different tendency (Matthew and Mark, _locc. citt._; Paul, First Epistle
to the Corinthians, vii.). As in all the teaching of the Gospels, so
here the important thing is _individual_ salvation. For the sake of his
individual salvation it is better that a man should not marry at all,
but should “suffer,” and be “a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
But he who has not strength to suffer may enter into the covenant of
marriage with a woman; only this covenant, too, is an _individual_
matter, based on _religious mysteries_, not a social and moral act, and
therefore it can never be annulled, even if it results in injury to the
life of society. “He which made them at the beginning made them male and
female and said ... they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no
more twain, but one flesh. _What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder._” From this standpoint it is immaterial whether
there is love or hatred between the couple, whether their union is or is
not a good thing for the life of the family and of society. All this
does not affect the real point: God has united them, and how shall man
dare to separate them?[175]
The Catholic Church, correctly understanding the Gospel teaching, has
built countless houses of refuge for celibates of both sexes, and has
forbidden divorce absolutely, without regard to all the evil results of
this prohibition in the embitterment of the life of families and the
moral corruption of thousands of men and women. Other Christian Churches
have stopped short of this extreme, but have still been unable to free
themselves from the Gospel standpoint, so that until recently they have
tried to restrict and render ineffective the recognition of divorce. But
now at last all Christian nations are beginning to see that this
standpoint is not productive of good to the world, and are approaching
nearer to the Jewish view.[176]
But Christian theologians, in commenting on the Gospels, cannot give up
that great principle of theirs, that the Gospel teaching is always based
on a higher morality than that of Judaism. And in this case, too, they
have found a way—rather far-fetched, it is true—of establishing the
truth of their principle. In forbidding divorce, they say, Jesus only
meant to protest against the injustice of Judaism to the wife, who could
be divorced but could not divorce. He therefore took the right of
divorce away from the husband, so that he should have no advantage over
the wife. Here, then, is moral “progress,” a battle on woman’s behalf
against the oriental barbarism of the Jews, and so forth. We might
perhaps point out that there was a more sensible way of bestowing
equality on the wife, if that was Jesus’ object—to wit, by giving the
wife also the right of divorce. And we might ask, further, how it is
that Matthew, who allows the husband to divorce his wife for _her_
unfaithfulness, never hints at any right on the part of the wife to
demand a divorce from the husband on the ground of _his_
unfaithfulness.[177] Where, in fact, is the vaunted assertion of the
wife’s rights? The commentators vouchsafe no answer to these plain and
simple questions. But, indeed, there is no need of much questioning. It
must be perfectly clear to all who read these passages in the Gospels
without pre-conceived ideas that Jesus, in prohibiting divorce, had not
the remotest notion of fighting the wife’s battle. The plea is from
beginning to end a theological invention, designed to bolster up the
theory.
Let us now see what our _Jewish_ commentator has to say on this subject
(pp. 235-42, 508-10, 688-92). Whoever has not the leisure or the
inclination to read the whole eleven hundred pages of Mr. Montefiore’s
book will find it sufficient to read the pages given to this question,
in order to obtain an adequate idea of the real spirit which prevails
among our author’s following. As he repeatedly pours out the vials of
his wrath in harsh and crude denunciations of the Jewish law of divorce,
his tone is that of a monk just emerging, Gospel in hand, from his
retreat, who has no desire to know anything whatever as to the views
which prevail at the present day in the world around him. It is “to his
eternal dishonour” that Hillel allowed divorce on other grounds than
that of unchastity; it is “most unfortunate” for the Rabbinic law that
it endorsed his decision. But “the unerring ethical instinct of Jesus
led him to put his finger upon the weak spots and sore places of the
established religion,” and “of all such weak spots and sore places this
was the weakest and the sorest.” Hence “in no other point was the
opposition of Jesus to the Rabbinic law of profounder significance” (p.
235). In this strain our author continues, with a varied selection of
choice phrases. Nor does he forget to adopt from the Christian
commentators the theory that the Gospels were fighting the wife’s
battle; he repeats it several times, here also in a tone of harsh
condemnation of Judaism and grateful praise of Jesus (p. 240 and
elsewhere). It does not occur to him that the Christian commentators
were driven to invent this theory because they saw that from the
standpoint of our own age the prohibition of divorce is not in itself a
sign of moral progress. But if the recognition of divorce on other
grounds than that of unfaithfulness is “an eternal dishonour,” then of
course there is no need to invent this plea of a battle for the wife’s
rights, the mere prohibition being sufficient proof of “progress.” Nay,
there seems to be more lost than gained by this “battle,” for if that
was really the intention of the prohibition of divorce, then the
prohibition must of necessity be absolute (to the exclusion even of the
ground of unfaithfulness), since otherwise we are at a loss to
understand why the wife, too, was not permitted to obtain a divorce on
that ground. But our author himself admits that the prohibition of
divorce in case of unfaithfulness had very evil results (p. 242). Where,
then, is the “unerring ethical instinct”? There are other similar
difficulties, and even plain inconsistencies, to be found in our
author’s treatment of this subject. But we have already dwelt on it at
sufficient length. Whoever reads all the related passages in the book
will be satisfied that there is here neither logic nor “science,” nor
true, unbiassed judgment, but such partiality to Jesus and the Gospels
as the most pious Christian might envy.
It may be worth while, by way of completing the picture, to add just one
further point. When our author reaches the end of the passage in
Matthew, where the “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” are
extolled, he finds himself in some perplexity (pp. 690, 691). Clearly,
his moral sense is revolted. But how gentle is his language! You will
find nothing here about “eternal dishonour” or the like. He lowers his
voice in submissive reverence, and tries to find excuses for the Gospel,
so that you cannot recognise in him that “higher tribunal” which
condemned without mercy what he thought the “weak spot” in _the law of
his ancestors_. True, this fact demands no comment; but I am reminded of
the author’s anticipation (Introduction, p. xix) that Christian critics
would find him too Jewish, and Jewish critics too Christian, and I
merely wish to remark that this difference of attitude will stamp him,
even in the eyes of Jewish critics, as, in one respect at least, _too
much of a Jew_.
After what has been said above, it may perhaps appear to many that it
was not worth while to give so much attention to such a book, and
possibly from the point of view of scholarship and literature they are
right. But, as I have already hinted, the book deserves special
attention as a revelation of the psychology of a certain section of
Jews. It shows us a new kind of Jew, hitherto unknown to history, who
has lost every trace of the mighty sorrow which his ancestors felt for
the exile of the nation and the exile of the _Shechinah_,[178] and who
yet has a sorrow of his own—the sorrow of a meaningless isolation. He
sees that the world has gone its own way, leaving the Jews alone with
their _Torah_. This isolation is not unbearable so long as the Jew
understands or feels that it is necessary to the preservation of his
sacred ideals; but the real need for it can certainly not be felt by
those Jews who think that the difference between themselves and their
neighbours is “external and artificial,” and for whom Judaism is nothing
but a dear inheritance, which must be preserved out of respect for their
fathers. Hence they seek in various ways to escape from their isolation.
Thirteen years ago they believed that they could attain their object by
basing Judaism on certain universal beliefs of the Theists. Now they
recognise that this is not enough; they go a step further, and tack on
Jesus and the Gospels. This development appears clearly from many
passages in the book under notice, of which I will quote here one of the
most explicit:
“Dogmatic Christianity in the course of centuries may disappear;
Trinitarianism may be succeeded by Unitarianism; but the words of Jesus
will still continue to move and cheer the heart of man. If Judaism does
not, as it were, come to terms with the Gospels, it must always be, I am
inclined to think, a creed in a corner, of little influence and with no
expansive power. Orthodox Jews would, I suppose, say that they want no
more. Liberal Jews should be less easily satisfied” (p. 906).
We can certainly understand the state of mind of these Jews; but they
themselves ought also to understand it aright. They would then see that
their state of mind has no relation to the question of “orthodox” and
“liberal” Judaism in the usual sense of the words. A Jew may be a
liberal of liberals, without forgetting that Judaism was born “in a
corner” and has always lived “in a corner,” apart from the great world,
which has never understood it, and therefore hates it. Such was the lot
of Judaism before the rise of Christianity, and such it has remained
since. History has not yet satisfactorily explained how it came about
that a tiny nation in a corner of Asia produced a unique religious and
moral point of view, which has had so profound an influence on the rest
of the world, and has yet remained so foreign to the rest of the world,
unable to this day either to conquer it or to surrender to it. This is a
historical phenomenon to which, despite a multitude of attempted
answers, we must still attach a note of interrogation. But every true
Jew, be he “orthodox” or “liberal,” feels deep down in his being that
there is something in the spirit of our people—though we know not what
it is—that kept it from the high-road taken by other nations, and
impelled it to build up Judaism on those foundations for the sake of
which the people remains to this day confined “in a corner” with its
religion, being incapable of renouncing them. Let them who still have
this feeling remain within the fold; let them who have lost it go
elsewhere. _There is no room here for compromise._
Footnote 167:
_Jewish Quarterly Review_, January, 1897, p. 187.
Footnote 168:
Notes of this kind are found right through the book (see e.g. pp.
498-503, 691-3, and many other places); and it is unfair of some
Jewish critics to have passed over this fact in silence, and to have
described the book as though it were throughout simply an attack on
Judaism.
Footnote 169:
Introduction, pp. xvii. xviii. ci.
Footnote 170:
[The story is that a heathen made this demand of Hillel, whose reply
was: “What is hateful to thyself do not unto thy neighbour—that is the
whole _Torah_, and the rest is commentary: go thou and fulfil it.”]
Footnote 171:
_Das Judentum und seine Geschichte_ (2nd edition), p. 26.
Footnote 172:
John Stuart Mill writes: “In justice to the great Hebrew lawgiver, it
should always be remembered that the precept to love thy neighbour as
thyself already existed in the Pentateuch; and very surprising it is
to find it there” (_Three Essays on Religion_, 2nd edition, p. 98).
Had Mill understood the precept in its original sense, he would
certainly not have been surprised to find it in the Mosaic Law. But
even so logical a thinker could not free himself from the influences
of his education and his environment, and he did not see that a
meaning had been read into this verse which was opposed to its literal
sense.
Footnote 173:
The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovioff was the first, if I am not
mistaken, to attempt to find a moral basis for international relations
in the precept “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” taken in
the sense mentioned above. This philosopher was an untiring student of
Judaism, for which he had an appreciation unusual among Christians—a
fact not without its significance.
Footnote 174:
Mr. Montefiore, indeed, does not admit this. In his opinion the
morality of Jewish family life is a fact not because of the laws, but
in spite of them. If you ask how such a thing is possible, he replies
somewhat as follows: It has already been remarked that Judaism does
not obey the laws of cause and effect, and we sometimes see a certain
tendency in Jewish life which ought logically to have certain effects,
but has in practice just the opposite results (p. 335). Truly an easy
and comfortable “philosophy of history”!
Footnote 175:
Even Matthew, who permits divorce on the ground of unfaithfulness,
makes this exception (as some Christian commentators have pointed out)
only because the sanctity of the marriage is profaned by the sin, and
the divine union is annulled of _itself_. The point of view is
essentially the same in both versions.
Footnote 176:
In England the question has become so acute that the Government has
appointed a Commission to find means of making divorce easier. Men of
knowledge and experience, in evidence before the Commission, have
expressed the opinion that the restriction of the possibility of
divorce has very evil results.
Footnote 177:
In England the law to-day is still in the spirit of Matthew; the
wife’s unfaithfulness is sufficient ground of divorce for the husband,
but the reverse does not hold good.
Footnote 178:
[Divine Presence. See p. 97.]
INDEX
_Abstract_ ideal—a characteristic of Jewish religious and moral
outlook, 230 _sqq._, 235 _sq._
Achad Ha-Am, vii, viii, xii, xxii
Agrarian Credit Bank, 138 _sq._, 144
Akiba, R., 237, 241.
_Alliance Israélite Universelle_, 46 (footnote)
Altruism = inverted egoism, 236, 240-3
Anti-Semitism, 42 _sq._, 61 sqq., 67 _sqq._, 81, 134 _sq._, 223
Arabs, xx, 144, 147
—— National characteristics of, 20
Assimilation, 25, 50, 54, 64, 97, 106 _sqq._, 223
Assimilationists, 82
_Auto-Emancipation_, viii, 57;
analysed, 61-80;
compared with _Der Judenstaat_, 81-83
Balfour Declaration, xii sqq.
“Baron,” The—_See_ “Rothschild”
Basle Programme, 133, 143, 154, 158
Bezalel (School of Arts and Crafts), 160
British Government and Zionism, xiv _sqq._ (See also “Uganda”)
“Capturing labour,” 146, 149, 152
Centre, spiritual, 120-129
(_See_ also “Palestine”)
_Chalukah_, 3, 4
Charter, xi, 57, 84
_Chibbath Zion_, viii _sq._, 15, 25, 32 _sq._, 41 _sq._, 44 (footnote),
45, 48, 54, 56, 89 (footnote), 94
_Chovevé Zion_, viii _sqq._, 15 _sqq._, 29, 42, 52, 55 _sqq._, 84, 97
_sq._, 111 (footnote), 124, 134
Christianity, 224 _sqq._
—— and Judaism, 229 _sqq._
Chwolson quoted, 23
Collectivism, Jewish, 8, 180, 233 _sq._, 239
Colonies, Palestinian, ix, 2, 14, 19, 36, 58, 141-153, 155-7
Colonisation of Palestine, ix, xi, 2, 13, 18, 29, 38, 44 (footnote),
130 _sqq._, 138 _sqq._
Congress, Zionist: 1st, x, 25 _sqq._, 32 _sqq._, 35, 38, 48 _sqq._,
124, 130
—— 7th, 101
—— 10th, 130 _sqq._
Culture, Jewish national, 45, 47 _sqq._, 91, 157-160
Democracy, 98
“Demonopathy,” 63
Diaspora, xiv, 39, 44, 85, 101, 111, 123 _sq._, 155 _sq._, 160, 162
_Die Welt_ (Zionist organ), 33 (footnote), 50, 53
Diplomacy, 28, 31, 99
Divorce, Jewish and Christian attitude to, 244-9
Egoism, 11
—— attitude of Judaism and of Christianity to, 235, 240-3
Emancipation, viii, 43, 50, 66 _sq._, 107
English Jewry, 223 _sqq._
English Jews, 78
_galuth_, viii _sq._, xx, 44, 75, 92, 95
—— twofold character of, 96 _sq._, 99, 101, 104, 110, 123 _sq._
Geiger, Abraham, 239
Ghetto, exodus of Judaism from, 43
“Golden Rule,” positive and negative forms of, 235 _sq._
Gospels, 226 _sqq._, 234 _sqq._, 242 _sqq._, 247 _sqq._
Hebrew education in Palestine, 157-9
Hebrew language, x, 33, 91 _sqq._, 110, 136 (footnote), 155-6, 158
_sq._, 218 _sq._
Hebrew literature, 91 _sq._, 112 _sq._
Hebrew type of life in Palestine, 155 _sq._, 158
Herzl, Dr. Theodor, x _sqq._, 33, 38, 39, 48, 53, 57, 59, 74, 77
_sqq._, 88 _sq._
_Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden_, 46 (footnote), 159
Hillel, 229 (footnote), 235, 240, 245, 249
Ideas, new—conditions necessary for their success, 5 _sqq._
—— misunderstanding of, due to psychological causes, 120 _sq._
—— process of development of, 1, 92 _sq._, 112
Impudence, 114 _sqq._
Individualism, Christian, 234
—— Jewish, 9 _sqq._, 17, 22
“Ingathering of the Exiles,” 38, 81, 96, 111
Jesus, 226, 230, 248 _sqq._
_Jewish Chronicle_, 136 (footnote)
Jewish Colonisation Association, 151
“Jewish problem,” x, 25, 34 _sqq._, 61 _sqq._
—— moral aspect of, 35, 40 _sqq._, 69, 73 _sqq._, 81, 124, 164
_Jewish Quarterly Review_, quotation from, 225
“Jewish State,” x, xx, 26 _sqq._, 35 _sqq._, 45 _sqq._, 54, 62, 70
_sqq._, 78, 82 _sq._, 85, 133
Jewish Territorial Organisation, xii, 101 (footnote)
Jochanan ben Zakkai, R., 45
Judaism and political Zionism, 45 _sqq._, 48
—— and the ideal of internationalism, 242 _sqq._
——, problem of, 42 _sqq._, 61
—— spirit of, 44, 224, 229 _sqq._
Judaism and Christianity, 224, 229 _sqq._
_Judenstaat, Der_, x, 57, 74, 77 _sqq._, 81 _sqq._, 85, 89
Justice, basis of Jewish morality, 234 _sqq._
—— in international relations, 243-4
Kimchi quoted, 240
Labour problem in Palestine, 146-152
Law of Moses, 8, 11, 22, 181 _sqq._, 242
“Liberal” Judaism, 252 _sq._
Lilienblum, Moses Leib, 34, 47
Love, basis of morality of Gospels, 234 _sqq._
Luzzatto, S. D., his criticisms of Maimonides, 210, 218 (footnote)
Maimonides quoted, 238, 246
—— his commanding place in Jewish thought, 162-3
—— his philosophical system, 164-181
—— his attitude to revealed religion, 181-194
—— supremacy of Reason in his system, 194-202, 209-211
—— his principal works, 203-207
—— his “heresy,” 208-9
—— his attitude to the national sentiment, 212-222
—— his attitude to the Hebrew language, 218-9
May Laws, viii _sq._
Messiah, xxii, 27, 32, 114 _sqq._, 153
—— in Maimonides’ system, 215 _sqq._, 231 _sq._
Messianic Age, 10, 62
Messianism, xi _sq._, 117 _sqq._
Mill, John Stuart, quoted, 242 (footnote)
“Mission” of Israel, 75 _sq._
Montefiore, Mr. C. G., 227 _sqq._ 234, 244, 245 (footnote), 249 _sqq._
Moses, 77, 85, 230
(_See_ also “Law of Moses”)
National characteristics, 20 _sqq._
—— consciousness, 74, 76, 84
—— idea, 1 _sqq._, 17
—— sentiment, ix _sq._, 3, 8 _sqq._, 15, 18, 21 _sqq._, 212 _sqq._
—— spirit, 92, 97, 101 _sq._, 106 _sqq._, 113, 136, 140, 253
(_See_ also “Culture”)
National Bank, 138
National Fund, xi, 28, 37, 80, 139 _sq._, 148, 156-7, 160
National Home, xii, xv _sqq._
National rights, 64-5 (footnote)
Nationalism, Jewish, birth of, 1, 93
New Testament, 226 _sqq._, 247
Nietzsche, 180
Nordau, Dr. Max, 30, 34 _sq._, 134
Palestine as spiritual centre of Jewry, 44, 97, 101, 110, 120-129, 132,
136, 154-5, 160
Pentateuch (_See_ “Law of Moses”)
Petach-Tikvah, 153 (footnote)
Pinsker, Dr. Leo, viii, x, 56-90
—— his pamphlet, 61-83
—— his merits and his reputation, 84-90
Pogroms, viii _sq._
“Proletarian Zionism,” 128 _sq._
Prophets, 26 _sq._, 30 _sq._, 45, 83, 231, 233
Rashi quoted, 237
Redemption, xx, 30, 38, 100 _sqq._, 137, 152 _sqq._, 157 _sq._
Reform Movement in Judaism, 223 _sqq._
Religion as common bond of Jews, 3
—— satisfies individual needs, _ib._
—— in Maimonides’ system, 181 _sqq._, 220 _sqq._
Resurrection, belief in, 10, 11
—— in Maimonides’ system, 215 _sqq._
Revival, 12, 94, 99, 109 _sqq._, 156
Rishon-le-Zion, 18
Romanticism, 113
Rothschild, Baron Edmond de, ix, 4
Self-preservation, instinct of, 131 _sq._
_Shechinah_ (Divine Presence), 97, 252
_Shekalim_, 137
Smolenskin, Perez, 89 (footnote)
Socialism, 102, 105, 118 (footnote), 119, 128 (footnote)
Solovioff, Vladimir, 243 (footnote)
Sombart, W., 103
Spencer, Herbert, 239
“Spiritual” (_See_ “Centre,” “Revival,” and “Zionism”)
“Spiritual proletariat,” 105
Subliminal self, 121, 126, 136
“Summa Summarum,” xiii
_Synoptic Gospels_, Mr. C. G. Montefiore’s, 227 _sqq._
Tel-Aviv, 157
“Territorialism,” 100
“The Wrong Way,” vii
“Thirteen Articles,” 163
_Torah_, 229, 245
(_See_ also “Law of Moses”)
“Uganda,” xi, 100 _sq._
Utilitarians, 17
_Völkerrechtlich_, 35, 37, 49, 53
Western Jews, ix _sq._, 32, 40 _sq._, 51, 54
Yemenite Jews, 152 (footnote)
Zionism, “political,” 25, 27, 32 _sq._, 37, 39 _sqq._, 45, 48 _sqq._,
57 _sq._, 60 _sq._, 71 _sqq._, 80, 86 _sqq._, 99 _sqq._, 126, 132
_sqq._
—— “practical,” 132 _sq._, 135 _sq._
—— “spiritual,” 61, 100, 104, 126, 129
“Zion-Zionists” (_Zioné Zion_), xii, 100 _sq._
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the essays in which they are
referenced.