oo 
 a 
 S ALN 
 
 Ss . \ . SN 
 
 aN 
 
 SS SS ; ASK SS 
 hs : SS As SN 
 
 SS SS 
 
 SN 
 SRN 
 BSS 
 
 < 
 te ; 2 ke SE ARRCAR NS 
 
 Ni ‘ Ay a . SSN 
 
 NR AN ‘ WES S ; . » : ee SSS : Se WN 
 
 SS . 
 SANS 
 SS 
 SS 
 SS 
 SN . SN 
 
 ah 
 
 as SS : 
 OY Se 
 SAS AS 
 
 oS 
 
 a 
 SN SERS 
 AS, SAS, 
 
 NS 
 
 * \\\ 
 SK 
 
 ROR SSS 
 
 SS . RRS 
 
 = 
 ww 
 
 SOG 
 ANS 
 SS . 
 
 SS 
 SS 
 
 PANE RS 
 
 SoS 
 
 x 
 or 
 
 SAA 
 \S es 
 
 SN 
 WS 
 
 SS SS aS BS 
 SS 
 
 Ss 
 s 
 
 SAS 
 
 ao 
 
 
 
NSA D2E 62: L924 
 
 Epstein, Mortimer, 1880- 
 1946. 
 
 Essays on Jewish life and 
 thought 
 
 
 

 
ae iyes 
 
 
 
ESSAYS ON JEWISH 
 LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/essaysonjewishli00epst 
 
ESSAYS ON JEWISH 
 LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 (THE LETTERS OF BENAMMI: SECOND 
 SERIES) 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND. CO. 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C. 4 
 
 NEW YORK TORONTO 
 BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS 
 
 1924 
 

 
FOREWORD 
 
 HE reception accorded to the First Series of 
 papers, published two years ago, has encouraged 
 
 the writer to issue a companion volume con- 
 taining a further instalment of studies of Jewish life 
 and thought. ‘These appear to be the more opportune 
 since there are indications in many directions that 
 a public opinion on religious and social questions is 
 growing up which is approximating more and more 
 to the Jewish view. If evidence were required, it 
 would be possible to instance in this country the 
 recent Birmingham Conference on Christian Politics, 
 Economics, and Citizenship, or the National Move- 
 ment towards a Christian Order of Industry and 
 Commerce; and in the United States, the Convention 
 held at the beginning of this year at Indianapolis of 
 the International Student Volunteer Movement. 
 The principle underlying the League of Nations 
 itself may justly be claimed as being of Jewish origin. 
 Moreover, Christian scholars to-day are laying stress 
 to a greater extent than ever before on the fact that 
 Christianity is in its essence Hebrew and not Greek. 
 In view of these considerations it should be helpful 
 to have a presentation of the Jewish attitude to 
 1 ASPECTS OF JEWISH LIFE AND THouGutT (The Letters of Ben- 
 
 ammi). London: T. Fisher Unwin, Ltd. 1922. Pp. 223. Price 10/6. 
 v 
 
vi | FOREWORD 
 
 different aspects of life. Yo furnish this in some 
 measure is the purpose of the Essays in this book. 
 Like those in the earlier volume they all appeared in 
 the Fewish Chronicle as “The Letters of Benammi.” 
 
 June 1924. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUDAISM TO THE WORLD’S 
 
 RELIGIOUS THOUGHT ie 
 ON BEING CALLED A JEW ~- 
 
 RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AND JEWISH SUFFERING 
 
 JEWISH HEROISM ri) = 
 LIBERTY OF THOUGHT 7 
 
 POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM 
 
 IS THERE A JEWISH CHURCH ? 
 ‘* HALLOWING GOD’S NAME” 
 JEWISH EDUCATIONAL IDEALS 
 
 KINDNESS TO ANIMALS ~ 
 ADVICE ON BUSINESS - - 
 BEHIND THE VEIL - - 
 THE COMFORT OF MANKIND- 
 ** KOL NIDRE”’ ~ - 
 JEWS AND CREMATION - 
 A QUESTION OF POPULATION 
 
 JEWISH STATISTICS  - - 
 JEWS AND MUSIC - - 
 JEWS AND THE THEATRE - 
 JUDAISM AND ART - - 
 JEWISH HYGIENE - - 
 DIET AND HEALTH - - 
 SEMITISM - - - 
 
 PHARISEES ad - - 
 vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
vill 
 
 THE ‘‘ BLACK FAST”? AND THE BLACK STORY 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 THE WANDERING JEWS - mn 
 
 A CHAPTER OF JEWISH SUFFERING 
 
 THE POPES AND THE JEWS - - 
 THE CRUSADES AND THE JEWS - 
 A SAUL AMONG THE PROPHETS - 
 ‘THE DOMINION OF ARROGANCE ” - 
 CHRISTIANS AND JEWS - ~ 
 JEWS AND CHRISTIANS - - 
 THE MESSIAH - : - - 
 
 “* MESSIAHS ” 
 
 MR. 
 
 WEIN | HISTORY 1005 a 
 
 Her G.yWELLS AND FHE JEWso = 
 
 A SAVIOUR OF JUDAISM - my 
 
 AN 
 
 INSTRUCTOR OF A HUNDRED GENERATIONS 
 
 148 
 154 
 161 
 166 
 172 
 178 
 185 
 192 
 ak 
 205 
 212 
 220 
 22% 
 232 
 
ESSAYS ON JEWISH LIFE 
 AND THOUGHT 
 
 THE CONTRIBUTION OF JUDAISM TO THE 
 WORLD’S RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 
 
 HAT precisely has Judaism contributed to 
 the religious progress of the world? ‘The 
 
 structure of Judaism is huge. Ancient as it 
 is, it is inevitable that it should have age-long accre- 
 tions upon it. It has a theology of its own, enshrined 
 in thousands of volumes, produced in hundreds of 
 generations. But a simple statement, in terms 
 current in the market-place, of the achievements of 
 Judaism in the world’s religious thought is neverthe- 
 less possible. Six salient points would probably 
 command general assent. 
 
 In the first place, Judaism has stood, as it still stands, 
 for the Unity of God. ‘There is something sublime 
 about this conception. ‘The learned should, and do, 
 strive to explain this monotheistic Deity, but for the 
 plain man it is not to probe His nature, it is merely 
 toimitate Him. For the mass of people the attributes 
 of God suffice as a key to His Being, but these attri- 
 butes have nothing to do with dogma. They only 
 stress love and righteousness. ‘The Lord is merciful, 
 gracious, abounding in pity and truth. God thus 
 becomes a model for man to imitate. The Rabbis 
 of old put the matter in a nutshell, in a piece of 
 
 9 
 
10 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 exegesis which is no doubt generally known. Man 
 is told to love God: “ And thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God.” But how, they ask, can you love an un- 
 known spiritual Being? ‘The answer they furnish 
 is simple. ‘The highest love of God is shown in 
 imitating His ways. Just as He is loving and merciful, 
 so should man be loving and merciful; just as He 1s 
 Father of the fatherless, so should man be considerate 
 to the widow and orphan. And so on. There is 
 no mysticism here ; it is practical religion understood 
 by all. 
 
 This love of God has always found an echo in the 
 Jewish soul, from the days of the Psalmist, who wrote, 
 ““Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is 
 none upon earth that I desire beside Thee.” God 1s 
 personal and God is near. ‘There is no room, there 
 is no need for an intermediary. 
 
 The tendency of modern thought is surely towards 
 a spiritual God who is conceived as a unity. Pro- 
 fessing Christians may accept the doctrine of the 
 Trinity—just as they accept other dogmas in 
 Christianity—on trust ; but those who begin to think 
 gradually reject the Trinitarian conception and find 
 their salvation in what may broadly be termed Jewish 
 Unitarianism. 
 
 The second principle may be summed up by the 
 
 ,. word Yorah. Much misconception has arisen from 
 
 the unsuitable translation of this word by “law.” 
 Torah is not necessarily law. ‘Torah means religious 
 knowledge. ‘The Jew is bidden to know. In order 
 to know, he must learn. He must make it his business 
 to know what his religious beliefs are. From the 
 earliest times, study of the Torah was looked upon 
 as an exceedingly important duty for the Jew; 
 
JUDAISM AND RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 11 
 
 indeed, the ‘Talmud declares that the study of 
 the Torah outweighs all other religious duties. 
 The Torah, it has been said, is the very soul of 
 Israel ! 
 
 One important consequence follows from this 
 devotion to knowledge. Jews are not content to 
 take their religious beliefs on trust. They have 
 no priestly caste; there is no room in Judaism for 
 conflict between knowledge and belief. The whole 
 people are a people of priests. The duty of the 
 religious life is incumbent not only on the priests, 
 ministers, and rabbis, but on the whole congregation. 
 The standard of conduct is not lower for the multitude 
 than for the cleric; the cleric is but the teacher— 
 nothing more. 
 
 The third point is the Sabbath. ‘The version of 
 the Decalogue in Deuteronomy ordains rest on the 
 Sabbath Day, “‘ that thy manservant and thy maid- 
 servant may rest as well as thou.” If Judaism had 
 made no other contribution to the great conceptions 
 of humanity, this alone would have marked it out 
 as worthy of respect. ‘The Sabbath may be termed 
 the social symbol of Judaism. It has been claimed 
 that Jewish ethics are social ethics. ‘The institution 
 of the Sabbath as a day of rest for servant and master 
 alike illustrates this point admirably. 
 
 The Sabbath also had vital consequences for the 
 Jew himself. It enabled the denizen of the medizval 
 Ghetto to keep alive some modicum of culture. 
 Without culture he might have become as the beasts 
 of the field; and Heine went to the heart of the matter 
 when he talked of “ Princess Sabbath”? with her 
 magical power of changing the week-day dog into 
 a human being. 
 
Be JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Do we not know how the Sabbath was spent ? 
 Do we not know that the study of holy lore on the 
 Day of Rest was universal in Jewry ? Judaism quite 
 clearly teaches that without knowledge there can be © 
 no edification, and therefore propagation of know- 
 ledge forms part of Divine Service itself. 
 
 Next may be enumerated the Jewish conception 
 of hallowing this life, a very great contribution to the 
 world’s thought, and particularly valuable at the 
 present time. The centre of gravity of religion in 
 Judaism is the sanctification of life on earth. 
 ‘“‘ Heaven,” in the popularly accepted meaning of 
 the term, is somewhat alien to Jewish thought. On 
 the other hand, Christianity, from its earliest period, 
 turned the minds of its devotees to the other world. 
 The Resurrection of Jesus could not but have this 
 effect. In the Middle Ages life was dominated by 
 the Resurrection ; to-day it has been found necessary 
 to introduce what is usually termed ‘“‘ practical 
 Christianity.” Judaism has always been practical in 
 this sense; it has suffused the whole of life with 
 religion. It looks on life as a whole, and its purpose 
 is to make the earth a fit place for human beings to 
 live in. ‘The effort is worth while, for all men are 
 Children of God. 
 
 Fifthly, Judaism teaches individual responsibility, 
 and who will deny that an ideal of this sort is wholly 
 virile ? Experience and philosophy alike have taught 
 that we are what we make ourselves. No mediator, 
 be he never so holy, can intervene between ourselves 
 and the results of our conduct. In Judaism the 
 confession of sins is open and public, and the sins 
 that are confessed on the Day of Atonement refer 
 to moral conduct, and not to rites or ceremonial. 
 
JUDAISM AND RELIGIOUS THOUGHT 13 
 
 There is no room in Judaism for the secret confessional. 
 The very idea is abhorrent. 
 Lastly, Judaism teaches the idea of the Messiah. 
 
 What is the Messiah? He is a symbol of peace in the 
 
 world; he expresses the conception of humanity as 
 a brotherhood. It is true that Christ is but the 
 Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah, and both 
 denote one who is anointed. But the Christian 
 conception is far narrower than the Jewish. In the 
 Jewish view, a Messiah was never intended to bring 
 about the salvation of any individual. ‘The salvation 
 of an individual was to come through his own efforts. 
 But the Messiah was to bring about the salvation 
 of the world. He was to make morality a reality, 
 and the love of man for man and of nation for nation 
 the true basis of civilisation. The conception of the 
 Messiah raises a great hope in the human heart and 
 makes life worth living. It is from this conception 
 that the Jew draws his unquenchable optimism. 
 
 <n 
 
ON BEING CALLED A JEW 
 Wa is it that the word Jew has become a term 
 
 of opprobrium? Little urchins are fond of 
 
 it, and professional anti-Semites have now 
 resorted to it as their principal stock in trade. As 
 often as they write about the Earl of Reading, Mr. 
 Edwin Montagu, or even much lesser lights, they 
 always prefix the word Jew. The German anti- 
 Semites introduced the fashion, thinking to augment 
 their venom by shortening the ordinary German word 
 for Jew into Fud. Their English imitators have 
 adopted this custom which was made in Germany. 
 Always it is le ton fait la musique. “ Duck” is a 
 term of endearment, “pig,” one of contempt. It 
 all depends how you say it. There can be no doubt 
 in what sense “ Jew’ is used by schoolboys, who are 
 naturally cruel, and also by anti-Semitic adults who 
 ought to know better. 
 
 The use of the term Jew to imply insult must be 
 old. There is a characteristic story related in the 
 Midrash to the Book of Lamentations regarding two 
 Pretty Ladies of Ascalon, who, in a quarrel, exchanged 
 compliments, the one asserting of the other that 
 she had a Jewish face. Eventually the two made it 
 up. Said the one to the other: “I forgive you all 
 you said of me, but that you said I had a Jewish face 
 I can never forgive or forget.” The story is associated 
 with the verse: ‘See, O Lord, and behold; for I 
 
 14 
 
ON BEING CALLED A JEW 15 
 
 am become vile,” and the writer evidently wished 
 to convey that the term Jew had sunk to such 
 depths. 
 
 Sunk? Rather forced down by superstition, 
 hatred, and contempt. Charles Lamb throws a good 
 deal of light on the problem by his reference to 
 “Imperfect Sympathies.”” Lamb says bluntly that 
 some men, perhaps most men, have prejudices. For 
 himself he honestly confesses that he has a prejudice 
 against Jews and Quakers. He has no patience with 
 people like Sir Thomas Browne who can assert that 
 he has no antipathy to anything, and that “ those 
 national repugnances do not touch me, nor do I 
 behold with prejudice the French, Italian, Spaniard, 
 or Dutch.” . At any rate Lamb is honest. . He 
 confesses to a weakness, and there’s an end of it. 
 
 But why the prejudice? A moment’s thought 
 will furnish the answer. A people with so ancient 
 a record as the Jews possess must have made enemies, 
 especially as they were the great ‘ Protestants” of 
 history. ‘They protested against cruelty and injustice, 
 the two curses which have afflicted mankind from the 
 earliest times to our own. They did not follow the 
 multitude to do evil. They were firm as a rock in 
 supporting their principles, so much so that peoples 
 who believed in brute force, and to whom therefore 
 spiritual strength was a puzzle beyond solving, took 
 refuge in superstition. The Jews, they said, possessed 
 witchcraft. So early a writer as Josephus already 
 had to meet this charge, as appears from his reply 
 to Apion. 
 
 In any event, it is a poor return one gets by being 
 different. Not appreciation but kicks is the reward 
 of the man who is in advance of his age. He is not 
 
16 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 loaded with honours; he is dragged to the stake. It 
 is the same with a people. ‘The Jews stood for love 
 in a world whose conduct was actuated by hate. The 
 Jew was therefore despised and rejected of men, a 
 man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; he was 
 oppressed, yet he humbled himself, and opened not 
 his mouth, as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and 
 as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb. 
 Christianity and its teachers must be held responsible 
 for much of the contempt and derision associated in 
 the popular mind with the term Jew. This is no 
 passionate misstatement, but cold, historic truth. 
 The Gospels depict the Jews as murderers; Pontius 
 Pilate, who was responsible for the death of the Jew, 
 Jesus of Nazareth, is made to appear a public bene- 
 factor when compared with the picture of the Jews. 
 In the Fourth Gospel, in particular, Jew-hatred 1s 
 almost raised into one of the beliefs of Christianity ; 
 the author of the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jews as a 
 Synagogue of Satan. ‘That tradition was carried on 
 by Christian writers all through the Middle Ages. 
 But there is no need to refer to specific medizval 
 theological treatises, to the Adversus ‘fud@os (Against 
 the Jews) which Tertullian wrote, or De tnsolentia 
 Fudeorum (Concerning the pride of the Jews), of which 
 Agobardus was the author, or to the opinion expressed 
 by Euagrius in the fifth century: “ Eris Judeus et 
 veluti velamine ignorantiae sensus tuus contectus 
 est” (“ You will continue to be a Jew, and your under- 
 standing is covered up with a veil of ignorance’’). 
 No need to refer to these and similar writings. Was 
 not the New Testament itself sufficient to make the 
 Jew anathema? For close on two thousand years, 
 the volume of Christian hate has flown, and the 
 
ON BEING CALLED A JEW 17 
 
 printing press has only tended to swell the stream. 
 Innocent little children, by being taught the New 
 Testament, are inoculated with the virus of Jew 
 hatred ; why, then, should it be remarkable that the 
 word Jew has become a term of contempt? The 
 pity of it is that it is all done in good faith. I daresay 
 it might be found that the antipathy to Jews of men 
 like Lord Sydenham may be traced to this, possibly 
 unconscious, influence. In the eyes of Lord Syden- 
 ham, whose mind is perhaps limited in outlook regard- 
 ing most of the things of life, the Arabs are heroes. 
 He would probably be ready to think equally well 
 of Jews—if only he had not been brought up on the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Possibly Lord Sydenham might retort that the 
 Romans also disliked the Jews. They did, but they 
 also disliked the early Christians. How could it have 
 been otherwise? Recall for a moment the attitude 
 of the mass of British civil servants in India to the 
 natives. They do not understand them, therefore 
 they despise them. ‘The people of India are just 
 “niggers” or ‘“‘natives.”” Does the average Anglo- 
 Indian comprehend the ideals of Buddhism or of 
 Islam? Does he not rather assume a superiority 
 founded on ignorance? It is the way of the world. 
 Sympathetic souls are rare, and people in the mass 
 are actuated by ignorant prejudices. It was the same 
 with the Romans when they came into contact with 
 the Jews. The Jews were an enigma to the Romans. 
 Not only did they profess a curious cult, something 
 an average Roman could in no wise understand, but 
 they had the temerity to rise up against the Roman 
 power. The Jews came to be looked upon as curious 
 
 creatures, odd fish, different, fit subjects for jokes. 
 B 
 
18 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 The Sabbath—monstrous folly—fills the need 
 Of hearts still icier than their icy creed ; 
 Each seventh day in shameful sloth they nod, 
 And ape the langour of their weary God. 
 
 That was all the Roman poet could see in the 
 Sabbath, one of the social institutions which the 
 world owes to the Jews, and for which, it must be 
 added, the world is grateful. Cheap vulgarity of 
 this character can always count on greater popularity 
 than high ideals. 
 
 Those who shout “ Jew!” in derision only lay 
 bare souls which fill the wise man with pity. It 
 cannot be that they desire to call attention to a par- 
 ticular race. “The record of that race 1s no wmeam 
 one. “Lhe jstreet urchin, “or the Eretiy ies ee 
 Ascalon, really does not care about race. ‘They 
 merely wish to express contempt; and will anyone 
 gainsay the thesis that the desire to be contemptuous 
 of others is in itself contemptible? For the Jew, 
 on the other hand, to be called a Jew is a matter for 
 pride. He remembers the dictum of Hillel, a great 
 Jew, who taught: A gentleman will not insult me; 
 no other can. But as a citizen the Jew must deplore 
 the use of the epithet Jew in a contemptuous sense, 
 not because it happens to be “ Jew,”’ but because it 
 is contemptuous. For citizens of the commonwealth 
 to be contemptuous of one another is a sure sign of 
 low culture. In the Great Society love and not 
 contempt will be the dominant force. ‘“‘ And thou 
 shalt love thy neighbours as thyself,’ the Jew has 
 learned and taught. Perhaps there may be a depth of 
 meaning in the words of the prophet Zechariah, who 
 saw a time coming when ten men should take hold 
 of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, ‘‘ We will go 
 with you; for we have heard that God is with you.” 
 
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AND JEWISH 
 SUFFERING 
 
 VERY Monday and ‘Thursday all Jews who 
 K follow the traditional rite appeal from the 
 depths of their soul to the Almighty to “ look 
 from heaven and see how we have become a scorn 
 and a derision among the nations; we are accounted 
 as sheep brought to the slaughter, to be slain and 
 destroyed, to be smitten and reproached.” This 
 sentiment is found expressed in all ages and in all 
 lands by Jewish poets who composed Synagogue 
 prayers, and particularly Selichoth | Penitential Prayers]. 
 “We are abused, spat upon, and treated like mire 
 in the streets,” says a typical Selicha, quoted by 
 Zunz in his famous chapter on the Sufferings of the 
 Jews in the Middle Ages, a chapter which is available 
 in English in the translation of the late Dr. Albert 
 Lowy. 
 
 It is an old story. Its origin reaches back into 
 hoary antiquity, and the last act appears not even 
 yet to have been completed, as the tragic reports 
 from the Ukraine prove conclusively. It is only to 
 be expected that men should have wondered at this 
 great national tragedy. Why does Israel suffer ? it 
 has been asked. Jews and Gentiles alike have put 
 the question and furnished an answer. Perhaps the 
 Gentile has not found it difficult to satisfy himself 
 on the point. In the Middle Ages in particular it 
 
 9 
 
20 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 was regarded almost as axiomatic that the Jews were 
 despised and rejected of men, because they had 
 despised and rejected Jesus. But since this explana- 
 tion is based on an historical inaccuracy, it cannot 
 be correct. ‘There is more to be said, perhaps, for 
 the explanation put forward by a French Rabbi of 
 the fourteenth century. ‘‘ Why does the Galuth [the 
 Diaspora] last so long,” he asks, “‘ seeing that the 
 Exile only lasted seventy years? ‘The sins of the 
 Jewish people before the Exile must have been much 
 greater than they are at present. Did they not 
 worship stocks and stones?” His own answer is 
 illuminating. ‘‘ Truly,” he says, “conditions are 
 worse now than they were then. In olden days they 
 worshipped idols; to-day they turn men into Gods. 
 Does not the whole Christian world regard Jesus as 
 a Divinity ?” 
 
 Over and over again the Rabbis of the Talmudic 
 period occupied themselves with the question of 
 Jewish suffering. Rabbi Judah expressed the position 
 pithily when he said that the whole world was on one 
 side, and Abraham on the other. In the Midrash it 
 is said that the Romans hated the Jews because, being 
 the children of Esau, they would naturally dislike the 
 children of Jacob. Even in those days this explana- 
 tion was felt to be hardly satisfactory. For, it was 
 asked, why do the Goths and other Barbarians hate 
 the Jews? Yet another line of thought therefore 
 found currency. If the Jews suffered in this world, 
 they would find bliss in the world to come. The 
 Midrash picturesquely declares that God put before 
 Abraham the choice for his descendants of one of two 
 alternatives, either Hell or the Diaspora, and he chose 
 the latter. In Kabbalistic literature a similar explana- 
 
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE 21 
 
 tion is put forward. ‘This world is for heathens, the 
 next world is for Israel. Israel therefore cannot be 
 happy in this world, and the heathens will not be 
 happy in the world to come. In this world Israel 
 must be enslaved, poor, rejected, and scorned. ‘The 
 reward will come hereafter. It is through God’s 
 goodness, therefore, that Israel suffers. The suffering 
 is a discipline and an adornment. ‘This was the view 
 held by Jewish writers in the seventeenth century. 
 Yehuda Halevi explained Jewish suffering by regarding 
 Israel as the afflicted servant, bearing the burden of 
 the rest of the world. Saadiah was of opinion that 
 the sufferings of Israel were intended to demonstrate 
 how disinterested the Jew was in observing the ‘Torah. 
 
 For poets and dreamers and mystics some such 
 explanation may suffice. The modern version has 
 been furnished by P. M. Raskin in his “ Eternal 
 Riddle ” : 
 
 Nations keep coming, 
 Nations keep going, 
 
 Passing like shadows 
 
 Wiped off the earth. 
 
 Thou an eternal 
 Witness remainest, 
 Watching their burial, 
 Watching their birth. 
 
 But the realists will hardly be content with this 
 solution of the problem. ‘The realists will want 
 something more satisfactory, and they will probably 
 find the master-key to the problem of Jewish suffering 
 in religious intolerance. In the world’s history there 
 have been many victims of religious intolerance, but 
 the Jew has suffered more than the others. Religious 
 intolerance isan ancient phenomenon. It is met with 
 
22 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 among the early Egyptians, for whom a Greek was 
 an unclean being. The Egyptians would not use 
 a Greek’s knife, nor would they break bread with any 
 barbarian. The Egyptians would not eat with the 
 Hebrews, as is expressly stated in the story of Joseph 
 revealing himself to his brethren. ‘The Persians were 
 likewise intolerant. ‘They prided themselves on the 
 religious zeal which destroyed Egyptian and Greek 
 sanctuaries and wiped out half the Jewish population 
 of Persian towns. Even the Greeks were intolerant. 
 They abominated atheists, and those who in their 
 religious views dared to be different from the multi- 
 tude had to suffer death or exile. “As for the 
 Athenians,” Josephus writes, ‘‘ they punished without 
 mercy those that spoke contrary to their laws about 
 the gods.” Religious intolerance was responsible for 
 the death of Socrates, for the banishment of Protag- 
 oras, for the imprisonment of Phidias, for the exile of 
 Aristotle. If religious intolerance found a footing 
 in Hellas, it is not surprising that it should have 
 flourished wherever Hellenism later established itself. 
 
 The same miserable record is connected with Rome. 
 A very old law, dating from the year 428 B.c., pro- 
 hibited the worship of any but Roman gods, and in 
 one of his speeches Cicero calls attention to this enact- 
 ment. Maecenas, who has become immortalised as 
 a patron of the arts, advised the Emperor Augustus 
 to honour the gods with diligence, to force others to 
 worship them, and to hate the new cults passionately. 
 
 The Christian Church was only too ready to adopt 
 the evil practice. The early Christians themselves 
 suffered greatly, and when they in their turn came 
 into power, they developed into mighty persecutors 
 themselves. Even before the decline of the Roman 
 
RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE 23 
 
 Empire Jews were described as an inferior and con- 
 temptible people (inferiores, quasi infames) and Judaism 
 as a dangerous and superstitious religion (secta nefarta, 
 superstitio). In the Middle Ages to plunder and kill 
 Jews was held to be a Christian duty, and the monks 
 were not slow to preach it. An incident of the year 
 1386 in Germany is typical. A party of Jews returning 
 from a meeting were plundered by noblemen, although 
 they were in possession of a safe-conduct. A knight 
 reproved for this breach of faith, defended himself 
 by saying that if the enemy of his earthly master 
 were his, how much more the enemy of his heavenly 
 Master ! 
 
 In recent years economic causes have been sug- 
 gested as reasons for anti-Jewish excesses. A close 
 examination, however, of the economic causes will 
 show that they are greatly exaggerated. But even 
 if some Jews may have been guilty of malpractices, 
 that need not have generated hatred of all Jews. 
 Religious intolerance, however, would account for 
 ill-will against Jews asa whole. Giveadoga bad name 
 and he has no chance. Religious intolerance through- 
 out history made the Jews unpopular, and, once being 
 unpopular, every crime, every economic evil, every 
 passing trouble, was laid to their door. In the Middle 
 Ages they were accused of poisoning wells and killing 
 children ; in modern times they are accused of foment- 
 ing revolution and treasonably selling their country. 
 The medizval accusations have as much foundation 
 in reality as those of modern times. But both are 
 secondary. The primary evil has its root in religious 
 intolerance. 
 
 If this is so, the future is not without hope. The 
 world no longer burns witches nor persecutes heretics. 
 
24 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 The very terms ‘‘ witch” and “heretic ” no longer 
 
 describe realities, particularly in Protestant countries. 
 To this extent there has been a diminution of religious 
 intolerance. But much remains to be done, since 
 not all countries are Protestant. Christians are still 
 intolerant of each other. In the fourth century of 
 the common era, a venerable bishop declared that 
 “the enmity of the Christians towards each other 
 surpasses the fury of savage beasts against man.” ‘That 
 enmity still continues, but its violence has become 
 assuaged. ‘The horizon is not without hope; men 
 are learning more and more to look in their neighbour 
 for character and not for dogma. In the process 
 of time, when religious intolerance has ceased to 
 trouble humanity, Jewish suffering will come to an 
 end. But not till then. 
 
 There is, however, a danger for the Jew in the 
 sunshine of tolerance. The blood of the martyrs 
 is the seed of the Church, and the sufferings of the 
 Jews may explain their survival. When Jews were 
 afflicted, their personality, put to the test, asserted 
 itself. ‘The fittest survived, and suffering produced 
 the fittest. But, under prosperity, the Jews, being 
 only human, tend to merge their personality in their 
 environment. Persecute the Jews and they survive; 
 give them complete religious liberty and they assimi- 
 late. The problem is thus not easy of solution. 
 Religious intolerance is a hateful thing, and the world 
 is best rid of it. The disappearance of religious 
 intolerance would put an end to the sufferings of the 
 Jews. But it is conceivable that if those sufferings 
 come to an end, the Jew might end likewise. Here 
 is one of the puzzles of Jewish history. 
 
JEWISH HEROISM 
 
 N anti-Semitic circles it is often said that Jews 
 | cannot be brave. Renan denied bravery to all 
 Semitic peoples, alleging that Semites do not 
 make good soldiers because they cannot submit to 
 discipline. In particular, Renan held the view that 
 the military virtues could never be found among Jews, 
 who, as a nation, are not soldiers, but traffickers. 
 
 General statements of this character about any 
 people are, on the face of them, unsound. Mi£litary 
 virtues, whatever they may be, are hardly to be 
 ascribed to a people as a whole. The most that one 
 can say is that such virtues are to be found in indi- 
 viduals. Only in the sense that a people possesses 
 a very large number of brave individuals can it be 
 said of it that it is a military race. Nor should 
 it be forgotten that the military virtues are 
 not necessarily the noblest. Moreover, the virtues 
 which are most prominent in military enterprises 
 may also be demonstrated in perfectly peaceful 
 vocations. 
 
 Be that as it may, it is probably true to assert that, 
 in regard to military virtues, Jews are pretty much 
 like other people. Their records are not devoid of 
 heroic deeds and even of marvellous achievements on 
 what, in the eighteenth century, was called the ‘* Field 
 of Glory.” One need only turn to the Books of Judges 
 or of Kings, one need only read the story of the Jewish 
 
 a5 
 
26 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 people in the age of David, or in the period of the 
 first monarchy, to realise that heroism and bravery 
 were not wanting in the little country which often 
 had to defend its independence against powerful 
 neighbours. It has been asserted that Ulfilas, the 
 first translator of the Bible into Gothic, omitted to 
 translate the Books of Kings lest the military prowess 
 of the Goths should be whipped into still greater 
 enthusiasm by stories of the military achievements 
 of ancient Israel. 
 
 There is no need to dwell on the heroism of the 
 Maccabees, who have become Saints in the Calendar 
 of the Church. Their military achievements in the 
 face of overwhelming odds betokened bravery of the 
 very first order, and their conduct may be said to 
 surpass that of the Greeks at Thermopyle, wonderful 
 as that was. The military qualities which the Jews 
 of this period manifested were demonstrated once 
 again in their unequal struggle against Rome. Their 
 heroism, which marked women as well as men, moved 
 Tacitus to favourable comment. Because of their 
 bravery Jews were in demand as soldiers in Egypt 
 and in Rome. It appears that a Jewish military 
 colony was settled in Jeb, in Egypt. Two of the 
 famous generals of King Ptolemy Philometer were 
 Jews ; and it is now known that Jewish soldiers were 
 to be found in Cesar’s armies, and that Cesar thought 
 highly of their military virtues. 
 
 The story is continued in the Middle Ages. It is 
 recorded that when Belisarius, the Captain General 
 of the Emperor Justinian, invaded Italy and reduced 
 Naples, in the year §37, the Jewish citizens joined in 
 the opposition to the Byzantine onslaught. Procopius, 
 the historian of the Gothic wars, relates that the 
 
JEWISH HEROISM 27 
 
 Byzantine troops avoided those portions of the city 
 walls which were defended by the Jews, whose bravery 
 was exceedingly great. It was the same in other 
 countries. In Arabia, Mohamet found it no easy 
 task to subdue the Jews. So fierce was their opposi- 
 tion that Mohamet was brought to the necessity of 
 composing a special prayer to God to help him against 
 the Jews. Jews fought in the armies of Poland in the 
 seventeenth century. It appears from a Responsum 
 of Rabbi Joel Sirkes that in 1614 several Jews fought 
 against the Russians, some of them in the cavalry. 
 The military history of Poland counts among the 
 heroes of that country Berko Gosselovitz, whose 
 prowess, bravery, and courage moved his countrymen 
 to pay him homage. During the Thirty Years War 
 the Jews of Prague so defended their city that the 
 Emperor Ferdinand III presented them with a 
 special flag in recognition and gratitude. Once more, 
 when the Turks invaded Corfu the Jews showed 
 special bravery in repulsing their attacks. The bravery 
 of the Jews in the defence of Warsaw in 1794 is com- 
 mented upon by the Polish historian of the time. 
 At the battle of Luetzen, in 1813, a Jew of Prussia, 
 Meyer Hilsbach by name, distinguished himself in 
 a marked fashion. Though he was three times 
 wounded, he continued fighting until he received 
 a mortal thrust. 
 
 These illustrations might easily be multiplied. In 
 the Russo-Japanese War Jewish soldiers won the love 
 of their comrades and the praise of their officers. 
 In the Franco-German War, in the South African 
 War, Jews demonstrated that courage and bravery 
 were still alive among them, and as for the achieve- 
 ments of Jews in the Great War, is not their record, 
 
28 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 so far as this country is concerned, to be found in 
 the splendid pages of the Rev. Michael Adler’s 
 compilation ? 
 
 There is no need to exaggerate the importance of 
 military virtues. They are valued because they are 
 evidence of endurance and courage. History shows 
 that Jews were gifted with these virtues. But the 
 virtues may be manifested also in peaceful enter- 
 prises; and it is recorded that Jews showed great 
 bravery in navigation. Jayme, King of Mallorca, 
 testified that Yuceff Faquin, a Jew of Barcelona, 
 “had navigated the then known world.” It is also 
 said that in 1521, Jewish pirates roamed the Mediter- 
 ranean. If, however, further evidence were required, 
 it might be found in the fact that some of the royal 
 lion tamers in Spain were Jews. 
 
 These qualities have not died out in the Jewish 
 people. They are best seen to-day in Palestine in 
 the case of the Chaluzim [Pioneers]. Here we have 
 a body of young men and women enduring hardships 
 and manifesting bravery in a cause which cannot but 
 move the admiration of all right-minded people. 
 Those who have come in contact with them report 
 that they are exceedingly fine types physically. A 
 very large number of them had devoted their lives 
 hitherto to studious pursuits, and the hardships they 
 endure must be doubly hard for them to bear. Yet 
 they persist in a marvellous fashion, determined 
 literally to build up Palestine with their own hands. 
 Bravery and endurance are here splendidly exemplified, 
 and the Chaluzim are unquestionably the most hopeful 
 figures on the horizon in Palestine. 
 
 In the main it is probably true to say that Jews 
 attach no special importance to military virtues. 
 
JEWISH HEROISM 29 
 
 They realise that courage and bravery and heroism 
 may be demonstrated in ordinary life to as great a 
 degree as on the field of battle. But to deny Jews 
 the so-called military virtues is to preach falsehood. 
 Jews not brave? Why, the whole of Jewish history 
 is the story of one long hardship patiently endured. 
 Is there anything on earth that can compare to it ? 
 Tribe of the wandering foot and weary breast, the 
 Jews show extreme bravery and courage in bearing 
 their lot and yet managing to be optimistic all the 
 time. Such bravery is rare indeed in the annals of 
 mankind. Moreover, these qualities are to be found 
 among the common people of the race, among men 
 and women who are just ordinary mortals. After 
 all, let it not be forgotten that the admonition “ to 
 be strong and of good courage” is of Jewish origin. 
 
LIBERTY OF THOUGHT 
 
 T is one of the glories of the Jewish people that 
 it has always encouraged thought. ‘‘ And thou 
 shalt know this day and lay it to thine heart”: 
 
 that is a reminder found frequently in the pages of 
 the Bible. Even the Shema has been interpreted 
 in this way. ‘The Rabbis taught that the admonition 
 to Israel to hear that “‘’The Lord our God the Lord 
 is one,” meant to comprehend. When the prophet 
 depicted the Messianic Age, his climax was that 
 “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the 
 Lord as the waters cover the sea.” 
 
 Judaism does not demand blind faith. As Moses 
 Mendelssohn pointed out in his Ferusalem, there is 
 no command in the Bible ‘‘ Thou shalt believe,” but 
 only ‘Thou shalt do,” or “Thou shalt not do.” 
 Mendelssohn therefore points out that the foundation 
 of Judaism is rooted in reason and understanding. 
 He was but following along the lines laid down by 
 Maimonides, who declares that the fundamental 
 teaching of the Jewish religion is to know there is 
 one God. 
 
 Freedom of thought and freedom of speech appear 
 to have been precious possessions of the Jewish people 
 from the oldest times. When Eldad and Medad 
 prophesied in the camp and Moses was asked to 
 restrain them, his reply is the very essence of freedom 
 of thought: ‘‘ Would that all the people of the Lord 
 
 30 
 
LIBERTY OF THOUGHT 31 
 
 were prophets.” ‘The existence of prophecy showed 
 how deeply rooted was the principle of free speech 
 and free thought among Jews. Had there been no 
 freedom of thought and freedom of speech, the 
 prophets, as we know them in the pages of the Bible, 
 would have been inconceivable. Beside the true 
 prophets, there were also the false prophets, and if 
 further proof were required for freedom of speech, 
 surely the toleration of the false prophets furnishes 
 it in abundance. In Talmudic times the traditional 
 freedom of speech was continued and firmly estab- 
 lished. It is reported that when the members of 
 the Sanhedrin were about to give a decision, the 
 tule was that the youngest spoke first, so that they 
 might not be influenced by the opinion of their 
 older and more experienced colleagues. 
 
 Unanimity of thought was never demanded. Is 
 not the problem of the Dissenting Authority one of 
 the most interesting chapters in Jewish Law? A 
 member of the Beth Din who was in the minority 
 was not prevented from propagating his views, so long 
 as he did not stir up the people to act against the 
 decision of the majority. It stands to reason that 
 there must be some authority in every social group, 
 and experience has shown that the views of the 
 majority are a rough and ready standard for everyday 
 life. It was a standard adopted in the Jewish State. 
 But that did not imply the silencing of those who 
 differed from the majority. These might expound 
 their views and give reasons for their opinions. Can 
 liberty of thought go higher ? Can any finer doctrine 
 be propounded than the dictum which said : “‘ These 
 forbid and these allow, yet both are the words of the 
 living God” ? There is a pretty simile in a passage 
 
22 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 in the Talmud which declares that as a hammer 
 breaks rocks in pieces, so it 1s possible to expound one 
 and the same verse of the Bible in many ways. ‘The 
 existence of freedom of thought among Jews may 
 explain why there were so many parties among 
 them—Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Karaites, Chas- 
 sidim, Mitnaggedim. 
 
 Even the Talmud contains specific instances of 
 opinions which prove conclusively that great latitude 
 was allowed to all those who used their brains. In 
 regard to the Revelation on Sinai, Rabbi José, who 
 lived in the third century, went so far as to say that 
 God never came down to earth, and Moses (and Elijah) 
 never went up to heaven. ‘This sounds astounding. 
 It may be capped by an equally astounding opinion 
 that the Patriarch Abraham observed all the ‘[orah. 
 In reference to the Sabbath there was the opinion 
 that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man 
 for the Sabbath. Nowhere do we find punishment 
 for denying the existence of God or of Revelation. 
 
 If Judaism, like some other religious systems, had 
 held the mind in check and provided for its adherents 
 ready-made beliefs, the world might have been the 
 poorer for not having had a Maimonides. The case 
 of Spinoza is exceptional. ‘There is room in Judaism 
 for a Spinoza. But when the political circumstances 
 in which the Jews of his age and his country found 
 themselves are considered, one can understand the 
 conduct of those who put Spinoza in ban. To under- 
 stand all is to forgive all. Nevertheless, the action 
 of the Amsterdam Rabbis must be condemned as 
 wholly against the Jewish spirit. The ban was the 
 product not of the best, but of the worst in Jewish 
 development. In the golden centuries of the Middle 
 
LIBERTY OF THOUGHT 33 
 
 Ages, liberty of thought and liberty of speech among 
 Jews flourished unchecked. Even Maimonides was 
 opposed by other thinkers. The history of the 
 opposition to the works of the great Jewish philosopher, 
 bitter though the struggle was, bears witness to the 
 existence of freedom of thought among the Jews of 
 the time. The thirteen Articles of Belief are not 
 the only attempt at a summary of Judaism. ‘There 
 were others, as, for instance, Joseph Albo’s or Chasdai 
 ibn Crescas’s ; and who shall say that they were less 
 perfect than those of Maimonides? But for liberty 
 of thought and liberty of speech Jewish literature 
 might never have had the writings of Abraham ibn 
 Ezra, who in one place boldly declares that the 
 command, “And thou shalt write them for a sign 
 upon thine hand,” like that other, “‘ And thou shalt 
 write them on the tablets of thine heart,” is not to 
 be taken literally, but only symbolically! Such 
 liberty of speech has not undermined Judaism, but its 
 existence shows that the history of liberty of thought 
 among Jews is a continuous record from the earliest 
 times to the golden age in Spain. 
 
 Has it continued since then? When one considers 
 Jewish movements in the last four centuries it seems 
 clear that Jews never cast away this precious possession. 
 During the darkest ages of Jewish history—the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries—the trend of de- 
 velopment may possibly for the time have tended 
 to produce stereotyped opinions and beliefs. ‘The 
 Shulchan <Aruch possibly tended to congeal Jewish 
 thought. But in the era of emancipation the Shul- 
 chan Aruch has not been able to maintain its entire 
 supremacy. It has been criticised and questioned ; 
 rabbis who wrote commentaries upon it did not 
 
 c 
 
34. JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 hesitate to say that in places it was wrong. ‘There can 
 be no doubt that its convenience as a handbook has 
 made it popular. ‘The mass of people are always glad 
 to take the line of least resistance, and for many minds 
 the Shulchan Aruch is a most useful standby. ‘There 
 is no need to think: you just follow a rule. Perhaps 
 for the masses that is an excellent course. But for 
 those who do think and cannot help thinking, Judaism 
 lays no prohibition on research and inquiry. Differ- 
 ences of opinion always existed. Rabbenu ‘lam, for 
 instance, held that the main morning prayer, the 
 Tephillah, was ordained by Rabbinic authority; but 
 Maimonides thought that it was a command of the 
 Torah itself. Who shall say that the one was not as 
 great a teacher or thinker as the other ? The founders 
 of the scientific study of Jewish history and Jewish 
 literature, by reviving once more the spirit of liberty 
 of thought, research, and speech, have done Judaism 
 as great a service as by their contribution to explain 
 its growth and development. ‘“‘ More light!” 1s said 
 to have been Goethe’s last words on his death-bed. 
 Judaism has nothing to fear from more light. It may 
 be said that Jews are in duty bound to ask the reason 
 why. ‘To do justly is undoubtedly a fine ideal; it 
 is enhanced when the doer also knows the reason for 
 his conduct. 
 
 In modern times there is a tendency in some 
 quarters to speak and act as though there were only 
 one conception of Judaism. So long as private 
 judgment is allowed—and Judaism certainly com- 
 mends it as a duty—so long will there be discrepancy 
 of opinion. It is not only in religion that discrepancy 
 is found. Wherever men think for themselves there 
 are bound to be differences. All judges will not 
 
LIBERTY OF THOUGHT 35 
 
 give the same verdict on one set of evidence, and no 
 legislature will pass a measure absolutely unanimously. 
 The constitution of the human mind is such that 
 men differ in their views of ethics, politics, and 
 religion. Judaism is strong enough and broad enough 
 to tolerate all results of free inquiry, if only the spirit 
 in which they are carried out is honest, and the aim 
 in view the furtherance of the Jewish conception of 
 holiness, justice, and goodness. ‘“‘ Some may forbid 
 and some allow; yet both are the words of the 
 
 living God.” 
 
POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM 
 
 T has been admitted by even the worst enemies 
 | of the Jews that the Jewish standard of citizenship 
 is high. ‘Iwo thousand five hundred years ago 
 the prophet Jeremiah set the tone in this respect in 
 his letter to the Jewish captives in Babylon. ‘‘ Build 
 ye houses,”’ he advised them, “‘ and plant gardens, and 
 eat the fruit of them; take ye wives and beget sons 
 and daughters. ...;and seek the peace of the” city 
 whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, 
 and pray to the Lord for it, for in the peace thereof 
 shall ye have peace.” 
 
 Judaism as such has no particular teaching in 
 favour either of monarchies or of republics; in the 
 Bible story both kinds of rule are met with. Moses, 
 Joshua, and the Judges may surely be regarded as 
 heads of a republican form of government, while 
 David, Solomon, and their successors were kings. 
 But most certainly Judaism teaches that whatever 
 the established authority in a State may be, that 
 authority must be respected. Even the Syrian, 
 Persian, and Roman tyrants received recognition in 
 the Second Temple, where daily sacrifices were 
 offered for their welfare. If there is a prejudice 
 at all in Jewish literature it must be in favour of a 
 limited monarchy. A king “ by the grace of God” 
 is a conception alien to Jewish thought. When 
 
 Charles the Great made himself king of the Franks by 
 36 
 
POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM 37 
 
 the “ grace of God,” the underlying idea in his mind 
 must have been that he was a sort of High Priest of 
 the Lord, or the Lord’s anointed, set up above his 
 fellow-creatures. There is nothing Biblical in this 
 idea, and it certainly is not Jewish. For in the Jewish 
 view the king was simply the first citizen. The Bible 
 distinctly states that ‘‘ his heart shall not be lifted 
 up above his brethren.” ‘This doctrine has nothing 
 in common with the Byzantine view of monarchy, 
 whether in the time of Louis XIV or of William II. 
 The old Oriental conception of the monarchy, where 
 the monarch was looked upon even as a god and wor- 
 shipped, lay at the bottom of the Byzantine theory, 
 and it is hardly necessary to say that Jews could not 
 possibly accept a view of this kind. 
 
 On the whole, one gets the impression that the 
 Jewish view of kingship, as set forth in the book of 
 Deuteronomy and in 1 Samuel, was not exactly 
 favourable to the institution. If the people desired 
 a king, they might have one; but the narrative leaves 
 no doubt that kingship is hardly an ideal. The 
 institution was hedged about. The king was to be 
 ‘“‘ one from among thy brethren,” and not a foreigner ; 
 “¢ he shall not multiply horses, neither shall he multiply 
 wives, neither shall he greatly multiply to himself 
 silver and gold.’ His main business was to be the 
 study of the Torah, which was to be his guiding 
 star in all his actions. Samuel’s description of the 
 monarch was even more strongly adverse. ‘The 
 prophet warned the people that the king would take 
 their sons to be horsemen, and their daughters to be 
 cooks ; he would take their fields and their vine-yards 
 and their olive-yards, “‘ even the best of them,” and he 
 would take a tenth of their flocks. Yet, despite this 
 
38 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 attitude, Jewish teaching leaves no doubt that the 
 king was to be respected. ‘‘ Do not curse the ruler . 
 of the people,” is a distinct ordinance. ‘“ Fear the 
 Lord and the king,” is the advice of the Wise Man 
 in the Book of Proverbs, while the Preacher in 
 Ecclesiastes urges that the king should not be cursed, 
 ** even in thy heart.” 
 
 The Rabbis continued this tradition, and insisted 
 on loyalty to established authority. Anyone who 
 rebels against the authority of the State, the Talmud 
 declares, is worthy of death, and the case of Amasa 
 is quoted as a Biblical example. The reason of the 
 Rabbis appeared to be an eminently sensible one; 
 it may be found in the view of Rabbi Chaninah, the 
 Vice High Priest, who said, “ Pray for the welfare of 
 the Government, since but for the fear thereof, men 
 would swallow each other alive.” Another Rabbi 
 carried this idea even further. ‘‘Just as the greater 
 fishes,” he said, “‘ eat up the smaller ones, so would 
 men do, were it not for established authority.” These 
 simple pictures contain a good deal of sound political 
 wisdom, for is not the main purpose of government the 
 maintenance of order within and without the State? 
 Samuel of Nehardea (165-257 a.p.) laid down the 
 principle that for the Jews the law of the State was the 
 recognised law. He, too, said that the Government 
 could always be absolutely relied on to carry out its 
 promises, even to the extent of removing mountains. 
 Since the monarch represents the State, it followed 
 that the person of the monarch should be respected. 
 It is an old Jewish custom to offer a special blessing 
 on seeing a king—‘“‘ Blessed art thou, O Lord our 
 God, King of the Universe, who hast given of thy 
 glory to flesh and blood.” The Rabbis also taught 
 
POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM 39 
 
 that the representative of the king must be honoured 
 as the king himself, that earthly authority was the 
 counterpart of heavenly authority, and that that 
 authority should always be feared. It is only in accord 
 with this attitude that the Talmud strictly condemns 
 any non-payment of legal taxes. 
 
 It would be natural to believe that with such a view 
 of political authority, Jews would be welcomed by all 
 rulers with open arms. ‘The contrary has for the 
 most part been the case during the last two thousand 
 years. Doubtless, religious and other prejudices will 
 account for the persecution of the Jews in earlier 
 ages, and for their expulsion from countries where 
 they have been resident for generations. But what 
 of to-day? Is it not the height of political short- 
 sightedness to exclude from political life so valuable 
 an element in the population as the Jews? Yet that 
 is what was done in Russia and Rumania not so long 
 ago; that is what is being done in Hungary to-day. 
 It seems common sense that those who govern a State 
 should welcome good elements, those which make 
 for the consolidation of the State. It is no large 
 claim but only the result of experience to say that 
 the Jews are among the best of such elements. ‘The 
 Jews desire authority to be established on a fair and 
 just basis, so that all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, 
 may go about their work in peace, may live their lives 
 as they will, dreaming dreams or building more 
 material structures. It is no reply to point to a 
 Trotsky. He is only the exception that proves the 
 tule. The great mass of Jews have no sympathy with 
 the methods popularly associated with the name of 
 Trotsky. Deplorable also is the stiff-necked per- 
 
 sistence of the opinions of some people in Europe 
 
4o JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 to-day that the Jew should not be allowed to partici- 
 patein government. Little do these myopic publicists 
 realise what a keen politician the average Jew is. He 
 takes an intelligent interest in questions affecting the 
 State, and it might perhaps serve as a precious lesson 
 to some anti-Semites to visit a Chevra [small Ghetto 
 Synagogue] on Saturday afternoon. The Sabbath 
 day is drawing to a close; and while waiting for the 
 arrival of night, the congregants, plain, simple folk, 
 debate the great issues of State, whether in home or 
 foreign affairs, with intelligence above the average. 
 Wise governors would be glad at heart to see such 
 political knowledge and keenness 1n the work of Govern- 
 ment. ‘These amateur politicians are by no means 
 uncritical; to hear their judgments on prominent 
 leaders of the country would convince any man that 
 there is no such thing as a “‘ Jewish vote.” You will 
 not find unanimity among these Ghetto political 
 philosophers. They have strong views on all the 
 questions and on all the men of the time, and they 
 do not hesitate to express them in the polling 
 booth. 
 
 This living interest in politics is but an expression 
 of the Jews’ desire to serve the State. Many in this 
 country are anxious to serve on the Borough Councils ; 
 and will any one who has worked with Jews on a 
 Borough Council not declare most heartily that they 
 are splendid members? Make inquiries in Stepney, 
 in Salford, or in Birmingham ; go even to the City of 
 London, go to the London County Council, and you 
 shall hear the same tale. ‘The story extends to the 
 United States, where Jews have risen to be mayors 
 of cities and governors of States; and to Germany, 
 the capital of which is a standing illustration not only 
 
POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM 41 
 
 of the aptitude but also of the seriousness, the capa- 
 bility, and the success of Jews in local government. 
 In central government there is naturally less scope, 
 
 but where Jews have participated their record is 
 excellent. 
 
IS THERE A JEWISH CHURCH ? 
 
 NE often comes across Jews who speak “of 
 Judaism as though it were an organised religion, 
 as though there existed a Jewish Church. In 
 
 their desire to make plain to their fellow citizens that 
 they are thoroughly good Englishmen, they are at 
 pains to show that they differ from other Englishmen 
 only in their faith. Just as some Englishmen belong 
 to the Anglican Church, and others to the Roman 
 Catholic Church, so the Jews belong to the Jewish 
 Church. These Jews are inclined to regard the 
 Chief Rabbi as a sort of Archbishop, and the ordinary 
 minister as being something of a Jewish clergyman. 
 
 This desire to appear thoroughly English is in- 
 telligible. English citizens who are Jews are as good 
 subjects of His Majesty the King as those who are 
 non-Jews. ‘Their standard of citizenship is high, and 
 the quality of their citizenship is splendid. Even 
 Lord Sydenham, despite the numerous bees in his 
 bonnet, must admit this. But to insist on Jewish 
 citizenship by reference to the existence of a Jewish 
 Church is a grave error. There has never been a 
 Jewish Church; the conception is alien to Jewish 
 history. 
 
 The idea probably first arose early in the nine- 
 teenth century, when many Jews imagined that 
 Napoleon’s Sanhedrin would bring about the Millen- 
 nium. ‘The consistorial organisation of the French 
 
 42 
 
IS THERE A JEWISH CHURCH? 43 
 
 Jews which came into being on March 3, 1808, and 
 exists down to this very day, was an attempt to set 
 up a Jewish Church. There were Consistories all 
 over the country, and a Central Consistory in Paris. 
 Israel Jacobson, one of the earliest German Reformers, 
 even suggested to the Sanhedrin a world-wide Jewish 
 Consistory, and when he obtained his opportunity 
 he established a Jewish Consistory in Westphalia. 
 It was the duty of the French Consistories, which 
 were composed of a “‘ Grand Rabbin,” two ordinary 
 Rabbis and three laymen, to see to it that no Rabbi 
 taught anything contrary to the resolutions of the 
 Sanhedrin, to maintain order in the synagogues, 
 and to direct Jews into industrial occupations. Here 
 was all the machinery of a Church, with its Head and 
 its Councils. Jacobson in Cassel was quite logical 
 when he actually borrowed from the Church forms 
 and ceremonies, such as the singing of hymns, and 
 the public declaration of faith at Confirmation. 
 But all this was alien to the spirit of Judaism. Perhaps 
 the present low state of French Jewry may be due 
 to its consistorial organisation. 
 
 Judaism may be called ‘ unorthodox.” In its 
 narrower connotation, orthodoxy usually means “‘ My 
 doxy ”; in its wider aspect the term orthodox 
 may be applied to any system which is rounded off 
 and complete. Bear in mind that the people in our 
 midst who are sometimes spoken of as Orthodox 
 describe themselves as Traditional or Observant Jews. 
 Perhaps they feel that Orthodox is the wrong term. 
 However that may be, Judaism is not a systemised 
 religion. It has no definite dogmas, no Articles to 
 which it is necessary to subscribe in order to be re- 
 
 garded as a Jew. The Bible is not systemised. ‘The 
 
44. JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Talmud is anything but finished, either in form or in 
 substance. There is always room for the question- 
 mark. ‘The opinion of one man is weighed up against 
 the opinion of another. ‘There is no pundit who 
 lays down the law. There is no ‘‘ Head of the 
 Church ” who has power to loose and to bind. It 1s 
 the same in later Jewish literature. Perhaps that is 
 why in Jewish literature there are so many com- 
 mentaries and super-commentaries. For every man 
 is encouraged to form his own opinion. Jews realise 
 that there can be no finality in knowledge, nor 
 a definite answer to every question. There are 
 always new points of view, seeing that Life shapes 
 thought and constantly presents new _ problems. 
 The orthodox-minded person likes to have final 
 answers to his difficulties. He is pleased with catch- 
 words, texts, formule, and articles of faith. But the 
 unorthodox is conscious of the fact that he must be 
 for ever searching ; his mind must be alert ; he must 
 gird himself afresh for new intellectual efforts. He 
 realises that intellectual mobility spells life, while 
 intellectual placidity is mere stagnation. ‘‘ Know 
 therefore this day, and lay it to thine heart that the 
 Lord he is God.”? That is the Jewish view. Other 
 religions tend to bring the mind of their adherents 
 into a state of acquiescence; they furnish a sort of 
 religious dope. ‘The faithful are urged to sign articles, 
 and to believe if they would be saved. Judaism, on 
 the other hand, asks its devotees to think for them- 
 selves; it stresses not faith but action. In this 
 sense, Jews have been the most unorthodox people in 
 history. They have been the great Nonconformists. 
 They have been different from the crowd. ‘They 
 have been the minority. Perhaps that will account 
 
IS THERE A JEWISH CHURCH? 45 
 
 to some extent for their unpopularity. ‘The crowd 
 inclines to take it for granted that if you are in the 
 minority you are wrong. In reality the precise 
 opposite is probably true, as witness the cases of 
 Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and a hundred others of 
 the world’s thinkers who were in the minority in 
 their day. 
 
 Judaism thus lays stress on the duty of thinking 
 and learning. It teaches that Truth must be con- 
 stantly sought after, and that no mortal man has 
 yet seen God face to face. ‘There is therefore no 
 Jewish Church and there are no Jewish sacraments. 
 Observe that where a Church is organised, it is the 
 Church that believes; the individual loses himself 
 in his communion. He may not comprehend the 
 doctrines of his Church; he may not live in accord- 
 ance with its teaching. All that is of no consequence, 
 for he finds comfort in the thought that his Church 
 believes. In Judaism it is of supreme importance 
 that the individual himself lives and believes. His 
 house is his temple and he himself is the priest. It is 
 impossible for him to take up the comfortable attitude 
 of saying that his Church teaches certain doctrines 
 and that that, whether he understands or not, suffices. 
 He cannot even say that he is a Jew with his father’s 
 heart. 
 
 An organised Church must of necessity claim the 
 monopoly of religious truth. Consequently it must 
 be hostile to other organised Churches who, of course, 
 likewise claim this monopoly. ‘The existence of 
 organised Churches is therefore responsible for the 
 existence of that most hateful of things—intolerance. 
 Judaism, because it has not been organised into a 
 Church, can afford to be tolerant ; Judaism recognises 
 
46 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 goodness wherever it may be found; and Jews do 
 not pray that ‘‘ unbelievers”? may obtain salvation. 
 Goodness of life is the only meteyard known to 
 Judaism. 
 
 Far from being an organised Church, Judaism is 
 really an outlook on life. Often enough organised 
 Churches are things set apart for one day in the week ; 
 Judaism is for every moment of life. Judaism allows 
 liberty of opinion. Within Judaism there 1s room 
 for diversity of thought. Judaism imposes no fetters 
 on conscience. It realises that life 1s not uniform, 
 and therefore opinions cannot be uniform. But 
 opinions do not really matter. What matters is how 
 life is shaped. Conduct, not belief, is the Jewish 
 watchword. 
 
 Throughout the centuries of the Diaspora every 
 Jewish congregation has been looked upon as a unit, 
 entitled to its own customs and practices. That 
 congregational independence is a precious inheritance 
 to be guarded, both against ecclesiastically minded 
 Rabbis and against those laymen who are attracted 
 by the glamour of a Church. Judaism has no priests 
 and is free from priestcraft. A Jewish clergyman 
 is a contradiction of terms. ‘The Rabbi of a com- 
 munity is a layman like the rest, save only that he 
 is the depository of Jewish learning, by virtue of which 
 he can lead the congregations in the way of tradition. 
 He may be compared to a learned counsel with an 
 extensive chamber practice. His opinions may be 
 challenged by a man of greater knowledge and more 
 abundant learning. But he is no priest, possesses no 
 mysterious powers, and has no privileged religious 
 position. 
 
 In these days it 1s necessary to lay stress on these 
 
IS THERE A JEWISH CHURCH? 47 
 
 points—necessary for ourselves and necessary for the 
 world. For ourselves, that we should know that 
 there is no Jewish Church; for the world, that it 
 should be realised that Judaism is an outlook on life, 
 a spiritual philosophy of living, satisfying the longings 
 of the soul and shaping life to a higher mould—the 
 life of the individual to goodness and peace, and the 
 life of the community to be in accord with those 
 principles of righteousness and justice which Judaism 
 itself has bestowed on mankind. 
 
“ HALLOWING GOD’S NAME” 
 
 6 
 
 UMAN character evermore publishes itself. 
 The most fugitive deed and word, the mere 
 way of doing a thing, the intimated pur- 
 
 pose, Yexpresses. character.” If) this “$tatementaar 
 
 Emerson be true of individuals, it must be equally 
 
 true of groups. Some such idea was in my mind as 
 
 I recalled the fact that love was the mainspring of 
 
 action among the divinities of the Greeks and Romans, 
 
 and gold among those of Northern Europe. In the 
 mythology of the one love leads to the gross enjoy- 
 ments of life and to the cult of beauty; in the 
 mythology of the other greed of gold leads to conflict 
 and struggle, and ultimately to the Twilight of the 
 
 Gods, a theme immortalised by Wagner’s music. 
 
 How different is the God of the Hebrews as depicted 
 in the ancient records! From the first He stands 
 for righteousness and holiness. ‘* Ye shall be holy, 
 for I, the Lord your God, am Holy!” 
 
 Love, Gold, Holiness: the contrast is worth 
 pondering, the more so as the ideal of hallowing 
 God’s name is a characteristic of Jewish teaching from 
 the oldest times down to the present day. Jews 
 may be scattered in different lands; they may prac- 
 tise local customs. But wherever they may be or 
 whatever their genealogy, they are all united in 
 their devotion to the principle of sanctifying God’s 
 name. 
 
 48 
 
‘“ HALLOWING GOD’S NAME” 49 
 
 Hallowing God’s name—can any motive power 
 for human conduct be nobler? Its simplest form 
 may be a neighbourly act; its highest, martyrdom. 
 The Torah stresses its significance, and the tale is 
 taken up by the Prophets and Rabbis. Ezekiel in 
 particular urged the duty of sanctifying God’s name. 
 So ingrained was the principle among the Jews that 
 the early Hebrew Christians preached it to the heathen 
 converts, urging them to be seemly in their conduct 
 so that the Gentiles seeing their good works would 
 glorify God. It is only fair to add that Thomas 
 Aquinas (1229-1274), perhaps the greatest of the 
 medizval schoolmen, likewise laid stress on hallowing 
 God’s name. He held that it is a duty to treat with 
 decency those who do not belong to the Church, lest 
 God’s name be desecrated. If only the Church had 
 followed this advice, its record might be pleasanter 
 reading. 
 
 In Talmud times the practice of the strictest 
 honesty in the everyday affairs of life was bound up 
 with the sanctification of God’s name. It is related, 
 for example, of Simon ben Shetach that having 
 purchased an ass from a non-Jew, he found on the 
 animal’s neck a precious stone, which he promptly 
 returned to the former owner. ‘I bought the ass, 
 but not the stone,”” he remarked, to the astonishment 
 of the non-Jew, who exclaimed, “‘ Blessed be the God 
 of Simon ben Shetach!” 
 
 Hallowing God’s name is somehow bred in the 
 bone. Jewish history is full of records of unselfish 
 actions done only for the glory of God. In 1816 
 there was a famine in Austria, and the Emperor 
 Francis I looked in vain to the great capitalists of 
 
 Vienna for means to alleviate the sufferings of the 
 D 
 
50 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 poor. Nothing daunted, he turned to a rich Jewish 
 trader. ‘“‘ How much does the Emperor require?” 
 the Jew asked. He was informed that thirty thousand 
 gulden would suffice. ‘‘’They are at His Majesty’s 
 disposal,” came the reply. ‘‘ What pledge will it 
 be necessary to offer?” the Jew was asked. ‘* No 
 pledge at all!’’ was his answer. ‘“* And what is to be 
 the rate of interest?’ was the final query. “ Since 
 the Emperor needs the money for relieving distress, 
 he may have the loan without any interest.” ‘The 
 loan was repaid nine months later, and when the 
 Emperor expressed the desire of rewarding the Jew 
 by raising him to the nobility, the lender asked to be 
 excused. ‘The incident is typical, and it by no means 
 stands alone. Only the other day I came across 
 another story in a local chronicle of a district in Saxony, 
 written by the rector of the parish. In 1720 there 
 was a shortage of food in Hohnstein, and the cost 
 of living went up inordinately. ‘‘ During this time 
 of stress and hardship,” writes the clerical historian, 
 ‘¢an action occurred which deserves to be recorded.” 
 He goes on to relate that a Jew provided cheap corn 
 for the poor, and concludes simply: ‘‘ What an 
 example to the Christian corn dealers ! ” 
 
 The story requires no comment, and is wholly in 
 accord with the Jewish practice of charity. I believe 
 people have noted (to quote another small illustration), 
 that although numerically the Jews are probably the 
 smallest religious community in London, their total 
 contribution to the Metropolitan Hospital Sunday 
 Fund stands fairly high on the list. ‘The explanation 
 will be found in the principle of hallowing God’s 
 name, which actuates the Jew in all his public activities. 
 In a world of realism, the Jew is the idealist. 
 
“ HALLOWING GOD’S NAME ” 51 
 
 If “to hallow God’s name” be a principle held 
 in the highest esteem by the Jew, its opposite, the 
 profanation of God’s name, is regarded as a serious 
 offence. There are Jewish theologians who teach 
 that repentance may atone for a breach of religious 
 laws, but the one wrong for which there is no atone- 
 ment is the profanation of God’s name. In this 
 connection Jews have always had a high standard. 
 A scholar addicted to overmuch eating and drinking 
 was condemned as being guilty of profaning God’s 
 name. Rab, who lived in Babylon in the third 
 century, was so scrupulous in this matter that he held 
 it to be a profanation of God’s name to purchase 
 anything and not pay for it on the spot. He even 
 went so far as to say that it were preferable for a 
 man to worship idols rather than profane God’s name 
 in public. 
 
 Later Jewish literature carried on the tradition 
 of the excellence of sanctifying God’s name and the 
 heinousness of profaning it. In particular, all writers 
 on morality, without exception, call on the Jew to 
 be fair and just and upright in his dealings with 
 Gentiles, not only because right is right, but also 
 because by practising right conduct God’s name will 
 be sanctified. ‘To this end, the Rabbis taught, the 
 Torah was given to mankind. 
 
 Both in the sphere of morality and of business, 
 Jewish teachers have insisted on the hallowing of 
 God’s name as a guiding principle of conduct. The 
 following extract from a decision of Rabbi Benjamin 
 ben Mattathias, printed in Venice in 1539, may be 
 taken as typical. ‘The Rabbi was asked to express his 
 opinion on a case: A Jew sent his servant to receive 
 payment from a Gentile, and the latter paid too 
 
52 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 much. What should be done? The Rabbi was 
 specific in his reply. “In order to sanctify God’s 
 name,” he declared, “the sum paid over and above 
 what was due should be returned to the Gentile. 
 Let not the remnant of Israel do injustice, or speak 
 lies. Did not our Father Jacob command his sons 
 to return the money found in their sacks when they 
 came back from buying corn in Egypt? A Jew 
 should bear in mind that it is his duty always to 
 sanctify God’s name, and therefore it is wrong to 
 deal falsely with any man, whatever his creed. Only 
 recently,’ continued Rabbi Benjamin, “‘I sold wares to 
 a Christian, and I found that he overpaid me. I made 
 it my business to discover the man, and after many 
 days and much seeking, I found him and returned 
 to him the sum he had paid too much.” 
 
 It is meet to put these ideals on record. ‘They 
 have lost none of their binding force on Jews. If 
 there are Jews to-day who, in the general moral up- 
 heaval occasioned by the war, have fallen short of 
 the old Jewish practice, let it be clearly understood 
 that they are the exception, and not the rule. Their 
 conduct is deplorable. ‘They cast discredit on the 
 whole of Jewry. ‘They desecrate God’s name. The 
 Jewish attitude on the matter is clear and unmis- 
 takable. If there are Jews who are guilty of fraudu- 
 lent conduct in business, they are acting wholly against 
 Jewish teaching. ‘That non-Jews are also guilty in 
 this matter is no excuse for Jews. Certain it is that 
 all Jews who appreciate the splendid moral teaching 
 of Judaism in regard to hallowing God’s name will 
 condemn the commercial immorality of those Jews 
 who are concerned in fraudulent bankruptcies. If 
 such Jews exist, let them ponder on the words of the 
 
“ HALLOWING GOD’S NAME” 53 
 
 prophet Jeremiah: ‘ As the partridge that gathereth 
 young which she hath not brought forth, so is he that 
 getteth riches and not by right ; in the midst of his 
 days they shall leave him, and at his end he shall be 
 a fool.” ‘That is Jewish sentiment. 
 
JEWISH EDUCATIONAL IDEALS 
 
 T would appear that from the very oldest times 
 Jews have highly valued education. ‘There is 
 hardly any need to recall the injunction, ‘‘ And 
 
 thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children.” 
 Children, remarks an ancient commentator, means 
 scholars, and it was only in accord with this view 
 that the dictum became current: ‘‘ Happy is the 
 man who has many pupils, since they will plead 
 for him before the Most High.” In early days 
 fathers taught their own children; it was not 
 until later, probably about 130 B.c., that schools 
 were provided by the communities in each locality 
 in Palestine. ‘These must have been very numerous ; 
 it is recorded, for instance, that in Jerusalem, at the 
 time of the destruction of the Temple, there were 
 480 synagogues, each of which had a school attached 
 to it. Of Bether we are told that it possessed 400 
 synagogues, each with 400 teachers and 400 children. 
 There is no need to regard these figures with the same 
 confidence as a modern census return, but as a symptom 
 they are eloquent. Private schools were allowed to 
 be established side by side with the publicly provided 
 schools, and indeed direct encouragement was given 
 for as many of these schools as possible to be set 
 up, since “ the rivalry of teachers increases wisdom.” 
 Besides, one teacher was allowed no more than twenty- 
 five pupils in a class. 
 54 
 
JEWISH EDUCATIONAL IDEALS 55 
 
 The teacher’s was a holy occupation. God is 
 made to say: “ Just as I gave you the Torah gratis, 
 so must you pass it on without asking payment for 
 doing so.” On this principle higher Jewish teaching 
 was always imparted freely and without fee. But 
 the case of the elementary school teacher was different 
 in that he depended for his livelihood on the school. 
 A way out had to be found. While the principle 
 of free teaching was adhered to, it was argued that 
 the teacher of children had the trouble of teaching 
 his charges the mechanical work of reading; or that 
 the teacher looked after the children while they were 
 at school; or, again, that the teacher must be paid 
 for loss of time. But Rabbinic literature has records 
 of elementary school teachers who, far from receiving 
 payment for their work, spent their wealth on their 
 little charges, feeding and clothing them out of their 
 own means. Education was looked upon not as a 
 luxury for the rich but as a necessity for all classes. 
 
 How was schooling carried on? ‘The belief pre- 
 vailed that intensive study was the ideal to be aimed 
 at. Accordingly there should be as few interruptions 
 as possible ; and one Rabbi gave it as his opinion that 
 school children should not be disturbed at their work 
 even though it were a question of building the Temple. 
 Another went so far as to allege that Jerusalem was 
 fated to destruction only because the school children 
 were hampered in their studies. Since concentration 
 was so important, holidays were few. On Sabbaths 
 and Holy Days and on certain Fast Days there 
 was no school. Concentration was also advocated 
 in regard to learning. Better to know a little 
 thoroughly than to have a superficial knowledge in 
 many directions. If you have garnered much, you 
 
56 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 have really garnered nothing, it was said. Or to put 
 it differently—a bird in hand is worth two hundred 
 in the air. But the teacher was not left without 
 direction as to concentration. Repetition is the 
 mother of knowledge. ‘‘ Whoso learns the Torah 
 without repetition is like one who sows but does not 
 reap.” Another piece of advice is to study not only 
 with the eyes, but with the eyes and the mouth. The 
 Talmud relates that the nations of the world once 
 came to ask counsel of a non-Jewish philosopher. 
 What should they do, they said, in order to overcome 
 Israel? The wise man urged them to observe how 
 Jewish children were taught. As long as the voices 
 of little children were heard in the schools, so long 
 would Israel be invulnerable. 
 
 Those who are acquainted with old-fashioned 
 methods will know that the principle of reading 
 texts aloud still prevails, and there is much to be said 
 for it, particularly for the sing-song recitation in 
 which)jthe ‘Talmud is ““studied.*\” Themethed 
 became more than mere study; it developed into a 
 kind of mystic rite, wherein the sense and the mind 
 lost themselves in intellectual fervour. It produced 
 depth and made for ineradicable knowledge. A man 
 who learns in this fashion hardly ever forgets. 
 
 Since education was highly valued among Jews, 
 the teacher’s calling was honoured. Even if you 
 learn but one word from another, you are to regard 
 him as your teacher and show him respect. ‘ He 
 who learns from his fellow a single chapter, a single 
 law, a single verse, or even a single letter, ought to 
 pay him honour.” Sometimes a teacher was placed 
 above a father in this matter, since a father brings a 
 man into the world, whereas a teacher, by imparting 
 
JEWISH EDUCATIONAL IDEALS 57 
 
 wisdom to him, brings him into the world to come. 
 This doctrine received a practical interpretation in 
 that it was laid down as a rule of conduct that if ever 
 there was a case of relieving a father and a teacher 
 of a burden each was carrying, the teacher’s burden 
 should be removed first. 
 
 But the teacher also had duties towards his pupils. 
 Above all, he was to be patient. “Only when a 
 teacher is like an angel from heaven will the Torah 
 be sought from his mouth.” Again and again the 
 Rabbis declared that a hasty man would never be 
 a teacher. ‘Ihe teacher should never tire of repeating 
 his lessons—twice, four times, a hundred times, if 
 need be; he should be patient in answering questions, 
 and should carefully prepare himself before meeting 
 his class. 
 
 In ‘Talmud times the Bible only was studied in 
 the elementary schools, and the children were also 
 taught to write. Great stress was laid on learning 
 passages by heart, and so successful must the practice 
 have been that St. Jerome, one of the Church Fathers, 
 expressed his admiration of the ability of Jews to 
 recite by heart, backwards as well as forward, the 
 long list of names in the Book of Chronicles. But 
 teaching was by no means mechanical. ‘There was 
 a good deal of questioning, more especially by the 
 Socratic method. As a rule the pupil began learning 
 the Book of Leviticus. Probably the first children 
 to be taught were those of priestly families, and there- 
 fore the third Book of Moses was suitable. Later it 
 was continued for other children too, Yet there 
 was no hard and fast rule; as Rabbi Judah II once 
 remarked, let a man study any part of the Torah he 
 pleases. In any event, whatever the particular order 
 
58 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 in which the curriculum was studied, there is little 
 doubt that on the whole the training turned out 
 men of high ethical principles, who were acquainted 
 with the word of God and its interpretation. We 
 refer deliberately to men; it would appear that girls 
 did not receive so extensive an education as boys. 
 Indeed, one Rabbi argued that girls should not be 
 taught the Torah at all. Yet, on the other hand, the 
 Talmud speaks of more than one learned lady, while 
 another Rabbi declared that girls might be taught 
 Greek, seeing that it was an adornment. Possibly 
 Jewish girls in olden times received quite a fair educa- 
 tion, though not perhaps to the same extent as boys. 
 But that need not lessen one’s admiration of the 
 Jewish educational system in ancient days. Progress 
 means improvement, and there is no reason why 
 in our own times girls should not receive precisely 
 the same Jewish education as boys. ‘The ideal has 
 not changed with the ages; it is a marked character- 
 istic of Jewish life to hold on high the education of 
 children. Because Jewish parents care greatly for 
 education—it is an ancient tradition with them— 
 Jewish children do well at school. In the light of 
 this consideration, those countries which limit the 
 participation of Jews in education are acting not 
 only foolishly but cruelly. Be that as it may, as long 
 as Jewish education continues to be fostered, so long 
 will the Jews continue as a people. 
 
KINDNESS TO ANIMALS 
 
 T’ may perhaps be regarded as a sign of the times 
 that whereas there is an unduly large amount 
 of human suffering in the world, much of it the 
 
 result of hatred, no little energy should be spent in 
 the cause of animal welfare. Far be it from any Jew 
 to deplore any activities that may contribute to the 
 diminution of the pain endured by dumb creatures. 
 Jews welcome every cause that protects animals. 
 But do not human beings also deserve that protection ? 
 The agitation which is connected with the Animals’ 
 Defence League, admirable in every respect, ought 
 surely to have running parallel with it another for 
 the assistance and comfort of all those men, women, 
 and children, of whatever country or creed they may 
 be, who, throughout the length and breadth of 
 Europe, are subject to pain and distress—whether 
 they live in the Ruhr, or are helpless Jewish refugees 
 in Poland, or are starving Russian peasants, or are 
 homeless unemployed in our own land. 
 
 Equally significant is the fact that the agitation 
 to spread abroad the duty of kindness to animals 
 should be marred by a feeling of much unkindness 
 to human beings. Why cannot this movement, 
 actuated by high humanitarian motives, proceed 
 along its path without attacking the Jews, who were 
 and are the staunchest humanitarians of whom history 
 records ? ‘chose who have the cause of the animals 
 
 59 
 
60 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 so much at heart should find their readiest supporters 
 among Jews, whose attitude to animals has at all 
 times been marked by mercy and consideration. Are 
 they not weakening their position by their attack on 
 Shechita [the Jewish method of slaughtering animals 
 for food]? And if, as some allege, their main purpose 
 in this attack is to brand Jews as cruel, are they not 
 guilty of bearing false witness? ‘They would surely 
 be much better occupied in denouncing the cruelty 
 of hunting, which is still considered the sport of ladies 
 and gentlemen, in condemning pigeon shooting at 
 Monte Carlo, or in appealing to all women to wear 
 no more osprey feathers in their bonnets. ‘These 
 are real cases of cruelty; to attack Shechita is to set 
 up an imaginary evil and tilt at that. 
 
 A passage in Lecky’s “ History of European Morals ”’ 
 bears on the question. Lecky declares that con- 
 sideration for dumb creatures is one form of humanity 
 (Lecky says it is the one form—but let that pass) 
 ‘“‘ which appears more prominently in the Old ‘Testa- 
 ment than the New.”? ‘The Rabbis, Lecky proceeds, 
 “have been remarkable for the great emphasis with 
 which they inculcated the duty of kindness to animals.” 
 It is, indeed, one of the glories of the Jewish religion 
 that from its earliest history down to this very day 
 its devotees have been taught to practise kindly 
 treatment of the brute creation. ‘The Jew was for- 
 bidden to muzzle an ox while the animal was treading 
 the corn, kill the mother and her young on one day, 
 take away from her nest the dam and her little ones, 
 or seethe a kid in its mother’s milk. On the Jewish 
 Sabbath the ox and the ass were to rest no less than 
 their master, and it was a direct injunction to the 
 Jew not to hire out his animals for work on the Sabbath. 
 
KINDNESS TO ANIMALS 61 
 
 To ease an animal’s burden was a paramount duty, 
 whether the beast belonged to friend or foe. 
 
 These sentiments, which unprejudiced observers 
 have remarked, are unique in their character. One 
 writer has gone so far as to assert that the Biblical 
 laws of humanity in regard to animals make Israel a 
 great Animals’ Defence League! But the Bible does 
 not stand alone. Later Jewish literature carries the 
 tradition on through the ages. Who can recall with- 
 out deep emotion the concluding passage in the Book 
 of Jonah? ‘The prophet cared for the gourd; God 
 upbraids him: ‘‘Should not I have pity on Nineveh, 
 that great city; wherein are more than six thousand 
 persons . . . andalso much cattle?” <A truly Jewish 
 sentiment! God is Father of all, of man no less than 
 of beast ; His mercy extends to all, even as the Jewish 
 Psalmist expresses it: ‘* [hou savest man and beast, 
 Oboxd.?? 
 
 As for Rabbinic writings, they abound in gracious- 
 ness to animals. The Jew is positively forbidden 
 to taste food himself before he has fed the dumb 
 creatures belonging to him. ‘The Jew 1s forbidden to 
 purchase any living creature unless he has made pro- 
 vision for its food. ‘The Jew may transgress a religious 
 prescription if it is necessary to come to the assist- 
 ance of an animal in pain or distress. In order to 
 stress its supreme importance, the Rabbis declared 
 that the duty of kindness to animals is in the Torah 
 itself. 
 
 Is it not monstrous to attempt to describe as cruel 
 a people with such sentiments ? Much consideration 
 and kindheartedness lay beneath these ordinances, 
 as Lecky points out in a passage which, in view of 
 the anti-Jewish bias evidenced among those who are 
 
62 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 engaged in the agitation to protect animals, should 
 not be left unmentioned: “The many beautiful 
 traces of it [humanity] in the former [the Old Testa- 
 ment] that indicate a sentiment, even where they 
 do not strictly define a duty, gave way before an 
 ardent philanthropy which regarded human interests 
 as the one end, and the relations of man to his Creator 
 as the one question, of life, and dismissed somewhat 
 contemptuously, as an idle sentimentalism, notions 
 of duty to animals. ‘Thus, St. Paul turned aside the 
 precept: ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the 
 ox that treadeth out the corn,’ from its natural mean- 
 ing, with the contemptuous question: ‘ Doth God 
 take care for oxen?’ ” 
 
 Unfortunately, cruelty cannot be dissociated from 
 Christian Europe during the whole of its history. 
 Christians were cruel to each other; they were cruel 
 to those who did not profess their faith. And if 
 human beings were cruelly treated, is it likely that 
 animals fared better? ‘The point needs no elabora- 
 tion. We know that there was once a sweet St. 
 Francis of Assisi. ‘There were probably others like 
 him. But they were exceptional. The rule appears 
 to have been laid down by one Catholic authority, 
 who stated that if it is to the advantage of the spiritual 
 welfare of man, cruelty to animals is not only justi- 
 fiable but a duty! It is recorded of Pope Pius IX. 
 (1846-1878) that he prohibited the foundation in 
 Rome of a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
 Animals on the ground that it is a theological error 
 to imagine that man has any duty whatever toward 
 dumb creatures. 
 
 Jews have little interest in the Christian aspect of 
 this matter. But when their attitude to animals is 
 
KINDNESS TO ANIMALS 63 
 
 questioned, when the Jewish method of slaughter, 
 which is the most humane in existence, is attacked, 
 when, further, the attempt is made, by implication 
 if not expressly, to charge Jews with cruelty, then it 
 is only just to point to the record of civilised Europe 
 during the last nineteen hundred years. If those 
 who are attacking Shechita in the interests of kindness 
 to animals were really honest, they would first turn 
 their attention to hunting and the slaughter of birds 
 for the adornment of women, which they would 
 condemn in burning words. Do they do so? Have 
 they introduced a Bill into Parliament to make hunting 
 illegal? Once again it would seem to be the old 
 story: Lut nichts. Der fude wird verbrannt. 
 
 The anti-Shechita agitation is unjust in the extreme 
 to Jews. Here, at any rate, is a matter on which 
 Jewish teaching is a model to the whole world. Far 
 from attacking Jews or Jewish methods, those who are 
 striving to educate public opinion on this question 
 might well study what Jewish literature has to say 
 upon it. They might even do worse than scatter 
 abroad this teaching as one means of propaganda. 
 
ADVICE ON BUSINESS 
 
 HREE of us were sitting over tea one afternoon, 
 
 my old friend the Vicar, a City merchant whom 
 
 the Vicar had brought with him, and myself. 
 The talk wandered pleasantly from one theme to 
 another until somehow it touched the question of the 
 influence of religion on business. The City man 
 suggested that on the whole religion to-day could 
 hardly be said to be a force in commercial transactions. 
 There were, of course, certain elementary principles 
 which most people accepted, as, for instance, that 
 stealing was wrong; but when it came to taking 
 advantage, the majority of folk did not stay to weigh 
 up the rights and wrongs of the situation. 
 
 The Vicar interposed that this was an old problem. 
 A third-century Roman lawyer wrote: ‘In buying 
 and selling, a man has a natural right to purchase for 
 a small price that which is really more valuable, and 
 to sell at a high price that which 1s less valuable, and 
 each may seek to overreach the other.” It is true 
 that some of the medieval Church Fathers protested 
 against this doctrine; in practice, however, it was 
 met with every day. 
 
 The Vicar turned to me and inquired whether 
 Judaism offered any guidance on this question. I was 
 glad of his query, for it gave me an opportunity of 
 showing him an old note-book I had come across 
 that very morning, in which many years ago I had 
 
 64 
 
ADVICE ON BUSINESS 65 
 
 jotted down a number of passages from Rabbinic 
 literature bearing on commercial intercourse. 
 
 As usual, the Vicar was mightily interested, and 
 listened closely as I read: 
 
 ‘There are seven kinds of thieves; the first on the 
 list is he who practises deception on his fellow man. 
 To lead a man astray by means of words is much worse 
 than to overreach a man in money matters; in the 
 one case a man’s person is affected, in the other only 
 his property ; the latter may be made good, but the 
 former is irrevocable. It may be assumed of a man 
 who deceives his fellow, that if he had the chance he 
 would deceive God Almighty Himself. God hates 
 him who says one thing and means another. Inregard 
 to deception, the wrong is the same, whether a Jew 
 or a non-Jew be deceived.” 
 
 I explained that these were passages chosen at 
 random and joined together. The Vicar’s friend 
 remarked that they bore testimony to a rather high 
 standard of commercial morality. 
 
 On my asking whether they would care to hear any 
 more, both eagerly replied in the affirmative. I 
 therefore continued : 
 
 ‘To carry on business alone is preferable to having 
 a partner, for a pot owned by partners is neither hot 
 nor cold. Only if you have no means to engage in 
 enterprise by yourself and to be your own master, 
 join another who can show successful results and 
 participate in his gains and losses. A man who 
 engages in business only to share the profits and 
 not the losses also may properly be called a wicked 
 fellow; his activities are not far removed from 
 usurious practice. Do not put your capital into one 
 concern, for if that fails, you run the risk of becoming 
 
 E 
 
66 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 a pauper. A good plan is to invest a third of your 
 fortune in grain, a third in olives, and a third in grapes. 
 In any event, do not put your eggs into one basket.” 
 
 The City merchant declared that for his part he 
 considered this sound advice. It was a combination 
 of high idealism with practical common sense. He 
 confessed that he had not realised that the writings 
 of Jews dealt with matters of business. He had 
 always thought that Jewish literature was concerned 
 only with religion. 
 
 I explained that his impression was correct ; only 
 that for Jews religion included the whole of life, and 
 as all human activities came within its purview, Judaism 
 offered guidance also on economic. affairs. Perhaps 
 he did not know, for instance, that to capital and 
 interest the Fathers of the Synagogue have devoted 
 much thought. I proceeded to read from my note- 
 book passages dealing with this theme, and I observed 
 that the City merchant was particularly attentive. 
 
 TWAS usurer is) no better, than ja) murderer ga gage 
 therefore only right that a man should have nothing to 
 do with usury business, for not only is a usurer looked 
 upon as though he had committed all the evils under 
 the sun, but those who aid him—the intermediary, 
 the notary, the witnesses, are all as bad. A usurer 
 will never find blessings in his enterprises, and this 
 holds good whether he take usury of Jew or non-Jew. 
 Better for a man who possesses ten pieces of silver to 
 engage in trade and earn a precarious livelihood, than 
 to enrich himself by usury.” 
 
 The Vicar’s friend admitted that he was impressed 
 by these dicta. He wished that they might be spread 
 broadcast in the market-places of the world. I in- 
 formed him that what I had read out did not exhaust 
 
ADVICE ON BUSINESS 67 
 
 the subject, and he expressed a wish to hear more. 
 I therefore proceeded : 
 
 ‘“‘ If you are a shopkeeper, you must know that the 
 punishment for having false weights and measures 
 exceeds that for any other crime. Do not make 
 weights and measures out of such materials as wear 
 away, for you run the risk—unwittingly it may be—of 
 cheating your customers. In no circumstances have 
 false weights and measures in the house, for possibly 
 you may make a mistake, and use them in the shop. 
 Do not put your weights into salt, lest they become 
 heavier. A man who makes a ‘corner’ in foodstuffs 
 is guilty of a serious offence. Always bear in mind that 
 it is a social crime to deceive any man in business, 
 whether Jew or non-Jew. If one so deceives a non- 
 Jew, be sure that the gains he thereby obtains will not 
 long remain in his possession. ‘They will bring no 
 blessing. At all times a shopkeeper is in duty bound 
 to tell his customers if his goods have a flaw in them. 
 And why? One of the pillars on which business 
 rests is confidence—the confidence of the buyer in 
 the seller, and of the seller in the buyer. Destroy 
 business trust, and you destroy the city and its 
 inhabitants. Jerusalem itself was destroyed because 
 honourable business men ceased in her midst. When 
 after death a man appears before the Divine Judge, 
 the first question he is asked is: ‘ Were you honest in 
 business ?? A man who carries on business honestly 
 is as though he had fulfilled all the precepts in the 
 Torah. A verbal promise should be observed as 
 punctiliously as one recorded in a written document. 
 A man who breaks his word is as one who worships 
 idols. Even if the decision to sell to a certain in- 
 dividual at a certain price has not yet been formulated 
 
68 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 in words, even if the pronouncement has not yet 
 been made by your lips—as soon as the decision has 
 been taken in your heart you are bound by it; it is 
 as good as your word.” 
 
 The Vicar spoke first, expressing his pleasure at 
 hearing such fine sentiments. His friend added that 
 now he began to understand why people in the city 
 like to do business with Jews. Of course, there were 
 undesirable tradesmen among Jews as among other 
 groups of citizens. But on the whole a Jew can be 
 trusted in business. It is a point of honour with 
 him to keep his word and to meet his liabilities. How 
 many Jews there are who, beginning in a very small 
 way, have, by their honesty and integrity, built up 
 exceedingly profitable businesses! In business honesty 
 is the best policy; and the honesty of Jews will be 
 testified to by many Gentiles. It is because he is 
 honest that the Jew is successful in business. 
 
 I must confess that I was greatly pleased to hear 
 words of such import from the lips of a non-Jew. 
 I explained to my two companions that, after all, it 
 was only natural to find business morality highly 
 developed among Jews. ‘The laws relating to business 
 which are set forth in the Pentateuch are such as to 
 win the highest commendation from all men. These 
 laws were extended and amplified, explained and 
 annotated, in the same spirit as the original, for more 
 than two thousand years. Is it remarkable in these 
 circumstances that Jews should be, 1 would go so far 
 as to say, constitutionally honest in business? Ad- 
 mittedly the Jew has a quick brain; and the merest 
 tyro knows that brain power counts in business. 
 But his very gift of intellectuality must tell the Jew 
 that in business honesty is the best policy. Only 
 
ADVICE ON BUSINESS 69 
 
 a fool is a knave in business, and a Jew is seldom a 
 fool. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact that during the Middle Ages 
 in England, when the lending of money was the only 
 calling open to Jews, the common people preferred 
 to deal with a Jew rather than with a Lombard. ‘The 
 Lombard was a harsh creditor; the Jew had a soft 
 spot in his heart for a man in distress. ‘This fact is 
 capable of psychological explanation. Search the vast 
 field of Jewish literature, and you will find that the 
 prophet of ancient times, the law-codifier of medizval 
 days, and the exponents of Jewish teaching in our 
 own, be their country what it may, held aloft the 
 banner of straight dealing. It was a Jewish thinker 
 who said that a good name is better than precious 
 ointment. Jewish traders through the ages have been 
 circumspect to keep their names unspotted. After 
 all, why was it that in the pre-capitalist epoch in 
 Europe, princes and noblemen appointed Jews to 
 manage their finances? Yes, they may have been 
 clever, but cleverness alone was not sufficient as a 
 recommendation. I suggest that the princes and 
 nobles knew from experience that Jews were honest. 
 The history of the house of Rothschild is typical of 
 
 all Jewish enterprises. 
 
BEHIND THE VEIL 
 
 VER since the world began, men and women 
 have wanted to look behind the veil. What is 
 God? What is man? Is there any direct 
 contact between the two? What is the human soul ? 
 What is its destiny when its corporeal mantle decays ? 
 What is the nature of life after death? What is the 
 physical universe? How was it made? ‘These and 
 a hundred similar questions have occupied men’s 
 minds in almost every generation, and doubtless folk- 
 lore, fairy tales, and mythology were invented to 
 provide answers. All peoples must have had this 
 peculiar inquisitiveness. For mystics and ‘seekers ” 
 are met with in all countries from China to 
 Bern: 
 
 The Jews were no exception. Yet the Bible has 
 little in it of mysticism. Its messages are direct, 
 straightforward, and intelligible to everybody. It 
 has no closed secrets, specially committed to a sect 
 of priests, monks, or holy men. Its precepts are for 
 all; and perhaps this clearness is a source of its 
 strength. It was not until the time of the second 
 Temple that, through the influence of Greek thought, 
 Jews began to speculate about things behind the veil. 
 Two problems in particular interested men in those 
 early times, viz. the creation of the universe and the 
 nature of God. 
 
 In regard to the first, the question was: How was 
 
 7° 
 
BEHIND THE VEIL 71 
 
 the world created ? Was it created out of nothing, 
 or was there a kind of prime element? The Greeks 
 believed in the prime element of water, out of which 
 the world was made. Curious to relate, many Tal- 
 mudic Rabbis shared the view, and Ben Zoma is 
 particularly mentioned as being one of its protagonists. 
 But other prime elements were also suggested. Rabbi 
 José, for instance, taught that wind was the prime 
 element out of which the world was made; Bar 
 Kappara that it was darkness; and others, again, 
 that it was light. Yet, although these opinions en- 
 joyed wide popularity, the greatest teachers, as, for 
 instance, Rabbi Akiba, were opposed to the idea of 
 any prime element, and taught that God made the 
 world out of nothing—that He created it. This 
 ultimately became the accepted Jewish view down to 
 this day. 
 
 Yet many Jewish thinkers must have been attracted 
 by the Greek doctrine, and, accepting as they did 
 the orthodox Jewish view, they attempted to bring 
 the two into accord. So we find Rab and Rabbi 
 Judah responsible for the opinion that “ certain things 
 were created on the first day, viz. heaven, earth, 
 Tohu-va-vohu, light and darkness, wind, water, and 
 day and night.” Another teacher spoke of three 
 elements as having been created on the first day, viz. 
 water, spirit, and fire. From each of these three 
 emanated three other elements. Water produced 
 darkness, spirit produced wisdom, and fire produced 
 light. 
 
 Some minds must doubtless find satisfaction in 
 these contemplations of how the world was created. 
 There are many such minds in our midst to-day. 
 For some people, man, his life, and his destiny in this 
 
72 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 universe are sufficiently comprehensive problems to 
 fill up their lives; others, because man’s life tires 
 them, can find satisfaction only in things outside of 
 that life. ‘hey can generate enthusiasm, for instance, 
 about the first chapter in Ezekiel. The prophet’s 
 vision was the second great theme beloved of ancient 
 Jewish thinkers. ‘The matter was regarded as a most 
 important subject; it was a secret; it was not to 
 be taught except to selected persons whose holiness 
 of life made them proper depositories for this lore. 
 Indeed, there is a story told in the Talmud of one 
 who, attempting to discourse in public on the *‘ Divine 
 Chariot,” fell down dead before he could begin. 
 Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai was said to be specially 
 versed in this problem of the nature of God. ‘The 
 wheels, the chariot, the peculiar colouring, all were 
 ascribed meanings, and the four faces were likewise 
 explained. ‘The man—that was the king of creation ; 
 the lion, the king of beasts; the ox, the king of 
 domestic animals; and the eagle, the king of birds. 
 Out of the “ Divine Chariot ” the theory of angels 
 was evolved. ‘The angels had their leaders, each with 
 a particular duty. Gabriel was the explainer of 
 revelations, Michael Israel’s patron, Uriel the angel 
 of thunder, Raphael the angel of the human mind, 
 Reguel the angel of revenge, and Saraguel the angel 
 of evil. ‘These and others were the leaders of various 
 angel groups, such as Seraphim, Ophanim, and 
 Cherubim. Even the fall of the angels is also of 
 Jewish mystical origin, the story being based on the 
 reference to the sixth chapter of Genesis, which tells 
 of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters 
 of men. Some of the leaders of that revolt, who 
 revealed to man the secrets of magic and astrology, 
 
BEHIND THE VEIL 73 
 
 are still suffering punishment, a saga relating that they 
 lie buried under high mountains awaiting release 
 when the human race shall cease to be. 
 
 The nature of God was also a topic of great dis- 
 cussion, and whatever differences of opinion there 
 may have been, all of them seemed to agree that God 
 was regarded as being without beginning and without 
 end, or the beginning of all beginning, or the highest 
 force in the Universe. 
 
 These mystic speculations continued throughout the 
 centuries, and in the sixteenth more especially the 
 town of Safed in Palestine was a nest of mysticism. 
 Many well-known Rabbis there were devoted to 
 these speculations, including the author of the Shulchan 
 Aruch, and their leader was Isaac Luria, who was born 
 in Jerusalem in 1534 and died in 1572. Modern 
 mystics, those who are searching for the Beyond, 
 attempting to look behind the veil, ought to find much 
 help in the writings of this remarkable man, who, 
 amongst other things, taught the transmigration of 
 souls. Of this there were two possibilities. In the 
 one case, a soul took possession of a child at its birth ; 
 in the other, the soul of a dead person found lodgment 
 with the living, not at birth, but during later years. 
 This theme has been worked out in a rather remark- 
 able play by S. Anski, entitled “‘ The Dibbuk,” which 
 deals with the story of one possessed. ‘The play intro- 
 duces us to Chanan, the son of Nissen, who 1s a brilliant 
 young T'almudical scholar, and to Leah, the daughter 
 of the wealthy Sender Brinitzer. Nissen and Sender 
 had been friends in their youth, and had pledged 
 their troth that if their children were boy and girl 
 respectively, they should be affianced for life. But 
 Nissen died young and far from home. Yet when 
 
“4 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Chanan first came to the house of Sender, where he 
 fell in love with the beautiful Leah, the girl’s father 
 had a sort of presentiment that this was no other than 
 the son of his friend Nissen. But Chanan was poor, 
 and though Sender was conscious of his intellectual 
 gifts, his evil inclination triumphed over his good, and 
 he would not allow the young couple to marry. He 
 sought rich suitors for Leah’s hand, while Chanan, 
 devoting himself to the study of Kabbala, sold his soul 
 to the devil for the power of making gold. But he 
 was too late; a bridegroom was found for Leah, and 
 the wedding was announced. Chanan died of a broken 
 heart, and was buried in the local cemetery. When 
 Leah’s wedding day approached, she went to the 
 cemetery, as is the custom among Jews in Eastern 
 Europe, personally to invite her dead mother to her 
 wedding. But her love for Chanan still flickered, and 
 she invited his spirit, too, to be present. ‘The spirit 
 accepted the invitation, and entered into the girl, with 
 dire consequences. ‘The girl was as one possessed. 
 The evil spirit within her abused her father and her 
 bridegroom, and she found rest neither in the day- 
 time nor at night. Her father took her to the holy 
 Rabbi Asriel, who was learned in mystic rites, and was 
 reputed to be able to do wonders. He asked the 
 Rabbi to drive the evil spirit from the girl. That 
 night the evil spirit appeared to the Rabbi in a dream, 
 and asked that he should judge between him and 
 Sender. The Rabbi agreed, and sat in judgment in 
 a case where the living man and the spirit of the dead 
 faced each other. But it was of no avail. The mystic 
 pact of Nissen and Sender still retained its virtue, and 
 the girl continued to be possessed until she died 
 shortly after. ‘Then her spirit was united with that 
 
BEHIND THE VEIL =s 
 
 of her afhanced bridegroom, and the two found bliss 
 in the spirit world. 
 
 Anski in this drama has worked out a problem which 
 is based on the definite teaching of Luria. ‘The play 
 is of interest as reflecting beliefs current among the 
 Jews in Eastern Europe even at the present time. 
 But is it so certain that there are not many men and 
 women among us who, if they do not share these 
 beliefs, incline towards them? Before the war 
 spiritism was making but slow headway; during the 
 war many people, thinking to find salvation in spiritism, 
 have put their faith in these mystic speculations. 
 They are fortified by the support of one or two great 
 names, and possibly also by some satisfaction which 
 they delude themselves into finding. Yet who shall 
 speak harshly of them? Mystic searchings have been 
 a characteristic of men’s thoughts as far back as history 
 has records; why, then, should there not be mystic 
 searchings to-day, the more so as many men and 
 women have suffered great personal loss in the dis- 
 appearance of their nearest and dearest? ‘The war 
 has produced a state of feeling in the hearts of many 
 people which expresses itself in one great ‘‘ perhaps ”’ 
 moaned into the space between heaven and earth. 
 Yet there is this reflection, that Judaism as a religion 
 has sufficient strength to bring balm and comfort 
 to all who are in grief, appealing as it does both to the 
 mind and to the heart. If there are any who cannot 
 find comfort in Judaism, it is because they do not take 
 the trouble to delve deeply into Jewish teaching. In 
 any event, mystic searching, when it is overdone, can 
 become morbid and unhealthy. In so far as those 
 who want to penetrate behind the veil are able by 
 their mystic beliefs to raise their lives to a higher and 
 
76 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 holier plane, it is difficult to criticise them. Yet 
 perhaps they are the weaker brethren. Judaism has 
 certainly had its periods of mysticism and its pro- 
 fessors of mystic lore. But it would be right to say 
 that responsible teachers of all ages have warned men 
 off from busying themselves with these occult problems. 
 There must have been an abhorrence of them as early 
 as the time of the Mishnah, which declares that it 
 were better for that man never to have been born 
 who inquires into what is in heaven above, or in the 
 earth beneath, or what was ere yet the world began, 
 or what shall be when this life is ended. Judaism 
 teaches that the first duty of man is to make the world 
 a tolerable place to live in, and only when he has done 
 that will there be time to turn to the world beyond. 
 
THE COMFORT OF MANKIND 
 C)*vi evening recently three friends were sitting 
 
 with me in the garden watching the glories of a 
 
 perfect sunset. One was an old gentleman who 
 had spent all his leisure in cultivating the knowledge 
 of Judaism ; the second was a brilliant young scientist 
 who had combined the study of nature and the history 
 of man; and a respected Jewish minister was the 
 third. It was an inspiring sight to observe the sky 
 become suffused with golden light, and how, almost 
 imperceptibly, the dusk overspread the scene. The 
 spectacle must have touched some mysterious chord 
 within us, for presently we sat silent, gazing at the 
 divine splendour. 
 
 The minister was the first to speak. ‘‘ Visions like 
 these,” he said, ‘‘ somehow take us into another world. 
 The everyday vanishes ; I suppose one may say that 
 the soul is lifted up. We seem to have a premonition 
 of immortality. 
 
 “It zs touching,” the young scientist admitted. 
 ‘“‘ It has the same effect upon me as poetry, or music, 
 or some grand architectural or natural structure. 
 I know not what it is. Do any of us really know? 
 But I feel that there is a response deep down in my 
 consciousness. I am not sure that I should connect 
 it with immortality. After all, what is immortality? ” 
 
 The minister evinced more than ordinary interest 
 in this last question. ‘‘ Immortality, as you must 
 
 77 
 
78 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 surely know, is the belief in the Resurrection of the 
 Dead, for which Judaism most certainly stands. To 
 the Resurrection of the Dead there is a reference in 
 every Amidah: ‘ Yea, faithful art Thou to quicken the 
 dead. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickenest 
 the dead.’ Thus the Jew is reminded of this cardinal 
 principle three times a day.” 
 
 “For my part,” replied the young man, “I know 
 the words, but I cannot really understand their mean- 
 ing. I have often wondered whether Judaism actually 
 teaches this rather vague doctrine. But I suppose 
 there is no doubt that authoritative Jewish opinion 
 lends support to it.” 
 
 “Unquestionably,” broke in the eldest of the 
 group. ‘‘ Perhaps in Bible times there may not have 
 been precise and clear notions on this subject. But 
 if you read the Bible with care, you will find that the 
 idea is taken for granted. It is of little use attempting 
 to prove so big and important a theme by reference 
 to Bible verses. Proof by Biblical passages was a 
 medizval pastime and convinced nobody. For if you 
 succeeded in putting forward a large number of 
 verses In support of your view, your opponent might 
 well be in a position to quote an equally large number 
 against you. Yet, by way of illustration, a passage 
 or two from the Bible may not be out of place. ‘I 
 kill and I make alive,’ God is made to say in the noble 
 Song of Moses. ‘ Thy dead shall live,’ says Isaiah ; 
 while one of the most famous passages is in the Book 
 of Daniel: ‘ And many of them that sleep in the dust 
 of the earth shall awake.’ You will also recall the 
 saying of Koheleth’s: ‘And the dust shall return 
 to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto 
 God who gave it.’ Let me quote one more verse— 
 
THE COMFORT OF MANKIND 79 
 
 this time from the Psalms: ‘I shall see Thy face in 
 righteousness ; I shall be satisfied when I awake with 
 beholding Thy likeness.’ But as I have remarked, a 
 conception so profound cannot be inculcated by 
 verses. Certain it is that the belief was adopted by 
 Jews. It is enjoined in the Talmud; it was ex- 
 pressed by Maimonides in his thirteenth principle of 
 the Jewish faith: ‘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 
 be His memorial for ever and ever.’ If this belief 
 was held by the Jewish philosopher of the twelfth 
 century, 1t was similarly propounded by the Jewish 
 philosopher of the eighteenth century. Moses Men- 
 delssohn’s ‘ Phedon’ is a beautiful effort, worthy of 
 the grandeur of soul which its author undoubtedly 
 possessed.”’ 
 
 ‘“<T have read ‘ Phedon,’ as I have read other treatises 
 on the subject,’’ remarked the scientist. ‘“‘ They 
 leave me unconvinced. Some of them are certainly 
 magnificent expressions of hope and faith, but not 
 of realities. JI have been most touched by the pathos 
 of the argument that because there is and has been so 
 much suffering and misery and injustice on earth, 
 there must be compensation somewhere. Love, say 
 these writers, and not Chance, rules human destiny. 
 But does it? We prate of love, and here and there 
 we come across lovely characters and lovely conduct. 
 But is love really the predominant note in human 
 history ? The records of mankind tell quite another 
 story. Do those who are just and lovely and of good 
 report triumph, or do those who are strong of arm or 
 astute of brain? Is it not a question ultimately 
 
 of happiness? ‘the good, the true, and the kindly 
 
80 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 souled may not come to the fore; nay, they may 
 possibly be those who suffer—in Goethe’s phrase, 
 they are the anvils. But in all probability theirs is 
 far greater inward happiness than that of the mighty 
 whose lives fill the pages of history. After all, for 
 me life’s purpose may be expressed in the following 
 old French verses : 
 
 ‘* La vie est vaine: V ain, vain is Itfe : 
 Un peu d’amour, Of Love one ray, 
 Un peu de haine.. . A little strife, 
 Et puis—bonjour ! And then—good day ! 
 La vie est bréve: Brief ts Life’s flight : 
 Un peu d’espoir, Of hope one gleam, 
 Un peu de réve... A litile dream, 
 Et puis—bonsoir ! And then—good night !” 
 
 That ‘is ‘a’ gem,” ' said’ ‘the “minister, “airerse 
 moment’s silence. ‘‘ But the philosophy is only for 
 great minds, for the select few. For the mass of 
 people it would not serve. Ever since the world 
 began, human hearts have longed and hoped that 
 those who have been taken hence still live somewhere. 
 There never was a time when the doctrine of a future 
 life was not held. Perhaps—who knows ?—this may 
 be an instance of Vox populi, vox det. Possibly in 
 its origin the belief was a superstition based on fear. 
 But it has grown into a mighty faith which brings 
 comfort to millions. Did we not see it during the 
 war? ‘The hope of immortality was a blessed anchor- 
 age for many distressed souls. Call it weakness, if 
 you like, but it is human. For the masses this belief 
 is something very precious. So far as Judaism is 
 concerned, it leaves the conception of immortality 
 vague. It does not teach specifically that the indi- 
 vidual soul will continue to live, or that the soul 
 
THE COMFORT OF MANKIND 81 
 
 together with its body will carry on some form of 
 existence somehow, somewhere. Judaism merely ex- 
 presses the faith that there will be a Resurrection 
 of the Dead. I was astonished some little while 
 ago when, meeting a Jewish lady who had lost a 
 devoted husband, she told me that she was turning 
 for comfort to Christianity, because that religion 
 taught the doctrine of immortality, while Judaism 
 did not. I soon reassured her. She simply did not 
 know. If her ignorance is typical, it ought to be 
 dispelled.” 
 
 The scientist admitted the strength of the popular 
 belief. ‘“* But,” he added, “there have been phases 
 of Jewish teaching which did not accept immortality. 
 To the best of my recollection, Jesus ben Sirach does 
 not give the impression of being acquainted with the 
 doctrine. One passage comes to my mind: ‘ There 
 is no inquisition in the grave, whether thou have 
 lived ten, or an hundred, or a thousand years.’ ‘Then, 
 of course, there were the Sadducees, who rejected 
 belief in immortality. However, I admit that you 
 cannot prove much by these facts. In the long run, 
 it is a question of feeling. My own feeling is that 
 when death comes, it is the end. ‘There is nothing 
 beyond; human helplessness and disappointment 
 merely attempt to find an uncertain comfort in the 
 idea of a hereafter. But I maintain that I am none 
 the less a Jew in the religious sense, though I cannot 
 believe in the Resurrection of the Dead. Judaism 
 and its teachings are quite adequate for life. For the 
 individual and the community alike, Jewish teaching 
 is admirably suited to generate goodness, unselfishness, 
 a love of justice and the practice of truth. Sufficient 
 
 for me to live according to Judaism. I cannot think 
 F 
 
82 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 that my non-acceptance of the belief in Resurrection 
 makes me less Jewish.” 
 
 The old gentleman, who possessed a perfect faith 
 in immortality, and who even believed in the reality 
 of the mystic Leviathan meal of which the righteous 
 should partake, again took up the parable, though he 
 rather evaded the last question put by the scientist. 
 With his mystic bent, the old gentleman went on to 
 point to a fact that must strike many thinkers—that 
 the world is imperfect; that even the best of us fall 
 short of what we desire to be; and that somehow 
 we are always baulked of complete success. ‘There- 
 fore there must surely be opportunity to reach per- 
 fection, and since this cannot be in the life on earth, 
 another life must be vouchsafed to man. “Tf this is 
 so,” he went on, “does it not bring home to us that 
 here on earth the first aim of man is not to accumulate 
 wealth, but rather to care for his soul? And does 
 it not bring consolation to the poor and the oppressed 
 —that one day their sufferings will end and happiness 
 willcome tothem too? It isa magnificent doctrine.” 
 
 With all the sympathy in the world, the young 
 sclentist could not restrain himself. ‘‘ There I don’t 
 agree with you,” he said. ‘‘ For centuries the poor 
 and afflicted have been urged to bear their yoke, 
 often the result of social injustice and wickedness, 
 because one day they would be immortal, and joy 
 eternal would be theirs. I believe that one should 
 attempt to obtain for all men joy and happiness here 
 and now. After all,”’ he said with restrained passion, 
 “may not Omar Khayyam be right too? 
 
 *¢ ¢ Flow sweet is mortal sovranty ’—think some : 
 Others—‘ How blest the Paradise to come!’ 
 Ah! take the cash in hand and waive the rest ; 
 Oh! the brave music of a distant drum! ” 
 
THE COMFORT OF MANKIND 83 
 
 It was quite dark now, and we rose to enter the 
 house. I had listened with ever-growing interest 
 to the discussion, and I pondered the question of 
 the young scientist. I knew him to be as fine a type 
 of Jew as one might desire to see anywhere, and yet 
 he rejected the belief in immortality. Was he the 
 less a Jew for that ? For my own part, I could hardly 
 think so. After all, say what we will, we cannot 
 furnish a proof for immortality. It must be felt. 
 Here, if you like, is room for faith, and Wordsworth’s 
 Ode is perhaps the best that can be said of it in verse, 
 as Rabbi Jacob’s dictum the best that can be said of 
 it in prose. Rabbi Jacob said: “This world is like 
 a vestibule before the world to come; prepare thyself 
 in the vestibule, that thou mayest enter into the hall.” 
 
“ KOL NIDRE ” 
 
 [Kol Nidre 1s a formula publicly chanted in Syna- 
 gogues before the service on the eve of the Day of Atone- 
 ment. | 
 
 HO has not heard of Kol Nidre? Who has 
 not been moved by its haunting melody? 
 Jews whose interest in their faith is of the 
 slenderest would regard it as nothing short of a 
 calamity if they came too late to hear it recited. It 
 is generally regarded with awe. It impresses the least 
 impressionable of worshippers. Its tune has become 
 classical. ‘Ihe shrill crescendo near the beginning, the 
 staccato notes in the middle, and the cry of triumph 
 at the end—who that has heard them once can ever 
 forget their magic ed 
 Yet Kol Nidre is not a prayer. It isa ie state- 
 ment—a declaration—making void vows. ‘Though 
 it has had a place in the Atonement Liturgy for several 
 centuries, there was a time when it was unknown. 
 The Jewish colleges in Babylon were unacquainted 
 with it; in the ninth century Jewish authorities were 
 divided as to its adoption, Rabbi Paltoi Gaon being 
 in favour, and five other Geonim against. Rabbenu 
 Amram in his famous Siddur calls the recitation of 
 Kol Nidre a stupid custom. Rabbenu Tam, Rashi’s 
 grandson, who died in 1171, was somewhat puzzled 
 by the formula. He retained it, but altered part 
 of the wording. In his day the statement referred 
 84 
 
“ KOL NIDRE” 85 
 
 to the past year—from the last Day of Atonement 
 to this; Rabbenu Tam changed the reference to the 
 coming year—‘‘ from this Day of Atonement unto 
 the next Day of Atonement.” ‘There is thus a certain 
 anomaly in the statement as it stands at present. 
 The Reader, in the name of the congregation, says 
 in effect: we declare void all vows which we have 
 taken from this to next Day of Atonement. 
 
 Much might be adduced in support of the proposi- 
 tion to omit Kol Nidre from the Liturgy. But what- 
 ever the arguments that could be put forward, they 
 would be outweighed by two considerations. One 
 is the melody ; the other refers to the circumstances 
 in which the formula first came to be recited. 
 
 There is a magic in the melody which seizes on the 
 mind and often brings tears to the eyes. Let the 
 words be what they may, the music it is that matters. 
 It would be a sin against religious edification to abolish 
 the Kol Nidre melody, which has moved Jews in 
 synagogues and Gentiles in concert halls. ‘T'wo 
 thousand years of a people’s sufferings express them- 
 selves in those plaintive notes. 
 
 What is the origin of Kol Nidre? The best autho- 
 tities are agreed that it arose in Spain in the seventh 
 century. When the so-called Barbarian peoples set 
 up kingdoms on the old Roman Empire, for a 
 time they interfered little with the populations of 
 those kingdoms. ‘The break with this good-natured 
 policy came in Spain when the Visigoths became 
 Roman Catholics. King Reccared changed his faith 
 in the year 586, and a time of cruel oppression began 
 for his Jewish subjects. Anti-Jewish legislation on a 
 vast scale made its appearance in the Iberian Peninsula, 
 and among other things, Jews were forced to sign 
 
86 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 documents abjuring their faith. These documents 
 have now been published, and it is not difficult to 
 realise the mental suffering of the wretched victims. 
 The Church extracted a promise from them to sever 
 themselves from their religion. It was a promise 
 obtained by force and threats; what was its value? 
 But in the estimation of the Jew a promise is a 
 promise. The hearts of these Christianised Jews 
 yearned for religious intercourse with their brethren, 
 and a formula was evolved to lighten the burden of 
 their souls by absolving them of their promises to 
 Mother Church. The absolution was a solemn 
 ceremony. ‘The Ark was opened; the heads of the 
 congregation were the spokesmen of the community. 
 From God above and from His people below they 
 begged permission, in a formula which is still retained, to 
 pray with the renegades. What moral courage under- 
 lies the whole proceeding! How much heaviness of 
 heart, how much dread of persecution, how many tears, 
 how much woe must have been associated with it ! 
 
 In process of time this formula for a special occa- 
 sion developed intoa general absolution. Doubtless its 
 origin became wrapped in mystery; none the less 
 its religious appeal was strong. It was a cardinal 
 principle of Judaism, first enunciated in ancient days, 
 that the efficacy of the Day of Atonement alone 
 extended only to sins whereby man had transgressed 
 the laws of God. But as for wrongs between man and 
 man, the Day of Atonement has no power to bring 
 forgiveness or remission until the injured party has 
 been satisfied. 
 
 The underlying idea of Kol Nidre is thus plain. 
 In the haste and thoughtlessness of every day, the 
 Jew may perhaps take upon himself some religious 
 
 ot 
 
“KOL NIDRE” So 
 
 duty, or bind himself to abstain from certain pleasures. 
 So sacred is the Jew’s word in all matters, that a mere 
 hasty assertion came to be regarded as a vow. In 
 the Jewish view a vow is no light thing; a vow must 
 be scrupulously observed. But Jewish practice is 
 not unreasonable. It may be that after a man has 
 uttered a vow, he repents of his rashness. Should 
 not therefore some means be provided for him to 
 find peace for his soul? A court of three fellow 
 Jews, men of weight, dignity, and standing, having 
 heard the details of his vow, was given the right of 
 freeing him. A man who desired to be absolved 
 from his vow had the machinery to hand. But so 
 scrupulous is the Jew of his promises—far more 
 scrupulous than even the Quaker—that at least once 
 a year he provides for the wholesale absolution of 
 vows, conscious or unconscious. Nay, he goes further. 
 By means of Kol Nidre he nullifies possible vows in 
 advance, and begins the Day of Atonement with a 
 feeling of certainty that he has been released of the 
 binding power of any rash words he may utter in the 
 coming year. 
 
 Kol Nidre may be regarded as an eloquent testi- 
 mony of the sacredness with which the Jew regards 
 a promise. ‘* When a man voweth a vow, or sweareth 
 an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not 
 break his word, he shall do according to all that pro- 
 ceedeth out of his mouth.” ‘The reference is clearly 
 to a religious promise. But it is pretty certain that 
 a people that is so particular in regard to religious 
 matters will not be less particular in secular promises. 
 Yet there have not been wanting Jew-haters who, 
 in very wickedness, have accused the Jews of reciting 
 Kol Nidre in order to free themselves from promises 
 
88 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 of all kinds made to Gentiles. Anti-Semites of the 
 type of Eisenmenger were at least honest. Eisen- 
 menger would not be led astray by an apostate Jew 
 whose information he characterised as lies. The 
 Jew-hater went very carefully into the accusation 
 that Kol Nidre is a Jewish device to be rid of promises 
 made to Gentiles, and he roundly declared his con- 
 viction that the remission of vows refers to religious 
 vows of a strictly personal character. Anti-Semites 
 might find food for reflection in an illuminating 
 passage in the T'almud in reference to King Zedekiah. 
 That monarch made certain promises to Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. But in due course he obtained absolution 
 from them. ‘The absolution, the Talmud declares, 
 was illegal and useless because the Jewish king had 
 not first obtained the consent of the other party 
 to the promises, 12.¢., of Nebuchadnezzar. King 
 Zedekiah, continues the Talmud, thus broke his 
 oath, and albeit he had tried to obtain its nullification, 
 great evils came upon him. 
 
 Such is the Jewish view. What is the Christian 
 view ? Medizval canon law specifically declares that 
 an oath which is to the detriment of the Church is 
 not binding. Priests and monks were allowed to 
 swear falsely before civil judges and tax collectors, 
 and others were expressly allowed by the laws of the 
 Church to swear falsely for them. In the year 1575 
 a dignitary of the Catholic Church wrote: “ For the 
 punishment and hatred of a heretic must be reckoned 
 that no believer should keep his word to him.” 
 
 It was in this spirit that men observed their oaths 
 in those early times. Let an instance or two suffice. 
 King Baldwin II was captured by the Moslems, but 
 he was set free in 1124, after taking a holy oath that 
 
“KOL NIDRE” 89 
 
 he would observe certain agreements. No sooner 
 was he at liberty than he broke his word. His case 
 was typical of many others, and the evidence ranges 
 all through the history of Europe, whenever Christian 
 sovereigns had dealings with non-Christian peoples. 
 In 1444, for example, King Ladislas of Hungary and 
 Poland made a treaty of peace with the Sultan Murad, 
 the former swearing to the agreement on the New 
 Testament, the latter on the Koran. ‘The peace was 
 to be for ten years. Relying on the Christian king’s 
 oath, the Sultan led his army to the Eastern frontier 
 of his realm. No sooner was he gone than Pope 
 Eugenius urged the King of Poland and Hungary to 
 break his oath, promising him absolution. The 
 Peace was flagrantly broken, and the Christian armies 
 moved to Orsova. The Sultan, by forced marches, 
 led his army back westward, and met his opponents at 
 Varna, on November 10, 1444. Let a historian of 
 Hungary relate the rest of the story in his own words. 
 "The Sultan hung the Treaty of Peace on a lance, 
 and called out: ‘O Jesus, see the Treaty which the 
 Christians made with me, and to observe which they 
 swore by Thy holy name. If you are a God, revenge 
 this insult done to Thee no less than to me!’” ‘The 
 Hungarian forces suffered a terrible defeat on that 
 field of arms. 
 
 There is no need to cite other instances. The 
 pages of history abound in them, and they bear testi- 
 mony to the Christian standard in regard to vows, 
 oaths, and promises. Unquestionably there has been 
 an improvement in modern times. But let it not 
 be forgotten that Jews have supported, and still 
 support, a very high code in this matter. Kol Nidre 
 only shows how high it is. 
 
JEWS AND CREMATION 
 
 T is of no small interest to witness the conflict 
 if of new and old opinions in regard to some Jewish 
 practice or other. As long as there are thinking 
 Jews who cannot accept blindly all that has been 
 handed down from the past, the old and the new 
 views will struggle for supremacy, and it will be for 
 wise statesmanship to introduce into the conflict as 
 much moderation and sweet reasonableness as possible. 
 Recently such a problem came under my notice, and 
 it afforded me much food for thought. A friend of 
 mine who died was cremated, and, as some of us came 
 away from the simple but impressive ceremony at 
 Golders Green, the Jewish attitude towards cremation 
 was the topic of our talk. 
 
 One of our number, a man learned in all matters 
 of Jewish ceremonial, informed us that in ancient 
 times there were four methods of dealing with the 
 dead, each in accordance with a particular religious 
 or philosophical view of the universe. In ancient 
 India the body was looked upon as earthly and im- 
 pure, and the most effective way of dealing with 
 impurity was to destroy it by fire. In India, there- 
 fore, dead bodies were burned. In ancient Egypt, 
 again, the belief was prevalent that the soul and the 
 body were always in close contact, and therefore 
 dead bodies were embalmed in order to retain for as 
 long a period as possible the habitat of the soul. But 
 
 go 
 
JEWS AND CREMATION gl 
 
 the ancient Persians held a view different from either 
 of these. They believed that dead bodies had the 
 innate quality of making everything they touched 
 unclean. If they were buried in the earth, the earth 
 was thereby made impure, and if the bodies were 
 burned, they thereby made the fire unclean. ‘The 
 Persians, therefore, neither buried nor burned dead 
 bodies, but laid them out to be consumed by the birds 
 of the air and the beasts of the field. ‘The Romans, 
 on the other hand, buried their dead. 
 
 What was the Jewish practice? Judging from a 
 number of passages in the Bible, it would seem that 
 burial was also the usual practice among Jews. Among 
 the earliest references to man in the Book of Genesis 
 we read, ‘‘ Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt 
 return.” Almost identical words are found in 
 Koholeth, which must have been written much later : 
 ‘And the dust shall return to the earth as it was.” 
 In the 104th Psalm there is also a reference to this 
 point: ‘‘ Thou takest away their breath, they die, 
 and return to their dust.” The Patriarch Abraham 
 was informed, ‘‘ Thou shalt go to thy fathers; thou 
 shalt be buried in a good old age.”? Even the criminal 
 was to be buried: ‘“‘ His body shall not remain all 
 night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him 
 on the same day.” 
 
 It would seem, then, from these and other instances, 
 that ordinary burial was the prevalent custom among 
 Jews. Yet cases of burning are also on record. In 
 regard to Tamar, Judah said, “ Bring her forth and 
 let her be burned.” ‘This instance is possibly not 
 unrelated to the law which said that if the daughter 
 of a priest be a harlot, she shall be burned. Achor 
 was burned with fire for troubling Israel, and the 
 
92 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Prophet Amos expresses his anger with Moab “‘ because 
 they burned the bones of the King of Edom.” 
 
 In these cases burning was a punishment for crime. 
 Yet there must have been a time when cremation 
 was looked upon as an honourable method of treating 
 the dead. ‘The men of Jabesh Gilead are praised for 
 taking down and burning the bodies of Saul and his 
 sons. It is, however, specifically stated that they 
 buried the bones. Does that mean that while the 
 flesh might be burned, the bones were to be left for 
 burial? ‘There is also Jeremiah’s message to King 
 Zedekiah: ‘‘ Thou shalt die in peace; and with the 
 burnings of thy fathers... so shall they make a 
 burning for thee.” King Asa was also burned; he 
 is depicted as lying on a bed “‘ filled with sweet odours 
 and diverse kinds of spices.” In these instances it 
 appears that burning was an honour, and this opinion 
 is supported by the Chronicler’s record of King 
 Jehoram, ‘‘ that his people made a burning for him 
 like the burning of his fathers.” 
 
 The question of importance is: Was ordinary 
 burial merely a Jewish custom, or was it a specific 
 injunction, or law? 
 
 It must be admitted that opinion, even in ancient 
 days, was divided onthe point. A great many Talmud 
 Rabbis deducted from the command to bury criminals 
 a general Jaw to bury everybody. But there were 
 others, like Rabbi Chama, who held this logic to be 
 too flimsy, and while they supported the custom 
 of burial, they were of opinion that it was only a 
 custom and not a law. Later authorities likewise 
 differed. Maimonides declares that it is a religious 
 injunction to bury the dead, but Rabbenu Asher 
 believed that it was only a custom. ‘There is this 
 
JEWS AND CREMATION 93 
 
 further argument, that the Hebrew word Kaber may 
 mean not necessarily earth-burial but “to put in a 
 cofin.” On the other side it has been suggested 
 that the burnings of Kings, to which reference is 
 made above, was really the destruction by fire of 
 precious objects and not of the bodies themselves. 
 
 Our informant laid stress on the fact that, despite 
 any possible difference of opinion, the prevalent 
 practice among Jews is burial in the earth. One 
 must not forget, he added, that this practice was 
 bound up with the belief in the Resurrection of the 
 Dead, a reason which also appeals—and must appeal 
 —to Christians, who likewise retain this practice. 
 Yet (he continued) it would perhaps be too much 
 to say that burning by fire is contrary to Jewish 
 principles. Possibly this passage in an ancient writer 
 throws some light on the Jewish view as to earth- 
 burial: ‘‘ All manner of deaths in which there is 
 burning must be connected with idol worship.” On 
 the positive side, there was also the belief that to 
 bury the dead body in the earth was a kind of expiation, 
 more particularly if the earth was Palestinian soil. 
 This may account for the custom of placing a handful 
 of Palestine earth in a coffin. 
 
 One of the group expressed his surprise that our 
 dead friend, who had been what may be termed 
 “a conforming Jew” all his life, should have set his 
 heart on being cremated. ‘The first speaker replied 
 that though from a strictly traditional standpoint 
 cremation cannot be looked upon with favour, it 
 would be too much to say that it involves an actual 
 breach of Jewish law. It is an extraordinary thing, 
 he continued, that many Jews and Jewesses whose 
 lives are anything but models of Jewish practice 
 
94 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 should be so particular that their last obsequies should 
 be entirely in accord with Jewish tradition. ‘They 
 will take no risks. Yet the question that really matters 
 is what happens during life. If a man lives a truly 
 good Jewish life, of what moment is it if he should 
 be cremated after death? Whether the dead are 
 buried or cremated, to their near ones and dear ones 
 they become in the process of time only memories. 
 Either way they turn to dust. But while burial has 
 behind it the recommendation of hoary tradition, 
 there is a prevailing view in these days of ours that 
 cremation is simple, clean, and hygienic. Even 
 Jewish custom allows cremation in times of epidemics. 
 
 It is quite evident that there is a difference of 
 opinion as to the permissibility of cremation from 
 the Jewish point of view. Some thirty years ago, 
 when cremation became popular, especially in 
 Germany, a controversy arose among Jewish scholars, 
 and learned opinions were put forward both to sup- 
 port and to attack cremation. Both sides were 
 backed by equally good authorities. But When all 
 is said, ultimately it must be a question of sentiment ; 
 and if there are Jews who desire to be cremated, there 
 appears, so far as I could gather from our talk, no 
 good reason why their wishes should not be carried 
 out. 
 
 I also learned with interest that the practice of 
 the United Synagogue tacitly recognises cremation, 
 seeing that the ashes of cremated persons are allowed 
 to be buried in the communal cemeteries, provided 
 they are put in a coffin. 
 
 Death is the ultimate state of all of us, and it seems 
 reasonable to suggest that since every individual 
 orders his life, he should also be permitted to order 
 
JEWS AND CREMATION 9s 
 
 the manner of his being put away after death. 
 Certainly the ceremonial which we had witnessed at 
 our friend’s cremation was simple and impressive, 
 and some of us felt that it was more pleasing to the 
 eye and the heart to see the coffin moved out of sight 
 into the furnace than to see it lowered into a 
 rectangular hole in the ground. Perhaps as our 
 modern civilisation advances, cremation may become 
 universal, and Jews like others will adopt the practice. 
 
 The impression I gathered from our learned friend 
 was that there is nothing inherently un-Jewish in 
 cremation, and I was very glad to think so for our dead 
 friend’s sake. 
 
A QUESTION OF POPULATION 
 
 of the characteristics of this age of ours. In 
 
 almost every sphere of human thought men and 
 women are groping for guidance and searching for 
 new principles. Old ideals are being cast overboard, 
 and in many cases new ones have not yet materialised. 
 It is always so in an age of upheaval, and what up- 
 heaval can be compared to that produced by a war? 
 The war has swept away many an old landmark, and 
 people have lost their bearings. Read the reports of 
 the various religious conferences held recently in this 
 country, and you obtain the impression that this 
 experience is almost universal. 
 
 Of the many problems that are troubling the public 
 mind, perhaps that of the growth of population takes 
 the foremost place. In normal times, when an 
 average standard of comfort remains constant over a 
 fairly long period, men and women marry and rejoice 
 in their natural increase. But when the conditions of 
 life are hard, when the struggle for existence becomes 
 almost savage, when hope vanishes away, and life to 
 many seems hardly worth living, the attitude of men 
 and women to the question of children changes con- 
 siderably. People open their ears to the preachers of 
 pessimism ; and slowly and surely the view obtains 
 currency that fewer and fewer children should be 
 brought into the world. With some the argument 
 
 96 
 
 I THINK it is true to say that uncertainty is one 
 
A QUESTION OF POPULATION 97 
 
 is that life is not worth while, and that it is not proper 
 to bring more human beings into it. With others 
 the case is stated differently. Efficiency is their 
 ideal. ‘They would see children born into the world, 
 but they desire to assure to all of them the best 
 education and the best social and hygienic conditions. 
 They say the world will never be made better unless 
 the race of men is improved. But too many children 
 make it impossible to improve the race. ‘They there- 
 fore demand fewer children and greater opportunities. 
 
 Clearly this is a matter of some importance. It 
 is one of those problems which reach down to the root 
 of things, and one has the right to ask, What view do 
 Jews take of it? Is there a specifically Jewish view 
 at all? And if there is, is it being preached and 
 practised by the Jews? 
 
 Here we have a question of practical Judaism. Of 
 passive Judaism we have more than enough. Going 
 to synagogue, subscribing to charities, reading the 
 Jewish Press, are all desirable and should be encouraged. 
 But these things are largely on the surface of life, 
 if I may put itso. ‘They leave the urgent matters of 
 our day pretty much where they were before. They 
 give them no very marked Jewish colouring. But the 
 population question is different. ‘There is a specific- 
 ally Jewish attitude in this most important aspect of 
 life. Do Jews live up to it? 
 
 From the oldest times children among Jews have 
 been regarded as a divine gift. ‘“‘ Lo, children are an 
 heritage of the Lord; happy is the man that hath 
 his quiver full of them.” In order to drive home the 
 lesson of the excellence of large families, the Mishna 
 quotes the words of Isaiah that God did not create 
 the world to be a waste; He formed it to be in- 
 
 G 
 
98 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 habited. Indeed, a delightful Midrash declares that 
 
 ever since He completed the work of the creation, 
 God Almighty has occupied Himself with nothing 
 else but the making of marriages. By means of 
 marriages He ensures the continuance of His work. 
 The Talmud lays stress on the same point by declaring 
 that when a man appears before God at the last 
 judgment, one of the first questions he will be asked 
 will be whether he contributed to the growth of 
 humanity by founding a family. 
 
 And what was considered founding a family? The 
 School of Shammai answered, two boys, and the 
 School of Hillel, a boy and a girl. But this limit did 
 not imply two-children families. On the contrary, 
 large families were looked upon as a sign of divine 
 blessing. ‘There is recorded a saying by Rabbi Akiba 
 on this point: “A beard is an adornment of the 
 countenance, woman is the joy of the heart, and 
 children are a gift from God.” God, it is said in 
 another place, has three treasures, the keys of which 
 He Himself retains—the treasure store of rain, the 
 treasure store whence comes the power of reviving the 
 dead, and the treasure store of children. Children 
 are the ornaments of the world in general, and of 
 women in particular. Children are peace-bringers, 
 for the thoughtfulness which is concentrated on 
 them occupies the mind to the exclusion of things 
 that might bring annoyance. When a son was born 
 to the daughter of Rabban Gamliel, she asked her 
 father to give her his blessing. ‘The Rabbi replied : 
 ‘May wvou. neyer. cease.crying out, * O} dear | ert ie 
 young mother expressed her astonishment at such a 
 blessing. But her father’s explanation was satis- 
 factory. ‘“‘ As long as your boy lives, you will be 
 
A QUESTION OF POPULATION 99 
 
 saying, ‘O, dear, my son has not yet had his meal,’ 
 or ‘O, dear, my son has not yet had his rest,’ or 
 ‘O, dear, my son will be late for school.’ ” 
 
 The duty of bringing children into the world was 
 looked upon as of such importance that if a couple 
 remained childless after ten years of married life, it 
 became necessary for them to be divorced so that the 
 man might marry again. But it would appear that 
 this custom was never scrupulously observed. By way 
 of illustration, the following very charming story may 
 be read in one of the ancient Midrashim. When 
 Rabbi Simon ben Jochai was in Sidon, a couple 
 appeared before him requesting him to divorce them, 
 since, though they had been married ten years, they 
 still had no children. But the Rabbi observed great 
 unwillingness on the part of both husband and wife. 
 Whereupon he suggested to them that before being 
 actually separated they should celebrate their coming 
 divorce as they had celebrated their marriage—by a 
 feast. The idea appealed to them, and to a divorce 
 feast they accordingly invited their friends. The 
 husband partook gaily of the wine that flowed in 
 abundance, and as a merry jest the wife asked her 
 husband for a memento of their married life. ‘‘ Take,” 
 replied her lord, ‘the most precious thing you can 
 find in my house, and carry it away with you to your 
 father’s house.”? ‘The feast ended, and the husband 
 having drunk his fill was overcome by the wine, and 
 fell asleep on his couch. No sooner had he shut his 
 eyes than the lady ordered the servants to carry the 
 couch and its occupant to her father’s house. At 
 midnight the bibulous husband awoke, and finding 
 himself amid strange surroundings, asked to know 
 where he was. His wife informed him, and added 
 
100 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 by way of explanation, that as he had told her to 
 take away the most precious object from his house, 
 she had taken him and meant to keep him! 
 
 Marriage has always been looked upon among Jews 
 as the normal state for men and women; an old maid 
 is a type unknown in ancient Jewish literature. 
 Tradition relates that Miriam, the sister of Moses, 
 had to wait long for a husband because she was ugly. 
 Eventually she married Caleb, and the Almighty was 
 made to say, ‘‘She shall have many children, and these 
 will give her beauty.” 
 
 Many children—that has always been the ideal 
 of Jewish life. Economic considerations hardly ever 
 entered into the question; if there are many mouths 
 to feed, is not God good? Doth He not load us with 
 benefits daily? That was the old spirit. ‘To-day 
 large families among Jews are the exception. Jews 
 are being influenced by their environment. The 
 arguments put forward in support of small families 
 which apply to the general population also hold good 
 for Jews. ‘There is the economic factor; the factor 
 also of convenience; perhaps, too, what is regarded in 
 some quarters as selfishness. ‘There is no need to pass 
 judgment. ‘The only question is (and it is vital), if 
 we profess to be Jews, are we to maintain the old 
 Jewish ideal in regard to families? Put broadly, the 
 question may be summarised as Neo-Malthusianism 
 v. Judaism. Judaism has certain definite traditions 
 in this matter. Even granted that there is no need 
 to be a slave to tradition, have we not here an urgent 
 problem, one that needs consideration? Are Jews 
 really living the Jewish life, no matter how regularly 
 they go to the Synagogue, if they deliberately limit 
 the size of their families ? On the other hand, can 
 
A QUESTION OF POPULATION tor 
 
 Neo-Malthusian doctrines be brought into accord 
 with the highest ethics? If so, they may possibly 
 be given a sanction from the Jewish point of view. 
 In any event we ought to be clear on the subject. 
 A policy of drift, here as elsewhere, is to be condemned. 
 There are some thinkers who say that the new doctrines, 
 the very opposite of what Jewish tradition holds up 
 as an ideal, will make in the long run for the decima- 
 tion of the Jewish race. One authority has already 
 written the doom of German Jewry, which, what 
 with small families and exter-marriage (for the most 
 part sterile), is decreasing in point of numbers 
 to an alarming extent. If we are God’s witnesses, 
 should we tamely see ourselves shrinking away into 
 nothingness ? And if we are not God’s witnesses, 
 what are we? 
 
JEWISH STATISTICS 
 
 OME time ago, in the course of a general con- 
 S versation at which I happened to be present, the 
 question was asked, How many Jews are there 
 in the world? One man suggested 13 millions, 
 another 15 millions, a third was for a figure between 
 these two, a fourth declared his belief in the existence 
 of some 20 million Jews, while a fifth went to the 
 other extreme and placed the number at about 8 or 
 9 millions. 
 
 An experienced business man, turning to me, ex- 
 pressed his surprise that about so simple a question 
 there should be room for differences of opinion. I 
 explained to him that there was very good reason for 
 this uncertainty; the plain fact is that it is im- 
 possible to state definitely the number of Jews in the 
 world, seeing that official returns are not available 
 for all countries. In some countries that interest us 
 most, as, for instance, our own and the United States, 
 France, and Belgium, no provision is made in the 
 census for discovering the numerical strength of the 
 various religious bodies. In these instances religion 
 is held to be a matter of private import with which the 
 State has no concern, and, therefore, the State takes no 
 steps to inquire intoit. On the one hand, this may be 
 said to betoken an advanced attitude, one to which, 
 it is hoped, other countries also will attain; on the 
 other, it may well be argued that precise information 
 
 on any subject is scientific and, therefore, helpful. 
 102 
 
JEWISH STATISTICS 103 
 
 There is manifestly a good deal to be said in support 
 of both views, and since no complete returns for the 
 religious complexion of all countries are available, 
 it is impossible to say what precisely is the Jewish 
 population of the world. To arrive at some more or 
 less reliable figure, the published returns must be 
 supplemented by estimates. But no matter how 
 carefully they are made, estimates are but guess-work, 
 and in statistics estimates are not satisfactory. ‘There 
 is no need to labour the point; an example or two 
 will suffice to show the weakness of estimated figures. 
 What is the Jewish population of the United Kingdom? 
 Possibly the estimate of 250,000 or 300,000 is near the 
 mark, but the exact figure, as well as its distribution, 
 would be most valuable. ‘Take again the United 
 States. There is little doubt that the centre of gravity 
 of Jewish settlement in the world at the present 
 time is in the great North American Republic. Yet 
 the exact number of its Jewish inhabitants is un- 
 obtainable. An estimate places the figure at 3,600,000, 
 of whom 1,643,000 live in New York alone. Similarly, 
 no exact information is available as to the Jewish 
 population of South America, the West Indies, 
 Morocco, Persia, Turkey, or Russia. Some of the 
 newer States that have been evolved out of the post- 
 war settlement have not yet had time to organise 
 their vital statistics; other States, like Germany, did 
 in the past inquire into the religious beliefs of their 
 subjects, but no longer do so. The German census of 
 1910 showed the number of Jews in Germany to be 
 615,021, or about one per cent. of the total popula- 
 tion; the census of October 8, 1919, made no return 
 at all of religions. ‘The subject is further complicated 
 in some countries in Eastern Europe by the vague 
 
104 © JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 popular conceptions of the terms race, nation, and 
 religious community. Under which of these three 
 headings should Jews be included? Again, in some 
 parts of the world the number of Jews is so small 
 that they are often lumped together under ‘‘ other 
 denominations.” 
 
 The best study of the world’s Jewish population 
 that I have seen is in Mr. Israel Cohen’s book, “* Jewish 
 Life in Modern Times.” In an appendix he has 
 gathered all the available facts, and he concludes that 
 there are some 13,500,000 Jews in the world. But it 
 must be remembered that this total includes estimated 
 amounts for many countries, and, therefore, while it 
 is perhaps tolerably correct, the element of uncertainty 
 vitiates the final result. Mr. Cohen’s book was pub- 
 lished ten years ago. Since then other calculations 
 have been made, notably in America, and the latest 
 of these estimates the Jewish population of the world 
 at 15,500,000. Both these totals represent roughly 
 about the one hundred and twentieth part of the 
 population of the globe. 
 
 Now, it may be asked, Why this pother about the 
 number of Jews in the world? Let Jews but live 
 their Judaism and all will be well. ‘They have no other 
 duty and should have no other care. 
 
 This is undoubtedly a point of view, though it is 
 usually associated with naive souls. ‘To those who 
 find satisfaction in it, there is no more to be said. 
 
 But there are others who desire more information, 
 who realise that in dealing with the Jewish question 
 in any of its aspects, precise figures are the first requi- 
 site. [here are thinkers who, after careful research, 
 have come to the conclusion that the Jews are gradu- 
 ally disappearing from the earth—gradually, silently, 
 
JEWISH STATISTICS 105 
 
 almost imperceptibly ; that exter-marriages are levy- 
 ing a heavy toll on the Jewish people; that irreligion, 
 economic forces, social evils, and general assimilative 
 tendencies are making great inroads on an ethnic 
 group that was once so virile as to be able to withstand 
 persecution, anti-Jewish legislation, and physical and 
 intellectual cramping. It is no satisfactory reply to 
 such a view to quote the famous Midrash to the 
 Psalms: One people arises and another disappears, 
 but Israel is everlasting. 
 
 What we need is exact information. We ought to 
 know the exact number of Jews in the world, their 
 distribution among the various countries, their vital 
 statistics, their distribution as to economic activities. 
 Do Jews multiply as rapidly as non-Jews? How do 
 Jewish mortality returns compare with those of their 
 neighbours? ‘To what extent are Jews to-day with- 
 standing assimilative and other disruptive forces ? 
 How is wealth distributed among Jews—are Jews pre- 
 dominantly poor, or are they rich? It has been said 
 that Jews are the salt of the earth, or rather, as Pro- 
 fessor Sombart holds, they are the ‘‘ yeast’? of the 
 earth. According to Sombart, every country would 
 profit by a right admixture of Jews—not too much 
 and not too little. Sombart traces a good deal of the 
 economic growth of Germany and of the United 
 States in the second half of the nineteenth century to 
 the influence of Jews, seeing that both in the United 
 States and Germany there were about III Jews to 
 every 10,000 of the population. ‘That, in his opinion, is 
 aright admixture. On the other hand, some countries 
 have too little of the Jewish ‘‘ yeast”: ¢.g., for every 
 10,000 inhabitants Great Britain has only 20 Jews, 
 Italy only 15, France 14, Sweden 7, Spain not quite 1 ; 
 
106 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 while other countries have too much of it: ¢.g., for 
 every 10,000 inhabitants Rumania has 450 Jews. 
 
 How much truth is there in this suggestion ? How 
 much truth is there in another suggestion of quite 
 recent date, put forward to explain the prohibition 
 of Jewish immigration into the United States ?—that 
 the first Jewish newcomers into the States were 
 Sephardim [Jews of Spanish origin], a most excellent 
 social group; that the second influx was composed 
 predominantly of German Jews, likewise a sound 
 healthy stream of immigrants who would be likely to 
 benefit the commonwealth; and that the latest 
 arrivals are, for the most part, Jews from Russia, 
 Poland, and Eastern Europe, an ethnic group which 
 is undesirable. 
 
 Considering, on the one hand, the unsatisfactory 
 state of Jewish statistics, and, on the other, the vital 
 need there is for adequate Jewish statistics, it would 
 seem that more than ever a Jewish Statistical Society 
 would supply a real want. A certain amount of 
 statistical research bearing on Jews has already been 
 carried out, and should be continued. ‘T’o be effective, 
 the Jewish Statistical Society in this country would 
 have to co-operate with Jewish Statistical Societies all 
 over the world. The work is urgent. We need to 
 know where we Jews stand. From the point of view 
 of numbers, are we Jews stationary? Are we in- 
 creasing ? Are we declining? In the meantime, or 
 failing the establishment of a Jewish Statistical Society, 
 cannot the Zionist Organisation, which now claims 
 to speak in the name of the Jewish people, issue a sort 
 of Jewish Handbook which would provide official or 
 semi-official information, and particularly statistical 
 information, about the Jews of the world ? 
 
JEWS AND MUSIC 
 
 WAS recently informed on reliable authority 
 
 that Kreisler is a Jew. ‘This set my mind think- 
 
 ing on the connection between Jews and music, 
 and I asked myself whether the Jews may be regarded 
 as a musical people. It seemed to me there was only 
 one answer to the question: that undoubtedly they 
 are. I recalled the references to singing and music 
 in the Bible; they are numerous, and deal with 
 sacred as well as profane incidents. To sing to the 
 Lord a new song is the burden of very many of the 
 Psalms. ‘The Hallel was sung from the earliest days, 
 and the Sabbath Eve services begin by inviting the 
 worshipper to sing a song. King David was rightly 
 termed the sweet singer in Israel; and Miriam with 
 her dancing women singing in gratitude for the 
 redemption at the Red Sea, was hardly likely to have 
 been an isolated case. There must have been some- 
 thing attractive about Jewish song, seeing that the 
 Babylonian captors requested those who were about 
 to be exiled from their land to sing the songs of Zion. 
 They were too sad to sing by the waters of Babylon. 
 Apparently they must have been used to song and 
 dance and jollity. The Jewish temperament is opti- 
 mistic. Since the Jew gazed upon the blue sky of 
 the East, the blue waters of the Mediterranean, and 
 the millions of stars in the Palestinian firmament, 
 it was only natural that he should be musical ‘The 
 quality of the music may possibly have been different 
 
 107 
 
108 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 from Western music, but it was music nevertheless, 
 and it bears testimony to the Jew’s love of harmony. 
 
 If, as Beethoven said, music is the highest form of 
 Divine Revelation, it was only to be expected that 
 the Jew, who was the vehicle of Divine Revelation 
 in the realms of ethics, religion, and morality, should 
 also have felt the music of the spheres. In Talmud 
 times music and singing were cultivated quite generally 
 among the Jews. It was a common practice to sing 
 songs after meals (“a concert of music in a banquet 
 of wine is as a signet of carbuncle set in gold ’’), and 
 Greek songs were popular because it was said that the 
 Greek tongue lent itself most admirably to singing. 
 During the period of the Second ‘Temple in Palestine, 
 the weaver sang at his loom, the oarsman in his boat, 
 the ploughman as he followed the plough, and the 
 shepherd as he tended his flock. ‘The traveller sang on 
 his way, the Precentor sang in the synagogue. It was 
 always expected of the Precentor that he should have 
 a lovely voice. ‘Tradition said that Moses was given 
 a musical voice as he transmitted the Ten Command- 
 ments. ‘*God answered him with a voice”: that 
 was interpreted as meaning that God gave him a 
 pleasing musical voice. The Torah itself was thus 
 associated with music, and in later years the sing-song 
 method was advocated for its study. ‘“‘ Go on singing 
 it’? was Akiba’s dictum. 
 
 There is hardly need to mention the music of the 
 Levites in the Temple services. It would seem that 
 in the days of the Second Temple mixed choirs of 
 men and women, and even of little children, were not 
 unknown. The Wise Man in Ecclesiastes refers to 
 his men and women singers, and his even more dis- 
 tinguished successor, Jesus, the son of Sirach, advises 
 
JEWS AND MUSIC 109 
 
 careful and sympathetic listening to music: ‘“‘ Pour 
 not out words where there is a musician.” At wed- 
 dings Jews have always cultivated music; in the 
 Middle Ages it was perhaps the only form of secular 
 music which was kept alive. It stands to reason 
 that persecution tends to silence the voice of song 
 and music among any people, and it is remarkable 
 that the Jews during their long dark Ghetto period 
 did not lose their musical sense. I say nothing of 
 synagogue music. That was an art cultivated with 
 intense feeling and with the pride of the true artist 
 in the excellence of his achievement. But on the 
 whole it was predominantly music in the minor key. 
 I sometimes wonder whether the old world tunes, 
 which are well known in all parts of the globe where 
 Jewish congregations exist, truly express the Jewish 
 soul. It seems to me that possibly some of the 
 beautiful tunes associated with our youth and our 
 age are really the result of the environment of the 
 Lithuanian forests, the black earth of the Ukraine, 
 or the extensive landscapes of Poland. May it not 
 be, too, that the music of Hungary and of Rumania 
 has also found a niche in synagogue music ? Certainly 
 as one listens to Magyar, Polish, or Russian music, 
 as often as not the melody is reminiscent of some 
 synagogue tune. It may be perhaps that the tunes, 
 so touching in their simplicity, which are cultivated 
 in Sephardi congregations may be of purely Jewish 
 origin. But certain we cannot be. ‘The Jews lived 
 in Spain for many centuries in the midst of a Moslem 
 culture, and their songs must have been influenced 
 inno small degree. Still that culture was closely akin 
 to Jewish culture, and perhaps Sephardi synagogue 
 music comes near to old Hebrew melody. 
 
110 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 But since Jews have always been a musical people, 
 it was only to be expected that in the period of emanci- 
 pation, when after centuries of repression they had 
 the liberty of developing their souls and minds un- 
 checked, they should have produced an inordinate 
 number of musicians. I have been surprised by the 
 number of Jewish names among the famous musicians 
 of the nineteenth century. There was (to take them 
 as they occur to my mind) Felix Mendelssohn (1809- 
 1847), grandson of the distinguished Moses, and son 
 of the banker who founded the firm which 1s still in 
 existence in Berlin. There is no question, even in 
 those musical circles which are tinged with anti- 
 Semitism, as to the ability, to say nothing of the 
 genius, of Felix Mendelssohn. It is of interest to 
 observe that in 1829 Mendelssohn celebrated musical 
 triumphs in London. ‘Then there was Jacob Meyer- 
 beer (1791-1864), a composer who was one of the 
 musical adornments of the First Empire. A con- 
 temporary of his was Ignaz Moscheles (1794-1870). 
 Again there was Jacques Offenbach (1819-1880). 
 Who has not heard of Offenbach? Who does not 
 love his ‘‘’Tales of Hoffman’? ? Offenbach was the 
 son of a Precentor, and was one of those who helped 
 to give an impetus to the vogue of musical comedy. 
 When the yoke of Napoleon was removed from 
 Europe, there was among all classes a general desire 
 for amusements, comparable to that current in our 
 own day. ‘There was a boom in the drama. But the 
 “‘ heavy’? operas were at a discount, and to satisfy 
 the needs of the time, ‘‘ light ” operas and operettes 
 came to be introduced. Vienna was the centre of 
 the movement, and Jews played a very prominent 
 part in it. Offenbach was one of the protagonists ; 
 
JEWS AND MUSIC III 
 
 I believe Johann Strauss was another. The “ Tales 
 of Hoffman” bring to mind ‘* Carmen,” which was 
 first performed in 1875. ‘The creator of ‘‘ Carmen,” 
 Georges Bizet (1838-1875) was a half Jew. 
 
 I recall further Karl Goldmark (1830-1915), who 
 hailed from Hungary; Ignaz Bruell (1845-1908), 
 Ferdinand David (1810-1873), famous all over Europe 
 as a singer at concerts; Jacques Halévy (1799-1862) ; 
 Anton Rubenstein (1829-1894), who has been des- 
 cribed as the most marvellous pianist of all times ; 
 and Joseph Joachim (1831-1907), who excelled as a 
 great teacher of music and who lent distinction to 
 the Berlin Academy of Music. Nor must we leave 
 unmentioned Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), who con- 
 ducted at the Vienna Opera and won fame for himself 
 as a grand interpreter of Wagner. 
 
 It is true that many of the men here mentioned 
 were baptised. In those days the baptismal certifi- 
 cate was for the Jew, as Heine put it, the ticket of 
 admission to European society. Some of these artistic 
 natures may have been actuated by low motives ; 
 some may have been so devoted to their art as to make 
 that the paramount consideration in their lives. But 
 though they changed their faith they could not change 
 their souls, which remained Jewish to the end in 
 their intensity of feeling and their love of harmony. 
 But of hardly any of them is it true to say that they 
 cultivated specifically Jewish music. What is Jewish 
 music? ‘The answer is not easy. But it is clear 
 that for Jewish music you need a Jewish environment. 
 Possibly the Jewish Folk Songs, as they are found in 
 Eastern Europe, may be the nearest approach to 
 Jewish music. But, so far as the great names are 
 concerned, though the men who bore them were 
 
112 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Jewish by race, they were French, or German, or 
 Austrian. 
 
 I say nothing of living musicians; you know, of 
 course, that they include a large number of Jewish 
 composers, conductors, and performers of all kinds. 
 At present all of them are influenced by their environ- 
 ment. Give a Jew a Jewish environment and you 
 will provide the conditions for the natural growth 
 of Jewish music. Who shall say what its character- 
 istics will be ? So much, however, 1s certain; it will 
 only flourish, it will only grow, under the shadow 
 of Mount Carmel, beside the waters of the Jordan, 
 and within the mystic air of the Holy Land. 
 
JEWS AND THE THEATRE 
 
 HERE is no minimising the Jewish influence 
 
 on the development of the modern drama. 
 
 Jews are enthusiastic patrons of the stage; 
 they are to be found in large numbers among the 
 artists of the stage; and of those who write for the 
 stage, Jews stand in the front rank. One thinks of 
 Bernstein in France, of Schnitzler in Austria, and of 
 Sutro in our own country. On the Continent Jewish 
 genius has contributed in large measure to the adorn- 
 ment of the stage. Indeed, in the hands of a Rein- 
 hardt, the presentation of stage effects has reached 
 a fine art unique in character. Jews appear to have 
 the depth of feeling and the sympathy requisite 
 both for admiration of the drama and for the drama 
 itself. 
 
 Even in Ghetto days Jews were able, at least 
 occasionally, to give free play to their dramatic 
 talents. At weddings and on Purim it was no un- 
 common thing for plays to be presented. Purim 
 plays appear to date back to the ninth century ; 
 the story of Esther was their favourite theme, but 
 the sale of Joseph and the contest of David and 
 Goliath also enjoyed a good deal of popularity. In 
 modern times specifically Jewish theatres, where 
 Yiddish plays are performed, have a character of their 
 own; and some of their actors and actresses possess 
 
 a technique which might well be the envy of their 
 113 H 
 
114 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 colleagues in the great theatres of Western Europe 
 and America. 
 
 The association of Jews with the theatre is of ancient 
 date, and has continued despite Rabbinic injunctions. 
 That the theatre is found in the pages of the Talmud 
 goes without saying, since theatres played no small 
 part in the life of the Romans. ‘The very word occurs 
 in the Talmud. When it is remembered that the 
 character of theatrical performances in ancient Rome 
 was undoubtedly immoral, it is easy to understand 
 the anxiety of the Rabbis to keep Jews away from 
 them. The theatres were held to be the “seats of 
 the scornful”? of the first verse of the first Psalm, 
 and who shall say that the allusion was not apt? 
 Yet theatres were actually found in Jerusalem and 
 other towns in Palestine in the first century. King 
 Herod was famous as a builder of these structures, 
 and the Hellenistic Jews of the time, anxious to be 
 as up-to-date in all things as their heathen neighbours, 
 were zealously devoted to the cult of the theatre. 
 The old-fashioned Jews found this attitude difficult 
 to comprehend. Standing for the Mosaic principle 
 of the holiness of life, these stalwarts regarded with 
 disgust the gladiatorial spectacles witnessed in the 
 Roman theatres, where men fought in unequal con- 
 test with wild beasts, to the delight of immense 
 audiences, or the gross presentations of the gross 
 passions of the heathen gods. No wonder the early 
 Church Fathers set their faces against the theatres 
 of their times with the same determination as the 
 early Rabbis. ‘There must have been a good deal 
 of feeling against these inhuman or vicious spectacles, 
 and this is often found in curious and out of the way 
 places. Let one instance serve as an illustration. 
 
JEWS AND THE THEATRE 115 
 
 In the chapter of curses in Deuteronomy the last of 
 the series states simply, ‘‘ Cursed shalt thou be when 
 thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou 
 goest out.” An ancient Aramaic translation of the 
 passage reads, ‘* Cursed shall ye be who go to the 
 theatres and circuses, and so destroy the Torah.” 
 
 Yet Jewish youths were found in theatres, and it 
 would seem that there were Jewish theatre attendants 
 no less than Jewish actors. One of the latter, Aliturius 
 by name, was a favourite of the Emperor Nero, and 
 through his influence it was that Josephus, on his 
 first visit to Rome, obtained the boon he had come 
 to get. In Alexandria, again, there was a tradition 
 of a Jewish playwright called Ezekiel, whose tragedies 
 won fame far and wide. 
 
 When, however, the Temple was destroyed and 
 the Jews scattered, there was little opportunity and 
 hardly the mood for Jews to cultivate the theatre. 
 Moreover, Jews became the butt of the actors. The 
 Talmud quotes a case in point. It was a ‘‘ turn” 
 on the stage to bring in a camel covered with a black 
 cloth, and for one clown to ask the other, “ Why is 
 that camel in mourning?” ‘The answer would be: 
 “Tt is all because of the Jews. ‘They are celebrating 
 the year of Release, in which they neither sow nor 
 reap, and as they have nothing to eat they consume 
 the camel’s thistles!’’? Another anti-Jewish “ turn ”’ 
 was for a clown to come on the stage with his head 
 shaven. Another clown asked him why he was in 
 mourning. ‘Because oil is so dear!” came the reply. 
 ‘““And why, pray, is oil dear ?”’ the hero was asked 
 again. ‘* Because of those Jews, who on their Sabbath 
 consume all that they have earned during the week. 
 Therefore they have no wood for their fires, and they 
 
116 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 perforce break up their beds for firewood. The result 
 is that they have to sleep on the ground, and as they 
 in consequence need a great quantity of oil to clean 
 themselves withal, the demand sends up the price!” 
 
 On the face of it these illustrations are illuminating. 
 The wit is somewhat inane; if that is the best of their 
 kind, we must deplore the silliness of the theatrical 
 wit of those days. But the obvious intention to 
 wound the feelings of a class of the community is 
 patent, and self-respect could adopt but one course,— 
 to avoid theatres and places of public entertainment. 
 ‘He who spends time on a racecourse may be com- 
 pared to a murderer,” said one Rabbi in the first 
 century of the common era. The noble sport of 
 Jew-baiting on the stage appears to have continued 
 from Roman times down to our own. It is intelligible 
 in olden days or in the Middle Ages: how should 
 a Roman or a twelfth-century mob appreciate the 
 moral worth of the Jew for the world? But in 
 modern times? ‘The world to-day surely under- 
 stands the Jews’ contribution to the world’s thought. 
 Why, then, the caricature of the Jew on the stage? 
 But then, on the other hand, what is the Jewish type 
 that is caricatured ? Is it the Jew who lives his life 
 “as wholly in his ‘T'askmaster’s eye,” the Jew who 
 holds aloft the best traditions of his race and religion, 
 or is it the Jew who somehow assimilates the worst 
 elements of his environment and produces a type 
 which redounds to the glory neither of Jew nor 
 Gentile? ‘The pity is that these caricatures of Jews 
 are apt to be taken not for the dross that they are, 
 but for the pure metal. That makes it imperative 
 to take action by the aid of sweet reasonableness to 
 remove the caricatures of Jews from the stage. Much 
 
JEWS AND THE THEATRE cy 
 
 fine work in this direction has been accomplished in 
 the United States by the Anti-Defamation League 
 set up by the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith. 
 The League has always appealed to the better feelings 
 of theatre and cinema managers, pointing out to them, 
 what very often they were unconscious of, that the 
 caricatures of Jews hurt the feelings of a section of the 
 community, are the means of sowing the seeds of 
 contempt and hatred, and are by no means necessary 
 for theatrical success. Invariably an appeal of this 
 character met with a ready response. The only 
 difficulty has arisen sometimes where Jewish comedians 
 have themselves been the sinners. Jewish comedians 
 must surely know that there are splendid Jewish 
 types as well as undesirables, and that the former 
 atanveryereatly invexcess of theilatter. There, are, 
 however, Jewish comedians who are able to show 
 the Jew at his best, and to win the sympathy of their 
 audiences for the high qualities of the Jew, his loyalty 
 as a citizen, his love as a father, his unselfishness as 
 a friend, and his trust in God, all of which may lie 
 hidden under an uncouth exterior. 
 
 Life is always stronger than law, and if laws do 
 not move in step with life, they are just left behind. 
 Despite the injunctions of the early Rabbis, Jews 
 must have been attracted to the theatre, and the 
 Rabbis of the second and third centuries recognised 
 the popular tendency and sought to give it a legal 
 sanction. One Rabbi declared that, after all, it was 
 not altogether evil to visit theatres, seeing that it 
 might be possible for the visitor to save the life of 
 a victim, or if a Jewish victim were seen to die in 
 the arena, it would be possible to bear witness to the 
 fact in a court of law, and so, by removing the doubt, 
 
118 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 make it possible for his widow to re-marry. Rabbi 
 Simon ben Lakish propounded a somewhat novel 
 excuse for the theatre. It is something to be grateful 
 for, he declared, that the heathens have their theatres 
 to go to where they can amuse themselves. Were 
 this not the case, they might be tempted to occupy 
 themselves in idle strife and so be led to commit 
 murder! But this opinion must be capped by 
 another. ‘The circuses and theatres in Rome, it was 
 said, are destined to become seats of religious in- 
 struction. Perhaps in a large sense there is much 
 truth in the saying. There is no reason why the 
 theatre at its best should not be an agency for noble 
 teaching, for moving men and women deeply, for 
 upholding virtue and condemning vice, and for bring- 
 ing home to all classes of the community that social 
 service 1s a high ideal and social ethics the goal to be 
 sought for by all men. 
 
JUDAISM AND ART 
 
 T is often assumed that Judaism set its face against 
 the cultivation of Art. Not that Jews are not 
 artists. On the contrary; it is rightly claimed 
 
 for Jews that collectively they possess the artistic 
 temperament in a high degree. But when the austere 
 simplicity of the synagogue is compared with the 
 elaborate ornateness of the church, they who love 
 beauty cannot sometimes help deploring those saddest 
 of sad words—*“‘ it might have been.” 
 
 It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that 
 Jewish sentiment has always been in favour of the 
 austere. Bezalel himself furnishes evidence of the 
 love of beauty in ancient Israel. Bezalel is termed 
 “an imaginer of ideas,” or ‘‘a thinker in artistry.” 
 He was the Master Craftsman of the Tabernacle. 
 Those who worked under his direction must have been 
 skilled in carving wood and metal. Boththe Cherubim 
 and the Menorah were works of art. The Golden 
 Calf also shows that the art of fashioning the forms 
 of living creatures was known and practised. ‘The 
 numerous curtains and hangings of the Tabernacle, 
 again, are evidence of the arts of weaving and dyeing. 
 Painting was probably less developed. Unfortunately 
 the evidence here is very slender, and what there is 
 may point to alien and perhaps anti-Jewish influences. 
 Josephus relates that Queen Alexandra had her two 
 beautiful children, Aristobulus and Mariamne, painted, 
 
 11g 
 
120 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 and that she sent the pictures to Mark Antony. It 
 would not be going too far to assume that portrait 
 painting was not unknown in Judea in those days. 
 However, 1t might well be argued that Queen Alex- 
 andra, in this instance, illustrated an anti-Jewish 
 practice. 
 
 But if the evidence in regard to painting in those 
 early times is not ample, there can be little doubt 
 that architecture, music, poetry, and dancing were 
 cultivated in ancient Israel. Solomon’s Temple and 
 palace were probably not the least of the structures 
 which embellished Jerusalem and enabled the Psalmist 
 to sing of Zion as “‘ the joy of the whole earth,” and 
 to urge his contemporaries ‘‘ to walk about Zion and 
 go round about her; tell the towers thereof; mark 
 ye well her bulwarks; consider her palaces—that ye 
 may tell it to generations following.” Jehoiakin’s 
 palace was “‘a wide house”’ with “‘ spacious chambers,” 
 “cieled with cedar and painted with vermilion.” 
 Herod’s temple was one of the wonders of his age. 
 
 Like all ancient people the Israelites cultivated 
 poetry. The Bible possesses a profusion of poetic 
 productions which have become the common treasure 
 of mankind. ‘The Psalms and the Song of Songs would 
 alone suffice to prove that the art of poetry was highly 
 developed in Israel and reached a level of great beauty. 
 But the Bible contains much poetry besides these 
 two examples, and the conclusion is warranted that 
 art as expressed in poetry was appreciated and practised 
 among the Jews of old. 
 
 Whether dancing be an art or not, certain it is that 
 the Jews had no objection to the dance. We read of 
 Miriam leading her merry throng of dancers to thank 
 the Lord for His deliverance from Egypt; of David 
 
JUDAISM AND ART 121 
 
 dancing before the Lord; of the young men and 
 maidens dancing in the vineyard on the Day of Atone- 
 ment; and of the dances in the Temple during the 
 celebrations of the Festival of ‘Tabernacles. 
 
 If a distinction may be drawn between the static 
 and dynamic arts, it was, perhaps, a Jewish character- 
 istic to neglect the former and cultivate the latter. 
 The dynamic arts may be described as those in which 
 the artist expresses his feelings in a mobile form; he 
 does not sink his personality permanently in the result 
 of his work. In the static arts he does. ‘The painter 
 or the sculptor puts into durable shape the feelings 
 that arein him. So does the builder, but the builder 
 is the exception to my statement. For we do find 
 architecture flourishing among the ancient Jews; we 
 do not find painting or sculpture. The reason is 
 clear. The Second Commandment with its prohibi- 
 tion against graven images of the likeness of anything 
 that is in the heavens above or the earth beneath or in 
 the waters has acted as a mighty deterrent to these 
 arts, one might say down to this very day. 
 
 At a time when the danger of idol worship was 
 great, it is intelligible, in view of the abhorrence of 
 idols in the Jewish religion, that a stern ban should 
 have been placed on the making of any likeness. But 
 the Fathers of the Synagogue realised that as time 
 went on and the danger had almost, if not entirely, 
 disappeared, there was no longer the same need to 
 turn away from the pictorial arts. Of course, there 
 are to-day sticklers for the strict letter of the Law 
 who would condemn anything that might appear 
 to be in contravention of the second commandment. 
 Yet there have been other recognised Jewish authorities 
 less strict. Maimonides had no objection to the 
 
122 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 pictures or forms of animals in the synagogue; he 
 drew the line at the human form. As a matter of 
 fact the lion has long decorated the curtains of the 
 Ark in hundreds of synagogues. The lion is the 
 symbol of Judah and this accounts for his popularity. 
 But even carved lions were found in synagogues in 
 the Middle Ages, the most interesting example being 
 the synagogue of Pesaro, which contained a beautiful 
 Ark resting on two huge lions carved in wood. ‘This 
 historic synagogue furniture originally came from 
 Ascoli, as the late Professor David Kaufmann showed. 
 Nor does this instance stand alone. Rabbi Ephraim 
 ben Joseph, a disciple of Rabbenu Tam, expressly 
 allows pictorial adornments on the walls of the 
 synagogue. Rabbi Menachem Krochmal, a later 
 authority, declares that the practice was not unknown. 
 It is related of the synagogue at Sens, which was 
 destroyed in 1750 after having been in existence for 
 twelve hundred years, that it had painted on its walls 
 illustrations of Jewish ceremonial. 
 
 Where an objection to pictorial art is expressed by 
 a Rabbi of authority, the motive 1s not dislike of art 
 but rather a deep conviction that religion is higher 
 than beauty. Inthe first place, the second command- 
 ment is specific enough; in the second, pictures or 
 figures of animals or plants in the synagogue may 
 disturb the worshipper and distract his thoughts from 
 his orisons; and in the third place, there was the 
 fear that if pictures of animals or plants were allowed 
 into the synagogue, it might be said that Jews 
 worshipped these things. 
 
 This attitude of mind has created a tradition, which 
 on the whole has made against art in the synagogue. 
 But if art has not been welcomed into the synagogue, 
 
JUDAISM AND ART 126 
 
 it has been cultivated outside. Even the strictest 
 “traditional Jew” has a “ Mizrach” in his house ; 
 and some of these framed indicators showing the East 
 are gaudy and complex in their designs. ‘They are 
 fitcompanions to the title-pages of some of the popular 
 Festival prayer books, which emblazon in a single 
 picture Moses and Aaron, the Temple, the cornets 
 of the Temple services, and what not. This is cheap 
 art, and more’s the pity. Jews should be content 
 with nothing short of noble art. But art at its best 
 can come only with peace of mind. When life is one 
 long process of being harrowed, there is little chance 
 for artistic expression. Jewish history has therefore 
 produced martyrs and no artists. Only with emanci- 
 pation came the opportunity for artistic expression, and 
 during the last half century Jews have produced artists, 
 musicians, actors, singers, and dancers. Before that 
 an artistic soul poured itself out in illustrating the text 
 of the Haggadah. 
 
 ‘To-day, apart from the Synagogue, art is cultivated 
 among Jews, who are usually regarded as an artistic 
 people. Pictures are found in Jewish as in other 
 homes ; indeed, the Jews are among the most skilled 
 connoisseurs in all branches of art. Jews appreciate 
 beauty of form and beauty of charm; they study 
 beauty of line and beauty of voice. Their feeling for 
 beauty is love. 
 
 Some little time ago I noticed among the pictorial 
 illustrations at the Old Bailey the features of the late 
 Chief Rabbi. ‘The object of the picture is to reflect 
 the age in which it was painted by calling the onlooker’s 
 attention to the representative men of the day. 
 Strictly speaking, I suppose it was not in accordance 
 
 with Jewish Law to have the Chief Rabbi in the group. 
 
124 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 But who would wish that the Law had not been contra- 
 vened in this case? ‘There are other cases. Law is 
 all very well, and is not to be lightly spoken about. 
 But Life is more than Law, and Art is a great element 
 in Life. Since Judaism is a life-willing religion, it must 
 also be an art-willing religion—must, in other words, 
 be favourable to the highest art. Not Jews or Judaism 
 but Jewish history is responsible for the neglect of art 
 among Jews in the past. 
 
JEWISH HYGIENE 
 HE other day my old friend the Vicar, who had 
 
 just returned from a long stay in Egypt, came 
 
 to see me, and among other things we talked of 
 the wonderful discoveries at Luxor. The old gentle- 
 man waxed eloquent over the marvel and antiquity 
 of the royal sepulchre. He confessed to a weakness 
 for old things, whether they be pictures, objects of 
 art, or buildings. ‘They moved him deeply, and that 
 was one strong reason why he was so interested in the 
 Jews. 
 
 We were soon discussing the antiquity of the 
 Jewish people. That the Jews have outlived the 
 empires of the ancient world whose victims they were, 
 that amid the overthrow and destruction of so much 
 of what is termed civilisation the Jews should have 
 survived, is surely evidence of strength. ‘That the 
 Vicar admitted, and he wanted to know whether any 
 explanation of this strength has been attempted. 
 
 I suggested that the survival of the Jew throughout 
 the ages was due in some measure to his practical 
 appreciation of the nearness of Cleanliness to Godliness. 
 The Vicar was much interested in the well-known 
 opinion, quoted in the Mishna, of Rabbi Phineas ben 
 Yair, that cleanliness eventually led to holiness. ‘The 
 Jewish conception of God as the great healer is 
 significant. If only Israel obeys God’s command- 
 ments, he was assured from of old that God would 
 
 125 
 
126 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 be his physician. Since in the Jewish conception of 
 life cleanliness is next to godliness, the Jews could 
 never comprehend how dirt could qualify for sanctity— 
 as would seem to have been the case if the lives of some 
 of the medieval saints be read. In Judaism, religion, 
 morality, and hygiene were all three part and parcel 
 of the same system. 
 
 It occurred to me that for the information of the 
 Vicar I might usefully describe Jewish hygiene under 
 three headings—personal hygiene, food, and social 
 hygiene. 
 
 Those who are acquainted with Jewish life know 
 how great a part is played therein by ablutions. The 
 Jew washes before prayer and before meals; the 
 Jewish cook is most particular to have scrupulously 
 clean hands. Cleanliness is religion with her. In 
 fact, water is the matchless cleanser—for the hands, 
 the face, the body, no less than for food. Little do 
 they who find satisfaction in the rite of baptism 
 realise that they are taking part in an old Jewish custom. 
 The Essenes, in the time of the Second Temple, may 
 have exaggerated the efficacy of washing, but it was 
 one of those exaggerations which the world may 
 profitably tolerate. ‘The Jews have for centuries been 
 scrupulous in the washing of hands. To-day in 
 Western Europe this may be a matter of course. But 
 when the state of personal cleanliness in medieval 
 Europe be recalled, or indeed the condition of things 
 in Hastern Europe to-day, Jewish practice undoubtedly 
 deserves commendation. And if ablutions generally 
 are worthy of praise, what shall be said of the pre- 
 scriptions for the ablutions of married women? ‘Those 
 who are interested in public health to-day might 
 become benefactors of mankind if they took steps to 
 
JEWISH HYGIENE 127 
 
 disseminate these rules generally. ‘The world would 
 be the better for their adoption. When the Vicar 
 learned the details, he was very greatly impressed, and 
 expressed the opinion that he ought to consult with 
 the Bishop on this most important question with a 
 view to its discussion at the next Church Congress. 
 
 As part of personal cleanliness I included the rite 
 of circumcision. Whatever may have been its origin, 
 experience shows that its effects are most salutary, 
 and it is a sign of the times that this surgical operation 
 is being universally advocated and performed in this 
 country. Once more it is a case of the Law going 
 forth from Zion. ‘The world is learning a lesson in 
 Jewish hygiene. It might be said that in this instance 
 the Gentiles are accepting the ‘‘ yoke of the Law” 
 from which Paul of ‘Tarsus boastfully claimed to have 
 set them free. 
 
 I next explained to the Vicar the Jewish view on 
 the hygiene of food. Scrupulous cleanliness was the 
 governing principle, whether in determining what 
 animals may or may not be eaten, or in laying down 
 rules in regard to food itself. Meat in particular was 
 subject to much regulation, and, as the great body 
 of modern medical opinion holds, rightly so. When 
 it is considered that even to-day we are as yet far 
 away from the realisation of the ideal of pure food, 
 when, for instance, we recall some of the revelations 
 concerning tinned meat, Jews have reason to feel 
 grateful for their prescriptions in regard to what is 
 called kasher food, and especially meat. I pointed 
 out to the Vicar how what many termed Jewish pre- 
 paration is commenced by a rigorous examination of 
 the animal; how the ritual slaughtering is a fine 
 art in the reduction of pain to its uttermost limit ; 
 
128 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 and how even then the Jewish housewife does not 
 cook the meat, but subjects it first to certain treat- 
 ment. For half an hour the meat is first well soaked 
 in water; then for an hour it lies saturated with salt, 
 which drains off much of the blood, a cleansing process 
 which has been declared as of exceeding great value. 
 Nor does this suffice in every case. There are some 
 portions of the animal’s carcase that must be still 
 further dealt with; the liver isacasein point. Before 
 liver is kasher 1t must be roasted after having been 
 abundantly salted. 
 
 The Jew has an abhorrence of blood. The Jew 
 realises that infection may easily be carried by blood ; 
 and for centuries he has been taught to eschew blood. 
 The ideals of kashruth are still realities among Jews, 
 as I informed the Vicar in reply to a question of his, 
 and he was most interested in my story of the Kashruth 
 Commission in London. He expressed a desire to be 
 taken to a public kasher dinner at one of the West End 
 hotels, and I promised that he should be my welcome 
 guest on the next occasion. He then put a pertinent 
 question to me. Would it not be in the public 
 interest for the hotels to serve only kasher food for 
 everybody ? he asked. I agreed with him. But 
 that was far away as yet. Before reaching this goal 
 life in general would have to become more simple, 
 and feeding as a social phenomenon more healthy. 
 Anyhow, it was worthy of note that the operations 
 of the Kashruth Commission are extending, and it is 
 not without significance that Jews on festive occasions 
 are willing to pay a higher price for kasher food rather 
 than be content with food which, while no doubt 
 of a passable hygienic quality, is not guaranteed to 
 be of the very highest hygienic standard. Hence it 
 
JEWISH HYGIENE 129 
 
 comes that more restaurants are willing to adopt the 
 rules and submit to the supervision of the commission. 
 From the point of view of the best in humanity, this 
 is to be welcomed. Kashruth means strict cleanliness 
 and strict hygiene; and why should not men be 
 taught religion through hygiene? 
 
 Lastly I mentioned to the Vicar instances of Jewish 
 social hygiene. The Jews have strict rules about 
 contact with a dead body. ‘hey may not be so 
 necessary now (though quite unnecessary they are 
 not), but these rules have played their part in the 
 preservation of health. Jews know nothing of kissing 
 corpses, a custom still prevalent in many parts of 
 Europe ; nor do they celebrate ‘‘ death feasts ” in the 
 presence of the corpse. Jewish custom prescribes 
 speedy burial—for hygienic reasons that must find 
 universal approval. 
 
 Of a more general character is the institution of the 
 Sabbath. It has come to be generally recognised that 
 in the national interest a regular interval of rest 1s 
 a necessity, so much so that the practice of resting 
 from work is enforced by regulation. There is a deep 
 social hygienic reason behind the Shop Hours Act 
 in this country, but the principle has been proclaimed 
 to the world for centuries by the Jewish people. ‘The 
 Sabbath has a religious significance ; no less important, 
 however, is its hygienic value. As an institution of 
 social hygiene, the Sabbath is unsurpassed for antiquity, 
 religious value, inwardness, and recuperation. 
 
 So with other arrangements in the field of social 
 hygiene. ‘The institution of hospitals, of homes for 
 the aged, and of orphan asylums is essentially Jewish. 
 There is a touching story in the Midrash of God 
 
 showing to Moses the treasures stored up for the 
 I 
 
130 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 pious. One in particular came under the observation 
 of Moses as being especially beautiful, and he asked, 
 ‘“‘ For whom is this intended ?”’ ‘The Divine answer 
 is a fine illustration of Jewish sentiment. ‘It is 
 intended for those who care for orphans!” 
 
 Such is the quality of Jewish right-doing, or the 
 performance of social duty. ‘Charity saves from 
 death ”’ is a popular Jewish saying. But social duties 
 make possible social hygiene, and in a larger sense it 
 may perhaps be said that social and personal hygiene 
 save a people from dying out. 
 
DIET AND HEALTH 
 
 HERE has been some correspondence lately 
 
 in one of the daily papers on Diet and Health, 
 
 and judging from the interest which the theme 
 
 has aroused, people seem to be greatly concerned 
 about the subject. It is well that this should be so. 
 Diet plays an important part in life, and an informed 
 and widespread public opinion upon it is eminently 
 desirable. I followed the correspondence pretty 
 closely, and one letter in particular arrested my 
 attention. It was from a medical man who laid 
 down ten guiding principles to determine the quality 
 and quantity of food necessary for healthy people. 
 To the general considerations were appended ten 
 definite rules, such as, “‘ Never eat unless you have 
 a good appetite,” or, “‘ If you feel or know that you 
 have over-eaten at any one meal, either miss the next 
 altogether or lessen the amount of food you take at 
 subsequent meals.”” ‘he advice sounded strangely 
 familiar; and as I pondered over it, I remembered 
 that I had met with it in some parts of Jewish literature. 
 Both in the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch* you 
 will find regulations as to wise dieting, and it is sur- 
 prising to observe how closely these ancient saws 
 approach modern rules. It makes one think that 
 perhaps the Jews have been gifted not only with the 
 1 For an account of the Shulchan Aruch, see Aspects of Jewish Life 
 
 and Thought (by the present writer), p. 41. 
 131 
 
132 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 genius for religion, but also with the capacity for 
 healthful living. The hygiene of the Mosaic Code 
 is universally applauded. But the rules of health 
 found in Rabbinic literature would also win the ad- 
 miration of social reformers and medical practitioners 
 if only they were better known. 
 
 Seeing that the Talmud touches upon all aspects 
 of life, it is not surprising that diet should be a subject 
 of discussion in its pages. I recall a goodly number 
 of Rabbinic statements about food. Early break- 
 fast is recommended ; in summer it is good to steel 
 oneself in this way against the heat, and in winter 
 against the cold. In order to give point to the moral 
 one Rabbi relates how sixty men raced with one who 
 had breakfasted early and could not overtake him. 
 But the guiding principle in eating should be not to 
 eat unless you are hungry, exactly what the modern 
 specialists advise. The Rabbis of old attached a 
 good deal of importance to the manner of eating. 
 They advocated a certain preparation before meals— 
 not merely washing, but also the cultivation of a 
 serene frame of mind. They realised that during 
 meals ease of mind is a necessity. Do not eat in the 
 open street; only dogs do so; do not eat with your 
 fingers ; do not eat standing ; do not bolt your food. 
 Such are some of the rules found in the Talmud. 
 They must have been practised among Jews during 
 the first five centuries of the common era. Yet a 
 thousand years later royal personages in England still 
 used their fingers at meals. The old Rabbis advo- 
 cated simple food. A man of limited means, they 
 declared, may well thrive on goat’s milk. Meat is 
 by no means a necessity, and in any event should only 
 be eaten in the evening. After a meal it is advisable 
 
DIET AND HEALTH 133 
 
 to drink a little and to stretch one’s legs a bit. The 
 Rabbis had no objection to wine. Indeed they recom- 
 mend it in moderation. But they utter a warning 
 against craving for wine, since too much wine is bad 
 for the body and bad for the mind. ‘‘ When wine 
 goes in, secrets come out.” Besides, for the drunkard 
 the difference between “ mine” and “ thine ” quickly 
 disappears. Do not drink more than you eat; do 
 not drink strong wine; drink a little water after 
 wine ; and drink only when you are thirsty. 
 
 The Shulchan Aruch elaborates these rules, and 
 when the cramping effect of Ghetto life is borne in 
 mind, it seems nothing short of wonderful that these 
 laws of hygiene should have been evolved and carried 
 out. The Shulchan Aruch starts out from the funda- 
 mental principle that a sound body is essential if a 
 man is to serve God whole-heartedly ; and that, 
 therefore, to live according to hygienic rules is a 
 religious duty. Here food occupies the first place. 
 Food is a necessity; to flagellate the body by de- 
 priving it of food is wrong. Food may be compared 
 to the fuel placed in an oven. If a man does not eat, 
 his “‘ fire? goes out, and in the end he will die. But 
 too much food may be as harmful as too little. To 
 eat too much is like overloading a fire; it tends to 
 smoulder and cannot burnup. Do not eat to satiety, 
 advises the Shulchan Aruch; and remember that 
 most ills come upon mankind from over-eating. 
 Growing children require food more frequently than 
 adults, while aged folk need light food. Generally, 
 it is necessary to eat less in the summer than in the 
 Winter ; two-thirds of the winter diet should suffice 
 in the summer. It is a good rule, says the Shulchan 
 Aruch, to warm the body either by walking or working 
 
134 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 before a meal. This can be well paralleled by the 
 
 advice of modern physicians: “‘ Vary the amount of 
 food you eat each day according to what you have 
 ‘earned.’ A hard day’s work will entitle you to 
 more food than a day of comparative idleness.” 
 
 The Shulchan Aruch realises, what the modern 
 specialist preaches, that a man’s food varies according 
 to his idiosyncracies, and that one man’s meat is 
 another man’s poison. Yet there are certain rules 
 which apply generally, as, for example, that wheaten 
 bread is good, that the best kind of meat is tender 
 mutton or very tender goat flesh, that tough beef 
 and old cheese are bad foods, and that fowl is more 
 digestible than meat. A curious statement is that 
 the food to which one becomes accustomed, even if 
 it be unwholesome, does no harm, since constant 
 usage hardens the system against it. I wonder if 
 modern medical science would support this view. 
 Most certainly, I fancy, it would subscribe to the 
 advice that it is a good thing for the digestion to omit 
 one meal during the week, the Shulchan Aruch sug- 
 gesting that an appropriate time for this is Friday 
 afternoon, before the Sabbath comes in. 
 
 In regard to drinking, the Shulchan Aruch praises 
 water as an excellent cleanser for the body; and 
 supports the ancient advice that it is best to drink 
 after, and not during, meals. But wine in modera- 
 tion is not to be despised. Wine is good for the old 
 and harmful to the young; it is advisable to abstain 
 from wine until the age of twenty-one. Wine also 
 has this recommendation for the Shulchan Aruch, that 
 it gladdens the heart of man. An even temper and 
 a merry heart are both necessary for perfect health. 
 So is moderate sleep. 
 
DIET AND HEALTH 135 
 
 Some of these Rabbinic ordinances are surprising 
 in their scope; modern science would accept them 
 all. But most surprising is the recommendation to 
 live in a place where the atmosphere is pure, in an 
 elevated situation, and in a roomy house. That a 
 Ghetto writer should advocate air and light is truly 
 remarkable. It is as well, in view of Professor Pearson’s 
 considered results about Jews, to put on record this 
 bit of Shulchan Aruch lore. 
 
 If cities were built in accordance with these old 
 Jewish notions, if their citizens lived their lives accord- 
 ing to these Jewish traditions, the world might become 
 a fitter place for decent human habitation. For moral 
 and religious conduct Jewish literature contains much 
 valuable guidance, but it also possesses wise counsel 
 regarding the physical life. In the ancient Ghettoes, 
 Jewish children were taught these things out of the 
 books in the original Hebrew; it would be commend- 
 able if our children to-day were taught these matters 
 by their teachers in the vernacular. Personal hygiene 
 should find a place in all schooling, and I cannot help 
 feeling that for Jewish children the old Jewish tradi- 
 tions would be a fitting subject of instruction. 
 
 It would seem that long ago Jews realised the value 
 of pure food, pure air, and cleanliness. ‘These were 
 looked upon as the proper accompaniments of high 
 ethical conduct. That cleanliness is next to godli- 
 ness might well be a Jewish proverb; and if there 
 are dirty Jews, they are dirty because of their environ- 
 ment, not because they are Jews. Jewish tradition 
 sets before the Jew (and before the world) a high 
 standard of moral conduct and of personal hygiene. 
 If he falls away from either, he himself and not the 
 system is to be blamed. The fashion to-day appears 
 
136 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 to be to blame the Jewish system rather than the 
 individual Jew. In the eyes of Lord Sydenham, for 
 instance, Judaism is condemned as a revolutionary 
 leaven because Trotsky is a Bolshevik. That seems 
 illogical. If ‘Trotsky or any other Jew casts aside 
 the tenets of Judaism, that is no reflection on Judaism. 
 Goodness remains goodness despite evil men in the 
 world, and Judaism, as a conception of life and 
 religion, can easily hold its own with the noblest 
 systems evolved by human thought. Even if some 
 Jews have turned their backs on Judaism, it should 
 not be forgotten that the vast majority of Jews still 
 strive to live in accordance with its teachings. Perhaps 
 one reason for the continuance of Jews throughout 
 the ages is their sound health, due to careful dieting ; 
 and this again may be the result of rules in which 
 is incorporated the accumulated experience of the 
 ages. 
 
SEMITISM 
 
 E hear much these days of anti-Semitism. 
 
 But what is the elementary meaning of the 
 
 term? It is, to be opposed to the descendants 
 of Shem, which in the French form becomes Sem, 
 the eldest son of Noah. But not all the children of 
 Shem are included in this hostility ; Semitism came 
 to be limited to Jews, and anti-Semitism denotes 
 hatred of Jews. 
 
 The theory is that the world is peopled by races, 
 and that some races are more virile than others. 
 There are higher and lower races, and in the estima- 
 tion of the anti-Semites the Jews are an inferior race, 
 their direct opposite being the Aryan race (in San- 
 scrit “‘ arya’’ denotes ‘‘ noble ’’). 
 
 It was in 1808 that Schlegel, the German philolo- 
 gist, published the discovery that Sanscrit was the 
 mother tongue of a number of Indian and European 
 languages. The theory became popular, and the 
 peoples who spoke these respective languages were 
 grouped as members of one family—the Indo- 
 Germanic or Aryan, the principal being Celts, 
 Germans, Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Armenians, Persians, 
 and Indians. Excluded from the group were Semites, 
 Hamites, Mongols, Turks, and so on. 
 
 Throughout the whole of the nineteenth century 
 this theory of races was written about and discussed 
 until it became a popular belief. It was declared, 
 
 137 
 
138 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 in regard to the Indo-Germanic folk, that they once 
 lived together, speaking the same tongue, and that 
 in due course they left their first home and spread 
 over Europe and Asia. Where was this first home ? 
 Max Miiller was positive it was Central Asia; 
 Latham and others placed it in Eastern Europe; 
 some authorities were for Germany; others, again, 
 for Scandinavia. Clearly the scholars were not 
 unanimous on the subject. They differed, also, as 
 to the appearance of the Aryan. Huxley said that 
 he was long skulled, Tylor that he was short skulled ; 
 Gobineau that he was tall and fair, Sergi that he was 
 short and brown; Pictet believed that he was a 
 husbandman, Schrader that he was an uncivilised 
 barbarian. 
 
 So throughout the century the learned quarrelled 
 among themselves. A whole structure of race differ- 
 ences was built up. Men were divided according 
 to the shape of their skulls, the colour of their eyes 
 and of their hair, their stature and the shape of their 
 noses. Endless possibilities were opened up ; learned 
 imaginations ran riot. Each scholar put forward a 
 theory of his own, until in the present century the 
 fable of an Aryan race was exploded. There is no 
 such thing—nor (so I am told) is there a Semitic 
 race. The terms Aryan and Semitic may properly 
 be applied only to languages. 
 
 It is impossible to speak with certainty about races. 
 The facts are by no means established, and science 
 in this particular direction has not made sufficient 
 progress to allow of any trustworthy generalisation. 
 But one or two outstanding phenomena may be 
 noted. ‘There is a white race and a black race. The 
 former may be divided into two main groups accord- 
 
SEMITISM 139 
 
 ing to their predominant colour—dark /and fair. 
 Fair peoples are found for the most part in Northern 
 Europe; dark peoples in the countries round the 
 Mediterranean, 2.¢., Southern Europe, North Africa 
 and Asia Minor. Perhaps this table may illustrate 
 the broad generalisation : 
 
 The White Race 
 | 
 
 Fair Northerners Dark Southerners 
 
 Northern Europe Northern Group Eastern Group Southern Group 
 (Celts, Germans, (Greeks, Italians, (Armenians, (Egyptians, 
 Slavs) — Spaniards) Persians) Arabs) 
 
 The Jews belong to the Dark Southerners of the 
 White Race. Their history in Europe is a record of 
 at least two thousand years, a period which compares 
 favourably with that of other people. The Jews of 
 Western Europe are Southerners who have settled 
 in Northern lands. This accounts for their being 
 noticed among the Northern people in whose midst 
 they live. But their specific traits are no different 
 from other Dark Southerners, say Greeks or Italians. 
 It is alleged that Jews tend to be small of stature, to 
 have dark hair, to develop earlier, and to possess a 
 certain liveliness of character. ‘These are not 
 specifically Jewish characteristics; they are found 
 among all the Dark Southerners. ‘‘ We never notice 
 whether a man is a Jew or not,” writes the Spaniard 
 Alejandro Sawa, ‘‘ the Jews are physically and morally 
 like all other Spaniards.” 
 
 If this is so, there is something amiss with the theory 
 of the anti-Semites that there is of necessity a conflict 
 between Aryans and Jews, and Mr. Belloc in his 
 
140 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 opinion about Jews only shows a narrow-minded soul. 
 Besides, it cannot be a question of Aryan v. Jew, 
 because Jew-hatred is not a specifically “ Aryan” 
 trait. Arabs dislike the Jews; there is evidence 
 that in Moorish countries Jews were treated worse 
 than among Christians. Jacob de Vitry, writing in 
 the thirteenth century, says of the Jews, ‘‘ a Saracenis 
 autem inter quos habitant, magis habentur odio et 
 contemptu quam a Christianis.” Jews, the same 
 author informs us, are “slaves of the heathens.” 
 Bachya, in the fourteenth century, bears testimony 
 to the dislike of Jews on the part of the “* Ishmaelites ”’ ; 
 while Yehuda Halevi writes sadly in his ‘ Cuzari,” 
 that the Jews are few in number, and despised of all. 
 Menasseh ben Israel, in the seventeenth century, has 
 the same tale to tell: the Jews are worse off among 
 Moslems than among Christians. 
 
 But even on the basis of anthropological data, 
 difficulties arise in regard to the Jew. The Asiatic 
 Arab tends to have a long skull, the Jew a short skull. 
 The difference is noticeable also between the European 
 Jews and their brethren who dwell in Mesopotamia, 
 Yemen, and Tunis. And are there not fair types 
 among Jews? One authority places the percentage 
 of fair Jews in Galicia at 20, in Russia at 12, in Bavaria 
 at 10, in Hungary at 18, in the United States at 11, 
 and among Jews of Central Europe at 25! 
 
 The fact is that there is little certainty in this 
 theory of races, and there are anthropologists of 
 standing, including Ripley, who deny the “‘ Semitism ”’ 
 of Jews. One, Topinard, goes to the other extreme, 
 and declares that Jews are not a race, but a “‘ religious 
 federation ’’ (Les Juifs sont ni une nation, ni une race, 
 ils ne sont qu’une féderation religieuse.) 
 
SEMITISM 141 
 
 On this basis another theory (again a theory !) has 
 been propounded. Is it not possible to conceive of a 
 religious group developing similar characteristics in 
 the course of ages? Similar pathological weaknesses 
 have been instanced, and figures are quoted to show 
 that the reaction to certain illnesses varies according 
 to the religious sect. In Budapest, for example, it 
 has been pointed out that among Catholics, 4,143 
 children in every 100,000 die of bowel trouble, but 
 among Lutherans the figure is 3,762, among Calvinists 
 it is 3,203, and among Jews 1,442. Again, for the 
 period 1880-1899, in Bavaria, the number of suicides 
 among Catholics was 95 per million, among Protestants 
 221, and among Jews 185. 
 
 And what of the Jewish nose? The nose proves 
 nothing. There are Jews with Roman noses, and 
 there are Jews with crooked noses. Many Armenians 
 have hooked noses, a shape which was also the lot of 
 Louis XIV and all his clan. 
 
 As I pondered on this theory of races and that 
 unlovely thing—race antagonisms, I felt inclined 
 to say: A plague on all your houses. I could not 
 help recalling the passage in the Mishna which states 
 that in the beginning one man alone was made and 
 not a multitude, in order to establish peace among 
 mankind, so that one man should not say to another 
 ‘“‘ My father was greater than thine.”? This appears 
 to be sounder wisdom than all the race imaginings 
 of the hate-mongers and Chauvinists. In the sense 
 that a race is but a larger family, Jews must be written 
 down a race. But, like all families, they have their 
 family history, and their strength and failings, and 
 though they may differ from other families, they are 
 amicably disposed to all. Like individuals, families 
 
142. JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 have personalities, that magic, mysterious something 
 which moves the world ; and Jews possess a specifically 
 Jewish “‘ personality.””> Whether Jews are a race, 
 whether they are Semites or ‘ Dark Southerners,” 
 so much is certain, that they stand for a particular 
 attitude to life. Not the “‘ merry-go-round of the 
 Devil,” as Mr. Lloyd George put it a little while ago, 
 but love of God, with justice, and mercy, and kindness 
 influencing the every-day life of man. 
 
PHARISEES 
 | HAVE often asked myself how many people 
 
 who use the word Pharisee realise that it is of 
 
 Hebrew origin? And how many people who 
 use the word in its applied sense of hypocrite are 
 aware that it is altogether unjustifiable? Yet such 
 is the case. The Pharisees were one of the parties 
 which arose among the Jews, probably after the 
 Maccabean wars. The victory over the Syrian 
 oppressor was regarded by many Jews in those days, 
 what it essentially was, as the triumph of mono- 
 theism over heathenism. The Jews had obtained 
 religious liberty, and they were anxious to retain it 
 pure. They had pushed from them the accursed 
 thing, for as such they regarded the heathen practices, 
 and they were anxious to keep it far away. They 
 wished to be separated from it. Heathenism for them 
 denoted Hellenism. They accordingly avoided all 
 contact with the prevailing view of life. Hellenism 
 was bound up with idol worship ; the Pharisees clung 
 fast to the Temple Services. Hellenism meant 
 luxurious living and pleasure, the Pharisees lived the 
 simple life. ‘“‘ They live plainly, and despise delicacies 
 in diet,’ Josephus reports of them. ‘* They also pay 
 a respect to such as are in years .. . the cities gave 
 great attestations to them on account of their entire 
 virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives 
 and in their discourses also.” 
 
 143 
 
144 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 This seems an excellent testimonial. Why is it 
 then that the dictionaries explain pharisaical to mean 
 hypocritical? The answer will be found in the 
 twenty-third chapter of the Book of Matthew. Jesus 
 of Nazareth is there made to rail at the Scribes and 
 Pharisees, whom He calls hypocrites, blind guides, fools, 
 whited sepulchres, serpents, and offspring of vipers. 
 It is hardly like Jesus as He is commonly thought 
 of to have used such harsh terms. He is made out 
 to have been a gentle, conciliatory, compassionate 
 preacher. A suspicion at once arises that perhaps 
 Jesus did not use this language at all, and that later 
 writers poured out their fury in this un-Christian 
 fashion against the Jews. Be it remembered, as 
 Christian scholars admit, that the four books which 
 are usually printed first in the New Testament are 
 not historical but theological, not objective accounts 
 but polemical disquisitions. It would seem that it 
 was the object of the writer of Matthew to paint the 
 Pharisees as black as possible. It has been pointed 
 out that in the gospels the Pharisees play a part second 
 only to that of the hero. Yet the vituperation against 
 them is always in general terms. Not a single name 
 is mentioned. This adds to one’s suspicion of the 
 trustworthiness of the report on the Pharisees. It 
 has also been suggested that the very form of “‘ Scribes 
 and Pharisees ’’ is misleading. Commentators usually 
 say the meaning is “‘ Pharisaical Scribes.” But this 
 is hardly convincing. More to the point is the 
 suggestion that the original story dealt with Scribes 
 alone and that a later and probably anti-Jewish 
 copyist added the word Pharisees. The resulting 
 combination is absurd. ‘The Scribes were Pharisees, 
 just as the Pope is a Roman Catholic. Scribe was 
 
PHARISEES 145 
 
 a title; Pharisees was the name of a party. One 
 might as well speak of Bishops and Anglicans. 
 
 The probability thus seems to be that the un- 
 Christian and harsh condemnation of the Pharisees 
 was of later date and undeserved. The Pharisees 
 could not all have been wicked and hypocritical, seeing 
 that on one occasion Saul of ‘Tarsus proclaimed himself 
 a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees. 
 
 The truth is, as the testimony of Josephus shows, 
 that the Pharisees were those Jews, and they appear 
 to have been in the majority, who placed the Torah 
 above all other considerations, whether in religious 
 or political questions. In this they were opposed 
 to the Sadducees, the party of the wealthy courtiers, 
 military men, and diplomats, with whom were 
 associated some members of the priestly families. 
 This group, though numerically small, was influential. 
 Their doctrines, Josephus writes, ‘‘ are received but 
 by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity ” ; 
 while in Rabbinic literature we are informed that the 
 Sadducees throughout their whole lives used no other 
 than gold and silver utensils. ‘The Pharisees, Josephus 
 relates again, ‘‘ have delivered to the people a great 
 many observances by succession from their fathers, 
 which are not written in the law of Moses; and for 
 that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and 
 say that we are to esteem those observances to be 
 obligatory which are in the written word, but are not 
 to observe what are derived from the tradition of our 
 forefathers; and concerning these things it is that 
 great disputes and differences have arisen among them, 
 while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the 
 tich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, 
 
 but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.” 
 K 
 
146 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 It cannot be too often insisted upon that the 
 Pharisees were the men of progress and development ; 
 men like the Talmudic Rabbis who laid down rules 
 for a dynamic growth of the Jewish religion; men 
 of the character of Hillel, or Jochanan ben Zakkai, 
 or Akiba, or Meir1 They are accused of binding on 
 men heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and many 
 modern Christian theologians appear to accept this 
 picture of the Pharisees, contrasting first the religion 
 of the Rabbis with the religion of Jesus, and then 
 Judaism with Christianity. Needless to point out 
 which is placed first—so little do these scholars 
 appreciate the fact that the religious system of the 
 Pharisees is the foundation of what is best in 
 Christianity. These Pharisees taught joyful service 
 of God, whole-hearted devotion to His Command- 
 ments, meekness, gentleness, and neighbourliness. 
 They not only taught these ideals; they lived them. 
 Since this is Jewish teaching down to this day, the 
 Pharisees must have builded well. 
 
 Jesus could not have objected to them all. 
 Pharisees were among His followers; He Himself 
 taught the doctrines of the Pharisees. That there 
 were hypocrites among the Pharisees, the Talmud 
 itself reports. But every social group is entitled to be 
 judged by its best, and not by its worst, members. 
 The Talmud divides Pharisees into seven categories. 
 There were ‘‘ Shoulder Pharisees,” who, as it were, 
 carried their good deeds on their shoulders, wishing 
 all men to see the same. ‘Then there were “ Tarrying 
 Pharisees,” who were for ever saying: ‘* Wait a 
 moment; I’ve a religious duty to perform.” The 
 
 1 Studies of each of these, except the second, will be found in Aspects 
 of Jewish Life and Thought, the First Series of The Letiers of Benammi ; 
 for the second see below. 
 
PHARISEES 147 
 
 third class were the ‘‘ Calculating Pharisees,” who 
 were always weighing up their evil deeds against their 
 virtues. Fourthly, there were the *‘ Saving Pharisees,”’ 
 who boasted that of their poverty they saved some- 
 thing for charity. The fifth class were the “ Sin- 
 searching Pharisees,” who desired to know the sins 
 they had committed in order to expiate them im- 
 mediately, and suggesting by their very query that 
 they had no sins. ‘These five categories are mentioned 
 as types to be avoided. ‘The sixth class is praised for 
 doing good because, like Job, they fear God; while 
 the seventh is held up as the ideal, seeing that, like 
 Abraham, they do good for love of God. 
 
 All in all, the Pharisees taught a high standard of 
 conduct, a high conception of God, and a high social 
 code. It is a thousand pities that their designation 
 should have come to mean the very opposite of what 
 they stood for. 
 
THE “ BLACK FAST ” AND THE BLACK STORY 
 
 HE continuance of the Ninth Day of Ab as 
 
 a Jewish Fast is indeed testimony to the per- 
 
 sistence of the Jew. Is there any parallel to 
 it? For eighteen and a half centuries Jews have 
 continued to mark in their calendar the day on which 
 they ceased to be a nation. In sunshine and in storm 
 Tisha b’Ab has been observed; and even to-day, in 
 this London of ours, there are many Jews who, though 
 their devotion to Jewish observances has become 
 somewhat attenuated, will not eat meat on the ‘‘ Black 
 Past \ 
 
 If only the inwardness of the Fast were more widely 
 appreciated, it would at least serve the purpose of 
 making Jews realise the long continuity of Jewish 
 history. Tisha b’Ab has sometimes been called the 
 Black Fast, and black are its memories. The actual 
 story of the siege and capture of Jerusalem in the 
 year 70 may be more or less known in outline. But 
 that slege was not an isolated event. It was rather 
 the culminating point of a process of disruption which 
 first began to make itself felt sixty-four years before. 
 It was in the year 6 that Palestine became a Roman 
 Province. 
 
 What did this mean for the Jews? When the 
 Second Temple was established, the Jews enjoyed 
 no small measure of self-government, and they were 
 
 able to mould their religious life as they wished. 
 148 
 
THE “BLACK FAST” 149 
 
 With the Maccabean victories they also obtained 
 Jewish rulers, which was no small thing. Even Herod 
 was better than an utter stranger. But strangers 
 came to govern Palestine when Herod died. They 
 did not know the people, who appeared to them stark 
 and stubborn devotees of a cult unknown in Rome. 
 Because of their very ignorance they hurt Jewish 
 susceptibilities, often enough unconsciously. ‘The 
 Roman Procurators were not popular. They did 
 little to win sympathy for themselves; they were 
 regarded as the representatives of a tyrannical power ; 
 and they were the instruments of financial oppression. 
 The Jews particularly disliked the poll tax. To be 
 counted like cattle and amerced like slaves was a bitter 
 experience for a proud and free people. But bitterest 
 of all was to find that the appointment to the office 
 of High Priest was in the hands of a stranger. 
 
 The decade preceding the capture of Jerusalem 
 was characterised by a succession of Roman Pro- 
 curators whose conduct aroused the hatred of the 
 Jews. Perhaps the best hated of them was Pontius 
 Pilate (27-37), a name destined to go down in history. 
 But he did not stand alone. A worthy colleague was 
 Tiberius Alexander (47-49), a Jew who had turned 
 heathen, and who appears, when he changed his faith, 
 also to have changed his heart. He was without 
 feeling for his race and their sufferings. Is it remark- 
 able that opposition to Rome was secretly gaining 
 strength ? Three years after Tiberius Alexander, 
 a freed slave, Felix, ruled Judza for eight years 
 (52-60), and under Gessius Florus (64-66), the last 
 of the Procurators, popular ill-will was whipped into 
 afury. Had the governors of Palestine been different, 
 the trend of Jewish history might have been in another 
 
150 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 and less sorrowful direction. But it was a case of 
 like master, like man. The period in which the 
 patience of the Jews in Palestine was exhausted by 
 these underlings saw on the throne of the Cesars 
 madmen like Caligula and Nero, and weak, women- 
 ridden nonentities like Claudius. 
 
 Nor did the Jews of that generation find comfort 
 in those who might have been expected to lead them 
 and plead their cause. A few descendants of the 
 Maccabees still lived, but with the exception of King 
 Agrippa I they were degenerates. Their miserable 
 and petty family squabbles did the Jews no good, 
 and their private lives won only contempt for them. 
 They appeared to have no personal dignity and no 
 patriotism. One of the women-folk, Berenice, did 
 not shrink from granting her favours to Titus himself. 
 
 It is intelligible that despair should seize upon the 
 best minds in the land. Only the short reign of 
 Agrippa I (37-44) re-awakened hope. Agrippa was 
 popular ; on the whole he was a good ruler; best 
 of all, he was not a stranger who looked carelessly 
 and often scoffingly on rites and ceremonies which 
 meant much to those who carried them out. But 
 Agrippa’s reign was the last ray of the setting sun. 
 He died a mysterious death; it has been suggested 
 at the hands of Roman assassins. In 44, Judaea was 
 again a Roman province, and the hopelessness of the 
 Jews was complete. The Ronian Procurators, intent 
 on enriching themselves, robbed and spoiled at their 
 own sweet will, and popular feeling was outraged. 
 Robber bands infested the country side, and murderers 
 were ready to hire themselves out for killing Romans. 
 Great must have been the provocation. Gessius 
 Florus, for example, simply demanded that seventeen 
 
THE “BLACK FAST” 151 
 
 talents should be paid to him out of the Temple 
 treasury. He had no right to make his claim; he 
 assigned no reason for it. ‘here were not a few Jews 
 in Jerusalem who were disposed to refuse the tyrant’s 
 request, and many among them went round collect- 
 ing coins for *‘ poor Florus.” ‘Though the reasonable 
 men obtained the upper hand, seeing that opposition 
 was useless, and the money was paid to the governor, 
 Florus could not pocket the studied insult of those 
 who had jeered at him. From Caesarea, where he 
 resided, he brought an army to Jerusalem, demanding 
 the unconditional surrender of the culprits. In vain 
 they pleaded for mercy. But he was relentless in 
 his anger, making the whole population responsible 
 for the jest of a few hot-heads. He gave his soldiers 
 permission to plunder and murder, and 3600 Jews, 
 of all ages and of both sexes, were killed that day. 
 
 Feeling ran high and the Zealots came forward 
 as the party of direct opposition to Rome. Freedom 
 or death was the cry of their leader, Eleazar ben 
 Chanania. ‘henceforth a line of cleavage was marked 
 out between heathen and Jew. Before that the two 
 co-operated in many social and political activities, 
 for the Jews are not naturally anti-social. But the 
 Zealots, realising that enmity between Jews and 
 Romans was then inevitable, kept Jews separate and 
 apart. 
 
 Palestine was full of unrest. ‘Trouble was brewing. 
 It was to be a struggle for liberty and for pure religion. 
 The Jews were bent on striking down Emperor- 
 worship and at the same time winning their freedom. 
 
 “Their course cannot but find support among all 
 lovers of liberty. ‘They might even have been success- 
 ful, great though the odds against them were. But 
 
152 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 their ranks were divided. Opposed to the Zealots 
 were the Peace Party, among whom were counted 
 many priests anxious at all costs to protect the Temple 
 and maintain its service. But even these parties were 
 not united. The Zealots were split up into lesser 
 groups, no less than the Peace men. Jew would not 
 trust Jew, and that perhaps was the greatest tragedy 
 of all. 
 
 The Governor of Syria, who was responsible for 
 the peace of Palestine, was stirred to take action. He 
 marched to Jerusalem, was badly beaten, and in his 
 retreat his army was so set upon by irregulars that 
 nothing of it was left by the time he returned to Syria. 
 It was a case of prompt action, and Nero was informed. 
 To put down the insurrection of the Jews, the Emperor 
 sent his most successful General, Vespasian, who, 
 among other things, had recovered Britain by his 
 arms. ‘Che Jewish successes over the Syrian Governor 
 had elated all souls in Palestine, and the country was 
 prepared for war. Fortified towns were strengthened, 
 the garrison of the capital was increased, and the 
 Temple itself became a military stronghold. But 
 these efforts proved fruitless. Accompanied by his 
 son ‘Titus, who later on took over the command of 
 the Roman forces, Vespasian swept all before him. 
 The conquest of the country took four years, and was 
 no easy task. ‘The Jews were fighting for their very 
 life. But they fought in vain. The last onslaughts, 
 when Jerusalem was closely besieged, were extremely 
 bitter, and the sufferings of those who took refuge 
 in the capital acute. The end was tragic. ‘‘ While 
 the Holy House was on fire,” we are informed by 
 Josephus, who probably saw the event with his own 
 eyes, “‘ everything was plundered that came to hand, 
 
THE “BLACK FAST” 153 
 
 and ten thousand of those that were caught were 
 slain; nor was there commiseration of any age, or 
 any reverence of gravity ; but children, and old men, 
 and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the 
 same manner.” It was just war, and the Jews were 
 the conquered, and paid the penalty. The im- 
 pression must have been terrible, so terrible, that the 
 Impetus of its recollection has lasted down to this 
 very day. 
 
THE WANDERING JEWS 
 
 HE speech of the Earl of Balfour in the 
 
 debate in the House of Lords (July 1922) on 
 
 the Palestine Mandate set my mind thinking 
 on one of the characteristics of Jewish history. “A 
 small race inhabiting a small country, about the size 
 of Wales or Belgium, never wielding any material 
 power, its inhabitants deported and driven to every 
 country in the world, yet maintaining a continuity 
 of religious and racial conditions of which we have no 
 parallel elsewhere.” ‘These were his lordship’s words, 
 and they were well chosen. The story of the Jewish 
 people is one long tale of wanderings. It begins with 
 the wanderings of the Patriarchs ; as the Jew bringing 
 first ripe fruits professed: ‘“‘ A nomad Syrian was 
 my father.”? One of the landmarks in the ancient 
 history of the race is its journey to Egypt, and its 
 redemption from the house of bondage. From Egypt 
 the Jews wandered to Palestine. From Palestine they 
 were forced to wander to Babylon; from Babylon, in 
 the reign of Cyrus, a number of them returned to 
 Palestine, and for a considerable period established 
 there a Commonwealth more or lessindependent. But 
 even before that Commonwealth was destroyed in the 
 year 70, there had been migrations of Jews, especially in 
 what is termed the Hellenistic period, to every great 
 trading centre in the world. Among the important 
 trading cities of this time, Alexandria occupied the 
 
 154 
 
THE WANDERING JEWS 155 
 
 foremost place. It is said that in the first century of 
 the common era there were at least one million Jews in 
 Egypt, forming about one-eighth of the total popula- 
 tion of that country, and that half the population 
 of Alexandria were Jews. Indeed, as Strabo says, 
 quoted by Josephus: “It 1s hard to find a place in 
 the habitable earth that hath not admitted the Jews.” 
 The Jews appear to have followed the trade routes 
 of the world, and there is at least one theory of Jewish 
 history which maintains that the history of the ramifi- 
 cations of trade is the history of Jewish migrations. 
 
 When the Jewish State was destroyed in the year 70, 
 the Jews were scattered all over the near East. A 
 large number fled to Babylon, a smaller group found 
 refuge in Arabia, others, again, went to Rome, and 
 not a few accompanied the Roman legionaries, either 
 as merchants or as slaves, to the most distant parts 
 of the Roman world. 
 
 It was in Babylon, during the Middle Ages, that the 
 Jews were best off. For this reason, Babylon became 
 the great centre of gravity for the Jews, until about 
 the seventh or eighth century. Jewish life in Babylon 
 dated back continuously to the time of the First 
 Exile. Even when Ezra and Nehemiah led a remnant 
 of the Jews back to Palestine, the great majority of 
 the Babylonian Jews, and seemingly the wealthy sort, 
 remained behind. They formed an integral part of 
 the Babylonian national life, earning their livelihood 
 as tillers of the soil, handicraftsmen, and traders. 
 They developed a strong intellectual life, even pro- 
 ducing a Talmud of their own. Indeed, the Baby- 
 lonian Talmud has enjoyed more popularity during 
 the centuries than the sister compilation of Palestine. 
 It was only natural that after the calamities of the 
 
156 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 year 70, many Jews should have turned their gaze to 
 Babylon and migrated there to settle among fellow- 
 Jews. 
 
 Religious persecution forced the Jews to leave 
 Babylon about the middle of the eighth century, and 
 with the dispersion of the Jews from Babylon the 
 centre of Jewish gravity for some seven hundred years 
 was the Iberian Peninsula. Through a variety of 
 causes the Jews found a second home in Spain, which 
 they came to love only next to Palestine. It is said 
 that Jews settled in Spain and Portugal in the days of 
 the Roman Republic. They were attracted by the 
 natural riches of the country, which they developed 
 with great success. As in Persia, the Jews in Spain 
 were traders, craftsmen, and farmers. ‘Their treat- 
 ment in Spain in these early days varied with the 
 trend of religious thought and with the personality 
 of the reigning Sovereign. In 711, however, the 
 Arabs conquered Spain, and a golden age opened for 
 the Jews in that country. With its ups and downs 
 it lasted to the year 1492, and once more there was a 
 Jewish migration on a large scale. 
 
 But before that there had been wanderings of 
 Jews ; as, for instance, when they were expelled from 
 England in 1290; or the migration of Jews to Eastern 
 Europe; or their wanderings from the West to the 
 East of the Holy Roman Empire. It may be said that 
 wherever they settled they came as pioneers, bringing 
 with them not only new commodities, but also new 
 ideas. 
 
 The year 1492 is a most important landmark in the 
 history of the Jewish migration. From Spain the 
 fugitives were scattered north and south and east. 
 Numbers of them went to Turkey. It has been 
 
THE WANDERING JEWS 167 
 
 pointed out that the Turks, who were good soldiers, 
 needed a commercial element in their country whom 
 they could trust, and they found what they wanted 
 in the Jews. Consequently, the Jews always received 
 sympathetic treatment at the hands of the Turks, 
 and they have seldom had cause for complaint or 
 dissatisfaction from the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century down to the present day. From Spain the 
 Jews also wandered to Italy and North Africa; but 
 they found little happiness there. Those who went 
 to the countries of Northern Europe were more 
 fortunate. In Holland, England, and Hamburg, the 
 three commercial centres of the seventeenth century, 
 it was realised that the ability and wealth of the 
 Jews were assets which would make for the welfare 
 of the country. Nevertheless, it was in none of these 
 lands that the centre of gravity was established when 
 the Jews were expelled from Spain. It was in Poland 
 that the third great mass settlement of Jews occurred. 
 That country offered scope for their energy, ability, 
 and special gifts, and Jewish enterprise in Poland was 
 twice-blessed; it was of advantage to Poland, and it 
 was of advantage to the Jews. 
 
 The Jews have played no mean part in the economic 
 development of Poland. In the seventeenth and 
 eighteenth centuries, that country lacked a middle 
 class, and the Jews supplied the need. They tilled the 
 soil, they engaged in commerce, they acted as bailiffs 
 for the nobles and as bankers to the court. But Jews 
 were also handicraftsmen in Poland ; from a sixteenth- 
 century document, it would appear that at that time 
 some 3200 Jewish traders and about 10,000 Jewish 
 craftsmen were settled in the country. 
 
 Here, too, the Jews developed a religious and 
 
158 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 cultural life of their own. ‘Their ancient literature 
 was studied with assiduity by the Jews of Poland, 
 and Hebrew books were issued in abundance from the 
 Jewish printing presses in that country. Down to 
 the great war of 1914, Poland was the Jews’ centre of 
 gravity. Even before the war, there had been ex- 
 tensive emigration from Polish lands, and especially 
 from Russian Poland, mainly to the United Kingdom 
 and America. In our own country, the results of 
 Jewish immigration from Poland are seen in the 
 Ghettos of London, Manchester, Leeds, and else- 
 where. But consequent upon the strict regulation of 
 immigration into this country the stream has been 
 dried up, and it is not too much to say that, if the 
 conditions remain as they are, in a generation or two 
 the Ghettos of our large towns will disappear or, 
 at any rate, will be inhabited by English-speaking 
 Jews. ‘This will become a vital matter for the Jewish 
 community in England, who will have to produce its 
 own teachers, religious leaders, and Jewish scholars ; 
 and unless it does this work successfully, it may en- 
 danger the whole fabric of Judaism in this country. 
 
 America is already doing these things for itself. 
 In the United States there are at least three training 
 centres for teachers and ministers; Jewish books, in 
 Hebrew and modern languages, are being published 
 in large numbers; the Jewish community supports 
 a great number of organs of public opinion, dailies, 
 weeklies, monthlies, quarterlies. America is to-day 
 the great centre of gravity for the Jewish people. 
 
 The life of the vagrant is never pleasant, and when 
 the Jews had to travel, buffeted about from one State 
 to another, they realised in abundance what it is to be 
 a stranger ina strange land. From experience they 
 
THE WANDERING JEWS 159 
 
 knew the heart of the stranger. ‘They had no home in 
 the real sense of the word. ‘They had no political life 
 of their own, and they had to submit to all manner 
 of discomforts as they trudged along the highways of 
 the world. Truly, the Wandering Jew is no myth. 
 In olden days the dispersion of the Jews was looked 
 upon as a punishment of Heaven. In the Bible the 
 Jews were warned that if they sinned, they would 
 be scattered among the nations. In recent years 
 the theological aspect of Jewish wanderings received 
 rather less stress, and the legal aspect rather more. 
 Jews, it was said, were subjected to legal disabilities. 
 Anti-Jewish legislation pressed heavily upon them, and 
 when in any place it became intolerable, they went out 
 in search of new settlements. Doubtless, there is 
 some truth in both the theological and legal explana- 
 tion of Jewish wanderings. But one must not forget 
 the economic aspect of Jewish migrations. It may 
 well be that this was the most important. It may 
 well be that the key to Jewish wanderings will be found 
 in the economic conditions of the various countries 
 of Europe at various times. In those lands where 
 economic development had made some progress, and 
 where the natives themselves showed a capacity for 
 economic organisation of a high order, there was little 
 scope for the Jews. But in economically less advanced 
 countries the Jews found a missionanda home. Wher- 
 ever they came they were, as Addison pointed out long 
 ago, ‘‘ like the pegs and nails in a great building, which, 
 though they are but little value in themselves, are abso- 
 lutely necessary to keep the whole frame together.” 
 Through the Jews, Addison maintained, ‘* mankind 
 are knit together in a general correspondence.” 
 Throughout their wanderings the Jews were cheered 
 
160 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 by two great ideas. One was the consciousness of 
 being the servants of God, the Chosen People; the 
 other was the hope of the return, in God’s good time, 
 to the land of their fathers. Jewish history hitherto 
 has been the wandering away from that land. Will 
 Jewish history in the future be the wandering back to 
 Palestine ? 
 
A CHAPTER OF JEWISH SUFFERING. 
 
 HE history of the Jewish people contains 
 
 tragedies; not the least among them is the story 
 
 of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the 
 year 1492. If tragedy moves us, here is a case which 
 must stir human feelings deeply. For wellnigh seven 
 centuries—nay, longer, right back to the days of the 
 Roman Empire—the Jews had lived in Spain. The 
 country had become their second Fatherland. They 
 had grown rooted to the soil. They were part and 
 parcel of Spanish history. Yet at one blow they 
 were wrenched from all these associations, among the 
 deepest in human nature. 
 
 Why were they expelled ? On the one hand, it is 
 asserted that the rulers of Spain were so filled with 
 religious zeal that they desired to rule only over 
 Christian subjects. In a letter of the Royal Council 
 to the Emperor Charles V in the year 1521, urging 
 their ruler to root heresy out of Spain, the Emperor 
 is reminded of the expulsion of the Jews, which was 
 decided upon in order “ to increase our holy faith and 
 remove all things which stood in the way of the worship 
 of the true God.”? But, on the other hand, a Spanish 
 historian who, having been secretary to the In- 
 quisition in Madrid, would not be likely to be preju- 
 diced in favour of the Jews, declares categorically that 
 the zeal for religion was only an excuse, and the real 
 
 reason was the greed of King Ferdinand. One of his 
 161 L 
 
162 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 proofs is that it was possible for both Jews and Moors 
 to purchase the right of remaining in the country. 
 Indeed, there is a characteristic story extant in 
 illustration of this point. It is stated that when the 
 expulsion edict was published, on March 31, 1492, 
 giving Jews four months’ time in which to make their 
 preparations for leaving Spain, the community offered 
 Ferdinand 30,000 ducats for its recall. ‘The avaricious 
 monarch was sorely tempted to accept the offer. 
 Possibly he might even have done so, had it not been 
 for the intervention of the Grand Inquisitor, Thomas 
 Torquemada, who, theatrically holding aloft a crucifix, 
 reminded the sovereign pair that their master had been 
 sold by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, and that now 
 they were on the point of selling him again for 30,000 
 ducats. They were shamed into refusing the offer 
 of the Jews, and by the end of July of the year in which 
 America was discovered, a great body of Jews had left 
 Spain. 
 
 Theirs was a cruel lot. As Montesquieu wrote, 
 “The Jewish religion is a mother whom her two 
 daughters have wounded a thousand times.” The 
 expulsion from Spain was but the culminating point 
 in the long-drawn-out tragedy in which the Inquisition 
 was the persecutor and the Jews the victims. The 
 first object of the Inquisition was to crush the move- 
 ments in the Church which tended to be critical of 
 authority. It was not until much later that the 
 Inquisition came to Spain. Wholly wicked as were 
 its activities, it is amazing to find Catholic writers who 
 attempt to make out a case in its favour. A Sicilian 
 writer, Paramo by name, declared in 1598 that God 
 Himself was the first Inquisitor, that when He cast 
 forth Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, He 
 
A CHAPTER OF JEWISH SUFFERING 163 
 
 was setting an example for the suppression of heresy, 
 and when He clothed the two outcasts He furnished the 
 model for the Inquisition which prescribed that the 
 victim going to his death should be clothed in a white 
 garment. ‘This writer argues that Ferdinand and 
 Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain with exactly 
 the same right as God expelled Adam and Eve from 
 Paradise. 
 
 The Inquisition in Spain was introduced for a very 
 special purpose. In the course of the fourteenth 
 century many thousands of Jews, as the result of the 
 stress of persecution, openly professed Christianity, 
 while in secret they were devoted to the beliefs and 
 ceremonies of their ancient faith. These were the . 
 famous Maranos, and it was to deal with these half- 
 hearted Christians that the Inquisition came to Spain 
 and wrought great havoc there. The Maranos 
 occupied high positions in the State and had won for 
 themselves general recognition. But the pride of the 
 pure Spaniard was too much for them. As late as the 
 year 1548, that is to say, over half a century after the 
 expulsion, the Venetian Ambassador at the Court of 
 Charles V reported that those citizens of Spain, no 
 matter how distinguished, learned, or wealthy, who 
 had Jewish blood in their veins, no matter how thin 
 the stream ran, were looked upon as inferior beings 
 by all those who thought themselves good Christians 
 and believed they were wholly of Christian origin. 
 ‘“‘ Confessi”? was the name given to the Judzo- 
 Christians, and ‘‘ Confessi”’? was an ‘‘ appellation of 
 infamy ” in Spain. 
 
 It was in 1481 that the Inquisition began its bloody 
 career among the Maranos of Spain. One of the 
 first things it did was to issue an edict in which no less 
 
164 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 than thirty-seven possible delinquencies were men- 
 tioned, whereof if a man were guilty, the Inquisition 
 believed to have had ample proof of his half-hearted 
 devotion to Catholicism. ‘The Marano was held to be 
 a Jew in secret if he declared that the Messiah had not 
 yet come, or that the Law of Moses was as good for 
 salvation as the Law of Jesus; if he observed the 
 Sabbath by wearing special garments and having a 
 white tablecloth on his table; if he observed the 
 Day of Atonement, and, among other things, begged 
 pardon of other Jews on the day before the Day of 
 Atonement; if he celebrated the Feast of Lights by 
 kindling one to ten (!) lights; if he gave his children 
 Jewish names; if he allowed himself to be buried 
 with stockings, shirt, and coat. These were the 
 ‘crimes ” for which thousands suffered death. Be- 
 tween 1481 and 1492 the flames never ceased from 
 burning ; victims were provided in a constant stream. 
 At length in 1492 the Jews were cleared out of Spain 
 “bag and baggage.” During the four months’ grace 
 the Jews were glad to sell their possessions for a mere 
 song. A contemporary reports: ‘‘ I saw myself Jews 
 giving away a house for an ass, and a vineyard for a 
 piece of cloth.” ‘Towards the end of July the roads 
 were crowded with wanderers who had no goal and 
 no prospects; they just wandered, old and young, 
 whole and sick, women and children, on horses, on 
 asses, and on foot, all making for the coast. Many 
 among them appeared to expect a repetition of the 
 miracle at the Red Sea. Others paid fabulous sums 
 for their passage on board ship to be taken to North 
 Africa or other countries of the Mediterranean. 
 Some were robbed on the way ; some were drowned 
 during the sea journey. A ship’s load was landed 
 
A CHAPTER OF JEWISH SUFFERING 165 
 
 at Genoa, and there they were seen by Bartolommeo 
 Senarega, the historian of his native town. He says 
 that it was cruel to see the victims, who were human 
 creatures and not animals. He was particularly dis- 
 tressed by the sufferings of the children, who died of 
 cold and starvation. ‘The cruel greed of some of the 
 ship captains became proverbial. It was a terrible 
 sight to see mothers dragging with their last strength 
 sick and hungry children, and before long dying with 
 them. Those who escaped, Senarega described as 
 lifeless masks: ‘‘ their faces were pale and their eyes 
 turned inward, and but for the movement of their 
 eyes they would have been thought dead.” 
 
 The exact number of those who left Spain cannot 
 be computed ; it varies between 160,000 and 800,000. 
 But so much is certain, that the majority of those 
 who left met a cruel death in one form or another, and 
 only a small part found refuge in new lands, more 
 particularly in Turkey and the Levant. Spaniards 
 and Catholics of a later day came to see the inhumanity 
 of the whole proceeding. The historian Muratori is 
 moved to say that while the expulsion was at first 
 sight a worthy thing, seeing that it was a question of 
 the honour of Christianity, on the other hand, the 
 cruelty of it was great, since the Jews must be regarded 
 not as animals, but as human beings created by God. 
 Pico de Mirandola, the famous Florentine, writes in 
 this connection: ‘“* The sufferings of the Jews were so 
 great that they filled us Christians with pity.” 
 
 The edict of expulsion, issued on March 31, 1492, 
 was repealed in the year 1858. 
 
THE POPES AND THE JEWS 
 
 HE antiquity of the Papacy is a quality which 
 
 it shares with the Jews, though the Jews may 
 
 claim to be older than the Popes. Men are 
 interested in antiquity. They will travel miles to see 
 the Pyramids; they will view with enthusiasm the 
 ruins of the Parthenon or the Colosseum; and one 
 can understand this phenomenon. But it should be 
 recalled that the Jews, too, are a piece of antiquity ; 
 perhaps they are even older than the Pyramids them- 
 selves; and they are alive—they are an organism. 
 Possibly it is on this account that many people are 
 interested in the Jews. 
 
 Since the Papacy and the Jews are among the two 
 oldest institutions in Europe, it is not surprising that 
 the two should have been in contact. ‘Time was when 
 the Pope exercised tremendous influence in Europe. 
 He was the spiritual head of Christendom, and now and 
 again was mightier far than any temporal chieftain. 
 All in all, despite militarist Popes and worldly Popes, 
 the Papacy, it must be admitted, did stand for morality 
 as against force, and therefore the Jews have, on the 
 whole, reason to be grateful for the protection afforded 
 them by the long line of Roman pontiffs. From the 
 time of Gregory the Great (590-604), who may be said 
 to have laid down the official policy of the Catholic 
 Church towards Jews, the Popes regarded it as their 
 duty to protect the life and property of the Jews, to 
 
 166 
 
THE POPES AND THE JEWS 167 
 
 ensure for them a minimum of religious liberty, and 
 to declare that their cemeteries were sacred. More- 
 over, while it was desirable that the Gospel should be 
 offered to them, proselytes were not to be won by 
 force, but by persuasion. ‘The reasons for this policy 
 were twofold. On the one hand, the Church, in 
 granting this minimum of protection, looked upon 
 herself as maintaining the standard of Christian love ; 
 on the other, the Church needed the Jews because 
 they were a living witness to the truth of Christianity 
 (1m testimoniam orthodoxe fidet reservati). CGregory’s 
 policy was reiterated by many of his successors, but the 
 best-known Bull of protection given to the Jews by a 
 Pope was that of Calixtus (1119-1124). 
 
 Despite their large claims, the Popes were after all 
 but human, and it is only natural that, while some 
 were strong personalities, others should have been weak 
 and even wicked. The treatment of the Jews at their 
 hands therefore varied considerably with the character 
 of the occupant of the throne of St. Peter. Some 
 Popes had sufficient humanity within them to realise 
 the injustice meted out to Jews. When the Black 
 Death raged through Europe and men died like flies, 
 the ignorant populace attributed their afflictions to the 
 machinations of the Jews, who were accused more 
 particularly of poisoning the wells. But Clement VI 
 (1342-1352) defended them against these false accusa- 
 tions. When the blood libel in Germany found 
 general currency among the masses, and the unhappy 
 Jews of that country appealed to the Pope for pro- 
 tection, Innocent IV (1243-1254) spoke out in their 
 favour as became one who claimed to be the vice- 
 gerent of God on earth. In his Bull, ‘‘ Lacrimabilem 
 Judeorum Allemanie,” Innocent set forth with some 
 
168 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 feeling his abhorrence of the treatment of the Jews by 
 reason of the false accusation levelled against them. 
 Writing to the German bishops, he says: ‘‘ The 
 bitter cry of the German Jews has come to our ears, 
 that spiritual and temporal rulers make ungodly 
 accusations against them, seeking excuses to plunder 
 them of their possessions, forgetting that the Jews 
 bear testimony to the truth of the Christian religion. 
 For whereas Holy Writ says, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ 
 the Jews are falsely accused of eating at Passover the 
 heart of a murdered child. It is suggested that their 
 Law commands them to do this; the truth is that it 
 expressly forbids them. Whenever a dead body is 
 discovered, the Jews are accused of murder, in order 
 to furnish a reason for persecuting them. ‘They are 
 robbed without trial, they are expelled from their 
 homes, all against the apostolic commands. ‘The lives 
 of the Jews thus become more intolerable than that 
 of their ancestors under Pharaoh. We object to 
 seeing them ill-treated, and we order you to treat 
 them in a friendly way. ‘Those who oppress the Jews 
 shall be subject to the penalties of the Church.” 
 
 But just as the Jews had friends among the Popes, so, 
 too, they had oppressors. ‘These, while recognising 
 the policy laid down by Gregory the Great, regarded 
 it as their duty, nevertheless, seeing that they were 
 the keepers of the Christian tradition, not to make life 
 too easy for the Jews. ‘There was that bigoted zealot, 
 Innocent III (1198-1216), the restless spirit who 
 struggled with kings, including King John of England, 
 and was full of fury against the growing religious 
 rebellion in Europe. Men’s minds were beginning to 
 be critical ; reformers were springing up in this quarter 
 and in that; the enthusiasm of the Crusades had long 
 
THE POPES AND THE JEWS _ 169 
 
 since waned ; and it was therefore necessary to do 
 something radical to re-establish Papal authority. 
 Innocent was a strict disciplinarian and a hater of 
 heretics. There was no great distance between 
 heretics and Jews, and Innocent has won for himself 
 the questionable distinction of having introduced 
 the Jews’ garb, that mark of shame, which from the 
 modern point of view is barbaric. But Innocent was 
 honest enough. ‘‘ Jews in the State,” he said, “‘ are 
 like snakes in the bosom.” It was in the year 1215, so 
 famous in English history, that Innocent III at the 
 Lateran Council decided upon the policy of brand- 
 marking the Jews of Europe. Another Pope in the 
 same century, Gregory IX (1227-1241), began the 
 warfare against Jewish books. The Talmud, more 
 particularly, was the object of his wrath, and all over 
 Europe there was a holocaust of the Talmud, to the 
 distress of Jews and to the dishonour of the Papacy. 
 But there was nothing really remarkable about this 
 policy. From the very first, the Popes burned in- 
 convenient opponents, even if they were imaginary. 
 It was an easy way to deal with criticism. ‘The 
 Talmud, it was urged, scoffed at Christianity. From 
 its very nature the Talmud could not possibly do this, 
 but the accusation was sufficient, and the burning 
 naturally followed. The ninth Gregory also instituted 
 religious debates with Jews with a view to their con- 
 version. In the same thirteenth century, in 1238, 
 Nicholas II] instituted the annual conversion sermon 
 in Rome, at which all Jews were forced to attend. 
 They may have put cotton wool into their ears, but 
 the Pope had the satisfaction of seeing them present 
 in the church. ‘This was probably the interpretation 
 of the third Nicholas of the formula of his great 
 
170 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 predecessor that Jewish proselytes were not to be 
 forced. Even before this, Clement IV in 1267 first 
 introduced the Inquisition into Europe. The suffer- 
 ings of the Jews at the hands of the Inquisition still 
 cry to Heaven. 
 
 Nevertheless, these harsh laws were not always 
 enforced. Papal doors opened to golden keys, and all 
 Popes were not bigots and zealots. Despite the Canon 
 Law, the Renaissance Popes had Jewish doctors and 
 Jewish friends. Alexander Borgia (1492-1503), his 
 successor, Julius II (1503-1513), who was a mighty 
 warrior, and Leo X (1513-1521), a lover of the arts, 
 were not ill-disposed to Jews; they were too good- 
 natured to be ill-disposed to anybody except their 
 political and personal enemies. As heads of the 
 Church, their outlook was influenced by the new life 
 of their day, and the wind of tolerance blew once more 
 for Jews. But these refreshing breezes did not last 
 long, for soon Paul III (1534-1549) and Paul IV 
 (1555-1559) came on the scene, and their religious 
 zeal was at white heat. Under the third Paul the 
 Jesuits were organised, and the Jesuits have been the 
 professed enemies of the Jews. ‘They continued the 
 policy of burning the Talmud, and, not satisfied with 
 burning paper, they soon began to burn flesh and 
 
 lood. 
 
 So the story continued, and the election of a new 
 Pope was a source of anxiety to the Jews of Europe. 
 Would he be easy-going or would he be intolerant ? 
 In any event, the Jews would suffer, but the suffering 
 would be only one of degree. [Even as late as the 
 middle of the nineteenth century, the famous Mortara 
 case, in 1858, aroused the conscience of the whole of 
 Europe against a palpable wrong which had been 
 
THE POPES AND THE JEWS 171 
 
 done a poor Jewish family, and when Pius IX (1846- 
 1878) was appealed to, this Vicar of Christ on earth so 
 far forgot his master and his master’s teaching of love, 
 that his reply was “ Non possumus.”? One can under- 
 stand the sentiment to which Martin Luther gave 
 expression. ‘The Popes have so treated the Jews,” 
 he said, “‘ that if I were a Jew, and saw such poltroons 
 teaching Christianity, I had sooner become a sow 
 than a Christian. For they dealt with the Jews as 
 though these were dogs, and not human beings.” 
 
 Progress has been slow, but it has registered positive 
 results. ‘To-day the Popes exercise power within a 
 very limited sphere. It is a moot question whether 
 they are friendly to Jews. In all probability it depends 
 on the occupant of the Papal Office. A man of 
 gentle nature, imbued with the true spirit of the 
 founder of Christianity, if he is honest with himself, 
 must say that his heart bleeds for the policy of his 
 predecessors towards the Jews. A zealot, full of 
 intolerance and prejudice, may still, in the twentieth 
 century, profess medizval beliefs. 
 
THE CRUSADES AND THE JEWS 
 Dae Bee is the Festival of Spring, Pentecost 
 
 the Festival of Summer, and the intervening 
 period, the merry spring-time, has been the 
 theme of poets of all ages. ‘The earth is rejuvenated ; 
 the joy of life springs forth anew. Birds and beasts 
 share the gladness of man, and the happiness of youth 
 reaches its zenith. But for Jews the month of May 
 can hardly be merry ; its memories are too sad. It 
 is a time of semi-mourning. ‘The story of the plague 
 that fell upon the disciples of Rabbi Akiba is probably 
 mythical; but there is stern reality in the story of 
 the sufferings which the Jews endured at the hands 
 of the Crusaders and which usually occurred about 
 this time of the year. In the two centuries which 
 followed the year 1096, each spring and summer 
 produced a new emigration of pilgrim warriors for 
 the rescue of the Holy Land from “ unbelievers.” 
 Their zeal, which was often spent by the time Palestine 
 came in sight, was fresh and vigorous at the start, 
 and the Jews usually became their earliest victims. 
 Particularly was this the case in the First Crusade. 
 It was in 1095 that the fanatical Hermit Peter began 
 to preach the duty of Christians to rescue the Holy 
 Sepulchre. ‘The Pope himself gave the lead to the 
 movement. When he ascended a lofty scaffold in 
 the market-place of Clermont, a town in the heart 
 
 of France, his oratory was interrupted by the shout 
 172 
 
THE CRUSADES AND THE JEWS 173 
 
 of thousands, exclaiming, ‘‘God wills it!’? The 
 fifteenth of August had been fixed in the Council of 
 Clermont for the departure of the pilgrims. But the 
 rank and file could not wait the completion of the 
 necessary preparations, and already in the spring of 
 the year 1096 a mixed multitude of some sixty thousand 
 men and women flocked about Peter the Hermit, 
 who led them along the banks of the Rhine and the 
 Danube, on the way to Palestine. Before long two 
 other rabble companies, led respectively by Walter 
 the Penniless and the Monk Godescal, followed in 
 the wake of the first. Altogether there were collected 
 some two hundred thousand pilgrims, who have been 
 described as ‘‘ the most stupid and savage refuse of 
 the people, who mingled with their devotion a brutal 
 licence of rapine, prostitution, and drunkenness.” 
 At their head they carried, incredible as it may sound, 
 a goose and a goat, on whom it was popularly believed 
 the Holy Spirit had settled. 
 
 Such were the first protagonists of a cause that 
 was regarded as holy; at the hands of such men the 
 Jews suffered martyrdom. A long trail of Jewish 
 blood marks the march of these early Crusaders. 
 Whole communities were massacred, or met their 
 death at their own hands in anticipation of the arrival 
 of the warriors of the Cross. These demanded of 
 the Jews that they should give up their most precious 
 possession—their religion. The martyrdom of the 
 Jews is among the most impressive facts in the annals — 
 of human history. In Worms, little children were 
 slaughtered by their loving parents; in ‘reves, 
 Jewish women and girls threw themselves into the 
 Moselle. No less than a thousand corpses were 
 counted in the courtyard of the palace of the Arch- 
 
174 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 bishop of Mayence, whither the unfortunate Jews 
 had fled for refuge, after giving the Archbishop all 
 their property for the defence afforded by his walls. 
 It was in vain; the crusading hordes pressed in and 
 cut down their victims in cold blood. Only four 
 escaped—a father, his two daughters, and one other. 
 When these realised that they had been forcibly 
 baptised, the father killed his daughters with his 
 own hands, burned down his house with their dead 
 bodies, and proceeded with his friend to the synagogue, 
 which he set on fire, and died in the flames. 
 
 The Archbishop of Cologne was kinder than his 
 brother of Mayence. Conscious of the danger which 
 the Jews ran, he provided a place of retreat for the 
 Jewish citizens of Cologne in the neighbouring villages. 
 But the throng of Crusaders discovered them, and 
 hunted them down to certain death. It is said that 
 between May and July in the year 1096 twelve 
 thousand Jews were done to death by the Crusaders 
 in the Rhenish cities alone. ‘The scourge also afflicted 
 the Jews of Bohemia and the Austrian lands. And 
 when the goal of the First Crusade was reached ; 
 when, on July 15, 1099, Jerusalem fell into the hands 
 of the soldiers of the Cross, once more the Jews 
 were among the victims. The Jews of Jerusalem fled 
 for refuge to the synagogue. The structure and its 
 human contents were burned to the ground. 
 
 The Second Crusade produced as great a holocaust 
 as the First, despite the restraining influence of 
 Bernard of Clairvaux. But Bernard himself was 
 powerless alike against mob violence and Papal zeal. 
 In order to hold out inducements to all and sundry 
 to participate in the Crusade, the Pope remitted the 
 payment of interest for loans borrowed from Jews, 
 
THE CRUSADES AND THE JEWS 175 
 
 if the borrower became a Crusader. Peter of Cluny 
 went even further. He held that the property of 
 unbelieving Jews might rightly be utilised for financing 
 the cost of so holy an expedition, and he persuaded 
 Louis VII, King of France, to seize the goods and 
 chattels of the French Jews. ‘hese at least escaped 
 massacre. Not for long, however, for the epidemic 
 of murder spread to France, and in 1147 the madness 
 found its first victims, on May 8, the second day of 
 Pentecost, at the little town of Rameru, which was 
 the seat of a famous Talmudical College, graced by 
 the presence of Rabbenu Tam. ‘The old man himself 
 was mishandled by the Crusaders. The mob forced 
 its way into his dwelling, robbed him of his goods, 
 cut up a scroll of the Torah, and dragged him forth 
 to take his life. His escape was almost miraculous. 
 A passing knight who knew the wise old scholar 
 rescued him from the hands of his tormentors, and 
 his life, but only his life, was saved. 
 
 In Germany, too, the fire blazed out anew. It 
 was fanned by the wild eloquence of the monk 
 Rudolph, who so far forgot his master as to preach 
 murder. His words fell on willing ears, and the 
 Emperor himself was powerless to translate into reality 
 his desire to protect the Jews. In ‘Treves, Speyer, 
 and Wiirzburg the old story of death and martyrdom 
 was repeated, and ‘‘ these massacres and depredations 
 on the Jews, which were renewed at each Crusade, 
 are coolly related.” So Gibbon expresses his horror, 
 and his italicised word is significant. 
 
 The same dreary tale of suffering and death 1s 
 associated with the remaining Crusades. The Jews 
 of England came to the fore in connection with the 
 
 Third, of which Richard I was a leader. ‘The Jews 
 
176 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 of Germany lived in constant fear and dread. The 
 year 1096 was the bloodiest in their annals; the year 
 1171 saw the birth of the blood accusation, one of 
 the wickedest libels in history. The outbreak of 
 suffering was like the sudden appearance of a black 
 sky after warm sunshine. ‘The black sky continued, 
 and its effects were demoralising. ‘To live constantly 
 in the shadow of the valley of death is not healthy. 
 It darkens the vision of the soul; it lets in fear where 
 joy ought to dwell. Judaism is a religion of optimism ; 
 the Jews of the crusading epoch were pessimists. 
 They poured out their hearts to God in moving dirges 
 that even to-day have not lost their poignancy. They 
 may be found in the Selichot of the Ten Days of 
 Penitence. In the ordinary Prayer Book there is 
 a Prayer for the Martyrs which is read in many con- 
 gregations on each Sabbath between Passover and 
 Pentecost, while in the Rhineland the names of the 
 local martyrs are recited from age-worn lists, the 
 so-called Memorbiicher. 
 
 Is it wise to dwell on these black horrors to-day ? 
 Is it useful to recall the martyrs and their martyr- 
 doms? If there is a time for all things, surely there 
 must be a time for the story of the sufferings of the 
 Jews during the Crusades. ‘The blood of the martyrs, 
 it has been said, is the seed of the Church. The 
 Anglican Church has its Book of Martyrs. But 
 Jewish history is one long book of martyrdom, reaching 
 back into hoary antiquity and continuing down to 
 this very day. Tragedy should move the soul. 
 Therein lies the value of noble stage tragedies. But 
 is the tragedy of History less moving? I recall a 
 passage in an old-world Jewish writer who urges the 
 duty of fasting on those days on which evils befell 
 
THE CRUSADES AND THE JEWS 177 
 
 our forefathers. Not that he loves fasting as such, 
 but that fasting stirs the feelings and moves the heart, 
 and so prepares the soul effectively for repentance. 
 I cannot help feeling that there is a sound Jewish 
 instinct in this suggestion. The means may not 
 appeal to Jews to-day, but the end which this ancient 
 writer has in view is surely fine. Great tragedy stirs 
 the heart; the story of Jewish martyrdom is a great 
 tragedy. These stories also fire the imagination. 
 We become proud of the heroism of former genera- 
 tions. Moreover, by turning our minds to the 
 history of our people, we revive devotion to the ideals 
 of the past. ‘That devotion needs to be strengthened 
 at the present time when, owing to the onslaughts 
 on Jews, some Jews are in danger of themselves losing 
 their Jewish bearings. In speaking of anti-Jewish 
 attacks on Jews, we are sometimes apt to overlook 
 their effect not on Christians but on Jews. It is 
 one of the saddest experiences of German Jewry to 
 meet Jews there who have been so badgered by the 
 constant snarling of the anti-Semites that they them- 
 selves are beginning to believe in the anti-Jewish 
 lies and libels. We may run the same danger in this 
 country, and therefore it serves a useful purpose to 
 recall Jewish devotion to ideals, Jewish steadfastness, 
 and Jewish martyrdom. The sufferings of Jews at 
 the hands of the Crusaders must move all right- 
 thinking and right-feeling people. The story is one 
 of the great tragedies of history. 
 
A SAUL AMONG THE PROPHETS 
 
 OST of us are becoming accustomed to anti- 
 Jewish tirades in certain quarters. We realise 
 that people like Lord Sydenham, the Duke of 
 Northumberland, Mr. Hilaire Belloc, and others of 
 that kidney are creatures of prejudice. ‘Their narrow 
 and somewhat bigoted outlook on life must be fed on 
 hate, and they accordingly hate the Irish, the Jews, 
 and such continental foreigners as cannot be described 
 as Allies. Catchwords and headlines appear to be 
 their mental pabulum ; they are particularly terrified 
 by the word Revolution. Moreover, we know that 
 they are such out-and-out Party men that they will 
 use every weapon with which to beat their political 
 opponents, and that seemingly they will place the 
 interests of their party before that of the nation, to 
 say nothing of the interests of humanity. We know 
 these pigmies and can understand and pity their 
 mentality. 
 
 Whenever I come across the views of these reaction- 
 aries, | comfort myself with the thought that liberal- 
 minded opinion must one day come into its own again. 
 In 1914 liberal-mindedness was in the ascendant in 
 the world. The war gave liberal thought a set-back, 
 but the set-back cannot but be temporary. ‘There are 
 indications that beneath the surface the great pro- 
 gressive movement in the world is germinating still, 
 
 and that one day it will come up, just like the summer 
 178 
 
A SAUL AMONG THE PROPHETS 179 
 
 flowers which, after their winter sleep, break through 
 the earth’s crust and adorn the world. 
 
 It seems to me that progressive thought is actuated 
 by what may be termed Jewish ideals, and that at the 
 root of Reaction lie the ideals of the heathen world. 
 In the one case the motive force is love—love in its 
 widest connotation; in the other it is hate. The 
 aims of the Progressives (I use the word to include all 
 who are liberal-minded) is to strive to make the world 
 a fit place for human beings to live in; to be con- 
 siderate to others ; to recognise that the diversity of 
 thoughts and gifts makes the world lovely ; in brief, 
 each in their fashion, they are carrying out the old 
 Jewish behest—“ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself.” 
 
 The Reactionaries appear to love only themselves. 
 They do not even love all their countrymen. Their 
 love has no strength to reach out beyond their party. 
 They are hot to maintain privilege. They are full 
 of the fear with which the savage is afflicted, and which 
 the civilised man has cast out because of his faith in 
 God. Despite their professions of faith, they are still 
 heathens. By their fruits they are known; their 
 cultivation of race-hatred is the blackest blemish on 
 their souls. 
 
 These Devil’s battalions cannot triumph. Jewish 
 optimism, the Jewish intense belief in the pre- 
 dominance of goodness, and the establishment of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven, give the Jew hope that the pro- 
 gressive thought of the world will in the long run 
 prevail. But during the time of waiting the Jew should 
 be up and doing. Some Jews are all for passivity. 
 Let the waves break over us, they say ; they will pass, 
 and all will be well. But they forget that the waves 
 
180 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 bring up slime and dirt. Only the other day I realised 
 how the activities of the anti-Semites are producing 
 fruit in unexpected quarters. 
 
 For more than a decade I have read the Literary 
 Guide, the organ of the Rationalists, published by the 
 Rationalist Press Association, a society which counts 
 among its members some of the leading thinkers and 
 scientists in the country. It stands for ethics, it 
 appeals to reason, it eschews dogma. Its articles 
 have generally been marked by sanity, good sense, and 
 balance. Above all, its writers have always held in 
 honour ethical teaching, whether Jewish, Christian, 
 Moslem, or Buddhist. One of the best known of those 
 writers is Mr. F. J. Gould, a doughty champion of 
 ethical teaching. Judge of my surprise, therefore, 
 when on opening the issue of the journal for June 
 1922 I found an article on “‘ The Hebrews,” written by 
 Mr. Gould, which begins by saying that as “ the Jew 
 has figured very strikingly in controversies during 
 recent years”? and many people have written about 
 the Jews, he (Mr. Gould) also ventures to speak. 
 
 And what does he say ? Ethnologically the ancient 
 Hebrews were a mixed race with a special psychology. 
 On a subject of so much uncertainty, Mr. Gould is 
 entitled to formulate his own opinion, even though 
 it be somewhat dogmatically expressed. But what 
 follows)?)), “y The: “Jews. developed.) sonlugehan 
 tended to moral enthusiasm, religious poetry, a 
 synthetic doctrine of the supreme Yahweh (mono- 
 theism), a habit of patient endurance, and a subtle 
 readiness to find avenues of livelihood, such as trade 
 and intellectual service, which kept clear from the 
 grosser activities of earth conquest or city building.” 
 
 I should have thought that for Mr. Gould the fact 
 
A SAUL AMONG THE PROPHETS 181 
 
 that the Jews were capable of ‘‘ moral enthusiasm ” 
 would have been all important. Even if they did 
 gravitate to trade and intellectual service (which is 
 by no means wholly true), and even if they did keep 
 clear of grosser activities, such as earth conquest 
 (which is likewise by no means wholly true), what did 
 these signify in face of their passion for ethics? One 
 would have thought that the prophet of ethical 
 teaching would have been full of admiration for the 
 Jews, who not only formulated the great ethical 
 principles which underlie European civilisation to-day, 
 but also kept those principles alive during the Dark 
 Ages when they were in danger of being overwhelmed 
 and forgotten. 
 
 The truth is that Mr. Gould hates the Church, and 
 uses the Jews as a stick to beat the Church with. 
 ‘“‘ Rationalism justly attacks Christian theology ; but 
 behind the Christian system lurks the Hebrew.” 
 This is the opening sentence of Mr. Gould’s article, 
 and it affords an insight into his mind. ‘The whole 
 article is full of misrepresentation. When the Duke 
 of Northumberland misrepresents the Jews, we know 
 that he cannot help it. He is ignorant of Jewish 
 history and of the achievements of Jews, whether in 
 religion or any other sphere of life. But Mr. Gould 
 ought to know better. He loves scientific method, 
 he has a passionate faith in intellectual truth and in 
 facts. I say nothing of his use of the term “‘ Hebrew ” 
 and ‘‘ Jew” interchangeably. ‘“‘ Hebrew ” is usually 
 taken to apply to the “‘ ancient Jews,” “ Jew” to the 
 “modern Jews.” But why accuse the Jews of keeping 
 clear of ‘ earth conquest” or “city building”? It 
 is curious to observe how facts can be twisted. Pro- 
 fessor Delitzsch, in his attack on the Bible, cannot 
 
182 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 vent his spleen sufficiently on the Jews for their con- 
 quest of Palestine. Mr. Gould blames them for not 
 being sufficiently gifted for conquest. But even if 
 Mr. Gould were to plead that by “ polity building ” 
 he means something akin to the work of pioneers 
 and of colonial settlers, he would still have to be 
 accounted wrong, since if he looks into the history 
 of colonial settlements in North and South America, 
 in South Africa, even in Australia, he will discover that 
 Jews unquestionably possess the qualities of “ polity 
 builders.” 
 
 Mr. Gould apparently blames the Jews that during 
 the Middle Ages “‘ they felt a moral superiority, and 
 a kind of detachment of purity, or holiness.”” Suppose 
 this is true. Was there not good cause for this feeling ? 
 Compare the life of the Ghetto with the life around ; 
 which was crueller, which was worse? Mr. Gould 
 indeed admits that there was justification for this 
 conviction. ‘Then why limit it? ‘“‘ They [the Jews] 
 were (again I say in that limited sense) of a finer 
 temperament, as a race, than the racial masses round 
 them.” ‘Then what is it that troubles Mr. Gould? 
 They took no part in “ the essentially humanist work 
 of nation-making”’; ‘‘ the Hebrews took no interest 
 in this tremendous evolution ” ; ‘‘ the isolation of the 
 Hebrew race from European civics.” Has not Mr. 
 Gould forgotten the important fact that Jews were 
 not allowed to take an interest in European civics ? 
 That they were shut off in Ghettoes ? That they were 
 subject to cramping legislation which had for its aim 
 their complete isolation from their fellows? How 
 long is it since Jews have been “ emancipated ” 
 (significant word !) in Western Europe? Mr. Gould 
 bids us read his story. Let him read Jewish history, 
 
A SAUL AMONG THE PROPHETS _ 183 
 
 and I am confident he will hasten to rectify these 
 false impressions, based on inexcusable ignorance. 
 Two more points in conclusion. While Mr. Gould 
 is ‘‘ sure the Jews have concocted no such plot ” (2.e. 
 the bee in Mrs. Webster’s bonnet), he can understand 
 that Jews should take “an ambiguous part in such 
 disturbances of old order as Socialism or Bolshevism.” 
 It seems to me grossly unfair to single out the Jews 
 in connection with these movements. One may 
 think of both as essentially wicked. But are all 
 Socialists and Bolshevists Jews? Are even the 
 majority Jews? ‘Take the Social Democratic Party 
 in Germany with its millions of voters. Are they all 
 Jews? It is quite likely that in France, or Sweden, 
 there are hardly any Jews at all in the Socialist Parties. 
 Even in this country the bulk of the professed Socialists 
 are not Jews. Far from it. Go to South London, 
 to Glasgow, to the Potteries, and visit Socialist 
 clubs. I venture the assertion that you will not find 
 a single Jew there. It is grossly unjust to associate the 
 Jews in an especial way with these movements. Jews, 
 like other citizens of free democratic countries, have 
 the right to profess what political views they choose, 
 whether at the extreme Right or the extreme Left. 
 For this freedom of thought Jews, in common with 
 all their right-thinking fellow-citizens, will put up a 
 stout fight. If anyone wishes to attack Socialism or 
 Bolshevism or any other “ism,” they should be at 
 liberty to do so. But to attack these movements as 
 Jewish is not only false but unjust. Mr. Gould ought 
 to be among the first to abhor lies and injustice. 
 “Their theology [z.e. of the Jews] is a hindrance 
 to the humanism which moves towards the empire 
 
 of the world.”” So Mr. Gould writes. I think, on 
 
184 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 consideration, he will agree that “‘ empire” in this 
 
 connection is somewhat unfortunate. It is not the 
 mot guste. But we know what he means. He values 
 human brotherhood; “ that,” as he says, “‘ all nations 
 and races, colours and languages may choose one 
 another as companions in universal friendship.” Let 
 me assure Mr. Gould that that is a bit of what he 1s 
 pleased to call ‘‘ their theology.” Let Mr. Gould 
 ask one of his Jewish acquaintances to show him the 
 prayer uttered by Jews for a thousand years and more 
 on one of the most solemn days in their calendar—on 
 the New Year. Or let him turn to the Jewish Prayer 
 Book and read the prayer with which every Jewish 
 service is concluded. He will find there the hope for 
 that “ universal friendship ”? which he prizes so highly, 
 and which Jews were the first to put into circulation. 
 I should not wonder if he adopts it for his ethical 
 services. But what I do wonder at is that he does not 
 realise that articles such as this in the Literary Guide 
 are not likely to promote the Jewish ideal so dear to 
 his heart. 
 
“THE DOMINION OF ARROGANCE.” 
 
 HE issue of the Preussische Fahrbuecher for 
 
 November 1922 contained a lengthy article on 
 
 recent tendencies in English politics. It was 
 written by the present editor, Dr. Walther Schotte, 
 and in the course of his review he characterised the 
 more prominent members of Mr. Bonar Law’s Cabinet. 
 When he came to Lord Derby, he said of him that 
 he was a “ zealous disciple of the man for whom the 
 greatest blood guilt of all ages must leave no peace 
 in the grave—the Frankfort Jew, Lord Northcliffe 
 (des Frankfurter ‘fuden Lord Northcliffe). ‘The Preus- 
 sische Fabrbuecher at one time occupied an important 
 place in Germany as an organ of public opinion. At 
 one time Treitschke was its editor, and his successor 
 was Hans Delbrueck. Its opinions were quoted with 
 respect, for, whatever side they supported, they were 
 believed to be honest. At present this monthly ex- 
 presses reactionary views, but the quotation I have 
 given leads one to think that its honesty is a thing 
 of the past. Just consider the intention of the writer. 
 He hates Lord Northcliffe with a cruel hatred, and the 
 worst epithet he chooses for him is that he was a 
 Frankfort Jew. It is difficult to believe that a publicist 
 of the standing of the editor of the Preussische 
 Jabrbuecher should not know that the late Lord 
 Northcliffe was as good an Irishman as ever breathed. 
 
 If Dr. Schotte does not really know this, he 
 185 
 
186 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 demonstrates that he is hardly competent to be the 
 editor of the Preussische Fabrbuecher; if he does, he is 
 guilty of deliberate lying. In any event, the intention 
 of Dr. Schotte is not only to show that, from his 
 anti-Semitic point of view, Lord Northcliffe was a 
 villain because he was a Jew, but also to connect the 
 Jews with a man who, in his opinion, was so great 
 a villain. 
 
 Unfortunately, this deplorable policy is not limited 
 to Germany; we have it in our own country, too, 
 and it is a sign of the times. When controversy must 
 needs be carried on with the aid of lies, the soul of the 
 guilty parties must surely be diseased. In the issue 
 of the Spectator for November 18, 1922, there were 
 three notes of the week against Palestine. Nothing 
 need be said about the Speciator’s attitude to this 
 question. But when this unctuous weekly urges the 
 Government not to be deterred by the fear of “ offend- 
 ing International Jewry,” it is guilty of a lying in- 
 sinuation. What is International Jewry? Let the 
 Spectator tell us. Its reference to Jewish financiers in 
 this connection shows how mean is its soul and how 
 vast its credulity. 
 
 It has been the lot of the Jews throughout history 
 to suffer unjustly from lies of this kind. When, for 
 instance, in the first century the early Christians were 
 accused of all manner of unnatural vices, their reply 
 was that not they but the Jews were the guilty party. 
 Among other things, the early Christians were accused 
 of killing children in order to use their blood for 
 religious rites. ‘Tertullian, one of the early Fathers 
 of the Church, wrote pleadingly in reply that the 
 heathens were sadly mistaken in launching just that 
 accusation against the Christians, seeing that Christians 
 
“THE DOMINION OF ARROGANCE” 187 
 
 eschewed even the blood of animals. Christians would 
 not eat the flesh of animals that died a natural death, 
 in order to avoid tasting blood. How, then, was it 
 possible for people who were so strict in regard to 
 animals to have a longing for human blood, seeing that 
 the heathens must know from their own experience that 
 the blood of animals is tastier than that of human 
 beings ? Yet centuries later the Christians themselves 
 did not shrink from accusing Jews of this same evil, 
 although the very arguments of Tertullian in defence 
 of the early Christians held good a thousand times 
 more in the case of the Jews. 
 
 To a certain extent the Jews themselves were 
 responsible for their own sufferings in the Middle 
 Ages in that, doubtless through ignorance, they took 
 no notice of the accusations levelled against them by 
 Latin and Greek writers. But it was in these writers 
 that the medizval monks dipped in order to find 
 charges against the Jews. Any story detrimental to 
 Jews which was found in the Latin writers, mostly 
 those of the early Church, was seized upon to make 
 an excuse for persecution. It is asserted, for example, 
 that the yellow patches which Jews were forced to 
 wear on their dress were instituted by reason of a 
 story in the history of the Church, written by Nice- 
 phorous Calistus, who declares that in the days of 
 Cyril of Alexandria the Jews, in order to attack the 
 Christians, had recourse to a yellow ring as a kind of 
 mark of recognition. 
 
 It is not difficult to understand the inwardness of 
 the Prayer of the Penitential Season for the removal 
 of the “dominion of arrogance” from the earth. 
 The “dominion of arrogance’ denotes supercilious 
 and impious pride, the frame of mind of the Spanish 
 
188 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Inquisition, of Alva in the Netherlands, of Bloody 
 Mary in England, of the anti-Semites everywhere. 
 It battens on lies; it is unchristian. Jews have 
 suffered sufficiently at its hands to desire to see its 
 dominion removed from the earth. 
 
 Lying inventions were not only believed in, but 
 were twisted out of their context to make them worse. 
 Let one instance suffice. In the year 155, twelve 
 Christian martyrs, including the saintly Polycarp, 
 suffered death in Smyrna. ‘lhe account of the story 
 relates that on one occasion there was a contest of 
 beasts in the theatre at Smyrna, and that eleven well- 
 known Christians were thrown into the arena for the 
 entertainment of the multitude. The steadfastness 
 of the eleven so maddened the mob that a cry was 
 raised to add as the twelfth the head of the Christian 
 community in the town, the aged Polycarp. The 
 . story is embroidered with marvellous legends, but 
 there is little doubt that substantially the gist of the 
 matter is historical. ‘The writer is anxious to put 
 the blame for this terrible execution on the heathens, 
 but he cannot resist the temptation of also including 
 the Jews. He asserts that the Jews no less than the 
 heathens demanded that Polycarp should be thrown 
 to the lions. Yet it is quite certain that the Talmud 
 actually prohibits Jews from visiting circuses where 
 animals fight one another. The Talmud says dis- 
 tinctly: ‘‘Whoso visits the stadium is as though 
 he were guilty of shedding blood.” The Mishnab 
 declares expressly that Jews must not sell to heathens 
 bears, lions, or other beasts, nor should Jews assist 
 in the building of racecourses, basilica, and similar 
 structures. ‘I‘he writer of the martyrdom story pro- 
 ceeds to say that when the herald called out the name 
 
“THE DOMINION OF ARROGANCE” 189 
 
 of Polycarp, the whole assembly, Jews and heathens 
 alike, yelled in wrath: “ He is the teacher of Asia, 
 the Father of the Christians, the murderer of our 
 gods. He teaches the crowd not to sacrifice to them, 
 or to pray to them.” It does not require any very 
 great depth of learning to realise that Jews would 
 hardly have joined in such a cry. They would have 
 been glad of the destruction of heathenish practices. 
 Idol worship was, and is, utterly condemned in 
 Judaism. Yet the story remained, and consequences 
 were drawn from it. Even so recognised an authority 
 as Renan could not resist making the most of it. He 
 realised that it was somewhat difficult to include Jews 
 among those who yelled for the death of Polycarp 
 because he had preached against the heathen gods. 
 He therefore amended the original, and in his narrative, 
 
 in the history of the Christian Church, he says that 
 
 the Jews and the pagans joined in demanding the . 
 
 death of Polycarp. ‘The former cried out: “ He is 
 the teacher of Asia, the Father of the Christians.” 
 The latter yelled: “‘ He is the destroyer of our gods; 
 he teaches men not to sacrifice to them, or to pray 
 to them.” 
 
 Renan here falsifies a text to score a point against 
 the Jews. Falsifying texts is an old anti-Jewish sport. 
 Let me quote a striking example. For a long time it 
 was believed that Jews effused a peculiar odour. How, 
 it may be asked, was such a ridiculous belief possible ? 
 One of the authors relied on by anti-Semites is the 
 historian Ammianus Marcellinus. In relating the 
 account of the visit of the Emperor Marcus to Palestine, 
 he writes that the Emperor was tired of the crowd 
 of noisy, clamouring Jews making requests to him. 
 The original text of Ammianus appears to have read 
 
190 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 Fudaeorum petentium et tumultuantium. But some 
 scribe or other changed petentium into fetentium, so 
 that the passage then denoted a crowd of stinking, 
 clamouring Jews, etc. 
 
 I am very much afraid that a good many passages 
 in the early Christian writers which have served to 
 inspire bitterness against Jews are of this character 
 Over and over again Jews have been the innocent 
 victims of lying accusations. Even the conception of 
 Shylock is a perversion. As a matter of fact, in the 
 original story, on which Shakespeare based his, the 
 Christian, and not the Jew, is the cruel persecutor. 
 The story goes that in Rome, in the year 1586, a 
 Christian, Paul Maria Sechi, informed a Jew, Samson 
 Ceneda, that Sir Francis Drake had captured San 
 Domingo. The Jew expressed his doubt, whereupon 
 the Christian bet him a thousand scudi against a 
 pound of flesh that it was true. The Jew entered 
 into the bargain, and when in due course Sechi came 
 to demand his pound of flesh, insisting on his bond, 
 the Jew appealed to the Governor, who took the matter 
 to Pope Sixtus V. Sixtus voiced the judgment which 
 Shakespeare afterwards put into the mouth of Portia. 
 The Christian might have his pound of flesh, but he 
 was to cut no more and no less. Of course, the case 
 failed, and the Pope ordered both parties to be cast 
 into prison. Eventually they were released on paying 
 a fine of 2000 scudi each, the Christian for having 
 entered into an arrangement which was tantamount 
 to manslaughter, and the Jew for having endangered 
 a life which by right belonged to the Pope. Eight or 
 ten years later Shakespeare published the “ Merchant 
 of Venice.” For three centuries Shakespeare’s play 
 has depicted to all the world the cruel-hearted Jew. 
 
* THE DOMINION OF ARROGANCE” 191 
 
 But the picture is a lie. In the actual event it was 
 the Christian who was cruel-hearted. 
 
 The time has surely arrived for Christians to intro- 
 duce truth into the intercourse, personal or literary, 
 religious or civil, between themselves and Jews. ‘Too 
 long has the ‘‘ dominion of arrogance ” predominated ; 
 surely the highest humanity and the best in religion 
 demand that truth shall take its place. 
 
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS 
 
 ARLY in April 1923 I came across a report in 
 the Press which, because of the caption, attracted 
 my attention. It was headed “Christians and 
 
 Jews,” and referred to Canon H. L. Goudge’s lectures 
 on “Modernism” at the Kensington Town Hall. 
 In the course of the concluding lecture (so the report 
 continued), the Canon said ‘‘ that men spoke some- 
 times to-day as if the Apostles and other Christian 
 Jews had broken away from the Church of their fore- 
 fathers and founded a new People of God. Every New 
 Testament writer, he believed, would have repudiated 
 such a conception with horror. It was the Jews who 
 refused to believe who had broken away, and they had 
 forfeited the very name of Jews by doing so. It was 
 we Christians who were Jews.” 
 
 I rubbed my eyes in wonder. I read the passage 
 again. If Canon Goudge was correctly reported, his 
 statements were, to say the least, remarkable. I 
 naturally desired to discover something about the 
 man who was responsible for such extraordinary views. 
 I find that he is an ornament of the Church of England. 
 He was at one time Principal of Ely Theological 
 College and Canon of the Cathedral there. He has 
 been engaged in teaching theology for many years, and 
 appears to have made a special study of the mind 
 and pastoral teaching of St. Paul. Now he is Regius 
 Professor of Divinity at Oxford. 
 
 192 
 
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS 193 
 
 The views of so prominent a Church scholar are 
 clearly important, and analysing the report in the 
 newspaper, I found that it consisted of four parts. 
 In the first place, the lecturer declared that men 
 sometimes accused the Apostles of having broken away 
 from Judaism. It would be interesting to know who 
 is meant by ‘‘men.’? And how much truth 1s there 
 in what “‘“men” said? In the next place, Canon 
 Goudge declares that in his belief, ‘Every New 
 Testament writer would have repudiated such a con- 
 ception with horror.” Is not this a rather strong 
 statement ? One would not be surprised to find it 
 as part of the stock-in-trade of an agitator or a propa- 
 gandist. It seems out of place in the mouth of a 
 teacher, who ought carefully to weigh his words. But 
 what follows is even more extraordinary. ‘he Canon 
 declares that “it was the Jews who refused to believe 
 who had broken away.” Refused to believe what? 
 Broken away from what ? 
 
 Surely these are reasonable questions to ask the 
 Canon. Is it really correct to say that the Jews had 
 broken away? Is it historical? The Canon must 
 know that even Paul himself regarded himself as 
 anew Did she not, say; °° lam) an\leraclite. of) the 
 seed of Abraham”? Does not the learned Canon 
 know likewise that even for Gentiles Paul prescribed 
 a minimum of Jewish practice, advising them to “ ab- 
 stain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, 
 and from what is strangled, and from blood”? But 
 one may go further. One may ask the Canon whether 
 Jesus preached anything that was not Jewish. It 
 may even be asserted that the whole business of the 
 Messiahship was not contrary to Jewish belief. In- 
 deed, there must have been large sections in Jewry in 
 
 N 
 
194 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 those days who looked for the coming of the Messiah. 
 Canon Goudge must know that Jesus declared, “ I 
 came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it.” He 
 must surely know that on the basis of the Gospel 
 stories Jesus lived the life of a Jew. ‘The Last Supper 
 was a Jewish ceremony. It was the Paschal Service, 
 and as the Seder is kept by Jews to-day—which doesn’t 
 look much like breaking away. Does Canon Goudge 
 observe the ceremony of the Last Supper precisely 
 as Jesus and His Apostles did? I should doubt it. 
 The fact is, so far as one can gather from the 
 historical evidence, that even Paul, who went out to 
 preach the new religion to the Gentiles, while he was 
 prepared to throw overboard a good deal of Judaism 
 —“‘ to break away,” to use the words of Canon Goudge 
 —was not prepared to throw over the whole, and he 
 certainly would not have asked his fellow-Jews to 
 throw over their Judaism completely. It was only 
 after the death of Paul, when Christian heathens 
 became leaders of the movement, that Judaism was 
 discarded entirely. To adopt the phraseology of 
 Canon Goudge, it was the Christian heathens who 
 refused to believe who had broken away. One can 
 understand their policy. The first Apostles, like Paul, 
 had been Jews. Heathen beliefs would have been 
 abhorrent to them. They could, for instance, never 
 have believed in the Trinity, for they were mono- 
 theists. Where would monotheism be to-day if the 
 Jews, against overwhelming odds, had not been true 
 to their faith ? Canon Goudge must know that the 
 Trinity is not Jewish but Greek in origin... He will 
 surely agree that Jesus, and even Paul, could never 
 have subscribed to the doctrine of the Trinity, which 
 crept into Christianity much later. ‘Those earnest- 
 
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS 195 
 
 minded people who to-day reject the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and those (and they are many) who are 
 greatly troubled in their minds about accepting this 
 doctrine, are gradually approaching the Jewish position. 
 ““ One God, one Law, one Element,”’ so the Christian 
 poet sang, expressing the Jewish belief. No less an 
 authority than Sir James Frazer declares roundly that 
 to-day ‘‘ the central problem of natural theology has 
 narrowed itself down to the question: Is there one 
 God or none?” 
 
 It was the Christian Church that broke away from 
 its mother religion to set up a new system which had 
 very little connection with the old. The message 
 of God to mankind was carried through the succeeding 
 centuries by the Jews. Honest men who look at the 
 facts of history admit that the cause of true religion 
 has been upheld by the Jews, and that while churches 
 have propagated Jewish ethics, they have also taught 
 heathen beliefs. The considered opinion of Renan 
 was that from the sixth to the tenth century the world 
 was more heathen in character than ever before. 
 Moreover, the heathen Christians who broke with the 
 mother faith carried with them certain Jewish institu- 
 tions which have become Christianised. What is 
 Sunday but a Christian adaptation of the Jewish 
 Sabbath? What is Easter but a Christian adaptation 
 of the Jewish Passover? What is Whitsun but a 
 Christian adaptation of Pentecost? The Jews have 
 observed these Holy Days at the same time and in the 
 same spirit as their ancestors of two thousand years 
 ago. Jesus, too, observed these days and in that 
 spirit. [he foremost Christian authorities admit that 
 the organisation of the early Church was modelled 
 on that of Jewish communities. The earliest Christian 
 
196 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 places of worship were called synagogues; the terms 
 Bishop (episcopus) and Deacon have their Jewish 
 counterparts. How, then, can Canon Goudge assert 
 that it was the Jews who broke away ? Many com- 
 petent authorities areagainst him. Seeley, for example, 
 said that the Christian Church sprang from a move- 
 ment which was not begun by Christ, and Wellhausen 
 lends to this view the support of all his learning, while 
 Harnack states categorically that about the year 140 
 the breach with Judaism was complete. 
 
 But the most astonishing statement of all is Canon 
 Goudge’s last. He declares that because the Jews 
 had broken away, they had forfeited the very name of 
 Jews, and that the Christians were really Jews. 
 
 Does Canon Goudge mean Catholics as well as 
 Protestants ? Does he mean the Eastern Church as 
 wel] as the Western? Would he include Unitarians? 
 Whatever his reply may be, it is noteworthy that 
 Canon Goudge should desire to be called a Jew. 
 Does he realise that it is not easy to bea Jew? Does 
 he not know that during the last two thousand years 
 the lot of the Jew has been one of suffering? Let 
 me remind him of what a great Jew wrote as far 
 back as 1855 : 
 
 If there are ranks in suffering, Israel takes precedence of all the 
 nations; if the duration of sorrows and the patience with which 
 they are borne ennoble, the Jew can challenge the aristocracy of 
 every land; if a literature can be called rich in the possession of a 
 few classic tragedies—what will we say to a National Tragedy 
 lasting for fifteen hundred years, in which the poets and the actors 
 were also the heroes ? 
 
 If ever there was a suffering servant, despised and 
 rejected of men, full of sorrows and acquainted with 
 
 grief, that servant was the Jewish people. Does 
 Canon Goudge really believe that the Christians are 
 
CHRISTIANS AND JEWS 197 
 
 the true Jews? Can he honestly say that Christians 
 have been filled with the Jewish spirit of love? To 
 love thy neighbour as thyself is a Jewish ordinance. 
 Have the Christians observed it in their conduct 
 towards the Jews? Have they observed it to one 
 another? Do they observe it to-day ? Doubtless 
 the doctrine is preached, but is it practised? And 
 has Christianity during the last twenty centuries 
 produced glorious religious truths comparable with 
 those which Judaism has taught the world? By 
 what right, then, does he exclude Jews from what he 
 terms the “‘ new people of God ” ? How much more 
 liberal-minded is the Jewish view, which declares 
 that all good men and women are worthy of “the 
 world to come’”’—or in other words, belong to the 
 people of God! 
 
 The time has come when in justice and fairness 
 Jews must protest against the attitude of supercilious- 
 ness adopted towards Jews and Judaism by certain 
 circles of official Christianity. Canon Goudge and 
 those who propagate views like his must surely have 
 forgotten the passage in which Paul, addressing the 
 Romans, speaks of them as wild olives grafted in among 
 the other branches of the tree, and, as he says, by 
 reason of this grafting they became partakers of the 
 root of the fatness of the olive tree. ‘Glory not 
 over the branches,”? Paul admonishes the heathen 
 Christians, ‘ but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that 
 bearest the root, but the root thee.” Judaism, it 
 appears, is the root, the Jews are the branches, and the 
 heathen Christians are borne by the root. Is not 
 Canon Goudge forgetting Paul’s sound advice? He 
 denies the name of Jew to the Jews, and people of 
 lesser education than the Canon assert that Jews are 
 
198 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 wicked. Have not many Jews come across Christian 
 children who have been taught this horrible belief ? 
 It is difficult to realise how those who look up to Jesus 
 can hold such views about the people of Jesus. If 
 the Jews had produced Jesus alone, there would be 
 ample reason for Canon Goudge to be a little more 
 loving towards the Jews. But, as a matter of fact, the 
 Jews have produced many men of the type of Jesus, 
 from the days of the prophets down to the first century. 
 Canon Goudge may not possibly be aware of the fact. 
 But it is historical. 
 
 I cannot help feeling that if a New Testament 
 writer were alive to-day, he would (to use the Canon’s 
 own expression) repudiate Canon Goudge’s concep- 
 tions with horror. ‘They do not serve the highest 
 interests of religion. Surely the time has arrived 
 when all who value religion should learn the broadest 
 kind of toleration. Let them keep what they hold 
 precious, but let them also allow others to retain their 
 precious possessions, in the spirit of the Jewish prophet 
 who said, **‘ Have we not all one Father ? ” 
 
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS 
 
 HE approach of Easter must of necessity bring 
 sad thoughts to the mind of anyone, whether 
 
 Jew or Gentile, who has studied Jewish history. 
 Hard as was the lot of the Jew in the Middle Ages in 
 Christian countries at any time, it was more than ever 
 hard during the Passion Week. It was then that 
 pogroms occurred in the medieval Ghettoes. In many 
 towns it became an old-established custom for a Jew 
 to receive a box on the ear on Good Friday, and 
 numerous are the instances of Jews who were so 
 badly assaulted that the box on the ear became a 
 fatal blow. ‘The Lateran Council of 1215 ordered 
 Jews to remain indoors during the Passion Week ; 
 there are still extant special Passover Piutim (syna- 
 gogue poems) which were read when the second day 
 of the Passover coincided with Good Friday. It is on 
 record that many a bishop stood up in his pulpit on.’ 
 Easter Day and admonished his flock to avenge the 
 blood of the Saviour on those who were looked upon 
 as responsible for His death. It is a curious reflection 
 that while the descendants of the ancient Athenians 
 have never had to suffer because their ancestors 
 poisoned Socrates, a fact of historical authenticity, 
 the Jews have been made to suffer by long drawn- 
 out punishment for a ‘‘ crime ” which their ancestors 
 never committed. Moreover, one cannot help won- 
 dering what would be the attitude of the founder 
 
 ee 
 
200 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 of Christianity towards those who profess to follow 
 in His footsteps if He were alive to-day, and were 
 made acquainted with the Christian treatment of 
 Jews throughout the centuries. Only the other day 
 I came across an illustration of Christian charity in 
 the pages of St. Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, 
 who spoke of the Jews as beasts. It was a common 
 practice in the Middle Ages to call Jews dogs, pigs, 
 and asses. One holy Abbot of Cluny, addressing Jews, 
 declared: ‘‘ Far be it from me to answer impudent 
 dogs and dirty swine.” (Absit, ut canibus impudentis- 
 simis et porcis spurcissimis respondeam). 
 
 What was the Jewish reply to this? As I have 
 just quoted a Christian minister who lived in Con- 
 stantinople, let me also quote a Jewish minister of 
 religion from the same place. Rabbi Isaac ben 
 Sheshet, in a book he wrote in 1546, declared that 
 Jews must call Christians their brothers. In this view 
 Rabbi Isaac did not stand alone. Throughout the last 
 two thousand years Jewish literature presents a con- 
 sistent view of Christians and Christianity. Perhaps 
 Rabbi Jacob Emden (1698-1776), who lived in Altona, 
 gave as good an account of this attitude as any. He 
 said that Christianity was founded for heathens, not 
 as a new religion, but only to spread the seven Noachide 
 Commandments among idol worshippers. Let it be 
 said parenthetically that these Commandments were 
 the prohibition of idol worship, of murder, of im- 
 morality, of blasphemy, of robbery, of eating the flesh 
 of live animals, and, lastly, the submission to the 
 authority of the State. Emden further states that 
 the founder of Christianity was a benefactor of 
 humanity in two ways. In the first place, He laid 
 stress on the influence and importance of the Torah; 
 
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS 201 
 
 and in the second, He led the heathens away from idol 
 worship and insisted on their adopting morality. 
 
 So great an authority as Maimonides (1135-1204) 
 declares roundly that “‘ He who accepts the seven 
 Noachide Commands and takes care to observe them, 
 belongs to the saints among the nations of the world 
 and will have a portion in life everlasting.”? Over and 
 over again Jewish teachers have insisted that it should 
 not be forgotten that the Torah is the basis of the 
 Christian faith. ‘There is a prohibition in the Talmud 
 not to hold intercourse with heathens on their Holy 
 Days. Jewish teachers throughout the centuries have 
 always maintained that this prohibition does not apply 
 to Christians, for, as the French Tosaphists of the 
 eleventh century taught, ‘‘ We know that the Chris- 
 tians do not worship idols.” ‘The Rabbis even sent 
 gifts to Christian friends. In this they followed the 
 examples, mentioned in the ‘Talmud, of Rabbi Judah, 
 who sent gifts to his friends, Abidrama, and of Raba, 
 who sent gifts to his friend, Bar Sheshach. In each 
 case the sender of the gift was satisfied that his friend 
 did not worship idols. 
 
 We have the authority of Zunz for the old 
 Jewish custom, when speaking of a good Christian, to 
 add, ‘‘ May God prolong his life!” and of a dead 
 Christian, “‘ His memory be for a blessing!” This 
 was only in accord with the established principle that 
 Jews might have social and commercial intercourse 
 with Christians. Maimonides, laying down guidance 
 for everyday life, declared that it is prohibited in 
 business to cheat people, whether Jews or heathens, 
 and that if goods sold were damaged, it was the moral 
 duty of the seller to make this clear. ‘“‘ Let your 
 ‘yea’ be ‘yea,’ and your ‘nay’ be ‘nay’ ”—so 
 
202 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 declared Rabbi Yechiel ben Yekutiel (1278) ; “* You are 
 
 to be true to all men—to Jews and Gentiles alike.” 
 Rabbi Simon ben Zemach Duran (1531), a man dis- 
 tinguished in his generation, said that the founder of 
 Christianity and His apostles did not come to destroy 
 the Torah from Israel, but to disseminate its teach- 
 ings among the heathens. Over and over again does 
 this sentiment occur. Rabbi Eliezar Ashkenazi (1570) 
 insisted that the peoples in whose midst the Jews lived 
 know God and believe in Him, and that therefore it 
 is their duty to pray for the welfare of the govern- 
 ments under whose sway they live, and of the people 
 who are their neighbours. Let another illustration 
 bear witness to the same view. Joel Sirkes, who died 
 in 1639, and was one of the most famous Rabbis of 
 the seventeenth century in Europe, stressed the duty 
 of Jews to co-operate with Christians in all works of 
 humanity, in all that makes for universal peace and 
 happiness. A century later, Ezekiel Landau (he died 
 in 1793), who was Rabbi in Prague, and a highly 
 respected authority among Jews, declared that the 
 reference to Goyim in the Talmud is only to idol 
 worshippers, and not to Christians. When it is re- 
 called that idol worship in the ancient world was 
 associated with bloodshed and cruelty and immorality, 
 the Jewish hatred of these abominations is intelligible. 
 At the same time, in view of what Christianity owes 
 to Judaism, the Jewish attitude to Christians is equally 
 intelligible. 
 
 That attitude was a reality. In the days before 
 the persecution of the Christian Church separated 
 Christians from Jews, there was much friendly inter- 
 course between the two. Curiously enough, as the 
 medizval system declined, the two came together 
 
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS 203 
 
 again. ‘There are hundreds of special instances in 
 Christian records where Jews have come to the aid of 
 Christians. Let one or two serve as illustrations. A 
 history of the Jesuits records the fact that in 1620 
 Lazarus Aron, a Jew, rescued Jesuits who were fleeing 
 for their lives, when even Catholics refused to come 
 to their assistance. In 1732 the Protestants of Salz- 
 burg were exiled from their native town. ‘The King 
 of Prussia expressed his willingness to receive them 
 within his dominions, and the history of this exile 
 records many kindly acts on the part of Jews to the 
 wretched Salzburg Protestants on their difficult and 
 laborious journey across Europe. ‘The official historian 
 of the pilgrimage remarks that the Christians were 
 surprised at the magnificent behaviour of the Jews,. 
 and when one Jew was asked why he helped these 
 people, seeing that they were Christians, the Jew 
 replied that besides being Christians they were also 
 human beings, made in the image of God, “ And 
 God has commanded us to be kind to strangers.” 
 It was the late Professor Max Miiller who wrote that 
 the idea of humanity and of human kindness, as found 
 in the Old Testament, is something unknown to the 
 Arians. The poets of the Veda, or even Homer 
 himself, would have regarded as incomprehensible 
 such an ordinance as “‘ There shall be one law for the 
 stranger and for the home-born.” 
 
 The spirit of this ancient legislation has been kept 
 alive down to this very day, and Jews are splendid 
 neighbours. ‘They are ever ready to help a lame dog 
 over a stile. Whenit comes to assisting a suffering 
 fellow-creature, the Jew asks no question as to faith. 
 He has a large heart. He believes that good men of 
 all creeds are pleasing in the sight of God—a doctrine 
 
204 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 that stands in marked contrast to that of the Church, 
 which holds that salvation may be found only within 
 its fold (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). 
 
 It may be an interesting fact in itself, and it is also 
 not without some bearing on our subject, that under 
 Pope Pius IX several Jews served in the Papal army 
 and were decorated for faithful services. Just as they 
 were faithful to the Pope as soldiers, so they remained 
 until the end faithful to their religion and their 
 people. The names of three of them are recorded in 
 the Papal annals; they are worth mentioning here. 
 Simon Gaensler, born in 1833; Marcus Goldstein, 
 born in 1830; and John Igl, born in 1821. 
 
 Throughout the ages the organised Christian 
 religions and professing Christians have persecuted 
 Jews with a cruel hatred. Throughout the ages the 
 Jews have preached and practised love for Christians. 
 Has not the time arrived for the Christian attitude 
 to be more in accord with the teaching of the 
 - founder of Christianity ? 
 
THE MESSIAH 
 
 HE eleventh chapter of Isaiah represents the 
 
 Jewish conception of the Golden Age, when 
 
 there should be perfect peace in the world ; 
 when knowledge, and particularly the knowledge of 
 God, should be universal; and when the motives 
 of men’s actions should be righteousness. It 1s 
 worthy of note that whereas most peoples cherish 
 the idea of a Paradise Lost, the Jews taught that 
 human development goes from strength to strength, 
 that social progress is a gradual approach towards a 
 worthy goal, and that the Fall of Man is an abhorrent 
 idea. ‘To-day, more than ever, the best minds in 
 the world are agreed that social progress is from good 
 to better and from better to best. Among Jews this 
 conception has always prevailed. 
 
 It is true that the eleventh chapter of Isaiah con- 
 nects the Messianic Age with a Messiah. The earliest 
 expressions of this idea say nothing about a Messiah. 
 Perhaps the Prophet Joel was the first to proclaim it : 
 * And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour 
 out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your 
 daughters shall prophesy ; your old men shall dream 
 dreams, your young men shall see visions.” The 
 description of the Messianic Age in the second chapter 
 of Isaiah, which is repeated almost verbatim by the 
 Prophet Micah, is likewise without a personal Messiah. 
 
 The peoples of the world should flow to the mountain 
 205 
 
206 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 of the Lord’s house in order to obtain Divine 
 inspiration. 
 
 The notion of a personal Messiah must have arisen 
 much later, when the political independence of the 
 Jewish people came to an end and the oppressions of 
 their various masters were heavy upon them. It is 
 not difficult to account for the belief in a personal 
 Saviour who should liberate his fellow-countrymen 
 from the foreign yoke. The old, purely religious 
 conception of the Messianic age was joined to a 
 nationalist conception of a personal Saviour, and the 
 combination of the two has played no insignificant 
 part in the history of Jewish thought. ‘The Bible 
 was searched for passages which had even the remotest 
 reference to the Messiah, and I have myself traced 
 at least twenty-six which have been so interpreted. 
 But interpretation may be of two kinds. It may 
 be either rational, where reason and common sense 
 extract the obvious meaning from words; or it may 
 be mystical. ‘he mystical interpretation of a verse 
 in the Bible gives unchecked scope to the searchers. 
 Those who embark upon it may be compared to 
 ships sailing without a compass in an unknown sea. 
 They just drift. Their fantasy has free play. The 
 mystical in religion may be of use to an individual 
 whose religious life is heightened by his mysticism. 
 But when mystical ideas are organised into a system, 
 and that system becomes a formula for the masses, 
 the religious life, far from being strengthened, is 
 actually undermined. ‘The Messianic conception in 
 Christianity draws its inspiration from the early Jewish 
 mystics, and the fact that the Messianic doctrines 
 are being cast overboard by an increasing number of 
 Christians is sufficient evidence of their true worth. 
 
THE MESSIAH 207 
 
 A catalogue of all the passages in the Old Testament 
 that have been regarded both by Jewish and Christian 
 mystics as having a Messianic character would be an 
 interesting compilation. But it would hardly convince 
 the common sense of the average man. Let one or 
 two glaring instances suffice. Recall the story of 
 David’s desire to build a House of God. The Divine 
 message was brought to the King that not he should 
 build the Temple, but his successor, and concerning 
 that successor the message continued: “I shall be 
 his father, and he shall be my son.” ‘The mystics see 
 here a clear reference to the Messiah, and the Christians 
 go so far as to find in the statement the proof of the 
 Divine sonship of Jesus. Yet there can be little doubt 
 that the reference is to King Solomon, and the state- 
 ment that he was to be God’s son was intended to 
 be merely an endearment. Take another passage, 
 that in Baalam’s vision, wherein he declares that 
 Sy Avestar shall (arise: out .of »Jacob.” Mystics:are 
 naturally inexact ; they would not be mystics if they 
 were otherwise. All mystics, whether Jewish or 
 Christian, regarded this verse as part of their stock- 
 in-trade for proof of the Messiah. Judged by the test 
 of common sense, it appears to be a mere fantasy of 
 the heathen seer. The words may be made to mean 
 anything; they are, therefore, hardly to be taken as 
 a proof of one particular thing. Or take another 
 passage, this time from the Prophet Jeremiah: ‘‘ Be- 
 hold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise 
 unto David a righteous branch, and he shall reign as 
 King and deal wisely.”” That would seem to be a 
 simple statement with a simple meaning; for the 
 mystics it becomes another proof of the Messiah. 
 
 Let it be clearly understood that the Jewish mystics 
 
208 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 of the early centuries were as keen about the Messianic 
 interpretation of such passages as these as were, in 
 later days, Christian interpreters. Some of the ex- 
 planations are really striking. Take the case of the 
 text in Micah, where Bethlehem is apostrophised : 
 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratha ... out of thee 
 shall one come forth unto me that shall be ruler in 
 Israel.” ‘The ‘Targum actually uses the word Messiah 
 in the translation of the passage; Rashi agrees, and 
 introduces the word Messiah after ‘‘ one”; while 
 David Kimchi explains “ one” as meaning a Judge 
 and adds, ‘‘ that is, the Messiah.” 
 
 The Christian conception of the Messiah owes a 
 great deal to the Jewish mystics of the early centuries. 
 These associated all manner of characteristics with 
 the Messiah. ‘They said that he existed before the 
 world was created, being one in a category of seven 
 things. The value of this conception will become 
 apparent when the other six things are mentioned. 
 They are the Torah, Repentance, Paradise, Hell, 
 God’s Throne, and the Temple. ‘This idea probably 
 underlies the statement in the most mystic of the 
 Gospels: “In the beginning was the Word.” ‘The 
 mystics further believed that with the appearance of 
 the Messiah, Paradise would be restored and the power 
 of Satan would be broken. Among other things, the 
 Messiah would descend into the nether world. ‘There 
 is a story in the Midrash of the Messiah taking Rabbi 
 Joshua ben Levi into the abode of the dead, and the 
 sinners, when they saw the Messiah, cried out with 
 joy: ‘‘ There goes he who will liberate us from this 
 horrid place.” Moreover, the mystics taught that 
 when the Messiah came, God would make a New 
 Torah. Lastly, the Messiah would have to suffer 
 
THE MESSIAH 209 
 
 for mankind. While Christianity made Jesus the 
 suffering Messiah, the Jewish mystics conceived of 
 two Messiahs, the Messiah ben David, who should 
 be triumphant in the end, and his predecessor, the 
 Messiah ben Joseph, who was to be afflicted with bitter 
 suffering. In the Zohar it is related that in the 
 Garden of Eden there is a room called the Chamber 
 of Suffering. In it the Messiah ben Joseph resides, 
 and he cries aloud, ‘‘ Let all the sufferings and 
 oppressions of Israel come over me.” And they do. 
 It need hardly be said that the fifty-third chapter 
 of Isaiah is brought into play in connection with the 
 suffering Messiah. Yet anyone who reads that chapter 
 with ordinary common sense must see that the picture 
 of the suffering servant may be variously interpreted, 
 possibly as referring to the Jewish people, or perhaps 
 to some king of the time, or even to nothing in 
 particular. It should be observed that some at any 
 rate among the ancient Rabbis interpreted it as 
 referring to King Hezekiah. One Rabbi, Hillel by 
 name (not the great Hillel, but one who lived in 
 the fourth century), declared specifically that the 
 Jews need expect no other Messiah, since he had 
 already come in the days of Hezekiah. 
 
 The conception of the Messiah must have an 
 attraction for humanity. The early Christians seized 
 upon it and turned it into one of the fundamentals 
 of their faith. It is found in the religions of India 
 and China ; it is said that it was not unknown among 
 the early inhabitants of the American continent, 
 particularly in Mexico and Peru. Among Jews, too, 
 throughout their history, the idea of the Messiah was 
 ever alive. Maimonides included the belief in his 
 
 Thirteen Articles. The last but one declares: ‘I 
 Oo 
 
210 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the 
 Messiah, and although he tarry, I will yet wait for 
 him.” So great must have been the hold on the 
 popular imagination of this idea that in the past two 
 thousand years many so-called Messiahs appeared on 
 the horizon and commanded a following. 
 
 In Christian dogmatics all manner of miraculous 
 powers are associated with the Messiah; he is even 
 turned into a God. It is clear, however, that all this 
 dogma is fantastic, and one can understand the war 
 to the death among Christians in the fourth century, 
 between those who believed in Homoousion and 
 those who favoured Homoiousion. Whatever Jewish 
 mystics thought of the Messiah, they never made a 
 God of him, nor did they endow him with Divine 
 powers. He was just a Great Saviour, an expression 
 of that longing of humanity for peace and quiet which 
 the history of the world has never made possible. 
 Wars and rumours of wars have filled men’s souls with 
 dread. ‘The soldiers who made earth a place of noise 
 and din were seconded by the priests who disseminated 
 the picture of a fiery hell when this life was over. Is 
 it any wonder that men clasped the knees of an 
 imaginary Saviour who should have pity upon them 
 and give them rest? But this mysticism will not 
 help the world forward. Social progress can result 
 only from deliberate human action, and human 
 action to be effective must have a goal. That goal is 
 provided by the high Jewish conception of the Messiah, 
 and it may be said that the eleventh chapter of Isaiah 
 expresses it in a fashion which cannot but appeal to 
 all men and women who use their brains and tinge 
 their thinking with deep feeling. The mystic con- 
 ceptions of the Messiah have done harm to humanity. 
 
THE MESSIAH 211 
 
 The common-sense Jewish conception presents an 
 ideal which is the aim of all legislation, of all social 
 movements, of all reaching out for better things which 
 
 marks the present age and will probably mark the 
 next still more. 
 
“ MESSIAHS ” IN HISTORY 
 
 ECORDS are extant of at least twenty Jewish 
 
 ‘* Messiahs,”’ and the fact that all of them could 
 command a following, whether large or small, 
 
 is striking evidence of the hold which the idea of the 
 Messiah must have had on the popular mind. Many 
 a Jewish mother dreamed of the possibility of giving 
 birth to the Messiah ; and while in some people this 
 possibility was but food for their imagination, there 
 were others for whom it became a reality. Christians 
 look upon Jesus as the Messiah; history records 
 that He was but one of many ‘ Messiahs.” It is a 
 little difficult to discover from the extant authorities 
 whether Fesus of Nazareth actually regarded Himself 
 as the Messiah or not. But it is certain that He 
 preached some kind of other-worldliness, in accord- 
 ance with doctrines that were popular in certain 
 quarters in His day. Both John the Baptist and 
 Jesus of Nazareth stressed the message that their 
 kingdom was not of this world. In common with most 
 of the self-styled Messiahs who succeeded them, they 
 preached repentance, prayer, and devotion to godly 
 things. They taught that the Kingdom of Heaven 
 was at hand. But Jesus remained true to the funda- 
 mental conceptions of Jewish life and religion, such 
 as the Unity of God and the brotherhood of man. 
 Among the Messiahs some were lucky in their fame, 
 others appeared like comets and as quickly disappeared. 
 
 212 
 
“ MESSIAHS ” IN HISTORY 213 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth was, perhaps, the luckiest of all, in 
 that His name and fame have spread throughout the 
 universe. 
 
 Shortly after the death of Jesus another “‘ saviour ” 
 arose who was called Theudas. According to Josephus, 
 he proclaimed himself Prophet and Messiah, and was 
 looked upon by the Jews as their liberator from the 
 yoke of Rome. His weapons were not to be weapons 
 of destruction; he depended on prayer to bring Divine 
 assistance to his people. Like Moses of old, he would 
 lead them into the desert, and in the wilderness 
 there was to be another revelation. As soon as the 
 movement of which he was the head showed signs 
 of becoming a nuisance, the Roman Procurator of 
 Palestine, Cuspius Fadus (44 a.p.) sent Roman troops 
 against “heudas and his followers. The leader was 
 captured and suffered death, and very many of those 
 who believed in him were taken and sold into slavery. 
 
 The miserable ending of the Messianic movements 
 seemed to have no effect on the popular mind. No 
 sooner was one “ Messiah” put out of the way than 
 another rose in his place. It was not long before a 
 successor to Theudas appeared in the person of Mena- 
 chem ben Chiskia, a political rather than a spiritual 
 ** Messiah.”’ Leader of a band of Zealots, he was fired 
 with extreme Nationalist sentiments, and he would 
 not parley with the enemy. Those who opposed 
 him were cut down; those who followed him had to 
 be prepared for a hard life. Men of his mettle are 
 generally bold and courageous. ‘They do not under- 
 stand compromise. They are prepared to risk all in 
 the hope of winning all. Menachem seized the ‘Tower 
 of Antonia in Jerusalem, driving out the Roman 
 troops. But his pride was hisundoing. He demanded 
 
214 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 that all the Jewish fighting men in the struggle against 
 Rome should be put under his authority. The times 
 were troublous, and nerves were on edge. Menachem 
 was killed by another military leader who would not 
 be ousted from his position. 
 
 In the first century of the common era, when the 
 Jews were engaged in a life and death struggle with 
 Rome, it is easy to understand that self-styled Messiahs 
 should have arisen in great numbers and that most 
 of them should have been warrior ‘‘ Messiahs.” ‘The 
 most famous of them was Barkochba, who for three 
 years (132~135) was the hope of Jewry in Palestine, 
 enjoying the support of no less a person than Rabbi 
 Akiba. But can the mouse overcome the elephant ? 
 Is it possible to make marble crumble by scratching 
 its surface with a needle? It was nothing short of 
 remarkable that Barkochba was able to maintain 
 himself for even three years. He perished in the end, 
 and the defeat of the Jews was so complete that more 
 than 500 years elapsed before another ‘‘ Messiah ”’ 
 appeared on the scene. 
 
 His name was Serenus (716-721), and he arose in 
 Lower Galilee, declaring that he would follow in the 
 footsteps of Mahomet and reform the Jewish faith. 
 He abolished the second days of the festivals, intro- 
 duced new forms of prayer, set aside the dietary laws, 
 and originated a new marriage ceremony. His fame 
 spread to Spain, where many Jews were prepared to 
 sell all that they had in order to follow the ‘‘ Messiah ” 
 Serenus. The Caliph, alarmed by the growing move- 
 ment, nipped it in the bud. Serenus was captured, 
 and, on being questioned by the Moslem ruler, had the 
 effrontery to declare that the whole enterprise was 
 only a joke. Like a wise man, the Caliph handed 
 
“ MESSIAHS ” IN HISTORY 216 
 
 over the false Messiah to his own followers, and they 
 dealt with him as he deserved. 
 
 Human nature seems to be stubborn. It will not 
 learn the lessons of life ; it will foolishly follow what it 
 desires to follow. It might have been thought that 
 the fate of Serenus would have been a deathblow 
 to any more of this business of Messiah-mongering. 
 Yet strange to relate, only twenty years after Serenus, 
 a new ‘‘ Messiah” arose in Persia, Obadiah Abu Isat, 
 of Ispahan. For ten years (745-755) he was in the 
 public eye. He proclaimed that God had summoned 
 him to liberate the Jews from their bondage among 
 the nations. He, too, took upon himself to introduce 
 reforms into Jewish life and practice. He prohibited 
 meat and wine altogether, abolished divorce, and 
 introduced seven daily prayers. It was not long 
 before 10,000 men called him their chieftain. 
 Apparelled like a prince and riding on a fiery charger, 
 he was able to maintain himself for a time both as a 
 spiritual Messiah and also as the leader of a redoubt- 
 able band of fighters. But he could not escape his 
 fate, and he died an unnatural death. The blind 
 faith that was reposed in him would not accept his 
 death, and in his, case, as in the case of other false 
 Messiahs, his followers believed that though he was 
 not in their midst, he was yet alive somewhere on the 
 facesotathe earth. 
 
 Similar stories might be told of ‘‘ Messiahs ’? who 
 arose in France and Spain. ‘They attempted religious 
 reform; and they all promised deliverance and the 
 end of the Diaspora. Some maintained themselves 
 but for a short while; one, David Alroy by name, 
 has become famous in legend and story. In the year 
 1160 this ‘‘ Messiah” revealed himself to the Jews 
 
216 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 living in Azerbaijan, a sturdy race of warriors who 
 were to be his instruments to free Israel from bondage. 
 Alroy was good to look upon and possessed a cultivated 
 mind. His personal influence must have been 
 magnetic, for his popularity and the enthusiasm he 
 engendered were enormous. The local authorities 
 became very nervous of his exploits, and those among 
 the Jews who still possessed common sense implored 
 David Alroy to desist from his course. He was deaf 
 to their entreaties, and the commander of the local 
 troops bribed Alroy’s father-in-law to dispatch him. 
 So perished the hero of Benjamin Disraeli’s romance. 
 His career, illuminating and impressive though it 
 was, brought little good to the Jews. The Eastern 
 Caliphs persecuted the brethren of Alroy on his 
 account. And yet the lesson was not learnt: in 
 1172 another ‘‘ Messiah” proclaimed himself in 
 Yemen, in Southern Arabia. ‘The Jews of the district, 
 a little nervous of the consequences of the movement, 
 wrote to the great Maimonides for advice, and his 
 reply is to be found in his famous “ Letter to the 
 South.” The clear-headed thinker characterised the 
 false Messiahs as semi-madmen, as conceited, foolish, 
 and pathetic figures, without originality or greatness 
 of vision. Maimonides saw through them all, and 
 when he spoke of them as glorified charlatans, he was 
 not wide of the mark. The Messiah of Yemen was 
 brought before the ruler of the land, and boldly 
 proclaimed his Divine mission. As proof, he declared 
 that if he were decapitated, his head would return 
 to his body. The ruler took him at his word, pro- 
 mising that if his statement proved true, he himself 
 would become his foremost supporter. ‘The experi- 
 ment was tried—and another “ Messiah” perished. 
 
“ MESSIAHS ” IN HISTORY 217 
 
 About one hundred years later the Messianic idea 
 revived in the person of Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia 
 (1240-1291), who was born in Saragossa. Jerusalem 
 had a fascination for him, and he travelled over land 
 and sea, encountering many marvellous adventures, 
 in order to reach Palestine. But he was back in 
 Spain before long, declaring that God had filled him 
 with the spirit of prophecy. He went to Rome 
 (1281) with the intention of converting to Judaism 
 Pope Martin IV. In 1284 he was in Messina, and 
 there he publicly proclaimed himself the Messiah. 
 His followers began to prepare themselves for the 
 Messianic reign by fasting, almsgiving, prayer, and 
 ascetic exercises. But nothing happened, and it was 
 not until the sixteenth century that two more 
 “* Messiahs ”? appeared on the scene—David Reubent 
 and Solomon Molcho. ‘The first gave himself out as 
 the brother of a mythical Arabian prince who had an 
 army of 300,000 men, and declared that this royal 
 brother of his had sent him to the Princes of Europe, 
 and particularly to the Pope, to obtain weapons of war 
 in order to lead a crusade against the Moslems. It 
 would seem that David Reubeni had a bee in his 
 bonnet. But he was consistent in his story from 
 beginning to end, and was able to impress even Pope 
 Clement VII (1523-34), who received him with all the 
 honours of an ambassador. In due course he was 
 invited by King Joao of Portugal to visit Lisbon, 
 where he arrived in the year 1525. It was while he 
 was in Portugal that he stirred the imagination of 
 Diego Pires, who afterwards took the name of Solomon 
 Molcho, a comely youth with a well-trained mind 
 and poetic fancy. Molcho embraced Judaism and 
 became the particular satellite of Reubeni, and the 
 
218 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 sermons which he preached in synagogues made a 
 profound impression on young and old. Meanwhile, 
 Reubeni left Portugal, and after numerous marvellous 
 adventures came to Italy, where his followers in- 
 creased in numbers. The Inquisition attempted to 
 pounce upon him, but the Pope himself was his pro- 
 tector. The Pope, however, could not save Molcho, 
 who, having once been a Christian, came within the 
 jurisdiction of the Inquisition, which condemned him 
 to death (1532). Reubeni ended his days in one of 
 the dungeons of the Inquisition, where, it is said, he 
 was poisoned. 
 
 Romantic as were the careers of all these ‘* Messiahs,”’ 
 they were surpassed by that of the greatest charlatan 
 of all, Sabbattai Zevi (1626-1676). Born in Smyrna, 
 where his father was an agent for an English Turkey 
 merchant, Sabbattai was clever enough to strike the 
 imagination of his immediate environment, and _ his 
 fame quickly spread to all the communities of Europe 
 where Jews resided. His boldness was boundless. 
 His system included a sort of Trinity, with an Ancient 
 of Days, who was about to retire, leaving his dominions 
 to the King of the Jews, and he was to be accompanied 
 by a kind of female character, the Shechina. Sabbattai 
 reserved for himself the rdle of the second person in 
 this Trinity, and he did not shrink from calling him- 
 self God. His end is too well known to need elabo- 
 ration ; his career, as depicted by Mr. Israel Zangwill 
 in ** The Turkish Messiah ” (in his ‘‘ Dreamers of the 
 Ghetto ”’), is well worth reading. Sabbattai’s hold on 
 the popular imagination of Jews and Gentiles alike 1s 
 nothing short of remarkable. Perhaps the seventeenth 
 century had a peculiar weakness for enjoying gulli- 
 bility ; perhaps it was that Sabbattai was gifted with 
 
“ MESSIAHS ” IN HISTORY 219 
 
 Chutzpa (bold impertinence) to a greater extent than 
 the ‘‘ Messiahs”? who had preceded him. But the 
 higher his rise and the greater his hold on the popular 
 imagination, the more disappointing was his fall. His 
 miserable exit from the stage did at last recall people 
 to their senses, and he may be said to have been the 
 last ‘“‘ Messiah ” who wielded any serious influence. 
 
MR. H. G. WELLS AND THE JEWS 
 
 HAVE been reading Mr. Wells’ “‘ Outlines of 
 History,” and I must confess that both the con- 
 ception and execution of the work fill one with 
 respect for the author. I think it would be going too 
 far to compare Mr. Wells with Gibbon; the latter 
 delves a good deal beneath the surface, while the 
 former skims very much on the top. But then 
 Gibbon had a much more limited field than Mr. 
 Wells, who begins almost with the beginning of life on 
 this planet, and concludes with the present time. It 
 is a magnificent sweep, and, on the whole, the work 
 is well done. ‘The effort, and the revenues derived 
 from it, have been the envy of professed historians. 
 Nevertheless I cannot rid myself of the feeling that 
 while Gibbon is destined to last, Mr. Wells’ ‘* Out- 
 lines” will be forgotten a generation hence. After 
 all, the work is only a kind of glorified newspaper 
 article, a sort of insect of aday. But there is no reason 
 for not taking it seriously, for it is safe to assume that 
 its readers must be numbered in hundreds of thousands. 
 For many of them Mr. Wells is a name to conjure 
 with, and his statements will be accepted at their face 
 value. Accordingly, I was at pains to look closely 
 into the treatment by Mr. Wells of the Jews and their 
 destiny, and I am bound to say that this section is one 
 of the least satisfactory in the whole book. 
 This seems a pity. For it was the aim of Mr. Wells 
 
 220 
 
MR. H. G. WELLS AND THE JEWS 221 
 
 in these ‘‘ Outlines ”’ to deal not so much with the rise 
 and fall of empires, or the sway of battles, or the 
 achievements of national heroes (albeit he touches on 
 all these points), as rather to stress the onward sweep 
 of human development towards that state of things 
 wherein would be recognised ‘* the moral unity of 
 mankind,” and the desire for world peace. Mr. Wells 
 admits that these two paramount ideas, for which 
 the world is still groping, are of Jewish origin. Yet, 
 curiously enough, he makes not even a single effort 
 to show how they arose among Jews, or what the Jews 
 have done to keep them alive. In very truth, his 
 comparatively short section dealing with the Jews is 
 scrappy and uneven. Mr. Wells says that he has 
 not the space to write about Job, the Song of Songs, 
 the Psalms, or Proverbs; yet he is able to quote from 
 the Bible at great length the account of the “‘ Disaster 
 at Ebenezer in the days when Eli was judge.” Of 
 Moses he merely mentions his birth, to wander off to 
 similar stories in other literatures. The Ten Com- 
 mandments, which must be universally admitted as 
 being one of the bases of modern civilisation, he does 
 not mention at all. He seems to be content with the 
 explanation that “The Jews went to Babylon bar- 
 barians, and came back civilised.”? ‘This seems a 
 curious perversion of facts. One hardly gets the 
 impression that before they went into exile the Jews 
 were “ barbarians.”” Even at the lowest estimate, 
 these ‘‘ barbarians? produced an Amos, a Hosea, a 
 Jeremiah, an Isaiah the First, and a Micah, with his 
 conception of true religion—to do justly, to love 
 mercy, and to walk humbly with God. 
 
 But even on the assumption that Mr. Wells’ state- 
 ment is wholly true, he makes no effort to show how 
 
222 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 the “civilisation ”? which the Jews brought back from 
 Babylon made itself felt both among themselves and 
 in the world. One would have expected to see this 
 traced in detail, in view of the goal which Mr. Wells 
 had set himself of showing how the moral unity of 
 mankind was gradually growing up. Yet what do we 
 find? Therulers in the period of the Second Temple 
 Mr. Wells characterises as being for the most part 
 of the “ordinary Eastern type—cunning, treacherous, 
 and bloodstained.”” Mr. Wells repeats the hackneyed 
 opinion found in the books of many Christian theo- 
 logians that Judaism ceased to count for much after 
 the destruction of the Second Temple. He says little 
 about the Jews in the first thousand years of the 
 Diaspora, the period in which the Talmud arose. Say 
 what you will, this great literature at its best shows 
 a very wonderful capacity for expressing the ideal of 
 “‘ the moral unity of mankind ” and the value of world 
 peace, the two pillars on which Mr. Wells’ world 
 stands four-square to all the winds that blow. It is 
 a thousand pities that Mr. Wells does not know the 
 Talmud ; it is a thousand pities that the same may 
 be said of most Christian divines. How, indeed, can 
 anyone quite understand the New Testament, more 
 particularly the Gospels, without a close acquaintance 
 with Rabbinic literature? Thousands of commen- 
 taries have been written on the New Testament ; its 
 Books have been looked at from a hundred points of 
 view; but the most direct point of view, that which 
 might be expected to throw most light upon them, 
 has been neglected. It is not too much to say that, 
 in order to appreciate the niceties of the Gospels, 
 Christian students ought as a matter of religious duty, 
 if not of intellectual honesty, to steep themselves in 
 
MR. H. G. WELLS AND THE JEWS 223 
 
 Rabbinic literature. ‘The only way to understand the 
 teaching of Jesus as set forth in the Gospels is by way 
 of the Rabbis. If the Universities were alive to their 
 responsibilities in this matter, they would prescribe for 
 candidates for degrees in Divinity as thorough a know- 
 ledge of the Talmud as of the New Testament itself. 
 Mr. Wells, following Harnack and others, makes 
 much of the Kingdom of Heaven, which, he declares, 
 was something new. He dwells almost lovingly on 
 the wonder that Jesus should have preached this 
 ideal for the first time in human history. Had he 
 been acquainted with Rabbinic literature, especially 
 with the Midrashim, Mr. Wells would have found 
 abundant evidence of the belief among Jews, even 
 before the time of Jesus, in the Kingdom of Heaven. 
 The result of this ignorance is the claim that, taken 
 as a whole, the Gospels are profoundly original. The 
 claim is somewhat overstated. It does not follow 
 that because millions believe in Christianity, that 
 Christianity of necessity must therefore contain the 
 last word of religious wisdom. With his fearlessness 
 and his magnificent capacity for seeing into the heart 
 of things when he takes the trouble to look, Mr. Wells 
 would have been convinced, if he had examined the 
 post-biblical history of the Jews and of their literature, 
 that Judaism, both in its earlier and later developments, 
 contains religious truths as great and sublime as any 
 taught by Christianity; that, moreover, the dead 
 weight of accretions which had been added during 
 the centuries to both systems is not so heavy nor so 
 dangerous in the case of Judaism as in the case of 
 Christianity ; and that, further, it is not too much to 
 assert that the whole trend of modern thought 1s more 
 and more toward Jewish teaching at its best. In any 
 
224 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 event, seeing that Mr. Wells has a whole chapter on 
 Greek thought and literature, not to mention the 
 chapter on the career of Alexander the Great, it would 
 have been only fair if he had devoted a chapter likewise 
 to Jewish achievements in thought, in science, and in 
 religion, not, indeed, for the sake of the Jews, but in 
 order to show the Jewish contribution to the develop- 
 ment of Mr. Wells’ two fundamental ideals. 
 
 Besides his sins of omission, Mr. Wells is guilty of 
 some sins of commission. We make no complaint of 
 his putting Biblical conditions into modern phrase- 
 ology. ‘There is something arresting in the descrip- 
 tion of Benaiah as *‘ Solomon’s chief rufian’”’; or his 
 assertion that the later story of the kingdoms after the 
 time of Solomon is just ‘‘a tale frankly barbaric.” 
 But one must take exception to little evidences of a 
 prejudiced outlook in regard to Jewish characteristics. 
 “It is to the Pheenician contingent and to the 
 Aramzan accessions in Babylon that the financial and 
 commercial tradition of the Jews is to be ascribed.” 
 Financial and commercial tradition? ‘This seems a 
 curious prejudice in a mind so balanced as Mr. Wells’. 
 Throughout history the Jews have had anything but 
 a financial or commercial tradition. If a few in- 
 dividuals among them have been leaders in finance 
 and commerce, they have been, as they still are, the 
 exceptions. As a whole the Jews have been among 
 the poorest peoples in the world, and their strength 
 lies, not in finance and commerce, but rather in 
 the cultivation and expression of religious ideals and 
 ethical principles. ‘To describe Karl Marx, therefore, 
 as exhibiting his ‘‘ racial commercialism ” is a complete 
 travesty. You may disagree from Karl Marx; you 
 may condemn his opinions; you may criticise his 
 
MR. H. G. WELLS AND THE JEWS 225 
 
 economic system. But you can hardly with justice 
 accuse him of commercialism. The man Karl Marx 
 was gifted with a great heart and a great brain, and 
 it is true, I think, to say that his heart predominated. 
 His study of the social conditions in this country in the 
 early days of the Industrial Revolution, as heartrending 
 and deplorable a state of affairs as any in the world’s 
 history, a story which Mr. Wells has probably read 
 in the illuminating pages of the Hammonds’ “ ‘Town 
 Labourer”? and ‘“‘ Village Labourer,’”? so moved the 
 heart of Karl Marx that he devoted himself to an 
 analysis of the economic conditions then prevailing. 
 And who shall say that his analysis of those conditions 
 is wrong ? He may have been mistaken in his con- 
 clusions, but he was most certainly right in his diagnosis. 
 And is it fair to call this commercialism ? Mr. Wells 
 ought surely to know better. 
 
 Mr. Wells accounts for Jewish persistence by 
 Jewish solidarity. Always Jew stood by Jew. ‘‘ And 
 by reason of this solidarity rulers had everywhere to 
 take account of this people as a help, a source of loans, 
 or as a source of trouble.”” This seems a sweeping 
 generalisation which has not even the merit of being 
 partially true. This is no philosophy of Jewish 
 history. Far from taking account of the Jews, rulers 
 everywhere, with few exceptions, did all they could to 
 exterminate them. Almost down to modern times, 
 emperors and kings treated them as chattels ; they had 
 no legal rights; they were oppressed physically and 
 morally ; and if they were taken account of, 1t was 
 only to be made the victims of suffering, very often 
 senseless or prejudiced. 
 
 Mr. Wells has had a splendid opportunity, and has 
 
 missed it. After reading his ‘‘ Outlines,” it was borne 
 If 
 
226 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 in upon me more and more that what Mr. Wells 
 missed should be made good by someone else. Mr. 
 Wells attempted to write history with a view to showing 
 the growth of the moral unity of mankind. In this 
 growth he has omitted the Jewish contribution, which 
 is as large as that of any other people. To write a 
 history of the Jews, not so much of their vicissitudes, 
 but rather of their contribution to the highest ten- 
 dencies to which mankind is reaching out, is a theme 
 worthy of a great pen. Who will seize the occasion ? 
 
A SAVIOUR OF JUDAISM. 
 
 T seems almost miraculous that when the Jewish 
 State was destroyed, the Jewish religion should 
 have survived. The miracle-worker was Rabbi 
 
 Jochanan ben Zakkai, for he it was who was responsible 
 for saving Judaism out of the terrific storm which 
 overwhelmed the Jewish people. Four hundred years 
 before, another such saviour had risen up in the person 
 of Ezra, and he and Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai, 
 plucking a brand from the burning, saved alive for the 
 world precious ideals. 
 
 Little is known of the youth of Rabbi Jochanan ben 
 Zakkai. One tradition reports that he was a priest, 
 another that he was a trader. However that may 
 be, it appears certain that he was a disciple of Hillel, 
 who thought so highly of him that he called him 
 “the father of wisdom.’ His knowledge was exten- 
 sive. He was acquainted with the Bible, the Mishna, 
 Haggada, and astronomy. But he was not a dry-as- 
 dust. His nature was sunny. He was of those who, 
 like Abou ben Adhem, loved his fellow-men. It is 
 reported of him that he was first in his greetings, 
 whether to Jew or Gentile. In his arguments with 
 Sadducees or heathens he always answered the 
 questions put to him from the point of view of his 
 questioner. He attempted to understand and to meet 
 his opponent’s case. He was famous for wasting 
 
 little time in futile talk ; he was always first in the 
 227 
 
228 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 House of Study, ready to exchange views with his 
 disciples. Of these he had many, and five are par- 
 ticularly mentioned by name. His summing up of 
 their qualities is a masterpiece of brevity and wisdom. 
 Eleazer ben Hyrcanos is a cemented cistern which loses 
 not a drop; Joshua ben Chananiah—happy she who 
 gave him birth; Jose the Cohen is a saint; Simon 
 ben Nathaniel fears sin ; Elazar ben Arach is a fountain 
 which grows fuller and fuller. 
 
 Before the destruction of Jerusalem he taught in 
 the shadow of the ‘Temple wall. Later, he was con- 
 nected with colleges at Jabneh (or Jamnia), Berur 
 Chail, and Arab. But his name will be for ever 
 associated with Jabneh, where he planted a seed 
 which grew into a mighty oak. Modern Judaism owes 
 its very life to Jochanan ben Zakkai. 
 
 His career lay in the period between 48 and 
 80. Like Jeremiah, he lived in a time which was 
 troublesome for his people. Like Jeremiah, he saw 
 the catastrophe approaching. On one occasion it is 
 related of him that he cried out to the Temple, 
 “Temple! Temple! We know that you will be 
 destroyed !”? He looked at political events with a 
 prophet’s eye. Disaffection against Rome was slowly 
 coming to a head, and the Roman-Jewish conflict was 
 inevitable. Jochanan was in Jerusalem during the 
 siege, and he was among those who held that to defy 
 the Roman military power was madness. He saw 
 what was at stake, and he threw in his lot with the 
 party of peace. How he got out of Jerusalem in a 
 coffin is a story too well known to need repetition. 
 Once outside the town, he made his way to Titus, and 
 begged of him three favours—that he might be allowed 
 to establish a college at Jabneh, that the House of 
 
A SAVIOUR OF JUDAISM 229 
 Hillel might be spared, and that a sick friend might 
 
 receive proper attention. ‘whe Roman General must 
 have been very much surprised at the apparent in- 
 significance of these three requests, which he granted 
 there and then. Little did Titus realise that the 
 college in Jabneh was to be the new cradle of a religion 
 which would outlast the great Empire of which he 
 himself was at the time one of the supports. 
 
 In due course Jerusalem was taken, and when the 
 news reached Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai he was greatly 
 moved, and he and his disciples journeyed to the 
 ruined city to see with their own eyes the place of 
 desolation. His disciples wept, but he comforted 
 them, saying, ‘‘ "he temple of stone may be destroyed, 
 but the temple of the spirit has risen out of its ashes. 
 The altar is no more, but acts of charity and kindli- 
 ness Temain, ¢: Let/ius |practise’ these.””’:)‘f) Wherever 
 Israel is exiled,” so he declared on another occasion, 
 “‘ there also God’s presence is exiled with them.” 
 
 Is is obvious that the destruction of the Jewish 
 State and of the Temple could not but have far- 
 reaching effects for the Jewish people. Immediate 
 reforms to meet the new situation were necessary, 
 and a man of energy was required to take action. 
 Such a man was found in Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai, 
 who fearlessly rose to the occasion and introduced such 
 changes as seemed to him requisite. He abolished 
 the bitter water test for a woman accused of adultery ; 
 he made Jabneh the spiritual capital of the Jews in 
 place of Jerusalem. While carrying out this policy 
 he comforted his people with the hope that “soon 
 the Temple will be rebuilt.” He never tired of im- 
 pressing upon those who came into contact with 
 him that charity would henceforth take the place of 
 
230 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 sacrifices. It is characteristic of the man that in all his 
 decisions he sought to find authority for tradition in 
 Holy Writ. 
 
 He was fond of the Socratic method of teaching. 
 When he wished to discover a view he would question 
 his disciples as to their opinion, and so elicit what he 
 desired to bring home. His question in regard to 
 what was best for a man to possess is well known. One 
 disciple said a good friend ; another a pleasant coun- 
 tenance; another a good neighbour; another a good 
 heart. Having heard them all, the Master praised the 
 disciple who had advocated a good heart, for if a man 
 possessed this advantage, all the others were included. 
 
 His interpretation of the Holy Writ was often 
 striking. Let one instance suffice. In the last verse 
 of the twenty-second chapter of Exodus it is stated 
 that if a man be found guilty of stealing an ox or a 
 sheep, he shall pay five oxen for each ox, but only 
 four sheep for each sheep. Rabbi Jochanan ben 
 Zakkai explained this by pointing out that in the case 
 of the sheep the thief would have comparatively little 
 trouble in getting it away; he would probably have 
 to carry the animal. But to get away an ox, it would 
 be more difficult ; the ox would have to be driven. 
 
 His rules of conduct were worthy of the man. 
 Honour God out of love, he was for ever preaching. 
 Job’s honour of God was not of the highest kind, for 
 it sprang from fear; the highest kind should spring 
 from love. ‘“‘ Know ye why no iron should be lifted 
 on the altar? The altar is a sign of peace, whilst 
 iron destroys life.”? ‘‘If you have learned much,” 
 he was fond of saying, ‘‘ do not glory in it, for it is but 
 your duty.” 
 
 Little is known of Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai’s 
 
A SAVIOUR OF JUDAISM 231 
 
 family except that he had two sons, one of whom died 
 in youth. His disciples came to comfort him. One 
 recalled the death of Abel, and Adam/’s sorrow ; 
 another recalled the troubles of Job ; a third reminded 
 him of David’s grief when Bathsheba’s child died. 
 ‘“* How can other people’s grief assuage mine ?”’ cried 
 the Master. Thereupon Elazar ben Arach related 
 the story of a man who was entrusted with a jewel, 
 and was anxious that the jewel should be returned 
 undamaged. How happy was that man when he was 
 able to return the jewel in all its purity! ‘‘ You, too, 
 have received a jewel—your son; how happy must 
 you be to be able to return him as unblemished as 
 he was when he was first delivered to you!” ‘* You 
 have comforted me, my son!” was Rabbi Jochanan’s 
 admission. 
 
 On his death-bed his message to his disciples sounded. 
 Strapoevintneit cars.) -° Pear Good,’ he. said, .“-as:you 
 would fear man.”’ It was a simple lesson, but it had 
 deep significance. ‘Tradition asserted that with the 
 death of Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai “the rays of 
 wisdom ceased.” 
 
 Judaism is a great monument to Rabbi Jochanan 
 ben Zakkai’s genius and memory. Perhaps he estab- 
 lished the college in Jabneh and achieved his great 
 work unconsciously. Perhaps it was the Spirit of God. 
 Who shall say ? But however it was, there is no doubt 
 that Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai must be written down 
 a great saviour of Judaism. 
 
AN INSTRUCTOR OF A HUNDRED 
 GENERATIONS 
 
 HE Talmudic period in Jewish history produced 
 
 many men who may be accounted great because 
 
 they lived sincerely. High thinking was their 
 ideal and the service of God their chief aim. In the 
 gallery of heroes of those five centuries two Jochanans 
 stand out above their fellows. Rabbi Jochanan ben 
 Zakkai, the elder of the two, is perhaps the better 
 known, possibly because his name appears in the 
 Ethics of the Fathers. But the other, Rabbi Jochanan 
 bar Nappacha, also deserves popularity ; it has been 
 claimed that he is one of the greatest men Judaism 
 has produced. He was a sage in the best meaning of 
 the word, and, in the sense of the Chinese proverb, 
 he was the instructor of a hundred generations. 
 
 Rabbi Jochanan, the son of a smith, was a third- 
 century man; he lived in Palestine between the years 
 190) and 278" ot the Common fra.) Dies qvacme 
 posthumous child, and his mother’s care, too, he did 
 not enjoy for long. She died while her boy was still 
 very young, and he and his sister were brought up 
 by their maternal grandfather. The old man got 
 his joy of the boy, who showed remarkable mental 
 qualities from the first. Even before he was in his 
 teens he was taken to the lecture room of Rabbi 
 Judah, who remarked the precision with which the 
 
 boy gave his answers. He sat at the feet of other 
 a4 
 
A GREAT RABBI 233 
 
 distinguished masters in Sepphoris. Banai and Janai 
 are specifically mentioned; from all of them he 
 obtained not merely knowledge but the impetus to 
 cultivate his mind still further. This he did with a 
 determination that was exemplary. A college had 
 grown up in the south of Palestine, presided over by 
 Rabbi Chia, and Jochanan resolved to proceed thither, 
 feeling, perhaps, that Sepphoris had little more to offer 
 him. Before he departed he sold his patrimony, a 
 property lying between Sepphoris and Tiberias, in 
 order to secure the means to enable him to continue 
 his studies. He characterised this action as merely 
 exchanging that which was made in six days (material 
 goods) for that which took forty days to complete 
 (spiritual wealth, z.¢. the Torah). 
 
 ~ Rabbi Chia soon took his measure, and rejoiced in 
 the young man’s capacities. No less was the recogni- 
 tion accorded to him by his next teacher, Rabbi 
 Hoshaya, with whom he associated for eighteen years, 
 in Ceesarea. 
 
 Not merely his scholarship but also his beauty won 
 fame throughout the land. The Talmud attempts 
 to convey the comeliness of Rabbi Jochanan in this 
 fashion. ‘Take, it says, a lovely silver goblet, fill it 
 with red pomegranate blossom, put a wreath of roses 
 round the edge, and then let the sun shine upon it. 
 The rays so produced will convey but a faint semblance 
 of the beauty of bar Nappacha. One day Rabbi 
 Jochanan visited a friend confined to a bed of sickness, 
 and found the poor sufferer in a dark room. ‘The 
 visitor uncovered his arm and a flood of light illumined 
 the sick chamber. ‘The patient began to cry, for that 
 so much beauty should one day turn to dust; and 
 the visitor, on learning the cause of his friend’s grief, 
 
234 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 mingled his own tears with his, and the two wept 
 together. 
 
 When his patrimony was spent, Rabbi Jochanan fell 
 on evil days, and as he was too proud to accept assistance 
 from others, he resolved to give up his studies and turn 
 to business, being joined by his friend Ilfa. But his 
 desertion of the intellectual life did not last long; he 
 was soon back in Sepphoris as a teacher. It is curious 
 to note modern and ancient parallels. Jochanan 
 turned to business because he was too poor to study ; 
 to-day, in Germany, many a Rabbi has entered on 
 a commercial career because the congregations are too 
 poor to pay adequate salaries. The Rabbis still 
 continue their spiritual ministrations, and I am in- 
 formed that the respect in which they are now held, 
 being economically independent of their flock, stands 
 in striking contrast to the days of old. Perhaps un- 
 consciously Rabbi Jochanan bar Nappacha has shown 
 the way for a solution of the problem of the ministry. 
 
 Just as Jochanan tried to be a trader in order to 
 overcome his poverty, so a friend of his who later 
 became the distinguished Rabbi Simon ben Lakish, 
 for the same reason joined a travelling ciicus, and 
 eventually was connected with a marauding band. 
 One day Rabbi Jochanan was bathing in the Jordan, 
 and who but his friend should join him there? Both 
 were overjoyed at the meeting, and Simon married 
 his friend’s sister and again became a disciple of the 
 wise. Eventually the two settled in Tiberias, and the 
 fame of Jochanan spread throughout Palestine, bringing 
 crowds of students to his lecture rooms. 
 
 Perhaps this was due to his large-heartedness, to his 
 breadth of sympathy, and to his common sense. If he 
 came across a difficulty, more especially in the text 
 
A GREAT RABBI 235 
 
 of the Mishna, he did not attempt to solve it by 
 hair-splitting or far-fetched fantastical explanations. 
 Either he used the historical method, saying one 
 authority gave a decision at one period in one way, 
 and another in another, or if an historical explanation 
 was not feasible, he would confess that one opinion 
 was wrong. He was no slave of the letter. He had 
 sufficient courage to use his common sense. He was 
 liberal-minded to all men, not excluding heathens. 
 His is the story that when the Egyptians were drowned 
 in the Red Sea, the angels attempted to break out into 
 song. ‘‘ What! you sing,” said the Heavenly Father, 
 * while living creatures, my handiwork, perish!” He 
 was a lover of Greek learning, and permitted the 
 Torah to be written in Greek characters. But the 
 Romans and their ways he detested, chiefly because 
 they valued a man not for his character, but for his 
 wealth. It is reported that in his day, many Jews 
 adorned their houses with paintings of human and 
 animal figures. Rabbi Jochanan did not censure the 
 custom. He was considerate in the extreme. “ Put 
 not so heavy a burden on the community that the 
 greater part of the community will not be able to 
 bearat;’’ 
 
 As a popular teacher he took all life as his province. 
 He was specially intent on fortifying the common 
 folk in their faith, and so keep them from the errors 
 of Christian dogma. He set his face against magic 
 and wizardry. Superstition he condemned, especially 
 among the women of his age. Israel, he declared, 
 stood under nostar. Angels are but God’s messengers, 
 and when a man repents of his evil ways, the angels 
 are given over into his power. And as for evil spirits, 
 their power is in inverse ratio to the knowledge of God. 
 
236 JEWISH LIFE AND THOUGHT 
 
 on earth. When God is known and recognised, their 
 power is small; only when God is neglected is their 
 influence strong. Of God and the world he taught: 
 ‘““'The soul fills the body, God fills the world; the 
 soul sustains the body, God the world ; the soul out- 
 lives the body, God the world; the soul is unique 
 in the body, and God is unique in the world; the 
 soul sees and is not visible, so, too, God.” ‘The soul 
 is refreshed when the body sleeps. 
 
 Rabbi Jochanan was no respecter of social status. 
 Even if a heathen utters a word of wisdom, he declared, 
 he should be termed a Chacham (a wise man); even a 
 man of illegitimate birth, if he be learned, should take 
 precedence over a priest who is ignorant. Indeed, he 
 held the view that the Torah was given to Israel in 
 seventy languages in order that all the nations on the 
 earth might understand it. Three, he taught, are 
 specially noticed by God—an unmarried man who 
 lives in a city and sins not; a poor man who returns 
 to their owner the objects that he finds; and a rich 
 man who spends his tithes without publicity. He 
 counselled respect for established authority, even 
 though it may be committed to the person of the most 
 unworthy. It was characteristic of the man that he 
 would not allow a workman at his work to show him 
 any mark of respect. He, on the other hand, had a 
 ready greeting for all men, and in particular for the 
 old, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, and for 
 slaves. 
 
 So warm-hearted a man deserved to possess children. 
 He did, rejoicing in his ten sons and one daughter. 
 But just as he himself had been an orphan, so he was 
 deprived of the comfort of seeing his sons reach man’s 
 estate and his daughter married. ‘These were heavy 
 
A GREAT RABBI 237 
 
 blows: the heaviest was the death of his brother-in- 
 law, Rabbi Simon ben Lakish, whom he loved dearly 
 as his closest friend. He himself reached the ripe old 
 age of eighty, and when he died he left no fortune 
 behind him, in the true Jewish spirit. A host of 
 disciples continued his work and kept alive his teaching. 
 That, as he had taught during his life-time, was true 
 immortality; and for generations the authority of 
 Rabbi Jochanan bar Nappacha carried great weight. 
 To his credit it was said of him that he united profane 
 and sacred knowledge, not to the disadvantage of either, 
 but to their complete accord. The one supplemented 
 the other, and both were the stronger for the com- 
 bination. Rabbi Jochanan’s ideal has been cultivated 
 by Jews ever since. 
 
 Printed in England at THE BALLANTYNE PRESS 
 SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & Co. LTD. 
 Colchester, London & Eton 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MK ale 
 het : a BB | oN ibis uf, 3 
 } i Heard, VAR cae | 
 Sete the Beret rs Rate iy tea Pe Me if 
 a is ' ae a varied i ye ne Sa 40 ae eee 
 
 
 
 
 
 i Dae (eke hie bay : hes Fgh sa bt Ne 3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' BNA a Pa 
 < ; : A bri * Pi rath ues *. Lad “seabed a 
 a : ae , * i , 
 
 * 4 oe aay ee ig Sis) TiN a ibaa 
 
 , ?, rag ‘ etn 2s i , ‘ , 
 
 do ohh Woe ta? “ts i ats badudosid . 
 
 Vy uel i aN : ‘ 
 ; | me ret toh dain 13 
 ib rte) CEG? hk Rw ices: 
 My SS nitene ays Hh, re 3 
 ’ x, if yn A by ° 
 + 
 ~ ‘ aN 
 , i ‘ug 
 aye hes a 
 1 ; 
 y i 
 a 
 % iW bal 7 
 prea i NA! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 ty by, by » 
 ua eae Ad eb ae Bronte Oe ig 
 
 porn cAMP. A ML MT Gd MNS Tad | 
 pane . A dda BA ' Md ay 
 iv \ : : ei 4 ai i ay e 
 pind gf ‘ fi i ) is oat anit yy ei “ae sshd S ppnaiciaaly 
 ie Roe ee Te yee sa Magid af WH Ay eal Ha 
 1 ve : Bey Nace lal UF ied he ’ ah ee 
 , } = a ia Ly i i Li Ue ae y ji re Tae aaa #0 ( pad re ’ ¥ ee ie 
 ) ‘: : ‘ 14 hay j f f 
 ; ' > iits j as pe) { ‘h ‘ , 4 AD vas 
 ae RA go RLM cay tt | Wee ithe: ie Ey 
 vi } L 7h yy j A 1) 
 J y ; 4 AY ia 
 Ns ef oo 4 me be ’ 
 AEN Lf i 
 AT y" - A Pe 
 
 ] ew cM 1 i i Vad 
 ed ‘ , Ne ‘ 
 ie } ‘a 
 48 Ms e ‘ 
 
 : J ‘ 
 7 ee 2P ‘ 
 y / st * - i CN 
 yi ; me, pee U Sad Ae, 
 Mh AN A moon tt Aid ay 
 
 ee tT eee Py (Ade. 
 

 
TN 
 
 1012 01250 8 
 
 DATE Pe 
 
 4 
 
 r Ss | 
 
 S } rs 
 a 
 
 be) i 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 me | 
 
 9 
 
; 
 figs Mee 
 ee 
 < ue | 
 itay Fea avy 
 ein s 3 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS? are te 
 
 * 
 A 
 
 - ie 
 
 ¥# 
 
 ~. 
 on Aubhagn nr ea 
 
 a ea 
 
 ‘ 
 > 
 
 rs 
 =i 
 
 re pin ete’ 
 
 ‘ 
 + 
 
 Deed 
 
 cian 
 
 ’ 
 ea ee eg 
 
Y, 
 
 ARS 
 
 NS 
 
 SNe 
 
 ~S 
 
 RN 
 S 
 
 SS 
 
 x 
 Ss 
 
 So 
 
 SER 
 
 SOO 
 < Ns 
 
 ee 
 
 > SS 
 
 
 
 MS 
 
 WN 
 
 aes 
 
 AS 
 
 A 
 
 S \ \ 
 
 me 
 RN 
 
 Ss 
 SN 
 \\ 
 
 SS 
 
 : | 
 = SA 
 
 SSN \ 
 WR 
 
 RS 
 
 vr 
 3 
 
 ‘ BWA 
 
 SANS TEENY 
 Nett 
 
 eek 
 
 ON 
 
 N 
 SS 
 
 SN 
 
 aS Ss 
 SS 
 
 SS 
 
 \ SS 
 \. x) 
 SN 
 
 SS WSS : SN : 
 
 SAS LAWS 
 
 S 
 
 SRV 
 SRR 
 
 »