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 [[234]]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,[1] our unconditional submission to the Will of the Almighty as our King, is followed in our Service by קבלת עול מצות,[1] 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 [[235]]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 [[236]]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 [[237]]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.