Page images
PDF
EPUB

re-establishment of the Jews in Palestine, as it furnishes many obscure hints in support of this opinion.

A considerable part of the work is occupied by the Questions proposed by the Commissioners of the French Emperor, and the answers given by the assembly, including some of the speeches and opinions of the Rabbies and principal Deputies.

The ostensible reason for calling this assembly, it will be remembered, was the usurious extortions of some of the Jews of the northern departments. The answers to the questions relative to this subject are particularly curious. They are as follow.

ELEVENTH QUESTION. Does the law forbid the Jews from taking usury from their brethren?

ANSWER.

Deuteronomy, ch. xxiii. verse 49, says thou shalt not lend upon interest (English translation, usury) to thy brother, interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest."

The Hebrew word nechech has been improperly translated by the word Maury in the Hebrew language it means interest of any kind, and not usurious interest. It cannot then be taken in the acceptation now given in the word usury.

It is even impossible that it could ever have had that acceptation; for usury is an expression relative to, and compared with, another and a law ful interest; and the text contains nothing which alludes to the other term of comparison. What do we understand by usury? Is it not an interest, above the legal interest, above the rate fixed by the law? If the law of Moses has not fixed this rate, can it be said that the Hebrew word means an unlawful interest? The word nechech in the Hebrew language answers to the Latin word fanus: to conclude that it means usury, another word should be found which would mean interest; and, as such a word does not exist, it follows that all interest is usury, and that all usury is interest.

What was the aim of the lawgiver
in forbidding one Hebrew to lend up-
Vol. III. No. 5.
E E

on interest to another? It was to draw closer between them the bonds of fraternity, to give them a lesson of reciprocal benevolence, and to engage them to help and assist each other with disinterestedness.

The first thought has been to establish among them the equality of property, and the mediocrity of private fortune; hence the institution of the sabbatical year, and of the year of jubilee; the first of which came every fifty years. By the sabbatical year all debtors were released from their obligations: the year of jubilee brought with it the restitution of all estates sold or mortgaged.

It was easy to foresee that the different qualities of the ground, greater or lesser industry, the untowardness of the seasons, which might ef fect beth, would necessarily make a difference in the produce of land, and' that the more unfortunate Israelite would claim the assistance of him whom fortune should have better favoured. Moses did not intend that this last should avail himself of his situation, and that he should require from the other the price of the service he was soliciting; that he should thus aggravate the misery of his brother, and enrich himself by his spoils. It is with a view to this that he says, "Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother." But what want could there exist among the Jews, at a time when they had no trade of any kind? It was, at most, a few bushels of corn, some cattle, some agricultural implements; and Moses required that such services should be gratuitous; his intention was to make of his people a nation of husbandmen. For a long time after him, and though Idumea was at no great distance from the sea shore, inhabited by the Tyrians, the Sidonians, and other nations possessing shipping and commerce, we do not see the Hebrews much addicted to trade; all the regulations of their lawgiver seemed designed to divert their attention from commerce.

The prohibition of Moses must therefore be considered only as a principle of charity, and not as a commercial regulation. According to the Talmud, the loan alluded to

is to be considered almost as a family loan, as a loan made to a man in want; for in case of a loan made to a merchant, even a Jew, profit adequate to the risk should be considered as lawful.

Formerly the word usury carried no invidious meaning; it simply implied any interest whatever. The word usury can no longer express the meaning of the Hebrew text; and accordingly the Bible of Osterwald, and that of the Portuguese Jews, call interest, that which Sacy, from the Vulgate, has called usury.

The law of Moses, therefore, forbids all manner of interest on loan, not only between Jews, but between a Jew and his countryman, without distinction of religion. The loan must be gratuitous whenever it is to oblige those who claim our assistance, and when it is not intended for commercial speculation.

We must not forget that these laws, so humane and so admirable at these early periods, were made for a people which then formed a state and held a rank among nations.

If the remnants of this people, now scattered among all nations, are attentively considered, it will be seen that, since the Jews have been driven from Palestine, they no longer have had a common country, they no longer have had to maintain among them the primeval equality of property. Although filled with the spirit of their legislation, they have been sensible that the letter of the law could no longer be obeyed when its principle was done away; and they have, therefore, without any scruple, lent money on interest to trading Jews, as well as to men of different persuasions.

TWELFTH QUESTION. Does it forbid, or does it allow to take interest from strangers?

ANSWER.

We have seen, in the answer to the foregoing question, that the prohibition of usury, considered as the smallest interest, was a maxim of charity and of benevolence, rather than a commercial regulation. In this point of view it is equally condemned by the law of Moses and by the Talmud. We are generally for

bidden, always on the score of char ity, to lend upon interest to our fellow citizens of different persuasions, as well as to our fellow Jews.

The disposition of the law, which allows to take interest from the stranger, evidently refers only to nations in commercial intercourse with us otherwise there would be an evident contradiction between this passage and twenty others of the sacred writings.

"The Lord your God loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment; love ye therefore the stranger, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Deut. x. 18, 19. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn and to the stranger." Exod. xii. 49. "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." Deut. i. 16. “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, you shall not vex him." Lev. xix. 33. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Exod. xxii. 21. " If thy brother be waxen poor, or fallen in decay with thee, thou shalt then relieve him; yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner." Lev. XXV. 15.

Thus the prohibition extended to the stranger who dwelt in Israel = the Holy Writ places them under the safe guard of God; he is a sacred guest, and God orders us to treat him like the widow and like the orphan.

It is evident that the text of the Vulgate, "Extranei fænaberis et fratri tuo non fænaberis," can be understood only as meaning foreign na. tions in commercial intercourse with us; and, even in this case, the Holy Writ, in allowing to take interest from the stranger, does not mean an extraordinary profit, oppressive and odious to the borrower. "Non licuisse Israelitis," say the doctors, "usuras immoderatas exigere ab extraneis, etiam divitibus, res est per se nota."

Can Moses be considered as the lawgiver of the universe, because he was the lawgiver of the Jews? Were the laws he gave to the people, which God had entrusted to his care, likely

to become the general laws of mankind? Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother." What security had he, that, in the intercourse which would be naturally established between the Jews and foreign nations, these last would renounce customs generally prevailing in trade, and lend to the Jews without requiring any interest? Was he then bound to sacrifice the interest of his people, and to impoverish the Jews to enrich foreign nations? Is it not absolutely absurd to reproach him with having put a restriction to the precept contained in Deuteronomy? What lawgiver but would have considered such a restriction as a natural principle of reciprocity?

How far superior in simplicity, generosity, justice and humanity, is the law of Moses, on this head, to those of the Greeks, and of the Romans? Can we find, in the history of the ancient Israelites, those scandalous scenes of rebellion, excited by the harshness of creditors towards their debtors; those frequent abolitions of debts to prevent the multitude, impoverished by the extortions of lenders, from being driven to despair?

The law of Moses and its interpre ters have distinguished, with a praiseworthy humanity, the different uses of borrowed money. Is it to maintain a family? Interest is forbidden. Is it to undertake a commercial speculation, by which the principal is adventured! Interest is allowed, even between Jews. "Lend to the poor," says Moses. Here the tribute of gratitude is the only kind of interest allowed; the satisfaction of obliging is the sole recompense of the conferred benefit. The case is different in regard to capitals employed in extensive commerce; there, Moses allows the lender to come in for a share of the profits of the borrower; and as commerce was scarcely known among the Israelites, who were exclusively addicted to agricultural pursuits, and as it was carried on only with stran gers, that is, with neighbouring na tions, it was allowed to share its profits with them.

It is in this view of the subject that M. Clermont Tonnere made use of

these remarkable words in the first National Assembly: "It is said that

usury is permitted to the Jews; this assertion is grounded only on a false interpretation of a principle of benevolence and fraternity which forbade them from lending upon interest to one another."

This opinion is also that of Puffendorf and of other writers on the law of nations. The antagonists of the Jews have laid a great stress on a passage of Maimonides, who seems to have represented as a precept the expression anochri tassih, (make profit of the stranger.) But although Maimonides has presumed to maintain this opinion, it is well known that his sentiments have been most completely refuted by the learned Rabbi Abarbanel. We find, besides, in the Talmud, a treatise of macot, (perfection) that one of the ways to arrive at perfection, is to lend without interest to the stranger, even to the idolator. Whatever besides might have been the condescension of God to the Jews, if we may be allowed the expression, it cannot be reasonably supposed that the common Father of mankind, could, at any time, make usury a precept.

The opinion of Maimonides, which excited all Jewish doctors against him, was principally condemned by the famous Rabbies Moses de Gironda and Solomon Benadaret, upon the grounds, first, that he had relied on the authority of Siffri, a private doctor, whose doctrine has not been sanctioned by the Talmud: for it is a general rule that every rabbinical opinion that is not sanctioned by that work is considered as null and void. Secondly, because if Maimonides understood that the word nochri (stranger,) was applicable to the Canaanean people doomed by God to destruction, he ought not to have confounded a public right, arising from an extraordinary order of God to the Israelites, considered as a nation, with the private right of an individual towards another individual of that

same nation.

It is an incontrovertible point, according to the Talmud, that interest, even among Israelites, is lawful in commercial operations, where the lender, running some of the risk of

the borrower, becomes a sharer in his This is the opinion of all

profits. Jewish doctors.

It is evident, that opinions, teeming with absurdities, and contrary to all rules of social morality, although advanced by a Rabbi, can no more be imputed to the general doctrine of the Jews, than similar notions, if advanced by Catholic theologians, could be attributed to the evangelical doctrine. The same may be said of the general charge made against the Hebrews, that they are naturally inclined to usury. It cannot be denied that some are to be found, though not so many as is generally supposed, who follow that nefarious traffic condemned by their religion.

But if there are some not over-nice in this particular, is it just to accuse one hundred thousand individuals of this vice? Would it not be deemed an injustice to lay the same imputation on all Christians, because some of them are guilty of usury? pp.197-207.

The Sermons, Odes, and the Hymns, composed in Hebrew, form by no means the least interesting part of the volume.

The following verses will serve as specimens of the modest and delicate praises lavished on NAPOLEON THE GREAT!

Extract from the Ode composed by A. M.

Collogna.

On the deeds of the mighty will I raise a song; on the deeds of the hero, chief of men, unmatched in battles. Near him the glory of kings fades and vanishes: they hide before him their diminished heads. Their greatness is a thing of nought.

Which of his deeds shall first inspire the bard? Wonders upon won. ders are engraved on glory's adamantine tablet! Numberless are his victories and countless his triumphs. Who to each bright orb in the starry heaven can assign a name, or fix a stedfast eye on the Father of light, blazing forth in his meridian glory?

Early were his deeds in arms. The hills of Montenotte beheld him victorious: Egypt, that ancient land of

slavery,'felt the strength of his arm. Ulm, Marengo, Austerlitz witnessed his prowess, nor weak was there the strife of death.

Distant hills shook with his warlike thunder: by his strong arm his enemies were humbled. The mighty of the earth have bent before him. He has said to nations, "Let there be peace," and the universe is at rest.

Firmly on wisdom is his throne fixed on high; justice and truth upbold his crown. He pours the balmy oil of grace into the wounds of innocence; he heals the galling sores of oppression. The proud and the haughty he heeds not; they stand si lent and abashed before him.

He has placed in justice the delight of his heart: unborn races shall hail him Father of his people. By him the happiness of nations rests on the tables of the law as on a rock. The wreaths of victory adorn his brow, the gracious seat of law-inspiring wisdom. pp. 231, 232.

Extract from the Ode composed by M. J. Mayer.

No mortal eye can look on the Fath er of light, when, in mid career, bursting from clouds and mists, dark rolling on each side, he pursues the brightness of his steps. The green hills lift their dewy heads, the flowers glitter in the valley, the soft gale wafts fragrancy around.

Such is NAPOLEON in his career of glory! Weak are the bards of present days to raise the song of his fame : too high for them are his mighty deeds. In wonder their voice is lost; the untuned lyre drops from their uplifted hands, Thus the sun of wis dom and strength gladdens the world, rising above mortal praise.

How great thy destiny, O NAPOLE ON! Who can be compared with thee among the glory of nations? Who among renowned warriors, among sage lawgivers, ever raised his fame near to thine, O first of mortal men-Bright in days of old was

the glory of Athens and of Rome: dim is their light now before thee. On thee the eyes of nations are fixed; they wonder, and bless thy name.

Who is like unto thee, O NAPOLEON, in the days of thy glory, when thou graspest the death-dealing steel, that thy allies might rest behind its lightning! Like the eagle of the rock was thy flight over Germany's plains. Thy heroes innumerable crowded around thee; the thunder of war was in their hands, carrying destruction among the foe. Thus the cloud, rising from the abyss, borne along by the western wind, dark, vast, terrible, overspreads the blackened field.

The earth trembled, but now rests in peace. Far distant nations bent before the majesty of thy brow. Ulm, Marengo, Austerlitz, the plains of Egypt, beheld the feats of Napoleon. "Raise altars to the God of battles," he said, and altars arose from their ruins; bitterness fled from our hearts at the dawn of his grace. Happy, happy are the children of France. Nations had but a glimpse of the star of our pride, swiftly gliding through the mist tinged with its glory.

Bards of Israel, let your harmonious songs thrill in my soul, that, amidst the voice of nations, the fame of the hero may be raised in the ancient words of Jacob, the words of the youth of our people. The great NAPOLEON looked down on the children of wo, sport of the proud and of the oppressor: he gathered them round him like a tender father: from the dust he raised them to stand as a mark of his might. Just are his judgments; great and big with gladness is the propitious light of his wisdom. Before it the darkening cloud of shame retires, rolling back on the foes of our people. pp. 235-238.

Extract from the Hymn composed by

M. S. Wittersheim.

Eminent in war is the hero among chiefs. The Nile and the Jordan have beheld his deeds, terrible in battles. The lightning of his steel gleams on the proud in arms; but he exulteth

not over the fallen foe: his mighty hand raiseth the fallen in the strife.

In vain the nations of the earth united against him; weak was their arm, and powerless their blows. In Marengo's and Austerlitz's bloody plains he broke the bow of the strong; the thickened phalanxes of his enemies were scattered before him. Grateful to humbicd kings was the olive branch of peace, mildly shining in the magnanimous hand of the con

queror.

To imperial France he bent his victorious steps; his faithful subjects greeted his return. Thus a father beholds his children, the pride of his heart, dutiful and affectionate: they rejoice in the firmness of his throne: it rests on victory, clemency, virtue, humanity, justice.

May his fame, like his goodness, fill the universe! May our august Emperor live forever. May our august Empress live forever. This is our constant prayer, the dearest wish of our hearts and may the Eternal pour his holy blessings on the Imperial Family. Amen. pp. 239-242.

Among other acts of this assembly, is a letter addressed to all the Synagogues of Europe, requesting them to send deputies to the Grand Sanhedrim.

The following Regulations for the religious worship and the internal police of the nation are worthy of atten tive consideration, as partly developing the intentions of the French ruler.

PLAN.

Art. I. A Synagogue and a Consistory shall be established in every department which contains two thousand individuals professing the relig ion of Moses.

II. In case a department should not contain two thousand Israelites, the jurisdiction of the Consistorial Synagogue shall extend over as many of the adjoining departments as shall make up the said number. The seat of the Synagogue shall always be in the most populous city.

« PreviousContinue »