The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Jewish Religion
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Jewish Religion
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged.
Author: M. Friedländer
Release date: March 3, 2024 [eBook #73092]
Language: English
Original publication: London: P. Vallentine & Son, 1900
Credits: Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net for Project Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEWISH RELIGION ***
THE
JEWISH RELIGION.
BY
M. FRIEDLÄNDER.
SECOND EDITION,
REVISED AND ENLARGED.
LONDON:
P. VALLENTINE & SON,
7, NORTH CRESCENT, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD, W.C.
AND 33, DUKE STREET, ALDGATE, E.C.
1900.
PREFACE.
In presenting this volume to the public the author does not claim much
originality. He merely desires to reproduce the religious principles
which were sown into his heart by his parents, ז״ל, and cultivated by
the great teachers of Israel—the Prophets, the Soferim, and their
successors—in order that the blessing which he himself has always
derived from these principles may also be enjoyed by his brethren. The
original sources of religious knowledge, viz., the Scriptures and
Post-Biblical Jewish Literature, are of course accessible to all, and
every one may sit at the feet of our great teachers and listen to their
instruction. But there are many who are in need of assistance, who
require the aid of an interpreter. The present volume is intended to
render that assistance and to serve as such interpreter. The author
therefore addresses himself to his brethren, especially to his
disciples, in the words of an ancient teacher of the Mishnah (Aboth v.
25), “Turn it, and turn it over again;” and if he cannot add also “for
everything is in it,” he hopes that that which is in it will be found
useful to those who seek religious knowledge, and that it will prove an
incentive to many “to learn and teach, to heed and do, and to fulfil in
love all the words of instruction in the Divine Law.”
To a great extent this work owes its origin to the warm interest which
the late Mr. Jacob A. Franklin, ע״ה, took in all matters connected
with Judaism. He repeatedly urged upon the author the necessity of
publishing a book on the Jewish Religion. A plan was suggested,
discussed, and finally adopted; but the progress of the work was slow
on account of other literary engagements of the author. Although Mr.
Franklin departed from our midst long before it was completed, his
philanthropy, which survived him, has a share in its completion, the
book being printed at the expense of the Jacob A. Franklin Trust Fund
for the advancement of Judaism. In recognition of these facts the
author dedicates this work—
In Piety,
TO THE MEMORY OF HIS LATE FRIEND,
ר׳ עקיבה בן החבר ר׳ אברהם ז׳ל
JACOB A. FRANKLIN, O.B.M. AND OF HIS BELOVED LATE GRANDCHILDREN:
AZRIEL & URIEL GASTER.
עזריאל ואוריאל גאסטער
ת׳נ׳צ׳ב׳ה
In conclusion, the author begs to thank the Rev. S. Singer for his
assistance and his many valuable suggestions while the book was passing
through the press
M. FRIEDLÄNDER.
Jews’ College, 3 Iyar 5651.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The first edition being exhausted a second edition has been prepared.
There is no cause for any change in the body of the book. Religion,
both “Glaubenslehre” and “Pflichtenlehre,” are given as objectively as
possible, and the most rigid examination of all that is taught in “The
Jewish Religion,” discovered no misstatement. A few unimportant errors,
which according to the Psalmist (Ps. xix) are excusable, are rectified
in the list of Errata. Questions concerning religious principles which
have arisen in the Community since the publication have been foreseen
and dealt with according to Law and Tradition. A few notes are added in
the second edition, where further elucidations seemed necessary. There
is also appended the bibliography of text-books of Jewish Religion, an
abstract of a paper on Religious Education, read before the Jews’
College Literary Society, and the prayer which in the Spanish and
Portuguese Synagogues is offered up by the Barmitzvah when called to
the Law. The latter practice is worthy of imitation.
M. F.
London, Adar I., 5660.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction 1–18
What is Judaism? 2
OUR CREED.
Faith as commended in Bible and Tradition 5
Faith according to Saadiah 9
,, ,, ,, Ibn Gabirol 11
,, ,, ,, Dunash ben Tamim, Bachya b. Joseph 12
,, ,, ,, Shem-tob; Abraham b. David; Jehudah hallevi 13
,, ,, ,, Ibn Ezra; Maimonides; Joseph Albo 14
,, ,, ,, Eliah del Medigo 15
,, ,, ,, Moses Mendelssohn 16
The Thirteen Principles of Faith 19
First Group of Principles—Existence of God 22
Natural Religion 22
Polytheism 25
Pantheism 26
Atheism 27
Deism; Theism 29
The First Principle: God, the Creator and Ruler of
the Universe 30
Natural Laws and Miracles 31
Evolution and Creation 33
Principle II.—Unity of God 38
,, III. 41
Anthropomorphism in the Bible 41
Principle IV. 43
,, V. 44
Various Attributes of God 41
Second Group of Principles—Revelation 46
General Remarks—Early Revelations 46
Prophet 49
Text of Prophecies 53
Massorah 55
Names and Authors of the Books of the Bible 55
Pentateuch 57
Earlier Prophets 62
Latter Prophets 66
Isaiah 66
Jeremiah 70
Ezekiel 75
Minor Prophets 78
Hagiographa 87
Psalms 87
Proverbs 96
Job 108
The Song of Solomon 112
Ruth; Lamentations 113
Ecclesiastes 114
Esther; Daniel 116
Ezra; Nehemiah 125
Chronicles 126
Apocrypha 127
The Book of Wisdom 127
The Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach 128
Baruch 129
Tobit; Judith 130
The Books of the Maccabees 131
Principle VI.—Truth of the Prophecies 131
,, VII.—Distinction of Moses from other Prophets 133
,, VIII.—Authenticity of the Torah 134
The Oral Law 136
Principle IX.—Immutability of the Torah 139
Third Group of Principles—Reward and Punishment 142
Divine Justice and Man’s Free-will 142
Principle X.—God’s Omniscience 148
,, XI.—Reward and Punishment 150
Principle XII.—Messiah 155
,, XIII.—Resurrection—Future Life 163
Notes on the Number of Principles 169
On Principle I. 174
Creation according to Maimonides 174
,, ,, ,, Saadiah 177
Bible and Science 178
On Principle V.—Efficacy of Prayer 183
,, Revelation 190
,, Principle VI. 192
Revelation according to Saadiah 192
,, ,, ,, Jehudah hallevi 194
,, ,, ,, Ibn Ezra 197
,, ,, ,, Maimonides 197
,, ,, ,, Albo 201
On Principle VII. 201
,, ,, VIII. 202
,, Variæ Lectiones, Tikkun Soferim, Ittur Soferim 203
,, Al-tikre, Biblical Quotations in Talmud and Midrash 204
,, Bible Criticism 205
,, the Pentateuch 205
Explanation of 2 Kings xxii. 8 sqq. 207
Abraham ibn Ezra’s View on the Integrity of the Pentateuch 210
Authenticity of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah 212
Authenticity of the Book of Daniel 214
On Principle IX. 215
Explanation of Jer. xxxi. 31–33 216
,, ,, some Talmudical Passages 216
The Immutability of the Torah according to Maimonides 217
The Immutability of the Torah according to Jehudah hallevi 218
The Immutability of the Torah according to Albo and
R. Abraham b. David 219
On Principle X. 220
,, ,, XI. 221
,, Eternal Punishment 223
,, Vicarious Atonement 224
,, Principle XII. 225
Maimonides on Messiah, Jesus, and Mohammed 226
Principle XIII. 231
OUR DUTIES.
On Religious Duties in General 233
Classification of the Divine Precepts 239
Object of the Divine Law 242
I. The Ten Commandments 247–272
Notes on the Ten Commandments 266–272
Different Opinions on the Division of the Commandments 266
Ibn Ezra on Exod. xx. 2 269
Abarbanel and R. S. Hirsch on the Ten Commandments 270
Parallels to the Decalogue 272
II. General Moral Principles 272–328
Duties towards God 273–291
(a.) Duties of the Heart 273–278
Fear and Love of God 273
Gratitude toward Him 275
Reverence for His Name 275
Obedience to His Will 276
Faith and Confidence in His Goodness 277
Resignation to His Will 277
(b.) Duties with reference to Speech 278–288
Prayer 280
Study of His Word 285
(c.) Duties with reference to Action 288–291
Sanctification of God’s Name 289
Imitation of His Ways 290
Duties towards our Fellow-creatures 292–319
General Principles 292
Duties in reference to the Life and the Property
of our Fellow-man 292
Prohibition of Interest and Usury 294
Duties in reference to our Fellow-men’s Honour and
Well-being 298
Charity, גמלות חסד and צדקה 302
Special Duties 305–318
Children and Parents 305
Friends 306
Husband and Wife 310
Fellow-citizens 310
Fellow-members of a Community 312
Duties towards Members of another Community 312
Employers and Employed 313
Superiors and Inferiors 313
Teacher and Pupil; Master and Servant; Rich and Poor 314
Duties towards the Old, Magistrates, and all to whom
Honour is due 317
Kindness to Animals 318
Duties to Ourselves 319–328
III. Signs as Outward Reminders of God and His Will 328–338
Tsitsith 329
Tefillin 331
Mezuzah 335
Circumcision 336
Notes 336
IV. Sabbath, Festivals, and Fasts 339–413
On Sabbath and Festivals in General 339–360
1. זכור “Remember” 340–349
Kiddush and Habhdalah 340
Lessons from the Pentateuch and the Prophets 345
2. שמור “Take Heed” 349–353
Work Forbidden 349
3. ענג “Delight” 353–355
Sabbath and Festivals Days of Cheerfulness 353
4. כבוד “Honour” 355–358
Sabbath and Festival Bread and Lights 355
Notes 358
The Jewish Calendar 360
Notes 367
The Festivals 368–409
The Three Festivals שלש רגלים 369–400
The Four Distinguished Sabbaths 369
Passover 372–392
Seder-evening 379
Counting of the Omer 389
The Days of the Counting of the Omer 392
The Feast of Weeks 393–394
The Feast of Tabernacles 395–400
Solemn Days ימים נוראים 400–409
New-year 402
Day of Atonement 405
Historical Feasts and Fasts 409–413
Chanuccah 409
Purim 411
The Four Fasts 412
Optional Fasts 413
V. Divine Worship 413–455
Beginnings of Divine Worship 413
Sacrifices 414
Prayer 418–455
Devotion 419
Minhag or Custom 419
Prayer in Hebrew 420
Efficacy of Prayer 422
Synagogue 423
Instrumental Music in Synagogue 427
The Ritual, in Talmud and Midrash 429
Prayers at Fixed Times 435
Shema, שמע 436
Amidah or Tefillah 437
Abridged Forms of the Amidah 439
Other Constituent Elements of the Service 439
Night-prayer 440
Public Service 441
Kaddish 441
Kedushah 442
Repetition of Amidah 442
Priests’ Benediction 442
The Reading of the Law 442
Occasional Prayers; Benedictions; Grace 442
Notes on Customs in Synagogue 444
Temporary Substitutes for the Service 446
Repetition of the Amidah 446
Kedushah; Kaddish 447
Sermons and Lectures 448
Special Prayer-Meetings 449
Reform of the Ritual 449
Congregations and their Religious Guide 454
VI. The Dietary Laws 455–466
Their Object 455
ערלה Fruit of Trees in the First Three Years 457
חדש, כלאים, שעטנז 457
Meaning of חקות 458
The Killing of Animals for Food 459
Prohibition of Blood 459
Trefah 459
Clean and Unclean Animals 459
Forbidden Fat 461
The Sinew that Shrank 461
Meat and Milk 461
Notes.—Explanation of Gen. ix. 4—Seven Noachide
Precepts 462
On Shechitah 463
How to Kasher the Meat 463
Explanation of Num. xi. 22 and Lev. xvii. 13 464
On Clean and Unclean Birds 465
Meat and Milk 465
Honey 466
Wine of Libation 466
VII. Jewish Life 467–496
Guiding Principles in Jewish Life 467
Torah and Abodah; Beth-hammidrash and Synagogue 469
Charity 469
Jewish Women 470
The Days of the Week 473
Anticipation of Sabbath, Feast, and Fast 474
Friday Evening.—Sabbath and Festivals 475
New-moon and Full-moon 476
Important Moments in the Life of the Jew 476–494
Birth.—Initiation of the Male Child into the
Covenant of Abraham 477
Redemption of the First-born 478
Thanksgiving of the Mother after Confinement 479
ברכת הגומל 479
Education 479
Bar-mitsvah 481
Choice of Vocation 482
Marriage 483
Divorce 487
Obligatory Marriage (יבום) and Obligatory
Divorce (הליצה) 488
Death and Mourning 489
Regard for the Memory of the Deceased 494
Notes on Customs in Connection with the Burial Rites 496
Appendices:—
I. The Thirteen Principles in Hebrew 497–498
II. The Jewish Calendar 498–501
III. Religious Education 501*–504*
IV. Prayer for Barmitzvah 505*–506*
V. Bibliography 507*–510*
I. Index of Quotations from Bible and Post-Biblical
Literature 502–512
II. General Index 513–520
III. Index of Names 521–523
IV. Index of Hebrew Terms 524–528
Errata 529–530
THE JEWISH RELIGION.
INTRODUCTION.
“Man is the most privileged of creatures; he has been made in the image
of God. His privilege is still further enhanced by the fact that he has
been made aware of his distinction” (Aboth iii. 14). There is in man a
consciousness or feeling of a certain relation between him and a
superior Being, on whose Will his own existence depends. This
consciousness is the basis of religion, but is not religion itself. It
is the influence which this feeling exercises over man’s actions and
conduct in life that forms the essence of religion. When man begins to
feel that he is responsible for his actions to a higher Being, and
forms his actions in harmony with this feeling, he may be called
religious. Two elements must therefore be distinguished in religion:
the notion of man’s dependence on and responsibility to a superior
Being, and the influence of this notion on his actions: religious
belief and religious practice, or faith and duty. Religious belief or
faith, in its most simple and most general form, may be said to be
common almost to all mankind; and in the great variety of faiths,
produced by various circumstances and experiences, this simple idea may
easily be detected as the fundamental principle of all of them. The
same can be said with regard to religious practice. There are certain
fundamental principles of duty which are recognised and adopted by the
most diverse religious sects; they form, as it were, the common stem
from which a large number of branches spring forth in all directions.
These branches diverge more and more the larger they grow and the more
numerous they become.
Judaism is one of these various religions. It has been the source of
most of the religions of the civilised world, and is destined to
become, in its simplest principles, the universal religion.
What is Judaism? or what does Judaism teach its adherents to believe,
and what does it teach them to do? The answers to these two questions
form the main subject of every book on our holy religion. The answer to
the first question must include our doctrine about God, His attributes,
His relation to the material world, and especially to man; the mission
of man, his hopes and fears. The answer to the second question must
include our duties toward God, toward our fellow-men, and toward
ourselves. Both answers must be based on that which we are taught in
the Holy Writings, and especially in the Torah. Recourse may be had to
philosophic speculation, to which, indeed, the first question
peculiarly invites, but the result must be rectified by the teaching of
the Torah.
In accordance with the maxim, “The secret things belong to the Lord our
God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our
children for ever: that we may do all the words of this Law,” abstruse
metaphysical disquisitions about the essence and the attributes of the
Divine Being will be avoided in the present work, as also every attempt
at proving, philosophically or mathematically, truths which have been
revealed unto us in a supernatural way. [1] But the simple truths
taught in the Holy Writings and explained by our sages will be
expounded, the different opinions about them will be examined, and it
will be shown that these truths are not contradicted by common sense or
by the results of scientific research.
The second question, however, What does Judaism teach us to do? refers
to “the things which are revealed,” and must be treated more fully.
Care will be taken, as far as possible, that nothing be omitted that is
required for the right understanding and the correct estimate of our
religious duties.
Religion therefore includes two elements: faith and practice. In
religious life, as well as in the teaching of religion, both elements
are equally essential; faith without religious practice does not
suffice, nor the latter without faith. We are accustomed to look upon
certain dogmas as fundamental, and certain practices as essential, and
are therefore prone to renounce beliefs which are not fundamental in
our eyes, and to abandon such religious practice as seems to us less
essential. Hence the frequent inquiry as to what is the minimum of
belief, and what the minimum degree of conformity to the Law, that
Judaism demands. But in reality there can be no compromise in religion,
whether in matters of faith or of practice. Convinced of a certain
number of truths, it is impossible for us to abandon any of them
without being false to ourselves; being convinced of the binding
character of certain religious commands and prohibitions, it would be
perverse to pronounce at the same time part of them as superfluous.
Judaism is the adherence to the truths taught in the Holy Law, and the
faithful obedience to its precepts.
The principal Hebrew equivalents for the modern term “Religion,” תורה
and אמונה, confirm this view. In the Bible תורה signifies
“instruction,” and is applied to the teaching of religions truth, as
well as to that of religious precepts. The same is the case with the
second term אמונה which signifies “firmness,” “perseverance,” or
“permanence,” and is used of “consistency” in faith as well as of
conscientiousness in the practice of the Divine ordinances. [2]
I.
OUR CREED.
INTRODUCTION.
Faith is the implicit and absolute belief in the truth of the
communication made to us and in the trustworthiness of him who makes it
to us. The child has faith in its parents that their wishes or commands
are for its good; the pupil in his teachers that they impart correct
knowledge; we have faith in our friends that they have no intention to
deceive us; in the men of science and learning that the results of
their researches may be accepted as well established. In all these
cases the faith is but imperfect and of a relative and temporary
character. Time, investigation, and extended observation and knowledge
may either confirm the contents of our faith or may convince us that we
have been in error. This is not the case with religious faith. It keeps
within the boundaries of its own domain and does not encroach on that
of the senses and of reason. Whatever can be known by means of
scientific research and thorough investigation we need not accept on
faith. Religion—I have, of course, our own religion, the Jewish, in
mind—does not only not forbid such examination, but even encourages it.
Thus we read in the Book of Proverbs, “A fool believeth every word, but
the prudent man looketh well to his going” (xiv. 15). For this purpose
God has given us intellectual faculties that we should employ them in
our search for truth. At the same time, however, He has set limits to
our faculties, and there are things which are beyond these limits,
being nistaroth, “things hidden” from our senses, whose existence has
been made known to us through the grace of God, by such means as His
infinite wisdom determined. We search and investigate, examine and
demonstrate, within the sphere of our senses; but all that is beyond
their reach belongs to the nistaroth, the knowledge of which can only
be imparted to us directly by the Almighty, or indirectly by those to
whom they have been communicated by Him. Our belief with regard to
these nistaroth may be supported or strengthened by philosophical or
dialectical arguments, but can never be proved by mathematical or
logical demonstration.
The sources from which we derive our knowledge of these nistaroth are
Revelation and Tradition. God reveals things otherwise unknown to man
to such persons or to such a generation as His wisdom chooses, and from
those thus privileged the knowledge spreads to the rest of mankind by
means of Tradition. In addition to these two sources there is a third
one in ourselves: God implanted in our souls certain ideas common to
all of us as essential elements of our inner life, and these ideas form
to some extent the basis of our faith. Such is, e.g., the idea of an
all-powerful Being, God, who is the source and origin of everything in
existence.
There is no real conflict between faith and reason. It may sometimes
seem as if there were such a conflict, and we then naturally begin to
doubt. In such cases the truth of our faith may be doubted, but the
correctness of our reasoning is no less subject to doubt. We may have
erroneously included in our faith beliefs which do not belong to it,
and on becoming aware that they are contrary to reason, we cast them
aside without the least injury to our faith. On the other hand, our
reason is not perfect; we frequently discover mistakes in our arguments
and conclusions, and reject opinions which we hitherto have considered
as firmly established.
Through patient and thorough investigation of our doubts, without
over-estimation of our reasoning faculties, we shall be able to settle
the seeming conflict between reason and faith in a satisfactory manner.
The examination of our doubts will prove that none of the truths which
the Almighty revealed to mankind are contrary to reason.
In this way we are enabled to separate from our faith all elements that
in reality are foreign to it; we shall be able to distinguish between
faith and superstition. The latter consists of erroneous notions and
beliefs which can be tested and subjected to the ordinary means of
inquiry. Superstition is not tolerated by true religion; strict
adherence to the teachings of our holy religion is the best check to
superstitious beliefs.
The importance which the Bible attaches to implicit faith in God and
His word may be gathered from the following passages:—
“And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He reckoned it to him as
righteousness” (Gen. xv. 6). The Hebrew for “righteousness” is in the
original צדקה which is used in the Bible as the sum-total of
everything good and noble in man’s life.
When the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea, it is said of them: “And
Israel saw the great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians, and
the people feared the Lord: and they believed in the Lord, and in Moses
His servant” (Exod. xiv. 31).
Again, when Moses and Aaron had sinned at the waters of Meribah by
striking the rock instead of speaking to it, they were rebuked for want
of אמונה “faith,” in the following words: “Because ye believed not in
me (לא האמנתם בי) to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of
Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which
I have given them” (Numb. xx. 12).
When Moses in his song האזינו blamed the Israelites for their evil
doings, he called them “children in whom there is no faith” אמון
(Deut. xxxii. 20).
King Jehoshaphat, addressing the army before the battle, says: “Have
faith in the Lord and you will be safe; have confidence in His prophets
and you will succeed” (2 Chron. xx. 20).
In the same sense Isaiah says to King Ahaz: “If you have no faith,
surely you will not be safe” (Isa. vii. 9).
Also Jeremiah, speaking of Israel’s disobedience to the word of God,
exclaims: “The faith, האמונה is perished, and it is cut off from
their mouth” (Jer. vii. 28).
The prophet Habakkuk, praying to God for an explanation why evil-doers
succeed and prosper, receives the divine answer: “The righteous shall
live by his faith” וצדיק באמונתו יחיה (Hab. ii. 4); and when Hosea
predicts the future redemption of Israel, he tells them in the name of
God, “And I will betroth thee unto me by faith” וארשתיך לי באמונה
(Hos. ii. 22).
Our teachers, the sages and rabbis, who succeeded the prophets, have
been equally emphatic in commending religious faith. The following are
a few of their sayings concerning faith:—
“Great is the merit of faith. Through their faith in the Creator of the
universe the Israelites were inspired by the holy spirit, and were
enabled to sing praises to the Lord.” “Faith in the Lord was the source
of all the temporal and eternal blessings which were bestowed upon
Abraham; it gave him the enjoyment of this world and the world to
come.” “When the Psalmist says: ‘This gate leads to the Lord; righteous
people (צדיקים) shall come in through it,’ he denoted by the term
‘righteous’ those who possess faith in God” (Yalkut on Ex. xiv. 31).
In spite of the fact that the Torah and the prophets most emphatically
declare faith אמונה to be a very essential element in Judaism, it
does not seem to have the same importance in the writings of Jewish
theologians and philosophers, some of whom have endeavoured to
substitute reasoning and logical arguments for simple faith, and to
rebuild upon scientific research the religious edifice erected on the
foundation of faith. The following are the utterances of the principal
Jewish theologians since the close of the Talmud on the relation
between faith and reason:—
The Gaon Saadiah of Fayyum wrote a book on creeds and religious beliefs
(אמאנאת ואעתקאד־אמונות ודעות). In the Introduction to this work the
philosopher describes the causes of human error and doubt, and assumes
four classes of believers. There are, first, those who recognise the
truth found by them, cling to it, and are happy in it. There are,
secondly, those who have the true principle before them, but do not
recognise it, doubt its correctness, and abandon it again. The third
class includes those who adopt an opinion without having recognised it
as true; they mistake falsehood for truth. The last division consists
of those who form no definite opinion, but remain continually in an
unsettled state of mind. Saadiah is anxious to see at least his
co-religionists in the first class, and his work was intended to help
them towards this end.
According to Saadiah, belief or faith must be an integral part of our
soul; the various truths which form the faith are stored up in the soul
as in a repository, completely ready for use whenever required. It is,
however, possible that we store up opinions as true which are false.
Tests must be applied to each opinion in order to ascertain its right
character. Three of the tests are of a general nature, but the fourth
has its force only for us, the believers in the truth of the Holy
Writings. The first three tests will show us whether a certain opinion
is confirmed or contradicted by our senses, by our innate ideas, or by
our logical reasoning. In addition to these we possess a fourth test in
the trustworthy communication (הגדה הנאמנת), i.e., the contents of
Holy Writ and Tradition. Holy Writ recognises the necessity of the
three general tests, and frequently exhorts us to apply them. On the
other hand, Saadiah is convinced that the contents of Holy Writ and
Tradition are never contradicted, but in many cases are confirmed by
these tests. Such confirmation is in reality superfluous; but the human
mind feels more at ease when it finds that the teaching of Holy Writ is
supported by other proofs. Besides, attacks on the Bible come
frequently from these tests, and it is therefore useful to learn how to
refute them. According to Saadiah, the truth taught in the Bible can
never be contradicted by the results of scientific or philosophical
research.
Thus to Saadiah philosophy and science are mere luxuries, and cannot be
considered as handmaids to the Torah. They are not studied on account
of their intrinsic value or as helps for the understanding of Holy
Writ, but merely for the purpose of procuring proper weapons for
theological warfare, or of superadding the conviction that what is
known to us from the most trustworthy source is confirmed from other
less reliable sources.
The poet and philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol, who is lost in enthusiasm
in contemplating the powers of the human soul, humbly acknowledges that
it was his faith that saved him from fall and ruin. Referring to man’s
faculty of acquiring knowledge, he says in his “Royal Crown” כתר
מלכות: “Who can comprehend Thy wisdom in giving to the soul the
faculty of acquiring knowledge, on which her existence depends,
knowledge being her foundation? She is permanent and immortal in the
same measure as her foundation is well established.” But, reflecting on
human weakness, he expresses his feeling of gratitude to the Creator
for His guidance in the following words: “Thou hast done yet more for
me. Thou hast implanted in my heart a perfect faith, so that I believe
in Thee as the true God, and in Thy prophets as true prophets; Thou
hast not cast my lot among those that rebel against Thee, or among
those who provoke Thy name, despise Thy Law, attack Thy servants, and
disbelieve Thy prophets.” Knowledge—philosophy and science—is the very
essence, the immortal element of the soul, and yet without the Word of
God man would go astray and be lost.
The boundaries between faith and reason are more distinctly set forth
in the Commentary on Sefer Yetsirah by Dunash ben Tamim (ed. L. Dukes
in Shire Shelomoh, i. p. vi. seq.): “All these beings above and below
have been created by God, and it is within the province of man to
explore and to examine all of them; but he must not pass beyond these
boundaries to investigate into the essence of God; ‘for in the city of
his refuge shall he dwell,’ and ‘if he goeth out of his place, and the
avenger of blood smite him, he hath no remedy.’ Besides, wisdom and
science acknowledge that man is unable to comprehend by his own
intellect anything that exists outside the sphere of created beings.”
R. Bachya, son of Joseph hassephardi, who lived in the eleventh
century, treats, in the Introduction to his “Duties of the Heart,” of
the three sources of human knowledge—Holy Writ, Tradition, and Reason.
Bachya is fully convinced that the knowledge derived from the first two
sources is complete and correct. “If you are a man endowed with
knowledge and reason, and are able to demonstrate the principles of
your belief and your religious practice, which you have been taught by
the Sages in the name of the prophets, it is your duty to do so, and to
let reason confirm what Tradition teaches. If you abstain from
attempting this investigation, you neglect your duty towards your
Creator.”
Still more emphatic is Shem-tob ibn Palqera in demanding the right of
free inquiry into everything taught by Revelation and Tradition. In a
dialogue between the believer and the inquirer (Hammebhakkesh) the
former is represented as ignorant of everything our mind desires to
know; whilst the wise man, who combines belief and confidence in
Tradition with the right use of his reason, knows how to satisfy the
inquirer, and lays down the rule, “Let the study of the Torah be the
foundation, and the study of other things secondary; believe nothing
that is not proved by reason or by God” (i.e., by the word of
Revelation).
R. Abraham ben David, in Emunah ramah: “Because three out of four
scholars (R. Akiba, Ben-azai, Ben-zoma, and Elisha) were unsuccessful
in their philosophical researches, therefore many turn their backs upon
science, and in consequence of this neglect they remain ignorant of the
chief principles of our religion.” The object of his book is to
reconcile religion and science.
R. Judah hallevi, in his “Kuzari,” endeavours to convince the Kuzarite
king of the truth of the Jewish religion by philosophical arguments,
but gives unhesitatingly the preference and the higher authority to
Divine revelation. He is convinced that reason or philosophical
argument could never refute any principle taught in the Law. He says:
“Prophecy is certainly stronger than logical inference.”
R. Abraham ibn Ezra believes that man’s intellectual faculties are
insufficient to solve all transcendental problems; thus, e.g., the
nature of the spirit of man is unknown to most, and is only
comprehended by him “whose thoughts are weighed in the balance of
reason, and are established on the four elements of wisdom, viz., the
three R’s: reading, writing, and reckoning; (in Hebrew, the three ס:
סְפָר סֵפֶר סִפּוּר) and the Divine Law.” Ibn Ezra recommends the study of
science, united with the belief in Divine revelation. “The Torah,” Ibn
Ezra remarks in his Commentary on Ps. xix. 8, “is perfect in itself; it
requires no evidence from without for the truths which it teaches.”
Maimonides’ “Guide to the Perplexed” is entirely devoted to the problem
how to reconcile Scripture and reason. Scripture cannot contain
anything contrary to reason; nor can the result of scientific research
and philosophical speculation be conceived as contrary to reason, which
is their very basis. But where any such contradiction is perceived, we
are at fault either in our reasoning or in our interpretation of the
Divine Writings. The Incorporeality and Unity of God are doctrines that
have been fully proved, and Scripture cannot teach anything that is
contrary to them. Where we believe them to be contradicted in the Holy
Writings the contradiction is only apparent, and by assuming an
allegorical use of words and phrases the seeming contradiction is
removed.
R. Joseph Albo prefaces his book on the principles of Judaism as
follows: “As the human understanding is incapable of finding out what
is true and what is good, there must be a higher Being that assists us
in determining what is good and in comprehending what is true. It is
therefore necessary, above all, to study and to know the divine Law
that guides man in these problems.”
R. Eliah del Medigo, in his Bechinath haddath (Examination of Religion)
says as follows:—
“Let us first see whether or not the study of philosophy is permitted
to the followers of our religion; and, if it be permitted, whether the
study is to be considered a duty and a laudable act. The right-minded
Jew does not doubt that the Law aims at leading us to humane conduct,
good deeds, and true knowledge, the common people according to their
capacity, and the more gifted according to their abilities. Certain
fundamental truths are therefore set forth in the Law and the Prophets
in an authoritative, poetical, or dialectical style; but the higher
order of intellects are encouraged to search for proper proofs. Thus
the whole nation is addressed by Isaiah: ‘Lift up your eyes on high and
see who hath created these,’ and the like. Also the chief of the
Prophets tells the Israelites: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God;
the Lord is One.’ Those who are more highly endowed than their
fellow-men are exhorted, either directly or indirectly, to follow the
course which is suitable to them. The direct exhortation to
philosophical research is contained in the words: ‘Know then this day,
and take it to thy heart, that the Lord He is God,’ &c.; and indirectly
it is contained in the commandment to love and to fear God, as has been
explained by R. Moses Maimonides.—The study of science will certainly
be of use to the scholar; it leads to a knowledge of the created
things, and through these to a knowledge of the Creator. Such study may
even be considered as necessary to the Jewish scholar, though not to
the ordinary Jew. The scholar must, however, not entirely rely on his
research, but on that which is taught in the Law. In this the scholar
and the ordinary man are equal, that both accept the teaching of the
Torah as infallible; only with this difference, that the scholar can in
addition satisfy his thirst for knowledge and confirm by scientific
proof what he has already accepted as true on the authority of the
Bible.”
Of modern scholars I only quote Moses Mendelssohn’s theory. He accepts
unconditionally the teaching of the Bible; all its truths are absolute
and perfect; no reasoning whatever can refute them; but difficulties
may sometimes present themselves to us in reconciling the teaching of
the Bible with that of our reason. What have we then to do? The
philosopher declares: “If I were to find my reason in contradiction to
the Word of God, I could command reason to be silent; but the
arguments, so long as they have not been refuted, will nevertheless
assert themselves in the innermost recesses of my heart; the arguments
will assume the form of disquieting doubts, which will resolve
themselves into childlike prayers, earnest supplication for
enlightenment. I should utter the words of the Psalmist: ‘Lord, send me
Thy light, Thy truth, that they may guide me, and bring me to Thy holy
mount, to Thy dwelling-place!’”
The conception which Moses Mendelssohn had of Jewish belief and its
relation to reason we learn from the following passage:—“I recognise no
other eternal truths than those which are not only comprehensible to
the human mind, but also demonstrable by human powers. This principle
by no means brings me into conflict with my own religion; on the
contrary, I consider it an essential element in Judaism, and the
characteristic difference between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism has
no revealed religion in the sense in which Christianity has. The Jews
have a revealed legislation which instructs them in the divinely
ordained means by which they may attain the eternal bliss. Laws and
rules for conduct in life were revealed to Moses in a supernatural way,
but no doctrines, no saving truth, and no general laws of logic. The
latter the Eternal reveals to us, as to all men, through nature and
through the things themselves; never through words and letters. The
divine book revealed to Moses, though a book of laws, includes an
inexhaustible treasure of truths and doctrines.... The more we study it
the more we wonder at the depth of the knowledge contained in it. But
these truths are taught, and not forced upon us as dogmas. Belief does
not allow itself to be commanded; it is based upon conviction. In the
Hebrew language, the very word which is generally translated ‘faith,’
viz., אמונה denotes originally confidence, trust that the promise
made will also be fulfilled, and not what we understand by ‘religious
faith.’”
These words of Mendelssohn show how greatly those err who quote his
opinions in support of the dictum that Judaism recognises no dogmas.
According to Mendelssohn, Judaism does not consist entirely of laws; it
teaches also certain truths. We have certain dogmas without which the
laws can have no meaning, yet there is no precept, “Thou shalt
believe.” Nowhere in our Law, whether written or oral, is a solemn
declaration of our creed demanded. In so far Mendelssohn’s view is
correct; but when he believes that all the truths we are taught in
Scripture can be made evident by logical demonstration he is mistaken.
As to the meaning of אמונה comp. supra, p. 4.
THE THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF OUR CREED.
The main source of our creed is the Bible, and among the Biblical
books, chiefly the Pentateuch (תורה). In these books we find many
truths taught by God Himself, or by His inspired messengers, and they
form the substance of our creed. It matters little how we arrange them,
how we collect them into groups, and subdivide these again, provided we
believe in them implicitly. In the Bible they are not arranged
systematically; they are intermingled with, and are contained
implicitly in, the history and the laws that form the subject-matter of
the Scriptures; it is the observance of those laws which constitutes
the best evidence of the belief seated in the heart. No declaration or
recital of a creed is commanded in the Pentateuch; no tribunal is
appointed for inquiring whether the belief of a man is right or wrong;
no punishment is inflicted or threatened for want of belief. It became,
however, necessary to formulate the truths taught in the Bible, when
disputes arose as to their meaning and to their validity. The Mishnah,
therefore, declares certain opinions as un-Jewish and contrary to the
teaching of the Divine Word. Later on, when controversies multiplied
between the various sections of the Jewish nation, as well as between
Jews and Christians and Jews and Mohammedans, it was found most
important to settle the form and arrangement of our beliefs. Moses
Maimonides, the great religious philosopher, taught, in his Commentary
on the Mishnah, thirteen principles of faith, which found general
acceptance among the Jews, and are known as the Thirteen Principles.
They have found their way into the Prayer-book in two different forms,
one in prose and one in poetry. Maimonides, in commending them to the
reader, says: “Read them again and again and study them well, and let
not your heart entice you to believe that you have comprehended their
full meaning after having read them a few times; you would then be in a
great error, for I have not written down what occurred to my mind at
first thought. I first thoroughly studied and examined what I was going
to write, compared the various doctrines, the correct ones and the
incorrect ones, and when I arrived at what we ought to accept as our
creed, I was able to prove it by arguments and reasoning.” The thirteen
articles as put forth by Maimonides, and called by him principles and
foundations of our religion, are the following:—
1. The first principle: The belief in the existence of the Creator;
that is, the belief that there exists a Being who requires no other
cause for His existence, but is Himself the cause of all beings.
2. The second principle: The belief in the Unity of God; that is, the
belief that the Being who is the cause of everything in existence is
One; not like the unity of a group or class, composed of a certain
number of individuals, or the unity of one individual consisting of
various constituent elements, or the unity of one simple thing which is
divisible ad infinitum, but as a unity the like of which does not
exist.
3. The third principle: The belief in the Incorporeality of God; that
is, the belief that this One Creator has neither bodily form nor
substance, that He is not a force contained in a body, and that no
corporeal quality or action can be attributed to Him.
4. The fourth principle: The belief in the Eternity of God; that is,
the belief that God alone is without a beginning, whilst no other being
is without a beginning.
5. The fifth principle: The belief that the Creator alone is to be
worshipped, and no other being, whether angel, star, or ought else, all
these being themselves creatures.
6. The sixth principle: The belief in Prophecy; that is, the belief
that there have been men endowed with extraordinary moral and
intellectual powers, by which they were enabled to reach a degree and
kind of knowledge unattainable to others.
7. The seventh principle: The belief that our teacher Moses was the
greatest of all prophets, both those before him and those after him.
8. The eighth principle: The belief in the Divine origin of the Law;
the belief that the whole Pentateuch was communicated to Moses by God,
both the precepts and the historical accounts contained therein.
9. The ninth principle: The belief in the integrity of the Law; that
both the written and the oral Law are of Divine origin, and that
nothing may be added to it or taken from it.
10. The tenth principle: The belief that God knows and notices the
deeds and thoughts of man.
11. The eleventh principle: The belief that God rewards those who
perform the commandments of His Law, and punishes those who transgress
them.
12. The twelfth principle: The belief that Messiah will come at some
future time, which it is impossible for us to determine; that he will
be of the house of David, and will be endowed with extraordinary wisdom
and power.
13. The thirteenth principle: The belief in the revival of the dead, or
the immortality of the soul.
These thirteen principles (שלשה עשר עקרים) may be divided into three
groups, according to their relation to the three principles:—1.
Existence of God. 2. Revelation. 3. Reward and punishment. The first
group includes the first five principles, the second the next four, and
the third the remaining four. In this order they will now be
considered.
1. EXISTENCE OF GOD מציאות הבורא.
The notion of the existence of God, of an invisible power which
exercises its influence in everything that is going on in nature, is
widespread, and common to almost the whole human race. It is found
among all civilised nations and many uncivilised tribes. The existence
of God may be regarded as an innate idea, which we possess from our
earliest days. This is the origin of Natural Religion. Thinkers of all
ages and nations have attempted to confirm this innate idea by
convincing arguments. Prophets and divine poets have frequently
directed the attention of those whom they addressed to the marvels of
nature in order to inspire them with the idea of an All-wise and
All-powerful Creator.
“Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these? Who is
He who bringeth them forth by number? All of them He calleth by name,
by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not
one is lacking” (Isa. xl. 26). “The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament sheweth His handywork” (Ps. xix. 2).
The regularity in the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies, which
enables us to foretell the exact time and duration of an eclipse of the
sun or the moon, is certainly a strong argument for the belief that
there is a mighty and wise Creator who fixed the laws in accordance
with which these luminaries move.
“Beautiful are the luminaries which our God has created. He has formed
them with knowledge, reason, and understanding; He endowed them with
power and strength to rule in the midst of the world. Full of splendour
and beaming with light, they illumine the whole world; they rejoice
when they rise, they are glad when they set, doing in reverence the
will of their Master” (Sabbath Morning Service).
A similar regularity we notice when looking on the face of the earth.
The various seasons of the year, each with its peculiar aspect and
influence, the sequence of day and night at regular intervals, the
gradual and systematic development of vegetable and animal life—all
point forcibly to the fact that these things do not owe their existence
to chance, but to the will of an Almighty and All-wise Creator.
Again, if we consider the structure of a single plant, or of a single
animal, we find that every one of the members and parts of which it is
composed has its peculiar function or purpose in the economy of the
whole plant or the whole animal. Let one of these component parts
refuse its function or cease to fulfil its purpose and the whole is
disorganised. Certainly there must be a Being who makes the different
members of an organism co-operate for the development and advantage of
the whole. The idea of purpose which regulates this co-operation cannot
have originated in the parts nor in the whole, but in the conception of
Him by whose Will these were created.
“The finger of God” is further recognised in the important events of
the life of the individual as well as in the history of whole nations.
We are frequently reminded of the lesson, “The heart of man deviseth
his way, but the Lord directeth his step” (Prov. xvi. 9). “Salvation is
the Lord’s, and on Thy people it is incumbent to bless Thee” (Ps. iii.
9).
Another argument in support of the belief in the existence of God is
taken from the moral consciousness which every human being possesses.
This points to the existence of a higher Being, perfect in goodness, as
the origin and cause of the moral consciousness in our own heart.
These and similar arguments are employed to strengthen and purify our
belief in God. The question, however, arises, are these arguments alone
sufficient to convince us? Are they strong enough to resist the attacks
of scepticism?
On examining them thoroughly we shall find them of excellent service to
the believer. His belief is strengthened against many doubts by which
he may be assailed; and scepticism will be kept at bay by these
arguments. But of themselves and unsupported they may not always
suffice to establish belief in God; and if they carry conviction with
them for the moment, we are not sure whether fresh arguments of
opponents might not again unsettle the mind. Another method was
therefore chosen by the Almighty, by which certainty is attained, and a
sure guide is given for our moral and religious life. It is Revelation.
Of this we shall speak later on.
The principal forms of religion or worship that sprang from the natural
belief in God are Polytheism, Pantheism, Atheism, Theism, and Deism.
1. The first form of Divine worship of which history and archæology
give us information is Polytheism. The creating and ruling power of
some invisible Being was noticed everywhere. Every manifestation of
such influence was ascribed to its peculiar deity, which was worshipped
according to the peculiar conception of the deity in the mind of the
individual person, family, or nation. This is chiefly the kind of
idolatry mentioned in the Bible and combated by the prophets.
A very general object of worship were the stars. Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi,
in Kuzari iv. 1, in trying to explain the origin of this practice, says
as follows:—“The spheres of the sun and the moon do not move in the
same way. A separate cause or god was therefore assumed for each, and
people did not think that there was a higher force on which all these
causes depended.” The ancient monuments and the treasures stored up in
our museums show how great was the variety of forms which idolatry
took, and to how great an extent people adhered, and still adhere, to
this kind of worship. But there have been thinkers and philosophers
even among the idolatrous nations who sought a unity in the
construction and working of the universe, and early arrived at the idea
of a First Cause as the sole source of all that exists.
2. The fact that the influence of the Divine power makes itself
perceptible to the observing eye of man everywhere produced another
kind of human error: Pantheism (All-God). Modern Pantheism dates from
Spinoza; but long before Spinoza, when the secret forces at work in the
changes noticed by us in all material objects were recognised as
properties inherent in the substance of things, these forces were
considered as the sole independent causes of the existing universe, and
the combination of these forces, called Nature, was considered to be
the First Cause, or God. A modification of this theory is contained in
the philosophy of Spinoza. According to this great philosopher’s
system, the universe in its entirety has the attributes of the Deity:
there exists nothing but the Substance (God), its attributes, and the
various ways in which these attributes become perceptible to man.
Spinoza tried to defend himself from the reproach of describing God as
corporeal, but he did not succeed. The attribute of extension or space
which God possesses, according to Spinoza, is only conceivable in
relation to corporeal things. The philosophy of Spinoza is in this
dilemma: either God is corporeal, or the corporeal world does not
exist. Both assumptions are equally absurd. It is true, in one of his
letters he complains that he has been misrepresented, as if he believed
God to consist of a certain corporeal mass. But we cannot help assuming
the existence of a certain corporeal mass, and if this is not God, we
must distinguish in our mind God and something that is not God,
contrary to the fundamental doctrine of Pantheism. Besides, there are
many incongruities and improbabilities involved in this theory. It has
no foundation for a moral consciousness. The wicked and the good are
alike inseparable from God. They both result with necessity from the
attributes of God, and they cannot be otherwise than they actually are.
If we, by the consideration that injury done to us by our fellow-man
was not done by that person alone, but by a series of predetermined
necessary causes, may be induced to conquer hatred against the apparent
cause of our injury, we may equally be induced by the same reasoning to
consider the kindness and benefits of our friends not worthy of
gratitude, believing that they were compelled to act in this manner,
and could not act otherwise.
3. Pantheism, by teaching All in One and One in All, is opposed to the
theory of man’s responsibility to a higher Being, denies the existence
of God in the ordinary sense of the word, and is, in its relation to
true religion, equal to atheism.
In the Bible atheism is stigmatised as the source of all evils. Thus
the patriarch Abraham suspected the people of Gerar, that there was “no
fear of God” in the place, and was afraid “they might slay him” (Gen.
xx. 11); whilst Joseph persuaded his brothers to have confidence in him
by the assertion, “I fear God” (Ib. xlii. 18). The first instance of an
atheist we meet in Pharaoh, king of Egypt, when he defiantly said, “I
know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exod. v. 2). Another
form of atheism is warned against in the words of Moses: “Lest thou
sayest in thine heart, My strength and the power of my hand has got for
me all this wealth” (Deut. viii. 17); and “Lest they say, Our hand is
high, and it is not the Lord that hath done all this” (Ib. xxxii. 27).
The prophets likewise rebuke the people for want of belief in God. In
the Psalms, the crimes and evil designs of oppressors are traced to
godlessness. “The wicked says in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. xiv.
1). But this atheism of the Bible is not a theoretical or dogmatic one;
it is not the result of thought, or of deep inquiry into the causes of
things, but merely the voice of an evil inclination which tempts man to
act contrary to the command of God, and assures him of immunity, under
the impression that his actions are not watched by a higher authority.
In post-Biblical literature we meet with the phrase, לית דִּין ולית דַּיָּן
“There is no judgment, and there is no judge,” as the basis of atheism.
4. Although the conviction of man’s responsibility to a higher
authority is the essential element in the belief in God, yet the notion
of godlessness was so intimately connected with crime and wickedness,
that those who rejected the authority and mastership of the Deity
refused to be called godless or atheists. Many philosophers retained
the name “God” (theos, deus) for their “First Cause” of the universe,
although it is deprived of the chief attributes of God. Thus we have as
the principal religious theories resulting from philosophical
investigations, Theism and Deism. Literally these two terms denote,
Theory of God, or Belief in God; the one word being derived from the
Greek theos, the other from the Latin deus, both meaning “God.”
There is, however, an essential difference between the two theories.
Theism and Deism have this in common, that both assume a spiritual
power, a divine being, as the cause and source of everything that
exists. They differ in this: to Theism this power is immanent in us and
the things round us; Deism considers this power as separate from the
things. Revelation or prophecy is altogether denied by the Deists,
whilst the Theists would accept it after their own fashion and
rationalise it.
All these various systems of religion have this in common, that they
attempt to remove from religion everything that cannot be comprehended
by human reason. But all attempts to substitute human reason for Divine
authority have failed. A limit has been set to human reason, and that
cannot be overcome. In every system of religion—the natural and the
rational included—there is a mystic element, which may be enveloped in
a mist of phrases, but remains unexplained. Whether we call the Creator
and Ruler of the universe God, Deus, or Theos, His relation to the
universe, and to man in particular, cannot be determined by the laws
which determine the natural phenomena in the universe, created by His
Will.
What is our conception of the Deity? The fundamental idea, from which
all our notions concerning God are derived, and which we have in common
with all other believers in God, is that He is the First Cause, the
Creator of the universe. This idea expressed in the term הבורא יתברך
שמו forms the basis of our creed. It is the Creator that is described
in it. Seven of the articles begin, “I believe with a perfect faith
that the Creator, blessed be His name,” &c.
We do not use the term “First Cause,” because it is too narrow; it only
expresses part of the truth, not the whole of it. By “First Cause” some
understand the cause of the gradual development of the primitive matter
into the innumerable variety of things contained in the universe; the
development of the original chaos into system and order. It is true
that the Creator is the cause of all this; but He is more than this: He
is the cause of the primitive matter, and of the original chaos. For He
has created the world out of nothing. The first verse of the Bible
teaches us creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo): “In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. i. 1); that is, the whole
universe. It is true that there were men who explained the meaning of
the Hebrew root ברא in a different manner, and desired to assign to
it the meaning: cutting out, forming out of a given material. But they
certainly misunderstood the spirit of the Scriptures. The eternal
coexistence of God and matter would imply a dualism utterly
incompatible with the teaching of the Bible. The frequently repeated
declaration, “He is our God; there is none besides” (אין עוד),
clearly excludes every form of dualism. Those who assert that the
universe could not come from nothing belong to the class of people of
whom the Psalmist says, “And they returned and tempted God, and set
limits to the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41).
If we cannot understand the act of the Creation, it is our own
intellect that is limited; and if we were to persuade ourselves that we
understand better the eternity of matter, we should deceive ourselves.
We cannot conceive matter without form as existing in reality, nor can
we have a clear notion of anything infinite. We are human beings,
endowed by the will and wisdom of the Creator with limited physical and
intellectual faculties, and in things that surpass our powers we cannot
do better than follow the guidance of the Divine Word. If we do so we
may be sure that we shall be on the right way to truth.
The first principle declared in our creed is this: God is not only the
Creator of the heavens and the earth, with all their hosts; He is also
the constant ruler of all created beings; He is בורא ומנהיג. We
therefore praise Him in our daily Morning prayer as “Doing wonders;
renewing in His goodness the work of the creation every day.” When we
observe the ordinary phenomena in nature, occurring in accordance with
certain fixed laws which have been discovered and described by man, we
see in them the greatness of the Creator by whose will these laws are
still in force, and by whose will any or all of these laws may one day
cease to continue.
It has been asserted that any interruption or change of these fixed
laws would indicate a weakness and want of foresight on the part of the
Creator, and a fault in the plan of the Creation. This notion has led
people either to deny the truth of the Biblical accounts concerning the
miracles wrought by the Almighty, or to admit the correctness of the
facts while denying their miraculous character, or to consider the
fixed laws of nature, together with their exceptions, as designed in
the original plan of the Creation. How short-sighted is man! He cannot
even fully comprehend his own short-sightedness! God made him ruler
over the works of His hands, and he presumes to be the ruler of God
Himself! When we learn from numerous observations and experiments the
law that seems to regulate certain recurring phenomena, have we then
fathomed the infinite wisdom of God in the Creation? Do we know the
reason which led Him to produce certain things according to certain
laws, and not otherwise? Have we in discovering a law of nature
obtained the power of prescribing the same law to God, and disallowing
Him to deviate therefrom? Far be it from us human beings, dust and
ashes, to arrogate to ourselves such a right! It may even be one of the
objects with which miracles were wrought to teach us that we do not yet
know all things, that events may happen which we are unable to foresee,
that phenomena may appear which we are unable to explain according to
the laws hitherto discovered; in short, that our knowledge and wisdom
are limited.
The fact that God has created the universe ex nihilo has been expressed
by Jewish philosophers as follows:—God is the only Being who demands no
cause for His existence; the very idea of God implies existence, and
cannot be conceived without it. All other beings owe their existence to
certain causes, in the absence of which they would not exist. God alone
is therefore only active, without ever being passive, only cause
without ever being effect, whilst every other being is both active and
passive, cause and effect; it has been produced by certain causes, and
is in its turn the cause of the existence of other beings. In the first
article a phrase expressing this idea has been added: “And He alone is
the active cause of all things, whether past, present, or future.” By
the addition of this sentence it was intended to deny the Eternity of
matter (קדמות העולם). The reference to past, present, and future is
to emphasise the constant action of the Creator, and the dependence of
the natural forces on His Will. The first principle has, therefore, the
following form:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is both
Creator and Ruler of all created beings, and that He alone is the
active cause of ALL things, whether past, present, or future.” [3]
Before passing on to the second principle concerning God, let us
briefly answer a question that has frequently been asked: What is the
relation between the theory of evolution, or in general the results of
modern science, and the history of the creation as related in the
Bible? In the Biblical account of the creation the various kinds of
plants and animals are described as the result or different and
distinct acts of the Creator, whilst according to the theory of
Evolution one creative act sufficed, and the great variety of creatures
is the result of gradual development according to certain laws inherent
in the things created. The Bible tells us of six days of the creation,
whilst according to the theory of evolution it must have taken millions
of years before the various species could have developed the one from
the other. Whilst the Biblical account describes the earth as the
centre of the universe, astronomy shows that the earth is one of the
most insignificant of the bodies that fill the infinite space of the
universe. According to astronomy and geology, the age of the earth
numbers millions of years; from the Biblical account we infer that the
earth is comparatively young. In the Bible man is described as the aim
and end of the whole creation; natural history and the theory of
evolution consider man simply as one of the forms resulting from a
natural development of the animal world. What shall be our decision in
this discrepancy? Shall we shut our eyes to the results of modern
science in our firm belief in the truth of the Bible? Or shall we
accept the former and abandon the latter?
We should adopt neither of these alternatives. We have great confidence
in our reasoning power, and in the results of science based on reason,
but we have still greater confidence in the truthfulness of Divine
teaching. The conflict is not a modern product; it existed in former
times as well. When the Jews first became acquainted with Greek
literature and philosophy, faith was shaken in the heart of many a Jew
that was led away by the attractive language and the persuasive
arguments of the Greek. Such was the case with the Jews in Alexandria,
who were almost more Greek than Jewish. Feeling that their faith in
their old traditions was beginning to give way, they looked about them
for the means of reconciling faith and philosophy. Where the literal
sense of Holy Writ was awkward, the allegorical interpretation was
substituted for it; but the authority of the Bible was recognised.
Later on, in the Middle Ages, when Aristotle, as understood and
interpreted in the Arabic schools, was infallible, perplexity again
became general, among the educated and learned, as to the course to be
pursued in case of a conflict; whether to remain true to the Bible or
to join the banner of Aristotle. The most prominent amongst the Jewish
theologians who sought the way of reconciliation was Moses Maimonides.
This philosopher wrote his famous work, “Guide of the Perplexed,”
expressly for those scholars who, whilst firmly adhering to the
inherited faith, had been trained in the study of philosophy, and were
unwilling to abandon either. Maimonides shows the way how to explain
Biblical passages implying statements contrary to philosophical
teachings, and how to reconcile theology and philosophy. A similar task
was undertaken in modern times by Moses Mendelssohn in his “Jerusalem”
and “Morgenstunden,” in order to show that strict adherence to the
Jewish religion is quite compatible with the teaching of philosophy.
The various systems of philosophy in Alexandria, in the Mohammedan
countries in the Middle Ages, and in Germany in the last century, which
threatened to endanger our religion, have lived their time and have
gone to their fathers, giving way to new systems and new ideas, whilst
the authority of the Word of God has maintained its place. This having
been the case in former days, there is no reason why we should not in
the present conflict assume, primâ facie, that the scientific and
philosophical dogmas now in favour, alike with Jews and non-Jews, will
have their time, and will ultimately give way to other theories, and
the present conflict will then likewise terminate, dying a natural
death. This reflection should put us on our guard lest we be persuaded
by the plausibility of the modern philosophical and scientific dogmas,
and throw aside our religious faith and traditions. We ought to bear in
mind that, however correct the conclusions of modern science may appear
that can be tested by our senses, theories which are not subject to
such tests are in reality nothing but hypotheses to which a greater or
lesser degree of probability attaches.
Suppose now—always bearing in mind the imperfect character of our
powers of observation—we were to observe that certain plants or species
of animals developed by training and circumstances into new species, or
to see plants being transformed into animals, or even to notice
literally “the foal of a wild ass born a man,” what would all this
prove? That the Creator endowed the species of plants and animals with
such properties as would enable them to transform into new species, or
into any other of the species already in existence; but it does not
follow that the Creator must have adopted the same method in the act of
creation. He created as many species as His wisdom determined, although
they might all have been able to develop from one single species.
Suppose the problem which the Alchymists of the Middle Ages proposed to
themselves, viz., to produce an animal being by mere chemical
combination, had actually been solved, would any one have believed that
all animals had been produced in that way? Or does the success of
artificial hatching of eggs convince any person that all birds have
sprung from artificially hatched eggs? The same argument applies to the
geological formation of the earth. We notice changes brought about
through natural forces, and mark the amount of change effected in a
certain period; we are then able to calculate what time would be
required for such or such a change—provided that only those laws be in
force which we have noticed in our calculation. Is it reasonable or
logical to apply to the act of creation the laws which have been
brought into force through this very act? “He said, and it was: He
commanded, and they were created” (Ps. xxxiii. 9). The word of God
produced in a moment what the natural forces established by the Creator
would effect by gradual development in millions of years.
It is true that the earth is one of the most insignificant bodies in
the universe, and man is a small portion of the creatures on earth, and
yet it is neither impossible nor unreasonable to believe that the
benefits which man derives from the various parts of the creation, from
the sun, the moon, and the stars, were essential elements in the scheme
of the All-wise Creator.
Attempts have frequently been made to interpret the Biblical account of
the creation in such a manner as to reconcile it with the scientific
theories of the time. Thus it has been argued that the period between
the creation of “heaven and earth” and the creation of “the light” is
not described in the Bible, and may have been millions of millions of
years. It has likewise been suggested that the term “day” is to be
understood in the sense of “period.” It has further been pointed out
that the account of the creation of animals indicates a process of
development rather than a creatio ex nihilo; for it says, “And God
said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly living beings,” &c. (Gen.
i. 20). “Let the earth bring forth living beings,” &c. (Ibid. 24).
These interpretations may be true, and may suffice temporarily to check
sceptical ideas that rise in our mind; but without the firm belief in
the Word of God, and the consciousness of the insufficiency of human
reason thoroughly to understand the plans and ways of God, our faith
can never be safe. Supported by this belief we shall always be able to
brave the ever-recurring billows of scepticism.
2. The next principle contained in our Creed concerning God is the
Unity of God.
“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out from the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage: thou shalt have no other gods before me”
(Exod. xx. 2–3). This is the first lesson the Israelites were taught
when God revealed Himself to them on Mount Sinai. The words, “Hear, O
Israel; the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. vi. 4), are
proclaimed by us thrice every day; we recite them when we rise; keep
them in memory during the day, and repeat them in the evening before we
go to rest; they form our watchword throughout our life, and with these
words upon our lips we end our earthly existence. The Unity of God is
the doctrine that distinguishes the Jews from other religious sects, in
so far as the Jews were the first nation of Monotheists. From them
Monotheism has spread among other peoples, who, however, did not always
receive or preserve it in its original purity. We not only proclaim God
as One, refusing to recognise as divine any power beside Him, but
refrain also from attributing to God anything that might directly or
indirectly involve any notion contrary to the Unity of God.
For this reason certain Jewish philosophers considered it unlawful to
assign to God any positive attribute. They feared this might lead to
dualism, to believe in God and in His attribute as two distinct beings,
because attributes are so easily personified and addressed as separate
deities. Some theologians even were of opinion that the admission of
God’s attributes is itself a form of dualism which must be excluded
from our faith. Nevertheless, attributes are assigned to God both in
the Scriptures and in our Prayers. We must not, however, forget that
such attributes do not describe anything inherent in the Divine Being,
but only God’s relation to man and His actions in such terms as are
intelligible to human beings. Most of the attributes are interpreted as
being of a negative character, indicating what we must not say of God.
When we speak of the Will, Wisdom, and Spirit of God, we do not speak
of anything separate from the Divine Being, but of the Divine Being
Himself. The Jewish doctrine of the Unity of God does not admit any
kind of dualism in the Divine Being, and therefore rejects the
existence of Divine Attributes as distinct from God Himself. He is One,
simple and indivisible. Even this property of being One seemed to some
theologians to be contrary to strict unity, and we are therefore taught
that we must not understand it in the sense of a numerical unit, in
which sense the term is used when applied to created beings. The second
article therefore declares: “The Creator is One, and there is no
Oneness like His in any way.”
The Unity of God is the creed which the Jews have always proclaimed by
word of mouth, to which they have given expression throughout their
literature, and for which they have willingly sacrificed their lives as
martyrs. When persecuted by Mohammedans or Christians the Jews were
frequently forced to break the Sabbath, to ignore the dietary laws, and
to neglect Divine worship. They bore all this patiently when under
pressure of persecution, but when they were asked to renounce the
belief in God’s Unity they did not doubt for a moment as to what their
duty was; they adhered firmly to יחוד השם “the belief in God’s
Unity,” and sacrificed their lives for קדוש השם “the sanctification
of God’s name.”
The Jews have been victorious. In spite of persecution and oppression
they have maintained their faith. The doctrine of the Unity of God, for
which they had to suffer so much in past centuries, is now admitted as
true by most of their former persecutors.
In order to make clear what we mean by unity, and to express that God
could not be conceived as existing at any time in a double form, we add
the words: “And He alone was, is, and will be our God.” The second
article runs therefore as follows:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is One; that
there is no Oneness like His, in any way, and that He alone was, is,
and will be our God.”
3. The strict Unity of God, in the sense explained above, implies His
Incorporeality, which forms the subject of the third article.
Corporeality implies substance and form, a dualism which must be
rigidly excluded from God. It would not have been necessary to
formulate a special article for the exclusion of corporeality from the
idea of God but for the fact that many erroneous notions have been
entertained on the subject. Besides the fact that the corporeality of
God was assumed by certain religious sects, there have been scholars
among the Jews who defended the literal sense of anthropomorphic
phrases in the Scriptures.
In the Bible anthropomorphic expressions are employed in order to
illustrate the different acts of Divine Providence in such a way as to
render them more intelligible to us human beings. We consist of body
and soul, and we produce an impression or exercise an influence on
others by means of our body and by the activity of our bodily organs.
How an incorporeal being acts upon the corporeal world we are unable
fully to comprehend, much less to describe. If we desire to picture to
ourselves or to others the fact that through Divine Providence
something has been produced on earth, we must employ the same phrases
which we use in describing human acts which effect a similar result. In
reality, however, there is no comparison or similarity between God and
corporeal beings, between His actions and ours.
When we therefore speak of the house of God we mean the house which we
devote to our prayers, in which we feel the omnipresence of the
Almighty more than in any other place. The heaven is called the throne
of God and the earth His footstool only to express the idea that the
majesty of God is far beyond comparison with that of any earthly ruler,
and that the house of God built by human hands is not intended to
satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Being but those of man. We call
Him our Father and He calls us His children, because we love Him as we
love our father, and He loves us as a father loves his children. In the
same sense the Psalmist (ii. 7) repeats the words of God to him, “Thou
art my son; I have this day begotten thee.” Such expressions as these
are anthropomorphic.
The Bible frequently exhorts us not to imagine or ascribe to God any
form or likeness. Comp. Deut. iv. 15, “Take ye therefore good heed unto
yourselves; for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spake
unto you in Horeb out of the midst of fire.” In the same sense the
prophet asks in the name of God (Isa. xl. 18), “To whom then will you
liken God, or what likeness will you compare unto Him?” “To whom then
will you liken Me, that I should be equal to Him? saith the Holy One”
(Ibid. 25).
We declare therefore in the third article:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not a body,
that corporeal relations do not apply to Him, and that there exists
nothing that is in any way similar to Him.”
4. The next property we declare of God in the Creed is the eternity of
God. As He is the cause of everything in existence, and requires no
cause for His existence, and as it is impossible to separate the idea
of existence from the idea of God, it follows that God is always in
existence, and that neither beginning nor end can be fixed to His
existence. Maimonides, in expressing his belief in the eternity of God,
lays stress only on God being without a beginning, and in this sense he
interprets the phrase Dip אלהי קדם (Deut. xxxiii. 27), “the eternal
God” who is without a beginning. That God is without end is equally
true, but Maimonides did not desire to introduce this idea into the
fourth article as a distinguishing characteristic, as it is not
necessary to believe that the universe will once come to an end. If it
please the Almighty to give the universe existence for ever, it will
continue for ever. Following, however, the example of the prophets, who
told us in the name of God, “I am the first, and I am the last,” we
express this idea in our Creed, and understand it thus: If, by the will
of the Almighty, the entire universe should come to an end, God’s
existence would still continue. Thus the Psalmist says, “Of old hast
Thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of
Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea, all of them
shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and
they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have
no end” (Ps. cii. 26–28).
The fourth article is:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, was the first,
and will be the last.”
6. After having declared our faith in God as the sole Ruler of the
universe, who is One, incorporeal and eternal, we proclaim Him as our
Supreme Master, who alone is capable of granting our petitions. All
existing things are under His control; all forces in nature only work
at His will and by His command. No other being possesses the power and
independence to fulfil our wishes of its own accord, if it were
approached by us with our prayers. It is, therefore, to Him alone that
we can reasonably address our petitions, and in doing so we have
confidence in the efficacy of our prayers, for “the Lord is nigh to all
those who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth” (Ps. cxlv.
18).
This article, although expressly directed against idolatry, and
primarily against the worship of “the angels, the stars, and the
spheres,” implies our belief in God as the Omnipotent, who can do
everything, and can help us when we have not any prospect of relief.
We therefore declare in the fifth article:—
“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His name, alone is
worthy of being worshipped, and that no other being is worthy of our
worship.”
The Omnipotence of God is also implied in the first article, which
declares Him the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. That Maimonides
does not directly make omnipotence, like unity, incorporeality, &c.,
the subject of a separate article has its good reason, and is not “the
result of mere chance.” Silly questions were frequently asked; e.g.,
how far the omnipotence of God extended, whether it implied the power
of making twice two equal to three, or the whole of a magnitude larger
than the sum of its parts, and similar logical impossibilities. To
avoid misunderstanding, Maimonides did not express our belief in the
omnipotence of God in a separate article, but the first and the fifth
articles imply it.
We believe of God that He is immutable or unchangeable. It is, however,
not necessary to express this in a separate article. By declaring the
Unity of God we proclaim also His Immutability, since unity, in the
sense in which we conceive it, is incompatible with any kind of change.
Whatever the change might be that we assumed in God, it would destroy
the idea of His unity.
There are other qualities which we ascribe to God. We call Him perfect,
all-wise, good, kind, merciful, long-suffering, and the like; in short,
whatever we find in our own person good and noble we believe to be
present in God in a higher degree, in the most perfect form. But these
attributes approach very closely anthropomorphisms, which Maimonides
rigidly excludes from the Creed. They express rather the impressions
produced in our soul by the different acts of God’s Providence, and do
not describe God Himself.
Of this class of attributes are the thirteen divine attributes, שלש
עשרה מדות (Exod. xxxiv. 6). They describe in thirteen terms the
goodness and mercy of God towards man in his various conditions of
innocence, guilt, and repentance. These are not distinctly mentioned in
our Creed, but when we declare that He is the only Being whom we can
address in our prayers, we are certainly conscious and convinced that
He, being good, kind, and merciful, listens to our supplications.
2. REVELATION, תורה מן השמים.
The second group of principles refers to Revelation. The real process
of revelation, by what means and in what manner the infinite and
incorporeal Being makes His Will known to man, and how the latter
becomes conscious and convinced of the fact that a Divine communication
has been made to him, remains a mystery to all but those privileged
persons who have been actually addressed by the Almighty. “As the blind
man who had never possessed the sense of sight is incapable of
comprehending the actual process of seeing, so are we, born without
that wonderful prophetic eye, without the prophetic faculty of the
mind, incapable of comprehending and depicting the process of
inspiration that goes on within the mind of the privileged” (Schmiedl,
Studien, p. 183). God reveals Himself also in nature, in the power and
wisdom displayed in its phenomena. He reveals Himself in the history of
nations, and especially in the history of Israel. He reveals Himself in
the intelligence of man. In all these cases the revelation is made to
all alike. Those who have eyes may see, those who have ears may hear,
and recognise, every one according to his capacity, the presence of the
Almighty in the working of the laws of nature, in the development and
fates of nations, and in the life of every individual person. In all
these cases we can test and prove the revelation by ourselves, and need
not exclusively rely on authority. When, however, a Divine
communication is made to one privileged individual, through whom it is
made known to a whole community, or to mankind, there is no other means
of testing the correctness of the revelation than the trustworthiness
of the privileged individual.
The first lesson or proof given to the Israelites of the fact that such
revelation was not only possible, but had actually been vouchsafed by
the Almighty, was the revelation on Mount Sinai, the מעמד הר סיני,
which became the foundation of the faith of Israel. “And the Lord said
unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may
hear when I speak with thee, and may also believe thee for ever” (Exod.
xix. 9). The trustworthiness of Moses having thus been tested and
established “for ever,” his teaching remained the foundation of the
teaching of all succeeding prophets, and the test of their truthfulness
and genuineness. A prophet who taught anything opposed to the law of
Moses could not be a true prophet, although he supported his words by
signs and miracles (Deut. xiii. 2, sqq.). Besides, revelation of the
Divine Being had taken place before. God revealed Himself to the first
man. Adam heard the voice of God; he felt the presence of the Almighty,
and learnt the amount of evil man brings upon himself by disobeying the
word of God. The consciousness of the existence of God, and of the fact
that He has revealed Himself to man, has been inherited by the
descendants of Adam. It has not been preserved in all men in the same
strength and purity. The notion of a Divine Being, and of His
revelation to man, became in course of time corrupt, and led to the
corruption of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his
family. “Noah was a righteous man; perfect he was in his generations:
with God did Noah walk” (Gen. vi. 9). The inherited consciousness of
God’s existence and of His rule over man was strengthened in him by
fresh, direct revolution of God. He was told that the wicked would be
destroyed by a flood, and that he with his family would be saved. “The
righteous man” witnessed the infliction which the wicked brought upon
themselves by evil deeds, and also that protection of himself and his
family which had been promised and granted by the Almighty. After Noah
had left the ark the word of God was again communicated to him,
promising that never again would a flood be sent to destroy all living
beings—a promise which succeeding generations up to the present have
seen fulfilled. In the midst of rain the “sign of covenant,” the
rainbow, reminds us still of His promise and its fulfilment. Of the
descendants of Noah the Semites alone seem to have preserved the belief
in God’s existence and His revelation to man in its original purity;
and of the Semites it was Abraham who was chosen by Providence to be
the founder of a family of faithful believers in God, who formed, as it
were, the centre from which the true faith should spread in all
directions over the whole face of the earth. Abraham received Divine
communications, and so also his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. Even
when the children of Israel were in Egyptian slavery, and when they did
not hearken to Moses “because of anguish of spirit, and because of
cruel bondage,” the memory of these revelations was never entirely
extinguished in their minds; and when again addressed by Moses and
Aaron “the people believed; and when they heard that the Lord had
visited the children of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction,
then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (Exod. iv. 31). Their faith
was strengthened when they witnessed the fulfilment of the Divine
message which was brought to them by Moses: “And they believed in the
Lord, and in Moses His servant” (Ibid. xiv. 31).
The foundation of the belief in the possibility of Divine revelation
having thus been laid, that belief was further strengthened through the
revelation on Mount Sinai, when every Israelite heard and understood
the words addressed to him by God, “who had brought them out of Egypt,
of the house of bondage;” they heard the very words which Moses
subsequently told them in the name of God, and they were convinced of
the truth of the words of Moses. He taught them that there would be
other persons chosen by God to bring messages from Him to the children
of Israel or to mankind, and at the same time he laid down the rule by
which the truth of such messages could be tested.
A person favoured by Divine communications was called a prophet,
נביא. That which characterised a prophet and distinguished him from
the ordinary man was the privilege of being chosen by Providence to be
מלאך יי “the messenger of God” to man. This notion of the
characteristics of a prophet explains the circumstance that, although
Daniel was favoured with numerous prophetic visions, the book called
after his name was not placed among the Prophets, but among the
Hagiographa. It is on account of his addressing his brethren and
informing them of the Will of God that a person was called a prophet.
[4] By simply receiving a communication, without the direction to
impart the knowledge acquired to others, a person may become a man of
God, a man in whom there is the spirit of God, but not a prophet.
It is our belief that God would not reveal Himself to any one that is
unworthy of such distinction. As a conditio sine quâ non it was
necessary that the prophets distinguished themselves in every kind of
virtue, that they set to their fellow-men an example of purity in
thought, loftiness in speech, and nobility in action. As regards
general knowledge and experience they were inferior to none of their
contemporaries. In the Talmud the saying occurs: אין השכינה שורה על
אדם אלא אם כן היה חכם גבור ועשיר “The Divine spirit does not rest on
man, unless he is wise, strong, and rich” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath, 92a).
This is certainly a true conception of the character of a prophet,
“strong” and “rich” being understood in a figurative sense: “strong” in
possessing mastery over his passions, and “rich” in being contented
with what he has (Aboth iv. 1). It was a matter of indifference,
however, whether the prophet was strong in body or weak, whether he had
many earthly possessions or none at all.
In spite of his distinction from his fellow-men in wisdom, moral
strength, and contentedness, the prophet remained a human being; he
was, like every other person, exposed to the temptation to sin and
liable to error. The sins and errors of prophets are recorded in order
to save us from despair when we are conscious of our sinfulness, and to
show us the way to repentance. This is illustrated especially in the
history of the prophet Jonah. The records of the sins of prophets serve
as a warning that we should not consider any man as perfect or deify
him.
Although the prophet is assumed to have been wise, surpassing his
fellow-men in knowledge and wisdom, it is by no means necessary to
believe that he was familiar with all sciences, or that he knew any of
the discoveries made in later times. The prophet had frequently to
inform his brethren of what would happen in future, to tell them of
things which no human eye could foresee. But he had in general no
greater knowledge of coming events than other men, except in reference
to those events concerning which he had received a message from God for
His people or for mankind.
Can a man be trained for the office of a prophet? Was there a school or
institution for this purpose? Every one could certainly be trained in
the primary conditions of a prophet, in the exercise of all human
virtues, and in the acquisition of all available knowledge; and it was
the duty and the aim of the prophets to encourage all their brethren to
such training by their own example. But the principal element in
prophecy the Divine communication, depended solely on the Will of God.
“The sons of the prophets” are generally believed to be the pupils of
the prophets; they formed “the schools of the prophets.” These schools,
however, could not have been schools or colleges in the ordinary sense
of the word. The sons of the prophets were instructed by the prophets,
but not with the purpose of training them as prophets. It seems that
the sons of the prophets served as agents for promulgating the inspired
messages of their chief. Most probably they led a simple, pious life,
were God-fearing, and spent their time when meeting together in music
and song, repeating hymns and lessons taught by their master.
An account of some of the messages and deeds of the prophets is given
in the Biblical books; some of their speeches also are preserved, in
the section of the Bible called “Latter Prophets,” נביאים אחרונים.
The speeches of the prophets were in some cases prepared and written
down before they were spoken, in others delivered ex tempore without
preparation, and were written down afterwards from memory, either by
the prophet himself or by one of his hearers, or were handed down vivâ
voce from generation to generation before they were committed to
writing.
There is another kind of Divine revelation which did not find
expression in any message to the Israelites or to mankind, but in a
certain supernatural impulse given to the thought or will of a person
as regards his words and actions. Such an impulse is called
inspiration, and the inspired person is moved to speak or act by the
רוח יי “spirit of the Lord.”
It was the spirit of the Lord that moved Samson to heroic deeds against
the enemies of his people; David likewise felt that Divine impulse when
pouring forth his heart before the Lord in his Psalms. He says: “The
spirit of the Lord spake in me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Sam.
xxiii. 2). It was the spirit of the Lord that filled the hearts of
those who collected and sifted the Holy Writings containing law,
history, prophecies, and poetry, and gave them the form in which we
possess them now.
We are not quite certain as to the form of the letters in the original
copies of the Holy Writings; but from the way in which the Pentateuch
is written now in the Synagogue scrolls, we may infer with certainty
that the ancient copies of the Torah contained no vowels or accents,
and that these have come down to us by oral tradition.
For the multiplication of copies, human copyists had to be employed. It
is by no means contrary to our faith in the Bible to assume that, as
far as the human work of these copyists is concerned, it must have been
subject to the fate of all human work, to error and imperfection. And,
in fact, there are many copies of the Bible that abound in mistakes;
there are passages in Scripture that vary in the different manuscripts;
hence the numerous variæ lectiones met with in the critical editions of
the Bible. But, on the other hand, it would not be reasonable to assume
that the holy literature and the national treasure, very limited in
size, should have been neglected by the religious authorities of the
time to such an extent that no reliable, correct copy was kept, to be
consulted in case of doubt or difference of opinion. This being the
case with all Biblical books, it applies with special force to the
Torah or Pentateuch, which contains the Divine commandments. The least
alteration made by copyists—unknowingly or knowingly—might involve a
question of life and death. Must it not have been the duty of the
judicial authority to keep a correct authorised copy in a safe place?
It is certainly most reasonable to assume that such a copy was kept,
and that there were in every generation among the priests or prophets
men who had a thorough knowledge of the Law, and could easily detect
any interference with the text. As the laws do not form a separate
section of the Bible, but are interwoven with a historical account of
important events from the Creation to the death of Moses, the entire
Pentateuch, composed of both laws and history, was preserved with the
same anxiety and watchfulness. That great care was taken in copying the
Law we learn from the fact mentioned in the Talmud, that Ezra minutely
examined the three scrolls he found in the Temple, and in three
passages noticed different readings, of which he adopted the one found
in two copies.
The other books of the Bible are of less importance, but the exclusion
of error on the part of the copyist, though it has not the same, has
yet a high degree of certainty, inasmuch as they too formed part of the
holy, national literature. If a mistake should be clearly proved, it
would not be contrary to our religious principles to admit it. But we
shall find, after thorough study and examination of the impugned
passages, that there is in each case far greater doubt as to the
correctness of any of the numerous emendations suggested than of the
traditional and Massoretic text before us. It may frequently occur that
some emendations appear strikingly correct, and yet after due
reflection they are found more doubtful than the original. It is
therefore our duty thoroughly to examine each proposed emendation, and
to hesitate long before admitting the incorrectness of the received
text and the correctness of the emendation.
One of the means of preserving the text of the Scriptures in its
integrity has been the Massorah. The notes which are found in the
margin of Biblical books form part of the Massorah. At first the
Massorah was part of the oral tradition; exceptional forms of letters,
punctuation, and words were probably taught vivâ voce, and learnt by
heart, especially by scribes, readers, and teachers. Where a
confounding with other and similar forms was apprehended, attention was
called to the fact, and by certain notes and rules it was guarded
against. The material for the Massorah increased in the course of time,
in the same degree as, with the multiplication of copies of the
Scriptures, the number of misreadings and misinterpretations increased.
Although these notes were arranged and written down at a late period,
they helped to preserve the Biblical text in its integrity, and it is
therefore stated in the Mishnah (Aboth iii. 13): “Massorah (tradition)
is a fence to the Law.”
As to the name of the author of each book or section, and the time and
place of its composition, we are guided by the headings where such are
extant; in the absence of these we are left to the resources of our own
judgment or fancy. There is no reason whatever to doubt the correctness
of these headings, as the religious and learned authorities of the time
were trustworthy men, who would not add a heading where none was handed
down to them by tradition. Several books and many psalms are therefore
left without a heading; there was no sure tradition about them. How far
the heading of a book or section extends, whether it was meant only for
the beginning or for the whole of it, is in some cases doubtful, and
must be decided by the nature and contents of the book. For instance,
the second part of Isaiah, from chap. xl. to the end, has no heading of
its own; it is therefore open to discussion whether the heading in the
first verse of the first chapter describes only the first thirty-nine
or all the sixty-six chapters of the book. It is possible that Psalms,
ascribed, according to their heading, to David, consist of two or more
parts, of which one only was composed by David. The names of the books
do not necessarily imply a reference to the author. The Book of Joshua,
e.g., may have received its name from its contents, the history of the
Israelites under Joshua being contained in it. The two books of Samuel
could not have been written by Samuel, not even the whole of the first
book, since the death of Samuel is therein recorded; but they owe their
name to the fact that the first book commences with the history of
Samuel.
THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, תנ״ך
The collection of books known by these names are ספרי קדש or כתבי
קדש “holy books” or “holy writings,” because the authors of these
books were holy men their object is a holy one, viz., to train man to
holiness, and the contents of the books is holy, free from all blemish
and error. The books vary greatly in character, in style, and in
purpose, but truthfulness is common to all of them. Whether they
narrate events or proclaim God’s decrees, or instruct or edify their
hearers, what they say is true.
The name Bible is derived from the Greek βιβλιον, “book.” תנ״ך
(pronounced tenach) has no meaning in itself, and is a word formed of
the initials of תורה נביאים כתובים. Sometimes אנ״ך (the initials of
the Chaldee אוריתא נביאין כתיבין) is used instead of תנ״ך. Another
name is מקרא “text for reading,” as opposed to vivâ voce tradition. A
passage quoted from the Bible is called קרא or מקרא or כתוב.
Christians call the books of the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament as
distinguished from the New Testament.
1. תורה LAW.
The Torah or Law is divided into five books, and is therefore called
חומש or Pentateuch (Fivefold or Five-book). The names of the five
books are: (1) בראשית Genesis (Creation); (2) שמות Exodus
(departure, scil., of the Israelites from Egypt); (3) ויקרא Leviticus
(on the laws concerning the Levites or priests), also called תורת
כהנים “law of the priests;” (4) במדבר Numbers; (5) דברים
Deuteronomy, a Greek term denoting “second-law” or “repetition of the
law,” a translation of the Hebrew משנה תורה.
These names are derived from the beginnings of the books. The Hebrew
names are either the first word of the book, as is the case in the
first and the third books (בראשית and ויקרא), or the first
characteristic word, as is the case in the other three books (שמות
the second word, במדבר the fifth, דברים the second). The English or
Greek names describe the subject-matter of the first section of the
book. This applies also to the rest of the Biblical writings.
The contents of the five books are as follows:—
The first book (בראשית).—It begins with the important lesson, the
basis of all that is taught in the whole Bible: that God is the Creator
of the whole universe. Then follows an account of the Creation, the
history of the first man and the first woman, their transition from the
state of innocence and happiness to the state of sin and toil, their
descendants, the beginnings of industry and civilisation, the
deterioration of mankind, the flood, Noah, and the succeeding
generations to Abraham; the history of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, or Israel; the immigration of Jacob with his family into
Egypt; and with the death of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the book
concludes.
The book contains principally history, but mention is made also of some
religious institutions. Reference is thus made to the institution of
marriage (ii. 23–25); Sabbath (ii. 1–3); the Covenant of Abraham or the
commandment of circumcision (xvii. 1–14); the prohibition of eating
flesh cut off from an animal while alive (ix. 4, אבר מן החי), of
murder (ix. 5–6), and of eating “the sinew that shrank” (xxxii. 33,
גיד הנשה).
The second book (שמות).—The history of the family of Jacob, the
Israelites, is continued: their sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus, the
journey to Mount Sinai, the Revelation, the erection of the Tabernacle,
and the events in the camp of the Israelites during their stay in the
wilderness of Sinai.
The Divine precepts take a more prominent place in this book. Chief
among these are the institution of the Jewish Calendar, appointing the
month of Abib—Nisan—to be the first month (xii. 2); the Sacrifice of
the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (chap. xii.); the
Sabbath (xvi. 22–30); the Decalogue (chap. xx. 1–12); civil legislation
(xxi. to xxiii.); the year of release (xxiii. 10, 11); and the שלש
רגלים or festivals of pilgrimage to the sanctuary of the Lord; viz.,
Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (פסח, שבועות and סכות xxiii.
14–17).
The third book (ויקרא) contains the laws revealed during the stay of
the Israelites near Mount Sinai. A few historical incidents are
mentioned in illustration of the Law. Leviticus contains the laws
concerning the sacrifices (i. to vii.); the initiation of Aaron and his
sons as priests (viii. to x.); dietary laws (xi.); laws about cleanness
and uncleanness (טהרה וטומאה) in man and woman (xii. to xv.); the Day
of Atonement (xvi.); prohibition of blood (xvii. 10–14); marriage laws
(xviii. and xx. 10–22); laws concerning the holiness of man (xix.);
laws concerning the priests (xxi., xxii. 16) and sacrifices (xxii.
17–33); the Festivals of the Lord (xxiii.); the year of release and the
year of jubilee, and land-laws connected with these (xxv.); laws
concerning the transfer of property to the sanctuary and the priests.
The fourth book records the departure of the Israelites from Mount
Sinai, their journeyings until they came to the east of the Jordan in
the plains of Moab; the chief incidents during these travels, viz., the
consecration of the altar, and the instalment of the Levites as
assistants to the priests in the performance of the Divine Service; the
first appointment of a council of seventy elders; the punishment of
Miriam for slander; the spies; the rebellion of Korah; death of Miriam;
Moses and Aaron’s sin at Meribah, and their punishment; death of Aaron;
wars with Sihon and Og; the blessings of Bileam instead of his intended
cursings; the zeal and distinction of Phineas; war against Midian; the
appointment of Joshua as future leader of Israel.
There is also in the book a list of all the stations where the
Israelites had encamped during their travels through the Arabian desert
(chap. xxxiii.), and a minute description of the boundaries of the land
of Canaan (chap. xxxiv.).
The following are the principal laws mentioned in Numbers: the laws
concerning Nazirites; concerning a woman suspected of faithlessness
against her husband; the second Passover (פסח שני) for those who
could not fulfil their duty on the 14th of Nisan; the law of fringes
(ציצת); the law of purification of persons who have become unclean
through contact with the dead body of any person (פרה אדומה chap.
xix.); the law of inheritance (xxvii.); the sacrifices for the
festivals (xxviii., xxix.); the laws of vows (xxx.); laws concerning
murder and cities of refuge (xxxv.).
The fifth book (דברים) contains speeches of Moses which he addressed
to the Israelites during the last year of his life, reminding them of
their repeated disobedience to the Divine command, and their want of
confidence in Him, and exhorting them to be faithful to God. He
frequently emphasises the truth that blessing and happiness can only be
obtained through obedience, trouble and curses being the certain result
of sin and transgression. Chapter xxviii., called תוכחה “exhortation”
or “rebuke” (see also Lev. xxvi.), is especially devoted to this
principle. In the song האזינו (chap, xxxii.), which all the people
were to learn by heart, Moses rebukes his brethren for their
ingratitude to God, and foretells them that, in the remote future,
similar conduct will be visited severely, and that after a period of
punishment God will show mercy to them, and again restore them to a
state of happiness and glory. Before his death he gives a special
blessing to each tribe. The book concludes with the death of Moses, the
succession of Joshua, and the praise of Moses as the greatest of all
prophets.
Many of the commandments are repeated in the course of the
exhortations: the Decalogue, the laws concerning the three agricultural
and national festivals (שלש רגלים), and such other laws as Moses
considered necessary to impress on the heart of the Israelites before
he departed from among them. The Israelites being near Jordan, and
about to take possession of the promised land, their attention is
called to such laws as would then come into practice, e.g., those which
refer to the political and judicial arrangements of the country (xvi.
to xviii.); and the solemn declaration of allegiance to the Will of God
(xxvii.).
The Pentateuch is divided into verses (פסוקים), paragraphs (פסקות),
and into sections called סדרות or “weekly portions.” The division
into chapters is of comparatively modern origin.
2. THE PROPHETS
are divided into two groups: Earlier and Latter Prophets (נביאים
ראשונים ונביאים אחרונים).
The Earlier Prophets do not contain prophecies in the usual meaning of
the word. They contain the history of Israel from the accession of
Joshua to the leadership of Israel, to the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. They are, nevertheless, called
“Prophets,” for two reasons:—
(1.) The history is written in a prophetic spirit, with the view of
illustrating the principle that obedience to the word of God was the
cause of Israel’s prosperity and success, disobedience the cause of
trouble and misery.
(2.) The Earlier Prophets include the history of Deborah, Samuel,
Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, and a few anonymous prophets.
No collection of their speeches has been made or preserved in the
Scriptures, and they are thus distinguished from the latter prophets,
whose prophecies have been collected and form the contents of the
“Latter Prophets.”
The following books belong to the Earlier Prophets:—
1. The Book of Joshua (יהושע), containing the history of the conquest
and division of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, from their
crossing the Jordan to the death of Joshua.
Among the various incidents related in the book the following are
noteworthy:—The circumcision of those who had been born during the
wandering of Israel in the wilderness; the celebration of the first
Passover in the Holy Land; the appearance of “the prince of the host of
the Lord” (v. 14), just before the war commenced, in order to remind
Joshua that “the place upon which he stood was holy;” [5] the crossing
of the Jordan; the taking of Jericho; the disastrous consequences of
Achan’s sin, as an illustration of the principle that the whole
community is made responsible for the crime of the individual till the
crime is discovered and punished; the battle at Gibeon, famous through
Joshua’s exclamation, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou
moon, in the valley of Ajalon!” (x. 12); and the appointment of the
cities of refuge.
2. The Book of Judges (שופטים) contains episodes of the history of
the Israelites from the death of Joshua to the days of the high-priest
Eli. The name “Judge” is identical with that of chief magistrate, or
simply chief or leader. The judges were persons chosen by God, and
inspired with an extraordinary spirit of courage and bravery, to be the
liberators of the country, or part of the country, from the tyranny of
oppressors. The virtues that were required in order to qualify them for
this mission were patriotism and courage. Some of them may have
continued in power after the restoration of peace and order, but on the
whole their mission as judges was fulfilled with the cessation of war.
They were not the religious teachers of the nation, nor are they set up
as examples of piety.
During the period of the judges the tribes of Israel were not united
(song of Deborah, Judges v. 15–17). There was no common government, or
if there was one, it must have possessed little power and influence.
The people became degraded; many worshipped idols and altogether
ignored the Divine commandments. But the conscience of the nation was
roused when a shocking crime was committed at Gibeah in the tribe of
Benjamin, and all Israel united in demanding the punishment of the
evil-doers (chaps. xix. to xxi.). The book contains two beautiful
poetical passages, the song of Deborah (v.) and the parable of Jotham
(ix.).
3. The two books of Samuel (שמואל א׳ וב׳)—also called the first and
second books of Kings—contain the history of Israel during the time of
the high-priest Eli, the prophet Samuel, and Saul, the first king of
Israel (Book I.); and the reign of David (Book II.).
The following passages are noteworthy:—
ii. 6–7: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the
grave and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich; He
bringeth low and lifteth up.”
xii. 22: “The Lord will not forsake His people, for His great name’s
sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people.”
xv. 22–23: “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath
also rejected thee from being king.”
xvi. 7: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”
xxiv. 14: “Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked.”
II., xxiv. 14: “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand
of the Lord; for His mercies are great: and let me not fall into the
hand of man.”
The following poetical passages of the book should also be marked:—
The prayer of Hannah (ii. 1–10); David’s lament over Saul’s death (II.,
i. 18–27); Parable of the prophet Nathan (xii. 1–6); Song of
thanksgiving by David (xxii.); David’s faith in God’s justice (xxiii.
1–7).
4. The first and the second books of Kings (מלכים א׳ וב׳), also
called the third and fourth books of Kings, contain the history of
Israel from the death of David to the Babylonian exile. The first book
describes the last days of King David, the reign of Solomon, the
division of the country into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, the
history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat, and the
history of the kingdom of Israel from Jeroboam to Ahab. The second book
continues the history of the kingdom of Israel from Ahab to the
conquest of Samaria by Shalmanessar, king of Assyria, and that of the
kingdom of Judah from Abijam, son of Jehoshaphat, to the conquest of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
I., ii. 2: “I go the way of all the earth; be thou strong therefore,
and show thyself a man.”
xviii. 21: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God.
follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.”
II., xiv. 9: “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that
was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there
passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the thistle.”
[6]
Note, besides, prayer of Solomon (I., viii. 12–61) and message of
Isaiah to King Hezekiah (II., xix. 21–31).
The נביאים אחרונים Latter Prophets, contain the following books:—
I. Isaiah (ישעיהו).—Isaiah prophesied chiefly during the Assyrian
invasions in Palestine in the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The book is divided into two main sections,
separated from each other by the narrative of Sennacherib’s invasion
and defeat, Hezekiah’s illness and recovery, and the congratulatory
message of the Babylonian king to Hezekiah (chaps, xxxvi. to xxxix.).
The first section is divided into five parts with separate headings:—
(1.) Chap. i.—This prophecy was probably repeated by Isaiah many times
from the beginning to the end of his prophetic mission. The Israelites
in Jerusalem and Judah are rebuked for their rebellion against God,
which has brought a series of misfortunes upon the nation; God does not
accept their sacrifices unless they return to Him and improve their
conduct. They will be punished, but the punishment is only the means
for their purification. When this effect is obtained their redemption
will follow.
(2.) Chaps. ii. to v.—The fulfilment of the mission of the
Israelites—the Messianic period—is depicted, when the Israelites will
be so perfect in the knowledge and the worship of God, that all nations
will seek enlightenment and guidance in the house of the God of Jacob.
The prophet shows his brethren how they receded from that aim, and,
estranging themselves from the Almighty, trusted in things that are
powerless. But all these things, grand and high as they may appear,
will prove worthless, and the glory of God will in the end be
recognised. The prophet illustrates the conduct of the Israelites and
their punishment in the beautiful parable of the vineyard (v. 1–7). As
special sins are named: greediness, lust, mockery, and injustice. The
punishment threatened is the invasion of a cruel conqueror.
(3.) Chap. vi.—On the occasion of the death of King Uzziah, who had
presumed to approach God and to offer incense in the Holy of Holies,
contrary to the Law, and was punished with leprosy, Isaiah had a vision
in which he despairingly contrasted the infinite holiness of the
Almighty with his own sinfulness, living as he did among people of
unclean lips. He is reassured, and shown that his sin is removed when
his words are inflamed by the holy fire taken from the altar of God. He
must, nevertheless, not expect a speedy effect from his words to the
people; they will continue in disobedience and bring upon themselves
continued punishments, but ultimately, when the leaves have fallen off,
the stem will remain—a seed of holiness.
(4.) vii. to xii.—The invasion of Judah by Pekah, king of Israel, and
Rezin, king of Aram, brings to light the want of faith in God and His
word on the part of Ahaz, king of Judah. Isaiah, taking with him his
son Sh’ar-yashub (“A-remnant-will-return”), a reminder of punishment
and of redemption, rebukes Ahaz, and gives him a sign (אות): “The
young woman is with child, and will bear a son, and call his name
Immanuel” (עמנו אל “God-is-with-us”). “Cream and honey shall he eat,
when he will know to reject the evil and to choose the good.” By this
sign Ahaz is informed (1) that at the time of the birth of the child
Judah will be freed from the armies of the two kings, and the name
Immanuel was to be the expression of thanks for the delivery; (2)
another more serious invasion of the Assyrians will come and devastate
the country; and after their departure the Israelites will not have any
corn or bread; “cream and honey will every one eat that is left in the
midst of the land.”
The invasion of Syria and Palestine by the Assyrians is also foretold
in the very name of Isaiah’s own son, Maher-shalal-’hash-baz (“The
spoiler hastens to be quick with the spoil”). In spite of such dark
prospect the prophet sets forth the testimony and the lesson (תעודה,
תורה): “Hope in the Lord, though He hides His face from the house of
Jacob. For often have people in affliction seen great light.” “A child
[7] has been born unto us, called The Almighty, the Eternal, the Prince
of Peace, devises wonders, for the purpose of increasing the dominion
and establishing endless peace upon the throne of David and his
kingdom, to order it and support it by judgment and righteousness from
now even for ever” (ix. 5, 6). The Assyrian invasion is a punishment
for the sins of the Israelites, and its success will continue so long
as the Israelites refuse to repent and to return to God. This, however,
will ultimately come to pass, and Ashur will then receive the penalty
for his insolence and presumptuousness. Israel will in the end be
guided by a wise and just ruler, who will spring forth from the roots
of Jesse. The Messianic times will then begin, and amidst universal
peace all mankind will join in the praises of God.
(5.) xiii. to xxxv.—This group of prophecies was probably delivered
during the Assyrian invasion. Isaiah takes a survey of the neighbouring
states, their conduct in times of success, and their well-deserved
punishment in the immediate or the remote future. The prophecies are
directed against Babylon, Plesheth, Moab, Damascus, Egypt, Ashdod,
Babylon, Dumah, Arab, the Assyrian Shebnah, Tyre, Edom, and Ephraim.
Great confusion will ensue, amid which Judah will suffer much, but he
will ultimately be delivered through the Divine intervention, and will
thus be strengthened in his faith in God. Isaiah rebukes Judah for
seeking help from Egypt against Assyria, because such an act indicates
want of faith in God. It is only the Almighty that can help in times of
distress.
(6.) xxxvi. to xxxix.—The historical chapters which intervene between
the two large prophetical sections of the book conclude with an account
of Hezekiah’s conduct towards the Babylonian ambassadors, and the
rebuke he received of Isaiah, who announced to the king that the
Babylonians would one day be conquerors of Jerusalem.
(7.) xl. to xlviii.—The prediction of the Babylonian exile is followed
by comforting messages and by the good tidings of the promised
Restoration. Contrasting the omnipotence of God with the helplessness
of earthly powers and idols, the prophet calls for absolute faith in
God, who has already appointed the conqueror of Babylon and the
liberator of the exiled Jews.
(8.) xlviii. to liv.—It is not only deliverance from exile that the
Jews have to hope for, but far greater things. The people of the Lord
are to become glorious, and to be the source of salvation to all
mankind. They will suffer at the hand of the nations, but the latter
will ultimately see what wrong they have done to Israel.
Notwithstanding all apparent obstacles, this prophecy will be
fulfilled.
(9.) lv. to lx.—The prophet exhorts the people to follow the word of
God, to abandon idolatry, and to be sincere in their prayer and
repentance; only then might they hope for salvation. God has punished
Israel, but the redeemer will come unto Zion.
(10.) lxi. to lxvi.—Encouragement is given especially to the ענוים
“the meek,” “the broken-hearted;” the day of vengeance is announced
against the haughty and sinners. The prophet prays to God, and God
answers him with the promise of the ultimate triumph of the ענוים and
יראי יי “the meek and the God-fearing.”
2. Jeremiah (ירמיה).—Jeremiah prophesied in the thirteenth year of
Josiah, and continued to prophesy during his reign and that of his
successors, and after the fall of Jerusalem, but it is not certain how
long he lived after the destruction of the Temple, and where he died.
He was the son of Hilkiah, of the priests in Anathoth, in the tribe of
Benjamin. He was exposed to cruel persecutions, but these did not deter
him from delivering the Divine message with which he was entrusted to
the king and to the people. The prophecies of Jeremiah were written
down by Baruch, at Jeremiah’s dictation (chap. xxxvi.), but the book
was seized by King Jehoiakim, and burnt by him. The Book of Jeremiah,
in our Bible, is probably the copy made later on by Baruch, and
mentioned in Jer. xxxvi. 32.
The book is composed of the following parts:—
(1.) Chap. i.—The appointment of Jeremiah as prophet “over the nations
and the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, and to destroy and to
overthrow, to build and to plant” (ver. 10).
(2.) Chaps, ii. to vi.—Jeremiah addresses the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
“Israel is a holy portion, belonging to the Lord; whosoever eats of it
is guilty, and will be punished.” Israel ought therefore to be faithful
to God. This they are not, in spite of the benefits bestowed on them;
they are exhorted to repentance: in vain. They are therefore threatened
with a hostile invasion from the north.
(3.) Chaps, vii. to x.—The prophet addresses the people in the gate of
the Temple, exhorting them to true repentance. Without obedience to God
the Temple and sacrificial service have no value. The foundation of the
Law is, “You shall be to me a people, and walk in the way which I
command you.” You have not obeyed, and punishment is determined upon.
Jeremiah, foreseeing the desolation of the country and the ruin of the
nation, laments and weeps, but he is sure that God is עשה חסד משפט
וצדקה “one who doth loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness,” and
that those nations which indulged in cruelties against the Israelites
when under Divine punishment will themselves not escape retribution.
(4.) xi. to xiii.—“The covenant was: Hear my voice, and do what I
command you: ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.” You have
broken this covenant and worshipped idols; evil must come upon you.
This Jeremiah proclaimed in “the cities of Judah and the streets of
Jerusalem,” and probably also in Anathoth; whereupon he was threatened
with death. Such conduct gave occasion to further prophecies concerning
the wickedness of the people and their impending punishment. The fact
that Israel has been chosen to be the people of the Lord and has shown
himself unworthy of the distinction, is symbolised by a girdle, forming
at first an ornament to man, but which when rotten by moisture in the
crevices of rocks, is no longer of any use.
(5.) Chaps, xiv. to xvii.—Drought visits Judah; Jeremiah prays to God
for relief from famine. God rejects his petition. The prophet is
disappointed, but he is assured that God will protect him from the
attacks of the people, if he tries “to bring forth a precious thing
from the vile.” He tries, but in vain.
(6.) xvii. 19–27.—Exhortation to keep the Sabbath, to abstain from all
manner of work, and from carrying burdens out of or into the town.
(7.) xviii.—God changes His decrees according to the deeds of man, as a
potter transforms the clay from one vessel to another. Jeremiah is
again insulted and threatened, and he prays to God against his
persecutors.
(8.) xix. and xx.—In the valley of Hinnom, Jeremiah denounces the
idolatry of Israel, and as a symbol of the impending ruin of Israel, he
breaks a pot of earthenware. Returning from the valley, he announces
the coming evil in the court of the Temple in the presence of the
people; he is taken into prison by Pashchur, the chief of the Temple,
for one day. When released he repeats the same prophecy, but feels that
he has given offence, and in utter despair curses the day of his birth.
(9.) Chaps, xxi. to xxiv.—Nebuchadnezzar attacked Judah, and Zedekiah
(later king of Judah) sent to Jeremiah asking him to pray for the
safety of the people. But Jeremiah prophesied defeat and disgrace on
account of their iniquity. He went even by the command of God to the
royal palace, and repeated there the Divine decree against the royal
family, Shallum (= Joahaz), Jojakim, and Coniah (= Jeboiachin). There
will come, however, one day a righteous offspring of David, who will
rule justly and prosperously; He shall be called “The Lord is our
salvation.” For the present it would be better to submit to the
Babylonian rule. They are false prophets who flatter and speak in the
name of God of victories over the Babylonians. The false prophets will
all be punished—those who proclaim as their own prophecy the very words
they heard from true prophets, those who in different words reproduce
messages of the true prophets as their own, and those who invent
falsehood. The advisability of submitting to the Babylonian power is
also illustrated by the vision of two baskets of figs; good figs
representing those who will submit, and bad figs those who prefer war
with the Babylonians.
(10.) xxv. to xxvii.—Jeremiah continues, during the reign of Jehoiakim,
his prophecies in favour of a peaceful submission to the Babylonians,
with the Divine promise of a redemption from the exile and the
restoration to their own country and dominion.
(11.) xxviii.—The same prophecy is continued during the reign of
Zedekiah. He was opposed by the false prophet Hananiah, to whom
Jeremiah foretold that he would be punished and die the same year; this
came also to pass.
(12.) xxix. to xxxi.—To the Jews already in Babylon Jeremiah sends a
letter of consolation and encourages them in their hopes for the
redemption from exile. Of the same tenor were the messages spoken by
Jeremiah to all Jews. In days to come a new covenant will be
instituted; new in so far as it will not be broken again, the Law
remaining permanently written on their heart, “I shall be their God,
and they shall be my nation.”
(13.) xxxii. and xxxiii.—Jeremiah, kept in prison, bought property from
his uncle Hanamel, wrote and signed the document of transfer, and
handed it to Baruch. By this he expressed his conviction that the Jews
would return from exile and take possession of their land. In addition
to this he sent forth from the prison a Messianic prophecy, describing
the future greatness of the seed of David, and the restoration of the
priests and Levites to the sacrificial service.
(14.) xxxiv. and xxxv.—Jeremiah exhorts the people to keep “the year of
release,” and held up the family of the Rechabites as patterns of
piety, who could not be induced to break their vow of abstinence,
though it was voluntarily undertaken.
(15.) xxxvi. to xlv.—Jeremiah continues to prophesy, advising, though
fruitlessly, submission to the Babylonian king. Zedekiah made war
against Nebuchadnezzar, was defeated, and Jerusalem was taken by the
Babylonians. When some Jews wanted to emigrate to Egypt, Jeremiah
warned them in the name of God not to do so. He was not listened to; he
was even forced to go with them; but he prophesied against them, and
foretold their ruin. Baruch, to whom Jeremiah dictated his prophecies,
was discontented at being driven from place to place; Jeremiah appeased
and encouraged him.
(16.) xlvi. to lii.—Jeremiah prophesies against Egypt, the Philistines,
Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, and Babylon. The book
concludes with an account of the fall of Jerusalem, similar to that
given at the end of the second book of Kings.
3. EZEKIEL (יחזקאל)—Ezekiel prophesied in exile.
(1.) Chap. i. to vii.—In the fifth year of the exile of Joiachin,
Ezekiel, in the vision of the chariot, representing the rule of God
over the universe, is appointed a Divine messenger, to warn the people
and tell them of the impending danger, that they might not be ignorant
of the fate awaiting them, whether they listened or forbore to listen.
The message with which he is inspired is represented as a scroll which
he swallows. The threatened danger he indicates by symbolic acts,
followed by their explanation. The siege of Jerusalem is illustrated by
the prophet besieging a brick representing Jerusalem, and the ruin of
the nation by cutting and scattering the hair of his head and beard.
(2.) viii. to xi.—In the sixth year, on the sixth day of the fifth
month, in the presence of the elders of Judah, Ezekiel is carried in a
prophetic vision to Jerusalem, is shown there the sins committed by the
Israelites in the very Temple, and the consequent departure of the
Divine Presence from the Temple. Israel will suffer for his sins, but
will at last repent and improve. God promises, “I will give them one
heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the
stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh;
that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do
them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God” (xi. 19,
20).
(3.) xii. and xiii.—The prophet indicates the coming captivity by the
symbolic act of preparing the things necessary for going into exile.
The false prophets and prophetesses, who tell the people to have no
dread of any coming exile, will be disappointed and punished. The
falsehood of the proverb, “In the length of time every vision faileth,”
will then be evident.
(4.) xiv. to xix.—Ezekiel describes the sinfulness of Israel, and
exhorts them to return to God, or else the threatened calamity will
overcome them. He illustrates the approaching calamity by the figure of
a cedar-tree and the eagle. Although the fathers have sinned, if the
sons abstain from sinning they may prevent the catastrophe; for the
proverb, “The fathers have eaten the sour grapes, and the teeth of the
children are set on edge,” will prove untrue. If they do not improve,
the catastrophe must take place which the prophet depicts in the
parables of the lioness caught and of the vine consumed by fire.
(5.) xx.—In the seventh year, the Elders of Israel came to Ezekiel “to
inquire of the Lord,” לדרש את ה. Ezekiel describes the wickedness of
Israel, and the punishment they deserved.
(6.) xxi. to xxiii.—Comparing Jerusalem and Samaria to two sisters,
Oholibah and Oholah, he complains that the former, having witnessed the
punishment of the latter, has not profited by it.
(7.) xxiv.—On the tenth day of the tenth month in the ninth year
Ezekiel prophesies the siege and fall of Jerusalem on the very day on
which the siege commenced. The greatness of the calamity, to express
which the usual outward signs of grief would be inadequate, is
indicated by the Divine command that the prophet on the death of his
wife should exhibit no signs of mourning.
(8.) xxv. to xxxii.—Like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he foretells the fate of
the neighbouring nations, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Philistines,
Tyrians, and Egyptians. The last-named are promised recovery after
forty years’ desolation of their country.
(9.) xxxiii. and xxxiv.—The prophet describes the duties and
responsibilities of watchmen and shepherds, and blames those of his own
time as not fulfilling their duties: “But I will save my flock, and
they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and
cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed
them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their
shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince
among them” (xxxiv. 22–24).
(10.) xxxv.—He prophesies against Seir, for their enmity against
Israel.
(11.) xxxvi. and xxxvii.—Ezekiel foretells the restoration of Israel in
the parable of the dry bones. The union of Israel and Judah is
symbolically shown by the union of two staves.
(12.) xxxviii. and xxxix.—Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal,
will make the last efforts for the destruction of Israel. All his
preparations will be in vain. He and his army will fall in the land of
Israel. And the Divine promise is given: “They shall know that I am the
Lord their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the
nations, and have gathered them into their own land, and I will leave
none of them any more there: neither will I hide my face any more from
them; for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith
the Lord God” (xxxix. 28, 29).
(13.) xl. to xlviii.—In the fourteenth year after the fall of
Jerusalem, in the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month,
Ezekiel is carried in a vision to the land of Israel, and is shown
there the rebuilding of the future Temple, and the division of the land
among the twelve tribes, the Levites and the priests.
4. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS, תרי עשר—
(1.) Hosea (הושע).—Hosea, a contemporary of Isaiah, prophesied about
the sinfulness of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes, and turns his
attention to Judah only in so far as Judah participated in the sins of
Israel, and their consequences.
(a.) Chaps, i. to iii.—In an allegory of a faithless woman and her
three children the sin of the ten tribes is represented, who
faithlessly turned away from the worship of God in Jerusalem. The
consequent three stages of punishment are represented by the names of
the three children: Jezreel, referring to the catastrophe of the house
of Ahab, ending in the death of Jezebel in Jezreel; Lo-ruhama (“Not
pitied”), indicating the fall of the house of Jehu, from which the
mercy of God was withdrawn after it had been shown in the successes of
King Jeroboam II.; and the third, Lo-ami (“Not-my-people”), predicting
the final dissolution of the kingdom. But a time of mercy and Divine
protection is foretold by the prophet when he said in the name of God,
“I will betroth thee unto me for ever; and I will betroth thee unto me
in righteousness and judgment and in loving-kindness and in mercy; and
I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the
Lord; and I will sow them unto me in the land, and I will show mercy to
Lo-ruhama; and I will say to Lo-ami, Thou art my people; and he shall
say, My God” (ii. 21, 22, 25). This happy time, however, will only come
after a period of trial, represented in the allegory by the period of
trial of a faithless woman before the husband has again full confidence
in her. “For many days shall the children of Israel dwell without king,
without prince, without sacrifice, without a statue, and without ephod
and teraphim. After that the children of Israel will return and seek
the Lord their God, and David their king; and they will anxiously
hasten to the Lord and to His goodness in latter days” (iii. 4, 5).
(b.) iv. to viii.—Hosea rebukes Ephraim for their sinfulness and
obstinacy. When an attempt is made at repentance it is not made in
earnest, and is soon abandoned. The sins of Ephraim find imitation in
Judah, and therefore the punishment of Ephraim will also affect Judah.
(c.) ix. to xiv.—The prophet blames Israel for seeking help in their
distress in Egypt or Assyria. He censures their conduct, and contrasts
it with the kindness of God in the course of the history of Israel
since the time of the patriarchs. Samaria must fall, but Israel need
but earnestly return to God, and “he will be like dew to Israel, who
will blossom like the lily, and extend his roots like the cedars of
Lebanon” (xiv. 6); for “straight are the ways of the Lord: whilst the
righteous walk by them, transgressors stumble by them” (Ibid. 10).
(2.) Joel (יואל).—Joel is a contemporary of Isaiah. Locusts have
devastated the fields in Judah. Joel exhorts the people to repentance
and prayer. His exhortation is acted upon, and relief is promised. At
the same time the punishment of the enemies of Israel in the valley of
Jehoshaphat is announced. “The day of the Lord, great and wonderful,”
will be indicated by extraordinary phenomena in heaven and on earth, so
clear that all will understand their significance and foresee the
coming judgment.
(3.) Amos (עמוס)—Amos, a contemporary of the former, prophesied
during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam, king of
Israel. Amos first mentions in short paragraphs the sinful conduct of
the neighbouring states, Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and
Judah, and the punishment decreed against them, introducing each
paragraph with the words, “For three sins of ... (scil., will I take
back the decree of punishment), but for the fourth, I will not take it
back.” He then dwells on the sins of Israel, laying special stress on
the luxuries of the rich, obtained through oppression of the poor, and
tells them that, though God has frequently pardoned, He will pardon no
more. Amaziah, a priest of Beth-el, warns Amos, and bids him leave the
country, but the prophet, nevertheless, continues to proclaim the
coming judgment of God, viz., the exile of Israel, adding, however, the
comforting prophecy that the time will come when Israel shall be
restored to his own land and enjoy lasting happiness.
(4.) Obadiah (עבדיה).—Obadiah prophesies against the Edomites, and
announces the Divine decree against them for their cruel treatment of
Judah in times of distress.
(5.) Jonah (יונה).—Jonah, son of Amittai, prophesied success to King
Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). He was sent to threaten the inhabitants
of Nineveh with the destruction of their city in forty days. Instead of
going to Nineveh he set out in a boat for Tarshish; during a storm he
was thrown overboard, swallowed by a fish, and again brought to the
shore. He then carried out the Divine mission, the result of which was
that the Ninevites repented of their evil deeds and obtained a respite.
Jonah, disappointed that the threat of which he was the bearer was not
fulfilled, was rebuked by God, and taught by his own grief at the
destruction of a plant “that had come up in a night” how wrong it was
to wish that God should not show mercy upon the inhabitants of Nineveh,
and to neglect anything that could lead to their repentance and
consequent salvation.
(6.) Micah (מיכה).—Micah of Moresha was likewise a contemporary of
Isaiah. He prophesied in Judah.
1. (i.–iii.) He raises his voice especially against the princes,
magistrates, and false prophets, who unite in oppressing and ruining
the people. When Micah tells them their sins and the coming punishment,
they say to him, “Do not preach; they do not preach for such things;
they do not offend” (ii. 6). But the prophet of the Lord is not
deterred from his mission, but continues to denounce their wickedness:
“Her chiefs judge for bribery, and her priests teach for payment, and
her prophets decide for silver; yet will they lean upon the Lord, and
say, Is not the Lord in our midst? no evil shall come upon us.
Therefore shall Zion be plowed into a field, and Jerusalem shall become
heaps, and the mountain of the Temple as the high places of a forest”
(iii. 11, 12).
2. (iv.–v.) Like Isaiah, he depicts the Messianic period, in which the
house of Jacob will be an example of true faith in God to all nations;
in which Israel will be restored to his land, under the rule of a
descendant of David. But a period of trials and troubles must precede
those happy days, in order to punish Israel, and to purify and prepare
him for his future greatness.
3. (vi.–vii.) The same principles are taught in the next part (vi. and
vii.) in the form of a controversy (ריב ליי עם עמו) between the Lord
and His people. The latter are reminded of the benefits God has
bestowed on them; and when they ask how they are expected to show their
gratitude, the prophet says, “O man, He has told thee what is good; and
what does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love kindness,
and to walk humbly with thy God?” (vi. 8).
(7.) Nahum (נחום).—The fall of Nineveh is predicted. The power of the
mighty Assyrian Empire, hitherto a terror to Judah and other kingdoms,
will come to an end; no remedy can save her any more.
(8.) Habakkuk (חבקוק).—Habakkuk prophesied at the time when the
Casdim or Chaldeans were about to occupy the place of the Assyrians as
conquerors of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and to become the rod in the
hand of God for the punishment of Israel. Habakkuk, on receiving the
mission to announce the Casdim as the executors of the Divine decree,
is at a loss to understand why these wicked and cruel people should be
chosen to chastise those who are far less wicked; why the evil-doer
should swallow him who is more righteous. The answer he receives is,
“But the just shall live by his faith.” The evil-doer will in due time
receive his full punishment. Habakkuk then gives expression to his
implicit faith in the justice of God, in a hymn which is superscribed,
“Prayer (תפלה) of the prophet Habakkuk on account of errors;” for in
it he rectifies, as it were, his previous groundless doubt.
(9.) Zephaniah (צפניה).—He prophesied in the days of King Josiah. He
proclaims the approach of the great day of the Lord, on which all those
who turned away from Him will receive their punishment, all the rich
and powerful who say the Lord does neither good nor evil. He appeals to
the humble in the land (ענוי ארץ) to seek the Lord in prayer, in
order to be saved on “the day of the anger of the Lord.” For the
Philistines, the Phœnicians, Moab, Ammon, and Assyria will be punished,
nor will Jerusalem escape free. “I will then turn,” he says in the name
of God, “a pure language to the nations, that all of them will call by
the name of God, and serve Him with one accord” (iii. 9). “In that day
shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy doings wherein thou hast
transgressed against me; for then I will take away out of the midst of
thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty
on my holy mountain. And I will leave in thy midst a poor and humble
people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord. The remnant of
Israel shall not do iniquity, and they shall not speak falsehood, and a
tongue of deceit shall not be found in their mouth” (iii. 9, 11–13).
(10.) Haggai (חגי)—The Israelites, who by the command of Cyrus had
discontinued the rebuilding of the Temple after the foundation had been
laid by his permission, were exhorted by Haggai, in the second year of
the reign of Darius, to resume the work. Guided by Zerubbabel and
Joshua, son of Jehozadak, they obeyed, and the prophet describes to
them the blessing which they will henceforth enjoy.
(11.) Zechariah (זכריה):—
1. (i. to vii.) Zechariah, a contemporary of Haggai, exhorts the
Israelites to listen to the words of the prophets, seeing that the
words of former prophets have been fulfilled. The Divine scheme for the
restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple in spite of all
obstacles, is shown to the prophet in various visions. In one vision
Joshua is appointed high-priest, notwithstanding the aspersions of his
adversary (השטן), and Zerubbabel or Zemach, the political chief of
the community. Joshua is exhorted “to walk in the ways of the Lord, to
keep the charge entrusted to him, and to guard the House of God and His
courts;” and Zerubbabel is reminded that success is not obtained “by
might and strength, but by the spirit of the Lord.” “Thus the
one—Zemach by name—shall sit on his throne and be ruler, and the
other—Joshua—shall sit on his throne and be priest, and a counsel of
peace shall be between the two” (vi. 13).
2. Chap. viii.—The prophet is asked whether the day of mourning in the
fifth month is to be continued. The prophetic answer is as follows: The
reason for the mourning was, that your fathers did not listen to the
word of God, and were punished for their disobedience. Now, as the time
of punishment is over, it is for you to prevent a recurrence of these
sad experiences. What you have to do is this: Speak the truth one to
another; truth and judgment of peace judge in your gates. Let no one
plan in his heart the ruin of his neighbour, and do not love to swear
falsely. Let the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months
be to the house of Judah for rejoicing, joy, and good seasons; love
truth and peace (viii. 16, 17, 19). At the same time the promise is
given that the time will come when nations will seek the Lord in
Jerusalem, and say to the Jews, “We will go with you, for God is with
you” (viii. 23).
3. (ix.–xi.) The prophet encourages Zion to rejoice in her future
mission; her enemies round about will be brought to silence, and her
king, meek and humble, “poor and riding on an ass,” “will speak peace
to the nations, and his rule will extend from sea to sea, and from the
river to the ends of the earth” (ix. 9, 10). Judah and Ephraim will
unite, and both will enjoy the Divine protection. If this has not yet
taken place, it is the fault of the “bad shepherds,” i.e., the bad
leaders of the people.
4. (xii.–xiv.) The prophet foretells troubles which will come upon
Jerusalem when the nations will make the last effort to take that city.
They will be defeated, and Judah will be filled on that occasion with
“a spirit of grace” (רוח חן ותחנונים), and will pray to God for the
safety of his enemy; the very Jews, “whom the enemy desired to pierce,”
will pray for him, and mourn for his death as a father mourneth for the
loss of his only child. Judah will then be free from false prophets and
bad shepherds. God will make Himself known to all: “And the Lord will
be a King over the whole earth; on that day will the Lord be One and
His name One” (xiv. 9). All will come to Jerusalem “to worship the
King, the Lord Zebaoth, and to celebrate the feast of Succoth” (Ibid.
16), expressing thereby their conviction that God alone is able to
afford protection and blessing.
(12.) Malachi (מלאכי).—Malachi, the last of the prophets, exhorts the
priests to true reverence of the sanctuary, and to conscientious
fulfilment of their duties. The distinction of the priest was based on
the distinction of his conduct: “The law of truth was in his mouth, and
iniquity was not found on his lips; in peace and uprightness he walked
with me, and many turned he back from iniquity. For the lips of the
priest shall keep knowledge, and instruction shall they seek of his
mouth, for he is a messenger of the Lord Zebaoth” (ii. 6, 7). Judah is
then rebuked for his faithlessness. Both, the Levites (including the
priests) and Judah, will pass through a process of refining; the wicked
will be removed, whilst for “those who fear the name of God” the sun of
salvation will shine. Those who desire to obtain a place among these
latter must “remember the law of Moses, the servant of God, which God
commanded him on Horeb for all Israel; statutes and judgments” (iii.
22). Before the great day of the Lord, the day of judgment, the Lord
will send “the prophet Elijah, who will cause the hearts of fathers and
children to unite in returning to God.”
3. THE HAGIOGRAPHA (כתובים).
The Hagiographa form the last collection of holy writings, composed by
men who, although they were not prophets, were filled with the spirit
of the Lord (רוח יי). They include the three larger works: (a)
תהלים (or תלים) Psalms, משלי Proverbs, and איוב Job; (b) the
Five Scrolls (חמש מגלות), viz., שיר השירים Song of Songs, רות
Ruth, איכה Lamentations, קהלת Ecclesiastes, אסתר Esther; (c) the
historical books: דניאל Daniel, עזרא Ezra, נחמיה Nehemiah, and
דברי הימים the two books of Chronicles.
1. Psalms (תהלים).—The Psalms are hymns containing praises of God’s
greatness, prayers for His mercy, and meditations on His wisdom, power,
justice, and goodness. However various the Psalms are in form and
contents, they have this in common, that they all are based on the
purest and sincerest trust in God’s justice and goodness. “The mighty
and proud, זדים who rely on their own strength and are guided by the
dictates of their own will, cannot succeed for ever; the poor and
humble, ענוים who rely on God’s mercy and are guided by the word of
God, will not suffer for ever.” This is the truth which the Psalmist
proclaims in his songs over and over again. Yet there is a great
variety in the contents of the Psalms. Some are simply praises of God’s
greatness, e.g., viii., xix., xxxii., xcii., xcv. to xcix., ciii.,
civ., &c. Others are the expression of gratitude, e.g., ix., xviii.,
xxxiv., lxvi., lxviii., &c. Many are prayers in time of trouble; in
most of these the suppliant feels sure that God will accept his prayer,
and is confident that help will come. Such psalms are iii., iv., v.,
vi., xii., xiii., &c. To this class belong also all the psalms which
refer to the troubles of David during the reign of Saul, as lii., liv.,
lvi., lix., lxiii., &c.; some of the Asaph-psalms, lxxiii., lxxvii.,
lxxix., lxxx.; the penitential psalms, in which the sinner prays for
mercy, as xxv., xxxii., xxxviii., li.; and those in which a longing is
expressed for the House of God, e.g., xxvii., xlii., xliii., lxv.,
lxxxiv. Some psalms are a protest against those who rely on human force
and human cunning instead of having faith in God, a protest of the
ענוים against the view and creed of the זדים and גאים or גוים
e.g., ix. and x., xi., xiv., xvi., xvii., &c. Some psalms are of a more
didactic character, showing the way of true happiness (Ps. i.),
depicting a truly pious life (xv., xxiv.), or the excellence of the
word of God, as xix., cxix.; or the uselessness of sacrifice without
purity of heart (xl., l., li.).
The poetical form of the Psalms, as of Hebrew poetry in general, is
parallelism. The sentences are formed in such a manner that the psalm
can be arranged in lines divisible into two parts, which are either two
elements of a single idea, or a double expression of the same idea, or
a combination of two ideas or things opposed to each other,
illustrating an idea by its antithesis. In some of the Psalms the
parallelism is perfect throughout, in others it is partly abandoned,
probably in order not to slavishly subordinate the idea to the form of
its expression. The same is to be noticed as regards other forms of the
Psalms. Some are arranged alphabetically, that is, the successive
verses begin with successive letters of the alphabet; but deviations
from the plan are met with almost in all such psalms. There are psalms
which are divided into a certain number of parts or strophes, each part
beginning or ending with the same phrase or verse; but almost
invariably these phrases or verses undergo some modification.
The style is naturally poetical, and figurative language is employed
throughout. God is a Rock (צור), an habitation (מעון), a Shepherd
(רועה), who feeds His flock with great care and love; He is an eagle,
under whose wings (אברתו, כנפיו) the weak find protection; He rides
in the heavens of the heavens of old (רכב בשמי שמי קדם). Man is
compared to “grass that withers,” to a “flower that blossoms in the
morning, and in the evening it is withered and dried up;” the life of
man is but a breath (הבל); a lie (כזב); light in the balance
(במאזנים לעלות); he changes like a garment, like a raiment. The days
of a long life are like the days of the heavens, the sun or the moon
(כימי שמים, לפני שמש, עם שמש or לפני ירח). The mighty are
mountains with many peaks (הרים גבנונים), they have horns like those
of the unicorns, whilst the weak are “a wall bent” (קיר נטוי), “a
fence thrust down” (גדר הדחויה); “they have sunk in deep mire;” “they
have come into fire and into water;” “the waters have come unto the
soul.” The meek are “broken in heart,” “crushed in spirit.” The wicked
and unjust are like lions and dogs; they have poison “like the poison
of a serpent, like a deaf adder that stoppeth its ears, that does not
listen to the voice of charmers, to the clever sorcerer.” Their words
are smooth like cream and oil, whilst in the heart there are war,
daggers, sharp swords. The threatened one runs like a hind, escapes
like a bird. Those who have no higher aim than material enjoyments are
like “sheep driven to death;” “man in his dignity, without
understanding, is like cattle that perish.” Mishaps come upon man like
the waves of the sea. The Divine judgment visits the wicked like a
thunderstorm; it shakes the earth like an earthquake or volcano.
Sinners receive “the cup of confusion” (כוס התרעלה) at the hand of
God; for “a cup is in the hand of the Lord, and the wine therein is
red; it is full with drink, and He pours out from it, but its dregs all
the wicked of the earth will suck and drink.”
The sinner is punished by his own deed; “he digs a pit and falls into
it;” he feels like a sick person whose “bones are troubled, and
wither;” his purification is toe healing of the soul; he is purified
with hyssop; he becomes whiter than snow (li. 9). When man sins he
feels as if he had become a changed creature, as if he had now been
born and conceived in sin (ver. 7); when he repents and improves, God
creates in him a new heart, and renews a firm spirit within him (ver.
12). The wife of the God-fearing man is compared to the fruitful vine,
his children to young olive-trees (cxxviii.). The righteous will
flourish like a palm-tree, will grow high like a cedar upon Lebanon
(xcii. 13). Whilst the righteous is like a tree planted by the brook of
water, the wicked are like chaff which the wind drives away (i. 3, 4).
Israel is likened to a vine brought from Egypt and planted in Palestine
(lxxx. 9). Peacefulness and brotherly love, between high and low, the
mighty and the weak, the rich and the poor, the wise and the simple,
are illustrated by the fine oil that flows down from the head to the
beard, the beard that descends over the garments, and the dew of the
high Hermon that comes down to the lower mountains of Zion (cxxx.).
There are some instances of play upon words (lvi. 9), and of rhymes
(cxlv. 11; xxxiv. 6); the latter are apparently not intentional.
Although we generally speak of the Psalms of David, only a portion of
them was composed by King David; the headings ascribe also one psalm to
Moses, two to King Solomon, twelve to Asaph, one to Heman, and one to
Ethan; and some have no author mentioned in the heading. Many have no
superscription at all, and most of these seem to belong to a later
period.
The individual psalms have various names. The most general of them is
מזמור a poem, set in music. Of some it is distinctly stated that they
were intended to be sung; this is expressed in the heading by the word
שיר “song,” which either precedes or follows the title מזמור or
stands alone without מזמור. The term, שיר “song,” is further
qualified by חנוכת הבית “of the dedication of the house,” ידידות
“of love,” and המעלות or למעלות “of degrees leading upward,” i.e.,
towards God. Another name occurring in twelve psalms is משכיל
“instructive song;” the maschil proclaims the lesson that God is King
of the universe, and that those are happy who trust in His justice and
mercy. A similar meaning attaches to ללמד the word superadded to
משכִל in Ps. lx.; lit. “to teach,” i.e., that the song be learnt by
all, in order that people may strengthen their confidence in God in
times of trouble (comp. 2 Sam. i. 18). The meaning of להזכיר which
occurs in two psalms (xxxviii. and lxx.), is “for prayer.” There is one
psalm לתודה (c.), “for thanksgiving;” another “for the Sabbath-day,”
ליום השבת (xcii.). Four psalms are called תפלה “prayer” (xvii.,
lxxxvi., xc, cii.); one (cxlv.), תהלה “praise;” one (vii.), שגיון
“an error,” [8] referring to the miscalculation of the wicked in
preparing weapons against the innocent, which weapons are turned
against themselves; and six are superscribed מכתם “a jewel.” Such a
jewel is the Psalmist’s “faith in God,” that inspires him with hope and
pure joy in the midst of misfortune.
The headings include also instructions for the singers and references
to the musical instruments which are to be used. The most general term
is למנצח “to the chief,” scil., of the singers or Levites; it refers
to the chief of a particular division of the Levites if it is followed
by a qualifying phrase, and to the chief of all the Levites if it is
not followed by any qualification. The term למנצח describes the psalm
as a Temple-song, although this may not have been its original object.
Even poems which have been composed by David on certain personal events
became—perhaps slightly modified—national songs, and formed part of the
public service. The adaptation was easy, because these historical
psalms rarely contain any allusion to the particular event mentioned in
the superscription.
The term למנצח is qualified by על נגינת “on a stringed instrument,”
נגינת being the particular instrument of the Levites, of whom this
מנצח was the master. The term בנגינות which in several psalms
follows the word למנצח is grammatically unconnected with the latter;
it means “on stringed instruments,” and is the instruction for the
מנצח. There were several kinds of such instruments; two kinds are
named שמינית and גתית “the neginath with eight strings” or
“chords,” and “the gittith” coming from Gath, a town in the land of the
Philistines. Other kinds of musical instruments are נהילות (v.),
מחלת (liii.), and עלמות (xlvi.); these are hollow flute-like
instruments, also called נבלים (1 Chron. xv. 20). In some cases the
division of Levites is named instead of the instrument: ידותון
“Jeduthun” (xxxix., lxii. and lxxvii.; comp. 1 Chron. xxv. 3); לבני
קרח “to the sons of Korah” (xlii. to xlix., and lxxxiv. to lxxxviii.);
once the direction occurs לענות (lxxxviii.), “to sing alternately,”
referring to the two divisions of Levites headed by הימן האזרחי and
איתן האזרחי “the Ezrahite Heman,” and “the Ezrahite Ethan” (lxxxviii.
and lxxxix.).
A few terms are met with in the headings which describe the contents of
the psalm in a poetical style. Such are (a.) שושן עדות, ששנים עדות
and ששנים (lx., lxxx., xlv., and lxix.), “Testimony for the lily or
lilies,” or “for lilies.” The poet calls by this name the flower of the
nation, the meek and God-fearing, who are under the special protection
of God, and are destined to be crowned in the end with glory and
victory, (b.) אילת השחר (xxii.), “The strength of the dawn.” The
phrase refers to the strength given to the sufferer in the darkness of
his despair by the awakening of his faith in God, which is compared by
the poet to the dawn as the forerunner of daylight, (c.) אל תשחת “Do
not destroy” (lvii., lviii., lix., and lxxv.). By this heading the
author indicates that the psalm is a protest against the
self-confidence of the wicked in the success of their wickedness,
either with reference to their evil designs against the author himself,
or to their plans in general. (d.) יונת אלם רחקים “Dove in the force
of those far,” scil., from God (lvi.). The psalm contains the
expression of David’s faith in God when he was caught by the
Philistines in Gath.
In some of the headings the event is mentioned which prompted the
Psalmist to compose the psalm: David’s flight from Jerusalem when
Absalom rebelled against him (iii.); the slander of the Benjamite Kush
(vii.); the death of Labben (ix.); rescue from the hands of Saul and
other enemies (xiii.); dedication of the house (xxx.); David’s escape
from Abimelech, king of the Philistines (xxxiv.); his capture by the
Philistines in Gath (lvi.); his stay in the cave of Adullam (lvii.,
cxlii.); danger of being put to death by the servants of Saul (lix.);
war with Aram and Edom (lx.); sojourn in the wilderness of Judah
(lxiii.).
The order of the Psalms is not chronological; e.g., chap. iii. refers
to the rebellion of Absalom, whilst chap, cxlii. was composed before
the death of Saul. The principle which guided the collector in fixing
the place of each psalm is not known. But it is certainly not the
result of mere chance that the first two psalms speak of the Law of
God, and of the punishment of those who rebel against God and against
His anointed; and that the last psalm calls upon all to praise God with
all their soul: “Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord,
Hallelujah!” Nor is it mere chance that the psalms are divided, like
the Law, into five groups or books, each one ending with a doxology. It
is possible that the psalms were recited or sung at the public service
in a manner corresponding to the reading of the Law and the Prophets.
The first two books contain most of the psalms superscribed לדוד “by
David,” but there are also some in the other books (one in III., two in
IV., fourteen in V.). At the end of the second book (lxxii. 20) the
following words are added: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are
ended;” i.e., the hope which has just been expressed in the words
וימלא כבוד יי את כל הארץ “And the whole earth shall be filled with
the glory of God,” forms the aim and end of all the prayers of David,
the son of Jesse. The verse does not mean that the first seventy-two
chapters of the Psalms contain all the prayers of David, as there are
several psalms of David between chaps, lxxiii. and cl.
The Psalms were composed by David and other authors partly for private
use, partly for the public service in the Temple and other places of
worship. Of those that were originally for private use some were
subsequently adapted for public service, and even those intended from
the beginning for public worship were adapted to the different modes of
recitation or singing. The Book of Psalms includes, therefore, two
recensions of several chapters; e.g., xiv. and liii.; xviii. and 2 Sam.
xxii.; lx. 7–14 and cviii. 7–14; lvii. 8–12 and cviii. 2–6; cv. 1–15
and 1 Chron. xvi. 8–22; xcvi. and 1 Chron. xvi. 23–33; cxxxv. and
cxxxvi.
A considerable portion of our daily prayers consists of psalms. We
distinguish the following groups:—(a.) פסוקי דזמרא “Verses of song,”
Ps. cxlv. to cl.; to which the following are added on Sabbaths and
Festivals: xix., xxxiv., xc, xci., cxxxv., cxxxvi. (called הלל הגדול
“the great Hallel”), xxxiii., xcii., and xciii. (b.) שיר של יום “Song
of the day;” a different psalm is recited each day of the week after
the morning prayer in the following order: xxiv., xlviii., lxxxii.,
xciv., lxxxi., xciii., xcii. (c.) קבלת שבת “Friday evening psalms,”
xcv. to xcix. (d.) Sabbath afternoon psalms: civ., cxx. to cxxxiv. (e.)
הלל “Praise,” cxiii. to cxviii. (f.) Penitential psalms after evening
prayer on week-days, in the following order: xxv., xxxii., xxxviii.,
li., lxxxvi.
2. משלי Proverbs of Solomon, the son of David, king of Israel. The
Book of Proverbs belongs to those Biblical books which are called ספרי
חכמה “books of wisdom.” They appeal to the reason of man, and do not
support their words by the authority of Revelation, although the
authors and those who gave them the final shape were inspired and
guided by the רוח ה׳ “the divine spirit.” The commandments of God and
His ways are referred to as the safest guide for man in all conditions
of life. Three books are included in this class: Proverbs, Job, and
Ecclesiastes.
“The Proverbs of Solomon” are divided into the following six
sections:—(A.) Introduction, i. to ix.; (B.) Collection of Proverbs:
(a.) Proverbs of Solomon, x. to xxii. 16; (b.) Words of the Wise, xxii.
17 to xxiv. 22; (c.) Second group of Words of the Wise, 23 to 34; (d.)
Proverbs of Solomon collected by the men of Hezekiah, xxv. to xxviii.;
(e.) Words of Agur-bin-yakeh, xxx.; (f.) Words of Lemuel, xxxi.
The fourth section (chaps, xxv. to xxix.) is introduced by the
following superscription:—“Also these are the Proverbs of Solomon,
which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, had removed.” The men of
Hezekiah seem to have been uncertain whether this section should form
part of the book, because of the seeming contradiction between the
fourth and fifth verses of the twenty-sixth chapter. The men of the
Great Synagogue decided the question in favour of its incorporation in
the book, and reconciled the seeming contradiction by their
interpretation.
The fifth collection of proverbs is ascribed to Agur-bin-yakeh, an
allegorical phrase meaning “collection deserving respect.” The
collection is further called “the burden”—the usual heading of
prophecies—in order to give it more weight. Also the rest of the
superscription, “The saying of the man Leïthiel,” Leïthiel ve-ucchal,
is of an allegorical character, signifying, “God—i.e., the word of
God—is my task, and I shall prevail.” The phrase is set forth more
clearly in the succeeding verses: human knowledge is insufficient, but
“All the word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who trust in him”
(xxx. 5). The second half of this collection has the heading La-alukah,
“For a necklace” (comp. i. 9), similar in meaning to the heading מכתם
“Jewel,” in the Psalms. The form of these proverbs, based on the
numbers two, three, and four, is similar to that of the prophecies of
Amos (chaps, i. and ii.). The last collection is headed, “Words to
Lemuel, the king; the burden wherewith his mother instructed him.” The
contents of the instruction is, “Be not licentious and intemperate;
help the poor and oppressed.” The name Lemuel is likewise allegorical,
meaning “God-ward.” The book concludes with the praises of a virtuous
woman.
(A.) Introduction.—The object of the book is set forth in verses 2 to 7
of the first chapter as follows: “To make man know wisdom and
instruction, comprehend words of understanding, and take the
instruction of acting wisely, with justice, judgment, and
righteousness; to give skill to the simple; to the young knowledge and
discretion; that the wise may hear and increase doctrine, and the
prudent acquire cleverness to understand proverb and figure, the words
of wise men and their allegories. The beginning of knowledge is the
fear of the Lord; wisdom and instruction fools despise.” This last
sentence is the basis of the book. Without fear of the Lord all
knowledge and wisdom will prove insufficient for establishing man’s
true happiness. The Introduction consists of several connected
addresses, in which the author persuades the reader to listen to his
advice, and keep away from wicked people before it is too late. He
exhorts man to entrust himself to the guidance of the Lord, and not to
rely on his own understanding. “Be not wise in thine eyes, fear the
Lord, and depart from evil” (iii. 7). He warns against bad society,
against becoming security for debtors, and against idleness. The two
ways open to man are allegorically represented by two women, the one
wise, the other foolish; the one leading to happiness, the other to
ruin; each one inviting man to her house, and displaying in the very
act of invitation her full character.
(B.) The collections of proverbs begin with the tenth chapter. The
proverbs have the form of parallelism, each verse being divided into
two parts, mostly containing an antithesis illustrating the difference
between the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad, the just and
the unjust, the industrious and the idle, the rich and the poor, and
the like. Each verse is a proverb by itself, and is independent of the
verses which precede and follow. There are only a few passages in which
several verses are connected, and these occur in the later collections,
e.g., xxii. 22–23, 24–25, 26–27; xxiii. 1–3, 4–5, 6–9, 10–11, 12–13,
20–21, 29–35; xxiv. 3–7, 10–12, 30–34; xxvii. 23–27. The whole of the
thirtieth chapter consists of small paragraphs of three or four verses,
and the last chapter consists of two continuous parts.
In these collections of proverbs we find advice for every condition of
our life. Our relation to God is shown; how He loves the good and
just:—
“The way of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord; but he loveth
him who pursues righteousness” (xv. 9).
“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord, but the
prayer of the righteous is his pleasure” (xv. 8).
“The Lord is far from the wicked, but he heareth the prayer of the
righteous” (xv. 29).
“To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than
sacrifice” (xxi. 3).
He protects the poor, the weak, the widow, and the orphan:—
“He who oppresseth the poor, blasphemeth his Maker; and he who is
gracious to the needy, honoureth him” (xiv. 31).
“He who is gracious to the poor, lendeth to the Lord, and he will
repay him his reward” (xix. 17).
“Do not rob the poor because he is poor; and do not crush the poor
in the gate, for the Lord will plead their cause, and will take the
soul of those who rob them” (xxii. 23).
“The Lord will pull down the house of the proud, and will establish
the border of the widow” (xv. 25).
“The rich and the poor meet; the Maker of them all is the Lord”
(xxii. 2).
He punishes the evil-doer and rewards the righteous:—
“Do not say, I will repay evil; hope in the Lord, and he will help
thee” (xx. 22).
“He who closeth his ear because of the crying of the poor, he also
will call and will not be answered” (xxi. 13).
“He who keepeth a command, keepeth his soul; he who despiseth his
ways shall die” (xix. 16).
“When the Lord is pleased with the ways of man, he will cause even
his enemies to make peace with him” (xvi. 7).
“The Lord will not let the soul of the righteous be hungry, but the
desire of the wicked will he thrust back” (x. 3).
He knows the heart of man:—
“There is a test for silver, and a refining pot for gold; but God
trieth the hearts” (xvii. 3).
He directs all events:—
“Man’s heart planneth his way, but the Lord directeth his step”
(xvi. 9).
“The horse is prepared for the day of war, but the victory is the
Lord’s” (xxi. 31).
His blessing is a true blessing:—
“The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and doth not increase
trouble with it” (x. 22).
His Will alone must be obeyed:—
“There is no wisdom, and no understanding, and no counsel against
the Lord” (xxi. 30).
“Whoso despiseth a word will be punished, but he who feareth a
commandment will be rewarded” (xiii. 13).
“Without a vision the people cometh into disorder; but he who
keepeth the Law, happy is he” (xxix. 18).
The fear of the Lord is the basis of a virtuous and happy life:—
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (i. 7); the
fountain of life (xiv. 27); the fear of the Lord adds days, but the
years of the wicked will be short” (x. 27).
According as we display wisdom or folly we make others and ourselves
happy or unhappy:—
“A wise son giveth joy to his father, and a foolish son is the
sorrow of his mother” (x. 1).
“The wisdom of woman buildeth her house, and folly pulleth it down
by her hands” (xiv. 1).
“Eat, my son, honey, for it is good, and honeycomb, which is sweet
for thy palate; know that thus is wisdom for thy soul; if thou hast
found it, there is a future, and thy hope will not be cut off”
(xxiv. 13, 14).
“The prudent seeth evil, and is hidden; the ignorant pass by, and
are punished” (xxvii. 12).
“As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman without
discretion” (xi. 22).
“The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well
to his going” (xiv. 15).
The ways of wisdom and folly are frequently displayed in our words:—
“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin, but he who
spareth his words acts wisely” (x. 19).
“A soft answer turneth back wrath, but a harsh word raiseth anger”
(xv. 1).
“Also a fool when silent is considered wise; he who closeth his
lips is prudent” (xvii. 28).
“He who keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from
troubles” (xxi. 23).
“By long-suffering the prince is persuaded; and a soft tongue
breaketh a bone” (xxv. 15).
“Answer not a fool like his folly, lest thou be equal to him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his eyes”
(xxvi. 4, 5).
The principal virtues recommended to man are righteousness (צדקה),
honesty (אמונה), truthfulness (אמת), meekness (ענוה), industry,
thrift, temperance, contentment, and moderation:—
“Treasures of wickedness are of no profit, but righteousness
delivereth from death” (x. 2).
“Better a little in the fear of the Lord than a large treasure, and
confusion therewith” (xv. 16).
“The righteousness of the upright maketh his way straight, but the
wicked falleth by his wickedness” (xi. 5).
“The remembrance of the righteous is for blessing; but the name of
the wicked will rot” (x. 7).
“Guilt is the interpreter of fools, but favour that of the
straightforward” (xiv. 9).
“To do justice is joy to the righteous, and a terror to evil-doers”
(xxi. 15).
“Like a fountain made turbid and a well that is corrupted, is the
righteous that yieldeth in the presence of the wicked” (xxv. 26).
“Where a man of honesty is, there is multitude of blessings; but he
who hasteneth to become rich will not be guiltless” (xxviii. 20).
“The lip of truth will be established for ever, but the tongue of
falsehood for a moment” (xii. 19).
“A witness of faithfulness is he who does not lie, but he who
uttereth falsehood is a false witness” (xiv. 5). [9]
“A lip of excellency becometh not a low man; how much less doth a
lip of falsehood a noble man!” (xvii. 7).
“Pride came, and shame came; but with the meek is wisdom” (xi. 2).
“Meekness cometh before honour” (xv. 33). “Pride cometh before the
fall, and haughtiness of spirit before the stumbling” (xvi. 18).
“Let another praise thee, and not thy mouth; a stranger, and not
thy lips” (xxvii. 2).
“He is poor who worketh with a slack hand, but the hand of the
industrious maketh rich” (x. 4).
“Better is he who thinketh little of himself, and is a slave to
himself, than he who thinketh much of himself and lacketh bread”
(xii. 9).
“The hand of the industrious shall rule, but the slack hand shall
be tributary” (xii. 24).
“In all labour there is profit; but when there is only a word of
lips it leads but to want” (xiv. 23).
“Also he who is lazy in his work is a brother to the man that
destroyeth” (xviii. 9).
“I passed by the field of a slothful man, and the vineyard of a man
wanting heart; and behold, thorns have come up over the whole of
it; its surface is covered with thistles, and its stone-fence is
pulled down. And I beheld, I turned my heart, I saw, I took
instruction: a little of sleep, a little of slumber, a little of
joining the hands to lie down; then thy poverty cometh like a
traveller, and thy want like an armed man” (xxiv. 30–34).
“The righteous eateth to the fulness of his soul, but the belly of
the wicked shall want” (xiii. 25).
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink roareth, and every one that erreth
therein will not be wise” (xx. 1).
“Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath
complaining? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of
eyes? Those who tarry long at the wine; those who come to search
mixed drink. Do not look upon the wine though it be red, though it
send forth its colour through the cup, though it flow smoothly; in
the end it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an asp; thine
eyes shall see strange things, and thy heart shall speak perverse
things; and thou shalt be like one that lieth in the midst of the
sea, and like one that lieth on the top of the mast. They have
stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick. They have beaten
me; I felt it not. When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again”
(xxiii. 29–35).
“He who is greedy after gain troubleth his house, but he who hateth
gifts shall live” (xv. 27).
“He whose desire is wide stirreth up strife, but he who trusteth in
the Lord shall be fattened” (xxviii. 25).
“There are who spend liberally, and there is an increase; and there
are who withhold more than is right, and yet it leads to want” (xi.
24).
“Know well the state of thy flock; set thy heart to the droves; for
treasure is not for ever, nor a crown for generation and
generation. When hay is gone, and grass is spoilt, and the herbs of
the field are gathered in, there are lambs for thy clothing, and
he-goats are the price of a field: and there will be goats’ milk
enough for thy food, for the food of thy house, and maintenance for
thy maidens’ (xxvii. 23–27).
“Lust overcome is sweet to the soul; but to depart from evil is the
abomination of fools” (xiii. 19).
“Better is he who is long-suffering than a hero; and he who ruleth
his spirit is better than he who conquereth a city” (xvi. 32).
“Like an open town without a wall is the man whose spirit is
without restraint” (xxv. 28).
The following proverbs refer to the relation between husband and wife,
and between man and his neighbour as friend or enemy, father and child,
rich and poor, king and people:—
“He who hath found a wife hath found a good thing, and obtained
favour of the Lord” (xviii. 22).
“A virtuous wife is the crown of her husband, but a wicked woman is
like rottenness in his bones” (xii. 4).
“House and wealth are the inheritance of fathers, but a wise wife
is from the Lord” (xix. 14; chap. xxxi. 10 to end).
“He who revealeth a secret is a slanderer, but he who is faithful
in spirit covereth a thing” (xi. 13).
“Hatred stirreth up strifes, but love covereth all sins” (x. 12).
“Better is a meal of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and
hatred therewith” (xv. 17).
“He who covereth transgression seeketh love, but he who repeateth a
matter separateth a friend” (xvii. 9).
“Open rebuke is better than secret love” (xxvii. 5).
“He who saith to the wicked, Thou art righteous, him shall the
people curse, nations shall abhor him; but to them that rebuke him
shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them” (xxiv.
24, 25).
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy
are like smoke” (xxvii. 6).
“When there is no wood the fire goeth out; so when there is no
tale-bearer strife ceaseth” (xxvi. 20).
“A kind man doth good to his soul, and a cruel man troubleth his
flesh” (xi. 17).
“Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thy heart be
glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it and it displease Him,
and He turn away His wrath from him” (xxiv. 17, 18).
“The righteous knoweth the feelings of his cattle, but the heart of
the wicked is cruel” (xii. 10).
“He who curseth his father and his mother, his lamp shall be put
out in obscure darkness” (xx. 20).
“Children’s children are the crown of old men, and the glory of
children are their fathers” (xvii. 6).
“The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his
mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young
eagles shall eat it” (xxx. 17).
“Where there is the instruction of the father, there is a wise son;
but a mocker will he be who heard no rebuke” (xiii. 1).
“He who spareth his rod hateth his son, and he who loveth him
chastiseth him early” (xiii. 24).
“Chastise thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul turn to
his crying” (xix. 18).
“Train the lad in his way, and when he is old he will not depart
from it” (xxii. 6).
“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of
correction shall drive it far from him” (xxii. 15).
“Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him
with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from death” (xxiii. 13, 14).
“The benevolent shall be blessed, for he hath given of his bread to
the poor” (xxii. 9).
“The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that stilleth the
thirst of others shall also have his thirst stilled” (xi. 25).
“He who despiseth his neighbour sinneth, but whoso is gracious to
the poor is happy” (xiv. 24).
“In the multitude of people is the glory of the king; but in the
want of people is the destruction of the prince” (xiv. 28).
“The king’s wrath is like messengers of death; but a wise man will
pacify it” (xvi. 14).
“The heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord like brooks of
water; He turneth it whithersoever He liketh” (xxi. 1).
On miscellaneous subjects:—
“There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing; there is that
maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches” (xiii. 7).
“The heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger doth not
intermeddle with its joy” (xiv. 10).
“If care is in the heart of man, let him still it; if a good thing,
let him brighten it up” (xii. 25).
“He is a guide to life who keepeth instruction, but he that
refuseth reproof misleadeth” (x. 17).
“Boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day
may bring forth” (xxvii. 1).
“All the ways of man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord
weigheth the spirits” (xvi. 2).
Job, איוב—The Book of Job consists of the following three parts:—
(a.) Introduction (i. and ii.).—God is figuratively represented as
presiding over a council of ministers (בני האלהים “sons of God”),
amongst whom also the accuser (השטן “the hinderer,” one who is
hostile to the word of God) appears. While God praised the piety of
Job, the accuser doubted the purity of his heart, and suggested that if
any adversity were to befall Job he would no longer be pious; Job,
exposed to hard trials, remained firm in his faith in God. “Naked came
I forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the
Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken: let the name of the Lord be
praised” (i. 21). “Skin for skin,” said the accuser, “and everything
that man hath, he giveth for his soul; but stretch now forth thy hand
and touch his bone and his flesh: surely he will take leave of thee in
thy presence” (ii. 5). The trial was granted. And when Job’s wife was
surprised that Job was still holding to his integrity, adding “Take
leave of God and die,” he replied, “Thou speakest like the speaking of
one of the wicked women. Are we to accept of God the good, and shall we
not accept the evil?”—“In all this did Job not sin with his lips, and
did not find fault with God” (i. 22). His friends came to see him, but
felt so distressed that they sat with him for seven days without
uttering a word.
(b.) Discussion between Job and his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar,
and Elihu; Job asserting his innocence, and consequent inability to see
the justice of his afflictions; his friends contending that he has
sinned, and has been justly punished; Elihu attempts to justify Job’s
sufferings, on the plea that they are merely a reminder sent by God
that Job has sinned, and must seek reconciliation with God, who is
All-wise, All-good, and All-powerful; God addresses Job, and shows him
man’s inability to comprehend the Divine power and wisdom in the
creation and in the ruling of the universe; whereupon Job repents.
(c.) Conclusion.—God rebukes the friends of Job, that they have not
spoken rightly like His servant Job (xlii. 7), and richly compensates
Job for his sufferings and losses.
The book has no heading, and therefore we do not know by whom or when
it was written. There is, however, a tradition, mentioned in the Talmud
(Baba Bathra, p. 14b), that Moses wrote the Book of Job. Even about Job
himself it is impossible to ascertain at what time he lived. But the
description of his riches and the length of his life leads us to think
of the time of the patriarchs. His name is mentioned only in one other
book of the Bible. The prophet Ezekiel names him together with Noah and
Daniel as a righteous man who would, by his piety, save himself in the
time of general calamity, though he would not be able to save his
generation (Ezek. xiv. 14). There is also an opinion that Job never
existed at all. איוב לא היה ולא נברא אלא משל היה “Job never lived;
nor has he had any existence; the story is all only an allegory”
(Babyl. Talm. Baba Bathra, 15a). This dictum can only refer to the
detailed account of the manner in which the misfortune came upon Job,
and the poetical discussion of Job and his friends. But it is
undeniable that a pious man of the name of Job lived, and escaped from
a calamity to which others succumbed; since it is clear that Ezekiel
refers to real and not to imaginary personages. Job and his friends
were not Israelites. The patriarch lived in the land of Uz in Arabia;
the friends came from Teman, Shuah, Naamah, and Buz, in the south,
east, west, and north of Uz. Like the Book of Jonah, this book conveys
the lesson, חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא “The pious of all
nations have a portion in the world to come” (Maim., Mishneh-torah I.
Hilchoth Teshubah, iii. 5). God rewards the righteous of all nations,
punishes those among them who deserve punishment, and pardons the
penitent.
The introduction and conclusion are written in prose, but the principal
part of the book is poetical, and consequently parallelism is a
predominant feature of the book.
The following are a few sentences from the book:—
“Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive
evil?” (ii. 10).
“The small and great are there (in the grave), and the servant is
free from his master” (iii. 19).
“Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure
than his Maker?” (iv. 17).
“Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise
not thou the chastening of the Almighty” (v. 17).
“Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days
also like the days of an hireling?” (vii. 1).
“He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength; who hath hardened
himself against him, and hath prospered?” (ix. 4).
“Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (xiii. 15).
“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and he will rise in the end
over the dust” (xix. 25).
“And when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and
when my flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).
“And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is
wisdom; and to depart from evil, that is understanding” (xxviii.
28).
The following passages are noteworthy, on account of both their lofty
thought and their poetical form:—
Eliphaz mildly rebukes Job, exhorting him to repentance (iv.).
Job’s charge against the cruelty of his friends (v. 12–30).
Bildad’s view of God’s justice (viii. 3–13).
Job’s conception of God’s Omnipotence (ix. 2–12).
Zophar’s explanation of God’s justice (xi. 2–7, 10–15).
Job’s declaration of his faith in God (xiii. 6–16; xix. 23–27;
xxiii. 3–12).
Job’s confession of man’s dependence on God’s wisdom (xxviii. 1, 2,
12–28).
Job’s defence of his innocence (xxxi.).
Elihu’s defence of God’s justice (xxxiii. 8, 9, 12–30).
Job is shown his ignorance (xxxviii. 3–24); his impotence (xl.
9–14).
Job’s contrition (xlii. 2–6).
The three books, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, are distinguished from the
rest of the Bible by their peculiar accents, which are on this account
called מעמי אמ״ת “the accents of the books, תהלים, משלי and
איוב.”
The Song of Solomon, שיר השירים (lit., The Song of Songs = the most
poetical song).—The faithfulness of the beloved to her lover, her
resistance to all temptation, and the concentration of all her thoughts
on the well-being of her lover, form the theme of the book. The
relation between lover and beloved has been interpreted allegorically
as representing the relation between God and Israel. The latter remains
faithful to his God, throughout all vicissitudes of fortune. “I am for
my lover, and my lover is for me,” is the centre of this feeling of
faith. According to the heading and the tradition, King Solomon is the
author of the book.
Ruth, רות—The book contains the history of Ruth, a Moabite woman,
who, by her marriage with Boaz, became the founder of the house of
David. Elimelech of Beth-lehem in Judah, with his wife Naomi and his
two sons, left his country in time of famine in order to stay in the
land of Moab. There the two sons marry Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth.
Elimelech and the two sons die. Naomi returns to Judah; Orpah, at the
request of Naomi, remains in Moab and goes back to her family, but Ruth
insists on accompanying Naomi, saying, “Whither thou goest I will go,
and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and
thy God my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be
buried: so the Lord do to me, and more also, if ought but death will
part thee and me” (i. 16, 17).
Naomi having lost her property, Ruth was obliged to glean ears of corn
in the fields in order to maintain herself and her mother-in-law. She
happened to glean in the field of Boaz, a near relative of Elimelech.
Boaz having noticed her, and having heard of her conduct toward Naomi,
married her; his son was Obed; the son of the latter was Jesse, the
father of David. Thus the virtues of Ruth, modesty, faithfulness, and
industry, were rewarded; this is one of the lessons derived from the
book. The principal object of the book, however, is to show the origin
of the house of David.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah, איכה—The name of the author is not
mentioned in the book, but tradition informs us that the prophet
Jeremiah composed these lamentations. The first four chapters are
alphabetical; in the third chapter there are three verses for each
letter; the fifth chapter is not alphabetical. The cause of the
lamentations is the catastrophe of the kingdom of Judah through the
victories of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, although neither
Nebuchadnezzar nor Babylon is mentioned in the book.
Ecclesiates, קהלת—This book contains reflections on the vanity of
man’s labours and plans; whatever man aims at as the source of his
happiness and blessing proves in the end useless and deceptive. Man is
disappointed to find everything transient; he discovers just people in
misery, and wicked people in apparent comfort; he begins to doubt
whether virtue and wisdom are really conducive to true happiness. Thus
man, left to himself, is at a loss to find the right way to happiness.
The author therefore concludes his reflections with the exhortation:
“The end of the word in which everything is heard is, Fear God, and
keep His commandments, for that is the whole of man. For every deed
will God bring to account, together with every hidden thought, whether
good or bad” (xii. 13, 14).
Koheleth mentioned in the heading is King Solomon. The philosophical
reflections are frequently intermixed with proverb-like lessons and
maxims, of which the following are a few examples:—
“For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge
increaseth sorrow” (i. 18).
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose
under the heaven” (iii. 1).
“The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh”
(iv. 5).
“Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with
travail and vexation of spirit” (iv. 6).
“Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and readiness
to hear is better than the fools’ giving of sacrifice; for they
consider not that they do evil” (iv. 17).
“Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to
utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon
earth; therefore let thy words be few” (v. 1).
“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He hath
no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed” (v. 3).
“A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death
better than the day of one’s birth” (vii. 1).
“Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the
bosom of fools” (vii. 9).
“Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why
shouldst thou destroy thyself?” (vii. 16).
“Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldst
thou die before thy time?” (vii. 17).
“There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth
not” (vii. 20).
“Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no
ointment” (ix. 8).
“A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his
left” (x. 2).
“He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an
hedge, a serpent shall bite him” (x. 8).
“He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth
the clouds shall not reap” (xi. 4).
“Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil
days come not, nor the years draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have
no pleasure in them” (xii. 1).
“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit
shall return to the God who gave it” (xii. 7).
Esther, אסתר—The history of the conception and frustration of the
wicked plans of Haman against Mordecai and the Jews is described in
this book. Ahasuerus, king of Persia, sent Vashti, his wife, away, and
married Esther, a cousin of Mordecai. Haman, enraged against the Jews
because Mordecai did not bow before him, planned to kill the Jews on
the thirteenth of Adar; but Esther frustrated Haman’s design; Haman
himself and his ten sons were killed; and the Jews were allowed to take
up arms against those who attacked them. The Jews defended themselves
victoriously on the thirteenth of Adar; in Shushan, the capital, also
on the fourteenth. This deliverance was the cause of the institution of
Purim.
The name of the author is not mentioned; the book was probably written
by Mordecai and Esther (comp. Esther ix. 29).
Daniel, דניאל—The author of this book is not named. The book is
called Daniel because it contains the history and the visions of
Daniel. According to a tradition mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud
(Baba Bathra, 15a), the men of the Great Synagogue wrote or edited the
book probably from trustworthy traditions, partly written, partly oral.
The last six chapters seem to have been written by Daniel himself; he
speaks in them of himself in the first person.
The object of the book is to show that God is the Ruler of the
Universe. The author, therefore, gives, on the one hand, examples of
men of great piety and genuine faith in God—Daniel and his friends;
and, on the other hand, examples of men of great
wickedness—Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar; the former enjoyed glorious
victories, the latter received their due punishment. The style is
throughout bold and emphatic; the frequent heaping of synonyms is to
serve the purpose of emphasis. In the last chapters the author shows
that the misdeeds of the wicked and the sufferings of the pious are
foreseen by God, and that both the punishment of the former and the
redemption of the latter form part of the Divine plan in the government
of mankind. We are thus exhorted to remain firm in our faith in time of
oppression, and to wait patiently for deliverance, which is sure to
come.
Although Daniel belonged to those distinguished men to whom God
communicated coming events in visions, he is not classed among the
prophets, because he had no Divine message to bring to his fellow-men,
and he was not charged to address them in the name of God. Daniel was
brought to Babylon, together with other captives, in the third year of
Jehoiakim, and remained there during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar,
Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and the first years of Cyrus the Persian.
He distinguished himself by great piety and wisdom, so that in a
prophecy of Ezekiel (xiv. 14), in the sixth year of the exile of King
Jehoiachin, he is mentioned, together with Noah and Job, as famous for
piety, as one of those whom God protects from danger because of their
righteousness, although their piety could not save their fellow-men.
The same prophet mentions him as a wise man (xxviii. 3).
The book is divided into two parts: (A.) An account written in Chaldee
of Daniel’s wisdom and piety, with a Hebrew Introduction (i. to vi.).
(2.) The visions of Daniel in Chaldee and Hebrew (vii. to xii.). In the
introductory chapter the author narrates the principal facts of the
training of Daniel in Babylonian wisdom, and his great success at the
court of Nebuchadnezzar. Then follows the Chaldee portion, including
the following subjects:—
(1.) Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.—The king demands that the sages initiated
in Babylonian wisdom shall tell him his dream, which he himself has
forgotten, and its interpretation. They cannot do it, and many of them
are put to death. Daniel arrests the slaughter; for he prays to God,
and God reveals to him the king’s dream.
When Daniel appeared before the king he began thus: “The secret which
the king wants to know, no wise men can tell. But there is a God in
heaven, the revealer of secrets, and He has let King Nebuchadnezzar
know what will come to pass in the remote future” (ii. 27, 28). The
dream was this: He saw a big statue, its head of gold, breast and arms
of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs and feet of iron and clay. A
large stone fell upon the legs of the statue, broke them, and the whole
statue fell together and was crushed into pieces; then the stone grew
larger, and filled the whole earth. The following was the
interpretation of the vision: The statue represented a series of
earthly kingdoms; the gold was Nebuchadnezzar, the silver referred to
his successors, the brass to the Persian government, the iron to the
Greek, and the mixture of iron and clay to the kingdoms that would then
follow, all of which would ultimately be overthrown, and the Divine
kingdom would then be recognised by all. Daniel was greatly rewarded;
he and his friends received high positions in the government of the
empire.
(2.) Nebuchadnezzar erected a large statue, and commanded that at
certain times all should worship it; disobedience was to be punished
with death. Daniel’s friends did not bow before it, and were accused
before the king. They said to the king, “There is a God whom we
worship; He can save us from the burning furnace and from thy hand, O
king. And if He does not save us, let it be known to thee, O king, that
we shall not worship thy god, and not bow down before the golden image
which thou hast set up” (iii. 17, 18).
They were thrown into the furnace, and miraculously saved. Thereupon
Nebuchadnezzar sends letters to all the peoples of his empire,
testifying to the greatness of God, and narrating what wonderful thing
had occurred to him. He had a strange dream, and none but Daniel was
able to interpret it; the dream was literally fulfilled according to
Daniel’s interpretation. The dream, which, after the manner of such
phenomena, introduced and mingled together diverse elements, was this:
He saw a high tree with many branches and much foliage. Suddenly an
angel from heaven came, and ordered the tree to be cut down, but the
root to be left for seven seasons, bound with fetters of iron and
brass, in the midst of the grass of the field. The heart of man was to
be taken from it, and replaced by a heart of beasts. The interpretation
was, that the mighty Nebuchadnezzar would be removed from the society
of man, and live like a beast with beasts for seven seasons. This
happened to him just when he was boasting of his greatness and said,
“Is this not great Babylon which I have built for the royal house, in
my great power, and to my great glory?” (iv. 27). He was humbled,
recognised the dominion of God over the whole universe, and was again,
after seven seasons, restored to his former power and dignity. “Praised
be God,” he exclaimed, “whose deeds are all truth, and whose ways are
justice, and who can humble those who walk in pride” (Ibid. 34).
(3.) King Belshazzar, in the midst of a banquet, at which the holy
vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem were used, perceived a hand writing
on the wall opposite him strange signs which none could read. Daniel
was called, and read the writing: “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin,” and
explained it thus: The days of thy government are counted and brought
to a close; thou hast been weighed and found wanting; thy kingdom is
divided, and given to the Medes and Persians (v. 25–28). That same
night King Belshazzar was killed, and the Mede Darius was made king (v.
30–vi. 1).
(4.) King Darius, advised by his officers, who sought to find an
opportunity for overthrowing Daniel, issued an order, that within
thirty days no god or other being except Darius should be prayed to,
and that transgressors against this decree should be punished with
death. Daniel prayed to God three times a day at his open window. He
was thrown into the lions’ den; but God protected him from the mouths
of the lions. When he was taken out of the den, his accusers were
thrown into it, and the lions immediately devoured them. Thus Darius
was forced publicly to recognise the Omnipotence of God.
(5.) A dream of Daniel is related by the author in Daniel’s own words,
who had written down the dream, and explained the chief points. [10]
The following is the dream:—He saw four beasts, viz., a lion, a bear
with three ribs in its mouth, a leopard with four wings and four heads,
and a fourth beast with iron teeth and ten horns, one of the horns
being small, but having “a mouth speaking haughtily.” In a court of
justice the latter beast was sentenced to death, and the other beasts
were to be deprived of their power; but respite was granted to them for
a time and a season. The royal power was given to one who approached
the judge appearing like a human being, and not like any of the beasts.
His rule was to remain for ever. The interpretation of the dream is
this: There will be four different kingdoms; out of the fourth ten
different kingdoms will be formed. One of these will haughtily presume
to oppose the Will of God, and to abolish the festivals and the
religion of the holy ones. It will succeed for “a season, seasons, and
half a season,” and will then be utterly destroyed, whilst the rule of
“the holy ones” [11] will in the end be firmly established and continue
for ever.
The indefinite character of the vision shows that it was intended to
apply to all those oppressors of the Jews who at different times have
presumed, or still presume, to be able to abolish the religion of “the
holy ones.” Whether the oppression lasts a “season of seasons” (or “a
season and seasons”), i.e., a very long time, or “half a season,” i.e.,
a very short time, the holy ones are exhorted to remain firm in their
faith in God’s justice. The truth of this vision is especially
illustrated by the failure of the attempts of Antiochus Epiphanes after
a temporary success. More definite are the numbers 2300
“evening-mornings” (viii. 14), 1290 days and 1335 days (xii. 11, 12);
but the absence of any further description as to the date of the first
of these days leaves even to these numbers a certain degree of
indetermination. From the context we learn that they are somehow
connected with the persecution to which the Jews were subjected by
Antiochus Epiphanes. 2300 days (or 6 years 110 days) passed between the
decree of the Syrian king enforcing idolatry and the peace with Lysias
granting religious liberty; there were 1290 days between the decree
forbidding the practice of the holy religion and the enforcement of
idolatry in the Temple of Jerusalem, and 1335 days is the period
between the latter event and the death of Antiochus.
(B.) The second part contains visions of Daniel as written down by
himself.
(1.) In the third year of Belshazzar, Daniel had the following
vision:—Being in Susan, in the province of Elam, near the river Ulai,
he saw a ram with two unequal horns pushing towards west, north, and
south. From the west came a goat with one horn, and overthrew the ram;
in the place of the one horn four horns grew up in all directions;
there was one small horn which pushed on against the south, the east,
and Palestine; it rose even against the host of heaven and the chief of
the host, and destroyed his holy place. Daniel heard one holy one
saying to another, “This state of things will last till
‘evening-morning 2300.’” The angel Gabriel gave him the interpretation
of the vision: The ram represented the empire of the Medes and the
Persians, the goat that of the Greeks, out of which four kingdoms would
be formed; in one of these a wicked king would venture to rise against
the Prince of princes, but his power would in the end be destroyed.
Daniel was told to keep the vision secret, for it referred to a distant
future (viii. 26).
(2.) In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the
Medes, Daniel reflected on the seventy years of exile foretold by
Jeremiah, and fervently prayed to God for pardon and the restoration of
Jerusalem. At the end of his prayer the angel Gabriel appeared to him,
and told him that the hoped-for restoration would not take place before
the lapse of seventy weeks of trouble and anxiety. There would elapse
seven weeks before the “princely anointed” (משיח נגיד) led the Jews
back to Palestine; sixty-two weeks of trouble and anxiety were
predicted for the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple;
and one week’s misery on the arrival of a new prince or governor, who
would strengthen the covenant of the enemies and entirely suspend the
Divine Service in the Temple for a short time. [12]
(3.) In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, Daniel, after three
weeks’ mourning and fasting, had the following vision on the
twenty-fourth day of the first month:—He saw near the river Tigris
(Hiddekel) a man of extraordinary appearance, who told him that he came
in answer to his prayers; that for twenty-one days (x. 13) he was
opposed by the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and had on his side
only one of the princes, Michael. Future events are foretold: the fall
of Persia, the division of the Greek kingdom, the wars between the
Northern country (Syria) and the Southern (Egypt), the troubles of the
Jews, the ultimate deliverance of the Jews out of danger, and the
glorious victory of the teachers “who taught many, and led them to
righteousness” (המשבילים ומצדקי הרבים xii. 3). When Daniel asked,
“Till when have we to wait for the end of these wondrous things?” (עד
מתי קץ הפלאות Ibid. 6), he was told, “After a season, seasons, and a
half (למועד מועדים וחצי Ibid. 7) [13] all these things will come to
an end.” He further asks, “What then?” He is told, “The things must
remain sealed till the time of the end (עד עת קץ Ibid. 9), when the
wise and good (משכלים) will understand them.” The vision ends with
the words addressed to Daniel: “But thou go toward the end, and thou
wilt rest, and rise for thy lot at the end of the days” (xii. 13).
Ezra, עזרא—The Book of Ezra relates the first return of the Jews
under Zerubbabel from Babylon to Palestine by the permission of King
Cyrus (כורש) of Persia, the construction of the altar, the foundation
and the building of the Temple by permission of King Darius. It also
describes the second settlement of Jews from Babylon in Palestine under
Ezra, the Scribe, in the reign of Artaxerxes, and his energy in
purifying the community from intermarriages with heathen people. The
book is written in Hebrew, with the exception of iv. 8–vii. 27, which
includes several documents written in Chaldee by the Persian kings. The
author of the book is probably Ezra; he speaks of himself in the first
person (vii. 28; viii. 1, &c.); he is also named as the author of the
book in the Babylonian Talmud; and lastly, the name of the book is
Ezra, although Ezra is only mentioned in the second half of the book.
The special merit of Ezra was the promotion of the study of the Law;
his name is followed by the title, “A ready scribe of the Law of Moses”
(סופר מהיר בתורת ה׳ vii. 6), and “Scribe of the words of the
commandments of the Lord and His statutes for Israel” (ספר דברי מצות
ה׳ וחקיו על ישראל vii. 11); the task he set to himself was “to study
the Law of God (לדרוש את תורת ה׳), and to practise it, and to teach
in Israel Law and judgment” (vii. 10).
Nehemiah, נחמיה—The heading probably indicates the author, “Words of
Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah.” [14] The book contains the history of
Nehemiah’s visit to Jerusalem by the permission of King Artaxerxes, and
the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah’s supervision, in
spite of the opposition of Sanballat and Tobiah the Ammonite; his
example of disinterestedness and of liberality towards the poor, which
is followed by the princes and the rich; the reading and expounding of
the Law by Ezra; the celebration of the festival of the first of Tishri
and of Tabernacles; the renewal of the covenant “to walk in the Law of
God, which was given through Moses the servant of God,” to keep
Sabbath, to abstain from intermarrying with the heathen, and to
contribute towards maintaining the Sanctuary; the provision for filling
Jerusalem with inhabitants by selecting by lot one-tenth of the general
population to dwell in the holy city; the dedication of the walls of
Jerusalem; and Nehemiah’s energy in enforcing the laws of Sabbath and
of marriages. The two books Ezra and Nehemiah are also called by some
“two books of Ezra,” and by some “the book of Ezra.” Nehemiah is
written in Hebrew.
The Chronicles, דברי הימים—The two books of Chronicles contain the
following three parts: (1) Genealogical tables (I., i.–ix.); (2) the
history of the death of King Saul, the history of David and Solomon
(I., x.–II., ix.); (3) the history of the kingdom of Judah from
Rehoboam till the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (II.,
x.–xxxvi.). Special attention has been given by the author to the
arrangements made at various periods for the Temple-service, by King
David (I., xxiii. sqq.), King Hezekiah (II., xxix.), and King Josiah
(II., xxxiv., xxxv.).
The author is not named in the book; according to the tradition it is
Ezra. As the genealogical tables give six generations after Zerubbabel
(I., iii. 19–24), we may assume that the author wrote about fifty years
after Zerubbabel; that is, the last years of Ezra and Nehemiah.
The sources from which the author derived his information were, besides
the Biblical books, the following:—The book of the kings of Judah; the
book of the kings of Israel, registers probably kept in the Temple
archives; the histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the prophet, and Gad
the Seer; the prophecy of Ahijah of Shilo; the visions of Jedo; the
Midrash of the prophet Iddo; the history of Jehu, son of Hanani; the
history of Isaiah, son of Amoz, and the history of Hozai.
This is the last book of the series of Holy Writings. Books that were
written later, whatever their intrinsic value may be, were not
considered holy, and were not received into this collection. There are
a number of books known as Apocrypha (גנוזים), lit. “Hidden things”
or “put aside,” that is, kept separate from the Holy Scriptures. They
were not considered as genuine, as they consisted of a mixture of fact
and fiction, truth and error. They were, however, not suppressed or
forbidden; in the Talmud several quotations from these books are met
with. The following are the principal books belonging to the
Apocrypha:—
(1.) The Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom of Solomon. Wisdom based on the
fear of God, and guided by it, is the source of man’s true happiness,
and if wisdom and virtue are not rewarded by success in mundane
affairs, the reward is sure to come in the future world. This is the
quintessence of the lessons taught in this book. The kings and
potentates of the earth are frequently exhorted to be just and kind
towards their people, and to remember that they are but human beings,
weak and mortal, like the rest of mankind; wisdom alone can raise them
to higher perfection and happiness.
“For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline,
and the care of discipline is love. And love is the keeping of her
laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of
incorruption. And incorruption maketh us near God. Therefore the
desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom. If your delight be then in
thrones and sceptres, O ye kings of the people, honour wisdom, that
ye may reign for evermore” (vi. 17–21).
“For regarding not wisdom, they got not only this hurt, that they
knew not the things which were good, but also left behind them to
the world a memorial of their foolishness, so that in the things
wherein they offended they could not so much as be hid. But wisdom
delivered from pain those that attended upon her. When the
righteous fled from his brother’s wrath, she guided him into right
paths, shewed him the kingdom of God, and gave him knowledge of
holy things that made him rich in his travels, and multiplied the
fruit of his labours” (x. 8–10).
(2.) The Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach.—Proverbs, maxims, and moral
lessons collected by Joshua (Jesus), son of Sirach of Jerusalem. After
having studied the Law, the Prophets, and the other Holy Writings, he
thought it advisable to write a book on knowledge and wisdom for those
who seek instruction, in order to lead them to greater obedience to the
Law. Joshua’s grandson migrated from Palestine to Egypt, and translated
the work of his grandfather into Greek for those who could not read the
Hebrew original. The translation was made in the thirty-eighth year of
King Euergetes II. of Egypt (3888 A.M.).
The contents of the book are similar to those of the Proverbs of
Solomon: the author recommends the acquisition of wisdom, patience,
faith in God, meekness, obedience of children to parents, charity,
cautiousness in the use of the tongue, temperance, honesty, and the
like. As models of piety and wisdom the principal heroes in the Bible,
from Adam to Joshua, son of Jehozadak, are named, and in addition to
these Simon the high priest.
“My son, if thou come to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for
temptation. Set thy heart aright, and constantly endure, and make
not haste in time of trouble. Cleave unto him, and depart not away,
that thou mayest be increased at thy last end. Whatsoever is
brought upon thee take cheerfully, and be patient when thou art
changed to a low estate. For gold is tried in the fire, and
acceptable men in the furnace of adversity. Believe in him, and he
will help thee: order thy way aright, and trust in him” (ii. 1–6).
“But he that giveth his mind to the law of the Most High, and is
occupied in the meditation thereof, will seek out the wisdom of the
most ancient, and be occupied in prophecies. He will keep the
sayings of most renowned men, and where subtle parables are, He
will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave
sentences, and be conversant in dark parables” (xxxix. 1–3).
(3.) Baruch.—The book may be divided into two parts. In the first part
Baruch, son of Nerijah, the amanuensis of the prophet Jeremiah,
addresses, in Babylon, Jehoiachin, the captive king of Judah, and the
other captive Jews; they send money to Jerusalem for sacrifices, with a
letter exhorting their brethren to return to God, and comforting them
with the prospect of a glorious future. The second part contains a
letter of Jeremiah to his brethren in Jerusalem denouncing idolatry.
The letters are probably not genuine, not being in harmony with the
facts related in the books of Jeremiah and Kings.
(4.) The Book of Tobit.—Tobit, of the tribe of Naphtali, a good and
pious man, was one of those who were carried away into the Assyrian
captivity. One of the charitable acts to which he devoted himself with
special zeal was the burying of the dead. Twice was misfortune brought
upon him for practising this deed of piety. Once he had to flee, and to
remain away from his family in misery and want, and a second time
something fell into his eyes, and he became blind. In both cases he was
saved out of his trouble, and was greatly rewarded for his patience,
his faith in God, and his perseverance in the performance of the Divine
commandments. The author of the book is not known.
(5.) Judith.—An incident of Jewish history during the Persian rule.
Judith is set forth as an ideal of piety, beauty, courage, and
chastity. Holofernes, a general in the service of Nebuchadnezzar, king
of Assyria, conquers many lands, but meets with vigorous resistance in
Judea; he besieges Bethulia and endeavours to suppress the Jewish
religion. He falls by the hands of Judith. Thus the stratagem and the
courage of the Jewish heroine, combined with the plans of Divine
justice, frustrated the wicked plans of the heathen conqueror, and
delivered the besieged city.
(6.) Additions to the Books of Daniel and Ezra, containing—
(a.) The song of the three men in the furnace (Dan. iii.).
(b.) The false charges brought against Susanna, and her deliverance
through Daniel.
(c.) Bel and the Dragon. Cyrus, the Persian, worshipped these idols,
but was convinced by Daniel that they had no claim whatever to man’s
worship.
(d.) The apocryphal Book of Esdras, containing portions of the Books of
Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah; only chaps. iii. and iv. being
original. In these it is related how Zerubbabel distinguished himself
before King Darius in describing Woman and Truth as the mightiest
rulers of mankind, and thus obtained permission to return to Palestine
and rebuild the Temple. A second apocryphal Book of Esdras is named, in
which Ezra is represented as a prophet addressing his brethren in the
name of God, and telling them the visions he had.
(7.) The Books of the Maccabees.—Three books containing the history of
the Maccabees, and various episodes of the wars against the Syrian
oppressors, both legendary and historical.
Sixth Principle.—“I firmly believe that all the words of the Prophets
are true.”
By “the Prophets” the prophets thus designated in the Bible are to be
understood who have proved themselves to be the true messengers of God,
and were accepted as such by the people. They either counselled the
people what to do under various circumstances, in times of peace and in
times of war, in times of security and in times of danger, or they
announced the coming catastrophe as a punishment sent by the Almighty
for disobedience, and foretold future happiness and prosperity in case
of improvement and return to God. Those prophecies that referred to the
proximate future have been verified by subsequent events, and so also
will those prophecies that refer to the remote future and have not yet
been fulfilled.
“A prophet out of thy midst, of thy brethren, like unto me, will the
Lord thy God raise up unto thee; unto him ye shall hearken” (Deut.
xviii. 15). “The former things, behold, they are come to pass, and new
things do I declare; before they will spring forth, I shall let you
hear” (Isa. xlii. 9). “I have also spoken unto the prophets, and I have
multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used
similitudes” (Hosea xii. 11). “And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel
out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved” (Ibid. 14).
In the sixth article we declare our belief in the fact that the
Almighty has communicated His Will to human beings, although we are
incapable of forming a clear and definite idea of the manner in which
such communication took place. The selection of the individual for the
office of a prophet, as well as of the time, the place, and the object
of the Divine communication, is dependent solely on the Will of God,
whose Wisdom and Plan no mortals are able to fathom. We know only the
fact that Malachi closed the series of Prophets, but are ignorant of
the reason why since Malachi no human being has “found a vision from
the Lord.” Mankind is, however, not altogether deprived of the benefit
of prophecy; the holy book need only be opened, and the message of the
prophets is heard once more.
Seventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the prophecy of Moses was a
direct prophecy, and that Moses was the chief of the prophets, both of
those who preceded him and of those who followed him.”
All that has been said with regard to the sixth article applies to the
prophecy of Moses. There is, however, this distinction between the
words of Moses and the words of other prophets:—whilst other prophets
chiefly addressed their own generation, blaming their brethren for
disobedience to the Divine Law, threatening with punishments and
comforting with blessings of which experience was to be made in the
remote future, Moses addresses all times and generations, communicating
to them laws “for all generations,” “everlasting statutes,” “the things
which have been revealed for us and our children for ever.” He is
therefore proclaimed by the Almighty as the greatest prophet. When
Miriam and Aaron had spoken against Moses, God rebuked them, saying,
“If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will make myself known
unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. My servant
Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house; with him will I speak
mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form
of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii. 6–8). The Torah concludes with
the praise of Moses, as follows: “And there hath not arisen a prophet
since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in
all the signs and the wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the
land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his
land; and in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which
Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel” (Deut. xxxiv. 10–12).
The phrase “knew God face to face,” or “I will speak with him mouth to
mouth,” and the like, denotes figuratively “the clearest, most direct,
and most simple communication,” the figure being taken from the way in
which men communicate to each other things when they desire to be
clearly understood, and to leave no doubt as to the truth and the
meaning of the communication.
Eighth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Law which we possess now
is the same which has been given to Moses on Sinai.”
The whole Torah, including both history and precepts, is of Divine
origin; nothing is contained in the Torah that was not revealed to
Moses by the Almighty, although we do not know in what manner Moses
received the information. The history of preceding generations was
probably handed down to his time by tradition; in part it may have been
contained in documents then extant, as is likely to have been the case
with the various genealogies mentioned in the Pentateuch. But it was by
Divine inspiration that Moses knew to distinguish between truth and
error, between fiction and reality. The events recorded in the
Pentateuch are to demonstrate and to keep constantly before our eyes
the fact that there is a higher Power that ordains the fate of men and
nations according to their deeds. Everything is described in a simple
and objective manner. Although the whole Torah is the work of Moses,
the great prophet speaks of himself everywhere in the third person,
except in the Book of Deuteronomy, in which he records his addresses to
the people in the last year of his life.
The last few verses, which describe the death of Moses, the mourning of
the Israelites for the death of their teacher, and his exaltation above
all other prophets, have been added to the Torah by Joshua the son of
Nun, the leader of the Israelites after the death of Moses. Thus, from
that day until the present the Torah, in its integrity, has been in the
hands of the children of Israel. It was guarded as the most valuable
national treasure, and although there have been not a few generations
which were corrupt and idolatrous, Israel has never been entirely
bereaved of pious and faithful worshippers of the true God; and when in
one generation or period the study and the practice of the Torah were
neglected, they were resumed with greater vigour and zeal in the next.
There is a tradition recorded in the Talmud that after the Babylonian
exile Ezra, the Scribe, replaced the ancient Hebrew characters in which
the Torah had originally been written by the square characters still in
use. Nothing, however, was omitted from or added to the contents of the
Torah, when the present forms of the letters were introduced by Ezra.
In the scrolls of the Law the letters were not provided with
vowel-points and accents; the manner in which the words, phrases, and
sentences were to be read was a subject of oral teaching. Also many
explanations and details of the laws were supplemented by oral
teaching; they were handed down by word of mouth from generation to
generation, and only after the destruction of the second Temple were
they committed to writing. The latter are, nevertheless, called Oral
Law (תורה שבעל פה), as distinguished from the Torah or Written Law
(תורה שבכתב), which from the first was committed to writing. Those
oral laws which were revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai are called הלכה
למשה מסיני “Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai.” There are several
passages in the Bible from which it appears that a certain unwritten
law must have supplemented the written Law; e.g., when a man was found
in the wilderness gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day, the persons who
discovered him brought him to Moses. They must have been taught before,
that the gathering of sticks constituted a מלאכה, labour prohibited
on the Sabbath-day, although this had not been distinctly stated in the
written Sabbath-laws. Had this not been the case the Sabbath-breaker
could not have been put to death, since he would have committed the sin
in ignorance. The same can be said of the man who cursed the name of
God; he must have known that cursing the name of God was a capital
crime; for he would not have been put to death if the Israelites had
not yet been taught that death would be inflicted for such an act. The
question which the prophet Haggai (ii. 11) addressed to the priests,
and the answers which the priests gave, lead to the conclusion that the
details of the laws on uncleanness and cleanness (טומאה וטהרה) must
have been known to the priests and the prophets to a greater extent
than has been explained in the written Law. Besides, there were many
precepts that came at once into force. These must have been fully
explained to the people, who were anxious to obey the word of God.
All these explanations and the detailed rules with regard to the
written Divine precepts of the Pentateuch, together with laws and
institutions established in the course of time by the highest
authorities of the nation in obedience to the dictates of the
Pentateuch, form the contents of the Oral Law.
The Oral Law or the Tradition has been handed down in two different
forms: (a) in the form of a running Commentary on the Pentateuch; such
Commentaries were called Midrashim; (b) arranged according to the
different subjects, and treated independently of the text of the Torah.
This is done in the Talmud (“lesson,” “tradition”).
The principal Midrashim are: Mechilta (lit. “measure”) on Exodus; Sifra
(“book”) on Leviticus; Sifre (“books”) on Numbers and Deuteronomy.
Rabboth on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth. Yalkut (“collection”)
on all the books of the Bible.
The Talmud—which exists in two different recensions, viz., the
Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud—consists of two elements,
which have to each other the relation of text and commentary, and are
called Mishnah (משנה “learnt by heart”), and Gemara (גמרא lit.
“completion,” “a thing settled”); the former contains the traditional
laws mostly without argumentation; in the latter these laws are further
discussed, examined, and finally settled. Following the example of the
Pentateuch, the Talmud includes two elements: laws and narratives, or
Halachah (הלכה) and Agada (אגדה); the latter, the Agada, contains
history, fables, allegory, meditations, prayers, reflections,
philosophical and religious discussions, and a large number of moral
sayings. The Midrashim likewise include these two elements.
The Mishnah is divided into the following six orders or sections
(סדרים): [15]—
1. זרעים “Seeds.” Laws referring to agriculture; preceded by
laws on Divine Worship.
2. מועד “Seasons.” On Sabbath and Festivals.
3. נשים “Women.” Marriage Laws.
4. נזיקין “Damages.” Civil and criminal legislation; the
Government.
5. קדשים “Holy things.” On Sacrifices.
6. טהרות “Purity.” On the distinction between clean and unclean.
The laws taught in the Talmud are: (i) those which are directly or
indirectly derived from the text of the Pentateuch; they are called
“laws derived from the Torah” (מן התורה or מדאורייתא); (2) those
which trace their origin to the time of Moses, or, in general, to the
remote past; they are called הלכה למשה מסיני “Law given to Moses on
Sinai;” (3) those laws which originated between the period of the
Pentateuch and the close of the Bible; they are called דברי קבלה
(“words of tradition”); (4) those which have been introduced in
post-Biblical times; they are laws מדרבנן “laws introduced by our
teachers.” These are either preventives against breaking any of the
Divine precepts, and are then called מרותגזרות or סיג “a fence,” or
tekanoth (תקנות “institutions” or “regulations”) made in order to
ensure obedience to the Law and improvement of conduct, to remove
abuses and prevent error and misunderstanding; (5) Minhag, “Custom”
(מנהג); religious practices which have not been introduced by any
authority or based on a particular Biblical text, but in consequence of
long usage have become as sacred as a law established by the proper
authority.
These laws, as finally settled, were again codified, in various works,
the most important of which are the following two: (1) Mishneh-torah
(משנה תורה or יד החזקה [16] lit. “Copy of the Law,” or “Strong
Hand”), by Moses Maimonides (twelfth century) in fourteen books; (2)
Shulchan-aruch (שלחן ערוך, lit. “Table-arranged”), by Rabbi Joseph
Caro (sixteenth century).
Ninth Principle.—“I firmly believe that this Law will not be changed,
and that there will not be any other Law given by the Creator, blessed
be His Name.”
In this article we pronounce our belief in the immutability of the Law.
Over and over again the phrase “an everlasting statute” (חקת עולם)
occurs in the Pentateuch. It is true that the Hebrew term עולם is
used in the Bible in the sense of “a very long time,” but in the phrase
חקת עולם the word cannot have that meaning. Some indication would
have been necessary to inform the people when the laws would cease to
be in force. On the contrary, the test of a prophet addressing his
brethren in the name of God, as a Divine messenger, consists in the
harmony of his words with the precepts of the Pentateuch. A prophet
who, speaking in the name of God, abrogates any of the laws of the
Pentateuch is a false prophet. “If there arise in the midst of thee a
prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder,
and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying,
Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us serve
them: thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet or unto
that dreamer of dreams.... Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and
fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall
serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet or that dreamer of
dreams shall be put to death; because he hath spoken rebellion against
the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, ... to
draw thee aside out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to
walk in” (Deut. xiii. 2–6). Moses distinctly says, “The things that are
revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do
all the words of this law” (Ibid. xxix. 28).
There is also an express commandment given: “Ye shall not add unto the
word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you”
(Ibid. iv. 2). In two ways this law may appear to have been
disregarded: there are certain sections of the Law which are at present
not in force; and, on the other hand, there are many apparently new
precepts at present in force which have been introduced in the course
of time by the religious authorities of the nation. But these are only
apparent exceptions; in reality they are entirely in harmony with the
Pentateuch.
As to the first class, there are many of the Divine commandments the
fulfilment of which depends on certain conditions; e.g., the existence
of the Tabernacle or of the Temple and its service, the possession of
Palestine by the Israelites, the independence of the Jewish State. In
the absence of these conditions such laws cannot be fulfilled. The laws
of sacrifices belong to this class. We are, in reference to these laws,
in the same condition as a person who is physically prevented from
doing what he is commanded to do, and what he is actually longing to
do. The Law is not altered; our circumstances demand a temporary
suspense of such laws and not their abrogation.
The second class contains all those precepts which are known as מצות
דרבנן “Rabbinical precepts,” תקנות and מנהגים “Institutions” and
“Customs.” But these imply no addition to the Torah; they are merely
byelaws and regulations as regards the method of carrying out the laws
of the Pentateuch, and are designed to facilitate or ensure their
fulfilment, and to prevent ourselves from forgetting or disregarding
them. Our teachers, the Rabbis, made it a matter of conscience to
describe their own regulations as דרבנן non-Pentateuchical, and
throughout the Oral Law and the entire Talmudic literature the
distinction between דרבנן and מן התורה is noted and scrupulously
upheld.
It is useless to investigate whether it would be in harmony with the
immutability of the Divine Being to change the laws or any of them, or
to grant a new revelation. Certainly the words “I, the Lord, have not
changed” (Mal. iii. 6) have great weight; so also, “For God is not a
son of man that he should change his mind” (Num. xxiii. 19). But the
fact that the laws were given by God as “an everlasting statute for all
generations” makes all philosophical speculation on that point
superfluous. Persons who address us in the name of God as His
messengers, and bid us turn away from any of the laws commanded in the
Pentateuch, are in our eyes impostors, who, knowingly or unknowingly,
give forth their own opinions as Divine inspirations.
3. REWARD AND PUNISHMENT, שכר ועונש.
“Behold I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and
evil: in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk
in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his
judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that the Lord thy
God may bless thee in the land whither thou passest over Jordan to go
in to possess it” (Deut. xxx. 15). “I call heaven and earth to witness
against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the
blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live,
thou and thy seed: to love the Lord thy God, to obey his voice, and to
cleave unto him: for that is thy life and the length of thy days”
(Ibid. xxx. 19, 20).
The doctrine taught in this passage is the alpha and the omega of the
sacred literature. The whole history related in the Bible from the
Creation to the Babylonian captivity and the restoration of the Jews to
their land is but one continuous series of illustrations of this
doctrine. Obedience to God’s word is followed by His blessings, while
disobedience is the cause of ruin and misery. Thus, in Lamentations the
poet exclaims in the name of his nation, “Just is the Lord, for I
rebelled against his commandment” (Lam. i. 18). Moses, in his last song
exhorting the people to obedience to the Almighty, begins his address
with a praise of God’s justice, saying, “The Rock, his work is perfect,
for all his ways are judgment: a God of faithfulness, and without
wrong, just and right is he” (Deut. xxxii. 4). Even those who doubted
the Divine justice, in respect to the fate of individual persons or
nations, admitted, “Surely I know that it shall be well with them that
fear God, which fear before him: but it shall not be well with the
wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow:
because he feareth not before God” (Eccles. viii. 12, 13). Job,
wondering why he should be subjected to the greatest trials, cannot
help confessing, “Even he will be to me an help, for there shall not
come before him an hypocrite” (Job xiii. 16). God is therefore called
“God of judgment,” אלהי המשפט (Mal. ii. 17); דין “Judge” (1 Sam.
xxiv. 15); צדיק “just,” שופט צדיק “just Judge” (Ps. vii. 12); אל
קנא “a jealous God” (Exod. xx. 5); אל נקמות “God of vengeance” (Ps.
xciv. 1); אלהים “God” in the sense of “Judge.” The rejection of this
belief by the wicked is expressed by the phrase אין אלהים “There is
no God.” Thus David exclaims, “The fool hath said in his heart, There
is no God; they are corrupt; they have done abominable things; there is
none that doeth good” (Ps. xiv. 1). In post-Biblical literature we find
this unbelief, which is characterised as the source of all corruption
and wickedness, expressed by the phrase, לית דין ולית דינא “There is
no judgment, and there is no judge” (Targ. Ps. Jonathan, Gen. iv. 8).
There are two different sources from which such unbelief springs
forth—limitation of God’s powers and limitation of man’s capacities.
The one of these sources leads to a denial of God’s Omniscience, whilst
the other deprives man of his freewill. There are some who argue that
God is too high to notice the ways and the acts of individual men, and
that these must be utterly insignificant in comparison with God’s
greatness. “They crush thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. And
they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob
consider” (Ps. xciv. 5–7). “And thou sayest, What doth God know? Can he
judge through the thick darkness? Thick clouds are a covering to him,
that he seeth not; and he walketh in the sphere of heaven” (Job xxii.
13, 14). The very words which the Psalmist addresses to God with a
heart full of gratitude, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and
the son of man that thou visitest him?” (Ps. viii. 5), are uttered in a
rebellious spirit by the unbeliever, who thus “sets limits to the Holy
One of Israel” (Ps. lxxviii. 41). But the power of God is not limited,
nor is His wisdom or His goodness; He is not only “the God of heaven,”
but also “the God of the earth.” He who has created everything has
certainly a knowledge of everything. “Lift up your eyes on high and see
who hath created these things. He who bringeth forth by number their
host, calleth all of them by name; not one of them escapeth the
knowledge of him who is great in might and strong in power” (Isa. xl.
26). The Psalmist thus replies to those who deny God’s Omniscience:
“Consider, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear; he that formed the
eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the nations, shall he not
correct, even he that teacheth man knowledge? The Lord knoweth the
thoughts of man, however vain they be” (Ps. xciv. 8–11). It would
indeed be absurd to imagine that the Creator of all things should not
take notice of everything that His hands have made. What difference can
it make to the Almighty whether He provides for the whole human race or
for one individual man? It would be attributing to the Divine Being
human weakness and false pride if we assumed that He is too great to
take notice of any single creature of His! Rabbi Jochanan said wherever
in the Bible we find a description of the greatness of God, there we
find His meekness. Thus, e.g., it is said in the Torah: “For the Lord,
your God, he is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the mighty, the
great, the strong, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor
taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and
widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him food and raiment” (Deut.
x. 17, 18).
That man is not insignificant in the eyes of God is clearly expressed
in the account of the Creation, where we are taught that man was made
by God ruler “over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. i. 26). “Man is loved by the
Almighty,” say our Sages, “because he is created in the image of God;
but it was by a love still greater that it was made known to him that
he was created in the image of God” (Mishnah Aboth, iii. 18).
One of the chief blessings man received at the hands of his Creator is
freewill. Within certain limits man can determine his own actions. When
he is about to do a thing, he can reflect on it, examine its nature,
investigate into its consequences, and accordingly either do it or
refrain from doing it. God said to the Israelites, “I call heaven and
earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life
and death, the blessing and the curse; and thou shalt choose life”
(Deut. xxx. 19). Our freedom, however, is not unlimited. There are
various causes that prevent us from remaining firm to our will. If we
resolve to do what is beyond our physical condition, we cannot carry it
out. Again, if a man chooses to do what would interfere with the will
of his fellow-men, he will frequently be compelled to abandon or change
his own determination; especially as he is in most cases ignorant of
the thoughts and plans of his fellow-men. In a still higher degree this
is the case with regard to the designs of the Supreme Being. Hence the
great difference between our will and our actual deeds. We have,
however, the conviction that בא לטהר מסייעין לו מן השמים בא לטמא
פותחין לו “He who wishes to purify himself is helped by Heaven towards
his aim, while he who desires to defile himself will find the means
thereto” (Babyl. Tal. Shabbath, p. 104).
We admit that there are influences over which man has no control, and
which, on the contrary, help to shape his will. No man is so isolated
as to be entirely inaccessible to outward influences. Man inherits
certain ideas and habits from his parents; others are forced upon him
by his surroundings, especially in his earliest youth; society and the
State compel him to conform to certain notions and laws; climate and
temperature also have no small share in the formation of man’s will.
But in spite of all these influences man’s will is free, and it is by
reason of his free-will that he chooses to conform to the rules of
society and the laws of the State. Hence it happens that individuals,
subject to almost the same influences, still vary greatly in their
resolutions. What the one praises is an abhorrence to the other; what
repels the one attracts the other; what is recommended by the one is
denounced by the other.
Although there may be many who profess to believe in predestination or
fate, as a matter of fact all nations, ancient and modern, have based
their constitutions on the belief in man’s responsibility for his
actions. Every State has its laws, its system of reward and punishment.
A principle so general and so essential for the safety and welfare of
society, as well as of each individual, cannot be a mere illusion; its
good effect has been tested and is generally recognised.
In case of criminals and sinners, we make allowance for the possible
outward influences under which the offender may have fallen; we assume
the broad principle, אין אדם חוטא אלא אם כן נכנס בו רוח שטות “No one
sinneth unless the spirit of folly has entered into him” (Babyl. Talm.
Sotah, 3a); but no one would go so far as to acquit the sinner
altogether from blame. We pity him and try to teach him how to return
to the right path, and how to overcome outward evil influences. When
David had become aware of the greatness of his sin and sincerely
repented, he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a
right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take
not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;
and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then will I teach transgressors
thy ways; and sinners shall return unto thee” (Ps. li. 10–13). Both
elements are here harmoniously united. God’s interference is asked for;
He helps man to carry out his good resolution; but man has free-will,
and the author of the psalm, in seeking the assistance of God, feels
nevertheless the weight of his own responsibility.
Tenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be His
name, knoweth all the actions of men and all their thoughts, as it is
said, ‘He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, He that considereth
all their works’ (Ps. xxxiii. 15).”
In the rhymed form of the Creed (יגדל) this article is expressed
thus: “He watcheth and knoweth our secret thoughts; He beholdeth the
end of a thing in its beginning.” Here the author proclaims not only
the Omniscience of God, but also His foresight; His knowledge is not
limited, like the knowledge of mortal beings, by space and time. The
entire past and future lies unrolled before His eyes, and nothing is
hidden from Him. Although we may form a faint idea of the knowledge of
God by considering that faculty of man that enables him, within a
limited space of time, to look backward and forward, and to unroll
before him the past and the future, as if the events that have happened
and those that will come to pass were going on in the present moment,
yet the true nature of God’s knowledge no man can conceive. “God
considereth all the deeds of man,” without depriving him of his
free-will; he may in this respect be compared to a person who observes
and notices the actions and the conduct of his fellow-men, without
interfering with them. It is the Will of God that man should have
free-will and should be responsible for his actions; and His foresight
does not necessarily include predetermination. In some cases the fate
of nations or of individual men is predetermined; we may even say that
the ultimate fate or development of mankind is part of the design of
the Creation. But as the actual design in the Creation is concealed
from man’s searching eye, so is also the extent of the predetermination
a mystery to him. To solve this problem is beyond the intellectual
powers of short-sighted mortals; it is one of “the hidden things that
belong to the Lord our God.”
David, in Ps. cxxxix. 1–12, describes the Omniscience and the
Omnipresence of God in the following way: “O Lord, thou hast searched
me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou
understandest my thoughts afar off. Thou searchest out my path and my
lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a
word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou
hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such
knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed
in the grave, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the
morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea: even there shall
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely
the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me shall be night;
even the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the
day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.”
Our belief in God’s Omniscience is beautifully expressed in the Musaph
prayer of New-year: “Thou rememberest the work of bygone times, and
thinkest of all the imaginations of former days; all hidden things are
revealed before thee; also all the multitude of hidden things which are
from the beginning. For there is no forgetting before the throne of thy
glory, and nothing is concealed from thine eye. Thou rememberest every
deed, and no thought is hidden from thee. Everything is revealed and
known before thee, O Lord our God, who beholdest and seest to the end
of all generations.”
Eleventh Principle.—“I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be He,
rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who
transgress His commandments.”
The immediate reward and punishment for our conduct we receive in the
pleasure and happiness we experience in doing something good, and in
the grief and remorse we ought to feel on learning that we have
displeased the Almighty by our conduct. As a rule, every good act leads
to further good acts, and every sin to further sins; and our Sages say
therefore: “The reward of a good act (מצוה) is another good act, and
the punishment for a transgression is another transgression.”
But when we speak of the principle of Retribution, we generally mean
such reward and punishment as is given in addition to the feeling of
happiness or unhappiness inseparable from our actions.
This principle of retribution has been proclaimed in the grand
Revelation made to all Israel on Mount Sinai, in the Decalogue which
has been accepted by all civilised nations as the basis of religion: “I
the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of
them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love
me and keep my commandments” (Exod. xx. 5, 6). We understand the
doctrine of retribution only in its general outlines; we are convinced
of the truth of the Divine words, “There is no peace to the wicked”
(Isa. lvii. 21); but how the law is applied in every single case is
known to God alone. It is presumptuous on the part of short-sighted man
to criticise God’s judgments, and to find injustice in the seeming
prosperity of the wicked and the seeming misery of the righteous. What
man is able to estimate the merits of his neighbour fully and
correctly? “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam. xvi. 7).
This our inability of rightly estimating the merits of our neighbour’s
actions, is illustrated by the Biblical narrative of Cain and Abel.
Both brought sacrifices to the Lord; and we cannot discover any
difference in their actions, and yet the sacrifice of Cain was rejected
by God and that of Abel was accepted. Some important element there must
therefore be in man’s deeds which is hidden from his neighbour’s eye,
but is known to the Almighty. The inability of man to penetrate into
the secret of God’s rule is also illustrated by the prophet Habakkuk.
He asked, “Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously,
and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is
more righteous than he; and makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the
creeping things that have no ruler over them?” Whereupon he receives
the Divine answer: “Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables,
that he may run that readeth it.... Behold, there is crookedness in the
eyes of him whose soul is not straight; but the just will live by his
faith” (Hab. i. 13, 14, and ii. 2, 4).
One of the Psalmists (Asaph; Ps. lxxiii. 2 seq.) confesses that this
problem had greatly troubled him and endangered his faith. He says: “As
for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I
was envious of the arrogant, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
For there are no bands in their death; but their strength is firm. They
are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other
men.... Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup
are wrung out by them. And they say, How doth God know? and is there
knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the wicked, and being
always at ease, they increase in riches. Surely in vain have I cleansed
my heart, and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long have I
been plagued, and chastened every morning. If I had said, I will speak
thus; behold, I had dealt treacherously with the generation of thy
children. When I think how I might know this, it is trouble in mine
eyes: until I come into the sanctuary of God; then shall I consider
their latter end.” The temporary success and seeming prosperity of the
wicked does not shake the firm belief of the singer in the justice of
God; his communion with God, his coming into the sanctuaries of God, is
a blessing which the soul of the pious yearns for, and in comparison
with which all the wealth and power of the wicked is but a deceitful
shadow.
The Book of Job illustrates the vanity of man’s attempts to lift the
veil that conceals the plan of God’s decrees. The reader is informed
beforehand why Job is afflicted with pains and troubles. But Job and
his friends have not been informed. Job desires to know what act of his
has brought upon him that terrible calamity, if it is to be endured as
a punishment; he protests his innocence, and criticises the justice of
the Almighty. The three friends declare with certainty that Job’s
sufferings are a punishment for sins committed, and are angry that Job
does not accept their view.
God appears, rebukes Job for his presumption, but declares that the
view expressed by his friends, insinuating sinful conduct to Job, was
wrong, and that Job, who contended that he did not know the cause of
the suffering, spoke more rightly than his friends. For Job had not
been afflicted because of his sins, and this was shown to the friends
of Job by the compensation which God gave Job for all that he had lost
and suffered.
Koheleth likewise shows the futility of man’s endeavour to find
independently of Divine revelation the aim and object of man’s life on
earth, or the share his free-will has in the performance of his actions
and the determination of his fate. Man is lost in a labyrinth of
problems, out of which he can extricate himself only by faith in God
and His guidance. The result to which the investigations of Koheleth
led him is expressed thus: “Fear God, keep his commandments; for this
is the whole of man’s duty. For every action God will bring to judgment
together with all hidden thoughts, whether good or evil” (Eccles. xii.
13).
The acts of Divine justice recorded in the sacred literature serve as a
warning to the evil and an encouragement to the good. They are all of a
material character, as only in this shape can they be perceived by man.
But by no means do they exhaust all the ways of God. The Divine
retribution so frequently referred to in the Law points mostly to the
good or evil consequences which the conduct of the Israelites will
bring upon the whole community or state, because the whole community is
benefited by the virtues and injured by the misconduct of each of the
members composing it; it is the duty of the authorities, by
watchfulness and by well-defined punishments, to prevent the spread of
disobedience to the Divine Law. What other rewards or punishments await
the individual in this life or after death we do not know. But there
are, especially in the Psalms, numerous indications that the pious
sufferer was sure that everlasting happiness would more than compensate
for the absence of material and transient success in this life. The
following passages may serve as an illustration:—
“Many sorrows shall be to the wicked, but he that trusteth in the Lord,
mercy shall compass him about” (Ps. xxxii. 10).
“How precious is thy loving-kindness, O God! and the children of men
take refuge under the shadow of thy wings. They shall be abundantly
satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink
of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life:
in thy light shall we see light” (xxxvi. 8–10).
“For evil-doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord,
they shall inherit the land” (xxxvii. 9).
“For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are
preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid.
28).
“Mark the perfect man; and behold the upright: for the latter end of
that man is peace. As for transgressors, they shall be destroyed
together; the latter end of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ibid. 37,
38).
In these and similar passages the pious and enthusiastic singer has in
his mind something more durable and permanent than this short life, or
otherwise the conflict between his hopes and the reality would have
shaken his faith.
Twelfth Principle.—“I firmly believe in the coming of Messiah; and
although he may tarry, I daily hope for his coming.”
When Abraham was chosen by God to be the founder of a nation
proclaiming the Unity of God, when he was commanded to separate from
his relatives and friends and to travel a stranger in a foreign land,
the blessing promised to him was not to be enjoyed by him in the
present, but by his descendants in remote future: “All the families of
the earth shall be blessed in thee” (Gen. xii. 3). The same promise was
repeated when Abraham stood the trial, and was ready to bring any
sacrifice in obedience to the Will of the Supreme Being: “All the
nations of the earth shall bless themselves in thee” (Ibid. xxii. 18).
The conviction that the seed of Abraham have the distinction and the
mission to become a source of a blessing to all mankind was transmitted
from generation to generation; from Abraham through Isaac to Jacob or
Israel, whose descendants, the Israelites, guarded the inherited
charge, as their peculiar treasure. Before receiving the Decalogue on
Mount Sinai, the Israelites were reminded of this their mission in the
words, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”
(Exod. xix. 6). It was not by force of arms or by persuasion that they
were to influence the whole earth, but by setting an example of noble,
pure, and holy conduct. A special spot was selected for them where they
should, in seclusion from the rest of the world, be trained in the true
worship of God and in the practice of virtue. Zion and Jerusalem became
in course of time the religious centre from which “instruction came
forth and the word of the Lord.” The Israelites became negligent in
their mission and faithless to their holy charge. Instead of leading
other nations to the true worship of God, they allowed themselves to be
misled by them to idolatry; instead of living a pure life of justice
and righteousness, they yielded to luxury and lust, and committed acts
of injustice and oppression. They were punished. Troubles followed
troubles; they lost their independence and their religious centre. The
men of God, the prophets, from Moses to the last of the prophets,
Malachi, foretold the catastrophe, but at the same time added words of
comfort and encouragement, pointing to a distant future, when “her
appointed time of trouble will be complete, and her guilt atoned for;”
when Israel will be restored to his land, and under the guidance of
Messiah, “the Anointed of the Lord,” he will be filled with the fear of
the Lord and an earnest desire to do that which is just and right.
Moses, in one of his last addresses to Israel, said, “And it shall come
to pass, when all these things have come upon thee, the blessing and
the curse, which 1 have set before thee; and thou shalt call them to
mind among all the nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee,
and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice,
according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children,
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that the Lord thy God will
return thy captivity, and have compassion on thee, and will return, and
gather thee from all the peoples whither the Lord thy God hath
scattered thee. If any of thy outcasts be in the uttermost parts of
heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence
will he fetch thee,” &c. (Deut. xxx. 1–3). The glorious times of
Messiah are described by Isaiah in the following words: “And it shall
come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted
above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples
shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the
Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his
ways, and we will walk in his paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the
Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among
the nations, and shall reprove many peoples; and they shall beat their
swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more” (Isa. ii. 2–4). The same has been prophesied in almost
identical words by Micah (iv. 1–4), a contemporary of Isaiah. The peace
of the Messianic period is figuratively described by Isaiah in the
following verses: “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the
leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion,
and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the
cow and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall lie down together,
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall
play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on
the basilisk’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy
mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as
the waters cover the sea” (Isa. xi. 6–9). In the days of Messiah all
people will unite in the proclamation of the Unity of God and in His
worship: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth: in that day
shall the Lord be one, and his name one” (Zech. xiv. 9). “Then will I
turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the
name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent” (Zeph. iii. 9).
The distinction given to Israel and to his land will again appear in
all its glory. Israel is punished, deprived of independence, even
despised and ill-treated at times; but with all this he is loved by
God, and not rejected by Him for ever. Isaiah prophesies as follows:
“Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant: I
have formed thee; thou art my servant; O Israel, thou shalt not be
forgotten of me” (Isa. xliv. 21). “For the mountains shall depart, and
the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee,
neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath
mercy on thee” (Ibid. liv. 10). Comp. lix. 20, 21; lx. 19–21; lxvi. 22;
Jer. xxxiii. 25, 26; Hos. ii. 21, 22.
Those who during the years of Israel’s punishment have despised and
ill-treated him will repent of their conduct when they witness his
wonderful redemption. Their repentance is beautifully depicted by
Isaiah in the passage beginning, “Behold, my servant will be
successful” (lii. 13). Israel, the servant of God, patiently bears
insults and persecution, faithfully waiting for the fulfilment of the
Divine promise. Israel’s oppressors will then, on seeing how God loves
him, confess their wrong and own that Israel has innocently suffered at
their hands. With the redemption of Israel is connected the restoration
of the throne of David. “A branch of the house of David” will be at the
head of the nation, upon whom “the spirit of the Lord will rest, the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. xi. 2).
Thus Jeremiah prophesies: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that
I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as king,
and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In
his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this
is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness”
(xxiii. 5, 6). All the attributes of Messiah are those of a human being
in his highest possible perfection. No superhuman qualities are
ascribed to him; all his glory, all his success, is dependent on the
Will of God. He is an ideal man, and an ideal king, but not more; if
miracles are to be wrought, it is not Messiah who will perform them,
but God, who will act wondrously for Messiah and Israel. The advent of
Messiah is not expected to change the nature of man, much less the
course of the world around us. The only change we expect is, that the
Unity of God will be acknowledged universally, and that justice and
righteousness will flourish over all the earth. Those who believe in a
superhuman nature of Messiah are guilty of idolatry. Our Sages express
this principle in the words, אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד
מלכיות בלבד, “There is no other difference between the present time
and the days of Messiah but the restoration of Israel’s independence.”
An opinion is mentioned in the Talmud in the name of a Rabbi Hillel—not
the great Hillel, the Babylonian—that “there is no Messiah for the
Israelites, because they have already enjoyed the blessings of Messiah
in the reign of Hezekiah” (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin, 98b). This can only
refer to the miraculous defeat of the enemy, and the direct benefits
derived therefrom by the Israelites. But the Rabbi by no means rejects
our belief that Messiah will come, and with him the universal worship
of the One God, the universal practice of virtue in all its forms, and
universal peace and prosperity. [17] Hillel, however, found no support
for his view; on the contrary, his error is at once shown to him, that
he forgot the prophets who prophesied after Hezekiah.
There are some theologians who assume the Messianic period to be the
most perfect state of civilisation, but do not believe in the
restoration of the kingdom of David, the rebuilding of the Temple, or
the repossession of Palestine by the Jews. They altogether reject the
national hope of the Jews. These theologians either misinterpret or
wholly ignore the teaching of the Bible, and the Divine promises made
through the men of God.
The hopes with which our religion inspires us can never lead us to
intrigues, political combinations, insurrection, or warfare for the
purpose of regaining Palestine and appointing a Jewish Government. On
the contrary, our religion teaches us to seek the welfare of those
nations in whose midst we live, and to conscientiously take part in the
work for their national progress and prosperity, whilst patiently
waiting for the miraculous fulfilment of the prophecies. Even if a band
of adventurers were to succeed in reconquering Palestine for the Jews
by means of arms, or reacquiring the Holy Land by purchasing it from
the present owners, we should not see in such an event the consummation
of our hopes.
Does the advent of Messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple in
Jerusalem imply the restoration of the Sacrificial Service? The last of
the prophets, Malachi, declares that “then the offering of Judah and
Jerusalem shall be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and
as in ancient years” (Mal. iii. 4). In the same spirit all the prophets
spoke, and when in some cases prophets denounce sacrifices, it is only
the sacrifices of the wicked that they denounce. Sacrifices must be
preceded by purification of the heart, and by the earnest resolve to
obey the word of God, otherwise they constitute an increase of sin.
When we express our longing for the rebuilding of the Temple and the
restoration of the Temple-Service—the return of the priests to their
service, and the Levites to their song and music—it is solely our
desire for the opportunity of serving God according to His Will and
command, and is not a feeling that should be modified by fashion or
taste. It is because of our sins that we have been deprived of our
Temple; the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the
Sacrificial Service will be the result of our own purification, and the
consequent Divine pardon.
When will this take place? We do not know, and are content to bear in
mind that the time of our redemption is one of the “hidden things which
are the Lord our God’s;” “If it tarries,” says Habakkuk, “wait for it,
for it will surely come, and not later than the time fixed” (ii. 3).
Certain numbers of days and weeks are mentioned in Daniel, [18] but it
is not stated how these are to be counted; to which period they are
intended to apply; whether to the time of the restoration under
Zerubbabel, to the period of the Maccabees, to the destruction of the
second Temple, or to the future and final redemption. It is also
possible that these numbers have some symbolic signification. In
reference to these mysterious numbers Daniel says (xii. 8–10): “And I
heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my lord, what shall be the
issue of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words
are shut up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall purify
themselves and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked
shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand; but they
that be wise shall understand.” These words of Daniel are a warning to
all those who are inclined to compute by means of the numbers given in
Daniel the exact year of Messiah. Many have disregarded the warning and
have fallen into gross error. It is the duty of the pious Israelite to
have faith in God’s wisdom, goodness, and power: “The righteous shall
live in his faith” (Hab. ii. 4).
Thirteenth Principle.—“I firmly believe that there will take place a
revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be
His name and exalted His memorial for ever and ever.”
As imperfect as is our conception of a creation from nothing, so
imperfect is our notion of the resurrection of the dead. We only
perceive the dissolution of the body into its elements, which enter
into new combinations and form new bodies; and it is almost impossible
for us to imagine a reconstruction of the original body out of its own
elements. There is no doubt that the Almighty produces fresh life from
death—we need only observe the action of Nature in the world around us
to convince ourselves that God is מחיה המתים “that he gives life to
things dead.” But how this will be done in reference to our own selves,
whether we shall enjoy the same life, whether our future life will be
an improved edition of the present one, whether all will be restored to
life, or whether the new life after death will be enjoyed by the soul
alone, or by body and soul jointly: these and similar questions
transcend the bounds of human knowledge. We know nothing but the bare
fact that God can restore to life that which is dead, and that a
resurrection will take place. But all further description of this event
rests on man’s imaginative powers. The fact itself is stated by Daniel
(xii. 2): “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt;” it is indicated in the Pentateuch in the words, “I shall
kill and I shall make alive; I have wounded and I shall heal” (Deut.
xxxii. 39). According to Maimonides, the author of the Thirteen
Principles, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is identical
with that of the immortality of the soul, calling the life of the soul
after separation from the body, resurrection; the verse quoted from
Daniel is accordingly interpreted in a figurative sense. The belief in
תחית המתים “the resurrection of the dead,” emphatically enjoined in
the Talmud, was thus restricted by Maimonides to the separate life of
man’s soul after his death, because the immortality of the soul
appeared to him more rational and more acceptable to thinking man. This
may be the case, but we, human beings, a combination of soul and body,
are, in reality, as unable to conceive the separate existence of our
soul as we are to comprehend the resurrection of our body. We are
taught that there exists for us a life beyond the present one. But any
attempt to describe that life must be considered merely as an act of
imagination rather than of knowledge. It is probably for this reason
that no distinct ordinance in the Pentateuch sanctioned the belief in
future life, or in the immortality of the soul. The belief,
nevertheless, existed among the Israelites, and found expression in
several passages of the Bible. Foremost among these is the following
verse of Koheleth (xii. 7): “And the dust shall return to the earth as
it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” David also
gives frequent expression to this belief in his Psalms. In the
Seventeenth Psalm, e.g., he speaks with contempt of the wealth and the
success of the wicked, and says of himself: “As for me, I shall see thy
face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with
beholding thy likeness” (Ps. xvii. 15). Similarly he says in Ps. xvi.
8–11: “I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right
hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad and my glory
rejoiceth: my flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave
my soul to death, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see
corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is
fulness of joy, in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” In
the Book of Proverbs (xii. 28) we read: “In the path of righteousness
there is life, and a smoothed way where there is no death.” These and
similar verses show that the belief in the immortality of the soul was
firmly established among the Israelites, and found frequent expression
in the words of the men of God.
The belief in the Resurrection assists us in our endeavour of
reconciling the apparent contradictions between the justice of God and
our own experience. The latter comprises only the transient pleasures
of the wicked and the sufferings of the just in this short life, and
cannot be compared with the pleasure of the good and the suffering of
the bad in the future, eternal life. Another benefit derived from this
belief consists in its raising us above the ordinary sphere of earthly
gains and losses; it turns our minds to higher aims; it purifies our
heart and elevates it.
Opponents of this belief quote some passages from Job in support of
their view; e.g.: “Before I go whence I shall not return, even to the
land of darkness and of the shadow of death” (x. 21). “As the cloud is
consumed and vanishes away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall
come up no more” (vii. 9). These and similar words were uttered by Job
when he suffered great pain, and wished, as many would wish under
similar circumstances, to be relieved by death from his momentary
troubles, unconcerned as to what might happen in distant future.
Besides, Job is not an Israelite; he is described as a man just and
upright, but need not have had the same convictions and beliefs as the
Israelites. How little the above verses represent the exact view of Job
may be learnt from the fact that he gives also expression to the
opposite belief: “If a man dieth, will he live again? All the days of
my appointed time will I wait, till my relief cometh” (xiv. 14). “And
when my skin is gone, when worms have destroyed this body, and when my
flesh is no more, yet shall I see God” (xix. 26).
NOTES.
On page 19 sqq.
The Number of the Principles of our Creed.—The contents of our Creed
has its source in the Bible; there the Principles are taught, some
directly, others indirectly; but they are neither formulated nor
enumerated. The most ancient declaration of faith is contained in the
verse: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is One” (Deut.
vi. 4). There is even a tradition (Midrash Rabboth Gen. ch. xcviii.)
that these words were first uttered by the sons of Jacob, when their
father, in the last hour of his life, wished to know whether all his
children were faithful to the inherited religion. We repeat these words
thrice a day, in the morning and in the evening; with these words on
their lips the martyrs of our nation suffered death; these words are
the last which the pious Israelite utters before “his spirit returneth
to him who hath given it.” When the Israelites took possession of
Palestine, at the solemn assembly between the mountains of Gerizim and
Ebal, they were not commanded to recite or sign a series of articles of
faith, but to declare their determination to obey the Will of God as
expressed in the Torah. This was also done by our forefathers when
standing round Sinai. They declared, “All that the Lord hath said, will
we do and hear” (Exod. xxiv. 7). When Elijah on Mount Carmel had
demonstrated the perverseness of the Baal-worship, the Israelites
declared, “The Lord, he is God.” Jonah describes himself thus: “I am a
Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of the heavens, who hath made the
sea and the dry land” (Jonah i. 9).—Also, after the Restoration in the
days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the Jews were exhorted to act
according to the words of the Torah, and they renewed their covenant
with God in this respect, but nothing is known of a declaration of
belief, of reciting or signing articles of faith.—The struggle with the
Samaritans produced special legislation with regard to certain
religious observances, but there was no need for the formulation of a
creed. But care has been taken that the principles of our faith should
find expression in our daily prayers. Thus the sections which precede
and follow the Shema contain an indirect declaration of the three
fundamental principles of our religion, the Existence of the Creator,
Revelation, and Divine Justice. The first section, called ברכת יוצר
praises God as the sole source of everything, of light and darkness, of
good and evil. In the second section (ברכת אהבה) we acknowledge in
gratitude the benefits of Revelation; and in the third (ברכת גאולה)
we thank God for the redemption of our forefathers from Egypt, by
inflicting punishment on our oppressors. Although much stress is laid
on faith (אמונה), and he who was found wanting in faith was
stigmatised as כופר or כופר בעיקר unbeliever or infidel, yet no
creed was officially formulated. Even the discussions between the
Sadducees and Pharisees, which concerned also the principles of faith,
brought only about certain changes in the prayer—such as the
substitution of מן העולם ועד העולם for עד עילם in the responses of
the congregation during the public service, in order to establish the
belief in the existence of another world and another life beyond the
grave.
The necessity of formulating the principles of faith arose when the
contact and intercourse with other religious communities gave frequent
occasion to discussions on these and similar subjects. Without some
fixed basis, it was feared, disorder and confusion would disturb the
peace in the camp of Israel.
Thus Saadiah says in Emunoth Ve-deoth: “I have seen men drowned, as it
were, in the sea of doubts, covered by the waves of error, and there
was no diver to bring them up from the depth, nor any swimmer to take
hold of them and draw them out. As I possessed enough of what God
taught me to support them, and had the power for upholding them granted
to me, I considered it my duty to assist and guide my fellow-men
according to the best of my abilities.” In ten chapters Saadiah
discusses the various theological problems, and defends the following
articles of faith: Existence of God; His Unity; Revelation; Free-will;
Immortality of the Soul; Resurrection of the Dead; Final Redemption of
Israel; Reward and Punishment. Although these principles do not seem to
have been shaped into the form of a solemn declaration or embodied in
the prayer, they are treated as themes familiar to the reader, and as
elements essential in the Jewish faith (אשר אנחנו מחויבים להאמין).
Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rabad, רא״בד), in his Haemunah haramah (“The
Lofty Faith”), seems to assume three principles: Existence of God,
Prophecy, and Reward and Punishment, which to defend from the attacks
of the unbeliever, he considers as the first duty of the Jewish scholar
(התורני); but he does not follow this decision in his book. He
comprises all religious truths which he has to demonstrate under six
heads (עיקרים). The first of them he calls “Root of the faith;” it
expresses the conviction that all things in the universe owe their
existence to a “First Cause”—God. Next comes “Unity of God,” which is
followed by “Attributes of God,” “The intermediate causes of natural
changes.” “Prophecy”—or האמונה האחרונה, “the subsequent belief,”
i.e., the belief which follows the belief in God—and “Divine
Providence.”
Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi explains to the Kuzarite king his faith as
follows: “We believe in the God of our forefathers, who brought the
Israelites forth from Egypt by signs and miracles, sustained them in
the wilderness with manna, divided for them the sea and Jordan, gave
them the Law through Moses, exhorted them through His prophets to obey
His commandments: in short, we believe all that is written in the
Torah” (Kuzari, i. 8). He then explains philosophically “the root of
the faith” in the following ten propositions: (1) The universe is
finite; (2) it had a beginning; (3) the time of the beginning had to be
determined by the Divine Being; (4) God is without a beginning; (5) God
is eternal (i.e., without an end); (6) incorporeal; (7) omniscient; (8)
all-wise, all-powerful, living; (9) free in His actions; (10) without
change. To these must be added the belief in prophecy, in the truth of
the prophecies, and in man’s free-will, which he fully discusses in the
course of the book.
Rabbenu Bachya, in his “Duties of the Hearts” (חובות הלבבות),
considers also faith as one of these duties, and expresses it in the
most simple form, “Belief in God and in His Law.” He does not, however,
devote a special chapter to faith. The first chapter treats of the
distinctively Jewish creed of God’s Unity, but less as a duty of belief
than as a duty of research and study for the purpose of philosophically
establishing that God is One. The author states only briefly in the
prefatory notes to the first chapter, that it is our duty to believe in
the Existence, Providence, and Unity of God, as commanded in the verse,
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”
Maimonides comprehended our belief in thirteen articles, known as the
Thirteen Principles of our Creed. He insists on the fact that these
articles are not the product of chance; they are the result of long
study and deep research. Every one of them is essential, and he who
rejects any of them is an infidel (כופר), and puts himself by such
rejection outside the Jewish community (יוצא מכלל ישראל).
Rabbi Joseph Albo criticised Maimonides’ thirteen articles of faith
(עיקרים). Whilst recognising all of them as true, he would make a
difference between fundamental principles (עיקרים) and secondary
beliefs (שרשים). The former are all those dogmas by which Judaism
falls and stands, without which Jewish faith cannot be imagined; the
latter are those principles which are actually true, but Judaism can be
conceived without them. To the former he counts, e.g., the belief in
the existence of God, to the latter the belief that to Him alone prayer
is to be offered. For Judaism cannot be conceived without the belief in
God’s existence, but could be conceived without the belief that only
God is to be prayed to. Albo further finds fault with Maimonides for
not having embodied in the Creed the belief in man’s free-will, in the
truth of the Biblical account of the miracles, in the Creatio ex
nihilo, and the like. To these objections Maimonides would reply, that
the articles enumerated by him were all actually fundamental, the
question whether Judaism could be imagined without this or that
principle being of no importance whatever; and that the dogmas named by
Albo as omitted, were implied in the Thirteen Principles. According to
Albo there are three fundamental principles (עיקרים): Existence of
God, Revelation, and Reward and Punishment. The first includes four
articles (שרשים): Unity of God, His Incorporeality, Eternity, and
Perfection; the second implies three: God’s Omniscience, Divine
inspiration, and Divine messengers (prophets); the third only one:
Providence. Albo’s criticisms on Maimonides have passed away without
effect. The Principles of Faith as formulated by Maimonides have found
their way into the daily Prayer-book in prose and poetry, and have
since formed an essential element in every text-book of Jewish
religion. Modern theologians erroneously quote Albo in favour of
rejecting some of the articles, because he speaks of three fundamental
principles; but they forget that Albo never rejects any of the thirteen
principles; he only insists on making a difference between those which
are more and those which are less fundamental.
On the First Principle, pp. 22 sqq.
Maimonides does not mention the term Creator except in the beginning of
each paragraph as a substitute for “God.” He employs the philosophical
term “First Cause” in defining the existence of God. In the sixty-ninth
chapter of the first book of “The Guide” we find the explanation
thereof. He says: “The philosophers, as you know, call God the First
Cause (עִלָּה and סִבָּה); but those who are known by the name
Mutakallemim (Mohammedan theologians) are very much opposed to the use
of that name, and prefer to call Him ‘Maker’ (פּוֹעֵל), believing that
there is a great difference whether we use the one term or the other.
They argue thus: Those who say that God is the Cause, implicitly assume
the coexistence of the Cause with that which was produced by that
Cause, and believe that the universe is eternal, and that it is
inseparable from God. Those, however, who say that God is the Maker do
not assume the coexistence of the maker with his work; for the maker
can exist anterior to his work; we cannot even imagine how a maker can
be in action unless he existed before his own work. This is an argument
advanced by persons who do not distinguish between the potential and
the actual. For there is no difference whether we say ‘cause’ or
‘maker;’ ‘cause’ as a mere potentiality precedes its effect; and
‘cause’ as actuality coexists with its effect. The same is the case
with ‘maker;’ so long as the work is not done, he is a maker
potentially, and exists before his work; he is an actual maker when the
work is done, and then he coexists with his work.”
“The reason why the philosophers called God ‘the Cause’ and did not
call Him ‘the Maker’ is not to be sought in their belief that the
universe is eternal, but in other principles, which I will briefly
explain to you. Everything owes its origin to the following four
causes: the substance, the form, the agens, the final cause. The
philosophers believe—and I do not differ from them—that God is the
agens, the form, and the final cause of everything; in order to express
this, they call God ‘the Cause’ of all things. Every one of these three
causes leads, through a chain of causes, to God as the First Cause.”
Maimonides further points out in this chapter that the choice of the
term by no means decides the question whether the universe has had a
beginning or not.
Maimonides has been severely criticised by his successors for the
absence of the belief in “Creation from nothing” from the Creed. In
“The Guide” Maimonides distinctly states that the arguments for
“Creation from nothing” and the arguments against it are equi-balanced,
and that for this reason he follows the literal interpretation of the
Scripture as regards Creation. Were the arguments in favour of the
eternity of the universe stronger, he would not have found any
difficulty in interpreting Scripture accordingly. Such being the view
of our great philosopher, he could not make the belief in Creation part
of the Creed, or declare that all who denied the Creation from nothing
were unbelievers.
However strange this argumentation of Maimonides may appear, and
however arbitrary his treatment of Scriptural teaching, his view is not
without justification. It seems strange that, in spite of all his
reverence for the Bible, he should have entrusted himself entirely to
the guidance of his own reason, and forced, as it were, the Bible by
peculiar interpretations to follow his reasoning. In truth, however,
the method of Maimonides is neither strange nor arbitrary. There is no
doubt that figurative language is extensively used in the Scriptures,
especially in the poetical and the prophetical books. Whether a certain
expression or phrase was to be understood in its literal meaning or in
a figurative sense must be learnt from the context; in some cases—as,
e.g., in the exhortation, “Ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your
heart” (Deut. x. 16)—the figurative sense is accepted by all, whilst in
other cases opinions are divided. Our decision in favour of the one
interpretation or the other is based on our conviction that the Bible
contains nothing but truth. When we discover a contradiction between a
Biblical statement and the dictates of our reason, we are sure that we
have erred either in the right understanding of the words of the Bible
or in our reasoning. On finding the mistake in our reasoning we abandon
what we have hitherto considered as fully established; but so long as
we are unable to discover where our reasoning is faulty, we either
suspend our judgment for the present and consider the question as one
of the problems which we have not yet been able to solve
satisfactorily, or, whenever possible, we attempt to reconcile by
figurative interpretation the teaching of the Bible with the results of
our research. Maimonides is therefore justified in saying that so long
as reason does not decide against the teaching of the Bible in its
literal sense he would adhere to the latter, and only if reason were to
decide against the Creatio ex nihilo, he would follow reason and
interpret Scripture accordingly.
It cannot be denied that Maimonides travelled here on rather slippery
ground, and set a dangerous example when he admitted that he would
interpret Scripture according to his preconceived view of the world’s
beginning. But, on the other hand, it must be owned that many passages
of the Bible admit of a figurative interpretation, and the reader must
follow his own reason and discretion in deciding in each particular
case which of the two interpretations is the correct one. Maimonides
has not made excessive use of this license.
Saadiah in his Emunoth Ve-deoth devotes the first chapter to the
problem of the Creation. It is headed חדוש “Creation,” and examines
thirteen different opinions as to the origin of the universe. In the
conclusion of this chapter he makes the following remarks: “Perhaps
some one might ask in what manner something was produced from nothing.
To this we reply as follows: If we were able to understand this, we
should not have ascribed the creative act to God alone. But we declare
God as the only Creator, because we can form no idea as to the manner
in which something is created from nothing. Those who desire us to show
them how to do this, desire, in fact, that we should make them and
ourselves creators. We only conceive in our mind the fact of the
Creation, but cannot form an idea or image of the process itself....
There may be some who think little of the universe, and wonder that
this should be the result of all the power and wisdom of God. We reply
that He created as much as, according to His knowledge, would be within
the range of man’s observation and perception, and would be sufficient
to teach man the existence of God.... How can we conceive the idea that
the universe counts only 4633 years? But the universe has been created,
as we believe, and must have had a beginning at a certain time. Suppose
we had been living in the year 100; we should then not have been
surprised: why should we be surprised now?” The question as to the
purpose for which the universe was created, Saadiah makes three
attempts to answer. Maimonides, however, in “The Guide,” more
correctly, shows that the question is unanswerable and superfluous.
For, whatever purpose we assume, we must always further inquire what is
the purpose of this purpose, and so on ad infinitum, till we arrive at
the answer, it was the Will of God. If the prophet declares that God
“hath not created it in vain, but hath formed it for dwelling,” he
likewise says implicitly it was the Will of God that the earth should
be for a dwelling.
The question, however, arises whether the Biblical account of the
Creation harmonises in all its parts with the results of scientific
research. To prove the existence of harmony between the two discordant
elements has been since days of old the task which theologians proposed
to themselves; philosophic culture forced them to accept the doctrines
of a certain school of thought as established truths, whilst religious
feeling would not allow them to abandon the teaching of the inspired
writers. But the search after this harmony was superfluous, and the
harmony found was illusory. For, whilst the teaching of the Bible
remains unchanged, the systems of philosophy and science, like
everything human, have no claim to permanency; each system has its
season; it begins to shine, and rises higher and higher; and when it
has reached the zenith, it begins steadily to decline till it
disappears beneath the horizon of science. So long as Aristotle and
Ptolemy were dominant, theologians exerted themselves to show that the
account contained in the first chapter of Genesis fully harmonises with
Aristotle and Ptolemy. When these princes were dethroned, and their
places were occupied by others, the old harmony was gone, and a new
method had to be invented. Maimonides has clearly pointed out how the
conflict between reason and faith, where it existed, could best be
brought to a conclusion. Such of the laws of nature as have been
established by human acumen and human observation have been discovered
in the phenomena of existing nature; but the phenomenon of creation has
never been observed in nature from which we could learn the laws of
creation.
In the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of “The Guide” Maimonides
says as follows: “Everything produced comes into existence from
non-existence; even when the substance of a thing has been in
existence, and has only changed its form, the thing itself which has
gone through the process of genesis and development, after having
arrived at its final state, has properties different from those which
it possessed at the commencement of the transition from potentiality to
reality or before that time.... It is quite impossible to infer from
the qualities which a thing possesses after having passed through all
the stages of its development what its condition was at the moment when
this process commenced; nor does the condition of a thing at that
moment show what its previous condition had been. If you make this
mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential
existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into
great confusion; you will reject evident truth and admit false
opinions.... If philosophers would consider this well, and reflect on
it, they would find that it represents exactly the dispute between
Aristotle and ourselves. We, the followers of Moses, our teacher, and
of Abraham, our father, believe that the universe has been produced
from nothing, and has developed in a certain manner, and that it has
been created in a certain order. The Aristotelians oppose us, and found
their objections on the properties which the things in the universe
possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the
existence of these properties, but hold that these properties
themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence. The
arguments of our opponents are thus refuted; they have demonstrative
force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at
present in existence proves the Creation. But this is not my opinion.”
This reasoning holds good with regard to the modern theory of
Evolution. We may be able to discover numerous facts in evidence of
this theory, we may well conceive the idea of a protoplasm developing
into a whole system of worlds, and yet our belief in the truth of the
Biblical account of the Creation is not shaken in the least. The laws
of Evolution are the result of the creative act of the Almighty, and
not its causes; they include nothing that could disprove the
correctness of the theory of Creatio ex nihilo.
Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, in his “Commentary on Genesis” (i.) says: “The word
בראשית ‘in the beginning,’ teaches that nothing preceded the act of
Creation; that there was a Creatio ex nihilo. This truth forms the
foundation of the faith which the Divine Law is intended to establish
in our hearts. The opposite theory is the doctrine of the eternity of
the substance, a theory which leaves to the Creator nothing but the
function of giving form to the substance that has existed already from
eternity, and which has been the basis of the heathen belief up to the
present day.... The first word of the Torah dispels the darkness of
this false belief; and the words, ‘The opening of thy word giveth
light’ (Ps. cxix. 130), have in the Midrash correctly been applied to
the word בראשית. Everything, the matter and the form of all beings,
is the result of the free will of the Creator, who continues to rule
matter and form, and to determine both the natural forces and the laws
of their action. For it is His free will that created matter, endowed
it with certain forces, and fixed the laws by which the forces impress
the different forms on it.”
The idea of development and evolution is not entirely excluded from the
account of the Creation. Not in one moment or in one day was the
universe produced, but in six days by successive creations of a
systematic order. In Mishnah Aboth (v. 1) this is expressed in the
following way: “By ten words (מאמרות) the universe was created,
although this could have been done by one word.” Commentators have
variously attempted to explain this fact, and to show that the order
observed in the Creation was determined by the nature of the things
themselves. Thus Ibn Ezra believes that the successive creations were
the results of the continued action of light and heat. [19] But it is
by no means necessary to reconcile the Biblical account with every
theory that happens to be considered by some scholar or school as the
right one. There may be found in nature and in the working of the
natural laws some facts analogous to certain acts of the creation; but
a perfect equality of two such incongruent things as the creation from
nothing and development of created beings is impossible. By forcing the
text of the Bible into such harmony we deprive the account of its
poetry and beauty, and weaken the force of its teaching.
Science teaches that millions of millions of years must have elapsed
before the earth received its present form; that it took millions of
years before the light of certain stars could reach the earth. In all
these calculations one important factor is ignored, viz., that for
every development something must be given, which is subject to the
process of developing; to determine in what condition that something
was, when it passed from the passive state of creation to the active
state of developing, is a problem for the solution of which there is no
analogy in nature. He who could create a germ endowed with all the
natural forces required for development and differentiation into the
great variety of forms which we perceive at present, must certainly
have been able to create the things actually endowed with these forms.
Thus, also, the various strata of the earth, whatever forms they
contain, cannot with certainty be described as the results of
development; they may just as well have come directly from the hand of
the Creator.
Maimonides (The Guide, xxx.) says in reference to this question: “You
should also know the dictum of our Sages—‘All the beings of the work in
the beginning (מעשה בראשית) were created in their full height, their
fully developed reason, and endowed with the best of properties.’ Note
this, for it involves an important principle.—The work of the Creation
went on for six days; every day brought to light a new force, a new
result of a creative action, but on the seventh day ‘God declared [20]
the work which He had done as finished,’ as endowed with the properties
and forces required for their further development” (The Guide, I.
lxvii.).
Science has proved, it is maintained, that the earth does not form the
centre of the universe, and that man does not form the principal object
in nature, in opposition to the teaching of the Scriptures that the
earth is the centre round which the whole universe revolves, and that
man on earth is the lord of the creation. Whatever view the authors of
the Biblical books held as regards the systems of the universe, whether
they placed the earth in the centre or not, whether all the stars and
systems of stars existed, in their opinion, only for the sake of the
earth or for the benefit of man, their object was to address man, to
instruct him, and to teach him the omnipotence, wisdom, and goodness of
God. For this reason the account of the Creation is given in such a
manner that man should be able to reproduce in his mind the work of
each day of the Creation, to view it from his standpoint, and to
recognise the benefits each day’s work bestowed on him. The fact that
other beings are benefited at the same time, and that the benefit they
derive is likewise part of the Creator’s design, is by no means denied
by those who believe that the well-being of man was included in the
design of the Creator. It is part of our duty of gratitude to ascribe
the benefits we enjoy to their Author. The prophets and the inspired
singers knew well the place which weak and mortal man occupies in the
universe; but they did not ignore the dignity and importance with which
the Creator endowed him in spite of all his weakness and apparent
insignificance. “What is man,” exclaims the Psalmist, “that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? And yet
thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast crowned him
with glory and honour” (Ps. viii. 5, 6).
On the Fifth Principle, p. 44.
The principle that no other being but God is worthy of being addressed
in prayer implies the belief that God can fulfil our petitions. We
believe in the efficacy of prayer. It is true that when we communicate
our wishes to the Most Holy, our just Lord and our loving Father, we
are eo ipso reminded to examine our desires, whether they contain
anything unholy, anything unjust or ignoble. Prayer to God has
therefore the salutary effect of purifying, refining, and ennobling our
heart. It banishes evil thoughts, and thus saves us much pain and
sorrow. This effect may have been designed by the Creator, and it may
be for this purpose that He has endowed us with a natural impulse to
pray, and has taught us to pray in His Holy Word. But this cannot be
the direct object of prayer. The immediate effect sought to be obtained
by this act is the fulfilment of our wishes. Every such fulfilment
implies a miracle, a deviation from the regular course of nature. We
are not in the habit of praying for things which we expect as the sure
result of the natural laws; we may praise and admire nature in its
workings, but we shall never ask nature for the fulfilment of our
desires. Only those things which we believe to be dependent solely on
the free decision of the Supreme Being can form the substance of our
petitions; and since we believe that everything, the regular working of
the natural laws not excepted, depends on the Will of God, we include
in the objects of prayer whatever concerns the well-being of individual
man and society at large.
There have been thinkers that formed such an idea of God that they were
compelled to deny Him every direct influence on human affairs. Some
thought it incompatible with the notion of God’s Unity and Immutability
that He should be moved by man’s prayer to do something which otherwise
He would not have done. Again, others believe that the laws of
nature—whether given by God or not—are so permanent that they never
change under any circumstances. Prayer has therefore been explained to
be of a purely subjective character, and to effect only the
above-mentioned improvement of man’s heart. But could we really pray to
God to grant us the one thing or the other if we were convinced that He
cannot grant us anything, but must allow nature to take its course? Can
a prayer offered in such a frame of mind be called a “prayer without
lips of deceit”? In opposition to such theories our teachers purposely
introduced into the daily prayer here and there a reminder of the true
theory in words like the following: המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה
בראשית “Who repeateth anew every day regularly the work of the
Creation.” He is constantly יוצר אור, בורא חשך, מחיה המתים; He
constantly “formeth light,” “createth darkness,” “giveth life to the
dead,” &c.; they have expressed our gratitude to God על נסים שבכל יום
עמנו ועל נפלאתיך וטובתיך שבכל עת “for His miracles which in our behalf
He performs every day, and for His wonders and kindnesses shown at all
times.”
“This idea of God’s real and active rule in the universe is the basis
of prayer. It is not only the belief in the truth of the Biblical
account of miracles that enables us to pray to our Father, but the
conviction that wonders and miracles are constantly wrought by Him. In
the Talmud and in the Midrash man’s earning his daily bread (פרנסה)
is declared to be a miracle by no means inferior to the miracles
wrought for the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt.—‘Is need
greatest, is God nearest,’ is a well-known saying, the truth of which
many have experienced in the course of their life. Those who have been
dangerously ill, and after having found that man, with all his science
and resources, was incapable of affording relief, gradually recover
their former health; those who have shared with others a common danger,
and while their companions, under exactly the same circumstances,
perished, were themselves saved; those who, having exhausted every
means conceivable to them of obtaining a livelihood, at length find a
new path of subsistence opened to them: all these have experienced the
Divine help and His nearness in their distress; they have learnt to
recognise the miraculous power of Providence. But it is not only in
such extraordinary events that the finger of God is seen; to him who
has eyes to see they appear daily and hourly. We are exposed to many
dangers, the existence of which we frequently only learn when we are
safe; we escape them by a miracle.” [21]
The Immutability of God and of His decrees is frequently insisted upon
in Scripture. “I, the Lord, I change not” (Mal. iii. 6). “God is not a
man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent”
(Num. xxiii. 19). “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for
he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. xv. 29). “And he hath
established them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it shall
not pass away” (Ps. cxlviii. 6).—This immutability, however, does not
interfere with the free-will of man and its consequences. The teaching
of the Bible is beautifully expressed in the well-known sentence:
תשובה תפלה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה “Repentance, prayer, and good
deeds remove the evil of the divine decree” (Musaf of Rosh ha-shanah);
whatever a man has forfeited by evil deeds, he may recover by prayer
and improved conduct. This lesson is taught in the Bible on every page,
and is illustrated by the history of Israel. For this reason the
prophets were sent to the people of Israel to exhort them, and to show
them how they could, by means of repentance, ward off the impending
catastrophe. To non-Israelites the same mercy was extended, as is shown
by the history of the mission of the prophet Jonah.—Mishnah Aboth (iv.
13) therefore declares, “Repentance and good deeds are like a shield
against punishment,” תשובה ומעשים טובים כתריס בפני הפרענות.
The seeming incongruity of the two principles, God’s immutability and
man’s hope for mercy and pardon from God, has to some extent occupied
the attention of our ancient teachers. “If our condition for a whole
year is determined in advance, what is the good of our daily prayers
and our supplication for God’s help in times of trouble?” Such is the
question asked in the Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-shanah (16a), and the
answer is given, יפה צעקה קודם גזרה ואחר גזרה “Prayer is of good
effect both before the decree and afterwards.” It is always in the
power and in the will of the Almighty to accede to our petitions and to
fulfil our wishes. The question has since been repeated frequently, but
no better solution has as yet been supplied.
Abraham, who was the first teacher of monotheism, has also been made by
tradition the father of prayer. In the Biblical account he is the first
who uttered a prayer; a prayer in the true sense of the word, not for
himself, but for his fellow-men. The words of Cain, גדול עוני מנשא
“My punishment is greater than I can bear,” have not the character of
prayer, nor can the “calling by the name of God” in the age of Enosh be
considered with certainty as an expression of prayer. Tradition
relates, therefore, that before Abraham there was no one that called
God by the name אדון “Lord.” Abraham was the first who recognised God
as Lord of man, in whose hand his fate lies,—the condition sine quâ non
of prayer. From Abraham onwards prayer remained the chief refuge in
danger, and the best, solace and relief in time of trouble.
Whilst, however, insisting on the belief in the efficacy of prayer, our
Sages teach us that it would be wrong to expect that every petition
uttered before God must be granted. We pray to the Almighty, being
convinced that it is in His power to grant what we pray for; but we
must trust in the wisdom and mercy of God, that the rejection of our
petition is also for our good. “He is near to all those who call on
him, to all those that call on him in truth,” who continue to trust in
Him and His goodness even when their wishes are not fulfilled. It would
be almost equal to superstition to believe that any words, however
earnest and devout, uttered by us will infallibly have the desired
effect. The Mishnah (Aboth ii. 13) therefore teaches: אל תעש תפלתך קבע
אלא רחמים ותחנונים “Do not make thy prayer a fixed claim or demand,
which must be fulfilled, but a supplication for mercy, which may or may
not be granted.” The belief that the prayer will undoubtedly be
fulfilled is denounced in the Talmud as עיון תפלה “Looking out with
certainty for the effect of the prayer.” [22] Since the principal
object of prayer is the granting of our petitions, prayer will be
superfluous when no wants will any longer be felt, לעתיד לבוא התפלות
בטלות “In future prayers will be discontinued;” only תפלת תודה אינה
בטלה לעולם “The prayer of thanksgiving will never be discontinued.”
“In the enjoyment of the purest blessings our feelings of gratitude
will never die out” (Yalkut on Ps. lvi.).
Rabbi Joseph Albo, in the book Ikkarim, says (IV. xvi.): “Although
Prayer is not one of the principles of our Torah, it is intimately
connected with the belief in Providence, and every one who believes in
Providence ought to believe in the efficacy of prayer. For he who does
not pray to God in time of trouble either does not believe in Divine
Providence, or if he does believe, he doubts whether God is able to
supply his wants; in both cases man is an unbeliever. It is also
possible that a person who believes in Divine Providence and in God’s
Omnipotence doubts whether he deserves that his prayer should be
granted—a feeling of humility which ought indeed to fill the heart of
every person—but this idea must not prevent him altogether from praying
to God concerning his wants. If he does not pray from this reason, he
may believe in God’s justice, but he does not believe in His mercy and
kindness. It is also contrary to the teaching of the Bible. ‘Not
relying on our righteousness do we offer our supplication before you,
but on your great mercy!’ For the benefits bestowed by God on His
creatures are acts of love, not of recompense.... Man receives
benefits, whether he is entitled to them or not, because prayer gives
him a qualification which he does not possess by nature, and enables
him to receive such good things as could not be obtained from any other
being or through any other means....
“There are some who doubt the efficacy of prayer; they argue thus: We
must assume that a certain good thing has been either decreed or not
decreed in favour of a certain person: if it has been decided, prayer
is not wanted; and if it has not been decided, how can prayer effect a
change in the Will of God, who is unchangeable? Neither righteousness
in action, nor prayer, is of any avail in procuring any good thing that
has not been ordained, or in escaping any evil that has been decreed.
This is also the argument of Job in chap. xxi. But the answer to these
arguments is this: Whatever may have been decreed, certain conditions
must be fulfilled before the decree is executed. If a good harvest is
decreed to a certain person, he must plough and sow before he can
secure such a harvest; if punishment is decreed against him, the
punishment is not inflicted in the absence of continued and repeated
sinning. The history of King Ahab shows that the evil decreed against
any sinner takes no effect if the sinner repents and is turned into
another man. The change that takes place in man himself is the direct
effect of prayer and righteousness; it prepares and qualifies him for
receiving benefits and protection from evil. Our Sages say therefore:
Prayer has its good effect both before and after the Divine decree. The
Immutability of God is not less consistent with Efficacy of Prayer than
it is with His knowledge of things which are possible, and may happen
or may not happen. God and His knowledge being unchangeable, everything
must be certain and nothing merely possible. And yet we are convinced
of the existence of these things, and believe at the same time in the
Immutability of God’s knowledge. In the same manner we are convinced of
the Efficacy of Prayer without doubting the Immutability of God’s
Will.”
On Revelation, p. 46.
The term נביא “prophet” only expressed the prophet’s function of
addressing his fellow-men when inspired and impelled by the Spirit of
the Lord. The verb “to prophesy” is therefore in Hebrew expressed by
the nifal or passive. In so far as the Word of God has been revealed to
him he is called ראה, חוזה and צפה “Seer,” איש אלהים “Man of
God,” איש הרוח “The inspired.” In the time of Samuel the title ראה
was generally given to the prophet instead of נביא (1 Sam. ix. 9), as
his advice was also sought by many who believed him to be able to
foresee coming events and to know everything. As, however, the word
נביא only describes the prophet as addressing his fellow-men, it is
used both of the true and the false prophets, and also of teachers and
preachers generally. The Targum on the Prophets (Jer. xxix. 15; Isa.
xxix. 10) renders, therefore, the term נביא in some instances:
מלפין “teachers,” ספריא “scholars.”
The enthusiasm manifested by the prophet in his mode of address, or in
his endurance of insult and ill-treatment, made him sometimes appear in
the eyes of the public as though he were struck with madness, so that
scoffers used נביא and משגע “mad,” as synonyms (Jer. xxix. 26), and
מתנבא is both one who acts as a prophet and one who imitates the
appearance of a prophet (1 Sam. xviii. 10).
The false prophets are divided by Jeremiah into three classes: there
were those who were guilty of a direct plagiarism, preaching the Divine
messages of the true prophets and describing them as their own
inspiration. There were others who plagiarised and reproduced true
prophecies in a form and style of their own, and others again who
altogether invented dreams and visions. The principal test for
distinguishing between the true and the false prophets was the purity
of moral and religious conduct. In matters wholly indifferent as
regards morality and religion the prophet was believed after having
established his trustworthiness in some way or other, and his advice
was acted upon. The prophet himself could easily detect the fraud of a
false prophet; for what he was commanded by God to do, another prophet
could not, speaking in the name of the same God, order not to be done.
The prophet, therefore, who deceitfully induced “the man of God” to
return to Beth-el by the very way which the word of God had forbidden
him to go again (1 Kings xiii. 18), could not have been a true prophet,
although he was subsequently entrusted with a Divine message for “the
man of God.” Bileam was likewise for a certain purpose made the bearer
of God’s words, although he was by no means a good man. In either case
the sinful intention of the false prophet was stigmatised as contrary
to the Will of the Most High, and both had, as it were, to own the
wickedness of their intention or the wrong of their actions.
The subject-matter of the prophecy is called “the vision,” “the word of
God,” or “the burden of the word of God.” In the days of Jeremiah the
term “burden of the Lord” seems to have been used contemptuously of the
prophetic utterances in the sense of “trouble” and “strife” (comp.
Deut. i. 12), and the prophet was ironically asked by the people, “What
is the burden of the Lord?” Jeremiah exhorts them to say, “What hath
the Lord answered thee?” or “What hath the Lord spoken?” “But the
burden of the Lord shall ye remember no more; for the burden shall be
the man’s to whom His word is brought” (Jer. xxiii. 36).
On the Sixth Principle, p. 131.
Saadiah in Emunoth ve-deoth iii. says: “Some men believe that we have
no need of prophets, our reason being able to distinguish between good
and evil. But if this were the case, God would not have sent messengers
to us, because He does not do a thing that is purposeless. I considered
the question thoroughly, and found that the mission of the prophets was
necessary, not only for the promulgation of categorical commands, but
also for that of rational precepts. Thus the duty of thanksgiving to
God for His goodness is dictated by our own reason, but the Divine
messengers had to fix the time and the form of thanksgiving. Again,
adultery is rejected by our reason as a crime; but the Divine teaching
determines the conditions of the bond that unites man and wife....
“As a test of the prophet’s truthfulness and trustworthiness a sign is
given, which consists of an act implying a deviation from the ordinary
laws of nature (comp. Exod. iii. and iv.). The Israelites are therefore
frequently reminded of ‘the great wonders which their eyes saw’ (Deut.
vii. 19). Those who believed after the sign was given were ‘the
righteous,’ whilst those who did not believe ‘went astray.’ ...
“The object of ‘the wonders’ was to produce belief in the prophecies;
except for such a purpose as this, the regular course of Nature is not
disturbed, so that man can make his plans and arrange his affairs on
the basis of the continuance of the laws of Nature. The messengers sent
by God were not angels, but men like ourselves, in order that the force
of the sign may be more apparent; for, seeing that beings like
ourselves perform things which we cannot perform, we conclude that a
higher Being has endowed them with extraordinary power for a special
purpose. If, however, angels had been chosen for the task of prophets,
we should not have considered their performance as signs; but, not
knowing the nature of angels, we should have thought that such acts
were within the regular and natural powers of angels. Prophets, like
other human beings, cannot dispense with the regular functions of the
organs of their body; they are subject to the different conditions of
health; to poverty, ill-treatment on the part of their fellow-men, and
to ignorance about future events, except those communicated to them by
Divine inspiration.—I found it necessary to state this here, because
there are people who believe that the prophet does not die like
ordinary people; others deny him the sensation of hunger and thirst;
others again think that he does not suffer from violence and wrong
directed against him, and some even believe that nothing is hidden from
him. These ‘do not know the thoughts of the Lord, and do not understand
His counsel.’
“It is, further, my conviction that the prophets were satisfied, by
some extraordinary supernatural phenomena, that they were addressed by
the Almighty. (Comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9 and Ps. xcix. 7: ‘In a pillar of
cloud he speaketh to them.’)
“As to the relation of the Egyptian Magicians to Moses, we are informed
that ten miracles were wrought by Moses and only three by the
Magicians. Even these three were only mentioned in order to show the
difference between Moses and the Magicians. Moses acted openly, the
Magicians secretly; the effect of Moses’ doing was felt throughout the
whole country, that of the Magicians only in a limited space....
“Some one might ask, ‘How could Jonah have been chosen for his mission?
Wisdom would forbid us to appoint for an important mission a messenger
that is disobedient.’ But I have examined the Book of Jonah, and have
not found any statement as regards the disobedience of Jonah. On the
contrary, I assume that he, like all prophets, brought the Divine
message to the Ninevites. We frequently find in the Pentateuch. ‘Speak
to the children of Israel and tell them,’ and we assume that Moses told
the Israelites, although this is not distinctly mentioned. The reason
why Jonah fled is this: the first message which he actually brought to
the inhabitants of Nineveh contained simply a summons to repentance. He
feared that he would be again sent to threaten with punishment if they
did not return; and if they returned and the threatened catastrophe did
not occur, they might in course of time begin to doubt the veracity of
his words. He therefore left the land, which was distinguished as the
land of prophecy (Jonah iv. 2).”
Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in the book Cuzari (V. xii.), describes prophecy
as an extraordinary gift granted by the Almighty to such human beings
as are qualified for it by the highest degree of intellectual
development, moral conduct, and an earnest desire for communion with
God. Such qualification is found only in a few privileged
individuals—“the heart of mankind” (לב האדם)—who, as it were, possess
it as an inheritance transmitted from generation to generation, but it
can only be possessed or acquired under certain favourable conditions,
e.g., that the prophet live in Palestine, the land of prophecy, or have
his attention directed to Palestine (I. xcv.).
It was, however, necessary that mankind should derive a benefit from
the revelations made to the prophets. All had to learn that it was
possible for a human being to receive a direct communication from God.
This lesson was given when the Israelites stood round Mount Sinai, and
suddenly became prophets. For, although the Israelites believed in the
Divine mission of Moses after he had done many wonderful deeds, there
remained yet a doubt in their minds whether God could speak to man, and
whether the Torah did not originate in the plans and schemes of human
beings, which by the help and assistance of God developed to
perfection; for it seemed strange to them to ascribe speech, which is
corporeal, to a spiritual being. It is this doubt which God intended to
remove from their hearts; they were therefore commanded to sanctify
themselves inwardly and outwardly, whereby they were prepared for the
condition of prophets and for hearing the words of God which were to be
directly addressed to them. After a preparation of three days they
received the Decalogue, not from any prophet or other person, but from
God Himself. But they felt their weakness and their inability to
witness such a great sight again. They were convinced that the Torah
was communicated by God to Moses, and was not the result of human
invention; that prophecy does not consist in the union of the soul of
man with the active intellect, in his attaining to great wisdom, or in
his mistaking his own words for the words of God. Such erroneous
opinions were refuted by the revelation on Mount Sinai.—But, objects
the king of the Cuzarites, to believe that God spoke to the Israelites
and wrote the Decalogue on the tables of stone amounts to believing in
a corporeification of the Deity.—To which objection the following reply
is given:—“Far be it from us to think that the Torah contains anything
contrary to reason. The Decalogue commences with the commandment to
believe in God, and prohibits in the second commandment the
representation of God in any corporeal form. How could we, who deny
corporeality even to some of His creatures, attribute any corporeal
property to the Supreme Being? For it is not the tongue, heart, or
brain of Moses that speaks to us, instructs and guides us, but his soul
which is rational, incorporeal, and not subject to the relations of
space; we ascribe to the soul attributes of angels, of spiritual
beings. How much more is this the case with God! We have, therefore, no
reason for rejecting the Biblical account of the revelation on Mount
Sinai; but we admit that we do not know how the idea became corporeal
and was turned into audible speech, what new thing was then created or
what things then in existence were annihilated. He is Almighty, and
when we say that He created the tablets and covered them with His
writing, it was done, like the creation of the heavens, by His word;
that is, it was His Will that His thought should become corporeal to a
certain extent and assume the form of tables, and that a certain
writing be inscribed on them. Just as the division of the sea and the
formation of a broad path between the walls of water was done directly
by His Will, without using instruments or employing intermediate
causes, so the air that reached the ear of the prophet assumed such a
form that sounds were perceived expressing the idea which God desired
to communicate to the prophet or to the people” (I., lxxxvii.–lxxxix.).
In describing the different meanings of the names of God, Elohim and
the Tetragrammaton, [23] the author says: “The nature of Elohim can be
perceived by reason, which teaches us that there exists a being who
governs the universe. The opinions at which people arrive vary
according to the different modes of reasoning which they employ; the
opinions of the philosophers have the greatest probability. But the
idea contained in the Tetragrammaton cannot be found by reasoning, but
is perceived intuitively by that prophetic vision during which man is
almost separated from his fellow-men, transformed into an angel, and
filled with another spirit; ... previous doubts concerning God
disappear, he smiles at the arguments by which men generally arrive at
the idea of a deity and unity; he then worships God in love, and would
rather sacrifice his life than abandon the worship of God” (IV., xv.).
Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the words “And the Lord spake to Moses” as
referring to true speech and not to speech with the mouth, which is
merely a representation of the other. “God spake to Moses” as man
speaketh to his neighbour; that is to say, directly and not through a
messenger (On Exod. xxxiii. 11).—In commenting on the Nineteenth Psalm
he says: “The first part shows how the intelligent man can find in
nature evidence for the existence and power of the Deity; but there is
a far better and more trustworthy witness: the Law, &c, called by David
‘perfect,’ because no other evidence is required in support of the
Divine utterances contained in the Holy Writings” (On Ps. xix. 8).—Ibn
Ezra is so firm in his belief in the truth of the Divine Writings that
he sets aside the contrary opinions of men as absurd. “We believe in
the words of our God and abandon the vain opinions of the sons of man”
(On Gen. vii. 19).—Whatever message they brought from God was true, and
its realisation could be relied upon provided that the conditions were
fulfilled, which were either expressed or implied. In other things,
however, which were not contained in the Divine message they were not
infallible (On Exod. iv. 20). The prophets were trained for the office.
The sons of the prophets (or “the disciples”) led a contemplative life
of seclusion, in the hope of receiving inspiration, every one according
to his faculty (On Exod. iii. 15). The first step in this preparation
was “the training in the fear of the Lord,” which leads man to heed the
negative precepts of the Law. Then follows “the worship of God,” which
includes the observance of all positive precepts (Yesod Mora, vii.).
Maimonides (Mishneh torah, I.; Yesode ha-torah, vii. 1):—“One of the
principles of our faith is to believe that God inspires men. The
inspiration can only take place in men who distinguish themselves by
great wisdom and moral strength; who are never overcome by any passion,
but, on the contrary, overcome all passions; who possess wide and
profound knowledge. If those who are endowed with these various gifts,
and, being physically perfect, enter the garden of speculation, are
absorbed in these great and difficult problems, have the mind to
understand and to comprehend, sanctify themselves more and more,
abandon the ways of the common people that walk in the deep darkness of
the time, and zealously train themselves in freeing their mind from
useless things, the vanities and tricks of the time, in order always to
keep the mind free for reflecting on higher things, on the most holy
and pure forms, on the whole work of the Divine Wisdom from the first
sphere to the centre of the earth, and to comprehend thereby the
greatness of God: then they will at once be inspired with the holy
spirit, their soul will then be in the society of angels, they will
become other beings, they will feel that they are not the same as
before, that they are above other men, even above the wise. Thus it is
said of Saul, ‘And thou wilt prophesy with them, and be turned into
another man’” (1 Sam. x. 6).
The same opinion is expressed by Maimonides in his “Commentary on the
Mishnah” (Sanhedrin, xi. 1), and in “The Guide” (III., xxxii.). In the
latter (l.c.) the various views on prophecy are fully discussed, and
the difference between the view of Maimonides and that of the
“philosophers” is given more distinctly. According to the philosophers,
the highest physical, moral, and intellectual development is the sole
means for the acquisition of the prophetic faculty. Maimonides demands
in addition to this the Divine Will; he reserves, as it were, for the
Supreme Being a kind of veto, and believes that the prophetic faculty
may, by Divine interference, i.e., by a miracle, be withheld from a
person in spite of all preparation and fitness. He compares this
interference to the sudden paralysis and equally sudden recovery of the
hand of King Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4). Although the physical
conditions for the motion of the hand were present, the motion could
not take place, because it was the Will of God that the hand should at
that particular time not be able to perform its natural functions.
The question naturally suggests itself, Why, then, is the number of
prophets so exceedingly small? Why are there no prophets amongst the
large host of philosophers whose intellectual faculties have been most
highly developed, and who apparently live in a sphere of ideals far
above earthly and ordinary passions? Maimonides denies the fact that
the conditions are fulfilled; he believes that the life of the
philosophers is on the whole not so pure as would qualify them for the
office of prophecy (II., xxxvi.).
But Bileam, Laban, and Abimelech enjoyed the privilege of Divine
communication, although they had not attained to the highest degree of
moral sanctity. Maimonides says in reference to the dreams of Abimelech
and Laban (ibid., chap. xli.): “The sentence, ‘And Elohim (an angel)
came to a certain person in the dream of the night,’ does not indicate
a prophecy, and the person to whom Elohim appeared is not a prophet;
the phrase only informs us that the attention of the person was called
by God to a certain thing, and at the same time that this happened at
night. For just as God may cause a person to move in order to save or
kill another, so He may cause, according to His Will, certain things to
rise in man’s mind in a dream by night. We have no doubt that the
Syrian Laban was a wicked man and an idolater. Abimelech, though
himself a virtuous man, is told by Abraham, ‘I said, Surely there is no
fear of God in this place’ (Gen. xx. 11). And yet of both it is said
that Elohim appeared to them in a dream. Note and consider the
distinction between the phrases ‘Elohim came’ and ‘Elohim said;’
between ‘in a dream by night’ and ‘in a vision by night.’ In reference
to Jacob it is said, ‘And an angel said to Israel in visions by night’
(Gen. xlvi. 2), whilst in reference to Abimelech and Laban it is said,
‘Elohim came to Abimelech (or to Laban) in the dream by night’ (Ibid.
xx. 3 and xxxi. 24). Onkelos therefore renders this phrase: ‘A word
came from the Lord,’ and not ‘God revealed himself.’”
Bileam is, according to Maimonides, in some respect like Laban and
Abimelech; what God told him in a dream by night was not a prophecy. In
other respects he is described by this philosopher as a person endowed
with רוח הקדש “the holy spirit;” i.e., he felt that some influence
had come upon him, and that he had received a new power which
encouraged him to speak for a certain object (The Guide, xlv.).
Maimonides adds that at that time Bileam was still a virtuous man.—This
view of the position which Bileam occupies in the class of inspired men
is different from the place assigned to him in the Midrash, where the
following passage occurs: “‘There arose no prophet again in Israel like
Moses;’ that is to say, in Israel none arose, but among other nations
there was a prophet as great as Moses, namely, Bileam” (Sifre, Deut.
xxxiv. 10). Whatever may be the meaning of these words—whether they are
meant as a satire or not—they seem to indicate that Bileam possessed a
high degree of prophetic faculty. But comparing the deeds of Bileam
with those of Moses, we find that the latter guided the Israelites and
led them to good deeds and to a virtuous life, whilst Bileam misled
those who followed his guidance to sin and vice.
The view of Maimonides, that man after due preparation and training may
still be debarred from the rank of prophet, is severely criticised by
the Commentators of the Guide. They maintain that God, after having
invited and encouraged man to approach Him, would not then thwart the
very hope He had implanted. According to their opinion, God’s hand is
extended to all; every one may acquire the prophetic faculty, and those
who have not acquired it have not been duly qualified for it. (Comp.
the Comm. of Ephodi, Narboni a. o. on “The Guide,” II., xxxii.).
Albo (Ikkarim, III., vii. sqq.) likewise admits that it is impossible
to imagine a prophet who has not attained a high degree of moral and
intellectual perfection. But he does not consider the prophetic faculty
as a natural development of man’s intellectual faculties. It is solely
and directly due to Divine inspiration (שפע אלהי), by means of which
man acquires a knowledge of things which are otherwise beyond the
limits of human intellect. Of what nature the inspiration is, how it
gives certitude to the prophet, and by what psychical process it is
accomplished, only the prophet himself can fully comprehend. Albo, like
Maimonides, assumes different degrees of inspiration from the
inspiration (רוח ה׳) which moved Samson to heroic deeds and David to
sacred songs, to the prophetic communion of Moses with God “face to
face.” The clearness of the prophet’s utterances varies according to
the different degrees of his prophetic faculty, although all are
equally true.
On the Seventh Principle, p. 133.
The words שנבואת משה רבנו ע׳׳ה היתה אמתית have been wrongly
translated “that the prophecy of Moses was true,” because this is
contained in the sixth principle, which applies equally to Moses and to
all other prophets. The term אמתית does here not denote “true,” but
“real,” “perfect,” or “direct;” and the difference between the Divine
inspiration of Moses and that of other prophets is expressed in the
above phrase, in accordance with the distinction made in the Pentateuch
(Num. xii. 8). It has been considered necessary to formulate this
distinction between Moses and other prophets in a separate article,
because it is of great importance in the proof of the Immutability of
the Law.
Maimonides in “The Guide” (chap. xxxv.) and Mishneh torah (I., Hilchoth
Yesode ha-torah vii. 6) fully describes the difference between Moses
and other prophets. He enumerates four points:—(1.) Other prophets
received the Divine message in a vision or a dream, whilst Moses
received it in a state of complete consciousness, being awake, and
apprehending the words like those spoken by a man to his fellow-men.
(2.) Other prophets received the message in images, which they had
first to interpret before communicating it to their fellow-men; Moses
was addressed by God in clear words and not in figurative speech. (3.)
Other prophets were overcome by the sight, and were in a state of fear
and trembling; Moses experienced nothing of this kind. (4.) Moses was
sure to receive a Divine reply whenever he sought it; not so the other
prophets.
Maimonides comes thus to the conclusion that the term “prophet” when
applied to Moses cannot have the same meaning as it has when applied to
other Divine messengers; and the prophecy of Moses differs from that of
other prophets not only in degree, but in kind. There are, however,
other theologians who hold that the prophecy of Moses is of the same
kind as that of other prophets, and excels the rest only by a higher
degree of prophetic faculty. (Comp. Albo Ikkarim, III., xvii.)
On the Eighth Principle, p. 134.
The integrity and authenticity of the Pentateuch has been subjected to
all kinds of tests by critics of every age. The Massoretic remarks, to
which allusions are found in the Talmud, seem to include the result of
critical examination of the text of the Bible. Thus we read in the
treatise Aboth di-Rabbi Nathan (chap. xxxiv.): “There are ten passages
in the Pentateuch which are provided with points on the top of the
letters, namely, Gen. xvi. 5; xviii. 9; xix. 33; xxxiii. 4; xxxvii. 12;
Num. iii. 39; ix. 10; xxi. 30; xxix. 15; Deut. xxix. 28. What is the
meaning of these points? Ezra—who is supposed to have added them—said,
‘If Elijah should come and show me that the reading was wrong, I should
tell him that for that reason I marked them with points; and if he
should say that I wrote correctly, I should remove the points.’” In the
treatise Soferim (vi. 4) the following passage occurs:—“Rabbi Simeon
ben Lakish said, Three copies of the Pentateuch were found in the hall
of the Temple; they are called Sefer meonah, Sefer zatute, and Sefer
hee. In the one מעון was written instead of מעונה (Deut. xxxiii.
27), in the other זאטוטי (Exod. xxiv. 5) instead of נערי, and in
the third eleven times היא instead of הוא. The reading that was
found only in one of the three copies was rejected, and that of the
other two preferred. The received text has therefore מעונה, נערי,
and היא.”
These instances which tradition has preserved, are evidence of the
great care and conscientiousness with which Ezra the Scribe and other
men transcribed and multiplied copies of the Pentateuch. We learn
further from these instances that the text was never altered, even
where the sense did not seem quite clear; and where the reading had
been changed in some cases, the Massoretic notes show the way how to
read the word whilst the text was retained in its original form. This
is the cause of the Keri and Kethib, “How the word is read” and “How it
is written.” In the Talmud a certain number of passages are described
as tikkun soferim, “The style of the scribes;” others as ittur soferim,
“Elegance of the scribes.” Commentators have interpreted these terms as
indicating alterations of the text; but the instances quoted for
illustration do not contain any trace of such a process. An instance of
tikkun soferim is, “And Abraham stood yet before the Lord” (Gen. xviii.
22). These words were believed to continue the account of the Divine
vision introduced by the words, “And God appeared to Abraham” (ibid.
xviii. 1), and interrupted by the narrative of the visit of the three
angels. The reader might have expected, “And God stood yet before
Abraham.” The method of expressing the same in the above form for the
sake of euphemism is called tikkun soferim. From the instances of ittur
soferim quoted in the Talm. Nedarim 37b, we infer that the occasional
omission of the copulative vav was designated by that name. (Comp. Gen.
xviii. 5, אחר).
In Midrashic interpretations of the Bible we frequently meet with the
phrase אל תקרי, “Do not read,” seemingly implying an emendation of
the Biblical text. It is, however, certain that the authors of such
interpretations did not for a moment entertain the idea that the
passage in question was corrupt and required correction. What was meant
by the above phrase is this: A Jewish audience was supposed to be
familiar with the text of the Bible, and it was therefore believed that
the lessons which the teacher or preacher desired to impart would
better reach the heart of the listener, and be more easily retained in
his memory, if it were expressed in the words of some Biblical passage.
If a passage could, by a slight alteration, be made to serve this
purpose, such alteration was adopted and introduced with the words אל
תקרי, “Do not read, ... but ...”
There are also some instances in the Talmud and the Midrashim of
Biblical quotations not in harmony with the received text. This
discrepancy is either due to the fact that preachers and expounders
quoted from memory, and may have erroneously confounded two similar
passages, or it is due to the carelessness of the copyists. Indications
of a Biblical text at variance with the received text are found in the
ancient Versions. But, with the exception of the Chaldee Version of the
Pentateuch by Onkelos, and that of the Prophets by Jonathan, we have no
authorised Version, and it is uncertain how many of the discrepancies
have their origin in a corrupt text in the hands of the translator, and
how many of them are due to the error of the translator in misreading
or mistranslating the correct text before him. By no means are these
facts sufficient ground for doubting the correctness of the received
text, however plausible the suggested emendations may appear.
Samaritans and Mohammedans have accused the Jews of having altered the
text of the Bible; but they have not proved the charge. (See
Emunah-ramah, 5th Principle, chap. ii.)
Modern critics have impugned the authenticity of most of the Biblical
books. We will discuss their opinions concerning three of these books,
and these are the most important ones concerning which Tradition speaks
most decidedly, viz., the Pentateuch, the Prophecies of Isaiah, and the
Book of Daniel.
The existence of the Pentateuch at the time when the other Biblical
books were written is clear from the frequent references to the history
and the laws contained in it. Such are, e.g.: “Only be thou strong and
very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the
law which Moses, my servant, commanded thee,” &c. “This book of the law
shall not depart out of thy mouth,” &c. (Jos. i. 7, 8). “As Moses, the
servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written
in the book of the law of Moses,” &c. “And he wrote there upon the
stones a copy of the law of Moses which he wrote in the presence of the
children of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the
blessing and cursing, according to all that is written in the book of
the law” (Ibid. viii. 31, 32, 34). “Keep the charge of the Lord thy
God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments,
and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of
Moses,” &c. (1 Kings ii. 3). “But the children of the murderers he slew
not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of
Moses,” &c. (2 Kings xiv. 6). “Keep the passover unto the Lord your
God, as it is written in the book of the covenant” (Ibid. xxiii. 21).
“Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in
Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments” (Mal. iii. 16).
The authors of the other books of the Bible show familiarity with the
words, the phrases, and the contents of the Pentateuch. Thus Psalm civ.
is based on the first chapter of Genesis; the flood is mentioned in Ps.
xxix. and in the prophecies of Isaiah (liv. 9); the history of the
Patriarchs and of the Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness in Ps.
cvi., lxxviii.; the history of Jacob is alluded to in Hosea xii.; the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Isa. i. 9, Amos iv. 11.
Of the laws contained in the Pentateuch many are mentioned or alluded
to in the books of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; the feast of
Passover (Jos. iv.), Tabernacles (Zech. xiv. 16–20, Ezra iii. 4, Neh.
viii. 14–18); the first day [24] of the seventh month (New-year) is
mentioned as a “holy day” (Neh. viii. 10). The dietary laws are
referred to by Isaiah (lxvi. 17); the laws of cleanness and uncleanness
form the text of a prophecy of Haggai (ii. 10 sqq.). Such phrases as
“Uncircumcised in heart” (Jer. ix. 25) and “Thou wilt purify me with
hyssop and I shall be clean” (Ps. li. 9) show familiarity with the laws
of the Pentateuch. Sabbath and sacrifices are frequently mentioned.
Critics, however, assert that certain laws seem to have been unknown or
out of practice in the period of the Judges and the Kings. There is,
e.g., a perfect silence as to the celebration of “the Day of Blowing
the shofar” and “the Day of Atonement,” even where such mention is
suggested by the context, as Kings viii. 65, 66, and Nehemiah viii. But
the inspired historians preferred to describe the celebration of those
festivals that had been neglected, or those that were also of national
and political importance by concentrating the mass of the people in the
capital; such festivals were Passover and Tabernacles. The Day of
Blowing the shofar and the Day of Atonement were set aside for quiet,
private devotion and meditation, the additional service in the Temple
being in the hands of the priests, and the observation of these days as
holy days in accordance with the Law was a matter of course, and was
not considered by the authors as a memorable event that required
special notice. One of the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, lviii.) seems to
have reference to the Day of Atonement.
That in the days of the Judges, when “every man did what was right in
his eyes,” and during the reign of wicked kings many laws were ignored
or broken is not at all surprising. When the sacrifices offered up by
Samuel and Solomon are adduced as a proof that the Law, which only
allows priests to sacrifice, was not known in those days, the argument
is based on a misinterpretation of the Biblical text. When laymen
brought sacrifices, the priests performed the service for them; the
principal thing to be mentioned was in whose name or in whose presence
the sacrifice was brought; it was unnecessary to state that the priests
had to sprinkle the blood and to burn certain portions upon the altar;
no one doubted it.
Another argument against the authenticity of the Pentateuch has been
based on the fact related in the second book of Kings (xxii. 8 sqq.):
“And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found
a book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Shaphan the scribe
showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.
And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass when the king
had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.”
It is maintained by some scholars that the book, which seems to have
been an unknown thing to those who found it and to the king, had only
just then been written. This is not what is directly stated in the
Bible. Hilkiah speaks of the Law התורה, the well-known Torah; he
would not have said so if the Torah had not been in existence before.
Furthermore, the king on hearing the words of the book rent his
garments, and sent to inquire of the Lord concerning the words of this
book; for “great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us
because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book.”
These words of the king clearly show that the king was convinced of the
divine character of the book, and also of its existence in the time of
his forefathers. The fact that King Josiah accuses “the fathers”
suggests the following explanation of the event:—During the reign of
the wicked King Manasseh the reading of the Law was interrupted; the
book itself was hidden lest it should be destroyed by the idolatrous
priests; now that it was found again, the king was reminded that the
Torah had been neglected in the interval through the sin of the
preceding generation. Whether there was another copy of the Law in the
Temple, whether the one found by Hilkiah was complete, or contained
only a portion of the Law, perhaps Deuteronomy, chap. xxvii. and chap.
xxviii., which are in the Pentateuch called “the words of this
covenant” and also “the words of the curse,” titles which occur also in
reference to the above copy in the books of Kings and Chronicles; to
these and similar questions the Biblical account gives no decided
answer. Only so much is certain that the book found was not new or
unknown to those who found it, and the king recognised it as the book
of the Torah.
Far from finding in the other books of the Bible any evidence—whether
positive or negative—of the later origin of the Torah, we feel
convinced that their contents presuppose not only the existence of the
Torah, but also the authors’ familiarity with it. Without the Torah the
other books are unintelligible. There is nothing in the Pentateuch that
betrays a post-Mosaic origin. If the Pentateuch had been written in the
period of the Kings, the author would have mentioned Jerusalem as the
appointed place for the Sanctuary; in the rebukes (תוכחה), in
addition to idolatry, the social corruption pointed out by the prophets
would have been mentioned; the restrictive law concerning the marriage
of heiresses would have been superfluous, as it only applied to the
first generation that entered Palestine.
The phrase עבר הירדן has been quoted as a proof that the author of
the Pentateuch must have lived in Palestine, or else he could not have
called the east banks of the Jordan “the other side of Jordan;” but
this translation is wrong. The phrase only means the banks of Jordan.
In the Talmud the Pentateuch in its entirety is ascribed to Moses.
“Moses wrote his book and the book of Bileam” (Babyl. Talm. Baba
Bathra, 14b). The book of Bileam is the section of Numbers which
contains the parables of Bileam (from xxii. 2 to xxiv.).
There is, however, a difference of opinion with regard to the last
eight verses of the Pentateuch. According to Rabbi Jehudah (or Rabbi
Nehemiah) Joshua wrote this passage. Rabbi Shimeon objected: “Is it
possible that the Torah was incomplete when Moses was told, ‘Take this
book of the law?’ (Deut. xxxi. 26). [25] God dictated the last eight
verses of the Pentateuch to Moses, and the latter wrote them with
tears.”
With this exception, no doubt was entertained by any of the Rabbis as
to the integrity of the Torah. Various, however, were the opinions as
to the method followed by Moses in writing down the events and the
laws. Rabbi Jochanan, following the opinion of Rabbi Banaah, held that
the Torah was written by Moses piecewise at different times, just as
the events happened or as each law was revealed to him. Rabbi Shimeon
ben Lakish said “it was given at one time in its entirety” (Babyl.
Talm. Gittin 60a).
Passages of the Torah which seemed to contradict each other, or to be
contradicted by statements found in other books of the Bible, were
thoroughly discussed and explained. The belief in the integrity and
divinity of the Torah was so strong that those who rejected either of
these beliefs were considered as unworthy of the blessings of the
future world (Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin 99a).
With the rise of Karaism Bible criticism received new encouragement, as
in the warfare between Karaism and Rabbinism, or Scripturalists and
Traditionalists, it furnished both sides with sharp weapons. Some,
however, of the commentators went further, and gave utterance to all
sorts of heterodox views. Thus a certain Yitzchaki of Spain was of
opinion that Gen. xxxvi. 31–43 was a later addition, on account of the
phrase, “These were the kings who ruled over Edom before a king ruled
over Israel.” The critics forgot that this passage is intended to point
out the advance which Esau’s descendants had made, when the prophecy,
“And kings shall come forth out of thee” (xxxv. 11) had not yet been
fulfilled in the case of the Israelites.
Of the Commentators of the Middle Ages, Ibn Ezra is generally singled
out as an advanced scholar who held certain passages of the Pentateuch
as later additions. Ibn Ezra was far from such views, and he sharply
rebuked those who entertained them. Thus he says of Yitzchaki, the
author of the above criticism, “Every one who will hear this will laugh
at him, and his book deserves to be burnt.” With equal vigour he
criticises a grammarian who pointed out certain passages as
grammatically incorrect, and also another scholar who in his
interpretations of the Bible did not take sufficient notice of the
traditional accents. The error concerning Ibn Ezra has its origin in
his habit of adding the phrase, “The words have some deeper sense” (יש
לו סוד), whenever the literal interpretation does not quite satisfy
him, or when the object of the author in adding a seemingly superfluous
sentence is not clear to him; as, for instance, in the four passages
referred to in the Commentary on Deuteronomy i. 2, namely, “The
Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii. 6), “On the mount of the
Lord will it appear” (Ibid. xxii. 14), the repetition of the sacrifices
of the twelve princes (Num. vii.), and the stations enumerated in
Numbers (chap. xxxiii.), in addition to the detailed geographical
description of Deut. i. 1 sqq. The meaning of this remark has been
misunderstood by the early expounders of Ibn Ezra’s Commentary, and
since then the mistake has been repeated by most of the critics of the
Bible. Spinoza, in his theological treatise, quotes Ibn Ezra, with the
usual misinterpretation, in support of his view concerning the Torah.
Modern critics have attempted to analyse the Pentateuch, and to assign
to it several authors, revisers, and editors. But there is little
harmony among the critics; the one considers as the latest addition
what the other holds to be the oldest portions of the book. Numerous
emendations are made by every one of them in order to establish his
special theory. The fundamental principle of most of them is that the
section in which the name Elohim is prevalent could not have been
written by the author of another section in which the Tetragrammaton is
employed. But the two names, though denoting the same Being, are not
identical in meaning: the one signifies the Almighty, who is the Ruler
of the universe, the Master and Judge of all beings; the other is the
name of the Merciful Father, who reveals Himself to man, interferes in
his behalf, and has especially revealed His Providence and Kindness to
the Israelites.
A careful study of the Hebrew Bible will show that it is not the
author, or the age of the author, but the contents of the passage that
determined which of the Divine names was to be used. The same author
repeats the same account with some variation, according to the lesson
which he intends to convey to the reader. The proofs which are based on
the differences discovered in two accounts of apparently the same
event, or on seeming contradictions or anachronisms, are so
indifferently supported that they are not able to conquer the fortress
of Faith and Tradition. The difficulties pointed out by the critics
vanish before patient study and the earnest longing for instruction and
comfort offered by the Bible.
The Book of Isaiah has likewise been subjected to the analytical test
of the critic, and it is generally believed that the prophecies
contained in the book have not all been written by the same author or
in the same age. The book is divided into two large sections; the
second section, from chap. xl. to chap, lxvi., is thought to have been
composed shortly before the return of the Jews from Babylon. Although
it is possible that anonymous prophecies were added to a book, the
reasons which induced critics to make such a division are untenable.
The first reason is the difference in style; but we must take account
of the difference in the contents of the two sections. The prophecies
in the first section have mostly a threatening tendency with regard to
imminent punishment, whilst in the second section Israel is to be
encouraged in his faith in the Almighty and in his hopes for a better
future. It is but natural that the style should not be the same in both
sections. Another reason for ascribing the second section to a later
prophet is the fact that Koresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, is mentioned
by name, and the fall of Babylon and the consequent deliverance of the
Jews are described as well-known facts of the past. This and similar
arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the character of the
prophecies. The critics ignore the essential difference between the
writings of inspired messengers of God and those of ordinary men. They
deny to the man of God the power of foreseeing and foretelling coming
events of which his fellow-men could not have any knowledge. By such
arguments the critics set limits to the power and wisdom of God, and
employ the same measure for both that which is Divine and that which is
human. A Divine prophet has, by the Will of the Almighty, the future
unrolled before him; he sees the catastrophe which is to come centuries
later, and perceives its effect and its end. Even when he reviews the
present state of affairs and takes the immediate future into
consideration, his eyes frequently behold scenes and events of “the end
of the days” (באחרית הימים), which he points out as the goal of our
hopes and aspirations. When he warns, advises, or encourages his
brethren with regard to their present wants, the virtues and the
happiness of the Messianic age are not rarely introduced. Earlier
events, though still future in time, appear then in the light of
accomplished facts, and in their description the past tense is used
instead of the future. Thus it happened that the prophet Isaiah, who
flourished during the reign of King Hezekiah, could take his standpoint
on the return of the Jews from Babylonia, look back at the exile as a
thing of the past, and reveal to his brethren further troubles, the
succeeding final redemption, and the ultimate triumph of the faithful
and God-fearing over the faithless and wicked.
It is true that it is an unusual thing for a prophet to name a king who
is to rule centuries after the death of the prophet, unless the name is
a common noun, and has by its meaning some bearing on the prophecy. The
name Cyrus fulfils, perhaps, this condition; according to Ktesias, it
signifies “sun,” an appropriate name to be given to the king who is
destined to be the deliverer of a captive people. King Cyrus may have
assumed this name when he became convinced of the mission entrusted to
him by Providence.
The authenticity of the Book of Daniel has likewise been impugned, and
its advocates are, it must be admitted, at present very few. The
narratives which the book contains are considered as improbable or even
impossible, and its visions as prophecies ex facto. It was written,
according to these critics, in the period of the Maccabees, and the
name of Daniel was chosen in order to give more weight to the contents
of the book, Daniel being known as a man famous for his piety among his
fellow-exiles. Against this we have the distinct evidence in the book,
in which the author is described as the same Daniel that lived during
the Babylonian exile; Jewish tradition knew of no other author of the
book than Daniel. Although the Book of Daniel was not placed amongst
the books of the Prophets, because he was not charged with any mission
to his fellow-men, the visions described in Daniel were nevertheless,
in Jewish literature, considered as true and genuine prophecy. The
narratives have the distinct object to teach that piety and firmness in
obedience to the word of God can conquer the rage of the most powerful
tyrants; this tendency on the part of the author is especially noticed
in the manner in which every circumstance bearing on this lesson is
depicted. This, however, does not detract the least from the truth and
genuineness of the facts which, by the plan of Providence, seem to have
taken place for this very purpose. The demand of the king that the
magicians should tell him his dream, which he himself had forgotten,
and that failing to do so they should be put to death; the decree
commanding his subjects to worship the idol and to pray to him, and
other foolish royal acts, almost incredible to us, are strange indeed,
but would appear less strange if all the records of the acts of Eastern
tyrants had been preserved. It has been contended that the history of
the Syrian wars with Egypt, and the suffering of the Jews through the
Syrian invasion, is given in such detail as could only be done by a
contemporary. But apart from the fact that a careful study of the
visions of Daniel will convince us that we have here only a faint
outline of the Syrian wars and not a detailed description, it must not
be forgotten that the author only reproduces what was shown to him by
the Omniscient concerning the most important event in the history of
the nation—the preservation of the holy religion through the firmness
and the courage of a few faithful servants of God. The fulfilment of
the portion of the vision which referred to the period of the Maccabees
is a guarantee for the fulfilment of the prophecies yet unrealised.
In like manner have the authenticity and the integrity of other
Biblical books been rejected; the method and the arguments are the
same; they are based on a misunderstanding of the true essence of
prophecy and inspiration, and originate in a want of belief in the
Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Divine Being.
On the Ninth Principle, p. 139.
In the Pentateuch there is not the slightest indication that the laws
revealed on Sinai might be superseded by a future Revelation. On the
contrary, we meet repeatedly with the phrases, חקת עולם, “an
everlasting statute,” לדרות עולם, “for everlasting generations,” and
similar expressions, which clearly show the intention of Him who gave
the laws that these should last for ever. The Israelites were told that
Prophets would be sent to them, and that they must listen to the
Prophets and obey them, but at the same time they were commanded to put
to death a prophet who would attempt “to turn them aside from the way
which the Lord commanded them to walk therein” (Deut. xiii. 6).
Besides, the Prophets never speak of a new Revelation, which would
supersede the Torah. When Jeremiah prophesies about a new covenant, the
context teaches the reader what is meant by the “new covenant.” He
speaks of the future and final restoration of Israel as follows:
“Behold, days will come, saith the Lord, when I shall make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took
hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they
broke my covenant, and I rejected them, saith the Lord. But this is the
covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel after those days,
saith the Lord, when I set my Law among them and write it upon their
heart: both I shall be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”
(Jer. xxxi. 31–33). The Law is not to be altered, but it will dwell
more firmly in the heart of Israel; the deliverance from Egypt was soon
forgotten, but the future deliverance will plant the fear and love of
God—here called the Law of God—in the hearts of the people in such a
manner that it will take a deep root and will not be plucked out of it
again. There occur, however, in Talmud and Midrash sayings which seem
to imply a future alteration of the Law; e.g., “In future all prayers
will cease except that of thanksgiving: in future all sacrifices will
cease except that of thanks-offering” (Midrash on Ps. c.). In these
sayings their authors simply intended to emphasise the duty of
thanksgiving; even in the state of physical and moral perfection, when
there will be a perfect absence of trouble and fear and a perfect
immunity of sin, so that there will be nothing to be prayed for,
nothing to be atoned for through sacrifice, the duty of offering
prayers and sacrifices of thanksgiving will still remain in full force.
Another saying of this kind is: “If all festivals were to cease, Purim
will never be forgotten” (Piyyut for Sabbath Zachor); that is, even if
other festivals should be neglected, Purim is so much liked that it
will never be forgotten by the Jews. In Talmud Jerus. Megillah (i. 7)
we read: “The reading from the Prophets and the Hagiographa may at some
future time be discontinued, but the reading of the Pentateuch will
never be abolished.” The idea expressed by this dictum is, that the
warnings or consolations or prayers may become superfluous by the
changed condition of the future, but the laws and statutes of the
Pentateuch will always remain in force.
In sayings of this kind the time to which they are meant to apply is
not defined. “The future” (לעתיד לבא) may mean the time of Messiah,
or else the time of the Resurrection, or what we are used to call “the
future life.” As in the above quotation, the authors aimed at
inculcating some moral lesson for the present state of things, and not
at describing the results of philosophical speculation with regard to
remote times. A new revelation, or the abrogation of the Law or part of
it, is nowhere mentioned.
On the contrary, it is emphasised in the Talmud that the Torah has been
given to Israel in its entirety, and nothing has been reserved for a
second revelation. “The Law is not any longer in heaven,” it is
entirely in the hands of man. The only authority recognised in the
interpretation of the Law was that based on knowledge, tradition, and
common sense. Authority claimed for this purpose on the ground of
supernatural privilege, prophecy, bath-kol or miracle, was not
recognised (Babyl. Talm. Baba Metsia, 59b).
Maimonides (Mishneh torah, Hilchoth Yesode ha-torah ix.) says on this
principle as follows:—“It has been distinctly stated in the Torah that
its precepts remain in force for ever without change, diminution, or
addition. Comp. ‘The word which I command you that you must keep to do,
thou shalt not add ought unto it nor take ought away from it’ (Deut.
xiii. i); ‘That which has been revealed for us and for our children for
ever is to do all the words of this Law’ (Ibid. xxix. 28). Hence it
follows that we are bound for ever to do according to the words of the
Torah. It is further said, ‘An everlasting statute for all your
generations’ (Exod. xii. 14, 17, et passim); ‘It is not in heaven’ [26]
(Deut. xxx. 12). Hence we see that a prophet cannot reveal any new law.
If, therefore, any man, whether an Israelite or a non-Israelite, should
rise, perform signs and miracles, and say that the Lord sent him to add
one precept or to abolish one of the Divine precepts, or to interpret a
precept in a way different from what has been handed down to us from
Moses, or assert that the precepts which were given to the Israelites
had only temporary force and were not permanent laws: such a man is a
false prophet, because he contradicts the prophecy of Moses. The
mission of the Prophets after Moses is to exhort the people to obey the
Law of Moses, and not to make a new religion.”—Comp. “The Guide,” II.
xxxix.; and Saadiah, Emunoth ve-deoth, III. chap. vii. to x.
Rabbi Jehudah ha-Levi, in the book Cuzari, seems to have a different
view. He likewise believes in the permanent character of the Torah, but
he modifies his view in accordance with his interpretation of the
words, “And thou shalt do according to the word which they—viz., the
priests and the judge that shall be in those days—will tell thee from
that place which the Lord shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do
according to all that they will teach thee” (Deut. xvii. 9, 10).
According to his view, these words imply that from time to time
prophets or inspired men, or the highest authority of the nation,
whilst the Shechinah was still filling the Temple, issued laws and
orders, which had legal force, and all were bound to obey them. But
since the destruction of the Temple there has not been any man or any
court that had the authority to make new permanent laws. According to
Maimonides, however, there were no additions made to the Torah; the
Rabbinical laws are either temporary regulations or served as a means
of ensuring the strict observance of the Torah.
Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by
Maimonides, objects also to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it
is not fundamental, since the belief in the Divine origin of the Law
does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity. But although the
possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted in
principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in
reality been made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to
repeal the old laws or to alter them, he must prove his Divine mission
before he can be believed. We are fully convinced of the Divine mission
of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new prophet
must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of
Moses was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such
direct revelation could satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new
prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.).
R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various
passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain in force
permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future,
refer respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to
the celebration of Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians
on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans on behalf of Mohammed, to a
Divine mission to substitute a new covenant for the old one, Rabbi
Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or the Torah,
has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But
the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is
not admitted by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been
given, it must be rejected” (Fifth Principle, chap. ii.).
On the Tenth Principle, p. 148.
It is noteworthy that this principle is exceptionally supported by a
Biblical verse. The same may be noticed in the book Cuzari (V. xviii.),
in the enumeration of the principles of faith according to the methods
of Mohammedan Theologians (Medabberim); the principle of God’s
Omniscience is supported by a Biblical verse, only with this
difference, that in the Cuzari it is not exactly the principle of God’s
Omniscience, but its proof derived from the Creation, that is supported
by a quotation from Ps. xciv. The reason of the anomaly is this: Some
of the opponents of this principle contend that it would be derogatory
to the greatness of God if He were to take notice of the doings of each
individual being. To this the reply is given: The Psalmist, who was far
from saying anything derogatory of God, declared that God knows the
deeds and the thoughts of each individual.
The problem how to reconcile God’s Prescience and Omniscience with
man’s Free-will has of course engaged the attention of all Jewish
theologians and philosophers, and, though in different ways and words,
they all assume that God’s knowledge of a thing is by no means the
cause of its existence. (See Cuzari, V. xx.; “Guide,” III. xx.;
Saadiah, Emunoth, II. chap, ix.)
Perhaps a reconciliation is not necessary at all, there being no
conflict. We should not call it a defect in God if His Omniscience were
restricted to things knowable; a prescience of things to be determined
by man’s free-will is contradictory in itself, and illogical, and to
say that God would not be omniscient if He did not know them, is as
absurd as to say that God would not be omnipotent if He could not make
twice two to be three.
On the Eleventh Principle, p. 150.
The subject of this creed has been the main thought of the lesson
preached by the prophets, of the hymns sung by the psalmists, and of
the narratives written by the sacred chroniclers, as has been
illustrated above (p. 155) by Biblical quotations. To these may be
added (1.) the song haazinu, the professed object of which was to
remind the Israelites of God’s Justice whenever evil should befall
them. The words which form the basis of the song, viz., “The Rock,
perfect is his work,” &c. (Deut. xxxii. 4), are also at present recited
at funeral rites, as צדוק הדין, an expression of our firm belief in
God’s Justice. (2.) The prophet who laments over the fall of Jerusalem
declares: “Out of the mouth of the Most High do not come forth the evil
things and the good (i.e., man causes them by his evil or good deeds,
which are the result of his own free will and not of the Will of God).
Why should man complain (of what has befallen him), being master over
his sins?” (Lam. iii. 38, 39).
In the Talmud the doctrine of God’s Justice is expressed thus: “Thy
employer is trustworthy, that he will pay thee the reward of thy deeds”
(Aboth ii. 21). “The shop is open, and the merchant gives on credit,
and all who like may come and borrow; but the collectors go constantly
about, and exact payment whether the debtor is willing to pay or not,
for they have something to rely upon, and the judgment is a just
judgment; and everything is prepared for a banquet” (Aboth iii. 20).
“God does not withhold ought of the desert of any creature” (Pesachim,
118a).
It is, however, emphatically declared in the Talmud that the reward of
good deeds is given to the righteous in the future life, עולם הבא,
“The reward for obedience to the Divine commandments is not to be
expected in this world” (Kiddushin, 39b). “The Law says with reference
to the Divine precepts, ‘Which I command thee this day to do them;’
hence we infer that their performance is to take place this day, i.e.,
in this life, but their reward will be received in the future life”
(Abodah-zarah, 3a).
“Rabbi Elazar ha-kappar used to say, ‘Those that have been born will
die; those that have died will come to life again; those that have come
to life again will be judged.’ He said so in order that he himself
might bear in mind, and tell others, and that it might become generally
known, that God, who has formed and created man’s heart and understands
all his doings, is the Judge, the Witness, and the Prosecutor; He
before whom there is no wrong, no forgetfulness, no partiality, and no
bribery, will one day judge. Let thy imagination not persuade thee that
the grave is a refuge for thee. For without thy consent hast thou been
born, and without thy consent wilt thou die, and without thy consent
thou art brought to life again to account for thy deeds before the King
of kings, blessed be He” (Aboth iv. 22).
The immediate enjoyment of the reward is, however, not excluded. We
read in the Law, “Do this and thy days will be long;” and the Mishnah
teaches, “These are the good acts, the fruit of which man enjoys in
this life, whilst the full reward awaits him in the world to come:
honouring father and mother, the practice of charity, peace-making
between man and man, and above all the study of the Law” (Mishnah,
Peah. i. 1).
The faithful Israelite is not discouraged at the sight of the successes
of the wicked; on the contrary, he believes: “If to those who break the
Divine laws such kindness is shown by God, what must be His goodness to
those who obey Him!” (Midrash Yalkut on Isaiah viii. 1). As regards the
troubles of the good, our Sages teach that the good will receive their
reward “in proportion to their suffering.” Yet pious men do not seek
trouble and pain merely for the prospect of future compensation; on the
contrary, they avail themselves of every possible means to secure
relief, and would even renounce in their agony all compensation in the
future world, in order to secure release from pain in the present
(Babyl. Talm. Berachoth, 5a).
As the life of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden was free from care
and trouble, and such a life was the ideal of human hopes and wishes,
the Garden-Eden, גן עדן (lit., “the garden of pleasure”), became the
symbol of man’s happiness in its perfection, such as will fall to the
share of the good and the righteous. On the other hand, the valley of
Hinnom, near Jerusalem, was a place of horror and disgust; a place
where at one time children were burnt to Moloch, and where later the
refuse of the city was cast. Dwelling in the valley of Hinnom
(גיהנום) became the symbol of the punishment to be inflicted on the
wicked. Gan-eden or Paradise, and Gehinnom or Hell, are thus mere
figures to express our idea of the existence of a future retribution,
and must not be taken literally as names of certain places.
The detailed descriptions of Paradise and hell as given in books both
profane and religious are nothing but the offspring of man’s
imagination.
The question has been asked, How long shall the punishment of the
wicked last? Will it be eternal? and if so, is it compatible with God’s
goodness? This and similar questions do not concern us in the least.
Our task is to do what the Lord has commanded us to do, and to trust,
as regards the future, in Him, who knows best to combine goodness and
justice. We must here bear in mind that “God’s thoughts are not ours.”
Equally ignorant are we as to the cause of the suffering and of the
death of each individual; but of this we are certain, if death is
punishment, that every one dies for his own sin. This theory is so
frequently repeated in the Bible that it is surprising how the theory
of Vicarious Death and Vicarious Atonement could be considered as
harmonising with the teaching of the Bible. We are taught that God
visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third
and upon the fourth generation; but at the same time we are told that
the children are only punished if they repeat the sins of their
fathers, and even then only for their own sins (comp. p. 251). It has
been asserted that Isaiah in chap. liii. assumes the principle of
vicarious atonement. That this is not the case we can easily see if we
turn from the Anglican Version to the original Hebrew, and translate it
literally and in accordance with the context. Isaiah, in describing the
future glory of the servant of the Lord (= Israel), tells us what those
people who oppress Israel will then feel, and how they will give
expression to their feeling of shame and regret, saying, “Surely he
hath borne griefs caused by us, and carried sorrows caused by us: yet
we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was
wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities”
(comp. Family Bible, Anglican Version, revised by M. Friedländer).
Sin-offerings were brought, but not as a vicarious atonement, although
the sinner might well have felt that he himself deserved the treatment
endured by the sacrifice. The sin-offering could not have been a
vicarious atonement, as it was not offered when the sin was committed
knowingly. Maimonides explains the various laws concerning sin-offering
as based on the principle that the sacrifices serve as the means of
reminding us more vividly of our sins, and of their evil consequences
(The Guide, III. xlvi.; comp. Mic. vi. 6–8).
On the Twelfth Principle, p. 155.
A belief in Messiah, although not directly taught, is assumed in the
Mishnah as existing; and the days of Messiah (ימות המשיח) are spoken
of as an event that admits of no doubt (comp. Mishnah Berachoth, i. 5).
That this belief was in reality taught by the religious heads of the
Jewish community is clearly shown by the introduction into the Amidah
of a prayer [27] for the speedy appearance of Messiah.
The belief in the coming of Messiah in some future time has been, like
the belief in the Unity of God, the source of vexatious disputations
between Jews and non-Jews. Mohammedans and Christians tried by all
means in their power to convince the Jews that the Anointed whose
advent was prophesied by the Prophets had already appeared, the former
pointing to Mohammed, the latter to Jesus, as the person realising
those predictions. The Biblical passages adduced as evidence prove
nothing of the kind. E.g., the three names, Sinai, Seir, and Paran, in
Deut. xxxiii. 2, were interpreted by Mohammedans to refer to three
revelations through Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed; and Mohammed being
mentioned last, his revelation was to be the final one. It is not
necessary to contradict such reasoning; one need only read the text in
order to see the absurdity of the argument. Christians quoted passages
from Isaiah which had no reference whatever to Messiah in evidence of
the Messianity of Jesus. Children born in the days of Isaiah (vii. 14;
viii. 18), whose names had reference to good or evil events of the
time, were wrongly interpreted as referring to the birth of Jesus; the
sufferings and final relief of the servant of the Lord, that is, Israel
(chaps. lii. and liii.), were applied to Jesus; the Psalmist who sings
of victories which God will grant to David (cx.) is made to declare the
divinity of Jesus.
Commentators and philosophers have taken notice of these arguments and
refuted them. Of the many works on these topics a few may be named:
“Nitsachon” (נצחון), by Lipmann Mühlhausen (1400), “Strengthening of
Faith” (חזוק אמונה), by Isaak ben Abraham Troki (1594), “Vindiciæ
Judæorum,” by Manasseh ben Israel (1650).
In refuting arguments brought by Christians and Mohammedans against
Jews and Judaism, and rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus and
Mohammed, Jews are ready to acknowledge the good work done by the
religions founded by these men, Christians and Mohammedans, in
combating idolatry and spreading civilisation. Maimonides says as
follows:—“The King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the
kingdom of David to its former power, build the Temple, bring together
the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient laws will again be in
force: sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and Jubilees
will be kept as prescribed in the Law. Whoever does not believe in him,
or does not hope for his coming, shows a want of faith not only in the
Prophets, but also in the Law; for the Law testifies concerning him in
the words: ‘And the Lord thy God will again bring back thy captivity,
show mercy to thee, and again gather thee, &c. If thy outcasts be at
the end of the heavens, thence will the Lord gather thee,’ &c, ‘and the
Lord will bring thee,’ &c. (Deut. xxx. 3–5), &c.
“You must not imagine that Messiah must prove his Messianity by signs
and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or
similar things, &c. The principal thing is this: the statutes and
precepts of our Torah remain for ever, and nothing can be added to them
nor ought taken from them. If, therefore, a descendant of David
earnestly studies the Law, observes, like David his father, what the
Law, both the written and the oral, enjoins, causes all Israelites to
act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the
commandments, and fights the wars of the Lord: he may possibly be
Messiah. If he succeeds, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers
the outcasts of Israel, he is certainly Messiah; and if he does not
succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the Messiah
promised in the Law; he is like all the noble and good kings of the
House of David who have died; and the Almighty only caused him to rise
in order to try us thereby, as it is said, ‘And of the wise some will
stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made
white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an
appointed time’ (Dan. xi. 35). Also Jesus, the Nazarene, who imagined
that he would be Messiah, and was killed through the court of law, is
alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, ‘And the sons of the
transgressors among thy people will rise, in order to establish a
vision, and will stumble’ (ibid. xi. 14). Can there be a greater
stumbling than this? All the prophets said that Messiah will be a
redeemer and a saviour to the Israelites, will bring together their
outcasts, and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts,
but he (Jesus) caused destruction by the sword to Israel, the
dispersion of those left, and their humiliation; he changed the Law,
and misled many people to worship a being beside God. But the thoughts
of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being,
for the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts;
for all the events connected with Jesus and with Mohammed, that rose
after him, served only to pave the way for the King Messiah, who will
reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous service of God, as it
is said, ‘For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all
may call by the name of God, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. iii. 9).
How can this be done? Almost all people have through them—Jesus and
Mohammed—become acquainted with the idea of Messiah, with the words of
the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the
Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations
‘uncircumcised’ in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. They seek to
justify their disobedience to the precepts of the Torah; some of them
say that these precepts are Divine, but are not in force at present,
and were never intended to be permanent laws; others maintain that they
must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of
which has already been explained by Messiah. But when the true King
Messiah will rise, he will prosper, be high and exalted; all will then
at once know that it was falsehood what their fathers have inherited,
and that their prophets and their teachers have misled them.
“Do not imagine that in the days of Messiah the course of Nature will
be altered in any way, or that any new creation will take place. When
Isaiah said, ‘The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will
lie down with the kid,’ he merely employed allegorical and figurative
speech; and he meant to say that the Israelite will dwell in safety
together with his enemy, who has been as cruel to him as wolves and
leopards, &c.; all will join the true religion; they will not rob, nor
commit any violence, &c., and in the days of Messiah the meaning of the
allegories will be clearly known.
“Our Sages said that there will be no other difference between the
present time and the days of Messiah but the independence of the people
of Israel.
“It appears from the literal meaning of the prophecies that the
Messianic period will be preceded by the war of Gog and Magog, and that
before the war a prophet will appear to guide the Israelites, and to
direct their hearts to repentance. Comp. ‘Behold, I will send you
Elijah,’ [28] &c. (Mal. iii. 23). Elijah will not come to declare
unclean that which is clean, or clean that which is unclean; nor to
disqualify persons who are believed to be qualified for joining the
congregation of the Lord, or to qualify persons who are believed to be
disqualified; but he will come to establish peace on earth, as it is
said, ‘He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’ [29]
(Ibid. 24).
“Some of our Sages believe that Elijah will come before Messiah, but of
all these and similar things no man knows how they will come to pass;
they are unexplained in the Prophets, and our Sages have no tradition
about them; they only adopt what they believe to be the meaning of the
Biblical passages which refer to this subject. Hence the difference of
opinion. At all events, the order and the detail of these events do not
form an essential portion of our creed; we must not take too much
notice of Agadoth and Midrashim speaking on these and similar themes.
We must not attribute great importance to them, for they do not lead to
the fear or the love of God. We must also abstain from calculating the
time of the coming of Messiah, &c. All we have to do is to believe in
the coming of Messiah, to wait and hope.
“It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and
nations, and be honoured by all people, or because they desired to have
plenty to eat and drink, and other pleasures, that the wise men and the
prophets longed for the Messianic days, but because they would then be
at leisure to study the Law and its teaching without being interrupted
by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of the life in
the world to come (עולם הבא).
“There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel,
because the good things will be in plenty, and even luxuries will be
found everywhere; all will only busy themselves with trying to know the
Lord. Therefore the Israelites will be great sages, knowing things
which are at present hidden; they will obtain a knowledge of their
Creator as far as is possible by human understanding; ‘For the earth is
full with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea’”
(Maim., Mishneh-torah xiv.; Hilchoth Melachim xi.–xii.).
The war of Gog and Magog against the Holy Land referred to by
Maimonides is described by the prophet Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii.,
xxxix.) as preceding the complete restoration of Israel. Saadiah has a
different view of this war. The punishment of Israel in exile is to
come to an end at a fixed time, or as soon as the Israelites by earnest
and thorough repentance show themselves worthy of Divine grace. In that
case no war of Gog and Magog will be waged against them. But if the
Israelites should allow the approach of the time fixed for the
redemption without having given signs of repentance and improvement,
great troubles will be brought upon them, which will forcibly remind
them of the necessity of returning to God; they will come together
under a leader, Messiah ben Joseph, under whose leadership they will
fight against their enemies, but will be beaten, and Messiah ben Joseph
himself will be killed. Then Messiah ben David will appear, and with
him the period of glory, of permanent peace and prosperity, and of the
worship of the One God by all nations. The idea of a double Messiah, a
warlike and a peaceful, an unsuccessful and a successful, is not
expressed in any of the prophecies in the Bible, and seems to be of a
later origin. Maimonides is silent about Messiah ben Joseph; so also
Albo in Ikkarim, and Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi in the book Cuzari. Albo
discusses the question about Messiah in chap. xlii. of the fourth
section of Ikkarim. He refutes the opinion of those who maintain that
the Messianic prophecies refer to the reign of Hezekiah or to the
restoration of Israel under Zerubbabel and Ezra. The condition of the
Israelites in the reign of Hezekiah did not resemble the state of
prosperity and glory and universal peace as depicted in the Messianic
prophecies; the fulfilment of these prophecies is still hoped for, and
our hope is founded on our belief in the truthfulness of the Word of
God. (Comp. Saadiah, Em. ve-deoth, VIII. iii.).
On the Thirteenth Principle, p. 16
The belief in the Resurrection of the Dead has been formulated in the
Mishnah (Sanhedrin x. i) as an essential creed: “He who says that the
belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is not implied in the Law has no
portion in the world to come.” There is no doubt that the Almighty has
the power to give fresh life to the body in which life has been
extinct. We set no limits to the Omnipotence of God. But it is
different if we ask whether it is the Will of God to give new life to
the dust and ashes of the dead, and to restore the soul to the dead
body in which it has dwelt before. Maimonides substitutes the
Immortality of the Soul for the Resurrection of the Dead, and has been
vehemently attacked by those who had a different opinion. He defended
his view in an essay called מאמר תחיית המתים, “On the Resurrection of
the Dead,” in which he attempts to prove that the Agadoth and Midrashim
in depicting the future life employed figurative language, but in
reality meant only a spiritual life, without any material enjoyment.
Saadiah defends the literal interpretation of “Resurrection of the
Dead” (Emunoth ve-deoth, VII.), and believes that the event will take
place at the time of the final redemption (גאולה אחרונה). Rabbi
Jehudah ha-levi, in Cuzari, though mentioning this principle, seems to
understand it as identical with the Immortality of the Soul. The king,
who was at first surprised at the scarcity of references to the future
life in our prayers, confessed his complete satisfaction, after having
heard the exposition of our prayers by the Jewish scholar. “I see,” he
says, “that I was in error; those who pray to have the Divine light
vouchsafed to them during lifetime, who long to see it with their own
eyes, and to attain to the degree of prophecy, they certainly seek
something better even than the future life, and they who attain it may
be sure that they will also enjoy the blessing of the future life; for
if the soul of a man, troubled by the wants of the body, is
nevertheless cleaving to the Divine glory, how much more may this be
the case after the soul has left this body!” (III. 20).
II.
OUR DUTIES.
INTRODUCTION.
The king, in Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi’s Cuzari, anxious to lead a good and
religious life, was told by an angel who appeared to him in a dream
that his heart was good, but his deeds were not acceptable. The purity
and goodness of our heart certainly ennobles our deeds and gives them
the stamp of sincerity and holiness, though they may not be marked by
absolute perfection. But an inner voice, our conscience, does not allow
us to be content with the goodness of the heart; we feel the necessity
of seeking also perfection of words and deeds. We wish not only our
heart but also our entire self to be good, so that our inner life and
outer life, our feeling and thinking, our speaking and doing, may
combine into one harmonious whole, which comes as near perfection as
possible.
It has been shown above that one of the principles of faith which we
confess is our belief in the Divine origin of the Torah, and in the
obligatory character of its precepts. When we pray to God to make us
understand the Torah we are not content with the mere knowledge of the
words of the Law; we also seek God’s assistance to enable us “to obey,
to observe, and to perform” all that He has commanded us. Man’s nature
is not the same in all individuals; one person finds special delight in
the performance of this duty, another in the performance of that. Every
one likes to devote his energies to that work for which he considers
himself best qualified, and which promises to yield the best fruit. But
this individual liking or aptitude must not mislead us into thinking
that the Law is divided into important and unimportant precepts. So far
as they represent the Will of the Almighty they are all alike, and
equally demand our attention and our obedience. Thus the קבלת עול
שמים, [30] our unconditional submission to the Will of the Almighty as
our King, is followed in our Service by קבלת עול מצות,[30] the
acknowledgment of the binding force of His precepts.
There are persons who question the wisdom and usefulness of the
precepts; they call it legalism, and are opposed to the tendency of
subjecting every act of ours to the control of the Law. They argue that
legalism tends to weaken our regard for the Law, and trains hypocrites
rather than true servants of the Lord. It is a bold assertion, but one
that rests on imagination and prejudice. Is it possible that such a
constant reminder of God’s presence as the Divine precepts supply
should not have a beneficent influence over us, by making us feel
encouraged by His presence when we are engaged in a good cause, and
discouraged when we are about to do wrong? If persons are found who are
devout worshippers at one time and criminals at another, it only shows
human weakness in the moment of trial in spite of good resolves and
genuine devotion; and were it not for the effect of such devotion, the
number of crimes would probably be far greater.
A truly pious man will never imagine that he may freely transgress one
set of the precepts, if he strictly obeys another set; that he may,
e.g., wrong his neighbour, and compensate for his sins by regular
attendance at the place of worship, or by a strict observance of the
dietary laws, or the laws of Sabbath and Festivals; or that he may
freely break the latter, if only he is honest, just, and charitable.
The precepts have all the same Divine origin; the all-wise and all-kind
God, who has commanded us to walk in the way of justice and
righteousness, has also ordained the Sabbath, given the dietary laws,
and established the sacrificial service. He who selects some of the
precepts and rejects the rest substitutes his own authority for that of
the Almighty, and places his own wisdom above the wisdom of Him who
gave us the Law.
“Be as zealous in the performance of an unimportant precept as of an
important one,” is one of the maxims taught in the “Sayings of the
Fathers.” A difference between precept and precept is here admitted,
but only in so far as they seem to us more or less important, with
regard to the good which their observance produces or the evil which is
caused by their neglect. In case of a conflict of two duties we give
the preference to that which seems to us more important. In times of
religious persecution the question frequently arose how far resistance
was necessary, and how far religious practice might yield to physical
force. The rule has been laid down, that when our life is threatened we
may transgress any precept; but we must not allow ourselves, under any
circumstances, to be forced to idolatry, murder, or adultery (עבודה
זרה גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים); we must prefer death to committing any
of these sins. But in times of trouble and persecution the spirit of
resistance is as a rule too strong to be kept within the strict lines
of demarcation, and life is willingly and heroically sacrificed for any
religious duty. This is not surprising, for every religious act which
is chosen by the enemy as a test to prove the faithfulness or the
faithlessness of the persecuted sect to its own religion, receives
thereby the stamp of great importance.
Similar questions are also asked in times of peace, when some of our
brethren reject the authority of the Oral Law, while others refuse even
to recognise the authority of the Written Law, when some set aside the
Divine precepts out of convenience, and others from principle, and
still others from ignorance; when some limit their Judaism to the
nominal membership of the Jewish race, and others to a negation of
other creeds. Are all these Jews? Whatever the answer to this question
may be from a practical, political, social, and communal point of view,
the fact is that they are Jews. They may have forfeited certain
privileges, they may be disqualified for certain religious offices,
they may be dangerous to the religious peace of our family or
community: they are notwithstanding Jews, and are bound to live in
accordance with the Law which the Almighty has given to the Jews and
for the Jews. Our Sages say: אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא, “Although a man
may have sinned, he is an Israelite still.” No theologian, Rabbi, or
teacher, or Beth-din, or Sanhedrin, has the power of granting
absolution, or telling those who break or reject any portion of the
Divine precepts that they are not doing wrong. No human being has the
authority to abrogate laws revealed by God. Why then, some may ask, do
prophets and moralists, the Rabbis of the Talmud not excluded, single
out ethical principles for special recommendation to their fellow-men,
generally observing silence about the rest of the Divine commands? The
answer is simple. The ethical principles and the Divine commandments
embodying them are different in kind from the rest of the commandments.
The latter are distinct, well defined, and the punishment for their
transgression is fixed; they are unchangeable, and not capable of
expansion.
The dietary laws, e.g., are exactly the same now as they were in the
days of Moses. So also the laws concerning Sabbath. What was then
prohibited by the Sabbath is prohibited still. The ethical principles,
however, are capable of development, and the moral standard rises with
the progress of civilisation. Hence the constant dissatisfaction of
prophets, preachers, and teachers with the moral principles of their
followers. They have a higher standard of morality, and strive to raise
the moral consciousness of their generations to their own height.
It is, therefore, no wonder that the prophet Isaiah exhorts his
brethren: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings
from before mine eyes; cease to do evil: learn to do well: seek
judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow” (i. 16, 17). “He that walketh righteously, and speaketh
uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his
hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of
blood, and shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil, he shall dwell on
high,” &c. (Ibid. xxxiii. 15, 16). In the same sense the virtuous man
is described by all prophets; also in Ps. xv. and Ps. xxiv.
R. Akiba says: “‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Lev. xix.
18) is an important principle in the Torah,” but at the same time he
shows what importance he ascribes to all other principles and precepts
of the Law by most carefully examining the details of every one of them
alike. The great Hillel told the Gentile who desired to become a Jew:
“‘Do not to thy neighbour what is hateful to you;’ this is our whole
religion;” but that he did not ignore the remainder of the Torah, or
consider it as not essential, is proved by the additional words: “The
rest is its explanation; go and learn” (Babyl. Talmud, Sabbath, 31a).
Hillel only gave the proselyte a lesson which would lead him to obey
all the words of the Almighty.
Rabbi Simlai (Yalkut on Micah vi. 8) said: “Six hundred and thirteen
commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai; David reduced them to
eleven (Ps. xv.); Isaiah reduced them to six (xxxiii. 16, 17); Micah
(vi. 8) to three; then Isaiah reduced them again to two (lvi. 1); and
Habakkuk to one—Faith (ii. 4).” This Rabbi does certainly not mean to
say that Isaiah cancelled some of the eleven virtues mentioned by
David, or that Habakkuk only demanded Faith, and did not consider it
essential that man should be righteous, truthful, &c. Rabbi Simlai
intended only to point out that by training ourselves in the practice
of certain virtues, the fulfilment of all Divine precepts will be
greatly facilitated.
All the commandments of the holy Torah are equally Divine. Laws
concerning justice and humanity, and laws concerning Sabbath and
Holydays, are equally introduced by the declaration, “And the Lord
spake unto Moses, saying.” The commandments, “Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself,” and “A garment of diverse kinds, of linen and
wool, shall not come upon thee,” stand side by side in the same
paragraph. The equality of all the precepts as the expression of the
Will of the Almighty is clearly set forth in the Law, in the frequent
exhortations that the Israelites should obey all the precepts, whatever
their nature may be, whether they be of the class of “statutes” or of
“judgments,” or of any other class of Divine commands. (Comp. Exod. xv.
25, 26; Lev. xxvi. 15, 43; Num. xv. 39, 40; Deut. iv. 1, 5, 8, &c.)
As to the various terms employed in the Pentateuch to designate the
Divine precepts: words (דברים), commandments (מצוות), statutes
(חקים), judgments (משפטים), and laws (תורות), they may be
considered as synonyms signifying similar things. But even synonyms are
as a rule distinguished from each other by a certain variation in their
meaning, especially when the terms occur in one and the same sentence.
A definition of these terms is not given in the Pentateuch or in the
Bible; from the context, however, in which they occur the following
distinction may be drawn:—
חק or חקה, “statute,” is applied to those laws which are absolute
and do not depend on certain conditions, whilst mishpat, “judgment,” is
a law the performance of which varies according to circumstances. Thus
the Paschal sacrifice is called chukkah, and must absolutely be
performed, whilst the civil laws concerning slaves, damages, &c., are
mishpatim, because cases of slavery or damages need not occur, and the
respective precepts are then not carried into effect. In a similar
manner Jewish theologians divide the Divine precepts into מצות שמעיות
and מצות שכליות precepts which our duty of obedience to God makes us
perform, and precepts which, without distinct Divine command, our own
reason would impel us to do.—The other terms, mitsvah, “commandment,”
and mishmereth, “charge,” are used in a general sense, the former in
reference to the Giver of the law, and the latter in reference to those
to whom it is addressed.
The division of the precepts into שמעיות and שכליות is a vague one,
and the line of demarcation will be moved farther to the one side or
the other, according to the judgment exercised by the interpreter. Of
greater importance is the division into positive and negative precepts,
commandments, and prohibitions, מצות עשה and מצות לא תעשה. The
prohibitions are of two kinds: such as admit of amends being made for
their transgression and such as do not admit: שיש בה קום עשה and
שאין בה קום עשה.
The number of the commandments is, according to Rabbi Simlai, 613
(תר״יג), and in some editions of the Pentateuch the number of each
commandment has been noted in the margin. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, in
the introduction to his Mishneh-torah, enumerates the 613 mitsvoth.
They are also contained in liturgical compositions, called אזהרות
“exhortations,” or “precepts,” such as are met with in the Machzor for
the Feast of Weeks.
Maimonides, in “The Guide” as well as in Mishneh-torah, treats of the
precepts of the Torah under the following fourteen heads: (1)
Fundamental principles of our faith; [31] (2) Divine worship; (3)
Sabbath and festivals; (4) Marriages; (5) Forbidden food and forbidden
relations of the sexes; (6) Vows; (7) Agriculture; (8) The Temple and
the regular sacrificial service; (9) Occasional sacrifices; (10)
Cleanness and uncleanness; (11) Compensation for damages; (12) Transfer
of property; (13) Contracts; (14) Administration of the law.
Another theologian, Rabbenu Jakob, divided the code of laws into four
sections: (1) Divine worship, Sabbath, festivals, and fasts; (2) Things
forbidden and things permitted in satisfying our bodily desires; (3)
Marriages; (4) Civil laws.
The latter work was recast by Rabbi Joseph Caro, and in the new form,
with the new title Shulchan Aruch, it has become the standard work of
Jewish law and life, and its authority has been recognised and upheld
by Jews in the East and the West. Annotations (הגהות) were added by
Rabbi Moses Isserles, but his opinion, when differing from that of
Rabbi Joseph Caro, was only accepted by the Polish and German
Congregations, not by the Sephardim.
Rabbi Joseph Caro, Rabbenu Jakob, and Maimonides appear, in their
respective codes, not as legislators but as compilers. The Torah and
the Talmud were the sources from which they all drew their laws. But
laws, minhagim or customs, and institutions (תקנות) of a
post-Talmudic date were not neglected. Questions arising in the course
of time, through new and changed conditions of life, are, as a rule,
discussed and decided in notes and commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch.
There are also numerous special works on such occasional questions;
they are called “Responsa” (תשובות “Answers,” or שאלות ותשובות
“Questions and Answers”), and the importance attributed to them varies
according to the reputation of the respective authors.
What is the object of the Divine laws? This is a question that
naturally rises in the minds of those to whom they are addressed. But
the question has been anticipated by Him “who knoweth the thoughts of
the sons of man,” and the answer is found in clear and distinct words
in the fountain of living waters, the Torah, that never fails to
satisfy our thirst for truth: “Thou shalt keep his statutes and his
commandments which I command thee this day, that it may be well with
thee and thy children after thee” (Deut. iv. 40). “And now, O Israel,
what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy
God, to walk in all his ways and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy
God with all thy heart and with all thy soul: to keep the commandments
of the Lord and his statutes which I command thee this day, for thy
good” (ibid. x. 12, 13). It is for our benefit, for our well-being,
that the laws were revealed to us; they serve to make us good and
happy; they train us in the mastery over our appetites and desires, in
the practice of charity and justice, and in the conception of noble,
pure, and lofty ideas, and bring us nearer and nearer in perfection the
Being in whose image and likeness we have been created.
What share each individual precept has in the attainment of this end we
cannot state with certainty, because in the Torah the reason and
purpose of each precept is, with very few exceptions, withheld from us.
In many cases our reflection on the nature of a special law, or on the
context in which it occurs in the Pentateuch, leads to a discovery of
some reason for it. But, whatever reason we may thus discover, we must
not lose sight of the fact that it is we who have found it, we whose
knowledge is imperfect, and that we or others might in future discover
a better reason. If we, e.g., find that certain dietary laws serve to
train us in temperance, and see that the virtue of temperance is
frequently recommended in the Bible, we may well obey these dietary
laws, and strive to be temperate in every respect in accordance with
the spirit we detect in them. It would, however, be a gross error if,
believing the training in temperance to be their only object, we
assumed that we could neglect them, and attain the same object by
substituting our own insufficient knowledge and imperfect reason for
the Will and Wisdom of the most perfect Being. Moralists, our teachers
and preachers of ancient and modern times, have found in these precepts
an inexhaustible treasure of lessons exhorting to virtue and warning
against vice, and the great variety of inferences thus drawn from the
same source proves the error of those who imagine that their own
exposition is the only right one. Whatever reason we assign to a
religious precept, and whatever wholesome lesson we derive from it, our
first duty towards the commandment, and towards Him who commanded it,
is strict and unconditional obedience.
Maimonides, who may be considered as the representative of the school
which seeks to establish a rational explanation for all precepts,
admits that the reason we may assign to any of the commandments cannot
affect their validity and immutability, and we are bound to obey them,
although the supposed reason may be of a local or temporary character.
According to Maimonides, the object of the Law is to promote the
well-being of our body and the well-being of our soul; and every
commandment has therefore some bearing upon one of the following three
things: the regulation of our opinions, the removal of sin, or the
teaching of good morals. He does not except the “statutes” from this
rule, but confesses that in a few cases he is unable to show clearly
the relation of the commandment to any of these objects. He also
restricts the principle of rational interpretation to the main element
in each commandment, and does not apply it to its details; the latter,
as a rule, do not demand an explanation. He says:—
“The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul
and the well-being of the body” (Guide, iii. 27). “I am prepared to
tell you my explanations of all these commandments (the so-called
chukkim or “statutes”), and to assign for them a true reason supported
by proof, with the exception of some minor rules and of a few
commandments. I will show that all these and similar laws must have
some bearing upon one of the following three things, viz., the
regulation of our opinions or the improvement of our social relations,
which implies two things: the removal of wrong-doing and the teaching
of good morals” (ibid. xxviii.). “The repeated assertion of our Sages
that there are reasons for all commandments, and the tradition that
Solomon knew them, refer to the general purpose of the commandments,
and not to the object of every detail. This being the case, I find it
convenient to divide the six hundred and thirteen precepts into
classes; each class to include many precepts of the same kind. I will
first explain the reason of each class of precepts, and show their
common object, and then I shall discuss the individual commandments and
expound their reasons. Only very few will be left unexplained, the
reason for which I have been unable to trace unto this day. I have also
been able to comprehend in some cases even the object of many of the
conditions and details of the laws as far as it can be discovered”
(ibid. xxvi.).
“It is also important to note that the Law does not take into account
exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely
occur.” “We must therefore not be surprised when we find that the
object of the Law does not fully appear in every individual case.”
“From this consideration it follows that the Law cannot, like medicine,
vary according to the different conditions of persons and times. Whilst
the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the
particular time, the Divine guidance contained in the Law must be
certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and
ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of
man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left
indefinite. For this reason, it would not be right to make the
fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a
certain place. On the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be
definite, unconditional, and general, in accordance with the Divine
words: ‘As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for
the stranger’ (Num. xv. 15). They are intended, as has been stated
before, for all persons and for all times” (ibid. xxxiv.).
In the present treatise our religious duties will be expounded under
the following seven heads:—
1. Exposition of the Decalogue.
2. General ethical principles—
(a.) Duties towards God.
(b.) ,, ,, our fellow-men.
(c.) ,, ,, ourselves.
3. Outward reminders of God’s Presence.
4. Sabbath, Festivals, and Fasts.
5. Divine Worship.
6. Dietary Laws.
7. Jewish Life.
I. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. עשרת הדברות
The “Ten Words” are distinguished from all other lessons of the Torah
both on account of their intrinsic value and on account of the
extraordinary manner in which they have been revealed by the Almighty
on Mount Sinai. They form the contents of “the covenant which God made
with us” (Deut. v. 3).
But it must not be forgotten that they are not the only Divine
commandments. When, therefore, Moses repeated them before his brethren
in the plain of Moab, he prefaced it by the exhortation: “Hear, O
Israel, the statutes and the judgments which I speak unto you to-day,
and learn them and keep them to do them” (ibid. 1); and after he had
finished reciting them he reminded the Israelites how they received the
Ten Commandments from the midst of the fire, and how they prayed that
further commandments should be given to them through Moses; adding that
the Almighty, in compliance with their petition, said to him: “Stand
thou here with me, and I will tell thee the whole commandment, both the
statutes and the judgments which thou shalt teach them” (ibid. 28).
“And God spake all these words, saying:”
FIRST COMMANDMENT.
“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage.”
The Israelites who now stood round Mount Sinai and heard the voice of
God saying, “I am the Lord thy God,” were the same who a very short
time before had been slaves in Egypt; they were delivered from slavery,
and saw their cruel taskmasters perish in the waves of the Red Sea.
Pharaoh, the king of the Egyptians, and his people had believed that
they were the masters of the Israelites, and that they could do with
them as they pleased. And Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord, that I should
listen to his voice? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go.” It
has now been shown that Pharaoh and his people were not the true
masters; that there was a higher Being that ruled over all men, over
kings and their peoples. After the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea,
they sang with Moses: “This is my God, and I will praise him, the God
of my father, and I will exalt him.” They all felt that their liberty
was not obtained by human strength and skill; that there must be a
higher Being who is All-powerful, All-wise, and All-good; and that it
was He who freed them, and punished the wicked Egyptians by whom they
had been kept in slavery. What the Israelites at first felt in their
hearts they were now, when standing round Sinai, taught by God Himself,
in plain, clear, and intelligible words: “I am the Lord thy God, who
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
This is the first commandment; it is only one commandment, but it
contains several important lessons:—
1. God has shown great kindness to our nation; we Jews must therefore
more than other people show ourselves grateful to Him, love Him as our
Deliverer and Benefactor, and do willingly all that He commands us to
do.
2. When we are in trouble we must trust in God, pray to Him, and hope
that He will help us when our fellow-men cannot do so. When they give
us up as lost we need not despair; for the Almighty can help where
human wisdom and power are insufficient.
3. The wicked may for a time succeed in doing wrong, whilst the good
and just suffer; but this does not last for ever. There is a Master
above all of us, who in due time punishes the wicked and saves the
good.
SECOND COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shall have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee
a graven image, nor the form of anything that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I, the
Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of
them that hate me; and showing loving-kindness to the thousandth
generation of them that love me and keep my commandments.”
There are no other gods in existence; it is impossible for us to have
other gods. There is only one God, as we repeatedly declare, “Hear, O
Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” The commandment is
nevertheless not superfluous. There have been whole nations, and there
are still people, who, in their ignorance and folly, attribute Divine
power to things that have no Divine power, and who give the name of god
to things that are not gods. Such people are called heathens,
idolaters, or idol-worshippers. The second commandment forbids us to do
any such thing.
It was the custom in some countries to worship the king, either during
his lifetime or after his death, as a Divine being; it is still the
custom in some countries to pray to departed saints. All this our holy
religion forbids us to do. We must respect our king, we must honour the
memory and the name of good men, but only as human beings, not as gods;
we may not deify them. As to our prophets, our great men, the
Patriarchs, the kings, their names are a pride unto us, their memory a
blessing, זכרונם לברכה—they are honoured by us as human, mortal
beings: they are not worshipped. When we visit the graves of those near
and dear to us, and honour their memory by reflecting on their virtues,
when we revere those holy men who have devoted their lives to the
service of God, or the martyrs who have sacrificed their lives for the
sanctification of the Name of God (קדוש השם), we do not endow them
with Divine attributes, and do not offer up any prayer to them.
The second commandment, in forbidding all kinds of idolatry, includes
the following prohibitions:—
(1.) The worship of sun, moon, stars, animals, human beings, or any
part of Nature, as endowed with Divine power.
(2.) The worship of images representing things that exist in reality or
in man’s imagination.
(3.) The worship of angels as Divine beings. They are only messengers
of God, and we must not pray to them.
(4.) The belief in evil spirits, demons, devils, and the like, and the
fear of them.
(5.) The belief in charms, witchcraft, fortune-telling, and similar
superstitions.
The words, “For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God,” are to be
understood in a figurative sense; we cannot say of God that He is
jealous, in the literal sense of the word. It is only because we call a
person jealous who is anxious that no one else shall enjoy the same
right or privilege as he enjoys, that we apply the term “jealous”
figuratively to God, because He does not concede Divine worship and
service to any other being. He demands of His worshippers that they
serve Him alone and none besides.
Those who break this commandment “hate God,” and will surely receive
their punishment. He “visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children upon the third and upon the fourth generation.” The bad
example set by a man frequently corrupts his children, grandchildren,
and great-grandchildren. In that case they will all receive their
punishment, and there is no excuse for them, that they were misled by
the bad example of their father or their forefathers. A bad example
must not be followed, even if it be set by those whom we love dearly.
The good example of a man should always be followed, and his good deeds
bear good fruit and are the source of blessing even long after his
death. For to those that love God and keep His commandments God
“showeth mercy even to the thousandth generation.”
THIRD COMMANDMENT
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord
will not hold, him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
We pronounce the name of God when we read the Bible, when we pray, when
we take an oath, or when we speak of God’s wisdom, power, and goodness.
We take the name of God in vain when we read the Bible without
attention, or pray without devotion, or take an oath without necessity
or contrary to truth. When we utter the name of God we must bear in
mind that it is the name of the most Holy and most Perfect Being that
we are pronouncing; that it is a privilege to us to be allowed and to
be able to pronounce it.
The more we meditate on the greatness and holiness of God, the more
careful should we be “not to utter the name of God in vain.” We should
guard ourselves from falling into the bad habit of uttering it
thoughtlessly to no purpose whatever. Many people are heard to exclaim
every minute, “O God,” or similar phrases. To them the sacredness of
the name is entirely lost, and they are no longer reminded by it of the
holiness of Him who is designated by that name. Still greater is the
thoughtlessness of those who swear by God without any necessity. In
swearing by God we call upon God to bear witness that our words are
true. But such a testimony is only required when our statement is not
believed. If we swear before we know whether we are believed or not, we
indicate that, according to our estimate of ourselves, we are not
trustworthy, and it has often been observed as a fact that those who
swear most are least to be believed. The worst of all forms of swearing
is to swear falsely, that is, to swear that something is the case
without knowing that it is true, or knowing that it is not true. This
is a terrible crime, and is called “the profanation of God’s name,”
חלול השם.
There is still another kind of חלול השם “profanation of God’s name:”
if we Jews who are called by His name, the people of the Lord, or
children of the Lord, bring contempt upon God’s people by disgraceful
conduct, we profane the name of God. We sanctify it by noble and
generous deeds; by leading a pure and blameless life we cause a קדוש
השם “sanctification of the name of God.”
The third commandment forbids us—
(1.) To utter the name of God unnecessarily in our common conversation.
(2.) To read the Bible carelessly, or to pray without attention and
devotion.
(3.) To swear otherwise than when required by the law to do so, as,
e.g., in courts of law.
(4.) To swear when we are not fully convinced of the truth of our
declaration.
The additional sentence, “for he will not hold him guiltless who taketh
his name in vain,” is to remind us that it is against God the
Omniscient that we sin in breaking this commandment. God knows our
innermost thoughts, whether we think of what we utter or not; whether
we are convinced of what we declare on oath or not. He will punish us
if we break His commandments, although we may be able to conceal our
sins from men and escape condemnation by a human tribunal.
FOURTH COMMANDMENT.
“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour
and do all thy work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that is therein, and rested the seventh
day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The Sabbath day, that is, the day of rest, is to be kept holy. In two
ways it should differ from other days; it is to be a day of rest and
also a holy day. We keep it as a day of rest by not doing on it any
kind of work; we keep it as a holy day by devoting the greater part of
it, since we are free from our ordinary occupation, to prayer and to
reading the Bible.
We are thankful to God for having commanded us to keep the Sabbath, and
give expression to our feeling of gratitude in our prayers, especially
at the beginning and the end of the Sabbath; thus, on Friday evening,
before the meal, we praise God for sanctifying the Sabbath by a prayer
called Kiddush, “sanctification,” and on Sabbath evening, after the
close of the Sabbath, we recite the Habhdalah, in which God is praised
for the distinction made between Sabbath and the six week-days.
The Israelites were told to remember the Sabbath day; that is, the
well-known day of rest, the same day which was instituted as a day of
rest in connection with the manna. On five days they collected one omer
of the manna, on the sixth day two omers for each person; on the
seventh day no manna was collected nor was any found, and the
Israelites were commanded to bake and to cook on the sixth day not only
for the sixth day, but also for the seventh, on which day baking and
cooking was not to be done. This same seventh day we are told in the
fourth commandment to remember to keep holy, that we should not forget
it, or choose another day instead of it. It is the same seventh day on
which God rested after the six days of the Creation, and which “he
blessed and sanctified.”
It is to be a day of rest not only for ourselves; we must not have work
done for us by our children, or by our servants, or by strangers; even
our cattle must rest. After six days of work we enjoy the blessing of
one day’s rest, and are rendered more fit to work another six days. The
harder we work on six days, the more welcome is the rest of the seventh
day to us. When Moses repeated the commandments, he laid special stress
on the rest of the servants, reminding the Israelites that they
themselves had once been slaves, and must therefore recognise the
necessity of granting a day of rest to their servants.
It is not to be a day of mere idleness. Complete idleness leads to evil
thoughts and evil deeds. Whilst our body rests our mind should be
occupied with holy thoughts; we should commune with God, reflect on His
works, learn from them the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, study
the Word of God, listen to the instruction of our teachers and
preachers, and altogether try to raise ourselves into a loftier sphere.
On the day of rest we reflect on the works of God, on the work of
Creation which He completed in six days, and thus by keeping the
Sabbath we testify to our belief in God as the Creator of the Universe.
On this account it is that the Creation is referred to in this
commandment as the reason why rest was enjoined for the seventh day.
“For in six days,” &c.
“Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day;” the rest on the seventh
day is a blessing to those who have worked hard during the preceding
six days; it is a blessing to those who spend the Sabbath in a proper
manner. “And he hallowed it” by giving man an opportunity to sanctify
himself by more frequent communion with the Most Holy.
The fourth commandment tells us—
(1.) To remember to keep the same day as Sabbath which has been set
apart as such from the beginning.
(2.) To abstain on that day from all kind of work.
(3.) To devote part of the day to our sanctification.
FIFTH COMMANDMENT.
“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
The strongest desire that animates a father and a mother is to see
their children good and happy. From the first day of their existence
children are guarded by the watchful eyes of their parents that no evil
may befall them. How delighted are father and mother when they notice
the progress of their child in health and strength, in heart and soul!
What an amount of trouble and anxiety parents undergo when they see
their child suffering! No sacrifice is too great for them so long as it
ensures the child’s well-being. It is painful to them to be compelled
to deny their child anything, or to rebuke or to punish it. To this
they are impelled only by the anxiety for the welfare of the child. The
mutual affection between parent and child is one which nature has
implanted. Without it the home would be the dwelling of misery and
misfortune; with it comfort and happiness flourish therein. The loving
parents have pleasure in whatever they do for the benefit of the child,
and the affectionate child is delighted with the goodness of its
parents.
“Honour thy father and thy mother,” says the Almighty to us. How does a
child honour father and mother? In the eyes of the child father and
mother must be the king and the queen of the house, however small that
may be. Every word that comes from their mouth, every desire that they
express, must be regarded as of the greatest importance, and be well
remembered by the child. When the king or the queen speaks, all present
stand and listen respectfully; their words are read by every one with
the greatest interest. So it must be with the words of our parents.
Whenever they tell us to do or not to do a thing, obedience is a
blessing to us; disobedience is the chief cause of all misery and
trouble. We feel pleasure and honour in being able to do something that
gratifies our parents, and we like to give them at times some material
token of our affection. The best present we can give them is a good
heart, sincere love that prompts us to avoid everything that would
grieve them, and to do everything we can to give them pleasure and to
make them happy.
This is one of the few laws the reward of which is distinctly stated,
“That thy days may be long upon the land, which the Lord thy God giveth
thee.” We can easily understand the good effect of keeping the fifth
commandment. Pleasure and contentment contribute a good deal to the
health and well-being of man, whilst anger, trouble, and
dissatisfaction produce ill-health and weakness. The mutual affection
between parent and child is therefore the cause that the days of both
the parents and the children are prolonged, and the harmony and
happiness of the house firmly established. The blessing attending
children’s obedience and love towards their parents does not end here.
The whole State consists of small homes and families, and the greater
the well-being of the individual homes, the greater is the well-being
of the whole country. Thus the child by acting in accordance with this
Divine commandment contributes its share towards the prosperity of the
whole country.
When our parents are not present, we should, out of love towards them,
obey those who take their place, as, e.g., our elder brothers or
sisters, our guardians, and our teachers, since all these only do what
the parents would themselves like to do were the opportunity granted
them.
We are bound to honour our parents not only so long as we are under
their care and live in their house, but also when we have left our
parents’ home, and have become independent. Even when they have become
old, weak, and poor, and we support them, we must not forget the
natural relation between parent and child, and the honour due to
parents from their children must still be shown to them. When they have
departed from this life, and we are no longer able to show our feeling
of love and respect in the usual way, we must honour their name and
memory, and hold in respect the wishes and commands which they
expressed when still alive. Death is no bar to true love and sincere
affection.
Thus we obey the fifth commandment—
(1.) By listening respectfully to the words of our parents and obeying
what they say.
(2.) By doing that which pleases them, and avoiding that which would
displease them.
(3.) By supporting them when they are weak and poor by all our best
exertion and with genuine pleasure.
(4.) By honouring their name and memory after their death.
(5.) By being obedient to our elder brothers or sisters, to our
guardians, and to our teachers.
SIXTH COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shalt not murder.”
Murder is a most terrible thing; we shudder at the sound of the word,
even at the mere idea of it. We wonder how it is possible that a person
should be so wicked, so cruel, and so unnatural as to take the life of
another human being! One who can do such a thing must have lost all
human feeling, and is rather a brute than a being created in the image
of God. But, unfortunately, there have been and there are such wicked
people. We read in the Bible that a dispute arose between the two sons
of Adam, and the one, Cain, slew the other, Abel. He repented it, but
he could not restore to his brother the life which he had taken. The
severest punishment is therefore inflicted on those who have committed
this crime.
This commandment and those which follow it have their root in the
principle, “Love thy fellow-man as thyself,” applied to the life (sixth
commandment), the home (seventh commandment), the property (eighth
commandment), and the honour of our fellow-man (ninth commandment). We
wish to enjoy life as long as possible; it must therefore be our desire
to see our fellow-man enjoy the longest possible life. But we must not
rest satisfied with the mere desire. An earnest desire is followed by
acts dictated by it. We must try our utmost, even as we do with regard
to ourselves, to preserve the life of our fellow-man. We have, e.g.,
seen before how by obeying the fifth commandment we lengthen not only
our own life, but also that of our parents, whilst by breaking this law
we shorten their life as well as our own.
By supporting the poor and nursing the sick we may be the means of
increasing a human life by many days or even years, whilst by
neglecting the duty of charity we neglect to save the life of our
fellow-man when it is in our power to do so.—Another instance of
criminal neglect it would be if a person saw another in actual danger
of life, and did not try everything in his power to save him.
Without having directly broken the sixth commandment, without having
taken the life of our neighbour by violence, we may still be guilty of
having shortened his life and caused his untimely death. Talebearers
and slanderers, e.g., often undermine the peace and happiness of an
individual, and even of a whole family, and sow the seed of misery and
ruin where well-being and prosperity seemed well established.
The sixth commandment enjoins that we should respect the life of our
fellow-man, and forbids us therefore—
(1.) To take it by violent means.
(2.) To do anything by which the peace and well-being of our fellow-man
might be undermined.
(3.) To neglect anything in our power to save our neighbour from direct
or indirect danger of life.
SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
The institution of marriage is of very ancient date. When Eve had been
formed out of the rib of Adam, and was brought to him, he exclaimed,
“She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” and the account of the
first marriage concludes thus: “Therefore man shall leave his father
and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh”
(Gen. ii. 24). Every married couple, husband and wife, bind themselves
by a solemn promise to be true and faithful to each other, to remain
throughout life united in love and affection, and to establish a home
founded on purity and sanctity. Adultery is the breaking of this
promise. That love and affection which unites man and wife cannot be
shared by a third person without involving a breach of the seventh
commandment.
Jewish homes have always been distinguished by sanctity and purity. In
order to retain this distinction it is necessary that we should be
trained in this virtue from our childhood. Our language must be pure
and holy; unclean and indecent expressions must never be uttered in our
homes, either by the old or by the young. The purer our speech is, the
more sanctified will our heart be. Bad society often corrupts the heart
of the young through bad example in words and conduct. It is therefore
essential that immoral persons should not come in contact with our
children; that everything that is contrary to the virtue of modesty
(צניעות) should be rigorously excluded from Jewish homes.
The seventh commandment forbids:—
(1.) Faithlessness of a man to his wife, or a woman to her husband.
(2.) The use of improper and indecent language.
(3.) Immodest conduct.
(4.) Associating with immoral persons.
EIGHTH COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shalt not steal.”
We do not like that any one should take a part of our property without
our knowledge or consent. An old saying of the Rabbis teaches: “Let the
property of thy neighbour be as dear in thy eyes as thine own” (Aboth
ii. 12); that is to say, as you do not wish a diminution or destruction
of what is yours, so you must not cause a diminution or destruction of
what belongs to your neighbour.
By secretly taking anything for ourselves that does not belong to us,
we steal, and break the eighth commandment.
This commandment has also a wider sense, and forbids every illegal
acquisition of property, whether it be directly by theft or robbery, or
by cheating, by embezzlement or forgery. Property acquired by any of
these or similar means may be considered as stolen property, and is by
no means a blessing to him who possesses it. Even if human justice does
not reach the evil-doer, he is watched by an All-seeing Eye, and will
in due time receive his full punishment.
This commandment prohibits:—
(1.) Theft and robbery.
(2.) All kinds of fraud and dishonesty.
NINTH COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
It gives us pain to hear that others speak ill of us. “Let the honour
of thy neighbour be as dear to thee as thine own” (Aboth ii. 10). We
must therefore not speak ill of our neighbour. But it is not only the
speaking ill of others that this commandment forbids; we must not say
of our fellow-man anything that is not true. If we are called as a
witness in a court of justice, we must be most careful that every word
we utter be perfectly true. We must weigh our words well and guard
ourselves against stating as facts things about which we are not quite
certain. If we are careless we may become false witnesses, and may even
be guilty of perjury.
The consequences of false evidence are of a very grave nature; it
misleads the judge, perverts justice, ruins innocent people; and the
false witness himself—whether he sinned with intention or by
carelessness—will not escape punishment.
God declared through the mouth of the prophet Zechariah (v. 4): “I will
bring forth the curse, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into
the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsely
by my name; and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall
consume it, with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.”
In order to guard ourselves against the possibility of such a crime, we
must train ourselves in speaking the exact truth in everything, however
trifling it may appear to us. Even in their play children must be
careful in what they utter. Idle talk, gossip, frequently leads us to
speak of our neighbours what is not in harmony with facts. Though we
may believe it to be harmless and to have no evil consequence, it has
in reality very pernicious results; for we get into the habit of being
careless about our words, and of ignoring the line that parts truth
from falsehood, and when we have then to speak on more important
things, or even in a court of justice, we may prove ourselves equally
careless. There is a proverb (Prov. xix. 5): “A faithful witness is he
who doth not lie, but he who uttereth lies will be a false witness;”
i.e., the conduct of a witness with regard to truth in ordinary and
less important utterances is a test of his trustworthiness in more
important matters.
The ninth commandment—
(1.) Forbids us to give false evidence; and
(2.) To utter an untruth of any kind whatever.
(3.) It commands us to be careful in our utterances.
TENTH COMMANDMENT.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house; thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
The coveting which the tenth commandment forbids is the root from which
the crimes forbidden in the four preceding commandments spring.
Coveting is a desire to possess what we cannot get in an honest and
legal manner. An instance of such coveting is the desire of Ahab to
possess the vineyard of Naboth. It must have been more than an ordinary
desire, for it led him to most wicked acts (1 Kings xxi.).
It is not every desire that is prohibited. If we see a thing that
pleases us, we begin to feel a desire for its possession. Our reason
must then step in and tell us whether we can obtain it in an honest way
or not. In the latter case we must conquer our desire and suppress it,
lest it obtain the mastery over us.
We must work and try to make progress. We cannot be blamed if we are
not quite content with our present condition, and wish to improve it.
Without such a desire all industry and progress would disappear. But we
must consider that the improvement of our material condition, the
increase of our property, is not the whole mission of man. We must not
forget that we have a higher mission: to improve our heart and our
moral conduct, and to make ourselves worthy of being called “the
children of God.” The increase of our property must not impede the
progress of the purity and goodness of our heart.
The tenth commandment—
(1.) Forbids us to covet that which does not belong to us; and
(2.) Commands us to suppress any such desire when it rises in our
heart.
Note 1.—There is another way of enumerating the Ten Commandments,
namely, to combine the first and the second into one, and to divide the
tenth into two. The Masoretic text seems to point in this direction;
for there is no pause between the first and the second commandments,
while there is one in the middle of the tenth. The inference from the
Masoretic text, however, is not quite certain. It is possible that the
first two commandments were joined closely together in order to
separate more pointedly those commandments in which God speaks of
Himself in the first person from those in which He speaks of Himself in
the third person; or, to use the words of the Midrash, to separate the
first two, which the Israelites heard directly from God, from the rest,
which they heard through Moses. The last commandment was, on account of
its great importance, given in two different forms. In the first the
general term “house” is employed; in the second the various elements
constituting the “house” are enumerated instead. The two forms of the
commandment are separated by the sign of a pause, because each of them
is complete in itself. Tradition supports our division of the
Decalogue. “I am” (אנכי) and “Thou shalt not have” (לא יהיה לך) are
mentioned in Talmud and Midrash, also in Targum, as two distinct
commandments. According to Philo (On the Ten Comm.) and Josephus
(Antiq. III. v. 5), the verse, “Thou shalt have ... before me” belongs
to the first commandment.
The text of the Decalogue, as repeated by Moses in the plain of Moab
(Deut. v. 6–8), differs from the original (Exod. xx. 2–14). One of the
differences, the first word of the fourth commandment—זכור,
“Remember,” in Exodus, and שמור, “Observe,” in Deuteronomy—is pointed
out in Midrash and Talmud, and also in the hymn for the Eve of Sabbath,
beginning, “Come, my friend” (לכה דודי). Tradition explains the first
expression as referring to affirmative commandments, and the second to
prohibitions; it further teaches that “both expressions were spoken by
God simultaneously;” that is to say, the fourth commandment in
Deuteronomy, though different in form, does not imply anything that has
not been revealed by God on Mount Sinai. The same applies to all points
of difference.
Why did Moses introduce the alterations? Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on
the Decalogue, is of opinion that the question need not be asked, or
answered if asked, because in the repetition of a Divine message the
original words may be changed so long as the sense remains intact. But
the addition of the phrase, “as the Lord thy God commandeth thee” in
two cases, and the reference to the deliverance from Egyptian
servitude, substituted (in Deut.) in the fourth commandment for the
reference to the Creation (in Exod.), lead us to think that the changes
were not introduced unintentionally or without any purpose. The
repeated Decalogue is a portion of an address in which Moses exhorted a
new generation in the plains of Moab to obey the Divine Law. It is,
therefore, not unlikely that he made additions and alterations for the
sake of emphasis, where he noticed a certain laxity among those whom he
addressed. Having come in contact with heathen nations and observed
their rites in connection with their sacred days, the Israelites may
have been inclined to imitate them; they were therefore exhorted to
sanctify the Sabbath in the way God commanded; hence also the more
emphatic “Observe,” שמור.—A similar reason may have caused the
addition of the same phrase, “as the Lord, &c.,” to the fifth
commandment. The participation of a portion of the Israelites in the
licentious feasts of the Moabites and Midianites disturbed the peace of
their homes and loosened the sacred family tie. Moses therefore points
to the Divine origin of the law commanding obedience to parents, and
also emphasises the blessings which it will yield by adding the words,
“and in order that it may be well with thee.”—The change of
circumstances has also caused another alteration in the fourth
commandment. During the forty years which the Israelites were compelled
to spend in the wilderness, they almost forgot the condition of their
former servitude; the new generation did not know it at all, and they
grudged their slaves the one day of rest in the week. They were
therefore reminded of their servitude in Egypt, and were asked to
remember it in order that they might, out of gratitude to the Almighty,
keep the Sabbath as He commanded them.
Another indication that changed circumstances caused the alterations is
noticed in the tenth commandment. Having arrived at the border of
Palestine, the Israelites were about to take possession of houses and
fields, and two and a half tribes were already in possession of landed
property. The term “house” (בית), which at first denoted “the home”
or “the household,” including the wife, was now in the minds of the
people chiefly “a permanent building.” “The wife,” the centre and the
chief element in the home, was therefore substituted for “the house” in
the first part of the commandment, and vice versâ, “the house” for “the
wife” in the second part, where appropriately “nor his field” has been
added.—The substitution of “Thou shalt not desire” (לא תתאוה) for the
original “Thou shalt not covet” (לא תחמוד) may have been intended to
teach the Israelites that all kinds and degrees of desire were
forbidden, and to remind them of the consequences of desire which they
had experienced at “the graves of the desire” (קברות התאוה Num.
xi.).—One more important alteration is to be noticed, the conjunctive
“and” (וְ) before the seventh and the following commandments, which
served to create in the minds of the hearers the idea that the crimes
forbidden in the second part of the Decalogue are to some extent
connected, and that he who broke one of these commandments was likely
to break the others also. We are thus bidden to be on our guard, and to
take good care that none of them be violated by us.
Note 2.—Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Exodus xx. 9, says: “Rabbi
Jehudah ha-levi asked me why it is said in the Decalogue, ‘who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,’ and not
‘who created heaven and earth.’ My answer was as follows: Know that
those who believe in God have not all the same kind of faith. Some
believe because they were told of His existence by others; those who
believe in God because the holy Torah teaches this belief possess a
higher degree of faith. If an unbeliever argues with either of these,
they are not able to refute his argument. Those, however, who study
sciences—Astronomy, Botany, Zoology, and Anthropology—learn to
understand the works and the ways of God, and from these the Creator
Himself. The words ‘I am the Lord thy God’ can only be understood by
the wise and intelligent of all nations. For they all see that God has
made heaven and earth. But there is this difference: the Israelites
believe that the Creation has taken place five thousand years ago:
non-Israelites assume that God has been continually creating from
eternity. Now, God wrought signs and wonders in Egypt by which He
delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, and thus showed them His Divine
justice and goodness. In reference to these miracles it is said, ‘Thou
hast been shown to know that the Lord is God;’ all Israelites, wise and
simple, equally witnessed His miracles. The beginning of the Decalogue,
therefore, ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ is well understood by the wise; but
for the rest of the nation the words ‘who brought thee out,’ &c., have
been added, in order that all without exception should understand it.”
Note 3.—Don Isaac Abarbanel, in his Commentary on Exodus xx., says:
“The Ten Commandments are distinguished from the other Divine precepts
in three things: they were directly communicated by God to the
Israelites, not through a prophet; they were revealed to a whole nation
at once; and they were written on the two tables of stone by the finger
of God. Such distinction necessarily indicates a greater intrinsic
value of the Ten Commandments. My opinion is therefore that they are
laws of a general character, and principles including all the 613
precepts which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to His people. E.g.,
love and worship of God. sanctification of His Name, submission to His
judgment, fear of God, reverence of His sanctuary, and other duties
towards God; Passover, Tabernacles, Tefillin, Mezuzah, and such other
precepts as are ‘a memorial of the departure from Egypt;’ the
separation of the first-born, tithes, &c.—all these duties are implied
in the first commandment. Also Rabbi Levi ben Gershon and the Gaon
Saadiah assume that all the 613 precepts are implicitly contained in
the Decalogue. Although all precepts involving practice (מצוות
מעשיות) are implied in the Decalogue, and even allusions to each one
of the thirteen principles of faith may be discovered in it, there is
no precept concerning our faith. It has already been proved by Rabbi
Chisdai that by the Divine commands we are either told to do a certain
thing, or told not to do a certain thing; but what we have to believe
or not to believe the Almighty taught us through signs, wonders, and
revelation. The words ‘I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,’ teach a certain truth,
a principle from which many of the 613 precepts may be derived, but
which is in itself no commandment.—The Decalogue (עשרת הדברים) must
therefore not be understood as designating ten commandments, but ‘ten
words’ or ‘ten paragraphs’ indicated in the Hebrew text by the pauses,
or spaces left between two paragraphs.
“The ‘ten words’ were written on two tables, five on each. The first
five, containing positive and negative precepts, with the announcement
of reward and punishment, were exclusively addressed to the Israelites.
The latter five are simple prohibitions without any mention of
punishment; because they were addressed to man as man, and include only
such laws as are also suggested to him by human reason, without direct
revelation.”
Rabbi R. S. Hirsch, in his Commentary on Exodus xx., says in reference
to the first commandment: “As this verse is not understood as a mere
declaration, but as a commandment (מצוה), it does not say ‘I am thy
God,’ but ‘I, the Lord, shall be thy God,’ and thus contains as the
foundation of all our duties towards God an exhortation to acknowledge
the sovereignty of God, קבלת עול מלכות שמים.
“The so-called ‘belief in the existence of God,’ as ancient and modern
theologians generally express this idea, differs widely from that which
underlies this fundamental doctrine of Judaism. The truth which affords
me the foundation of a Jewish life is not the belief that there is a
God, or that there is only one God, but the conviction that this One,
Only, and true God is my God; that He has created and formed me, has
placed me here, and given me certain duties; that He constantly makes
and forms me, preserves, protects, directs, and guides me; not the
belief that I, an accidental product of the Universe whose First Cause
He was millions of years ago, am through a chain of thousands of
intervening beings related to Him, but the belief that every moment of
my existence is a direct personal gift from the Almighty and All-good,
and that every moment of my life ought to be spent in His service; not
the knowledge that there is a God, but the recognition of God as my
God, as the sole Cause of my fate, and my sole Guide in all that I do,
gives me the foundation for my religious life. The response to the
exhortation, ‘I shall be thy God,’ is ‘Thou art my God.’”
Note 4.—The importance attached to the Decalogue may be gathered from
the various attempts made, on the one hand, to classify the Divine laws
according to the Ten Commandments, showing that the latter contain all
the 613 precepts; and, on the other hand, to find in such important
passages as the Shema and Leviticus xix. a parallel for each of the Ten
Commandments. (Jerus. Talm. Ber., chap. i.; Rabboth, Vayyikra ad
locum.)
II. GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.
The Ten Commandments, flowing as it were from the one source, “I am the
Lord thy God,” branch off in all directions, and penetrate all man’s
relations, guide him in his conduct towards God, towards his fellow-men
and towards himself, and teach him how to rule his thought, his speech,
and his actions. When the Almighty proclaims to us, “I am the Lord thy
God,” we willingly respond, “Thou art my God.” But this declaration
involves also duties on our part, the fulfilment of which is the
natural consequence and the verification of our response. If our words,
“Thou art my God,” come from our hearts, and are not empty sounds,
uttered merely by the lips, we must be conscious of the duties they
impose on us. These are:—
A. Duties towards God, as our Master, Creator, and Father.
B. Duties towards our fellow-men, as children of one God.
C. Duties towards ourselves, as the object of God’s Providence.
A. DUTIES TOWARDS GOD.
(a.) Duties of the Heart.
1. Fear of God. יראת השם—The true knowledge of God, of His Wisdom and
Greatness, as visible in His works, leads us to fear God; that is, to
fear doing anything that might displease Him and make us unworthy of
His love. It is not a fear that terrifies us and drives us away from
His presence; on the contrary, it draws us nearer to Him, and causes us
to try to become more and more worthy of His love.
“And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to
fear the Lord thy God?” (Deut. x. 12).
“If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are
written in this book, that thou mayest fear this name which is to be
honoured and revered, the Lord thy God; then the Lord will make thy
plagues wonderful” (Deut. xxviii. 58).
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. i. 7).
“The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord” (Ps. cxi. 10).
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil” (Prov. viii. 13).
“The fear of the Lord prolongeth days” (Prov. x. 27).
“Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of
man” (Eccles. xii. 13).
“He who possesses learning but is without fear of God, resembles a
treasurer who has the key for the inner door, but not for the outer
one” (Babyl. Talm. Sabb. 31b).
“Everything is in the hand of God except the fear of God” (Babyl. Talm.
Ber. 33b). [32]
2. Love of God. אהבת השם—The true fear of God is associated with the
love of God. The latter means the constant longing for communion with
Him, feeling happy and joyful when with Him, but unhappy and miserable
when without Him. Love of God creates in us an anxiety to do everything
in our power that might please the Almighty. He who is filled with love
of God is חסיד, pious; he does not rest content with doing what he is
commanded, but anxiously seeks the opportunity of fulfilling a Divine
command; he is רודף אחר המצות, “eager in the pursuit of Mitsvoth.”
The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, but love of God is the
aim and end of all our religious thinking and striving.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. vi. 5).
“The Lord preserveth all those who love him (Ps. cxlv. 20).
“Thou wilt show me the path of life. In thy presence is fulness of joy;
in thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. xvi. 11).
“As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after
thee, O God” (Ps. xlii. 2).
“Blessed are they who dwell in thy house: they will be still praising
thee” (Ps. lxxxiv. 5).
“The desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee”
(Isa. xxvi. 8).
“I will rejoice in the Lord; I will joy in the God of my salvation”
(Hab. iii. 18).
3. Gratitude towards God.—All that we possess, the very breath we
breathe, is a present received at the hands of the Almighty. Whatever
success we desire to achieve, whatever undertaking we desire to
accomplish, we must ourselves first strive for it to the utmost of our
power, and this done, we may hope for the Divine blessing. When we have
attained what we sought, we are warned against believing that “our
power and the strength of our hand hath gotten us this wealth.” We are
to “remember the Lord our God, for it is he that giveth us power to get
wealth” (Deut. viii. 17–18).
“For all things come of thee, and of thine own hand have we given thee”
(1 Chron. xxix. 14).
“Whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me” (Ps. l.
23).
“Though all sacrifices should cease, the sacrifice of thanksgiving will
never cease” (Vayyikra Rabba ix.).
4. Reverence for His Name.—The more we fear and love God, the deeper
and the more intense is our feeling of reverence for everything which
is connected in our thoughts with the name of the Almighty. Whenever we
enter a place dedicated to His worship, or open the Book that bears His
name, or celebrate the days set apart as “seasons of the Lord,” this
feeling of reverence overcomes us, and finds expression in our conduct.
The reverence for the name of God impels us also to respect ministers
and teachers who spend their life in spreading the knowledge of God and
His Will.
“How awful is this place! this is none other but the house of God”
(Gen. xxviii. 17).
“I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy
fear will I worship toward thy holy temple” (Ps. v. 8).
“When I will publish the name of the Lord, ascribe ye greatness unto
our God” (Deut. xxxii. 3).
5. Obedience to the Will of God.—Whatever the Almighty, whom we love
and fear, bids us do, we not only do, but find pleasure in doing.
“To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam. xv. 22, 23).
“But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be
your God, and ye shall be my people” (Jer. vii. 23).
“Thy statutes have been my song in the house of my pilgrimage” (Ps.
cxix. 54).
“Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the
rejoicing of my heart” (Ps. cxix. 111).
“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou
opened; burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then
said I, Lo, I come with the volume of the book written for me: I
delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is written within my
heart” (Ps. xl. 7–9).
6. Faith and Confidence in God.—God is All-kind, All-wise, and
All-powerful. The Lord is good to all, and His mercy is over all His
creatures: He wills that which is good for us. Being All-wise, He knows
best what is good for us, and by what means it can be attained; being
All-powerful, He can always carry His Will into effect. He is,
therefore, the only Being to whom we can safely entrust ourselves
everywhere and always. In His words and commands, exhortations and
warnings, we have the best and surest guide through life. Our
confidence in God causes us to turn to Him for help in time of need,
and for comfort in time of sorrow.
“Into his hand I commend my spirit, when I sleep and when I wake; and
with my spirit my body also: the Lord is for me, and I shall not fear”
(Daily Prayers, Morning Service).
“Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord
is” (Jer. xvii. 7).
“Trust in the Lord, and do good” (Ps. xxxvii. 3).
“Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine
heart; and wait on the Lord” (Ps. xxvii. 14).
“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Ps. xxiii. 1).
7. Resignation to the Will of God.—Trusting in God’s goodness, we are
contented with the lot which He determined for us. When we are
prosperous we hope for His protection, lest we become corrupted and
unworthy of His goodness; when we fail, faith in God will keep us from
despair and encourage us to fresh attempts; when misfortune befalls us
which it is impossible for us to remedy, we resign ourselves unto His
Will, and say, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away! blessed be
the Name of the Lord!”
“My flesh and my heart failed; but God is the strength of my heart and
my portion for ever” (Ps. lxxiii. 26).
“I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for
his mercy is great” (2 Sam. xxiv. 14).
“We are bound to bless God in evil even as we bless Him in good
fortune. It is written: ‘And thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might’ (Deut.
vi. 5); love Him with all thy soul or life—i.e., even though for His
sake thou risk thy life; and with all thy wealth—that is, whatever
measure He metes out to thee, acknowledge with exceeding gratitude”
[33] (Mishnah Berachoth ix. 5).
(b.) Duties towards God: In Speech.
The feelings of fear and love of God, of reverence, obedience, faith,
gratitude, and resignation, must also find adequate expression in our
speech. God, the Omniscient, knows our thoughts and sentiments, and
there would be no necessity for giving them an outward expression, if
we only intended thereby to make them known to the Almighty. But as in
our relations to our fellow-men—e.g., to our parents or to our
children—we frequently, in obedience to an irresistible impulse,
communicate to them in words what we think and what we feel, even when
convinced that we only tell them things well known to them already, so
we address the Almighty, who is everywhere near unto us, and listens to
our speech, although our wishes are known to Him before we utter them,
and our innermost feelings are open before Him before we express them
in words. We are aware that there is an immeasurable difference between
the Divine Being and earthly creatures like ourselves. We know that He
is not subject to human weaknesses, and that the audible sound of words
cannot move Him more than the thoughts and feelings that prompt the
words to come forth. And yet the mere communion of our heart with our
Creator does not satisfy us; we feel ourselves impelled by some inner
force to give it an outward expression. Besides, there is a constant
interaction between our thoughts and our spoken words. Thoughts and
feelings that remain unspoken, are seldom permanent: we soon cease to
be conscious of them ourselves, and they often disappear without
leaving any trace behind them, whilst sentiments and ideas expressed in
spoken words become strengthened and take a deeper and firmer root in
our hearts. The relationship between our lips and our heart is
therefore of mutual benefit to both: the words uttered with the lips
receive their value and importance from the heart, and the emotions of
the heart derive strength and support from the lips.
1. Prayer.—All our feelings and sentiments towards the Almighty, our
love and fear, faith and confidence, gratitude and resignation, find in
Divine worship their due expression. When our soul is full of the love
of God, and yearns for His presence, we call upon Him in hymns and
songs of praise, and He is “nigh to all them who call upon him, to all
that call upon him in truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18).
“I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my
God while I have any being. Let my meditation be sweet unto him: I will
rejoice in the Lord” (Ps. civ. 33, 34).
“Praise ye the Lord: for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for
it is pleasant, and praise is comely” (Ps. cxlvii. 1).
“I will bless the Lord at all times: his praise shall continually be in
my mouth” (Ps. xxxiv. 2).
“O Lord, open my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise” (Ps.
li. 17)
Our desire to please Him whom we love sincerely, our longing for an
opportunity to do what is good in His eyes, ought not to remain hidden
and silent. The sooner and the more frequently we give expression to
these wishes in audible words, the sooner do they become realised, and
the sooner are the promptings of our heart followed by deeds.
“With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth” (Ps.
cxix. 13).
“How sweet are thy words unto my palate! yea, sweeter to my mouth than
honey” (Ps. cxix. 103).
“Let my tongue sing of thy word; for all thy commandments are
righteousness” (Ps. cxix. 172).
We fear lest we offend and displease Him by our words or acts; we
recall to our mind the holiness of a God “who has no pleasure in
wickedness, and with whom evil shall not sojourn” (Ps. v. 5); we not
only meditate on the Holy One, but speak and sing of Him. Our
meditation finds expression in songs on the holiness of God, and these
songs again supply fresh material for meditation; we thus hope to fence
and guard our heart against the intrusion of anything unworthy of the
presence of the Most Holy.
“Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? and who shall stand in his holy
place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4).
“I will wash mine hands in innocency; so will I compass thine altar”
(Ps. xxvi. 6).
Our weakness and helplessness in many conditions of life fill us with
trouble and care. When we enjoy good health, we fear a change might
take place; in possession of wealth, we are in anxiety: it might be
taken from us. The pleasures of home and family we know to be but
temporary: how soon may sorrow visit us there! From all these fears and
anxieties we seek and find refuge in Him, who is “a stronghold to the
weak, a stronghold in times of trouble” (Ps. ix. 10). We tell Him
confidently all the troubles and cares of our heart, as we would do to
a friend who is always willing and ready to help us. We have faith in
God, and therefore we approach Him with our petitions; and when we have
poured forth our heart before the All-merciful we feel more at ease,
and our faith and confidence have gained in strength.
“He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in
trouble; I will deliver him and honour him” (Ps. xci. 15).
“When they have cried unto the Lord in their trouble, he will save them
out of their distresses” (Ps. cvii. 6).
“Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon
him as long as I live. When I find trouble and sorrow, then will I call
upon the name of the Lord. When I take the cup of salvation, then will
I call upon the name of the Lord” (Ps. cxvi. 2, 4, 13).
“What sufferings may be called chastisements of love? Such as do not
prevent us from prayer” (Babyl. Talm. Ber. 5a).
“Even when the edge of the sword touches already a man’s neck, even
then he must not abandon his faith in praying to God” (Babyl. Talm.
Ber. 10a).
“‘I was asleep, but my heart was awake;’ I have no sacrifices, but I
have ‘Shema’ and ‘Prayer’” (Shir ha-shirim Rabba on v. 2).
“‘Hope in the Lord,’ and pray again” (Rabboth, Deuter., chap. ii.).
Our Rabbis teach, “Prayer is good for man both before his fate has been
decreed and after it has been decreed” (Babyl. Talm. Rosh-hashshanah,
p. 16a). But at the same time we are warned against impatiently
expecting and demanding an immediate effect from the words uttered by
our lips, however devoutly they may have been spoken. Such
expectation—denounced in the Talmud as עיון תפלה [34]—would indicate
our confidence in the wisdom of our petition, whilst confidence in the
wisdom and goodness of God would suggest that “the Lord will do what is
good in his eyes.”
We give expression to our feelings of gratitude towards our benefactor
by acknowledging the fact, that whatever we enjoy, we are enabled to
enjoy through His kindness. The various blessings formulated by our
Sages serve a double purpose: first, they facilitate the expression of
our feelings; secondly, they remind us of the presence of the Almighty,
and of His goodness in providing for us and all His creatures. From the
time we awake in the morning till the evening when we lie down to
sleep, there is not a moment that does not bring to our knowledge some
Divine act of kindness towards us. In the morning we perceive the
benefit of light, in the evening we have reason to welcome the blessing
of repose it brings with it, while the interval between the two periods
constantly reveals to him who does not wilfully shut his eyes the hand
of Him “who is good, and whose loving-kindness endureth for ever.”
“I will give thanks to thee, for thou hast answered me, and art become
my salvation” (Ps. cxviii. 21).
“I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanks giving” (Jon. ii.
10).
“Though all prayers were to be discontinued, prayers of thanksgiving
will never be discontinued” (Vayyikra Rabba, chap. ix.).
When things happen which are not pleasant to us, which give us pain and
sorrow, we ought to consider that the plans of God are different from
our plans, and His ways from our ways, and what He wills is better for
us than our own wishes. With resignation, without murmuring, we ought
to utter words of praise and thanks to the Almighty.
“The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of
the Lord” (Job i. 21).
“Learn to say, ‘Whatever the Almighty does, is done for our good’”
(Babyl. Talm. Ber. 60b).
Public Service.—Man has a natural desire to communicate his sentiments
to his fellow-men, and finds a certain pleasure or relief in knowing
that others share in his joys and sorrows. The same is the case with
regard to his sentiments towards the Most High. If, yearning for
communion with God, we fervently appeal to Him in solitude, where we
are undisturbed by the intrusion of any other person, it will not be
long before we shall feel ourselves in the very presence of Him who is
“nigh to all those who call upon him in truth.” Standing before the
Almighty, the Creator and Master of the whole Universe as well as of
ourselves, we should like all nature to join in His praises, and we
summon the inhabitants of the heavens above, His angels and hosts, sun,
moon, and all the stars of light; and the dwellers on earth below,
inanimate and animate, irrational and rational, kings with their
peoples, to come and to praise the name of God (Ps. cxlviii.). Such
moments of solitary devotion are very precious, and are by no means to
be despised. But they are not frequent, and not always successful.
Public worship has this advantage, that the object of our meeting, the
holiness of the place, and the union in a worship with our fellow-men
combine to create, maintain, or intensify our devotion. Although each
one has his individual wants, joys, and sorrows, there are many wants,
joys, and sorrows which we have all in common, and concerning which we
may in common give expression to our feelings in prayer, praise, and
thanksgiving.
“Bless ye the Lord in congregations” (Ps. lxviii. 27).
“If ten pray together, the presence of God is with them” (Babyl. Talm.
Ber. 6a).
“‘But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time’
(Ps. lxix. 14): which is the acceptable time? The time of public
worship” (Babyl. Talm. Ber. 8a).
2. Study of the Law (תלמוד תורה).—Another way of employing speech in
the service of the Lord is the reading and the study of the Word of
God: the Holy Scriptures and their Commentaries. Our love and reverence
of God ought to induce us frequently to consult the book which contains
His commandments, and which He has given us as a guide and companion.
Even if we derived no further benefit than the consciousness of having
spent some time in reading His Word revealed to us by the mouth of the
Prophets, the time thus spent would not be wasted. But we derive a
further advantage. It is impossible to imagine that our devoting a
certain time, however short it may be, to the reading of the words of
the Most Holy should have no purifying influence upon us, provided we
approach the book before us with due reverence, and with the intention
to be guided by its teachings.
Joshua, when placed at the head of the nation, is exhorted by the
Almighty as follows: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy
mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest
observe to do according to all that is written therein” (Joshua i. 8).
“As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: my spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall
not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and
for ever.” (Is. lix., 21)
3. Teaching.—The gift of speech is of service also in communicating our
thoughts, feelings, and convictions to our fellow-men. They who are
able to read the Word of God and to understand it, ought to read and
expound it to those who are less favoured; they who feel the presence
of God, and comprehend His holiness, goodness, and unity, ought to
direct the hearts of their brethren to God, His words and works. It is
a special duty and privilege of the Jew to proclaim and teach the
Existence and the Unity of God—יחוד הבורא.
“And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk
of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the
way, and when thou liest down and when thou risest up” (Deut. vi. 7).
“Happy are we! how goodly is our portion, and how pleasant is our lot,
and how beautiful our heritage! Happy are we who early and late,
morning and evening, twice every day, declare, ‘Hear, O Israel, the
Lord is our God, the Lord is One’!” (Daily Prayers, Morning Service).
4. Reverence of the Name of God.—The mention of the name of God ought
to make us most careful about that which we utter in connection with
it. If a person makes a promise or statement on oath carelessly or with
levity, he shows that he has no reverence of the name of God; no fear
of God. It is only through such irreverence that a person is capable of
breaking the third commandment. Blasphemy, a sin treated in the Bible
as a capital crime, has likewise its source in want of due reverence of
God’s name. In order to preserve and strengthen that reverence we must
avoid pronouncing the Divine name too frequently. Hence arose the
custom of substituting such words as השם “the Name,” המקום “the
Omnipresent,” for the names of God, and employing in ordinary writing
letters like ה or ד or יי instead of any of the Divine names. In
writing single letters instead of the full names we also intend to
guard ourselves against causing irreverence towards the name of God; as
our writing is frequently destroyed or liable to be thrown among the
refuse. This precaution, dictated by a feeling of reverence for God and
His name, serves at the same time to strengthen that feeling. [35]
From the same reason, the word which is exclusively used as a name of
God, the Tetragrammaton, [36] was rarely pronounced, and in reading the
Bible the word Adonai, “My Lord,” is substituted wherever it occurs. It
was only pronounced in the Temple by the High-priest on the Day of
Atonement, in the Confession of Sins, and in the Prayer for
Forgiveness; and by the ordinary priests when they blessed the people
in accordance with the Divine precepts (Num. vi. 24–26). Since the
destruction of the Temple the Tetragrammaton has not been pronounced,
and thus it has come about that the right pronunciation of the word is
at present unknown.
5. The consciousness that we frequently address the Almighty with our
lips, and read His Holy Word, ought to make us strive for the utmost
purity and holiness in our speech. When the prophet Isaiah, in a Divine
vision, perceived the majesty of the Most High, and heard the sound of
His ministering angels proclaiming His holiness, a sense of his own
failings forced even from this chosen messenger of God the confession,
“Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man, unclean in lips, and I
dwell in the midst of a people unclean in lips, for mine eyes have seen
the King, the Lord of hosts” (Isa. vi. 5).
Duties towards God: In our Actions.
Rabbi Jose teaches, “Let all thy deeds be in the service of heaven,”
כל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים (Sayings of the Fathers, ii. 12).
The feeling of love and fear of God which fills our heart and soul, and
to which we frequently give expression in words, must also be visible
in our actions. Our whole life must be devoted to His service, and
ought to be one continuous worship of God. Every act of ours must aim
at the sanctification of His name. He has revealed unto us His Will,
and shown us the way in which we should walk; unconditional submission
to His guidance and strict obedience to His command should distinguish
the people of the Lord. True love of God and faith in His goodness make
us “bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a stag, and strong
as a lion to carry out the will of our Father in heaven” (Sayings of
the Fathers, v. 20). For what could be the value of our professions of
love for God, if we refused to listen attentively to His voice, to walk
in the way He has prepared for us, or to observe His statutes? From
this point of view we may consider all our duties as duties towards
God, since their fulfilment implies obedience to His Will. But there
are certain duties which chiefly or exclusively concern our relations
to God. Such duties are: the observance of Sabbath and Festivals,
providing reminders of God’s Presence, establishing and supporting
Public Worship, sanctifying God’s Name (קדוש השם), and imitating His
ways. Of these duties, the first three will be fully treated in special
sections.
The sanctification of God’s Name is a duty incumbent on all mankind,
but it is incumbent on us Jews in a higher degree, for we are called
the people of the Lord, the chosen people, a holy nation, and a kingdom
of priests. We sanctify the name of God by remaining faithful to Him
and to His Word, resisting every kind of force or temptation to turn us
away from our faith, making sacrifices for our holy religion, and
conducting ourselves in such a manner that our fellow-men may become
convinced that the tree of our Law bears good and holy fruit. Every
action that brings disgrace upon us as Israelites, and causes our
neighbours to despise “the people of the Lord, who profess to be the
guardians of the revealed Torah,” is חלול השם “Profanation of the
Name of God.” “And ye shall not profane my holy name, but I will be
hallowed among the children of Israel” (Lev. xxii. 32).
“Profanation of the name of God is a greater sin even than idolatry”
(Babyl. Talm. Sanhedrin 106a).
Imitating the Ways of God.—We know that God is perfect, and that all
His ways are perfect; we are conscious also of our weakness and of the
impossibility of ever becoming perfect. But this conviction must not
deter us from seeking perfection as far as our nature permits it, or
from setting before us the ways of God as an example for us to follow,
as the aim which should direct the course of our life, the balance in
which to weigh our actions, and the test by which to determine their
value.
“Ye shall be holy; for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev. xix. 2).
“I set the Lord always before me” (Ps. xvi. 8).
“‘Ye shall walk after the Lord your God’ (Deut. xiii. 5). Is it
possible for man to walk after the Lord? Has it not been said, ‘The
Lord thy God is a consuming fire’? (ibid. iv. 24). The meaning of the
verse, however, is this: Follow the ways of God: He clothes the naked,
as we are told, ‘And the Lord God made coats of skin for Adam and his
wife’ (Gen. iii. 21); do the same. He visits the sick, as is indicated
in the words, ‘And God appeared to him in the plain of Mamre’ (ibid.
xviii. 1); you must also visit the sick. He comforts the mourners, as
appears from the passage, ‘And it came to pass after the death of
Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaak’ (ibid. xxv. 11); do the same,
and comfort mourners,” &c. (Babyl. Talm. Sotah 14a).
It may happen that we are sometimes disposed to exclude a fellow-man
from our brotherly love. It would be against human nature to love those
who have hurt or wronged us. But, on the other hand, we are taught that
we must keep our heart free from feelings of revenge and hatred. If an
offence has been committed against us by our brother, the Law directs
us as follows: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou
shalt surely reprove thy neighbour, and not bear sin against him. Thou
shalt not revenge, and thou shalt not keep a grudge against the
children of thy people, but love thy fellow-man like thyself: I am the
Lord” (Lev. xix. 17, 18). The traditional interpretation illustrates
revenge and grudge in the following way: If your neighbour, after
having been unkind to you, is in need of your assistance, and you
refuse it on the ground of his want of kindness towards you, you are
guilty of revenge; if you grant him his request, but at the same time
remind him of his unkind conduct, you are guilty of “bearing a grudge
against your neighbour.” (Sifra, ad locum.)
B.—DUTIES TOWARDS OUR FELLOW-CREATURES.
(a.) Duties towards our Fellow-men in General.
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” (Mal. ii.
10). “Thou shalt love thy fellow-man as thyself” (Lev. xix. 18). These
are the sentiments which, according to the Will of God, ought to guide
us in our relation to our fellow-men. When, therefore, a Gentile came
to Hillel and asked him to explain to him in one moment the duties
which Judaism enjoins on its adherents, he replied, “What is
displeasing to thee, that do thou not to others. This is the text of
the Law; all the rest is commentary; go and learn” (Babyl. Talm.
Shabbath 31a). In a different form this idea has been expressed by
Rabbi Akiba and by Ben-Azai, who respectively quoted as a fundamental
principle of the Law, “Love thy neighbour as thyself,” and “This is the
book of the generations of man; in the day that God created man, he
made him in the likeness of God” (Yalkut on Gen. v. 1).
From this principle we derive the following general maxims with regard
to our neighbour’s (1) life and health, (2) property, (3) honour, and
(4) well-being:—
1. Life and Health of our Fellow-man.—Life is a precious treasure which
the Almighty has given us; if it is once taken from us, no man is able
to restore it. Among the first lessons revealed to man in Scripture is
the value of the life of a human being, created by God in His own
likeness, and when the first murder had been committed, God said to the
murderer, “What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood is
heard that crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen, iv. 10). The first
commandment in the second section of the Decalogue is directed against
this crime: “Thou shalt not murder.” The significance of these words,
the general lessons implied in this commandment, and the extent to
which a person, though not an actual murderer, may become guilty of
having broken this commandment, have already been explained in the
chapter on the Ten Commandments (p. 261). It has been shown how the
sixth commandment forbade—
(1.) The taking of the life of a fellow-man by violent means.
(2.) The doing of anything by which the health, the peace, and the
well-being of our fellow-man is undermined.
(3.) The omission of any act in our power to save our fellow-man from
direct or indirect danger of life.
2. The Property of our Neighbour.—The eighth commandment in its wider
sense comprehends all our relations to our neighbour’s property. It
prohibits, as has been shown above (p. 263), the appropriation of
anything that belongs to our neighbour—
(1.) By theft and robbery, or
(2.) By any kind of fraud and dishonesty.
Our Sages teach: “Let the property of thy fellow-man be as dear to thee
as thine own” (Aboth ii. 12); i.e., you do not like to see your own
property damaged, diminished, or destroyed; so it would be wrong if you
were to cause loss and ruin to your fellow-man, whether you did it
directly or indirectly. [37] Let every one enjoy the labour of his
hands; partake of the gifts of the earth and the Divine blessings as
much as his physical and mental powers enable him to do in a righteous
manner.
It is not only direct illegal appropriation of our neighbour’s goods
that is condemned as theft or robbery; it is equally wicked to buy
things which one knows to have been stolen by others. [38] He who does
it is worse than the thief; for, whilst the latter injures only the
person whom he robs, the former encourages and corrupts the thief,
hardens his heart, helps to silence the voice of his conscience, and
thus obstructs the way to repentance and improvement.
There are transactions which are legal and do not involve any breach of
the law, and which are yet condemned by the principles of morality as
base and disgraceful. Such are all transactions in which a person takes
advantage of the ignorance or embarrassment of his neighbour for the
purpose of increasing his own property. Usurers frequently belong to
this low and heartless class of society. The worst thing, however, they
do is, that they plan the ruin of others; in many cases they bring
about disaster by inducing young and inexperienced persons to borrow
money and to spend it in luxuries, or increase the embarrassment of the
distressed by charging exorbitant interest and imposing cruel
conditions, which make it impossible for those who have once fallen
into the hands of usurers to free themselves from their bondage.
It makes no difference whatever whether the victim be a Jew or a
non-Jew; the transaction is equally condemnable, and the usurer equally
wicked. This statement would be superfluous, were it not for the
misunderstanding that exists both among some of our co-religionists and
among non-Jews with regard to the principle it involves. Great stress
is laid in the Pentateuch on the prohibition of taking interest for
advances of money or articles of food. “And if thy brother be waxen
poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him: yea,
though he be a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with thee.
Take thou no interest of him, or increase: but fear thy God, that thy
brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. I am the Lord your God,”
&c. (Lev. xxv. 35–38; comp. Exod. xxii. 24).—It is one of the
characteristics of the pious who is worthy to “abide in the tabernacle
of God,” that “he putteth not out his money to usury” (Ps. xv. 5).
The strict prohibition to take interest on advances of money or goods
served a twofold purpose. In the first place, the surplus money of the
wealthy was to be employed in disinterested charity. Secondly, labour
and activity, both physical and mental, were to be the sources of
income and wealth for the individual as well as for the whole nation;
money without labour was not to bear any fruit or produce any increase.
An exception from this law was made for the benefit of the stranger.
The inhabitants of a town or a country who lived in the midst of their
relatives, friends, and countrymen could, as a rule, be trusted to
return the loan in due time. If they were not known themselves, they
could find persons who would recognise them or even offer themselves as
security for them. It was different with the stranger (הנכרי) “who
came from a far land” (Deut. xxix. 21); he was not known; he was, as a
rule, without friends; he had none to offer security for him. [39] When
in need, therefore, he would be unlikely to obtain a loan, if the
lender were not permitted in such cases to take interest as
compensation for risking the capital itself. The same reason explains
also a second exception made in the law with regard to a stranger when
a debtor. The payment of old debts is, as a rule, a great hardship to
the insolvent, especially at a time when the benefit derived from the
loan has already been forgotten. It was therefore ordained that every
seven years a remission of all debts should take place. The debtor that
lived in the country could easily be urged or forced to pay his debts,
and the creditor could safely expect that he would receive his money
before the year of release began. This was not the case with the
stranger, who might with impunity keep out of sight for some time
before the beginning of the seventh year: a circumstance that increased
the uncertainty of the repayment, and would have rendered it almost
impossible for a stranger to enjoy the benefit of a loan in times of
temporary embarrassment, but for the exception made in his case from
the law commanding the remission of all debts in the seventh year.
We see here a difference made in our duties towards our fellow-men
between an Israelite and a stranger, but solely for the benefit of “the
stranger.” At present, when the original relation between the Israelite
and the stranger has ceased, the spirit of charity and justice towards
the stranger (נכרי) or non-Jew, which is the basis of this law, must
continue to regulate our intercourse with our neighbours, and if the
non-Jew would recognise the prohibition of taking interest as equally
binding upon him as upon the Jew, the latter would not be allowed to
take any kind of interest from a non-Jew. At all events, if any of our
co-religionists take this law as a pretext for imposing upon their
non-Jewish fellow-men, and injuring and ruining them by exorbitant
usury, they pervert alike the letter and the spirit of the Divine
command; they do not act in a Jewish spirit, and instead of being
members of a holy nation or the people of the Lord, they are guilty of
חלול השם, the profanation of the name of God, and do not deserve to
be honoured by the name of Jews.
Denunciations are sometimes levelled against the Jews, on account of
the misdeeds of some individuals, as cruel usurers. Those non-Jews who
would take the trouble of thoroughly studying Jews and Judaism would
soon discover the error and the baselessness of such denunciations.
Judaism has never sanctioned usury, but, on the contrary, always
condemned it. [40]
With regard to the property of our neighbour our Sages expressed the
following maxim:—
“There are four characters among men: he who says, ‘What is mine is
mine and what is thine is thine,’ his is a neutral character; some say
this is a character like that of Sodom; he who says, ‘What is mine is
thine and what is thine is mine’ is a boor; he who says ‘What is mine
is thine and what is thine is thine’ is a saint; he who says ‘What is
thine is mine and what is mine is mine’ is a wicked man” (Aboth v. 10).
We are not only commanded to abstain from injuring our neighbour with
regard to his property, but we are exhorted to protect it as far as
lies in our power. “If thou meetest the ox of thine enemy or his ass
going astray, bring it back to him” (Exod. xxiii. 4). “Thou shalt not
see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from
them: thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother” (Deut. xxii.
1). “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the
way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift
them up again” (ibid. ver. 4).
3. The Honour of our Fellow-man.—“Let the honour of thy fellow-man be
as dear to thee as thy own” (Aboth ii. 10). We are very sensitive about
our own honour; and many of us—nay, all right-minded persons—are more
anxious for the good name acquired through integrity of character than
for the safety of their property. We must be equally sensitive about
the honour of our fellow-man, and take good care lest we damage his
repute by falsehood, slander, or spreading evil reports in apparently
innocent gossip. An evil tongue (לשון הרע) is a serious failing from
which few are exempt; even if a person is not guilty of the sin of evil
speech, he does not entirely escape “the dust of the evil tongue”
(Babyl. Talm. B. Bathra 165a). Calumny, it is said, kills three—the
slanderer himself, him who listens, and the person spoken of. We
therefore add to the Amidah the words: “My God, guard my tongue from
evil, and my lips from speaking guile;” and in one of the Psalms we
read: “Who is the man that desireth life, and loveth days, that he may
see good? Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile”
(Ps. xxxiv. 13, 14).
Our Sages are very severe against those who attack the honour of their
fellow-men. In one passage it is said: “Whoever causes by offensive
words the face of his fellow-man to turn pale is almost guilty of
shedding blood” (Babyl. Talm. B. Metsia 58b). Another passage runs
thus: “Rather let a man throw himself into a furnace than publicly
offend his fellow-man” (ibid. 59a).
The Law does not only forbid the utterance of evil reports, but also
the encouragement given to the tale-bearer by listening to his stories.
“Thou shalt not take up a false report” (Exod. xxiii. 1). In the Book
of Proverbs the evil consequences of listening to slander are thus
depicted: “If a ruler hearkeneth to falsehood, all his servants are
wicked” (Prov. xxix. 12). “He who giveth heed to wicked lips causeth
evil-doing; he who giveth ear to a mischievous tongue feedeth lies”
(ibid. xvii. 4).
When we hear evil reports about our neighbour, we should try to defend
him; when we are convinced that he has done wrong, we must rebuke him,
lead him back to the right way, and not utterly reject him; we may
still find some redeeming feature in his character that makes it worth
our while to save him. Thus Joshua, the son of Perachjah, teaches us:
“Judge every man favourably” (Aboth i. 6); that is, if you are
uncertain as to a man’s faults, let him have the benefit of the doubt.
When we criticise our neighbour’s character—and idle gossip frequently
leads to this practice—we are too often inclined to dwell upon his weak
points—his vices—and to pass over his merits in silence; but we ought
to consider how little we should like to see the same treatment applied
to ourselves. Another fault of ours is to judge the doings of other
people without fully understanding all the circumstances and the causes
that led to such actions. Hillel said, “Do not judge thy neighbour
until thou hast come into his place;” that is, do not pass judgment
upon your neighbour before you are able to place yourself in his
position, and to say with certainty what, you would have done under the
same circumstances. The Law forbids us to use divers weights and divers
measures in our business transactions, lest we damage the property of
our neighbour; equally unlawful is the use of one kind of weights and
measures for weighing our own words and deeds, and another kind for
weighing the words and the deeds of others, to the injury of our
fellow-man’s name and repute. Contrary to the usage of courts of
justice, our neighbour’s words and deeds are generally reported by us,
interpreted, tried and condemned in his absence, when he is unable to
defend himself, to show his innocence, or to prove the falsehood of the
report, the error of the interpretation, and the injustice of the trial
and the condemnation.
The perversity of such conduct is evident, especially in the case of
the departed. The prohibition, “Thou shalt not curse the deaf” (Lev.
xix. 14) has been interpreted to apply to all kinds of slander about
those absent or dead. Our respect for the memory of the dead is
expressed in the Latin maxim, “De mortuis nil nisi bonum;” or in the
Hebrew, אחרי מות קדשים אמור [41] “After their death say of them
‘saints.’” Similar maxims are the following: “We must not refute the
lion after his death;” מיתה מכפרת “Death atones for all offences.”
4. The Well-being of our Fellow-man.—The duties expounded in the above
are of a negative character. The commandment, “Love thy neighbour as
thyself” implies also certain positive duties, which are comprehended
in the terms, צדקה and גמלות חסד “charity.”
The literal meaning of the term tsedakah is “righteousness,” but it
occurs also frequently in the sense of “charity;” and we may infer from
this that charity was to the Hebrew a mere act of righteousness. In the
Book of Daniel and in post-Biblical Hebrew tsedakah is “alms,” and
distinguished from gemilluth-chesed, “charity.” The former is given to
the poor; the latter to poor and rich alike: tsedakah, consisting of
money or things that can be purchased for money, is a duty chiefly
incumbent on the wealthier class; gemilluth-chesed, consisting of
personal acts of kindness, is a virtue that can be acquired and
practised by every one, whether he be poor or rich; and whilst tsedakah
can only be given to those that live, gemilluth-chesed can be shown
even to the departed. When Jacob asked his son for a burial in the cave
of Machpelah, he relied on his son’s חסד ואמת, “Kindness and truth;”
and the Midrash adds the remark, “Kindness shown to the dead is an act
of true love, as there can be no prospect of gratitude or repayment.”
The principal kinds of גמלות חסד are the following:—
(1.) בקור חולים Visiting the sick. [42] The object of the visit ought
to be to cheer up the sufferer by pleasant conversation, to assist him
by good advice, to render him any service that is wanted, to inspire
him with hope, and to strengthen his faith in God by the comforting
words of Scripture and by prayer.
(2.) הלוית המת “Accompanying the dead” to his last resting-place, and
doing everything that our love and regard for the departed requires.
Almost every Jewish community includes an association whose members
undertake to perform personally, as far as possible, these acts of
love. Such a society is generally called חברת גמלות חסדים
“Association for practising loving-kindness towards our fellow-men,” or
חברא קדישא “Holy Association;” that is, an association for a holy
object.
(3.) נחום אבלים Comforting the mourners, who find relief in the
conviction that their fellow-men have sympathy with them.
(4.) הבאת שלום בין אדם לחברו “Peace-making.”—War, whether carried on
between nations, or between parties, or between one individual and
another, is equally detestable; and all those who by their exertion and
intercession contribute to a diminution of warfare are engaged in
praiseworthy work. The principal prayers in our Liturgy conclude with a
petition for peace, and we look forward for the state of uninterrupted
peace, the Messianic time, as the most perfect condition of mankind.
Forbearance, a kind word, a judicious counsel, frequently averts the
great evil of strife and enmity.—Peace, harmony, and friendship are
best promoted by—
(5.) Judging favourably the deeds and words of our fellow-men. It is
not an easy task to correctly estimate the motives which guide our
neighbour in his actions, and in doing so we err frequently; but it is
better to err by over-estimating them; since this produces far less
harm than going astray in the other direction and speaking ill of
others without any justifiable cause. Conduct like this leads to peace
and happiness within and without. “Speaking peace to all his seed” is
the climax of the virtues praised in Mordecai, the Jew (Esther x. 3).
Charity (tsedakah) in its narrower sense, as a duty towards the poor,
includes—
(1.) Alms-giving to the poor for the purpose of alleviating temporary
suffering.
(2.) Providing for the comfort of the aged and sick, widows and
orphans.
(3.) Assisting the stranger. The Law lays special stress on this branch
of charity, and reminds us that we all have once been strangers in the
land of Egypt. Even in the various countries of which we have become
citizens, our forefathers, three or four generations back, were
strangers; and, besides, we are told by the Almighty, “Ye are strangers
and sojourners with me:” (Lev. xxv. 23). This kind of charity is known
by the name הכנסת אורחים
(4.) Support given to the poor towards obtaining a livelihood, by
procuring occupation for them, teaching them a trade and giving them a
start in it.
(5.) Providing for the religious and secular education of the children
of the poor.
(6.) Raising their intellectual, social, and moral condition by
personal intercourse with them, and by kind words of advice, comfort,
and encouragement.
(7.) Helping those who have gone astray and have fallen into vice or
crime to return to the path of virtue, industry, and righteousness.
There are generally associations formed for the various branches of
gemilluth-chesed, the number of which grows, especially in large towns,
with the increase of misery. It is our duty to support such
institutions, as combined action is in most cases more practical and
productive of good result. But the existence of public institutions,
and our support given to them, by no means exempt us from assisting
individually those who apply to us for help. We must be judicious in
our charitable acts, lest we nurse poverty and promote imposture. But,
on the other hand, we must not be over cautious, and must not unduly
suspect every applicant for assistance as guilty of idleness or other
vices, lest by refusal or hesitation to help we become guilty of
neglect, when by prompt action we might save from utter ruin a person
or a whole family well worthy of our sympathy. In this regard we are
warned by King Solomon: “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due,
when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy
neighbour, Go, and come again, and to-morrow I will give; when thou
hast it by thee” (Prov. iii. 27, 28).
(b.) Special Duties towards our Fellow-men.
1. Children towards their Parents.—“Honour thy father and thy mother”
is one of the Ten Words which God spoke to the Israelites on Mount
Sinai. The child honours his parents by considering them as his
superiors, as endowed with authority over him, and entitled by
experience to be his guides and instructors; by listening respectfully
when they speak to him, and by speaking with reverence when he speaks
of or to them.
The love of parents towards their child should find an echo in the
heart of the latter.
The child’s love of his parents finds expression in willing, cheerful
obedience; in the endeavour to do everything that pleases them, in the
sacrifice made for the purpose of giving them pleasure, in the
assistance given them when, through age, sickness, or misfortune, they
are in need of aid.
The parents’ duty towards the child is to do everything that true love
demands, for his physical, moral, and intellectual well-being.
With regard to the child’s duty towards his parents the following
verses from Proverbs may be noticed:—
“The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his
mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young
eagles shall eat it” (xxx. 17).
“Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no
transgression, the same is the companion of a destroyer” (xxviii.
24).
“Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out
in obscure darkness” (xx. 20).
“He that wasteth his father and chaseth away his mother is a son
that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach” (xix. 26).
“The glory of children are their fathers” (xvii. 6).
2. All other special duties towards our fellow-men may be divided into
(i.) Duties towards our equals; (ii.) Duties towards our superiors and
towards our inferiors.
(I.) DUTIES TOWARDS OUR EQUALS.
(1.) A bond of friendship frequently exists between equals.
Friends have certain duties to fulfil towards each other. It is
expected that friends should have faith in their mutual friendship. “As
in water face answereth to face, so in the heart man answereth to man”
(Prov. xxvii. 19). As the water reflects the face of him who looks into
it, so the heart of man reflects the friendship and faithfulness of him
who has penetrated into it. Our estimation of our friend’s feeling
toward us is the measure of the genuineness and value of our own
friendship towards him.
Disinterestedness is an essential condition of genuine friendship.
Every service we render to our friend must be prompted by the desire to
be of use to him. and not to advance our own interest. If any other
motive enters our mind, if we speculate on his gratitude, and think
that our kindness must eventually be returned with interest, we have no
knowledge or feeling of friendship. Thus our Sages declare, “Friendship
dictated by a selfish motive comes to an end together with the
speculation; but friendship which is not based on any selfish motive
comes never to an end. An instance of the first kind is the friendship
between Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam. xiii.); of the second kind, the
friendship between David and Jonathan (1 Sam. xviii.)” (Aboth v. 16).
Friends bound to each other by genuine and sincere love find great
pleasure in the fulfilment of the duties involved in friendship. They
do not hesitate to bring sacrifices for each other’s well-being; they
evince heartfelt sympathy for each other in good and evil fortune.
All the duties of charity—gemilluth chesed—which we owe to our
fellow-men in general, apply with increased force when our fellow-man
is also our friend. One of these duties demands our special attention,
because it is frequently neglected through human weakness: truthfulness
and openness. Flattery, objectionable as it is in every case, is most
detestable between friends. We must encourage our friends by kind
words, and acknowledge their merits, but we must not spoil them by
undue flattery. If, on the other hand, we discover errors or vices in
our friend, it is our duty to communicate to him openly our opinion,
and to do all that is in our power to bring him back to the path of
righteousness and truth. “Thou shalt surely rebuke thy friend, and not
suffer sin upon him” (Lev. xix. 17).
Friendship is mostly formed without premeditation, and without any aim;
we are friends, we do not know how and why; some similarity in our
character, in our talents, in our views, in our successes and failures,
or in our fortunes and misfortunes, draws us together, and we become
friends before we are aware of the fact. But as far as we have control
over our feelings we ought to be careful not to plunge into friendship
without knowing something of the character and the tendencies of those
with whom we are to associate ourselves in such close relationship. In
Proverbs we are told, “Make no friendships with an angry man, and with
a furious man thou shalt not go” (xxii. 24). Ben-sira (vi. 6) exhorts
us, “If thou wouldst get a friend, prove him first, and be not hasty to
credit him.” Our Sages say, “It is easy to make an enemy; it is
difficult to make a friend” (Yalkut on Deut. vi. 16).
The acquisition of a true friend is by no means an easy task. But it is
a task that cannot be dispensed with. Persons who enjoy a life spent in
loneliness uncheered by friendship are exceptions to the rule; such a
life is miserable, and the climax of all the evils complained of by
Heman the Ezrahite (Ps. lxxxviii. 19) is: “Lover and friend hast thou
put far from me, and darkness is mine acquaintance.” Job in his great
sufferings longs for “the love which is shown to the unhappy by his
friend” (Job vi. 14).
Friendship being one of our most valuable possessions, it must be well
guarded and cultivated, lest it be lost or weakened. “Thine own friend
and thy father’s friend, forsake not” (Prov. xxvii. 10). “Let thy foot
be seldom in thy friend’s house, lest he be weary of thee, and so hate
thee” (ibid. xxv. 17).
True friendship can be extended only to a few; but those who are not
our friends need not be our enemies. They are all our fellow-men, and
our conduct towards them is to be guided by the principle, “Love thy
fellow-man as thyself.” We are distinctly commanded, “Thou shalt not
hate thy brother in thine heart” (Lev. xix. 18), “brother” having here
the same meaning as fellow-man. Enmity, like friendship, comes
frequently unawares; we dislike or even hate a person without knowing
why. But it is our duty, as soon as such an ill-feeling has stolen into
our heart, to search for its origin; and this being done, we shall
generally feel ashamed of having allowed our heart to be invaded by
such an unworthy intruder. We must keep away from evil-doers, and not
associate with wicked people; but this is a very different thing from
hating our neighbour. The pious wish, “May sinners cease to exist, and
the wicked be no more” (Ps. civ. 35), is explained in the Talmud in the
words of Beruria, daughter of Rabbi Meir, as follows: “May sins cease
to exist, and the wicked will be no more.” We often conceive just
indignation at the misdeeds of our neighbours, and cannot well separate
the doer from the deed. But we ought in such cases of indignation to
examine ourselves, whether the source of our indignation is pure, or
has its root in selfishness. Such an analysis of our motives would soon
purify our heart of all ill-feeling.
In our conduct towards those whom we consider our enemies, or who
consider us their enemies, we must show forbearance and a desire to
offer or to seek forgiveness, according as we are the doers or the
sufferers of wrong. Self-love and self-esteem, if not kept within due
limits, easily produce feelings of revenge. Without entirely
suppressing human nature, we are bound to control our feelings, and to
let love of our fellow-men in all conditions occupy the first place in
our heart. We are taught by our Sages, “He who is forbearing, receives
also pardon for his sins” (Babyl. Talm. Yoma 23a); “Be of the
persecuted, and not of the persecutors” (ibid. Baba Kama 93a); “To
those who being offended do not offend, being insulted do not insult,
the verse applies: ‘And they who love him shall be as the sun when he
goeth forth in his might’” (Judges v. 31; Babyl. Talm. Shabbath 88b).
(2.) Man and wife are united by the holy bond of marriage. They owe to
each other love, faithfulness, confidence, and untiring endeavour to
make each other happy. The neglect of these duties turns a happy home
into an abode of misery and wretchedness. [43] The last of the
prophets, Malachi, rebuking such neglect, says: “The Lord hath been
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast
dealt treacherously, yet is she thy companion and the wife of thy
covenant.”
(3.) As citizens of a State we must take our proper share in all work
for the welfare of the State. When the State is in danger we must
evince patriotism, and must not withdraw ourselves from those duties
which, under such circumstances, devolve upon every citizen. All our
means, our physical and intellectual faculties, must be at the disposal
of the country in which we live as citizens. Thus Jeremiah exhorts his
brethren in Babylonia: “Build ye houses and dwell in them; and plant
gardens, and eat the fruit of them; ... and seek the peace of the city
whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto
the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall you have peace” (Jer.
xxix. 5, 7). Similarly we are taught, “Pray for the welfare of the
government” (Aboth iii. 2). [44]
An important dictum of Samuel, a Rabbi famous for his decisions in
questions of civil law, is accepted in the Talmud as law: “The law of
the State is binding upon us,” דינא דמלכותא דינא (Babyl. Talm. Baba
Kamma 113a). It is, according to the teaching of the Talmud, incumbent
upon us, as citizens of the State, to obey the laws of the country.
There is no difference between Jews and their fellow-citizens with
regard to the duty of loyalty. It is only in case of an attempt to
force us aside from our religion that we are not only justified in
resisting and disobeying laws framed with this intention, but we are
commanded to do so. But in the absence of such intention, we must
fulfil all those duties which devolve upon all citizens alike—such as
military service in countries that have general conscription—although
such obedience may carry with it a breach of some of the laws of our
religion. On the contrary, evasion and desertion of all national
obligations is a serious offence against our holy Law.
(4.) As members of the same religious community, we must unite in
working for the well-being of the whole body. “Do not separate thyself
from the congregation” (Aboth ii. 4) is a principle taught by the great
Hillel. A Jew who violates this principle, and keeps aloof from his
brethren, unwilling to take his share of the communal burdens, is
guilty of a serious dereliction of duty, and is set forth in the Talmud
as an example of most disgraceful conduct. “When your brethren are in
trouble, do not say, ‘I have my home, my food and drink; I am safe.’ If
you ever were to think so, the words of the prophet would apply to you:
‘Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till you die’.” “He
who does not join the community in times of danger and trouble will
never enjoy the Divine blessing” (Babyl. Talm. Taanith, p. 11a); “He
who separates from the ways of the community has no portion of the
world to come,” הפורש מדרכי צבור אין לו חלק לעולם הבא (Maim.,
Mishneh-torah, Hilchoth Teshubah iii. 6).
(5.) As to members of another community, we have to show due regard for
their religious convictions, and not to wound their feelings in respect
of anything they hold sacred. Respect for the religious feelings of our
fellow-men will increase their regard for our own religion, and evoke
in them the same consideration for our religious feelings. All our
duties towards our fellow-men are equally binding upon us whether in
relation to members of ether faiths or of our own.
(6.) Employers and employed, sellers and buyers, must act towards each
other with the strictest honesty. In cases of dispute a friendly
explanation or discussion is more likely to promote the interest of
both parties than mutual animosity. Each party must bear in mind that
prosperity depends on the co-operation of the other party, and not on
its ruin.
Note.—We meet in the Talmud and works based on the Talmud with dicta
which seem at first sight to exclude Gentiles (עכו״ם, נכרי or
גוי) from our duty of love towards our fellow-men. This, however, was
never intended. Sayings of this kind originated in days of warfare
between the oppressor and the oppressed, and were an outburst of
feelings of pain and anger, caused by an enemy who was not restrained
from tyranny and cruelty by any sense of justice and humanity. But this
state of affairs has ceased, and such sayings have since entirely lost
their force and meaning, and are practically forgotten. Some of these
passages have been removed from the Talmudical works by hostile
censors; but having led, and being still likely to lead, to errors or
misunderstanding, less on the part of Jews than of non-Jewish readers,
they ought to be eliminated in future editions of any of these works by
Jewish censors, especially as the notices on the first page of the
books, that the terms גוי, עכו״ם or נכרי do not apply to our
non-Jewish neighbours at the present day, appear to have proved
ineffectual against calumny and persecution.
(II.) DUTIES TO OUR SUPERIORS AND INFERIORS.
Although we are all equally children of one God, and before the Most
High all our petty differences disappear, His infinite wisdom willed it
that there should be a certain degree of inequality among His
creatures; that some men should be wise, others simple; some talented,
others less skilful; some strong, others weak; some high, others low;
some imperious, others submissive; some rulers, others subjects; some
fit to guide, and others only fit to be guided. This inequality is the
source of certain special duties between man and man. “Be submissive to
your superior, agreeable to your inferior, and cheerful to every one”
(Aboth iii. 12).
(1.) The teacher who patiently strives to benefit his pupils by his
instruction and counsel has a just claim on their respect. It is in the
interest of the pupils themselves to regard their teacher as a friend,
to have confidence in him, and faith in his superiority. It is
themselves they benefit most if they lighten the labours of their
teacher by due attention and obedience, and themselves they injure
most, if by want of proper respect they render his task difficult and
disagreeable.
On the other hand, it is the duty of the teacher to try to win the
respect and the affection of the pupils by conscientiousness in his
work, by patience and forbearance, by kindness and justice, by genuine
interest in the progress and welfare of those entrusted to his care,
and, above all, by a pure, good, and noble life.—The pupils owe much to
their teachers, but the latter also owe something to their disciples.
“Much have I learnt from my teachers, more from my fellow-students,
most from my pupils,” is a well-known Talmudical saying (Babyl. Talm.
Taanith 7a). Of the priest, who in ancient time used to be the
principal teacher, the prophet Malachi says: “The priest’s lips shall
keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth; for he is the
messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Mal. ii. 7). Rabbi Jochanan, in
commenting on these words, said, “If the teacher is like the messenger
of the Lord, i.e., leads a pure life in the service of the Lord, then
people shall seek instruction at his mouth; if not, they cannot be
instructed by him in the Law” (Yalkut ad locum).—“Let the honour of thy
disciple be as dear to thee as thy own, and the honour of thy colleague
as dear as the fear of thy teacher, and the fear of thy teacher as dear
as the fear of Heaven” (Aboth iv. 15).—“He who has been taught
something by his neighbour, whether it be a chapter, a law, a verse, a
phrase, or a letter, owes him respect. Thus David, who only learnt two
things from Ahitophel, called him ‘teacher, chief, and friend’” (ibid.
vi. 3).
Reverence is shown by a pupil to his teacher, not only by outward signs
of respect, but also by refraining from opposing him, his teaching, or
his decisions (Maimonides I. Hilchoth Talmud torah v. 1). A pupil who
altogether relinquishes the teaching of his master is to the latter a
source of intense grief.—Among the outward signs of regard for the
teacher we find the ancient custom or rule to pay a visit to the
teacher on the three festivals: Passover, Feast of Weeks, and
Tabernacles (ibid. v. 7).
(2.) Master and Servant.—The relation between master and servant is
legally regulated by the same rules as that between employer and
employed. Strict honesty in the fulfilment of the duties undertaken by
either party is the basis of a good understanding between master and
servant. The former must not exact from the latter more than was agreed
upon, and the latter must not fail to perform all that he has
undertaken to do. The relation between master and servant can be made
more pleasant on both sides, if they are sensible enough to recognise
their mutual obligations. On the part of the master, it is necessary
that he should consider his servant as a human being like himself, who
has a right to expect due reward for faithful service. A treatment of
the servant from this point of view inspires him with a feeling of
regard and attachment for his master, which finds expression in good
and honest service. The servant will feel comfortable in his work, and
be convinced that to be a servant is no degradation.—“Thou shalt not
defraud an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy
brethren or of thy strangers that are in the land within thy gates”
(Deut. xxiv. 14).
(3.) Rich and Poor.—“The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the
maker of them all” (Prov. xxii. 2). Those who are fortunate enough to
possess more than is wanted for the necessities of life, are expected
to spend part of the surplus in relieving those who possess less than
they require for their maintenance. Sympathy towards the poor and needy
is the duty of the rich; gratitude towards the generous and benevolent
is the duty of the poor. But the rich must by no means make their gifts
dependent on the signs of gratitude on the part of the poor; they must
even avoid eliciting expressions of thanks, as these lead too often to
flattery, hypocrisy, and servility. The rich find ample reward for
their benevolence in the joyous feeling that Providence has chosen them
as the means of diminishing the sufferings, the troubles, and the cares
of some of their fellow-men.
(4.) The following have a just claim on our respect:—
Learned Men (תלמידי חכמים), who, even if not directly our teachers,
in many ways benefit us by their learning. “It is a great sin to
despise or to hate the wise: Jerusalem has chiefly been destroyed as a
punishment for the contempt shown for the learned; as it is said (2
Chron. xxxvi. 16), ‘They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his
words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose
against his people till there was no remedy’” (Maimonides, l. c. vi.
11). “He who despises talmide-chachamim,” says Rab, “has no remedy for
his disease” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath, 119b), and belongs to those who
forfeit their portion in the world to come (אין להם חלק לעולם הבא,
ibid., Sanhedrin 90).
The Aged.—“Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the
face of the old man, and fear thy God” (Lev. xix. 32). The Bible
illustrates, in the history of Rehoboam (1 Kings xii.), the evil
consequences of the contempt shown by this king to the words of the old
men.—“With the ancient is wisdom, and in length of days understanding”
(Job xii. 12). “The building of the young is destruction; the
destruction of the old is building” (B. T. Megillah 31b). [45]
Great men who have accomplished great works in the interest of mankind,
and have thus merited the gratitude of all.
The great men of our nation, their works and the institutions founded
by them at various periods of our history. “Do not despise thy mother,
though she hath become old” (Prov. xxiii. 22). The feeling of piety and
reverence towards our Sages and Teachers of former generations, and
towards institutions of ancient times that have come down to us, is an
essential element in our inner religion (חובות הלבבות).
The magistrates, judges, and statesmen, who devote their time, their
talents, and their energy to promoting the well-being of the State.
The Head of the State.—“Fear the Lord, O my son, and the king, and do
not mix with rioters” (Prov. xxiv. 21).
(C.) KINDNESS TO ANIMALS.
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. i. 28 and
ix. 2, &c.; comp. Ps. viii. 7, &c.). Thus spake the Creator to the
first man. He gave him a right to make use of the animals for his
benefit; and man makes the animals work for him; they serve him as
food, provide him with clothing and other necessary or useful things.
In return for all these services the animals ought to be treated with
kindness and consideration. It is a necessity to force certain beasts
to work for us, and to kill certain animals for various purposes. But
in doing so we must not cause more pain than is absolutely necessary.
It is a disgraceful act to give pain to animals merely for sport, and
to enjoy their agony. Bullfights and similar spectacles are barbarous,
and tend to corrupt and brutalise the heart of man. The more we abstain
from cruelty to animals, the more noble and loving is our conduct
likely to be to one another. “A righteous man regardeth the feelings of
his beast, but the heart of the wicked is cruel” (Prov. xii. 10).
The following are instances of kindness to animals enjoined in the
Pentateuch:—
“Ye shall not kill an animal and its young on one day” (Lev. xxii. 28).
“If a bird’s nest happen to be before thee on the way upon the earth or
upon a tree, with young ones or eggs, thou shalt not take the mother
with the young. Let the mother go away; then thou mayest take the young
ones, in order that it may be well with thee, and thy days be long”
(Deut. xxii. 6, 7).
“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” (ibid.
xxv. 4).
In the Talmud we have the following saying in the name of Rab:—“We must
not begin our meal before having given food to our cattle; for it is
said, ‘And I will give you grass in thy field for thy cattle,’ and
after that ‘thou shalt eat and be full’” (Deut. xi. 15; Babyl. Talm.
40a).
C.—DUTIES TO OURSELVES.
Our duties to ourselves are to a great extent included in our duties
towards God and towards our fellow-men, because these likewise tend to
promote our own well-being.
The fundamental principle of our duties towards ourselves is to make
the best use of the gifts which the kindness of God has bestowed upon
us.
1. Life and health are precious gifts received by us at the hands of
Divine Providence. We must therefore guard them as valuable treasures,
and must not endanger them without absolute necessity. On the contrary,
as much as lies in our power, we must improve our health and preserve
our life. Food and bodily enjoyment, however pleasant for the moment,
must be let alone if they are injurious to health. If we find ourselves
inclined to exceed the right measure in the enjoyment of a thing, it is
advisable to turn, for a while at least, to the other extreme and avoid
that enjoyment altogether. Thus persons that are easily misled to
excess in drink should become total abstainers from drink. But in
ordinary cases the golden mean is preferable, especially for us Jews
who are trained by the Dietary Laws, and by other precepts, to have
control over our appetites. We are not commanded to be ascetics and to
lead a gloomy, miserable life. On the contrary, we are frequently told
in the Pentateuch, “And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God.” The
Psalmist exhorts us to “serve the Lord with gladness; to come before
his presence with singing” (Ps. c. 2). “He who doeth good to his own
soul is a man of love; and he who troubleth his own flesh is a cruel
man” (Prov. xi. 17); i.e., he who does good to himself is of a cheerful
disposition, and is likely to do good to others; but he who deprives
himself of enjoyments is often also cruel to his fellow-creatures. The
Nazirite had to bring a sin-offering after the expiration of the period
of his vow. “What sin has he committed?” was asked. The answer is given
in the Talmud by Samuel: “Because he deprived himself of wine;” and the
Rabbi further infers from this, that it is prohibited to impose a
voluntary fast upon oneself. Rabbi Eleazar, however, thinks that the
vow of a Nazirite is a praiseworthy act, and his view found many
followers, especially in the Middle Ages. Abraham Ibn Ezra, e.g.,
explains that the sin of the Nazirite consists in not prolonging the
state of Naziritism. But, however different their opinions may be
theoretically, all agree that no voluntary fast should be undertaken,
if it endangers the health of the faster, changes cheerfulness into
sadness, and disables him from doing necessary or useful work.
2. Wealth, if acquired in an honest manner, by hard work, is conducive
to our well-being. But in our search for wealth we must bear in mind
that it is not an end in itself, but serves only as a means of securing
our well-being. Koheleth tells us, what experience endorses, that there
are “riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt” (Eccles. v. 12).
It is true we must struggle for the means of our existence. But in the
struggle for wealth we must not entirely suppress the claims of our
moral and intellectual wants, and if we were to suppress them, we
should only work for our own ruin. “Two things have I required of thee;
deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies; give
me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:
lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord? or lest I be
poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain” (Prov. xxx. 7–9).
To this golden mean we should adhere. It is our duty to seek an honest
livelihood, but we are told, “Labour not to be rich: cease from thine
own wisdom” (Prov. xxiii. 4). One of the various duties of parents
towards their children is to take good care that they learn a trade,
and “he who does not teach his son a trade,” say our Sages, “is as
guilty as if he directly taught him to rob” (Babyl. Talm. Kiddushin, p.
29a).
There is an erroneous opinion abroad, that commerce is more congenial
to Judaism than handicraft. In our Law no trace of such preference is
noticeable; on the contrary, agriculture was the principal occupation
of the Israelites. “When thou eatest the labour of thine hands, happy
art thou, and it is well with thee” (Ps. cxxviii. 2). “Love work, and
hate lordship” is a well-known lesson of the sayings of the Fathers
(Aboth i. 10). Bible and post-Biblical literature equally teach us the
lesson that our comfort and happiness do not depend on the amount of
wealth we have amassed, but on the degree of contentment our heart has
acquired. “Sweet is the sleep of the labourer, whether he eat little or
much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep”
(Eccles. v. 11).
Industry is one of the sources of human happiness; but the blessing of
industry is easily lost, if it is not combined with thrift and
temperance. In days of prosperity we must bear in mind that days of
misfortune may come; we must, so far as we can, provide for them, so
that we may be able to hold out “till the storm has passed.” Temperance
is inseparable from thrift and industry. Intemperance not only consumes
the products of thrift and industry, but in course of time destroys
these very sources of our prosperity. Even with regard to Sabbath, in
honour of which some degree of comfort and even of luxury may be
indulged in, the principle is laid down: “Treat thy Sabbath like an
ordinary day, if additional expense is likely to make thee dependent on
charity” (Babyl. Talm. Shabbath 118a).
3. Knowledge.—God has made man “a little lower than the angels, and has
crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. viii. 6); He has endowed him
with the faculty of acquiring knowledge: “There is a spirit in man, and
an inspiration of the Almighty, that gives him understanding” (Job
xxxii. 8). It is our duty to cultivate this faculty, to nurse it with
all possible care, that it may grow, produce beautiful blossoms, and
bear goodly fruit. The training must begin very early, at an age in
which we are entirely dependent on the assistance and guidance of
others. Parents, to whom the Almighty has entrusted the care of their
children, are therefore commanded to provide for their education; and
as parents are not always capable of doing this, the duty devolves on
the community or on the State. Every civilised country has its schools,
colleges, and seminaries for the development of the intellectual and
moral faculties of its inhabitants, and as these institutions increase
in number and efficiency, the prosperity of the nation grows in like
proportion. But the success of these educational institutions, however
well provided they may be with an excellent teaching staff and the best
appliances, depends on the regular and punctual attendance of the
children, their attention, and their industry. It is the duty of
parents to see, as far as it is in their power, that these conditions
be fulfilled. Among the various branches of knowledge we seek to
acquire, there is one branch of paramount importance, the absence of
which would make all other knowledge valueless: it is—
4. Moral and Religious Training.—“The fear of the Lord is the beginning
of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and correction” (חכמה ומוסר Prov.
i. 7). The author of the Book of Proverbs teaches that knowledge must
be combined with יראת השם “fear of God;” and that it is a perverse
idea to separate wisdom (חכמה) from moral training (מוסר), and to
seek knowledge (דעת) without the fear of the Lord (יראת ה׳). Our
Sages teach us that our training should include both fear of God and
wisdom. “If there is no wisdom, there is no fear of God; and in the
absence of the latter there is no wisdom” (Aboth iii. 17). Fear of the
Lord, however, and fear of sin must have precedence. Rabbi Chanina, son
of Dosa, says: “If a man’s wisdom is preceded by fear of sin, his
wisdom is well established; if the fear of sin is preceded by wisdom,
his wisdom is not well established” (ibid. 9).
The result of our training must be the acquisition of good manners and
noble principles. Avoid extremes, and hold to the golden mean, is an
excellent rule that leads us safely through the various conditions of
life and wards off many troubles and dangers. The following examples
may serve as an illustration of this rule: Do not ignore your own self;
let self-love and self-respect influence your conduct; but these must
not be allowed to develop into selfishness and arrogance. Look after
your own interests, but do not consider them as the supreme rulers of
your actions. Be self-reliant, and keep equally far from self-conceit
and self-distrust. Haughtiness and self-contempt are extremes to be
avoided: be modest. When wronged or insulted by your neighbour, be
neither callous nor over-sensitive; ignore insult and wrong in most
cases, forgive them readily in others, and resent them only when forced
to do so. In disputes and discussions be neither weak nor obstinate: be
firm. Be neither passionate nor indifferent: be calm. Do not trust
every one, lest your credulity mislead you; do not suspect every one,
lest you become misanthropic: be discreet. Do not seek danger, nor fear
it; but be prepared to meet it with courage. Be temperate in eating and
drinking, and avoid both excess and needless privation. In spending
your earnings show neither niggardliness nor recklessness: be
economical. Work, but not in such a manner as to ruin your health. As
to your future, be neither too sanguine in your hopes, nor despondent:
do your duty, and trust in God.
There are, however, exceptions from this rule; for in certain cases
there is only the choice between two extremes. Such is Truthfulness. It
is our duty to approach nearer and nearer the extreme of this virtue,
and to consider the least deviation from it as vice. From our earliest
youth we should train ourselves in the practice of this virtue. Every
word that we desire to utter should be well examined before it passes
our lips. We must be on our guard that nothing should escape our lips
that is not in harmony with what we feel or think. In small matters as
well as in important things truthfulness must be the principle which
guides us in our utterances. “The lips of truth shall be established
for ever, but for a moment only the tongue of falsehood” (Prov. xii.
19). “Keep thee far from a word of falsehood” (Exod. xxiii. 7).
“Falsehood,” say our Sages, “has no legs to stand upon; whilst ‘truth’
is declared to be the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He” (אמת חותמו
של הקב״ה).
Our moral and religious training is based on the Word of God, on the
Torah, and the study of the Torah, חלמוד תורה, is an essential
element in Jewish education. The term Torah is to be understood in no
narrow sense, but as including the written and the oral Law, all the
books of the Holy Writings, and such works as have from time to time
been composed for the purpose of facilitating and promoting the study
of the Torah. The importance of this duty has been recognised from
ancient times, and Jewish congregations, before building a synagogue,
made provision for the religious education of the young and for the
study of the Law, by establishing schools and colleges (בית ספר or
בי רב and בית המדרש).
Talmud-torah is one of those duties to which no measure was fixed (אשר
אין להם שיעור Mishnah Peah i. 1). Whenever we can find time and
leisure, we ought to turn to the Word of God, every one according to
his capacity and his opportunities. The readings from the Torah, both
the written and the oral, which form part of our Service, have been
introduced for the purpose of facilitating for the general public the
fulfilment of the duty of Talmud-torah.
The study of the Law and the regular and punctual attendance at the
Beth-hammidrash belong to those religious acts which “bear fruit here
on earth and procure bliss in the future life” (ibid.). Our Sages
exhort us in various sayings to devote ourselves earnestly to the study
of the Torah. The object of this study is, in the first instance, to
enable us to live in accordance with His Commandments; secondly, to
purify our thoughts by turning them from common, ordinary things to
higher and loftier subjects; for while we are reading the Divine
messages and reflecting on them, we move in a purer atmosphere and must
be inspired with holy and noble thoughts.
The book which is expected to produce these results must be approached
“with awe, with meekness, with cheerfulness, and with purity” (Aboth
vi. 6). Our intention must be to be instructed and guided by what we
read. We must not presume to criticise the Divine decrees therein
recorded. If we meet with passages that strike us as strange or
objectionable, we may be sure that we have not yet comprehended the
true sense of the Divine words. Modesty must cause us rather to assume
shortcomings on our part than to find fault with the Holy Writings.
“Turn it over, and read it again and again; for all is in it, and
behold everything through it; and even when old and weak, cleave to it,
and do not move away from it; for there is no better guide for thee
than this one” (Aboth v. 22). There is one great advantage in the study
of the Torah; it constantly supplies us with one of the best means of
promoting our moral training, viz., with good company.
The society in which we move and the persons with whom we associate are
an important factor in the formation of our character. Bad companions
corrupt us, and lead us to ruin; good companions improve our moral
conduct by their example and not rarely by their words. “If one joins
mockers, he will be a mocker; if he joins the lowly, he will show
grace” (Prov. iii. 34). “Keep away from a bad neighbour; do not
associate with the wicked, and do not believe thyself safe from evil”
(Aboth i. 7). In our daily prayers we ask God for His assistance in our
endeavour to act according to this principle.
The aim and end of all our moral training must be to keep our mind pure
from evil thoughts, to make our heart the seat of noble and lofty
desires; to accustom our tongue to the utterance of that which is good
and true, and to lead a pure, honourable, and godly life. If we
succeed, we establish our well-being during our life on earth, and
secure Divine blessing for our soul in the future world.
III. SIGNS AS OUTWARD REMINDERS OF GOD’S PRESENCE.
The voice that comes from within, from our own heart and conscience, is
the best reminder of God’s Presence and Will. But it does not always
sound with sufficient force to make itself heard, and we, weak mortals,
have the weakness of forgetting even most important duties, unless we
are reminded of them from time to time. The Divine Law has therefore
set up signs as outward reminders. Such are the commandments of ציצת
“fringe,” תפלין “ornaments,” and מזוזה “door-post symbol.”
ציצת “Fringe” or “Tassel.”
“Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four corners of thy vesture,
wherewith thou coverest thyself” (Deut. xxii. 12). The object of this
commandment is described as follows:—“It shall be unto you for a
fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of
the Lord, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart and
your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray: that ye may remember
and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God” (Num. xv. 39,
40).
In obedience to this commandment, we have two kinds of four-cornered
garments provided with “fringes.” The one is small, and is worn under
the upper garments the whole day; it is called arba’ kanfoth, “four
corners,” or talith katan, “small scarf.” The other and larger one is
worn over the garments during the Morning Service. [46] It is called
simply talith, “scarf,” or talith gadol, “large scarf.”
The form of the blessing which accompanies the performance of this
mitsvah varies according as it refers to the small talith or to the
large one. In the former case the blessing concludes with על מצות
ציצת “concerning the commandment of tsitsith;” in the latter with
להתעטף בציצת, “to wrap ourselves with a garment provided with
tsitsith.” [47]
The tsitsith, which is appended to each of the four corners, consists
of four long threads drawn through a small hole about an inch from the
corner; the two parts of the threads are bound together by a double
knot; the largest thread—called shammash, “the servant”—is then wound
seven, eight, eleven, and thirteen times round the other seven halves
of the four threads, and after each set of windings a double knot is
made.—If one of the four tsitsith is not in order, e.g., two of the
threads being torn off, the talith is called pasul, “disqualified” for
the mitsvah, and must not be worn till that tsitsith is replaced by a
new one.
There is, however, an important element in this Divine commandment,
which is now altogether neglected, viz., “And they shall put upon the
fringe of the corner a thread of תכלת purple blue wool” (Num. xv.
38). Tradition determined the exact shade of the purple blue indicated
by the term תכלת; in the Talmud (Menachoth 42b) the various ways of
its preparation are given. But the colour seems to have been rare, and
we are warned against using imitations of techeleth. Regulations were
also made providing for the case when techeleth could not be obtained.
The natural white colour was then substituted, and no other colour was
allowed. After the conclusion of the Talmud doubts seem to have arisen
as regards the exact shade of the purple blue demanded by the Divine
precept in the term תכלת, and thus the use of the thread of purple
blue wool gradually ceased to form part of the tsitsith. The exact time
when it ceased cannot be fixed.
תפלין [48] “Ornaments.”
Four times the Law repeats the commandment concerning the tefillin:
“And thou shalt bind them”—the words of God—“for a sign upon thy hand,
and they shall be for a frontlet between thine eyes” (Deut. vi. 8 and
xi. 18); “And it shall be unto thee for a sign upon thy hand, and for a
memorial between thine eyes, in order that the Law of the Lord be in
thy mouth” (Exod. xiii. 9); “And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand,
and for a frontlet between thine eyes” (ibid. 16).
The object of this commandment is to direct our thoughts to God and His
goodness, and to remind us of the important lessons taught in the
following four paragraphs, in which the commandment of tefillin is
mentioned:—
(1.) The first paragraph (קדש Exod. xiii. 1–10) teaches that we must,
in various ways, express our belief in God as the King and Ruler of the
universe. Two laws are contained in this paragraph which are to serve
this object—the sanctification of the first-born to the service of the
Lord, and the celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes.
(2.) The second paragraph (והיה כי יביאך Exod. xiii. 11–16) reminds
us of the wonderful way in which God delivered our forefathers from
Egyptian bondage. Remembering this deliverance, we are strengthened in
our faith in God in days of trouble, for His ways are not ours, and
when we do not see any prospect of relief God may be preparing help for
us.
(3.) The third paragraph (שמע Deut. vi. 4–9) proclaims the Unity of
God, and teaches us to love God and obey Him out of love.
(4.) The fourth paragraph (והיה אם שמע Deut. xi. 13–20) teaches that
Providence deals with men according to their merits, according as each
deserves reward or punishment.
Tradition has handed down to us the way in which this precept is to be
carried out. The four above-mentioned paragraphs are written twice on
parchment, once on one piece, and once on four pieces, each piece
containing one paragraph. The two sets are put into two leather cases
(בית), one of which is divided into four compartments, for the four
separate slips of parchment, and marked outside by the letter shin.
[49] Through a loop attached to each bayith a leather strap (רצועה)
is passed, the two parts of which are tied together [50] in such a
manner as to hold the bayith on the arm or on the head. On the arm the
case is placed that contains the four paragraphs written on one piece,
on the head that which contains them written on four pieces. The former
is called tefillah shel yad, “tefillin of the hand;” the latter
tefillah shel rosh, “the tefillin of the head.”
The tefillin are put on in the following way:—(1.) Tefillah shel rosh.
The case is placed in front, just over the forehead in the middle, and
the knot of the straps (קשר) on the back of the head over the middle
of the neck; the remainder of the two straps hang down in front, one on
each side. (2.) Tefillah shel yad. The case containing the parchment is
placed on the inner side of the left upper arm, near the elbow; the
knot is kept near it, and the strap is twisted seven times round the
arm and three times round the middle finger; there are, however,
different customs with regard to this latter practice.
Tefillah shel yad is put on first, being mentioned first in the Divine
precept. The reverse order is observed in taking off the tefillin.
Originally the tefillin were worn all day long, [51] but at present
they are worn only during the morning prayer.
The tefillin are not worn on Sabbath or Festival. The observance of
these days is “a sign for ever” of our belief “that in six days the
Lord made the heavens and the earth.” The very days of rest thus remind
us of the truths of which the tefillin are “a sign.” The tefillin
became, therefore, unnecessary on those days.
The commandment of tefillin applies to all male persons from their
thirteenth birthday. [52]
The performance of this commandment is preceded by the usual
benediction (ברכת המצות), concluding להניח תפלין, “to place the
tefillin,” scil., on the arm and on the head. According to the German
rite, a second benediction is recited before placing the tefillah shel
rosh on the head, viz., על מצות תפלין, “concerning the commandment of
tefillin.” [53]
In order to prevent a mere perfunctory observance of this commandment,
we are taught to reflect on the importance and the object of the
tefillin, and to declare that by placing the tefillin on the head and
on the arm, near the heart, we indicate our consciousness of the duty
to employ the thoughts that rise in our mind, and the desires of our
heart, in the service of the Lord, who gave us the powers of thought
and will. [54]
מזוּזה Door-post Symbol.
The Mezuzah is a piece of parchment on which the two first paragraphs
of Shema (Deut. vi. 4–9, xi. 13–20) are written. The parchment is
rolled together, put into a small case, and fixed on the right-hand
door-post. A small opening is left in the case, where the word שַׁדַּי
“Almighty,” written on the back of the scroll, is visible. [55]
The object of the mezuzah, commanded in the words, “And thou shalt
write them on the door-posts of thy house and upon thy gates” (Deut.
vi. 9 and xi. 20), is to remind us of the Presence of God, of His
Unity, Providence, and Omnipotence, both on entering our home and on
leaving it; of the all-seeing eye that watches us, and of the Almighty
who will one day call us to account for our deeds, words and thoughts.
The mezuzah thus serves to sanctify our dwelling and protect it from
being polluted by evil deeds.
Signs of God’s Covenant.
Besides the signs mentioned above, there are two other signs of the
covenant between God and Israel.
1. Sabbath is called “an everlasting covenant,” and “a sign between God
and the children of Israel for ever” (Exod. xxxi. 16, 17). See pp. 254
sqq. and 339 sqq.
2. The covenant of Abraham (ברית מילה “the covenant of
circumcision”). God made a covenant with Abraham, and said, “Thou shalt
keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy
seed after thee: Every male child among you shall be circumcised when
eight days old” (Gen. xvii. 9, 10, 12). If the eighth day happens to be
on a Sabbath, the circumcision takes place on that day; but if, because
of illness, or from any other cause, the rite has not been performed on
the eighth day, it must be done on some other day, but not on a Sabbath
or Festival.
Notes.—1. In reference to the importance of these mitsvoth, Maimonides,
in Mishneh-torah, says as follows:—
“Although we are not commanded to get a talith, and to put it on in
order to join the tsitsith (“fringes”) to it, a religious person will
not consider himself free from this duty, but will always endeavour to
wear a garment to which fringes must be affixed. During prayer we must
be especially careful to provide ourselves with a talith. It is a
disgrace for a scholar (Talmid chacham) to say the prayer without the
talith. We must be particularly anxious to perform this mitsvah; it is
of great importance with regard to all the precepts, according to the
words, ‘And ye shall look upon it, and remember all the commandments of
the Lord’” (2nd Book, Ahabhah, Hilchoth tsitsith iii. 12).
“The holiness of the tefillin is great, for so long as the tefillin are
upon the head and the arm of a man, he is humble and God-fearing, keeps
away from levity and idle talk, does not conceive evil thoughts, but
turns his heart exclusively to words of truth and justice. We ought
therefore to wear them all day long; this would be the proper way. It
is said of Rab, the pupil of Rabbi Jehudah, the Holy, that he was never
seen otherwise than with torah or tsitsith or tefillin.
“Although we ought to wear tefillin all day long, it is our special
duty to wear them during prayer. Our Sages said, ‘He who reads Shema
without tefillin rejects, as it were, his evidence concerning the
Almighty as false’” (ibid., Hilchoth tefillin iv. 26).
“We should be particular with regard to the mezuzah, which is a duty
incumbent uninterruptedly on every one. Whenever we enter or leave the
house our eye meets with the name of God; we remember His love, and
rousing ourselves from our torpitude, we are led to regret our foolish
devotion to the vanities of the time, and recognise that nothing
remains for ever except the knowledge of the Rock of the universe. We
shall then at once devote ourselves to know Him, and walk in the way of
uprightness. Our ancient Sages said, ‘He who has tefillin upon his head
and upon his arm, tsitsith on his garment, and mezuzah on his door, he
is safe from sin, since he has many reminders of his duties, and these
are the angels that protect him from going astray; and to him the
following verse applies: “An angel of the Lord encampeth round those
who fear Him”’” (ibid., Hilchoth mezuzah vi. 13).
2. The great importance of the tefillin, as described by Maimonides,
was not understood or recognised by all Jews. Various sayings occurring
in the Talmud indicate the existence of laxity or even opposition with
regard to the carrying out of this precept in its literal sense. When
persons with tefillin on their head and on their arm showed by their
conduct that their heart was not filled with the holiness and
uprightness of which the tefillin are the symbol, it was but natural
that not only were these persons accused of hypocrisy, but the Divine
precept itself was discredited. But the greater the opposition by one
section of the Jewish community, the more the enthusiasm of the other
section grew in its favour. Hence the numerous Talmudical and
Rabbinical utterances concerning the sanctifying force inherent in the
tefillin (comp. Tur Orach Chayyim xxxvii.). Thus, when a Rabbi was
cautioned not to be over joyous, as excess of joy led to sin, he
replied, “I lay tefillin;” i.e., “The thoughts which the observance of
this precept awakens protects me from sin.” This idea of protection
from sin may be the origin of the Greek name phylacterion,
“protection.”—In times of persecution, when the Jews were forbidden by
their oppressors to perform any of their religious rites on penalty of
death, the precept of tefillin was not included among those which they
performed even at the risk of their life. To this circumstance Rabbi
Simeon b. Elazar ascribes the laxity with regard to the tefillin
(Babyl. Talm. Shabbath 130a).
3. There occurs in the Midrash (Sifre on Deut. xi. 18), in reference to
tsitsith and tefillin, the following passage: “Also when in exile deck
yourselves with mitsvoth, in order that on your return to your own land
the Divine precepts should not seem to you new and unknown.” This
passage has been misinterpreted as if the author of that passage were
of opinion that precepts like tsitsith and tefillin did originally not
apply to those who are outside the Holy Land. The meaning is rather
this: Although a large portion of the laws is not in force outside
Palestine, yet continue to wear these reminders in exile, in order that
by this act your attention may constantly be turned to the whole Torah,
to those precepts which are in force at present as well as to those
which are not. Thus all the precepts will be familiar to you, and when
the time comes in which the observance of all the laws will again be
possible, none of the laws will appear to you new and strange.
4. There is, on the whole, no difference between men and women with
regard to the obedience due to the Divine commandments. All Jews are
equally bound to obey the Will of God expressed in the Law. This is
absolutely the case with all prohibitions (לא תעשה). In the case of
positive commandments (מצות עשה) the following rule has been laid
down by our Sages: Women are exempt from the performance of such
religious duties as are restricted to a certain period of time (מצות
עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות). The object of the seeming anomaly is
probably this: the principal duty and the privilege of women is to
manage the household, a task that demands constant attention. Religious
acts which are to be performed at a certain time might involve an
interference with such of their household duties as demand immediate
attention; e.g., nursing a patient, a task which generally falls to the
lot of the female section of the family. Jewish women, nevertheless,
zealously fulfil most of the duties from which the above rule exempts
them. They thus are most eager to obey the laws concerning shofar on
New-year, lulab on Tabernacles, and the like; and some of them are
named as having conscientiously laid tefillin (Mechilta on Exod. xiii.
9).
IV. SABBATH AND FESTIVALS.
The daily work which has chiefly the well-being of the body as its aim
must be interrupted on certain days which the Almighty has appointed
for the promotion of man’s spiritual well-being. Sabbath and Festivals
are the days thus appointed, and are therefore called מועדי יי “the
seasons of the Lord,” and מקראי קדש “holy convocations.” The blessing
derived from the observance of Holy-days in the true spirit is
described by the prophet as follows: “If thou keep back thy foot
because of the sabbath, from doing thy business on my holy day; and
call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt
honour it, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own business,
nor speaking thine own words: then thou shalt delight thyself in the
Lord: and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth,
and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob, thy father” (Isa. lviii. 13,
14). To those who fail to observe the seasons of the Lord in the true
spirit, the prophet says in the name of the Almighty: “Your new-moons
and your festivals my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them” (ibid. i. 14).
Maimonides [56] comprehends the various duties and observances of the
Holy-days in the following four terms: זכור “remember,” שמור “take
heed,” כבוד “honour,” and עונג “delight.” The first two are found
in the Pentateuch, and form the beginning of the fourth commandment in
Exodus and Deuteronomy respectively; the other two occur in the above
description of the Sabbath quoted from Isaiah (lviii. 13, 14).
Following the example of our great teacher, we shall likewise treat of
the laws and customs of Sabbath and Festivals under these four heads:
[57]—
a. זכור “Remember.”
Remember the Sabbath-day; speak of it, of its holiness and its
blessings. We fulfil this duty when Sabbath comes in, by the Kiddush,
“the sanctification of the day,” in which we praise the Almighty for
the boon bestowed upon us by the institution of the Sabbath; and when
Sabbath goes out, by the Habhdalah, in which we praise God for the
“distinction” made between the holy and the ordinary days. We have both
Kiddush and Habhdalah in a double form: (a) as a portion of the Amidah
in the Evening Service; the Kiddush being the middle section of the
Amidah, the Habhdalah consisting of a prayer added to the fourth
paragraph beginning אתה חנן; (b) as a separate service especially
intended for our homes. It is this home-service that we generally
understand by the terms Kiddush and Habhdalah, and in this sense they
are employed in the following. [58]
Kiddush.
There is a traditional explanation of the term zachor: זכרהו על היין
“remember it over the wine.” As “wine gladdens the heart of man” and
forms an important element in a festive meal, it has been ordered that
our meal on the eve [59] of Sabbath and Festival should be begun with a
cup of wine in honour of the day, and that mention should be made of
the holiness of the day before partaking of the wine. The Kiddush
consists of two blessings (ברכות): one over the wine, [60] and one
that refers to the holiness of the day. On Holy-days—except the last
days of Passover—a third blessing (שהחינו) follows, praising God for
having granted us life and enabled us again to celebrate the Festival.
On Friday evening a portion from Genesis (i. 31 to ii. 3) is added,
which contains the first mention of the institution of Sabbath. If a
Festival happens to fall on Sunday, we add part of the Habhdalah to the
Kiddush on Saturday evening, [61] referring to the distinction between
the holiness of the Sabbath and that of the Festivals.
The Kiddush is part of the Sabbath or Festival evening meal, and in the
absence of the latter the Kiddush is omitted. [62] In Synagogues of the
German and Polish Minhag the Reader recites the Kiddush at the
conclusion of the Maarib Service. This custom is a survival of the
ancient way of providing for the poor and the stranger. In the absence
of better accommodation lodging and food were given to the needy in
rooms adjoining the Synagogue, or even in the Synagogue itself. It was
for these that the Reader recited the Kiddush, before they commenced
the evening meal, as most probably wine was not served to all. Although
circumstances have changed the mode of maintaining the poor, and the
latter find no longer lodging and board in the Synagogue, the Kiddush
has been retained as part of the Maarib Service, except on the first
two nights of Passover, when there had never been an occasion for
reading Kiddush in the Synagogue. The poor were treated on these nights
with four cups of wine each, and they recited Kiddush by themselves as
part of the Seder.
Habhdalah הבדלה.
Habhdalah is recited in the evening following Sabbath or Holy-day,
after the Evening Service. A cup of wine is raised, and the ברכה over
wine is followed by another ברכה, in which God is praised for the
distinction made between the holy and the ordinary day (בין קדש
לחול), or between two kinds of holiness (בין קדש לקדש) in case
Sabbath is followed by a Holy-day.—On Sabbath night we take a candle
and a spice-box, and add two blessings after that over wine; in the one
we thank God for the enjoyment of the fragrance, in the other for the
benefit He bestowed on us by the creation of light. A few verses from
the Bible, especially the Prophets, precede the Habhdalah.
The origin of the introduction of the blessings for light and for
spices in the Habhdalah may be the following:—The principal meal of the
day used to be taken about sunset; light and burning incense were
essential elements of a festive meal. On Sabbath these could not be
had, and were therefore enjoyed immediately after the going out of
Sabbath. Although the custom of having incense after the meal has long
ceased, it has survived in the Habhdalah, and has, in course of time,
received another, a more poetical interpretation. The Sabbath inspires
us with cheerfulness, gives us, as it were, an additional soul—נְשָׁמָה
יְתֵרָה—traces of which are left on the departure of Sabbath, and are
symbolised by the fragrance of the spices. For the use of the special
light there has likewise been suggested a second reason, namely, that
it is intended at the commencement of the week to remind us of the
first product of Creation, which was light.
There are a few customs connected with the Habhdalah that may be
noticed here.
(1.) The wine, when poured into the cup, is allowed to flow over, as a
symbol of the overflowing Divine blessing which we wish and hope to
enjoy in the coming week.
(2.) Some dip their finger in wine and pass it over their eyes, in
allusion to the words of the Nineteenth Psalm (ver. 9), “The
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” The act
expresses the love of the Divine commandments (חִבּוּב מִצְוָה).
(3.) Only male persons partake of the wine; they have more interest in
the Habhdalah as the signal for the resumption of ordinary work and
business.—The exclusion of women from the wine of Habhdalah may also
have its origin in the fact that Jewish women generally abstained from
taking wine, considering strong drink suitable only for the male
portion of mankind. They only partake of the wine of Kiddush on account
of its importance; to Habhdalah less importance was ascribed.
(4.) On reaching the words בין אור לחשך, “between light and
darkness,” some hold their hands against the light, the fingers bent
inside, in illustration of the words which they utter, showing darkness
and shadow inside and light outside.—With the practice of these and
similar customs we must take good care that we should not combine any
superstitious motive, or join actions which are really superstitious,
and did not originate in Jewish thought and Jewish traditions.
We further remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it by increased
devotion, by reading special Lessons from the Pentateuch and the
Prophets, and by attending religious instruction given by teachers and
preachers.
Besides various additions in the Service, and the substitution of one
paragraph concerning Sabbath or Festival for the thirteen middle
paragraphs of the Amidah, there is another Service inserted between the
Morning and the Afternoon Services; it is called Musaph, “the
Additional Service,” and corresponds to the additional offering
ordained for Sabbath and Festival (Num. xxviii. 9, sqq.).
An essential element in the Morning Service is the Reading from the
Torah (קריאת התורה) and the Prophets (הפטרה). A periodical public
reading from the Law was enjoined in the following words: “At the end
of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the
feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord
thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law
before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men and
women and children, and the stranger that is within thy gates, that
they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and
observe to do all the words of this law; and that their children, which
have not known anything, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God”
(Deut. xxxi. 10–13).
A seven years’ interval would surely have destroyed the impression
produced by the reading. The reading was probably repeated throughout
the country at shorter intervals. Tradition ascribes to Moses the
institution of reading the Law every Sabbath, Monday, and Thursday
morning, in order that three days might never pass without Torah. Ezra
is said to have added the reading on Sabbath afternoon, and to have
made various other regulations with regard to the reading of the Law.
Quantity and manner of reading were at first, no doubt, variable. In
the course of time certain systems found favour and became the fixed
rule. Some completed the reading of the whole Pentateuch in three
years, others in one year. The former mode was gradually displaced by
the latter, and the attempts which have lately been made to revive it
have not succeeded. Traces of the triennial reading may be noticed in
the number of sedarim contained in the five books of the Pentateuch. At
present, however, the annual course is followed in almost all our
Synagogues. The section read on one Sabbath is called sidra; the first,
בראשית, is read the first Sabbath after the Feast of Tabernacles, and
the last sidra is read on Simchath-torah (the 23rd of Tishri).
For the Festivals such sections were selected as contained either
direct or indirect reference to the Festivals. If these happen to be on
a Sabbath, the ordinary reading is interrupted, and that of the
Festivals substituted for it.
The number of persons who were to take part in the reading varied
according as the people were likely to devote less or more time to
Divine Service: on weekdays and on Sabbath afternoon three, on New-moon
and Chol-hammoed four, on the Festivals five, on the Day of Atonement
six, [63] and on Sabbath seven. Some may have required the assistance
of the chazan, and in some cases the chazan’s voice was the only one
that was heard; gradually the chazan became the reader, and the
original reader became silent, being content with reciting the
b’rachoth. Only in the case of the Bar-mitsvah, the Chathan-torah, and
the Chathan-b’reshith the original practice has been retained.
As regards the order of those who take part in the reading of the Law,
the first place is given to a Cohen, i.e., a descendant of Aaron, the
priest; the second to a Levite, i.e., a non-priest of the tribe of
Levi; and then follow other Israelites, that are neither Levites nor
Cohanim, without any prescribed order. The last who concludes the
reading from the Law on those days on which a chapter from the Prophets
is also read is called maftir, “concluding;” and the lesson from the
Prophets is called haphtarah, “conclusion.”
In the selection of the haphtarah care was taken that it should contain
some reference to the contents of the lesson from the Pentateuch, and
as there was not much choice, the haphtarah, once chosen, was as a rule
read again on the recurrence of the same sidra. Different communities
had different series of haphtaroth. A few negative rules concerning the
selection of the haphtarah are mentioned in the Mishnah (Megillah iv.
10); Ezek. i. and xvi., 2 Sam. xi. and xiii., are to be excluded. These
rules, however, were not observed, as Ezek. i. is the haphtarah for the
first day of the Feast of Weeks. There is an ancient rule about the
nature of the haphtaroth between the Fast of Tamuz and New-year; viz.,
there should be three haphtaroth of “rebuke” and seven of “comfort”
(נ׳ דפרענותא, ז׳ דנחמתא). The former are taken from Jeremiah (i.
and ii.) and Isaiah (i.); the latter are selected from Isaiah (xl. to
lxvi.)
Various accounts are given of the origin of the haphtarah. One account
traces its origin to a period of persecution, when the Jews were not
allowed to read from the Torah, and the scrolls of the Law were either
confiscated or concealed. In both cases it was easy to read from the
Prophets, for this could be done by heart and in any place; whilst for
the reading of the Torah it was necessary to produce a copy of the Law.
According to another account, the haphtarah served as a protest against
the theory of the Samaritans, who recognised the Torah alone as holy.
But it is more likely and more natural to suppose that the haphtarah
was introduced as soon as the Prophets became part of the Holy
Scriptures.
There was a tendency to have recourse to the Divine messages of future
comfort and glory when the present was gloomy and sad. At the end of
the Service or a religious discourse, just before leaving the Synagogue
or the Beth ha-midrash, passages from the Prophets were read, in order
that the people might carry away with them a strengthened faith in God
and in the ultimate victory of their religion. On Sabbath morning the
lessons from the Prophets were of greater importance, since a larger
number congregated, and more time could be devoted to it. A b’rachah
therefore introduced it, and b’rachoth, including a prayer for the
restoration of Zion, followed it. The name haphtarah suggests this
explanation; it denotes literally “causing to leave,” “departure,” or
“conclusion.”
After the return of the Jews from Babylon they spoke the Chaldee
dialect; the lessons from the Bible were accordingly accompanied by a
Chaldee translation called targum. The translation was not always
literal, but was frequently a paraphrase. It was given, as a rule,
after each verse, by an appointed methurgeman.—In communities which
only understood Greek the Greek version was read. A Spanish translation
of the haphtarah is still added at present on the Fast of Ab in the
Portuguese Ritual; but otherwise the practice of adding a translation
to the text has long since been discontinued.
b. שמור “Take Heed.”
The negative commandment concerning the Holy-days is: לא תעשה כל
מלאכה, “Thou shalt do no manner of work.” The very name Sabbath
(שבת, “rest”) implies absence of labour. We are commanded to rest on
the Sabbath, but not to indulge in laziness and indolence, which are by
no means conducive to the health of the body or the soul. The Sabbath
rest is described in our Sabbath Afternoon Service as “voluntary and
congenial, true and faithful, and happy and cheerful.” Moderate
exercise, cheerful reading, and pleasant conversation are indispensable
for a rest of this kind.
What is to be understood by the term “labour” or “work” in the
prohibition “Thou shalt not do any manner of work”? The Pentateuch
gives no definition of the term. But the Israelites, when they were
told that work was prohibited on Sabbath, and that any breach of the
law was to be punished with death, must have received orally a full
explanation of the prohibition. A case is mentioned of one who profaned
the Sabbath by gathering sticks, and was put to death; this could not
have been done if any doubt had been left in his mind whether the act
of gathering sticks was included in the prohibition.
A few instances of work prohibited on a Sabbath-day are met with in the
Bible. In connection with the manna, the prohibition of cooking and
baking is mentioned; also the commandment, “Let no man go out of his
place on the seventh day” (Exod. xvi. 29); i.e., we must not travel or
go beyond a certain distance [64] on the Sabbath. Another act
distinctly forbidden is contained in the words, “Ye shall kindle no
fire in all your dwellings on the day of rest” (ibid. xxxv. 3). The
prophet Amos (viii. 5), in rebuking the Israelites for cheating their
fellow-men, puts the following words into their mouth: “When will the
new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may
open our stores of wheat?” This shows that the Israelites conducted no
business on New-moon and Sabbath. Jeremiah (xvii. 21 sqq.) says as
follows: “Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no
burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;
neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day,
neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day.”—Nehemiah
relates (xiii. 15): “In those days saw I in Judah some treading
wine-presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses;
as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they
brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them
in the day wherein they sold victuals. Then I said unto them, What evil
thing is this that ye do and profane the sabbath day?” As a general
rule, we may say that the work prohibited on Sabbath and Festivals
embraces two classes: viz., (1) All such acts as are legally—i.e., in
the Oral Law—defined as מלאכה “work.” It makes no difference whether
we consider any of them as labour or not. Under thirty-nine different
heads [65] they are enumerated in the Mishnah (Shabbath vii. 2). The
following are a few of them:—Ploughing, sowing, reaping, threshing,
grinding, baking, hunting, killing an animal, tanning, sewing, writing,
kindling light or fire, and carrying things abroad.
(2.) Everything which our conscience tells us to be inappropriate for
the Sabbath; acts which come neither under the head of מלאכה nor
under that of שבות, but which would tend to change the Sabbath into
an ordinary day; e.g., preparing for our daily business transactions,
although such preparation does not involve an actual breach of any of
the Sabbath laws.
Whatever we are not allowed to do ourselves, we must not have done for
us by a co-religionist, who deliberately disregards the fourth
commandment. Neither must we employ non-Israelites to do our work on
Sabbath, except in case of need; e.g., in case of illness or fear of
illness.
As regards Holy-days, there is the general rule that work (מלאכה)
prohibited on Sabbath must not be done on Holy-days: “Save that which
every man must eat, that only may be done of you” (Exod. xii. 16); that
is to say, it is allowed on Festivals to cook, to bake, or to prepare
food in any other way. [66] Of course, for the Festival that happens to
fall on a Sabbath, the laws of Sabbath remain in force. The Day of
Atonement is in this respect equal to Sabbath.
c. ענג “Delight.”
The principal and noblest delight yielded by Holy-days is the pleasure
we feel in more frequent communion with the Divine Being, in the purer
and holier thoughts with which we are inspired when at rest from
ordinary work, and able to devote ourselves more fully to the
contemplation of the works and words of God. In this sense the day of
rest is described in one of the hymns (זמירות) after supper as “a
foretaste of the world to come” (מעין עולם הבא יום שבת מנוחה).
But oneg shabbath includes also delight of a less spiritual character.
We are not commanded on the days of rest to forget altogether the wants
of the body. On the contrary. Nehemiah, when on the first day of the
seventh month, that is, on New-year, he perceived that his brethren
were sad, addressed them thus: “Go your way, eat the fat and drink the
sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared: for
this day is holy unto the Lord: neither be ye grieved; for the joy of
the Lord is your strength” (Neh. viii. 10). The same conception of “the
sabbath unto the Lord” is met with in Talmud, Midrash, and throughout
the whole of the Rabbinical literature. In one of our Sabbath-hymns
(זמירות) we say: “This day is for Israel, light and joy, a sabbath of
rest;” and in our prayers for Sabbath we glory in being shom’re
shabbath ve-kor’e oneg, “observers of the sabbath, and such as call it
a delight.”—With regard to the Festivals, the duty of rejoicing is
repeatedly enjoined (Deut. xvi. 11, 14).
In our regulations, customs, and prayers for Sabbath and Festivals,
this duty is clearly indicated. All fasting and mourning is prohibited.
Care was taken that Divine Service should be free from such prayers as
would be likely to create feelings of grief and sadness. [67] A special
formula has also been introduced for the expression of our sympathy
with the sick and the mourner on Sabbath and Festivals. [68]
When any of the obligatory fasts—except the Day of Atonement—happens to
fall on a Sabbath, the fasting is put off (נדחה) till the next day,
or kept, as in the case of the fast of Esther, on the preceding
Thursday. Tradition has raised the taking of the three regular meals on
Sabbath (שלש סעודות), viz., supper, breakfast, and dinner, to a
religious act—a mitsvah, and the religious character of the meals is
shown by the special prayers and hymns—zemiroth—which accompany them. A
fourth meal is, according to some authority, likewise obligatory;
whilst, according to another authority, it may be replaced by spiritual
food, by reading and studying the Torah.
d. כבוד “Honour.”
We honour the day inwardly by considering it a holy, distinguished
season, which ought to be devoted to higher objects than the wants of
our body. Our mind should be entirely turned aside from our daily
business, in order to be free for loftier and holier thoughts. For the
purpose of effecting this inward distinction of the Sabbath, we honour
it also outwardly by various things, which are partly a symbol, partly
a reminder of the distinction claimed by the day. We honour the
Sabbath, therefore, by giving a festive appearance to our meals, our
dress, and our dwelling. The principal thing required is neatness and
cheerfulness; not luxury. On the contrary, we are guided in this
respect by the principle: Make rather thy Sabbath an ordinary day—i.e.,
omit the distinction in food and dress—than render thyself dependent on
the support of thy fellow-men. [69]
It is customary to have two loaves on the table, over which the
blessing ha-motsee is said. They are to remind us of the double portion
of bread or manna (לחם משנה, Exod. xvi. 22) given to the Israelites
in the wilderness on the sixth day because of the succeeding
Sabbath-day. The cloth spread beneath the loaves, and the cover over
them, represent symbolically the dew which both lay on the ground under
the manna and also over it. [70] The origin of this custom of covering
the bread may perhaps be found in the following Talmudic law: “If a
meal that has commenced on Friday afternoon is continued in the night,
it must be interrupted when Sabbath comes in; a cloth is to be spread
over the bread whilst the Kiddush is recited” (Babyl. Talm. Pesachim,
100a). The spreading of the cloth appears to be here merely a sign of
the pause, and the distinction between the ordinary meal and that of
Sabbath. [71] That which was at first ordained for special cases became
in course of time a general custom. [72]
The loaves are called birchoth (ברכות), taashir (תעשיר), or challah
(חלה). The first name they received as symbols of God’s blessing, the
double portion of manna which the Almighty sent to the Israelites on
Friday because of the Sabbath (see Rashi on Gen. ii. 3). The verse,
“The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich” (תעשיר, Prov. x. 22),
suggested the second name. Challah reminds us of the commandment to
give the first part of the dough to the priest (Num. xv. 17–21).
Although at present this commandment cannot be carried out, we separate
a small piece, called challah, of the dough which we prepare for bread,
and burn it, after having recited an appropriate blessing. [73] It is
customary to prepare the dough for the Sabbath loaves at home, in order
to be able to act in accordance with this custom. This is one of the
religious acts which it is the special duty of women to perform, and
some of the pious women of Israel (נשים צדקניות) have the
praiseworthy custom to lay something aside for charity when performing
this or similar religious acts.
Another act performed in honour of Sabbath and Festivals is the
kindling of special lights before the holy day comes in, to indicate
symbolically the approach of a day of light and cheerfulness. This duty
is likewise the privilege of the housewife [74] or her representative.
Before [75] kindling the lights the following blessing is recited:
ברוך אתה … וצונו להדליק נר של שבת “Blessed art thou ... and hast
commanded us to kindle the sabbath lights.” יום טוב, יום הכפורים,
שבת ויום טוב, or שבת ויום הכפורים is substituted for שבת
according as a Holy-day, the Day of Atonement, or these days when they
happen to fall on a Saturday, come in. On Festivals, except the last
days of Passover, the following blessing, called שהחינו, is added:
ברוך … שהחינו וקימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה “Blessed art thou ... who hast
kept us in life, preserved us, and enabled us to reach this season.”
NOTES.
1. The reading of the Law is preceded and followed by a blessing. In
the first we praise God for having distinguished Israel by revealing
the Law to them, and in the second for the benefit derived from the Law
as the source of eternal life. The love and regard for the Law
expressed in these blessings should be shown by the congregants in
silent and respectful attention to what is recited by the Reader. Those
who are called up to the Law consider this as an important event, and
make it an occasion of special prayers for relatives and friends
(mi-shebberach), accompanied by promises of contributions to communal
and charitable institutions. On days of family rejoicing, as well as on
days of mourning, the religious privilege of being called to the
Reading of the Law is especially valued; in the former case offerings
are vowed in honour of our living friends, in the other case in
memoriam of those near and dear to us, who have departed from our
midst. These additional prayers thus serve a double purpose; they help
to preserve the bond of relationship and friendship, and secure a
material support for the benevolent and other institutions of the
community.
Objections have been raised to this in itself praiseworthy custom for
two reasons: first, the mi-shebberach only concerns a few, and appears
to the rest of the congregation a useless interruption in the reading
of the Law; secondly, it gives occasion to a display of vanity and
pride.
As to the first objection, provision could and should be made that the
interruption be not unduly long, and cause irritation among the
congregants. Due regard should be shown to the fact that the Divine
Book is open on the reading-desk, and everything should be avoided that
might diminish the reverence proper to such an occasion. The second
objection is based on a pessimistic estimate of our fellow-men; if
there is any one whose offerings are made from vain and ostentatious
motives, he is certainly lost in the multitude of those who take a more
serious and a more dignified view of their duties when standing before
the open Torah.
2. There is an old tradition that we should recite daily a hundred
benedictions. On Sabbath and Holy-days, when the Amidah contains only
seven berachoth instead of eighteen, the deficiency is made up by
seeking an occasion for birchoth ha-nehenin. Hence the minhag spread of
partaking on these days of various kinds of fruit between the meals.
3. Tradition teaches us that on the holy days of rest we must not only
abstain from actual work, but also from ordering anything to be done by
those who refuse to recognise the Sabbath-laws as binding on
them.—Circumstances force us to deviate at times from this rule. There
were Jews who would not allow any work to be undertaken on Friday which
would continue of its own accord after the Sabbath had set in. Thus
they would not have light in their homes on Friday evening or warm food
on the Sabbath-day, although all necessary precautions had been taken
before Sabbath came in to keep the light burning and the food warm for
twenty-four hours. But the more these Jews insisted on excluding light
and fire from their homes, the more did our Sages demand light and warm
food as essential comforts of the Sabbath, and to them the
Sabbath-candles and the warm food were a mitsvah of great importance.
Much work is done on Sabbath for the public by non-Jews; e.g., in
connection with railway-trains, steamboats, and other public
conveyances. May the Jew avail himself of the work thus done for all
alike without his bidding? He may in some cases—e.g., for a long
sea-voyage—in others not. But he must always bear in mind that Judaism
depends on the adherence of the Jews to the noble principle, כל ישראל
ערבים זה בזה “All Israelites are sureties responsible for each other.”
The meaning of this principle is this: If a certain act appears to one
of us allowable, but at the same time our action might mislead others
and cause them to break the Law, we must not do it. Thus if Jews were
to avail themselves of the public conveyances, the whole aspect of the
Sabbath would change, and the day would ultimately be forgotten.
4. When dire necessity compels a Jew to break the Sabbath, let him not
think that the Sabbath is lost to him, or he to Judaism. So long as
Jewish conscientiousness is alive within him, let him endeavour to keep
as much of the Sabbath as he is able. He must not say, “I have broken
the Sabbath. How can I join my brethren in the Sabbath Service!”
Whatever he does conscientiously will be acceptable before God, and he
will thus find himself exhorted to watch carefully, and to seize the
first opportunity of returning to the full observance of Sabbath. The
same principle applies to all the Divine Precepts.
THE JEWISH CALENDAR.
The Jewish Calendar [76] reckons the day from evening to evening, in
accordance with the order observed in the verse, “And it was evening
and it was morning, one day” (Gen. i. 5). The evening begins after
sunset, at the moment when stars become visible under normal conditions
of the atmosphere: at צאת הכוכבים “the coming forth of the stars,”
scil., of at least three stars of middle size.
The day is divided into evening, morning, and afternoon. With each of
these periods is connected an appropriate prayer or service, viz.,
Maarib or Evening-prayer, Shacharith or Morning-prayer, and Minchah or
Afternoon-prayer.
Seven days form a week. The days of the week are described in the Bible
and the Talmud simply as the first day, the second day, &c. Only the
seventh day has a second name, Yom ha-shabbath or shabbath, “the day of
rest,” or “the rest.” In post-Biblical literature the sixth day is
called Erebh shabbath or Ma’ale shabbatha, “the eve of Sabbath,” or
“the coming in of Sabbath.” The evening following Sabbath is named
Motseë shabbath, “the departure of Sabbath.” Similarly the day
preceding a Festival and the evening following it are called Erev
yom-tobh and Motseë yom-tobh, “the eve of the Festival.” and “the
departure of the Festival.”
Four weeks and one or two days make one month, חדש or ירח. The
length of the month is determined by the duration of one revolution of
the moon round the earth. Such revolution is completed in twenty-nine
days and a half. [77] As, however, the calendar mouth does not commence
in the middle of the day, but at the beginning of the evening, it was
necessary to add half a day to one month, and to take off half a day
from the next. The months have therefore alternately twenty-nine and
thirty days.
The months are named according to their order, the first month, the
second, &c.; the first being the first month in the spring. Other
names, implying agricultural and climatic relations, were likewise in
use, and the following four of them have been preserved in the Bible:
the first month is called Abib, “ears of corn;” the second Ziv,
“beauty;” the seventh Ethanim, “hardy fruit;” and the eighth, Bul,
“rain.” [78] Since the return of the Jews from the Babylonian exile,
names of foreign origin have been in use, viz., Nisan, Iyar, Sivan,
Tammuz, Abh, Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tebheth, Shebhat and Adar.
[79] Roughly speaking, these months correspond to April, May, June,
July, August, September, October, November, December, January,
February, and March.
The year is either an ordinary year or a leap-year, the former
consisting of twelve, the latter of thirteen months. The extra month is
called Adar-sheni, “the second Adar,” and is added between Adar and
Nisan. It serves to adjust from time to time the lunar to the solar
year; [80] for there is between the lunar year—that is, the time of
twelve revolutions of the moon round the earth—and the solar year, or
the time of one revolution of the earth round the sun, a difference of
about eleven days, the one consisting of about 354⅓, the other of about
365¼ days. In nineteen years the difference amounts to about seven
months. We have therefore seven leap-years in every cycle (מחזור) of
nineteen years, viz., the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th.
Neither the ordinary years nor the leap-years have a uniform duration;
the former fluctuate between 353, 354, and 355 days; the latter between
383, 384, and 385 days. The following is the cause of this variety:
There are certain days in the week which are never made the beginning
of the new year (the 1st of Tishri). Whenever the astronomical
beginning of the year happens to be on one of these days, a day is
added to one year, and taken from the next. The addition in the former
case is made in the month of Cheshvan, and the curtailing in the latter
case in the month of Kislev. The length of the months is therefore as
follows:—Nisan, 30; Iyar, 29; Sivan, 30; Tammuz, 29; Abh, 30; Elul, 29;
Tishri, 30; Cheshvan, 29 or 30; Kislev, 30 or 29; Tebheth, 29; Shebhat,
30; Adar, 29, in leap-year 30; Adar-sheni (in leap-year), 29 days.
The first day of the month is called New-moon-day חדש [81] or ראש
חדש, “beginning of the month.” In those months which have thirty days,
the thirtieth day is likewise kept as Rosh-chodesh.
The beginning of the astronomical month is the moment of the
conjunction of sun and moon, [82] when the moon is exactly between the
earth and the sun. Nothing is then visible of the moon. Six hours at
least later a very small portion of the moon can, under favourable
conditions, be seen, and the day on which this takes place is the first
of the calendar month.
At first, from the earliest days down to Hillel II. (about 360 C.E.),
Rosh-chodesh was determined by direct observation. The highest court,
the great Sanhedrin, examined the witnesses who had noticed the
reappearance of the moon, and accordingly determined the first day of
the month by the solemn declaration, Mekuddash, “sanctified;” that is,
the day is to be kept as Rosh-chodesh. These proceedings took place on
the thirtieth day of the month. If witnesses presented themselves who
testified to the appearance of the new moon, and after due examination
their statement was found to be correct, the same day was proclaimed as
Rosh-chodesh, and the preceding month had twenty-nine days; if no
witnesses presented themselves, or the witnesses could not sustain
their evidence, the day was added to the expiring month, and the day
following was the first of the next month. The decision of the
Sanhedrin concerned only the thirtieth day of the month. As soon as
their decision was arrived at, Jewish congregations located within a
certain distance were informed by signal or by trustworthy messengers
which day had been fixed as the first of the new month. The decrees of
the Sanhedrin, the highest religious council of the nation, were
accepted by all Jewish congregations as law, and the Festivals were
celebrated in accordance with the New Moon thus appointed. There were,
however, Jewish congregations in distant parts that could not be
reached by the messengers in due time, and these were in doubt
concerning the day on which a Festival had to be celebrated. Being
anxious not to miss the day kept as a Festival on the authority of the
Sanhedrin by their brethren at the religious centre of the nation, the
Jews abroad observed two days as Holy-days instead of one; only the
Fast of the Day of Atonement had no additional day, because, being a
fast-day, the majority of the people were unable to abstain from food
for two consecutive days. New-year, on the other hand, was, as a rule,
everywhere observed two days, even in places near the seat of the
Sanhedrin, and sometimes even in the very place where the Sanhedrin
met, on account of the uncertainty whether the 30th of Elul or the day
following would be fixed by the Sanhedrin as Rosh ha-shanah. Though,
with regard to the most holy Festival, the uncertainty of the day
admitted of no remedy, this circumstance did not prevent our pious
ancestors from applying a remedy where it could be done.
It was not ignorance that led Jews outside Palestine to observe two
Holy-days instead of one. A rough calculation of the time in which the
various phenomena of the moon are to be noticed is not difficult, and
could be made by many Rabbis and laymen long before Hillel II. framed
the permanent Calendar. Nevertheless, two days were kept, because it
was impossible to calculate or anticipate all the accidental
circumstances that might cause the Sanhedrin to defer the fixing of
Rosh-chodesh for the next day.
Nor was it a decree of the Sanhedrin, or of a Rabbinical assembly, that
ordered the observance of יום טוב שני, “a second day of the
Festival.” This was done by the voluntary act of the nation, and their
resolution was confirmed by continued usage. It was the outcome of
genuine piety, of the earnest desire to be at one with the central
authority of the nation. The observance of יום טוב שני is so old that
no trace of its actual introduction can be discovered in the Talmud;
wherever mention is made of it, it is represented as an institution
already in existence. It may already have existed in the days of the
prophets, and traces of the celebration of a second day of Rosh-chodesh
may be recognised in the first book of Samuel (i. xx. 27).
This practice, which sprang from true fear and love of God, was
spontaneously adopted by all the Jews outside Palestine, continued by
generation after generation for more than two thousand years, and has,
as a minhag of long standing, become law. It is not a precept commanded
in the Written Law, or decreed in the Oral Law; it is only a minhag
“practice,” but a minhag that must be cherished and respected as a
national institution. There may come a time when the institution of
יום טוב שני will be abolished; this can, however, only be done by the
national will, confirmed by a Sanhedrin which will be recognised by the
whole nation as the only religious authority. Until then it is
incumbent upon us to adhere firmly to the observance of the second days
of the Festivals.
NOTES.
The following are the general principles upon which our Calendar is
based:—
1. Twenty-nine days 12793⁄1080 hours elapse between one molad and the
next. [83]
2. An ordinary year must not have less than 353 or more than 355 days,
nor the leap-year less than 383 or more than 385 days.
3. The 1st of Tishri is fixed on the day of the molad of Tishri. There
are four exceptions (דחיות):—
a. לא אד״ו ראש. If the molad of Tishri falls on a Sunday, Wednesday,
or Friday.
b. מולד זקן. If the molad of Tishri is at noon or later.
c. If the molad of Tishri in an ordinary year is on Tuesday 3204⁄1080
A.M. or later (ג׳ ט׳ ר״ד).
d. If the molad of Tishri of a year succeeding a leap-year is on Monday
9589⁄1080 A.M. or later (ב׳ ט״ו תק״פט).
The first of these four exceptions is to prevent the Day of Atonement
from falling on Friday or Sunday, and Hoshaana-rabba from falling on
Sabbath; the third exception is to guard against having an ordinary
year of more than 355, and the last from having a leap-year of less
than 383 days.
4. The character of the year is described by three letters, the first
of which indicates the day of the week for the 1st of Tishri, the last
the day of the week for the 1st of Nisan, the middle letter, according
as it is כ, ח, or ש (=כסדר “regular;” חסרה “defective;”
שלמה “perfect”), indicates a regular year of 354 (in leap-year 384)
days, a defective year of 353 (in leap-year 383), or a perfect one of
355 (in leap-year 385) days.
The present year (September 1890 to October 1891) is, according to
Jewish tradition, [84] the year 5651 A.M. (of the Creation); its
characteristics are ב׳ ח׳ ה׳; i.e., the 1st of Tishri is on Monday;
the year is defective; and the 1st of Nisan is on Thursday. The year
is, besides, a leap-year, consisting of 13 months; it is the eighth
year of the 298th cycle (of 19 years). It is the first year of the
Septennate, or the first year after the year of release (שמטה. See
Lev. xxv.).
THE FESTIVALS.
“The feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which ye shall
proclaim in their seasons” (Lev. xxiii. 4), are Passover, Feast of
Weeks, Day of Memorial, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles.
These are divided into two groups called שלוש רגלים and ימים
נוראים, “three festivals” and “solemn days.” In the Pentateuch the two
groups are kept distinctly asunder. Thus in Exod. xxiii. 14–17 and
xxxiv. 18, and Deut. xvi., only the former group is mentioned.
The name shalosh regalim derives its origin from the following Biblical
passage: “Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year,”
שלש רגלים תחג לי בשנה (Exod. xxiii. 14). Although in a parallel
passage the word רגלים has been replaced by פעמים (ibid. ver. 17),
of the same meaning, “times,” shalosh regalim has been preferred,
because רגלים reminds one also of “a journey on foot,” “a
pilgrimage,” an important element in the celebration of these three
festivals, according to the Divine commandment, “Three times every year
shall thy males appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he
shall choose, in the feast of unleavened bread, in the feast of weeks,
and in the feast of tabernacles” (Deut. xvi. 16).
The name yamim noraim for the remaining two feasts is not founded on a
Biblical phrase, but on the fact that these festivals are devoted more
than the rest to earnest reflection and solemn devotion.
I. THE THREE FESTIVALS (שלש רגלים).
The three festivals have the following three characteristics in
common:—
1. They refer to important events in our national history; viz.,
Passover to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage;
Feast of Weeks to the Revelation on Mount Sinai; and Tabernacles to the
travels of the Israelites through the Arabian desert.
2. They mark the various stages of the harvest; viz., Passover marks
the season of the early harvest, Feast of Weeks the second harvest, and
the Feast of Tabernacles the ingathering of the fruit.
3. They serve as a means for imparting essential religious truths;
viz., Passover embodies the principle of the Existence of God, the
Feast of Weeks that of Revelation, and the Feast of Tabernacles that of
Divine Providence.
THE DISTINGUISHED SABBATHS (ד׳ פרשיות). [85]
There are in the months Adar and Nisan four Sabbaths distinguished by
the circumstance that on them additional sections are read from the
Pentateuch and special lessons from the Prophets. Two of them are
connected with the celebration of Passover.
1. שבת שקלים “Sabbath of the shekels;” i.e., on which the law
concerning the half-shekel contribution is read from the Pentateuch
(Exod. xxx. 11–16), and also the account of the gifts for the repair of
the Temple in the reign of King Joash (2 Kings xii. 1–17). Every male
Israelite, twenty years old or upward, had to contribute annually one
half-shekel towards the maintenance of the Temple and the Temple
Service. The year commenced the 1st of Nisan, when public sacrifices
had to be bought with money of the new contributions. [86] Every one
was therefore expected to send his contribution before the 1st of
Nisan. On the 1st of Adar proclamations were made throughout the
country that the half-shekel was due. [87] Hence the custom to read the
above-named sections on the Sabbath before the 1st of Adar, or on the
1st, if this happens to be on a Sabbath.
2. שבת זכור “Sabbath Remember” is the Sabbath on which the paragraph
concerning the enmity of Amalek is read from the Pentateuch (Deut. xxv.
17–19), and the defeat of Amalek by King Saul from the Prophets (I Sam.
xv.). The Agagite Haman, one of the principal figures in the history of
Purim, is believed to be a descendant of Agag, king of Amalek (ibid.
ver. 8). And as the Law commands us to remember the hostilities of
Amalek against Israel, it has been found appropriate to read the above
sections on the Sabbath before Purim.
3. שבת פרה “The Sabbath of the Red Heifer,” i.e., the Sabbath on
which the law concerning the sacrifice of the red heifer and the
purification with its ashes is read from the Pentateuch (Num. xix.),
and “the future purification of Israel” (Ezek. xxxvi. 17–38) from the
Prophets. It is the Sabbath after Purim, or, when the 15th or 16th of
Adar falls on Saturday, the second Sabbath after Purim. All Israelites
had to come to the Temple, and to offer the Passover-lamb on the 14th
of Nisan, and this could not be done by any unclean person. By the
reading of the above sections, all are, as it were, reminded to take
the necessary steps for their purification, and thus prepare themselves
for the celebration of Passover.
4. שבת החדש “The Sabbath of ha-chodesh,” i.e., the Sabbath before the
1st of Nisan, or on the 1st of Nisan if it falls on a Saturday, on
which the law that fixes Nisan as the first month [88] and the
commandment concerning Passover are read from the Pentateuch (Exod.
xii. 1–20), and the description of the sacrifices of the 1st of Nisan,
Passover, and other Festivals in the future Temple from the Prophets
(Ezek. xlv. 16–xlvi. 18).
In addition to these four Sabbaths, the Sabbath preceding Passover is
to be mentioned. It is not distinguished by any special lesson from the
Pentateuch, but it has nevertheless received the title “the Great
Sabbath,” שבת הגדול [89] on account of the importance of the
approaching Festival. The last part of Malachi (iii. 4–24) is read as
the haphtarah of the day, in which the ultimate triumph of the
God-fearing is described by the Prophet.
פסח PASSOVER.
Passover is the first of the Three Feasts, and is kept eight days, from
the 15th of Nisan to the 22nd; the four middle days being
half-Holy-days, called chol ha-moëd (“the week-days of the festival”).
The name Pesach, “Passover,” [90] reminds us of the way in which the
Israelites enjoyed the Divine protection before they left Egypt.
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, kept the Israelites as slaves, and when asked
in the name of God to let them go, refused to obey. But the ten plagues
which consecutively afflicted his land without causing injury to the
Israelites taught him the existence of a higher Power, to whose decrees
the will of earthly rulers has to submit. It was especially the tenth
plague, the slaying of the first-born, that convinced the king and his
people of this truth. When the Lord smote all the first-born in the
land of Egypt, “he passed over the houses of the children of Israel”
(Exod. xii. 27).
The Feast has a second name, viz., “feast of unleavened bread,” חג
המצות, a name derived from the commandment to eat מצה “unleavened
bread,” instead of the ordinary חמץ “leavened bread,” during the
Festival. The purpose of this commandment is to commemorate the
deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt as well as the mode of their
actual departure. For when the tenth plague, the slaying of the
first-born, had visited the Egyptians, they were overcome with fear,
and urged the Israelites at once to leave the country. The Israelites
therefore left Egypt hurriedly, and had no time for preparing the
ordinary “leavened bread,” and baked for themselves unleavened cakes
(מצות) of the dough which they had made.
Passover thus commemorates two distinct moments in the deliverance of
the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, viz. (1) the special protection
which the Almighty granted them in Egypt, and (2) their departure from
the house of bondage.
Two distinct observances, therefore, were ordained for the Feast of
Passover, viz. (1) the sacrifice of the Passover-lamb, and (2) the
eating of “unleavened bread” and the abstaining from “leavened bread.”
1. The Passover-lamb.—A short time before their departure from Egypt
the Israelites were commanded by the Almighty that on the tenth of the
first month every family should procure a lamb, keep it four days, [91]
kill it in the afternoon of the fourteenth, sprinkle of its blood on
the “lintel and the two door-posts,” and “eat in the evening the meat
roast in fire, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, in haste, their
loins girded, their shoes on their feet and their staff in their hand”
(Exod. xii. 3–11). Whatever the material benefit was which the
Israelites, in the moment of starting for a long and uncertain journey,
derived from the meal prepared and partaken of in this manner, there
was a higher purpose in the Divine commandment; it was demanded that
the lamb should be “a passover sacrifice unto the Lord” (ibid.). The
proceedings should be an expression of faith in God, [92] and of
gratitude to Him for His protection. Every house should thus form a
place holy unto the Lord; an altar, as it were, on which the blood of
the sacrifice was sprinkled.
The Passover sacrifice first observed in Egypt was afterwards ordained
as a permanent institution (ibid. ver. 24). This difference, however,
was observed, that the Passover-lamb, like all sacrifices, had to be
brought to the Sanctuary, to “the place which the Lord chose to place
his name in” (Deut. xvi. 6). All who were prevented from performing
their duty on the 14th of Nisan were allowed to offer the Passover on
the 14th of the second month (Iyar). By way of distinction from the
sacrifice on the first date, this offering was called “the second
passover” (פסח שני, [93] Num. ix. 9–14). Since the destruction of the
Temple all sacrificial service has been discontinued, and in accordance
with the words, “We will compensate with our lips for the bullocks”
(Hos. xiv. 3), prayers and recitals from the Bible have taken the place
of sacrifices, whilst psalms and hymns are added such as used to
accompany the act of offering sacrifices. The Passover sacrifice has
therefore been discontinued; but the law of eating unleavened bread and
bitter herbs is still observed.
2. The Unleavened Bread.—“Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread;
even the first day ye shall have put away leaven out of your houses:
for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the
seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exod. xii. 15).
“Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no
leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen
with thee in all thy quarters” (ibid. xiii. 7). “Seven days shall there
no leaven be found in your houses” (ibid. xii. 19). The distinction
between leavened and unleavened only applies to bread or any other form
of food prepared out of any of the following five kinds of grain:
barley, wheat, rye, oats, and spelt. Bread or cake prepared from any of
these five kinds is called unleavened bread, or מצה, if the dough is
baked immediately after it has been prepared, no time being left for
fermentation. [94] It is not only forbidden during the Festival to eat
leavened bread, but it is not permitted to derive any benefit
whatsoever from it. [95] All leaven and leavened bread must be removed
before Passover comes in; and in accordance with the traditional
interpretation of the precept, “Thou shalt not offer the blood of my
sacrifice with leavened bread” (ibid. xxiii. 18), the leaven must be
removed before the time in which the Passover was offered. [96]
The law forbidding חמץ “leavened bread,” to be kept in the house
during Passover is frequently and most emphatically repeated in the
Torah. Jews have therefore, as a rule, been very conscientious and
zealous in the fulfilment of this Divine command. In accordance with
this law, the following observances have been ordained:—
(1.) בדיקת חמץ “the searching for leavened bread” on the eve of the
14th of Nisan. [97] The head of the family, or his deputy, examines his
residence thoroughly, and keeps the chamets, which he has found, in a
safe place till the next morning. This searching, like every other
performance of a religious duty, is preceded by a blessing, viz., ברוך
… אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על ביעור חמץ “Blessed art thou ... who hast
sanctified us by thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning the
removal of the leavened bread.” [98]
(2.) ביעור חמץ, “the removal or the destruction of chamets.” All the
chamets that is left after the first meal on the 14th of Nisan must be
removed, i.e., sold or given as a present to a non-Israelite, or
destroyed. In addition to the actual removal or destruction of chamets,
a solemn declaration is made by the head of the family, that if any
chamets should be left in his house without his knowledge, he would not
claim it as his. The object of this declaration is to free the master
of the house from all responsibility in case any chamets should be
found on his premises, contrary to the Law. [99]
(3.) Utensils which have been used for chamets are put away, and
replaced by new ones, or by such as have exclusively been kept for
Passover. Some vessels used during the year may be used for Passover,
after having undergone a certain process called kasher; [100] i.e.,
“fitting” them as vessels for use on Passover.
(4.) Although the articles of food that are directly forbidden as
chamets are very few, there are a great many things that contain an
admixture of chamets, and those “who fear the word of the Lord” use
during Passover only those articles of food concerning which there is
no doubt whatever that they are perfectly free from chamets. Articles
of food for Passover are therefore only bought of persons who can be
trusted to hold these observances in respect.
In addition to the commandments of the Passover-offering and the
unleavened bread, there is a special duty, mentioned four times in the
Pentateuch, for the Israelite to relate to his children the history of
the departure from Egypt, and to explain to them the meaning of the
several rites connected with the celebration of Passover. This duty is
called haggadah, “relating,” and a service has been arranged for the
purpose, called Seder, “the Order.” The first two evenings of Passover
are therefore called “Seder-evenings,” and the book which contains this
Service is generally called Haggadah.
The Seder-service contains four elements: (1) the relation of the
deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt; (2) the festive meal,
preceded by Kiddush and the partaking of bitter herbs and unleavened
bread, and followed by Grace; (3) Hallel and other hymns; (4) the
partaking of four cups of wine (arba kosoth). [101]
The head of the family or his substitute who reads the Service has
before him on the table: (1) three unleavened cakes (matsoth); [102]
(2) bitter herbs and other vegetables; [103] (3) salt water, in which
the vegetables (karpas) are dipped before they are eaten, and
charoseth, a mixture of apples, almonds, various spices, especially
cinnamon, and wine, in which mixture the bitter herbs are dipped; [104]
(4) a bone with some meat on it and an egg, [105] both roasted.
The order of the Service is indicated in most editions of the Haggadah
in rhymed Hebrew as follows:—
קדש ורחַץ . כרפס יחַץ . מגיד רחַץ . מוציא מצָה.
שלחן ערֵךְ . מרור כרֵךְ . צפון ברֵךְ . הלל נרצָה׃
The following is the explanation of these lines:—
1. קדש Say Kiddush. See above, page 379.
2. רחץ “Wash,” scil., your hands.—Only the head of the family does so
at this part of the Service. [106]
3. כרפס “Vegetables.” A piece of parsley or salad or bitter herb is
dipped in salt water, and eaten after the recitation of the blessing:
ברוך … בורא פרי האדמה “Blessed art thou ... who hast created the
fruit of the ground.” [107]
4. יחץ “He divides.” Of the three matsoth before him, the head of the
family breaks the middle one, part of which is laid aside, to be eaten
at the end of the meal. [108]
5. מגיד “Relating,” [109] scil., the history of the departure from
Egypt. The reader, pointing to the broken מצה before him, exclaims,
“Such was the bread of poverty which our forefathers ate in the land of
Egypt;” as if to say, “We are all alike descendants of those who ate
the bread of poverty in Egypt.” In the same sense, the reader
continues, “We all alike should rejoice in the kindnesses shown by the
Almighty to our nation, and all alike should seek and find true comfort
in the hope of the Messianic blessing promised by Him for the future.”
[110] One of the company, usually the youngest, puts to the reader four
questions, as formulated in the paragraph beginning מה נשתנה “Why is
different?” [111] Additions and alterations may, of course, be made by
the inquirer according to his knowledge and intellect. The object of
these questions is to obtain an explanation of the rites that
distinguish this evening from others. In answer to these questions, the
reader refers to the past history of Israel in three different forms,
[112] viz.:—
(1.) The first answer begins, עבדים היינו, “We were slaves;” and
ends, בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מונחים לפניך “When unleavened bread and
bitter herbs lie before thee.” Here the reader restricts himself,
without any comment, to the one fact that our forefathers were at first
slaves in Egypt, and were then delivered, and illustrates the duty of
speaking that night more fully concerning the departure from Egypt, by
precedent, by the authority of the Mishnah, and by the Midrashic
interpretation of the law commanding us to tell our children this
event.
(2.) The second form of the answer begins, מתחלה עבדי עבודה זרה היו
אבתינו “Our forefathers were at first worshippers of idols,” and ends,
מצילנו מידם “delivers us out of their hand.” Here the exodus from
Egypt is described as the fulfilment of the promise made by God to
Abraham, that his descendants would be delivered out of the hands of
their oppressors.
(3.) The passage from Deut. xxvi. 5–8 is recited with its Midrashic
interpretations, [113] and in conclusion all the benefits received by
the Israelites from the departure from Egypt till the building of the
Temple are enumerated, and our duty of gratitude is shown.
In all these three forms no notice has been taken of the particular
questions. Rabban Gamaliel insists that this should be done, and a
section is therefore added, containing the explanation why the
Passover-offering, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs were to
be eaten; this, like the three other sections, concludes with the
emphatic declaration that we—after so many generations—are still bound
to praise and to thank God for the benefits bestowed upon our nation so
long ago. Hereupon follows the Hallel, of which the first two
paragraphs, containing special reference to the departure from Egypt,
are sung before supper; the first part of the Seder-Service concludes
with a blessing, in which we praise God for our past deliverance and
pray for the approach of our future redemption.
6. רחץ “Washing.” All those who partake of the meal wash their hands,
as is ordinarily done before meals.
7. מוציא מצה. Two pieces of מצה are taken; one piece, broken off
the whole cake, representing the bread eaten at ordinary meals for
מוציא, and the other piece taken from the broken one, representing
the מצה we are commanded to eat on the Seder-night. Before eating the
two pieces two blessings are recited ברוך … המוציא לחם מן הארץ
“Blessed art thou ... who bringest forth bread from the earth,” and
ברוך … אשר קדשנו ּּּ על אכילת מצה “Blessed art thou ... who hast
sanctified us by Thy commandments and hast commanded us to eat מצה.”
[114]
8. מרור “Bitter herb.” Bitter herbs dipped in charoseth are eaten,
after the following blessing has been recited ברוך … אשר קדשנו … על
אכילת מרור “Blessed art thou ... who hast sanctified us by thy
commandments and hast commanded us to eat bitter herbs.”
9. כורך “Combining;” scil., unleavened bread and bitter herbs; these
are eaten together, just as formerly, in the time of the Temple, Hillel
used to eat together meat of the Passover-offering, unleavened bread,
and bitter herbs (Exod. xii. 8; Num. ix. 11).
10. שלחן עורך “Table laid.” The evening meal is taken.
11. צפון “Laid aside.” The meal is concluded with a piece of the half
matsah that has been laid aside at the beginning of the Service. It is
called afikuman, “dessert.” [115]
12. ברך “Say grace.” [116]
13. הלל “Hallel.”—The rest of Hallel is sung, followed by Ps.
cxxxvi., and the whole of נשמת with the concluding blessing.—The
fourth cup of wine is then taken, and the usual prayer after the
partaking of wine is recited.
14. נרצה “Completed.” [117]—The Seder-Service is completed; it
concludes with a prayer for the rebuilding of the Temple and the
restoration of Israel to Zion. The prayer seems to have been originally
the conclusion of a Piyyut or liturgical poem on the Passover
Sacrifice.
The Haggadah contains, besides, several hymns and songs, of which the
following are found in the ordinary editions of the work:—
1. ויהי בחצי הלילה “And it was in the middle of the night.” The
author reflects on the various marvellous events in our history that
happened in the night-time.
2. ואמרתם זבח פסח “And ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of Passover.”
A song referring to wonderful events which, according to Tradition,
took place on Passover.
3. כי לו נאה “To him praise is seemly.” A praise of God as the only
Being worthy to be called King and Ruler.
4. אדיר הוא “He is mighty.” A praise of God, and an expression of
hope that He will soon rebuild the Temple.
5. אחד מי יודע “One, who knows?” A popular song enumerating persons
and objects in Jewish History and Tradition, as well as in Nature
according to numbers up to thirteen, with the object of emphasising the
Unity of God.
6. חד גדיא “One kid.” A popular song that illustrates the working of
Divine Justice in the history of mankind.
Passover as an agricultural feast was kept “in the season of the month
of ripeness” (למועד חדש האביב), when the barley sown in the winter
had become ripe. On the second day of Passover an offering was brought
of “the beginning of the harvest;” it consisted of an omer [118] of
barley (Lev. xxiii. 9 sqq.). Before this offering was presented it was
not allowed to eat of the new corn (ibid. 14).
From the bringing of the Omer to “the harvest feast” the days are
counted, viz., forty-nine days, and the fiftieth day is the feast of
harvest (חג הקציר), or “the day of the first-fruit offering” (יום
הבכורים).
The counting commences on the second evening. It is done either
immediately after Maarib, or later on during the Seder-Service; it is
preceded by the following blessing: ברוך … אשר קדשנו … על ספירת העומר
“Blessed art thou ... who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and
hast commanded us ... to count the days of the Omer.” The following is
the way of counting: היום יום … לעומר “This day is the first day
since the Omer.” From seven upward the number of weeks is likewise
expressed, [119] היום יום … שהם … שבועות … לעומר “This day completes
... that is ... weeks ... since the offering of the Omer.”
The celebration of Passover serves to inculcate into our hearts the
first principle of our faith: the existence of God, the Supreme Being
who rules the whole universe, in whose hand are the destinies of kings
and peoples, whose power was recognised by the Egyptians when they were
punished for their misdeeds, and whose might was seen by the Israelites
when He divided the Red Sea for them, and fulfilled the Divine promise
made to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The season of Passover, in which we celebrate our liberation from
earthly taskmasters, is called זמן חרותנו “The season of our
freedom.” The deliverance from Egypt, the first step leading to the
fulfilment of the promise, “And I will take you unto me for a people,”
has been poetically conceived as the betrothal of Israel to God, and in
the Piyyut for Passover ample use has been made of this idea. It has
further found expression in the custom of reading the Song of Solomon
on the first Sabbath after the first two days of Passover, and by some
also on the Seder-evening after the conclusion of the ordinary Service.
The Service is, in general outline, the same as on Sabbath. It consists
of Maarib, Shacharith, Musaph, and Minchah. The Morning-Service
includes Hallel, the reading of the Law, and Lessons from the Prophets
(קריאת התורה and הפטרה). The following sections, containing
description of, or reference to, Passover or to the departure from
Egypt, are read consecutively on the eight days: Exod. xii. 21–51, on
the Passover celebrated by the Israelites in Egypt; Lev. xxii. 26 to
xxiii. 44, on “the seasons of the Lord;” Exod. xiii., xxii. 24 to
xxiii. 19, and xxxiv. 1–26: Num. ix. 1–14, on the second Passover;
Exod. xiii. 17–xv. 26, the crossing of the Red Sea; Deut. xv. 19 (on
Sabbath, xiv. 22) to xvi. 17 contains laws referring to the three
Festivals. On Sabbath chol-ha-moëd, Exod. xxxiii. 12 to xxxiv. 26.—In
addition to these sections verses from Num. xxviii.–xxix., referring to
the sacrifices prescribed for each day of the Festival, are read from a
second sefer.
The Lessons from the Prophets are the following:—Josh. v. (preceded in
the German Ritual by iii. 5–7), on the first Passover kept by the
Israelites in Palestine; 2 Kings xxiii. 1–9 and 21–25, on the Passover
celebrated in the days of King Josiah; 2 Sam. xxii., the song of David
after deliverance from his enemies, a parallel to the Song of Moses;
Isa. x. 32—xii., on the defeat of Sennacherib, and the blessings of the
Messianic days. According to Tradition the defeat of Sennacherib took
place on Passover; moreover, the celebration of the deliverance from
Egypt suggests the reflection on the final Redemption of Israel. The
Lesson from the Prophets chosen for Sabbath chol-ha-moëd is taken from
Ez. xxxvi. 1–14. The prophet sees in a vision how the dry bones of the
dead are awakened to fresh life by the Will and the Spirit of the Lord:
a precious lesson for us, designed to strengthen our hope of a revival
of every good and noble idea, though for the present it be dormant
within us. Nature around us awakening to fresh life in the spring
supplies a parallel to the vision of Hezekiel.
The Machzor (lit. Cycle) or Prayer-book for the Holy-days contains
numerous additions to the ordinary prayers. They are called Piyyutim,
and vary according to the custom and the taste of the congregation. The
Piyyut added in the second paragraph of the Musaph-amidah on the first
day of Passover is called tal, “dew,” or prayer for dew; the rain
season having come to an end, we pray that the vegetation may, during
the hot season, be refreshed by the regular descent of the dew. The
praise for “sending down rain” in the same paragraph, viz., משיב הרוח
ומוריד הגשם, “Thou causest the wind to blow and the rain to fall,” is
discontinued after the shacharith prayer of the first day of Passover.
In the Portuguese Ritual the words מוריד הטל, “Thou causest the dew
to fall,” are introduced instead.
Similarly, there is an additional prayer for rain (גשם) in the Musaf
of Shemini-atsereth. The time chosen for these prayers is in accordance
with the meteorological conditions of Palestine. This custom, however,
does not exclude the addition of prayers for rain or dew, according to
the needs of the country in which we live.
THE DAYS OF THE COUNTING OF THE OMER, ימי הספירה
The period from Passover to the Feast of Weeks is full of sad memories
of massacres of Jews that took place in the days of the Crusades; also
of the miseries that befell the Jews in Palestine in the days of the
Emperor Hadrian. During the month of Iyar, the Jews abstain from
rejoicings and weddings, [120] with the exception of the 18th of the
month, which is the 33rd of the Omer, because, according to Tradition,
a plague that had raged among the disciples of Rabbi Akiba ceased on
that day. The 18th of Iyar, ל״ג בעומר is therefore called “the
scholars’ festival.”
THE FEAST OF WEEKS, שבועות
The Feast of Weeks is celebrated on the fiftieth day [121] of the Omer
(Lev. xxiii. 16); i.e., the 6th of Sivan. It is, in the first place,
“the feast of harvest,” חג הקציר (Exod. xxiii. 16), especially of the
wheat, and “the day of the first-fruit offering,” יום הבכורים (Num.
xxviii. 26). The first sacrifice of the new corn was offered: “the
bread of the first-fruit,” which was to serve as an expression of
gratitude for the blessing of the harvest. In the absence of sacrifices
in our days, the custom widely prevails of adorning the Synagogue and
the home with plants and flowers, in order that the sight of these
beautiful objects might awaken and strengthen feelings of gratitude
toward the Almighty for His loving-kindness. Each one of the plants and
flowers reveals a special form of the Creator’s wisdom, power, and
goodness.—The feast is called Feast of Weeks, חג השבעות (Deut. xvi.
10), on account of the completion of the seven weeks counted from the
day of the Omer.
The Feast of Weeks, the 6th and the 7th of Sivan, commemorates also an
historical event: the Law-giving on Mount Sinai. It is therefore called
“the season of the giving of our Law,” זמן מתן תורתנו.
As Passover has been poetically called the day of Israel’s betrothal to
God, the Feast of Weeks would correspond to the wedding-day, and the
counting of the Omer does thus not only connect two harvest-feasts, but
represents the longing of the bride for the day of her complete
happiness; i.e., the longing of the Israelites for the Divine
Revelation, which was to complete the work of their deliverance from
Egypt.
The celebration of the Feast of Weeks thus involves the second
principle of our faith: תורה מן השמים “The belief in the Divine
origin of the Law,” or “Divine Revelation.”
On the first day we read Exod. xix.–xx., the account of the Law-giving
on Mount Sinai, and Ez. i., the first vision of the prophet Ezekiel, in
which the glory of God is revealed to him. On the second day Deut. xv.
19 (on Sabbath, xiv. 22) to xvi. 17; and Hab. iii., “the prayer of
Habakkuk,” in reference to God’s Revelation as the Ruler of the
universe.—There is also the custom to read the Book of Ruth, which
contains the account of Ruth’s embracing the true faith, and a
description of the harvest and the treatment of the poor in the
harvest-season.
There is a custom among some of our brethren to employ the first night
of the Feast in preparing themselves for the coming celebration of the
giving of the Law. The greater part of the night is spent in reading
passages from the Scriptures and from the Talmudical books. [122] The
custom has its basis in the preparation commanded by God to be made
during “the three days of bordering” (שלשת ימי הגבלה) which preceded
the Law-giving (Exod. xix. 10–12).
THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, סכות
“The fifteenth day of this seventh month (Tishri) shall be the Feast of
Tabernacles (סכות) for seven days unto the Lord” (Lev. xxiii. 34).
The name has its explanation in the commandment, “Ye shall dwell in
booths seven days” (ibid. 42); “that your generations may know that I
made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out
of the land of Egypt” (ver. 43). We are thus commanded to commemorate
the travelling of the Israelites through the wilderness. They dwelt in
tents, that gave them shelter to some extent; but without the Divine
protection this shelter would have proved insufficient. Of this twofold
shelter and protection we are reminded by the tabernacle in which the
Law commands us to dwell during the Festival.
In fulfilment of this commandment we make booths (סכות). The chief
difference between a booth and an ordinary house consists in the mode
and in the material employed for roofing the two structures. For the
succah must not be covered with fixed boards and beams or with canvas,
but with detached branches of trees, plants, flowers, and leaves, in
such a manner that the covering is not quite impenetrable to wind and
rain, or starlight. During the Festival the succah is our
dwelling-house, in which we take our meals, study, receive our friends,
and, if possible, enjoy rest and sleep. If, on account of the severity
of the climate, the constant dwelling in the succah threatens to prove
injurious to our health, we content ourselves with taking our meals in
the succah. Before each meal we recite the blessing ברוך … אשר קדשנו …
לישב בסוכה “Blessed art thou ... who hast sanctified us by thy
commandments and hast commanded us to dwell in the booth.” The first
time we are in the succah we add the blessing, שהחינו (p. 358).
The Festival is, secondly, called “the Feast of Ingathering,” חג
האסיף. The produce of the fields and gardens have been gathered in,
and the people rejoice before the Lord in gratitude for the blessings
which He has granted to them. “And ye shall take unto you on the first
day the fruit of the goodly tree, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of
thick-leaved trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice
before the Lord your God seven days” (Lev. xxiii. 40). In accordance
with the traditional interpretation of this verse, we take four kinds
of plants (ארבעה מינין), viz., אתרוג “the citron;” לולב, “a
branch of the palm-tree;” הדסים, three “myrtle branches;” and
ערבות, two “branches of the willow.” According to a Midrashic
interpretation, they represent four different types of plants, that
which has a pleasant fragrance and a beautiful form (esrog); the
beautiful in form, but without fragrance (lulabh); that which smells
pleasantly, but is inferior in form (hadassim); and that which has
neither a goodly form nor an agreeable fragrance (arabhoth), as if to
say that we are thankful to God for all that He has given us, although
to our mind some of these seem imperfect in comparison with others.
In obedience to this commandment we take, every day of Succoth except
Saturday, [123] the above four kinds into our hands, hold them during
the recitation of the Hallel, and make with them a procession round the
Synagogue, [124] while singing the hymns called hoshaanoth (so called
on account of the repeated occurrence of the word hoshaanah in them).
Before taking the arbaah minim into our hands we say the following
blessing: ברוך … אשר קדשנו … על נטילת לולב “Blessed art thou ... who
hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to take
the lulabh.” [125] On the first day שהחינו is added.
Succoth lasts seven days, the last five days being half Holy-days, חול
המועד. The seventh day is called Hoshaana-rabba, because on that day
many prayers beginning with hoshaana are offered up, during the
chanting of which seven processions round the Synagogue are made. [126]
The Feast of Tabernacles is closely followed by “the feast of the
eighth day,” שמיני עצרת, [127] which, like all other Festivals, is
kept two days. The second day is, in addition, called “Rejoicing of the
Law,” שמחת תורה because on this day the reading of the Pentateuch is
completed and recommenced.
The nine days of the Festival are called זמן שמחתנו “The season of
our rejoicing,” and it is the third principle of our faith, the belief
in Divine Providence, that this Festival impresses on our hearts. On
the one hand, we have the rejoicing and the four species of plants as
proofs and tokens of Divine blessing; and, on the other hand, the
succah is a symbol of human frailties and imperfections. Thus, in all
our rejoicings we should remember that our abode on earth is not
permanent, and that all earthly happiness is like the plants that
easily fade away. In order to impress this idea on our mind, we read
the book of Koheleth on Sabbath chol-ha-moëd or on Shemini-atsereth.
The following portions are read from the Pentateuch: Lev. xxii. 26 to
xxiii. 44 [128] (on the first two days); Exod. xxxiii. 12 to xxxiv. 26
(on Sabbath chol-ha-moëd); Deut. xiv. 22 to xvi. 7 (on the eighth day);
Deut. xxxiii. to end of Pentateuch; and Gen. i. 1 to ii. 3 (on Simchath
Torah). In addition, the paragraph of the sacrifices of the day (Num.
xxix. 12–39) is read from a second sefer. The Lessons for chol-ha-moëd
are taken from the same passage.
The Lessons from the Prophets are the following: Zech. xiv., prophecy
on the future of Israel and on the punishment of those who would not
come to Jerusalem to celebrate there the Succoth Festival; 1 Kings
viii. 2–21, on the opening of the new Temple; on Sabbath chol-ha-moëd,
Ez. xxxviii. 18 to xxxix. 16, on the war with Gog; 1 Kings viii. 22–66,
prayer of Solomon on the eighth day of the services for the
consecration of the Temple; Jos. i., accession of Joshua to the
leadership of Israel.
SOLEMN DAYS, ימים נוראים
By ימים נוראים “solemn days,” we understand the first ten days of the
month Tishri, especially their beginning and their end: ראש השנה,
“New-year,” and יום כפור “the Day of Atonement.” [129]
It is customary to prepare for the “solemn days” during the month of
Elul, by additional prayers, called סליחות “forgiveness,” after or
before the Daily Service, and by blowing the shofar at the close of the
Daily Service. [130] According to the Portuguese Ritual, the Selichoth
begin on the 1st of Elul, and are continued morning and evening till
the Day of Atonement. The German Ritual has Selichoth only in the
Morning Service; they begin on the Sunday before New-year, and if the
Festival is on Monday or Tuesday, on the second Sunday before, and end
on the Day of Atonement. The blowing of the shofar takes place in the
German Synagogues during the month of Elul, in the Portuguese this
custom is not practiced.
ראש השנה NEW-YEAR.
The first and the second days of Tishri are kept as New-year. [131] In
accordance with the command, “The first of the first-fruits of thy land
thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God” (Exod. xxxiv. 26),
we devote the first ten days of the year as an offering to the Lord;
they are days of increased devotion, earnest self-examination, and new
efforts to lead a good, virtuous, and godly life. They are called עשרת
ימי תשובה “ten days of return” to God, or “ten penitential days.”
We greet and congratulate each other on New-year, using the phrase,
לשנה טובה תכתב—or לש׳ ט׳ תכחבי, תכתבו, תכתבנה according as a male,
a female, several males, or several females are addressed—“May you be
inscribed for a happy year.” It is a figurative expression, borrowed
from the writing and signing of decrees by earthly judges.
In the Bible the Festival is not called New-year, [132] but יום תרועה
“Day of blowing the shofar” (Num. xxix. 1); and זכרון תרועה “Memorial
of the blowing of the shofar” (Lev. xxiii. 24); in our prayers the
names יום הזכרון and יום הדין “Day of Remembering” and “Day of
Judgment,” are also used.
The first of these four names implies, according to the traditional
interpretation, the commandment of blowing the shofar. As a rule the
shofar is blown during the Morning Service before the sefer is returned
to the Ark, and during Musaf. [133] The blowing of the shofar is
expressed by תרועה, which denotes the sound of an alarm; hence we
learn that the shofar is intended to awaken us, and to call us forth to
range ourselves under our banner. It is an ideal banner, the worship of
God and faith in Him, that we are called upon to protect and to defend
from enemies without and within. [134] Prominence is therefore given in
our Service for New-year to the proclamation of God as King of the
universe, and to our longing for the time when all mankind will unite
in the worship of the One God.
The name “Memorial of blowing the shofar” indicates that we are to
remember some historical event suggested by the sound of the shofar. We
are reminded of the period when the Israelites, encamped round Mount
Sinai, on hearing the Divine message, “Ye shall be my peculiar people,”
“a kingdom of priests,” and “a holy nation,” joyfully replied, “All
that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod. xix. 8). The shofar thus
awakens us to greater watchfulness and activity in the purification and
sanctification of our heart.
The third name, “Day of Memorial,” seems to be a modification of the
second; but it has a more general meaning. The second name, that
reminds us of our duty as God’s peculiar people, suggests also the idea
that God, who declared us to be His people, watches over us; that what
we do, we do in His presence. He perceives, notes, and remembers all
our deeds, words, and thoughts. When, therefore, we appeal to the
goodness of Him, who remembers all His creatures and provides for the
wants of every one of them, we must not forget that He is also just.
This idea, again, suggests the fourth name, יום הדין “Day of
Judgment,” the day on which we are judged according to our deeds, both
our merits and our shortcomings being taken into account.
The essential elements in our Service are the three sections in the
Amidah of Musaf: מלכיות, זכרונות and שופרות. They chiefly refer
to the three fundamental principles of our religion: (1) Existence of
God, a Being that is King of the universe; (2) Divine Justice, and (3)
Revelation. Ten passages are quoted from the Bible in support of each
of these principles.
Tradition has fixed the 1st of Tishri as the date of several events in
the history of Israel, e.g., the birth of Isaac, the binding of Isaac
(עקדה), and the birth of Samuel (B. T. Rosh ha-shanah 10b). Hence
Gen. xxi. and xxii. are read on the two days of New-year, in addition
to the paragraph on the sacrifices of the Festival (Num. xxix. 1–6).
From the Prophets, we read on the first day 1 Sam. i. 1 to ii. 10, on
the birth of Samuel, and the prayer of Hannah praising the justice of
God; on the second day, Jer. xxxi. 2–20, a prophecy concerning the
restoration of Israel. [135]
The Sabbath between New-year and the Day of Atonement is called שבת
שובה because the haphtarah, taken from Hosea (xiv. 1 seq.), commences
with the word שובה and is an exhortation of Israel to return to God.
יום כפור “DAY OF ATONEMENT.”
The tenth day of the seventh month, Tishri, is the most important of
all the Holy-days. It is the Day of Atonement, on which “God will
forgive you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins
before the Lord” (Lev. xvi. 30).
“Ye shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute for ever
throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you
a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict yourselves: in the ninth day of
the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your
sabbath” (Lev. xxiii. 31, 32).
The Day of Atonement is therefore a day of resting, fasting, prayer,
and spiritual improvement.
It is a day of rest, and the prohibition of work is the same as on the
ordinary Sabbath.
The fasting begins the 9th of Tishri—ערב יום כפור—about sunset, and
lasts till the beginning of night on the following day. The phrase,
ועניתם את נפשתיכם “Ye shall afflict yourselves,” is explained by
Tradition to signify the total abstinence from all kinds of food and
the gratification of other bodily desires (Mishnah, Yoma viii. 1). The
reason of this commandment may be the following: The principal source
of sin is the gratification of our bodily appetites; תשובה “return”
to the right way must therefore include the earnest attempt to control,
and when necessary to suppress, such appetites. Fasting is such an
attempt. But it must be borne in mind that fasting is only one of the
duties we have to fulfil on the Day of Atonement, and that the other
duties are equally essential.
תשובה “return,” is the principal object of the celebration of the Day
of Atonement; it implies the following four steps:—
1. Consciousness of sin, ידיעת החטא. We must again and again examine
ourselves and try to discover our failings; our actions and our words
must pass in review, and we must remember that, however good we may be,
no man is righteous upon earth “that doeth good and sinneth not”
(Eccles. vii. 20).
2. Confession of sin, ודוי. [136] On the discovery of sin, we must
have the courage to confess our guilt before him against whom we have
sinned; if it is against God alone that we have sinned, we make silent
confession before Him; if we find ourselves guilty of an offence
against our fellow-man, we must confess our sin to him.
3. Regret, חרטה. Having discovered and confessed our sin, we should
feel pain and remorse, alike for the evil we have done and for the good
we have left undone.
4. Amendment, עזיבת החטא. The regret should be followed by a firm
resolve to abandon the way of evil, and not to sin again, even if
occasion be given for a repetition of the sinful act.
There are five Services on the Day of Atonement:
(1) Evening Service, מעריב; [137] (2) Morning Service, שחרית; (3)
Additional Service, מוסף; (4) Afternoon Service, מנחה; (5)
Concluding Service, נעילה. [138]—The confession of sin, ודוי is the
most essential and characteristic element in the Services of the Day of
Atonement.
In the Morning Service we read Lev. xvi., and Num. xxix. 7–11, on the
sacrifices on the Day of Atonement; in the Afternoon Service, Lev.
xviii., on forbidden marriages. The Lessons from the Prophets are: in
the morning, Isa. lvii. 14–lviii. 14, on our duties on the fast-day; in
the afternoon, the Book of Jonah, illustrating the effect of sincere
repentance, and Micah vii. 18–20, on Israel’s repentance.
HISTORICAL FEASTS AND FASTS.
Besides the Festivals commanded in the Torah, we celebrate also in the
course of the year anniversaries of certain days both of joy and of
sorrow. Of the former kind are חנוכה and פורים; of the latter, the
9th of Ab and four other fasts.
חנוכה FEAST OF DEDICATION.
On the 25th of Kislev we begin to celebrate eight days of חנוכה or
Dedication, in commemoration of the victories of the Maccabees over
Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria. Antiochus had attempted to force
the Jews to idolatry, and to make them abandon the worship of the true
God. The Jews, led by the Maccabees, resisted, and, armed with faith in
God, gained the victory over large armies of the enemy. The Temple,
which had been defiled by the heathen soldiers, was again purified, and
the Service of God re-established. For lighting the continual lamp (נר
תמיד) pure oil was wanted, that had not been touched by the heathen.
Only a small cruse of pure oil was found, which was believed to be
sufficient for one night; but it sufficed for eight days, by which time
a fresh supply could be procured.
The Feast of Dedication commemorates the victory of the faithful over
the faithless, of the true religion over idolatry, of light over
darkness, and is celebrated—
(1.) By lighting חנוכה lights, one on the first evening, and adding
one light each successive evening, so that on the eighth evening eight
lights are kindled.
(2.) By giving expression to our feeling of gratitude in psalms (הלל)
and prayers of thanks (על הנסים).
In the Morning Service a few verses from Num. vii., on the dedication
of the Altar, are read. On Sabbath Chanuccah, Zechariah’s vision, Zech.
ii. 10 to iii. 7, including the vision of the golden candlestick, is
read as haphtarah; and if there happen to be a second Sabbath
Chanuccah, 1 Kings vii. 40–50, a description of the various vessels and
ornaments in the Temple of Solomon is read on that Sabbath.
Note 1.—The חנוכה lights remind us, in the first place, of the
reopening of the Temple and the resumption of the regular Temple
Service. But they are also intended to remind us of the light of our
holy faith, which Antiochus Epiphanes attempted in vain to extinguish.
For it shed forth its light again, and shone brighter and brighter
every successive day. We thus learn that when our religion is
imperilled, firmness against temptation or force is sure to lead to
success and victory.
2. Before lighting the Chanuccah lights the following blessings are
said: ברוך … אשר קדשנו … להדליק נר של חנוכה “Blessed art thou ... who
hast sanctified us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to kindle
the lights of Chanuccah.” ברוך … שעשה נסים לאבותינו בימים ההם בזמן
הזה “Blessed art thou ... who wroughtest miracles for our fathers in
days of old at this season.” On the first night שהחינו is added.
פורים PURIM.
פורים or “Feast of Lots,” is celebrated on the 14th and the 15th of
Adar (second Adar in a leap-year), in commemoration of the defeat of
Haman’s wicked plans. Haman was chief minister to Ahasuerus, king of
Persia, and planned to kill all the Jews in the Persian Empire, but the
Almighty frustrated his designs through the agency of Mordecai and his
cousin Esther. The Feast is called Purim, that is, “lots,” because
Haman had cast lots in order to discover the day most favourable to his
plans.
We celebrate Purim—
(1.) By reading twice, once during the Evening Service and once during
the Morning Service, the Book of Esther (מגלת אסתר), which contains
the history of Haman’s plans and their frustration. The reading is
preceded by the following blessing: ברוך … אשר קדשנו … על מקרא מגלה
“Blessed art thou ... who hast sanctified us by thy commandments and
hast commanded us to read the Megillah.” ברוך … שעשה נסים לאבותינו
בימים ההם בזמן הזה “Blessed art thou ... who wroughtest miracles for
our fathers in days of old at this season,” and שהחינו.
(2.) By giving presents to our friends (משלוח מנות) and gifts to the
poor (מתנות לאביונים).
(3.) By a festive meal (סעודת פורים). Comp. Esth. ix. During the
Morning Service the account of the war with Amalek is read from Exod.
xvii. 8–16.
The 15th of Adar is called Shushan Purim, because the Jews in Shushan
continued to fight against the enemy on the 14th of Adar, and kept
Purim on the 15th. The 13th of Adar, being the day appointed for the
slaughter of the Jews, is now kept as a fast-day, and is called תענית
אסתר “the Fast of Esther.”
THE FOUR FASTS.
There are four days kept as fast-days in commemoration of events
connected with the fall of Jerusalem. They are called in the Bible
(Zech. viii. 19) “the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the
fifth, and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth.” These
days are the anniversaries of the commencement of the siege of
Jerusalem (10th of Tebeth), of the breach made in the wall (17th of
Tammuz), of the destruction of the Temple (9th of Ab), and of the
murder of Gedaliah (3rd of Tishri). The 9th of Ab is kept as a day of
fasting and mourning for the destruction of the Temple. According to
Tradition, both the first and the second Temple were destroyed on the
same day.
The Lesson from the Pentateuch read in the Morning and in the Afternoon
Services on the fast-days is Exod. xxxii. 11–14 and xxxiv. 1–10. On the
9th of Ab this section is read in the afternoon only; the Morning
Lesson being Deut. iv. 25–40 and Jer. viii. 13 to ix. 23; in the
Afternoon Service on all fasts Isa. lv. 6 to lvi. 8 is read as
haphtarah.
Note 1.—These fasts begin with daybreak, except the fast of the 9th of
Ab, which commences with the previous evening and lasts twenty-four
hours, and is in all respects like that of the Day of Atonement. During
the day the Lamentations of Jeremiah, various elegies called קינות,
“Lamentations,” and the Book of Job are read. On the Fast of Ab, as a
sign of mourning, talith and tefillin are not worn during the Morning
Service. They are, however, put on for the Afternoon Service.
2. The Sabbath preceding the Fast of Ab is called שבת חזון, and the
Sabbath following, שבת נחמו because the Haphtaroth on these Sabbaths
(ch. i. and ch. xl. of Isaiah) begin respectively with the words חזון
and נחמו; the one containing rebukes and threats, the other a message
of comfort.
Besides these historical fasts, there are voluntary fasts observed by
some as an expression of deep-felt piety; e.g., the three fasts of שני
חמישי ושני of Monday, Thursday, and Monday, kept after the festive
seasons of Passover and Tabernacles, in imitation of Job, who after the
days of feasting sanctified his sons, and brought special sacrifices
(Job i.). To this class of fasts may be reckoned the day before
New-moon, called יום כפור קטן on which in some congregations the
Afternoon Service is enlarged by propitiatory prayers.
V. DIVINE WORSHIP, עבודה.
In the Midrash the following legend is related: When, at the conclusion
of the seventh day, the sun had set and darkness had spread over the
earth, Adam was afraid that the world was now coming to an end. But the
Almighty caused him to find two stones, by means of which he produced
light. On seeing this Adam was full of joy, and although he had himself
produced the spark, he felt that it was to his Creator and Master that
thanks were due, and gave expression to his feelings in the words,
“Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who createst
the light of the fire.”
Thus the legend traces the beginning of Divine Worship to the first
man; and, in fact, the desire to commune with the Creator and to give
outward expression to the inner feeling of reverence and allegiance is
so general that it seems to be part of man’s nature.
In a different way this feeling was expressed by the sons of Adam, by
Cain and Abel. They brought presents to the Lord, probably accompanied
by words of praise and prayer. No essential difference is noticed by us
in the offerings of the two brothers; each of them brought what seemed
best in his eyes. And yet the offering of Cain was rejected, whilst
that of Abel was received favourably. An important lesson it is that
Scripture teaches here at the very threshold of the history of
sacrifices. It is this: The value of an offering does not lie in its
outward appearance, in that which is open to man’s judgment, but in
something that is known to the Omniscient alone, in the heart of him
who approaches his Creator with a gift, in the motives which prompt him
to do so, and in the feelings which accompany that act. From these
beginnings the two forms of Divine Worship, Sacrifice and Prayer,
gradually developed.
SACRIFICE (מנחה, קרבן).
What was the main idea that prompted man to bring an offering to the
Almighty? He felt, as it were, the existence of a higher Being, the
Creator and Ruler of all things; he was conscious that his own life and
welfare depended on the Will of the Being to whom in reality everything
belongs that man believes himself to possess and to enjoy. In order to
give expression to this feeling of allegiance man brought the first and
best of what he had acquired to the true Owner, and thus introduced
[139] himself by such gifts as a faithful subject who is anxious to
merit the favour of his Master. That which was at first introduced by
man voluntarily, was afterwards sanctioned and regulated by Divine
command.
There were two kinds of sacrifices: bloodless sacrifices, minchah and
nesech, “flour-offering” and “drink-offering,” and blood sacrifices:
animal-offerings. But no difference is discernible between these two
kinds with regard to their importance, sanctity, and efficiency. As a
rule, the animal-offering was supplemented by minchah and nesech. The
treatment of sacrifices varied according as they were intended to
express the feeling of reverence, rejoicing, gratitude, or repentance,
and special rules had to be observed in each case, the various kinds of
sacrifice being עולה “burnt-offering,” or שלמים “peace-offering,”
or תודה “thanksgiving,” or חטאת “sin-offering,” or אשם
“guilt-offering.” The Law further fixed the place, the time, and the
method of sacrificing, and appointed also the persons who alone were
allowed to attend to this function, so that no strange element, no
idolatrous or superstitious customs, could be introduced into the
sacrificial service ordained by the Law.
Great stress is laid on the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice
upon the altar. “The blood,” the Law says, “is the soul of all flesh;
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for the
soul” (Lev. xvii. 11). We are thus reminded that, in so far as the
animal life is concerned, “the pre-eminence of man over the beast is
nought,” and yet the Creator gave us the right to shed the blood of
animals in order to save our life. Why? Because man has a higher
mission to fulfil; he has been created in the image of God.
These and similar reflections were suggested by the different elements
constituting the sacrificial rite. With the destruction of the Temple
sacrifices ceased; with the Restoration of Israel and the Rebuilding of
the Temple the Sacrificial Service will likewise be resumed. (Comp.
Mal. iii. 4). There are persons who believe that the Sacrificial
Service, implying much of anthropomorphism, could not have been
intended to be permanent, and that it was only a concession made to the
fashion and the low degree of culture of the age. Those who reject
sacrifices on this account must also reject prayer, which is likewise
based on a certain degree of anthropomorphism, though less strikingly
than sacrifice. If the law concerning offerings were only intended for
a certain age, such limitation would have been indicated in the Law. In
the absence of such indication we have no right to criticise the Word
of God, and to think that we are too advanced in culture to obey the
Divine commands, It has been further argued that, according to
Maimonides and his followers, the laws concerning sacrifices only
served as a means of counteracting the idolatrous tendencies of the
age. But Maimonides never went so far as to contend that these laws
have served their purpose, and are now null and void. Even those laws
which have been enacted by human authority remain in force till they
are repealed in a regular and legal manner. But what human being can
claim a right to abolish laws given by the Almighty? Whether any of the
laws of the Torah will ever be abrogated we do not know, but we are
sure that, in case of such abrogation taking place, it will be done by
a revelation as convincing as that on Mount Sinai.
On the other hand, the revival of the Sacrificial Service must likewise
be sanctioned by the divine voice of a prophet. The mere acquisition of
the Temple Mount or of all Palestine by Jews, by war, or political
combinations, or purchase, would not justify the revival. It is only
the return of the Jews to Palestine, and the rebuilding of the Temple
by Divine command and by Divine intervention, that will be followed by
the restoration of the Sacrificial Service. And however contrary the
slaughter of animals, the sprinkling of their blood, and the burning of
their flesh be to our taste, we ought to look forward with eagerness
and pleasure for the revival of the full Temple Service as an event
that will enable us to do the Will of the Almighty revealed in the
Torah. Instead of modelling the Divine laws according to our liking, we
ought rather to regulate the latter according to the teaching of
Scripture, and suppress it when contrary to the express Will of God. We
therefore give expression to our hope “for the restoration of the
Temple with its ancient Service” in frequent and fervent prayers, and
in accordance with the exhortation of Hosea (xiv. 2) we read each day
during the Service Scriptural passages referring to the sacrifice of
the day.
“Sacrifices have been condemned by prophets and psalmists”! But in the
passages which seem antagonistic to sacrifices only those sacrifices
are referred to which are brought in a wrong spirit or from bad
motives. (Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22; Isa. i. 11–13, xliii. 24, lxvi. 2; Jer.
vii. 21; Hosea vi. 6; Amos v. 25; Ps. l. 8.)
PRAYERS, תפלה [140]
Prayer is the general name for that form of Divine Worship which is
expressed in words; it has a wider scope than sacrifices, for it is not
limited to a special place, or to a certain time, or to one privileged
family. It is accessible to all, in all places and at all times. All
alike are addressed by the Psalmist, “Let everything that hath breath
praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord” (Ps. cl. 6).
There is no direct commandment in the Torah concerning prayer; it is
rather assumed as a matter of course, and as inseparable from our
belief in God. According to Tradition (Sifre on Deut. xi. 13), the
exhortation to serve God with all the heart implies the duty of prayer.
“What duty depends on the heart? It is the duty of prayer.” (Comp.
Maim. Mishneh-torah, Hilchoth Tefillah i. 1.) The following are a few
of the general rules laid down by our Sages with regard to Prayer:—
“Better little with devotion (כונה) than much without devotion”
(Shulchan-aruch, Orach Chayyim i. 4).
“During prayer bear in mind before whom you stand” (Babyl. T.,
Berachoth 28b).
“The value of the words uttered with the lips is determined by the
devotion of the heart” (Babyl. T., Berachoth 15b).
What is devotion? The concentration of all our attention upon the words
we utter, the banishment of all foreign thoughts from the mind, and the
consciousness that we stand in the presence of the Almighty, whom it is
our duty to love, fear, and obey. A prayer uttered in this frame of
mind is called “a prayer without lips of deceit” (Ps. xvii. 1). Comp.
Maim., l. c., iv. 15.
It is a matter of course that indecorous conduct, unbecoming attitudes,
and the like cannot harmonise with true devotion. With regard to
language, form, time, and place of prayer nothing was fixed originally;
all was regulated by the momentary impulse of the heart of the
worshipper. But people who considered themselves incapable of giving
adequate expression to their devotional feelings borrowed the words of
those more capable than themselves and followed their leading. Such a
course was also necessary for common and united devotion. When a
certain prayer or a certain order of Service was frequently repeated at
the same season and in the same place, the form, the time, and the
place of prayer became to a certain degree fixed by custom—minhag—and
that which had in the beginning been voluntary (רשות) was
subsequently made law or duty (מצוה or חובה). [141]
The minhag is a most important element in Jewish religious life. What
one has been accustomed to do for a long time, or even from his
earliest youth, is deeply impressed on the heart, and is not readily
surrendered. Such customs are sometimes more cherished and more firmly
adhered to than express precepts. [142] It is the outcome of this
respect for custom that in all countries the Jews pray in Hebrew. But
nevertheless the general principle remains in force that it is not the
language that determines the value of prayer but “the devotion of the
heart,” and those who do not understand Hebrew may give expression to
“the devotion of their heart” in the language they understand and
speak. Women, who as a rule were not expected to be Hebrew scholars,
used to read translations of the Hebrew prayers in the vernacular
instead of, or in addition to, the original; they had also prayers
composed for them in the vernacular (תחנות). And in more ancient
times, when the Jews of Babylon had adopted the Aramean dialect spoken
in that country, and retained it also after their return to Palestine,
many prayers were composed in the more familiar language, although
Hebrew was retained for the principal prayers. Hebrew has a special
claim to privilege and distinction among the Jews. It is our national
language, which our forefathers once spoke; it is the language in which
the Almighty addressed the prophets, and through them the Israelites;
the language in which God revealed His Will to the Israelites on Mount
Sinai; the language in which the holy Psalmist sang the praises of the
Creator, the priests blessed the people, and worshippers prayed in the
Temple at Jerusalem. It must be the pride of every Jew to be enabled to
pray at home, and especially in the Synagogues, in that same language,
and if Hebrew be not the language of his every-day life, he should seek
to perfect his knowledge of it to such an extent that he shall be able
to understand the prayers and to pray with his whole heart. Those who
seek the abolition of Hebrew in our Services aim, consciously or
unconsciously, at the destruction of our nationality as the people of
the Lord, by breaking asunder one important link which connects us with
the wonderful past of our nation.
Equally indifferent with regard to the value of prayer are its length
and its form. The Bible offers examples for all kinds and lengths of
prayer. If one wishes to pray in a few words, he need only follow the
example of Moses, who in the moment of anguish uttered nothing beyond
the words, “O God, heal her now” (Num. xii. 13). If one prefers a long
prayer, he may also take Moses as a guide, who prayed forty days for
the forgiveness of the Israelites after they had made the golden calf
(Deut. ix. 18, 25). Both prayers were equally efficacious. Miriam was
healed, and the Israelites obtained pardon. With regard to the form, we
have in the Bible prayers in prose and in poetry; some uttered in
simple speech, others in song; some with musical accompaniment, some
without it. All of them seem to have been at first the response to a
momentary impulse, but were afterwards repeated on similar occasions in
the original or in a modified form.
Among the various motives that impel us to seek communion with our
Father, is the desire for certain things which we have not, and the
conviction that it is solely in His hand to fulfil our wishes. [143] A
genuine prayer of this kind—for the fulfilment of certain wishes of
ours—is impossible without the belief in the efficacy of prayer. We
cannot with certainty expect that our petition will be granted, but we
hope that it will; we submit our wishes to the Will of the Almighty.
The Hebrew name for prayer תפלה implied the idea of judgment, as if
we judged whether the concession of our petition might fairly be
anticipated. Such judgment, however, is not to be considered as
decisive; and if our request is to be granted, it will be as an act of
mercy and grace (רחמים ותחנונים), and not because it is a claim fully
proved (קבע). [144] We hope that our prayer will be granted, but
never lose sight of the condition “if it please God.” There are a few
exceptional cases. Prophets like Moses (Exod. viii. 6), Samuel (1 Sam.
xii. 17), Elijah (1 Kings xviii.), Elisha (2 Kings iv. 33 sqq.), and
others, men inspired by the Almighty, were, on certain occasions, sure
of the effect of their prayer. In the Mishnah (Taanith iii. 8) the case
of Choni (חוני המעגל) is mentioned, who spoke with certainty of the
result of his prayer. It must, however, in the latter case be added
that the head of the Sanhedrin, Shimeon ben Shatach, blamed him for his
conduct.
This we know for certain, that whenever and wherever we respond to an
inner impulse by the utterance of a prayer, God is near us, for “He is
nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in
truth” (Ps. cxlv. 18); that we and the place on which we stand are
hallowed by the Divine Presence. Places once hallowed by such devotion,
whether of our own or of our fellow-men, we like to visit again and
again for the same purpose. The spot of Jacob’s first communion with
God thus became “the house of God;” and even during the period when
there was one central Sanctuary for the Sacrificial Service in Israel,
at Gilgal, Mizpah, Shiloh, and later in Jerusalem, there were houses of
God throughout the country for devotion unaccompanied by sacrifices.
These were “the meeting-places of God” (Ps. lxxiv. 8), in which the
Israelites assembled to meet their Creator. Such houses of God were
established wherever Jews settled; their main purpose was united
devotion; but they served also many other purposes—in fact, every holy,
good, and noble cause. The house of God was the Assembly-house,
Synagogue (בית הכנסת), in which the affairs of the community (צרכי
צבור) were settled; the young had there their school, adults came
there for religious instruction, and found there opportunity for the
study of the Law, and the poor and stranger received there support and
hospitality.
In a Jewish Synagogue there were two important features, the platform
(בימה) and an ark (תבה) containing scrolls of the Law. From the
platform in the middle of the Synagogue, the lessons from the
Pentateuch and the Prophets were recited, and everything else that was
directly or indirectly addressed to the congregants. But prayers
addressed to the Most High were offered up from a lower place near the
Holy Ark, [145] in accordance with the words of the Psalmist (cxxx. 1),
“Out of the depth have I cried unto thee, O Lord.”
The Ark, or Holy Ark (ארון or ארון הקדש), in almost all modern
Synagogues—in places west of Jerusalem—occupies the middle of the east
side of the Synagogue. In the time of the Talmud the Synagogues were to
some extent made to resemble the Tabernacle which the Israelites built
in the wilderness or the Temple in Jerusalem. The entrance was from the
east, and the Ark, which was to represent the Most Holy, was in the
west. The Ark was, like the original one, movable. It was called
tebhah, lit. “box,” in order to distinguish it from the original. The
recess in which it was kept was the Hechal or Kodesh, “The Holy.” The
tebhah seems to have served both as a receptacle for the scrolls of the
Law, and as a desk on which these were put whenever they were required
for the reading of the Torah. On certain extraordinary occasions, when,
on account of the absence of rain, a general fast was ordered, the
tebhah, with a Sefer-torah on it, was carried into the street, [146]
where a special service was held.
The reason why the entrance to the Sanctuary and to the Synagogues was
from the east, and the worshippers consequently stood during prayer
with their face toward the west, may, according to the Mishnah (Succah
v. 4), be explained thus: The principal prayer of the day being that in
the morning, the Jews, as a protest against the sun-worship of the
idolaters, who at that hour were accustomed to greet the sun with their
prayer, turned away from the east and offered up their prayer to the
Almighty in the opposite direction. When sun-worship had ceased,
probably after the destruction of the second Temple, the national grief
and hope found expression in the custom of praying toward the Sanctuary
in Jerusalem. Hence the Jews who live west of Jerusalem stand during
prayer with the face toward the east, while those east of Jerusalem
turn westward. This custom is, besides, supported by the following
passage from the prayer of King Solomon: “And they pray unto thee
toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which
thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name” (1
Kings viii. 48). [147]
In most Synagogues there is a continual lamp (נר תמיד) burning. It is
a Biblical institution, but only designed for the Sanctuary; its
presence in the Synagogue is of comparatively modern date. The ner
tamid of the Sanctuary, however, is explained to be a lamp burning
“from evening to morning” (Exod. xxvii. 21). A golden candlestick
standing in the Sanctuary against the south side, with its seven
branches arranged from east to west, served this purpose. According to
Tradition it was the second branch, counting from east to west, which
really burnt continually; but this was not considered as implied in the
term ner tamid, which only meant “a continual lamp” in the sense of a
lamp that burns regularly every night.
The ner tamid in the Synagogue, which burns continually day and night,
is not mentioned by any of the earlier Rabbinical authors. It has been
introduced as a symbol representing our conviction that from the
Synagogue shall continually come forth the light of instruction, the
light of comfort and blessing, and the light of love and peace.
In the Synagogue women are separated from men. There was also in the
Temple an עזרת נשים “court of the women,” distinguished from the
עזרת אנשים “court of the men,” to which women had no access. During
the Feast of Tabernacles, when the great rejoicings in the Temple
attracted a large assembly, special care was taken (תקון גדול היה שם)
that the separation of the sexes should be maintained (Mishnah, Succah
v. 2; and Talm. B., Succah 51b). This precedent has been followed in
the Synagogue, and has been accepted as law up to this day.
Reservedness and modesty (צניעות) have always been the pride and
ornament of Jewish women, both in their homes and in the Synagogue;
hence also their taking a silent part in the public devotion is an
honour to them, and by no means derogatory.
In addition to the above-mentioned points, a Synagogue ought to be
distinguished by the greatest possible simplicity, by the absence of
all kinds of images, portraits, or statues representing living beings,
whether real or imaginary. The Jewish religion is void of every visible
symbol; and the so-called magen-david (the double triangle) is probably
not of Jewish origin, and has no connection with our holy religion. It
is not a symbol of this kind, but some inscription of a passage from
the Scriptures that in most houses of worship reminds us of the
sacredness of the place. We enter it with due reverence, manifesting it
outwardly, in our peculiar traditional manner, by keeping the head
covered. It is our ancient custom to cover the head when engaged in
prayers, in reading the Bible or Talmud and their commentaries. This
outward sign serves to remind us that not only our Service but even our
literature is something holy, and its study a religious act (מצוה).
[148]
Before we proceed to describe the details of our ritual, we mention one
important point in which the present Synagogal Service differs from the
ancient Service in the Temple. From what we are told in the Scriptures
and in the Talmud, we learn that instrumental music was an essential
element in the Service, and that King David and his successors paid
great attention to it, whilst, with a few exceptions, it is almost
entirely absent from our Synagogues. The principal reason why
instrumental music is excluded from the Synagogue is its prohibition on
Sabbaths and Holy-days by Rabbinical law (Babyl. T., Erubin 104a). This
prohibition, like many other enactments, did not apply to the Temple
Service; for the sacrificial laws had to be obeyed, irrespective of the
fact that they involved acts which, if performed apart from the Temple
Service, would constitute a breach of the Sabbath laws. Apart from the
Temple Service the Sabbath laws remained in full force for the priests
as well as for the general public.
There were also other considerations that helped to keep instrumental
music out of the Synagogue Service. Its absence, though not directly a
sign of mourning, served to preserve the memory of the destruction of
the Temple, and to strengthen our longing for its restoration. It is
also urged that the introduction of instrumental music into the Service
would not satisfy any real want of Jewish worshippers, but would merely
be a concession to the desire to assimilate our Divine Service to that
of our non-Jewish neighbours, contrary to the prohibition of chukkoth
haggoyim contained in the words, “Ye shall not walk in their statutes”
(Lev. xviii. 3), i.e., in the statutes of the Gentiles. But, on the
other hand, it has been argued that the feeling once expressed by the
nation in the words “This is my God, and I will worship him in a
beautiful manner” (Exod. xv. 2), still animates us. It is said that it
is our duty to make our Service as beautiful and as attractive as
possible. This argument deserves consideration, and might even outweigh
some of the above-mentioned arguments against the introduction of music
into our Service, if we were sure of the result of such introduction.
But this is by no means the case, for the experiment, where tried, has
not been successful if judged by the most practical test. The number of
worshippers has not been increased, and discontent has not been
removed. Whether the devotion of the worshippers has been improved,
refined, or intensified by music is a question that cannot be answered
with certainty. Even if the answer were satisfactory, it could only
apply to the introduction of instrumental music into our Service on
week-days, on Friday evening before the commencement of Sabbath, but
not on Sabbaths and Holy-days.
THE RITUAL.
In the Bible there is no indication of a fixed ritual; there are,
however, a few instances of forms of prayer prescribed for certain
occasions. There is the priests’ blessing (Num. vi. 24–26); the
thanksgiving on bringing the first-fruit offering to the Temple (Deut.
xxvi. 3–10); prayer on distributing the tithes which accumulated in
three years (ibid. 13–15). David (Ps. lv. 18) says, “Evening, and
morning, and at noonday do I pray;” Daniel “kneeled upon his knees
three times a day and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did
aforetime” (Dan. vi. 11); but nothing is said about the form and the
contents of these prayers. The Mishnah first speaks of certain fixed
forms of prayer: the “Eighteen” (שמונה עשרה), the reading of Shema
(קריאת שמע), and Benedictions (ברכות). The composition of the
tefillah, “Prayer” par excellence, is attributed to the Men of the
Great Synagogue (אנשי כנסת הגדולה), but only in its outlines. The
number of the paragraphs, the theme of each paragraph, and the formula
by which it is concluded may then have been fixed, the rest being left
to be filled up by each supplicant according to his capacity. It was
but natural that prayers uttered repeatedly by men eminent for their
piety should be eagerly copied by others, and gradually become, to some
extent at least, fixed forms of prayer. The tefillah, however, in the
time of the Mishnah was by no means identical with the tefillah of the
Men of the Great Synagogue. The destruction of the Temple necessitated
several changes; e.g., the prayers for the welfare of Jerusalem, for
the prosperity of Israel and of the Holy Land, and for the acceptance
of the Service in the Temple were altered in accordance with the new
state of affairs.
The Mishnah speaks of the tefillah as a well-known existing
institution; it seems that it was the regular prayer in the Synagogue
Service, and the discussion whether the tefillah should be repeated
every day in extenso or in an abbreviated form (Mishnah, Berachoth iv.
3) refers probably to the prayer recited privatim (תפלת יחיד), and
not to the Service in the Synagogue. The prescribed “Eighteen
Blessings” were the framework, into which each man was expected to fit
in his peculiar, individual supplications; whilst in the public Service
the tefillah remained uniform. In the days of Rabban Gamliel of Jamnia,
and with his sanction, an important addition was made by Samuel: a
prayer for the discomfiture of those who by slander, denunciation, or
other wicked means attempt to undermine the existence of the Jewish
religion and community (ברכת הצדוקים or ברכת המינים). [149] In some
congregations two other paragraphs (את צמח and ולירושלם) were at
the same time combined into one, in order to keep to the traditional
“Eighteen Blessings.” [150]
The reading of shema in the evening and in the morning, the three
sections constituting the shema, and the order of these sections, are
assumed in the Mishnah as fully established by law and usage. Only a
few regulations are discussed concerning the time and the mode of the
reading. There was this difference between the custom of the Babylonian
Jews and that of their brethren in Palestine, that the latter omitted
in the evening the passage referring to tsitsith. Later on, however,
the Palestine Jews conformed to the Babylonian custom. Suggestions have
been made to substitute other Biblical passages for shema, but they
have been rejected. Several attempts have been made to introduce, as an
addition to the three sections of shema, the reading of the Decalogue;
the addition was disallowed, lest people should be misled to think that
the Ten Commandments alone were to be observed, and that the other laws
were not binding (Babyl. T., Berachoth 12a). [151]
The Benedictions which precede and follow the reading of shema were
fixed in the time of the Mishnah as regards number, order, and form;
but the contents were left unsettled for some time (Mishnah, Berachoth
i. 4); in the Gemara their wording is still a subject for discussion.
The same can be said with regard to the relative order of shema and
tefillah. For the Evening Service the tefillah seems to have generally
been considered as optional. As to Benedictions in general, their
obligatory character is assumed in the Mishnah as admitted by all, and
only their form seems to have been fixed by the regulations mentioned
in Berachoth vi.–ix.
The Mishnah (Megillah iii. 4–iv. 10) includes a number of regulations
concerning the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the Book of
Esther. Detailed rules were laid down for the reader and the translator
(methurgeman), pointing out which passages should be omitted in the
translation, and which should be omitted even in the original. It seems
that there was a regular, consecutive reading, which was interrupted on
extraordinary days by the reading of passages referring to these days.
The ritual which was adopted for the priests in the Temple was an
abridged form of the ritual then in general use. It was as follows:
They commenced with a benediction—the first of those which precede the
shema (יוצר אור); then they read the Decalogue, shema (the three
paragraphs), and three further benedictions, אמת ויציב, עבודה
(corresponding to רצה in our prayer), and the blessing of the priests
(Mishnah, Tamid v. 1).
A special ritual is also mentioned in the Talmud (Mishnah, Taanith iv.
2) for the Maamadoth and the Fast-days. [152] There were four Services
daily, as on the Day of Atonement. The principal feature in the Service
of the Maamadoth was the reading of the first chapter of Genesis.
At the conclusion of the Talmud (about 500 C.E.) the essential parts of
our present ritual were already in a settled state; the shema with the
benedictions preceding and following, the tefillah with its variations
for New-moon, Sabbath, and Holy-days, the reading from the Law and the
prophets, and Hallel. The Seder evening Service was complete in its
main parts. Of the Benedictions (Berachoth) on various occasions both
form and contents were fixed, and the rule was laid down by Rabbi Meir
(Berachoth 40a) that he who uttered a berachah in a form different from
that fixed by our Sages has not fulfilled his duty (or, according to
Maimonides, Hilchoth Berachoth i. 5, is in error). Notwithstanding this
rule, however, changes were made; new benedictions were introduced and
old ones discontinued. [153]—Kaddish and Kedushah seem to have formed
part of the Service; of the latter the Talmud mentions the name, of the
former the response: “May his great Name be praised” יהא שמו הגדול
מבורך or יהא שמיה רבא מ׳ (Comp. Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 3a).
In the next period, that of the Geonim, we meet with the complete
Siddur, “Arrangement” or “Order” of Service for ordinary days, for
Sabbaths and Festivals, Benedictions for all occasions, and Piyyutim as
optional additions. Such a Siddur was arranged by the Gaon Rabbenu
Saadiah (892–942), and another by the Gaon Rabbenu Amram (about 880).
Henceforth the principal prayers underwent only insignificant
alterations. Of the next period the most important Siddurim are those
included in the Mishneh-torah, at the end of the second book, and that
contained in the Machzor Vitry. [154]
The additional prayers and piyyutim, being optional, varied according
to the taste of each congregation and its leaders; in course of time
these variations became permanent; the same was the case with minor
changes, especially in the less essential elements of the Service, and
thus the various Minhagim (Rites) of the various congregations came
into existence. The principal Minhagim of importance for us are: the
Polish, the Sephardic, the German, and the Italian Rites. [155] In the
following description of the Ritual only the two rites adopted in the
principal Synagogues of the Anglo-Jewish congregations in England will
be noted.
PRAYERS AT FIXED TIMES.
Although we constantly enjoy the blessings of God, the very breath we
breathe being the gift of our Heavenly Father, yet certain seasons of
the day, of the week, of the month, and of the year have been selected
as especially fit for reminding us of God’s kindness, and predisposing
our heart to devotion. Thus in the day, morning, noon and evening have
been fixed for prayer; in the week, Sabbath; in the month, New-moon; in
the year, the Festivals.
We have three daily Services: Maaribh, “Evening prayer;” Shacharith,
“Morning prayer,” [156] and Minchah, “Afternoon prayer.” On Sabbath,
New-moon, and Festivals an “Additional prayer,” Musaf, is inserted
between the Morning and the Afternoon Services, and on the Day of
Atonement, Neïlah, “Concluding Service,” is added after Minchah.
The two most essential elements in these Services are: (1) the Reading
of Shema (קריאת שמע), in the Maaribh and the Shacharith; (2) the
Tefillah or Amidah, common to all the Services.
1. THE READING OF SHEMA.
In obedience to the precept, “Thou shalt speak of them,” i.e., of “the
words which I command thee this day—when thou liest down and when thou
risest up,” three sections of the Law are read daily in the morning and
in the evening, viz., (1) Deut. vi. 4–9, beginning שמע “Hear;” (2)
Ibid. xi. 13–21, beginning והיה אם שמע תשמעו “And it shall be if ye
will diligently hearken;” (3) Num. xv. 37–41, beginning ויאמר יי “And
the Lord said.” The first section teaches the Unity of God, and our
duty to love this One God with all our heart, to make His Word the
subject of our constant meditation, and to instil it into the heart of
the young.—The second section contains the lesson of reward and
punishment: that our success depends on our obedience to the Will of
God. This important truth must constantly be kept before our eyes and
before the eyes of our children.—The third section contains the
commandment of tsitsith, the object of which is to remind us of God’s
precepts: “Ye shall see it and remember all the commandments of the
Lord and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart and your
own eyes, after which ye use to go astray, that you remember and do all
my commandments, and be holy unto your God.”
The reading of the shema is preceded by two berachoth: (1) יוצר אור
Praise of the Creator for the regular sequence of day and night, light
and darkness; (2) אהבה רבה or אהבת עולם Praise of His goodness in
giving us the Torah, and prayer for His assistance in the study of the
Torah. The shema is followed by a berachah on the Redemption of Israel;
it contains a reflection on the last words of shema, “I am the Lord
your God,” an expression of our faith in the truth of these words,
which strengthen our belief in the future Redemption of Israel. [157]
In the Evening Service a second berachah follows, beginning השכיבנו,
and containing a prayer for protection during the night. [158]
2. THE TEFILLAH OR AMIDAH.
The Tefillah, “Prayer” par excellence, is called Amidah (lit.,
“standing”), because the worshipper stands during the time he offers it
up. It is also called Shemoneh-esreh, “Eighteen,” because it contains
on most occasions eighteen (or nineteen, comp. p. 431) paragraphs, each
concluding with a benediction.
The first three paragraphs contain praise of God’s goodness to us, the
descendants of the pious patriarchs (1), His omnipotence (2), and His
holiness (3).
The next thirteen paragraphs are petitions for our individual and
national well-being. For our individual well-being (4–9), namely, for
reason and wisdom (4), assistance in our endeavour to return to God
(5), forgiveness of our sins (6), deliverance from trouble (7), from
illness (8), and from want (9).—For our national well-being (10–15),
namely, for the gathering of those who are scattered (10), under good
leaders (11), protected from the evil designs of our foes (12), for the
support of the faithful (13), the rebuilding of Jerusalem (14), and the
advent of Messiah (15). The sixteenth paragraph is a prayer that our
petition may be accepted.—The last three paragraphs include a petition
for the re-establishment of Divine Service in the Temple of Jerusalem
(17), thanksgiving (18), and prayer for peace and prosperity (19). When
the prayer is finished we express the wish that our lips, from which
prayer to God has come forth, may not be defiled by unworthy language.
On Sabbaths, Holy-days, and in every Musaph the thirteen middle
paragraphs are replaced by one in which reference is made to the
characteristic feature of the day; in the Musaph of New-year three
berachoth (p. 404) are substituted for the thirteen middle berachoth of
the ordinary tefillah. The thirteen paragraphs have been eliminated in
order that we should not be reminded on Sabbath and Holy-days of our
failings, wants, and troubles; that those seasons should be marked by a
happier and more cheerful mood than ordinary days (supra, p. 354).
There are two shorter forms of the tefillah for urgent occasions: the
one is a substitute for the “Eighteen,” in which the middle thirteen
paragraphs are contracted into one; it is called הביננו (the first
word of this middle section), or מעין שמונה עשרה “abstract of the
‘Eighteen.’” The other is a contraction of the Friday evening tefillah,
and is called מעין שבע “abstract of the ‘Seven’” (scil., paragraphs
forming the tefillah), originally intended for those who were too late
for the full Service. [159]
Each of the above Services ends with a prayer called after its initial
word alenu, “It is our duty.” In this prayer we thank God that we have
the privilege of proclaiming His Unity, and express our hope to see the
worship of the One God adopted by all mankind. It is omitted between
two Services following closely the one upon the other.
In addition to the above, the Service contains the following parts:—
(1.) ברכות השחר “Blessings of the Morning,” forming the first part of
the Morning Service. It contains benedictions, reflections, and prayers
suggested by the change from night to day, from sleep to wakefulness,
from rest to activity.
(2.) Psalms.—Our Service contains various groups of psalms: chief among
them the mizmorim or pesuke dezimrah (“songs” or “verses of song”), and
shir shel yom (“song of the day”), in the Morning Service. The former
include Ps. cxlv. to cl., some other psalms, and the song of Moses
(Exod. xv.). The latter correspond to the songs of the Levites in the
Temple, and consist of Ps. xxiv. (for Sunday), xlviii. (for Monday),
lxxxii. (for Tuesday), xciv. (for Wednesday), lxxxi. (for Thursday),
xciii. (for Friday), and xcii. (for Saturday).—The repetition of Ps.
cxlv. three times a day, twice during Shacharith and once during
Minchah, is an old minhag (Babyl. Talm., Berachoth, p. 4b).
(3.) Supplications (תחנונים) added in the Morning and the Afternoon
Services after the tefillah.
(4.) Readings from the Bible and Post-Biblical Sacred Literature, such
as Num. vi. 22 sqq. (priests’ blessing); Gen. xxii. (binding of Isaac);
Exod. xvi. (manna); Mishnah, Peah i. 1, and Babyl. T., Shabbath 127a,
in the earlier part of the Morning Service; and words of comfort
(beginning ובא לציון) from the Prophets after the “Supplications.”
Originally an exposition of the Written and the Oral Law followed the
“Supplications,” and concluded with Messianic prophecies, recited in
Hebrew and in the Chaldee Version.
(5.) Biblical and Post-Biblical passages referring to the Sacrificial
Service, in the Morning and the Afternoon Services.
In addition to the above Services, read either in the Synagogue or
privately at home, there is a special prayer read by us before retiring
to rest. The chief element in it is the first section of shema; hence
the name קריאת שמע שעל המטה “Reading of shema before going to bed.”
Some psalms and supplications are generally added.
PUBLIC SERVICE, תפלה בצבור. [160]
The following points mark off the Public Service from the various forms
of private prayer:—
(1.) Kaddish, “Sanctification,” a prayer for the universal
sanctification of God’s name, which will distinguish the age of
Messiah. In the second part of the Kaddish we pray for the Messianic
peace, and in the last sentence express our hope that it may soon be
granted.
Formerly the Kaddish concluded the Service; at present it is recited at
the end of the Service in its full form (קדיש שלם “the whole
Kaddish”); the first half (חצי קדיש “half-Kaddish”) has its place at
the end of a section of the Service—e.g., after the פסוקי דזמרה in
the Morning Service; a third form is recited by mourners after עלינו
and after special hymns or psalms; it is the whole Kaddish with the
omission of the sentence beginning תתקבל. It is called קדיש יתום
“Kaddish of the orphan,” and is intended to express the mourner’s faith
in God and his resignation to His Will.—Sometimes a special Kaddish,
called Kaddish dirabbanan, is recited after the reading of some
Talmudic or Midrashic passages. It is the same as Kaddish shalem,
except that the sentence beginning תתקבל is replaced by a prayer for
the welfare of the scholars, the Rabbis, and their pupils.
(2.) Repetition of the tefillah by the Reader, with the addition of
Kedushah before the third paragraph, and the Priests’ Blessing before
the last paragraph, of the tefillah. The Kedushah, “Proclamation of the
Holiness of God,” is based on the visions of Isa. vi. and of Ezek.
iii., with citation of three verses, Isa. vi. 3, Ezek. iii. 12, and Ps.
cxlvi. 10, in which the Holiness, Glory, and Kingdom of God are
proclaimed.
The Priests’ Blessing, originally spoken by priests, descendants of
Aaron, is now in most Synagogues included by the Reader in the tefillah
by way of quotation; only on Holy-days it is pronounced by the priests.
(3.) קריאת התורה “the Reading of the Law,” and the “Lessons from the
Prophets” (הפטרה), with the benedictions preceding and following
(supra, p. 348).
OCCASIONAL PRAYERS—BENEDICTIONS, ברכות.
The feeling of our dependence on the goodness of God must constantly be
present to our mind. Whatever we enjoy, be it in the form of eating or
drinking, or some pleasing or remarkable sight, an agreeable smell, a
festivity on a joyful event, or the performance of a Divine commandment
(מצוה); whatever befall us, whether it be pleasant or unpleasant—all
this we consider as sent to us by the Will of the Almighty, and we
express our conviction by a suitable berachah. The general rule is thus
laid down by our Sages: It is unlawful for man to enjoy anything on
earth without previously acknowledging by a berachah that God is the
source whence the enjoyment is derived. For different cases different
forms of “blessings” have been fixed by our Sages. In some cases the
enjoyment is also followed by a prayer of thanksgiving, the most
important being the prayer after meals, called ברכת המזון
“Benediction for food or Grace.” [161] In the Mishnah it is called
“Three Blessings” (שלש ברכות), because it consisted originally of
three paragraphs, each ending with a benediction. The three paragraphs
are the following: (1) ברכת הזן (“Benediction commencing הזן”), in
which we praise God’s providential care of all creatures. (2) הודאה
“Thanksgiving,” or ברכת הארץ (Benediction referring to Palestine). In
this paragraph we offer thanks for our individual sustenance, as well
as for our national gifts: Palestine, the Covenant, and the Law. (3)
Prayer for the restoration of Zion and the rebuilding of the Temple
(בנין ירושלם).—Subsequently a fourth paragraph was added (הטוב
והמטיב “who is good and causes His creatures to be good”) in
commemoration of the relief given to the Jews after the close of the
war with Hadrian. [162]—On certain occasions, e.g., at a wedding
repast, suitable additions are made. Besides these, various
supplications have been added in later times.
There are various short forms of this ברכת המזון; the shortest is
that for children, “Blessed be the Merciful, the Giver of this bread.”
[163]—When three grown-up male persons or more have their meal
together, a special introductory form is used, called זמון “summons
to prayer,” one of the company acting as Reader, and the rest forming
the congregation.
Another form of thanksgiving is the “Abstract of the Three Blessings”
(מעין שלש), consisting of one paragraph which contains the whole of
the Grace in a contracted form, and is used after cake, wine, and the
like.
No restriction is enforced upon us if we desire on our part to give
expression to our feeling of gratitude and reverence toward the
Almighty in our own words on occasions not provided for in the ancient
forms of benedictions and prayers. In order, however, to make a
distinction between the forms of obligatory berachoth fixed by our
Sages and the optional ones introduced by ourselves, we do not employ
the words, “O Lord, our God, King of the Universe,” which are essential
in the former.
NOTES.
1. On Page 424 sqq.
Among the different minhagim observed in the Synagogue the following
are noteworthy:—The head is kept covered, the hands uncovered; gloves
are generally taken off before the beginning of the Service. It was
customary to spread forth the hands during prayer, and the phrase
“spreading forth the hands” is used in the Bible in the sense of
“praying.” The priests still raise their hands when pronouncing the
blessing. Isaiah, rebuking those who prayed to God without seeking
purification from evil deeds, says, “And when you spread forth your
hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers I
will not hear; your hands are full of blood” (Isa. i. 15). Following
the example of the Psalmist, “I will wash my hands in innocency, so
will I compass thine altar” (Ps. xxvi. 6), we wash our hands before
prayer, as a symbol of the duty of purifying our conscience from guilt
before approaching the Almighty with our petitions. We thus uncover our
hands as if to say, “The reproach of Isaiah does not apply to us; we
have tried to free our heart and our hands from guilt.”
A custom frequently animadverted upon is the habit which many Jews have
adopted of swinging their bodies forward and backward during prayer. We
consider it a more decent way to stand or sit still when communing with
the Supreme Being. Both ways find support in the Talmud (Babyl. T.,
Berachoth 31a, and Shabbath 10a); whilst the one stands like “a servant
in the presence of his master,” the other gives way to his emotions and
excitement. The Magen Abraham, on chap. xlviii. 4, says: “He who
follows the one example is right, and he who follows the other is
likewise right: all depends on the devotion of the heart.” Rabbi
Jehudah ha-Levi in his Cuzari (Book II. chap. xli.) mentions and
explains the custom of shaking during prayer. The habit of accompanying
the emotions of our heart by corresponding motions of our body has
produced the custom of raising the whole body upwards when uttering the
word “holy” in the kedushah.
During tefillah we remain standing in the same place; at the end, when
we have finished our petition, we retire slowly a few steps backward;
the same is done by the Reader during the last paragraph of the
kaddish. It is as if, our petition ended, we reverently withdrew from
the heavenly King who has given us audience during the prayer.
We bend the knee, incline our head, and bow down on certain occasions
during the Service, but we do not kneel during prayer.—It has perhaps
been avoided as an idolatrous practice, with reference to Judges vii.
5.
When the Ark is opened and the Sefer is taken out or put back, we stand
and show our respect for the Word of God in various ways. Some bow the
head; others, considering this as worship, kiss the Sefer, or otherwise
express their reverence.
The traditional way in which the kohanim proceed to bless the people is
this: they remove their shoes, as the priests did who ministered in the
Temple; water is then poured over their hands by the Levites, the
ablutions of the ancient priests being thus imitated to some extent
(see Exod. xxx. 20). It is a holy act, and is done in the Synagogue
generally in front of the Ark. The priests ascend the steps of the
hechal and wait till called upon by the Reader to pronounce the
blessing. They turn toward the congregation, spread forth their hands
in the traditional manner, and cover head and face with the talith, in
order not to be disturbed in their devotion by the sight of the
congregation before them; the Reader dictates the words of the
benediction to them to guard against any mistakes being made by them.
The congregation, giving special importance to each word, add Biblical
quotations and special supplications during the interval between one
word and the other. Of greater importance, however, is respectful
listening to the words uttered by the priests, and chanted by them in a
peculiar traditional tune. The priests turn to all directions while
pronouncing the blessing, expressing thereby that they would have no
one excluded from the blessing.
Some kohanim refuse to perform this duty, pretending or believing that
they are unworthy to bless the congregation. This is a mistake. Those
who feel that they are unworthy must try by improved conduct to render
themselves worthy, but disobedience to the direct commandment of the
Divine Law is certainly not the beginning of improvement. Others object
to the singing, in which they are unable to join; others to taking off
their boots. The excuses are certainly insufficient. But as these two
elements are less essential, they might, if necessary, be dispensed
with if the fulfilment of the commandment is secured thereby.
2. On Page 439.
There are various parts in our Service which originally seem to have
formed a substitute, under certain circumstances, for a section of the
Service or for the whole of it, but were subsequently, when the
circumstances altered, embodied as an integral part of the Service in
addition to the sections which they had replaced.
In the Morning Service there is in the section called ברכות השחר a
prayer beginning לעולם יהא אדם and concluding לעיניכם אמר יי. This
prayer, preceded by an exhortation to be God-fearing in secret—when
persecution prevented public worship of God—contains an expression of
pride in our history, and of gratitude to God that we have the
privilege to proclaim the Unity of God in the words, “Hear, O Israel,”
&c., and a petition for the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies.
In the Maaribh the part beginning ברוך יי לעולם and ending על כל
מעשיו was originally a substitute for the Amidah, and the conclusion
of the Evening Service for those who considered the tefillah in the
evening optional. Similarly, on Friday evening the contracted tefillah
was originally a substitute for the tefillah for those who came late.
In both these and similar cases the substitute and its original have
been retained as integral parts of the Service.
3. On Page 442 (2).
In the public Service the tefillah is repeated by the Reader after the
silent prayer (בלתש) of the congregation. This minhag must have been
introduced very early. In the Talmud (end of Rosh ha-shanah) it is
spoken of as a regular institution, its purpose is discussed, and the
reason stated why we should not dispense with the Reader’s repetition
or with the silent tefillah. It seems that there was, on the one hand,
a desire on the part of the congregants to have an uninterrupted silent
tefillah in which they could give suitable expression each one to his
personal and peculiar wants and wishes. On the other hand, there was
also a desire felt by many to be guided in their devotions by the
Reader. Our minhag satisfies both requirements. But it is a grave error
to think, as unfortunately many do, that, while the Reader repeats the
tefillah, the congregants may turn their heart and mind to other
things, however holy these be. The congregation and the Reader must be
united in devotion during תפלה בצבור, and where the continued
concentration of thought during the tefillah and its repetition seems
unattainable, it would be better to sacrifice the minhag of repeating
the tefillah rather than to have the repetition of the prayer without
the participation of the congregants, or even without decorum.
In the repetition of the tefillah the kedushah forms an important
addition. The essential idea of the kedushah is repeated thrice during
the Morning Service, viz., in the first of the benedictions preceding
the shema, in the tefillah or Amidah, and in the concluding section
commencing ובא לציון.
In the first kedushah (called קדושה דיוצר), while praising God as the
Creator of light and of the heavenly luminaries, we introduce these, as
proclaiming, as it were, the holiness and glory of God in the words of
the Prophets. In the last kedushah (called קדושה דסידרא or סידרא
דקדושה) we merely read, among other passages from the Prophets, those
verses of Isaiah and Ezekiel which contain the chief sentences of the
kedushah. In the kedushah of the tefillah the Reader summons the
congregation to proclaim the sanctification of God in the manner of the
angels above; it has therefore its place only in Public Worship, whilst
as to the other two kedushoth there is no difference whether a person
prays by himself or in a congregation of worshippers.
As regards קדיש וברכו, two prayers generally united, it must be
remarked that in their meaning they are disunited: the half-kaddish is
the conclusion of the mizmorim or pesuke dezimrah, and ברכו is the
commencement of the next section: shema, with its benedictions. The
half-kaddish, wherever it occurs, concludes some section of the
Service. In shacharith, after Amidah, or after “Supplications,” or
after the Reading of the Law; at Musaf, Minchah, Neïlah, and Maaribh
after the introductory psalms. The half-kaddish before the Amidah in
the Maaribh is probably a remnant of the whole kaddish that used to be
said when the Service ended there and the Amidah was considered
optional (רשות).
4. On Page 442 (3).
An important element in the Service is religious instruction. The means
adopted were the reading of the Torah and Haphtarah, the introduction
of moral lessons, principles of faith, exposition of Divine precepts
into the Service, and lectures containing various lessons,
exhortations, and explanations of the Biblical and Post-Biblical Sacred
Literature. These lectures are an ancient institution. The prophets
instructed the people, especially on New-moon and Sabbath (2 Kings iv.
23); the Scribes and the Rabbis of the Talmudic age expounded the Torah
and other Biblical and Post-Biblical writings; they were followed by
darshanim and maggidim, the modern preachers and ministers. The aim of
these lectures is to create, maintain, or intensify the fear of God and
the love of the Torah (אהבת תורה ויראת שמים).
The Sermon has lost much of its original force and influence. The cause
of this fact is probably to be sought chiefly in the materialism and
scepticism of the age, but to some degree also in the character of the
sermon. It cannot be denied that the pulpit, instead of being made a
place from which Love of Torah and Fear of God receive life,
encouragement, and strength, is frequently turned into a platform for
discussing communal or personal quarrels or theological controversies,
or creating a discontent with existing institutions, without
sufficiently considering the result of such discontent. Themes like
these are not outside the province of the preacher, but they must not
be the staple of his discourses, which must principally seek to foster
אהבת תורה ויראת שמים in the hearts of the congregants. As to the
history and literature of this branch of the Service, see Zunz, Die
Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832.
5. On Page 420.
The question is frequently asked whether special meetings and Services
may be arranged with a view of improving the religious status of the
Jewish community. There is no reason why attempts should not be made in
this direction. By all means let everything be done that is conducive
to a revival of religious feeling and religious practice. But in such
attempts care must be taken that nothing be done that is contrary to
the precepts of the Law, both Written and Oral; that the teachers,
preachers, or lecturers do not themselves display a disregard for
recognised religious authority, and by such conduct undermine the
existing reverence for the inherited traditional Religion.
On this basis meetings on Sabbath for the purpose of reading the Bible,
praying, and singing, in whatever language this be done, and special
Services for the pupils of Religion Classes at the close of the
session, must be welcome to all who have a love for our holy Religion.
6. On Page 420.
A question of equal importance that frequently disturbs the peace of
the congregation is this: whether and in how far the established Ritual
or minhag of a Synagogue may be altered. The Ritual is not the work of
one man or of one age; it is the product of the thoughts and the
feelings of our nation through many centuries. Its foundation was laid
by the Men of the Great Synagogue in the time of Ezra. Generation after
generation were busy in the construction of the building; storey was
added to storey; from time to time new wings made their appearance.
Reverence and piety made successive builders reluctant to pull down
what the same feelings of preceding generations had reared. The whole
formed a Sanctuary every single stone of which was cherished and
guarded against desecration. Notwithstanding the storms and tempests to
which it was exposed, and which certainly caused a breach here and
there, our Sanctuary stands still on its ancient foundations, and its
walls retain their power of resistance.
What is the duty of the present generation with regard to this
structure? Architects or would-be architects examine it minutely from
foundation to top-stone; but they come to different conclusions. We
will examine these conclusions, sine irâ et studio, assuming that the
examination has been conducted bonâ fide, with a view of strengthening
the Sanctuary, and that the reports are in accordance with truth and
the examiners’ innermost conviction.
(1.) Some declare “the Building no longer attractive; there are so many
other edifices full of points of attraction both without and within;
these must in course of time draw away the visitors from our Sanctuary,
and estrange those who used to fill it.” We admit the force of the
argument. It has always been the aim of those who had the management of
the Synagogue in their hands to make the Service attractive; there is
no reason why it could or should not be done at present. Means of
attraction are mostly of an external character: the art and luxury
displayed in the building and its furniture, the eloquence of the
preacher, the voice of the reader, the singing of the choir,
introduction of novelties, such as instrumental music (scil., on
week-days) and prayers in the vernacular. In themselves these things
are harmless, and although they are not the essence of the worship,
they may lead to it; [164] and, for this reason, it must be considered
a condition sine quâ non, that the style of singing, reading, and
preaching should be such as to please the majority, if not every one,
of the congregants. [165] But there is this to be feared and guarded
against: viz., that the husk be mistaken for the fruit, and true
devotion be lost. Besides, the experiment has been made, and the
desired result has not been obtained. There are plenty of places for
the enjoyment of vocal and instrumental music, with which the Synagogue
would vie in vain in point of attractiveness, and novelties, as
novelties, soon wear away, and bring no real improvement. Let the
leaders of the Synagogue strengthen the faith of their brethren in God
and His Word, maintain, by good example, their reverence for our
ancient traditions and customs, and be themselves earnest and devout
worshippers; they will then surely be more successful in drawing others
to the House of God.
(2.) Another critic says: “The Synagogue Services are discordant;” that
is, the feelings expressed in our prayers have no echo in the hearts of
the worshippers. “Education and general progress have so entirely
changed the whole life of man that he can no longer be edified by the
prayers and method of devotion followed by our forefathers.” Those who
assert this, of course, only assert it of themselves, and so far their
statement may be accepted as correct. But on examining it more closely
we find that there must be something misleading in it. For what is the
central idea of the ancient prayers and hymns? The conviction that we
address our Heavenly Father, who is the Creator and Ruler of the
Universe; who is just, good, and holy; who alone can fulfil the wishes
which we utter in our prayers, and “who is near to all those who call
upon him in truth.” Does progress of education force us to abandon this
principle? Certainly not. Those who do abandon it cannot be said to do
so by force of education, for they are found among the educated and
uneducated alike; and we should be false to our own Faith if we were to
abandon this fundamental principle of our Divine Service.
The second of the fundamental Principles of our Faith, though less
general than the preceding, is yet equally essential in Judaism, viz.,
the belief in Revelation, in the Integrity and the Divine origin of the
Torah, and the truth of the Divine messages sent through the prophets.
The Ritual is replete with references to this belief, and it would
amount to a rejection of this essentially Jewish Principle, if we were
to expunge such references from the Ritual in order to please a few
unbelievers.
References to the Sacrificial Service, and especially prayers for its
restoration, are disliked by some, who think such restoration
undesirable. Let no one pray for a thing against his will; let him
whose heart is not with his fellow-worshippers in any of their
supplications silently substitute his own prayers for them, but let him
not interfere with the devotion of those to whom “the statutes of the
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord pure,
enlightening the eyes; the judgments of the Lord true and righteous
altogether” (Ps. xix. 9, 10), and who yearn for the opportunity of
fulfilling Divine commandments which they cannot observe at present.
[166] Prayer, in the true sense of the word, is impossible without the
recognition of God as our Master, whom we are willing to serve, and
whose commands we desire to do, whether the act implied in them be in
other respects agreeable to us or not.
(3.) The Ritual contains many sections which owe their existence to
particular circumstances that have passed away, and to local conditions
which are different from those prevailing in the countries in which we
live. Have these a right to be kept perpetually in the Ritual?
Certainly not. There is no reason why prayers which have become
obsolete and meaningless should not be modified or discontinued. But as
a rule our prayers are free from references to the particular causes of
their composition, and there is no need to expunge from the Service
petitions, thanksgivings, or praises which were originally intended for
a special occasion, if they are expressed in general terms, and have
become in the Synagogue a source of devotion and edification. But as to
the latter condition, it is difficult to decide whether a liturgical
composition has become, and is still, an aid to devotion. Much depends
on the individual character of the particular congregation in which the
question has been raised, and each case should be decided on its own
merits by a competent and responsible authority.
Many of the Piyyutim [167] and Selichoth belong to this class; also a
few sections in the ordinary Ritual (see note 2), and the repetition of
the Amidah, and the Kiddush in the Synagogue on the eve of Sabbaths and
Festivals.
(4.) It is further asserted that the Ritual was formulated in bygone
times; our wants and tastes are different from those of former ages. We
can neither pray for the same things nor in the same way as our
ancestors. But what did our ancestors pray for? For the well-being of
their body and of their soul; for the realisation of our national hopes
and the ultimate triumph of our holy Religion. Just the same ends we
wish to obtain at present, and these objects form the substance of our
Ritual.—There are some petitions which seem to many out of place, and
out of date. Such are petitions against cruel oppressors. Our fathers
had good reason to cry to the Almighty for relief, for they were
oppressed, whilst we, living in a free country, in the enjoyment of all
the rights of citizens, have no cause whatever for complaint. If we
were to separate ourselves from our brethren in distant countries, we
could expunge all such petitions from the Ritual. This is, however, not
the case; we feel deeply grieved at the sufferings of our brethren. We
should like to see them relieved from oppression and persecution, and
pray to God for His interference in behalf of the persecuted. When we
use the term “revenge” (נקם) we do not associate with it any base
desire to see the enemy crushed or annihilated; we use it rather in the
sense of a just and merited penalty for evil-doers, and associate with
it the idea of the ultimate victory and triumph of our holy Religion
after long periods of oppression and persecution. It is their Faith for
which our fathers suffered, and our brethren in some countries still
suffer, and the triumph of which forms the centre of these petitions.
Intense grief and sorrow sometimes suggested harsh expressions, such as
“Destroy our enemies,” “Put an end to them,” but these are figurative
expressions, and are used in the sense explained by Beruria, the wife
of Rabbi Meir: “May the sinners cease from sinning, and sinners will be
no more.” Similarly we pray in the Amidah: “Let our slanderers have no
hope of success, so that evil-doers may soon vanish and disappear;
break the power of the presumptuous, and humble them.” In these words
we give expression to our feeling of indignation against the slanderers
of our holy Religion, the revilers of Judaism, such, e.g., as from time
to time renew the blood-accusations, or by false and deceptive
arguments or other means entice Jews to abandon their faith. [168]
(5.) We hear frequently the complaint that the Public Service is too
long. This complaint is of a relative character; it is different from
the feeling of joy expressed in the words, “Blessed are those who dwell
in thy house;” it is different from the sentiment of those chasidim
(Mishnah, Berachoth v. 1) who sat still a while before the commencement
of the prescribed prayer, or those who after the conclusion thereof sit
down again, saying, “Surely the righteous shall give thanks to thy
name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence” (Ps. cxl. 14). As
regards the length of the Service, we should bear in mind the principle
of our Sages: It makes no difference whether the Service is long or
short: only be devout. It is provocative of irreverence to protract the
Service unnecessarily until it becomes wearisome; but it is equally
unbecoming to hurry over it as though it were an unpleasant task. On
the whole the Services, especially when they are well regulated, are
not too long, unless too much time be spent in singing or in
unnecessary interruptions.
In all cases in which a modification seems advisable and lawful it must
be borne in mind that the Ritual is a Sanctuary every element of which
is holy, and that hasty reforms may be less effective than is hoped. It
may perhaps be easy to pull down, but it is not so easy to build up.
Devout members of a congregation may easily be alienated, but not so
easily will new members be attracted, or if attracted, permanently
retained.
7. On Page 424.
Rabban Gamaliel said, “Provide thyself a teacher, and be quit of doubt”
(Aboth i. 16). The rule laid down in these words for every individual
applies also to the whole community. Questions like those mentioned in
the preceding note frequently arise in Jewish congregations, and cause
dissension where union is so much needed. A teacher must be appointed
in every community, who shall be able to guide and to instruct it as to
what is right and wrong. In fact, such a teacher has, as a rule, been
appointed in Jewish congregations; he is known by various names: Haham
(חכם), Rav (רב “Teacher”), Rabbi (רבי “My teacher”), Teacher of
righteousness (מורה צדק), and Judge (דין). The weight of his
authority is less to be determined by the nature of his office or by
written conditions than by his learning, piety, and personal influence.
According to the rule, “Judge not alone” (ibid. iv. 8), he is generally
assisted by two councillors (dayganim), with whom he forms a court of
judgment—Beth-din—when questions of more than ordinary importance have
to be decided. The congregation must accept his decisions as final, and
must have confidence that he, like the high-priest of old, will give
his answers according to “light and integrity.”
VI. THE DIETARY LAWS.
“Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. xiv. 3); that is,
according to our traditional explanation, everything that the Word of
God declares to be abominable (Sifre, ad locum). One of the sections of
the Dietary Laws concludes thus: “For I am the Lord that brought you up
out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy,
for I am holy” (Lev. xi. 45).
Holiness is therefore the only object of these laws that is distinctly
mentioned in the Pentateuch. But what is the nature of the holiness
which they are intended to produce or to promote? “The Dietary Laws,”
says Maimonides, “train us in the mastery over our appetites; they
accustom us to restrain the growth of desire, the indulgence in seeking
that which is pleasant, and the disposition to consider the pleasure of
eating and drinking the end of man’s existence” (“The Guide,” III.,
chap. xxv. p. 167). And, indeed, wherever the Law commands restraint of
some bodily enjoyment, or restriction of any of our appetites, such
commandment is followed or preceded by the exhortation to be holy, or
the warning not to defile oneself.
Is there any secondary object in these laws besides the motive
distinctly mentioned? It has frequently been observed that Jews have
enjoyed a certain degree of immunity from epidemics that raged among
their non-Jewish neighbours. It has further been noticed that they have
a lower rate of mortality and a greater longevity. These facts are
generally explained to be the result of a temperate life, regulated by
the Divine Law. Finding that such is the consequence of obedience to
the Dietary Laws, we may fairly assume that in distinguishing certain
things from the rest, in prohibiting some and permitting others, the
Lawgiver aimed at the health and the well-being of man’s body. Our
conception of the goodness of God compels us to believe that in
recommending certain things for our use He intended thereby to promote
our well-being, and to show us what is good for our health, and what is
injurious. But we must take care that we do not on that account
consider these precepts exclusively as sanitary regulations, however
important such regulations may be. We must not lose sight of the fact
that Holiness is the only object of the Dietary Laws, mentioned in the
Pentateuch.
But what difference can it make to the Almighty whether we eat this or
that? Surely it makes no difference to the Almighty; but we have faith
in His Goodness and Wisdom, and are convinced that He knows by what
means we may best attain to that holiness which we are so frequently
exhorted to seek, and that the Divine Laws which He revealed to us for
this very purpose show the shortest and the safest road to this aim.
With the following exceptions, the Dietary Laws concern only animal
food:—
(1.) ערלה “Forbidden fruit,” i.e., the fruit of a tree during the
first three years after its planting (Lev. xix. 23).—The fruit of the
fourth year (נטע רבעי) was formerly, in the time of the Temple,
brought to Jerusalem, and consumed there amidst praises and
thanksgiving to Him who is the source of all blessing (ibid. v. 24).
Those who lived far from Jerusalem were allowed to redeem the fruit of
the fourth year with silver, and to spend the latter in the holy city.
(2.) חדש “New corn.”—The Omer of barley offered on the second day of
Passover is called “the first of your harvest” (Lev. xxiii. 10), and it
was enjoined, “Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh
ears, [169] until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation
of your God” (ibid. 14).
These two laws (ערלה and חדש) seem to have their source in the
dictum, “The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring
into the house of the Lord thy God” (Exod. xxiii. 19).
(3.) כלאים.—Mixture of different kinds. “Thou shalt not sow thy field
with two kinds of seed” (Lev. xix. 19). [170] “Thou shalt not sow thy
vineyard with two kinds of seed” (Deut. xxii. 9). In the former case
only the sowing of divers kinds is prohibited, but the produce of such
sowing is not forbidden; in the latter case, if the law is
transgressed, the produce of both the vine and the seed is not to be
used for any purpose whatever (אסור בהנאה), for the law is followed
by the words, “lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which thou
hast sown and the increase of the vineyard.”
Although these and similar [171] precepts are introduced by the words
“Ye shall keep my statutes (חקתי),” and no reason is given for the
enactment of these statutes, it seems, from the position occupied by
these laws in a section of moral precepts, that they serve as reminders
of the important lesson that our conduct should be regulated by the
principles of contentment and simplicity of life, principles which are
the best safeguard against undue desire for luxury and superfluity. The
prohibition of sowing divers kinds of seed further reminds us of the
importance of preserving our heart in a state of simplicity and purity;
that twofold weights, twofold measures, and especially a twofold heart
are an abomination to the Lord.
In reference to animal food the following principles are observed:—
1. The killing of animals and the consuming of their flesh must not
tend to create savage and cruel habits. It is therefore forbidden—
(a.) To cut off a piece of flesh from a living animal for our food
(אבר מן החי “a limb of a living animal”).
(b.) To kill the parent with its young on the same day (Lev. xxii. 28;
comp. Deut. xxii. 6).
(c.) To give unnecessary pain to the animal in killing it. The various
regulations for the lawful killing of animals, שחיטה, handed down by
Tradition as Mosaic, הלכה למשה מסיני, are not only in harmony with
this principle, but seem in many instances to have been dictated by it.
(d.) To eat the blood of beasts and birds (Lev. xvii. 12, 14). The
blood contained in the meat is removed as far as possible by having the
meat soaked in water for half-an-hour, and then kept covered with salt
for an hour, the salt being again removed by rinsing. This process is
called kasher; that is, preparing the meat so as to make it kasher
(כשר “fit for food”).
2. The flesh of beasts and birds that have died from any other cause
than having been killed in the manner prescribed is forbidden. The
flesh of animals that have been killed in the prescribed manner, but
are found to have been affected with some dangerous disease, is also
forbidden as t’refah (טרפה). [172]
3. With regard to the distinction between animals allowed for food and
those forbidden, all animals are divided into בהמה and חיה “cattle
and beast,” וף “bird,” דג “fish,” and שרץ “creeping thing.”
(a.) With regard to cattle and beasts, the rule is given, “Whosoever
parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed and cheweth the cud, that you may
eat” (Lev. xi. 3).—The clean cattle (בהמה טהורה) and the clean beasts
(חיה טהורה) are enumerated in Deut. xiv. 4 and 5 respectively.
(b.) A number of birds are enumerated (Lev. xi. 13–19) as forbidden,
but no general characteristics of the clean or the unclean birds are
given; and as we are uncertain as to the exact meaning of the names of
many of the birds, we only use for food such birds as are traditionally
known as “clean birds.”
(c.) Fish that have scales and fins are permitted; others—e.g., the
eel—are “unclean” (ibid. xi. 9–12).
(d.) “All winged animals that creep (שרץ העוף), going upon all four,
shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of, every flying
creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their
feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the
arbeh with its kind, and the soleam with its kind, the chargol with its
kind, and the chagabh with its kind” (ibid. 20–22). These are certain
kinds of locusts that satisfy the above condition. (Comp. Maimonides,
Mishneh-torah, Hilchoth maachaloth asuroth i. 21–23.)
(e.) “And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an
abomination; it shall not be eaten” (Lev. xi. 41). In this prohibition
are included all kinds of worms such as are found in fruit, and mites,
snails, oysters, lobsters, crabs, &c.
4. The milk of “unclean” cattle or beasts (e.g., asses’ milk), the eggs
of “unclean” birds, and the roe of “unclean” fish (e.g., caviare
prepared of the roe of the sturgeon) are likewise forbidden.
5. “Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat”
(Lev. vii. 23). From the context we learn that only those portions of
the fat of cattle are forbidden which in the case of sacrifices were
burnt upon the altar as an offering made by fire unto the Lord, viz.,
“the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the
inwards, and the fat that is upon the kidneys which is by the flanks”
(ibid. iii. 3, 4). The forbidden fat is known by the name חלב,
chelebh, whilst the fat permitted as food is called שומן, shuman.
6. “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat of the sinew which
shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because
he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank” (Gen.
xxxii. 33). This law is designed to remind us of the wrestling of Jacob
with the man who attacked him, which struggle forms a type of Israel’s
fight against the evil threatening him from within and from without,
and teaches us the lesson that, despite temporary troubles and
struggles, Israel will ultimately be victorious. The hind-quarters of
cattle are not eaten unless the forbidden fat and “the sinew that
shrank” (גיד הנשה) have first been removed from them.
7. “Thou shalt not seethe the kid in its mother’s milk” (Exod. xxiii.
19). Tradition explains this law as forbidding all mixture of meat and
milk (בשר בחלב). In its literal sense the verse in which this law is
mentioned seems to point to the duty of self-restraint, as if to tell
us that we should not greedily devour the first ripe fruit, or the
young immediately after their birth.
The significance of the law may be learnt from the fact that it is
mentioned three times in the Pentateuch. Hence the strictness with
which this commandment is observed in Jewish homes. In a Jewish
household, established in accordance with Jewish law and tradition,
there are two separate sets of utensils, the one to be used for the
preparation of meat-diet, the other for the preparation of milk and
butter diet.
The flesh of fish is not considered as meat in this respect, nor are
fish subject to the laws of shechitah.
NOTES.
1. On Page 459—1a.
The prohibition of eating meat taken from the body of an animal whilst
alive is based on the words אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו “But flesh,
when the blood thereof is in its soul, shall ye not eat” (Gen. ix. 4).
The phrase “to be in the soul” means to be surrounded and animated by
the soul, to be in the midst of active, living organs of the animal.
“The blood of an animal is in the soul thereof” may therefore be
paraphrased thus, “The blood hath its vital powers and the animal is
alive.” (Comp. Lev. xvii. 11.)
This prohibition is one of the שבע מצות בני נח “the seven Noachide
commandments,” i.e., commandments which, according to Tradition, were
already in force in the days of Noah, and are binding on all his
children or all mankind, and not on the Israelites alone; viz., (1) the
prohibition of idolatry (עבודה זרה), (2) of murder (שפיכות דם), (3)
of adultery (גלוי עריות), (4) of blasphemy (ברכת השם), (5) of
robbery (גזל), (6) of eating meat taken from a living animal (אבר מן
החי), and (7) the institution of courts of justice (דינין). See
Babyl. Talm., Sanhedrin 56a.
2. On Page 459—1c.
The existence of certain rules concerning killing animals for food
included in the oral teaching of the Torah is derived from the
following passage: “Thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock which
the Lord hath given thee as I have commanded thee” (Deut. xii. 21). In
the Commentary of Rashi, ad locum, we read: “Here we see that certain
commandments have been given with regard to the killing of animals, how
this should be done. These commandments are comprised in Hilchoth
Shechitah, which form part of the Oral Law, revealed to Moses on
Sinai.” They are fully discussed and explained in the first chapter of
the treatise Chullin.
Any deviation from these rules in the act of killing the animal renders
the shechitah unlawful (פסולה). The killing of cattle, beasts, or
fowl for food is therefore entrusted only to such persons as possess a
knowledge of the rules of shechitah and are skilled and trustworthy.
The beth-din or the Chief-Rabbi decides whether a person has duly
qualified himself for the office of shochet (שוחט), and whether he
may kill animals for kasher food.
It is the duty of the shochet to examine the animal before killing it,
and to satisfy himself that it is not in a dying condition; after the
shechitah of any cattle or beast (בהמה or חיה) he must examine the
lungs to assure himself that they are in a normal condition. If he
finds them in a diseased state he declares the flesh of the animal as
t’refah (טרפה) and unfit for food. In the case of poultry the
examination is not made by the shochet; but if any deviation from the
normal state is discovered in the lungs or in any other part, the meat
must not be used as food unless the animal has been examined by a
competent person (Rabbi or dayyan), and declared by him to be kasher.
As to the beneficial influence of these examinations on the general
condition of health in the Jewish community, see Dr. H. Behrend’s
articles in Jewish Chronicle, November 12, 1880, and October 24, 1890,
and Nineteenth Century, October 1890.
3. On Page 459—1d.
The following particular rules are to be observed in kashering meat:—
(a.) The meat is first soaked in water for half-an-hour; this must be
done within three days after the killing of the animal. It is then
taken out of the water, placed on a slanting board or in a
wicker-basket, and after a few minutes, when the water has sufficiently
run off, sprinkled on all sides with salt. After the lapse of an hour
the salt is again removed by soaking and rinsing.
(b.) In case of urgency, when, e.g., the meat is wanted for a patient,
or when on Friday afternoon there would not be left time enough for
cooking or roasting the meat, it need only be kept in water for fifteen
minutes and in salt for half-an-hour.
(c.) In kashering poultry all the inner parts of the animal must be
taken out and salted separately; the rest must be sprinkled with salt
both within and without.
(d.) Liver is salted a little and roasted on fire, not in the oven or
in any vessel. This done, the liver may be cooked or roasted in any
way.
(e.) The heart is cut open before the salting, and a piece is cut off
at the apex, in order that the blood may run off more easily.—For the
same purpose the horny part of the legs is cut off.—The head must be
opened and sprinkled with salt on both sides, after the brain has been
taken out; from the latter the skin is drawn off, and then it is
salted.
(f.) Eggs found in poultry are treated as meat, but must be salted
separately.
(g.) The vessels used for soaking and salting the meat should not be
used for other purposes.
4. On Page 459—1c.
The law of shechitah applies only to cattle, beasts, and birds (בהמה,
חיה and עוף); there is no commandment as regards the killing of
fish. Tradition supports this exception by reference to the distinction
made in Num. xi. 22: “Shall the flocks and the herds be slain (ישחט)
for them, to suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered
together (יאסף) for them, to suffice them?” Although the latter term
(יאסף) is also used of quails (ibid. 32), no such inference is made
with regard to birds, because in ver. 32 the term יאסף is not
contrasted by ישחט; besides, the verb שחט is frequently applied in
the Law to birds, but never to fish. Comp. Babyl. Talm., Chullin, p.
27b.
There is this difference to be observed between בהמה on the one hand,
and חיה and עוף on the other. In the case of the latter two the
shechitah must be followed by the covering of the blood (כסוי דם Lev.
xvii. 13). The object of this law is, according to some, to prevent the
blood being used for idolatrous and superstitious purposes, as birds
and beasts were generally hunted in the fields, mountains, and woods,
places frequently associated in the imagination of the ancients with
evil spirits and the like. (Comp. Commentary of R. Obadiah Seforno on
the Pentateuch, ad locum.) The law was perhaps intended to impress the
lesson on the mind of the hunter that the blood shed of a living being
presents a ghastly sight that offends the eye of man. He will accustom
himself to think that taking away the life of another being, even of an
animal, is an act of grave responsibility, and will not be led to
misuse his weapons against any of his fellow-men.
5. On Page 460—3b.
Comp. Mishnah, Treatise Chullin, iii. 6.—The characteristics of the
clean and the unclean cattle and beasts are given in the Pentateuch,
but the characteristics of the clean or the unclean birds are not
mentioned in the Law. Our Sages, however, declared every bird of
prey—or every bird that seizes its food with its claws, and lifts it up
from the ground before eating it (Rashi) to be an unclean bird; while
all birds are clean that have a projecting claw (אצבע יתרה a claw
longer than the rest) and a crop (זפק), and whose stomach has a
membrane that can easily be peeled off (קרקבנו נקלף). Another rule is
this: Birds that dwell and associate with unclean birds are unclean.
“Not without reason does the starling go to the raven: they are of the
same species” (Babyl. Talm., Chullin 65b). The sentence serves also as
a moral lesson (ibid., Baba Kama 92a). At present, however, only those
birds are killed for food which are known traditionally to have always
been considered as “clean birds” (Maimonides, Mishneh-torah, Hilchoth
maachaloth asuroth, i. 14–20; Tur Joredeah, chap. lxxxii.).
6. On Page 461—7.
Onkelos translates this commandment: לא תיכול בשר בחלב “Thou shalt
not eat meat in milk,” in accordance with the Oral Law. The threefold
repetition of the commandment forbidding the seething of a kid in its
mother’s milk is explained traditionally to indicate a threefold
prohibition: that of boiling meat and milk together, that of eating
such mixture, and that of deriving any benefit whatever from it
(ואיסור, איסור אכילה, איסור בישול הנאה). In obedience to the
principle, “Make a fence round the Law,” we abstain from milk or butter
for some time after having partaken of meat.
7. On Page 461—4.
The honey of bees is an apparent exception from the rule that the
products of the unclean animals are forbidden. The honey mentioned in
the Bible is mostly the juice of fruit, especially of dates; but the
honey of bees is also mentioned (Judges xiv. 8). It is assumed that
honey does not contain any part of the bee itself, but is merely the
juice of the flowers sucked and again discharged by the bees. (See
Babyl. Talm., Bechoroth 7b; Maim., Mishneh-torah, Hil. maachaloth
asuroth iii. 3.)
Note 8.
In addition to the things enumerated in this chapter as forbidden,
there is the prohibition of “wine of libation” (יין נסך). Everything
used in the worship of idols was condemned, and could not serve as
food, drink, or any purpose; it was אסור בהנאה. Wine was frequently
used by heathens in libations to their idols. The wine of a heathen was
therefore always suspected of having been employed in idolatrous
libations, and was consequently forbidden as יין נסך. Since, however,
such libations have ceased this prohibition has also lapsed.
It has, however, not lapsed in its entirety. It is only the אסור הנאה
that is no longer in force. The prohibition of using wine prepared by
non-Jews (סתם יין) as a beverage still continues. This and similar
prohibitions were intended as a barrier against the increase of mixed
marriages among the Jews. (Comp. Babyl. Talm., Shabbath 17b.)
VII. JEWISH LIFE.
The first paragraph of the Shulchan-aruch runs thus: “‘I have set the
Lord always before me’ is one of the most important principles of our
holy Religion;” and, indeed, the more the actions of the Jew conform to
this principle, the nearer does he approach the ideal of a true servant
of God, who is faithful in the service of his Master, and whose life is
the expression of genuine recognition of God’s sovereignty (קבלת עול
מלכות שמים) with unconditional obedience to His Will (קבלת עול
מצות). Neither attendance at Public Service, nor the regular
recitation of prayers, nor the study of the Law, nor the performance of
certain religious acts, constitute by themselves Jewish Life, but the
supreme influence which the Word of God—the Torah—is constantly made to
exercise over man’s doings. Every movement of his is regulated by the
Law, and wherever he turns he is met by a Divine precept that elevates
his heart towards Him who gave us the Law. The very garments he wears,
though not different from those of his fellow-men, [173] except by the
absence of shaatnez (combination of wool and linen), include the arba
kanfoth, “the four-cornered garment,” with tsitsith; his house, the
same in every other respect as those of his neighbours, is
distinguished by the mezuzah on the doorposts. These distinctive
characteristics, however, are not intended to attract the attention of
others; they only concern the man himself; they serve him as reminders
of God and His Will. Within the house the furniture and the whole
arrangement are in accordance with the custom and fashion of the place;
[174] there is simplicity or luxury, taste or want of taste, according
to the individual character of the occupier. Only the kitchen and the
table have a distinctly Jewish aspect; these must be adapted to the
requirements of the Dietary Laws. The most striking feature is the
double set of kitchen utensils and of vessels for the table, the one
set for meat, the other for butter and milk.
In the choice of his occupation, trade, or profession, the Jew, like
all his fellow-men, is influenced by his inclination, capabilities, and
opportunities; but, in addition to these, there is another important
factor that must ultimately determine the choice—his religion; and such
occupation as would be likely to compel him to abandon any of the
Divine precepts, cannot be chosen. No manner of labour or trade is in
itself derogatory; on the contrary, all labour is honourable, unless
man degrades it by his conduct, and by the object he aims at achieving
by means of it. Thrift, economy, and temperance are essential
conditions of success. But success, however desirable, and however
sweet when obtained, leads only to the material well-being of man. As
to his spiritual well-being, the Jew, though busy with urgent work,
will try to find some spare moments in which to turn his attention to
“the three things upon which the world is based: Study of the Torah,
Divine Service, and Charity” (Aboth i. 2).
Before the work of the day commences, and when it is finished,
attention is paid to torah and abhodah. The Service, especially the
Morning Service, contains various sections which are not prayers, but
rather lessons for study. In addition to these, the Jew, according to
his capacity or opportunity, should read the Bible, the Mishnah, and
the Talmud. For those who have no opportunity at home, the Beth
ha-midrash is open with its library. Synagogue and Beth ha-midrash are
the places of spiritual recreation where the Jew refreshes his mind,
elevates his heart, and gathers new strength, courage, and hope for the
battle of life.
Charity in its various branches, tsedakah and gemiluth chasadim, is a
virtue practised by the wealthy and the poor alike. Any heart or house
from which this virtue is absent does not deserve to be called Jewish.
Some Jews have charity-boxes in their houses, and whenever any member
of the family has something to spare or is moved by a special impulse
of charity, these boxes receive an addition to their contents. Others
imitate the law of maaser (“tithe”), and set aside a tenth part of
their earnings and profits for charitable purposes. Hospitality (הכנסת
אורחים) is another method of charity, and it forms one of the
ornaments of a true Jewish house. Although societies and public
institutions do at present what was formerly considered to be the duty
of the members of the community, individual hospitality has by no means
become superfluous, and there is ample opportunity for its practice.
Hospitality graces especially the lady of the house; it is her duty to
provide for the comfort of the guests, and to act according to the
rule, “Let the poor be the children of thy house” (Aboth i. 5).
This is one of the privileges possessed by women. According to the
principle of division of labour, woman rules supreme in the house: “The
King’s daughter is all glorious within” (Ps. xlv. 14); whilst man is
more in contact with the outer world, devotes himself to labour, trade,
or profession in order to provide the necessities of life for those who
are dependent upon him. There are, however, many exceptions to the
rule, and there is scarcely any trade or profession in which women have
not been engaged. Women were not excluded even from the highest
honours. The Jews had their prophetesses, and women were entrusted with
judgeship and even with sovereignty. There are instances of women
distinguished by learning, experience, wit, and especially by piety.
Women of piety (נשים צדקניות) were never wanting in Israel; and many
a scholar owes the success he has attained in the field of learning to
the piety of his wife, who willingly undertook her husband’s burdens
and cares in trade and business in order to facilitate his devotion to
study. No sacrifice is too great for a true Jewish mother to have her
children instructed in the Word of God, and nothing adds more to the
happiness and pride of the mother than the progress her son has made in
the knowledge of the Torah. “What is the great merit of women? They
have the merit of making their children attend the school, and of
encouraging their husbands to study the Talmud” (Babyl. Talm.,
Berachoth 17a).
The moral and the intellectual as well as the physical training of the
children is in its earliest stages almost exclusively in the hands of
the mother. If we add to this the responsibility for having the food
prepared according to the requirements of the Dietary Laws, we easily
understand the reason why Jewish women are exempt from various
religious duties incumbent on the other sex. The rule is this: “Women
are exempt from the fulfilment of all precepts which are restricted to
a certain time” (Mishnah, Kiddushin i. 7), in order to prevent any
collision between these and her principal and most important duties in
the house. Thus it happens that there are Jewish women who faithfully
cling to the inherited religion, and yet are rare visitors of the
Synagogue. On week-days the Synagogue is only in exceptional cases
attended by women.
From this reason women are disqualified for forming the quorum (minyan)
required for public worship (tefillah batsibbur). This and similar
disqualifications are based on the principle of regard for women and
their home-duties, and by no means on a belief in their inferiority.
Passages in the Talmudical and Midrashic Literature which ascribe to
women vanity, levity, and other shortcomings are outweighed by sayings
which evidence a sense of high regard for the virtues and
accomplishments of women. The following sentences are a few examples;
“Woman has been endowed by the Creator with greater intelligence than
man” (Babyl. Talm., Niddah 45b). “Who is rich? He who possesses a wife
fair in her doings” (ibid., Shabbath 25b). “It was through the merit of
pious women that the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt” (ibid., Sotah
11b). [175] Modesty and reservedness (צניעות) are the distinguishing
virtues of Jewish women. The principle, “The daughter of the King is
all glorious within,” was applied literally. In the fulfilment of her
home-duties the daughter of Israel seeks her happiness and her pride.
It used to be opposed to the sense of propriety of Jewish ladies to
speak, sing, or act in public. [176] This צניעות was the main cause
of the preservation of the sanctity of the Jewish home and the purity
of Jewish family life, a treasure and a blessing which ought to be well
guarded.
The working days of the week are divided between labour and devotion.
Three Services are attended daily either in the Synagogue or at home,
and every meal is preceded and followed by prayer. Jewish women have,
in addition to the Prayer-book, a small volume of supplications
(תחנות) in the vernacular for every day, every season, and every
occasion.
Mondays and Thursdays, on which days a Lesson from the Law is read
during the Morning Service, are considered as special days for earnest
devotion. There have been pious Jews who fasted the whole or part of
these days.—Tuesday is looked upon as a favoured day, because it is
distinguished in the account of the Creation (Gen. i. 10, 12) by a
repetition of the phrase, “And God saw that it was good.” It is
therefore called “the day with double ki-tobh (that it was good).” This
circumstance may be the cause of the belief that it is not advisable to
begin a new undertaking on Monday or Wednesday; [177] preference should
be given to Tuesday. But this belief, although seemingly founded on a
Biblical phrase, is contrary to Jewish principles, and is included in
the prohibition, “Ye shall not observe times” (Lev. xix. 26), to
declare a particular day as lucky or unlucky.
Friday is an important and busy day in a Jewish house. It is not only
the circumstance that food is being prepared for two days [178] that
causes greater activity, but also the anticipated pleasure at the
approach of a beloved guest. The same is the case when a Festival is
near. Each Festival has its own particular wants and pleasures. In some
houses the activity in preparing for Passover may be noticed a whole
month before, although the actual clearing of the chamets is done in a
very short time. Before Succoth all hands are busy with preparing and
ornamenting the Tabernacle, and selecting esrog and lulabh. It is
genuine religious enthusiasm [179] in the fulfilment of Divine duties
that inspires this kind of activity, and gives to the house a
peculiarly Jewish tone and Jewish atmosphere. We feel in it “the season
of our joy” before and during the Three Festivals, and “the season of
solemnity and earnest reflection” during the penitential days; grief
when the 9th of Ab approaches, and hilarity when Purim is near. Twice a
year we are invited by law and custom to give ourselves up to gladness
and merriment: on Simchath-torah and on Purim. Although even a certain
excess of mirth is considered lawful on the latter occasion, there are
but very few that indulge in this license.
All the seasons of rejoicing are also occasions for mitsvoth—charity,
and for strengthening the bond of love between husband and wife,
between parents and children, and the bond of friendship between man
and man. Every erebh shabbath and erebh yom-tobh afford the opportunity
of giving challah, [180] kindling Sabbath or Festival lights, [181] and
inviting strangers [182] (הכנסת אורחים) to our meals. On Sabbaths and
Festivals children, even when grown up, come to their parents and ask
for their blessing. [183] Before Kiddush the husband chants the section
of Prov. xxxi. beginning אשת חיל, in praise of a good wife. The
Shabbath shalom or Good shabbath, Shabhua tobh or Good woch, Good yom
tobh, and similar salutations, remind us that we ought to have only
good wishes for each other. Sabbath and Festivals afford suitable
occasions for home-devotion, in which all the members of the family,
males and females, should take part. The meals are preceded and
followed by the usual berachoth, but it is customary to add extra
psalms and hymns (zemiroth) in honour of the day, and those who are
gifted should add to these, or even substitute for them, compositions
of their own in any language they like in gloriam Dei. A second kind of
home-devotion which ought not to be neglected, but should rather be
revived where it is neglected, is the reading of the Scriptures. On
Friday evening the pious Jew reads the Sidra twice in the original and
once in the Targum; but all should at least read Sidra and Haphtarah in
the vernacular.
The moon by its gradual increase in light from its minimum to
full-moon, and the subsequent decrease from full-moon to its minimum,
has in Agadic and Midrashic Literature frequently served as a symbol of
the history of Israel, of his rise and his fall. The last day of the
decline, the eve of New-moon, is kept by some as a special day of
prayer and fasting, [184] while the first day of the rise, New-moon, is
distinguished by Hallel and Musaph. If people, as a symbol of happiness
(סימן טוב), prefer the middle of the month for marriage, their choice
is harmless; but if they hold that season as more lucky than the rest
of the month, they are guilty of superstition. As at the sight of other
natural phenomena, so also has a benediction been fixed on observing
the reappearance of the moon in the beginning of the month. For the
above-mentioned reason, importance is attached to this berachah, and
prayers are added for the redemption of Israel. The berachah, which is
generally recited in the open air, is the chief element in the
ceremony; the additional prayers and reflections are non-essential.
In the foregoing, Jewish Life has been described as it appears at the
various seasons of the year; in the following, it will be given as it
appears at the various periods of man’s existence.
The first important moment is, of course, the moment of birth. The
father, friends, and relatives are filled with anxiety for the life of
both mother and child. Prayers are daily offered up for the safety and
recovery of the patient and the well-being of the child. The Twentieth
Psalm is sometimes written on a tablet placed in the room where the
confinement takes place, probably as a reminder or an invitation for
visitors to pray to the Almighty; in this sense the custom is to be
commended; but if the tablet is filled with meaningless signs, letters,
and words, and is used merely as a charm, the custom should be
discontinued, being a superstitious practice. In some parts it has been
the custom that during the week preceding the Berith-milah friends
visited the house to pray there for the well-being of the child, and
boys recited there Biblical passages containing blessings, such as Gen.
xlviii. 16. [185] The night before the berith was spent in reading
Bible and Talmud, so that the child might from the beginning breathe,
as it were, the atmosphere of torah. [186]
On the eighth day the male child is initiated into the covenant of
Abraham (Lev. xii. 3). Circumcision is one of “those mitsvoth which the
Israelites in times of religious persecution carried out
notwithstanding imminent danger to life.” The performance of this
Divine precept is therefore made the occasion of much rejoicing. In
some congregations the operation, as a sacred act, takes place in the
Synagogue after the Morning Service; in others the privacy of the home
is preferred. In ancient days mothers circumcised their sons, but now
the operation is only entrusted to a person who has been duly trained,
and has received from competent judges a certificate of his
qualification for the functions of a mohel. [187] Although, according
to the Law, any person, otherwise capable of doing it, may do the
mitsvah, preference is given, and ought to be given, to a person of
genuine piety and of true enthusiasm for our holy Religion, who
performs the act in gloriam Dei. Not only the mohel, but all who assist
in the act do a mitsvah, and the meal which is prepared for the
occasion is a סעודת מצוה (a meal involving a religious act). [188]
Immediately after the operation a name is given to the child. [189]
The next important moment in a boy’s life is the “Redemption” (פדיון
הבן) in case of the first-born male child (Exod. xiii. 13, 15), which
act is likewise made the occasion of a סעודת מצוה. A cohen
(descendant of Aaron) receives the redemption-money to the amount of
five shekels (or 15s.), according to Num. xviii. 16. [190]
In the case of a female child the naming generally takes place in the
Synagogue on a Sabbath, when the father is called up to the Law. In
many congregations this takes place when the mother has sufficiently
recovered to attend again for the first time the Service in the
Synagogue on Sabbath. Those who live at a great distance from the
Synagogue pay the first visit to the place of worship on a week-day. A
special Service has been arranged for the occasion. [191]
Great care is now taken by the parents for the physical well-being of
the child, without entirely ignoring its moral and intellectual
development. “At five years the child is fit to be taught Mikra, i.e.,
reading the Bible” (Aboth v. 21), so the Mishnah teaches. But long
before this the child is taught to pray, and to repeat short Biblical
passages or prayers in Hebrew. It must, of course, be borne in mind
that children are not all alike, and that each child must be taught
according to its own capacities and strength. The knowledge must be
imparted in such a manner that the child should seek it as a source of
pleasure and happiness.
As to the subjects which are to be taught, there is no branch of
general knowledge from which Jewish children are debarred by their
Religion, nor is there any branch of knowledge that is more Jewish than
the rest. Jewish children must learn like other children, as far as
possible, that which is considered necessary and useful, as well as
that which is conducive to the comfort and happiness of life. But
Religion, Scripture, and Hebrew must never be absent from the
curriculum of studies of a Jewish child. The instruction in Religion
need not occupy much time, for the best teaching of Religion is the
good example set by the parents at home and the teacher in the school.
The religious training of a child should begin early; the surroundings
and associations must teach the child to act nobly, to speak purely, to
think charitably, and to love our Religion. “Train up a child in the
way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it”
(Prov. xxii. 6). Early practical training (חנוך) is also of great
importance with regard to the observance of religious precepts.
Children should be accustomed to regard with reverence that which is
holy, to honour Sabbath and Festivals, and to rejoice in doing what the
Almighty has commanded. Twice a year we have special occasion for the
fulfilment of this duty, viz., on Simchath-torah and on the
Seder-evening.
In teaching our children Hebrew our aim must be to make them understand
the holy language, to enable them to read the Word of God in the
original, and to pray to the Almighty in the language in which the
Prophets and the Psalmists gave utterance to their inspirations, and in
which our forefathers addressed the Supreme Being in the Temple.
A special ceremony used to introduce the child into the study of the
Bible in the original. [192] Teacher and pupil went to the Synagogue,
took a sepher from the Hechal, and the pupil was made to read the first
lesson from the sepher. This and similar ceremonies were intended as a
means of impressing on the pupil the great importance of studying the
Word of God in the original language. After having acquired a sound
knowledge of the Bible, the study of other branches of Hebrew
literature, of Talmudical and Rabbinical works, is approached.
As a rule, boys devote more time to Hebrew studies than girls, only
because girls are considered physically more delicate and not capable
of doing so much work as boys. Girls are by no means excluded from
acquiring a sound Hebrew knowledge; on the contrary, every
encouragement should be given to them, if they are inclined to study
Hebrew beyond the first elements. [193]
The boy when thirteen years old is bar-mitsvah (lit., “a son of the
commandment”), bound to obey the Law, and responsible for his deeds. On
the Sabbath following his thirteenth birthday the boy is called up to
the Law; he reads the whole of the Sidra or a section of it, and
declares in the blessings which precede and follow the lesson his
belief in the Divine origin of the Torah, and his gratitude to God for
having given us the Law. [194]
The school-years come gradually to a close, and the practical
preparation for life begins. A vocation has to be determined upon. From
a moral and religious point of view all kinds of trade, business, and
profession are equal. They are honourable or base according as they are
carried on in an honourable manner or not. Whatever course is chosen,
the moral and religious training must continue with unabated energy.
When the school-years are over, when the youth is no longer under the
control of the master, and is sometimes left even without the control
of the parents, he is exposed to various kinds of temptation,
especially through the influence of bad society. The vices against
which the youth must guard himself most at this period of life are
sensuality, excessive desire for pleasure, gambling, and dishonesty,
which bring about his moral, social, and physical ruin. Self-control,
acquired through continued religious training, is the best safeguard
against these dangers. It is therefore advisable that those who have
left the school should continue attending some religious class, or
otherwise devote part of their free time to Talmud-torah, to the study
of the Torah, and of works relating to it.
“At the age of eighteen years one is fit for marriage” (Aboth, ibid.)
is an ancient dictum, but which could never have been meant as an
absolute law. For there are other qualifications equally important, and
even more essential than age. Maimonides (Mishneh-torah, Hil. Deoth v.
11) says: “Man should first secure a living, then prepare a residence,
and after that seek a wife. But fools act otherwise: they marry first,
then look out for a house, and at last think of the means of obtaining
a livelihood.” (Comp. Deut. xx. 5–7 and xxviii. 30.)
Marriage is called in the Bible “a divine covenant” (Prov. ii. 17), or
“the covenant of God.” God is, as it were, made witness of the
covenant; in His presence the assurances of mutual love and the
promises of mutual fidelity are given by husband and wife (Mal. ii.
14). To break this covenant is therefore not only an offence of the one
against the other, but an offence against God.—In addition to this
religious basis of marriage, conditions of a more material nature were
agreed upon. The maiden has been long of use in the house of her
parents, and he who sought the privilege of taking her to his house and
making her his wife had to give to the parents “dowry and gift” (מהר
ומתן, Gen. xxxiv. 12). Later on, in the time of the Mishnah, all that
the husband promised to his wife was made the subject of a written
document (כתובה), signed by two witnesses. In this document he
guarantees to her 200 zus (or half the sum if she is a widow), the
value of her outfit and dowry (in Hebrew נדוניא), and a certain
amount added to the afore-mentioned obligatory sum (תוספת כתובה). He
further promises to honour her, work for her, maintain her, and
honestly provide her with everything necessary for her comfort.
The marriage was preceded by the betrothal (אירוסין or קידושין),
the solemn promise on his part to take her after a fixed time to his
house as his wife, and on her part to consider herself as his wife and
to prepare herself for the marriage. Legally she was already his wife,
and infidelity was visited with capital punishment. The interval
between the betrothal and marriage used to be twelve months; at present
the two events are united in the marriage ceremony, and are only
separated from each other by an address or by the reading of the
kethubhah. That which is now called betrothal or engagement is merely a
preliminary settlement of the conditions of the marriage (תנאים
“conditions”). The conditions used to be written down, including a fine
(קנס) for breach of promise; the agreement used to be followed by the
breaking of a glass [195] and by a feast.
The actual betrothal takes place on the wedding-day, and consists
mainly of the following significant words addressed by the bridegroom
to his bride: הרי את מקודשת לי בטבעת זו כדת משה וישראל “Behold, thou
art consecrated (betrothed) to me by this ring according to the Law of
Moses and of Israel.” While saying this he places a gold ring [196] on
the second finger of the right hand. This act is preceded by a berachah
over wine, read by the celebrant while holding a cup of wine in his
hand, and the birchath erusin (“blessing of betrothal”), in which God
is praised for the institution of Marriage. Bride and bridegroom, who
during the ceremony stand under a canopy (חופה), taste of the wine.
The canopy or chuppah [197] represents symbolically the future home of
the married couple, which they have to guard as a sanctuary, and to
render inaccessible to evil deeds, words, and thoughts that would
pollute it. The top of the canopy, which is formed of a curtain
(פרכת) of the Hechal, or of a talith, expresses the idea of sanctity.
After the birchath erusin the bridegroom makes the solemn declaration
[198] mentioned above: “Behold, thou art consecrated (betrothed) unto
me by this ring according to the Law of Moses and of Israel,” [199]
whereupon the kethubhah is read in Aramaic [200] or in English, and an
address is sometimes given. Then follow the ברכות נשואין (“Blessings
of Marriage”), called also after their number שבע ברכות “Seven
Blessings.” [201] The ceremony concludes with the breaking of a glass
and the mutual congratulations of friends and relatives, expressed in
the words Mazzal-tobh (מזל טוב “Good luck”). [202]
A banquet (סעודת נישואין) follows, which is a סעודת מצוה. It is
introduced by the usual berachah (המוציא), and followed by Grace and
the “Seven Blessings.”
The following are a few of the various customs connected with a Jewish
marriage without being essential elements of the marriage ceremony:—
(1.) On the Sabbath previous to the wedding-day the bridegroom, his
father, and the father of the bride are called up to the Law, and
offerings are made (mi shebberach) in honour of the bride and the
bridegroom. In some congregations Gen. xxiv. is read after the Service,
on the morning of the wedding-day.
(2.) Bride and bridegroom enter upon a new life; the wedding-day is to
them a day of rejoicing, but also a day of great solemnity. It is kept
as a day of earnest reflections, of prayer and fasting, till after the
ceremony, when the fast is broken and the rejoicing begins. The
bridegroom adds in the Minchah amidah the Confession (ודוי) of the
Day of Atonement.
(3.) The good wishes of friends and relatives are variously expressed.
Rice, wheat, or similar things are thrown over the bride and the
bridegroom as a symbol of abundance and fruitfulness.
(4.) The feast is accompanied by speeches in praise of the bride and
bridegroom; it was considered a special merit to speak on such an
occasion (אגרא דהלולא מילי, Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 6b). The
bridegroom used to give a discourse (דרשה) on some Talmudical theme,
if he was able to do so. He received presents for it
(derashah-presents).
(5.) In the time of the Bible and the Talmud the feasting lasted seven
days.—The first day after the wedding used to be distinguished by a
fish dinner (סעודת דגים), in allusion to Gen. xlviii. 16.
In spite of all blessings and good wishes the marriage sometimes proves
a failure, husband and wife being a source of trouble and misery the
one to the other, instead of being the cause of each other’s happiness.
In such a case a divorce may take place, and man and wife separate from
each other. Divorce is permitted (Deut. xxiv. 1–4), but not encouraged;
it is an evil, but the lesser of two evils. A written document was
required (ספר כריתות, גט), and later legislation made the writing
and the delivery of the document difficult and protracted, in order to
facilitate attempts at reconciliation; the fulfilment of the conditions
agreed upon in the kethubhah also tended to render divorce a rare
event. The number of cases of divorce among the Jews is therefore
comparatively smaller than among other denominations, but still
unfortunately far too large, owing to want of foresight and reflection
in the choice of a companion for life.
There is a kind of obligatory marriage (יבום) and or obligatory
divorce (חליצה), viz., with regard to the widow of a deceased brother
who has died without issue (Deut. xxv. 5–10). Since the abolition of
polygamy [203] by Rabbenu Gershom (eleventh century) the obligatory
marriage has almost disappeared, and the obligatory divorce (חליצה)
must take place before the widow can marry again. [204]
We acknowledge the principle laid down in the Talmud, “The law of the
country is binding upon us” (דינא דמלכותא דינא), but only in so far
as our civil relations are concerned. With regard to religious
questions our own religious code must be obeyed. Marriage laws include
two elements—civil relations and religious duties. As regards the
former, we abide by the decisions of the civil courts of the country.
We must, therefore, not solemnise a marriage which the law of the
country would not recognise; we must not religiously dissolve a
marriage by גט, unless the civil courts of law have already decreed
the divorce. On the other hand, we must not content ourselves with
civil marriage or civil divorce; religiously, neither civil marriage
nor civil divorce can be recognised unless supplemented by marriage or
divorce according to religious forms. Furthermore, marriages allowed by
the civil law, but prohibited by our religious law—e.g., mixed
marriages; that is, marriages between Jews and non-Jews—cannot be
recognised before the tribunal of our Religion; such alliances are
sinful, and the issue of such alliances must be treated as
illegitimate. Those who love their Religion and have the well-being of
Judaism at heart will do their utmost to prevent the increase of mixed
marriages.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under
the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die” (Eccles. iii. 1, 2).
Life is a precious gift the Creator has given us; while there is breath
in our nostrils we thank Him for it, we pray to Him for its
prolongation, do everything in our power to preserve it, and consider
its wilful destruction a criminal act. But notwithstanding all this
“there is a time to die.” Life and death are equally mysteries to us;
we trust in the mercy of Him who has ordained life and death, that both
are for our good. Death is, therefore, not to be regarded with dread
and horror; it is the transition to another state of life, the real
nature of which is unknown to us. But it is our belief that the future
life (העולם הבא) is infinitely superior to the present life (העולם
הזה); hence the saying in the Midrash that the words “exceedingly
good” (Gen. i. 31) applied to death. The only fear of death that can
reasonably be justified is the fear of departing from this life before
we have completed our task, before we have sufficiently strengthened
“the breaches of the house” caused by our own dereliction of duty. Our
Sages advise, “Return one day before thy death” (Aboth ii. 15); that
is, every day, the day of death being concealed from our knowledge. In
this manner we constantly prepare ourselves for death without
curtailing our enjoyment of life. “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth;
and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the
ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou,
that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore
remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for
childhood and youth are vanity” (Eccles. xi. 9, 10). When passion
overcomes us and evil inclinations invite us to sin, we are told by our
Sages to remember the day of death, which may suddenly surprise us
before we have been able by repentance to purify ourselves from our
transgressions (Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 5a).
When death approaches, and announces itself through man’s illness, we
do everything that human knowledge and skill can suggest to preserve
and prolong the earthly life with which God has endowed us; in
addition, the patient himself and his friends invoke the mercy of God
for his recovery. [205] Even when death appears invincible, when “the
edge of the sword touches already man’s neck, we do not relinquish our
hope in God’s mercy, and continue to pray to the All-merciful.” The
patient is asked to prepare himself for the solemn moment, although it
may in reality be as yet far off. [206] The preparation consists of
prayer, meditation, confession of sin, repentance, and of the
profession of our Creed, especially of the Unity of God, in the words,
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” [207] To visit
the sick, to comfort them by kind words and deeds, to pray with and for
the patient, are acts included in the duty of “visiting the sick”
(בקור הולים). [208] In the moment of death those present testify
their faith in God by proclaiming the Dominion, the Omnipotence, and
the Unity of God in the same way in which we make this declaration at
the conclusion of the Day of Atonement. Although Prayer-books contain
certain forms of prayer for this purpose, the patient and those present
should rather follow the impulse of their heart, and commune with the
Almighty in any form their heart suggests.
When life has come to an end friends and relatives give free expression
to their grief; [209] to check it by comforting words at this moment is
useless (Aboth iv. 18). The mourners, [210] father, mother, son,
daughter, brother, and sister, have now to direct all their attention
to the deceased relative, in order that nothing be neglected in the
last honours shown to him; they are therefore free from all other
religious obligations till after the burial. In Palestine and
neighbouring countries, where, in consequence of the higher
temperature, decomposition of the body begins soon after death, the
burial takes place on the same day. [211] In colder climates two or
three days elapse between death and burial. The mourners abstain during
the interval from wine and meat.
Every act of piety in honour of the deceased is a meritorious religious
act, a mitsvah, an act of kindness and truth (חסד ואמת), and in every
congregation there exists a society, called חברא קרישא “holy
society,” whose members devote themselves to the fulfilment of these
pious duties.
According to the principle that death equalises all, that “the small
and great are there” (Job iii. 19), the greatest simplicity and
equality is observed in all matters connected with the obsequies [212]
of the dead. Friends and relatives follow to the burial-ground; the
הלוית המת, or attending the dead to their last resting-place, [213]
is one of those mitsvoth “the fruits of which a man enjoys in this
world, while the stock remains for him for the world to come.”
Burying the dead is a very old custom, to which the Jews adhered firmly
at all ages. The custom of the Greeks, who burnt their dead, found no
advocates among the Jews. In the Written and the Oral Law only the
burying of the dead is mentioned. To leave a human body unburied and
unattended was considered by Jews, as by other nations, an insult to
the deceased person, and whoever found such a body was bound to take
charge of it and to effect its burial. [214]
In the Burial Service we acknowledge the justice of God, and resign
ourselves to the Will of the Almighty (צדוק הדין). When the burial is
over our attention is directed to the living; words of comfort are
addressed to the mourners [215] who return home and keep שבעה “seven
days of mourning.” A certain degree of mourning is then continued till
the end of the year by the children of the deceased, and till the end
of the month (שלשים “thirty days”) by other relatives. [216]
Our regard for the deceased (יקרא דשכבי) and our sympathies with the
mourners (יקרא דחיי) are expressed in different ways.
The funeral oration (הספד) occasionally spoken at the grave, or in
the house of mourning, or in the Synagogue, generally combines both
elements; it contains a eulogy upon the deceased and words of sympathy
and exhortation for the living.
The special prayers offered up on such occasions likewise include these
two elements: petitions for the well-being of the soul of the deceased,
that it may find Divine mercy when appearing before the Supreme Judge,
and petitions for the comfort and relief of the mourners. The Kaddish
of the Mourners, however, does not contain such prayers, but merely
expresses their resignation to the Will of the Almighty, their
conviction that He is the only Being that is to be worshipped, and that
He alone will be worshipped by all mankind in the days of Messiah, and
their wish that the arrival of those days may be hastened.
There are, besides, the following customs, the object of which is to
express our regard for the memory of the deceased: (1.) A tombstone
(מצבה) is set up in front of or over the grave with the name of the
deceased, the date of his death, and such words of praise as are
dictated by the love and the esteem in which the deceased was held by
the mourners. (2.) A lamp is kept burning [217] during the week, or the
month, or the year of mourning, and on the anniversary of the day of
death (Jahrzeit). (3.) By observing the anniversary of the death as a
day devoted to earnest reflection, and to meditation on the merits and
virtues of the deceased; we keep away from amusements, and say Kaddish
in the course of the Services of the day. Some observe the anniversary
as a fast-day. (4.) By doing some mitsvah [218] in commemoration of the
deceased. (5.) By regarding with respect and piety the wishes of the
departed relative or friend, especially those uttered when death was
approaching. Our Sages teach: “It is our duty to fulfil the wishes of
the departed.” [219] The absence of this inner respect and piety makes
all the outward signs of mourning, however conscientiously observed,
valueless and illusory.
NOTES.
In addition to the customs already mentioned, there are a few calling
for some observation, customs which might seem superstitious, but are
not so if properly understood.
When life is extinct the eyes of the deceased are closed, and in some
cases also the mouth is kept shut. This is probably done out of regard
for the dead, that their face should not present a too ghastly and
repulsive appearance. The custom is mentioned in the Mishnah, Shabbath
xxiii. 5, and is also alluded to in the words, “And Joseph shall put
his hands upon thine eyes” (Gen. xlvi. 4).
From the house in which there was a dead person, and from the houses in
its immediate neighbourhood, the water was poured out. According to
Num. xix., everything in the house—and, under certain conditions, also
in the neighbouring houses—was unclean; the water was poured out, from
fear lest it be used in preparing holy food, such as terumah
(“heave-offering”). Furthermore, a kohen is not allowed to enter such a
house, and the pouring away of the water served as an indication that a
dead person was in the house.
An important element in the preparation for the burial is the
“cleaning” and robing of the body (טהרה); the cleansing of the body
before it returns to the earth is to be a symbol of the purification of
the soul by the mercy of God.
It is customary that those who came into contact with the deceased
during his lifetime express regret for any offence they may have
committed, knowingly or unknowingly, against him—a good custom, that
might serve as an exhortation to us all to be careful in our actions
towards our living fellow-men.
Whenever we mention the name of a deceased friend or relative we add,
as a mark of respect, עליהן) השלום or עלין (עליה עליהם, זכרונו
(זכרונה) לברכה, זכר צדיק לברכה or נוחו (נוחה) עדן (abbreviated,
זצל, ז״ל, ע״ה or נ״ע), “Peace be to him (her or them),” “his (or
her) memory be for a blessing,” “the memory of the righteous be for a
blessing,” or “his (or her) rest be Eden.” Comp. Zunz, Zur Literatur u.
Geschichte. Similarly we add to the names of living friends and
relatives the wish שיחיה (שתחיה), or נרו יאיר “May he (or she)
live,” or “May his light continue to shine.”
APPENDIX.
I.
THE THIRTEEN PRINCIPLES OF FAITH.
אנו מאמין באמונה שלמה
א—שהבורא יתברך שמו הוא בורא ומנהיג לכל הברואים והוא לבדו עשה ועושה
ויעשה לכל המעשים׃
ב—שהבורא יתברך שמו הוא יחיד ואין יחידות כמוהו בשום פנים והוא לבדו
אלהינו היה הוה ויהיה׃
ג—שהבורא יתברך שמו אינו גוף ולא ישיגוהו משיגי הגוף ואין לו שום דמיון
כלל׃
ד—שהבורא יתברך שמו הוא ראשון והוא אחרון׃
ה—שהבורא יתברך שמו לו לבדו ראוי להתפלל ואין ראוי להתפלל לזולתו׃
ו—שכל דברי הנביאים אמת׃
ז—שנבואת משה רבנו עליו השלום היתה אמתית ושהוא היה אב לנביאים לקודמים
לפניו ולבאים אחריו׃
ח—שכל התורה המצויה עתה בידינו היא הנתונה למשה רבנו עליו השלום׃
ט—שזאת התורה לא תהי מחלפת ולא תהי תורה אחרת מאד הבורא יתברך שמו׃
י—שהבורא יתברך שמו יודע כל מעשי בני אדם וכל מחשבותם שנאמר היצר יחד לבם
המבין אל כל מעשיהם׃
יא—שהבורא יתברך שמו גומל טוב לשומרי מצותיו ומעויש לעוברי מצותיו׃
יב—בביאת המשיח ואף על פי שיתמהמה עם כל זה אחכה־לו בכל יום שיבוא׃
יג—שתהיה תחית המתים בעת שתעלה רצון מאת הבורא יתברך שמו ויתעלה זכרו לעד
ולנצח נצחים׃
Note.—שתעלה רצון “when it will be decreed,” lit. “when it—the
resurrection—will ascend into the will.” Comp. the Talmudical סלקא
דעתך “you think,” lit. “it ascends into your mind.”
II.
THE JEWISH CALENDAR.
1. Nisan.—The Sabbath before Passover is called שבת הגדול “the Great
Sabbath,” on account of the importance of the approaching festival.
14th: ערב פסח “the Eve of Passover.” Fast of the First-born.
15th to 22nd: פסח “Passover.”
16th: “Beginning of counting the Omer,” ספירת העומר
17th to 20th: חול המועד “Half-holydays.”
23rd: אסרו חג “Farewell to the Festival.”
2. Iyar.—14th: פסח שני “Second Passover” (Num. ix. 9 sqq.).
18th: ל״ג בעומר the 33rd of the Omer. “Scholar’s feast.”
שני חמישי ושני Fasts kept by some, on the first Monday, Thursday,
and Monday succeeding each other in the beginning of the month, in
order to atone for sins they may have committed on the Holydays.
3. Sivan.—3rd, 4th, and 5th: שלשת ימי הגבלה “The three days of
bordering” (Exod. xix. 10–12).
5th: ערב שבועות “The eve of the Feast of Weeks.”
6th and 7th: שבועות “Feast of Weeks,” also called “Pentecost.”
8th: אסרו חג “Farewell to the Festival.”
4. Tammuz.—17th: “Fast of Tammuz,” שבעה עשר בתמוז
5. Ab.—“Sabbath before the Fast,” שבת חזון (see p. 413)
9th: “Fast of Ab,” תשעה באב
“Sabbath after the Fast,” שבת נחמו (ibid.).
15th: חמשה עשר באב “15th of Ab.” Reconciliation of the Benjamites
with the other Israelites (Judges xxi.).
6. Ellul.—ימי הסליחות “Days of propitiatory prayers,” beginning on
the first day of the month according to the Spanish Rite, and according
to the German Rite, on the Sunday (or 2nd S.) before ראש השנה
29th: ערב ראש השנה “The eve of New-year.”
7. Tishri.—1st and 2nd: “New-year,” ראש השנה
3rd: “Fast of Gedaliah,” צום גדליהו
1st to 10th: “The ten penitential days,” עשרת ימי תשובה
“The Sabbath after New-year,” שבת שובה (see p. 405).
9th: ערב יום כפור “The eve of the Day of Atonement.”
10th: יום כפור or יום הכפורום “The Day of Atonement.”
14th: ערב סכות “The eve of Sukkoth.”
15th to 21st: סכות “Feast of Tabernacles.”
17th to 21st: חול המועד “Half-holyday.”
21st: הושענא רבא “The Great Hoshana Service.”
22nd and 23rd: שמיני עצרת “Feast of the eighth day.”
23rd: שמחת תורה “Rejoicing of the Law.”
24th: אסרו חג “Farewell to the Festival.”
Heshvan.—שני המישי ושני “The Fast of ‘Monday, Thursday, and
Monday,’ kept by some in the course of the month.”
9. Kislev.—25th to 2nd (or 3rd) of Tebeth: חנוכה “Feast of
Dedication.”
10. Tebeth.—10th: עשרה בטבת “The Fast of Tebeth.”
11. Shebhat.—15th: חמשה עשר בשבט “New-year for trees.”
The last Sabbath in the month (or the first of Adar, if on
Saturday) is שבת שקלים “The Sabbath of Shekalim.” Exod. xxx.
11–16 is read in addition to the weekly section.
12. Adar.—7th: Anniversary of death of Moses.
Sabbath before Purim, שבת זכור (Deut. xxv. 17–19).
13th: תענית אסתר “Fast of Esther.”
14th: Purim, פורים “The Feast of Lots.”
15th: שושן פורים “Purim of Shushan.”
The last Sabbath but one, שבת פרה Num. xix. is read as an extra
lesson.
The last Sabbath in the month, or the first of Nisan, if on
Saturday, is שבת החודש Exod. xii. 1–20 is read as an extra
lesson.
[13. Adar Sheni.—שושן פורים, שבת זכור, תענית אסתר, פורים שבת
פרה, and שבת החדש which in an ordinary year are observed in Adar,
are in a leap-year kept in Adar Sheni; and שבת שקלים either on the
last Sabbath in Adar, or on the first of Adar Sheni, if on Saturday.]
Note.—The 15th of Shebhat is, according to the opinion of the
Hillelites (Mishnah, Rosh ha-shanah i. 1), “New-year for the trees;”
i.e., in reference to tithes, and to the fruit of the fourth or fifth
year (Lev. xix. 24, 25); the fruit that begins to grow on a tree
between the 15th of Shebhat of one year and the same date next year is
reckoned as the fruit of one year.
Various reasons are given for the distinction of the 15th of Ab: (a.)
The punishment decreed against the Israelites in the wilderness in
connection with the spies (Num. xiv. 29) was discontinued from the 15th
of Ab. (b.) The posts set up by Jeroboam on the borders of his kingdom
for the purpose of preventing Israelites from going up to Jerusalem
were removed on this date. (c.) The preparation of the wood for the
altar was completed on the 15th of Ab. (d.) On this day the Israelites
obtained permission to bury the bodies of those killed in the war
against Hadrian. (e.) The reconciliation between the Benjamites and the
other Israelites took place on the 15th of Ab (Judges xxi. 21 sqq.).
The Mishnah (Taanith iv. 8) states that the 15th of Ab and the Day of
Atonement were to the Israelites once days of the greatest national
rejoicings for all alike, rich and poor. In memory of these general
rejoicings the daughters of Jerusalem wore on these days borrowed white
garments, in order that those poor who had none of their own should not
feel ashamed. The Mishnah then describes the causes of the rejoicings;
namely, the dancings in the vineyards (Judges, l. c.) for the 15th of
Ab, and the giving of the Law (i.e., the giving of the second tables,
which, according to Tradition, took place on the 10th of Tishri), and
the building of the Temple (i.e., the rearing of the Tabernacle, which,
according to Tradition, was commanded on the 10th of Tishri for the
rejoicings on the Day of Atonement).
III.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
Professor Lazarus in his recent work “Die Ethik des Judenthums” made
the following observations: “In the continuity of the spirit of our
nation we discover the solution of the riddle, which puzzled so many
thinkers, viz.: how the small tribe of the Jews managed to outlive
great and mighty nations.” This continuity of the spirit has been
secured by our religious education. It has been said that education
aims at producing in the younger generation the capacity of receiving,
preserving and developing the culture we have acquired; this applies
pre-eminently to religious education. That such continuity exists in
our religious education, is evident from the fact that up to the
present day the chief text-book for religious instruction has remained
the same:—the Torah, or in a wider sense, the Bible, that everflowing
fountain of living waters, not only for us Jews, but for almost all
civilised nations. Our duty to preserve this continuity by handing over
to the next generation the religious principles inherited from our
predecessors is frequently insisted upon in Holy Writ, and emphasized
on every occasion. We have in this respect a double duty to perform:
Every parent is bound to secure as far as possible the well-being of
his children; religious education is indispensable for the children’s
well-being. The Torah, the source of our religious education, is
besides, our National treasure and inheritance, and every member of our
community has as such the duty to guard and protect this treasure, that
the rising generation receive it in its integrity. It is therefore not
sufficient for any one of us to provide for the religious instruction
of his own children, it is his duty to contribute his share towards the
maintenance of the public schools or classes established for the
religious instruction of the young. The Israelites in the wilderness
joyfully received the National treasure, and solemnly declared “the Law
which Moses commanded us, has been handed to us as an inheritance,” to
be transmitted from generation to generation. These very words form the
beginning of the religious education of our children, for as soon as
they are able to speak, they are taught to recite and to understand the
verse תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב “The Law which Moses commanded
us, O congregation of Jacob, is an inheritance.” (Deut. xxxiii. 4.). In
accordance with this principle, the Torah, the reading of the Torah in
its original language, in the Hebrew, the translation and the
understanding of the Torah, must form the basis of Jewish Religious
Education, both in private and public instruction. The Torah is the
essential element in the curriculum of Jewish Institutions for
Religious instruction.
Our Sages therefore teach (Aboth v. 2): “Read the Torah again and
again, for everything is in it, and in it thou wilt see everything; and
even when thou art old and worn out, remain faithful to it, and from it
do not move away, for there is no better measure for thee than the
Torah.”
There are other important subjects which Jewish children of both sexes
are expected to learn and to know: The principles of Religion,
Scripture History, Jewish History and Literature, Geography of
Palestine and Hebrew Grammar. None of these subjects should be excluded
from the curriculum of a Jewish School. They must be taught, but must
be taught in such a way that they help to illustrate the lessons of the
Law, and to facilitate its study. It is certainly of great importance
that our children should acquire as much knowledge as possible of our
History and Literature; of far greater importance, however, is the
training of the heart in the faith of God, the inculcation of reverence
for the Torah and the creation of a desire to live a pure, good and
holy life, based on the fear and love of God. Text-books of Religion,
though useful both to teacher and pupil, must by no means supersede the
original, the Torah. Where for some cogent reason a minimum of time is
spared for religious instruction—as is e.g. the case in many Religion
Classes connected with Public Schools and Colleges, special care should
be taken that the Torah receive its due attention. The best method must
be employed, the best possible teachers must be engaged, who are well
trained in the art of teaching, and possess a thorough knowledge of our
holy religion and our history. If in addition to these qualifications,
the teacher devotes himself to his profession with love and enthusiasm,
his words, coming from the heart, will find their way into the heart of
the pupil. No time can be spared for metaphysical speculations or for
problems of Bible criticism. Besides, “The hidden things belong to the
Lord our God, but the things which have been revealed are for us and
our children for ever: to do all the words of this Law.” (Deut. xxix.
28). According to the teaching of Aboth, (v. 22) “one moment of victory
over sin and temptation in this life surpasses all the blessings of the
future life,” and to train our youths in the way leading to such bliss,
is the aim and motive of all Religious teaching.
IV.
PRAYER FOR BARMITZVAH.
Prayer which the young Candidate, having previously undergone a
religious examination, should recite, when called to the Law, before
the Blessing.
אֱלֹהַי וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתַי
בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְתָמִים אֶשָּׂא אֵלֶיךָ אֶת עֵינַי בַּיּוֹם הַגָּדול וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ הַזֶּה לֵאמֹּר׃ הִנֵּה יַלְדוּתִי
חָֽלְפָה הָֽלְכָה לָהּ וְאָנֹכִי הָיִיתִי לְאִישׁ׃ עָלַי לִשְׁמֹור אֶת כָּל־חֻקֵּי רְצוֹנֶךָ. וְעָלַי לַעֲנוֹת
בְּיוֹם פְּקוּדָתִי כַאֲשֶׁר תִּגְמוֹל לִי כפְרִי מַעֲלָלַי׃ מִיּוֹם הִוָּֽלְדִי בֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל אָנִי. אָמְנָם
בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָאתִי שֵׁנִית בַּקָּהָל לָךְ. וְלִפְנֵי כָל־הָעַמִּים אֶתְפָּאֵר עַל שִׁמְךָ אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא
עָלֵינוּ׃
וְעַתָּה אָבִי שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם שְׁמַע אֶל הַתְּפִלָּה וְאַל הַתְּחִנָּה הַזֹּאת. שְׁלַח עָלַי שִׁפְעַת בִּרְכוֹתֶיךָ. גֶּשֶׁם
נְדָבוֹת וּבְרָכוֹת הַנִיף עָלַי. לְמַעַן יָמַי יִשְׂבְּעוּן וְיִרְוְיוּן מִדֶּשֶׁן עֲדָנֶיךָ. הוֹרֵנִי נָא דֶּרֶךְ
חֻקֶּיךָ. הַדְרִיכֵנִי בִנֵתִיב מִצֵוֹתֶיךָ תֵּן בְּלִבִּי לֵאַהֲבָה וּלְיִרְאָה אֶת שְׁמֶךָ. הַחֲזֵק בְּיָדִי וְאַל
תַּרְפֵּנּי וְלֹא אֶכָּשֵׁל עַל דַרְכִּי אֲשֶׁר אַנֹכִי הוֹלֶךְ עָלֶיהָ הַיּוֹם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה׃ הַצִּילֵנִי מִיֵּצֶר הָרָע
וְתֵּן בִּי כֹחַ לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת תּוֹרָֽתְךָ הַקְּדוֹשָׂה וְאֶת פִּקּוּדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם׃
וּבְכָל־יָמַי אֶקְרָא בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל וְלֹא אֵבוֹשׁ שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְיָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְיָ אֶהָד׃
IV.
O MY GOD AND GOD OF MY FOREFATHERS!
On this solemn and sacred day, which marketh my passage from boyhood to
manhood, I humbly venture to raise my eyes unto Thee, and to declare,
with sincerity and truth, that henceforth I will observe all Thy
commandments, and undertake and bear the responsibility of all mine
actions towards Thee. In my earliest infancy I was brought within Thy
sacred covenant with Israel, and to-day I again enter as an active
responsible member, the pale of Thine elect congregation, in the midst
of which I will never cease to glorify Thy holy name in the face of all
nations.
Do Thou, O Heavenly Father, hearken unto this my humble prayer, and
vouchsafe unto me Thy gracious blessings, so that my earthly life may
be sustained and made happy by Thine ineffable mercies. Teach me the
way of Thy statutes, that I may obey them, and faithfully carry out
Thine ordinances. Dispose my heart to love Thee and to fear Thy holy
name, and grant me Thy support and the strength necessary to avoid the
worldly dangers which encompass the path lying before me. Save me from
temptation, so that I may with fortitude observe Thy holy Law, and
those precepts on which human happiness and eternal life depend. Thus I
will every day of my life trustfully and gladly proclaim:
“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One!”
V.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Religious books for the use of children at home or in school were
unknown in olden times. The Torah was taught, and with it every thing
else. A great part of the Book of Proverbs and many of the Psalms may
have been intended for the education of the young. In the early
post-Biblical time we meet with books like The Wisdom of Solomon, The
Wisdom of Joshua, son of Sirach, and Sayings of the Fathers, which may
have served the same purpose. To these may be added “The Duties of the
Heart,” by Bachya ibn Pekuda, “The Examination of the World” (Bechinath
Olam), “The Choice of the Pearls,” by Ibn Gabirol, Abraham ibn Ezra’s
“Foundation of the Fear of God, and Principle of the Law,” and “The
Book of the Righteous,” by Rabbenu Jacob Tam, and “The Moral Lessons”
(Toaliyyoth) by Rabbi Levi ben Gerson, and “The Shulhan Aruch” of R.
Judah Aryeh di Modena. All these works are excellent books for the
instruction of the young. They inculcate religious lessons, and shew
the way to a pious life, but they are not text books of religion in the
modern sense of the term. This branch of literature began to develop in
the last century, with the exception of Abraham Jaghel’s Lekach-tob,
which was written in the beginning of the seventeenth century, and was
the first Catechism of Jewish Religion. It was composed in the Hebrew
Language and subsequently translated into Latin and English. Since last
century, however, religious books of all sizes, forms and tendencies
have been produced in all countries, especially in Germany. The
following list contains such books as are included in the Jews’ College
Library:—
ENGLISH—
Albu, I., חק לישראל. London, 1860.
Asher, B. H., Initiation of the Youth. London, 1850.
Asher, D., Outlines of Jewish Religion. Manchester, 1845.
Cahen, M., Catechism of Religion. Liverpool, 1890.
Cahun, B., The Thirteen Articles of Faith. English and French. London,
1885.
Cohen, M. R., Principles of Judaism. Sydney, 1855.
Cohen, S. I., Elements of Jewish Faith. Philadelphia, 1813.
Cohen, S. I., Elements of Hebrew and English. London, 1815.
Davidson, M., Moral and Religious Guide. London, 1855.
Early lesson in the Jewish Religion, adopted from the Catechism of
Giuseppi Levi. London, 1869.
Festivals of the Lord. London, 1839.
Friedländer, M., Text book of Jewish Religion. London, 1891.
Goodman, T., Faith of Israel. 1835.
Joseph, N., Religion: Natural and Revealed. London, 1879.
Kley, E., Catechism, translated from the German by I. Lutomirski.
Oxford, 1842.
Lesser, Isaac, Instruction in the Mosaic Religion. Philadelphia, 1830.
Meldola, R., Way of Faith. London, 1848.
Mendez, A. P., The Law of Moses. London, 1861.
Moss, Ph., Calendar, Hebrew and English. London, 1853.
Van Oven, J., Manual of Judaism. London, 1835.
Picciotto, M. H., Translation of Reggio’s Guide for the Religious
Instruction. London, 1855.
IN GERMAN—
Arnhein, A., Leitfaden. Glasgow, 1829.
P. Beer, Handbuch. Prague, 1818.
Ben-Zev, יסודי הדת. Wien, 1806.
Bing, A., Hauptlehren des Judenthums. München, 1827.
Bock, M. H., Catechismus. Berlin, 1814.
Brück, M., Ceremonialgebräuche. Breslau, 1857.
Büdinger, A., מורה לתורה. Cassel, 1830.
Fassel, H. B., Mosaisch-rabbinische Religionslehre. Gross Kanisza,
1858.
Feilchenfeld, W., Systematisches Lehrbuch der israelitischen Religion.
Posen, 1878.
Friedenthal, M. B., עקרי אמונה Prag, 1827.
Funk, B., Die Zehngebote. Breslau, 1816.
Grünbaum, E., Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums. Mannheim, 1867.
Dr. Heinemann, תורת אמונת בית ישראל (Hebrew and German). Cassel,
1812.
Dr. Herxheimer, Glaubens- und Pflichtenlehre. Bernburg, 1843.
Hirsch, R., חורב Israel’s Pflichten. Altona, 1837.
Hochstädter, B., Glaubenslehre. Ems, 1862.
Johlson, J., Leitfaden, אלומי יוסף Pf. a/M. 1839.
Kaufmann D., Catechismus. Pest, 1884.
Kohn, S., Religionslehre. Wien, 1853.
Landau, T., Das Levitenhaus, Häusliche Ritual-Gesetze. Fkft. a/M. 1859.
Lash, G., Die göttlichen Gesetze. Halberstadt, 1857.
Prof. Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judenthums. Berlin, 1898.
Lehrbuch der israelitischen Religion. Stuttgart, 1837.
Leimdoerfer, D., Religionslehre. Nordhausen, 1876.
Loewenheim, Die mosaische Religion. Liesnach, 1864.
Mannheimer, I., Gebetbuch und Religions Unterricht. Darmstadt, 1881.
Mira. H., Leitfaden. Breslau, 1839.
Neuman, M. S., Religionslehre. Pest, 1826.
Philippson, L., Israelitische Religionslehre. Leipzig, 1861.
Philippson, S., Catechismus. Leipzig, 1843.
Plessner, S., Jüdisch-Mosaischer Religions unterricht. Berlin, 1839.
Stein, L., Torah u. Mizwa. Fkft. o/M. 1850.
Stern, M. E., Handbuch zum jüdischen Religions-unterrichte. Wien, 1861.
FRENCH AND ITALIAN—
Bloch, S., La Foi d’Israel. Paris, 1859.
Lambert, L. M., Catéchisme Hebreu, Allemand et Français. Paris, 1837.
Loeb, H., Chemin de la foi. Paris, 1859.
Vogue, L., La guide du croyant Israelite. Metz, 1857.
Castiglioni, I. V., Dottrina Religiosa. Trieste, 1861.
Tremellius, Imm., Dottrina Religiosa. English translation. London,
1818.
Modena, D. Z., Catechism. Reggio, 1825.
JUDAEO-GERMAN—
הינוך הילדים. Warsaw, 1852.
טהנה יששכר Moral lessons, illustrated by tales from Talmud and
Midrash. Rödelheim, 1837.
COLLECTIONS OF MORAL SAYINGS—
Maier, J., Sprüche. Texts for Moral Lessons. Tf o/M, 1830.
Steinschneider, M., אמרי בינה. Berlin, 1847.
Mocatta, M., Sayings from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. London, 1837.
Josh. Steinberg, משלי יהושע. Wilna, 1871.
Edelmann, H., דרך טובים. London, 1852.
NOTES
[1] When our great theologians, Saadiah, Bachya, Maimonides, Albo, &c.,
considered it necessary to write long and abstruse metaphysical essays
in order to firmly establish certain truths, it was done rather for the
purpose of combating the views of opponent theologians than for the
instruction of the multitude, and it may fairly be said that Maimonides
has done far greater service to his brethren by the composition of a
systematic code of laws than by his philosophical “Guide.” The former,
the Mishneh-Torah, never fails to enlighten those who seek in it
enlightenment with regard to some religious duty, whilst the “Guide”
would scarcely relieve anyone of his perplexities in matters of
religious belief. There is a saying in the Talmud Jerus. (Chagigah, ch.
i.), “Would that they had forgotten me, and kept my commandments!” or,
in other words, “Theologians would do better if they were less eager to
investigate into the essence of God and His attributes, and were more
anxious to study and to do God’s commandments.” Instead of devoting
their chief attention to the knowledge and the practice of the Law,
they waste their energy and their time in attempts to solve problems to
which the human mind is unequal (S. Plessner, Religions-Unterricht, p.
xxxviii.).
[2] Post-biblical authors frequently employ the term אמונה in the
sense of religious belief, and תורה in the sense of religious duties;
the equivalent for religion is דת.
[3] For the Hebrew see Appendix I.
[4] The Hebrew נביא as well as the Greek προφητης “prophet,”
signifies “speaker” or “preacher.”
[5] i.e., that the war with the Canaanite tribes was to be carried on
as a holy war, in fulfilment of God’s command, and not for the purpose
of spoil and plunder.
[6] King Amaziah of Judah challenged Joash, king of Israel, to fight
with him. Joash considered this challenge as an arrogance to be
compared to the arrogance of the thistle in the above fable.
[7] The faith of Israel in the Omnipotence of God, who can do wonders
for the salvation of His people, is figuratively represented as a
child, called “The Almighty, &c., deviseth wonders,” &c.
[8] Comp. p. 83.
[9] i.e., he who is truthful in ordinary conversation is also a
trustworthy witness in a court of justice; those who are accustomed to
say falsehood cannot be trusted in important matters.
[10] It seems that the author copied the dream as Daniel had written it
down, but the interpretation was handed down by tradition.
[11] The Israelites. Comp. Exod. xix. 6.—Part of this vision refers to
the time of the Maccabees, part to the Messianic period.
[12] Some are of opinion that the term “weeks” is not to be taken
literally, but in the sense of “year,” or “a period of seven years.”
There is, however, no proof for such interpretation. The many attempts
to explain the seventy year-weeks have without exception proved a
failure.
[13] See p. 121.
[14] It is, however, possible that דברי, lit. “words,” means here
“history.”
[15] The Talmud is also called ש״ס (Shass), the initials of ששה
סדרים.
[16] The word יד is intended to indicate the number 14, the work
being divided into 14 books.
[17] According to Rashi, Rabbi Hillel meant to say that the Jews would
not be redeemed by any Messiah, but by God Himself. Comp. Haggadah for
Seder-evening, “And I will pass through the land of Egypt; I myself,
and not an angel.”
[18] Comp. supra, p. 122.
[19] See Essays on the Writings of Ibn Ezra, by M. Friedländer, p. 7
note 1.
[20] The Piel of a verb has frequently this meaning, e.g., קדש “to be
holy;” Pi., “to declare as holy;” טהר “to be pure;” Pi., “to declare
as pure;” so כלה “to be at an end;” Pi., “to declare as being
finished.”
[21] Die Religions-Philosophie der Juden, by S. Hirsch. p. 445 ff.
[22] The phrase עיון תפלה is also used in the sense of “devotion
during prayer.”
[23] I.e., the name or God consisting of four letters (י, ה, ו
and ה). The correct pronunciation of the word not being known,
adonai, “Lord,” is substituted for it.
[24] The “second day” (Neh. viii. 13), as a day of devotion and
meditation on the Word of God, is probably the Day of Atonement.
[25] It is here assumed that the Torah was not intended to be written
in a chronological order, and that this commandment was given after the
Blessing of Moses was written.
[26] Maimonides accepts for this verse the Midrashic explanation:
nothing of the Torah has remained in heaven for later revelations.
[27] את צמח דוד עבדך.
[28] He is probably called Elijah on account of the zeal which he will
display in bringing men back to the service of God.
[29] Mishnah Eduyoth viii. 7.
[30] Lit., “The accepting of the yoke of the heaven’s dominion;” “The
accepting of the yoke of the precepts.” The expression “yoke” is here
by no means derogatory. It simply indicates the duty which in the one
case “the dominion of heaven,” and in the other case “the Divine
precepts,” impose upon us.
[31] Hebrew titles of books are often fanciful names, which more or
less distinctly imply either the nature or contents of the books, or
the name of their authors. The Hebrew names for the fourteen books of
Mishneh-torah are as follows: (1) מדע “Knowledge;” (2) אהבה “Love;”
(3) זמנים “Seasons;” (4) נשים “Women;” (5) קדושה
“Sanctification;” (6) הפלאה “Distinction;” (7) זרעים “Seeds;” (8)
עבודה “Service;” (9) קרבנות “Sacrifices;” (10) טהרה “Purity;”
(11) נזיקין “Damages;” (12) קנין “Acquisition:” (13) משפטים
“Disputes;” (14) שופטים “Judges.” Rabbenu Jakob calls his work ארבעה
טורים “Four Rows,” a name borrowed from Exod. xxviii. 17. The names of
the four parts are: ארח חיים “Path of Life” (Ps. xvi. 11); יורה דעה
“Teacher of knowledge” (Isa. xxviii. 9); אבן העזר “Stone of Help” (1
Sam. vii. 12, and Gen. ii. 18), and חשן משפט “Breastplate of
Judgment” (Exod. xxviii. 15).
[32] I.e., if a person has no fear of God, he is himself the sole cause
of its absence, and he alone is responsible for it.
[33] The words of the Mishnah are בכל מדה ומדה שהוא מודד לך הוי מודה
לו מאד The meanings of three roots are combined in this interpretation
of the words בכל מאדך viz., מאד “exceedingly,” מודד “measuring,”
and מודה “thanking.” The three words are similar in sound.
[34] The term עיון תפלה (lit., “reflecting on prayer”) has two
meanings: (1) reflecting on the prayer while uttering it; devotion; in
German, Andacht; (2) reflecting on the prayer after having uttered it,
while we are waiting for the sure fulfilment of the wishes expressed in
it.
[35] In the whole Book of Esther the name of God does not occur even
once. It is not mere chance; there are several passages where the
mention of the Divine Being is expected, and it is believed that the
omission is due to the fear of a subsequent desecration of the book in
the hands of the Persians.
[36] I.e., the word consisting of four letters, yod, hé, vav and hé.
[37] E.g., by giving bad advice and transgressing the law, “Thou shalt
not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. xix. 14).
[38] Comp. the saying, לא עכברא גמבא אלא חורא “Not the mouse is the
thief, but the hole.”
[39] Those who become security for a stranger are blamed (Prov. vi. 1
seq.) as acting rashly, and foolishly endangering their peace and
welfare.
[40] See p. 294.
[41] The Hebrew is composed of the names of the three consecutive
Sidras, Lev. xvi.–xxiv.
[42] Lit., inquiring, scil., what the condition of the patient is, and
what is needed for his recovery.
[43] Comp. supra, p. 261.
[44] The prayer for the head of the State, beginning הנתן תשועה
למלכים has its origin in this sense of loyalty towards the State in
which we live.
[45] I.e., When the old and experienced counsel to pull down a house,
the pulling down is essential to its rebuilding; whilst the counsel of
young and inexperienced men to build may imply destructive elements.
[46] There are some exceptions to this rule:—The Reader wears the
talith during every Service; in some congregations mourners wear it
when they recite kaddish. On the Day of Atonement the whole
congregation wear the talith during all the Services. On the Fast of Ab
the talith is put on before the Afternoon Service instead of during the
Morning Service.
[47] There are two forms of the blessing which accompanies the
performance of a Divine precept: the precept is expressed (1) by a noun
which is preceded by the preposition עא “concerning;” (2) by the
infinitive of a verb preceded by the preposition ל “to,” e.g.,
“concerning the commandment of tsitsith,” and “to wrap ourselves with a
garment provided with tsitsith.” The latter form is used (1) when the
blessing is recited before the performance of the mitsvah has
commenced; (2) when he who performs the mitsvah is personally commanded
to perform it. In all other cases the first form is used. Hence על
מצות ציצת, because we are, as a rule, not in a fit state for prayer
when we put it on, and therefore recite the blessing later on; על מקרא
מגלה; because he who reads might just as well be one of the listeners.
We say להניח תפלין at the commencement of the mitsvah; על מצות
תפלין before the second part. (See Babyl. Talm. Pesachim, p. 7.)
[48] The term תפלין reminds us of תפלה “prayer,” and denotes things
used during prayer. Originally it had probably the more general
signification: ornament or head-ornament; in the Chaldee Version it is
the translation of טטפות, which denotes “head-ornament.” (Comp.
Mishnah Shabbath vi. 1.)
[49] Two sides of the bayith have the shin impressed on them, the right
and the left; but in different forms, on the right the letter has three
strokes (ש), on the left it has four strokes (ש), in order to
ensure the right order of the four paragraphs (פרשיות) which the
bayith contains from right to left.
[50] The knot formed by the רצועות of the tefillah shel rosh has the
shape of a daleth, that of the tefillah shel yad is like a yod; these
two letters added to the shin of the tefillin shel rosh read shaddai,
“Almighty.”
[51] In the evening it was but natural that tsitsith and tefillin
should be laid aside, as the greater part of the night was devoted to
sleep; the rule was therefore generally adopted: “The night is not the
proper time for laying tefillin” (לילה לאו זמן תפילין). The opposite
principle, however, “The night is likewise a suitable time for laying
tefillin” (לילה זמן תפלין), had also its advocates among Rabbinical
authorities (Babyl. Talm. Menachoth 36b).
[52] With the completion of the thirteenth year a boy becomes of age in
reference to the fulfilment of all religious duties. He is then called
Bar-mitsvah (lit. “a son of the commandment”), a member of the Jewish
community, upon whom devolve all such duties as a Jew has to perform.
On the Sabbath following that birthday he is called to the Law, either
to read a portion of the Sidra or to listen to its reading, and
publicly acknowledge God as the Giver of the Law.
[53] Compare p. 329.
[54] See Daily Prayer Book, Morning Service.
[55] There are, besides, on the back of the scroll, just behind the
names of God in the first line three words of a mystic character
consisting of the letters following in the alphabet the letters of
these divine names. The words have in themselves no meaning, and it may
be that their object is simply to indicate from outside where the names
of God are written, and to prevent a nail being driven through that
part in fixing the mezuzah to the door-post.
[56] Mishneh-torah III., Zemannim, Hil. Shabbath, ch. xxx. § 1.
[57] Maimonides applies these terms to Sabbath; but they apply
generally with equal force to the Festivals.
[58] We “remember” also the Sabbath or Festival by naming after it the
preceding day, the night following, and in the case of Festivals the
day following: the eve of Sabbath or Festival ערב שבת, ערב יום טוב;
the night after Sabbath or Festival, מוצאי שבת, מוצאי יום טוב; “the
day after the Festival,” אסרו חג (lit., “bind the Festival,” with
reference to Ps. cxviii. 27).
[59] A similar ceremony takes place before the first meal in the
morning. A cup of wine or other spirituous liquor is poured out, some
Biblical passages referring to the Sabbath are recited, and the usual
blessing is said before partaking of the beverage. The blessing
containing the Kiddush is not said, and the ceremony has the name
Kiddush or Kiddusha rabba, “great Kiddush,” only on account of its
similarity with the evening Kiddush. The passages recited are the
following: Exod. xxxi. 16, 17, xx. 8–11; Isa. lviii. 13, 14.
[60] ברוך אתה … בורא פרי הגפן “Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God,
King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” In the
absence of wine, or if wine is disliked or injurious to health, the
blessing over bread is substituted for that over wine.—The blessings
are generally preceded by the word סברי “Is it your pleasure, scil.,
that I read?” whereby it is simply intended to call the attention of
the company to the prayer.
[61] See p. 352, on the difference between the holiness of Sabbath and
that of Festivals.—The last two ברכות, viz. בורא מאורי האש and
המבדיל are added; the second part of the latter is slightly modified
in order to suit the transition from Sabbath to Festival.—The Habhdalah
on the night following the Day of Atonement consists of three ברכות,
that over spices being omitted, except if Jom-kippur falls on Sabbath;
in that case the Habhdalah includes all the four ברכות.
[62] Habhdalah is likewise omitted when Sabbath is closely followed by
the Fast of Ab. On Sabbath night, eating and drinking being forbidden,
only the one blessing, בורא מאורי האש is recited; that over spices is
omitted, and the remaining two blessings are recited on Sunday evening
after the fast.
[63] Although the whole of the Day of Atonement is devoted to Divine
Service, less time is given to reading from the Law than on Sabbath, in
order to leave more time for Prayers, Confessions, and Meditations.
Rabbi Akiba, however, was of opinion that seven should be called up to
the Law on the Day of Atonement, and six on Sabbath (B. Talm. Megillah
23a).
[64] The distance allowed is called תחום שבת “a Sabbath-journey,” and
is 2000 cubits in every direction; it is reckoned from the outskirts of
the place in which we live. If, however, a person desires to perform a
mitsvah, such as milah, at a place distant about a double
Sabbath-journey from his domicile, he may fix before Sabbath his abode
for that day half-way between the two places, and then traverse on
Sabbath the whole distance from the one place to the other. This change
of abode is called erubhe thechumin, “combination of two
Sabbath-journeys into one,” by changing the centre from which they are
measured.
[65] They are called אבות מלאכות “principal kinds of work,” and are
those which directly or indirectly were wanted in the erection of the
Tabernacle, and were therefore included in the prohibition of doing any
work for this purpose (Exod. xxxi. 15 and xxxv. 2).
There are certain things which cannot be brought under any of these
heads, and are nevertheless prohibited, because they frequently lead to
a breach of the Sabbath laws; e.g., riding in a carriage or in any kind
of conveyance; playing music. These prohibitions are called שבות
i.e., acts prohibited on Sabbath and Holy-days by our Sages; or גזרה
(lit., “decree”), safeguard against breaking the Law.
Divine precepts, however, ordained for the Sabbath—e.g., sacrifices—or
for a certain day, which happens to fall on a Sabbath—e.g., initiation
of a male child into the covenant of Abraham on the eighth day of its
birth, or saving the life of a fellow-man in case of illness or any
other danger—must be performed although they may involve any of the
acts otherwise prohibited on the day of rest.
[66] The preparation of food is only permitted on Holy-days if wanted
for the same day, except when Sabbath follows immediately after the
Holy-day. In that case it is allowable to prepare the food for Sabbath
on the Holy-day, provided such preparation has commenced before and
need only be continued on the Holy-day. The preparation made for
Sabbath before the Holy-day comes in is called erubh tabhshilin,
“combination of dishes,” i.e., of the dishes prepared for Sabbath on
the eve of the Festival (ערב יום טוב) and of those prepared on the
Festival itself; it is accompanied by a blessing and a declaration of
the significance of the erubh. The following is the blessing: ברוך …
אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות ערוב “Blessed art thou ... who hast
sanctified us by thy commandments, and hast ordained for us the mitsvah
of erubh.”
It may here be noted that there are, besides, three kinds of erubh,
viz.:—
1. Erubh techumim. See above, page 350.
2. Erubh chatseroth (lit., “combination of the houses in a court”).
According to the traditional law, we must not carry anything on Sabbath
from a private place (רשות היחיד) into the street (רשות הרבים). The
former is defined to be a locality belonging to one person or family,
and separated from the public by a fence. The Jewish inhabitants of a
court or a town closed on all sides combine to form one family, and
thus turn the רשות הרבים into רשות היחיד. The symbol of such
combination consists of some food kept in a room, to which all have
access (e.g., the Synagogue). This is the origin and meaning of the
Passover-cake (מצה) which may still be noticed in some of the
Continental Synagogues.
3. Erubh par excellence.—An opening left in a fence or wall round a
רשות היחיד must at least have some token that indicates the closing
of the space; e.g., a wire drawn through the open space from one part
of the fence to the other. Such symbol is called erubh, “combination of
the various parts of the fence or wall into one.” Such erubh may
likewise be noticed in some of the Continental towns. In all these
cases the symbol was not introduced for the purpose of permitting the
actual transgression of a law, but rather for the purpose of reminding
us of what the law forbids us to do; since, in fact, that which becomes
permitted through these symbols is even in their absence no direct
breach of any of the Sabbath laws.
[67] Comp. the two forms of the prayer השכיבנו in the Evening Service
for week-days and for Sabbath, in the Spanish Ritual.
[68] שבת היא מלזעוק ורפואה (ונחמה) קרובה לבוא ושבתו בשלום
“To-day is Sabbath and we must not lament, for recovery (comfort) is
near to come; now keep Sabbath in peace.”
[69] עשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות (B. Talm. Shabbath, 18a).
[70] Exod. xvi. 13, 14.
[71] Another explanation of this custom has been suggested. Bread and
wine being before us, it is doubtful which should have the preference
for the purpose of Kiddush; the bread is therefore covered, so that no
choice is left (Tur Orach Chayyim 271). Bread being the ordinary
requisite at our meals, the use of wine for Kiddush is considered more
indicative of the distinction of the day. If, however, wine is disliked
or injurious, bread is used us its substitute (page 341, note 2).
[72] A peculiar ceremony may here be noticed. Some pass the knife over
the bread before the berachah is said. The origin of this custom is
this: the rule has been laid down that there should not be a long
interval between the berachah and the partaking of the food. The knife
and the bread are therefore kept ready, and originally an incision was
made into the loaf in order to shorten that interval as much as
possible.
[73] ברוך א׳ י׳ א׳ מ׳ ה׳ אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להפריש חלה, “Blessed
art thou, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us
by thy commandments, and commanded us to separate challah.”
[74] Comp. Mishnah Shabbath ii. 16.
[75] Some kindle the lights first, and then say the blessing whilst
their hands are spread out before the lights. The origin of this latter
practice is this: It happens sometimes that the housewife is not ready
in time for kindling the lights, and lets another do it for her, she
reserving to herself the privilege of saying the berachah later on. In
that case the holding of the hands before the lights and withdrawing
them after the blessing represents symbolically the kindling of the
lights. What was originally done in exceptional cases became
subsequently the rule.
[76] Calendar is derived from the Latin Calendæ, which signifies the
first of the month. The Hebrew term לוח, used for “Calendar” or
“Almanac,” denotes “table” or “tablet.” In the Talmud. Sod (or Yesod)
ha-ibbur is used in the sense of “the theory of the Calendar:”
literally, the term denotes the fixing of the additional day to the
month or the additional month to the year.
[77] Or more exactly, 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3⅓ seconds. The
technical formula in Hebrew is: כ״ט י״ב תש״צג 29 days, 12793⁄1080
hours.
[78] In the first month the barley becomes ripe; in the second the
whole vegetation of the country stands in its full splendour; in the
seventh the hardy fruit, which withstood the heat of the summer,
ripens; and in the eighth the first rain of the season comes down.
[79] The meaning of most of these names is uncertain. The two names
Elul and Tishri seem to denote “the disappearance” and “the beginning”
of the year.
[80] The adjustment is necessary for the right observance of Passover,
which must be celebrated in the first month (Exod. xii. 2), the month
of Abib (Deut. xvi. 1), that is, in the spring, when in Palestine the
corn begins to ripen. Without the periodical insertion of a month,
Passover would be celebrated in every succeeding year eleven days
earlier than in the previous one, and in course of time at different
seasons, contrary to the Law.
[81] The Hebrew term חדש has a double meaning “beginning of the
month” and “month;” comp. שבת, “day of rest,” and also “week,” or the
period that passes between two consecutive Sabbaths.
[82] In Hebrew molad, “birth.”
[83] The molad of Tishri in the year 1 is assumed to have been on
Sunday evening between eleven and twelve. (בהר״ד)
[84] In this tradition the period of the Persian rule in Palestine,
which lasted over two centuries, is contracted to thirty-four years. It
is possible that the years were counted according to the years of
Release (שמטה) or the years of the Jubilee, and these were probably
not kept immediately after the return of the Jews from Babylon.
[85] See Mishnah, Megillah iii. 4.
[86] Talm. Jerush., Shekalim i. 1.
[87] Mishnah, Shekalim i. 1.
[88] According to Tradition, Exod. xii. 2 not only deals with the
appointment of Nisan as the first month of the year, but implies also
the rules for fixing ראש חדש, New-moon, or the first of the month;
and this verse, with its traditional interpretation, was therefore
considered as the basis of the Jewish Calendar. Hence the prominence
given to this section of the Pentateuch by having it read on the 1st of
Nisan or on the Sabbath before the 1st of Nisan.
[89] Various reasons are given for this title. According to Tradition,
the 10th of Nisan in the year of the Exodus was on Saturday; it was
considered a great event, a miracle, in fact, that the Israelites could
on that day select a lamb for sacrifice without being molested by their
Egyptian masters, who at other times would have stoned them for such
daring (Exod. viii. 22). Another reason is this: The Sabbath before any
of the chief Festivals was called the great Sabbath on account of the
instruction sought and given respecting the importance and the
observances of the coming Festival (see Zunz, Ritus. p. 9). This name
has only been preserved in the case of the Sabbath before Passover.—It
is, however, possible that “the great day,” the predominant idea in the
haphtarah of the day, suggested the name.
It is the custom in some congregations to read in the Afternoon-service
of Shabbath haggadol part of the Haggadah instead of the Psalms (civ.
and cxx.–cxxxiv.).
[90] The word פסח “Passover,” signifies (1) the act of passing over
or sparing (Exod. xii. 11); (2) the sacrifice of passover, especially
as object to the verb עשה “to make” (ibid. 47, 48); (3) the time when
the passover was offered and consumed; i.e., the 14th of Nisan,
afternoon and evening (Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. xxviii. 16); (4) the whole
of Passover (Mishnah, and in all post-Biblical literature).
The day on which an Israelite brought a sacrifice was a Festival to him
and his family; and no work was done on that day. Accordingly on the
afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, ערב פסח, the time fixed for the
Passover-offering, no work was done; some abstained from work the whole
day (Mishnah, Pesachim iv. 1; comp. also ibid. 5).—It is customary for
the first-born to fast the whole or part of ערב פסח (Talm. Jerus. x.
1, and Masecheth Soferim xxi. 3). They might rather be expected to
feast in memory of the deliverance of the first-born Israelites in
Egypt. But the case is similar to that of Purim. Both the day of danger
and the day of victory are celebrated; the one by fasting (fast of
Esther), the other by feasting (Purim). So here the 14th of Nisan was
for the first-born the day of danger, the following night the season of
deliverance. Hence the fasting during the day and the feasting in the
evening. The day suggests thoughts like the following: Our forefathers
were saved from danger: should we deserve to be saved if danger
threatened us? Such reflections may have been the origin of the fast of
the first-born on the eve of Passover. Some also fast on this day, or
at least abstain on it from a full meal, in order to do honour to the
festive meal in the evening and approach it with appetite (לתיאבון).
A similar custom obtains, though not to the same extent, on the eve of
Sabbath and of every Festival (Mishnah, Pesachim x. 1).
[91] Within the four days there was ample time for examining the lamb,
whether it was really תמים, without blemish, and fit both for
sacrifice and for human food.—Some suggest that the keeping of the lamb
for four days was to be a test of the faith of the Israelites, whether
they would obey the Will of God in spite of the dreaded wrath of the
Egyptians.
[92] Their faith in God had to be shown by their willingly going forth
whither the command of God led them, without taking with them any
provision for the journey. The lamb which they had prepared was to be
consumed before they left Egypt, and whatever was left had to be burnt.
This was probably also the object of the precepts that no bone of the
lamb was to be broken, and no part of it was to be carried from one
house to another; for the breaking of the bones and the carrying part
of the meat about from place to place would facilitate its being stored
away for the journey.—Other precepts, which implied haste and
readiness, e.g., the roasting it with fire, eating it with loins
girded, &c., were to teach the Israelites the lesson that they were to
be always ready and willing to do God’s bidding.
[93] An instance of Passover being put off because of the unfitness of
the priests to offer up sacrifices is met with in the Second Book of
Chronicles (xxx. 2). It seems similar to the rule of Pesach sheni, but
is in reality different from it. King Hezekiah did not put off the
Passover sacrifice for a month on account of the uncleanness of the
priests, but he made the preceding year a leap-year, and the month
which would have been the second became the first, whilst the first was
counted as the thirteenth of the past year (comp. Mishnah, Pesachim iv.
9).
[94] It is only the fermentation of any of these five kinds of grain
that forms חמץ. Fermentation of grapes or other fruit constitutes no
חמץ.
[95] חמץ is both אסור באכילה and אסור בהנאה (Mishnah, Pesachim
ii. 1).
[96] It is now the custom to eat חמץ on Erebh Pesach, only during the
first third of the day; i.e., till about ten o’clock in the morning
(ibid. i. 4).
[97] Ibid. i. 1.—The evening was chosen for this task, because with a
taper or lamp the corners and dark recesses can be better searched than
by daylight. Besides, in the evening, when every one has finished his
day’s work, people are more at ease to do the searching in a thorough
manner.
[98] The formula with על is employed here, because we need not do the
searching by ourselves; it may be done by a substitute.—Although we
only search in the evening, we use the term על ביעור חמץ “concerning
the removal or the destruction of the chamets,” because this removal or
destruction is the object of the searching.
[99] The declaration, printed usually on the first page of the
Haggadah, is made twice: once in the evening after the searching of the
chamets, and once in the morning after its removal; with this
difference, that in the evening only the chamets that has not been
found is disclaimed; in the morning all chamets, if left in the house,
is disclaimed, whether it has been noticed in the course of searching
or not.
[100] There are different kinds of the process of kasher: (1) by making
the articles in question red hot—this applies to the iron oven and
other iron vessels; (2) by dipping the vessel in boiling water, or
pouring boiling water over it, or letting the water in the vessel boil
over. The object of this process is to free the vessel from any chamets
it may have absorbed.—Before the process of kasher begins, the vessel
must, of course, be thoroughly cleaned.
[101] The four cups of wine are not taken at once; but one serves for
Kiddush, as on Sabbath and Holy-days; the second is taken at the
conclusion of the first part of the Seder; the third after Grace, it
being customary also on ordinary days to take a cup of wine after
Grace; the fourth at the conclusion of the second part of the Seder.
The four cups are also said to indicate our joy in reference to four
elements constituting the redemption, and implied in the four terms:
והוצאתי, וגאלתי, והצלתי, and ולקחתי, (Exod. vi. 6, 7),
liberation from bondage, deliverance from service, redemption from all
dependence on Egypt, and appointment as “the people of the Lord.”—These
four cups were considered of such importance for the Seder-evening that
the poor were provided as of right with wine for the arba kosoth
(Mishnah, Pesachim x. 1).—Although the number of the four cups of wine
is sanctioned by the reference to the above four expressions of
redemption, a fifth cup may, if needed, be interpolated before singing
Ps. cxxxvi. (Tosaphoth, Pesachim 117b).
It is customary to pour in an extra cup and keep it ready for any
new-comer that might join the company. The cup is called כוס של אליהו
“the cup of Elijah,” because his advent may be looked for at any time.
Comp. Mal. iii. 23.
[102] Two of them are the “double portion,” לחם משנה, of Sabbath and
Holy-day. The third represents the לחם עני “bread of poverty,” and is
therefore broken into pieces, in order to be distinguished from the
others as “bread of poverty.” The bread of poverty is intended to
remind us of the bread of poverty or affliction eaten by our
forefathers when kept as slaves in Egypt. But les extrèmes se touchent;
it is remarkable that this very term לחם עני admits also of the
meaning “bread of song,” and has been interpreted to signify the bread
eaten at a joyous meal, such as the Israelites in Egypt ate the night
of their liberation. It is possible that the author of the opening
paragraph of the Haggadah purposely employed the term לחם עניא in
this double sense (Pes. 115a).
Among some Israelites it is the custom to style the three unleavened
cakes, Cohen, Levi, and Israel. The three matsoth, as a play upon
words, are also called mitsvoth, “commandments;” i.e., matsoth employed
in fulfilment of the commandment, “In the evening ye shall eat
unleavened bread.” These matsoth are distinguished from the rest by
being baked especially for this purpose. Some are careful in regard to
these matsoth to have every process in their preparation, from the
cutting of the wheat to the baking of the matsoth, done for the express
purpose of the Seder, and to have the wheat and the flour well guarded
from moisture or any foreign admixture. Matsoth prepared in this way
are called מצה שמורה, “guarded matsoth.” People still more particular
have all their unleavened bread for Passover prepared in this way.
[103] The vegetables, that were ordinarily taken as a relish and a
means of producing appetite for the meal, have only been introduced
here (Pesachim 114b) for the purpose of attracting the attention of the
children. According to the custom of those ancient days, the master of
the house had before him a table covered with the different dishes
required for the meal, and sent portions to every member of the
company. When the meal was finished, before Grace, this table was
removed. But on the Seder-evening the table was removed immediately
after the partaking of a little parsley or other vegetables. The child,
accustomed on ordinary evenings to have supper without such an
introduction, asks expressly or implicitly why things are different
to-night, adding also other questions. Instead of parsley, other
vegetables, or even some of the bitter herbs, may be taken. This last
act not being an essential element in the Service, and not being
obligatory, is not preceded by the berachah, “Blessed art thou ... who
hast commanded us, &c.,” but “Blessed art thou ... who hast created the
fruit of the earth.”—At present the table is not removed, but the
lifting up of the Seder-dish while reciting the first paragraph (הא
לחמא) is the survival of that custom.
[104] Two views are expressed in the Talmud concerning charoseth: (1)
it is a medicinal protective against the evil effects of the bitter
herbs; (2) it is an essential part of the mitsvah, a symbol and
reminder of the bricks and mortar with which the Israelites had to do
the work imposed on them by their taskmasters (B. Talm., Pesachim
115b); it may also serve to suggest to us the idea that there is a
means of softening the bitterness of oppression, viz., faith in God
(Mishnah, Pesachim x. 3).
[105] The bone and the egg are symbols of two dishes that used in the
time of the Temple to be on the table: the Passover sacrifice and the
festive offering called חגיגה; the latter was added when the company
was large (ibid. vi. 3, and B. Talm., Pes. 114b).
[106] The eating of anything dipped in water or in any other liquid was
usually preceded by the washing of the hands. But as the eating of
vegetables at this point is not obligatory, the reader alone washes his
hands, but without reciting the blessing, על נטילת ידים.
[107] See p. 381, note 1.
[108] Comp. p. 380, note 1. The part laid aside is called afikuman, a
name of which many curious etymologies have been suggested. The meaning
is clear; it is that which is eaten just before the table is removed
(p. 381, note 1), or before the dishes are cleared away: the dessert.
The name is therefore a compound of two Chaldaic words, afiku-man,
“dish-remover,” i.e., the dessert after which all dishes are removed
and the company is ready for Grace (B. T. Pesachim 86a Rashi).
[109] The term is derived from the words of the Pentateuch, והגדת
לבנך “And thou shall tell thy son” (Exod. xiii. 8). Hence also the
name of the book Haggadah.
[110] The first paragraph is not an invitation sent forth to those whom
it cannot reach, but an appeal to those present to join heartily in the
Service and the succeeding meal; that none should feel ashamed of his
poverty, none elated on account of his possessions; all having been
brethren in past troubles, and in the deliverance from them, and all
destined alike to share in the glories of the coming redemption.
[111] The questions have been arranged according to their importance;
otherwise the third question might have been expected first (see p.
381, note 1). The expression “dipping” (טבול) used in this question
merely signifies “taking some relish,” in distinction from the real and
solid meal, and the meaning of the question is, “Why do we to-night
partake twice of the vegetables before approaching the actual meal? It
indicates a festive supper. What is the reason for this?”
[112] The three different forms correspond perhaps to the three
characters or ages of the inquirers: the ignorant, the simple, and the
sceptic; whilst the answer to the wise has not been formulated, but
depends on his question, and the capacity of the father to instruct
him. It is only the general question as to the difference between the
Seder-evening and other evenings that is answered in these three forms.
Each of these forms was probably followed by the explanation of Pesach,
Matsah, and Maror.
[113] The Midrashic comparison of “finger of God” to “His hand” and the
multiplication of the number of plagues must not be understood as
intended to gratify our feeling of revenge, but merely as a simple and
child-like illustration of the greatness of the Divine Power displayed
on those occasions.—Rabbi Jehudah, probably from a feeling of tender
sympathies with the sufferers, would not mention even the full names of
the plagues, but merely indicated them by initial letters.
[114] It seems that in the time of the Talmud the one piece was eaten
after the first blessing, and the other after the second. As,
therefore, the partaking of matsah has taken place before the second
blessing, the formula על אכילת מצה is used (see p. 329, note 2). The
same is the case with regard to the blessing before “eating bitter
herbs,” as it was not contrary to usage to partake of bitter herbs
instead of karpas at the beginning of the Service.
[115] The afikuman has been reserved wrapped in a napkin (reminding of
Exod. xii. 34), in order that the meal should finish up with matsah,
just as in the time of the Temple it finished up with meat of the
Passover-sacrifice.—In the Talmud (Pes. 109a) the rule is given
וחוטפין מצה “We make haste to come quickly to the eating of matsah,”
before the younger members of the company become drowsy or fall asleep.
The words וחוטפין מצה have erroneously been interpreted, “We should
snatch away the matsah,” and this interpretation caused the Service to
be accompanied by a certain kind of childish amusement: some one of the
company stealthily possesses himself of the matsah laid aside for
afikuman, and does not surrender it until the master of the house
promises him some present—The custom is unseemly and ought to be
discouraged.
[116] After Grace a few verses from the Bible (Ps. lxxix. 6, 7, and
Lam. iii. 66) have been added, beginning שפך חמתך and containing a
prayer for God’s wrath to be poured forth over the godless people who
seek the destruction of Israel. The cause of the addition is this: The
season of Passover was, in the Middle Ages, a season of constant terror
and danger to the Jews, because of the hostilities of their Christian
neighbours against them. Helpless and defenceless, the Jews had no
other way of meeting their foe than to cry to Him “who is near to all
who call upon Him in truth.” The conduct of their neighbours towards
them hardly suggested thoughts of love, especially at that moment. For
it frequently happened that several families met in one house for the
purpose of hearing the Seder-Service. They dispersed after the first
part of the Service, took their meals at home, and assembled later in
the evening for the second part of the Seder. Sometimes another course
was taken. One person read the Service in several houses consecutively
for the benefit of those who were not capable of doing so for
themselves; then, after having had his meal, he began his circuit again
for reading the second part of the Service. The return of the Reader or
of the several families was anxiously waited for. The opening of the
door before שפך חמתך, at present meaningless, had its origin in this
circumstance. On returning to the second part of the Service, the
guests had too often a sad tale to tell of their experiences in the
street, and filled with indignation, they gave expression to their
feeling in the above verses. We continue to read these verses now, but
in a different spirit. We live in peace with our neighbours, protected
by the laws of the country and unmolested in the performance of our
religious duties. We have nothing but feelings and thoughts of love for
our fellow-men, and in reciting these verses we merely condemn the
wickedness of those who seek the destruction of the people of the Lord.
Our Christian neighbours may certainly join us in this condemnation.
[117] Comp. Isa. xl. 2.
[118] An omer is, according to Tradition, equal to the space occupied
by 43⅙ eggs of ordinary size; it is about half a gallon.
[119] Or היום … לעמר שהם … (Portug. Ritual).
[120] As the month of Iyar corresponds to some extent to May, some
assert, without foundation, that the Jews hold no weddings this month,
because May is held by non-Jews to be an unlucky season for marriages.
Jews who refuse to celebrate marriages in May for this reason are
guilty of gross superstition.
[121] According to the traditional interpretation of ממחרת השבת “from
the morrow after the Sabbath,” the term “Sabbath” signifies “day of
rest” or “festival,” and refers to the first day of Passover (comp.
Lev. xxiii. 32). The Sadducees, and afterwards the Karaites, contested
the correctness of this interpretation, but without success (see Babyl.
Talm., Menachoth 65; and Ibn Ezra on Lev. xxiii. 15).
[122] The collection of these passages is called תקון לליל שבועות. A
similar collection for the seventh night of Tabernacles is called תקון
לליל הושענא רבא. See p. 398, note 1.
[123] On Sabbath the lulabh is not taken, because it might be necessary
to carry it from place to place through the street (רשות הרבים), and
this is forbidden (see Mishnah, Shabbath i. 1 and vii. 2). For the same
reason the shofar is not blown on the first day of New-year, if it
happens to fall on Saturday. In the Temple, however, there was no
occasion for the above apprehension; the lulabh was therefore taken and
the shofar was blown on Sabbath (Mishnah, Succah iv. 1, and Rosh
ha-shanah iv. 1).
[124] In the Temple willow-branches were placed round the altar, the
shofar was blown, and the priests made then a circuit round the altar,
with the lulabh in their hands, and singing part of Hallel.—The
hoshaanoth refer chiefly to the redemption of Israel and the rebuilding
of the Temple.—The circuit round the altar reminds us of the taking of
Jericho, and strengthens our hope that in future also the Almighty will
be with us, and help us through all difficulties to ultimate victory.
[125] The lulabh alone is mentioned in the blessing, because it is the
most prominent, and the other three species seem to be its
appendages.—The form על נטילת is explained by the fact that we
generally hold the four species in our hand, and thus commence the
mitsvah, before the berachah (see p. 329, note 2).—The three species,
palm-branch, myrtle, and willow, are usually bound together by means of
leaves of the palm-tree. Some used to add golden bands to these leaves
(Mishnah, Succah iii. 8).
[126] Mishnah, Succah iv. 5.—In the Temple the shofar was sounded
during the priests’ circuit round the altar. A similar custom exists in
the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogues on Hoshaana-rabba.—Tradition
attributed great importance to the Morning Service on Hoshaana-rabba,
and made it a kind of sequel to the Service on the “Solemn Days,” as if
to give another opportunity of repentance to those who had not made
full use of the means of grace afforded by the Day of Atonement, before
the final sentence (גמר חתימה תובה) is pronounced. The preceding
evening is therefore spent by many in devotional exercises (תקון לליל
הושענא רבא). Comp. p. 394.
It is an old custom to take a few extra twigs of the willow-tree on
this day and keep them in one’s hand during the chanting of the
hoshaanoth. These branches, when shaken or struck, lose their leaves
one after the other; so do the trees from which the branches have been
cut, and so also all other trees. But the rain and heat sent by God in
due time give them fresh life, and they produce new leaves. A similar
experience is ours. The struggle for life reduces our strength and
weakens our health; cares and troubles discourage us. But faith in God
and trust in His Providence renew our strength; our health improves,
our cares and troubles are diminished, and we feel ourselves restored
to fresh life.
[127] Lit. “the eighth day, a festival.”—A prayer for rain (גשם) is
inserted in the Musaf-Service, and corresponds to the prayer for dew on
the first day of Passover; for fine weather we pray on the first day of
the Festival, for rain on the eighth day. From Shemini-atsereth to the
Musaf of the first day of Passover the words משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם
“Thou causest the wind to blow and the rain to fall,” are inserted in
the second paragraph of the Amidah. The words do not contain a direct
prayer for rain, but a praise of Him who causes the rain to fall
(גבורות גשמים), whilst the daily direct prayer for rain (ותן טל
ומטר “Give dew and rain”) begins about two months later,—the time when
the pilgrims that had come from distant countries to Jerusalem to the
Festival were assumed to have reached their homes.
[128] It has always been considered a special mitsvah and honour to be
called to the reading either of the last or of the first section of the
Pentateuch. Those on whom this honour is conferred are called
respectively חתן תורה “Bridegroom of the Law,” and חתן בראשית
“Bridegroom of the first section of the Law.” In the rejoicing with the
Law special efforts are made to induce the younger members of the
congregation to take part. They are usually invited to join the
procession with the scrolls of the Law round the Synagogue, and have
also the privilege of being called to the Torah, although they are not
yet thirteen years old. This and similar things are done in order to
inspire our children with love for the Torah and for the study of the
Torah.
[129] Whilst the three Festivals demanded great sacrifices of each
individual Israelite—to undertake a pilgrimage to the Temple, and not
to appear empty before the Lord—the “Solemn Days” demanded only
abstention from work, and on one day also from food. The Sacrificial
Service on the Day of Atonement concerned directly the High-Priest and
the priests in the Temple, the public at large but indirectly; and if
great multitudes assembled in the Temple, it was curiosity rather than
duty that brought them there. More importance was therefore attached by
chroniclers and historians to the three Festivals and the national
gathering in and round the Temple on the Feasts of Pilgrimage than to
the Day of Memorial or the Day of Atonement. The Law deemed it
necessary to urge on the Israelites the celebration of the former more
frequently than that of the latter. When Solomon at the dedication of
the Temple celebrated with the Israelites twice seven days, the first
seven days probably commenced the 1st of Tishri on the Festival (1
Kings viii. 2), and the second seven days on the 15th of the month;
therefore they are reckoned separately (ibid. viii. 65; 2 Chron. vii.
9, 10). Ezra, who read the Law to the Jews on the 1st of Tishri (Neh.
viii. 2), which was a Holy-day (ibid. 10), read it also on the second
day, which may likewise have been a special day for reading the Law,
probably the Day of Atonement, and here they learnt that they were
commanded to build booths for the next Festival. They must therefore
have heard Leviticus xxiii., which includes the commandment concerning
the fasting on the Day of Atonement. It may also be noticed that,
although the commandment concerning the Day of Atonement is not
mentioned in Exodus, the day is referred to as a well-known institution
(Exod. xxx. 10).
[130] The reason Tradition assigns for this observance is as follows:
After the giving of the Law Moses ascended Mount Sinai on the 7th of
Sivan, and descended on the fortieth day, the 17th of Tammuz, with the
tables of testimony. On the 18th he ascended again, and spent forty
days in prayer for forgiveness for Israel; and ascended for the third
time on the 1st of Elul, and returned on the 10th of Tishri with the
Divine message, “I have pardoned in accordance with thy words of
prayer.” Cherishing the hope that we may ourselves receive such a
heavenly response on the Day of Atonement, we follow the example of
Moses, and add these Selichoth or devotional exercises to our daily
prayers, while the sound of the shofar aids in awakening us to earnest
reflection and true improvement.
There are various names for these additional prayers: תחנונים
“Supplications,” and סליחות “Prayers for forgiveness,” the latter
being the general name for the early additional Service. Some of them
have special names: פתיחה “opening” (i.e., the first prayer); פזמון
“psalm,” a hymn sung or recited alternately by the Reader and the
congregation; עקדה a composition referring to the binding of Isaac;
תחנה “supplication,” generally at the end of the Selichoth. Prominent
among these prayers is the recitation of the Thirteen Attributes of
Mercy (Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7) and the “Confession of sins” (ודוי).
[131] Although Nisan, the month of the departure of the Israelites from
Egypt, is the first month, and Passover the first of the Festivals of
the year, Tishri, though the seventh month, was in many respects the
beginning of the year. In the month of Tishri the Jubilee year
commenced, the slaves were liberated, and landed property returned to
the original owners (comp. Mishnah, Rosh ha-shanah i. 1).
[132] The name does, however, occur in the Mishnah as a term long in
use and well known. It is impossible to decide when the name was
introduced. The words ראש השנה in Ez. (xl. 1) denote the beginning of
the year, including ten days or more, but do not signify “New-year.”
[133] The blowing of the shofar is preceded by the blessing: … ברוך
אשר קדשנו … לשמוע קול שופר “Blessed art thou ... who hast sanctified
us by thy commandments and hast commanded us to hear the sound of the
shofar.” This blessing is followed by שהחינו.
[134] According to Saadiah, the shofar reminds us of the following ten
things with which it is directly or indirectly connected:—(1) Creation;
(2) Our duty to return to God; (3) Revelation on Mount Sinai; (4) The
exhortations of the Prophets; (5) Destruction of the Temple; (6) The
binding of Isaac for sacrifice; (7) Imminent danger; (8) Day of
Judgment; (9) Redemption of Israel; (10) Resurrection.
[135] In some congregations it is the custom to walk in the afternoon
of New-year along the banks of a river or the sea-shore, in order to
reflect on the purifying effect which water has on the body, and to be
reminded that even as the body is purified by water, so ought our souls
be purified by repentance and the appeal to the help and mercy of God.
An appropriate passage from Micah (vii. 18–20) is recited, and the
custom has received its name tashlich from the word ותשליך “and thou
wilt cast,” which occurs in the passage.
[136] The confession of sins (ודוי) as contained in our Prayer-book
is made by the whole community collectively; and those who have not
themselves committed the sins mentioned in the confession regret that
they were unable to prevent them from being committed by others. The
form of the confession is therefore in the plural: “We have been
guilty,” &c. The words אבל אנחנו חטאנו “Indeed we have sinned,” would
suffice for the purpose of confession. But the long lists of various
forms of sins in the sections beginning אשמנו, על חטא or על חטאים
and which are repeatedly recited during the Service, help us to
remember our misdoings; what has escaped our attention the first time
may be revived in our memory, when we read the confession a second or
third time. Especially numerous are the terms denoting sins committed
with our tongue; and indeed they are numerous! And where is the person
that could say that his tongue has never been employed in falsehood, or
slander, or self-praise, or hasty promises, and similar offences? It is
necessary that we should reflect over and over again on these vices,
and on the way in which to obtain better control over our tongue, and
thereby a fuller mastery over the passions of our heart.
[137] The Evening Service is preceded by a formal rescinding of
previous vows. Of what kind were the vows which are thus annulled? None
of those that were made by a member of the community individually. No
one can by means of this formula free himself from the obligation to
fulfil what he has promised to his fellow-man. The declaration concerns
the whole congregation, and has probably its origin in the customs of
former days, when those who refused to join in the communal work, or to
submit to the law of the congregation, or shocked by any act of theirs
the conscience of their brethren, or abandoned Judaism outwardly, were
excommunicated and shut out from all contact with their
co-religionists. Such transgressors, abarjanim, when desirous to pray
in the Synagogue on the Day of Atonement, were admitted, and all
opposition was silenced by the solemn declaration.
That such was the original object of Kol-nidre is sufficiently clear
from its surroundings. It is preceded by the following announcement:
“In the name of God, and in the name of the congregation, with the
sanction of the Court above, and that of the Court below, we declare
that it is permitted to pray together with those who have been
transgressors (abarjanim).” Kol-nidre is followed by the verse, “And it
shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and
the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in
ignorance” (Num. xv. 26).
The original object of this declaration does not apply at present; but
it serves as a reminder of the following principles:—
1. We should always be disposed to forgive those who, in the heat of
strife, acting under strong irritation, have offended us.
2. We should be careful with regard to vows, and before making them
consider their effect.
3. We should reflect on human weakness, and consider that what we
believe to be able to do to-day may prove impossible for us to-morrow.
This reflection would remove every thought of pride from our heart and
inspire us with humility.
[138] At the conclusion of the Service we once more proclaim the Unity
of God (שמע ישראל), repeat three times the praise of His kingdom, and
seven times that He alone is the Almighty. The sound of the shofar
announces, as on the occasion of the Revelation on Mount Sinai, the
conclusion of the Holy-day.
[139] The idea of introduction is implied in the term minchah,
“introduction” (from the root נחה “to lead,” “to conduct”).—Minchah,
originally denoting any present or offering, was the special name of
flour-offerings, probably because flour or corn was the most common
minchah offered by people to their sovereign.—Comp. “I will appease him
with the present (minchah) that goeth before me, and afterwards I will
see his face” (Gen. xxxii. 21).
[140] תפלה from פלל “to judge,” implies self-examination whether we
are worthy of addressing the Most Holy. As to the purifying effect of
prayer, see above, p. 183.
[141] This was necessary for two reasons: it served to foster a
disposition for devotion and to assist the multitude in their endeavour
to give expression to their feelings; it gave also uniformity to the
prayers, which is indispensable in public Divine Worship (תפלה
בצבור).—The free effusion of our heart before our Creator is by no
means restrained, and is certainly not intended to be excluded by these
regulations.
[142] מנהג עוקר הלכה “Custom overrules law,” is a well-known saying
that is frequently acted upon (Soferim xiv. 18).
[143] Comp. supra, page 183 sqq., on the efficacy of prayer. Comp. page
280 sqq.
[144] This is one of the three explanations suggested in Babyl. Talm.,
Berachoth 29b: (1) A burdensome task, of which one desires to get rid;
(2) a claim and not a supplication; (3) fixed without any spontaneous
addition.
[145] Hence the phrases in the Talmud, “He went down toward the Ark”
(tebhah), or simply “He went down” to read the tefillah. It was not so
in all places of worship, because another phrase is sometimes used, “He
passed toward the tebhah.”
[146] On such occasions a large congregation was expected, coming from
the whole neighbourhood, and the Synagogue was considered too small. It
is also possible that a prayer-meeting in the open air was intended to
attract the indifferent, who did not attend the regular Services in the
Synagogue.
[147] See Mishnah, Berachoth iv. 5, 6, and Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 30a.
[148] As our religion demands frequent recitations of berachoth in the
course of the day, the custom spread among the Jews of keeping the head
always covered. Comp. Babyl. T., Kiddushin 31a; Shulchan aruch, Orach
Chayyim ii. 6.
[149] Attempts have been made to modify and to soften down the
seemingly harsh words against those who design our ruin; some even wish
to have the whole paragraph expunged from the prayer. In these attempts
it has been ignored that the prayer is not directed against certain
persons or nations; it is a petition for the protection of Israel from
the wicked plans of evildoers.
[150] This fact is probably the source of the statement in Midrash
Rabboth (Num. xviii.), that the tefillah before the birchath
ha-tsadukim was added contained seventeen paragraphs.
[151] In the Temple the priests recited daily the Decalogue, and no
objection was raised, because the congregation—priests, Levites, and
general worshippers—constantly changed; and secondly, the very Service
in the Temple sufficiently proved the existence of other Divine
laws.—This ruling applies only to the addition of the Decalogue to the
shema, not to its introduction into any other part of the Service.
[152] The priests were classed in twenty-four divisions; they had to
perform a week’s active Service in the Temple by turns; the same was
the case with the Levites. The Israelites of the district of which it
was the turn of the priests and the Levites to serve in the Temple sent
a deputation (Maamad) to Jerusalem, who represented them in the Temple;
whilst they themselves held special prayer meetings, called Maamadoth.
[153] E.g., the addition of הנותן ליעף כח to, and the omission of
שלא עשני בור from, the ברכות השחר.
[154] Machzor, lit., “Cycle” of prayers, both the obligatory and the
optional, or the ordinary tefilloth and the piyyutim, for the various
seasons of the whole year. It is called Machzor Vitry, after its
compiler, Simcha of Vitry (about 1100).
[155] As to the importance of minhag in our religious life, see above,
p. 420.
[156] According to the Mishnah (Berachoth iv. 1), the time fixed for
this Service is the first fourth of the day; but the notions of “early”
and “late” are now different from what they were in ancient times. An
extension of the time has long been conceded, especially for the Public
Service on Sabbaths and Festivals.
[157] As to the principle expressed in these three berachoth, see
supra, p. 170.
[158] In the German Ritual for week-days a third berachah, beginning
ברוך יי לעולם and concluding ועל כל מעשיו, is added. This berachah
seems to have been at first a substitute for the Amidah, which was
optional in the Maaribh Service. The substitute became in many
congregations an integral part of the Maaribh, and was retained even
when the Amidah was generally adopted as obligatory. On the eve of
Sabbath and Festivals the Amidah was always recited, and there was no
need for the substitute. The third berachah is therefore absent from
the Maaribh on these evenings.
[159] See note 2 on p. 446 sq.
[160] As to the merits of Public Service, see above, p. 284. Ten male
persons of thirteen years and upwards constitute a congregation, צבור
(or מנין “number” or “quorum”), and their united devotions form
Public Service (תפלה בצבור), into which the additions enumerated
above are introduced.
[161] Before meals we wash our hands, say the blessing, על נטילת
ידים, and eat a piece of bread after having said the berachah,
המוציא.—Some wash their hands a second time (מים אחרונים) before
Grace. See Shulchan-aruch, Orach-chayyim clxxxi.
[162] Comp. Babyl. Talm., Berachoth, p. 48b.
[163] בריך רחמנא מריה דהאי פיתא or ברוך שאכלנו משלו.
[164] מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה.
[165] The Reader must be שליח צבור the real representative of, and
acceptable to the congregants (Shulchan-aruch I. liii. 4).
[166] See above, page 417.
[167] E.g., גשם and טל in the Musaph of the first day of Pesach and
the eighth day of Succoth are based on the climatic conditions of
Palestine.
[168] Those who fear that the seemingly harsh expressions might imply
or suggest ideas and feelings of a baser kind can easily modify them
and remove the sting.—Similarly, expressions contrary to our taste and
sense of propriety ought to be removed.
[169] I.e., of the new corn. This law of חדש applied to the corn sown
during the year preceding the festival of Passover and beginning with
the previous Passover (Babyl. Talm., Menachoth 69).
[170] The grafting of two species of trees one upon the other is
included in this prohibition.
[171] E.g., “Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds
of stuff mingled together.” Such mixture is called שעטנז, and applies
only to the mixture of wool and linen (Deut. xxii. 11). Another
commandment belonging to this category is this: “Thou shalt not plow
with an ox and an ass together” (ibid. 10). Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary
on the Pentateuch (ad locum), suggests the following reason for this
commandment, “The Almighty has mercy upon all His creatures; the
strength of the ass being inferior to that of the ox, an unfair demand
would be made upon the strength of the former when drawing the
ploughshares together with the latter.”
[172] טרפה originally designated meat of animals torn by wild beasts,
but it is used to designate food, especially meat, forbidden by the
Law. All permitted food is called kasher (כשר).
[173] In accordance with the traditional explanation of the
commandment, “Thou shalt not destroy the corners of thy beard” (Lev.
xix. 27), a razor is not employed, and shaving is avoided; the hair of
the beard and the face is clipped with scissors. This prohibition, like
that of “rounding the corners of the head” (ibid.), belongs to a group
of precepts which aimed at keeping the Israelites away from the
idolatrous customs of their heathen neighbours. The second prohibition
has led to the fashion noticeable among Russian and Polish Jews of
letting the hair of “the corners of the head” (in Hebrew peoth) grow
very long.—In the Mishnah (Kethubhoth vii. 6) it is mentioned as a
distinctively “Jewish custom” that married women have their head
covered when going out. Many Jewish women observe also this custom
within the house.—With these exceptions there is nothing in his dress
and appearance that need distinguish the Jew from the Gentile, only
that sometimes Jews are more conservative with regard to fashion than
their neighbours, and old-fashioned style is then mistaken for “Jewish
fashion.”
[174] Some people leave on one of the walls of the house a certain
piece unpapered and unpainted as a sign of mourning for the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple. From the same reason, in some
congregations, the bridegroom on the wedding-day has ashes strewn on
his head. In accordance with Ps. cxxxvii. 6 we remember Jerusalem on
various occasions. We recite Ps. cxxxvii. on week-days, and Ps. cxxvi.
on Sabbath and Holy-days, after every meal. Again, when we give
expression to our sympathy with mourners we pray that God may comfort
them together with those who mourn for the destruction of Jerusalem.
[175] The above-mentioned exceptions, and the fact that the woman is
passive in the marriage ceremony as well as in the case of a divorce,
have been erroneously interpreted as evidence of the low estimate in
which she is held by the Jewish Law. How the Jews were taught to honour
their wives may be gathered from the Jewish marriage document, in which
the husband promises “to honour his wife in accordance with the rule in
practice among Jews, that every husband honours his wife.” There are,
unfortunately, also bad Jews who ill-treat, neglect, or entirely
abandon their wives; but these cases are exceptions, and
proportionately less numerous than among non-Jews. On the whole, Jewish
women are treated by their husbands with love and regard, and the good
relations that exist between husband and wife ensure the comfort and
happiness of both.
[176] To this respect for feminine modesty is due the arrangement made
in the Synagogue for female worshippers (see p. 426). It is also the
reason why girls have no ceremony corresponding to the celebration of
the bar-mitsvah.
[177] Women do not like to do needlework on Saturday evening
immediately after the close of Sabbath; it was considered a mitsvah to
prolong the Sabbath, just as it is a sign of love and esteem if we
induce a friend to defer his departure. The saying that only shrouds
are to be sewn on Sabbath evening may perhaps be traced to Mishnah,
Shabbath xxiii. 4.
[178] In order to have warm food on Sabbath without breaking any of the
Sabbath laws, the food is put in an oven which is heated in such a
manner that the fire continues to burn without requiring to be stirred
or rekindled, or in which the heat is otherwise retained. Such food is
called chalet, which is probably a French word, corresponding to the
Hebrew חמין “warm.”
[179] Or חבוב מצוה “love of mitsvah.”
[180] See p. 357.
[181] See p. 357 sqq.
[182] Jews consider it a duty to have guests (אורחים) at the table on
three occasions, viz., the Seder-evening, Purim, and Succoth.
[183] The blessing generally consists of the priestly benediction, and
the words of Jacob, “God make thee like Ephraim and like Manasseh”
(Gen. xlviii. 20); Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel, and Leah being substituted
for Ephraim and Manasseh when females are addressed.
[184] A special Service of the day is called יום כפור קטן.
[185] Friday evening was especially selected for this purpose; the
visitors were treated with fruit and sweets; and this secondary element
in the custom became in course of time the principal thing. The custom
received the name Shalom-zachar, probably from the usual greeting,
“Shalom! (“Peace,” corresponding to our “How do you do?”) O male
child!”
[186] In different countries there were different ways of expressing
this sentiment. In some congregations a band (mappah) for the Sepher,
with the name and birthday of the child inscribed on it, and ornamented
with verses expressive of various good wishes, is presented to the
Synagogue.
[187] I.e., a person who circumcises.
[188] Of those who assist in the mitsvah, the sandek (godfather), who
holds the child during the operation, is the most prominent, and is
called בעל ברית (“who is in possession of the covenant,” i.e., of the
child to be initiated into the covenant). The religious enthusiasm
required for the performance of this mitsvah is symbolically
represented by “the chair of Elijah” (כסא של אליהו), upon which the
child is placed before the operation; Elijah in Jewish Tradition being
the type of religious zeal.
[189] The Service for the occasion is included in the Daily
Prayer-book, by Rev. S. Singer, p. 304.
[190] For the Blessing and Prayers on this occasion, see Prayer-book,
p. 308.
[191] The chief element in this Service is ברכת הגומל, the
thanksgiving for the Divine protection enjoyed in the moment of danger.
This Blessing is pronounced by (1) those who have crossed the sea, (2)
or a desert, (3) or have recovered from a serious illness, (4) or have
been released from prison. (Comp. Ps. cvii.)
[192] Leviticus was generally taken first.
[193] A misinterpretation of the dictum of Rabbi Eliezer, “Whoso
teaches his daughter torah, teaches her, as it were, levity” (Mishnah,
Sotah iii. 4), led many to believe that the Rabbis did not wish the
daughters of Israel to know the Law. The dictum refers to a discussion
which immediately precedes on the efficacy of the “bitter waters.”
Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is dangerous to the morality of a woman to
engage her thoughts with the details of the Law concerning a wife
suspected of adultery (Num. v.).
[194] The feast in honour of the bar-mitsvah is סעודת מצוה only when
it is accompanied by דברי תורה (“Words of the Law”) spoken by him.
[195] At festivities a glass was broken in order to remind those
present of the transient nature of all earthly things, and thus warn
them against excess of joy (Babyl. Talm., Berachoth 31a).—The same is
done after the wedding ceremony.
[196] In the Talmud the custom of the ring is not mentioned; anything
could be used, provided it had the value of a perutah, a small coin,
and was the property of the bridegroom. Among Jews the use of the ring
is a modern fashion. The ring must not contain any jewel or precious
stone, the value of which can in many cases not easily be estimated,
and which might therefore lead to misunderstanding and dispute.
[197] There are, besides, various explanations of the term chuppah:
(1.) The wreath on the head of the bride when led to the marriage
ceremony (הינומא, Mishnah, Kethubhoth ii. 10). (2.) A cover over the
head of the bride; in some countries, therefore, instead of erecting a
canopy, a talith is held over the bride and bridegroom during the
ceremony; in others a separate ceremony of covering the head of the
bride takes place before the actual marriage (comp. supra, p. 467, note
1). (3.) A private chamber into which bride and bridegroom retire for
breakfast when the ceremony is over.
[198] In order to prevent mistakes the minister reads the formula
slowly, and the bridegroom repeats it; the minister omits the word לי
“unto me,” and the bridegroom inserts the word by himself, or assisted
by some one else.
[199] “And of Israel” signifies: “According to the Jewish traditional
interpretation of the Law of Moses;” these words are added because the
rules of kiddushin are not directly mentioned in the Torah.
[200] The kethubhah is in its essential elements very old, and dates
probably back to the time when the Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic. The
settlement described in this document should be made to correspond with
the actual deed of settlement legally executed. On the other hand, even
the poorer bridegrooms should be induced to make a real settlement
corresponding to the promises made in the kethubhah. The system of life
insurance facilitates such a course. Otherwise the kethubhah has no
importance.
[201] The contents of these Blessings are: (1) Benediction over wine;
(2) praise of God as the Creator of the Universe, (3) as the Creator of
man, (4) and of woman; (5) prayer for the comfort of Zion, (6) for the
rejoicing of the young couple, and (7) for their united happiness.
[202] Lit., “Good planet.” The term has entirely lost its original
meaning, and denotes simply “hearty congratulation.”
[203] In the Torah polygamy is not forbidden, but not encouraged. It
was a luxury inaccessible to the multitude, and the king is distinctly
told that he must not have many wives (Deut. xvii. 17). The principle
of monogamy is implied in many Biblical passages, as, e.g., Gen. ii. 20
sqq.; Mal. ii. 14; Ps. cxxviii. 3; Prov. v. 18 sqq.
[204] A woman divorced from her husband by גט or from her
brother-in-law by חליצה cannot marry a kohen.
[205] In every congregation there is a special society of those who
devote themselves to the needs of the sick (חברת בקור חולים). See
above, p. 302.
[206] “Many have made confession and have afterwards recovered” are the
very words to be addressed to the patient according to the
Shulchan-aruch, Jore deah cccxxxviii.
[207] See Sefer ha-chayyim, and Daily Prayer-book, p. 314 sqq.
[208] See supra, p. 302.
[209] Those present exclaim: ברוך דין אמת “Blessed art thou ... who
art the true Judge.” The same is done by those who are not present on
hearing the sad news. Relatives rend also their garments (קריעה).
[210] In Hebrew אוננים and אבלים; the former term is applied to the
mourners during the time between the death and the interment of their
relatives; the latter after the interment during the whole period of
mourning.
[211] Some consider it a dishonour to the departed to leave the corpse
unburied over night, since the Law does not allow even the body of a
criminal to be treated in this way. The practice may also have
commended itself on sanitary grounds.
[212] The shroud is made of white linen. The kittel or sargenes is part
of the raiment in which the dead are clothed. It is the custom in some
countries that the bride presents the bridegroom with this article on
the wedding-day; and it is worn by the husband on New-Year’s Day and on
the Day of Atonement, and on the Seder-evening during the Service. Some
think that the object of wearing it is to remind us of death, and thus
turn our thoughts away from the vanities of earthly life.—The custom
has probably its origin in the fact that the white kittel was the
festive garment of the day.
[213] In Hebrew בית החיים or בית עלמין “the house of life” or “the
house of eternity.”
[214] The case is known by the name of מת מצוה “the corpse which
claims attention as a mitsvah.”
[215] The usual formula is, “May the Almighty comfort you together with
those who mourn for Zion and Jerusalem.” These words are addressed to
the mourners when they return from the grave to the Hall, while passing
the line (שורה) formed by those present, and are repeated during the
week of mourning, especially on Friday evening when the mourners enter
the Synagogue. When the Service is over, the mourners return home, and
partake of a meal prepared for them by friends or neighbours (סעודת
הבראה). In days of old wine was taken on that occasion (Kethubhoth
8b), but this custom, like several others, has dropped into oblivion.
In the Grace the section which begins ובנה “And build,” is modified
during the week of mourning in order to give expression to the
sentiments of the mourners.
[216] During the week of mourning the mourners (1) remain at home, with
the exception of Sabbath; (2) abstain from work and business; (3) hold
the Morning and the Evening Services at home, and add appropriate
psalms (such as xvi. and xlix.), prayers, and meditations; (4) sit on
the floor or on low chairs; (5) listen to no music, avoid play, and all
kinds of amusement, and (6) let the hair grow long.—During the rest of
the month—or of the year, in case of mourning for father or mother—the
last two observances are followed; the hair is only cut when it has
become cumbersome as well as unsightly, and a banquet is only attended
when it is a סעודת מצוה.
[217] A symbol of the soul of the departed, in reference to Prov. xx.
27.
[218] The three principal mitsvoth are: Study of the Law (תורה),
Divine Service (עבודה), and Charity (גמלות חסדים). As regards the
first, a section of the Mishnah is studied daily; as regards the
second, the bereaved, during the year of mourning, or on the Jahrzeit,
acts as Reader in the Synagogue for the whole or part of the Service;
and as regards the third, relief is given to the poor in memoriam.
[219] Babyl. Talm., Gittin 14b.
[220] The numbers refer to pages in the Authorized Daily Prayer-book,
with a new translation by the Rev. S. Singer.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEWISH RELIGION ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
