Page images
PDF
EPUB

And why does the Frankfort catechism put such a general question as "Are persons of another religion included?" Why do they both avoid the plain straightforward question-" Are Christians to be looked upon as our fellow-men, our neighbours, and our brethren ?" From what we know of Germany, we suppose that the inhabitants of Frankfort and Bavaria, not professing Judaism, are known by the common name of Christians. Why, then, is the word Christian omitted? I cannot suppress my conviction that it was omitted intentionally, to avoid a difficulty. By talking thus generally of nonIsraelites, and persons of another religion, they could, with some show of truth, reply in the affirmative, and adduce Scripture proof concerning "the stranger that dwelleth among you." Whereas if they had used the word Christian, this would have been impossible. They would have contradicted the Talmud, whose divine authority they had asserted; and given offence to all the orthodox Jews, who know that a Christian is not included in that verse; but that, according to the Talmud, he is an idolater; and therefore, neither a neighbour, a fellowman, nor a brother. That Christians are considered as idolaters appears both from the Talmud and its compendiums. In the Talmudic treatise, "Avodah Zarah," (fol. 6, col. 1,) the Lord's day is expressly mentioned as an idolatrous feast, and called the Nazarene day. The "Hilchoth Accum," c. ix. 4, says-" The Edomites are idolaters, and the first day of the week is the day of their calamity"the Talmudic expression for an idolatrous festival. In the "Hilchoth Maachaloth Asuroth," the same plain declaration is made-" The Nazarenes are idolaters;" and that idolaters are not regarded as neighbours is very easy to be demonstrated. The Frankfort catechism takes the trouble of enumerating the three words, y, nY, MR, neighbour, fellow-man, brother; and says-" By these expressions are intended not only Israelites, but all men who live with us in one state, to whatever religious denomination they may belong." Now it is a curious circumstance that the oral law, which this same Frankfort catechism declares to be divine, specifies these three words, and decides that an idolater is not any one of the three. First, let us take, neighbour. In the "Hilchoth Genevah," c. ii. 1., we read, "He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property devoted to sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal; for it is said, "He shall pay double unto his neighbour,' y, (Exod. xx. ii. 9,) . . . . to his neighbour, but not to a Gentile." Next let us take ny, fellow-man. We find it in Levit. vi. 1, &c.-" If a soul sin, and lie unto his fellowman, Лy . . . . . all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereunto." On this the oral law says," He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound to add the fifth part. [Why not?] Because the law prescribes this only if he lie to his fellow-man." choth Gezelah, c. i. 7. Lastly, with regard to N, "brother;" when explaining the Israelite's duty if he find anything lost in the street, the oral law says, "To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost is an affirmative commandment, for it is said, Thou shalt

in any case bring them again unto thy brother, N.' Anything that a Gentile has lost it is lawful to keep; for it is said, with all lost thing of thy brother's (TIN).'

Now which of these two doctrines will the rising Jewish generation follow? Will they believe the compilers of these catechisms, that all men are their brethren? Or will they, on the authority of the oral law, which these same compilers tell them is divine, treat Christians as idolaters, and therefore exclude them from all the common offices of brotherhood? But whichever doctrine they follow, can catechisms, conducted on such principles, teach them truth and honesty? Even a dull child-and such the Jewish are not-can see that the authors are guilty of double dealing; that they meant to deceive one party; that either they did not believe in the Talmud, but found it necessary to cajole the old orthodox Jews; or that they did believe in all the anti-social and intolerant doctrines of the Talmud, but found it necessary to throw dust in the eyes of the Christian public. In either case, it cannot be very edifying to the minds of youth to perceive, that guile and deceit are the principles upon which the catechisms of their religion are constructed. The Bavarian catechism is, in this respect, particularly guilty. It has one subdivision headed, "Of the Duties, referring to every human being, without any difference;" in which it enters into the detail of our duty to our neighbour, with references chiefly to the Yad Hachasakah of Maimonides, as the authority for what is said. Now, suppose that a Jewish youth looks out these references, what will he think when he finds that Maimonides restricts these duties to the Jews; and, in some cases, expressly excepts the idolater? Let us take a few instances. Question 180-" What is commanded in the first of these duties ?Answer. To spare the life of our fellow-men. We are not permitted to put to death even a beast, if its death do not promote some good, or prevent some harm: yea, we are not unnecessarily to cut down a fruit-tree; how much more are we to reverence the life of man, who is the image of God? We are, therefore, forbidden not only to take away the life of man, but the slightest injury or maiming of his body is a great sin. It is permitted to the judge alone to cause that man who has forfeited his life, by crime, to be executed." In a parallel column, by the side of this answer, is printed a passage from Maimonides, concluding with the reference "Maimonid. Hilch. Rozeach, i. 4."

One would naturally think that this answer was a translation of the Hebrew. It is, indeed, a strong declaration against murder; but it has not the least resemblance to the German. Literally translated, it is as follows:-" The house of judgment (the tribunal) must beware of taking a ransom from the murderer; yea, though he were to give all the money in the world, and though the avenger of blood were willing to let him go free: for the life of the murdered person is not the property of the avenger of blood, but of the Holy One blessed be He: as it is written, For ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer.' (Numb. xxxv. 31.) There is nothing about which the law is so earnest as about the shedding of blood: as it is written,

[ocr errors]

So ye shall not pollute the land where ye are; for blood it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.'

(Ibid. 33.) This is a strong and beautiful passage; but it is, as the reader sees, no authority whatever for the German answer. But suppose that the youth, puzzled by the apparent want of connexion, should read on two leaves further, he will find a passage directly contradicting the last sentence, which says, "It is permitted to the judge alone to cause that man who has forfeited his life, by crime, to be executed." On the next leaf but two, Maimonides not only permits, but commands, every Israelite to kill, either by force or by fraud, those criminals of the Jews whom he calls "Epicureans, Israelite idolaters, and vexers." And if he should perchance turn back a single leaf, he will find that"It is lawful, by all means, to kill the informer; yea, even in the present time, when we do not give judgment in cases involving capital punishment. It is lawful to kill him before he gives the information: as soon as he says I am going to inform against either the person or the property of such a person, he makes it lawful to kill him. He is to be warned and told not to give information; but if he be obstinate, and say No,' but I will inform against him,' it is a commandment to kill him; and he that is foremost to kill him, is considered as meritorious." What, then, is the youth to do now? Is he to follow the German answer, or the Hebrew authority to which he is referred? The latter he is told is the law of God; the former he perceives can only be either an opinion, or advice, or even a device, to evade the law of the land. The compilers of this catechism are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. So important a matter as this, involving the lives of fellow-creatures, should not be thus slurred over. It was their bounden duty, when they restricted the power of capital punishment to the judge, to notice these two cases, occurring within a leaf or two of the authority to which they refer: they should either have solemnly declared that they abjure this doctrine; or, if they think this command to murder Epicureans and informers binding, as a part of the divine oral law, they should here have honestly stated this their belief, especially when they offered the catechism for royal sanction.

But does this authority from Maimonides teach the Jewish youth "to spare the life of our fellow-man," whether he be Jew or Gentile? In the Hebrew passage, as above translated, there is not any direct mention of either, though the notice of "the avenger of blood" would naturally lead us to think that Maimonides was speaking of an Israelite. Let us look, then, at the context. The first sentence of the chapter is " Every one that killeth any human soul of Israel, transgresses a negative command; for it is said, Thou shalt not kill."" After this beginning, the chapter speaks exclusively of the duty to Israelites; and concludes with this remarkable sentence:-" Every one who destroys one soul of Israel is as [guilty] as if he destroyed the whole world; and every one who preserves one soul of Israel is as [meritorious] as if he preserved the whole world." This reference, then, does not prescribe anything respecting our duty to our

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

fellow-men. Suppose, then, that the Jewish catechumen reads on in order to find out his duty to non-Israelites; on the following leaf he reads-" There is but one judgment for him that kills an Israelite or a Canaanitish servant. He is to be put to death for either. . . . An Israelite who kills a sojourning proselyte, is not to be executed by the tribunal on his account; for it is said, But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour' (Exod. xxi. 14,) and it is not necessary to say that he is not to be executed on account of a Gentile. There is one judgment for him that kills a slave belonging to others or to himself: he is to be executed on the slave's account; for the slave has taken upon himself the commandments, and has been added to the inheritance of the Lord." (Ibid. ii. 10, 11.) Here the oral law tells him distinctly that he has not the same duty towards all his fellow-men; that there is a great difference between man and man; that for the Israelite the life of the murderer is to be forfeited, but for a proselyte of the gate, or an idolatrous Gentile, it is not to be forfeited. In the commentary to this law, we are told, that the murderer, in this case, though not amenable to the tribunal, is guilty "in the judgment of Heaven." But suppose such a case was referred to a judge and jury of men, taught by this catechism that the oral law is divine, they could not decide that the murderer is to be executed; for this oral law tells them, that he is only amenable to the heavenly tribunal. Or suppose that a youth, educated according to the principles of this catechism, knew of an Israelite who had murdered "a sojourning proselyte, or an idolatrous Gentile," would it be his duty to inform against him, and to bring him to justice before a nonIsraelite tribunal? The oral law tells him, first, that a murderer of this class, though guilty before God, ought not to be executed. It tells him, secondly, that if he informs against a brother Israelite, he is himself guilty of death; and that the circumstance of his brother being a wicked man makes no difference; for "it is forbidden to inform against an Israelite's person or property, so as to deliver him into the hands of Gentiles, even though he be a wicked man and a transgressor. . . . And that if he thus inform against an Israelite, he has no part in the world to come." (Hilchoth Chobel umazzik, ch. viii. 9.) As he hopes for salvation, then, he is bound not to bring him to justice. In either of these cases, then, the course of justice would be stopped, and the murderer would go free. But what is the youth's own duty towards Gentiles ?-for that has not appeared yet. Is he to spare the life of a fellow-man who happens to be a Gentile? The following passage gives the answer :-" As to the Gentiles not at war with us, and those who tend the small cattle belonging to Israel, and such like, we are not to cause their death; but it is unlawful to deliver them if they are near to death. For instance, if we see one of them who has fallen into the sea, he is not to be helped out; for it is written, Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour.'

• i. e., A proselyte of the gate, who was allowed to sojourn in the land of Israel. i. e., Upon an Israelite. The sojourning proselyte is not looked upon as a neighbour; and still less the idolatrous Gentile.

(Levit. xix. 16.) But such an one is not thy neighbour." Here, then, is the limit of the Israelite's duty to idolatrous Gentiles. He is not himself to take away his life; but if anything else, either men or beasts, or elements, arise to take it away, he is not to interfere nor deliver him. With what face, then, could the compilers of the Bavarian catechism head their chapter on the relative duty with the words-" Of the Duties referring to every human being, without any difference ?"

The Franckfort catechism, though, as we have seen above, it teaches the divine authority of the oral law, is evidently much shyer of its support, and therefore more sparing of its citation. Its author, however, could not resist the temptation of representing the Talmud as an amiable and charitable book; and has, therefore, got the following question and answer :-(Question 216, p. 141.) "As to our teachers, the Talmudists, who in their day did not enjoy those great advantages which lay us under such great obligations,† what duties of love did they teach us to practise to our fellow-men of a different religion?" Answer. "Every Israelite, as our wise men teach, is bound, according to the divine law, to love as brethren those men out of every nation who follow the seven Noahitic commandments, to visit their sick, to bury their dead, to tend and to support their poor and distressed, as well as those of Israel. And, in general, there is no act of brotherly love which a true Israelite dare refuse to perform towards the observers of the Noahitic doctrines." (Talmud Treatise Gittin, 61.) The Bavarian catechism has a very similar passage, for which it refers to Maimonides; but Mr. Johlson, in the text of his book, refers to the Talmud itself, and prints the whole passage with quotation marks, as if it were a veritable extract. Now, what will the Jewish youth who look out his reference think when they find, that, on the leaf referred to, there is no such passage, and not the least mention of " the observers of the seven Noahitic commandments?" I can only suppose, that Mr. Johlson did not himself refer to the Talmud, but took his reference at second-hand from some one less honest. I have now the "Treatise Gittin" before me; and the only passage, on the the 61st leaf, at all resembling his supposed quotation, refers, not to the sons of Noah, but to idolaters. Literally translated, it is as follows:-"Our Rabbis have taught, that the poor of the aliens () are to be fed with the poor of Israel; and the sick of the aliens to be visited with the sick of Israel; and the dead of the aliens to be buried with the dead of Israel, on account of the ways of peace." And that I am right in interpreting "aliens" to "idolaters," is plain, from the authority of Maimonides, as quoted by Mr. Johlson himself, in the note. I can hardly think that so respectable a man as Mr. Johlson would intentionally and knowingly have made so gross a misrepresentation. I, therefore, suppose that

• Hilchoth Rotzeach, iv. 11.

+ He means the obligations to the governments of Europe, which have ameliorated the condition of the Jews.

Talmud. Gittin., fol. 61, col. 1, at the end of the 10th line.

« PreviousContinue »