a religion without dogmas. To declare\nthat a religion has no dogmas is tantamount to saying that it was wise\nenough not to commit itself to any vital principles. But prudence, useful\nas it may be in worldly affairs, is quite unworthy of a great spiritual\npower.\n\nJewish mysticism in the Middle Ages and in modern times is represented in\nthis volume by two essays (\u201cThe Chassidim\u201d and \u201cNachmanides\u201d). But in\norder to avoid mistakes which might be implied by my silence, I think it\ndesirable to state that there are also to be found many mystical elements\nin the old Rabbinic literature. Mysticism, not as a theosophic system or\nas an occult science, but as a manifestation of the spiritual and as an\nexpression of man\u2019s agonies in his struggle after communion with God, as\nwell as of his ineffable joy when he receives the assurance that he has\nfound it, is not, as some maintain, foreign to the spirit of old Rabbinic\nJudaism. There was no need for the medi\u00e6val Rabbi to borrow the elements\nof such a mysticism from non\u2010Jewish sources. The perusal of the old\nHomilies on the Song of Songs, and on the Lessons from the Prophets, or\neven a fair acquaintance with the Jewish liturgy would, in itself, suffice\nto refute such baseless assertions. Those who are at all familiar with old\nRabbinic literature hardly need to be told that \u201cthe sea of the Talmud\u201d\nhas also its gulf stream of mysticism which, taking its origin in the\nmoralising portions of the Bible, runs through the wide ocean of Jewish\nthought, constantly commingling with the icy waters of legalism, and\nunceasingly washing the desolate shores of an apparently meaningless\nceremonialism, communicating to it life, warmth, and spirituality. To draw\nattention to this fact a humble attempt has been made in the ninth essay,\n\u201cThe Law and Recent Criticism,\u201d a subject which I have essayed to expound\nin a series of essays on \u201cSome Aspects of Rabbinic Theology,\u201d now\nappearing in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_.\n\nThe last five essays touch rather on certain social and familiar aspects\nof Judaism, and need no further comment. They are mere _causeries_ and\nhardly deserve the name of studies. Perhaps it may be useful for those who\njudge of the heaviness of a work by its bulk to know that there is also a\nlighter side of Rabbinic literature.\n\nBut I shall be better pleased if the more serious side of this\nvolume\u2014Jewish mysticism and Rabbinic theology\u2014should attract the attention\nof students, and so draw some fellow\u2010workers into a field which is utterly\nneglected. Notwithstanding the numerous Manuals and Introductions which\nall more or less touch on the subject of Rabbinic theology, there is,\nafter nearly 250 years, not a single work among them which, either in\nknowledge of facts or in their interpretation, is a single step in advance\nof the Cambridge Platonist, John Smith, in his _Select Discourses_. But\nthose who try so hard to determine the miraculous distance of Christianity\nby the eclipses in Rabbinism, should, if they wish to be just or prove\nthemselves worthy scholars, also endeavour to make themselves acquainted\nwith the numberless bright stars that move in the wide universe of Jewish\nthought. We are often told that no creed or theological system which has\ncome down to us from antiquity can afford to be judged by any other\nstandard than by its spiritual and poetic _possibilities_: this indulgence\nJudaism is as justly entitled to claim as any other religion. The great\nand saintly Franz Delitzsch who, born with an intellect of admirable\ntemper, was also endowed by Heaven with a soul\u2014and a beautiful soul it\nwas\u2014was one of the few theologians who, partly at least, admitted this\nclaim, and sought earnestly and diligently after these spiritual and\npoetic possibilities, and was amply rewarded for his labours.\n\n\n\n\n\nI. THE CHASSIDIM(1)\n\n\nThroughout the whole of that interesting field of Theological Literature\nwhich deals with the genesis and course of religious movements, there is\nprobably none whose history, even whose name, is so little known to\nEnglish students, as that of the Chassidim. And yet it would be difficult\nto point, in comparatively recent times, to a Dissenting movement more\nstrikingly complete in its development, more suggestive of analogy, more\nfull of interest in its original purpose, more pregnant of warning in its\ndecay.\n\nThe Hebrew word \u201cChassidim\u201d(2) merely means \u201cthe Pious,\u201d and appears to\nhave been complacently adopted by the early apostles of the sect. But the\nthing\u2014Chassidism\u2014was, in its inception at all events, a revolt among the\nJews of Eastern Europe against the excessive casuistry of the contemporary\nRabbis. It was in fact one more manifestation of the yearning of the human\nheart towards the Divine idea, and of its ceaseless craving for direct\ncommunion with God. It was the protest of an emotional but uneducated\npeople against a one\u2010sided expression of Judaism, presented to them in\ncold and over\u2010subtle disquisitions which not only did they not understand,\nbut which shut out the play of the feelings and the affections, so that\nreligion was made almost impossible to them.\n\nSome account of the sect is the more necessary because, although the\nChassidim have not been wholly ignored by historians or novelists, the\nreferences to them have generally, for perfectly intelligible reasons,\nbeen either biassed or inaccurate. The historians who have treated of them\nhave been almost exclusively men saturated with Western culture and\nrationalism. To them the rude and uncouth manifestations of an\nundisciplined religious spirit could not be other than repellent; to them\nChassidism was a movement to be dismissed as un\u00e6sthetic and irrational.\n\nTo the purposes of fiction the romantic side of Chassidism lends itself\nreadily, but the novelists who have used this material have confined\nthemselves to its externals. Indeed, to have done more would have involved\na tedious and unremunerative study of difficult Hebrew texts, an\nundertaking not to be expected from the most conscientious writers of this\nclass. Thus Franzos in his references to the Jews of Barnow describes\nfaithfully the outer signs of the man, his long coat and tangled curls,\nbut the inner life, the world in which the Chassid moved and had his\nbeing, was unknown to him and is therefore unrecorded.\n\nAs to my treatment of the subject, I confess that there was a time when I\nloved the Chassidim as there was a time when I hated them. And even now I\nam not able to suppress these feelings. I have rather tried to guide my\nfeelings in such a way as to love in Chassidism what is ideal and noble,\nand to hate in it what turned out bad and pernicious for Judaism. How far\nI have been successful is another question. At least I have endeavoured to\nwrite this paper in such a spirit. But of one thing I must warn the\nreader\u2014the desire to give some clear notion of the leading ideas of\nChassidism has compelled me to quote some passages in which the Chassidim\nhave spoken in very offensive terms of their opponents. In justice to\nthese I must remark that unfortunately religious struggles are usually\nconducted on the most irreligious principles. Thus the Chassidim imputed\nto their antagonists, the contemporary Rabbis, many vices from which they\nwere free. Certainly, there was, as one can read in every history of\nJewish religion, something wrong in the state of Judaism. But I know\npeople who maintain that there is something very wrong in the present\nstate of Judaism, and who despair of a regeneration. But surely this is a\nsilly exaggeration. The Chassidim also exaggerated. It would be better to\ntake but little notice of their accusations and dwell more on that which\nwas spoken in a kind and loving spirit.\n\nAs to the literature of the subject, I can only say here that I have made\nuse of every book I could consult, both in English and in foreign\nlibraries. But I cannot pledge myself to be what early Jewish writers\ncalled \u201ca donkey which carries books.\u201d I exercise my own choice and my own\njudgment on many points.\n\nAs an active force for good, Chassidism was short\u2010lived. For, as I propose\nto show, there lurked among its central tenets the germs of the degeneracy\nwhich so speedily came upon it. But its early purposes were high, its\ndoctrines fairly pure, its aspirations ideal and sublime.\n\nThe founder of the sect was one Israel Baalshem,(3) and the story of his\nparentage, birth, and childhood, and the current anecdotes of his\nsubsequent career play a considerable part in Chassidic literature. But\nthe authentic materials for his biography are everywhere interwoven with\nmuch that is pure legend and with much more that is miraculous. This was,\nperhaps, inevitable, and is certainly not an unfamiliar feature in the\npersonal histories of religious reformers as presented by their followers\nand devotees.\n\nThe sayings and doings of Baalshem are an essential\u2014perhaps the most\nessential\u2014portion of any account of the sect. For Baalshem is the centre\nof the Chassidic world, and Chassidism is so intimately bound up with the\npersonality of its founder that any separation between them is well nigh\nimpossible. To the Chassidim Baalshem is not a man who established a\ntheory or set forth a system; he himself was the incarnation of a theory\nand his whole life the revelation of a system.\n\nEven those portions of his history which are plainly legendary have their\nuses in indicating the ideals and in illustrating the aspirations of the\nearly Chassidim; while their circulation and the ready credence they\nreceived are valuable evidence of the real power and influence of\nBaalshem\u2019s personality.\n\nIn the tale as told by the sect little is omitted of those biographical\naccessories which are proper to an Avatar. There is all the conventional\nheralding of a pre\u2010ordained advent; all the usual signs and portents of a\nnew dispensation may be recognised in the almost preternatural virtues of\nBaalshem\u2019s parents, in the miraculous annunciation and exceptional\ncircumstances of his nativity, and in the early indication of a strong and\nfearless individuality. Everywhere it seems to be suggested that Baalshem\nfrom his infancy was conscious of a lofty mission. It is already in tender\nyears that he is made to give evidence of an indifference to conventional\nrestraints and accepted ideals.\n\nRabbi Eliezer and his wife, the parents of Baalshem, dwelt, as the story\ngoes, in Moldavia. They are described as a pious and God\u2010fearing couple,\nwho, when they had already reached old age, were still childless. They are\naccredited with a spotless rectitude, which was unimpaired by a long\nseries of strange vicissitudes and misfortunes.\n\nUltimately, an angel of God appeared to Eliezer and announced that, as he\nhad successfully withstood all the temptations and sufferings by which he\nhad been tried, God was about to reward him with a son, who was destined\nto enlighten the eyes of all Israel. Therefore his name should be Israel,\nfor in him the words of Scripture were to be fulfilled, \u201cThou art my\nservant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.\u201d In due course the promise\nwas fulfilled, and to the aged couple a son was born, who was named Israel\naccording to the angel\u2019s word. The date of Baalshem\u2019s birth is about 1700;\nhis birthplace, in Bukowina, in a hitherto unidentified village which the\nauthorities call Ukop, then still belonging to Roumania. The child\u2019s\nmother died soon after he was weaned, and his father did not long survive\nher. But before Eliezer died he took his child in his arms, and blessing\nhim, bade him fear naught, for God would always be with him.\n\nAs Eliezer had been greatly honoured in the community in which he lived,\nhis orphan son was carefully tended and educated. He was early supplied\nwith an instructor in the Holy Law. But though he learned with rare\nfacility, he rejected the customary methods of instruction. One day, while\nstill quite young, his teacher missed him, and on seeking found him\nsitting alone in the forest that skirted his native village, in happy and\nfearless solitude. He repeated this escapade so often that it was thought\nbest to leave him to follow his own bent. A little later we find him\nengaged as assistant to a schoolmaster. His duty was not to teach, but to\ntake the children from their homes to the synagogue and thence on to the\nschool. It was his wont while accompanying the children to the synagogue\nto teach them solemn hymns which he sang with them. In the synagogue he\nencouraged them to sing the responses, so that the voices of the children\npenetrated through the heavens and moved the Divine father to compassion.\nSatan, fearing lest his power on earth should thereby be diminished,\nassumed the shape of a werewolf, and, appearing before the procession of\nchildren on their way to the synagogue, put them to flight. In consequence\nof this alarming incident the children\u2019s services were suspended. But\nIsrael, recollecting his father\u2019s counsel to fear naught, besought the\nparents to be allowed to lead the children once more in the old way. His\nrequest was granted, and when the werewolf appeared a second time Israel\nattacked him with a club and routed him.\n\nIn his fourteenth year Israel became a beadle at the Beth Hammidrash.(4)\nHere he assiduously but secretly pursued the study of the Law. Yet, being\nanxious that none should know his design, he read and worked only at\nnight, when the schoolroom was empty and the usual scholars had retired.\nDuring the daytime he slept, so that he was popularly believed to be both\nignorant and lazy. Despite these precautions, however, his true character\nwas revealed to one person. A certain holy man, the father of a young\nstudent at the college, had discovered some old manuscripts which\ncontained the deepest secrets. Before his death he bade his son repair to\nUkop, Israel\u2019s birthplace, telling him that he would find one Israel, son\nof Eliezer, to whom the precious documents were to be entrusted. They\npossessed, so the old man declared, a certain mystic and heavenly affinity\nwith Israel\u2019s soul. The student carried out his father\u2019s instructions, and\nat last discovered the object of his search in the beadle of the Beth\nHammidrash. Israel admitted him to his friendship and confidence on the\ncondition of secrecy as to his real character. The student, however, paid\ndearly for this acquaintance with Israel. Contrary to Baalshem\u2019s advice,\nhe entered upon a dangerous incantation in the course of which he made a\nmistake so serious that it cost him his life.\n\nUpon the death of his friend, Baalshem left his native village and settled\nas a teacher in a small town near Brody. Here, although his true mission\nand character were still unknown, he became much respected for his rigid\nprobity, and was frequently chosen as umpire in disputes among Jews. On\none of these occasions he arbitrated with so much learning and\nimpartiality that not only did he satisfy both parties, but one of them, a\nlearned man of Brody, named Abraham, offered him his own daughter in\nmarriage. Israel, to whom it had been revealed that Abraham\u2019s daughter was\nhis predestined wife, immediately accepted the offer and the act of\nbetrothal was drawn up. But wishing his true character to remain unknown\nhe stipulated that Abraham, although a \u201cTalmid Chacham\u201d (student)(5)\nhimself and therefore presumably desirous that his daughter should marry a\nscholar, should omit from the betrothal\u2010deed all the titles of honour\nusually appended to the name of a learned bridegroom. While returning to\nBrody, Abraham died, and Gershon his son, a scholar still greater and more\ncelebrated than his father, was surprised and shocked to find a deed of\nbetrothal among his father\u2019s papers, from which it appeared that his\nsister was to wed a man with apparently no claim to scholarship or\nlearning. He protested to his sister, but she declined to entertain any\nobjections to a marriage which her father had arranged. When the time for\nthe wedding was at hand, Israel gave up his post as teacher, and repaired\nto Brody. Disguised as a peasant he presented himself before his future\nbrother\u2010in\u2010law, who was then fulfilling some high judicial function.\nGershon taking him for a beggar offered him alms, but Israel, refusing the\nmoney, asked for a private interview, stating that he had an important\nsecret to reveal. He then, to Gershon\u2019s surprise and disgust, explained\nwho he was and that he had come to claim his bride. As the girl was\ndetermined to obey her father\u2019s will the affair was settled and the day\nfixed. On the morning of the wedding Israel revealed to his bride his real\ncharacter and mission, at the same time enjoining secrecy. Evil fortunes\nwould befall them, he said, but a better time would eventually follow.\n\nAfter the wedding, Gershon, having in vain attempted to instruct his\nseemingly ignorant brother\u2010in\u2010law, decided to rid himself of his presence.\nHe gave his sister the choice of being separated from her husband, or of\nleaving the town in his company. She chose the latter, and thereupon the\ntwo left Brody and began a life of hardship and suffering. Israel chose\nfor his new home a spot on one of the spurs of the Carpathian Mountains.\nNo Jews lived there, and Israel and his wife were thus separated from the\nsociety of their fellows in a life of complete and unchanging solitude.\nIsrael dug lime in the ravines among the mountains, and his wife conveyed\nit for sale to the nearest town. Their life at this period seems to have\nbeen one of great privation, but the harder Israel\u2019s outward lot, the more\nhe increased in spiritual greatness. In his solitude he gave himself up\nentirely to devotion and religious contemplation. His habit was to climb\nto the summit of the mountains and wander about rapt in spiritual\necstasies. He fasted, prayed, made continual ablutions, and observed all\nthe customary outward and inward exercises of piety and devotion.\n\nAfter seven years, Gershon, who was well aware of the bitter poverty which\nhis sister endured, relented and brought her and her husband back to\nBrody. At first he employed Baalshem as his coachman, but as he proved\nwholly unfit for this work Gershon rented a small inn in a remote village,\nand there established his sister and her husband. The business of the inn\nwas managed by the wife, while Baalshem passed most of his time in a hut\nin a neighbouring forest. Here he once more gave himself up to meditation\nand preparation for his future work, and here, a little later, when nearly\nforty\u2010two years of age, to a few chosen spirits, afterwards his most\nfervent disciples, he first revealed his true character and mission.\n\nFrom this point unfortunately the materials for a continuous biography are\nwanting; we next hear of Baalshem discharging the functions of an ordinary\nRabbi at Miedziboz in Podolia, but for the remainder of his personal\nhistory we have to be content with detached anecdotes and fragmentary\npassages in his life, the sum total of which goes to show that he resided\nin Podolia and Wallachia, teaching his doctrines to his disciples and\n\u201cworking Wonders.\u201d He does not seem to have figured as a public preacher,\nnor has he left behind him any written work. He appears rather to have\nused the method, familiar to students of Greek philosophy, of teaching by\nconversations with his friends and disciples. These conversations, and the\nparables with which they were largely interspersed, were remembered and\nstored up by his hearers. By his neighbours the country folk, Baalshem was\nregarded simply as \u201ca man of God.\u201d He was allowed to pursue his course\nundisturbed by persecution of the serious character which his more\naggressive successors provoked. Such of the Rabbis as were aware of his\nexistence despised him and his ways, but the Rabbinical world was at that\ntime too much occupied in the controversy between Eybesch\u00fctz and Emden to\nconcern itself with the vagaries of an obscure and apparently \u201cunlearned\u201d\neccentric. Baalshem also took part in the disputes which were held in\nLemberg, the capital of Galicia (1757?), between the Rabbis and the\nFrankists,(6) who denounced the Talmud to the Polish Government and wanted\nto have all the Rabbinical books destroyed. Baalshem suffered from this\nexcitement in a most terrible way. The abrogation of the Oral Law meant\nfor him the ruin of Judaism.\n\nBaalshem, in forming the little band of devoted followers who were\ndestined to spread a knowledge of his creed, travelled considerably about\nWallachia. He at one time decided to make a pilgrimage to Palestine, but\nwhen he reached Constantinople he felt himself inspired to return and\ncontinue his work at home. He died at Miedziboz on the eve of Pentecost,\n1761.\n\nAfter his death his disciples, of whom one Beer of Mizriez was the most\nprominent, undertook the proselytising mission for which Baalshem had\nprepared them, but from which he himself appears to have abstained. They\npreached and taught in all the provinces of Russia where Jews may reside,\nand in Roumania, and Galicia. The number of the sect at the present day is\nprobably about half a million.\n\nReturning now to Baalshem the founder, it may be noted that his appearance\nas a teacher and reformer was accompanied and justified by a customary and\nadequate number of miracles. To one disciple he revealed secrets which\ncould have become known to him only by divine revelation; to another he\nappeared with a nimbus round his head. On the evidence of the Chassidim we\nlearn that Baalshem performed all the recognised signs and marvels which\nhave ever been the customary minor characteristics of men of similar type\nin similar environment. When Baalshem desired to cross a stream, he spread\nforth his mantle upon the waters, and standing thereupon passed safely to\nthe other side. Ghosts evacuated haunted houses at the mere mention of his\nname. Was he alone in the forest on a wintry night, he had but to touch a\ntree with his finger tips and flames burst forth. When his spirit wandered\nthrough the angelic spheres, as was frequently the case, he obtained\naccess to Paradise for millions of pining souls who had vainly waited\nwithout through long thousands of mournful years. These and other miracles\nneed not be examined. Here, as in the case of other such blissful seasons\nof grace, they were the ephemeral though important accessories in\nestablishing the inspired character of his utterances and the authority of\nhis injunctions. It is not as a worker of miracles, but as a religious\nteacher and reformer, that Baalshem is interesting.\n\nProperly to understand the nature and special direction of his teaching,\nit is necessary in some measure to realise the character of the field in\nwhich he worked; to consider, in other words, the moral and religious\ncondition of the Jews in those districts where Chassidism first took root.\n\nIn a Hebrew Hymn, written about 1000 A.C., and still recited in the\nsynagogue on the Day of Atonement, the poet expresses the strange and\nbitter fortunes of his race in touching words of mingled sorrow and\nexultation.\n\n\n    Destroyed lies Zion and profaned,\n    Of splendour and renown bereft,\n    Her ancient glories wholly waned,\n    One deathless treasure only left;\n        Still ours, O Lord,\n        Thy Holy Word.\n\n\nAnd this Divine Word it was, which a persecuted religion has sought to\npreserve intact through so many centuries of persecution, and for the sake\nof which no labour seemed too severe, no sacrifice too large. \u201cBethink\nThee, O God,\u201d exclaimed one of our Jewish sages who flourished about the\nsame period, \u201cbethink Thee of Thy faithful children who, amid their\npoverty and want, are busy in the study of Thy Law. Bethink Thee of the\npoor in Israel who are willing to suffer hunger and destitution if only\nthey can secure for their children the knowledge of Thy Law.\u201d And so\nindeed it was. Old and young, weak and strong, rich and poor, all pursued\nthat single study, the Torah. The product of this prolonged study is that\ngigantic literature which, as a long unbroken chain of spiritual activity,\nconnects together the various periods of the Jews\u2019 chequered and eventful\nhistory. All ages and all lands have contributed to the development of\nthis supreme study. For under the word Torah was comprised not only the\nLaw, but also the contributions of later times expressing either the\nthoughts or the emotions of holy and sincere men; and even their honest\nscepticism was not entirely excluded. As in the canon of the Bible,\nEcclesiastes and the Song of Solomon found place in the same volume that\ncontains the Law and the Prophets, so at a later time people did not\nobject to put the philosophical works of Maimonides and the songs of Judah\nHallevi on the same level with the Code of the Law compiled by R. Isaac\nAlfasi, and the commentaries on the Bible by R. Solomon b. Isaac.(7) None\nof them was declared infallible, but also to none of them, as soon as\npeople were convinced of the author\u2019s sincerity, was denied the homage due\nto seekers after truth. Almost every author was called Rabbi (\u201cmy master\u201d)\nor Rabbenu (\u201cour master\u201d),(8) and nearly every book was regarded more or\nless as a contribution to the great bulk of the Torah. It was called\nWrit,(9) and was treated with a certain kind of piety. But, by a series of\naccidents too long to be related here, sincerity ceased and sport took its\nplace. I refer to the casuistic schools commonly known by the name of\nPilpulists(10) (the \u201cseasoned\u201d or the \u201csharp\u201d ones), who flourished in the\nlast two centuries preceding ours. To the authors of this unhappy period,\na few glorious exceptions always allowed, the preceding Jewish literature\ndid not mean a \u201cfountain of living waters,\u201d supplying men with truth and\nreligious inspiration, but rather a kind of armoury providing them with\njuristic cases over which to fight, and to out\u2010do each other in sophistry\nand subtlety. As a consequence they cared little or nothing for that part\nof the Jewish literature that appeals less to the intellect than to the\nfeelings of men. In short, religion consisted only of complicated cases\nand innumerable ordinances, in which the wit of these men found delight.\nBut the emotional part of it, whose root is the Faith and Love of men, was\nalmost entirely neglected.\n\nBut it was precisely these higher religious emotions that were Baalshem\u2019s\npeculiar province, and it was to them that he assigned in his religious\nsystem a place befitting their importance and their dignity. And the\nlocality where his ministration lay was curiously adapted for such\npropaganda. To that universal study of the Law of which I have just spoken\nthere was one exception. That exception was amongst the Jews in the\nterritories which bordered on the Carpathian Mountains, and comprise the\nprincipalities of Moldavia, and Wallachia, Bukowina, and the Ukraine.\n\nIt is historically certain that the first arrival of the Jews in Roumania\nwas at a very early date, but there is no trace of any intellectual\nproductivity among the immigrants until recent times, and it is admitted\nthat the study of the Law was almost entirely neglected. It was in these\ndistricts of mental, and perhaps we might add of even spiritual, darkness\nthat Chassidism took its rise and achieved its first success. \u201cThe sect of\nthe Chassidim,\u201d says one of the bitterest but most trustworthy of their\nopponents, \u201cfirst gained ground in the most uncivilised provinces; in the\nwild ravines of Wallachia and the dreary steppes of the Ukraine.\u201d\n\nApart from the genius of its founder, Chassidism owed its rapid growth to\nthe intellectual barrenness of these districts as compared with the\nintellectual fertility of the other regions where Jews most thickly\ncongregated. The Roumanian Jews were to some extent under the jurisdiction\nof the Rabbis of Poland. Now the Poles were celebrated even in Germany for\nthe elaboration of their casuistry. These over\u2010subtle Rabbis, delighting\nin the quibbles of their sophistry, and reducing religion to an unending\nnumber of juristic calculations and all sorts of possibilities and\nimpossibilities, were but too apt to forget the claims of feeling in their\neager desire to question and to settle everything. They may have been\nsatisfactory guides in matters spiritual to the men of their own stamp,\nbut they were of no avail to their Roumanian brethren who failed to\nrecognise religion in the garb of casuistry. It was, therefore, not\nsurprising that a revolt against the excess of intellectualism should have\nsprung up and flourished in those districts where the inhabitants were\nconstitutionally incapable of appreciating the delights of argument. The\nfield was ready, and in the fulness of time came the sower in the person\nof Baalshem.\n\nIn the above estimate of the Polish Rabbis there undoubtedly lurks a touch\nof exaggeration. But it represents the view which the Chassidim took of\ntheir opponents. The whole life of Baalshem is a protest against the\ntypical Rabbi thus conceived. The essential difference in the ideals of\nthe two parties is perhaps best illustrated in those portions of their\nbiographical literature where legend treads most closely upon the heels of\nfact.\n\nThe hero of Polish Rabbinic biography at five years of age can recite by\nheart the most difficult tractates of the Talmud; at eight he is the\ndisciple of the most celebrated teacher of the time, and perplexes him by\nthe penetrative subtlety of his questions; while at thirteen he appears\nbefore the world as a full\u2010fledged Doctor of the Law.\n\nThe hero of the Chassidim has a totally different education, and his\ndistinctive glory is of another kind. The legendary stories about\nBaalshem\u2019s youth tell us little of his proficiency in Talmudic studies;\ninstead of sitting in the Beth Hammidrash with the folios of some\ncasuistic treatise spread out before him, Baalshem passes his time singing\nhymns out of doors, or under the green trees of the forest with the\nchildren. Satan, however, says the Chassid, is more afraid of these\ninnocent exercises than of all the controversies in the Meheram Shiff.(11)\nIt was through external nature, the woods of his childhood, the hills and\nwild ravines of the Carpathians where he passed many of his maturer years,\nthat Baalshem, according to his disciples, reached his spiritual\nconfirmation. The Chassidic hero had no celebrated Rabbi for his master.\nHe was his own teacher. If not self\u2010taught, it was from angelic lips, or\neven the Divine voice itself, that he learned the higher knowledge. From\nthe source whence the Torah flowed Baalshem received heavenly lore. His\nmethod of self\u2010education, his ways of life, his choice of associates were\nall instances of revolt; not only did he teach a wholly different theory\nand practice, but he and his disciples seem to have missed no opportunity\nof denouncing the old teachers as misleading and ungodly. Among the many\nanecdotes illustrating this feature, it is told how once, on the evening\nbefore the great Day of Atonement, Baalshem was noticed by his disciples\nto be, contrary to his usual custom, depressed and ill at ease. The whole\nsubsequent day he passed in violent weeping and lamentations. At its close\nhe once more resumed his wonted cheerfulness of manner. When asked for the\nexplanation of his behaviour, he replied that the Holy Spirit had revealed\nto him that heavy accusations were being made against the Jewish people,\nand a heavy punishment had been ordained upon them. The anger of heaven\nwas caused by the Rabbis, whose sole occupation was to invent lying\npremisses and to draw from them false conclusions. All the truly wise\nRabbis of the olden time (such as the Tannaim, the Amoraim(12) and their\nfollowers, whom Baalshem regarded as so many saints and prophets) had now\nstood forth as the accusers of their modern successors by whom their words\nwere so grossly perverted from their original meaning. On this account\nBaalshem\u2019s tears had been shed, and his prayers as usual had been\nsuccessful. The impending judgment was annulled. On another occasion, when\nhe overheard the sounds of eager, loud discussion issuing from a\nRabbinical college, Baalshem, closing his ears with his hands, declared\nthat it was such disputants who delayed the redemption of Israel from\ncaptivity. Satan, he said, incites the Rabbis to study those portions of\nJewish literature only on which they can whet the sharpness of their\nintellects, but from all writings of which the reading would promote piety\nand the fear of God he keeps them away. \u201cWhere there is much study,\u201d says\na disciple of Baalshem, \u201cthere is little piety.\u201d \u201cJewish Devils\u201d(13) is\none of the numerous polite epithets applied to the Rabbis by the friends\nof Baalshem. \u201cEven the worst sinners are better than they; so blind are\nthey in the arrogance of their self\u2010conceit that their very devotion to\nthe Law becomes a vehicle for their sin.\u201d It will be found when we deal\nwith the most positive side of Baalshem\u2019s teaching that this antagonism to\nthe attitude and methods of the contemporary Rabbis is further emphasised,\nand it will readily be seen that his whole scheme of religion and of\nconduct in relation to God and man rendered this acknowledged hostility\ninevitable. In approaching this part of our subject it should be\nremembered that, as stated above, Baalshem himself wrote nothing. For a\nknowledge of his sayings we are therefore dependent on the reports of his\nfriends and disciples. And it is not unfrequently necessary to supplement\nthese by the teaching of his followers, whom we may suppose in large\nmeasure to have caught the spirit of their master. Unfortunately the\noriginal authorities are in a difficult Hebrew patois which often obscures\nthe precise meaning of whole passages.\n\nThe originality of Baalshem\u2019s teaching has been frequently impugned,\nchiefly by the suggestion that he drew largely from the Zohar (Book of\nBrightness).(14) This mystical book, \u201cthe Bible of the Cabbalists,\u201d\nwhether we regard its subject\u2010matter or its history and influence, is\nunique in literature. Its pretended author is Simeon ben Yochai, a great\nRabbi of the second century, but the real writer is probably one Moses de\nLeon, a Spanish Jew, who lived eleven centuries later. The book is one of\nthe most interesting literary forgeries, and is a marvellous mixture of\ngood and evil. A passage of delicate religious fancy is succeeded by\nanother of gross obscenity in illustration and suggestion; true piety and\nwild blasphemy are strangely mingled together. Baalshem undoubtedly had\nstudied the Zohar, and he even is reported to have said that the reading\nof the Zohar had enabled him to see into the whole universe of things.\nBut, for all that, Baalshem was no copyist; and the Zohar, although it may\nhave suggested a hint to him here and there, was not the source whence his\ninspiration was drawn.\n\nIts attraction for Baalshem is sufficiently explained by the fantastic,\nimaginative, and emotional nature of its contents. It lent itself more\neasily than the older Rabbinical literature to new explanations unthought\nof by its author. But even the Talmud and its early commentaries became\napocalyptic to the heroes of Chassidism. Nay, the driest and most legal\ndisquisitions about _meum_ and _tuum_ could be translated into parables\nand allegories and symbols full of the most exalted meanings. Baalshem,\nlike every other religious reformer, was partially the product of his age.\nThe influences of the past, the history and literature of his own people,\nhelped to make him what he was. But they do not rob him of his\noriginality. He was a religious revivalist in the best sense; full of\nburning faith in his God and his cause; convinced utterly of the value of\nhis work and the truth of his teaching.\n\nAlthough there can be no real doubt of Baalshem\u2019s claim to originality, it\nshould be borne in mind that his teaching is not only distinctively\nJewish, but that for every part of it parallels and analogies could be\nfound in the older Hebrew literature. Indeed it is not wonderful that in a\nliterature, extending over 2000 years, of a people whose chief thoughts\nhave been religion, and who have come in contact with so many external\nreligious and philosophic influences, the germs can be discovered of\nalmost every conceivable system, and the outline of almost every\nimaginable doctrine.\n\nThe keynote of all Baalshem\u2019s teachings is the Omnipresence, or more\nstrictly the Immanence, of God. This is the source from which flows\nnaturally every article of his creed; the universality of the Divinity is\nthe foundation of the entire Chassidic fabric. The idea of the constant\nliving presence of God in all existence permeates the whole of Baalshem\u2019s\nscheme; it is insisted on in every relation; from it is deduced every\nimportant proposition and every rule in conduct of his school.\n\nAll created things and every product of human intelligence owe their being\nto God. All generation and all existence spring from the thought and will\nof God. It is incumbent upon man to believe that all things are pervaded\nby the divine life, and when he speaks he should remember that it is this\ndivine life which is speaking through him. There is nothing which is void\nof God. If we imagine for a moment such a thing to be, it would instantly\nfall into nothingness. In every human thought God is present. If the\nthought be gross or evil, we should seek to raise and ennoble it by\ncarrying it back to its origin. So, if a man be suddenly overwhelmed by\nthe aspect of a beautiful woman, he should remember that this splendour of\nbeauty is owing to the all\u2010pervading emanation from the divine. When he\nremembers that the source of corporeal beauty is God, he will not be\ncontent to let his thought abide with the body when he can rise to the\ninward contemplation of the infinite soul of beauty, which is God. A\ndisciple of Baalshem has said: Even as in the jewels of his beloved the\nlover sees only the beauty of her he loves, so does the true lover of God\nsee in all the appearances of this world, the vitalising and generative\npower of his divine master. If you do not see the world in the light of\nGod you separate the creation from its Creator. He who does not fully\nbelieve in this universality of God\u2019s presence has never properly\nacknowledged God\u2019s Sovereignty, for he excludes God from an existing\nportion of the actual world. The word of God (to Baalshem, a synonym for\nGod himself), which \u201cis settled in heaven\u201d and \u201cestablished on earth,\u201d is\nstill and always speaking, acting, and generating throughout heaven and\nearth in endless gradations and varieties. If the vitalising word were to\ncease, chaos would come again. The belief in a single creation after which\nthe Master withdrew from his completed work, is erroneous and heretical.\nThe vivifying power is never withdrawn from the world which it animates.\nCreation is continuous; an unending manifestation of the goodness of God.\nAll things are an affluence from the two divine attributes of Power and\nLove, which express themselves in various images and reflections.\n\nThis is the doctrine of universality in Chassidism. God, the father of\nIsrael, God the Merciful, God the All\u2010powerful, the God of Love, not only\ncreated everything but is embodied in everything. The necessity of\nbelieving this doctrine is the cardinal Dogma. But as creation is\ncontinuous so also is revelation. This revelation is only to be grasped by\nfaith. Faith, therefore, is more efficacious than learning. Thus it is\nthat in times of persecution, the wise and the foolish, the sinner and the\nsaint, are wont alike to give up their life for their faith. They who\ncould render no answer to the questions of the casuist are yet willing to\ndie the most cruel of deaths rather than deny their faith in the One and\nSupreme God. Their strength to face danger and death is owing to that\ndivine illumination of the soul which is more exalted than knowledge.\n\nWe should thus regard all things in the light of so many manifestations of\nthe Divinity. God is present in all things; therefore there is good,\nactual or potential, in all things. It is our duty everywhere to seek out\nand to honour the good, and not to arrogate to ourselves the right to\njudge that which may seem to be evil. In thinking therefore of a fellow\u2010\nman, we should above all things realise in him the presence of the spirit\nof good. Whence we have the Doctrine that each of us, while thinking\nhumbly of himself, should always be ready to think well, and always slow\nto think evil, of another. This explains the Chassidic attitude towards\nerring humanity. Baalshem viewed human sin and infirmity in a very\ndifferent light from that of the ordinary Rabbi. Ever conscious of the\nDivine side of Humanity, he vigorously combated the gratuitous assumption\nof sinfulness in man which was a fertile subject with contemporary\npreachers. They, among the Roumanian Jews as in other communities,\ndelighted chiefly to dwell on the dark side of things, and found their\nfavourite theme in elaborate descriptions of the infernal punishments that\nwere awaiting the sinner after death. It is related how on one occasion\nBaalshem rebuked one of these. The preacher had been denouncing woe to an\naudience of whom he knew nothing whether for evil or for good. Baalshem,\nindignant at this indiscriminative abuse and conceited arrogation of the\ndivine office of judgment, turned on him in the following words: \u201cWoe upon\nthee who darest to speak evil of Israel! Dost not know that every Jew,\nwhen he utters ever so short a prayer at the close of day, is performing a\ngreat work before which the angels in heaven bow down?\u201d Great, as it would\nseem, was the value set by Baalshem upon the smallest evidence of the\nhigher nature in man, and few there were, as he believed, who, if their\nspirit was not darkened by pride, did not now and again give proof of the\ndivine stamp in which God had created them. No sin so separates us from\nGod that we need despair of return. From every rung of the moral ladder,\nno matter how low, let man seek God. If he but fully believe that nothing\nis void of God, and that God is concealed in the midst of apparent ruin\nand degradation, he will not fear lest God be far from him. God is\nregained in a moment of repentance, for repentance \u201ctranscends the limits\nof space and time.\u201d And he who leads the sinner to repentance causes a\ndivine joy; it is as though a king\u2019s son had been in captivity and were\nnow brought back to his father\u2019s gaze.\n\nBaalshem refused to regard any one as wholly irredeemable. His was an\noptimistic faith. God was to be praised in gladness by the dwellers in\nthis glorious world. The true believer, recognising the reflection of God\nin every man, should hopefully strive, when that reflection was obscured\nby sin, to restore the likeness of God in man. The peculiar detestability\nof sin lies in this, that man rejects the earthly manifestations of the\nDivinity and pollutes them. One of Baalshem\u2019s disciples delighted in the\nsaying that the most hardened sinners were not to be despaired of, but\nprayed for. None knows the heart of man, and none should judge his\nneighbour. Let him who burns with zeal for God\u2019s sake, exercise his zeal\non himself, not others. Baalshem said, \u201cLet no one think himself better\nthan his neighbour, for all serve God; each according to the measure of\nunderstanding which God has given him.\u201d\n\nFrom this position it is a natural step to Baalshem\u2019s view of prayer. He\nis reputed to have said that all the greatness he had achieved was the\nissue not of study but of prayer. But true prayer \u201cmust move,\u201d as Baalshem\nphrased it, \u201cin the realms above,\u201d and not be concerned with affairs\nsublunary. Your prayer should not be taken up with your wishes and needs,\nbut should be the means to bring you nigh to God. In prayer man must lay\naside his own individuality, and not even be conscious of his existence;\nfor if, when he prays, Self is not absolutely quiescent, the object of\nprayer is unattainable. Indeed it is only through God\u2019s grace that after\ntrue prayer man is yet alive; to such a point has the annihilation of self\nproceeded.\n\nIt may be necessary to caution the reader against ascribing to Baalshem\nany modern rationalistic notions on the subject of prayer. The power of\nprayer, in the old\u2010fashioned sense, to produce an answer from God was\nnever doubted by Baalshem for a moment. Baalshem\u2019s deity is not restricted\ntowards any side by any philosophic considerations. All Baalshem meant was\nthat any reference or regard to earthly requirements was unworthy and\ndestructive of this communion of man with God. The wise man, says\nBaalshem, does not trouble the king with innumerable petitions about\ntrifles. His desire is merely to gain admission into the king\u2019s presence\nand to speak with him without a go\u2010between. To be with the king whom he\nloves so dearly is for him the highest good. But his love for the king has\nits reward; for the king loves him.\n\nIt has already been implied that, with regard to our duty towards our\nfellow\u2010man, we must not only honour him for the good, and abstain from\njudging the evil that may be in him, but must pray for him. Furthermore we\nmust work for his spiritual and moral reclamation. In giving practical\neffect in his own life to this doctrine, Baalshem\u2019s conduct was in\nstriking contrast to that of his contemporaries. He habitually consorted\nwith outcasts and sinners, with the poor and uneducated of both sexes,\nwhom the other teachers ignored. He thus won for his doctrines a way to\nthe heart of the people by adapting his life and language to their\nunderstanding and sympathies. In illustration of this, as well as of his\nhatred of vanity and display, it is told how, on the occasion of his being\naccorded a public reception by the Jews on his arrival at Brody, instead\nof addressing to them in the conventional fashion some subtle discourse\nupon a Talmudical difficulty, he contented himself with conversing upon\ntrivial topics in the local dialect with some of the less important\npersons in the crowd.\n\nThis incident is perhaps the more noteworthy because it occurred in Brody,\nwhich was at that time a seat of learning and Rabbinic culture,\u2014a place\nwhere, for that very reason, Chassidism was never able to gain a foothold.\nIt is probable enough that Baalshem in his visits to this town kept aloof\nfrom the learned and the wise, and sought to gather round him the\nneglected and humbler elements of Jewish society. It is well known that\nBaalshem consorted a good deal with the innkeepers of the district, who\nwere held in very low repute among their brethren. The following remark by\none of his followers is very suggestive in this respect. Just as only\nsuperficial minds attach a certain holiness to special places, whilst with\nthe deeper ones all places are alike holy, so that to them it makes no\ndifference whether prayers be said in the synagogue or in the forest; so\nthe latter believe that not only prophecies and visions come from heaven,\nbut that every utterance of man, if properly understood, contains a\nmessage of God. Those who are absorbed in God will easily find the divine\nelement in everything which they hear, even though the speaker himself be\nquite ignorant of it.\n\nThis line of conduct gave a fair opening for attack to his opponents, an\nopportunity of which they were not slow to avail themselves. Baalshem was\npointed at as the associate of the lowest classes. They avenged themselves\nfor his neglect of and hostility to the learned by imputing the worst\nmotives to his indifference to appearances. He was accused of idling about\nthe streets with disreputable characters, and one polemical treatise draws\nthe vilest inferences from his apparent familiarity with women. To this\ncharge Baalshem\u2019s conduct, innocent in itself, gave some colour; for his\nviews and habits in relation to women marked a strong divergence from\ncurrent customs. The position of women in contemporary circles was neither\ndebased nor inevitably unhappy, but it was distinctly subordinate. Their\neducation was almost entirely neglected, and their very existence was\npractically ignored. According to the Chassidic doctrine of Universality,\nwoman was necessarily to be honoured. \u201cAll Jews,\u201d says one Chassid, \u201ceven\nthe uneducated and the women, believe in God.\u201d Baalshem frequently\nassociated with women, assigning to them not only social equality, but a\nhigh degree of religious importance.\n\nHis own wife he reverenced as a saint; when she died he abandoned the hope\nof rising to heaven while yet alive, like Elijah of old, saying mournfully\nthat undivided such translation might have happened, but for him alone it\nwas impossible. Then again in a form of religion utilising so largely the\nemotions of Faith and Love there was a strong appeal to the female mind.\nThe effect of this was soon evident, and Baalshem did not neglect to\nprofit by it. Among the most devoted of his early adherents were women.\nOne of them was the heroine of a favourite anecdote concerning Baalshem\u2019s\nwork of Love and Rescue. It is related that in a certain village there\ndwelt a woman whose life was so disgraceful that her brothers at last\ndetermined to kill her. With this object they enticed her into a\nneighbouring wood, but guided by the Holy Spirit Baalshem intervened at\nthe critical moment, and dissuading the men from their purpose rescued the\nsinner. The woman afterwards became a sort of Magdalen in the new\ncommunity.\n\nAbove I have endeavoured to throw together in some order of sequence the\ndoctrines and practical rules of conduct which Baalshem and his early\ndisciples seem to have deduced from their central idea of the omnipresence\nof God. This was necessary in order to give a connected idea of their\ncreed, but it is right to say that nowhere in Chassidic literature have\nthese deductions been logically co\u2010ordinated. Perhaps their solitary\nattempt to formulate and condense their distinctive views is confined to a\nstatement of their idea of piety or service of God, and an examination of\nthree cardinal virtues, Humility, Cheerfulness, and Enthusiasm. What the\nChassidim held as to true service brings into relief Baalshem\u2019s\ncharacteristic manner of regarding the Law.\n\nBy the service of God was generally understood a life which fulfilled the\nprecepts of the written and oral law. Baalshem understood by it a certain\nattitude towards life as a whole. For, as God is realised in life, each\nactivity of life when rightly conceived and executed is at once a\nmanifestation and a service of the Divine. All things have been created\nfor the glory and service of God. The smallest worm serves Him with all\nits power. Thus, while eating, drinking, sleeping, and the other ordinary\nfunctions of the body are regarded by the old Jewish moralists as mere\nmeans to an end, to Baalshem they are already a service of God in\nthemselves. All pleasures are manifestations of God\u2019s attribute of love;\nand, so regarded, they are at once spiritualised and ennobled. Man should\nseek to reach a higher level of purity and holiness before partaking of\nfood and drink, than even before the study of the Law. For when the Torah\nhad once been given by God the whole world became instinct with its grace.\nHe who speaks of worldly matters and religious matters as if they were\nseparate and distinct, is a heretic.\n\nUpon the continual and uninterrupted study of the Law, Baalshem lays but\nlittle stress. He accepted the ordinary belief that the Law (under which\nterm are included not only the Pentateuch, but the whole Old Testament and\nthe major portion of the old Rabbinic literature) was a revelation of God.\nBut, as the world itself is equally a divine revelation, the Torah becomes\nlittle more than a part of a larger whole. To understand it aright one\nneeds to penetrate to the inward reality\u2014to the infinite light which is\nrevealed in it. We should study the Law not as we study a science for the\nsake of acquiring knowledge (he who studies it so has in truth been\nconcerning himself with its mere outward form), but we should learn from\nit the true service of God. Thus the study of the law is no end in itself.\nIt is studied because, as the word of God, God is more easily discerned\nand absorbed in this revelation of Him than in any other. The Torah is\neternal, but its explanation is to be made by the spiritual leaders of\nJudaism. It is to be interpreted by them in accordance with the Attribute\nof the age. For he regarded the world as governed in every age by a\ndifferent Attribute of God\u2014one age by the Attribute of Love, another by\nthat of Power, a third again, by Beauty, and so on\u2014and the explanation of\nthe Torah must be brought into agreement with it. The object of the whole\nTorah is that man should become a Torah himself. Every man being a Torah\nin himself, said a disciple of Baalshem, has got not only his Abraham and\nMoses, but also his Balaam and Haman: he should try to expel the Balaam\nand develop the Abraham within him. Every action of man should be a pure\nmanifestation of God.\n\nThe reason why we should do what the Law commands is not to gain grace\nthereby in the eyes of God, but to learn how to love God and to be united\nto Him. The important thing is not how many separate injunctions are\nobeyed, but how and in what spirit we obey them. The object of fulfilling\nthese various ordinances is to put oneself, as it were, on the same plane\nwith God, and thus, in the ordinary phrase of the religious mystic, to\nbecome one with Him, or to be absorbed in Him. People should get to know,\nsays Baalshem, what the unity of God really means. To attain a part of\nthis indivisible unity is to attain the whole. The Torah and all its\nordinances are from God. If I therefore fulfil but one commandment in and\nthrough the love of God, it is as though I have fulfilled them all.\n\nI have now briefly to refer to the three virtues to which the Chassidim\nassigned the highest place of honour. Of these the first is called in\nHebrew \u201cShiphluth,\u201d(15) and is best rendered by our word \u201cHumility,\u201d but\nin Chassidic usage it includes the ideas of modesty, considerateness, and\nsympathy. The prominence given to these qualities is in sharp contrast to\nthe faults of conceit, vanity, and self\u2010satisfaction, against which\nBaalshem was never weary of protesting. He regarded these as the most\nseductive of all forms of sin. But a few minutes before his death he was\nheard to murmur, \u201cO vanity, vanity! even in this hour of death thou darest\nto approach me with thy temptations: \u2018Bethink thee, Israel, what a grand\nfuneral procession will be thine because thou hast been so wise and good.\u2019\nO vanity, vanity! beshrew thee.\u201d \u201cIt should be indifferent to man,\u201d says\nthe master, \u201cwhether he be praised or blamed, loved or hated, reputed to\nbe the wisest of mankind or the greatest of fools. The test of the real\nservice of God is that it leaves behind it the feeling of humility. If a\nman after prayer be conscious of the least pride or self\u2010satisfaction, if\nhe think, for instance, that he has earned a reward by the ardour of his\nspiritual exercises, then let him know that he has prayed not to God but\nto himself. And what is this but disguised idolatry? Before you can find\nGod you must lose yourself.\u201d The Chassidim treated Shiphluth from two\nsides: a negative side in thinking humbly of oneself, a positive in\nthinking highly of one\u2019s neighbour, in other words the love for our\nfellow\u2010man.\n\nHe who loves the father will also love his children. The true lover of God\nis also a lover of man. It is ignorance of one\u2019s own errors that makes one\nready to see the errors of others. \u201cThere is no sphere in heaven where the\nsoul remains a shorter time than in the sphere of merit, there is none\nwhere it abides longer than in the sphere of Love.\u201d\n\nThe second Cardinal Virtue is \u201cCheerfulness,\u201d in Hebrew \u201cSimchah.\u201d(16)\nBaalshem insisted on cheerfulness of heart as a necessary attitude for the\ndue service of God. Once believe that you are really the servant and the\nchild of God and how can you fall again into a gloomy condition of mind?\nNor should the inevitable sins which we all must commit disturb our glad\nserenity of soul. For is not repentance ready at hand by which we may\nclimb back to God? Every penitent thought is a voice of God. Man should\ndetect that voice in all the evidence of his senses, in every sight and\nsound of external nature. It is through his want of faith in the\nuniversality of God\u2019s presence that he is deaf to these subtle influences\nand can read only the lessons which are inscribed in books.\n\nThe reader will be prepared to learn that Baalshem, taking this cheerful\nview of things, was opposed to every kind of asceticism. Judaism, or\nrather Israelitism, it is true, was not originally much of an ascetic\nreligion. But there can be little doubt that in the course of history\nthere came in many ascetic doctrines and practices, quite enough at least\nto encourage such tender souls the bent of whose minds lay in this\ndirection. To one of these, a former disciple, Baalshem wrote: \u201cI hear\nthat you think yourself compelled from religious motives to enter upon a\ncourse of fasts and penances. My soul is outraged at your determination.\nBy the counsel of God I order you to abandon such dangerous practices,\nwhich are but the outcome of a disordered brain. Is it not written \u2018Thou\nshalt not hide thyself from thine own flesh?\u2019 Fast then no more than is\nprescribed. Follow my command and God shall be with you.\u201d On another\noccasion Baalshem was heard to observe that it is a machination of Satan\nto drive us into a condition of gloom and despondency in which the\nsmallest error is regarded as a deadly sin. Satan\u2019s object is to keep us\naway from the true service of God, and God can only be truly served from a\nhappy and confident disposition. Anxious scrupulosity in details is\ntherefore to be avoided. It is the counsel of the Devil to persuade us\nthat we never have done and shall never do our duty fully, and that moral\nprogress is impossible. Such ideas beget melancholy and despair, which are\nof evil.\n\nThe third virtue is called in the Hebrew Chassidic literature\n\u201cHithlahabuth,\u201d(17) and is derived from a verb meaning \u201cto kindle\u201d or \u201cset\non fire.\u201d The substantive \u201cHithlahabuth,\u201d so far as I am aware, was first\ncoined by Baalshem\u2019s followers. It is best rendered by our word\n\u201cEnthusiasm.\u201d Every religious action, to be of any avail, must be done\nwith enthusiasm. A mere mechanical and lifeless performance of an\nordinance is valueless. A man is no step nearer the goal if he thinks,\nforsooth, that he has done his duty when he has gone through the whole\nround of laws in every section of the code. This essential enthusiasm is\nonly begotten of Love. The service of fear, if not wholly useless, is yet\nnecessarily accompanied by a certain repulsion and heaviness, which\neffectually prevent the rush and ardour of enthusiasm. The inspiration of\ntrue service is its own end. There is no thought of this world, and there\nis none of the world to come. In the Talmud there is frequent reference to\none Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah, an apostate from Judaism, who, when urged to\nrepent, replied that repentance was useless, and that for this mournful\nbelief he had direct divine authority. For he had been told by a voice\nfrom heaven that even though he repented he would be excluded from sharing\nthe happiness of the world to come. Of him it was said by one of the\nChassidim, \u201cThis man indeed missed a golden opportunity. How purely could\nhe have served God, knowing that for his service there could never be a\nreward!\u201d\n\nFrom the conception of Enthusiasm springs the quality of mobility,\nsuggesting spiritual progress, and commonly opposed by Baalshem and his\nfollowers to the dull religious stagnation of self\u2010satisfied\ncontemporaries. Man should not imagine himself to have attained the level\nof the righteous; let him rather regard himself as a penitent who should\nmake progress every day. Always to remain on the same religious plane,\nmerely repeating to\u2010day the religious routine of yesterday, is not true\nservice. There must be a daily advance in the knowledge and love of the\nDivine Master. Mere freedom from active sin is not sufficient; such\nnegative virtue may be but another word for the chance absence of\ntemptation. What boots it never to have committed a sin if sin lies\nconcealed in the heart? It is only the uninterrupted communion with God\nwhich will raise and ennoble your thoughts and designs, and cause the\nroots of sin to die. The patriarch Abraham, without any command from God,\nfulfilled the whole Torah, because he perceived that the Law was the life\nof all created things. In the Messianic age the law will no longer seem to\nman as something ordained for him from without; but the law will be within\nthe hearts of men; it will seem natural and self\u2010evident to them, because\nthey will realise that God and life are manifested through the law.\n\nBaalshem, who dealt largely in parable, has left the following, which we\nmay fitly add to our somewhat inadequate presentation of his doctrine.\n\nThere was once a king who built himself a glorious palace. By means of\nmagical illusion it seemed as if the palace were full of devious corridors\nand mazes, preventing the approach to the royal presence. But as there was\nmuch gold and silver heaped up in the entrance halls, most people were\ncontent to go no further, but take their fill of treasure. The king\nhimself they did not notice. At last the king\u2019s intimate had compassion\nupon them and exclaimed to them, \u201cAll these walls and mazes which you see\nbefore you do not in truth exist at all. They are mere illusions. Push\nforward bravely, and you shall find no obstacle.\u201d\n\nWe must not interpret the parable to mean that Baalshem denied the reality\nor even the importance of the actual phenomenal world. The very contrary\nis the truth. The world is for him full of God, penetrated through and\nthrough by the divine, and therefore as real as God himself. It was quite\nin Baalshem\u2019s manner when one of his disciples declared that only fools\ncould speak of the world as vanity or emptiness. \u201cIt is in truth a\nglorious world. We must only learn how rightly to make use of it. Call\nnothing common or profane: by God\u2019s presence all things are holy.\u201d\n\nAbove we have reviewed the essential doctrines of Baalshem and his\nimmediate followers; we have now to see how they fared at the hands of the\nsect which he founded. This is a sad part of our task, for the subsequent\nhistory of Chassidism is almost entirely a record of decay. As formulated\nby its founder the new creed amounted to a genuine Reformation, pure and\nlofty in ideal. After his death unhappily it was rapidly corrupted and\nperverted. This was due almost exclusively to the dangerous and\nexaggerated development of a single point in his teaching. That point, the\nhonour due to the divine in man, was relatively a minor article in the\noriginal creed. But the later Chassidism has given it a distorted and\nalmost exclusive importance wholly out of proportion to the grander and\nmore essential features of Baalshem\u2019s teaching, until the distinctive\nfeature of the Chassidism of to\u2010day is an almost idolatrous service of\ntheir living leaders. What little there is to say of the history of the\nsect after Baalshem\u2019s death would be unintelligible without some\nexplanation of the origin and growth of this unfortunate perversion.\n\nIt has been explained that Baalshem laid but little stress upon the study\nof the Law or the observance of its precepts in themselves, but regarded\nthem only as means to an end. The end is union with God. Man has to\ndiscover the presence of God in the Divine word and will. Now this\nmystical service of God, although perhaps sufficing to sensitive and\nenthusiastic natures, is scarcely plain or definite enough for ordinary\nmen. Few can realise abstractions: and yet fewer can delight in them and\nfind in their contemplation sufficient nurture for their religious needs.\nWhat then had Chassidism to offer to the ordinary majority who could not\nrecognise God in all the plenitude of His disguise? The want of something\ntangible whereon to fix the minds of the people, which has confronted the\nteachers of so many creeds, was also encountered by the Chassidim, and\nthey unfortunately found their way out of the difficulty by relying on and\ndeveloping their doctrine of man\u2019s position in the Universe. Man\u2019s ideal\nis to be a law himself; himself a clear and full manifestation of God.\nNow, not only is he God\u2019s servant and child, but in highest development he\nbecomes himself a part of God, albeit in human shape, so that he may\nbecome wholly one with his divine Father. But if man may reach this\nhighest level of holiness, he is virtually a kind of God\u2010man, whom his\nfellow\u2010men of lower levels perceive by reason of his manhood, but his\nessential office consists in raising them up to God by reason of his\nDivinity.\n\nThe few chosen spirits who through the successful persistency with which\nthey have sought God in all things have become, though yet on earth,\nabsorbed in Him, are known in Chassidic literature by the name of the\n\u201cZaddikim.\u201d The Hebrew word Zaddik(18) means \u201cjust\u201d or \u201crighteous,\u201d and\nthe term was probably chosen in conscious opposition to the title of\nRabbinic heroes, \u201cdisciples of the wise.\u201d For the Zaddik is not so much\nthe product of learning as of intuition: his final consummation is reached\nby a sudden and direct illumination from God. The Zaddik not only\nresembles Moses, but, in virtue of his long communion with the Divine, he\nis also the true child of God. He is, moreover, a vivifying power in\ncreation, for he is the connecting bond between God and his creatures. He\nis the source of blessing and the fount of grace. Man must therefore learn\nto love the Zaddik, so that through the Zaddik he may win God\u2019s grace. He\nwho does not believe in the Zaddik is an apostate from God. Here then we\nhave the fatal exaggeration to which I have alluded, and here its logical\nconsequence. The step to man\u2010worship is short.\n\nThis peculiar doctrine of the Intermediary soon became the distinguishing\nfeature of Chassidism. By a Chassid was understood not a man who held such\nand such opinions in theology and religion, but a believer in the Zaddik,\nand one who sought to attain salvation through the worship of the Zaddik.\nEvery other doctrine of Chassidism was rapidly pushed into the background\nand overlooked. Even the grand and fundamental doctrine of Omnipresence in\nthe Creation was veiled by the special presence in the Zaddik. Chassidism\nbecame mere Zaddikism, and its subsequent history is identical with the\ndownward development of that cult.\n\nWhether Baalshem named his successor is doubtful. But the lead after his\ndeath was assumed by his disciple Beer of Mizriez. This man\u2019s conversion\nto Chassidism was an important event for the new community; his piety and\nlearning were beyond dispute, and, whereas during Baalshem\u2019s life\nChassidism had found its chief adherents among the lower classes of\nsociety, Beer managed to gather round him many of the most learned among\nhis contemporaries. It was to these new and ardent disciples of Beer that\nthe expansion of Chassidism was chiefly due. They came together from many\nquarters, and after Beer\u2019s death separated and preached the new doctrine\nfar and wide. Many even went forth during the lifetime of their master,\nand at his command, to found fresh branches of the new sect. Like Beer\nhimself, they directed their efforts mainly to winning over the educated\nsections of the Jews. The elder men paid little heed to their word, but\nthe youths, just fresh from their casuistic studies, which had sharpened\ntheir wits and starved their souls, lent a ready ear and an eager heart to\nthe new doctrine. The uneducated were by no means excluded; to them\nChassidism held out a deeper consolation and a grander hope than the\ncurrent Rabbinism of the age; they therefore joined the young community in\nlarge numbers without any special effort being necessary to gain them\nover.\n\nIn their methods of Prayer the Chassidim most conspicuously differed from\nthe older communities. Laying as they did supreme stress on the importance\nand efficacy of prayer, they soon found it necessary to secede from the\nexisting synagogues and erect separate buildings for themselves. The usual\nsalaried Reader \u201cwith the beautiful voice and empty head,\u201d who naturally\nregarded his function as a matter of business, was done away with and his\nplace taken either by the Zaddik himself or by some other distinguished\nperson in the community. The Chassidim also effected many changes in the\nliturgy. Instead of the German they adopted the Spanish ritual. They\nexcised many prayers which, lacking the authority of antiquity, were\ncumbrous in form or objectionable in matter. They inserted new prayers and\nhymns of their own. They paid little regard to the prescribed hours at\nwhich public worship should be held. Prayer began when they had got\nthemselves into the proper devotional frame of mind. Frequent ablutions,\nperusal of mystical writings, introspective meditation were the means by\nwhich they sought to gain the befitting mood. The prayers themselves were\naccompanied by the usual phenomena of religious excitement. Some in the\nzeal of their devotion began to dance; others were rapt in a motionless\necstasy; some prayed aloud; others in solemn silence. They justified their\nabrogation of fixed hours for prayer by saying that you cannot order a\nchild when to speak with its father: such restraint were fit only for\nslaves.\n\nAs a rule the larger number of the younger Chassidim were able to devote\ntheir whole time to religious exercises. It was the custom among the Jews\nin Eastern Europe for the young men to live at the expense of their own or\ntheir wives\u2019 parents, in order that they might give themselves up entirely\nto religious study. According to the old notions, this meant the study of\nthe Talmud and its Commentaries; the Chassidim who cared little for the\nlegal side of Jewish literature betook themselves to the literature of\nedification and mysticism. No small part of their time was taken up with\nendless conversations about the Zaddik, his piety, goodness, and self\u2010\nsacrifice and the wonderful miracles which he had wrought. If a Zaddik was\nliving in his own town, the youthful Chassid spent as many hours as he\ncould in the Zaddik\u2019s company, in order to observe and study this embodied\nTorah as constantly as possible. Where no Zaddik was at hand, periodical\npilgrimages were made to the town in which he lived, and endless were the\ntales which were afterwards repeated, to those who were obliged to stay at\nhome, of the Zaddik\u2019s marvellous wisdom and extraordinary deeds. The last\nhours of the Sabbath day were looked upon as a special season of grace,\nand the Chassidim were therefore in the habit of collecting together in\nthe waning of the Sabbath and celebrating the so\u2010called \u201cSupper of the\nHoly Queen.\u201d The meal was accompanied by the usual conversations as well\nas by hymns and prayers.\n\nThe Chassidim were second to no other sect in their loyalty and affection\nfor each other. No sacrifice for a brother Chassid was too great. They\nknew no difference of rich and poor, old and young, wise and ignorant; for\nthey all, with one accord, worshipped one common ideal, the Zaddik, who in\nhis exalted position was equally raised above them all. Before him all\nminor differences of rank disappeared. When a Chassid travelled, he had no\nscruple in asking for lodging or entertainment in the house of any Chassid\nwho could afford to give them. If he was in money difficulties the purse\nof his host was at his disposal. If that was not sufficient, it was\nsupplemented by a grant from the fund of the community. These gifts were\nnot looked upon in the light of charity either by giver or receiver; they\nwere made to the Zaddik, to whom all Chassidim alike were debtors. It\nsometimes even happened that a Zaddik said that the son of some rich\nmerchant was to marry the daughter of a poor schoolmaster, and both\nparties were equally delighted to fulfil the wish of their beloved chief.\n\nIt may easily be imagined that the innovations of the Chassidim provoked\nthe wrath of the orthodox communities. But in their detestation of the\nRabbis the Chassidim returned in full measure all the hatred they\nreceived. The Zaddik is the Moses of his age: the Rabbis its Korah and\nAbiram. Where the Chassidic party in any community gained the upper hand,\nthe Rabbi was deposed and a Zaddik, if that was possible, elected in his\nplace. The issue of these bitter attacks upon the old nobility of the\nJewish race was a rigorous persecution. In many places the Chassidim were\nexcommunicated, in others their leaders were publicly scourged and put\ninto the stocks. Their books were burnt and their synagogues forcibly\nclosed. But persecution produced only the usual result of increasing the\npopularity and the numbers of the sect. The devotion of the Chassidim to\neach other and to their common cause was increased a hundred\u2010fold by\nsuffering. In one case a distinguished Zaddik was accused of treason,\nbefore the Russian authorities, and was thrown into prison. In Russia,\nhowever, the power of money is considerable, and on payment of a large\nransom not only was the beloved Zaddik released but as an obvious\nconsequence his reputation greatly profited: the day of his release was\ncelebrated as a yearly festival, while his sufferings were regarded by his\nfollowers as a sin\u2010offering that atoned for the iniquities of his age.\nFrom this time the government maintained a purely neutral attitude towards\nthe new sect, and ere long the persecution by the orthodox ceased.\n\nThe cessation of persecution may possibly be accounted for by the fact\nthat Chassidism as a secession soon ceased to be formidable. There were\nearly divisions within the sect. Even Beer\u2019s disciples began to quarrel\nover theological differences and to found separate communities. When once\nthe course of corruption and spiritual decay had begun, it was the\ninterest of the false Zaddikim to accentuate these differences. Each\nZaddik sought to have a whole little sect to himself, from which to draw\nan undivided revenue. And each deluded little sect as it arose boasted of\nthe exclusive possession of the true Zaddik.\n\nIt must not be supposed that these strictures apply to the whole class of\nZaddikim. The greater number of Baalshem\u2019s leading disciples as well as\nBeer\u2019s were beyond question men of pure, unalloyed piety, who would have\nrejected with scorn any idea of making a trade of their sacred profession.\nTheir motives and their zeal were alike ideal. Many gave up highly paid\nposts as Rabbis when they joined the new sect. Some emigrated to Palestine\nto lead a holy life on holy ground, others sought to become religious\nspecialists, following out practically, although with some exaggeration, a\nfavourite doctrine of the Founder, that he who observes but one\ncommandment devotedly and lovingly, may reach the goal desired: the union\nwith God. Thus one Zaddik made it his business never to tell the smallest\nfalsehood, whatever the cost or the inconvenience of truth might be. It is\nrelated that the Russian Government, suspecting the Jews of his town of\nsmuggling, consented to withdraw the charge if he declared his brethren\ninnocent. Having no alternative but either to bring misfortune on his\nbrethren or to tell an untruth, he prayed to God to save him from this\ndilemma by sending death upon him. And lo! when the officials came to\nfetch him before the law court they found him dead. Another, thinking that\nthe commandment in Exodus xxiii. 3, relating to the help that should be\ngiven to a neighbour or enemy when \u201chis ass is lying under its burden,\u201d\nwas practically unobserved, devoted himself to its fulfilment. He was\ncontinually to be seen in the streets, helping one man to load his waggon,\nand another to drag his cart out of the mire. A third made the service of\nthe oppressed his religious specialty. It is said that one day his wife,\nhaving had a quarrel with her maid, was setting out to the magistrate of\nthe town to obtain satisfaction. Noticing that her husband was about to\naccompany her, she asked him whither he was bound. He replied, \u201cto the\nmagistrate.\u201d His wife declared that it was below his dignity to take any\npart in a quarrel with a servant. She could deal with the matter herself.\nThe Zaddik replied, \u201cThat may be, but I intend to represent your maid, who\nwhen accused by my wife will find no one willing to take her part.\u201d And\nthen, bursting into a passion of tears, he quoted Job xxxi. 13: \u201cIf I did\ndespise the cause of my man\u2010servant or of my maid\u2010servant, when they\ncontended with me, what shall I do when God riseth up?\u201d\n\nSeveral Zaddikim were learned men and thinkers of no ordinary kind. The\nworks of Solomon Ladier or of Mendel Witipsker, read with attention and\nwithout Western preconceptions, certainly give the impression of both\noriginality and depth of thought. But most characteristic of all is the\npassionate yearning of authors such as these towards the Divine. The\nreader is astonished and moved by the intense sincerity and ardour of\ntheir longing after God. But, despite the adherence of these worthy men,\nthe fate of Chassidism, as a regenerative force, was sealed from the day\nwhen Zaddikism replaced the original doctrines of the sect.\n\nFor, apart from the obvious theological considerations already suggested,\nthere are two points of inherent weakness in the cult of the Zaddik which\nnaturally doomed it to perversion and failure. The necessary\nqualifications for \u201cZaddikship\u201d are wholly undefined. We hear a great deal\nabout what a Zaddik actually is, but we hear very little about what he\nshould be. The Zaddik has many virtues, but we are nowhere told what are\nhis indispensable qualifications. Moreover, the Zaddik is a being who can\nbe comprehended by the understanding as little as an angel, or as God\nHimself. He is realised by faith, not conceived by thought. Hence there is\nno human test of a true Zaddik except the test of miracles; and every\nstudent of religious history knows the deceitful character of that test.\n\nThe second source of danger arose from the Chassidim holding it to be\ntheir sacred duty to provide for the Zaddik a life of comfort and ease.\nThe Zaddik must pursue his divine avocations undisturbed by grosser cares.\nBut what were the consequences? The Chassidim believed they could win the\ngrace and blessing of the Zaddik by the richness and variety of their\ngifts. A Zaddik\u2019s career became a very profitable concern. The result of\nboth defects was that not only was the opportunity given for every\nscheming charlatan to become a Zaddik, but inducements were offered to\nmake the deception lucrative. Hence the anxiety of the false Zaddikim,\nalready noticed, to found separate communities.\n\nAmong the Chassidim of to\u2010day there is not one in ten thousand who has the\nfaintest conception of those sublime ideas which inspired Baalshem and his\nimmediate disciples. It is still the interest of the wretched ringleaders\nof a widely spread delusion to crush and keep down every trace of\nreflection and thought so that they may play at will with the conscience\nand purses of their adherents. The new scientific movement, inaugurated by\nsuch men as Krochmal, Zunz, and others who came under the influence of the\nGerman critical spirit, found in them its hottest and most fanatical\nopponents. That the cult of the Zaddikim has not led to still more\ndisastrous consequences is solely due to the fact that the Chassidim in\ngeneral have remained faithful to the Law. It is the Law, against the\nexcessive study of which the original Chassidim protested, that has put\nlimits to the license of its modern false prophets.\n\nAmid much that is bad, the Chassidim have preserved through the whole\nmovement a warm heart, and an ardent, sincere faith. There is a certain\nopenness of character and a ready friendliness about even the modern\nChassidim which are very attractive. Religion is still to them a matter of\nlife and death. Their faith is still real enough to satisfy the demands of\na Luther, but it is diverted and wasted upon unworthy objects. If\nChassidism is to be reformed, its worship must no longer be of man; it\nmust be brought back again to the source of all Beauty, all Wisdom, and\nall Goodness; it must be restored to God.\n\n\n\n\n\nII. NACHMAN KROCHMAL AND THE \u201cPERPLEXITIES OF THE TIME\u201d\n\n\nIn her good\u2010natured panegyric of mediocrity which is known under the title\nof _Scenes of Clerical Life_, George Eliot remarked: \u201cLet us hope that\nthere is a saving ignorance.\u201d\n\nStrange as this demand may sound, the wish of the great novelist to see\nher favoured mediocrities \u201csaved,\u201d has been shared by the great majority\nof mankind. I know that I, at least, echo that desire with all my heart.\nAnd I am afraid that I am prompted by some rather selfish reasons. It\nwould be somewhat hard, when one is born with small abilities, but a great\ndesire for being saved, to be deprived of the hope held out by the author\nof _Adam Bede_.\n\nBut there are some, I am afraid, who are not satisfied with this dictum of\nGeorge Eliot. They show a strong tendency to make salvation a monopoly of\nignorance. This is a little too selfish. With all due respect to every\nform of ignorance, sacred as well as profane, we ought, I think, to\nbelieve that there is also such a thing as a saving knowledge. Nay, we\nmight go even farther. There may be certain epochs in history when there\nis hardly any other path to salvation than knowledge, and the deep search\nafter truth.\n\nWe all know the words of the Psalmist, \u201cThe Lord preserveth the simple.\u201d\nBut as there are periods in the life of the individual when na\u00efvet\u00e9 has to\ngive way to sagacity and reflection, so there are times in history at\nwhich Providence does not choose to leave men in simplicity. At such times\ndoubts arise, as though of themselves; questions suddenly become open when\nthey had been supposed solved for centuries; and the human mind is stirred\nby a sceptical breeze of which no man can tell whence it came. One may\nunder those circumstances be indifferent, but one can be simple no more.\n\nEven in such cases, however, man has no cause to despair. When our dearest\nbeliefs are shaken by all kinds of doubts, Providence sends us also great\nthinkers, earnest lovers of truth, who devote their lives to enlightening\nour puzzled minds. Not that these men try to answer all the questions by\nwhich we feel perplexed. They endeavour to satisfy us, partly by showing\nthat many of our difficulties are not difficulties at all, but merely\narise from superficiality, and partly by proving that the great cause\nabout which we feel so much anxiety does not exactly depend on the\nsolution of the questions that are troubling us. They give to the things\nwhich are dearer to us than our life a fresh aspect, which enables us to\nremain attached to them with the same devotion and love as before. To\nspeak again in the words of the Psalmist: \u201cThou sendest forth Thy Spirit,\nand they are created, and Thou renewest the face of the earth.\u201d\n\nThis spirit that renews the face of things is what I understand by \u201csaving\nknowledge.\u201d As men of that saving knowledge we may regard Rabban Johanan\nben Zaccai(19) and his disciples, who made it possible for Judaism to\nsurvive the destruction of the Temple, which some believed to involve the\nend of the religion. As such men we may look upon R. Saadiah Gaon and his\nfollowers, who worked at a time when Judaism was menaced in its inner\nlife, namely in the tradition, by the attempts of the narrow\u2010minded\nCaraites to convert it into a bookish religion.(20) Such men were\nMaimonides and his successors, who came to the aid of religion when it had\ngot into dogmatic troubles by reason of its coming into contact with\nvarious philosophical systems. And in order to approach the subject of the\npresent essay, I venture to say that a man of such saving knowledge was\nalso Nachman Krochmal, who lived and laboured in the first half of the\npresent century, when Judaism had been terribly shaken by the scepticism\nof Voltaire, and the platitudes of the so\u2010called Mendelssohnian school.\n\nNachman Krochmal was born on the 17th of February in the year 1785. His\nfather, Solomon Krochmal, was a merchant of Brody, a commercial frontier\ntown in the north\u2010east of Galicia in Austria. In his early years Solomon\noften used to visit Berlin for business purposes. He is said to have seen\nMendelssohn there on one occasion, and to have learned greatly to revere\nthe Jewish sage. And it is not unlikely that Nachman\u2019s subsequent\nadmiration for Mendelssohn was partly due to his father\u2019s influence.\n\nSolomon was a man of considerable wealth, and he, therefore, endeavoured\nto give his son the best possible education. But as a respectable member\nof a Polish community a hundred years ago, Solomon had to follow the\nfashion adopted by his neighbours, and the best possible education\nconsisted in affording the child an opportunity to study the Talmud and\nother Rabbinical works. All other languages and their literatures were\nsealed books to the child\u2014a very absurd and regrettable fashion indeed.\nBut let us not be too hard on Polish Jews. I have been told that there are\ncountries on our globe where people have been driven by the force of\nfashion into the opposite extreme; where, with few exceptions, they think\nthat the Talmud, as well as the whole Hebrew literature, must needs be\nexcluded from the programme of a gentleman\u2019s education.\n\nHappily, or the reverse, Krochmal\u2019s childhood did not last long, for in\nthe year 1798 we find that Nachman, a boy of fourteen, was already married\nto a Miss Haberman in Zolkiew. As a result of this foolish custom of\nmarrying at so very early an age, Nachman was hardly ever a boy; we have\nat once to deal with him as a man.\n\nIt was then customary in Poland, and perhaps is so still, for the father\nof the bride to provide for the support of the young couple for some years\nafter their marriage. In order to reduce the expense of this arrangement,\nthe bridegroom had to reside in the same house as his father\u2010in\u2010law. Thus\nwe see Krochmal removing from Brody to Zolkiew, the native town of his\nwife. Here Krochmal lived in the house of her father for many years,\nentirely devoted to his studies; and he certainly needed all his time for\nthem. For he now began to expand the sphere of his education, to embrace\nsubjects quite new to him. By his marriage Nachman seems to have gained a\ncertain amount of independence, and the first use he made of it was to\nstudy the _Guide of the Perplexed_(21) of Maimonides, the _Commentaries_\nof Ibn Ezra on the Bible,(22) and other more or less philosophical works\nwritten in the Hebrew language. His next step was to learn German; but, as\nhis biographers inform us, he was not able to follow this course without\nundergoing many struggles, and overcoming many obstacles.\n\nIt would lead us too far to give a full account of the difficulties which\nthe young scholar had to conquer while pursuing his new studies. They will\nbe sufficiently characterised by the following extract from a Hebrew\nletter of his disciple, Solomon Leb Rapoport, who, writing in 1841\nconcerning his master and friend, remarks: \u201cConsider this, ye inhabitants\nof Germany\u201d\u2014and, I may add, ye inhabitants of England\u2014\u201cand you will be\nastounded. It is easy for you to avoid being one\u2010sided, and to study\ndifferent sciences, for you possess many schools and teachers from every\nbranch of learning. It is not so in Poland and Russia even at present,\nmuch less was it so forty years ago. There is no teacher, no guide, no\nsupporter, for the Jew who desires any sort of improvement. The Jew who\nwishes to enter on a new path of learning has to prepare the road for\nhimself. And when he has entered on it, his friend will come to him and\nask, \u2018Is it true that you have got scientific books in your house? Mind\nyou do not mention it to any one. There are enough bigots in the town to\npersecute you and all your family if they get scent of it.\u2019 \u201d It was under\nthese conditions that Krochmal pursued his studies, which were by no means\nfew or easy, for he was not content with a knowledge of only the lighter\nportions of German literature. He soon began to read the works of Lessing,\nMendelssohn, and more especially of Kant, who always remained his\nfavourite philosopher. In his later years he also became acquainted with\nthe writings of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. But to the last he could not\nconsole himself for having missed the advantages of a systematic\nuniversity education.\n\nAfter having learned German, Krochmal proceeded to acquire a knowledge of\nLatin and French, and to read the best books written in those languages.\nTo deepen his knowledge of Hebrew, he studied Arabic and Syraic, but we\nare unable to say how far he succeeded in mastering these languages. With\nthese studies, which appear to have occupied our philosopher for an\ninterval of ten years after his marriage, the first period of his life\nseems also to end. But the hard work of ten years did not pass over the\ndelicate youth without undermining his health for ever. At the age of\ntwenty\u2010four, Krochmal fell sick of an illness which compelled him to\ninterrupt his work. He was forced to go to Lemberg to consult the doctors\nof that town, and he had to remain there for a long time. And now began\nKrochmal\u2019s career as a teacher. For during his stay at Lemberg there\ngathered round him a band of young scholars whom Krochmal\u2019s fame had\nalready reached. It is useless to enumerate the names of all these\nstudents. Among them figured Isaac Erter, Samson Bloch, A. Bodek, and many\nothers. The most gifted of them was undoubtedly Rapoport, who afterwards\nbecame even more famous than his master Krochmal. It is not easy to define\naccurately the relation that subsisted between these two men. Graetz, in\nhis history, calls Rapoport a disciple of Krochmal. Rapoport himself, in\nhis memoir of Krochmal, describes the latter as a dear friend with whom he\nwas wont to discuss literary topics. Zunz does not mention Rapoport at all\nin his account of our author. It seems to me that this relation may be\nmost aptly defined by the Talmudic term \u201cTalmid\u2010Chaber,\u201d(23) \u201cdisciple\u2010\ncolleague.\u201d\n\nIndeed, Krochmal\u2019s whole method of teaching was rather that of a companion\nthan of a professor. He gave no set lectures on particular subjects, but\nconveyed his instruction rather by means of suggestive conversations with\nhis younger friends. His usual habit was to walk with his pupils in the\nneighbourhood of the town, and to try to influence their minds each in\naccordance with its bent. If any of his disciples showed an inclination\nfor poetry, Krochmal sought to refine his taste by directing his attention\nto the best works in Hebrew and German literature. To another, whose fancy\nstrayed into mysticism, he recommended the writings of Philo and Ibn Ezra,\nat the same time suggesting how the works of the latter should be\ninterpreted. A third who, like Rapoport, was interested in historical\nresearches, Krochmal instructed in the methods of critical inquiry.\n\nThere must have been some fascinating charm in Nachman\u2019s personality,\nwhich made him irresistible to all who came into contact with him.\nRapoport has described his first interview with Krochmal. \u201cIt is more than\nthirty years since I first made his acquaintance, and beheld the glory of\nhis presence. Though he was in weak health, still his soul was strong; and\nas soon as I conversed with him there came over me a spirit of judgment\nand knowledge. I felt almost transformed into another man.\u201d Elsewhere the\nsame writer says: \u201cOh, how sweet to me were these walks with\nKrochmal\u2014sweeter than all the pleasures of this world. I could never have\nenough of his wisdom; with his every word he conveyed a new lesson.\u201d\n\nAfter a lengthy stay at Lemberg, Krochmal partially, though not entirely,\nrecovered from his severe illness; he remained weak and pale for the rest\nof his days. His antagonists, the Chassidim, believed him to be possessed\nby a demon who could find no better dwelling\u2010place than in the person of\nthis arch\u2010heretic. Had it been in their power they would probably have\ndragged him to some exorcist for the purpose of driving out his German,\nFrench, Latin, and other symptoms of demoniacal heresy. Happily the\northodox were powerless to do this, so Krochmal was left unmolested, and\nwas allowed to resume his walks and studies. It may be here remarked that\nKrochmal in general avoided giving the Chassidim any cause for reasonable\ncomplaint. Rapoport asserts that his master was \u201cdeeply religious and a\nstrict observer of the law. He was zealously anxious to perform every\nordinance, Biblical or Rabbinical.\u201d The only liberty that Krochmal claimed\nfor himself and his disciples was the right to study what they thought\nbest and in the way they thought best. When this liberty was attacked, he\nshowed a firmness and resolution which would hardly have been expected\nfrom this quiet and gentle man. To one of his pupils, who made concessions\nto the Chassidim and their Zaddikim worship, Krochmal wrote: \u201cBe firm in\nthis matter unless you wish to earn the contempt of every honest man. One\nwho is afraid of these people, and debases himself before them bears a\nmean soul that was born to slavery. The man that wishes to rise above the\nmob, with its confused notions and corrupt morality, must be courageous as\na lion in conquering the obstacles that beset his path. Consideration of\nwhat people will say, what bigots will whisper, what crafty enemies will\nscheme\u2014questions such as these can have but one effect,\u2014to darken the\nintellect and confuse the faculty of judgment.\u201d\n\nSo Krochmal continued his studies without interruption till 1814, when the\ndeath of his wife\u2019s mother brought his period of ease and comfort to an\nend. His father\u2010in\u2010law seems to have died some time before, and Krochmal\nwas forced to seek his own living. He became a merchant, but it is to be\nregretted that he did not prove as successful a man of business as he was\na man of letters. He found it a hard struggle to earn a living. But the\nseverest trial which he had to undergo was the death of his wife in 1826.\nIn a letter, dating from about this time, to a friend who had asked him\nfor assistance in his philosophical inquiries, Krochmal wrote\u2014\u201cHow can I\nhelp you now? I am already an old man; my head is gray, and my health is\nbroken. In the last three years I have met with many misfortunes. My\nbeloved wife died after a long illness. My daughter will soon leave me to\nget married, my elder son will depart to seek his livelihood, and I shall\nbe left alone with only a child of ten years, the son of my old age. I\nwill lift up mine eyes unto the hills: From whence shall my help come?\u201d\n\nNachman was evidently in very low spirits at this time, but he was in too\ntrue a sense a philosopher to despair. He turned for comfort to his\nstudies, and at this dark epoch of his life he first became acquainted\nwith the Philosophy of Hegel, whose system he was wont to call the\n\u201cPhilosophy of Philosophies.\u201d\n\nFor the next ten years the works of Hegel and inquiries into Jewish\nhistory appear to have absorbed all the leisure that his mercantile\noccupation left him. We shall presently see what the result of these\nstudies was. No fresh subjects were undertaken by Krochmal in the last\nyears of his life; he had already acquired a fund of knowledge vast enough\nto engage all his thoughts. There are, however, some remaining points in\nhis private circumstances which it may not be uninteresting to mention.\n\nKrochmal, as has been already related, was not prosperous in his business.\nThings went from bad to worse, and he was compelled in 1836 to seek a\nsituation. \u201cThere ought to be literary men poor,\u201d some writer has\nmaintained, \u201cto show whether they are genuine or not.\u201d This test Krochmal\nsuccessfully passed through. Even as a young man Nachman\u2019s strength of\ncharacter was admired by his contemporaries not less than his rare\nlearning. In his subsequent distress, he gave evidence of the truth of\nthis judgment. Despite his poverty, his friends could not prevail upon him\nto accept the post of Rabbi in any Jewish community. \u201cI am unwilling,\u201d he\nwrote to a friend, \u201cto be the cause of dissensions in any Jewish\ncongregation. I should prefer to die of hunger rather than become a Rabbi\nunder present circumstances.\u201d He expressed his views on this subject even\nmore decidedly on a later occasion when the Berlin congregation offered\nhim the post of Chief Rabbi in that town. In a letter, conveying his\nrefusal of this honourable office, he says: \u201cI never thought of becoming\nthe Conscience\u2010counsellor (_Gewissensrath_) of men. My line of studies was\nnot directed to that end, nor would it accord with my disposition and\nsentiments. The only post that I should care to accept would be that of\nteacher in the Jewish Theological Seminary, which, as I was informed, you\nwere thinking of establishing in Berlin.\u201d The plan to found such an\ninstitution was not realised till forty years later, and in the interval\nNachman had to look for his living in other regions than Jewish theology.\nBeing in poor circumstances, and as his children and friends had left him,\nhe felt very lonely at Zolkiew. \u201cNobody cares for me here,\u201d he writes,\n\u201cand I am equally indifferent.\u201d His one desire was to obtain a situation\nat Brody, possibly as book\u2010keeper with a salary of some thirty pounds a\nyear, on condition that he would be expected to devote only half the day\nto his business duties, thus securing for himself leisure for\nphilosophical studies.\n\nHis terms were accepted, and he obtained the humble post he sought. He\nremained in Brody for the next two years, 1836\u20108, but at the end of 1838\nhe fell so dangerously ill that he could no longer resist the pressing\nrequest of his daughter to live with her at Tarnopol. She had urged him to\ntake this step even previous to his removal to Brody, but he had declined\non the plea that he preferred to live by the labour of his hands. Now,\nhowever, he yielded to her wish, and betook himself to Tarnopol, where for\ntwo years longer he lived affectionately tended by his children and\nrespected by all who knew him. In May 1840, Krochmal\u2019s illness began to\ndevelop fatal symptoms, and he died in the arms of his daughter on the\n31st of July (the first of Ab), at the age of fifty\u2010five. As Zunz happily\nremarked: \u201cThis great man was born on the 7th of Adar, the birthday of\nMoses (according to Jewish tradition), and died on the first of Ab, the\nanniversary of the death of Aaron, the High Priest.\u201d\n\nI have tried in the foregoing remarks to give a short sketch of our\nRabbi\u2019s life according to the accounts of Zunz, Rapoport, and Letteris.\nThere is one other point to which I must allude, as it involves a\nconsideration on which Letteris seems to lay much stress. This biographer\nappears to think that Krochmal was in his youth greatly influenced by the\nsociety in which he moved, consisting as it did of many learned and\nenlightened men. There is, too, the oft\u2010quoted saying of Goethe:\u2014\n\n\n    Wer den Dichter will verstehen\n    Muss in Dichters Lande gehen.\n\n\nAnd I am probably expected to give some account of the state of society in\nwhich Nachman grew up. I regret that I must ask to be excused from doing\nso. I cannot consent to take the reader to Krochmal\u2019s land. And if I might\nventure to give him my humble advice, I should only say, \u201cBy all means\nstop at home.\u201d Goethe may be right about the poet, but his remark does not\napply to the case of the scholar. It may be true, as some think, that\nevery great man is the product of his time, but it certainly does not\nfollow that he is the product of his country. Nor could I name any other\ncountry of which Krochmal was the product. Many a city no doubt boasted\nitself a town full of \u201c_Chakhamim_ and _Sopherim_\u201d(24) as the Hebrew\nphrase is, or, as we would express it, \u201ca seat of learning,\u201d full of\nscholars of the ancient and modern schools. But neither these ancient\nscholars nor the modern were of a kind to produce a real scholar and an\nenlightened thinker like Krochmal. There were many men who knew by heart\nthe whole of the Halachic works of Maimonides, the Mishnah, and even the\nwhole of the Babylonian Talmud. This is very imposing. But if you look a\nlittle closer, you will find that with a few exceptions\u2014such as the school\nof R. Elijah Wilna\u2014these men, generally speaking, hardly deserve the name\nof scholars at all. They were rather a sort of studying engines. The\nsteam\u2010engine passes over a continent, here through romantic scenery, there\nin the midst of arid deserts, by stream and mountain and valley, always\nwith the same monotonous hum and shriek. So these scholars went through\nthe Talmud with never changing feelings. They did not rejoice at the\ndescription which is given in tractate _Biccurim_(25) of the procession\nformed when the first\u2010fruits were brought into the Holy Temple. They were\nnot much saddened when reading in tractate _Taanith_(26) of the unhappy\ndays so recurrent in Jewish history. They were not delighted by the wisdom\nof _Seder Nezikin_,(27) which deals with civil law; nor were they vexed of\n_Seder Taharoth_,(28) which treats of the laws of cleanliness and\nuncleanliness, that by their exaggeration gave cause to much dissension in\nthe time of the Temple. The pre\u2010Talmudic literature, such as the _Siphra_,\n_Siphr\u00e9_, and _Mechilta_(29)\u2014the only existing means of obtaining an\ninsight into the Talmud\u2014were altogether neglected. All that these readers\ncared for was to push on to the end, and the prayer recited at the close\nwas of more importance to them than the treatise they had perused.\n\nNot less melancholy was the spectacle presented by the so\u2010called men of\n\u201cEnlightenment\u201d (_Aufkl\u00e4rung_). They belonged chiefly to the rationalistic\nschool of Mendelssohn, but they equalled their master neither in knowledge\nnor in moral character. It was an enlightenment without foundation in real\nscholarship, and did not lead to an ideal life, though again I must add\nthat there were exceptions. These men were rather what Germans would term\n_Sch\u00f6ngeister_, a set of dilettanti who cared to study as little as\npossible, and to write as much as possible. They wrote bad grammars,\nsuperficial commentaries on the Bible, and terribly dull poems. Of this\nliterature, with the exception of Erter\u2019s _Watchman_,(30) there is\nscarcely a work that one would care to read twice. Most of them despised\nRabbinism, but without understanding its noblest forms as they are to be\ntraced in the Talmud and later Hebrew literature. They did not dislike\nJudaism, but the only Judaism they affected was one \u201cwhich does not oppose\nitself to anything in particular\u201d; or, as Heine would have described it,\n\u201cEine reinliche Religion.\u201d In one respect these little men were great: in\nmutual admiration, which reached such a pitch that such titles as \u201cGreat\nLuminary,\u201d \u201cWorld\u2010famed Sage,\u201d were considered altogether too\ninsignificant and commonplace.\n\nI will now pass to the writings of Krochmal. It must be premised that\nKrochmal was not a voluminous author. All his writings, including a few\nletters which were published in various Hebrew periodicals, would scarcely\noccupy four hundred pages. Krochmal used to call himself \u201cder ewige\nStudent\u201d (the perpetual pupil). He did not read books, nor study\nphilosophical systems, with the object of writing books of his own on\nthem. He read and studied in order that he might become a better and a\nwiser man. Besides, he did not think himself competent to judge on grave\nsubjects, nor did he consider his judgment, even if he formed one, worthy\nof publication. He counselled his friends to be equally slow in publishing\ntheir views to the world. \u201cBe not,\u201d he wrote to a correspondent,\u2014\u201cbe not\nhasty in forming your opinions before you have studied the literature of\nthe subject with care and devotion. This is no easy matter, for no man can\nobtain any real knowledge of the Torah and philosophy unless he is\nprepared to give himself up in single\u2010hearted devotion to his studies.\u201d\nSevere though he was to his friends, he was still more severe to himself.\nThough he had been collecting materials on subjects of Jewish history and\nphilosophy from his early youth, it was not until he had endured much\npersuasion and pressure from his friends that he began to write down his\nthoughts in a connected form. We thus possess only one work from the pen\nof this author; but that work is the _Guide of the Perplexed of the\nTime_,(31) a posthumous book published in 1851, eleven years after\nKrochmal\u2019s death. His work had been much interrupted by illness during the\nlast years of his life, and as a necessary consequence many parts of his\ntreatise finally remained in an unfinished state. Krochmal commissioned\nhis children to hand over his papers to Zunz, who was to arrange and edit\nthem as best he might. Zunz, who in his reverence for Krochmal went so far\nas to call him the man of God, gladly accepted the task, in which he was\naided by Steinschneider. Unfortunately, the work was published in Lemberg,\na place famous for spoiling books. Even the skill of these two great\nmasters did not suffice to save Krochmal\u2019s work from the fate to which all\nthe books printed in Lemberg seem inevitably doomed. Thus Krochmal\u2019s work\nis printed on bad paper, and with faint ink; it is full of misprints and\nthe text is sometimes confused with the notes. A second edition appeared\nin Lemberg in 1863; but, it is scarcely necessary to add, the reprint is\neven worse than the original issue.\n\nThe work occupies some 350 pages, and is divided into seventeen chapters.\nThe opening six treat of Religion in general. The author first indicates\nthe opposite dangers to which men are liable. On the one hand, men are\nexposed to extravagant phantasy (_Schw\u00e4rmerei_), superstition and\nceremonialism (_Werkheiligkeit_). Some, on the other hand, in their\nendeavour to avoid this danger, fall into the opposite extreme,\nmaterialism, unbelief, and moral degeneracy as a consequence of their\nneglect of all law. He proceeds to say: Even in the ritual part of\nreligion, such as the regulations of the Sabbath, the dietary laws and so\nforth, we find abstract definitions necessary, and differences of opinions\nprevalent. In the dogmatic aspects of religion, dealing as they do with\nthe grave subjects of metaphysics, the mystery of life and death, the\ndestiny of man, his relation to God, reward and punishment, the inner\nmeaning of the laws,\u2014in these spiritual matters, the difficulty of\naccurate definition must be far greater and the opportunities for\ndifference of opinion more frequent and important. What guide are we to\nfollow, seeing that every error involves the most dangerous consequences?\nShall we abandon altogether the effort of thinking on these grave\nsubjects? Such a course is impossible. Do not believe, says Krochmal, that\nthere ever was a time when the religious man was entirely satisfied by\ndeeds of righteousness, as some people maintain. On the contrary, every\nman, whether an independent thinker or a simple believer, always feels the\nweight of these questions upon him. Every man desires to have some ideal\nbasis for his actions which must constitute his real life in its noblest\nmoments. Krochmal here quotes a famous passage from the Midrash.(32) The\nTorah, according to one of our ancient sages, may be compared to two\npaths, the one burning with fire, the other covered with snow. If a man\nenters on the former path he will die by the heat; if he walks by the\nlatter path he will be frozen by the snow. What, then, must he do? He must\nwalk in the middle, or, as we should say, he must choose the golden mean.\nBut, as Krochmal suggests, the middle way in historical and philosophical\ndoubts does not consist, as some idle heads suppose, in a kind of\ncompromise between two opposing views. If one of two contending parties\ndeclares that twice two make six, while his opponent asserts that twice\ntwo make eight, a sort of compromise might be arrived at by conceding that\ntwice two make seven. But such a compromise would be as false as either\nextreme; and the seeker after the truth must revert to that mean which is\nthe heart of all things, independently of all factions, placing himself\nabove them.\n\nHaving dealt with the arguments relating to the existence of God as\nelaborated in the philosophical systems of his time, Krochmal leads up to\nhis treatment of the History of Israel by a chapter on the ideal gifts\nbestowed upon the various ancient nations, which, possessed by them\nthrough many centuries, were lost when their nationality ceased. We next\ncome, in Chapter VII., to the ideal gifts of Israel. These are the\nreligious gift and the faculty and desire for seeking the ideal of all\nideals, namely, God. But Israel, whose mission it was to propagate this\nideal, was, even as other nations, subject to natural laws; and its\nhistory presents progress and reaction, rise and decline. Krochmal devotes\nhis next three chapters to showing how, in the history of Israel, as in\nother histories, may be detected a triple process. These three stages are\nthe budding, the period of maturity, and the decay. As the history of\nIsrael is more a history of religion than of politics and battles, its\nrise and decline correspond more or less with Israel\u2019s attachment to God,\nand its falling away from Him. The decay would be associated with the\nadoption of either of the extremes, the dangerous effects of which have\nbeen already mentioned. But \u201cthrough progress and backsliding, amid\ninfectious contact with idolatry, amid survival of old growths of\nsuperstition, of the crude practices of the past; amid the solicitation of\nnew aspects of life; in material prosperity and in material ruin,\u201d Israel\nwas never wholly detached from God. In the worst times it had its judges\nor its prophets, its heroes or its sages, its Rabbis or its philosophers,\nwho strove to bring Israel back to its mission, and who succeeded in their\nefforts to do so. Even in its decay traces of the Divine spirit made\nthemselves felt, and revived the nation, which entered again on a triple\ncourse and repeated its three phases. The first of these three\u2010fold epochs\nbegan, according to Krochmal\u2019s eighth chapter, with the times of the\nPatriarchs, and ended with the death of Gedaliah after the destruction of\nthe first Temple. Next, in the following two chapters, Krochmal finds the\nsecond triple movement in the interval between the prophets of the exile\nin Babylon and the death of Bar\u2010Cochba about 135 A.C. The author also\nhints at the existence of a third such epoch beginning with R. Judah the\nPatriarch, the compiler of the Mishnah (220 A.C.),(33) and ending with the\nexpulsion of the Jews from Spain (1492). This idea is not further\ndeveloped by Krochmal; but it would be interesting to ask, by the way, in\nwhich phase of the three\u2010fold process\u2014rise, maturity, or decay\u2014are we at\nthe present time?\n\nThe next five chapters may be regarded as an excursus on the preceding\ntwo. Krochmal discusses the Biblical books which belong to the period of\nthe Exile and of the Second Temple, such as the Second Isaiah, certain\nExilic and Maccabean psalms, Ecclesiastes, certain Apocryphal books, and\nthe work of the Men of the Great Synagogue. They contain, again,\nresearches on the various sects, such as the Assideans, Sadducees,\nPharisees, Essenes, the Gnostics, the Cabbalists and their relation to the\nlatter, and the Minim,(34) who are mentioned in the Talmud. In another\npart of this excursus Krochmal describes the systems of the Alexandrian\nJewish philosophers, such as Philo and Aristobulus, and discusses their\nrelation to certain theosophic ideas in various Midrash\u2010collections. The\nauthor also attempts to prove the necessity of Tradition; he shows its\nfirst traces in the Bible, and explains the term Sopherim (scribes); and\nhe points out the meaning of the phrase \u201cA law unto Moses from Mount\nSinai,\u201d(35) and similar expressions. He gives a summary of the development\nof the Halachah in its different stages, the criteria by which the older\nHalachahs may be discriminated; he seeks to arrive at the origin of the\nMishnah, and deals with various cognate topics. In another discourse\nKrochmal endeavours to explain the term Agadah,(36) its origin and\ndevelopment; the different kinds of Agadah and their relative value.\nChapter XVI. contains the Prolegomena to a philosophy of the Jewish\nreligion in accordance with the principles laid down by Hegel. In the\nseventeenth and last chapter the author gives a general introduction to\nthe Philosophy of Ibn Ezra, and quotes illustrative extracts.\n\nThe space of an essay does not permit me to give further details of\nKrochmal\u2019s book. I am conscious that the preceding outline is deficient in\nquality as well as in quantity. Yet, even from this meagre abstract, the\nreader will gather that Krochmal reviews many of the great problems which\nconcern religion in general and Judaism in particular. Zunz somewhere\nremarks that Krochmal was inspired in his work by the study of Hegel, just\nas Maimonides had been by the study of Aristotle. I give this statement\nsolely on the authority of Zunz, as I myself have never made a study of\nthe works of the German philosopher, and am therefore unable to express an\nopinion on the question.\n\nNow there is no doubt that Krochmal\u2019s book is not without defects. The\nmaterials are not always well arranged, there is at times a want of\nproportion in the length at which the various points are treated, and the\nauthor occasionally seems to wander from the subject in hand. But we shall\nbe better able to account for these and similar technical faults, as well\nas to appreciate the real value of the author\u2019s work, if we consider the\nfollowing fact. Nachman Krochmal\u2019s object was to elaborate a philosophy of\nJewish history, to trace the leading ideas that ran through it, and the\nultimate causes that led to its various phases. But, unfortunately, at the\ntime when Krochmal began to write, there did not exist a Jewish history at\nall. The labours of Zunz were conducted in an altogether different field.\nNot to mention the names of the younger scholars then unborn, Graetz, the\nauthor of the _History of the Jews_, and Weiss, who wrote a history of the\nTradition, were still studying at college. Frankel\u2019s masterly essays on\nthe Essenes and the Septuagint, his well\u2010known work, _Introduction to the\n__ Mishnah_, and the results of Geiger\u2019s most interesting and suggestive\nresearches on the older and later Halachah, and on the Pharisees and\nSadducees, had yet to be written. Rapoport\u2019s great treatise, _Erech\nMillin_,(37) had not been published at that time, and Steinschneider was\nnot yet working at his historical sketch of Jewish literature. It was not\ntill six years after Krochmal\u2019s death (viz. in 1846) that Landauer\u2019s\nmemorable studies on the Jewish mystics were given to the world. Even the\nbad books of Julius F\u00fcrst, such as his _History of the Canon_, and his\nstill worse _History of Jewish Literature in Babylon_, were then\nunwritten. Neither the most charlatanic _History of the Opinions and\nTeachings of All the Jewish Sects_, by Peter Beer, the universal provider,\nnor Jost\u2019s most honest but narrow\u2010minded and superficial _History of the\nJews_, was of much use to Krochmal. Jost\u2019s more scholarly works were not\npublished till long afterwards. Krochmal was thus without the guidance of\nthose authorities to which we are now accustomed to turn for information.\nExcepting the aid that he derived from the writings of Azariah de\nRossi,(38) Krochmal was therefore compelled to prosecute all the necessary\nresearch for himself; he had to establish the facts of Jewish history as\nwell as to philosophise upon them. Hence, in the very midst of his\nphilosophical analysis, the author was bound to introduce digressions on\nhistorical subjects, in order to justify as well as to form the basis of\nthat analysis. He had to survey the ground and to collect the materials,\nbesides constructing the plan of the edifice and working at its erection.\nNevertheless, it is precisely for these historical excursuses that\nKrochmal has deserved the gratitude of posterity. He it was who taught\nJewish scholars how to submit the ancient Rabbinic records to the test of\ncriticism and the way in which they might be utilised for the purpose of\nhistorical studies; he it was who enabled them to trace the genesis of the\ntradition, and to watch the inner germination of that vast organism. He\neven indicated to them how they might continue to connect their own lives\nwith it, how they might derive nourishment from it, and in their turn\nfurther its growth. I may assert with the utmost confidence that there is\nscarcely a single page in Krochmal\u2019s book that did not afterwards give\nbirth to some essay or monograph or even elaborate treatise, though their\nauthors were not always very careful about mentioning the source of their\ninspiration. Thus Krochmal justly deserves the honourable title assigned\nto him by one of our greatest historians, who terms him the Father of\nJewish Science.\n\nSo far, I have been speaking of the importance of Krochmal\u2019s treatise and\nof its significance in the region of Jewish Science. It is necessary, I\nthink, to add a few words with regard to the general tendency of his whole\nwork. I have already alluded to the characteristic modesty of Krochmal; I\nhave pointed out how little he cared for publicity, how dearly he loved\nretirement. The question accordingly presents itself\u2014What can have been\nthe real and sufficient causes that prevailed upon him to yield to the\nsolicitations of his friends and to write upon what the Talmud would term\n\u201cmatters standing on the heights of the world\u201d?\n\nThe answer to this question may, I think, be found in the title of\nKrochmal\u2019s book, the _Guide of the Perplexed of the Time_. It is indeed a\nrather unusual coincidence for the title of a Hebrew book to have any\nconnection with its subject matter. The same merit is possessed by the\n_Guide of the Perplexed_ of Maimonides, the title of which undoubtedly\nsuggested that of Krochmal\u2019s treatise. There is, however, one little\naddition in Krochmal\u2019s title that contains a most important lesson for us.\nI mean the words \u201cof the Time.\u201d By these words Krochmal reminds us that,\ngreat as are the merits of the immortal work of Maimonides\u2014and it would be\ndifficult to exaggerate its value and importance\u2014still it will no longer\nsuffice for us. For, as Krochmal himself remarks, every time has its own\nperplexities, and therefore needs its own guide. In order to show that\nthese words are no idle phrase, I shall endeavour to illustrate them by\none example at least. In the _Guide of the Perplexed_ of Maimonides, Part\nII., Chapter XXVI., occurs a passage which runs thus: \u201cIn the famous\nchapters known as the \u2018Chapters of R. Eliezer the Great,\u2019(39) I find R.\nEliezer the Great saying something more extraordinary than I have ever\nseen in the utterances of any believer in the Law of Moses. I refer to the\nfollowing passage: \u2018Whence were the heavens created? He (God) took part of\nthe light of His garment, He stretched it like a cloth, and thus the\nheavens were extending continually, as it is said (Ps. civ. 2): He\ncovereth Himself with light as with a garment, He stretcheth the heavens\nlike a curtain. Whence was the earth created? He took of the snow under\nthe throne of glory, and threw it; according to the words (in Job xxxvii.\n6), He said to the snow be thou earth.\u2019 These are the words given there\n(in the \u2018Chapters of R. Eliezer the Great\u2019), and I, in my surprise, ask,\nWhat was the belief of this sage? Did he think it impossible that\nsomething be produced from nothing?... If the terms \u2018the light of His\ngarment\u2019 and the \u2018snow of glory\u2019 mean something eternal (as matter) they\n_must_ be rejected.... In short, it is a passage that greatly confuses the\nnotions of all intelligent and religious persons. I am unable to explain\nit sufficiently.\u201d\n\nSo far Maimonides; and we are quite able to conceive his perplexity in\ndealing with this passage. On one side, Maimonides himself believed that\nJudaism is a dogmatic religion, and that one of its dogmas is the\nprinciple of _Creatio ex nihilo_. On the other side, he found R.\nEliezer\u2014one of the greatest authorities of the early part of the second\ncentury\u2014apparently denying this dogma. The perplexity was indeed a serious\none for Maimonides, but we find no difficulty whatever in extricating\nourselves from it. In the first place, there are many who cling to the\ntheory which holds that there are no dogmas in Judaism at all, and to them\nMaimonides\u2019 difficulty would have no relevance. Secondly, those who\nbelieve that there are dogmas in Judaism may regard such expressions as\nthose quoted above from the \u201cChapters of R. Eliezer\u201d in the light of mere\npoetical metaphors, or may call them fairy tales or legends, or include\nthem in some other section of literature, known under the name of\nfolklore, which is an excuse for every absurdity, the fortunate authors of\nwhich are responsible neither to philosophy nor to religion, and sometimes\nnot even to common sense. But there is a third consideration that affords\nthe best solution of the difficulty. The \u201cChapters of R. Eliezer,\u201d despite\ntheir pompous title, are not the work of R. Eliezer at all. Criticism has\ntaught us to attach no importance to the heading of a chapter or the\ntitle\u2010page of a book. We are now in a position to judge from the tone,\nstyle, and contents of the work, that the \u201cChapters of R. Eliezer\u201d is a\nlater compilation of the eighth century, and that its author could not\nhave been R. Eliezer, the teacher of R. Akiba, in the second century. In\nthis way, these particular difficulties of Maimonides solve themselves for\nus in a sufficiently easy way. But it is just these solutions that open up\nnew difficulties and perplexities which did not exist for the generation\nof the great Spanish philosopher. Suppose that we accept the view that\nJudaism is not a dogmatic religion. But how are we to conceive a religion\nwithout dogmas, or, if you prefer the expression, without principles or\nbases of belief? Or is Judaism, as some platitudinarians think, a mere\nnational institute with some useful dietary and sanitary laws, but with\nnothing that makes for the sanctification of man, with no guidance to\noffer us in the great problems of our life, and in the greatest anxieties\nof the human soul? On the other hand, granted that we may consider certain\nthings as mere legend, how are we to discriminate between these and the\nthings that must be taken seriously? Does it depend on the nature of the\nsubject, or on the position of the book in the canon of Hebrew literature?\nIn the thirteenth century symbolical meanings were given to certain\ndifficult passages in the Talmud; but the process was carried further, and\nthe Biblical narratives were subjected by philosophers to a like\ntreatment. R. Solomon ben Adereth and his colleagues (in the thirteenth\ncentury) settled the question by indiscriminately excommunicating all\nyoung men who should study philosophy; but this method is scarcely one to\nbe commended for present use.\n\nThe third, or the philological solution of difficulties, leads to fresh\ntroubles. A hundred years ago men were in that happy state of mind in\nwhich they knew everything. They knew the exact author and date of every\nPsalm; they knew the author of each and every ancient Midrash; they knew\nthe originator of every law and ordinance; they even knew the writer of\nthe Zohar, and of other mystical books. There were certainly a few who did\nnot know all these things, among them Ibn Ezra, Azariah de Rossi, and the\ntwo Delmedigos.(40) But they were merely a miserable historical blunder,\nmen who had no right to be born when they were. But the philological\nmethod has swept away all this knowingness as by a deluge from heaven, and\nmen find that they know nothing. True, there linger on a few who still\nknow all these things, but it is they who are now the anachronism. These,\nand such as these, are the perplexities of our time, to the resolution of\nwhich the labours of Krochmal and of a noble band of scholars have been\ndirected in this century.\n\nHave these perplexities, we must ask, and these puzzles been solved by\nKrochmal and his coadjutors? We may with all certainty answer: They have\nonly pointed out the way, it is for ourselves to proceed by it. It would\nbe unreasonable to expect that difficulties which have been accumulating\nduring the course of thousands of years should be solved by the men of one\nor two generations. Again, we live in a century in which excavations and\ndiscoveries in other fields have added at once to our knowledge and to our\nuncertainty. Each country, we might almost say, over and above the\nperplexities that trouble mankind in general, has its own special\ndifficulties which are entirely unknown to those who dwell outside its\nfrontiers. I am not disposed to discuss these difficulties in this place.\nNor have I the ability to do so. But of two things I am perfectly certain:\nthe first is, that for a solution of these difficulties which, in the\nlanguage of Maimonides, \u201cconfuse the notions of all intelligent and\nreligious persons,\u201d the only hope is in true knowledge and not in\nignorance; and secondly, this knowledge can only be obtained by a\ncombination of the utmost reverence for religion and the deepest devotion\nto truth. The poor old Rabbis who have been so foully decried by their\ncalumniators as hedonists, and so foolishly praised by sorry apologists as\nmaterialistic optimists, strongly insisted that when a man woos the truth,\nhis suit can only prosper if he is influenced by the purest and most\nsingle\u2010hearted affection. \u201cA man,\u201d says the Siphr\u00e9, \u201cmust not say: \u2018I will\nstudy the Torah in order that I may attain the title of Rabbi or savant,\nor that I may become rich by it, or that I may be rewarded for it in the\nworld to come.\u2019 He must study for love\u2019s sake.\u201d Such a knowledge, which is\nfree from all taint of worldliness and of other\u2010worldliness, a knowledge\nsought simply and solely for pure love of God, who is Truth,\u2014such a\nknowledge is in the highest sense a saving knowledge, and Nachman Krochmal\nwas in possession of it.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. RABBI ELIJAH WILNA, GAON\n\n\nThe three great stars of German literature are usually characterised by\nGerman scholars in the following way: Goethe they say represents the\nbeautiful, Schiller the ideal, while Lessing represents truth. I think\nthat we may apply the same characteristics to the three great luminaries,\nwith which the Jewish middle ages ceased\u2014for as Zunz somewhere remarked,\nthe Jewish middle ages lasted till the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury\u2014and the modern age of Judaism opened. I am thinking of Mendelssohn\nin Germany, Israel Baalshem, the founder of the sect of the Chassidim in\nPodolia, and Elijah Wilna, or as he is more frequently called, the\nGaon,(41) the Great One, in Lithuania.\n\nAs to Mendelssohn, enough, and perhaps more than enough, has already been\nwritten and spoken about his merits in awakening the sense for the\nbeautiful and the harmonious which was almost entirely dormant among the\nJews of his age. In regard to the second, namely, Israel Baalshem, I have\nonly to refer the reader to the first essay in this volume. The subject of\nthe present essay will be R. Elijah Wilna, who, among the Jews, as Lessing\namong the Germans, represented truth, both by his life and by his literary\nactivity.\n\nI say that the Gaon represented truth, but these words must be taken _cum\ngrano salis_. For I do not mean at all to say that he was in possession of\nthe whole truth, still less in _exclusive_ possession of it. It is true as\nwe shall learn in the course of this essay, that the Gaon was a genius of\nthe first order. But there are matters of truth, the obtaining of which\ncannot be accomplished by genius alone. R. Elijah Wilna did not know any\nother language than Hebrew. Truths, therefore, which are only to be\nreached through the medium of other languages, remained a secret to him.\nAgain, records of ancient times which are buried in the shelves of remote\nlibraries or under the ruins of past civilisations are not always a matter\nof intuition. Even the most gifted of men have to wait patiently till\nthese are brought to light by the aid of spade and shovel, or the pen of\nsome obscure copyist. But R. Elijah lived at a time when excavation had as\nyet done very little for Semitic studies, and when a Jew scarcely got\nadmittance into the great libraries of Europe. Thus much truth which we\nget now in a very easy way was beyond this seer\u2019s eye.\n\nBut even if all the libraries on earth had been at his disposal, even if\nhe had read all the cuneiform writings which ornament the British Museum,\nand had deciphered all the Hieroglyphics which the Louvre possesses, even\nin that case we should not be justified in terming him a representative of\nthe truth, without qualifying our words.\n\n\u201cTruth,\u201d said the old Rabbis, \u201cis the Seal of the Holy One, praised be\nHe.\u201d But Heaven has no Lord Chancellor. Neither men nor angels are trusted\nwith the great Seal. They are only allowed to catch a glimpse of it, or\nrather to long after this glimpse. However, even the longing and effort\nfor this glimpse will bring man into communion with God, and make his life\ndivine. And the life of the Gaon was, as we shall see, one long effort and\nunceasing longing after the truth.\n\nAgain, if I say that the Gaon represented truth, you must not think that\nhe lacked the two other qualities. A life entirely devoted to such a great\ncause as that of seeking the truth is, _ipso facto_, ideal and harmonious.\nIt is only in his influence on Judaism\u2014more particularly on the Jews in\nthe North of Europe\u2014that this feature in his life becomes more prominent\nthan his other admirable qualities.\n\nIn what this truth consisted, how the Gaon arrived at it, and by what\nmeans he conveyed it to others, we shall see in the course of this essay.\n\nR. Elijah was born at Wilna in the year 1720. His father, Solomon Wilna,\nis called by his biographers the great Rabbi Solomon, and is said to have\nbeen the descendant of R. Moses Rivkas, the author of a learned work,\ncontaining notes to the Code of the Law by R. Joseph Caro.(42)\n\nHaving quoted the biographers, I must point out that there are only two\nbiographies of the Gaon: the one by Finn, in his book _Faithful City_,(43)\non the celebrities of Wilna, the other by Nachman of Horodna, in his book\n_Ascension of Elijah_.(44) The former is a very honest account of the\nGaon\u2019s life, but a little too short. The latter is too long, or rather too\nmuch intermixed with that sort of absurd legend, the authors of which are\nincapable of marking the line which separates the monster from the hero.\n\nEven in the region of imagination we must not for a moment forget the good\nadvice given to us by one of our greatest scholars who had to deal with a\nkindred subject: \u201cHe,\u201d says this scholar, \u201cwho banishes the thought of\nhigher and lower from his study, degrades it into a mere means of\ngratifying his curiosity, and disqualifies it for the lofty task which it\nis called upon to perform for modern society.\u201d We shall thus cling to the\nhigher and stop at the hero.\n\nOur hero was the first\u2010born of five brothers. They were all famous men in\ntheir little world. According to the tradition in Wilna, Elijah was a\nlovely child, with beautiful eyes, and goodly to look at, or as it is\nexpressed in another place, \u201cas beautiful as an angel!\u201d The tradition, or\nrather the legend, relates that as a child of six years he was already the\npupil of R. Moses Margalith, the famous author of a commentary on the\nTalmud of Jerusalem. At the age of seven years he is said to have already\nperplexed the Chief Rabbi of his native town by his controversial skill in\nTalmudical subjects. At the early age of nine he was acquainted with the\ncontents of the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud and its ancient\ncommentaries; and even the Cabbalistic works of R. Isaac Loria were no\nsecret to the youthful scholar.(45) At the age of twelve years he is said\nto have acquired the seven liberal arts, and to have puzzled the scholars\nof Wilna by his astronomical knowledge. At thirteen, when according to\nJewish law he attained his majority, he was already the accomplished or\n\u201cthe great one\u201d (Gaon); so far tradition. I am afraid that tradition is\nhere, against all experience, too exact in its dates. But we may learn\nfrom it that the child Elijah showed many signs of the future Gaon, and\nwas therefore considered as the prodigy of his age. Again it is likewise\npretty certain that no man could boast of having been the master of\nElijah. He was not the product of any school, nor was he biassed by the\nmany prejudices of his time. He was allowed to walk his own way in his\nstruggle after truth.\n\nIt is rather an unfortunate thing that history is so much made up of\nparallels and contrasts that the historian or even the biographer cannot\npossibly point out the greatness of some men without touching, however\nslightly, on the smallness of others. It is only natural that every strong\nshining object should push the minor lights of its surroundings into the\nbackground and darken them. Thus, when we are speaking of the superiority\nof the Gaon, we cannot escape hinting at least at the shortcomings of his\ncontemporaries, as well as of his predecessors.\n\nTo indicate briefly in what this superiority consisted, I will premise\nhere a few words from a _Responsum_ by one of his great predecessors, the\nGaon Rabbi Hai.(46) Consulted by a student as to the meaning of certain\nmystical passages in the tractate _Chagigah_,(47) Rabbi Hai, in warning\nhis correspondent not to expect from him a long philosophical\ndissertation, writes as follows: \u201cKnow that it never was our business to\npalliate matters and explain them in a way of which the author never could\nhave thought. This is fashionable with other people, but our method is to\nexplain the words of this or that authority in accordance with his own\nmeaning. We do not pledge ourselves that this meaning is \u2018right rule\u2019 in\nitself, for there _do_ exist statements made by the old authorities that\ncannot be accepted as norm.\u201d Thus far the words of the Gaon of the tenth\ncentury, which speak volumes. The Gaon of the eighteenth century followed\nthe same course. All his efforts were directed to this point; namely, to\nfind out the true meaning of the Mishnah, the true meaning of the\nGemara,(48) the true meaning of the Gaonim, the true meaning of the great\ncodifiers, and the true meaning of the commentators on the ancient\nRabbinical literature. Whether this meaning would be acceptable to us\nmattered very little to him. His only object was to understand the words\nof his predecessors, and this he obtained, as we shall soon see, by the\nbest critical means. This was the method of the Gaon; that of other\nscholars (at least of the great majority) was dictated by entirely\ndifferent considerations. They would not suffer the idea that the great\nman could be wrong at times. To them, all that he said was \u201cright rule.\u201d\nNow suppose a great author like Maimonides had overlooked an important\npassage in the Talmud or any other statement by a great authority, the\nalternative remaining to them was either to explain away the passage of\nthe Talmud or to give the words of Maimonides a strange meaning. This led\noriginally to the famous method of the _Pilpul_ (casuistry), a kind of\nspiritual gymnastic, which R. Liva of Prague in the sixteenth century, and\nmany others condemned as most pernicious to Judaism and leading to the\ndecay of the study of the Torah.\n\nNow it is beyond doubt that the method of the two Gaonim is the only right\none. But, in justice to the casuistic school, which includes many a great\nname, it is only right to remember that this impartiality towards\nacknowledged authorities as maintained by our hero is not at all such an\neasy matter as we imagine. We quote often with great satisfaction the\nfamous saying, _Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas_,\n\u201cPlato is our friend, so is Socrates, but Truth is, or rather ought to be,\nour greatest friend.\u201d This sounds very nicely, but let us only realise\nwhat difficulties it involves. To be a friend of Socrates or Plato means\nto know them, or in other words to have a thorough knowledge of the\nwritings of the one and the recorded utterances of the other. But such a\nknowledge can with most men only be obtained by devoting one\u2019s _whole_\nlife to the study of their works, so that there is not left much time for\nnew friendships. And the few who are able to save a few years after long\nwanderings with these Greek philosophers, seldom see the necessity of new\nfriendships. For what else did those long courtships of Plato or Aristotle\nmean except that those who conducted them thought that thereby they would\nwed Truth?\n\nThis impartiality is the more difficult when these friends are invested\nwith a kind of religious authority where humility and submission are most\nimportant factors. The history of Lanfranc, the predecessor of Anselm of\nCanterbury, gives a striking example of what this submission meant in the\nMiddle Ages. One day, we are told, when he was still an ordinary monk, he\nwas reading at the table and pronounced a word as it ought to be\npronounced, but not as seemed right to the person presiding, who bade him\nsay it differently; \u201cas if he had said _doc\u0113re_, with the middle syllable\nlong, as is right, and the other had corrected it into _doc\u0115re_, with the\nmiddle short, which is wrong; for that Prior was not a scholar. But the\nwise man, knowing that he owed obedience rather to Christ than to Donatus,\nthe grammarian, gave up his pronunciation, and said what he was wrongly\ntold to say; for to make a short syllable long, or a long one short, he\nknew to be no deadly sin, but not to obey one set over him in God\u2019s behalf\nwas no light transgression.\u201d(49)\n\nBut this admiration\u2014and here we turn again to the Gaon\u2014must not prevent us\nfrom believing that Providence is not confined to such ungrammatical\nPriors, and that the men who are really working on behalf of God are those\nwho teach us to pronounce rightly, and to think rightly, and to take\nmatters as they are, not as we desire them to be on account of our\nfriends.\n\nAs for the critical means to which I have alluded, the Gaon himself said\nsomewhere that simplicity is the best criterion of truth, and this is the\nmost characteristic feature of all his literary career. The Gaon studied\nHebrew grammar in order to obtain a clear notion of the language in which\nthe Scriptures are written. He tried to attain to the knowledge of the\nBible by reading the Bible itself; and was not satisfied to become\nacquainted with its contents from the numerous quotations which are made\nfrom it in Rabbinical literature. Again, he studied mathematics,\nastronomy, and philosophy, as far as they could be found in Hebrew books.\nCertainly the Gaon did not study these subjects for their own sake, and\nthey were considered by him only as a means to the end, or as the phrase\ngoes, as the \u201chand\u2010maidens\u201d of Theology, the queen of all sciences. But it\nmay be looked upon as a mark of great progress in an age when Queen\nTheology had become rather sulky, continually finding fault with her hand\u2010\nmaidens, and stigmatising every attention paid to them as conducive to\ndisloyalty. To these accusations the Gaon answered that Queen Theology\ndoes not study her own interests. Knowledge of all arts and sciences, the\nGaon maintained, is necessary for the real understanding of the Torah\nwhich embraces the whole of them. From his own writings it is evident that\nhe himself was familiar with Euclid, and his _Ayil Meshulash_ contains\nseveral original developments of Euclid. It was at his suggestion that a\ncertain Baruch of Sclow translated Euclid into the Hebrew language.\n\nAnother way which led the Gaon to the discovery of many truths was his\nstudy of the pre\u2010Talmudic literature, and of the Jerusalem Talmud. By some\naccident or other it came to pass that only the Babylonian Talmud was\nrecognised as a guide _in the practices of religious life_. As the great\nteachers and their pupils cared more for satisfying the religious wants of\ntheir flocks than for theoretic researches, the consequence was that a\nmost important part of the ancient Rabbinic literature was almost entirely\nneglected by them for many centuries. And it was certainly no\nexaggeration, when R. Elijah said that even the Gaonim and Maimonides,\noccupied as they were with the practical part of the law, did not pay\nsufficient attention to the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Tosephta.(50) The\nGaon was no official head of any Jewish community, and was but little\ntroubled by decisions of questions which concern daily life. He was thus\nin a position to leave for a little while the Babylonian Talmud and to\nbecome acquainted with the guides of the guide. I refer to Siphra, Siphr\u00e9,\nMechilta, Tosephta, the Seder Olam,(51) the Minor Tractates,(52) and above\nall the Talmud of Jerusalem, which, regarded from an historical and\ncritical point of view, is even of more importance than its Babylonian\ntwin\u2010brother. But by this means there came a new light upon the whole of\nancient Rabbinic literature. The words of the Torah, the Midrash says, are\npoor in one place, but we shall find them rich in another place. The Gaon\nby his acquaintance with the _whole_ of the Torah had no difficulty\nwhatever in discovering the rich places. If there was a difficult passage\nin this or that Tractate, he showed, by giving a reference to some other\nplace, that it was wanting in some words or lines. Obscure passages in the\nMishnah he tried to elucidate by parallel passages in the Tosephta. The\ntoo complicated controversies of the Babylonian Talmud he tried to explain\nby comparing them with the more ancient and more simple Talmud of\nJerusalem.\n\nThere is little to be told of the Gaon\u2019s private affairs. Even the date of\nhis marriage with a certain Miss Anna of Kaidon is not mentioned by his\nbiographers. But it may be taken for granted that, in accordance with the\ncustom in Poland, he married at a very early age, say about eighteen\nyears. It was also when a young man that he travelled for some years\nthrough Poland and Germany. It is rather difficult to say what his object\nmay have been in making these travels\u2014for the Gaon was not the man to\ntravel for pleasure\u2019s sake. Perhaps it was to become acquainted with the\ngreat Rabbis of these countries. It is also possible, as others maintain,\nthat the Gaon considered the many privations which a traveller had to\nendure a hundred and fifty years ago, as an atonement for his imaginary\nsins. Indeed we find in many ascetic books that travelling, or as they\nterm it \u201creceiving upon oneself to be banished into the exile,\u201d(53) is\nrecommended as a very successful substitute for penance. At least it seems\nthat the coachmen whom the Gaon employed on his journeys looked at it from\nthis point of view. One of them went so far in adding to the privations of\nthe Gaon as to run away with his carriage when the Rabbi alighted from it\nin order to read his prayers. But the reading of the Eighteen\nBenedictions(54) must not be interrupted excepting in the case of danger;\nand the Gaon did not consider it very dangerous to be left without money\nand without luggage.\n\nThese travels ended in the year 1745. The Gaon left Wilna again at a later\ndate with the purpose of going to Palestine and settling there. But he\nfound so many obstacles on his way that he was soon compelled to give up\nhis favourite plan and to return to his native town. It is not known\nwhether he left Wilna again.\n\nThe position which the Gaon occupied in Wilna was, as already hinted, that\nof a private man. He could never be prevailed upon to accept the post of\nRabbi or any other office in a Jewish community. I am unable to give the\nreason for his declining all the offers made to him in this direction. But\nit may be suggested here that it was in the time of the Gaon that there\narose a bitter struggle between the Rabbi and the Jewish wardens of his\nnative town, which ended in the abolition of the office of Rabbi. The\nhistory of the struggle is the more irritating, as it arose from the\npettiest reasons imaginable. People actually discovered that there was no\nlight in the house of the Rabbi after the middle of the night, which fact\nmight lead to the conclusion that he did not study later than 12 o\u2019clock\nP.M. What an idle man! And this idleness was the less pardonable in the\neyes of the community, as the Rabbi\u2019s wife was so unfortunate as not to\nhave been polite enough to some Mrs. Warden. Under such circumstances we\nmust not wonder if the Gaon did not find it very desirable to meddle with\ncongregational affairs in an official capacity. The relation of the Gaon\nto his contemporaries resembles rather the position in the olden times of\na Tanna or Amora,(55) who neither enjoyed the title of Nasin or that of Ab\nBeth Din.(56) Like R. Akiba, or Mar Samuel, the Gaon became influential\namong his contemporaries only by his teaching and his exemplary life.\n\nIt must be said in praise of the Jews of Wilna that, notwithstanding their\npetty behaviour towards their ecclesiastical chief, they willingly\nsubmitted to the authority of the Gaon (who was devoid of all official\nauthority). They revered him as a saint. To converse with the Gaon was\nconsidered as a happy event in the life of a Jew in Wilna, to be of any\nuse to him as the greatest distinction a man could attain on earth. But\nwhat is remarkable is the readiness with which even scholars acknowledged\nthe authority of the Gaon. Scholars are usually more slow in recognising\ngreatness than simple mortals. Every new luminary does not only outshine\ntheir minor lights and thus hurt their personal vanity, but it threatens\nalso sometimes to obscure certain traditions which they wish to keep\nprominently in view. But the literary genius of the Gaon was too great to\nbe opposed with success, and his piety and devotion to religion far above\nsuspicion. Thus the Gaon was very soon recognised by his contemporaries as\ntheir master and guide; not only in literary questions, but also in\nmatters of belief and conduct.\n\nIt would lead me too far to name here all the Gaon\u2019s disciples. It seems\nas if all the great scholars in his country considered themselves to be\nmore or less his pupils. The Gaon used to give in the Beth Hammidrash,\nwhich he founded, public lectures on various subjects, and the students\nwho attended these lectures also claimed the honour of being called his\npupils. I shall mention here only his greatest disciple, R. Chayim\nWalosin, who, after the Gaon, influenced his countrymen more than any\nother scholar of that time. This R. Chayim also did not occupy any\nofficial post among his brethren. He was a cloth manufacturer by\nprofession, and was very prosperous in his business. But it did not\nprevent him from being devoted to Hebrew literature, and he enjoyed a\nwide\u2010spread fame as a great scholar. But as soon as the fame of the Gaon\nreached him, he left cloth manufactory and scholarship behind, and went to\nWilna to \u201clearn Torah\u201d from the mouth of the great master. It must be\nnoticed that even the giving up of his claim to scholarship was no little\nsacrifice. All our learning, said some scholar in Wilna, disappeared as\nsoon as we crossed the threshold of the Gaon\u2019s house. He made every\ndisciple who came into close contact with him begin at the beginning. He\ntaught them Hebrew grammar, Bible, Mishnah, and many other subjects, which\nwere, as already mentioned, very often neglected by the Talmudists of that\ntime. R. Chayim had also to go through all this course. Some would have\nconsidered such treatment a degradation. R. Chayim, however, became the\nmore attached to his master for it.\n\nIn such a way the life of the Gaon was spent, studying by himself or\nteaching his pupils. It must be understood that to learn Torah meant for\nthe Gaon more than mere brain work for the purpose of gaining knowledge.\nTo him it was a kind of service to God. Contemporaries who watched him\nwhen he was studying the Torah observed that the effect wrought on the\npersonality of the Gaon was the same as when he was praying. With every\nword his countenance flushed with joy; with every line he was gaining\nstrength for proceeding further. Only by looking at matters from this\npoint of view shall we be able to understand the devotion and the love of\nthe Gaon for study.\n\nThere has been, no doubt, among the Russian Jews a strong tendency to\nexaggerate the intellectual qualities of the Gaon. But one can readily\nexcuse such a tendency. He was gifted by nature with such a wonderful\nmemory that, having read a book once, he was able to recite it by heart\nfor the rest of his life. Not less admirable was his sure grasp. The most\ncomplicated controversies in the Talmud, into which other scholars would\nrequire whole days and weeks to find their way, the Gaon was able to read\nby a glance at the pages. Already as a boy he is said to have gone through\nin a single night the tractates _Zebachim_ and _Menachoth_,(57) containing\nnot less than two hundred and thirty pages, the contents of which are\nsometimes so difficult as to make even an aged scholar despair of\nunderstanding them. Again, he possessed so much common\u2010sense that all the\nintellectual tricks of the casuistic schools did not exist for him. And\nnevertheless his biographers tell us that he was so much occupied by his\nstudies, that he could not spare more than one hour and a half for sleep\nout of twenty\u2010four hours. This is, no doubt, an exaggeration. But let us\nsay five hours a day. He had not time to take his meals regularly. He used\nalso, according to tradition, to repeat every chapter in the Bible, every\npassage in the Talmud, hundreds of times, even if they presented no\ndifficulty at all. But it was, as already said, a matter of love for the\nGaon; of love, not of passing affection.\n\nNothing on earth could be more despicable to the Gaon than amateurs who\ndabble with ancient literature. To understand a thing clearly made him\nhappy. He is said to have spent more than six months on a single Mishnah\nin the tractate _Kilayim_,(58) and felt himself the happiest man when he\nsucceeded in grasping its real meaning. Not to be able to go into the\ndepth of a subject, to miss the truth embedded in a single passage, caused\nhim the most bitter grief. A story told by his pupil, R. Chayim, may\nillustrate this fact. One Friday, narrates R. Chayim, the servant of the\nGaon came to him with the message that his master wanted to see him as\nsoon as possible. R. Chayim went instantly. When he came into the house,\nhe found the Gaon lying in bed with a bandage on his head and looking very\nill. The wife of the Gaon also reported to him that it was more than three\ndays since her husband had taken any food, and that he had hardly enjoyed\nany sleep all this time. All this misery was caused by reason of not\nhaving been able to understand some difficult passages in the Talmud of\nJerusalem. The Gaon now asked his disciples to resume with him their\nresearches. Heaven, he said, might have mercy upon them and open their\neyes, for it is written, \u201cTwo are better than one\u201d: and lo! Heaven did\nhave mercy on them; they succeeded in getting the true meaning of the\npassage. The Gaon recovered instantly, and master and disciple had a very\njoyful Sabbath.\n\nHe is also reported to have said on one occasion, he would not like to\nhave an angel for his teacher who would reveal to him all the mysteries of\nthe Torah. Such a condition is only befitting the world to come, but in\n_this_ world only things which are acquired by hard labour and great\nstruggle are of any value. The German representative of truth expressed\nthe same thought in other words, which are well worth repeating here: \u201cDid\nthe Almighty,\u201d says Lessing, \u201cholding in His right hand Truth and in His\nleft Search after Truth, deign to tender me the one I might prefer, in all\nhumility and without hesitation I should select Search after Truth.\u201d\n\nThis absorption of all his being in the study of the Torah may also, I\nthink, account for the fact that his biographers have so little to say\nabout the family of the Gaon. Of his wife, we know only that she died in\nthe year 1783. Not much fuller is our knowledge about his children. The\nbiographers speak of them as of the family \u201cwhich the Lord has blessed,\u201d\nreferring to his two sons, Rabbi Aryeh Leb and Rabbi Abraham, who were\nknown as great scholars and very pious men. The latter one is best known\nby his edition of a collection of smaller Midrashim. Mention is also made\nof the Gaon\u2019s sons\u2010in\u2010law, especially one Rabbi Moses of Pinsk. But this\nis all, and we are told nothing either about their lives or their\ncallings. From his famous letter which he sent to his family when on his\nway to Palestine, we see that he was rather what one may call a severe\nfather. He bids his wife punish his children most severely for swearing,\nscolding, and speaking untruth. He also advises her to live as retired a\nlife as possible. Retirement he considers as a condition _sine qua non_\nfor a religious life. He even advises his daughter to read her prayers at\nhome, for in the synagogue she may get envious of the finer dresses of her\nfriends, which is a most terrible sin. The only tender feature in this\nletter is perhaps where he implores his wife to be kind to his mother on\naccount of her being a widow, and it were a great sin to cause her the\nleast annoyance. From other passages we may gather that his family had at\ntimes to suffer hunger and cold by the excessive occupation of their\nfather with the study of the Torah and other religious works. In short,\nthe Gaon was a one\u2010sided, severe ascetic, and would never have deserved\nthe title of a good father, a good husband, an amiable man or any other\nappellation derived from those ordinary \u201chousehold decencies\u201d which, as\nMacaulay informs us, half of the tombstones claim for those who lie behind\nthem. But I am very much afraid that many a great man who has made his\nmark in history could never claim these household virtues as his own. I do\nnot want to enter here into the question whether Judaism be an ascetic\nreligion or not. But even those who think Judaism identical with what is\ncalled \u201cmaking the best of this life,\u201d will not dispute the fact that\nJewish literature contains within it enough ascetic elements to justify\nthe conduct of our greatest men whose lives were one long\u2010continued self\u2010\ndenial and privation. \u201cThe Torah,\u201d says the Talmud, \u201ccannot be obtained\nunless a man is prepared to give his life for it,\u201d or as the Talmud puts\nit, in another place, \u201cif it be thy desire not to die, cease to live\nbefore thou diest.\u201d This was the principle by which the Gaon\u2019s life was\nactuated. And as he did not spare himself, he could not spare others. We\ncould not expect him to act differently. The Scriptures tell us: \u201cThou\nshalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d But how is it with the man who never\nloved himself, who never gave a thought to himself, who never lived for\nhimself, but only for what he considered to be his duty and his mission\nfrom God on earth? Such a man we cannot expect to spend his time on\ncoaxing and caressing us. As to the charge of one\u2010sidedness at which I\nhave hinted, if the giving up of everything else for the purpose of\ndevoting oneself to a scholarly and saintly life is one\u2010sidedness, the\nGaon must certainly bear this charge; but in a world where there are so\nmany on the other side, we ought, I think, to be only too grateful to\nProvidence for sending us from time to time great and strong one\u2010sided\nmen, who, by their counterbalancing influence, bring God\u2019s spoilt world to\na certain equilibrium again. To appease my more tender readers, I should\nlike only to say that there is no occasion at all for pitying Mrs. Gaon.\nIt would be a miserable world indeed if a good digestion and stupidity\nwere, as a certain author maintained, the only conditions of happiness.\nSaints are happy in their sufferings, and noble souls find their happiness\nin sacrificing themselves for these sufferers.\n\nAnother severe feature in the life of the Gaon showed itself in his\ndispute with the Chassidim. I regret not to be able to enter here even\ninto a brief account of the history of this struggle. I shall only take\nleave to say that I am afraid each party was right, the Gaon as well as\nthe Chassidim; the latter, in attacking the Rabbis of their time, who\nmostly belonged to the casuistic schools, and in their intellectual\npursuits almost entirely neglected the emotional side of religion; but\nnone the less was the Gaon right in opposing a system which, as I have\nshown above, involved the danger of leading to a worship of men.\n\nExcepting this incident, the Gaon never meddled with public affairs. He\nlived in retirement, always occupied with his own education and that of\nhis disciples and friends. It is most remarkable that, in spite of his\nhard work and the many privations he had to endure, he enjoyed good health\nalmost all his life. He never consulted a doctor. It was not until the\nyear 1791, in the seventieth year of his life, that he began to feel the\ndecline of his health. But he was not much interrupted by the failure of\nhis powers. As a means of recovery, he esteemed very highly the\nconversation of the preacher Jacob of Dubna, better known as the Dubna\nMaggid,(59) whose parables and sallies of wit the Gaon used to enjoy very\nmuch. On the eve of the Day of Atonement in the year 1797, he fell very\nill and gave his blessing to his children. He died on the third day of the\nFeast of Tabernacles, with the branch of the Lulab(60) in his hands. The\nFeast of Joy, relates a contemporary, was turned into days of mourning. In\nall the streets of Wilna were heard only lamenting and crying voices. The\nfuneral orations delivered on this occasion in Wilna, as well as in other\nJewish communities, would form a small library. His disciples wept for\ntheir master, the people of Wilna for the ornament of their native town,\nand the feeling of the Jews in general was that \u201cthe Ark of God was taken\naway.\u201d\n\nAfter the foregoing sketch, the reader will hardly expect me to give an\naccount of the Gaon\u2019s literary productions. The results of so long a life\nand such powers of mind devoted to one cause with such zeal and fervour,\nwould furnish by themselves the subject of a whole series of essays. The\ntombstone set on his grave by his pious admirers bears the inscription,\n\u201cThe Gaon gave heed and sought and set in order\u201d\u2014that is to say, he wrote\ncommentaries or notes on\u2014\u201cthe Bible, the Mishnah, both Talmuds, the\nSiphr\u00e9, Siphra, the Zohar, and many other works.\u201d Inscriptions on\ntombstones are proverbial for exaggeration, and we all know the saying,\n\u201cas mendacious as an epitaph.\u201d But a glance at the catalogue of the\nBritish Museum under the heading of Elijah Wilna, will show that this\ninscription makes a praiseworthy exception. We will find that this list\nmight be lengthened by many other works of great importance for Jewish\nlife and thought. His commentary to the Code of R. Joseph Caro, in which\none will find that in many cases he knew the sources of the religious\ncustoms and usages, put together in this work, better than its compiler\nhimself, would have been sufficient to place him at the head of Halachic\nscholarship, whilst his notes and textual emendations to the Tosephta and\nSeder Olam, to the restoration of which he contributed so much, would have\nsufficed to establish his fame as a critic of the first order. And this is\nthe more astonishing when we consider that all this was done without\nmanuscripts or any other aid, and by mere intuition. We cannot wonder that\nscholars who had the opportunity of visiting great libraries and saw how\nthe emendations of the Gaon agreed sometimes with the readings given in\nthe best manuscripts exclaimed very often: \u201cOnly by inspiration could he\nhave found out these secrets.\u201d We have no need to go so far; we shall\nsimply say with the Talmud, \u201cThe powers of the real sage surpass those of\nthe prophet.\u201d Nay, even had we possessed only his _Gleanings_, which form\na kind of _obiter dicta_ on various topics of Jewish literature, the Gaon\nwould have remained a model of clear thinking and real ingenuity for all\nfuture generations.\n\nHowever, a real appreciation of the Gaon\u2019s greatness as a scholar would\nonly be possible either by a thorough study of his works, to which I have\nalluded, or by giving many specimens of them. The short space I am limited\nto makes such an undertaking impossible. I shall therefore use what\nremains to me to say a few words on the salutary influence the Gaon had on\nhis countrymen, the Russian Jews.\n\nThe Russian Jew is still a riddle to us. We know this strange being only\nfrom the Reports of the Board of Guardians or from bombastic phrases in\npublic speeches; for he has always been the victim of platform orators,\n\n\n    So over violent or over civil,\n    That every man with them is God or Devil.\n\n\nFrom all, however, that I can gather from the best Jewish writers in\nRussia, I can only judge that the Russian Jew, when transplanted to a\nforeign soil, where he is cut off from the past and uncertain of his\nfuture, is for the time at least in a position in which his true character\ncannot be truly estimated. His real life is to be sought in his own\ncountry. There, amidst his friends and kinsmen who are all animated by the\nsame ideals, attached to the same traditions, and proud of the same\nreligious and charitable institutions, everything is full of life and\nmeaning to him. Thus, a certain Russian writer addresses his younger\ncolleagues who find so much fault with the bygone world: \u201cGo and see how\nrich we always were in excellent men. In every town and every village you\nwould find scholars, saints, and philanthropists. Their merits could\nsustain worlds, and each of them was an ornament of Israel.\u201d And he\nproceeds to give dozens of names of such excellent men, who are not all\nindeed known to us, but with whom the Russian Jew connects many noble and\npious reminiscences of real greatness and heroic self\u2010denial, and of whom\nhe is justly proud.\n\nThe focus, however, of all this spiritual life is the Yeshibah (Talmudical\nCollege)(61) in Walosin. I hope that a glance at its history and\nconstitution will not be found uninteresting. The intellectual originator\nof this institution which bears the name _Yeshibah Ets Chayim_ (Tree of\nLife College),(62) was the Gaon himself. Being convinced that the study of\nthe Torah is the very life of Judaism, but that this study must be\nconducted in a scientific, not in a scholastic way, he bade his chief\ndisciple, the R. Chayim already mentioned, to found a college in which\nRabbinical literature should be taught according to his own true method.\nIt would seem that, as long as the Gaon was alive, R. Chayim preferred to\nbe a pupil rather than a teacher. When, however, the Gaon died, R. Chayim\ndid not rest till he had carried out the command of his master, and in the\nyear 1803 the College was opened in Walosin. The cloth manufacturer and\ndisciple now became Rabbi and master. He began on a small scale, teaching\nat first only a few pupils. But even for the sustenance of a small number\nhe had not sufficient means, and his pious wife sold her jewellery to help\nhim in accomplishing his favourite plan. This is the best refutation of\nthe French proverb _Avare comme une Rabbine_. The number, however,\nincreased daily, and before he died (1828), he was fortunate enough to\nlecture to a hundred students. The number of students in the year 1888\namounted to 400, and the Russian Jews are thus right in asserting that\nthey have the greatest Talmudical College in the world. It is evident that\nno private charity by a single man, however great, could suffice to\nmaintain such large numbers. Thus R. Chayim was already compelled to\nappeal to the liberality of his Russian brethren. The name of R. Chayim,\nand the still greater name of his master, were recommendation enough, and\nbesides private offerings, many communities promised large sums towards\nsupporting the students in Walosin. From time to time also messengers are\nsent out by the committee to promote the interests of the Yeshibah. The\nwriters to whom I owe these data tell us that these messengers travel to\nall parts of the world to collect offerings for Walosin: so that it is a\nstanding joke with the students that the existence of the mythical river\nSambatyon(63) may be questioned after all, otherwise it must long have\nbeen discovered by these messengers who explore the whole world in their\njourneys. But it would seem that this world is only a very small one. For\nthe whole income of the Yeshibah has never exceeded the sum of about\n\u00a31800. Of this a certain part is spent in providing the salaries of the\nteaching staff and proctors, and on the repairs of the building; whilst\nthe rest is distributed amongst the students. Considering that no\nscholarship exceeds \u00a313\u2014it is only the forty immortals of Walosin who\nreceive such high stipends\u2014considering again that the great majority of\nthe students belong to the poorer classes and thus receive no remittance\nfrom their parents, we may be sure that the words of the Talmud: \u201cThis is\nthe way to study the Torah; eat bread and salt, drink water by measure,\nsleep on the earth, and live a life of care,\u201d are carried out by them\nliterally. But it would seem that the less they eat and the less they\nsleep, the more they work. Indeed the industry and the enthusiasm of these\nBachurim (_alumni_)(64) in the study of the Torah is almost unsurpassable.\nThe official hours alone extend from nine in the morning until ten in the\nevening, while many of the students volunteer to continue their studies\ntill the middle of the night, or to begin the day at three in the morning.\n\nAs to the subject of these studies, it is confined, as may be imagined, to\nthe exploration of the old Rabbinic literature in all its branches. But it\nwould be a mistake to think that the modern spirit has left Walosin quite\nuntouched. It would be impossible that among 400 thinking heads there\nshould not be a few who are interested in mathematics, others again in\nphilosophy or history, while yet others would conjugate the irregular\nverbs of some classical language when moving to and fro over their Talmud\nfolios and pretending to \u201c_learn_.\u201d Indeed, almost all the writers who\ndemand that these subjects should be introduced as obligatory into the\nprogramme of Walosin, belonged themselves to this Yeshibah. And it is\nthese writers who betray the secret how secular knowledge is now invading\nthe precincts of Walosin, as well as of other Talmudical Colleges in spite\nof all obstacles and prohibitions. In conquering these difficulties seem\nto consist the pleasures of life of many Bachurim at Walosin. Look only at\nthat undergraduate, how, after a heavy day\u2019s work he is standing there in\nthe street reading Buckle\u2019s _History of Civilisation_ in the moonlight!\nPoor man, he is not so romantic as to prefer the moonlight to a cheerful,\nwarm room, with the more prosaic light of a candle, but he has got tired\nof knocking at the door, for his landlady, to whom he has neglected to pay\nrent for the last three terms, made up her mind to let him freeze to\u2010\nnight. But still more cruel to him is his fellow\u2010sufferer, who is also\nwandering in the streets with an overloaded brain and empty stomach; he\nroughly shakes him out of his dreams by telling him that Buckle is long\nago antiquated, and that he had better study the works of Herbert Spencer,\nwho has spoken the last word on every vital subject in the world. Still\nthese two starving and freezing representatives of English thought in\nWalosin form only an exception. The general favourites are the\nrepresentatives of Jewish thought. That such books as the _Guide of the\nPerplexed_, by Maimonides, the Metaphysical Researches of Levi b.\nGershom,(65) and other philosophical works of the Spanish school are read\nby the Walosin students it is needless to say. These books now form a part\nof the Rabbinic literature, and it would be almost unorthodox to suspect\ntheir readers. But is worth noticing that even the productions of the\nmodern historico\u2010critical school, such as the works of Zunz, Frankel,\nGraetz, Weiss, are very popular with the Bachurim, being much read and\ndiscussed by them.\n\nThus Walosin deserves rightly to be considered as the centre of Jewish\nthought in Russia, in which the spirit of the Gaon is still working.\n\nI have very often, however, heard doubts expressed as to the continuance\nof this spirit when, as it is to be hoped, better times come for the Jews\nin Russia. Is it not to be feared that liberty and emancipation will\nrender untenable ideas and notions which arose under entirely different\ncircumstances? There is no need of entertaining such fears. Rabbi Jedaiah\nof Bedres(66) concludes his philosophical work _Examination of the World_,\nwith the following words: \u201cThe conclusion of the whole matter is, go\neither to the right, my heart, or go to the left, but believe all that R.\nMoses ben Maimon (Maimonides) has believed, the last of the Gaonim by\ntime, but the first in rank.\u201d About five hundred years have passed away\nsince these lines were written. Time, as we have seen, has brought another\nGaon, and probably Time will favour us in future with still another. But\ntimes have also altered. The rebellious hearts of a liberal age are not\nlikely to obey always the command, \u201cbelieve all that the Gaon said.\u201d But\nthe heart of man will in all ages retain idealism enough to love and\nrevere the greatest of men and to follow what was best in them.\n\n\n\n\n\nIV. NACHMANIDES(67)\n\n\nR. Chayim Vital, in his _Book of the Transmigrations of Souls_, gives the\nfollowing bold characteristic of the two great teachers of Judaism,\nMaimonides and Nachmanides. Their souls both sprang forth from the head of\nAdam\u2014it is a favourite idea of the Cabbalists to evolve the whole of ideal\nhumanity from the archetype Adam\u2014but the former, Maimonides, had his\ngenius placed on the left curl of Adam, which is all judgment and\nseverity, whilst that of the latter, Nachmanides, had its place on the\nright curl, which represents rather mercy and tenderness.\n\nI start from these words in order to avoid disappointment. For Nachmanides\nwas a great Talmudist, a great Bible student, a great philosopher, a great\ncontroversialist, and, perhaps, also a great physician; in one word, great\nin every respect, possessed of all the culture of his age. But, as I have\nalready indicated by the passage quoted by way of introduction, it is not\nof Nachmanides in any of these excellent qualities that I wish to write\nhere. For these aspects of his life and mind I must refer the reader to\nthe works of Graetz, Weiss, Steinschneider, Perles, and others. I shall\nmostly confine myself to those features and peculiarities in his career\nand works which will illustrate Nachmanides the tender and compassionate,\nthe Nachmanides who represented Judaism from the side of emotion and\nfeeling, as Maimonides did from the side of reason and logic.\n\nR. Moses ben Nachman, or Bonastruc de Portas, as he was called by his\nfellow\u2010countrymen, or Nachmanides, as he is commonly called now, was born\nin Gerona about the year 1195. Gerona is a little town in the province of\nCatalonia in Spain. But though in Spain, Gerona was not distinguished for\nits philosophers or poets like Granada, Barcelona, or Toledo. Situated as\nit was in the North of Spain, Gerona was under the influence of Franco\u2010\nJewish sympathies, and thus its boast lay in the great Talmudists that it\nproduced. I shall only mention the name of R. Zerahiah Hallevi Gerundi\u2014so\u2010\ncalled after his native place\u2014whose strictures on the Code of R. Isaac\nAlfasi, which he began as a youth of nineteen years, will always remain a\nmarvel of critical insight and independent research. Nachmanides is\nsupposed by some authors to have been a descendant of R. Isaac ben Reuben\nof Barcelona, whose hymns are still to be found in certain rituals. The\nevidence for this is insufficient, but we know that he was a cousin of R.\nJonah Gerundi, not less famous for his Talmudic learning than for his\nsaintliness and piety. Nachmanides thus belonged to the best Jewish\nfamilies of Gerona. Various great men are mentioned as his teachers, but\nwe have certainty only about two, namely R. Judah ben Yakar, the\ncommentator of the prayers, and R. Meir ben Nathan of Trinquintaines. The\nmystic, R. Ezra (or Azriel), is indeed alleged to have been his instructor\nin the Cabbalah, and this is not impossible, as he also was an inhabitant\nof Gerona; but it is more probable that Nachmanides was initiated into the\nCabbalah by the R. Judah just mentioned, who also belonged to the mystical\nschool.\n\nWhoever his masters were, they must have been well satisfied with their\npromising pupil, for he undertook, at the age of fifteen, to write\nsupplements to the Code of R. Isaac Alfasi. Nor was it at a much later\ndate that he began to compose his work, _The Wars of the Lord_, in which\nhe defends this great codifier against the strictures of R. Zerahiah, to\nwhich we have referred above. I shall in the course of this essay have\nfurther occasion to speak of this latter work; for the present we will\nfollow the career of its author.\n\nConcerning the private life of Nachmanides very little has come down to\nus. We only know that he had a family of sons and daughters. He was not\nspared the greatest grief that can befall a father, for he lost a son; it\nwas on the day of the New Year.(68) On the other hand, it must have been a\ngreat source of joy to him when he married his son Solomon to the daughter\nof R. Jonah, whom he revered as a saint and a man of God. As a token of\nthe admiration in which he held his friend, the following incident may be\nmentioned. It seems that it was the custom in Spain to name the first\nchild in a family after his paternal grandfather; but Nachmanides ceded\nhis right in behalf of his friend, and thus his daughter\u2010in\u2010law\u2019s first\nson was named Jonah. Another son of Nachmanides whom we know of was\nNachman, to whom his father addressed his letters from Palestine, and who\nalso wrote Novell\u00e6 to the Talmud, still extant in MS. But the later\nposterity of Nachmanides is better known to fame. R. Levi ben Gershom was\none of his descendants; so was also R. Simeon Duran;(69) whilst R. Jacob\nSasportas, in the eighteenth century,(70) derived his pedigree from\nNachmanides in the eleventh generation.\n\nAs to his calling, he was occupied as Rabbi and teacher, first in Gerona\nand afterwards in Barcelona. But this meant as much as if we should say of\na man that he is a philanthropist by profession, with the only difference\nthat the treasures of which Nachmanides disposed were more of a spiritual\nkind. For his livelihood he probably depended upon his medical practice.\n\nI need hardly say that the life of Nachmanides, \u201cwhose words were held in\nCatalonia in almost as high authority as the Scriptures,\u201d was not without\nits great public events. At least we know of two.\n\nThe one was about the year 1232, on the occasion of the great struggle\nabout Maimonides\u2019 _Guide of the Perplexed_, and the first book of his\ngreat Compendium of the Law. The Maimonists looked upon these works almost\nas a new revelation, whilst the Anti\u2010Maimonists condemned both as\nheretical, or at least conducive to heresy.(71) It would be profitless to\nreproduce the details of this sad affair. The motives may have been pure\nand good, but the actions were decidedly bad. People denounced each other,\nexcommunicated each other, and did not (from either side) spare even the\ndead from the most bitter calumnies. Nachmanides stood between two fires.\nThe French Rabbis, from whom most of the Anti\u2010Maimonists were recruited,\nhe held in very high esteem and considered himself as their pupil. Some of\nthe leaders of this party were also his relatives. He, too, had, as we\nshall see later on, a theory of his own about God and the world little in\nagreement with that of Maimonides. It is worth noting that Nachmanides\nobjected to calling Maimonides \u201cour teacher Moses\u201d (Rabbenu Mosheh),(72)\nthinking it improper to confer upon him the title by which the Rabbis\nhonoured the Master of the Prophets. The very fact, however, that he had\nsome theory of the Universe shows that he had a problem to solve, whilst\nthe real French Rabbis were hardly troubled by difficulties of a\nmetaphysical character. Indeed, Nachmanides pays them the rather doubtful\ncompliment that Maimonides\u2019 work was not intended for them, who were\nbarricaded by their faith and happy in their belief, wanting no protection\nagainst the works of Aristotle and Galen, by whose philosophy others might\nbe led astray. In other words, their strength lay in an ignorance of Greek\nphilosophy, to which the cultivated Jews of Spain would not aspire.\nNachmanides was also a great admirer of Maimonides, whose virtues and\ngreat merits in the service of Judaism he describes in his letter to the\nFrench Rabbis. Thus, the only way left open to him was to play the part of\nthe conciliator. The course of this struggle is fully described in every\nJewish history. It is sufficient to say that, in spite of his great\nauthority, Nachmanides was not successful in his effort to moderate the\nviolence of either party, and that the controversy was at last settled\nthrough the harsh interference of outsiders who well\u2010nigh crushed\nMaimonists and Anti\u2010Maimonists alike.\n\nThe second public event in the life of Nachmanides was his Disputation,\nheld in Barcelona, at the Court and in the presence of King Jayme I., of\nAragon, in the year 1263. It was the usual story. A convert to\nChristianity, named Pablo Christiani, who burned with zealous anxiety to\nsee his former co\u2010religionists saved, after many vain attempts in this\ndirection, applied to the King of Aragon to order Nachmanides to take part\nin a public disputation. Pablo maintained that he could prove the justice\nof the Messianic claims of Jesus from the Talmud and other Rabbinic\nwritings. If he could only succeed in convincing the great Rabbi of Spain\nof the truth of his argument, the bulk of the Jews was sure to follow. By\nthe way, it was the same Talmud which some twenty years previously was, at\nthe instance of another Jewish convert, burned in Paris, for containing\npassages against Christianity. Nachmanides had to conform with the command\nof the king, and, on the 21st of July, 1263, was begun the controversy,\nwhich lasted for four or five days.\n\nI do not think that there is in the whole domain of literature less\nprofitable reading than that of the controversies between Jews and\nChristians. These public disputations occasionally forced the Jews\nthemselves to review their position towards their own literature, and led\nthem to draw clearer distinctions between what they regarded as religion\nand what as folklore. But beyond this, the polemics between Jews and\nChristians were barren of good results. If you have read one you have read\nenough for all time. The same casuistry and the same disregard of history\nturn up again and again. Nervousness and humility are always on the side\nof the Jews, who know that, whatever the result may be, the end will be\npersecution; arrogance is always on the side of their antagonists, who are\nsupported by a band of Knights of the Holy Cross, prepared to prove the\nsoundness of their cause at the point of their daggers.\n\nBesides, was there enough common ground between Judaism and thirteenth\ncentury Christianity to have justified the hope of a mutual understanding?\nThe Old Testament was almost forgotten in the Church. The First Person in\nthe Trinity was leading a sort of shadowy existence in art, which could\nonly be the more repulsive to a Jew on that account. The largest part of\nChurch worship was monopolised by devotion to the Virgin Mother, prayers\nto the saints, and kneeling before their relics. And a Jew may well be\npardoned if he did not entertain higher views of this form of worship than\nLuther and Knox did at a later period. It will thus not be worth our while\nto dwell much on the matter of this controversy, in which the essence of\nthe real dispute is scarcely touched. There are only two points in it\nwhich are worth noticing. The first is that Nachmanides declared the\nAgadoth(73) in the Talmud to be only a series of sermons (he uses this\nvery word), expressing the individual opinions of the preacher, and thus\npossessing no authoritative weight. The convert Pablo is quite aghast at\nthis statement, and accuses Nachmanides of heterodoxy.\n\nSecondly,\u2014and here I take leave to complete the rather obscure passage in\nthe controversy by a parallel in his book, _The Date of Redemption_,(74)\nquoted by Azariah de Rossi\u2014that the question of the Messiah is not of that\ndogmatic importance to the Jews that Christians imagine. For even if Jews\nsupposed their sins to be so great that they forfeited all the promises\nmade to them in the Scriptures, or that, on some hidden ground, it would\nplease the Almighty never to restore their national independence, this\nwould in no way alter the obligations of Jews towards the Torah. Nor is\nthe coming of the Messiah desired by Jews as an end in itself. For it is\nnot the goal of their hopes that they shall be able again to eat of the\nfruit of Palestine, or enjoy other pleasures there; not even the chance of\nthe restoration of sacrifices and the worship of the Temple is the\ngreatest of Jewish expectations (connected with the appearance of the\nMessiah). What makes them long for his coming is the hope that they will\nthen witness, in the company of the prophets and priests, a greater spread\nof purity and holiness than is now possible. In other words, the\npossibility for them to live a holy life after the will of God will be\ngreater than now. But, on the other hand, considering that such a godly\nlife under a Christian government requires greater sacrifices than it\nwould under a Jewish king; and, considering again that the merits and\nrewards of a good act increase with the obstacles that are in the way of\nexecuting it\u2014considering this, a Jew might even prefer to live under the\nKing of Aragon than under the Messiah, where he would perforce act in\naccordance with the precepts of the Torah.\n\nNow there is in this statement much that has only to be looked upon as a\ncompliment to the government of Spain. I am inclined to think that if the\nalternative laid before Nachmanides had been a really practical one, he\nwould have decided in favour of the clement rule of the Messiah in\npreference to that of the most cruel king on earth. But the fact that he\nrepeats this statement in another place, where there was no occasion to be\nover polite to the Government, tends to show, as we have said, that the\nbelief in the Messiah was not the basis on which Nachmanides\u2019 religion was\nbuilt up.\n\nThe result of the controversy is contested by the different parties; the\nChristian writers claim the victory for Pablo, whilst the Jewish documents\nmaintain that the issue was with Nachmanides. In any case, \u201c_Der Jude wird\nverbrannt_.\u201d For in the next year (1264) all the books of the Jews in\nAragon were confiscated and submitted to the censorship of a commission,\nof which the well\u2010known author of the _Pugio Fidei_, Raymund Martini, was,\nperhaps, the most important member. The books were not burned this time,\nbut had to suffer a severe mutilation; the anti\u2010Christian passages, or\nsuch as were supposed to be so, were struck out or obliterated.\nNachmanides\u2019 account of the controversy, which he probably published from\na sense of duty towards those whom he represented, was declared to contain\nblasphemies against the dominant religion. The pamphlet was condemned to\nbe burned publicly, whilst the author was, as it seems, punished with\nexpulsion from his country. It is not reported where Nachmanides found a\nhome during the next three years; probably he had to accept the\nhospitality of his friends, either in Castile or in the south of France;\nbut we know that in the year 1267 he left Europe and emigrated to\nPalestine.\n\nNachmanides was, at this juncture of his life, already a man of about\nseventy. But it would seem as if the seven decades which he had spent in\nthe Spanish Peninsula were only meant as a preparation for the three years\nwhich he was destined to live in the Holy Land, for it was during this\nstage of his life that the greatest part of his _Commentary on the\nPentateuch_ was written. In this work, as is agreed on all sides, his\nfinest thoughts and noblest sentiments were put down.\n\nBefore proceeding to speak of his works, let us first cast a glance at his\nletters from Palestine, forming as they do a certain link between his\nformer life and that which was to occupy him exclusively for the rest of\nhis days. We have three letters, the first of which I shall translate here\n_in extenso_.\n\nThe letter was written soon after his arrival at Jerusalem in the year\n1267. It was addressed to his son Nachman, and runs as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe Lord shall bless thee, my son Nachman, and thou shalt see the\n    good of Jerusalem. Yea, thou shalt see thy children\u2019s children\n    (Ps. cxxviii.), and thy table shall be like that of our father\n    Abraham!(75) In Jerusalem, the Holy City, I write this letter.\n    For, thanks and praise unto the rock of my salvation, I was\n    thought worthy by God to arrive here safely on the 9th of the\n    month of Elul, and I remained there till the day after the Day of\n    Atonement. Now I intend going to Hebron, to the sepulchre of our\n    ancestors, to prostrate myself, and there to dig my grave. But\n    what am I to say to you with regard to the country? Great is the\n    solitude and great the wastes, and, to characterise it in short,\n    the more sacred the places, the greater their desolation!\n    Jerusalem is more desolate than the rest of the country: Jud\u00e6a\n    more than Galilee. But even in this destruction it is a blessed\n    land. It has about 2000 inhabitants, about 300 Christians live\n    there who escaped the sword of the Sultan. There are no Jews. For\n    since the arrival of the Tartars, some fled, others died by the\n    sword. There are only two brothers, dyers by trade, who have to\n    buy their ingredients from the government. There the Ten Men(76)\n    meet, and on Sabbaths they hold service at their house. But we\n    encouraged them, and we succeeded in finding a vacant house, built\n    on pillars of marble with a beautiful arch. That we took for a\n    synagogue. For the town is without a master, and whoever will take\n    possession of the ruins can do so. We gave our offerings towards\n    the repairs of the house. We have sent already to Shechem to fetch\n    some scrolls of the Law from there which had been brought thither\n    from Jerusalem at the invasion of the Tartars. Thus they will\n    organise a synagogue and worship there. For continually people\n    crowd to Jerusalem, men and women, from Damascus, Zobah\n    (Aleppo),(77) and from all parts of the country to see the\n    Sanctuary and to mourn over it. He who thought us worthy to let us\n    see Jerusalem in her desertion, he shall bless us to behold her\n    again, built and restored, when the glory of the Lord will return\n    unto her. But you, my son, and your brothers and the whole of our\n    family, you all shall live to see the salvation of Jerusalem and\n    the comfort of Zion. These are the words of your father who is\n    yearning and forgetting, who is seeing and enjoying, Moses ben\n    Nachman. Give also my peace to my pupil Moses, the son of Solomon,\n    the nephew of your mother. I wish to tell him ... that there,\n    facing the holy temple, I have read his verses, weeping bitterly\n    over them. May he who caused his name to rest in the Holy Temple\n    increase your peace together with the peace of the whole\n    community.\u201d\n\n\nThis letter may be illustrated by a few parallels taken from the appendix\nto Nachmanides\u2019 _Commentary to the Pentateuch_, which contains some rather\nincoherent notes which the author seems to have jotted down when he\narrived in Jerusalem. After a lengthy account of the material as well as\nthe spiritual glories of the holy city in the past, he proceeds to say:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cA mournful sight I have perceived in thee (Jerusalem); only one\n    Jew is here, a dyer, persecuted, oppressed and despised. At his\n    house gather great and small when they can get the Ten Men. They\n    are wretched folk, without occupation and trade, consisting of a\n    few pilgrims and beggars, though the fruit of the land is still\n    magnificent and the harvests rich. Indeed, it is still a blessed\n    country, flowing with milk and honey.... Oh! I am the man who saw\n    affliction. I am banished from my table, far removed from friend\n    and kinsman, and too long is the distance to meet again.... I left\n    my family, I forsook my house. There with my sons and daughters,\n    and with the sweet and dear children whom I have brought up on my\n    knees, I left also my soul. My heart and my eyes will dwell with\n    them for ever.... But the loss of all this and of every other\n    glory my eyes saw is compensated by having now the joy of being a\n    day in thy courts (O Jerusalem), visiting the ruins of the Temple\n    and crying over the ruined Sanctuary; where I am permitted to\n    caress thy stones, to fondle thy dust, and to weep over thy ruins.\n    I wept bitterly, but I found joy in my tears. I tore my garments,\n    but I felt relieved by it.\u201d\n\n\nOf some later date is his letter from Acra, which may be considered as a\nsort of ethical will, and which has been justly characterised as a eulogy\nof humility. Here is an extract from it:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cAccustom yourself to speak gently to all men at all times, and\n    thus you will avoid anger, which leads to so much sin.... Humility\n    is the first of virtues; for if you think how lowly is man, how\n    great is God, you will fear Him and avoid sinfulness. On the\n    humble man rests the divine glory; the man that is haughty to\n    others denies God. Look not boldly at one whom you address....\n    Regard every one as greater than thyself.... Remember always that\n    you stand before God, both when you pray and when you converse\n    with others.... Think before you speak.... Act as I have bidden\n    you, and your words, and deeds, and thoughts, will be honest, and\n    your prayers pure and acceptable before God.\u201d\n\n\nThe third letter is addressed to his son (R. Solomon?) who was staying (in\nthe service of the king) in Castile. It is in its chief content a eulogy\nof chastity.(78) Probably Nachmanides had some dread of the dangerous\nallurements of the court, and he begs his son never to do anything of\nwhich he knows that his father would not approve, and to keep his father\u2019s\nimage always before his eyes.\n\nAs to his works, we may divide them into two classes. The one would\ncontain those of a strictly legalistic (Halachic), whilst the other those\nof a more homiletic\u2010exegetical and devotional character (Agadic). As\nalready indicated in the preliminary lines of this paper, I cannot dwell\nlong on the former class of our author\u2019s writings. It consists either of\nGlosses or Novell\u00e6 to the Talmud, in the style and manner of the French\nRabbis, or of Compendia of certain parts of the Law after the model set by\nR. Isaac Alfasi or Maimonides, or in defences of the \u201cEarlier Authorities\u201d\nagainst the strictures made on them by a later generation. A few words\nmust be said with regard to these defences; for they reveal that deep\nrespect for authority which forms a special feature of Nachmanides\u2019\nwritings. His _Wars of the Lord_, in which he defends Alfasi against R.\nZerahiah of Gerona, was undertaken when he was very young, whilst his\ndefence of the author of the _Halachoth Gedoloth_(79) against the attacks\nof Maimonides, which he began at a much more mature age, shows the same\ndeference \u201cto the great ones of the past.\u201d Indeed, he says in one place,\n\u201cWe bow before them (the earlier authorities), and though their words are\nnot quite evident to us we submit to them\u201d; or, as he expresses himself\nelsewhere, \u201cOnly he who dips (deeply enough) in the wisdom of the \u2018ancient\nones\u2019 will drink the pure (old) wine.\u201d But it would be unjust to the\ngenius of Nachmanides to represent him as a blind worshipper of authority.\nHumble and generous in disposition, he certainly would bow before every\nrecognised authority, and he would also think it his duty to take up the\ncudgels for him as long as there was even the least chance of making an\nhonourable defence. But when this chance had gone, when Nachmanides was\nfully convinced that his hero was in the wrong, he followed no guide but\ntruth. \u201cNotwithstanding,\u201d he says in his introduction to the defences of\nthe _Halachoth Gedoloth_, \u201cmy desire and delight to be the disciple of the\nEarlier Authorities, to maintain their views and to assert them, I do not\nconsider myself a \u2018donkey carrying books.\u2019 I will explain their way and\nappreciate their value, but when their views are inconceivable to my\nthoughts, I will plead in all modesty, but shall judge according to the\nsight of my eyes. And when the meaning is clear I shall flatter none, for\nthe Lord gives wisdom in all times and ages.\u201d But, on the other hand,\nthere seems to have been a certain sort of literary agnosticism about\nNachmanides which made it very difficult for him to find the \u201cclear\nmeaning.\u201d The passage in the _Wars of the Lord_ to the effect \u201cthat there\nis in the art (of commenting) no such certain demonstration as in\nmathematics or astronomy,\u201d is well known and has often been quoted; but\nstill more characteristic of this literary agnosticism is the first\nparagraph of the above\u2010mentioned defences of the _Halachoth Gedoloth_.\nWhilst all his predecessors accepted, on the authority of R. Simlai,(80)\nthe number (613) of the commandments as an uncontested fact, and based\ntheir compositions on it, Nachmanides questions the whole matter, and\nshows that the passages relating to this enumeration of laws are only of a\nhomiletical nature, and thus of little consequence. Nay, he goes so far as\nto say, \u201cIndeed the system how to number the commandments is a matter in\nwhich I suspect all of us (are mistaken) and the truth must be left to him\nwho will solve all doubts.\u201d We should thus be inclined to think that this\nadherence to the words of the earlier Authorities was at least as much due\nto this critical scepticism as to his conservative tendencies.\n\nThe space left to me I shall devote to the second class of his writings,\nin which Nachmanides worked less after given types. These reveal to us\nmore of his inner being, and offer us some insight into his theological\nsystem. The great problem which seems to have presented itself to\nNachmanides\u2019 mind was less how to reconcile religion with reason than how\nto reconcile man with religion. What is man? The usual answer is not\nflattering. He is an animal that owes its existence to the same instinct\nthat produces even the lower creatures, and he is condemned, like them, to\ngo to a place of worm and maggot. But, may not one ask, why should a\ncreature so lowly born, and doomed to so hapless a future, be burdened\nwith the awful responsibility of knowing that he is destined \u201cto give\nreckoning and judgment before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be\nHe\u201d? It is true that man is also endowed with a heavenly soul, but this\nonly brings us back again to the antithesis of flesh and spirit which was\nthe stumbling\u2010block of many a theological system. Nor does it help us much\ntowards the solution of the indicated difficulty; for what relation can\nthere be between this _materia impura_ of body and the pure intellect of\nsoul? And again, must not the unfavourable condition in which the latter\nis placed through this uncongenial society heavily clog and suppress all\naspiration for perfection? It is \u201ca house divided against itself,\u201d doomed\nto an everlasting contest, without hope for co\u2010operation or even of\nharmony.\n\nThe works _The Sacred Letter_ and _The Law of Man_ may be considered as an\nattempt by Nachmanides, if not to remove, at least to relieve the\nharshness of this antithesis. The former, in which he blames Maimonides\nfor following Aristotle in denouncing certain desires implanted in us by\nnature as ignominious and unworthy of man, may, perhaps, be characterised\nas a vindication of the flesh from a religious point of view. The contempt\nin which \u201cthat Greek,\u201d as Nachmanides terms Aristotle, held the flesh is\ninconsistent with the theory of the religious man, who believes that\neverything (including the body, with all its functions) is created by God,\nwhose work is perfect and good, without impure or inharmonious parts. It\nis only sin and neglect that disfigure God\u2019s creations. I cannot enter\ninto any further details of this work, but I may be permitted to remark\nthat there is a very strong similarity between the tendency of the _Sacred\nLetter_ and certain leading ideas of Milton. Indeed, if the first two\nchapters of the former were a little condensed and put into English, they\ncould not be better summarised than by the famous lines in the _Paradise\nLost_:\u2014\n\n\n    Whatever hypocrites austerely talk\n    Of purity, and place, and innocence,\n    Defaming as impure what God declares\n    Pure, and commands to some, leaves free to all,\n    Our Maker bids increase; who bids abstain\n    But our destroyer, foe to God and man?\n    Hail, wedded love, mysterious law!...\n    Far be it that I should write thee sin or blame\n    Or think thee unbefitting holiest place,\n    Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets.\n\n\nThe second of these two works, the _Law of Man_, may be regarded as a\nsanctification of grief, and particularly of the grief of griefs, death.\nThe bulk of the book is legalistic, treating of mourning rites, burial\ncustoms, and similar topics; but there is much in the preface which bears\non our subject. For here again Nachmanides takes the opportunity of\ncombating a chilling philosophy, which tries to arm us against suffering\nby stifling our emotions. \u201cMy son,\u201d he says, \u201cbe not persuaded by certain\npropositions of the great philosophers who endeavour to harden our hearts\nand to deaden our sensations by their idle comfort, which consists in\ndenying the past and despairing of the future. One of them has even\ndeclared that there is nothing in the world over the loss of which it is\nworth crying, and the possession of which would justify joy. This is an\nheretical view. Our perfect Torah bids us to be joyful in the day of\nprosperity and to shed tears in the day of misfortune. It in no way\nforbids crying or demands of us to suppress our grief. On the contrary,\nthe Torah suggests to us that to mourn over heavy losses is equivalent to\na service of God, leading us, as it does, to reflect on our end and ponder\nover our destiny.\u201d\n\nThis destiny, as well as Reward and Punishment in general, is treated in\nthe concluding chapter of the _Law of Man_, which is known under the title\nof _The Gate of Reward_.(81) Nachmanides does not conceal from himself the\ndifficulties besetting inquiries of this description. He knows well enough\nthat in the last instance we must appeal to that implicit faith in the\ninscrutable justice of God with which the believer begins. Nevertheless he\nthinks that only the \u201cdespisers of wisdom\u201d would fail to bring to this\nfaith as full a conviction as possible, which latter is only to be gained\nby speculation. I shall have by and by occasion to refer to the results of\nthis speculation. Here we must only notice the fact of Nachmanides\ninsisting on the _bodily_ resurrection which will take place after the\ncoming of the Messiah, and will be followed by the _Olam Habba_(82) (the\nlife in the world to come) of which the Rabbis spoke.\n\nIrrational as this belief may look, it is only a consequence of his\ntheory, which, as we have seen, assigns even to the flesh an almost\nspiritual importance. Indeed, he thinks that the soul may have such an\ninfluence on the body as to transform the latter into so pure an essence\nthat it will become safe for eternity. For, as he hints in another place,\nby the continual practising of a thing the whole man, the body included,\nbecomes so identified with the thing that we call him after it, just as\nthe Holy Singer said: I am prayer,(83) so that\u2014\n\n\n          Oft converse with heavenly habitants\n    Begins to cast a beam on the outward shape,\n    The unpolluted temple of the mind,\n    And turns it by degrees to the soul\u2019s essence,\n    Till all be made immortal.\n\n\nBut if even the body holds such a high position as to make all its\ninstincts and functions, if properly regulated, a service of God, and to\ndestine it for a glorious future of eternal bliss and rejoicing in God, we\ncan easily imagine what a high place the soul must occupy in the system of\nNachmanides. To be sure it is a much higher one than that to which\nphilosophy would fain admit her. A beautiful parable of the Persian poet\nYellaladeen (quoted by the late Mr. Lowell) narrates that \u201cOne knocked at\nthe beloved\u2019s door, and a voice asked from within, \u2018Who is there?\u2019 and he\nanswered, \u2018It is I.\u2019 Then the voice said, \u2018This house will not hold me and\nthee,\u2019 and the door was not opened. Then went the lover into the desert\nand fasted and prayed in solitude, and after a year he returned and\nknocked again at the door, and again the voice asked \u2018Who is there?\u2019 and\nhe said \u2018It is thyself\u2019; and the door was opened to him.\u201d This is also the\ndifference between the two schools\u2014the mystical and the philosophical\u2014with\nregard to the soul. With the rationalist the soul is indeed a superior\nabstract intelligence created by God, but, like all His creations, has an\nexistence of its own, and is thus separated from God. With the mystic,\nhowever, the soul is God, or a direct emanation from God. \u201cFor he who\nbreathes into another thing (Gen. ii. 7) gives unto it something of his\nown breath (or soul),\u201d and as it is said in Job xxxii. 8, \u201cAnd the soul of\nthe Almighty giveth them understanding.\u201d This emanation, or rather\nimmanence\u2014for Nachmanides insists in another place that the Hebrew term\nemployed for it, _Aziluth_,(84) means a permanent dwelling with the thing\nemanating\u2014which became manifest with the creation of man, must not be\nconfounded with the moving soul (or the _Nephesh Chayah_),(85) which is\ncommon to man with all creatures.\n\nIt may be remarked here that Nachmanides endows all animals with a soul\nwhich is derived from the \u201cSuperior Powers,\u201d and its presence is proved by\ncertain marks of intelligence which they show. By this fact he tries to\naccount for the law prohibiting cruelty to animals, \u201call souls belonging\nto God.\u201d Their original disposition was, it would seem, according to\nNachmanides, peaceful and harmless.\n\n\n                    About them frisking played\n    All beasts of earth, since wild, and of all chase\n    In wood or wilderness, forest or den.\n\n\nIt was only after man had sinned that war entered into creation, but with\nthe coming of the Messiah, when sin will disappear, all the living beings\nwill regain their prim\u00e6val gentleness, and be reinstituted in their first\nrights.\n\nThe special soul of man, however, or rather the \u201cover\u2010soul,\u201d was pre\u2010\nexistent to the creation of the world, treasured up as a wave in the sea\nor fountain of souls\u2014dwelling in the eternal light and holiness of God.\nThere, in God, the soul abides in its ideal existence before it enters\ninto its material life through the medium of man; though it must be noted\nthat, according to Nachmanides\u2019 belief in the Transmigration of souls, it\nis not necessary to perceive in the soul of every new\u2010born child, \u201ca fresh\nmessage from heaven\u201d coming directly from the fountain\u2010head. Nachmanides\nfinds this belief indicated in the commandment of levirate marriage, where\nthe child born of the deceased brother\u2019s wife inherits not only the name\nof the brother of his actual father, but also his soul, and thus\nperpetuates his existence on earth. The fourth verse of Ecclesiastes ii.\nNachmanides seems to interpret to mean that the very generation which\npasses away comes up again, by which he tries to explain the difficulty of\nGod\u2019s visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children; the latter\nbeing the very fathers who committed the sins. However, whatever trials\nand changes the soul may have to pass through during its bodily existence,\nits origin is in God and thither it will return in the end, \u201cjust as the\nwaters rise always to the same high level from which their source sprang\nforth.\u201d\n\nIt is for this man, with a body so superior, and a soul so sublime\u2014more\nsublime than the angels\u2014that the world was _created_. I emphasise the last\nword, for the belief in the creation of the world by God from nothing\nforms, according to Nachmanides, the first of the three fundamental dogmas\nof Judaism. The other two also refer to God\u2019s relation to the world and\nman. They are the belief in God\u2019s Providence and his _Yediah_.(86)\nCreation from nothing is for Nachmanides the keynote to his whole\nreligion, since it is only by this fact, as he points out in many places,\nthat God gains real dominion over nature. For, as he says, as soon as we\nadmit the eternity of matter, we must (logically) deny God even \u201cthe power\nof enlarging the wing of a fly, or shortening the leg of an ant.\u201d But the\nwhole Torah is nothing if not a record of God\u2019s mastery in and over the\nworld, and of His miraculous deeds. One of the first proclamations of\nAbraham to his generation was that God is the Lord (or Master) of the\nworld (Gen. xviii. 33). The injunction given to Abraham, and repeated\nafterwards to the whole of Israel (Gen. xvii. 2, and Deut. xviii. 13), to\nbe perfect with God, Nachmanides numbers as one of the 613 commandments,\nand explains it to mean that man must have a whole belief in God without\nblemish or reservation, and acknowledge Him possessed of power over nature\nand the world, man and beast, devil and angel, power being attributable to\nHim alone. Indeed, when the angel said to Jacob, \u201cWhy dost thou ask after\nmy name\u201d (Gen. xxxii. 29), he meant to indicate by his question the\nimpotence of the heavenly host, so that there is no use in knowing their\nname, the power and might belonging only to God.\n\nWe may venture even a step further, and maintain that in Nachmanides\u2019\nsystem there is hardly room left for such a thing as nature or \u201cthe order\nof the world.\u201d There are only two categories of miracles by which the\nworld is governed, or in which God\u2019s Providence is seen. The one is the\ncategory of the manifest miracles, as the ten plagues in Egypt, or the\ncrossing of the Red Sea; the other is that of the hidden miracles, which\nwe do not perceive as such, because of their frequency and continuity. \u201cNo\nman,\u201d he declares, \u201ccan share in the Torah of our Teacher, Moses (that is,\ncan be considered a follower of the Jewish religion), unless he believes\nthat all our affairs and events, whether they concern the masses or the\nindividual, are all miracles (worked by the direct will of God),\nattributing nothing to nature or to the order of the world.\u201d Under this\nsecond order he classes all the promises the Torah makes to the righteous,\nand the punishments with which evil\u2010doers are threatened. For, as he\npoints out in many places, there is nothing in the nature of the\ncommandments themselves that would make their fulfilment necessarily\nprolong the life of man, and cause the skies to pour down rain, or, on the\nother hand, would associate disobedience to them with famine and death.\nAll these results can, therefore, only be accomplished in a supernatural\nway by the direct workings of God.\n\nThus miracles are raised to a place in the regular scheme of things, and\nthe difficulty regarding the possibility of God\u2019s interferences with\nnature disappears by their very multiplication. But a still more important\npoint is, that, by this unbroken chain of miracles, which unconditionally\nimplies God\u2019s presence to perform them, Nachmanides arrives at a theory\nestablishing a closer contact between the Deity and the world than that\nset forth by other thinkers. Thus, he insists that the term _Shechinah_,\nor _Cabod_(87) (Glory of God), must not be understood, with some Jewish\nphilosophers, as something separate from God, or as _glory created_ by\nGod. \u201cWere this the case,\u201d he proceeds to say, \u201cwe could not possibly say,\n\u2018Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place,\u2019 since every mark of\nworship to anything _created_ involves the sin of idolatry.\u201d Such terms as\n_Shechinah_, or _Cabod_, can therefore only mean the immediate divine\npresence. This proves, as may be noted in passing, how unphilosophical the\nidea of those writers is who maintain that the rigid monotheism of the\nJews makes God so transcendental that He is banished from the world. As we\nsee, it is just this assertion of His absolute Unity which not only\nsuffers no substitute for God, but also removes every separation between\nHim and the world. Hence also Nachmanides insists that the prophecy even\nof the successors of Moses was a direct communion of God with the prophet,\nand not, as others maintained, furnished through the medium of an angel.\n\nThe third fundamental dogma, _Yediah_, includes, according to Nachmanides,\nnot only the omniscience of God\u2014as the term is usually translated\u2014but also\nHis recognition of mankind and His special concern in them. Thus, he\nexplains the words in the Bible with regard to Abraham, \u201cFor I know him\u201d\n(Gen. xviii. 19), to indicate the special attachment of God\u2019s Providence\nto the patriarch, which, on account of his righteousness, was to be\nuninterrupted for ever; whilst in other places we have to understand,\nunder God\u2019s knowledge of a thing, his determination to deal with it\ncompassionately, as, for instance, when Scripture says that God knew\n(Exod. ii. 25), it means that His relation to Israel emanated from His\nattribute of mercy and love. But just as God knows (which means loves) the\nworld, He requires also to be recognised and known by it. \u201cFor this was\nthe purpose of the whole creation, that man should recognise and know Him\nand give praise to His name,\u201d as it is said, \u201cEverything that is called by\nmy name (meaning, chosen to promulgate God\u2019s name), for my glory have I\ncreated it.\u201d\n\nIt is this fact which gives Israel their high prerogative, for by\nreceiving the Torah they were the first to know God\u2019s name, to which they\nremained true in spite of all adversities; and thus accomplished God\u2019s\nintention in creating the world. It is, again, by this Torah that the\nwhole of Israel not only succeeded in being real prophets (at the moment\nof the Revelation), but also became _Segulah_,(88) which indicates the\ninseparable attachment between God and His people, whilst the righteous\nwho never disobey His will become the seat of His throne.\n\nThe position of the rest of humanity is also determined by their relation\nto the Torah. \u201cIt is,\u201d Nachmanides tells us, \u201ca main principle to know\nthat all that man contrives to possess of knowledge and wisdom is only the\nfruits of the Torah or the fruits of its fruits. But for this knowledge\nthere would be no difference between man and the lower animated species.\nThe existence of the civilised nations of the world does not disprove this\nrule both Christians and Mahometans being also the heirs of the Torah. For\nwhen the Romans gained strength over Israel they made them translate the\nTorah which they studied, and they even accommodated some of their laws\nand institutions to those of the Bible.\u201d Those nations, however, who live\nfar away from the centre of the world (the Holy Land) and never come into\ncontact with Israel are outside the pale of civilisation, and can hardly\nbe ranked together with the human species. \u201cThey are the isles afar off,\nthat have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory.\u201d\n\nWhat Nachmanides meant by maintaining that all knowledge and wisdom were\n\u201cthe fruits of the Torah, or the fruits of these fruits,\u201d will be best\nseen from his _Commentary on the Pentateuch_. I have already made use of\nthis Commentary in the preceding quotations, but, being the greatest of\nthe works of Nachmanides, it calls for some special attention by itself.\nIts general purpose is edification, or as he says, \u201cto appease the mind of\nthe students (labouring under persecution and troubles) when they read the\nportion on Sabbaths and festivals, and to attract their heart by simple\nexplanations and sweet words.\u201d The explanations occupy a considerable\nspace. As Dr. Perles has shown in his able essay on this work of\nNachmanides, our author neglected no resource of philology or arch\u00e6ology\naccessible in his age which could contribute to establish the \u201csimple\nexplanations\u201d on a sound scientific basis. The prominent feature of this\nCommentary, however, is the \u201csweet words.\u201d Indeed, how sweet and soothing\nto his contemporaries must have been such words as we read at the end of\nthe \u201cSong of Moses\u201d (Deut. xxxii.): \u201cAnd behold there is nothing\nconditional in this Song. It is a charter testifying that we shall have to\nsuffer heavily for our sins, but that, nevertheless, God will not destroy\nus, being reconciled to us (though we shall have no merits), and forgiving\nour sins for his name\u2019s sake alone.... And so our Rabbis said, Great is\nthis song, embracing as it does both the past (of Israel) and the future,\nthis world and the world to come.... And if this song were the composition\nof a mere astrologer we should be constrained to believe in it,\nconsidering that all its words were fulfilled. How much more have we to\nhope with all our hearts and to trust to the word of God, through the\nmouth of his prophet Moses, the faithful in all his house, like unto whom\nthere was none, whether before him or after him.\u201d A part of these sweet\nwords may also be seen in the numerous passages in which he attempts to\naccount for various laws, and to detect their underlying principles.\n\nFor though \u201cthe Torah is the expression of God\u2019s simple and absolute will,\nwhich man has to follow without any consideration of reward,\u201d still this\nwill is not arbitrary, and even that class of laws which are called\n_chukkim_(89) (which means, according to some Jewish commentators,\nmotiveless decrees) have their good reasons, notwithstanding that they are\nunfathomable to us. \u201cThey are all meant for the good of man, either to\nkeep aloof from us something hurtful, or to educate us in goodness, or to\nremove from us an evil belief and to make us know his name. This is what\nthey (the Rabbis) meant by saying that commandments have a purifying\npurpose, namely, that man being purified and tried by them becomes as one\nwithout alloy of bad thoughts and unworthy qualities.\u201d Indeed, the soul of\nman is so sensitive to every impurity that it suffers a sort of infection\neven by an unintentional sin. Hence the injunction to bring a _Korban_\n(sacrifice) even in this case; the effect of the _Korban_, as its\netymology (_Karab_)(90) indicates, is to bring man back to God, or rather\nto facilitate this approach. All this again is, as Nachmanides points out,\nonly an affluence from God\u2019s mercy and love to mankind. God derives no\nbenefit from it. \u201cIf he be righteous what can he give thee?\u201d And even\nthose laws and institutions which are intended to commemorate God\u2019s\nwonders and the creation of the world (for instance, the Passover festival\nand the Sabbath) are not meant for His glorification, or, as Heine\nmaliciously expressed it:\u2014\n\n\n    Der Weltkapellenmeister hier oben\n    Er selbst sogar h\u00f6rt gerne loben\n    Gleichfalls seine Werke....\n\n\n\u201cFor all the honour (we give to Him), and the praising of His work are\ncounted by Him less than nothing and as vanity to Him.\u201d What He desires is\nthat we may know the truth, and be confirmed in it, for this makes us\nworthy of finding in Him \u201cour Protector and King.\u201d\n\nThe lessons which Nachmanides draws from the various Biblical narratives\nalso belong to these \u201csweet words.\u201d They are mostly of a typical\ncharacter. For, true as all the stories in the Scriptures are, \u201cthe whole\nTorah is,\u201d as he tells us (with allusion to Gen. v. 1.), \u201cthe book of the\ngenerations of Adam,\u201d or, as we should say, a history of humanity written\nin advance. Thus the account of the six days of the creation is turned\ninto a prophecy of the most important events which would occur during the\nsucceeding six thousand years, whilst the Sabbath is a forecast of the\nmillennium in the seventh thousand, which will be the day of the Lord.\nJacob and Esau are, as in the old Rabbinic homilies generally, the\nprototypes of Israel and Rome; and so is the battle of Moses and Joshua\nwith Amalek indicative of the war which Elijah and the Messiah the son of\nJoseph will wage against Edom (the prototype of Rome), before the Redeemer\nfrom the house of David will appear.(91) Sometimes these stories convey\nboth a moral and a pre\u2010justification of what was destined to happen to\nIsrael. So Nachmanides\u2019 remarks with reference to Sarah\u2019s treatment of\nHagar (Gen. xvi. 6): \u201cOur mother Sarah sinned greatly by inflicting this\npain on Hagar, as did also Abraham, who allowed such a thing to pass; but\nGod saw her affliction and rewarded her by a son (the ancestor of a wild\nrace), who would inflict on the seed of Abraham and Sarah every sort of\noppression.\u201d In this he alluded to the Islamic empires. Nor does he\napprove of Abraham\u2019s conduct on the occasion of his coming to Egypt, when\nhe asked Sarah to pass as his sister (Gen. xii.). \u201cUnintentionally,\u201d\nNachmanides says, \u201cAbraham, under the fear of being murdered, committed a\ngreat sin when he exposed his virtuous wife to such a temptation. For he\nought to have trusted that God would save both him and his wife.... It is\non account of this deed that his children had to suffer exile under the\nrule of Pharaoh. There, where the sin was committed, also the judgment\ntook place.\u201d It is also worth noticing that, in opposition to Maimonides,\nhe allows no apology for the attack of Simeon and Levi on the population\nof Shechem (Gen. xxxiv. 25). It is true that they were idolaters, immoral,\nand steeped in every abomination; but Jacob and his sons were not\ncommissioned with executing justice on them. The people of Shechem trusted\ntheir word, therefore they ought to have spared them. Hence Jacob\u2019s\nprotest, and his curse against their wrath, which would have been quite\nunjustified had he looked on the action of his sons as a good work.\n\nBesides these typical meanings, the matters of the Torah have also their\nsymbolical importance, which places them almost above the sphere of human\nconception; they are neither exactly what they seem to be nor entirely\nwhat their name implies, but a reflex from things unseen, which makes any\nhuman interference both preposterous and dangerous. Of \u201cthe things\n_called_ Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge,\u201d Nachmanides tells us that\ntheir mystery is very great, reaching into higher worlds. Otherwise, why\nshould God, who is good and the dispenser of good, have prevented Adam\nfrom eating the fruit (of the latter), whilst in another place he says:\n\u201cAnd if thou wilt be worthy, and understand the mystery of the word\n_Bereshith_(92) (with which the Torah begins), thou wilt see that in truth\nthe Scripture, though apparently speaking of matters here below (on\nearth), is always pointing to things above (heaven);\u201d for \u201cevery glory and\nevery wonder, and every deep mystery, and all beautiful wisdom are hidden\nin the Torah, sealed up in her treasures.\u201d\n\nIt is very characteristic of the bent of Nachmanides\u2019 mind, that he is\nperhaps the first Jewish writer who mentions the apocryphal book _The\nWisdom of Solomon_, which he knew from a Syriac version, and which he\nbelieved to be genuine. And when we read there (vii. 7\u201025), \u201cWherefore I\nprayed and understanding was given to me. I called upon God and the spirit\nof wisdom came upon me.... For God has given me unmistakable knowledge to\nknow how the world was made, and the operations of the planets. The\nbeginning, ending, and midst of the times, the alterations and the\nturnings of the sun, the changes of the seasons, the natures of the living\ncreatures and the furies of the wild beasts, the force of the spirits and\nthe reasonings of men, the diversities of plants and the virtues of the\nroots. All such things that are either secret or manifest, them I\nknew\u201d\u2014the wise king was, according to Nachmanides (who quotes the passages\nwhich I have just cited), speaking of the Torah, which is identical with\nthis wisdom, a wisdom which existed before the creation, and by which God\nplanned the world. Hence it bears the impression of all the universe,\nwhilst on the other hand when it is said, \u201cThe king brought me into his\nchambers,\u201d those secret recesses of the Torah are meant in which all the\ngreat mysteries relating to Creation and to the Chariot (Ezekiel i.) are\nhidden.\n\nWe must content ourselves with these few sparks struck from the glowing\nfires of these inner compartments, which, imperfectly luminous as my\ntreatment has left them, may yet shed some light on the personality of\nNachmanides, which is the main object of this essay. But I do not propose\nto accompany the mystic into the \u201cchambers of the king,\u201d lest we may soon\nget into a labyrinth of obscure terms and strange ways of thinking for\nwhich the Ariadne thread is still wanting. We might also be confronted by\nthe Fifty Gates of Understanding, the Thirty\u2010Two Paths of Wisdom, and the\nTwo Hundred and Thirty\u2010One Permutations or Ciphers of the Alphabet, the\nkey to which I do not hold. It is also questionable whether it would\nalways be worth while to seek for it. When one, for instance, sees such a\nheaping on of nouns (with some Cabbalists) as the Land of Life, the Land\nof Promise, the Lord of the World, the Foundation Stone, Zion, Mother,\nDaughter, Sister, the Congregation of Israel, the Twin Roes, the Bride,\nBlue, End, Oral Law, Sea, Wisdom, etc., meant to represent the same thing\nor attribute, and to pass one into another, one cannot possibly help\nfeeling some suspicion that one stands before a conglomerate of words run\nriot, over which the writer had lost all control.\n\nIndeed Nachmanides himself, in the preface to the above\u2010mentioned\nCommentary, gives us the kind advice not to meditate, or rather brood,\nover the mystical hints which are scattered over this work, \u201cspeculation\nbeing (in such matters) folly, and reasoning over them fraught with\ndanger.\u201d Indeed, the danger is obvious. I have, to give one or two\ninstances, already alluded to the theory which accepts the Torah or the\nWisdom as an agent in the creation of the world. But the mystic pushes\nfurther, and asks for the Primal Being to which this Wisdom owes its\norigin. The answer given is from the great Nothing, as it is written, And\nthe Wisdom shall be found from Nothing.(93) What is intended by this, if\nit means anything, is probably to divest the first cause of every possible\nquality which by its very qualifying nature must be limiting and\nexclusive. Hence, God becomes the Unknowable. But suppose a metaphysical\nHamlet, who, handling words indelicately, should impetuously exclaim, To\nbe or not to be, that is the question?\u2014into what abyss of utter negations\nwould he drag all those who despair, by his terrible Nothing.\n\nOn the other hand, into what gross anthropomorphisms may we be drawn by\nroughly handling certain metaphors which some Cabbalists have employed in\ntheir struggling after an adequate expression of God\u2019s manifestations in\nHis attribute of love, if we forget for a single moment that they are only\nfigures of speech, but liable to get defiled by the slightest touch of an\nunchaste thought.\n\nBut the greater the dangers that beset the path of mysticism, the deeper\nthe interest which we feel in the mystic. In connection with the above\u2010\nmentioned warning, Nachmanides cites the words from the Scriptures, \u201cBut\nlet not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord,\nlest he break forth upon them\u201d (Exod. xix. 24). Nevertheless, when we read\nin the Talmud the famous story of the four Rabbis(94) who went up into the\n_Pardes_, or Garden of Mystical Contemplation, we do not withhold our\nsympathy, either from Ben Azzai, who shot a glance and died, or from Ben\nZoma, who shot a glance and was struck (in his mind). Nay, we feel the\ngreatest admiration for these daring spirits, who, in their passionate\nattempt to \u201cbreak through\u201d the veil before the Infinite, hazarded their\nlives, and even that which is dearer than life, their minds, for a single\nglance. And did R. Meir deny his sympathies even to Other One or Elisha\nben Abuyah, who \u201ccut down the plants\u201d? He is said to have heard a voice\nfrom heaven, \u201cReturn, oh backsliding children, except Other One,\u201d which\nprevented his repentance. Poor fallen Acher, he mistook hell for heaven.\nBut do not the struggle and despair which led to this unfortunate\nconfusion rather plead for our commiseration?\n\nNachmanides, however, in his gentle way, did not mean to storm heaven.\nLike R. Akiba, \u201che entered in peace, and departed in peace.\u201d And it was by\nthis peacefulness of his nature that he gained an influence over posterity\nwhich is equalled only by that of Maimonides. \u201cIf he was not a profound\nthinker,\u201d like the author of the _Guide of the Perplexed_, he had that\nwhich is next best\u2014\u201che felt profoundly.\u201d Some writers of a rather\nreactionary character even went so far as to assign to him a higher place\nthan to Maimonides. This is unjust. What a blank would there have been in\nJewish thought but for Maimonides\u2019 great work, on which the noblest\nthinkers of Israel fed for centuries! As long as Job and Ecclesiastes hold\ntheir proper place in the Bible, and the Talmud contains hundreds of\npassages suggesting difficulties relating to such problems as the creation\nof the world, God\u2019s exact relation to it, the origin of evil, free will\nand predestination, none will persuade me that philosophy does not form an\nintegral part of Jewish tradition, which, in its historical developments,\ntook the shape which Maimonides and his successors gave to it. If\nMaimonides\u2019 _Guide_, which he considered as an interpretation of the Bible\nand of many strange sayings in the old Rabbinic homilies in the Talmud, is\nAristotelian in its tone, so is tradition too; even the Talmud in many\nplaces betrays all sorts of foreign influences, and none would think of\ndeclaring it un\u2010Jewish on this ground. I may also remark in passing that\nthe certainty with which some writers deprecate the aids which religion\nmay receive from philosophy is a little too hasty. For the question will\nalways remain, What religion? The religion of R. Moses of Tachau or R.\nJoseph Jabez(95) would certainly have been greatly endangered by the\nslightest touch of speculation, while that of Bachya,(96) Maimonides,\nJedaiah of Bedres, and Delmedigo undoubtedly received from philosophy its\nnoblest support, and became intensified by the union.\n\nBut apart from that consideration, the sphere of the activity of these two\nleaders seems to have been so widely different that it is hardly just to\nconsider them as antagonists, or at least to emphasise the antagonism too\nmuch. Maimonides wrote his chief work, the _Guide_, for the few elect,\nwho, like Ibn Tibbon(97) for instance, would traverse whole continents if\na single syllogism went wrong. And if he could be of use to one wise man\nof this stamp, Maimonides would do so at the risk of \u201csaying things\nunsuitable for ten thousand fools.\u201d But with Nachmanides, it would seem,\nit was these ten thousand who formed the main object of his tender care.\nThey are, as we have seen, cultivated men, indeed \u201cstudents,\u201d having\nenjoyed a proper education; but the happy times of abstract thinking have\ngone, and being under a perpetual strain of persecutions and cares, they\nlong for the Sabbath and Festivals, which would bring them both bodily and\nspiritual recreation. They find no fault with religion, a false syllogism\ndoes not jar on their ears; what they are afraid of is that, being engaged\nas they are, all the six days of work, in their domestic affairs, religion\nmay be too good a thing for them. \u201cTo appease their minds,\u201d to edify them,\nto make life more sweet and death less terrible to them, and to show them\nthat even their weaknesses, as far as they are conditioned by nature, are\nnot irreconcilable with a holy life, was what Nachmanides strove after.\nNow and then he permits them a glance into the mystical world in which he\nhimself loved to move, but he does not care to stifle their senses into an\nidle contemplation, and passes quickly to some more practical application.\nTo be sure, the tabernacle is nothing but a complete map of the superlunar\nworld; but nevertheless its rather minute description is meant to teach us\n\u201cthat God desires us to work.\u201d\n\nThis tendency toward being useful to the great majority of mankind may\naccount for the want of consistency of which Nachmanides was so often\naccused. It is only the logician who can afford to be thoroughgoing in his\ntheory, and even he would become most absurd and even dangerous but for\nthe redeeming fact \u201cthat men are better than their principles.\u201d But with\nNachmanides these \u201cprinciples\u201d would have proved even more fatal. Could\nhe, for instance, have upset authority in the face of the ten thousand?\nThey need to be guided rather than to guide. But he does not want them to\nfollow either the Gaon or anybody else slavishly, \u201cthe gates of wisdom\nnever having been shut,\u201d whilst on the other hand he hints to them that\nthere is something divine in every man, which places him at least on the\nsame high level with any authority. Take another instance\u2014his wavering\nattitude between the Maimonists and the Anti\u2010Maimonists, for which he was\noften censured. Apart from other reasons, to which I have pointed above,\nmight he not have felt that, in spite of his personal admiration for\nMaimonides\u2019 genius, he had no right to put himself entirely on the side\nwhere there was little room for the ten thousand who were entrusted to his\nguidance, whilst the French Rabbis, with all their prejudices and\nintolerance, would never deny their sympathies to simple emotional folk?\n\nThis tender and absorbing care for the people in general may also account\nfor the fact that we do not know of a single treatise by Nachmanides of a\npurely Cabbalistic character in the style of the _Book of Weight_, by\nMoses de Leon, or the _Orchard_, by R. Moses Cordovora, or the _Tree of\nLife_ by R. Isaac Loria.(98) The story that attributes to him the\ndiscovery of the _Zohar_ in a cave in Palestine, from whence he sent it to\nCatalonia, needs as little refutation as the other story connected with\nhis conversion to the Cabbalah, which is even more silly and of such a\nnature as not to bear repetition. The _Lilac of Mysteries_(99) and other\nmystical works passed also for a long time under his name, but their claim\nto this honour has been entirely disproved by the bibliographers, and they\nrank now among the _pseudepigraphica_. It is true that R. Nissim, of\nGerona, said of Nachmanides that he was too much addicted to the belief in\nthe Cabbalah, and as a fellow\u2010countryman he may have had some personal\nknowledge about the matter. But as far as his writings go, this belief\nfinds expression only in incidental remarks and occasional citations from\nthe Bahir,(100) which he never thrusts upon the reader. It was chiefly\nwhen philosophy called in question his deep sympathies with even lower\nhumanity, and threatened to withdraw them from those ennobling influences\nunder which he wanted to keep them, that he asserted his mystical\ntheories.\n\nNachmanides\u2019 inconsistency has also proved beneficial in another respect.\nFor mysticism has, by its over\u2010emphasising of the divine in man, shown a\nstrong tendency to remove God altogether and replace Him by the creature\nof His hands. Witness only the theological bubble of Shabbethai\nTsebi\u2014happily it burst quickly enough\u2014which resulted in mere idolatry (in\nmore polite language, Hero Worship) on the one side, and in the grossest\nantinomianism on the other. Nachmanides, however, with a happy\ninconsistency, combined with the belief of man\u2019s origin in God, a not less\nstrong conviction of man\u2019s liability to sin, of the fact that he _does_\nsin\u2014even the patriarchs were not free from it, as we have seen above\u2014and\nthat this sin _does_ alienate man from God. This healthy control over\nman\u2019s extravagant idea of his own species was with Nachmanides also a\nfruit of the Torah, within the limits of which everything must move, the\nmystic and his aspirations included, whilst its fair admixture of 365 _Do\nnot\u2019s_ with 248 _Do\u2019s_ preserved him from that \u201choly doing nothing\u201d which\nso many mystics indulged in, and made his a most active life.\n\nMuch of this activity was displayed in Palestine, \u201cthe land to which the\nprovidence of God is especially attached,\u201d and which was, as with R. Judah\nHallevi, always \u201chis ideal home.\u201d There he not only completed his\n_Commentary on the Pentateuch_, but also erected synagogues, and engaged\nin organising communities, whose tone he tried to elevate both by his\nlectures and by his sermons. His career in Palestine was not a long one,\nfor he lived there only about three years, and in 1270 he must already\nhave been dead. A pretty legend narrates that when he emigrated to\nPalestine his pupils asked him to give them a sign enabling them to\nascertain the day of his death. He answered them that on that day a rift\nin the shape of a lamp would be seen in the tombstone of his mother. After\nthree years a pupil suddenly noticed this rift, when the mourning over the\nRabbi began. Thus, stone, or anything else earthly, breaks finally, and\nthe life of the master passes into light.\n\nWhat life meant to him, how deeply he was convinced that there is no other\nlife but that originating in God, how deeply stirred his soul was by the\nconsciousness of sin, what agonies the thought of the alienation from God\ncaused him, how he felt that there is nothing left to him but to throw\nhimself upon the mercy of God, and how he rejoiced in the hope of a final\nreunion with Him\u2014of all these sentiments we find the best expression in\nthe following religious poem, with which this paper may conclude.\nNachmanides composed it in Hebrew, and it is still preserved in some\nrituals as a hymn, recited on the Day of Atonement. It is here given in\nthe English translation of Mrs. Henry Lucas.(101)\n\n\n    Ere time began, ere age to age had thrilled,\n    I waited in his storehouse, as he willed;\n    He gave me being, but, my years fulfilled,\n        I shall be summoned back before the King.\n\n    He called the hidden to the light of day,\n    To right and left, each side the fountain lay,\n    From out the stream and down the steps, the way\n        That led me to the garden of the King.\n\n    Thou gavest me a light my path to guide,\n    To prove my heart\u2019s recesses still untried;\n    And as I went, thy voice in warning cried:\n        \"Child! fear thou him who is thy God and King!\"\n\n    True weight and measure learned my heart from thee;\n    If blessings follow, then what joy for me!\n    If nought but sin, all mine the shame must be,\n        For that was not determined by the King.\n\n    I hasten, trembling, to confess the whole\n    Of my transgressions, ere I reach the goal\n    Where mine own words must witness \u2019gainst my soul,\n        And who dares doubt the writing of the King?\n\n    Erring, I wandered in the wilderness,\n    In passion\u2019s grave nigh sinking powerless;\n    Now deeply I repent, in sore distress,\n        That I kept not the statutes of the King!\n\n    With worldly longings was my bosom fraught,\n    Earth\u2019s idle toys and follies all I sought;\n    Ah! when he judges joys so dearly bought,\n        How greatly shall I fear my Lord and King!\n\n    Now conscience\u2010stricken, humbled to the dust,\n    Doubting himself, in thee alone his trust,\n    He shrinks in terror back, for God is just\u2014\n        How can a sinner hope to reach the King?\n\n    Oh, be thy mercy in the balance laid,\n    To hold thy servant\u2019s sins more lightly weighed,\n    When, his confession penitently made,\n        He answers for his guilt before the King.\n\n    Thine is the love, O God, and thine the grace,\n    That folds the sinner in its mild embrace;\n    Thine the forgiveness, bridging o\u2019er the space\n        \u2019Twixt man\u2019s works and the task set by the King.\n\n    Unheeding all my sins, I cling to thee;\n    I know that mercy shall thy footstool be:\n    Before I call, oh, do thou answer me,\n        For nothing dare I claim of thee, my King!\n\n    O thou, who makest guilt to disappear,\n    My help, my hope, my rock, I will not fear;\n    Though thou the body hold in dungeon drear,\n        The soul has found the palace of the King!\n\n\nPOSTSCRIPT\n\nThe third letter of Nachmanides to which I have alluded above, is embodied\nin the following will by R. Solomon, son of the martyr Isaac. Neither the\ndate nor the country of the testator is known, but style and language make\nit probable that he was a Spanish Jew, and lived in the fourteenth\ncentury. I give here a translation from the whole document as it is to be\nfound in the Manuscripts.\n\n\n    These are the regulations which I, Solomon, the son of the martyr,\n    Rabbi Isaac, the son of R. Zadok, of blessed memory, draw up for\n    myself. That as long as I am in good health, and free from\n    accident, and think of it, I shall not eat before I have studied\n    one page of the Talmud or of its commentaries. Should I transgress\n    this rule intentionally, I must not drink wine on that day, or I\n    shall pay half a _Zehub_(102) to charity. Again, that I shall\n    every week read the Lesson twice in the Hebrew text, and once in\n    the Aramaic version. Should I intentionally omit completing the\n    Lesson as above, then I must pay two _Zehubs_ to charity. Again,\n    that I shall every Sabbath take three meals, consisting of bread\n    or fruit. Should I omit to do so, I must give in charity half a\n    _Zehub_. Again, in order to subdue my appetites, and not to enjoy\n    in this world more than is necessary for the maintenance of my\n    body, I must not eat at one meal more than one course of meat, and\n    not more than two courses altogether; nor must I drink more than\n    two cups of wine at one meal, apart from the blessing\u2010cup (over\n    which grace is said), except on Sabbath, Festivals, Chanukah (the\n    Maccabean Dedication Feast), New Moon, and at other religious\n    meals (for instance, wedding\u2010dinners and similar festive\n    occasions). Again, I must not have any regular meal on the day\n    preceding Sabbath or Festivals. I must not have during the day\n    more than one course, so that I shall enter upon the holy day with\n    a good appetite. Should I transgress this resolve intentionally I\n    shall have to fast a day, or to pay two _Zehubs_. Again, that I\n    shall not eat the fish called _burbot_,(103) if I think of it.\n    Again, even on the above\u2010mentioned days, I must not eat more than\n    three courses at a meal, nor drink more than three cups of wine,\n    exclusive of the blessing\u2010cup. Again, ... I must not swear by God,\n    nor mention the name of Heaven without a purpose, nor curse any\n    man in the name of God. Should I, God forbid, transgress it, I\n    must not drink more than one cup of wine on that day exclusive of\n    the blessing\u2010cup. Should I, however, transgress this after dinner,\n    I must abstain from wine the following day. Should I transgress\n    it, I have to pay half a _Zehub_. Again, that I shall get up every\n    night to praise God, to supplicate for His mercy, and to confess.\n    On those nights when confession is not to be said (Sabbaths and\n    Festivals), I shall say hymns and psalms. This I shall do when I\n    am in my house, and in good health, free from any accident. Should\n    I transgress it, I shall drink not more than one cup of wine the\n    following day, except the blessing\u2010cup. I again take upon myself\n    to give in charity the following proportion of my expenditure\u2014from\n    each dress which I shall have made for myself or for one member of\n    my family, costing more than ten _Zehubs_, I must pay one\n    _Pashut_(104) for each ten _Zehubs_. Again, if I should buy an\n    animal, or a slave, or a female slave, or ground, that I shall\n    also pay at the same rate. And if I shall buy clothes for sale,\n    called _fashas_, I shall pay two _Pashuts_ for each garment. As\n    often as I have occasion to say the benediction of thanksgivings\n    for having escaped danger I shall pay a _Zehub_, except when I am\n    travelling [also involving danger in those times!], in which case\n    I shall have to pay a _Zehub_ on my arrival, and two _Pashuts_\n    daily during the journey. Again, from every kind of fish bought\n    for me, costing more than a _Zehub_, I shall pay a _Pashut_ for\n    each _Zehub_. And also, if I shall be deemed worthy by God to\n    marry my children, and to be present at their wedding, to cause\n    them to give to the poor from the dowry brought to them by their\n    wives, whether in money or in kind, at the rate of one per cent.\n    If God will find me worthy of having sons, I must give in charity\n    according to my means at the time.\n\n    I shall also, between New Year and the Day of Atonement in each\n    year, calculate my profits during the past year and (after\n    deducting expenses) give a tithe thereof to the poor. Should I be\n    unable to make an accurate calculation, then I shall give\n    approximately. This tithe I shall put aside, together with the\n    other money for religious (charitable) purpose, to dispose of it\n    as I shall deem best. I also propose to have the liberty of\n    employing the money in any profitable speculation with a view to\n    augmenting it. But in respect of all I have written above I shall\n    not hold myself guilty if I transgress, if such transgression be\n    the result of forgetfulness; but in order to guard against it, I\n    shall read this through weekly.\n\n    I also command my children to take upon themselves as many of the\n    above regulations as may be in their power to observe, and also to\n    bind them (_i.e._ the regulations), from generation to generation,\n    upon their children. And he who carries them out, and even adds to\n    them, at pain of discomfort to himself, shall merit a special\n    blessing. And this is the text of the will which I, the above\u2010\n    mentioned Solomon, draw up for my children, may God preserve them.\n    That they shall pray thrice daily, and endeavour always to utter\n    their prayers with devotion. Again, that this prayer shall be said\n    in the _Beth Hammidrash_, or in the synagogue together with the\n    congregation. Again, that they shall apply all their powers to\n    maintain the synagogues and the houses of study, which our\n    ancestors have built, as well as to continue the endowments\n    established by my ancestors and myself. They must always endeavour\n    to imitate them, so that goodness shall never cease from among\n    them. Again, that they shall always have a chair on which a volume\n    of the Talmud, or some other Talmudical work, shall lie; so that\n    they shall always open a book when they come home. At least, they\n    shall read in any book they like four lines before taking their\n    meal. Again, that they shall every week read the Lesson twice in\n    the Hebrew text, and once in the Aramaic version. Again, to take\n    three meals on the Sabbath....\n\n    Again, that they shall be always modest, merciful, and charitable,\n    for these are the qualities by which the children of Israel are\n    known. Let also all their thoughts and meditations be always\n    directed to the service of the Lord, and be as charitable and\n    benevolent as possible, for this is all that remains to man of his\n    labour. They shall also endeavour to regulate their diet according\n    to the rules laid down by Rabbi Moses (b. Maimon, or Maimonides),\n    so as to fulfil the words of Scripture: \u201cThe righteous eateth to\n    the satisfying of his soul.\u201d And let them always be careful not to\n    take the name of God in vain, to be honest in all business\n    transactions, and let their yea be always yea. They shall always\n    be under the obligation to train their children to the Study of\n    the Torah, but one shall devote his life exclusively to the study\n    thereof. And it shall be incumbent upon his brothers to support\n    this one, and to invest his moneys, and to provide for him that he\n    and his family may live respectably, so that he be not distracted\n    by worldly cares from his studies. Let also the elder love the\n    younger brothers as their own children, and the younger respect\n    the elder as a parent. Thus they may always bear in mind that they\n    are of a God\u2010fearing family. Let them love and honour scholars,\n    thus to merit the honour of having scholars for their sons and\n    sons\u2010in\u2010law. This will they shall themselves read weekly, and\n    shall also make it incumbent upon their children, from generation\n    to generation, to read weekly, in order to fulfil what is written\n    (Gen. xviii. 19), \u201cFor I know him that he will command his\n    children,\u201d etc., and also the words of Isaiah (lix. 21), \u201cAnd this\n    is my covenant,\u201d etc. But as often as they shall read this will,\n    they shall also read the two letters below written, which Rabbi\n    Moses ben Nachman sent to his sons, with a view of being\n    serviceable to them in many respects. Should, heaven forbid, they\n    be by any sad accident prevented from fulfilling the injunctions\n    above laid down, they must fine themselves by not drinking wine on\n    that day, or by eating one course less at the dinner, or by giving\n    some fine in charity....\n\n\nAnd this is the letter which the above\u2010mentioned Rabbi sent from the Holy\nLand to Castile, when his son was staying before the king (in his\nservice):\u2014\n\n\n    \u201c... May God bless you and preserve you from sin and punishment.\n    Behold, our master, King David, had a son, wise and of an\n    understanding heart, like unto whom there was never one before or\n    after. Nevertheless he said to him (1 Kings ii. 2): \u2018And keep the\n    charge of the Lord thy God,\u2019 etc. He also said to him: \u2018And thou,\n    my son, know the God of thy father\u2019 (1 Chron. xxviii. 9). Now, my\n    son, if thou wilt measure thyself with Solomon, thou wilt find\n    thyself a worm\u2014not a man, merely an insect; nevertheless, if thou\n    wilt seek God, he will make thee great; and if thou wilt forsake\n    him, thou wilt be turned out and forsaken. My son, be careful that\n    thou read the _Shema_(105) morning and evening, as well as that\n    thou say the daily prayers. Have always with thee a Pentateuch\n    written correctly, and read therein the Lesson for each\n    Sabbath.... \u2018Cast thy burden upon the Lord,\u2019 for the thing which\n    thou believest far from thee is often very near unto thee. Know,\n    again, that thou art not master over thy words, nor hast power\n    over thy hand; but everything is in the hand of the Lord, who\n    formeth thy heart.... Be especially careful to keep aloof from the\n    women [of the court?]. Know that our God hates immorality, and\n    Balaam could in no other way injure Israel than by inciting them\n    to unchastity. [Here come many quotations from Malachi and\n    Ezra.]... My son, remember me always, and let the image of my\n    countenance be never absent from before thine eyes. Love not that\n    which I hate.... Let the words of the Psalmist be always upon thy\n    lips, \u2018I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments\n    from me\u2019 (Ps. cxix. 19); and God, who is good and the dispenser of\n    good, shall increase thy peace and prolong thy life in peace and\n    happiness, and promote thy honour according to thy wish and the\n    wish of thy father who begat thee, Moses ben Nachman.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nV. A JEWISH BOSWELL\n\n\nThere is a saying in the Talmud \u201cNothing exists of which there is not some\nindication in the Torah.\u201d These words are often quoted, and some modern\nauthors have pressed them so far as to find even the discoveries of\nColumbus and the inventions of Watt and Stephenson indicated in the Law.\nThis is certainly misapplied ingenuity. But it is hardly an exaggeration\nto maintain that there is no noble manifestation of real religion, no\nexpression of real piety, reverence, and devotion, to which Jewish\nliterature would not offer a fair parallel.\n\nThus it will hardly be astonishing to hear that Jewish literature has its\nBoswell to show, more than three centuries before the Scottish gentleman\ncame to London to admire his Johnson, and more than four centuries before\nthe Sage of Chelsea delivered his lectures on Hero Worship. And this\nJewish Boswell was guided only by the motives suggested to him in the old\nRabbinic literature. In this literature the reverence for the great man,\nand the absorption of one\u2019s whole self in him, went so far that one Rabbi\ndeclared that the whole world was only created to serve such a man as\ncompany.(106)\n\nAgain, the fact that, in the language of the Rabbis, the term for studying\nthe Law and discussing it is \u201cto attend\u201d or rather \u201cto serve the disciples\nof the Wise\u201d may also have led people to the important truth that the\ngreat man is not a lecturing machine, but a sort of living Law himself.\n\u201cWhen the man,\u201d said one Rabbi, \u201chas wholly devoted himself to the Torah,\nand thoroughly identified himself with it, it becomes almost his own\nTorah.\u201d Thus people have not only to listen to his words but to observe\nhis whole life, and to profit from all his actions and movements.\n\nThis was what the Jewish Boswell sought to do. His name was Rabbi Solomon,\nof St. Goar, a small town on the Rhine, while the name of the master whom\nhe served was R. Jacob, the Levite, better known by his initials Maharil,\nwho filled the office of Chief Rabbi in Mayence and Worms successively.\nThe main activity of Maharil falls in the first three decades of the\nfifteenth century. Those were troublous times for a Rabbi. For the\npreceding century with its persecution and sufferings\u2014one has only to\nthink of the Black Death and its terrible consequences for the Jews\u2014led to\nthe destruction of the great Schools, the decay of the study of the Law,\nand to the dissolution of many congregations. Those which remained lost\nall touch with each other, so that almost every larger Jewish community\nhad its own _Minhag_ or ritual custom.(107)\n\nIt was Maharil who brought some order into this chaos, and in the course\nof time his influence asserted itself so strongly that the rules observed\nby him in the performing of religious ceremonies were accepted by the\ngreat majority of the Jewish communities. Thus the personality of Maharil\nhimself became a standing Minhag, suppressing all the other Minhagim\n(customs).\n\nBut there must have been something very strong and very great about the\npersonality of the man who could succeed in such an arduous task. For we\nmust not forget that the Minhag or custom in its decay degenerates into a\nkind of religious fashion, the worst disease to which religion is liable,\nand the most difficult to cure. It is therefore an irreparable loss both\nfor Jewish literature and for Jewish history, that the greatest part of\nMaharil\u2019s posthumous writings are no longer extant, so that our knowledge\nabout him is very small. But the little we know of him we owe chiefly to\nthe communicativeness of his servant, the Solomon of St. Goar whom I\nmentioned above.\n\nSolomon not only gave us the \u201cCustoms\u201d of his master, but also observed\nhim closely in all his movements, and conscientiously wrote down all that\nhe saw and heard, under the name of _Collectanea_. It seems that the bulk\nof these _Collectanea_ was also lost. But in the fragments that we still\npossess we are informed, among other things, how Maharil addressed his\nwife, how he treated his pupils, how careful he was in the use of his\nbooks, and even how clean his linen was. Is this not out\u2010Boswelling\nBoswell?\n\nThe most striking point of agreement between the Boswell of the fifteenth\nand him of the eighteenth century, is that they both use the same passage\nfrom the Talmud to excuse the interest in trifles which their labours of\nlove betrayed. Thus Solomon prefaces his _Collectanea_ with the following\nwords: \u201cIt is written, His leaf shall not wither. These words were\nexplained by our Sages to mean that even the idle talk of the disciples of\nthe wise deserves a study. Upon this interpretation I have relied. In my\nlove to R. Jacob the Levite, I collected everything about him. I did not\nrefuse even small things, though many derided me. Everything I wrote down,\nfor such was the desire of my heart.\u201d\n\nThus far Solomon. Now, if we turn to the introduction to Boswell\u2019s _Life\nof Johnson_, we read the following sentence: \u201cFor this almost\nsuperstitious reverence, I have found very old and venerable authority\nquoted by our great modern prelate, Secker, in whose tenth sermon there is\nthe following passage: \u2018Rabbi Kimchi, a noted Jewish commentator who lived\nabout five hundred years ago, explains that passage in the first Psalm,\n\u201cHis leaf also shall not wither\u201d from Rabbins yet older than himself, that\neven the idle talk, so he expressed it, of a good man ought to be\nregarded.\u2019 \u201d\n\nCroker\u2019s note to this passage sounds rather strange. This editor says:\n\u201cKimchi was a Spanish Rabbi, who died in 1240. One wonders that Secker\u2019s\ngood sense should have condescended to quote this far\u2010fetched and futile\ninterpretation of the simple and beautiful metaphor, by which the Psalmist\nillustrates the prosperity of the righteous man.\u201d Now Kimchi died at least\nfive years earlier than Croker states, but dates, we know from Macaulay\u2019s\nessay on the subject, were not Croker\u2019s strong point. But one can hardly\nforgive the editor of Boswell this lack of sympathy. Had he known what\nstrong affinity there was between his most Christian author and the humble\nJew Solomon, he would have less resented this condescension of Archbishop\nSecker.\n\nAs for the Jewish Boswell himself, we know very little about him. The only\nplace in which he speaks about his own person is that in which he derives\nhis pedigree from R. Eleazar ben Samuel Hallevi (died 1357), and says that\nhe was generally called \u201cDer gute (the good) R. Salman.\u201d He well deserved\nthis appellation. In his Will we find the following injunction to his\nchildren: \u201cBe honest, and conscientious in your dealing with men, with\nJews as well as Gentiles, be kind and obliging to them; do not speak what\nis superfluous.\u201d And wisdom is surely rare enough to render inappropriate\na charge of superfluousness against the work of those who in bygone times\nspent their energies in gathering the crumbs that fell from the tables of\nthe wise.\n\n\n\n\n\nVI. THE DOGMAS OF JUDAISM\n\n\nThe object of this essay is to say about the dogmas of Judaism a word\nwhich I think ought not to be left unsaid.\n\nIn speaking of dogmas it must be understood that Judaism does not ascribe\nto them any saving power. The belief in a dogma or a doctrine without\nabiding by its real or supposed consequences (_e.g._ the belief in\n_creatio ex nihilo_ without keeping the Sabbath) is of no value. And the\nquestion about certain doctrines is not whether they possess or do not\npossess the desired charm against certain diseases of the soul, but\nwhether they ought to be considered as characteristics of Judaism or not.\n\nIt must again be premised that the subject, which occupied the thoughts of\nthe greatest and noblest Jewish minds for so many centuries, has been\nneglected for a comparatively long time. And this for various reasons.\nFirst, there is Mendelssohn\u2019s assertion, or supposed assertion, in his\n_Jerusalem_, that Judaism has no dogmas\u2014an assertion which has been\naccepted by the majority of modern Jewish theologians as the only dogma\nJudaism possesses. You can hear it pronounced in scores of Jewish pulpits;\nyou can read it written in scores of Jewish books. To admit the\npossibility that Mendelssohn was in error was hardly permissible,\nespecially for those with whom he enjoys a certain infallibility. Nay,\neven the fact that he himself was not consistent in his theory, and on\nanother occasion declared that Judaism _has_ dogmas, only that they are\npurer and more in harmony with reason than those of other religions; or\neven the more important fact that he published a school\u2010book for children,\nin which the so\u2010called Thirteen Articles were embodied, only that instead\nof the formula \u201cI believe,\u201d he substituted \u201cI am convinced,\u201d\u2014even such\npatent facts did not produce much effect upon many of our modern\ntheologians.(108) They were either overlooked or explained away so as to\nmake them harmonise with the great dogma of dogmalessness. For it is one\nof the attributes of infallibility that the words of its happy possessor\nmust always be reconcilable even when they appear to the eye of the\nunbeliever as gross contradictions.\n\nAnother cause of the neglect into which the subject has fallen is that our\ncentury is an _historical_ one. It is not only books that have their fate,\nbut also whole sciences and literatures. In past times it was religious\nspeculation that formed the favourite study of scholars, in our time it is\nhistory with its critical foundation on a sound philology. Now as these\ntwo most important branches of Jewish science were so long neglected\u2014were\nperhaps never cultivated in the true meaning of the word, and as Jewish\nliterature is so vast and Jewish history so far\u2010reaching and eventful, we\ncannot wonder that these studies have absorbed the time and the labour of\nthe greatest and best Jewish writers in this century.\n\nThere is, besides, a certain tendency in historical studies that is\nhostile to mere theological speculation. The historian deals with\nrealities, the theologian with abstractions. The latter likes to shape the\nuniverse after his system, and tells us how things _ought to be_, the\nformer teaches us how they _are_ or _have been_, and the explanation he\ngives for their being so and not otherwise includes in most cases also a\nkind of justification for their existence. There is also the _odium\ntheologicum_, which has been the cause of so much misfortune that it is\nhated by the historian, whilst the superficial, rationalistic way in which\nthe theologian manages to explain everything which does not suit his\nsystem is most repulsive to the critical spirit.\n\nBut it cannot be denied that this neglect has caused much confusion.\nEspecially is this noticeable in England, which is essentially a\ntheological country, and where people are but little prone to give up\nspeculation about things which concern their most sacred interest and\ngreatest happiness. Thus whilst we are exceedingly poor in all other\nbranches of Jewish learning, we are comparatively rich in productions of a\ntheological character. We have a superfluity of essays on such delicate\nsubjects as eternal punishment, immortality of the soul, the day of\njudgment, etc., and many treatises on the definition of Judaism. But\nknowing little or nothing of the progress recently made in Jewish\ntheology, of the many protests against all kinds of infallibility, whether\ncanonised in this century or in olden times, we in England still maintain\nthat Judaism has no dogmas as if nothing to the contrary had ever been\nsaid. We seek the foundation of Judaism in political economy, in hygiene,\nin everything except religion. Following the fashion of the day to esteem\nreligion in proportion to its ability to adapt itself to every possible\nand impossible metaphysical and social system, we are anxious to squeeze\nout of Judaism the last drop of faith and hope, and strive to make it so\nflexible that we can turn it in every direction which it is our pleasure\nto follow. But alas! the flexibility has progressed so far as to classify\nJudaism among the invertebrate species, the lowest order of living things.\nIt strongly resembles a certain Christian school which addresses itself to\nthe world in general and claims to satisfy everybody alike. It claims to\nbe socialism for the adherents of Karl Marx and Lassalle, worship of man\nfor the followers of Comte and St. Simon; it carefully avoids the word\n\u201cGod\u201d for the comfort of agnostics and sceptics, whilst on the other hand\nit pretends to hold sway over paradise, hell, and immortality for the\nedification of believers. In such illusions many of our theologians\ndelight. For illusions they are; you cannot be everything if you want to\nbe anything. Moreover, illusions in themselves are bad enough, but we are\nmenaced with what is still worse. Judaism, divested of every higher\nreligious motive, is in danger of falling into gross materialism. For what\nelse is the meaning of such declarations as \u201cBelieve what you like, but\nconform to this or that mode of life\u201d; what else does it mean but \u201cWe\ncannot expect you to believe that the things you are bidden to do are\ncommanded by a higher authority; there is not such a thing as belief, but\nyou ought to do them for conventionalism or for your own convenience.\u201d\n\nBut both these motives\u2014the good opinion of our neighbours, as well as our\nbodily health\u2014have nothing to do with our nobler and higher sentiments,\nand degrade Judaism to a matter of expediency or diplomacy. Indeed, things\nhave advanced so far that well\u2010meaning but ill\u2010advised writers even think\nto render a service to Judaism by declaring it to be a kind of enlightened\nHedonism, or rather a moderate Epicureanism.\n\nI have no intention of here answering the question, What is Judaism? This\nquestion is not less perplexing than the problem, What is God\u2019s world?\nJudaism is also a great Infinite, composed of as many endless Units, the\nJews. And these Unit\u2010Jews have been, and are still, scattered through all\nthe world, and have passed under an immensity of influences, good and bad.\nIf so, how can we give an exact definition of the Infinite, called\nJudaism?\n\nBut if there is anything sure, it is that the highest motives which worked\nthrough the history of Judaism are the strong belief in God and the\nunshaken confidence that at last this God, the God of Israel, will be the\nGod of the whole world; or, in other words, Faith and Hope are the two\nmost prominent characteristics of Judaism.\n\nIn the following pages I shall try to give a short account of the manner\nin which these two principles of Judaism found expression, from the\nearliest times down to the age of Mendelssohn; that is, to present an\noutline of the history of Jewish Dogmas. First, a few observations on the\nposition of the Bible and the Talmud in relation to our theme.\nInsufficient and poor as they may be in proportion to the importance of\nthese two fundamental documents of Judaism, these remarks may nevertheless\nsuggest a connecting link between the teachings of Jewish antiquity and\nthose of Maimonides and his successors.\n\nI begin with the Scriptures.\n\nThe Bible itself hardly contains a command bidding us _to believe_. We are\nhardly ordered, _e.g._, to believe in the existence of God. I say hardly,\nbut I do not altogether deny the existence of such a command. It is true\nthat we do not find in the Scripture such words as: \u201cYou are commanded to\nbelieve in the existence of God.\u201d Nor is any punishment assigned as\nawaiting him who denies it. Notwithstanding these facts, many Jewish\nauthorities\u2014among them such important men as Maimonides, R. Judah Hallevi,\nNachmanides\u2014perceive, in the first words of the Ten Commandments, \u201cI am\nthe Lord thy God,\u201d the command to believe in His existence.(109)\n\nBe this as it may, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that the Bible,\nin which every command is dictated by God, and in which all its heroes are\nthe servants, the friends, or the ambassadors of God, presumes such a\nbelief in every one to whom those laws are dictated, and these heroes\naddress themselves. Nay, I think that the word \u201cbelief\u201d is not even\nadequate. In a world with so many visible facts and invisible causes, as\nlife and death, growth and decay, light and darkness; in a world where the\nsun rises and sets; where the stars appear regularly; where heavy rains\npour down from the sky, often accompanied by such grand phenomena as\nthunder and lightning; in a world full of such marvels, but into which no\nnotion has entered of all our modern true or false explanations\u2014who but\nGod is behind all these things? \u201cHave the gates,\u201d asks God, \u201chave the\ngates of death been open to thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the\nshadow of death?... Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for\ndarkness, where is the place thereof?... Hath the rain a father? or who\nhath begotten the drops of dew?... Canst thou bind the sweet influences of\nPleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?... Canst thou send lightnings, that\nthey may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?\u201d (Job xxxviii.). Of all these\nwonders, God was not merely the _prima causa_; they were the result of His\ndirect action, without any intermediary causes. And it is as absurd to say\nthat the ancient world believed in God, as for a future historian to\nassert of the nineteenth century that it believed in the effects of\nelectricity. We _see_ them, and so antiquity _saw_ God. If there was any\ndanger, it lay not in the denial of the existence of a God, but in having\na wrong belief. Belief in as many gods as there are manifestations in\nnature, the investing of them with false attributes, the misunderstanding\nof God\u2019s relation to men, lead to immorality. Thus the greater part of the\nlaws and teachings of the Bible are either directed against polytheism,\nwith all its low ideas of God, or rather of gods; or they are directed\ntowards regulating God\u2019s relation to men. Man is a servant of God, or His\nprophet, or even His friend. But this relationship man obtains only by his\nconduct. Nay, all man\u2019s actions are carefully regulated by God, and\nconnected with His holiness. The 19th chapter of Leviticus, which is\nconsidered by the Rabbis as the portion of the Law in which the most\nimportant articles of the Torah are embodied, is headed, \u201cYe shall be\nholy, for I the Lord your own God am holy.\u201d And each law therein\noccurring, even those which concern our relations to each other, is _not_\nfounded on utilitarian reasons, but is ordained because the opposite of it\nis an offence to the holiness of God, and profanes His creatures, whom He\ndesired to be as holy as He is.(110)\n\nThus the whole structure of the Bible is built upon the visible fact of\nthe existence of a God, and upon the belief in the relation of God to men,\nespecially to Israel. In spite of all that has been said to the contrary,\nthe Bible _does_ lay stress upon belief, where belief is required. The\nunbelievers are rebuked again and again. \u201cFor all this they sinned still,\nand believed not for His wondrous work,\u201d complains Asaph (Ps. lxxviii.\n32). And belief is praised in such exalted words as, \u201cThus saith the Lord,\nI remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals,\nwhen thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown\u201d\n(Jer. ii. 2). The Bible, especially the books of the prophets, consists,\nin great part, of promises for the future, which the Rabbis justly termed\nthe \u201cConsolations.\u201d(111) For our purpose, it is of no great consequence to\nexamine what future the prophets had in view, whether an immediate future\nor one more remote, at the end of days. At any rate, they inculcated hope\nand confidence that God would bring to pass a better time. I think that\neven the most advanced Bible critic\u2014provided he is not guided by some\nmodern Aryan reasons\u2014must perceive in such passages as, \u201cThe Lord shall\nreign for ever and ever,\u201d \u201cThe Lord shall rejoice in his works,\u201d and many\nothers, a hope for more than the establishment of the \u201cnational Deity\namong his votaries in Palestine.\u201d\n\nWe have now to pass over an interval of many centuries, the length of\nwhich depends upon the views held as to the date of the close of the\ncanon, and examine what the Rabbis, the representatives of the prophets,\nthought on this subject. Not that the views of the author of the _Wisdom\nof Solomon_, of Philo and Aristobulus, and many others of the Jud\u00e6o\u2010\nAlexandrian school would be uninteresting for us. But somehow their\ninfluence on Judaism was only a passing one, and their doctrines never\nbecame authoritative in the Synagogue. We must here confine ourselves to\nthose who, even by the testimony of their bitterest enemies, occupied the\nseat of Moses.\n\nThe successors of the prophets had to deal with new circumstances, and\naccordingly their teachings were adapted to the wants of their times. As\nthe result of manifold foreign influences, the visible fact of the\nexistence of God as manifested in the Bible had been somewhat obscured.\nProphecy ceased, and the Holy Spirit which inspired a few chosen ones took\nits place. Afterwards this influence was reduced to the hearing of a Voice\nfrom Heaven, which was audible to still fewer. On the other hand the\nRabbis had this advantage that they were not called upon to fight against\nidolatry as their predecessors the prophets had been. The evil inclination\nto worship idols was, as the Talmud expresses it allegorically, killed by\nthe Men of the Great Synagogue, or, as we should put it, it was suppressed\nby the sufferings of the captivity in Babylon. This change of\ncircumstances is marked by the following fact:\u2014Whilst the prophets mostly\nconsidered idolatry as the cause of all sin, the Rabbis show a strong\ntendency to ascribe sin to a defect in, or a want of, belief on the part\nof the sinner. They teach that Adam would not have sinned unless he had\nfirst denied the \u201cRoot of all\u201d (or the main principle), namely, the belief\nin the Omnipresence of God. Of Cain they say that before murdering his\nbrother he declared: \u201cThere is no judgment, there is no judge, there is no\nworld to come, and there is no reward for the just, and no punishment for\nthe wicked.\u201d(112)\n\nIn another place we read that the commission of a sin in secret is an\nimpertinent attempt by the doer to oust God from the world. But if\nunbelief is considered as the root of all evil, we may expect that the\nreverse of it, a perfect faith, would be praised in the most exalted\nterms. So we read: Faith is so great that the man who possesses it may\nhope to become a worthy vessel of the Holy Spirit, or, as we should\nexpress it, that he may hope to obtain by this power the highest degree of\ncommunion with his Maker. The Patriarch Abraham, notwithstanding all his\nother virtues, only became \u201cthe possessor of both worlds\u201d by the merit of\nhis strong faith. Nay, even the fulfilment of a single law when\naccompanied by true faith is, according to the Rabbis, sufficient to bring\nman nigh to God. And the future redemption is also conditional on the\ndegree of faith shown by Israel.(113)\n\nIt has often been asked what the Rabbis would have thought of a man who\nfulfils every commandment of the Torah, but does not believe that this\nTorah was given by God, or that there exists a God at all. It is indeed\nvery difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty. In\nthe time of the Rabbis people were still too simple for such a diplomatic\nreligion, and conformity in the modern sense was quite an unknown thing.\nBut from the foregoing remarks it would seem that the Rabbis could not\nconceive such a monstrosity as atheistic orthodoxy. For, as we have seen,\nthe Rabbis thought that unbelief must needs end in sin, for faith is the\norigin of all good. Accordingly, in the case just supposed they would have\neither suspected the man\u2019s orthodoxy, or would have denied that his views\nwere really what he professed them to be.\n\nStill more important than the above cited Agadic passages is one which we\nare about to quote from the tractate Sanhedrin. This tractate deals with\nthe constitution, of the supreme law\u2010court, the examination of the\nwitnesses, the functions of the judges, and the different punishment to be\ninflicted on the transgressors of the law. After having enumerated various\nkinds of capital punishment, the Mishnah adds the following words: \u201cThese\nare (the men) who are excluded from the life to come: He who says there is\nno resurrection from death; he who says there is no Torah given from\nheaven, and the Epikurus.\u201d(114) This passage was considered by the Rabbis\nof the Middle Ages, as well as by modern scholars, the _locus classicus_\nfor the dogma question. There are many passages in the Rabbinic literature\nwhich exclude man from the world to come for this or that sin. But these\nare more or less of an Agadic (legendary) character, and thus lend\nthemselves to exaggeration and hyperbolic language. They cannot,\ntherefore, be considered as serious legal dicta, or as the general opinion\nof the Rabbis.\n\nThe Mishnah in Sanhedrin, however, has, if only by its position in a legal\ntractate, a certain _Halachic_ (obligatory) character. And the fact that\nso early an authority as R. Akiba made additions to it guarantees its high\nantiquity. The first two sentences of this Mishnah are clear enough. In\nmodern language, and positively speaking, they would represent articles of\nbelief in Resurrection and Revelation. Great difficulty is found in\ndefining what was meant by the word _Epikurus_. The authorities of the\nMiddle Ages, to whom I shall again have to refer, explain the Epikurus to\nbe a man who denies the belief in reward and punishment; others identify\nhim with one who denies the belief in Providence; while others again\nconsider the Epikurus to be one who denies Tradition. But the parallel\npassages in which it occurs incline one rather to think that this word\ncannot be defined by one kind of heresy. It implies rather a frivolous\ntreatment of the words of Scripture or of Tradition. In the case of the\nlatter (Tradition) it is certainly not honest difference of opinion that\nis condemned; for the Rabbis themselves differed very often from each\nother, and even Medi\u00e6val authorities did not feel any compunction about\nexplaining Scripture in variance with the Rabbinic interpretation, and\nsometimes they even went so far as to declare that the view of this or\nthat great authority was only to be considered as an isolated opinion not\ndeserving particular attention. What they did blame was, as already said,\nscoffing and impiety. We may thus safely assert that reverence for the\nteachers of Israel formed the third essential principle of Judaism.(115)\n\nI have still to remark that there occur in the Talmud such passages as\n\u201cthe Jew, even if he has sinned, is still a Jew,\u201d or \u201cHe who denies\nidolatry is called a Jew.\u201d These and similar passages have been used to\nprove that Judaism was not a positive religion, but only involved the\nnegation of idolatry. But it has been overlooked that the statements\nquoted have more a legal than a theological character. The Jew belonged to\nhis nationality even after having committed the greatest sin, just as the\nEnglishman does not cease to be an Englishman\u2014in regard to treason and the\nlike\u2014by having committed a heinous crime. But he has certainly acted in a\nvery un\u2010English way, and having outraged the feelings of the whole nation\nwill have to suffer for his misconduct. The Rabbis in a similar manner did\nnot maintain that he who gave up the belief in Revelation and\nResurrection, and treated irreverently the teachers of Israel, severed his\nconnection with the Jewish nation, but that, for his crime, he was going\nto suffer the heaviest punishment. He was to be excluded from the world to\ncome.\n\nStill, important as is the passage quoted from Sanhedrin, it would be\nerroneous to think that it exhausted the creed of the Rabbis. The liturgy\nand innumerable passages in the Midrashim show that they ardently clung to\nthe belief in the advent of the Messiah. All their hope was turned to the\nfuture redemption and the final establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on\nearth. Judaism, stripped of this belief, would have been for them devoid\nof meaning. The belief in reward and punishment is also repeated again and\nagain in the old Rabbinic literature. A more emphatic declaration of the\nbelief in Providence than is conveyed by the following passages is hardly\nconceivable. \u201cEverything is foreseen, and free will is given. And the\nworld is judged by grace.\u201d Or, \u201cthe born are to die, and the dead to\nrevive, and the living to be judged. For to know and to notify, and that\nit may be known that He (God) is the Framer and He the Creator, and He the\nDiscerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness,\u201d etc.(116)\n\nBut it must not be forgotten that it was not the habit of the Rabbis to\nlay down, either for conduct or for doctrine, rules which were commonly\nknown. When they urged the three points stated above there must have been\nsome historical reason for it. Probably these principles were controverted\nby some heretics. Indeed, the whole tone of the passage cited from\nSanhedrin is a protest against certain unbelievers who are threatened with\npunishment. Other beliefs, not less essential, but less disputed, remain\nunmentioned, because there was no necessity to assert them.\n\nIt was not till a much later time, when the Jews came into closer contact\nwith new philosophical schools, and also new creeds which were more liable\nthan heathenism was to be confused with Judaism, that this necessity was\nfelt. And thus we are led at once to the period when the Jews became\nacquainted with the teachings of the Mohammedan schools. The Caraites came\nvery early into contact with non\u2010Jewish systems. And so we find that they\nwere also the first to formulate Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a\nsystematic order. It is also possible that their separation from the\nTradition, and their early division into little sects among themselves,\ncompelled them to take this step, in order to avoid further sectarianism.\n\nThe number of their dogmas amounts to ten. According to Judah Hadasi\n(1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their\ndogmas include the following articles:\u20141. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 2. The\nexistence of a Creator, God; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as\nincorporeal; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God; 5. God has\ngiven to us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not\nwanting the addition of the so\u2010called Oral Law; 6. The Torah must be\nstudied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language; 7. The Holy Temple\nwas a place elected by God for His manifestation; 8. Resurrection of the\ndead; 9. Punishment and reward after death; 10. The Coming of the Messiah,\nthe son of David.\n\nHow far the predecessors of Hadasi were influenced by a certain Joseph\nAlbashir (about 950), of whom there exists a manuscript work, \u201cRudiments\nof Faith,\u201d I am unable to say. The little we know of him reveals more of\nhis intimacy with Arabic thoughts than of his importance for his sect in\nparticular and for Judaism in general. After Hadasi I shall mention here\nElijah Bashazi, a Caraite writer of the end of the fifteenth century. This\nauthor, who was much influenced by Maimonides, omits the second and the\nseventh articles. In order to make up the ten he numbers the belief in the\neternity of God as an article, and divides the fourth article into two. In\nthe fifth article Bashazi does not emphasise so strongly the completeness\nof the Torah as Hadasi, and omits the portion which is directed against\nTradition. It is interesting to see the distinction which Bashazi draws\nbetween the Pentateuch and the Prophets. While he thinks that the five\nbooks of Moses can never be altered, he regards the words of the Prophets\nas only relating to their contemporaries, and thus subject to changes. As\nI do not want to anticipate Maimonides\u2019 system, I must refrain from giving\nhere the articles laid down by Solomon Troki in the beginning of the\neighteenth century. For the articles of Maimonides are copied by this\nwriter with a few slight alterations so as to dress them in a Caraite\ngarb.\n\nI must dismiss the Caraites with these few remarks, my object being\nchiefly to discuss the dogmas of the Synagogue from which they had\nseparated themselves. Besides, as in everything Caraitic, there is no\nfurther development of the question. As Bashazi laid them down, they are\nstill taught by the Caraites of to\u2010day. I return to the Rabbanites.(117)\n\nAs is well known, Maimonides (1130\u20101205), was the first Rabbanite who\nformulated the dogmas of the Synagogue. But there are indications of\nearlier attempts. R. Saadiah Gaon\u2019s (892\u2010942) work, _Creeds and Opinions_,\nshows such traces. He says in his preface, \u201cMy heart sickens to see that\nthe belief of my co\u2010religionists is impure and that their theological\nviews are confused.\u201d The subjects he treats in this book, such as\ncreation, unity of God, resurrection of the dead, the future redemption of\nIsrael, reward and punishment, and other kindred theological subjects\nmight thus, perhaps, be considered as the essentials of the creed that the\nGaon desired to present in a pure and rational form. R. Hannaneel, of\nKairowan,(118) in the first half of the eleventh century, says in one of\nhis commentaries that to deserve eternal life one must believe in _four_\nthings: in God, in the prophets, in a future world where the just will be\nrewarded, and in the advent of the Redeemer. From R. Judah Hallevi\u2019s\n_Cusari_, written in the beginning of the twelfth century, we might argue\nthat the belief in the election of Israel by God was the cardinal dogma of\nthe author.(119) Abraham Ibn Daud, a contemporary of Maimonides, in his\nbook _The High Belief_,(120) speaks of _rudiments_, among which, besides\nsuch metaphysical principles as unity, rational conception of God\u2019s\nattributes, etc., the belief in the immutability of the Law, etc., is\nincluded. Still, all these works are intended to furnish evidence from\nphilosophy or history for the truth of religion rather than to give a\ndefinition of this truth. The latter task was undertaken by Maimonides.\n\nI refer to the thirteen articles embodied in his first work, _The\nCommentary to the Mishnah_. They are appended to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin,\nwith which I dealt above. But though they do not form an independent\ntreatise, Maimonides\u2019 remarks must not be considered as merely incidental.\n\nThat Maimonides was quite conscious of the importance of this exposition\ncan be gathered from the concluding words addressed to the reader: \u201cKnow\nthese (words) and repeat them many times, and think them over in the\nproper way. God knows that thou wouldst be deceiving thyself if thou\nthinkest thou hast understood them by having read them once or even ten\ntimes. Be not, therefore, hasty in perusing them. I have not composed them\nwithout deep study and earnest reflection.\u201d\n\nThe result of this deep study was that the following Thirteen Articles\nconstitute the creed of Judaism. They are:\u2014\n\n1. The belief in the existence of a Creator; 2. The belief in His Unity;\n3. The belief in His Incorporeality; 4. The belief in His Eternity; 5. The\nbelief that all worship and adoration are due to Him alone; 6. The belief\nin Prophecy; 7. The belief that Moses was the greatest of all Prophets,\nboth before and after him; 8. The belief that the Torah was revealed to\nMoses on Mount Sinai; 9. The belief in the Immutability of this revealed\nTorah; 10. The belief that God knows the actions of men; 11. The belief in\nReward and Punishment; 12. The belief in the coming of the Messiah; 13.\nThe belief in the Resurrection of the dead.\n\nThe impulse given by the great philosopher and still greater Jew was\neagerly followed by succeeding generations, and Judaism thus came into\npossession of a dogmatic literature such as it never knew before\nMaimonides. Maimonides is the centre of this literature, and I shall\naccordingly speak in the remainder of this essay of Maimonists and Anti\u2010\nMaimonists. These terms really apply to the great controversy that raged\nround Maimonides\u2019 _Guide of __ the Perplexed_, but I shall, chiefly for\nbrevity\u2019s sake, employ them in these pages in a restricted sense to refer\nto the dispute concerning the Thirteen Articles.\n\nAmong the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews,\nwho accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides\nmust indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap,\nmoreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century\nhad hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the\npoets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show\na poem or a prayer founded on these Articles. R. Jacob Molin (1420) of\nGermany speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the\nburden of which was the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the\ncommon people with great devotion. The numerous commentaries and homilies\nwritten on the same topic would form a small library in themselves.(121)\nBut on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti\u2010Maimonists, that\nis to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated\nby Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong\nand respectable minority. They deserve our attention the more as it is\ntheir works which brought life into the subject and deepened it. It is not\nby a perpetual Amen to every utterance of a great authority that truth or\nliterature gains anything.\n\nThe Anti\u2010Maimonists can be divided into two classes. The one class\ncategorically denies that Judaism has dogmas. I shall have occasion to\ntouch on this view when I come to speak of Abarbanel. Here I pass at once\nto the second class of Anti\u2010Maimonists. This consists of those who agree\nwith Maimonides as to the existence of dogmas in Judaism, but who differ\nfrom him as to what these dogmas are, or who give a different enumeration\nof them.\n\nAs the first of these Anti\u2010Maimonists we may regard Nachmanides, who, in\nhis famous _Sermon in the Presence of the King_, speaks of three\nfundamental principles: Creation (that is, non\u2010eternity of matter),\nOmniscience of God, and Providence. Next comes R. Abba Mari ben Moses, of\nMontpellier. He wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and is\nfamous in Jewish history for his zeal against the study of philosophy. We\npossess a small pamphlet by him dealing with our subject, and it forms a\nkind of prologue to his collection of controversial letters against the\nrationalists of his time.(122) He lays down three articles as the\nfundamental teachings of Religion: 1. Metaphysical: The existence of God,\nincluding His Unity and Incorporeality; 2. Mosaic: _Creatio ex nihilo_ by\nGod\u2014a consequence of this principle is the belief that God is capable of\naltering the laws of nature at His pleasure; 3. Ethical: Special\nProvidence\u2014_i.e._ God knows all our actions in all their details. Abba\nMari does not mention Maimonides\u2019 Thirteen Articles. But it would be false\nto conclude that he rejected the belief in the coming of the Messiah, or\nany other article of Maimonides. The whole tone and tendency of this\npamphlet is polemical, and it is therefore probable that he only urged\nthose points which were either doubted or explained in an unorthodox way\nby the sceptics of his time.\n\nAnother scholar, of Provence, who wrote but twenty years later than Abba\nMari\u2014R. David ben Samuel d\u2019Estella (1320)\u2014speaks of the seven pillars of\nreligion. They are: Revelation, Providence, Reward and Punishment, the\nComing of the Messiah, Resurrection of the Dead, _Creatio ex nihilo_, and\nFree Will.(123)\n\nOf authors living in other countries, I have to mention here R. Shemariah,\nof Crete, who flourished at about the same time as R. David d\u2019Estella, and\nis known from his efforts to reconcile the Caraites with the Rabbanites.\nThis author wrote a book for the purpose of furnishing Jewish students\nwith evidence for what he considered the five fundamental teachings of\nJudaism, viz.: 1. The Existence of God; 2. The Incorporeality of God; 3.\nHis Absolute Unity; 4. That God created heaven and earth; 5. That God\ncreated the world after His will 5106 years ago\u20145106 (1346 A.C.), being\nthe year in which Shemariah wrote these words.(124)\n\nIn Portugal, at about the same time, we find R. David ben Yom\u2010Tob Bilia\nadding to the articles of Maimonides thirteen of his own, which he calls\nthe \u201cFundamentals of the Thinking Man.\u201d Five of these articles relate to\nthe functions of the human soul, that, according to him, emanated from\nGod, and to the way in which this divine soul receives its punishment and\nreward. The other eight articles are as follows: 1. The belief in the\nexistence of spiritual beings\u2014angels; 2. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 3. The\nbelief in the existence of another world, and that this other world is\nonly a spiritual one; 4. The Torah is above philosophy; 5. The Torah has\nan outward (literal) meaning and an inward (allegorical) meaning; 6. The\ntext of the Torah is not subject to any emendation; 7. The reward of a\ngood action is the good work itself, and the doer must not expect any\nother reward; 8. It is only by the \u201ccommands relating to the heart,\u201d for\ninstance, the belief in one eternal God, the loving and fearing Him, and\nnot through good actions, that man attains the highest degree of\nperfection.(125) Perhaps it would be suitable to mention here another\ncontemporaneous writer, who also enumerates twenty\u2010six articles. The name\nof this writer is unknown, and his articles are only gathered from\nquotations by later authors. It would seem from these quotations that the\narticles of this unknown author consisted mostly of statements emphasising\nthe belief in the attributes of God: as, His Eternity, His Wisdom and\nOmnipotence, and the like.(126)\n\nMore important for our subject are the productions of the fifteenth\ncentury, especially those of Spanish authors. The fifteen articles of R.\nLipman Muhlhausen, in the preface to his well\u2010known _Book of Victory_(127)\n(1410), differ but slightly from those of Maimonides. In accordance with\nthe anti\u2010Christian tendency of his polemical book, he lays more stress on\nthe two articles of Unity and Incorporeality, and makes of them four. We\ncan therefore dismiss him with this short remark, and pass at once to the\nSpanish Rabbis.\n\nThe first of these is R. Chasdai Ibn Crescas, who composed his famous\ntreatise, _The Light of God_, about 1405. Chasdai\u2019s book is well known for\nits attacks on Aristotle, and also for its influence on Spinoza. But\nChasdai deals also with Maimonides\u2019 Thirteen Articles, to which he was\nvery strongly opposed. Already in his preface he attacks Maimonides for\nspeaking, in his _Book of the Commandments_, of the belief in the\nexistence of God as an \u201caffirmative precept.\u201d Chasdai thinks it absurd;\nfor every commandment must be dictated by some authority, but on whose\nauthority can we dictate the acceptance of this authority? His general\nobjection to the Thirteen Articles is that Maimonides confounded dogmas or\n_fundamental beliefs_ of Judaism, without which Judaism is inconceivable,\nwith beliefs or _doctrines_ which Judaism inculcates, but the denial of\nwhich, though involving a strong heresy, does not make Judaism impossible.\nHe maintains that if Maimonides meant only to count fundamental teachings,\nthere are not more than seven; but that if he intended also to include\ndoctrines, he ought to have enumerated sixteen. As beliefs of the first\nclass\u2014namely, fundamental beliefs\u2014he considers the following articles: 1.\nGod\u2019s knowledge of our actions; 2. Providence; 3. God\u2019s omnipotence\u2014even\nto act against the laws of nature; 4. Prophecy; 5. Free will; 6. The aim\nof the Torah is to make man long after the closest communion with God. The\nbelief in the existence of God, Chasdai thinks, is an axiom with which\nevery religion must begin, and he is therefore uncertain whether to\ninclude it as a dogma or not. As to the doctrines which every Jew is bound\nto believe, but without which Judaism is not impossible, Chasdai divides\nthem into two sections: (_a_) 1. _Creatio ex nihilo_; 2. Immortality of\nthe soul; 3. Reward and Punishment; 4. Resurrection of the dead; 5.\nImmutability of the Torah; 6. Superiority of the prophecy of Moses; 7.\nThat the High Priest received from God the instructions sought for, when\nhe put his questions through the medium of the Urim and Thummim; 8. The\ncoming of the Messiah. (_b_) Doctrines which are expressed by certain\nreligious ceremonies, and on belief in which these ceremonies are\nconditioned: 1. The belief in the efficacy of prayer\u2014as well as in the\npower of the benediction of the priests to convey to us the blessing of\nGod; 2. God is merciful to the penitent; 3. Certain days in the year\u2014for\ninstance, the Day of Atonement\u2014are especially qualified to bring us near\nto God, if we keep them in the way we are commanded. That Chasdai is a\nlittle arbitrary in the choice of his \u201cdoctrines,\u201d I need hardly say.\nIndeed, Chasdai\u2019s importance for the dogma\u2010question consists more in his\ncritical suggestions than in his positive results. He was, as we have\nseen, the first to make the distinction between fundamental teachings\nwhich form the basis of Judaism, and those other simple Jewish doctrines\nwithout which Judaism is not impossible. Very daring is his remark, when\nproving that Reward and Punishment, Immortality of the soul, and\nResurrection of the dead must not be considered as the basis of Judaism,\nsince the highest ideal of religion is to serve God without any hope of\nreward. Even more daring are his words concerning the Immutability of the\nLaw. He says: \u201cSome have argued that, since God is perfection, so must\nalso His law be perfect, and thus unsusceptible of improvement.\u201d But he\ndoes not think this argument conclusive, though the fact in itself (the\nImmutability of the Law) is true. For one might answer that this\nperfection of the Torah could only be in accordance with the intelligence\nof those for whom it was meant; but as soon as the recipients of the Torah\nhave advanced to a higher state of perfection, the Torah must also be\naltered to suit their advanced intelligence. A pupil of Chasdai\nillustrates the words of his master by a medical parallel. The physician\nhas to adapt his medicaments to the various stages through which his\npatient has to pass. That he changes his prescription does not, however,\nimply that his medical knowledge is imperfect, or that his earlier\nremedies were ignorantly chosen; the varying condition of the invalid was\nthe cause of the variation in the doctor\u2019s treatment. Similarly, were not\nthe Immutability of the Torah a \u201cdoctrine,\u201d one might maintain that the\nperfection of the Torah would not be inconsistent with the assumption that\nit was susceptible of modification, in accordance with our changing and\nprogressive circumstances. But all these arguments are purely of a\ntheoretic character; for, practically, every Jew, according to Chasdai,\nhas to accept all these beliefs, whether he terms them fundamental\nteachings or only Jewish doctrines.(128)\n\nSome years later, though he finished his work in the same year as Chasdai,\nR. Simeon Duran (1366\u20101444,) a younger contemporary of the former, made\nhis researches on dogmas. His studies on this subject form a kind of\nintroduction to his commentary on Job, which he finished in the year 1405.\nDuran is not so strongly opposed to the Thirteen Articles as Chasdai, or\nas another \u201cthinker of our people,\u201d who thought them an arbitrary\nimitation of the thirteen attributes of God. Duran tries to justify\nMaimonides; but nevertheless he agrees with \u201cearlier authorities,\u201d who\nformulated the Jewish creed in Three Articles\u2014The Existence of God,\nRevelation, and Reward and Punishment\u2014under which Duran thinks the\nThirteen Articles of Maimonides may be easily classed. Most interesting\nare his remarks concerning the validity of dogmas. He tells us that only\nthose are to be considered as heretics who abide by their own opinions,\nthough they know that they are contradictory to the views of the Torah.\nThose who accept the fundamental teachings of Judaism, but are led by\ntheir deep studies and earnest reflection to differ in details from the\nopinions current among their co\u2010religionists, and explain certain passages\nin the Scripture in their own way, must by no means be considered as\nheretics. We must, therefore, Duran proceeds to say, not blame such men as\nMaimonides, who gave an allegorical interpretation to certain passages in\nthe Bible about miracles, or R. Levi ben Gershom, who followed certain un\u2010\nJewish views in relation to the belief in _Creatio ex nihilo_. Only the\nviews are condemnable, not those who cherish them. God forbid, says Duran,\nthat such a thing should happen in Israel as to condemn honest inquirers\non account of their differing opinions. It would be interesting to know of\nhow many divines as tolerant as this persecuted Jew the fifteenth century\ncan boast.(129)\n\nWe can now pass to a more popular but less original writer on our theme. I\nrefer to R. Joseph Albo, the author of the _Roots_,(130) who was the pupil\nof Chasdai, a younger contemporary of Duran, and wrote at a much later\nperiod than these authors. Graetz has justly denied him much originality.\nThe chief merit of Albo consists in popularising other people\u2019s thoughts,\nthough he does not always take care to mention their names. And the\nstudent who is a little familiar with the contents of the _Roots_ will\neasily find that Albo has taken his best ideas either from Chasdai or from\nDuran. As it is of little consequence to us whether an article of faith is\ncalled \u201cstem,\u201d or \u201croot,\u201d or \u201cbranch,\u201d there is scarcely anything fresh\nleft to quote in the name of Albo. The late Dr. L\u00f6w, of Szegedin, was\nindeed right, when he answered an adversary who challenged him\u2014\u201cWho would\ndare to declare me a heretic as long as I confess the Three Articles laid\ndown by Albo?\u201d with the words \u201cAlbo himself.\u201d For, after all the subtle\ndistinctions Albo makes between different classes of dogmas, he declares\nthat every one who denies even the immutability of the Law or the coming\nof the Messiah, which are, according to him, articles of minor importance,\nis a heretic who will be excluded from the world to come. But there is one\npoint in his book which is worth noticing. It was suggested to him by\nMaimonides, indeed; still Albo has the merit of having emphasised it as it\ndeserves. Among the articles which he calls \u201cbranches\u201d Albo counts the\nbelief that the perfection of man, which leads to eternal life, can be\nobtained by the fulfilling of _one_ commandment. But this command must, as\nMaimonides points out, be done without any worldly regard, and only for\nthe love of God. When one considers how many platitudes are repeated year\nby year by certain theologians on the subject of Jewish legalism, we\ncannot lay enough stress on this article of Albo, and we ought to make it\nbetter known than it has hitherto been.(131)\n\nThough I cannot enter here into the enumeration of the Maimonists, I must\nnot leave unmentioned the name of R. Nissim ben Moses of Marseilles, the\nfirst great Maimonist, who flourished about the end of the thirteenth\ncentury, and was considered as one of the most enlightened thinkers of his\nage.(132) Another great Maimonist deserving special attention is R.\nAbraham ben Shem\u2010Tob Bibago, who may perhaps be regarded as the most\nprominent among those who undertook to defend Maimonides against the\nattacks of Chasdai and others. Bibago wrote _The Path of Belief_(133) in\nthe second half of the fifteenth century, and was, as Dr. Steinschneider\naptly describes him, a _Denkgl\u00e4ubiger_. But, above all, he was a believing\nJew. When he was once asked, at the table of King John II., of Aragon, by\na Christian scholar, \u201cAre you the Jewish philosopher?\u201d he answered, \u201cI am\na Jew who believes in the Law given to us by our teacher Moses, though I\nhave studied philosophy.\u201d Bibago was such a devoted admirer of Maimonides\nthat he could not tolerate any opposition to him. He speaks in one passage\nof the prudent people of his time who, in desiring to be looked upon as\northodox by the great mob, calumniated the Teacher (Maimonides), and\ndepreciated his merits. Bibago\u2019s book is very interesting, especially in\nits controversial parts; but in respect to dogmas he is, as already said,\na Maimonist, and does not contribute any new point on our subject.\n\nTo return to the Anti\u2010Maimonists of the second half of the fifteenth\ncentury. As such may be considered R. Isaac Aramah, who speaks of three\nfoundations of religion: _Creatio ex nihilo_, Revelation (?), and the\nbelief in a world to come.(134) Next to be mentioned is R. Joseph Jabez,\nwho also accepts only three articles: _Creatio ex nihilo_, Individual\nProvidence, and the Unity of God.(135) Under these three heads he tries to\nclassify the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides.\n\nThe last Spanish writer on our subject is R. Isaac Abarbanel. His treatise\non the subject is known under the title _Top of Amanah_,(136) and was\nfinished in the year 1495. The greatest part of this treatise forms a\ndefence of Maimonides, many points in which are taken from Bibago. But, in\nspite of this fact, Abarbanel must not be considered a Maimonist. It is\nonly a feeling of piety towards Maimonides, or perhaps rather a fondness\nfor argument, that made him defend Maimonides against Chasdai and others.\nHis own view is that it is a mistake to formulate dogmas of Judaism, since\nevery word in the Torah has to be considered as a dogma for itself. It was\nonly, says Abarbanel, by following the example of non\u2010Jewish scholars that\nMaimonides and others were induced to lay down dogmas. The non\u2010Jewish\nphilosophers are in the habit of accepting in every science certain\nindisputable axioms from which they deduce the propositions which are less\nevident. The Jewish philosophers in a similar way sought for first\nprinciples in religion from which the whole of the Torah ought to be\nconsidered as a deduction. But, thinks Abarbanel, the Torah as a revealed\ncode is under no necessity of deducing things from each other, for all the\ncommands came from the same divine authority, and, therefore, all are\nalike evident, and have the same certainty. On this and similar grounds\nAbarbanel refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, and he thus\nbecame the head of the school that forms a class by itself among the Anti\u2010\nMaimonists to which many of the greatest Cabbalists also belong. But it is\nidle talk to cite this school in aid of the modern theory that Judaism has\nno dogmas. As we have seen, it was rather an _embarras de richesse_ that\nprevented Abarbanel from accepting the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides. To\nhim and to the Cabbalists the Torah consists of at least 613 Articles.\n\nAbarbanel wrote his book with which we have just dealt, at Naples. And it\nis Italy to which, after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, we have to\nlook chiefly for religious speculation. But the philosophers of Italy are\nstill less independent of Maimonides than their predecessors in Spain.\nThus we find that R. David Messer Leon, R. David Vital, and others were\nMaimonists. Even the otherwise refined and original thinker, R. Elijah\nDelmedigo (who died about the end of the fifteenth century) becomes almost\nimpolite when he speaks of the adversaries of Maimonides in respect to\ndogmas. \u201cIt was only,\u201d he says, \u201cthe would\u2010be philosopher that dared to\nquestion the articles of Maimonides. Our people have always the bad habit\nof thinking themselves competent to attack the greatest authorities as\nsoon as they have got some knowledge of the subject. Genuine thinkers,\nhowever, attach very little importance to their objections.\u201d(137)\n\nIndeed, it seems as if the energetic protests of Delmedigo scared away the\nAnti\u2010Maimonists for more than a century. Even in the following seventeenth\ncentury we have to notice only two Anti\u2010Maimonists. The one is R. Tobijah,\nthe Priest (1652), who was of Polish descent, studied in Italy, and lived\nas a medical man in France. He seems to refuse to accept the belief in the\nImmutability of the Torah, and in the coming of the Messiah, as\nfundamental teachings of Judaism.(138) The other, at the end of the\nseventeenth century (1695), is R. Abraham Chayim Viterbo, of Italy. He\naccepts only six articles: 1. Existence of God; 2. Unity; 3.\nIncorporeality; 4. That God was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and that\nthe prophecy of Moses is true; 5. Revelation (including the historical\nparts of the Torah); 6. Reward and Punishment. As to the other articles of\nMaimonides, Viterbo, in opposition to other half\u2010hearted Anti\u2010Maimonists,\ndeclares that the man who denies them is _not_ to be considered as a\nheretic; though he ought to believe them.(139)\n\nI have now arrived at the limit I set to myself at the beginning of this\nessay. For, between the times of Viterbo and those of Mendelssohn, there\nis hardly to be found any serious opposition to Maimonides worth noticing\nhere. Still I must mention the name of R. Saul Berlin (died 1794); there\nis much in his opinions on dogmas which will help us the better to\nunderstand the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides. As the reader has seen, I\nhave refrained so far from reproducing here the apologies which were made\nby many Maimonists in behalf of the Thirteen Articles. For, after all\ntheir elaborate pleas, none of them was able to clear Maimonides of the\ncharge of having confounded dogmas or fundamental teachings with\ndoctrines. It is also true that the Fifth Article\u2014that prayer and worship\nmust only be offered to God\u2014cannot be considered even as a doctrine, but\nas a simple precept. And there are other difficulties which all the\ndistinctions of the Maimonists will never be able to solve. The only\npossible justification is, I think, that suggested by a remark of R. Saul.\nThis author, who was himself\u2014like his friend and older contemporary\nMendelssohn\u2014a strong Anti\u2010Maimonist, among other remarks, maintains that\ndogmas must never be laid down but with regard to the necessities of the\ntime.(140)\n\nNow R. Saul certainly did not doubt that Judaism is based on eternal\ntruths which can in no way be shaken by new modes of thinking or changed\ncircumstances. What he meant was that there are in every age certain\nbeliefs which ought to be asserted more emphatically than others, without\nregard to their theological or rather logical importance. It is by this\nmaxim that we shall be able to explain the articles of Maimonides. He\nasserted them, because they were necessary for his time.\n\nWe know, for instance, from a letter of his son and from other\ncontemporaries, that it was just at his time that the belief in the\nincorporeality of God was, in the opinion of Maimonides, a little relaxed.\nMaimonides, who thought such low notions of the Deity dangerous to\nJudaism, therefore laid down an article against them. He tells us in his\n_Guide_ that it was far from him to condemn any one who was not able to\ndemonstrate the Incorporeality of God, but he stigmatised as a heretic one\nwho refused to believe it. This position might be paralleled by that of a\nmodern astronomer who, while considering it unreasonable to expect a\nmathematical demonstration of the movements of the earth from an ordinary\nunscientific man, would yet regard the person who refused to believe in\nsuch movements as an ignorant faddist.\n\nAgain, Maimonides undoubtedly knew that there may be found in the\nTalmud\u2014that bottomless sea with its innumerable undercurrents\u2014passages\nthat are not quite in harmony with his articles; for instance, the well\u2010\nknown dictum of R. Hillel, who said, there is no Messiah for Israel\u2014a\npassage which has already been quoted _ad nauseam_ by every opponent of\nMaimonides from the earliest times down to the year of grace 1896.\nMaimonides was well aware of the existence of this and similar passages.\nBut, being deeply convinced of the necessity of the belief in a future\nredemption of _Israel_\u2014in opposition to other creeds which claim this\nredemption exclusively for their own adherents\u2014Maimonides simply ignored\nthe saying of R. Hillel, as an isolated opinion which contradicts all the\nconsciousness and traditions of the Jew as expressed in thousands of other\npassages, and especially in the liturgy. Most interesting is Maimonides\u2019\nview about such isolated opinions in a letter to the wise men of\nMarseilles. He deals there with the question of free will and other\ntheological subjects. After having stated his own view he goes on to say:\n\u201cI know that it is possible to find in the Talmud or in the Midrash this\nor that saying in contradiction to the views you have heard from me. But\nyou must not be troubled by them. One must not refuse to accept a\ndoctrine, the truth of which has been proved, on account of its being in\nopposition to some isolated opinion held by this or that great authority.\nIs it not possible that he overlooked some important considerations when\nhe uttered this strange opinion? It is also possible that his words must\nnot be taken literally, and have to be explained in an allegorical way. We\ncan also think that his words were only to be applied with regard to\ncertain circumstances of his time, but never intended as permanent\ntruths.... No man must surrender his private judgment. The eyes are not\ndirected backwards but forwards.\u201d In another place Maimonides calls the\nsuppression of one\u2019s own opinions\u2014for the reason of their being\nirreconcilable with the isolated views of some great authority\u2014a moral\nsuicide.\n\nBy such motives Maimonides was guided when he left certain views hazarded\nin the Rabbinic literature unheeded, and followed what we may perhaps call\nthe religious instinct, trusting to his own conscience. We may again be\ncertain that Maimonides was clear\u2010headed enough to see that the words of\nthe Torah: \u201cAnd there arose no prophet since in Israel like unto Moses\u201d\n(Deut. xxxiv. 10), were as little intended to imply a doctrine as the\npassage relating to the king Josiah, \u201cAnd like unto him was there no king\nbefore him that turned to the Lord with all his heart ... neither after\nhim arose there any like him\u201d (2 Kings xxiii. 25). And none would think of\ndeclaring the man a heretic who should believe another king to be as pious\nas Josiah. But living among followers of the \u201cimitating creeds\u201d (as he\ncalls Christianity and Mohammedism), who claimed that their religion had\nsuperseded the law of Moses, Maimonides, consciously or unconsciously,\nfelt himself compelled to assert the superiority of the prophecy of Moses.\nAnd so we may guess that every article of Maimonides which seems to offer\ndifficulties to us contains an assertion of some relaxed belief, or a\nprotest against the pretensions of other creeds, though we are not always\nable to discover the exact necessity for them. On the other hand,\nMaimonides did not assert the belief in free will, for which he argued so\nearnestly in his _Guide_. The common \u201cman,\u201d with his simple unspeculative\nmind, for whom these Thirteen Articles were intended, \u201cnever dreamed that\nthe will was not free,\u201d and there was no necessity of impressing on his\nmind things which he had never doubted.(141)\n\nSo much about Maimonides. As to the Anti\u2010Maimonists, it could hardly\nescape the reader that in some of the quoted systems the difference from\nthe view of Maimonides is only a logical one, not a theological. Of some\nauthors again, especially those of the thirteenth and fourteenth\ncenturies, it is not at all certain whether they intended to oppose\nMaimonides. Others again, as for instance R. Abba Mari, R. Lipman, and R.\nJoseph Jabez, acted on the same principle as Maimonides, urging only those\nteachings of Judaism which they thought endangered. One could now, indeed,\nanimated by the praiseworthy example given to us by Maimonides, also\npropose some articles of faith which are suggested to us by the\nnecessities of our own time. One might, for instance, insert the article,\n\u201cI believe that Judaism is, in the first instance, a divine religion,\n_not_ a mere complex of racial peculiarities and tribal customs.\u201d One\nmight again propose an article to the effect that Judaism is a\nproselytising religion, having the mission to bring about God\u2019s kingdom on\nearth, and to include in that kingdom all mankind. One might also submit\nfor consideration whether it would not be advisable to urge a little more\nthe principle that religion means chiefly a _Weltanschauung_ and worship\nof God by means of holiness both in thought and in action. One would even\nnot object to accept the article laid down by R. Saul, that we have to\nlook upon ourselves as sinners. Morbid as such a belief may be, it would,\nif properly impressed on our mind, have perhaps the wholesome effect of\ncooling down a little our self\u2010importance and our mutual admiration that\nmakes all progress among us almost impossible.\n\nBut it was not my purpose to ventilate here the question whether\nMaimonides\u2019 articles are sufficient for us, or whether we ought not to add\nnew ones to them. Nor do I attempt to decide what system we ought to\nprefer for recitation in the Synagogue\u2014that of Maimonides or that of\nChasdai, or of any other writer. I do not think that such a recital is of\nmuch use. My object in this sketch has been rather to make the reader\n_think_ about Judaism, by proving that it regulates not only our actions,\nbut also our thoughts. We usually urge that in Judaism religion means\nlife; but we forget that a life without guiding principles and thoughts is\na life not worth living. At least it was so considered by the greatest\nJewish thinkers, and hence their efforts to formulate the creed of\nJudaism, so that men should not only be able to do the right thing, but\nalso to think the right thing. Whether they succeeded in their attempts\ntowards formulating the creed of Judaism or not will always remain a\nquestion. This concerns the logician more than the theologian. But surely\nMaimonides and his successors _did_ succeed in having a religion depending\ndirectly on God, with the most ideal and lofty aspirations for the future;\nwhilst the Judaism of a great part of our modern theologians reminds one\nvery much of the words with which the author of _Marius the Epicurean_\ncharacterises the Roman religion in the days of her decline: a religion\nwhich had been always something to be done rather than something to be\nthought, or believed, or loved.\n\nPolitical economy, hygiene, statistics, are very fine things. But no sane\nman would for them make those sacrifices which Judaism requires from us.\nIt is only for God\u2019s sake, to fulfil His commands and to accomplish His\npurpose, that religion becomes worth living and dying for. And this can\nonly be possible with a religion which possesses dogmas.\n\nIt is true that every great religion is \u201ca concentration of many ideas and\nideals,\u201d which make this religion able to adapt itself to various modes of\nthinking and living. But there must always be a point round which all\nthese ideas concentrate themselves. This centre is Dogma.\n\n\n\n\n\nVII. THE HISTORY OF JEWISH TRADITION\n\n\nThere is an anecdote about a famous theologian to the effect that he used\nto tell his pupils, \u201cShould I ever grow old and weak\u2014which usually drives\npeople to embrace the safer side\u2014and alter my opinions, then pray do not\nbelieve me.\u201d The concluding volume of Weiss\u2019s _History of Jewish\nTradition_(142) shows that there was no need for our author to warn his\npupils against the dangers accompanying old age. For though Weiss had,\nwhen he began to write this last volume, already exceeded his three\u2010score\nand ten, and, as we read in the preface, had some misgivings as to whether\nhe should continue his work, there is no trace in it of any abatement of\nthe great powers of the author. It is marked by the same freshness in\ndiction, the same marvellous scholarship, the same display of astonishing\ncritical powers, and the same impartial and straightforward way of judging\npersons and things, for which the preceding volumes were so much\ndistinguished and admired.\n\nThis book, which is recognised as a standard work abroad, is, I fear,\nowing to the fact of its being written in the Hebrew language, not\nsufficiently known in this country. Weiss does not want _our_ recognition;\nwe are rather in need of his instruction. Some general view of his\nestimate of Jewish Tradition may, therefore, be of service to the student.\nIt is, indeed, the only work of its kind. Zunz has confined himself to the\nhistory of the Agadah. Graetz gave most of his attention to the political\nside of Jewish history. But comparatively little has been done for the\nHalachah, though Frankel, Geiger, Herzfeld, and others have treated some\nsingle points in various monographs. Thus it was left for Weiss to write\nthe _History of Tradition_, which includes both the Agadah and the\nHalachah. The treatment of this latter must have proved, in consequence of\nthe intricate and intractable nature of its materials, by far the more\ndifficult portion of his task.\n\nIn speaking of the _History_ of Tradition, a term which suggests the\nfluctuating character of a thing, its origin, development, progress, and\nretrogression, we have already indicated that Weiss does not consider even\nthe Halachah as having come down from heaven, ready\u2010made, and definitely\nfixed for all time. To define it more clearly, Tradition is, apart from\nthe few ordinances and certain usages for which there is no precedent in\nthe Bible, the history of interpretation of the Scriptures, which was\nconstantly liable to variation, not on grounds of philology, but through\nthe subjective notions of successive generations regarding religion and\nthe method and scope of its application.\n\nWeiss\u2019s standpoint with reference to the Pentateuch is the conservative\none, maintaining both its unity and its Mosaic authorship. Those passages\nand accounts in the Bible in which the modern critic discerns traces of\ndifferent traditional sources, are for Weiss only indicative of the\nvarious stages of interpretation through which the Pentateuch had to pass.\nThe earliest stage was a very crude one, as may be seen from the case of\nJephthah\u2019s vow, for which only a misinterpretation of certain passages in\nthe Pentateuch (Gen. xxii. 2; Num. xxv. 4) could be made responsible. Nor\nwas Jephthah, who felt himself bound to carry out his vow, acquainted with\nthe provision for dissolving vows(143) that was sufficiently familiar to\nlater ages. When, on the other hand, Jeremiah declared sacrifices to be\naltogether superfluous, and said that God did not command Israel, when he\nbrought them from the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or\nsacrifices (vii. 22), he was not in contradiction with Leviticus, but\ninterpreted the laws contained in this book as a concession to popular\ncustom, though not desirable on their own account. This concession,\nwhenever it was of a harmless nature, the prophets carried so far as to\npermit altars outside the Tabernacle or Temple, though this was against\nthe plain sense of Deuteronomy. Elijah even bewailed their destruction (1\nKings xix. 10). He and other prophets probably interpreted the law in\nquestion as directed against the construction and maintenance of several\nchief sanctuaries, but not against sacrificing in different places on\nminor occasions. This is evidently a free interpretation, or rather\napplication, of the Law. Occasionally the conception as to when and how a\nlaw should be applied took a completely negative form. In this manner is\nto be explained the action of Solomon in suspending the Fast of the Day of\nAtonement before the festival he was going to celebrate in honour of the\nconsecration of the Temple (1 Kings viii. 65), the king being convinced\nthat on this unique occasion the latter was of more religious importance\nthan the former. Weiss thinks that the later custom of holding public\ndances in the vineyards on the 10th of Tishri might have had its origin in\nthis solemn, but also joyful, festival. Ezekiel, again, though alluding\nmore frequently than any other prophet to the laws in the Pentateuch, is\nexceedingly bold in his interpretation of them, as, for instance, when he\nsays that _priests_ shall not eat anything that is dead or torn (xliv.\n31), which shows that he took the verses in Exod. xxii. 30, and Deut. xiv.\n20, to have been meant only as a good advice to the laymen to refrain from\neating these unclean things, but not as having for them the force of a\nreal commandment.\n\nStarting from this proposition, that there existed always some sort of\ninterpretation running side by side with the recognised Scriptures, which\nfrom the very looseness of its connection with the letter of the Scripture\ncould claim to be considered a thing independent in itself, and might\ntherefore be regarded as the _Oral Law_, in contradistinction to the\n_Written Law_, the author passes to the age of the Second Temple, the\nperiod to which the rest of the first volume is devoted. In these pages\nWeiss reviews the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, the ordinances of the Men\nof the Great Synagogue, the institutions of the Scribes, the Lives of the\nso\u2010called Pairs,(144) the characteristics of the three sects, the\nSadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, and the differences between the schools\nof Shammai and Hillel. To each of these subjects Weiss gives his fullest\nattention, and his discussions of them would form perfect monographs in\nthemselves. To reproduce all the interesting matter would mean to\ntranslate the whole of this portion of his work into English. I shall only\ndraw attention to one or two points.\n\nFirst, this liberal interpretation was active during the whole period\nreferred to. Otherwise no authority could have abolished the _lex\ntalionis_, or have permitted war on Sabbath, or made the condition that no\ncrime should be punished without a preceding warning (which was chiefly\nowing to the aversion of the Rabbis to the infliction of capital\npunishment), or have sanctioned the sacrificing of the Passover when the\n14th of Nisan fell on Sabbath. Indeed Shemaiah and Abtalyon, in whose name\nHillel communicated this last law, were called the Great\nInterpreters.(145)\n\nSecondly, as to the so\u2010called _laws given to Moses on Sinai_.(146) Much\nhas been said about these. The distinction claimed for them by some\nscholars, viz. that they were never contested, is not tenable, considering\nthat there prevailed much difference of opinion about some of them. Nor is\nthe theory that they were ancient religious usages, dating from time\nimmemorial, entirely satisfactory. For though the fact may be true in\nitself, this could not have justified the Rabbis in calling them all\nSinaitic laws, especially when they were aware that not a few of them were\ncontested by certain of their colleagues, a thing that would have been\nquite impossible if they had a genuine claim to Mosaic authority. But if\nwe understand Weiss rightly these laws are only to be considered as a\nspecimen of the whole of the Oral Law, which was believed to emanate, both\nin its institutional and in its expository part, from the same authority.\nThe conviction was firmly held that everything wise and good, be it\nethical or ceremonial in its character, whose effect would be to\nstrengthen the cause of religion, was at least potentially contained in\nthe Torah, and that it only required an earnest religious mind to find it\nthere. Hence the famous adage that \u201ceverything which any student will\nteach at any future time was already communicated to Moses on Mount\nSinai\u201d; or the injunction that any acceptable truth, even if discovered by\nan insignificant man in Israel, should be considered as having the\nauthority of a great sage or prophet, or even of Moses himself. The\nprinciple was that the words of the Torah are \u201cfruitful and multiply.\u201d\n\nIt will probably be said that the laws of clean and unclean, and such\nlike, have proved rather too prolific; but if we read Weiss carefully, we\nshall be reminded that it was by the same process of propagation that the\nRabbis developed from Deut. xxii. 8, a whole code of sanitary and police\u2010\nlaws which could even now be studied with profit; from the few scanty\ncivil laws in Exod. xxi., a whole _corpus juris_, which might well excite\nthe interest and the admiration of any lawyer; and from the words \u201cAnd\nthou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children,\u201d a complete school\u2010\nsystem on the one hand, and on the other the _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of a liturgy that\nappears to have sufficed for the spiritual needs of more than fifty\ngenerations of Israelites.\n\nBefore we pass to the age of the Tannaim,(147) the subject of Weiss\u2019s\nsecond volume, we must take account of two important events which have\ngreatly influenced the further development of Tradition. I refer to the\ndestruction of the Temple and the rise of Christianity. With the former\nevent Judaism ceased to be a political commonwealth, and if \u201cthe nation\nwas already in the times of Ezra converted into a church,\u201d\u2014an assertion,\nby the way, which has not the least basis in fact,\u2014it became the more so\nafter it had lost the last remains of its independence. But it was a\nchurch without priests, or, since such a thing, as far as history teaches\nus, has never existed, let us rather call it a Synagogue.\n\nFrom this fact diverse results flowed. A Synagogue can exist not only\nwithout priests, but also without sacrifices, for which prayer and charity\nwere a sufficient substitute. With the progress of time also many\nagricultural laws, as well as others relating to sacerdotal purity,\ngradually became obsolete, though they lingered on for some generations,\nand, as a venerable reminiscence of a glorious time, entered largely into\nJewish literature. This disappearance of so many laws and the weakening of\nthe national element, however, required, if Judaism was to continue to\nexist, the strengthening of religion from another side. The first thing\nneeded was the creation of a new religious centre which would not only\nreplace the Temple to a certain degree, but also bring about a greater\nsolidarity of views, such as would render impossible the ancient\ndifferences that divided the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The creator of\nthis centre was R. Johanan ben Zaccai, who founded the school of Jamnia,\nand invested it with the same authority and importance as the Sanhedrin\nhad enjoyed during Temple times. The consciousness that they were standing\nbefore a new starting\u2010point in history, with a large religious inheritance\nfrom the past, actuated them not only to collect the old traditional laws\nand to take stock of their religious institutions, but also to give them\nmore definite shape and greater stability. As many of these traditions\nwere by no means undisputed, the best thing was to bring them under one or\nother heading of the Scriptures. This desire gave the impulse to the\nfamous hermeneutic schools of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael.\n\nThe next cause that contributed to give a more determinate expression to\nthe Law was the rise of Christianity. This is not the place to give an\naccount of the views which the Rabbis entertained of Christianity. Suffice\nit to say they could not see in the destruction of the Law its fulfilment.\nThey also thought that under certain conditions it is not only the letter\nthat killeth, but also the spirit, or rather that the spirit may sometimes\nbe clothed in a letter, which, in its turn, will slay more victims than\nthe letter against which the loudest denunciations have been levelled.\nSpirit without letter, let theologians say what they will, is a mere\nphantasm. However, the new sect made claims to the gift of prophecy,\nwhich, as they thought, placed them above the Law. It would seem that this\nwas a time of special excitement. The student of the Talmud finds that\nsuch marvels as predicting the future, reviving the dead, casting out\ndemons, crossing rivers dry\u2010shod, curing the sick by a touch or prayer,\nwere the order of the day, and performed by scores of Rabbis. Voices from\nheaven were often heard, and strange visions were frequently beheld.\nNapoleon I. is said to have forbidden the holy coat of Treves to work\nmiracles. The Jewish legislature, however, had no means of preventing\nthese supernatural workings; but when the Rabbis saw their dangerous\nconsequences, they insisted that miracles should have no influence on the\ninterpretation and development of the Law. Hence the saying with regard to\nLev. xxvii. 34, that no prophet is authorised to add a new law. And when\nR. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos (about 120 A.C.) thought to prove the justice of\nhis case by the intervention of miracles, the majority answered that the\nfact of this or that variation, effected at his bidding, in the\nestablished order of nature, proved nothing for the soundness of his\nargument. Nay, they even ignored the _Bath\u2010Kol_(148) (the celestial\nvoice), which declared itself in favour of R. Eliezer, maintaining that\nthe Torah having once been given to mankind, it is only the opinion of the\nmajority that should decide on its interpretation and application. Very\ncharacteristic is the legend connected with this fact. When one of the\nRabbis afterwards met Elijah and asked him what they thought in heaven of\nthe audacity of his colleagues, the prophet answered, \u201cGod rejoiced and\nsaid, my children have conquered me.\u201d\n\nInto such discredit did miracles fall at that period, whilst the opinion\nof the interpreting body, or the Sanhedrin, became more powerful than\never. These were merely dogmatical consequences. But new laws were enacted\nand old ones revived, with the object of resisting Christian influences\nover the Jews. To expand the Oral Law, and give it a firm basis in the\nScriptures, were considered the best means of preserving Judaism intact.\n\u201cMoses desired,\u201d an old legend narrates, \u201cthat the Mishnah also (that is\nTradition) should be written down;\u201d but foreseeing the time when the\nnations of the world would translate the Torah into Greek, and would\nassert their title to rank as the Children of God, the Lord refused to\npermit tradition to be recorded otherwise than by word of mouth. The claim\nof the Gentiles might then be refuted by asking them whether they were\nalso in possession of \u201cthe Mystery.\u201d The Rabbis therefore concentrated\ntheir attention upon \u201cthe Mystery,\u201d and this contributed largely towards\nmaking the expository methods of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael, to which I have\nabove referred, the main object of their study in the schools.\n\nIt would, however, be a mistake to think that the Sanhedrin now spent\ntheir powers in \u201cenforcing retrograde measures and creating a strange\nexegesis.\u201d I especially advise the student to read carefully that\nadmirable chapter (VII., of Vol. II.) in which Weiss classifies all the\nOrdinances, \u201cFences,\u201d Decrees, and Institutions, dating both from this and\nfrom earlier ages, under ten headings, and also shows their underlying\nprinciples. The main object was to preserve the Jewish religion by\nstrengthening the principle of Jewish nationality, and to preserve the\nnationality by the aid of religion. But sometimes the Rabbis also\nconsidered it necessary to preserve religion against itself, so to speak,\nor, as they expressed it, \u201cWhen there is time to work for the Lord, they\nmake void thy Torah.\u201d This authorised the _Beth Din_(149) to act in\ncertain cases against the letter of the Torah. \u201cThe welfare of the World\u201d\nwas another great consideration. By \u201cWorld\u201d they understood both the\nreligious and the secular world. From a regard to the former resulted such\n\u201cFences\u201d and Ordinances as were directed against \u201cthe transgressors,\u201d as\nwell as the general injunction to \u201ckeep aloof from what is morally\nunseemly, and from whatever bears any likeness thereto.\u201d In the interests\nof the latter\u2014the welfare of the secular world\u2014they enacted such laws as\neither tended to elevate the position of women, or to promote the peace\nand welfare of members of their own community, or to improve the relations\nbetween Jews and their Gentile neighbours. They also held the great\nprinciple that nothing is so injurious to the cause of religion as\nincreasing the number of sinners by needless severity. Hence the\nintroduction of many laws \u201cfor the benefit of penitents,\u201d and the maxim\nnot to issue any decree which may prove too heavy a burden to the majority\nof the community. The relaxation of certain traditional laws was also\npermitted when they involved a serious loss of property, or the sacrifice\nof a man\u2019s dignity. Some old decrees were even permitted to fall into\noblivion when public opinion was too strong against them, the Rabbis\nholding that it was often better for Israelites to be unconscious sinners\nthan wilful transgressors. The _Minhag_, or religious custom, also played\nan important part, it being assumed that it must have been first\nintroduced by some eminent authority; but, if there was reason to believe\nthat the custom owed its origin to some fancy of the populace, and that it\nhad a pernicious effect on the multitude, no compunction was felt in\nabolishing it.\n\nVery important it is to note that the Oral Law had not at this period\nassumed a character of such rigidity that all its ordinances, etc., had to\nbe looked upon as irremovable for all times. With those who think\notherwise, a favourite quotation is the administratory measure laid dawn\nin Tractate _Evidences_,(150) I. 5, where we read that no _Beth Din_ has\nthe right of annulling the dicta of another _Beth Din_, unless it is\nstronger in numbers (having a larger majority) and greater in wisdom than\nits fellow tribunal. Confess with becoming modesty that the world is\nalways going downhill, decreasing both in numbers and in wisdom, and the\nresult follows that any decision by the earlier Rabbis is fixed law for\nall eternity. Weiss refutes such an idea not only as inconsistent with the\nnature of Tradition, but also as contradictory to the facts. He proves by\nnumerous instances that the Rabbis did abolish ordinances and decrees\nintroduced by preceding authorities, and that the whole conception is\nbased on a misunderstanding. For the rule in question, as Weiss clearly\npoints out, originally only meant that a _Beth Din_ has no right to undo\nthe decrees of another _contemporary Beth Din_, unless it was justified in\ndoing so by the weight of its greater authority. This was necessary if a\ncentral authority was to exist at all. Weiss is indeed of opinion that the\nwhole passage is a later interpolation from the age of R. Simeon b.\nGamaliel II., when certain Rabbis tried to emancipate themselves from the\nauthority of the Patriarch. But it was not meant that the decision of a\n_Beth Din_ should have perpetual binding power for all posterity. This was\nleft to the discretion of the legislature of each generation, who had to\nexamine whether the original cause for maintaining such decision still\nexisted.\n\nThe rest of this volume is for the greater part taken up with complete\nmonographs of the Patriarchs and the heads of the schools of that age,\nwhilst the concluding chapters give us the history of the literature, the\nMidrash, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphr\u00e9, Mishnah, etc., which contain both the\nHalachic and the Agadic sayings emanating from these authorities.\n\nWith regard to these Patriarchs, I should like only to remark that Weiss\ndefends them against the charge made by Schorr and others, who accuse them\nof having assumed too much authority on account of their noble descent,\nand who describe their opponents as the true friends of the people. Weiss\nis no lover of such specious phrases. The qualifications required for the\nleadership of the people were a right instinct for the necessities of\ntheir time, a fair amount of secular knowledge, and, what is of chief\nimportance, an unbounded love and devotion to those over whose interests\nthey were called to watch. These distinctions, as Weiss proves, the\ndescendants of Hillel possessed in the highest degree. It is true that\noccasionally, as for instance in the famous controversy of R. Gamaliel II.\nwith R. Joshua b. Hananiah, or that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II. with R.\nNathan and R. Meir, they made their authority too heavily felt;(151) but\nthis was again another necessity of those troubled times, when only real\nunity could save Israel.\n\nHowever, Weiss is no partisan, and the love he lavishes on his favourite\nheroes does not exhaust his resources of sympathy and appreciation for\nmembers of the other schools. Weiss is no apologist either, and does not\nmake the slightest attempt towards explaining away even the defects of R.\nAkiba in his somewhat arbitrary method of interpretation, which our author\nthinks much inferior to the expository rules of R. Ishmael; but this does\nnot prevent him from admiring his excellences.\n\nAltogether it would seem that Weiss thinks R. Akiba more happy in his\nquality as a great saint than in that of a great exegete. What is most\nadmirable is the instinct with which Weiss understands how to emphasise\nthe right thing in its right place. As an indication of the literary\nhonesty and marvellous industry of our author, I would draw attention to\nthe fact that the sketch of R. Akiba and his school alone is based on more\nthan two thousand quotations scattered over the whole area of the Rabbinic\nliterature; but he points in a special note to a sentence attributed to R.\nAkiba, which presents the whole man and his generation in a single stroke.\nI refer to that passage in Tractate _Joys_,(152) in which R. Akiba speaks\nof the four types of sufferers. He draws the comparison of a king\nchastising his children; the first son maintains stubborn silence, the\nsecond simply rebels, the third supplicates for mercy, and the fourth (the\nbest of sons) says: \u201cFather, proceed with thy chastisement, as David said,\nWash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin\u201d (Ps. li.\n4). This absolute submission to the will of God, which perceives in\nsuffering only an expression of His fatherly love and mercy, was the ideal\nof R. Akiba.\n\nThe great literary production of this period was the Mishnah, which,\nthrough the high authority of its compiler, R. Judah the Patriarch, his\nsaintliness and popularity, soon superseded all the collections of a\nsimilar kind, and became the official text\u2010book of the Oral Law. But a\ntext requires interpretation, whilst other collections also demanded some\nattention. This brings us to the two _Talmuds_, namely, the Talmud of\nJerusalem and the Talmud of Babylon, the origin and history of which form\nthe subject of Weiss\u2019s third volume.\n\nHere again the first chapters are more of a preliminary character, giving\nthe student some insight into the labyrinth of the Talmud. The two\nchapters entitled \u201cThe instruments employed in erecting the great\nEdifice,\u201d and the \u201cWorkmanship displayed by the Builders,\u201d give evidence\nof almost unrivalled familiarity with the Rabbinical literature, and of\ncritical powers of the rarest kind. Now these instruments were by no means\nnew, for, as Weiss shows, the Amoraim employed in interpreting the Mishnah\nthe same explanatory rules that are known to us from the School of R.\nIshmael as \u201cthe Thirteen Rules by which the Torah is explained,\u201d though\nthey appear in the Talmud under other names, and are in reality only a\nspecies of Midrash. Besides this there comes another element into play. It\nwas the exaggerated awe of all earlier authorities that endeavoured to\nreconcile the most contradictory statements by means of a subtle dialectic\nfor which the schools in Babylon were especially famous. There were\ncertainly many opponents of this system, and from the monographs which\nWeiss gives on the various heads of the western and eastern schools we see\nthat not all followed this method, and some among them even condemned it\nin the strongest words. However, it cannot be denied that there is a\nstrong scholastic feature in the Talmud, which is very far from what we\nshould look for in a trustworthy exegesis. Thus we must not always expect\nto find in the Talmud the true meaning of the sayings of their\npredecessors, and it is certain that a more scientific method in many\ncases has led to results the very opposite of those at which the later\nRabbis have arrived. This fact was already recognised in the sixteenth\ncentury, though only in part, by R. Yom\u2010Tob Heller and others. Only he\ninsisted that in this matter a line must be drawn between theory and\npractice. But Weiss gives irrefragable proofs that even this line was\noften overstepped by the greatest authorities, though they remained always\nwithin the limits of Tradition. Indeed, as Weiss points out, not every\nsaying to be found in the Talmud is to be looked upon as representing\nTradition; for there is much in it which only gives the individual opinion\nor is merely an interpolation of later hands; nor does the Talmud contain\nthe _whole_ of Tradition, this latter proceeding and advancing with the\ntime, and corresponding to its conditions and notions. As we read Weiss,\nthe conviction is borne in upon us that there was a Talmud before, and\nanother after _The Talmud_.\n\nMuch space in this volume is given to the Agadah and the so\u2010called\n\u201cTeachers of the Agadah.\u201d Weiss makes no attempt at apology for that which\nseems to us strange, or even repugnant in this part of the Rabbinic\nliterature. The greatest fault to be found with those who wrote down such\npassages as appear objectionable to us is, perhaps, that they did not\nobserve the wise rule of Johnson, who said to Boswell on a certain\noccasion, \u201cLet us get serious, for there comes a fool.\u201d And the fools\nunfortunately did come in the shape of certain Jewish commentators and\nChristian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only\nthe expression of a momentary impulse, or represented the opinion of some\nisolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by\u2010play,\ncalculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience. But on the other\nhand, as Weiss proves, the Agadah contains also many elements of real\nedification and eternal truths as well as abundant material for building\nup the edifice of dogmatic Judaism. Talmudical quotations of such a nature\nare scattered by thousands over Weiss\u2019s work, particularly in those\nchapters in which he describes the lives of the greatest Rabbinical\nheroes. But the author lays the student under special obligations by\nputting together in the concluding pages of this volume some of these\nsentences, and classifying them under various headings. I give here a few\nextracts. For the references to authorities I must direct the reader to\nthe original:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe unity of God is the keystone of dogmatic Judaism. The Rabbis give\nIsrael the credit of having proclaimed to the world the unity of God. They\nalso say that Israel took an oath never to change Him for another God.\nThis only God is eternal, incorporeal, and immutable. And though the\nprophets saw Him in different aspects, He warned them that they must not\ninfer from the visions vouchsafed to them that there are different Gods.\n\u2018I am the first,\u2019 He tells them, which implies that he had no father, and\nthe words, \u2018There is no God besides me,\u2019 mean that he has no son. Now,\nthis God, the God of Israel, is holy in every thinkable way of holiness.\nHe is merciful and gracious, as it is said, \u2018And I will be gracious to\nwhom I will be gracious,\u2019 even though he who is the recipient of God\u2019s\ngrace has no merit of his own. \u2018And I will show mercy to whom I will show\nmercy,\u2019 that is, even to those who do not deserve it. His attributes are\nrighteousness, loving\u2010kindness, and truth. God speaks words of eternal\ntruth, even as He himself is the eternal life. All that the Merciful One\ndoes is only for good, and even in the time of His anger He remembers His\ngraciousness, and often suppresses His attribute of judgment before His\nattribute of mercy. But with the righteous God is more severe than with\nthe rest of the world, and when His hand falls in chastening on His saints\nHis name becomes awful, revered, and exalted. This God of Israel, again,\nextends His providence over all mankind, and especially over Israel. By\nHis eye everything is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given, and the\nworld is judged by grace, yet all according to the works wrought. Hence,\nknow what is above thee, a seeing eye and a hearing ear, and that all thy\ndeeds are written in a book.\n\n\u201cThey [the Rabbis] believed that God created the world out of nothing,\nwithout toil and without weariness. This world was created by the\ncombination of His two attributes, mercy and justice. He rejoices in His\ncreation, and if the Maker praises it, who dares to blame it? And if He\nexults in it, who shall find a blemish in it? Nay, it is a glorious and a\nbeautiful world. It is created for man, and its other denizens were all\nmeant but to serve him. Though all mankind are formed after the type of\nAdam, no one is like his fellow\u2010man (each one having an individuality of\nhis own). Thus he is able to say, \u2018For my sake, also, was the world\ncreated\u2019; and with this thought his responsibilities increase. But the\ngreatest love shown to man is that he was created in the image of God. Man\nis a being possessed of free will, and, though everything is given on\npledge, whosoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow. Everything is in\nthe gift of Heaven except the fear of God. In man\u2019s heart abide both the\nevil inclination and the good inclination; and the words of Scripture,\n\u2018Thou shalt not bow down before a strange god,\u2019 point to the strange god\nwho is within man himself, who entices him to sin in this world, and gives\nevidence against him in the next. But the Holy One\u2014blessed be He!\u2014said, \u2018I\nhave created the evil inclination, but I have also created its antidote,\nthe Torah.\u2019 And when man is occupied with the Torah and in works of\ncharity, he becomes the master of the evil inclination; otherwise, he is\nits slave. When man reflects the image of God, he is the lord of creation,\nand is feared by all creatures; but this image is defaced by sin, and then\nhe has no power over the universe, and is in fear of all things.\n\n\u201cAnother principle of Judaism is the belief in reward and punishment. \u2018I\nam the Lord, your God,\u2019 means, \u2018it is I who am prepared to recompense you\nfor your good actions, and to bring retribution upon you for your evil\ndeeds.\u2019 God does not allow to pass unrewarded even the merit of a kind and\nconsiderate word. By the same measure which man metes out, it shall be\nmeted out to him. Because thou drownedst others, they have drowned thee,\nand at the last they who drowned thee shall themselves be drowned. Though\nit is not in our power to explain either the prosperity of the wicked or\nthe affliction of the righteous, nevertheless know before whom thou\ntoilest, and who thy employer is, who will pay thee the reward of thy\nlabour. Here at thy door is a poor man standing, and at his right hand\nstandeth God. If thou grantest his request, be certain of thy reward; but\nif thou refusest, think of him who is by the side of the poor, and will\navenge it on thee. \u2018God seeketh the persecuted\u2019 to defend him, even though\nit be the wicked who is persecuted by the righteous. The soul of man is\nimmortal, the souls of the righteous being treasured up under the throne\nof God. Know that everything is according to the reckoning, and let not\nthy imagination give thee hope that the grave will be a place of refuge\nfor thee, for perforce thou wast formed, and perforce thou wast born, and\nthou livest perforce, and perforce thou wilt die, and perforce thou wilt\nin the future have to give account and reckoning before the Supreme King\nof kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.\n\n\u201cThe advent of the Messiah is another article of the belief of the Rabbis.\nBut if a man tell thee that he knows when the redemption of Israel will\ntake place, believe him not, for this is one of the unrevealed secrets of\nthe Almighty. The mission of Elijah is to bring peace into the world,\nwhile the Messiah, in whose days Israel will regain his national\nindependence, will lead the whole world in repentance to God. On this, it\nis believed, will follow the resurrection of the dead.\n\n\u201cAnother main principle in the belief of the Rabbis is the election of\nIsrael, which imposes on them special duties, and gives them a peculiar\nmission. Beloved are Israel, for they are called the children of God, and\nHis firstborn. \u2018They shall endure for ever\u2019 through the merit of their\nfathers. There is an especial covenant established between God and the\ntribes of Israel. God is their father, and He said to them, My children,\neven as I have no contact with the profanity of the world, so also\nwithdraw yourselves from it. And as I am holy, be ye also holy. Nay,\nsanctify thyself by refraining even from that which is not forbidden thee.\nThere is no holiness without chastity.\n\n\u201cThe main duty of Israel is to sanctify the name of God, for the Torah was\nonly given that His great name might be glorified. Better is it that a\nsingle letter of the law be cast out than that the name of Heaven be\nprofaned. And this also is the mission of Israel in this world: to\nsanctify the name of God, as it is written, \u2018This people have I formed for\nmyself, that they may show forth my praise.\u2019 Or, \u2018And thou shalt love the\nLord thy God,\u2019 which means, Thou shalt make God beloved by all creatures,\neven as Abraham did. Israel is the light of the world; as it is said, \u2018And\nnations shall walk by thy light.\u2019 But he who profanes the name of Heaven\nin secret will suffer the penalty thereof in public; and this whether the\nHeavenly Name be profaned in ignorance or in wilfulness.\n\n\u201cAnother duty towards God is to love Him and to fear Him. God\u2019s only\nrepresentative on earth is the God\u2010fearing man. Woe unto those who are\noccupied in the study of the Torah, but who have no fear of God. But a\nstill higher duty it is to perform the commandments of God from love. For\ngreater is he who submits to the will of God from love than he who does so\nfrom fear.\n\n\u201cNow, how shall man love God? This is answered in the words of Scripture,\n\u2018And these words shall be upon thy heart.\u2019 For by them thou wilt recognise\nHim whose word called the world into existence, and follow His divine\nattributes.\n\n\u201cGod is righteous; be ye also righteous, O Israel. By righteousness the\nRabbis understand love of truth, hatred of lying and backbiting. The seal\nof the Holy One, blessed be He, is Truth, of which the actions of man\nshould also bear the impress. Hence, let thy yea be yea, and thy nay, nay.\nHe who is honest in money transactions, unto him this is reckoned as if he\nhad fulfilled the whole of the Torah. Greater is he who earns his\nlivelihood by the labour of his hands than even the God\u2010fearing man;\nwhilst the righteous judge is, as it were, the companion of God in the\ngovernment of the world. For upon three things the world stands: upon\ntruth, upon judgment, upon peace; as it is said, \u2018Judge ye the truth and\nthe judgment of peace in your gates.\u2019 But he who breaks his word, his sin\nis as great as if he worshipped idols; and God, who punished the people of\nthe time of the Flood, will also punish him who does not stand by his\nword. Such a one belongs to one of the four classes who are not admitted\ninto the presence of the Shechinah; these are the scoffers, the hypocrites\n(who bring the wrath of God into the world), the liars, and the\nslanderers. The sin of the slanderer is like that of one who would deny\nthe root (the root of all religion, _i.e._ the existence of God). The\ngreatest of liars, however, is he who perjures himself, which also\ninvolves the sin of profanation of the name of God. The hypocrite, who\ninsinuates himself into people\u2019s good opinions, who wears his phylacteries\nand is enwrapped in his gown with the fringes, and secretly commits sins,\nequally transgresses the command, \u2018Thou shalt not take the name of the\nLord thy God in vain.\u2019\n\n\u201cGod is gracious and merciful; therefore man also should be gracious and\nmerciful. Hence, \u2018Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\u2019 which is a\nmain principle in the Torah. What is unpleasant to thyself, do not unto\nthy neighbour. This is the whole Torah, to which the rest is only to be\nconsidered as a commentary. And this love is also extended to the\nstranger, for as it is said with regard to Israel, \u2018And thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself,\u2019 so is it also said, \u2018And thou shalt love him\n(the stranger) as thyself.\u2019 And thus said God to Israel, \u2018My beloved\nchildren, Am I in want of anything that I should request it of you? But\nwhat I ask of you is that you should love, honour, and respect one\nanother.\u2019 Therefore, love mankind, and bring them near to the Torah. Let\nthe honour of thy friend be as dear to thee as thine own. Condemn not thy\nfellow\u2010man until thou art come into his place, and judge all men in the\nscale of merit. Say not \u2018I will love scholars, but hate their disciples;\u2019\nor even, \u2018I will love the disciples, but hate the ignorant,\u2019 but love all,\nfor he who hates his neighbour is as bad as a murderer. Indeed, during the\nage of the second Temple, men studied the Torah and the commandments, and\nperformed works of charity, but they hated each other, a sin that\noutweighs all other sins, and for which the holy Temple was destroyed. Be\ncareful not to withdraw thy mercy from any man, for he who does so rebels\nagainst the kingdom of God on earth. Walk in the ways of God, who is\nmerciful even to the wicked, and as He is gracious alike to those who know\nHim, and to those who know Him not, so be thou. Indeed, charity is one of\nthe three pillars on which the world is based. It is more precious than\nall other virtues. The man who gives charity in secret is greater even\nthan Moses our teacher. An act of charity and love it is to pray for our\nfellow\u2010man, and to admonish him. \u2018Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy\nneighbour, and not suffer sin upon him\u2019 (Lev. xix. 18), means it is thy\nduty to admonish him a hundred times if need be, even if he be thy\nsuperior; for Jerusalem was only destroyed for the sin of its people in\nnot admonishing one another. The man whose protest would be of any weight,\nand who does not exercise his authority (when any wrong is about to be\ncommitted), is held responsible for the whole world.\n\n\u201cPeacefulness and humility are also the fruit of love. Be of the disciples\nof Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace. Let every man be cautious in\nthe fear of God; let him ever give the soft answer that turneth away\nwrath; let him promote peace, not only among his own relatives and\nacquaintances, but also among the Gentiles. For (the labour of) all the\nprophets was to plant peace in the world. Be exceeding lowly of spirit,\nsince the hope of man is but the worm. Be humble as Hillel, for he who is\nhumble causes the Divine presence to dwell with man. But the proud man\nmakes God say, \u2018I and he cannot dwell in the same place.\u2019 He who runs\nafter glory, glory flees from him, and he who flees from glory, glory\nshall pursue him. Be of those who are despised rather than of those who\ndespise; of the persecuted rather than of the persecutors; be of those who\nbear their reproach in silence and answer not.\n\n\u201cAnother distinctive mark of Judaism is faith in God, and perfect\nconfidence in Him. Which is the right course for a man to choose for\nhimself? Let him have a strong faith in God, as it is said, \u2018Mine eye\nshall be upon the faithful (meaning those possessing faith in God) of the\nland.\u2019 And so also Habakkuk based the whole Torah on the principle of\nfaith, as it is said, \u2018And the just shall live by his faith\u2019 (ii. 4). He\nwho but fulfils a single commandment in absolute faith in God deserves\nthat the Holy Spirit should rest on him. Blessed is the man who fears God\nin private, and trusts in Him with all his heart, for such fear and trust\narms him against every misfortune. He who puts his trust in the Holy One,\nblessed be He, God becomes his shield and protection in this world and in\nthe next. He who has bread in his basket for to\u2010day, and says, \u2018What shall\nI have to eat to\u2010morrow?\u2019 is a man of little faith. One consequence of\nreal faith is always to believe in the justice of God\u2019s judgments. It is\nthe duty of man to thank God when he is visited with misfortune as he does\nin the time of prosperity. Therefore, blessed is the man who, when visited\nby suffering, questions not God\u2019s justice. But what shall he do? Let him\nexamine his conduct and repent.\n\n\u201cFor repentance is the greatest prerogative of man. Better is one hour of\nrepentance and good deeds in this world than the whole life of the world\nto come. The aim of all wisdom is repentance and good deeds. The place\nwhere the truly penitent shall stand is higher than that of the righteous.\nRepentance finds its special expression in prayer; and when it is said in\nScripture, \u2018Serve God with all thy heart,\u2019 by this is meant, serve Him by\nprayer, which is even greater than worship by means of sacrifices. Never\nis a prayer entirely unanswered by God. Therefore, even though the sword\nbe on a man\u2019s neck, let him not cease to supplicate God\u2019s mercy. But\nregard not thy prayer as a fixed mechanical task, but as an appeal for\nmercy and grace before the All\u2010Present; as it is said, \u2018For He is gracious\nand full of mercy, slow to anger, abounding in loving\u2010kindness, and\nrepenteth him of the evil.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThe last two volumes of Weiss\u2019s work deal with the history of Tradition\nduring the Middle Ages, that is, from the conclusion of the Talmud to the\ncompilation of the Code of the Law by R. Joseph Caro. I have already\nindicated that with Weiss Tradition did not terminate with the conclusion\nof the Talmud. It only means that a certain undefinable kind of\nliterature, mostly held in dialogue form and containing many elements of\nTradition, was at last brought to an end. The authorities who did this\neditorial work were the so\u2010called _Rabbanan Saburai_(153) and the\n_Gaonim_, whose lives and literary activity are fully described by Weiss.\nBut, while thus engaged in preserving their inheritance from the past,\nthey were also enriching Tradition by new contributions, both the Saburai\nand the Gaonim having not only added to and diminished from the Talmud,\nbut having also introduced avowedly new ordinances and decrees, and\ncreated new institutions.\n\nNow, it cannot be denied that a few of these ordinances and decrees had a\nreforming tendency (see the second and twentieth chapters of vol. iv.); in\ngeneral, however, they took a more conservative turn than was the case in\nthe previous ages. This must be ascribed to the event of the great schism\nwithin the Rabbinical camp itself. I refer to the rise of Caraism, which\ntook place during the first half of the eighth century.\n\nThere is probably no work in which the Halachic or legalistic side of this\nsect is better described than in this volume of Weiss. I regret that I am\nunable to enter into its details. But I cannot refrain from pointing to\none of the main principles of the Caraites. This was \u201cSearch the\nScriptures.\u201d Now this does not look very dissimilar from the principle\nheld by the Rabbis. For what else is the Talmud, but a thorough searching\nthrough the Bible for whatever was suggestive by time and circumstances?\nThe light which the Caraites applied to the searching of the Scriptures\nwas the same which illumined the paths of the Rabbis\u2019 investigations. They\nemployed most of the expository rules of the Tannaite schools. The fact is\nthat they were only determined to find something different from what the\nRabbis found in the Scriptures. They wanted to have gloomy Sabbaths and\nFestivals, and discovered authority for it in the Bible; they wanted to\nretain most of the dietary laws which had their root only in Tradition,\nbut insisted on petty differences which they thought might be inferred\nfrom the Scriptures, and they created a new \u201corder of inheritance,\u201d and\nvaried the forbidden degrees in marriage, in all which the only merit was\nthat they were in contradiction to the interpretation of the Rabbis. They\nalso refused to accept the Liturgy of Rabbinical Judaism, but never\nsucceeded in producing more than a patch\u2010work from verses of the Bible,\nwhich, thus recast, they called a prayer\u2010book. There were undoubtedly\namong their leaders many serious and sincere men, but they give us the\nimpression of prigs, as for instance, Moses Darai, when he reproaches the\nRabbinical Jews for having an \u201ceasy religion,\u201d or Israel Hammaarabi, when\nhe recommended his book on the laws regarding the slaughtering of animals,\nas having the special advantage that his decisions were always on the more\nstringent side. Those who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land were by the\nCaraites canonised as \u201cmourners.\u201d The Rabbanite R. Judah Hallevi also\nvisited the ruins of Jerusalem, but he did something more than \u201cmourn and\nsigh and cry,\u201d he became a God\u2010intoxicated singer, and wrote the \u201cZion\u2010\nElegy.\u201d The novel terminology which they use in their exegetical and\ntheological works, was only invented to spite the Rabbanites, and marks\nits authors as pedants. On the other hand, it is not to be denied that\ntheir opponents did not employ the best means to conciliate them. The\nMiddle Ages knew no other remedy against schism than excommunication, and\nthe Gaonim were the children of their time. Nor were the arguments which\nthe latter brought forward in defence of Tradition always calculated to\nconvince the Caraites of their error. When R. Saadiah, in his apology for\nthe institution of the Second Day of the Festival,(154) went the length of\nassigning to it a Sinaitic origin, he could only succeed in making the\nCaraites more suspicious of the claims of Tradition than before. In a\nlater generation one of his own party, R. Hai Gaon, had to declare his\npredecessor\u2019s words a \u201ccontroversial exaggeration.\u201d The zeal which some of\nthe Gaonim showed in their defence of such works as the _Chambers_ and the\n_Measure of the Stature_(155) was a not less unfortunate thing, for it\ninvolved the Rabbanites in unnecessary responsibilities for a new class of\nliterature of doubtful origin, which in succeeding centuries was disowned\nby the best minds in Judaism.\n\nThe Gaonic period, to which we also owe the rise of the Massorah and the\nintroduction of points in the text of the Bible\u2014of which Weiss treats\nfully in the twenty\u2010third and twenty\u2010fourth chapters of vol. iv.\u2014comes to\nan end with the death of R. Hai. The famous schools of Sura and\nPumbeditha, over which these two Gaonim presided, fell into decay, and\nBabylon ceased to be the centre of Judaism. To be more exact, we should\nsay that Judaism had no longer any real centre. Instead of dwelling in one\nplace for centuries, we now have to be perpetually on our journey,\naccompanying our authors through all the inhabited parts of the\nworld\u2014France, Italy, Spain, Germany, with an occasional trip to Africa and\nRussia. There we shall meet with the new schools, each of which, though\ninterpreting the same Torah, occupied with the study of the same Talmud,\nand even conforming more or less to the same mode of life, has an\nindividuality and character of its own, reflecting the thought and habits\nof the country which it represents. Thus \u201cgeographical Judaism\u201d becomes a\nfactor in history which no scholar can afford to neglect. It is true that\nJudaism never remained entirely unbiassed by foreign ideas, and our author\npoints in many a place to Persian, Greek, and Roman influences on\nTradition; still, these influences seem to have undergone such a thorough\n\u201cJudaization\u201d that it is only the practised eye of the scholar that is\nable to see through the transformation. But it requires no great skill to\ndiscriminate between the work produced by a Spanish and that of a French\nRabbi. Though both would write in Hebrew, they betray themselves very soon\nby the style, diction, and train of thought peculiar to each country. The\nSpaniard is always logical, clear, and systematising, whilst the French\nRabbi has very little sense of order, is always writing occasional notes,\nhas a great tendency to be obscure, but is mostly profound and critical.\nHence the fact that whilst Spain produced the greatest codifiers of the\nlaw, we owe to France and Germany the best commentaries on the Talmud.\nWhat these codes and commentaries meant for Judaism the student will find\nin Weiss\u2019s book, and still more fully in his admirable essays on Rashi\n(Solomon b. Isaac), Maimonides, and R. Jacob Tam (published in his\nperiodical, _Beth Talmud_, and also separately). It is enough for us here\nonly to notice the fact of the breadth of Tradition, which could include\nwithin its folds men of such different types as the sceptics, Maimonides,\nSolomon b. Gabirol, and Abn Ezra on one side, and the simple \u201cnon\u2010\nquestioning\u201d Rabbenu Gershom, Rashi, and Jacob Tam on the other.\n\nThe last three centuries, which occupy our author\u2019s attention in the fifth\nvolume, are not remarkable for their progress. The world lives on the\npast. The rationalists write treatises on Maimonides\u2019 philosophical works,\nwhilst the German Talmudists add commentary to commentary. It is, indeed,\nthe reign of authority, \u201cmodified by accidents.\u201d Such an accident was the\nstruggle between the Maimonists and Anti\u2010Maimonists, or the rise of the\nCabbalah, or the frequent controversies with Christians, all of which\ntended to direct the minds of people into new channels of thought. But\nthough this period is less original in its work, it is not on that account\nless sympathetic. One cannot read those beautiful descriptions which Weiss\ngives of R. Meir of Rothenburg and his school, or of R. Asher and his\ndescendants, without feeling that one is in an atmosphere of saints, who\nare the more attractive the less they were conscious of their own\nsaintliness. The only mistake, perhaps, was that the successors of these\n\u201cChassidim or pious men of Germany\u201d looked on many of the religious\ncustoms that were merely the voluntary expression of particularly devout\nsouls as worthy of imitation by the whole community, and made them\nobligatory upon all.\n\nThis brings us to the question of the Code already mentioned (by R. Joseph\nCaro), with which Weiss\u2019s work concludes. I have already transgressed the\nlimits of an essay, without flattering myself that I have done anything\nlike justice to the greatest work on Jewish Tradition which modern Jewish\ngenius has produced. But I should not like the reader to carry away with\nhim the false impression that our author shares in the general cry, \u201cSave\nus from the Codifiers.\u201d Weiss, himself a Rabbi, and the disciple of the\ngreatest Rabbis of the first half of this century, is quite aware of the\nimpossibility of having a law without a kind of manual to it, which brings\nthe fluid matter into some fixed form, classifying it under its proper\nheadings, and this is what we call codifying the law. And thus he never\npasses any attempt made in this direction without paying due tribute to\nits author\u2014be it Maimonides or Caro. But however great the literary value\nof a code may be, it does not invest it with the attribute of\ninfallibility, nor does it exempt the student or the Rabbi who makes use\nof it from the duty of examining each paragraph on its own merits, and\nsubjecting it to the same rules of interpretation that were always applied\nto Tradition. Indeed, Weiss shows that Maimonides deviated in some cases\nfrom his own code, when it was required by circumstances.\n\nNor do I know any modern author who is more in favour of strong authority\nthan Weiss. His treatment of the struggle between the Patriarch R.\nGamaliel and his adversaries, which I have touched on above, proves this\nsufficiently. What Weiss really objects to, is a _weak_ authority\u2014I mean\nthat phonograph\u2010like authority which is always busy in reproducing the\nvoice of others without an opinion of its own, without originality,\nwithout initiative and discretion. The real authorities are those who,\ndrawing their inspiration from the past, also understand how to reconcile\nus with the present and to prepare us for the future.\n\n\n\n\n\nVIII. THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION IN RABBINICAL LITERATURE\n\n\n\u201cBlessed be he who knows.\u201d These are the words with which Nachmanides, in\nhis classical treatise, _Gate of Reward_, dismisses a certain theory of\nthe Gaonim with regard to this question; after which he proceeds to\nexpound another theory, which seems to him more satisfactory. This mode of\ntreatment implies that, unsatisfactory as the one or other theory may\nappear to us, it would be presumptuous to reject either entirely, there\nbeing only One who knows the exact truth about the great mystery. But we\nmay indicate our doubt about one doctrine by putting by its side another,\nwhich we may affirm to be not more absolutely true, but more probable.\nThis seems to have been the attitude, too, of the compilers of the ancient\nRabbinical literature, in which the most conflicting views about this\ngrave subject were embodied. Nor did the Synagogue in general feel called\nupon to decide between these views. There is indeed no want of theodicies,\nfor almost every important expounder of Job, as well as every Jewish\nphilosopher of note, has one with its own system of retribution. Thus\nJudaism has no fixed doctrine on the subject. It refused a hearing to no\ntheory, for fear that it should contain some germ of truth, but on the\nsame ground it accepted none to the exclusion of the others.\n\nThese theories may, perhaps, be conveniently reduced to the two following\nmain doctrines that are in direct opposition to each other, whilst all\nother views about the subject will be treated as the more or less logical\nresults of the one or other doctrine.\n\n1. There is no death without (preceding) sin, nor affliction without\n(preceding) transgression.(156) This view is cited in the name of R. Ammi,\nwho quoted in corroboration the verses Ez. xviii. 20, and Ps. lxxxix. 33.\nThough this Rabbi flourished towards the end of the third century, there\nis hardly any doubt that his view was held by the authorities of a much\nearlier date. For it can only be under the sway of such a notion of\nRetribution that the Tannaim were so anxious to assign some great crime as\nthe antecedent to every serious calamity by which mankind was visited. The\nfollowing illustrations will suffice:\u2014\u201cPestilence comes into the world for\ncapital crimes mentioned in the Torah, which are not brought before the\nearthly tribunal.... Noisome beasts come into the world for vain swearing\nand for profanation of the name (of God). Captivity comes upon the world\nfor strange worship and incest, and for shedding of blood and for (not)\ngiving release to the land.\u201d As an example of the misfortune befalling the\nindividual I will merely allude to a passage in another tractate of the\nTalmud, according to which leprosy is to be regarded as the penalty for\nimmorality, slander, perjury, and similar sins.(157)\n\nIf we were now to complement R. Ammi\u2019s view by adding that there is no\nhappiness without some preceding merit\u2014and there is no serious objection\nto making this addition\u2014then it would resolve itself into the theory of\nMeasure for Measure, which forms a very common standard of reward and\npunishment in Jewish literature. Here are a few instances:\u2014\u201cBecause the\nEgyptians wanted to destroy Israel by water (Exod. i. 22), they were\nthemselves destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea, as it is said,\nTherefore I will _measure_ their former work into their bosom (Is. lxv.\n7);\u201d whilst, on the other hand, we read, \u201cBecause Abraham showed himself\nhospitable towards strangers, providing them with water (Gen. xviii. 4),\nGod gave to his children a country blessed with plenty of water (Deut.\nviii. 1).\u201d Sometimes this form of retribution goes so far as to define a\nspecial punishment to that part of the body which mostly contributed to\nthe committing of the sin. Thus we read, \u201cSamson rebelled against God by\nhis eyes, as it is said, Get her (the Philistine woman) for me, for she\npleases _my eyes_ (Judg. xvi. 21); therefore his _eyes_ were put out by\nthe Philistines (Judg. xviii. 9)\u201d; whilst Absalom, whose sinful pride\nbegan by his _hair_ (2 Sam. xiv. 25), met his fate by his _hair_ (2 Sam.\nxviii. 9).(158) Nahum of Gemzo himself explained his blindness and the\nmaimed condition of his arms and legs as a consequence of a specific\noffence in having neglected the duty of succouring a poor man. Addressing\nthe dead body of the suppliant who perished while Nahum was delaying his\nhelp, he said, \u201cLet my eyes (which had no pity for your pitiful gaze)\nbecome blind; may my hands and legs (that did not hasten to help thine)\nbecome maimed, and finally my whole body be covered with boils.\u201d(159)\n\u201cThis was the hand that wrote it,\u201d said Cranmer at the stake; \u201ctherefore\nit shall first suffer punishment.\u201d\n\nIt is worth noticing that this retribution does not always consist in a\nmaterial reward, but, as Ben Azzai expressed it: \u201cThe reward of a command\nis a command, and the reward of a transgression is a transgression.\u201d(160)\nSo again: \u201cBecause Abraham showed himself so magnanimous in his treatment\nof the king of Sodom, and said, I will not take from thee a thread;\ntherefore, his children enjoyed the privilege of having the command of\nZizith, consisting in putting a thread or fringe in the border of their\ngarments.\u201d In another passage we read, \u201cHe who is anxious to do acts of\ncharity will be rewarded by having the means enabling him to do so.\u201d(161)\nIn more general terms the same thought is expressed when the Rabbis\nexplained the words, Ye shall sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy\n(Lev. xi. 44), to the effect that if man takes the initiative in holiness,\neven though in a small way, Heaven will help him to reach it to a much\nhigher degree.(162)\n\nNotwithstanding these passages, to which many more might be added, it\ncannot be denied that there are in the Rabbinical literature many passages\nholding out promises of _material_ reward to the righteous as well as\nthreatening the wicked with _material_ punishment. Nor is there any need\nof denying it. Simple\u2010minded men\u2014and such the majority of the Rabbis\nwere\u2014will never be persuaded into looking with indifference on pain and\npleasure; they will be far from thinking that poverty, loss of children,\nand sickness are no evil, and that a rich harvest, hope of posterity, and\ngood health, are not desirable things. It _does_ lie in our nature to\nconsider the former as curses and the latter as blessings; \u201cand if this be\nwrong there is no one to be made responsible for it but the Creator of\nnature.\u201d Accordingly the question must arise, How can a just and\nomnipotent God allow it to happen that men should suffer innocently? The\nmost natural suggestion towards solving the difficulty would be that we\nare _not_ innocent. Hence R. Ammi\u2019s assertion that affliction and death\nare both the outcome of sin and transgression; or, as R. Chanina ben Dossa\nexpressed it, \u201cIt is not the wild beast but sin which kills.\u201d(163)\n\nWe may thus perceive in this theory an attempt \u201cto justify the ways of God\nto man.\u201d Unfortunately it does not correspond with the real facts. The cry\nwrung from the prophets against the peace enjoyed by the wicked, and the\npains inflicted on the righteous, which finds its echo in so many Psalms,\nand reaches its climax in the Book of Job, was by no means silenced in the\ntimes of the Rabbis. If long experience could be of any use, it only\nserved to deepen perplexity. For all this suffering of the people of God,\nand the prosperity of their wicked persecutors, which perplexed the\nprophets and their immediate followers, were repeated during the death\u2010\nstruggle for independence against Rome, and were not lessened by the\nestablishment of Christianity as the dominant religion. The only comfort\nwhich time brought them was, perhaps, that the long continuance of\nmisfortune made them less sensible to suffering than their ancestors were.\nIndeed, a Rabbi of the first century said that his generation had by\ncontinuous experience of misery become as insensible to pain as the dead\nbody is to a prick of a needle.(164) The an\u00e6sthetic effect of long\nsuffering may, indeed, help one to endure pain with more patience, but it\ncannot serve as an apology for the deed of the inflictors of the pain. The\nquestion, then, how to reconcile hard reality with the justice of God,\nremained as difficult as ever.\n\nThe most important passage in Rabbinical literature relating to the\nsolution of this problem is the following:\u2014With reference to Exod. xxxiii.\n13, R. Johanan said, in the name of R. Jos\u00e9, that, among other things,\nMoses also asked God to explain to him the method of his Providence, a\nrequest that was granted to him. He asked God, Why are there righteous\npeople who are prosperous, and righteous who suffer; wicked who are\nprosperous and wicked who suffer? The answer given to him was, according\nto the one view, that the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of\nthe righteous are a result of the conduct of their ancestors, the former\nbeing the descendants of righteous parents and enjoying their merits,\nwhilst the latter, coming from a bad stock, suffer for the sins of those\nto whom they owe their existence. This view was suggested by the\nScriptural words, \u201cKeeping mercy for thousands (of generations) ...\nvisiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children\u201d (Exod. xxxiv. 7),\nwhich were regarded as the answer to Moses\u2019 question in the preceding\nchapter of Exodus.(165) Prevalent, however, as this view may have been in\nancient times, the Rabbis never allowed it to pass without some\nqualification. It is true that they had no objection to the former part of\nthis doctrine, and they speak very frequently of the \u201cMerits of the\nFathers\u201d for which the remotest posterity is rewarded; for this could be\nexplained on the ground of the boundless goodness of God, which cannot be\nlimited to the short space of a lifetime. But there was no possibility of\novercoming the moral objection against punishment of people for sins they\nhave not committed.\n\nIt will suffice to mention here that, with reference to Joshua vii. 24,\n25, the Rabbis asked the question, If he (Achan) sinned, what\njustification could there be for putting his sons and daughters to death?\nAnd by the force of this argument they interpreted the words of the\nScriptures to mean that the children of the criminal were only compelled\nto be present at the execution of their father.\n\nSuch passages, therefore, as would imply that children have to suffer for\nthe sins of their parents are explained by the Rabbis as referring to\ncases in which the children perpetuate the crimes of their fathers.(166)\nThe view of R. Jos\u00e9, which I have already quoted, had, therefore, to be\ndropped, and another version in the name of the same Rabbi is accepted.\nAccording to this theory the sufferer is a person either \u201centirely wicked\u201d\nor \u201cnot perfectly righteous,\u201d whilst the prosperous man is a person either\n\u201cperfectly righteous,\u201d or \u201cnot entirely wicked.\u201d\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say that there is still something wanting to\nsupplement this view, for the given classification would place the not\nentirely wicked on the same level with the perfectly righteous, and on a\nmuch higher level than the imperfectly righteous, who are undoubtedly far\nsuperior. The following passage may be regarded as supplying this missing\nsomething:\u2014\u201cThe wicked who have done some good work are as amply rewarded\nfor it in _this_ world as if they were men who have fulfilled the whole of\nthe Torah, so that they may be punished for their sins in the next world\n(without interruption); whilst the righteous who have committed some sin\nhave to suffer for it (in this world) as if \"they were men who burned the\nLaw,\u201d so that they may enjoy their reward in the world to come (without\ninterruption).(167) Thus the real retribution takes place in the next\nworld, the fleeting existence on earth not being the fit time either to\ncompensate righteousness or to punish sin. But as, on the one hand, God\nnever allows \u201cthat the merit of any creature should be cut short,\u201d whilst,\non the other hand, He deals very severely with the righteous, punishing\nthem for the slightest transgression; since, too, this reward and\npunishment are only of short duration, they must take place in this short\nterrestrial existence. There is thus established a sort of divine economy,\nlest the harmony of the next world should be disturbed.\n\nYet another objection to the doctrine under discussion remains to be\nnoticed. It is that it justifies God by accusing man, declaring every\nsufferer as more or less of a sinner. But such a notion, if carried to its\nlast consequences, must result in tempting us to withhold our sympathies\nfrom him. And, indeed, it would seem that there were some non\u2010Jewish\nphilosophers who argued in this way. Thus a certain Roman official is\nreported to have said to R. Akiba, \u201cHow can you be so eager in helping the\npoor? Suppose only a king, who, in his wrath against his slave, were to\nset him in the gaol, and give orders to withhold from him food and drink;\nif, then, one dared to act to the contrary, would not the king be angry\nwith him?\u201d(168) There is some appearance of logic in this notion put into\nthe mouth of a heathen. The Rabbis, however, were inconsistent people, and\nresponded to the appeal which suffering makes to every human heart without\nasking too many questions. Without entering here into the topic of charity\nin the Rabbinic literature, which would form a very interesting chapter, I\nshall only allude now to the following incident, which would show that the\nRabbis did not abandon even those afflicted with leprosy, which, according\nto their own notion, given above, followed only as a punishment for the\nworst crimes. One Friday, we are told, when the day was about to darken,\nthe Chassid Abba Tachnah was returning home, bearing on his shoulders the\nbaggage that contained all his fortune; he saw a leprous man lying on the\nroad, who addressed him: \u201cRabbi, do me a deed of charity and take me into\nthe town.\u201d The Rabbi now thought, \u201cIf I leave my baggage, where shall I\nfind the means of obtaining subsistence for myself and my family? But if I\nforsake this leprous man I shall commit a mortal sin.\u201d In the end, he\nallowed the good inclination to prevail over the evil one, and first\ncarried the sufferer to the town.(169) The only practical conclusion that\nthe Rabbis drew from such theories as identify suffering with sin were for\nthe sufferer himself, who otherwise might be inclined to blame Providence,\nor even to blaspheme, but would now look upon his affliction as a reminder\nfrom heaven that there is something wrong in his moral state. Thus we read\nin tractate _Berachoth_:(170) \u201cIf a man sees that affliction comes upon\nhim, he ought to inquire into his actions, as it is said, Let us search\nand try our ways, and turn again to the Lord (Lam. iii. 40).\u201d This means\nto say that the sufferer will find that he has been guilty of some\noffence. As an illustration of this statement we may perhaps consider the\nstory about R. Huna, occurring in the same tractate.(171) Of this Rabbi it\nis said that he once experienced heavy pecuniary losses, whereupon his\nfriends came to his house and said to him, \u201cLet the master but examine his\nconduct a little closer.\u201d On this R. Huna answered, \u201cDo you suspect me of\nhaving committed some misdeed?\u201d His friends rejoined, \u201cAnd do you think\nthat God would pass judgment without justice?\u201d R. Huna then followed their\nhint, and found that he did not treat his tenant farmer so generously as\nhe ought. He offered redress, and all turned out well in the end.\nSomething similar is to be found in the story of the martyrdom of R.\nSimeon ben Gamaliel and R. Ishmael ben Elisha. Of these Rabbis we are told\nthat on their way to be executed the one said to the other, \u201cMy heart\nleaves me, for I am not aware of a sin deserving such a death\u201d; on which\nthe other answered, \u201cIt might have happened that in your function as judge\nyou sometimes\u2014for your own convenience\u2014were slow in administering\njustice.\u201d(172)\n\nBut even if the personal actions of the righteous were blameless, there\nmight still be sufficient ground for his being afflicted and miserable.\nThis may be found in his relations to his kind and surroundings, or, to\nuse the term now more popular, by reason of human solidarity. Now, after\nthe above remarks on the objections entertained by the Rabbis against a\nman\u2019s being punished for the sins of others, it is hardly necessary to say\nthat their idea of solidarity has little in common with the crude notions\nof it current in very ancient times. Still, it can hardly be doubted that\nthe relation of the individual to the community was more keenly felt by\nthe Rabbis than by the leaders in any other society, modern or ancient.\nAccording to the view given by an ancient Rabbi whose name is unknown, it\nwould, indeed, seem that to them the individual was not simply a member of\nthe Jewish commonwealth, or a co\u2010religionist, but a limb of the great and\nsingle body \u201cIsrael,\u201d and that as such he communicated both for good and\nevil the sensations of the one part to the whole. In the _Midrash_, where\na parallel is to be found to this idea, the responsibility of the\nindividual towards the community is further illustrated by R. Simeon ben\nYochai, in the following way: \u201cIt is,\u201d we read there, \u201cto be compared to\npeople sitting on board a ship, one of the passengers of which took an awl\nand began to bore holes in the bottom of the vessel. Asked to desist from\nhis dangerous occupation, he answered, \u2018Why, I am only making holes on my\nown seat,\u2019 forgetting that when the water came in it would sink the whole\nship.\u201d Thus the sin of a single man might endanger the whole of humanity.\nIt was in conformity with the view of his father that R. Eliezer, the son\nof R. Simeon (ben Yochai) said, \u201cThe world is judged after the merits or\ndemerits of the majority, so that a single individual by his good or bad\nactions can decide the fate of his fellow\u2010creatures, as it may happen that\nhe is just the one who constitutes this majority.\u201d(173) Nor does this\nresponsibility cease with the man\u2019s own actions. According to the Rabbis\nman is responsible even for the conduct of others\u2014and as such liable to\npunishment\u2014if he is indifferent to the wrong that is being perpetrated\nabout him, whilst an energetic protest from his side could have prevented\nit. And the greater the man the greater is his responsibility. He may\nsuffer for the sins of his family which is first reached by his influence;\nhe may suffer for the sins of the whole community if he could hope to find\na willing ear among them, and he may even suffer for the sins of the whole\nworld if his influence extend so far, and he forbear from exerting it for\ngood.(174) Thus the possibility is given that the righteous man may suffer\nwith justice, though he himself has never committed any transgression.\n\nAs a much higher aspect of this solidarity\u2014and as may have already\nsuggested itself to the reader from the passage cited above from the\nanonymous Rabbi\u2014we may regard the suffering of the righteous as an\natonement for the sins of their contemporaries. \u201cWhen there will be\nneither Tabernacle nor the Holy Temple,\u201d Moses is said to have asked God,\n\u201cwhat will become of Israel?\u201d Whereupon God answers, \u201cI will take from\namong them the righteous man whom I shall consider as pledged for them,\nand will forgive all their sins;\u201d the death of the perfect man, or even\nhis suffering being looked upon as an expiation for the shortcoming of his\ngeneration.(175)\n\nIt is hardly necessary to remind the reader of the affinity of this idea\nwith that of sacrifices in general, as in both cases it is the innocent\nbeing which has to suffer for the sins of another creature. But there is\none vital point which makes all the difference. It is that in our case the\nsuffering is not enforced, but is a voluntary act on the part of the\nsacrifice, and is even desired by him. Without entering here on the often\u2010\ndiscussed theme of the suffering of the Messiah, I need only mention the\nwords of R. Ishmael who, on a very slight provocation, exclaimed, \u201cI am\nthe atonement for the Jews,\u201d which means that he took upon him all their\nsins to suffer for them.(176) This desire seems to have its origin in\nnothing else than a deep sympathy and compassion with Israel. To suffer\n_for_, or, at least _with_ Israel was, according to the Rabbis, already\nthe ideal of Moses. He is said, indeed, to have broken the Two Tables with\nthe purpose of committing some sin, so that he would have either to be\ncondemned together with Israel (for the sin of the golden calf), or to be\npardoned together with them.(177) And this conduct was expected not only\nfrom the leaders of Israel, but almost from every Jew. \u201cWhen Israel is in\na state of affliction (as, for instance, famine) one must not say, I will\nrather live by myself, and eat and drink, and peace be unto thee, my soul.\nTo those who do so the words of the Scriptures are to be applied: And in\nthat day did the Lord God of Hosts call to weeping and to mourning, ...\nand behold joy and gladness.... Surely this iniquity shall not be purged\nout from you till ye die\u201d (Is. xxii. 12\u201014). Another passage is to the\neffect that, when a man shows himself indifferent to the suffering of the\ncommunity, there come the two angels (who accompany every Jew), put their\nhands on his head, and say, \u201cThis man who has separated himself shall be\nexcluded from their consolations.\u201d(178)\n\nWe might now characterise this sort of suffering as the chastisement of\nlove (of the righteous) to mankind, or rather to Israel. But we must not\nconfuse it with the Chastisement of Love often mentioned in the Talmud,\nthough this idea also seems calculated to account for the suffering of the\nrighteous. Here the love is not on the side of the sufferer, but proceeds\nfrom him who inflicts this suffering. \u201cHim,\u201d says R. Huna, \u201cin whom God\ndelights he crushes with suffering.\u201d As a proof of this theory the words\nof Is. liii. 10 are given, which are interpreted to mean: him whom the\nLord delights in He puts to grief. Another passage, by the same authority,\nis to the effect that where there is no sufficient cause for punishment\n(the man being entirely free from sin), we have to regard his suffering as\na chastisement of love, for it is said: \u201cWhom the Lord loveth He\ncorrecteth\u201d (Proverbs iii. 11).(179) To what purpose He corrects him may,\nperhaps, be seen from the following passage: \u201cR. Eleazar ben Jacob says:\nIf a man is visited by affliction he has to be thankful to God for it: for\nsuffering draws man to, and reconciles him with God, as it is said: For\nwhom God loveth he correcteth.\u201d(180)\n\nIt is in conformity with such a high conception that affliction, far from\nbeing dreaded, becomes almost a desirable end, and we hear many Rabbis\nexclaim, \u201cBeloved is suffering,\u201d for by it fatherly love is shown to man\nby God; by it man obtains purification and atonement, by it Israel came in\npossession of the best gifts, such as the Torah, the Holy Land, and\neternal life.(181) And so also the sufferer, far from being considered as\na man with a suspected past, becomes an object of veneration, on whom the\nglory of God rests, and he brings salvation to the world if he bears his\naffliction with joyful submission to the will of God.(182) Continuous\nprosperity is by no means to be longed after, for, as R. Ishmael taught,\n\u201cHe who has passed forty days without meeting adversity has already\nreceived his (share of the) world (to come) in this life.\u201d(183) Nay, the\nstanding rule is that the really righteous suffer, whilst the wicked are\nsupposed to be in a prosperous state. Thus, R. Jannai said, \u201cWe (average\npeople) enjoy neither the prosperity of the wicked nor the afflictions of\nthe righteous,\u201d(184) whilst his contemporary, Rab, declared that he who\nexperiences no affliction and persecution does not belong to them (the\nJews).(185)\n\n2. The second main view on Retribution is that recorded by the Rabbis as\nin direct opposition to that of R. Ammi. It is that there is suffering as\nwell as death without sin and transgression. We may now just as well infer\nthat there is prosperity and happiness without preceding merits. And this\nis, indeed, the view held by R. Meir. For in contradiction to the view\ncited above, R. Meir declares that the request of Moses to have explained\nto him the mysterious ways of Providence was _not_ granted, and the answer\nhe received was, \u201cAnd I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy\u201d (Exod.\nxxxiii. 19), which means to say, even though he to whom the mercy is shown\nbe unworthy of it. The old question arises how such a procedure is to be\nreconciled with the justice and omnipotence of God. The commentaries try\nto evade the difficulty by suggesting some of the views given above, as\nthat the real reward and punishment are only in the world to come, or that\nthe affliction of the righteous is only chastisement of love, and so on.\nFrom the passages I am about to quote, however, one gains the impression\nthat some Rabbis rather thought that this great problem will indeed not\nbear discussion or solution at all. Thus we have the legend: \u201cThe angels\nsaid to God, why have you punished Adam with death? He answered, On\naccount of his having transgressed my commandment (with regard to the\neating of the tree of knowledge). But why had Moses and Aaron to die? The\nreply given to them is the words, Eccl. ix. 2: \u2018All things come alike to\nall; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked, to the good\nand to the clean and to the unclean.\u2019 \u201d(186) Another legend records, \u201cWhen\nMoses ascended to heaven, God showed him also the great men of futurity.\nR. Akiba was sitting and interpreting the law in a most wonderful way.\nMoses said to God: Thou hast shown me his worth, show me also his reward;\non which he is bidden to look back. There he perceives him dying the most\ncruel of deaths, and his flesh being sold by weight. Moses now asks: Is\nthis the reward of such a life? whereupon God answers him: Be silent; this\nI have determined.\u201d(187)\n\nIt is impossible not to think of the fine lines of the German poet:\u2014\n\n\n    Warum schleppt sich blutend, elend,\n    Unter Kreuzlast der Gerechte,\n    W\u00e4hrend gl\u00fccklich als ein Sieger\n    Trabt auf hohem Ross der Schlechte?\n\n    Also fragen wir best\u00e4ndig,\n    Bis man uns mit einer Handvoll\n    Erde endlich stopft die M\u00e4uler\u2014\n    Aber ist das eine Antwort?\n\n\nStill, one might perhaps suggest that these passages when examined a\nlittle closer, not only contain a rebuke to man\u2019s importunity in wanting\nto intrude into the secrets of God, but also hint at the possibility that\neven God\u2019s omnipotence is submitted to a certain law\u2014though designed by\nHis own holy will\u2014which He could not alter without detriment to the whole\ncreation. Indeed, in one of the mystical accounts of the martyrdom of R.\nAkiba and other great Rabbis, God is represented as asking the sufferers\nto accept His hard decree without protest, unless they wish Him to destroy\nthe whole world. In another place again, we read of a certain renowned\nRabbi, who lived in great poverty, that once in a dream he asked the\ndivine Shechinah how long he would have still to endure this bitter\nprivation? The answer given to him was: \u201cMy son, will it please you that I\ndestroy the world for your sake?\u201d(188) It is only in this light that we\nshall be able to understand such passages in the Rabbinic literature as\nthat God almost suffers Himself when He has to inflict punishment either\non the individual or on whole communities. Thus God is represented as\nmourning for seven days (as in the case when one loses a child) before He\nbrought the deluge on the world; He bemoans the fall of Israel and the\ndestruction of the Temple, and the Shechinah laments even when the\ncriminal suffers his just punishment. And it is not by rebelling against\nthese laws that He tries to redeem His suffering. He himself has recourse\nto prayer, and says: \u201cMay it be my will that my mercy conquer my wrath,\nthat my love over\u2010rule my strict justice, so that I may treat my children\nwith love.\u201d(189) If now man is equal to God, he has nevertheless, or\nrather on that account, to submit to the law of God without any outlook\nfor reward or punishment; or, as Antigonos expressed it, \u201cBe not as slaves\nthat minister to the Lord with a view to receive recompense.\u201d(190)\nCertainly it would be hazardous to maintain that Antigonos\u2019s saying was a\nconsequence of this doctrine; but, at any rate, we see a clear tendency to\nkeep the thought of reward (in spite of the prominent part it holds in the\nBible) out of view. Still more clearly is it seen when, with reference to\nPs. cxii., \u201cBlessed is the man ... that delighteth greatly in his\ncommandments,\u201d Rabbi Eleazar remarks that the meaning is that the man\ndesires only to do His commandments, but he does not want the rewards\nconnected with them.(191) This is the more remarkable, as the whole\ncontents of this psalm are nothing else than a long series of promises of\nvarious rewards, so that the explanation of Rabbi Eleazar is in almost\ndirect contradiction to the simple meaning of the words. On the other\nhand, also, every complaint about suffering must cease. Not only is\naffliction no direct chastisement by God in the way of revenge; but even\nwhen it would seem to us that we suffer innocently, we have no right to\nmurmur, as God himself is also suffering, and, as the Talmud expresses it,\n\u201cIt is enough for the slave to be in the position of his master.\u201d(192)\n\nThis thought of the compassion\u2014in its strictest sense of fellow\u2010\nsuffering\u2014of God with His creatures becomes a new motive for avoiding sin.\n\u201cWoe to the wicked,\u201d exclaims a Rabbi, \u201cwho by their bad actions turn the\nmercy of God into strict justice.\u201d(193) And the later mystics explain\ndistinctly that the great crime of sin consists in causing pain, so to\nspeak, to the Shechinah. One of them compared it with the slave who abuses\nthe goodness of his master so far as to buy with his money arms to wound\nhim. But, on the other hand, it becomes, rather inconsistently, also a new\nsource of comfort; for, in the end, God will have to redeem Himself from\nthis suffering, which cannot be accomplished so long as Israel is still\nunder punishment.(194) Most interesting is the noble prayer by a Rabbi of\na very late mystical school: \u201cO God, speedily bring about the redemption.\nI am not in the least thinking of what I may gain by it. I am willing to\nbe condemned to all tortures in hell, if only the Shechinah will cease to\nsuffer.\u201d(195)\n\nIf we were now to ask for the attitude of the Synagogue towards these two\nmain views, we should have to answer that\u2014as already hinted at the opening\nof this paper\u2014it never decided for the one or the other. R. David Rocca\nMartino dared even to write a whole book in Defence of Adam proving that\nhe committed no sin in eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge against\nthe literal sense of the Scriptures, which were also taken by the Rabbis\nliterally.(196) By this he destroyed the prospects of many a theodicy, but\nit is not known to me that he was severely rebuked for it. It has been\nsaid by a great writer that the best theology is that which is not\nconsistent, and this advantage the theology of the Synagogue possesses to\nits utmost extent. It accepted with R. Ammi the stern principle of divine\nretribution, in as far as it makes man feel the responsibility of his\nactions, and makes suffering a discipline. But it never allowed this\nprinciple to be carried so far as to deny the sufferer our sympathy, and\nby a series of conscious and unconscious modifications, he passed from the\nstate of a sinner into the zenith of the saint and the perfectly righteous\nman. But, on the other hand, the Synagogue also gave entrance to the very\nopposite view which, abandoning every attempt to account for suffering,\nbids man do his duty without any hope of reward, even as God also does\nHis. Hence the remarkable phenomenon in the works of later Jewish\nmoralists, that, whilst they never weary of the most detailed accounts of\nthe punishments awaiting the sinner and the rewards in store for the\nrighteous, they warn us most emphatically that our actions must not be\nguided by these unworthy considerations, and that our only motive should\nbe the love of God and submission to His holy will.\n\nNor must it be thought that the views of the Rabbis are so widely\ndivergent from those enunciated in the Bible. The germ of almost all the\nlater ideas is already to be found in the Scriptures. It only needed the\nprocess of time to bring into prominence those features which proved at a\nlater period most acceptable. Indeed, it would seem that there is also a\nsort of domestication of religious ideas. On their first association with\nman there is a certain rude violence about them which, when left to the\nmanagement of untutored minds, would certainly do great harm. But, let\nonly this association last for centuries, during which these ideas have to\nbe subdued by practical use, and they will, in due time, lose their former\nroughness, will become theologically workable, and turn out the greatest\nblessing to inconsistent humanity.\n\n\n\n\n\nIX. THE LAW AND RECENT CRITICISM(197)\n\n\nProfessor Toy\u2019s work, _Judaism and Christianity_, gives an admirable\nconspectus of the results of the modern critical school in their bearing\non the genesis of Christianity. The author takes various important\ndoctrines of Christianity, traces them back to their origin in\nIsraelitism, pursues their course through their various phases in Judaism,\nuntil they reach their final development in the teaching of Jesus and His\ndisciples, which, in the author\u2019s judgment, is the consummation of that\nwhich the prophets and their successors had to give to the world. Laying\nso much stress as Professor Toy does on the saying, \u201cBy their fruits shall\nye know them,\u201d he ought also, perhaps, to have told us what, in the course\nof time, has become of these several doctrines. For when, for instance,\nwith regard to the doctrine of original sin, he remarks that \u201cin certain\nsystems of Christian theology the human race is involved in the\ncondemnation of the first man\u201d (p. 185, n. 1); or that, in the New\nTestament, \u201cthe demand for a mediating power between God and humanity is\npushed to the farthest point which thought can occupy consistently with\nthe maintenance of the absoluteness of the one Supreme Deity\u201d (p. 121), he\nis rather evading a difficulty than answering it. Such elaboration would,\nhowever, have been outside the scope of Professor Toy\u2019s book, which claims\nonly to be a sketch of the progress of thought from the Old Testament to\nthe New. For his own solution of the indicated difficulty, Toy, to judge\nfrom his liberal standpoint, would probably refer us to Dr. Hatch\u2019s\nHibbert lectures; the issue of such an appeal must, I imagine, remain for\nlong doubtful and disputed.\n\nA delightful characteristic of Toy\u2019s book is its transparent clearness and\nsobriety, which will make it interesting reading, even to those who are\nacquainted with the writer\u2019s authorities in their original sources. Almost\nentirely new, as well as most suggestive, is the justice which Toy does to\nthe law in recognising it as a factor for good in the history of religion.\nIn this point Toy is not only up to his date, but beyond it. It is true\nthat even the Pharisees have made some advance in the estimation of the\nliberal school. They are no longer condemned _en masse_ as so many\nhypocrites. It is even admitted that there were a few honest men among\nthem, such as Rabban Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul, or R. Akiba, the\npatriot of Bethar. We are now too polite to be personal. But with regard\nto the law, on the other hand, there is at present a markedly opposite\ntendency. The general idea seems to be that, as the doctrine of the\nresurrection of Christ must be loosely interpreted in a spiritual sense,\nit must logically have been preceded by a universal spiritual death, and\nthe germs of the disease which brought this death about are to be sought\nfor in the law. Hence the strained efforts to discover in the law the\nsource of all religious evil,\u2014cant, hypocrisy, formalism, externalism,\ntranscendentalism, and as many \u201cisms\u201d more, of bad reputation.\n\nIt was probably with this current representation of the law in view that\nToy, when speaking of the Levitical legislation, and of its fixing \u201cmen\u2019s\nminds on ceremonial details which, in some cases, it put into the same\ncategory and on the same level with moral duties,\u201d asks the question:\n\u201cWould there not thence result a dimming of the moral sense and a\nconfusion of moral distinctions? The ethical attitude of a man who could\nregard a failure in the routine of sacrifice as not less blameworthy than\nan act of theft cannot be called a lofty one\u201d (p. 186). The answer which\nhe gives is more favourable than such a leading question would induce us\nto expect. He tells us that, \u201cin point of fact, the result was different\u201d\n(_ibid_). \u201cThe Levitical law is not to be looked on as a mere extension\nand organisation of the ritual.... Its ritual was, in great part, the\norganised expression of the consciousness of sin\u201d (p. 226). Of the law in\ngeneral Toy says that it had \u201clarger consequences than its mere details\nwould suggest,\u201d for it \u201ccultivated the moral sense of the people into\nresults above its mechanical prescriptions,\u201d and \u201cit developed the sense\nof sin, as Paul points out\u201d (Gal. iii. 19), \u201cand therewith a freer\nfeeling, which brought the soul into more immediate contact with God\u201d (p.\n227); whilst in another place he reminds us \u201cthat much of the law is\nmoral, and that no one could fail to see a spiritual significance beneath\nits letter\u201d (p. 245), and he even admits that \u201cthe great legal schools\nwhich grew up in the second century, if we may judge by the sayings of the\nteachers which have come down to us, did not fail to discriminate between\nthe outward and the inward, the ceremonial and the moral\u201d (p. 186).\n\nThese and similar passages will suffice to show that Toy\u2019s estimate of the\nlaw is a very different one from that of Smend and his school. However, it\nmust not be supposed that he is not on the look\u2010out for the germs of the\ndisease. He must find these germs somewhere, or else the progress, which\nhis book is intended to illustrate, would be difficult to detect. And thus\nhe repeats the old accusations, though not without modification.\n\nProfessor Toy\u2019s objections may, perhaps, be summed up in the passage in\nwhich he represents the Jewish law as \u201can attempt to define all the\nbeliefs and acts of life\u201d (p. 239), or as \u201cthe embodiment of devotion to a\nfixed rule of belief and conduct\u201d (p. 237). Toy does not entirely condemn\nthis system, and even speaks of it as a \u201clofty attempt\u201d (p. 239); but, on\nthe whole, he considers that it must have resulted in bad theology, as\nwell as in doubtful conduct. Without following Professor Toy over the\nwhole area of his investigations, which would require a volume for itself,\nI will only take the opportunity of making a few general remarks upon the\nnature and character of this legal system, which seems to hold the key to\nthe spiritual history of Judaism.\n\nFirst, as to its theology, Toy\u2019s description of the law as an attempt to\ndefine all the _beliefs_ of life\u2014an assertion which is also made by\nSch\u00fcrer\u2014is not wholly accurate. For such an attempt was never made by\nJudaism. The few dogmas which Judaism possesses, such as the Existence of\nGod, Providence, Reward, and Punishment\u2014without which no revealed religion\nis conceivable\u2014can hardly be called a creed in the modern sense of the\nterm, which implies something external and foreign to man\u2019s own knowledge,\nand received only in deference to the weight of authority. To the Jew of\nthe Christian era, these simpler dogmas were so self\u2010evident that it would\nhave cost him the greatest effort _not_ to believe them. Hence the fact\nthat, whilst there have come down to us so many controverted points\nbetween the Sadducees and Pharisees with regard to certain juristic and\nritual questions, we know of only one of an essentially dogmatic\ncharacter, viz. the dispute concerning the Resurrection.\n\nIt is thus difficult to imagine to what Professor Toy can be alluding when\nhe speaks of the \u201cinterest they (the Jews) threw into the discussion and\ndetermination of minuti\u00e6 of faith\u201d (p. 241). Discussions upon _minuti\u00e6_ of\nfaith are only to be read in the works of the later schoolmen (as Saadiah,\nMaimonides and their followers), in which such subtle problems as _Creatio\nex nihilo_, the origin of evil, predestination, free will and similar\nsubjects are examined; but this period is very distant from that with\nwhich Toy is concerned. The older schools and the so\u2010called houses of\nShammai and Hillel, most of whose members were the contemporaries of the\nApostles, show very little predilection for such _minuti\u00e6_. Their\ndiscussions and differences of opinion about ritual matters are very\nnumerous, scattered as they are over the whole of the ancient Rabbinic\nliterature, but I can only remember two of a metaphysical character, or\ntouching upon the _minuti\u00e6_ of faith. The one, dealing with the efficacy\nof certain sacrifices, discusses whether it only extends to the remission\nof the pending punishment for sins, or also includes their purification\nand washing away; the other considers the question whether it would not\nhave been better for man not to have been created.(198) But this latter\ncontroversy, which is said to have lasted for two years and a half, by no\nmeans led to any big metaphysical or theological system, but only to the\npractical advice that, as we have been created, we ought to be watchful\nover our conduct. It is, indeed, a noteworthy feature of Judaism that\ntheological speculations have never resulted in the formulation of any\nimposing or universal doctrine, but usually in divers ceremonial\npractices. To give one illustration: according to Professor Toy (p. 210)\nthe conclusion which the author of 1 Tim. ii. 11\u201014 draws from the fact\nthat woman was the immediate agent of the introduction of sin was the\nsubordination of her sex. The Rabbis also noticed the same fact, and in\ntheir less abstract language speak of woman as having brought death and\ngrief into the world; but the conclusion which they drew was that since\nwoman had extinguished the \u201clight of the world,\u201d she ought to atone for it\nby lighting the candles for the Sabbath.(199) Nor is Toy quite correct\nwhen he maintains that the conception of the Memra as Creator and Lord,\netc., and as \u201crepresentative of the immediate divine activity,\u201d did not\nkeep its hold on Jewish thought, having been discarded in the later\nliterature (p. 104). For the Shechinah of the Talmud, the _Metatron_(200)\nof the Gaonic\u2010mystical literature, the Active Intelligence of the\nphilosophical schools, as well as the Ten Sephiroth(201) (Emanations) of\nthe Cabbalists, all owe their existence to the same theosophic scruples\nand subtleties in which the Logos of Philo and the Memra(202) of the\nTargums originated. Thus, they always kept\u2014though under various\nforms\u2014their hold on the Jewish mind. Judaism was always broad enough to\naccommodate itself to these formul\u00e6, which for the one may mean the most\nholy mysteries, and for the other empty and meaningless catchwords. The\nobjection\u2014in fact, the active opposition\u2014of the Synagogue began when these\npossible or impossible explanations of the universe tended to transgress\nthe bounds of abstract speculation, and, passing over into real concrete\nbeings, to be worshipped as such. An instance from comparatively modern\ntimes might be found in one of the vagaries of the followers of the\nPseudo\u2010Messiah, Shabbethai Tsebi. For many generations the controversy had\nraged among the Cabbalists, whether the first of the above\u2010mentioned Ten\nEmanations (called by some _Original Adam_, by others, _Crown_(203)) is to\nbe considered as a part of the Deity or as something separate, and so to\nspeak, having a reality in itself. The danger of establishing a Being near\nthe Deity, having an existence of its own and invested with divine\nattributes, could not have escaped the thoughtful, and there are indeed\nsome indications to this effect. The Synagogue as such, however, remained\nduring the whole controversy strictly neutral, and allowed these\ntheosophists to fight in the air as much as they liked. But the moment\nthat the sect of Shabbethai Tsebi identified the incarnate Original Adam\nwith their leader, and worshipped him as a sort of God\u2010Messiah, the\nSynagogue at once took up a hostile attitude against those who separated\nGod from His world, and, declaring Shabbethai Tsebi and his followers to\nbe apostates, excluded them from Judaism for ever.\n\nNor can it be proved that legalism or nomism has ever tended to suppress\nthe spiritual side of religion, either in respect of consciousness of sin,\nor of individual love and devotion. With an equal logic quite the opposite\nmight be argued. Professor Toy tells us himself that it is no \u201caccident\nthat along with this more definite expression of ethical\u2010religious law we\nfind the first traces of a more spiritual conception of righteousness in\nthe \u2018new heart\u2019 of Jeremiah and Ezekiel\u201d (p. 235), whilst in another\npassage we read that \u201ca turning point is marked by the Deuteronomist\nJeremiah and Ezekiel, who announce the principles of individual\nresponsibility and inwardness of obedience\u201d (p. 184). Now, two things are\ncertain; first, that Ezekiel urges the necessity of the new heart as well\nas of individual responsibility more keenly than any of his predecessors;\nsecondly, that in Ezekiel the legalistic tendency is more evident than in\nDeuteronomy and Jeremiah. The logical conclusion would thus be that the\nhigher ideals of religion are not only not inconsistent with legalism, but\nare the very outcome of it, and the so\u2010called Priestly Code, by the very\nfact of its markedly legalistic tendency, should be considered as a step\nin the right direction. The latter assertion sounds like a paradox, but it\nwill seem less so when the prevailing characteristic of this portion of\nthe Pentateuch, as given even by Kuenen, who is by no means a champion of\nthe Law, is borne in mind. \u201cThe centre of gravity,\u201d according to the great\nDutch critic, \u201clies for the priestly author elsewhere than for the\nprophet; it lies in man\u2019s attitude, not towards his fellow\u2010men, but\ntowards God; not in his social, but in his personal life\u201d (_Hibbert\nLectures_, p. 161). It is here that we seem to strike the keynote of the\n_Weltanschauung_ of the Priestly Legislation. In it man is more than a\nsocial being. He has also an individual life of his own, his joys and\nsorrows, his historical claims, his traditions of the past, and his hopes\nfor the future\u2014and all these have to be brought under the influence of\nreligion, and to become sanctified through their relation to God. Hence,\nthe work of the Priestly narrator and legislator opens with a cosmogony of\nhis own, in which we find the grand theological idea of man being created\nin the Divine image; hence, too, his religious conception of the history\nof the nation and the control claimed by him over all the details of human\nlife, which became with him so many opportunities for the worship of God.\nTo him, God is not a mere figurehead; He not only reigns, but governs.\nEverywhere,\u2014in the temple, in the judge\u2019s seat, in the family, in the\nfarm, and in the market\u2010place,\u2014His presence is felt in enforcing the laws\nbearing His _imprimatur_, \u201cI am the Lord thy God.\u201d By thus diffusing\nreligion over the whole domain of human life\u2014not confining it to the\nsocial institutions which are represented only by a few personages, such\nas the king, the princes, the priests, the judges or elders\u2014they made it\nthe common good of the whole people, and the feeling of personal\nresponsibility for this good became much deeper than before. Thus it came\nto pass that whilst, during the first temple, the apostasy of kings and\naristocracy involved the entire people, so that the words \u201cAnd he (the\nking) did evil in the sight of the Lord,\u201d embrace the whole nation, during\nthe second temple it was no longer of much consequence which side the\npolitical leaders took. Both during the Hellenistic persecutions, as well\nas afterwards in the struggles of some Maccabean kings with the Pharisees,\nthe bulk of the people showed that they considered religion as their own\npersonal affair, not to be regulated by the conscience of either priest or\nprince. It is true that this success may be largely ascribed to such\ncontemporary religious factors as the Synagogue with its minimum of form,\nthe Scribes with their activity as teachers, and the Psalmists with their\ndivine enthusiasm; but the very circumstance that these factors arose and\nflourished under the influence of the Priestly Code would suffice to prove\nthat its tendency was not so sacerdotal as some writers would have us\nbelieve. Jewish tradition indeed attributes the composition of the daily\npublic prayers, as well as of others for private worship, to the very men\nwhom modern biblical criticism holds responsible for the introduction of\nthe Priestly Code. Now this fact may perhaps be disputed, but there is\nlittle doubt that the age in which these prayers were composed was one of\nflourishing legalism. Nor is there any proof that the synagogues and their\nritual were in opposition to the temple. From the few documents belonging\nto this period, it is clear that there was no opposition to the legalistic\nspirit by which the Priestly Code was actuated. This would prove that\nlegalism meant something more than tithes and sacrifices for the benefit\nof the priests.\n\nNor is it true that the legal tendency aimed at narrowing the mind of the\nnation, turning all its thoughts into the one direction of the law. Apart\nfrom the fact that the Torah contained other elements besides its\nlegalism, the prophets were not forgotten, but were read and interpreted\nfrom a very early age. It was under the predominance of the Law that the\nWisdom literature was composed, which is by no means narrow or one\u2010sided,\nbut is even supposed by some critics to contain many foreign elements. In\nthe book of Job, the great problems of man\u2019s existence are treated with a\ndepth and grandeur never equalled before or since. This book alone ought\npartly to compensate the modern school for the disappearance of prophecy,\nwhich is usually brought as a charge against the Law. Then, too, the\nPsalms, placed by the same school in the post\u2010exilic period, are nothing\nbut another aspect of prophecy, with this difference, perhaps, that in the\nProphets God speaks to man, while in the Psalms it is man who establishes\nthe same communion by speaking to God. There is no reason why the critical\nschool, with its broad conception of inspiration, and with its insistence\nthat prophecy does _not_ mean prediction, should so strongly emphasise\nthis difference. If \u201cit is no longer as in the days of Amos, when the Lord\nYahveh did nothing without revealing his counsel to his servants the\nprophets,\u201d there is in the days of the Psalmists nothing in man\u2019s heart,\nno element in his longings and meditations and aspirations, which was not\nrevealed to God. Nay, it would seem that at times the Psalmist hardly ever\ndesires the revelation of God\u2019s secrets. Let future events be what they\nmay, he is content, for he is with God. After all his trials, he exclaims,\n\u201cAnd yet I am continually with thee; thou hast taken hold of my right\nhand. According to thy purpose wilt thou lead me, and afterwards receive\nme with glory. Whom have I (to care for) in heaven? and possessing thee, I\nhave pleasure in nothing upon earth. Though my flesh and my heart should\nhave wasted away, God would for ever be the rock of my heart and my\nportion\u201d (Ps. lxxiii. 23\u201026). How an age producing a literature containing\npassages like these\u2014of which Wellhausen in his _Abriss_ (p. 95) justly\nremarks, that we are not worthy even to repeat them\u2014can be considered by\nthe modern school as wanting in intimate relation to God and inferior to\nthat of the prophets is indeed a puzzle.\n\nNow a few words as to the actual life under the Law. Here, again, there is\na fresh puzzle. On the one side, we hear the opinions of so many learned\nprofessors, proclaiming _ex cathedr\u00e2_, that the Law was a most terrible\nburden, and the life under it the most unbearable slavery, deadening body\nand soul. On the other side we have the testimony of a literature\nextending over about twenty\u2010five centuries, and including all sorts and\nconditions of men, scholars, poets, mystics, lawyers, casuists, schoolmen,\ntradesmen, workmen, women, simpletons, who all, from the author of the\n119th Psalm to the last pre\u2010Mendelssohnian writer\u2014with a small exception\nwhich does not even deserve the name of a vanishing minority\u2014give\nunanimous evidence in favour of this Law, and of the bliss and happiness\nof living and dying under it,\u2014and this, the testimony of people who were\nactually living under the Law, not merely theorising upon it, and who\nexperienced it in all its difficulties and inconveniences. The Sabbath\nwill give a fair example. The law of the Sabbath is one of those\ninstitutions the strict observance of which was already the object of\nattack in early New Testament times. Nevertheless, the doctrine proclaimed\nin one of the Gospels\u2014that the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath\u2014was\nalso current among the Rabbis. They, too, taught that the Sabbath had been\ndelivered into the hand of man (to break, if necessary), and not man\ndelivered over to the Sabbath.(204) And they even laid down the axiom that\na scholar who lived in a town, where among the Jewish population there\ncould be the least possibility of doubt as to whether the Sabbath might be\nbroken for the benefit of a dangerously sick person, was to be despised as\na man neglecting his duty; for, as Maimonides points out, the laws of the\nTorah are not meant as an infliction upon mankind, \u201cbut as mercy, loving\u2010\nkindness, and peace.\u201d(205)\n\nThe attacks upon the Jewish Sabbath have not abated with the lapse of\ntime. The day is still described by almost every Christian writer on the\nsubject in the most gloomy colours, and long lists are given of minute and\neasily transgressed observances connected with it, which, instead of a day\nof rest, would make it to be a day of sorrow and anxiety, almost worse\nthan the Scotch Sunday as depicted by continental writers. But it so\nhappens that we have the prayer of R. Zadok, a younger contemporary of the\nApostles, which runs thus: \u201cThrough the love with which Thou, O Lord our\nGod, lovest Thy people Israel, and the mercy which Thou hast shown to the\nchildren of Thy covenant, Thou hast given unto us in love this great and\nholy Seventh Day.\u201d(206) And another Rabbi, who probably flourished in the\nfirst half of the second century, expresses himself (with allusion to\nExod. xxxi. 13: Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep ... that ye may know that\nI am the Lord that doth sanctify you)\u2014\u201cThe Holy One, blessed be He, said\nunto Moses, I have a good gift in my treasures, and Sabbath is its name,\nwhich I wish to present to Israel. Go and bring to them the good\ntidings.\u201d(207) The form again of the Blessing over the Sanctification\u2010\ncup(208)\u2014a ceremony known long before the destruction of the Second\nTemple\u2014runs: \u201cBlessed art Thou, O Lord our God, who hast sanctified us by\nThy commandments, and hast taken pleasure in us, and in love and grace\nhast given us Thy holy Sabbath as an inheritance.\u201d All these Rabbis\nevidently regarded the Sabbath as a gift from heaven, an expression of the\ninfinite mercy and grace of God which He manifested to His beloved\nchildren.\n\nAnd the gift was, as already said, a _good_ gift. Thus the Rabbis\nparaphrase the words in the Scripture \u201cSee, for that the Lord hath given\nyou the Sabbath\u201d (Exod. xvi. 29): God said unto Israel behold the gem I\ngave you, My children I gave you the Sabbath for your good. Sanctify or\nhonour the Sabbath by choice meals, beautiful garments; delight your soul\nwith pleasure and I will reward you (for this very pleasure); as it is\nsaid: \u201cAnd if thou wilt call the Sabbath a delight and the holy of the\nLord honourable (that is honouring the Sabbath in this way) ... then shalt\nthou delight thyself in the Lord\u201d (Is. lviii. 13, 14).(209)\n\nThe delight of the Sabbath was keenly felt. Israel fell in love with the\nSabbath, and in the hyperbolic language of the Agadah the Sabbath is\npersonified as the \u201cBride of Israel,\u201d whilst others called it \u201cQueen\nSabbath,\u201d(210) and they are actually jealous of a certain class of semi\u2010\nproselytes who, as it seems, were willing to observe the Sabbath, but\ndeclined to submit to the covenant of Abraham. The Gentile Sabbath\u2010\nkeepers\u2014who, like all the nations of the world, envy Israel their\nSabbath\u2014the Rabbis considered as shameless intruders deserving\npunishment.(211) No, it was Israel\u2019s own Queen or Bride Sabbath whose\nappearance in all her heavenly glory they were impatiently awaiting. Thus\nwe are told of R. Judah b. Ilai that when the eve of the Sabbath came \u201che\nmade his ablutions, wrapped himself up in his white linen with fringed\nborders looking like an angel of the Lord of Hosts,\u201d thus prepared for the\nsolemn reception of Queen Sabbath. Another Rabbi used to put on his best\nclothes, and arise and invite the Sabbath with the words: \u201cCome in Bride,\ncome in.\u201d(212) What the Bride brought was peace and bliss. Nay, man is\nprovided with a super soul for the Sabbath, enabling him to bear both the\nspiritual and the material delights of the day with dignity and\nsolemnity.(213) The very light (or expression) of man\u2019s face is different\non Sabbath, testifying to his inward peace and rest. And when man has\nrecited his prayers (on the eve of the Sabbath) and thus borne testimony\nto God\u2019s creation of the world and to the glory of the Sabbath, there\nappear the two angels who accompany him, lay their hands on his head and\nimpart to him their blessing with the words: \u201cAnd thine iniquity is taken\naway and thy sin purged\u201d (Is. vi. 7).(214) For nothing is allowed to\ndisturb the peace of the Sabbath; not even \u201cthe sorrows of sin,\u201d though\nthe Sabbath had such a solemn effect on people that even the worldly man\nwould not utter an untruth on the Day of the Lord. Hence it was not only\nforbidden to pray on Sabbath for one\u2019s own (material) needs, but\neverything in the liturgy of a mournful character (as for instance the\nconfession of sin, supplication for pardon) was carefully avoided. It was\nwith difficulty, as the Rabbis say, that they made an exception in the\ncase of condoling with people who had suffered loss through the death of\nnear relatives. There is no room for morbid sentiment on Sabbath, for the\nblessing of the Lord maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow with it (Prov.\nx. 22).(215) The burden of the Sabbath prayers is for peace, rest,\nsanctification, and joy (through salvation) and praise of God for this\nineffable bliss of the Sabbath.\n\nSuch was the Sabbath of the old Rabbis and the same spirit continued\nthrough all ages. The Sabbath was and is still celebrated by the people\nwho did and do observe it, in hundreds of hymns, which would fill volumes,\nas a day of rest and joy, of pleasure and delight, a day in which man\nenjoys some foretaste of the pure bliss and happiness which are stored up\nfor the righteous in the world to come. Somebody, either the learned\nprofessors, or the millions of the Jewish people, must be under an\nillusion. Which it is I leave to the reader to decide.\n\nIt is also an illusion to speak of the burden which a scrupulous care to\nobserve six hundred and thirteen commandments must have laid upon the Jew.\nEven a superficial analysis will discover that in the time of Christ many\nof these commandments were already obsolete (as for instance those\nrelating to the tabernacle and to the conquest of Palestine), while others\nconcerned only certain classes, as the priests, the judges, the soldiers,\nthe Nazirites, or the representatives of the community, or even only one\nor two individuals among the whole population, as the King and the High\u2010\nPriest. Others, again, provided for contingencies which could occur only\nto a few, as for instance the laws concerning divorce or levirate\nmarriages, whilst many\u2014such as those concerning idolatry, and incest, and\nthe sacrifice of children to Moloch\u2014could scarcely have been considered as\na practical prohibition by the pre\u2010Christian Jew; just as little as we can\nspeak of Englishmen as lying under the burden of a law preventing them\nfrom burning widows or marrying their grandmothers, though such acts would\ncertainly be considered as crimes. Thus it will be found by a careful\nenumeration that barely a hundred laws remain which really concerned the\nlife of the bulk of the people. If we remember that even these include\nsuch laws as belief in the unity of God, the necessity of loving and\nfearing Him, and of sanctifying His name, of loving one\u2019s neighbour and\nthe stranger, of providing for the poor, exhorting the sinner, honouring\none\u2019s parents and many more of a similar character, it will hardly be said\nthat the ceremonial side of the people\u2019s religion was not well balanced by\na fair amount of spiritual and social elements. Besides, it would seem\nthat the line between the ceremonial and the spiritual is too often only\narbitrarily drawn. With many commandments it is rather a matter of opinion\nwhether they should be relegated to the one category or the other.\n\nThus, the wearing of Tephillin(216) or phylacteries has, on the one hand,\nbeen continually condemned as a meaningless superstition, and a pretext\nfor formalism and hypocrisy. But, on the other hand, Maimonides, who can\nin no way be suspected of superstition or mysticism, described their\nimportance in the following words: \u201cGreat is the holiness of the\nTephillin; for as long as they are on the arm and head of man he is humble\nand God\u2010fearing, and feels no attraction for frivolity or idle things, nor\nhas he any evil thoughts, but will turn his heart to the words of truth\nand righteousness.\u201d The view which R. Johanan, a Palestinian teacher of\nthe third century, took of the fulfilment of the Law, will probably be\nfound more rational than that of many a rationalist of to\u2010day. Upon the\nbasis of the last verse in Hosea, \u201cThe ways of the Lord are right, and the\njust shall walk in them, but the transgressors shall fall therein,\u201d he\nexplains that while one man, for instance, eats his paschal lamb with the\npurpose of doing the will of God who commanded it, and thereby does an act\nof righteousness, another thinks only of satisfying his appetite by the\nlamb, so that his eating it (by the very fact that he professes at the\nsame time to perform a religious rite) becomes a stumbling\u2010block for\nhim.(217) Thus all the laws by virtue of their divine authority\u2014and in\nthis there was in the first century no difference of opinion between Jews\nand Christians\u2014have their spiritual side, and to neglect them implies, at\nleast from the individual\u2019s own point of view, a moral offence.\n\nThe legalistic attitude may be summarily described as an attempt to live\nin accordance with the will of God, caring less for what God is than for\nwhat He wants us to be. But, nevertheless, on the whole this life never\ndegenerated into religious formalism. Apart from the fact that during the\nsecond temple there grew up laws, and even beliefs, which show a decided\ntendency towards progress and development, there were also ceremonies\nwhich were popular with the masses, and others which were neglected. Men\nwere not, therefore, the mere soulless slaves of the Law; personal\nsympathies and dislikes also played a part in their religion. Nor were all\nthe laws actually put upon the same level. With a happy inconsistency men\nalways spoke of heavier and slighter sins, and by the latter\u2014excepting,\nperhaps, the profanation of the Sabbath\u2014they mostly understood ceremonial\ntransgressions. The statement made by Professor Toy (p. 243), on the\nauthority of James (ii. 10), that \u201cthe principle was established that he\nwho offended in one point was guilty of all,\u201d is hardly correct; for the\npassage seems rather to be laying down a principle, or arguing that\nlogically the law ought to be looked upon as a whole, than stating a fact.\nThe fact was that people did not consider the whole law as of equal\nimportance, but made a difference between laws and laws, and even spoke of\ncertain commandments, such as those of charity and kindness, as\noutweighing all the rest of the Torah. It was in conformity with this\nspirit that in times of great persecution the leaders of the people had no\ncompunction in reducing the whole Law to the three prohibitions of\nidolatry, of incest, and of bloodshed. Only these three were considered of\nsufficient importance that men should rather become martyrs than\ntransgress them.\n\nThese, then, are some of the illusions and misrepresentations which exist\nwith regard to the Law. There are many others, of which the complete\nexposure would require a book by itself. Meanwhile, in the absence of such\na book to balance and correct the innumerable volumes upon the other side,\nProfessor Toy has done the best he could with existing materials, and\nproduced a meritorious work deserving of wide recognition and approval.\n\n\n\n\n\nX. THE HEBREW COLLECTION OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM\n\n\nThe Hebrew collection in the British Museum forms one of the greatest\ncentres of Jewish thought. It is only surpassed by the treasures which are\ncontained in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The fame of these magnificent\ncollections has spread far and wide. It has penetrated into the remotest\ncountries, and even the Bachurim (_alumni_) of some obscure place in\nPoland, who otherwise neither care nor know anything about British\ncivilisation, have a dim notion of the nature of these mines of Jewish\nlearning.\n\nAll sorts of legends circulate amongst them about the \u201cmillions\u201d of books\nwhich belong to the \u201cQueen of England.\u201d They speak mysteriously of an\nautograph copy of the Book of Proverbs, presented to the Queen of Sheba on\nthe occasion of her visit to Jerusalem, and brought by the English troops\nas a trophy from their visit to Abyssinia, which is still ruled by the\ndescendants of that famous lady. They also talk of a copy of the Talmud of\nJerusalem which once belonged to Titus, afterwards to a Pope, was\npresented by the latter to a Russian Czar, and taken away from him by the\nEnglish in the Crimean war; of a manuscript of the book _Light is\nSown_,(218) which is so large that no shelf can hold it, and which\ntherefore hangs on iron chains. How they long to have a glance at these\nprecious things! Would not a man get wiser only by looking at the\nautograph of the wisest of men?\n\nBut even the students of Germany and Austria, who are inaccessible to such\nfables, and by the aid of Zedner\u2019s, Steinschneider\u2019s, and Neubauer\u2019s\ncatalogues have a fair notion of our libraries, cherish the belief that\nthey would gain in scholarship and wisdom by examining these grand\ncollections. How often have I been asked by Jewish students abroad: \u201cHave\nyou really been to the British Museum? Have you really seen this or that\nrare book or manuscript? Had you not great difficulties in seeing them? Is\nnot the place where these heaps of jewels are treasured up always crowded\nby students and visitors?\u201d\n\nYet how little does our English public know of these wonderful things! We\nare fairly interested in Gr\u00e6co\u2010Roman art. We betray much curiosity about\nthe different Egyptian dynasties. We look with admiration at the cuneiform\ninscriptions in the Nimrod room. We do not even grudge a glance at the\nabominable idols of the savage tribes. But as to the productions of Jewish\ngenius,\u2014well, it is best to quote here the words of Heine, who ridiculed\nthis indifference to everything that is Jewish, in the following lines:\u2014\n\n\n    Alte Mumien, ausgestopfte,\n    Pharaonen von \u00c6gypten,\n    Merowinger Schattenk\u00f6n\u2019ge,\n    Ungepuderte Perticken,\n\n    Auch die Zopfmonarchen China\u2019s\n    Porzellanpagodenkaiser\u2014\n    Alle lernen sie answendig,\n    Kluge M\u00e4dchen, aber, Himmel!\n\n    Fragt man sie nach grossen Namen,\n    Aus dem grossen Goldzeitalter\n    Der arabisch\u2010althispanisch\n    J\u00fcdischen Poetenschule,\n\n    Fragt man nach dem Dreigestirn\n    Nach Jehuda ben Halevy,\n    Nach dem Salomon Gabirol\n    Und dem Moses Iben Esra.\n\n    Fragt man nach dergleichen Namen,\n    Dann mit grossen Augen schaun\n    Uns die Kleinen an\u2014alsdann\n    Stehn am Berge die Ochsinnen.\n\n\nNow Heine goes on to advise his beloved one to study the Hebrew language.\nIt would be indeed the best remedy against this indifference. But this is\nso radical a cure that one cannot hope that it will be made use of by\nmany. A few remarks in English, trying to give some notion of the Hebrew\ncollection in the British Museum, may, therefore, not be considered\naltogether superfluous.\n\nThe Hebrew collection in the Museum may be divided into two sections:\nPrinted Books, and Manuscripts. The number of the printed books amounted\nin the year 1867, in which Zedner concluded his catalogue, to 10,100\nvolumes. Within the last twenty\u2010eight years about 5000 more have been\nadded.\n\nThis enormous collection has grown out of very small beginnings. The\nBritish Museum was first opened to the public in the year 1759. Amongst\nthe 500,000 volumes which it possessed at that time only a single Jewish\nwork, the _editio princeps_ of the Talmud (Bomberg, Venice, 1520\u20101523) was\nto be found on its shelves. According to an article by Zedner in the\n_Hebr\u00e4ische Bibliographie_ (ii. p. 88), this copy of the Talmud once\nbelonged to Henry VIII. But very soon the Museum was enriched by a small\ncollection of Hebrew books, presented to it by Mr. Solomon da Costa,\nsurnamed Athias, who had emigrated to England from Holland. The\ntranslation of the Hebrew letter with which the donor accompanied his\npresent to the Trustees of the Museum was first published in the\n_Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, February 1760, and was afterwards republished by\nthe Rev. A. L. Green, in an article in the _Jewish Chronicle_, 1859. I\nshall only reproduce here the passage relating to the history of this\ncollection. After expressing his gratitude to the \u201ccrowning city, the city\nof London, in which he dwelt for fifty\u2010four years in ease and quietness\nand safety,\u201d and telling us that he bequeaths these books to the British\nnation as a token of his gratitude, Da Costa proceeds to say that they are\n180 books, which had been gathered and bound for Charles II., with\nvaluable bindings and marked with the king\u2019s own cipher. These books were\nintended as a present from the London Jewish community to Charles for\ncertain privileges which he had bestowed on them. The sudden death of the\nking seems to have frustrated the intention of the first donors. The books\nwere scattered, and Da Costa had to collect them again.\n\nSmall as this collection is, it is most valuable on account of its\nincluding many early editions of Venice, Constantinople, Naples, etc. The\noriginal letter of Da Costa, with a full list of the 180 books, is\npreserved in a MS. in the British Museum (Additional, 4710\u201011).\n\nOf still greater importance is the Michaelis collection. It consists of\n4420 volumes, and was bought by the Trustees of the Museum in 1848. Other\nsuccessive acquisitions, especially the purchase of a large number of\nprinted books from the Almanzi collection, brought the Museum into\npossession of one of the most complete and one of the largest Hebrew\nlibraries in the world.\n\nAfter the foregoing remarks on the quantity of this collection, I shall\nnow attempt to give some idea of its quality. The following table, taken\nfrom the Preface of Zedner\u2019s _Catalogue_, shows its manifold contents:\u2014\n\n\n    1. Bibles, 1260\n    2. Commentaries on the Bible, 510\n    3. Talmud, 730\n    4. Commentaries on the Talmud, 700\n    5. Codes of Law, 1260\n    6. Decisions, 520\n    7. Midrash, 160\n    8. Cabbalah, 460\n    9. Sermons, 400\n    10. Liturgies, 1200\n    11. Divine Philosophy, 690\n    12. Scientific works, 180\n    13. Grammars, Dictionaries, 450\n    14. History, Geography, 320\n    15. Poetry, Criticism, 770\n\n\nThe reader can see that almost every branch of human thought, religious\nand secular, is amply represented in this collection. Looking at this\ntable from a geographical point of view, we may perhaps classify the\nauthors in the following way:\u2014France and Germany in the Middle Ages,\nPoland and the East in modern times, are represented by the fourth, fifth,\nand sixth classes. The Rabbis of Spain and Italy would probably excel in\nthe last five classes. In the productions of classes eight and nine all\nthe before\u2010mentioned countries would have an equal share. English Judaism,\nby reason of its large number of occasional prayers and wedding hymns\n(Zedner, pp. 472, 652), may perhaps be represented in the last class\n(criticism excluded). We in England are a pious, devotional people, and\nleave the thinking to others.\n\nBut what is still more welcome to the student is the fact that all these\nbranches of Jewish learning are represented in the British Museum by the\nbest editions. It would be a rather tedious task to enumerate here all the\nearly editions of which this collection can boast. There is hardly any\nHebrew book of importance from the Bible down to the Code of R. Joseph\nCaro of which the Museum does not possess the first printed edition. There\nare also many books and editions in the Museum of which no second copy is\nknown to be in existence. An enumeration of these rare books and editions\nwould require long lists, the perusal of which would be rather trying. But\nI shall say a few words to show the importance of such early editions for\nthe student. They possess, first, the advantage of being free from the\nmisprints which crept in with every fresh republication. The art of\nediting books in a correct and scientific way is of a very recent date.\nAnd even Hebrew literature does not find that support from the public\nwhich would enable scholars to edit Jewish books in such a way as Roman\nand Greek classics are prepared by Oxford and Cambridge students. A new\nedition of a Hebrew book meant therefore an addition of new mistakes and\nmisprints. And it is only by examining the _editiones principes_ that the\nscholar finds his way out of these perplexities.\n\nAnother advantage is the fact that these early editions escaped the hand\nof the censor, whose office was not introduced till a comparatively late\ndate. The same advantage is also possessed by the Hebrew books published\nat Constantinople, Salonica, and other Mohammedan cities. Only Christian\ncountries indulged in the barbarous pleasure of burning and disfiguring\nJewish books. It is one of the most touching points in the life of R.\nDavid Oppenheim, of Prague, who spent all his life and fortune in\ncollecting Hebrew works, and whose collection now forms one of the\ngreatest ornaments of the Bodleian Library, that he was not allowed by the\ncensor to enjoy the use of his treasures. He had to put them under the\nprotection of Lipman Cohen, his father\u2010in\u2010law in Hanover, many hundreds of\nmiles from his own home. With the exception of the Bible hardly any Jewish\nbooks escaped mutilation. In certain Christian countries some books were\nnot allowed to be published at all; of others, again, whole chapters had\nto be omitted, while of others many passages had to be expunged. The words\nRoman, Greek, Gentile, were strictly forbidden, and had to be changed into\nTurks, Arabs, Samaritans, or worshippers of the stars and planets. One can\nimagine what confusion such stupid alterations caused. Fancy what blunders\nwould have been committed in history if the old chroniclers had been\ncompelled to change the Pope into the Grand Turk or the Shah of Persia,\nthe Christian rulers into as many califs and pashas, or Rome and Athens\ninto Pekin and Mecca!\n\nIt may perhaps be interesting to learn that Jews sometimes imitated their\nbitter enemies in this work of mutilation. Thus in the later editions of\nthe _Book of Genealogies_ by Abraham Zacuto,(219) a passage was left out\nreproducing the evidence given by the widow of Moses de Leon to the effect\nthat the cabbalistic work, the Zohar, was a forgery manufactured by her\npoor dear husband. Another omission of this kind is to be found in the\nCode of R. Joseph Caro, mentioned above. Here the earliest editions\ndeclare, in the heading of section 605, \u201ca certain religious usage\u201d to be\n\u201ca custom of folly.\u201d In the republications, the last three words were left\nout. From such nonsensical omissions and changes only the earliest\neditions, which are abundant in the Museum, were exempt.\n\nA remarkable feature about the books of this Hebrew collection also is\nthat many of them are provided in the margin with manuscript notes by\ntheir former possessors. These often happen to bear very great names in\nliterature. I shall only mention here R. Jacob Emden, Almanzi, Michael,\nGerundi, and Heidenheim. Of the works written by R. Jacob Emden, the\nMuseum possesses an almost complete author\u2019s copy with abundant\ncorrections, notes, and emendations by the author himself. His works are\nstill very popular among Polish and Russian Jews, especially his Prayer\u2010\nBook, and his Responses. It would be advisable for publishers in these\ncountries to avail themselves of this copy on the occasion of a new\nedition. Of Christian scholars I should name here Isaac Casaubon. A rather\namusing mistake occurs in Ben\u2010Jacob\u2019s _Treasure of Books_ in connection\nwith this name. Among the many valuable copies of Kimchi\u2019s grammatical\nwork _Perfection_,(220) possessed by the Museum, there is included one\nwhich belonged to Casaubon, and is full of notes by him. The author of the\n_Treasure_ speaks of a _Perfection_ with notes by Rabbi Yitzchak Kasuban.\nI was at first at a loss to guess who that Rabbi Casaubon might be. When\nexamining Zedner I found it was no other than the famous Christian\nscholar, Isaac Casaubon. It is not known that Casaubon\u2019s ambition lay in\nthis direction. But when Philo was regarded as a Father of the Church, Ben\nGabirol quoted for many centuries as a Mohammedan philosopher, why should\nnot Casaubon obtain for once the dignity of a Rabbi?\n\nAfter having given the reader some notion of the collection of printed\nworks, I should like now to invite him to accompany me through the\nManuscript Department of the Museum. But I am afraid that I shall make a\nbad guide here; for the Museum is still without a descriptive catalogue of\nthe Hebrew manuscripts, which is the only means of enabling the student to\nobtain a general view of the number and nature of these works. The\nmanuscript catalogue of Dukes goes only as far as 1856. It was, as we\nshall soon see, just after this time that the Museum made its largest and,\nto a certain degree also, its most valuable acquisitions in Hebrew\nmanuscripts. The following remarks must, therefore, not be taken as the\nresult of a systematic study of this collection, which would be quite\nimpossible without the aid of a catalogue. They rest partly on the\ndescriptions given of a certain number of manuscripts in the catalogue by\nDukes, but for the greater part on occasional glances at this or that MS.\n\nAs to the history of the collection, it has grown out of small beginnings\njust as that of printed books. The collection of Dr. Sloane, which laid\nthe foundation of the Museum Library, contained only nine Hebrew MSS.\nLater acquisitions, as the Harleian collection, the Cottonian collection,\nthe Royal collection, and many other smaller collections marked as\nAdditional up to 1854, increased the number of the Hebrew manuscripts to\n232. Of much more importance was the Almanzi collection, bought by the\ntrustees of the Museum in 1865, and consisting of 335 MSS. Of succeeding\nacquisitions I shall mention here only the Yemen MSS., which were brought\nto this country by the famous Shapira. The number of Hebrew MSS. at the\npresent day is said to exceed one thousand. But we must not forget that\nmany MSS. contain more than one work; in some cases even three or four, so\nthat the number of Hebrew works is far greater still.\n\nI shall now speak of the nature and importance of these MSS. As to their\ncontents they may be easily grouped under the following headings: Biblical\nMSS., Commentaries (to the Bible) and Super\u2010Commentaries, parts of the\nTalmud and their Commentaries, Theology, Philosophy and Ethics, Massorah,\nGrammar and Lexicography, Cabbalah, Poetry, Mathematics, Astronomy,\nAstrology and Magic, Historical and Polemical Literature, etc. All these\nbranches of theological and secular learning and even of human folly are\nfairly represented in the collection of Hebrew MSS. in the Museum, though\noften only by a part or a fragment of a work.\n\nThus the Babylonian Talmud is to be found only in two MSS. (Harl. 5508 and\nAdd. 25,717) both of them including 11 Tractates, hardly a third part of\nthe whole work. Indeed poor \u201cRabbinus Talmud\u201d had to go to the _auto de\nf\u00e9_ on so many occasions that one cannot wonder if only disjointed limbs\nare to be found of him in libraries. The only complete MS. copy which\nescaped this vandalism is that in the Royal Library in Munich, from which\nMr. Rabbinowicz has edited his monumental work, _Variae Lectiones of the\nTalmud_.\n\nAll other libraries, Oxford included, have to be satisfied with fragments.\nStill worse, as it is seen, fared the Jerusalem Talmud, and excepting the\nwell\u2010known copy in Leyden from which the Venice edition was prepared, not\neven fragments of this Talmud are to be found in the majority of\nlibraries. To my knowledge it is only the British Museum which can boast\nof the Jerusalem Talmud in MS. extending over _Order of Seeds_ and one\ntractate of _Order of Festivals_(221) (Or. 2122\u201024) with commentaries of\nR. Solomon Syrillo, the first few pages of which were edited by Dr.\nLehmann of Mayence. The Museum also possesses a great part of the Tosephta\nextending over 14 Tractates (Add. 27,296). Of Midrashim we find in the\nMuseum two excellent manuscripts of the Genesis _Rabbah_, one of the\nLeviticus _Rabbah_, and one of the _Siphra_ and the _Siphr\u00e9_ (Add. 27,169\nand 16,406), besides two copies of the Midrash _Haggadol_ and other\nAagadic collections brought from Yemen. The _Midrash_ by Machir b. Abba\nMari to the minor prophets included in the Harleian collection (5704) is\nunique. Of Liturgies, besides a great number of MSS. representing the most\npeculiar rites, I shall mention the Machzor(222) Vitri (Add. 27,200\u20101)\ncomposed by the disciples of R. Solomon b. Isaac, and forming in itself\nalmost a small library. For, apart from the prayers for festivals and week\ndays which gave it its title, it includes, besides the _Sayings of the\nFathers_ with a large commentary, three of the Minor Tractates of the\nTalmud, many responses by German and French Rabbis, and a whole series of\nreligious hymns by German and Spanish authors, and many other literary\npieces. Cabbalah is represented by various valuable writings of the pre\u2010\nZoharistic time (see for instance Add. 15,299) and the works of R. Moses\nde Leon and R. Abraham Abulafia. Of Poetry, I shall point here to the\nTarshish of R. Moses Ibn Ezra, the Makames by Judah Al Charisi (Add.\n27,122), and the Divan of R. Abraham of Bedres (Add. 27,188). Of works\nrelating to grammar and lexicography, I may refer to a Codex (Add. 27,214)\nwhich contains the lexicon of R. Menahem ben Saruk, which is considered as\nthe oldest Hebrew MS. in the Museum, dating from the year 1091. Of\nhistorical works, I mention the chronicle of R. Joseph the Priest (Add.\n27,122) and the letter of R. Sherira Gaon (Arundel 51), the oldest\nexisting copy of this work (1189), which was edited by Dr. Neubauer in his\n_Medi\u00e6val Jewish Chronicles_.\n\nThese examples will suffice to show the significance of the MSS.\ncollection of this Library. And the student may rest assured that in\nwhatever branch of Jewish thought he is interested, he will always find in\nthe Museum some Hebrew manuscript useful for his purpose.\n\nI ought now to say a few words as to the value of this collection of\nmanuscripts. Now, if the work contained in a MS. has never been edited, as\nfor instance the Machzor Vitri(223) and so many others, its value is\nestablished by the mere fact of its existence. For those who published\nMSS. were not always guided by the best literary motives. And while they\npublished and republished many books of which one edition would have been\nmore than enough, many other works of the greatest importance for Jewish\nliterature and history remained in manuscript. As an instance, it will\nsuffice to mention here the Zohar, which has passed through twenty\u2010four\neditions since the sixteenth century, whilst the earliest Jewish Midrash,\nthe _Pessikta de Rab Kahana_, had to linger in the libraries till the year\n1868, when it was edited by Mr. S. Buber. Thus there are still many pearls\nof Jewish literature which exist only in MS. Likewise most publishers were\ncareless in their choice of the manuscript from which our editions have\nbeen prepared. Almost the whole of Jewish literature will have to be re\u2010\nedited before a scientific study of it will be possible. But such critical\neditions can only be obtained by the aid of the MSS. not yet made use of,\nin which better readings are to be found. From this fact even those MSS.\nthe contents of which have been several times reprinted, as for instance\nthe MSS. of the Midrash _Rabbah_, gain the greatest literary importance.\nAnd the more MSS. the editor of a work has at his disposal, the more\ncertain is he of being able to furnish us with a good text.\n\nBut even when the whole of Jewish literature lies before the student in\nthe best of texts, there will still remain a great charm about\nmanuscripts. Printed books, like the great mass of the modern society for\nwhich they are prepared, are devoid of any originality. They interest us\nonly as classes, and it is very seldom that they have a story of their own\nto tell. It is quite different with manuscripts, where the fact of their\nhaving been produced by a living being invests them with a certain kind of\nindividuality. This is specially the case with Hebrew MSS., which were not\ncopied by men shut up in cloisters, but by sociable people living in the\nworld and sharing its joys and sorrows. Even women were employed in this\nart, and I remember to have read in some MS. or catalogue a postscript by\nthe lady copyist, which, if I remember rightly, ran as follows: \u201cI beseech\nthe reader not to judge me very harshly when he finds that mistakes have\ncrept into this work; for when I was engaged in copying it God blessed me\nwith a son, and thus I could not attend to my business properly.\u201d\n\nTo be sure, some of these copyists were curious folk. Their mind as well\nas that of the world around them must have been of a peculiar constitution\nhardly conceivable to us. Take, for example, Benjamin, the copyist of a\ncertain Machzor in the Museum (Add. 11,639). This Machzor was written in\ntimes of bitter persecution. The copyist, who was himself a learned man,\nalludes in one place to the sufferings which the Jews in a certain French\ntown had to undergo in the year 1276. On one of them, the martyr R.\nSamson, Benjamin the copyist composed a lamentation written in a most\nmournful strain. But this lamentation is followed by a wine\u2010song, one of\nthe jolliest and wildest parodies for the feast of Purim.\n\nSpeaking of this Machzor I should like to remark that it forms one of the\ngreatest ornaments of the Museum. Besides including the whole of the\nPentateuch, the above\u2010mentioned Tarshish by R. Moses Ibn Ezra, and many\nother smaller literary pieces which would require a small volume to\ndescribe them properly, this MS. is most richly illuminated, and contains\nvery many illustrations. The subjects of these illustrations are biblical,\nsometimes also apocryphal, such as\u2014Adam and Eve in Paradise, Noah in the\nArk, Abraham meeting the angels, Sarah behind the door listening to the\nconversation of her husband with his guests, Moses with the rod in his\nhands dividing the Red Sea, Samson riding on the back of a lion, Solomon\non his throne, Daniel in the lion\u2019s den, the king Ahasuerus holding out\nthe golden sceptre to Esther, Judith addressing Holofernes, the Leviathan,\nthe mythical bird Bar Yochni, and many other similar subjects. In passing\nI recommend these illustrations and illuminations to the attention of the\nartist as the most worthy examples of Jewish ecclesiastical art,\u2014if there\nis such a thing as a special Jewish art. The artist will find the Museum\nbest suited for this purpose, its collection being considered as the\nrichest of the kind. Besides this Machzor I must also allude to the\nilluminated Bible (Or. 2226\u201028) written in Lisbon for R. Judah Alchakin\u2014it\nis said to be one of the finest specimens of such works\u2014and the\nilluminated Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, executed for R. Joseph of the\nfamous Yachya family, also thought to be most artistically done. The\nliturgies for the Passover Eve service will also offer to the artist a\nrich harvest, especially Codex, Add. 27,210, which the wealthy Lady Rosa\nGalico presented to her son\u2010in\u2010law on his wedding\u2010day, and Codex, Add.\n14,762, even the binding of which is considered as an artistic curiosity.\n\nLeaving now these marvels to the appreciation of the artist, the greatest\nwonder which suggests itself to us is how the Jews could maintain such a\ncultured taste in such unhappy times, and get the means of satisfying it.\nThese reflections about the owners present themselves the more strongly to\nour mind when we meet with one of those old Jewish prayer\u2010books, which in\nmany cases formed the whole religious and literary treasure of the family.\nIn their fly\u2010leaves, in which the births and deaths of successive\ngenerations are very often registered, the _spiritus familiaris_ seems to\nbe still haunting the pages. When you turn them over and see the service\nfor Passover Eve, are you not bound to think of the anxiety with which\nthese poor creatures engaged in this ceremony lest they might be attacked\nsuddenly by a fanatic mob? must you not ask how they could bear life under\nsuch circumstances? And when you turn a few more pages and arrive at the\nprayers read for the dead, must you not ask how did they die? Were they\nperhaps burnt alive _ad majorem Dei gloriam_, or torn to pieces by a\n\u201csaintly mob\u201d? Take again the illuminated copies of the Bible and the\nMishneh Torah, both of which were finished only a few years before the\ngreat expulsion of the Jews from Spain and Portugal, times when the earth\nalready \u201cburnt under their feet, and the heaven was also very unkind to\nthem.\u201d And nevertheless Jews were still, as these MSS. show us,\ncultivating science and art. Another instance of such a devotion to\nscience in spite of the unfavourable times may be seen from a colophon to\nCodex Or. 39. It contains the book _Nissim_, a philosophical treatise on\nthe fundamental teachings of Judaism, together with a philosophical\ncommentary on the Pentateuch by R. Nissim of Marseilles, a contemporary of\nR. Solomon ben Adereth in the thirteenth century. The Museum copy was\nwritten by R. Jacob, the son of David, who also added some annotations to\nthe book. At the end he says: \u201cI have copied this book _Nissim_ for my own\nuse, that I may study in it, I and my children and my grandchildren.... I\nhave finished it to\u2010day, Sunday, the 28th of Ab, 5333 (1573), at Venice,\nin the year of the expulsion which befell us on account of our sins.\u201d Now,\nonly observe this poor R. Jacob, who has to go through all these horrors,\nyet is still occupied in copying MSS. for his own pleasure, and in\nmeditating on the most complicated problems of philosophy and religion.\n\nBut it is not always stories of this heroic nature that the MSS. tell us.\nThey betray also very much of the instability of human affairs and their\nweakness. You find in many copies the words that they must not \u201cbe sold or\ngiven in mortgage.\u201d But scarcely a generation has passed away, and they\nare already in the possession of a new owner, who writes the same\ninjunction to be broken again by his children in their turn. In Codex\n27,122, we find commendatory letters for a worthy poor man, who is so\nunhappy as to have two grown\u2010up daughters, and not to have the means of\nsupplying them with marriage portions. Indeed, he must have been very\npoor, not possessing even a book in his house, or else his troubles could\nnot have been so great. For in Codex Harl. 5702, we find the owner saying:\n\u201cTo eternal memory that I have acquired this _Third Book of Avicena_ from\nthe hands of my father\u2010in\u2010law, R. Jekuthiel, as a part of my dowry.\u201d\n\nAs a sign of human weakness I give the following two instances. There lies\nbefore me a cabbalistic Codex (Add. 27,199), which acquired some notoriety\nfrom the fact of its having been copied by the famous grammarian, R.\nElijah Levita, for his pupil Cardinal Aegidius. At the end of this MS. we\nread: \u201cI (Levita) have finished (the copying of) this book on Wednesday,\nthe day of Hoshana Rabba,(224) 5277 (1516), on which day I have seen my\nhead in the shadow of the moon. Praised be God (for it), for now I am sure\nnot to die in the following year.\u201d These words relate to a well\u2010known\nsuperstition, according to which, when a man is going to die in the course\nof the next year his shadow disappears from him on the preceding Hoshana\nRabba. But is it not humiliating to see that the great Levita, who was\nsuperior to many prejudices of his time, and taught Christians Hebrew, and\nwho denied the antiquity of the vowels in the Bible, which was considered\nby the great majority of his contemporaries as a mortal heresy\u2014is it not\nhumiliating to see this enlightened man trembling for his life on this\nnight, and anxiously observing his shadow? Another Codex lies before me\n(Add. 17,053), containing the Novell\u00e6 to three tractates of the Talmud.\nIts owner must accordingly have been a learned man. But in the fly\u2010leaf of\nthis MS. we read the following words: \u201cMemorandum\u2014Thursday, the 25th of\nSivan, 5295 (1535), I have taken an oath in the presence of R. David Ibn\nShushan and R. Moses de Castro, etc., not to play (cards) any more.\u201d I\nmight perhaps suggest on this occasion that in our days when all sorts of\nJudaisms are circulating, a cooking Judaism, a racing Judaism, a muscular\nJudaism, and so many Judaisms more\u2014it would be interesting to take up also\nthe subject of playing Judaism, and to write its history.\n\nIn conclusion I shall mention the colophon to Codex Harl. 5713, which may\nhave some interest for the English reader. It runs: \u201cI have written it in\nhonour of the noble and pious, etc., Humphrey Wanley, the noble Librarian\nof my Lord Treasurer. May his glory be increased. In the year 5474 (1714)\nin the holy community of London, under the reign of the noble and happy\nQueen Anne. May the Lord increase her splendour and glory.\u201d The signature\nof the copyist is \u201cAaron the son of Moses, born in the city of Navaschadok\nin Poland.\u201d By the way, we learn from this signature that the immigration\nof Polish Jews into this country had already begun in the time of Queen\nAnne, and perhaps still earlier.\n\nThus everything in a MS., the arrangement of the matter, the remarks of\nthe owners, the signature of the copyist, sets the reader thinking, and\ncontributes many a side\u2010light to the history of the Jews.\n\n\n\n\n\nXI. TITLES OF JEWISH BOOKS\n\n\nIt is now more than half a century since Isaac Reggio in his edition of\nElijah Delmedigo\u2019s _Examination of Religion_, made the remark that this\nbook adds to its other merits that of bearing a title corresponding to its\ncontents,\u2014a merit that is very rare in Jewish books. Reggio proceeds to\ngive a few specimens confirming his assertion, and concludes his remarks\nwith a eulogy on Delmedigo, who in this respect also had the courage to\ndiffer from his contemporaries. Zunz also once wrote an article on titles\nof books. But this article unfortunately appeared in some German\nperiodical which the British Museum does not possess, and I could not even\nsucceed in ascertaining whether Zunz treats at all of titles of Hebrew\nbooks, nor am I aware that the subject has been taken up by any other\nscholar, Isaac D\u2019Israeli\u2019s few notes on the subject in his _Curiosities of\nLiterature_ being scarcely worth mention. It seems to me, however,\ninteresting enough to deserve some illustration, though I can by no means\nhope to be complete.\n\nThe titles of the books contained in the Bible need not be discussed here;\ninformation concerning them is to be found in every critical introduction\nto the Old Testament. The Rabbinical works dating from antiquity also\noffer little opportunity for reflection on their titles. The Talmud, as a\nwork, has no title at all; for Talmud simply means \u201cteaching\u201d or \u201cstudy.\u201d\nSometimes it is termed ShaSS, an abbreviation of _Shisha Sedarim_,(225)\nmeaning the Six Orders or divisions contained in the Mishnah. This last\nword means, according to some authors, \u201cRepetition.\u201d Other Tannaitic\ncollections of laws or expositions of the Scriptures are called \u201cthe Book\u201d\n(Siphra), \u201cthe Books\u201d (Siphr\u00e9), or \u201cAdditions\u201d (Tosephta to the Mishnah).\nThe word _Baraitha_(226) means the external Mishnah that enjoyed less\nauthority than the Mishnah of R. Judah the Patriarch. Some approach to\ntitles we find in the names given to the different tractates included in\nthe Mishnah, as _Berachoth_, because it treats of Benedictions,\n_Peah_(227) (Corner) which contains the particulars concerning the law in\nLev. xix. and so forth. Of the few works quoted in the Talmud it will\nsuffice to mention the _Seder Olam_, the Order of the World, the name of\nwhich is very suitable to the chronological contents of the book. In\ngeneral, I may observe that as long as the law which prohibited the\nwriting down of the Oral teachings was in force, there hardly existed\nJewish books. But where there are no books there is also no need for\ntitles. The few titles, however, which can be proved to be historical are\nsimple and to the point. It is not till about the beginning of the Middle\nAges, when this prohibitive law had, for reasons not to be explained here,\nbeen abolished, that we can speak of Hebrew books. But here also the\nTitle\u2010confusion begins.\n\nIn order that we may have some general view of the thousands of titles\nthat are catalogued by the Jewish bibliographers, it will perhaps be well\nto arrange them under the following six classes:\u2014\n\nI. _Simple titles_, that have no other object than that of indicating the\nsubject matter of the book. These are, as we have just seen, the only kind\nof titles known to antiquity. The few books which the Gaonim left us bear\nsuch simple titles as could have served as models to later generations.\nAmong them may be mentioned the _Halachoth_ or collection of Laws, _Creeds\nand Opinions_, by R. Saadiah Gaon, the _Book on Buying and Selling_, by R.\nHai Gaon, containing the laws relating to commercial transactions. It may\nbe noticed that this last book is one of the best arranged in Jewish\nliterature, and displays more systematising powers than even the Code of\nMaimonides. The greatest part of the literary activity of the Gaonim\nconsists in their Responsa, in which they gave decisions on ritual\nquestions, or explanations of difficult passages in the Talmud. The titles\nborne by the various collections of those Responsa belong to a period\nlater than the author\u2019s. The great majority of the books produced by the\nFranco\u2010German school may also be included in this class. They are termed\n\u201cCommentaries,\u201d \u201cAdditions\u201d or \u201cGlosses,\u201d \u201cNovell\u00e6,\u201d or \u201cConfirming\nProofs,\u201d and similar modest titles which show both their relation to, and\ndependence on, another older authority. The largest collection of\nMidrashim we possess bears the simple title \u201cBag.\u201d(228) Many of the\nResponsa satisfy themselves with the words \u201cQuestions to, and Answers by.\u201d\n\nII. _Titles taken from the first word with which the book begins_, or from\nthe first word of the Scriptural verse occurring first in the book. This\nclass is strongly represented by the Midrashim. Thus the Midrash to the\nSong of Songs is also quoted as the Midrash _Chazitha_,(229) \u201cMidrash,\nSeest thou\u201d (the first text with which this Midrash deals being Proverbs\nxxii. 28). The Midrash to the Psalms is called Midrash _Shocher Tob_,(230)\n\u201cMidrash, He that diligently seeketh the good\u201d (Prov. xi. 37). The Midrash\ncontaining the legendary story of the wars of the sons of Jacob with the\nCanaanites is quoted as Midrash _V\u2019yisseu_,(231) \u201cMidrash, And they\njourneyed,\u201d as the story begins with the verse from Gen. xxxv. 5. And this\nis the case with the titles of many other Midrashim. Whether the work\ncited under the strange name of _Meat on Coals_ did not begin with those\nwords, containing some law relating to the salting of meat, I do not\nventure to decide. Under this class we may also arrange those books that\nare called after a phrase which is often used in the book, _e.g._, the\nMidrash _Yelamdenu_ (He may teach us), or the _Vehizhir_, \u201cAnd He\ncommanded us,\u201d almost every paragraph in these books beginning with the\nphrases mentioned.(232) Probably all the books belonging to this class\nreceived from the hands of their authors or compilers no titles at all.\nThe student who had to quote them gave them names after the phrase or word\nwhich first caught his eye. In later centuries this class disappears\nalmost entirely (see, however, Ben\u2010Jacob\u2019s _Treasure_, p. 201, No. 827).\n\nIII. _Pompous titles._ The largest contributions to this class were made\nby the mystical writers. Books which profess to know what is going on in\nthe heavens above and the earth beneath cannot possibly be satisfied with\nmodest titles. Thus we have the \u201cBook of Brightness\u201d (Zohar), \u201cthe shining\nbook\u201d (Bahir), \u201cthe Confidential Shepherd\u201d (Moses).(233) The books which\nthe Zohar quotes bear such titles as the Book of Adam, the Book of Enoch.\nThe only excuse for the Zohar is that the manufacturing of such books with\npseudo\u2010epigraphical titles had already begun in antiquity. It is not,\nhowever, till the Gaonic period that a whole apocryphal literature\nsuddenly emerges which perplexes the Gaonim themselves. No one is spared.\nAngels, patriarchs, and martyrs are called upon to lend their names to\nthese books. What one resents most is that history came within the range\nof the forger\u2019s activity. There is, for instance, the Josippon, which\nprofesses to be written by Josephus, the well\u2010known Jewish historian of\nthe first century. But in spite of all the care taken by the author to\ndisguise himself in the garb of antiquity, the Josippon is a forgery of\nthe ninth or tenth century. Of a similar kind is the Book of Jasher,\ncontaining legendary stories relating to Biblical personages. It pretends\nto be identical with the Book of Jasher quoted in Joshua x. 13 and 2 Sam.\ni. 18. Some sixty years ago a certain Mr. Samuel of Liverpool had the\nmisfortune to make himself ridiculous by maintaining the pretensions of\nthis book; for, indeed, it does not require much knowledge of the Agadic\nliterature to see that the Book of Jasher is only a compilation of\ncomparatively late Midrashim.\n\nIV. _Titles suggested by other Titles._ As an instance of this we may take\nMaimonides\u2019 great Code of Law, which bears the title _Mishneh Torah_. The\nimportance of the book made it the object of study for hundreds of\nscholars, who wrote their commentaries and glosses on it. Among the titles\nof the commentaries such Title\u2010genealogies may be discovered as Maggid\n_Mishneh_, _Mishneh_ Lammelech; which last word again suggested such\ntitles as Emek ha\u2010_Melech_, Shaar ha\u2010_Melech_, and so on.(234)\n\nThe same process may be observed in other standard works, the importance\nof which made them a subject of investigation and interpretation as the\n\u201cPrepared Table,\u201d one of the glosses to which is called _Mappah_,\n\u201cTablecloth,\u201d whilst others provided it with the _Shewbread_ and with _New\nFruit_.\n\nV. _Euphemistic Titles_, as \u201cThe Tractate of Joys,\u201d treating of funeral\nceremonies and kindred subjects. It does not seem that this title was\nknown to antiquity, but it is certain that already the earlier authorities\nquoted it by this name. \u201cThe Book of Life\u201d (the German Jewish title of\nwhich is _Alle Dinim, von Freuden_), is the name of a very popular book\ncontaining the prayers to be read in the house of mourning as well as in\nthe cemetery, which is also called the House of Life.\n\nVI. _Titles taken from the Bible_, or Fancy Titles. This is the largest\nclass of all, though it was utterly unknown in antiquity. It will be,\nperhaps, convenient to arrange this class of titles under the following\nsub\u2010divisions. (_a_) Titles taken from the Bible, but also fulfilling the\npurpose of indicating the name of the author. For instance, \u201cSeed of\nAbraham\u201d (Ps. cv. 6), is the title of nine different books, the name of\nwhose authors happened to be Abraham; \u201cAnd Isaac entreated\u201d (Gen. xxv.\n21), is by Isaac Satanow on the Prayers; \u201cThen Isaac sowed\u201d (_ibid._ xxvi.\n12), edited by R. Isaac Perles, contains an index to the Zohar. \u201cJacob\nshall take root\u201d (Is. xxvii. 6) is the name of a book on Grammar and\nMassorah by R. Jacob Bassani. R. Joseph of Posen left two collections of\nsermons and commentaries on the Pentateuch, of which the one is called\n\u201cAnd Joseph nourished\u201d (Gen. xlvii. 12), the other \u201cAnd Joseph gathered\u201d\n(_ibid._ 14). Authors with the name of Judah are represented among others\nby such titles as \u201cAnd this of Judah\u201d (Deut. xxxiii.7), a treatise on the\nlaws concerning the killing of animals; or \u201cJudah shall go up\u201d (Judges i.\n2), a pamphlet containing a collection of prayers to be said on a journey.\n\u201cMoses began\u201d (Deut. i. 5) forms the title of three different books on\nvarious subjects, the authors of which had the name Moses. \u201cMoses shall\nrejoice,\u201d a phrase occurring in the morning prayer for Sabbaths, is also\nthe title of two books, the authors of which were named Moses. The \u201cRod of\nAaron\u201d enjoyed, as it seems, a goodly popularity; there are four bearing\nthis name, not to speak of a fifth, \u201cThe Rod of Aaron brought forth buds\u201d\n(Exod. xvii. 23), which is the name of a collection of Responsa by R.\nAaron ben Chayim. But other Rods also were fashionable; there are, besides\nthe five Rods of Moses, also Rods of Ephraim, Dan, Judah, Joseph,\nNaphtali, and Manasseh. By authors of the name of David we find books with\nthe title \u201cAnd David said,\u201d or a \u201cPrayer of David,\u201d and other phrases\noccurring in the Psalms relating to David; whilst the \u201cTower of David\u201d\nbecame the stronghold of other writers, and the \u201cShield of David\u201d\nprotected as many as nine more. The \u201cChariot of Solomon\u201d (Cant. iii. 9)\nadorns the title\u2010pages of five books by authors named Solomon. The Caraite\nSolomon Troki was so fond of that title that he called his two polemical\ntreatises \u201cHe made himself a chariot,\u201d while R. Solomon of Mir\u2019s\ncollection of sermons has the title, \u201cThis Bed which is Solomon\u2019s\u201d (Cant.\niii. 7). As to family names, there were not many authors in the enjoyment\nof that luxury (especially among the German Jews), but we find them\nindicating the fact of their being Priests or Levites. Among such books\nare the collection of Responsa, by R. Raphael Cohen, which has the title\n\u201cAnd the Priest shall come again\u201d (Lev. xiv. 39), and the Cabbalistic\ntreatise by R. Abraham Cohen, of Lask, with the title \u201cAnd the Priest\nshall reckon unto him\u201d (Lev. xxvii. 18). Probably the author deals with\nnumbers. R. Hirsch Horwitz, the Levite, called his Novell\u00e6 to the Talmud\n\u201cThe Camp of Levi.\u201d The title \u201cThe Service of the Levite\u201d (with allusion\nto Exodus xxxviii. 21) is borne by five other books by authors who were\nLevites. And there may be found hundreds of books with titles suggesting\nthe Priestly or Levitical descent of their authors. Most anxious is Joseph\nIbn Kaspi (Joseph the Silvern, so called after his native place\nArgenti\u00e8re, in the south of France) to provide most of his numerous books\nwith some Biblical titles combined with silver, as a \u201cBowl of Silver\u201d\n(Numb. vii. 13), or \u201cPoints of Silver\u201d (Song of Songs i. 11), or \u201cFigures\nof Silver\u201d (Prov. xxv. 10), and other similar phrases. On the other hand\nAzulai manages to indicate at least one of his three Hebrew names, Chayim\nJoseph David, in most of his works, of which the number exceeds seventy,\nas Chayim Shaal,(235) \u201cHe asked Life\u201d (Ps. xxi. 4), or \u201cThe knees of\nJoseph\u201d (alluding to Gen. xlviii. 12), and \u201cTruth unto David\u201d (Ps. cxxxii.\n11).\n\n(_b_) The Tabernacle with its furniture was also a great favourite with\nmany authors. There are not only six tabernacles (two on Cabbalah, two on\ngrammar, and two on Talmudical subjects), but also three \u201cArks of the\nTestimony,\u201d two \u201cAltars of gold,\u201d two \u201cTables of Shewbread,\u201d four\n\u201cCandlesticks of the Light,\u201d two \u201cSockets of Silver,\u201d and two \u201cPillars of\nSilver.\u201d Others again preferred the vestments of the priests as the \u201cPlate\nof Judgment,\u201d the \u201cRobe of the Ephod,\u201d the \u201cMitre of Aaron,\u201d the \u201cPlate of\nGold,\u201d the \u201cBell and Pomegranate,\u201d \u201cWreathen Chains,\u201d and the \u201cArches of\nGold.\u201d Many of these books were written by authors claiming to be priests.\n(_c_) But besides the canonical, other costumes were also fashionable. R.\nMordecai Yafeh composed ten books, every one of them bearing the name of\nsome garment or apparel, as \u201cApparel of Royalty,\u201d \u201cApparel of Blue,\u201d\n\u201cApparel of White,\u201d and so the whole suit with which Mordecai went out\nfrom the presence of the king (Esther viii. 15). These ten works range\nfrom codifications of the law and occasional sermons to philosophy,\nastronomy, and Cabbalah. By other writers we have three \u201cCoats of many\ncolours\u201d (Gen. xxxvii. 4), one \u201cBridal Attire,\u201d and the \u201cThread of\nScarlet\u201d is not missing. (_d_) The ingredients for incense as well as\nother articles used in the Tabernacle or in the Temple were also fancied\nby some authors, and we have two books with the title of \u201cPrincipal\nSpices,\u201d two \u201cPure Myrrh,\u201d three \u201cArts of the Apothecary,\u201d one \u201cOil of\nHoly Ointment,\u201d five \u201cMeat Offerings mingled or dry,\u201d three or four \u201cFlour\nof the Meat Offering,\u201d and also one \u201cTwo Young Pigeons\u201d (Bene Yonah) by R.\nJonah Zandsopher. But the appetite of the authors did not stop at these\nholy things. It extended also to such lay articles as \u201cSpiced Wine,\u201d\n\u201cJuice of Pomegranate\u201d (Cant. viii. 2), \u201cForests of Honey,\u201d the \u201cBook of\nthe Apple,\u201d and \u201cSeven Kinds of Drink.\u201d\n\n(_e_) Field and flock also suggested to Hebrew writers as well as to Mr.\nRuskin such titles as \u201cThe Fruit of the Hand,\u201d the \u201cRose of Sharon,\u201d the\n\u201cLily of the Valleys,\u201d or \u201cThe Shepherds\u2019 Tents,\u201d and \u201cIn the Green\nPastures\u201d (Ps. xxiii. 2).\n\nThe specimens given for every class may with very little trouble be\ndoubled and redoubled. But it is not my intention to reproduce here whole\ncatalogues. Reggio thinks all such titles, which do not correspond with\nthe context of the book, absurd and confusing. He suggests that the Jews\nfollowed in this respect the Arabic writers. There is no doubt that Reggio\nis not altogether wrong in his complaint. Almost all the titles included\nin class vi., as the reader might have observed, never indicate to the\nstudent the subject of which the books treat. How can one guess that the\nResponsa, the Dance of Mahanaim (two companies), is of a polemical nature\nagainst the tendencies of reform? This list may be lengthened by hundreds\nof titles. But even these incomprehensible titles are better than the\n_Chad Gadyah Lo Israel_ (One Kid No Israel),(236) the un\u2010Hebrew title of a\npamphlet trying to prove the un\u2010Jewish origin of the well\u2010known folk\u2010song\nsung on Passover Eve. But, on the other hand, it must not be overlooked\nthat even this class has, though not always, something suggestive and even\npractical about it. The \u201cChoice of Pearls\u201d is undoubtedly more attractive\nthan the prosaic \u201cCollection of Proverbs and Sayings,\u201d which is what the\nbook contains. \u201cUnderstanding of the Seasons\u201d (1 Chr. xii. 32), sounds\nalso better than the simple \u201cCollection of Sermons on different\noccasions.\u201d \u201cThe Lips of those who Sleep\u201d recommends itself as a very\nsuggestive title for a catalogue, especially when one thinks of the Agadic\nexplanation given to Cant. vii. 10, according to which the study of the\nbook of a departed author makes the lips of the dead man to speak. Such\ntitles as \u201cBunch of Lilies\u201d for a collection of poems are still usual with\nus. Such a title as the \u201cJealousy Offering,\u201d or the \u201cLaw of Jealousies,\u201d\nin polemical literature is very appropriate for its subject. R. Jacob\nEmden, who named one of his pamphlets \u201cRod for the fool\u2019s back\u201d (Prov.\nxxvi. 3), will be envied for his choice by many a controversialist even\nto\u2010day. Wittily devised is the pun\u2010title, \u201cCity of Sihon\u201d for a\nmathematical book by R. Joseph Tsarphathi, alluding to Numb. xxi. 27, \u201cFor\nHesbon (reckoning) is the City of Sihon.\u201d\n\nOther titles were probably intended more as mottoes than titles. \u201cGo forth\nand behold, ye daughters of Zion\u201d (Cant. iii. 11), is put in the title\u2010\npage of R. Jacob\u2019s German\u2010Jewish paraphrase of the Pentateuch, which was\nwritten chiefly for the use of ladies. \u201cLet another man praise thee and\nnot thine own mouth, a stranger and not thine own lips\u201d (Prov. xxvii. 2),\nforms the title of a book extending over only one and a half page in\nquarto. It contains letters by seven Rabbis (among them R. Liva of Prague)\nrecommending the Ascetic, R. Abraham Wangos, who has a daughter to marry,\nand wants also to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as deserving the\nsupport of his brethren.\n\nThere is also another objection to these titles. It is that they seem\nsometimes not quite consonant with our notions of modesty. Thus we have\n\u201cDesirable and Sweet\u201d on astronomy, \u201cSweeter than Honey\u201d or \u201cHe shall\ncomfort us,\u201d and many others of this kind. But it must not be thought that\nwe have a right to infer from the title to the author. There is, indeed,\nan anecdote that three authors were rather too little careful about the\nchoice of their titles, namely Maimonides in calling his Code _Mishneh\nTorah_ (which is the traditional title of the Book of Deuteronomy), R.\nMoses Alshech in calling his homiletical commentaries _Torah_ of Moses,\nand R. Isaiah Horwitz in calling his book _Shene Luchoth ha\u2010Berith_ (The\nTwo Tables of the Covenant). These authors, as the story goes, had for\ntheir punishment that their works are never quoted by the titles they gave\nto them, the former two being usually cited as Rambam or Alshech, whilst\nthe last is more known by its abbreviated title of SHeLa(237) than by its\nfull name.\n\nI do not remember where I have read this story, but I am quite sure that\nits pious author would have been more careful about repeating it had he\nknown that this accusation against Maimonides was a favourite topic with\napostates, who thought to hit Judaism in the person of its representative\nMaimonides. But, as R. Solomon Duran in his polemical work remarks,\nMaimonides was too much of a truly great man to find any satisfaction in\nsuch petty vanity. Nor do I believe that even the character of less\u2010known\nauthors can in any way be impugned by the seemingly conceited titles of\ntheir books; just as on the other hand the humility of the author is not\nproved by calling his book \u201cThe Offering of the Poor,\u201d or other modest\ntitles. The fancy title was in common use, and was therefore a commonplace\nwith no significance whatever. The real disadvantage of such titles lies\nin the fact that, as already pointed out, they conceal from the student\nthe contents of the book which he might otherwise consult in the course of\nhis researches.\n\nDid these authors perhaps foresee that there would come a time in which\nindex\u2010knowledge would pass for deep scholarship? and did they thus by\nusing these obscure titles try to put a check on the dabblers who speak\nthe more of a book the less they have read of its contents? If this be the\ncase we can only admire their foresight.\n\n\n\n\n\nXII. THE CHILD IN JEWISH LITERATURE\n\n\n\u201cI saw a Jewish lady only yesterday with a child at her knee, and from\nwhose face towards the child there shone a sweetness so angelical that it\nseemed to form a sort of glory round both. I protest I could have knelt\nbefore her, too, and adored in her the divine beneficence in endowing us\nwith the maternal _storg\u00e9_ which began with our race and sanctifies the\nhistory of mankind.\u201d These words, which are taken from Thackeray\u2019s\n_Pendennis_, may serve as a starting\u2010point for this paper. The fact that\nthe great student of man perceived this glory just round the head of a\nJewish lady rouses in me the hope that the small student of letters may,\nwith a little search, be able to discover in the remains of our past many\nsimilar traces of this divine beneficence and sanctifying sentiment.\nCertainly the glimpses which we shall catch from the faded leaves of\nancient volumes, dating from bygone times, will not be so bright as those\nwhich the novelist was so fortunate as to catch from the face of a lady\nwhom he saw but the previous day. The mothers and fathers, about whom I am\ngoing to write in this essay, have gone long ago, and the objects of their\nanxiety and troubles have also long ago vanished. But what the subject\nwill lose in brightness, it may perhaps gain in reality and intensity. A\nfew moments of enraptured devotion do not make up the saint. It is a whole\nseries of feelings and sentiments betrayed on different occasions,\nexpressed in different ways, a whole life of sore troubles, of bitter\ndisappointments, but also moments of most elevated joys and real\nhappiness.\n\nAnd surely these manifestations of the divine beneficence, which appear in\ntheir brightest glory in the literature of every nation when dealing with\nthe child, shine strongest in the literature of the Jewish nation. In it,\nto possess a child was always considered as the greatest blessing God\ncould bestow on man, and to miss it as the greatest curse. The patriarch\nAbraham, with whom Israel enters into history, complains\u2014\u201cOh Lord, what\nwilt Thou give me, seeing I go childless!\u201d\n\nThe Rabbis regarded the childless man as dead, whilst the Cabbalist in the\nMiddle Ages thought of him who died without posterity as of one who had\nfailed in his mission in this world, so that he would have to appear again\non our planet to fulfil this duty. To trace out the feelings which\naccompanied the object of their greatest anxiety, to let them pass before\nthe reader in some way approaching to a chronological order, to draw\nattention to some points more worthy of being emphasised than others, is\nthe aim of this essay.\n\nI said that I propose to treat the subject in chronological order. I meant\nby this that I shall follow the child in the different stages through\nwhich it has to pass from its birth until it ceases to be a child and\nattains its majority. This latter period is the beginning of the\nthirteenth year in the case of a female, and the beginning of the\nfourteenth year in the case of a male. I shall have occasion later on to\nexamine this point more closely.\n\nBut there is the embryo\u2010period which forms a kind of preliminary stage in\nthe life of the child, and plays a very important part in the region of\nJewish legends. Human imagination always occupies itself most with the\nthings of which we know least. And so it got hold of this semi\u2010existence\nof man, the least accessible to experience and observation, and surrounded\nit by a whole cycle of legends and stories. They are too numerous to be\nrelated here. But I shall hint at a few points which I regard as the most\nconspicuous features of these legends.\n\nThese legends are chiefly based on the notion of the pre\u2010existence of the\nsoul on the one hand, but on the other hand they are a vivid illustration\nof the saying of the Fathers, \u201cThou art born against thy will.\u201d Thus the\nsoul, when it is brought before the throne of God, and is commanded to\nenter into the body, pleads before Him: \u201cO Lord, till now have I been holy\nand pure; bring me not into contact with what is common and unclean.\u201d\nThereupon the soul is given to understand that it was for this destiny\nalone that it was created. Another remarkable feature is the warning given\nto man before his birth that he will be responsible for his actions. He is\nregularly sworn in. The oath has the double purpose of impressing upon him\nthe consciousness of his duty to lead a holy life, and of arming him\nagainst the danger of allowing a holy life to make him vain. As if to\nrender this oath more impressive, the unborn hero is provided with two\nangels who, besides teaching him the whole of the Torah, take him every\nmorning through paradise and show him the glory of the just ones who dwell\nthere. In the evening he is taken to hell to witness the sufferings of the\nreprobate. But such a lesson would make free will impossible. His future\nconduct would only be dictated by the fear of punishment and hope of\nreward. And the moral value of his actions also depends, according to\nJewish notions, upon the power to commit sin. Thus another legend records:\n\u201cWhen God created the world, He produced on the second day the angels with\ntheir natural inclinations to do good, and the absolute inability to\ncommit sin. On the following days again He created the beasts with their\nexclusively animal desires. But He was pleased with neither of these\nextremes. If the angels follow my will, said God, it is only on account of\ntheir impotence to act in the opposite direction. I shall therefore create\nman, who will be a combination of both angel and beast, so that he will be\nable to follow either the good or evil inclination. His evil deeds will\nplace him beneath the level of animals, whilst his noble aspirations will\nenable him to obtain a higher position than angels.\u201d Care is therefore\ntaken to make the child forget all it has seen and heard in these upper\nregions. Before it enters the world an angel strikes it on the upper lip,\nand all his knowledge and wisdom disappear at once. The pit in the upper\nlip is a result of this stroke, which is also the cause why children cry\nwhen they are born.\n\nAs to the origin of these legends, the main features of which are already\nto be found in the Talmud, I must refer the reader to the researches of\nL\u00f6w and others.(238) Here we have only to watch the effect which these\nlegends had upon the minds of Jewish parents. The newly born child was in\nconsequence looked upon by them as a higher being, which, but a few\nseconds before, had been conversing with angels and saints, and had now\ncondescended into our profane world to make two ordinary mortals happy.\nThe treatment which the child experienced from its parents, as well as\nfrom the whole of the community, was therefore a combination of love and\nveneration. One may go even further and say that the belief in these\nlegends determines greatly the destination of the child. What other\ndestination could a being of such a glorious past have than to be what an\nold German Jewish poem expressed in the following lines:\u2014\n\n\n    Geboren soll es wehren\n    Zu Gottes Ehren.\n\n\n\u201cThe child should be born to the honour of God.\u201d The mission of the child\nis to glorify the name of God on earth. And the whole bringing up of the\nchild in the old Jewish communities was more or less calculated to this\nend. The words of the Bible, \u201cAnd ye shall be unto me a kingdom of\npriests,\u201d were taken literally. Every man felt it his duty to bring up his\nchildren, or at least one member of his family, for this calling. How they\ncarried out this programme we shall see later on.\n\nNow, regarding almost every infant as a predestined priest, and thinking\nof it as having received a certain preparation for this calling before it\ncame into this world, we cannot wonder that the child was supposed to show\nsigns of piety from the days of its earliest existence, and even earlier.\nThus we read that even the unborn children joined in with the chorus on\nthe Red Sea and sang the Song (of Moses). David, again, composed Psalms\nbefore perceiving the face of this world. On the Day of Atonement they\nused to communicate to the unborn child, through the medium of its mother,\nthat on this great day it had to be satisfied with the good it had\nreceived the day before. And when a certain child, afterwards named\nShabbethai, refused to listen to such a request, R. Johanan applied to it\nthe verse from the Psalm, \u201cThe wicked are estranged from the womb.\u201d\nIndeed, Shabbethai turned out a great sinner. It will perhaps be\ninteresting to hear what his sin was. It consisted in forestalling the\ncorn in the market and afterwards selling it to the poor at a much higher\nprice. Of a certain child the legend tells that it was born with the word\n_emeth_ (truth) engraved on its fore\u2010head. Its parents named it\nAmiti,(239) and the child proved to be a great saint.\n\nThe priest, however, could not enter into his office without some\nconsecration. As the first step in this consecration of the child we may\nconsider the Covenant of Abraham. But this was prefaced by a few other\nsolemn acts which I must mention. One of the oldest ceremonies connected\nwith the birth of a child was that of tree\u2010planting. In the case of a boy\nthey planted a cedar, in that of a girl a pine; and on their marriage they\ncut branches from these trees to form the wedding\u2010canopy. Other rites\nfollowed, but they were more of a medical character, and would be better\nappreciated by the physician. In the Middle Ages superstition played a\ngreat part. To be sure, I have spoken of saints; but we ought not to\nforget that saints, too, have their foolish moments, especially when they\nare fighting against hosts of demons, the existence of which is only\nguaranteed by their own over\u2010excited brains. Jewish parents were for many\ncenturies troubled by the fear of Lilith,(240) the devil\u2019s mother, who was\nsuspected of stealing children and killing them. The precautions they took\nto prevent this atrocity were as foolish as the object of their fear. I do\nnot intend to enumerate here all these various precautions. Every country\nalmost has its own usages and charms, one more absurd than the other. It\nwill suffice to refer here to the most popular of these charms, in which\ncertain angels are invoked to protect the child against its dangerous\nenemy Lilith. But of whatever origin they may be, Judaism could do better\nwithout them. The only excuse for their existence among us is to my mind\nthat they provoked the famous Dr. Erter to the composition of one of the\nfinest satires in the Hebrew language.\n\nOf a less revolting character was the so\u2010called ceremony of the \u201cReading\nof the Shema.\u201d(241) It consisted in taking all the little children of the\ncommunity into the house of the newly\u2010born child, where the teacher made\nthem read the Shema, sometimes also the ninety\u2010first Psalm. The fact that\nlittle children were the chief actors in this ceremony reconciles one a\nlittle to it despite its rather doubtful origin. In some communities these\nreadings took place every evening up to the day when the child was brought\ninto the covenant of Abraham. In other places they performed the ceremony\nonly on the eve of the day of the _Berith Milah_(242) (Ceremony of the\nCircumcision). Indeed, this was the night during which Lilith was supposed\nto play her worst tricks, and the watch over the child was redoubled.\nHence the name \u201cWachnacht,\u201d or the \u201cNight of Watching.\u201d They remained\nawake for the whole night, and spent it in feasting and in studying\ncertain portions of the Bible and the Talmud, mostly relating to the event\nwhich was to take place on the following day. This ceremony was already\nknown to Jewish writers of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, it is\nconsidered by the best authorities on the subject to be of foreign origin.\nQuite Jewish, as well as entirely free from superstitious taint, was the\nvisit which was paid to the infant\u2010boy on the first Sabbath of his\nexistence. It was called \u201cShalom Zachar,\u201d(243) probably meaning \u201cPeace\u2010\nboy,\u201d in allusion to a well\u2010known passage in the Talmud to the effect that\nthe advent of a boy in the family brings peace to the world.\n\nAt last the dawn of the great day of the Berith came. I shall, however,\nonly touch here on the social aspects of this rite.\n\nIts popularity began, as it seems, in very early times. The persecutions\nwhich Israel suffered for it in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, \u201cwhen\nthe princes and elders mourned, the virgins and the young men were made\nfeeble, and the beauty of women was changed, and when certain women were\nput to death for causing their children to be circumcised,\u201d are the best\nproof of the attachment of the people to it. The repeated attempts against\nthis law, both by heathen and by Christian hands, only served to increase\nits popularity. Indeed R. Simeon ben Eleazar characterised it as the law\nfor which Israel brought the sacrifice of martyrdom, and therefore held\nfirmly by it. In other words they suffered for it, and it became endeared\nto them. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel declares it to be the only law which\nIsrael fulfils with joy and exultation. As a sign of this joy we may\nregard the eagerness and the lively interest which raised this ceremony\nfrom a strictly family affair to a matter in which the whole of the\ncommunity participated. Thus we find that already in the times of the\nGaonim the ceremony was transferred from the house of the parents to the\nsynagogue. Here it took place after the prayers, in the presence of the\nwhole congregation. The synagogue used to be specially illuminated in\nhonour of the event. Certain pieces of the daily prayer, of a rather\ndoleful nature, such as the confession of sins, were omitted, lest the\nharmony of the festival should be disturbed. As a substitute for these\nprayers, various hymns suitable for the occasion were composed and\ninserted in the liturgy for the day. As the most prominent members among\nthose present figured the happy father of the child and the medical man\nwho performed the ceremony, usually called the Mohel or Gozer,(244) both\nwearing their festal garments and having certain privileges, such as being\ncalled up to the Reading of the Law and chanting certain portions of the\nprayers. It is not before the tenth century that a third member suddenly\nemerges to become almost as important as the father of the child. I refer\nto the _Sandek_ or Godfather. In some countries he was also called the\nBaal Berith (Master of the Covenant). In Italy they seemed to have had two\nSandeks. This word was for a long time supposed to be the Greek word\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. But it is now proved beyond doubt that it is a corruption of the\nword \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 used in the Greek church for godfather. In the church he\nwas the man who lifted the neophyte from the baptismal waters. Among the\nJews, the office of the Sandek was to keep the child on his knees during\nthe performance of the rite. The Sandek\u2019s place was, or is still, near the\nseat of honour, which is called the Throne of Elijah, who is supposed to\nbe the angel of the covenant. Other angels, too, were believed to\nofficiate at this rite. Thus the angel Gabriel is also said to have\nperformed the office of Sandek to a certain child. According to other\nsources the archangel Metatron himself attended. Probably it was on this\naccount that later Rabbis admonished the parents to take only a pious and\ngood Jew as Sandek for their children. Christian theologians also declared\nthat no good Christian must render such a service to a Jew. The famous\nBuxtorf had to pay a fine of 100 florins for having attended the Berith of\na child, whose father he had employed as reader when editing the well\u2010\nknown Basel Bible. The poor reader himself, who was the cause of Buxtorf\u2019s\noffence, was fined 400 florins. Of an opposite case in which a Jew served\nas godfather to a Christian child, we find a detailed account in Schudt\u2019s\n_Merkw\u00fcrdigkeiten der Juden_, a very learned and very foolish book. When\nthe father was summoned before the magistrate, and was asked how he dared\nto charge a Jew with such a holy Christian ceremony, he coolly answered,\nbecause he knew that the Jew would present him with a silver cup. As to\nthe present, I have to remark that with the Jews also the godfather was\nexpected to bestow a gift on the child. In some communities he had to\ndefray the expenses of the festival\u2010dinner, of which I shall speak\npresently. In others, again, he had also to give a present to the mother\nof the child.\n\nMuch older than the institution of the Sandek is the festival\u2010dinner just\nalluded to, which was held after the ceremony. Jewish legend supplies many\nparticulars of the dinner the patriarch Abraham gave at the Berith of his\nson Isaac. This is a little too legendary, but there is ample historical\nevidence that such meals were already customary in the times of the Second\nTemple. The Talmud of Jerusalem gives us a detailed account of the\nproceedings which took place at the Berith dinner of Elisha ben Abuyah,\nwho afterwards obtained a sad celebrity as Acher. Considering that\nElisha\u2019s birth must have fallen within the first decades after the\ndestruction of the Temple, and that these sad times were most unsuitable\nfor introducing new festivals, we may safely date the custom back to the\ntimes of the Temple. The way in which the guests entertained themselves is\nalso to be gathered from the passage referred to. First came the dinner,\nin which all the guests participated; afterwards the great men of\nJerusalem occupied one room, indulging there in singing, hand clapping,\nand dancing. The scholars again, who apparently did not belong to the\ngreat men, were confined to another room, where they employed themselves\nin discussing biblical subjects. In later times special hymns, composed\nfor this festival, were inserted in the grace after dinner. After the\ndinner, sermons or speeches used also to be given, the contents of which\nwere usually made up of reflections on biblical and Talmudical passages\nrelating to the event of the day. Sometimes they consisted of a kind of\nlearned puns on the name which the child received on this occasion.\n\nWith this meal the first consecration of the child\u2010priest was concluded.\nIn some places they used to come to the father\u2019s house on the third day\nafter the circumcision with the purpose of making inquiries after the\nchild\u2019s health. In the case when the child was the first\u2010born the ceremony\nof \u201credeeming the child\u201d(245) in accordance with Exodus xiii. used to take\nplace. The details of this ceremony are to be found in almost every\nprayer\u2010book, and there is nothing fresh to add. But perhaps I may be\nallowed to draw attention to another distinction that the first\u2010born\nreceived in the Middle Ages. I refer to an account given by the author of\nthe book, _The Ordinance of the Law_,(246) who flourished in the\nthirteenth century. He says: Our predecessors made the rule to destine\nevery first\u2010born to God, and before its birth the father had to say, \u201cI\ntake the vow that if my wife presents me with a son, he shall be holy unto\nthe Lord, and in His Torah he shall meditate day and night.\u201d On the eighth\nday after the Berith Milah they put the child on cushions, and a Bible on\nits head, and the elders of the community, or the principal of the\ncollege, imparted their blessings to it. These first\u2010born sons formed,\nwhen grown up, the chief contingent of the Yeshiboth (Talmudical\nColleges), where they devoted the greatest part of their lives to the\nstudy of the Torah. In later centuries the vow was dropped, but from the\nabundance of the Yeshiboth in Poland and elsewhere it seems as if almost\nevery child was considered as having no other calling but the study of the\nTorah. Indeed, the growing persecutions required a strengthening of the\nreligious force.\n\nWith these ceremonies the first act of consecration ended in the case\nwhere the new\u2010born child was a boy. I will now refer to the ceremony of\nthe name\u2010giving, which was common to males and females. In the case of the\nformer this ceremony was connected with the Berith Milah. The oldest\nformula, which is already to be found in the _Ritual Rab Amram Gaon_, is\ncomposed in Aramaic. It is, like many prayers in that language, a most\nbeautiful composition, and very suitable for the occasion. Our present\nHebrew prayer is far less beautiful, and dates from a much later age. In\nsome countries the ceremony of naming was repeated in the house of the\nparents. It took place on the Sabbath, when the mother returned home from\nher first visit to the synagogue after her recovery. Here the friends and\nrelatives of the family assembled, and after arranging themselves round\nthe cradle of the child they lifted it three times, shouting the new name\nat every lifting. This name was the so\u2010called \u201cprofane\u201d name, whilst the\nname it received in the synagogue was the \u201csacred\u201d or Hebrew name. The\nceremony concluded with the usual festival\u2010dinner. By the way, there was\nperhaps a little too much feasting in those days. The contemporary Rabbis\ntried indeed to suppress some of the banquets, and put all sorts of\nrestrictions on dinner\u2010hunting people. But considering the fact that, as\nJews, they were excluded from every public amusement, we cannot grudge\nthem the pleasure they drew from these semi\u2010religious celebrations. For\npeople of an ascetic disposition it was, perhaps, the only opportunity of\nenjoying a proper meal. In the same way, in our days, the most severe\nfather would not deny his lively daughter the pleasure of dancing or\nsinging charitably for the benefit of suffering humanity. The ceremony\ndescribed was known to the authors of the Middle Ages by the name of\n_Holle Kreish_. These words are proved by Dr. Perles to be of German\norigin, and based on some Teutonic superstition into the explanation of\nwhich I cannot enter here.\n\nOf much more importance was the ceremony of name\u2010giving in the case of a\ngirl, it being the only attention the female child received from the\nsynagogue. The usages varied. In some countries the name was given on the\nfirst Sabbath after the birth of the child. The father was \u201ccalled up to\nthe Reading of the Law,\u201d on which followed the formula, \u201cHe who blessed\nour ancestors Abraham,\u201d etc., \u201cmay He also bless,\u201d etc., including the\nblessing and announcement of the child\u2019s name. After the prayer the\ncongregation assembled in the house of the parents to congratulate them.\nIn other countries the ceremony took place on the Sabbath when the mother\nattended the synagogue after the recovery. The ceremony of Holle Kreish\nseems to have been especially observed in the case of a girl.\n\nThough the feasting was now over for the parents, the child still lived in\na holiday atmosphere for a long time. In the legend of the \u201cAges of Man\u201d\nthe child is described in the first year of its existence as a little\nprince, adored and petted by all. The mother herself nourished and tended\nthe child. Although the Bible already speaks of nurses, many passages in\nthe later Jewish literature show a strong aversion to these substitutes\nfor the mother. In the event of the father of the child dying, the mother\nwas forbidden to marry before her suckling infant reached the age of two\nyears, lest a new courtship might lead to the neglect of the child.\n\nMore difficult is it to say wherein the other signs of loyalty to the\nlittle prince consisted; as, for instance, whether Jews possessed anything\nlike lullabies to soothe the little prince into happy and sweet slumber.\nAt least I am not aware of the existence of such songs in the ancient\nJewish literature, nor are they quoted by medi\u00e6val writers. The\n\u201cSchlummerlied,\u201d by an unknown Jewish bard, about which German scholars\nwrote so much, contains more heathen than Jewish elements. From the\nprotest in _The Book of the Pious_, against using non\u2010Jewish cradle\u2010songs,\nit seems that little Moshechen was lulled to sleep by the same tunes and\nwords as little Johnny. The only Jewish lullaby of which I know, is to be\nfound in the work of a modern writer who lived in Russia. How far its\npopularity goes in that country I have no means of ascertaining. This\njingle runs as follows:\u2014\n\n\n    O! hush thee, my darling, sleep soundly my son,\n    Sleep soundly and sweetly till day has begun;\n    For under the bed of good children at night\n    There lies, till the morning, a kid snowy white.\n    We\u2019ll send it to market to buy Sechora,(247)\n    While my little lad goes to study Torah.\n    Sleep soundly at night and learn Torah by day,\n    Then thou\u2019lt be a Rabbi when I have grown gray.\n    But I\u2019ll give thee to\u2010morrow ripe nuts and a toy,\n    If thou\u2019lt sleep as I bid thee, my own little boy.(248)\n\n\nBut naturally the holiday atmosphere I spoke of was very often darkened by\nclouds resulting from the illness of the child. Excepting small\u2010pox, the\nchild was subject to most of those diseases which so often prove fatal to\nour children. These diseases were known under the collective name of \u201cthe\ndifficulties (or the pain) of bringing up children.\u201d These difficulties\nseem to have been still greater in Palestine, where one of the old Rabbis\nexclaimed that it was easier to see a whole forest of young olive trees\ngrow up than to rear one child.(249) To avoid so mournful a subject, I\nrefrain from repeating the touching stories relating to the death of\nchildren. The pain was the more keenly felt since there was no other way\nof explaining the misfortune which befell the innocent creature than that\nit had suffered for the sins of the parents; and the only comfort the\nlatter had was that the child could not have lost much by its being\nremoved from this vale of tears at such an early period. A remarkable\nlegend describes God Himself as giving lessons so many hours a day to\nthese prematurely deceased children.(250) Indeed, to the mind of the old\nRabbis, the only thing worth living for was the study of the Law.\nConsequently the child that suffered innocently could not have a better\ncompensation than to learn Torah from the mouth of the Master of masters.\n\nBut even when the child was healthy, and food and climate proved congenial\nto its constitution, there still remained the troubles of its spiritual\neducation. And to be sure it was not an easy matter to bring up a\n\u201cpriest.\u201d The first condition for this calling was learning. But learning\ncannot be acquired without honest and hard industry. It is true that R.\nAkiba numbers wisdom among the virtues which are hereditary from father to\nson. Experience, however, has shown that it is seldom the case, and the\nRabbis were already troubled with the question how it happens that\nchildren so little resemble their fathers in respect of learning.\n\nCertainly Jewish legends can boast of a whole series of prodigies. Thus a\ncertain Rabbi is said to have been so sharp as to have had a clear\nrecollection of the mid\u2010wife who made him a citizen of this world. Ben\nSira again, instantly after his birth, entertains his terrified mother\nwith many a wise and foolish saying, refuses the milk she offers him, and\nasks for solid food. A certain Nachman was born with a prophecy on his\nlips, predicting the fate of all nations on earth, as well as fixing the\ndate for the advent of the Messiah. The youngest of seven sons of Hannah,\nwho became martyrs under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, was according\nto one version aged two years, six months, six hours, and thirty minutes.\nBut the way in which he defied the threats of the tyrant was really worthy\nof one of seventy. R. Judah de Modena is said to have read the lesson from\nthe prophets in the synagogue at the age of two years and a half. A famous\nCabbalist, Nahum, at the age of three, gave a lecture on the decalogue\nthat lasted for three days. The Chassidim pretended of one of their\nZaddikim that he remembered all that he had been taught by the angels\nbefore his birth, and thus excused their Zaddik\u2019s utter neglect of\nstudying anything. Perhaps I may mention in this place a sentence from\nSchudt, which may reconcile one to the harmless exaggerations of the\nChassidim. It relates to a case where a Jewish girl of six was taken away\nby a Christian with the intention of baptising her, for he maintained that\nthis was the wish and pleasure of the child. Probably the little girl\nreceived her instruction from the Christian servant of the house, as has\nhappened many times. Schudt proves that this wish ought to be granted in\nspite of the minority of the child. He argues: As there is a maxim, \u201cWhat\nis wanting in years may be supplied by wickedness,\u201d why could not also the\nreverse be true that \u201cWhat is wanting in years can be supplied by grace\u201d?\nOf a certain R. Meshullam, again, we know that he preached in the\nsynagogue at Brody, at the age of nine, and perplexed the chief Rabbi of\nthe place by his deep Talmudical learning. As the Rabbi had a daughter of\nseven, the cleverness exhibited by the boy Rabbi did not end without very\nserious consequences for all his life.\n\nHappily all these prodigies or children of grace are only exceptional. I\nsay happily, for the Rabbis themselves disliked such creatures. They were\nmore satisfied with those signs of intelligence that indicate future\ngreatness. The following story may serve as an instance:\u2014R. Joshua ben\nHananiah once made a journey to Rome. Here he was told that amongst the\ncaptives from Jerusalem there was a child with bright eyes, its hair in\nringlets, and its features strikingly beautiful. The Rabbi made up his\nmind to redeem the boy. He went to the prison and addressed the child with\na verse from Isaiah, \u201cWho gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the\nrobbers?\u201d On this the child answered by continuing the second half of the\nsame verse, \u201cDid not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned? For they\nwould not walk in His ways, neither were they obedient unto His law\u201d\n(Isaiah xlii. 24). The Rabbi was so delighted with this answer, that he\nsaid: \u201cI am sure he will grow up to be a teacher in Israel. I take an oath\nto redeem him, cost what it may.\u201d The child was afterwards known under the\nname of R. Ishmael ben Elisha. Such children were ideals of the Rabbis,\nbut they hated the baby scholar, who very often grew impertinent and\nabused his elders. The Rabbis much preferred the majority of those tiny\ncreatures, who are characterised by the already mentioned legends on the\n\u201cAges of Men\u201d as little animals playing, laughing, crying, dancing, and\ncommitting all sorts of mischief.\n\nBut these children must be taught. Now, there is the well\u2010known advice of\nJudah ben Tema, who used to say that the child at five years was to be\ntaught Scripture, at ten years Mishnah, at thirteen to fulfil the Law,\netc. This saying, incorporated in most editions in the fifth Chapter of\nthe _Sayings of the Fathers_, is usually considered as the programme of\nJewish education. But, like so many programmes, this tells us rather how\nthings ought to have been than how they were. In the times of the Temple,\nthe participation of the youth in religious actions began at the tenderest\nage. As soon as they were able to walk a certain distance with the support\nof their parents, the children had to accompany them on their pilgrimages\nto Jerusalem. In the Sabbatical year they were brought to the Temple, to\nbe present at the reading of Deuteronomy by the king.(251) The period at\nwhich the child\u2019s allegiance to the Synagogue began is still more\ndistinctly described. Of the many Talmudical passages relating to this\nquestion, I shall select the following quotation from a later Midrash,\nbecause it is the most concise. In allusion to Leviticus xix. 23, 24,\nconcerning the prohibition of eating the fruits of a tree in the first\nthree years, this Midrash goes on to say: \u201cAnd this is also the case with\nthe Jewish child. In the first three years the child is unable to speak,\nand therefore is exempted from every religious duty, but in the fourth\nyear all its fruits shall be holy to praise the Lord, and the father is\nobliged to initiate the child in religious works.\u201d Accordingly the\nreligious life of the child began as soon as it was able to speak\ndistinctly, or with the fourth year of its life. As to the character of\nthis initiation we learn from the same Midrash and also from other\nTalmudical passages, that it consisted in teaching the child the verses,\n\u201cHear, O Israel: the Lord our God _is_ One\u201d (Deut. vi. 4), and \u201cMoses\ncommanded us a Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob\u201d (Deut.\nxxxiii. 4). It was also in this year that the boys began to accompany\ntheir parents to the synagogue, carrying their prayer\u2010books. At what age\nthe girls first came out\u2014not for their first party, but with the purpose\nof going to the synagogue\u2014is difficult to decide with any degree of\ncertainty. But if we were to trust a rather doubtful reading in Tractate\n_Sopherim_,(252) we might maintain that their first appearance in the\nsynagogue was also at a very tender age. I hope that they behaved there\nmore respectfully than their brothers, who played and cried instead of\njoining in the responses and singing with the congregation. In some\ncommunities they proved so great a nuisance that a certain Rabbi declared\nit would be better to leave them at home rather than to have the devotion\nof the whole congregation disturbed by these urchins. Another Rabbi\nrecommended the praiseworthy custom of the Sephardim,(253) who confined\nall the boys in the synagogue to one place, and set a special overseer by\ntheir side, with a whip in his hands, to compel them to keep quiet and to\nworship with due devotion.\n\nA strange custom is known among the Arabian and Palestinian Jews under the\nname of _Chalaka_. It means the first hair\u2010cutting of the boy after his\nfourth birthday. As on this occasion loyalty to the Scripture is shown by\nnot touching the \u201ccorners\u201d (Lev. xix. 17), the whole action is considered\na religious ceremony of great importance. In Palestine it usually takes\nplace on the second day of the Feast of the Passover when the counting of\nthe seven weeks begins. On this day friends and relatives assemble at the\nhouse of the parents. Thither the boy is brought, dressed in his best\ngarments, and every one of the assembly is entrusted with the duty of\ncutting a few hairs, which is considered a great privilege. The ceremony\nis as usual followed by a dinner given to the guests. The Jews in Safed\nand Tiberias perform the ceremony with great pomp in the courtyard\nsurrounding the (supposed) grave of R. Simeon ben Yochai, in one of the\nneighbouring villages.\n\nAnother custom already mentioned in the Talmud, but which quite\ndisappeared in later times, is that of weighing the child. It would be\nworth reviving if performed in the way in which the mother of Doeg ben\nJoseph did it. This tender\u2010hearted mother weighed her only son every day,\nand distributed among the poor, in gold, the amount of the increased\nweight of her child.\n\nI pass now to the second great consecration of the boy,\u2014the rites\nperformed on the day when the boy went to school for the first time. This\nday was celebrated by the Jews, especially in the Middle Ages, in such a\nway as to justify the high esteem in which they held the school. The\nschool was looked upon as a second Mount Sinai, and the day on which the\nchild entered it as the Feast of Revelation. Of the many different\ncustoms, I shall mention here that according to which this day was fixed\nfor the Feast of Weeks. Early in the morning, while it was still dark, the\nchild was washed and dressed carefully. In some places they dressed it in\na \u201cgown with fringes.\u201d As soon as day dawned the boy was taken to the\nsynagogue, either by his father or by some worthy member of the community.\nArrived at their destination, the boy was put on the Almemor, or reading\u2010\ndais, before the Scroll of the Law, from which the narrative of the\nRevelation (Exod. xx. 2\u201026) was read as the portion of the day. From the\nsynagogue the boy was taken to the house of the teacher, who took him into\nhis arms. Thereupon a slate was brought, containing the alphabet in\nvarious combinations, the verse, \u201cMoses has commanded,\u201d etc. in Deut.\nxxxiii. 4, the first verse of the Book of Leviticus, and the words, \u201cThe\nTorah will be my calling.\u201d The teacher then read the names of the letters,\nwhich the boy repeated. After the reading, the slate was besmeared with\nhoney, which the boy licked off. This was done in allusion to Ezekiel iii.\n3, where it is said: \u201cAnd it (the roll) was in my mouth as honey for\nsweetness.\u201d The boy was also made to eat a sweet cake, on which were\nwritten passages from the Bible relating to the importance of the study of\nthe Torah. The ceremony was concluded by invoking the names of certain\nangels, asking them to open the heart of the boy, and to strengthen his\nmemory. By the way, I am very much afraid that this invocation was\nanswerable for the abolition of this ceremony. The year in which this\nceremony took place is uncertain, probably not before the fifth, nor later\nthan the seventh, according to the good or bad health of the child.\n\nThe reverence for the child already hinted at was still further increased\nwhen the boy entered the school. \u201cThe children of the house (school) of\nthe master\u201d is a regular phrase in Jewish literature. It is on their pure\nbreath that the existence of the world depends, and it is their merit that\njustifies us in appealing to the mercy of God. Words of Scripture, uttered\nby them quite innocently, were considered as oracles; and many a Rabbi\ngave up an undertaking on account of a verse pronounced by a schoolboy,\nwho hardly understood its import. Take only one instance: R. Johanan was\nlonging to see his friend Mar Samuel in Babylon. After many disturbances\nand delays, he at last undertook the journey. On the way he passed a\nschool where the boys were reciting the verse from 1 Samuel xxviii. 3,\n\u201cAnd Samuel died.\u201d This was accepted by him as a hint given by Providence\nthat all was over with his friend.\n\nEspecially famous for their wisdom and sharpness were the children of\nJerusalem. Of the many illustrative stories given in the Midrash to\nLamentations, let the following suffice: R. Joshua was one day riding on\nhis donkey along the high road. As he passed a well, he saw a little girl\nthere, and asked her to give him some water. She accordingly gave water to\nhim and to his animal. The Rabbi thanked her with the words: \u201cMy daughter,\nyou acted like Rebecca.\u201d \u201cTo be sure,\u201d she answered, \u201cI acted like\nRebecca; but you did not behave like Eleazar.\u201d I must add that there are\npassages in Jewish literature from which, with a little ingenuity, it\nmight be deduced that Jewish babies are the most beautiful of their kind.\nThe assertion made by a monk that Jewish children are inferior to\nChristian children is a dreadful libel. The author of the _Old\nVictory_,(254) in whose presence this assertion was made, was probably\nchildless, or he would have simply scratched out the eyes of this\nmalicious monk, instead of giving a mystical reason for the superior\nbeauty of any other children than his own.\n\nAnother point to be emphasised is that the boys were not confined all day\nlong to the close air of the schoolroom. They had also their hours of\nrecreation. This recreation consisted chiefly, as one can imagine, in\nplaying. Their favourite game was the ball, boys as well as girls being\nfond of this form of amusement. They did not deny themselves this pleasure\neven on festivals. They were also fond of the kite and games with nuts, in\nwhich their mothers also took part. Letter\u2010games and riddles also occupied\ntheir minds in the recreation hours. The angel Sandalphon,(255) who also\nbears in the Cabbalah the name of \u201cBoy,\u201d was considered by the children as\ntheir special patron, and they invoked him in their plays, addressing to\nhim the words: \u201cSandalphon, Lord of the forest, protect us from pain.\u201d\nSpeaking generally, there are very few distinctively Jewish games. From\nthe researches of Zunz, G\u00fcdemann, and L\u00f6w on this subject, it is clear\nthat the Jews always adopted the pastimes of the peoples among whom they\ndwelt.\n\nBut it must not be thought that there was too much playing. Altogether,\nJewish education was far from spoiling the children. And though it was\nrecommended\u2014if such recommendation were necessary\u2014to love children more\nthan one\u2019s own soul, the Rabbis strongly condemned that blind partiality\ntowards our own offspring, which ends in burdening our world with so many\ngood\u2010for\u2010nothings. The sad experience of certain biblical personages\nserved as a warning for posterity. Even from the quite natural behaviour\nof Jacob towards his son Joseph, which had the best possible results in\nthe end, they drew the lesson that a man must never show to one of his\nchildren marks of greater favour than to the others. In later times they\nhave been even anxious to conceal this love altogether, and some Rabbis\nwent so far as to refrain from kissing their children. The severity of\nAkabya ben Mahalaleel is worth mentioning, if not imitating. When this\nRabbi, only a few minutes before his death, was asked by his son to\nrecommend him to his friends and colleagues, the answer the poor boy\nreceived was: \u201cThy conduct will recommend thee to my friends, or will\nestrange thee from them.\u201d Another Rabbi declared (with reference to Prov.\nxxviii. 27) that it is life\u2010giving to a youth to teach him temperance in\nhis diet, and not to accustom him to meat and wine. R. Judah, the Pious,\nin the Middle Ages, gives the advice to rich parents to withdraw their\nresources from their sons if they lead a disorderly life. The struggle for\ntheir existence, and the hardship of life, would bring them back to God.\nWhen the old Rabbi said that poverty is a most becoming ornament for\nIsrael, his remark was probably suggested by a similar thought. And many a\npassage in the Rabbinic literature gives expression to the same idea as\nthat in Goethe\u2019s divine lines:\u2014\n\n\n    Wer nie sein Brot mit Thr\u00e4nen ass,\n    Wer nie die kummervollen N\u00e4chte\n    Auf seinem Bette weinend sass,\n    Der kennt Euch nicht, Ihr himmlischen M\u00e4chte.\n\n\nI have spoken of a kingdom of priests, but there is one great disadvantage\nof such a polity. One or two priests in a community may be sustained by\nthe liberality of the congregation. But if a community consisted of only\npriests, how could it then be maintained? Besides, the old Jewish ideal\nexpected the teacher to be possessed of a divine goodness, imparting his\nbenefits only as an act of grace. Salaries, therefore, either for teaching\nor preaching, or for giving ritual decisions, were strongly forbidden. The\nsolution of the question put by the Bible, \u201cAnd if ye shall say, What\nshall we eat?\u201d is to be found in the law that every father was obliged to\nteach his son a handicraft, enabling him to obtain a living.\n\nI have now to speak of the time when childhood is brought to a conclusion.\nIt is, as I stated above, in the case of a girl at the beginning of the\nthirteenth year, and in that of a boy at the beginning of the fourteenth\nyear. As a reason for this priority I will reproduce the words of R.\nChisda, who said that God has endowed woman with a greater portion of\nintelligence than man, and therefore she obtains her maturity at an\nearlier period than man does. A very nice compliment, indeed; but like all\ncompliments it is of no practical consequence whatever. It is not always\nthe wiser who get the best of it in life. Whilst the day on which the girl\nobtained her majority passed unnoticed either by her or by her family, it\nwas marked in the case of the boy as the day on which he became a Son of\nthe Law,(256) and was signalised by various rites and ceremonies, and by\nthe bestowing on him of beautiful presents. I miss only the wig, which\nused to form the chief ornament of the boy on this happy day.\n\nLess known, however, is the origin of this ceremony, and the reason for\nfixing its date. It cannot claim a very high antiquity. I may remark that\nin many cases centuries elapse before an idea or a notion takes practical\nshape and is crystallised into a custom or usage, and still longer before\nthis custom is fossilised into a law or fixed institution. As far as the\nBible goes, there is not the slightest indication of the existence of such\na ceremony. From Lev. xxvii. 5, and Num. xiv. 29, it would rather seem\nthat it was not before the twentieth year that the man was considered to\nhave obtained his majority, and to be responsible for his actions. It was\nonly in the times of the Rabbis, when Roman influence became prevalent in\njuristic matters at least, that the date of thirteen, or rather the\n_pubertas_, was fixed as giving the boy his majority. But it would be a\nmistake to think that before having obtained this majority the boy was\nconsidered as under age in every respect. Certainly the law made every\npossible effort to connect him with the synagogue, and to initiate him in\nhis religious duties long before the age of thirteen.\n\nWe have seen that the boy\u2019s first appearance in the synagogue was at the\nbeginning of the fourth year. We have noticed the complaints about his\ntroublesome behaviour. But how could we expect the poor child to be\nattentive to things which quite surpassed the intellectual powers of his\ntender age? There was no better reason for this attendance either in the\nTemple or in the synagogue than that the parents might be rewarded by God\nfor the trouble of taking their children there. These cares, by the way,\nfell most heavily upon the women. The mother of R. Joshua enjoyed this\nburden so much that she carried her boy, when still in the cradle, to the\n\u201cHouse of Study of the Law,\u201d in order that his ears might be accustomed to\nthe sound of the Torah. In later times there was another excuse for taking\nthe little children to the synagogue. They were there allowed to sip the\nwine of the Sanctification Cup,(257) which was the exclusive privilege of\nthe children; an easy way of worshipping, but, as you can observe, it is a\nmethod that they enjoy and understand most excellently. They did not less\nenjoy and understand the service with which they were charged on the day\nof \u201cThe Rejoicing of the Law.\u201d(258) On this feast they were provided with\nflags, which they carried before the bearers of the Torah, who feasted\nthem after the service with sweets. Another treat was that of being called\nup on this day to the Torah, a custom that is still extant. In the Middle\nAges they went in some countries so far as to allow these little fellows\nwho did not wear caps \u201cto be called up\u201d to say the blessings over the Law\nbare\u2010headed. A beautiful custom was that every Sabbath, after finishing\nthe weekly lesson and dressing the Scroll of the Law, the children used to\ncome up to the Almemor and kiss the Torah. Leaving the synagogue they\nkissed the hands of the scholars. At home the initiation began with the\nblessing the child received on every eve of the Sabbath, and with its\ninstruction in \u201cHear O Israel\u201d and other verses as already mentioned.\nShort prayers, consisting of a single sentence, were also chosen for\nchildren of this age. The function of the child on the eve of the first\nday of Passover is well known. Besides the putting of the four questions\nfor the meaning of the strange ceremony (Exod. xiii. 14), the boy had also\nto recite, or rather to sing, the \u201cPraise.\u201d(259) But I am afraid that they\nenjoyed better the song of \u201cOne Kid,\u201d which was composed or rather adapted\nfor their special entertainment from an old German poem.\n\nWithin three or four years after entering the synagogue, and with the\ngrowth of intellect and strength, the religious duties of the boy\nincreased, and became of a more serious character. He had not only to\nattend the school, which was troublesome enough, but he was also expected\nto attend the services more regularly, and to gain something by it. Yet\nthe Rabbis were not so tyrannical as to put unjust demands on the patience\nof the child. The voice of God on Mount Sinai, the Rabbis said, was\nadapted to the intellect and powers of all who witnessed the\nRevelation\u2014adapted, as the Midrash says, to the powers of old and young,\nchildren and women. It was in accordance with this sentiment that the\nRabbis suited their language to the needs of the less educated classes.\nThus we read in the Tractate _Sopherim_ that according to the law the\nportion of the week, after having been recited in Hebrew, must be\ntranslated into the language of the vernacular for the benefit of the\nunlearned people, the women, and the children. Another consideration\nchildren experienced from the Rabbis was that at the age of nine or ten\nthe boy was initiated into the observance of the Day of Atonement by\nfasting a few hours. Lest, however, this good work might be overdone, and\nthus endanger the child\u2019s health, the sage R. Acha used to tell his\ncongregation after the Addition\u2010Prayer \u201cMy brethren, let every one of you\nwho has a child go home and make it eat.\u201d In later centuries, when the\ndisease of small\u2010pox became so fatal, some Rabbis declared it to be the\nduty of every father to leave the town with his children as soon as the\nplague showed itself. The joy with which the Rabbis hailed Dr. Jenner\u2019s\ndiscovery deserves our recognition. None of them perceived in vaccination\na defiance of Providence. R. Abraham Nansich, from London, wrote a\npamphlet to prove its lawfulness. The Cabbalist Buzagli disputed Dr.\nJenner\u2019s priority, but nevertheless approved of vaccination. R. Israel\nLipsch\u00fctz declared that the Doctor acquired salvation by his new remedy.\n\nWith his advancing age, not only the boy\u2019s duties but also his rights were\nincreased. An enumeration of all these rights would lead me too far, but I\nshall mention the custom which allowed the boy the recital of\n\u201cMagnified\u201d(260) and \u201cBless ye\u201d(261) in the synagogue. Now this privilege\nis restricted to the orphan boy. It is interesting to hear that girls were\nalso admitted to recite the Magnified in the synagogue, in cases where\ntheir parents left no male issue. I have myself witnessed such a case. In\nsome countries the boy had the exclusive privilege of reading the prayers\non the evenings of the festivals and Sabbaths. R. Samson ben Eleazar, in\nthe fifteenth century, received his family name Baruch Sheamar(262) from\nthe skill with which he recited this prayer when a boy. He chanted it so\nwell that he was called by the members of the community Master Baruch\nSheamar. As to the question whether the boy, while under age, might\nlawfully be considered as one of the Ten when such a quorum was required,\nor one of the three in the case of grace after meals, I can only say that\nthe authorities never agreed in this respect. Whilst the one insisted upon\nhis having obtained his majority, the other was satisfied with his showing\nsuch signs of intelligence as would enable him to participate in the\nceremony in question. Here is an instance of such a sign. Abaye and Raba,\nthe two celebrated heroes of the Babylonian Talmud, were sitting at the\ntable of Rabbah. Before saying grace he asked them, \u201cDo you know to whom\nthese prayers are addressed?\u201d Thereupon one boy pointed to the roof,\nwhilst the other boy went out and pointed to the sky. The examiner was\nsatisfied with their answer.\n\nThe privilege of putting on the phylacteries forms now in most countries\nthe chief distinction of \u201cThe Son of the Law\u201d; in olden times, however,\nevery boy had claim to it as soon as he showed himself capable of behaving\nrespectfully when wearing the holy symbol. It even happened that certain\nhonours of the synagogue were bestowed on boys, though under age. We\npossess a copy of a Jewish epitaph dating from about the third century,\nwhich was written in Rome for a boy of eight years, who is there\ndesignated as archon. The fact is the more curious, as on the other hand\nthe Palestinian R. Abuha, who lived in the same century, maintained that\nno man must be elected as Warden before he has achieved his fiftieth year.\nThat boys were admitted to preach in the synagogue I have already\nmentioned.(263)\n\nFrom all these remarks it will easily be seen that in olden times the boy\nenjoyed almost all the rights of majority long before the day of his being\n\u201cThe Son of the Law.\u201d The condition of the novice is hardly\ndistinguishable from that of the initiated priest. The Talmud, the Gaonim,\nand even R. Isaac Alfasi and Maimonides knew neither the term \u201cThe Son of\nthe Law\u201d (in our sense of the word) nor any ceremony connected with it.\nThere is only one slight reference to such an institution, recorded in the\nTractate _Sopherim_, with the quotation of which I shall conclude this\npaper. We read there: \u201cIn Jerusalem there was the godly custom to initiate\nthe children at the _beginning_ of the thirteenth year by fasting the\nwhole Day of Atonement. During this year they took the boy to the priests\nand learned men that they might bless him, and pray for him that God might\nthink him worthy of a life devoted to the study of the Torah and pious\nworks.\u201d For, this author says, \u201cthey were beautiful, and their lives\nharmonious and their hearts directed to God.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nXIII. WOMAN IN TEMPLE AND SYNAGOGUE\n\n\nThe learned Woman has always been a favourite subject with Jewish\nstudents; and her intellectual capabilities have been fully vindicated in\nmany an essay and even fair\u2010sized book. Less attention, however, has been\npaid to woman\u2019s claims as a devotional being whom the Temple, and\nafterwards the Synagogue, more or less recognised. At least it is not\nknown to me that any attempt has been made to give, even in outline, the\nhistory of woman\u2019s relation to public worship. It is needless to say that\nthe present sketch, which is meant to supply this want in some measure,\nlays no claim to completeness; but I venture to hope that it will help to\ndirect the attention of the friends of research to the matter, and that it\nmay induce others to deal more fully with the subject and do it the\njustice it deserves.\n\nThe earliest allusion to women\u2019s participation in _public_ worship, is\nthat in Exodus xxxviii. 8, to the women who assembled to minister at the\ndoor of the \u201ctent of meeting,\u201d of whose mirrors the lavers of brass were\nmade (cf. 1 Sam. ii. 22). Philo, who is not exactly enamoured of the\nemancipation of women, and seeks to confine them to the \u201csmall state,\u201d is\nhere full of their praise. \u201cFor,\u201d he says, \u201cthough no one enjoined them to\ndo so, they of their own spontaneous zeal and earnestness contributed the\nmirrors with which they had been accustomed to deck and set off their\nbeauty, as the most becoming first\u2010fruits of their modesty, and of the\npurity of their married life, and, as one may say, of the beauty of their\nsouls.\u201d In another passage Philo describes the Jewish women as \u201ccompeting\nwith the men themselves in piety, having determined to enter upon a\nglorious contest, and to the utmost extent of their power to exert\nthemselves so as not to fall short of their holiness.\u201d\n\nIt is, however, very difficult to ascertain in what this ministry of women\nconsisted. The Hebrew term \u201cZobeoth\u201d(264) would suggest the thought of a\nspecies of religious Amazons, who formed a guard of honour round the\nSanctuary. Some commentators think that the ministry consisted in\nperforming religious dances accompanied by various instruments. The\nSeptuagint again speaks \u201cof the women who fasted by the doors of the\nTabernacle.\u201d But most of the old Jewish expositors, as well as Onkelos,\nconceive that the women went to the tent of meeting to pray. Ibn Ezra\noffers the interesting remark, \u201cAnd behold, there were women in Israel\nserving the Lord, who left the vanities of this world, and not being\ndesirous of beautifying themselves any longer, made of their mirrors a\nfree offering, and came to the tabernacle every day to pray and to listen\nthere to the words of the commandments.\u201d When we find that in 1 Sam. i.\n12, \u201cHannah continued to pray before the Lord,\u201d she was only doing there\nwhat many of her sisters did before and after her. We may also judge that\nit was from the number of these noble women, who made religion the aim of\ntheir lives, that the \u201ctwenty\u2010two\u201d heroines and prophetesses sprang who\nform part of the glory of Jewish history. Sometimes it even happened that\ntheir husbands derived their religious inspiration from them. Thus the\nhusband of the prophetess Deborah is said to have been an unlettered man.\nBut his wife made him carry to the Sanctuary the candles which she herself\nhad prepared, this being the way in which she encouraged him to seek\ncommunion with the righteous.\n\nThe language in which the husband of the \u201cGreat Woman\u201d of Shunem addresses\nhis wife: \u201cWherefore wilt thou go to him\u201d (the prophet)? \u201cit is neither\nNew Moon nor Sabbath\u201d (2 Kings iv. 23), proves that on Festivals and\nSabbaths the women used to attend some kind of worship, performed by the\nprophet, though we cannot say in what this worship consisted. The New Moon\nwas especially a woman\u2019s holiday, and was so observed even in the Middle\nAges, for the women refrained from doing work on that day. The explanation\ngiven by the Rabbis is that when the men broke off their golden earrings\nto supply material for the golden calf, the women refused to contribute\ntheir trinkets, for which good behaviour a special day of repose was\ngranted to them. Some Cabbalists even maintain that the original\nworshippers of the golden calf continue to exist on earth, their souls\nhaving successively migrated into various bodies, while their punishment\nconsists in this, that they are ruled over by their wives. Rather\ninteresting as well as complimentary to women is the remark which the\nRabbis made with regard to the \u201cGreat Woman.\u201d As will be remembered, it is\n_she_ who says, \u201cI perceive that this (Elisha) is a holy man of God\u201d (2\nKings iv. 19). In allusion to this verse the Talmud says: \u201cFrom this fact\nwe may infer that woman is quicker in recognising the worth of a stranger\nthan man.\u201d\n\nThe great woman, or women, continued to pray and to join in the public\nworship also after the destruction of the first Temple. Thus Esther is\nreported by tradition to have addressed God in a long extempore prayer\nbefore she presented herself before the throne of Ahasuerus to plead her\npeople\u2019s cause; and women were always enjoined to attend the reading of\nthe Book of Esther. When Ezra read the Law for the first time, he did so\nin the presence of the men and the women (Neh. viii. 3). In the Book of\nthe Maccabees we read of \u201cThe women girt with sackcloth ... and the\nmaidens that ran to the gates.... And all holding their hands towards\nheaven made supplication.\u201d In the Judith legend, mention is also made of\n\u201cEvery man and woman ... who fell before the Temple, and spread out their\nsackcloth before the face of the Lord ... and cried before the God of\nIsrael.\u201d In the second Temple, the women, as is well known, possessed a\ncourt reserved for their exclusive use. There the great illuminations and\nrejoicings on the evening of the Feast of Tabernacles used to be held. On\nthis occasion, however, the women were confined to galleries specially\nerected for them. It was also in this Women\u2019s Hall that the great public\nreading of certain portions of the Law by the king, once in seven years,\nused to take place, and women had also to attend at the function. On the\nother hand, it is hardly necessary to say that women were excluded from\nperforming any important service in the Temple. If we were to trust a\ncertain passage in the \u201cChapters of R. Eliezer,\u201d we might perhaps conclude\nthat during the first Temple, the wives of the Levites formed a part of\nthe choir, but the meaning of the passage is too obscure and doubtful for\nus to be justified in basing on it so important an inference. Nor can the\nthree hundred maidens who were employed for the weaving of the curtains in\nthe Temple, be looked upon as having stood in closer connection with the\nTemple, or as having formed an order of women\u2010priests or girl\u2010devotees (as\none might wrongly be induced to think by certain passages in Apocryphal\nwritings of the New Testament). But on the other hand, it is not\nimprobable that their frequent contact with the Sanctuary of the nation\nproduced in them that religious enthusiasm and zeal which may account for\nthe heroic death which\u2014according to the legend\u2014they sought and found after\nthe destruction of the Temple. It is to be remarked that, according to the\nlaw, women were even exempted from putting their hands on the head of the\nvictim, which formed an important item in the sacrificial worship. It is,\nhowever, stated by an eye\u2010witness, that the authorities permitted them to\nperform this ceremony if they desired to do so, and that their reason for\nthis concession was \u201cto give calmness of the spirit, or satisfaction, to\nwomen.\u201d\n\nStill greater, perhaps, was \u201cthe calmness of spirit\u201d given to women in the\nsynagogue. We find in ancient epitaphs that such titles of honour were\nconferred upon them as \u201cMistress of the Synagogue,\u201d and \u201cMother of the\nSynagogue,\u201d and, though they held no actual office in the Synagogue, it is\nnot improbable that they acquired these titles by meritorious work\nconnected with a religious institution, viz.: Charity. There was, indeed,\na tendency to exclude women from the synagogue at certain seasons, but\nalmost all the authorities protest against it, many of them declaring such\na notion to be quite un\u2010Jewish. Some Jewish scholars even think that the\nancient synagogues knew of no partition for women. I am rather inclined to\nthink that the synagogue took for its model the arrangements in the\nTemple, and thus confined women to a place of their own. But, whether they\nsat side by side with the men or occupied a special portion of the\nedifice, there can be no doubt that the Jewish women were great synagogue\u2010\ngoers. To give only one instance. One Rabbi asks another: Given the case\nthat the members of the synagogue are all descendants of Aaron, to whom\nthen would they impart their blessing? The answer is, to the women who are\nthere.\n\nOf the sermon they were even more fond than their husbands. Thus one woman\nwas so much interested in the lectures of R. Meir, which he was in the\nhabit of giving every Friday evening, that she used to remain there so\nlong that the candles in her house burnt themselves out. Her lazy husband,\nwho stopped at home, so strongly resented having to wait in the dark, that\nhe would not permit her to cross the threshold until she gave some offence\nto the preacher, which would make him sure that she would not venture to\nattend his sermons again.\n\nThe prayers they said were the Eighteen Benedictions which were prescribed\nby the Law. But it would seem that occasionally they offered short prayers\ncomposed by themselves as suggested by their personal feelings and needs.\nThus, to give one instance, R. Johanan relates that one day he observed a\nyoung girl fall on her face and pray: \u201cLord of the world, Thou hast\ncreated Paradise, Thou hast created hell, Thou hast created the wicked,\nThou hast created the righteous; may it be Thy will that I may not serve\nas a stumbling\u2010block to them.\u201d The fine Hebrew in which the prayer is\nexpressed, and the notion of the responsibility of Providence for our\nactions, manifest a high degree of intelligence and reflection. It would\nalso seem that some women went so far in their religious sensibility as to\nlead a regular ascetic life, and, according to the suggestion of some\nscholars, even took the vow of celibacy. Of these the Rabbis did not\napprove, and stigmatised them as the \u201cdestroyers of the world.\u201d Perhaps it\nwas just at this period that Judaism could not afford to give free play to\nthose morbid feelings, degenerating into religious hysterics, which led\nsome to join rival sects, and others to abandon themselves to the gross\nimmorality we read of in the history of the Gnostics.\n\nThe same circumstances may have been the cause of public opinion being led\nto accept the view of R. Eliezer, who thought it inadvisable\u2014it would seem\non moral grounds\u2014to permit woman to study the Law. This opinion was\nopposed to that of Ben Azzai, who considered it incumbent upon every\nfather to teach his daughter Torah. But justified as the advice of R.\nEliezer may have been in his own time, it was rather unfortunate that\nlater generations continued to take it as the guiding principle for the\neducation of their children. Many great women in the course of history\nindeed became law\u2010breakers and studied Torah; but the majority were\nentirely dependent on men, and became in religious matters a sort of\nappendix to their husbands, who by their good actions insured salvation\nalso for them, and sometimes the reverse. Thus there is a story about a\nwoman which, put into modern language, would be to the effect that she\nmarried a minister and copied his sermons for him; he died, and she then\nmarried a cruel usurer, and kept his accounts for him.\n\nThe fact that women were exempted from certain affirmative laws, which\nbecome operative only at special seasons\u2014_e.g._, the taking of the palm\nbranch on the Feast of Tabernacles\u2014must also have contributed to weaken\ntheir position as a religious factor in Judaism. The idea that women\nshould vie with men in the fulfilment of every law, became even for the\nRabbis a notion connected only with the remotest past. This is the\nimpression one gains when reading the legend about Michal, the daughter of\nSaul, putting on phylacteries, or the wife of the prophet Jonah making a\npilgrimage to Jerusalem at the three Festivals. It would indeed seem as if\nwomen were led to strive for the satisfaction of their religious wants in\nanother direction. Yet it was said of Jewish women, \u201cThe daughters of\nIsrael were stringent and laid certain restrictions on themselves.\u201d They\nwere also allowed to form a quorum by themselves for the purpose of saying\nthe Grace, but they could not be counted along with males for this end. It\nwas also against the early notion of the dignity of the congregation that\nwomen should perform any public service for men.\n\nOne privilege was left to women\u2014that of weeping. In Judges xi. 40, we read\nof the daughters of Israel that went yearly to lament the daughter of\nJephthah; while in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 25, we are told how \u201call the singing\nmen and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations.\u201d Of this\nprivilege they were not deprived, and if they were not allowed to sing any\nlonger, they at least retained the right to weep as much as they pleased.\nEven in later times they held a public office as mourning women at\nfunerals. In the Talmud fragments of compositions by women for such\noccasions are to be found. Indeed, woman became in these times the type of\ngrief and sorrow. She cannot reason, but she feels much more deeply than\nman. Here is one instance from an old legend: Jeremiah said, \u201cWhen I went\nup to Jerusalem (after the destruction of the Temple) I lifted my eyes and\nsaw there a lonely woman sitting on the top of the mountain, her dress\nblack, her hair dishevelled, crying, \u2018Who will comfort me?\u2019 I approached\nher and spake to her, \u2018If thou art a woman, speak to me. If thou art a\nghost, begone.\u2019 She answered, \u2018Dost thou not know me?... I am the Mother,\nZion.\u2019 \u201d\n\nIn general, however, the principle applied to women was: The king\u2019s\ndaughter _within the palace_ is all glorious (Psalm xlv. 14), but _not_\noutside of it. In the face of the \u201cFemina in ecclesia taceat,\u201d which was\nthe ruling maxim with other religions, Jewish women could only feel\nflattered by this polite treatment by the Rabbis, though it meant the same\nthing. We must not think, however, that this prevented them from attending\nthe service of the synagogue. According to the Tractate _Sopherim_, even\n\u201cthe little daughters of Israel were accustomed to go to the synagogue.\u201d\nIn the same tractate we find it laid down as \u201ca duty to translate for them\nthe portion (of the Law) of the week, and the lesson from the prophets\u201d\ninto the language they understand. The \u201cKing\u2019s daughter\u201d occasionally\nasserted her rights without undue reliance on the opinion of the\nauthorities. And thus being ignorant of the Hebrew language women prayed\nin the vernacular, though this was at least against the letter of the law.\nAnd many famous Rabbis of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries express\ntheir wonder that the \u201ccustom of women praying in other (non\u2010Hebrew)\nlanguages extended over the whole world.\u201d It is noteworthy that they did\nnot suppress the practice, but on the contrary, they endeavoured to give\nto the Law such an interpretation as would bring it into accord with the\ngeneral custom. Some even recommended it, as, for example, the author of\n_The Book of the Pious_, who gives advice to women to learn the prayers in\nthe language familiar to them.\n\nAt about the same period a lengthy controversy was being waged by the\ncommentators of the Talmud and the codifiers, about woman\u2019s partaking in\nthe fulfilment of the laws for special seasons, from which, as already\nremarked, they were exempted. To the action itself there could not be much\nobjection, but the difficulty arose when women also insisted on uttering\nthe blessing. Now the point at issue was whether they could be permitted\nto say, for instance, \u201cBlessed art Thou, O Lord our God, etc., who hast\nsanctified us by Thy Commandments, and _hast commanded us_, concerning the\ntaking of the Palm branch,\u201d since in reality the women had _not_ been\ncommanded to do it. To such logical and systematic minds as Maimonides and\nR. Joseph Caro, the difficulty was insurmountable, and they forbade women\nto use the formula; but with the less consistent majority women carried\ntheir point. Rather interesting is the answer received by R. Jacob, of\nCorbeil, with regard to this question. This Rabbi is said to have enjoyed\nthe mysterious power which enabled him to appeal in cases of doubt to the\ncelestial authorities. Before them he put also this women\u2019s case for\ndecision. Judgment was communicated to him in the verse from the\nScriptures, \u201cIn all that Sarah saith unto Thee, hearken unto her voice\u201d\n(Gen. xxi. 12). Nor was it unknown for a pious Jew to compose a special\nhymn for his wife\u2019s use in honour of the Sabbath.\n\nHow long this custom of women praying in the vernacular lasted, we have no\nmeans of ascertaining. Probably was already extinct about the end of the\nfifteenth century. For R. Solomon Portaleone, who lived in the sixteenth\ncentury, already regrets the abolition of \u201cthis beautiful and worthy\ncustom.\u201d \u201cWhen they prayed in the vernacular,\u201d he says, \u201cthey understood\nwhat they were saying, whilst now they only gabble off their prayers.\u201d As\na sort of compromise we may regard the various \u201cSupplications\u201d;(265) they\nform a kind of additional prayers supplementary to the ordinary liturgy,\nand are written in German. Chiefly composed by women, they specially\nanswer the needs of the sex on various occasions. These prayers deserve a\nfull description by themselves, into which I cannot enter here; I should\nlike only to mention that in one of these collections in the British\nMuseum, a special supplication is added for servant\u2010maids, and if I am not\nquite mistaken, also one for their mistresses.\n\nIt is also worth noticing that the manuals on the \u201cThree Women\u2019s\nCommandments\u201d (mostly composed in German, sometimes also in rhymes),\ncontained much more than their titles would suggest. They rather served as\nheadings to groups of laws, arranged under each commandment. Thus the\nfirst (about certain laws in Lev. xii. and xv.) becomes the motto for\npurity in body and soul; the second (the consecration of the first cake of\nthe dough) includes all matters relating to charity, in which women were\neven reminded to encourage their newly married husbands not to withhold\nfrom the poor the tithes of the bridal dowry, as well as of their future\nyearly income; whilst the third (the lighting of the Sabbath lamp) becomes\nthe symbol for spiritual light and sweetness in every relation of human\nlife.\n\nAs another compromise may also be considered the institution of\n\u201cVorsugern\u201d (woman\u2010reader) or the \u201cWoilkennivdicke\u201d (the well\u2010knowing one)\nwho reads the prayers and translates them into the vernacular for the\nbenefit of her less learned sisters. In Poland and in Russia, even at the\npresent time, such a woman\u2010reader is to be found in every synagogue, and\nfrom what I have heard the institution is by no means unknown in London.\nThe various prayer\u2010books containing the Hebrew text as well as the Jewish\u2010\nGerman translation, which appear in such frequent editions in Russia, are\nmostly intended for the use of these praying women. Not uninteresting is\nthe title\u2010page of R. Aaron Ben Samuel\u2019s Jewish\u2010German translations and\ncollections of prayers which appeared in the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury. He addressed the Jewish public in the following terms: \u201cMy dear\nbrethren, buy this lovely prayer\u2010book or wholesome tonic for body and\nsoul, which has never appeared in such German print since the world began;\nand make your wives and children read it often, thus they will refresh\ntheir bodies and souls, for this light will shine forth into your very\nhearts. As soon as the children read it they will understand their\nprayers, by which they will enjoy both this world and the world to come.\u201d\n\nAn earlier translator of the prayer\u2010book addresses himself directly to the\n\u201cpious women\u201d whom he invites to buy his book, \u201cin which they will see\nvery beautiful things.\u201d Recent centuries seem, on the whole, to have been\ndistinguished for the number of praying\u2010women they produced. The virtues\nwhich constituted the claim of women to religious distinction were\nmodesty, charity, and daily attendance at the synagogue morning and\nevening. In the memorial books of the time hundreds of such women are\nnoticed. Some used also to spin the \u201cFringes,\u201d which they presented to\ntheir friends; others fasted frequently, whilst \u201cOld Mrs. Hechele\u201d not\nonly attended the synagogue every day, and did charity to poor and rich,\nbut also understood the art of midwifery, which she practised in the\ncommunity without accepting payment for her services. According to R. Ch.\nJ. Bachrach women used also to say the \u201cMagnified\u201d prayer in the synagogue\nwhen their parents left no male posterity.\n\nIn bringing to a close this very incomplete sketch, perhaps I ought to\nnotice the confirmation of girls introduced during this century in some\ncommunities in Germany, which the \u201cReformed\u201d Rabbis recommended, but of\nwhich the \u201cOrthodox\u201d Rabbis disapproved. It would be well if in the heat\nof such controversies both sides would remember the words of R. Zedekiah\nb. Abraham, of Rome, who with regard to a certain difference of opinion on\nsome ritual question, says: \u201cEvery man receives reward from God for what\nhe is convinced is the right thing, if this conviction has no other motive\nbut the love of God.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nXIV. THE EARLIEST JEWISH COMMUNITY IN EUROPE\n\n\nRoman Judaism has disappeared from our guide\u2010books. Civilisation has\nlevelled down the walls of the Ghetto, and its former inhabitants are not\nany longer \u201ca people that dwell alone.\u201d But with this well\u2010deserved\ndestruction a good deal of the interest was also destroyed which the\ntraveller used to attach to \u201cthe peculiar people\u201d enclosed in that\nterrible slum of Rome.\n\nStill, if there is anything eternal in the \u201ceternal city,\u201d which was\nneither reconstructed by the C\u00e6sars, nor improved upon by the Popes, it is\nthe little Jewish community at Rome. It has survived the former; it has\nsuffered for many centuries under the latter, and, partaking in the\ngeneral revival which has come upon the Italian nation, it may still be\ndestined for a great future. Indeed, the history of the relation of Israel\nto Rome is so old that it is not lacking even in legendary elements. On\nthe day on which King Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, the Rabbis\nnarrate, there came down the angel Gabriel. He put a reed into the sea,\nwhich, by means of the slime that adhered to it, formed itself, in the\ncourse of time, into a large island, on which the city of Rome was\nbuilt\u2014an event with which the troubles of Israel began. These were the\nevil consequences of the first _m\u00e9salliance_. Even more unfortunate for\nIsrael (and it is not impossible that this is the meaning of the legend)\nwere the results of that spiritual mixed marriage between Judaism and\npaganism which took place at a much later period, whereat a blunt soldier,\nwho sympathised with neither, and \u201cwho dealt in salvation as he dealt in\nprovinces,\u201d acted as best man. As a fact, the parties concerned never\nunderstood each other properly. The declaration of love, and the final\nproposal, were made in an Alexandrine jargon, strange to both, the\nobscurities of which only grew with the commentaries each successive\ngeneration added to them. Under such circumstances, a happy union was not\nto be expected, and the family quarrel which fills the annals of civilised\nEurope soon broke out. Judaism, more particularly Roman Judaism, witnessed\nthis struggle from the beginning, and its fortunes were greatly dependent\non the chance which of these two elements, the Jewish or the pagan, won\nthe ascendency.\n\nHowever, I am theologising too much, whilst I am deviating from the\nsubject of these lines. Nor could I think of giving here, even in outline,\nthe history of the oldest Jewish community in Europe. This has been\nalready admirably done by Dr. A. Berliner, who has made the history of the\nJews of Rome the subject of his studies for nearly a quarter of a century.\nI intend only to reproduce here, in a stray fashion, some of those\nimpressions and reflections which, I am certain, must occur to every\nJewish traveller in Italy.\n\nNow I do not think for a moment that we Jews should have a point of view\nof our own for looking at things and men in this paradise of Europe. It\nwould be as silly to have a Jewish Baedeker as to think of orthodox\nmathematics or an ecclesiastical logic or a racial morality\u2014though\nunfortunately there exist such things. But on the other hand, if we have\nnot, like the fox in the fable, left our heart at home, let us not do\nviolence to our feelings by passing over everything Jewish, over sights\nwhich might remind us of our history, with a certain indifference which\nwould be affected on our part. We are not all little Goethes, nor even\nlittle Ruskins, and our artistic enjoyment is hardly so intense as to shut\nour hearts against impressions which force themselves upon us either by\nthe way of remembrance of the past, or even as a living contrast in the\npresent.\n\nIt so happened that my first visit to the Vatican was on a Friday. After\ndoing my work in the Vatican Library, which is open till noon, I went into\nthe adjoining Church of St. Peter.\n\nOne should be, like the angel of death in the legend, full of eyes,\nproperly to see all the wonders of art and marvels of architecture at\nwhich human genius and piety laboured busily through centuries, in\nadorning the grandest of sacred buildings in the world. But there is\nBaedeker or Murray serving at least as a pair of good spectacles to the\nlayman, and it was by their aid that I made my round in St. Peter. But lo,\nwhilst you are observing the celebrated Piet\u00e0 by Michael Angelo, and,\naccording to the instruction of your guides, admiring both the grief of\nthe Mother and the death of the Son, you notice in its vicinity a little\ncolumn, surrounded by rails to which the pilgrims approach with a certain\nawe; for \u201cTradition affirms it to have been brought from Jerusalem.\u201d\nNaturally, one is instantly reminded of the report, given by the famous\ntraveller of Tudela, of the curiosities of Rome, which among other things\nrecords, \u201cThat there are also to be seen in St. Giovanni in Porta Latina\n(probably meant for Lateran) the two brazen pillars, constructed by King\nSolomon of blessed memory, whose name, Solomon, the son of David, is\nengraved upon each; of which he was also told that every year about the\n9th of Ab (the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem), these pillars\nsweat so much that water runs down from them.\u201d So far Benjamin of Tudela\nin the twelfth century. In our days pillars weep no longer, and even of\nmen it is considered a special sign of good breeding to behave pillar\u2010\nlike; but a sigh is still permissible at the sight of this temple\u2010column,\nwhich in its captivity symbolises, not less than the Piet\u00e0, the grief of a\nwhole people. Of course, not possessing on the spot either the _Itinerary_\nor even Urlick, one is unable to establish the connection between these\ntwo traditions and their claim to authenticity. Perhaps one may even\ncomfort oneself on the same ground on which the famous cur\u00e9 tried to\nappease his flock who were sobbing bitterly at his telling them the\nPassion story. He exclaimed: \u201cMy children, do not weep so much; it\nhappened long ago, and even perhaps is not quite true.\u201d\n\nHowever, the Vatican is the last place in the world to exercise your\ncritical faculties; you are so deeply absorbed in seeing, that you have no\ntime to think. So on I went, from aisle to aisle, from niche to niche,\nfrom chapel to chapel, looking, staring, and admiring, till of a sudden my\neyes were struck by a large statue, on which the words, \u201cThou shalt have\nno other God before me,\u201d are engraved. There I stood before a question of\nexegesis, where one is permitted to use his right senses without any\nregard to the \u00e6sthetic side. Yet not all the manifold expositions of the\nDecalogue, nor all the talk about the subjective\u2010objective, the absolute\nand the real, with which metaphysicians have tried to confuse the notion\nof the Unity of God, will reconcile one to the meaning which Medi\u00e6val Art\nhas impressed upon the Ten Commandments. The truth has to be sought\nelsewhere, and thus my thoughts were turned to the synagogue, and thither\nI went.\n\nThe day was already drawing to its close, and, by a marvellous\ncoincidence, I arrived at the synagogue just as the congregation was\nintoning the words: \u201cThe Lord is one, and His name is one to His renown\nand glory.\u201d Here was sound, simple exegesis, though sadly lacking in the\nillustrative matter in which the Vatican is so rich. But what need was\nthere of any real or artificial \u201caid to the believer,\u201d in the presence of\nsuch a living faith, as enabled this little community to maintain its\nprotesting position in the teeth of the mistress of the world! And this\neven at a time, when it only required a hint from the successors of the\nold Roman Emperors to make the whole world renounce its right of thinking\nand judging, and, were we to believe Herr Janssen, even to feel perfectly\nhappy in this torpor.\n\nBut, by the way, are our own times much better? As I write these lines\n(October 1893) I hear that a Bill has been brought into the German Diet,\nasking that the Talmud should be submitted to a Commission (which _en\npassant_, has been sitting in unbroken session in that country since the\ndays of Pfefferkorn in the fifteenth century) with the purpose of\nexamining its contents, while in the Vatican the very pupils of Loyola are\noffering every convenience and comfort to the student who should care to\ndevote his time to Rabbinic literature. Does not the work of a great\nnumber of our poets, historians, theologians, and so\u2010called seers in this\nblessed century of ours, in many respects prove but a strained effort to\ndestroy the few humanitarian principles which were established a few\ngenerations ago, as well as to deify every brutal warrior who was\nsuccessful in his day? Again, is the national idea so much sublimer, so\nmuch grander, than that of a universal religion, that we would willingly\npermit the former to employ the means which have been denied to the latter\nas inhuman and barbarous? Every age has its own idolatry, and the eternal\nwandering Jew will always be the chosen victim of the Moloch in fashion.\n\nLet us, however, return to the synagogue, which withstood many a cruelty,\nboth ancient and modern. The place where the synagogue stands is near the\nGhetto, now called Piazza di Scuola. It is, besides a few other communal\nhouses, the only building left there,\u2014all those narrow, dirty, and\ntyphoid\u2010breeding streets which formed the old Ghetto having been\ndemolished by a sage and humane government, which by this action wiped out\nthe last stain from its history. There, on this vast blank is the\nsynagogue, a comparatively small, insignificant building, laden with heavy\nage and looking down on her children whom she has been nursing, consoling,\nand protecting for centuries, but who, now grown old, have forsaken her\nand scattered to all the ends of the city. Of all her former acquaintances\nthere appears to be left only father Tiber, who would seem to be murmuring\nto her many an old tale of the times before she was called into existence.\nAnd if he listened to the special prayers recited within her walls by the\ndeputies of the Jewish communities, when preparing themselves to go to the\ncourt of the Pope, the Tiber heard many a sigh and cry, wrung out from the\nheart of a Jewish captive who, preferring death to slavery even under the\nmasters of the world, found his last repose in its waters. But\ninsignificant as this synagogue appears, she proved the spiritual bulwark\nagainst all the attacks of the time, and you admire her brave resistance\nall the more when you look at that multitude of churches and cloisters in\nthe closest vicinity of the Ghetto, impressing you as so many\nintrenchments, all directing their missiles and weapons against this\nhumble, defenceless building, threatening it with death and destruction.\nOne of these churches, probably founded by some Jewish convert, who gained\nin it both salvation and a good living, bears on its gates in Hebrew\nletters the inscription: \u201cI have spread out my hands all the day unto a\nrebellious people, which walketh in the way that was not good, after their\nown thoughts. A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face\u201d\n(Isaiah lxv. 2, 3). Menace is followed by persuasion, the cited verses\nbeing accompanied by the Latin words: \u201cIndulgentia plenaria quotodiana\nperpetua pro vivis et defunctis.\u201d Theologians who like to quarrel most\nabout things they can know least, have for ages discussed the question,\nwhether prayers for the dead are of any use; here the matter is decided by\na simple advertisement. It is not to be denied that one would enjoy the\nfortunes accumulated by one\u2019s late sinner of an uncle all the better for\nbeing sure that a few pennyworths of prayer enable the legatee to make\none\u2019s benefactor in Hades comfortable and happy.\n\nThe thought is very consoling indeed, and it is not to be wondered at that\nthe Roman synagogue could not entirely withstand its temptations, and\nintroduced into the offering\u2010blessing after one is called up to the Torah,\nthe words: \u201cTo the advancing of the soul of the departed.\u201d Of course much\nof this tendency may be attributed to the Ford Jabbok,(266) which was and\nis still very popular in that country; but the fact that the author of\nthis Jewish \u201cBook of the Dead\u201d was an Italian (from Modena), shows clearly\nthat there was some Catholic influence at work, from which even the\nfellow\u2010countrymen of Azariah de Rossi and Judah Messer Leon could not\nentirely emancipate themselves.\n\nI ought to have spoken of Roman synagogues, since the building in the\nGhetto to which I have been constantly alluding comprises four prayer\u2010\nhouses devoted to Spanish and Italian rites. It says much for Roman\nJudaism, that they did not consider ritual differences of such importance\nas to prevent them from forming one community for all charitable and\ncongregational purposes. In Verona and in Modena some congregations even\nretained the German rite, which their ancestors who immigrated from the\nRhine provinces brought with them, whilst they accepted the Spanish\npronunciation. I wish that the Anglo\u2010Jewish community could see their way\nto imitate their example. Not that I think for a moment that the Spanish\npronunciation is more correct than the German. Each system has its own\nmistakes and corruptions; and it is more than probable that the prophet\nIsaiah, or even the author of Ecclesiastes, would be as little able to\nfollow the prayers in Bevis Marks as in Duke\u2019s Place. But since the non\u2010\nJewish scientific world has, though only by pure accident, accepted the\nSpanish way of reading the Hebrew, I should like to see this trifling\ndifference of _Ba_ruch over _Bu_ruch at last disappear, by pronouncing the\ncamets\u2010vowel _a_ instead of _o_, and accepting similar little changes,\nwhich are of no real importance to us.\n\nThe inside of these synagogues is even more simple than their outside. I\nwas told that the synagogue which was burned down last winter, and which\nalso formed a part of this building, could boast of many fine decorations\nand carvings, etc., but I could observe nothing of the kind in the\nsynagogues I had occasion to frequent. Nor is there much of natural\ndecorum in them, and they reconcile one perfectly to the worst of the\nSmall Synagogues elsewhere. I venture to think that in this respect, too,\nwe have to recognise Catholic influence. It was, I think, one of the\nleaders in the Oxford Movement who expressed his delight at seeing in\nItaly a woman poorly\u2010dressed coming into the church, who, after putting\ndown the basket from her back, kneels before one of the many altars and\nsays her prayers. A good deal of this familiarity in the place of worship\nmay also be noticed in the Roman synagogues, where I have seen a woman\ncome into the partition for men, notwithstanding their having a separate\ngallery, without bonnet or hat on her head, and with an infant in her\narms, and listen there to the prayers, till she walked home with her\nhusband. The other people were also very restless, coming and going often,\nwhilst, as soon as the reading of the Law was over, the greater part of\nthe worshippers left the synagogue. It was not a very delightful sight. A\nminus of decorum does not always mean a plus of devotion; just as little\nas a maximum of respectability and stiffness are to be taken as signs of\ntrue piety.\n\nIt is not uninteresting to notice that the Roman synagogue, in spite of\nits old traditions, did not entirely shut itself against modern reforms.\nAmong them there is that of \u201ccalling up the people to the Torah\u201d by the\nsimple formula, \u201cLet the Priest\u201d (or \u201cthe Levite\u201d) \u201cstep forth,\u201d(267) and\nso on, not mentioning either names or titles, which I should like to\nrecommend most strongly to our congregations. I hope that no man will\nsuspect me of such heresy as that of questioning the wisdom of the\nSynagogue Regulations. But I am inclined to think that the business of\nconferring the degrees of _Rabbi_, \u201cAssociate\u201d or \u201cMaster,\u201d does not\nexactly fall within the sphere of activity of the Wardens. The matter\ncould only be decided by a proper Board of examination. As the Council is\nnot provided with such a Board, nor is every aspirant to this honour\nprepared to undergo the examination required, the wisest course would be\nto give up titles altogether, calling up all people alike in the way\nindicated.\n\nThe robes the ministers wear (somewhat similar to those of the Greek\nclergy), are probably also an innovation of modern date,\u2014the old orthodox\nRabbis looking at any special vestment for the Preacher or Reader with the\nsame feeling of disgust which the old Puritans entertained for surplice or\nmitre. But the principle of \u201cThe Beauty of Holiness\u201d proved too strong for\nresistance, and it was only a pardonable vanity when the reformers applied\nit to their own persons; \u201cVanity of vanities,\u201d saith the preacher, so\noften, that he gets rather to like it. This vanity is greatly redeemed by\nthe fact that the preacher does not grudge his uniform to his humbler\nbrother, the beadle, who is in most cases to be distinguished from the\nofficiating ministry only by the brass\u2010plate on his breast, on which the\nword \u201cServant\u201d is engraved. Considering the great confusion arising from\nthe meaningless \u201cReverend\u201d and the universal white neck\u2010tie, such a label,\nindicating the proper office of the bearer, might, perhaps, prove as\nuseful among the English Jews as it is among the Jews of Rome.\n\nIt was with a pupil of the Rabbinical College, in company with his\nfriends, that I took my first walk through ancient Rome. I felt attracted\nto him by his striking face of that peculiar fine Jewish type, which is\nmore common among the Jews in the East than among us. And when he was\nreading the lesson from the Prophets in the synagogue, where I made his\nacquaintance, he reminded me of that Jewish boy with bright eyes, black\ncurls, and features strikingly beautiful walking as a captive from\nJerusalem through the streets of Rome some seventeen centuries ago, whose\nproficiency in the words of Isaiah caused his redemption. It would be an\nexaggeration to say that my companion\u2019s remarks were very instructive from\nan artistic point of view. Being born and bred in Rome, he passed with\nutter indifference many objects which we are bidden to admire, whilst at\nothers he actually shouted out \u201cImage,\u201d or made some other prosaic remark.\nBut in a country where one is determined to play the heathen for so many\nweeks, to worship superannuated deities, to get into raptures at every\nreminiscence of superseded and vanishing religions, and to be delighted at\nthe sights of \u201cgreasy saints and martyrs hairy,\u201d there can be no great\nharm in being called back to one\u2019s true nature.\n\nThe feelings crowding upon one, when entering that part of the ancient\ncity which probably was in the mind of the Rabbis when they spoke of\n\u201cGuilty Rome,\u201d are of a conflicting nature. Every stone and every brick\nthere saw the humiliation of Israel, in every theatre and every circus the\nJew served as a comic figure, and was held up to ridicule, whilst there\nwas, perhaps, hardly a single lane or gate through which those who\nresented the yoke of the \u201canti\u2010Semites of Antiquity\u201d did not pass, in\norder to \u201cbe butchered to make a Roman holiday.\u201d What concerns a Jew most\nin this perished world of ruins, and at the same time causes him the\ndeepest grief, is the triumphal arch of Titus, \u201ccommemorating the defeat\nof the Jews, and dedicated to him by his successor, Domitian.\u201d Enough has\nbeen said and written about it both by antiquarians and theologians, the\nformer admiring the workmanship of the reliefs, the latter perceiving in\nit a proof of the fulfilment of the well\u2010known passages in the New\nTestament about the destruction of the Temple, which came to pass in spite\nof the efforts made by Titus to save it. Those who have read Bernay\u2019s\nessay on the \u201cChronik des Sulpicius Severus\u201d know that the behaviour of\n\u201cthe delight of the human species\u201d on that occasion is rather open to\ndoubt, and it is more probable that, instead of trying to rescue it, he\ncommanded that it should be set on fire. Josephus, who witnessed the shame\nof his compatriots and co\u2010religionists, has left us a full account of the\ntriumphal procession. Only a flunkey like Josephus could maintain that\ncalm indifference with which he describes the events of the \u201cbitter day,\u201d\nthe perusal of which makes one\u2019s blood boil. His description fairly agrees\nwith the famous relief on the arch, showing that part of the procession in\nwhich the table with the shewbread, the candlestick with the seven lamps,\nand the golden trumpets figure as the chief objects. The only thing which\nwe miss is the \u201cLaw of the Jews,\u201d which, according to Josephus, was\ncarried in the triumph as \u201cthe last of all the spoils.\u201d Was it only an\noversight of the artist, or had he no place for it, or is it Josephus who\ncommitted the error, mistaking some other object for the Scroll of the\nLaw? I dearly hope that this last was the case, and that Heine was under\nthe impulse of a true and real and poetic inspiration when he wrote\n(speaking of the Holy Scripture to which he owed his conversion): \u201cThe\nJews, who appreciate the value of precious things, knew right well what\nthey did when, at the burning of the second temple they left to their fate\nthe golden and silver implements of sacrifice, the candlesticks and lamps,\neven the breastplate of the High Priest adorned with great jewels, but\nsaved the Bible. This was the real treasure of the temple, and, thanks be\nto God! it was not left a prey to the flames, nor to the fury of Titus\nVespasian, the wretch, who, as the Rabbi tells us, met with so dreadful a\ndeath.\u201d\n\nHowever, there were others who brought the glad tidings of the Old\nTestament to Rome long before there existed a New one. And this is, on the\nother side, what makes Rome a sort of Terra Sancta even to the Jew. It is\ntrue that we have not to look for the footprints of the prophets, for whom\neven tradition never claimed \u201cthe gift of missionary\u2010travelling.\u201d But\nmight not the ground there have received a sort of consecration by the\nfact that it was traversed by the ambassadors of Judas Maccab\u00e6us (about\n161 B.C.) \u201cto make a league of amity and confederacy\u201d with the Roman\nSenate? Of the embassy of Simon the Maccabee (about 140 B.C.) there is\nactual historical evidence that they began to propagate in Rome the Jewish\nreligion. Some seventy or eighty years later the Jews had already their\nown quarter in Rome, with their own synagogues, which they were in the\nhabit of visiting, \u201cmost especially on the sacred Sabbath days, when they\npublicly cultivate their national philosophy.\u201d That many of the oldest\nteachers of Israel, the Tannaim, went to Rome as deputies, and that one of\nthem (R. Mathia ben Chares) founded a school there early in the second\ncentury, is also an authenticated fact. One would like to know what they\ntaught, and in what way they expounded their _national philosophy_. Most\nof all one would like to know what were the spiritual means they employed\nin their proselytising work, in which they were, according to the\ntestimony of history, so successful. Did they preach in the streets? Or\ndid they hold public controversies? Or did they even send out Epistles\nwhich, in form at least, served as a model to apostles of another creed?\nHow many a problem would be solved; how many a miracle would disappear;\nhow many a book would become superfluous, if we could obtain certainty\nabout these points! The Talmud tells us little, almost nothing, about\nthese important things, whilst we get from the Roman writers only sneers\nand raillery. To these respectable Romans the Jews were only a mob of\nunlettered atheists. Indeed, to a good orthodox heathen, a religion\nwithout images and statues, with a God without a pedigree and without a\ntheogony, was an impossible thing. Those poor metaphysicians!\n\nHowever, why dwell so long on a past world? A famous Rabbi once exclaimed:\n\u201cIf a man would ask thee, \u2018Where is thy God?\u2019 answer him: \u2018In the great\ncity of Rome.\u2019 \u201d The underlying idea was the mystical notion that wherever\nIsrael had to migrate, they were accompanied by the Divine presence. And\nRome was, in the times of the Rabbis, the point to which the streams of\nJewish migration from the Holy Land chiefly converged. But now, instead of\nto Rome, might we not point to London and New York as centres of Jewish\nmigrations?\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nThis Index contains the most important names of persons, titles of books,\ntechnical terms and Hebrew words occurring in the text. In the notes to\nthe text, the Hebrew words are for the most part given also in Hebrew\ncharacters.\n\nAbarbanel, Isaac, 173, 174\n\nAbaye, 311\n\n_Ab Beth Din_, 84\n\nAbba Mari b. Moses, 165, 179\n\nAbba Tachnah, the Chassid, 221\n\nAbraham, Baalshem\u2019s father\u2010in\u2010law, 7\n\nAbraham, son of Elijah Wilna, 88\n\nAbraham of Bedres, 262\n\nAbraham Abulaphia, 262\n\nAbraham Ibn Daud, 162\n\nAbraham Ibn Ezra, 50, 52, 64, 71, 210, 314\n\nAbraham b. Shem\u2014Tob Bibago, 172, 173\n\nAbtalyon, 186\n\nAbuha, 311\n\nAcha, 310\n\n_Acher_, 292\n\n_Adam, Primal_, 239\n\n_Agadah_, pl. _Agadoth_, 64, 105, 183, 197\n\n_Agadic_, 110, 156, 157, 193, 262, 279\n\n_Ages of Man_, 295\n\nAkabyah b. Mahalaleel, 305\n\nAkiba, 70, 84, 130, 188, 190, 194, 220, 227, 228, 234\n\n_Almemor_, 302\n\nAmmi, 214, 217, 226, 231\n\n_Amora_, pl. _Amoraim_, 17, 84, 195\n\nAmram Gaon, 293\n\nAnna of Kaidon, wife of Elijah Wilna, 82\n\nAnselm, St., of Canterbury, 79\n\nAntigonos of Socho, 229\n\nAnti\u2010Maimonists, 133\n\nAristotle, 79, 167\n\nAryeh Leb, son of Elijah Wilna, 88\n\n_Ascension of Elijah_, 75\n\nAsher b. Jechiel, 210\n\nAssideans, 64\n\n_Ayil Meshulash_, 81\n\nAzariah de Rossi, 66, 71, 105, 333\n\n_Aziluth_, 117\n\nAzulai, 277\n\n_Baalshem_, Israel, 3\u201012, 14\u201035, 73\n\nBachrach, Ch. J., 325\n\n_Bachur_, pl. _Bachurim_, 95, 97\n\nBachya, 131\n\n_Baraitha_, 271\n\n_Baruch Sheamar_, 311\n\nBashazi, 161\n\n_Bath\u2010Kol_, 190\n\nBeer of Mizriez, 11, 37\n\nBeer, Peter, 66\n\nBen Azzai, 130, 216, 319\n\nBenjamin of Tudela, 329\n\nBen\u2010Jacob, 259\n\nBen Sira, 297\n\nBen Zoma, 130\n\n_Bereshith_, 127\n\n_Berith Milah_, 288, 292, 293\n\nBerliner, A., 327\n\nBernays, Isaak, 337\n\n_Beth Din_, 191\u2010193\n\n_Beth Hammidrash_, 7, 16, 84, 139\n\n_Beth Talmud_, 210\n\n_Biccurim_, 58\n\nBloch, Samson, 51\n\nBodek, A., 51\n\n_Book of Brightness_ (_see_ Zohar)\n\n_Book of the Pious_, 295, 322\n\n_Book of Victory_, 167\n\n_Book of Weight_, 133\n\nBoswell, 142, 197\n\nBuckle, 96\n\n_Burbot_, 138\n\nBuzagli, the Cabbalist, 310\n\nCabbalah, Cabbalists, 99, 128, 129, 133, 210, 283, 315\n\n_Cabod_, 120, 121\n\nCaraites, 48, 160, 161, 207, 208\n\nCasaubon, Isaac, 259\n\n_Chagigah_, 77\n\n_Chakhamim_, 57\n\n_Chambers_, the, 208\n\nChanina b. Dossa, 217\n\n_Chanukah_, 138\n\n_Chapters of R. Eliezer the Great_, 68, 69, 316\n\nChasdai Ibn Crescas, 167\u2010173, 180\n\n_Chassidim_, Chassid, Chassidic, Chassidism, 1\u20104, 11, 12, 14\u201016, 21, 22,\n            25\u201027, 30, 33, 35\u201041, 43\u201045, 53, 73, 90, 298\n\nChayim Vital, 99\n\nChayim Walosin, 85, 87, 94\n\nChisda, 307\n\n_Chukkim_, 124\n\n_Code of the Law_, by Caro, 75, 92, 206, 211, 257\n\n_Collectanea_, 144\n\n_Commentary on the Pentateuch_, by Nachmanides, 107, 108, 123, 135\n\n_Creeds and Opinions_, by Saadiah Gaon, 162\n\n_Crown_, 239\n\n_Cusari_, 162\n\n_Date of the Redemption_, 105\n\nDavid Rocca Martino, 230\n\nDavid Messer Leon, 174\n\nDavid b. Samuel d\u2019Estella, 165, 166\n\nDavid b. Yom\u2010Tob Bilia, 166.\n\n_Defence of Adam_, 230\n\nDelmedigo, 71, 131, 175\n\n_Disputation_, by Nachmanides, 103\n\nDukes, L., 260\n\n_Eighteen Benedictions_, 83\n\nEleazar, 229\n\nEleazar b. Jacob, 225\n\nEliezer, father of Baalshem, 5\n\nEliezer b. Hyrkanos, 189, 319\n\nEliezer b. Samuel Hallevi, 145\n\nEliezer b. Simeon, 223\n\nElijah Levita, 268\n\nElijah Wilna, 57, 73\u201077, 81\u201092, 96, 97\n\nElisha b. Abuyah, 33, 130, 292\n\nEmden, Jacob, 10, 259\n\n_Epikurus_, 157\n\n_Erech Millin_, 66\n\nErter, Isaac, 51, 59, 288\n\nEssenes, 64, 185\n\n_Examination of the World_, 97\n\nEybesch\u00fctz, J., 10\n\nEzra, or Azriel, the mystic, 100\n\n_Faithful City_, the, 75\n\nFichte, 51\n\nFinn, 75\n\n_Ford Jabbok_, 333\n\nFrankists, 10\n\nFrankl, Z., 65, 97\n\nF\u00fcrst, J., 66\n\nGamaliel I., 234\n\nGamaliel II., 194, 212\n\n_Gaon_, pl. _Gaonim_, 73, 76\u201078, 97, 98, 206, 208, 209, 289, 312\n\n_Garden of Mystical Contemplation_, 129\n\n_Gate of Reward_, 115, 213\n\nGeiger, A., 66\n\n_Gemara_, 78\n\nGershon, brother\u2010in\u2010law of Baalshem, 8, 9\n\nGhetto, 326, 331\u2010333\n\nGnostics, 64\n\nGoethe, 57, 73, 306, 328\n\n_Gozer_, 290\n\nGraetz, 65, 97, 99, 183\n\n_Great Interpreters_, 186\n\nGreen, A. L., 255\n\n_Guide of the Perplexed_, 49, 68, 97, 102, 130, 131, 179\n\n_Guide of the Perplexed of the Time_, 60, 67\n\nHadasi, Judah, 160, 161\n\nHai Gaon, 77, 208, 209, 272\n\n_Halachah_, pl. _Halachoth_, 64, 66, 183\n\n_Halachic_, 57, 92, 110, 157, 193, 207\n\n_Halachoth Gedoloth_, 111, 112\n\nHannaneel of Kairwan, 162\n\nHegel, 51, 54, 64, 65\n\nHeine, 59, 124, 254\n\n_High Belief_, 162\n\nHillel the Great, 185, 186, 188, 193, 237\n\nHillel, R., 177\n\n_History of Jewish Tradition_, 65, 182\n\n_Hithlahabuth_, 32\n\n_Holle Kreisch_, 294, 295\n\nHuna, 221, 225\n\nIsaac Alfasi, 13, 100, 101, 111, 312\n\nIsaac Aramah, 173\n\nIsaac Loria, 76, 133\n\nIsaac b. Ruben, 100\n\nIshmael, 188, 190, 224\n\nIshmael b. Elishah, 222, 299\n\nIsrael Baalshem (_see_ Baalshem, Israel)\n\nJacob of Corbeil, 322\n\nJacob Dubna, 91\n\nJacob the Levite, or Maharil, 143, 144\n\nJacob Sasportas, 101, 102\n\nJacob Tam, 210\n\nJannai, 226\n\nJedaiah of Bedres, 97, 131\n\n_Jerusalem_, by Mendelssohn, 147\n\nJohanan, 249, 287, 303, 318\n\nJohanan b. Zaccai, 48, 188\n\nJonah Gerundi, 100, 101\n\nJonah, son of Nachmanides, 101\n\nJos\u00e9, 218, 219\n\nJoseph Albashir, 160\n\nJoseph Albo, 171, 172\n\nJoseph Caro, 75, 92, 206, 211, 322\n\nJoseph Jabez, 131, 173, 179\n\nJoshua b. Hananiah, 194, 299, 304, 308\n\nJost, M., 66\n\nJudah Alcharisi, 262\n\nJudah Hallevi, 13, 34, 152, 162, 208\n\nJudah b. Ilai, 246\n\nJudah Messer Leon, 333\n\nJudah de Modena, 298\n\nJudah the Patriarch, 63, 195\n\nJudah the Pious, 306\n\nJudah b. Tema, 299\n\nJudah b. Yakar, 100\n\n_Karab_, 124\n\n_Kilayim_, 87\n\nKimchi, D., 145\n\n_Korban_, 124\n\nKrochmal, Nachman, 44, 46, 48\u201068, 71, 72\n\nKuenen, 240\n\n_Law of Man_, 113\u2010115\n\n_Laws unto Moses on Mount Sinai_, 64\n\nLessing, 73\n\nLetteris, M., 56, 57\n\nLevi b. Gershom, 97, 101, 171\n\n_Light of God_, 167\n\n_Lilac of Mysteries_, 133\n\n_Lilith_, 287, 288\n\nLipman of M\u00fchlhausen, 167, 179\n\nLiva of Prague, 78\n\nLowell, R., 116\n\nL\u00f6w, L., 171, 285, 305\n\nLucas, Mrs. Henry, 135\n\nMacaulay, 89\n\n_Maggid_, 19\n\n_Magnified_, 310\n\nMaimonides, or Moses b. Maimon, 13, 48, 49, 68, 70, 78, 97, 100, 102, 103,\n            111, 126, 130, 133, 140, 161\u2010168, 170\u2010181, 210, 211, 249, 274,\n            280, 281, 312, 322\n\nMaimonists, Anti\u2010Maimonists, 163\u2010165, 173, 210\n\nMar Samuel, 84\n\nMathia b. Chares, 339\n\n_Measure of the Stature_, 208\n\n_Mechilta_, 58, 81, 193\n\nMeheram Schiff, 16\n\nMeir, 130, 194, 226, 318\n\nMeir b. Nathan of Trinquintaines, 100\n\nMeir of Rothenburg, 210\n\n_Memra_, 238\n\n_Men of the Great Synagogue_, 64, 185\n\n_Menachoth_, 86\n\nMendelssohn, Moses, 48, 58, 73, 147, 151, 176\n\n_Metatron_, 238\n\n_Midrash_, pl. _Midrashim_, 61, 64, 71, 81, 193, 195, 222, 262, 272, 273,\n            304\n\nMilton, 114\n\n_Minhag_, pl. _Minhagim_, 143, 192\n\n_Minim_, 64\n\nMinor Tractates, 81\n\n_Mishnah_, 57, 64, 66, 76, 78, 82, 85, 87, 91, 157, 190, 193, 195, 271\n\nMistress of the Synagogue, 317\n\nMoses Cordevora, 133\n\nMoses Ibn Ezra, 262\n\nMoses de Leon, 18, 133, 258, 262\n\nMoses of Tachau, 131\n\n_Mother Zion_, 321\n\nNachman, son of Nachmanides, 101\n\nNachmanides, or Moses b. Nachman, 99\u2010141, 213\n\nNahum of Gemzo, 215\n\n_Nasi_, 84\n\nNathan, 194\n\n_Nephesh Chayah_, 117\n\nNeubauer, Dr. A., 263\n\n_Night of Watching_, 288\n\nNissim of Gerona, 133\n\nNissim of Marseilles, 267\n\n_Olam Habba_, 115\n\n_Old Victory_, 304\n\nOral Law, 10\n\n_Orchard_, the, 133\n\n_Ordinance of the Law_, 293\n\nPablo Christiano, 103, 105, 106\n\n_Pairs_, the, 185\n\n_Paradise Lost_, 114\n\n_Pardes_, 129\n\n_Pashut_, 138\n\n_Path of Belief_, 172\n\nPerles, J., 99, 123, 294\n\nPharisees, 64, 185, 237, 241\n\nPhilo, 52, 64, 154, 238\n\n_Pilpul Pilpulist_, 13, 78\n\nPlato, 78\n\n_Pugio Fidei_, 107\n\nRaba, 311\n\n_Rabbanan Saburai_, 206\n\nRabbah, 311\n\nRabbenu, 13\n\n_Rabbenu Mosheh_, 103\n\nRabbinowicz, R. N. N., 261\n\nRaimund Martini, 107\n\nRapoport, Solomon Leb, 50, 53, 56, 66\n\nReggio, Isaac, 270\n\n_Roots_, the, 171\n\nRuskin, 328\n\nSaadiah Gaon, 48, 162, 108, 272\n\n_Sacred Letter_, 113\n\nSadducees, 64, 185, 237\n\nSalman the Good, 145\n\n_Sambatyon_, 95\n\n_Sanctification\u2010cup_, 245\n\nSandalphon, 305\n\n_Sandek_, 290\n\nSanhedrin, the, 188, 190, 191\n\nSaul Berlin, 176, 180\n\n_Sayings of the Fathers_, _Aboth_, 262, 299\n\nSchelling, 51\n\nSchiller, 73\n\n_Schlummerlied_, 295\n\nSchorr, O., 193\n\nSchudt, 291, 298\n\n_Sechorah_, 296\n\n_Seder Nezikin_, 58\n\n_Seder Olam_, 81, 92\n\n_Seder Taharoth_, 58\n\n_Segulah_, 122\n\n_Sephardim_, 301\n\n_Sepher_, 13\n\n_Sephiroth_, Ten, 238\n\n_Sermon in the Presence of the King_, by Nachmanides, 165\n\nShabbethai Tsebi, 134, 239\n\n_Shalom Zachar_, 289\n\nShammai, 185, 188, 237\n\n_Shechinah_, 120, 121, 228\u2010230\n\n_Shema_, reading of the, 141, 288\n\nShemaiah, 186\n\nShemariah of Crete, 166\n\nSherira Gaon, 263\n\nShiphluth, 30\n\n_Simchah_, 31\n\nSimeon Duran, 101, 170, 171\n\nSimeon b. Eleazar, 289\n\nSimeon b. Gamaliel, 222\n\nSimeon b. Gamaliel II., 193, 194\n\nSimeon b. Yochai, 18, 223\n\nSimlai, 112\n\n_Siphra_, 58, 81, 91, 193, 262\n\n_Siphr\u00e9_, 58, 81, 91, 193, 262\n\nSolomon b. Adereth, 70, 267\n\nSolomon b. Gabirol, 210\n\nSolomon of St. Goar, 143\u2010145\n\nSolomon b. Isaac, Rashi, 13, 210\n\nSolomon b. Isaac b. Zadok, 137\n\nSolomon Ladier, 43\n\nSolomon Portaleone, 323\n\nSolomon, son of Nachmanides, 110\n\nSolomon Syrillo, 262\n\nSolomon Wilna, 75\n\n_Son of the Law_, 307, 312\n\n_Sopherim_, 64\n\nSpencer, Herbert, 97\n\nSteinschneider, M., 99, 172\n\n_Taanith_, 58\n\n_Talmid Chaber_, 52\n\n_Talmid Chakam_, 7\n\nTalmud (of Jerusalem or Babylon), 16, 19, 33, 49, 52, 57\u201059, 64, 76, 78,\n            81, 82, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 101, 104, 105, 111, 129, 131,\n            140, 151, 155, 158, 195, 196, 206, 207, 209, 210, 238, 252,\n            254\u2010256, 261, 262, 271, 272, 277\n\n_Tanna_, pl. _Tannaim_, 17, 84, 187\n\n_Tephillin_, 249\n\nThackeray, 282\n\nThirteen Articles of the Creed, 148, 163, 164, 170, 176, 179\n\n_Thirteen Rules_ (of Interpretation), 195\n\nTobijah, the Priest, 175\n\n_Tosephta_, 81, 82, 92, 262, 271\n\nToy, Prof., 233\u2010239, 251\n\n_Tractate Berachoth_, 221, 271\n\n_Tractate Evidences_, 192\n\n_Tractate Joys_, 194\n\n_Tractate Sanhedrin_, 156, 157, 159\n\n_Tractate Sopherim_, 301, 312, 321\n\n_Tree of Life_, the, 133\n\nTroki, Solomon, 161\n\n_Variae Lectiones_ (of the Talmud), 261\n\nViterbo, Abraham Chayim, 175, 176\n\n_Vorsugerin_, 324\n\n_Wars of the Lord_, 101\n\n_Watchman_, the, 59\n\nWeiss, T. H., 65, 97, 99, 182, 183, 185\u2010187, 191\u2010197, 206, 207, 209\u2010212\n\nWellhausen, 243\n\n_Wisdom of Solomon_, 127, 154\n\n_Woilkennivdicke_, 324\n\n_Yediah_, 119\n\n_Yeshibah_, pl. _Yeshiboth_, 94\u201096, 293\n\nYom\u2010Tob Heller, 196\n\n_Zaddik_, pl. _Zaddikim_ (Zaddikism), 36\u201044, 53, 298\n\nZadoc, 245\n\n_Zebachim_, 86\n\nZedner, 254\u2010256\n\n_Zehub_, 137\u2010139\n\nZerahiah Hallevi of Gerona (or Gerondi), 100, 101, 111\n\n_Zion\u2010Elegy_, 208\n\n_Zobeoth_, 314\n\n_Zohar_, 18, 19, 71, 91, 133, 258\n\nZunz, Leopold, 44, 52, 56, 60, 65, 73, 97, 183, 279, 305\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 SUBJOINED IS A LIST OF SELECTED AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE\n      CHASSIDIM.\u2014_Historical and Bibliographical Works_: Graetz (xi.\n      including the polemical literature quoted in the Appendix), Jost,\n      Peter Beer, M. Bodek (\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05e0\u05e8\u05e9, Lemberg, 1865), A. Walden (\u05e9\u05de\n      \u05ea\u05d2\u05e8\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d3\u05e9, Warschau, 1864), Finn (\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d4, Wilna, 1860), D.\n      Kahana (\u05d0\u05e6\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05e1\u05dc in the periodical \u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05e8, iv.), Zederbaum (\u05db\u05d7\u05e8 \u05db\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4,\n      Odessa, 1868). _Essays and Satires_: T. Erter (\u05d4\u05e6\u05e4\u05d4, Wien, 1858), S.\n      Szant\u00f3 (_Jahrbuch f\u00fcr Israeliten_, p. 108\u2010178, 1867), A. Gottlober\n      (in his periodical \u05d4\u05d1\u05e8\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8, iii.), L. L\u00f6w (Ben Chananjah, ii.),\n      Rudermann (\u05d4\u05e9\u05d7\u05e8, vi.), Rapoport (\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4, Lemberg, 1873, p. 10),\n      Fr\u00f6hlich (\u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05df, Warschau, 1876, p. 63 _seq._), S. Maimon\n      (_Autobiographie_, Berlin, 1792). Compare also the Hebrew novels by\n      P. Smolensky, L. Gordon, M. Brandst\u00e4tter, A. Gottlober and B.\n      Horowitz (German). _Occasional references_ to the liturgy or the\n      system of the Chassidim in the \u201cResponses\u201d of R. Ezechiel Landau,\n      Moses Sopher, E. Flekeles and T. Steinhart, and in the works of\n      Israel Samostsch, Salomon Chelma and Chayim Walosin. Compare also\n      Zunz (_Gottesdienstliche Vortr\u00e4ge_, p. 477) and L. L\u00f6w (_Mannheimer\n      Album_, Wien, 1874), Senior Sachs (\u05d4\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05d4, i. 61) and B. L. Zeitlin\n      (\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea \u05e7\u05e9\u05d4, Paris, 1846). The best book on the whole subject is E.\n      Zweifel\u2019s work \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05e6\u05dc \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc (Zitomyr 1868, three parts), which I\n      strongly recommend to students. The books written by the Chassidim\n      would amount to more than 200. They are catalogued by Bodek and\n      Walden. I shall only draw the attention of the student to the works\n      of Beer, Salomon Ladier, and Mendel Witipsker on one side, who\n      developed the theory of the Immanence, and those of Nachman Braslaw\n      and Melech Liezensker, who, on the other hand, carried the theory of\n      Zaddikism to its utmost consequences. The student will find a fair\n      collection of sayings and sentences arranged according to\n      theological subjects in the books \u05e8\u05e8\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd and \u05dc\u05e9\u05df \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (Anon.,\n      Lemberg, 1876).\n\n    2 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cpious ones\u201d (Ps. xxxvii. 28, lxx. 2, etc.). The reader is\n      probably acquainted with the term from the Maccabean history (1\n      Macc. ii. 42, vii. 13), in which the strict party, opposed to all\n      Hellenistic influence, are called \u201cAssideans\u201d [R.V. \u201cHasidaeans\u201d],\n      Gr. \u1f09\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n    3 \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05dd, \u201cThe Master of the Name,\u201d a term usually applied to\n      exorcists, who cast out devils and performed other miracles through\n      adjuration by the name of God (or angels). The unbelieving Rabbis\n      maintained indeed that in his exorcisms Baalshem employed \u201cimpure\n      names\u201d (of devils), whilst the Chassidim, on the other hand,\n      declared that their Master never used \u201cnames\u201d at all, his miracles\n      being performed by the divine in Baalshem to which all nature owes\n      obedience. Occasionally the Chassidim call him \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05dd \u05ea\u05d5\u05d1 (The Man\n      of Good Name), in allusion to Eccles. vii. 1, shortened by some into\n      _Besht_.\n\n    4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u2014\u201cHouse of Research\u201d or of \u201cstudy\u201d (of the Law), but in\n      which also divine service is held thrice a day.\n\n    5 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d4\u05db\u05dd\u2014\u201cDisciple of the Wise,\u201d the usual title of a scholar or\n      student.\n\n    6 A Jewish sect, so called after their founder Jacob Leibovicz Frank,\n      who was himself one of the apostles of the pseudo\u2010Messiah Shabbethai\n      Tsebi of Smyrna in Turkey. Among his other doctrines he taught also\n      a sort of Trinity, consisting of the Holy Ancient One, the Holy King\n      or the Messiah, and a feminine person in the Godhead, in which he,\n      like his master, represented the Second Person. The sect ultimately\n      abolished the Law, and, after many controversies with the Rabbinic\n      Jews, went over to Catholicism, the dominant religion in Poland, by\n      which they were soon absorbed. Eybesch\u00fctz, chief Rabbi of Prague and\n      Hamburg, was suspected by Emden to be a secret adherent of\n      Shabbethai Tsebi, which was tantamount to apostasy from Judaism.\n      Eybesch\u00fctz protested. The litigants excommunicated each other, and\n      the Rabbis divided into two camps, taking sides either with Emden or\n      with his antagonist.\n\n    7 The works of Maimonides or Moses b. Maimon (1135\u20101204) are too many\n      to be enumerated here. The most important are the _Guide of the\n      Perplexed_ (\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d5\u05dd) and his _Compendium of the Law_ (\u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4\n      \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4). Judah Hallevi or Abul Hassan flourished in the first half of\n      the twelfth century. He is well known as a poet by his _Divan_ and\n      as a deep religious thinker by his _Cusari_. The former contains\n      also many songs of a secular nature. Isaac Alfasi (died 1103) is\n      best known by his Compendium of the Talmud, which was so greatly\n      admired by his contemporaries that they declared it could never have\n      been composed \u201cwithout the aid of the Holy Spirit.\u201d R. Solomon b.\n      Isaac, also called by his initials Rashi (1040\u20101105), is well known\n      by his commentaries on the Bible and the Talmud.\n\n    8 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5.\n\n    9 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8, _Sepher_.\n\n   10 The Hebrew word is \u05e4\u05dc\u05e4\u05d5\u05dc, meaning subtle discussion and sharp\n      distinction. The word is closely related to \u05e4\u05dc\u05e4\u05dc or \u05e4\u05dc\u05e4\u05dc\u05d0, which\n      means \u201cpepper\u201d or \u201cseasoning.\u201d\n\n   11 \u05de\u05d7\u05e8\u05dd \u05e9\u05d9\u05e3 = R. Meir Shiff, whose _novell\u00e6_ on the Talmud are of a\n      very subtle kind, and were very popular with the students of this\n      work.\n\n   12 \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd\u2014\u05ea\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cThe Repeaters,\u201d and \u201cThe Interpreters.\u201d The sayings\n      and statements of the former are embodied in the Mishnah, a work\n      compiled by R. Judah the Saint about 220 A.C., and covering a period\n      of about 250 years (30 B.C.\u2010220 A.C.). The latter occupied\n      themselves mainly with the interpretation of the Mishnah, and their\n      discussions and controversies are incorporated in the Talmud of\n      Jerusalem and that of Babylon, and extend over the period from\n      220\u2010500 A.C. The Talmud of Jerusalem is mostly the product of the\n      schools of Palestine. The Talmud of Babylon is a growth of that\n      country. The authorities of this latter Talmud being far away from\n      the place where the first great Rabbis lived and laboured, their\n      traditions are naturally not so historically reliable as those of\n      the Talmud of Jerusalem. The authorities of Palestine were also\n      simpler in their method of interpretation. These again are followed\n      by the Babylonian schools of new interpreters (of the Talmud).\n\n   13 \u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d0\u05d9\u05df, an expression that goes back as far as to the _Zohar_.\n\n   14 \u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8, \u201cBrightness.\u201d Cf. Dan. xii. 3,\u2014the authors of \u201cThe Brightness\u201d\n      pretending to be the _Maskilim_ or \u201cWise Ones\u201d mentioned in this\n      verse.\n\n   15 \u05e9\u05e4\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n   16 \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05d4.\n\n   17 \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n   18 \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7, pl. \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd.\n\n   19 R. Johanan b. Zaccai was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died\n      about 110 A.D. He belonged to the peace party in opposition to the\n      Zealots, and obtained permission from the Roman government to\n      establish the school of Jamnia, which, after the destruction of the\n      Temple, became the centre of Jewish religious life. See also p. 188.\n\n   20 R. Saadiah Gaon was born in Egypt in 892, and died as the head of\n      the school of Sura in Babylon in 942. He is known by his\n      translations of and commentaries on the Bible, and many other works,\n      especially his philosophical treatise _Creeds and Opinions_. He was\n      also a great controversialist. Most of his polemical writings are\n      directed against the Caraites (\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd) or \u201cScripturalists,\u201d a Jewish\n      sect founded by Anan in the eighth century. They protested against\n      the Oral Law, and denied Tradition. On the title \u201cGaon,\u201d see note 1\n      to Elijah Wilna.\n\n   21 \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05dd, _Moreh Nebuchim_, generally considered to be the\n      greatest philosophical work by any Jewish thinker.\n\n   22 R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, who spent some time in London, died about 1161.\n      He is best known by his commentaries on the Bible. He was the first\n      writer who doubted the unity of the book of Isaiah.\n\n   23 \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05d3 \u05d7\u05d1\u05e8.\n\n   24 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, meaning \u201csages\u201d and \u201cscribes,\u201d but used by\n      later writers in the sense given in the text.\n\n   25 \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, dealing with the laws relating to the firstfruits which were\n      brought to the temple (Ex. xxiii. 19). The processions formed by the\n      pilgrims are very vividly described after the said tractate by\n      Delitzsch in his _Iris_, p. 190 _sq._ (English ed.). See also by the\n      same author, _J\u00fcdisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu_, p. 66 _seq._\n\n   26 \u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea, \u201cFast,\u201d or \u05ea\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cFasts.\u201d\n\n   27 \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05df, \u201cOrder of Damages,\u201d treating of the civil law of the\n      Jews, the procedure of courts of justice, and kindred subjects. This\n      Order also includes the tractate \u05d0\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea, _Aboth_ or \u201cSayings of the\n      Fathers,\u201d which is very important for the study of Rabbinic doctrine\n      and ethics.\n\n   28 \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05ea\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cOrder of Purities,\u201d dealing with the laws regarding\n      Levitical purity.\n\n   29 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 (or \u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd), \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9, \u05de\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d0. These three works form the\n      oldest Rabbinic commentary on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and\n      Deuteronomy. The authorities cited in these commentaries all belong\n      to the period of the Tannaim. See above, note 12 to the Chassidim.\n      Constituting as they do, to a certain extent, one of the sources\n      used by the _Gemara_, they are naturally indispensable for a\n      scientific study of the Talmud.\n\n   30 \u05d4\u05e6\u05e4\u05d4, \u201c_Hatsophe_,\u201d a spirited satire against the orthodox and\n      especially against the then prevailing belief in the transmigration\n      of souls taught by the mystical schools. The book is written in the\n      purest biblical Hebrew.\n\n   31 \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d6\u05de\u05df.\n\n   32 \u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9, pl. \u05de\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd (_Midrashim_), \u201cResearch,\u201d \u201cResearches,\u201d a name\n      usually applied to the homiletical part of the Rabbinic literature.\n      The most important collection of this kind is the _Midrash Rabbah_\n      to the Pentateuch. The usual way of quoting it is _Genesis Rabbah_,\n      _Exodus Rabbah_, and so on.\n\n   33 See above, note 12 to the Chassidim. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: Footnote\n      on the Tannaim and Amoraim.]\n\n   34 \u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cHeretics,\u201d applied to the first Christians, and more so to\n      certain Gnostic sects.\n\n   35 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e4\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9, see below, p. 186 and _note_. [Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n      The footnote on \u201claws given to Moses on Sinai.\u201d]\n\n   36 \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d4 or \u05d0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d4\u2014\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4, \u201crule,\u201d \u201cmethod,\u201d\u2014\u201cnarrative.\u201d The former deals\n      with the legal side of the Scriptures, and is thus more of a\n      juristic nature; the latter represents a collection of homilies\n      having mostly as their text the historical and exhortatory parts of\n      the Bible, and is thus more of an edifying character. The\n      theological side of Judaism, as well as its ideal aspirations and\n      Messianic hopes, find their expression in the Agadah. The two words\n      are also used as adjectives, as _Halachic_ (legalistic, juristic,\n      and obligatory) and _Agadic_ (poetic, edifying, and hyperbolic).\n\n   37 \u05e2\u05e8\u05da \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05df, a sort of encyclop\u00e6dia to the Talmud, of which only the\n      first letter appeared.\n\n   38 Menahem Azariah de Rossi, an Italian Jew who flourished in the first\n      half of the sixteenth century. His great work, \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _Meor\n      Enayim_, \u201cLight of the Eyes,\u201d is the first attempt made by a Jew to\n      submit the statements of the Talmud to a critical examination, and\n      to question the value of tradition in its historical records.\n\n   39 \u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8.\n\n   40 Italian Jews of the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. The one,\n      Elijah Delmedigo, wrote an Examination of Religion, whilst his\n      grandson, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, wrote various pamphlets of a\n      deeply sceptical character. See Geiger\u2019s Introduction to his _Melo\n      Chofnayim_ (Berlin, 1840).\n\n   41 \u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05df, \u201cThe Great One.\u201d The authorities of the Babylonian schools\n      after the sixth century were also called the Gaonim (\u05d2\u05d0\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd),\n      \u201c[their] Eminences.\u201d The title was also given afterwards to great\n      Rabbis distinguished for their learning.\n\n   42 R. Joseph Caro (1488\u20101575) lived in Safed. The title of his code is\n      \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05df \u05e2\u05e8\u05d5\u05da, _Prepared Table_. This is a code of the Oral Law compiled\n      from the Rabbinic literature.\n\n   43 \u05e7\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d4, containing an account of the Jewish worthies of that\n      city.\n\n   44 \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5.\n\n   45 A famous mystic of the sixteenth century, from Safed, who was the\n      more admired the less his pupils understood him.\n\n   46 Hai was the last of the authorities called Gaon. With his death\n      (1038) the schools of Babylon fell into decay and soon disappeared.\n\n   47 \u05d7\u05d2\u05d9\u05d2\u05d4, treating of the voluntary offerings brought by the pilgrims\n      to Jerusalem.\n\n   48 \u05d2\u05de\u05e8\u05d4, \u201cPerfection or Supplementary Explanations.\u201d By this is\n      understood the interpretation given to the Mishnah by the schools in\n      Palestine and Babylon. See above, note 12 to the Chassidim.\n      [Transcriber\u2019s Note: Footnote on the Tannaim and Amoraim.]\n\n   49 See Dean Church\u2019s _St. Anselm_, from which this story is taken.\n\n   50 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e1\u05e4\u05ea\u05d4, \u201cAddition\u201d (to the Mishnah), but also containing only the\n      sayings and discussions of the period of the Tannaim.\n\n   51 \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd, \u201cOrder of the World,\u201d dealing with the Chronology of the\n      Bible, and dating from about the end of the second century.\n\n   52 These \u201cMinor Tractates\u201d include, among others, treatises on\n      proselytes, on the laws concerning funerals, the writing of the Law,\n      and the like. Others are more of an edifying nature, treating of\n      good manners, conduct, etc.\n\n   53 \u05e4\u05d1\u05dc\u05ea \u05e0\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n   54 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e9\u05e8\u05d4, \u201cEighteen.\u201d They are recited thrice a day, and form the\n      original germ of the prayers, from which a very rich liturgy\n      developed in the course of time.\n\n   55 The titles of the old authorities from 70 B.C. to 500 A.C. See\n      above, note 12 to the Chassidim. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: Footnote on\n      the Tannaim and Amoraim.]\n\n   56 \u05d0\u05d1 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df, \u05e0\u05e9\u05d9\u05d0, \u201cPrince,\u201d or \u201cPatriarch,\u201d religious head, of the\n      Jews (not political), and \u201cFather (or president) of the Court of\n      Justice.\u201d\n\n   57 \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cSacrifices,\u201d \u201cOfferings.\u201d They treat of the laws\n      relating to sacrifices and meal\u2010offerings.\n\n   58 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, the laws relating to diverse seeds and garments of diverse\n      sorts. Cf. Deut. xxii. 9\u201011.\n\n   59 \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3, \u201cTeller,\u201d a sort of travelling preacher.\n\n   60 \u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d1, \u201cpalm branch.\u201d Cf. Lev. xxiii. 40.\n\n   61 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4, \u201cHigh School,\u201d or \u201cAcademy,\u201d in which the Rabbinic literature\n      is studied.\n\n   62 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 \u05e2\u05e5 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd.\n\n   63 \u05e1\u05de\u05d1\u05d8\u05d9\u05d5\u05df, a mythical river which is supposed to stop its course on\n      Sabbath.\n\n   64 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, sing. \u05d1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8, \u201cYoung man,\u201d by which term the Jews usually\n      understand the _alumni_ of their Talmudical schools.\n\n   65 Levi b. Gershom (1286\u20101344) is generally regarded as the greatest\n      successor of Maimonides. Besides his rationalistic commentaries on\n      the Bible, he wrote various treatises on metaphysics, mathematics,\n      astronomy, medicine, etc.\n\n   66 \u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05e0\u05ea \u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd.\n\n   67 In Steinschneider\u2019s _Catalogue of the Bodleian Library_, under the\n      name of Moses Nachmanides, pp. 1947\u20101965, all the works which are\n      ascribed to this author are put together, and also discussed as to\n      their authenticity. There are only to be added the new edition of\n      the _Derasha_ by Jellinek (Vienna, 1872), in which the variants from\n      Schorr\u2019s MS. (\u05d4\u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e5, viii. 162) are already incorporated; a new\n      edition of the \u05d6\u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05ea, and the commentary to Is. lii.\u2010liii. by\n      Steinschneider (Berlin, 1860); a _Sermon_ for the New Year, ed. by\n      H. Berliner (_Libanon_, v. 564); and another Sermon at a wedding\n      (?), ed. by Schorr (_Hechalus_, xii. 3). For the literature on\n      Nachmanides, besides the references given by Steinschneider, in his\n      _Catalogue_, and the Addenda, p. cxviii. (cf. also the pedigree in\n      the _Catalogue_ 2305), see also Graetz, _Geschichte_, vii., pp.\n      112\u2010143, and p. 147 _seq._; Michael, \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, No. 1125, and Weiss,\n      \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05d3\u05e2\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05d5, v. 4 _seq._; Perles\u2019 _Monatsschrift_, 1860, p. 175;\n      Zomber, _ibid._ 421; and Z. Frankel, _ibid._ 1868, p. 449, and _The\n      Jewish Quarterly Review_, iv. 245 _seq._ For Nachmanides\u2019\n      disputation we have to add M. Loeb in the _R\u00e9vue des \u00c9tudes Juives_,\n      xv. 1 _seq._, and xviii. 52 (about Abner), and Dr. Neubauer\u2019s Essay\n      on Jewish Controversy in the _Expositor_, vol. vii. (third series),\n      p. 98 _seq._, with the references given there. See also his article\n      on the Bahir and the Zohar in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, iv.\n      357. With regard to Nachmanides\u2019 mystical system see the references\n      to S. Sachs (whose remarks are most suggestive), Krochmal, and\n      Jellinek in Steinschneider, col. 1949 and 1964, Perles\u2019\n      _Monatsschrift_, 1858, p. 83 _seq._, and Steinschneider in the Heb.\n      _Bibliographie_, i. 34. See also Professor Kaufmann\u2019s _Die\n      Geschichte der Attributenlehre_, and the references given in the\n      index under this name. The _Novell\u00e6_ by his son R. Nachman, alluded\n      to in the text, are in the University Library, Cambridge (Add. 1187,\n      2). The \u05e4\u05e5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 is extant in the British Museum, MS. Add. 26,894,\n      and the passage quoted by De Rossi is to be found on p. 163_b_, but\n      a few words are erased by the censor. As to the poem given at the\n      end of this paper, see Zunz, _Synagogale Poesie_, p. 478; Landshut,\n      _Amude ha\u2010Abodah_ _s.v._, the references in Sachs\u2019 _Religi\u00f6se Poesie\n      der Juden_, and Luzzatto in the _Ozar Nechmad_, ii. 27. Compare also\n      Professor Cheyne\u2019s _The Origin of the Psalter_, p. 421.\n\n   68 New Year\u2019s Day, on the first of Tishri. It is in autumn.\n\n   69 A famous Rabbi of the fifteenth century, known by his various\n      casuistical and philosophical works.\n\n   70 Chiefly known through his controversial writings against the\n      adherents of the pseudo\u2010Messiah Shabbethai Tsebi. He was for some\n      time the Rabbi of the Portuguese congregation in London.\n\n   71 The main objections of the opponents of Maimonides were directed\n      against his rationalistic notions of Revelation, and his\n      allegorising interpretation of the Scriptures, which amounted in\n      some places to a denial of miracles. He was also suspected of having\n      denied bodily resurrection. A history of Jewish rationalism is still\n      a desideratum. I am certain that it would prove at least as\n      interesting as Reuter\u2019s _Geschichte der religi\u00f6sen Aufkl\u00e4rung im\n      Mittelalter_ (Berlin, 1845\u201060).\n\n   72 \u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d5 \u05de\u05e9\u05d4.\n\n   73 \u05d0\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cHomilies.\u201d See above, p. 64 and _note_.\n\n   74 \u05e7\u05e5 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4, \u201cThe end of the Redemption,\u201d that is the time when the\n      advent of the Messiah is to be expected.\n\n   75 This patriarch is famous in Jewish legend for his hospitality. See\n      Beer\u2019s _Leben Abrahams_, pp. 37 and 56.\n\n   76 This is the quorum necessary to form a congregation (\u05e2\u05d3\u05ea) for the\n      purpose of holding divine service.\n\n   77 By _Zobah_, or _Aram Zobah_, the Jews of the Middle Ages usually\n      understood Aleppo. See Benjamin of Tudela\u2019s _Itinerary_, i. 88, ii.\n      124 (London and Berlin, 1840\u201041).\n\n   78 See below, p. 141, where a full translation of the letter is given.\n\n   79 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, a compendium of the Law, dating from the ninth\n      century, by R. Simon Caro.\n\n   80 R. Simlai flourished in Palestine in the third century. He is best\n      known as an Agadic teacher and a great controversialist. According\n      to him, 613 commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, of\n      which 365 are prohibitive laws, whilst the remaining 248 are\n      positive injunctions.\n\n   81 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05dc, \u201cTreatise on Reward (and Punishment).\u201d\n\n   82 \u05e2\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0.\n\n   83 Ps. cix. 4; \u05d5\u05d0\u05e0 \u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d4.\n\n   84 \u05d0\u05e6\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n   85 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d7.\n\n   86 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4, \u201cKnowledge,\u201d \u201cForeknowledge,\u201d \u201cOmniscience.\u201d\n\n   87 \u05d1\u05db\u05d5\u05d3, \u05e9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4.\n\n   88 \u05e1\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4. See Exod. xix. 5.\n\n   89 \u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd.\n\n   90 \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1, \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df.\n\n   91 According to a Jewish tradition (the date of which is uncertain) the\n      advent of the Messiah, the Son of David, will be preceded by that of\n      the Messiah, the Son of Joseph. The latter will perish in the battle\n      against Gog and Magog (the Antichrist of Jewish literature), but\n      will soon be brought back to life on the appearance of the former.\n      Cf. G. H. Dalman\u2019s _Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der\n      Synagoge_ (Berlin, 1881).\n\n   92 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea, \u201cIn the beginning,\u201d Gen. i. 1.\n\n   93 \u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05df; Job xxvii. 12.\n\n   94 _Chagigah_ 14_b_. The activity of these four Rabbis falls chiefly in\n      the second century. R. Akiba died as a martyr in the Hadrianic\n      persecution (about 130). Elisha b. Abuyah, the apostate, was usually\n      called \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8, _Acher_, \u201cthe other one.\u201d\n\n   95 The former lived in the twelfth, the latter in the sixteenth,\n      century. They are both known for their hostility to philosophy.\n\n   96 Bachya wrote in the eleventh century a famous book called \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\n      \u05d7\u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea, _The Duties of the Heart_. For the others see above, p. 13\n      and _note_, p. 49 and _note_, p. 102 and _note_, p. 97 and _note_,\n      p. 71 and _note_. They all belong to the rationalistic school.\n\n   97 A younger contemporary of Maimonides, who translated the _Guide_\n      from Arabic into Hebrew.\n\n   98 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc. See above, p. 18. R. Moses Cordovora, the author of the\n      \u05e1\u05e8\u05e8\u05dd, lived in Safed in the sixteenth century. For R. Isaac Loria,\n      the author of the \u05e2\u05e5 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, see above, note 5 to Elijah Wilna.\n\n   99 \u05e9\u05d5\u05e9\u05df \u05e1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n  100 \u05e1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05e8, a forgery by a Proven\u00e7al Jew of the thirteenth century,\n      who attributed it to a Rabbi of the first century.\n\n  101 This hymn is now incorporated in her excellent little book, _Songs\n      of Zion_, pp. 13\u201015.\n\n  102 \u05d6\u05d4\u05d5\u05d1, a gold piece. The country and the date of the writer not being\n      certain, it is impossible to determine the value of this coin.\n\n  103 The lawfulness of eating this fish (= sturgeon?) was contested for\n      many centuries, and the controversy still continues.\n\n  104 \u05e4\u05e9\u05d5\u05d8, a smaller coin than the Zehub.\n\n  105 \u05e9\u05de\u05e2, \u201cHear,\u201d the verses from Deut. vi. 4\u20109, xi. 13\u201021, and Num. xv.\n      37\u201041, recited twice a day by the Jews.\n\n  106 _Sabbath_, 30_b_.\n\n  107 \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2, pl. \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd (_Minhagim_), applied usually to those ritual\n      customs and ceremonies for which there is no distinct authority in\n      the Scriptures or even in the Talmud.\n\n  108 _Jerusalem_, in Mendelssohn\u2019s _S\u00e4mmtliche Werke_ (Vienna, 1838),\n      especially from p. 264 onwards, and a letter by him published in\n      Frankel\u2010Graetz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1859, p. 173. For Mendelssohn\u2019s\n      position, see Graetz\u2019s _Geschichte_, xi. 86 _seq._, especially p. 88\n      and note 1; Kayserling, _Leben und Werke_ of M., 2d ed., p. 394;\n      Steinheim, _Moses Mendelssohn_ (Hamburg, 1840), p. 30 _seq._;\n      Holdheim, _Moses Mendelssohn_ (Berlin, 1859), p. 18 _seq._; Leopold\n      L\u00f6w\u2019s pamphlet, _J\u00fcdische Dogmen_ (Pesth, 1871).\n\n  109 See the Commentaries on Maimonides\u2019 \u05e1\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea, especially R. Simeon\n      Duran\u2019s \u05d6\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2; cf. also ancient and modern commentaries on\n      Exod. xx. 2.\n\n  110 See _Siphra_ (ed. Weiss), pp. 86_b_, 93_b_.\n\n  111 _Baba Bathra_, 14_b_; cf. F\u00fcrst\u2019s _Kanon_, p. 15.\n\n  112 See _Sanhedrin_, 38_b_, and _Pseudo\u2010Jonathan_ to Gen. iv. 8.\n\n  113 _Mechilta_, 33_b_.\n\n  114 \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05e1, Lat. Epicurus.\n\n  115 See _Mishnah_, _Sanhedrin_, x. e, \u00a7 1, and Talmud, _ibid._ 90_a_ and\n      _b_, and Rabbinowicz\u2019s _Variae Lectiones_, ix. p. 247 notes. Besides\n      the ordinary commentaries on the Talmud, account must also be taken\n      of the remarks of Crescas, Duran, Albo, and Abarbanel on the\n      subject. Cf. also K\u00e4mpf in the _Monatsschrift_ (1863), p. 144\n      _seq._; Oppenheim, _ibid._ (1864), p. 144; Friedmann in the _Beth\n      Talmud_, i. p. 210 _seq._ See also Talmudical Dictionaries, _s.v._\n      \u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd. The explanation I have adopted agrees partly with\n      Friedmann\u2019s and partly with Oppenheim\u2019s views.\n\n  116 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iii. \u00a7 9, and iv. \u00a7 22.\n\n  117 See \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5 (Jovslow, 1835), p. 48. In my exposition of the\n      dogmas of the Caraites I have mainly followed the late Dr. Frankl\u2019s\n      article \u201cKaraiten\u201d in Ersch u. Gruber\u2019s _Encyclop\u00e4die_ (sec. ii.\n      vol. xxxvi. pp. 12\u201018). See also his _Ein mutazilitischer Kalam_ and\n      his _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Literaturgeschichte der Kar\u00e4er_ (Berlin, 1887) on\n      Bashazi. Cf. also Jost\u2019s _Geschichte_, ii. c. 13.\n\n  118 Kairowan was one of the greatest centres of Jewish learning in North\n      Africa during that period.\n\n  119 See, however, Professor D. Kaufmann\u2019s note in the _Jewish Quarterly\n      Review_, i. p. 441. From this it would seem that the creed of R.\n      Judah Hallevi may be formulated in the following articles:\u2014The\n      conviction of the existence of God, of His eternity, of His guidance\n      of our fathers, of the Divine Origin of the Law, and of the proof of\n      all this, the pledge or token of its truth, the exodus from Egypt.\n\n  120 \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05e8\u05de\u05d4, _Emunah Ramah_, pp. 44 and 69; cf. Gulmann,\n      _Monatsschrift_, 1878, p. 304.\n\n  121 For the various translations of the Thirteen Articles which were\n      originally composed in Arabic, see Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. col.\n      1887. Cf. Rosin, _Ethik des Maimonides_, p. 30; Weiss, _Beth\n      Talmud_, i. p. 330, and _Ben Chananjah_, 1863, p. 942, and 1864, pp.\n      648 and 697, and Landshut, \u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4, p. 231.\n\n  122 \u05de\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea \u05e7\u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea. See pp. 1\u201016.\n\n  123 See _Hammaskir_, viii. pp. 63 and 103.\n\n  124 See Steinschneider, _Cat. M\u00fcnchen_, No. 210.\n\n  125 See the Collection \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d1\u05de\u05d9\u05de, by Ashkenazi, pp. 56_b_ _seq._\n\n  126 See Albo, c. iii. Probably identical with the author mentioned by\n      Duran, 13_b_.\n\n  127 \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e6\u05d7\u05d5\u05df, \u201cSepher Nizzachon.\u201d\n\n  128 See \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4 (ed. Johannisburg), preface, and pp. 20_a_, 44_b_, 59_b_,\n      and elsewhere. The style of this author is very obscure. Cf. Joel\u2019s\n      pamphlet on this author (Breslau, 1874).\n\n  129 See the first pages of the \u05de\u05d2\u05df (Leghorn, 1758), and his \u05de\u05e9\u05e1\u05dd, pp. 13\n      _seq._\n\n  130 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, _Ikkarim_, \u201cFundamentals.\u201d\n\n  131 See _Ikkarim_, i. c. 23, and Maimonides\u2019 _Commentary on the Mishnah_\n      (end of tractate Maccoth). On Albo compare Schlesinger\u2019s\n      Introduction and notes to the _Ikkarim_, Joel\u2019s pamphlet, p. 82;\n      Paulus, _Monatsschrift_, 1874, p. 463, and Br\u00fcll\u2019s _Jahrb._ iv. p.\n      52.\n\n  132 I know his work from a MS. in the British Museum, Orient. 39.\n\n  133 \u05d3\u05e8\u05da \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4, _Derech Emunah_. Cf. Steinschneider, _Monatsschrift_,\n      1883, p. 79 _seq._\n\n  134 See \u05e2\u05e7\u05d9\u05d3\u05ea \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7, gate 55.\n\n  135 See his \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 and \u05de\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n  136 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05d4.\n\n  137 See \u05d1\u05d4\u05d9\u05d2\u05ea \u05d4\u05d3\u05ea, ed. Reggio, p. 28.\n\n  138 See \u05de\u05e2\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea (Venice, 1707), 16_a_ and 23_a_. His language is very\n      vague.\n\n  139 See the Collection by Ashkenazi (as above, note 18), p. 29_b_.\n\n  140 See his \u05d1\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9, p. 331.\n\n  141 See Weiss\u2019s admirable monograph on Maimonides, published in the\n      _Beth Talmud_, i.\n\n  142 The Hebrew title of the work is \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05d5.\n\n  143 That is, vows of an ascetic nature (not vows or oaths enforced by a\n      court of justice), which the tribunal could annul when there was\n      sufficient reason for it.\n\n  144 The ten Rabbis who are named as the bearers of tradition during the\n      period between 170 and 30 B.C. The \u201cpair\u201d in each case is supposed\n      to have consisted of the president and the vice\u2010president of the\n      Sanhedrin for the time being. See, however, Kuenen, _Gesammelte\n      Schriften_, p. 49 _seq._\n\n  145 \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd.\n\n  146 \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea \u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05d4 \u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9. They amount, in the whole of Rabbinic literature,\n      to about forty, of which more than ten concern the preparation of\n      the phylacteries, whilst others relate to the libations of water at\n      the Feast of Tabernacles and similar subjects.\n\n  147 This is the time when the school of R. Johanan b. Zaccai began its\n      activity. Others place the Tannaitic age in Hillel\u2019s time (30 B.C.).\n\n  148 \u05d1\u05ea \u05e7\u05e8\u05dc.\n\n  149 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d3\u05d9\u05df, lit. \u201cCourt of Justice,\u201d as above, note 16 to Elijah Wilna,\n      but it means also a sort of permanent Synod, in which of course\n      justice was also administered as a part of religion.\n\n  150 \u05e2\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cEvidences given by Witnesses.\u201d The tractate consists mostly\n      of a number of laws attested by various Rabbis as having come down\n      to them as old traditions.\n\n  151 The family of Hillel, which was supposed to be descended from the\n      house of David, supplied the Jews with patriarchs for many\n      generations. Gamaliel II. flourished about 120 A.C., whilst Simon b.\n      Gamaliel\u2019s activity as Patriarch falls about 160 A.C.\n\n  152 \u05e9\u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05ea, _Semachoth_. It is a euphemistic title, the tractate dealing\n      with the laws relating to funeral ceremonies and mourning.\n\n  153 \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0\u05d9, \u201cElucidators\u201d or \u201cExplainers.\u201d The heads of the schools in\n      Babylon during the fifth and sixth centuries were so designated.\n\n  154 The Rabbinic Jews of the dispersion add one day to each festival,\n      and thus celebrate the Passover eight days, the Feast of Weeks two\n      days, etc. The custom arose out of the uncertainty about the first\n      day of the month, the prerogative of fixing the New Moon resting\n      with the great _Beth Din_ in Palestine, which had not always the\n      means of communicating in time the evidence given before them that\n      the New Moon had been seen by qualified witnesses. The prerogative\n      was abolished in the fourth century, and the calendar fixed for all\n      future time, but the additional day is still kept by the Rabbinic\n      Jews as the \u201cCustom of their Fathers.\u201d\n\n  155 \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e7\u05d5\u05de\u05d4, \u05d4\u05d9\u05db\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cChambers (of Heaven)\u201d and the \u201cMeasure of the\n      Stature,\u201d mystical works in which occasionally gross\n      anthropomorphisms are to be found. Their authorship is unknown.\n\n  156 _Sabbath_, 55_a_.\n\n  157 _Sayings of the Fathers_ (ed. C. Taylor), v. 12\u201015. See also\n      _Sabbath_, 32 _seq._, and _Mechilta_ (ed. Friedman), 95_b_.\n      _Arachin_, 16_a_.\n\n  158 See _Mechilta_, 25_a_, 32_b_. _Gen. Rabbah_, ch. 48, and _Tossephta\n      Sotah_, iv. 7, and parallels.\n\n  159 _Taanith_, 21_a_.\n\n  160 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iv. 5.\n\n  161 _Baba Bathra_, 9_b_.\n\n  162 _Yoma_, 39_a_.\n\n  163 _Berachoth_, 33_a_.\n\n  164 _Sabbath_, 13_b_.\n\n  165 _Berachoth_, 7_a_.\n\n  166 See _Mechilta_, 68_b_, and parallels. _Siphra_, 112_b_. _Pessikta_\n      of R. Kahana, 167_b_. Cp. _Sanhedrin_, 44_a_.\n\n  167 _Aboth_ de R. Nathan, 40_a_, 59_b_, and 62_b_.\n\n  168 _Baba Bathra_, 10_a_.\n\n  169 _Eccles. Rabbah_, ix. 7.\n\n  170 5_a_.\n\n  171 7_b_.\n\n  172 See _Mechilta_, 95_b_, and parallels.\n\n  173 See _Kiddushin_, 40_b_. _Mechilta_, 63_b_. _Lev. Rabbah_, iv.\n\n  174 See _Sabbath_, 54_a_.\n\n  175 _Exodus Rabbah_, c. 35, and parallels.\n\n  176 See _Negaim_, ii. 1.\n\n  177 _Exod. Rabbah_, c. 46.\n\n  178 _Taanith_, 11_a_.\n\n  179 See _Berachoth_, 5_a_.\n\n  180 _Tanchuma_, \u05db\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e6\u05d0, \u00a7 2. Cp. _Mechilta_, 72_b_.\n\n  181 _Siphr\u00e9_, 73_b_, and parallels.\n\n  182 _Taanith_, 8_a_.\n\n  183 _Arachin_, 16_b_.\n\n  184 _Sayings of the Fathers_, iv. 15.\n\n  185 See _Chagigah_, 5_a_.\n\n  186 _Sabbath_, 55_a_.\n\n  187 _Menachoth_, 29_b_.\n\n  188 _Taanith_, 25_a_.\n\n  189 _Gen. Rabbah_, xxvii.; _Pessikta_, 136_b_; _Sanhedrin_, vi. 5;\n      _Berachoth_, 7_a_.\n\n  190 _Sayings of the Fathers_, i. 3, p. 27, ed. Taylor. See also note 8.\n\n  191 _Abodah Zarah_, 19_a_; _Siphr\u00e9_, 79_b_.\n\n  192 _Berachoth_, 58_b_.\n\n  193 See _Exod. R._, 30, and parallels.\n\n  194 See \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d7\u05d1\u05de\u05d4, i. 9.\n\n  195 See \u05e8\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, 33_b_.\n\n  196 See _Sabbath_, 55_b_, and _Siphra_, 27_a_.\n\n  197 _Judaism and Christianity, a Sketch of the Progress of Thought from\n      Old Testament to New Testament_, by C. H. Toy, Professor in Harvard\n      University. London, 1890.\n\n  198 See _Pessikta_ of R. Kahana, 61_b_, and parallels, and _Erubin_,\n      13_b_.\n\n  199 Tal. Jer., _Sabbath_, 5_b_.\n\n  200 \u05de\u05d8\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05df, the name of an angel, already found in the Talmud, but\n      playing a more important part in the _Book of Chambers_, where he is\n      identified with Enoch. The etymology of the word is doubtful, some\n      authors considering it to be of Persian origin (_Mithra_); others\n      again deriving it from the Greek \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n  201 \u05e1\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n  202 \u05de\u05d9\u05de\u05e8\u05d0, \u201cThe Word,\u201d sometimes substituted for God. See J. Levy\u2019s\n      _Chald\u00e4isches W\u00f6rterbuch_, _s.v._\n\n  203 \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8, \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e7\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05df.\n\n  204 _Mechilta_, 104_a_.\n\n  205 See Tal. Jer., _Yoma_, 45_b_. Cf. Maimonides, _Mishneh Torah_, \u05d4\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea\n      \u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e4\u05d1 \u05d4\u05d2.\n\n  206 _Tosephta Berackoth_, iii. 7.\n\n  207 _Sabbath_, 10_b_. The name of the Rabbi is not given, but the fact\n      that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (160 A.C.) already refers to this\n      interpretation makes it clear that its anonymous author must have\n      lived at least a generation before.\n\n  208 \u05db\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05e7\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9.\n\n  209 See _Midrash_ to the Psalms xcii. and _Deut. Rabbah_ iii. The Rabbis\n      perceived in the words \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05d1\u05ea \u05e2\u05e0\u05e0 (Isa. lviii. 13), a command to\n      make the Sabbath a day of pleasure, whilst the word \u05d4\u05e1\u05e6\u05e3 was\n      understood by them to mean \u201cneeds,\u201d \u201cwants,\u201d or \u201cbusiness\u201d (_not_\n      \u201cpleasure\u201d). Cf. _Sabbath_, 113_a_ and _b_.\n\n  210 See _Gen. Rabbah_, xi. (and parallels), and _Sabbath_, 119_a_.\n\n  211 See _Maaseh Torah_ (ed. Sch\u00f6nblum) and _Deut. Rabbah_, i.\n\n  212 _Sabbath_, 25_b_ and 119_a_.\n\n  213 _Betsah_, 16_a_. Cf. Baer\u2019s notes in his _Prayer\u2010Book_, p. 203\n      _seq._\n\n  214 See _Sabbath_, 119_b_, and _Gen. Rabbah_, xi.\n\n  215 See _Sabbath_, 10_b_, and _Gen. Rabbah_, _ibid._\n\n  216 \u05ea\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05df.\n\n  217 _Nazir_, 23_b_.\n\n  218 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d6\u05e8\u05d5\u05d4 by R. Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (thirteenth century), mostly\n      on legal subjects.\n\n  219 \u05d9\u05d5\u05d7\u05e1\u05d9\u05df, Yuchasin.\n\n  220 \u05de\u05db\u05dc\u05dc, Miklal.\n\n  221 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd, \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3, the former treating of the agricultural laws of the\n      Bible, the latter of those relating to the Sabbath, Passover, and\n      other festivals.\n\n  222 \u05de\u05d7\u05d6\u05e8, \u201cCycle,\u201d containing the liturgy for the festivals.\n\n  223 Since then edited by the Mekize Nirdamim.\n\n  224 Eve of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.\n\n  225 \u05e9\u05e9\u05d7 \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd. \u05e9\u059c\u059c\u05dd.\n\n  226 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d4.\n\n  227 \u05e4\u05d0\u05d4.\n\n  228 \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea, Yalkut.\n\n  229 \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea.\n\n  230 \u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05d4\u05e8 \u05e0\u05e9\u05d1.\n\n  231 \u05d5\u05d9\u05e1\u05e2\u05df.\n\n  232 \u05d9\u05dc\u05de\u05e8\u05e0\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d6\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8.\n\n  233 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05d0 \u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05de\u05e0\u05d0.\n\n  234 \u05e2\u05de\u05e7 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da, \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05da, \u05de\u05d2\u05d9\u05d3 \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4, \u05de\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, \u05e9\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d4\u05de\u05dc\u05da.\n\n  235 \u05d7\u059c\u059c\u05dd \u05e9\u05d0\u05dc.\n\n  236 \u05d7\u05d3 \u05d2\u05d3\u05d9\u05d0 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc.\n\n  237 \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d5\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea. \u05e9\u059c\u059c\u05dc\u05d4.\n\n  238 The main authorities on the subjects of this essay are _Die\n      Lebensalter_, by Dr. Leopold L\u00f6w; _The Jewish Rite of Circumcision_,\n      by Dr. Asher; an article by Dr. Perles in the Graetz _Jubelschrift_,\n      p. 23 _seq._; _Merkw\u00fcrdigkeiten der Juden_, by Schudt; the \u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\n      \u05d4\u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05dd and other works on ritual customs; G\u00fcdemann\u2019s _Geschichte\n      des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der Juden_; and _Das Kind in\n      Brauch und Sitte der V\u00f6lker_, by Dr. Ploss.\n\n  239 \u05d0\u05de\u05ea\u05d9, \u05d0\u05de\u05ea.\n\n  240 \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea, Is. xxxiv. 14.\n\n  241 See above, note 39 to Nachmanides. [Transcriber\u2019s Note: The footnote\n      on _Shema_.]\n\n  242 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4, \u201cCovenant of Circumcision.\u201d This is the usual expression\n      in Hebrew literature for the rite of circumcision.\n\n  243 \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d6\u05db\u05e8.\n\n  244 \u05d2\u05d5\u05d6\u05e8, \u05de\u05d5\u05d4\u05dc.\n\n  245 \u05e4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d1\u05df.\n\n  246 \u05d4\u05e7\u05ea \u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, on educational matters.\n\n  247 \u05e1\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, \u201cbusiness,\u201d or \u201cwares.\u201d\n\n  248 I am indebted for the English adaptation to Mrs. Henry Lucas.\n\n  249 _Bereshith Rabbah_, chapter xx. For another reading see \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05db\u05de\u05d4\n      (ed. Cracow), p. 374.\n\n  250 _Abodah Zarah_, 3_b_.\n\n  251 This is the way in which Deut. xxxi. 10\u201012 was explained.\n\n  252 \u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \u201cScribes\u201d; treating of the regulations concerning the\n      writing of the Law, but containing also much liturgical matter.\n\n  253 \u05e1\u05e9\u05e8\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, by which name the Jews of the Spanish rite are designated.\n\n  254 \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8\u05d0\u05df \u05d9\u05e9\u05df, a controversial work published by Wagenseil. See above,\n      p. 203, for another victory.\n\n  255 \u05e1\u05e0\u05d3\u05dc\u05e4\u05d5\u05df, who is probably known to the English reader from\n      Longfellow\u2019s poem.\n\n  256 \u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4.\n\n  257 \u05e7\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05e9, \u201cSanctification\u201d\u2014\u201cbenediction\u201d\u2014on the eve of Sabbath, which\n      is pronounced over a cup of wine.\n\n  258 \u05e9\u05de\u05db\u05ea \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, or on the 23rd of Tishri, when the last portion from the\n      Pentateuch is read.\n\n  259 \u05d4\u05dc\u05dc, \u201cPraise,\u201d _i.e._ Ps. cxiii.\u2010cxviii.\n\n  260 \u05e7\u05d3\u05b4\u05e9, the name of a prayer commencing \u05d9\u05ea\u05d2\u05d3\u05dc \u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05e7\u05d3\u05e9, \u201cMagnified and\n      sanctified be,\u201d etc.\n\n  261 Prayer beginning \u05d1\u05e8\u05db\u05d5, \u201cBless ye,\u201d etc.\n\n  262 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05e9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8, beginning of a prayer, \u201cBlessed be He,\u201d etc.\n\n  263 See Sch\u00fcrer\u2019s _Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom_, p. 24. Cf.\n      _Hebr\u00e4ische Bibliographie_, xix. p. 79.\n\n  264 \u05d6\u05d1\u05d0\u05ea.\n\n  265 \u05ea\u05d4\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea.\n\n  266 \u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05db\u05e7.\n\n  267 \u05d9\u05e2\u05de\u05d5\u05d3. In olden times the weekly lesson from the Law used to be read\n      by seven members of the congregation who were \u201ccalled up\u201d for this\n      purpose; the Priest and the Levite took precedence of laymen for\n      this honour. At the present day, the members of the congregation are\n      still called up, but the actual reading is performed by an official.","title":"Studies in Judaism, First Series","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":112669}