to be treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites;
for behold, we are commanded to maintain them, as it is written, ‘Thou
shalt give it to the stranger (proselyte) that is in thy gates, that he
may eat it.’ _As to that saying of our wise men not to return their
salute, it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselyte allowed to
sojourn._ But even with regard to the heathen, the wise men have
commanded us to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead
of Israel, and to feed their poor along with the poor of Israel, FOR THE
SAKE OF THE WAYS OF PEACE: for it is written, ‘The Lord is good to all,
and his mercies are over all his works;’ and again, ‘Her ways are ways
of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.’” (Prov. iii. 17.) The
reader will observe that there are several striking differences between
this translation and that of the Bavarian Catechism; and these
differences prove that, by the word “neighbour,” the oral law does not
understand a fellow-man without any regard to his religious opinions.
First, the Bavarian Catechism says, “We are bound in everything to treat
the non-Israelite who sojourns with us with justice and with love, and
as we would treat an Israelite.” The original says, “And thus _it
appears to me_, that _the proselytes allowed to sojourn_ are to be
treated with the same courtesy and benevolence as the Israelites.” The
Bavarian Catechism translates this passage as it if were the undisputed
law of Israel thus to act; whereas Maimonides only offers his own
opinion. He says, “It appears to me.” Here the French deputies represent
the matter more accurately, by saying, “We are bound, says _a
Talmudist_.” Not the Talmud, but a Talmudist. Then, again, the Bavarian
Catechism speaks generally of “non-Israelites.” Maimonides speaks of
only one particular class, the proselytes who had permission to sojourn
in the land of Israel. That we do not misrepresent Maimonides’ meaning,
is plain from the words of the Jewish deputies, who also restrict the
sense to that one particular class. “We are bound, says a Talmudist, to
love as brethren all those who observe the _Noachides_, whatever their
religious opinions may otherwise be.” Here, then, on the showing of the
Jewish deputies themselves, the Talmud does not teach that all men are
to be loved as brethren, but only those who keep the seven commandments
of Noah. How, then, are we to regard the idolater and the heathen, who
have not embraced these seven commandments, and how are we to treat
them? This leads us to notice,
2dly, The important _omission_ made by the Bavarian Catechism. In citing
the words of Maimonides, the compilers have omitted the whole sentence,
“As to the saying of our wise men not to return their salute, it refers
to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.” To this
sentence, the French Jewish deputies have also made no allusion; and yet
this sentence is found in the very middle of the passage quoted. What
goes before and what follows is quoted by both, but both have with one
common consent omitted this passage. Now this mere fact of omission is,
in itself, sufficient to excite the suspicions of Israelites not
acquainted with the oral law. The Jewish deputies in Paris, and the
compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, had one common object—they
wished to prove, or to intimate, that the Talmud teaches us to love as
ourselves all our fellow-men, without any respect to religious
differences. In order to prove this, they both refer to one and the same
passage—and from the middle of that passage they both omit one important
sentence. What conclusion will be drawn by any man of common
understanding? Just this, that as they both quote one and the same
passage, there must be a great scarcity of proof from the Talmud: and
that; as they both make the same omission, the sentence omitted must be
unfavourable to that proof; and that, therefore, this one passage does
not prove that the Talmud teaches any such doctrine. Such is the
conclusion to which we are led by considering the facts of the case. An
examination of the omitted passage will show that this conclusion is
most just—“As to the saying of our wise men, not to return their salute,
it refers to the Gentiles, not to the proselytes allowed to sojourn.”
Had this passage been inserted in its place, the Bavarian Catechism
could not have been translated גרי תושב (sojourning proselytes)
“non-Israelites,” for from this passage it appears that these
_sojourners_ are different from the “Gentiles,” whose salute is not to
be returned. In plain English, this passage restricts “the courtesy and
benevolence” to those proselytes who, by taking upon them the seven
commandments of Noah, obtained the privilege of sojourning in the land
of Israel; and consequently excludes “the Gentiles”—and consequently
disproves the assertion that the Talmud teaches us to love as ourselves
all our fellow-men without any respect to religious differences. On the
contrary, this passage tells us that the salutation of the Gentiles is
not to be returned. It prescribes two different lines of conduct to be
pursued towards different religionists, and makes the difference of
religious persuasion the basis of the rule. But some readers may say,
that the difference is very small—that the command “not to return the
salute of the Gentiles,” is a mere matter of etiquette—whereas the
command to visit the sick of the Gentiles, to bury their dead, and to
feed their poor; is a substantial kindness. This we should admit, if the
reason assigned for such conduct, “for the sake of the ways of peace,”
did not utterly remove all the apparent kindness. And this brings us to:
The third misrepresentation of the Bavarian Catechism. It translates the
words מפני דרכי שלום (for the sake of the ways of peace) “for the good
of society.” Here, then, there is an evident difference between us. But
who is right? We do not ask the Israelite to believe us. Maimonides here
refers to another passage of the oral law, where this expression is
fully explained, and where the command “not to return the salutation of
the Gentiles” is also found. We will give this passage, and then the
unlearned can judge for themselves:—
מפרנסין עניי עכו׳׳ם עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום . ואין ממחין בידי עניי
עכו׳׳ם בלקט שכחה ופאה מפני דרכי שלום . ושואלין בשלומם אפי׳ ביום חגם מפני
דרכי שלום ואין כופלין להם שלום לעולם , ולא יכנס לביתו של נכרי עכו׳׳ם
ביום חגו לתת לו שלום , מצאו בשוק נותן לו שלום בשפה רפה ובכובד ראש , אין
כל הדברים האלו אמורים אלא בזמן שגלו ישראל לבין האומות או שיד עכו׳׳ם
תקיפה על ישראל אבל בזמן שיד יDראל תקיפה עליהם אסור לנו להניח עכו׳׳ם
בינינו , אפילו יושב ישיבת ארעי או עובר ממקום למקום בסחורה לא יעבור
בארצנו אלא עד שיקבל עליו שבע מצוות שנצטוו בני נח , שנאמר לא ישבו בארצך
אפילו לפי שעה ואם קבל עליו ז׳ מצוות הרי זה גר תושב וכו׳ ׃
“The poor of the idolaters are to be fed with the poor of Israel _for
the sake of the ways of peace_. They are also permitted to have part of
the gleaning, me forgotten sheaf, and the corner of the field, _for the
sake of the ways of peace_. It is also lawful to ask after their health,
even on their feast-day, _for the sake of the ways of peace_; but never
to return (literally, reiterate) the salutation, nor to enter the house
of an idolater on the day of his festival to salute him. If he be met in
the street, he is to be saluted in a low tone of voice, and with a heavy
head. _But all these things are said only of the time that Israel is in
captivity among the nations, or that the hand of the idolaters is strong
upon Israel. But when the hand of Israel is strong upon them, we are
forbidden to suffer an idolater amongst us, even so much as to sojourn
incidentally, or to pass from place to place with merchandize._ He is
not to pass through our land until he take upon him the seven
commandments given to the children of Noah, for it is said ‘They shall
not dwell in thy land,’ (Exod. xxiii. 33,) not even for an hour. But if
he take upon himself the seven commandments, then he is a proselyte
permitted to sojourn (גר תושב).” Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 5 &c. This is the
passage alluded to, and the reader may now judge whether the words, “For
the sake of the ways of peace,” can be interpreted as the Bavarian
Catechism renders them, “for the good of society.” If so, then “the good
of society” is to be consulted only whilst the Jews are in captivity,
and the Gentiles have got the power: but as soon as the Jews get the the
power, “the good of society” may safely be disregarded. The meaning
plainly is, that in the present position of affairs it is advisable to
keep the peace between Jews and Gentiles, inasmuch as the Gentiles are
at present the strongest. Now, then, it is expedient to visit the sick,
and feed the poor, and bury the dead of the Gentiles, for this will
promote that object; but when the tables are turned, and the Gentiles
are the weakest, there will be no necessity “for the ways of peace,” or,
as the Bavarian Catechism has it, “for the good of society.” It is
plain, therefore, that the passage cited by the French deputies and the
Bavarian Catechism, does not answer the purpose for which it is cited.
It does not prove that the Talmud teaches us to love our fellow-men as
ourselves, whatever be their religious opinions. On the contrary, it
teaches that a wide distinction is to be made between one class of
religionists and another: and that if men be idolaters, we are to show
them no kindness, except for fear of the consequences that might result
from betraying our real sentiments. When, therefore, the Jewish deputies
and the compilers of the Bavarian Catechism asserted the true
explanation of the Mosaic command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,” it is plain that they had not learned it from the Talmud, but
somewhere else. We hesitate not to say, that they learned it from the
New Testament, for there it is taught plainly, repeatedly, and without
any reservation. A certain lawyer once asked Jesus of Nazareth, “Who is
my neighbour? And Jesus answering, said, A certain man went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his
raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by
chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him he
passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the
place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a
certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw
him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds,
pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him
to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he
took out two-pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take
care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I
will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour
to him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on
him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go thou and do likewise.” (Luke x. 29,
&c.) Here then the Lord Jesus Christ teaches us that we are to show
kindness even to an idolater, for that even he is included in the class
specified by the word “neighbour.” Jesus of Nazareth makes no limitation
“for the sake of the ways of peace,” but gives a general command. And he
appears to have selected this case of a man lying half dead, in order to
contrast it with a similar case supposed in the oral law.
“If a Gentile, and idolater, be seen perishing, or drowning in a river,
he is not to be helped out. If he be seen near to death, he is not to be
delivered. But to destroy him by active means, or to push him into a
pit, or such-like things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with
us.”[10] The Lord Jesus does not say that the man who went down from
Jerusalem to Jericho was an idolater. He only says, “a certain man.” But
he evidently intimates that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, the
priest and the Levite would not have passed him without rendering
assistance. As he was only an idolater, according to the oral law, the
priest and the Levite were not simply not to blame in leaving him to his
fate, but were obeying a command. They saw him perishing—near to death.
They did not use any violence to accelerate it. They only looked at him,
and left him to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who asked the question
thought that the priest and Levite were in the right. But then the Lord
Jesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the oral law also looks upon as an
idolater, and showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain common sense
of the questioner, “Which of these three was neighbour to him that fell
among thieves?” And the lawyer is compelled to acknowledge, “He that
showed mercy.” We make a similar appeal to the advocates of the oral
law. We ask, which is, the oral law or the New Testament, the most like
the law of God? The oral law forbids you to help a poor dying
fellow-creature in his hour of need, because he is an idolater. It
commands you to stifle the natural instinct of the human heart, which is
indeed the voice of the God of nature—to behold the agonizing struggles,
and hear the heartrending cries of a drowning fellow-sinner, and yet
when you have it in your power to snatch him from the jaws of death, and
from that everlasting destruction which awaits him, to leave him to his
fate, without help and without pity. The New Testament, on the contrary,
tells you, that though, by his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of
God, yet he is your neighbour—that it is your duty to help him, and by
that very help to endeavour to lead him to the truth. Which then agrees
with the law of God? We are quite sure that the language of your heart
is, the New Testament is right. The oral law is wrong. Your brethren in
France and Bavaria have already proclaimed that opinion to the world. In
the answer of the Jewish deputies to Napoleon and in the Bavarian
Catechism, they have said, “that we are to love our fellow-creature as
ourselves,” whatever be his religion. They have thus made an involuntary
acknowledgment of the superiority of the New Testament, and of the
benefit which it has been to the world. Just suppose, for a moment, that
the scribes and Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the doctrine of
Jesus of Nazareth, what would have been the consequence to you and to
the world? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, the oral law would have
had an undisturbed and universal domination, for the Karaites have
always been few in number, and have never exerted any influence on
mankind at large. The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in England and
elsewhere, would all have known the law only according to the oral
interpretation, and consequently would not have understood the command,
“Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.” They would still have held
the fearful doctrine, that a perishing idolater was not to be helped.
They would, moreover, have had none but idolaters around them, for all
the knowledge of God that prevails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus
of Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would have lived “hateful and hating
each other.” You may think, perhaps, that some mighty spirit would have
burst the chains of tradition, and reasserted, the simple truth of God.
But such an event is altogether beyond the limits of probability. One of
the mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a tenement of clay was that
of Moses, the son of Maimon; a man whose learning and industry were
equal to his genius. If ever there was a Jew, who was likely to overcome
the prejudices of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his genius and
all his opportunities, he never was able to arrive at the true sense of
the command which we have just considered. The atrocious passages, which
we have above discussed, are all taken from his compendium of the oral
law. You are indebted, then, to Jesus of Nazareth for your deliverance
from this foul error. With respect to your duty to your neighbour, your
own brethren in France and Bavaria confess, that you are right if you
follow Jesus of Nazareth, and that you are wrong if you follow those who
rejected him. Remember, then, that your duty to your neighbour is half
of the whole law of God, and examine whether the Christians, who are
confessedly right in the second table of the law do not, also, possess
the truth respecting the first.
Footnote 7:
Transactions of Parisian Sanhedrin, p. 178.
Footnote 8:
Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. München, 1826, page 150.
Footnote 9:
We quote the passage as we find it. Noachides is here taken for the
seven commandments of the children of Noah, contrary to the usual
acceptation of the word.
Footnote 10:
Hilchoth Accum, c. x. 1.
No. V.
TALMUDIC INTOLERANCE CONTRASTED WITH THE CHARITY OF THE BIBLE.
Any one who considers the circumstances of the Jewish people after the
desolation of the first temple, will be inclined to make great
allowances for the spirit of the Rabbinical laws against idolaters.
Idolatry was not to them a mere system of religious error. It was the
source of all their misfortunes; and idolaters were the destroyers of
their country—the desolaters of their temple—and their own most cruel
and tyrannical oppressors. Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of
the Babylonish captivity, when they were exposed to the insults and
outrages as well as the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly had they
recovered from the havoc of his fury, before they were overrun by the
fierce and haughty Romans, who were at last the executioners of the
wrath of the Almighty. They not only saw the abominations of idolatry,
but they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no wonder, then, if they
hated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a
law which amply illustrates the misery of their situation, and the
habitual treatment which they received from idolaters. According to this
law, “It is forbidden to a Jew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are
suspected of shedding blood; neither is a Jew to join company with them
in the way; if he meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his
right hand (that the Jew, as the commentary says, may be able to defend
himself, in case the Gentile should make an attempt on his life); if
they be ascending a height, or going down a descent, the Jew is not to
be below and the Gentile above him; but the Jew above and the Gentile
below, lest he should fall upon him to kill him; neither is he to stoop
down before him, lest he should break his skull.” What an affecting
picture does this present of the Jews under heathen domination; and who
can wonder if such treatment called forth the natural feelings of the
human heart, and dictated laws in the same fierce and merciless spirit?
We, for our part, are quite ready to admit and to deplore the mighty
provocations, which roused the spirit of retaliation in the Rabbies, and
consequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the
question before us. We are inquiring whether their religious system, the
oral law, is or is not from God, and whether this religious system
teaches Jews to love all their fellow-men as themselves? We have shown
that the evidence adduced on this point by the French and Bavarian Jews,
proves the contrary; and is therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we do
not wish to rest the decision upon such limited proof, even though it be
strong; we are willing to look at the whole system, and to compare it
with the law and the prophets, which we all admit as divine authority.
We say, then, that the Talmud not only does not teach us to love all our
fellow-men, but that it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of
humanity. We have seen already that it forbids its followers to save the
life of a perishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and extends
this precept even to an idolater’s infant, which knows not its right
hand from its left:—
בת ישראל לא תיניק את בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת בן לעבודה אל כוכבים ומזלות
ולא תילד את הנכרית עכו׳׳ם אבל מילדת היא בשכר משום איבה ׃
“A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the son of a heathen woman,
because that would be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither shall she
act as midwife to a heathen idolatress. But if she should, it must be
for pay, on account of the enmity (that might otherwise be excited)”.
(Hilchoth Accum, c. ix. 16.) What is meant by “pay, on account of the
enmity,” is fully explained in the following passage, which forbids a
Rabbinical physician to cure a sick idolater:—
מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאות עובדי כוכבים ומזלות אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתירא
מהן או שהיה חושש משום איבה מרפא בשכר אבל בחנם אסור ׃
“Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to cure idolaters even for
pay. But if (an Israelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on account
of enmity, he may cure them for pay; but to do it gratuitously is
forbidden.” Hence the commonest offices of humanity are forbidden. But
the Talmud goes further still, and prohibits even the giving of good
advice to these outcasts.
ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעבד רשע ... ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא
עצה טובה לנבוכדנצר ליתן צדקה , שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך ׃
“It is forbidden to give good advice to a heathen or to a wicked
slave.... Daniel was exposed to danger for no other reason than this,
that he advised Nebuchadnezzar to give alms, as it is written,
‘Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.’ (Dan. iv.
23, in English 27.)”[11] A more striking instance of the spirit of the
Talmud can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was the benefactor of Daniel,
and had elevated him from the situation of a captive to the first
dignity of the empire; and Daniel had not refused, but voluntarily taken
upon himself the duties and responsibilities of the king’s chief
adviser. Under such circumstances, an ordinary reader of the Bible would
imagine that Daniel was bound by every tie of gratitude to his
benefactor, of duty and fidelity to his sovereign, to give him the best
advice in his power. No, says the Talmud. If the man be an idolater,
gratitude, duty, and fidelity are out of the question; and because
Daniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at
all events, on the Talmud’s own showing, that Daniel was not a
Talmudist. These extracts seem sufficient to prove, that the Talmud
altogether excludes idolaters from all benefit of the command, “Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” The system which makes it unlawful
to save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle his child, to help his
wife in the hour of nature’s trial, or even to give him good advice, can
scarcely be said to teach us to love all our fellow-men, without any
regard to religious differences. It may, however, be said, that the
passages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that
none of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour.
We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught.
הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים
לרעהו , לרעהו ולא להקדש , לרעהו ולא לגוי ׃
“He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property _devoted_ to
sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, ‘He shall
pay double unto _his neighbour_.’ (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his
neighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and _not to a
Gentile_.” (Hilchoth Genevah, c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with
respect to the law found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, “If a soul
sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and _lie unto his
neighbour_, ... all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even
restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.”
The oral law says—
הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרו ואינו חייב בחומש שנאמר וכחש בעמיתו ׃
“He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound
to add the fifth part—(why not?) because it is said, ‘and lie unto his
neighbour.’” (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So that the reason here
assigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is,
because he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the 11th chapter of
this same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it
is expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he
is a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is
not a brother.
השבת אבדה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב תשיבם ׃
“To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an affirmative
commandment, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt in any case bring them again
unto thy brother.’” (Deut. xxii. 1.)
אבדת גוי עובד ע׳׳ז מותרת שנאמר אבדת אחיך , והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה
מפני שהוא מחזיק ידי רשעי עולם , ואם החזירה כדי לקדש את השם שיפארו את
ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח ׃
“Anything that a Gentile has lost is lawful, for it is said, ‘With all
lost things of _thy brother’s_.’ (Deut. xxii. 3.) And he that restores
it transgresses a transgression, for he strengthens the hands of the
wicked of the world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify the Name,
that they may think well of Israel, and know that they are honest
people, this is praiseworthy.” In these passages (and many more might be
added if it were necessary) it is plainly taught that an idolatrous
Gentile is not to be regarded as “our neighbour,” or our brother. We
think, then, that we have fully proved that the Jewish deputies in
France, and the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not
learn their exposition of the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,” from the Talmud; neither in the particular passage which they
quote, nor from the general principles of the Talmudic system. We have
already stated our belief that they learned that exposition from the New
Testament, for there it is taught plainly and repeatedly. We quoted, in
proof, a parable spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall now add a few
more passages in confirmation.