viii. 18), whose names had reference to good or evil events of the

time, were wrongly interpreted as referring to the birth of Jesus; the sufferings and final relief of the servant of the Lord, that is, Israel (chaps. lii. and liii.), were applied to Jesus; the Psalmist who sings of victories which God will grant to David (cx.) is made to declare the divinity of Jesus.

Commentators and philosophers have taken notice of these arguments and refuted them. Of the many works on these topics a few may be named: “Nitsachon” (‏נצחון‎), by Lipmann Mühlhausen (1400), “Strengthening of Faith” (‏חזוק אמונה‎), by Isaak ben Abraham Troki (1594), “Vindiciæ Judæorum,” by Manasseh ben Israel (1650).

In refuting arguments brought by Christians and Mohammedans against Jews and Judaism, and rejecting the Messianic claims of Jesus and Mohammed, Jews are ready to acknowledge the good work done by the religions founded by these men, Christians and Mohammedans, in combating idolatry and spreading civilisation. Maimonides says as follows:—“The King Messiah will in some future time come, restore the kingdom of David to its former power, build the Temple, bring together the scattered of Israel, and all the ancient laws will again be in force: sacrifices will be offered, and years of release and Jubilees will be kept as prescribed in the Law. Whoever does not believe in him, or does not hope for his coming, shows a want of faith not only in the Prophets, but also in the Law; for the Law testifies concerning him in the words: ‘And the Lord thy God will again bring back thy captivity, show mercy to thee, and again gather thee, &c. If thy outcasts be at the end of the heavens, thence will the Lord gather thee,’ &c, ‘and the Lord will bring thee,’ &c. (Deut. xxx. 3–5), &c.

“You must not imagine that Messiah must prove his Messianity by signs and miracles, doing something unexpected, bringing the dead to life, or similar things, &c. The principal thing is this: the statutes and precepts of our Torah remain for ever, and nothing can be added to them nor ought taken from them. If, therefore, a descendant of David earnestly studies the Law, observes, like David his father, what the Law, both the written and the oral, enjoins, causes all Israelites to act similarly, exhorts those who are lax in the performance of the commandments, and fights the wars of the Lord: he may possibly be Messiah. If he succeeds, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the outcasts of Israel, he is certainly Messiah; and if he does not succeed, or is killed in war, it is certain that he is not the Messiah promised in the Law; he is like all the noble and good kings of the House of David who have died; and the Almighty only caused him to rise in order to try us thereby, as it is said, ‘And of the wise some will stumble, and through them the people will be tested, purified, and made white, till the time of the end comes; for there is yet a vision for an appointed time’ (Dan. xi. 35). Also Jesus, the Nazarene, who imagined that he would be Messiah, and was killed through the court of law, is alluded to in the Book of Daniel, as it is said, ‘And the sons of the transgressors among thy people will rise, in order to establish a vision, and will stumble’ (ibid. xi. 14). Can there be a greater stumbling than this? All the prophets said that Messiah will be a redeemer and a saviour to the Israelites, will bring together their outcasts, and will strengthen their obedience to the Divine precepts, but he (Jesus) caused destruction by the sword to Israel, the dispersion of those left, and their humiliation; he changed the Law, and misled many people to worship a being beside God. But the thoughts of the Creator of the universe cannot be understood by any human being, for the ways of men are not His ways, nor their thoughts His thoughts; for all the events connected with Jesus and with Mohammed, that rose after him, served only to pave the way for the King Messiah, who will reform all mankind and lead them to the unanimous service of God, as it is said, ‘For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that all may call by the name of God, and serve him unanimously’ (Zeph. iii. 9). How can this be done? Almost all people have through them—Jesus and Mohammed—become acquainted with the idea of Messiah, with the words of the Torah and the Divine precepts. Through them the knowledge of the Bible spread even unto the remotest islands and unto many nations ‘uncircumcised’ in heart and uncircumcised in flesh. They seek to justify their disobedience to the precepts of the Torah; some of them say that these precepts are Divine, but are not in force at present, and were never intended to be permanent laws; others maintain that they must not be taken literally, as they are mere symbols, the meaning of which has already been explained by Messiah. But when the true King Messiah will rise, he will prosper, be high and exalted; all will then at once know that it was falsehood what their fathers have inherited, and that their prophets and their teachers have misled them.

“Do not imagine that in the days of Messiah the course of Nature will be altered in any way, or that any new creation will take place. When Isaiah said, ‘The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid,’ he merely employed allegorical and figurative speech; and he meant to say that the Israelite will dwell in safety together with his enemy, who has been as cruel to him as wolves and leopards, &c.; all will join the true religion; they will not rob, nor commit any violence, &c., and in the days of Messiah the meaning of the allegories will be clearly known.

“Our Sages said that there will be no other difference between the present time and the days of Messiah but the independence of the people of Israel.

“It appears from the literal meaning of the prophecies that the Messianic period will be preceded by the war of Gog and Magog, and that before the war a prophet will appear to guide the Israelites, and to direct their hearts to repentance. Comp. ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah,’ [28] &c. (Mal. iii. 23). Elijah will not come to declare unclean that which is clean, or clean that which is unclean; nor to disqualify persons who are believed to be qualified for joining the congregation of the Lord, or to qualify persons who are believed to be disqualified; but he will come to establish peace on earth, as it is said, ‘He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’ [29] (Ibid. 24).

“Some of our Sages believe that Elijah will come before Messiah, but of all these and similar things no man knows how they will come to pass; they are unexplained in the Prophets, and our Sages have no tradition about them; they only adopt what they believe to be the meaning of the Biblical passages which refer to this subject. Hence the difference of opinion. At all events, the order and the detail of these events do not form an essential portion of our creed; we must not take too much notice of Agadoth and Midrashim speaking on these and similar themes. We must not attribute great importance to them, for they do not lead to the fear or the love of God. We must also abstain from calculating the time of the coming of Messiah, &c. All we have to do is to believe in the coming of Messiah, to wait and hope.

“It is not because they desired to have dominion over all lands and nations, and be honoured by all people, or because they desired to have plenty to eat and drink, and other pleasures, that the wise men and the prophets longed for the Messianic days, but because they would then be at leisure to study the Law and its teaching without being interrupted by any oppressor, and would thus make themselves worthy of the life in the world to come (‏עולם הבא‎).

“There will not be in those days any famine, war, jealousy, or quarrel, because the good things will be in plenty, and even luxuries will be found everywhere; all will only busy themselves with trying to know the Lord. Therefore the Israelites will be great sages, knowing things which are at present hidden; they will obtain a knowledge of their Creator as far as is possible by human understanding; ‘For the earth is full with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters that cover the sea’” (Maim., Mishneh-torah xiv.; Hilchoth Melachim xi.–xii.).

The war of Gog and Magog against the Holy Land referred to by Maimonides is described by the prophet Ezekiel (chaps. xxxviii., xxxix.) as preceding the complete restoration of Israel. Saadiah has a different view of this war. The punishment of Israel in exile is to come to an end at a fixed time, or as soon as the Israelites by earnest and thorough repentance show themselves worthy of Divine grace. In that case no war of Gog and Magog will be waged against them. But if the Israelites should allow the approach of the time fixed for the redemption without having given signs of repentance and improvement, great troubles will be brought upon them, which will forcibly remind them of the necessity of returning to God; they will come together under a leader, Messiah ben Joseph, under whose leadership they will fight against their enemies, but will be beaten, and Messiah ben Joseph himself will be killed. Then Messiah ben David will appear, and with him the period of glory, of permanent peace and prosperity, and of the worship of the One God by all nations. The idea of a double Messiah, a warlike and a peaceful, an unsuccessful and a successful, is not expressed in any of the prophecies in the Bible, and seems to be of a later origin. Maimonides is silent about Messiah ben Joseph; so also Albo in Ikkarim, and Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi in the book Cuzari. Albo discusses the question about Messiah in chap. xlii. of the fourth section of Ikkarim. He refutes the opinion of those who maintain that the Messianic prophecies refer to the reign of Hezekiah or to the restoration of Israel under Zerubbabel and Ezra. The condition of the Israelites in the reign of Hezekiah did not resemble the state of prosperity and glory and universal peace as depicted in the Messianic prophecies; the fulfilment of these prophecies is still hoped for, and our hope is founded on our belief in the truthfulness of the Word of God. (Comp. Saadiah, Em. ve-deoth, VIII. iii.).

On the Thirteenth Principle, p. 16

The belief in the Resurrection of the Dead has been formulated in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin x. i) as an essential creed: “He who says that the belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is not implied in the Law has no portion in the world to come.” There is no doubt that the Almighty has the power to give fresh life to the body in which life has been extinct. We set no limits to the Omnipotence of God. But it is different if we ask whether it is the Will of God to give new life to the dust and ashes of the dead, and to restore the soul to the dead body in which it has dwelt before. Maimonides substitutes the Immortality of the Soul for the Resurrection of the Dead, and has been vehemently attacked by those who had a different opinion. He defended his view in an essay called ‏מאמר תחיית המתים‎, “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” in which he attempts to prove that the Agadoth and Midrashim in depicting the future life employed figurative language, but in reality meant only a spiritual life, without any material enjoyment.

Saadiah defends the literal interpretation of “Resurrection of the Dead” (Emunoth ve-deoth, VII.), and believes that the event will take place at the time of the final redemption (‏גאולה אחרונה‎). Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi, in Cuzari, though mentioning this principle, seems to understand it as identical with the Immortality of the Soul. The king, who was at first surprised at the scarcity of references to the future life in our prayers, confessed his complete satisfaction, after having heard the exposition of our prayers by the Jewish scholar. “I see,” he says, “that I was in error; those who pray to have the Divine light vouchsafed to them during lifetime, who long to see it with their own eyes, and to attain to the degree of prophecy, they certainly seek something better even than the future life, and they who attain it may be sure that they will also enjoy the blessing of the future life; for if the soul of a man, troubled by the wants of the body, is nevertheless cleaving to the Divine glory, how much more may this be the case after the soul has left this body!” (III. 20).

II.

OUR DUTIES.

INTRODUCTION.

The king, in Rabbi Jehudah ha-levi’s Cuzari, anxious to lead a good and religious life, was told by an angel who appeared to him in a dream that his heart was good, but his deeds were not acceptable. The purity and goodness of our heart certainly ennobles our deeds and gives them the stamp of sincerity and holiness, though they may not be marked by absolute perfection. But an inner voice, our conscience, does not allow us to be content with the goodness of the heart; we feel the necessity of seeking also perfection of words and deeds. We wish not only our heart but also our entire self to be good, so that our inner life and outer life, our feeling and thinking, our speaking and doing, may combine into one harmonious whole, which comes as near perfection as possible.

It has been shown above that one of the principles of faith which we confess is our belief in the Divine origin of the Torah, and in the obligatory character of its precepts. When we pray to God to make us understand the Torah we are not content with the mere knowledge of the words of the Law; we also seek God’s assistance to enable us “to obey, to observe, and to perform” all that He has commanded us. Man’s nature is not the same in all individuals; one person finds special delight in the performance of this duty, another in the performance of that. Every one likes to devote his energies to that work for which he considers himself best qualified, and which promises to yield the best fruit. But this individual liking or aptitude must not mislead us into thinking that the Law is divided into important and unimportant precepts. So far as they represent the Will of the Almighty they are all alike, and equally demand our attention and our obedience. Thus the ‏קבלת עול שמים‎, [30] our unconditional submission to the Will of the Almighty as our King, is followed in our Service by ‏קבלת עול מצות‎,[30] the acknowledgment of the binding force of His precepts.

There are persons who question the wisdom and usefulness of the precepts; they call it legalism, and are opposed to the tendency of subjecting every act of ours to the control of the Law. They argue that legalism tends to weaken our regard for the Law, and trains hypocrites rather than true servants of the Lord. It is a bold assertion, but one that rests on imagination and prejudice. Is it possible that such a constant reminder of God’s presence as the Divine precepts supply should not have a beneficent influence over us, by making us feel encouraged by His presence when we are engaged in a good cause, and discouraged when we are about to do wrong? If persons are found who are devout worshippers at one time and criminals at another, it only shows human weakness in the moment of trial in spite of good resolves and genuine devotion; and were it not for the effect of such devotion, the number of crimes would probably be far greater.

A truly pious man will never imagine that he may freely transgress one set of the precepts, if he strictly obeys another set; that he may, e.g., wrong his neighbour, and compensate for his sins by regular attendance at the place of worship, or by a strict observance of the dietary laws, or the laws of Sabbath and Festivals; or that he may freely break the latter, if only he is honest, just, and charitable. The precepts have all the same Divine origin; the all-wise and all-kind God, who has commanded us to walk in the way of justice and righteousness, has also ordained the Sabbath, given the dietary laws, and established the sacrificial service. He who selects some of the precepts and rejects the rest substitutes his own authority for that of the Almighty, and places his own wisdom above the wisdom of Him who gave us the Law.

“Be as zealous in the performance of an unimportant precept as of an important one,” is one of the maxims taught in the “Sayings of the Fathers.” A difference between precept and precept is here admitted, but only in so far as they seem to us more or less important, with regard to the good which their observance produces or the evil which is caused by their neglect. In case of a conflict of two duties we give the preference to that which seems to us more important. In times of religious persecution the question frequently arose how far resistance was necessary, and how far religious practice might yield to physical force. The rule has been laid down, that when our life is threatened we may transgress any precept; but we must not allow ourselves, under any circumstances, to be forced to idolatry, murder, or adultery (‏עבודה זרה גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים‎); we must prefer death to committing any of these sins. But in times of trouble and persecution the spirit of resistance is as a rule too strong to be kept within the strict lines of demarcation, and life is willingly and heroically sacrificed for any religious duty. This is not surprising, for every religious act which is chosen by the enemy as a test to prove the faithfulness or the faithlessness of the persecuted sect to its own religion, receives thereby the stamp of great importance.

Similar questions are also asked in times of peace, when some of our brethren reject the authority of the Oral Law, while others refuse even to recognise the authority of the Written Law, when some set aside the Divine precepts out of convenience, and others from principle, and still others from ignorance; when some limit their Judaism to the nominal membership of the Jewish race, and others to a negation of other creeds. Are all these Jews? Whatever the answer to this question may be from a practical, political, social, and communal point of view, the fact is that they are Jews. They may have forfeited certain privileges, they may be disqualified for certain religious offices, they may be dangerous to the religious peace of our family or community: they are notwithstanding Jews, and are bound to live in accordance with the Law which the Almighty has given to the Jews and for the Jews. Our Sages say: ‏אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא‎, “Although a man may have sinned, he is an Israelite still.” No theologian, Rabbi, or teacher, or Beth-din, or Sanhedrin, has the power of granting absolution, or telling those who break or reject any portion of the Divine precepts that they are not doing wrong. No human being has the authority to abrogate laws revealed by God. Why then, some may ask, do prophets and moralists, the Rabbis of the Talmud not excluded, single out ethical principles for special recommendation to their fellow-men, generally observing silence about the rest of the Divine commands? The answer is simple. The ethical principles and the Divine commandments embodying them are different in kind from the rest of the commandments. The latter are distinct, well defined, and the punishment for their transgression is fixed; they are unchangeable, and not capable of expansion.

The dietary laws, e.g., are exactly the same now as they were in the days of Moses. So also the laws concerning Sabbath. What was then prohibited by the Sabbath is prohibited still. The ethical principles, however, are capable of development, and the moral standard rises with the progress of civilisation. Hence the constant dissatisfaction of prophets, preachers, and teachers with the moral principles of their followers. They have a higher standard of morality, and strive to raise the moral consciousness of their generations to their own height.

It is, therefore, no wonder that the prophet Isaiah exhorts his brethren: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil: learn to do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” (i. 16, 17). “He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil, he shall dwell on high,” &c. (Ibid. xxxiii. 15, 16). In the same sense the virtuous man is described by all prophets; also in Ps. xv. and Ps. xxiv.

R. Akiba says: “‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Lev. xix. 18) is an important principle in the Torah,” but at the same time he shows what importance he ascribes to all other principles and precepts of the Law by most carefully examining the details of every one of them alike. The great Hillel told the Gentile who desired to become a Jew: “‘Do not to thy neighbour what is hateful to you;’ this is our whole religion;” but that he did not ignore the remainder of the Torah, or consider it as not essential, is proved by the additional words: “The rest is its explanation; go and learn” (Babyl. Talmud, Sabbath, 31a). Hillel only gave the proselyte a lesson which would lead him to obey all the words of the Almighty.

Rabbi Simlai (Yalkut on Micah vi. 8) said: “Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai; David reduced them to eleven (Ps. xv.); Isaiah reduced them to six (xxxiii. 16, 17); Micah (vi. 8) to three; then Isaiah reduced them again to two (lvi. 1); and Habakkuk to one—Faith (ii. 4).” This Rabbi does certainly not mean to say that Isaiah cancelled some of the eleven virtues mentioned by David, or that Habakkuk only demanded Faith, and did not consider it essential that man should be righteous, truthful, &c. Rabbi Simlai intended only to point out that by training ourselves in the practice of certain virtues, the fulfilment of all Divine precepts will be greatly facilitated.

All the commandments of the holy Torah are equally Divine. Laws concerning justice and humanity, and laws concerning Sabbath and Holydays, are equally introduced by the declaration, “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.” The commandments, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” and “A garment of diverse kinds, of linen and wool, shall not come upon thee,” stand side by side in the same paragraph. The equality of all the precepts as the expression of the Will of the Almighty is clearly set forth in the Law, in the frequent exhortations that the Israelites should obey all the precepts, whatever their nature may be, whether they be of the class of “statutes” or of “judgments,” or of any other class of Divine commands. (Comp. Exod. xv. 25, 26; Lev. xxvi. 15, 43; Num. xv. 39, 40; Deut. iv. 1, 5, 8, &c.)

As to the various terms employed in the Pentateuch to designate the Divine precepts: words (‏דברים‎), commandments (‏מצוות‎), statutes (‏חקים‎), judgments (‏משפטים‎), and laws (‏תורות‎), they may be considered as synonyms signifying similar things. But even synonyms are as a rule distinguished from each other by a certain variation in their meaning, especially when the terms occur in one and the same sentence. A definition of these terms is not given in the Pentateuch or in the Bible; from the context, however, in which they occur the following distinction may be drawn:—

‏חק‎ or ‏חקה‎, “statute,” is applied to those laws which are absolute and do not depend on certain conditions, whilst mishpat, “judgment,” is a law the performance of which varies according to circumstances. Thus the Paschal sacrifice is called chukkah, and must absolutely be performed, whilst the civil laws concerning slaves, damages, &c., are mishpatim, because cases of slavery or damages need not occur, and the respective precepts are then not carried into effect. In a similar manner Jewish theologians divide the Divine precepts into ‏מצות שמעיות‎ and ‏מצות שכליות‎ precepts which our duty of obedience to God makes us perform, and precepts which, without distinct Divine command, our own reason would impel us to do.—The other terms, mitsvah, “commandment,” and mishmereth, “charge,” are used in a general sense, the former in reference to the Giver of the law, and the latter in reference to those to whom it is addressed.

The division of the precepts into ‏שמעיות‎ and ‏שכליות‎ is a vague one, and the line of demarcation will be moved farther to the one side or the other, according to the judgment exercised by the interpreter. Of greater importance is the division into positive and negative precepts, commandments, and prohibitions, ‏מצות עשה‎ and ‏מצות לא תעשה‎. The prohibitions are of two kinds: such as admit of amends being made for their transgression and such as do not admit: ‏שיש בה קום עשה‎ and ‏שאין בה קום עשה‎.

The number of the commandments is, according to Rabbi Simlai, 613 (‏תר״יג‎), and in some editions of the Pentateuch the number of each commandment has been noted in the margin. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, in the introduction to his Mishneh-torah, enumerates the 613 mitsvoth. They are also contained in liturgical compositions, called ‏אזהרות‎ “exhortations,” or “precepts,” such as are met with in the Machzor for the Feast of Weeks.

Maimonides, in “The Guide” as well as in Mishneh-torah, treats of the precepts of the Torah under the following fourteen heads: (1) Fundamental principles of our faith; [31] (2) Divine worship; (3) Sabbath and festivals; (4) Marriages; (5) Forbidden food and forbidden relations of the sexes; (6) Vows; (7) Agriculture; (8) The Temple and the regular sacrificial service; (9) Occasional sacrifices; (10) Cleanness and uncleanness; (11) Compensation for damages; (12) Transfer of property; (13) Contracts; (14) Administration of the law.

Another theologian, Rabbenu Jakob, divided the code of laws into four sections: (1) Divine worship, Sabbath, festivals, and fasts; (2) Things forbidden and things permitted in satisfying our bodily desires; (3) Marriages; (4) Civil laws.

The latter work was recast by Rabbi Joseph Caro, and in the new form, with the new title Shulchan Aruch, it has become the standard work of Jewish law and life, and its authority has been recognised and upheld by Jews in the East and the West. Annotations (‏הגהות‎) were added by Rabbi Moses Isserles, but his opinion, when differing from that of Rabbi Joseph Caro, was only accepted by the Polish and German Congregations, not by the Sephardim.

Rabbi Joseph Caro, Rabbenu Jakob, and Maimonides appear, in their respective codes, not as legislators but as compilers. The Torah and the Talmud were the sources from which they all drew their laws. But laws, minhagim or customs, and institutions (‏תקנות‎) of a post-Talmudic date were not neglected. Questions arising in the course of time, through new and changed conditions of life, are, as a rule, discussed and decided in notes and commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch. There are also numerous special works on such occasional questions; they are called “Responsa” (‏תשובות‎ “Answers,” or ‏שאלות ותשובות‎ “Questions and Answers”), and the importance attributed to them varies according to the reputation of the respective authors.

What is the object of the Divine laws? This is a question that naturally rises in the minds of those to whom they are addressed. But the question has been anticipated by Him “who knoweth the thoughts of the sons of man,” and the answer is found in clear and distinct words in the fountain of living waters, the Torah, that never fails to satisfy our thirst for truth: “Thou shalt keep his statutes and his commandments which I command thee this day, that it may be well with thee and thy children after thee” (Deut. iv. 40). “And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul: to keep the commandments of the Lord and his statutes which I command thee this day, for thy good” (ibid. x. 12, 13). It is for our benefit, for our well-being, that the laws were revealed to us; they serve to make us good and happy; they train us in the mastery over our appetites and desires, in the practice of charity and justice, and in the conception of noble, pure, and lofty ideas, and bring us nearer and nearer in perfection the Being in whose image and likeness we have been created.

What share each individual precept has in the attainment of this end we cannot state with certainty, because in the Torah the reason and purpose of each precept is, with very few exceptions, withheld from us. In many cases our reflection on the nature of a special law, or on the context in which it occurs in the Pentateuch, leads to a discovery of some reason for it. But, whatever reason we may thus discover, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is we who have found it, we whose knowledge is imperfect, and that we or others might in future discover a better reason. If we, e.g., find that certain dietary laws serve to train us in temperance, and see that the virtue of temperance is frequently recommended in the Bible, we may well obey these dietary laws, and strive to be temperate in every respect in accordance with the spirit we detect in them. It would, however, be a gross error if, believing the training in temperance to be their only object, we assumed that we could neglect them, and attain the same object by substituting our own insufficient knowledge and imperfect reason for the Will and Wisdom of the most perfect Being. Moralists, our teachers and preachers of ancient and modern times, have found in these precepts an inexhaustible treasure of lessons exhorting to virtue and warning against vice, and the great variety of inferences thus drawn from the same source proves the error of those who imagine that their own exposition is the only right one. Whatever reason we assign to a religious precept, and whatever wholesome lesson we derive from it, our first duty towards the commandment, and towards Him who commanded it, is strict and unconditional obedience.

Maimonides, who may be considered as the representative of the school which seeks to establish a rational explanation for all precepts, admits that the reason we may assign to any of the commandments cannot affect their validity and immutability, and we are bound to obey them, although the supposed reason may be of a local or temporary character. According to Maimonides, the object of the Law is to promote the well-being of our body and the well-being of our soul; and every commandment has therefore some bearing upon one of the following three things: the regulation of our opinions, the removal of sin, or the teaching of good morals. He does not except the “statutes” from this rule, but confesses that in a few cases he is unable to show clearly the relation of the commandment to any of these objects. He also restricts the principle of rational interpretation to the main element in each commandment, and does not apply it to its details; the latter, as a rule, do not demand an explanation. He says:—

“The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul and the well-being of the body” (Guide, iii. 27). “I am prepared to tell you my explanations of all these commandments (the so-called chukkim or “statutes”), and to assign for them a true reason supported by proof, with the exception of some minor rules and of a few commandments. I will show that all these and similar laws must have some bearing upon one of the following three things, viz., the regulation of our opinions or the improvement of our social relations, which implies two things: the removal of wrong-doing and the teaching of good morals” (ibid. xxviii.). “The repeated assertion of our Sages that there are reasons for all commandments, and the tradition that Solomon knew them, refer to the general purpose of the commandments, and not to the object of every detail. This being the case, I find it convenient to divide the six hundred and thirteen precepts into classes; each class to include many precepts of the same kind. I will first explain the reason of each class of precepts, and show their common object, and then I shall discuss the individual commandments and expound their reasons. Only very few will be left unexplained, the reason for which I have been unable to trace unto this day. I have also been able to comprehend in some cases even the object of many of the conditions and details of the laws as far as it can be discovered” (ibid. xxvi.).

“It is also important to note that the Law does not take into account exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely occur.” “We must therefore not be surprised when we find that the object of the Law does not fully appear in every individual case.” “From this consideration it follows that the Law cannot, like medicine, vary according to the different conditions of persons and times. Whilst the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the Divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this reason, it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place. On the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional, and general, in accordance with the Divine words: ‘As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger’ (Num. xv. 15). They are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for all times” (ibid. xxxiv.).

In the present treatise our religious duties will be expounded under the following seven heads:—

1. Exposition of the Decalogue. 2. General ethical principles— (a.) Duties towards God. (b.) ,, ,, our fellow-men. (c.) ,, ,, ourselves. 3. Outward reminders of God’s Presence. 4. Sabbath, Festivals, and Fasts. 5. Divine Worship. 6. Dietary Laws. 7. Jewish Life.

I. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. ‏עשרת הדברות‎

The “Ten Words” are distinguished from all other lessons of the Torah both on account of their intrinsic value and on account of the extraordinary manner in which they have been revealed by the Almighty on Mount Sinai. They form the contents of “the covenant which God made with us” (Deut. v. 3).

But it must not be forgotten that they are not the only Divine commandments. When, therefore, Moses repeated them before his brethren in the plain of Moab, he prefaced it by the exhortation: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the judgments which I speak unto you to-day, and learn them and keep them to do them” (ibid. 1); and after he had finished reciting them he reminded the Israelites how they received the Ten Commandments from the midst of the fire, and how they prayed that further commandments should be given to them through Moses; adding that the Almighty, in compliance with their petition, said to him: “Stand thou here with me, and I will tell thee the whole commandment, both the statutes and the judgments which thou shalt teach them” (ibid. 28).

“And God spake all these words, saying:”

FIRST COMMANDMENT.

“I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

The Israelites who now stood round Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God saying, “I am the Lord thy God,” were the same who a very short time before had been slaves in Egypt; they were delivered from slavery, and saw their cruel taskmasters perish in the waves of the Red Sea. Pharaoh, the king of the Egyptians, and his people had believed that they were the masters of the Israelites, and that they could do with them as they pleased. And Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord, that I should listen to his voice? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go.” It has now been shown that Pharaoh and his people were not the true masters; that there was a higher Being that ruled over all men, over kings and their peoples. After the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea, they sang with Moses: “This is my God, and I will praise him, the God of my father, and I will exalt him.” They all felt that their liberty was not obtained by human strength and skill; that there must be a higher Being who is All-powerful, All-wise, and All-good; and that it was He who freed them, and punished the wicked Egyptians by whom they had been kept in slavery. What the Israelites at first felt in their hearts they were now, when standing round Sinai, taught by God Himself, in plain, clear, and intelligible words: “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

This is the first commandment; it is only one commandment, but it contains several important lessons:—

1. God has shown great kindness to our nation; we Jews must therefore more than other people show ourselves grateful to Him, love Him as our Deliverer and Benefactor, and do willingly all that He commands us to do.

2. When we are in trouble we must trust in God, pray to Him, and hope that He will help us when our fellow-men cannot do so. When they give us up as lost we need not despair; for the Almighty can help where human wisdom and power are insufficient.

3. The wicked may for a time succeed in doing wrong, whilst the good and just suffer; but this does not last for ever. There is a Master above all of us, who in due time punishes the wicked and saves the good.

SECOND COMMANDMENT.

“Thou shall have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing loving-kindness to the thousandth generation of them that love me and keep my commandments.”

There are no other gods in existence; it is impossible for us to have other gods. There is only one God, as we repeatedly declare, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” The commandment is nevertheless not superfluous. There have been whole nations, and there are still people, who, in their ignorance and folly, attribute Divine power to things that have no Divine power, and who give the name of god to things that are not gods. Such people are called heathens, idolaters, or idol-worshippers. The second commandment forbids us to do any such thing.

It was the custom in some countries to worship the king, either during his lifetime or after his death, as a Divine being; it is still the custom in some countries to pray to departed saints. All this our holy religion forbids us to do. We must respect our king, we must honour the memory and the name of good men, but only as human beings, not as gods; we may not deify them. As to our prophets, our great men, the Patriarchs, the kings, their names are a pride unto us, their memory a blessing, ‏זכרונם לברכה‎—they are honoured by us as human, mortal beings: they are not worshipped. When we visit the graves of those near and dear to us, and honour their memory by reflecting on their virtues, when we revere those holy men who have devoted their lives to the service of God, or the martyrs who have sacrificed their lives for the sanctification of the Name of God (‏קדוש השם‎), we do not endow them with Divine attributes, and do not offer up any prayer to them.

The second commandment, in forbidding all kinds of idolatry, includes the following prohibitions:—

(1.) The worship of sun, moon, stars, animals, human beings, or any part of Nature, as endowed with Divine power. (2.) The worship of images representing things that exist in reality or in man’s imagination. (3.) The worship of angels as Divine beings. They are only messengers of God, and we must not pray to them. (4.) The belief in evil spirits, demons, devils, and the like, and the fear of them. (5.) The belief in charms, witchcraft, fortune-telling, and similar superstitions.

The words, “For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God,” are to be understood in a figurative sense; we cannot say of God that He is jealous, in the literal sense of the word. It is only because we call a person jealous who is anxious that no one else shall enjoy the same right or privilege as he enjoys, that we apply the term “jealous” figuratively to God, because He does not concede Divine worship and service to any other being. He demands of His worshippers that they serve Him alone and none besides.

Those who break this commandment “hate God,” and will surely receive their punishment. He “visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children upon the third and upon the fourth generation.” The bad example set by a man frequently corrupts his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. In that case they will all receive their punishment, and there is no excuse for them, that they were misled by the bad example of their father or their forefathers. A bad example must not be followed, even if it be set by those whom we love dearly.

The good example of a man should always be followed, and his good deeds bear good fruit and are the source of blessing even long after his death. For to those that love God and keep His commandments God “showeth mercy even to the thousandth generation.”

THIRD COMMANDMENT

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold, him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

We pronounce the name of God when we read the Bible, when we pray, when we take an oath, or when we speak of God’s wisdom, power, and goodness. We take the name of God in vain when we read the Bible without attention, or pray without devotion, or take an oath without necessity or contrary to truth. When we utter the name of God we must bear in mind that it is the name of the most Holy and most Perfect Being that we are pronouncing; that it is a privilege to us to be allowed and to be able to pronounce it.

The more we meditate on the greatness and holiness of God, the more careful should we be “not to utter the name of God in vain.” We should guard ourselves from falling into the bad habit of uttering it thoughtlessly to no purpose whatever. Many people are heard to exclaim every minute, “O God,” or similar phrases. To them the sacredness of the name is entirely lost, and they are no longer reminded by it of the holiness of Him who is designated by that name. Still greater is the thoughtlessness of those who swear by God without any necessity. In swearing by God we call upon God to bear witness that our words are true. But such a testimony is only required when our statement is not believed. If we swear before we know whether we are believed or not, we indicate that, according to our estimate of ourselves, we are not trustworthy, and it has often been observed as a fact that those who swear most are least to be believed. The worst of all forms of swearing is to swear falsely, that is, to swear that something is the case without knowing that it is true, or knowing that it is not true. This is a terrible crime, and is called “the profanation of God’s name,” ‏חלול השם‎.

There is still another kind of ‏חלול השם‎ “profanation of God’s name:” if we Jews who are called by His name, the people of the Lord, or children of the Lord, bring contempt upon God’s people by disgraceful conduct, we profane the name of God. We sanctify it by noble and generous deeds; by leading a pure and blameless life we cause a ‏קדוש השם‎ “sanctification of the name of God.”

The third commandment forbids us—

(1.) To utter the name of God unnecessarily in our common conversation. (2.) To read the Bible carelessly, or to pray without attention and devotion. (3.) To swear otherwise than when required by the law to do so, as, e.g., in courts of law. (4.) To swear when we are not fully convinced of the truth of our declaration.

The additional sentence, “for he will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain,” is to remind us that it is against God the Omniscient that we sin in breaking this commandment. God knows our innermost thoughts, whether we think of what we utter or not; whether we are convinced of what we declare on oath or not. He will punish us if we break His commandments, although we may be able to conceal our sins from men and escape condemnation by a human tribunal.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT.

“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is therein, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

The Sabbath day, that is, the day of rest, is to be kept holy. In two ways it should differ from other days; it is to be a day of rest and also a holy day. We keep it as a day of rest by not doing on it any kind of work; we keep it as a holy day by devoting the greater part of it, since we are free from our ordinary occupation, to prayer and to reading the Bible.

We are thankful to God for having commanded us to keep the Sabbath, and give expression to our feeling of gratitude in our prayers, especially at the beginning and the end of the Sabbath; thus, on Friday evening, before the meal, we praise God for sanctifying the Sabbath by a prayer called Kiddush, “sanctification,” and on Sabbath evening, after the close of the Sabbath, we recite the Habhdalah, in which God is praised for the distinction made between Sabbath and the six week-days.

The Israelites were told to remember the Sabbath day; that is, the well-known day of rest, the same day which was instituted as a day of rest in connection with the manna. On five days they collected one omer of the manna, on the sixth day two omers for each person; on the seventh day no manna was collected nor was any found, and the Israelites were commanded to bake and to cook on the sixth day not only for the sixth day, but also for the seventh, on which day baking and cooking was not to be done. This same seventh day we are told in the fourth commandment to remember to keep holy, that we should not forget it, or choose another day instead of it. It is the same seventh day on which God rested after the six days of the Creation, and which “he blessed and sanctified.”

It is to be a day of rest not only for ourselves; we must not have work done for us by our children, or by our servants, or by strangers; even our cattle must rest. After six days of work we enjoy the blessing of one day’s rest, and are rendered more fit to work another six days. The harder we work on six days, the more welcome is the rest of the seventh day to us. When Moses repeated the commandments, he laid special stress on the rest of the servants, reminding the Israelites that they themselves had once been slaves, and must therefore recognise the necessity of granting a day of rest to their servants.

It is not to be a day of mere idleness. Complete idleness leads to evil thoughts and evil deeds. Whilst our body rests our mind should be occupied with holy thoughts; we should commune with God, reflect on His works, learn from them the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, study the Word of God, listen to the instruction of our teachers and preachers, and altogether try to raise ourselves into a loftier sphere.

On the day of rest we reflect on the works of God, on the work of Creation which He completed in six days, and thus by keeping the Sabbath we testify to our belief in God as the Creator of the Universe. On this account it is that the Creation is referred to in this commandment as the reason why rest was enjoined for the seventh day. “For in six days,” &c.

“Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day;” the rest on the seventh day is a blessing to those who have worked hard during the preceding six days; it is a blessing to those who spend the Sabbath in a proper manner. “And he hallowed it” by giving man an opportunity to sanctify himself by more frequent communion with the Most Holy.

The fourth commandment tells us—

(1.) To remember to keep the same day as Sabbath which has been set apart as such from the beginning. (2.) To abstain on that day from all kind of work. (3.) To devote part of the day to our sanctification.

FIFTH COMMANDMENT.

“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”

The strongest desire that animates a father and a mother is to see their children good and happy. From the first day of their existence children are guarded by the watchful eyes of their parents that no evil may befall them. How delighted are father and mother when they notice the progress of their child in health and strength, in heart and soul! What an amount of trouble and anxiety parents undergo when they see their child suffering! No sacrifice is too great for them so long as it ensures the child’s well-being. It is painful to them to be compelled to deny their child anything, or to rebuke or to punish it. To this they are impelled only by the anxiety for the welfare of the child. The mutual affection between parent and child is one which nature has implanted. Without it the home would be the dwelling of misery and misfortune; with it comfort and happiness flourish therein. The loving parents have pleasure in whatever they do for the benefit of the child, and the affectionate child is delighted with the goodness of its parents.

“Honour thy father and thy mother,” says the Almighty to us. How does a child honour father and mother? In the eyes of the child father and mother must be the king and the queen of the house, however small that may be. Every word that comes from their mouth, every desire that they express, must be regarded as of the greatest importance, and be well remembered by the child. When the king or the queen speaks, all present stand and listen respectfully; their words are read by every one with the greatest interest. So it must be with the words of our parents. Whenever they tell us to do or not to do a thing, obedience is a blessing to us; disobedience is the chief cause of all misery and trouble. We feel pleasure and honour in being able to do something that gratifies our parents, and we like to give them at times some material token of our affection. The best present we can give them is a good heart, sincere love that prompts us to avoid everything that would grieve them, and to do everything we can to give them pleasure and to make them happy.

This is one of the few laws the reward of which is distinctly stated, “That thy days may be long upon the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” We can easily understand the good effect of keeping the fifth commandment. Pleasure and contentment contribute a good deal to the health and well-being of man, whilst anger, trouble, and dissatisfaction produce ill-health and weakness. The mutual affection between parent and child is therefore the cause that the days of both the parents and the children are prolonged, and the harmony and happiness of the house firmly established. The blessing attending children’s obedience and love towards their parents does not end here. The whole State consists of small homes and families, and the greater the well-being of the individual homes, the greater is the well-being of the whole country. Thus the child by acting in accordance with this Divine commandment contributes its share towards the prosperity of the whole country.

When our parents are not present, we should, out of love towards them, obey those who take their place, as, e.g., our elder brothers or sisters, our guardians, and our teachers, since all these only do what the parents would themselves like to do were the opportunity granted them.

We are bound to honour our parents not only so long as we are under their care and live in their house, but also when we have left our parents’ home, and have become independent. Even when they have become old, weak, and poor, and we support them, we must not forget the natural relation between parent and child, and the honour due to parents from their children must still be shown to them. When they have departed from this life, and we are no longer able to show our feeling of love and respect in the usual way, we must honour their name and memory, and hold in respect the wishes and commands which they expressed when still alive. Death is no bar to true love and sincere affection.

Thus we obey the fifth commandment—

(1.) By listening respectfully to the words of our parents and obeying what they say. (2.) By doing that which pleases them, and avoiding that which would displease them. (3.) By supporting them when they are weak and poor by all our best exertion and with genuine pleasure. (4.) By honouring their name and memory after their death. (5.) By being obedient to our elder brothers or sisters, to our guardians, and to our teachers.

SIXTH COMMANDMENT.

“Thou shalt not murder.”

Murder is a most terrible thing; we shudder at the sound of the word, even at the mere idea of it. We wonder how it is possible that a person should be so wicked, so cruel, and so unnatural as to take the life of another human being! One who can do such a thing must have lost all human feeling, and is rather a brute than a being created in the image of God. But, unfortunately, there have been and there are such wicked people. We read in the Bible that a dispute arose between the two sons of Adam, and the one, Cain, slew the other, Abel. He repented it, but he could not restore to his brother the life which he had taken. The severest punishment is therefore inflicted on those who have committed this crime.

This commandment and those which follow it have their root in the principle, “Love thy fellow-man as thyself,” applied to the life (sixth commandment), the home (seventh commandment), the property (eighth commandment), and the honour of our fellow-man (ninth commandment). We wish to enjoy life as long as possible; it must therefore be our desire to see our fellow-man enjoy the longest possible life. But we must not rest satisfied with the mere desire. An earnest desire is followed by acts dictated by it. We must try our utmost, even as we do with regard to ourselves, to preserve the life of our fellow-man. We have, e.g., seen before how by obeying the fifth commandment we lengthen not only our own life, but also that of our parents, whilst by breaking this law we shorten their life as well as our own.

By supporting the poor and nursing the sick we may be the means of increasing a human life by many days or even years, whilst by neglecting the duty of charity we neglect to save the life of our fellow-man when it is in our power to do so.—Another instance of criminal neglect it would be if a person saw another in actual danger of life, and did not try everything in his power to save him.

Without having directly broken the sixth commandment, without having taken the life of our neighbour by violence, we may still be guilty of having shortened his life and caused his untimely death. Talebearers and slanderers, e.g., often undermine the peace and happiness of an individual, and even of a whole family, and sow the seed of misery and ruin where well-being and prosperity seemed well established.

The sixth commandment enjoins that we should respect the life of our fellow-man, and forbids us therefore—

(1.) To take it by violent means. (2.) To do anything by which the peace and well-being of our fellow-man might be undermined. (3.) To neglect anything in our power to save our neighbour from direct or indirect danger of life.

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

The institution of marriage is of very ancient date. When Eve had been formed out of the rib of Adam, and was brought to him, he exclaimed, “She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” and the account of the first marriage concludes thus: “Therefore man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. ii. 24). Every married couple, husband and wife, bind themselves by a solemn promise to be true and faithful to each other, to remain throughout life united in love and affection, and to establish a home founded on purity and sanctity. Adultery is the breaking of this promise. That love and affection which unites man and wife cannot be shared by a third person without involving a breach of the seventh commandment.

Jewish homes have always been distinguished by sanctity and purity. In order to retain this distinction it is necessary that we should be trained in this virtue from our childhood. Our language must be pure and holy; unclean and indecent expressions must never be uttered in our homes, either by the old or by the young. The purer our speech is, the more sanctified will our heart be. Bad society often corrupts the heart of the young through bad example in words and conduct. It is therefore essential that immoral persons should not come in contact with our children; that everything that is contrary to the virtue of modesty (‏צניעות‎) should be rigorously excluded from Jewish homes.

The seventh commandment forbids:—

(1.) Faithlessness of a man to his wife, or a woman to her husband. (2.) The use of improper and indecent language. (3.) Immodest conduct. (4.) Associating with immoral persons.

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT.

“Thou shalt not steal.”

We do not like that any one should take a part of our property without our knowledge or consent. An old saying of the Rabbis teaches: “Let the property of thy neighbour be as dear in thy eyes as thine own” (Aboth