_JEWISH SUPERSTITIONS._
THE TALMUD.
The Talmud, (from the Hebrew _lamad_, to learn,) is the name given to the
great code of the Jewish civil and canonical law. It is divided, like the
Zendavesta, into two parts, the Mishna and the Gemara; the former being,
as it were, the text, and the latter the commentary and supplement. Of
late years public attention has been exceptionally drawn to it by the
writings of the late Emanuel Deutsch, and it has obtained, as we think, a
wholly undeserved amount of panegyric.
Deutsch, an enthusiast in his attachment to the land and religion of his
forefathers, put it forward as a wondrous treasure, the real value of
which had been wholly overlooked. It contained, he seemed to say, a
complete _corpus juris_; and, as an encyclopædia of law, should be
compared with the corresponding collections of Roman or of English law,
with the Pandects of Justinian and the Commentaries of Blackstone. Herein
lies the excuse for rules that have been considered unduly subtle, or in
other ways offensive to modern taste. But it contains something more than
a body of law; it is also a collection of Jewish poetry and legend, of
Jewish science, and Jewish metaphysical speculation. The Mishna is a
development of the laws contained in the Pentateuch. The members of the
Sanhedrim, who were chiefly concerned in the formation of this law, were
obliged (so argues Deutsch) to be accomplished men. It was necessary that
they should possess some knowledge of physical science, or at least of
zoology, botany, and geography in their then condition. It was necessary
also that they should be good linguists, having some acquaintance with
Latin and Greek, as well as with Aramaic, Syriac, and Hebrew. Disreputable
men were kept out, and all were compelled to be married men and fathers of
families. “The origin of the Talmud,” he says, “is coeval with the return
from the Babylonish captivity.” And though it is the glory of Christianity
to have carried into the heart of humanity at large the golden germs of
thought previously hidden in the schools of the learned, yet numerous
precepts, supposed to be purely Christian, lie enshrined in the pages of
the Talmud. It would be difficult to find a penal legislation more
distinctly humane. As for its myths, its allegories, its apparent
absurdities, they should be read in the spirit in which Christians read
Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress.” The Talmud insists upon the pre-existence
of the soul, on the dogmas of Immortality and the Resurrection, it denies
the doctrine of everlasting damnation; it excludes no human being from the
world to come. And as the Talmud, continues Deutsch, although redacted at
a later period, is, in point of time, prior to the New Testament, the
beautiful maxims of the former cannot have been borrowed from the latter.
In a word, it is a collection which took nearly a thousand years to form,
and has been commented upon for a thousand years since. It breathes
charity to all men. If we except a few items of coarseness, such as must
occur in every legal code, it is all good; at least, it is never bad; it
deserves all possible respect and even reverence. Such, in a condensed
form, is the account of the Talmud which Deutsch asks us to accept.
But it cannot be admitted that the defects of the Talmud are trivial, any
more than that the spirit of the Rabbins towards Christianity was
tolerant. Nor can it be admitted that the Talmud owes nothing to the
Christian Scriptures.
On the first point hear what Professor Hurwitz says:--“The Talmud contains
many things which every enlightened, nay, every pious Jew, must sincerely
wish had never appeared there, or should at least long ago have been
expunged from its pages. Some of these Agadatha are objectionable _per
se_; others, indeed, are susceptible of explanations, but without them are
calculated to produce false and erroneous impressions.” So much may be
said, we think, of the legends in the Talmud; such as the size of
Leviathan and the way in which he is to be killed and cooked for the
chosen people, and the marriage of Adam with Lilith before the creation of
Eve, with the diabolic progeny which sprang from them.
Another point to be considered is the influence of the Alexandrian books,
commonly known by us as the Apocrypha. Of these the Books of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus at any rate exhibit the reflections of singularly devout
and thoughtful minds, which had exercised themselves in the contemplation
of the writings of Moses and the prophets in combination with no
inconsiderable tincture of Greek philosophy. It would be a question of
great interest to see how far ideas suggested in those very remarkable
compositions have found their way into the Talmud.
As regards the sentiments of the Rabbins towards Christianity: in the
reign of Domitian, (that is, about A.D. 90,) the Sanhedrim took measures
against the Minim, that is to say, the degenerated; for so they called the
Jews who had been converted to Christianity. The Rabbi Tarphon said:--“The
Gospels and all the books of the Minim deserve to be burnt, for Paganism
is less dangerous: the Pagans misunderstand the truths of Judaism from
ignorance, the Minim deny them with full knowledge of the case. Better to
seek an asylum in a Pagan temple than in the synagogues of the Minim.” The
Sanhedrim of Jamnia and other similar bodies adopted the like tone. And it
was men like these who helped to form the Talmud.
Not the less it remains true, that every powerful movement which has
occurred in the world’s history has shown a part of its power in the way
it has influenced opponents. The Reformation, as the Ultramontane De
Maistre is compelled to admit, wrought a very perceptible change even
among Roman Catholics. The French Revolution of 1793 did not leave
Legitimists in the position they had occupied before its outbreak. Now
Christianity is the greatest movement the world has ever seen. Dean
Merivale in his excellent “History of the Romans under the Empire,” states
with no less eloquence than truth the immense indirect influence which it
had begun to exercise on heathen thought by the end even of the first
century. We can trace it in Pagan literature. But Deutsch and similar
Talmudophilists would have us believe that it had no influence whatever
upon the Talmud, and that whenever we find kindred thoughts in the
teaching of Christianity, and in the teaching of their favourite work, it
is the Gospel which is indebted to the Talmud and not the Talmud to the
Gospel.
But for our part we wholly dissent from this extraordinary theory, which,
indeed, cannot be supported by any chronological evidence. There are
occasions, of course, in which dates become of comparatively trifling
importance. A man feels troubled, for example, with the enigmas of life,
and finds light and consolation in reading the book of Job; that most
beautiful book--_quel bellissimo libro_, as the Italian poet Giusti called
it. Some friend, finding him thus engaged, begins to argue in favour of
Bishop Warburton’s view, that it is a composition of comparatively late
date, perhaps of the age of Jeremiah, and not (as used to be generally
supposed) as early as the time of Moses. In such a case a man may well
reply, that without any wish to discourage critical inquiry in its proper
place, he is content for the present to go on reading for his soul’s
health, to accept the words before him as a message from above, and to
feel sure that whenever GOD gave it, it was given at the time when it was
most needed. But in the case of the Talmud dates are of real and living
importance, though we own that it is difficult to fix them with accuracy.
We believe, however, with one of Deutsch’s critics, that Christian
elements _have_ found their way into the Talmud, though doubtless,
pre-Christian ideas, similar to those which are met with in the Books of
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are also to be found there. Is it not true that
the Mishna was brought into its present form by Rabbi Jehudah, surnamed
the Holy, about A.D. 200, and that the Gemara was not completed until A.D.
500? Deutsch, indeed, appeals to the article in the “Novellæ
Constitutiones” (or _Novels_, as they are commonly called) of Justinian
against the Talmud. The reference is correct enough, but the _Novels_
belong to the later parts of Justinian’s reign, and were not promulgated
before the year 534.
It is well known that at the present time there are three parties among
the Jews who differ widely as to the amount of respect which ought to be
paid to the legislation contained within the pages of the Talmud. Two out
of these parties would greatly modify it, or actually sweep it away. We
believe that its influence upon practice is not destined to endure; and
that though there _is_ a book which will continue so to influence life,
that book is not the Talmud, but the Bible. The Talmud has its curiosities
and even beauties, as well as its gross absurdities and defects; but,
after all, it will be found, we believe, that it often reflects but too
truly the mind of those of whom it was said, “Ye have made the commandment
of GOD of none effect by your traditions.”
* * * * *
With these preliminary observations, we pass on to a more particular
description of the Talmud.
There are two Talmuds, the one called the Talmud of the Occidentals, or
the “Jerusalem” Talmud, and the other the “Babylonian” Talmud. The former
of these originally included the whole of the first five _Sedarim_ (or
portions,) but now consists of only thirty-nine treatises. Its final
redaction is supposed to have taken place towards the close of the fourth
Christian century, but the authorities engaged in the work cannot now be
determined. But it is certainly distinguished by more accuracy of
expression and precision of statement than the second or Babylonian, or
“our” Talmud, which makes use of its predecessor, and was not completed
for a century later. Its editor is generally considered to be Rabbi Ashi,
president of the Academy of Syro in Babylon (A.D. 365-427.) Both the
Mishna, though revised in A.D. 219, and the “Palestine” Gemara, had become
greatly corrupted through the interpolation of gross traditions and the
critical judgments of different schools, when Rabbi Ashi, with the
assistance of his friend and disciple, Abina, undertook the labour of
sifting the old from the new, and introducing order into chaos.
Ashi was appointed to the headship of the school of Sora at the age of
twenty-three, and under his rule Sora became the head-quarters of
Rabbinism in the East. When he entered on the redaction of the Mishna and
Gemara, he began by assembling yearly at the great feasts the most learned
Hebrews, and examining them with respect to their traditional practices
and expositions. He then called together his disciples every spring, and
gave out to them a particular treatise of the Mishna; in the autumn they
again came before him with all the information relative to it they had
collected in the interval. This he personally investigated, and reduced
into shape. The Mishna being composed of sixty-three treatises, he was
thus engaged for upwards of thirty years. The final revision occupied him
twenty-two years. At the time of his death (in his seventy-fifth year) the
work was all but completed; the last touches were given by his friend,
Rabbi Abina.
The Mosaic is the written law of the Jews; the Mishna, the oral. The
latter is the very basis of Judaism, is its civil, religious, and
juridico-political code,--an explanation and amplification of the Mosaic.
It was developed out of the authoritative decisions of the schools and of
certain distinct and well-authenticated traditions which were traced back
to Sinai itself. Thus there were two chief sections, or parts: _Halacoth_,
the rabbinical decisions, and _Haggadah_, the traditional narratives and
popular illustrations. Of the great bulk of the former the reputed author
is Hillel, the head of the Sanhedrim in the early part of Herod the
Great’s reign, but, probably, he only collected them. Maimonides arranges
them under five heads:--
_a._ Mosaic and Scriptural;
_b._ Mosaic and traditional;
_c._ Dicta and decisions generally received, but doubtful;
_d._ Decisions of the wise, given by them as “hedges of the law;” and
_e._ Counsels of prudence, which it was well to follow, though they
had no legal authority.
The Haggadic narratives are generally of a light and amusing character,
though occasionally a deep significance underlies them, converting them
into allegories and fables and parables well worthy the attention of the
student, though he may not think so highly of them as Frankel, who
exclaims: “They are as vivid flashes: or as those spirits of light in
Jewish myth, that flow forth in daily myriads from GOD’S throne, and then
vanish to make way for others.”
The Halacoth and Haggadoth accumulated rapidly after the Captivity,
representing in due time “a body of traditional exposition of high
authority, which increased rapidly, and required the life-long study of a
numerous body of Sopherim, or Scribes, to digest and hand on without loss
to succeeding generations.” Soon it outgrew the grasp of even the
strongest memory and the profoundest application, and it became evident
that, unless put upon record, all that was valuable would perish, and only
that be preserved which chanced to be in accordance with popular
sentiment. To the digest made by Hillel, Simon ben Gamaliel added the
worthiest of the later material; and his son, Jehudah the Holy, entered on
a complete redaction and revision, which he published in A.D. 219. Hillel,
grandfather of the Gamaliel at whose feet S. Paul sat, had arranged the
traditional Halacoth under eighteen heads; Jehudah re-arranged them into
six Sedarim, or sections:--
1. _Zeraïm_ (Seeds,) on Agriculture;
2. _Moed_ (Feast,) on the Sabbath, Festivals, and Fasts;
3. _Nashim_ (Women,) on Marriage, Divorce, &c., including the laws on
Vows and the Nazirship;
4. _Nizikin_ (Damages,) chiefly civil and penal law, including the
ethical treatise Aboth;
5. _Kadashim_ (Sacred things,) Sacrifices, &c., a description of the
Temple at Jerusalem, &c.;
6. _Tehoroth_ (Purifications,) on pure and impure persons and things.
We now see that, about A.D. 221 Jehudah the Holy created the Mishna, we
have already seen that three centuries later, the same exhaustive work of
redaction and revision was done for the Gemara,--the two forming what is
now known as the Talmud. The two “editors” received each his peculiar
title of honour; Jehudah was styled Rabbina, Ashi Rabban.
Of the language of the Babylon Talmud it is said that it is debased with
foreign and barbarous terms and grammatical solecisms to a much greater
extent than the “Jerusalem Talmud.” Mr. Blunt asserts that “the Haggadic
narratives resemble more closely the vernacular Aramaic, showing their
origin in ordinary folk lore. The Halacoth are in Mishnic Hebrew, carrying
evidence of higher date. The style is so exceedingly concise as to make
the sense that it contains a microscopic study. The difficulties indeed
of the Gemara are so great, that no one need think to master them
thoroughly who has not drawn in Gemara with his mother’s milk. The study
of the Talmud presumes a thorough knowledge also of the Hebrew Bible, a
single word often indicating an entire passage. The wonderful moral
confusion of the Talmud, the mixed character of which may be detected in
every page, is nowhere more strikingly exemplified than in the prayer put
by the Gemarist into the mouth of Rabbi Nechoniah ben Hakakana, on
entering the school, or Beth Midrash, and quitting it again in the
evening.”
The morning prayer was as follows:--
“I beseech Thee that no scandal may occur through fault of mine, and that
I err not in matters of Halacah, so as to cause my colleagues to exult.
May I not call impurity pure, or purity impure; and may my colleagues not
blunder in matters of Halacah, that I may have no cause to triumph over
them.”
The spirit of this prayer, in its meekness and modesty, is truly
commendable, and presents a striking contrast to that of the evening
prayer:--
“I thank Thee that Thou hast given me my portion among those who have a
seat in the Beth Midrash, and that Thou hast not cast my lot among those
who sit in the corner. I early rise, and they early rise; but I rise to
the service of the law, they to vanity. I labour, and they also labour,
but I labour and receive a recompense; they labour, but receive nothing. I
hasten, and they also hasten; but I hasten in the direction of the world
to come, they hasten towards the pit of destruction.”
It is impossible to believe that both these prayers come from the same
source; “sweet waters and bitter” do not alike flow from the fountain of
Marah.
With respect to the general character of the Talmud, with all its weakness
and strength, its beauty and deformity, its poetry and commonplace, its
tender wisdom and glaring absurdity, we cannot do better than quote the
moderate opinion of the writer already cited, as infinitely more
trustworthy than the dithyrambic utterances of Deutsch and his imitators.
He says:--
“In its origin it was the result of an almost necessary development.
Starting with the axiom that the law of Moses is binding on the children
of Abraham in every generation, its precepts have been applied to the
changing habits and customs of the Jews in different ages and under
various climates, by a literal interpretation when possible, otherwise on
the _ci-près_ principle, rarely by giving a new direction to its
enactments, as instanced under the Hillel _régime_. It is this application
of the Law to the needs of Jewish Society, by a process slow and gradual,
that has made each successive stage of development, in Jewish opinion,
more valuable than its predecessors. Thus if the Law has been likened to
water, the Mishna, which gives a later direction to its precepts, is as
wine; and the Gemara, declaring as it does the sense in which the Mishnic
Hilkoth are to be taken, is as hippocras. It is not that the Law is less,
or that the traditional decisions and expository matter are more sacred,
but the latest phase of judicial interpretation is the most binding; and
where the rule of action is clear and decisive, no antecedent utterance
need trouble the inquirer. Yet the Talmud has always been antiquated. It
has never known the sunshine of youth. It has still been the mouldering,
moss-grown ruin. In its origin it presupposed vital action where there was
nothing but death; Temple service with the Temple hopelessly in ruins,
‘not one stone upon another;’ sacrificial rites that were impossible
without an altar, and for which certain prayers were substituted,
carefully numbered out, and made binding on the individual in lieu of
public offering.... Nothing can be more completely out of place than
strict Talmudism amid the complications of modern society; it is
impossible to make its precepts consist with the social and political
duties of the highly educated Jew. Our LORD, Who came not to destroy the
Law, but to fulfil it, has pointed out those modes of dealing with the Law
in its higher and more spiritual bearings, that in the end must be
accepted by Israel as his truest wisdom.”
Mr. Deutsch gives the following account of the six sections of the
Mishna:--
“Section I. _Seeds_: of Agrarian laws, commencing with a chapter on
Prayers. In this section the various tithes and donations due to the
Priests, the Levites, and the poor, from the products of the lands, and
further the Sabbatical year, and the prohibited mixtures in plants,
animals, and garments, are treated of.
“Section II. _Feasts_: of Sabbaths, Feast and Fast days, the work
prohibited, the ceremonies ordained, the sacrifices to be offered, on
them. Special chapters are devoted to the Feast of the Exodus from Egypt,
to the New Year’s Day, to the Day of Atonement (one of the most impressive
portions of the whole book,) to the Feast of Tabernacles, and to that of
Haman.
“Section III. _Women_: of betrothal, marriage, divorce, &c.; also of vows.
“Section IV. _Damages_: including a great part of the civil and criminal
law. It treats of a law of trades, of buying and selling, and the ordinary
monetary transactions. Further, of the greatest crime known to the law,
viz., idolatry. Next of witnesses, of oaths, of legal punishments, and of
the Sanhedrim itself. This section concludes with the so-called ‘Sentences
of the Fathers,’ containing some of the sublimest ethical dicta known in
the history of religious philosophy.
“Section V. _Sacred Things_: of sacrifices, the first-born, &c.; also of
the measurements of the Temple (Middoth).
“Section VI. _Purifications_: of the various Levitical and other Hygienic
laws, of impure things and persons, their purification, &c.”[22]
In defence of the Haggadah, with all its incongruities, puerilities, and
absurdities, it is only just to hear what Deutsch, its enthusiastic
apostle, has to say. And first he applies to it the rhyming apology which
Bunyan put forward on behalf of his great allegory,--which, by the way,
Mr. Deutsch surely misrepresents and misunderstands when he speaks of it
as Haggadistic:--
“... Wouldst thou divert thyself from melancholy?
Wouldst thou be pleasant, yet be far from folly?
Wouldst thou read riddles and their explanation?
Or else be drownèd in thy contemplation?
Dost thou love picking meat? Or wouldst thou see
A man in the clouds, and hear him speak to thee?
Wouldst thou be in a dream, and yet not sleep?
Or wouldst thou in a moment laugh and weep?
Wouldst lose thyself, and catch no harm?
And find thyself again without a charm?
Wouldst read thyself, and read thou know’st not what
And yet know whether thou art blest or not
By reading the same lines? O then come hither,
And lay this book, thy head and heart together.”
Mr. Deutsch thus seeks to disarm antagonists by a skilful concession. He
does not wonder--not he--that the so-called “Rabbinical stories,”
submitted at intervals to the English public, should have met with an
unflattering reception. The Talmud, which has always at hand a drastic
word, says of their collectors:--“They dived into an ocean, and brought up
a potsherd.” But then, he says, these follies form only a small item in
the vast mass of allegories, parables, and the like, that compose the
Haggadah. And, besides, they are partly ill-chosen, partly ill-translated,
and partly did not even belong to the Talmud, but to some recent Jewish
story books. Herder--to name the most famous critic of the “Poetry of
Peoples”--has spoken most eulogistically of what he saw of the genuine
specimens. And, indeed, “not only is the entire world of pious biblical
legend which Islam has said and sung in its many tongues to the delight of
the wise and simple for twelve centuries, now to be found either in embryo
or fully developed in the Haggadah, but much that is familiar among
ourselves in the circles of mediæval sagas, in Dante, in Boccaccio, in
Cervantes, in Milton, in Bunyan, has consciously or unconsciously flowed
out of this wondrous realm, the Haggadah. That much of it is overstrained,
even according to Eastern notions, we do not deny. But,” argues Mr.
Deutsch, “there are feeble passages even in Homer and Shakespeare.” To
this it may be replied, that in Homer and Shakespeare such passages are
rare, and do not form the bulk of their writings; and, moreover, that for
the Iliad or for Hamlet we do not claim the position of authority which is
claimed for the Talmud.
Let us glance briefly at the cosmogony of the Talmud. It assumes that the
universe has been developed by means of a series of cataclysms; that world
was destroyed after world, until GOD made “this world, and saw that it
was very good.” It assumes also that the kosmos was wrought out of some
original substance, itself created by GOD. “One or three things were
before this world,--Water, Fire, and Wind; Water begat the darkness, Fire
begat light, and Wind begat the spirit of Wisdom.”
“The _how_ of the creation was not mere matter of speculation. The
co-operation of angels, whose existence was warranted by Scripture, and a
whole hierarchy of whom had been built up under Persian influences, was
distinctly denied. In a discussion about the day of their creation, it is
agreed on all hands that there were no angels at first, lest men might
say, ‘Michael spanned out the firmament on the south, and Gabriel to the
north.’” There is a distinct foreshadowing of the Gnostic Demiurgos--that
antique link between the Divine Spirit and the world of matter--to be
found in the Talmud. What with Plato were the Ideas, with Philo the Logos,
with the Kabbalists the “World of Aziluth,” what the Gnostics called more
emphatically the wisdom (σοφία), or power (δύναμις), and Plotinus the
νοῦς, that the Talmudical authors call Metation. There is a good deal, in
the post-captivity Talmud, about the Angels, borrowed from the Persian.
The Archangels or Angelic princes are seven in number, and their Hebrew
names and functions correspond almost exactly to those of their Persian
prototypes. There are also hosts of ministering angels, the Persian
_Yazatas_, whose functions, besides that of being messengers, were
twofold,--to praise GOD, and to be guardians of man. In their first
capacity they are daily created by GOD’S breath out of a stream of fire
that rolls its waves under the supernal throne. In their second, two of
them accompany every man, and for every new good deed man acquires a new
guardian angel, who always watches over his steps. When a righteous man
dies, three hosts of angels descend from the celestial battlements to meet
him. One says, (in the words of Scripture,) “He shall go in peace;” the
second takes up the strain and says, “Who has walked in righteousness;”
and the third concludes, “Let him come in peace and rest upon his bed.” In
like manner, when the wicked man passes away, three hosts of wicked angels
are ready to escort him, but their address is not couched in any spirit of
consolation or encouragement.
There are various indications in the Talmud of a belief in the
resurrection and immortality of the soul. The resurrection, it teaches, is
to be brought about by the mystic influence of the “Dew of life” in
Jerusalem. It does not uphold the dogma of everlasting damnation, though
it allows that the punishment of apostates, idolaters, and traitors will
endure for “generations upon generations.”
In conclusion, it is but fair that we should present the brighter and
better aspect of this extraordinary book, its ethical side, and afford
some illustrations of the moral and religious philosophy which pervades
it,--which is its salt, and preserves its savour. The following sayings
have been translated by Deutsch.[23] Many of them bear a striking
resemblance to the great and glorious sayings of the Gospels; and to us it
seems impossible to doubt that they evidence the influence of the former.
It is true that the Talmud as a whole preceded the New Testament, but as
its redaction took place at a much later period, we see nothing absurd in
the hypothesis that its redactors had felt the spell of the Christian
teaching, and occasionally introduced some of its rare and precious
threads of purest silk into the coarse woof woven by traditionalists,
scholiasts, and commentators:--
The house that does not open to the poor shall open to the physician; even
the birds in the air despise the miser. He who gives charity in secret is
greater than Moses himself. Honour the sons of the poor, it is they who
bring science into splendour.
Let the honour of thy neighbour be to thee like thine own. Rather be
thrown into a fiery furnace than bring any one to public shame.
Hospitality is the most important part of divine worship. There are three
crowns: of the law, the priesthood, the kingship; but the crown of a good
name is greater than they all.
Iron breaks the stone, fire melts iron, water extinguishes fire, the
clouds drink up the water, a storm drives away the clouds, man withstands
the storm, fear unmans man, wine dispels fear, sleep drives away wine, and
death sweeps all away--even sleep. But Solomon the Wise says, Charity
saves from death.
The dog sticks to you on account of the crumbs in your pocket.
The camel wanted to have horns, and they took away his ears.
The soldiers fight, and the kings are the heroes.
He in whose family there has been one hanged should not say to his
neighbour, Pray hang this little fish up for me.
The cock and the owl both await the daylight. The light, says the cock,
brings delight to me; but what are _you_ waiting for?
When the thief has no opportunity for stealing, he considers himself an
honest man.
If thy friends agree in calling thee an ass, go and get a halter round
thee.
Fools are no proof.
One eats, another says grace.
He who is ashamed will not easily commit sin. There is a great difference
between him who is ashamed before his own self, and him who is only
ashamed before others. It is a good sign in man to be capable of being
ashamed. One contrition in man’s heart is better than many flagellations.
How can you escape sin? Think of three things,--whence thou camest,
whither thou goest, and to whom thou wilt have to account for all thy
deeds,--even to the King of kings, the All-holy, praised be He.
Love your wife like yourself, honour her more than yourself. Whosoever
lives unmarried lives without joy, without comfort, without blessing.
Descend a step in choosing a wife. If thy wife is small, bend down to her
and whisper into her ear. He who forsakes the love of his youth, GOD’S
altar weeps for him. He who sees his wife die before him, has, as it were,
been present at the destruction of the sanctuary itself, around him the
world grows dark. It is woman alone through whom GOD’S blessings are
vouchsafed to a house. She teaches the children, speeds the husband to the
place of worship and instruction, welcomes him when he returns, keeps the
house godly and pure, and GOD’S blessings rest upon all these things. He
who marries for money, his children shall be a curse to him.
After the thief runs the theft; after the beggar, poverty.
While thy foot is shod, smash the thorn.
When the ox is down, many are the butchers.
Luck makes rich, luck makes wise.
If you wish to hang yourself, choose a big tree.
When the pitcher falls upon the stone, woe unto the pitcher; when the
stone falls upon the pitcher, woe unto the pitcher; whatever befalls, woe
unto the pitcher.
Youth is a garland of roses, age a crown of thorns.
Be thou the cursed, not he who curses. Be of them that are persecuted, not
of them that persecute. Look at Scripture, there is not a single bird more
persecuted than the dove, yet GOD has chosen her to be offered up on His
altar. The bull is hunted by the lion, the sheep by the wolf, the goat by
the tiger. And GOD said, “Bring Me a sacrifice not from them that
persecute, but from them that are persecuted.”
“Hath GOD pleasure in the meat and blood of sacrifices?” asks the prophet.
No; He has not so much ordained as permitted them. It is for yourselves,
He says, not for Me that you offer, Like a king, who sees his son
carousing daily with all manner of evil companions: You shall henceforth
eat and drink entirely at your will at my own table, he says. They offered
sacrifices to demons and devils, for they loved sacrificing, and would not
do without it. And the LORD said, “Bring your offerings to Me, you shall
then at least offer to the true GOD.”
Even when the gates of heaven are shut to prayer, they are open to tears.
The reward of good works is like dates, sweet and late to ripen.
Life is a passing shadow, says the Scripture. Is it the shadow of a tower,
of a tree? A shadow that prevails for a while? No, it is the shadow of a
bird in his flight,--away speeds the bird, and there is neither bird nor
shadow.
Repent one day before thy death. There was a king who bade all his
servants to a great repast, but did not indicate the hour; some went home
and put on their best garments, and stood at the door of the palace;
others said, There is ample time, the king will let us know beforehand.
But the king summoned them of a sudden; and those that came in their best
garments were well received, but the foolish ones, who came in their
slovenliness, were turned away in disgrace. Repent to-day, lest to-morrow
you might be called.
He who has more learning than good works is like a tree with many branches
but few roots, which the first wind throws on its face; whilst he whose
works are greater than his knowledge, is like a tree with many roots but
fewer branches, but which all the winds of heaven cannot uproot.