This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The very first stumbling block which the sophisticated modern student strikes as he opens the pages of Sacred Writ is the initial theme of the Bible, that of the creation of the world. According to the account given in the first chapter of Genesis the process that brought our universe into being consisted of a series of divine fiats the execution of which was spread over six days. There is no mention, no hint of development or evolution. Whatever took place happened in an instant,. as a result of the mere say-so of deity, as the Psalmist put it: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." 1 "God said: 'Let there be light'; and there was light." 2 He ordained that the waters be divided; and they were." He commanded the terrestrial fluid to be gathered into definite places and form oceans and seas; and it did." And thus all the way thru. There is majesty and grandeur in these simple, terse, matter-of-fact sentences. The conception of the world's origin that is reflected in our Jewish Scriptures is much more sober and mature than that which is implied by the cosmogonies of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and other peoples of antiquity." It is not as a result of a struggle among divine beings that heaven and earth, land and sea and all that is therein emerge out of the primeval chaos, but because a mind transcending the universe so willed it, because a power superior to all desired it and set agoing the cosmic forces that brought it about.
Yet for all its sobriety and grandeur the biblical description of creation seems to our sophisticated moderns naive and childish over against the picture drawn by science. Aye it appears untenable to them in the face of what common sense, applied to the hard facts of geology, paleontology and other branches of learning, teaches. According to these it must have taken not six days, but millions of years for the original ball of fire that separated from the sun to cool and for the earth's crust to harden and form the terra firma, the dry land which we inhabit; millions of years longer for life to appear on its surface; still more millions for the anthropoid species to develop out of the lower animal forms; and tens of thousands of years for the human race to evolve from the primitive ape.
All these notions stand in flat contradiction to the iiteral wording of the biblical text. One might, of course, attempt to reconcile the teachings of science with the data of the Bible by stretching the meaning of the latter. Each day in the biblical account might, for example, be said
HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING
to be ~q~~valent to a million or even a billion years, for according to the Psalml~t. a ~housand years are but like a single day" in the eyes of God 6 and this too IS o~ly a round figure, a poetic formulation of the concept of 'a :-ast stretch of tl,me. ~urtherm~re the. computation of time is, in and by Itself, a human invention and ItS ordmary calculations could therefore not very w.elI. ~pply before the creation of man and the ap~earance of the most pnrrutrve f~rm of human culture. The six days of creation might then, perhaps. be said to correspond to six different phases in the process of the .eyol~tlOn of th,e, umverse. Such an interpretation would not at all be offensive to tradition, for even the sages admit the existence before ~he emergence fro~ chaos of our own world of a long cycle of time 7 m the Course o! which worlds were created and destroyed again," In fact, t? be grammatlca,lIy correct, one must translate the first sentence of GeneSIS, as ~bn Ezra,dld: "When God first created heaven and earth the earth was void and wl~hout form," which yields a meaning quite diff~rent from
the usual rendenng "In the beginning God created etc" I thi .
, ld I ' . n IS way JUS-
tice w~u a so be ~one to the evolutionary hypothesis, aye the various
stages m the evolution o! the worl? as cpnceived by the scientists would s:e~ to be ~eflect:d pomt by point in the day by day record of the biblical creation epic.
.The ~rouble, ,h~wever, with such a harmonization of Scripture with ~cl~nce I~ that It IS neither honest nor useful. It is not honest because It IS equivalent to rea~ing into the words of Sacred Writ ideas that may not at ~ll have been mtended. Nor does it serve a useful purpose becaus.e sc!ence, to be true to its principles and method, is continually recastmg ItS hypotheses, The .theories concerning the origin and development of the umverse that will be entertained in the future m
quently, differ considerably from those held today and Bibl aY't cdonse-
f h . . ,I e s u ents
o t at time may find. our remterpretation of Scripture just as untenable
as those of today consider the bare statements of the Bib I
d h I . . e or as we may
regar t e exp ananon of the rationalists of the Middl A h
. lied i h e ges, w 0 saw II_TIP ie m t e first few sentences of Sacred Writ the Aristoteli~n hypothe-
SIS .that the matter of the physical universe was composed of the four basic elements of earth, water, air and fire.
What? then, remains? , Take Sc~ipture at its word, accept literally what stands m defiance .of sl.mple logic and ordinary common sense? That would be self-stultIficatIOn. But. if that is impossible, then the Bible
would no longer represent the hIghest truth It would I
. f . no onger con-
stitute or us the pronouncement of God which cannot and d b
doubted. The biblical account of the world's creation place a~e not .e
d'l' s us m a sen-
ous I emma, and no sidetracking of the issue no makeshl'ft
hI' ,answer can
e p us. What IS to be done, then? How can we sooth I' .
e our re IglOUS
conscience without doing injustice to our scientific scruples? How is it possible to be honest with ourselves and at the same time satisfy tradition?
In order to solve this problem it is necessary to ask oneself what is essential and what is merely incidental in Scripture's story of creation. What could have been the object of putting this exposition of the origin of the world at the beginning of Israel's book of divine teachings? It is not easy to answer such a question about a work as old as our Bible, especially since the ideology and the Weltanschauung of men today are so utterly different from what they were in that far-off time when the Torah was given to Israel. Fortunately, however, there have recently come to light writings contemporary with the Bible, accounts of the creation of the world by the Babylonians and other peoples that lived at the time of the patriarchs and of Moses. These accounts present many parallels to the data contained in the first chapter of Genesis. They, are, however, by no means identical, the essential difference between them being, as it has been previously noted, that according to our Scriptures the world did not come into being as a result of the contest of antagonistic forces contending for supremacy but in response to the will of a single, transcend ant mind, in obedience to the command of "Him who spoke and the universe was." 9 This distinction is as instructive and revealing as the similarities. It indicates clearly what it was that the Bible aimed to teach by means of its account of the creation of the world. The lesson was comprised not in what was old but rather in what was new in it, in those points of the biblical creation epic wherein it deviated from the others. To impress this lesson upon the readers the same method was employed in this instance that is generally followed, as it has been recognized by some of our sages, in Sacred Writ. "The Torah," said Rabbi Ishmael, "speaks a human language." 10 It expresses itself in terms and concepts familiar to them, making use, in describing deity, of metaphors and figures of speech drawn 'from human experience which strictly speaking cannot apply to the mystery called God. If this holds true for the Bible in general, why should it be otherwise in this case? Why wasn't it perfectly legitimate, in the endeavor to impress the thought that the world was not the product of whim or caprice, something that arose by chance out of chaos, but rather the creation of a unitary, purposive intelligence, for Sacred Writ to make use of theories about the nature of the physical world and the details of its generation that were current at the time the Bible was written? After all our Holy Scriptures never pretended to be a text-book science the object of which is to describe the behavior of the elements of nature. They are first and foremost a source-book of religious truths aiming to drive home the idea of the existence of one beneficent creator and ruler of the universe and to make clear what it is that He desires and
HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING
expe.cts of. man. ~t is only the notions that served as a vehicle for impartmg .thls doctrine to our ancestors in such a way as to mak it
preh bl h .. e I comd 'efsl e to t em, I~ IS ~nly th~se notions which were merely inci-
t~nt~ rt~ ~hec!urpose m VIew, which are of no consequence for either
e e I.e m .od or the conduct of man and which even many of our sages did not. mterpret liter~lly, th~t are in conflict with the teachings of moder~ science. The baSIC doctnne concerning the original cause of ~~e d creation ~f the world, concerning the ultimate force that stands be. I~ all cosrrnc processes re~ains unshaken until this very day. For even If It be granted that the unrverse came into being and grew by evolution who decreed. t~e laws of this evolution? Who brought into the physicai ~orld the ~ngll1al matter? How did divine intelligence arise in the mind o f~e brutIsh ape? . The.se riddles have never been solved, and the most satIsfactory answer IS still that which is ·offered by our Hoi S . t
I h f y cnp ures . . n ~ ort rom the standpoint of the theology and the ethics of the
Blb~e It. d?es not really matter much whether it took the world six days or SIX billions of years .to attain its present shape, nor whether the com~and of God was ca~ned out instantaneously or eons were required for t e pr?~esses set ag~ll1g to be completed. The important thing is the recogm~lOn of the ex~stence and the operation in the universe of an all-
embracmg, ccnstructrve power and directive genius who d·d h H
did b "H· , . I W at e
I ecause e saw that It was good" 11 This I·S the
d . . . one paramount
pre ommatmg lesson of that sublime first chapter of Genesis d II h '
h PI· .. ,an we as
t e sa mist s~~manzed ItS essence in that magnificent sentence of the
9.0th chapter: 0 Lord, Thou has been a habitation for us in all generanons, Before the mountains were born, or ever the earth and the world were brought forth, even from everlasting to everlasting Thou art, God." 12
THE GARDEN OF EDEN, FACT OR FICTION?
Another series of problems provoked by the early chapters of the book of Genesis are those arising from the story of the Garden of Eden. It is related how God planted a garden in a place called Eden wherein He put the first human couple with the injunction that they might eat of all the trees of the garden except for one that possessed the virtue of imparting the "knowledge of good and evil." There is also said to have been in the garden a tree of life, but it was apparently not included in the prohibition. Now man, misled by his wife, disobeys God's command. She in turn had been tempted by the serpent, the most cunning of all the beasts of the field, who had assured her that no evil consequences would result from her eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. On account of this transgression the ancestors of the human race are driven out of the garden. The man is sentenced to earning his bread with the sweat of his brow; the woman is punished with the pains attending childbirth; while the serpent is cursed to craw on its belly.
Such is the story told in the Bible, and it appears on the face of it extremely childish and simple. Was there really ever such a place as the Garden of Eden? If so, where was it located and what caused it to disappear? How comes it that mankind which has been so eminently successful in discovering unknown continents and submerged cities, has not yet found Paradise? Who ever, again, has heard of a tree that can impart knowledge? Is not intelligence rather the result of the development of the mind, of the maturing of the mental faculties? Furthermore by what means can the fruit of a tree enable a human being to live forever? And finally when did serpents possess the faculty of speech?
These questions seem to have troubled our predecessors long ago almost as much as they agitate the mind of the Jew of today, and attempts were made as early as the days of the Talmud but especially during the Middle Ages, the era of Jewish rationalism, by philosophers like Saadyah, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides and Nachmanides, to answer them in such a way as not to do violence to the biblical text and at the same time satisfy the demands of reason. One solution offered, for example, was that the serpent did not really speak like a human being, but that Eve by means of her feminine intuition divined what he had in mind/ just as Balaam was able, by virtue of his having been a bit of a prophet, to guess at the thoughts of his ass whose speech, too, did not consist of distinctly human sounds." Another explanation mentioned was that the snake was Satan, the seducer,
THE GARDEN OF EDEN, FACT OR FICTION? 179
~ot an ordinary animal. 8 As for the tree of knowledge, the knowledge it I~?arted was not intellectual, but rather sexual knowledge.4 The plausibility of this theory is strengthened by fact that the root Y ADA' "know" may actually ha;e that connotation in Hebrew, as it is borne out by the statement of Scripture "And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived a.nd bore." 5 W~at lends further color to this interpretation is the circumstance that It was after they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of kno,,:ledge that Adam and Eve first realized what they had not noticed previously, namely that they were naked. That the extract of certain trees has the property of stimulating the sexual faculties has been know~ for some time already. Only recently have efforts been made in America to ru? d~wn al! the cultivators of the drug-producing Marijuana tree f~om. which IS derived a morally enervating narcotic. This interpreta.tIOn IS, therefore, not at all as forced as it may give the appearance of bemg.
As fo~ the t~ee ~f li~e, it may not have been meant to endow him who partook of Its fruit WIth Immortality, but merely to act as a cause of longevity as do .certain vitamins. The term L'oLAM employed in this instance b; the BIble does not necessarily have to connote "forever." Just as in the case of the law pertaining to the Hebrew slave who refuses to leave his ma~ter and who is penalized by being made to serve him L'OLAM the period of compulsory service is a fixed number of years 6 so here too L'OLAM ?oes no~ s~and for "eternity." Nor is there anything in the text of the BIble to indicate that man was originally created to be immortal. When God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree of knowledge they "would surely die," 7 what was meant was not that they would become mortal, but that they would die immediately, and only their remorse saved them from instantaneous death."
Such were the attempts made to overcome the difficulties presented to common sense by the narrative of the Pentateuch clustering about the Gard~n o! Eden. l!nfortunately these interpretations reveal, upon critical examm.atIOn, certain rather serious flaws. If it was sex knowledge that the fruit of the tree of knowledge was able to impart, why did the serpent tell Eve that the reason for God's opposition against man's partaking t.hereof was that H~ feared that man would as a result thereof "become hk: unto God knowmg good and evil?" 9 Certainly the knowledge of God ~hIch was ref~rred to hereby could not have been sex experience. Again If th.e serpent m the story of the Garden of Eden was not the well-known reptile, but Satan, what ?earing could the curse of the serpent to crawl on Its belly have upon him] After all this rationalization we are then no b:tter off than we were before. The old difficulties return to pla~ue us: and It almost seems as though we either have to accept the story of the
Garden of Eden at face value or reject it altogether, neither of which two
alternatives is completely satisfying. What is, then, the way out? .
Frankly speaking when one considers the 613 cOrhmandrr:ent~ which the law-abiding Jew is expected to carry out, one find.s nothlr:g m them compelling anyone to understand literally the narrative portion of the Bible. The laws of the Torah are binding and the Torah as a whole ~ust be regarded as true. But the meaning of the truth does not. always he on the surface, This discovery of its full implications often requires study and reflection. The prophets of Israel are positively known to have employed allegories in which it was not the words and ex~ressions in which t?ey were couched that counted but the thought behind them that was Important. If this is correct, a pers.o~ could not be accused of. heres; for refusing to believe that snakes ongmally w~lked on !egs. Scnpture s remark to this effect is assuredly not an article of faith, but merely the detail of an account which the celebrated Maimonides characterized mainly as an allegory, the literal interpretation of which must lead to defect in one's religious belief."?
There exists therefore good authority for explaining the Garden of Eden story as' a parable' or allegory rather than take it literally. This, too however has its difficulties, for the question is always: "Which alleg~ricaI inte~pretation shall we accept?" The A~istotelian. physics that Maimonides read into text of the Bible 11 and the VIew of Philo that Ada~ stands for spirit and Eve for sensuality 12 are n?w dis~arded. Even If they were not, it would be impossible to determine whlc? allegory ~as correct and which was not. As long as we adhere to the SImple meam~g, we are on firm ground. Once, however, we launch out on speculation and guesses we lose this assurance. We no longer know w?eth~r we are on the right track or not. Besides Scripture seems to have I~ mind a real garden, existing somewhere in space. A: l:ast two of the nvers that are reported to have flowed thru it, the Tigris and :h: Euphrates, can be identified. Also, as it has been pointed out before, It IS a real serpent, not Satan, that figures in the tale, and the tree of knowledge furmshed not
only sexual but also intellectual knowledge. .
In view of all these considerations it seems wisest not to look for hairsplitting subtleties in our Sacred Writ, but. t? accept the theory that the Torah in teaching its great moral and religious ~ruths ~ade use of .the scientific ideas that were current in Israel at the time of ItS promulgat~on. In the days of Moses, when the traditions of the patriarchs, who hailed originally according to the Bible's own asse~tion froI_TI the land of the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates wer: still fresh, It was only natural that the notions entertained by the Israehtes about the world o~ nature and man should have been similar to those held by the Babylomans. It
THE GARDEN OF EDEN, FACT OR FICTION?
is these conceptions, therefore, that had to be utilized by Scripture in order to be understood by those to whom it addressed itself, and so it is not at all strange that the abode of the first man should have been placed in the Bible in the land in which the Jewish race originated and that the epigones of the earliest generations of mankind should bear Babylonian-sounding names like Methushael, which is a direct transliteration of the Assyrian mutu-shal-ili, "the man of God."
This Babylonian medium which the Bible adopts in expressing itself does not detract by one iota from the intrinsic worth and validity of its message which is easily recognized by anyone who reads the story of the Garden of Eden with the least degree of understanding. He will find in it the basis of all moral judgments, the distinction between good and evil. He will see in it a fine delineation of human behavior, of how man is constantly being tempted to give in to his instincts and passions in the foolish belief that no evil would result from defying reason and conscience. I~ this expectation, however, he is usually disappointed, for the wages of sm are death. And once man has sinned, he can never again be as carefree as he was in his age of innocence. His happiness and peace of mind are gone forever. The serpent figures in the tale not as Satan himself but as the symbol of the seducer. The reason for its selection for this role was probably that its hissing sound suggests the whisperings of the Evil Inclination, the insidious cunning that the instincts have of making man cast discretion to the wind. Incidentally certain anthropological observations are thrown in, such as the one that primitive men races that are intellectually undeveloped, are in the habit of running around naked. To this remark as well as to other folkloristic elements in the Garden of Eden story one must, however, not attach too much importance. For the Bible, it cannot be stated emphatically enough, does not pretend to furnish exact historical or scientific information. That seems evident in this instance from the very fact that the first man has no proper name of his own, but is designated by the common Hebrew appellative for the human race "Adam." This indicates that what is related about Adam is not necessarily the individual experiences, the biographical details of a certain person who lived at a certain time in a certain place in the world. It reflects rather the characteristics of the human race as a whole. It is
a description of human character in the aggregate. Adam typifies man with his weaknesses and failings.
If it be acknowledged that it Was the depiction of these things that was intended by means of the story of the Garden of Eden, then no valid objection can be raised against it. For the truths it divulges, which appeal alike to adult and child, will always endure and are as acceptable for us who live in the 20th century as well as for our predecessors of a thousand or two thousand years ago.
WAS THERE A DELUGE?
The event which next merits our attention constitutes one of the earliest memories of the human race. Many years ago in the dim, gray dawn of history, when the species of man was still young, so it is related in the Scriptures, a world cataclysm occurred that came near destroying not only the human race but all other modes of animal life as well. The cataclysm is said to have taken the form of a vast inundation that caused the entire earth to be covered with water so that even the highest mountain peaks were submerged and whatever had the breath of life in it on land perished. This condition is supposed to have prevailed for over a year. Exactly twelve months and ten days elapsed from the time that "the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven" were opened 1 until the top soil of the earth became dry again 2 and the last traces of the flood disappeared from its surface. During all that time the sole surviving family of the human race, as well as the individuals of the animal species that had been taken along, were safely tucked away in a huge wooden box, three stories high and with compartments-a contraption which would even by modern standards be considered a good-sized ship. This rescue-boat, known generally as "Noah's Ark," provided with sufficient food against the emergency, floated on the top of the water as long as the deluge lasted, and thanks to it animal life on earth did not become extinct.
This is the story as it is narrated in the Bible. It is a dramatic, gripping, grim recital, but also one that causes the critical student, the person who really wishes to understand and form a clear picture in his mind of what happened, infinite perplexity. We will not speak of the difficulty of conceiving of the natural causes which could bring it about that the entire surface of the earth would be overlaid with a blanket of water so thick that even the highest mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas in Asia, some of the peaks of which reach an elevation of five miles above sea level, would be completely concealed underneath it, or of the means whereby such an unusual increase of moisture could be made to recede again in the short space of seven months. We will not speak of these, for there are other riddles in the story of the flood even more difficult to solve, points that are still harder to explain satisfactorily. How could, one might ask for example, an ark three hundred cubits in length, fifty cubits in width and thirty cubits in height, contain even two samples each of all the infinite varieties of animal existence? How was it possible to cause the
VVAS THERE A DELUGE?
species hailing from totally different climates, such as the polar bear from the Arctic regions of the frozen North on the one hand and the rhinoceros and other creatures living in the torrid lands near the Equator on the other, to live together under the identical conditions? What sort of food was it that they were fed and where was it stored? How were those species that multiply very rapidly, such as insects like the flies and the ants, kept from increasing for a period of one year and thus crowding the ark? Finally what happened to the fishes when the sweet water of the flood and the salt water of the ocean became commingled, for it is known that sweet water fish cannot exist in salt water and. vice versa?
These are some of the questions that the thoughtful reader asks himself as he reads the story of Noah and the flood. And to add to his troubles the geologist comes along and tells him that, so far as he is concerned, he has found no evidence of a flood extending over the entire surface of the earth and causing the sudden destruction of all animal life. There are traces of a drift of snow and ice coming upon the northern hemisphere and causing the extinction of numerous species as well as the death of many human beings. The support of this theory is found in the glaciers, or ice fields, of Switzerland and the fossil remains of prehistoric creatures. But this, say the geologists, must have happened ages ago, long before the time of Noah's deluge, and it could, therefore, not be identified with it.
One way of obviating these difficulties without destroying the authority of the Bible would be to explain that the inundation was not, as it is usually thought to have been, universal, but rather local in character," that it did indeed embrace the entire human race, which was at the time not very large and confined to but one region, but it did not cover the earth. Such an interpretation, which accords very well with the rabbinic tradition that Palestine was not included in the flood/ would not do violence to the text, for the word HAARETz in Hebrew, which is used in speaking of the earth, may also denote land. Furthermore it may be noted that there is no mention of any dispersion of the human race before the building of the Tower of Babel, and that the earthly paradise to the east of which Adam settled was according to the data of Scripture situated in the Tigris and Euphrates valley, a region which has been proven by archeology to have been the seat of the earliest known human civilization. That it was chiefly man that was concerned in this flood is indicated firstly by the statement at the end of the section of B'RESHIT: "And the Lord said: I shall wipe off from on the face of the earth the man whom I have created," 5 and a further utterance in the section of NOAcH: "And the Lord smelt the pleasant smell and the Lord said in his heart: I shall not continue any more to curse the earth because of man." 6 This re-
striction of the extent of the deluge to a small area eliminates the difficulties about the collection of all animal species in a limited space since it pertained to only a fraction of the animal kingdom. The flood may, according to this interpretation have been one of the not infrequent inundations of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which may have taken an unusually severe form at one time and have been aggravated by an earthquake which caused the surface of the earth to split open and subterranean waters to gush forth," That would account very well for the breaking open of "the fountains of the great deep" 8 of which the Bible speaks. By the T'HoM that is mentioned would be meant not the ocean but the wells underneath the surface of the earth, as in the verse "For the precious things of Heaven, for the dew, and for the T'HOM that coucheth beneath," where T'HoM refers definitely to the fertility-causing underwater streams." The period of one year for such a flood contains in itself nothing unlikely or unusual. In fact, it corresponds exactly to the rise and fall of the flood waters in the region referred to. In this way might one attempt to reconcile tradition with the teachings of science.
The explanation, even if not satisfactory, is at least interesting. However it is not necessary to enter into the merits or demerits thereof. What we do know is that the recollection of a great flood in the distant past of the human race is an almost universal human heritage. It is narrated not only in our Bible but in the ancient literatures of such diverse and farflung peoples as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, the Hindus, Chinese, Slavs and Germans.i" Whether all these traditions refer to the same locality is a question we are unable to answer. On the other hand the problems that science posits need not deter us so much because scientific theories are subject to change and new data that are brought to light necessitate their constant revision.
When all is said and done, however, it must be confessed that there are things in the Biblical text which at best we cannot hope to understand and which, whatever method of interpretation may be used, will continue to baffie and perplex us. But even if they do that, there is but little harm in our lack of comprehension for, as has been noted previously-and it cannot be repeated too often, the Bible does not pretend to be a source book of science, but merely a book of religion, a book in which the ancient memories of mankind, which are the common property of all men, are utilized to teach lessons of ethics and morality and inculcate the belief in a just and benevolent God.
That such was the aim of the story of Noah and the flood as narrated in the Bible becomes clear beyond the shadow of a doubt from the manner in which it was related, especially when it is compared with parallel accounts of the flood in other ancient literatures. In the Babylonian epic,
VVAS THERE A DELUGE?
for example, which is strikingly similar to that of the Bible, the hero, Utnapishtim, who corresponds to Noah, is saved from destruction not because he is just and righteous, as it is said of the biblical Noah: "Noah was a righteous man; faultless was he in his generation," 11 but because he happens to be the favorite of one of the gods and because he is superlatively clever. Also unlike the Jewish Noah who is pictured by the sages as exhorting his contemporaries to repentence during the years of his construction of the Ark, the Babylonian Noah tries to conceal from his fellowmen the impending catastrophe by offering a clever pretext, imparted to him by his patron deity, for building the ship. The Babylonian counterpart of the flood story, like all the rest, has no constructive 'purpose. It is a mere play of the fancy.P The Biblical version, on the other hand, has a serious object in view. It proclaims the eternal truth that the basis of human society is morality and justice, and that any society which is devoid of these qualities deserves to perish and will inevitably go under. "The Biblical story of the deluge," says a great student of ancient religious literature, "possesses an intrinsic power to stir the conscience of the world and it was written with this educational and moral end in view. Of this aim there is no trace in the records of the deluge outside the Bible." 18
To sum up, then, we need not be concerned over the question as to whether the details of the biblical story of the deluge can be harmonized with the findings of science or not, because it is not therein that its chief value for us as adherents of the Jewish religion lies. We may be more or less successful in our reconciliation; but even if we succeed, there is not so very much gained thereby because scientists change their points of view rather quickly and with every change one is compelled to try one's luck at reconciliation afresh. It is best, therefore, to confess honestly that we cannot hope to understand everything about a narrative that was written so long ago and refers to events which were already at the time of their notation ages past. What stands out clear and distinct, however, and what really matters to us is the inference from the tale, namely the existence of a supramundane power that will not permit wickedness and corruption to go too far, that decrees the doom of a debased humanity while it preserves him that obeys its divine ordinances.P It was in this way that our sages seemed to have understood the teaching of Scripture. "There were ten generations from Adam to Noah," they observe. And wherefore, they ask, was it necessary for the Bible to give us an account of them? "In order to indicate how long-suffering the Eternal is. For all those generations were continually provoking Him until He brought
I upon them the water of the flood." 16
THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE DIFFUSION OF LANGUAGES
One of the great moral lessons of the Bible is that concerning the original unity of the human race. The grandiose idea of the common ancestry of all men, which contrasts so sharply with the puerile attempts made in certain parts of the world nowadays arbitrarily to divide human beings into special breeds, inferior and superior, is implied not once but twice in the Jewish Holy Scriptures, the first time in the story of Adam and Eve, the first human couple, and again in the narrative about the fortunes of the family of Noah, the sole human survivors of the flood. It is supported furthermore by the statement that originally all men lived in one locality and spoke one language, and that the present diffusion of mankind and the existing differences of speech are phenomena due to certain conditions that arose in the course of time. According to the literal wording of the Torah it was brought about by an over-reaching of itself of human ambition, by an attempted concentration of power that was symbolized by the construction of a tower rearing its head unto heaven. This arrogance on the part of the sons of man displeased God, and He confounded their tongues so that one was unable to understand the other and men were compelled to scatter and leave off building the city in which the tower was to be situated.
This is the explanation that is offered by Sacred Writ of one of the profoundest mysteries of human civilization, the mystery concerning the cause of the multiplicity of human dialects, the reason for why mankind does not speak one language. Whether it will satisfy the philologian or the anthropologist or other persons who grapple with the problem of human 'origins is hard to say. No one, to be sure, has as yet discovered how man learnt to speak and what the first language was like. The oldest written records date back no further than about five thousand years, and already then language was very much diversified and had been in use for a long time. To fill up the wide gap between the beginning of human speech and the earliest renderings of it that have come down to us we have only conjecture, theories differing as widely from each other as day does from night. According to some investigators language consisted at first of simple sounds and became more complex as time went on. According to others the process of development pursued a directly opposite course. That certain languages are derived from a common source and may, therefore, be classified as families, as, for example, that French and Italian,
THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE DIFFUSION OF LANGUAGES 187
Spanish, Portuguese and Rumanian are derived from Latin, and that English, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian dialects show affinities which point to a common Teutonic ancestor, and that all European idioms, with the exception of Turkish, Hungarian and Finnish, form, together with Armenian, Persian and the dialects of India, an Indo-European family, the father of which was Sanscrit, that is pretty well established. Whether, however, the ancestors of all the language families, too, had a common parent, whether, for example, the languages of the yellow race and those known as Semitic, such as Hebrew and Arabic, reveal resemblances to the Indo-European group that would indicate that there was a time when they were all one, that has not yet been convincingly demonstrated, although attempts have been made to prove it .. What our earliest forbears spoke remains, then, an unsolved and perhaps insolvable riddle.
While we are, however, completely in the dark as to how language arose and how the present language groups, provided they had a common parent, branched off, we have some idea of what it is that brings about dialectic differences. One of the most important factors is geography, barriers between peoples that cut off their intercourse with each other and cause them to develop independently. Take for instance the differences between the Lithuanian and the Galician pronunciations of Yiddish. These are differences due to locality, and such differences often engender division and mutual hatred. The same holds true of American English and that of Great Britain. Essentially, of course, the language spoken in the United States of America is one with that which is current in the British Isles; and yet it is not, as it is sometimes jocularly remarked, entirely the same. It is American,' not only on account of the differences in accent but .also on account of the variation of vocabulary. American tourists in England experience considerably difficulty in understanding the Cockney dialect of the London street urchin, and, when one compares that dialect with our own native slang, they appear like two different languages. Now this difference is attributable to nothing else than the three thousand miles of ocean that separate America from the English mother country.
Geography is, then, an important factor in the diversification of human speech. It has everything to do with the differences between American and English English, much to bring about the distinctions between Galician and Lithuanian Yiddish, and it was no doubt the cause of the emergence of Italian, Spanish, French and the other Romance languages from Latin. According to the Bible, however, the process was just the reverse. Diversification of human speech was not the consequence but the cause of the diffusion of the human race. Mankind was scattered over the face of the earth because men were no longer able to understand each
other's language. Their failure to understand each other was not due to their dispersion, however, but to the fact that God had confounded their speech. "Therefore was the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth." 1 This theory is, therefore, likely to be set down by those who expect to find in the Bible solutions of the problems of philology and anthropology as unscientific, as not tallying with experience. But that does not disturb the supporter of Scripture, because Scripture is not at all interested, as it is clear from the narrative, in relating how language became diversified, but rather in telling us why mankind, which must originally have been one and is ideally one, happens to be as divided as it is, what it was that made the family of man once so closely knit fall apart, and what were the inherent causes of disruption and disintegration. And the answer it gives is, paradoxical as it may seem, that it was precisely man's anxiety to remain unified and integrated that was responsible for it. That is how the Bible interprets the motive of the building of the Tower of Babel. "Come let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad. upon the face of the whole earth." 2 Furthermore, to make it still more incomprehensible, God Himself, the author of peace, whose very name, as our sages note," betokens peace, is described as the one who sowed discord among them and thus brought about their dissemination in all the earth. "Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth." 4
How is this to be understood? How can unity produce diversity?
How is it conceivable that God should sow discord? A cue to the unraveling of this mystery is the totalitarian state of today, the attempts that are being made to establish nations that are completely unified and integrated, that consist of but one type and from which all other elements are eliminated. The purpose of such coordination of the population is to make it easier for the government to discipline and control it, and the object of this discipline in turn is to build up a strong military machine that will be able to fight and conquer the world. In pursuing this end the modern totalitarians are as ruthless as our sages described the builders of the Tower of Babel to have been. When a human being was killed in the course of construction, they paid no attention to the matter, but when a brick fell down and was smashed, they were heart-broken over it." So in the present-day totalitarian states the sacrifice of human lives is accounted as nothing at all, but any interference with Gleichschaltung is regarded as a serious matter.
Such a combination that tries mercilessly to efface all differences in order to achieve titanic power is, however, a travesty against human na-
THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE DIFFUSION OF LANGUAGES ture as well as a danger to the welfare of the world which is demanded by divine justice. God created men to be different, not to conform to one common mold. Without a certain amount of individual liberty the human mind is incapable of developing. Thought and freedom go hand in hand. Without freedom there can be no thought. Secondly the existence of a gigantic military machine, even if it pretends to have been created only for defense, as the builders of the Tower of Babel said: "Lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth," 6 constitutes a menace to peace and to true civilization. This is definitely implied in the words of Scripture: "Behold, they are one people, and they ~ave ~ll one l.anguage; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing ':Ill ~e withholden from them which they purpose to do." 7 Such a combination cannot endure forever. It must collapse as soon as people begin to realize that they are different, that their interests clash and they do not understand each other, nor see eye to eye.
There is no reason for assuming then, that the story of the builders of the Tower of Babel has anything to do with language as such, for people may speak the same language and yet not understand each other. According to our sages, indeed, it wasn't the difference of language that was responsible for the confusion of mankind but their misunderstanding ~f one another, for, when one asked for a hammer, he received from hIS neighbor a saw and vice versa." Nor is it necessary to think that the entire human world was referred to by HAARETz, for .HAARETz may mean, as it has been remarked previously, "the land," and the land alluded to may be ancient Babylon or Shinear (Sumeria), which was a mighty empire in antiquity: The lesson the Torah wishes to teach us is, then, a lesson from history, that history with which the descendants of Abraham may have been acquainted by their forefather, who in turn may have heard it from his parents. It relates how a great state, founded on the theory that might is right, fell to pieces thru the disintegration of the machinery which it had built up, a disintegration which took place because its principles were inhuman and, therefore, contrary to the laws of God. No political edifice that is constructed on such a foundation can long endure. It was for world conquest that the Babylonians, had fortified themselves. Else what need was there for a tower and a city? And this ambition had to be curbed because it constituted a defiance of the divine principle of justice.
The lesson of the Bible is quite clear, then. Unity is for man a cherished ideal. Peace is the noblest of all human aspirations. But when unity is attained by stamping out every legitimate difference of opinion, when discipline is achieved at the price of liberty and .its motive is greater c~pacity for destruction, then unity becomes an evil and a menace, and diversity is preferable.
(4) Quoted by Henry Malter, Life and Works of Saadiah Gaon, Philadelphia 1921, p. 196 note 459
(5) Guide ill chap. 26
(6) Abot 3, 15
(7) Cf. his Critique of Practical Reason (8) Cf. Hermann Cohen, Die Religion der
Vemunft, p. 110ff.
(9) Cf. Isaac Husik, History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, New York 1930, p. 265ff.
(10) Cf. Guide I chaps. 21, 37 and 38 (11) Provo 3, 17
(12) Nazir 19a and 22a (13) Ps. 19, 8
(14) Pesikta derab Kahana tv'lM:1 Nj:ll:lll ed. Buber p. 107a
(15) From the concluding benediction after the reading of the Torah
HOW THE TORAH CAME TO ISRAEL (1) Cf. Ex. 19, 51f. and 24,71f.
(2) Shabo 88a and 'Ab. Zarah 2b
DESIRABLE PROSELYTES (1) Yeb.47b
(2) Graetz, Geschichte, III p. 4021f. (3) Shabo 3Ia
(4) Cf. Horace, Satires I 9, 60ff.; Ovid, Remedium Amaris V. 2171f.; Annaeus Seneca, Treatise on S1tpersti-
tion, fragments 41-43 and Epistle 95; Persius Flaccus, Satire V 1 761f. (5) Meg.3a
(6) Git. 57b
(7) Josephus, Antiquities XIII 9. 1 and 11,3
(8) H. C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, New York 1922, I p. 1451f.
(9) Shabo 3Ia
(10) Cf. S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, New York 1937, I p. 174
(11) Ibid. p. 2241f.
(12) Ruth 1, 16
(13) Ibid. 2, 11
THE CASE FOR IMMORTALITY (1) Kid. 39a
(2) Abot 2, 16
(3) Gen. 1, 26. 27; 9, 6 (4) Abot 2, 1
(5) Ps. 118, 17
(6) Ibid. 112, 9
(7) Ex. 20, 12
(8) Kid. 39b
(9) Dan. 12, 2
SACRED MEMORIES (1) Eccl. 7, 2
(2) Ps. 49, 18
(3) Baraita Abot 6, 9
HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING
(1) Ps. 33, 6 (2) Gen. 1, 3 (3) Ibid. 1, 61f. (4) Ibid. 1, 9ff.
(5) Cf. Alfred Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients, Leipzig 1916, p. 341f.
(6) Ps. 90, 4
(7) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 1, 5 (8) Ibid.
(9) l:I?llln n' t1l '~Nt:I 11':1 the introduction to the psalms recited at the Morning Service
(10) Cf. Sifre on Num. 15, 31; Ber. 3Ib
and Ker. 11a (11) Gen. 1, 4
(12) Ps. 90, 1. 2
THE GARDEN OF EDEN, FACT OR FICTION I
(1) Viz. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 3, 1
(2) Thus Saadiah, cited by Ibn Ezra on
Num. 22, 28
(3) Viz. Ibn Ezra on Gen. 3, 1 (4) Ibid. on Gen. 3, 6
(5) Gen. 4, 1
(6) Cf. Ex. 21, 6 also Mekilta hereon and Kid. 15b
(7) Gen. 2, 17
(8) W'IM,m ed. Warsaw ,.l!P I"PWN':1 n"~'I1, quoted by Torah Shelemah, M. Kasher, Jerusalem 1926 on Gen. 2, 17 note 242
(9) Gen. 3, 5
(10) Guide II chap. 29 (p. 227 ed. Munk) and chap. 30 (p.248)
(11) Ibid. chap. 30 beg. (p, 236) (12) Philo, Allegories II(I3)
WAS THERE A DELUGE I (1) Gen. 7, 11
(2) Ibid. 8, 14
(3) Cf. International Critical Commentary, Genesis, ]. Skinner, New York 1917, p. 181
(4) Cf. Zeb. 113a and Gen. Rab. on
Gen. 8. 11 (5) Gen. 6, 7 (6) Ibid. 8, 21 (8) Gen. 7, 11
(7) See note 3 above (8) Gen. 7, 11
(9) Deut, 33, 13. 14 (10) Jeremias p. 1171f. (11) Gen. 6, 9
(12) For this material see J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and the Haitorahs, Genesis, New York 1929, p. 104 (13) A. Jeremias quoted by Hertz
(14) Cf. Moses Maimonides, Guide III chap. 50 (p. 426)
(15) Abot 5, 1
THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THE
DIFFUSION OF LANGUAGES
(1) Gen. 11, 9
(2) Ibid. 11, 4
(3) For the sources see Ginzberg, Legends, VI p. 227 note 2
(4) Gen. 11, 7. 8
(5) Cf. Sefer Hayashar ad. loco and Ginz-
berg, Legends, I p. 179 (6) Gen. 11, 4
(7) Ibid. 11, 6
(8) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 11, 7
i ..' j
THE ORIGIN OF THE JEWISH RACE (1) Intern. Crit. Comm. p. 235
(2) Gen. 12, 6
(3) Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, I p. 189; V p. 210 note 16; also Gen. Rab. on Gen. 12, 8
(4) Mishna Kid. 4, 14 end (5) Lev. 18, 9. 29
(6) Gen. 17, 1
(7) Ibid. 14, 22
(8) Ibid. 21, 33
(9) Jeremias p. 258; Intern. Crit. Comm.
p.292 (10) Josh. 24, 2
(11) Ex. 12, 38 Cf. Rashi hereon
(12) Mekilta de Rabbi Simon ben Jochai, ed. Hoffmann, Frankfurt a. M. 1905 on Ex. 12, 38 1:1''1:1111 1:1""
(13) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 12, 5
(14) Yer. Bik. chap. 1 hal. 4 p. 64a (15) Josh. 24, 2
(16) Gen. 20, 3 The use of the plural form of the verb 11ll1n with the subject 1:1' M?N was evidently the source of the rabbinic tradition that it was idolatry that caused Abraham to leave his nativity. Cf. Yer. Meg. ·chap. 1 hal. 9 1:I':1111.:m m~wl1 ;:1 Nlnw 'IMN~ I'm W'Ili' l~':1N l:Iil':1N:1 1)/I1M 'WN:1 'M" ?lM
(17) Gen. 12, 5 (18) Ex. 3, 14 (19) Ibid. 6, 3 (20) Gen. 18, 19
(21) See note 14 above
THE ABDUCTION OF SARAH (1) Isa. 51, 1. 2
(2) Ezek. 23, 20
(3) Cf. Hertz on Gen. 12, 12 (4) Gen. 12, 11
(5) Mishna Sanh. 4, 5 (6) Sem. 2, .1
(7) This is indicated by the term I'Wl'l'j:l (literally "sanctification") used to designa te betrothal.
(8) Cf. Lev. 18, 20 and Deut. 22, 22
(9) Sanh.74a ,:1)/' •• n',I1:1W 111":111 ?:1 m"l1 "?.,, 1:I"1:111~ I'm .,'M' ?Nl I:I'~'I 111:1'"Wl
(10) Gen. 12, 13
(11) Cf. his comment on Gen. 12, 10 (12) Cf. Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self-
government in the Middle Ages,
New York 1924, p. 30, the takkanah of Rabbenu Gershom of Mayence (13) Gen. 12, 15. According to Josephus, Antiquities I 8, 1 an armed force was sent to fetch her.
(14) Cf. Deut. 22, 25f£.
(15) Num. 5, 11f£.
THE ANGELS OF SCRIPTURE (1) Ex. 32, 34
(2) Gen. 21, 17
(3) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 32, 4 (4) Hag. 1, 13
(5) Mal. 2, 7
(6) Ps. 104,4
(7) Ibid. 148, 2. 3
(8) Jacob-Gen. 32, 30; Malloah-Judges 13, 18
(9) Remark of Rabbi Simon ben Lakish in Yer. R. H. chap 1 hal. 2 p. 56d
(10) Thus according to one etymology cited by Krauss, Griechische ulld Lateinische Lehsuooerter il1~ Talmud, Midrasch und. Tcrgum, Berlin 1899, II p. 331. Other etymologies are given there as well as by M. J astrow and J. Levy in their respective dictionaries of the Talmud
(11) Cf. M')11' Mm~N II chap. 10 and Jewish Encyclopedia I p. 596
(12) Guide I chap. 49 (p. 1751f.); II chaps. 6 & 7 (p. 73-75), chaps. 41 & 42 (p, 313-315, 319-323)
(13) Ibid. II chap. 4 (p. 60), chap. 6 (p. 67), chap. 10 (p, 91); III chap. 45 (p. 352)
(14) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 19, 1 (15) Ps. 148, 8
(16) Ex. 14. 19 a II b
(17) E. g. Hag. 1, 13 and Mal. 2, 7
WHAT HAPPENED TO SODOM AND
(1) Cf. Hertz on Gen. 19, 28 (2) Deut. 29, 22
(3) Isa. 1, 9; 13, 19 (4) jer, 49,18; 50,40 (5) Ezek. 16, 50
(6) Amos 4, 11
(7) Zeph. 2, 9
(8) Ezek. 16, 49
(9) Isa. 1, 101f (10) Gen. 18, 25
(11) Cf. Kid. 40b. Man is judged innocent or guilty according to whether his virtues outweigh his vices or vice versa
(12) Deut. 32, 4. 5
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE IN THE
DAYS OF THE PATRIARCHS
(1) Provo 30, 18
(2) Ibid. 30, 19
(3) Gen. 24, 67
(4) Gen. Rab, on Gen. 24, 13 and Ta'an 4a
(5) Provo 19, 14
(6) Gen. 29, 27 MNT )1,:ltV is translated "the week (of celebration) of this one." Cf. Rashi thereon, also Judges 14, 12 nMtIt~n ,~, M)1:ltlt
(7) Cf. Gen. 31, 15
ISRAEL'S ARAB COUSINS (1) Cf. jehudah Halevi, Kusari, I 95
(2) 'Ab. Zarah 2b and Mekilta ,'1M' 'n ntlt1'" tlt1n:l1 NM:l~~ p. 221 ed. Horovitz
(3) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 25, 12
(4) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 32, 4 'n)1 i'1e)
('N' "tlt1e (5) Cf. Gen. 25, 2 (6) Deut, 20, 16 (7) Ibid. 2, 9
(8) Ibid. 2, 19
(9) Ibid. 2, 5
(10) Ibid. 23, 4. 8 (11) II Sam. 8, 21f.
(12) II Kings 8, 22; II Chron. 20, IIf. (13) Cf. II Kings 24, 21f.; Ezek. 35, 10;
(14) Cf. Graetz, Geschiclue, IV p. 25 (15) Gen. 25, 23
(16) E. g. Judges 10, 7 (17) Gen. 28, 9
(18) Gen. 25, 24
DID JACOB LIE?
(1) Ex. 20, 16; 23, 7; Lev. 19, 11. 12; Deut. 5, 17; 19, 18
(2) Gen. 27, 19
(3) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 27, 19 and Rashi
(4) Gen. 27, 35
(5) Ibid. 27, 11. 12
(6) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 27, 33 (7) Gen. 25; 34
(8) Ibid. 27, 36
(9) Pesikta derab Kahana chap. 32 p.
199a ed. Buber
(10) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 27, 1 (11) Gen. 28, 3. 4
(12) Ibid. 28, 8
(13) Ibid. 27, 4
(14)' Eccl. 7, 20
(15) See note 10 above
ARE SEX MORALS ABSOLUTE? (1) Abot 2, 1
(2) Sanh. 74a
(3) Finkelstein, Jewish Seli-Gouernment,
p. 231f. (4) Lev. 18, 18 (5) Yeb. 121b
(6) Sanh. 57b and 58b
(7) Mishna Kid. 4, 14 end
THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND THE
(1) New York 1934, p. 190 (2) Kusari, II 68
(3) Gen. 14, 13
(4) Deut. 26, 5
(5) Isa. 19, 18
(6) Gen. 12, 6
(7) Ibid. 31, 47
(8) Lev. Rab. chap. 32 par. 5 (9) Ta'an. 21b
(10) Sifre on Deut. 11, 19 (11) Gen. Rab, on Gen. 31,47
(12) Tanchuma, Balak (9) on Num. 22, 29 (13) Kusari, II 68
MILITARISM, PACIFISM AND THE
(1) cr. Bezah 32b and Yeb. 79a (2) Gen. 49, 7
(3) Ibid. 34, 30
(4) Deut. 20, 16
. (5) Ibid. 20, 14
(6) Isa. 2, 4; Micah 4, 3 (7) Isa. 11, 7
(8) Judges 1, 27
(9) II Sam. 8, 2 (10) Ibid. 12, 31
(11) Cant. Rab. on Cant. 1, 1 (12) Ex. 15, 3
(13) E. g. I Sam. 1, 3 (14) Cf. Lev. 18, 3. 24. 25 (15) I Chron. 22, 8
(16) See note 6 above (17) Isa. 11, 9
UNHOLY TALES OF THE HOLY
(1) Deut. 25, 5
(2) Lev. 18, 16
(3) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 38, 16 (4) Graetz, Geschichte, X p. 6 (5) Num. 5, 111f.
(6) Isa. 23, 15; jer, 3, 3; Ezek. 16, 30; 23, 44; Hosea 1, 21f.; Nahum 3, 4; Provo 7, 5ff.
(7) Deut. 23, 18
(8) Lev. 20, 10 and Deut. 22, 22 (9) Provo 5, 18
(10) Gen. 38, 23
THE BIBLE AS A MIRROR OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATION
(1) Gen. 44, 18
(2) Cf. the notes in Hertz ad loco and
Jeremias p. ~331f. (3) Jeremias p. 3371f. (4) Ibid. p. 336
(5) Ibid. p. 335
(6) Ibid. and Hertz ad loco (7) Gen. 41, 45
(8) Intern. Crit. Comm. p. 457 note and p. 471 note
(9) Hertz p. 3081f.
THE BLESSING OF JACOB-
PROPHECY OR WHAT? .
(1) Pes. 56a and Gen. Rab. on Gen. 49, 1
(2) Gen. Rab. on Gen. 47, 28 .
(3) Gen. 49, 28
(4) Cf. Jeremias p. 343ff.
(5) Cf. Jewish Encyclopedia, TOTEMISM (6) Tanchuma, Wayyechi (15) on Gen .
(7) Gen. 35, 2 (8) Ibid. 49, 28
Other Books by the Same Author
THE HIGH WAYS TO PERFECTION OF ABRAHAM MAIMONIDES VOLUME ONE
Columbia University Press, New York, 1927
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE MISHNAH The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1935
Rabbi of the Beth Tfiloh Congregation Baltimore, Maryland
THE HIGH WAYS TO PERFECTION OF ABRAHAM MAIMONIDES VOLUME Two
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1938
BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY "The Jewish Book Concern"