|
(From Dr. J. Heineman’s Yedidiah, Vol. I. No. 1. p.
11.)
By
J. E.
Moses Mendelssohn introduces the Reviewer of the
German translation of the Mishnah as holding the
following conversation with Chaplain Rabé, the
translator.
Rabé. I once requested a Jewish doctor, who
stood in high reputation among his people, to give
me an idea of the Talmud.
Mendelssohn. The Talmud, replied he, is an
Encyclopedia of all our laws, manners, and customs,
of our faith and our wisdom. You, perhaps, will
laugh at this definition, or perhaps wonder at it. I
know what a poor idea the wisest among you
(Christians) generally have of our knowledge; and,
as our cause has never found an advocate, everybody
<<564>>could impose upon you what he, either out of
ignorance or impure motives, pleased to lay to our
charge. To what derision, unjust contempt, and
hatred, have these sad prejudices not given rise;
and would to heaven! they had not been followed by a
train of bloody persecutions. However, I will spare
you and myself these melancholy recollections. It is
a misfortune for us, that our learned men never took
notice of what was written to their prejudice in
other languages; and that had they even done so,
they did not understand the languages in which they
ought to have defended themselves.
R. But, asked I, are those fables which have
been translated and given to us, not actually to be
found in it (the Talmud)?
M. Most of them, replied he, are actually to
be found therein.
R. But can there be anything reasonable in a
book, rejoined I, in which such fabulous and silly
things occur?
M. We reason just to the contrary, replied
the Rabbi. The passages which at first sight appear
absurd, amount to about the twentieth part of that
compilation. As for the rest, it contains nothing
but profound discussions on our laws, our mode of
worship, and other commandments of Holy Writ. Ought
we to be led to think that men, who have given such
valid proofs of their wisdom, should suddenly have
lost all common sense, and fallen into absurdities
that could not be imposed even upon a child? Is it
not more reasonable to take those few passages which
appear extravagant, as allegorical representations
of such truths which men of all ages have been
accustomed purposely to with hold from the people,
and to confide them only to men of higher
capacities? We are fully convinced of this, and
have, in fact, found the sense of some enigmatical
passages. Those that we cannot explain, we look upon
with respectful silence, and confess our ignorance.
However, continued he, not all these allegories, in
which they have shrouded the truth, are so
paradoxical as they are usually averred to be. Even
their plain, literal sense often contains good moral
precepts, which are both useful and profitable.
Several teachers have, in this respect, imitated
nature, which not seldom envelopes fruit, savoury
and delicious in itself, with a hard, indigestible
shell, so that we have to undergo some preparatory
labour to discover the precious kernel which is
contained within the uninviting, bitter, and hard
rind.
Could the noble Von Dohm, or Mendelssohn, the
philanthropic author of “Jerusalem,” or the
transcendent mind of a Lessing, the celebrated
author of “Nathan der Weise,”—who so warmly used
their pens in favour of religious toleration,—have
foreseen what Providence <<565>>has
done, in less than a
century, to mature their humane ideas, and to
realize them in the facts of history, for the
benefit of mankind what, gratification would they
not have felt!
And the cynical author of “Sur la Tolérance,”* the
enemy of all positive religion and religious
denominations, but particularly of the chosen race
of the “Father of the Faithful,” would, in spite of
himself, have dropped his pen, though dipped in
venom and gall; for surely he would ha found such
toleration most intolerable.
Thanks to Heaven! we see, in most civilized
countries, the barriers of prejudice broken down.
Religion sits majestically on her throne,
cherishing, solacing, and ennobling all her children
who flock round her and follow her banner, how
different soever its colours may appear in the eyes
of the beholders; all its children being allowed to
see with their own eyes, if their hearts are but
true, and they live for and love each other in
sincerity and in truth. Our forefathers could not
foresee this, as the like had never been seen
before.
It
is but two years and a half ago that Vienna (from
which town our co-religionists were expelled several
times, and the last time even as late as the latter
portion of the last century), Vienna has seen the
ministers of the Synagogue and Church perform the
sacred function of burying the dead, who fell
victims in defence of the liberty of their country
in March, 1848, simultaneously, and the Archbishop
of that metropolis offered to the Jewish minister
the precedence in pronouncing the funeral oration,
on the ground of the latter belonging to a more
ancient church.
On
a similar occasion, and at the same time, Berlin
witnessed the same spectacle. The orthodox Jewish
minister, as well as the Roman Catholic and the
Protestant, delivered their orisons on the platform
of the same church, in the presence of thousands of
spectators of the respective different creeds.
In
this country, where we are blessed with universal
religious liberty, we have seen the House of
Delegates of Virginia several times invite a Jewish
minister to the capitol, to perform there the
functions of a chaplain to the House.
A
similar occurrence happened at Charleston, South
Carolina. The anniversary of the foundation of the
famous orphan-house there, is annually celebrated
with great solemnity. The minister of the Beth-Elohim
congregation of that place, following the call of a
general invi <<566>>tation “to the clergy of all
denominations,” repaired to the orphan house, where
he was most respectfully received. On account of a
heavy rain, divine service could not be performed at
the great circular church in Meeting Street, but at
the chapel belonging to the institution. During the
procession thither, the Jewish minister was politely
invited by the Rev. Dr. Cox, who was to deliver the
sermon, to offer the prayer, which, according to the
programme, was to precede the sermon. Both ministers
took their seats in the pulpit. A prayer for the
welfare of the orphan children and their benevolent
patrons was offered, which was followed by an
appropriate sermon. At the end of the ceremony, both
ministers, conducted by the trustees, were led in
procession back to the house, and invited to a
dinner provided for the Board.
During dinner (of which the Jewish minister could of
course not partake) equal honours and attentions
were shown to both; and, on leaving, they were
cordially thanked for their services.
The writer of this is far from desiring anything
like an assimilation of the creeds; his maxim is
כל העמים ילכו איש בשם
אלהיו ואנחנו נלך בשם אלקים חיים. But it
affords him more than satisfaction to find that,
however strictly we adhere to our creeds, and
however strictly we are in duty bound to keep them
separate, we yet may unite in love, and implore the
assistance of Him who is love, for those who so much
stand in need of mercy and love. |
