|
In our last number we gave insertion to an
article
written by a correspondent signing himself “Truth,”
(אמת) condemning in toto our whole
course in conducting the Occident, censuring us and our contributors in
no measured terms. We gave our correspondent a hearing upon the
principle that whoever has anything to offer to the consideration of
Israelites shall not lack a medium of conveyance for his thoughts, if
our magazine can provide it; and as our own acts, commissions, and
<<90>>omissions, as far as they concern the public, are also proper subjects
of animadversion, we see no valid reason why we should spare our
personality, whilst exercising the right so often of speaking in terms
of condemnation of other men. Many may perhaps think this a strange sort
of impartiality; but with us just censure is a thing which we do do not
consider ourself authorized to escape, and if it be undeserved, then it
is evident it can do us no injury whatever. At the same time the
publication of the article in question has induced several esteemed
correspondents to come to our rescue, and it has thus given us the
gratifying assurance that all our labours have not been directed into
the wrong channel, and that, however there is much in our proceeding
which doubtless deserves reprobation, we have not altogether missed the
object of our undertaking. We will now in our justification give the
principal portion of two letters received since our last, partially to
correct some errors, and partially to give publicity to certain new
matters thus introduced to the notice of the reader.
To the Editor of the Occident
Reverend Sir,
In the April number of the Occident I read an
article by one who adopts אמת for his
signature; but it is the first time that I see “Truth” contradicting
itself; and indeed a fictitious truth is the newest of all the phantoms
of modern times. Permit me, sir, to make a few brief replies against the
article in question. Truth asserts (p. 5,) “The Occident cannot signify
news, or light from the western states, but—to instruct the Israelites.”
I suppose, in my humble opinion, that is the chief problem of a Jewish
journal to represent the present history of our people whenever it is
accessible, (all other articles being mere additions to give grace to
the work,) and a history of Hebrew literature of the day, and the causes
and consequences of the ruling spirit of the age. “Truth” will discover
the motto of the Occident corresponding with my views about journalism,
when he merely carefully considers the old Latin proverb, “Historia
mater vitae est.” History is indeed the best teacher of life, and the
safest guide through its cares; history is a second and distinct revelation of God. The Lord placed Moses
on a rock, whence he should learn to know God and his divine attributes;
Maimonides calls that rock Nature, and I add to it History,
since both reveal to us the God of Israel in his majesty and glory.
Truth says farther, “And thirdly, how to conduct
themselves towards <<91>>their neighbours, which latter duty includes,
according to the Talmud, the observance of the whole law.” I most
emphatically object against such an impious assertion; where, O Truth!
are Sabbath, Festivals, Shechita, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Zizith, Milah,
Pidyon Bechor, Matzah, and many other commandments understood under the
precept “Love thy neighbour as thyself?” He translates the words of the
Talmud, ואהבת
לרעך כמוך זו כלל גדול שבתורה
“And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is the principal command
of the law;” but every one must understand that the
ש of שבתורה
would in that case be superfluous; I presume it ought to be rendered,
“Love thy neighbour as thyself is one of the grand principles of our
law;”* for there are besides this other principles and fundamental
rules, as “Thou shalt love the Lord;” “Be ye holy,” &c.; but they are
above the comprehension of many people, as was the case with the
proselyte who wanted Hillel to teach him the law whilst he could stand
on one foot, wherefore he was referred to neighbourly love as the
basis of our faith. Does Truth mean to assert that we shall learn to
love our God merely to become fit and willing to love our neighbour?
But, sir, we are to love our neighbour (as a religious duty), in order
to learn likewise to love our God: the latter is therefore a higher and
nobler principle than the former. Or does he suppose, that we shall be
holy in order that our manners and feelings towards our fellow-mortals
should be pure? whereas this is but the beginning, the end being that we
should love God with a spotless heart and a pure mind.
Truth is exceedingly blamable for charging by
implication Dr. Lilienthal for an attempt to break down the fences of
our sages. <<92>>Where are his proofs for this assumption?* If the laws of the
country permitted it would be well to establish a censorship of the
Jewish press of America, and appoint Truth as censor, and we should soon
have a periodical which would not reflect any light of modern days.
Truth next attacks the insertion of the
advertisement of the Charleston congregation; he is averse to their
manner of reading the Scripture, and he condemns it because the annual
reading of the law was already instituted by Ezra. But
נקרא ומתורגם “It is read and
translated,” is also an institution of Ezra ; so also
כל אדם קורא לעצמו “Every man reads for
himself;” who authorized us to depart from these institutions? none
under heaven; not even Truth himself. Why does he not declaim against
their organ, their English prayers, &c.? are they not deserving of any
notice? He particularly dwells on their violation of the second day of
the festivals; and on page 8 he says, that God commanded “You shall not
add to nor diminish from the law.” “Thou shall not turn from the word to
the right or to the left;” and then gives the reason for the second days
of the festivals שלחו מתם; it is not
worth while to criticise Truth herein. I will not justify the steps of
the Charleston congregation: I will but show how short-sighted Truth is;
there are much better reasons in the Mishna for the second festivals;
but he seems to have overlooked them; besides, these reasons do not
contradict the very precepts quoted by Truth; and yet he strangely has
lost sight of them.
Truth also inveighs against the articles of Talmid
and H. G., thinking that they should have discussed their disagreement
in their own study privately among themselves. But these articles were
evidently published to put to shame all those very wise and sapient
erudite gentlemen, who are not mindful enough to write a single word in
defence of their own religion. Truth refers Talmid to the
חכמי התלמוד; but, sir, what say these
same wise Talmudists? Say it, if you know it, that the public may also
learn it, and Talmid thus be confuted. A Jewish Journal publishes
articles militating against Judaism, which articles are altogether based
upon an erroneous assumption; the editor publishes them to awaken the
sleepy watchmen of the western hemisphere to defend their faith and—O
pity! O tempora! O mores! there springs up Truth, and wishes a journal
of this enlightened age shall fill up its pages with discussions aboutאתרוגים מורכבים and lard oil! and it
shall <<93>>teach the people a better knowledge of the Hebrew, Gemara, and
Kabbalah!—Kabbalah!—did you hear this? Are we
Chabotnic Chassidim whom
Dr. Lilienthal exposes in his article, but not half sufficiently? It is
a pity indeed to meet such dark midnight under the sun of this
all-exploring age, and I merely deem it my duty to expose to the public
eye this midnight darkness. I should have signed this “Justice;” but I
am truly your friend,
[Isaac M.] W[ise].
The second communication is from Mr. Emanuel
Goldsmith, who also blames Truth for endeavouring to depreciate the
value in a journal because its conductor does not manage it according to
his preconceived views. We omit the introduction of Mr. G’s letter; as
W. has already done ample justice to the same matter; he, however,
corrects the translation of which was rendered
ששלחו מתם “The Sanhedrim sent from
Tham,” by asserting “That we have no record of any place of the name of
Tham in Palestine, nor is it mentioned among the places enumerated in
the Mishna, where the Sanhedrim assembled after quitting Jerusalem. It
is well known that the Israelites in captivity called all Palestine,
generally, Tham תם, or Hatham
התם, and it means then, that the
Sanhedrim sent their message from Palestine to all trans-Palestine Jews,
not to forego the customs of their forefathers in regard to the second
days of the festivals.” Mr. G. then continues:
“Truth” also objects that it is improper to give
publicity to disputes between the Jews and Christians, because they are
useless; but our wise men have already admonished us to study carefully
how to answer the opponents of our religion
(ודע מה שתשוב לאפיקורוס); and who is more eminent in this respect
than the Ramban (Nachmanides), the greatest Rabbi in Spain, and teacher
of the Rashbah? And it was this eminently pious and holy man, who was
also physician and philosopher, who exposed his life, and publicly
disputed with Christian divines to defend the truth of our law. It is
therefore evidently the duty of each Israelite, having the requisite
ability, and especially in this country, where every man is at liberty
to write what he pleases without danger of governmental interference, to
go and do so likewise. It is my opinion, that the dispute between Talmid
and H. G. concerns the main principle on which all the law hinges; for
Talmid meant to prove, that man has no power to be good and to reform
his conduct, for man’s heart is evil from his youth; and the whole
Christian religion is based on this assumed principle, that through the
man of Nazareth their hearts and the heart of all their posterity to the
end of all future generations, was <<94>>circumcised, and whoever does not
believe in him is unable to become holy and pure, and cannot attain
future felicity. But we, the congregation of the sons of Israel,
maintain that it is perfectly within the power of man to be good or bad;
and although I have not experience in these kinds of arguments, I will
communicate what I have reflected on in this respect; and any error
committed is not to be ascribed to the cause, but to my own
insufficiency.
Talmid’s first argument is drawn from Deut. 30:6,
“And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul,
that thou mayest live;” and he says that on the verse, “And the Lord
hath not given you a heart to know,” Aben Ezra comments,
מאתו העלילה הראשונה meaning “from Him
comes the first impulse,” and he wishes to argue from this that it is
not in the power of man to reform his conduct unless the Lord first
circumcises his heart. I will soon prove to him that he has entirely
erred in this assumption. First, it is opposed to sound common sense;
for if it were so, why are there written in the law, blessings and
curses, and rewards and punishments? For if a man be compelled to act as
he does, there could exist no greater injustice than that one should be
rewarded the other punished; what difference could there be then between
the righteous and the wicked, seeing that neither can have done anything
from his own impulse? But the reverse of this is asserted in the law:
“Behold I lay before thee this day—life and death—and choose thou life;”
from which it is evident that free choice is in the power of man,
whether he will be good or had.
But to prove that Talmid has not
properly understood the meaning of Aben Ezra, I will merely state that
in Deut. 30:6, he comments on these words: “For the former acts
(עלילות) were not properly rectified;
and after saying ‘Thou wilt return to hearken to the voice of the Lord,’
then will He also aid thee, and circumcise thy heart and the heart of
thy seed; not like the circumcision of the flesh which thou art bound to
perform thyself.” From this we can understand that the meaning of Aben
Ezra is as follows: “After thou shalt have returned from thy own impulse
to hearken to the voice of the Lord, and shalt have repented from fear,
when thou hast seen that the curses have come over thee, then will He
notwithstanding this, aid thee, and circumcise thy heart, that thou
mayest afterwards return to Him from motives of love. Therefore, says
the verse, ‘to love the Lord thy God,’ this being the highest degree of
perfection; inasmuch as the law and commandments induce us to fear the
Lord, but cannot carry us up to the point of loving Him, because man
cannot love God unless <<95>>he knows his ways and deeds, and knows Him from
his acts;” as we also say in the prayer for the new moon “He the Maker
is true, for his work is true;” since we are not able to obtain a
knowledge of the Creator except through his works. Moses, therefore,
begged of God, “Let me know, I pray thee, thy ways;” and the prophet
also exclaimed: “But herein let him who wishes to praise himself boast,
that he knoweth and understandeth me, how I am the Lord, doing mercy and
righteousness on earth.” But if a man commences himself to return to the
Lord, though it be from fear only, then will the Lord aid him, and
circumcise his heart, and assist him to become intelligent in
comprehending the ways of the Lord, so that he may serve Him from love.
And what Aben Ezra says in reference to the verse, “And the Lord gives
you no heart to know,” “From him comes the first impulse,” is the
truth; for the verse says, “a heart to know,” which is to know the Lord
by his works, but it does not say, “And the Lord gave thee no heart to
fear him;” because this is not the power of the Lord, but
absolutely in the power of man, as our wise men declare! “Everything is
in the power of Heaven, except the fear of Heaven.” Now, the words are
“a heart to know;” meaning, you had not commenced to return even
from fear; wherefor the Lord gave you no heart to know Him, to repent
from love. What I have hitherto said of the fear of God refers not to
the idea of fearing Him from his greatness, otherwise called reverence
of God, for this is identical almost with the love of God, and they
always exist together and are never separated; and of the King Messiah
whom we hope for to come speedily in our days, it is said accordingly,
“And he shall make him intelligent in the fear of the Lord;” I only
referred to the fear of punishment, which is the first step.
Talmid likewise errs altogether in what he attempts
to prove that the Lord occasionally does kindness to a man, and promises
him good things, although this individual has not done the least to
entitle him to this reward. The argument he adduces from Abraham, our
original father, that we do not find that he had done anything good
before God commanded him to go away from his land and kindred, is
certainly unfounded. For if we put any confidence in the ancient
traditions, Abraham already as a lad broke all his father’s images, and
told all who came to buy there that they were nothing but wood and
stone, without power to do them good or evil; he also was imprisoned in
a city called Cuta, and the King sought to slay him, because he
publicly proclaimed that the idols were powerless, and escaped from the
grasp of the tyrant. (It is also said that he was delivered from a fiery
furnace, wherein he had been cast because of his opposition to
idolatry.)
<<96>>But without this the Scriptures testify that
wherever he went he proclaimed in the name of the Lord, and made his
godhead and unity known to all; and he was the first who, by the
research of his understanding and intellect, discovered that there is a
God, who rules over and directs all the world; and the Lord himself
testifies concerning him: “ For I know him, (or, I love him,) because
that he will command his sons and his house after him to observe the way
of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, in order that the Lord may
bring in Abraham that which he hath spoken concerning him.” In another
place it is said, “In reward, because Abraham hearkened to my voice and
observed my charge, my commandments, and my statutes, and my laws.” So
also the Lord called him his beloved, because he had worshipped Him from
love, superinduced by a contemplation of his works. And to prove to all
mankind that Abraham was worthy of all the promises He made unto him and
his descendants after him, He tried him with ten trials, and he remained
steadfast under all; not that the holy blessed God required this proof,
for He knew Abraham’s faith without it before the trials were imposed;
but they were demanded to demonstrate to mankind his righteousness and
rectitude of heart, because he did not withhold his only son, when God
told him to sacrifice him.
This also is one of the reasons which Maimonides
adduces in his book “Moreh,” when speaking of the trials of Abraham.
When, now, Moses prayed to God at the time the Israelites had sinned
with the golden calf, he said: “Think on Abraham, Isaac, and Israel thy
servants;” and if Talmid’s views be correct that Abraham had done
nothing of himself, but had merely found grace in his eyes, why should
Moses mention him, so that the Lord should pardon Israel for his sake in
this great iniquity, when he had done nothing of himself? Why did he not
mention Noah, of whom it is said; “But Noah found grace in the eyes of
the Lord?” But the truth is, that Abraham had of his own accord risked
his life to sanctify the name of the Lord, therefore will his merit be a
plea for us to the end of all generations.
The other arguments which Talmid brings from
Nehemiah and others scarcely deserve a serious refutation; for we know
that the righteous do not ask of the Lord anything except undeserved
gifts (מתנות חנם), although they have
done good deeds, in reward of which they might ask a recompense, see
Rashi’s comments on the verse “And I entreated the Lord,” Deut. 3:23;
first, because they fear that any sin might prevent their being
answered; as our father Jacob said, “I am unworthy of all the kindnesses
and truth,” &c,; secondly, because they
<<97>>do not desire to receive the
reward of their observance of the commandments in this world.
We have now arrived at the last proof which Talmid
adduces, on which he has built his whole superstruction, saying that no
answer can be made to it; namely, that derived from the verse “And I
will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have mercy on
whom I will have mercy;” from which he endeavours to prove that the Lord
does occasionally do good to man, and promises him blessings for himself
and his descendants for ever, although he have done nothing whatever of
himself. I will now prove to him that his argument is without
foundation, and easily overthrown with but a small amount of skill, and
say to him as Beruriah the wife of Rabbi Meir answered that unbeliever,
who asked her: “It is written, Rejoice, O barren one who hast not borne
children; why shall she rejoice because she has not borne?” with, “Look
to the end of the verse, which says, ‘For more numerous are the children
of the desolate than the children of the married one, saith the Lord;’”
for it is too much the habit of Christians when desiring to bring any
argument in favour of their religion, to adduce a single verse, or a
single phrase, nay, even a single letter, and to magnify its importance,
erecting thereon a superstructure, the like of which has never existed,
without regarding what precedes or what follows, what is first and what
is last. I will therefore explain the connexion of the various verses in
the context. Moses had prayed unto the Lord to pardon the Israelites for
the sin of making the golden calf, and that He himself might go with
them; to which the Lord answered: “This thing also which thou hast said
will I do, for thou hast found grace in my eyes, and I know thee by
name.” Afterwards Moses requested: “Let me see, I pray thee, thy glory,”
meaning “the ways and principles with which Thou governest the world,”
for the glory of the Lord are his attributes; and he was then answered,
“I will let all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim in the
name of the Lord before thee, and I will be gracious to whom I will be
gracious, and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy;” and the word
טובי my
goodness, signifies as Rashi explains כל
מדת טובי “all the attribute of my goodness,” for all the acts of
God are good, although occasionally we suppose that they are evil, since
the whole of them contribute to the ultimate good. Rashi says farther,
“And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,” &c.; there are
times when I will be gracious and merciful, and there are again times
when I will not forgive; Moses, then, did not know from this
representation whether the Lord would forgive Israel for the sin of
making the golden calf; but when the great
<<98>>revelation of the attributes
of God did take place, the Lord promised him that he would forgive them;
and he said to him: “Behold, I will make a covenant; in the presence of
all thy people will I do wonders, which have not been created in all the
earth and all the nations; and all this people in the midst of which
thou art, shall see the work of the Lord; for it is a fearful thing
which I will do with thee;” and it is as Aben Ezra comments on this
passage: “This shall then be as a written testimony that I have forgiven
their iniquity.” This is the evident meaning of the text of Exod. 33.
and 34., without seeking for a sense which the words themselves have
not.
Let me now ask of Talmid, how can we derive from
Exod. 33:19, the verse under discussion, the idea that the Lord promises
here to man a goodness to him and his descendants for ever, although he
have done no good thing from his own impulse which would render him
deserving of the promised blessings, when the verse evidently only means
to instruct us that at times the Lord pardons iniquity and occasionally
not, just as his supreme wisdom may decree in justice? The foundation of
Talmid’s argument being thus removed, the superstructure must also fall
to the ground, and our Law will thus stand unmoved as a strong
wall, its gates well fortified with bolt and bar; and all the proofs of
Talmid derived from his first misapprehension, will not injure in the
least our faith, which we Israelites must steadily abide by, without
listening to the idle words of our opponents. Only let us in a true
spirit return to the Lord, and deserve thereby the speedy corning of the
redeemer.
Emanuel Goldsmith
New York, the Eve of Sabbath Tazreeang, 5608. |
