THE

BRITISH MAGAZINE.

MAY 1, 1836.

ORIGINAL PAPERS.

INCONSISTENCY OF MODERN JEWISH CATECHISMS.

pure

THE first paroxysm of Jewish reform was very violent. Whilst it lasted, the Jews, as is confessed by Jost, utterly renounced the Talmud and all its observances. They thought of nothing but liberty of conscience, and breathed nothing but good will to all mankind. Some of its effects.are still visible. The reformed Jews are all outwardly, and, I doubt not, many of them in their hearts, very different from the orthodox professors of rabbinism. But what has all the reform, that has made such a mighty noise in Germany for the last thirty years, really effected for the religious and moral improvement of the Jewish nation? Has it delivered them from the absurdities and anti-social doctrines of the Talmud? Has it helped them to make a bold and decided protest against the traditional adulterations of the and holy law of Moses? Has it stirred them up to put forth a frank and honest confession of their faith, exhibiting the differences between them and the old Talmudists? Not one of all these things. Jewish reform has just done as much for real improvement as the Council of Trent did for Reformation. It has talked a great deal-it has done nothing. I am led to this conclusion from the perusal of some modern Jewish catechisms. I have now before me two of very considerable authority. The one is the authorized catechism for Bavaria, as appears from the title-page--"Manual of the Mosaic Religion. Compiled by Dr. Alexander Behr, under the superintendence and guidance of the Supreme Rabbi, Abraham Bing, of Wurtzburg; examined and recognised by the Rabbinate of Fürth, and several rabbis of consideration. With the most gracious privilege of his Royal Majesty. Munich, 1826." In the preface, also, it is stated that it was published by

* “ Lehrbuch der Mosaischen Religion. Bearbeitet von Dr. Alexander Behr, unter Aufsicht und Leitung des Oberrabiners Abraham Bing, zu Würtzburg, geprüft und anerkannt vom Rabbinate zu Fürth, und mehreren angesehenen RabbiMit Sr. Königlichen Majestät allergnädigsten Privilegium. München, 1826. VoL. IX.May, 1836.

nern.

royal mandate, at the public expense; and that a royal circular was issued to all Jewish schools, commanding its introduction. The second is entitled, "The Doctrines of the Mosaic Religion, by I. Johlson, teacher of religion at the Israelitish Congregational School, at Frankfort-on-the-Main; the third genuine and improved edition. Frankfort A. M., 1829." Which also appears, from the preface, to have obtained the approbation of many of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and the thanks of the German Confederation. These catechisms, then, will tell us the principles in which the Jewish youth, of an important part of Germany, are educated; and will help us to conjecture the sentiments of the next Jewish generation. A stranger jumble of palpable inconsistency was, perhaps, never presented to the public; and the approbation of such works by public authority does not lead us to form a very high estimate of the state of Hebrew learning amongst some of the divines of Germany. These catechisms first lay down the divine authority of the Talmud; they then teach the relative duties on anti-talmudical principles; and lastly, confirm these anti-talmudic doctrines by mutilated Talmudic authorities, which, if taken with their context, prove the contrary of that which they are cited to confirm!

I. They teach the divine authority of the Talmud, or oral law. In the Bavarian catechism (page 13, question 19) we read as follows: "In what manner did Moses transmit to us the laws ?- Partly by means of the written, and partly by means of the oral law, or tradition." Page 16, question 25-"Have the Mishna and Gemara equal importance with the written law?-Answ. Just the same. They are and must be just as important as holy Scripture, for they contain no arbitrary or human ordinances;-but 1st, Divine traditions and declarations to Moses; 2ndly, Laws inferred by argumentation-i. e., according to the thirteen traditional rules of interpretation; and, 3rdly, Ordinances of the prophets and subsequent wise men, which are, as it were, erected, round the word of God, as a wall of defence. All these, as having been received by the whole nation, have the same importance as holy Scripture." This is a straightforward and intelligible confession. Now let us hear the Frankfort teacher, (page 89, question 133,) "Do we also believe that Moses plainly committed every commandment and ordinance to writing? No; we believe that God communicated some doctrines to Moses orally, which he was not allowed to communicate to others, except in the same way, orally, and so we explain the verse, (Exod. xxxiv. 27,) Write thou these words only: for, according to the meaning and contents of the same, I make a covenant with thee and Israel.' (134.) "Are there not other traces of the existence of a tradition? Yes; many others beside-e. g., the passage, (Deut. xii. 21,) Thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, as I have commanded thee.' As amongst

Die Lehren der Mosaichen Religion, &c.

Amongst the approvers of Mr. Johlson's work we find the redoubtable names of Dr. Stephani and Dr. Zimmerman.

Mr. Johlson puts in this word only, for which there is no authority in the original.

the written laws there is none which prescribes the mode of slaughtering, an oral doctrine must be taken for granted, to which this verse refers, and which explains this and many other commandments more accurately;-yea, without this oral doctrine, we should know how to fulfil comparatively few of the laws of religion." (135.) "Are there, then, two doctrines; one written and the other oral?—No, not so; for, in reality, there is but one law, and one doctrine. Both taken together, the written and the oral, constitute but one whole." (136.) "What do we understand, then, by the oral doctrine? - That part which more accurately explains the written laws, and determines their signification and application, in order that the latter may not be given over to the arbitrary interpretation of men, whose understanding is narrow, and often blinded by passions." (145.) "Which are the oldest writings that treat of tradition ?- The Mishna and Gemara, which together are called the Talmud."

Here, then, the divine authority of the oral law is as distinctly stated by the enlightened Jews of Germany, as it could have been by Rashi or Saadiah centuries ago. What difference, then, is there between the doctrines of the reformed Jews and those of the old orthodox Talmudical school? I can discover none whatever. The old Talmudist taught nothing more, and here we see the modern Jews teach nothing less, than the divine authority of the Talmud. Their doctrines are identical, and therefore every objection which has been for centuries urged against the older system applies with equal force to the new. The Talmud still remains, as Chiarini says, the focus et ara of Judaism. The modern Jews think to get out of this difficulty by suppressing the anti-social statements, and therefore we find

II. That these catechisms teach the relative duties on anti-talmudic principles. The Bavarian catechism, after going through all the details of our duty to our neighbour, asks a question-(206) " Are these laws and duties, affirmative and negative commandments, binding with respect to a non-Israelite ?-Answ. By all means; for the fundamental law of all these duties, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself,' is expressly laid down by the holy Scripture, in reference to the non-Israelite; yea, to the heathen, as it is written And if a stranger sojourn with thee in thy land, ye shall not vex him; but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born amongst you, and thou shalt love him as thyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."" (Levit. xix. 33-35.) In like manner, the Frankfort catechism asks, (Question 209,)" But whom does the holy Scripture call yЛy,, our neighbour, our fellow-man, our brother? Are persons of another religion included in these expressions ?Answ. By these expressions are intended not only Israelites, but all men who live with us in one state; to whatever religious denomination they may belong, or of whatever nation they may be." I admit that this is sound doctrine, but the evident attempt that is here made to smuggle it into the Talmudic system quite takes away its value. Why does the Bavarian catechism talk of a "non-Israelite?"