granting autonomy to the Jewish communities, should first ascertain: If the love of one's fellow-man in the Talmud and in the Jewish books is just as unqualifiedly applicable to all human beings without regard to Creed and Race as with us Christians? I replied that there never was occasion to perceive such a broad-minded conception of the love of one's fellow-man in the anti-Semitic party. I went on to say: But he ought to inquire whether it had ever happened that a poor Christian had in vain asked for alms at the door of a Jew; he ought to ask whether from the house of a Jew a Christian had ever been roughly repelled with the cry: "No Christian lives here!" I read a long list of considerable donations and grants from Jewish benefactors for Christian charity institutions, and I asked Türk, whether he was ready to present such a list of donations for Jewish sick and poor from his brother Jew-baiters? Likewise it seems to me that a linguistic dissertation about the origin and scope of the world "Rea" in the Biblical maxim, Thou shalt love thy fellow-man as thyself (Lev. 19, 18), would be a futile and superfluous occupation. The eternal content of Judaism, its meaning and its mission, need not be destilled by means of philological dialectic. Much more than word, speech, and writing is the materialization of the idea in the lives of personalities. Israel's conception of the duty of loving one's fellowman has been an empirical fact since the beginning of its history, was revealed by its progenitor Abraham when, before God, he pleaded for the sinners of Sodom, and "with genuine Jewish importunity" begged for mercy and forgiveness for aliens in blood, for the inhabitants of an idolatrous town which had incurred the judgment of God. The Prophet Isaiah points to Abraham as the prototype of piety, as the bearer of God's blessings. His image is placed before our souls for us to fashion ourselves after it. Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Love and mercy, thus teaches the Talmud, are the common inheritance in the blood of every single descendant of Abraham, as a primeval virtue of the soul enduring through all the changes of time. He who shows pity to creatures is sure to be of the seed of our Patriarch Abraham, and he who does not show pity to the creatures, is sure not to be of the seed of our Patriarch Abraham. Betsa 32b. The expression "Briyoth", "creatures", does not admit of the popular tricks of interpretation; that "creatures", "Briyoth" mean all human beings without exception, the most refined dialectician cannot possibly dispute. This tribe had three characteristics: mercy, shamefastness, and charitableness. Yebamoth 79a; Midr. rabba Bemidbar, Cap. 8; Midr. Psalm 17. Again and again mercy is declared to be a racial characteristic of the descendants of Abraham. The dignity of the creatures (Briyoth) is so great that it even abrogates a commandment of the Torah... Berachot 19b; Erubin 41b; Sabbath 81b; Menachot 73b. Here also the word "Briyoth" was not chosen unintentionally. In this spirit Hillel teaches: Be of the disciples of Aaron: Love peace, strive after peace, love the human beings (Briyoth), and bring them nearer to the Torah. Aboth 1, 12. CHAPTER XX. IMITATE GOD IN WORKS OF LOVE AND MERCY! According to the Mechilta and Sota 14a (compare also Philo, De virtut. ed. Cohn-Wendland, § 168) the commandment "Ye shall walk after the Lord your God" (Deut. 13, 4) means, Follow the example of God; as he is merciful, be thou, too, merciful. As the love of God is infinite, and knows no discrimination between friend and enemy, thus men ought to love one another. Therefore to the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" the suggestive words are added: "I the Lord".1 In Philo, "De virt." (de caritate) edition Cohn-Wendland, p. 160, we read: "Thou seest then how this wonderful goodness of the lawgiver at once embraces all men, without distinction, whether friends or foes." In Philo, "De specialibus legibus", IV (de judice) same edition, p. 73 (Cf. Deuteronomy 13: 5): What more sublime goodness can there be than the imitation of the Bishop Chrysanth, in his book The Religions of the Old World in their Connection with Christianity 1878. III, p. 326, says: In a religion which alone among all the religions had a clear conception of the descent of all men from an only father, and which rated the value of the human individual so highly, there could not possibly be any room for a discrimination between people and people, for a divi (1) Josephus, Ant. Introduction, says: The other teachers of law, following the myths, transfer the shame of human sin to God thus countenancing evil. In contrast to this ours represents His essence as pure virtue which all men should take for a model in their conduct. sion into higher and lower races, into inherently barbaric and nonbarbaric tribes. The Jews were the only people of the old world which had the right, all-embracing historical outlook which even the Greeks, this most distinguished among the peoples of antiquity, lacked. They could never lose the consciousness of the unity of all nations and of the higher common purposes of existence of the entire mankind. Their isolation had only a temporary significance and led to opposite goals. Paul Pfluger in Socialism of the Israelitic Prophets, 1914, p. 3: Here (in Micah 6,8) moral performance of duty, common love of mankind and reverence of God are pointed out as the quintessence of religion and morals. Love of mankind and reverence of God the nature of an essentially ethical religion could not be more pertinently defined! Professor Dr. Weiss of Berlin, in an article Jesus and Paul wrote (in the March number of the German Revue, 1917): - The belief is wide-spread that Jesus, on the strength of his peculiar religious consciousness, taught the conception of God as a loving Father, in constrast to the wrathful God worshipped in the religion of Israel. But this opinion is based on an absolutely one-sided conception of the Old Testament which formed the basis of the religion of Israel. This nation had praised the love and grace of its God in such sacred. tones that we (the evangelical Christians) cannot, to the present day, find in our liturgies and songs a richer expression of them than the words of the Psalms and Prophets. Others take it that the centre of the doctrine of Jesus is a new moral duty. But Jesus put his fundamental demand of the love of God and of one's fellow-man into the garb of Old Testament words; and if, as specifically new in his moral demands, the love of the enemy is pointed to, then it has been forgotten in what touching examples the Old Testament has presented this, and in what golden proverbs it has impressed it. According to the doubtless genuine tradition, Jesus did not come forward with a new moral demand. In all those passages of the New Testament where the commandment of the love of one's fellow-man is mentioned, it is always as a quotation, with the single exception of John 13, 34. In the Gospel of Luke the commandment is not quoted by Jesus but by the Pharisees. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? what readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. Luke X, 25—27. It was Jesus, then, who asked for the passage in the Scriptures, and who was answered by the Pharisees with the quotation. A Pharisee asked Jesus, Master, which is the great commandment in the law (en to nomo, the well-known expression for Torah, Pentateuch). Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord &c. ... This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matth. 22,35—39. Similarly Mark. 12, 31. Here Jesus was not asked about the content of a commandment, but which among all the commandments was the fundamental commandment, and he answered just as Hillel answered the Pagan (Sabbath 31a) who wished to be taught the entire content of religion while standing on one foot1, with the maxim, "Do not to thy neighbour what is hateful to thee", adding: "This is the law, the rest is only commentary", or as Rabbi Akiba and Ben Azai spoke of the "Great Commandment" (Sifra on Lev. 19, 18). That the Gospels quote the commandment of love of the neighbour from the Pentateuch without adding an explanation, proves that in the New Testament also the word "Rea" has no meaning other than that of the Old Testament. The passage in the Sermon on the Mount (Matth. 5, 43; 44) seems to have a controversial point: Ye have heard that it hath been said: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. A saying to the effect that we ought to hate the enemy is not to be found in the Old Testament. Besides, the commandment to love the enemy and to pray for him, is strongly at variance with a passage in the Apostle Paul (2. Timothy 4, 14): Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works. Did Paul know the matter of the Sermon of the Mount, and how did he interpret it? As to the "enemies" in Matth. 5, 43, these evidently are cer (1) nos baby. This idiom is also met with in Horace (Sat. I, 4, 10): versus dictabat, stans pede in uno. |