296 S3 1st Schechter

Studies in Judaism

65-11535

kansas city public library

^====~5 kansas city, missouri

Books will be issued only

on presentation of library card. Please report lost cards and

change of residence promptly. Card holders are responsible for

all books, records, films, pictures or other library materials checked out on their cards.

3 1148 00142 7962

	LAI:	"
& 1968
	O~ FT 1Q*TQ
ffsi1^	PU 131*
	:p 1 i 1Q7Q
^	« « •*- X""~i 3 i ^
	HJ4S FEB	4 138
	!rr-p 1 1Q
	1
HIP	\ MAY 1» 1^	82

Studies in Judaism

STUDIES IN JUDAISM

A SELECTION

by SOLOMON SCHECHTER

Meridian Books

THE WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY

Cleveland and New York

THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Philadelphia

A MERIDIAN BOOK

Published by The World Publishing Company Cleveland and New York

and The Jewish Publication Society of America First Meridian printing September 1958 Third printing January 1962,

Copyright © by The Jewish Publication Society of America 1958

Studies in Judaism: First Series was reprinted in 1945 Studies in Judaism: Second Series copyright by The Jewish Publication Society of America 1908

Studies in Judaism: Third Series copyright by The Jewish Publication Society of America 192.4

Reprinted by arrangement with The Jewish Society of A m erica

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 58-11934 Printed in the United States of America

PREFATORY NOTE

The essays presented in this volume do not presume to be a comprehensive survey of the range and interests of their author. They are, the publishers believe, among the most suggestive and enduring of the studies contained in the three volumes of Dr. Schechter's Studies in Judaism. The reader is referred, however, to the complete volumes published by The Jewish Publication Society of America.

"The History of Jewish Tradition," "The Dogmas of Judaism/' "The Doctrine of Divine Retribution in Rabbini- cal Literature/* "The Chassidim," "Nachmanides," "Rabbi Elijah Wilna, Gaon," and "Nachman Krochmal and the * Perplexities of the Time'/' are drawn from Studies in Juda- ism: First Series. "On the Study of the Talmud," "Saints and Saintliness," and "Safed in the Sixteenth Century" are drawn from Studies in Judaism: Second Series. None o£ the essays from Studies in Judaism: Third Series., published after their author's death, have been included.

All of the footnotes to the essays included in this volume are retained; however the appendices to "Safed" have been omitted. In all cases the author's spelling of Hebrew names and terms has been retained, although many of his spellings have been modified in the subsequent literature.

MERIDIAN BOOKS, INC, THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Solomon Schechter

Solomon Schechter, one o£ the most penetrating and influen- tial Jewish thinkers of modern times, was born in Romania in 1849. After receiving a traditional Jewish education in Romania and Poland, he continued his Jewish studies at Vienna under three outstanding teachers, Isaac Hirsch Weiss, Meir Friedmann and Adolph Jellinek. At the importuning of Claude Montefiore, Schechter came to England in 1882 and was University Lecturer, and afterwards Reader, in Tal- mudics at Cambridge University from 1890-1902. The major scholarly discovery of his career was his rediscovery and manuscript identification of fragments found in the Cairo Genizah. In 1901 Schechter was invited to become the Presi- dent of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York. He accepted and formally assumed his office in 1902. More than any other figure of modern American Judaism the Conservative Movement in American Judaism is the extension and figuration of his basic conception of Judaism. Among his works are: Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology 3 Documents of Jewish Sectaries, and the three vol- umes of Studies in Judaism from which the present volume is drawn. Solomon Schechter died on November 20, 1915 on the eve of Sabbath.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION to Studies in Judaism:

First Series p

PART ONE: Movements and Ideas

1. The History of Jewish Tradition 25

2. On the Study of the Talmud 55

3. The Dogmas of Judaism jj

4. The Doctrine of Divine Retribution

in Rabbinical Literature 105

5. Saints and Saintliness 123

6. The Chassidim zjo

PART TWO: Persons and Places

7. Nachmanides 193

8. Safed in the Sixteenth Century 231

9. Rabbi Elijah Wilna, Gaon 298 10. Nachman Krochmal and the

"Perplexities of the Time"

NOTES

INTRODUCTION to Studies in Judaism: First Series

THE essays published in this volume under the title of Studies in Judaism have been written on various occasions and at long intervals. There is thus no necessary connection between them. If some sort of unity may be detected in the book, it can only be between the first three essays — on the Chassidim, Krochmal, and the Gaon — in which there is a certain unity of purpose. The purpose in view was, as may easily be gathered from the essays themselves, to bring under the notice of the English public a type of men produced by the Synagogue of the Eastern Jews. That Synagogue is widely different from ours. Its places of worship have no claims to "beauty of holiness," being in their outward appearance rather bare and bald, if not repulsive; whilst whose who frequent them are a noisy, excitable people, who actually dance on the "Season of Rejoicing" and cry bitterly on the "Days of Mourning." But among all these vagaries — or per- haps because of them — this Synagogue has had its moments of grace, when enthusiasm wedded to inspiration gave birth to such beautiful souls as Baalshem, such fine sceptics as Krochmal, and such saintly scholars as Elijah Wilna. The Synagogue of the West is certainly of a more presentable

1O STUDIES IN JUDAISM

character, and free from excesses; though it is not devoid of an enthusiasm of its own which finds its outlet in an ardent and self-sacrificing philanthropic activity. But owing to its practical tendency there is too little room in it for that play of intellectual forces which finds its extravagant expression in the saint on the one hand, and the learned heretic on the other.

These essays are more or less of a theological nature. But in reading the proofs I have been struck by the fact that there is assumed in them a certain conception of the Syna- gogue which, familiar though it be to the Jewish student, may appear obscure and even strange to the general English reader. For brevity's sake I will call it the High Synagogue, though it does not correspond in all details to what one is accustomed to understand under the term of High Church. The High Synagogue has a history which is not altogether without its points of interest.

Some years ago when the waves of the Higher Criticism of the Old Testament reached the shores of this country, and such questions as the heterogeneous composition of the Pentateuch, the comparatively late date of the Levitical Legislation, and the post-exilic origin of certain Prophecies as well as of the Psalms began to be freely discussed by the press and even in the pulpit, the invidious remark was often made: What will now become of Judaism when its last stronghold, the Law, is being shaken to its very foundations?

Such a remark shows a very superficial acquaintance with the nature of an old historical religion like Judaism, and the richness of the resources it has to fall back upon in cases of emergency.

As a fact, the emergency did not quite surprise Judaism. The alarm signal was given some one hundred and fifty years ago by an Italian Rabbi, Abiad Sar Shalom Bazilai, in his pamphlet The Faith of the Sages. The pamphlet is, as the

Introduction 1 1

title indicates, of a polemical character, reviewing the work of the Jewish rationalistic schools; and after warming up in his attacks against their heterodox views, Bazilai exclaims: "Nature and simple meaning, they are our misfortune." By "nature and simple meaning'' Bazilai, who wrote in Hebrew, understood what we would call Natural Science and Phi- lology. With the right instinct of faith, Bazilai hit on the real sore points. For though he mostly argues against the philosophical systems of Aristotle and his commentators, he felt that it is not speculation that will ever seriously endanger religion. There is hardly any metaphysical system, old or new, which has not in course of time been adapted by able dia- lecticians to the creed which they happened to hold. In our own time we have seen the glorious, though not entirely novel spectacle, of Agnosticism itself becoming the rightful handmaid of Queen Theology. The real danger lies in "na- ture" (or Natural Science) with its stern demand of law and regularity in all phenomena, and in the "simple mean- ing" (or Philology) with its inconsiderate insistence on truth. Of the two, the "simple meaning" is the more objectionable. Not only is it very often at variance with Tradition, which has its own code of interpretation, but it is constantly in- creasing the difficulties raised by science. For if words could only have more than one meaning, there would be no objec- tion to reading the first words of Genesis, "In a beginning God evolved!' The difficulties of science would then be disposed of easily enough. Maimonides, who was as bold an interpreter as he was a deep metaphysician, hinted plainly enough that were he as convinced of the eternity of matter as he was satisfied of the impossibility of any corporeal quality in the deity, he would feel as little compunction in explain- ing (figuratively) the contents of the first chapter of Genesis as he did in allegorising the anthropomorphic passages of the Bible. Thus in the end all the difficulties resolve themselves

12 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

into the one great difficulty of the ' 'simple meaning/' The best way to meet this difficulty was found to be to shift the centre of gravity in Judaism and to place it in the secondary meaning, thus making religion independent of philology and all its dangerous consequences.

This shifting work was chiefly done, perhaps not quite consciously, by the historical school which followed upon that of Mendelssohn and his first successors. The historical school, which is still in the ascendant, comprises many of the best Jewish writers who either by their learning or by their ecclesiastical profession as Rabbis and preachers in great communities have acquired some important position among their brethren. The men who have inaugurated this move- ment were Krochmal (1785-1841), Rapoport (1790-1867), and Zunc (1794-1886).

It is not a mere coincidence that the first representatives of the historical school were also the first Jewish scholars who proved themselves more or less ready to join the modern school of Bible Criticism, and even to contribute their share to it. The first two, Krochmal and Rapoport, early in the second quarter of this century accepted and defended the modern view about a second Isaiah, the post-exilic origin of many Psalms, and the late date of Ecclesiastes; whilst Zunz, who began (in 1832) with denying the authenticity of Ezek- iel; concluded his literary career (1873) with a study on the Bible (Gesammelte Schriften, i. pp. 217-290), in which he expressed his view "that the Book of Leviticus dates from a later period than the Book of Deuteronomy, later even than Ezekiel, having been composed during the age of the Second Temple, when there already existed a well-established priest- hood which superintended the sacrificial worship." But when Revelation or the Written Word is reduced to the level of his- tory, there is no difficulty in elevating history in its aspect of Tradition to the rank of Scripture, for both have then the

Introduction 13

same human or divine origin (according to the student's predilection for the one or the other adjective), and emanate from the same authority. Tradition becomes thus the means whereby the modern divine seeks to compensate himself for the loss of the Bible, and the theological balance is to the satisfaction of all parties happily readjusted.

Jewish Tradition, or, as it is commonly called, the Oral Law, or, as we may term it (in consideration of its claims to represent an interpretation of the Bible), the Secondary Meaning of the Scriptures, is mainly embodied in the works of the Rabbis and their subsequent followers during the Middle Ages. Hence the zeal and energy with which the historical school applied itself to the Jewish post-biblical literature, not only elucidating its texts by means of new critical editions, dictionaries, and commentaries, but also trying to trace its origins and to pursue its history through its gradual development. To the work of Krochmal in this direction a special essay is devoted in this volume. The labours of Rapoport are more of a biographical and biblio- graphical nature, being occupied mostly with the minor details in the lives and writings of various famous Jewish Rabbis in the Middle Ages; thus they offer but little op- portunity for general theological comment. Of more impor- tance in this respect are the hints thrown out in his various works by Zunz, who was just as emphatic in asserting the claims of Tradition as he was advanced in his views on Bible criticism. Zunz's greatest work is Die Gottesdienstliche Vortrage — an awkward title, which in fact means "The History of the Interpretation of the Scriptures as forming a part of the divine service." Now if a work displaying such wide learning and critical acumen and written in such an impartial spirit can be said to have a bias, it was towards bridging over the seemingly wide gap between the Written Word (the Scriptures) and the Spoken Word (the Oral Law

14 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

or Tradition), which was the more deeply felt, as most of Zunz's older contemporaries were men, grown up in the habits of thought of the eighteenth century— a century dis- tinguished both for its ignorance of, and its power of ignor- ing, the teachings of history. Indeed it would seem that ages employed in making history have no time for studying it.

Zunz accomplished the task he set himself, by showing, as already indicated, the late date of certain portions of the Bible, which by setting the early history of Israel in an ideal light betray the moralising tendency of their authors, and are, in fact, little more than a traditional interpretation of older portions of Scripture, adapted to the religious needs of the time. Placing thus the origin of Tradition in the Bible itself, it was a comparatively easy matter for Zunz to prove its further continuity. Prophecy and Interpretation are with him the natural expressions of the religious life of the na- tion; and though by the loss of Israel's political independ- ence the voice of the prophets gradually died away, the voice of God was still heard. Israel continues to consult God through the medium of the Scriptures, and He answers His people by the mouth of the Scribes, the Sages, the Interpre- ters of the Law; whilst the liturgy of the Synagogue, spring- ing up at the time when Psalms were still being composed, expands in its later stages through the work of the Poets of the Synagogue into such a rich luxuriance "that it forms in itself a treasure of history, poetry, philosophy; and prophecy and psalms are again revived in the hymnology of the Middle Ages." This is in brief the lesson to be learned from Zunz's Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge as far as it deals with the signifi- cance of Tradition; and it is in the introduction to this work that Zunz expresses himself to the following effect: Indispen- sable is the free Spoken Word. Mankind has acquired all its ideal treasures only by Word of Mouth; an education con- tinuing through all stages of life. In Israel, too, the Word of

Introduction 15

Instruction transmitted from mouth to mouth was never silenced.

The historical school has never, to my knowledge, offered to the world a theological programme of its own. By the nature of its task, its labours are mostly conducted in the field of philology and archaeology, and it pays but little atten- tion to purely dogmatic questions. On the whole, its attitude towards religion may be defined as an enlightened Scepticism combined with a staunch conservatism which is not even wholly devoid of a certain mystical touch. As far as we may gather from vague remarks and hints thrown out now and then, its theological position may perhaps be thus defined: — It is not the mere revealed Bible that is of first importance to the Jew, but the Bible as it repeats itself in history, in other words, as it is interpreted by Tradition. The Talmud, that wonderful mine of religious ideas from which it would be just as easy to draw up a manual for the most orthodox as to extract a vade-mecum for the most sceptical, lends some countenance to this view by certain controversial passages — not to be taken seriously — in which "the words of the scribes" are placed almost above the words of the Torah. Since then the interpretation of Scripture or the Secondary Meaning is mainly a product of changing historical influ- ences, it follows that the centre of authority is actually re- moved from the Bible and placed in some living body, which, by reason of its being in touch with the ideal aspirations and the religious needs of the age, is best able to determine the nature of the Secondary Meaning. This living body, however, is not represented by any section of the nation, or any corporate priesthood, or Rabbihood, but by the collective conscience of Catholic Israel as embodied in the Universal Synagogue. The Synagogue "with its long, continuous cry after God for more than twenty-three centuries," with its unremittent activity in teaching and developing the Word

l6 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

of God, with its uninterrupted succession of prophets, Psalm- ists, Scribes, Assideans, Rabbis, Patriarchs, Interpreters, Elu- cidators, Eminences, and Teachers, with its glorious record of Saints, martyrs, sages, philosophers, scholars, and mystics; this Synagogue, the only true witness to the past, and forming in all ages the sublimest expression of Israel's religious life, must also retain its authority as the sole true guide for the present and the future. And being in communion with this Synagogue, we may also look hopefully for a safe and rational solution of our present theological troubles. For was it not the Synagogue which even in antiquity determined the fate of Scripture? On the one hand, for example, books like Ezekiel, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, were only de- clared to be Holy Writ in virtue of the interpretation put upon them by the Rabbis: and, on the other hand, it was the veto of the Rabbis which excluded from the canon the works that now pass under the name of Apocrypha. We may, there- fore, safely trust that the Synagogue will again assert its divine right in passing judgment upon the Bible when it feels called upon to exercise that holy office. It is "God who has chosen the Torah, and Moses His servant, and Israel His people." But indeed God's choice invariably coincides with the wishes of Israel; He "performeth all things" upon which the councils of Israel, meeting under promise of the Divine presence and communion, have previously agreed. As the Talmud somewhere expresses itself with regard to the Book of Esther, "They have confirmed above what Israel has accepted below."

Another consequence of this conception of Tradition is that it is neither Scripture nor primitive Judaism, but gen- eral custom which forms the real rule of practice. Holy Writ as well as history, Zunz tells us, teaches that the law of Moses was never fully and absolutely put in practice. Liberty was always given to the great teachers of every generation to make

Introduction 17

modifications and innovations in harmony with the spirit of existing institutions. Hence a return to Mosaism would be illegal, pernicious, and indeed impossible. The norm as well as the sanction of Judaism is the practice actually in vogue. Its consecration is the consecration of general use — or, in other words, of Catholic Israel. It was probably with a view to this communion that the later mystics introduced a short prayer to be said before the performance of any religious ceremony, in which, among other things, the speaker pro- fesses his readiness to act "in the name of all Israel."

It would be out of place in an introductory essay to pursue any further this interesting subject with its far-reaching con- sequences upon Jewish life and Jewish thought. But the fore- going remarks may suffice to show that Judaism did not remain quite inactive at the approach of the great religious crisis which our generation has witnessed. Like so many other religious communities, it reviewed its forces, entrenched itself on the field of history, and what it lost of its old devo- tion to the Bible, it has sought to make up by a renewed reverence for institutions.

In this connection, a mere mention may suffice of the ultra- Orthodox party, led by the late Dr. S. R. Hirsch of Frankfort (1808-1889) whose defiance of reason and criticism even a Ward might have envied, and whose saintliness and sublimity even a Keble might have admired. And, to take an example from the opposite school, we must at least record the name of that devout Jew, Osias Schorr (1816-1895), in whom we have profound learning combined with an uncompromising disposition of mind productive of a typical champion of Radicalism in things religious. These men are, however, representative of two extremes, and their followers constitute mere minorities; the majority is with the historical school.

How long the position of this school will prove tenable is another question. Being brought up in the old Low Syna-

l8 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

gogue, where, with all attachment to tradition, the Bible was looked upon as the crown and the climax of Judaism, the old Adam still asserts itself in me, and in unguarded moments makes me rebel against this new rival of revelation in the shape of history. At times this now fashionable exaltation of Tradition at the expense of Scripture even impresses me as a sort of religious bimetallism in which bold speculators in theology try to keep up the market value of an inferior currency by denouncing loudly the bright shining gold which, they would have us believe, is less fitted to circulate in the vulgar use of daily life than the small cash of historical interpretation. Nor can I quite reconcile myself to this alliance of religion with history, which seems to me both unworthy and unnatural. The Jew, some writer aptly re- marked, was the first and the fiercest Nonconformist of the East, and so Judaism was always a protesting religion. To break the idols, whether of the past or of the present, has always been a sacred mission of Judaism, and has indeed been esteemed by it as a necessary preliminary to the advent of the kingdom of God on earth. One of its daily prayers was and still is: "We therefore hope in Thee, O Lord our God, that we may speedily behold the glory of Thy might, when ... the idols will be cut off, when the world will be per- fected under the kingdom of the Almighty." It bowed before truth, but it had never made a covenant with facts only be- cause they were facts. History had to be remade and to sanctify itself before it found its way into its sacred annals. Nor did Judaism make a virtue of swallowing down insti- tutions. Such institutions as crept into it in course of time had, when the Synagogue was conscious of their claims to form part of religion, to submit to the laborious process of a thorough adaptation to prophetic notions before they were formally sanctioned. But when this process was deemed im- possible or impracticable, Judaism boldly denounced the

Introduction 19

past in such fierce language as the prophets used and as still finds its echo in such passages o£ the liturgy as "First our ancestors were worshippers of idols and now God has brought us near to His service"; or "But of a truth, we and our an- cestors have sinned/'

However, it would be unfair to argue any further against a theological system which, as already said, was never avowed distinctly by the historical school — a school, moreover, with which speculation is a matter of minor importance. The main strength of this school lies in its scientific work, for which Judaism will always be under a sense of deep grati- tude. And living as we do in an age in which history reigns supreme in all departments of human thought, we may hope that even its theology, as far as it goes, will "do" for us, though I neither hope nor believe that it will do for those who come after us. I may, however, humbly confess that the essay on "The Dogmas of Judaism" in this volume was written in a spirit of rebellion against this all-absorbing Catholic Israel, with its decently veiled scepticism on the one hand, and its unfortunate tendency with many people to degenerate into a soulless conformity on the other hand. There is, I am afraid, not much to be said in favour of this essay. It is de- ficient both in matter and in style. It proved to be a futile attempt to bring within the compass of an essay what a whole book could hardly do justice to. The Hebrew documents bearing upon the question of dogma which I have collected from various manuscripts and rare printed books, would alone make a fair-sized volume. I only venture to offer it to the public in the absence of anything better; since, so far as I know, no other attempt has ever been made to treat the subject even in its meagrest outlines. I even venture to hope that, with all its shortcomings, it will contribute something towards destroying the illusion, in which so many theologians indulge, that Judaism is a religion without dogmas. To

20 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

declare that a religion has no dogmas is tantamount to saying that it was wise enough not to commit itself to any vital principles. But prudence, useful as it may be in worldly affairs, is quite unworthy of a great spiritual power.

Jewish mysticism in the Middle Ages and in modern times is represented in this volume by two essays ("The Chassidim" and "Nachmanides"), But in order to avoid mistakes which might be implied by my silence, I think it desirable to state that there are also to be found many mystical elements in the old Rabbinic literature. Mysticism, not as a theosophic system or as an occult science, but as a manifestation of the spiritual and as an expression of man's agonies in his struggle after communion with God, as well as of his ineffable joy when he receives the assurance that he has found it, is not, as some maintain, foreign to the spirit of old Rabbinic Judaism. There was no need for the mediaeval Rabbi to borrow the elements of such a mysticism from non- Jewish sources. The perusal of the old Homilies on the Song of Songs, and on the Lessons from the Prophets, or even a fair acquaintance with the Jewish liturgy would, in itself, suffice to refute such baseless assertions. Those who are at all familiar with old Rabbinic literature hardly need to be told that "the sea of the Talmud" has also its gulf stream of mysticism which, taking its origin in the moralising portions of the Bible, runs through the wide ocean of Jewish thought, constantly commingling with the icy waters of legalism, and unceasingly washing the desolate shores of an apparently meaningless ceremonialism, communicating to it life, warmth, and spirituality.

I shall be pleased if the more serious side of this volume — Jewish mysticism and Rabbinic theology — should attract the attention of students, and so draw some fellow-workers into a field which is utterly neglected. Notwithstanding the numerous Manuals and Introductions which all more or less

Introduction 2 1

touch on the subject of Rabbinic theology, there is, after nearly two hundred and fifty years, not a single work among them which, either in knowledge of facts or in their inter- pretation, is a single step in advance of the Cambridge Platonist, John Smith, in his Select Discourses. But those who try so hard to determine the miraculous distance of Chris- tianity by the eclipses in Rabbinism, should, if they wish to be just or prove themselves worthy scholars, also endeavour to make themselves acquainted with the numberless bright stars that move in the wide universe of Jewish thought. We are often told that no creed or theological system which has come down to us from antiquity can afford to be judged by any other standard than by its spiritual and poetic possi- bilities: this indulgence Judaism is as justly entitled to claim as any other religion. The great and saintly Franz Delitzsch who, born with an intellect of admirable temper, was also endowed by Heaven with a soul — and a beautiful soul it was — was one of the few theologians who, partly at least, ad- mitted this claim, and sought earnestly and diligently after these spiritual and poetic possibilities, and was amply re- warded for his labours.

THE HISTORY OF JEWISH TRADITION

THERE is an anecdote about a famous theologian to the effect that he used to tell his pupils, "Should I ever grow old and weak — which usually drives people to embrace the safer side — and alter my opinions, then pray do not believe me." The concluding volume of Weiss's History of Jewish Tradition1 shows that there was no need for our author to warn his pupils against the dangers accompanying old age. For though Weiss had, when he began to write this last volume, already exceeded his three-score and ten, and, as we read in the pref- ace, had some misgivings as to whether he should continue his work, there is no trace in it of any abatement of the great powers of the author. It is marked by the same freshness in diction, the same marvellous scholarship, the same display of astonishing critical powers, and the same impartial and straightforward way of judging persons and things, for which the preceding volumes were so much distinguished and admired.

This book, which is recognized as a standard work abroad, is, I fear, owing to the fact of its being written in the Hebrew language, not sufficiently known in this country. Weiss does not want our recognition; we are rather in need of his

25

THE HISTORY OF JEWISH TRADITION

THERE is an anecdote about a famous theologian to the effect that he used to tell his pupils, "Should I ever grow old and weak — which usually drives people to embrace the safer side — and alter my opinions, then pray do not believe me." The concluding volume of Weiss's History of Jewish Tradition1 shows that there was no need for our author to warn his pupils against the dangers accompanying old age. For though Weiss had, when he began to write this last volume, already exceeded his three-score and ten, and, as we read in the pref- ace, had some misgivings as to whether he should continue his work, there is no trace in it of any abatement of the great powers of the author. It is marked by the same freshness in diction, the same marvellous scholarship, the same display of astonishing critical powers, and the same impartial and straightforward way of judging persons and things, for which the preceding volumes were so much distinguished and admired.

This book, which is recognized as a standard work abroad, is, I fear, owing to the fact of its being written in the Hebrew language, not sufficiently known in this country. Weiss does not want our recognition; we are rather in need of his

25

2 6 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

instruction. Some general view of his estimate of Jewish Tradition may, therefore, be of service to the student. It is, indeed, the only work of its kind. Zunz has confined himself to the history of the Agadah. Graetz gave most of his atten- tion to the political side of Jewish history. But comparatively little has been done for the Halachah, though Frankel, Geiger, Herzfeld, and others have treated some single points in various monographs. Thus it was left for Weiss to write the History of Tradition,, which includes both the Agadah and the Halachah. The treatment of this latter must have proved, in consequence of the intricate and intractable nature of its materials, by far the more difficult portion of his task.

In speaking of the History of Tradition, a term which suggests the fluctuating character of a thing, its origin, development, progress, and retrogression, we have already indicated that Weiss does not consider even the Halachah as having come down from heaven, ready-made, and definitely fixed for all time. To define it more clearly, Tradition is, apart from the few ordinances and certain usages for which there is no precedent in the Bible, the history of inter- pretation of the Scriptures, which was constantly liable to variation, not on grounds of philology, but through the sub- jective notions of successive generations regarding religion and the method and scope of its application.

Weiss's standpoint with reference to the Pentateuch is the conservative one, maintaining both its unity and its Mosaic authorship. Those passages and accounts in the Bible in which the modern critic discerns traces of different tradi- tional sources, are for Weiss only indicative of the various stages of interpretation through which the Pentateuch had to pass. The earliest stage was a very crude one, as may be seen from the case of Jephthah's vow, for which only a misinter- pretation of certain passages in the Pentateuch (Gen. xxii. 2;

The History of Jewish Tradition 27

Num. xxv. 4) could be made responsible. Nor was Jephthah, who felt himself bound to carry out his vow, acquainted with the provision for dissolving vows2 that was sufficiently famil- iar to later ages. When, on the other hand, Jeremiah declared sacrifices to be altogether superfluous, and said that God did not command Israel, when he brought them from the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices (vii. 22), he was not in contradiction with Leviticus, but interpreted the laws contained in this book as a concession to popular custom, though not desirable on their own account. This concession, whenever it was of a harmless nature, the prophets carried so far as to permit altars outside the Taber- nacle or Temple, though this was against the plain sense of Deuteronomy. Elijah even bewailed their destruction (i Kings xix. 10). He and other prophets probably interpreted the law in question as directed against the construction and maintenance of several chief sanctuaries, but not against sacrificing in different places on minor occasions. This is evidently a free interpretation, or rather application, of the Law. Occasionally the conception as to when and how a law should be applied took a completely negative form. In this manner is to be explained the action of Solomon in suspend- ing the Fast of the Day of Atonement before the festival he was going to celebrate in honour of the consecration of the Temple (i Kings viii. 65), the king being convinced that on this unique occasion the latter was of more religious im- portance than the former. Weiss thinks that the later custom of holding public dances in the vineyards on the loth of Tishri might have had its origin in this solemn, but also joyful, festival. Ezekiel, again, though alluding more fre- quently than any other prophet to the laws in the Pentateuch, is exceedingly bold in his interpretation of them, as, for instance, when he says that priests shall not eat anything that is dead or torn (xliv. 31), which shows that he took the verses

28 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

in Exod. xxii. 30, and Deut. xiv. 20, to have been meant only as a good advice to the laymen to refrain from eating these unclean things, but not as having for them the force of a real commandment.

Starting from this proposition, that there existed always some sort of interpretation running side by side with the recognised Scriptures, which from the very looseness of its connection with the letter of the Scripture could claim to be considered a thing independent in itself, and might therefore be regarded as the Oral Law, in contradistinction to the Written Law, the author passes to the age of the Second Temple, the period to which the rest of the first volume is devoted. In these pages Weiss reviews the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah, the ordinances of the Men of the Great Syna- gogue, the institutions of the Scribes, the Lives of the so- called Pairs,3 the characteristics of the three sects, the Sad- ducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, and the differences between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. To each of these subjects Weiss gives his fullest attention, and his discussions of them would form perfect monographs in themselves. To reproduce all the interesting matter would mean to translate the whole of this portion of his work into English. I shall only draw attention to one or two points.

First, this liberal interpretation was active during the whole period referred to. Otherwise no authority could have abolished the le% talionis, or have permitted war on Sabbath, or made the condition that no crime should be punished without a preceding warning (which was chiefly owing to the aversion of the Rabbis to the infliction of capital punish- ment), or have sanctioned the sacrificing of the Passover when the 1 4th of Nisan fell on Sabbath. Indeed Shemaiah and Abtalyon, in whose name Hillel communicated this last law, were called the Great Interpreters.4

Secondly, as to the so-called laws given to Moses on Sinai.5

The History of Jewish Tradition 29

Much has been said about these. The distinction claimed for them by some scholars, viz. that they were never contested, is not tenable, considering that there prevailed much dif- ference of opinion about some of them. Nor is the theory that they were ancient religious usages, dating from time immemorial, entirely satisfactory. For though the fact may be true in itself, this could not have justified the Rabbis in calling them all Sinaitic laws, especially when they were aware that not a few of them were contested by certain of their colleagues, a thing that would have been quite im- possible if they had a genuine claim to Mosaic authority. But if we understand Weiss rightly these laws are only to be con- sidered as a specimen of the whole of the Oral Law, which was believed to emanate, both in its institutional and in its expository part, from the same authority. The conviction was firmly held that everything wise and good, be it ethical or ceremonial in its character, whose effect would be to strengthen the cause of religion, was at least potentially contained in the Torah, and that it only required an earnest religious mind to find it there. Hence the famous adage that "everything which any student will teach at any future time was already communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai"; or the injunction that any acceptable truth, even if discovered by an insignificant man in Israel, should be considered as having the authority of a great sage or prophet, or even of Moses himself. The principle was that the words of the Torah are "fruitful and multiply/'

It will probably be said that the laws of clean and unclean, and such like, have proved rather too prolific; but if we read Weiss carefully, we shall be reminded that it was by the same process of propagation that the Rabbis developed from Deut. xxii. 8, a whole code of sanitary and police-laws which could even now be studied with profit; from the few scanty civil laws in Exod. xxi., a whole corpus juris, which might well

3O STUDIES IN JUDAISM

excite the interest and the admiration of any lawyer; and from the words "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children/' a complete school-system on the one hand, and on the other the resume of a liturgy that appears to have sufficed for the spiritual needs of more than fifty generations of Israelites.

Before we pass to the age of the Tannaim,6 the subject of Weiss's second volume, we must take account of two im- portant events which have greatly influenced the further development of Tradition. I refer to the destruction of the Temple and the rise of Christianity. With the former event Judaism ceased to be a political commonwealth, and if "the nation was already in the times of Ezra converted into a church" — an assertion, by the way, which has not the least basis in fact — it became the more so after it had lost the last remains of its independence. But it was a church without priests, or, since such a thing, as far as history teaches us, has never existed, let us rather call it a Synagogue.

From this fact diverse results flowed. A synagogue can exist not only without priests, but also without sacrifices, for which prayer and charity were a sufficient substitute. With the progress of time also many agricultural laws, as well as others relating to sacerdotal purity, gradually became obso- lete, though they lingered on for some generations, and, as a venerable reminiscence of a glorious time, entered largely into Jewish literature. This disappearance of so many laws and the weakening of the national element, however, re- quired, if Judaism was to continue to exist, the strength- ening of religion from another side. The first thing needed was the creation of a new religious centre which would not only replace the Temple to a certain degree, but also bring about a greater solidarity of views, such as would render impossible the ancient differences that divided the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The creator of this centre was R.

The History of Jewish Tradition 31

Johanan ben Zaccai, who founded the school of Jamnia, and invested it with the same authority and importance as the Sanhedrin had enjoyed during Temple times. The conscious- ness that they were standing before a new starting-point in history, with a large religious inheritance from the past, actuated them not only to collect the old traditional laws and to take stock of their religious institutions, but also to give them more definite shape and greater stability. As many of these traditions were by no means undisputed, the best thing was to bring them under one or other heading of the Scrip- tures. This desire gave the impulse to the famous herme- neutic schools of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael.

The next cause that contributed to give a more deter- minate expression to the Law was the rise of Christianity. This is not the place to give an account of the views which the Rabbis entertained of Christianity. Suffice it to say they could not see in the destruction of the Law its fulfilment. They also thought that under certain conditions it is not only the letter that killeth, but also the spirit, or rather that the spirit may sometimes be clothed in a letter, which, in its turn, will slay more victims than the letter against which the loudest denunciations have been levelled. Spirit without letter, let theologians say what they will, is a mere phantasm. However, the new sect made claims to the gift of prophecy, which, as they thought, placed them above the Law. It would seem that this was a time of special excitement. The student of the Talmud finds that such marvels as predicting the future, reviving the dead, casting out demons, crossing rivers dry-shod, curing the sick by a touch of prayer, were the order of the day, and performed by scores of Rabbis. Voices from heaven were often heard, and strange visions were frequently beheld. Napoleon I is said to have forbidden the holy coat of Treves to work miracles. The Jewish legislature, however, had no means of preventing these supernatural workings; but

g2 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

when the Rabbis saw their dangerous consequences, they insisted that miracles should have no influence on the inter- pretation and development of the Law. Hence the saying with regard to Lev. xxvii. 34, that no prophet is authorised to add a new law. And when R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos (about 120 A.C.) thought to prove the justice of his case by the intervention of miracles, the majority answered that the fact of this or that variation, effected at his bidding, in the estab- lished order of nature, proved nothing for the soundness of his argument. Nay, they even ignored the Bath-Kol 7 (the celestial voice), which declared itself in favour of R. Eliezer, maintaining that the Torah having once been given to man- kind, it is only the opinion of the majority that should decide on its interpretation and application. Very charac- teristic is the legend connected with this fact. When one of the Rabbis afterwards met Elijah and asked him what they thought in heaven of the audacity of his colleagues, the prophet answered, "God rejoiced and said, my children have conquered me."

Into such discredit did miracles fall at that period, whilst the opinion of the interpreting body, or the Sanhedrin, be- came more powerful than ever. These were merely dog- matical consequences. But new laws were enacted and old ones revived, with the object of resisting Christian influences over the Jews. To expand the Oral Law, and give it a firm basis in the Scriptures, were considered the best means of preserving Judaism intact. "Moses desired/' an old legend narrates, "that the Mishnah also (that is Tradition) should be written down"; but foreseeing the time when the nations of the world would translate the Torah into Greek, and would assert their title to rank as the Children of God, the Lord refused to permit tradition to be recorded otherwise than by word of mouth. The claim of the Gentiles might then be refuted by asking them whether they were also in

The History of Jewish Tradition 33

possession of "the Mystery." The Rabbis therefore concen- trated their attention upon "the Mystery/' and this con- tributed largely towards making the expository methods of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael, to which I have above referred, the main object of their study in the schools.

It would, however, be a mistake to think that the San- hedrin now spent their powers in "enforcing retrograde measures and creating a strange exegesis." I especially advise the student to read carefully that admirable chapter (VII, of Vol. II) in which Weiss classifies all the Ordinances, "Fences," Decrees, and Institutions, dating both from this and from earlier ages, under ten headings, and also shows their underlying principles. The main object was to preserve the Jewish religion by strengthening the principle of Jewish nationality, and to preserve the nationality by the aid of religion. But sometimes the Rabbis also considered it neces- sary to preserve religion against itself, so to speak, or, as they expressed it, "When there is time to work for the Lord, they make void thy Torah." This authorised the Beth Din8 to act in certain cases against the letter of the Torah. "The welfare of the World" was another great consideration. By "World" they understood both the religious and the secular world. From a regard to the former resulted such "Fences" and Ordinances as were directed against "the transgressors," as well as the general injunction to "keep aloof from what is morally unseemly, and from whatever bears any likeness thereto." In the interests of the latter — the welfare of the secular world — they enacted such laws as either tended to elevate the position of women, or to promote the peace and welfare of members of their own community, or to improve the relations between Jews and their Gentile neighbours. They also held the great principle that nothing is so inju- rious to the cause of religion as increasing the number of sin- ners by needless severity. Hence the introduction of many

34 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

laws "for the benefit of penitents/' and the maxim not to issue any decree which may prove too heavy a burden to the majority of the community. The relaxation of certain tradi- tional laws was also permitted when they involved a serious loss of property, or the sacrifice of a man's dignity. Some old decrees were even permitted to fall into oblivion when public opinion was too strong against them, the Rabbis holding that it was often better for Israelites to be unconscious sinners than wilful transgressors. The Minhag, or religious custom, also played an important part, it being assumed that it must have been first introduced by some eminent authority; but, if there was reason to believe that the custom owed its origin to some fancy of the populace, and that it had a pernicious effect on the multitude, no compunction was felt in abolishing it. Very important it is to note that the Oral Law had not at this period assumed a character of such rigidity that all its ordinances, etc., had to be looked upon as irremovable for all times. With those who think otherwise, a favourite quotation is the administratory measure laid down in Tractate Evi- dences* I. 5, where we read that no Beth Din has the right of annulling the dicta of another Beth Din, unless it is stronger in numbers (having a larger majority) and greater in wisdom than its fellow tribunal. Confess with becoming modesty that the world is always going downhill, decreasing both in numbers and in wisdom, and the result follows that any decision by the earlier Rabbis is fixed law for all eternity. Weiss refutes such an idea not only as inconsistent with the nature of Tradition, but also as contradictory to the facts. He proves by numerous instances that the Rabbis did abolish ordinances and decrees introduced by preceding authorities, and that the whole conception is based on a misunderstand- ing. For the rule in question, as Weiss clearly points out, originally only meant that a Beth Din has no right to undo the decrees of another contemporary Beth Din, unless it was

The History of Jewish Tradition 35

justified in doing so by the weight of its greater authority. This was necessary if a central authority was to exist at alL Weiss is indeed of the opinion that the whole passage is a later interpolation from the age of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II, when certain Rabbis tried to emancipate themselves from the authority of the Patriarch. But it was not meant that the decision of a Beth Din should have perpetual binding power for all posterity. This was left to the discretion of the legis- lature of each generation, who had to examine whether the original cause for maintaining such decision still existed.

The rest of this volume is for the greater part taken up with complete monographs of the Patriarchs and the heads of the schools of that age, whilst the concluding chapters give us the history of the literature, the Midrash, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphr£, Mishnah, etc., which contain both the Hala- chic and the Agadic sayings emanating from these authorities.

With regard to these Patriarchs, I should like only to remark that Weiss defends them against the charge made by Schorr and others, who accuse them of having assumed too much authority on account of their noble descent, and who describe their opponents as the true friends of the people. Weiss is no lover of such specious phrases. The qualifications required for the leadership of the people were a right instinct for the necessities of their time, a fair amount of secular knowledge, and, what is of chief importance, an unbounded love and devotion to those over whose interests they were called to watch. These distinctions, as Weiss proves, the descendants of Hillel possessed in the highest degree. It is true that occasionally, as for instance in the famous con- troversy of R. Gamaliel II with R. Joshua b. Hananiah, or that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II with R. Nathan and R. Meir, they made their authority too heavily felt;10 but this, was again another necessity of those troubled times, when, only real unity could save Israel.

36 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

However, Weiss is no partisan, and the love he lavishes on his favourite heroes does not exhaust his resources of sympathy and appreciation for members of the other schools. Weiss is no apologist either, and does not make the slightest attempt towards explaining away even the defects of R. Akiba in his somewhat arbitrary method of interpretation, which our author thinks much inferior to the expository rules of R. Ishmael; but this does not prevent him from admiring his excellences.

Altogether it would seem that Weiss thinks R. Akiba more happy in his quality as a great saint than in that of a great exegete. What is most admirable is the instinct with which Weiss understands how to emphasise the right thing in its right place. As an indication of the literary honesty and marvellous industry of our author, I would draw attention to the fact that the sketch of R. Akiba and his school alone is based on more than two thousand quotations scattered over the whole area of the Rabbinic literature; but he points in a special note to a sentence attributed to R. Akiba, which presents the whole man and his generation in a single stroke. I refer to that passage in Tractate Joys,11 in which R. Akiba speaks of the four types of sufferers. He draws the comparison of a king chastising his children; the first son maintains stub- born silence, the second simply rebels, the third supplicates for mercy, and the fourth (the best of sons) says: "Father, proceed with thy chastisement, as David said, Wash me thor- oughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" (Ps. li. 4). This absolute submission to the will of God, which perceives in suffering only an expression of His fatherly love and mercy, was the ideal of R. Akiba.

The great literary production of this period was the Mishnah, which, through the high authority of its compiler, R. Judah the Patriarch, his saintliness and popularity, soon superseded all the collections of a similar kind, and became

The History of Jewish Tradition 37

the official text-book of the Oral Law. But a text requires interpretation, whilst other collections also demanded some attention. This brings us to the two Talmuds, namely, the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Talmud of Babylon, the origin and history of which form the subject of Weiss's third volume.

Here again the first chapters are more of a preliminary Character, giving the student some insight into the labyrinth of the Talmud. The two chapters entitled "The instruments employed in erecting the great Edifice/' and the "Workman- ship displayed by the Builders/' give evidence of almost un- rivalled familiarity with the Rabbinical literature, and of critical powers of the rarest kind. Now these instruments were by no means new, for, as Weiss shows, the Amoraim employed in interpreting the Mishnah the same explanatory rules that are known to us from the School of R. Ishmael as "the Thirteen Rules by which the Torah is explained," though they appear in the Talmud under other names, and are in reality only a species of Midrash. Besides this there comes another element into play. It was the exaggerated awe of all earlier authorities that endeavoured to reconcile the most contradictory statements by means of a subtle dialectic for which the schools in Babylon were especially famous. There were certainly many opponents of this system, and from the monographs which Weiss gives on the various heads of the western and eastern schools we see that not all followed this method, and some among them even con- demned it in the strongest words. However, it cannot be denied that there is a strong scholastic feature in the Tal- mud, which is very far from what we should look for in a trustworthy exegesis. Thus we must not always expect to find in the Talmud the true meaning of the sayings of their predecessors, and it is certain that a more scientific method in many cases has led to results the very opposite

3 8 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

of those at which the later Rabbis have arrived. This fact was already recognised in the sixteenth century, though only in part, by R. Yom-Tob Heller and others. Only he insisted that in this matter a line must be drawn between theory and practice. But Weiss gives irrefragable proofs that even this line was often overstepped by the greatest authorities, though they remained always within the limits of Tradition. Indeed, as Weiss points out, not every saying to be found in the Talmud is to be looked upon as representing Tradition; for there is much in it which only gives the individual opinion or is merely an interpolation of later hands; nor does the Talmud contain the whole of Tradition, this latter proceeding and advancing with the time, and corresponding to its conditions and notions. As we read Weiss, the convic- tion is borne in upon us that there was a Talmud before, and another after The Talmud.

Much space in this volume is given to the Agadah and the so-called "Teachers of the Agadah." Weiss makes no attempt at apology for that which seems to us strange, or even repugnant in this part of the Rabbinic literature. The greatest fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages as appear objectionable to us is, perhaps, that they did not observe the wise rule of Johnson, who said to Bos- well on a certain occasion, "Let us get serious, for there comes a fool." And the fools unfortunately did come in the shape of certain Jewish commentators and Christian con- troversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse, or represented the opinion of some isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the in- terest of a languid audience. But on the other hand, as Weiss proves, the Agadah contains also many elements of real edi- fication and eternal truths as well as abundant material for building up the edifice of dogmatic Judaism. Talmudical

The History of Jewish Tradition 39

quotations of such a nature are scattered by thousands over Weiss's work, particularly in those chapters in which he describes the lives of the greatest Rabbinical heroes. But the author lays the student under special obligations by putting together in the concluding pages of this volume some of these sentences, and classifying them under various headings. I give here a few extracts. For the references to authorities I must direct the reader to the original:

"The unity of God is the keystone of dogmatic Judaism. The Rabbis give Israel the credit of having proclaimed to the world the unity of God. They also say that Israel took an oath never to change Him for another God. This only God is eternal, incorporeal, and immutable. And though the prophets saw Him in different aspects, He warned them that they must not infer from the visions vouchsafed to them that there are different Gods. 'I am the first/ He tells them, which implies that he had no father, and the words, 'There is no God besides me/ mean that he has no son. Now, this God, the God of Israel, is holy in every thinkable way of holiness. He is merciful and gracious, as it is said, 'And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious/ even though he who is the recipient of God's grace has no merit of his own. 'And I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy/ that is, even to those who do not deserve it. His attributes are righteousness, loving-kindness, and truth. God speaks words of eternal truth, even as He himself is the eternal life. All that the Merciful One does is only for good, and even in the time of His anger He remembers His graciousness, and often suppresses His attribute of judgment before His at- tribute of mercy. But with the righteous God is more severe than with the rest of the world, and when His hand falls in chastening on His saints His name becomes awful, revered, and exalted. This God of Israel, again, extends His provi- dence over all mankind, and especially over Israel. By His

40 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

eye everything is foreseen, yet freedom of choice is given, and the world is judged by grace, yet all according to the works wrought. Hence, know what is above thee, a seeing eye and a hearing ear, and that all thy deeds are written in a book.

"They [the Rabbis] believed that God created the world out of nothing, without toil and without weariness. This world was created by the combination of His two attributes, mercy and justice. He rejoices in His creation, and if the Maker praises it, who dares to blame it? And if He exults in it, who shall find a blemish in it? Nay, it is a glorious and a beautiful world. It is created for man, and its other den- izens were all meant but to serve him. Though all mankind are formed after the type of Adam, no one is like his fellow- man (each one having an individuality of his own). Thus he is able to say, Tor my sake, also, was the world created'; and with this thought his responsibilities increase. But the great- est love shown to man is that he was created in the image of God. Man is a being possessed of free will, and, though every- thing is given on pledge, whosoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow. Everything is in the gift of Heaven except the fear of God. In man's heart abide both the evil inclination and the good inclination; and the words of Scrip- ture, 'Thou shalt not bow down before a strange god/ point to the strange god who is within man himself, who entices him to sin in this world, and gives evidence against him in the next. But the Holy One — blessed be He! — said, 'I have created the evil inclination, but I have also created its anti- dote, the Torah/ And when man is occupied with the Torah and in works of charity, he becomes the master of the evil inclination; otherwise, he is its slave. When man reflects the image of God, he is the lord of creation, and is feared by all creatures; but this image is defaced by sin, and then

The History of Jewish Tradition 41

he has no power over the universe, and is in fear of all things.

"Another principle of Judaism is the belief in reward and punishment. 1 am the Lord, your God/ means, 'it is I who am prepared to recompense you for your good actions, and to bring retribution upon you for your evil deeds/ God does not allow to pass unrewarded even the merit of a kind and considerate word. By the same measure which man metes out, it shall be meted out to him. Because thou drown- edst others, they have drowned thee, and at the last they who drowned thee shall themselves be drowned. Though it is not in our power to explain either the prosperity of the wicked or the affliction of the righteous, nevertheless know before whom thou toilest, and who thy employer is, who will pay thee the reward of thy labour. Here at thy door is a poor man standing, and at his right hand standeth God. If thou grantest his request, be certain of thy reward; but if thou refusest, think of Him who is by the side of the poor, and will avenge it on thee. 'God seeketh the persecuted' to de- fend him, even though it be the wicked who is persecuted by the righteous. The soul of man is immortal, the souls of the righteous being treasured up under the throne of God. Know that everything is according to the reckoning, and let not thy imagination give thee hope that the grave will be a place of refuge for thee, for perforce thou wast formed, and perforce thou wast born, and thou livest perforce, and perforce thou wilt die, and perforce thou wilt in the future have to give account and reckoning before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

"The advent of the Messiah is another article of the be- lief of the Rabbis. But if a man tell thee that he knows when the redemption of Israel will take place, believe him not, for this is one of the unrevealed secrets of the Almighty. The

42 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

mission of Elijah is to bring peace into the world, while the Messiah, in whose days Israel will regain his national in- dependence, will lead the whole world in repentance to God. On this, it is believed, will follow the resurrection of the dead.

"Another main principle in the belief of the Rabbis is the election of Israel, which imposes on them special duties, and gives them a peculiar mission. Beloved are Israel, for they are called the children of God, and His firstborn. 'They shall endure for ever' through the merit of their fathers. There is an especial covenant established between God and the tribes of Israel. God is their father, and He said to them, My children, even as I have no contact with the profanity of the world, so also withdraw yourselves from it. And as I am holy, be ye also holy. Nay, sanctify thyself by refraining even from that which is not forbidden thee. There is no holiness without chastity.

"The main duty of Israel is to sanctify the name of God, for the Torah was only given that His great name might be glorified. Better is it that a single letter of the law be cast out than that the name of Heaven be profaned. And this also is the mission of Israel in this world: to sanctify the name of God, as it is written, 'This people have I formed for myself, that they may show forth my praise.' Or, 'And thou shalt love the Lord thy God/ which means, Thou shalt make God beloved by all creatures, even as Abraham did. Israel is the light of the world; as it is said, 'And nations shall walk by thy light.' But he who profanes the name of Heaven in secret will suffer the penalty thereof in public; and this whether the Heavenly Name be profaned in ignorance or in wilfulness.

"Another duty towards God is to love Him and to fear Him. God's only representative on earth is the God-fearing man. Woe unto those who are occupied in the study of the

The History of Jewish Tradition 43

Torah, but who have no fear of God. But a still higher duty it is to perform the commandments of God from love. For greater is he who submits to the will of God from love than he who does so from fear.

"Now, how shall man love God? This is answered in the words of Scripture, 'And these words shall be upon thy heart/ For by them thou wilt recognise Him whose word called the world into existence, and follow His divine at- tributes.

"God is righteous; be ye also righteous, O Israel. By right- eousness the Rabbis understand love of truth, hatred of ly- ing and backbiting. The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is Truth, of which the actions of man should also bear the im- press. Hence, let thy yea be yea, and thy nay, nay. He who is honest in money transactions, unto him this is reckoned as if he had fulfilled the whole of the Torah. Greater is he who earns his livelihood by the labour of his hands than even the God-fearing man; whilst the righteous judge is, as it were, the companion of God in the government of the world. For upon three things the world stands: upon truth, upon judgment, upon peace; as it is said, 'Judge ye the truth and the judgment of peace in your gates/ But he who breaks his word, his sin is as great as if he worshipped idols; and God, who punished the people of the time of the Flood, will also punish him who does not stand by his word. Such a one be- longs to one of the four classes who are not admitted into the presence of the Shechinah; there are the scoffers, the hypo- crites (who bring the wrath of God into the world), the liars, and the slanderers. The sin of the slanderer is like that of one who would deny the root (the root of all religion, i.e., the existence of God). The greatest of liars, however, is he who perjures himself, which also involves the sin of profanation of the name of God. The hypocrite, who insinuates himself into people's good opinions, who wears his phylacteries and

44 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

is enwrapped in his gown with the fringes, and secretly com- mits sins, equally transgresses the command, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.'

"God is gracious and merciful; therefore man also should be gracious and merciful. Hence, 'Thou shalt love thy neigh- bour as thyself/ which is a main principle in the Torah. What is unpleasant to thyself, do not unto thy neighbour. This is the whole Torah, to which the rest is only to be con- sidered as a commentary. And this love is also extended to the stranger, for as it is said with regard to Israel, 'And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself/ so it is also said, 'And thou shalt love him (the stranger) as thyself/ And thus said God to Israel, 'My beloved children, Am I in want of any- thing that I should request it of you? But what I ask of you is that you should love, honour, and respect one another.' Therefore, love mankind, and bring them near to the Torah. Let the honour of thy friend be as dear to thee as thine own. Condemn not thy fellow-man until thou art come into his place, and judge all men in the scale of merit. Say not 'I will love scholars, but hate their disciples'; or even, 'I will love the disciples, but hate the ignorant/ but love all, for he who hates his neighbour is as bad as a murderer. Indeed, during the age of the second Temple, men studied the Torah and the commandments, and performed works of charity, but they hated each other, a sin that outweighs all other sins, and for which the holy Temple was destroyed. Be careful not to withdraw thy mercy from any man, for he who does so rebels against the kingdom of God on earth. Walk in the ways of God, who is merciful even to the wicked, and as He is gra- cious alike to those who know Him, and to those who know Him not, so be thou. Indeed, charity is one of the three pil- lars on which the world is based. It is more precious than all other virtues. The man who gives charity in secret is greater even than Moses our teacher. An act of charity and love it is

The History of Jewish Tradition 45

to pray for our fellow-man, and to admonish him. 'Thou shah in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him' (Lev. xix. 18), means it is thy duty to admonish him a hundred times if need be, even if he be thy superior; for Jerusalem was only destroyed for the sin of its people in not admonishing one another. The man whose protest would be of any weight, and who does not exercise his authority (when any wrong is about to be committed), is held responsi- ble for the whole world.

"Peacefulness and humility are also the fruit of love. Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, and pursuing peace. Let every man be cautious in the fear of God; let him ever give the soft answer that turneth away wrath; let him pro- mote peace, not only among his own relatives and acquaint- ances, but also among the Gentiles. For (the labour of) all the prophets was to plant peace in the world. Be exceeding lowly of spirit, since the hope of man is but the worm. Be humble as Hillel, for he who is humble causes the Divine presence to dwell with man. But the proud man makes God say, 'I and he cannot dwell in the same place/ He who runs after glory, glory flees from him, and he who flees from glory, glory shall pursue him. Be of those who are despised rather than of those who despise; of the persecuted rather than of the persecutors; be of those who bear their reproach in si- lence and answer not.

"Another distinctive mark of Judaism is faith in God, and perfect confidence in Him. Which is the right course for a man to choose for himself? Let him have a strong faith in God, as it is said, 'Mine eye shall be upon the faithful (mean- ing those possessing faith in God) of the land.' And so also Habakkuk based the whole Torah on the principle of faith, as it is said, 'And the just shall live by his faith' (ii. 4). He who but fulfils a single commandment in absolute faith in God deserves that the Holy Spirit should rest on him. Blessed

46 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

is the man who fears God in private, and trusts in Him with all his heart, for such fear and trust arms him against every misfortune. He who puts his trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, God becomes his shield and protection in this world and in the next. He who has bread in his basket for to-day, and says, 'What shall I have to eat to-morrow?7 is a man of little faith. One consequence of real faith is always to believe in the justice of God's judgments. It is the duty of man to thank God when he is visited with misfortune as he does in the time of prosperity. Therefore, blessed is the man who, when visited by suffering, questions not God's justice. But what shall he do? Let him examine his conduct and repent.

'Tor repentance is the greatest prerogative of man. Better is one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world than the whole life of the world to come. The aim of all wisdom is repentance and good deeds. The place where the truly penitent shall stand is higher than that of the righteous. Repentance finds its special expression in prayer; and when it is said in Scripture, 'Serve God with all thy heart/ by this is meant, serve Him by prayer, which is even greater than worship by means of sacrifices. Never is a prayer entirely un- answered by God. Therefore, even though the sword be on a man's neck, let him not cease to supplicate God's mercy. But regard not thy prayer as a fixed mechanical task, but as an appeal for mercy and grace before the All-Present; as it is said, Tor He is gracious and full of mercy, slow to anger, abounding in loving-kindness, and repenteth him of the evil/ "

The last two volumes of Weiss's work deal with the history of Tradition during the Middle Ages, that is, from the con- clusion of the Talmud to the compilation of the Code of the Law by R. Joseph Caro. I have already indicated that with Weiss Tradition did not terminate with the conclusion of the Talmud. It only means that a certain undefmable kind of

The History of Jewish Tradition 47

literature, mostly held in dialogue form and containing many elements of Tradition, was at last brought to an end. The au- thorities who did this editorial work were the so-called Rab- banan Saburai12 and the Gaonim, whose lives and literary activity are fully described by Weiss. But, while thus engaged in preserving their inheritance from the past, they were also enriching Tradition by new contributions, both the Saburai and the Gaonim having not only added to and diminished from the Talmud, but having also introduced avowedly new ordinances and decrees, and created new institutions.

Now, it cannot be denied that a few of these ordinances and decrees had a reforming tendency (see the second and twentieth chapters of vol. iv.); in general, however, they took a more conservative turn than was the case in the previous ages. This must be ascribed to the event of the great schism within the Rabbinical camp itself. I refer to the rise of Caraism, which took place during the first half of the eighth century.

There is probably no work in which the Halachic or legalistic side of this sect is better described than in this volume of Weiss. I regret that I am unable to enter into its details. But I cannot refrain from pointing to one of the main principles of the Caraites. This was "Search the Scriptures." Now this does not look very dissimilar from the principle held by the Rabbis. For what else is the Talmud, but a thorough searching through the Bible for whatever was sug- gestive by time and circumstances? The light which the Caraites applied to the searching of the Scriptures was the same which illumined the paths of the Rabbis' investigations. They employed most of the expository rules of the Tannaite schools. The fact is that they were only determined to find something different from what the Rabbis found in the Scrip- tures. They wanted to have gloomy Sabbaths and Festivals, -and discovered authority for it in the Bible; they wanted to

48 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

retain most of the dietary laws which had their root only in Tradition, but insisted on petty differences which they thought might be inferred from the Scriptures, and they created a new "order of inheritance," and varied the for- bidden degrees in marriage, in all of which the only merit was that they were in contradiction to the interpretation of the Rabbis. They also refused to accept the Liturgy of Rab- binical Judaism, but never succeeded in producing more than a patchwork from verses of the Bible, which, thus recast, they called a prayer-book. There were undoubtedly among their leaders many serious and sincere men, but they give us the impression of prigs, as for instance, Moses Darai, when he reproaches the Rabbinical Jews for having an "easy religion/' or Israel Hammaarabi, when he recommended his book on the laws regarding the slaughtering of animals, as having the special advantage that his decisions were always on the more stringent side. Those who made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land were by the Caraites canonised as "mourners/' The Rabbanite R. Judah Hallevi also visited the ruins of Jeru- salem, but he did something more than "mourn and sigh and cry," he became a God-intoxicated singer, and wrote the "Zion-Elegy." The novel terminology which they use in their exegetical and theological works, was only invented to spite the Rabbanites, and marks its authors as pedants. On the other hand, it is not to be denied that their opponents did not employ the best means to conciliate them. The Middle Ages knew no other remedy against schism than excom- munication, and the Gaonim were the children of their time. Nor were the arguments which the latter brought forward in defence of Tradition always calculated to convince the Caraites of their error. When R. Saadiah, in his apology for the institution of the Second Day of the Festival,13 went the length of assigning to it a Sinaitic origin, he could only succeed in making the Caraites more suspicious of the claims

The History of Jewish Tradition 49

of Tradition than before. In a later generation one of his own party, R. Hai Gaon, had to declare his predecessor's words a "controversial exaggeration." The zeal which some of the Gaonim showed in their defence of such works as the Chambers and the Measure of the Stature^ was a not less unfortunate thing, for it involved the Rabbanites in un- necessary responsibilities for a new class of literature of doubtful origin, which in succeeding centuries was disowned by the best minds in Judaism,

The Gaonic period, to which we also owe the rise of the Massorah and the introduction of points in the text of the Bible — of which Weiss treats fully in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth chapters of vol. iv — comes to an end with the death of R. Hai. The famous schools of Sura and Pumb- editha, over which these two Gaonim presided, fell into decay, and Babylon ceased to be the centre of Judaism. To be more exact, we should say that Judaism had no longer any real centre. Instead of dwelling in one place for centuries, we now have to be perpetually on our journey, accompanying our authors through all the inhabited parts of the world — France, Italy, Spain, Germany, with an occasional trip to Africa and Russia. There we shall meet with the new schools, each of which, though interpreting the same Torah, occupied with the study of the same Talmud, and even conforming more or less to the same mode of life, has an individuality and character of its own, reflecting the thought and habits of the country which it represents. Thus "geographical Judaism" becomes a factor in history which no scholar can afford to neglect. It is true that Judaism never remained entirely unbiased by foreign ideas, and our author points in many a place to Persian, Greek, and Roman influences on Tradition; still, these influences seem to have undergone such a thorough "Judaization" that it is only the practised eye of the scholar that is able to see through the transfer-

50 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

mation. But it requires no great skill to discriminate between the work produced by a Spanish and that of a French Rabbi. Though both would write in Hebrew, they betray themselves very soon by the style, diction, and train of thought peculiar to each country. The Spaniard is always logical, clear, and systematising, whilst the French Rabbi has very little sense o£ order, is always writing occasional notes, has a great tend- ency to be obscure, but is mostly profound and critical. Hence the fact that whilst Spain produced the greatest codifiers of the law, we owe to France and Germany the best commentaries on the Talmud. What these codes and com- mentaries meant for Judaism the student will find in Weiss's book, and still more fully in his admirable essays on Rashi (Solomon b. Isaac), Maimonides, and R. Jacob Tarn (pub- lished in his periodical, Beth Talmud, and also separately). It is enough for us here only to notice the fact of the breadth of Tradition, which could include within its folds men of such different types as the sceptics, Maimonides, Solomon b. Gabirol, and Ibn Ezra on one side, and the simple ' 'non- questioning" Rabbenu Gershom, Rashi, and Jacob Tarn on the other.

The last three centuries, which occupy our author's at- tention in the fifth volume, are not remarkable for their progress. The world lives on the past. The rationalists write treatises on Maimonides' philosophical works, whilst the German Talmudists add commentary to commentary. It is, indeed, the reign of authority, "modified by accidents/' Such an accident was the struggle between the Maimonists and Anti-Maimonists, or the rise of the Cabbalah, or the frequent controversies with Christians, all of which tended to direct the minds of people into new channels of thought. But though this period is less original in its work, it is not on that account less sympathetic. One cannot read those beautiful descriptions which Weiss gives of R. Meir of Rothenburg and

The History of Jewish Tradition 51

his school, or of R. Asher and his descendants, without feel- ing that one is in an atmosphere of saints, who are the more attractive the less they were conscious of their own saintli- ness. The only mistake, perhaps, was that the successors of these "Chassidim or pious men of Germany" looked on many of the religious customs that were merely the voluntary ex- pression of particularly devout souls as worthy of imitation by the whole community, and made them obligatory upon all.

This brings us to the question of the Code already men- tioned (by R. Joseph Caro), with which Weiss's work con- cludes. I have already transgressed the limits of an essay, without flattering myself that I have done anything like justice to the greatest work on Jewish Tradition which modern Jewish genius has produced. But I should not like the reader to carry away with him the false impression that our author shares in the general cry, "Save us from the codifiers." Weiss, himself a Rabbi, and the disciple of the greatest Rabbis of the first half of this century, is quite aware of the impossibility of having a law without a kind of manual to it, which brings the fluid matter into some fixed form, classifying it under its proper headings, and this is what we call codifying the law. And thus he never passes any attempt made in this direction without paying due tribute to its author — be it Maimonides or Caro. But however great the literary value of a code may be, it does not invest it with the attribute of infallibility, nor does it exempt the student or the Rabbi who makes use of it from the duty of examining each paragraph on its own merits, and subjecting it to the same rules of interpretation that were always applied to Tradition. Indeed, Weiss shows that Maimonides deviated in some cases from his own code, when it was required by circumstances.

Nor do I know any modern author who is more in favour

52 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

of strong authority than Weiss. His treatment of the struggle between the Patriarch R. Gamaliel and his adversaries, which I have touched on above, proves this sufficiently. What Weiss really objects to, is a weak authority — I mean that phono- graph-like authority which is always busy in reproducing the voice of others without an opinion of its own, without origi- nality, without initiative and discretion. The real authorities are those who, drawing their inspiration from the past, also understand how to reconcile us with the present and to prepare us for the future.

ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD

IT is now more than half a century since Renan put the question, "Has Jewish tradition anything to teach us con- cerning Jesus?" This question must be answered in the negative. As far as the contemporaneous Jewish literature goes, it does not contain a single reference to the founder of Christianity. All the so-called Anti-Christiana collected by mediaeval fanatics, and freshened up again by modern igno- ramuses, belong to the later centuries, when history and biography had given way to myth and speculation. Almost every Christian sect, every Christian community, created a Christ after its own image or dogma. The Jewish legend — a growth of those later centuries — gave him an aspect of its own, purely apocryphal in its character, neither meant nor ever taken by the Jews as real history.

But if the Rabbis have nothing to tell us about the person- ality of Jesus, Rabbinic literature has a good deal to teach us about the times in which he lived and laboured. And what is more important is that a thorough study of this literature might, with due discretion, help us to a better understanding of the writings attributed to Jesus and his disciples. To prove this by a few instances will be the aim of my present lecture.

58

54 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

It is intended as an invitation to fellow-students to devote more attention to a branch of literature, from the study of which the Christian divine might derive as much profit as the Jewish Rabbi.

In justice to by-gone times, it should be pointed out that this fact had by no means escaped the searching eyes of Christian scholars of previous generations. They both recog- nised the importance of the Talmud for a better knowledge of the two Testaments, and applied themselves to an honest study of its contents. As the fruits of these studies, it is suf- ficient to mention here the Porta Mosis of Pocock, the De Synedriis of Selden, the Horae Rabbinicae of Lightfoot. The Cambridge Platonists also deserve honourable mention. These great and hospitable minds extended the range of their literary acquaintances also to the Rabbis, and the Select Discourses of John Smith, and the Discourse on the Lord's Supper by Cudworth,2 show that this acquaintance was by no means a passing one.

All the names just given belong to England, but the Con- tinent in no way remained behind. The names of the Continental students of Rabbinism are duly recorded in Zunz's Zur Literatur und Geschichte, and in other biblio- graphical works. It is sufficient to mention the name of Reuchlin, who saved the Talmud from the torch which a converted Jew was about to apply to it; the two Buxtorfs, whose works bearing on Rabbinic literature fill pages in the catalogues of the British Museum; and Vitringa, whose books on Rabbinic topics are considered by the best scholars as classical pieces of work.

However, these good things are (as already indicated) a matter of the past. The present shows a decided deterio- ration. Not only has the number of students devoting them- selves to Rabbinic literature shrunk to a miserable minimum, but the quality of the work produced by these latter-day

On the Study of the Talmud 55

students is such as to show a distinct decay, among the very few praise-worthy exceptions being, for instance, the theo- logical works of Dr. C. Taylor. No student who is interested in the constitution of the ancient Synagogue dare neglect Vitringa's De Synagoga vetere,, which appeared in the year 1696; but he would certainly lose nothing by omitting to read most of the productions of our own century on the same subject.

The causes of this decay are not to be sought for far off. There was first the influence of Schleiermacher, whose inter- pretation of Christianity formed, as far as its negative side is concerned, one long strained effort to divorce it from Judaism. "I hate historic relations of this sort," he exclaims in one place; and proceeds to say, "every religion is condi- tioned by itself, and forms an eternal necessity/' Scheier- macher's theory of the origin of Christianity was, as is well known, mainly based on the Johannine Gospel, to the dis- paragement of the Synoptics. The German Marcion had thus every reason to hate history. But as the Talmud still re- minded the world of these historical relations, Schleier- macher and his school adopted the course of vulgar parvenus, and cut the Rabbis and their literary remains. The second cause of this decay is the suspicion thrown on all Jewish tradition by the higher criticism. Anybody who has ever read any modern Introductions to the Old Testament will remem- ber, that as a rule they open with a reference to the Rabbinic account of the rise of the Canon, followed by a lengthy exposition showing its utter untrustworthiness. To make matters more complete, efforts were made to disqualify the Rabbis from bearing witness even to events which took place when the Synagogue was a fully-established institution, ad- ministered by the ancestors of the Rabbis in their capacity as scribes and saints, or Chasidim. I am referring to the con- troversy as to the existence of the so-called Great Synagogue,

56 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

commencing, according to tradition, with Ezra the Scribe, and succeeded by a permanent court, consisting of seventy- one members, called Sanhedrin; which court again was, ac- cording to tradition, presided over by two members, the one called Nasi, or Prince-President, whilst the other bore the title of Ab-Beth-Din, Father of the Court of Justice, or Vice- President, both of whom were recruited for the most part from Pharisaic circles. Modern criticism, mainly on the strength of certain passages in Josephus and in the New Testament, maintains a negative attitude toward these ac- counts. The questions involved are too important and too complicated to be entered upon in a casual way. We need notice only the following fact. This is that the doubts re- garding the traditional account of the constitution of the Sanhedrin were first raised in this century by Krochmal in the "forties," taken up again by Kuenen in the ''sixties/' to be followed by Wellhausen in the ''eighties." But when reading their works you will observe that, whilst Krochmal respectfully questions tradition, and Kuenen enters into elaborate examination of the documents, Wellhausen sum- marily dismisses them. Matters have now, indeed, come to such a pass that the principle has been laid down that it is not necessary to have a thorough knowledge of Rabbinic literature in order to express an opinion about its merits or demerits. It is probably thought that we may condemn it by mere intuition. It is impossible to argue with transcendental ignorance.

Trusting that none of those present have any reason to hate history, or to believe in the superior virtue of ignorance, I will now proceed to the subject of my lecture.

Let me first state the fact that the impression conveyed to the Rabbinic student by the perusal of the New Testament is in parts like that gained by reading certain Rabbinic homilies. On the very threshold of the New Testament he is

On the Study of the Talmud 57

confronted by a genealogical table,3 a feature not uncommon in the later Rabbinic versions of the Old Testament, which are rather fond of providing Biblical heroes with long pedi- grees. They are not always accurate, but have as a rule some edifying purpose in view. The Rabbis even declare that the Book of Chronicles, with its long series of names, has no other purpose than that of being interpreted,4 that is to say, of enabling us to derive some lesson from them. In the fifth chapter of the Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, dealing mostly with round numbers, we read: "There were ten generations from Noah to Abraham to make known how long-suffering God is."

In the second chapter of Matthew the Rabbinic student meets with many features known to him from the Rabbinic narratives about the birth of Abraham; the story of the Magi in particular impresses him as a homiletical illustration of Num. 24: 17, "There shall come a star out of Jacob," which star the interpretation of the Synagogue referred to the star of the Messiah.5 This impression grows stronger the more we advance with the reading of the Apostle's writings. Take, for instance, Matt. 3: 9, "Bring forth fruit worthy of repent- ance." This verse, like so many others in the New Testament in which fruits or harvest are used as metaphors or similes in parables, gains both in intensity and in freshness when studied in connexion with many allegorical interpretations of the Rabbis in which the produce of the field and the vineyard play a similar part. One or two instances will not be uninteresting. Thus, with reference to Song of Songs 2:2, "As the lily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters," a famous Rabbi says: There was a king who had a paradise (or garden), which he had laid out with rows of fig-trees, rows of vines, and rows of pomegranates. He put the paradise in the hands of a tenant, and left. In after days the king came to see what his tenant had accomplished. He f cmnd

58 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

the garden neglected, and full of thorns and thistles. He then brought woodcutters to cut it down. Suddenly he perceived a lily. The king plucked it, and smelled it, and his soul re- turned upon him. He turned and said, "For the sake of the lily the garden shall be saved/' The lily is the Congregation of Israel; intent on the strength of its devotion to the Torah, it saved the world from the destruction to which the gen- eration of the deluge had condemned it by their wicked deeds.6

In another place, however, it is the individual who is com- pared to the lily. Thus, Song of Songs 6: 2, "My beloved went down to his garden to gather the lilies," is applied to the death of the righteous, whose departure from this world is a gathering of flowers undertaken by God himself, who is the beloved one.7

In connexion with this we may mention another Rabbinic parable, in which the wheat takes the place of the lily. It is given as an illustration of Song of Songs 7: 3, and Psalm 2:12. The Scriptural words in the latter place are *Q IptPJ which the Rabbis explain to mean "kiss the wheat," illustrating it by the following parable: The straw and the chaff were argu- ing together. The straw maintained that it was for its sake that the field was sown and ploughed, whilst the stem insisted that it was on its account that the work was undertaken. Thereupon the wheat said, ''Wait until the harvest comes, and we shall know with what purpose the field was sown/' When the harvest came, and the work of threshing began, the chaff was scattered to the wind, the stem was given to the flames, whilst the wheat was carefully gathered on the floor. In a similar way the heathens say, "It is for our sake that the world was created/' whilst Israel makes the same claim for itself. But wait for the Day of Judgment, when the chaff will be eliminated, and the wheat will be kissed. I need hardly remind you of the parable in Matt. 13.*

On the Study of the Talmud 59

To return to Chapter 3. I will quote verse n, in which the Baptist in his testimony to Jesus says, "I, indeed, baptised you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire/' The baptism, of course, represents the rtf'Ota, or immersion, of the Bible, enforced by the Rabbis in the case of proselytes. Ac- cording to some authorities it was also customary with peo- ple entering on a course of repentance.9 The expression, "whose shoes I am not worthy to bear/' reminds one of the similar Talmudic phrase, running, "he who will explain to me a certain word, I will carry his cloth after him to the bath," 10 that is to say, he will show submission to his au- thority by performing menial work for him. As to the term, "baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire," the latter has a paral- lel in the Talmudic dictum, that in the main rft'OtD, immer- sion, as a means of purification, is by fire.11 The former term, * 'baptism by the Holy Ghost/' is certainly obscure, and has given a good deal of trouble to the commentators; but it must have been readily understood by the Jews, who even

spoke of drawing the Holy Spirit, tmpn rm r5W, a term applied only to liquids.12 Note also the following passage from a sermon by R. Akiba: "Blessed are ye Israelites. Be- fore whom are ye purified, and who is he who purifies you? Ye are purified before your Father in Heaven, and it is he who purifies you," as it is said, "The Lord is the Mikweh of Israel." 13 The word mpO is taken in the sense in which it occurs several times in the Pentateuch, meaning "a gathering of waters," or a ritual bath, taken after various kinds of uncleanness. The Rabbi then derives from the words of Jeremiah (17: 13) the lesson, that as the Mikweh is the means of purification for defilement (in the sense of the Levitical legislation), so God is the source of purity for Israel. It should be borne in mind, that according to the Rabbinic

60 STUDIES- IN JUDAISM

interpretation, the term nKDlfc, ''defilement/' applies to all kinds of sins, ritual as well as moral, especially the latter, whilst the process of purifying mostly concerns the heart. "Purify our hearts, that we serve thee in truth/' is the con- stant prayer, of the Synagogue.

niHD, or "purification," is, according to the mystic R. Phinehas ben Jair, of the second century, one of the higher rungs on the ladder leading to the attainment of the holy spirit.14 I do not know how far this conception may be con- nected with the gospel narrative, according to which the baptism of Jesus (or the Taharah of Jesus) was followed by the descent of the holy spirit. If R. Phinehas ben Jair could be taken, as some maintain, as one of the last representatives of. the Essenes, there would, indeed, be no objection to see in. the synoptic account an illustration of the principle laid down by these mystics. At any rate, it may serve as a transi- tion to the verses I am about to quote from Matt. 3 (16, 17), running thus: "And Jesus, when he was baptised, went up straightway from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him: and, lo, a voice out of the heavens saying, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." The symbolism of the Holy Ghost by a dove is a common notion in Rabbinic literature. The dove is considered as the most chaste among the birds, never forsaking her mate. The congregation of Israel, which never betrays its God, is there- fore compared to the dove.15 "Once upon a time," so runs a Rabbinic legend, which I give here in substance, "King David went out on a hawking expedition. Whereupon Satan came and turned himself into a deer, which David tried to hit, but could not reach. Constantly pursuing the animal, David was thus carried from his suite, owing to the machi- nations of Satan, into the land of the Philistines, where he was suddenly confronted by the relatives of Goliath, who

On the Study of the Talmud 61

were all thirsting for his blood. Thereupon a dove descended before Abishai, who had remained behind in the king's camp, and began to emit wailing tones. Abishai at once understood its meaning, saying, 'The congregation of Israel is compared to a dove, as it is said, Wings of a dove covered with silver' (Ps. 68: 14), and thus interpreted the appearance of the dove as a sign that King David, the hope of Israel, was in danger of his life, and he set out to his rescue." 16

A closer parallel, however, is the following passage at- tributed to the well-known mystic, Ben Soma, a younger contemporary of the Apostles. The passage runs thus: R. Joshua ben Hananiah was standing upon the terrace of the Temple mountain. Ben Soma saw him, but did not rise up before him (as he ought to have done, seeing that R. Joshua was his master). R. Joshua asked him, "Whence and whither, Ben Soma?" The answer Ben Soma gave him was, "I was looking at (or rather meditating upon) the upper waters (above the firmament) and the under waters (under the firmament). The space between the two waters is not broader than three fingers; as it is said, 'the Spirit of God was brood- ing upon the face of the waters/ like a dove brooding over her young, partly touching them and partly not touching them." 17

I need hardly say that we have here to deal with a frag- ment of a Jewish Gnosis, and I must refer the reader to the works of Joel, Graetz, and Freudenthal, for more informa- tion upon this point, but it must be noted that some parallel passages read "eagle" instead of "dove." Deut. 32: 11 lends some countenance to this reading, but the parallels just quoted from the New Testament as well as the famous vision of R. Jose, in which the daughter-voice is complaining in a tender voice like a dove, saying "Woe unto the father, whose children were expelled from his table," 18 speak for the read- ing given first.

62 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

After the appearance of the Holy Ghost, Jesus is greeted, as we have seen, by a voice from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." These words represent, as rightly remarked by the commentators, a com- bined paraphrase of Ps. 2: 7 and Isa. 41: i. The voice from heaven, as is well known, corresponds with the Rabbinic "daughter of a voice" pip ro), or daughter-voice, occupying the third place in the scale of revelation. I cannot enter here into the various aspects and functions of the daughter-voice, about which a good deal has been written, but I should like to note two peculiar features.19

The first is, that in many cases the daughter-voice, when employed as a means of revelation, finds its expression, not in a fresh message, but in reproducing some verse or sentence from the Hebrew Bible. Thus it is recorded by the Rabbis that when they (the authorities) intended to include King Solomon in the number of those who forfeited their salva- tion, the daughter-voice put in the protest of heaven, in the words of Job (34: 33), "Shall his recompense be as thou wilt, that thou refusest it?" 20 The great reconciliation, again, of God with the house of David, as represented by the exiled king Jeconiah, when the Babylonian captivity was nearing its end, was announced by the daughter-voice in the words of Jeremiah, "Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God" (3: 22).21 It should be noted, however, that the daughter-voice is not confined in its quotations to the Canonical Scriptures. Sometimes the daughter-voice even quotes sentences from the Apocrypha. This was the case in Jabneh, where the Sanhedrin met after the destruction of the Temple. There a voice from heaven was heard reproducing a verse from the Wisdom of Ben Sira (3: 22), "Ye have no need of the things that are secret." 22 It is true that Ben Sira has "thou hast no need" (in the singular), but it would seem as

On the Study of the Talmud 63

if the voice from heaven is not always very exact in its quotations, adapting them in its own way to the message to be announced. Thus, for instance, on the occasion of Saul's disobeying the commandment of God regarding the exter- mination of the Amalekites, there came the daughter-voice and said unto him, "Be not more righteous than thy Maker/' *plpD Trp pTffi ^S\23 We will easily recognise in this warning the words of Ecclesiastes (7: 16), "Be not righteous over- much," rmn pTSn !>tf, only that min was altered into in\ required by the prefix of 33TpD, which word was apparently added by the voice from heaven.

Another important feature of the daughter-voice is, that in some cases it is audible only to those who are prepared to hear it. "Every day/' says the rather mystically inclined R. Joshua ben Levi, "goes forth a voice from Mount Sinai, and makes proclamation and says, 'Woe to the creatures for their contempt of the Torah/ " As rightly pointed out by the commentators, this voice is heard only by fine, sensitive natures that are susceptible to Divine messages even after the discontinuance of prophecy.24 In this case the daughter- voice becomes something quite subjective, and loses a great deal of its authoritative character. The renegade Elisha ben Abuyah, or, as he is commonly called, inK the "other one," in his despair of "doing repentance," heard a voice coming straight from behind the throne of God, saying unto him, "Come back, ye backsliding children, except thou 'other one/ " and thus he abandoned himself to an immoral life.25 Contrast this story with that of Manasseh, the worst sinner among the kings of Judah. It is to this effect. When the captains of the King of Assyria defeated Manasseh and put him among thorns, and inflicted upon him the most cruel tortures, he invoked all the strange gods he was in the habit of worshipping, but no relief came. Suddenly he said, "I remember my father once made me read the following verses

64 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

(Deut. 4: 30, 31), 'When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, . . . return thou to the Lord thy God. For the Lord thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee nor destroy thee.' " He then began to address his prayers to God. The angels — in a most unangelic way, I am sorry to say — shut up the gates of heaven against his prayer, but the Holy One, blessed be he, said, " 'If I do not receive him, I shut the gate in the face of repentance/ And thus he was entreated of him and heard his supplication/ " 26 The moral of the two stories is, that the "other one" trusted to fresh messages, and went to perdition, while Manasseh fell back upon the family Bible and was saved. It is probable that it was such moral catastrophes as recorded in the case of the "other one" which brought the voice of heaven into disrepute. The verdict of the Rabbis in the second century was that no attention is to be paid to it when it presumes to decide against the moral conviction of the majority. The Torah is not in heaven.27 Its interpretation is left to the conscience of Catholic Israel.

Now it is this conscience of Israel which is not satisfied with the lesson to be derived from the Scriptures at the first glance, or rather the first hearing, but insists upon its ex- pansion. Thus when interpreting Lev. 19: 36, the Rabbis somehow managed to derive from it the law of "let your speech be yea, yea; nay, nay." 28 Again, when commenting upon the seventh commandment, they interpreted it in such a way as to include the prohibition of even an unchaste look or immoral thought.29 The rules of interpretation by which such maxims were derived from the Scriptures would per- haps not satisfy the modern philologian. They, indeed, be- long to the "second sense" of the Scriptures, the sense which is the heart and soul of all history and development. "God hath spoken once, twice I have heard this" (Ps. 62: 12), which verse is interpreted by the Rabbis to mean that Scrip-

On the Study of the Talmud 65

ture is capable of many interpretations or hearings.30 But it is interesting to find that these interpretations of the Scrip- tures tending to improve upon the ''first sense" are some- times introduced by the formula: "I might hear so-and-so, therefore there is a teaching to say that/' etc. "IDT? TiD^n . . „ UK pEW.31 Put into modern language the formula means this: The words of the Scriptures might be at the first glance (or first hearing) conceived to have this or that meaning, but if we consider the context or the way in which the sentences are worded, we must arrive at a different conclusion. This parallel may perhaps throw some light on the expression rjKovaart, "you have heard that it was said . . . but I say unto you/' a phrase frequent in the Sermon on the Mount. After the declaration made by Jesus of his attachment to the Torah, it is not likely that he would quote passages from it showing its inferiority. The only way to get over the diffi- culty is to assume that Jesus used some such phrase as the one just quoted, UK J?DW, "I might hear/' or "one might hear/' that is to say, "one might be mistaken in pressing the literal sense of the verses in question too closely." Against such a narrow way of dealing with Scripture he warned his disciples by some formula, as *1D1^ TID^D, "there is a teaching to say that the words must not be taken in such a sense." But the formula being a strictly Rabbinic idiom, it was not rendered quite accurately by the Greek translator. Hence the apparent contradiction between Matt. 3:17, 20, and the matter follow- ing upon these verses. I only wish to add that in Rabbinic literature it is sometimes God himself who undertakes such rectifications. Thus we read in an ancient Midrash with reference to Jer. 4: 2, "And thou shalt swear as the Lord liveth, in truth and in judgment": "The Holy One, blessed be he, said unto Israel, 'Think not that you may swear by my name, even in truth. You may not do so unless you have obtained that high degree of sanctity by which Abraham,

66 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

Joseph, and Job were distinguished, who were called God- fearing men (DTfttf 'W)/ " This limitation of swearing, even in truth, is indicated according to the Rabbis in Deut. 20: 10, which verse is interpreted to mean, "If thou fearest thy God, and art exclusively in his service, thou mayest swear by his name/' not otherwise.32

Having mentioned the name of the patriarch, I may perhaps state the fact that, beside the epithets "the God- fearing" Abraham, or Abraham "the friend of God/' Abra- ham also bears in Rabbinic literature the title of Rock. The wording of the Rabbinical passage and the terms used in it will not be uninteresting to the student of the New Testa- ment. In Matt. 16: 18 we read: "And I also say unto thee, that thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church." The Rabbinic passage forms an illustration of Num. 23: 9, "For from the top of the rocks I see him/' and runs thus: There was a king who desired to build, and to lay foundations he dug constantly deeper, but found only a swamp. At last he dug and found a petra (this is the very word the Rabbi uses). He said, "On this spot I shall build and lay the foundations." So the Holy One, blessed be he, desired to create the world, but meditating upon the gen- erations of Enoch and the deluge, he said, "How shall I create the world seeing that those wicked men will only provoke me?" But as soon as God perceived that there would rise an Abraham, he said, "Behold, I have found the petra upon which to build and to lay foundations." Therefore he called Abraham Rock, as it is said, "Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn. Look unto Abraham, your father" (Isa. 51: i, 2).33

The parallels given so far have been more according to the letter. I will now give one or two parallels according to the spirit.

I have already referred to the attempts made by various

On the Study of the Talmud 67

authors to describe the life and times of Jesus Christ. The best book of this class is undoubtedly Schiirer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. It is a very learned work, particularly as far as the Greek and Roman documents are concerned. Its treament of such topics as the geography of Palestine, the topography of Jerusalem, the plan of the Temple, and kindred subjects, is almost perfect. A most excellent feature in it is the completeness of its bibliography, there being hardly any dissertation or article in any of the learned periodicals which is not duly registered by the author. But all these fine things are, to use a quaint Rabbinic phrase, only ' 'after-courses of wisdom/* Bibliog- raphy in particular is not even an after-course. It partakes more of the nature of the menu served sometimes by very ignorant waiters, possessing neither judgment nor discretion. The general vice attaching to this whole class of works is, that no attempt is made in them to gain acquaintance with the inner life of the Jewish nation at the period about which they write. Take, for instance, the subject of prayer. Con- sidering that pre-Christian Judaism gave to the world the Psalms, and that post-Christian Judaism produced one of the richest liturgies; considering again that among the various prayers which have come down to us through the medium of the Talmud, there is also one that forms a close parallel to the ''Lord's Prayer"; considering all this, one might expect that also in the times of Jesus the Jews were able to pray, and in fact did pray. The contents of their prayers might be of the greatest importance for the student, expressing as they probably did the religious sentiments of the age and the ideal aspirations of the nation. But what our theological waiters dish up is a minimum of prayer dressed up in a quan- tity of rubrics, in such a fashion as to stigmatise their authors as miserable pedants. And no attempt is made to enter into the spirit of even this minimum. No explanation is given, for

68 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

instance, of the meaning of the terms "the kingdom of heaven/' the yoke of which the Rabbi was supposed to re- ceive upon himself, the "Hear, O Israel/' etc. The terms "sanctification of the name of God/' "Father in heaven," and "renewed world/' are also frequent in Jewish literature and in the Jewish prayer-book, but no sufficient attention is given to them. To my knowledge Dalman is the only modern Christian scholar who recognises the importance of these terms, and similar ones, in their bearing upon a clearer understanding of the New Testament, and has at least made an attempt at their analysis in his book, Die Worte Jesu.

Another important point, which has never been properly examined, is the unique position which the Keneseth Israel, the congregation of Israel, or ideal Israel, occupies in Rab- binic theology. Yet it forms a striking parallel to that held by Jesus in Christian theology. The Keneseth Israel was, like the Spirit of the Messiah, created before the world was called into existence. "She is the beloved of God, in whom he re- joices"; and there is no endearing epithet in the language, such as son, daughter, brother, sister, bride, mother, lamb, or eye, which is not, according to the Rabbis, applied by the Scriptures to express the intimate relation between God and the Keneseth Israel. Not even the title of "god/' of which God is otherwise so jealous, is denied to Israel, as it is written, "I have said, Ye are gods." Nay, God even says to Moses, "Exalt Israel as much as thou canst, for it is as if thou wert exalting me"; whilst he who denies Israel or rises against Israel denies God. In fact, it is only through the witness of Israel that God is God, and he would cease to be so were Israel to disappear, as it is written, "Ye are my witnesses, , . . and I am God." 34 But there is no fear of such a calam- ity. Israel is as eternal as the universe, and forms the rock on which the world was built. As a rock towering up in the sea, so the Keneseth Israel stands out in history, defying all

On the Study of the Talmud 69

tempests and temptations; for "many waters cannot quench the love" between God and the Keneseth Israel.35 She is, indeed, approached by Satan and the nations of the world with the seducing words, "What is thy beloved more than another? Beautiful and lovely thou art, if thou wilt mingle among us. Why dost thou permit thyself to go through fire for his sake, to be crucified for his name? Come unto us, where all the dignities in our power await thee." But Israel resists all temptations; they point to their connexion with God throughout their history, to His love unto them, shown by conferring upon them the gift of holiness, which even a Balaam envied, and to the promise held out to them of the Messianic times, when suffering will cease and Israel will revel in the glory of God.36 These few quotations suffice to show what an interesting chapter might be added to our knowledge of comparative theology.

Again, our knowledge of the spiritual history of the Jews during the first centuries of our era might be enriched by a chapter on miracles. Starting from the principle that mira- cles can be explained only by more miracles, an attempt was made some years ago by a student to draw up a list of the wonder-workings of the Rabbis recorded in the Talmud and the Midrashim. He applied himself to the reading of these works, but his reading was only cursory. The list therefore is not complete. Still it yielded a harvest of not less than two hundred and fifty miracles. They cover all classes of super- natural workings recorded in the Bible, but occur with much greater frequency.

A repetition of these miracles would be tiresome. I will content myself with reproducing a story from Tractate Chagigah, which will illustrate to you how much even the individual Jew shared in the glories conferred upon the Keneseth Israel. I am speaking, of course, of that individual who is described by the Rabbis as one "who labours in the

70 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

Torah for its own sake, who is called a lover of God and a lover of humanity. Unto him kingdom and authority are given. Unto him the secrets of the Torah are revealed." The term "authority/* by the way, is given with the word suggested probably by Ben Sira 45: 17, ttS^Dl pim "and he made him have authority over statute and judg- ment"; whilst Matt. 7: 29, "and he taught them as one hav- ing authority/' was probably suggested by Ben Sira 3: 10, nnt^ i"D ^tntDl, "and he who has authority over it shall teach it." As a man of such authority we may consider R. Johanan ben Zakkai, the hero of the story I am about to relate. He was the younger member of the "Eighty Club" of the school of Hillel, and thus a contemporary of the Apostles, though he survived them. He was an eye-witness of the terrible catastrophe of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, an event which he prophesied forty years before it took place. He is best known by the school he established in Jab- neh, whither the Sanhedrin, and with them the Divine Pres- ence presiding over this assembly, emigrated after the fall of Jerusalem. There (in Jabneh) he died about 108 C.E.

It is related that Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai was riding upon his ass on the road, while his pupil, R. Eleazar ben Arach, was walking behind him. Said R. Eleazar to him, "Master, teach me a chapter about the matter relating to the chariot," that is, the vision in the first chapter of Ezekiel. The master declined, preferring to hear the pupil. R. Eleazar said again, "Wilt thou permit me to repeat in thy presence one thing which thou has taught me?" to which he gave his assent. R. Johanan then dismounted from his ass, and wrapped himself in his gown, and seated himself upon a stone under an olive-tree. He said it was disrespectful that he should be riding on his beast, whilst his pupil was lecturing on such awful mysteries, and the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) and the Malache ha-Shareth (the angels-in-waiting)

On the Study of the Talmud 71

were accompanying them. Immediately R. Eleazar began his exposition. And there came down fire from heaven and en- circled them and the whole field. And the angels assembled and came to hearken, as the sons o£ men assemble and come to look on at the festivities of bride and bridegroom. And the terebinth-trees in the field opened their mouths and uttered a song, "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons and all deeps. . . . Fruitful trees and all cedars, . . . praise ye the Lord." And an angel answered from the fire and said, "This is the matter of the chariot." When he had finished, R. Johanan ben Zakkai stood up and kissed him on his head, saying, "Praised be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has given our father Abraham a wise son, who knows how to discourse on the glory of our Father in heaven." So much for the story. I need hardly recall to your mind the parallels in the Book of Enoch and in the New Testament.37 My lecture is at an end, not so the subject it treats. To accomplish the latter in a properly critical and scientific manner the aid of fellow-workers is necessary. I have often heard the wish expressed that a history of the rise of Chris- tianity might be written by a Jew who could bring Rabbinic learning to bear upon the subject. I do not think that the time is as yet ripe for such an experiment. The best thing to be done at present is, that Christians devote themselves to the study of Rabbinic literature. The history which would be written after such study would certainly be more scientific and more critical, though perhaps less edifying.

THE DOGMAS OF JUDAISM

THE object of this essay is to say about the dogmas of Juda- ism a word which I think ought not to be left unsaid.

In speaking of dogmas it must be understood that Judaism does not ascribe to them any saving power. The belief in a dogma or a doctrine without abiding by its real or supposed consequences (e.g. the belief in creatio ex nihilo without keeping the Sabbath) is of no value. And the question about certain doctrines is not whether they possess or do not possess the desired charm against certain diseases of the soul, but whether they ought to be considered as characteristics of Judaism or not.

It must again be premised that the subject, which oc- cupied the thoughts of the greatest and noblest Jewish minds for so many centuries, has been neglected for a comparatively long time. And this for various reasons. First, there is Men- delssohn's assertion, or supposed assertion, in his Jerusalem, that Judaism has no dogmas — an assertion which has been accepted by the majority of modern Jewish theologians as the only dogma Judaism possesses. You can hear it pronounced in scores of Jewish pulpits; you can read it written in scores of Jewish books. To admit the possibility that Mendelssohn

73

74 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

was in error was hardly permissible, especially for those with whom he enjoys a certain infallibility. Nay, even the fact that he himself was not consistent in his theory, and on another occasion declared that Judaism has dogmas, only that they are purer and more in harmony with reason than those of other religions; or even the more important fact that he published a school-book for children, in which the so-called Thirteen Articles were embodied, only that instead of the formula "I believe," he substituted "I am convinced/' — even such patent facts did not produce much effect upon many of our modern theologians.1 They were either over- looked or explained away so as to make them harmonise with the great dogma of dogmalessness. For it is one of the at- tributes of infallibility that the words of its happy possessor must always be reconcilable even when they appear to the eye of the unbeliever as gross contradictions.

Another cause of the neglect into which the subject has fallen is that our century is an historical one. It is not only books that have their fate, but also whole sciences and litera- tures. In past times it was religious speculation that formed the favourite study of scholars, in our time it is history with its critical foundation on a sound philology. Now as these two most important branches of Jewish science were so long neglected — were perhaps never cultivated in the true mean- ing of the word, and as Jewish literature is so vast and Jewish history so far-reaching and eventful, we cannot wonder that these studies have absorbed the time and the labour of the greatest and best Jewish writers in this century.

There is, besides, a certain tendency in historical studies that is hostile to mere theological speculation. The historian deals with realities, the theologian with abstractions. The latter likes to shape the universe after his system, and tells us how things ought to be, the former teaches us how they are or have been, and the explanation he gives for their being so

The Dogmas of Judaism 75

and not otherwise includes in most cases also a kind of justi- fication for their existence. There is also the odium theo- logicum, which has been the cause of so much misfortune that it is hated by the historian, whilst the superficial, ration- alistic way in which the theologian manages to explain every- thing which does not suit his system is most repulsive to the critical spirit.

But it cannot be denied that this neglect has caused much confusion. Especially is this noticeable in England, which is essentially a theological country, and where people are but little prone to give up speculation about things which con- cern their most sacred interest and greatest happiness. Thus whilst we are exceedingly poor in all other branches of Jewish learning, we are comparatively rich in productions of a theological character. We have a superfluity of essays on such delicate subjects as eternal punishment, immortality of the soul, the day of judgment, etc., and many treatises on the definition of Judaism. But knowing little or nothing of the progress recently made in Jewish theology, of the many protests against all kinds of infallibility, whether canonised in this century or in olden times, we in England still main- tain that Judaism has no dogmas as if nothing to the contrary had ever been said. We seek the foundation of Judaism in political economy, in hygiene, in everything except religion. Following the fashion of the day to esteem religion in pro- portion to its ability to adapt itself to every possible and impossible metaphysical and social system, we are anxious to squeeze out of Judaism the last drop of faith and hope, and strive to make it so flexible that we can turn it in every direction which it is our pleasure to follow. But alas! the flexibility has progressed so far as to classify Judaism among the invertebrate species, the lowest order of living things. It strongly resembles a certain Christian school which addresses itself to the world in general and claims to satisfy everybody

76 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

alike. It claims to be socialism for the adherents of Karl Marx and Lassalle, worship of man for the followers of Comte and St. Simon; it carefully avoids the word "God" for the com- fort of agnostics and sceptics, whilst on the other hand it pretends to hold sway over paradise, hell, and immortality for the edification of believers. In such illusions many of our theologians delight. For illusions they are; you cannot be everything if you want to be anything. Moreover, illusions in themselves are bad enough, but we are menaced with what is still worse. Judaism, divested of every higher religious motive, is in danger of falling into gross materialism. For what else is the meaning of such declarations as ''Believe what you like, but conform to this or that mode of life"; what else does it mean but "We cannot expect you to believe that the things you are bidden to do are commanded by a higher authority; there is not such a thing as belief, but you ought to do them for conventionalism or for your own con- venience."

But both these motives — the good opinion of our neigh- bours, as well as our bodily health — have nothing to do with our nobler and higher sentiments, and degrade Judaism to a matter of expediency or diplomacy. Indeed, things have ad- vanced so far that well-meaning but ill-advised writers even think to render a service to Judaism by declaring it to be a kind of enlightened Hedonism, or rather a moderate Epicu- reanism.

I have no intention of here answering the question, What is Judaism? This question is not less perplexing than the problem, What is God's world? Judaism is also a great In- finite, composed of as many endless Units, the Jews. And these Unit-Jews have been, and are still, scattered through all the world, and have passed under an immensity of in- fluences, good and bad. If so, how can we give an exact definition of the Infinite, called Judaism?

The Dogmas of Judaism 77

But if there is anything sure, it is that the highest motives which worked through the history of Judaism are the strong belief in God and the unshaken confidence that at last this God, the God of Israel, will be the God of the whole world; or, in other words, Faith and Hope are the two most promi- nent characteristics of Judaism.

In the following pages I shall try to give a short account of the manner in which these two principles of Judaism found expression, from the earliest times down to the age of Mendelssohn; that is, to present an outline of the history of Jewish Dogmas. First, a few observations on the position of the Bible and the Talmud in relation to our theme. In- sufficient and poor as they may be in proportion to the im- portance of these two fundamental documents of Judaism, these remarks may nevertheless suggest a connecting link between the teachings of Jewish antiquity and those of Mai- monides and his successors.

I begin with the Scriptures.

The Bible itself hardly contains a command bidding us to believe. We are hardly ordered, e.g.,, to believe in the existence of God. I say hardly, but I do not altogether deny the existence of such a command. It is true that we do not find in the Scripture such words as: "You are commanded to believe in the existence of God/' Nor is any punishment assigned as awaiting him who denies it. Notwithstanding these facts, many Jewish authorities — among them such im- portant men as Maimonides, R. Judah Hallevi, Nachmanides — perceive, in the first words of the Ten Commandments, "I am the Lord thy God/' the command to believe in His existence.2

Be this as it may, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt that the Bible, in which every command is dictated by God, and in which all its heroes are the servants, the friends, or the ambassadors of God, presumes such a belief in every one to

78 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

whom those laws are dictated, and these heroes address them- selves. Nay, I think that the word "belief is not even ade- quate. In a world with so many visible facts and invisible causes, as life and death, growth and decay, light and dark- ness; in a world where the sun rises and sets; where the stars appear regularly; where heavy rains pour down from the sky, often accompanied by such grand phenomena as thunder and lightning; in a world full of such marvels, but into which no notion has entered of all our modern true or false explana- tions— who but God is behind all these things? "Have the gates," asks God, ''have the gates of death been open to thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? . . . Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof? . . . Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? . . . Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? . . . Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say anto thee, Here we are?" (Job xxxviii). Of all these wonders, God was not merely the prima causa; they were the result of His direct action, without any intermediary causes. And it is as absurd to say that the ancient world believed in God, as for a future historian to assert of the nineteenth century that it believed in the effects of electricity. We see them, and so antiquity saw God. If there was any danger, it lay not in the denial of the existence of a God, but in having a wrong belief. Belief in as many gods as there are manifestations in nature, the investing of them with false attributes, the mis- understanding of God's relation to men, lead to immortality. Thus the greater part of the laws and teachings of the Bible are either directed against polytheism, with all its low ideas of God, or rather of gods; or they are directed towards regu- lating God's relation to men. Man is a servant of God, or His prophet, or even His friend. But this relationship man obtains only by his conduct. Nay, all man's actions are care-

The Dogmas of Judaism 79

fully regulated by God, and connected with his holiness. The igth chapter of Leviticus, which is considered by the Rabbis as the portion of the Law in which the most important articles of the Torah are embodied, is headed, "Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your own God am holy/' And each law therein occurring, even those which concern our relations to each other, is not founded on utilitarian reasons, but is or- dained because the opposite of it is an offense to the holiness of God, and profanes His creatures, whom He desired to be as holy as He is.3

Thus the whole structure of the Bible is built upon the visible fact of the existence of a God, and upon the belief in the relation of God to men, especially to Israel. In spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the Bible does lay stress upon belief, where belief is required. The unbelievers are rebuked again and again. "For all this they sinned still, and believed not for His wondrous work," complains Asaph (Ps. Ixxviii. 32). And belief is praised in such exalted words as, "Thus saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown" (Jer. ii. 2). The Bible, especially the books of the prophets, consists, in great part, of promises for the future, which the Rabbis justly termed the "Consolations." 4 For our purpose, it is of no great consequence to examine what future the prophets had in view, whether an immediate future or one more remote, at the end of days. At any rate, they inculcated hope and confidence that God would bring to pass a better time. I think that even the most advanced Bible critic — provided he is not guided by some modern Aryan reasons — must perceive in such passages as, "The Lord shall reign for ever and ever," "The Lord shall rejoice in his works," and many others, a hope for more than the establishment of the "national Deity among his votaries in Palestine."

80 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

We have now to pass over an interval of many centuries, the length of which depends upon the views held as to the date of the close of the canon, and examine what the Rabbis, the representatives of the prophets, thought on this subject. Not that the views of the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, of Philo and Aristobulus, and many others of the Judaeo- Alexandrian school would be uninteresting for us. But some- how their influence on Judaism was only a passing one, and their doctrines never became authoritative in the Synagogue. We must here confine ourselves to those who, even by the testimony of their bitterest enemies, occupied the seat of Moses.

The successors of the prophets had to deal with new cir- cumstances, and accordingly their teachings were adapted to the wants of their times. As the result of manifold foreign influences, the visible fact of the existence of God as mani- fested in the Bible had been somewhat obscured. Prophecy ceased, and the Holy Spirit which inspired a few chosen ones took its place. Afterwards this influence was reduced to the hearing of a Voice from Heaven, which was audible to still fewer. On the other hand the Rabbis had this advantage, that they were not called upon to fight against idolatry as their predecessors the prophets had been. The evil inclination to worship idols was, as the Talmud expresses it allegorically, killed by the Men of the Great Synagogue, or, as we should put it, it was suppressed by the sufferings of the captivity in Babylon. This change of circumstances is marked by the following fact: — Whilst the prophets mostly considered idolatry as the cause of all sin, the Rabbis show a strong tendency to ascribe sin to a defect in, or a want of, belief on the part of the sinner. They teach that Adam would not have sinned unless he had first denied the "Root of all" (or the main principle), namely, the belief in the Omnipresence of God. Of Cain they say that before murdering his brother he

The Dogmas of Judaism 81

declared: "There is no judgment, there is no judge, there is no world to come, and there is no reward for the just, and no punishment for the wicked." 5

In another place we read that the commission of a sin in secret is an impertinent attempt by the doer to oust God from the world. But if unbelief is considered as the root of all evil, we may expect that the reverse of it, a perfect faith, would be praised in the most exalted terms. So we read: Faith is so great that the man who possesses it may hope to become a worthy vessel of the Holy Spirit, or, as we should express it, that he may hope to obtain by this power the highest degree of communion with his Maker. The Patriarch Abra- ham, notwithstanding all his other virtues, only became "the possessor of both worlds" by the merit of his strong faith. Nay, even the fulfilment of a single law when accompanied by true faith is, according to the Rabbis, sufficient to bring man nigh to God. And the future redemption is also condi- tional on the degree of faith shown by Israel.6

It has often been asked what the Rabbis would have thought of a man who fulfils every commandment of the Torah, but does not believe that this Torah was given by God, or that there exists a God at all. It is indeed very difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty. In the time of the Rabbis people were still too simple for such a diplomatic religion, and conformity in the modern sense was quite an unknown thing. But from the foregoing remarks it would seem that the Rabbis could not conceive such a monstrosity as atheistic orthodoxy. For, as we have seen, the Rabbis thought that unbelief must needs end in sin, for faith is the origin of all good. Accordingly, in the case just supposed they would have either suspected the man's ortho- doxy, or would have denied that his views were really what he professed them to be.

Still more important than the above cited Agadic passages

82 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

is one which we are about to quote from the tractate Sanhe- drin. This tractate deals with the constitution of the supreme law-court, the examination of the witnesses, the functions of the judges, and the different punishment to be inflicted on the transgressors of the law. After having enumerated various kinds of capital punishment, the Mishnah adds the following words: "These are (the men) who are excluded from the life to come: He who says there is no resurrection from death; he who says there is no Torah given from heaven, and the Epikurus." 7 This passage was considered by the Rabbis of the Middle Ages, as well as by modern scholars, the locus classicus for the dogma question. There are many passages in the Rabbinic literature which exclude man from the world to come for this or that sin. But these are more or less of an Agadic (legendary) character, and thus lend them- selves to exaggeration and hyperbolic language. They cannot, therefore, be considered as serious legal dicta, or as the general opinion of the Rabbis.

The Mishnah in Sanhedrin, however, has, if only by its position in a legal tractate, a certain Halachic (obligatory) character. And the fact that so early an authority as R. Akiba made additions to it guarantees its high antiquity. The first two sentences of this Mishnah are clear enough. In modern language, and positively speaking, they would represent articles of belief in Resurrection and Revelation. Great dif- ficulty is found in defining what was meant by the word Epikurus. The authorities of the Middle Ages, to whom I shall again have to refer, explain the Epikurus to be a man who denies the belief in reward and punishment; others identify him with one who denies the belief in Providence; while others again consider the Epikurus to be one who denies Tradition. But the parallel passages in which it occurs incline one rather to think that this word cannot be defined by one kind of heresy. It implies rather a frivolous treatment

The Dogmas of Judaism 83

of the words of Scripture or of Tradition. In the case of the latter (Tradition) it is certainly not honest difference of opinion that is condemned; for the Rabbis themselves dif- fered very often from each other, and even Mediaeval au- thorities did not feel any compunction about explaining Scripture in variance with the Rabbinic interpretation, and sometimes they even went so far as to declare that the view of this or that great authority was only to be considered as an isolated opinion not deserving particular attention. What they did blame was, as already said, scoffing and impiety. We may thus safely assert that reverence for the teachers of Israel formed the third essential principle of Judaism.8

I have still to remark that there occur in the Talmud such passages as "the Jew, even if he has sinned, is still a Jew," or "He who denies idolatry is called a Jew." These and similar passages have been used to prove that Judaism was not a positive religion, but only involved the negation of idolatry. But it has been overlooked that the statements quoted have more a legal than a theological character. The Jew belonged to his nationality even after having committed the greatest sin, just as the Englishman does not cease to be an English- man— in regard to treason and the like — by having com- mitted a heinous crime. But he has certainly acted in a very un-English way, and having outraged the feelings of the whole nation will have to suffer for his misconduct. The Rabbis in a similar manner did not maintain that he who gave up the belief in Revelation and Resurrection, and treated irreverently the teachers of Israel, severed his con- nection with the Jewish nation, but that, for his crime, he was going to suffer the heaviest punishment. He was to be excluded from the world to come.

Still, important as is the passage quoted from Sanhedrin, it would be erroneous to think that it exhausted the creed of the Rabbis. The liturgy and innumerable passages in the

84 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

Midrashim show that they ardently clung to the belief in the advent of the Messiah. All their hope was turned to the future redemption and the final establishment of the King- dom of Heaven on earth. Judaism, stripped of this belief, Would have been for them devoid of meaning. The belief in reward and punishment is also repeated again and again in the old Rabbinic literature. A more emphatic declaration of the belief in Providence than is conveyed by the following passages is hardly conceivable. "Everything is foreseen, and free will is given. And the world is judged by grace." Or, "the born are to die, and the dead to revive, and the living to be judged. For to know and to notify, and that it may be known that He (God) is the Framer and He the Creator, and He the Discerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness/' etc.9

But it must not be forgotten that it was not the habit of the Rabbis to lay down, either for conduct or for doctrine, rules which were commonly known. When they urged the three points stated above there must have been some his- torical reason for it. Probably these principles were con- troverted by some heretics. Indeed, the whole tone of the passage cited from Sanhedrin is a protest against certain unbelievers who are threatened with punishment. Other beliefs, not less essential, but less disputed, remain un- mentioned, because there was no necessity to assert them.

It was not till a much later time, when the Jews came into closer contact with new philosophical schools, and also new creeds which were more liable than heathenism was to be confused with Judaism, that this necessity was felt. And thus we are led at once to the period when the Jews became ac- quainted with the teachings of the Mohammedan schools. The Caraites came very early into contact with non-Jewish systems. And so we find that they were also the first to formu- late Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a systematic order. It is also possible that their separation from the

The Dogmas of Judaism 85

Tradition, and their early division into little sects among themselves, compelled them to take this step, in order to avoid further sectarianism.

The number of their dogmas amounts to ten. According to Judah Hadasi (1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their dogmas include the follow- ing articles: i. Creatio ex nihilo; 2. The existence of a Creator, God; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as incorporeal; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God; 5. God has given to us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not wanting the addition of the so-called Oral Law; 6. The Torah must be studied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language; 7. The Holy Temple was a place elected by God for His manifestation; 8. Resur- rection of the dead; 9. Punishment and reward after death; 10. The Coming of the Messiah, the son of David.

How far the predecessors of Hadasi were influenced by a certain Joseph Albashir (about 950), of whom there exists a manuscript work, "Rudiments of Faith/' I am unable to say. The little we know of him reveals more of his intimacy with Arabic thoughts than of his importance for his sect in particular and for Judaism in general. After Hadasi I shall mention here Elijah Bashazi, a Caraite writer of the end of the fifteenth century. This author, who was much influenced by Maimonides, omits the second and the seventh articles. In order to make up the ten he numbers the belief in the eternity of God as an article, and divides the fourth article into two. In the fifth article Bashazi does not emphasise so strongly the completeness of the Torah as Hadasi, and omits the portion which is directed against Tradition. It is inter- esting to see the distinction which Bashazi draws between the Pentateuch and the Prophets. While he thinks that the five books of Moses can never be altered, he regards the words of the Prophets as only relating to their contempo-

86 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

raries, and thus subject to changes. As I do not want to antic- ipate Maimonides' system, I must refrain from giving here the articles laid down by Solomon Troki in the beginning of the eighteenth century. For the articles of Maimonides are copied by this writer with a few slight alterations so as to dress them in a Caraite garb.

I must dismiss the Caraites with these few remarks, my object being chiefly to discuss the dogmas of the Synagogue from which they had separated themselves. Besides, as in everything Caraitic, there is no further development of the question. As Bashazi laid them down, they are still taught by the Caraites of to-day. I return to the Rabbanites.10

As is well known, Maimonides (1130-1205), was the first Rabbanite who formulated the dogmas of the Synagogue. But there are indications of earlier attempts. R. Saadiah Gaon's (892-942) work, Creeds and Opinions, shows such traces. He says in his preface, "My heart sickens to see that the belief of my co-religionists is impure and that their theological views are confused." The subjects he treats in this book, such as creation, unity of God, resurrection of the dead, the future redemption of Israel, reward and punish- ment, and other kindred theological subjects might thus, perhaps, be considered as the essentials of the creed that the Gaon desired to present in a pure and rational form. R. Hannaneel, of Kairowan,11 in the first half of the eleventh century, says in one of his commentaries that to deserve eternal life one must believe in four things: in God, in the prophets, in a future world where the just will be rewarded, and in the advent of the Redeemer. From R. Judah Hallevi's Cusari, written in the beginning of the twelfth century, we might argue that the belief in the election of Israel by God was the cardinal dogma of the author.12 Abraham Ibn Daud, a contemporary of Maimonides, in his book The High Belief,13 speaks of rudiments, among which, besides such.

The Dogmas of Judaism 87

metaphysical principles as unity, rational conception of God's attributes, etc., the belief in the immutability of the Law, etc., is included. Still, all these works are intended to furnish evidence from philosophy or history for the truth of religion rather than to give a definition of this truth. The latter task was undertaken by Maimonides.

I refer to the thirteen articles embodied in his first work, The Commentary to the Mishnah. They are appended to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin, with which I dealt above. But though they do not form an independent treatise, Maimonides' remarks must not be considered as merely incidental.

That Maimonides was quite conscious of the importance of this exposition can be gathered from the concluding words addressed to the reader: "Know these (words) and repeat them many times, and think them over in the proper way. God knows that thou wouldst be deceiving thyself if thou thinkest thou hast understood them by having read them once or even ten times. Be not, therefore, hasty in perusing them. I have not composed them without deep study and earnest reflection."

The result of this deep study was that the following Thirteen Articles constitute the creed of Judaism. They are:

i. The belief in the existence of a Creator; 2. The belief in His Unity; 3. The belief in His Incorporeality; 4. The belief in His Eternity; 5. The belief that all worship and adoration are due to Him alone; 6. The belief in Prophecy; 7. The belief that Moses was the greatest of all Prophets, both before and after him; 8. The belief that the Torah was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai; 9. The belief in the Immutability of this revealed Torah; 10. The belief that God knows the actions of men; 11. The belief in Reward and Punishment; 12. The belief in the coming of the Messiah; 13. The belief in the Resurrection of the dead.

The impulse given by the great philosopher and still

88 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

greater Jew was eagerly followed by succeeding generations, and Judaism thus came into possession of a dogmatic litera- ture such as it never knew before Maimonides, Maimonides is the centre of this literature, and I shall accordingly speak in the remainder of this essay of Maimonists and Anti-Mai- monists. These terms really apply to the great controversy that raged round Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed, but I shall, chiefly for brevity's sake, employ them in these pages in a restricted sense to refer to the dispute concerning the Thirteen Articles.

Among the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews, who accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides must indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap, moreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century had hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the poets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show a poem or a prayer founded on these Articles. R. Jacob Molin (1420) of Germany speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the burden of which was the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the common people with great devotion. The numer- ous commentaries and homilies written on the same topic would form a small library in themselves.14 But on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti-Maimonists, that is to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated by Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong and respectable minority. They deserve our attention the more as it is their works which brought life into the subject and deepened it. It is not by a perpetual Amen to every utterance of a great authority that truth or literature gains anything.

The Anti-Maimonists can be divided into two classes. The one class categorically denies that Judaism has dogmas. I shall

The Dogmas of Judaism 89

have occasion to touch on this view when I come to speak of Abarbanel. Here I pass at once to the second class of Anti- Maimonists. This consists of those who agree with Mai- monides as to the existence of dogmas in Judaism, but who differ from him as to what these dogmas are, or who give a different enumeration of them.

As the first of these Anti-Maimonists we may regard Nachmanides, who, in his famous Sermon in the Presence of the King, speaks of three fundamental principles: Creation (that is, non-eternity of matter), Omniscience of God, and Providence. Next comes R. Abba Mari ben Moses, of Mont- pellier. He wrote at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and is famous in Jewish history for his zeal against the study of philosophy. We possess a small pamphlet by him dealing with our subject, and it forms a kind of prologue to his collection of controversial letters against the rationalists of his time.15 He lays down three articles as the fundamental teachings of Religion: i. Metaphysical: The existence of God, including His Unity and Incorporeality; 2. Mosaic: Creatio ex nihilo by God — a consequence of this principle is the belief that God is capable of altering the laws of nature at His pleasure; 3. Ethical: Special Providence — i.e. God knows all our actions in all their details. Abba Mari does not mention Maimonides' Thirteen Articles. But it would be false to conclude that he rejected the belief in the coming of the Messiah, or any other article of Maimonides. The whole tone and tendency of this pamphlet is polemical, and it is therefore probable that he only urged those points which were either doubted or explained in an unorthodox way by the sceptics of his time.

Another scholar, of Provence, who wrote but twenty years later than Abba Mari — R. David ben Samuel d'Estella (1320) — speaks of the seven pillars of religion. They are: Reve- lation, Providence, Reward and Punishment, the Coming

90 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

of the Messiah, Resurrection of the Dead, Creatio ex nihilo, and Free Will.1'

Of authors living in other countries, I have to mention here R. Shemariah, of Crete, who flourished at about the same time as R. David d'Estella, and is known from his efforts to reconcile the Caraites with the Rabbanites. This author wrote a book for the purpose of furnishing Jewish students with evidence for what he considered the five fundamental teachings of Judaism, viz.: i. The Existence of God; 2. The Incorporeality of God; 3. His Absolute Unity; 4, That God created heaven and earth; 5. That God created the world after His will 5106 years ago — 5106 (1346 A.C.) being the year in which Shemariah wrote these words.17

In Portugal, at about the same time, we find R. David ben Yom-Tob Bilia adding to the articles of Maimonides thirteen of his own, which he calls the ' 'Fundamentals of the Think- ing Man." Five of these articles relate to the functions of the human soul, that, according to him, emanated from God, and to the way in which this divine soul receives its punish- ment and reward. The other eight articles are as follows:

1. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings — angels;

2. Creatio ex nihilo; 3. The belief in the existence of another world, and that this other world is only a spiritual one; 4. The Torah is above philosophy; 5. The Torah has an out- ward (literal) meaning and an inward (allegorical) meaning;

6. The text of the Torah is not subject to any emendation;

7. The reward of a good action is the good work itself, and the doer must not expect any other reward; 8. It is only by the "commands relating to the heart," for instance, the belief in one eternal God, the loving and fearing Him, and not through good actions, that man attains the highest degree of perfection.18 Perhaps it would be suitable to mention here another contemporaneous writer, who also enumerates

The Dogmas of Judaism 91

twenty-six articles. The name of this writer is unknown, and his articles are only gathered from quotations by later authors. It would seem from these quotations that the articles of his unknown author consisted mostly of statements em- phasising the belief in the attributes of God: as, His Eternity, His Wisdom and Omnipotence, and the like.19

More important for our subject are the productions of the fifteenth century, especially those of Spanish authors. The fifteen articles of R. Lipman Muhlhausen, in the preface to his well-known Book of Victory20 (1410), differ but slightly from those of Maimonides. In accordance with the anti- Christian tendency of his polemical book, he lays more stress on the two articles of Unity and Incorporeality, and makes of them four. We can therefore dismiss him with this short remark, and pass at once to the Spanish Rabbis.

The first of these is R. Chasdai Ibn Crescas, who composed his famous treatise, The Light of God} about 1405. Chasdai's book is well known for its attacks on Aristotle, and also for its influence on Spinoza. But Chasdai deals also with Mai- monides' Thirteen Articles, to which he was very strongly opposed. Already in his preface he attacks Maimonides for speaking, in his Book of the Commandments, of the belief in the existence of God as an "affirmative precept." Chasdai thinks it absurd; for every commandment must be dictated by some authority, but on whose authority can we dictate the acceptance of this authority? His general objection to the Thirteen Articles is that Maimonides confounded dogmas or fundamental beliefs of Judaism, without which Judaism is inconceivable, with beliefs or doctrines which Judaism in- culcates, but the denial of which, though involving a strong heresy, does not make Judaism impossible. He maintains that if Maimonides meant only to count fundamental teachings, there are not more than seven; but that if he intended also to

92 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

include doctrines, he ought to have enumerated sixteen. As beliefs of the first class — namely, fundamental beliefs — he considers the following articles: i. God's knowledge of our actions; 2. Providence; 3. God's omnipotence — even to act against the laws of nature; 4. Prophecy; 5. Free will; 6. The aim of the Torah is to make man long after the closest com- munion with God. The belief in the existence of God, Chasdai thinks, is an axiom with which every religion must begin, and he is therefore uncertain whether to include it as a dogma or not. As to the doctrines which every Jew is bound to believe, but without which Judaism is not impossible, Chasdai divides them into two sections: (a) i. Creatio ex nihilo; 2. Immortality of the soul; 3. Reward and Punish- ment; 4. Resurrection of the dead; 5. Immutability of the Torah; 6. Superiority of the prophecy of Moses; 7. That the High Priest received from God the instructions sought for, when he put his questions through the medium of the Urim and Thummim; 8. The coming of the Messiah. (V) Doctrines which are expressed by certain religious cere- monies, and on belief in which these ceremonies are condi- tioned: i. The belief in the efficacy of prayer — as well as in the power of the benediction of the priests to convey to us the blessing of God; 2. God is merciful to the penitent; 3. Certain days in the year — for instance, the Day of Atonement — are especially qualified to bring us near to God, if we keep them in the way we are commanded. That Chasdai is a little arbi- trary in the choice of his "doctrines," I need hardly say. Indeed, Chasdai's importance for the dogma-question consists more in his critical suggestions than in his positive results. He was, as we have seen, the first to make the distinction between fundamental teachings which form the basis of Judaism, and those other simple Jewish doctrines without which Judaism is not impossible. Very daring is his remark, when proving that Reward and Punishment, Immortality

The Dogmas of Judaism 93

of the soul, and Resurrection of the dead must not be con- sidered as the basis of Judaism, since the highest ideal of religion is to serve God without any hope of reward. Even more daring are his words concerning the Immutability of the Law. He says: "Some have argued that, since God is perfection, so must also His law be perfect, and thus un- susceptible of improvement." But he does not think this argument conclusive, though the fact in itself (the Immuta- bility of the Law) is true. For one might answer that this perfection of the Torah could only be in accordance with the intelligence of those for whom it was meant; but as soon as the recipients of the Torah have advanced to a higher state of perfection, the Torah must also be altered to suit their advanced intelligence. A pupil of Chasdai illustrates the words of his master by a medical parallel. The physician has to adapt his medicaments to the various stages through which his patient has to pass. That he changes his prescription does not, however, imply that his medical knowledge is imperfect, or that his earlier remedies were ignorantly chosen; the vary- ing condition of the invalid was the cause of the variation in the doctor's treatment. Similarly, were not the Immutability of the Torah a "doctrine/5 one might maintain that the per- fection of the Torah would not be inconsistent with the as- sumption that it was susceptible of modification, in accord- ance with our changing and progressive circumstances. But all these arguments are purely of a theoretic character; for, practically, every Jew, according to Chasdai, has to accept all these beliefs, whether he terms them fundamental teach- ings or only Jewish doctrines.21

Some years later, though he finished his work in the same year as Chasdai, R. Simeon Duran (1366-1444), a younger contemporary of the former, made his researches on dogmas. His studies on this subject form a kind of introduction to his commentary on Job, which he finished in the year 1405.

94 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

Duran is not so strongly opposed to the Thirteen Articles as Chasdai, or as another "thinker of our people/' who thought them an arbitrary imitation of the thirteen attributes of God. Duran tries to justify Maimonides; but nevertheless he agrees with "earlier authorities/' who formulated the Jewish creed in Three Articles — The Existence of God, Revelation, and Reward and Punishment — under which Duran thinks the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides may be easily classed. Most interesting are his remarks concerning the validity of dogmas. He tells us that only those are to be considered as heretics who abide by their own opinions, though they know that they are contradictory to the views of the Torah. Those who accept the fundamental teachings of Judaism, but are led by their deep studies and earnest reflection to differ in details from the opinions current among their co-religionists, and explain certain passages in the Scripture in their own way, must by no means be considered as heretics. We must, there- fore, Duran proceeds to say, not blame such men as Mai- monides, who gave an allegorical interpretation to certain passages in the Bible about miracles, or R. Levi ben Gershom, who followed certain un-Jewish views in relation to the belief in Creatio ex nihilo. Only the views are con- demnable, not those who cherish them. God forbid, says Duran, that such a thing should happen in Israel as to con- demn honest inquirers on account of their differing opinions. It would be interesting to know of how many divines as tolerant as this persecuted Jew the fifteenth century can boast.22

We can now pass to a more popular but less original writer on our theme. I refer to R. Joseph Albo, the author of the Roots,23 who was the pupil of Chasdai, a younger contempo- rary of Duran, and wrote at a much later period than these authors. Graetz has justly denied him much originality. The

The Dogmas of Judaism 95

chief merit of Albo consists in popularising other people's thoughts, though he does not always take care to mention their names. And the student who is a little familiar with the contents of the Roots will easily find that Albo has taken his best ideas either from Chasdai or from Duran. As it is of little consequence to us whether an article of faith is called Astern," or "root," or "branch," there is scarcely anything fresh left to quote in the name of Albo. The late Dr. Low, of Szegedin, was indeed right, when he answered an adversary who challenged him — "Who would dare to declare me a heretic as long as I confess the Three Articles laid down by Albo?" with the words "Albo himself." For, after all the subtle distinctions Albo makes between different classes of dogmas, he declares that every one who denies even the im- mutability of the Law or the coming of the Messiah, which are, according to him, articles of minor importance, is a heretic who will be excluded from the world to come. But there is one point in his book which is worth noticing. It was suggested to him by Maimonides, indeed; still Albo has the merit of having emphasised it as it deserves. Among the articles which he calls "branches" Albo counts the belief that the perfection of man, which leads to eternal life, can be obtained by the fulfilling of one commandment. But this command must, as Maimonides points out, be done without any worldly regard, and only for the love of God. When one considers how many platitudes are repeated year by year by certain theologians on the subject of Jewish legalism, we can- not lay enough stress on this article of Albo, and we ought to make it better known than it has hitherto been.24

Though I cannot enter here into the enumeration of the Maimonists, I must not leave unmentioned the name of R. Nissim ben Moses of Marseilles, the first great Maimonist, who flourished about the end of the thirteenth century, and

96 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

was considered as one of the most enlightened thinkers of his age.25 Another great Maimonist deserving special attention is R. Abraham ben Shem-Tob Bibago, who may perhaps be regarded as the most prominent among those who undertook to defend Maimonides against the attacks of Chasdai and others. Bibago wrote The Path of Belief2® in the second half of the fifteenth century, and was, as Dr. Steinschneider aptly describes him, a Denkglaubiger. But, above all, he was a believing Jew. When he was once asked, at the table of King John II, of Aragon, by a Christian scholar., "Are you the Jewish philosopher?" he answered, "I am a Jew who believes in the Law given to us by our teacher Moses, though I have studied philosophy/' Bibago was such a devoted admirer of Maimonides that he could not tolerate any opposition to him. He speaks in one passage of the prudent people of his time who, in desiring to be looked upon as orthodox by the great mob, calumniated the Teacher (Maimonides), and depreci- ated his merits. Bibago's book is very interesting, especially in its controversial parts; but in respect to dogmas he is, as already said, a Maimonist, and does not contribute any new point on our subject.

To return to the Anti-Maimonists of the second half of the fifteenth century. As such may be considered R. Isaac Ara- mah, who speaks of three foundations of religion: Creatio ex nihilo, Revelation (?), and the belief in a world to come.27 Next to be mentioned is R. Joseph Jabez, who also accepts only three articles: Creatio ex nihilo , Individual Providence, and the Unity of God.28 Under these three heads he tries to classify the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides.

The last Spanish writer on our subject is R. Isaac Abar- banel. His treatise on the subject is known under the title Top of Amanah?* and was finished in the year 1495. The greatest part of this treatise forms a defence of Maimonides,

The Dogmas of Judaism 97

many points in which are taken from Bibago. But, in spite of this fact, Abarbanel must not be considered a Maimonist. It is only a feeling of piety towards Maimonides, or perhaps rather a fondness for argument, that made him defend Mai- monides against Chasdai and others. His own view is that it is a mistake to formulate dogmas of Judaism, since every word in the Torah has to be considered as a dogma for itself. It was only, says Abarbanel, by following the example of non-Jewish scholars that Maimonides and others were induced to lay down dogmas. The non-Jewish philosophers are in the habit of accepting in every science certain indisputable axioms from which they deduce the propositions which are less evident. The Jewish philosophers in a similar way sought for first principles in religion from which the whole of the Torah ought to be considered as a deduction. But, thinks Abarba- nel, the Torah' as a revealed code is under no necessity of de- ducing things from each other, for all the commands came from the same divine authority, and, therefore, all are alike evident, and have the same certainty. On this and similar grounds Abarbanel refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, and he thus became the head of the school that forms a class by itself among the Anti-Maimonists to which many of the greatest Cabbalists also belong. But it is idle talk to cite this school in aid of the modern theory that Judaism has no dogmas. As we have seen, it was rather an emb arras de richesse that prevented Abarbanel from accepting the Thir- teen Articles of Maimonides. To him and to the Cabbalists the Torah consists of at least six hundred and thirteen Ar- ticles.

Abarbanel wrote his book with which we have just dealt, at Naples. And it is Italy to which, after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, we have to look chiefly for religious specu- lation. But the philosophers of Italy are still less independent

98 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

of Maimonides than their predecessors in Spain. Thus we find that R. David Messer Leon, R. David Vital, and others were Maimonists. Even the otherwise refined and original thinker, R. Elijah Delmedigo (who died about the end of the fifteenth century), becomes almost impolite when he speaks of the adversaries of Maimonides in respect to dogmas. "It was only," he says, "the would-be philosopher that dared to question the articles of Maimonides. Our people have always the bad habit of thinking themselves competent to attack the greatest authorities as soon as they have got some knowledge of the subject. Genuine thinkers, however, attach very little importance to their objections.'1 30

Indeed, it seems as if the energetic protests of Delmedigo scared away the Anti-Maimonists for more than a century. Even in the following seventeenth century we have to notice only two Anti-Maimonists. The one is R. Tobijah, the Priest (1652), who was of Polish descent, studied in Italy, and lived as a medical man in France. He seems to refuse to accept the belief in the Immutability of the Torah, and in the com- ing of the Messiah, as fundamental teachings of Judaism.31 The other, at the end of the seventeenth century (1695), is R. Abraham Chayim Viterbo, of Italy. He accepts only six articles: i. Existence of God; 2. Unity; 3. Incorporeality; 4. That God was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and that the prophecy of Moses is true; 5. Revelation (including the historical parts of the Torah); 6. Reward and Punishment. As to the other articles of Maimonides, Viterbo, in opposi- tion to other half-hearted Anti-Maimonists, declares that the man who denies them is not to be considered as a heretic; though he ought to believe them.32

I have now arrived at the limit I set to myself at the begin- ning of this essay. For, between the times of Viterbo and those of Mendelssohn, there is hardly to be found any serious

The Dogmas of Judaism 99

opposition to Maimonides worth noticing here. Still I must mention the name of R. Saul Berlin (died 1794); there is much in his opinions on dogmas which will help us the better to understand the Thirteen Articles of Maimonides. As the reader has seen, I have refrained so far from reproducing here the apologies which were made by many Maimonists in behalf of the Thirteen Articles, For, after all their elaborate pleas, none of them was able to clear Maimonides of the charge of having confounded dogmas or fundamental teach- ings with doctrines. It is also true that the Fifth Article — that prayer and worship must only be offered to God — can- not be considered even as a doctrine, but as a simple precept. And there are other difficulties which all the distinctions of the Maimonists will never be able to solve. The only possible justification is, I think, that suggested by a remark of R. Saul. This author, who was himself — like his friend and older contemporary Mendelssohn — a strong Anti-Maimonist, among other remarks, maintains that dogmas must never be laid down but with regard to the necessities of the time.33

Now R. Saul certainly did not doubt that Judaism is based on eternal truths which can in no way be shaken by new modes of thinking or changed circumstances. What he meant was that there are in every age certain beliefs which ought to be asserted more emphatically than others, without regard to their theological or rather logical importance. It is by this maxim that we shall be able to explain the articles of Mai- monides. He asserted them, because they were necessary for his time. We know, for instance, from a letter of his son and from other contemporaries, that it was just at his time that the belief in the incorporeality of God was, in the opinion of Maimonides, a little relaxed. Maimonides, who thought such low notions of the Deity dangerous to Judaism, there- fore laid down an article against them. He tells us in his

100 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

Guide that it was far from him to condemn anyone who was not able to demonstrate the Incorporeality of God, but he stigmatised as a heretic one who refused to believe it. This position might be paralleled by that of a modern astronomer who, while considering it unreasonable to expect a mathe- matical demonstration of the movements of the earth from an ordinary unscientific man, would yet regard the person who refused to believe in such movements as an ignorant faddist. Again, Maimonides undoubtedly knew that there may be found in the Talmud — that bottomless sea with its innumer- able undercurrents — passages that are not quite in harmony with his articles; for instance, the well-known dictum of R. Hillel, who said, there is no Messiah for Israel — a passage which has already been quoted ad nauseam by every op- ponent of Maimonides from the earliest times down to the year of grace 1896. Maimonides was well aware of the ex- istence of this and similar passages. But, being deeply con- vinced of the necessity of the belief in a future redemption of Israel — in opposition to other creeds which claim this redemption exclusively for their own adherents — Maimoni- des simply ignored the saying of R. Hillel, as an isolated opinion which contradicts all the consciousness and traditions of the Jew as expressed in thousands of other passages, and especially in the liturgy. Most interesting is Maimonides' view about such isolated opinions in a letter to the wise men of Marseilles. He deals there with the question of free will and other theological subjects. After having stated his own view he goes on to say: "I know that it is possible to find in the Talmud or in the Midrash this or that saying in con- tradiction to the views you have heard from me. But you must not be troubled by them. One must not refuse to accept a doctrine, the truth of which has been proved, on account of its being in opposition to some isolated opinion held by

The Dogmas of Judaism 101

this or that great authority. Is it not possible that he over- looked some important considerations when he uttered this strange opinion? It is also possible that his words must not be taken literally, and have to be explained in an allegorical way. We can also think that his words were only to be applied with regard to certain circumstances of his time, but never intended as permanent truths. ... No man must surrender his private judgment. The eyes are not directed backwards but forwards." In another place Maimonides calls the sup- pression of one's own opinions — for the reason of their being irreconcilable with the isolated views of some great authority — a moral suicide.

By such motives Maimonides was guided when he left certain views hazarded in the Rabbinic literature unheeded, and followed what we may perhaps call the religious instinct, trusting to his own conscience. We may again be certain that Maimonides was clear-headed enough to see that the words of the Torah: "And there arose no prophet since in Israel like unto Moses" (Deut. xxxiv. 10), were as little intended to imply a doctrine as the passage relating to the king Josiah, "And like unto him was there no king before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart . . . neither after him arose there any like him" (2 Kings xxiii. 25). And none would think of declaring the man a heretic who should believe another king to be as pious as Josiah. But living among followers of the "imitating creeds" (as he calls Christianity and Mohammedism), who claimed that their religion had superseded the law of Moses, Maimonides, consciously or un- consciously, felt himself compelled to assert the superiority of the prophecy of Moses. And so we may guess that every article of Maimonides which seems to offer difficulties to us contains an assertion of some relaxed belief, or a protest -against the pretensions of other creeds, though we are not

102 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

always able to discover the exact necessity for them. On the other hand, Maimonides did not assert the belief in free will, for which he argued so earnestly in his Guide. The common "man," with his simple imspeculative mind, for whom these Thirteen Articles were intended, "never dreamed that the will was not free/' and there was no necessity of impressing on his mind things which he had never doubted.34

So much about Maimonides. As to the Anti-Maimonists, it could hardly escape the reader that in some of the quoted systems the difference from the view of Maimonides is only a logical one, not a theological. Of some authors again, especially those of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, it is not at all certain whether they intended to oppose Mai- monides. Others again, as for instance R. Abba Mari, R. Lipman, and R. Joseph Jabez, acted on the same principle as Maimonides, urging only those teachings of Judaism which they thought endangered. One could now, indeed, animated by the praiseworthy example given to us by Maimonides, also propose some articles of faith which are suggested to us by the necessities of our own time. One might, for instance, insert the article, "I believe that Judaism is, in the first instance, a divine religion, not a mere complex of racial peculiarities and tribal customs/' One might again propose an article to the effect that Judaism is a proselytising religion, having the mission to bring about God's kingdom on earth, and to include in that kingdom all mankind. One might also submit for consideration whether it would not be advisable to urge a little more the principle that religion means chiefly a Weltanschauung and worship of God by means of holiness both in thought and in action. One would even not object to accept the article laid down by R. Saul, that we have to look upon ourselves as sinners. Morbid as such a belief may be, it would, if properly impressed on our mind, have perhaps the

The Dogmas of Judaism 103

wholesome effect of cooling down a little our self-importance and our mutual admiration that makes all progress among us almost impossible.

But it was not my purpose to ventilate here the question whether Maimonides' articles are sufficient for us, or whether we ought not to add new ones to them. Nor do I attempt to decide what system we ought to prefer for recitation in the Synagogue — that of Maimonides or that of Chasdai, or of any other writer. I do not think that such a recital is of much use. My object in this sketch has been rather to make the reader think about Judaism, by proving that it regulates not only our actions, but also our thoughts. We usually urge that in Judaism religion means life; but we forget that a life with- out guiding principles and thoughts is a life not worth living. At least it was so considered by the greatest Jewish thinkers, and hence their efforts to formulate the creed of Judaism, so that men should not only be able to do the right thing, but also to think the right thing. Whether they succeeded in their attempts towards formulating the creed of Judaism or not will always remain a question. This concerns the logician more than the theologian. But surely Maimonides and his successors did succeed in having a religion depending di- rectly on God, with the most ideal and lofty aspirations for the future; whilst the Judaism of a great part of our modern theologians reminds one very much of the words with which the author of Marius the Epicurean characterises the Roman religion in the days of her decline: a religion which had been always something to be done rather than something to be thought, or believed, or loved.

Political economy, hygiene, statistics, are very fine things. But no sane man would for them make those sacrifices which Judaism requires from us. It is only for God's sake, to fulfil His commands and to accomplish His purpose, that religion

104 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

becomes worth living and dying for. And this can only be possible with a religion which possesses dogmas.

It is true that every great religion is "a concentration of many ideas and ideals/' which make this religion able to adapt itself to various modes of thinking and living. But there must always be a point round which all these ideas con- centrate themselves. This centre is Dogma.

THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION IN RABBINICAL LITERATURE

"BLESSED be he who knows." These are the words with which Nachmanides, in his classical treatise, Gate of Reward, dis- misses a certain theory of the Gaonim with regard to this question; after which he proceeds to expound another theory, which seems to him more satisfactory. This mode of treatment implies that, unsatisfactory as the one or other theory may appear to us, it would be presumptuous to reject either en- tirely, there being only One who knows the exact truth about the great mystery. But we may indicate our doubt about one doctrine by putting by its side another, which we may affirm to be not more absolutely true, but more probable. This seems to have been the attitude, too, of the compilers of the ancient Rabbinical literature, in which the most conflicting views about this grave subject were embodied. Nor did the Synagogue in general feel called upon to decide between these views. There is indeed no want of theodicies, for almost every important expounder of Job, as well as every Jewish philosopher of note, has one with its own system of retribu- tion. Thus Judaism has no fixed doctrine on the subject. It refused a hearing to no theory, for fear that it should contain

105

106 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

some germ of truth, but on the same ground it accepted none to the exclusion of the others.

These theories may, perhaps, be conveniently reduced to the two following main doctrines that are in direct opposi- tion to each other, whilst all other views about the subject will be treated as the more or less logical results of the one or other doctrine.

i. There is no death without (preceding) sin, nor afflic- tion without (preceding) transgression.1 This view is cited in the name of R. Ammi, who quoted in corroboration the verses Ez. xviii. 20, and Ps. Ixxxix. 33. Though this Rabbi flourished towards the end of the third century, there is hardly any doubt that his view was held by the authorities of a much earlier date. For it can only be under the sway of such a notion of Retribution that the Tannaim were so anx- ious to assign some great crime as the antecedent to every serious calamity by which mankind was visited. The follow- ing illustrations will suffice: — "Pestilence comes into the world for capital crimes mentioned in the Torah, which are not brought before the earthly tribunal. . . . Noisome beasts come into the world for vain swearing and for profanation of the name (of God) . Captivity comes upon the world for strange worship and incest, and for shedding of blood and for (not) giving release to the land/' As an example of the mis- fortune befalling the individual I will merely allude to a passage in another tractate of the Talmud, according to which leprosy is to be regarded as the penalty for immorality, slander, perjury, and similar sins.2

If we were now to complement R. Ammi's view by adding that there is no happiness without some preceding merit — and there is no serious objection to making this addition — then it would resolve itself into the theory of Measure for Measure, which forms a very common standard of reward and punishment in Jewish literature. Here are a few instances: —

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 107

"Because the Egyptians wanted to destroy Israel by water (Exod. i. 22), they were themselves destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea, as it is said, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom (Is. Ixv. 7)"; whilst, on the other hand, we read, "Because Abraham showed himself hos- pitable towards strangers, providing them with water (Gen. xviii. 4), God gave to his children a country blessed with plenty of water (Deut. viii. i)." Sometimes this form of retri- bution goes so far as to define a special punishment to that part of the body which mostly contributed to the committing of the sin. Thus we read, "Samson rebelled against God with his eyes, as it is said, Get her (the Philistine woman) for me, for she pleases my eyes (Judg. xvi. 21); therefore his eyes were put out by the Philistines (Judg. xviii. 9)"; whilst Ab- salom, whose sinful pride began by his hair (2 Sam. xiv. 25), met his fate by his hair (2 Sam. xviii. g).3 Nahum of Gemzo himself explained his blindness and the maimed condition of his arms and legs as a consequence of a specific offence in having neglected the duty of succouring a poor man. Ad- dressing the dead body of the suppliant who perished while Nahum was delaying his help, he said, "Let my eyes (which had no pity for your pitiful gaze) become blind; may my hands and legs (that did not hasten to help thine) become maimed, and finally my whole body be covered with boils/* 4 "This was the hand that wrote it," said Cranmer at the stake; "therefore it shall first suffer punishment."

It is worth noticing that this retribution does not always consist in a material reward, but, as Ben Azzai expressed it: "The reward of a command is a command, and the reward of a transgression is a transgression." 5 So again: "Because Abraham showed himself so magnanimous in his treatment of the king of Sodom, and said, I will not take from thee a thread; therefore, his children enjoyed the privilege of hav- ing the command of Zizith, consisting in putting a thread or

108 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

fringe in the border of their garments/' In another passage we read, "He who is anxious to do acts of charity will be re- warded by having the means enabling him to do so." 6 In more general terms the same thought is expressed when the Rabbis explained the words, Ye shall sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy (Lev. xi. 44), to the effect that if man takes the initiative in holiness, even though in a small way, Heaven will help him to reach it to a much higher degree.7

Notwithstanding these passages, to which many more might be added, it cannot be denied that there are in the Rabbinical literature many passages holding out promises of material reward to the righteous as well as threatening the wicked with material punishment. Nor is there any need of denying it. Simple-minded men — and such the majority of the Rabbis were — will never be persuaded into looking with indifference on pain and pleasure; they will be far from thinking that poverty, loss of children, and sickness are no evil, and that a rich harvest, hope of posterity, and good health, are not desirable things. It does lie in our nature to consider the former as curses and the latter as blessings; "and if this be wrong there is no one to be made responsible for it but the Creator of nature." Accordingly the question must arise, How can a just and omnipotent God allow it to happen that men should suffer innocently? The most natural sugges- tion towards solving the difficulty would be that we are not innocent. Hence R. Ammi's assertion that affliction and death are both the outcome of sin and transgression; or, as R. Chanina ben Dossa expressed it, "It is not the wild beast but sin which kills." 8

We may thus perceive in this theory an attempt "to justify the ways of God to man." Unfortunately it does not cor- respond with the real facts. The cry wrung from the prophets against the peace enjoyed by the wicked, and the pains in- flicted on the righteous, which finds its echo in so many

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 109

Psalms, and reaches its climax in the Book of Job, was by no means silenced in the times of the Rabbis. If long experience could be of any use, it only served to deepen perplexity. For all this suffering of the people of God, and the prosperity of their wicked persecutors, which perplexed the prophets and their immediate followers, were repeated during the death- struggle for independence against Rome, and were not les- sened by the establishment of Christianity as the dominant religion. The only comfort which time brought them was, perhaps, that the long continuance of misfortune made them less sensible to suffering than their ancestors were. Indeed, a Rabbi of the first century said that his generation had by con- tinuous experience of misery become as insensible to pain as the dead body is to a prick of a needle.9 The anaesthetic effect of long suffering may, indeed, help one to endure pain with more patience, but it cannot serve as an apology for the deed of the inflictors of the pain. The question, then, how to reconcile hard reality with the justice of God, remained as difficult as ever.

The most important passage in Rabbinical literature re- lating to the solution of this problem is the following: — With reference to Exod. xxxiii. 13, R. Johanan said, in the name of R. Jose, that, among other things, Moses also asked God to explain to him the method o£ his Providence, a re- quest that was granted to him. He asked God, Why are there righteous people who are prosperous, and righteous who suf- fer; wicked who are prosperous and wicked who suffer? The answer given to him was, according to the one view, that the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous are a result of the conduct of their ancestors, the former be- ing the descendants of righteous parents and enjoying their merits, whilst the latter, coming from a bad stock, suffer for the sins of those to whom they owe their existence. This view was suggested by the Scriptural words, "Keeping mercy

110 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

for thousands (of generations) . . . visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children'* (Exod. xxxiv. 7), which were regarded as the answer to Moses* question in the preceding chapter of Exodus.10 Prevalent, however, as this view may have been in ancient times, the Rabbis never allowed it to pass without some qualification. It is true that they had no objection to the former part of this doctrine, and they speak very frequently of the "Merits of the Fathers'* for which the remotest posterity is rewarded; for this could be explained on the ground of the boundless goodness of God, which cannot be limited to the short space of a lifetime. But there was no possibility of overcoming the moral objection against pun- ishment of people for sins they have not committed.

It will suffice to mention here that, with reference to Joshua vii. 24, 25, the Rabbis asked the question, If he (Achan) sinned, what justification could there be for putting his sons and daughters to death? And by the force of this argument they interpreted the words of the Scriptures to mean that the children of the criminal were only compelled to be present at the execution of their father.

Such passages, therefore, as would imply that children have to suffer for the sins of their parents are explained by the Rabbis as referring to cases in which the children per- petuate the crimes of their fathers.11 The view of R. Jose, which I have already quoted, had, therefore, to be dropped, and another version in the name of the same Rabbi is ac- cepted. According to this theory the sufferer is a person either "entirely wicked" or "not perfectly righteous/* whilst the prosperous man is a person either "perfectly righteous/* or "not entirely wicked."

It is hardly necessary to say that there is still something wanting to supplement this view, for the given classification would place the not entirely wicked on the same level with the perfectly righteous, and on a much higher level than the

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 111

imperfectly righteous, who are undoubtedly far superior. The following passage may be regarded as supplying this missing something: — "The wicked who have done some good work are as amply rewarded for it in this world as if they were men who have fulfilled the whole of the Torah, so that they may be punished for their sins in the next world" (with- out interruption); whilst the righteous who have committed some sin have to suffer for it (in this world) as if "they were men who burned the Law," so that they may enjoy their re- ward in the world to come (without interruption).12 Thus the real retribution takes place in the next world, the fleeting existence on earth not being the fit time either to compensate righteousness or to punish sin. But as, on the one hand, God never allows "that the merit of any creature should be cut short/' whilst, on the other hand, He deals very severely with the righteous, punishing them for the slightest transgression; since, too, this reward and punishment are only of short dura- tion, they must take place in this short terrestrial existence. There is thus established a sort of divine economy, lest the harmony of the next world should be disturbed.

Yet another objection to the doctrine under discussion remains to be noticed. It is that it justifies God by accusing man, declaring every sufferer as more or less of a sinner. But such a notion, if carried to its last consequences, must result in tempting us to withhold our sympathies from him. And, indeed, it would seem that there were some non-Jewish phi- losophers who argued in this way. Thus a certain Roman official is reported to have said to R. Akiba, "How can you be so eager in helping the poor? Suppose only a king, who, in his wrath against his slave, were to set him in the gaol, and give orders to withhold from him food and drink; if, then, one dared to act to the contrary, would not the king be angry with him?" 13 There is some appearance of logic in this notion put into the mouth of a heathen. The Rabbis, how-

112 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

ever, were inconsistent people, and responded to the appeal which suffering makes to every human heart without asking too many questions. Without entering here into the topic of charity in the Rabbinic literature, which would form a very interesting chapter, I shall only allude now to the fol- lowing incident, which would show that the Rabbis did not abandon even those afflicted with leprosy, which, according to their own notion, given above, followed only as a punish- ment for the worst crimes. One Friday, we are told, when the day was about to darken, the Chassid Abba Tachnah was re- turning home, bearing on his shoulders the baggage that con- tained all his fortune; he saw a leprous man lying on the road, who addressed him: "Rabbi, do me a deed of charity and take me into the town/' The Rabbi now thought, "If I leave my baggage, where shall I find the means of obtaining subsistence for myself and my family? But if I forsake this leprous man I shall commit a mortal sin/' In the end, he allowed the good inclination to prevail over the evil one, and first carried the sufferer to the town.14 The only practical conclusion that the Rabbis drew from such theories as iden- tify suffering with sin were for the sufferer himself, who otherwise might be inclined to blame Providence, or even to blaspheme, but would now look upon his affliction as a re- minder from heaven that there is something wrong in his moral state. Thus we read in tractate Berachoth:15 "It a man sees that affliction comes upon him, he ought to inquire into his actions, as it is said, Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord" (Lam. iii, 40). This means to say that the sufferer will find that he has been guilty of some offence. As an illustration of this statement we may perhaps consider the story about R. Huna, occurring in the same tractate.16 Of this Rabbi it is said that he once experienced heavy pecuniary losses, whereupon his friends came to his house and said to him, "Let the master but examine his con-

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 113

duct a little closer." On this R. Huna answered, "Do you suspect me of having committed some misdeed?" His friends rejoined, "And do you think that God would pass judgment without justice?" R. Huna then followed their hint, and found that he did not treat his tenant farmer so generously as he ought. He offered redress, and all turned out well in the end. Something similar is to be found in the story of the martyrdom of R. Simeon ben Gamaliel and R. Ishmael ben Elisha. Of these Rabbis we are told that on their way to be executed the one said to the other, "My heart leaves me, for I am not aware of a sin deserving such a death"; on which the other answered, "It might have happened that in your function as judge you sometimes — for your own convenience — were slow in administering justice/' 17

But even if the personal actions of the righteous were blameless, there might still be sufficient ground for his being afflicted and miserable. This may be found in his relations to his kind and surroundings, or, to use the term now more popular, by reason of human solidarity. Now, after the above remarks on the objections entertained by the Rabbis against a man's being punished for the sins of others, it is hardly necessary to say that their idea of solidarity has little in com- mon with the crude notions of it current in very ancient times. Still, it can hardly be doubted that the relation of the individual to the community was more keenly felt by the Rabbis than by the leaders in any other society, modern or ancient. According to the view given by an ancient Rabbi whose name is unknown, it would, indeed, seem that to them the individual was not simply a member of the Jewish commonwealth, or a co-religionist, but a limb of the great and single body "Israel," and that as such he communicated both for good and evil the sensations of the one part to the whole. In the Midrash, where a parallel is to be found to this idea, the responsibility of the individual towards the com-

114 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

munity is further illustrated by R. Simeon ben Yochai, in the following way: "It is," we read there, "to be compared to people sitting on board a ship, one of the passengers of which took an awl and began to bore holes in the bottom of the vessel. Asked to desist from his dangerous occupation, he an- swered, 'Why, I am only making holes on my own seat/ for- getting that when the water came in it would sink the whole ship." Thus the sin of a single man might endanger the whole of humanity. It was in conformity with the view of his father that R. Eliezer, the son of R. Simeon (ben Yochai) said, "The world is judged after the merits or demerits of the majority, so that a single individual by his good or bad actions can decide the fate of his fellow-creatures, as it may happen that he is just the one who constitutes this ma- jority." 18 Nor does this responsibility cease with the man's own actions. According to the Rabbis man is responsible even for the conduct of others — and as such liable to punishment — if he is indifferent to the wrong that is being perpetrated about him, whilst an energetic protest from his side could have prevented it. And the greater the man the greater is his responsibility. He may suffer for the sins of his family which is first reached by his influence; he may suffer for the sins of the whole community if he could hope to find a willing ear among them, and he may even suffer for the sins of the whole world if his influence extend so far, and he forbear from exerting it for good.19 Thus the possibility is given that the righteous man may suffer with justice, though he himself has never committed any transgression.

As a much higher aspect of this solidarity — and as may have already suggested itself to the reader from the passage cited above from the anonymous Rabbi — we may regard the suffering of the righteous as an atonement for the sins of their contemporaries. "When there will be neither Tabernacle nor the Holy Temple," Moses is said to have asked God, "what

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 115

will become of Israel?" Whereupon God answers, "I will take from among them the righteous man whom I shall con- sider as pledged for them, and will forgive all their sins"; the death of the perfect man, or even his suffering being looked upon as an expiation for the shortcoming of his generation.20 It is hardly necessary to remind the reader of the affinity of this idea with that of sacrifices in general, as in both cases it is the innocent being which has to suffer for the sins of another creature. But there is one vital point which makes all the difference. It is that in our case the suffering is not enforced, but is a voluntary act on the part of the sacrifice, and is even desired by him. Without entering here on the often-discussed theme of the suffering of the Messiah, I need only mention the words of R. Ishmael who, on a very slight provocation, exclaimed, "I am the atonement for the Jews," which means that he took upon him all their sins to suffer for them.21 This desire seems to have its origin in nothing else than a deep sympathy and compassion with Israel. To suffer /or, or at least with Israel was, according to the Rabbis, al- ready the ideal of Moses. He is said, indeed, to have broken the Two Tables with the purpose of committing some sin, so that he would have either to be condemned together with Israel (for the sin of the golden calf), or to be pardoned to- gether with them.22 And this conduct was expected not only from the leaders of Israel, but almost from every Jew. "When Israel is in a state of affliction (as, for instance, famine) one must not say, I will rather live by myself, and eat and drink, and peace be unto thee, my soul. To those who do so the words of the Scriptures are to be applied: And in that day did the Lord God of Hosts call to weeping and to mourn- ing, . . . and behold joy and gladness. . . . Surely this iniq- uity shall not be purged out from you till ye die" (Is. xxii. 12-14). Another passage is to the effect that, when a man shows himself indifferent to the suffering of the community,

Il6 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

there comes the two angels (who accompany every Jew), put their hands on his head, and say, "This man who has sepa- rated himself shall be excluded from their consolations." 23

We might now characterise this sort of suffering as the chastisement of love (of the righteous) to mankind, or rather to Israel. But we must not confuse it with the Chastisement of Love often mentioned in the Talmud, though this idea also seems calculated to account for the suffering of the righteous. Here the love is not on the side of the sufferer, but proceeds from him who inflicts this suffering. "Him/' says R. Huna, "in whom God delights he crushes with suffer- ing." As a proof of this theory the words of Is. liii. 10 are given, which are interpreted to mean: him whom the Lord delights in He puts to grief. Another passage, by the same authority, is to the effect that where there is no sufficient cause for punishment (the man being entirely free from sin), we have to regard his suffering as a chastisement of love, for it is said: "Whom the Lord loveth He correcteth" (Proverbs iii. n).24 To what purpose He corrects him may, perhaps, be seen from the following passage: "R. Eleazar ben Jacob says: If a man is visited by affliction he has to be thankful to God for it: for suffering draws man to, and reconciles him with God, as it is said: For whom God loveth he cor- recteth." 25

It is in conformity with such a high conception that afflic- tion, far from being dreaded, becomes almost a desirable end, and we hear many Rabbis exclaim, "Beloved is suffering," for by it fatherly love is shown to man by God; by it man obtains purification and atonement, by it Israel came in pos- session of the best gifts, such as the Torah, the Holy Land, and eternal life.26 And so also the sufferer, far from being considered as a man with a suspected past, becomes an object of veneration, on whom the glory of God rests, and he brings salvation to the world if he bears his affliction with joyful

Doctrine of Divine Retribution 117

submission to the will of God.27 Continuous prosperity is by no means to be longed after, for, as R. Ishmael taught, "He who has passed forty days without meeting adversity has al- ready received his (share of the) world (to come) in this life." 2S Nay, the standing rule is that the really righteous suffer, whilst the wicked are supposed to be in a prosperous state. Thus, R. Jannai said, "We (average people) enjoy neither the prosperity of the wicked nor the afflictions of the righteous/' 29 whilst his contemporary, Rab, declared that he who experiences no affliction and persecution does not be- long to them (the Jews).30

2. The second main view on Retribution is that recorded by the Rabbis as in direct opposition to that of R. Ammi. It is that there is suffering as well as death without sin and transgression. We may now just as well infer that there is prosperity and happiness without preceding merits. And this is, indeed, the view held by R. Meir. For in contradiction to the view cited above, R. Meir declares that the request of Moses to have explained to him the mysterious ways of Provi- dence was not granted, and the answer he received was, "And I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy'* (Exod. xxxiii. 19), which means to say, even though he to whom the mercy is shown be unworthy of it. The old question arises how such a procedure is to be reconciled with the justice and omnipo- tence of God. The commentaries try to evade the difficulty by suggesting some of the views given above, as that the real re- ward and punishment are only in the world to come, or that the affliction of the righteous is only chastisement of love, and so on. From the passages I am about to quote, however, one gains the impression that some Rabbis rather thought that this great problem will indeed not bear discussion or solution at all. Thus we have the legend: "The angels said to God, why have you punished Adam with death? He an- swered, On account of his having transgressed my command-

Il8 STUDIES IN JUDAISM

ment (with regard to the eating of the tree of knowledge). But why had Moses and Aaron to die? The reply given to them is the words, Eccl. ix. 2: 'All things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked, to the good and to the clean and to the unclean/ " 31 Another legend records, "When Moses ascended to heaven, God showed him also the great men of futurity. R. Akiba