VERSE 22.

All that was on dry land died.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shemuel: Let no man meddle with effecting divorces and matrimonial engagements, who is not well instructed (in the halachoth) concerning them. Rav Assi adds in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: They (such divorces and matrimonial engagements) may prove more calamitous to the world than the sins of the generation of the deluge; for it is said (Ho. iv. 2): "By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery they break out, and blood toucheth blood." This is rendered by Rav Yoseph, the Syriac interpreter: They beget children by their neighbour's wives (who were divorced by unauthorised persons), and the last clause is rendered by him, They add iniquities to iniquities (by continuing their cohabitation); and it is written (Ho. iv. 3): "Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away." Whereas the decree of the deluge did not extend to fishes; for it is said: "All that was on dry land died;" but not fishes. Kiddushin, fol. 13, col. 1.

T. N. a. The treatise Kiddushin, from which this extract is taken, is so called, because it treats of matrimonial engagements, literally consecrations, from wp, to consecrate, or set apart. The appalling confusion, created by the extreme license in divorce and marriage, seems to have occasionally startled even the Rabbis themselves out of their dream of infallibility. To impart anything like an adequate conception of the extent, to which that license was carried, it would be necessary to supply the reader with far more copious extracts than the limits of this work will allow. We can only refer him for an insight into the boundless facilities afforded by the Rabbis for divorce, and the debasing views they held concerning wives, to page 122, Note 9; page 125, Notes 47, 48, 50; and by a further reference to the Index, he will be furnished with more information on the subject.

b. But if divorce was so easy, matrimonial engagements, which had all the legal force of actual marriage, rested, if possible on a still flimsier basis. The Law of Moses, tacitly sanctioning the mode of contracting marriages, which was in vogue at his time, leaves it wholly unexplained; but the ceremony performed by Boaz, though it referred, in the first instance, to the purchase of Elimelech's property, seems also to have included Ruth as a part of it. (Ru. iv. 10.) Hence, whilst the man is said to consecrate" the woman, she, like Ruth, is spoken of as "purchased;" but since, as a general rule, men have no previous proprietary rights in women, the Rabbis have, in ordinary matrimonial engagements, dispensed with the formal publicity of the "purchase" of wives, which was observed in the case of Ruth. According to the school of Hillel, which Maimonides adopts as the halachah in his Digest, Hilchoth Ishuth, Sec. 3, Halachah 1, the "purchase" money need not exceed a prutah, the lowest possible coin, or its equivalent; or, what is still worse, the purchase may be

,On the same page .נקנית בכסף בשטר ובביאה,effected merely by an act of intimacy

from which the above extract is taken, it is related, that a man had seized one of a number of articles exposed for sale by a woman: Put it back, cried she. Wilt thou consent to be "consecrated" to me, if I return it? asked the man. She took it without making any reply; and the man claimed her as his wife, on the Talmudic

assumption, that silence is consent. The case came for trial before Rav Nachman, and he gave a negative decision, because, said he, the woman might plead, that she had only received what was her own. Had she accepted some property of his, and afterwards offended against chastity, or married another man, she would have committed a capital offence. Even now the Continental press occasionally startles the Christian public, by reports of perplexing cases, in which designing Jews take similar advantage of simple-minded Jewish girls, for purposes of extortion, as the former cannot be compelled to divorce them.

c. On the same page in Kiddushin, we are informed, that immediately after the death of Rav Assi, a meeting was convened by the Rabbis, for the purpose of ascertaining, and preserving from oblivion, all the halachahs, which any one might have heard from the deceased. Thus said Rav Assi in the name of Rav Manni, exclaimed one: As a woman cannot be purchased for less than a prutah, so neither can land be purchased for less than a prutah (even though the bargain had been concluded by overreaching management), etc.

d. Thus the Rabbis did their best to depress the woman to the lowest degree of debasement, placing her in the same category with slaves, infants, and idiots (see page 218, Note 8), and in a manner treating her worse than all; and then they inserted in the liturgy a benediction, in which, to this day, every Jew blesses God every morning, that "Thou hast not made me a woman"! (See page 126, Note 63.) How, in the face of such facts, and many more of a similar kind, which are scattered in these pages, and which might be multiplied ad infinitum, noisy declaimers rush constantly into print, and expatiate ore rotundo, on the excellences of the Talmud, can only be explained by their unacquaintance with its contents, and on the assumption, that what they do know of it, has been derived from intermediate and misleading sources. The far worse alternative of deliberate perversion and presuming upon the ignorance of the public, we reject as uncharitable. No doubt, the very contrast between Christianity and Rabbinism, both morally and spiritually, must convince every impartial and unprejudiced reader of the supernatural origin of the Gospel. There is no other way of accounting for the marvellous, all-comprehensive ethical purity of Biblical Christianity; the less so when we find no trace of these qualities, but just the reverse, in the pages of the Talmud, which, like the New Testament, is a product of the Jewish mind, and partially sprung into existence at the same time. But that is certainly no reason, why facts so plain and inexorable, as have been adduced in this work, should be denied, or ignored, simply because they cannot be refuted.

VERSE 23.

And every living substance was destroyed, which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle.

I. Rav Ammi said: Whoever eats of the dust of Babylon, eats, as it were, of the flesh of his forefathers. Some say: He eats, as it were, abominations and creeping things; for it is written : "And every living substance was destroyed;" and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish had said: Why is Babylon called Shinar (Ge. xi. 2)? because all the dead bodies of the deluge were floated thither; (from , to shake down).

II. Abominations and creeping things! But surely these must have been altogether annihilated by the deluge. No; the decree of the Rabbis holds good, when the dust, if partaken of, results in illness. Thus, a certain man had once eaten clay, in which cresses had been hidden, which continued to grow in his

stomach, and when they touched his heart he died. Rashi. Shabbath, fol. 113, col. 2.

66

III. And every living substance was destroyed." If man had sinned, what sin had cattle committed? Tradition teaches in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Corcha: A man had once made a wedding for his son, and prepared of all sorts for his banquet. A few days afterwards the son died; when the father scattered in confusion all the preparations for the wedding. I have made all these, said he, for the sake of my son; but now that he is dead, of what use are the wedding arrangements to me? So the Holy One, blessed be He! said: For whom else but for man have I created cattle and beasts; but now that man has sinned, of what use are they to Me? Sanhedrin, fol. 108, col. 1.

CHAPTER VIII.

VERSE 7.

And he sent forth the raven.

I. Rav Shimon ben Lakish said: The raven's remonstrance with Noah was unanswerable. It said: Thy Master hates me, and thou hatest me; thy Master restricted the admission of unclean birds to two of each species; and thou, sparing those that were admitted by seven, sendest me forth, who am only one of two. Suppose I have a fatal encounter with the prince of heat, or the prince of cold, will not the world be deprived of a species ? (That Rabbi at least believed in the universality of the deluge. See page 208, Note 5.) Or is it that thou hast cast an eye upon my wife, and therefore wishest to get rid of me? Wicked creature! replied Noah, I am forbidden to indulge in what is usually permitted me, and shall I do that which I am always forbidden? For it is written (Ge. vi. 18, explains the compiler): "Thou shalt come into the ark; thou, and thy sons, and" then "thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee" (men apart, and women apart); and it is also written (Ge. viii. 16): "Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee" (no longer apart, but promiscuously).

II. Three transgressed this prohibition whilst in the ark, and all were punished for it in perpetuity: the dog, the raven, and Ham; the dog is entangled, the raven communicates from beak to beak, and the colour of Ham's skin was turned black. Sanhedrin, fol. 108, col. 2.

THE RAVEN, AND THE LIKE.

1. Whoever says to a raven; Croak, and to a female raven, Smooth down thy tail, and turn it towards me as a good omen, has done something, which resembles the ways of the Amorites. (Le. xviii. 3.) Shabbath, fol. 67, col. 2.

3. "His locks are curled, and black as a raven." (Ca. v. 11.) In whom are these metaphorical distinctions found? In him who, for the sake of the halachoth, goes early to the debating room, and sits late there.

,which means both black ,שחר is derived from שחורות)

and early morning; and y is from y, evening, and raven, probably by reason of its dark colour.) Ravah said: In him who, for their sake, blackens his face like a raven. Rava said: In him who, for their sake, makes himself cruel like a raven towards his children, and the other members of his household. (The raven, says Rashi, is cruel to its young; as it is written, Ps. cxlvii. 9, " He gives . . . food to the young ravens, which cry;" the Holy One, blessed be He! causes gnats to enter their mouths, and thus supplies them with food.) Thus, for instance, Rav Ada bar Mathna once went away to place himself under the instruction of a Rabbi. And what shall I do with thy children? asked his wife. Is there no more cow-wheat among the reeds? was the reply. Eiruvin, fol. 22, col. 1.

4. The following three are attached to each other: proselytes, slaves, and ravens. The following four are insufferable: a proud beggar, a lying man of wealth, an old fornicator, and a vain, overbearing municipal chief. Some add also, one who has twice divorced his wife, and marries her again. Psachim, fol. 113, col. 2.

5. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish declared in the name of Rabbi Yosi ben Chanena, that it had been ordained by the Sanhedrin at Usha, that a man should maintain his sons and daughters, when they were little. But is this a settled halachah? asked some. Come and hear, is the reply. A case of neglect of little children was once brought before Rav Yehudah, when he remarked: The dragon has begotten children, and thrown their maintenance upon the public. A similar case was brought before Rav Chisda, and he said: Let one station himself upon an inverted mortar, and cry aloud: The raven longs for children, but that man does not. But, asks the compiler, does the raven long for, i.e., maintain, his young? Is it not written (Ps. cxlvii. 9): "He (God) giveth... food to the young ravens which cry"? (Answer) That is when they are white, and not recognised by their parent; but not when they have turned black. (It follows, therefore, that parents cannot be compelled to maintain their children even when little.) Kethuboth, fol. 49, col. 2.

6. A litigant once expostulated with Rav Yehudah, and said: Dost thou call me slave, who am descended from the royal house of Hasmoneus? He replied: Thus said Shemuel: Whoever says: I am descended from the royal house of Hasmoneus, is a slave; for of that family there remained only one girl, and she, after exclaiming, from

the top of the house, that every one was a slave, who claimed descent from the Hasmoneans, precipitated herself to the ground, and died. (Rashi explains, that the Hasmoneans had been exterminated by Herod, who was himself a slave, and assumed the appellation of Hasmonean. But as daughters of Israel were not likely to be given in marriage to slaves, Herod's children could only have married slaves, and hence their descendants remained slaves.) The litigant was, therefore, publicly proclaimed to be a slave, and on that day, many a marriage certificate, held by female claimants of Hasmonean descent at Neherdaa, was torn up. The injured parties followed Rav Yehudah out of town ready to stone him. Hold your peace, said he, or I shall reveal your origin likewise; for Shemuel had also said: There are two families at Neherdaa; one is designated of the dove, and the other of the raven; and as a mnemonic sign take the words, "unclean, unclean," "clean, clean." His pursuers dropped the stones from their hands. Kiddushin, fol. 70, col. 2.

7. The daughters of Rav Nachman used to stir boiling food with their hands without being hurt. Rav Eilish, viewing the feat as a a proof of their great holiness, wondered at Solomon's declaration, that he had found one (good) man among a thousand, but that he had not found a (good) woman among all those. (Ec. vii. 28). It so happened afterwards, that he and they were reduced to slavery together. One day he was sitting near a man, who understood the language of birds, when the croaking of a raven was heard. What does it say? asked Rav Eilish. It says, replied the other, Flee Eilish, flee! The raven is a liar, remarked the Rabbi, and I will not trust him. Soon after, the cooing of a dove was heard. What does it say? asked again Rav Eilish. It says, was the reply, Flee Eilish, flee! Ah! said the Rabbi, the assembly of Israel is likened to a dove; evidently, then, I may expect a miraculous deliverance. I shalt try to ascertain, whether the daughters of Rav Nachman continue in their fidelity; and if so, I will effect their deliverance also. I shall post myself behind the closet; for it is there that women talk over their affairs. He then overheard them saying: Here we have husbands (our masters), and at Neherdaa we have wedded husbands (Israelites). Let us ask the former to remove us from here, lest the latter ascertain the place of our abode, and come to ransom us. (This conduct was not worse than, and is sufficiently explained by, that of their father. See page 122, Note 9.) So Rav Eilish and the man, who understood the language of birds, fled alone, leaving those guilty women behind. Rav Eilish miraculously gained the other bank of the river, and was safe; but his companion was caught, and slain. Ah! said Rav Eilish, it is clear these women escaped injury to their hands by means of witchcraft. Guittin, fol. 45, col. 1.

8. It is not without a reason that the cuckoo went to the raven; he belongs to his species. Bava-kama, fol. 92, col. 2.

9. Rabbi (the compiler of the Mishnah) opened granaries in years of scarcity, and proclaimed: Let the masters of Scripture, or of the Mishnah, or of the Guemara, the halachah, or the haggadah be admitted; but not the amhaaretz, V. But Rabbi Yonathan ben Amram forced an entrance, and cried: Rabbi, maintain me.