ESSAYS ON PROBLEMS IN JEWISH ORTHODOXY 
 
 BY 
 
 MEMBERS OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY. 
 
 TACK 
 
 NNEX 
 
 fit) 
 
 HE ORTHODOX POSITION 
 
 HERBERT LOEWE, M.A. 
 
 (St. Catharine's College). 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 W. HEFFER & SONS LTD. 
 
 LONDON : SIMPKIN, 'MARSHALL, & Co., LTD. 
 
 1915 
 
 
 
 Price Fourpencc net.
 
 It is felt by various members of Cambridge University that 
 there is a need for a series of pamphlets dealing with problems 
 in Orthodox Judaism from an Orthodox standpoint. Such a 
 series should avoid comparisons and polemics. The purpose of 
 each writer should be constructive, that is to say, to vindicate 
 Orthodox Judaism on its own merits, by demonstrating the 
 compatibility of tradition and modern thought. With these 
 limitations, each author will give free expression to his personal 
 views, for which he will accept the entire responsibility. 
 
 The following pamphlets are in preparation : 
 
 The Orthodox Position. By H. LOEWE, M.A. (S*. 
 Catharine's). Now Ready. 
 
 The Place of the Individual in Judaism. By E. MILLER, 
 B.A. (S*. John's). 
 
 Miracles. By E. M. MACCOBY, B.A. (St. John's). 
 Intermarriage. By R. N. SALAMAN, M.D. (Trinity Hall). 
 Piyyutim versus Hymns. By Mrs. SALAMAN. 
 
 The Synagogue in History. By the Rev. A. COHEN, M.A. 
 (Emmanuel). 
 
 The Spirit of Joy in Judaism. By H. M. ADLER, M.A. 
 (St. John's). 
 
 Does the Liturgy Satisfy our Spiritual Needs? By 
 L. L. LOEWE, B.A. (Jesus). 
 
 Judaism and the Rights of Nations. By P. QUASS, B.A. 
 (S*. John's). 
 
 And others by the Rev. E. LEVINE, M.A. (Jesus), W. 
 GOLDSTEIN (Emmanuel), S. BRODETSKY, M.A. (Trinity), 
 I. LEVY, B.A. (St. Catharine's), A. ZAIMAN (King's), 
 H. M. SPIERS, B.A. (Caius), S. M. GREEN, B.A. (St. 
 John's), L. H. STERN, B.A. (Magdalene). 
 
 Among the subjects to be treated will be : " Woman and 
 the Synagogue," " The Higher Criticism," " Orthodoxy as a 
 Missionary Movement," "The Second Days of Festivals," and 
 " Hebrew in the Service." 
 
 CU1GW 111 111G vJCl V 1V_,G. 
 
 The price of each pamphlet will be 4d.
 
 ESSAYS ON PROBLEMS IN JEWISH ORTHODOXY 
 
 (I.)
 
 W. HEFFER & SONS, LTD, 
 
 104, HILLS ROAD, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE!
 
 THE ORTHODOX POSITION 
 
 BY 
 
 HERBERT LOEWE, M.A. 
 
 (St. Catharine's College) 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 W. HEFFER 6? SONS LTD. 
 
 LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & Co., LTD. 
 
 1915
 
 Le-horai toda, ki hidrikhuni binethibh mifwoth. 
 
 (To my parents, who set my feet on the path of the 
 Commandments.)
 
 PREFACE TO THE SERIES. 
 
 IN the fateful three years of academic life, most of us subject 
 our religious beliefs and experiences to the same stringent 
 investigation that we apply to other phases of human existence. 
 We seek to discover what relation religious truths bear to the 
 general body of truth, some branch of which our secular studies 
 are striving to elucidate. Confronted with difficulties, we turn to 
 our ecclesiastical authorities and look for guidance. Like Elihu 
 we expect that " Days should speak, and multitude of years 
 should teach wisdom." But hitherto our Rabbis and teachers 
 in England generally have refrained from issuing any pronounce- 
 ments. " Behold, we waited for their words, they spake not." 
 To take one striking illustration : the only orthodox contributions 
 to Higher Critical study have been Mr. Wiener's works, and 
 Mr. Wiener is neither a Rabbi nor a teacher at a Jewish 
 seminary, he is a layman. We wait in vain for some "official'' 
 guidance. We cannot nor do we wish to ignore modern 
 difficulties, and we venture to hope that our efforts to arrive at 
 conclusions compatible with our faith, to reconcile our orthodox 
 position with facts and truths that seem to controvert that 
 position, may perhaps be of use to others. Hence, like Elihu, 
 we speak amid the silence of our elders, and we trust that, 
 also like Elihu, we shall escape the blame which was reserved 
 for the other three friends. We speak in no presumption, but 
 in the hope that our errors will provoke replies and promote 
 instruction. We speak, each one for himself, giving each one 
 his own personal views. If these are obsolete or incorrect, we 
 plead that they represent stages in the growth of our outlook 
 and, even so, may be of some service, for others will have to 
 pass these same stages. To any friends who have already 
 passed them, we shall look gratefully for inspiration. 
 
 There is another reason, besides humility, that prompts us 
 to write, and that is pride. In Cambridge we are far removed 
 from strife. Questions of orthodoxy and reform that agitate 
 Jewry elsewhere, have aroused our keen interest and discussion, 
 but have stirred no bitterness among us. We number Jews
 
 PREFACE TO THE SERIES. 
 
 of every shade of religious conformity, Jews who come not only 
 from England but from most Jewries of the world. Our pride 
 lies in the fact that we have managed to sink our differences 
 without sacrificing our principles. We may fairly claim to have 
 achieved union without uniformity, and to have built up Jewish 
 tradition without persecution. For this our thanks are due to 
 Mr. Abrahams, who has taught us Judaism in its widest, 
 noblest sense ; to him we dedicate this series. 
 
 It will be our endeavour to keep these pamphlets free 
 from the acrimony and uselessness of polemics, and we shall 
 confine ourselves to the defence and justification of orthodoxy. 
 It is not our purpose to attack the opinions of our Reform 
 brothers. A statement of the orthodox attitude to various 
 topics will be our aim. How far we succeed or fail either to 
 convince or to remain faithful to these guiding principles, is a 
 strictly personal matter. To ensure complete freedom to the 
 various authors, it is necessary to state definitely that we take 
 no collective responsibility for one another's opinions. Hence 
 the same subject may be treated, from different standpoints, 
 by more than one of us, in separate pamphlets. In conclusion, 
 we repeat Elihu's plea of his sincerity, " Our words are of the 
 uprightness of our hearts," and of his eagerness to elicit 
 response, " If you have aught to say, answer us : speak, for we 
 desire to justify you."
 
 THE ORTHODOX POSITION. 
 
 When we examine the basis of our religious beliefs, we 
 find ourselves at the outset dividing the whole field of inquiry 
 into two parts. The former is of a general nature " Why do 
 we believe in God and revelation ? " ; the second, which follows 
 logically, is " Why, admitting our belief in God and revelation, 
 do we follow that particular form known as Orthodox Judaism ? " 
 The former naturally applies, no less emphatically to our liberal 
 brothers, to our Christian friends, and indeed to all Theists, for 
 we claim no monopoly, at this time, of the Monotheistic idea. 
 Yet there is this difference between Jewish and Christian believers. 
 The former question is much easier for us to answer than for 
 them. It is true that to the philosopher, the existence of a 
 Deity may be a matter of discussion, and even, ultimately, of 
 doubt. The rival claims of materialist and idealist solutions of 
 the universe, the difficulty in accounting for the toleration of evil 
 by an all-good Deity, and in reconciling human freewill with 
 divine prescience, all these are grave points which make the 
 philosopher and theologian hesitate. They may, indeed, decide 
 that the belief in God is proved, but they reach their conviction 
 only after much thought and research. On the other hand, to 
 the ordinary educated believer, whose thoughts are guided by 
 commonsense reasoning rather than by abstruse philosophical 
 speculation, the belief in the existence of one Creative Power is 
 simple and requires no demonstration. The argument from 
 Design suffices: there is nothing inherently impossible in the 
 belief in One God. Revelation is a natural corollary. 
 
 But to the Christian believer far more serious difficulties 
 present themselves. If it is hard to believe in a Unity, how 
 much harder must it be to believe in a Trinity ? Miracles are 
 not prominent in Jewish theology ; they are completely absent 
 from Jewish service and ritual. Christain belief is based on a 
 series of miracles ; Christian worship, in its most solemn sacra- 
 ment, rests on the daily recurrence of a miracle, with which the 
 whole body of the faith is indissolubly connected. Praestet fides 
 supplementum sensuum defectui !
 
 Judaism, then, in its widest form, may be a problem to the 
 philosopher; to the layman its acceptation is easy. Christianity, 
 however, is a problem, and a much more serious one, not only 
 to the philosopher, but to the layman as well. The philosophic 
 basis of Judaism does not concern us now. We accept, ex 
 hypothesi, the belief in a God and revelation (this point will 
 be treated in a separate essay) ; we wish to consider our way 
 of life as Orthodox Jews. Here the case is reversed. We have 
 much more to establish than Christianity has. The latter merely 
 demands of its followers an ethical life. This life, common to 
 Judaism and Christianity, is above dispute there may be differ- 
 ences between Jewish and Christian conceptions of certain 
 qualities, but these for the moment need not detain us. But the 
 Jewish life demands something more than the love of justice 
 and righteousness and the practice of charity. We all, for the 
 present purposes, concede the belief in God, and what we may 
 for convenience call the moral life. What we are asking our- 
 selves is, why do we observe the Ceremonial Law ? No serious 
 inquirer will resurrect the old fallacious contrast of Mitzvoth 
 versus spirituality of love as opposed to ceremonial. We 
 start with the true premises that the moral life, with its love, 
 spirituality, and other elements, are common to the two religious 
 systems for no Jew would deny the reality of Christian teaching 
 on these points merely because so many Christians have neglected 
 and repudiated them or have persecuted us, as little would any 
 Englishman hold the system of Kant responsible for the horrors 
 of Louvain and we want to examine that extra element which 
 Judaism possesses, namely, the " practical " precepts of our 
 religion. 
 
 We have thus cleared the ground and come to one clear 
 issue. The question that presents itself is obvious. " If it is 
 conceded that Christianity and Theism have the same moral 
 teaching as Judaism, why should I be a Jew when it is so 
 much easier to be a Christian ? I do not merely mean easier 
 in the crude sense of the absence of the physical sacrifices 
 demanded by the Torah, but easier also because, from the point of 
 view of humanity, surely uniformity is preferable to diversity." 
 
 First, it must be observed that we cannot altogether concede 
 the same hypothesis here, as we have done above, in a slightly 
 different situation. Speaking generally, we certainly do not
 
 maintain that Jewish " morality " allowing for the moment the 
 possibility of a special " Jewish " morality is superior to 
 " Christian " morality. But in various aspects of life we claim 
 for Judaism a different and, we believe, a better point of view. 
 Thus we do not share the Christian belief that this world is 
 evil ; we do not hold that . the family tie impedes a man's 
 approximation to God or vitiates his ability to serve his Maker 
 with all his heart, with all his soul and with all his might. 
 Similar differences will readily occur to everyone. Even if we 
 overlooked the miracles, still the fundamental nature of Christian 
 teaching, i.e. the necessity of a redeemer to reconcile man to 
 God, is an insuperable obstacle to a union of the two faiths. 
 Judaism, in refusing to abandon its separateness, and in keeping 
 open the path of direct access to God, can in this alone plead 
 an eternal justification. 
 
 Secondly, even if we were to ignore these differences, there 
 is another factor to be remembered. Christianity, no less than 
 Judaism, contains elements besides the teaching of Morality and 
 Ethics. Christianity contains the dogmas of the birth and 
 resurrection of its Founder, Judaism contains the Mitzvoth. 
 Consequently whether I am a Jew or a Christian I am bound 
 not simply to morality, but to morality plus something else. 
 Looking at it broadly, we may say that Christianity restrains 
 the mind, and Judaism the body. We Jews consider that it is 
 just the latter that requires discipline, while it is the former 
 that should be free. Judaism does not, of course, neglect the 
 mind, but imposes no trammels on it. Thus, as a Jew, I am 
 forbidden to eat oysters ; as a Christian, I am forced to believe 
 in transubstantiation. Quite apart from the mere question of 
 morality, each religion contains something additional, and the 
 difference between these two addenda is sufficient to justify 
 Jewish separation. 
 
 If then, it may be urged, I desire simple morality, I 
 can become a Theist, I need neither Christianity nor Judaism. 
 Judaism has been the teacher of the world, but by now its 
 pupils have learnt their lesson. This is quite true, but we are 
 not dealing with proselytizing, we are asking ourselves not 
 why we being unbelievers should choose Judaism rather 
 than Theism but why, being Jews, we should remain in 
 the Faith.
 
 10 
 
 The reason why we remain Jews is because we believe 
 that pure Theism, without that additional matter which makes 
 it Judaism, is too colourless, too weak to influence men's lives 
 and actions, unequal to survive except perhaps among a few 
 supermen whose strength of character is capable of making 
 them impervious to their surroundings, who are self-sufficient, 
 and who are able to dispense with all the aids to morality that 
 the Mitzvoth provide. Theism teaches the transcendence, 
 Judaism supplies the immanence. Judaism can appeal to every 
 man, Theism only to the scholar and saint, for man cannot live 
 by dogma alone. Further, Theism overlooks the essential fact 
 that man is human. We cannot expect him to continue in the 
 path of virtue fortified merely by general principles and vague 
 rules of conduct. He needs the warmth of ceremonial. 
 Orthodox Judaism and Theism do not rest upon the emotions, 
 but upon reason. Seeing that the emotions and senses are part 
 of our human nature, Judaism does not omit to take cognizance 
 of them as Theism does but presses them into its service, 
 while never allowing them to usurp too great a share in the 
 religious scheme, as, for example, is the case with the Greek 
 and Latin Churches. We are, then, by a process of exclusion, 
 brought back to Orthodox Judaism. (The separate steps, thus 
 briefly considered, will be dealt with in separate pamphlets.) 
 Further, it will be agreed, much, if not all that has been said 
 up to now could apply equally to Liberal Judaism, with possible 
 reservations. We do not wish to base our faith on negative 
 foundations. We do not believe in Judaism because Christianity 
 is untrue. First, we are not out to proselytize ; secondly, we do 
 not deny the value of Christianity and Islam for their respective 
 adherents; thirdly, we do not wish to harm these faiths in any 
 way. By regarding their truth to be relative, as far as we are 
 concerned, we do not divest them of spiritual use. At any rate 
 it would be a poor compliment to our religion, if we were to 
 say that we are Jews simply because of the deficiencies of the 
 other Creeds. No, we are Jews because of positive not of purely 
 negative reasons; we, too, believe our Faith to be divinely 
 given, and the most perfect, but not the only, guide in life. 
 
 What, then, is the value of the whole body of practice that 
 belongs to Orthodox Judaism ? Why is it necessary to keep 
 these observances, many of which seem so trivial ? The answer
 
 11 
 
 is twofold. We believe that these are divine ordinances, and 
 that they represent the will of God, for Rabbinic interpretation 
 also partakes, in a way, of the nature of " apostolic succession," 
 being in strict spiritual and logical continuity with the past ; 
 and, further, that the observance of these ceremonies is essential 
 to build up the Jewish life. It has not been a discovery of 
 modern times that certain Mitzvoth seem to though in reality 
 they do not tax our faith ; our Rabbis call those commandments, 
 for which the reason is not patent, by the name of Chukkim. 
 We cannot explain the motive or object connected with this 
 class of commands, but we nevertheless observe them. (By the 
 way, the class is really small, and care must be taken not to 
 lay too much stress on them and thus gain a false perspective.) 
 To carry out these Chukkim is no great task. A child is 
 prepared to obey unquestioningly any wishes of a parent. The 
 child acts out of love, and does not pause to consider that the 
 parent is a human being like himself, and liable to error. Nor 
 is it possible for a parent to explain to a child of tender years 
 the reason for many things which he orders, and which are 
 necessary for the child's good. One cannot explain the properties 
 of heat to an infant crawling on the hearthrug, but one can 
 keep it away from the fire. The gap between our powers of 
 understanding and the intelligence of God is surely no less than 
 that between the brains of adults and children. Surely then the 
 same obedience may be reasonably expected by an infallible, 
 all-loving God. 
 
 " But," it will be said, " this is the same blind faith, to which 
 objection was taken previously, when speaking of Christianity." 
 A typical example will shew that this is not so. The Red 
 Heifer is one of these Chukkim. Now obsolete, it involved an 
 act however, not a belief as is the case, say, with regard to 
 transubstantiation. No Jew in the days of the Tabernacle, even 
 if we supposed him endowed with the latest scientific knowledge, 
 would see, in the observance of this Chok, an offence against 
 his reason. Similarly, no believer in any creed would, on 
 account of the inexplicable death of a beloved relative, abandon 
 his faith in Providence. To perform on trust, so to say, an 
 act of worship, the reason of which God has not vouchsafed, is 
 not a sacrifice of reason. We can only speak of such a sacrifice 
 if we are asked to believe that which science teaches us to be
 
 12 
 
 inherently impossible. The performance of the act may be 
 blind obedience : the credo quia impossibile is blind faith and 
 has no place in Judaism. 
 
 As a matter of fact our whole basis of life is made up of 
 trust and by this we mean accepting the possible without 
 proof, not the impossible. We accept a piece of paper as the 
 equal in worth of five golden sovereigns ; we accept blindly the 
 doctor's dictum on our health, and the lawyer's advice about 
 our property. " Yes," it may be said, " this we do as a matter 
 of convenience. If we liked to take the trouble we could go 
 to the bank and change our note, we could by study acquire 
 as much knowledge as the medical and legal specialists in 
 whom we prefer to place complete confidence in order to save 
 ourselves the labour necessary to verify their pronouncements." 
 This objection might stand in these examples, yet usually it 
 will be found that the majority of those who have been 
 properly taught and trained in an orthodox home, and who are 
 really competent to form a judgment, remain devoted to 
 orthodoxy all their lives. Some, of course, there are, who, 
 after due consideration think differently : on the whole, an 
 orthodox child means an orthodox man. From the inadequacy 
 of superficial orthodoxy i.e. soi disant conformity, no true 
 conclusion can be deduced. 
 
 It is also necessary to draw a distinction between actual 
 knowledge and capacity for thought. Every educated person 
 may presumably be credited with the latter quality, but the 
 possession of this faculty does not eo ipso imply the other. A 
 specialist must keep to his own subject. The eminence of a 
 politician does not entitle him to speak with authority about 
 Art. Nor can the views of a geologist or a lawyer on the 
 Din claim any special privilege. As far as morals and con- 
 science are concerned, all men are equal, for the divine spark 
 is withheld from none ; but to criticize Jewish practices, to 
 which experts have devoted lives of study, is another matter. 
 For this, technical equipment is essential. 
 
 But reverting to " blind trust," there are cases when, 
 however much study we devote to the task, we are baffled, and 
 have to accept a phenomenon without explaining its nature. 
 No one in the world knows so Edison said recently what 
 electricity is, but everyone knows what it does, and uses it
 
 13 
 
 everyone, layman and professor, takes it on trust. No scientist 
 can define heat, except as the absence of cold; or cold, save as 
 the absence of heat. Our knowledge of the essence of heat is 
 not increased by substituting the terms energy or motion, nor 
 is our use of it in any way affected. No one can visualize the 
 fourth dimension, yet it must be there : the existence of 
 x dimensions is shewn by a simple algebraical demonstration. 
 We have to be satisfied with our knowledge if it works ; 
 pragmatism applies to science no less than to faith. 
 
 The number of the Mosaic precepts for which we cannot 
 see the reason 1 is small : most of them were connected with 
 the Temple and Palestine and are no longer binding. Far more 
 " faith-disturbing," so to speak, to some of our brethren, are 
 certain of the Mitzvoth which ought, they consider, to be 
 superseded. It has been said that the Almighty does not take 
 pleasure in them, no longer commands their practice, that they 
 are at best, obsolete ; at worst, superstitions and impediments. 
 " What is the good of wearing Tsitzith ? What is the harm 
 in eating shrimps ? " 
 
 Well, Orthodox Judaism regards all these things as divinely 
 ordained, as necessary, and as irremovable. Now neither we, 
 nor those who differ from us, claim any monopoly either of 
 knowledge and critical faculties or of mental honesty. We and 
 they alike can think out problems, can see difficulties and face 
 them, can entertain doubts and struggle to faith. Honesty of 
 purpose is not confined to one sect. Nor had our teachers any 
 material interests for the sake of which they might have been 
 tempted to suppress the truth. For centuries our Rabbis earned 
 their living by duties in other professions their religious work 
 was unpaid. Consequently their thoughts were completely 
 independent. Every age has brought fresh questions for Judaism 
 to face, it has had to adjust itself to every new scientific 
 discovery. That our Rabbis men of learning and probity 
 should regularly have maintained that there is a moral value 
 in not eating shrimps and in wearing Tsitzith, is a convincing 
 argument that we are not acting blindly, nor without due 
 reflection. 2 There must be something in these things, or else 
 
 1 See Maimonides, Guide, Part III., ch. xxvi., xxxi., Friedlander, pp. 310, 321. 
 
 2 That the present, with all its inventions, has completely superseded the 
 
 past, we have no reason to assume.
 
 |4 
 
 thinking generations would not have agreed upon their retention. 
 When, then, we rely on the decision of the past, we need fear 
 neither interested bias nor obscurantism. 
 
 The next answer is that all these Mitzvoth are necessary 
 to establish and maintain Jewish life in its perfection. Every 
 secular act of the Orthodox Jew is invested with some reminder, 
 some association with religion in order to consecrate his whole 
 life. Every emotion, every phase of the soul and body, is 
 taken into account, " When we lie down, and when we rise up." 
 Daily Prayer, Sabbatical rest, festival joys, penitential solemnity, 
 mourning in Ab, merriment at Purim ; these are a few of the 
 characteristics. Who can know the Jewish life save the Jew ? 
 Every Sabbath is a family feast, a day of prayer, of rest, of 
 study, of good cheer. The year is a series of events, as 
 artistically perfect as a Wagnerian cycle. Take, for example, 
 the period from the first solemn call to repentance on the 
 Sabbath eve, when the penitential season opens, until, after 
 Sukkoth, the gaiety dies away peacefully on Sabbath Bereshith, 
 a sober prelude to the coming of winter. In this period how 
 wonderfully does each day fit into the general scheme, how the 
 note of penitence rises in intensity until the consciousness of full 
 pardon is reached in the grand diapason of Kippur, how the relief 
 from the burden of sin gives way to rejoicing, until Tabernacles 
 ends in the merry-making of Simchath Torah and the lengthening 
 evenings invite us to recommence our study of the Law. Just 
 as each sentiment, during these great days has its musical 
 " Leitmotif " its canonical colour, so to speak so is the whole 
 range of human feeling covered by the complex body of customs, 
 precepts, prayers and poems which make up what we call the 
 Jewish Life. The value of this life has never been questioned. 
 It has preserved Jewry and Judaism throughout the ages amid 
 the cramping walls of Ghettos and slums. It has created Jewish 
 family life with its virtues of chastity, charity, love and right- 
 eousness, nowhere surpassed, and rarely equalled. For all this 
 is simply due to the Mitzvoth, by which, if a man do them, he 
 shall live. The Mitzvoth are the abiding proof that it is not 
 by bread alone that man lives. Nothing is "trivial." Life is 
 made up of the "common round and trivial task," which the 
 Mitzvah brightens and hallows. The Babylonian, standing in 
 the valley, saw but a heap of dry bones. The Prophet discerned
 
 15 
 
 the reviving spirit of God ; the " trivial " Mitzvoth, like the dry 
 bones, are " all the house of Israel." These Mitzvoth cannot 
 possibly be separated or differentiated. No one, say the Rabbis, 
 can know the relative worth of them. No sooner does a Jew 
 begin to discriminate, than decay sets in. Each individual 
 Mitzvah represents a separate but integral brick in a building. 
 Everyone who starts whittling away will ultimately lose all. 
 There is only one logical conclusion to the whittling process, 
 and that is the Christian one. Either all of the Mitzvoth or 
 none. If you believe in the founder of Christianity, you do not 
 need the Mitzvoth; that is Christian doctrine. The converse is 
 true in the case of Judaism, but the converse means EVERY 
 Mitzva. It is quite true that any given man may succeed in 
 making a selection, but the result is inevitably that his children 
 make a further selection not from the whole, but from the 
 father's part. This is why the wearing of fringes and the 
 abstaining from shrimps must be retained. Our children will 
 not begin where we began, but where we end. Once we make 
 a start, we can foresee neither the lengths to which we shall 
 be driven nor the rapidity of our progress. From Orthodox 
 Judaism, once the " fence " is gone, to simple Theism, the step 
 is short. The year 1840 marked the advent of English reform; 
 a moderate movement, the chief change of which was the intro- 
 duction of an organ. Yet less than half a century later, in 
 America, the most radical alterations had arisen. I quote from 
 Mr. Zangwill's article (Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. I, 1889, 
 p. 398). He says: 
 
 "I cite at random from a report in American Israelite, the 'plat- 
 form ' of Rabbi Krauskoff of Philadelphia, as expounded to a vast 
 audience at a Sunday-Sabbath service, at which a new ritual, compiled 
 by him, was used. ' We advance from the old to the New for the 
 maintenance of religion, and for the preservation of Judaism. The days 
 of the Church and Temple are numbered. We believe in the existence 
 and Fatherhood of God, the Divine Origin of life, the existence of 
 animate moral law as starting-points of religion. We refuse to look 
 upon Judaism as the absolutely perfect and exclusively God-given religion. 
 We discard the belief in a God who is Man Magnified, who has his abode 
 somewhere in the interstellar spaces, who transgresses his own laws of 
 
 Nature by working Miracles, who is actuated by human passions 
 
 We discard the belief that the Bible was written by God, or by man under 
 the dictation of God, and that its teachings are therefore infallible, and 
 binding upon all men and ages. . . . We discard the belief in the coming
 
 16 
 
 of a personal Messiah, who will lead us back to Palestine for the purpose 
 of establishing a theocracy to which all the nations of the earth shall be 
 tributary. We reject the belief in bodily resurrection, Hell torments, 
 Paradisian rewards, prophecy, all Biblical and Rabbinical beliefs, and rites 
 and ceremonies and institutions, which neither elevate nor sanctify our 
 lives, which are for the most part un-Jewish, an infusion of ancient mytho- 
 logy, accretions of mediaevalism, grafts from heathen philosophy, which, 
 however comforting and useful they may have been in their day, are in our 
 times obsolete, misleading, and even frequently injurious.' Yet the Rabbi 
 puts forward this creed as Judaism." 
 
 We may have, some of us, our private "laxities," but we 
 have no right to "pasken" for others: our own faults are our 
 affair. But we must look at the Mitzvoth as a whole : we 
 must ask ourselves not, What is the result of Sha'atnez ? but 
 What is the result achieved by living the Jewish life, " bechol 
 perateha uvechol dikdukeha " ? (in every detail). 
 
 There is not a single Mitzvah, however trivial it may 
 appear when viewed out of its context or when distorted by 
 scoffers, that has not its share in building up Jewish life. Some 
 of this class are analogous to legal fictions, by which expedient 
 a principle may be preserved while the practice may be relaxed. 
 It is very curious that people who will regard as sacrosanct 
 some fiction in English Civil Law, perhaps a few centuries old, 
 will nevertheless refuse allegiance to a fiction in Jewish Civil 
 Law, although it may be too millenia earlier. Nor is it fair 
 to argue that peppercorn rent, for example, may be tolerated 
 because it belongs to secular life, and is something apart from 
 the sphere of spirituality. Jewish Law knows no such arbitrary 
 distinctions. Semitic religious systems take cognizance of every- 
 thing. In Europe, by custom, we relegate certain things to 
 hygiene, to the Law Courts, to the County Council, or to the 
 Ecclesiastical Authority. Jewish Canon Law embraces all these 
 branches. You cannot argue that one division is more ethical 
 than the other ; it might equally well be alleged that the metric 
 system is more "moral" than Avoirdupois or Troy weight. 
 You can measure a distance in kilometres or miles, as you like, 
 without affecting the actual road. Each nation prefers its peculiar 
 method ; and similarly, the Jewish genius prefers its own ancient 
 arrangement, because in Judaism the various branches are much 
 more intimately linked. In Jewish Law these symbols have a 
 very deep value. They prevent the strict requirements of the 
 Din from becoming too vigorous, while preserving the principle
 
 17 
 
 itself. Possibly the most misunderstood of all our ordinances are 
 those which regulate carrying and travelling on Sabbath. It seems 
 a little thing to ride on a tram, to carry a parcel, or to make 
 an Erub. Yet what is the object of all these rules? Simply 
 and solely to prevent travel and keep people in their houses. 
 Sabbath is the home festival, it is the strength and glorification 
 of home life, home worship and home rest. Jews are to stay 
 at home and thus create a love of home. Theatre-going, golfing, 
 cycling and sight-seeing, harmless and even desirable though they 
 be, are alien to the Sabbath spirit. If the "fence" is broken 
 in the slightest degree, the Sabbath is entirely destroyed. The 
 moment that 'bus riding is tolerated, golfing is possible, and the 
 whole Sabbath spirit is changed; it becomes something abso- 
 lutely different. It is quite impossible to draw a line and say 
 " I will permit this violation, but observe that ; thus far, but no 
 further." Practical experience has shewn the instability and 
 the futility of such distinctions. Christian divines unanimously 
 declare that the week-end habit has killed Sunday and Sunday, 
 be it remembered, is only Dies Dominica, not the Sabbath. The 
 decay of Sunday observance is responsible for the break up of 
 family life, the decline in the birth rate, the growth of luxury 
 and the decay of morals. We cannot say, in the words, though 
 not in the sense of the Haggada, " If the Almighty had fed us 
 with Manna, but had not given us the Sabbath, it would have 
 sufficed." If the Sabbath did not exist, it would be necessary 
 to invent it. Jewish life rests on the Sabbath, and the Sabbath 
 rests on refraining from riding. Whoever begins by riding will 
 end by losing the Sabbath altogether. Hence the importance of 
 the laws prohibiting riding. 
 
 Just as it is practically impossible to " draw the line," so is 
 it impossible to recognize individual exceptions. A law relaxed 
 for one is relaxed for all. This rigidity has also stood the test 
 of experience. A simple example will make this clear. Let us 
 take the former case of riding on Sabbath. It is sometimes 
 said " I live too far away from the Synagogue to walk there 
 on Sabbath, therefore I must either ride or not attend." Jewish 
 law answers uncompromisingly that riding is in every contingency 
 forbidden. No commandment may be fulfilled by the breach 
 of a prohibition (Mitzva haba-a ba-avera). Jews who are 
 compelled to live far away must make a synagogue of their
 
 18 
 
 home or attend on week-days. Instances will occur to all of 
 us, of friends whose Judaism proves superior to isolation. But 
 isolation is not desirable, and one of the consequences of the 
 prohibition is that Jews tend to live near a place of worship, 
 near a religious school, near a Kasher butcher, and among their 
 co-religionists. Jews who do not associate exclusively in non- 
 Jewish society are saved from the danger of their children 
 inter-marrying with non-Jewish friends. A Jew who lives alone 
 must always be on the qui-vive ; the simple prohibition of 
 riding on Sabbath thus gives him security, and safeguards the 
 whole basis of Jewish life. 
 
 " But what about Progress ? Has not human nature 
 developed ? " Certainly, the prophet who became conscious that 
 he was no better than his fathers, asked for instant death, and 
 the divine reply shewed that his premises were false. But, first 
 of all, the sanction of age is strong : it cannot be broken without 
 very grave cause. Religious or, if you prefer it, national 
 pride must make us attached to old customs. One of the most 
 surprising results of the most recent review of the Code of 
 Hammurabi has been the discovery that these ancient Babylonian 
 laws have more affinity with Rabbinic than with Pentateuchal 
 Judaism. When then our dinim and minhagim go back, some 
 of them, to the earliest dawn of history, shall we let them 
 lapse while remaining faithful to others of modern date that we 
 have adopted in England ? Shall we then go to the stake for 
 ceremonies like the Lord Mayor's show, or the picturesque 
 but alas ! expensive function of taking a Degree, or the 
 gorgeous displays of a Coronation, the peculiar customs of 
 a regiment or a College, and at the same time be indifferent 
 to our own usages, immeasurably older and more precious ? 
 To observe the time-honoured manner of celebrating the 
 1st of January by singing Auld Lang Syne with one foot on 
 the table, is no doubt an excellent thing. Is it then less 
 excellent to celebrate the 1st of Tishri by eating apple and 
 honey ? Is a Christmas tree more significant, more elevating > 
 more interesting archaeologically or historically than a Hanuca 
 lamp? Are " Haman's ears" less tasty than plum pudding? 
 It is sad to see people blind to our own beautiful customs 
 while eager to observe punctiliously the social habits of our 
 Gentile friends. It is not only sad, but ludicrous ; and our friends
 
 19 
 
 and enemies think so too. Our Jewish Scottish lairds in 
 their tartans, our ostentatious marranos who are ashamed of 
 their religious duties these afford copy to the comic papers 
 and bring discredit on us. But who ever saw a skit on a Beth- 
 hammidrash or a caricature of a Rabbi ? What Christian 
 writer has ever made fun of a Sefer Torah, a Shofar or 
 Matzoth ? It is we alone who mock at or belittle these things. 
 But Judaism is not stagnant. Our laws and customs grow. 
 Their development must, however, be subject to two conditions. 
 Changes must be in harmony with the past; and, secondly, they 
 must be authorized. Our Rabbis have seen the requirements 
 of the age, they are cognizant of public opinion and environ- 
 ment. It has been for them so to mould progress that no 
 violence has been done to continuity. It has been their task 
 to stand between us and the shifting vagaries of fashion. 
 True change does not represent inconstancy, it does not mean 
 that we are to trim our sails to every passing breeze. Our 
 Rabbis have analyzed and sifted for us the grain from the 
 chaff. They have marked the permanent and the ephemeral. 
 Judaism must keep in line all over the world. " The writ of 
 the Shulhan Arukh," says Dr. Gaster, "must have universal 
 application." Authority must be strong enough to withstand 
 popular clamour for purposeless innovation. Very often the cry 
 for change is due to ignorance and must be resisted. Judaism 
 adds to itself and recasts : it does not give up. The great 
 merit of Orthodox Judaism is its universality and uniformity. 
 Differences there are, indeed, between Jewish practice in 
 different lands, but these are negligible in comparison with the 
 similarities, for the differences are generally of minhag, rarely 
 of Din. The Jews of Frankfort and the Jews of Cairo 
 may certainly read separate haftaroth for Sabbath Shuva, but 
 the fact remains that they both observe Sabbath Shuva. 
 Whereas, if we allowed individuals to make changes for them- 
 selves, unauthorized and breaking with continuity, or congrega- 
 tions to act irrespective of universal usage, we should possibly 
 find some congregations observing the Sabbath on Sundays 
 (this, it is said by some, is actually now the case in a few 
 cities of America). The anarchy that would then ensue is 
 inconceivable. Bereft of all stability, and blown hither and 
 thither by ceaseless change, not only observance, but fundamental
 
 20 
 
 ideas of morality would decay in process of time. No two 
 men agree about unwritten morality : we can only have agree- 
 ment if we maintain a fixed standard. If I am bound by no 
 one's opinion but my own conscience, I cannot be blamed for 
 doing what your conscience condemns, as long as my own 
 approves : I alone am the judge. Differences are fine and 
 imperceptible at the outset, but grow with rapidity. How 
 many people honestly see no harm in cheating a railway 
 company or in telling a " white " lie ? It is from these little 
 divergencies thut greater differentiations arise. Mr. Bernard 
 Shaw and Mr. Wells are, I have no doubt, upright men, but 
 their views on marriage and the relations of the sexes, on 
 selfishness and on virtue, are vitally sundered from the Jewish 
 views on these matters and from the good old healthy opinions 
 of every pure-minded man of any religion. Now once we 
 abandon a common standard, we lose every justification not only 
 for condemning the holders of these doctrines, who can plead 
 tfeeir conscience in support, but even for asserting and teaching 
 to others that which we ourselves believe to be true. There 
 is something above conscience, and that is the unalterable divine 
 law, which conscience must obey. 
 
 " But what about an orthodox Jew who breaks the Law ? " 
 Every individual is free in his actions, for which he has to 
 render account. But this account is a private affair in which 
 no one has any call to interfere. Unless a Jew has publicly 
 abjured his faith by embracing another religion, no one has the 
 right to assume that he may not have repented for any former 
 breach of the Law. To cast the first stone is no Jewish 
 practice. The very first act of the most solemn service of the 
 Jewish year is a call to repentant sinners to enter the 
 Synogogue and to take part in public devotion. No member 
 of the congregation can thus distinguish the man who has crept 
 back to the wings of the Shekhina. The confession is framed 
 in the plural, in order to cover everyone present. The guiding 
 principle of Judaism is " Af 'al pi she-hata Y Israel hu" 
 (although he has sinned, he is a Jew). The gates of Teshuba 
 are never closed. If then, a man breaks the Law, it is his 
 business; but it is quite a different matter for an individual to 
 declare that he regards the Law as obsolete, and therefore sees 
 no harm in violating it. By so doing the Law disappears, and
 
 21 
 
 with its disappearance the unity and continuity of Judaism is 
 destroyed. By so doing a man debars his descendants from 
 exercising the same choice that has been given him, he 
 prejudices his posterity, and diminishes the spiritual inheritance 
 that every son has a right to expect. 
 
 " Ought I then to teach my son that which I myself do 
 not observe, nay that which I believe to be obsolete and even 
 harmful ? I might as well teach him that the earth is flat or 
 that the sun revolves round the globe." The comparison is an 
 unreal one. The latter instances belong to knowledge, the 
 former to thought. The latter is, humanly speaking, proved : 
 it is unanimously accepted. The former is a matter of personal 
 fancy and disputed. Nobody to-day disbelieves Galileo, but for 
 every Jew who conscientiously believes it right to ride on 
 Sabbath, there is at least another who conscientiously believes 
 it to be wrong. You who have chosen for yourself, why will 
 you not give your son the same liberty ? Besides, let us ask 
 ourselves frankly and without offence, how many of us break 
 the Law conscientiously ? How many of us do so out of 
 slackness ? Further, to understand the Law, study is necessary, 
 not merely reflexion without a basis of knowledge. If it is 
 wrong to keep the Law blindly and without knowing or thinking, 
 surely it is no less wrong to break it blindly and without 
 knowing or thinking. Obedience based on second-hand knowledge 
 is often blamed, but disobedience based on other people's reflec- 
 tions cannot possibly be praised. No disapproval is strong 
 enough for the ignorant " conscientious objector " to compulsory 
 vaccination, to the Christian Scientist who lets his child die 
 for want of proper medical treatment. The same disapproval 
 applies to those of us who, without the requisite learning, pick 
 upon a Mitzvah and abolish it for ourselves and our children. 
 If we are " slack," it is our own business, but we have no 
 right to lead others astray. This is not hypocrisy, it is the 
 "respect which vice pays to virtue." Naturally, we do not 
 like to admit ourselves wrong. It is more satisfying to our self- 
 respect to say " I do not believe in it," rather than " I ought 
 to do it, but I am afraid I don't " ; the latter answer shews, 
 at any rate, that the speaker is not ashamed of his convictions. 
 No one is morally entitled to call us hypocrites because we try 
 to hand on Judaism unimpaired, irrespective of our own personal
 
 22 
 
 fidelity. We cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of 
 stereotyping our idiosyncracies, of committing the future 
 irrevocably to the passing vagaries of the present. The Judaism 
 of the past has proved itself, who can venture to feel equally 
 certain of its modern phases ? The one we know, of the other 
 we can, at best, only say that we think we know it, and this 
 is no sufficient justification for our risking our children's faith 
 in it. As custodians of a sacred legacy, we may only invest in 
 "Trustee Stock," even if we feel dissatisfied with the low rate 
 of interest. 
 
 That Orthodox Judaism is beset with many problems no one 
 will deny. They are designed to test our faith and to make us 
 examine our beliefs. No religion can be real to a man who 
 has not proved it : acquiescence spells apathy. Every age has 
 had to meet its special problems. Judaism has had to face many 
 new situations, not merely political crises and attacks of perse- 
 cutors. The passings of empires are less significant than the 
 rise of new schools of thought. Here it has been Aristolelianism, 
 there it has been Pantheism. Each has held the throne in its 
 day. Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Darwin, Colenso, and many 
 others, each have been the hero of the hour. Judaism has met 
 and adjusted itself to each novel situation. What would have 
 been our position to-day, if, at any one of these great changes, 
 our ancestors had abandoned their positions and " gone with the 
 times." No age has ever been subjected to a severer test than 
 the Maccabaean. On the one side stood a weak and undeveloped 
 little civilisation, on the other all the spiritual and mental allure- 
 ments of Hellenic art and culture. Our Jewish young men were 
 asked to choose between a plain and unpretentious morality and 
 the Kalon Kagathon of Athens, indissolubly bound up with 
 Heathenism. They could not serve God and Pallas Athene. 
 We have not to face that terrible dilemma. Art, Philosophy, 
 Science, Literature are open to us. To them they were closed, 
 if they stood fast to Judaism. Our great need to-day is for 
 Hebrew and religious education. Ignorance is the basis of our 
 troubles. If our parents have taught us our sacred language 
 our Bible and Prayer Book, have explained our customs, have 
 implanted in us from our earliest years a love of our religion, 
 we find ourselves able and zealous to pass on the great heritage. 
 But our less fortunate brethren, what are they to do ? Are they
 
 23 
 
 in all frankness to admit and lament their inability personally to 
 give their children that which they themselves do not possess ? 
 Are they to take steps to secure adequate teaching, to ensure 
 proper observance of the laws and customs, and, by so doing, 
 make their children richer than they ? Or are they to say that 
 " What is good enough for me is good enough for my sons and 
 daughters," and thus to extinguish for ever a potential source of 
 strength to Judaism, to cut off their heirs with a shilling ? It 
 is for each man to choose for himself what course he honestly 
 feels to be right. We do not seek to force our views on others. 
 Those who conscientiously differ from us are, in the highest sense, 
 entitled to our respect and regard. But we speak for ourselves. 
 Our justification for our belief in Orthodoxy lies in the past and 
 future.
 
 A 000 046 678 9