yet 
 sta’ > 
 - % 
 
 Sd Seses 
 
 has 
 
 A 2 
 mee 
 
 or 
 
 pesseasece 
 
 ? MA tg 
 Patera! 
 TEEPE ETE 
 
 aN 
 
 oS . 
 
 Batase 
 
 AAA ee 
 of 
 
 Spree oe 
 ay SF Ss, 
 
 ‘Sz >, 
 ee > ae 
 rere > 
 
 
 
EARN BF PRINPES 
 ou aay) 
 
 JUN 10 1930 
 Vy 
 
 
 
 
 C7. x 
 ~2eocivaL semis? 
 
 
 
 
 
i y 
 
 
 

 
STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 (THIRD SERIES) 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/studiesinjudaism00sche_1 
 
STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 THIRD SERIES 
 
 BY 
 
 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA 
 1924 
 
 Fatt... Ae _ 5 
 a tenia 
 
Copyright by 
 THE JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA 
 1924 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 Jewish Saints in Mediaeval Germany.................... 1 
 ‘“‘As Others Saw Him”’, A retrospect, A. D. 54........... Zo 
 A Praaty (neiG ered cutee d,s teh ear eRe ae ac Ta yh 47 
 POPOL ATLE Os a Ais tis: Sais dPa Rae Hat Aid elle way edeint ea EN aye 84 
 Srecnomcudy OL tie Laimudsr ys ee tae by shale dee hed a ley 143 
 CEE CSTE TEL SOPRA ain RU OM Siler ie STE ae Riera CBR eg TOR By Ae 194 
 Notes of Lectures on Jewish Philanthropy............... 238 
 SES] R ares ga hl A Wigate Da Aas 0 Nia Bt eisai ARES AM A Np a Mga 8 He a 
 

 
FOREWORD 
 
 Tue idea of the publication of the papers collected 
 in this volume as a third series of ‘‘Studies in Judaism”’ 
 originated with Mrs. Solomon Schechter. Shortly 
 after the author’s death she went over all his available 
 literary remains and selected those of a more popular 
 nature which are contained in the present volume, 
 as well as a series of lectures on the Genizah which 
 still remain to be published. Three of the papers, viz. 
 “‘ As Others Saw Him”’, ‘‘On the Study of the Talmud”’ 
 (not to be confused with another paper of the same 
 title in the second series of these ‘“‘Studies’’) and ‘‘The 
 Talmud” have, as indicated in the notes, already 
 appeared in places not readily accessible to the general 
 reading public. Thanks are due to Messrs. T. & T. 
 Clark, of Edinburgh, for permission to reprint the 
 article on “The Talmud” from Hastings’ “A Dic- 
 tionary of the Bible’. Three other essays, viz. ‘‘Jewish 
 Saints in Mediaeval Germany’’, ‘‘Abraham Geiger’’ 
 and ‘‘Zunz’’ are published here for the first time 
 from the author’s manuscript. For Dr. Schechter’s 
 “Notes on Jewish Philanthropy’? acknowledgment 
 is due to Rabbi Jacob Bosniak, one of his pupils, 
 who with devotion and skill collated the notes taken 
 by himself and other students of the Jewish Theolo- 
 gical Seminary of America with the notebook of the 
 lecturer. 
 
vi FOREWORD 
 
 
 
 In preparing this volume for the press the editors 
 have scrupulously avoided making any changes either 
 in language or arrangement except such as in their 
 opinion would have been regarded as essential by the 
 author, who was always most painstaking in the re- 
 vision of his books for the press. The article on Zunz 
 in particular required a certain amount of rearrange- 
 ment in view of the fact that it was one of the author’s 
 earliest essays in the English language and that it had 
 lain untouched for over a quarter of a century in 
 his desk, where it was discovered with one page 
 missing. For the convenience of the reader the 
 lengthy analyses of Zunz’s works have been transferred 
 in toto into appendices. A few necessary variations 
 from the manuscript are indicated by square brackets. 
 The author’s notes have been published intact with 
 only such additions as would bring them up to date, 
 or as would appear from the manuscript to have been 
 contemplated by Dr. Schechter. In thus revising 
 the notes, however, information easily accessible to 
 any student has, as a rule, not been included. The 
 index has been carefully prepared by Mr. I. George 
 Dobsevage to whom the editors gladly express their 
 indebtedness. 
 
 This volume covers the full range of Dr. Schechter’s 
 literary activity from the early years of his life in 
 England to his last days in the New World. In 
 offering these essays to the public the editors feel 
 that comment by them on the subject matter would 
 be superfluous. It is the vigor of style, the origi- 
 nality of thought and the depth of learning displayed 
 in these papers that will speak for themselves, and 
 
FOREWORD Vii 
 
 that, the editors believe, will insure for this third 
 
 series of ‘“‘Studies in Judaism’”’ the same cordial wel- » 
 
 come, which greeted both of its predecessors. 
 ALEXANDER Marx 
 FRANK I, SCHECHTER 
 
 New York City, June, 1924. 
 
, ee - Os t 
 At aca eh ae 
 pairs Sok 
 
 sia ‘adel 
 
 La 
 
 sf Vi bal {3 
 
 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN 
 MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 
 
 In the book entitled Tur Orah Hayyim (The Path 
 of Life) by R. Jacob b. Asher, which became the proto- 
 type of R. Joseph Caro’s Shulhan ‘Aruk there occurs 
 a reference to the ““German Saints’ (DYN ‘TDN), 
 who interpreted the very dots and traces of writing. 
 The term has become typical, and a certain historical 
 meaning is now attached to it. It is those ‘German 
 Saints’? whom I propose to introduce you to in this 
 paper. 
 
 The term Ashkenaz (3¥8) occurs in the genealog- 
 ical table of Genesis 10:3, and is identified with a cer- 
 tain tribe located somewhere in Asia. Nevertheless, 
 by a peculiar process of an unexplained folk-etymo- 
 logy, it was identified early in the Middle Ages with 
 Germany. 
 
 In later ages, however, the term assumes such 
 proportions as to make it impossible to identify it 
 with any particular spot in Europe. It covers the 
 British Isles, the whole of the north of France, the 
 whole of Germany, a great part of Austria, which was 
 at that time mostly inhabited by Slavonic tribes. 
 Indeed, the term is more suggestive of a civilization 
 than of any geographical delimitations. 
 
 This is particularly the case in the thirteenth 
 
2 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 and subsequent centuries, when the term Ashkenaz 
 is usually contrasted with Sephard (775D), or when 
 one speaks of the Ashkenazim in contradistinction to 
 the Sephardim. The term Sephard extended to the 
 Jewry living under Mohammedan rule, speaking, for 
 the most part, the Arabic language. Throughthe means 
 of this vernacular, which was also their literary lan- 
 guage, they soon made the acquaintance of certain 
 writings of Aristotle, and acquired also some knowl- 
 edge of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and 
 other things worth knowing. This fact enabled them 
 to share in all the benefits of higher civilization as 
 represented by the various Caliphs and their refined 
 courts. 
 
 The term Ashkenazim embraced the Jewry 
 scattered over the dominions of Christian potentates, 
 where, for the most part, the French or the German 
 vernacular was spoken. These languages were suf- 
 ficient for the daily needs, but had little or no 
 literature, whilst all knowledge was buried in the 
 vaults of the Latin language (or, as the Jews called 
 it, mind; ans, the letters of the clerics or priests). 
 As to the nature of this knowledge it largely consisted 
 of treatises discussing the nature of the different 
 persons of the trinity, the miraculous deeds of the 
 saints, the authorities of the Church, and similar sub- 
 jects, which had no meaning for the Jew. 
 
 German, or to take the more comprehensive 
 name, Ashkenaz Judaism was thus doomed to live 
 in the midst of an inferior civilization at a very early 
 stage of its history. Moreover, this early stage was 
 preceded by another which, as far as their surroundings 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 3 
 
 were concerned, spelled no civilization at all. I am 
 referring to the legend which fixes the date of the 
 first emigration of Jews to France and Germany in the 
 pre-Christian era. The old Teuton or the ancient 
 Gallic tribes may have been in possession of certain 
 virile virtues, which by reason of contrast recommended 
 them to the degenerate and overcivilized Romans and 
 which as boys we admired so much in the heroes 
 Fennimore Cooper’s novels. But of civilization and 
 culture there was none, and least of all had these 
 tribes just released from their Reservations anything 
 to offer to a people which already at that early period 
 could look back upon a commonwealth and a history 
 reaching back for nearly two thousands years and 
 were possessed of a sacred literature which was soon 
 to regenerate the world. Abraham Epstein in dis- 
 cussing the tradition of the early settlements of the 
 Jews in the Rhine provinces disposes of it with the 
 remark that it is mere legend and takes no further 
 notice of it. This is rather simple. For legend is 
 in reality nothing else but a sort of irresponsible 
 history and is thus not necessarily untrue. 
 
 It is true that now the first documentary evidence 
 we possess of the settling of the Jews in Germany is 
 only to be found in connection with an edict of 
 Constantine, dated 321. In this he refers to the Jew- 
 ish community in Cologne, making mention at the 
 same time of the rabbi, the president, and the elders 
 of the synagogue, and other officers of the congrega- 
 tion. But this is certainly no proof that there were 
 no Jews in Germany before that time. System and 
 organization, as we shall presently see, were not the 
 
4 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 strong side of the Ashkenaz Jew, and the existence 
 of such a fully equipped congregation as just indi- 
 cated points to the arrival of the Jews in Germany 
 at a much earlier date than the one just mentioned. 
 
 It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the 
 Ashkenaz Jew had the misfortune to live for a time in 
 acountry with no civilization at all, and then to come 
 into contact with a civilization of a much inferior 
 kind compared to that which the Sephard Jew en- 
 joyed. The Ashkenaz Jew was therefore for a long 
 time, through no fault of his own, excluded from mak- 
 ing those contributions to secular science in which 
 the Sephard Jew excelled at a very early period of 
 his settling in Europe. But he was certainly great 
 in other respects. This greatness was not on the 
 surface, and it required the deeper insight of a Rap- 
 oport, Zunz, and Luzzatto to discover it. 
 
 Zunz deserves the more credit for his work 
 in this direction, as he lived at a time when the shal- 
 low rationalism. which came in the train of the French 
 Revolution, and under which we are still laboring, was 
 so rampant that the German Jew entertained the 
 same feelings towards his own ancestors which some 
 among us still harbor against the Russian and the 
 Polish Jew. The rationalists could not possibly under- 
 stand that men who neither understood nor misunder- 
 stood Aristotle could be worthy of the attention of the 
 historian. They spoke a good deal about Maimonides 
 and his school, in whose works they looked for prec- 
 edents and support for their own shallow concep- 
 tions of Judaism, and in the manner of the present- 
 day Pollack, who will tell you that Kovno is a Ger- 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY — 5 
 
 man province, they claimed to be the spiritual de- 
 scendants of the Sephardim. But they had no eye 
 for the greatness of a Rashi; they were too superficial 
 to appreciate the real scientific method of the Franco- 
 German school as exhibited in its Biblical and Talmud- 
 ical exegesis; and least of all were they able to ap- 
 preciate the beauty and religious delicacy of the Jew- 
 ish saints of Germany, the NWS "Ton. 
 
 I must refer you to the works of Zunz, Graetz, 
 Weiss and others who, if I may say so, in an Elijah 
 fashion, turned the hearts of the German children to 
 their German fathers and filled a gap of Jewish thought 
 of which men of the temperament of Isaac Euchel 
 and David Friedlaender could hardly dream. Here 
 we shall confine ourselves to the German saints, or 
 to speak in abstract to German-Jewish saintliness. 
 
 The best Hebrew equivalent for the term saint 
 is hasid, commonly used in the sense of the pious, de- 
 vout, reverend, godly; but the noun hesed is found 
 together with hen (jn) and rahamim (ann), thus 
 implying the qualities of grace, graciousness, grace- 
 fulness, and kindliness. Thus we read of Esther: 
 “And the king loved Esther above all the women, 
 and she obtained hen and hesed in his sight”’ (Es- 
 ther 2.17); that is to say, she found grace and kind- 
 ness in his sight. Of the virtuous woman it is said: 
 “She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her 
 tongue is Jorat hesed, the law of kindness (or 
 graciousness)” (Proverbs 31.26). When God re- 
 minds Israel of the honeymoon at the outset of 
 her spiritual career, when she was wedded to the 
 
 Torah, He says: “‘I remember thee the grace (70n) 
 
6 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of thy youth, etc.’’ (Jer.2.2).. When an ancient rab- 
 bi wanted to be polite to a newly married couple, 
 he would compliment the bride with the words, 
 “beautiful and graceful” (7DmM NI). Applied 
 to matters spiritual, the best equivalent for hasidut 
 or hasidim would be ‘‘beautiful souls.”’ 
 
 This beauty found its expression in different ways. 
 
 The author of the passage forming the opening 
 of this lecture, lived in the middle of the Fourteenth 
 Century, but the saints of which he speaks preceded 
 him by several centuries. 
 
 The first glimpse we get of these German saints 
 is, in my opinion, the following passage to be found 
 in the travels of Benjamin of Tudela: 
 
 ‘All the congregations of Alamania are situated 
 on the great river Rhine, from the city of Cologne, 
 which is the principal town of the empire, to the city 
 of Regensburg, a distance of fifteen days’ journey 
 at the other extremity of Alamania, otherwise call- 
 ed Ashkenaz. And the following are the cities in 
 the land of Alamania which have Hebrew congre- 
 gations: Metz, Treves on the river Moselle, Coblenz, 
 Andernach, Bonn, Cologne, Bingen, Miinster, Worms. 
 All Israel is dispersed in every land, and he who does 
 not further the gathering of Israel will not meet with 
 happiness nor live with Israel. 
 
 “When the Lord will remember us in our ex- 
 ile, and raise the horn of His anointed (mwa), 
 then every one will say: ‘I will lead the Jews 
 and I will gather them.’ As for the towns which 
 have been mentioned, they contain scholars and 
 communities that love their brethren, and speak 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 7 
 
 peace to those who are near and far, and when a way- 
 farer comes, they rejoice, and make a feast for him, 
 and say: ‘Rejoice, brethren, for the help of the Lord 
 comes in the twinkling of an eye.’ If we were not 
 afraid that the appointed time has not yet been reach- 
 ed, we should have gathered together, but we dare not 
 do so until the time for song has arrived, when the 
 messengers will come and say continually: ‘The Lord 
 be exalted.’ Meanwhile they send missives to one 
 another, saying: ‘Be ye strong in the law of Moses, 
 and do ye, mourners for Zion, and ye, mourners for 
 Jerusalem, entreat the Lord, and may the supplica- 
 tions of those that wear the garments of mourning 
 be received through their merits.’”’ 
 
 Benjamin of Tudela flourished during the last 
 half of the twelfth century. But you will notice that 
 he makes no mention of the great men of Germany, 
 as he does in all the other places which he visited, 
 nor does he in any way refer to the sufferings of 
 the Jews in these countries through the persecutions 
 of the Crusades. This proves that the passage is 
 taken from the account of some traveller who visited 
 Germany in a century when Ashkenaz Jewry was 
 not as yet in possession of great schools, nor had it 
 as yet been subjected to the horrors through which 
 its descendants had to pass. And this could only 
 have been in the ninth or early in the tenth century, 
 when the great Talmudical schools of Germany were 
 still in their infancy. The traits of the German Jew, 
 as depicted here, were then, first, hospitality, which is 
 an essential feature of the life of the Jewish Hasid—you 
 have only to think of the ‘Deeds of loving-kindness”’ 
 
8 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 (a’ton mb-n1)—and secondly, their attachment to the 
 Holy Land and expectation of the speedy advent of 
 the Redeemer. 
 
 Indeed, it is a remarkable fact in the history 
 of German Jewry that, in spite of their greater 
 distance from Palestine, they were in closer con- 
 nection with the authorities of the Holy Land than 
 their brethren of Spain and Portugal. As a proof 
 of this it will be sufficient to refer here to the cor- 
 respondence of the wise men of the Rhine provinces 
 with the heads of the schools of Palestine at an early 
 period of the ninth century. But more import- 
 ant is the fact that certain features in the Ashkenaz 
 prayer-book show more affinity with the ritual and 
 custom of Palestine than the Sephard prayer-book. 
 This latter borrowed its most important features 
 from the Babylonian schools, who provided it with 
 a regular order of prayer. The hymnology or Mahzor 
 of the German Jews consisted largely of hymns and 
 songs in the praise of the Most High, composed by 
 Palestinian authors, such as the productions of Kalir, 
 Yannai, and others, which the Sephardim abandoned 
 at a very early stage of their history. 
 
 This brings us to the subject of prayer and song 
 (7vw). Under songs and prayer we have to under- 
 stand all those manifestations of the soul in which 
 the individual attempts to reciprocate his revelation 
 of the Divine. As was pointed out by a certain writer 
 with regard to the Bible, its unique character consists 
 in furnishing us with both the revelation of God to 
 man, as given in the Pentateuch and in the Prophets, 
 and the revelation of man to God, as contained in the 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 9 
 
 Psalms and other portions of the Scriptures of a 
 liturgical nature. Hence the value attached to prayer 
 by the saint, who longs for the moments when he 
 can pour out his soul before God in adoration and 
 supplication. And nowhere was this longing more 
 intense, more durable, than with the Ashkenaz saints. 
 How dearly they loved prayer! When the hordes 
 of the Crusades reached Xanten (June 27, 1140), a 
 small town in the neighborhood of the Rhine, the 
 Jews of that place were dining together, partaking 
 of their Sabbath-eve meal. The message of the ar- 
 rival of the Crusaders meant certain death to the Jews, 
 and the meal was naturally discontinued. But they 
 did not leave the hall until the saint, R. Moses ha- 
 Cohen, first said grace, using the regular text and 
 adding to it matter appropriate to the occasion. 
 The grace was concluded with the Shema‘. There- 
 upon they went to the Synagogue, where they 
 all met with martyrdom. 
 
 And how dearly they loved their prayer-book! 
 The saints of Germany, according to the testimony 
 of R. Jacob b. Asher, were in the habit of weighing 
 and counting the very words of the prayers and the 
 benedictions. The product of this weighing and 
 counting is a large literature in the shape of comment- 
 aries on the Jewish liturgy. It was especially the 
 more difficult portions of the Mahzor which occupied 
 their attention. The number of such commentators 
 is not less than seventy-three, extending over many 
 centuries and including the greatest names of Ash- 
 kenaz Israel. 
 
 And just as they loved to interpret the pray- 
 
10 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 ers so were they fond of composing prayers them- 
 selves, of which the German Mahzor, with its large 
 dimensions, bears evidence. These prayers are 
 known under the name of Piyyutim, or poetical 
 pieces, serving as a sort of hymnal-book. Though 
 these poetical pieces were composed by the greatest 
 authorities of the Synagogue, they never arrogated 
 the place of the Szddur, or the regular prayer-book. 
 The prayer-book remained sacred to them, no man 
 daring or willing to alter a single iota in the original 
 text, the great inheritance of the Synagogue and the 
 source of inspiration and unity of Catholic Israel. 
 The Piyyutim were, as it would seem, recited 
 and introduced by the composers themselves, who 
 were the rabbis of the community, holding at 
 the same time the office of the Hazzanim of their 
 congregations. It is sufficient here to mention the 
 name of Rabbi Meir b. Isaac, the teacher of Rashi, 
 who was a Hazzan. The famous Rabbenu Gershon 
 was also a Hazzan. ‘This was another feature of the 
 saints of Ashkenaz, who considered it a privilege to 
 conduct the service in the capacity of Shelzah Zibbur 
 or the ‘Messenger of the Congregation.’’ In Spain it 
 was a salaried office. Likewise the office of blowing the 
 shofar was salaried in Spain. This called forth the in- 
 dignation of R. Jehiel b. Asher, who said: ‘‘ With us in 
 Germany itis the most prominent men of thecommunity 
 who are eager to perform this function, whilst in Spain 
 they flee from fulfilling the commandment, so that 
 they are compelled to hire one from the street to ac- 
 complish this duty for them.’’ He proceeds to say: 
 “One sin brings in its train another sin, for the man 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 11 
 
 who allows himself to be paid for this function is 
 practically doing a business on a sacred day, which 
 is forbidden by the Law.” 
 
 From the literary point of view the merit of these 
 liturgical productions by the saints of Ashkenaz is 
 certainly not very great. They are wanting in lit- 
 erary grace, faulty in grammar, and awkward in 
 their diction and can by no means be compared with 
 the similar productions of the Sephardic schools, with 
 their fine artistic finish and perfection of style. But 
 on the other hand, they have a depth of feeling 
 and a certain inwardness, Gemtit, which is hardly to 
 be found with poets of the Synagogue of any other 
 school. It is especially the hymns for the various 
 Sabbaths between the Passover and the Feast of 
 Weeks which reveal a religious fervour and a love 
 for God knowing no bounds, and shrinking from no 
 sacrifice, unequalled in any other literature. 
 
 Altogether, the German Jew may be described 
 in the Carlylian phrase, as the ‘‘Great Inarticulate’’. 
 Luzzatto somewhere remarked that it was rarely 
 given to the Jew to write a systematic piece of work 
 reproducing all his thought in a methodical way. 
 The strength of the Jew rather lay according to him 
 in occasional notes and stray remarks and abrupt 
 flashes of thought. ‘This is certainly an exaggeration, 
 but it may well be applied to the old Ashkenaz Jew. 
 No student of the Franco-German school could ever 
 have been able to produce such a book as Maimonides’ 
 Mishne Torah. This gigantic work, accomplished the 
 miracle of bringing system into the Rabbinical chaos, 
 
12 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 and reducing all Talmudical matter with its thousands 
 of laws and precendents and discussions into a regular 
 Code. But on the other hand, no Sephardic author 
 would ever have succeeded in writing such a Commen- 
 tary to the Talmud as Rashi did, which has become 
 indeed the model commentary for all times. It 
 is short, precise, and pursuing no other aim but that 
 of conveying to us the real meaning of the author 
 whose interpreter it is intended to be. To a certain 
 extent this was a consequence of the German Chasi- 
 duth. The Ashkenaz Jew neither knew nor recog- 
 nized any other authority besides that of the Torah 
 and of tradition, and had thus no need of re-inter- 
 pretation or reconcilation of the views of the Scrip- 
 tures and our sages with those advanced by any Greek 
 philosopher. Quite different was the case of the 
 Sephardic Jew. Hewasasarule as much of a devotee 
 of Aristotle as of a believer in the words of the Torah 
 and the views of the Rabbis. He thus, consciously 
 or unconsciously, labored under the difficulty of 
 harmonizing contradictory views, rarely to be ac- 
 complished without doing violence either to the works 
 of the philosopher or to the text of the Scriptures and 
 the Talmud. This proved in the course of history 
 one of the greatest weakness of the Sephardic school. 
 Most of their commentaries to the Bible have now 
 become entirely obsolete, whilst one can still study 
 with profit and advantage the Biblical exegesis of 
 R. Solomon b. Isaac, R. Samuel b. Meier, R. Joseph 
 Bekor Shor, and Rabbi Joseph Caro. 
 
 Meekness and humility are another feature of 
 saintliness,—again best to be seen in the commen- 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 3 
 
 taries of the Ashkenaz Jews, especially those of Rashi, 
 with their entire subordination of the commen- 
 tator to his author. Whether his author is wrong 
 or right, his task as a commentator only consisted 
 in conveying to us the exact meaning of his text. The 
 Sephardic Jew, on the other hand, would very often 
 compel his author to be right, that is, to agree with 
 him. This was again a consequence of the undivided 
 love of the German Jew for his authorities. It 
 can best be illustrated by the well-known story of 
 the two men who both loved their wives dearly, but 
 the one loved her because she admired him, and the 
 other because he admired her. Rashi loved his au- 
 thor because he admired him. Where he could not 
 fathom the meaning of his author he would straight- 
 forwardly say: “I do not understand this,’’ or ‘this 
 escaped me,’ or “this is beyond me,”’ and similar 
 phrases expressive of the qualities of ‘“‘a humble mind 
 and a lowly spirit.” 
 
 This is the feature which runs through almost 
 the whole of the literary products of the German 
 Jews, their commentaries as well as their Responsa. 
 In these Responsa, especially, one will find such 
 phrases as these forming the close of the letters: 
 “These are the words of the poor one’’, “the humble 
 one’, “the threshold trodden by the feet of the 
 sages’’; whilst the Sephardic Jew would as a rule 
 conclude his legal decisions with the mere formula, 
 “So wrote, N. N’’. These expressions of humility 
 and meekness with men like Rashi or R. Meir of 
 Rothenburg, or Isaac Or Zarua were not mere phrases. 
 
 But meekness and humility must by no means 
 
14 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 be confused with self-abasement and a tendency 
 to cringing. The Ashkenaz Jew certainly knew 
 how to hold his own, when meeting with the Se- 
 phardi, who would occasionally taunt him with 
 his ignorance of secular science. This was best 
 seen in the case of the famous R. Asher b. Jehiel, 
 whom persecution drove to leave Germany. He 
 emigrated then to Toledo, where he soon became 
 the rabbi of that community and the recognized 
 authority all over Spain. The brothers Israeli, from 
 whom, I think, the famous English Premier Disraeli 
 derived his pedigree, soon became his most devoted 
 disciples, and so also did other men of standing in 
 the political and scientific world. His opinions and 
 decisions became law in all the land of proud Castile, 
 even when they contradicted the decisions of Ma- 
 imonides. 
 
 Some years ago it was my good fortune to 
 discover the will of his son, R. Judah, who succeeded 
 him in his office. In this will his son is careful . 
 to tell us how proud he is of his German descent, 
 and that the emigration of his family to Spain must 
 by no means be ascribed to some dishonorable cause. 
 It was merely owing to the persecutions to which 
 R. Meir of Rothenburg, who died in prison, was 
 subjected, and to which his father, the disciple of R. 
 Meir, was to be subjected after the death of his master. 
 Indeed, after his flight from his native country, the 
 magistrate of the place from which he came sent 
 him a petition to return home, offering to procure 
 for him a safe conduct from the king, but he 
 would not return on account of the frequency of the 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 15 
 
 persecutions in Germany. The German princes of 
 that time could not well be trusted. The imprison- — 
 ment of rabbis was with them a regular trade. They 
 would throw the rabbi into jail and then tax the 
 community withheavyransom. TheR. Meirjust men- 
 tioned preferred to die in prison rather than allow the 
 encouragement of rapacity on the part of the princes. 
 
 As we can further see from this will of Rabbi 
 Asher’s son, as well as from the Responsa of R. Asher 
 himself, he in no way feltoverawed by the superiority of 
 his new surroundings in the department of philosophy. 
 He tells them in so many words: ‘‘As to our secular 
 sciences, blessed be the Merciful Who saved me from 
 them, for their arguments only serve to remove men 
 from the fear of God and His Law. As long as I 
 live there is still law in Israel. The Torah is the in- 
 heritance of the Jews of Ashkenaz in a direct line from 
 the days of the Temple.”’ 
 
 It is interesting to see in the above-mentioned 
 will how his son, R. Judah, still retained his antiquated 
 German prejudices, and could never reconcile him- 
 self to the idea of accepting a remuneration for 
 his services to the community as rabbi and teacher. 
 As the community insisted on his accepting the 
 salary, he saved up all the money which he re- 
 ceived from his congregants, and converted it in 
 his will into a bequest for various educational and 
 charitable purposes of which his Jewish fellow- 
 citizens were in need. The greatness of the Asher 
 family seems, among other things, to have consisted 
 also in their ability to starve when poverty was a 
 virtue. R. Jacob, the brother of R. Judah, the author 
 
16 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of the Zurim and other works, was so poor that we 
 find him consulting with his father as to the dress 
 and meals on the Sabbath-day, in which, on account 
 of his poverty, he was unable to make any distinction 
 in honor of the day. But this did not prevent him 
 from writing the just mentioned Turim which is still 
 counted among the authoritative works of first-rank 
 in the synagogue. 
 
 . The frequency of persecutions referred to by 
 R. Judah is a long and sad story. Indeed, the per- 
 secutions from the times of the first Crusades in 1096 
 till perhaps the end of the fifteenth century are so con- 
 tinuous that we can hardly speak of frequency, which 
 at least suggests moments for breath and recuperation. 
 Confiscation followed confiscation, massacre followed 
 massacre, and expulsion followed expulsion so closely 
 during all these terrible centuries that it is the greatest 
 miracle how the Ashkenaz Jew survived them. 
 
 However, I do not intend to harrow the reader 
 with pictures of torture and description of massacres. ° 
 Those who feel a special interest in the subject can 
 easily find them in such works as the Hebrew ac- 
 counts of the persecutions of the Jews during the 
 Crusades, published by Neubauer and Stern and 
 accompanied by a German translation, and in the 
 bulky collection of the various lists of martyrs, 
 compiled by Salfeld. They are terrible reading, 
 haunting us in our dreams, and making us ashamed to 
 see that we are now wilfully permitting the things for 
 which our ancestors joyfully gave their lives to fall 
 into decay, which must end in ultimate ruin. But 
 whatever may be the effect of the reading of the litera- 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 17 
 
 ture of the ages just mentioned with regard to our high | 
 opinion of ourselves, it will certainly result in being 
 proud of our ancestors. For it is amidst all these 
 persecutions, and this terrible distress, that Ash- 
 kenaz Judaism reveals itself in allits heroism and saintly 
 qualities. Itwas Ashkenaz Judaism which introduced 
 a regular benediction for the occasion when man is 
 facing martyrdom, running thus: ‘Blessed art Thou, 
 O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who has 
 sanctified us by Thy commandments and bade us love 
 Thy glorious and awful Name Who was and is and will 
 be, with all our heart and all our soul, and to sanc- 
 tify Thy Name in public. Blessed art Thou O Lord 
 who sanctifies Thy Name among the many.”’ 
 
 However, as just indicated, I do not intend to 
 dwell on these martyrdoms, and shall devote the next 
 few paragraphs to the saintly lives of the Ashkenaz 
 rabbis. I am thinking of that aspect of saintliness 
 which cannot be measured by the standard of the law. 
 For it is one of the characteristics of the saint that 
 he never wants for a distinctive commandment. The 
 various precepts of the Bible are for him so many 
 memoranda, or head-lines, each leading to new trains 
 of thought and suggestive of any number of infer- 
 ences. ‘‘Who is a saint?’ a mystic asserts. ‘‘He who 
 acts kindly with his Maker,’ or as the Rabbis expressed 
 it in their more prosaic language, ‘‘who sanctifies 
 himself even in things permitted.”’ 
 
 “Go,” the saint says, “go beyond the mere 
 letter of duty. Be not content with avoiding 
 what is clearly illicit, deny thyself something of 
 what is allowed; for so thou shalt sanctify thy life, 
 
18 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and make it a holy service of God.” And thus the 
 famous ‘fence’, which the rabbis erected around the 
 religious citadel, is extended. Human restrictions, 
 voluntary, self-imposed, are to keep the divine pre- 
 cepts safe from violation. It is an austere principle, 
 no doubt, foreign to the temper of our age; but it is 
 a noble principle, and one that must be taken into 
 account if we are to understand the morality of a by- 
 gone day. 
 
 Most prominent among the leaders of the holi- 
 ness movement were, as it was to be expected, the 
 Ashkenaz saints, many of whom were also avowed 
 mystics. Mysticism is not an esoteric plant on the 
 soil of Judaism, as some of our platitudinarians be- 
 lieve. There was always a certain tendency towards 
 mysticism in Judaism of one kind or another. The 
 Spanish school had its own mysticism, which was more 
 of the intellectual kind and developed into a quasi- 
 philosophy. That of German Judaism was more of 
 the theosophic brand, and led to worship. | 
 
 But what was common to both the Spanish and 
 German schools was that they remained loyal to 
 the Law and rarely degenerated into throwing off 
 the yoke of the Torah. Jewish mysticism never be- 
 held, as did the Apostle Peter, the famous vessel de- 
 scending from heaven where all manner of four-footed 
 beasts and creeping things of the earth and fowl of 
 the air were contained, which was the signal to the 
 abolition of the dietary laws. Quite the reverse, 
 the tendency of Jewish mysticism was in the direction 
 of self-denial, which developed into an austere life 
 and renunciation of all appetites as far as it was com- 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 19 
 
 patible with the spirit of the Torah, which held always 
 the right balance between the flesh and the spirit, 
 ignoring neither. 
 
 This austerity, however, in no way hardened 
 these saints or deprived them of that sympathy 
 and kindliness which we would hardly expect from 
 men leading an ascetic life. They were full of Gemiit, 
 most severe against themselves and most lenient to- 
 wards their neighbors. This conception of conduct 
 is particularly prominent in the so-called Hasidim 
 Literature. I am referring to the ‘‘Book of the Saints’’ 
 (o-?pN "BD) by Rabbi Judah he-Hasid, the son of R. 
 Samuel he-Hasid, and the short “Book of the Saints,”’ 
 by R. Moses b. Eliezer ha-Kohen. The former par- 
 ticularly abounds in orders of penance for the sinner 
 which are of a most severe nature, but at the same 
 time full of the most humane precepts. Here are 
 a few specimens: 
 
 ‘““Mention always the name of thy neighbor be- 
 fore thine own, and say: ‘My friend and myself’.”’ 
 
 ‘Be not jealous of the man who is greater than 
 thou and despise none who is smaller than thou.”’ 
 
 “Tf thou hast a guest, never speak to him about 
 learned matters unless thou knowest he is able to par- 
 take in the conversation.” 
 
 ““Never put to shame thy man-servant or thy 
 maid-servant.”’ 
 
 ‘The man who is cruel to animals will have to 
 answer for it on the Day of Judgment, and the very 
 drivers will be punished for applying the spur too often.”’ 
 
 “Those who constantly fast are not in the good 
 way. Scribes, teachers, and workmen are altogether 
 
20 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 forbidden to inflict penance upon themselves. If 
 the Holy One, blessed be He, had any particular de- 
 light in much fasting, He would have commanded 
 it to Israel; but He only asked of them that they should 
 serve Him in humility.” 
 
 “Tf a man should ask: ‘Behold, I have money; 
 shall I buy a Scroll of the Law for it or shall I distrib- 
 ute it to the destitute poor?’ Answer him with 
 the words of Isaiah: ‘When thou seest the naked, that 
 thou cover him, and hide not thyself from thine flesh.’”’ 
 
 “Tf a man sees a non-Jew committing a sin, let 
 him protest against it if he has the power to do so; 
 for behold, did not the Holy One, blessed be He, send 
 the prophet Jonah to the people of Nineveh that they 
 may do repentance?”’ 
 
 “The Holy One, blessed be He, executes the 
 judgment of the oppressed, whether Jew or Christian, 
 hence cheat not anybody.” 
 
 Moses b. Eliezer ha-Kohen writes: 
 
 “Keep thyself removed from everything that 
 is ugly and which even appears as ugly. Be chaste 
 in all thy ways, when thou risest, when thou liest 
 down, when thou sittest and when thou walkest.’’ 
 
 ‘Be ever careful to feed the poultry in thy house 
 before thou takest thy meal.” 
 
 ‘Keep thyself supplied with the various fruits 
 which the Lord has created, so that thou mayest 
 praise Him for every particular kind. For indeed, 
 man will give account and reckoning for everything 
 which he saw and did not taste, if permitted to him.” 
 
 “Tf thy friend is about to buy a house, a book, 
 an ornament, or even fruit, do not compete with him 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 23 
 
 until thou knowest that he gave up all thought of 
 buying it.” 
 
 ‘‘Know the God of thy Fathers, and serve Him 
 in every possible way, even at the risk of thy fortune.”’ 
 
 “‘Be careful never to cheat a non-Jew or to de- 
 ceive anybody in any way, for such things are worse 
 than eating pork; pork being forbidden by only one 
 prohibitive commandment, while the cheating of a 
 non-Jew involves the transgression of many laws, 
 especially those connected with the desecration of 
 the Name of the Lord.”’ 
 
 “Never keep back thy mercy and compassion from 
 any thing which the Holy One, blessed be He, created 
 in this world, be it even a dog or a cat or a creeping 
 thing, or even a fly or a wasp. Imitate thy Maker, 
 and feed them, for it is written, ‘The Lord is good 
 to all and His tender mercies are over all His works.’ 
 It is also said of God that ‘He gives food to all flesh, 
 for His mercy endureth for ever’.”’ 
 
 ‘Be very careful not to say an untruth even in 
 the way of a joke, or an overstatement, the Scripture 
 constantly warning against it, in the Torah and 
 in the Prophets and in the Hagiographa.”’ 
 
 “Look over the particular portion of the Scripture 
 and the Liturgy assigned foreachseason. Neglect not 
 from repeating and studying everything in its time.” 
 
 The good Rabbi Salman of the fourteenth cen- 
 tury has, in his will, the injunction: “Be honest and 
 conscientious in your dealings with men, with Jews as 
 well as Gentiles; be kind and obliging to them; do 
 not speak what is superfluous.’’ We have still to 
 discover a will of a Christian of the same century who 
 
22 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 would bid his son at least not to murder Jews. The 
 literature of ethical wills is altogether a remarkable 
 one and called forth the admiration and astonish- 
 ment of a Christian professor of the eighteenth cen- 
 tury, who suddenly made the discovery that the Jews 
 actually knew something of morality and ethics. 
 
 I must not omit mentioning R. Eliezer b. Jehudah 
 of Worms, the well known author of the book Rokeah 
 the greatest perhaps of the disciples of R. Jehudah 
 he-Hasid. He was a strict legalist, as may be seen 
 from the book just mentioned, but at the same time, 
 a thorough mystic. As most of the Chasidim, he 
 passed through the severe tests of the suffering in the 
 age of the Crusades. “‘On the fatal day in November 1196 
 the Soldiers of the Cross burst into his house, as he was 
 engaged in writing his commentary on Genesis, 
 plundered it of its contents, cruelly maltreated his wife 
 and then murdered her and their children. The Rabbi 
 alone escaped with bare life.” The key to his. mys- 
 ticism is the well-known injunction of his, which is 
 partly derived from the old Rabbinical literature: 
 ‘Know that the Holy One is within thee.’”’ But this 
 suggestive Immanence never degenerated with him 
 into the fleshly excesses of the lawless mystics. ‘‘For, 
 he continues, “therefore let thy life be one of holi- 
 ness and self-denial. The very mention of God’s 
 awful name should make all thy limbs tremble. Fix 
 thy mind upon the Almighty when thou standest before 
 Him in prayer, and should some alien thought come 
 to thee in thy devotions, be silent until thy heart is 
 joined once more in reverence to thy Creator. Say 
 to thyself whilst thou prayest, ‘How honored am I 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 23 
 
 in being suffered to offer a crown to the King of Glory !— 
 I, who am but clay; I will rend the bonds of my heart, 
 and in awe and humility will I enter the Divine Gates.’ 
 But this consciousness of the nearness of God led 
 with him not less to the loveof God. Thus he pleads 
 with his readers: 
 
 ‘‘My son, hearken to my voice; love the Lord thy 
 God. Let thy heart know Him, and declare His 
 unity. Do thy work until eventide; but remember 
 to love Him at ali times. See, He stands before thee! 
 He is thy Father, thy Master, thy Maker; submit 
 thyself to Him. Ah, happy is he whose _ heart 
 trembleth with the joy of God and is forever singing 
 to its Maker! He bears patiently the divine yoke, 
 he is humble and self-denying, he scorns the world’s 
 vain pleasures, he lives by his faith, he has gentle 
 speech for all, he rejoices in the joys of others, he 
 loves his neighbor, and does charity in secret.”’ 
 
 I have spoken of the persecution of the German 
 Jews or of Ashkenaz Judaism, which formed one long 
 chain of suffering from about the end of the eleventh 
 century until the end of the fifteenth. This statement 
 requires some modification. For the persecutions under 
 one form or another continued until about the end of 
 the eighteenth century, when they suffered a break 
 through the intervention of the French Revolution. 
 
 It is, however, not to be denied that the six- 
 teenth century saw some little abating of the per- 
 secutions, and this for the simple reason that there 
 were not sufficient Jews to persecute on a large scale. 
 The German kings and princes continued to be as 
 cruel and as rapacious as they had ever been, but the 
 
24. STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 Jews became fewer. The distress of the fifteenth 
 century was so great that Ashkenaz Jewry at last 
 began to scatter and seek refuge in Turkey under 
 the mild government of the Ottoman sultans, but 
 chiefly in Poland, in which the greatest numbers found 
 an asylum. But for this fact, we would have had 
 now a German Pale with six or seven millions of Jews, 
 with a Jewish-German problem before us, instead 
 of a Jewish-Russian one. And this might have 
 been perhaps worse. For it is easier to fight savagery 
 and barbarity than to grapple with that subtle and 
 philosophic “Hep, Hep!’ which is so characteristic 
 of the German, and is even now driving more Jews 
 to the baptismal font than the Russian and Rouma- 
 nian massacres. Thus the Exodus from Germany, 
 by a merciful Providence, began in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, and the great German names are now to be found 
 in the land of the Poles, and, except R. Meir Schiff, 
 Germany could not boast, in the last three centuries 
 before the French Revolution, even of a famous Tal- 
 mudist. Such famous rabbis as they had were all 
 imported from Poland. The nineteenth century 
 finds German Judaism practically powerless and pros- 
 trated, and this will explain many a phenomenon con- 
 nected with our spiritual history during the nine- 
 teenth century. 
 
 However, it would be invidious for me to enlarge 
 upon the subject. My intention was only to make 
 one acquainted with an aspect of German Judaism 
 not generally known. And so let us praise God that 
 we have lived to see better times, but we must never 
 forget the German saints. 
 
“AS OTHERS SAW HIM” 
 
 A Retrospect, A. D. 54 
 
 The theological novel, as embodied in the numer- 
 ous Lives and Times of Jesus, is a product of a com- 
 paratively late date. The Gospel of John, which is 
 considered by some critics to represent a sort of 
 Hellenistic spiritual romance, found little imitation. 
 Nor, indeed, could it. When the pagan world of 
 antiquity accepted Jesus, it meant in no wise to play 
 at hero-worship. The Greeks as well as the Romans 
 had quite a respectable number of heroes of their own 
 make, and there was no need for a change in this re- 
 spect. What the world yearned after was God, and 
 if Jesus should receive the homage of mankind, he 
 had to become a God for all theological purposes. 
 
 But who would, who could, be so presumptuous as 
 to write the life of a god? The very thought is blas- 
 phemous. As a German theologian expressed it, 
 Das Leben Jesu tst der Tod Christi. Life associates 
 with itself death, and suggests even to the untutored 
 mind a career brought to an end. It was not, there- 
 fore, until this century, when the divinity of Christ 
 began to be questioned and the doctrine of incarna- 
 tion was by all sorts of German-Indian dialectics 
 reduced to a shadow of its original meaning, so that 
 the belief in it offers fewer difficulties to the semi- 
 atheist than to those who ‘ ‘preach no system nebulous 
 
26 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and new, God is or is not’’, that the life of Christ 
 became a subject of inquiry, and students would 
 make the attempt to write it. 
 
 But the difficulties to be overcome are too great. 
 The times are too remote, the documents too scarce and 
 insufficient—extending only over the last three years 
 of Jesus’ life—and full of contradictions and discrep- 
 ancies, whilst the contemporary literature of the 
 Jews, who are supposed to have been both the target 
 of his wrath and the object of his pity and prayers, 
 has not left us a single reference to this controversy. 
 Apart from these facts, there was always a desire 
 among these writers to display more of the artist than 
 of the biographer. Whether conservative or liberal, 
 they aimed more at edifying their respective aud- 
 iences than at making them acquainted with the real 
 events of the time. 
 
 For this reason, instead of writing history, these 
 ““biographers”’ of Jesus endeavor todraw pictures of per- 
 fection, the notion of which varies with each country. 
 To name here only the two most popular of these 
 romances—whilst the solemn and rather forbidding 
 Jesus of our Ecce Homo has something of the Rugby 
 hero about him, in whom the severe morality and 
 stern truthfulness almost crush the sympathetic 
 and pathetic elements, the subject of Renan’s Vie 
 de Jésus reminds one more of the beautiful soul— 
 a sort of Amiel with less speculation and more faith— 
 who compensates for his few common weaknesses 
 by his boundless compassion and generosity. Thus 
 we have an English Jesus, a French Jesus, and so 
 many more national Jesuses whom it would be super- 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM a7, 
 
 fluous to introduce here. But where is the only true 
 Jesus, the Jesus of the Jews? 
 
 The Gospels give no adequate answer to this 
 question. In spite of the tendency common to all 
 critics to attribute every unpleasant feature in the 
 history of Jesus to the Judaic shortcomings of his 
 disciples, they represent as little real Jewish opin- 
 ion as the divinity of the Fifth-Monarchy men or 
 the Adventists can be said to be a true expression of 
 English or American thought. They, the adherents 
 of Jesus, belonged to a little band of Separatists, a 
 new kind of Pharisees, but who were recruited from 
 the lower class of the nation and with whom the ex- 
 posure and abuse of the scholars, the judges, the elders, 
 and other leaders of the nation formed, as it would 
 seem, as much a part of their edifying conversation 
 as the miraculous stories of their Master. 
 
 But what did the nation at large, to which all 
 these representative classes belonged, think of the 
 Jesuite movement—in other words: How did others 
 see him? To answer this question, an attempt is 
 made in the new theological romance which has lately 
 appeared under the title ‘‘As Others Saw Him: A 
 Retrospect, A. D. 54’’. 
 
 The Other who saw him is Meshullam ben Zadok, 
 “fa scribe of the Jews in Alexandria” and a former 
 member of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem who, in a sort 
 of memoir, intended to satisfy the curiosity of his 
 Greek friend, Aglaophonos, physician at Corinth, 
 tries to give a connected account of the events relating 
 to the activity of Jesus and his death, which he wit- 
 nessed some twenty years before. 
 
28 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 We will point out at once that the romance which 
 will occupy us in this place is small in size, so that 
 there is no objection to its perusal on this head, and 
 we further assure the reader that he will find in it 
 many excellent things and fresh features for which 
 he will look in vain in the cognate theologico-romantic 
 productions of a much larger bulk. The most orig- 
 inal part of our work in which Meshullam saw mat- 
 ters in a different light from that in which so many 
 others saw them, is Chapter VIII, the Rebuking of 
 Jesus. In this chapter is treated the incident of Jesus’ 
 invitation by a Pharisee to dine with him (Luke 11.37, 
 and parallels). Meshullam’s memory is in the right 
 when he describes the occasion as a “religious meal”’ 
 (Seudat Mitzvah), though we greatly doubt that 
 it was a Barmitzvah meal, as this whole ceremony 
 and everything connected with it dates probably 
 from a much later period. The question of eating 
 bread with unwashed hands was brought up at this 
 dinner, and resulted in fierce invectives by Jesus 
 against the Pharisees. 
 
 Exception has been taken by some theological 
 writers to this strange behavior of Jesus towards 
 his host and his Pharisaic friends. Renan as- 
 cribes this lack of good manners to ‘“‘one of the 
 principal defects in the Jewish race in which harsh- 
 ness in controversy and the abusive tone which 
 it always infuses in it’’ are so characteristic. Dr. 
 Martineau gets over the difficulty by declaring the 
 story apocryphal, as being incongruous with the char- 
 acter of Jesus. With Dr. Martineau’s three ‘‘critical 
 rules’’, the history of Jesus can mould itself to any 
 
 4 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 29 
 
 form. On the other hand, the author of Ecce 
 Homo accounts for it by a new “‘law of resentment’’, 
 according to which “he who would make allowance 
 for the publican and prostitute, made no allowance 
 at all for the Pharisee’”’. Thus, the Pharisee has no 
 claim to a gentle and polite treatment. 
 
 More important, however, than the question 
 of politeness is that of the truth of the accusation 
 brought by Jesus against the Pharisees—of hypo- 
 crisy, of doing good work only for the sake of gaining 
 favor with the people, of plundering the poor, of rob- 
 bing the widows, and of murdering the prophets. 
 The novelist just quoted (the author of Ecce Homo) 
 says indeed that ‘‘we have not the evidence before 
 us which might enable us to verify this accusation”’, 
 but he slips over the difficulty by quoting the French 
 apercu: ‘La petite morale est l’ennemti de la grande’, 
 followed by a long catalogue of the sins of the Phar- 
 isees (according to the Gospels) and winding up his 
 long dissertation with the exclamation: ‘‘We must 
 remember that this is He who was called a Lamb.”’ 
 This is very edifying, but is it history? The his- 
 torian would derive from this action of Jesus that 
 the epithet of “lamb”’ was wrongly applied to him; 
 and if he would attempt to reproduce the outraged 
 sentiments of those present, he could certainly not put 
 them in more emphatic terms than those with which 
 Simon ben Lazarus gave vent to his wounded feelings — 
 
 “Young man, fourscore years and two have I 
 lived upon this earth; a Pharisee have I been from 
 the day I became a son of the covenant, like little 
 Lazarus there; a scribe was I during all the working 
 
30 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 days of my life. I did what the Law and the Sages 
 command, yet never thought I in doing so of men’s 
 thoughts or praises. Surely, if the Lord command, 
 a good Jew will obey. And as in many things, many 
 acts of this life, the Law speaketh not in plain terms, 
 surely we should follow the opinion of those who de- 
 vote all their life to the study of the Law. 
 
 ‘“T have never sought the praise of men, their 
 greetings or their honors, in obeying the Law. In all 
 that I have done, I have sought one thing—to fulfil 
 the will of our Father which is in heaven. 
 
 ‘‘As for what thou sayest, that inward thought 
 and outward act should go together in the service 
 of God and man, that is a verity, and often have 
 I heard the saying from the great Hillel—may his 
 memory be for a blessing! But if outward act 
 may be clean when inward thought may be unclean, 
 how, on the other hand, can we know the purity 
 of what is within, except it be decided by the clean- 
 liness of what is without? How, above all, shall 
 we teach our little ones, like my Lazarus there, 
 to feel what is good and seemly, except by first teach- 
 ing them to do the acts that are seemly and good? 
 
 “And as for what thou sayestas tothehypocrisy of 
 us Pharisees and scribes, I say unto thee—and ina few 
 days I must see theface of my Maker—I say unto thee, 
 I have known many an Ebionite, which thou seemest 
 to be, who was well-spoken within but ill-doing with- 
 out. So, too, I have known many a scribe and many 
 a Pharisee who neither carried their good deeds on 
 their shoulders nor said: “Wait, I have to finish some 
 godly deed’, nor set off their good deeds against their 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 31 
 
 sins; nor boasted of their sacrifices or godly works; nor _ 
 did they seek out their sins that they might pay for 
 them by their virtues; nor were they Pharisees from 
 fear of the Divine punishment. They were Phari- 
 sees from love of the Lord, and did throughout their 
 life what they knew to be His commands’’ (pp. 
 101-103). 
 
 St stc omnia! Meshullam does not always re- 
 main true to himself, and occasionally he appears 
 in the light of such a devotee that it is difficult to 
 see why his editor took the trouble at all to publish 
 his account and did not at once refer us to the nar- 
 rative of the Gospels or rather to some modern 7é- 
 chauffée of it, as the ‘‘ Philo-Christus’’ or some other 
 semi-rational life of Christ. 
 
 Two things, however, must be borne in mind when 
 reading As Others Saw Him. First, that Meshullam’s 
 memoir dates from 54 A. D. Meshullam seems to 
 have waked to the import of the event to which he 
 bears witness only through the missionary activity 
 of Paul, which is some twenty years after the death 
 of Jesus. He, therefore, did not write fresh from sight 
 but from memory, which we have good reason to sus- 
 pect was already impaired, so that occasionally he not 
 only confused the facts but even unconsciously in- 
 vented new ones to fill up the gaps due to his own 
 forgetfulness. 
 
 Secondly, that Meshullam is not a real ‘‘Other.”’ 
 Though a Jew and a member of the Sanhedrin, he 
 is not free from Hellenistic tendencies, having been 
 a pupil of a Greek physician and, like his master, a 
 citizen of the Kosmos (p. 17), whilst later in life he 
 
32 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 left his country for Alexandria, the capital of Hel- 
 lenism, from which his letter to Aglaophonos is dated. 
 This will account for the fact that the interpretations 
 which he gave to events are sometimes quite foreign 
 to the spirit of his nation. 
 
 We think that Meshullam’s memory was decided- 
 ly at fault when he professed to have been present 
 when Jesus turned over the tables of the money-chang- 
 ers, whom he then scourged out from the Temple, ex- 
 pelling at the same time those who had for sale doves 
 as sacrifices for the poor. But it was this act that 
 Jesus repeated ona later occasion (pp. 133-135), which, 
 according to Meshullam, drew upon him the jealousy 
 and hatred of the high priest, whose great riches came 
 mainly from the sale of animals for sacrifices, in which 
 he had a share (p. 6). This jealousy resulted, as it 
 is hinted to us (in chapter xiv), in a sort of conspiracy 
 formed by the High Priest and his partisans, which 
 influenced the verdict of the Sanhedrin condemning 
 Jesus to death. 
 
 Meshullam is, of course, only anticipating. But 
 we are convinced that a Jewish contemporary of Jesus 
 would have thought the whole story greatly exagger- 
 ated if not entirely invented. As an inhabitant of 
 Jerusalem, Meshullam must have been aware that 
 neither beasts of sacrifice nor doves were sold in the 
 Temple, but either in some stables in or outside the 
 city, or on the Mount of Olives. In the Temple itself 
 there was hardly room for such cattle markets as were 
 required by the demands of the pilgrims and of the resi- 
 dents of Jerusalem, even if reduced to the pitiful numbers 
 estimated by Chwolson, which are certainly very low.* 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 33 
 
 Even with regard to the money-changers, there | 
 are still grave doubts whether they had their stalls 
 in Jerusalem or in the Temple. The former is the 
 more likely, since we know it was deemed so high a 
 duty to keep out from the holy place everything incom- 
 patible with the rules of propriety and decorum, that 
 a law was enacted forbidding visitors to enter the 
 Temple while bearing their money-belts about them. 
 There may have been occasional exceptions, but doubt- 
 less, these were managed in such a way that there 
 could be no wounding of the innate ‘“‘ Awe of the Sanc- 
 tuary’’. 
 
 Besides, as everyone who has read the tractate 
 Middot or Tamid knows, the organization of the Temple 
 was so perfect and the discipline so strict (each inch of 
 space having its prescribed use and every transaction 
 in it being conducted by appointed officers only), 
 that it is hardly credible that an unofficial person 
 would have been allowed to disturb its order or that 
 those who were affected by this disturbance would 
 have allowed themselves to be scourged out of the 
 place allotted to them by the proper authorities. 
 
 In a well-disciplined society in which every 
 member received his orders from the chief official 
 neither the scourge nor even quotations from the 
 Bible are the proper means to effect a reform. The 
 reformer would first apply to a proper court, which 
 alone had the power of altering the regulations. In 
 fact, when R. Simon b. Gamaliel resented the high 
 price to which the pigeons required for sacrifice had 
 been run up and even took an oath that he would 
 not rest till the evil should be removed, he did not 
 
34 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 act in a high-handed way—by scourge and abusive 
 language—but applied to the proper authorities, the 
 Bet Din, and procured from it the decision that not 
 so many sacrifices are required in certain cases as 
 the worshippers believe; by which means, indeed, 
 he soon attained his end—the value of pigeons hav- 
 ing soon after dropped to a fraction of the former 
 price. 
 
 The whole story of the Gospels must, as al- 
 ready suggested by some authorities, be reduced to 
 this: Jesus, on his way to the temple, passed the money- 
 changers, who, for the convenience of the pilgrims, had 
 their stalls in the nezghborhood of the Temple Mount, 
 and, resenting their bargainings, passed some censure 
 upon them, which, of course, had no further conse- 
 quences for the order of the Temple. 
 
 Nor would a contemporary permit the accu- 
 sation brought by Meshullam against the high priest 
 Hanan and his ecclesiastical friends to be considered 
 a just one. Heaven knows that we have very few 
 prejudices in favor of ecclesiastics or priests of any 
 description or age. Some high priests were very ob- 
 noxious indeed—rapacious, office-seeking, above all, 
 grasping after authority and certainly not very scrup- 
 ulous as to the means employed for obtaining it. 
 “Woe unto me,’”’ exclaimed a certain Rabbi, “‘be- 
 cause of the house of Hanan and their intrigues. Woe 
 unto me, because of the house of Ishmael b. Phiabi, 
 who are themselves High Priests,—their sons treasurers 
 —their sons-in-law prefects of the Temple—while their 
 slaves beat the people with sticks.” 
 
 But not the exclamation of a rabbi, nor the 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 35 
 
 hypothesis of a Dérenbourg, nor even the subtle ingen- 
 uity of a Chwolson is weighty enough to condemn them 
 of ajudicial murder. As far as sources go, there is not 
 the slightest hint that the priests controlled the trade 
 in sacrificial animals or had any share in it.? 
 
 It was on this occasion that Meshullam first 
 discovered that light in the eyes of Jesus which changed 
 so quickly from flashing scorn on the money-changers 
 to so tender a glance upon the little child (p. 4), and 
 that the gaze of his eyes caused Meshullam to 
 feel as if all his being were laid bare and all his se- 
 cret thoughts and sins revealed to them as if 
 they were in communion with the Shekinah or Glory 
 itself (p. 84). 
 
 These are personal impressions to which Me- 
 shullam is most welcome. But from an admirer 
 to a believer is only a short step, and he is so much 
 carried away by these eyes, that he discerns in 
 them that shining light of prophecy ‘‘by which we 
 know that a man is a Nabz”’ (p. 20). If Meshullam 
 says it, we will believe him. There are even legends 
 to the effect that the Messiah will be known by the 
 light which will shine upon him. But we may re- 
 mark that R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, a contemporary 
 of the apostles, also possessed this gift, “his face shin- 
 ing like the sun and emitting rays of light like that 
 of Moses when he was expounding the Torah”. Yet, 
 he was only recognized as a great sage, not as a 
 prophet. At a later period, we meet with Nathan of 
 the Light, so called on account of the halo surround- 
 ing his head; but it is not known that he claimed the gift 
 of prophecy, though he was considered a great saint. - 
 
36 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 However, a believer cannot be expected to trouble 
 himself about such niceties as the distinction between 
 the sage, who is only interpreting the word of God, 
 and the prophet who is himself the chosen implement 
 for its revelation. But Meshullam passes soon from 
 this humble véle to that of an important witness 
 bearing evidence to the miraculous powers of Jesus. 
 His words are: ‘‘Now as he (Jesus) began to live 
 his life among the people, he began to do many signs 
 and wonders, like all our great leaders and prophets. 
 Indeed, we say, never shall a man be accounted a 
 prophet unless he can do wonders” (p. 26). 
 
 Now, there is little objection to the fact in it- 
 self. In the time of Jesus, miraculous cures and 
 other wonders were at least as frequent as, let us say, 
 successful surgical operations in our day. But, be- 
 fore and after Jesus, many a Jew enjoyed the priv- 
 ilege of interfering with the laws of nature. Just 
 about the time of Jesus, there existed a whole order 
 —the Essenes—who were addicted to wonder-work- 
 ing and who, we imagine, occasionally left their set- 
 tlements with the purpose of exhibiting their super- 
 natural powers in villages and provincial towns, for 
 the benefit of their admirers. What I object to is 
 that Meshullam reduced these miracles of Jesus to 
 a minimum, confining his report to the miracle of 
 Jesus’ driving out demons by fixing his eyes on the 
 sufferer, ““when, behold! a great calm would come 
 upon the man or woman who were possessed of evil 
 spirits”? (p. 27), but omitting all mention of cures of 
 such bodily ailments as leprosy, fevers, dropsy, blind- 
 ness, and deafness. 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 37 
 
 Nor does Meshullam allude to any miracles 
 relating to the lower animals and to inanimate 
 nature, such as destroying the swine, the feeding of 
 five thousand men with seven loaves, walking upon 
 the sea, stilling the tempest and turning the water 
 into wine. On the miracle of miracles—the raising 
 of the dead—he is entirely mute. In the suppression 
 of these important facts, which could not be forced 
 into the sympathy or gaze theory, Meshullam is only 
 anticipating our modern Gospel-compilers, whose 
 great principle in dealing with these ancient docu- 
 ments seems to be that ‘‘whilst we cannot too strong- 
 ly insist that the student should approach these great 
 authorities with a proper reverential and devotion- 
 al mind, he must on the other hand give credence to 
 exactly as much as he finds convenient and not more’’. 
 
 Not less anticipatory is Meshullam when he 
 assures us that Jesus neither used exorcism or magic 
 in his healing, nor spoke in the name of God, but with 
 the tone of one having authority in himself. This 
 interpretation is decidedly in the spirit of Wellhausen 
 and other writers of the same school, who _ resent 
 so much that ‘‘in the Synoptics Jesus appears as a 
 thaumaturge’’. But no ordinary Jew “of 54A. D?’ could 
 possibly have objected either to the number of the 
 miracles or the authority in the name of which they 
 were worked, so long as this authority was “‘the fin- 
 ger of God” or “‘the spirit of God’”’ (which means 
 praying to God or invoking in His name) and not 
 some power in enmity to God—Satan or Beelzebub. 
 
 This modern tendency, which is a decided anach- 
 ronism with a Jew “of 54 A. D.’’, is also prominent 
 
38 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 in Meshullam’s account of the last days of Jesus. 
 If there is anything certain in the history of Jesus, 
 it is that he avowed himself, first privately and 
 afterwards publicly, to be the Messiah or the Christ 
 of the Jews. His Messianic pattern was given in 
 the rabbinic interpretations of certain passages in 
 the Old Testament as well as in certain apocalyp- 
 tic writings circulating in his time. This feature 
 in Jesus was always a sore point with the theo- 
 logical Romanztert, not only on account of its being 
 too Jewish, but also of the fact that Jesus’ Messianic 
 claims were never made good. 
 
 There are only two alternatives to get over 
 the difficulty: either to assume, as some theo- 
 logians do, that Jesus used the word Messiah in a 
 sense differing from that in which the Jews under- 
 stood it, meaning by this term the spiritual an- 
 ointed who will redeem the world: from its sins 
 (whatever that may mean), or to deny, with the more 
 advanced school, this Messianic consciousness in 
 Jesus, attributing all his utterances and actions point- 
 ing at these Messianic claims to the misconceptions 
 of his first biographers—who were so badly equipped 
 in modern theology. 
 
 Meshullam is up-to-date and he seems to be wa- 
 vering between these two schools (see pp. 180, 210, and 
 212); but on the whole he is rather inclined to the 
 latter view. He heard with suspicions the self- 
 assertions of Jesus, claiming to be the Way, the Light 
 of the World, the good Shepherd, the Truth and the 
 Life (111), but the ‘““Good Message’”’ seems to have 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 39 
 
 escaped him, only the people mistaking him for the 
 Messiah (pp. 47 and 116). 
 
 It is with this tendency, that Meshullam gives 
 such a prosaic account of Jesus’ entry into Jeru- 
 salem, bringing him up to the Holy City for the 
 mere law-fulfilling purpose of celebrating the Feast 
 of Passover (p.120). But the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
 who were on the eve of a rebellion against the Ro- 
 mans, and, as such, in want of a leader (p. 122), hailed 
 him either by confusing him with Jesus bar Ab- 
 bas, or on account of his own popularity, as their 
 deliverer on the ‘‘coming of the Kingdom”’ (pp. 124- 
 5). The object of all this demonstration, however, 
 remained quite passive. On his face there were no 
 signs of his coming triumph, riding there on his young 
 ass, with his head bent forward, his eyes downcast, and 
 his face all sad (p. 124). 
 
 Quite a different story are we told in the New 
 Testament, in the substance of which the Syn- 
 optics agree. According to their version, his en- 
 try into Jerusalem had a higher purpose, and form- 
 ed probably the most glorious moment of his life, 
 for which he himself took the initiative in full con- 
 sciousness of its significance, commanding his disciples 
 to go and fetch a colt for him, so that there might be 
 fulfilled what is written by the prophet: ‘Behold, be- 
 hold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek and riding 
 on an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass” 
 (Zechariah 9.10). Meanwhile the multitude that went 
 before him and that followed cried: ‘‘Hosanna to the 
 son of David’’ (see Matthew 21. 1-11, and parallels). 
 The account is, of course, a little exaggerated, and it 
 
40 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 is not impossible that all these multitudes may be 
 reduced to a few adherents of Jesus, who were deter- 
 mined to prepare for their master a Messianic 
 reception. 
 
 Indeed, we greatly fear that the face of the haughty 
 rabbi of the first century who stumbled upon some 
 obscure document relating to Jesus’ entry into Jeru- 
 salem as King, as some theologians fondly call it, bore 
 the same semi-benign, semi-sarcastic smile which 
 might be observed on the face of a pompous English 
 Dean reading the telegrams of the War Cry, announcing 
 the triumphal entry of the “General”’ into New York 
 and the conquest of America. But the smiles of all the 
 rabbis in Palestine and of all the rationalists of to-day 
 could not alter the fact that Jesus did believe himself 
 to be the Messiah, that this appearance did form a 
 part of his Messianic programme, and that he accom- 
 plished it in his own way. 
 
 Jesus’ solemn entry into Jerusalem was followed 
 on the day after by his going to the Temple where he 
 performed a “‘Second Cleansing’”’. As we have seen, 
 there is little basis in fact for the whole story, 
 which probably circulated in two versions, to be con- 
 verted by Meshullam’s ingenuity into two separate 
 events. Meshullam relates that his having been 
 present in the Temple on this cleansing was only due 
 to the chance that on that day he had to offer a sin- 
 offering, and was waiting in the court of the Israel- 
 ites, while the priests were preparing the midday sac- 
 rifice (p. 134). We are afraid that he waited in vain, 
 for, according to the fixed rule, the midday sacrifice 
 concluded the sacrificial service for the day, no of- 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 41 
 
 fering, whether public or private, being permitted 
 at the altar after the Tamud. 
 
 On the third day of the week Jesus uttered the Woes 
 against the Pharisees. The cause of this irritation 
 seems to have been R. Johanan b. Zaccai, ‘‘the presi- 
 dent of the Tribunal’’, who when he passed Jesus 
 saluted him indeed, but the salutation had some- 
 thing of the pride and contempt with which the 
 Masters of the Law regarded all those whom they 
 called country-folk (pp. 144-5). Now it is true that 
 R. Johanan was in the habit of greeting every man 
 first even though he was a heathen. It is also true 
 that his experience of the Galileans was that they 
 hated the Torah, which he indeed resented. But 
 in the year 33 A. D. he must have been still a middle- 
 aged man when, according to the chronological 
 date, he was still a disciple, not a master, whilst it is 
 certain that he did not attain the presidentship of 
 the tribunal till after the destruction of the Temple 
 or, perhaps, even as late as 80 A. D. The president 
 of the tribunal or the Nasi at the time of which Mesh- 
 ullam speaks—if there existed such a court besides 
 the Sanhedrin—must have been a descendant of Hil- 
 lel, Rabban Gamaliel, or Simon of the same family. 
 
 In the Woes themselves Meshullam agrees with 
 Matthew 23.1-33, but omits (with certain comment- 
 ators),in verse 10, the words ‘‘even the Christ’’, which 
 would, of course, not be quite in harmony with the 
 theory of Jesus’ claims. Unfortunately, there was 
 no Simon ben Lazarus present to protest against these 
 terrible denunciations. 
 
 Altogether, these Woes are obscure, and the 
 
42 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 student of Jewish literature cannot help feeling 
 that the author’s or compiler’s knowledge of Phari- 
 saic lore must have been very vague. For, as a 
 fact, if a man swore by the Temple or the altar, 
 it was considered as an oath, whilst the simile of the 
 cleansing of the outside of the cup and of the 
 platter shows that the author was incorrectly informed 
 about the matter, for, according to the Halakah, it 
 was the inside of the cup which chiefly ‘received 
 defilement”’ (Tum’ah). 
 
 Nor, indeed, was the title of Rabbi, or even 
 Rabban, so common in that early period. Hillel 
 had no title, and so it is doubtful whether even 
 his son possessed it; and when titles had become 
 more fashionable, the rabbis themselves warned 
 their disciples not to study the Torah with the 
 purpose of being called Rabbi or Hakam. As 
 to the general charge of hypocrisy embraced in the 
 Woes, we have already heard the admirable rejoin- 
 der of Simon ben Lazarus. We shall only add that 
 the Christians did not hold the sole brief for this 
 vague and general charge of hypocrisy. The accu- 
 sation was mutual. Just as the Christians perceived 
 in the devotion of the Pharisees to the Law only a 
 means to insinuate themselves into the good opinion of 
 the people, so the Jews regarded the Christians’ claims 
 to a superior holiness only as an excuse to emancipate 
 themselves from the common duties of life. This 
 ‘“‘emancipation,”’ the Jews thought, threatened to 
 degenerate into antinomianism and hence they brand- 
 ed them as Hanefim, meaning hypocrites. 
 
 And again, while the Christians saw in the de- 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 43 
 
 struction of Jerusalem and the temple a punishment of 
 God befalling the nation for their sins against Jesus, the 
 Jews maintained that it was the sin of heresy, so ram- 
 pant in Jerusalem during the last period of its existence, 
 which brought upon them those terrible misfortunes. 
 It is not for us to decide who were in the right, but 
 we should think that it is high time that historians 
 should listen to both sides or rule out of court all 
 these mutual recriminations as worthless partisan 
 evidence. 
 
 The fourth day after Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem 
 is marked by what Meshullam calls the ‘‘Great Refus- 
 al,’’ the common people expecting him to be the Christ, 
 the founder of the New Kingdom, ‘‘who would not 
 suffer longer the yoke of the Romans to lie upon the 
 neck of Israel’’ (p. 154), but he ‘‘refused to be their 
 liberator’ (p. 160). One of the most important feat- 
 ures among the occurrences of this fourth day was 
 the Messianic controversy between Jesus and the 
 Pharisees, during which the well-known argument 
 from Matthew 22, 41-46 (and parallels) was ad- 
 vanced, at which argument the Pharisees ‘knew not 
 what to say, for no man had hitherto used that 
 stuchos of the Psalm, and they knew not what to 
 reply’’ (p. 158). Matthew (zb7d.) tells us a similar 
 story, but Meshullam, a member of the San- 
 hedrin and a frequent visitor of the Pharisaic schools, 
 ought to have known that his friends were not the 
 men to be brought to silence by such an argument. 
 Why, indeed, should David not call one of his de- 
 scendants ‘‘Lord’’, if he is the Messiah whose title 
 is (according to Jewish tradition) “‘ Lord’’, and of whom 
 
44 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 the universal belief was that he was to be king of the 
 past and of the future generations? 
 
 For us, the whole argument would only prove 
 that this Psalm was interpreted in Jewish schools to 
 refer to the Messiah, and, in fact, there are Messianic 
 allusions enough in the rabbinic literature’ There is 
 even reason to suppose that this Psalm formed, in 
 olden times, one of those synagogue lessons which 
 were taken from the Hagiographa and which, as 
 so many others, were interpreted to allude to the 
 Messiah. 
 
 The few inaccuracies or misconceptions in Mesh- 
 ullam’s account, viewed together with so much that is 
 excellent and true in it, leads us to the conclusion that 
 the learned editor of this memoir intended less to give 
 us the opinions of the real plain Other than to present 
 us the sem2-Other who alone may be looked upon as 
 the connecting link between Judaism and early 
 Christianity. The real Other asserts himself not only 
 in the admirable speech of Simon ben Lazarus but also 
 in the fine historical tact which made Meshullam see 
 that the original version of the Parable, narrated in 
 Luke 10.33., must have been ‘‘but a certain Israelite”’ 
 (instead of Samaritan). This is the only possible 
 opposition to the two sections of the Jews mentioned 
 in that connection: the Priests and the Levites (p. 77). 
 We shall thus have to replace the Good Samaritan 
 of the Parable by the Good Israelite, who is the third 
 estate of Jewish society, as the Priests and Levites 
 were the first and second. 
 
 So does the real Other assert himself in Meshullam 
 when it seemed to him, from what he heard of Jesus’ 
 
AS OTHERS SAW HIM 45 
 
 teaching, that he had learned much from the Law for 
 the heathen (p. 44). The repulsion which Meshullam 
 felt against the claims of Jesus to be the Truth, the 
 Life, the Light, etc., with regard to which he reminds 
 his friend that we (Jews) see the Deity everywhere, 
 and that we localize him nowhere, is also a healthy sign 
 of a real Other, who is not altogether wanting in 
 Meshullam’s account. But he is _ intentionally 
 not allowed to come into full play, Meshullam 
 being meant as a combination of Other and some- 
 thing else, thus enabling him to obtain impressions 
 which his colleagues and former fellow-countrymen 
 failed to receive. In the representation of this story 
 of Other, our editor has admirably succeeded. Asa 
 stroke of genius we consider the incident of Jesus’ 
 sudden appearance to Meshullam in his home in Je- 
 rusalem, when he spoke to him in a low but piercing 
 voice, these words: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and 
 arise from the dead, and the Christ shall shine upon 
 thee”’ (p. 90), and this, at the same time, when Jesus 
 was seen by others in Gethsemane. Here Meshullam 
 is preparing the way for Paulinism. 
 
 The last time when the real Other asserts himself— 
 of course, to be modified instantly by the semi-Other— 
 is when Meshullam exclaims, at the end of his memoir: 
 “But Israel is greater than any of his sons.”’ There 
 is a world of suggestion in these mighty words. Israel 
 is greater, not only than any of his sons, but than any 
 of the sects and systems which ever went forth from 
 his loins—Essenism, Sadduceeism, Pharisaism, Christ- 
 ianism and Mohammedanism. 
 
 Almost all the epithets and metaphors indicative 
 
46 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 either of themeekness of Jesus or of his communion 
 with God were originally applied to Israel, from which 
 they were transferred by his pupils to the founder 
 of their sect, and we have no doubt that a thorough 
 study of Jewish literature will lead to the conviction 
 that Jesus was less meant as an incarnation of God 
 than as an incarnation of Israel. Those who are 
 so anxious for the rehabilitation of Jesus in the syn- 
 agogue had best apply themselves to the rehabilita- 
 tion of Israel in the synagogue, that is, to obtain a 
 thorough knowledge of Judaism in all its phases of 
 thought and all the stages of its history. 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 
 
 THIS is an age of anniversaries. Though this 
 century is still in its infancy, it can boast of more 
 ‘‘Books of Jubilees’”’ or “Semi-Jubilees’’ than any 
 other century in its mature age of a full hundred 
 years. Russian Jewry takes the lead, which is only 
 natural, seeing that it is the classical ground of the 
 Zaddikim-cult, hero-worship. Germany and France 
 come next, as may be seen from the number 
 of volumes owing their origin to some festive occa- 
 sion in the honor of some great man, dead or alive. 
 Even America, which is not particularly given to 
 looking backward, takes delight in honoring, in var- 
 ious ways, the memory of its great religious leaders 
 and spiritual benefactors, native or borrowed from 
 abroad. All of which goes to show that modernity 
 itself, in spite of its self-complacency, and parading 
 as the revelation of the present, somehow feels the 
 need of tracing itself to the past, albeit the nearest 
 past. Even the term tradition, which for so long 
 a time had almost disappeared from our vocabulary, 
 has come into its own and is appealed to in a most 
 solemn manner. We may smile at the claims made 
 for this mushroom tradition, considering that it has 
 neither the sanction of the bulk of the nation nor 
 the weight of almost countless ages; yet there is some- 
 thing gratifying in the appeal to the tradition: it is 
 only another sign that with all our “valor of ignor- 
 
48 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 ance’’ and prattling about the god in ourselves, there 
 is something in our religious conscience which doubts 
 our infallibility and urges for authority and prece- 
 dent. 
 
 The most important of these “ Jubilee-Books’’, 
 published in recent times and relating to Judaism, 
 is the volume, Abraham Geiger, Leben und Lebens- 
 werk, which appeared on the occasion of the hundredth 
 birthday of the hero whose name adorns the title- 
 page. Unlike, however, other productions of this 
 kind, where the hero is a mere accident appear- 
 ing on the title-page and is, as a rule, disposed of 
 with a few complimentary words at the beginning 
 or the end of each contribution, the volume under 
 notice has the hero itself as the subject. Now, 
 Geiger was a great scholar; indeed, one of the great- 
 est that modern Judaism has given us. He was also 
 very productive, so that there are few departments 
 of Jewish science that he has not enriched with his 
 contributions, as may be seen from the excellent 
 bibliography at the end of the volume compiled by 
 Dr. Stern. But he was also an active rabbi, a great 
 preacher, and a most passionate controversialist, 
 figuring as the most prominent leader of the reform 
 movement among the German Jews during the nine- 
 teenth century, defending it both in the press and 
 in the pulpit. He was further the editor of two suc- 
 cessive periodicals and a contributor to other jour- 
 nals. During the last years of his life he occupied 
 also a chair as professor of divinity in the Berlin 
 Hochschule. 
 
 Nothing less, therefore, than the combined 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 49 
 
 efforts of an enthusiastic band of devotees could 
 do justice to a life whose interests were so wide 
 and whose activities were so manifold; and it is the 
 result of this combination that is now offered to us 
 in this volume. It forms a collection of essays con- 
 tributed by various scholars, each of them endeavor- 
 ing to give us a faithful picture of that aspect of the 
 master especially appealing to him. Nothing that 
 Geiger did or wrote has escaped them. It will suf- 
 fice to mention the essay of Dr. Immanuel Low on 
 “Geiger as a Philologist’’, accompanied by a list of 
 Hebrew and Aramaic words explained by the latter, 
 to show how minute and close a study some of the 
 contributors to the volume have brought to bear 
 upon this labor of love. This is indeed the right man- 
 ner to honor our great men and the only way in which 
 the student’s need of hero-worship should find ex- 
 pression. 
 
 The only fault we have to find is that other con- 
 tributors in their zeal for their hero did not always 
 observe the Golden Rule laid down by John Stuart 
 Mill for men engaged in this heavenly task. ‘Hero 
 worship, as Carlyle calls it’’, Mill writes to a cor- 
 respondent, “‘is doubtless a fine thing, but it must 
 be worship not of a hero, but of heroes. Whoever 
 gives himself up to the guidance of one man because 
 that one is the best and ablest whom he happens to 
 know, will in nine cases out of ten make himself the 
 slave of that most misleading thing: a clever man’s 
 twists and prejudices. One hero and sage is neces- 
 sary to correct another”’ (Letters of J. S.Mill, p. 384). 
 And Geiger, great as he was, was certainly not with- 
 
50 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 out ‘‘twists and prejudices”’, as well as other frail- 
 ties and weaknesses to which all flesh is subject. 
 
 It should be said at once that this stricture does 
 not apply to the more scientific part of this volume, 
 dealing with Geiger, der Mann der Wissenschaft. The 
 contributors to this part were by no means slow to 
 do justice to Geiger, the scholar. They give us full 
 and lengthy appreciations of Geiger’s work as Bible 
 critic, as historian and philologist, and as Literar- 
 historiker, or critic. Particular value is attached to 
 Geiger’s achievements in the history of Jewish sects 
 by nearly all the contributors, while Dr. Poznanski as- 
 signs to it a special essay. And well he might! No 
 amount of praise can be extravagant when lavished 
 on Geiger’s work in that department of Jewish his- 
 tory in which he restores to us many a missing link 
 in the chain of Jewish heresies puzzling his prede- 
 cessors. One might almost say that he had a genius 
 for heresy-hunting, running them down to their 
 lairs and following their various fortunes through 
 history. 
 
 But it is just these heresies which so often 
 act as a stimulus, if not a corrective, to religion in 
 that they preserve it from stagnation and impel it 
 to fresh efforts. Geiger’s greatness in this line was 
 particularly shown in his hypothesis regarding the 
 origin of the Sadducees and their historical affinities 
 with contemporary as well as successive sects. It 
 proved one of the most fruitful conjectures advanced 
 by modern scholars. 
 
 All this admiration, however, for Geiger’s 
 genius—and no serious scholar will ever withhold 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 51 
 
 it—did not prevent the learned contributors from 
 indicating at least that there are points in Geiger’s 
 theories not always tenable in the light of later 
 researches, whilst it is also hinted at that he was 
 not always happy in the working out of his details 
 (see e. g. pp. 320, 325, 335, 337, 343, 334, etc). In- 
 deed, it would have been more than a miracle if the 
 continued study of this subject for more than fifty 
 years should not have led to the detection, in the work 
 of the master, of some weak points now in need of 
 correction. I am even inclined to think that the 
 discoveries made within the last decades, much as 
 they may seem at the first glance to support Geiger’s 
 hypotheses, will, after a more careful study, call for 
 a revision of Geiger’s work, Die Urschrift, monumen- 
 tal though it be. For such an eventuality, we are 
 more or less prepared by the contributors to the more 
 scientific part of our volume, suggesting as they do 
 by hints thrown out here and there how little final- 
 ity was obtainable even by such a scholar as Geiger. 
 
 This spirit of discernment which praises but at 
 the same time judges, which does not allow its powers 
 of criticism and discretion to become entirely: cloud- 
 ed by the incense which it burns before its idol, is un- 
 fortunately absent from the rest of the volume, which 
 may be best described as the controversial part. 
 Practically, it is a party pamphlet. It suffers no 
 rival hero and tolerates no other point of view. It 
 is a sort of manifesto of the present aims and ideals 
 of the party, sanctioned in advance by its only hero. 
 
 This part includes also a biographical essay by 
 the son of our hero, Professor Ludwig Geiger. Pro- 
 
52 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 fessor Geiger is not exactly a Hebrew scholar nor a 
 Jewish theologian, though he is somewhat known to 
 Jewish students by his contributions to German 
 Jewish history. If we are not mistaken, among his 
 varied activities, he is also at present the editor of 
 a German Jewish paper.t' But what the professor 
 lacks in Jewish learning is fairly made up by the knowl- 
 edge of the period, his close acquaintance with the 
 friends and colleagues of his father, and his access 
 to family papers naturally not within the reach of 
 the public. The essay covers more than a third of 
 the volume (pp. 1-204), and bears witness to the fil- 
 ial piety of the writer and to the close intimacy be- 
 tween the rabbi and the professor. It is certainly 
 not only one of the best written but also one of the 
 most complete lives we possess of the great men in 
 Israel, following the career of its subject from the 
 cradle to the grave. 
 
 Perhaps it is a little too complete. A great 
 English writer once made the remark: ‘There is a 
 great discovery still to be made in literature, that of 
 paying literary men by the quantity they do not 
 write’. And this is nowhere more true than in the 
 species of literature engaging us at present, where 
 certain undesirable quantities are liable to, produce 
 the very opposite effect from that aimed at by the 
 writer. The correspondence of Geiger, especially 
 that with Professor Dérenbourg, published some years 
 ago by the latter,” is, as is well known, teeming with 
 such quantities. But we shall confine ourselves to 
 samples in our present volume. 
 
 As such we may characterize the letter in which 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 53 
 
 the rabbi describes to a correspondent the jolly man- 
 ner in which he spent the Tish‘ah be-Ab when on a 
 visit to his brother-in-law, Herr Hamburger. The 
 rabbi, for reasons of his own, did not observe the fast, 
 but was it necessary to put this fact on record for the 
 benefit of posterity? It is certainly not very edi- 
 fying to see your hero describing with much relish 
 how he enjoyed his meal on the fast-day, behind 
 bolted doors and drawn blinds, whilst his kinsmen 
 and his family did refrain from food, a fact which 
 afforded the rabbi much amusement (p.159). Sure- 
 ly, self-denial will always be more admired than self- 
 indulgence, and the real hero of the episode is Ham- 
 burger, not Geiger. 
 
 More serious are the objections to the presen- 
 tation the professor gives of the Geiger-Tiktin con- 
 troversy. It is the Passion-Story of the reform Gos- 
 pel, with the only difference perhaps that in this case 
 legend has it that it was Caiphas who died of a 
 broken heart whilst the Savior of Modernity came 
 out triumphant from his Via Dolorosa and was happy 
 forever after. To understand our objections better, 
 we shall premise here a few lines from a letter of Geiger 
 to his son. 
 
 As it would seem, Geiger the rabbi, in the 
 early youth of the professor, had entertained the 
 hope that his son would one day prove the worthy 
 successor of his father, both as a Hebrew scholar and 
 rabbi. In this he was doomed to disappointment, 
 the son apparently preferring the call of professor in 
 certain secular branches, of which he is now a worthy 
 exponent in the Berlin University, to that of a Jewish 
 
54 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 divine. The rabbi felt this disappointment deeply 
 and expressed it in a letter. ‘‘Whenever I acquired 
 a book,’”’ the rabbi writes, “‘my thoughts were that 
 it will benefit my Ludwig; or, as often as I had anno- 
 tated it or penned some remarks, I had in mind that 
 it may prove useful to Ludwig. I should grieve 
 to have cherished a beautiful dream which would 
 have to disappear in the light of reality” (p. 181). 
 But, as it appears from the context of the letter, the 
 future professor entertained serious conscientious 
 scruples against entering upon the rabbinical pro- 
 fession, which presumed the utterance of formulae or 
 terms expressive of a belief in certain doctrines which 
 he did not fully share. 
 
 We shall have occasion later on to comment 
 -upon the rabbi’s endeavor to meet the apparently 
 inflexible scepticism of his son. What we wish 
 to remark in this place is that one who was so fully 
 alive to the difficulties of reconciling the results 
 of Wissenschaft even with the office of a reform 
 rabbi in the sixties, should not have been quite 
 insensible to the incongruity of his father serving as 
 Dayyan in a strictly orthodox Bet-Din in the forties. 
 Think only of the modernist, or even a budding modern- 
 ist as Loisy, insisting upon having a seat on the Propa- 
 ganda Fidei, to assist there in deciding questions 
 of doctrine and practice. We may sympathize with 
 his views, butcommon sense and common justice would 
 readily agree that his claims were nothing less than 
 preposterous. 
 
 The presentation of this Tiktin controversy 
 would have us believe that it was a question of Wis. 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 55 
 
 senschaft and enlightenment, on one hand, and ignor- 
 ance and fanaticism on the other. (See pp.78, 81, 
 92, etc). This is certainly not the fact. The opposition 
 to Geiger was not lacking in men of great rabbin- 
 ical learning and high moral character, though they 
 did not anticipate Wellhausen in his conception of 
 history nor even forestall Geiger in his estimate of 
 rabbinical Judaism; whilst as to fanaticism, any- 
 one who has read the documents relating to the un- 
 fortunate controversy will see that the followers of 
 Geiger were as little distinguished by charitableness 
 and forbearance as were the partisans of Tiktin. 
 
 The fact is that there were great principles at stake 
 which always were and will ever be at war and for 
 which humanity has never learned to fight and never 
 will, inachivalrous, calm, and judicial spirit, and which 
 the professor should not have treated so lightly. 
 On the one side, loyalty to tradition and allegiance 
 to authority maintained by Israel at great sacrifice 
 through more than two thousand years; on the other 
 side, the right of private judgment, the palladium 
 of the Protestant Reformation asserted again by 
 David Friedrich Strauss who, the professor as- 
 sures us, had considerable influence on Geiger (p. 29). 
 This revealed a chasm which no amount of circum- 
 locution such as historical development, continuous 
 tradition, progressive Judaism, and living religion, 
 could bridge over. The one insisted upon his right 
 as a son of the nineteenth century to unsparing 
 criticism of Jewish institutions and the Biblical 
 sources of these institutions (see p. 29), whilst the 
 other, a product of two thousand years of thinking 
 
56 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and suffering, clung to the privilege of living in and 
 dying for the law of his fathers. For indeed it was 
 nothing less than this that the devotion to the Law 
 meant to men of the stamp of Akiba Eger, Solomon 
 Tiktin, and Mordecai Baneth. 
 
 To adapt here a passage from Carlyle’s Historical 
 Sketches:3 ‘‘Descending into these old ages, we are 
 struck most of all with this strange fact, that they were 
 ‘Jewish’ ages. Actually, men in those times were pos- 
 sessed with the belief that, in addition to their evident 
 greedy appetites, they had immortal souls not a whit 
 less evident; souls which after death would have to ap- 
 pear before the Most High Judge, and give an account 
 of their procedure in the conduct of said appetites 
 with an issue that was endless.’’ And in those 
 Jewish ages, this Most High Judge was not the God 
 who dwelt in you, a God ‘‘on improvement’’ who 
 was holy because you were holy, fashioning himself 
 in accordance with your will and whim; but the Holy 
 One of Israel, a personal and living God, eternal, 
 absolute, and real. And it was further believed that 
 this Holy One of Israel, revealed His holy will through 
 His Holy Torah, to teach Israel ways of holiness, so 
 that they become a holy people, tamed in their ap- 
 petites, separated from their neighbors, and stand- 
 ing aloof from the vanities and abominations of the 
 world around them, and responsible for every action 
 of theirs, be it ever so unimportant or trifling in their 
 eyes. 
 
 These ancestors of ours may not always have 
 lived up to the ideals resulting from such a belief. 
 The “leaven in the dough” and the ‘‘servitude to 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 57 
 
 ’ 
 
 the kingdoms’’ may have proved too strong for them 
 too. And this leaven certainly became more ferment- 
 ing and more powerful at the beginning of the last 
 century. But this was no reason for these poor, old, 
 benighted Jews to make a rush at the sanctuary and 
 lay violent hands upon it. As they conceived it, 
 it was their sins that were responsible for the apostasy 
 of Israel, and it was not the fault of Israel’s ancient and 
 sacred heritage. They prayed, they confessed, and 
 grieved, and left the tinkering and the battering away 
 of Judaism to others who believed themselves to be 
 master hands at such performances. 
 
 We have already expressed our admiration for 
 Geiger as a scholar, and there is no need of protest- 
 ing too much. But when the theological contrib- 
 utors describe Geiger as a theologian, and even de- 
 clare that in a certain sense he has to be looked upon 
 as the founder of the systematic theology of Judaism, 
 we must beg to differ. As with all his contemp- 
 oraries, Zunz, Frankel, Rapoport, and so many 
 others, his interests centered in philology and history, 
 not in theology. 
 
 The list of Geiger’s productions, alluded to 
 above, recording so little which may be described 
 as theology, bears out this statement. As to this 
 little, we may note the introductory pages to his 
 series of lectures on Das Judenthum und seine Ge- 
 schichte, which, however, treats largely of the na- 
 ture of religion in general, in the well-known manner 
 of the old liberal school, Jewish as well as Christian. 
 To that little also belongs Die Exnlettung in das Stu- 
 dium der jiidischen Theologie, covering the largest 
 
58 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 part of the second volume of the Nachgelassene 
 Schriften, but of which only a few pages deal with 
 theology proper, if under this term we have to under- 
 stand the treatment of such topics as God, revela- 
 tion, righteousness, the kingdom of God, sacrifice 
 and prayer, law, holiness, the origin of evil, sin, re- 
 ward and punishment, repentance, salvation, and 
 a variety of other similar subjects that form, as a 
 rule, the contents of our standard works on theology. 
 
 The only essay of a really theological character by 
 Geiger is perhaps that on original sin (Erbsiinde) 
 covering about five pages (Jiidische Zeitschrift vol. 
 10, pp. 166-171). Naturally, as a preacher and con- 
 troversialist, and even more as a prayer-book maker, 
 Geiger often had opportunity of touching on theo- 
 logical subjects. But such accidental remarks and 
 stray statements and frequent vehement attacks on 
 opponents, and unguarded expressions in correspon- 
 dence with friends, would at the most amount to mere 
 patchwork, which by the very nature of its inherent 
 violence and exaggeration (from which no polemics 
 can ever escape) is bound to be the very opposite of 
 anything approaching to systematic theology. 
 
 On the whole, this theology greatly resembles 
 the species of divinity preached by the Broad Church 
 School, with this difference, that the English product, 
 though less cloudy, is more solemn and less given to 
 that cheap abuse of persons and things in which the 
 Germans so often indulge. But what is common 
 to both is the basic principle of re-interpretation 
 which Leslie Stephen somewhere described so dras- 
 tically as the art of using ‘‘the old language in a dif- 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 59 
 
 ferent sense or to deprive it of sense altogether’. 
 Here is an instance taken from the rabbi’s correspon- 
 dence with his son already referred to above. As it 
 would seem, the latter had among the various reasons 
 deterring him from the calling of a Jewish minister 
 also the one that he felt some difficulty in speaking 
 of the Torah as the word of God. The rabbi meets 
 this with the words: ‘‘The word of God? Well, 
 indeed, the way in which God speaks, especially in 
 all great deeds of the spirit; and here is certainly one 
 of the greatest deeds of the spirit in the history of 
 humanity”’ (p. 180). He then proceeds to remark 
 that “in this book legends and myths overgrow the 
 stem as a foliage, that the story of the Creation is a 
 part of this, that also matters having become barren 
 by time as the ceremonies from their origin and even 
 more so in the later troubled times, threatened and 
 still threaten partly to consume the fresh sap. All 
 these facts did not prove detrimental to the vigorous 
 root and the sound stem. We have conquered for 
 us the right to proclaim such views in public’’ (zbzd.). 
 
 The same thought appears also, at some greater 
 length, in a letter to his friend Dr. Maier, with the 
 additional remark to the effect: “The work of re- 
 generation should be taken in hand seriously, a deep- 
 er knowledge of history must go hand in hand with 
 executive practical work (p. 217). This is good 
 Broad Church doctrine, and hardly in need of com- 
 ment, but if we consider it a little more closely, es- 
 pecially the contemptuous reference to myths, legends, 
 and ceremonies, we find that in spite of its solemn 
 tone and poetical metaphor, we have in the passages 
 
60 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 nothing more than an unctuous paraphrase of an- 
 other remark of Geiger’s dating from an earlier 
 period. There he declares that the Bible is a complex 
 of the beautiful and the sublime, perhaps the most 
 sublime of all human books, and must cease to be 
 looked upon as divine (pp. 29, 30). This must 
 again be taken in connection with another passage 
 in which the professor assures us that all that exists 
 is only an historical growth and accordingly has 
 no binding power (p. 29). En passant, this is cheap 
 sophistry. According to the greatest of our modern 
 savants, the most important of our institutions, 
 such as government, property, family, marriage, and 
 many others, are a mere growth, and may in some 
 cases be traced back in their origin to the most 
 revolting notions of savage humanity. And yet, 
 none (with the exception of a few fanatical anar- 
 chists, perhaps) would ever think that this fact 
 relieves him of the duties of the institutions and ob- 
 ligations upon which society is based and which make 
 the sum of our civilization. At any rate these les- 
 sons from history are not quite conclusive, and their 
 applications are certainly not of a constructive nature. 
 
 To take another point, as with all reformers, 
 the mission doctrine formed a most important feat- 
 ure in Geiger’s theology. Indeed he exclaims in 
 one place: ‘‘We would have to cease to be Jews were 
 we to believe that our historical mission in the world 
 has reached its end” (p. 262). This sounds very 
 solemn and inspiring. For our part we prefer un- 
 conditional Judaism, and consider the following state- 
 ment of Rabbi Moses Sofer to give evidence of a 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 61 
 
 
 
 much nobler and deeper loyalty to Judaism. This 
 obscurantist and mediaevalist, with all his thorough 
 undivided belief in the advent of the Messiah, 
 to which he clung with every fibre in his heart, de- 
 clared that ‘‘even should our sins bring upon us the 
 punishment which would forever prevent our re- 
 demption, this fact would not release us from our 
 allegiance to the Torah.”” However, we will assume 
 that Geiger’s belief in the mission was so strong 
 and absolute, that the conditional way in which 
 he put it was a mere rhetorical flourish. 
 
 But we certainly cannot refrain from pointing out 
 that our theological contributors show very little discre- 
 tion when they declare that Geiger’s demand that 
 Judaism become one day the universal and only re- 
 ligion of humanity exceeds even that of the prophets, 
 of the Law-givers, of our philosophers, and of our 
 commentators. They reason that, whilst those 
 ancient and modern authorities (except Geiger) 
 expected the future religion of humanity to become 
 what, for brevity’s sake, may be called an ‘“‘ethical 
 monotheism,’ Geiger claimed that it will be the 
 Jewish religion which will become the universal re- 
 ligion of the world (p. 260). 
 
 Now, the worst devotee of the Zaddikim-cult 
 would have become suspicious at hearing that the creed 
 of his Zaddik was greater and deeper than that of the 
 Law-giver. Nor indeed wasGeiger’s. For, practically, 
 that Judaism for which Geiger made those sublime 
 claims will have to be first subjected toa reform, strip- 
 ping it, as our contributors maintain, of all that is tem- 
 porary and local in it—in other words, of all national 
 
62 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 elements. But this, in spite of all pious qualification 
 and solemn circumlocution, means rather a gradu- 
 al conversion of Judaism to the universal religion, 
 or, asitis sometimes called, the prophetic religion, than 
 a conversion of the world to Judaism. This suffi- 
 ciently explains the fact that our claims for the Jewish 
 religion, which involve the final abnegation of Israel, 
 have become so much more imperial in our own times 
 than were those of prophets and Law-givers. Even 
 “four own Amos”? would have turned from such a 
 theological proposition with abhorrence. 
 
 Indeed, the great defect in Geiger’s theology 
 is the little room given there to the Israel idea, hardly 
 noticeable as a theological factor. It is true that 
 Geiger speaks of Israel as the people of the Revelation, 
 endowed with a religious genius which made it the pro- 
 per organ for bringing into contact the human with 
 the divine (p. 252). He even disputed the theory 
 that Israel was fora long time only a henotheistic (in con- 
 tradistinction tomonotheistic) people, of which we read 
 so much in modern theology and which is broached 
 frequently even in Jewish pulpits by the latest disciples 
 of the ‘“‘master’’ (see p. 255). Yet, he considered 
 Israel’s life as a people (or as a nation) only as the tem- 
 porary husk, serving to maintain the kernel, continuing 
 to be necessary even in the dispersion, but the destin- 
 ation of Judaism is to become the universal religionor 
 religion of humanity. (See p. 259; see also p. 275.) 
 Hence his resentment against the use of the term 
 “nation’’ (or Volk), whether by Jew or Christian, in 
 connection with Israel (see Nachgelassene Schriften, 
 vol. 2, p. 326), whilst he never tired of protesting 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 63 
 
 
 
 against the belief in the advent of the Messiah and the 
 restoration to Palestine, which had to disappear from 
 the prayer-book wherever his authority was recog- 
 nized. 
 
 No Roman procurator of Palestine or Chris- 
 tian bishop of Antioch or Jerusalem could ever have 
 been more hostile than was Geiger to any national 
 aspiration on the part of the Jews, which he at once 
 dubbed as romanticism and reaction. When the 
 famous traveller and philanthropist, Albert Cohn, 
 in an address on his return from a journey to Pales- 
 ine, expressed the hope of seeing Jerusalem become the 
 seat of culture and happiness, hinting that at least 
 a part of us may find their dwelling in the Holy Land, 
 Geiger could not refrain from protesting against this 
 height of romanticism. He scolded him as well as 
 his colleagues of the Alliance Israélite, who apparently 
 at that time had still some national aspirations, 
 for giving too much attention to the Orient, 
 etc. (Jiidische Zeitschrift, vol. 10, p. 217). In the 
 manner of so many modern preachers, Jerusalem 
 became to him a thought (Gedanke), orrather a symbol, 
 not a place limited by space (p. 272). But to 
 pray for Palestine and its sacred places, he con- 
 sidered suicide and blasphemy (Jidische Zeitschrift, 
 VOID) OS.) 
 
 Thoroughly scientific as he was, Geiger would, 
 when it was a question of Jewish nationality and 
 restoration, sink to the level of common pulpi- 
 tasters to whose shallow harrangues one can only 
 apply the well-known saying of Maimonides: 
 “Every preachment is but babbling.” It is enough 
 
64 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 to refer here to the strange, amusingly ungrammatical 
 interpretation of Isaiah, 2.3, of which he says: “ For 
 us it may mean: For out of Zion came forth the Law, 
 instead of ‘shall go forth’ ” (Jtidische Zeitschrift, vol. 
 6, p. 18). 
 
 In another place he polemizes against the 
 romanticism of the ‘“‘Holy’’ Land (the quotation 
 marks are Geiger’s), and endeavors to prove that 
 as often as a healthy spirit breathed through Is- 
 rael the Land of Promise was considered as some- 
 thing unimportant and inconsequential. He ap- 
 peals in all seriousness among others, to Jeremiah 
 and to the statement of Rab Judah (Ketubot 110b) 
 that he who emigrates from Babylon to Palestine 
 transgresses a prohibitive command (Jidische Zett- 
 schrift, vol. 3, pp. 146 and 147). This statement is, of 
 course, against the opinion of all the predecessors, con- 
 temporaries and successors of Rab Judah, and was 
 ignored by his own pupils. Probably there were some 
 personal reasons, now unknown to us, for this strange 
 isolated dictum. However, one thing is certain, that, 
 in spite of these reasons, there is not the slightest doubt 
 that Rab Judah would equally with his contempo- 
 raries have objected to all attempts at purging the 
 liturgy in the modern manner, and would have stig- 
 matized them as crass sectarianism. 
 
 But whilst Geiger recognizes in Rab Judah of 
 Babylon a forerunner of modern tendencies, he per- 
 ceives in the longing for Palestine of Rabbi Judah ha- 
 Levi of Spain, which found expression in his famous po- 
 em ‘‘Zion’’, and other poetical pieces, something mor- 
 bid and diseased, which made him appear to his con- 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 65 
 
 temporaries as fantastic and eccentric (Jzdische 
 Zeitschrift, vol. 3, p.148). That Rabbi Judah ha- 
 Levi’s poem had found so many imitations of which the 
 liturgy is full, need hardly be told. But we may re- 
 mark here that it is now certain that Jerusalem was 
 a gathering-point even in post-talmudic times, and 
 during the Tabernacle Feast harbored pilgrims from 
 all parts, even outside of Palestine, who came there 
 and had great celebrations on the Mount of Olives. 
 These pilgrimages ceased only with the Crusades, to 
 which was due, of course, the fact that Nahmanides 
 and Judah ha-Levi were heard so little of after their 
 reaching the Holy Land. 
 
 Of course, all this antagonism was a consequence 
 of his universalistic tendencies, for which Judaism had 
 to bring all sacrifices. The craving for emancipation 
 had also its share in it. The great thing was not to 
 offend one’s fellow-citizens. The consciousness of 
 forming a part of the new fatherland demanded the 
 abandoning of the doctrine of the advent of the Mes- 
 siah. Only fools and eccentrics, according to him, 
 still cling to this belief (Jiidische Zeitschrift, vol. 7, p. 
 12). The doctrine of the election of Israel, to which 
 he did not entirely object, had also to be qualified and 
 modified, at least was not to be so often emphasized 
 as others thought. His pitiful efforts towards a com- 
 promise between utterance and silence strongly re- 
 mind us of the reduced gentlewoman who, compelled 
 by poverty to cry fresh eggs through the streets, 
 added after every call: ‘‘I hope nobody hears me.” 
 Such formulae in the prayer-book as emphasized the 
 separation of Israel must also disappear lest we give 
 
66 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 offence to our neighbors. (See zbid. pp. 55 and 56. 
 See also Abraham Geiger, p. 264). The Hebrew language, 
 which, as he expressed it, was during the time of 
 our national imagining (nationalen Phantasielebens) 
 a sort of home, must also be reduced to a minimum 
 in our generation, in which our culture, our intellec- 
 tual life, and our social activities root in the vernac- 
 ular. And he exclaims: ‘History has given her judg- 
 ment (against the Hebrew language), even though this 
 judgment is not yet carried out, and all lamentations 
 against this condition of things are useless. No pro- 
 test is justified against the forces of history’’ (Jidische 
 Zeitschrift, vol. 7, p. 7). 
 
 Perhaps we may remark that if our ancestors 
 had thought in the same manner in the time after 
 the destruction of the Temple, or in the age of 
 Constantine, when Christianity became the dominant 
 religion, or in the ages of the Crusades, or later on 
 during the persecution of the Black Death, or in the age 
 of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, when it seemed as 
 if the whole universe arrayed itself against the re- 
 ligion of Israel, Judaism would have long ago dis- 
 appeared. To all appearances, the judgment of 
 history was certainly against us. The really great Jew 
 was that exile from Spain who knew how to spite 
 history, and who, in the most despairing moments of his 
 life, his wife and children having starved to death, and 
 he himself in a fainting condition from starvation, 
 exclaimed: “In spite of all powers of heaven and earth 
 a Jew I am, and a Jew J shall remain’. In the same © 
 category of the doomed fall also circumcision, which 
 is a mere barbaric relic, as well the dietary laws, which 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 67 
 
 ceremonies are only an obstacle in the way of the re- 
 alization of the great ideal of the brotherhood of hu- 
 manity. (See Nachgelassene Schriften, vol. 5, pp. 181, 
 182, and 183). 
 
 This hostile attitude towards ceremonies and 
 symbols, as well as towards the Jew in general, as far as 
 they served to preserve Israel as a distinct people, af- 
 fected not only his theology but also his conception of 
 Jewish history. Iam especially referring to the head- 
 ing in his Introduction to the Study of Jewish Theology 
 alluded to above: ‘“‘Stubborn (or Inflexible) Legalism, 
 Extending from the Sixth to the Middle of the 
 Eighteenth Century’’. (Nachgelassene Schriften, vol. 
 2, p. 129; see also p. 64.) Such a heading would 
 certainly be more in place in an Introduction to 
 the New Testament, with the only difference per- 
 haps that the Christian divine would extend these 
 periods of stubborn legalism on both sides. But no 
 Jewish theologian who speaks of continuity and unity 
 could ever admit such a blank covering nearly fifteen 
 hundred years in Jewish thought. Nor is there, 
 indeed, much unity and continuity in Geiger’s con- 
 ception of Jewish history, in spite of the smooth read- 
 ing that his lectures on Das Judenthum und seine 
 Geschichte offer to the reader. 
 
 Bishop Stubbs, the famous historian of the 
 English constitution, once remarked that no dis- 
 senter could ever write a good English history, 
 as, with the dissenters, the English people only 
 begin with Cromwell. The same may be remarked 
 of Geiger and his school, with whom Jewish history 
 
68 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 breaks up somewhere in antiquity, to begin again with 
 Mendelssohn, who prepared the way for that “New 
 Theology’’ which dawned upon Israel in the thirties. 
 (Nachgelassene Schriften, vol.2, p. 26.) The general 
 impression received from Geiger’s writings, historical 
 as well as theological, is that to the author the 
 whole history of Judaism for more than a thousand 
 years was nothing less than a wide, hopeless mo- 
 rass, full of legal miasma, and teeming with ob- 
 noxious, mystic, superstitious creatures, only offering 
 now and then a few stepping-stones, such as a 
 grammarian, a few commentators, a few poets, and 
 a few philosophers and sectarians, contesting tradition, 
 bridging over the chasm from hopeless Rabbinism to 
 the promised land of modernity. 
 
 For the great inarticulate ones, both in the 
 East and in the West, their suffering, their boundless 
 love for God and Israel, their loyalty to the Torah, 
 their readiness to sacrifice, their continuous martyr- 
 dom, their simple lives and their simple manners, their 
 unassuming and spontaneous piety and deeply affec- 
 tionate nature that found expression in their devotion- 
 al literature, their incessant cry after God, as voiced 
 by their ungrammatical but deeply spiritual Piyyutim, 
 their wills, their rules of conduct, Geiger had very 
 little understanding or interest, except, perhaps, in- 
 sofar as they occasionally may have had “lucid 
 moments’’, and made some remark or other to be 
 quoted with advantage at some Synod. For this we 
 must go to Zunz, who was at least as liberal in his 
 opinions as Geiger, perhaps even more liberal, as he 
 did not belong even to the Broad Church. No party 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 69 
 
 can claim him. If he belonged anywhere, it was to 
 Israel, which he did understand and love. 
 
 It is the central position of Israel in Jewish history 
 and Jewish thought, its existence, its maintenance, and 
 its duration, which make the great difference be- 
 tween Zunz, on the one side, and Geiger and his 
 school, on the other. Zunz never apologized for the 
 existence of Israel. According to him, the separate- 
 ness of Israel, forming an entity, both as a national- 
 ity and as a religion, are facts recognized by history, 
 and there is no need of apologizing for them. Israel 
 was accordingly justified in looking back to its great 
 achievements—spiritual and material—in the past 
 and to cherish its hopes for a glorious future: to 
 live its own life, to think its own thoughts and 
 zealously to guard its identity both as a nation- 
 ality and a religion through the means of symbols 
 and ceremonies and a sacred language of its own, 
 and even to possess a code of etiquette and manners 
 of its own, all calculated to perpetuate its existence. 
 
 Geiger, on the other hand, saw in Israel a re- 
 ligious corporation, a sort of non-celibate monks, whose 
 raison da étre was not in themselves, but outside of them, 
 viz. to teach the world certain dogmas and creeds, and 
 whose existence was only justified in proportion to 
 their success as teachers. The religious teaching of 
 Israel has therefore more value for Geiger than the 
 religious life of Israel, not to speak of its peculiar 
 civilization (Kultur), so far as it developed on 
 lines of its own, to which civilization they had hardly 
 a right. And even its religious teaching has always 
 
70 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 to be guarded against an over-emphasis of such aspects 
 as can only result in isolating Israel, and in bringing 
 about a divorce between the teachers and pupil. In 
 other words, the national elements have to be elimi- 
 nated, even though they may be at the basis of 
 Israel’s religious teachings. 
 
 This difference between the two leaders be- 
 came especially marked when Zunz published his 
 Zur Geschichte und Literatur, a great part of which is 
 devoted to Israel’s Kuliurgeschichte, and against which 
 Geiger wrote his famous review in the Israelit des 
 neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. It is a very long review 
 of a depreciatory nature, both of the subjects and the 
 persons treated there, showing no sympathy even 
 with the topic ‘‘Teachers of Ethics’’ (Szttenlehrer). 
 Of course, those teachers were simple Jews who neither 
 understood nor misunderstood Aristotle or Plato. 
 They were not even free from the superstitions of 
 their time. They were plain Jews, good, saintly 
 souls, truthful and affectionate, and thus of no 
 account as a theological asset in the universal 
 religion to come. But, as Zunz said, ‘‘he who as 
 Jew passes them over with contemptuous superiority 
 is not called upon to write history; he who despises 
 himself in his people is not the man to record their 
 deeds’’. 
 
 However, it is not the purpose of this review to 
 pass judgment upon the theological opinions of Geiger. 
 The “twists and prejudices’’ of this great man can 
 easily be explained on the ground that Geiger belong- 
 ed to a generation which, feeling still the tremor 
 of the great spiritual and intellectual upheaval of the 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 71 
 
 French Revolution, never emancipated itself entirely 
 from the rationalistic views prevalent at the beginning 
 of the nineteenth century. Not unlike the first Chris- 
 tians, they hoped for and believed in the speedy dis- 
 appearance of the Old World to be replaced by a new 
 heaven and a new earth, in which rationalism will 
 reign supreme. The Jews especially saw in the few 
 crumbs of emancipation granted to them the redemp- 
 tion which was to include the whole of humanity. The 
 great day had already dawned upon humanity, with 
 the Messianic age looming in the not very far dis- 
 tance. 
 
 The great mission of the Jewish leaders was, 
 then, to prepare Israel for the blessed time already 
 visible on the horizon. Israel had, accordingly, to 
 be humanized or, as the phrase was, turned over to 
 the Menschheit, lest our sins of particularism and 
 separateness delay the advent. True, there was such 
 a thing as history, which the rationalists of the nine- 
 teenth century did not ignore,—nay, to which they were 
 constantly appealing. But its function was not that of 
 the reactionary sort, to show the glories of the past, 
 the importance of institutions, the impossibility of 
 long gaps and the danger involved in violent breaks 
 —this was mere romanticism. History was only 
 valuable as a study of the sources and of the crooked 
 ways and the frequency of stagnation of tradition 
 diverting it from its straight course of reason, leading 
 to the great sea of humanity, in which Judaism should 
 lose itself in the end. That history means remem- 
 brance, and that remembrance results in hope, which 
 is the very reverse of absorption, was not foreseen 
 
72 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 by the few historians the Reform Movement gave us. 
 This could only have been divined by men like Kroch- 
 mal and Zunz, who were ahead of their time; whilst 
 Geiger was strictly a product of his time. He in- 
 dulged in its dreams, he cherished its hopes, and it is 
 not for us of another generation to judge him. For 
 us it is to remember only his scholarship, not his the- 
 ology. 
 
 But we cannot refrain from expressing our as- 
 tonishment that the theological contributors present 
 us this theology as something final, without making 
 the least attempt to qualify its “twists and pre- 
 judices’’ by views and opinions of other great heroes 
 of Israel. They ought to have been aware that, what- 
 ever merits rationalism may have possessed in certain 
 respects, it was, as is admitted now even by radical 
 writers, wholly deficient in the understanding of the 
 thing holiness. Rationalism could well appreciate 
 all the virtues of manliness, but it could never proper- 
 ly value those qualities of obedience, submission, 
 meekness and self-denial which constitute a holy life. 
 
 The sentiments, both of grief and of joy, which 
 make the real life of the religionist, were largely unin- 
 telligible to the great majority of our rationalists in- 
 augurating the Reform Movement. They could not 
 understand that holy dependence on God which en- 
 ables the Psalmist to exclaim: ‘I was cast upon Thee 
 from the womb: Thou art God from my mother’s 
 belly,’ —that joy in the word of God which makes the 
 prophet say: “‘Thy word was unto me the joy and re- 
 joicing of mine heart: for I am called by Thy name, 
 Lord, God of hosts’’,—that childlike submission which 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 73 
 
 the Psalmist felt when he said: ‘Surely I have stilled 
 and quieted my soul as a child that is weaned of his 
 mother,—my soul is even as a weaned child;’’—that 
 absolute feeling of loneliness and abandonment which 
 finds expression in such scriptural verses as: ‘‘Is His 
 mercy clean gone forever? Doth His promise fail ever- 
 more? Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Hath He in 
 anger shut up His tender mercies?’’,—that conscious- 
 ness of sin that leads the prophet to declare: “‘ Behold, 
 the Lord’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save 
 —but your iniquities have separated you from your 
 God’’,—that exaltation, again, which the religionist 
 experiences even when he only repeats the word of 
 the Psalmist: “‘Whom have I in heaven but Thee? 
 There is none on earth I desire besides Thee.” 
 
 This deficiency could have been well supplied 
 if our contributors could have agreed to learn also 
 something from their very antagonists Rabbi Akiba 
 Eger, Rabbi Mordecai Baneth, Rabbi Moses Sofer, 
 and even the Polish Zaddikim, who, as it would seem, 
 were the only ones who experienced the secret of holi- 
 ness and lived holiness. When one of our theological 
 contributors, perceiving in Geiger the man who 
 prepared the way for prophetic Judaism (p. 296), 
 exclaims somewhere in his defence of his hero 
 against the reproach of inconsiderate radicalism: 
 ““The prophets were no diplomats, nor was Geiger” 
 (p. 301), he certainly showed a great want of humor 
 so peculiar to the latter-day prophets of this gener- 
 ation. 
 
 Does our theologian really mean to say that the 
 men we have just mentioned, or the other opponents of 
 
74 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 Geiger, were of the kind of the false prophets which the 
 prophets of yore attacked? Is it really one of the deadly 
 sins to observe the dietary laws or to keep the Sab- 
 bath in the way prescribed by Orthodox Judaism? 
 Is it really this adherence to Orthodoxy which pre- 
 vents the moral regeneration of our or any other age? 
 Was therenoneamong theold Jews, even Shulhan ‘Aruk 
 Jews, who ever felt a thrill when reading, for instance, 
 the fifteenth or the twenty-fifth Psalm? Was moral- 
 ity, indeed, a monopoly of Peter Beer, Holdheim, and 
 Stern? Was it really, as in the case of the Protest- 
 ant Reformation, the scandalous and immoral life 
 of the Orthodox rabbis which led to the inauguration 
 of our modern Jewish Protestantism? 
 
 Has our contributor ever read the lives of Rabbi 
 Elijah Wilna, or of Raphael Cohen of Hamburg, and 
 realized what pure and holy lives they led? Naturally 
 our contributor will say that his hero fought for the 
 truth, but so did his opponents, fighting for what they 
 considered the truth, though it was not the truth“‘of the 
 plausible kind.”” To mention only one case, I will re- 
 peat here the words of one of these obscure Rabbis, Na- 
 than of Braslav, who, inaletter to hissonaboutacertain 
 religious controversy in which he was involved, writes: 
 ‘“‘And even, God forbid, if I should have to lose my 
 Olam ha-Ba (Salvation), the truth is the truth, and 
 I have no desire and longing but for the veritable 
 truth.” 
 
 And what must be specially noticed is that poor 
 Nathan did believe in Olam ha-Ba, and the loss of it 
 meant to him eternal torture. It is remarkable that 
 with all our talk of tolerance and mutual good will 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 75 
 
 we have never learned that appreciation of ‘objective 
 piety’’ which is such a delightful feature in real 
 modern liberalism, enabling a Renan to admire St. 
 Francis of Assisi, and a Leslie Stephen to understand 
 such a soul as Cardinal Newman. Our Jewish liber- 
 als are just where they were fifty years ago. 
 
 Not less of an anachronism is the attitude of 
 our theological contributors towards the national 
 aspect in Judaism. As already indicated above, 
 it was the belief in the political and social millennium, 
 as well as the hopes held out by the partial eman- 
 cipation which was breaking upon them, which led 
 to the over-emphasis of the universalistic element in 
 Judaism on the part of Geiger. This was not only the 
 case with Geiger, but with all his fellow-reformers, 
 as may easily be seen by any man who still has the 
 patience to read those hopeful effusions in the “*Prot- 
 ocols’’, for instance, of the second Rabbiner Versamm- 
 lung, in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1846. Itisratheramus- 
 ing to see the amount of cheap learning and superficial 
 theology displayed in that synod. The majority seem 
 to agree upon the importance of the Messianic belief 
 which the speaker declares to be the central idea of 
 Judaism (pp. 78 and 82). But then comes the interpre- 
 tation, which most speakers define as impersonal, con- 
 sisting in the reconciliation of humanity with Israel’s 
 true religion (p. 83); or in the kingdom of the fear of 
 God, of peace, of love, of truth and of justice (p. 97); 
 or in the unity or regeneration of all humanity in 
 faith and love through Israel; or in the redemption 
 or emancipation from spiritual evil in the establish- 
 ment of God’s Kingdom on earth (p. 76). 
 
76 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 But, of course, Israel’s true religion is that 
 taught by the Synod, or rather by that section of Ger- 
 man Israel which sent delegates to that Synod. 
 For, indeed, it is German Jewry in which, according 
 to one speaker, the belief in a personal or polit- 
 ical Messiah has died out. I hardly need say that 
 the words ‘‘German Jewry” (Deutsche Judenhett) 
 have to be modified in the sense of a fraction of Ger- 
 man Jewry. For there were, even at that time, a 
 large number of German Jews who protested against 
 such an interpretation of the Messianic belief. Prob- 
 ably it was this fraction of true believers which an- 
 other speaker had in mind when he exclaimed with 
 regard to the traditional belief that the Messiah will 
 be a descendant of the house of David: ‘‘Who is 
 the real house of David? We, the remnant of Israel. 
 It is the Jews as such remnant to whom all the prom- 
 ises (to David) relate’’ (p. 85). 
 
 This is rather comical. It is, however explain- 
 able and even pardonable in view of the glori- 
 ous visions finding expression in such statements 
 as the following: ‘‘We perceive the kingdom of 
 heaven on earth constantly approaching through 
 the endeavor of humanity’? (p. 84), or, ‘‘We are 
 already entering into the redemption; liberty and 
 virtue have increased; everything becomes better’ 
 (p. 85); or, “The Jewish teaching about the Messiah 
 is approaching its realization in vigorous steps (mit 
 starken Schritten)’’ (p. 79). 
 
 But this, I say, may have been pardonable 
 enough fifty years ago. But, cannot our theo- 
 logical contributors see that their spiritual grand- 
 
- ABRAHAM GEIGER 77 
 
 sires have lived under a delusion, that none of their 
 hopes were fulfilled, that the kingdom of God on 
 earth, if it was ever approaching, is further than ever 
 from our horizon, through the brutal nationalism 
 which is now the dominant passion of mankind. 
 Can they not see that new problems have arisen, 
 such as capital and labor, the worship of brutal force, 
 and the manifest destiny of weaker races to perish, the 
 solution of which problems is so terribly complicated 
 and becoming more imperative every day? And what- 
 ever the solution will be, there is all reason to fear 
 that it will be anti-Messianic in its character. 
 
 And least of all were all these Messianic prospects 
 and hopes fulfilled with regard to Israel. The older 
 generation, in the naive/é of its first thought, imagined 
 that it would settle all difficulties when it cre- 
 ated for itself a new trinity. The parole of the 
 age became, and still is, blood and iron, and those 
 who were still swayed by humane compassion and 
 motives of human brotherhood are considered 
 entirely as adhering to an obsolete conception of 
 the universe. This Nationalism has devoured 
 humanity, but it is just as much encroaching upon re- 
 ligion, and even more upon Judaism, as the anti- 
 Semitic agitations of the last two generations have 
 proved. It tolerated no sharing in its devotion. 
 It demands the whole man and the abandonment 
 of all past and future. This was our experience even 
 in more civilized countries, not to speak of the eastern 
 parts of Europe, where Israel had practically to under- 
 go the same suffering, the same degradation and hu- 
 miliation as it did in the darkest Middle Ages. 
 
78 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 Now as to Jewish Nationalism, it is not a creation 
 of the nineteenth century. Its compact with religion 
 was eternal. If in the Maccabean times the nation a- 
 rose in arms to defend its religion, the reverse hap- 
 pened after the destruction of the holy Temple, 
 and the successive spread of Christianity, when 
 religion took the Jewish nation under its protection 
 and consecrated it forever. We would have been 
 spared all the terrible persecutions if we could ever 
 have agreed to eliminate from it the national feat- 
 ures and become a mere religious sect. To this all 
 our literature and history testify. 
 
 It was just those things which distinguished us 
 from our surroundings (not for the things which we 
 had in common with them) and separated us from 
 the nations, such as the devotion to the Pentateuch, 
 the keeping of the Sabbath, the observance of the Cov- 
 enant of Abraham, and the loyalty to the dietary law, to 
 which we clung for thousands of years with all our life 
 and for which we brought numberless sacrifices. Is this 
 now the time, when the thought of nationalism is uni- 
 versally accepted, to destroy it as far as Israel is con- 
 cerned? Should we not rather cherish it as the best 
 antidote against the poison of utter assimilation 
 which threatens us now as never before? Are our 
 contributors blind to the fact that such statements 
 as the original ‘“‘seasoned’’ Reformers were in the 
 habit of making: ‘‘We Jews do not want to form a 
 nation. Weare Germans or Englishmen or Frenchmen 
 of the Jewish persuasion’, are now out of date? 
 At least, they should realize that there is an Israel 
 outside of Germany and that even in Germany there 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 79 
 
 are hundreds and thousands who openly and distinct- 
 ly declare their allegiance to the Jewish nation. They 
 may have some difficulty in reconciling it with their 
 allegiance to the German nation, if consistent in 
 their thought, but certainly no greater difficulty 
 than those who insist upon harmonizing it with 
 their devotion to humanity at large. 
 
 We ought to be by now so far as to see that 
 consistency in these matters is neither a virtue 
 nor a mark of special intelligence. Furthermore 
 if there is anything which history taught us during 
 the decades, it is the fallacy of the notion of the 
 mission by which our first Reformers endeavored 
 to compensate us for our betrayal of the Jewish 
 nation and disloyalty to the Law. We have now 
 good Christians and bad Christians and lax Chris- 
 tians. We have Freidenker, spiritualists, Chris- 
 tian Scientists, and any number of new sects and 
 fads, but certainly our numbers have by no means 
 increased through accretions from outside. The 
 world has not shown the least sign that it is prepared 
 to be converted to Judaism, except the few proselytes 
 we got through intermarriage. But certainly all 
 statistics point to the fact that we have lost, during 
 the last century, more men and women to Christian- 
 ity than in any age especially distinguished by per- 
 secution. Besides, do we really believe that this 
 bourgeois religion of ours which is entirely defi- 
 cient in all enthusiasm and whose great virtue is 
 adaptability, a religion which does not oppose it- 
 self to any thing in particular, is calculated to con- 
 vert the world? Frankly speaking, can this religion 
 
80 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of ours train men of the stamp of an Eliot, of a Living- 
 ston, and of hundreds and thousands of others who left 
 civilization and lived for years under the greatest 
 privations and dangers in their zeal to convert the 
 pagans of Africa, America, and Asia? We may not 
 agree with their aims, but we must admire their 
 sacrifice, their martyrdom, their courage, and their 
 enthusiasm. 
 
 Perhaps there may be also such a thing as 
 a passive mission. Our Christian neighbors would 
 certainly admire us if they would see us, for instance, 
 closing our business on the Sabbath, at the risk of 
 our material prosperity, or attending frequently our 
 places of worship, thus involving inconvenience, or 
 observing other laws which do not go well with com- 
 fort. The world will always respect self-denial, 
 even in a material age. But we certainly will not 
 impress the world and convert either Christian or 
 pagan by discovering that the substance of Judaism 
 is about the same as Harnack discovered to be the 
 substance of Christianity. After all these experiences 
 and facts, it is time that we cease to worship one 
 school and that we correct their errors by the dictum of 
 another hero, the great Zunz, who declared that the 
 denial of the advent of the Messiah is among the 
 things which mean the abandonment of the past and 
 the future of Judaism, adding that suicide is not a 
 reform. 
 
 Another fact which is to be taken into consider- 
 ation and which ought to have put our theological 
 contributors on their guard, is the following (I am 
 referring to the Christian Movement which is now 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 81 
 
 so conspicuous in our ranks): Whatever the views 
 of Geiger and his contemporaries may have been as 
 to the binding power of the Scriptures and the au- 
 thority of traditional Judaism, there is one point where 
 they allowed no compromise nor concession. This 
 point was the claims of Christianity or of its founder 
 to recognition on the part of Israel. Indeed, Geiger 
 was the man who fought it most consistently, and left 
 us literature that may even to-day be used with 
 advantage. He always was in arms against its 
 claims of superiority or even equality with Judaism, 
 whilst he would never allow these claims any encroach- 
 ment upon the pulpit or the liturgy. He even strove 
 for the historical Sabbath, less on account of its being 
 the traditional day of rest and sanctification, than 
 because every attempt to substitute Sunday for it 
 might be regarded as a concession to Christianity. 
 
 But times have changed and there is now a 
 regular movement among us which preaches Chris- 
 tianity of a more or less dogmatic form. Some 
 Puritan divine, who was favorably inclined towards 
 the Jews, once made the remark that the differ- 
 ence between the Jews and the Christians is that, 
 while the Jews expect the Christ (Messiah) to come 
 to them, the Christians believe that the Jews will 
 come to Christ. 
 
 And this is what certainly happens in our day. 
 In this country, as well as in England and in 
 Germany and even in Russia, there are men of so- 
 cial and cultural standing who not only invite us 
 to recognize the value of certain ethical teachings 
 in the New Testament (for which a Geiger and 
 
82 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 other Jewish students could have easily found par- 
 allels both in the Old Testament and in the rab- 
 binical literature), but also expect us to pay homage 
 to the personality of its founder and his superior 
 worth, which makes him, if not a God, at least one 
 of the great prophets of Israel and of humanity. 
 We are expected to revise the judgment which all 
 our history, through thousands of years, has giv- 
 en upon him, and to join at least the left wing of 
 Christianity in the tribute paid to the ‘“‘sweet Rab- 
 bi of Nazareth.”” This expression is now a common 
 one on certain pulpits and Jewish platforms, on which 
 Christ has become a subject for sermons and orations 
 as in any Unitarian Church. 
 
 This means, indeed, the beginning of the end, 
 if not strongly opposed by those responsible for the 
 perpetuation of Judaism. We have been playing 
 with fire till now. We attacked the law. We join- 
 ed in the opposition towards the Pentateuch. We 
 have preached prophetic Judaism in contradistinction 
 to traditional Judaism. We always spoke of the 
 superiority of universal religion to national religion. 
 We rejected all claims of Judaism for perpetuation 
 and eternity, and the results are, as just indicated, 
 that we are coming to Christ. Is it not time, in 
 view of all these facts, that we revise our theology 
 and even learn something from S. R. Hirsch about 
 the importance of the Men of Israel, or even from the 
 Zionists about the necessity of perpetuating the 
 Jewish nation, if Judaism is at all to survive the crisis? 
 In other words, is it not time that the new theology 
 should consist in the best that all the men of Israel, 
 
ABRAHAM GEIGER 83 
 
 including Geiger, gave us, but should modify and 
 qualify his views, dating from a rationalistic age, by 
 the loyalty to the law of Rabbi Akiba Eger and Rabbi 
 Mordecai Baneth, by the deep insight into Jewish 
 History of a Zunz and a Krochmal, by the mysticism 
 of a Ba‘al Shem and some of his best followers, and 
 by the love for Israel’s nationality and its perpet- 
 uation of Herzl or Ahad Ha-‘Am? 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 
 
 PROFESSOR Kaufmann, who enjoyed the privi- 
 lege of being a personal friend of Zunz, tells us that 
 Zunz once made the remark to him: “Those who 
 have read my books are far from knowing me’. 
 If so, we who cannot boast of such privileges, have 
 hardly a right to speak of Zunz’s views, his efforts, 
 or his aims. But, on the other hand, we are inclined 
 to think that those thoughts which a great man con- 
 siders it right to refrain from confiding to the public 
 concern the public very little. Indiscreet publica- 
 tions have seldom proved to be of great literary value. 
 They usually gratify our curiosity more than they 
 enrich our knowledge of the author who is thus be- 
 trayed. There is no need of extorting anything from 
 genius. It gives us its best, spontaneously and liber- 
 ally. Zunz, too, has set down his best and noblest 
 thoughts in his works. By the aid of these we shall 
 try to give some idea of what he was and what his 
 works meant for the science of Judaism. 
 
 Yomtob Lipmann (or Leopold) Zunz was born 
 on August tenth, 1794. His birthplace was Det- 
 mold, the capital of the principality of Lippe in Ger- 
 many. Scarcely anything is known about his par- 
 ents except that the name of his father was Mena- 
 hem. According to one account, Zunz received his 
 first instruction in Hebrew from his father. But 
 this instruction could not have amounted to much. 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 8s 
 
 For in the year 1803 Zunz’s father was already dead, 
 and the young orphan was placed at the school (or 
 rather orphan asylum) in Wolfenbiittel which was 
 founded there, in 1786, for the children of the poor, 
 by the philanthropic Samson family. 
 
 The institution still exists, and is known under the 
 name of ‘‘Die Samson’sche Freischule’. At the time, 
 however, of which we speak, the institution had very 
 little of the character of a school in the modern sense. 
 Though it pleased people to call it a Bet ha-Midrash, it 
 was the ordinary Heder with all its faults. It had no 
 regular school hours, no holidays, and the pupils 
 went through no bodily exercises. Every secular 
 study was strictly excluded from the educational 
 programme, the entire instruction being confined 
 to the Talmud and certain portions of the Bible, es- 
 pecially the Pentateuch. 
 
 But even the grammar of the language in which 
 the Bible is written was not taughtinthisschool. Zunz 
 studied it by himself together with his school-fellow Jost 
 “‘to the annoyance of their teachers’”’. These latter had 
 indeed every reason to resent the liberty taken by ‘‘ these 
 boys’’ who wanted to grow wiser than their masters. 
 For Zunz soon acquired knowledge enough of the 
 Hebrew language to display his sarcastic wit, for 
 which he was remarkable in his tenderest youth, in 
 a biting satire directed against his narrow-minded 
 teachers. When the corpus delictt was discovered, 
 Zunz was denounced as the “impertinent one’”’, and 
 the opus was given to the flames. Jewish history 
 was also an unknown field in this institution. The 
 only book relating to this branch of Jewish science 
 
86 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 which Zunz and Jost knew at this time of their life 
 was the Josippon (Pseudo-Josephus) which by some 
 miracle found its way into the Bet ha-Midrash 
 and was read by the boys with great delight, which, 
 however, was probably not shared by their teachers. 
 
 So the matter went on till 1807. Notwithstand- 
 ing all these disadvantages we must not believe that 
 these years (1803-1807) were quite lost for Zunz. 
 It was probably during this time that he laid the 
 foundation of a thorough knowledge of the Talmud 
 which proved so useful for his later studies. This 
 strange world—called Talmud—with its strange lan- 
 guage, its strange diction, its strange discussions, and its 
 strange mode of thinking will never open istelf in all 
 its fulness and richness except to a mind whose fresh- 
 ness has not as yet been dimmed by impressions 
 made on it by other subjects. We must not there- 
 fore lament too deeply the one-sidedness to which 
 the boy was condemned for a few years. To acquire 
 thoroughness in the Talmud one must be subject to 
 one-sidedness for a certain period in one’s life. 
 
 A wider horizon opened before Zunz’s eyes in 
 1807, when the Heder or Bet ha-Midrash was con- 
 verted into a regular school and put under the able 
 direction of Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg. Under the 
 guidance of this highly cultured and genial teacher, 
 whom his pupils kept in loving memory through all 
 their lives, Zunz remained for about two years. Ehren- 
 berg belonged to the school of the Meassefim (contrib- 
 utors toa Hebrew periodical called Meassef), whose chief 
 efforts were directed toward regenerating the Hebrew 
 tongue, besides acquiring an elementary knowledge 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 87 
 
 in various branches of secular learning. It was thus 
 probably under his influence that Zunz, as well as 
 Jost, acquired both the taste and the ability for writing 
 an elegant and correct Hebrew style. 7 
 
 In the year 1809 Zunz entered the Gymnasium in 
 Wolfenbiittel, where he remained until 1815. Hewas 
 the first Jew of this place who attended a Christian 
 college. Atthesame time he was also active as a teacher 
 in the school in which he had formerly beena pupil. He 
 left Wolfenbiittel for the university in Berlin, where 
 he studied philosophy and philology up to 1819.2 He 
 concluded his university career by writing a disser- 
 tation on Shemtob Palquera, for which he received 
 his Doctor diploma from the University of Halle in 
 January, 1821. It was renewed (on the occasion of 
 his Doctor-Jubilee) in 1871. 
 
 We have now arrived at a period in which Zunz’s 
 scientific researches had already begun. We shall 
 pause awhile to take a survey of the state of the lit- 
 erature which formed the subject of these researches. 
 
 Eduard Gans, the president of the famous Verein 
 fiiy Cultur und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, ex- 
 presses himself in the preface to the Statuten of this 
 society about the state of Jewish science in words 
 to the following effect: The efforts of the Jews in re- 
 ligion, history, and philosophy have never been treated 
 in an independent and liberal spirit. Ignorant and 
 prejudiced rabbis, looking upon Jewish literature as 
 having no relation to other products of the human 
 mind, were at once unable and unwilling to prepare 
 the way for a Jewish science. What there is of good 
 and able work we owe to Christian scholars. This 
 
88 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 sweeping assertion is certainly unjust, and proves 
 Gans’s lack of sympathy with everything coming from 
 Jews. 
 
 The critical work Meor ‘Enayim by Azariah de 
 Rossi would have been sufficient to spare Jewish 
 authors from such a condemnatory judgment. Nor 
 is Gans’s praise of Christian authors just. If they 
 show more ability for systematizing existing material 
 than the Jews, they are usually less familiar with its 
 contents than the latter, and therefore less trust- 
 worthy in their conclusions. To be sure, no one 
 will deny that Wolf, Bartolocci, and other Christian 
 scholars did good service to the scientific treatment 
 of Judaism. But this does not deprive Zacuto, Heil- 
 prin, Azulai, and others of their merits. The fact is 
 that both Jews and Christians have done their best— 
 as far as the means and notions of their times made it 
 possible for them—to prepare the way for a science 
 of Jewish literature. But it is also true that this 
 science did not as yet exist, and had still to be created. 
 
 The problem which a Jewish science, as conceived 
 by Zunz and his friends, had to solve was twofold: 
 
 1. To master all the material scattered in Jewish 
 works, to sift it, to arrange it according to its his- 
 torical development, and thus, after having found out 
 the “chief currents” of Jewish thought permeating 
 all these seemingly disconnected channels, to unite 
 them into one organic whole. 
 
 2. To prove the relation of this organic whole to 
 the still larger whole, the literature of the world, to 
 define its position in it, and to show the mutual in- 
 fluences of these two organisms.® 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 89 
 
 The design—as we see—was ambitious and grand 
 enough. But though all the members of the Verein 
 perceived it, the arduous task of carrying it out was 
 left to Zunzalone. His friends either lacked sympathy 
 with the subject, as was the case with Gans, or wanted 
 the ability required for such a work, as was the case 
 with Bendavid and other members of the Verezn. 
 Heine’s unfavorable judgment of Bendavid’s essay: 
 “What he (Bendavid) writes is both out of date and 
 out of place, his articles being more suitable for the 
 Theologische Journal anno 1786’’,° may be applied 
 without much modification to all the contributions 
 of the Zeitschrift by the members of the Verein, except 
 those written by Zunz. 
 
 Indeed, Jewish records hardly know an age in 
 which such an undertaking as Zunz’s would have look- 
 ed more desperate than the time in which his epoch- 
 making essay on Rashi appeared. If the old Jews of 
 the Middle Ages knew nothing of history and devel- 
 opment, they still found in Jewish literature “ grandeur 
 and horizon’’, making it to them the subject of their 
 admiration and devotion. They took, in their literal 
 sense, the words of the rabbis “that everything which 
 will be discovered by the able Jewish students was 
 already known and taught to Moses on Mount Sinai,”’ 
 and also heartily believed the assertion. Thus every 
 product of Jewish genius was to them a manifestation 
 of the same divine spirit to which the Scriptures them- 
 selves owed their origin. If it happened that certain 
 writings, the orthedoxy of which was suspected (as 
 for instance, the philosophical works of Maimonides 
 and R. Levi ben Gershon), were for a time considered 
 
go STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 anything but divine, they had only to live a few gen- 
 erations longer, and the piety felt before the past and 
 the reverence for everything written in the holy lan- 
 guage restored their divine character. 
 
 With the rationalistic age of Mendelssohn such 
 beliefs were no longer tenable. The authority of the 
 rabbis themselves was questioned, and the recom- 
 mendations by their successors were of still less avail. 
 Rationalism, however, without a scientific basis can 
 only destroy, but it is powerless tocreate or to construct; 
 it can open the eyes of men to perceive the darkness 
 which envelops them, but it does not illuminate the 
 darkness nor lift the cloud to help them to the right 
 way. ‘Yet from those flames no light but rather 
 darkness visible.”’ 
 
 Thus we find the German Jews at the beginning 
 of this century in that helpless transitory condition 
 which only a man of the pure character and deeply 
 religious mind of a Zunz could possibly survive. 
 The old glorious Yeshibot (talmudical colleges), in 
 which Jewish learning had found a home for many cen- 
 turies, were gone, but the seminaries had still to 
 be founded. The old venerable rabbis who were 
 at the head of those colleges were considered as an 
 antiquated survival of an obscure time fit only for 
 ‘‘praying’’ psalms for the salvation of departed souls; 
 whilst the new Jewish professor with his rabbinical 
 learning and scientific training had still to be born. 
 When Zunz and his friends spoke of the necessity of 
 founding schools, seminaries, and academies, the 
 general body of Jews remained entirely indifferent 
 to their appeal. Left without assistance from the 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ ox 
 
 public, the Verein was necessarily soon dissolved. Its 
 president, Gans, and other members went over to 
 Christianity, whilst those who remained Jews la- 
 mented bitterly the want of all idealism among their 
 coreligionists without which Judaism was not worth 
 suffering for. 
 
 It was, however, neither the disappearance of 
 the old ideals nor impatience at the slow develop- 
 ment of the new ones that exasperated so many noble 
 minds among the Jews of this period. It was the 
 tyranny of the interregnum that moved them to wrath. 
 Whatever aberrations the history of Judaism may 
 show, one cannot deny that they were only the con- 
 sequence of exaggerating an idea or of carrying it 
 too far. Thus in certain ages the idea of authority 
 was so strong that it led very often to the surrender 
 by the individual of independent thinking. In others, 
 again, the philosophic tendency was so prevalent that 
 it finally degenerated into a superficial rationalism 
 which seems quite childish to us. In ages of mysti- 
 cism the theory of immanence was carried by some 
 people so far as to confuse the Creator with His cre- 
 ations, cause with effect. 
 
 But even these regrettable aberrations are not 
 devoid of redeeming elements, for they show the 
 supremacy of the idea and its sway over the mind 
 of Jews, a sway so absolute that they could not re- 
 sist following it even when its directions became 
 dangerous. This devotion to ideas extended itself 
 to the bearers of the ideas. They formed a kind of 
 learned aristocracy among the Jews, and the syna- 
 gogue stood entirely under their influence. And it 
 
92 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 was the Talmudist, the philosopher, or the mystic— 
 according to the different tendencies in the various 
 ages—who exercised a kind of ideal government among 
 his brethren. 
 
 In the later age, however, of which we speak 
 here, both the old ideas and their initiators had be- 
 come, as already observed, entirely obsolete. But 
 before the new conceptions could ripen or the old ones 
 be revived, no other standard remained by which to 
 gauge the importance of a man in Jewish society and 
 the weight of his opinions but his wealth. The au- 
 thority of the synagogue also soon passed from the 
 hands of its spiritual heads into that of the men of 
 wealth, or the lay heads of the Jewish communities, 
 as the phrase went. It was this lay head—with his 
 “arrogance in the synagogue’’, his preposterous tone 
 at the meetings, his arbitrariness in appointing the 
 “officials’’, his impertinent treatment of these of- 
 ficials, his want of sympathy with Jewish scholar- 
 ship and Jewish scholars, his looking upon the syna- 
 gogue as a mere financial establishment which could 
 only be sustained by rigid administration—in one word, 
 it was his utter lack of any idea or ideal that, as al- 
 ready said, brought the majority of Zunz’s colleagues 
 to the verge of despair. Hate as they did every ‘“‘rab- 
 binical hierarchy’’, they still looked almost with envy 
 on the Jews in Russia where the Rabbis still supplied 
 some counterbalancing influence to this reign of the 
 ‘financial saints’’ which drew its authority from no 
 other source than its bank account. The ukase is- 
 sued then by the Government of Russia for the or- 
 ganization of the Jewish communities in that country, 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 93 
 
 which destroyed the power of the Parnasim, was hailed 
 by German scholars with joy, and they recommended 
 it as a worthy example to be imitated by the Prussian 
 Government. “ Hierarchy’’, they declare, makes peo- 
 ple ignorant, but this dominion of money makes 
 them mean and degraded.’ 
 
 Though Zunz did not despair, it cannot be denied 
 that this “degraded condition”’ left in him a sting of 
 bitterness which was never quite obliterated. Some 
 great writer has said that he who did not become a 
 misanthrope before he reached the fortieth year of his 
 life never loved mankind thoroughly. Zunz did love 
 Judaism with all his heart, but just this fact made 
 him misanthropic. He wasnot anamiableman. He 
 was by nature uncompromising and sarcastic; never 
 bearing a smile on his lips and never uttering those 
 honeyed empty phrases which are so nicely calculated 
 to smooth the life of people in this world and to give 
 them a fair passage into the other. 
 
 Heine tells us in one place that Zunz was not at all 
 the favorite of the great masses.* But Zunz cared little 
 for their likes and dislikes. Loyal as he was to his friends, 
 recognizing their smallest merits, grateful for every 
 aid given him in his literary efforts, regardful of every 
 honest struggle after religious truth, whether it re- 
 sulted in reform or orthodoxy—he was most unfor- 
 giving and unsparing towards the ‘‘lay heads’? whom 
 I have described as ruling the synagogue at that time, 
 and he attacked them, their creations and their creat- 
 ures, at every possible opportunity. ‘‘The Jews and 
 Judaism,’’ he writes to a friend after the dissolution 
 of the Verein, which he wanted to reconstruct, “‘are 
 
94 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 torn to pieces and are a prey to barbarians, idiots, 
 fools, and Parnasim...All their institutions, the or- 
 ganization of their communities, their subscription 
 lists, their scribbles, their preachers and their ward- 
 ens, their aristocracy, their meetings, their press, their 
 literature, and their book-trade bear all the features 
 of our miserable condition...Our present Judaism 
 is a sickening mixture of praying ‘money-bags’, 
 Rachmonus (Charity), with a few crumbs of secular 
 and rabbinic knowledge.’? When speaking of re- 
 forms in the synagogue, he declares the suppres- 
 sion of the arrogance of the rich in the house of 
 God as one of the most important thereof. Most 
 bitterly he felt the contempt in which both Jewish 
 scholarship and Jewish scholars were held by fashion- 
 able and so-called educated people. He gave vent 
 to his feelings in an article which was composed in 
 the form of a letter to a friend. We give here a few 
 extracts from it. 
 
 Alluding to the happy times when the friends 
 lived and worked together, Zunz goes on to say: 
 “Penetrating into the sanctuary of the ages, we 
 perceived the genius which animated the author, 
 and it was the voice of the genius which we caught 
 from the inarticulate sounds of the book. ..‘Every 
 man,’ you maintained, ‘finds what he seeks for, and 
 unloving, idle and ignorant contempt stigmatizes only 
 itself.’ In Jewish literature there is everything to be 
 had, the human and the divine, the sincere and the 
 humorous, storm and mayflowers. Indeed does it not 
 treat of mathematics and free will as well as of love- 
 letters and recipes for making ink? The gallant youth 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 95 
 
 
 
 who finds it beneath his dignity to understand Hebrew 
 will find the rules for his behavior at a dancing party 
 in Joseph Da Costa’s work Tractado de Cortesia.... 
 
 “You find it strange that the Jews in our large city 
 are so ignorant about the men who are the bearers and 
 the ornament of their history, that just among the ed- 
 ucated classes there is so little known about the life 
 and labor of Jewish great men except perhaps Mai- 
 monides and Mendelssohn who are of European fame. 
 Well, I could rejoin that where the population is large, 
 the ignorance is also great; but I will give you the real 
 reason. Our large populations and their education 
 produce very little of enthusiasm and ideal interest, 
 and their want of knowledge (of Jewish history) is 
 caused by their want of a great moral principle, by 
 their indifference and their arrogance. ..The interest 
 that we take in history and heroes arises from the idea 
 or from our admiration of great deeds... You think 
 that the Jewish public ought to know those who have 
 been, during two thousand years, the representatives 
 of our literature, that they ought to appreciate their 
 noble efforts and sympathize with their sufferings. 
 But from whom of their leaders could our public obtain 
 this knowledge? To be sure, not from those writers 
 who, trampling upon everything Jewish, unceasingly 
 proclaim to the world that only with them is salvation 
 to be found, and who look with hatred upon every 
 book in which certain popular commodities are not 
 offered or praised... . 
 
 “The indifference of the Jews towards their 
 celebrities grieved a great writer of three hundred and 
 fifty years ago: ‘All nations,’ says Alami, ‘praise 
 
96 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 their princes and their heroes, and the space they 
 give to the description of a single great man sur- 
 passes that of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah 
 and Israel together; only we Jews are unable to tell 
 some glorious deed of a single one of our coreligion- 
 ists.” But the old Jews had neither the leisure nor 
 did they consider it their calling to observe the life 
 of some excellent men and make their contemporaries 
 acquainted with it... In those times the individual 
 had only to serve the idea and even of the whole of the 
 nation there was no history. It was only in later ages 
 that this desire of having some knowledge of their great 
 men was awakened among the Jews; Jewish biograph- 
 ical literature is a creation of the notions of the eigh- 
 teenth century... How much lies still buried under 
 the dust, how many features of humanity and hero- 
 ism have the blind overlooked, the dilettante writers 
 obliterated! To sketch the individual after life, to give 
 us a picture of the past by delineating its personages 
 would be a work of higher merit than to introduce 
 one’s own preciousself to the reader by means of lithog- 
 raphy.—What a contrast does this readiness to per- 
 petuate oneself form with the modesty of the old sages 
 who even when they had already acquired great fame 
 could hardly be persuaded to have themselves painted 
 —a fact which we can only regret. ..From the seven- 
 teenth century I know hardly thirty portraits. Joseph 
 del Medigo, Jacob Juda Leon, Benedict Spinoza, Isaac 
 Orobio distinguished themselves while mere youths, 
 and nevertheless they were nearly forty when the 
 public obtained prints of them...Thank goodness, 
 in the last twenty years we have no reason to complain 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 97 
 
 in this respect. The care taken for posterity goes 
 so far that one must forsooth have oneself painted 
 first and afterwards seek for some means to get 
 famous. 
 
 “Do you still remember the times when we were 
 reading those old antiquated books and marking those 
 passages in which the souls of the dead authors were 
 still speaking to us?...Anno 961 the judge Nathan 
 in Cordova resigned his post that a talented but poor 
 stranger might accept it... Maimonides could hard- 
 ly conceive it possible that scholars should consent 
 to accept a salary for their teaching...How much 
 could our so-called respectable people learn from these 
 rabbis! But I utterly forget that Jewish celebrities 
 are not social celebrities, but only poor persecuted 
 teachers and sufferers. For such people we have too 
 little heart, too little enthusiasm and too little leisure, 
 whilst, on the other hand, we possess too many ac- 
 quaintances, too much money, and too much culture 
 to care for them. Our carpet knights, who have got 
 rid of everything Jewish, look upon all Jewish authors 
 as upon idiots with whose activity the educated ladies 
 of our fashionable drawing-room have sympathy no 
 longer.’’® 
 
 So far the complaints of Zunz. These were un- 
 doubtedly a great deal exaggerated, the more so 
 when we remember that at the time when this letter 
 was composed (1845) Frankel and Geiger had already 
 entered into the arena of Jewish literature. Each 
 of them was editing a periodical which was chief- 
 ly devoted to rabbinic studies and which found 
 
98 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 material and spiritual support among the better classes 
 of the Jewish public. 
 
 But it is nevertheless true that at the time when 
 Zunz began his work (1817-24) the position of the 
 better or educated classes was most inimical towards 
 the Rabbis and their productions. With the ex- 
 ception of a very few, they still lived in the notions 
 of the eighteenth century with its characteristic 
 utter want of appreciation for history and for the 
 innumerable hidden processes through which _his- 
 tory obtains its ends. The whole past of Judaism, 
 therefore, extending from the conclusion of the Canon 
 of the Bible up to Mendelssohn, lay before them as 
 a vast blank which the disingenuousness of the sharp 
 casuist and the vagaries of half-mad visionaries could 
 by no means relieve. The Talmud and the Mid- 
 rashim were considered as a perversion of the Pen- 
 tateuch and the books of the Prophets, and the Jewish 
 liturgy as a bad paraphrase of the Psalms.!° 
 
 To destroy these false notions, to bridge over this 
 seemingly wide and deep gap, to restore the missing 
 links between the Bible and tradition, to prove the 
 continuity and development of Jewish thought through 
 history, to show their religious depth and their moral 
 and ennobling influence, to teach us how our own 
 age with all its altered notions might nevertheless be 
 a stage in the continuous development of Jewish ideals 
 and might make these older thoughts a part of its own 
 progress—this was the great task to which Zunz de- 
 voted his life. 
 
 Zunz’s literary activity, which extended over more 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 99 
 
 than half a century (1817-75), may be classified under 
 the following headings: 
 
 1. History and development of the Jewish the- 
 ological literature, or, what is almost the same, the 
 history of Jewish homiletics. 
 
 2. History and development of Jewish liturgy. 
 
 3. History of Jewishliterature and also of Jewish 
 life and customs during the Middle Ages. 
 
 For the design of this essay, however, we think 
 it advisable to make Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge 
 der Juden, or the History of Jewish Homiletics, which 
 not only forms the chief work of the first class but 
 is also universally considered as Zunz’s masterpiece, 
 the main subject of the following remarks. The Got- 
 tesdienstlichen Vorirdge (cited hereafter as G.V.) is pro- 
 vided neither with an index nor with a full table of 
 contents, a fact which renders its use sometimes rather 
 difficult. We think, therefore, that we may be doing a 
 good service to Jewish students by endeavoring for 
 the first time to give a brief analysis of the G. V. 
 Around it we shall group the other productions of 
 Zunz as far as they concern Jewish literature. 
 
 Before entering into this *analysis, we have still to 
 remark that even Zunz, in the beginning of his literary 
 career, was not quite free from the prejudices of his time 
 against Rabbinic literature. In one of his first lit- 
 erary attempts he still speaks of the “fighting for 
 blind authority which goes on in the Talmud” and 
 of the mission of ‘‘zts adversary, heaven-born philos- 
 ophy, which not only defeats but also pardons and 
 
 * To presume the continuity of thought of this essay, the 
 editors have transferred this analysis to Appendix A. 
 
100 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 recognizes the enemy.’ But the other article, 
 Etwas tiber die rabbinische Literatur, which was pub- 
 lished in the same year, shows that Zunz was more ea- 
 ger for the recognition than for the defeat. Andthough 
 Zunz dwells more on the gain which Jewish literature 
 can offer to the historian and philologist than on the 
 merits of this literature in and for itself, he never de- 
 clared any branch of it as superfluous,and even the 
 library of the manufacturer of the Zohar is most care- 
 fully catalogued as interesting to the critic. # 
 
 The real and the complete recognition of the 
 merits of the Rabbis and their ideal efforts is to be 
 found in the famous essay on Rashi with which Zunz 
 surprised the world in 1823.13 It was more than a sur- 
 prise, nay, it meant as much as to challenge all the 
 notions of the time, and inaugurated a bold rebellion 
 against them. Certainly the Bible was still kept in 
 high respect, ‘‘if only on account of its noble af- 
 finity with Christianity’. Maimonides and Ibn 
 Ezra also enjoyed some repute for the sake of their 
 acquaintance with Plato and Aristotle. But who 
 cared for the poor Rabbis who could not boast of such 
 aristocratic connections, not to speak of their com- 
 mentators and super-commentators? Butsuch was the 
 heroofthe essay— Rashi himself as well as his teachers 
 and his pupils, whom Zunz introduced on this occasion 
 to the astonished Jewish public. They were mere 
 Talmudists, who neither understood nor misunder- 
 stood the Greek philosophers and nevertheless needed 
 no justification for their existence. Their significance 
 is proved by their conscientious work, and their great- 
 ness consists in their pure lives. This essay we 
 
LEGPOLDIZUNZ 101 
 
 may consider as Zunz’s first larger attempt in the 
 field of pure Rabbinical literature. 
 
 We can now pass on to the Gottesdtenstliche Vor- 
 trdge der Juden historisch entwickelt, or The History 
 and Development of Jewish Homiletics, which, begun 
 by Zunz in 1829," appeared, as is to be seen from its 
 title page, in 1832. It was during these three years 
 that he carried on the lively correspondence with Rapo- 
 port, of which he speaks in the preface of this work 
 (p.xiii). And thus the G. V. perhaps also incor- 
 porates Rapoport’s best thoughts on the midrashic 
 literature. 
 
 We have no means of ascertaining the im- 
 pression the G. V. made on the mind of the Jewish 
 students when it made its first appearance; for there 
 existed no Jewish press at that time in Germany. We 
 are thus confined in this respect to a few meagre sen- 
 tences which give only a very inadequate notion of 
 the immediate effects that the G. V. had on the mind 
 of Zunz’s contemporaries. Thus Geiger writes in 
 1833 to his friend M.A. Stern: ‘In Jewish literature 
 there have appeared two remarkable works: the new 
 Hictony OFF] OStae ae the other by the very 
 learned Zunz, Die Gottesdtenstlichen Vortrdge..... 
 from which title one could hardly anticipate the splen- 
 did arrangement and richly elaborated scholarship 
 therein displayed. ”’ 5 
 
 From the Christian side we may call atten- 
 tion here to the words of Gefrérer who said that 
 since the days of Spinoza there had not appear- 
 ed from the pen of a Jew a work so good and thor- 
 ough as the G. V.!° More zealous admiration was 
 
102 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 shown by the less famous but more enthusiastic writer 
 D. Caro, who almost immediately after the appear- 
 ance of the G. V. devoted himself to its translation 
 into Hebrew, a labor which cost him more than 
 thirteen months’ steady work.” 
 
 With these few lines, however, almost all the 
 allusions to the G. V. by Germans during the first 
 eight years after the publication of this work are ex- 
 hausted. It is to Poland that we have to turn for the 
 only review of the G. V. which has ever been written. 
 We refer to the well-known book Rabiah (A'axn) 
 (Ofen, 1837) by Samiler, a Polish rabbi from Brody, 
 who wrote under the pseudonym of Mehlsag. This 
 review certainly shows the great command by its 
 author of Rabbinic literature;but it displays very little 
 critical power,and the positive results at which Sam- 
 iler arrives are hardly of any value to us. One merit 
 cannot be denied to this reviewer: it is his reductio ad 
 absurdum method of ascertaining the authors of certain 
 anonymous Piyyutim by means of Gemairiot; and it 
 was through the sarcastic parodies of Samiler that 
 this ingenious word-play has disappeared from Jew- 
 ish literature forever. % 
 
 Perhaps we might also mention the work Jg- 
 geret Bikkoret by H. Chajes (Zolkiew, 1840), which 
 for the greater part treats of the same subjects 
 that are discussed in the G. V. Chajes makes 
 ample use of this latter work, though he does not care 
 to quote the name of Zunz, whom he also occasionally 
 attacks.!° The G. V. would have been perhaps still 
 more discussed in Poland if it had not been written 
 in a language which the great majority of Jewish 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 103 
 
 scholars in that country were unable to understand. 
 And it will always remain a matter of great regret 
 that the above-mentioned Hebrew translation of the 
 G. V. by Caro was allowed toremain unpublished. As 
 it was, the influence of the G. V. on the Polish Jews 
 was very small, and we have again to return to the 
 west of Europe. 
 
 The light of Jewish science was to come from 
 Germany, as Zunz predicted or rather hoped. The 
 G. V. kindled the flame, and it was by its own light 
 that students studied it as well as wrote reviews on 
 it; not reviews of a mere negative character, but such 
 as were destined to become in themselves a part of 
 Jewish science. Real work of this character was done 
 slowly but thoroughly. What we havein mind are the 
 numerous monographs on certainsingle points and the 
 many critical editions of Rabbinical works to which we 
 have reference in the notes on the analysis of the G. V. 
 
 As to the verdict of these writers there is little 
 doubt that it does not prove in all cases favorable 
 to Zunz. Many treasures hidden in manuscripts 
 have, since the appearance of the G. V., been 
 brought to light giving certainty where Zunz could 
 only work with mere hypotheses. Certain subjects, 
 again, were taken up by specialists who devoted to 
 them whole treatises, while Zunz, in accordance with 
 the design of his work, had to dismiss them with a few 
 lines. Thus the reader who would care to consult 
 the authorities of the last fifty years (many of which 
 are given in our notes) will find that there are many 
 points in the G. V. which must now be considered 
 
104. STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 as entirely antiquated, or which at least cannot be 
 accepted without certain modifications. 
 
 But apart from the new discoveries and the ad- 
 vantages which the specialist enjoys over the general 
 historian, we should like to hint further at two other 
 faults of the G. V. First, that Zunz has to say so 
 little about the Midrash Halakah. Krochmal, Geiger, 
 Weiss, and others have clearly proved that there is 
 development in the Halakah, too, and that this de- 
 velopment closely corresponds with the great histor- 
 ical events of the different ages from which the various 
 Halakahs date.?° Now Zunz himself declares that both 
 the written and the oral Law are subject to modifi- 
 cations (G. V. 43, 51), but he neglected telling us when 
 these modifications were made and what were the 
 guiding motives of the modifiers. 
 
 Another important point which is greatly felt in 
 the G. V. is that Zunz, successful as he was in restoring 
 the unity and continuity of Jewish literature in itself, 
 has almost nothing to say of its relations to other liter- 
 atures and their mutual influences. But the reader will 
 remember that this was considered as the second part 
 of the problem which Jewishsciencehadtosolve. Many 
 successors of Zunz had done their best to supply this 
 want.” But the G. V. would have been the right 
 place for the treatment of such subjects. Still it must 
 not be forgotten that the adequate treatment of these 
 two subjects would have necessitated the writing 
 of large treatises by themselves. 
 
 Zunz’s researches were, however, in the meantime 
 directed towards other questions which hethought more 
 important than anything else, and to which his later 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 105 
 
 studies were almost entirely devoted. We have been 
 speaking of Zunz’s reviewers. Wehave also indicated 
 that the work of Zunz’s real reviewers did not consist 
 in attacking the master, but in following his suggestions 
 and in correcting and completing him. As weremem- 
 ber, chapter X XI of the G. V. is devoted to the devel- 
 opment of the later Haggadah where the Piyyutim are 
 considered as such. The literary productions of the 
 Franco-German schools during the Middle Ages are 
 also touched upon. 
 
 Zunz proved his own best reviewer in follow- 
 ing his own suggestions and expanding the contents 
 of the chapter mentioned above into two special 
 branches of Jewish science. Werefer to the chief work 
 of Zunz, written after the publication of the Gottes- 
 dienstliche Vortrdge, the book Zur Geschichte und Lit- 
 eratur (Berlin, 1845), mainly devoted to the history 
 of the literature of the Jews as well as of their life and 
 customs during the Middle Ages, and his other books,— 
 Die Synagogale Poeste des Mittelaliers (Berlin, 1855), 
 Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1859) 
 and the Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poesie 
 (Berlin, 1865), in which three works the author is oc- 
 cupied with the history of the Jewish liturgy, for the 
 most part with the history of the Piyyutim. 
 
 The book Zur Geschichte und Literatur was pre- 
 ceded by several other minor essays, which, bearing 
 upon the same subjects, may be considered as a 
 preparation for this larger work. However, the fact 
 must not be passed over in silence that even the 
 Zur Geschichte und Literatur has no claim to be 
 looked upon as a really finished book. It looks more 
 
106 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 like a collection of essays on various subjects relating 
 to Judaism without any essential connection and con- 
 tinuity. The very title itself, Zur Geschichte, meaning 
 “Contributions towards the history, etc.’’, already 
 indicates the incompleteness of the work. And Zunz 
 himself most distinctly points to this drawback in 
 his work when he says: ‘“‘The following paragraphs 
 claim only toarrange the material concerning literature 
 in historical order and to give various hints about that 
 (literary) activity” (p. 29). 
 
 But if the Zur Geschichte cannot be considered as a 
 complete work in itself, it certainly furnishes the stu- 
 dent with material and suggestions for the writing of 
 many works. Wecannotenter here intoa full analysis 
 of this book. The bibliographical and biographical 
 character of some parts and the variety of matter in 
 other parts would make such an attempt almost im- 
 possible. [See Appendix B.] 
 
 Complete and finished in every respect are Zunz’s 
 works on the history of liturgy. These researches, 
 to which, as already mentioned, the first impulse was 
 given to him by the contents of Chapter XXI of his 
 own G. V., occupied him, though not infrequently in- 
 terrupted by other work, through more than forty 
 years. His larger works bearing upon this subject of 
 Jewish liturgy are the books already noticed, the 
 Synagogale Poesie, Ritus, and Literaturgeschichte der 
  Synagogalen Poeste. This last Zunz seems to have 
 considered as his chief work of this class, the former 
 two being described by him as preparatory works to 
 the Literaturgeschichte. But nevertheless we do not 
 think that the student would care to lose either of 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 107 
 
 these two great books. As Zunz himself felt, he suc- 
 ceeded in his last great work (the Literaturgeschichte) 
 more in acquainting the world with the names 
 of the liturgical poets and the titles of their poems than 
 with the history of the Piyyut.*? For this we shall 
 have always to turn to the pages of the Synagogale 
 Poesie and the Ritus. [See Appendix C.] 
 
 Some conception of the importance of the Litera- 
 turgeschichte (which, as we have just pointed out, is 
 more bibliographical in character) may be gathered 
 from the index to this book compiled by Mr. Gestet- 
 ner. The student will see from this index that the 
 Literaturgeschichte describes more than 6,000 different 
 liturgical pieces, besides assigning the names of their 
 authors as far as they could be ascertained.*4 In 
 this field of Jewish science Zunz superseded all the 
 works of his predecessors.25 Indeed he did more, 
 for to judge from the discoveries made since the 
 appearance of the Literaturgeschichte and the Nach- 
 trdge to it (1867), Zunz will perhaps also remain 
 the last authority on the subject. These few dis- 
 coveries certainly enlarge the number of known 
 Piyyutim but they add very little information con- 
 cerning the Paitanim, and it is hardly possible that 
 many new rites are destined in the future to be brought 
 POmlienitic” 
 
 Lest the rather detailed and even minute char- 
 acter of the preceding account* of Zunz’s chief books 
 might decrease the impression of grandeur and vastness 
 only to be seen from perspective, we shall have to 
 pass now to general remarks. A few recapitulatory 
 words are necessary. 
 
 *Transferred to Appendices A, B and C. 
 
108 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 In the remarkable preface of the G. V. Zunz 
 expresses himself in these memorable words: “‘ For 
 all true instruction we need the spoken word. 
 Men have gained all their spiritual treasures by 
 word of mouth; an education continuing through 
 all the stages of life. So, too, in Israel the words of 
 instruction passing from mouth to mouth were always 
 heard and any further development of Jewish insti- 
 tutions can only come from the spoken words pouring 
 forth light and knowledge.” All his successive work 
 forms a vivid illustration of these pregnant suggestions. 
 
 As already hinted, what was most and first 
 wanted was to bridge over the seemingly wide and 
 deep gap between the written and the spoken word, 
 or in other words to prove the connection between 
 Scriptures and tradition. This connection Zunz es- 
 tablished in the first three chapters of the G. V., on 
 the one hand, by proving the late date of certain 
 portions of the Bible, by showing that they al- 
 ready constituted a part of tradition; and, on 
 the other hand, by maintaining the antiquity of certain 
 institutions of the Synagogue (which is at once the 
 creation and creator of tradition). 
 
 Having succeeded in this attempt, it was a com- 
 paratively easy task for Zunztotraceout thecontinuity 
 of the spoken word in the later centuries, the literature 
 of which is abundant and copious, and throughout 
 which all the countries where Jews were scattered 
 contributed toward the development of oral teaching. 
 The only difficulty was to give every century its due 
 and to fix the place of every Midrash. To in- 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 109 
 
 quiries along these lines the greatest part of the 
 subsequent chapters are devoted. 
 
 Zunz was celebrated for his accuracy and thorough- 
 ness. He did not refrain even from giving us whole 
 monographs on the meaning of asingle word or term.” 
 One of the chief characteristics of the Gottesdtenst- 
 liche Vorirdge istheauthor’s entering into the minutest 
 details aboutalmost every single point under discussion. 
 Still Zunz never loses sight of the chief aim of his work, 
 and the continuity and unity of Jewish literature are 
 points to which he turns again and again. The books 
 of the prophets are termed the words of tradition 
 (nbap, G.V.43-44). Certain chapters of Jeremiah, the 
 stories in the books of Chronicles, as well as the great- 
 er part of Daniel, belong to the historical Haggadah 
 (119-125). Isaiah and Ezekiel are the first mystical 
 writers (157-163), and the first germs of the inter- 
 pretatory or exegetical Midrash are not only to be 
 found in Hosea, Ezekiel, etc., but might also be dis- 
 covered in the Pentateuch itself (170-177). 
 
 The prophecy and the Haggadah are both natural 
 expressions of the religious life of the nation (322). And 
 though with the loss of the national independence 
 the voice of the prophets becomes gradually silenced, 
 the voice of God still continues to be heard. Israel 
 continues to consult God through the medium of the 
 Scriptures, and He answers the people through the 
 mouth of the Soferim, the sages, the interpreters of the 
 Law and the Prophets (331-344). And this voice of 
 God is audible to them also through the literature of 
 the Middle Ages with its glossators, exegetes, grammar- 
 ians, and ethical teachers—a literature which ‘‘is a re- 
 
110 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 flex of the divine spirit...and the sum and crest 
 of which offers us a view of what the noblest minds 
 felt and longed for, of what they sought, loved, and 
 also obtained, and for which they sacrificed that 
 which was mortal in them”’ (Zur Geschichte, 2). 
 
 The same continuity and development which Zunz 
 finds in Jewish thought, he discovered also in Jewish 
 sentiment. The highest and noblest expression of this 
 sentiment is the Jewish liturgy, which takes root at 
 the time when Psalms were still being composed (G. V., 
 367), and which, in its later stages, grows by the pai- 
 tanic additions in such rich luxuriance ‘‘that it forms 
 by itself a treasure of religion and history, of poetry 
 and philosophy, and prophecy and Psalms are revived 
 in the Piyyut and the Selihahof the Middle Ages”’ 
 (Synagogale Poeste, 8). 
 
 After the foregoing remarks we may perhaps 
 proceed to say a few words about Zunz’s idea of Ju- 
 daism. According to him, Judaism represents a reli- 
 gion and acontinuous revelation. For us the prophets 
 did not cease with the books of the prophets, and the 
 Psalmists did not die in the times of the Maccabees. 
 ‘‘ All books,’’ he tells in one place, ‘“‘the Bible not ex- 
 cepted, were originally not the source of the creed, 
 but its testimony; they were produced by belief, not 
 vice versa’’ (Gesammelte Schriften., I1, 237). 
 
 But this claim of being a production of be- 
 lief may also be made on behalf of the post-Bibli- 
 cal works such as the Mishnah, the Talmud, the res- 
 ponsa of the Geonim, and the literary productions 
 of the following Rabbinic ages. The whole of Jew- 
 ish literature, in so far as it expresses ‘‘the thoughts 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ II! 
 
 and actions of men” (Gesammelte Schriften, 1,p.123) thus 
 attains almost the same importance as the Scriptures 
 themselves. Hence Zunz’s aversion to the Karaites, 
 whom he never failed to attack (Ritus, p. 156 seg) even 
 at a period when the new discoveries of Firkowitch and 
 Pinsker threatened us with a kind of a literary “ Pan- 
 Karaism,’’ an aversion which he displayed also to- 
 wards certain anti-Rabbinic tendencies of his time. 
 “Highly cultivated minds like Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, 
 Mendelsohn, were able to build up new systems on 
 the basis of tradition’’ (Geiger, Nachgelassene 
 Schriften, V, 184), and we might add perhaps that 
 to other minds, as for instance Spinoza, even the Bible 
 did not prove a safe enough basis on which ‘‘to build’’. 
 
 Now this love and reverence for Jewish literature 
 could not fail to extend itself to the Jewish nation, 
 the creators of this literature. And the paitanic com- 
 positions inspired Zunz to the following inimitable lines 
 which we give here in the excellent translation that 
 George Eliot prefixed as the motto to one of her chap- 
 ters in Daniel Deronda: “If there are ranks in suffer- 
 ing, Israel takes precedence of all the nations—if the 
 duration of sorrow and patience with which they are 
 born enncble, the Jews are among the aristocracy of ev- 
 ery land—if a literature is called rich in the possession 
 of a few classic tragedies, what shall we say to a nation- 
 al Tragedy lasting for fifteen hundred years, in which 
 the poets and the actors were also the heroes?”’ (Syn- 
 agogale Poeste, p. 8) 
 
 But we must not think that Zunz’s hopes as 
 to the future of the Jewish nation have anything 
 in common with that expressed in Daniel Deronda. 
 
112 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 There is not in the whole writing of Zunz a single 
 passage that would prove that its author cher- 
 ished the hopes the realization of which forms the 
 highest ideal of Mordecai—certainly he would 
 strongly condemn the denial of the past and the 
 surrender of the future. The abolition of the rite of 
 circumcision meant for Zunz* [suicide (Gesammelte 
 Senrey remy LL LOO Tits \. eveiei atte Wea eae eee Aa ee 
 ....9ecular]| poems written in Hebrewand composed by 
 Jewish poets, claim his attention as wellas any Piyyut 
 or Selihah. But the fact is that they concern him very 
 little, for the sublimest idea which adorns humanity is 
 the Gottesbegriff or religion. And theSynagogue, with 
 its inculcating and developing the word of God amidst 
 all sufferings and troubles, becomes for Zunz the sub- 
 limest expression of Israel’s life. Andit matters to him 
 very little whether these teachings were uttered in the 
 language of the Scriptures or in Aramaic or French or 
 German, or whether this utterance of a longing for God 
 was expressed in the fine Hebrew of the Spanish writers 
 or in the inartistic tones of the German Paitanim, as 
 long as they had the effect of impressing the devout 
 mind with the idea that ‘‘God is the soul of Israel.’ 
 And this effect certainly no one can deny to the writ- 
 ings of the Jews in the Middle Ages. 
 
 It will, however, be a mistake to suppose Zunz 
 to belong to the romantic school who seek their sal- 
 vation only in the Middle Ages and have no eye for 
 the present. Indeed he was reproached by some on 
 the ground that he stood aloof from the religious 
 movements of his time, and that his later productions 
 
 * At this point a page of the author’s manuscript is missing, 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 113 
 
 have contributed little to the inner development of 
 Judaism.?® To be sure, twice he entered upon a prac- 
 tical career as a Jewish minister, and he was success- 
 ful on neither occasion. Once he acted as preacher 
 in Berlin (1820-1823), and a second time he filled 
 the similar office in Prague (1835), where he remained 
 but for a short time. But it will always remain a 
 question whether the fault lay more with him or in 
 the sad condition of the Jewish communities during 
 the interregnum which we endeavored to describe 
 at the opening of this essay. 
 
 When we read the following passages, we see 
 the reason why Zunz could not have acted other- 
 wise than resign his clerical office. ‘“‘Especially,”’ 
 he writes in the preface of his Sermons which ap- 
 peared in 1823, “I dedicate (these sermons) to 
 the attention of those few who effected the decay 
 of our synagogue here, and despised the voice of 
 truth; and whose insults and absurdities caused 
 me to find that I owe it to my honor, to my prin- 
 ciples, nay, to the welfare of the whole community, 
 to lay down my post as a Jewish preacher—notwith- 
 standing vanity and income.” And we have an al- 
 lusion to the sad condition under which he lived in 
 Prague in the Letters of Rapoport, in which in a 
 letter dated 1836, the author writes to Luzzatto:"‘ Zunz 
 was appointed as rabbi in Prague some seven years 
 ago, but alas! his congregation, Landau included, 
 are unable to understand and to appreciate his great- 
 er merits”’ (p. 84). 
 
 However, it is not our concern to meddle here 
 
114 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 with the struggle between Zunz and his Parna- 
 sim. It may be that he did not always understand 
 his Parnasim; for Landau, the editor of the ‘Aruk and 
 the translator of the Mahzor, was a man of great prac- 
 tical merits in Judaism, his bad etymologies notwith- 
 standing. It may be that Zunz committed sometimes 
 the fault of considering as trifles certain things which 
 were looked upon by others as of vital importance. 
 And in his Kurze Antworten auf Kultusfragen (Gesam- 
 melte Schriften, II, 204) he does not conceal a certain 
 impatience on being disturbed with ritual questions. 
 This brochure is headed by the motto:‘‘God hath made 
 men upright; but they thought out many inventions, ”’ 
 and it concludes with the wish that the time may soon 
 arrive, when acquaintance with the science of Judaism 
 will make both such questionsand answerssuperfluous. 
 
 But if he failed in the pulpit, in his historical 
 works he did far more good for Judaism than any 
 man in the nineteenth century. It is usually not the 
 business of the historian to help make history. But 
 Zunz’s works did make history; they did not mean 
 to tell us a curious story from the past which, inter- 
 esting as it may be, concerns and influences our present 
 very little or not at all. His history was, to speak 
 with Emerson, a “belief in eternity’. And as the 
 great American essayist desired that ‘we as we read 
 must become Greeks, Romans, Turks, priest and king, 
 martyr and executioner, must fasten these images to 
 some reality in our secret experience, or we shall learn 
 nothing rightly’’, so Zunz wanted that as we read the 
 history of Judaism, we should ourselves again become, 
 if not priests and zealots, than at least prophets, Sof- 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ II5 
 
 erim, sages, philosophers, poets, and, if it should be- 
 come necessary, also martyrs for the idea. 
 
 As is well known, Zunz’s greatest work was partly 
 written with the tendency of justifying and revising the 
 institution of teaching or preaching in the synagogue. 
 Surely, ‘“‘only charlatans make new religions’’, he ex- 
 presses himself in one passage. But there is no necessity 
 for making new ones, as soon as we understand the 
 history of religion rightly. Both in the G. V. and 
 in his successive works he suggests to us: here you 
 have the synagogue as a living body with its two great 
 institutions of praying and teaching. The prophets 
 and the Soferim come, and when these disappear 
 they are followed by the sages. New and mighty 
 religions emerge which menace the synagogue in its 
 very existence, and it survives their attacks. New 
 theories about God and man become prevalent 
 which are rather hostile to Judaism, but Jewish phil- 
 osophers understand how to assimilate them and en- 
 rich them by the treasury of ideas possessed by the 
 synagogue. And when the danger became greatest 
 we see a noble band of thinkers and scholars placing 
 themselves in the service of the synagogue which they 
 defend by their life and death. And notwithstanding 
 the great battle they have to fight, they bequeath to 
 us a literature “containing such a treasure of history, 
 philosophy, and poetry, second to no other literature’. 
 What now prevents us from building on this basis and 
 from enlarging this treasure by the best ideas of our 
 time for the benefit of posterity as our ancestors did 
 for us? 
 
 It is difficult to say what turn Judaism would have 
 
116 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 taken without the influence of Zunz in those parts 
 of the world where the Jews have already ceased, or 
 have not as yet begun,to think, and in which the re- 
 spect for institutions is so great that the fact of their 
 mere existence is sufficient reason for maintaining them. 
 In these countries Judaism will always remain the 
 private property of the Parnasim and a matter of in- 
 difference to the great bulk of the community. But 
 happily there are also other countries, and they con- 
 tain the great majority of the Jews, where people 
 do think and where the power of the idea is so great 
 that nothing else but ideas could reconcile them with 
 Judaism. For these countries Zunz did a saving 
 work by revealing to them the great idea of Judaism, 
 and it is in these countries that we have to look for 
 the future of Judaism. 
 
 Zunz was blessed with a long life. He lived to 
 see the fruits of his works. He saw the bridging over 
 of the interregnum and the restitution of the idea in 
 its rightful place. He saw how the men of the idea 
 combined with men of means, and erected those insti- 
 tutions for spreading the knowledge and science of 
 Judaism such as perhaps surpassed his hopes. And he 
 saw a young generation rising up devoting itself with 
 the greatest enthusiasm to the work which the Master 
 had begun. 
 
 Indefatigably Zunz worked for the Emanztpa- 
 tion des Geistes until the eightieth year of his life. But 
 the death of his wife, Adelheid Zunz, the constant 
 companion of all his labors, his troubles, and his suc- 
 cesses through more than half a century, broke his 
 heart and spirits, and it is not known that he wrote 
 
LEOPOLD ZUNZ 117 
 
 anything of consequence after that time. His death 
 occurred on March 17, in the year 1886. His work 
 had to pass on to younger hands. He had done 
 enough through all his life to bear out his motto: 
 Echte Wissenschaft ist thaterzeugend. These last 
 years he had only lived in the reminiscences of the 
 past, in the reminiscences of those days of which he 
 said: “I confess that next to resignation to the will 
 of God, it is the science of Judaism in which I find 
 my only comfort and stay’’. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE 
 GOTTESDIENSTLICHE VORTRAGE 
 
 I: INTRODUCTION 
 
 After the loss of Israel’s independence the syn- 
 agogue becomes the centre of the national and religi- 
 ous life (1); the two prominent functions of which, 
 praying and teaching, may be traced back to the times 
 of the prophets (2). The reading of the Torah which 
 was already customary in the Maccabean period is 
 the oldest method of teaching in the synagogue— 
 different orders of reading: the cycle of three years 
 in Palestine, according to others three years and a 
 half (3); the one-year cycle in Babylon, where the 
 feast of Rejoicing of the Law was also first introduced. 
 The division of the portions usual in the present day 
 is of a comparatively later date (4). The days on 
 which the Law was read (besides the Sabbath), the 
 number of the people who read it. Reading from 
 the Prophets (Haftarah) corresponding with the les- 
 son from the Pentateuch. The antiquity of the Haf- 
 tarot (5-6), whilst their order and selection is of 
 a much later period. The AHaftarot from the 
 Hagiographa in the afternoon service on Sabbath are 
 customary in Babylon.?® The language of the Bible 
 little understood, which fact leads to the introduction 
 
APPENDIX A 11g 
 
 of the Targumim, also written down at a very early 
 period.®*° But these Aramaic translations no longer 
 satisfied all the religious wants of the time, because 
 not only the language of the Bible, but also its contents 
 became obscure in the course of centuries. The legal 
 part (in the Pentateuch) also proved insufficient for 
 altered circumstances ;other laws were never carried out. 
 These facts gave birth to the sermon or lecture, which, 
 interpreting and completing the Bible, soon became 
 by the side of the reading of the Law and the trans- 
 lation (Targum) an essential part of the divine service 
 (10-12). 
 II: CHRONICLES 
 
 The extinction of prophecy (13), the Hagiographa, 
 the nature and character of the single books (14-17), 
 especially of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles; full 
 analysis of these books, their exegetical and legendary 
 tendency, proves that they form only one work com- 
 posed by one author who lived not earlier than 312 and 
 not later than 260 B. C. (17-31), and was thus a con- 
 temporary of the ‘‘ Men of the Great Synagogue” (32). 4 
 
 III: MurpRAsH 
 
 It is in these post-prophetic parts of the Bible, 
 more especially in Chroniclesand Daniel, that the germs 
 of the Midrash on its haggadic side are to be found 
 (35). The prophets were replaced by the Synhedrion, 
 the ‘“‘sons of the prophets’’, by the Talmidim (dis- 
 ciples), Simon the Just,3? the last member of the Men 
 of the Great Synagogue, whose activity is interrupted 
 by the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes (36). 
 
120 APPENDIX A 
 
 The institution of the Synhedrion and its two presidents 
 the Nast and the Ab-Bet-—Din (37). Their zealous 
 efforts in diffusing the knowledge of the Torah and 
 spreading itsideals. The struggle between the Phari- 
 sees and the Sadducees and the triumph of the former. 
 The institution of the wnt °*na (schools). The 
 titles Rabbi and Rabban (38).%* The literary character 
 of this period and many centuries after (both among 
 the Jews and the Christians) is midrashic (40-41). 
 
 Two kinds of Midrash: Midrash Halakah and 
 Midrash Haggadah (42); the former represents the legal 
 and practical side of tradition, and is thus more a prod- 
 uct of reason, resting greatly on authority and conse- 
 quently more stable, whilst the latter appeals more 
 to the heart, originating mainly from the impulses 
 of the moment, and therefore admitting rapid de- 
 velopment. *4 
 
 Germs of the Midrash Halakah are already 
 to be found in Ezekiel (43). All the books of the 
 Bible (except the Pentateuch) form a part of tra- 
 dition (nbap), and more or less modify and comple- 
 ment the Torah (44, 45). The oldest halakic 
 collection (Mishnah) by the school of Hillel, the Mish- 
 nah of R. Akiba, and lastly the Mishnah of Rabbi.* 
 The halakic Midrashim: the Szfra (46), Szfre, Mekzilta 
 (47), and the Sifre Zuta.® 
 
 The existence of other Mishnayyot besides that 
 of Rabbi, the Baraitas (48), especially the Tosefta 
 by R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaya (50).°8 In the course 
 of time also these collections were in need of being 
 explained and interpreted, which caused the rise 
 of the Talmud (51). The two Talmudim, the Tal- 
 
APPENDIX A 121 
 
 mud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Babli (51-55). 
 The so-called Rabbanan Saburat and their activity.* 
 The Halakot Gedolot by R. Simon Kahira, and also 
 those by the pupils of R. Yehudai Gaon (56). The 
 Sheeltot, the literary production of the Geonim, the 
 cessation of the Babylonian schools (57). 
 
 IV: HaGGaDAH 
 
 The difference between Halakah and Haggadah 
 (58). Three ways of explaining the Scriptures: Peshaé, 
 the simple understanding of words and things; Derash, 
 reflecting, by means of homiletical explanation, ‘‘the 
 current condition of things in the mirror of prophecy”’; 
 Sod, mystical and allegorical interpretation of the 
 Bible (59). Classification of the Haggadah into gen- 
 eral Haggadah (such as history, ethics, etc.) and 
 special Haggadah, more confined to the explanation 
 of the Scriptures (60). Six literary groups which have 
 to be noticed with regard to the Haggadah: The Tar- 
 gumim,; haggadic fragments in halakic works; ethical 
 Haggadah; historical Haggadah; mysticism; special 
 Haggadah or haggadic interpretations of the Scriptures 
 (61). 
 
 V: TARGUMIM 
 
 The antiquity of the Targumim. The Targum 
 Onkelos and that of Jonathan (62). Interpolations 
 in the latter (63). The Targum to the Hagiographa 
 (64-65). The Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch 
 and the Targum Yerushalmi, which are two versions 
 of the same work (65-77); fragments of the Targum 
 
122 APPENDIX A 
 
 Yerushalmt on other Biblical books, and lastly the 
 Targum of Akzlas (77-83). 
 
 VI: HAGGADIC FRAGMENTS IN THE WORKS OF THE 
 MIDRASH AND THE HALAKAH 
 
 In the Szfra, Sifre, Sifre Zuta, the Mekilta (84), 
 the Seder ‘Olam (85).42 The thirty-two Rules by 
 Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili,43 the Barazta of the 
 Meleket ha-Mishkan, or the description of the Taber- 
 nacle (86).44 Again, haggadic fragments in the Mishna 
 extending either over whole tractates such as the 
 Masseket Middot (historical Haggadah) or Mas- 
 seket Abot, ethical Haggadah (87); or over a few sen- 
 tences scattered in the different tractates at various 
 places as well as in the Tosefta. 
 
 Again, haggadic fragments in the quotations of the 
 Talmud from the Baraitot. Tana de-be R. Ishmael** 
 and the Seder Eliyyahu (88) ; as well as in the so-called 
 Minor Tractates (89—91),47 and in the lost Baratta or 
 Mishnah of the 49 Mzddot (92).4° There also ex- 
 isted Baraitot on medicine,4#9 geometry, and on 
 the calendar, the Baraita of Adda and Samuel 
 (93).5° Large haggadic fragments scattered over 
 the two Talmudim (94), as well as in the halakic 
 works of the Geonim. The tractate Soferim (95), # 
 the Sheeltot of R. Aha (96),5? the Halakot Gedolots3 
 and other works and responses by the Geonim (97),54 
 
 VII: THe EtuicaL HAGGADAH 
 
 Its manifold character and various forms (98, 99). 
 The fable literature, especially the fables of R. Meir 
 
APPENDIX A 123 
 
 (100),s5 the gnomology in the apocryphal books, 
 Ecclesiasticus (Jesus ben Sirach), the Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon (101-105). The lost work Megillat Setarim, 
 or Megillat Hasidim, which also contained ethical pre- 
 cepts and sayings.sS° The whole of the Tractate 
 Abot.’7 The chapter Kinyan Torah (107) and the 
 Minor Tractates: Abot de-Rabbt Natan (109) ,5§ Derek 
 Erez Rabbah and Zuta, and the Perek ha-Shalom (110- 
 111).5° Again the works Tana de-be Eliyyahu (112- 
 117) and the Midrash Temurah (118).% 
 
 VIII: Tae HistoricAL HAGGADAH 
 
 Traces of it in Biblical books (119). Historic 
 Haggadah in the literature succeeding the Hadrianic 
 age. The Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, the New 
 Testament, the additions to Esther, the Additions 
 to Daniel, the Books of the Maccabees, Judith, Ar- 
 isteas, and the book of Tobit (120-125). Historical 
 Haggadah in works from the Talmudic period. The 
 Haggadah shel Pesah (126-127),”’ the Megillat Yuhasin 
 and Book of Adam (128). Lost haggadic collections 
 of which the earlier authorities made use, among them 
 R. Nissim (129). Historic haggadic composition 
 of the time of the Geonim. Megillat Antiochus (134)% 
 Seder ‘Olam Zuta (135-139), Eldad ha-Dani,” the 
 Book of Zerubbabel,°* the Story of R. Joshua ben Levi 
 (141),°° the Midrash Eleh Ezkerah (on the execution 
 of the ten martyrs (142),7° the Midrash on the Ten 
 Commandments (143),7* the Midrash Wayyis‘u,? 
 the chronicle of Moses (145), the Midrashim on the 
 death of Moses and that of Aaron,?3 Josippon,’ 
 and the Sefer ha-Yashar.’s 
 
124 APPENDIX A 
 
 IX: MyYsTICISM 
 
 Beginning with the vision of Ezekiel. Criticism 
 of this book (157-162).7%° Explanatory attempts in 
 the Wisdom of Solomon. The Secret of the Creation. 
 Traces of it in Ben Sira and Philo. Mysticism in 
 the Talmud (164). The Sefer Yeztrah (165).77 The 
 mystical character of certain chapters in the Baratta 
 de-Rabbi Eliezer. The Baraita of Merkabah and 
 Ma‘aseh Bereshit (166). The Book of Raztel, the 
 Alphabet of R. Akiba (168), the Midrash Konen, and 
 the Sefer ha-Yashar (169).% 
 
 X: EXEGETICAL OR SPECIAL HAGGADAH 
 
 Germs of it already in the Pentateuch (170), in 
 the books of the Prophets, and also in the Hagiographa 
 (171). Interpretation and application of words of 
 the Scriptures in the literary production of the pre- 
 Hadrianic time; the Wisdom of Solomon, the Second 
 Book of the Maccabees, the Meditations of the Es- 
 senes, the Traditions of the old Sages, the Targumim 
 (171); Philo, Aristeas, Josephus, and the New Test- 
 ament. But the real exegetical Haggadah in all its 
 fulness begins with the period of the Tannaim—the 
 Torah of R. Meir containing haggadic notes on the 
 margin (172).79 Enumeration of midrashic collec- 
 tions of this kind (173). The Bereshit Rabbah (173- 
 179); the Midrash Ekah Rabbati and the Midrash Way- 
 yikra Rabbah (180-184).%° 
 
 XI. THe PESIKTA (DE-RAB KAHANA) 
 
 Attempt to restore this Pesikta from quotations 
 (185-226).§ 
 
APPENDIX A 125 
 
 XII: YELAMMEDENU (226-238) *? 
 
 XIII: THe PrestkTa RABBATI (239-251)%8 
 
 XIV: THE OTHER MIDRASHIM TO THE PENTATEUCH 
 
 The Midrash Debarim Rabbah (252). The De- 
 barim Zuta (253).24 The Midrash Rabbah to the 
 last five chapters of Bereshit and also another Mid- 
 rash to the Blessing of Jacob (254-255); the Aggadat 
 Bereshit (256); the Shemot Rabbah and the Bemidbar 
 Rabbah (258-262) .*5 
 
 XV: MIDRASHIM TO OTHER BIBLICAL Books 
 
 The Midrash to the Song of Songs or Aggadat 
 Haztta (263); the Midrash Esther (264) ;8° the Midrash 
 to the Psalms (266) ;°7 Proverbs (2648), and Samuel 
 (269), andthe Midrashim on Job, Isaiah, Jonah,** Ezra 
 and Chronicles, most of which are lost (270). 
 
 XVI: BARAITA DE-RABBI ELIEZER (271-278)5® 
 
 XVII: SINGLE HAGGADIC PIECES 
 
 Midrash Abba Gorton; Midrash Esfa (279) ;% 
 Midrash Tadshe (280) 39? Midrash Wayekullu; Midrash 
 Hashkem (281) 333 Midrash Wayyosha;9+ Midrash A bkir 
 (282) 395 and Midrash Haftarot (283).9% Again the 
 midrashic pieces: The Midrash Ta’ame Haserot W1- 
 yeterot;? the Ma’aseh Torah, the Midrash on the Three 
 Things (284); the Shemint Othothav and the Huppat 
 Eliyyahu (285).% 
 
126 APPENDIX A 
 
 XVIII: R. Moses ha-Darshan (287-293)99 
 
 R. Tobia ben Eliezer (94).%° R. Simon ha-Darshan 
 (295-303) .2% 
 
 XIX:THE HAGGADAH AS AN ORGANIZED BopDy 
 
 Recapitulation of its history and development 
 through nearly fifteen centuries (500 B.C.E.—975 C.E.) 
 which may divided into seven epochs (304-308) .1™ 
 
 Characteristics of the two schools, the one in Pal- 
 estine and the other in Babylon (309).1% The begin- 
 nings of a Jewish literature in Europe in the ninth 
 century. First in Italy, afterward also in France and 
 Germany to which countries certain haggadic col- 
 lections owe their origin (311-321). Different forms 
 of Haggadah. Characteristics of the earlier and later 
 Haggadah (311-341).!% Its religious and _ political 
 (national) tendency, its position towards the Halakah, 
 development of the former from the prophecy (322). 
 Various appellations of the Haggadists (lecturers) 
 (324). The Haggadist is not bound to any fixed rule 
 in his interpretation of Scripture (325). Various 
 methods of application (325-329) .%5 
 
 XX: THe System OF LECTURING IN ANTIQUITY 
 
 Brief account of the history of the lecture from 
 the time of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, where 
 the evidence for the existence of this institution be- 
 comes clearer and stronger,and from thence up to the 
 time of Hadrian (329-333),7°° Lectures on different 
 
APPENDIX A 127 
 
 occasions (334-337). Various expressions for the word 
 lecture and lecturer, the Meturgeman (338). The 
 places where the lectures were given; the behavior 
 of the public during the lecture; the hour for the lecture 
 (338-340) ; increasing popularity of the Haggadist and 
 the Haggadah (341-347) .17 
 
 The existence of the haggadic lecturein Greece and 
 in Italy,possibly also in Spain and in France(349). The 
 main subjects of the lecture are of a religious and moral 
 nature, but sometimes also intermixed with other 
 elements (350). Thestructure of the lecture and other 
 technical phrases (351—356).1°8 The vernacular used 
 for the lecture (357). The permission to write down 
 the Haggadah at a very early period (359). 
 
 XXI: LATER HAGGADAH DEVELOPMENTS 
 
 Jews coming in contact with the Arabs. Their 
 taking part in science (361). Transference of Jewish 
 learning to Europe. Italy, Spain, and France (362). 
 The existence of great Jewish scholars in Italy as well 
 as in Spain already in the ninth century (363). The 
 story of the four captured Geonim (364).%9 Traces 
 of Jewish literature in France and Germany (365).?° 
 The history of homiletics (Haggadah) in Europe. Its 
 development into philosophical and kabbalistic ex- 
 positions of the Scriptures, or becoming a part of the 
 liturgy (366). 
 
 The history of the liturgy and its develop- 
 ment (366-370). The beginning of the Piyyut, 
 by Kalir in Italy (380-389)."* Imitators of Kalir 
 
128 APPENDIX A 
 
 (389-392). Later Paitanim (393). The Piyyut deals 
 chiefly with haggadic elements, though it cultivates 
 sometimes also halakic, philosophic, and mystical 
 subjects (394). The earliest commentaries on the 
 Talmud and the Haggadah (397-398). Maimonides 
 the founder of the rationalistic school for the inter- 
 pretation of the Haggadah, and his followers (399). 
 The Spanish and the German schools in their various 
 relations to the Haggadah (400-402).? The kabbal- 
 istic schools (404-414).™8 
 
 XXII: System oF LECTURING IN THE FIRST RAB- 
 BINIC AGE 
 
 Beginning with the close of the gaonic period. The 
 one-year cycle becomes prevalent (410). New arrange- 
 ments concerning the reading of the Law (411). The 
 translation of the Law in connection with the read- 
 ing is abolished (413). But the lecture is con- 
 tinued (415). The Darshan and his functions on 
 different occasions (417). The persecutions in Ger- 
 many prevent a deeper study of the Haggadah (418). 
 The religious poetry in Spain and its difference in 
 character from the Piyyut (419). The lecture in 
 Spain (421), Italy (422), in Candia, Egypt, in the 
 north of Africa (423), and the liturgy and the lecture 
 of the Karaites.!4 
 
 XXIII: System oF LECTURING IN THE SECOND RAB- 
 BINIC AGE 
 
 The expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Immi- 
 gration to Turkey (428). Enumeration of distinguish- 
 ed lecturers during the period in Turkey, Holland, 
 
APPENDIX A 129 
 
 England, and chiefly Italy, who lecture in the ver- 
 nacular of every country (429-434). The spirit and 
 form of the lecture, the position of the lecturer, 
 and the placeswhere the lectures were given(435-436). 
 Germany. The sufferings of the Jews in this country. 
 Decay of science among them, corruption of the lan- 
 guage (437), though in former centuries they used to 
 speak pure German (438-440).15 The Jargon (440). 
 The sad conditions of the scholars. The immigration 
 of foreign rabbis from Poland, their bad effects on the 
 development of the lecture (441-443); though both 
 Germany and Poland possessed still many lecturers 
 or travelling preachers (445). The lecture inter- 
 mixed with Kabbalah and givenin Jargon. The com- 
 plaints against these evils (446-447). 
 
 XXIV: REVIEW OF THE PRESENT TIME 
 
 The overthrow of the old time. The awaken- 
 ing of Europe (494). The period of Mendelssohn. 
 Hisownand his friends’efforts to spread culture and en- 
 lightenment among the Jews. Foundation of schools, 
 etc. (450-454). The three institutions which need 
 reform. The training-school of the rabbis, the teach- 
 ing of religion and service, and the attempts made 
 toward reforming them, especially the abolition of 
 the pilpulistic lecture and the introduction of the Ger- 
 man sermon (455-468). The religious conditions of 
 the Jews in other countries: France (469), The Nether- 
 lands, England, America (471), Italy (472), Turkey, 
 Egypt (474), Tunis, Palestine, and Persia (475). The 
 mission of the German Jews in reforming Judaism 
 and the nature of this reform (476-481). 
 
130 APPENDIX B 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 BRIEF ANALYSIS OF ZUR GESCHICHTE 
 
 Some approach to such an analysis was made by 
 Beer (Zeitschrift fiir die religidsen Interessen des Ju- 
 denthums, 1846, pp. 264, 346, 472, seg.) and Philippson 
 (Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, 1846, Nos. 6,7,8,9) 
 in their reviews of the Zur Geschichte. The book is 
 provided with a table of contents running as fol- 
 lows: 1. Jewish literature. — 2. The medieval literature 
 of the Jews in France and Germany (with the subdi- 
 visions: Introduction, Glossators, Grammarians, Mo- 
 ralists and Characteristics).—3. Bibliographica (with 
 the subdivisions: determination of dates given in He- 
 brew books or MSS.; collections and lists of books; 
 printers and publications in Mantua,1476-1662; print- 
 ing offices in Prague, and annals of Hebrew typography 
 in Prague, 1513-1657).—4. The memorial of the right- 
 eous.—5. The Jewish poets of Provence.—6. History of 
 the Jews in Sicily—7. Numismatics. But it would be 
 a mistake to think that this table gives an adequate 
 idea of the treasures which are stored up in this work. 
 Thus, for instance, the introductory chapter contains 
 almost a complete list of the names of Christian schol- 
 ars who wrote works either on or against the Rabbinic 
 literature (7-17). 
 
 The essay on the Tosafists, dry as it may look, 
 became the basis of such works as Neubauer’s Les 
 Rabbins Francats, S. Kohn’s Mordechat ben Hzllel 
 (Breslau, 1878), Gross’ Essays on different rabbis 
 from the Franco-German school,!!® and many others. 
 The paragraph bearing the unassuming title Char- 
 
APPENDIX B 131 
 
 acteristics (157-213) contains, besides a resumé of the 
 literary activity of these Franco-German schools (157— 
 167), also an account of the life and morals of the Jews 
 in these countries during the Middle Ages. Among 
 other subjects such as their system and the programs 
 of their schools (167-170), the relation of the two sexes, 
 their marriages and the participation of the women 
 in the religious life (171-173), their trades, their pas- 
 times and their amusements (173-175). Their modest 
 way of living, the value of money and the price of 
 various articles (176). Their little acquaintance with 
 natural history and mathematics, their superstitions 
 (177-178). The piety of the German Jews, religion 
 being the centre of their life, who nevertheless has 
 friendly relations with their Christian neighbors by 
 their commerce, visits, and disputations (179-180). 
 Their relation with the priests and the monks and 
 their works (181). The ordinances of the rabbis 
 against luxury, polygamy, etc. (183), the constitution 
 of the communities (184). The titles Rabbi, Haber, 
 etc., and the ordination (186); and many other sub- 
 jects of a similar nature. 
 
 Certainly all these subjects are only slightly 
 handled. But the hints here given were taken 
 up, among others, by Giidemann, in whose hands 
 they expanded into three volumes forming his 
 Geschichte des Erzitehungswesens und der Kultur der 
 Juden. Lastly, we shall mention the paragraphs 
 “The memory of the righteous’’(304-317), from which 
 heading one would hardly guess that, besides the lists 
 of abbreviations, the following subjects are in addition 
 treated: the eschatology of Judaism, especially the 
 
132 APPENDIX B 
 
 opinions of Jewish authors concerning salvation of 
 the Gentiles (371-387); the histories of Jewish ceme- 
 teries (390-395) ; cemeteries and tombstones destroyed 
 by Christians (395-401); collections of epitaphs by 
 various scholars; the cemeteries and epitaphs which 
 are most important from a historical point (402-421); 
 explanations of some pedigrees of celebrated families 
 in Germany and in Spain (421-441).™ 
 
APPENDIX C 133 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 
 BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE RITUS AND SYNAGOGALE 
 POESIE 
 
 It is the Ritus we have to consult for the fix- 
 ing of the original prayers (Stammegebete) in the times 
 of the Geonim, the Minhag (custom) that counter- 
 balances this fixing, the difference between the 
 Jews in the East (Babylon) and those in the West 
 (Palestine) concerning the liturgy (1-2), and also 
 the reading of the Law (3); the importance of the Min- 
 hag that maintains itself in spite of the protest of the 
 authorities; the Minhag influenced by the notions of 
 the different countries where the Jews were scattered 
 (4); the two main Minhagim with regard to the liturgy, 
 the Arabic Minhag (Minhag Sepharad) and the Pal- 
 estinian Minhag (Minhag Ashkenaz), and their sub- 
 divisions (6) ;somespecimens of these differences (7-14) ; 
 references in the Responsa and works of the Geonim 
 and their activity in this respect (15,16,17; comp. 184, 
 seqg.); the compilers of first prayer-books (Szddurim,18) 
 and the Mahzorim (20); compilers of the works con- 
 cerning the Minhagim (21); the commentators of the 
 Siddur or the prayer-book (22, 23; see also below, 37); 
 the influence of mysticism on the liturgy (24); books 
 concerning liturgical questions (25—32; see also below, 
 35); the price of prayer-books and their size (33-34). 
 
 The correspondence between the original prayers 
 in thedifferentrites,the differencesconfining themselves 
 chiefly to the Pryyutim (38); short descriptions of 
 the different rites of the Arabic branch (39-59), and 
 of those of the Palestinian branch (60-85) ; correspond- 
 
134 APPENDIX C 
 
 ence between the different rites, besides the original 
 prayers (86-97); the days of penitence and fasting 
 in the different countries, and Selihot (penitential 
 prayers) recited on those days (117-139) ; the cause for 
 omitting or altering certain Pzyyutim (139-156); the 
 Karaitic rite (157-162); the attacks on and the defence 
 of the Pzyyutim (162-178). 
 
 In general we might regard the Ritus with the 
 outlines of the external history of the Jewish lit- 
 urgy as a kind of introduction to the Synagogale 
 Poesie (though this appeared earlier), which treats 
 more of the internal history. Here we have to 
 look for the natural development of the Piyyut 
 and the Selihah from the Psalms and the exhortations 
 of the Prophets (1-8), the historical basisof the Piyyutim 
 in the sufferings of Israel; short list of these sufferings 
 up to 1544 (9-58) ;*° the state of the liturgy in the be- 
 ginning of the Middle Ages (59); the cause that led 
 to the rise of the Piyyut (60); the oldest additions to 
 the original prayers (61), consisting in the Yozer, Ofan, 
 and Zulat (62),and their characteristics; the description 
 of the later Meorah and Ahabah and of the still later 
 paitanic additions to the Nzshmat (63-64); the Keroba, 
 additions to the proper Tefillah and the additions 
 to the Ma‘arib on festival eves (65-69). 
 
 The Pzyyutim on other occasions (70); the paita- 
 nic lamentations for the ninth of Ab by Kalir, his 
 Kerobot for Purim (72); the paitanic compositions 
 describing the death of Moses; the Piyyutim for the 
 Hoshana-day and specimens in a German translation 
 (73-76); the oldest addition to the original prayers for 
 the Day of Atonement, the New Year, and the days 
 
APPENDIXNC 135 
 
 between the former and the latter (77-83); the Selihah 
 (especially used in the days before and after the New 
 Year), and description of its various compositions, 
 the metre and the rhyme, etc., its employing of new 
 words (85-125; see also 215). 
 
 The further development of the Pzryyut; its 
 elaborations of talmudical material, sometimes 
 - Halakah, but chiefly Haggadah (127); the prayers 
 in the Piyyut (129); the five different kinds of the 
 Selithah (135-151; see especially 139-144); the 
 development of the legend of the ten martyrs; 
 (144-151) the influence of mysticism on the Pryyut; 
 the authors of the Selihah of the various countries, 
 with specimens of their compositions in German 
 translations (152-334), and the Piyyut after 1544; 
 continuation of the list of the sufferings in this new 
 time up to the year 1757 (335-355), and the Pait- 
 anim of this period (356-363). The twenty-six ap- 
 pendices which follow are mostly on the new gram- 
 matical forms created by the Paitanim, their peculiar 
 language and style and the metaphors employed by 
 them when alluding to Israel or its persecutors, the 
 Gentiles. 
 
136 APPENDIX D 
 
 APPENDIX D 
 
 The library of Dr. Zunz was bought by the 
 trustees of the Judith College in Ramsgate. But 
 this collection does not include Zunz’s copies of 
 his own works with the author’s annotations, cor- 
 rections, and additions. These are now the property 
 of the Zunz-Stiftung, Berlin. Its courteous president 
 was kind enough to lend me these writings of 
 Zunz for five weeks. 
 
 The books which were sent to me from Berlin 
 are: the Zeztschrift, the Gottesdtenstlichen Vortrdge, the 
 Ritus, the just-mentioned Synagogale Poesie and the 
 Zur Geschichte. The Literaturgeschichte, and the Gesam- 
 melte Schriften, contain probably no additions. 
 
 The last note which Zunz made seems to be 
 the rather curious words on the fly leaf of the Syn- 
 agogale Poesie des Mititelaliers: “Ist 1855, 2 Maerz 
 erschienen, das ist mehr als 207 tausend Stunden 
 vor der Sonntags-Beilage vom 6 Oktober 1878.” 
 
 In the Zeitschrift the two articles by Zunz: 
 Ueber die in den hebrdtsch-juidischen Schriften vor- 
 kommenden hispantschen Ortsnamen (114) and Salo- 
 mon ben Isaac, genannt Rascht (272), are both inter- 
 leaved, and the additions and corrections to the 
 latter entirely confirm Zunz’s statement that he 
 thoroughly revised it. It is superfluous to say that 
 these notes and corrections are of the greatest import- 
 ance and would add much to our knowledge of Rashi. 
 But it must be remarked that it does not seem that 
 Zunz (though there is on page 326 a reference to 
 the Orient, 1849) in later years earnestly thought of 
 
APPENDIX D 137 
 
 rewriting this essay. Otherwise we could not explain 
 the fact of his having neglected to correct the as- 
 sertion that the author of the Yosippon was a French 
 Jew, an opinion which he gave up in the Gofttes- 
 dienstlichen Vortrdége (150). 
 
 This last-mentioned works, the Zur Geschichte, 
 the Ritus, and the Synagogale Poeste are not inter- 
 leaved, but they are full of corrections and additions 
 on the margin and also between the lines written in 
 a very small hand. Besides there exist three small 
 note-books containing remarks relating to the sub- 
 jects of these books. We have copied many of them? 
 and hope to publish them when this essay will appear 
 in print. Here we give only a few specimens of a more 
 general character, as they may be understood without 
 the text in hand to which they refer. 
 
 As may be expected, it was the Gottesdienstlichen 
 Vortrdge that Zunz cared most to correct and to com- 
 plete. And there isnodoubt that these corrections are 
 indispensable for a new edition of the G. V. To give 
 only one instance: Note d on page 57 contains an 
 important statement in the name of the Amora Mar 
 Samuel, but Zunz fails to give us the reference to it. 
 The correction to this note runs as follows: “Jer. Bera- 
 choth c. 2. f. 12a. Von &ahnlichen nur tempordren 
 Halachoth s. Baba Kama 94b and Tos. ibid. Vel. 
 poso vant poss m> Jer. Theruma 1 f. 4a, Suan amon 
 moon ms Jer. Baba Mezia 1. f.”’ Such notes abound 
 in hundreds. The Patristic literature also receives 
 some attention. To the list of manuscripts on page 
 482 twenty nine codices are added; p. 48, the existence 
 of the Mekilta of R. Simon ben Johai is accepted, 
 
138 APPENDIX D 
 
 a fact which is now proved beyond doubt, and in the 
 same way many other points are corrected. 
 
 But still we cannot say that even these corrections 
 and additions bring up the Gottesdienstliche Vortrige to 
 the present level of our knowledge.”° Wecould not find 
 in all these posthumous writings reference to the Beth 
 ha- Midrashof Jellinekin, which many of the Midrashim 
 known to Zunz only from quotations or manuscripts 
 are now edited. There is also no allusion to Buber’s 
 edition of the Pesikta, which at any rate makes the 
 greatest part of chapter 11 superfluous. The state- 
 ments about Kalir (318 seg.) were also left uncorrected. 
 But in the reference we gave in note ™!, we have am- 
 ple evidence that Zunz did alter his opinion with regard 
 to the age and country of Kalir. That he gave up 
 the belief in MN’1UD) is also certain, and the tes- 
 timony of Luzzatto (see the reference in note 18) 
 gains additional strength the following MS. note 
 of Zunz in the Zur Geschichte, p. 126: ‘‘Landauer 
 (Orient 1845 No. 36) macht ihn zum Verfasser des 
 vierten Gesanges "28 ‘758 DDN; er unterstiitzt diese 
 Meinung mit my wn!’ The exclamation mark is 
 by Zunz. 
 
 In a long note again containing a refuta- 
 tion of 7°aN7 Zunz tries to maintain his view con- 
 cerning the jn) ‘7 np vw", which cannot be main- 
 tained any longer since the edition of this Baraita 
 (see note 33). In a remark on page 405 relating 
 to the Zohar-question we find the following char- 
 acteristic words: “‘Beweise bei N77 nrna jap nnp|v~ 
 om] "8 MS. Reggio hinter N77 nna und zu 8 
 om) MS. Die starksten Beweise schlummern noch 
 
APPENDIX D 139 
 
 bei Rapoport und mzr.’’ But as these ‘“ Beweise’”’ 
 are still schlummernd nothing remains to the fu- 
 ture editor of the Goittesdtenstliche Vortrige but to 
 refer to Landauer, Jellinek and Graetz. We could 
 add many more instances of this kind, but the few 
 we have given suffice to show that the Gotiedienstliche 
 Vortrige cannot be edited without a thorough re- 
 vision, though these MS. additions and corrections 
 will prove of great use to the editor. 
 
 Of much more importance, even, we think the 
 many MS. notes to the Synagogale Poesie, Ritus, 
 and the Zur Geschichte. There is no hope that 
 these books will ever find a devoted editor’, and 
 the additions to the content of these works by the 
 successors of Zunz correct him very little. Every 
 note, therefore, which Zunz left us is of the greatest 
 value and ought to be edited by the Zunz—Siiftung. 
 We might perhaps remark here that this part of the 
 Zur Geschichie concerning the printing-offices and 
 the publications in Prague and Mantua, which was so 
 violently attacked by the reviewer in the Orient (see 
 note 117) is thoroughly corrected in the manuscripts. 
 
 We have been speaking of Caro’s Hebrew trans- 
 lation of the Goitesdienstliche Vorirdge.%2 With re- 
 gard to this translation we find in the flyleaf of the 
 G. V. the following note: Nachschrift des David 
 
 Caro: 
 mT Ty orn > mp ma ow ala 'm ATS OYET, 
 
 OY 3 (D2 InN PR WS OM apn oon npnyn odwnb> 
 °m NT ANN(1833 3.Dezember) T"¥pn IyDD ND aw Nv wbw 
 DIT OF Tt (1833 18. August) 2’Spn apy 'D p"wD wyD 
 oma aaa a nna ory res msn oe aria ore qwE 
 
140 APPENDIX D 
 
 nano inn) Ssxrew onbs: asd aay Anzi m7 yn may 
 
 Toma *>axa avy 1a mw apo b> ww dy 
 To this Zunz adds: ‘‘Meine Revision der Ueber- 
 setzung beendigt 1835 7. April Dienstag (jo ‘m) Nach- 
 mittag halb 6.” 
 
 Of Zunz’s relation to other scholars the following 
 note on one ofthe fly leaves of the Gottesdienstliche 
 Vortrage is very characteristic: *‘ Dr. Formstecher: iiber 
 Israels Gottes-Verehrung (in Adler’s Synagoge, II, Heft 
 2, 87-107) ist, wie auch bemerkt wird, haupt- 
 sichlich aus meinem Buche geschépft. Ewald, Gesch. 
 der Israeliten, benutzt meine Forschungen iiber die 
 Chronik, sagt es aber nicht; vgl. die Zeitschrift 
 fiir Geschichtswissenschaft, Berlin 1845, III, 567.— 
 m1 KG6nigsberg 1845, 2 Ausgabe schreibt Samuel 
 Meklenburg mich aus (Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, 126 f) 
 Edelmann nennt mich nicht; Noon 120 von Chajes, 
 Lemberg 1845 in 4., 7p. ns wo dasselbe geschieht. 
 Vel. Th. 6S 265, 256. Sizdur, von Landshut u. Edel- 
 mann, K6nigsberg bei Samter, 1846 in 8. benutzt 
 mich S 36 f iiber die Gebete.”’ 
 
 Of his resentment against isolating Jewish litera- 
 ture the following MS. note may serve as an example: 
 “Hupfeld hat von diesem meinem Buche nichts 
 gewusst als er seinen Artikel schrieb in de antiq. Scrip- 
 tor. accentuum (1847) part 2 p. 11, ff., daher heisst 
 wohl im Katolog seiner Bibliothek mein Buch: “Zur 
 Geschichte und Literatur der Juden.’’! 
 
 Many other notes of a similar character are to 
 be found in this posthumous writing, but as we think 
 to enlarge our essay in every respect we must 
 satisfy ourselves with the few we have given here. 
 
APPENDIX D 141 
 
 We will only add one more MS. note occurring on the 
 margin of the Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge p. 385 which is 
 characteristic by reason of his estimation of the Piyyu- 
 tim: “Ang. Mai, Classicorum Auctorum Tom V p. 479- 
 500 Hisperica Famina in seltsamer und abnormer 
 Latinitat prosaisches Gedicht mannigfaltigen Inhalts, 
 dessen Verfasser selber 12 Arten Latinitat annimmt— 
 als h6re man einen Paitan! (v. Allgemeine Lit. Z. 1836 
 Mai. f. Bl. N. 50) wimmelnd von ungewohnlichen, bar- 
 barischen griechischen u. neugebildeten Wortern. Die 
 in der Sammlung vorhergehenden Stiicke sind meist 
 aus dem 8 u. 9 Jahrhundert”’. 
 
 About Zunz’s claim to keep the office of a rabbi 
 we have to state here on the authority of Dr. Neumann 
 that he had his AST NANA from the famous rabbi 
 Aaron Choriner. 
 
 Of his devotion to his wife the following passage 
 from a letter by Zunz, in which he thanks the president 
 of the Zunz-Stiftung for his attention, gives evidence: 
 “Diese auf mich eindringende Fluth von Theilnahme 
 u. Liebe, die unter der Gestalt der Anerkennung auf- 
 trat, hat mich innig geriihrt, hoch erfreut, und das nicht 
 zum kleinsten Theile meines teuren Weibes, meiner 
 geliebten Adelheid wegen, die nun 42 Jahre in Freud 
 und Leid meine Stiitze und Helferin ist, deren Ein- 
 sicht, Edelsinn und Geniigsamkeit ich mit verschuldet 
 bin, wenn ich die bisherigen Lebensjahre der Wissen- 
 schaft zu weihen im Stande gewesen.”’ 
 
 The letter is dated Berlin, August the 16th, 1864. 
 
 We have also to thank Dr. Neumann for a copy 
 of the epitaphs of Zunz and his wife;we give them here: 
 
 ad 
 
142 APPENDIX D 
 
 
 
 I Vorderseite 
 iD 
 AWN MIP WNT 
 b7x n70 
 jorya a> "43 n3 
 yng jop> aw oY ap nes 
 noy Ss mppK3 
 mw one) oyay na 
 rar bratnta os ao 
 II. Hinterseite. 
 Hier ruht 
 ADELHEID ZUNZ 
 geb. Bermann aus Pyrmont 
 geboren am 2 April 1802-5562 
 gestorben am 18 August 1874-5634 
 
 I. Vorderseite 
 
 TIYA PY NII PrP Nb WN 
 by-w nton $5.15 wa Nn 
 BND PON BVP aR PT NIT 
 pon yw nyntpa ospinn 
 yaw jan dyn wwn 
 
 yns yop’> aw ar 
 mw ow) oyen ja wy ds ADK 
 OE SIs oy 
 wand a ss ova nmiap> dary 
 bard aw ore Jem opr oO 
 yoann am. mar od wom 
 sy pdiyd orazis> oan psn) 
 
 II. Hinterseite 
 
 Hier ruht 
 DR. LEOPOLD ZUNZ 
 geboren zu Detmold 
 am 10ten August 1794 
 gestorben am 17 Marz 1886. 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 
 
 The object of this article is to show how little 
 progress has been made in the modern study of the 
 Talmud, to suggest some of the unavoidable causes 
 of this lack of progress, and to indicate in some measure 
 that, great as are the inherent difficulties of this 
 study, they are too frequently aggravated by the 
 ignorant, unscientific, or prejudiced treatment to 
 which the Talmud is subjected. 
 
 Notwithstanding the widespread tendency to- 
 wards minute philological investigation which has 
 characterized the last half century, resulting in vastly 
 increased knowledge not only of the ancient forms of 
 Indo-Teutonic speech, but of most other languages, 
 living and dead, and, notwithstanding the omnivorous 
 character of the science itself, modern philology has 
 done but little, so far, for the study and elucidation of 
 the Rabbinical classics. We say modern philology 
 advisedly, bearing in mind the loyal accuracy, the dis- 
 passionate criticism, and the indefatigable researches 
 which have raised the methods of the true philologist 
 to a level with those of the exact sciences. 
 
 Of work—of a kind—upon the Talmud there has 
 been plenty, and to spare. Of this we shall treat 
 later. But of real, honest study and scientific crit- 
 icism there has been comparatively little. At first 
 sight this might well seem strange, and even inex- 
 plicable. It might seem strange that important por- 
 
144 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 tions of the literature of that people to which the 
 world of civilization owes so much of its spiritual life, 
 precisely as to the Greeks it owes so much of its intel- 
 lectual life, should remain as little known as the lit- 
 erature of China, or should absorb even less interest 
 than the Cuneiform inscriptions. That the literature 
 of the Jews should occupy a lower place in the con- 
 sideration of the Western peoples than does the San- 
 scrit or the Pali, might well be wondered at. But 
 this is the case, and it would be no exaggeration to 
 say that for every Englishman who has read a line 
 of the Talmud there are ten who have read the Rig- 
 veda. 
 
 Yet to complain of this neglect is not our purpose. 
 Indeed, much as we regret it, we cannot but admit 
 it is in many respects intelligible. The difficulties 
 which beset the proper study of the Talmud are very 
 great, very numerous, and very varied. These dif- 
 ficulties are both internal and external. 
 
 The internal difficulties arising from the history, 
 form, and character of the work are calculated te 
 terrify all but the most indomitable. The mere pre- 
 liminary question with which Deutsch began his bril- 
 liant, though one-sided article, seventeen years ago: 
 “What is the Talmud?” is impossible to answer. 
 Deutsch did not attempt to answer it, nor shall we. 
 The Talmud is a work too varied, too disconnected, 
 and too divergent in its elements to be concisely defin- 
 ed at all or to be even approximately described within 
 the limits of an English sentence. 
 
 It is easier to say what the Talmud is not than 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 145 
 
 what it is. Yet so little is popularly known of its 
 character and composition that it is necessary to. 
 say a few preliminary words in regard to these 
 points, if only to make the use of two or three in- 
 dispensable technical terms generally intelligible. 
 This much, at all events, it may be useful to state 
 as to the so-called divisions of the Talmud to which 
 reference is frequently made. One is a physical divi- 
 sion in form; the other a clasification of substance 
 represented by the words “Halakah” and ‘“‘Haggadah””’, 
 From one point of view the Talmud may somewhat 
 loosely be said to consist of the ‘‘Mishnah”’ and the 
 ““Gemara’’. The former is the ill-arranged! transcript 
 of one version of the “Oral Law”’, in the narrower sense 
 of the word, and is a book of no very considerable size. 
 It was drawn up in its present form, though not writ- 
 ten down, about 200 C. E. The Gemara may be 
 roughly described as a sort of gigantic commentary 
 on the Mishnah, but it is a commentary enormous 
 portions of which have absolutely nothing to do with 
 the text on which it comments. Yet one main busi- 
 ness of the Gemara is the elucidation and develop- 
 ment of that oral law which comprised within its view 
 all sides of human life, and not merely affairs of ritual 
 or of faith. We are there presented with intermi- 
 nable legal discussions, not elaborated for us into 
 polished phrases, but simply the raw material itself 
 fresh from the Rabbis and their schools. Intermingled 
 with these legal discussions there is a vast amount 
 of theological data and suggestions, and, since all He- 
 brew Law rests upon the Pentateuch, there is found 
 room for interpretations of Scripture of the most 
 
146 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 different kinds—ingenious or clumsy, grotesque or 
 beautiful, as the case may be. 
 
 Moreover, these very interpretations and citations 
 of Scripture lead on to all kinds of remarks, stories, 
 and allusions in regard to any other religious or 
 secular subject which the quoted passage may chance 
 to call up to the mind of the speaker or reporter. 
 That the thread of the argument, or the course of 
 the ‘‘commentary’”’, is interrupted by these excursions 
 is not of the least consequence. Form was not 
 a consideration, and obviously according to this 
 method, or want of method, there was room for 
 the work to expand indefinitely. For it was not writ- 
 ten all at once, or with a defined object: it simply 
 grew. It was not a building but a conglomerate. 
 And as the various sides of the Law are successively 
 handled, any stray point connected with any par- 
 ticular law may be dwelt upon and illustrated at a 
 length totally disproportionate to its importance. 
 
 Thus the Talmud is full of fragmentary notices 
 relating to almost every subject under the heavens, 
 and much of this varied materialofstatementand story 
 is the offshoot of the book’s main object—the practi- 
 cal working out of the religious life asmanifested in all 
 branches of human conduct. This practical or legal 
 part is called the Halakah (literally “Rule’”’). Butop- 
 posed to the Halakah, and yet often inextricably con- 
 nected with or issuing from it, is the other great side of 
 the Talmud, which is called by the name of Haggadah. 
 The outward manifestation of religion in life was regu- 
 lated by aseries of minute laws and observances; but if 
 no divergency was here permitted—for though individ- 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 147 
 
 
 
 uals may argue differently, they are in practice com- 
 pelled to follow either the majority, or the one particular 
 authority whose prestige excels that of the majority 
 —in the field of religious imagination the widest license 
 was freely allowed. One object of the Talmud is to re- 
 cord the mass of floating stories and parables, legends 
 and miracles, which formed a large part of the real 
 religious food and sustenance of rabbinical Judaism. 
 This heterogeneous mass is the Haggadah. Where 
 the Mishnah in any way lends itself to Haggadic 
 treatment, the Gemara becomes sometimes more 
 haggadic than halakic. In other portions of the Ge- 
 mara there is very little haggadic matter, but often 
 on the slightest provocation this element suddenly 
 reappears, and once fairly started it flows on ir- 
 repressibly. It will consequently be readily realized 
 that these two elements in the Talmud are not clearly 
 separated in the text, but are often closely interwoven 
 and blended with each other. 
 
 Now, still evading the insoluble question ‘‘What 
 is the Talmud?’ let us glance at what we know of 
 its history and how it grew into existence in the form 
 in which it is presented tous. Thecompleted Talmud 
 is the outcome of a long course of transcription, which 
 however, did not begin till the second part of the 
 fourth century C. E. Previous to that time, the pro- 
 hibition against committing to writing the teaching 
 handed down by tradition was still in force.? 
 
 Of what, then, did this prolonged work of trans- 
 cription consist? It was not a case where an editor 
 or editors had merely to collect matter already written, 
 and, after due comparison and collation of the whole, 
 
148 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 to arrange and edit it on a given principle. There was, 
 in fact, no editing, for there was nothing to edit.3 
 From first to last it was almost exclusively a matter 
 of reducing to writing what up till then had been car- 
 ried by memory and handed down by oral tradition. 
 And the so-called editors had no material save the 
 oral communications made to them from various 
 sources.4 This circumstance would obviously de- 
 feat the possibilities of exhaustive arrangement or 
 elaborated method. The oral communications re- 
 ferred to were received successively and not in paral- 
 lel relation to one another; they were written down 
 as they came, that is, they were compiled, not edited. 
 The probability is that even this unsystematic 
 compilation was due not to deliberate plan, but to ne- 
 cessity. The continuous and ever-growing stream of 
 oral doctrine, flowing and swelling in volume through 
 centuries, had at last begun to exceed the powers of 
 human memory, and recourse to transcription be- 
 came inevitable. A teacher, one Rab Ashi, who 
 worked in the latter half of the fourth century, is said 
 to have resolved to collect the material. Whether 
 he ever began to commit it to writing is very doubtful. 
 It is certain that neither he nor his immediate suc- 
 cessors accomplished this undertaking, and it is 
 equally certain that neither he nor they confined them- 
 selves entirely to the work of collection. They were 
 editors and authors at one and the same time. 
 But the shape in which the Talmud is now present- 
 ed to us as a completed entirety—if we are justified in 
 so speaking of it—was not attained until the end of the 
 eighth century.’ Now here we find, at once, one great 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 149 
 
 difficulty in the study of the Talmud, namely, the 
 utter want of form, of continuity, of connected method, 
 of even verbal consistency. It is, moreover, clear that 
 parts of this voluminous text, carried in the memory 
 and orally transmitted for centuries, must have suf- 
 fered alteration, injury, and mutilation in the process. 
 When we recollect that there was absolutely no aid 
 to memory in the nature of the material, is it credible 
 that such a chaotic pile of matter could, under the 
 conditions, escape this fate?é 
 
 The language of the Talmud lacks every pho- 
 netic advantage. One passage does not naturally 
 suggest the next, and the context often helps us little. 
 There is no metre and no rhythm. Now these de- 
 fects, while [not] calculated to impair the fidelity of the 
 written Talmud, render its study difficult and some- 
 times bewildering to the point of exasperation. The 
 Jews of olden times were wont to speak of the 
 Talmud as Yam ha-Talmud, the “‘sea of the Talmud.”’ 
 And the figure has much force. To one who has 
 grasped its meaning and felt its spirit there is the 
 ocean-like sense of immensity and movement. Its great 
 broad surface is at times smooth and calm, at other 
 times disturbed by breakers of discussion, stormy 
 with question and answer, assertion and refutation. 
 Its waves of argument, as they follow and tumble over 
 one another, all give a constant sense of largeness and 
 of motion. And, to continue the figure, we find 
 the sea fed by innumerable brooks and mighty rivers 
 of traditional lore: we remember that these sources 
 ran not through unbroken country but through bad 
 [spaces] and good, so that it were little wonder if, on the 
 
150 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 one hand, some of them lost volume on the way, and, 
 on the other, some of their streams were defiled and 
 corrupted by foreign elements gathered in their course 
 and borne into this great sea. 
 
 If it is probable that the text of the Talmud, 
 as we have it, suffered from the delay in beginning 
 transcription, it is not less probable that it suffered 
 similarly during the extended period which the com- 
 pletion of that transcription occupied. This period 
 extended over about four centuries. The delay was 
 not, however, due to the great care and scrupulous 
 precautions which were expended upon the work. 
 It must rather be attributed to the unfortunate con- 
 dition of the people and to the troublous times which 
 often interrupted the labors of the scribes. There 
 were, during this space of time, whole periods in which, 
 owing to the bitter religious persecutions and to po- 
 litical disquietude, the study of the Law entirely ceased 
 and neither teachers nor scholars remained. The work 
 was certainly again taken in hand as soon as circum- 
 stances were more favorable, but there is little doubt 
 that, owing to the interruptions referred to above, 
 any attempt at a uniform plan, if such were ever 
 contemplated, must have been defeated and aband- 
 oned. 
 
 It will thus be readily believed that a work of 
 this magnitude, with such a history and of such a char- 
 acter, must present considerable difficulties to the 
 systematic and conscientious student. That after 
 centuries of residence in the fallible memories of men, 
 followed by centuries of unmethodic and interrupted 
 compilations, there should be inconsistencies and 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD I5I 
 
 contradictions in the resulting whole, was inevitable. 
 Thus we find one rabbi assigning to his own master 
 a particular opinion on a particular subject, while © 
 in another passage another rabbi credits the same 
 authority with precisely the opposite view.?7 That 
 errors found their way into the text was equally in- 
 evitable;’ that matter was lost or misplaced, that 
 some texts were accidentally mutilated or misunder- 
 stood,? and that others were wilfully and maliciously 
 distorted is tolerably certain. These defects give 
 rise to doubts and obscurities, in dealing with which 
 neither textual criticism nor philological acumen is of 
 much help, for all other sources of the older Rabbinical 
 literature which might be consulted suffer from simi- 
 lar blemishes.?° 
 
 The foregoing list of difficulties will probably 
 justify us before our readers when we say that a def- 
 inite verdict on the merits or demerits of the Talmud 
 as a whole is an impossibility. Such a verdict were 
 inconceivable, even supposing that the Talmud had 
 been most systematically compiled, and that we were 
 in possession of the most desirable certainty with 
 regard to its sources. Even a question put in the 
 form “‘How does the Talmud think on this or that 
 subject?” is inappropriate. For how can a true an- 
 swer to such a question be gathered from a work which 
 does not reproduce the system of any given man or 
 any given school, but is, as already stated, a mere col- 
 lection of sayings, statements, discussions, views, 
 reminiscences and stories flowing from some four to 
 five hundred rabbis, and embracing a period of more 
 than eight hundred years? In the course of those 
 
152 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 centuries the Jewish people experienced so many 
 vicissitudes of fortune, came into contact with so 
 many foreign nations, and passed through so many 
 internal and external convulsions, that the Rabbis, 
 themselves a part of this people and subject to the same 
 influences, must of necessity have felt, thought and 
 spoken variously, at different times, on the same points. 
 
 One aim, and one aim only, was common to all 
 Rabbis alike,namely to do what the law enjoined and to 
 avoid doing what it forbade, and, as far as possible, to 
 render the non-fulfilment of any command and contra- 
 vention of any prohibition an impossibility. But onthe 
 questions how this great aim should be secured, in what 
 manner that which was enjoined to be done should be 
 done, and how that which should be avoided was to be 
 avoided, opinions widely differed. External influences 
 and individual impressions combined to constitute the 
 varying sayings and teachings of the Rabbis. 
 
 It is not, then, the general opinion of the Talmud 
 on any given point for which we must ask, but the opin- 
 ions of the particular Rabbis, and we must always be 
 prepared to find the affirmation of one met by the direct 
 negative of another. Thus, to go one step farther, 
 it would not be profitable to ask whether the Rabbis 
 as a body are tolerant or intolerant. Though the 
 majority were probably what we should now call in- 
 tolerant, it is obvious that in the course of so many 
 centuries and in the midst of such changes of fortune 
 their attitude towards other races and creeds could 
 not have remained unchanged. 
 
 Is there any record of a people retaining through 
 centuries the same collective attitude towards a single 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 153 
 
 subject? The adage autres temps autres moeurs was 
 probably as true of the Jews in the first half dozen 
 centuries after Christ as of any other people during a © 
 similar period of its history. The Jews undoubtedly 
 had their moments of wild excitement and frenzied in- 
 dignation. Thesame false and exaggerated patriotism 
 that bade the noblest of the Fretheits- Dichter inGerman 
 exclaim ‘‘ Nieder mit den W4lschen,” extorted from the 
 Rabbis the words: ‘‘Slaughter the best of the Gentiles 
 [in time of war].’!°* And the same impulses which in 
 Europe led to acts of vandalism, ‘‘judicial murders’, 
 and fanatical cruelty, prompted the powerless Rabbis— 
 with, perhaps, even better justification"—to speak of 
 the Gentile world with that contempt and hatred which 
 is too frequently disclosed by the Talmud. But in 
 the same Talmud we find that in happier times Jewish 
 Rabbis had Gentile friends, whose death they lam- 
 ented with the words: ‘‘Woe to the bond which is 
 broken,’’!? and that other Rabbis were keenly alive 
 to the art and intellect of Hellas.1% 
 
 In dealing with an unwieldy and amorphous mass 
 of material like the Talmud, a familiar method of pro- 
 cedure consists in separately abstracting all matters 
 connected with a special subject and systematizing 
 it. The whole work is thus gradually absorbed and 
 utilized in a series of monographs. We should accord- 
 ingly proceed todeduce ‘‘ The Theology of the Talmud,”’ 
 “The Philosophy of the Talmud,” and soon. The 
 method is a valuable one, and often affords the best 
 form of assistance to subsequent students of the same 
 matter. But in order that it should be used success- 
 fully, it is necessary that the facts should exist before 
 
154 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 the theory. This unhappily is not the case with the 
 Talmud, which thus does not lend itself to this plan 
 of treatment. What might be called the “operative 
 part’”’ of the Talmud—the legal discussions and or- 
 dinances which compose the Halakah—was always 
 approached by the Rabbis with deliberation and care. 
 
 But all the vague imaginings on metaphysical 
 and theological questions which incidentally occur in 
 the course of discussion or story are little more than 
 the outcome of the individual fancy and natural bent 
 of the several teachers. On this side of their work 
 they allow themselves almost unrestrained latitude. 
 Any attempt to construct a series of systems—say of 
 Rabbinical theology or Rabbinical philosophy—upon 
 their unconnected, and we might almost say irres- 
 ponsible utterances, can only be misleading. What 
 there is of speculation concerning the nature of God, 
 of His wisdom and justice in governing the world, 
 and so on, was in no wise the result of profound and 
 continuous thought. The various ideas were not 
 in any case the issue of careful trains of reasoning 
 on the part of a single Rabbi, still less were they the 
 conclusions ofaschool. They were the mere obiter dicta 
 of individual Rabbis,momentary inspirations, products 
 of imagination rather than of reason. The wide 
 range of anthropomorphic figure applied to descrip- 
 tions of the Deity—from a destroying warrior to a mas- 
 ter of dialectic—suggests how unrestrained was the 
 play of fancy in which the Rabbis indulged. 
 
 So again in Ta‘anit 25a we are told that a 
 Rabbi Levi, in a time of great drought, complained 
 that God behaved as a careless father who had no 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 155 
 
 compassion on his children. Another Rabbi, when 
 rain had been granted in exact accord with the wishes 
 of the people, spoke of God as an indulgent Father 
 who could not refuse His spoiled children a single boon 
 (bid. 23a). But the Talmud is wholly unaware of 
 any radical difference in these two views of God, and 
 their authors were not giving vent to the convictions 
 of a system, but to the casual feelings of the moment. 
 The inferences from the facts as to the nature of God 
 were as simple as the facts themselves; they were not 
 meant to be applied beyond the occasions on which 
 they were used. Each case stood by itself, and it 
 would never have occurred to the compilers of Ta‘anit 
 that a theory was needed whereby the apparent in- 
 consistency might be reconciled. We may here add 
 incidentally that,on the whole, the old Rabbinic way of 
 regarding the Deity may fairly be described as at once 
 childish and child-like. We say, ‘‘on the whole,”’ 
 because there is in places evidence of higher and more 
 intellectual conceptions.™4 
 
 What we have said as to theological questions 
 may be said with equal correctness of the philosophy 
 ofthe Talmud. There is zo philosophy of the Talmud, 
 but only scattered and varied notions on philosophical 
 questions risked by individual Rabbis. Here and 
 there a Rabbi lighted on a philosophical idea, he knew 
 not how; but he delivered himself of it in all innocence, 
 and passed on. It never occurred to one of them to 
 follow up such an idea to its conclusions. They were 
 in no sense formal philosophers, but they talked so 
 much de omnibus rebus that they could hardly escape 
 touching, even though unconsciously, on philosophy. 
 
156 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 Just as it is easier to say what the Talmud is not 
 than what it is, so, it will be seen, is it easier to say 
 how it may not, than how it may, be studied. We 
 might easily multiply instances, such as we have just 
 given, of this difficulty, each one presenting a pitfall 
 into which unwary or injudicious writers on the sub- 
 ject have already fallen. But we have said enough of 
 the internal difficulties. We have now to contemplate 
 those which are not inherent in the work itself. These 
 are both negative and positive. The former difficul- 
 ties amount to this: that, for a work of surpassing 
 intricacy, there is practically no outside assistance. 
 The latter are roughly represented by the unscientific 
 treatment of which the Talmud has been a victim. 
 We suffer, in other words, from a lack of good guides 
 and from a surfeit of misleading ones. 
 
 We have suggested how the text must have 
 suffered in its early stages of oral transmission 
 and prolonged compilation. It fared still worse 
 after it had been compiled. In the Middle Ages it 
 was not only confiscated and burnt by papalauthority, 
 but it was mutilated and tortured by a fanatical and 
 ignorant censorship, which not unfrequently disfig- 
 ured its most harmless passages. But if, in approach- 
 ing the study of a text as confused and obscure as 
 that of the Talmud, we turn for help to those 
 friends and guides familiar to us in the study of other 
 ancient texts—Latin, Greek, and Sanscrit—we turn 
 in vain. Scientific study of the Talmud is of very 
 recent date, being hardly more than half a century 
 old. We are indeed greatly indebted to the gigantic 
 labors of the Spanish and Franco-German schools of 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 157 
 
 the Middle Ages.'® But what they have left us was the 
 work of devout Jews, whose treatment of the subject 
 was not only very unlike the scientific method of. 
 modern research, but lacked that preliminary scep- 
 ticism which is rightly held as essential to honest in- 
 quiry. These writers, though profound and serious in- 
 vestigators, were also profound and serious believers, 
 and were therefore incapable of using the scalpel of 
 criticism upon what was, in part, their religious code.” 
 But true science, as is now acknowledged, which looks 
 not at things but znto, and if possible behind, things, 
 requires this unflinching procedure.’ 
 
 It was not till the third decade of the present 
 century that any real critical study of the Talmud 
 was commenced. And even now the work is but be- 
 gun. We are not unmindful of, nor ungrateful for, 
 the splendid labors of Rapoport, Krochmal, Zunz, 
 Frankel, Geiger, and many other earnest and honest 
 investigators. These writers, endowed with a wide 
 and varied knowledge and gifted with a profound 
 historical interest as well as accurate philological 
 tact, subjected the Talmud and its kindred literature 
 to a new criticism. They sought to unravel diff- 
 culties and to solve problems which were themselves 
 the product of a hitherto unheard-of scepticism. They 
 began to dig out the buried sources, to compare 
 individual parts of the Talmud with each other, and 
 to bring within the sphere of their researches whole 
 portions to which, up to that time, very little attention 
 had been paid. They introduced the critical study 
 of manuscripts, in order, so far as possible, to trace 
 the historical development of this stupendous work 
 
158 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 from its origin to its conclusion. In consequence 
 of the surprising results of their investigations, which 
 very soon attracted the attention of the Jewish litera- 
 ry world, they gradually succeeded in starting a school 
 of disciples who sought to continue the new inquiries 
 in the spirit of their masters.'? 
 
 The world is indebted to the illustrious men to 
 whom we have here referred and to their school, but 
 so immense is the field and so few are the workers 
 that we are still justified in saying that to the complete 
 study of the Talmud there is but fragmentary as- 
 sistance to hand. 
 
 For centuries the literature of Greece and Rome 
 has been the main study of a hundred universities. 
 Patient, loving students have devoted their lives to 
 the elucidation of fragments of this lore, and the re- 
 sults of their labors have passed into the hands of 
 succeeding generations who have added new stores 
 of knowledge to the large in-gatherings of the past. 
 Aided by the authority of a powerful church, the 
 encouragement of princes, and the endowments of 
 the wealthy, classical learning has grown and extended 
 till there is hardly a single incident in the history of 
 any little township in ancient Hellas which we may 
 not find faithfully portrayed for us with all its local 
 and contemporary surroundings, and_ portrayed, 
 moreover, without bias or passion, but simply as 
 the issue of cold, calm investigation. 
 
 But for the Hebrew literature there has been none 
 of this wealth of interest and labor. The Talmud has 
 never yet been systematically taught and expounded in 
 the lecture rooms of European universities; its study is 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 159 
 
 practically confined to the Jews, who have neither 
 scholarships nor pensions to bestow upon impecunious 
 inquirers. Thus, very naturally, the number of de- 
 voted laborers demanded by such an immense and 
 neglected province is not forthcoming. And owing 
 to the fact that the number of workers in the whole 
 field of Jewish literature is so limited, and that many 
 of these are occupied with post-Talmudic writings, 
 there exists a want of even those most necessary re- 
 sources which in every literary investigation compose 
 the scientific apparatus. 
 
 There is still wanting an exhaustive grammar 
 of the Talmudic idiom, a grammar which should not 
 merely help the student over his declensions and con- 
 jugations, but which should furnish critical information 
 as to the whole structure of the language and its fre- 
 quent doubtful constructions.?° There exists at pres- 
 ent no complete dictionary on a level with the famous 
 Liddell and Scott, which we might confidently take 
 as a guide to the elucidation of that Babel of tongues 
 which have found their way into the Talmud. We 
 have no complete and trustworthy indexes and con- 
 cordances of names and subjects.” There is a wretched 
 paucity of good monographs relating either to the 
 most prominent Rabbis or to the many archaeological 
 puzzles which were scattered through the text. Lastly, 
 there arenocomplete translations of the Talmud extant 
 which could be consulted as to obscure passages.”3 
 
 In other branches of ancient literature there is 
 scarcely a single work of which the manuscripts from 
 the earliest copy downward have not been utilized 
 and investigated for the purpose of establishing a fixed 
 
160 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and definite text. It is not without a pang of envy 
 that the student of the Talmud regards those beauti- 
 ful editions of the classics, with their revised texts, 
 their critical and explanatory notes, and their vo- 
 luminous references, carefully elaborated to meet the 
 requirements of modern philology. Here, at all events 
 so far as it lies in human power, man has performed 
 his duty to truth. 
 
 But in the case of the Talmud things are very 
 different. Neither of the haggadic nor yet of the 
 halakic part of the Talmud do we possess even in 
 the present day a text corrected according to the 
 best manuscripts, and collated with the earliest 
 editions. The want of such revised editions of the 
 old Rabbinical literature was bitterly lamented by 
 the famous German Orientalist, Lagarde, in his preface 
 to the Clementina, edited by him nineteen years ago; 
 ‘“‘a dilettante handling of these texts’’ has only led to 
 misconceptions. It is true that much has been done 
 since Lagarde wrote his preface, but it is a miserably 
 small amount in comparison with that which yet re- 
 mains to be achieved.*5 
 
 Enough, perhaps, has been said of the difficulties 
 to satisfy our readers that the way is long and steep 
 and with but few trustworthy sign-posts. Unhappily, 
 it is beset with many dangers and snares—false sign- 
 posts and misleading lights. If, as a field of inquiry, 
 the Talmud were virgin soil, it were an easier task 
 to master it than it is. The greatest stumbling- 
 block to its study is the pernicious way in which that 
 study has hitherto been pursued. We complain, not 
 so much of the neglect from which it has suffered, as of 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 161 
 
 the attention of the wrong sort which it has received, 
 not so much of the injury of being ignored as of ig- 
 norant handling. For, in truth, if the Talmud was 
 burnt and disfigured in the flesh by the medieval 
 censor, it is tortured and mutilated in the spirit by 
 many a modern writer. The object of the remainder 
 of this article is to protest against, and to some extent 
 to illustrate, the manner in which the Talmud has 
 been used or misused for every purpose except that 
 of honest, dispassionate, and scientific inquiry. It 
 has been praised and decried, equally without reason; 
 it has been the victim of enthusiasts kindly and un- 
 kindly?°— 
 “So overviolent or overcivil, 
 That every man with them is God or devil.”’ 
 
 The exaggerated praise of Deutsch and the other 
 panegyrists is just as revolting to the critical sense 
 as is the unmeasured abuse of Eisenmenger and his 
 school. Thus, according to some writers, so Christ- 
 ian is the tendency of the Talmud, that it is hard to 
 say why the Rabbis were not long ago canonized en bloc. 
 According to others, it is so anti-Christian, that we 
 wonder a good Christian like Reuchlin should have 
 read it in all seeming unconsciousness of the fact. 
 To some it is the perfection of the beautiful and good; 
 to others the acme of revolting wickedness and ugli- 
 ness. Its stories are now deep parables and lovely 
 legends; now they are silly fables, insipid exaggera- 
 tions. It is now profound and logical; now shallow and 
 soulless; and so forth ad infinitum. 
 
 Of the numerous writers who had never read a line 
 of the Talmud, and yet have not hesitated to judge it, 
 
162 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 we need not say anything here. What we deplore 
 is the extent to which men, with sufficient knowledge 
 and ability to read and understand the Talmud, neither 
 read nor understand it, or read and misunderstand 
 it, or, reading and understanding, misuse it and dis- 
 tort it. Our charge against these writers is that 
 they do not study the Talmud for itself. They do not 
 read it in order to understand it aright, to grasp its 
 real nature, to penetrate to its real being; but they 
 read it for wholly extraneous purposes, to support 
 a theory, to afford illustrations, to prove a case, to 
 supply surprises. To them it is not a museum, but 
 an old curiosity-shop. It does not contain scientific 
 specimens to be respected, but bric-a-brac to be 
 displayed. Itis not searched for truth’s sake, but rum- 
 maged for curios. The belief prevails that touching 
 every subject something may be found in the Talmud. 
 You have only to dig deep enough, and you will find 
 something which will either straightway suit your 
 purpose or which, with a little violence, can be made 
 to serve. Many are the philosophical systems which 
 have been elicited from the Talmud; many the strange 
 ideas which have been ingeniously extracted from 
 it.27_ The authors of these discoveries have usually 
 been actuated by the most amiable motives, but the 
 effects of their perfervid zeal and their naive anachro- 
 nisms have been none the less disastrous. How much 
 further should we be in our knowledge of the book 
 if these writers could have been induced to study it 
 in the proper way. Much enthusiastic labor direct- 
 ed to idle and foolish ends has been utterly thrown 
 away; the Talmud itself has been continually twisted 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 163 
 
 and perverted out of all recognition, has been put to 
 every conceivable purpose except the right one. 
 
 How different is the treatment accorded to the 
 better known branches of literature. No one dares 
 to pervert or even carelessly to use the texts of any 
 familiar Greek classic. The small chance of detec- 
 tion in the case of the Talmud gives a sense of security 
 to the writers we complain of. They do not risk 
 liberties with texts in which a school-boy may trip 
 them up, but they may say what they like of the Tal- 
 mud. 
 
 Of all works, the Talmud, on account of its in- 
 ternal difficulties, most needs careful, unbiassed, and 
 critical treatment, and of all works it has least received 
 such treatment. To understand the Talmud is a 
 life-long task, to form a comprehensive opinion 
 of it almost an impossibility. And yet otherwise 
 conscientious authors do not scruple to approach 
 it lightly, to excerpt it, and to generalize on it 
 after far less study than they would give to a Latin 
 historian or a Greek philosopher. 
 
 All this is not only a loss to the Talmud stu- 
 dent: it is a loss to mankind, whose interests are 
 only served by truth. 
 
 It is our purpose now to choose, for cursory ex- 
 amination, from a long list of books answering the 
 above description, one which, by reason of the learning, 
 authority, and evident honesty of its author, is cal- 
 culated to carry unusual weight, and consequently 
 to spread more widely the errors it contains. We 
 are alluding to Dr. Edersheim’s Life and Times of 
 Jesus the Messiah. The book is one eminently de- 
 
164 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 signed to attract attention. Not only is the subject 
 one of superlative interest to the educated and relig- 
 ious world, but the evident conviction and fervent 
 faith of the author give it a persuasiveness difficult 
 to resist. The style is for the most part lofty and 
 appropriate, and the whole wears the impression of 
 great erudition and earnestness of purpose. If, there- 
 fore, it is also, as we propose to show, a signal ex- 
 ample of the manner in which the Talmud is misin- 
 terpreted and misapplied, it will be understood that 
 such a book is more than ordinarily calculated to dis- 
 seminate these errors, and by its very merits to give 
 them a wider currency than need be feared in the case 
 of less powerful productions. 
 
 In limine it must be understood that the follow- 
 ing remarks are in no sense a review or a critique of 
 the book: they are intended solely to discuss the value 
 and correctness of part of the evidence adduced by 
 Dr. Edersheim, in support of one of his central prop- 
 ositions. A large portion of the book is devoted 
 to asserting or re-asserting the originality of the 
 teachings of Christ, in reply to those writers, Christ- 
 ian and Jewish, who, by a comparison of passages 
 from the Rabbinical literature with passages from 
 the New Testament, have sought to establish a marked 
 connection between the personality of Jesus and the 
 time in which he lived. Dr. Edersheim contends 
 that not only are the doctrines of the Gospel not 
 borrowed from the Rabbis, but are everywhere in 
 glaring opposition to their views, and that where 
 Christian doctrine is most characteristic it is most 
 divergent from Rabbinical teachings. 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 165 
 
 It is true, ‘‘Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and 
 moved among Jews”’ (Preface, viii); but nevertheless 
 in the main point ‘‘there is not a difference, but a total © 
 divergence” (1,106), ‘‘an absolute contrariety,” (1, 
 107), ‘‘an infinite distance between Christ and the 
 teachings of the synagogue”’ (11,15), so that the “‘ Mes- 
 siah of Judaism is the anti-Christ of the Gospel’’ (I, 
 293). And the proof of this result is largely dependent 
 on a use, or rather, as we propose to show, on a misuse 
 of Talmudic quotations. Having once arrived at “‘this 
 absolute contrariety,’’ Dr. Edersheim deduces there- 
 from ‘‘one of the strongest evidences of the claims 
 of Christ, since it raises the all-important question, 
 whence the teacher of Nazareth had drawn his in- 
 spiration”’ (Preface,ix); or, as Dr. Edersheim expresses 
 himself in another place, “if Jesus was not of God, 
 not the Messiah, whence this wonderful contrast?” 
 (I, 17). We venture to hold that the glory of such 
 a sublime figure as that of Jesus Christ in no wise re- 
 quires the process adopted in dealing with a micro- 
 scopic object, namely, the obscuration of its surround- 
 ings. 
 
 Be that as it may, we are not disposed to dis- 
 cuss with Dr. Edersheim the propriety of a compari- 
 son between the teaching of Jesus and that of the Rab- 
 bis. Nor shall we investigate Dr. Edersheim’s evi- 
 dence drawn from the New Testament, nor dispute 
 the results at which he arrives. The former belongs 
 to the province of New Testament criticism, the 
 latter is a matter of controversial theology. Whether 
 Dr. Edersheim succeeds or fails in establishing his 
 proposition is not for us to inquire. We have to do 
 
166 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 with one part of his evidence only; it is exclusively 
 with his use of the Talmud we are here engaged. 
 
 We contend that Dr. Edersheim has not studied 
 exhaustively all the great commentators, especially 
 those whose writings are in Hebrew: that he has not 
 always been sufficiently careful to grasp the real mean- 
 ing of quoted passages by comparing them with the 
 context; that he has allowed his enthusiasm for his 
 argument to blind him to other passages; that his 
 misapprehension of their utterances has jaundiced 
 his opinion of the Rabbis as a body and individually, 
 and that this effect has reacted so as to color his in- 
 terpretation of the Talmud. On the whole we main- 
 tain that he has too often departed from the attitude 
 of the unbiassed investigator. 
 
 In endeavoring to support these charges we warn 
 the reader that we may seem to attach too much im- 
 portance and to devote too much space to what may 
 appear trifling and subordinate details. But if 
 this be so, it is due to Dr. Edersheim’s method. The 
 skeleton of his argument, as well as the matter with 
 which it is filled in, hinges on very numerous quota- 
 tions from the Rabbinical writings, and not on large 
 questions. It is composed of minutiae depending on 
 one another, and it is some of these which we have to 
 attack, recognizing, as we hope the reader does also, 
 that to some extent the strength of the chain of such 
 an argument is the strength of its weakest link. 
 
 A keen controversialist, Dr. Edersheim has a 
 poor opinion of the Rabbis, and treats them as a body 
 with but scant courtesy. When he quotes them— 
 under whatever name, Pharisee, Scribe, Rabbi, or 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 167 
 
 Sage—his antipathy betrays him into the use of warm 
 language, and he speaks of them as “‘self-righteous, 
 self-seeking jurists’’ (vol. I, 185) who are ‘‘mad with © 
 self-exaltation”’ (II, 15) and whose doctrines are brim- 
 ful of ‘profanity’ (I, 113), “‘superstition’’ (I, 106), 
 and ‘‘self-glory”’ (I, 136). Their writings are replete 
 with ‘absurd and silly legends’’ (I, 254), “foolish, 
 repulsive’’ (I, 292), even ‘“‘blasphemous stories”’ (II, 
 116), and the like. 
 
 It is no part of our work to white-wash the 
 Rabbis. They have survived centuries of even less 
 discriminating opprobrium than the above. Dr. 
 Edersheim will not expect us seriously to criticize 
 the uncomplimentary epithets he applies to the scribes 
 as a body further than to suggest that in a grave and 
 important work such language is out of place. It 
 does not better an argument, and is apt to recall the 
 familiar expedient of the Law Courts: ‘With a bad 
 case abuse the plaintiff’s attorney.” 
 
 In speaking of individual Rabbis Dr. Edersheim 
 is not more tender. We find, however, one excep- 
 tion to this rule. In Vol. I, 136, a noteworthy 
 passage occurs: ‘‘There is much about those earlier 
 Rabbis—Hillel, Gamaliel, and others, to attract us, 
 and their spirit oft-times contrasts with the narrow 
 bigotry, the self-glory, and the unspiritual externalism 
 of their successors.”’ 
 
 Now these Rabbis were the contemporaries of 
 Jesus Christ, and we would suggest, par parenthése, 
 that in a work dealing with the life and times of Jesus 
 the utterancesof hiscontemporaries would beof the first 
 importance, notably when that work professes to con- 
 
168 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 trast the teachings of the Gospels with those of the 
 contemporary Rabbis. It is perhaps not irrelevant 
 to note here, for what it is worth, that the vast ma- 
 jority of Dr. Edersheim’s references to the Talmud 
 are to portions assigned therein to Rabbis who lived 
 not earlier than the second century after Christ. 
 
 Later on, however (I, 239), Dr. Edersheim seems 
 disposed to modify his opinion of Hillel, and this for the 
 drollest of reasons. Because Dr. Edersheim holds 
 that the school of Shammai was more national in 
 its aspirations than that of Hillel, he finds it neces- 
 sary to depreciate the personal reputation of the 
 latter. He says in this connection (I, 239) ‘‘Gen- 
 erally, only one side of the character of Hillel has 
 been presented by writers, and even this in greatly 
 exaggerated language. His much-lauded gentle- 
 ness, peacefulness, and charity were rather negative 
 than positive qualities. He was a philosophic Rabbi 
 whose real interest lay in a far other direction than 
 that of sympathy with the people, and whose motto 
 seemed indeed to imply: “We, the sages, are the people 
 of God; but this people, who know not the law, are 
 cursed’.”’ 
 
 The reference is to Abot I. 13, 14, and no 
 reference could well have been more unfortunate. Not 
 only does the soz-disant quotation not appear in the 
 text, but it cannot by any violence be derived from 
 it. The passage, according to Taylor’s excellent 
 translation, runs as follows: ‘Hillel said: Be of the 
 disciples of Aaron; loving peace, and pursuing peace; 
 loving mankind, and bringing them nigh to the Torah 
 (the Law). He used tosay: Aname made great isa 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 169 
 
 name destroyed; he who increases not, decreases, 
 and he who will not learn (or teach) deserves slaughter ; 
 and he who serves himself with the tiara perishes.” 
 
 These utterances are not addressed and do not 
 refer to the people at large, but are clearly injunctions 
 to the disciples. Taylor’s note”? throws further light 
 on the passage: ‘“‘He who learns from his teacher and 
 adds not to his words, not having intelligence to go 
 beyond what he has been expressly taught, will come 
 to anend. ‘His mother will bury him’; or will bring 
 to an end and lose what he has learned by rote. Cf. 
 St. Matt. XXV. 29. He who refuses to impart his 
 knowledge (or ‘who will not learn at all’) commits a 
 deadly sin.” 
 
 If this quotation from Abot gives us any impres- 
 sion of the disposition of Hillel, it is hardly that he 
 was a cynical or even unsympathetic egoist.3° 
 
 Dr. Edersheim lays much stress upon the vain- 
 glory and pride of the Rabbis, and the arrogant claims 
 for respect, authority, and almost divine reverence, 
 which they made for their utterances and ordinances. 
 He cites, with evident satisfaction, the three or four 
 well-known passages in which the words of tradition 
 are praised above the words of Scripture.* (See 
 I, 98, 100; II, 15, 407. Comp. Eisenmenger, I, 5, 10, 
 312, 322, and passim). 
 
 Now we must perforce refrain from entering 
 into the controversy in regard to the supposed 
 “Oral Law’’, and the living stream of divine tra- 
 dition which the Rabbis believed they were hand- 
 ing down to posterity. We may, however, again 
 refer to Taylor’s commentary on Abot (p.119, ad fin.), 
 
170 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 where, in speaking of the “sayings tending to the 
 exaltation of mapddoots and Scribe-Law,” he adds, 
 that ‘in drawing inferences from them allowance must 
 be made for their rhetorical and dialectic char- 
 acter. They are commonly put forward as opin- 
 ions in debate rather than as authoritative decisions.” 
 
 Two essential points should be noted here. First, 
 that one main reason for the high account set upon 
 the orthodox traditional law in the age of Jesus 
 was the fear of national schism, which was best 
 avoided by a rigid adherence to a single and author- 
 itative exposition and expansion of the Pentateuchal 
 Code; and we must always remember that politics 
 and religion were not severed from each other in the 
 Judea of that period. Secondly, that the ‘‘words 
 of the Scribes,’’ which are so exalted in these familiar 
 passages, are not the words of any chance Rabbi or 
 of all of them together, but those words only which 
 were Officially promulgated by generally accepted 
 authorities. Such necessary and historical qualifi- 
 ations cannot be gathered from Dr. Edersheim’s at- 
 tacks, but, as we shall see, they can be gathered from 
 the Rabbinic quotations by which these attacks are 
 supported. He says: “Each Scribe outweighed all 
 the common people, who must accordingly pay him 
 every honour....Such was to be the honour to be 
 paid to their sayings that they were to be absolutely 
 believed, even if they were o declare that to be at 
 the right hand which was at the left, or vice-versa’’ 3! 
 
 It will be observed that this excessive belief and 
 respect is to be paid to all scribes as a body. 
 
 The reference adduced in support of this state- 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 171 
 
 ment is Sifre 105a. This passage runs as follows: 
 ‘‘Any turning aside from the teaching of the Sanhedrin 
 of Jersualem is punishable by death, but a turning © 
 aside from the teaching of the Sanhedrin of Jabneh 
 is not so punishable. For a transgression of an or- 
 dinance based upon the Pentateuch law death may 
 be imposed; not for the transgression of a law which 
 is purely traditional. If they tell you that what is 
 right is left and what is left is right, hearken to them.”’ 
 
 From this passage we see incidentally that in 
 one most significant particular the words of the scribes 
 are made inferior in importance to the words of the 
 Bible. But as regards the main allegation of Dr. 
 Edersheim, it is plain that the last portion of the pas- 
 sage does not refer to all the scribes but to the San- 
 hedrin of Jerusalem, that is to the highest court of 
 justice in council assembled. That, again, the reason 
 why the judgments and decisions of the Sanhedrin were 
 rated so highly was mainly a fear of national and po- 
 litical schism is clearly indicated by the statement 
 that the Sanhedrin of Jabneh could not punish a trans- 
 gression of its ordinances with death. 
 
 For the Sanhedrin of Jabneh was founded after 
 the destruction of the Temple, when, the national 
 unity having ceased, there was no longer any danger 
 of national schism. This, the correct interpretation of 
 the passage referred to by Dr. Edersheim, will show how 
 very seriously he misunderstood it. But this is not 
 all, for that very blind obedience to the rulings of the 
 Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, claimed in this passage, is 
 not undisputed in the Talmuds. 
 
 Dr. Edersheim so frequently refers to the Talmud 
 
172 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of Jerusalem, that it is a pity that, for the sake of just- 
 ice, he did not refer to it here. We will supply the omis- 
 sion. The passage on Sifre plays upon the verse in 
 Deuteronomy(17. 11), where it is said: ‘‘Thou shalt 
 not diverge from the sentence which they tell thee, to 
 the right hand nor to the left,’ or, as the literal 
 translation of the Hebrew idiom would run, “right 
 and left.”” Now, in Yerushalmi Horayot 45b we read: 
 “We might believe that we were bound to obey the 
 Sanhedrin even if they told us of the right that it was 
 left, and of the left that it was right; to prevent this, 
 the Law says: ‘when they tell you right and left’ ”’. 
 Here, by acharacteristically Talmudic manipulation 
 of the words, the text is supposed to mean: ‘Only 
 when they tell you that right is right, and left is left 
 are you to obey them, but not otherwise.’’ This 
 strange use of Scripture words may be a surprise to 
 those who are not familiar with the Rabbinical method 
 of reasoning, but, at all events, we have here a direct 
 contradiction of even our very modified version of 
 the passage on which Dr. Edersheim’s proposition 
 depends. 
 
 We now take a still more conspicious illustration 
 of the way in which Dr. Edersheim, at the expense 
 of an accurate exegesis, endeavors to prove his thesis 
 of the arrogance and pride of the Rabbis: ‘Perhaps 
 we ought here to point out one of the most important 
 principles of Rabbinism, which has been almost en- 
 tirely overlooked in modern criticism of the Talmud. 
 It is this: that any ordinance, not only of the divine 
 Law, but of the Rabbis, even though only given for 
 a particular time or occasion, or for a special reason, 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 173 
 
 remains in full force for all time, unless expressly re- 
 called by God.’’? 
 
 The passage is no doubt somewhat intricate, but © 
 it is hardly so obscure as to justify the entirely erron- 
 eous version given by Dr. Edersheim. We can only 
 partly explain this curious view of its meaning by 
 assuming that he has confounded the thing to be 
 proved with the evidence which is to prove it. 
 
 The general drift of the passage is the following: 
 Its object is to prove that any decision of a majority 
 (in a Sanhedrin of Rabbis) can only be repealed by 
 the decision of another majority, even although the 
 reason for the former decision has ceased. The proof 
 is taken from two passages in Scripture and one of 
 tradition. The Scripture passages give two cases, 
 in each of which God formally repeals His own com- 
 mand, although the occasion for that command had 
 ceased. The example from tradition gives a third 
 case, where a purely Rabbinic ordinance was formally 
 repealed by the Rabbis. 
 
 The whole passage in Bezah runs as follows: 
 “‘Every ordinance of a majority can only be re- 
 pealed by another majority, even although the 
 cause of its original promulgation has disappeared. 
 Rabbi Joseph said: How can I deduce this? Be- 
 cause it is written: ‘Go get you into your tents 
 again’ (Deuteronomy 5. 30), and it is also written: 
 ‘When the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come 
 up to the mount’ (Exodus 19. 13). We have also 
 learned that the produce of fruit trees in the fourth 
 year of their growth, situated within a day’s journey 
 of Jerusalem, must be brought thither in kind and 
 
174 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 eaten on the spot. It may not be turned into 
 money, and merely its value eaten at Jerusalem. 
 According to Ula, the reason for this ordinance was 
 that part of the produce might be used to decorate 
 the streets of Jerusalem. A  Baraita, moreover, 
 mentions the following incident.®2* Rabbi Eliezer 
 had a vineyard within a day’s journey of Jerusalem. 
 He was about to place its fruits of the fourth year 
 at the free disposal of the poor, in order to avoid the 
 trouble of taking it himself to Jerusalem, when one 
 of his disciples said to him: ‘This ordinance has 
 been formally repealed by the body of your col- 
 leagues’. ”’ 
 
 This stringing together of three apparently dis- 
 connected texts is a fairly typical example of Talmudic 
 argument, but is really more simple than it looks. 
 It merely gives the two instances from Scripture and 
 the one instance from tradition already referred to. 
 The verse from Deuteronomy, when compared with 
 Exodus 19. 15, shows that, although the cause for 
 the command given in Exodus—namely, the approach- 
 ing promulgation of the Ten Commandments—had 
 lapsed, it was nevertheless necessary that a new di- 
 vine injunction should be given before the people were 
 at liberty to return to their wives and to their tents. 
 The second instance from Scripture, namely Exodus 
 19.13, as compared with Exodus 19.11, is a similar 
 illustration to the same effect. 
 
 The instance from tradition is somewhat more 
 complicated. According to Leviticus 19. 23, the 
 produce of all fruit trees was forbidden for the first 
 three years after they were planted, and the prod- 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 175 
 
 uce of the fourth year was to be “holy for a merry- 
 making unto the Lord.”’ This expression was 
 traditionally understood to mean that these fruits, 
 like the tithes mentioned in Deuteronomy 12. 22- 
 27, were to be brought to Jerusalem and eaten 
 there as a thanksgiving to God. 
 
 But the same concession which was made with 
 regard to the tithes was also granted here; it was 
 allowed to turn the produce into money and take 
 that to Jerusalem. But if—a point explained 
 by Rashi and the other commentators—the fruits 
 of the fourth year were actually given away, the 
 responsibility of bringing them to Jerusalem rested 
 with those who accepted the gift. Such recipi- 
 ents would naturally be the poor. The reason 
 why the Rabbis wished that the produce should ac- 
 tually be brought to Jerusalem was that part of it 
 should be used for decking the streets of the beloved 
 city. But Rabbi Eliezer lived after the destruction 
 of the capital, and yet he was going to fulfil the law 
 by putting his vineyard at the disposal of the poor. 
 The reason for the law had ceased. There were no 
 streets to decorate, but the Rabbi did not regard him- 
 self free from obligation, till he was told that the law 
 had been formally repealed by a fresh ordinance of 
 the Rabbis. 
 
 Thus we see that where an ordinance has been 
 given by God, God repeals it; where the ordinance 
 is given by the Rabbis, the Rabbis repeal it. But 
 that “‘any ordinance, even of the Rabbis, remains in 
 full force for all the time, unless expressly recalled 
 by God’’—of this most extraordinary allegation, Bezah 
 
176 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 5b says not a single word. And, as our readers will 
 remember, it is upon this passage from Bezah that 
 Edersheim based his argument. 
 
 If one favorite charge of Dr. Edersheim against the 
 Rabbis is that they set tradition above the Writ, an- 
 other is that they set the study of that tradition and 
 of the law generally above the practice of pious works. 
 Dr. Edersheim is here treading a path which has been 
 made wide and easy for him by the labors of previous 
 writers. But as he always endeavors to substantiate 
 his accusations by Rabbinical allusions, so here, too, 
 the marginal note at the very crisis of his charge has 
 a reference ready to our hand. Our author assures 
 us that ‘‘the merit of Israel might in theory be sup- 
 posed to flow from ‘good work,’ of course, including 
 the strict practice of legal piety, and from the study 
 of the law. But in reality it was ‘study’ alone to 
 which such supreme merit attached. Practice re- 
 quired knowledge for its directions, such as the Amha- 
 Arez (‘country people,—plebeians, in the Jewish sense 
 of being unlearned) could not possess, who had bartered 
 away the highest crown for a spade with which to dig. 
 And the Sages, ‘the great ones of the world,’ had long 
 settled it that study was before works’”’ (I, 85). 
 
 We are bidden to turn to ‘‘Jer. Chag. I. hal. 7, 
 towards the end’’, and we very willingly accept this 
 invitation. The passage in question shall be literally 
 translated for our readers: Rabbi Judah, when he 
 saw a bridal or a funeral procession pass along the 
 street, was wont to turn to his scholars, and say :““Works 
 go before study”. In the house of Arim, at Lud, a 
 vote was taken on the question, and it was decided 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 177 
 
 that study went before works. Rabbi Abbahu who 
 lived at Caesarea, sent his son to. Tiberias to study 
 there.33 After a time, he was told that his son was 
 devoting himself to acts of charity, such as helping 
 in the burial of the dead. Then he wrote to him and 
 said: “‘Is it because there are no graves in Caesarea, 
 that I sent you to Tiberias?’ Long ago, moreover, 
 was it decided in the upper chamber of the house of 
 Arim that study went before works. But the Rabbis 
 in Caesarea taught that this pre-eminence of study 
 only applies when acts of charity can be performed by 
 some one else, but if there is no one else to perform 
 them, then works go before study. 
 
 As a preliminary explanation of this passage, 
 it must be noted that it was regarded as a work of 
 charity to accompany the bride to her husband’s house 
 and to follow a funeral to the cemetery. Rabbi Judah 
 was, therefore, accustomed, when he saw either a 
 marriage or afuneral procession passing before him, 
 to break off his disquisitions on the law and, surround- 
 ed by his disciples, to follow the party of mirth or 
 mourning to its destination. It was in such occu- 
 pations that the son of Rabbi Abbahu was spending 
 his time, and his father wrote to remonstrate with 
 him, in that he was “‘sent to college’’3%* for one thing 
 and was wasting his days upon another. 
 
 We will quote one more parallel passage before 
 going further. It is found in Kiddushin 40b: It 
 happened long ago, that Rabbi Tarfon and the elders 
 were assembled in the upper chamber of the house 
 of Nitsah, and the question was started: ‘Which 
 is greater, works or study?’ Rabbi Tarfon argued 
 
178 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 that works were greater, while Rabbi Akiba set study 
 before works. Then they all declared that study 
 was greater because it led to works. 
 
 Now the impression left on the mind after reading 
 Dr. Edersheim’s words is that, while the bare theory 
 of the Rabbis might be that Israel’s merits flowed 
 from works, in their heart of hearts they really be- 
 lieved that the most meritorious and ‘‘paying”’ thing 
 was study and study alone. That would hardly 
 be the view taken by an impartial reader of the quoted 
 passages, even as they stand without a word of com- 
 mentary. And with some exegetical and historical 
 explanation almost the very contrary of Dr. Eder- 
 sheim’s suggestions will be seen to be the truth. 
 
 It is a pity that Dr. Edersheim has not made more 
 frequent use of Graetz’s ‘History of the Jews’’.4 He 
 would have found there (vol. iv, pp. 173, 175, 
 and note 17) an accurate account of the historical 
 circumstances under which the decisions at the houses 
 of Arim and Nitsah were made. Both refer to the 
 same occasion, a time of unparalleled calamity in 
 Jewish history. The awful persecution of the Jews 
 under Hadrian aimed at the entire destruction of 
 spiritual life among the people. The practice of the 
 various ordinances was forbidden under the most ap- 
 palling penalties, but perhaps the direst punishment 
 awaited those who met for the purpose of teaching and 
 studying the divine Law. Hadrian or his viceregents 
 were astute enough to see that if the stream of tra- 
 dition failed, and if the religious life were no longer fed 
 by the usual supply of teachers and scholars, Judaism 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 179 
 
 must assuredly perish by means as certain as the al- 
 most impracticable annihilation of the entire race. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the decision referred to 
 in both passages was made. It was felt that, what- 
 ever the peril, the law must still be studied, and that 
 teaching and learning were more important (not more 
 ‘‘meritorious’’) than practice, because they were its 
 indispensable condition and forerunner. In the story 
 relating to Rabbi Abbahu and his son this decision 
 of the conference at Lud is applied for a somewhat 
 different purpose. In the decision of the conference 
 at Lud the “ works’’ which are subordinated to ‘‘study’’ 
 refer especially to the various ordinances of the law— 
 such as the prohibitions of labor on the Sabbath, the 
 celebration of the Passover and so on—the observance 
 of which might be neglected were life endangered by 
 their fulfilment. On the other hand, in the contrary 
 opinion to which Rabbi Abbahu took exception, the 
 “‘works’’ allude to definite acts of charity which are of 
 an all-engrossing character when once earnestly pur- 
 sued. It is obvious that just as the fellows and schol- 
 ars of our own universities must devote the main 
 portion of their time not to “works”’ but to ‘‘study”’, so 
 in ancient Judea was it necessary that the learned class 
 should act ina similar manner. But we also see that 
 in Judea “‘works’’ depended on “‘study”’, and “‘study’”’ 
 paved the way for “‘works’’; moreover, that if workers 
 were really wanted, ‘‘study”’ had to go to the wall. 
 How far Dr. Edersheim then has drawn a legitimate 
 conclusion from his Talmudic reference, when he says 
 that it was ‘“‘study’’ and study alone to which such 
 supreme merit attached, we will now leave with some 
 
180 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 confidence to the unprejudiced consideration of our 
 readers. 
 
 If the misapprehension of the text, due to inad- 
 equate reading and coloring by preconceived notions, 
 has led Dr. Edersheim into strange errors, he has been 
 no less unfortunate with his translations of individual 
 words. Of these we might multiply instances, but we 
 shall content ourselves with a couple of sufficiently 
 striking and characteristic cases. In the first of 
 these, Dr. Edersheim apparently believes that the 
 Greek word ié.wrns is the equivalent of the English 
 word “‘idiot”. In the second case, he translates the 
 Chaldaic word Safre by ‘‘Scribes’’, when it ought to be 
 rendered by ‘‘schoolmasters.’’ Speaking of Zacharias, 
 the father of John the Baptist, he says: “Zacharias 
 could not have been one of the ‘learned’, nor to the 
 Rabbinists a model priest. They would have described 
 him as an ‘idiot’ or a common ‘rustic’ priest, and pro- 
 bably have treated him with benevolent contempt’. 
 
 In a foot-note our author gives the word “‘Hediot”’ 
 in Hebrew characters, and adds that it means an un- 
 learned or common priest, and complacently refers 
 to Yebamot 59a. Turning to the reference we find 
 no word about an unlearned or rustic priest. The 
 word ‘‘Hediot’’—transliterated into Hebrew from 
 the Greek—merely meant an ordinary priest as distin- 
 guished from the high priests. Thus in Mishnah 
 Yoma 7. 5, we are told that the high priest performs 
 the functions of his office in eight garments, while 
 the ordinary priest (Kohen hediot) ministers in only 
 four garments. In Sanhedrin (10. 2) hedzot is used 
 to distinguish a private person from a royal person. 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 181 
 
 
 
 If Macaulay’s fourth-form prodigy had made this 
 mistake, it would have been discreditable but comic; 
 if it had occurred once in a purely critical work, we 
 should have regarded it as unimportant and probably 
 attributed it to a printer’s mistake. But Dr. Eder- 
 sheim having adopted it, fastens upon it heartily, 
 and reproduces it five times in as many consecutive 
 pages (I, 141-144). In fact it is made to give the 
 necessary color to one prolonged picture. 
 
 Again: ‘‘ ‘these are questions of the Scribes’, the 
 Talmud observes ironically on one occasion (Jeru- 
 shalmi Megilla; 74b, line 30 from the top,) showing, of 
 course,that the verbal subtlety of theScribe was already 
 proverbial among the Scribes themselves.’’ The refer- 
 ence is, indeed, accurate to a line, but the translation 
 supplies a counterbalance of inaccuracy. The word 
 Safre which Dr. Edersheim renders ‘‘Scribes’’, un- 
 happily for the fate of a long crescendo passage of 
 indictment, does not here refer to the Scribes at all 
 but means children’s teachers or schoolmasters, and 
 the whole sentence signifies merely ‘‘these are ele- 
 mentary questions’’. A reference at the commentaries 
 or to Frankel’s Iniroductio in Talmud Hierosolymi- 
 tanum would have rescued Dr. Edersheim from this 
 grotesque blunder. Frankel’s book is, indeed, included 
 in Dr. Edersheim’s list of authorities, but unfortun- 
 ately it is written in Hebrew. 
 
 Dr. Edersheim is not wholly successful when he 
 deals with the laudatory Rabbinical figures, ‘‘a well- 
 plastered cistern”’ and ‘‘a welling spring of water’’. 
 In vol. I, p. 93, in a passage already frequently re- 
 ferred to, he mentions the former epithet as one among 
 
182 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 _—_— 
 
 the many exaggerated phrases applied to the Scribes. 
 On page 412, while improving a detail of his elaborate 
 contrast, Dr. Edersheim triumphs in the idea that 
 a ‘‘well-plastered cistern’’ was the limit of praise that 
 could be given to the teaching of the Rabbis, and he 
 states categorically that the figure of the ‘‘well of 
 water springing up’’ was never applied to them. 
 “The difference’, continues Dr. Edersheim, ‘‘is very 
 great. For it is the boast of Rabbinism, that its disciples 
 drink of the waters of their teachers; chief merit lies 
 in the receptiveness, not spontaneity, and higher 
 praise cannot be given than that of being a well-plast- 
 ered cistern, which lets not out a drop of water, and 
 in that sense is a spring whose waters continually 
 increase. But this is quite the opposite, etc.’’ (I, 412). 
 
 On this proposition Dr. Edersheim builds a por- 
 tion of his ‘‘Contrast’”, Now the question is here 
 cf no great importance in itself, but as a matter of 
 fact, Dr. Edersheim’s argument is entirely baseless. 
 The ‘“‘welling-spring’’, so far from being an unused 
 metaphor by the Rabbis, was quite well known to 
 them in this relation. The very passage (Abot 2. 
 10, 11) upon which Dr. Edersheim relies, cuts the 
 ground from under his feet. It runs, according to 
 Taylor’s literal translation:—‘‘Five disciples were 
 there to Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, and these 
 were they: R. Eliezer ben Hyrqanos, and R. Jehoshua 
 ben Chananiah, and R. Jose the Priest, and R. Shimeon 
 ben Nathanael, and R. Eleazar ben Arak. He used 
 to recount their praise; Eliezer ben Hyrqanos is a 
 plastered cistern which loseth not a drop; Jehoshua 
 ben Chananiah—happy is she that bare him;Jose the 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 183 
 
 Priest is pious; Shimeon ben Nathanael is a sinfearer; 
 Eleazar ben Arak is a welling-spring. He used to 
 to say, if all the wise of Israel were in a scale of the © 
 balance, and Eliezer ben Hyrqanos with them, and 
 Eleazar ben Arak in the other scale, he would outweigh 
 them all.” 
 
 The two figures were thus used, and used in con- 
 trast, about different Rabbis, and to adopt for once 
 Dr. Edersheim’s methods of reference—only we do 
 so with textual support—it will be seen that the waters 
 of the welling spring were intended to serve no other 
 purpose than to benefit the world. For, in Abot de- 
 Rabbi Naian, the same R. Eleazar ben Arak is called 
 ““A welling spring, overflowing, whose waters ever 
 increase, so that the words may be fulfilled: ‘Let 
 thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters 
 in the streets’’’ (Proverbs 5. 16). 
 
 No feature of Rabbinism is more commonly held 
 up by the enemies of the Talmud to scorn and loathing 
 than its attitude towards the heathen and the whole 
 Gentile world. We should expect similar things of 
 Dr. Edersheim, nor is our expectation doomed to 
 disappointment. He returns again and again to 
 the charge, and refers to or quotes without scruple 
 all those passages which a long array of writers, from 
 Eisenmenger of the last century down to Rohl- 
 ing of our own, have reiterated with dogged, unwearied 
 pertinacity.35 
 
 It is no surprise to us that Dr. Edersheim 
 should have passed over in silence, or in a few in- 
 stances sought to explain away, the many passages 
 on the other side which the apologists of the Talmud 
 
184 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 are wont to bring forward. Such a suppression is, 
 nevertheless, not wholly commendable in a scientific 
 work which attempts sine studio et tra to present a 
 complete picture of a past age. Nor should it be 
 forgotten that most of Dr. Edersheim’s references 
 are demonstrably later than the time of Jesus, in 
 other words subsequent to the siege and sack of Je- 
 rusalem. The memories of that event and all its hor- 
 rors—above all, of the destruction of the Temple—were 
 calculated to embitter and exasperate the feelings of 
 the Jews towards the Gentiles. And, be it noted, 
 the Rabbis did care for their national Temple and its 
 services, Dr. Edersheim’s statement to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. But it may be granted that at 
 no time did the vast majority of the Rabbis think 
 better of their enemies than their enemies did of them. 
 It is for the historian—though it is not for Dr.Eder- 
 sheim—to weigh and consider how far either side was 
 or was not excused in its hatred of the other by the 
 circumstances of the time. 
 
 Dr. Edersheim contends that the Gentile world 
 is excluded from the ordinary Rabbinic conception 
 of the ‘‘Kingdom of Heaven’’. The eschatology of 
 of the Talmud is one of the most difficult points. What 
 exact relation the terms ‘‘the world to come,” ‘‘the 
 Kingdom of Heaven’’,and “the days of the Messiah”’ 
 bear to one another, in what order they follow, and 
 in what places they shall be experienced, 
 are all questions which have been variously disputed 
 by Jewish scholars without any very satisfactory 
 results having as yet been obtained. But it is clear 
 that they are precisely those points on which indi- 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 185 
 
 vidual Rabbis gave rein to their fantasy, and where 
 one can least hope to deduce a rational or connected 
 system. | 
 
 The liturgy of the Jews is a better exponent of 
 the real feelings of the people than these morbid ex- 
 crescences of a diseased imagination brooding over 
 its wrongs, which are so frequently quoted by Dr. 
 Edersheim. That liturgy is often cited by him on 
 other occasions; he might with advantage have cited 
 it on this occasion. Here we give a translation of 
 a short Hebrew prayer—at least as ancient as Dr. 
 Edersheim’s references—which was, and still is, re- 
 cited on one of the most solemn festivals in the cal- 
 endar, the day of memorial or the New Year: “Our 
 God and the God of our fathers, reign Thou in Thy 
 glory over the whole world, and in Thy majesty be 
 exalted over the whole earth; shine forth in the ex- 
 cellency of Thy supreme power over all mankind, 
 that everything that has been made be made sensible 
 that Thou hast made it; that everything formed may 
 know that Thou hast formed it, and that all who have 
 breath in their nostrils may declare that the Lord 
 God of Israel reigneth, and in His supreme power 
 ruleth over all’’. 
 
 While referring to Dr. Edersheim’s belief in 
 the bitterness with which Jewish writers regarded 
 all those outside their own faith, it may not be out 
 of place to indicate a curious blunder into which his 
 enthusiasm has led him. He is speaking of the en- 
 mity that existed between the Jews and the Samar- 
 itans, and he says: ‘‘To the same hatred caused by 
 national persecution, we must impute such expres- 
 
186 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 sions as that he who received hospitably a Samaritan 
 has himself to blame if his children have to go into 
 captivity”’ (I, 401). 
 
 The marginal note refers us to Sanhedrin 104a 
 where we shall certainly find the word Cutz, as the 
 Hebrew for Samaritan. But we should have imagined 
 that the veriest tyro in Talmudic study was aware 
 that the word Samaritan or Cutz is one of the various 
 expressions which an all too scrupulous censorship 
 has substituted for the generic term Nokri, or for- 
 eigner. Nokri might possibly, so the censor believed, 
 refer to Christians, hence Cutz, or Samaritan, which 
 could not allude to Christians, was a convenient al- 
 ternative. Whether the substitution changed the 
 meaning of a passage or turned it into nonsense was 
 a matter of the most trifling insignificance to the 
 censor. In the present instance Dr. Edersheim might 
 have been saved from his elementary mistake if he 
 had glanced at the passage in Isaiah which is the basis 
 and authority forthe churlish statement inthe Talmud. 
 Isaiah (39. 1-8) prophesies the captivity of Hezekiah’s 
 descendants, because the king had shown courtesy 
 and hospitality to the ambassadors of Merodach Bala- 
 dan, the prince of Babylonia. This Merodach was 
 a simple heathen and no Samaritan; in the rare first 
 edition of the Talmud, which escaped the censor’s 
 alterations, Dr. Edersheim will find that Nokri and 
 not Cuti is the subject of the extract in question. 
 
 This mistake is certainly of no very great im- 
 portance, but, taken together with others which we 
 have already pointed out, the few we have yet to 
 mention, and the many we could add, did space per- 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 187 
 
 mit, does it not raise a not unwarranted suspicion that 
 Dr. Edersheim, in spite of his learning and erudition, 
 is yet not qualified to lay before us a trustworthy © 
 picture of the Talmud and its teachings? 
 
 The religion and the theology of the Rabbis is 
 subjected by Dr. Edersheim to severe criticism. 
 Their religion, according to him, was pure externalism, 
 which, while it “indicated, with the most minute and 
 painful punctiliousness, every legal ordinance bind- 
 ing on conduct, left the inner man, the spring of 
 actions, untouched alike as regards faith and morals”’ 
 (I, 105).3° Their theology lacked ‘‘system”’ and 
 “authority,” and was nothing more “than a mass of 
 conflicting statements and debasing superstition’. 
 “A man might hold or propound almost any views 
 so long as he adhered in practice and teaching to the 
 traditional ordinances.’’ It is impossible for us to 
 discuss these charges in this place; they are familiar 
 charges and very fashionable at this time.3?7 The 
 eager anxiety of the Rabbis to regulate all conduct 
 (not excluding moral conduct, be it remembered) by 
 an endless series of detailed enactments, their naive 
 ignorance of dogmatic theology as a system, and the 
 liberty they granted towards the free exercise and 
 play of the religious imagination are all indicative 
 of a peculiar religious attitude, but not necessarily 
 of a want of religion. It is not, however, our object 
 on this occasion to present the religious ideas of 
 the Rabbis in a more favorable light: we must con- 
 fine ourselves to Dr. Edersheim’s method of using the 
 Talmud in support of his own statements. 
 
 Dr. Edersheim is apparently not perfectly at 
 
188 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 one with himself on these questions. In one passage 
 where he is speaking of the conditions under which 
 a Jewish child began its life, he says: ‘‘ These con- 
 ditions were indeed for that time the happiest con- 
 ceivable, and such as only centuries of Old Testament 
 life training could have made them”. Our readers 
 will observe the words ‘‘Old Testament life training’; 
 but surely if the ‘‘life training’’ depended ultimately 
 on the Old Testament, it was more immediately fos- 
 tered and tended by the very Rabbis whom Dr. Eder- 
 sheim so industriously decries. ‘‘There were not 
 homes like those in Israel,’ where ‘‘from the first 
 day of its existence a religious atmosphere”’ surrounded 
 the child of Jewish parents’? (I, 226, 227). But 
 though there was a “religious atmosphere’’, there 
 was no ‘spirit’. That had been “crushed’’; re- 
 ligion had been “‘externalized,’’ and the Judaism of 
 the days of Christ “was no longer the pure religion 
 of the Old Testament”’ (vol. I, 107). 
 
 But leaving these somewhat apparent contradic- 
 tions, which in a writer less imbued with enthusiasm 
 for his subject would wear the aspect of disingenuous- 
 ness, let us turn to a few individual passages where 
 Dr. Edersheim seeks to prove the general drift of his 
 argument by direct reference to the Rabbinical lit- 
 erature. 
 
 Dr. Edersheim has a great deal to say about 
 the contrast between the teaching of the Gospels 
 and that of the Rabbis in regard to sin and repentance. 
 Thus he concludes that ‘‘Rabbinism knew nothing 
 of a forgiveness of sin free and unconditional, unless 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 189 
 
 in the case of those who had not the power of doing 
 anything for their atonement” (vol I, 510). The 
 reference adduced in support of this statement is | 
 Sifre 70b. Alluding to Deuteronomy 3. 23-26, and 
 II Samuel 24.10, the passage runs thus: “Israel had 
 two good rulers—Moses and David. Each prayed 
 for the forgiveness of his sins, not in virtue of the 
 number of his good deeds, but as the free grace of 
 God. But if they whose worth was so great acted 
 in this manner, how much more should we imitate 
 them herein, who may compare ourselves to the least 
 of their disciples?”? 
 
 The exhortation is that we can only justly ask 
 forgiveness as a grace of God, and not as a reward 
 for our own righteousness, This teaching, which can 
 hardly be considered as good evidence of the ‘‘self- 
 righteousness”’ of the Rabbis, has obviously nothing 
 whatever to do with Dr. Edersheim’s mysterious al- 
 legation. Again, our author admits that the Rabbis 
 are continually praising repentance, but as repent- 
 ance is in itself a good thing, which is also admired 
 in the Gospels, he is bound to show, in order to main- 
 tain throughout his contrast between Scribe and 
 Evangelist, that Rabbinic repentance wasa cheap car- 
 icature of the true article. Thus we find passages 
 of this kind (vol. I, 509): “Although Rabbinism 
 had no welcome to the sinner, it was unceasing in its 
 call to repentance and in extolling its merits...... 
 ‘One hour of penitence and good works outweighs 
 the whole world to come.’...... The penitent was 
 really the great one, since his strong nature had more 
 in it of the evil impulse, and the conquest of it by the 
 
190 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 penitent was really of greater merit than the ab- 
 stinence from sin”’, 
 
 For this last statement the marginal note refers us 
 to Sanhedrin 99b. The passage is too long to quote, 
 but from previous examples, our readers will believe 
 us when we tell them that there is not a word in it 
 which could possibly be made to justify Dr. Eder- 
 sheim’s assertions. There is a quaint passage in the 
 Talmud (Berakot 34b) where a discussion takes place 
 on the relative merits in the eyes of God of the re- 
 pentant sinner and of him who has never yielded to 
 sin. It is not the undisputed view of the Talmud, as 
 Dr. Edersheim suggests, that ‘“‘the true penitent 
 really occupied a higher place—stood where the perfect- 
 ly righteous could not stand”’; but if it were, would 
 it be in flagrant contrast to the celebrated dictum 
 of Jesus: ‘Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner 
 that repenteth more than over ninety nine just per- 
 sons which need no repentance’’? 
 
 When, indeed, Dr. Edersheim comes to that pas- 
 sage, he appears to have entirely forgotten all that 
 the much-abused Rabbis said about penitence and 
 its merits in the sight of God. Here, to illustrate 
 the ‘‘terrible contrast,’ he says merely: ‘Christ 
 said: ‘There is joy in Heaven over one sinner that 
 repenteth.’ Pharisaism said—and we quote here lit- 
 erally—' There is joy before God when those who pro- 
 voke Him perish from the world’”’, 
 
 Now we are quite willing to allow that in this 
 instance Dr. Edersheim has correctly translated his 
 Rabbinical reference; but we would fain ask the learned 
 Doctor if he has read another passage, which finds 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD I9I 
 
 a prominent place in the Mishnah, where an arch- 
 Pharisee says: ‘“‘When man has to suffer because 
 of his sin, the Shekinah (Divine Manifestation) la- 
 ments: ‘Woe to my head, woe to my arm.’ If then 
 it is so painful to Heaven if the blood of the wicked 
 is shed, how much more when that of the righteous?” 
 (Sanhedrin 6. 5.). This extract and many others of 
 a similar character have been carefully ignored by 
 Dr. Edersheim; they are nevertheless in existence 
 and they prove that, since all Pharisees thought alike 
 on these questions, the ‘‘terrible contrast’’ cannot, 
 at any rate, be proved in the manner in which Dr. 
 Edersheim attempts to prove it. 
 
 If we stop here, it is not for lack of material where- 
 with tocontinue. Our initial difficulty was as to which 
 instances should be selected. But our promise will have 
 been sufficiently fulfilled if our readers will believe that 
 Dr. Edersheim’s book is not an extreme illustration 
 of the superficial and unscientific treatment ordina- 
 rily accorded to Rabbinical literature. And if our 
 readers wonder how a learned writer, who in other 
 respects appears to be an honest inquirer, can have 
 committed such mistakes, we refer them to our chief 
 propostion—that the Talmud is not studied for its 
 own sake, but always to subserve some foreign purpose. 
 Dr. Edersheim has apparently searched the Talmud 
 diligently, but has done so with a mind preoccupied. 
 He has arduously ransacked it for “contrasts’’, and 
 has found them by misunderstanding some parts of 
 it, and by neglecting others. 
 
 Is, then, the proper study of the Talmud a hope- 
 less undertaking? By no means; but the study must 
 
192 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 be approached honestly, and with a singleness of 
 purpose. A thorough and unselfish study, free from 
 all preconceived opinions, from all intention of at- 
 tack or defence, from all idea of using the Talmud 
 for any extraneous purpose, should precede any at- 
 tempt to write about it. We do not promise the 
 student, as others have done, that he will find in 
 the old Rabbinical literature all the sciences and phil- 
 osophies of our later and varied civilization buried 
 in its pages. We do not bid “philologers, historians, 
 and statesmen’’ seek in the records of the Rabbis for 
 instruction and counsel. We say nothing of the 
 ‘“‘many discoveries thought to belong to a recent age, 
 but in truth well known to these ancient doctors’’.® 
 
 But this much we say with confidence: that anyone 
 who cares for the history of religion and its phenomena 
 will find the study of the Talmud and its kindred 
 literature no thankless task; for in the Talmud he 
 will discern an earnest desire—not surpassedor scarcely 
 equalled elsewhere—to fill and penetrate the whole of 
 human life with religion and the sense of law and right. 
 This is the grand purpose of the Talmud, so far as 
 it can be said to have any purpose at all. That the 
 Rabbis have not always succeeded in their twofold 
 aim, and that an inflexible carrying out of the prin- 
 ciples of the Law has occasionally conflicted with 
 the true interest of religion, we are fain to admit. 
 It was the adage of an old Rabbi that “the Torah 
 (by which he here probably meant the Pentateuch, 
 to him the source of law and religion in one) was not 
 given to the angels, but intended for men”. And 
 the Rabbis were not gods, nor demigods, nor angels; 
 
ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 193 
 
 they were mortal men, and if their holy aims have 
 frequently been shipwrecked on the rocks of human 
 imperfection, as mortals they should not be too harsh- 
 ly judged. 
 
 But be our opinions of the Rabbis what they 
 may, we may fairly claim, in the name of scientific 
 justice, as well as that of Christian charity, that he 
 who proposes to pass judgment upon them shall first 
 hear their case, and understand it; in other words, 
 that he shall read the Talmud, and critically examine 
 it, before he begins to write about it and to expound it. 
 
THE TALMUD 
 
 The Talmud (110>n), meaning a ‘teaching’, 
 an ‘inference,’ or a ‘doctrine,’ is a term commonly 
 applied to a collection of works embodying the Oral 
 Law—np >yaw mmm, literally ‘the Torah by mouth’— 
 handed down to the Jews by way of tradition, in 
 contradistinction to the Written Law—andav mn 
 literally ‘the Torah in writing.’ The origin of this tra- 
 dition is unknown: the common view of the medieval 
 authorities, claiming the same Mosaic authorship 
 and high antiquity for it as for the Scriptures, is un- 
 critical. But, as the Oral Law is closely connected 
 with the history and development of the hermeneu- 
 tics of the Scriptures, its commencement may safely 
 be dated back to the exilic period in which was first 
 established the institution of the Synagogue, whose 
 main function consisted in teaching and interpret- 
 ing the word of God. 
 
 The Hebrew term for ‘interpretation’ is Mid- 
 rash (wit, cf. 2 Ch. 13.22); and this term, like 
 the Rabbinic term Kabbalah, 7bap, matter received 
 by way of tradition), which includes the Prophets 
 and the Hagiographa, may likewise, perhaps, be 
 applied to certain portions of the canonical writ- 
 ings, e.g. Chronicles. The prominent feature of 
 the Midrash, however, as an instrument for enlarg- 
 ing upon and expanding the word of the Scriptures, 
 is best discernible in the ancient rabbinical productions, 
 
THE TALMUD 195 
 
 which in spite of some hyperbolical expressions, pro- 
 voked by heat of controversy, never seriously as- 
 pired to the dignity of Scripture, and which as a 
 consequence, they for the most part properly kept 
 apart text and interpretation, thus clearly showing 
 the process of expansion. 
 
 The results gained by this method varied in 
 their character with the nature of the Scripture 
 passages, according as they were legal and ritual, 
 or spiritual and homiletical. The former classes 
 are comprised under the name Halakah (m25n), 
 signifying guidance, a rule of practice, a legal de- 
 cision; and the term extends also to the usages, 
 customs (Minhagim wim), ordinances (Takkanot 
 npn), and decrees (Gezeroé nn), for which there 
 is little or no authority in the Scriptures. The 
 latter (spiritual and homiletical) are classified under 
 the term Haggadah (777, Aramaic 77),? meaning 
 a tale, a narrative, an explanation, a homily; and 
 the term includes also the gnomic lore of the Rabbis, 
 as well as stories and legends bearing upon the lives 
 of post-Biblical Jewish saints. Such topics as as- 
 tronomy and astrology, medicine and magic, the- 
 osophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, fall- 
 ing mostly under the heading of folk-lore, pass as 
 a rule also under the name of Haggadah. 
 
 The schools active in this work of the interpreta- 
 tion and expansion of the Scriptures extend over 
 many centuries, and are known under various des- 
 ignations, each designation marking in succession 
 a different period. 
 
196 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 I. The Soferim (n51D), “‘Scribes,’’ commenc- 
 ing with Ezra and going down to the Maccabaean 
 period (450-100). Scarcely anything is known of 
 their literary activity; the term ‘Words of the So- 
 fertm’ (a bID 747) is used indifferently by the 
 Rabbis of Halakot dating from various ages, and 
 implying in most cases not the authorship of, but 
 the authority for, certain given statements. Less 
 vague are the Rabbinical references to the ““Men of 
 the Great Assembly” (m>rmm now wx) and “their 
 Remnant” (a>117 noi ws Iw), thought by some 
 scholars to be identical with the Soferim, or at least 
 to have formed the executive of the latter.? 
 
 To these Soferim are attributed not only cer- 
 tain teaching activity (as “Raise many disciples”, 
 Abot 1.1), but also many ordinances and decrees, 
 the most important of which are those bearing 
 upon the arrangement and the completion of the 
 Canon of the Bible, the reading of the Law on 
 certain days in the week, the fixing of the daily 
 prayers (probably in six benedictions now em- 
 bodied in the so-called Eighteen Benedictions, 
 mwy mY), and the introduction of the saying of 
 grace after meals. The custom of pouring libations 
 of water at the feast of Tabernacles, and going in 
 procession round the altar with branches of willow 
 trees, declared by some Rabbis to have been intro- 
 duced by the prophets, as well as the so-called ‘Laws 
 unto Moses from Mount Sinai’ (amounting to the 
 number of forty-three, more than a third of which 
 refer to the preparation of the phylacteries), may 
 also have dated from those Soferic times, remote- 
 
THE TALMUD 197 
 
 ness of assigned date pointing as a rule, to the pre- 
 Maccabaean period.3 
 
 II. The Zugot (mnt; Gr. Zedyos), “Pairs,” a 
 name given to the leading teachers that flourished 
 between the Maccabaean and the Herodian period 
 (c. 150-30). Five such ‘ Pairs’ are recorded in the Rab- 
 binical literature, extending over five generations, and 
 succeeding each other in the following order: 1. Jose 
 b. Joezer of Zereda and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem 
 2. Joshua b. Perahiah and Nittai of Arbela; 3. Judah 
 b. Tabbai and Simeon b. Shetah; 4. Shemaiah and 
 Abtalyon; 5. Hillel and Shammai.4 
 
 According to tradition each ‘Pair’? represents 
 the heads of the Sanhedrin of their age, the one whose 
 name occurs first in the list serving in the capacity of 
 Nasi (8), “Prince” or “President’”’ of the Sanhedrin, 
 the other in that of “Ab Beth Din (?7 m2 aN), “Fa- 
 ther of the House of Judgment,” or “‘Vice-President.”’ 
 This tradition is contested by many modern scholars as 
 incompatible with the statements of Josephus and 
 of the New Testament, according to which the High- 
 Priest for the time being was ex-officio the President 
 of the Sanhedrin. But, whatever their particular 
 function and title were, the existence of the “‘Pairs”’ 
 as the heads of a religious corporation to which the 
 large bulk of the nation belonged, and which thus 
 formed an important factor in the development 
 of the Oral Law, cannot well be doubted. To them 
 are attributed not only various Haggadic sayings 
 (Abot 1. 4-15), but also Halakic statements, as 
 well as certain ordinances and decrees. 
 
198 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 It was under the first ‘Pair’ (also called Eshkoloth 
 miss [identical with Greek oyoA7 ?], a title that 
 disappears with them) that, according to the testimony 
 of the Rabbis, the first difference of opinion regarding 
 the performance of certain religious practices occurred 
 between the sages. The WHalakot attributed to 
 Jose b. Joezer, the first named of this ‘‘Pair,”’ as well 
 as the ordinances and decrees ascribed to him and 
 to his colleague of the first “‘Pair,’’ were apparently 
 composed in his age, the language of the Hala- 
 kot (Aramaic [‘Eduyyot 8. 4]) and the subject 
 of the ordinances and decrees (Levitical purity) 
 being both signs of antiquity. Shimeon b. Shetah 
 of the third “Pair” is credited with having introduced 
 several important reforms in various religious de- 
 partments, whilst Shemaiah and Abtalyon were 
 called the “Great Ones of the Generation’”’ and the 
 “Great Interpreters” (@>Y7] O77). 
 
 The most important “‘Pair}’ however, are Hillel (the 
 Elder) and Shammai (the Elder), in whose names more 
 Halakot are recorded than of any other “Pair”; 
 they are also the founders of two great schools (Bet 
 Shammai, Bet Hillel, *~ow ma .b5n ma, “the House 
 or School of Shammai” and “the House of Hillel’’). 
 which continued the work of their masters for some 
 generations. Hillel, a native of Babylon and (ac- 
 cording to tradition) a descendant of the house of 
 David, was particularly famous for his meekness and 
 humble-mindedness. Among other things he is re- 
 ported to have said: ‘Be of the disciples of Aaron, 
 loving peace and pursuing peace, loving thy fellow- 
 creatures, and drawing them near to the Torah’ 
 
THE TALMUD 199 
 
 
 
 (Abot 1. 12); whilst he also taught to a heathen 
 seeking admission into Judaism: ‘What is hateful 
 to thyself do not to thy fellow-man; this is the whole 
 Torah, the rest is only commentary’ (Shabbat 306). 
 Shammai’s saying was: ‘Make thy Torah a fixed 
 thing, say little and do much, and receive every man 
 with a cheerful countenance’ (Abot 1. 15); but 
 he was not particularly famous for his gentle temper. 
 
 The most marked feature about these two leaders 
 is their activity as interpreters of the Law and their 
 application of the results of this interpretation to 
 practice. Thus Shammai presses the words 7n7 1y 
 (“until it is subdued,’’ Deut. 20.20) to mean that the 
 act of subduing a hostile place must not be inter- 
 rupted even on account of any religious consideration, 
 and thus he permits the continuing of a battle even 
 on Sabbath (Shabbat 19a). Hillel, by interpreting the 
 term Y1yWwa (“in its season’’), inferred from it the Hala- 
 kah that the duty of sacrificing the Paschal lamb 
 overrules all consideration of Sabbath, when the 14th 
 of Nisan falls on the seventh day of the week (Pesa- 
 him 66a).° Indeed it was Hillel who first framed the 
 Rules of Interpretation, seven in number (Introduc- 
 tion to Torat Kohanim), which developed later into 
 thirteen and more. 
 
 III. The Tannaim (osin), “Teachers”, the name 
 given to the authorities living during the first two 
 centuries of the common era (c. 10-200), commencing 
 with the schools of Shammai and Hillel and termi- 
 nating with R. Judah the Patriarch, a great-grandson 
 of Hillel. The period of the Tannaim, most of whom 
 
200 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 bear the title Rabbi (27 ‘my Master,” but losing 
 later its pronominal signification) or (more rarely) 
 Rabban (j29 “‘Master’’), may conveniently be divided 
 into four successive generations, the principal men 
 of which are: 
 
 First Generation (10-80).—The ‘schools of Sham- 
 mai and Hillel’, comprising many teachers whose 
 names have not come down to us. The underlying 
 principle dividing these schools on many import- 
 ant points is not known; but on the whole the school 
 of Shammai may perhaps be characterized as staunch 
 conservatives in their adherence to Tradition, who 
 allowed little room for the play of interpretation, 
 and as rule were very rigorous in their decisions; 
 whilst the school of Hillel, already described by 
 the old Rabbis as ‘pleasing and meek,’ were more 
 inclined to compromise in their teaching, greatly 
 given to the development of the Midrash, and in 
 general less severe in their halakic dicta. The 
 most important of these teachers known by name are 
 Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, and Rabban Johanan b. 
 Zakkai, both of the school of Hillel. Gamaliel, a son 
 (some say a grandson) of Hillel, is known for various 
 reforms introduced by him, as well as for the part he 
 took in the trial of the Apostle Paul (Acts. 5. 34-35); 
 whilst Johanan was equally famous as one of the lead- 
 ers of the peace party in the war against the Romans 
 (66-70), and as the founder of the Academy of Jam- 
 nia, which became the centre of Jewish life and 
 thought after the destruction of the Temple. 
 
 Second Generation (90-130).—Rabban Gamaliel 
 II, President of the Academy of Jamnia after the 
 
THE TALMUD 201 
 
 death of R. Johanan (having been rather autocratic 
 in the treatment of his colleagues, he was removed 
 from office for a time, but soon after reinstated) ; 
 R. Eliezer b. Jacob I, who was considered a great 
 authority in tradition regarding the structure and 
 the arrangement of -the service in the Temple; 
 R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, a brother-in-law of R. Gama- 
 liel, and the head of a school in Lydda (though a 
 disciple of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, of the school of 
 Hillel, he cherished Shammaitic principles, which 
 fact brought him into collision with the majority 
 of his colleagues, and subsequently led to his excom- 
 munication) ; R. Joshua b. Hananiah, likewise a 
 disciple of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, but unlike his col- 
 league, R. Eliezer, with whom he had many con- 
 troversies, of a humble and submissive disposition; 
 R. Eleazar b. Azariah, who derived his pedigree 
 from Ezra the Scribe, and who obtained the office 
 of president of the Academy of Jamnia when R. 
 Gamaliel was deposed. 
 
 To the younger teachers of this generation be- 
 long R. Tarfon, of the school of Shammai (?), who 
 had attended the services in the Temple; R. Jose 
 of Galilee, who had controversies with R. Tarfon 
 and other ZTannaim; R. Ishmael b. Elisha, best 
 known for his thirteen Rules of Interpretation 
 (see above). Together with other members of the 
 Sanhedrin he emigrated from Jamnia to Usha, 
 where he founded a school called after his name, 
 to which various Midrashim are attributed. R. 
 Akiba b. Joseph, a disciple of several older teachers 
 of this generation, was master of most of the dis- 
 
202 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 tinguished Rabbis of the next generation, and not 
 less famous for his skill in systematizing the content 
 of tradition than for his ingenious methods of in- 
 terpretation, which enabled him to find a basis for 
 all the enactments of the Oral Law in the Scriptures. 
 This fact, together with his patriotic zeal and his 
 martyrdom in the Hadrianic persecutions (c. 130), 
 made him the most famous of the Tannaim. 
 
 To this generation belong also the older dis- 
 ciples of R. Akiba—Simeon b. ‘Azzai and Simeon b. 
 Zoma—best known for their moralizing sayings 
 and mystical tendencies (in the direction of a Jewish 
 gnosis) which they shared with their master, but 
 from which, unlike the latter, they did not es- 
 cape without injury. “The one gazed (into the 
 chambers of heaven) and died, and the other gazed 
 and was not in his mind.” Their contemporary 
 Elisha b. Abuyah, also called Aker (‘the other one’), 
 was less happy than these, for he ‘gazed’ and ‘cut 
 the branches,’ that is, became an apostate. 
 
 Third Generation (130-160).—The disciples of 
 R. Ishmael, of whom only two are known by their 
 names (R. Josia and R. Jonathan), whilst the others 
 are usually quoted as ‘the Tanna of the school’ of 
 R. Ishmael. The younger disciples of R. Akiba 
 are R. Meir, who continued the systematizing labors 
 of his master, and is thus supposed to have laid the 
 foundation of a Mishnah; R. Jehuda b. Ilai, who is 
 called ‘the first of the speakers’; R. Simeon b. 
 Yohai, of whom R. Akiba said ‘Be satisfied that 
 I and thy Maker know thy powers’; R. Nehemiah, 
 
THE TALMUD 203 
 
 to whom, as to the two last-mentioned Rabbis, 
 various fannattic compilations are attributed; R. 
 Eleazar b.Shamu‘a, round whom the greatest number 
 of disciples gathered, and R. Jose b. Halafta, to 
 whom the book Seder ‘Olam (ny 770), containing 
 a chronology of events and personages in the Bible, 
 is attributed. Abba Saul, compiler of a Mishnah, 
 and the Patriarch R. Simon II b. Gamaliel II, are 
 also included in the third generation. 
 
 Fourth Generation (160-220).—R. Nathan ha- 
 Babli, who emigrated from Babylon to Palestine 
 and there held under the last-mentioned Patriarch 
 an office in the Sanhedrin the nature of which is not 
 quite known; Symmachos, the disciple of R. Meir 
 and a great authority in matters of civil law; and 
 various other ZJannaim, sons and disciples of the 
 authorities of the preceding generation. The most 
 important among them is the Patriarch R. Judah 
 ha-Nasi, also called Rabbenu ha-Kadosh (w7pr 125) 
 ‘Our Master, the Saint,’ but more frequently Rabddz, 
 ‘the Master,’ without adding his name. He was 
 the son of the Patriarch R. Simon II, and the 
 disciple of R. Simon b. Yohai and of R. Eleazar 
 b. Shamua’; he presided over the Sanhedrin, which 
 during this generation was, as it would seem, a mi- 
 gratory body, shifting from place to place, from Usha 
 to Beth-Shearim, and thence to Sepphoris and Ti- 
 berias. This R. Judah is said to have maintained 
 friendly relations with the Roman authorities of 
 Palestine at that period. This fact, as well as the 
 circumstances of his noble birth, great wealth, of- 
 ficial position, saintly character, and his mastery 
 
204 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of the contents of the Oral Law, gave him an authority 
 over his contemporaries never enjoyed by any other 
 Tanna, and gathered round him a band of disting- 
 uished disciples and colleagues which rendered possible 
 his work as compiler and codifier of the Mzshnah.? 
 
 The literary productions of all these generations 
 of Tannaim, as well as of their predecessors the Zugot 
 and the Soferim, both in Halakah and in Haggadah, 
 are, as far as they have been preserved, embodied in 
 the following collections. 
 
 The Mishnah mw’ (from m2), meaning a ‘teach- 
 ing’, a ‘repetition,’ is a designation most appropriate 
 for a work generally looked upon as the main de- 
 pository of the contents of the Oral Law, which (in 
 contradistinction to N7pd, reading matter, or the 
 Scriptures) could be acquired only by means of 
 constant repetition. This work, compiled (apart 
 from some later additions) by R. Judah the Patriarch, 
 is divided into six Orders (D”’y=oO'071D 7ww), each of 
 which contains several Masstktot (mn3bd, sing. 
 noon, Aram. NnDDD, derived from ‘D3, meaning ‘to 
 weave’; comp. the Latin textus), whilst each tractate 
 is divided into Perakim (Mp 1», singular p71), ‘joints’ 
 or ‘sections,’ each of which, in its turn, consists of 
 so many Halakot (in the sense of paragraphs). 
 The number of the tractates is 63 (or, in another 
 enumeration, 60), bearing titles [printed in Appendix 
 A., p. 226ff], which are suggestive more or less of their 
 varied contents, though extraneous matter that is 
 in no way indicated by the title is everywhere 
 introduced. 
 
 The idiom in which the Mzshnah is compiled is 
 
THE TALMUD 205 
 
 the New Hebrew, interspersed with occasional Greek 
 and Latin words; its diction is fluent and easy when 
 not disfigured, as all works coming to us from an- 
 tiquity are, by interpolations and textual corruptions. 
 The date of its compilation may be fixed about 220 
 C.E. This was undertaken and accomplished 
 by R. Judah the Patriarch, not with the purpose 
 of providing the nation with a legal code, but with 
 the intention of furnishing them with a sort of the- 
 saurus, incorporating such portions of the traditional 
 lore as he considered most important. Hence the 
 ground for his including in the work the opinions 
 of the minority (e.g. of the school of Shammai), which 
 only in a few exceptional cases were accepted as a 
 norm for practice. 
 
 A preliminary acquaintance with the contents 
 of the Scriptures bearing upon the topic expounded 
 by tradition is always assumed; so that, e. g., the 
 tractate Sukkah commences: ‘A booth (the in- 
 terior of which is) higher than 20 cubits is disquali- 
 fied,’ thus premising the duty of living in booths 
 for seven days according to Lev. 23. 42. In many 
 cases even a knowledge of the institutions estab- 
 lished by the Oral Law is presupposed. Hence 
 such a statement as that with which the Mishnah 
 commences: ‘When do they begin to read the Shema’‘ 
 (z.e., the three paragraphs in the Scriptures, Deut.6.6-9, 
 11.13-21, and Num. 15.37-41, the first paragraph of 
 which begins with the word Shema‘ynw) in the evening? 
 From the time the priests (in the case of defilement) 
 come back (from their ritual baths) to eat their heave- 
 offering’ (7,¢,, after sunset, see Lev. 22.4-7). The duty 
 
206 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 or the custom of daily reading the Shema‘ is thus 
 assumed as something generally known though not 
 mentioned in the Scriptures. 
 
 The works after which R. Judah modelled his 
 compilation and the sources upon which he drew 
 were probably the older Muzshnah collections, the 
 first composition of which was, as there is good reason 
 to believe, begun by the first successors of Shammai 
 and Hillel, then compiled by R. Akiba, and continued 
 by his disciple R. Meir, who enriched it by additions 
 of the later Tannaim. This Mishnah became the 
 groundwork of that of R. Judah, apart from various 
 other collections of a similar kind (e.g. the Mishnah 
 of Abba Saul), which were equally known to the 
 compiler and utilized by him.9 
 
 The strata of these older compositions are still 
 in many places discernible either by their style 
 and phraseology or by the nature of their contents. 
 An instance of the former is the passage illustra- 
 ting the prohibition against transporting things 
 on Sabbath from a space belonging to a private 
 individual to that constituting a part of the pub- 
 lic property. This commences navn mys (Shabbat 
 1. 1), instead of navn msxsin, through which the 
 Scripture expression 8x’ 5s (Ex. 16.19) is still vis- 
 ible, and thus points to a time when the Halakah 
 was still in its early stage, forming a sort of 
 paraphrase of Scripture, not a set of abstract laws. 
 
 As an instance of the latter, it is sufficient to refer 
 here to the historical description of the procession 
 in which the sacrifice of the first-fruits was brought 
 to the Temple(Exod. 23,19), concerning which we read 
 
THE TALMUD 207 
 
 in Bikkurim 3.4: ‘The pipe was playing before 
 them (the pilgrims) until they arrived at the Temple 
 mountain, when even Agrippa the king would take 
 the basket (containing the first-fruits) on his shoulders, 
 stepping forward till he reached the court; then the 
 Levites spoke in song (chanted): “‘I will extol Thee 
 O Lord, for Thou hast lifted me up’’’ (Ps. 30.2). The 
 mention of Agrippa (probably Agrippa I., c. 40) 
 points to a contemporary document, since a Rabbi 
 of a later period would, for the sake of emphasis, 
 have named some Biblical potentate (e.g. Solomon), 
 not a mere Herodian prince.” This is only a speci- 
 men of many other portions of the Mishnah, which 
 contain lengthy descriptions of the sacrificial service 
 on certain occasions, or give accounts of the archi- 
 tecture of the Temple, its administration (including 
 lists of the names of the higher officials), and its ec- 
 onomy; whilst other passages furnish us with recordsof 
 actual transactions of the Sanhedrin, the procedure 
 of the courts, and the various methods of execution. 
 All these bear the stamp of their own age, and testify 
 to the early date of their composition. 
 
 The question whether R. Judah, besides com- 
 piling, actually wrote down the Mishnah, is still a 
 controverted point amongst modern scholars, as 
 it was nearly a thousand years ago between the 
 Franco-German and the Spanish authorities. The 
 balance of evidence is still about equal on each side. 
 
 Three things, however, seem to be certain. First, 
 there existed a law or custom, dating from ancient 
 times, prohibiting the writing down of the contents 
 of Tradition, though the Scripture support for this 
 
208 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 custom (Temurah 14b and parallel passages) was 
 not advanced till a comparatively late period (end of 
 the second century). Ample evidence of this fact 
 is afforded by the traditional term, ‘Torah by mouth,’ 
 as well as by the various mnemotechnical aids to be 
 found in the Mishnah (e.g. Megillah 1. 4-11, P38) 
 and the homage paid to those who invented them 
 (see Yerushalmt Shekalim 48c, regarding the grouping of 
 Halakot in numbers, and Abot de R. Natan 18, 
 respecting R. ‘Akiba’s arranging of the Torah in 
 links). 
 
 Second, the prohibition did not extend to 
 books of a Haggadic character (SN7I87 5D), of 
 which we know that they both circulated among, 
 and were read by the Rabbis. Under Haggadah was 
 included also the gnomic literature as, for instance, 
 the Wisdom of Ben Sira, which both the Tannaim 
 and the Amoraim, as well as the Geonim, the autho- 
 rities of a later period, (e.g. R. Saadya), knew in 
 the Hebrew original and were constantly quoting, 
 and of which fragments covering nearly two-thirds 
 of the book have now been found after a disappear- 
 ance of nearly 700 years. 
 
 Third, the prohibition was often disregarded, 
 even in cases of Halaka, as in the case of the Me- 
 gillat Ta‘anit (myn nbw), containing a list of 
 certain days in the year on which no fast could be 
 declared, or the Megillat Sammanim (wp nbn), 
 “the Roll of Spices,’ treating of the preparation of 
 the incense (Ex 30.34ff). in the Tabernacle and the 
 Temple (Yerushalmt Shekalim 49a). 
 
 Owing to the great authority of R. Jhudae the 
 
THE TALMUD 209 
 
 Patriarch, his compilation became the Mishnah xar’ 
 éfoxnv, a sort of canonical collection of the teachings 
 of the Tannaim, forming the text-book of the students 
 of the Oral Law, round which centred all the com- 
 ments, discussions and the additional matter produced 
 by the succeeding generations. The other collections 
 likewise confined to the teachings of the Tannaim, 
 but composed in schools not presided over by the 
 Patriarch, pass under the name either of ANY’NT mw 
 Mishnah ha-Hizonah (more frequently the Aramaic 
 gna Baratia), ‘the external Mishnah’, or Tosefta 
 (snpoin), ‘addition’ (to the Mishnah). 
 
 No treatise representing the ‘external Mzshnah’ 
 has come down to us, but many hundreds of quotations 
 from such external Mzishnahs are scattered over the 
 two Zalmuds, mostly introduced by such phrases as 
 229 un (‘our Masters taught’), or NN (‘it is taught’) 
 or §3n and "nN (‘he taught’). But we possess a work 
 bearing the name Tosefta, corresponding with the 
 arangement of the Mishnah, and dealing with the 
 same subjects. It shows marks of different ages; and, 
 whilst it embodies portions coming from collections 
 preceding our Mishnah, it presupposes the knowledge 
 of the Jatter, whilst in some places it even affords 
 comments and explanations taken from the Gemara 
 and recast in the New Hebrew style of the Mishnah. 
 It is thus safe to assume that the date of its final 
 redaction falls in the later age of the Amoraim, 
 though its composition may have been initiated by 
 R. Hiyya and R. Hosha'‘ya, the disciples of R. Judah, 
 to whom tradition attributes such a work under- 
 taken in imitation of the Josefta of R. Nehemiah, 
 
210 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 who is credited with having collected ‘additions’ 
 to the Mishnah of R. Akiba. 
 
 To this class of works also belong the so-called 
 Minor Tractates bearing the following titles: A bot de- 
 R. Natan (jni°av1 max), a sort of Tosefta and Midrash 
 to the tractate Abot, existing in two recensions;™% Mas- 
 seket Soferim (ab10 nN3DP) ‘Scribes,’ dealing with the 
 laws relating to writing of the Scriptures. The text is 
 in a bad condition, the interpolations and additions 
 (on the Jewish liturgy, etc.) almost obliterating the 
 original plan of the work, and it should be studied 
 in connection with the tractates Sefer Torah, Mezuzah 
 (law relating to the writing of certain verses from 
 the Scriptures and to fixing them on the door-posts; 
 see Deut. 6.9), and Tefillin (Phylacteries), edited by 
 Kirchheim; Masseket Semahot (‘joy’ mimov nop), 
 a euphemistic title for laws and customs connected 
 with mourning—of which we have also a shorter 
 recension edited by Ch.M. Horwitz under the title n20D 
 ‘naw mow (‘Tractate Joys, the Minor’); Masseket 
 Kallah (nb> navn ‘Bride’), laws of chastity to be 
 observed in conjugal life; Masseket Derek Erez 
 (yk JT nD0m), ‘Manners’ and behavior of the 
 different classes of society on various occasions. 
 The tractate exists in two recensions, a longer (737) 
 and a shorter one (Sv). The larger, dealing almost 
 exclusively with the rules of life prescribed for the 
 ‘disciples of the wise,’ is of a very spiritual nature. 
 Lastly we have to note here the other tractates ed- 
 ited by Kirchheim, including, besides those mentioned 
 above, the tractates dealing with the laws relating 
 to Zizit (MSS), ‘Fringes’ (Num. 15.38); ‘Abadim 
 
THE TALMUD 211 
 
 (aay), ‘Slaves’; Kutim (m3), ‘Samaritans’; and 
 Gerim (0°), ‘Proselytes.’ 
 
 The works recorded thus far, though containing 
 occasional hermeneutical elements, convey, owing 
 to their scantiness and the long intervals at which 
 they occur, but a faint idea of the interpretatory 
 work of the Tannaim. For this we must turn to the 
 earlier Midrash, which has come down to us in the 
 following works: the Mekzlta (xnb°D0), ‘“‘“Measure,”’ 
 on a portion of Exodus; the Sifre (1D), the ‘Books,’ 
 on portions of Numbers and the whole of Deuter- 
 onomy, both Midrashim emanating from the school 
 of Ishmael; and the Szfra (S"5D) or Torat Kohanim 
 (o372 nn), ‘The Book’ or ‘The Law of the Priests,’ 
 on Leviticus, a product of the school of R. Akiba. 
 Besides these fairly complete works we also possess 
 fragments of a Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yohai 
 on Exodus, and of a small Szfre (So DD) on 
 Numbers, both originating in the school of R. Akiba; 
 and of a Mekilta on Deuteronomy coming from 
 the school of R. Ishmael.%4 
 
 The exegetical system of the Rabbis, forming 
 the basis of the Midrash, grew with the rise of the 
 new schools, the seven hermeneutical rules of Hillel 
 having been developed by R. Ishmael into thirteen, 
 and expanded (particularly as regards their ap- 
 plication in the department of Haggadah) by R. 
 Eliezer, the son of R. Jose of Galilee, into thirty- 
 two or thirty-three rules; whilst rules of interpreta- 
 tion of other distinguished Rabbis are also men- 
 tioned. The practical object of the Midrash was 
 the deduction of new Halakot from the Scriptures, 
 
212 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 or the finding of a ‘support’ (SND0DN) for the old 
 ones. It is very difficult to determine in which 
 cases the Midrash preceded the Halakah, and in 
 which cases the Halakah preceded the Midrash, but 
 it may be safely assumed that in most cases where 
 the interpretation of the Rabbis is forced and far- 
 fetched the Halakah was first handed down by tra- 
 dition as an ancient usage or custom, and the Biblical 
 ‘support’ was invoked only to give it the weight 
 of Scripture authority. Here are one or two instances 
 which, given in the language of the Rabbis, may 
 convey some idea of the vivid style of the Mzdrash: 
 
 ‘R. Ishmael, R. Eliezer b. Azariah, and R. 
 Akiba were walking on the high-road, and Levi 
 ha-Sadar and R. Ishmael the son of R. Eliezer 
 b. Azariah were walking behind them. And then 
 the following question was put before them: ‘‘ Whence 
 is it to be inferred that danger of life ‘removes’ the 
 Sabbath?’’...R. Jose of Galilee answered: ‘‘It is writ- 
 ten: But (8) My Sabbath ye shall keep (Exod. 31.13); 
 the (limiting particle) J& teaches, there are Sabbaths 
 which thou keepest, others which thou ‘removest’ 
 (the latter in case of danger of life).’’ R. Simeon 
 b. Manasya says: ‘Behold Scripture says: And ye 
 shall keep the Sabbath, for1t 1s holy unto vou (1bid.v.14.), 
 the Sabbath is given to you (with stress on the word 
 03%) to desecrate in case of need, but you are not 
 given to the Sabbath’ ’ (Mekzlia, ad loc.). Other 
 Rabbis base this Halakah on the logical principle 
 of a fortiort (IM bp, one of the hermeneutical rules 
 of Hillel), but none disputes the Halakah in itself, 
 which had evidently the authority of ages. 
 
THE TALMUD 213 
 
 - Another instanceis theinterpretation of Exod.21.24 
 (cf.Lev.24.60): “Eye for eye, that is, money (amounting 
 to the value of the eye). Thou sayest money, perhaps 
 it means the real eye (7. e. that his eye should be blinded 
 in retaliation for the organ which he has destroyed). 
 R. Eliezer said: ‘It is written: And he that killeth a 
 beast he shall restore, and he that killeth a man shall be 
 put to death (Lev. 24.21). The Scripture has thus put 
 together damages caused to a man and those caused 
 toa beast. As the latter may be atoned for by pay- 
 ing (the damages), so can also the former (except 
 in cases of murder) be punished with money’’’ 
 (Sifra Lev.,ad loc.; Mekilta, ad loc.; Baba Kamma 830). 
 
 This argument, called wpm (analogy of matter), 
 is in direct opposition to the literal sense of the Scrip- 
 tures, which implies the jus talionts in unmistakable 
 terms; but it was only meant to lend some Biblical 
 sanction to a Halakah that had been a controverted 
 point between the Sadducees and the Pharisees for 
 centuries before. It is different, when we read, for 
 instance, with regard to the law, And the land shall 
 keep Sabbath to the Lord (Lev. 25.2): ‘One might think 
 that it is also forbidden to dig pits, canals, and caves 
 (this being a disturbance of the land) in the sabbatical 
 year, therefore we have an inference to say: Thou 
 shalt netther sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard 
 (ibid. v.44), proving that it is only work connected 
 with vineyard and field that is forbidden.’ In in- 
 stances like this, where the interpretation has nothing 
 forced or strange about it, it would not be too risky 
 to assume that the Halakah was the outcome of the 
 Midrash. 
 
214. STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 But it is not such mere practical questions 
 that have produced the vast Midrash literature. 
 A great portion of it is simple commentary, though 
 sometimes reproduced in that vivid dialogue style 
 which makes it appear Midrash-like. E.g., And ye 
 shall take a bunch of hyssop and shall dtp 1t in the blood 
 that 1s 02 (Exod. 12.22), on which the Mekilta (ad loc.) 
 has the following comment: ‘The Scriptures tell us 
 that he carves out a hole on the side of the threshold 
 over which he kills (the Passover lamb); for }0 means 
 simply the threshold, as it is said: In their setting 
 of their thresholds by my threshold (BD NX DDD, Ezek. 
 43.8, comp. LXX and Vulg.). This is the opinion of 
 R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says 0 means nothing else 
 buta vessel, as it is said, the bowls (ODD), the snuffers, the 
 basins’ (I Kings 7.50, comp. Aramaic versions and com- 
 mentaries). 
 
 Another example may be taken from the ex- 
 pression 1192 from the holy things of the children 
 of Israel (Lev. 22.2) on which the Szfra comments: 
 ‘77 (a noun, derived from 111%) means nothing 
 else but separation. And so he says: which separateth 
 himself from Me WP) (Ezek. 14.7), and he says again: 
 They separated backwards (11 Is. 1.4)’ Such instances 
 of mere 0%») (simple meaning) could be cited by 
 hundreds, and it is not impossible that many more 
 were omitted by the scribes, who considered such 
 renderings of words and definitions of terms as 
 universally known through the medium of the various 
 versions, and hence not sufficiently important to 
 be copied.'s 
 
 In the haggadic portions of the Mzdrash the 
 
THE TALMUD 215 
 
 elements of simple exegesis are less prominent— 
 a fact which is easily explained by their subjective 
 character. Sometimes the interpreter or preacher 
 is so deeply convinced of the truth of the lesson he 
 has to teach that he feels no compunction in inter- 
 weaving it with Biblical facts, and putting it into 
 the mouth of a Biblical hero. Thus we read in the 
 Sifra with reference to Lev. 9.6: This ts the thing which 
 ye shall do. ‘Moses said unto Israel: Do remove 
 the evil desire (y20 18°) from your hearts. Be all 
 in awe and of one counsel to worship before the 
 Omnipresent. As he is the Sole One in the world, 
 so shall your service be single hearted, as it is said: 
 Circumctse the foreskin of your heart, for the Lord 
 your God 1s the God of gods and the Lord of lords (Deut. 
 10.16,17), and then the glory of the Lord shallappear unto 
 you (Lev. 9.6).’ The thought expressed in this inter- 
 pretation is that the manifestation of the divine 
 glory is the reward for the fulfilment of a command- 
 ment, and is sure to occur whenever Israel fulfills 
 the laws of the Torah in true devotion and single- 
 heartedness of spirit. 
 
 Occasionally the preacher in his enthusiasm 
 leaves the text altogether and rushes off into a 
 sort of hymn, as, for instance (Exod. 15.1), I will 
 praise God, on which the Mekilta (ad loc.): ‘I will 
 give praise to God that He is mighty... that He 
 is wealthy...that He is wise...that He is merci- 
 ful...that He is a judge...that He is faithful.’ 
 Each attribute is followed by a proof from Scripture, 
 and the whole is a paraphrase of 1 Chron. 29.11, 12. 
 The constant citing of parallel passages by way of 
 
216 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 illustration is a main feature of the Midrash, e.g. 
 Sifreon Num. 15.39: “And ye shall not seek after your 
 own heart and your own eyes DDPy: By this latter 
 is meant adultery, as it is said: And Samson said to 
 his father, Get her for me, for she is pleasing to my 
 eyes’ (rya, Jud. 14.3). Again Deut. 6.5:‘ And thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy 
 soul,’ where the Szfre adds by way of comment: 
 ‘Even if He should take away thy soul. And so he (the 
 Psalmist, 44.22) says: Yea, for Thy sake are we killed 
 all the day long.’ The great exegetical principle 
 was, ‘The words of the Torah are poor (or deficient) 
 in one place but rich in another, as it is said: She 
 is like the merchant’s ship; she bringeth her food from 
 afar’ (Prov. 31.14; Yerushalmi, Rosh ha-Shanah 58d). 
 
 IV. The Amoraim osxnos ‘Speakers’, ‘Inter- 
 preters’; a designation commonly applied to the 
 authorities who flourished 220-500, and whose main 
 activity consisted in expounding the Mishnah. The 
 seats of learning were no longer confined to Pales- 
 tine, great schools having arisen, as in the time of the 
 Tannaim, in various places in Babylonia, destined 
 even to overshadow the former. The Babylonian 
 teachers (who received ordination) bear as a rule 
 the title Rab (25) in contradistinction to their Pales- 
 tinian brethren who were called Rabbi (27). The 
 most important among the Amoraim are the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 First Generation (220-280).—(a) Palestine: R. 
 Yannai, of whom we have a saying in the Mishnah; 
 R. Hiyya and R. Hosha‘ya Rabba, the supposed com- 
 
THE TALMUD 217 
 
 pilers of the Tosefta (see above); R. Joshua b. 
 Levi, the subject of many legends, to whom various 
 mystical treatises (descriptions of paradise and hell, 
 etc.) are attributed; R. Johanan (b. Nappaha) of 
 Sepphoris and Tiberias, disciple of R. Judah and 
 the most prominent teacher in Palestine during 
 the third century, and his brother-in-law R. Simeon 
 b. Lakish. (0) Babylon: Abba Arika (‘Long 
 Abba’), commonly cited by his title Rab. He 
 ‘went up’ (from Babylon) to Palestine together 
 with his uncle R. Hiyya (mentioned above) to study 
 under R. Judah, and on his return founded at Sura 
 the school over which he presided; Samuel ANY? 
 (the astronomer), a relative of Rab, and, like him, 
 a disciple of R. Judah (though he did not receive 
 ordination from him). He became head of the 
 school in Nehardea. 
 
 Second Generation (280-300).—(a) Palestine: R. 
 Eleazar b. Pedat, R. Simlai, R. Assi (also Issi), 
 R. Ammi (also Immi), and R. Abahu. The first 
 four emigrated to Palestine from Babylon; whilst 
 R. Abahu, who was a native of Palestine, taught 
 in Czsarea, where he often had controversies with 
 Christian teachers. The famous Haggadist R. 
 Samuel b. Nahmani also belongs to this genera- 
 tion. (6) Babylon: R. Huna (Sura), R. Jehuda (b. 
 Ezekiel), founder of the school of Pumbeditha; 
 R. Hisda, R. Sheshet, founder of a school in Shilhi. 
 All of these were disciples of Rab and Samuel, or of 
 one of them. 
 
 Third Generation (320-370).—This period marks 
 the decay of the schools in Palestine, a consequence 
 
218 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 of the religious persecutions inaugurated under the 
 reign of Constantine. (a) Palestine: Jeremiah, R. 
 Jonah, and R. Jose. (0) Babylon: Rabbah (737) b. 
 Nahmani (Pumbeditha), famous for his dialectical 
 skill and called ‘the mountain-mover’; his colleague 
 R. Joseph, a great authority on Targum, whose wide 
 acquaintance with all branches of the Law brought 
 him the title of ‘Sinai’; their pupils ’Abayi and 
 Raba (837), both famous for the ingenious methods 
 exemplified in their controversies scattered all over 
 the Babylonian Talmud; R. Papa, founder of a 
 school in Nares. 
 
 Fourth Generation (375-427).—(a) Palestine: R. 
 Samuel (b. Jose b. R. Bun); (0) Babylon: R. Ashi 
 (Sura); R. Kahana II (Pumbeditha), and Amemar 
 (Neharde‘a). The former is credited with having 
 begun the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud. 
 
 Fifth Generation (427-500).—Babylon: Mar bar 
 R. Ashi; Rabbina (contraction of Rab Abina, Sura), 
 and Rabbah Tosfaah (Pumbeditha). The two latter 
 were greatly instrumental in accomplishing the work 
 commenced by R. Ashi, finishing the compilation 
 of the Babylonian Talmud, and reducing it to 
 writing. 
 
 The literary productions of these two schools 
 are largely embodied in the two Talmuds bearing 
 the title of their native countries: (A)PALESTINIAN 
 TALMUD, called the Talmud of Jerusalem, ‘obwr? 'n, 
 which is also more correctly called (since there were 
 no schools in Jerusalem after the destruction of the 
 Temple) Ssmw pas ’n, xaqyo7 'n, and Nd4yD 7107 NW) 
 ‘the Talmud of (the children of) the Land of Israel,’ 
 
THE TALMUD 219 
 
 ‘the Talmud (or the Gemara) of (the people of) the 
 West.’ (B) The BABYLONIAN TALMUD "922 'n, which 
 was also known under the title (though only occurr- 
 ing once) of N19 wis 'n ‘the Talmud of the people of 
 the East. 7° 
 
 The main object of the ZTalmuds is the inter- 
 pretation of the Mishnah, tracing its source, giv- 
 ing its reasons, explaining obscure passages, as well 
 as real or seeming contradictions, by the aid of paral- 
 lel passages in the ‘external Mishnahs,’ and _ illus- 
 trating its matter and expanding its contents (es- 
 pecially in the branches of civil law) by giving such 
 cases as life and altered circumstances were constantly 
 furnishing. It is perhaps in this latter quality that 
 the text of the Talmud proper as distinguished from 
 the Mishnah is called Gemara 8101, meaning, according 
 to some authorities, ‘Supplement’ or ‘Complement’ 
 to the Mishnah.” The Talmuds differ in various 
 minor respects. Thus, thenon-Hebrew portionsof the 
 Jerusalem Talmud are composed in the West Aramaic 
 dialect, whilst. those of the Babylonian Talmud are 
 written in an East Aramaic idiom, closely related to 
 the Syriac and still more akin tothe Mandaic language. 
 
 The style of the Jerusalem Talmud is more concise, 
 its discussions less diffuse, than those of the Babylonian 
 Talmud. Theformer isaltogether free from thecasuistic 
 and lengthy discourses on imaginary cases which form 
 a special feature of the productions of the Eastern 
 Rabbis. It should, however, be remarked that, so 
 far as dialect and diction areconcerned, the Babylonian 
 Talmud is not always uniform, there being various 
 tractates, such as Nedarim, Nazir, Temura, Me‘ilah, 
 
220 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and Keritot, which betray certain grammatical 
 forms and peculiarities of style, reminding us in 
 some places of the diction of the Talmud of Jerusalem. 
 
 Apart from the main object as described, the text 
 of the Mzshnah serves sometimes (particularly in the 
 Babylonian Talmud) as a mere peg on which to fasten 
 matter having hardly any connection with the contents 
 of the latter. £.g. the lines in Mishnah tractate Git- 
 tin, ‘that the laws regarding the ovxapioe (a name 
 under which certain leaders of the Zealot bands were 
 known) did notapply totheland of Judea,’ are follow- 
 ed in the Babylonian Talmud by a legendary account 
 of the wars preceding the destruction of the second 
 Temple, and various incidents connected with it, 
 extending over more than five folio pages (55b-58a). 
 Again in the tractate Baba Batra, the accidental 
 remark in the Mishnah, that a volume (or roll) con- 
 taining the Scriptures inherited by two or more 
 must not be divided among them by cutting it up 
 into its constituent books even when the parties agree 
 to this, provokes in the Gemara (of the Babylonian 
 Talmud) a discussion relating to the arrangement of 
 the Canon of the Old Testament, its rise, and the 
 dates at which the various books included in it 
 were composed, accompanied by a long discourse 
 on the particular nature of the Book of Job, the 
 character and date of its hero, together with a few 
 remarks on other Biblical personages, which covers 
 nearly 8 folio pages (13b—17a). 
 
 This process of inserting matter but slightly 
 connected with the text is at times carried further 
 by adding to the inserted matter other topics hay- 
 
THE TALMUD 221 
 
 ing a similar slight connection with it. As an in- 
 stance of this process we may regard the following. 
 Mishnah Berakot, 9. 1, runs: ‘He who sees a 
 place in which miracles were performed for the sake 
 of Israel says: Praised be He who wrought miracles 
 for our fathers in this place.’ By way of illustration 
 the Gemara (Babylonian Talmud ibid. 54a) cites an ‘ex- 
 ternal Mishnah’ in which it is taught that ‘he who 
 sees the crossing of the Red Sea (1.e. the place at 
 which the Jews crossed the Red Sea, Exod. 14.22), or 
 the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 34.14ff.)...is bound 
 to give thanks and praise to the Omnipresent’ (Ma- 
 kom). 
 
 These last words suggest a quotation of R. 
 Judah in the name of Rab, adding to the number 
 of those who are under the obligation to give thanks 
 also the four cases enumerated in Ps. 107 (people 
 returning from a sea voyage, coming back from a 
 journey through the desert, recovering from a serious 
 illness, or released from prison, 54b). This state- 
 ment is followed by several other sayings (540, 55a), 
 which have no other connection with the preceding 
 matter than identity of authorship, all being cited 
 in the name of Rab. One of these citations is to the 
 effect that for three things man should in particular 
 pray to God (who alone can grant them): ‘a good 
 king, a good year, and a good dream’ (550); but the 
 last word again suggests a new train of thought on 
 the subject of dreams, their interpretation and ful- 
 filment, which forms the theme of the next 6 folio 
 pages (55a-57b). 
 
 Owing to these sudden and violent changes 
 
222 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 from subject to subject the style of the Talmud 
 becomes very uncertain and rather rambling;% 
 but on the other hand, it is this very circumstance 
 that keeps the ‘sea of the Talmud’ in constant mo- 
 tion, relieving it from the monotony and tedious 
 repetition so peculiar to the majority of theological 
 works dating from those early ages. Indeed ow- 
 ing to this facility for dragging in whatever interested 
 the compilers or the scribes, the Zalmud almost loses 
 the character of a work of divinity, and assumes 
 more the character of an encyclopedia, reproducing 
 the knowledge of the Rabbis during the first five 
 centuries on all possible subjects, whether secular 
 or religious. This is, as already indicated, partic- 
 ularly the case with the Babylonian Talmud, the Hag- 
 gadah of which is very discursive and rich in all sorts of 
 folk-lore. It must, however, be borne in mind that 
 the authorities in whose names the strangest stories 
 are sometimes communicated are often Rabbis from 
 Palestine, whose sayings and statements were as 
 much studied and discussed in the East as they were 
 in the West. 
 
 V. The Saborat, x20 ‘Explainers’ or ‘Medi- 
 tators’ (upon the words of their predecessors), whose 
 activity is supposed to have extended over the 
 whole of the sixth century. The most important 
 among them are Rabbi Jose (Pumbeditha) and R. 
 Ahai (of Be-Hathim), who flourished about the 
 beginning of the sixth century, and probably shared 
 largely in the compilation work of the last of the 
 Amoraim; and R. Giza (Sura) and R. Simona (Pum- 
 
THE TALMUD 223 
 
 beditha), who belonged to the middle of the same 
 century. The activity of the Saborai, about whose 
 lives we know little, consisted mainly in commenting 
 upon the Talmud by means of explanatory glosses 
 and contributing to it some additional controversies 
 marked by peculiarity of style and by absence of 
 the names of those engaged in the dialogue, as well 
 as by insertions of final decisions upon the differing 
 opinions of their predecessors.” 
 
 The school of the Saboraz is peculiar to Babylon, 
 there being no corresponding class of teachers in 
 Palestine. Nor is there any reliable tradition 
 regarding the compilation of the Jerusalem Tal- 
 mud, by whom it was accomplished, and when 
 it was undertaken. Maimonides’ statement, that 
 R. Johanan composed the Jerusalem Talmud, can, 
 since this work contains quantities of matter dat- 
 ing from a much later period, mean only that by 
 the aid of the schools he founded, this Rabbi was 
 largely instrumental in giving rise to a work embody- 
 ing the teachings of the later Western authorities. 
 But in consequence of religious persecutions and 
 political disturbances the decay of the schools set 
 in too early to permit even such comparative com- 
 pleteness and finish as are to be found in the Babylonian 
 Talmud, which is itself far from perfection in this 
 respect. 
 
 Indeed the abruptness of the discussions of 
 the Palestinian Talmud, the frequent absence of formu- 
 le introducing quotations or marking the beginning of 
 the treatment of a fresh subject or the conclusion 
 of an old one, as well as the meagerness of its matter 
 
224 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 where the analogy of the Babylonian Talmud would 
 suggest the greatest fulness, and the fact that it has 
 no Gemara at all on the fifth order (sacrifices), which 
 is so strongly represented in the Babylonian Talmud? 
 all these circumstances convey the impression that 
 the Jerusalem Zalmud was never submitted to a real, 
 conscious compilation with the object of presenting 
 posterity with a completed work. What was reduced 
 to writing does not give us a work carried out after 
 a preconcerted plan, but rather represents a series 
 of jottings answering to the needs of the various 
 individual writers, and largely intended to strengthen 
 the memory. And thus lacking the authority enjoy- 
 ed by the Mzshnah and the Babylonian Talmud, which 
 were the products of the great centres of learning, 
 the Jerusalem Talmud was, fora long time at least, not 
 elevated tothe rank of a national work, and it is there- 
 fore easy to understand how such portions of it as 
 had not much bearing upon actual practice were 
 permitted to disappear. 
 
 Altogether, the people of Palestine were, as 
 an old Rabbi said, ‘sick with oppression,’ and had 
 no time to spare for the niceties of the Halakah, 
 ‘and did not listen to the words of Talmud (in the 
 narrower sense of discussing the legal portions of 
 it) and the Mishnah.’ The deeper was their de- 
 votion to the Haggadah, which gave them ‘words 
 of blessing and consolation.’ This will account 
 for the copiousness of the haggadic literature, 
 which reaches its highest development during the 
 period of the Amoraim. This literature is em- 
 bodied in the Midrashim to various books of the 
 
THE TALMUD 225 
 
 Bible as well as in certain independent haggadic 
 treatises, the contents of which, though possibly 
 compiled at a later age, are made up of the homilies 
 and moralizing exhortations given in the names 
 of the same Palestinian Rabbis who figure as au- 
 thorities in the two Talmuds. They, however, form 
 a literature by themselves, never having served as 
 sources or factors of the Zalmud, though they are 
 sometimes useful as parallel passages to the haggadic 
 portions of the latter. They thus do not fall with- 
 in the scope of this article. 
 
 It is, however, only fair to warn the theologian 
 that though he may dispense, for example, with the 
 Pestkta (collection of homilies mainly based on 
 the Haftarot) or the Midrash Shir ha-Shirim (al- 
 legoric interpretations of the Song of Songs) in 
 his study of the Talmud, he cannot do so safely in 
 his study of the Rabbi, whose performance of his 
 prophetic office is seen to best advantage in such 
 moralizing works as those of which the haggadtic 
 pieces just mentioned are a fair specimen. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 THE TRACTATES OF THE TALMUD 
 I. Zeraim, oryrt ‘Seeds’ 
 
 1. Berakot, nya72 ‘ Benedictions,’ treating of laws 
 and regulations relating to the liturgy. 9 chapters. 
 
 2. Pea, mp ‘Corner,’ treating of the laws relating 
 to the corner of the field and the forgotten sheaves, 
 etc., to be left for the poor (Lev. 19.9, Deut. 24.9,21.) 
 8 chapters. 
 
 3. Dammai, »97 (also ’“p) the ‘Doubtful,’ re- 
 specting corn and other productions of the earth, of 
 which it is doubtful whether the prescribed tithes had 
 been paid. 7 chapters. 
 
 4. Kil’ayim, orxb>d ‘Mixtures,’ ¢. e. mixtures of 
 seeds, and materials for cloth, prohibited by the 
 Scriptures (Lev. 19. 19, Deut. 22.9-11). 9 chapters. 
 
 5. Shebi‘it, myaw the ‘Sabbatical year’ (Exod. 
 23.11, Lev. 25.1ff, Deut 19.1ff). 10 chapters. 
 
 6. Terumot, nmioinn ‘Heave-Offerings’ for the 
 priest (Num. 18.8ff, and Deut. 18.4). 5 chapters. 
 
 7. Ma‘aserot, neyo ‘Tithes’ (Num. 18.21ff). 5 
 chapters. 
 
 8. Ma'‘aser Shent, wv wy ‘Second Tithe’ (Deut. 
 14.22ff). 5 chapters. 
 
APPENDIX A 227 
 
 9. Hallah, nbn the ‘Dough,’ a portion thereof to 
 be given to the priest (Num. 15.18ff). 4 chapters. 
 
 10. ‘Orlah, noany ‘Uncircumcised,’ fruits of the 
 tree during the first three years (Lev. 19.23ff). 3 
 chapters. _ 
 
 11. Btkkurim, oniza ‘First Fruits,’ brought to 
 the Temple (Deut. 26.1ff, Exod. 23.19). 3 chapters. 
 
 II. Mo‘ed, yi ‘Season.’ 
 
 1. Shabbat, naw ‘Sabbath,’ laws relating to it, 
 mainly prohibitions of work (Exod. 20.10 etc). 24 
 chapters. 
 
 2. ‘Erubin, payvy ‘Amalgamations’ or ideal combi- 
 nation of localities with the purpose of extending 
 the Sabbath boundary, as well as laws concerning the 
 Sabbath day’s journey. 10 chapters. 
 
 3. Pesahim, o-npp ‘Passovers,’ laws relating to 
 them (Exod. 12.1ff, Lev. 23.4, Num.9.1ff). 10 chapters. 
 
 4. Shekalim, o%pw ‘Shekels,’ collected for the 
 Tmeple (Exod. 30.12ff, Neh. 10.33), and the various 
 objects for which they were spent; including lists 
 of the higher officials of the Temple. 8 chapters. 
 
 5. Yoma, sav ‘The Day,’ (also Yom ha-Kippurim, 
 o-mpon oy ‘The Day of Atonement’), treating of the 
 service in the Temple on that day, and of the laws 
 relating to fasting (Lev. 16.1). 8 chapters. 
 
 6. Sukkah, m>10 ‘Booth’ or ‘Tabernacle,’ re- 
 specting the laws on dwelling in booths for seven days 
 and other observances during this feast (Lev. 23.34, 
 Num. 29. 12ff). 8 chapters. 
 
‘228 APPENDIX A 
 
 7. Bezah, 1x1 ‘Egg’ (socalled after the first words 
 with which the tractate begins, but also termed Youn 
 Tob, 210 ov ‘Feast’), enumerating the different kinds 
 of work permitted or prohibited on festivals (Exod.12. 
 10). 5 chapters. 
 
 8. Rosh ha-Shanah, 710m srw ‘New Year,’ deal- 
 ing with questions relating to the calendar, but chiefly 
 with the laws to be observed on the first of the seventh 
 month (Jishrz), the civil New Year of the Jews (see 
 Lev. 23.24, Num. 29.1ff). 4 chapters. 
 
 9. Ta‘anit miyn ‘Fast,’ respecting the laws ob- 
 served and the order of the liturgy on sich days. 4 
 chapters. 
 
 10. Megillah, 1510 ‘ Roll’ of Esther, relating to the 
 laws to be observed on the feast of Purim. 4 chapters. 
 
 11. Mo‘ed Katon, jop ayim ‘Minor Feast’ (also 
 called Mashkin, )pwn, the first word of the tractate), 
 t. e. the laws relating to the days intervening be- 
 tween the first and the last days of the feast of 
 Passover and that of Tabernacles. 4 chapters. 
 
 12. Hagigah, 711‘ Feast-Offering,’ treating of the 
 duty of pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the sort of sac- 
 rifices to be brought on such occasions (see Exod.23. 
 17 and Deut. 16.16), as well as of laws regarding 
 the degrees of defilement (against which the pilgrims 
 are cautioned). 3 chapters. 
 
 III. Nashim, ow ‘Women.’ 
 
 1. Yebamot, nyo ‘Levirate Marriages’ (Deut. 25. 
 5ff), and the forbidden degrees in marriage (Lev. 18, 
 etc.). 16 chapters. 
 
APPENDIX A 229 
 
 
 
 2. Ketubot, main> ‘Marriage Deeds and Marriage 
 Settlements’ (see Exod. 22.16). 13 chapters. 
 
 3. Nedarim, a7) ‘Vows,’ and their annulment 
 (Num. 30.3ff). 11 chapters. 
 
 4. Nazir, 111 ‘Nazirite’ (Num. 6.2ff). 9 chapters. 
 
 5. Sotah, muiv ‘The Suspected Woman’ (Num. 
 5.12ff). 9 chapters. 
 
 6. Gittin, 01 ‘Letters of Divorce’ (Deut. 24.1ff). 
 9 chapters. 
 
 7. Kiddushin, pwrp ‘Betrothals.’ 4 chapters. 
 
 IV. Neztkin, »pn ‘Damages.’ 
 
 1-3. Baba Kamma, snp saa ‘First Gate’; Baba 
 Mezt‘a xsyxn san ‘Middle Gate’; Baba Batra, saa 
 nina ‘Last Gate.’ These formed in ancient times only 
 one tractate, bearing the same title as the whole order 
 Pp noon “Tractate of Damages,’ divided into three 
 sections, each section consisting of 10 chapters. These 
 three treat of (1) damages and injuries caused by man 
 and beasts for which he is responsible (see Exod. 21. 
 18ff, 22. 3ff); (2) of laws concerning lost property, 
 trusts, the prohibition of usury, and similar matters, 
 duties towards hired labourers, etc. (see Exod. 22, 
 Gi 25.6.4: Lever. 13725. 14.0. Deute: 20.2025 ald 
 24. 14); (3) laws relating to the different ways of taking 
 possession of various kinds of property, the right 
 of pre-emption, definition of certain terms used in 
 contracts and oral transactions, order of inheritance 
 (see Num. 27.6ff), etc. 30 chapters. 
 
 4.5. Sanhedrin, pr7n10 (10 chapters), and Makkot 
 
230 APPENDIX A 
 
 mp~o ‘Stripes’ (3 chapters), also forming in ancient 
 times one tractate. The former treats of the consti- 
 tution of the various courts of justice and their modes 
 of procedure, the examinations of witnesses, and 
 the four kinds of capital punishment for grave crimes, 
 as well as the punishment consisting in being excluded 
 frometernallife, etc., etc. Thelatterdeals with offences 
 for which the infliction of 39 stripes is prescribed 
 (Deut. 25. 2ff), false witnesses (Deut. 19. 16ff), and 
 the laws relating to the cities of refuge (Num. 
 35.10ff, Deut. 19.2ff.). 13 chapters. 
 
 6. Shebu‘ ot, myiaw ‘Oaths,’ taken in private or 
 administered by the court (Lev. 5.14). 6 chapters. 
 
 7. ‘Eduyyot, nvay ‘Evidences,’ containing a col- 
 lection of laws and decisions gathered from the 
 statements made by distinguished authorities. 8 
 chapters. 
 
 8. ‘Abodah Zarah, nt aNay ‘Idolatry,’ regarding 
 the treatment of idols and their worshippers (Deut. 
 B25). 5? chapters: 
 
 9. Abot, mas ‘Fathers’ (of Jewish tradition), 
 containing mostly ethical sayings and maxims of the 
 Tannaim. 5 chapters. 
 
 10. Horayot, nvain ‘Decisions’ (wrong ones) 
 given by the authorities, treating of the sacrifices to be 
 brought if the public acted in accordance with such 
 erroneous teachings (Lev. 4. 1ff). 3 chapters. 
 
 V. Kodashim, ow tp ‘Sacred’ things. 
 
 1. Zebahim, anar ‘Sacrifices’ (also called nu°ne 
 p’wtp and nuanp), treating of the laws relating to the 
 
APPENDIX A 231 
 
 various modes of offering, the sprinkling of the blood 
 the burning of the fat pieces or of the whole animal, 
 etc. (Lev. 1.1ff). 12 chapters. 
 
 2. Menahot, min ‘Meal-Offerings,’ including also 
 the laws regarding libations (Lev. 2.5ff etc., Num. 
 15.3ff). 12 chapters. 
 
 3. Hullin, pin (also pdin ny nw) ‘Things Secular,’ 
 regarding the mode of killing animals and birds for 
 ordinary use, as well as the various diseases dis- 
 qualifying them from being eaten, and many other 
 dietary laws. 12 chapters. 
 
 4. Bekorot, ni\53 ‘First-born,’ of men and ani- 
 mals (Exod. 13.2, 12ff, etc.), including also the laws 
 regarding the tithes of animals (Lev. 27.26,32ff). 
 9 chapters. 
 
 5. ‘Arakin, pony ‘Valuations,’ of persons and 
 things dedicated to the Temple (Lev. 27.2), also in- 
 cluding some laws relating to the year of Jubilee (Lev. 
 25.15ff). 9 chapters. 
 
 6. Temurah, n710n ‘Change,’ the laws bearing on 
 cases of substituting a secular animal for one already 
 dedicated to the altar (Lev.27.9,33). 7 chapters. 
 
 7. Keritot, mira ‘Excisions,’ treating of sins 
 subject to punishment of ‘the soul being cut off’ 
 (Gen. 17. 14, Exod. 12.1) etc., etc. 56 chapters. 
 
 8. Me'ilah nb-yo ‘Trespass’ treating of sac- 
 rilege committed by secularizing things belonging to 
 the Temple or to the altar (Lev. 5.15ff). 8 chapters. 
 
 9. Tamid, on ‘Continual’ sacrifice, describing 
 
232 APPENDIX A 
 
 the Temple service in connection with this daily 
 sacrifice (Exod. 29. 38ff, Num. 28.3ff). 7 chapters. 
 
 10. Middot, min ‘Measurements,’ of the Temple, 
 describing its courts, halls, chambers, and gates, 
 etc. etc. 5 chapters. 
 
 11. Kinim, op ‘Nests,’ of birds, or pairs of 
 doves brought assacrifice by the poor, (Lev. 1.14ff5.7ff.) 
 3 chapters. 
 
 VI. Tohorot, ni1nv ‘ Purifications.’ 
 1. Kelim, od ‘Vessels,’ furniture, garments, and 
 
 all kinds of utensils subject to Levitical impurity 
 (Lev. 11.32). 30 chapters. 
 
 2. Ohalot, mbax ‘Tents’ and habitations as 
 conductors of Levitical impurity (Num. 19.14ff). 18 
 chapter . 
 
 3. Nega‘im, ory ‘Leprosy,’ in all its various 
 degrees (Lev. 13-14). 14 chapters. 
 
 4. Parah, m1p ‘Red Heifer,’ the use made of 
 
 its ashes for the purpose of purification (Num. 19.2ff). 
 12 chapters. | 
 
 5. Tohorot, many ‘Purifications,’ used euphemis- 
 tically for msnw, ‘defilements’ of all sorts and their 
 various degrees. 10 chapters. 
 
 6. Mikwa’ot, mxipo ‘Wells’ and cisterns to be 
 used as means of ritual purification (Lev. 15.11,12 
 etc. etc.). 10 chapters. 
 
 7. Niddah, 773) the ‘Menstruous,’ the Levitical 
 impurity attaching to women under certain physical 
 conditions (Lev. 15.19ff). 10 chapters. 
 
APPENDIX A 233 
 
 8. Makshirin, »-w>n ‘Preparers,’ respecting the 
 conditions under which certain articles became (by 
 coming in contact with liquids) eligible for eventual 
 defilement (Lev. 11.37ff). 6chapters. 
 
 9. Zabim, ovat ‘Persons afflicted with running 
 issues,’ the impurity arising there from (Lev. 15.2ff). 5 
 chapters. 
 
 10. Tebul Yom, nv bianv ‘Immersed during the 
 day’, 2. e. the conditions of a person who had taken 
 the ritual bath prescribed but has still to wait for 
 sunset to be considered as quite pure (see Lev. 22.6,7). 
 4 chapters. 
 
 11. Yadayim, ne ‘Hands,’ respecting the ritual 
 impurity attaching to them (according to the Oral 
 Law), and the mode of cleansing them by pouring 
 water over them. 4 chapters. 
 
 12. ‘Ukzin, pxpiy ‘Stalks,’ how far they are 
 considered a part of the fruit so as to convey impurity 
 when touched by anything unclean. 3 chapters. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 LITERATURE 
 
 Epitions: There are very few critical editions of 
 the ancient Rabbinical literature, though new reprints 
 are constantly appearing. The following, however, 
 deserve special notice:—Mzshna, Naples, 1492, ed. pr.; 
 Mishna . . . Latinitate donavit . . . J. Surenhusius, 
 Amstelod., 1698; The Muishna, edited from a unique 
 MS, by W. H. Lowe, Cambridge, 1883; Muishnayoth: 
 Hebrdaischer Text mit Punktation, Deutscher Uberseizung, 
 von A. Samter, Berlin, 1887 (not yet finished). Most 
 editions have, as a rule, the commentaries of ’"Obadya 
 di Bertinoro and of Yom Tob Lipman Heller (mppin 
 a4 OY), or the commentary of Maimonides (not as 
 frequently as the two former). [Best edition with 
 numerous commentaries, especially the one by Solo- 
 mon Adeni, Wilna, 1908-9]. As useful editions for 
 students, the tractates edited by Strack may be 
 recommended. Tosephia, edited by Zuckermandel 
 (after MSS), Pasewalk, 1880. Jerus. Talmud, Venice, 
 1523, ed. pr., Krotoschin, 1866, and Zitomir, 1860-67. 
 [Wilna, 1922]. The last editions have several com- 
 mentaries. Of single tractates there have appeared, 
 among others, Berakhoth, Pea, and Demat, with 
 the commentary Ahabath Zion, by Z. Frankel, and 
 a part of Baba Kamma with a commentary by I. 
 Lewy. Bab. Talmud, Venice, 1520, with the com- 
 
APPENDIX B 235 
 
 mentaries of R. Solomon b. Isaac, and the Glosses 
 of the Franco-German Rabbis called Tosaphoth (Ad- 
 ditions). The last and best edition of the Tal- 
 mud is that which appeared in Wilna, 1880-86, 
 25 vols. The Varie lectiones in Mischnam et in 
 Talmud Babylonicum, by Raph. Rabbinowicz, con- 
 sisting of 16 vols., and extending over a large part of 
 the Bab. Talmud, is a most important work for the 
 critical study of the Talmud. Also to be consulted is 
 the work p’w1 mnnon mybnd o«wnp, Konigsberg, 1860, 
 restoring the words and passages omitted or corrupted 
 by the censors. Of single tractates we have only to 
 notice here the Tvact. Makkoth, ed. Friedmann, Wien, 
 1888.7! ! 
 INTRODUCTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL: N. Kroch- 
 mal jon °31a1 AND, Lemberg, 1851 (Heb.); L. Zunz, 
 Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrége der Juden, Frankfurt- 
 a.-M. 1892; M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, $8 
 1-7, London, 1857; Z. Frankel, mwnn °374, Hodegetica 
 in Mischnam . . . Lipsiz, 1859 (Heb.); by the same, 
 powivn xian, Introductio in Talmud Hierosolomitanum, 
 Breslau, 1870 (Heb.); Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 
 vols. 3 and 4 (Germ.); Dérenbourg, Essai sur l’ histoire 
 et la géographte de la Palestine d’aprés les Thalmuds et 
 les autres sources rabbiniques (Paris, 1867); I. H. 
 Weiss, re Wt Wt Zur Geschichte der Jtidischen 
 Tradition, vols. 1-3; [I. Halevy onwxin m1 Ge- 
 schichte und Literatur Israels Ic, e, II-III, Frankfurt 
 a. M., 1898-1918 (Heb.)| Strack, Einleitung in den 
 Thalmud, Leipzig, 1894 [Munich 1921]; M. Mielziner, 
 Introduction to the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1894; Schiirer, 
 GJV, i. § 3 E, Leipzig, 1890 [1901] (Germ.). For 
 
236 APPENDIX B 
 
 popular accounts see E. Deutsch, The Talmud, Phila- 
 delphia, 1896; A. Darmesteter, The Talmud, Phila- 
 delphia, 1897. 
 
 DICTIONARIES AND GRAMMARS: Nathan b. Yehiel 
 (of the 11th cent.), Pym 7d, 1480, ed. pr. This work 
 was last edited or rather incorporated in the Arukh 
 Completum . . . auctore Nathane filio Jechiehs . . 
 corrigit explevit critice Alex. Kohut, 8 vols., Wien, 
 1878-92; Joh. Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldatcum Talmudi- 
 cum et Rabbinicum, Basel, 1640; Jacob Levy, Neu- 
 hebrdtsches und chalddisches Worterbuch tiber die Tal- 
 mudim und Midraschim, Leipzig, 1876; M. Jastrow, 
 Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and 
 Jerushalm1, London and New York, 1886; Sam. 
 Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter 1m 
 Talmud, Midrasch, und Targum . . . Berlin, 1898; 
 W. Bacher, Die dlteste Terminologie der jtidischen 
 Schriftauslegung: Ein Worterbuch der bibelexegetischen 
 Kunstsprache der Tannaiten, Leipzig, 1899; [II Die 
 Bibel und Tradtitions-Geschichtliche Terminologtie der 
 Amorder, Leipzig, 1905]. H. L. Strack and C. Sieg- 
 fried, Lehrbuch der Neuhebrdischen Sprache ; 
 Karlsruhe and Leipzig, 1884; A. Geiger, Lehr-und 
 Lesebuch der Sprache der Mishnah, Breslau, 1845 
 (Germ.); I. H. Weiss, mwon pwd yawn, Wien, 1865 
 (Heb.); [K. Albrecht, Neuhebrdische Grammatik auf 
 Grund der Mischna, Miinchen, 1913 (Germ.)]. G. 
 Dalman, Grammatik des Jiidisch-Paldéstinischen Ara- 
 mdisch, Leipzig, 1894 [1905] (Germ.); S. D. Luzzatto, 
 Elementi grammatical del. . . dialetto Talmudico Ba- 
 bilonese, Padua, 1865 (Ital.), of which a Germ. tr. 
 was prepared by M. S. Kriiger, and was published in 
 
APPENDIX B 237 
 
 Breslau, 1873; Levias, Grammar of the Bab. Talm., 
 Cincinnati, 1900. [Max L. Margolis, Manual of the 
 Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud, Mu- 
 nich, 1910]. 
 
 The attempts towards translating the Talmud 
 are many and various. A full account of them will 
 be found in Dr. Erich Bischoff’s Kritische Geschichte 
 der Thalmud-Ubersetzungen aller Zeiten und Zungen, 
 Frankfurt-a.-M. 1899 (Germ.). The present writer 
 can, however, recommend only the following books: 
 On the Mishna see above. On Minor tractates: 
 Masecheth Sopherim, by J. Miiller, Leipzig, 1878; 
 Derech Erez Suta, by A. Iawrogy, K6nigsberg, 1885. 
 Jerus. Talm.: A. Wiinsche, Der jerusalemische Talmud 
 in seinen haggadischen Bestandthetlen ins Deutsche 
 tibertragen, Ziirich, 1880. Bab. Talm.: [Zvractate Bera- 
 kot, by A. Cohen, Cambridge, 1921]. A Translation 
 of the treatise Chagigah, by A. W. Streane, 1891; 
 Tractate Baba Mezia mit deutscher Ubersetzung . 
 by A. Samter, Berlin, 1876; Der Bab. Talmud in 
 seinen Hagadischen Bestandthetlen wortgetreu uberseizt, 
 by Wiinsche, 1888. The student would do well to 
 consult always, when reading a Haggadic text, the 
 following standard works by W. Bacher: Die Agada 
 der Babylonischen Amorder, Strassburg, 1879; Dvze 
 Agada der Tannaiten, Strassburg, 1884; Die Agada 
 der Paldstinischen Amordéer, Strassburg, 1892. 
 
NOTES OF LECTURES 
 ON JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 
 
 [The following pages contain notes of lectures on Jewish 
 philanthropy delivered by Professor Schechter before the 
 students of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 
 during 1914 and 1915—the last two years of his life. 
 He delivered his first lecture on November 13, 1913, and 
 continued rather irregularly, owing to ill health, during 
 the following years, until November 19, 1915, when he gave 
 his last lecture, only five hours before his death. 
 
 In his remarks introductory to this course of lectures, 
 he expressed the hope that one of his pupils might some day 
 write a book on the subject of Jewish Philanthropy. He 
 was, however, so much impressed with the need and import- 
 ance of such a work, that he began to collect material for the 
 purpose of writing such a book himself. Accordingly, he 
 spent much of his time during his last two years in collecting 
 data on this subject from the Bible, Talmud, Midrash, and 
 later literature. In addition to fragmentary collections 
 of citations from these sources, he left a note-book of sixty- 
 four pages, mostly in Hebrew, containing two hundred and 
 fifty-six quotations and about one hundred and thirty-five 
 references to passages relating to charity. Interspersed 
 among these citations occasionally occur illuminating iso- 
 lated phrases as wellas a number of consecutive paragraphs 
 written in English—containing his interpretations and con- 
 clusions. 
 
 Shortly after Professor Schechter’s death, Rabbi Jacob 
 Bosniak, his devoted pupil, carefully collated this note- 
 book with notes of the lectures of Professor Schechter 
 above referred to, taken by himself and some of his fel- 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 239 
 
 low-students at the Seminary. The following pages repre- 
 sent the fruits of Rabbi Bosniak’s work, viz. the translation, 
 wherever necessary, of Professor Schechter’s notes and the 
 rearrangement of the material presented in these notes in 
 connection with the students’ notes of the lectures as de- 
 livered at the Seminary.] 
 
 INTRODUCTION: 
 
 When the rabbi comes in touch with philanthropic 
 and social institutions, he should be able to speak 
 about them from a Jewish point of view. There 
 are some people who think that charity is a product 
 of Christianity. It is true that we have no orders 
 such as ‘Brothers of Mercy”’ or ‘Sisters of Mercy”’, 
 for celibacy is forbidden by Jewish law. We have 
 no foundations and hospitals dating from the Middle 
 Ages, for we were not allowed to obtain any landed 
 property. Again, the monks living in cloisters kept 
 records of all their acts of lovingkindness. And 
 thus, having an enormous amount of literature on 
 the subject, make adisplay of it. There are even 
 encyclopedias of charity. A good book on the sub- 
 ject was written by Ulhorn, entitled History of Christ- 
 tan Charity. The author of that book was a pro- 
 testant, and did not do justice to Roman Catholicism. 
 So we have another book dealing with the charity 
 of Roman Catholics by Ratzinger. Ulhorn begins 
 with philanthropic institutions among pagans, and 
 also has a chapter on Jewish charity—a subject which 
 fared badly at his hands. His point of view was that 
 everything centres in Jesus. Hecontends that Jewish 
 charity, while superior to that of pagans, was infer- 
 
240 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 ior to that of Christians. For it is the outcome of 
 the Law, and is lacking in love. It is not 7m the Jew 
 but outside of him. It is wanting in tenderness and 
 delicacy, in ennobling and equalizing the poor, etc. 
 
 But the Christians never understood the spirit 
 of the Law; and the notion one gets from Ulhorn’s 
 book is that the Jews published very little concerning 
 their charitable work. Indeed, we have no real book 
 on this subject. 
 
 We learn of Jewish charitable and philanthropic 
 work in the Middle Ages from the responsa of that 
 time. But in these sources no names of donors and 
 testators are given. They generally speak of Reu- 
 ben and Simon instead of the actual names of 
 the parties concerned. They do not give the 
 names of cities in which bequests were made. 
 In all our literature, the records of the ‘Hekdeshes’ 
 have not been preserved. Besides, many records 
 and archives were lost, because of expulsions and 
 persecutions. Another reason for our not having 
 any wider knowledge of Jewish charitable work in 
 those days is because the Jews were not then interested 
 in keeping records of these things, nor was it a promi- 
 nent topic of discussionamong them. Very few rabbis 
 occupied themselves with thestudy of Hilkot Zedakah: 
 Jewish scholars were also too busy to bother with 
 discussions on charity. 
 
 We have only one book entirely devoted to the 
 study of philanthropy, Me‘il Zedakah by R. Elijah 
 Cohen. It is a collection of Biblical and Rabbinic 
 passages dealing with the subject of charity. But 
 unfortunately this book is wanting in proper order 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 241 
 
 and system; nor does the author make any attempt 
 toward history and criticism. He also interrupts 
 himself with homiletical remarks. In our halakic 
 works we have all the laws about charity, but noth- 
 ing of its history.? 
 
 In the following lectures we shall deal with: 
 (1) Biblical institutions, z. e. institutions which are 
 referred to in the Bible, according to Jewish inter- 
 pretation. (2) Rabbinical institutions, i. e. institu- 
 tions of Rabbinic times for which we have no authority 
 in the Bible. (3) Medieval institutions. 
 
 UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF CHARITY 
 
 (a) All Wealth Belongs to God. 
 
 The first underlying principle is that God is 
 the real owner or proprietor of the land, and all wealth 
 found thereon. ‘“‘The earth is the Lord’s, and the 
 fullness thereof,’’ says the Psalmist.2) The same idea 
 is conveyed to the Rabbis by the declaration: ‘In 
 the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’’.3 
 ‘‘Give unto Him of what is His, since thou and what 
 thou hast are His.’’4 This is also found expressed 
 by David who says: “For all things come of Thee 
 and of thine own have we given Thee’’.s “If thou 
 hast given charity, thou hast not given of thine own, 
 but of His.’’® ‘‘Thou shalt not say: ‘I have no money’ 
 (to give to the poor), for all the money belongs to 
 Him,’ as it is written: Mine is the silver and Mine 
 is the gold, saith the Lord of hosts’’.2 ‘“‘Honour the 
 Lord with thy substance’’,? is emended by the Rabbis 
 so as to read: “Honour the Lord with what He has 
 
242 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 graciously given to thee”’.%° “‘Thou art My steward. 
 If I gave thee aught, thou owest it to Me. Hence, 
 give Me of My own.’’™ 
 
 These are only a few examples of many similar 
 passages found in our vast literature. The idea that 
 God is the sole owner of everything we possess is 
 current not only in the poetic portions, the Haggadah 
 of the Bible, so to speak, or the homiletical inter- 
 pretations of the Rabbis, but also forms a basis for 
 many a civil and religious law. The Bible commands: 
 “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the 
 land is Mine.’’? In the Babylonian Talmud we 
 read: “If one set aside a purse for the Temple, and 
 it was lost or stolen before it reached the proper hand 
 of the authority, R. Johanan says that he must 
 make good the loss by giving another purse to the 
 Temple, while R. Simon ben Lakish is of the opinion 
 that he is not responsible for the purse, because, wher- 
 ever it might be, it is in the treasury of God.” The 
 underlying principles of both opinions is that one 
 is considered only the depository, or trustee, of money, 
 which belongs to God. 
 
 The question in the Talmud is how far we should 
 hold a person responsible for the money in his 
 capacity as care-taker. From the Jerusalem Tal- 
 mud we quote another law based on the same prin- 
 ciple. “If the Gizbar gave a deposit on a _ pur- 
 chase of movables for the Temple, the purchase 
 was completed by this very act; and the mova- 
 bles become the property of the Temple, wherever they 
 might be found. (A secular purchase is not completed 
 until the actual transfer of the goods takes place.) 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 243 
 
 For it is written:!4 ‘The earth is the Lord’s and 
 the fullness thereof.’ ”® 
 
 In religious law this idea forms the basis for the 
 obligation of reciting a benediction and saying grace 
 before and after meals. ‘‘One who enjoys of the 
 good things of this world, without saying grace, is 
 as though he robbed the Holy One, blessed be He’’.*® 
 The words of the Psalmist: ‘‘The wicked borroweth 
 and payeth not,’’? are explained by the Rabbis to 
 refer to the Gentiles who eat and drink without say- 
 ing grace.% 
 
 (b) Men Belong to God. 
 
 The second underlying principle is that man 
 himself is the possession of God. In the words of 
 the Psalmist: “‘The earth is the Lord’s...the world 
 and they that dwell therein’’.*9 In the words of 
 the Rabbis: ‘For thou and what thou hast are His’’.?° 
 God’s ownership of men is understood either in the 
 sense that they are His servants or slaves, or that 
 they are His children. 
 
 In Leviticus we read: ‘“‘For unto Me the children 
 of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom 
 I have brought out of the land of Egypt’. “And 
 if thy brother be waxen poor with thee and sell him- 
 self unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as 
 a bondservant....For they are My servants, whom 
 I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall 
 not be sold as bondmen”’.?? According to the Rabbis 
 God has a deed, so to speak, on Israel, which was 
 drawn up at the very beginning of its history.”3 
 
 Again, you know the answer given by R. Johanan 
 
244. STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 ben Zakkai to his pupils. They asked him: Why has 
 the ear—of the slave who refused to be free at the end 
 of seven years—been chosen to be bored,?‘in preference 
 to any other part of his body? Answered R. Johanan, 
 “His ear heard the voice of God from Mount Sinai: 
 “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me’; and 
 now, he threw off the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven 
 and received upon himself the yoke of a mortal. His 
 ear heard before Mount Sinai: ‘For unto Me the 
 children of Israel are servants’,?> and now he went 
 and bought for himself another master. Therefore, 
 let his ear be bored, for he has not observed what his 
 ear had heard’’.?® 
 
 Another passage of the Bible reads: ‘Ye are 
 the children of the Lord your God’’.” The context 
 of this verse is halakic in character, and the mean- 
 ing is that they are obliged to honor and obey the 
 commandments of the Holy One, blessed be He, be- 
 cause they belong to Him. But this is rather a theolo 
 gical subject. The point of interest to us here is the 
 fact that all are ‘‘the children of the living God’’.#8 
 
 RELATION BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR 
 
 If all are the children of God, it follows that in 
 their relation to one another they are brothers. And 
 in this connection we note with interest, that, in most 
 cases, when the Bible speaks of the poor man, or 
 of one who was recently reduced to poverty, he is 
 called ‘“‘brother’’. ‘If thy brother be waxen poor, 
 and sell some of his possession...’ ‘‘And if thy 
 brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 246 
 
 whi 3e .. That thy brother may live with thee. ”3? 
 “And if fen brother be waxen poor with thee... .’’3? 
 “"... nor shut thy hand from thy needy Brodie 733 
 . and thy eye be evil against thy needy brother. . 
 ..34 “Thou shalt surely open thine hand unto thy 
 poor and needy brother....’3  ‘‘At the end of 
 seven years ye shall let go every man his brother.”’ 
 *«...Yelend upon pledge, every one to his brother. ’’37 
 
 Thus, we see how the Bible emphasizes the fact 
 that the poor is the brother, and consequently the 
 equal, of the rich. To use the words of the Rabbis: 
 “It is not written ‘the poor man’, but ‘thy brother’, 
 to show that both of them are equal.’’% 
 
 6é 
 
 TREATMENT OF THE POOR 
 
 It is evident that the purpose of accentuating 
 the close relation between the rich and the poor was 
 to secure for the latter a brotherly and loving treat- 
 ment. Indeed, it is the gentle reception and sym- 
 pathetic word that relieve and encourage the poor 
 and the humble, as much as, or even more than, the 
 giving of the coin. The Rabbis express it: ‘‘He who 
 gives a Perutah to the poor man is blessed with six 
 blessings, but he who encourages him with kind words 
 is blessed with eleven blessings.’’39 The poor man 
 must by no means get the impression that one does 
 not sympathize with his being in distress. If one 
 is poor himself and cannot afford to give anything 
 to him who applies for charity, he must not send him 
 away without a few words of comfort at least. ‘‘Say 
 to him,”’ is the instruction of the Rabbis in such a 
 
246 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 case, ‘‘‘My heart melts for thee, for I have nothing 
 to give thee.’ ’’4° 
 
 The generous must take pains to spare, as much 
 as possible, the feelings of the beneficiary of his gener- 
 osity. ‘‘It is written,’’ the Rabbis remark, ‘‘‘Happy 
 is he who considereth the poor’, and not ‘Happy 
 is he who giveth to the poor’’’.4* Indeed, great stress 
 is laid on the manner in which we do our charity. We 
 are told that R. Yannai saw a person giving 
 a “‘gug'’ (rather a big coin) to a poor man, 
 in public. Whereupon the Rabbi plainly told 
 that philanthropist: “It would be better that you 
 do not give anything at all, rather than give in such 
 a way as to put the poor man to shame.” 43 
 
 If one isin need and will not accept any charity, 
 money should be given to him in form ofa loan, with no 
 intention of collection.44 It is left to the wisdom and 
 discretion of the benefactor to overcome the difficulty 
 of avoiding the embarrassment arising from lending 
 money to a person before he asks for it. In this 
 connection it will be of interest to quote an example 
 recorded by the Rabbis. A wealthy man who was 
 reduced to poverty and who refused to take charity, 
 was induced to accept financial aid in the following 
 way: R. Yannaiisaid to that person in course of con- 
 versation: ‘‘My son, I hear that you suddenly came 
 to a great fortune by the death of a relative of yours 
 in a far-off land. Take this money, now, and you 
 will pay me later’’.44 The poor man, being thus en- 
 couraged to expect a better future, had nomorescruples 
 in accepting, as a loan, the much-needed money. 
 
 The manner of doing charity which gained the 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 247 
 
 highest praise from the Rabbis was that of giving secret- 
 ly, that is, either giving in the darkness of the night, 
 so that the receiver could not see his benefactor, or 
 giving through an agency.*® The Temple in Jeru- 
 salem contained a lishkat hashaim, a room where “‘the 
 righteous left money for charity and from which the 
 respectable poor got their support’’.*’ 
 
 The ‘ani ben iobim’, or the man of wealth and so- 
 cial standing who was reduced to poverty, was es- 
 pecially taken care of, and provided with the very 
 articles he used to enjoy in his better days. The ob- 
 ject was not to let him feel the pinch of poverty, apart 
 from the consideration that a change to a lower stand- 
 ard of life might impair his health, or even cause his 
 death.48 We all know the famous story about Hillel 
 the Elder, who provided for such a poor man not only 
 the best of food and drink, but also a horse to ride 
 on and a footman to accompany him on journeys. 
 One day, the story goes on, Hillel, not being able to 
 procure a footman, undertook to perform the service 
 himself...49 We need not quote here any more ex- 
 amples. We have sufficiently shown the Jewish con- 
 ception concerning the treatment of the poor. 
 
 Gop AND MEN WITH RELATION TO THE POOR 
 
 Whether they are “children” or ‘‘slaves’”’, the 
 right of possession of men by God is established. But 
 rights carry with them duties, or a sort of responsibility 
 to maintain them. Hence, we have the conception 
 that ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, opens His trea- 
 suries and gives to people of His silver and gold.’’s° 
 
248 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 The poor, receiving nothing from His treasuries, have 
 a perfect right to complain against Him for neglecting 
 His duty, so to speak. It is His duty, “....Who 
 giveth food to all flesh, to support them.’’5* By sup- 
 porting the poor, we place ourselves in the position 
 of winning in a friendly competition between ourselves 
 and the Creator. The Rabbis express it in the fol- 
 lowing wurds: “Since this man came and snatched 
 (from God) the Mizvah (of giving bread to the poor), 
 said the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘I am under ob- 
 ligation to give him his reward’.’’s? 
 
 Indeed, by taking care of the poor, we are God’s 
 bankers, for ‘‘he that is gracious unto the poor lend- — 
 eth to the Lord.’ “If this were not written in the 
 Bible,’’ say the Rabbis, ‘it would be impossible to 
 express it. For, in connection with the statement 
 that ‘The borrower is aservant to the lender’, it ap- 
 pears as if He becomes a servant to the lender.’’ss 
 
 The idea of God’s indebtedness to the poor and 
 His obligation to the rich for coming to their relief 
 is even more emphasized in the following passages: 
 ““R. Judah ben Simon says: The poor man sits and 
 complains (to God): ‘Why am I different from the 
 other person? Hesleepsin his bed and I sleep here (in 
 the street)’. ‘Since thou hast given him (what he was 
 lacking), Iregardit,’ saysthe Lord, ‘untotheeas though 
 thou hadst made peace between Me and him’.’’ The 
 same idea is found in the Kabbalistic literature. A 
 poor man, a great scholar, in the city of Safed, broke 
 his pitcher with which he used to fetch water. Not 
 being able to buy a new one, he complained against 
 God, saying that he had not deserved to be as poor 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 249 
 
 as all that. As nobody came forth to restore his loss, 
 God was about to smite the city with locusts. For- 
 tunately, R. Isaac Luria, the great Kabbalist of that 
 city, heard a Bat Kol telling him of the impending 
 calamity and the cause thereof. He at once col- 
 lected an adequate sum of money and presented it 
 to the poor man, thus saving the city from the in- 
 vasion of the locusts.5? 
 
 PAGAN CONCEPTION OF CHARITY 
 
 A discussion between R. Akiba and Tyrannus 
 Rufus, recorded in the Babylonian Talmud, gives 
 us a glimpse of the pagan conception of charity. R. 
 Akiba was asked by the Roman official: ‘If your 
 God loves the poor, why does He not maintain them?”’ 
 (implying by this question that we should not care 
 for them at all). R. Akiba answered: ‘‘It is for the 
 purpose of saving us from the fire of Gehenna.”’ To 
 this Tyrannus Rufus rejoined: ‘“‘On the contrary, 
 for this you should be punished with Gehenna. And 
 I will give you a parable from which you will under- 
 stand my reason for differing with you. A king be- 
 came angry with his slave, and put him in prison with 
 orders that nobody should give him food or drink. 
 In spite of that, someone fed him and gave him drink. 
 Would the king not be angry and punish such a 
 man? And you, Israelites, are called servants, as 
 it is written: ‘For unto Me the children of Israel are 
 servants’.’’55 R. Akiba answered: ‘“‘I will give you 
 another parable to which the case is to be compared. 
 A king became angry with his son, put him in prison, 
 
250 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 and commanded that no food or drink be given to 
 him. In spite of this order some person fed him and 
 gave him drink. When the king became aware of 
 it, would he not be grateful to this person, and send 
 him a present? And we, Israelites, are called child- 
 ren, as it is written :59 ‘Ye are the children of the Lord 
 your God’,’’® 
 
 We learn from this passage the attitude of pagan- 
 ism towards poverty and charity. The poor were 
 regarded as slaves who have angered the gods. They 
 are under the curse of the gods, serving thus a term 
 in prison. Kindness shown to the poor means accord- 
 ingly an interference with the will of the gods— 
 indeed a great sin. 
 
 Relief of other kinds of suffering would fall under 
 the same heading, for logically they show as much 
 the displeasure of the gods. Of course, the pagans 
 were not consistent in this respect; as somebody re- 
 marked, men are often better than their religious 
 principles. And we know that the Romans made 
 large distributions of grain among the needy pop- 
 ulace as a relief of the poor.* But this was a fune- 
 tion of the government, to occupy the unemployed. 
 It was the result of the cry: Panem et Circenses, bread 
 and sports. As was pointed out by others, the 
 motives were of a purely political nature. They 
 also had a sort of lazarets, but only for the soldiers 
 and slaves, the most troublesome elements of the 
 population. Little, however, was done for the or- 
 phan and widow. And above all, it was pointed out 
 that it was not real charity. Religion had little to 
 do with it. Religion would have led, as we saw in 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 251 
 
 
 
 the case of Rufus, to the very opposite results. 
 Pagan endeavors in this respect never reached the 
 sublimity of ‘‘Zedakah’”’ and ‘‘Hesed’’, righteous- 
 ness and lovingkindness, the enthusiasm and zeal, 
 the delicacy and refinement of “‘Kedushah’’, which 
 only religion can give. 
 
 JEwiIsH ATTITUDE TOWARDS SUFFERING 
 AND POVERTY 
 
 R. Akiba, then, corrected the pagan by telling 
 him that the poor were not God’s slaves but his child- 
 ren. As children, any attention shown to them can 
 only be pleasing to the father. But when R. Akiba 
 answered by comparing the case to the king being 
 angry with his son, he spoke, to a certain extent, in 
 the sense of Tyrannus Rufus, who considered poverty 
 as a sign of anger and wrath. He spoke, so to say, 
 leshitato, from his point of view. For Judaism itself 
 takes a much higher plane with regard to suffering, 
 including poverty. Suffering, far from any stigma 
 or disgrace being attached to it, may be a special ex- 
 pression of God’s love and favor to the person that 
 suffers. 
 
 We shall not dwell too long on this aspect, for 
 it rather belongs to the domain of theology. It will 
 be sufficient to mention here: ‘‘Whom God loveth 
 he reproveth’’,® or the phrase, “sufferings of love’’ ,% 
 etc. The statement of the Rabbis, that ‘‘there is no 
 suffering without sin’’,® is by no means the general 
 view on suffering itself. It was simply meant to 
 pacify the mind of the afflicted person, so that he 
 
252 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 should not become despondent and that he should 
 bear his troubles more courageously. The statement: 
 ‘“‘Tf one sees that disasters have befallen him, he should 
 investigate his conduct’’,®°° was also meant in the 
 same sense. R. Akiba himself was particularly the 
 one who raised suffering to a virtue.” 
 
 With respect to poverty in particular, not only 
 is it not regarded as a vice or a crime, but is rather 
 looked upon as a virtue; and the poor man is not de- 
 serving blame or punishment, but is entitled to special 
 consideration and tender treatment. Theterm ‘ani ("3y, 
 means the one who is afflicted, humbled, bowed down, 
 ill-treated, or miserable. It originally had a re- 
 ligious meaning and is connected with ‘anaw (iy), de- 
 noting the one who is meek, submissive to God, by dis- 
 position and character, a quality which the ‘anz ac- 
 quires by suffering and humiliation.£® Indeed, we 
 notice that the terms “anawim and ‘aniyyim the meek 
 and the poor, are almost synonymous. °® In many 
 places in the Bible, it is not certain whether the 
 reading should be ‘anityyim, the poor, or ‘anawim, the 
 meek. In some places the Kere is ‘aniyyim and the 
 Ketib is ‘anawim; and in some places it is just 
 the other way. Thus we have: “He deviseth.... 
 to destroy the poor’? or “O ye that would.... 
 destroy the poor’’7* according to the Kere. The 
 Ketib, however, has in both places ‘‘the meek”’, 
 though, in the last verse, it was meant to be parallel 
 to ‘“‘the needy.”’ In the Psalms we read: ‘“‘He hath 
 not forgotten the cry of the humble,” and “Forget 
 not the “‘humble’’,’? while the Ketib has, in both verses, 
 “the poor’’. 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 253 
 
 
 
 Again, when we read: ‘The poor and the needy 
 seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth 
 for thirst; I, the Lord will answer them, I, the God 
 of Israel will not forsake them,’’?3 we feel that it is 
 almost an endearing name, for it implies at once 
 helplessness, meekness, and humbleness. Similar 
 expressions, testifying to the sympathy and tender- 
 ness shown to the poor, are found in the Psalms. 
 “But I am poor and needy; O God, make haste unto 
 me that am poor and needy, the Lord will account 
 it unto me.’’75 The Rabbis inferred from these Psalms 
 that the prayer of the poor man is on the same level 
 with that of Moses.7° We also notice that the Psalm- 
 ist uses the term ‘“‘the poor” in the sense of ‘‘the 
 righteous’’, in opposition to the wicked. Describing 
 the actions and thoughts of the wicked: ‘‘He hath 
 said in his heart, God hath forgotten....’’; he says: 
 “Unto Thee the poor man committeth himself.’’”7 
 There are a good many more passages in the Bible 
 showing the high regard Judaism had for the poor, 
 but the examples quoted are sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 THE PooR HELD IN HIGH ESTEEM 
 
 The high esteem in which the poor were held 
 is even more emphasized in Rabbinic literature. Their 
 close relation to God is described in different ways. 
 
 We are told that the poor are God’s people. 
 This idea is expressed by the Rabbis in the following 
 words: “It is written: ‘If thou lend money to any 
 of my people.’?9 Said Israel to the Holy One, blessed 
 be He: ‘Who are Thy people?’ To this God answered 
 
254 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 that they were the poor, for it is stated: ‘...The 
 Lord hath comforted His people, and hath compassion 
 upon His afflicted’: It is customary with some 
 rich men not to make themselves known to their 
 poor relatives. ‘All the brethren of the poor do hate 
 him’.8* But with the Holy One, blessed be He, it 
 is not so. Though ‘both riches and honor come of 
 Him’,®? yet He sheltered only the poor, for ‘The Lord 
 hath founded Zion’, and therein shall the poor of His 
 people find protection.’’’% 
 
 The poor are God’s people in the sense that they 
 are with Him, or that He associates with them. In 
 the language of the Rabbis: ‘‘‘The poor man is not 
 with thee, but with Me’, saith the Lord; the ways 
 of the Holy One, blessed be He, are not like those of 
 mortals. It often happens that a rich man, seeing 
 his poor relative approaching, hides himself, for he 
 is ashamed to converse with him because of his poverty. 
 But this is not the way of the Holy One, blessed be 
 He. Who are His people? The poor. When He 
 sees a poor man He attaches Himself, so to speak, 
 Cope hit 
 
 According to Rabban Gamaliel, the reason for 
 stating in the Torah: “Thou shalt surely give him, 
 and thy heart shall not be grieved when thou givest 
 unto him’’, is because God Himself is surety for the 
 poor man.*5 Moreover, He Himself accompanies 
 the poor on their wanderings for alms. We are told 
 that when the poor man stands at the door with an 
 outstretched hand, the Holy One, blessed be He, is 
 at his right side.®° 
 
 We also have the idea that the poor are God’s 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 258 
 
 own, constituting His household, so to speak. ‘‘The 
 Holy One said to Israel: ‘Thou hast four classes of 
 people in thy household, thy sons, thy daughters, 
 thy servants, and thy maid-servants. Even so have 
 I four classes: the Levites, the strangers, the orphans, 
 and the widows’.’’’7 The same idea is repeated in 
 another place, adding the following reasons for the 
 assertion that these four are regarded as God’s own. 
 “In connection with the stranger it is said: ‘He loveth 
 the stranger’;** with regard to the orphan and wid- 
 ow, we find that He is ‘A father of the fatherless 
 and a judge of the widow’;®? and to the Levites He 
 said: ‘I am thy portion and thy inheritance.’’’s 
 
 The above idea was expressed in connection with 
 the Biblical commandment: ‘And thou shalt rejoice 
 before the Lord thy God, thy son, and thy daughter, 
 and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant and the 
 Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, 
 and the fatherless, and the widow that are in the midst 
 of thee’’.»* In this commandment, we particularly 
 note the nature of the rejoicing or mmav. There is 
 nothing gloomy or depressing about it for the poor. 
 The feature of alms is entirely absent in the relation 
 between the rich and the poor on that occasion. They 
 are all invited together with the rest of the nation 
 to the mai jn>w, to rejoice before God. They, 
 the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow, 
 constituting, so to speak, the household of God, are 
 the hosts entertaining the others, who were merely 
 “thou and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man- 
 servant, and thy maid-servant.”’ 
 
 Indeed, the giving of charity, or the feeding of 
 
256 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 the poor, is considered as making a gift to God,” or 
 as an invitation to God to partake of one’s sub- 
 stance. For God feels the responsibility of causing 
 one to be poor. Hence it is said: ‘‘ Whoever mocks 
 the poor is regarded as if he mocks Me.’’% And 
 similarly: ‘‘When you are feeding the poor, I con- 
 sider it as if you were feeding Me.’’% 
 
 We have sufficiently shown the attitude of Ju- 
 daism towards poverty and the poor. Poverty was 
 generally regarded as a meritorious quality, and the 
 poor were looked upon as men of honesty and integrity. 
 It is for this reason that the prophet says: “The humble 
 also shall increase their joy in the Lord; and the need- 
 iest among men shall exult in the Holy One of Israel,’’% 
 
 ISRAEL AND POVERTY 
 
 It is in harmony with this sentiment concerning 
 poverty that the whole nation of Israel is called, as 
 a title of honor, ‘‘The Poor’’. When the Psalmist 
 says: ‘‘But I am poor and suffering, let Thy salvation 
 O God, set me up on high”’; and ‘The meek will see 
 this and be rejoiced’’; and ‘‘The Lord listeneth unto 
 the needy’’, we feel that he had in mind Israel as a 
 whole, rather than the individual. For he winds 
 up his Psalm with the words: ‘God will save Zion, 
 and will build the cities of Judah’’.%* In connection 
 with this Psalm the Rabbis remarked: ‘‘ Wherever 
 it is written ‘dal’ (57), ‘ani’ (ay), ‘ebyon’ (Ivan) it 
 refers to Israel’’.97 
 
 But the Rabbis do not stop with the mere name. 
 It is even assumed that an experience of actual po- 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 257 
 
 verty (nv1y) is necessary for Israel’s spiritual welfare. 
 You know the famous passage of the Talmud: “It 
 is written: ‘Behold, I have refined thee, but not with 
 silver, I have tried thee in the furnace of affliction’9’— 
 to show that the Holy One, blessed be He, investi- 
 gated all virtues, and could not find one to fit Israel 
 better than that of poverty.’’°9 The same statement 
 is found in another place, with the following addition. 
 ‘“For because of poverty they fear God....There 
 are no doers of kindness but because of poverty, there 
 are no givers of charity but because of poverty, there 
 are no people who obey the Law but because of pov- 
 erty, etc.’’1°° 
 
 Nay, it would even seem that poverty imparts 
 to Israel a certain beauty of character of which it 
 otherwise would be utterly deprived. ‘It is a com- 
 mon saying: ‘Poverty betfis Israel as a leather bridle 
 strap becomes a white steed.’’’°: The same idea is 
 expressed in another place: ‘‘ Poverty is as becoming 
 to the daughter of Jacob as a red ribbon to a white 
 mare.” And: “Israel needs the carob (a vegetable 
 used as a food by the poor) in order to stir him up 
 for repentance.’’?? 
 
 It is evident from the above statement that the 
 function of poverty, as applied to the nation as a 
 whole, was to mitigate, or curb that element of rash- 
 ness in Israel’s life character, for which it was known, 
 and which usually goes hand in hand with wealth. 
 “R. Simon ben Lakish said: Israel is the boldest or 
 the most arrogant of the nations.’’*3 But let us quote 
 the words of Moses: ‘“‘But Jeshurun waxed fat, and 
 kicked: thou didst wax fat, thou didst grow thick, 
 
258 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 thou didst become gross, and he forsook God who 
 made him, and contemned the Rock of his sal- 
 Vation 
 
 We need not dwell in this subject any longer. 
 The history of our people, in whatever country they 
 lived, testifies to the truthfulness of this matter.7°%5 
 
 JUDAISM CONSIDERS THE Two ASPECTS OF POVERTY 
 
 This glorification of poverty, making it a thing 
 desirable in itself, and declaring it almost as an in- 
 dispensable condition for salvation, is only one aspect 
 of the matter. There is, however, another aspect, 
 giving us the very opposite picture of this state of 
 deprivation. Judaism was not blind to this aspect. 
 It is the greatness of the Jewish mind which found 
 its expression in Rabbinic literature that it provided 
 us with a system of checks and balances, viewing 
 everything in its various aspects, which prevented 
 Judaism from abandoning itself entirely to one-sided 
 conceptions of great problems. Such one-sided con- 
 ceptions lead only to narrowness, and have a ten- 
 dency to degenerate into excesses and extravagances. 
 We speak now a great deal of organized charity, a 
 subject which we shall still have occasion to consider. 
 But there is also such a thing as organized poverty, 
 which forms the greatest danger to both religion and 
 humanity, and to which mankind is easily exposed when 
 accepting a one-sided view of the problems occupy- 
 ing us in these lectures. Think only of the anchorites, 
 the hermits, and the various mendicant orders in 
 the Middle Ages, and you will easily understand what 
 I mean by organized poverty. Judaism was pre- 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 259 
 
 served from this danger by paying sufficient attention 
 also to the other aspect of the matter. 
 
 (a) POVERTY THE GREATEST HARDSHIP 
 
 First, Judaism considered poverty as the great- 
 est of sufferings. Among all afflictions, the Rabbis 
 say, there is none harder to bear than poverty. It 
 outweighs all other kinds of sufferings. And Job, 
 the greatest of sufferers, when the choice was put 
 to him by the Holy One, blessed be He, between pover- 
 ty and all other kinds of sufferings combined, such as 
 leprosy, loss of children, etc., etc., he chose the lat- 
 ter.°° Poverty being the greatest of sufferings, can 
 accordingly only be justified on the ground that it 
 is a test. As the rabbis express it, both the rich 
 man and the poor man are on trial; the rich man, 
 whether his wealth will not spoil him and harden him 
 against the poor; the poor man, whether his depriva- 
 tion will not embitter him and make him rebellious 
 against the affliction. But there comes always the 
 question in the defence of the poor: Why was it 
 that God did not try him with wealth rather than 
 with poverty? Such thoughts and silent murmur- 
 ings and protests, however inaudible, breed a kind 
 of impotent rebellion, which may prove spiritually 
 fatal, even more than riches. 
 
 The greatest of hardships connected with poverty 
 was the loss of independence, which our sages valued 
 very highly. According to the rabbis, Jonathan 
 the son of Gershon accepted the position of “‘priest to 
 the graven image,” in the house of Michah,'? because 
 of a tradition in his family:‘‘Let one hire himself out 
 
260 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 to ‘Abodah Zarah, rather than be in neeed of receiving 
 charity from people.’’'* Of course, that poor Levite, 
 the rabbis explained, made the mistake of taking 
 the term ‘A bodah Zarah in its technical sense, 7. e.‘‘idol- 
 atry’’; when it was really meant to be taken in its 
 literal meaning, that is, “strange work.”’ In this 
 sense, it merely means that one should value his 
 independence more than his dignity. And when the 
 two come in conflict, the latter should give way. 
 ‘‘Flay a carcase in the market-place, receive thy wage, 
 and do not say: ‘I am a great man, and it is below 
 my dignity to do such a thing’ ’’9 was the advice 
 given by Rav to one of his pupils. 
 
 But the preservation of one’s independence was 
 of great consideration even in matters of religion. 
 ‘‘Let thy expenditure for the Sabbath not exceed those 
 of any week-day, in order that thou shalt not be in 
 need of people’s help’’*° is a famous saying of the 
 rabbis. On the other hand, honest pursuit of busi- 
 ness or any profession or trade was raised to the high- 
 est religious virtue. To quote only a few examples, 
 ‘He who enjoys the toil of his hand, is greater than 
 he who fears God”’ ;* or: ‘‘The world is pleased with 
 him who pursues business in an honest way; and such 
 a man is regarded as if he fulfilled the entire law’’.™ 
 
 To be sure, these statements are not to be taken 
 at their face value. They certainly contain a great 
 deal of exaggeration."3 But at the same time they 
 show us to what extent the rabbis exalted the inde- 
 pendent self-supporting life, and dreaded its loss, which 
 is usually the direct result of the necessity of receiv- 
 ing charity. 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 261 
 
 The degradation of the poor is pictured in various 
 ways. ‘When a person has to take charity, his face 
 changes color, in a manner similar to that of the Ker- 
 um’’—a certain bird which was supposed to have 
 been found near the sea, and which , in sunshine, as- 
 sumed various colors.*4% Or, the poor look as if they 
 were ‘punished with thejudgment of fire and water’’."5 
 “‘All the days of the poor are evil.”’"° “In the Book 
 of Ben Sira, it is added that there is no rest for the 
 poor even in the night. For his roof is lower than 
 those of others, hence in the rainy season the water 
 from the adjoining house is pouring upon _ his 
 house; and his vineyard is located on the top of the 
 mountain, hence in the windy season, his soil is being 
 carried down to the other vineyard in the valley.’ 
 
 But let me only remind you of the word nisrak 
 (9783) which came also into the jargon or Yiddish 
 language, and which denoted a poor, humbled, and 
 degraded person for whom we feel pity and compassion. 
 
 Indeed that ‘the poor man is regarded as dead”’ 
 is a statement of the rabbis well known to you. 
 He is dead as an influence. The words: ‘For all the 
 men are dead who sought thy life,’’*° were explained 
 to mean that those men were reduced to poverty, 
 and therefore Moses had nothing to fear them. In 
 a word, to quote Koheleth, ‘‘The wisdom of the poor 
 man is held in contempt, and his words are not 
 hearday}?° 
 
 (b) POVERTY AS A DEGENERATING FORCE 
 
 Secondly, I have spoken of poverty as a spiritual 
 force, and of the advantages it affords man in his 
 
“262 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 progress in the wordly virtues of meekness, humility, 
 submission, obedience to the will of God, etc.. But 
 there is also another side to the picture, which is 
 sad enough, and is largely calculated to defeat its 
 own end. Humanity being constituted as it is, with 
 desires and appetites, not all of which can easily be 
 dispensed with, poverty leads the poor to temptations 
 which may be beyond his power to resist. You re- 
 member the supplication of Agur, when he says: 
 ‘‘Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with 
 my allotted bread. Lest I be full, and deny and say: 
 ‘Who is the Lord?’ or lest I be poor, and steal, and 
 profane the name of my God.’’”! We thus see that 
 while riches may lead to idolatry, poverty may bring 
 to the profanation of the name of God by swearing 
 falsely. Which of the two is the greater evil? Ac- 
 cording to the rabbis, it is the latter, that which might 
 be caused by poverty.“ The degenerating effects 
 of poverty is thus expressed by the prophet: “And 
 it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, 
 they shall fret themselves and curse by their king 
 and by their God’! And, in the words of the rab- 
 bis: ‘‘The crushing exacting details of poverty cause 
 man to transgress the will of his Maker’’.!4 
 Again, the rabbis also realized that poverty 
 may engender certain undesirable qualities which 
 are the very opposite of godliness. ‘‘The guiding 
 spirit of poverty is called nabal’’, a term which is 
 taken to mean dirt and filth’%s. Then you know the 
 famous passage: “‘ The daughters of Israel are comely, 
 but their poverty makes them repellent’. If this 
 was said about the daughters, whether in the physical 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 263 
 
 or intellectual sense, it might, as well, have been ap- 
 plied, with the same measure of truthfulness, or un- 
 truthfulness, to the sons of Israel. And although 
 the sons of the poor were looked upon as those from 
 whom learning comes forth,””? it was openly declared 
 that the scholar of poor extraction stands on a lower 
 level than a member of a wealthy family with an 
 equal attainment in scholarship. While the one was 
 denoted as dag tahor (clean fish), the other was given 
 the appellation of dag tame (unclean fish). 78 
 
 JUDAISM AND HEDONISM 
 
 Poverty is thus, as is clear from the preceding 
 remarks, not the unmixed good generally taught by 
 a certain class of moralists. It is as indicated, not 
 an object desirable in itself. If it is praised, it is be- 
 cause of its being conducive to certain virtues, not 
 always compatible with wealth and affluence. But, 
 as we have seen, it has pitfalls of its own just as in- 
 compatible with a real spiritual life as riches and 
 abundance. But there is also another consideration. 
 It is the attitude of Judaism toward the good things 
 of this world (fundamentally differing from that of 
 certain other religions), that prevented it from in- 
 dulging in certain extravagances, into which other 
 religions degenerated in the course of history. I had 
 occasion, in the class, to speak to you against such 
 hasty generalizations as declared that Judaism is in- 
 compatible with asceticism. A religion which counts 
 among heroes those distinguished for their abandoning 
 all the joys of life, or what we consider as such, and 
 
264 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 which, in its authoritative literature, has such pas- 
 sages as that which we read in the sixth chapter of 
 Pirke Abot: ‘‘This is the way that is becoming for 
 the study of the Torah: a morsel of bread with salt 
 thou must eat, and water by measure thou must drink, 
 thou must sleep upon the ground, and live a life of 
 trouble the while thou toilest in the Torah. If thou 
 doest thus, ‘Happy shalt thou be and it shall be well 
 with thee’ (Psalm 128.2); happy shalt thou be in this 
 world, and it shall be well with thee in the world to 
 come’’°—such a religion can certainly not be declared 
 as hedonistic and strictly hostile to all asceticism. 
 And I must say, in passing, that this passage can be 
 multiplied by many other passages with the same 
 tendency, whilst our edifying literature offers us any 
 number of stories and legends, illustrating ascetic 
 currents in Judaism. But this much may be said 
 with certainty that, though it may be regarded some- 
 times as an aid to religion, asceticism was by no means 
 made a condition for salvation. It was subject to 
 a healthy control and generally balanced by other 
 tendencies. Rabbi Judah ha-Levi, with the instinct 
 of a poet, hit the right strain when he said in his fa- 
 mous dialogue, Kusart: (Book II, 48). ‘“‘Know 
 that our Torah is constituted of the three psycho- 
 logical states: ‘Fear, Love, and Joy’ (that is to 
 say, all the principal emotions of men are enlisted 
 in the service of God). By each of these thou 
 mayest be brought into communion with thy 
 God. Thy contriteness in the days of fasting 
 does not bring thee nearer to God than thy joy 
 on the Sabbath days and on festivals, provided 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 265 
 
 thy joy emanates from a devotional and _ perfect 
 heart. And just as prayer requires devotion and 
 thought, so does joy, namely, that thou wilt rejoice 
 in His commandments for their own sake (the only 
 reasons for this rejoicing being) the love of Him 
 who commanded it, and the desire of recognizing 
 God’s goodness towards thee. Consider these 
 feasts as if thou wert the guest of God invited to 
 His table and His bounty, and thank Him for it 
 inwardly and outwardly. And if thy joy in God 
 excites thee even to the degree of singing and danc- 
 ing, it is a service to God, keeping thee attached 
 to Him. But the Torah did not leave these things 
 to our arbitrary will, but put them all under control. 
 For man lacks the power to make use of the func- 
 tions of body and soul in their proper proportions’’. 
 
 Thus far Rabbi Judah ha-Levi. But when body 
 and soul are alike the subjects of religious concern 
 and the functions of both are viewed as having their 
 equal share in building up the kingdom of God, 
 an exclusive exaltation of the soul at the expense 
 of the body would only be destructive to the scheme 
 of salvation as laid down by the Torah. To mortify 
 the flesh by dire poverty, such as other religions in- 
 flicted on their adherents, would be an anomaly in 
 Judaism. This was a joyless life, always with an 
 eye on death when the struggle with the flesh would 
 cease. For the whole-hearted simhah, or rejoicing, 
 as commanded by the Bible, with its peculiar char- 
 acteristic of reconciling the body with the soul and 
 bringing harmony between the various functions of 
 
266 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 man by placing them all under the control of the Law, 
 has no room in the monkish life. 
 
 Notice only such versesasthese. ‘‘Sevendaysshalt 
 thou keep a feast unto the Lord thy God in the place 
 which the Lord shall choose; because the Lord thy 
 God shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all 
 the work of thy hands, and thou shalt be altogether 
 joyful.’’3° Also: “‘...And ye shall rejoice in all that 
 ye put your hands into, ye and your households, 
 wherein the Lord thy God hath blessed thee.’”’*! And 
 similarly we have: ‘‘But thou shalt eat them before 
 the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord thy 
 God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, 
 and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and 
 the Levite....and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord 
 thy God in all that thou puttest thy hand into.’’!* 
 Note that, in all these verses, the products of one’s 
 field and the acquisitions of one’s hand are just as 
 well a cause of the rejoicing. The men invited here 
 to the table of the Lord, to partake of His bounty and 
 to rejoice before Him, are not exactly the priests or 
 even the students of the Torah. As may be clearly 
 seen from the context, they belong to prosperous com- 
 munities made up largely of farmers possessing land 
 and in a condition to employ farm-hands or half-slaves 
 on their estate.!8% Occasionally some among them 
 can even speak of savings, which enable them to be 
 helpful to their neighbors.'*4 
 
 It is such a rural industrious population, living 
 by the labor of their hands, kindly disposed towards 
 their surroundings and generous to those depending 
 upon them, visiting the chosen place on their festi- 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 267 
 
 vals, as remote from extravagance and luxury, and 
 from abject poverty—it is that class of people 
 which formed the ideal of the Torah, and to which 
 the invitation to rejoice before the Lord is extended. 
 They are all men of families; bidden, as they are, to 
 rejoice before the Lord with their wives, sons, and 
 daughters, they are also made responsible for those 
 less fortunate among them, all of whom they have 
 more or less to maintain. 
 
 JUDAISM AND ASCETICISM 
 
 It is true that not all the great men in Israel 
 understood this ideal alike. Not to mention here 
 such communities as, these which according to some 
 historians, formed the majority of the Essene settle- 
 ments. For the Essenes abandoned themselves mostly 
 to a contemplative life, and formed a sort of Judaism 
 within Judaism, or, in other words, they represented 
 merely a sect. Nor is it necessary to speak here of 
 later Jewish philosophers who also considered a life 
 of solitude and continuous contemplation as the high- 
 est attainment of perfection. For these followed 
 influences rather Greek than Jewish. 
 
 But we have, even in rabbinic literature, passages 
 just contradicting the view of an ideal community 
 as pointed out above. The following is found in the 
 Sifre: “It is written: ‘This book of the Law shall 
 not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate 
 therein day and night.’!%> In order that one should 
 not take this literally, and thus neglect his means 
 of livelihood, it is stated in the Torah: ‘And thou 
 
268 _ STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 mayest gather in thy corn, thy wine, and thine oil.’’1%6 
 This explanation of the two apparently contradictory 
 verses, was given by Rabbi Ishmael, and is in accor- 
 dance with the conception pointed out above. But 
 R. Simon ben Yohai objected to it, saying that one 
 could always find work about his field and thus ne- 
 glect the study of the Torah. His opinion was that 
 one need not worry about his work in the fields at 
 all, for, he said: ‘‘When Israel acts according to the 
 wish of God, its work is being done by others.’’!87 
 
 This rather ascetic view of R. Simon is in accord- 
 ance with what we know of his life and what legend tell 
 about him. Because of Roman persecution, he and 
 his son hid for many years in a cave where they spent 
 their time in study and contemplation. When they 
 left their hiding-place and saw people tilling the soil 
 they remarked: ‘“‘These men neglect eternal life, and 
 busy themselves with momentary needs.’’!3§ Thelegend 
 goes on to tell us: ‘‘Whatever they looked at was im- 
 mediately destroyed by fire. Thereupon a Bat Kol 
 said unto them: ‘You came out to destroy My world; 
 return to your cave!’ ’’13%8 
 
 The words of Bat Kol clearly showed the attitude 
 of Judaism towards ascetic views like those of R. 
 Simon ben Yohai. His opinion, in opposition to 
 that of R. Ishmael, quoted above, was openly objected 
 to by the Amoraim, ‘Said Abayye: Many acted ac- 
 cording to R. Ishmael, and they were successful; 
 while those who followed R. Simon failed.’’39 And 
 we also know that Rabba ordered his pupils to stay 
 home during certain seasons of the year, for the pur- 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 269 
 
 pose of enabling them to attend to their agricultural 
 duties. *4° 
 
 But we notice that R. Simon ben Yohai himself 
 well realized the difficulty of putting his theories into 
 practical life. He said by way of regret: ‘‘ How could 
 one spend his time in the study of the Torah, not 
 knowing whence his support would come? This 
 was only possible to those who lived on the manna, 
 orto the priests who were supported by the terumah.,”’™ 
 In view of this, it is not at all surprizing that, with 
 all his tendency toward asceticism, R. Simon was 
 fully alive to the importance of work, which he es- 
 teemed very highly. It was said in his name: “‘Great 
 is the importance of honest work. For the generation 
 of the flood was destroyed only because of its igno- 
 minious dealings.’’4 
 
 In this connection it will be of interest to note 
 of R. Eleazar of Modi‘in, who, on one occasion, said: 
 ‘‘He who is provided for the day and worries about 
 the morrow lacks faith’’ “3—a statement well showing 
 his inclination towards asceticism—that the same 
 R. Eleazar praised very highly the person who is en- 
 gaged in business, saying: ‘‘One who is honestly en- 
 gaged in trade is regarded as if he observed the whole 
 Torah,’’™4 
 
 POSITION OF WORK IN JUDAISM 
 
 This brings us to the position of labor in Judaism, 
 which proved another safeguard against the danger 
 of praising poverty too much, thereby raising it to a 
 regular cult and organizing under its auspices a whole 
 
270 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 
 
 chain of pauper communities, or mendicant orders. 
 I do not wish to enter here upon the question of the 
 dignity of work which distinguished Judaism so much 
 from almost all the nations of antiquity. Much 
 has been written about it. We all know that nearly 
 the majority of the rabbis, in the tannaitic period, 
 practised the humble professions of tailor, shoemaker 
 blacksmith, etc. But I must say a few words upon 
 its theological aspect and spiritual possibilities. 
 
 We have already mentioned, in another place, 
 the statement: ‘‘He who enjoys the toil of his hand 
 is greater than he who fears God.’’“5 This sounds 
 rather a bit exaggerated. But let us examine the 
 following: ‘An excellent thing is the study of the 
 Torah combined with some wordly occupation, for 
 the labor demanded by both of them makes sin to 
 be forgotten. All study of the Law without work 
 must in the end be futile and become the cause of 
 sin’’.%4° Jn this passage the value of labor is empha- 
 sized through its negative side, being important only 
 as a means to divert the mind from sin. We have 
 however, other statements, wherein manual labor 
 is required as an end in itself, and is exalted to the 
 highest religious virtue. 
 
 In the first place, the rabbis tell us that the 
 obligation of doing work constitutes a divine com- 
 mandment of the Torah. ‘Israel was charged to 
 do work on the six days, just as they were ordered 
 to rest on the seventh day. For it is written: ‘Six 
 days shalt thou labor and do thy work, and on the 
 seventh day shalt thou rest’’’.7 To labor as a com- 
 mandment of the Torah means, then, to worship 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 271 
 
 God in this particular day. For this reason accord- 
 ing to the rabbis, it was called ‘Abodah (AAYy) 
 namely ‘abodat ha-Shem (‘'A n72Y) which means 
 the worship of God.™8 
 
 Labor was, moreover, raised to a religious in- 
 stitution. For we are told that the bestowal of work 
 upon Israel, as well as the giving of the Torah, was 
 accompanied by a covenant between God and Israel.149 
 It has further a propitiatory, or protective effect.15° 
 It causes sin to be forgiven, and saves one from trouble. 
 And we are also told that he who is engaged in work 
 causes the Shekinah to dwell upon Israel.¥! For 
 work is a divine quality which men should try to ac- 
 quire. It is the creative attribute, the primeval re- 
 alization of His holy will, calling all beings into ex- 
 istence. Man imitating this quality, inasmuch as 
 he is producing for the sake of kzyyum ha-‘olam 
 (ohn orp) the perpetuation of the world, shares 
 in a divine work.'s? 
 
 The following passage, however, shows an ex- 
 ception to the general idea, prevalent in rabbinic lit- 
 erature, of the high esteem in which labor was held. 
 “‘As soon as one was appointed chief or head of the 
 community, he is no more allowed to engage in man- 
 ual labor in the presence of three persons.’’%3 But 
 there can be no doubt that this prohibition applied 
 only to the chief magistrate, who was usually one in 
 the community.*4 And this was with no other pur- 
 pose than that of impressing the people with his im- 
 portance. One commentator justly remarked, in 
 connection with this rule against work, that a similar 
 custom existed in Britain where the magistrates kept 
 
272 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 aloof socially from the attorney and other practi- 
 tioners of the court, in order that the latter should 
 respect them more. Then, again, it was only while 
 holding office, and during that time only in the pres- 
 ence of the people, that these dignitaries were to re- 
 frain from doing any labor. But before their ap- 
 pointment, or even after promotion, in private, they 
 no doubt engaged in the husbanding of their farms. 
 
 The ban on work in such cases is of little signif- 
 icance, indeed, as regards the effect on the Jewish 
 attitude towards labor as a whole. The disdain for 
 manual labor among the Jews, which we find described 
 by Smolensky and others,*5 was the result of the de- 
 cline and decay which set in Jewish life during the 
 Middle Ages. The price which our rabbis and 
 leaders paid for their unfavorable attitude towards 
 labor was indeed very high. For it was that atti- 
 tude which caused the rise of the proletariat, in 
 Germany and Russia, who rebelled against the in- 
 fluence of the real Jewish leaders, and thus took their 
 revenge. 
 
 But let us return to the olden times, when labor 
 was a religious institution, in which the nation took 
 a pride and which endowed it with such spiritual pos- 
 sibilities as to make laziness, even holy laziness, im- 
 possible and incompatible with a really religious life. 
 This excluded every thought of bringing poverty into 
 a regular religious system and of endowing mendi- 
 cancy with a certain celestial halo as the best means 
 of salvation. With the Jew, the blessing of God and 
 salvation lay in the opposite direction, in activity 
 and work. And it is very interesting to see how the 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 273 
 
 rabbis perceived an admonition for work and labor 
 from which no man can emancipate himself, in the 
 words: ‘“‘And the Lord thy God will bless thee in all 
 that thou doest’’, which is the concluding verse of | 
 a group of laws dealing mostly with the giving of 
 charity to the poor, gifts to the freed slaves, etc.*® 
 
 PROHIBITION OF CELIBACY 
 
 But the most important safeguard Judaism had 
 against the danger of an exaggerated idealization of 
 poverty and deprivation, and which preserved it at 
 the same time from the excesses of asceticism so ram- 
 pant in other religions, was the prohibition of celibacy. 
 This prohibition, or, to speak in a positive way, the 
 institution of marriage, or the divine commandment 
 of the propagation of the race, gave both Jewish 
 thought and Jewish institutions a complexion of their 
 own. It called into being new standards of duty, 
 and created the adam mtiyytsrael which is a type of 
 its own. Judaism has scholars, or talmide hakamim, 
 it has pious men and pious women, it has saints and 
 martyrs, but there is no room in it for the religious 
 community, or religious order, as contrasted with 
 the rest of the people among whom the former dwell. 
 
 No doubt the religious orders proved the leaven 
 of the community in their religious influence. But 
 the effect of celibacy was that the community became 
 divided into two elements, the leaven and the dough, 
 which is a most unhealthy state of things. In Ju- 
 daism, however, through the lawof marriage, the leaven 
 and the dough comingled so thoroughly that every 
 
274 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 particle of the community consisted of dough and 
 leaven, which is the only normal condition of things. 
 
 All this was the consequence of the law of 775 
 man. Whatever his aspirations to a superior holi- 
 ness, the Jew always remained the father or member 
 of a family with all the duties and responsibilities 
 incidental thereto. 
 
 Now a few words with regard to this law, and 
 its particular influence on the problem of philanthropy. 
 
 In Pirke Abot we read that one ought to marry 
 at the age of eighteen.’ Only those who wished 
 to devote themselves to the study of the Torah were 
 allowed to remain single after that age.5® In another 
 place it is stated that one should not live a life of cel- 
 ibacy, unless he had already begot children.%* There 
 is a difference of opinion between the school of Sham- 
 mai and that of Hillel as to the number of the children 
 and their sex. While according to the former he 
 must have had at least two male children, the latter 
 maintained that one male and one female child are 
 sufficient. But all agree as to the individual obli- 
 gation to propagate the species. 
 
 As a final decision in this matter, the following 
 statement of R. Nahman, in the name of Samuel, 
 was accepted. ‘A man is forbidden to remain single 
 even if he has children from a previous marriage.’’™® 
 Of the tannaitic period we know only of one man, 
 Ben “Azzai, who refused to marry, saying, as an ex- 
 cuse for his celibacy: ‘‘What shall I do? My soul de- 
 sireth the Torah.’’** But even he married, in his 
 younger years, the daughter of R. Akiba, whom he 
 divorced at a latter period." In the Middle Ages 
 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 275 
 
 there were R. Judah Brieli and R. Moses Hayyim 
 Luzzatto, both of Italy, who never married—a fact 
 which provoked against them the displeasure of the 
 sages of that time. I have not found any one, even 
 among those who contested rabbinic authority, with 
 the exception of the author of the famous work Be- 
 hinat ha-Kabbalah,*®8 who disputed or tried to weaken 
 the law of propagation. 
 
 It all goes to show that the nation as a whole 
 has accepted marriage as an obligation of the individual, 
 though a few exceptions may be pointed out who 
 acted to the contrary. This fact not only counter- 
 acted all tendencies towards asceticism, but influenced 
 the whole attitude toward the question of charity— 
 its extent and its limitations. It created a new centre 
 of duties, attachments, and tender sympathies, en- 
 couraged and fostered by religion, and not less by 
 nature. 
 
 THE FAMILY AND CHARITY 
 
 This centre was the family. The words of the 
 Psalmist: ‘‘Happy are they that do justice, and do 
 righteousness at all times’’,'*4 were interpreted to 
 refer to those who support their children of minor 
 age.*® This interpretation forms the basis for a law 
 to the same effect. There is a difference of opinion 
 as to the age they cease to be minors, when the fath- 
 er’s responsibility ends. This point will be discussed 
 later ;*© at present it is sufficient to show that the fath- 
 er’s obligation to support his children comes under 
 the heading of charity. 
 
276 STUDIES IN JUDAISM 
 
 This centre which begins with the family is grad- 
 ually extended, according to the means of the bene- 
 factor, till it includes all the poor people of the world. 
 To illustrate this principle, let us quote the follow- 
 ing: ‘‘He who has much provision in his house, and 
 wants to support others....his father and mother 
 come first, then, of what is left over, he should sup- 
 port his brothers and sisters; next come the people of 
 his house, 2. e., his slaves; of what is still left over, 
 he should support other relatives, and next come the 
 poor of his neighborhood, and then the poor of all 
 Israel.’’*&% 
 
NOTES 
 
ey 
 Ae ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 EAE VA ; " Dei 7 . 
 4 Ka es AnD oe ae {i Dh 
 ‘i ‘ UP ane iw) 
 ma ete fart 
 Hy: Ss Ati 
 
 i , ie u J vo hua i Ly 
 Wom "kD, ded tie oy Xp enka ip 
 
 
 
 We 
 a 
 a me ie 
 begs 
 An 
 
 hi BAS ‘OO’ a be ane 
 i 4 ‘) iit hea vt vie. “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 MT ‘Via ry ) 
 | Avene Eat aan re 4 a 
 ; . ee i eae |} AR ae ti 1} ae 
 . | Pig ; \ Ww Ki i 
 , 9 Re t #\ ss lee? ole Saree eudty ma 
 | ; eas | s 
 Mena ‘ - 7 hy i Py  aaee® 
 aL 4 Rees j \ waite’ ia 
 
 
 
 / ¥, ’ J P F : j 
 , if \ c \/ ’ ‘ i j F ¥ 
 j peo ‘ » Pa 4; ah ‘ | ie 
 oye ) se i i ee ; 
 
 Seated eevins aot 
 eh vn are a oe pokes pean) elit ea Mee 
 
JEWISH SAINTS IN MEDIAEVAL GERMANY 
 
 [This essay was read before Temple Beth El, New York, 
 about 1903.] 
 
 “AS OTHERS SAW HIM” 
 
 [This essay first appeared in the Jewish Chronicle of London, 
 May 10-17, 1895, as an anonymous review of an anonymous vo- 
 lume under theabovetitle(London, Heinemann,1895) which in later 
 editions appeared under the name of the author Joseph Jacobs.] 
 
 t {See D. Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, Peters- 
 burg, 1892, pp. 53-4.] 
 
 2 The whole story of the Hanan bazaars is probably based 
 on a wrong reading—Beth Hanan instead of Beth Hini or Beth- 
 ania; see Monatsschrift, 1877, p. 532; Kohut, ‘Aruk III, p. 450. 
 
 3 By the way, the reference in Holtzman’s Handkommentar, 
 Mark, 22,37—Bereshith Raba is wrong and ought to be Rabbati 
 as in Raymundus Martini, Pugio fider, p. 476. 
 
 ABRAHAM GEIGER 
 
 [This essay was written as a review of Abraham Geiger, 
 Leben und Lebenswerk, Berlin, 1910, but was not published.—All 
 references of page numbers without title are to this volume.] 
 
 t [Ludwig Geiger died in 1920.] 
 
 2 Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums, 1896. 
 
 3 London, 1898, p. 37. 
 
 LEOPOLD ZUNZ 
 
 [This essay was written in 1889 for a prize offered by the New 
 York Jewish Ministers’ Association, which was awarded for it 
 in 1890. The intention to enlarge it (see p. 140) and to add 
 some of Zunz’s unpublished notes (see p. 137) was never carried 
 out. In 1894 Maybaum, Aus dem Leben von Leopold Zunz, p. 
 2, note 2, mentions this essay as soon to appear.] 
 
 tSee, ¢. g., Zunz’s admirable preface to Krochmal’s 77 
 yotm °3123, which Zunz edited (Lemberg, 1851), also his biography 
 of R. Azariah de Rossi in the periodical 79M 075 vol. V, 131, seq. 
 
280 NOTES 
 
 In the periodical Jedidja (ed. by Heinemann) of 1818 Zunz gives 
 a Hebrew translation of the poem Die Sommernacht by Klop- 
 stock. 
 
 2For sources about the early youth of Zunz see Jost’s article 
 Vor einem halben Jahrhundert in Pascheles, Sippurim, III, p. 
 141, seg. See also Zunz’s pamphlet Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg, 
 Inspector der Samsonischen Fretschule zu Wolfenbiittel (Brun- 
 swick, 1854) according to which Jost’s unfavorable account of this 
 institution before 1807 may bea little modified. Other accounts 
 are to be found in Swulamith, II, 131 seg. and in Onrent, 
 1844, Nos. 5-8. [For sources of Zunz’s biography see now 
 Geiger, Aus Leopold Zunz, Nachlass, Zeitschrift fiir die Geschichte 
 der Juden in Deutschland, V. 1892, pp. 233-68; S. Maybaum, 
 Aus dem Leben von Leopold Zunz, Berlin, 1894, and S. P. Rabino- 
 witz’s Hebrew biography, Warsaw, 1896.] 
 
 The name Zunz occurring very seldom, we may perhaps 
 draw attention here to R. Aryeh Leb Zunz (died 1833) of 
 Russia, known in the rabbinical literature by many works. 
 See winn odin ow I. 42, No. 23. See also 7y nbap 
 p1sm. We owe this information to the kindness of our 
 estimable friend Dr. S. Neumann, the president of the Cur- 
 atorium of the Zunz-Stiftung in Berlin. [See also M. Brann 
 and D. Kaufmann, Leopold Zunz und seine Famulie, Breslau, 
 1895 (reprint from Monatsschrift, 1894) pp. 3-15; Kaufmann, Die 
 Familie Zunz, including 52 tumular inscriptions from Frankfurt, 
 19-26; Brann, Leopold Zunz und seine Frankfurter Ahnen with 
 family-tree, 29-32; Kaufmann, R. Loeb Zunz.] 
 
 3 [See Steinschneider’s introduction to the second edition 
 of the G. V. p. XV.] 
 
 4See the chapter ‘‘Jung Palaestina’”’ in Strodtmann’s Heine’s 
 Leben und seine Werke. The passage quoted is only to be found in 
 the first edition (Berlin, 1867). 
 
 5 See the remarks of Gans quoted by Strodtmann in the 
 above mentioned book, p. 300 (second edition). Immanuel 
 Wolf’s essay Ueber den Begriff einer Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 
 in Zunz’s Zettschrift (pp. 1-25) is nothing else but arather lengthy 
 paraphrase of Gans’ remarks. Comp. also Zunz, Zur Geschichte, 
 pp. 1-2. 
 
NOTES 281 
 
 6 Heine’s Gesammelie Werke (ed. Karpeles), VIII, Berlin, 
 1887, p. 385. 
 
 7 See Zunz’s Zettschrift, p. 539. 
 
 8 Heine’s Gesammelte Werke, VIII, 359. 
 
 9 Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, II, 183-190. Comp. also 
 his Vorrede to his Predigten, Berlin, 1846. 
 
 t0 Besides the authorities quoted in the last six notes see also 
 Graetz, Geschichte, X1, 408-598, and compare also Geiger’s Nach- 
 gelassene Schriften, I, 301. S. Stern and Ritter in their histories 
 of the Jewish reformation give a more favorable account of 
 this time; they perhaps do more than justice to the noble efforts 
 of such men as Friedlaender, Jacobsohn, and a few others. But 
 in general as far as they concern the unhappy state of Jewish 
 literature and the mismanagement of the communities in that 
 period, Zunz’s statements are true, and we have followed them 
 in the text. Comp. also the interesting correspondence be- 
 tween M. A. Stern and G. Riesser in the Zeitschrift fiir die 
 Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland, II, 47, seq. 
 
 tt See the article Massora Talmud Kabbala Grammatik in 
 historischer Wirksamkeit, which was reprinted in the Gesammelte 
 Schriften, III, 80, seg. 
 
 12 Gesammelte Schriften, 1, 1-31. See especially note 2 on 
 p. 12. 
 
 13 See Zunz’s Zeitschrift, 277-384, where this essay on Rashi 
 was published. A few corrections to this essay are given by Zunz 
 himself in the preface to the Goittesdienstliche Vortrdge, p. 
 XI-XII. S. Bloch in his Hebrew translation of this biography 
 also corrects Zunzin some places. The last and best biography of 
 Rashi is by I. H. Weiss, "wantin, Wien, 1882. [M. Liber, 
 Rashi, Philadelphia, 1906; E. M. Lipschiitz, pry’ mw ‘9, War- 
 saw, 1912.] About the historical importance of this essay see 
 Zunz's Zur Geschichie, 158; Philippson’s Allgemeine Zeitung des 
 Judenthums, 1886, 246. 
 
 % See Heine’s Gesammelie Werke (ed. Karpeles), UX, p. 50. 
 
 1% Geiger’s Nachgelassene Schriften, V, 81; comp. I, 307. 
 
 % Quoted by Steinschneider in the first edition of his 
 pamphlet, Die Schriften des Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1857), p. 6. 
 
 17 See Bloch in the Graetz-Jubelschrift, p.214, note. [Now 
 
282 NOTES 
 
 in the Library of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris, MS. 
 106, see REJ, XL, p. 36.] 
 
 8 See Sy nus, p. 602; comp. Magazin, 1880, p.59; arefuta- 
 tion of Samiler by Rapoport is to be found in ono 75 VI, 
 96, seq. 
 
 17 See Rapoport’s sharp review of this work in N05 
 VI, 204, seg. It is only just to mention that in a later work Chajes 
 confessed his injustice against Zunz and deeply regretted it. 
 
 20 See e.g. Krochmal, j2I7 D133 7, chap. XIII. Geiger’s Ur- 
 schrift, 302, seq., and Nachgelassene Schriften, 1,12, seg., and almost 
 the whole of Weiss’ first two volumes of his Geschichte der Jiid- 
 ischen Tradition, deal with this subject. Comp. Z. Frankel, Vor- 
 studien zu der Septuaginia, p. XII. 
 
 2 We are thinking of such works as Frankel’s and Freud- 
 enthal’s on the influence of the Haggadah on the Alexandrian 
 schools; see Graetz, Rahmer, and others on the relation between 
 the Midrash and the patristic literature; Kohut on the relation 
 between the Babylonian Talmud and Parsism; Geiger and 
 others on the influence of Judaism on Mohammedanism. 
 
 22 See Vorrede zu Das Lied der Lieder von Reben- 
 stein (1834, republished in the Gesammelte Schriften, I, 142); 
 Salfeld, Das Hohelied bei den jiidischen Erkidrern des Muttel- 
 alters (Magazin, 1878, 110, seg. and 1879, 20, seg.). Again, Namen 
 der Juden (Berlin 1839, Gesammelte Schriften II, 1), the A dditamenta 
 ad Delitzschi Catalogum, Grimma, 1838 (especially Nrs. III-XI- 
 XXVII) about Tosafists; the essays relating to the geographical 
 literature of the Jews published first in English and republished 
 in the German original in the Gesammelte Schriften, 1, 146; II, 265. 
 
 23 See the introduction to the Literaturgeschichte der Syn- 
 agogalen Poesie, pp. V, VI. 
 
 24 In this index by Gestetner, Berlin, 1889, are also 
 included the Nachtrége zur Literaturgeschichte by Zunz (Berlin, 
 1867). See also Gesammelie Schriften, I, 123, and ha-Maszkir 
 XI, 68, and XII, 58. 
 
 7s See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 284, No. 1, 
 to which among others Landshut’s 7137 "Ny and Luzzatto’s 
 owpn md may be added. 
 
 a6 See P. F. Frankl, Fragmente einer Kalir’schen Keroba 
 
NOTES 283 
 
 (Zunz-Jubelschrift, p. 160), also Ziemlich on the Nurenberg 
 Mahzor, Magazin, 1884, 113;1885, 45 seqg.;comp. also Kaufmann’s 
 pamphlet Paul de Lagardes Jiidische Gelehrsamkeit. [Freimann, 
 Zum Machsor Ritus von Aleppo, Zettschrift fiir Hebrdische 
 Bibliographie, XVI, 1913, pp. 59-65; Davidson, Mahzor Yannaz, - 
 1919 and his forthcoming Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry.] 
 
 27 See e. g. Gesammelte Schriften, III, 31, 50, and elsewhere. 
 
 28 See Geiger’s, Nachgelassene Schriften, V, 363; Stern’s 
 Geschichte d. Jud. etc., 223, Philippson, Allgemeine Zeitung des 
 Judentums, 1864, 508. 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 29 All these points touched by the author only en passant 
 (comp. below, pp. 329, 351, and 410), which concern also the 
 division of the sections in the Midrash Rabbah, have been treated 
 by Rapoport, Dérenbourg, Bloch, Friedmann, Theodor, and 
 lastly by A. Epstein in his book O77 NvYNO TPM or “ Beitrdge 
 zur judischen Alterthumskunde”’ (pp. 57-63), in which the reference 
 to these authors will be found and to which may be added 
 Graetz’s article Ueber die Entwicklung der Pentateuch-Perikopen- 
 Vorlesung (Monatsschrift, 1869, 385, seg). Dérenbourg’s other 
 article, La section de Mischpatim in Revue des Etudes Juives, III, 
 284 and J. Briill’s remarks in the Beth Talmud,J,108. About the 
 Haftarahs, and those from the Psalms in particular, see Rapoport, 
 ‘Erek Millin s. v. SNUBS; Monatsschrift, 1862, 222, and lastly 
 Graetz, Kritischer Commentar zu den Psalmen, I, p. 8, seq. [Theo- 
 dor, Die Midraschim zum Pentateuch und der dretjahrige 
 Paldstinensische Cyclus, Monatsschrift, 1885-87; Biichler, The 
 Reading of the Law and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle, JOR, V, 
 420-68; VI, 1-73]—We have to remark here that in this, as 
 well as in the following notes, we shall only give references 
 to essays and books which we cannot presume to be known 
 to every student, and we shall thus leave out the references 
 to the histories of Herzfeld, Graetz, and Weiss, with which 
 every Hebrew scholar is acquainted. Nor shall we give re- 
 ferences to subjects relating to Bible criticism or the compo- 
 sition of the Apocrypha, as the authorities about any particular 
 point might be easily ascertained in every larger theological 
 
284 NOTES 
 
 
 
 encyclopedia. [New editions of Midrashim and recent literature 
 on them which can be found in Strack, Einlettung in Talmud und 
 Midrash, fifth edition, Munich, 1921, are as a rule not added to 
 these notes.] 
 
 39 See Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, Il, p. 8, 
 note, to which Dr. Neubauer’s essay On the Dialects Spoken in 
 Palestine in the Time of Christ, Oxford, 1885, has to be added. 
 
 3t It is hardly necessary to call attention here to the authors 
 of the critical school who wrote on the same books both before 
 (De Wette) and after Zunz. We shall only refer here to Zunz’s 
 studies in Bible criticism of a later date in his Gesammelte Schrif- 
 ten, I, 217-270, where it is clear that he followed most advanced 
 schools in more respects than one. Comp. Geiger, Nach- 
 gelassene Schriften, “VV, 364. 
 
 32 See a large list of authorities on these points in Schiirer, 
 p. 143, and note 124 on p. 291, to which Krochmal’s ]510 '3)2) AN 
 (chapters 11, 12, and 13) may be added. 
 
 33 See Ben Chananjah, X, Forschungen, p. 221, seg. [L. Léw, 
 Gesammelte Schriften, 1V, Szegedin, 1898, p. 211, seq.] 
 
 34 See below, p. 57, seg.,and 231, seg. See also Rapoport ‘Erek 
 Millin, 6, seq. 
 
 35 See TWN, p. 94. 
 
 36 See Krochmal’s work cited above p. 187, seg. [see 
 also below, article Talmud, notes.] 
 
 37 [See below, article Talmud, note 14.] 
 
 38 [See the literature on the Tosefta problem in Strack, 
 Einleitungs, 75-76; comp. JOR, NS, XIII, 354.] 
 
 39 [See article Talmud.] 
 
 4° [See Briill, Die Entstehung des babylonischen Talmud 
 als Schriftwerk in his Jahrbicher, 11, 28 seq; Epstein, REJ, 
 XXXVI, 222-367.] 
 
 4x [On the decay of the Babylonian schools much fresh 
 material has come to light from the Genizah in Schechter’s 
 Saadyana and elsewhere.] 
 
 42 [Schechter found a fuller text of this book in Mss. and 
 intended a critical edition; see Neubauer, Medieval Jewish Chron- 
 acles, I, p. VI, note 5; II, p. VIII seq.] 
 
 43 See Reifmann’s pamphlet 137 2'wD, Vienna, 1866. 
 
NOTES 285 
 
 44 See Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, 3, p. XXIX. 
 
 4s See above, note 34; comp. also Dérenbourg’s essay on the 
 Tractate Yoma in the REJ, VI, 41, and Lerner’s article Die 
 Gltesten Compositionen der Mischna in Magazin, 1886, I. 
 Again J. Briill’s mwon sian and J. Oppenheim, mwon mobin. 
 
 46 See the treatises mentioned above, note 37. 
 
 41 See Kirchheim’s edition of the nvo>wry mwp mns0n yav; 
 Briill’s essay on the tractate Semahot (Jahrbiicher, I, 1, seq.) 
 and Masseket Kallah published by Coronel in his won 
 mD’O"wWp (Vienna, 1867). 
 
 48 See Steinschneider’s edition of the nin Niwn, Berlin, 1864. 
 
 49 See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 277. 
 
 8° See Steinschneider, Jbid., p. 277, note 32; Pineles, 7377 
 mn bw, p. 257. Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, III, 242, Graetz, 
 Monatsschrift, 1884, 46, and Epstein, Beztrdge, 18-22. [He- 
 brdische Bibliograpme, XVII, 8-10.] 
 
 st See J. Miiller’s introduction to his critical edition of this 
 tractate (Leipzig, 1878). See also T"WM7N, p. 77. 
 
 52 See above. The last essay on this book is by Reifmann, 
 Beth Talmud, III, 242. [Ginzberg, Geontca, I 75 seq; Kaminka in 
 Schwarz- Festschrift, 431, seq]. 
 
 53 See above. See also MHalberstam’s introduction to 
 the MpiDb mabn, Paris (1886), where all the references on the 
 subject are given, to which Schorr’s in the Zunzg Jubelschrift 
 (II, 127), Hildesheimer’s Programm Die Vaticanische Hand- 
 schrift der Halachoth Gedoloth [and his edition, Berlin, 1888-92, 
 A. Epstein in Ha-Goren, III, 46, seg., Ginzberg, 1. c.99, seg., Poz- 
 nanski, L’original araméen des Halachot Pesoukot, REJ, LXIII, 
 232-44, J. N. Epstein, JOR, N.S., IV, 422-34, and Jahrbuch der 
 Jtud. literar. Gesellschaft, XII, 96-131] may be added. 
 
 54 See Zunz, Die Ritus, p. 184. Many new collections of 
 the Responsa of the Geonim have been added since. See, e.g. 
 the collection edited by Harkavy, p. 341, note 1, [Ginzberg, 
 Geonica, II, etc]. 
 
 55 See Blumenthals’ R. Meir, p. 17, seg. and Back, Die Fabel 
 in Talmud und Midrasch, Monatsschrift, 1875-84. 
 
 56 See Lebrecht, Kritische Lese, p. 12. 
 
 57 See Briill, Entstehung etc. des Tractates Aboth (Jahrbtcher, 
 
286 NOTES 
 
 VII, 1-17) where the references to other authorities are to be 
 found. 
 
 58 See Schechter’s introduction to his edition of this tractate. 
 
 59 See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, pp.41 and 273, note 
 63; Halberstam, in his notes to the above-mentioned won 
 OD WIP, pp. 113-115; Tawrogi’s edition of the Derek Erez Zuta 
 (KGnigsberg, 1885), and Epstein, Beztrdge, p. 113. 
 
 60 See above p. 85 note c. See also Giidemann, Geschichte 
 etc. der Juden in Italien, pp. 50 and 300, where the literature is 
 collected. 
 
 6t See Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, I., p. XX. 
 
 62 See Landshut’s edition of the Haggadah (under the title, 
 MWS TI, Berlin 1856). See also Perles in Graetz—Jubel- 
 schrift, p. 37. 
 
 63 See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 46 and notes; 
 also Neubauer’s introduction to his Medieval Jewish Chronicles, 
 p. VII, and notes. 
 
 64 See Steinschneider, zbid. 49. 
 
 6 See Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, 1, p. XX; 6, p. VII. 
 
 66 [See Steinschneider, Geschichishiteratur, § 9, Monatsschrift, 
 XXXIX,)p.128, LXI,' p.i7, seq 
 
 67 See Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, 2, p. XXVIII; 3, p. 
 XIV; 5, p. X [Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, Pressburg, 1891; Stein- 
 schneider, Geschichtsliteratur, § 18; Schloessinger, The Ritual of 
 Eldad, Leipzig, 1908.] 
 
 68 Jellinek, zbid. 2, XXI, [I. Levi, REJ, LXVIII-LXX]J]. 
 
 69 Jellinek, ibid. 2, p, XVIII. 
 
 70 Jellinek, zbid. 2. XXIII, and 6, XVII; also Zunz, Die 
 Synagogale Poesie, p. 142, seq. 
 
 7 See Jellinek, zbid. 1, XVIII. See also D'75DT TIN, p. 
 301 no. 613, and Briill, Jahrbticher IV, 128, note 3. 
 
 72 See Jellinek, zbid. 3. p. IX. 
 
 7%3 About these Midrashim see Jellinek, zd. 1, p. XVII, 
 XXI, 2. p. VII, 6, p. X XI. Seealso Beer’s Leben Moses etc.in the 
 Jahrbuch fiir die Geschichte des Judenthums, Leipzig, 1863-1864. 
 
 74 Besides Steinschneider in his Catalogue Col. 1574 and 
 Jewish Literature, pp. 77 and 290, see Magazin, 1876, Heb. 017 and 
 153. Geiger’s Zeitschrift, VII, 215. I. Levi’s introduction to his 
 
NOTES 287 
 
 
 
 edition of the 7mo0Dbxnbin (in the Sammelband of the Mekize 
 Nirdamin, 11). [Steinschneider, Geschichtsliteratur, § 19; ed. 
 Giinzburg-Kahana, Berdychev, 1896-1913.] 
 
 78 See Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, III, 98. See also Stein- 
 schneider, Jewish Literature, 45-49 and notes about all these 
 Midrashim. 
 
 74 See above, note 31. 
 
 7 See Castelli’s introduction to his edition of this book and 
 Epstein’s Beitrdge, p. 43 and 47 [and REJ, XXVIII-X XIX]. See 
 Commentary on Sefer Yezirah by R. Judah b. Barzillai, ed. by 
 Halberstam, Berlin, 1885. 
 
 7% See about the contents of this chapter Steinschneider, zbzd. 
 p. 50 and 105-109 and notes. See also Graetz’s essay: Dive 
 mystische Literatur in der gaondischen Zeit, Monatsschrift, 1859, 
 p. 67, seq. 
 
 77 See Blumenthal, R. Meir (Frankfurt a. M., 1888), pp. 24 
 and 134. 
 
 80 See Lerner’s Anlage and Quellen des Bereschit Rabbah 
 (Berlin, 1882), Abrahams, The Sources of the Midrash Echa 
 Rabbati, Dessau, 1881. 
 
 8t See Buber’s edition of the Pesikta. See also Jellinek, 
 ”n DADNp, 48, about the reviews of this edition in which the 
 merits of the chapter are discussed. Comp. also Epstein, 
 Beitrige, 61, seq.; Friedmann, Beth Talmud, V, 1, seq. 
 
 82 See Buber’s Introduction to his edition of the Tanhuma 
 where this chapter is translated and discussed. Against Buber, 
 Epstein in his pamphlet 8DININN ~MM7P (Wien, 1886). Weiss 
 Beth Talmud, V,37; Schorr, he-Haluz, XII, [Briill, Jahrbticher, 
 VIII, 121, seq.] 
 
 83 Besides the authorities cited above, n. 80, see also Fried- 
 mann’s introduction to his edition of this Pesikta (Vienna, 1880), 
 p. 25. Against Friedmann the review of the edition in the 
 Monatsschrift, 1882, p. 284. 
 
 84 See Buber’s RUT OAT Tbs wrtoD oMpd (Wien, 1885). 
 
 8 Epstein’s Beitrdge, pp. 67, seg., and 76, seg. Comp. Jel- 
 linek, Beth ha-Midrasch, 4, p. XIV, and Buber’s introduction to the 
 Tanhuma, 42b, note 2 [and his new edition] about the Aggadath 
 Bereshith. With regard to the seventy names of God, etc. 
 
288 NOTES 
 
 
 
 (262, note c) see Landau’s pamphlet Die... Synonyme fiir Gott, etc., 
 Zurich, 1888, p. 5, and note 2, and Salzer’s communication on 
 Midrash Lekah Tob, Magazin, 1879, p. 149, [Schechter, A gadath 
 Shir Hashirim, 82 seq; and notes]. 
 
 86 See Jellinek, cbid. 1, p. XIV and XV; Horowitz, Sammlung 
 Kleiner Midraschim, 1, 47, and Buber’s introduction to "15D 
 NNN, Wilna, 1886. [Gaster, Semitic Studies, 1897, pp. 173-8. 
 Comp. Bacher, REJ, XXXV, p. 28]. 
 
 87 See Luzzatto’s correspondence (bw mas), 269 and 605. 
 Comp. also Jellinek, zi:d. 5, p. XXIX and XXXII. 
 
 88 See Horowitz, cited work, p. 11, and Friedmann, Beth 
 Talmud, II, 187. 
 
 89 Besides Steinschneider, Catalogue, p. 633, and Jewish Lite- 
 rature, p.53, Horowitz, Bibliotheca agadica, I, 1-6, and AMND NUS 
 (appendix to the Beth Talmud I), and Epstein, Beitrdge, p. 19. 
 
 99 See the authorities given above, note 86. 
 
 9t See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 274, note 73. 
 (Buber, D8w NDI I, 309]. 
 
 92 See Jellinek, zbid. 3, p. XX XV, see also Epstein’s new 
 edition of this Midrash (appended to his Beztrdge). 
 
 93 See Zunz’s Gesammelte Schriften, III, 251 and 274, 5. See 
 also Buber’s introduction to the Midrash Lekah Tob, 21a, note 25. 
 
 % See Jellinek, zbid. I, p. XVII. See also Steinschneider, 
 Jewish Literature, 283, note 110. 
 
 9s See Buber’s VDI8 wtp ovIpy, Vienna, 1883. See 
 also Briill’s Jahrbticher VII, 145. [Epstein in Ha-Eschkol 
 VI, pp. 204-7.] 
 
 96 See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, 283, note 108. 
 
 ym myvyon MYyy wats. See Berliner O'7DiD noon, 
 p. 36, seg. [Marmorstein, Midrash Hasarot we-Yeterot, London, 
 1917.] 
 
 98 About these pieces see Jellinek,zbid.2, p. X XVII. See also 
 Horowitz, 7319 N35 (Frankfurt, 1888), p. 6, seg. (especially p. 7 
 about the VNIMNS "YDY). Comp. also Schechter’s article on 
 Israel Alnaqua’s Leuchter, Monatsschrift, 1885, 114, seq. (especial- 
 ly p. 124, note 1). 
 
 99 See Neubauer’s introduction to the book of Tobit, XVIII, 
 
NOTES 289 
 
 and Epstein’s pamphlets Bereshith Rabbati, Berlin, 1888 [and R. 
 Moses ha-Darshan, Vienna, 1891]. 
 
 100 See Buber’s introduction to his edition of Midrash Lekah 
 Tob, Wilna, 1880, and his edition of this Midrash on Esther in 
 the above-mentioned NNN "DD; Bamberger’s edition of this 
 Midrash on Ruth. Comp. Salzer, Magazin, 1879, 149, about 
 this Midrash on the Song of Songs; and Briill’s review of Buber’s 
 edition, Jahrbticher, V, 132. [on Lamentations ed. Nacht, 
 Frankfurta. M., 1895, ed. Greenup, London, 1908; on Ecclesiastes, 
 ed. Feinberg, Berlin 1904; 0n Song of Songs ed. Greenup, London, 
 1905.] 
 
 101 See Steinschneider, Catalogue, col. 2601, and Giidemann, Ge- 
 schichte....der Juden in Deutschland, p.11,note1. [Epstein in 
 Ha-Choker, I, 1891 and Ha-Eschkol, VI). 
 
 toa About similar divisions see Zunz’s Zur Geschichte, p. 22 
 and Gesammelie Schriften, I, 101. 
 
 13 See Frankel’s article Geist der Paldstinenischen und 
 Babylonischen Haggadah, in the Monatsschrift, 11 and III. Com- 
 pare his Introductio in Talmud Hierosolymitanum, 49-53; Schorr, 
 he-Haluz, XI. With regard to 309 note c. see J. Miiller’s 
 om bn, Vienna, 1878. [Briill, Jahrdticher, IV, 169, seq; 
 Finkelscherer in Lewy- Festschrift, 153 seq.] 
 
 104 With regard to the authority or the authorities touched 
 on by Zunz on p. 315, see Schorr, he-Halus, X, XI, XII; also Ho- 
 rowitz, Monatsschrift, 1883, p. 306. 
 
 105 Besides the above mentioned article 778 in Rapoport’s 
 ‘Erek Millin and Krochmal, ]0I7 "D121 TN, see also Weiss, Beth 
 Talmud, I, 120, seg., Friedmann, 1bid., Giidemann in the Zunz- 
 Jubelschrift, 111, seg. See also the reference in byw minis, 154 to 
 Zunz, 324, note e. 
 
 106 See the first three chapters; comp. also Freudenthal’s 
 treatise Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift, etc. (IV Mak- 
 kabderbuch), p. 4, seq. (Breslau, 1869). 
 
 107 See the articles of Krochmal, Weiss, and Rapoport as no- 
 ticed above, note 105. 
 
 108 See above, note 29. 
 
 109 Besides Lebrecht, Monaisschrift, 1852, p.99, and 1853, p. 
 97, see also Giidemann, Geschichte etc. der Juden in Italien, pp. 17 
 
290 NOTES 
 
 and 18. [The authenticity of the story of the four captives has 
 at least partly been refuted by Schechter’s discovery of Hushiel’s 
 letter, JOR, XI, 643-50. See Eppenstein, Beztrage zur Geschichte 
 und Literatur 1m geondischen Zettalter, Berlin, 1913, p. 149ff.] 
 
 m0 See Giidemann, zbid., p. 11, note 2. 
 
 m1 See Zunz, the first three chapters of his Literaturgeschichte 
 der synagogalen Poesie. Comp. P. F. Frankl, Zunz-Jubel- 
 schrift, 160, and his essay on Kalir in the Encyklopaedie of Ersch 
 and Gruber, II Sect., 32, p. 135. 
 
 m2 This point about the Franco-German schools of exegetes 
 is fully developed in Zunz’s Zur Geschichte. 
 3 See Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 299. 
 
 ™4 See P. F. Frankl’s article in the Encyclopaedie of Ersch 
 and Gruber, II Sect., 33, p. 18, note 50. 
 
 115 See Gitidemann, Geschichte... .der Juden, III, 225 and 280. 
 See also Griinbaum, Jiidisch-deutsche Chrestomathie, Leipzig, 1882. 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 116 See Monatsschrift, 1868, Abraham ben Isaak aus Nar- 
 bonne; 1869, Aaron Hakohen; 1871, 228, Isaak Or Zarua; 
 1885, 303, Elieser ben Joel Halevi; Magazin, 1874, 73, Die 
 Jiidischen Gelehrten v. Orleans; tbid. 106, Die Séhne des Jehuda 
 Chassid; 1875, 21, Isaak Malki Zedek aus Siponto; 1877, 17, 1878, 
 179, Sir Jehuda Leon; 1883,64, Das handschriftliche Werk A ssuphoth; 
 Revue des Etudes Juives, V, 167 and VII, 40, Simson ben Abra- 
 ham (of Sens). [Abraham ben David aus Posquieres, Monats- 
 schrift 1873-74; Zur Geschichte der Juden in Arles, ibid., 1878-82, 
 etc.; Gallia Judaica, Paris, 1897.] 
 
 117 Besides the already mentioned reviews by Beer and 
 Philippson, see notices in Orient, 1850,545 by ananonymousauthor 
 (comp., however, Steinschneider, Catalogue; col. 2778 nr. 20), 
 Ozar Nehmad, II, 9. The essays and notices in Zunz’s Ges- 
 ammelte Schriften, I, 41, 60, (republication from the Zur Ges- 
 chochte) Tl? 177, 183,210, TTT rae 60 Ga Zo. eee 
 224, 253-273 belong more or less to the same class of litera- 
 ture which the Zur Geschichte treats. This is also the case with 
 the pamphlet Die Monatstage des Kalenderjahres (Berlin, 1872). 
 
NOTES 291 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 118 See the Rev. A. Loewy’s English translation of this chapter 
 in the Miscellany of Hebrew Literature, I, 167, seg. See also 
 Dr. Beer’s review of this book (and also of the Ritus) in the 
 Monatsschrift, 1859, p. 176, seq. 
 
 APPENDIX D 
 
 119 [Schechter copied Zunz’s additions in his copy of Zur 
 Geschichte up to p. 130 and from 304 to 352, in several places 
 of Die Synagogale Poesie and all through Dze Ritus]. 
 
 120 [This criticism applies to the second edition of the G.V. 
 edited by Dr. N. Briill for the Zunz-Stiftung, Frankfurt a. M. 
 1892, whichcontains only Zunz’sownadditions, butadds an index]. 
 
 121 (The Synagogale Poesie was edited for the Zunz-Stiftung 
 by Professor Freimann, Frankfurt a. Main, 1920, with Zunz’sown 
 additions and with a supplement containing the sources for the 
 historical facts mentioned in the book. Freimann also published 
 from Zunz’s notes Mitteilungen aus hebraischen HSS. in Zeitschrift 
 ftir Hebriische Bibliographie, X1X, 1916, pp. 49-64, pp. 123-42]. 
 
 122 [See above note 17]. 
 
 ON THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 
 
 [This essay was first published in the Westminster Review 
 Vol. CXXIII (N.S. L. XVII) 1885, pp. 20-53, occasioned by 
 the appearance of Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the 
 Messiah (London, 1883)]. 
 
 1The epithet “‘ill-arranged,’’ although deliberately used, 
 will not be acceptable to all authorities. 
 
 2Some portions of the Haggadah, however, were written 
 down still earlier. Comp. Frankel, Introductio in Talmud Hie- 
 rosolymitanum, Sla. 
 
 3 The treatises and essays touching the publication of the 
 Talmud are too many to be enumerated here. We would, how- 
 ever, refer to the excellent article, Ueber die Entstehung des Tal- 
 mud, by N. Brill, which appeared in the second year of his Jahr- 
 biicher fiir jtidische Geschichte und Literatur, where the whole 
 of this literature is treated. Besides this, we must point to the 
 third volume of Weiss, Geschichte der Tradition (1883). 
 
 4See Frankel’s lecture on the study of the Talmud, p. 16. 
 
292 NOTES 
 
 The question there raised by Frankel has never yet been sat- 
 isfactorily answered. 
 
 5See Weiss, bid. 
 
 6See Briill, zbid. See also the Mnemotechnik des Talmuds, 
 by Jacob Brill. But the mnemotechnical helps to the Talmud 
 are probably, as Rapoport holds, comparatively modern, and 
 in any case of doubtful assistance. 
 
 7Out of very numerous instances we may here refer to Ne- 
 darim, 25b; comp. He-Haluz, XI, p. 7, seq. 
 
 8 See N. Krochmal’s book, Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman, p. 217, 
 seq., and Rapoport’s ‘Erek Millin, pp. 5-9. 
 
 9 See Teshubot ha-Geonim, editio Cassel, p. 23b. 
 
 t0 In order not to be too prolix, we have here confined our- 
 selves entirely to the Babylonian Talmud, but it will escape no 
 one interested in the matter that the same uncertainties are to 
 be met with in all the old rabbinical writings. Comp. Frankel, 
 tbid.; Zunz’s Gottesdienstliche Vortrige; Weiss, Geschichte der 
 Tradition, vols. II and III; as well as Lewy’s excellent and classic 
 treatise, Ueber die Mishnah des Abba Saul (Berlin, 1874), and 
 Schwarz’s work on the Tosefta, etc. 
 
 x0? [Soferim XV ii, see Néldeke and Wiinsche as quoted by 
 Josef S. Bloch, Israel und die Vélker, Vienna, 1922, pp. 256-7.] 
 
 See Dollinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum (Regensburg, 
 1857), especially the last chapter. 
 
 1‘Abodah Zarah, 10b. 
 
 3 Megillah, 9b, and parallel passages. 
 
 4 See Mekilta, 38b, Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, 
 vol. I, pp. 552-642; Ben-Chananja, 9th year, Supplement to 
 No. 35; Bacher, Agada der Amorder and other works. We need 
 scarcely add that we have touched upon this important subject 
 with the utmost superficiality, wishing rather to suggest than 
 to draw positive conclusions. One warning, however, may be 
 given in all certainty, namely, that no kabbalist or semi-kabbal- 
 ist works should be adduced or used in an attempt to sketch out 
 a Talmudictheology. Of all these works, such as Yezirah, Bahir, 
 the Zohar, and others, there is not a single one the early date 
 of which has not been denied by the most competent critics and 
 bibliographers. Whatever the exact epoch to which they belong, 
 
NOTES 293 
 
 they are at all events posterior to the completed Talmud. See 
 on this point Zunz, Rapoport, Steinschneider, and many others. 
 It is incomprehensible to us how Dr. Schiller-Szinessy (article 
 “Midrash”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed., vol. XVI) even if he 
 ventures to oppose this noble band of scholars, should have left 
 the student utterly ignorant that he was dogmatically main- 
 taining a position which all the great authorities have declared 
 to be wholly untenable. 
 
 See Reusch, Index der verbotenen Biicher, vol. I, p. 45, 
 seq. (Bonn, 1883). Rapoport, ‘Erek Millin, sub voce ‘‘Edom,”’ 
 and Levinsohn, Te‘udah be-Yisrael, p. 78, note 6. 
 
 16 See Jellinek, Kunteros ha-Mefaresh (Vienna, 1877). 
 [Freimann, Kunteros ha-Mefaresh ha-Shalem in Hoffmann- 
 Festschrift (Berlin, 1914)]. 
 
 17That the Talmud was not regarded even by medieval 
 Jews in all its parts as religious Scripture, may be gathered from 
 many sources. Comp. the letters in Hemdah Genuzah, (K6nigs- 
 berg, 1856), p. 39, seg., and especially p. 41. 
 
 % Writings like Modena’s Behinat ha-Kabbalah, which 
 confine themselves to general accusations against the Talmud 
 can make no claim to be regarded as scientific productions. De 
 Rossi’s Meor ‘Enayim (written in the sixteenth century) has every 
 right to be regarded as a critical and scientific work, but its in- 
 fluence among the Jews was exceedingly small. 
 
 19We need only mention here that grand and deep book 
 Moreh Nebuke ha-Zeman, by Krochmal (Lemberg, 1853), Rapoport’s 
 ‘Erek Millin and his other larger and smaller works, which are 
 scattered about in different Hebrew periodicals. Especially 
 do we feelit our duty to draw renewed attention here to Zunz’s 
 Gottesdienstliche Vortrége (Berlin, 1832), and Frankel’s Hodegetica 
 in Mishnam (Leipzig, 1859), which laid the foundation for all 
 true study of the Midrash and the Mishnah. We take this op- 
 portunity of expressing our surprise that Schiller-Szinessy in 
 his article on “‘Midrash”’ and “Mishnah” (in the 9th edition of the 
 Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. XVI) strangely enough thought it 
 fit to make no mention of, or allusion to, these truly funda- 
 mental works. 
 
 20See Luzzatto’s observations in his preface to his Gram- 
 
294 NOTES 
 
 matik zum Talmudischen Idiom, p. 10, in Kriiger’s German trans- 
 lation, Berlin, 1873. 
 
 atSee Jellinek’s treatises cited above; Stade’s Zeitschrift 
 fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1881, pp. 334-338; 1882, pp. 
 53-72, 177-192. In order to obtain a notion how difficult it often 
 is to find the correct definition of a word or term, see Hoffmann’s 
 essay in the above mentioned periodical, 1882, pp. 53-72 upon the 
 single word Malben, and Freudenthal’s treatise on the term 
 Hazakah, in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1860. 
 
 22 See Jellinek’s Kunteros ha-Mafteah (Vienna, 1881); and 
 comp. Friedmann in his introduction to Sifre, chapter VI. 
 
 2See Orient Literaturblait, 1840, but the greater part 
 of the translations there enumerated have never yet been 
 published. That since then many good and bad translations 
 of various rabbinical writings have been made is well known. 
 [comp. E. Bischoff, Kritische Geschichte der Talmud-Uberset- 
 zungen, Frankfurt a. M. 1899.] We may here add that Frankel, 
 in his lecture cited above, declared the Talmud to be untran- 
 slatable. [This view was also presented by Friedmann in his 
 soonn mins Sy 195, Vienna, 1885.] 
 
 24 Clementina, edited by P. de Lagarde, Leipzig, 1865, p. 
 13, note 5; comp. Néldeke, in the preface to his Manddische Gram- 
 matik, Halle, 1875; and Lebrecht’s treatise Handschriften und 
 erste Ausgaben des Babylonischen Talmuds, Berlin, 1862. 
 
 2s We mean works like that of Friedmann on the Mekilta, 
 Buber on the Pesikia, Rabbinowicz on some tractates of the 
 Babylonian Talmud, the Tosefta, edited by Zuckermandel, the 
 Mishnah, edited by H. Lowe, etc. 
 
 26 Comp., on the one side, Deutsch’s famous essay on the 
 Talmud, Quarterly Review, October, 1877;and, onthe other, Eisen- 
 menger’s Enidecktes Judenthum (Konigsberg, 1711). But these 
 two are merely typical instances out of a long list. 
 
 27See Frankel in his Monatsschrift, 1865, p. 472. Since 
 the time Frankel wrote, a goodly number of fresh instances might 
 be added to his list by way of supplement. 
 
 28London, 1883. Our references throughout are to the 
 first edition. 
 
 39 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, edited by Charles Taylor. 
 
NOTES 295 
 
 30 That Dr. Edersheim has made considerable use of De- 
 litszch’s polemical pamphlet Jesus und Hillel is very natural. 
 But Delitszch is too conscientious a scholar to venture as far as 
 Dr. Edersheim, even in the very heat of his conflict with Geiger. 
 As regards the assertion that ‘‘ Hillel was actually wont to mis-: 
 pronounce words, because his teacher before him had done so” 
 (1,98), which is based on ‘Eduyyot 1.8, it seems a pity that our 
 learned author, even if he did not care to make use of Abraham 
 ben David’s Hebrew commentary, should not have looked up 
 Graetz (vol. III, 540). The German historian would have ex- 
 plained to him that Maimonides has mistaken the sense of this 
 passage, which refers not to a “mispronunciation,” but to the 
 use of a Biblical name for a certain measure, instead of the usual 
 Talmudical one. 
 
 3! See Neubauer’s Géographie du Talmud, p. 74, and D. 
 Hoffmann’s essay, Der Oberste Gerichtshof, Berlin, 1877. 
 
 319 J, 94; comp. Eisenmenger, I, 331. 
 
 32 1, 35, note 5, referring to Bezah 5b; comp. I, 98. 
 
 329 A Baraita is a law or teaching of the Mishnic period, but 
 not taken up into the ‘“‘authorized version” of the Mishnah, 
 which underlies the Talmud. 
 
 33 Tiberias is a city in Galilee, to which the Sanhedrin had 
 finally migrated after the destruction of the Temple. 
 
 33* The expression used is a play upon Exodus 14. 11, 
 “Because there were no graves in Egypt hast thou taken us 
 away to die in the wilderness.” 
 
 34 In not a few passages our learned author might have been 
 aided by Graetz. Comp. his treatment of R. Eliezer ben Hyr- 
 qanos (II, 193) with Graetz, vol. IV, note 5, and especially his 
 daring statement in note 2, p. 91, vol. I, that even idolatry was 
 allowed in secret, if life were in danger, with Graetz, vol. IV, 
 p. 173, and note 17, where almost the very opposite of Dr. Eders- 
 heim’s words appear to be the truth. To ignore Graetz—the 
 greatest Jewish historian—is nowadays impolitic and childish. 
 Graetz is too well known to render such silence of any avail. 
 
 35 See vol. I, pp. 85, 91, 271, 532, 547, 550; II, 41, 237, 290, 
 etc. Comp. Eisenmenger, vol. I, pp.576, 615: vol. II, pp. 41, 
 215, 227, 242, 605, and McCaul, Old Paths, I-IV. 
 
296 NOTES 
 
 36 Dr, Edersheim has much to say about the absurdities 
 of the Talmudic Sabbath Law (Appendix XVII, vol. II), its 
 burdensome details, and so on. But those who are most inti- 
 mately acquainted with the Jews, who both in eastern 
 and western Europe fulfil these innumerable “observances and 
 ordinances,’ know best that the Sabbath Day is a day of glad- 
 ness and delight, on which no sense of burden or painful obli- 
 gation makes itself felt. 
 
 37 Out of a considerable list, we will here draw especial 
 attention to Weber, System der ali-synagogalen Theologie (Leip- 
 zig, 1880) which attempts, on the strength of a supposed legalism 
 running through the whole Rabbinic literature, to construct 
 an elaborate and connected system of Rabbinical theology. 
 But these favorite epithets, ‘legalism’, ‘want of contact with God,’ 
 ‘abstractness’, and so on are little more than empty phrases to 
 those who are at once most familiar with the spirit of the Rab- 
 binic literature, and also best acquainted with Jewish life as 
 it exists. _Weber’s book is dangerous because, being attractively 
 written, it is likely to become the recognized authority on this 
 subject; whereas apart from his fundamental prepossessions and 
 misconceptions, his Talmudic knowledge was far too limited 
 to qualify him for such a post of honor. 
 
 38 The words in inverted commas are taken from Dr. Schil- 
 ler-Szinessy’s article on ‘‘Midrash”’ referred to above. There he 
 also reckons up a list of eighteen sciences, ranging from medicine 
 to political economy, and supplemented by three etceteras, on 
 which the ‘“‘philosopher’’ will find abundant and valuable no- 
 tices in the various collections of the Midrashim. 
 
 THE TALMUD 
 
 [This article originally appeared in James Hastings, “A 
 Dictionary of the Bible’, Extra Volume, New York, 1904, 
 pp. 57-66.] 
 
 t See Bacher in JQR, IV, 406 ff. 
 
 2 See Weiss, Dor Dor we-Dorshaw, I, p. 54; Kuenen, in his 
 essay ‘Ueber die Manner der grossen Synagoge’ (occupying pp. 
 125-160 of the Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Biblischen Wissen- 
 schaftvon A. Kuenen, Freiburg and Leipzig, 1894), contests the ex- 
 
NOTES 297 
 
 istence of such an assembly (comp. also article “Synagogue, the 
 Great’”’, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible vol. IV, and the 
 literature cited at the end of that article); whilst D. Hoffmann 
 (Magazin fiir die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, X. 45ff.) and 
 S. Krauss (JOR, X, 347 ff.) try to refute his argument. On 
 the whole the present writer is inclined to admit that there 
 is an element of truth in this tradition regarding the Great 
 Assembly. The Judaism which emerges suddenly after this 
 nebulous period is essentially a product of the Synagogue. It 
 is hard to see how it could ever have thriven under the care of 
 the historical [heretical?] priests or the cosmopolitan Sofer of the 
 moderns; and such a Synagogue would naturally have developed 
 under the auspices of an authority which acted in conformity 
 with the spirit of the ordinances, decrees, and teachings attributed 
 by the Rabbis to the men of the Great Assembly. 
 
 3 See Weiss, zbid., p. 66. The high priest Simon the Just (prob- 
 ably Simon I., c. 300 c.E.) is supposed to have belonged to this 
 Remnant, but the saying recorded in his name is really sofertc 
 in its character: ‘On three things the world is stayed: on the Torah 
 and on the Worship, and on the bestowal of Kindnesses’ 
 (Abot 1. 2). Of his successor (second in the soferic line), whose 
 name Antigonos of Soko shows already a marked Hellenistic 
 influence, only the following saying is known: ‘Be not as slaves 
 that minister to the Lord with a view to receive reward, but be 
 as slaves that minister to the master without a view to receive 
 reward’ (ibid. 1. 3). This saying, which has a certain Stoic 
 savor about it, is supposed to have given rise to two heretical 
 sects. 
 
 4 See C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (second edition), 
 p. 14, note 9, for the chronology. 
 
 5 For literature on this point, see Schtirer, Geschichte des Jii- 
 dischen Volkes, UI, pp. 188ff. Ofspecialimportanceare Kuenen, loc. 
 cit., pp.49-81; Hoffmann, Die Prasidentur im Synedrium (Mag. v. 
 1878, pp. 94-99); and Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen 
 Synedrion, etc. Wellhausen’s, Die Phariséer und Sadducder must 
 be taken with great caution, as his command of the rabbinic 
 sources is imperfect. 
 
 © For the historical and theological significance of this 
 
298 NOTES 
 
 method of interpretation, see Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl 
 Christi und der Tag seines Todes (St. Petersburg, 1892), p. 20 ff. 
 
 7 Some authorities number five generations of Tannaim. For 
 the purpose of brevity, we have accepted the plan of those who 
 have condensed them into four. For the same reason, we have 
 confined ourselves to the most important Tannaim, omitting 
 many who deserve mention. Compare H. L. Strack’s excellent 
 monograph Einleitung in den Talmud?, p. 76 ff. [5p. 116 ff.], and his 
 bibliography appended toeach Tanna. Thereferences there given 
 include those to Bacher’s works, which are the most important 
 contributions to the subject in any language other than Hebrew. 
 
 8 Status constructus NWP. The patristic devrépwots (see 
 references in Schiirer, loc. cit., p. 88, n. 1) speaks for 73WD (second 
 to the Torah). Both explanations are represented in rabbinic 
 literature. Comp. ‘Aruk Completum, s. v. MWD, 
 
 _ 9 For this ‘higher criticism’ of the Mishnah, see Dr. Lewy, 
 Uber einige Fragmente aus der M. des Abba Saul in Zweiter 
 Bericht tiber die Hochschule fiir die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 
 Berlin, 1876, and D. Hoffmann, Die erste Mischna, Berlin, 
 1882. [L. Ginzberg, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mischna 
 in Hoffmann-Festschrift, Berlin, 1914, and ‘Tamid the oldest 
 treatise of the Mishna’ in Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, 
 I, Cincinnati, 1919; Ch. Albek, Untersuchungen ueber die Redak- 
 tion der Mischna, Berlin, 1923}. 
 
 10 See Hoffmann, Joc. cit., p. 15: but comp. also A. Biichler, Die 
 Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des Jerusalemischen 
 Tempels (Wien, 1905), p. 10. 
 
 11 See S. Schechter’s Introduction to his edition of Aboth de 
 Rabbi Nathan, Vienna, 1887. 
 
 12 See Joel Miiller’s Introduction to his edition of the 
 Masseket Soferim, Leipzig 1878. 
 
 3 See N. Briill, Die Talmudischen Tractate tiber Trauer 
 um Verstorbene (Jahrbticher 1, pp. 1-57). 
 
 14 See on these Midrashim: I. H. Weiss’ introduction to his 
 edition of the Sifra (Vienna, 1862); M. Friedmann’s Introduc- 
 tion to his edition of the Mekilia (Vienna, 1870); Dr. Lewy, Ein 
 Wort tiber die ‘Mechilta des R. Simon’ (Breslau, 1889); and Dr. 
 D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim 
 
NOTES 299 
 
 (Berlin, 1886-87); [and his introductions to Mechilta de Rabbi 
 Simon 6b. Iochat, Frankfurt a. M, 1905; Midrasch Tannaim 
 zum Deuteronomium, Berlin, 1908-9; H. S. Horovitz’s Intro- 
 duction to his edition of Sifre and Sifre Zuta to Numbers, Leip- 
 zig, 1917; and his Beztrdge zur Erkidrung und Textkritik der 
 Mechilia des R. Simon, Breslau, 1919]. 
 
 7S See Friedmann’s introduction to the Mekilta, p. LX XVI, 
 and L. Dobschiitz’ brochure, Die einfache Bibelexegese der 
 Tannaim (Breslau, 1893). 
 
 See See OR, LX. 120; 
 
 7 Neither the Jerusalem nor the Babylonian Talmud extends 
 over all the 60 (or 63) tractates of the Mishnah. The Jerusalem 
 Talmud has Gemara to the first four orders of the Mishnah and to 
 three chapters in the tractate Niddah in the sixth order; but in the 
 second order there is missing the Gemara to the last four chapters 
 of the tractate Shabbat, and in the fourth order to the third chapter 
 of the tractate Makkot, and the tractates Abotand‘Eduyyot. The 
 Babylonian Talmud has Gemara as follows: in the first order to 
 tractate Berakot only; in the second order, tractate Shekalim is 
 omitted; in the fourth order, tractates A bot and ‘Eduyyot are omit- 
 ted; in the fifth order, tractates Middot and Kinim are omitted; 
 in the sixth order, Gemara to tractate Niddah alone. 
 
 8 It is this discursiveness which makes a proper translation 
 of the Talmud almost impossible; see Friedmann’s brochure 
 snoonn nis by na7, Vienna, 1895. 
 
 19 On all these points see N. Briill’s essay, Die Entstehungs- 
 geschichte des bab. T. als Schriftwerkes (Jahrbticher 11, pp. 1-127); 
 and Weiss, as above, vol. III, pp. 208ff., and vol. IV, p. iff. 
 
 20 The question whether the Jerusalem Talmud ever had Ge- 
 mara tothe fifth order is best discussed in the He-Chalutz X1,33 ff. by 
 Osias H. Schorr, who on excellent grounds maintains that sucha 
 Gemara must have existed. But it must be stated that hitherto, 
 not even in the Cairo collections, which have restored to us 
 so many lost works, has a single line turned up to confirm Schorr’s 
 hypothesis. About the peculiarities of the fourth order, see I. 
 Lewy, Interpretation des 1. Abschnittes des palast. Talmud Traktats 
 Nesikin (Breslau, 1895), p. 20; but compare also the references 
 
300 NOTES 
 
 to the other authorities there given. This essay is the best piece 
 of work yet done on the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud. 
 
 at A good bibliographical account of the various reprints of 
 the Babylonian Talmud is to be found in Rabbinowicz’s by “DND 
 sioonn nop3m, (Munich, 1877), whilst a short list of the various 
 MSS. in the different libraries is given by Strack in his Einleitung. 
 It should, however be noted that the last 20 years have brought 
 to light many talmudical pieces, not known to any bibliographer. 
 They are still awaiting description. Mr. Elkan N. Adler’s li- 
 brary (London) [now in the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
 America] is especially rich in early prints not known to 
 Rabbinowicz; whilst the Cambridge collections, both in the 
 possession of the University Library and in that of Mrs. Lewis 
 and Mrs. Gibson (now in Westminster College), contain many 
 MS. fragments of the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds 
 of the highest critical value. [The latter are published by 
 L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmt Fragments from the Genizah (New 
 York, 1902).] 
 
 NOTES OF LECTURES ON IEWISH PHILANTHROPY 
 
 t Yoreh De‘ah, 247-259. 
 
 2 Psalms, 24.1. 
 
 3 Genesis, 1.1. 
 
 4] Chronicles, 29.14. 
 
 5 Ethics of the Fathers, 3.8. 
 
 6 Aggadat Shir-ha-Shirim, ed. Schechter, p. 67. 
 7 Derek Erez Zuta, sec. IV. 
 
 8 Haggai, 2.8. 
 
 9 Proverbs, 3.9. 
 
 10 Pesikta Rabbati, ed. Friedmann, p. 126b. 
 x Ibid. 
 
 1 Leviticus, 25.23. 
 
 3 Hullin, 139a. 
 
 ™ Psalms, 24.1. 
 
 %§ Kiddushin, 1.6; comp. Rosh ha-Shanah, 6a. 
 t6 Berakot, 35a. 
 
 7 Psainig, 31.21% 
 
 %8 Pesikta Rabbati, ed. Friedmann, p. 200b. 
 
NOTES 301 
 
 19 Psalms, 24.1. 
 
 20 Ethics of the Fathers, 3.8. 
 at Leviticus, 25.55. 
 
 aa [bid., 25.39-42. 
 
 73 Sifra, ed. Weiss, p. 109d. 
 44 Exodus, 21.6. 
 
 3s Leviticus, 24.55. 
 
 26 Yerushalmi, Kiddushin, 59d. 
 37 Deuteronomy, 14.1. 
 
 3% Hosea, 2.1. 
 
 29 Leviticus, 25.25. 
 
 CD 1 he 
 
 3t Tbid., 35. 
 
 32 Tbid., 39. 
 
 33 Deuteronomy, 15.7. 
 
 34 Ibid., 9. 
 
 33 Ibid., 11. 
 
 36 Yerushalmi, 34.4. 
 
 37 Nehemiah, 5.7. 
 
 33 Tanhuma, Shemot, ed. Buber, p. 43a; comp. Shemot 
 Rabbah, 22. 24, and Mekilta, ad loc. 
 
 39 Yalkut Makiri, Isaiah, p. 232; comp. Baba Batra, 9b. 
 4° Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.15. 
 4t Psalms, 41.2. 
 42 Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.1. 
 43 Hagigah, Sa. 
 44 Sifre, ed. Friedmann, p. 98a, notes 11-12. 
 Comp Baba Mezi‘a, 31b. 
 48 Yerushalmi Peah, 5; comp. Wayyikra Rabba, 34.1. 
 46 Baba Batra, 8b, 10a, Ketubot, 67b. 
 47 Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 83. 
 48 Yerushalmi, Peah, 5. 
 49 Ketubot, 67b. 
 50 Shemot Rabbah, 31.15. 
 st Psalms, 136.25. 
 82 Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.2. 
 53 Proverbs, 19.17. 
 54 Ibid., 22.7. 
 
302 
 
 NOTES 
 
 5s Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.2. 
 
 56 Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.16. 
 
 57 Shibhe ha-Art. 
 
 58 Leviticus, 25.55. 
 
 59 Deuteronomy, 14.1. 
 
 60> Baba Batra, 10a. 
 
 6t See Ulhorn, p. 13. 
 
 62 Thid. 
 
 6s Proverbs, 3.12. 
 
 64 Berakot, 5a. 
 
 6s; Shabbat, 55a. 
 
 66 Berakot, 5a. 
 
 67 Comp. Semahot, 10. 
 
 6 See Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, pp. 19-20. 
 69 A good deal was written about the meaning of the two 
 
 terms and their relation to one another. 
 
 70 Isaiah, 32.7. 
 
 7 Amos, 8.4. 
 
 72 Psalms, 9.13; 10.12. 
 
 73 Isaiah, 41.17. 
 
 744 Psalms, 70.6. 
 
 75 Psalms, 40.18. See A. V.: ‘But I am poor and needy, 
 
 yet the Lord....” It really means: '‘ Because I am poor and 
 needy, therefore the Lord thinketh of me.” As one would say, 
 I am your poor, helpless little boy. 
 
 76 Shemot Rabbah, 21.4. 
 
 7 Psalms, 10.11, 14. 
 
 79 Exodus, 22.24. 
 
 80 Tsaiah, 49.13. 
 
 8t Proverbs, 19.7. 
 
 82 [ Chronicles, 29.12. 
 
 8 Shemot Rabbah, 31.5. 
 
 84 Ibid., 13. 
 
 85 Midrash Tannaim, p. 84. 
 86 Wayyikra Rabbah, 34.9. 
 
 87 Pesikta, ed. Buber, p. 100a; also Tanhuma, ed. Buber, 
 
 Deuteronomy 17. 
 
 88 Deuteronomy, 10.18. 
 
NOTES 303 
 
 89 Psalms, 68.6. 
 99 Numbers, 18. 20. See Midrash Tannaim, Hoffmann’s 
 
 edition, p. 94. 
 
 9 Deuteronomy, 16.11. 
 9% Tanhuma, ed. Buber, p. 106. 
 93 Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim, p. 27. See Midrash Mentain 
 
 p. 83. 
 
 13. 
 
 94 Isaiah, 29.19. 
 
 9 Psalms, 69 30-36. 
 
 96 Shemot Rabbah, 71.1. Comp. Midrash Tehillim, 5. 6. 
 97 Isaiah, 48. 10. 
 
 98 Hagigah, 9b. 
 
 99 Seder Eliyyahu Zuta, ed. Friedmann, p. 181, 
 
 100 Hagigah, 9b. 
 
 tor Hagigah, 9b. 
 
 102 Pesikta, ed. Buber, p. 117a; comp. Wayyikra Rabbah, 
 4, 35. 6; Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, 1. 24. 
 
 103 Bezah, 25b. 
 
 104 Deuteronomy, 32. 15. 
 
 15 See Al‘ami, Iggeret Musar, and Shebet Yehudah. 
 
 106 Shemot Rabbah, 31. 12; comp. Baba Batra, 116a. 
 17 Judges, 17.18. 
 
 78 Baba Batra, 110a. 
 
 19 Tbid. 
 
 m0 Shabbat, 118a. 
 
 mr Berakot, 8a. 
 
 ma Mekilta, p. 46b. 
 
 ™3 Unfortunately many conclusions were drawn from these 
 
 statements by Holdheim and others, which were contrary to the 
 spirit of Judaism. 
 
 4 Berakot, 6b. The word Kerum (Psalms 12. 9) comes 
 
 from the Greek, meaning ‘‘color”’. 
 
 m3 Tbid. 
 
 116 Proverbs, 15. 15. 
 117 Baba Batra, 145b. 
 118 [bid., 64b 
 
 119 Exodus, 4. 19. 
 
 120 Ecclesiastes, 9. 16. 
 
304. NOTES 
 
 11 Proverbs, 30. 8-9. 
 
 12a Wayyikra Rabbah, 25. 3. Comp. Midrash Tehillim, 24. 5. 
 1233 Isaiah, 8. 21. 
 
 14 ‘Erubin, 41b. 
 
 ™s Pesahim, 111b. 
 
 26 Mishnah Nedarim, 9. 10. 
 
 177 Sanhedrin, 92. 
 
 18 Abot de-Rabbi Natan, 40. 
 139 Pirke Abot, 6. 4. 
 
 30 Deuteronomy, 16. 15. 
 
 13t [bid., 12. 7. 
 
 133 Ibid., 12. 18. 
 
 133 See ibid., 12. 10-19; 14. 22-29; 15. 1-8; 16, 1-17; 15. 12-18. 
 134 Ibid., 15. 6. 
 
 35 Joshua, 1. 8. 
 
 736 Deuteronomy, 11. 14. 
 
 37 Sifre, ed. Friedmann, p. 80b. 
 1388 Shabbat, 33b. 
 
 39 Berakot, 35b. 
 
 40 Tbid, 
 
 ™41 Mekilta, 47b. 
 
 ™42 Yerushalmi Ma‘asrot, 50a. 
 
 43 Mekilta, 47b. This is also found in Sotah, 48b, in the 
 name of R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos. 
 
 44 Mekilta, p. 46b. 
 
 ™45 Berakot, 8a. 
 
 46 Pirke Abot,\ 2. 2. 
 
 147 Abot de-Rabbi Natan, version II, chapter 21. 
 
 ™48 Ibid. 
 
 ™49 Ibid., 11. 
 
 ° Tanhuma, Bereshit, sec. 26. 
 
 1st Abot de-Rabbi Natan, 11. 
 
 132 [bid., version II, chapter 21. 
 
 %s3 Kiddushin, 70a. 
 
 54 See Hoshen Mishpat, 8.4. 
 
 185 See Ha-Shahar and other publications of that period. 
 
 6 Deuteronomy, 15. 18; see Sifre, p. 89b. 
 7 Pirke Abot, 5: 21. 
 
NOTES 305 
 
 188 Abot de Rabbi Natan, version, II, chapter 13. 
 
 9 Mishnah Yebamot, 6. 6. 
 
 160 Yebamot, 61b. 
 
 16 Jbid., 63b. 
 
 162 Ketubot, 63a; Sotah, 4b. 
 
 163 Leon of Modena, 1571-1648. 
 
 164 Psalms, 106. 3. 
 
 165 Ketubot, p. 50a. 
 
 166 Seder Eliyyahu, p. 135. 
 
 167 Death prevented the author from carrying out his inten- 
 tion in this respect. 
 
; +, 
 ek 
 stay ie ea as 
 
 . a 7, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hh Lh fi 
 
 . . aN 5 ; 
 re 
 
 
 
 
 iain Nea ener 
 AEN OY ent mai 5 om an 
 ' nak or ms Sal bike ‘ae heh Pin l: 
 
 git ae, iw iy ae SFr. ; sn 
 ORG MENE cua eh eta 9 Didi art 
 Ge wea ey Luan henry | a | 
 by | 6 aft Wilds th te ah we ay \, wa ie: 
 A ike Kes" if it Rh ANS a hive ah PA ae pace 
 Pew aiiyeith seh te sce ro oton sit oaert 
 ie Paste) \ Ag ni » | Rh | ey a Pi | EAE RT gen 
 yi PX ik Lave ny Ae ' id ae 
 
 {A A uae ahi Mid i, pions ne Kg i3? oa a 
 eC ’ ; i ae RK, ane ay race a : ? + iS ip i, BY, . ’ z 
 
 i > SEA y : ; J Dall 
 hie i Wie Byer): Mia ok x i‘) ae 
 
 
 
 
 4 7s Ba bi Litas he fh nu WiKi uae per 
 ae ie Baas Nhe: til LF sh een iy A ty ON a ae 
 
 ma 
 
 
 
 } TF) 
 
 a " | Ana Na as . a OR a \ . 
 
 Pty i : 1 wre a ek ee ' i) iy, 
 abe 4 Poy A é ‘ eriwos P ' ie 
 
 J y ; “eyiy : ; ¢ ‘ 
 
 rel . Nd Mahi 4nl sire be Silas) > doi : 2 a 
 
 4 , hn a aA + gett i vet hae 6 Cin a, i es iw ff j ; ou 
 
 i ’ . i ' Ll ' ae 
 
 fh * 
 
 ERR A Re Ra VAT Neat hee a Toda mit; eg ek Ns | 
 Pull Nc need ie Mpa SN LT ait lat ak RIP ee ae hia oe 
 ary: | i mie VARKG Bis. ete, Oka iN we in 
 aye a bg ROY VF iv sud My aire 
 i ¥ i ae a a 
 fh he PES By ie Hi arya : 
 + 1¥ eed NA 5 aOR t t ib sla: fy is iat 
 ; ey 
 
 he i ; fa mA Sia i hice im 4 t, pay ‘ “Oya : ‘ FEAL, SF ee . 
 ae uve Aa a Raab te Mes i GMS HRC Ri et ke won 
 ay DA MOD eC ema CR UT mica ts, Ma tala cS 
 te Sy : ay 14 nT en ; 5 hin : ¥, | ahead us fer iv siee 6 i 
 Rot: 24 AeA ¥ oie i eer out . i af 
 A iat fo 13! em ‘oie Ba ise Wee fete Hi Hever 
 a ed aoe 7 7 y ys ig ‘: Th Rai 24 at > ab ts hata ‘ia ule dn can ‘wi 
 Die ie ‘Hainan, ot) iyi bv ney, ¥ ane ge 
 Be As, Vac AND hea Da Mi WEN ie Wh A Abie a 
 
 us 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ai } ‘ 
 4 
 if ' f 
 Ux? Ld \ 
 ri 
 f on 
 Lavy , A i > - 
 Uae rt f j 
 rer j 
 ns / 
 : ,) ‘ ‘ 7a age ig 
 uty j j ‘ep iO 4 
 ; n 
 a iy ji ay aris ; ty j ' } 
 
 Mb ar vey Le by pai ak ities hae 
 
INDEX 
 
P et 4 A 
 thay ee ii” MK 
 
 ven - 1 i pal 1 
 . - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 \ & er faints vie by ; he 4 
 eh ee aD Rie oT - 
 PONOR RG tt Cbg et a) 
 
 eA age fn RO a ae) 
 
 eS aa RL Ie Le ae 
 e ; ‘are bho a. ae 
 = a AN « 7 7 vy a ey ney Wes, 1. ° 
 
INDEX 
 
 “Aaron, Midrash on Death of”, alluded 
 to; Looe 
 
 Ab-Beth-Din, ‘‘Father of the House of 
 Judgment,’’ 120; officer of Sanhed- 
 tin, 197. 
 
 Abadim, ‘‘Slaves,’’ minor tractate, al- 
 luded to, 210-11. 
 
 "Abayi (’Abbayye), Babylonian Amora, 
 alluded to, 218, 268. 
 
 Abba Arika, (Rab), Babylonian Amora, 
 alluded to, 217; founds School at 
 Sura, 2ds 
 
 Abba Saul, Tanna, alluded to, 203; 
 Mishnah collection of, utilized by 
 Judah ha-Nasi, 205. 
 
 Abbahu, Palestinian Amora, on ‘‘study 
 and good works,’’ 177-9; alluded 
 1H bo A il ASKS 
 
 ‘Abodah, and ‘Abodai ha-Shem, defined, 
 Zils 
 
 ‘Abodah Zarah, ‘‘Idolatry,’’ tractate, 
 described, 230. 
 
 ‘Abodah Zarah, ‘‘strange work,’’ term 
 confused with idolatry, 260; prefer- 
 red to poverty, 260. 
 
 *Abot, ‘‘Fathers,’’ tractate, referred to, 
 123; 168; 169-70; 182-3; 196, 197; 
 198-9; 210; described, 230; 264; 
 274. 
 
 *‘Abot de-Rabbi Natan, minor tractate, 
 referred to, 123; 183; 208; 210. 
 
 Abtalyon and Shmayah, ‘‘the Great 
 Ones of the Generation,’’ alluded 
 to, 197-8. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, alluded to, 200. 
 
 “‘Adam, the Book of", alluded to, 123. 
 
 ‘‘Adda and Samuel, Baraita of,’’ alluded 
 CO ele 
 
 Africa, alluded to, 128. 
 
 Aggadat Bereshit, Midrashic work, al- 
 luded to, 125. 
 
 Aggadat Hazita, Midrashic work,. 125. 
 
 Agrippa I, alluded to, 207. 
 
 Agur, supplication of, against poverty, 
 262. 
 
 Aha Sheeltot of, alluded to, 122. 
 
 Ahad ha-‘Am, alluded to, 83. 
 
 Ahai, of Be-Hathim, a Sabora, alluded 
 LOaW 2Z28 
 
 Aher. See Elisha ben Abuyah. 
 
 “Akiba, Rabbi, the Alphabet of,’’ al- 
 luded to, 124. 
 
 Akiba ben Joseph, on “‘study and good 
 works,’’ 178; master of many dist- 
 inguished disciples, 201-2; patriot 
 and martyr, 202; most famous 
 Tanna, 202; skillful interpreter of 
 Scriptures, 202; Mishnah collec- 
 tion of, 120, 210; arrangement 
 of Torah in links, 208; alluded to, 
 212, 214; discussion with Rufus on 
 charity, 249-52; on suffering as 
 virtue, 252; daughter of, married 
 to Ben ‘Azzai, 274. 
 
 Akiba ben Joseph, School of, Midrashic 
 works of, 211. 
 
 Akilas, Targum of, alluded to, 122. 
 
 Alami, quoted by Zunz, 95-6. 
 
 Alexandria, alluded to, 27, 32. 
 
 Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 
 the Sod, 121. 
 
 ‘Alphabet of Rabbi 
 alluded to, 124. 
 
 Am ha-Arez, ‘‘country people,’’ alluded 
 to, 176. 
 
 Amemar of Neharde‘a, 
 Amora, alluded to, 218. 
 
 America, hero worship and, 47; alluded 
 to; zo" 
 
 Ammi (also Immi), Palestinian Amora, 
 alluded to, 217. 
 
 Amoraim, acquainted with original of 
 
 Akiba, the,’! 
 
 Babylonian 
 
310 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, 208; and Tosefta, 
 209; defined, 216; names of lead- 
 ing, 216-8. 
 
 Amos, the prophet, and universal re- 
 ligion, 62. 
 
 Andernach, community of, mentioned 
 by Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 "Ani ben Tobin, ‘‘impoverished rich,’’ 
 care of, 247, 252. 
 
 Animals, precepts against cruelty to, 
 19-20; precepts on feeding, 20-1. 
 
 Anthropomorphistic figures applied to 
 the Diety in the Talmud, 154. 
 
 Antioch, alluded to, 63. 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, alluded to, 119. 
 
 Anti-Semitism, German, subtlety of, 24. 
 
 Apostasy of Elisha ben Abuyah, alluded 
 tO,n 202. 
 
 Apostles, the, alluded to, 18, 200. 
 
 Aquila. See Akilas. 
 
 Arabs and Jews, contact of, alluded 
 toe 127: 
 
 Arakin, “Valuations,’’ tractate, de- 
 
 scribed, 231. 
 
 Aramaic idioms and dialects in Talmud, 
 219; translations of Bible in, 
 deemed insufficient, 119. 
 
 Arba Turim. See Jacob ben Asher. 
 
 Arim, House of, on importance of 
 study, 178. 
 
 “Aristeas, Letter of,’’ alluded to, 123, 
 124. 
 
 Aristotle, alluded to, 2, 4, 12, 70, 100. 
 
 Arrogance of lay-heads, Zunz on, 93-4. 
 
 Artisans, the Rabbis as, 270. 
 
 Aruk, alluded to, 114. 
 
 *“*As Others Saw Him,’’ by Joseph 
 Jacobs, reviewed, 25-46. 
 
 Asceticism and Judaism, 263-4; as 
 condition of salvation, 264, 267— 
 70, 272; excesses of, and celibacy, 
 Ziloe 
 
 See also Fast; Saintliness. 
 
 Asher ben Jehiel, Spanish rabbinical 
 authority, 14; regard for Torah 
 15; invited to return to Germany, 
 
 14-5; on secular science, 15; pov- 
 erty of family of, 15-6. 
 
 Ashi, of Sura, Babylonian Amora, began 
 compilation of Talmud, 148; 218. 
 
 Ashkenaz, term explained, 1; occurs in 
 Genesis, 1; identified with Ger- 
 many, 1; identfied with other 
 portions of Europe, 1; contrasted 
 with Sephard, 2; scientific method 
 of exegesis of rabbinical scholars 
 of, 5, 12-3; modesty of rabbinical 
 scholars of, 12-4. 
 
 Ashkenaz, the Jews of, under Christian 
 potentates, 2; not great organizers, 
 3; reasons for lack of scientific 
 culture of, 3-4; distinguished spirit- 
 ually, 4-5; mentioned by Benjamin 
 of Tudela, 6-7; Crusades and, 7-9, 
 16-7: affiinty of prayer-book of, 
 with Palestinian ritual, 8; devot- 
 ion to authority of the Torah, 12; 
 martyrdom of, 17; persecutions 
 cause migrations to Poland and 
 Turkey, 23-4. 
 
 See also Germany; Saints; Sephard. 
 
 Assi (also Issi), Palestinian Amora, al- 
 luded to, 217. 
 
 Assimilation, Jewish religious life as 
 antidote to, 78. 
 
 Azulai, alluded to, 88. 
 
 Baal Shem, See Israel Baal Shem. 
 
 Baba Batra, ‘‘Last Gate,’’ tractate, ex- 
 ample of treatment of Mishna 
 cited, 220; described, 229. 
 
 Baba Kamma, ‘‘ First Gate,” tractate, 
 quoted, 213; described, 229. 
 Baba Mezi‘a, ‘‘ Middle Gate,’’ tractate, 
 
 described, 229. 
 
 Babylon, R. Judah on emigration from, 
 to Palestine, 64; ‘‘ Feast of Rejoic- 
 ing of the Law”’ first introduced 
 in, 118; reciting Haftarot on 
 Sabbath afternoon service, custom- 
 ary in, 118. 
 
 Babylonian Amoraim, list of important 
 216-8; Rab, title of, 216. 
 
INDEX 
 
 311 
 
 
 
 Babylonian Talmud, reduced to writ- 
 ing, 218; ‘“‘the Talmud of the 
 People of the East,’’ 219; dialects 
 of, 219; style of, 219; compared 
 with Jerusalem Talmud, 219, 222; 
 Palestinian authorities quoted in, 
 222. 
 
 See also Talmud, the. 
 
 Bachelors. See Celibacy. 
 
 Baneth, Mordecai, alluded to, 56, 73, 
 83. 
 
 Baraita, alluded to, 120, 122, 124, 174; 
 defined, 209; scattered quotations 
 of, in Talmud, 209. 
 
 Baraiia de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter on, 
 in} Gor Vis 124-5: 
 
 Baraita Meleket ha-Mishkan, alluded 
 LOMA 22. 
 
 Bartolocci, Christian Hebraist, alluded 
 to, 88. 
 
 Bat Kol, the, and Isaac Luria, 249; 
 and Simon ben Yohai, 268. 
 
 Beelzebub, alluded to, 37. 
 
 Beer, Peter, alluded to, 74, 130. 
 
 Behinat ha-Kabbalah, disputes law of 
 propagation, 275. 
 
 Bekorat, ‘‘First Born,’’ tractate, describ- 
 ed, 231. 
 
 Bemidbar Rabbah, Midrashic work, al- 
 luded to, 125. 
 
 Ben ‘Azzai, Tanna, on celibacy, 274. 
 
 “Ben Sira, the Wisdom of.’ See 
 Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 Bendavid, alluded to, 89. 
 
 Benediction, preceding martyrdom,9,17. 
 
 See also Grace, Prayer. 
 
 Benevolence. See Charity. 
 
 Benjamin of Tudela, on Ashkenaz Jew- 
 ish communities, 6—7. 
 
 Berakot, ‘‘ Benedictions,’’ tractate, on 
 repentant sinner, 190; example of 
 Mishnah literature in, cited, 221, 
 described, 226. 
 
 Bereshit Rabbah, Midrashic work, allud- 
 ed to, 124. 
 
 Berlin, Hochschule in, 48; 
 preacher at, 113. 
 
 Zunz as 
 
 Bet Din, authority of, in time of Jesus, 34. 
 
 Bet Hillel. See Hillel, School of. 
 
 Bet Shammai. See Shammai, School of. 
 
 Beth Shearim, meeting place of San- 
 hedrin, 203. 
 
 Bezah, ‘‘Egg”’, tractate, quoted, 173; 
 described, 228. 
 
 Bible, the, commentaries of the Ash- 
 
 kenazic and Sephardic Jews comp- 
 ared, 12; respected because of noble 
 affinity with Christianity, 100; as 
 testimony of Jewish creed, 110; 
 original language of, little under- 
 stood, 118-9; need of interpretation 
 of, 119; the Books of, forming part 
 of Tradition, 120; three ways of 
 explaining, 121; Canon of, and the 
 Soferim, 196; Akiba, skillful inter- 
 preter of, 202; Scriptures, the 
 Written Law, in contradistinction 
 to Oral Law, 204; knowledge of, 
 assumed by the Mishnah, 205. 
 
 See also Derush; Targum; Torah, the; 
 and under the various Books of 
 the Bible. 
 
 Bikkurim, ‘‘First Fruits,’’ tractate, 
 quoted, 206-7, described, 227. 
 Bingen, community of, mentioned by 
 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Biographical literature, Jewish, product 
 of 18th century, 96. 
 
 Black-Death, the, persecutions during, 
 66. 
 
 ‘**Blessing of Jacob, the’’, Midrash to, 
 125. 
 
 Bonn, community of, mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 ‘*Book of the Saints’’, by Judah ha- 
 Hasid, quoted 20-1. 
 
 ‘*Books of Jubilees’’, great number of, 
 47. 
 
 Bosniak, Jacob, compiler of Schech- 
 ter’s notes of lectures on Jewish 
 Philanthropy, 238-9. 
 
 Broad Church, the, alluded to, 68. 
 
 Brotherhood of Man, the, Biblical 
 quotations on, 244-5. 
 
312 
 
 Buber, Solomon, alluded to, 138. 
 
 Cabbala, See Kabbala; 
 Tradition. 
 
 Caesarea, alluded to, 177, 217. 
 
 Caliphs, the civilization of, shared by 
 Sephardic Jews. 2. 
 
 Candia, alluded to, 129. 
 
 Canon, Biblical, the, and the Soferim, 
 196; discussed in Talmud, 220. 
 
 See also Bible. 
 
 Capital Punishment, authority of 
 Sanhedrin to inflict, 171. 
 
 Carlyle, quoted, 11, 49, 56. 
 
 Caro, D., Hebrew translation by, of 
 Zunz’sG, V.,102; unpublished, 103. 
 
 Caro, Joseph. See Joseph Caro. 
 
 Castile, Spain, alluded to, 14. 
 
 Catholic Israel, term designating ‘‘All 
 Israel,’’ 11. 
 
 Celebrities, Jewish, Zunz on _ social 
 position of, 97. 
 
 Celibacy, prohibition of, 273-5; un- 
 healthy social influence of, 273. 
 
 See aiso Saintliness. 
 
 Censor, disfigurement of Talmud by, 
 161, 186. 
 
 Chajes, author of Iggeret Bikkoret, al- 
 luded to, 102. 
 
 Charity, precept on aiding destitute 
 poor, 20; ‘‘study and good works,”’ 
 194-7; not a product of Christ- 
 ianity, 239; giving of, in secret, 
 247; pagan conception of, 250-2; 
 as gift of God, 266. 
 
 Charity, Christian, works on, 239; 
 claims of superiority of, 239-40. 
 
 Chasidim. See Saints. 
 
 Chastity, precept on, 20. 
 
 Cheating, admonitions against, 20-1. 
 
 Child, Jewish, the, influence of Old 
 Testament on, 188. 
 
 Children of God, humanity as, 243. 
 
 Children of Israel, as servants of God, 
 243. 
 
 Choriner, Aaron, rabbi, alluded to, 141. 
 
 Christ. See Jesus. 
 
 Mysticism; 
 
 INDEX 
 
 “Christian Charity, History of”, by 
 Ulhorn, referred to, 239. 
 
 Christian and Rabbinical doctrines, 
 Edersheim on divergency of, 164. 
 
 Christian Hebraists, service of, to Jew- 
 ish scholarship, 88. 
 
 Christian Movement, the, among Jews, 
 81. 
 
 Christian, Nokri, Talmudic term for, 
 discussed, 186. 
 
 Christian scholars and the Talmud, 161. 
 
 Christianity, superior claims of, chal- 
 lenged by Geiger, 87; Israel greater 
 than, 45, 
 
 See also Christian; Christians; Jesus. 
 
 Christians, inability of, to understand 
 spirit of the Law, 240. 
 
 Christians, early, recruited from lower 
 
 classes, 27. 
 
 “Chronicle of Moses, the,’’ Midrashic 
 work, 123. 
 
 Chronicles, chapter on, in G. V., an- 
 alyzed, 119. 
 
 Chronicles, the Book of, alluded to, 
 109, 119, 215; Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Chwolson, Daniel, alluded to, 32, 35. 
 
 Circumcision, considered relic of bar- 
 barism by Geiger, 66; abolition of, 
 suicidal to Judaism, according to 
 Perma, MANE 
 
 Cistern, as symbol for receptiveness 
 of Rabbis, 182. 
 
 Classics, Greek and Latin, study of, 
 compared with Hebrew, 158. 
 Coblenz, community of, mentioned by 
 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Code, Rabbinical. See Mishneh Torah. 
 
 Cohn Albert, hopes for Palestinian rest- 
 oration, 63; ridiculed by Geiger, 63. 
 
 Cohen, Elijah. See Elijah Cohen. 
 
 Cohen, Raphael, of Hamburg, alluded 
 to; 74, 
 
 Cologne, Jews of, first mentioned by 
 Constantine, 3; mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Commentary, Biblical, the Midrash as 
 a sample of, 214. 
 
INDEX 
 
 313 
 
 
 
 Commentators, Ashkenazic, modesty 
 of, compared with Sephardic, 12-3 
 
 Commentators, to Mahzor, great numb- 
 er of, in Germany, 9-10. 
 
 Competition, with neighbor in buying, 
 precept against, 20-1. 
 
 Confession of sin. See Penitent; Sin and 
 Repentance. 
 
 Constantine, Edict of, mentions Jews, 
 3; persecutions under reign of, 218. 
 
 Cooper Fennimore, novels of, alluded 
 towns: 
 
 Corinth, alluded to, 27. 
 
 Creation, Geiger’s view of, 59. 
 
 Creation, the ‘Secret of,’’ mystic work 
 of, 124. 
 
 Criticism, the Higher. See Exegesis, 
 Biblical. 
 
 Cromwell, alluded to, 67. 
 
 Crusades, the, and Ashkenaz Jews, 16, 
 22 m00. 
 
 Cuti, Talmudic designation for Samar- 
 itan, 186. 
 
 See also Kutim. 
 
 Da Costa, Joseph, alluded to, 95. 
 
 Dammat, the ‘‘Doubtful,’’ tractate, 
 described, 226. 
 
 Dancing, rules for behavior at, 95. 
 
 Daniel, the Book of, contains germs 
 of haggadic Midrash, 109, 119; 
 Additions to, ‘‘Daniel, the Book’’ 
 of, Haggadic work, 122. 
 
 Darshan, the, lecturer, alluded to, 128. 
 
 Daughter-Voice, the. See Bat Kol. 
 
 David, the House of, Hillel descendant 
 of, 198. 
 
 David, King, alluded to, 241. 
 
 Day of Judgment, the, cruelty to 
 animals punishable on, 19. 
 
 Debarim Zuia, Midrashic work, alluded 
 hep, LEAT 
 
 Deity, the, fanciful conceptions of, in 
 Talmud, 154-5. 
 
 Del Medigo, Joseph, portrait of, al- 
 luded to, 96. 
 
 Derash, homiletical interpretation of 
 Scriptures, 121. 
 
 Derek Eretz Rabbah and Zuta, minor 
 tractates, alluded/to, 123. 
 
 Derenbourg, alluded to, 35; correspond- 
 ence of, with Geiger, 52. 
 
 Deronda, Daniel. See Eliot, George. 
 
 De Rossi, Azariah, alluded to, 88. 
 
 Detmold, birthplace of Zunz, 84. 
 
 Deuteronomy, the Book of, quoted, 
 84, 172, 173, 174, 175, 189, 199, 
 205, 210, 211, 215-6, 227, 228, 
 229, 230. 
 
 Deutsch, Emanuel, alluded to, 144; 
 exaggerated praise by, of Talmud, 
 161. 
 
 Dialogue style of Midrash, cited, 214. 
 
 Dictionaries and grammars of the 
 Talmud, 236-7. 
 
 Dietary Laws, the, and Jewish mystics 
 18; Geiger on, as obstacles to 
 progress, 67. 
 
 Disciples. See Talmidim. 
 
 Disraeli, Benjamin, alluded to, 14. 
 
 Divine Glory. See Shekinak. 
 
 Divine Presence. See Shekinah. 
 
 Ecce Homo, by Martineau, alluded to 
 26, 29, 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, included under Haggadic 
 literature, 123, 124, 208; Rabbinic- 
 al teachers and geonim aware of 
 existence of original Hebrew of, 
 208; on poverty, 261. 
 
 Edersheim, Dr., Life and Times of Jesus 
 the Messtah, by, discussed, 163, 
 193; written in appropriate and 
 inviting style, 164; aims to estab- 
 lish divergence of Christian and 
 Rabbinical doctrines, 164-5; not 
 acquinated with Jewish comment- 
 ators, 166; biassed student, 166; 
 keen controversialist, 166; uses op- 
 probrious epithets on the Rabbis, 
 167; entertains favorable views of 
 Hillel and Gamaliel, 167; quotes 
 Rabbis who lived after Jesus, 168; 
 
314 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 modifies view on Hillel, 168; on 
 Hillel’s negative admonitions, 168; 
 on vainglory of Rabbis, 169, 172-3; 
 on excessive respect paid Scribes, 
 170; on power to repeal ordinanc- 
 es, 176; on tradition being set 
 above Writ, 176; on supreme merit 
 of ‘“‘study”’ as against ‘‘good 
 works’’, 176-180; mistranslates in- 
 dividual words, 180; on Rabbinical 
 attitude toward Gentiles, 183; on 
 religion and theology of the Rabbis, 
 187; on Rabbinical conceptions of 
 sin and repentance, 188, 191; il- 
 lustration of superficial treatment 
 accorded Rabbinical literature,191; 
 critics should read Talmud, 193. 
 
 Edict of Constantine mentioning Jews,3. 
 
 ‘Eduyyot, ‘‘Evidences,’’ tractate, al- 
 luded to, 193, 198; described, 230. 
 
 Eger, Akiba, alluded to, 56, 73, 83. 
 
 Egypt, alluded to, 128. 
 
 Ehrenberg,Samuel Mayer, alluded to,86. 
 
 Eighteen Benedictions, the, alluded to, 
 196. 
 
 Eisenmenger, abuse by, of Talmud, 
 161, alluded to, 169, 183. 
 
 Eldad ha-Dani, haggadic work, alluded 
 LO; L235. 
 
 Eleazar ben Arak, alluded to, 182. 
 
 Eleazar ben Azariah, president of Ac- 
 ademy of Jamnia, alluded to, 201, 
 212ta71 3; 
 
 Eleazar of Modi’in, quoted, 269. 
 
 Eleazar ben Pedat, Palestinian Amora, 
 alluded to, 217. 
 
 Eleazar ben Shamu’a, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 203. 
 
 Eliezer, Rabbi, alluded to, 174-5. 
 
 Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, and ‘‘halo of 
 light,’’ 35; head of Lydda School, 
 201; disciple of Hillel yet cherishes 
 Shammaitic principles, 201; ex- 
 communicated, 201. 
 
 Eliezer ben Jacob I, alluded to, 201. 
 
 Eliezer ben Jehudah, of Worms, on 
 holiness and self-denial, 22. 
 
 Eliezer ben Jose of Galilee, ‘‘Thirty- 
 two Rules of Interpretation”’ of, 
 referred to, 122, 211. 
 
 Elijah, Gaon of Wilna, alluded to, 74. 
 
 Elijah Cohen, author of Me‘il Zedakah, 
 alluded to, 240. 
 
 Eliot, missionary, alluded to, 80. 
 
 Eliot, George, Zunz’s quotation used by, 
 in Daniel Deronda, 111. 
 
 Elisha ben Abuyah, (Aher), apostasy 
 of, alluded to, 202. 
 
 Emerson, quoted, 114. 
 
 England, alluded to, 129. 
 
 Epitaphs, on tombs of Zunz and his 
 
 wife, 142. 
 Epstein, Abraham, alluded to, 3. 
 ‘Erubin, “‘“Amalgamations,’’ tractate, 
 
 described, 227. 
 
 Eschatology of Talmud, 184. 
 
 Eshkoloth, title of first ‘‘Pair,’’ Tal- 
 mudic teachers, 198. 
 
 ‘‘Essenes, the Meditations of”, hag- 
 gadic work, 124. 
 
 Essenes, the, and wonder-working, 30; 
 sect within Judaism, 267. 
 
 See also Essenism. 
 
 Essenism, Israel greater than, 45. 
 
 Esther, Queen, alluded to, 5. 
 
 Esther, the Book of, quoted, 5. 
 
 Esther, the Book of, Additions to, 
 haggadic work, alluded to, 123; 
 Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Ethical Haggadah, the, chapters on, 
 in G. V., analyzed, 122-3. 
 
 Ethical monotheism, as religion of 
 humanity, 61. 
 
 Ethical precepts, quoted, 
 containing, 122-3. 
 
 Ethical teachings of the New and Old 
 Testaments, 81. 
 
 ‘Ethical Wills,”’ alluded to, and quoted, 
 14, 15, 21-3. 
 
 Etiquette, rules of, by Joseph Da 
 Costa, 89. 
 
 Euchel, Isaac, alluded to, 5. 
 
 Evangelist and Scribe, contrasted by 
 Edersheim, 189, 
 
 15; works 
 
INDEX 
 
 315 
 
 
 
 Evil Desire, the, quotation from Sifra 
 regarding, 215. 
 
 Exegesis, Biblical, 
 Midrash, 214-5. 
 
 Exegetical Haggadah, chapter on, in 
 G. V., analyzed, 124. 
 
 Exegetical system of Rabbis, growth 
 Of Zits 
 
 Exodus, the Book of, alluded to, 173, 
 174, 206, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 
 D2 224, 22802299) MeRita. on, 
 2itee2 15: 
 
 Ezekiel, the Book of, alluded to, 109, 
 120, 124, 214. 
 
 Ezra, the Book of, alluded to, 119, 
 Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Ezra the Scribe, alluded to, 196; 
 Eleazar ben Azariah, descendant 
 of, 201. 
 
 examples of, in 
 
 Fables of R. Meir, alluded to, 122-3. 
 
 Family, the, and charity, 275, 276; as 
 center of benevolence, including 
 all poor, 276. 
 
 Fasts, precept against too frequent, 
 19-20. 
 
 “Rather of the House of Judgment”’. 
 See Ab-Beth-Din. 
 
 Fatherhood of God and poor, 244. 
 
 Feeding of dumb creatures, precept on, 
 20-1, 
 
 ‘‘Fence’’ to the Torah and saintly 
 conduct, 17-8. 
 
 Ferdinand and Isabella, alluded to, 66. 
 
 Firkowitch, Karaite scholar, alluded 
 tonal. 
 
 France, earliest settlement of Jews in, 
 3; alluded to, 127, 129. 
 
 France and Zaddikim-cult, 47. 
 
 Francis of Assisi, Renan’s admiration 
 TOE, M103 
 
 Frankel, Z., alluded to, 57, 97, 157, 
 Maly yey 
 
 Frankfort-on-the-Main, Rabbinical con- 
 ference of 1846, held at, referred 
 £07075. 
 
 French Revolution, 
 
 tationalistic in- 
 
 fluence of, on German Jews, 4; 
 and cessation of persecutions, 23; 
 inflluence on Geiger, 70-1. 
 
 Friedlaender, David, alluded to, 5. 
 
 Fruits, precept on duty to taste all 
 manner of, 20. 
 
 Gallic tribes, virile qualities of, alluded 
 
 to, 3. 
 Gamaliel, Rabban, the Elder, alluded 
 tO AadendOle 
 
 Gamaliel II, son (or grandson) of 
 Hillel, 200; president of Academy 
 of Jamnia, 200; at trial of Paul, 
 200; autocratic in treatment of 
 colleagues, 201. 
 
 Gans, Edward, quoted, 87, 89; lack 
 of Jewish sympathies of, 88; con- 
 vert to Christianity, 88. 
 
 Gaon. See Geonim. 
 
 Gefrorer, opinion of, on Zunz’s G.V., 101. 
 
 Geiger, Abraham, Stern’s biography of, 
 48; Leben und Lebenswerk, com- 
 memorating centenary of birth of, 
 48; distinguished as great scholar, 
 48; great controversialist and re- 
 former, 48; professor of divinity, 
 48; Low’s, Essay on, as philologist, 
 49; ‘“‘twists and prejudices of,’’ 
 49-50; achievements in history of 
 Jewish sects, 50; genius for heresy 
 hunting, 50; hypothesis on origin 
 of Sadducees, 50; revision neces- 
 sary of Die Urschrift, 51; biog- 
 raphy by Ludwig Geiger, 51-2; 
 untenability of some theories of, 
 52; correspondence of, with Deren- 
 bourg, 52; attitude on fasting, 53; 
 controversy with Tiktin, 53-5; 
 disappointment at son’s failure to 
 prepare for rabbinate, 54; as 
 dayyan in orthodox Bet-Din, 54; 
 as theologian, 57-8; philologist 
 rather than theologian, 57-8; Das 
 Judenthum und seine Geschichte, 
 alluded to, 57, 67; essay on 
 original sin, 58; the Torah as the 
 
316 
 
 word of God, 58-60; view of crea- 
 tion, 59; folly of Messianic belief, 
 59; mission-doctrine of Israel, 60; 
 Judaism to become universal re- 
 ligion, 62; Judaism not heno- 
 theistic, 62; Israel not a nation, 
 62; against belief in Messiah, 62; 
 opposed to restoration of Pales- 
 tine, 62; regards as blasphemous 
 prayer for restoration of Palestine, 
 63; opposition to Jewish nation- 
 ality, 63; ungrammatical interpre- 
 tation of passage in Isaiah, 64; 
 views regarding ‘‘Holy’”’ Land, 64; 
 regards Judah ha-Levi’s love for 
 Zion morbid, 64; favors abandon- 
 ment of Hebrew, 66; circumcision 
 a relic of barbarism, 66; ‘‘Judg- 
 ment of History,’’ 66; considers 
 dietary laws as hindrance to pro- 
 gress, 67; hostile to ceremonies and 
 symbols, 67; religious views affect 
 conception of Jewish history, 67; 
 continuity of Jewish history and 
 thought, 68; lacks sympathy for 
 traditional types of Jewish feeling, 
 68; purpose of Judaism, 69-70; 
 review of Zunz’s Zur Geschichte 
 und Literatur, 70; product of his 
 time, 72; prophetic Judaism and, 
 73; weakness of reform position 
 of, 80; on the superiority of Juda- 
 ism, 81; strove for preservation of 
 Sabbath, 81; rationalism of, pro- 
 duct of French revolution, 70-1; 
 alluded to, 97, 104, 161; quoted on 
 Zunz’s G. V., 101; on building new 
 religious systems on basis of tra- 
 dition, 101. 
 
 Geiger, Ludwig, biographical essay of 
 Abraham Geiger, 51-2; and the 
 Jewish ministry, 54. 
 
 Gemara, the, defined, 219; treatmemt of 
 Mishnah, examples of, 220-1. 
 
 Gematriot, as means of ascertaining 
 authors of anonymous piyyutim, 
 102. 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Gemilut Hasadim, 
 kindness,’’ 7-8. 
 
 Genesis, the Book of, cited, 1, 231. 
 
 Gentile, the, precepts against cheating 
 ot, 20-2; embittered attitude to- 
 ward, explained, 153, 183-4. 
 
 Geonim, responsa of, product of Jewish 
 belief, 107; haggadic fragments of, 
 122, 123; story of Four Captured, 
 alluded to, 127; acquainted with 
 Hebrew original of Ecclesiasticus, 
 208. 
 
 Gerim, ‘‘Proselytes,’ 
 referred to, 211. 
 
 German Jews, at beginning of 19th 
 century, 76, 90. 
 
 German Saints, mentioned 
 Orah Hayyim, 129. 
 
 Germany, Jews of, first mention of 
 settlement of 3; persecutions of, 
 14, 23; alluded to, 127, 128, 129, 
 132. 
 
 Germany, medieval, Jewish saints of, 
 1, 74; close association with Holy 
 Land, 8. 
 
 Gershon, Rabbenu, alluded to, 10. 
 
 Geschichte des FErziehungswesens der 
 Juden, by Gudemann, alluded to, 
 131; 
 
 Gestetner, index by, to Zunz’s Litera- 
 turgeschichte, 107. 
 
 Gezerot, decrees, 195, 198. 
 
 Gitiin, ‘‘Letters of Divorce’’, tractate, 
 on treatment of Mishnah, 200; 
 described, 229. 
 
 Giza, of Sura, a Sabora, alluded to, 
 227. 
 
 God, longing of Saints for communion 
 with, 9; as viewed in the Talmud, 
 15, 45; service demanded by, 19- 
 20; on loving, at risk of fortune, 
 21-3; on religious ecstasy in 
 prayer to, 23; invoking miracles 
 in name of, 37; traditional con- 
 ception of, 56; as compassionless 
 Father, 68; as soul of Israel, 112; 
 attributes of, 215; Makom, the 
 
 ‘‘deeds of loving 
 
 minor tractate, 
 
 in Tur 
 
INDEX 
 
 317 
 
 
 
 Omnipresent, on giving praise to, 
 221; as sole owner of everything, 
 241-3; men belong to, 243-4; 
 Israel as servant of, 243-4; all 
 children of, 244. 
 
 Gospels, the, inadequate source for 
 life of Jesus, 25-7; story of money- 
 changers in the Temple, 34; Jesus’ 
 entrance into Jerusalem according 
 to, 39. 
 
 Gottesdienstliche Vorirage der Juden, by 
 Zunz, analyzed and reviewed, 99; 
 has neither index nor table of 
 contents, 100; opinions of, by 
 Geiger, Gefrorer, Samiler, and 
 Chajes, 101-2; views of, attacked by 
 Chajes, 102; influence on scientific 
 study of Jewish literature, 101; 
 some features of, antiquated, 
 103-4; unavailability of, to Polish 
 Jews, 103; Midrash Halakah little 
 treated, 104; two defects of, 104; 
 on importance of oral instruction, 
 108; explains gap between Oral 
 and Written Law, 108; on date of 
 portions of Bible, 108; on continuity 
 of traditionall spirit in Jewish 
 literature, 109-10; analysis of 
 chapters of, 118-31. 
 
 Grace, at meals, 243. 
 
 Graetz, alluded to, 5, 139, 178. 
 
 Grammars and dictionaries 
 Talmud, 236-7, 
 
 “Great Inarticulate,’’ phrase describing 
 German Jews of Middle Ages, 11. 
 
 *‘Great Interpreters’, See Shemaiah 
 and Abtalyon. 
 
 Greece, alluded to, 127: culture of, 
 Rabbis conscious of, 157. 
 
 Greek and Latin, studies of, encouraged, 
 158; words interspersed in Mish- 
 nah, 205. 
 
 Gross, author of Gallia Judaria, al- 
 luded to, 130. 
 
 Gudemann, alluded to, 131. 
 
 Guest, treatment of, saintly precepts 
 on, 19, 
 
 of the 
 
 Hadrian, alluded to, 126, 176-7; per- 
 secutions of, 127, 172, 178-9, 202. 
 
 Haftarot, antiquity of, 118. 
 
 Haggadah, literature of, chapters on, 
 in G. V. analyzed, 121, 122, 123, 
 125, 126, 127; later European de- 
 velopments, 127; defined, 146-7, 
 195; sayings attributed to ‘‘Pairs,”’ 
 197-8; could be recorded, 208; 
 Babylonian Talmud rich in, 222; 
 deep devotion of Palestinian 
 Rabbis to, 224; conception of God 
 as sole owner of everything, 242. 
 
 Haggadah, Ethical, chapter in G. V., 
 analyzed, 122-123. 
 
 Haggadah, historical, chapter in G. V., 
 analyzed, 123-4, 
 
 Haggadah Shel Pesah, alluded to, 123. 
 
 Hagigah, ‘‘Feast-Offering’’, tractate, 
 described, 228. 
 
 Hagiographa, alluded to 118, 119, 121, 
 124. 
 
 Halakah, the, historical development 
 of, 104; alluded to, 120-121; 
 haggadic fragments in the works 
 of the, 122; defined, 146, 195; 
 Halakot attributed to five ‘‘Pairs,’’ 
 198; Hallakic dicta of schools of 
 Hillel and Shammai, 200; prohibi- 
 tion against writing down, often 
 disregarded, 208; Midrash as aid 
 to exposition of, 212, and Midrash, 
 212; Biblical sanction through 
 Midrashic interpretation, 213. 
 
 Halakot, paragraphs of Mishnah, 204. 
 
 Halakot Gedolot, alluded to, 121, 122. 
 
 Halo, the, as symbol of prophetic 
 power, 35-6. 
 
 Haliah, the ‘‘Dough,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 227. 
 
 Hamburger, Geiger’s brother-in-law, 
 
 alluded to, 53. 
 Hanan, high-priest, alluded to, 34. 
 Hanefim, Talmudic term for hypoc- 
 rites, alluded to, 43. 
 Harnack, alluded to, 80. 
 Hasid, Hebrew equivalent for saint, 
 
318 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 5-6; hospitality an essential trait 
 of the, 7. 
 
 Hasidim, ‘‘beautiful souls,’’ 6;  litera- 
 ture of, austere yet kindly spirit 
 of, 18-9, 
 
 Hazzan, office held in high regard by 
 German Jewish saints, 10-1; paid 
 officer in Spain, 10-1. 
 
 Hebraists, Christian, important contri- 
 butions of, to Jewish literature, 88. 
 
 Hebrew language, Geiger favors aban- 
 donment of, 66. 
 
 Heder attended by Zunz, 85. 
 
 Hediot, Talmudic term for priest, dis- 
 cussed, 180-1. 
 
 Heilprin, alluded to, 88. 
 
 Heine, on Bendavid, 89; on Zunz’s 
 lack of popularity, 93. 
 
 Hekash, Talmudic term for argument 
 by analogy of matter, 213. 
 
 Hekdesh, records of, not preserved, 240. 
 
 Hellas, the art and intellect of, Rab 
 conscious of, 153; studies of, 
 encouraged, 158. 
 
 Hen, defined, 5. 
 
 Heresies as stimulants to religion, 50. 
 
 Hermeneutical rules of Hillel, Ishmael, 
 and Eliezer ben Jose of Galilee, 
 2148. 
 
 Hero-worship, America and, 47; Mill 
 and Carlyle quoted on, 49. 
 
 Herzl, Theodor, alluded to, 84. 
 
 Hesed, defined, 5. 
 
 High Priests, accusations against, 34-5, 
 180. 
 
 Hillel, alluded to, 41, 199; viewed 
 favorably by Edersheim, 167-8; 
 quoted 168-9; one of the Zugot, 
 197; native of Babylon, 198; 
 descendant of House of David, 
 198; quoted on loving fellow- 
 creatures, 198; and Shammai, most 
 important ‘Pair,’’ 198; many 
 Halakot recorded in name of, 198; 
 famous teaching to heathen seek- 
 ing admission into Judaism, 199; 
 interpretation on sacrificing Pas- 
 
 chal Lamb on Sabbath, 199; mild 
 interpreter of tradition, 200; Seven 
 Rules of Interpretation of, 211; 
 expanded into Thirty-two, 211; 
 Kal va-Homer, one of hermeneutical 
 tules of, 212; on treatment of 
 impoverished rich, 247; on personal 
 charity, 247. 
 
 See also Shammai; Shammai, the 
 House of. 
 
 Hillel, Mishnah collections of, utilized 
 by Judah ha-Nasi, 120, 206; 
 
 Hillel, the House of, (Bet Hillel), 
 alluded to, 126. 198; important 
 teachers, 198, 200; on size of fami- 
 lies, 274. 
 
 Hirsch, Samson Raphael, alluded to, 84. 
 
 Hisda, Babylonian Amora, alluded to, 
 2101 
 
 Historical Haggadah, chapter on, in 
 G. V., analyzed, 123. 
 
 History, Jewish, Geiger’s views on, 
 67-8; Zunz condemns lack of 
 interest in, 95-6. 
 
 Hiyya, Palestinian Amora, supposed 
 compiler of Tosefta, 120, 209, 216-7. 
 
 Holdheim, alluded to, 74. 
 
 Holiness and saintliness, 22. 
 
 Holland, alluded to, 128. 
 
 Holy life, the, qualities constituting, 72. 
 
 Homiletics. See Gottesdienstliche Vor- 
 trage. 
 Horayot, ‘‘Decisions,’’ tractate, de- 
 
 scribed, 230. 
 
 Horwitz, Ch. M. alluded to, 210. 
 
 Hosea, the Book of, alluded to, 109. 
 
 Hosha‘ya Rabba, Palestinian Amora, 
 supposed compiler of Tosefta, 120, 
 209, 216-7. 
 
 Hospitality of Medieval German Jews, 
 he 
 
 House of Hillel. See Hillel, the House of. 
 
 House of Shammai. See Shammai, the 
 House of. 
 
 Hullin, ‘‘ Things Secular’, tractate, de- 
 scribed, 231. 
 
 Huna of Sura, Babylonian Amora, 217. 
 
INDEX 
 
 319 
 
 
 
 Hymns, Ashkenaz, religious fervor of. 
 17% 
 
 Hypocrisy, Pharisaic and Christian, 
 charges and countercharges, 42-3. 
 
 Ibn Ezra, alluded to, 100, 111. 
 
 Ideas, the supremacy of, over Jews, 
 91-2. 
 
 Idiom of Mishnah, described, 204-5. 
 
 Iggeret Bikkoret, by Chajes, referred to, 
 102. 
 
 Immanence, mystic theory of, never 
 lawless or degenerating, 22; theory 
 of, confused, 91. 
 
 Incarnation, doctrine of, questioned, 
 
 25% 
 Interpretation. See Midrash. 
 Interpretation, Rules of, alluded to, 
 2O0L; 217¢ 
 
 Introduction to the Talmud, 235. 
 
 Introductoin Talmud Hierosolymitanum, 
 by Frankel, alluded to, 181. 
 
 Isaac Lurie and legend of the Bat Kol, 
 249, 
 
 Isaac Or Zarua, modesty of, 13. 
 
 Isabella of Spain, alluded to, 66. 
 
 Isaiah, the Book of, cited 20, 64, 109, 
 186, 214; Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Ishmael, son of Eliezer ben Azariah, 
 Tanna, alluded to, 212, 268. 
 
 Ishmael ben Elisha, Tanna, emigrated 
 to Usha and founded school there, 
 201; alluded to, 201, 212, 214; 
 author of Thirteen Rules of Inter- 
 pretation, 211; comment on pas- 
 sage in Exodus, 214. 
 
 Ishmael ben Elisha, School of, 202, 
 211; Midrashim emanating from, 
 QLit 
 
 Ishmael ben Phiabi, alluded to, 34. 
 
 Israel, wedded to the Torah, 5; greater 
 than any Jewish sects, 45; greater 
 than Christianity, 45; Jesus as 
 incarnation of, 46; traditional doc- 
 trine of, 56; Geiger on, as a nation, 
 62; the Synagogue as highest ex- 
 pression of life of, 112; merits of, 
 
 flow from study and good works, 
 176-8. 
 
 Israel Baal Shem, alluded to, 83. 
 
 Israeli, Spanish Talmudists, alluded to, 
 14, 
 
 Italy, alluded to, 127, 128. 
 
 Jabneh, Sanhedrin of, authority of, 171. 
 
 Jacob ben Asher, author of the Turim: 
 quoted 1; on love of prayer by 
 German saints, 9; poverty of, 
 15-6. 
 
 Jacobs, Joseph, As Others Saw Him, 
 by, reviewed, 25-46. 
 
 Jamnia, Academy of, founded by 
 Johanan ben Zakkai, 200; becomes 
 centre of Jewish life, 200; Rabban 
 Gamaliel II, president of, 200; 
 Eleazar ben Azariah, president of, 
 201. 
 
 Jargon, lectures and sermons in, 129, 
 
 Jehiel ben Asher, and the office of 
 Hazzan, 9. 
 
 Jehoshua ben Chananiah. See Joshua 
 ben Hananiah. 
 
 Jehuda ben Ezekiel, founder of School 
 of Pumbeditha, alluded to, 217. 
 
 Jehuda ben lIlai, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 202. 
 
 Jellinek, alluded to, 139. 
 
 Jeremiah, Palestinian Amora, alluded 
 TOs 248. 
 
 Jeremiah, the Book of, alluded to, 5, 
 109; quoted by Geiger against idea 
 of Holy Land as Land of Promise, 
 64. 
 
 Jerusalem, alluded to, 27, 32-3, 39, 40, 
 43,63,65,171, 174, 175, 181, 184; as 
 symbol, not as place to be restored, 
 63; authority of Sanhedrin of, 171. 
 
 Jerusalem Talmud, quoted, 172, 176, 
 218, 219, 242-3; on gifts, 175; 
 introduction to, by Frankel, 
 alluded to, 181; Maimonides on 
 Johanan as compiler of, 223; 
 absence of tradition on completion 
 
320 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 of, 224; reasons for copiousness of 
 haggadic literature in, 224. 
 See also Talmud. 
 
 Jesus, as hero, 25; as God, 25; accepted 
 by pagans for theological purposes. 
 25; divinity questioned, 25, 26; 
 difficulties for writing adequate 
 biography of, 26; Renan’s and 
 Martineau’s ‘‘Lives’’ of, 26; 
 varieties of national types of, 26-7; 
 Gospels inadequate source for 
 “*Life’’ of, 25-6; adherents of, 27; 
 the Pharisees and, 28; accuses 
 Pharisees of hypocrisy, 29; and 
 the money-changers, 32; miracul- 
 ous cures of, 36-7; avowed himself 
 Messiah, 38, 40; Messianic claims 
 never realized, 38; entry into 
 Jerusalem, 43; destruction of 
 Jerusalem due to sin against, 43. 
 controversy with Pharisees, 43. 
 greeted by Johanan ben Zakkai. 
 41; as incarnation of Israel, 46; as 
 “sweet Rabbi of Nazareth,” 82; 
 as prophet, 82; as subject for 
 Jewish sermons, 82; glorification 
 of, 165; Edersheim’s Life and 
 Times of Jesus, discussed, 163. 
 193; Edersheim, on divergence of 
 Christian and Rabbinical teach- 
 ings, 164; importance of opinions 
 of Rabbis contemporary with, 
 167-8. 
 
 Jesus ben Abbas, alluded to, 39. 
 
 Jesus ben Sirach, alluded to, 123. 
 
 See also Wisdom of Ben Sira. 
 
 Job, the Book of, Midrash to, 125; 
 Talmudic discussion on, 220. 
 Johanan ben Nappaha, of Sepphoris 
 and Tiberias, Palestinian Amora, 
 217; compiler of Jerusalem Tal- 
 mud, according to Maimonides, 
 
 221% 
 
 Johanan be Zakkai, alluded to, 182, 
 200; leader of peace party against 
 Rome, 200; founded Academy of 
 Jamnia, 200-1; disciples of, 201; 
 
 quoted, 242; on Israel as slave of 
 God, 243-4, 
 
 “John, the Gospel of,’’ alluded to, 25. 
 
 Jonah, Palestinian Amora, 218. 
 
 Jonah, the Book of, Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Jonah, the Prophet, alluded to, 20. 
 
 Jonathan, disciple of R. Ishmael, 
 alluded to, 202. 
 
 Jose, Palestinian Amora, alluded to, 
 218. 
 
 Jose, the Priest, alluded to, 182. 
 
 Jose of Galilee, Tanna, alluded to, 201; 
 on the Sabbath, 212. 
 
 Jose ben Joezer, of Zereda, one of 
 Zugot, alluded to, 197; halakot 
 attributed to, 198. 
 
 Jose ben Johanan, 
 alluded to, 197, 
 
 Jose of Pumbeditha, a Sabora, alluded 
 tom2223 
 
 Joseph, ‘‘Sinai,’’ Babylonian Amora, 
 authority on Targum, 184, 218. 
 
 Joseph ben Halafta, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 203. 
 
 Joseph Bekor Shor, medieval Bible 
 exegete, alluded to, 12. 
 
 Joseph Caro, alluded to, 1, 12. 
 
 Joseph Da Costa, work on etiquette, 95. 
 
 Josephus, alluded to, 123, 124, 197. 
 
 Joshua ben Hananiah, Tanna, alluded 
 to, 180-81, 201. 
 
 Joshua ben Levi, Palestinian Amora 
 alluded to, 217. 
 
 “Joshua ben Levi, the Story of", 
 haggadic work, alluded to, 123. 
 
 Joshua ben Perahiah, alluded to, 197. 
 
 Josia, disciple of R. Ishmael, alluded 
 to, 202. 
 
 Josippon, alluded to, 86, 123: author- 
 ship of, 137. 
 
 Jost, Jewish historian, 
 86-7, 101. 
 
 “Jubilee Books,’’ multiplicity of, 47-9. 
 Judah ben Asher, declines remunera- 
 tion for rabbinical service, 15. 
 Judah Brieli, medieval rabbi, alluded 
 
 ton, Pps 
 
 of Jerusalem, 
 
 alluded to, 
 
INDEX 
 
 321 
 
 
 
 Judah he-Hasid, author of ‘‘ Book of 
 Saints,’’ quoted, 19-20. 
 
 Judah ben Jehiel, will of, quoted, 14-5; 
 declines remuneration for rabbini- 
 cal service, 15-6. 
 
 Judah ha-Levi, love of, for Zion, con- 
 sidered morbid by Geiger, 64; on 
 “‘Fear, Love and Joy”, as religious 
 emotions, 264-5. 
 
 Judah ha-Nasi, called Rabbenu ha- 
 Kadosh, the Patriarch, or simply 
 Rabbi, on emigration from Babylon 
 to Palestine, 64; alluded to 120, 
 176, 203; president of the Sanhed- 
 tin, 203; his relations with Roman 
 authorities of Palestine, 203; 
 mastery of Oral Law, 203-4; great 
 authority of, renders possible com- 
 pilation of Mishnah, 204; purpose 
 of compilation, 205; Mishnah com- 
 pilations utilized by him, 206; 
 Mishnah of, becomes text-book of 
 Oral Law because of authority of, 
 208-9; question whether he actu- 
 ally wrote down the Mishnah, 
 debatable, 207; disciples of, 209, 
 220i 
 
 Judah ben Simon, on relation of rich 
 to poor, 248; on virtue of aiding 
 poor, 248. 
 
 Judah ben Tabbai, one of the Zugot, 
 alluded to, 197. 
 
 Judaism, and mysticism, 18-20: Zunz’s 
 view of, 69, 110; Geiger’s view 
 of, 75; exaggerated tendencies in, 
 91; Zunz on, as private possession 
 of Parnasim, 116, and asceticism, 
 263-4. 
 
 Judenthum, Das, und seine Geschichte, 
 by Geiger, discussed, 57. 
 
 Judges, the Book of, cited, 216. 
 
 Judith, the Book of, alluded to, 123. 
 
 Jus talionis implied in Midrashic in- 
 terpretation of passages in Exodus 
 and Leviticus, 213. 
 
 Kabbalah, alluded to, 127, 129; defined, 
 194, 
 
 Kahana II, of Pumpeditha, credited 
 with beginning compilation of 
 Babylonian Talmud, 218. 
 
 Kal va-Homer, ‘‘a fortiori’, one of 
 hermeneutical rules of Hillel, 212. 
 
 Kalir, alluded to, 1, 8; 127-8; 134, 138. 
 
 Karaites, Zunz’s aversion to, 111; 
 alluded to, 128. 
 
 Kaufmann, David, quoted, 84. 
 
 Kedushah, elements of, defined, 251. 
 
 Kelim, ‘‘Vessels,’’ tractate, described, 
 232. 
 
 Keritot, ‘‘Excisions,”’ tractate, alluded 
 to, 220; described, 231. 
 
 Ketab Galhut, letters and language of 
 
 clerics, Jewish designation for 
 Latin, 2. 
 
 Ketubot, ‘*‘ Marriage Deeds and Mar- 
 riage Settlements,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 229. 
 
 Kiddushin, ‘‘Betrothals,’  tractate, 
 cited, 177-8; described, 229. 
 
 Kil’ayim, ‘‘ Mixtures,” tractate, de- 
 
 scribed, 226. 
 
 Kindness to poor viewed by pagans as 
 sin, 250. 
 
 Kingdom of Heaven, Rabbinical con- 
 ception of, 184-5. 
 
 Kings, the Book of, cited, 214. 
 
 Kinim, ‘‘Nests’”’ of birds, tractate, de- 
 scribed, 232. 
 
 Kinyan Torah, haggadic fragment, 
 alluded to, 123. 
 
 Kirschheim, alluded to, 210. 
 
 Kiyyum ha-‘Olam, Talmudic term for 
 perpetuation of the world, 271. 
 
 Kodashim, ‘‘Sacred things’’, the Order 
 of, eleven tractates of, described, 
 230-1. 
 
 Kohen Hediot, ordinary priest, 180. 
 
 Kohn, S., alluded to, 130. 
 
 Kovno, alluded to, 4-5. 
 
 Krochmal, Nachman, contrasted with 
 Geiger, 72; alluded to, 84, 104, 157. 
 
322 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Kusari, of Judah ha-Levi, 
 264-5. 
 
 Kutim, ‘‘Samaritans,’ 
 referred to, 211. 
 
 , 
 
 minor tractate, 
 
 Labor, as duty, 250; position of, in 
 Judaism, 269-73; as a religious 
 institution, 271; causes sin to be 
 forgiven, 271; disdain of work and 
 Jewish leaders, 272. 
 
 Lagarde, Paul de, alluded to, 160. 
 
 Landau, alluded to, 113-4. 
 
 Landauer, alluded to, 139. 
 
 Latin and Greek words interspersed in 
 Mishnah, 205. 
 
 Law, study of, and pious works, 176. 
 
 Laws, the repeal of, divine and rabbini- 
 cal) 172-3. 
 
 Lay-heads of Jewish community, power 
 of, 92. 
 
 Laziness incompatible with religious 
 life, 266. 
 
 Lecturing, system of, in antiquity and 
 in Rabbinic ages, chapters in G. V., 
 analyzed, 126-9. 
 
 Legends as irresponsible history, 3. 
 
 Leon, Jacob Juda, portrait of, alluded 
 to, 96. 
 
 Levi, Rabbi, Tanna, alluded to, 154. 
 Levi ben Gershon, philosophical works 
 of, orthodoxy questioned, 89. 
 Levi ha-Sadar, Tanna, alluded to, 212. 
 Levitical purity, halakot dealing with, 
 
 attributed to Jose ben Joezer, 198. 
 
 Leviticus, the Book of, instances of 
 Midrashic interpretation of, 174, 
 205, 213-5; 228-9; 230-33; 243; 
 Sifra, Midrash on, 211. 
 
 “Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah”’, 
 by Edersheim, discussed, 163-93. 
 
 Literature, Jewish, wide scope of, 94-5. 
 
 Literaturgeschichte der Synagogalen Poe- 
 sie, by Zunz, reviewed, 106-7; 
 scope of, 107; greatest authority 
 on subject, 107; Gestetner’s index 
 to, 107. 
 
 quoted, | Liturgy, considered as bad paraphrase 
 
 of Psalms, 98; as highest expres- 
 sion of Jewish sentiment, 185; as 
 expression of feeling of Jews 
 toward Gentiles, 185; Zunz’s 
 works on, listed, 105. 
 See also Prayer Book. 
 Livingston, explorer, alluded to, 80. 
 “Lord,” as traditional title of Messiah, 
 43-4, 
 Low, Immanuel, essay on Geiger as 
 philologist, 49. 
 Lud, conference at, alluded to, 179. 
 “Luke, the Gospel of”, cited, 44. 
 Luzzatto, Moses Hayyim, unmarried 
 state of, provokes displeasure of 
 
 sages, 275. 
 Luzzatto, S. D., alluded to, 4, 11, 113, 
 138. 
 
 Lydda, School in, alluded to, 201. 
 
 Maaseh Bereshit, mystic work, 124. 
 
 Ma'‘aser Sheni, “‘Second Tithe,’ trac- 
 tate, described, 226. 
 
 Ma'‘aserot, ‘‘Tithes,’”’ tractate, 
 scribed, 226. 
 
 Macaulay, alluded to, 181. 
 
 Maccabean period, reading of Torah 
 customary in, 118; alluded to, 191. 
 
 Maccabees, the Books of, alluded to, 
 123; the Second Book of the, 
 alluded to, 124. 
 
 Mahzor, the German, contains many 
 hymns by Palestinian authors, 8; 
 large number of commentaries of, 
 in Germany, 9; filled with com- 
 positions of German Saints, 10. 
 
 Maimonides, alluded to, 4, 11, 14, 95, 
 100, 111, 126, 128; quoted, 63; 
 philosophical works, of orthodoxy 
 suspected, 89; views on salaried 
 scholars and teachers, 97; on R. 
 Johanan as compiler of Jerusalem 
 Talmud, 223. 
 
 Makkot, ‘‘Stripes,’’ tractate, described, 
 229-30. 
 
 de- 
 
INDEX 
 
 323 
 
 
 
 Makom, the Omnipresent, on giving 
 praise to, 221. 
 
 Makshirin, ‘‘Preparers,’”’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 233. 
 
 Mandaic and the language of the 
 Babylonian Talmud, 219. 
 
 Manners. See Masseket Derek Erez: 
 Tractado de Cortesia. 
 
 Manual labor exalted as a virtue, 206. 
 
 Mar bar R. Ashi, Babylonian Amora, 
 218. 
 
 Marriage as a divine institution, 273; 
 as vital obligation, 275. 
 
 Martineau, author of Ecce Homo, al- 
 luded to, 26; ‘“‘three critical rules 
 of’, 28-9. 
 
 Martyrdom of Jews of Xanten, 9; of 
 German Jews, 14-5, 17. 
 
 ‘‘Martyrs, the Ten, Execution of’, 
 haggadic fragment, 123. 
 
 Masseket Abot, haggadic fragment, 
 alluded to, 122. 
 
 Masseket Derek Erez, minor tractate, 
 alluded to, 210. 
 
 Masseket Kallah, minor tractate, al- 
 luded to, 210. 
 
 Masseket Middot, haggadic fragment» 
 alluded to, 122. 
 
 Masseket Semahot, minor _ tractate, 
 alluded to, 210. 
 Masseket Soferim, minor _ tractate, 
 
 alluded to, 210. 
 Massiktot, the tractates of the six 
 Orders of the Mishnah, 204. 
 ‘‘Master,’’ Rabdban, title of early Tan- 
 naim, 200. 
 
 ‘‘Matthew, the Gospel of’’, quoted, 39, 
 41, 43. 
 
 Meassefim, School of, alluded to, 86. 
 
 ‘*Meditations of the Egssenes’’, mid- 
 rashic work, 124. 
 
 Meekness and humility, features of 
 saintliness, 12-3. 
 
 Megilla Jerushalmi, cited, 181. 
 Megillah, ‘‘Roll’’ of Esther, tractate, 
 quoted, 208; described, 228. 
 Megillat Antiochus, haggadic work, 123. 
 
 Megillat Hassidim, 
 alluded to, 123. 
 
 Megillat Sammanim, tractate, alluded 
 to, 208. 
 
 Megillat Setarim, haggadic work, al- 
 luded to, 123. 
 
 Megillat Ta‘anit, referred to, 208. 
 
 Megillat Yuhasin, haggadic work,.123. 
 
 Mehlsag. See Samiler. 
 
 Meil Zedakah by Elijah Cohen, work 
 on philanthropy, alluded to, 240. 
 
 Me‘ilah, ‘‘Trespass,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 219-20; 231. 
 
 Meir, disciple of Akiba, alluded to, 
 122-3, 203; Mishnah collection of, 
 ground work of Mishnah com- 
 piled by Judah ha-Nasi, 202, 206. 
 
 “Meir, the Torah of’’, haggadic work, 
 124, 
 
 Meir ben Isaac, 
 alluded to, 10. 
 
 Meir of Rothenburg, modesty of, 13; 
 incarceration of, 14-5. 
 
 Meir Schiff, German Talmudist, al- 
 
 haggadic work, 
 
 teacher of Rashi, 
 
 luded to, 24. 
 
 Mekilia, ‘‘Measure,’”” a _ portion of 
 Midrash on Exodus, 120; 122, 
 211-15. 
 
 “Men of the Great Assembly (or 
 Synagogue)’’, alluded to, 119-20; 
 196. 
 
 Menahot, ‘‘Meal-Offerings,’’ tractate, 
 described, 231. 
 
 Mendelssohn, Moses, alluded to, 68, 90, 
 
 OL955098 001 90829; 
 
 Meor ‘Enayim by Azariah de Rossi, 
 alluded to, 88. 
 
 Merkabah, Baraita of, 124. 
 
 Merodach Baladan, prince of Baby- 
 lonia, alluded to, 186. 
 
 ““Messenger of the Congregation’ 
 See Hazzan. 
 
 Messiah, the, belief in, of German 
 Jews, 7; how recognized, 35; Jesus 
 and, 38-40; 43-4; ‘‘Lord”’ as title 
 of, 43; allusions to, in Rabbinical 
 literature, 44; opposed by Geiger, 
 
324 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 62-3; 65; anticipation of coming 
 of, discussed, 76-7; Zunz’s view of, 
 80. 
 
 Meturgeman, the, 127. 
 
 Metz, community of, mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Mezuzah, minor tractate, referred to, 
 210. 
 
 Middot, ‘‘Measurements’’ of the 
 Temple, tractate, alluded to, 33; 
 described, 232. 
 
 Middot, Forty-nine, Baraita of, hag- 
 gadic fragment, alluded to, 122. 
 
 Midrash, considered perversion of 
 Pentateuch and Prophets, 98; 
 chapter on, in G. V., analyzed, 
 119-21; two kinds of, Midrash 
 Halakah and Midrash Haggadah, 
 120-1; haggadic fragments in, 
 122; defined, 194; development of, 
 by Bet Hillel, 200; exegetical basis 
 of, 211; practical object of, 211; 
 deduction of new Halakot from 
 Scripture, 211; reveals interpreta- 
 tory work of Tannaim, 211; ex- 
 ample of vivid style of, 212-3; 
 difficult to determine precedence 
 of Halakah and, 212; supports old 
 Halakot, 213. 
 
 See also Mekilia; Sifra; Sifre. 
 
 Midrash, Abkir, 125; Abba Gorion, 
 125; Blessing of Jacob, the, 125; 
 Chronicles, 125; Debarim Rabbah, 
 125; Debarim Zuta, 125; Ekah 
 Rabbati, 124; Eleh Ezkerah, 123; 
 Estas (i25 sat Esihersa25s)" Hera, 
 125; Hashkem;" 125; Huppat 
 Eliyyahu, 125; Isaiah, 125; Job, 
 125; Jonah, 125; Haftarot, 125; 
 Konen, 124; Ma‘aseh Torah, 125; 
 to Proverbs, 125; on Psalms, 125; 
 to Samuel, 125; Shemini Othothav, 
 125; Shemot Rabbah, Shir ha- 
 Shirim, 125, 223; Ta‘ame Haserot 
 Wivyeterot; Tadshe 125; Temurah, 
 123; on the Ten Commandments, 
 123; on “the Three Things”, 125; 
 
 Wayeku.u, 127; R. Meir, 200. 
 
 Midrash, Exegetical, first germs found 
 in Hosea, Ezekiel, etc., and 
 Pentateuch, 109. 
 
 Midrash Haggadah, defined, 120. 
 
 Midrash Halakah, treated in Zunz 
 G. V., 10; defined, 120. 
 
 Midrash Rabbah, haggadic work, 122. 
 
 Midrashim to Pentateuch and Biblical 
 Books, chapters on, in G. V., 
 analyzed, 125. 
 
 Midrashim as perversion of Pentateuch. 
 attributed to Ishmael ben Elisha, 
 
 199, 
 
 Midrashim on Death of Moses and 
 Aaron, 123. 
 
 Mikwaot, ‘‘Wells,’’ tractate, described, 
 aoe 
 
 Mill, John Stuart, quoted, 49. 
 
 Minhagim, customs, 193. 
 
 Minor tractates, referred to, 123, 210. 
 
 Miracles, frequency of, in time of 
 Jesus, 36-7; tendency to minimize 
 number, by modern students, 37. 
 
 Mishnah, as product of Jewish belief, 
 104; collections of earlier, employed 
 by compiler, 107; as depository of 
 Oral Law, defined and described, 
 143, 204-5; date of compilation, 
 143, 205; idiom of, 204-5; the 
 division into Six Orders, 204; 
 purpose of compilation, 205; ex- 
 amples of earliest strata discern- 
 ible, 206-7; question whether 
 compiler actually wrote down, de- 
 batable; as text-book of students 
 of the Oral Law, 209. 
 
 See Baraita; Judah ha-Nasi: Tosefta: 
 
 Mishnah ha-Hizonah. 
 
 Mishnah ha-Hizonah, the Baraita or 
 “the external Mishnah,”’ 209. 
 
 Mishnayyot, alluded to, 120. 
 
 Mishne Torah, by Maimonides, alluded 
 tO eit 
 
 Mission doctrine of Israel, 
 ceived by Geiger, 54, 65. 
 
 Missionaries, Christian, zeal of, 74. 
 
 as cCOn- 
 
INDEX 
 
 325 
 
 
 
 Modernity and need of past, 41. 
 
 Modesty of Ashkenazic commentators, 
 10. 
 
 Mo‘ed, ‘‘Season,” the order of, the 
 twelve tractates of, described, 
 227-8. 
 
 Mo’‘ed Kaion, ‘‘ Minor Feast,’’ tractate, 
 described, 228. 
 
 Mohammedanism, Israel greater than, 
 45. 
 
 Money-changers in Temple, 32-3. 
 
 Moral precepts, compiled by saints. 
 
 **Moses, the Chronicle of’, haggadic 
 work, 123. 
 
 **Moses, the Chronicle of’, haggadic 
 work, 123, 189. 
 
 Moses ben Eliezer ha-Kohen, author of 
 **Book of Saints,’’ quoted, 19--21. 
 
 Moses ha-Cohen, of Xanten, martyr- 
 dom of, 7-8. 
 
 **Moses, Midrash on Death of’, 123. 
 
 ‘*Moses, Laws unto, from Mount Sinai’’, 
 alluded to, 196. 
 
 Moses ha-Darshan, chapter on, inG. V., 
 126. 
 
 Mount of Olives, alluded to, 32, 65. 
 
 **Mountain-Mover,’’ name applied to 
 Rabban ben Nahmani, 218. 
 
 Muenster, community of, mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Mystical tendencies of Akiba’s dis- 
 ciples, 202. 
 
 Mystical writers, Isaiah and Ezekiel 
 as, 109. 
 
 Mysticism, Judaism and, 18-20; chap- 
 ter on, in G. V., analyzed, 124. 
 
 See also Kabbala: Sod. 
 
 Nachgelassene Schriften, by Geiger, 
 alluded to, 33, 58, 62, 67-8. 
 
 Nahman, Rabbi, on celibacy, 268. 
 
 Nahmanides, pilgrimage of, to Pales- 
 tine, 65. 
 
 Nares, School in, founded by R. Papa, 
 218. 
 
 Nashim, *‘Women,” the Order of, the 
 
 seven tractates of, described, 
 228-9. 
 Nasi, ‘‘Prince’’ or ‘‘President’’ of 
 
 Sanhedrin, 117, 197. 
 Nathan ha-Babli, Tanna, alluded to, 
 203. 
 Nathan of Braslav, on truth, 74-5. 
 Nathan of Cordova, alluded to, 97. 
 “Nathan of the Light’, alluded to, 35. 
 Nationalism, Jewish, considered, 78-9; 
 and anti-Semitism, 77. 
 Nazir, ‘‘Nazirite,”’ tractate, described, 
 
 219-20; 229. 
 
 Nedarim, ‘‘Vows,” tractate, described, 
 219-20; 229. 
 
 Nehardea, School in, mentioned, 217. 
 
 Nega‘im, ‘‘Leprosy,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 232. 
 
 Nehemiah, the Book of, alluded to, 119. 
 
 Nehemiah, Tanna, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 202: compiler of a 
 Tosefta, 209-10. 
 
 Netherlands, alluded to, 120. 
 
 Neubauer, alluded to, 16, 130. 
 
 Neumann, Dr. S., alluded to, 141. 
 
 New Hebrew, idiom of Mishnah, 
 204-5; 209. 
 
 Newman, Cardinal, alluded to, 75. 
 
 New Testament and Rabbinical writ- 
 ings, Edersheim on divergence of, 
 164-5; alluded to, 123-5; 195, 197. 
 
 See also Gospels. 
 
 New Year’s prayer, quoted, 185. 
 
 Nezikin, ‘‘Damages,”’ the Order of, the 
 ten tractates of, described, 229-30. 
 
 Niddah, the ‘‘Menstruous,”’ tractate, 
 described, 232. 
 
 Nineveh, alluded to, 20. 
 
 Nissim, R., haggadic collection of, 
 alluded to, 123. 
 
 Nittai of Arbela, alluded to, 197. 
 
 Nitsah, the House of, on importance 
 of study, 175-8. 
 
 Nizrak, Hebrew and Yiddish term for 
 humble and dependent poor, 261. 
 
 Nokri, term defined, 186. 
 
326 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Novels, theological, embodied in ‘‘Lives 
 of Jesus,’’ 25. 
 
 Numbers, the Book of, cited, 205, 210, 
 216, 226-9; 231-2; Sifre and Sifre 
 Zuta on, 211. 
 
 Oholot, 
 232. 
 
 Olam ha-Ba, ‘‘salvation,’”’ loss of, and 
 the truth, 74. 
 
 Onkelos, Targum of, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Old Testament. See Bible, the. 
 
 Oral Law, the, defined, 194; the ‘‘ Pairs’ 
 in relation to development of, 197; 
 and Written Law, subject to 
 historical modifications, 104; sup- 
 posed, and living stream of divine 
 tradition, 167; basis for enact- 
 ments of, in Scripture, found by 
 Akiba, 202; prohibition against 
 writing down contents of, 207-8; 
 Mishnah chief depository of, 204— 
 5; presupposes knowledge of in- 
 stitutions established by, 205; 
 authority of Mishnah compilation 
 of Judah ha-Nasi over others, 208-9. 
 
 Orders, the Six, of the Mishnah, trac- 
 tates of, described, 202, 204, 
 226-33. 
 
 Ordinances, the repeal of, authority 
 of Rabbis in, 174-5. 
 
 ‘Orlah, ‘‘Uncircumcised,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 227. 
 
 Orobio, Isaac, portrait of, alluded to, 
 96. 
 
 Orphan and widow, the, pagan neglect 
 of, 224. 
 
 Orthodox Judaism and religious ob- 
 servance, 74. 
 
 “Other,’’ Aker, discussed, 44-5. 
 
 ‘‘Tents,’’ tractate, described, 
 
 Pagan conception of charity, 249-51. 
 
 “Pairs,”’ See Zugot. 
 
 Paitanim. See Piyyutim. 
 
 Palestine, restoration of, hoped for, 63; 
 considered ‘‘romantic’’ by Geiger, 
 64; Geiger on, as Promised Land, 
 
 64; view of Rab Judah on emigra- 
 tion from Babylon to, 68, 73; 
 alluded to, 129; literature of, 
 224-5. 
 
 Palestinian Amoraim, list of important, 
 literature produced by, 216-8; 
 Rabbi, title of, 216. 
 
 Palestinian Talmud, ‘‘the Talmud of 
 Jerusalem,’”’ ‘‘the Talmud of the 
 Land of Israel,’’ ‘‘the Talmud (or 
 the Gemara) of the West” alluded 
 to, 218; dialect of, 219; concise 
 style of, 219. 
 
 Palquera, Shemtob, Zunz’s essay on, 
 alluded to, 87. 
 
 Papa, Babylonian Amora, founder of 
 School in Nares, 218. 
 
 Parable, of ‘‘Good Samaritan,” and 
 “Good Israelite,’ 94; illustrating 
 pagan and Jewish conceptions of 
 charity, 249-50. 
 
 Parah, ‘‘Red Heifer,” 
 scribed, 232. 
 
 Parnasim, power of, 92-3; attacked by 
 Zunz, 94, 104. 
 
 Paul, Apostle, alluded to, 31, 200. 
 
 Pea, ‘‘ Corner,” tractate, described, 226. 
 
 Penitent, the true, position of, 190. 
 
 Pentateuch, the, the Talmud as perver- 
 sion of; contains germs of exegetical 
 Midrash, 109; weekly Readings 
 from, 118; legal part of, requires 
 interpretation, 119; does not form 
 part of tradition, 120; germs of 
 exegetical haggadah in, 109, 124; 
 Midrashim on, 125. 
 
 Perakim, sections of tractates of 
 Mishnah, 204. 
 
 Perek ha-Shalom, minor tractate, al- 
 luded to, 123. 
 
 Persecutions of Jews, by Crusaders, 16. 
 
 Persia, alluded to, 129. 
 
 Pesahim, ‘‘Passovers,’’ tractate, cited, 
 199; described, 227. 
 
 Peshat, simple understanding of Scrip- 
 tures, 121; instances of, as used in 
 Midrash, 214. 
 
 tractate, de- 
 
INDEX 
 
 327 
 
 
 
 Pesikia, the, (de-Rab Kahana), chap- 
 ters on, in G. V., analyzed, 124; 
 homilies based on Haftarot, 225. 
 
 Pesikta Rabbati, chapter on, in G. V., 
 analyzed, 125. 
 
 Peter, the Apostle, alluded to, 18. 
 
 Pharisaism, Israel greater than, 45; 
 on sin, 190. 
 
 Pharisees, as viewed by Renan and 
 Martineau, 27-8; as viewed in 
 “‘As Others Saw Him,”’ 28, 29, 31; 
 *‘Woes”’ against, by Jesus, 25; on 
 sin and repentance, 190-1. 
 
 Pharisees and Sadducees, struggle be- 
 tween, 120; alluded to, 190, 191; 
 controversial Halakah cited on 
 relation between, 213. 
 
 Philanthropy, Halakic literature con- 
 tains laws about charity, but no 
 history, 237; Jewish view of, 239; 
 no real book on subject, 240; Meil 
 Zedakah by R. Elijah Cohen, only 
 book on, 240-1; underlying prin- 
 ciples of charity, 241; all wealth 
 belongs to God; 241-2; men be- 
 long to God, 243-4; relation be- 
 tween rich and poor, 244-5; treat- 
 ment of poor, 245-7; God and 
 men, with relation to poor, 247-9; 
 pagan conception of charity, 249- 
 51; Jewish attitude towards suffer- 
 ing and poverty, 251-3; poor held 
 in high esteem, 253-56; Israel and 
 poverty, 256, 259; two aspects of 
 poverty, 258; poverty the greatest 
 hardship, 259-61; poverty as a 
 degenerating force, 261-3; Judaism 
 and hedonism, 263, 267; Judaism 
 and asceticism, 267-9; position of 
 work in Judaism, 269-73; prohibi- 
 tion of celibacy, 273, 275; the 
 family and charity, 275-6. 
 
 Philippson, Ludwig, alluded to, 130. 
 
 Philo, alluded to, 124. 
 
 Philosophy, no systems of, in Talmud, 
 159, 
 
 Pilgrimages to Palestine, 65. 
 
 Pilpulistic lecture, alluded to, 129. 
 
 Pinsker, alluded to, 111. 
 
 Pirke Abot, quoted, on asceticism, 264; 
 on marriage, 268. 
 
 See also, Abot. 
 
 Piyyutim, by German saints not 
 incorporated in Siddur, 10; Ge- 
 mairiot as means of ascertaining 
 anonymous authors of, 102; as 
 continuation of spirit of Psalms, 
 109-10; chapter on, in G. V., 
 127-8. 
 
 Plato, alluded to, 70, 100. 
 
 Poetry, secular, and Zunz, 112. 
 
 Poland, migration of German Jews 
 into, 23; saints of, 73; alluded to, 
 129. 
 
 Poor, the, on aiding, instead of buying 
 Scroll of Law, 19; and rich alike, 
 244; treatment of, 245-46; con- 
 sideration for feeling of, 246; God 
 and men with relation to, 247; 
 regarded by pagans as slaves, 
 under curse of gods, 250; Hebrew 
 terms ant and anaw discussed, 
 252; high regard for, 253; close 
 relation to God, 253; God’s people, 
 254; God feels responsibility for 
 causing one to be poor, 256; ag 
 title of honor of Israel, 256. 
 
 See also Charity; Philanthropy; 
 Poverty. 
 Poor scholars inferior to wealthy 
 
 scholars, 263. 
 
 Portraits of Jewish celebrities, lack of, 
 96. 
 
 Poverty, not a vice or crime, 242; a 
 meritorious quality, necessary for 
 spiritual welfare, 256-7; imparts 
 beauty of character to Israel, 257; 
 stimulant to repentance, 257; not 
 raised to religious system, 257; 
 the greatest hardship, 259; as 
 moral test, 259; cause of loss of 
 independence, 259; degradations 
 due to, 261; Ben Sira on, 261; as 
 a degenerating force, 261-63; pro- 
 
328 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 duces Godlessness, 262; cause of 
 untruthfullness, 262-63; not de- 
 sirable end in itself, 263. 
 
 Poznanski, essay on Geiger, 50. 
 Prague, Zunz as preacher in, 113. 
 
 Prayer, defined, 7; value of, to saints, 
 7; sacred devotion during prayer, 
 22. 
 
 Prayer-book, the affinity of German and 
 Palestinian rituals, 7; Sephardic, 
 order of prayer borrowed from 
 Babylonian schools, 7; German 
 Jews’ love of, 8; sacred regard for, 
 8; quality of Ashkenazic and Sep- 
 hardic hymns compared, 11. 
 
 Precepts of saints, quoted, 17, 23. 
 Prejudices of medieval German Jews, 3. 
 
 Promised Land. See Holy Land. 
 
 Prophetic Judaism and Geiger, 73. 
 
 Prophetical Readings. See Haftarot. 
 
 Prophecy, the shining light of, 35. 
 
 Prophets, the, the Books of Talmud 
 and Midrash considered perver- 
 sion of 98; Prophecy does not cease 
 with, 110; germs of exegetical 
 haggadah in, 124, 
 
 Proselytes to Judaism through inter- 
 marriage, 79. 
 
 Protestantism, Jewish and Orthodox 
 rabbis and, 74. 
 
 Proverbs, the Book of, cited, 5, 183, 
 216; Midrash to, 125. 
 
 Psalmist, dependence upon God, 72-3. 
 
 Psalmists did not cease with Macca- 
 bees, 110. 
 
 Psalms, the Book of, interpretation of, 
 as alluding to Messiah, 43-4; 
 cited, 72, 74, 98, 207, 216, 221, 
 241; Midrash to, 125, 
 
 Psalms, sentiment of, revived in liturgy, 
 110. 
 
 Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum 
 Pentateuch, 121. 
 
 Pumbeditha, School of, founded by R. 
 Jehuda ben Ezekiel, 217. 
 
 on the 
 
 Rab, disciples of, 217; quotations at- 
 tributed to, 216. 
 
 Rab, title of, of Babylonian teachers 
 216. 
 
 Raba, Babylonian Amora, 218. 
 
 Rabbah ben Nahmani, Babylonian 
 Amora, ‘‘the Mountain Mover’, 
 218. 
 
 Rabbah Tasfaah, of Pumbeditha, Baby- 
 lonian Amora, 218; helped complete 
 and reduce to writing Babylonian 
 Talmud, 218. 
 
 Rabbanan Saburat. See Saborai. 
 
 Rabban, ‘‘Master,”’ title of Tannaim 
 42, 120. 
 
 Rabbenu ha-Kadosh, name given to 
 Judah ha-Nasi, 203. 
 
 Rabbi, ‘‘my Master,” title of Tannaim, 
 42, 120, 200. 
 
 Rabbina (Rab Abina), of Sura, Baby- 
 lonian Amora, 218; helped com- 
 plete and reduce to writing 
 Babylonian Talmud, 218. 
 
 Rabbinical Conference, Frankfort-on- 
 the-Main, 1846, referred to, 75-6. 
 
 Rabbinical Ordinances, authority and 
 duration of, 172-3. 
 
 Rabbis, real merits of, recognized by 
 Zunz, 100; Edersheim, on vainglory 
 of, 169; attitude of, towards Gen- 
 tiles, 183-4; as mortals, 193. 
 
 Rabiah, by Samiler, alluded to, 102. 
 
 Rahamim, defined, 5-6. 
 
 Ramsgate, Judith College at, alluded 
 to, 136. 
 
 Rapoport, alluded to, 4, 57, 139, 161; 
 correspondence with Zunz, 101, 
 1413; 
 
 Rashi, alluded to, 5, 10, 175; modesty 
 of, 13; commentary of, to the 
 Talmud, alluded to, 12; essay on, 
 by Zunz, 89, 100, 136. 
 
 Rationalism, need for scientific basis 
 of, 90; superficial, 91; and the holy 
 life, 72. 
 
 Rationalists and saints, 3-4, 
 
INDEX 
 
 329 
 
 
 
 Ratzinger, author of book on charity | Russia, Jews of, and Zaddikim-cult, 47; 
 
 from Catholic point of view, 239. 
 Rav, on the dignity of labor, 260. 
 Raziel, the Book of, alluded to, 124. 
 Redeemer. See Messiah. 
 
 Reform Judaism considered, 79. 
 
 Reform movement and life of religionist, 
 1p 
 
 Regensburg, alluded to, 6. 
 
 Reggio, alluded to, 132. 
 
 Rejoicing of the Law. See Simhat Torah. 
 
 Religion of humanity, and Judaism, 62. 
 
 “‘Remnant of the Men of the Great 
 Assembly,” alluded to, 196. 
 
 Renan, Ernest, Vie de Jesus, by, 
 alluded to, 26; on defects of 
 Jewish race, 28; admiration for 
 Francis of Assisi, 75. 
 
 Repeal of Ordinances, the, divine and 
 Rabbinical, 172-6. 
 
 Repentance, Jew’s duty to urge Gentile 
 toward, 20; discussed, 188-9. 
 Responsa as records of Jewish charit- 
 
 able work, 240. 
 
 Reuchlin, alluded to, 161. 
 
 Rhine, Jewish communities of, men- 
 tioned by Benjamin of Tudela, 
 6-7; correspondence of leaders of, 
 with Palestinian authorities, 8. 
 
 Rich and poor, relation between, 244-5. 
 
 Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes, brief 
 analysis of contents of Zunz’s 133-4. 
 
 Rohling, alluded to, 183. 
 
 Roke’ah, legalist work of Eliezer ben 
 Jehudah, of Worms, alluded to, 22. 
 
 Romans, degenerate qualities of, 
 alluded to, 3; wars against, and 
 Johanan ben Zakkai, 200. 
 
 Rosh ha-Shanah, ‘‘New Year’’, trac- 
 tate, described, 228. 
 
 Rules of Interpretation, the Seven, 
 framed by Hillel, 199; the Thir- 
 teen, framed by Ishmael ben 
 Elisha, 201: Thirty-two, of Eliezer- 
 hen Jose, 122, 211. 
 
 Rufus and Rabbi Akiba, discussion on 
 charity, between, 249-50. 
 
 influence of rabbis of, 92. 
 
 Saadya, Gaon, acquainted with orig- 
 inal of Ben Sira, 208. 
 
 Sabbath, the, Geiger and preservation 
 of, 81; reading of the Law on, 118; 
 view of Shammai on, 199; earliest 
 Mishnaic references on, 206; dis- 
 cussion in Midrash regarding, 212; 
 and poverty, 260. ‘ 
 
 Sabbatical year, discussion, regarding, 
 in Midrash, 213. 
 
 Saborai, group of Talmudic authorities, 
 222-3; activities of, 121, 223; 
 peculiar to Babylon, 223. 
 
 Sacrifices, high cost of, resented by 
 Samuel ben-Gamaliel, 33-4; order 
 of, in Temple, 40, and the Sabbath, 
 199; of first fruits in Temple, 206-7. 
 
 Sadducees, Geiger on origin of, 50; 
 struggle between Pharisees and, 
 127; controversial Halakah on 
 Pharisees and, 213. 
 
 Sadduceism, Israel greater than, 45. 
 
 Safed, referred to, 248. 
 
 Saint, defined, 4, 17. 
 
 Saintliness, characteristics of, 9, 12-4; 
 17, and holiness, 22, 
 
 Saints, Polish Jewish, and holiness, 73. 
 
 Saints, Jewish, religious devotion of, 5, 
 in medieval Germany, 5-18. 
 
 Salfeld, S , author of works on marty- 
 rolo gies, alluded to, 16. 
 
 Salman, fourteenth century rabbi, on 
 honest dealing, 21. 
 
 Salvation, loss of and the truth, 74-5. 
 
 Samaritan, the Good, parable of, and the 
 Good Israelite, 44; term defined, 
 186. 
 
 Samaritans and Jews, enmity between, 
 185-6. 
 
 Samiler, reviews Zunz’s G. V., 102; 
 sarcastic parodies by, on Gema- 
 triot, 102. 
 
 Samson, alluded to, 216. 
 
 ‘*Samsonsche Freischule, Die,” 85. 
 
330 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Samuel, the Book of, cited, 189. 
 
 “Samuel and Adda, the Baraita of,’’ 122. 
 
 Samuel the Astronomer, Babylonian 
 Amora, 217. 
 
 Samuel, Mar, Babylonian Amora, al- 
 luded to, 137. 
 
 Samuel ben Gamaliel, resents high cost 
 of sacrifices, 33-4. 
 
 Samuel he-Hasid, alluded to, 19. 
 
 Samuel ben Jose ben R. Bun, Pales- 
 tinian Amora, cited, 218. 
 
 Samuel ben Meir, medieval Bible 
 exegete, alluded to, 12. 
 Samuel ben Nahmani, Palestinian 
 
 haggadist, 217. 
 
 Sanctification and saintliness, 215. 
 Sanhedrin, tractate, alluded to, 180-1, 
 186, 190-1; described, 229-30. 
 Sanhedrin, the, replace prophets in line 
 
 of tradition, 119-20; the Zugot or 
 “Pairs” as heads of, 120, 197; 
 authority of, 171; repeal of de- 
 cisions of, 173; migratory body in 
 time of Judah ha-Nasi, 203; 
 transactions of, recorded in Mish- 
 nah, 207. 
 Satan, alluded to, 37. 
 
 **Sayings of the Jewish Fathers.’’ See 
 "Abot. 
 
 Schools, Beth Midrash, institution of, 
 120. 
 
 Scribes, the, authority of words of, 171; 
 respect for, 180; verbal subtlety 
 of, 181; and Evangelists contrasted, 
 189. 
 
 Scriptures. See Bible, the. 
 
 “*Sea of the Talmud’’, designation for 
 contents of Talmud, 149, 222. 
 **Secret of Creation, the,’’ mystic work, 
 
 124. 
 
 Seder Eliyyahu, haggadic fragment, 
 alluded to, 122. 
 
 Seder ‘Olam, attributed to Jose ben, 
 Halafta,’ 122, 203. 
 
 Seder ‘Olam Zuta, haggadic work, 123. 
 
 Sefer Hasidim, ‘‘Book of the Saints,” 
 quoted, 19-21. 
 
 ~ 
 
 Sefer Torah, minor tractate, referred 
 to, 210: 
 
 Sefer ha-Yashar, alluded to, 123-4. 
 
 Sefer Yezirah, alluded to, 124. 
 
 Selihah, the, spirit of Psalms revived 
 in, 110; alluded to, 112. 
 
 Sephard, term explained, 2; identified 
 with Jewry under Mohammedan 
 rule, 2; benefit from Arabic cul- 
 ture,, 2. 
 
 Sephard, Jews of, contrasted with 
 Ashkenaz Jews, 2. 
 
 Sepphoris, seat of Sanhedrin during 
 persecutions, 203. 
 
 Septuagint, quoted, 214. 
 
 Sermons, quotation from Zunz’s, 113; 
 early need of, to interpret Bible, 
 119, 
 
 Servants, admonition on, gentle treat- 
 ment of, 19. 
 
 Shabbat, ‘‘Sabbath,” tractate, quoted, 
 199, 206; described, 227. 
 
 Shammai, one of the Zugot, alluded to, 
 197; quoted, 199; interpretation of 
 the Law, 199. 
 See also Hillel. 
 
 Shammai, the School of, alluded to, 
 126; (Bet Shammai), 168, 198; 
 conservative adherents of tradi- 
 tion, 200; views of, recorded as 
 minority opinion on Mishnah, 205-— 
 6; Mishnah collections of, util- 
 ized by Judah ha-Nasi, 206. 
 
 Shebi'1t, ‘Sabbatical Year,’’ tractate, 
 described, 226. 
 
 Shebu‘ot, ‘‘Oaths,”’ tractate, described, 
 
 230. 
 
 Sheeltot of Geonim, alluded to, 121; of 
 Rab Aha, 122. 
 
 Shekalim, ‘‘Shekels,’” tractate, de- 
 
 scribed, 227. 
 
 Shekinah, ‘‘Glory of God,” alluded to, 
 35, 86, 215; ‘“‘Divine Manifesta- 
 tion’’ laments at suffering of 
 sinners, 191; caused to dwell upon 
 Israel as result of work, 271. 
 
331 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Sheliah Zibbur, ‘‘Messenger of the 
 Congregation.”” See Hazzan. 
 Shema’, recited before martyrdom, 9; 
 custom of daily reading of, in 
 
 Mishnah, 205-6. 
 
 Shemaiah and Abtalyon, the ‘‘Great 
 Ones of the Generation’’, alluded 
 to, 197-8. 
 
 Shemot Rabbah, Midrashic work, 125. 
 
 Sheshet, Babylonian Amora, 217. 
 
 Shilhi, School of, founded by R. 
 Sheshet, 217. 
 
 Shimeon ben Nathanael, alluded to, 
 182. 
 
 Shimeon. See also Simeon; 
 
 Shining Light of Prophecy, 35. 
 
 Shir ha-Shirim, Midrash on, 125, 223. 
 
 Shofar, blowing of, held in high regard 
 by German saints, 10; unwilling- 
 ness to officiate at, reproved by 
 Jehiel ben Asher, 10-11. 
 
 Shulhan ‘Aruk, alluded to, 1. 
 
 ‘‘Shulban ‘Aruk Jews’’, religious emo- 
 tion of, 74. 
 
 Siddur. See Prayer Book. 
 
 Sifra, ‘‘the Book’’, Midrash on Leviti- 
 cus; alluded to 120, 122, 211; 
 quoted, 210, 213-5. 
 
 Sifre, ‘‘the Books’’, Midrash on Num- 
 bers and Deuteronomy, alluded 
 LOM ZO 22 AON A8OR 211" 
 215-6. : 
 
 Sifre Zuta, Midrash on Numbers, 120, 
 122: 
 
 Simeon ben ‘Azzai, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 202, 274. 
 
 Simeon ben Lakish, Palestinian Amora, 
 217. 
 
 Simeon ben Manasya, Tanna, on the 
 Sabbath, 212. 
 
 Simeon ben Shetah, one of the Zugot, 
 alluded to, 197; introduces several 
 religious reforms, 198. 
 
 Simeon ben Yohai, Mekilta of, 137, 211. 
 
 Simeon ben Zoma, disciple of Akiba, 
 alluded to, 202. 
 
 Simon, 
 
 Simeon. See Shimeon; Simon. 
 
 Simhat Torah, first introduced 
 Babylon, 118. 
 
 Simlai, Palestinian Amora, 217. 
 
 Simon ha-Darshan, alluded to, 122. 
 
 Simon ben Gamaliel, resents high cost 
 of sacrifices, 33; alluded to, 35. 
 
 Simon II ben Gamaliel II, disciple of 
 Akiba, alluded to, 203. 
 
 Simon the Just, alluded to, 119. 
 
 Simon Kahira, author of Halakot 
 Gedolot, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Simon ben Lakish, quoted, 217, 242, 
 25Ge 
 
 Simon ben Yohai, disciple of Akiba, 
 Mekilta of, 137, 211; alluded to, 
 202-3; on neglect of study of 
 Torah, 268-9; on importance of 
 honest work, 269. 
 
 in 
 
 Simon. See also Shimeon, Simeon. 
 Simona, of Pumbeditha, a Sabora, 
 222-3. 
 
 Sin and repentance, views of Rabbis 
 and Gospels, 188-9. 
 
 ‘““Sinat,’’ designation of R. Joseph, 218. 
 
 Smolensky, Perez, on disdain for 
 manual labor, 266. 
 
 Sod, mystical explanation of Scripture, 
 1242 
 
 Sofer, Moses, quoted, 75; alluded to, 
 73; on allegiance to Torah, 60-1. 
 
 Soferim, haggadic fragment, 122. 
 
 Soferim, the, as carriers of voice of 
 God, 109, 115; defined, 196; 
 words of the, 196. 
 
 Solomon, King, alluded to, 207. 
 
 Solomon ben Isaac. See Rashi. 
 
 “Solomon, the Wisdom of’’, haggadic 
 work, 123-4. 
 
 Song, love of, by Ashkenaz saints, 8-9. 
 
 Song of Songs, the Book of Midrash, 
 ony 1259223: 
 
 Sotah, “‘the Suspected Woman,” trac- 
 tate, described, 229. 
 
 Spain, alluded to, 8, 14, 127-8, 132; 
 rabbinical authorities of, alluded 
 to, 207. 
 
532 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Spinoza, alluded to, 96, 101, 111. 
 
 Stephen, Leslie, quoted, 58-9; alluded 
 to, 75. 
 
 Stern, book on persecutions of Jews 
 during the Crusades, alluded to, 16. 
 
 Stern, bibliography of Geiger by, al- 
 luded to, 48. 
 
 Stern, N. A., alluded to, 74. 
 
 Strauss, David Friedrich, influence of, 
 on Geiger, 55. 
 
 Stubbs, Bishop, quoted, 67. 
 
 Study and good works, discussed, 175-6. 
 
 Suffering, Jewish attitude towards, 
 251-3; as a virtue, 252. 
 
 Sukkah, ‘Booth’ or ‘Tabernacle,’ 
 tractate, example of treatment of 
 Scriptures, cited, 205; described’ 
 
 227. 
 
 Sura, School of, founded by Abba 
 Arika, 217. 
 
 Symmachos, Tanna, authority on civil 
 law, 203. 
 
 Synagogale Poesie, des Mittelalters, Die, 
 by Zunz, alluded to, 105; analyzed, 
 134-5. 
 
 Synagogue, the institution of, as crea- 
 tion and creator of tradition, 108; 
 sublimest expression of Israel’s life, 
 112, 115, as institution of prayer 
 and teaching, 115 118. 
 
 Synagogue, Reform in, by suppressing 
 arrogance of rich, 94. 
 
 Synhedrion. See Sanhedrin. 
 
 Ta‘anit, ‘‘Fast,’’ tractate, cited, 154-5; 
 described, 228. 
 
 Tabernacle, description of, Baraita on, 
 122; alluded to, 208. 
 
 Talmidim, ‘‘disciples’’, in line of tra- 
 dition, 119, 
 
 Talmud, the, influence of, 86; strange 
 literature, 86; as perversion of 
 Pentateuch and Prophets, 98; 
 Zunz’s early prejudices against, 99; 
 as product of Jewish belief, 110; 
 main object to interpret Mishnah, 
 120, 219; study of, 143; progress 
 
 in, 143-4; little philological study 
 of Rabbinical classics, 143; im- 
 portance of study of, 144; com- 
 pared with studies of oriental 
 literature, 144; difficulties beset- 
 ting proper study of, 144-51; what 
 is the Talmud?, 144; too varied 
 for definite description, 144; its 
 division in form and _ substance, 
 144; what it is not, 144-5; full of 
 fragmentary notices on many sub- 
 jects, 146; how edited and com- 
 piled, 147-8; record of religious food 
 of rabbinical Judaism, 147; ma- 
 terial collected by Rab Ashi, 148; 
 when completed, 148-9; language 
 of, 149; the Yam ha-Talmud, 
 the ‘‘Sea of the Talmud,” 149;, 
 character of the text of, 150; 
 corrupt and defective texts, 151; 
 contraditions in, 151; tolerance 
 and intolerance of Rabbis, 152; 
 central aim of Talmudic authori- 
 ties, 152; valued monographs on 
 special phases of, 153; difficulties 
 of, 151; nature of God in, 154; 
 study of, approached with care, 
 154; theological fancy of the 
 Rabbis, 154; impossible to con- 
 struct theological or philosophical 
 system on basis of speculations of, 
 154; no philosophy of, 155; lack of 
 proper guides to study of, 156; 
 scientific study of recent date, 156; 
 important study of, by Spanish and 
 Franco-German schools of middle 
 ages, 156-7; profound be’ief pre- 
 vents a scientific study of, 157; 
 hatred of Gentile, 157; love of 
 Gentile, 157; critical study of, in 
 19th century, by Rapoport, Kroch- 
 mal, Frankel, Zunz, Geiger, 157-8; 
 never systematically taught in uni- 
 versities like Latin and Greek 
 Classics, 158; need of scientific 
 apparatus for study of, 159; non- 
 existence of accurate text of, 
 
INDEX 
 
 333 
 
 
 
 160; exaggerated praise and abuse 
 of, 161; quoted to meet special 
 theories, 162; tendency to rum- 
 mage in, for curios, 162; misin- 
 terpreted by Edersheim, 164; 
 eschatology of, 184; exaggerated 
 claims of contents, 192; permeated 
 with religion and service of law and 
 right, 192; plea for critical study 
 of, 193; defined, 194; the Soferim, 
 196-7; the Zugot, 197-8; the 
 Tannaim, 199-204; the Amoraim, 
 216-8; reduced to writing, 218; 
 the Gemara, 219; difference be- 
 tween Mishnah and Gemara, 219; 
 Aramaic dialect employed in, 219; 
 style of, 219-22; similarities of 
 diction, 219; example treatment of 
 Mishnah, 220-1; tractates of, de- 
 scribed, 225-33; bibliography of 
 literature on, 234-7; editors of, 
 234; introductions to, 235; dic- 
 tionaries and grammars of, 236-7; 
 quoted, 242. 
 Talmud Yerushalmi. 
 Talmud. 
 Talmud Babli. See Babylonian Talmud. 
 Tamid, tractate, alluded to, 33. 
 Tana de-be Eliyyahu, minor tractate, 
 
 See Jerusalem 
 
 123; 
 
 Tana de-be R. Ishmael, haggadic frag- 
 ment, 122. 
 
 Tarfon, Rabbi, Tanna, alluded to, 
 
 177-8, 201. 
 
 Takkanoi, ordinances, defined, 195-7. 
 
 Tamid, ‘‘Continual sacrifice’, tractate, 
 described, 231. 
 
 Tannaim, the, interpretatory work of, 
 tevealed in Midrash, 124, 211; 
 rabbinical authorities of first two 
 centuries C. E., 199; Schools of 
 Hillel and Shammai, first of, 199; 
 R. Judah the Patriarch, last of, 
 199; title Rabbi or Rabban borne by, 
 200; list of distinguished, 200-4; 
 acquainted with original of Ben 
 Sira, 208. 
 
 Tarfon, Rabbi, on ‘‘study and good 
 works,’’ 177-8; alluded to, 201. 
 
 Targum, the, R. Joseph, authority on, 
 212: 
 
 Targum of Akiba, alluded to, 122. 
 
 Targum Jonathan, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Targum Onkelos, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Targum Yerushalmi, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Targumim, early introduction of, 118-9; 
 chapters on, in G. V., analyzed, 
 121-2, 124. 
 
 Taylor, Charles, alluded to, 169, 170-1, 
 182-3. 
 Tebul Yom, ‘‘Immersed During the 
 Day’’, tractate, described, 233. 
 Tefillin, minor tractate, referred to, 
 Zits 
 
 Temple of Jerusalem, the, money 
 changers in, 32-43; organization 
 and description of, 33; order of 
 sacrifices at, 32-34; alluded to 
 40-42, 200, 206-7, 208; Jewish and 
 Christian reasons for destruction 
 of, 42-3; destruction of, embittered 
 Rabbis of Talmud, 184; Eliezer 
 ben Jacob JI, authority on struc- 
 ture and service of, 202-3; gifts to, 
 24252474 
 
 Temurah, ‘‘Change,’’ tractate, de- 
 scribed, 219-20, 231; quoted, 208. 
 
 Terumot, ‘‘ Heave-Offerings,’’ tractate, 
 described, 226. 
 
 Teuton, virile qualities of, alluded to, 3. 
 
 Theology of Rabbis, Edersheim on, 
 187-8. 
 
 Theosophic character of German Jewish 
 mysticism, 18. 
 
 Thirty-two Rules of Rabbi Eliezer ben 
 Jose of Galilee, 122, 211. 
 
 Tiberias, place where Sanhedrin con- 
 vened during persecutions, 203. 
 
 Tiktin, Solomon, controversy with 
 Abraham Geiger, 47, 49. 
 
 Tithes, discussed, 174-5. 
 
 Tobia ben Eliezer, medieval Talmudist, 
 alluded to, 126. 
 
 Tobit, the Book of, alluded to, 123. 
 
334 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 Tohorot, ‘‘Purifications,’’ the Order of, 
 the twelve tractates of, described, 
 232-3; tractate, described, 232. 
 
 Toledo, alluded to, 14. 
 
 Tombs, incriptions on, 142. 
 
 Torah, the, Israel wedded to, 5; regard 
 for, by German saints, 15, 18-9; 
 as balance between flesh and 
 spirit, 19; Galilean dislike for, 41; 
 as word of God, 59, 63; reading of, 
 customary in Maccabean period, 
 118; knowledge and ideals of, 
 zealously diffused by Sanhedrin, 
 120; the Books of the Bible as 
 compliment to, 120; intended for 
 man, 192; study of, combined with 
 work; 270. 
 
 “Torah by Mouth.’”’ See Oral Law. 
 
 ‘*Torah-in-Writing,’’ Written Law, 194. 
 
 Torah of R. Meir, haggadic work, 124. 
 
 Torat Kohanim, ‘‘The Law of the 
 Priests’, Midrashic work, alluded 
 tostLg9o; 241, 
 
 Tosfaah, Rabbah, of Pumpeditha. 
 Rabbah Tosfaah. 
 
 Tosafists, essay on, chapter in Zur 
 Geschichte, 130. 
 
 Tosefta, ‘‘addition’’ to the Mishnah, 
 R. Hiyya and R. Hoshaya Rabba, 
 compilers of, 120, 167, 216-7; 
 defined, 209; alluded to, 122; 
 contains occasional comments from 
 Gemara, 209. 
 
 Tosefta of R. Nehemiah, referred to, 
 209-10. 
 
 Tractado de Cortesia, by Joseph Da 
 Costa, alluded to, 95. 
 
 Tractates of Talmud enumerated, 225- 
 Soe 
 
 See also Massikiot; Orders, the Six; 
 Perakim. 
 
 See 
 
 Tradition, appeals to, 47; and Holy 
 Writ, 176; as creation and creator 
 of institution of Synagogue, 108; 
 ancient custom against writing 
 down contents of, 207-8; custom 
 
 not applicable to haggadic books, 
 208. 
 
 ‘*Traditions of the Old Sages’’, haggadic 
 work, 124. 
 
 Treves, community of, mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 Triennial Cycle, alluded to, 118. 
 
 Truth, precept on importance of speak- 
 ing the, 27. 
 
 Tunis, alluded to, 129. 
 
 Tur Orah Hayyim, by Jacob ben Asher, 
 cited, 1. 
 
 Turkey, migration to, of German Jews, 
 23-4; alluded to, 128. 
 
 Ukzin, ‘‘Stalks,’’ tractate, described, 
 234) 
 
 Ula, Amora, alluded to, 174. 
 
 Ulhorn’s History of Christian Charity, 
 referred to, 239; contends Jewish 
 charity inferior to Christian, 239- 
 40. 
 
 Usha, School at, founded by Ishmael 
 ben Elisha, 201; seat of Sanhedrin, 
 203. 
 
 Verein fuer Cultur und Wissenschaft des 
 Judenthums, alluded to, 87; Zunz’s 
 activities in, 89; dissolution of, 91. 
 
 “Vie de Jesus,’ by Renan, alluded to, 
 26. 
 
 Vulgate, the, alluded to, 214. 
 
 ‘‘Wealth, All, belongs to God’, an 
 underlying Jewish principle, 241-3. 
 
 Wealth and authority, 92. 
 
 ‘“Weekly Readings,’’ from the Penta- 
 teuch, 118, 128. 
 
 Weiss, Isaac Hirsch, Austrian Talmu- 
 dist, alluded to, 5, 104. 
 
 Wellhausen, alluded to, 37, 55. 
 
 ‘*Welling-spring, A,’’ characterization 
 of Eleazar ben Arak, 182-3. 
 
 Wills. See Ethical Wills. 
 
INDEX 
 
 335 
 
 
 
 Wisdom of Ben Sira. See Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 “Wisdom of Solomon’, haggadic 
 work, alluded to, 123-4. 
 
 “‘Woes’’ against Pharisees, uttered by 
 
 Jesus, 44. 
 
 Wolf, J. C., Christian Hebraist, alluded 
 to, 88. 
 
 Wolfenbuttel, Samsonische Freischule 
 at, 85; Gymnasium at, attended 
 by Zunz, 87. 
 
 Work, diverts mind from sin, 270; 
 obligation to, divine command- 
 ment, 270, 271; divine quality of, 
 270-1; creative attribute of the 
 Deity, 271. 
 
 Worms, community of, mentioned by 
 Benjamin of Tudela, 6. 
 
 See also Elijah ben Jehudah. 
 
 Xantin, Jews of, attacked by Cru- 
 saders, 9. 
 
 Vadayim, ‘* Hands,”’ tractate, described, 
 233. 
 
 Yannai, Palestinian Amora, alluded to, 
 216; on charity, 246. 
 
 Yannai, Palestinian payyetan, alluded 
 tO,f D5 
 
 Yebamot, ‘‘Levirate Marriages,” trac- 
 tate, cited, 180; described, 228. 
 
 VYehudai Gaon, alluded to, 121. 
 
 Yelammedenu, chapter on, in G. V., 
 analyzed, 125. 
 
 Yerushalumi, Horayot, Rosh ha-Shana, 
 Shekalim, quoted, 170, 208, 216. 
 
 Yeshibot, Talmudical seminaries, al- 
 luded to, 90. 
 
 Yoma, ‘‘The Day,’ also Yom ha- 
 Kippurm, ‘‘The Day of Atone- 
 ment’, tractate, alluded to, 180; 
 described, 227. 
 
 Yosippon. See Josippon. 
 
 Zabim, ‘‘Persons afflicted with running 
 issues’, tractate, described, 233. 
 
 Zebahim, ‘*Sacrifices,”’ de- 
 scribed, 228. 
 
 Zechariah, the Book of, alluded to, 39. 
 
 Zedakah and Hesed, sublime qualities, 
 2513 
 
 Zeraim, ‘‘Seeds,’”’ the Order of, eleven 
 
 tractates of, described. 226-7. 
 
 tractate, 
 
 Zerubbabel, the Book of, haggadic 
 work, 123. 
 
 ‘“*Zion-Ode,”’ the, of Judah ha-Levi, al- 
 luded to, 64. 
 
 Zionism and perpetuation of Jewish 
 nation, 88. 
 
 Zizit, minor tractate, referred to, 210. 
 
 Zohar, alluded to, 100, 138. 
 
 Zugot, the, ‘‘Pairs’’ of leading Talmudic 
 teachers, alluded to, 197. 
 
 Zunz, Adelheid, alluded to, 116; inscrip- 
 tion on tomb of, 142. 
 
 Zunz, Leopold, (Yomtob Lipman), al- 
 luded to, 4, 70, 80, 83, 84, 89, 157; 
 Zur Geschichte und Literatur, re- 
 viewed by Geiger, 70; essay on, 
 84-142; works of, as index of 
 character, 84; receives Hebrew in- 
 struction from father, 84; studies 
 at heder, 85; studies Talmud, 86; 
 studies under Samuel Meyer 
 Ehrenberg, 86; denial of Messiah 
 condemned as abandonment of 
 Judaism, 86; acquires elegant and 
 correct Hebrew style, 87; attends 
 gymnasium at Wolfenbuttel, 87; 
 studies philosophy and philology at 
 Berlin, 87; receives degree from 
 Halle University, 87; problems of 
 Jewish science and, 88; epoch- 
 making essay on Rashi, 89, 100-1; 
 connection with Verein fuer Cultur 
 und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 
 90; appeals for the creation of 
 institutions of learning, 90; and 
 superficial rationalism of period, 
 91; love for Judaism, 93; personal 
 characteristics of, 93; not popular 
 with masses, 93; attacks on Parna- 
 sim (lay heads), 93-4, 114; uncom- 
 
336 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 
 promising in sarcasm, 93; contempt 
 for arrogance of rich, 94-5; lack of 
 knowledge condemned by, 95; com- 
 plains of Jewish indifference, 96-7; 
 complains of attitude of educated 
 classes towards Rabbis and their 
 work, 98; task of restoring Jewish 
 scholarship, 98; Gottesdienstliche 
 Vortraege, analyzed, 99; slight 
 prejudices against Rabbinic litera- 
 ture, 99; defends Rabbinic litera- 
 ture, 100; Gottesdienstliche Vortraege 
 der Juden, by, appears in 1832, 
 101; G. V., contains possibly 
 Rappoport’s ideas on Midrashic 
 literature, 101; Geiger, Samiler, 
 Chajes on learning of, 101-2; Caro 
 translates G. V. into Hebrew, 102; 
 activities of, 102; influences study 
 of special branches of Jewish 
 science, 101; on Oral and Written 
 Law, 104; other literary works, 
 Die Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 
 105, 130-2; Die Synagogale Poesie, 
 105; Der Ritus des Synagogole 
 Gotiesdienst, 105, 133-5; Literatur- 
 geschichte der Synagogalen Poesie; 
 considered the greatest authority 
 on subject, describes over 6,000 
 liturgical pieces, 107; on impor- 
 tance of Oral Law, 108; Bible 
 exegesis of, 108; fixing of date 
 and place of Midrashim, 108; 
 love of, accuracy and thorough- 
 ness, 109; on prophecy and Hag- 
 gadah, both national expressions 
 
 of religious life of Jews, 109; 
 on Judaism as continuous re- 
 velation, 110; on the Bible and 
 religious literature as testimony of 
 Jewish creed, 110; aversion to 
 Karaites, 111; aversion to anti- 
 Rabbinic tendencies, 111; love of 
 Jewish nation, 111; quotation 
 from, used by George Eliot, 111; 
 opposed to views of Judaism of 
 Mordecai in Daniel Deronda 112; 
 on God as the soul of Israel, 112; 
 as preacher, 111, 144; in Berlin 
 and Prague, 113; published ser- 
 mons of, 114; relation to Parnasim, 
 114; impatience with ritual ques- 
 tions, 114; zealous regard for Juda- 
 ism, 114; on the two institutions of 
 the synagogue, praying and teach- 
 ing, 115; influence on religious 
 thought of time of, 116; attains 
 old age, 116; works for the eman- 
 cipation of the spirit, 116; death 
 of wife of, 117; comfort in study of 
 science of Judaism, 117; marginal 
 notes on books by, 136-7; as 
 Rabbi, 144; epitaphs on tomb- 
 stone of, 142-3; library of, at 
 Ramsgate, 136. 
 
 See also Gottesdienstliche Vortraege. 
 Zunz, 
 
 Menahem, father of Leopold 
 Zunz, alluded to, 84. 
 
 Geschichte und Literatur, uncor- 
 rected essays by Zunz, 105-6. 
 brief analysis of contents of, 130— 
 ie 
 
— y 
 pee — 
 Pd 
 mee 
 
 Mirek 
 ean 
 iy ie if 
 
 ite 
 feds va 
 % v bj 
 
 = 
 
 - 
 
 +e 
 
 2 Ml vied 
 Ay ie a ei PES Te Le (hia Tis 
 » / re i A f + 7 
 my Mig ' wore A ‘ het Ra’ 
 Neh if 
 
 Pst 
 ‘ Bas) i, sey et a “ oi 
 iV Ferd a afi A pee Nie 
 VW eR Aa Vita pow weil Us 
 44, Nis 2a} ors Dae 
 Varo Yes 
 
 ' yt 5 
 { Aya 
 
 Wii 
 nh - « , 
 
 DOs ia ‘3 i’ a 
 Ny da 4 tr NS One | 
 
 mT q 
 af Dwr 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
iy Date Due Tie 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
hen be a 
 — 3 : 
 
 oe 
 ete 
 
 2 
 ie gee 
 ie 
 
 - 
 
 Seg 
 ad 
 
 x 
 
 
 
y 
 aiid + 
 Ns AAs 
 
 CHGS 
 
 ee Ae de AA 
 ry 3 
 
 A 
 eh fides 
 
 ey 
 064 
 
 riay oe Ok "Y wy ; , 
 OLE K LAA ALA AAAS ; we a ppv aw ¥ 4 : : iy 
 Ie. ; PIR sy! 2 , ; e : . : % Mos ‘ K : s f a qe bot Ap lae 3 ¥ 
 f , ee sit ei 5 ; 52 oO ¥ CTS 
 , baton 4 tS is 
 
 PLA ARS a j 
 AAU ; tae y f ; 
 : Aa) a 
 0.69 
 
 - A 
 
 A 
 
 - yoo’ 
 Sen eet: 
 Wy es 
 
 x 
 
 Ms 
 
 gy