Thus, the segregation of the Hebrews from all other nations is conscious and deliberate, and is in nowise due to possible dislike on the part of those nations. The devotional books of the Jews furnish us with plenty of proof on that point. Warning is incessant never to make common cause with the foreign nations:
“ Give heed that thou makest no treaty with the inhabitants of the land, into which thou comest, so that they may not become a vexation to thee.” 2. Moses 34. 12 and 13.
The boundary-line between the Hebrew and the rest of humanity is everywhere most sharply defined, and the peculiar morals of Jewdom rest on this separation of interests. They were first set out, however, in characteristic form, by the Rabbis, who “laid down” the Jewish system of morals in the “Talmud” (= Doctrine), from the 2nd to the 5th Century after the birth of Christ.
“ The Talmud — a comprehensive work, divided into many parts — is the real code of laws for Jewdom since the time of Christ, and is the foundation of its religious and civic arrangements”. (Brockhaus Conv. Lexicon).
And it is precisely in this book, where the perception impresses itself most forcibly upon the reader, that it is only the Hebrew, who is a man in the real sense of the word, and that all the remaining nations stand far beneath him, and are, in fact, comparable to animals.
-------------------
* Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig C 1
-------------------
[Page 56] “ The nations of the world are like the baskets, in which one puts straw and dung. They have a soul, which is only equal to that of the animals.”:
is an example of what is to be found in the “ Midrasch schir haschirim”, and a further specimen in the treatise “Baba mezia” is as follows:
“You Israelites are called men, but the nations of the world are called not men, but cattle.”
Jalkut Rubeni expresses himself still more distinctly: “ The Israelites are called men (human beings) because their souls are derived from God, but the souls of those, who are not Jews, are derived from the unclean spirit, and therefore they are named swine.”
But, in case a believing Jew might be of the opinion that those, who are not Jews, are just as good men as the Hebrews, because they possess the same form, Schene-tuchoth-habberith is prepared to give instruction upon this point, for it is stated there:
“A human form is only given to those, who are not Jews, in order that the Jews may not be waited upon by beasts.” With such a perception it is comprehensible how all intercourse with those, who are not Jews, is most strictly forbidden to all true Hebrews. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Old Testament warns the true Jew, in the most emphatic manner, not to enter into marriage with those, who are not Jews, and the Rabbis of the Talmud repeat and accentuate this commandment on many occasions.
Consequently, when the suggestion is made that a mutual contempt exists between Jews and non-Jews, it is well to remember, first of all, which side started this; it is in consequence of the racial conceit of the real Hebrew that he regards his nation as quite out of the ordinary, and especially chosen, and permitted to look down upon other men with contempt. It is certainly nothing to wonder at, if the other nations, in their turn, pay back this aversion in the same coin, and they are more entitled to do so, as, in their case, it is a counterstroke to a brutal challenge.
[Page 57] But, whoever regards those, who do not belong to his race, as no better than beasts, cannot possibly recognise that he has any moral obligations towards such inferior creatures. Upon this fundamental perception rests the entire system of morality of the Rabbis; it teaches, with constant repetition, that one has duties only towards one’s neighbour, one’s race, and towards nobody else. The Law states:
“Thou shalt do no wrong to thy neighbour”, and the discerning Rabbi adds, to make it clearer:
“the other people are excepted”.
Again, one reads in the treatise Sanhedrin:
“An Israelite is permitted to do a wrong to a ‘Goi’”
i.e. non-Jew, because it is written:
“Thou shalt not do wrong to thy neighbour, without however, paying any heed to the Goi.”
It cannot be wondered at then, when the Talmud draws the following conclusion for instance:
“Lost property, which belongs to a Goi, need not be returned.” But the writings of the Talmud do not confine themselves to such general instructions. Just as business forms, as it were, the soul of the entire Jewish existence, so great importance is given in the Talmud also to all business relations, and all manner of good advice is imparted therein as to how one is to comport one’s self during business developments. For this belongs also to the Jewish religion. When one recollects how little the doctrine of Christ concerns itself with money-matters and business, and how it, to a certain extent, rejects any such thing as Money, relying on the Word: “Ye cannot serve God and Mammon”, one must feel what a contrast exists between the Christian and Jewish perceptions of life, and one, across which no bridge can ever be built. How important, however on the contrary, are all business matters to the Hebrew! Thus, we find in the writings of the Talmud directions, of which the following are examples:
[Page 58]
“ If a Goi holds the pledge of an Israelite, and the Goi loses it, and an Israelite finds it, the latter shall return it to the Israelite, but not to the Goi; if, however, the finder desires to return it to the Goi for the sake of the sacred reputation* then, the other (Israelite) shall say to him: ‘If you wish to keep the reputation sacred, do so with what belongs to you.’” (R. Jerucham Seph. mesch. f. 51. 4)
It is also taught: “ It is permissible to take advantage of the mistake of a Goi, when he makes a mistake (to his disadvantage). Thus, if the Goi sends in his bill, and makes a mistake, the Israelite shall say to him: ‘See, I rely upon your bill; I do not know if it really is as you state, nevertheless I give you what you demand.’”
Not only in purely business matters is the Hebrew allowed to treat those, who are not Jews, in a different manner to his own race, but Rabbinism inexorably extends the sharp division between Jew and non-Jew into all remaining domains of life.
The Jew is commanded, when acting as Judge in law-suits, to influence the course of the proceedings in favour of his racial companions. In the book Baba Kamma (= the first door) we find Fol. 113a, paragraph 2:
“ When an Israelite and a non-Jew come before you in the Court, you shall, if you can, administer justice to him — the former — according to Jewish law, and say to him: ‘it is so according to our law’. When the law of the worldly nations is favourable to the Jew, you shall administer Justice to him accordingly, and say to him: it is thus according to our law’. But when this is not the case, use cunning.”
The following passage, for instance, bears eloquent testimony to the assertion that the despicable doctrines of the Talmud towards the Canaanites, Edomites and Amalakites, refer, not only to the peoples of antiquity, but also to the present:
“ The inhabitants of Germany” says Kinchi (Obadja 1,20) “are Canaanites, for when the Canaanites fled before Jehoschua, they went into the land Alemannia, which is called Germany, and even to the present day the Germans are called Canaanites.”
In more recent times, the Hebrews eagerly assume the appearance of possessing a warlike spirit, boast of their participation in the various campaigns, and endeavour, through their patrons and press, to bring it about that they will even be admitted to the rank of officer. That they, however, prize safety rather than valour is shown by referring to the passage out of the Talmud Pesachim 112b:
---------------
* A mode of speaking, which frequently occurs, much to this effect:
“In order that our Religion and our God do not incur a bad reputation.”
---------------
[Page 59]
“If you go to war, go not first but last, in order that you can return home first”. Also, the extensively held idea, that the Jew was compelled by foreign influence to confine himsel
f to trade, because other vocations were forbidden to him — a matter, which, later on, we will go more deeply into — is shown to be fallacious by the actual writings of the Rabbis. The same prove that the Hebrew has, from the remotest periods, always displayed a preference for trade, because other activities, and especially agriculture, appeared too tedious to him, and brought in too little profit. Thus we read in the Talmud:
Rab Eleazar has said:
“No handicraft is so unprofitable as agriculture for it is said Czech 27. 29 ‘You will come down’ (grow poor)!”
R. Eleazar beheld a field, across which cabbages were planted in beds. He then said:
“Even if cabbages were planted for the whole length of the field, trading would still be the best.”
On one occasion when the Rab was walking through a wheat field, and observed how the wheat swayed to and fro, he said:
“continue to sway, trade is to be preferred to you”.
— Rab has further said: “ He who expends a hundred Sus in trade, can enjoy meat and wine every day, but he, who expends a hundred Sus on agriculture, has to be content with cabbage and salt, must sleep on the earth, and is exposed to every kind of misery.”
Thus, the preference for Trade, and the contempt for Handicraft and Agriculture are a very ancient legacy of the Jewish race, and no one has ever found it necessary to compel them to turn to trade.
It would be a fatal mistake to imagine that these ancient views and laws in the Talmud do not possess any validity today. On the contrary: the doctrines of the Talmud form, uninterruptedly, an important item in the Jewish religious education, and every young Jew receives instruction according to the views expressed in the Talmud — however much he may assure one, later on in life, that such matters are entirely unknown to him. Moreover, the law, set out in the Talmud, has been modernised by a recent revision — the so-called Schulchan aruch — and the validity of this law is so undisputed, that the Imperial German legal authorities, in law-suits, in which both parties were Jews, have relied upon the precepts of the Schulchan aruch.
[Page 60] In this more recent law-book of Jewdom is to be found that remarkable prayer, which is said every year on the Day of Atonement, in all synagogues, accompanied by great solemnity, the so-called KolNidre-Prayer. It is as follows:
“ All vows (Kol-Nidre) and obligations and conjurations and oaths, which we shall vow, enter into, and swear, from this day of Atonement until the next, we repent of, and the same shall be dissolved, remitted, abolished, destroyed, and shall be of no force and invalid: our vows shall not be vows, and our oaths shall not be oaths”.
The contents of this peculiar prayer have often been used as a reproach to the Jews, who usually argue their way out of it, by maintaining that the vows, declarations and oaths, which are spoken of in this prayer, refer only to religious matters, more especially to vows and oaths, which the Jew makes or takes to himself, or to his God. It is difficult, however, to see why anyone, who regards his oaths to God so lightly, should take a more serious view of his affirmations or vows to his fellow-men. In any case, the praying Hebrew has the right, when reciting the “Kol”, to connect this prayer secretly with his own particular vows and oaths.
There is nothing to wonder at then, if a nation, with such a remarkable system of ethics, obtains a tremendous advantage over men, who possess a more sensitive conscience, and a finer sense of justice, and who not only abide by their oaths and vows, but adhere punctiliously to their ordinary promises and assurances. That ethical perception of the Talmud, which forces the Hebrew to observe his duties towards his racial and religious brethren with almost painful exactitude, but absolves him of his duties towards other men, must introduce a curious kind of discord into our life. The Hebrews are thus united in a strong union, which not only possesses a strong common-interest, but directs itself, at the same time, in silent hostility against all other men.
[Page 61] And, since the Hebrews are forbidden in addition in the sternest manner according to their laws, to disclose anything of their secret legislation to those, who are not Jews, Jewdom acquires, with such a basis, the nature of a conspiracy which is aimed at all men, who do not happen to be Jews.
The situation is aggravated by the following circumstances: the doctrines and laws of the Rabbis are — with few exceptions — only to be found in the Hebraic language and characters, and are, for that reason, practically unapproachable for the rest of mankind. Besides, the written language of the Hebrews resembles a cryptograph, the reading and explanation of which are taught by tradition in the schools of the Rabbis.
The Jews are consequently in the position to maintain to the uninitiated that the rendering of the latter is incorrect. For, as a matter of fact, those scholars, who are not Jews, but who, having learnt the Hebrew language and examined the writings of the Rabbis, have then proceeded to translate some of the awkward passages, have become the objects of the most violent hostility on the part of the Jews. Only with the help of converted Jews has it been possible, in certain cases, to ascertain the correct reading or version. But for centuries reliable Christian scholars have made translations of the immoral passages, which all agree, so that it is scarcely permissible to entertain any doubt as to the correctness of the version. One need only mention the Heidelberg Professor of Oriental Languages, Johann Eisenmenger, who produced a translation of extracts from the Talmud in the year 1700; the Canonical Professor, August Rohling, of Prague, who published his “Talmudjude” (Jew of the Talmud) in 1878, and since then has been made the object of most odious enmity from the side of the Jews.
Further, the Orientalists, Professor Johann Gildemeister of Bonn († 1890), Dr. Jakob Ecker of Münster, and Professor Georg Behr of Heidelberg, as arbiters in court, have confirmed the correctness of these same translations of the rabbinical writings, when the opportunity presented itself in law-suits, relating to such matters. Since, however, the Jews always renew their denials, there is really a most urgent necessity, in the interests of both sides, that the disputed passages in the Talmud should be examined by impartial experts; all conflict about the matter would then be removed from the world in the simplest manner possible.
[Page 62] It is, however, a most remarkable fact that the Hebrews oppose any such procedure most emphatically and, strange to say, the state officials have also declined to move in the matter when application has been made to them. When, in the year 1890, a petition was sent from the anti-Jewish camp to a number of Imperial and local authorities, containing the request that a commission of independent savants should be appointed, whose duty would be to examine carefully the passages in dispute, in not a single instance was the request granted. The Prussian Ministry of Culture dismissed any such step as being “impracticable.” If one compares the thoroughness with which the morality of the Jesuits has been and is still discussed in public, one is forced to accept the view, that the zealous friends of truth and opponents of those, who work in an obscure and devious manner, know how to restrain their zeal for enlightenment in a truly remarkable way so far as the Jews are concerned.
The position is thus a very peculiar one. This much is established: The German national representative bodies and governments have given the Jews equal civic rights, and have recognised them as a separate religious community, without making any inquiry whether the moral instruction of the Jews is compatible with the welfare of the state. There is, therefore, no cause for wonder if attacks are constantly being delivered by the National German Party against this untenable position, and if the demand is made upon those, in positions of authority, to undertake, even at this late stage, a thorough examination of the Jewish doctrines.
There will be no end to this dispute until the matter has been made clear beyond any possible doubt. Joh. Ludwig Klüber, the diplomatist and authority on International Law (decd. 1837) calls the Jews plainly, “a political-religious sect, under the strict, theocratic despotism of the Rabbis”, and “a completely separated society of hereditary conspirators, with certain po
litical principles and commandments for the general life and for commercial intercourse.” (Thus, not merely with religious aims).
[Page 63] And this is, in concise, sober language, the essence of the matter. For the Jews do not compose, like the Christians for instance, simply a religious community, which depends upon certain moral doctrines, and worships its God according to certain established forms; their — the Jews’ — law extends to all manner of practical affairs in life, and, under the influence of a peculiar morality, concerns itself particularly with the cultivation of trade and usury. They form, in spite of their dispersion amongst other peoples, an absolutely distinct nation, even, as Fichte expresses it, a separate state. And, as they are at the same time intent upon preserving the purity of their blood, and intermarry, as far as it is possible, they form also a self-contained race. Of all the rulers in Germany, no one has recognised this fact more clearly than the greatest of all practical politicians amongst them, Frederick the Great, who considered it necessary, even in his political will of 1752, to impress most strongly upon his successors:
“ Moreover, the ruler must keep his eye on the Jews, prevent their interference with wholesale trade; check the growth of their population, and deprive them of their right of sanctuary whenever they commit an act of dishonesty. For nothing is more injurious to the trade of the merchants than the illicit profit which the Jews make.”
The racial peculiarity; however, is visible to the eye, so that the Jew can be recognised immediately and picked out from all the other peoples of the world. And, further, there can be no doubt whatever upon this point: by means of their Talmud and their system of Rabbis, the Hebrews are held together in a rigid caste, which carries on a cooperative war against the remaining nations, chiefly by means of material expropriation and the undermining of morality.
The Riddle of the Jew's Success Page 7
