A brief Exposition of the Jewish Religion, from its Origin down to the
most recent Times.
To render intelligible that part of the story of my life, which refers
to my sentiments regarding religion, I must first give in advance a
short practical _history of the Jewish religion_, and at the outset say
something of the idea of _religion in general_, as well as of the
difference between _natural_ and _positive_ religion.
_Religion in general_ is the expression of gratitude, reverence and the
other feelings, which arise from the dependence of our weal and woe on
one or more powers to us unknown. If we look to the _expression of these
feelings in general_, without regard to the _particular mode of the
expression_, religion is certainly natural to man. He observes many
effects which are of interest to him, but whose causes are to him
unknown; and he finds himself compelled, by the universally recognised
_Principle of Sufficient Reason_, to suppose these causes, and to
express towards them the feelings mentioned.
This expression may be of two kinds, in conformity either with the
_imagination_ or with _reason_. For either man imagines the causes to
be analogous to the effects, and ascribes to them in themselves such
attributes as are revealed through the effects, or he thinks them merely
as causes of certain effects, without seeking thereby to determine their
attributes in themselves. These two modes are both natural to man, the
former being in accordance with his earlier condition, the latter with
that of his perfection.
The difference between these two modes of representation has as its
consequence another difference of religions. The first mode of
representation, in accordance with which the causes are supposed to be
_similar_ to the effects, is the mother of _polytheism_ or _heathenism_.
But the second is the basis of _true_ religion. For as the kinds of
effects are different, the causes also, if held to be like them, must be
represented as different from one another. On the other hand, if, in
accordance with truth, we conceive the idea of _cause in general_ for
these effects, without seeking to determine this cause, either _in
itself_ (since it is wholly unknown), or _analogically_ by help of the
imagination, then we have no ground for supposing several causes, but
require to assume merely a single subject, wholly unknown, as cause of
all these effects.
The different philosophical systems of theology are nothing but
_detailed developments_ of these different modes of representation. The
_atheistic_ system of theology, if so it may be called, rejects
altogether this idea of a _first cause_, (as, according to the
_critical_ system at least, it is merely of _regulative use_ as a
necessary _idea of reason_). All effects are referred to particular
known or unknown causes. In this there cannot be assumed even a
_connection_ between the various effects, else the _reason_ of this
connection would require to be sought beyond the connection itself.
The _Spinozistic_ system, on the contrary, supposes one and the same
substance as immediate cause of all various effects, which must be
regarded as predicates of one and the same subject. _Matter_ and _mind_
are, with Spinoza, one and the same substance, which appears, now under
the former, now under the latter attribute. This single substance is,
according to him, not only the sole being that can be _self-dependent_,
that is, independent of any external cause, but also the sole
_self-subsistent_ being, all so-called beings besides it being merely
its _modes_, that is, particular limitations of its attributes. Every
particular effect in nature is referred by him, not to its proximate
cause (which is merely a _mode_), but immediately to this first cause,
which is the common substance of all beings.
In this system _unity is real_, but _multiplicity_ is merely _ideal_. In
the atheistic system it is the opposite. _Multiplicity_ is _real_, being
founded on the _nature of things themselves_. On the other hand, the
_unity_, which is observed in the order and regularity of nature, is
merely an _accident_, by which we are accustomed to determine our
_arbitrary_ system _for the sake of knowledge_. It is inconceivable
therefore how any one can make out the Spinozistic system to be
atheistic, since the two systems are diametrically opposed to one
another. In the latter the existence of _God_ is denied, but in the
former the existence of the _world_. Spinoza's ought therefore to be
called rather the _acosmic_ system.
The _Leibnitzian_ system holds the mean between the two preceding. In it
all _particular effects_ are referred immediately to _particular
causes_; but these various effects are thought as _connected_ in a
single system, and the cause of this connection is sought in a being
beyond itself.
_Positive_ religion is distinguished from _natural_ in the very same way
as the positive laws of a state from natural laws. The latter are those
which rest on a self-acquired, indistinct knowledge, and are not duly
defined in regard to their application, while the former rest on a
distinct knowledge received from others, and are completely defined in
regard to their application.
A _positive_ religion however must be carefully distinguished from a
_political_ religion. The former has for its end merely the correction
and accurate definition of knowledge, that is, _instruction_ regarding
the first cause: and the knowledge is communicated to another, according
to the measure of his capacity, just as it has been received. But the
latter has for its end mainly the welfare of the state. Knowledge is
therefore communicated, not just as it has been received, but only in so
far as it is found serviceable to this end. Politics, merely as
politics, requires to concern itself about _true religion_ as little as
about _true morality_. The injury, that might arise from this, can be
prevented by other means which influence men at the same time, and thus
all can be kept in equilibrium. Every political religion is therefore at
the same time positive, but every positive religion is not also
political.
Natural religion has no _mysteries_ any more than merely positive
religion. For there is no mystery implied in one man being unable to
communicate his knowledge to another of defective capacity with the same
degree of completeness which he himself has attained; otherwise
mysteries might be attributed to all the sciences, and there would then
be _mysteries of mathematics_ as well as _mysteries of religion_. Only
_political religion_ can have mysteries, in order to lead men in an
indirect way to the attainment of the _political end_, inasmuch as they
are made to believe that thereby they can best attain their _private
ends_, though this is not always in reality the case. There are _lesser_
and _greater_ mysteries in the political religions. The former consist
in the _material_ knowledge of all particular operations and their
connection with one another. The latter, on the contrary, consist in the
knowledge of the _form_, that is, of the end by which the former are
determined. The former constitute the totality of the _laws of
religion_, but the latter contains the _spirit of the laws_.
The _Jewish religion_, even at its earliest origin among the nomadic
patriarchs, is already distinguished from the _heathen_ as _natural
religion_, inasmuch as, instead of the _many comprehensible_ gods of
heathenism, the _unity of an incomprehensible_ God lies at its
foundation. For as the particular causes of the effects, which in
general give rise to a religion, are in themselves unknown, and we do
not feel justified in transferring to the causes the attributes of the
particular effects, in order thereby to characterise them, there remains
nothing but the idea of cause in general, which must be related to all
effects without distinction. This cause cannot even be _analogically_
determined by the effects. For the effects are opposed to one another,
and neutralise each other even in the same object. If therefore we
ascribed them all to one and the same cause, the cause could not be
analogically determined by any.
The _heathen_ religion, on the other hand, refers every kind of effect
to a special cause, which can of course be characterised by its effect.
As a _positive_ religion the Jewish is distinguished from the heathen by
the fact, that it is not a merely political religion, that is, a
religion which has for its end the social interest (in opposition to
true knowledge and private interest); but in accordance with the spirit
of its founder, it is adapted to the theocratic form of the national
Government, which rests on the principle, that only the true religion,
based on rational knowledge, can harmonise with the interest of the
state as well as of the individual. Considered in its _purity_,
therefore, it has no mysteries in the proper sense of the word; that is
to say, it has no doctrines which, in order to reach their end, men
_will_ not disclose, but merely such as _can_ not be disclosed to all.
After the fall of the Jewish state the religion was separated from the
state which no longer existed. The religious authorities were no longer,
as they had been before, concerned about adapting the particular
institutions of religion to the state; but their care went merely to
_preserve_ the religion, on which the existence of the _nation_ now
depended. Moved by hatred towards those nations who had annihilated the
state, and from anxiety lest with the fall of the state the religion
also might fall, they hit upon the following means for the preservation
and extension of their religion.
1. The fiction of a method, handed down from Moses, of expanding the
laws, and applying them to particular cases. This method is not that
which reason enjoins, of modifying laws according to their intention, in
adaptation to time and circumstances, but that which rests upon certain
rules concerning their literary expression.
2. The legislative force ascribed to the new decisions and opinions
obtained by this method, giving to them an equal rank with the ancient
laws. The subtle dialectic, with which this has been carried on down to
our times, and the vast number of laws, customs and useless ceremonies
of all sorts, which it has occasioned, may be easily imagined.
The history of the Jewish religion can, in consequence of this, be
appropriately divided into five great epochs. The first epoch embraces
the _natural religion_, from the times of the patriarchs down to Moses
at the exodus from Egypt. The second comprehends the _positive_ or
_revealed_ religion, from Moses to the time of the _Great Synagogue_
(_Keneseth Haggedolah_). This council must not be conceived as an
assembly of theologians at a definite time; the name applies to the
theologians of a whole epoch from the destruction of the first temple to
the composition of the Mishnah. Of these the first were the _minor
prophets_ (Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi, etc., of whom 120 are counted
altogether), and the last was _Simon the Just_.[32] These, as well as
their forerunners from the time of Joshua, took as their basis the
Mosaic laws, and added new laws according to time and circumstances, but
in conformity with the traditional method, every dispute on the subject
being decided by the _majority of voices_.
The third epoch extends from the composition of the Mishnah by Jehudah
the Saint[33] to the composition of the Talmud by Rabina and
Rabassi.[34] Down to this epoch it was forbidden to commit the laws to
writing, in order that they might not fall into the hands of those who
could make no use of them. But as Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi, or, as he is
otherwise called, Rabbenu Hakades observed, that, in consequence of
their great multiplicity, the laws may easily fall into oblivion, he
gave himself a licence to transgress a single one of the laws in order
to preserve the whole. The law transgressed was that against committing
the laws to writing; and in this licence he defended himself by a
passage in the Psalms, "There are times, when a man shows himself
well-pleasing to God by transgressing the laws."[35] He lived in the
time of Antoninus Pius, was rich, and possessed all the faculties for
such an undertaking. He therefore composed the Mishnah, in which he
delivers the Mosaic laws in accordance either with a traditional or with
a rational method of exposition. It contains also some laws which form
the subject of dispute.
This work is divided into six parts. The first contains the laws
relating to agriculture and horticulture; the second, those which refer
to feasts and holidays. The third part comprehends the laws which define
the mutual relations of the two sexes (marriage, divorce, and such
subjects). The fourth part is devoted to the laws which deal with the
teachers of the law; the fifth, to those which treat of the
temple-service and sacrifices; and the sixth, to the laws of
purification.
As the Mishnah is composed with the greatest precision, and cannot be
understood without a commentary, it was natural, that in course of time
doubts and disputes should arise, regarding the exposition of the
Mishnah itself, as well as the mode of its application to cases which it
does not sufficiently determine. All these doubts and their manifold
solutions, controversies and decisions, were finally collected in the
Talmud by the above-mentioned Rabina and Rabassi; and this forms the
fourth epoch of Jewish legislation.
The fifth epoch begins with the conclusion of the Talmud, and extends
down to our time, and so on for ever (_si diis placet_) till the advent
of the Messiah. Since the conclusion of the Talmud the rabbis have been
by no means idle. 'Tis true, they dare not alter anything in the Mishnah
or the Talmud; but they still have plenty of work to do. Their business
is to explain those two works, so that they shall harmonise; and this is
no small matter, for one rabbi, with a superfine dialectic, is always
finding contradictions in the explanations of another. They must also
disentangle, from the labyrinth of various opinions, expositions,
controversies and decisions, the laws which are applicable to every
case; and finally for new cases, by inferences from those already known,
they must bring out new laws, hitherto left indeterminate in spite of
all previous labours, and thus prepare a complete code of laws.
It is thus that a religion, in its origin _natural_ and _conformable to
reason_, has been abused. A Jew dare not eat or drink, lie with his wife
or attend to the wants of nature, without observing an enormous number
of laws. With the books on the _slaughter_ of animals alone (the
condition of the knife and the examination of the entrails) a whole
library could be filled, which certainly would come near to the
Alexandrian in extent. And what shall I say of the enormous number of
books treating of those laws which are no longer in use, such as the
laws of sacrifice, of purification, etc.? The pen falls from my hand,
when I remember that I and others like me were obliged to spend in this
soul-killing business the best days of our lives when the powers are in
their full vigour, and to sit up many a night, to try and bring out some
sense where there was none, to exercise our wits in the discovery of
contradictions where none were to be found, to display acuteness in
removing them where they were obviously to be met, to hunt after a
shadow through a long series of arguments, and to build castles in the
air.
The abuse of Rabbinism has, as will be seen, a twofold source.
1. The first is an _artificial method_ of expounding the Holy
Scriptures, which distinguishes itself from the _natural_ method by the
fact, that, while the latter rests on a thorough _knowledge of the
language_ and the true _spirit of the legislator_ in view of the
circumstances of the time, as these are known from history, the former
has been devised rather for the sake of the laws passed to meet existing
emergencies. The rabbis look upon the Holy Scriptures, not only as the
source of the fundamental laws of Moses, and of those which are
deducible from these by a rational method, but also as a vehicle of the
laws to be drawn up by themselves according to the wants of the time.
The artificial method here, like every other of the same kind, is merely
a means of bringing the new laws at least into an _external connection_
with the old, in order that they may thereby find a better introduction
among the people, be reduced to principles, divided into classes, and
therefore more easily impressed on the memory. No reasonable rabbi will
hold, that the laws, which are referred in this way to passages of the
Holy Scriptures, render the true sense of these passages; but if
questioned on this point, he will reply, "These laws are necessities of
the time, and are referred to those passages merely for this reason."
2. The second source of the abuse of Rabbinism is to be found in the
manners and customs of other nations, in whose neighbourhood the Jews
have lived, or among whom they have been gradually scattered since the
fall of the Jewish state. These manners and customs they were obliged
to adopt in order to avoid becoming objects of abhorrence. Of this sort
are the laws, _not to uncover the head_ (at least in holy places and at
holy ceremonies), _to wash the hands_ (before meals and prayers), to
fast the whole day till sunset, to say a number of daily prayers, to
make pilgrimages, to walk round the altar, etc.,--all manifestly of
_Arabian_ origin.
From hatred also towards those nations that destroyed the Jewish state,
and afterwards made the Jews undergo manifold oppressions, they have
adopted various customs, and among others many religious usages which
are opposite to those of the _Greeks_ and _Romans_.
In all this the rabbis had the Mosaic laws themselves for a model, these
being sometimes in agreement, sometimes in hostility, with the Egyptian
laws which lie at their root, as has been shown in the most thorough
manner by the celebrated Maimonides in his work, _Moreh Nebhochim_.
It is remarkable, that, with all rabbinical extravagancies in the
_practical_ department, namely the laws and customs, the _theoretical_
department of the Jewish theology has still always preserved itself in
its purity. Eisenmenger may say what he will, it may be shown by
unanswerable arguments, that all the limited figurative representations
of God and His attributes have their source merely in an endeavour to
adapt the ideas of theology to the common understanding. The rabbis
followed in this the principle which they had established in reference
to the Holy Scriptures themselves, namely, that _the Holy Scriptures use
the language of the common people_, inasmuch as religious and moral
sentiments and actions, which form the immediate aim of theology may in
this manner be most easily extended. They therefore represent God to the
common understanding as an earthly King, who with His ministers and the
advisers of His cabinet, the angels, takes counsel concerning the
government of the world. But for the educated mind they seek to take
away all anthropomorphic representations of God, when they say, "It was
an act of high daring on the part of the prophets, to represent the
Creator as like His creature, as when, for example, it is said in
Ezekiel (i., 26), 'And upon the throne was an appearance like man.'"
I have disclosed the abuses of the rabbis in regard to religion without
any partiality. At the same time however I must not be silent about
their good qualities, but do them justice as impartially. Compare then
Mahomed's description of the reward of the pious with the rabbinical
representation. The former runs:--"Here (in paradise) there are as many
dishes as there are stars in heaven. Maidens and boys fill the cups, and
wait on the table. The beauty of the maidens surpasses all imagination.
If one of these maidens were to appear in the sky or in the air by
night, the world would become as bright as when the sun is shining; and
if she were to spit into the sea, its salt water would be turned into
honey, and its bitter into sweet. Milk, honey, white wine will be the
rivers which water this delicious abode. The slime of these rivers will
be made of sweet-smelling nutmegs, and their pebbles of pearls and
hyacinths. The angel Gabriel will open the gates of paradise to faithful
Musselmans. The first thing to meet their eyes will be a table of
diamonds of such enormous length, that it would require 70,000 days to
run round it. The chairs, which stand around the table, will be of gold
and silver, the tablecloths of silk and gold. When the guests have sat
down, they will eat the choicest dishes of paradise, and drink its
water. When they are satisfied, beautiful boys will bring them _green_
garments of costly stuff, and necklaces and earrings of gold. To every
one will then be given a citron; and when he has brought it to his nose
to feel its odour, a maiden of enchanting beauty will come out. Every
one will embrace his own with rapture, and this intoxication of love
will last fifty years without interruption. Each couple will obtain an
enchanting palace for a dwelling, where they will eat and drink and
enjoy all sorts of pleasure for ever and ever.[36]" This description is
beautiful; but how sensuous! The rabbis, on the other hand, say, "Above
(in the blessed abode of the pious) there is neither eating nor
drinking, but the pious sit crowned, and delight themselves with the
vision of the Godhead."
Eisenmenger seeks, in his _Entdecktes Judenthum_ (Theil 1., Kap. 8), by
a crass exposition to throw ridicule on the Platonic doctrine of
reminiscence, which the rabbis maintain; but what may not be made
ridiculous in the same way? He also makes sport, with equal injustice,
of other rabbinical teachings. With the Stoics, for example, the rabbis
call wise men _Kings_; they say, that God does nothing without
previously taking counsel with his angels, that is, Omnipotence works
upon nature not immediately, but by means of the natural forces; they
teach, that everything is predestined by God, except the practice of
virtue. These are the subjects of Eisenmenger's mockery; but does any
reasonable theologian find in these anything ridiculous or impious? I
should be obliged to write a whole book, if I were to answer all the
unjust charges and jeers which have been brought against the Talmudists,
not by Christian writers alone, but even by Jews who wished to pass for
_illuminati_.
To be just to the rabbis it is necessary to penetrate into the true
spirit of the Talmud, to become thoroughly familiar with the manner in
which the ancients generally, but especially the Orientals, deliver
theological, moral, and even physical truths in fables and allegories,
to become familiar also with the style of Oriental hyperbole in
reference to everything that can be of interest to man. Moreover, the
rabbis should be treated in the spirit in which they themselves excused
Rabbi Meïr who had a heretic for his teacher,--the spirit expressed in a
passage already quoted. If justice is thus dealt to the rabbis, the
Talmud will certainly not show all the absurdities which its opponents
are disposed too readily to find.
The rabbinical method of referring theoretical or practical truths, even
by the oddest exegesis, to passages in the Holy Scriptures or any other
book in general esteem, as if they were truths brought out of such
passages by a rational exegesis,--this method, besides procuring an
introduction for the truths among common men, who are not capable of
grasping them on their own merits, and accept them merely on authority,
is also to be regarded as an excellent aid to the memory; for since, as
presumed, these passages are in everybody's mouth, the truths drawn from
them are also retained by their means. Consequently it very often occurs
in the Talmud, when the question concerns the deduction of a new law
from the Holy Scriptures, that one rabbi derives the law from this or
that passage, while another brings the objection, that this cannot be
the true meaning of the passage, inasmuch as the true meaning is this or
that. To such an objection every one is wont to reply, that it is a new
law of the rabbis, who merely refer it to the passage mentioned.
As it is therefore universally presupposed that this method is familiar,
the Talmudists regard it as unnecessary to inculcate it anew on every
occasion. A single example will suffice to illustrate this. One
Talmudist asked another the meaning of the following passage in the
Book of Joshua (xv., 22), _Kinah Vedimonah Veadadah_.[37] The latter
replied, "Here are enumerated the then familiar places of the Holy
Land." "Of course!" rejoined the other. "I know very well that these are
names of places. But, Rabbi ---- knows how to bring out of these,
besides the proper meaning, something _useful_, namely this:--'(Kinah)
He to whom his neighbour gives occasion for revenge, (Vedimonah) and who
yet, out of generosity, keeps silence, taking no revenge, (Veadadah) to
him will the Eternal execute justice.'" What a fine opportunity this
would be for laughing at the poor Talmudist, who derives a moral
sentence from particular names of places, and besides makes in an
extraordinary manner a compound out of the last name, _Sansannah_,[38]
if he had not himself explained that he is seeking to know, not the
_true meaning_ of the passage, but merely a _doctrine_ which may be
referred to it.
Again, the Talmudists have referred to a passage in Isaiah the important
doctrine, that in morals the principal object is, not theory, but
practice, by which theory receives its true value. The passage runs as
follows:--"The expectation of thy happiness"--that is, the happiness
promised by the prophet--"will have for its consequence strength, help,
wisdom, knowledge, and the fear of God."[39] Here they refer the first
six subjects to the six _Sedarim_ or divisions of the Mishnah, which are
the foundation of all Jewish learning. _Emunath_ (Expectation) is Seder
Seraim; _Etecho_ (Happiness) is Seder Moad, and so on. That is to say,
you may be ever so well versed in all these six _sedarim_; yet the main
point is the last, the fear of God.
As far as rabbinical morals in other respects are concerned, I know in
truth nothing that can be urged against them, except perhaps their
excessive strictness in many cases. They form in fact genuine Stoicism,
but without excluding other serviceable principles, such as perfection,
universal benevolence, and the like. Holiness with them extends even to
the thoughts. This principle is, in the usual fashion, referred to the
following passage in the Psalms, "Thou shalt have no strange God in
thee";[40] for in the human heart, it is argued, no strange God can
dwell, except evil desires. It is not allowed to deceive even a heathen
either by deeds or by words--not even in cases where he could lose
nothing by the deceit. For example, the common form of courtesy, "I am
glad to see you well," is not to be used, if it does not express the
real sentiments of the heart. The examples of Jews who cheat Christians
and heathens, which are commonly adduced against this statement, prove
nothing, inasmuch as these Jews do not act in accordance with the
principles of their own morals.
The commandment, "Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy
neighbour's," is so expounded by the Talmudists, that we must guard
against even the wish to possess any such thing. In short, I should
require to write a whole book, if I were to adduce all the excellent
doctrines of rabbinical morals.
The influence of these doctrines in practical life also is unmistakable.
The Polish Jews, who have always been allowed to adopt any means of
gain, and have not, like the Jews of other countries, been restricted to
the pitiful occupation of _Schacher_ or usurer, seldom hear the reproach
of cheating. They remain loyal to the country in which they live, and
support themselves in an honourable way.
Their charity and care for the poor, their institutions for nursing the
sick, their special societies for burial of the dead, are well enough
known. It is not nurses and grave-diggers _hired for money_, but the
_elders of the people_, who are eager to perform these acts. The Polish
Jews are indeed for the most part not yet enlightened by science, their
manners and way of life are still rude; but they are loyal to the
religion of their fathers and the laws of their country. They do not
come before you with courtesies, but their promise is sacred. They are
not gallants, but your women are safe from any snares with them. Woman,
indeed, after the manner of the Orientals in general, is by them not
particularly esteemed; but all the more on that account are they
resolved on fulfilling their duties towards her. Their children do not
learn by heart any _forms_ for expressing love and respect for their
parents--for they do not keep French _demoiselles_;--but they show that
love and respect all the more heartily.
The sacredness of their marriages, and the ever fresh tenderness which
arises from this, deserve especially to be mentioned. Every month the
husband is wholly separated from his wife for a fortnight (the period of
monthly purification in accordance with the rabbinical laws); they may
not so much as touch one another, or eat out of the same dish or drink
out of the same cup. By this means satiety is avoided; the wife
continues to be in the eyes of her husband all that she was as maiden in
the eyes of her lover.
Finally, what innocence rules among unmarried persons! It often happens
that a young man or woman of sixteen or eighteen years is married
without knowing the least about the object of marriage. Among other
nations this is certainly very seldom the case.